1
10
3
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b59e546204202ca5caca3ad931ccc17d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=KWJevSvIbJwjT7FGqKIw6tNzd7Uy3twAdyOiH4O1LI2XqkDxAoVQYIu5IT4meOlGMQOcGgS8B8jRHApAe79qtsOUdDq02fT1IHNZvqLZIM6UmTKfQ8AP9Lo6XKBLaD59nkLHMRAgC2qYHDntdWPtxkUsOk6bVlKILB1NdsQC7C%7EHf1ZJnNpHiGuVNHmOtGP-zqATjw0q8XYb2rUA3mq2joxyxgKJQvFgp0oPNewhDoUBRxPbRLQWnOUiLQfcI6kl0hEp6msBuJsoe4Ah1tUyKhy3dRDWROEVvNy1wtjr2s5AVDAiHbkuSqJb1jagJbZ8ASqSIzcVUku36tyBleGoAA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ff8281d60b73c3666beff1386b406cc7
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCiHTY
THE THREE TRIALS
OF
WILLIAM HONE,
FOR PUBLISHING
THREE
PARODIES;
VIZ.—
THE LATE JOHN WILKES’S CATECHISM,
THE POLITICAL LITANY,
AND
THE
SINECURIST’S
CREED.
•
LONDON:
. \ •
FREETHOUGHT JJ^tÀsHING COMPANY.
■' 4?
, '*
28, STONECUTTER STREET, EiÖfi-'',
.TWO
SHILLINGS. .
L
I
»
��¡JQ//7xv
OKJ
sr
J
*1
1^1
Ixi
THE
° St *E£T
C._ Lo ör«i
C.C.
THREE TRIALS
f0i o /....
A.
OF
WILLIAM HONE,
FOR PUBLISHING
THREE PARODIES;
VIZ.
THE LATE JOHN WILKES’S CATECHISM,
THE POLITICAL LITANY, AND
THE SINECURISTS’ CREED;
ON
Informations,
AT GUILDHALL, LONDON, DURING
THREE SUCCESSIVE DAYS,
DECEMBER 18, 19, & 20, 1817;
BEFORE
THREE SPECIAL JURIES,
AND
MR. JUSTICE ABBOTT, ON THE EIRST DAY,
AND
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE ELLENBOROUGH,
ON THE LAST TWO DAYS.
, Thrice the brindled cat hath mew’d!
Sh a k s pe a r e .
*
■
LONDON:
PRINTED BY AND EpR WILLIAM HONE, 67, OLD BAILEY.
AND'SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.
1818.
■i>;x
’< PRICE' —WITH TH1
■’ '
lOND _____
OF THE PUBLIC 'MEETING—-
,'GS IN BOARDS.
4
�ascesi
I 1
�ADDRESS.
I INTIMATED an intention of exhorting my fellow-citizens against
parodying Scripture or the forms of worship established by law.
I am glad to find that the intimation had the effect I wished.
Had the Parodies been re-published in the way I anticipated, the
Ministers of the Crown might perhaps have essayed another alarum
to the weak-minded; and—as there is no calculating upon the move
ments of folly—have asked Parliament for another suspension of
the Habeas Corpus Act. They are laughed out of Court; but
instead of arising and putting their house, in order, and going
forth—like sensible men—and doing as one of old did, they still
seek unrefreshing slumbers upon the bed of office. The solemn
bigotry of one of my Prosecutors, the noble Secretary of State for
the Home Department, reposes beneath the unblushing hypocrisy
of another of my Prosecutors—my brother parodist—the Right
Honourable President of the Board of Control. Hence, if they
keep their places during the year, we may expect four New Lot
teries, at least, with improved Schemes, and an increased number
of Bible Societies and Executions.
&’
Ja n u a r y 23, 1818.
WILLIAM HONE.
��FIRST TRIAL.
THE KING
a g a in s t
WILLIAM HONE,
ON AN EX-OFFTOTO INFORMATION FOR PUBLISHING- THE LATE
JOHN WILKES’S CATECHISM.
Tr ie d in Gu il d h a l l , Lo n d o n , o n Th u r s d a y , De c e m b e r 18, 1817, a t t h e
Lo n d o n Sit t in g s a e t e r Mic h a e l m a s Te e m .
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE ABBOTT* AND A SPECIAL JURY.
Th e Trial of this issue excited considerable interest. So early
as eight o’clock the avenues leading to the Court became crowded;
the doors were thrown open shortly after, and the Court im
mediately filled. About twenty minutes after nine o’clock, Mr.
Hone entered, attended by a youth, his brother, who placed on
the table of the Court several parcels of books and papers, which
nearly covered the table. About half-past nine o’clock Mr. Justice
Ab b o t t took his seat on the Bench, and the following Special
Jury were'immediately sworn :
Jo h n Go d w in Bo w r in g , Leadenhall
Street.
Wil l ia m Sy m e , Fenchurch Buildings.
Jo h n Wo o l l e t t , Gould Square.
J o h n O’Br ie n ,Broad Street Buildings.
Wil l ia m No a k e s , Little Eastcheap,
South Side, wine merchant.
. £?. •.
Jo h n Ga r d in e r , Old Broad Street.
Nic h o l a s Hil t o n , Ironmonger Lane.
Sa m u e l Br o o k , Old Jewry.
Ja me s Hu n t e r , Barge Yard.
Wil l ia m Th o m ps o n , Queen Street.
Th o ma s Le w is , Queen Street.
Th o m a s Ed w a r d s , Coleman Street.
* Afterwards Lord Tenterden.
�2
FIRST TRIAL.
Mr. Sh e ph e r d (son to the Attorney-General) stated, that this
was an information filed by his Majesty’s Attorney-General
against the defendant, for printing and publishing a certain
impious, profane, and scandalous libel on that part of our church
service called the Catechism, with intent to excite impiety and
irreligión in the minds of his Majesty’s liege subjects, to ridicule
and scandalise the Christian religion, and to bring into contempt
the Catechism.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l (Sir Samuel Shepherd) addressed the
Court as follows :—
My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury—You have understood
from my young friend the nature of this cause. It is an informa
tion filed by me, as Attorney-General, against the defendant,
William Hone, for printing and publishing an impious and
profane libel, upon The Catechism, The Lord’s Prayer, and The
Ten Commandments, and thereby bringing into contempt the
Christian Religion. I won’t occupy your time long, gentlemen,
in showing this to be the effect of the publication, for it seems
impossible for me to hear it read without feeling one s-self
compelled to apply to it this language. It is charged, and, as I
Phink, justly charged, with being a profane, blasphemous, and
impious libel. It has nothing of a political tendency about it,
but it is avowedly set off against the religion and worship of the
Church of England, as established by Act of Parliament. It has
been over and over again said by the most eminent judges, and
particularly by one who was the most learned man that ever
adorned the bench—the most even man that ever blessed domestic
life__the most eminent man that ever advanced the progress of
science—and also one of the best and most purely religious men
that ever lived. I speak of Sir Matthew Hale.w It was by him
in one sentence said, that “the Christian Religion is parcel of the
Common Law of England.” The service of the Church of
England is also part of the statute law of England ; for in the
reign of Charles the Second, for securing uniformity of public
prayer in the Church of England, a book, commonly called “The
* Chief-Justiceship of the King’s Bench.
Born, 1609. Died, 1676.
�FIRST TRIAL.
3
Book of Common. Prayer,” was not composed, hut collected, and
annexed to an Act of Parliament then framed, as part of the
enacted form of the Liturgy of the Church of England. If to
revile that—if to bring it into contempt, be not a libel, then
Christianity no longer is what Sir Matthew Hale described it__
“ parcel of the Common Law of England,” nor this sacred book
a part of the statute law of the land, because in such an event
the law must declare its inability to support its own provisions
In that book there is a catechism, the object of which is most
important, because it is that part which is peculiarly destined for
foiming in the minds of the younger classes of the community
that proper foundation for religious belief which is to influence
their future conduct. It is that part which the ministers of the
Church of England are peculiarly bound to teach to those between
the infant and adult state at certain periods of time; it is that
part which all who are initiated into Christianity through baptism
must be confirmed before they come to their pastor in an adult
state. To procure this important object, it consists of three parts :
—1st, The Service of the Church of England; 2nd, The Apostles
Creed (which is professed by every class of Christians, no matter
what be their particular form of worship); and 3rd, The Ten
Commandments, which were of divine origin, com-nmninated
originally from the mouth of God through Moses to the Jews.
These form the foundation of all our religious and moral duties ;
they are those which, if men would but obey, there would be an
end to strife; nothing but peace and happiness could then be
found in human society. This book (<£ The Book of Common
Prayer ) has also the Lord s Prayer, as in his sacred and blessed
Sermon on the Mount. If these works be not what ought to be
held sacred from ridicule, what is there which can be called so in
the mind of a Christian ? I take this to be a proposition of law,
that he who attempts to parody these three sacred parts of
Christian belief, and presents them to the mind in a ridiculous
shape, does that which is calculated to bring them into contempt,
and is therefore, by the law of the land, guilty of a libel. It cannot
be necessary to Christian minds to reason on the baneful effect of
�4
FIRST TRIAL.
such a publication as the defendant’s. If any of you, gentlemen,
be fathers, and wish your children to hold in reverence the sacred
subjects of Christian belief, read these publications of the defend
ant, and say if you would put them into the hands of those childien
you love. If you would not put them into their hands, would you
into those of the lower classes of society, which are not fit to cope
with the sort of topics which are artfully raised for them ? I ask
you, if it be possible, that after such publications are thus cheaply
thrown among this class of people, they can, with the same degree
of reverence that becomes the subject, look at the contents of the
Sacred Book of our belief? Nay, even in better cultivated minds,
the firmness of moral rectitude is shaken, and it often becomes
necessary to make great mental exertion to shake off the influence
of these productions, and recall the mind to a true feeling towards
sacred truths. They are inevitably calculated to weaken the
reverence felt for the Christian faith. It may be said that the
defendant’s object was not to produce this effect—I believe that
he meant it, in one sense, as a political squib, but his responsibility
is not the less, for he has parodied “ The Catechism ” in terms which
it is impossible to believe can have any other effect than that of
bringing it into contempt. The publication is called “A
Catechism; that is to say, An Instruction to be learned of every
person before he be brought to be confirmed a Placeman or
Pensioner by the Minister.” The jury will see these are the very
words of the original in parody. Again, The Apostles Creed is
also in complete parody. We say, “I believe in God, ’ &c., &c.;
here he says, “ I believe in George, the Regent Almighty, Maker
of New Streets, and Knights of the Bath; and in the present
Ministry, his only choice, who were conceived of Toryism, brought
forth of Wm. Pitt, suffered loss of place under Charles James
Pox ; were execrated, dead, and buried. In a few months they
rose again from their Minority; they reascended the Treasuiy
Benches, and sit at the right hand of a little man in a large wig;
from whence they laugh at the petitions of the people who pray
for Reform, and that the sweat of their brow may procure them
bread.” The Ten Commandments are also parodied, and divided
�FIRST TRIAL.
5
precisely in the same manner as the rest of the publication, for
the purpose of keeping the whole resemblance more complef^'sc
The child is supposed to be examined precisely as it is laid down V?
in the 2nd chapter of Exodus, of course parodied. He answera-,0'
ns to the promise of belief his sponsors made for him—
The same to which the Minister for the time being always
obliges all his creatures to swear. I, the Minister, am the Lord
thy liege, who brought thee out of want and beggary into the
House of Commons.”
[Here an expression of feeling was manifested by some indi
viduals of the crowd in the Hall of the Court.]
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —If there is anybody present of so light
a disposition as to think that a matter of this kind should be mads
a subject of laughter, at least he shall learn that he shall not com®
here to interrupt those who are of a graver disposition, and in the
discharge of an important duty.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l —My Lord, if there be any persons
here who can raise a smile at the reading of the defendant’®
publication, it is the fullest proof of the baneful effect it has had,
and with which I charge it. It is for that very reason I charge it
as a libel on the Law of England. I am not sorry for the faint
smile just uttered in court. It establishes the baneful tendency of
the work. If there be any here who are not Christians of some
sect or other, God forbid that I should have their applauding
support. Their approbation or disapprobation is alike indifferent
to me. When I allude thus to Christians, let me be supposed as
only alluding to those who have had the opportunity of having
the light of Christianity shed upon them—God forbid I should be
supposed to denounce those who had not had that opportunity.
The next Commandment in this Parody is, “ Thou shalt have no
other Patron but me.” At last comes that part where a young
man is desired to recite the Lord’s Prayer, and this is parodied in
the same manner. I know, gentlemen of the jury, that by the
law of England, it is your province to decide on the matter of
the libel, and to say if it be such or no. I am not sorry that this
is the case, for I think it impossible that any twelve men who
�6
FIRST TRIAL.
understand the law of England, and the precepts of Christianity,
which are part and parcel of that law, can read this production
of the defendant’s without being decidedly of opinion that it is
impossible to read it without seeing that its necessary and obvious
consequence must be to bring into contempt the Liturgy of the
Church of England. I forbear, gentlemen, from reading any
more of this production, as it will shortly be read by the clerk.
I shall now go to prove the publication by the defendant; it will
be for you to take it fairly and fully under your investigation, and,
according to the solemn obligation you have taken—that obliga
tion of an oath which is founded on religion, or it is no oath at
all—decide upon it; and so help you God.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l then called witnesses to prove the
publication of the parodies by the defendant.
Griffin Swanson, examined by Mr. To ppin g .
He held in his hand a pamphlet, called “Wilkes’s Catechism,”
which he bought on the 17th. of February last, at Mr. Hone’s
shop, No. 55, Fleet Street. He bought it from a boy or a girl in
this shop, which then had Mr. Hone’s name over the door. The
girl, he believed, said she was Mr. Hone’s daughter. Twopence
was the price of it. He bought pamphlets afterwards at the
same place, and marked them at the time. He observed bills in
the window, that a publication by the name of this Catechism was
sold there, but he could not recollect whether there were posting
bills advertising it.
Henry Hutchings, examined by Mr. Ric h a r d s o n .
On the 7th of February last, he was the landlord of a shop,
No. 55, Fleet Street, and Mr. Hone, now in Court, was then his
tenant, and up to Midsummer. He used to sell books' and
pamphlets. The parish was situate in St. Dunstan’s in the West,
and he believed in the City of London.
Thomas White, examined by Mr. Sh e ph e r d .
Was Clerk of the Inner Treasury at the King’s Bench, and
produced “The Book of Common Prayer” and the Seal. He
�FIRST TRIAL.
7
pointed out in the book the Church Catechism, signed by the Com
missioners, and exemplified by the Great Seal. It corresponded to
the publications by the King’s Printers and the Universities.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —It would be a highly penal offence to
publish as from authority any other than the real authenticated
form.
Mr. Thomas White—Certainly, my Lord.
Here the printed Catechism, with the publication of which the
Defendant stood charged, was put in and read by the Clerk. It
was as follows :—
“The late John Wilkes’s Catechism of a Ministerial Member;
taken from an Original Manuscript in Mr. Wilkes’s Hand
writing, never before printed, and adapted to the present
Occasion.—With Permission.—London : Printed for one of
the Candidates for the Office of Printer to the King’s Most
Excellent Majesty, and Sold by William Hone, 55, Fleet
Street, and 67, Old Bailey, Three Doors from Ludgate Hill.
1817. Price Twopence.
“A Catechism, that is to say, An Instruction, to be learned of every
person before he be brought to be confirmed a Placeman or
Pensioner by the Minister.”
Question. Wh a t is your name ?
Answer. Lick Spittle. .
Q. Who gave you this name ?
A. My Sureties to the Ministry, in my Political Change,
wherein I was made a Member of the Majority, the Child of Cor
ruption, and a Locust to devour the good things of this kingdom.
* Q. What did your Sureties then for you ?
A. They did promise and vow three things in my Name.
First, that I should renounce the Reformists and all their Works,
the pomps and vanity of Popular Favour, and all the sinful lusts
of Independence. Secondly, that I should believe all the Articles
of the Court Faith. And thirdly, that I should keep the Minister’s sole Will and Commandments, and walk in the same all the
days of my life.
�FIRST TRIAL.
8
Q.
Dost thou not think that thou art bound to believe and
to do as they have promised for thee ?
A. Yes, verily, and for my own sake, so I will j and I
heartily thank our heaven-born Ministry, that they have called
me to this state of elevation, through my own flattery, cringing,
and bribery; and I shall pray to their successors to give me their
assistance, that I may continue the same unto my life s end.
Q. Rehearse the Articles of thy Belief.
A. I believe in Ge o r g e , the Regent Almighty, Maker of
New Streets, and Knights of the Bath.
And in the present Ministry, his only choice, who were con
ceived of Toryism, brought forth of Wil l ia m Pit t , suffered loss
of Place under Ch a r l e s Ja me s Po x , were execrated, dead, and
buried. In a few months they rose again from their minority ;
they reascended to the Treasury benches, and sit at the right hand
of a little man with a large wig; from whence they laugh at the
Petitions of the People who may pray for Reform, and that the
sweat of their brow may procure them bread.
I believe that King James the Second was a legitimate
Sovereign, and that King William the Third was not; that the
Pretender was of the right line ; and that George the Third s
grandfather was not; that the dynasty of Bourbon is immortal;
and that the glass in the eye of Lord James Murray was not Betty
Martin. I believe in the immaculate purity of the Committee of
Finance, in the independence of the Committee of Secrecy, and
that the Pitt System is everlasting. Amen.
Q. What dost thou chiefly learn in these Articles of thy Belief 1
A. First, I learn to forswear all conscience, which was never
meant to trouble me, nor the rest of the tribe of Courtiers.
Secondly, to swear black is white, or white black, according to the
good pleasure of the Ministers. Thirdly, to put on the helmet of
Impudence, the only armour against the shafts of Patriotism.
Q. You said that your Sureties did promise for you, that you
should keep the Minister’s Commandments: tell me how many
there be ?
A. Ten.
�FIRST TRIAL.
9
Q. Which, be they ?
A. The same to which the Minister for the time being always
obliges all his creatures to swear, I the Minister am the Lord thy
liege, who brought thee out of Want and Beggary, into the House
of Commons.
I. Thou shalt have no other Patron but me.
II. Thou shalt not support any measure but mine, nor shalt
thou frame clauses of any bill in its progress to the House above,
or in the Committee beneath, or when the mace is under the table,
except it be mine. Thou shalt not bow to Lord Co c h r a n e , nor
shake hands with him, nor any othei’ of my real opponents; for
I thy Lord am a jealous Minister, and forbid familiarity of the
Majority, with the Friends of the People, unto the third and
fourth cousins of them that divide against me; and give places,
and thousands and tens of thousands, to them that divide with me,
and keep my Commandments.
III. Thou shalt not take the Pension of thy Lord the Minister
in vain ‘ for I the Minister will force him to accept the Chilterns
that taketh my Pension in vain.
IV. Remember that thou attend the Minister’s Levee day;
on other days thou shalt speak for him in the House, and fetch
and carry, and do all that he commandeth thee to do : but the
Levee day is for the glorification of the Minister thy Lord : In it
thou shalt do no work in the House, but shalt wait upon him,
thou and thy daughter, and thy wife, and the Members that are
within his influence ; for on other days the Minister is inaccesible,
but delighteth in the Levee day • wherefore the Minister appointed
the Levee day, and chatteth thereon familiarly, and is amused
with it.
V. Honour the Regent and the helmets of the Life Guards,
that thy stay may be long in the Place, which the Lord thy
Minister giveth thee.
VI. Thou shalt not call starving to death murder.
VII. Thou shalt not call Royal gallivanting adultery.
VIII. Thou shalt not say, that to rob the Public is to steal.
IX. Thou shalt bear false witness against the people.
�10
FIRST TRIAL.
X. Thou shalt not covet the People’s applause, thou shalt not
covet the People’s praise, nor their good name, nor their esteem,
nor their reverence, nor any reward that is theirs.
Q. What dost thou chiefly learn by these Commandments 1
A I learn two things—my duty towards the Minister, and
my duty towards myself.
Q. What is thy duty towards the Minister 1
A. My duty towards the Minister is, to trust him as much as
I can ; to fear him ; to honour him with all my words, with all
my bows, with all my scrapes, and all my cringes; to flatter him ;
to give him thanks ; to give up my whole soul to him ; to idolise
his name, and obey his word; and serve him blindly all the days
of his political life.
Q. What is thy duty towards thyself ?
A. My duty towards myself is to love nobody but myself,
and to do unto most men what I would not that they should do
unto me; to sacrifice unto my own interest even my father and
mother; to pay little reverence to the King, but to compensate
that omission by my servility to all that are put in authority
under him ; to lick the dust under the feet of my superiors, and
to shake a rod of iron over the backs of my inferiors; to spare
the People by neither word nor deed; to observe neither truth nor
justice in my dealings with them ; to bear them malice and hatred
in my heart; and where their wives and properties are concerned,
to keep my body neither in temperance, soberness, nor chastity,
but to give my hands to picking and stealing, and my tongue to
evil speaking and lying, and slander of their efforts to defend their
liberties and recover their rights; never failing to envy their
privileges, and to learn to get the Pensions of myself and my
colleagues out of the People’s labour, and to do my duty in that
department of public plunder unto which it shall please the
Minister to call me.
Q. Mv good Courtier, know this, that thou art not able of
thyself to preserve the Minister’s favour, nor to walk in his Com
mandments, nor to serve him, without his special protection ,
which thou must at all times learn to obtain by diligent applica-
�FIRST TRIAL.
11
tion. Let me hear, therefore, if thou canst rehearse the Ministeji
0?
Memorial.
/Ci-
WlENCe
Answer.
Our Lord, who art in the Treasury, whatsoever be thy kami
thy power be prolonged, thy will be done throughout the empirb/T
as it is in each session. Give us our usual sops, and forgive us
our occasional absences on divisions ; as we promise not to forgive
them that divide against thee. Turn us not out of our places ;
but keep us in the House of Commons, the land of pensions and
plenty; and deliver us from the People. Amen.
Q. What desirest thou of the Minister in this Memorial ?
A. I desire the Minister, our Patron, who is the disposer of
the Nation’s overstrained Taxation, to give his protection unto me
and to all Pensioners and Placemen, that we may vote for him,
serve him, and obey him, as far as we find it convenient; and I
beseech the Minister that he will give us all things that be need
ful, both for our reputation and appearance in the House and out
of it; that he will be favourable to us, and forgive us our negli
gences ; that it will please him to save and defend us, in all
dangers of life and limb, from the People, our natural enemies ;
and that he will help us in fleecing and grinding them ; and this
I trust he will do out of care for himself, and our support of him
through our corruption and influence ; and therefore I say Amen.
So be it.
Q. How many Tests hath the Minister ordained ?
A. Two only, as generally necessary to elevation ,• (that is to
say) Passive Obedience and Bribery.
Q. What meanest thou by this word Test?
A. I mean an outward visible sign of an inward intellectual
meanness, ordained by the Minister himself as a pledge to assure
him thereof.
Q. How many parts are there in this Test ?
A. Two; the outward visible sign, and the intellectual
meanness.
Q. What is the outward visible sign or form of Passive
Obedience ?
O'
�12
FIRST TRIAL.
A. Dangling at the Minister’s heels, whereby the person is
degraded beneath the baseness of a slave, in the character of a
Pensioner, Placeman, Expectant Parasite, Toadeater, or Lord of
the Bedchamber.
Q. What is the inward intellectual meanness ?
A. A Death unto Ereedom, a subjection unto perpetual
Thraldom : for being by nature born free, and the children of In
dependence, we are hereby made children of Slavery.
Q. What is required of persons submitting to the Test of
Passive Obedience 1
A. Apostasy, whereby they forsake Liberty ; and Eaith,
whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of the Minister, made
to them upon submitting to that Test.
Q. Why was the Test of Bribery ordained ?
A. Bor the continual support of the Minister’s influence, and
the feeding of us, his needy creatures and sycophants.
Q. What is the outward part or sign in the Test of Bribery 1
A. Bank notes, which the Minister hath commanded to be
offered by his dependents.
Q. Why then are beggars submitted to this Test, when by
reason of their poverty they are not able to go through the neces
sary forms?
A. Because they promise them by their Sureties ; which pro
mise, when they come to lucrative offices, they themselves are
bound to perform.
Q. What is the inward part, or thing signified ?
A. The industry and wealth of the People, which are verily
and indeed taken and had by Pensioners and Sinecurists, in their
Corruption.
Q. What are the benefits whereof you are partakers thereby ?
A. The weakening and impoverishing the People, through
the loss of their Liberty and Property, while our wealth becomes
enormous, and our pride intolerable.
Q. What is required of them who submit to the Test of
Bribery and Corruption ?
A. To examine themselves, whether they repent them truly
�FIRST TRIAL.
13
of any signs of former honour and patriotism, steadfastly purpos
ing henceforward to be faithful towards the Minister; to draw
on and off like his glove; to crouch to him like a spaniel; to
purvey for him like a jackall; to be as supple to him as Aiderman
Sir Wil l ia m Tu r t l e ; to have the most lively faith in the Funds,
especially in the Sinking Fund; to believe the words of Lord
Ca s t l e r e a g h alone; to have remembrance of nothing but what
is in the Courier: to hate Ma t t h e w Wo o d , the present Lord
Mayor, and his second Mayoralty; with all our heart, with all
our mind, with all our soul, and with all our strength ; to admire
Sir Jo h n Sy l v e s t e r , the Recorder, and Mr. Jo h n La n g l e y ;
and to be in' charity with those only who have something
to give.
[Here endeth the Catechism. |
This being the whole of the case on the part of the prosecution^
Mr, Ho n e rose, and addressed the Court to the following pur
port :—He called upon the jury, as earnestly and as solemnly as
the Attorney-General had done, to decide upon this case according
to their oaths. If he felt any embarrassment on this occasion, and
he felt a great deal, it was because he was not in the habit of ad
dressing an assembly like that: he had never, indeed, addressed
any assembly whatever; and, therefore, he hoped that they and
the Court would show their indulgence to him, standing there as
he did, unassisted by counsel, to make his own defence. If he
were really guilty of this libel, as the Attorney-General had called
it, he should not have stood there this day.. So far back as May,
he was arrested under a warrant by the Lord Chief Justice of that
Court, Lord Ellenborough, and brought suddenly to plead to in
formations filed against him. He did not plead, because he con
ceived the proceeding by information to be unconstitutional, and
he thought so still. However ancient this mode of proceeding
might be, he was satisfied that it was nevei- intended to be exer
cised in the way that it had been of late years. By this process,
every man in the kingdom, however innocent he might be, was
entirely at the mercy of the Attorney-General, and of the Govern
�14
FIRST TRIAL.
ment. There was no security for honour, integrity, and virtue ,
no presentment to a jury, no previous inquiry; the victim was
taken in a summary way by warrants, and brought to answer
suddenly to informations of which he was wholly ignorant.
A n nth or objection which he had to plead on that occasion was,
the enormous expense that must have been incurred. He had
been given to understand, that making his defence in the usual
way, by solicitor and counsel, would cost ¿£100, which would have
been utter ruin to him. He applied to the Court for copies of the
informations, but the Court did not grant him those copies. He
was sorry for this, because if they had been granted, he should
have known what he was specifically charged with. On Friday
last, he applied for copies at the Crown Office, and upon paying the
customary charges, he procured them. When he was placed on
the floor of the Court of King’s Bench, the late Attorney-General,
Sir William Garrow, stated, that the informations charged him
with blasphemous publications. Now he found, that this informa
tion did not charge him with blasphemous publications , it chaiged
that he, being an impious and wickedly disposed person, and
intending to excite impiety and irreligion, did publish that which
was stated in the information. And here he must beg leave to call
to their attention the great prejudice which had been raised against
him throughout the country by this circumstance, and the injuiy
which he had sustained by misrepresentations coming from the
highest authorities in the country. The late Attorney-General
had charged him with a second information, and he then observed,
that whether he were charged with one information, or 300 infor
mations, he would not plead unless copies were given to him. The
Attorney-General in reply, observed, that the number of informa
tions depended on the number of publications. He did not, how
ever, mean to charge Sir William Garrow with any intention to
produce an unfavourable impression in the public mind against
him. But he must say, and he would say it boldly, because he
said it truly, that no man was ever treated with greater injustice
than he was by Lord Ellenborough. Previous to his arrest, under
a warrant issued by his lordship, he had not been- out of the house
�FIRST TRIAL.
15
all the week : he had been engaged in writing, and no application
had been made by any one to see him of which he did not hear.
Two officers seized him near his own door upon the warrant of
Lord Ellenborough and refused to let him go home, without stating
any reason why they made that refusal. He was taken to Sergeant’s-Inn Coffee-House, and afterwards carried to a lock-up house
in Shire Lane, where he remained till half-past five, anxiously ex
pecting Mr. Gibbon, the tipstaff (who, he was told, was coming),
in order that he might learn from him the charge, and send for
friends to bail him. Gibbon did not come, and he remained
ignorant of the charge. On the Monday following, at a moment
when he was retiring for the purposes of nature, he was put into a
coach, and ordered to betaken to Westminster Hall to plead ; but
even then the officer could not tell him to what he was to plead.
While in the coach, he found it almost impossible to keep himself
from fainting; but he was told, that when he arrived at West
minster, sufficient time would be allowed him. He was, however,
taken into Court, and whilst one of the informations was being
read, a mist came before his eyes, he felt giddy, and applied for
leave to sit. The answer of Lord Ellenborough was <c No
and
it was pronounced with an intonation that might have been heard
at the further end of the hall. This refusal, instead of making
him sink on the floor, as he had before expected to do, had the
effect that a glass of water on being thrown into his face would
have had, and he felt perfectly relieved. At the same time, how
ever, he could not help feeling contempt for the inhumanity of the
judge. He was then taken to the King’s Bench, and was after
wards found senseless in his room there, not having performed
an office of nature’ for several days. That arose out of the
inhumanity of Lord Ellenborough.
Here Mr. Justice Ab b o t t interrupted the defendant, stating,
that he had better apply himself to the charge against him. He
was unwilling to interrupt any person who was making his
defence ; but where, as in this case, it became absolutely necessary,
he could not refrain. It was the duty of Lord Ellenborough to
pursue the course of the Court, and it was customary for defend
�16
FIRST TRIAL.
ants to stand while the informations filed against them were
being read.
The defendant proceeded—He should be sorry to be out of
order, but he believed instances had been known in which defend
ants were permitted to sit. He thought that such cases might be
found in the state trials. But whether so or not, such was the
feeling of Sir William Garrow, that he leaned over and whispered
to him, “If you wish to retire for any purpose of nature, you
can.” He thanked him, and replied, that the purpose had gone
by. He stated this because he should never forget the humanity
which Sir William had shown on that occasion, and which formed
a strong contrast to the behaviour of the judge whom he had
mentioned. Having stated these facts, he would not take up
their time in detailing what he endured for two months in the
King’s Bench; suffice it to say, that he had suffered the utmost
distress in a domestic way, and very considerable loss in a pecu
niary way. He had gained nothing there but a severe lesson.
He learned that, however honourable a man’s intention might be,
they might be construed into guilt, and the whole nation might
be raised against him, except, indeed, the few cool, dispassionate,
and. sober persons who would read such publications as the present
calmly, and determine upon the motives of the writer. It was
upon this intention that they (the jury) were to decide. The
Attorney-General, Sir Samuel Shepherd, had stated, that this pub
lication was issued for a political squib. He quite agreed with
the Attorney-General; he joined issue with him upon this inter
pretation of the work ; it was published for a political squib, and
if they found it a political squib, they would deliver a verdict of
acquittal. If they found it an impious and blasphemous libel,
they would consign him to that punishment from which he should
ask no mercy. This was the question which they were to try,
and they had nothing to try but that. They had nothing to do
with the tendency which his work might have out of doors, or
the effect which it might produce in that Court, or, at least, they
had so little to do with it, as not to suffer it to weigh a feather in
their minds in returning their verdict to the Court. They would
�FIRST TRIAL.
17
remember, that he was not standing there as a defendant in an
action brought by a private individual. In that case,’ they would
not have to look at the intention of the party; they would have
to assess the amount of the damages ; but here they had every
thing to do with the intention of the party, and if they did not
find that this political catechism was published with an impious
and profane intention, they would give him a verdict of acquittal.
The Attorney-General had stated, that the very smile of a person
was an evidence of the tendency of this publication. He denied
that. The smile might arise from something wholly different from
the feeling of the person who wrote that publication. But he
would now proceed to call their attention to a very important
branch of this question. In 1771, it was the intention of certain
intelligent persons, Members of the House of Commons, to explain
the powers of juries relating to libels. Mr. Dowdeswell moved to
bring in a bill for that purpose ; and Mr. Burke, than whom he
could not quote a man whose authority would be greater in that
Court, delivered a most eloquent and impressive . speech on that
occasion. He said, “ It was the ancient privilege of Englishmen
that they should be tried by a jury of their equals ; but that, by
the proceeding by information, the whole virtue of juries was
taken away. The spirit of the Star Chamber had transmigrated,
and lived again in the Courts of Westminster Hall, who borrowed
from the Star Chamber what that Court had taken from the Roman
law. A timid jury will give way to an awful judge, delivering
oracularly the law, and charging them to beware of their oaths.
They would do so ; they had done so ; nay, a respectable, member
of their own house had told them, that on the authority of a
judge, he found a man guilty in whom he could find no guilt.”
Mr. Dowdeswell’s bill was brought in, but it did not pass into a
law. Mr. Burke persevered in the same cause for a number of
years, without success ; but in 1790, the late Mr. Fox brought in
a bill, which was now called the Libel Bill, and it was under the
authority of that solemn Act of Parliament that they now sat to
try this information. This bill had fixed the powers of juries in
cases of libel, and made it imperative on them to determine on the
c
�18
FIRST TRIAL.
whole of matters charged in the information. Now he was
charged—with what? With intending to excite impiety and
irreligion, not with having excited it; so that, as the law stood
before, if there had been but one copy printed, they would have
been told to find him guilty, if it could be proved that the work
was published by him ; but now, if he had sold 100,000 copies, it
was the intention with which they had to do. As to blasphemy
and profaneness, he spurned the charge ; and when he said he
spurned it, he could assure them they should not hear him say one
word to-day which he did not utter from his heart, and. from the
most perfect conviction. They were not to inquire whether he
was a member of the Established Church or a Dissenter j it was
enough that he professed himself to be a Christian : and he would
be bold to say, that he made that profession with a reverence for
the doctrines of Christianity which could not be exceeded by any
person in that Court. He had, however, been held up as a man
unfit to live, as a blasphemer, a monster, a wretch ; he had been
called a wretch who had kept body and soul together by the sale
of blasphemous publications. If any man knew any one act of his
life to which profaneness and impiety might be applied, he would
ask and defy that man to stand forward and contradict him at that
moment. He was innocent of that charge j and it was the
proudest day of his life to stand there, because he was not putting
in a plea of not guilty against a charge of infamous and blas
phemous libel; for if he were guilty of blasphemy, he would go to
the stake and burn as a blasphemer, at the same time avowing the
blasphemy. He said this, because he considered nothing was
dearer to man than sincerity. It had been the misfortune of his
life to have his actions misinterpreted by the papers, by the
lookers on—the mere every-day observers ; but there were a few
individuals of the Established Church who knew everything
alleged against him to be a foul and base calumny. It was im
possible for a man so humble in life as himself to wage war with
opinions broached by a Secretary of State j but when he heard
Lord Sidmouth, in the House of Lords, rising every night and
calling these little publications blasphemous, he had felt disposed
�FIRST TRIAL.
19.
to interrupt him. The odds were terribly against bim in a
prosecution of this kind, for he had to contend with the Secretary
of State—a man whose opinions were adopted by a great number
of persons of the first rank and consideration, and whose private
life was, he believed, unimpeachable. This eminent character
was, however, like other men, liable to error, else he would not
have denounced this publication as blasphemous in his place in the
House of Lords. Even if it were so, was it justice to pronounce
so decided an opinion, one which must necessarily carry so much
weight and influence, before the proper course of inquiry and
decision were had upon it ? It was by these means that a war
whoop and yell were sent forth against him throughout the
country. But, friendless and unprotected as he was, he was
obliged to submit, and hence his conduct had been held up to the
amusement of the ill-thinking throughout the country. He did
not desire, for he did not know how, to obtain popularity; he
never went all lengths with any description of persons whatever.
He was as independent in mind as any gentleman in that Court
was independent in property: he had made to himself many
enemies, because it is in human nature that the persons with
whom we are intimate scarcely ever forgive one dereliction from
what they consider duty. He always endeavoured to make up
his mind as coolly as possible : sure he was, that if he ever did a
man injury in his life, it was from mistake, and not from inten
tion. And he asked the jury, if they had ever seen any of his
publications before, whether they had observed in them any
thing that would induce them to think that he was desirous of
exciting impiety or profaneness 1 No man in the country had a
greater respect than himself for the constituted authorities ; if he
differed from some public men in opinion, it was not at all times
that he differed j it was not because there was a common cry
against a measure that he joined in it. He had told them it was
the intention of which they were to judge ; and he would sit down
immediately, if the Attorney-General could lay his hand on any
publication in which, in any one passage or sentence, he could
point out anything tending to degrade or villify the Christian
�20
FIRST TRIAL.
religion. He stated this, not in bravado, bnt in the sincerity of
his heart. If he were a man of a blasphemous turn of mind,
it was scarcely possible, amongst the numerous works which he
had published, and the greater part of them written by himself,
that something of this kind should not have appeared; but what
ever opinions the Attorney-General might form respecting his
notions of religion, he knew that he could not produce any
blasphemous writings against him. He came now to another part
of this subject. It was his fate, when he was taken to the King’s
Bench, although it might be an advantage to the country, to
differ with the Master of the Crown Office, as to the way in which
the special juries were returned. After the juries in his case
were struck-----Here Mr. Justice Ab b o t t again interrupted the defendant,
observing, that he did not think this had any bearing on the
question. He was sorry, he repeated, to interfere with his de
fence, but he had better confine himself to the point at issue.
Mr. Ho n e said it had, he thought, a bearing on the question,
and his lordship and the jury would see it in a short time. The
juries to which he alluded were struck in what appeared to him
a fair and an honourable way; but-----Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —I do not see the relevancy of what you
are now stating. It is my duty to take care that the time of the
Court should not be consumed improperly; any other motive I
cannot have.
Mr. Ho n e said—That no person could be more anxious than
himself to save the time of his lordship and of the jury. If the
Attorney-General had asked him, he would have admitted the
publication of the work in order to save time: but if he were
prevented from going on with what he hau begun to state, it
would disarrange the whole of his defence. He brought forward
his arguments in the best way he could, and he hoped for the
indulgence of the Court. He would very briefly state what he
saw of the mode of striking juries. The Master of the Crown
Office took the book in his hand, and putting his pen between the
leaves, selected the name that appeared against the pen. The
�FIRST TRIAL.
21
Master struck three juries for him in this way; but when he (the
defendant) was leaving the office, he could not help observing, that
out of 144 persons, there were only two whose names he had ever
heard of before—he who had lived, in London all his life, and had
been actively engaged. One of them was Mr. Sharpe, and he
only knew his name as a member of the House of Commons.
When, therefore, he saw those names he began to reflect whether
the Master had struck the juries from a proper list; and Mr.
Pearson, his attorney, conceiving that it was not a proper book,
he (the defendant) afterwards sent a solemn protest to the Master
of the Crown Office, when he knew Mr. Litchfield, the Solicitor of
tJie Treasury, would be present, against those juries, and the
result was, that the Crown abandoned its special juries; Mr.
Litchfield waved the three juries which had been struck in his
case. The Crown consented to his discharge on his own recognis
ance. Three weeks ago these informations were revived, and
notices given of fresh juries, and of this trial. He attended at
the Crown Office, and he was glad to find that a new book of good
jurymen was coming down to the office. He was told that a book
.containing the names of 8,000 persons in London would be sent
down. The book came down, and the Master chose the juries as
before, but he did not take the names against which his pen struck.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —I really cannot see how this bears upon
the cause. I shall not discharge my own duty if I suffer you to
proceed. I am unwilling to interfere, and prevent a defendant
from stating anything that bears upon his case, but I cannot see
the least bearing in what you are now stating.
Mr. Ho n e could assure his lordship that he would not say
anything disrespectful to the Court, but he thought the point most
important, and he hoped he should be allowed to proceed.
A Juryman said—He also thought it might be material, on
account of the notice which the public prints had taken of this
subject. The defendant, therefore, should have an opportunity of
stating the facts truly.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t regretted that the public prints should
agitate these matters previous to trial. As one of the gentlemen
�22
FIRST TRIAL.
of the jury, however, wished to hear some explanation, the
defendant might proceed.
Mr. Ho n e resumed—He had observed, that the Master did
not take the name against which the pen struck, and assigned no
reason for taking the name of Webb in the place of Moxon.
While the Master was pricking the jury, defendant could not
see the name he took. The Master stated that as there was a
cavil about the pen, he should nominate the jury as he thought
proper He then opened the book, the Solicitor of the Treasury
standing at the right hand, and Mr. Maule, assistant solicitor,
standing on the left, and these two could see all the names. The
Master went page after page selecting the jury, sometimes he
gave four names in succession without turning over a leaf, at
others he went over seven, eight, ten, or a dozen pages, regularly
examining every page before he gave a name. In one instance
he went over twenty-six pages, in another thirty-six pages with
out giving out a name. The defendant entered a protest against
this mode of proceeding. He made an affidavit of the facts, and
on a motion to the Court put it in. The Court decided (and to
him it appeared the most extraordinary decision that ever was)
that the Master was not bound to put the pen in his book. Nay,
Lord Ellenborough, in the presence of Mr. Justice Abbott, said,
that if the Master gave the defendant names in that way, it
would be giving a jury by lot, and that he was bound to select
such persons as he thought proper. The defendant could oppose
nothing to that, except that it appeared to be an unfair mode.
He did not think that it ever was in the contemplation of law
that the Crown should select such persons as it choose. Under
that impression he left the Court with what he conceived to be
great injustice. The judges all said that to nominate meant to
select. Now he found that the Master of the Crown Office was
nominated to the Crown by the Court, that is to say, the Court
nominated four or five persons to the Crown, who selected one
of them to fill the office. Here, then, the Court nominated, and
the crown selected, so that nomination was not in fact selection.
He now came to his trial, and it was perfectly immaterial to him
�FIRST TRIAL.
23
of what opinion, the jury were, satisfied as he was that frMr 3CFEjtef
would return a true verdict. He had a very serious impression 7*i> Q
upon his mind of what his situation would be if a verdict -.wep.tr
against him. In that case he firmly believed that he should^
never return to his family from that Court. The AttorneyA^
General was entitled to a reply; and though the learned gentle
man had shown great courtesy, he could not expect him to wave
that right. If he would, the defendant would engage to conclude
in twenty minutes. He did not see any disposition of that kind,
and he would therefore proceed. He should state nothing that was
new, because he knew nothing that was new. He had his books
about him, and it was from them that he must draw his defence.
They had been the solace of his life ; and as to one of Mr. J ones’s
little rooms in the Bench, where he had enjoyed a delightful view
of the Surrey hills, they would afford him great consolation there;
but his mind must be much distracted by the sufferings of his
family. He knew no distinction between public and private life.
Men should be consistent in their conduct; and he had
endeavoured so to school his mind that he might give an explana
tion of every act of his life. If he had ever done an injury to
any one, it was by accident, and not by design; and, though
some persons had lost money byt him, there was not one who
would say that he did not entertain a respect for him (the
defendant). Brom being a book-dealer he became a bookseller;
and what was very unfortunate, he was too much attached to his
books to part with them. He had a wife and seven children, and
had latterly employed himself in writing for their support. As
to parodies, they were as old at least as the invention of printing;
and he never heard of a prosecution for a parody, either religious
or any other. There were two kinds of parodies ; one in which
a man might convey ludicrous or ridiculous ideas relative to some
other subject; the other, where it was meant to ridicule the
thing parodied. The latter was not the case here, and therefore
he had not brought religion into contempt. It was remarkable
that in October last a most singular parody was inserted in the
“ Edinburgh Magazine,” which was published by Mr. Blackwood.
�24
FIRST TRIAL.
The parody was written, with a great deal of ability, and it was
impossible but that the authors must have heard of this prosecu
tion. The parody was made on a certain chapter of Ezekiel, and
was introduced by a preface, stating that it was a translation of a
Chaldee manuscript preserved in a great library at Paris. There
was a key to the parody which furnished the names of the persons
described in it. The key was not published, but he had obtained
a copy of it. Mr. Blackwood is telling his own story; and the
two cherubims were Mr. Cleghorn, a farmer, and Mr. Pringle, a
schoolmaster, who had been engaged with him as editor of a
former magazine; the “ crafty man” was Mr. Constable; and
the work that “ ruled the nation ” was the “ Edinburgh Review.”
The defendant then read a long extract from the parody, of which
the following is a specimen :—
“Now, in those days, there lived also a man who was crafty
in counsel, and cunning in all manner of working : and I beheld
the man, and he was comely and well favoured, and he had a
notable horn in his forehead wherewith he ruled the nations.
And I saw the horn that it had eyes, and a mouth speaking great
things, and it magnified itself even to the Prince of the Host,
and it cast down the truth to the ground, and it grew and
prospered. And when this man saw the book, and beheld the
things that were in the book, he was troubled in spirit and much
cast down. And he said unto himself, why stand I idle here, and
why do I not bestir myself? Lo ! this book shall become a
devouring sword in the hand of my adversary, and with it will
he root up or loosen the horn that is in my forehead, and the hope
of my gains shall perish from the face of the earth. And he
hated the book, and the two beasts that had put words into the
book, for he judged according to the reports of men; nevertheless,
the man was crafty in counsel, and more cunning than his fellows.
And he said unto the two beasts, come ye and put your trust
under the shadow of my wings, and we will destroy the man
whose name is as ebony, and his book.”
He observed, that Mr. Blackwood was much respected by a
great number of persons.
�FIRST TRIAL.
25
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t said—He could not think their respect
could be increased by such a publication. He must express his
disapprobation of itj and at the same time observed, that the
defendant by citing it, was only defending one offence by another.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l said—He had been thinking for the
last few minutes where a person in his situation could interrupt a
defendant. He now rose to make an objection in point of law.
The defendant was stating certain facts of previous publications,
and a question might arise as to the proof of them. The same
objection applied to the legality of his statement. The defendant
had no more right to state any previous libel by way of parody,
than a person charged with obscenity had of bringing volumes on
the table and exhibiting them in his defence. The defendant had
no right to be stating, and so to be publishing, things which had
better remain on the shelves in a bookseller’s shop than be in the
hands of the public.
Mr. Ho n e said—That the Attorney-General called this parody
a libel, but it was not a libel till a jury had found it to be so.
His was not a libel, oi' why did he stand there to defend it ? In
takins this course of defence, he did not take it as a selection of
modes; it was his only mode. He had no intention to send forth
any offensive publication to the world, but merely to defend him
self. When he heard that his own parodies had given pain to
some minds, he was sorry for it. This sort of writing was
familiar to him from his course of reading. This parody, called
“Wilkes’s Catechism,” was published by him on the 14th of
February, and on the 22nd he stopped the sale of the other
pamphlets. He should adduce evidence to show that this sort of
writing had never been prosecuted. He then held in his hand a
little publication drawn up by the late Dr. Lettsom, showing the
effects of temperance and intemperance, by diverging lines, as a
man gets from water to strong beer, and from strong beer to
spirituous liquors and habits of brutal intoxication. He took this
as a popular mode of conveying instruction with preservation of
health, and had no intention to ridicule the thermometer on the
plan on which it was framed.
�26
FIRST TRIAL.
He (the defendant) knew there were some most excellent
persons who occasionally made applications of the Scripture in a
way which they would not do in the pulpit. In 1518, a parody of
the first verse of the first psalm was written by a man whom
every individual in this Court would esteem-—a man to whom we
were indebted for liberty of conscience, and finally for all the
blessings of the Reformation itself—he meant Martin Luther. In
the first volume of “ Jortin’s Life of Erasmus,” page 117, the
following parody, on the first verse of the first psalm, to which he
had alluded, appeared : “Blessed is the man that hath not walked
in the way of the Sacramentarians, nor sat in the seat of the
Zuinglians, or followed the counsel of the Zürichers.” Would
any man say that Martin Luther was a blasphemer | and he was
a parodist as well as William Hone. But parodies had been
published even in the pulpit. He had then in his hand a parody
on the Lord’s Prayer, delivered in the pulpit by Dr. John Boys,
Dean of Canterbury, in 1613, and which was afterwards inserted
in a folio volume of his works which he published. He stated,
that he gained great applause by preaching on that occasion, which
occurred on the 5th of November, 1600. The parody ran m
these words: “Our Pope, which art in Rome, hellish be thy
name, give us this day our cup in the Lord’s supper,” and so on.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t thought it better that the defendant
should not read any more of this parody ; it could only shock the
ears of well-disposed and religious persons; and he must again
repeat, that the law did not allow one offence to be vindicated
by another. He wished the defendant would not read such
things.
Mr. Ho n e —My lord, your lordship’s observation is in the
very spirit of what Pope Leo X. said to Martin Luther
For
God’s sake don’t say a word about the indulgencies and the monas
teries, and I’ll give you a living,” thus precluding him from
mentioning the very thing in dispute. I must go on with these
parodies, said Mr. Hone, or I cannot go on with my defence.
The next book he should refer to was a volume of sermons by
Bishop Latimer, in which there was one illustrated by a game of
�FIRST TRIAL.
27
cards. He recollected to have seen an old book of sermons with
a wooden cut, in which the clergyman was represented holding out
a card in his hand from the pulpit. He had no doubt but that
wooden cut was a portrait of the Bishop preaching the very
sermon to which he was about to call the attention of the jury.
Let it be recollected that the author of this sermon was the great
Latimer, who suffered for the truth. Would any one venture to
say that he meant to ridicule religion ? Many of the sermons
were preached before the King and the Privy Council: that to
which he referred was the 64th, and entitled “ The first of two
sermons of the Card, preached at Cambridge, in Advent, 1526.”
The Rev. Bishop says, “And because I cannot declare Christ’s
rule unto you at one time as it ought to be done, I will apply
myself according to your custom at this time of Christmas. I
will, as I said, declare unto you Christ’s rule, but that shall be in
Christ’s cards, wherein you shall perceive Christ’s rule. The game
that we will play at shall be the triumph [this word triumph, said
Mr. Hone, is what we now call trump, which is a corruption of
the original term], which, if it be well played at, he that dealeth
shall win, and the standers and lookers upon shall do the same;
insomuch that there is no man that is willing to play at this'
triumph with these cards but they shall be all winners and no
losers; let, therefore, every Christian man and woman play at
these cards, that they may have and obtain the triumph. You
must mark, also, that the triumph must apply to fetch home unto
him all the other cards, whatsoever suit they be of. Now, then,
take you this first card, which must appear and be showed unto
you as followeth:—You have heard what was spoken to men of
the old law—Thou shalt not kill; whosoever shall kill, shall be in
danger of judgment; and whosoever shall say unto his neighbour
radra (that is to say brainless, or any other word of rebuking)
shall be in danger of a council; and whosoever shall say unto his
neighbour fool, shall be in danger of Hell fire.” This card was
made and spoken by Christ himself. He would not take up the
time of the Court by reading the whole of what the reverend
prelate had said, but would confine himself to a passage where he
�28
FIRST TRIAL.
described bad passions under the name of Turks. “ These evil
disposed affections and sensualities in us are always contrary to
our salvation. What shall we do now or imagine to thrust down
these Turks, and to subdue them ? It is a great ignominy and
shame for a Christian man to be bound and subject unto a Turk.
Nay, it shall not be so; we will first cast a trump [here the word
trump is used] in their way, and play with them at cards who
shall have the better. Let us play, therefore, on this fashion with
this card. Whensoever it shall happen these foul passions and
Turks do rise in our stomachs against our brother or neighbour,
either for unkind words, injuries, or wrongs, which they have
done unto us contrary unto our mind, straightway let us call unto
our remembrance and speak that question, unto ourselves, ‘ Who
art thou V The Bishop had taken his text from John i. 9. And
this is the record of John, when the Jews sent Priests and Levites
from Jerusalem to ask him ‘Who art thou?’ In the course of the
sermon, therefore, this question, ‘who art thou ?’is often intro
duced. The answer (continues the Bishop) is, ‘I am a Christian
man.’ Then further we must say to ourselves—‘ What requireth
Christ of a Christian man?’ Now turn up your trump, your
heart, (hearts is trump, as I said before), and cast your trump,
your heart, on this card, and upon this card you shall learn what
Chrish requireth of a Christian man : not to be angry or moved
to ire against his neighbour in mind, countenance, or otherwise,
by word or deed. Then take up this card with your heart, and
lay them together; that done, you have won the game of the
Turk, whereby you have defaced and overcome by true and lawful
play.” As he said before, he was confident that the wooden cut
he had seen in the old book of sermons represented the bishop in
the act of holding up the card referred to. He had introduced
this extract from Bishop Latimer to show that the most pious
men frequently resorted to means of illustrating even sacred
things in a way which others might consider very extraordinary.
He was aware that many worthy men condemned parodies; but
it was not his business to eulogise this or any other parody; it
was sufficient to show, that the practice of composing them had
�FIRST TRIAL.
29
existed, and had been followed by the most venerable and
respected characters this country ever produced.
He should now turn to that celebrated collection, the “ Harleian
Miscellany,” the second volume of which, being Mr. Dutton’s
octavo edition, contained an article entitled “The plague of
Westminster, or an order for the visitation of a sick Parliament,
grievously troubled with a new disease, called the consumption of
their Members.” The persons visited are, the Earl of Suffolk, the
Earl of Lincoln, Lord Rundson, the Earl of Middlesex, the Lord
Barkley, the Lord Willoughby, the Lord Maynard, Sir John
Maynard, Master Glyn, Recorder of London; with a form of
prayer, and other rites and ceremonies, to be used for their
recovery; strictly commanded to be used in all churches, chapels,
and congregations, throughout his Majesty’s three kingdoms of
England, Scotland, and Ireland. Printed for V. V. in the year
1647, quarto, containing six pages. Let all the long abused
people of this kingdom speedily repair for the remedy of all
their grievances to the high place at Westminster; and so
soon as entered into the Lord’s House Jet them reverently kneel
down upon their bare knees, and say this new prayer and
exhortation following : “ O Almighty and everlasting Lords, we
acknowledge and confess from the bottom of our hearts, that
you have most justly plagued us these full seven years for our
manifold sins and iniquities. Forasmuch as we have not rebelled
against you, but against the King, our most gracious Lord, to the
abundant sorrow of our relenting hearts, to whose empty chair we
now bow in all reverence, in token of our duty and obedience.
For we now too well (0 Lords) understand that we have
grievously sinned, which hath made your honours give us as a
spoil unto robbers—viz., your committees, sequestrators, exisemen,
and pursuivants,” &c. The parties are then desired, if they find
no redress, to turn to the House of Commons; after which, this
direction follows
“ Here, let all the people sing, Ps. xliii. Judge
and revenge, &c.; and then facing about to Henry VII.’s Chapel,
let all the people rehearse the articles of their new reformed faith,
and after say as follows —The passage thus directed to be said,
�30
FIRST TRIAL.
and the whole ai'ticle concludes thus:—“We beseech ye by all
these, pray against the plaguy diseases your hypocrisy hath
brought upon the two Houses of Parliament and the whole
kingdom, by heresy, poverty, impeachments, banishments, and the
like, amen. Then let the people sing the 41st Psalm, and so
depart.” He had already proved to the Court and jury that
eminent and pious divines have been in the habit of approving
and writing parodies. He should now show them that that
species of composition had also been sanctioned by the approbation
of eminent lawyers. In a collection of tracts, by the great Lord
Somers, there is a parody commencing thus :—“ Ecce !—The New
Testament of our Lords and Saviours, the House of our Lords
and Saviours, the House of Commons, and the Supreme Council
at Windsor. Newly translated out of their own heathenish
Greek ordinances, with their former proceedings; diligently
compared and revised, and appointed to be read in all conventicles.
Chap. I. The Genealogy of the Parliament from the year 1640
to this present 1648. The conception of their brain, by the
influence of the devil; and born of Hell and Damnation, when
they were espoused to Virtue. 1. The Book of the Generation
of John Pirn, the son of Judas, the son of Beelzebub. 2. Pirn
begat a Parliament, a Parliament begat Showd, Showd begat
Hazelrig, and Hazelrig begat Hollis. 3. Hollis begat Hotham,
Hotham begat Martin, and Martin begat Corbet; and so on the
article goes parodying the whole of the genealogy of Christ, as
given in the first chapter of Matthew. It is afterwards in the
13th verse stated, then King Charles being a just man, and not
willing to have his people ruinated, was minded to dissolve them.
14. But while he thought on these things, behold an angel of
darkness appeared to him, saying, King Charles, these men intend
nothing but thine and the kingdom’s good, therefore, fear not to
give them this power, for what they now undertake is of the
Holy Ghost. 15. And they shall bring forth a son, and shall call
his name Reformation; he shall save the people from their sins.
16. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken long ago in the prophecy.—Owtwell Bais.” Then follows
�FIRST TRIAL.
31
the second chapter, which is also a close parody on the second
chapter of Matthew. The third chapter of Matthew is parodied
by an application to Saltmarsh and Dell, two noted preachers of
those times. It commences thus :—“ In those days came Salt
marsh the Antinomian, and Dell the Independent, and preached
to the citizens of London. The fourth chapter is a parody on the
temptations of Christ. He would read only a few passages :—“ 1.
Then was King Charles permitted by God to be tempted by his
Parliament with unreasonable propositions many days. 2. And
when Pembroke the Tempter came unto him, he said, if thou wilt
still be King of Great Britain thou must set thy hand to these
propositions. 9. Prom that time there was a deadly war between
the King and his Parliament, with an equal concernment on both
sides. 10. And his fame went through all the quarters of
England, the people bringing unto him all such as were diseased
with the evil, and he healed them. 11. And there followed him
great multitudes of his .people from Kent, from Staffordshire, and
from beyond Tyne.”
Mr. Ho n e then quoted some verses from a work, entitled
“ Political Merriment; or, Truth told to some Tune.” He next
read from the Kev. Mark Noble’s continuation of “Granger’s
Biographical History of England,” the following verses written
respecting Dr. Burnet, the author of the “ Theory of the Earth
A dean and prebendary
Had once a new vagary;
And were at doleful strife, sir,
Who led the better life, sir,
And was the better man,
And was the better man.
The dean he said, that truly,
Since Bluff was so unruly,
He’d prove it to his face, sir,
That he had the most grace, sir;
And so the fight began, &c.
�32
FIRST TRIAL.
When Preb. replied like thunder,
And roars out, ’twas no wonder,
Since gods the dean had three, sir,
And more by two than he, sir,
For he had got but one, &c.
Now while these two were raging,
And in dispute engaging,
The Master of the Ch a r t e r ,
Said both had caught a Tartar ;
For gods, sir, there were none, &c.
That all the books of Moses
Were nothing but supposes ;
That he deserved rebuke, sir,
Who wrote the Pentateuch, sir ;
’Twas nothing but a sham,
’Twas nothing but a sham.
,
That as for father Adam,
With Mrs. Eve, his madam,
And what the serpent spoke, sir,
’Twas nothing but a joke, sir,
And well-invented flam, &c.
Thus, in this battle royal,
As none would take denial,
The dame for whom they strove, sir,
Could neither of them love, sir,
Since all had given offence, &c.
She therefore, slily waiting,
Left all three fools a-prating ;
And being in a fright, sir,
Religion took her flight, sir,
And ne’er was heard of since, &c.
The next work to which Mr. Hone called the attention of the
jury was a small tract purporting to be translated from the French
of Father La Chaise. It was a parody on the Catechism intended
«
�FIRST TRIAL.
33
to satirize Louis XIV. He was asked, Whose child are you ?
And answered, That he was begotten by Cardinal Richelieu on
the body of Ann of Austria. He was then made to lament his
breach of faith with the Huguenots. The whole was a gross libel
on the King of Trance, but no ridicule of the Holy Scriptures.
The next work to which he should allude was the Lair Circassian,
stated to be written by a Gentleman Commoner of Oxford. The
author was known to be the Rev. Mr. Croxal, the translator of
AAop. It was a very free parody on the Canticles ; he held it in
his hand, but he did not think it fit to be publicly read.
He should now refer to a work entitled the “ Champion,” pub
lished in 1741. It was a periodical publication, and in it he found
the following parody :—
“ Verse 5. The triumph of the wicked is short, aud the 'joy of the
hypocrite but for a moment.
“ This is evident in the case of the children of Israel, who were
formerly oppressed with the Egyptian task masters ; those miscreants,
with Pharoah at their head (like Colossus), afflicted the poor Israelites
with their burdens, and built for Pharoah Treasure Cities, Pithom and
Raamses. But short was the triumph of the wicked. The Israelites
were delivered, and Pharoah with his host of existing task masters
thrown into the Red Sea.
“Remember this, O Pharoah. of N—f—lk !—thou, who as Benjamin
has raven’d like a wolf, in the morning hast devoured the prey, and at
night divided the spoil. Gen. xlix. 17.
“ Though his excellency mount up to the heavens, aud his head
reach unto the clouds.
“ This is to say, however set forth in a preamble.
“ 7. Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung; They which
have seen him shall say, where is he ?
“ Aimsi soir il !
“ 8. He shall fly away as a dream, and shall not be found ; Yea, he
shall be chased away as a vision of the night. Amen.
“ 9. The eye also which saw him, shall see him no more ; neither
shall his place any more behold him.”
In the Foundling Hospital for Wit, is a paper, entitled
“ Lessons of the Day, 1st and 2nd Book of Preferment, &c.” He
D
�34
FIRST TRIAL.
should trouble the jury with a few extracts from it. The first
lesson, here beginneth the 1st chapter of the Book of Preferment:
“ 1. Now it came to pass in the 15th year of the reigu of George the
King, in the 2nd month, on the 10th of the month at even, that a deep
sleep came upon me, the visions of the night possessed my spirits : I
dreamed, and behold Robert, the minister, came in unto the King, and
besought him, saying :—
“2. O King, live for ever ! Let thy throne be established from
generation to generation ! But behold now, the power which thou
gavest unto thy servant is at an end, the Chippenham election is lost,
and the enemies of thy servant triumph over him.
“ 3. Wherefore, now, I pray thee, if I have found favour in thy
sight, suffer thy servant to depart in peace, that my soul may bless thee.
“ 4. And when he had spoken these words, he resigned unto the
King his place of First Lord of the Treasury, his Chancellorship of the
Exchequer, and all his other preferments.
“ 5. And great fear came upon Robert, and his heart smote him, and
he fled from the assembly of the people, and went up into the sanctuary,
and was safe.”
“Se c o n d Le s s o n .—1. Now these are the generations of those that
sought preferment.
“ 2. Twenty years they sought preferment, and found it not : yea,
twenty years they wandered in the wilderness.
“ 3. Twenty years they sought them places; but they found no
resting place for the sole of their foot.
“ 4. And lo ! it came to pass in the days of George the King, that
they said amongst themselves, Go to, let us get ourselves places that it
may be well with us, our wives, and our little ones.
“ 5. And these are the names of the men that have gotten themselves
places in this their day, &c.”
And again, “ The evening was warm, and the river was smooth,
and the melody of instruments was heard upon the waters, and I
said, Lo ! I will go to Vauxhall.* So I took a companion, and
* This place, afterwards known by the name of Vauxhall, was originally the
habitation of Sir Samuel Moreland, who built a fine room there in 1667. The
house was afterwards rebuilt; and, about the year 1728, Mr. Jonathan Tyers
became the occupier of it; and, from a large garden belonging to it, planted with
stately trees, and laid out in shady walks, it obtained the name of Spiing Garden.
The house being converted into a tavern, soon became a place of entertainment
much frequented by the votaries of pleasure. Mr. Tyers opened it in 1732, with
�FIRST TRIAL.
35
the voyage pleased me. And it came to pass, as I sailed by
Lambeth, the Palace of the High Priest, I asked of the man that
was with me, saying, is this Prelate alive or dead ? and he answered
and said, our friend sleepeth,. So I came to Vauxhall. * * *
And I said unto mine eye, go to now, and examine every part,
&c. Then I beheld a drawer, and he looked wistfully upon me,
and his countenance said, Sit down. So I sat down; and I said,
Go now, fetch me savoury meats, such as my soul loveth; and he
straightway went to fetch them. And I said unto him, Asked I not
for beef ? wherefore then didst thou bring me parsley ? Kun now
quickly and bring me wine, that I may drink, and my heart may
cheer me ; for as to what beef thou broughtest me, I wot not what
is become of it. Now the wine was an abomination unto me ;
nevertheless I drank, for I said, ‘ Lest, peradventure I should
faint by the way,’ ” &c.
The next book to which he should call their attention was one,
the circulation of which had been very great. It was composed of
the papers published by the Association for preserving Liberty
and Property against Republicans and Levellers, which met at the
“ Crown and Anchor,” in the Strand. It was entitled “ The British
Freeholders Political Creed.”
“ Q.
“ A.
“ Q.
Britain ?
“ A.
Who are you ?
I am a freeholder of Great Britain.
What privilege enjoyest thou by being a freeholder of Great
By being a freeholder of Great Britain, I am a greater man,
an advertisement of a Ridotto al Fresco, a term which the people of this country
had till that time been strangers to. The repetition and success of these summer
entertainments encouraged the proprietor to make his garden a place of musical
entertainment for every evening during the summer season. He decorated it with
paintings ; engaged a band of excellent musicians ; issued silver tickets for admis
sion at a guinea each ; set up an organ in the orchestra; and in a conspicuous
part of the garden erected a fine statue of Handel, the work of Roubiliac. Vaux
hall Gardens were finally closed July 25, 1859; and in the following month the
theatre, orchestra, dancing platforms, and other properties, were sold, realizing
very trifling sums. The old pleasure haunt is swept away, but the recollection ol’
it is still preserved in the names of the streets which now occupy the site • and
Leopold Street, Auckland Street, Gye Street, Vauxhall Walk, and Italian Walk,
must change their titles before the remembrance of Spring Gardens and Vauxhall
be entirely effaced.
�36
FIRST TRIAL.
in my civil capacity, than the greatest subject of an arbitrary prince ;
because I am governed by laws; and my life, my liberty, and my
property cannot be taken from me but according to those laws ; I am
a free man.
“ Q. Who gave thee this liberty ?
“A. No man gave it me ; it is inherent, and was preserved to me
when lost to the greatest part of mankind, by the wisdom of God, and
the valour of my ancestors, freeholders of this realm.
“ Q. Wilt thou stand fast in this liberty, whereunto thou art born
and entitled by the laws of thy country ?
“A. Yes, verily, by' God’s grace, I will.”
A well-known character, Mr. John Reeves, was the chairman
and founder of this society. In one of his publications he (the
defendant) had stated that Mr. R. was the publisher of a parody
on the Catechism. Now Mr. R. was a very loyal man. He meant
loyal in a different sense from his own loyalty, for in respect and
obedience to the laws lie yielded to no man. But Mr. Reeves had
got something for his loyalty—something to make him sit easy.
He is the printer of the Prayer Book, to which he has written an
introduction with an address to the Queen. There is an anecdote
connected with Mr. Reeves which he should wish to state. Mr.
Reeves called at his (the defendant’s) shop, in consequence of the
statement respecting his publication of a parody on the Catechism.
He then declared, that his Majesty’s Ministers had nothing to do
with the establishment of the society at the “ Crown and Anchor.”'
He therefore took this opportunity of publicly repeating what Mr.
Reeves had said; but he himself knew something respecting the
institution of that society, which he should perhaps take the
opportunity of stating on another occasion.
Mr. Hone then referred to the papers relative to the West
minster election of 1784, published in a quarto volume. There
are among them a great number of Scriptural parodies, from which
he should select only the following, entitled “ Pox.”
11 Again the sons of Judas assemble themselves together at the hotel
in the market place, to present themselves before the Lord [Hood], and
Envy came also to present himself among them. And Truth said unto
�FIRST TRIAL.
37
Envy, from whence comest thou ? And Envy answered and said, from
walking to and fro in the garden, and appearing upon the hustings.
Then Truth said unto Envy, hast thou considered my servant Fox, that
there is none like him upon the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one
that revereth me and escheweth evil ? and still he holdeth his integrity,
although thou movest against him to destroy him without a cause.
Then Envy said, skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for
a, majority. But put forth thy hand and touch him, and he will curse
thee to thy face. And Truth said unto Envy, behold, he is in thy hand,
but spare his election. So Envy went forth from the presence of Truth,
and raised up a majority against Fox of 318 men. Then Insinuation said
unto Fox, Dost thou still retain thy perseverance ? Curse the poll and
decline. But Fox answered and said, thou speakest as one of the
foolish sisters speaketh ; my cause is just, and I will persevere. And
in all these things, Fox sinned not.”
In the “ Humorous Magazine,” there was a parody on the Te
Deum; and in Grose’s Olio, a parody, entitled “ The Chronicles
of the Coxheath Camp.”
He must now refer to that well-known book “ The Chronicles of
the Kings of England, from the Norman Conquest to the Present
Time,” written, as set forth in the preface, by Nathan Ben Sadi.
He should beg leave to read some passages from it as examples
of parody.
“ Now it came to pass in the year one thousand sixty and six, in the
month of September, on the eighth day of the month, that William of
Normandy, surnamed the Bastard, landed in England, and pitched his
tent in a field near the town of Hastings. Then Harold, the King,
attended by all his nobles, came forth to meet him with a numerous
army, and gave him battle : and it was fought from the rising of the
sun even to the going down of the same. But Harold was slain by an
arrow shot into his brains, and his army was routed with exceeding
great slaughter.”
“Elizabeth—Now Elizabeth was twenty and five years old when
she began to reign, and she reigned over England forty and four years,
four months, and seven days, and her mother’s name was Anne Boleyn.
And she choose unto herself wise and able ministers, and governed her
kingdom with power and great glory.
�38
FIRST TRIAL.
“The sea also was subject unto her, and she reigned on the ocean
with a mighty hand.
“ Her admirals compassed the world about, and brought her home
treasures from the uttermost parts of the earth.
“The glory of England she advanced to its height, and all the
princes of the earth sought her love : her love was fixed on the happi
ness of her people, and would not be divided. The era of learning was
also in her reign, and the genius of wit shone bright in the land.
Spencer and Shakespeare, Verulam and Sidney, Ealeigh and Drake
adorned the court, and made her reign immortal. And woe unto you
Spaniards, woe unto you, you haughty usurpers of the American seas ;
for she came unto your armada as a whirlwind, and as a tempest of
thunder she overwhelmed you in the sea.
“ Wisdom and strength were in her right hand, and in her left were
glory and wealth.
“ She spake, and it was war ; she waved her hand, and the nations
dwelt in peace.
“ Her Ministers were just, and her counsellors were sage.: her cap
tains were bold, and her maids of honour ate beefsteaks for theii
breakfast.
“And Elizabeth slept with her fathers, and was buried in the chapel
of King Henry VII., and James of Scotland reigned in her stead.
“James I. And Jamie thought himself a bonny King, and a
mickle wise mon ? howbeit, he was a fool and a pedant.
“ But the spirit of flattery went forth in the land, and the great men
and the bishops offered incense unto him, saying, 0 most sacred King !
thou art wiser than the children of men; thou speakest by the spirit
of God ; there has been none equal to thee before thee ; neither will
any rise after thee like unto thee.
“Thus they abused him daily with lying and fulsome adulation;
and the ear of James was tickled therewith, and he was puffed up and
thought himself wise ; whereupon he began to dispute with the doctors,
and to decide controversies, and to write books, and the world was
undeceived.”
The work has lately been continued down to the present time,
with an allusion to the French revolution in the following man
ner :—
» And after those days a great and wonderful madness broke out
about a people in France; so wonderful was it, that from being wor
�FIRST TRIAL.
39
shippers of kings they became in the twinkling of an eye king-killers
and queen-murderers. And all that had the blood of royalty in their
veins they did cruelly destroy. So great was the destruction through
the land, that many thousand guillotines could not clear the prisons of
their innocent victims; wherefore they drowned them in hundreds,
and butchered them in thousands ; and he who could invent the most
speedy method to destroy the human race, was accounted worthy of all
honour. And every good man, and every virtuous woman, were
obliged to fly out of the land, or to hide themselves in rocks and caves
from the fury of Robespierre, and the infernal masters with whom he
overspread the land. And they made the house of God a repository
for the engines of their destruction, and banished all the priests and
religion from the land, and set up a w—e in its stead, to whom they
gave the name of liberty and equality.”
The next work he should quote from was one of great celebrity,
on account of the wit and genius displayed in its composition, and
which was in the library of every gentleman who paid attention
to the public affairs of the country—a work which was admired
even by those who differed most from the politics it supported :
lie meant “ The Roliad,” published by Mr. Ridgway, a respectable
bookseller, and a most worthy man. In that collection of curious
pieces, the twenty-second edition of which, and that not the latest,
I hold in my hand, there is one entitled, Vive le Scrutiny, to
which he begged leave to call the attention of the jury. It
related to the scrutiny on the celebrated Westminster election
carried on in the vestry of St. Ann’s Church, Soho. It is as fol
io ws :—11 Cross Gospel the First.—But what says my good Lord
Bishop of London to this same Westminster scrutiny—this daily
combination of rites sacred and profane—-ceremonies religious and
political under his hallowed roof of St. Ann’s Church, Soho ?
Should his Lordship be unacquainted with this curious process,
let him know it is briefly this:—At 10 o’clock the High Bailiff
opens his inquisition for the Perdition of Votes, where he never
fails to be honoured with a crowded audience. At 11 o’clock the
High Priest mounts the rostrum in the church for the Sa l v a t io n
o f So u l s , without a single body to attend him; even his corpulent .
worship the clerk, after the first introductory Amen, filing of to
'
�40
FIRST TRIAL.
the vestry to lend a hand towards reaping a quicker harvest! the
alternate vociferations from church to vestry, during the different
services were found to cross each other sometimes in responses so
opposite, that a gentleman who writes short-hand was induced to
take down part of the blunder-medley dialogue of one day, which
he here transcribes for general information, on a subject of such
singular importance, viz. :—
“High Bailiff—[The High Bailiff of that day, you must know,
said Mr. Hone, is represented as having been a very ignorant stupid
.man.] I cannot see that this here fellow is a just vote.
“ Curate—In thy sight shall no man living be justified.
“ Mr. Fox—I despise the pitiful machinations of my opponents.
“Curate—And with thy favourable kindness shalt thou defend
him as with a shield.
“ Witness—He swore, d—n him if he didn’t give Fox a plumper.
“ Clerk—Good Lord, deliver us.
“Mr. Morgan—I stand here as counsel for Sir Cecil Wray.
“ Curate—A general pestilence visited the land, and serpents and
frogs defiled the holy temple.
“Mr. Phillips—Mr. High Bailiff, the audacity of that fellow
opposite to me would almost justify my chastising him in his sacred
place, but I will content myself with rolling his heavy head in the
Thames.
“ Curate—Give peace in our time, O Lord !
“ Sir Cecil Wray—I rise only to say thus much, that is concerning
myself; though as for the matter of myself, I don’t care, Mr. High
Bailiff, much about it.
“Mr. Fox—Hear / hear ! hear !
“Curate—If thou shalt see the ass of him that hateth thee lying
under his burden, thou shalt surely help him.
“Sir Cecil Wray—I trust,—I dare say,—at least I hope I may
venture to think—that my Right Honourable friend,—I should say
enemy,—fully comprehends what I have to say in my own defence.
“ Curate—As for me, I am a worm, and no man ; a very scorn of
men, and the outcast of the people ; fearful and trembling are come
upon me, and a horrible dread overwhelmeth me ! ! !
“High-Bailiff—As that fellow there says he did not vote for Fox,
whom did he poll for ?
“ Curate—Barabbas 1 Now Barabbas was a robber ! ”
�FIRST TRIAL.
41
He (Mr. Hone) should now quote a parody of the L
Prayer, which appeared in a public paper in the year
Oracle). It ran thus:—il Our step-father, who art p-&(/ PaKs®
cursed be thy name ! thy kingdom be far from us, th^
done neither in heaven nor in earth. (Here the Attorney-^
interfered, and the defendant remarked, that the parodyX^
appeared in a Government paper, edited, he believed, by Mr.
Heriot.)
The Co u r t —Wherever it may have appeared, the publication
was highly reprehensible—one instance of profaneness cannot
excuse another.
Mr. Ho n e —Certainly not; but if this mode of writing has
been practised by dignitaries of the church, and by men high in
the State, he humbly conceived that that circumstance might be
some excuse for his having been the publisher of the trifle now
charged as libellous. He solemnly declared that he never had
any idea of ridiculing religion, and that as soon as he was aware
of the publication having given offence to some persons whose
opinion he respected, however much he might differ with them
on that point, he immediately stopped the sale. He even refused,
after he had suspended the publication, to give a copy to an old
friend; and gave such offence by that refusal, that his friend had
scarcely spoken to him since. He persisted, however, in allowing
no copies to go out of his custody, except three, which he gave to
three different individuals, in order to obtain their opinions on
the parody. In short, finding the opinion that the publication
was offensive prevailing, he gave up all thoughts of proceeding
with it. Had he been one who wished to ridicule religion, he
should have taken a different course. He should have continued
the publication and made money by it, as there was a great
demand for it. In that case, he could have afforded to employ
a Counsel, and would not have been reduced to the necessity
of standing in his present situation before the Court and the
jury.
The Co u r t —This observation has no relation to the point
in question. You cannot be allowed to proceed in reading a pro
,
�42
FIRST TRIAL.
fane parody on the Lord’s prayer. You may state in general
terms, if you please, that there is such a parody existing.
Mr. Hone did not wish to take up the time of the Court un
necessarily, and if the general reference to the parody would be
sufficient for his case, he was satisfied. He should in the same
way refer to others on the 2nd Book of Exodus, the 3rd Book of
Chronicles, and the Book of Daniel. There was also one entitled
the Land of Nineveh, written by Sir John Sinclair. Mr. Hone
then produced a large sheet of paper divided into several columns
in different languages, Latin, Russian, German, English. It was
dedicated to the Duke of Wellington, and to the Commanders of
the Russian and other allied armies, and began—“ Te Deum,:—
“ Oh, Emperor of France ! we curse thee.
“We acknowledge thee to be a Tyrant.
“ Thou murdering Infidel! all the world detest thee.
“ To thee all nations cry aloud,
“ Bo n e y , Bo n e y , Bo n e y !
“ Thou art universally execrated ! ” &c., &c.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —You have read enough of it.
Mr. Ho n e —It is a Ministerial parody.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —I know nothing of Ministerial or AntiMinisterial parodies. You have stated enough of that publication
for your purpose.
Mr. Ho n e said he perfectly understood his lordship, and was
aware that the Court paid no regard to the quarter whence the
parody came j it was essential to him that the jury should also
understand, that had he been a publisher of Ministerial parodies,
he should not now be defending himself on the floor of that Court.
_ It was essential to the friends of justice, that all men should
stand equal, when they were brought before the tribunal of the
laws. But he denied that he was placed in that situation of
equality, when he was singled out by the Attorney-General to be
tried for an offence, which, if it had been committed in favour of
the Ministerial Party, would not have been noticed. It appeared
that this parody on the Te Deum had been translated into
various languages—into French, Dutch, German, Russian, and
�FIRST TRIAL.
43
Italian—for the express purpose of being read by the troops on
the Continent—and it could not be doubted that it had a most
extensive circulation.—He held in his hand another parody, pub
lished many years ago, called “ The Political Creed” and a second,
denominated “The Poor Man's Litany” neither of which had
been prosecuted.
He should now call the attention of the jury to a print which
was published at the commencement of the present year—and he
did so, not for the purpose of ridiculing the print, or its object,
but to show the way in which many individuals wished to convey
certain notions to the minds of those whom they were anxious to
reform. In this instance, recourse had evidently been had to
parody. The print was called, “ The Spiritual Barometer; or,
The Scale and Progress of Sin and Death.” It was, in fact, a
parody on Dr. Lettsom’s “ Parody of the Thermometer,” before pro
duced, and was to be seen in every print shop in the Strand. It
pointed out all the gradations of vice, leading to infidelity, and
ending in perdition; and the progress of religious influence ending
in eternal happiness.
Another parody, which he adduced as a proof that this style
of conveying information, even on sacred subjects, had long been
tolerated, he should now read. It was couched in the form of a
playbill, announcing the performance of a grand drama, entitled
the
Assize,” and the performance was, “By command of the
King of kings.” The publication stated, that “the entrance to
the gallery was very narrow, while that to the pit was extremely
wide—contrary to the custom observed at mundane theatres.
Between the acts, the awful air of The Trumpet shall sound, and
the dead shall be raised. To conclude with the grand procession
of saints and martyrs, shouting and exulting. No money to be
taken at the door—and none to be admitted, but those sealed by
the Holy Ghost.” This was printed and published by George
Cooke, Tower Street, a member of the Society of Priends.
He held in his hand another composition of the same species;
this was a parody on a recruiting bill, beginning thus
Royal
Volunteers, now is the time to obtain honour and glory.
�44
FIRST TRIAL.
¿Wanted, immediately, to serve Jehovah, who will reward them
according to their zeal and ability, a vast number of people of all
descriptions, who will, on joining the Commanding Officei,
receive new ' clothes, proper accoutrements, and eveiything
necessary for their appearance at the Hew Jeiusalem.
He next came to “a copy of a letter written by our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, and found under a stone, eighteen miles
from Judea, now transmitted from the Holy City. Translated
from the original copy, now in the possession of the family of the
Lady Cuba, in Mesopotamia. Blessed are those who find this
letter and make it known. Many persons attempted to remove
the stone under which it lay—but none could force it from its
place, till a young child appeared and wrought the miracle.”
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l —The misguided or the mistaken
feelings which can induce such publications by any man, do not
form a ground of defence for others. I, therefore, submit, that
publications of this kind ought not to be read in Court.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —It is no use to interrupt the defendant.
I have repeatedly stated, that it cannot avail him, as a matter of
defence, to quote a variety of profane publications. It is for him
to show that his publication is not profane and this cannot be
done by quoting the example of others.
Mr. Ho n e —The publication which he had last noticed, was a
Christmas Carol/. It had been before the public upwards of
thirty years—and he should be very sorry to read it, if it were
likely to bring the publisher of it into any danger. He was sure
it was far from that individual’s intention to do anything wrong,
that person printed various publications of the same nature which
went through the country—and, in fact, they were of that
description, which the common people had been accustomed to
for centuries.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —I don’t care what the common people
have had for centuries. If the publication be profane, it ought
not to be tolerated.
Mr. Ho n e —It was most evident that this practice worked its
own remedy. Publications of this kind could not have any effect,
�FIRST TRIAL.
45
except amongst persons of the most ignorant description. Mil-,
lions of these Carols had been sold—and he had never heard that
religion was brought into contempt by them.
The Christmas Carol attached to this publication began in the
usual way—
God rest you merry gentlemen,
Let nothing you dismay;
Remember Christ our Saviour
Was born on Christmas day.
It contained verses which, to a person of the least cultivated
intellect, were ridiculous; but to the lowest class of the com
munity, who purchased these, the lowest species of literary ware,
such compositions, and the ideas they conveyed, were familiar,
and were not of ludicrous construction. For instance, there was a
verse in this very carol which he remembered to have heard sung
in the streets every Christmas since he was a child, which de
scribed the pleasure of the Virgin Mary in tending on her infant
in these homely words :—
The first good joy our Mary had,
It was the joy of one ;
To see her own child, Jesus,
To suck at her breast bone.
And so it went on.—\The Attorney-General here manifested great
uneasiness.]—The Attorney-General need not be alarmed. It
could have no effect even upon the most ignorant, and millions of
copies had been circulated long before he came into office.
But he would now call the attention of the jury to a parody
differing very much from any of those he had hitherto noticed.
He alluded to the celebrated parody of Mr. Canning—yes, of
Mr. Canning, who ought, at that moment, to be standing in his
place, but who had been raised to the rank of a Cabinet Minister
and was one of those very men who were.now persecuting him__
for he could not give any milder appellation to the treatment he
had received. He was dragged before the Court, from behind his
counter—and for what? For doing that which a Cabinet
Minister had been suffered to do with impunity. He would
�46
FIRST TRIAL.
assert that the Attorney-General would act wrong—that he would
proceed partially and unfairly—if he did not bring Mr. Canning
forward. “ If I,” said Mr. Hone, il am convicted, he ought to
follow me to my cell—-if my family is ruined, his family ought to be
made to feel a little—if I am injured by this indecent, this unjust
prosecution, he ought not to be suffered to escape unpunished.”—
This parody, after being first printed in the Anti-Jacobin news
paper, was re-published in a splendid work, which he now held in
his hand, entitled The Poetry of the Anti-Jacobin ; the expense of
printing was defrayed by the late Mr. Pitt, by Mr. Canning,
nearly all the Cabinet Ministers, and many other persons con
nected with that party. The parody was also ornamented by a
masterly engraving by Mr. Gillray. Was it not enough to have
written the parody to which he alluded, without proceeding to
have it illustrated by the talents of an artist? Yet it was so
illustrated.—(A number of persons in Court here applauded.)
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t declared, if such indecent interruptions
were persisted in, he would order the Court to be cleared—and
he directed the officer to bring before him any person he saw
misconducting himself.
Mr. Ho n e —The parody he alluded to was entitled “ The
New Morality; or, The Installation of the High Priest." He
understood it was levelled at a man named Lepaux, who was well
known at the commencement of the Revolution, and was, he
understood, an avowed Atheist. Mr. Hone said his attention was
directed to the parody by a speech of Earl Grey’s. His lordship
had noticed this parody in his place in Parliament, and had well
observed—“ With respect to blasphemous parodies, he thought in
common with others, that such productions should be restrained,
but by the ordinary course of justice. But this disposition to
profane parodies had been used for certain purposes on former
occasions; and improper and profane as they were, they were
pretended by some to be made m support of religion. He would
recommend the noble lord, and the friends who surround him,
to consider well the case of sending persons before a magistrate on
charges of this nature. He held then in his hand a publication
�FIRST TRIAL.
47
called the Az^WacoSm, which contained a parody of this descrip
tion, and which he would take the opportunity of reading to their
lordships.” His lordship then repeated the verses. Thus the
jury would see that he was supported in his opinion by Earl Grey,
and the report from, which he had read the extract might be safely
relied on. It was from the reports lately published by Mr.
Harding Evans, a most correct, and, in every respect, excellent
reporter. Indeed, the authority of his reports was unquestion
able.. Mr. Hone said, it appeared from Mr. Evan’s volume, which
he used in Court, and quoted from, that Earl Grey said, if Lord
Sidmouth was determined to suppress the practice ef parodying,
he should not confine his efforts to the prosecution of Mr. Hone,
but should seek out the authors of the Anti-Jacobin, whether in
the Cabinet or elsewhere. Mr. Hone said, his intention being thus
pointed to the subject, he soon after saw this same parody in the
Courier newspaper, with the blanks filled up, and he should read
it to the Jury. It was in ridicule of certain persons in this
country, who were said by the writer to be followers of Lepaux,
one of the men who had made themselves famous in the French
Revolution, and who was said to have publicly professed Atheism:
such at least, seemed to be the assertion of the parody. It began
thus—
Last of the anointed five behold, and least
The directorial Lama, sovereign priest—
Lepaux—whom Atheists worship—at whose nod
Bow their meek heads—the men without a God.
Ere long, perhaps to this astonished isle,
Fresh from the shores of subjugated Nile,
Shall Buonaparte’s victor fleet protect
The genuine Theo-philanthropic sect—
The sect of Marat, Mirabeau, Voltaire,
Led by their pontiff, good La Reveillere.
Rejoic’d our c l u e s shall greet him, and i natal,
The holy hunch-back in thy dome, St. Paul,
While countless votaries thronging in his train
Wave their red caps, and hymn this jocund strain :
�48
FIRST TRIAL.
“ Couriers and Stars, sedition’s evening host,
“Thou Morning Chronicle and Morning Post,
“ Whether ye make the Rights of Man your theme,
“ Your country libel, and your God blaspheme,
“ Or dirt on private worth and virtue throw,
“Still blasphemous or blackguard, praise Lepaux !
“And ye five other wandering bards that move
“ In sweet accord of harmony and love,
“ Coleridge and Southey, Lloyd and Lamb, and Co.
“ Tune all your mystic harps to praise Lepaux 1
“ Priestley and Wakefield, humble, holy men,
“ Give praises to his name with tongue and pen.
“Thelwall, and ye that lecture as ye go,
“ And for your pains get pelted, praise Lepaux.
“Praise him each Jacobin, or fool, or knave,
“ And your cropped heads in sign of worship wave.
“All creeping creatures, venomous and low,
“Paine, Williams, Godwin, Holcroft, praise Lepaux !
£
\
&
B
“And thou Leviathan !* on ocean’s brim,
“ Hugest of living things that sleep and swim ;
“ Thou in whose nose, by Burke’s gigantic hand,
“ The hook was fix’d to drag thee to the land ;
11 With Coke, Colquhoun, and Anson, in thy train,
“ And Whitbread wallowing in the yeasty main—
“ Still as ye snort, and puff, and spout, and blow,
“In puffing, and in spouting, praise Lepaux !”
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —Of what use is this to you, as a matter
of defence ?
Mr. Ho n e —The parody was written by Mr. Canning, who
has not been molested.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —How do you know that he is the author
of it ? It does not appear to be a parody on any part of the
sacred writings.
. Mr. Ho n e —I will show that it was written by Mr. Canning
The Duke of Bedford.
�FIRST TRIAL.
49
but I know it is unpleasant that his name should be mentioned
here.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —It is unjust that any person’s name
should be mentioned otherwise than properly. It is my duty to
take care that no man shall be improperly noticed here. Whether
a man be Ministerial or Anti-Ministerial has nothing to do
with it.
Mr. Ho n e It is my duty, though your lordship says this is
not a parody on the sacred writings, to endeavour to show, with
due deference, that it is.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —As far as you have gone, it does not
appear to be a parody on anything sacred. It seems to be a
parody on passages in Milton and Pope. But, if you ask my
opinion, I distinctly state, I do not approve of it—nor of any
parody on serious works.
Mr. Ho n e said, he should prove that it was a parody on
Scripture ; and there were two lines which that contemptible
newspaper The Gouriear the proprietors of which had been abused
in that production, the authors of which it now eulogised—and
omitted. It was
“ And----- and----- with----- join’d,
And every other beast after its W,”
This last line was a parody from the account of the Creation
in the book of Genesis; this parody had alluded to Milton, who
himself was a parodist on the Scripture; but this by Mr. Canning
directly parodied certain parts of Scripture. The passage repre
senting the Leviathan referred to the celebrated passage in the
Book of Job. The rest contained the turn of expression and
some of the very words of the 148th Psalm, as well as the general
turn of the expression of other parts.
“ Praise ye him all his angels ; praise ye him all his hosts.
“ Praise ye him, sun and moon ; praise ye him all ye stars of light.
“Beasts and all cattle; creeping things and flying fowl.”_ Psalm
cxlviii., verses 2, 3, and 10.
This publication was accompanied by a plate by Gillray, a most
E
�50
FIRST TRIAL.
admirable caricaturist, since dead,* who, to the day of his death,
enjoyed a pension from his Majesty. In that print, which he
held in his hand, the late Duke of Bedford was represented as the
Leviathan of Job, with a hook in his nose, and with Mr. Fox and
Mr. Tierney on his back. The passage in Job was, “ Canst thou
draw out Leviathan with an hook; or his tongue with a cord
which thou lettest down?”—Chap. 41, verse 1. He had been
advised to subpoena Mr. Canning as a witness, but he had really
abstained from a regard to Mr. Canning’s feelings. He had re
flected what an awkward figure Mr. Canning would cut if he
were placed in the witness box, to answer questions which he
should put to him. He did not wish unnecessarily to hurt any
man’s feelings, and he had not thought such a course necessary to
his defence. The work which contained this was, as he said, pub
lished by a general subscription of the Ministers of the Pitt and
Canning school, and the notoriety of the nature of that publication
was sufficient for his purpose. Now it was plain that the object
of Mr. Canning’s parody was the same as that of his own—it was
political; and it proved that the ridicule which the authors of the
parodies attempted to excite, was not always intended to fix on
the production parodied.
He had not exhausted the subject, but he was afraid of ex
hausting the patience of the jury. He must, however, mention
one thing which, in addition to those he had already stated, proved
that persons of the most strictly religious character did not regard
the mixing up of profane and sacred subjects with the same sort
of horror which the Attorney-General appeared to do. Mr.
Rowland Hillt had remarked in his chapel, that the devil had some
great beauties, and had followed up the remark by appropriating
secular times to hymns : one hymn was sung at Surrey chapel to
* Born, 1745. Died, 1815.
+ Minister of Surrey Chapel, Blackfriars Road, was born at Hawkstone, near
Shrewsbury, in 1744, and during a period of fifty years was the minister of this
chapel. He occasionally illustrated the most solemn truths by observations which
savoured more of the ludicrous than the pathetic. His writings are numerous,
and one of them, entitled “ Village Dialogues,” had a great run of popularity. He
was not sparing of wit, humour, or sarcasm, whenever he could make them sub
servient to his purpose. He died in 1833, aged eighty-eight.
�FIRST TRIAL.
51
the air of God save the King, having an appropriate burden—
another was adapted to the tune of Bule Britannia, the chorus to
which was—
“ Hail Immanuel! Immanuel we adore,
And sound his praise from shore to shore.”
He could not recollect all the tunes he had heard there—but one
of them, that of “ Lullaby,” was a peculiar favourite. There was
also a selection of tunes adapted to the Psalms and Hymns of Dr.
Watts and others. These tunes were selected by a respectable
Baptist minister, now living, the Bev. John Rippon, Doctor of
Divinity. Amongst these was a hymn, commencing—
“ There is a land of pure delight,
Where saints immortal dwell
which was set to the tune of
“ Drink to me only with thine eyes,
And I will pledge with mine.”
There was also one to the tune of “ Tell me, babbling Echo, why’’
—another, commencing
How blest are they whose sins are covered o’er.”
was to a tune in one of Mr. Corn’s operas. There were, indeed,
several similar instances in this and other books of melodies for
Divine worship. This book of Hymn Tunes contained “ When
war’s alarms called my Willy from me,” and one hymn was set to
“Buonaparte’s March.” These different instances proved that
those who had the most decided religious feelings might make use
of profane or secular means for the purpose, not of bringing re
ligion into contempt, but of supporting it. It was the intention
that constituted the libel, and not the mere act of publication.
They all knew very well how guarded the Jewish Law was with
respect to homicide. If a man committed homicide, he was put
on his trial for it—but whether it was justifiable, or unjustifi
able, or accidental homicide, depended on the circumstances under
which it was committed. If a man striking a blow with an axe
at a tree, caused the head of the axe to fly off, and a man was
thereby slam, though the circumstance was to be deplored, yet it
�52
FIRST TRIAL.
was but accidental homicide, and the person who committed the
deed, not having intended it, would not be punished. But, if a
person stabbed another with a knife, designedly, it was murder.
The same distinction should be taken in this case—and he utterly
denied that he had the slightest idea of offending or injuring any
person when he published the parody. He had thus shown that
there was no practice in the annals of literature more common
than that of parodies on sacred or devotional writings; that they
had been written by the highest and most dignified Members of
the Church—by the Father of the Reformation—by the Martyrs
of the Church of England—by men to whose motives not a shadow
of suspicion could attach—in all times—in all manners—in defence
of the Government and the Church itself—that at no time had
it been condemned by Courts of Justice—and now for the first
time a friendless, and, as his persecutors hoped, a defenceless man,
was fixed on to be made a sacrifice for this sin, which had been
cherished and applauded for centuries. He was told that these
productions of Reformers, of Martyrs, of Dignitaries, of Clergy
men, of Ministers, and Pensioners, had been illegal. The judge
told him so. He denied it. What proof did the judge produce
__in what instance had one of those productions which he had
read, or of coach loads of others which he might have read, been
condemned or even prosecuted. He should now attempt to prove
that he had not that intention which was charged in the indict
ment, to create impiety and irreligion. From the beginning to the
end of the production in question, the subject and the object was
political. It was intended to ridicule a certain set of men,
whose only religion was blind servility, and who subjected their
wills and their understandings to persons who, they thought, would
■best promote their sinister interest. The principles which he
ascribed to these persons were so enumerated as to contrast with
the duty which Christianity enjoined j and the Christian principles
shone more bright as contrasted with infamous time-servingness.
Was it to be supposed that the Ten Commandments, which con
tained all the great principles of morality, as well as religion,
could be debased by a comparison with another set of Command
�53
ments, framed in somewhat the same form, hut the principles of
which were as detestable and noxious as those of the first
AW-' 7
respectable and beneficial ? Was the Lord’s Prayer to be ^idjculed.
by placing in contrast with it the Prayer of a Ministerial
It was evidently impossible that such could have been his intuit
As an honest man, speaking before those whose esteem he valft^
he declared that it was not his intention. The Political Catechism
was charged as an impious and wicked publication, tending to ex
cite irreligion in the minds of his Majesty’s subjects. But he
would prove to the jury that it had not been disseminated with
any intent to bring religion into contempt, for it was a matter
purely political. If they could find a passage in it that, in any
way, tended to turn anything sacred into ridicule, he called on them
to find him guilty; but, if they could not discover such a passage,
he demanded an acquittal at their hands. Let the jury look to
the Catechism. It commenced thus—
Q. What is your name ?—A. Lick Spittle.
Q. Who gave you that name ?—A. My Sureties to the Minis
try, in my Political Change, wherein I was made a Member of the
Majority, the Child of Corruption, and a Locust to devour the
good things of this Kingdom.
The majority meant those who were always ready at the beck
of the Minister—the corruption was that which was known to
exist in the House of Commons, and was as notorious as the sun
at noon-day.
Q. What did your sureties then for you?—A. They did promise
and vow three things in my name. First, that I should renounce
the Reformists and all their Works, the pomps and vanity of
Popular Favour, and all the sinful lusts of Independence.
Secondly, that I should believe all the Articles of the Court
Faith. And, Thirdly, that I should keep the Minister’s sole Will
and Commandments, and walk in the same all the days of my
life.
Surely it could not be denied that the friends of the Minister
did renounce the Reformists—they could not be his friends else.
If Mr. Canning were here he would admit this. Mr. Hone said if
A/
FIRST TRIAL.
�54
FIRST TRIAL.
he went through the whole of the Catechism, it would be found,
like the extracts he had quoted, entirely political, and not at all
intended to bring religion into contempt. But it was said that the
publication of similar parodies, during two centuries, did not
justify the act. It might be so—but it would be a most cruel
hardship if he, who, from the long continuance of the system had
been induced to adopt it, should be punished for that which his
predecessors and contemporaries did with impunity. In his opinion
the existence of such publications for so long a time proved that
they were not libellous—for, if they were, they would have been
prosecuted. But they had not been prosecuted—not even in times
when judges on the Bench told the jury that they had only to
find the fact of publication, but that they were not to decide the
questions of libel or no libel. His Majesty’s Secretaries of State,
who ought to be the conservators of the public morals, had com
mitted high treason against the peace and happiness of society, if,
believing such publications to be libellous, they had suffered them
so long to exist unnoticed. They had now, however, selected him
for punishment—but, he was sure, the good sense and excellent
understanding of Mr. Attorney-General must have led him to
think that the selection was not a just one. Whether he went
home to his distressed family, or retired in the custody of Mr.
Jones’s gentlemen,* he should leave the Court conscious that
he was innocent of any intention to bring the religion of his
country into contempt. If suffering the sentence he was sure
to receive, should he be found guilty, and' he were placed
within the walls of a dungeon, with a certainty that he should
never see his family again, still he should, to his dying moment,
deny that he had ever published those tracts in order to ridicule
religion—[Loud cheering]. The Attorney-General, and every
man with whom laws originated, would do well to render them
so clear that they could be easily understood by all—that no
person could be mistaken. Was it to be supposed that he, with a
wife and a family of seven children, would, if his mind were ever
* Marshal of the King’s Bench Prison, who was present in Court with his
tipstaves.
�FIRST TRIAL.
55
so depraved, have sat down and written a libel, if he were aware
that it was one ? None bnt a maniac would act so indiscreetly.
There were, however, very few men who understood the law of
libel. It was, in fact, a shadow—it was undefinable. His lord
ship called this publication a libel—but he would say, with all due
deference, that his lordship was mistaken. That only could be
called a libel which twelve men, sworn well and truly to try the
cause, declared to be one. He would not occupy their time much
further. It was an important feature of his defence to show that
parodies might be written, in order to excite certain ideas, without
any desire to turn the original production into ridicule. He
thought he had already shown that this was not the case; he
thought it was pretty clear that Martin Luther did not mean to
ridicule the Psalms; that Dr. Boys, the Dean of Canterbury, did
not mean to ridicule the Lord’s Prayer; that the Author of the
“ Visitation Service for a sick Parliament,” published by a zealous
partisan of Charles I., did not mean to ridicule the Service of the
Church of England; that Mr. Canning did not mean to ridicule
the Scripture nor Milton. Why, then, should it be presumed
that he had such an intention? In The Spirit of the Journals
was to be found the following parody on Black-eyed Susan. It
was well-known to have been written by Mr. Jekyll, now a Master
in Chancery, and certainly no man could say that that gentleman
meant to turn Gay’s beautiful poem into ridicule :—
“ All in the Downs the fleet was moor’d,
The streamers waving in the wind,
When Castlereagh appeared on board,
Ah, where shall I my Curtis find !
Tell me, ye jovial sailors, tell me true,
Does my fat William sail among your crew ?
William, who high upon the poop ”----Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —“You need not go on with that parody.
It is no defence for you. How can a parody, ridiculing any
person, be material to your defence?”
Mr. Ho n e —“I will prove that it is.”
�56
FIRST TRIAL.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —“ Prove that it is, first, and then read it.
It is my duty to prevent the reading, in a Court of Justice, of
productions ridiculing public or private characters.”
Mr. Ho n e —“May I ask your Lordship whether, in your
judicial character, you have a right to demand the nature of the
defence I mean to make?”
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —“ Certainly not; but when you quote
that which is apparently irrelevant, you are bound, if called on, to
show its relevancy.”
Mr. Ho n e —“ This is a whimsical parody, and my object is to
show, that the humour of it does not tend to bring the original
into contempt. It is a case in point—and no person can suppose
Mr. Jekyll intended to ridicule the original.”
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —“ You have read enough of it for your
purpose, which is to show that the parody is not intended to turn
the original into ridicule.”
Mr. Ho n e —Your lordship and I understand each other, and
we have gone on so good humouredly hitherto, that I will not
break in upon our harmony by insisting on the reading the
remainder of this humourous parody. He was sorry he had
occasion to detain them so long, though for his own part he was
not half exhausted. He was, however, obliged to mention some
publications which he had before omitted, and which would
strongly show the impunity which publishers of works of a
description similar to his own had enjoyed. These were graphic
parodies by way of parody on Mr. Fuseli’s* celebrated picture of
The Night Mare. The parody was intended, not to ridicule the
work of that celebrated artist, but to create a laugh at the
expense of a late very respectable Chief Magistrate of London,
whom he would not name, remarkable for his exertions to clear
the streets of women of the town. He now called their attention
to another caricature, entitled “ Boney’s Meditations in the Island
» Or Fuessli, the more correct way of spelling the family name, was born at
Zurich, in 1741; became a Eoyal Academician in 1790. The works of Fuessli
were popular in his time, but are now almost forgotten. His death took place at
the house of Lady Guildford, Putney Hill, where he was on a visit to her ladyship
16th of April, 1825, in the eighty-fourth year of his age.
�FIRST TRIAL.
of St. Helena,; or,
parody on. Milton,
ridicule, but meant
was the Sun, whom
57
The Devil addressing the Sun.” This was a
not turning the passage from that part into
to ridicule Buonaparte. The Prince Regent
Buonaparte was supposed to address :—
“ To thee I call, but with no friendly mind,
To tell thee, George, Prince Regent, how I hate,
Whene’er I think from what a height I fell.”
He next produced a parody, by Mr. Gillray, entitled, “ Would
you know Men’s Hearts, look in their Faces.” In this Mr. Fox
was depicted as the arch-fiend—Mr. Sheridan, as Judas Iscariot__
Sir Francis Burdett, as Sixteen-string Jack, &c. &c. In another
of those graphic parodies, Lord Moira was represented endeavour
ing to blow out a candle, in allusion to a story which he related in
the course of his speech on the Watch and Ward Bill, relative to
a poor woman who. was ill-treated, because, after a certain hour, she
continued to keep a candle lighted in order to attend on her sick
child. Another of those parodies was called The Reconciliation,
the inscription to which was taken from The New Testament; and
the print itself was a parody on the parable of the Prodigal Son :
“ And he rose, and came to his father’s servants, and he fell on his
father’s neck, and kissed him (who was represented falling on his
father’s neck), saying, ‘ I have sinned against Heaven, and am no
longer worthy to be called thy son.’” Who was meant by either
father or son, he would not say, but the gentlemen of the jury
might satisfy themselves on that point. It was engraved by Mr.
Gillray. He would now advert to another parody. It was
denominated, “The Impious Feast of Belshazzar.”* It was a
complete parody—but no man could suppose that Mr. Gillray, who
engraved it, meant to ridicule the Scriptures: it was designed to
ridicule Napoleon. At the time he published it, Mr. Gillrav was
pensioned by his Majesty’s Ministers.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —“You must not make these assertions.”
Mr. Ho n e —“ I can prove it.”
* Published under the title, “ The Handwriting v.pon the Wall;' 24th August
1803.
�58
FIRST TRIAL.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —11 But, if you can prove that he, being
pensioned, published those things, will that form a defence for
you ?”
Mr. Ho n e —“ My Lord, I have no pension.”
Another of these prints, one of Mr. Gillray’s master-pieces,
was produced by Mr. Hone, entitled the “ Apotheosis of Hoche,”
the French General of Division, to whom the expedition against
Ireland, planned by the Directory, was entrusted. It represented
Hoche in tri-coloured robes, with his jack-boots falling from his
legs, and with a halter round his head in the form of a wreath, a
guillotine in his hand as a harp, on which he seemed to be playing,
o
In this shape he was represented as ascending to heaven; but to
what heaven ? There was the rainbow, indeed, spoken of in the
Revelations; but above, instead of seraphim and cherubim, which
are represented as surrounding the throne of justice and mercy,
were grotesque figures with red night-caps, and tri-colour cockades,
having books before them, on which were inscribed Ca ira and the
Marseillaise Hymn. Instead of angels were Roland and Con
dorcet, and Marat, and Petion, and many nameless figures with
poison, and daggers, and pistols, and the different implements of
death. The holy army of martyrs were parodied by headless
figures holding palm-branches. But this was not all—the symbol
of the mystery of the Trinity—of the Triune Essence of the
Divinity was represented by a triangle, with a plummet, in the
midst of which was inscribed Eq u a l it y ; and from it, instead of
rays of glory, daggers and bayonets were represented diverging.
Under this triangle, were the Ten Commandments, beginning
« Thou shalt have no other God but me,” meaning “ Equality,”
which was inscribed above “Upon the thirtieth and fortieth
o-eneration shalt thou have no mercy at all.”
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —“ This is a profane parody on the Ten
Commandments, and I cannot suffer it to be read in this Court.
You may state, generally, that a parody was published, where the
Deity alluded to was Equality. It is a wicked publication.”
Mr. Ho n e —“It was on the right side—that made all the
difference.”
�FIRST TRIAL.
59
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t —“I know nothing of a right or wrong
side, in those cases.”
Mr. Ho n e —“ It was very well, as it was written for Adminis
tration. Mr. Gillray, who published these things to serve the
purposes of the Administration, had a pension for his parodies.”
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l said that it was not before the Court
that Mr. Gillray had a pension. They knew nothing of Mr.
Gillray. He had no pension.
Mr. Ho n e said he had his information on this subject from
the relations of that gentlemen. He then produced another
print by Mr. Gillray, which was a parody on the taking up of
Elijah, and the leaving his mantle to Elisha. And who was in
the place of Elijah and Elisha in Mr. Gillray’s print ?—Why, Mr,
Pitt was taken up to Heaven, ancWiis mantle was left to his
political associates, among whom were the present Ministry—those
who instituted this prosecution. AVkile they encouraged these
applications of Scripture by their partisans, for it was absurd to
suppose that such things would have been done if they were
disagreeable to them, by such a man as Mr. Gillray j while they
pensioned this gentleman was it decent to single out one of their
political opponents and to persecute him under the guise of a
regard for religion? Was it decent to do so in the case of a
parody, the whole object and intent of which was political, and
that too when they could not produce a single instance in support
of their practice ? Was it possible to mistake the object of this ?
Mr. Hone hoped that the Attorney-General would bring Mr.
Canning to justice—(Cheering). He knew not what power the
learned judge might have to effect that object—but he knew the
Attorney-G-eneral had much—and he trusted he would use it to
bring his masters to justice.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l —I have no master but my sovereign.
Mr. Ho n e I beg pardon, it was an awkward expression, and
I assure Mr. Attorney-General, I meant it in no offensive sense.
Mr. Hone said he had already suffered much—he had been long
imprisoned—he was then liberated on his recognisances, and
he was led to imagine that the prosecution was dropped. It was
�60
FIRST TRIAL.
renewed after a long interval—he had passed nights of anxiety
and agony pending these prosecutions, and he was brought to
defend himself under all the disadvantages which a poor and
unfriended man could labour under. The public had been pre
judiced against him. The newspapers throughout the country
were filled with, false and ignorant charges against him j his
character was blasted. Yet, be the result of this trial what it
might, he was glad he had had an opportunity of defending
’himself, and he felt that he had done so to the satisfaction of every
honest man—and next to the consciousness of innocence, that
was what he valued most. He now stood clear with those, who,
if they had supposed him guilty of blasphemy, would have giinned
at him as a monster, and he should rest in peace as to the result.
He should bring witnesses to show that as soon as he had found
that the parodies were deemed offensive he had suppressed them;
and that one person, previously intimate with him, had renounced
his acquaintance, because he would not furnish him with copies.
This was long before they were prosecuted, and having done this
to satisfy the objections of respectable persons to publications
which he considered to be perfectly lawful, he would leave it to
the jury to say whether it was clear from the work itself, and
from his actions—having those great examples which he had
adduced—whether it was clear that his intention was not to
ridicule the Ministerial Members, but to produce impiety, and to
bring religion into contempt.
Mr. Hone, towards the end of his speech, was much affected.
In the course of it there were some tokens of applause in the
Court, but they were soon silenced by those who felt the impro
priety of such demonstrations. He was also interrupted by Mr.
Justice Abbott in some other instances not noticed, but the
substance of the learned judge’s objections to the course adopted
by Mr. Hone in his defence has been stated.
�FIRST TRIAL.
61
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENCE.
George Butler, of Castle Street, Southwark, deposed, that he
jailed at the defendant’s house about April last, with a view to
purchase, for sale again, some copies of “ Wilkes’s Political Cate
chism,” but that the shopman, as well as the defendant himself,
refused to let him have any; that this refusal served to interrupt
a friendship of twenty years’ standing which he had had with the
defendant; that his discontent at the refusal was aggravated by
the circumstance of his being able to purchase copies of the
Catechism elsewhere, after that refusal took place. To a question
from the judge, witness replied, that he could not say whether
the refusal he had mentioned took place before the present
prosecution was commenced.
Wm. M‘Donnell deposed, that he was the shopman of Mr.
Hone, and had immediately succeeded Benjamin Grimsen; that he
was never allowed to sell “Wilkes’s Catechism,” although several
persons applied to him for it j some of those applicants having
tendered half-a-crown and more for a copy of it, while one offered
a pound note. To a question from the judge, witness answered,
that he entered into the defendant’s service about the beginning of
April last.
Benjamin Grimsen deposed, that he was the defendant’s
shopman at the time the sale of the parodies was stopped by order
of defendant. Witness entered into defendant’s service at the
beginning of January last, at which time the sale of the parodies
was very considerable. They were, indeed, in the highest sale at
the time they were stopped. There was a great deal of application
for them both by private individuals and by booksellers, after the
sale was stopped. To questions from the judge, witness replied,
that the sale of “ Wilkes’s Catechism” continued for about five days,
and that he could not tell how many copies of it had been
disposed of.
Mr. Hitchins deposed, that he had applied in vain at the
defendant’s shop, about the beginning of March last, for copies of the
parodies, including “Wilkes’s Catechism”—that he did not know
�62
FIRST TRIAL.
anything about those parodies, until he heard of their having
been prosecuted, and then from curiosity he became anxious to
see them.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l then rose to reply—Had the defend„ ant called no witnesses after the speech he had made, it would
have been his (the Attorney-General’s) duty to have made a few
observations to the jury. Many parts of the address of the
defendant were wholly irrelevant and required no comment; but
there were others which, though scarcely more pertinent, demanded
some notice on the part of the Crown. The defendant had
expressed his personal obligations to him for what were termed
favours. He (the Attorney-General) had done no more than his
duty in this respect. The defendant transmitted to him certain
questions, framed in a style of great propriety, and the information
given in reply was such as every individual in the situation of the
defendant might fairly require. He (the Attorney-General) always
felt disposed to give assistance to defendants when it was con
sistent with the observation of the strict line of his duty; he felt
no animosity to persons he prosecuted ; and when they conducted
themselves towards him as Mr. Hone had done, he should always
be ready to afford them all reasonable facilities. Observations had
been made upon the supposed renewal of this prosecution after the
defendant had been permitted to go at large. It had not been
renewed; it had been continued in all the regular forms. In
striking juries the Master of the Crown Office had nothing to do
with making up the book from which he was to select the names;
that duty belonged to others ; and it had been found that a small
book previously used had not been composed in a proper manner.
Other lists were accordingly returned to the Crown Office. Under
such circumstances as the first, juries appointed for the trial of the
defendant had been nominated from the smaller book; it was
thought right on the part of the prosecution to abandon them, and
procure others to be selected. If there were any error, it was not
on the part of Mr. Hone; and although he had been arrested and
imprisoned, as the trial could not come on until the present term,
he (the Attorney-General) thought it right that he should be
�FIRST TRIAL.
63
discharged on his own recognisance, to appear on a future day.
That day had now arrived; and the jury were called upon to
decide, not on any new proceeding, but upon that originally com
menced and regularly continued; the delay had not arisen from
any intention to abandon the prosecution, but that the whole
might be conducted in a manner completely unexceptionable.
The defendant had stated that he had suppressed this libel soon
after its first appearance : it might be so, but that fact could have
no effect upon the verdict: the insertion of it in the affidavits on
a future occasion would no doubt have its due weight with the
Court, should the defendant appear to receive sentence ; the jury
had now only to decide whether the paper had been published,
and whether it was a libel. Of all men Mr. Hone seemed the
fittest object for prosecution : he was at least the original publisher,
if not the author : the title stated, that it was from an original
MS. of the late John Wilkes, never before given to the world;
and if Mr. Hone had not actually written it with his own hand,
he had been the means of its first and most extensive circulation ;
if not the author of the tract, he was the author of its publication;
the form and price at which it was given out, further pointed out
the defendant as the most proper object of a proceeding like the
present; he might have stopped the publication as far as concerned
himself, but how was it possible for him to prevent its wide
dissemination by others ? In the course of his defence he had
produced a great number of books and prints, some were of high
authority; but- all men must regret that names so eminent were
affixed to publications so unquestionably injurious; and it was
certainly the first time any attempt had been made by a person to
vindicate himself by showing that others had offended. Was it to
be endured that a man should thus vindicate his misconduct—that
he should be allowed to show that he had been guilty of no offence,
because he had, as it were, a prescription in crime ? He (the
Attorney-General) would assert most boldly, that all the parodies
upon the Holy Scriptures that had been read were in fact libels, and
in this class were included the productions of some of the most
venerable names ; men to whom mankind were indebted, not only
*■
.
�64
FIRST TRIAL.
for the precepts, but the examples of piety and virtue. If they
had profaned the sacred writings, as the defendant had asserted,
and by some of his quotations proved, they were so far libellers.
One of these was Martin Luther, a name as much known as
reverenced—a strenuous, able, and pious reformer, to whose exer
tions we were indebted for many important blessings j if he had
parodied a text of Scripture he was a libeller, and in his character,
as in that of many others of his times and temper, zealous advocates
and heated partisans were marks of intemperate haste which led to
the employment of expedients not in themselves to be vindicated :
they had fought a glorious battle, and achieved a brilliant victory;
but in doing so, their conduct had not been unexceptionable, which,
no doubt, in their latter lives they often repented, more especially
when the time arrived that they were to settle the account between
their consciences and their God.
[Violent coughing, and other marks of disapprobation, on the
part of the spectators, here interrupted the Attorney-General. Mr.
Justice Abbott declared his determination to order the Court to
be cleared if decorum were not observed.]
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l proceeded to observe, that in pub
lishing his work against Zuinglius, and in parodying the Holy
Scriptures, Luther had brought odium and contempt upon his
cause ; the same remark would apply to Dr. Boys, who, in employing
the Lord’s Prayer as he had done, had been guilty of a libel upon
that divine ejaculation. The authority of Lord Somers had also
been quoted—a dignified and a pious man ; but it not unfrequently
happened that individuals of most exemplary lives, at some period
or other, wrote what they afterwards most devoutly wished had
never proceeded from their pen: officious friends now and then
thrust into the world what the author intended for oblivion, but
what he had not had the caution to destroy after he had had the
imprudence to write. It might be so with Lord Somers; but
whether it were or were not, if he had parodied any part of Holy
Writ, he had so far injured his own reputation, and brought
ridicule upon the most sacred and valuable production. All
parodies upon portions of the Bible were not offensive in the eye
�FIRST TRIAL.
65
of the law : some might be intended to answer the most pious and
laudable purposes. They were not impious libels any more than
the Hymns of Dr. Watts were, stripped of their beauty or piety,
because they were adapted to profane tunes. The defendant had
alluded to some of these, but it was astonishing that he did not
perceive that they had no application to the question. The
translation of the Psalms sung on every Sabbath, might, in some
sense, be considered a parody; but who would say that it was
impious and profane, and calculated to excite irreligion? The
distinction was this :—A parody became a libel when its tendency
was to excite in the mind ludicrous ideas regarding the thing
parodied—when, as in this case, its object is to bring into contempt
and ridicule the Sacred Pooh, from which the offices of religion
were performed. Mr. Hone had asserted that, if the party had it
not in his contemplation to excite irreligion, it was not a profane
parody ; but was every man to be regardless of the effect of such
productions ?—was he to issue to the world his impious works,
and to excuse himself from guilt, after all religion and morality
had been destroyed, by stating that he had some other design ? If
that were allowed, what would soon become of that sacred fear, that
reverential awe, with which the inspired writings ought to be
perused 1 The pamphlet before the jury was so injurious in its ten
dency, and so disgusting in its form, that any man, on the first reading,
would start (he had almost said) with horror from it; it was like an
infecting pestilence, which every man shunned that valued his
safety. Mr. Hone had talked much about his family, and he (the
Attorney-General) had heard him with astonishment. He might
be a Christian j no doubt he was as he had professed• and all
men, of whatever persuasion, who worshipped God with purity of
heart, were entitled to admiration, to the love of their fellow
creatures j but if the defendant were really a Christian, if he were
a man who felt an affection for his family and for their future
welfare, for their religion and their morals, how was it possible for
him to publish this parody ? Could he seal hermetically the eyes
and ear& of his children, that the poison should not enter their
minds ; or if not, how could he hope for a moment that they would
�66
FIRST TRIAL.
not be infected with that impiety which such writings must
inevitably excite 1 Would children be able to resist that which
people of mature years and judgment could not avoid 2 If men,
when repeating the prayer dictated from the mouth of theii
Saviour, could not expel some tincture of the ludicrous raised by
this libel, could it be hoped that infants would escape ? Religious
awe was the best and strongest impulse to obedience; and what
obedience could be expected to the Commandments of God from
those who were taught to ridicule and contemn them 1 It had
been asserted by the defendant, that that only was libel which a
jury had pronounced to be so. True it was, that the law of
England had settled, that the jury should determine upon the
question of libel or not libel; but in the very same Act of the
Legislature was a clause which enabled, indeed called upon the
judge, to declare his opinion upon the subject; it was not to
depend merely upon caprice, or the hasty impression upon the
mind of any man. The question was, however, at last with the
jury ; and if some consistency were not observed, if some standard
were not laid down, no man could be able to decide before publi
cation what was or was not libellous. He entreated the jury to
take the libel into their hands, to consider it calmly and dispas
sionately; and, comparing it with what it was designed to
ridicule, to determine whether it were not a wicked, impious, and
profane libel; it required no comment, it spoke but too plainly for
itself. In thus calling upon the jury, he did not by any means
intend to infringe upon the fair and legitimate discussion of
doctrinal or mysterious points of religion, but he did intend to
call in their aid to suppress what (to borrow a word from the
prints exhibited by the defendant) might be fitly termed a
caricature of the holy offices of the church. The intention of the
party was to be gathered only from his acts ; and even though the
jury should be of opinion that the primary object of the defendant
was not to ridicule and bring into contempt any part of the
established forms of Divine worship, if that had been done inci
dentally, if it had been a secondary purpose and consequence, it
would still be their duty to find him guilty.
�FIRST TRIAL.
Mr. Justice Ab b o t t commenced his charge, by statin/Sor^?, c/'xJ
particularly the form of the information. The offence
was the publication of a libel, with design and intent to pronto
impiety and irreligion: the chief part of the defence had be<
occupied in an attempt to show that no such design or intent
existed; but if they were apparent on the face of the production,
if it were obvious on inspection that such was a necessary con
sequence, the law presumed that the party publishing had it in
contemplation at the time of publication. Provided the jury
were satisfied that the libel had the tendency charged, its form
and cheapness were calculated to accelerate its circulation, and
more widely to disseminate its baneful effects. The discon
tinuance spoken of by the defendant could not alter the fact of
publication • and though he might feel an early repentance, and
suppress the work a few days after its appearance, the crime was
already completed, and the verdict could not be altered, though
the sentence of the Court might be affected by any indication of
contrition. The proceeding by information was known to the
ancient law of the land; it derived its authority as far back as
the proceeding by indictment j and whether the one or the other
were pursued, could be a matter of no importance to the jury;
in the one and the other the Attorney-General would equally have
his right to reply, even though no evidence were called for the
defendant. It had been suggested that the Master of the Crown
Office ought not to have the nomination of special juries; that he
was to possess that power had been settled by an act of the reign
of George II. He was furnished by the sheriff with a book or
list, and from that he selected, as he was bound, the names of 48
persons, fit to serve- on special juries; each side had a right to
strike out 12, and the remaining 24 jurors were returned for the
trial of the question. In ordinary cases the sheriff, an officer'also
named by the Crown, had the duty of returning juries, and the
proceedings in the Crown Office was as nearly as possible analogous.
His lordship made these observations in consequence of what had
fallen from one of the jury regarding what had appeared in the pub
lic prints j what the nature of those productions were, he did not
�68
FIRST TRIAL.
know; but his lordship was well assured of this—that one of the
greatest evils known in the present day was, that matters to be
brought under the view of a jury were previously made the subjects
of discussion in the newspapers, so as to produce unfair impressions
on the one side or on the other, and to interfere with the impartial
discharge of a most important duty. At the same time, his lord
ship was persuaded that none of the gentlemen he now addressed
had entered the box with any improper bias or predisposition: if
the defendant, as he stated, had been vilified and defamed, it was
the duty of the jury not to allow what they had heard out of Court
to have the slightest influence upon them: the verdict was to
depend upon a conscientious conviction as to the nature and
tendency of the libel. The Attorney-General had said, and truly,
that the Christian religion was part of the law of the land, and
any offence against it was therefore an offence against the law;
the defendant maintained that the application of the libel was
purely political, although a religious form had been adopted; but
admitting the fact, it did not follow that the tendency of it was.
not to promote profaneness and irreligion. As an authority
against it, and a higher could not be stated, his lordship should
quote one of the very commandments parodied. “ Thou shalt not
take the name of .the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not
hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” Did not this
libel take the name of the Almighty in vain? Did it not, allowing
it to be political in some degree, apply the sacred appellation of
the Creator to light and trivial matters? Was it not an appli
cation of the offices of religion and public worship to matters
comparatively insignificant? His lordship then proceeded to
read and comment upon the early part of the libel, observing, when
he arrived at the parody of the Lord’s Prayer, that it was un
necessary further to shock the ears of the jury j the publication
would be handed to them, and they might judge for themselves.
It was contended that this was not an offence, because parodies
existed on different parts of the sacred writings, and the service
of the church; that Luther, Dr. Boys, and others, had written
them : if they had, it was a matter of deep regret: their zeal and
�FIRST TRIAL.
69
warmth might have misled their judgment, and induce them to
utter or publish what, in calmer moments, they would have
repented and condemned. The employment of the style of Scrip
ture narrative was in itself a high offence, but not if a complexion
so serious as that with which the defendant was charged: even
the parody of Psalms made by Milton, could not be approved
more than that which the defendant had read, and which, in truth,
seemed to be a parody of Milton. None of these instances could,
however, furnish the slightest excuse to the defendant. Caricature
prints had indeed no relation to the question before the Court:
but in as far as they tended to bring religion and its duties into
contempt or ridicule, so far as they were offences. The question
here was not, what had been done in former times, but what the
defendant had done in the present: it was no question whether
he were or were not in himself a religiously disposed man; it was
to be hoped that he was so; but it could neither increase nor
diminish the measure of his criminality. Although it was the
business of the jury to determine the questions of libel or no
libel, it was expected of the judge that he should deliver * his
opinion upon the nature of the publication : the verdict was, how
ever, to be the verdict of the jury according to their consciences,
and the opinion of the judge was to assist and not to direct them.
His lordship was fully convinced that the production was highly
scandalous and irreligious, and therefore libellous; but if the jury
were of a different sentiment, their verdict would of course be an
acquittal. It, however, seemed to admit of no doubt or difficulty j
the design and effect were plain upon the face of the libel; and
to young and unexperienced minds the consequences of a perusal
might be most injurious. What but a feeling of impiety, if not
of ridicule, could exist on the mind of a child during divine ser
vice, if on the Saturday night or Sunday morning this publication
had fallen in its way ? His lordship then handed the publication
to the jury, desiring them to read it attentively, and to make up
their minds upon its object and effect.
Mr. Ho n e requested that the jury should be furnished, before
they retired, with a copy of the information.
�70
FIRST TRIAL.
His lordship accordingly handed to the jury an official copy
of the information, and a Prayer-book.
The jury then withdrew, and returned to the box in less than
a quarter of an hour. Their names were called over, and Mr.
Law, in the usual manner, inquired whom they had appointed to
speak for them as foreman ?
It being signified that Mr. Bowring had been directed by his
fellows to deliver the verdict, Mr. Law asked him whether the
jury found the defendant, William Hone, guilty or not guilty.
Mr. Bo w r in g replied in a firm voice,—NOT GUILTY.
The loudest acclamations were instantly heard in all parts of
the Court; Long live the honest jury, and an honest jury for ever,
were exclaimed by many voices : the waving of hats, handker
chiefs, and applauses continued for several minutes. When
order had been somewhat restored, Mr. Justice Ab b o t t interposed,
and desired that those who felt inclined to rejoice at the decision,
would reserve the expressions of their satisfaction for a fitter place
and opportunity. The people accordingly left the Court, and as
they proceeded along the streets, the language of joy was most
loudly and unequivocally expressed; every one with whom they
met, and to whom they communicated the event, being forward to
swell the peal.
The trial of the Information against Mr. Hone, for a parody
on the Litany, was ordered by the Court to come on the next
morning at half-past nine o’clock.
�SECOND TRIAL.
THE KING
a g a in s t
WILLIAM HONE,
ON AN EX-OFFICIO INFORMATION FOR PUBLISHING A PARODY
ENTITLED
“THE POLITICAL LITANY.”
Tr ie d in Gu il d h a l l , Lo n d o n , o n Fr id a y , De c e m b e r 19, 1817, a t t h e
Lo n d o n Sit t in g s a l t e r Mic h a e l ma s Te r m .
BEFORE LORD ELLENBOROUGH AND A SPECIAL JURY.
It having been announced by the Attorney-General, at the close
of the first day’s proceedings, that he intended to persevere in the
trial of the second information against Mr. Hone, the curiosity of
the public became so intense this morning, as well on account of
the importance of the case, as of the triumphant defence of Mr.
Hone the former day, that at a very early hour all the avenues of
the Court were literally blocked up by a multitude of spectators,
anxious to become auditors of the proceedings ; and when the
doors of the Court were opened not one-twentieth part of the
multitude could find standing accommodation.
It was generally supposed, as indeed might naturally have been
expected, that Mr. Hone having been acquitted on one of the
informations, the Attorney-General would not proceed against him
on any of the others. It appeared, however, that this was a sup
position unfounded in fact ; and at a quarter after nine Mr. Hone
entered the Court, followed by several large bundles of books,
regularly tied up. He took his station at the end of the court
�72
SECOND TRIAL.
table, and having untied them, he ranged them before him, cover
ing nearly a fourth of the table.
At twenty minutes before ten Lord Ellenborough entered the
Court, and took his seat on the bench. His lordship’s appearance
was unexpected, Mr. Justice Abbott having presided on Mr.
Hone’s trial the day before. The Attorney-General, and other
Counsel for the prosecution, next entered, and took their places.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Are the Sheriffs in Court ?
The Un d e r Sh e r if f —They are not, my Lord.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Then let them be immediately sent for.
The Sheriffs were then sent for.
The Hon. Mr. La w , Clerk at Nisi Prius, then called on the
case of the Kin g v . Wil l ia m Ho n e , and desired the gentlemen on
the Special Jury pannel to answer to their names. Six of these
gentlemen only appeared; when the officers of the Crown were
asked if they would pray a tales ?
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l remained for some minutes in doubt;
and, after consulting with the other Counsel for the Crown, nodded
assent to the question; and, accordingly, six common Jurymen
were put into the box. Jo h n Au s t e n , shoemaker, of Aidgate,
answered to his name, and was challenged by the Crown. The
Jury, which was composed of twelve of the most respectable and
independent men in the city of London, were then sworn.
THE
Ric h a r d Wil s o n , Great Eastcheap.
Jo h n Lin d s a y , Lawrence-Pountney
Lane.
Ric h a r d Th o r n t o n , Old Swan Pas
sage.
Wil l ia m Gil l m a n , 54, Bread Street.
Jo h n Ma c k ie , 12, Watling Street.
Ne il Bl a c k , 11, Bread Street.
Talesmen.
Ja me s Jo n e s .
Ja me s Sm it h .
Jo s h u a Th o r n e .
Ja m e s Do n a l d s o n .
Wil l ia m Ha l e ,
Wil l ia m Gr e e n .
Mr. Sh e ph e r d opened the pleadings, and stated, that this was
an information filed by his Majesty’s Attorney-General against
William Hone, for printing and publishing a certain impious and
profane libel upon a part of the Church Service in the Common
�SECOND TRIAL.
73
Prayer Book, called “ The, Litany, or General Supplication.”
There was a second count, charging the said publication to be a
wicked and seditious libel of and concerning the Prince Regent,
and the Houses of Lords and Commons. To this information the
defendant had pleaded Hot Guilty.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l then addressed the Jury—The ques
tion they were assembled to try was one of the utmost importance
to the constitution of society. The information charged the offence
committed by the defendant in two ways :—In the first count it
was alleged to be a profane and impious libel, and in the second a
seditious libel. He should call the attention of the jury particu
larly to the first. The libel was a parody upon that part of the
Divine Service, established by law, called “ The Litany, or General
Supplication.” After the authority of Sir Matthew Hale, and of
other great lawyers, no man could dispute that Christianity was
part or parcel of the law of the land : it had been held to be so in
all times, and all the rights we enjoyed more or less depended upon
that principle; the very oaths which the Jury had so solemnly
taken were founded upon it. In all Christian countries it was
necessary that some form of public worship to the Creator should
exist: in England it had been established by statute in the reign
of Charles II.; and if any man in writing should revile, scoff at,
or ridicule it, by the law of the land he was guilty of a libel: no
man could venture to contradict that position. The information
charged that the defendant, devising and intending to excite impiety
and irreligion, and to scandalise and defame, and bring into con
tempt, in the minds of the King’s subjects, that part of the public
and Divine Service, called “ The Litany, or General Supplication”
and to apply the style and form of expression there used to scan
dalous purposes, published the libel in question. It was not neces
sary to remind the jury that the Litany was a most solemn prayer
to the Almighty, to the Redeemer of the World, and to the Holy
Ghost, and had justly been considered the most sublime part of the
public service of the Church; and it was impossible to make the
most distant approach to its style and form in a parody, without
exciting in the most pious mind ideas that would never have other
�74
SECOND TRIAL.
wise entered it; and the taint of profaneness and ridicule, even of
the most sacred subjects, was rapidly disseminated. The Litany,
after the supplication to God, the Redeemer, the Holy Ghost, and
the Trinity, went on to pray deliverance in the hour of death and
in the day of judgment. It was succeeded by a most devout and
impressive reiteration : “ Son of God, we beseech thee to hear us !
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have
mercy upon us !” He would not proceed; it seemed too solemn
even for the solemnity of a court of justice; yet (would the jury
believe it?) the defendant had turned it to ridicule, by making an
impious parody of it. It began, “ O Prince, Ruler of the people,
have mercy upon us, miserable subjects. O House of Lords, here
ditary Legislators, have mercy upon us, pension-paying subjects.
O House of Commons, proceeding from corrupt borough-mongers,
have mercy upon us, miserable subjects.” It was too disgusting
to read the whole, but he would turn to that part which was sub
stituted for the devout reiteration at the end of the Litany of the
Church; instead of “ Son of God, we beseech thee to hear us,”
&c., the defendant had said, “Son of George, we beseech thee to
hear us. 0 House of Lords, that takest away so many thousands
of pounds in pensions, have mercy upon us.
[These parts of the parody produced an involuntary burst of
laughter from the auditory, which evidently proceeded, not from
a wish to disturb the Court, but was really the irresistible impulse
arising from the matter of the parody.]
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Where are the Sheriffs?
I desired
their attendance, and they shall attend.
The Un d e r -Sh e r if f —My lord, I have sent for them;. but
they live a great distance from this and they have not yet arrived.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Very well.
Mr. Ho n e joined the Court in reprehending in strong terms
this interruption of the order of the proceedings.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l resumed as followsWill any one
now say that the dangerous, the impious and profane publication
before you, has not been the means of raising scoffing among the
scoffers ? I will ask, if there can possibly be a stronger proof of
�SECOND TRIAL.
75
its dangerous effects ?—If the social bonds of society are to be
burst asunder by the indecent conduct of a rabble, the Court may
as well discontinue its proceedings. But, gentlemen, if any man
supposes that an interruption of this description can have the
effect of intimidating me, or of making me swerve for a moment
in the execution of my duty—my sacred duty to the public and to
the cause of God, he is perfectly mistaken. That shall never be
the case with me, while I stand in an English court of justice,
whether as the law officer of the Crown, or as a private advocate;
and while God gives me strength and understanding to perform
that duty, I will never be deterred by anything of this descrip
tion which can possibly pass. Gentlemen, in calling your
attention to the parody upon this most sacred prayer, I shall have
little occasion to guide you in your verdict. You will, I doubt
not, read every word of it before you give in that verdict, and
you will compare it with the sacred book (the Prayer-Book)
which I now hold in my hand, and which is an exact duplicate of
the legal Book of the Common Prayer which will be produced to
you in evidence. If there be any among you, which is doubtless
the case, who is the father of children, and the master of a
household, I will ask him, if he would suffer that publication to
be perused by his servants, who are not so well educated as him
self? or if he would suffer his children for one moment to read it?
I will ask him, if he does not believe that it would have the
effect I have described ? What man is there, even though he is
not a Christian himself but as a father, must wish his child to be
a Christian? Gentlemen, the express purpose of the book is
clear, from its being circulated at a cheap rate, so as to be within
the reach of the common and ordinary people. This is the object
of the publication; and it is because this is the object that I
have thought it to be my duty to bring it before you. There may
be many writings which sensible men may read in their closets;
some of them may be highly improper for general circulation,
although some may be properly open to a free discussion : but the
subject of the present question is not to be looked at in this point
of view, for the mode of publication plainly shows what the real
�76
SECOND TRIAL.
object is, and fully proves that it was intended that it should find
its way among the ignorant and uninformed, where it was
calculated to have a gross effect. It may be, that the defendant
will produce, as heretofore, books which have been at different
times published, and which, if they had not now been taken down
from their shelves, would have been forgotten; they were written
at different periods of time, and principally if not entirely, when
the person so writing were engaged in all the vehemence and
rancour of political disputes. But it never can be offered as a
justification or excuse by an individual offending at the present
period, that he had followed a bad example. If that observation
could be made as an answer to offences, it might be pleaded as an
excuse in other cases, of a nature wholly different from the case
which you are at this time trying. The law, gentlemen, is called
upon, most imperiously called upon, to put a stop to proceedings
like those of the defendant, or the time will come, when a stop will
be put to all that remains of the Christian establishment of the
Church of England—of everything entitled to reverence. Whatever
may be the opinion of others, I feel that I should not discharge my
duty to the public—that I should not do my duty to society, as a
member of it, gentlemen of the jury, if I had not brought this
case of libel before you. I am ready to agree, gentlemen, that,
constitutionally, you are not called upon to find a verdict upon
the simple fact of the printing and publishing; but, whatever
be the intention of a publication attended with a mischievous
tendency, it is no less a libel. This, however, you know, that
in a case of libel, as well as in all other cases, it is the duty of a
jury to give in their verdict according to the law, and according
to evidence. It was never the meaning of the statute, that the
verdict of a jury should be founded in caprice ; it is to be given
upon evidence, and that is held to be the law of the land. No man
among you can now say that he is mistaken ; and it is to prevent
such a mistake that I have made any observations of this sort: for
he who does not apply his mind to find a verdict upon the evidence,
according to the law of the land, is guilty of a misapprehension of
' duty. It is not necessary for me at the outset to make any further
�SECOND TRIAL.
77
remarks upon this point j I will not therefore proceed. You will
hear from my lord, if I am mistaken in any principle which I have
laid down . if I am wrong, I shall be most happy and most desirous
to receive correction in what you will hear stated by the noble
and learned judge as to the law j it will be your province to apply
your minds to the facts of the case, as to the nature of the paper,
and to judge of it according to the law which you will hear laid
down. Gentlemen, if such things as this are permitted, no parody,
in any terms or in any shape, upon any part of the public worship
of the Church of England, or of any part of the Scripture, will be
punishable, nor will there be any attack upon Christianity which
may not be published with impunity. It is not enough for a man
to say, that he did it for another purpose : that cannot be a point
for consideration, when the effect of what he has so published is
to scoff at the public service of the Church of England. The ques
tion is, Did this parody produce this certain effect ? If it is
answered in the affirmative, by the law of England it is a libel,
though at that moment the defendant did not consider what the
ultimate effect might be. If a man publish anything that' is
obscene and immoral, and say that his object was to ridiculè, and
that he did not mean to be obscene—that he only meant to
ridicule such and such a person ; if he did not mean it to be obscene,
what does it signify if it is so '? He is guilty of producing an effect
which is reprehensible. Having stated the case to you, gentlemen,
I shall now proceed to prove it j and if there is anything like
religious principles in your minds—if you are in the practice of
looking with veneration upon the service of the Church, you cannot
look over this [holding up the publication] without saying that it
is a profane and impious parody—that it is calculated to, and
actually does bring into contempt, and that it does ridicule, that
part of it called the Litany.
The alleged libel was then put in by the At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l ,
and read by the Clerk of the Court.
Th è POLITICAL LITANY ; diligently revised ; to be said or sung,
until the appointed Change come, throughout the Dominion of
En g l a n d and Wa l e s , and the Town of Be r w ic k -u po n -Tw e e d ._
�78
SECOND TRIAL.
By Special Command.—London : Printed for one of the Candidates
for the Office of Printer to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, and
sold by Wil l ia m Ho n e , 55, Eleet Street, and 67, Old Bailey, three
doors from Ludgate Hill. 1817. Price Twopence.
THE LITANY.
Here followeth the Litany, or General Supplication, to be said or sung
at all times when thereunto especially moved.
0 Pr in c e , ruler of the people, have mercy upon us, thy miserable
subjects.
0 Prince, ruler, <&c.
O House of Lords, hereditary legislators, have mercy upon us, pen
sion-paying subjects.
0 House of Lords, &c.
O House of Commons, proceeding from corrupt borough-mongers,
have mercy upon us, your should-be constituents.
0 House of Commons, <&c.
O gracious, noble, right honourable, and learned rulers of our land,
three estates in one state, have mercy upon us, a poverty-stricken
Pe0P
q
gracious, noble, <&c.
Remember not, most gracious, most noble, right honourable, and
honourable gentlemen, our past riches, nor the riches of our forefathers ;
neither continue to tax us according to our long-lost ability spare us,
good rulers ; spare the people who have supported ye with their labour,
and spilt their most precious blood in your quarrels; 0 consume us not
utterly.
Spare us, good Prince.
From an unnational debt; from unmerited pensions and sinecure
places ; from an extravagant civil list ; and from utter starvation,
Good Prince, deliver us.
From the blind imbecility of ministers ; from the pride and vain
glory of warlike establishments in time of peace,
Good Prince, deliver us.
From all the deadly sins attendant on a corrupt method of election ;
from all the deceits of the pensioned hirelings of the press,
Good Prince, deliver us.
�SECOND TRIAL.
'O,
From taxes levied by distress ; from jails crowded with debtors
from poor-houses overflowing with paupers,
*°
Good Prince, deliver us.
From a Parliament chosen only by one-tenth of the tax-payers;
from taxes raised to pay wholesale human butchers their subsidies ;
from the false doctrines, heresy, and schism, which have obscured our
once-glonous constitution ; from conspiracies against the liberty of the
people ; and from obstacles thrown in the way of the exertion of our
natural and constitutional rights,
Good Prince, deliver us.
By your feelings as men ; by your interests as members of civil
society ; by your duty as Christians,
0 Rulers, deliver us.
By the deprivation of millions ; by the sighs of the widow ; by the
tears of the orphan; by the groans of the aged in distress ; by the
wants of all classes in the community, except your own and your
dependents,
0 Rulers, deliver us.
In this time of tribulation ; in this time of want of labour to thou
sands, and of unrequited labour to tens of thousands ; in this time of
sudden death from want of food,
0 Rulers, deliver us.
We people do beseech ye to hear us, O Rulers ; and that it may
please ye to rule and govern us constitutionally in the right way ;
IF<? beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to keep yourselves in all sobriety, temperance,
and honesty of life ; that ye spend not extravagantly the money raised
from the production of our labours, nor take for yourselves that which
ye need not ;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to keep your hearts in fear of oppression, and
in love of justice ; and that ye may evermore have affiance in our affec
tion, faither than in the bayonets of a hired soldiery ;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to be our defenders and keepers, giving us the
victory over all our enemies, and redressing the grievances under which
we labour ;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
�80
SECOND TRIAL.
That it may please ye to lessen the cares of the world unto all
Bishops and Church Dignitaries ; giving their superabundance to the
poor clergy, and no longer taxing us for their support;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to place within the bounds of economy the
expenditure of all the Royal Family ;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to deprive the Lords of the Council, and all
the nobility, of all money paid out of the taxes which they have not
’
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to direct all Magistrates to give up their
advanced salaries, which the times no longer render necessary, and to
content themselves with their former stipends;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to bless all the people with equal representa
tion, and to keep them safe from borough-mongering factions ;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye so to govern us, that unity, peace, and con
cord, may prevail throughout the nation, and the voice of tumult and
dissatisfaction be no more heard in our streets ;
We beseech ye to hear us, O Rulers.
That it may please ye to give unto all people all their rights as
citizens, whatever may be the mode in which their consciences may
impel them to worship their Creator, and whatever the creed to which
their judgments assent ;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to bring into the way of truth those apostates
who have erred therefrom, and have deceived us ;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to strengthen all such as do stand up for the
legal and constitutional rights of the people ; to comfort and help the
weak-hearted, who want courage in our behalf ; to raise up such as do
fall; and, finally to beat down corruption under our feet;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye not to tax “ until the brow of labour sweats
�SECOND TRIAL.
81
in vambut to succour and comfort all that are in necessity and
tribulation ;
We beseech, ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to show pity to all who are prisoners and cap
tives for the people’s sake, or through the oppressive expenses of the laws ;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to appropriate the £200,000 annually paid to
Members of Parliament, contrary to an ancient law, as a provision for
fatherless children and widows, and all that are desolate and oppressed ;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to have mercy upon us all ;
JTe beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to turn the hearts of our enemies, persecutors,
and slanderers, by withdrawing their pensions and emoluments, that
they may no longer call us a “rabble,” the “swinish multitude,” or
“ragamuffins,” but may once more style us “the real strength of the
nation,”—“the body, without which a head is useless
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to give and preserve to our use the kindly
fruits of the earth, untaxed by men in black, whom those who wish for
their instruction ought alone to support;
We beseech ye to hear us, O Rulers.
That it may please ye to abolish and destroy all sinecure places, .and
worthless pensions; to utterly purge and root out all wrong-doers; to
thoroughly correct the present misrepresentation of the people, by an
effectual Reform in Parliament; and otherwise to do, or cause to be
done, such further and other acts and deeds, as shall or may conduce to
the true interest and benefit of the whole commonwealth ;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to lead and streng'hen GEORGE, Prince of
Wales, our present REGENT, in the true fear and knowledge of the
principles whereon the people of this commonwealth placed their crown
on the head of his ancestors, and continue it towards him ; and that it
may please ye, as much as in ye lie, to keep and defend him from
battle and murder, and sudden death, and from fornication, and all
other deadly sin;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
G
�82
SECOND TRIAL.
That it may please ye to put on short allowance, all Bishops, Priests,
and Deacons, that their fleshly appetites being reduced, their spiritualmindedness may be thereby increased, and so that both by their
preaching and living they may set it forth, and show it accordingly ;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
That it may please ye to take to yourselves true repentance, inas
much as ye have erred from the way of your forefathers ; and amend
your method of governing according to our free constitution;
We beseech ye to hear us, 0 Rulers.
Son of George, we beseech thee to hear us.
Son of George, we beseech thee, <&c.
O House of Lords, that takest away so many tens of thousands of
pounds in pensions,
Have mercy upon us.
O House of Commons, that votest away the money of the whole
nation, instead of that of those only who elect you ;
Have mercy upon us.
O Prince, hear us.
0 Prince, hear us.
George, have mercy upon us.
George, have mercy upon us.
O House of Lords, have mercy upon us.
0 House of Lords, have mercy upon us.
O House of Commons, have mercy upon us.
0 House of Commons, have mercy upon us.
[Here endeth the Litany.]
THE COLLECT TO BE USED BY HIS MAJESTY’S MINISTERS
Beginneth thus :
Lig h t e n our darkness, we beseech thee, &c.
IT By whom the following may be used in ordinary.
Th e Grace of our Lord GEORGE the Pr in c e Re g e n t , and the
Love of Lo u is the XVIII. and the fellowship of the Pope, be with us
all evermore.—Amen.
�SECOND TRIAL.
83
Mr. To ppin g rose to call witnesses to prove the fact of the
alleged libel being published and sold by the defendant.
Mr. Ho n e interrupted the learned counsel, by saying that it
was not his wish to take up the time of the Court by anything
unnecessary; he would admit the fact of the publication.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l (producing the Common Prayer Book
under seal)—Do you admit that this is the Common Prayer
Book ?
Mr. Ho n e I admit that this is the Common Prayer.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Yo u admit that it is the Common
Prayer of the Church of England?
Mr. Ho n e —Certainly, my lord.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h accordingly recorded Mr. Hone’s admis
sion, that he was the printer and publisher of the parody in
question, at No. 55, Eleet Street, in the parish of St. Dunstan’s
in the West.
Mr. Ho n e —I trust your lordship will excuse the interruption ;
but with respect to the disturbance which has occurred in the
Court, I beg to observe, that I consider that man to be my enemy
who in any way-----Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —There is not anything of that kind
before the Court at present; the time for making your observa
tions is not arrived.
Mr. Ho n e —I was only desirous, my lord, to add my feeble
assistance in keeping order in the Court.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —A very proper disposition.
Here Mr. Sheriff Desanges entered the Court, and Lord
El l e n b o r o u g h addressed him thus
“ I have sent for you and
your colleague, sir, as there is an absolute necessity for your pre
sence. There was a most unseemly disturbance in the Court
yesterday, I understand, and there has been another to-day. You
are the persons who are responsible, and shall be responsible;
and therefore you will be good enough to use your utmost activity
in apprehending any persons who dare to interrupt the course of
the proceedings.”
Here Mr. Sheriff De s a n g e s assured the Court, that no endea
�84
SECOND TRIAL.
vour should be wanting on his part to put a stop to conduct so
disgraceful and so indecent.
‘ Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —You will understand me; my only
motive in admonishing you as to your duty is, that you may
attend to it.
The case for the Crown being closed,
Mr. Ho n e rose—Before he remarked on the opening speech of
Mr. Attorney-General, he would address himself to the persons
present; and he must say, he knew of no species of indecency—
he knew of no breach of propriety, that more deserved severe
reprehension and reprobation, than an act which tended to impede
the proceedings of a Court of Justice. Taking his trial there, on
a charge which perhaps might consign him to a prison, he felt
most solicitous that good order and tranquillity should prevail.
Perhaps those indiscreet expressions of feeling might increase his
danger—they certainly could not serve any good purpose. The
persons who had so loudly expressed themselves ought not, what
ever they might think or feel, to have given loose to their feelings
in that place. He begged to state, that he was opposed to every
such expression in that Court; and he declared that man to be his
decided enemy—he cared not where he came from, or who he was—
who should attempt to interrupt such solemn proceedings. He
did not expect ter be so much embarrassed to-day as he was yester
day, but, he confessed, his embarrassment was not abated. This
was not surprising, since yesterday was almost the first time that
he ever in his life addressed half-a-dozen sentences to ten persons
assembled together. The first time he had ever made such an
attempt was when he applied to his lordship and the other judges
on the subject of the informations filed against him ; and when he
stood on the floor of the Court, he doubted, so novel was his
situation, whether he should be able to utter a single word in
objection to the course adopted against him. He was now, from
the urgency of the case, thrown into the gap, and he was obliged
to fight out as well as he could. The Attorney-General said the
alleged libel (for he denied that it was one, and if it were, he would
�SECOND TRIAL.
85
not be standing there to defend it) was printed at a cheap rate, in
order to be disseminated amongst the common people. The fact
was, that the price .of the publication was fully commensurate
with its size. Where publications were likely to have an exten
sive circulation, they were sold by the booksellers at fourpence per
sheet. The publication for which he was now prosecuted con
sisted of half-a-sheet, and it was sold for twopence, which was the
legular price. He would not say that it did not get into the hands
of the ignorant and uninformed, for he knew it necessarily must,
since a great proportion of the people, even in this enlightened
country, were ignorant: but he knew this also, that great numbers
of those parodies were sold to persons of a very different descrip
tion. They were sold to persons of high standing in that Court__
to Magistrates of the City of London—to Members of Parliament,
and even to his Majesty’s Ministers. This publication had a
particular object, which every man, who read it with an unprejudiced
mind, must at once perceive. That object was a political one ; no
intention existed to bring religion into contempt. Of course, it
did not well become him to praise his own publication ; but thus
much he felt called upon to assert, that the style of it was not the
worst he had ever seen, nor did it seem best calculated to make an
impression upon the merely vulgar and unlettered. Many men
of talent and information were satisfied that the purpose with which
it had been published was innocent; and he was persuaded, that
every man capable of judging, and who read it without prejudice,
would arrive at the same conclusion. The Attorney-General had
regretted that certain parodies had been taken from the shelves on
which they were placed, and where they might have rotted and
been forgotten, had they not been produced in Court on yesterday’s
trial. He meant nothing disrespectful to the learned AttorneyGeneral in venturing to differ from him on the present occasion;
but he must deny the learned gentleman’s position, that these
paiodies were brought forward for any improper or irreverent pur
pose. The production of these books was essentially necessary to
his defence before a jury of his country, who were impannelled to
try this important issue between the crown and himself, the
�86
SECOND TRIAL.
defendant. Without these works it was impossible for the jury
to come to a sound decision upon the allegations of the informa
tion—to which he should afterwards allude more at length than
the Attorney-General had thought it necessary to do. Many of
the works before him had been placed upon the shelf only within
the last ten years ; and certainly he should feel it to be his duty
to bring those, at least, under the notice of the jury. Amongst
them was a well-known publication, called “The Book of Chronicles
of Westminster,” containing Scriptural parodies, applicable to the
Westminster Election.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I think it necessary thus early to apprise
you, that if you wish to show that as a sample of publications of
the like tendency which have been written, or for the purpose of
proving that the sacred Scriptures have been ridiculed and brought
into contempt by other subjects of the realm as well as yourself, I
shall not receive it. The commission of crimes, by how many
soever persons they may have been committed, does not qualify
the guilt of the individual committer. It is my decided purpose
not to receive this in evidence ; and therefore you may use your
discretion, whether you shall dwell further upon a matter of
evidence which I declare, judicially, to be inadmissible.
Mr. Ho n e —I would ask your lordship, if you really mean to
send me to prison without a fair trial i If your lordship does not
mean to do that, you will let me make my defence to the jury.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —You may state what you know to be
of service to you in your defence upon this particular issue. You
may state what you please ; but I tell you, that that shall not be
given in evidence which falls within the description of evidence I
have mentioned.
Mr. Ho n e (after a pause)—I really do not understand your
lordship ; I state it seriously, that I am not aware of the exact
meaning of your lordship’s intimation.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I think what I have stated is intelligible
enough to every other person in Court.
Mr. Ho n e —It certainly is not intelligible to my humble
apprehension.
�SECOND TRIAL.
87
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I can’t help it.
Mr. Ho n e —I really don’t clearly understand what your lord
ship means by the word evidence.
I am ignorant of the technical
rules of evidence, and therefore I apply to your lordship for a more
explicit statement of your meaning. There are certain allegations
in this information, which it is necessary for me to explain away,
by showing that they can have no possible reference to the sup
posed Hbel. This I propose to do by calling the attention of the
jury to passages in other publications, to show that this parody
has no application whatever to religious matters. I don’t know,
as a man of plain understanding, what may and what may not be
given in evidence. But my intention is to read to the jury certain
other publications that I consider absolutely essential to my
defence, and so essential to my defence that I cannot defend myself
unless I do read portions of these publications. I state this with
all due deference to your lordship.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —You may go on, and exercise your own
discretion. I tell you what rule I shall adopt in my direction to
the jury. I don’t wish to interrupt you; but I thought it my
duty to inform you of the course I meant to adopt. You may
exercise your discretion, how far you will conform to that rule
or not.
Mr. Ho n e —If your lordship had condescended to explain to
me your meaning, by saying that these works are not admissible
in evidence at all, I should know at once what I am to expect.
If your lordship says, that I am not to read these publications to
the jury—if that is your lordship’s decision against me, then I have
no defence to this information, and I am ready to go with your
lordship s tipstaff wherever your lordship may think proper to
send me.
Mr. Hone paused for a few moments as if waiting for an
answer, and then continued his address to the jury :_
He insisted, that many of the books from which he had read
extracts were modern : it could not surely have escaped the recol
lection of the Attorney-General, that the first authority to which
he had referred yesterday was “Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine,”
�88
SECOND TRIAL.
published in October last, long subsequent to the date of the alleged
libel; yet that contained a parody upon a large portion of the
Scriptures, against which no complaint had been ever made. He
(the defendant) did not require the Attorney-General to prosecute
Mr. Blackwood, a most respectable bookseller; he should be a
scoundrel if he did ; he only brought it forward as in point, for
the writer, bookseller, and printer, must all have been well aware
of its nature. Mr. Blackwood’s politics were totally different
from his (the defendant’s) ; but whatever others might do, he
would be the last to suggest a prosecution on account of an
honest dissent upon such points. Mr. Hone then read to the
jury the extract from the “ Edinburgh Magazine” he produced
yesterday.
The Attorney-General had said that the jury were impannelled
to try the intention of the party publishing the parody : that was
a fair statement of the question; the intention constituted the
offence, or established the innocence of the accused. If the jury
found that the parody was put forth with a criminal purpose, they
would return a verdict of guilty ; if, on the other hand, they
thought that no such design existed, they would be bound to give
him an acquittal. In the year 1771 Mr. Burke clearly explained
the principle of a bill which he assisted in bringing into the House
of Commons (commonly called Mr. Dowdeswell’s Bill), “ to explain
and declare the office and duties of jurymen in cases of libel.” It
had long been held by many eminent judges, that, in such cases,
the jury had only to find the fact of publication, leaving it to the
Court to decide on the question of libel or not libel. As the law
then stood, the intervention of a jury was unnecessary for the
Court might as well procure, by a simple affidavit, the fact of the
alleged publication of libel, and then a summary proceeding could
be adopted. The old system did, in fact, do away the power of a
jury, by denying their right to decide on the question of libel or
not libel. Mr. Burke’s great mind was alive to the folly and
injustice of this system, and he assisted Mr. Dowdeswell in bringing
in his bill; which did not then pass; but in 1790 or 1791 Mr.
Fox introduced a bill, nearly, similar, “to enlarge and define the
�SECOND TRIAL.
89
power of juries in cases of libel.” The authority formerly ~rc~tiM • ~
in the judge to declare what was libel, was, as Mr. Justice
stone observed, greatly controverted j and Mr. Professor Chris^p.?ft{
& °<c
*' o,
in one of his notes on Blackstone, stated, that, in consequencXo&^t *** ’
%N
the opposition manifested against the exercise of this authority®^
<O
the 32nd of George III., c. 6, was enacted, by which the jury were
empowered to return a verdict on the whole matter at issue, and
not on the fact alone of publishing that which was alleged to be a
libel. The jury were now to decide on all the allegations contained
in this information. If they were of opinion that he intended to
excite impiety and irréligion in the minds of his Majesty’s subjects,
they would find him guilty, and his lordship would, at some future
day, pass sentence on him ; but if no such intention appeared__
and his lordship would correct him if he were wrong__then they
would return a verdict in his favour.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —As you call upon me to give my
opinion, I say, that if the publication has a tendency to produce
that effect upon the minds of persons who read it, it is in law and
in fact a libel. I should not have interrupted you, but you called
for my direction.
Mr. Ho n e —Then all I can say, gentlemen, is, that that is his
lordship’s opinion.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —It is not merely my opinion; it is the
opinion of all lawyers in all ages : publishers must be answerable
for the tendency of works they put forth, and they are not to put
perverse constructions on their own acts, and thus excuse them
selves. If the paper have a tendency to inflame, the law says,
the party had an intention to inflame; if to corrupt, that he
meant to corrupt. This is no new doctrine; no judge ever held
differently.
Mr. Ho n e —Of course, gentlemen, it is not for me to reply
upon his lordship; but I may observe upon what fell from the
Attorney-General: he said, that by Mr. Fox’s bill his lordship, if
he think fit, may give his opinion to the jury upon the question of
libel or not libel.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —The judge wanted no such power to be
<b
�90
SECOND TRIAL.
given him by Mr. Fox’s bill; it is incidental to his office; it is his
sworn duty, and was so before Mr. Fox’s bill, or before even Mr.
Fox himself existed.
Mr. Ho n e —If the Court had that power before, it should
seem that it was wholly unnecessary to introduce it into Mr. Fox’s
bill: it would be absurd in the legislature to pretend to communi
cate a power which was possessed without it. Recollect, too, that
that bill was drawn by a most enlightened and acute man, and it
was not adopted until it had been frequently and patiently
debated; and let me ask you, if it is likely that a large body of
intelligent men, many of them lawyers, would have suffered such
unmeaning surplusage to remain on the statute-book, if in truth
it had been unnecessary ? His lordship, however, has declared his
opinion; but let me say, said Mr. Hone in a triumphant tone of
voice, “ that, after all, it is but the opinion of one man, it is but
his lordship’s opinion.” Of course I speak this in no offensive
sense. (Loud huzzaing.)
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —So I understand; but it might be as
well if a little decency were preserved at the bottom of the Court.
If the officers take any person into custody who makes a dis
turbance, let him be brought up to me, and I will reward such
conduct.
Mr. Sheriff De s a n g e s —The first man I see laugh, after such a
severe notice, shall be brought up.
Mr. Ho n e —In the course of the charge, gentlemen, you will
no doubt listen with due attention to his lordship’s opinion upon
the intention ; but that, give me leave to say, is not to be final.
His lordship presides in this Court, but not to try me. You are
my judges ; you are to try me; and to you I willingly submit my
case; you are sworn to decide honestly the issue between me and
the Crown ; you are to determine upon my intention ; you are to
settle the difference between intention and tendency; the tendency
may be bad, but was the intention so ? that is the very gist of the
case_ the pinch of the argument. Many acts in themselves
criminal may be done with no criminal intention, a person may
fire a gun at another by accident, thinking it unloaded, and if the
�SECOND TRIAL.
91
person is unhappily killed, the individual firing the gun, having
no intention to kill, is not guilty.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —You had better, for your own sake, be
correct; it is felony—it is manslaughter, which is felony. I throw
this out, that you may attend a little to what may be really your
defence.
Mr. Ho n e said, he remembered that it had lately been made
felony.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —It was never made felony; there is no
Act of Parliament for it; but it is the common law of the land.
I will not interrupt you again: but I advise you, before you come
to talk of law, you should have thought a little about it. I do
not mean it uncivilly.
Mr. Ho n e —I thank your lordship. I must be well aware of
that. He went on to further illustrate his argument regarding
intention, by referring to the case of a man accidentally killed by
the falling off of the head of an axe • the person using the axe
was not guilty of murder. He complained that he had not been
indicted, but that three ex-officio informations had been filed
against him instead. Mr. Justice Blackstone (4 Comm. 308) said,
that they were intended in their origin to apply to “ offences so
high and dangerous, in the prevention and punishment of which a
moment’s delay would be fatal;” and that on this account the
power of immediate prosecution was given to the Crown. The
learned judge who yesterday presided had stated, that ex-officio
informations were as ancient as the common law, and of this
opinion was Blackstone. The oppressive use of them, however,
previous to the reign of William III. was so deeply felt, that,
before the revolution of 1688, the House of Commons, bavin"
drawn up by committee certain conditions on which the Crown
was to be intrusted to the Prince of Orange; the 22nd article
was, “that informations in the Court of King’s Bench shall be
taken away.” Yet what had been done 1 Not long afterwards,
in the Court of King’s Bench, the question was agitated, when
Sir John Holt and the other judges were of opinion that they
were grounded upon the common law, and could not be shaken.
�92
SECOND TRIAL.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —If they are not taken away, what is
the use of this discussion? It perhaps was discussed in Parliament,
whether they ought not to be abolished; but have they been
abolished? You might as well detail points agitated in some
utopian system as this. AVhether informations are right or not,
do you not see that the law so stands ?
Mr. Ho n e —My lord, I am making my defence as well as I
can under a thousand disadvantages----Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I only warn you of what are not
important points for you; but if you think I ought to attend to
them, I will do so.
Mr. Ho n e —My lord, I appeal to the jury upon it.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —But you cannot appeal to the jury
upon matters that are not law. If you object to an information,
you ought to have demurred before, and the Court then could
have come to some decision; therefore you are now wasting time.
I only suggest this to you for consideration; for I will hear you,
however immaterial, and however little good what you have to say
can do you.
Mr. Ho n e —Gentlemen,’ his lordship may desire you to dismiss
from your minds what is immaterial in his charge to the jury
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —My charge cannot follow you through
the devious ways you like to take. I dare say I shall not mention
anything you offer; at least I shall not notice a great many
things, for indeed they are self-answered.
Mr. Ho n e continued his address, insisting (on the authority of
Ralph’s “History of England,” so frequently quoted by Mr. Fox in
his work), that treason had been committed against the people of
England, ’in not abolishing ex-officio informations when King
William was seated on the throne, and after the 22nd article of
the Declaration drawn up by the Commons. The chief argument
stated by Blackstone was the necessity of a summary and rapid
expedient in high and dangerous offences; but how could that
necessity be shown in this case? Had the Attorney-General
proceeded with such rapidity ? On the contrary, the publication
of the alleged libel ended on the 22nd of February, and the
�SECOND TRIAL.
93
information, was not filed until just before the 3rd of May, when
the defendant was dragged into Court to plead. His lordship had
not told him then that he might demur, instead of pleading-----Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Demurring is a plea; you might have
demurred to the right of the Attorney-General to bring you into
Court under an ex-officio information, and then the question might
have been settled. I was not to advise you what to do.
Mr. Ho n e —My lord, I was dragged into Court by force and
arms to plead.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —And they did rightly: they were
warranted by law to bring you into Court. I was clear that
ex-officio informations are part of the law of the land; and it
would have entrapped you, if I had told you to demur. You
would have been injured by such advice.
Mr. Ho n e —However, be that as it may, I was committed,
and afterwards discharged. The defendant next observed, that he
had hoped that his discharge would have been final; that the
Attorney-General had dropped the proceedings entirely, and that,
in consequence of the death of her Royal Highness the Princess
Charlotte, a general amnesty would have been passed upon all
offences of the kind. He had hoped, that the many unhappy
wretches, dragged from remote districts to plead to informations
regarding these parodies, would have been forgotten; that an act
of oblivion would have passed; that the recollection of a present
grief would have obliterated the remembrance of past grievances;
but he found, to his bitter disappointment, not more on his own
account than that of others, that no visitation of Providence, no
national calamity, could chasten the resentments, or soften the
hearts of ministers. Why had not a prosecution, an ex-officio
information, been filed against one individual now high in the
state—a Cabinet Minister, who some years ago had been guilty of
the offence charged against him? Mr. Hone said, he was con
vinced, that had that individual been in the humble situation of
him (the defendant) in society, he would this day, instead of
sitting in the Cabinet, have been standing before his lordship and
the jury. Informations were oppressions—they were a relic of the
�94
SECOND TRIAL.
infamous Court of Star Chamber, where a person accused, if he
uttered a word offensive to the judges, was not only subjected to
fine and corporal punishment, but even endured the torture of
fiaving wedges driven with a mallet into his mouth to stop his
utterance. The gag would be quite as effectual, if his lordship
upon this occasion had laid his solemn injunction upon him (the
defendant) not to proceed in the line of defence he had adopted.
He thanked Heaven, he was now before an English jury 130 or
140 years after the abolition of that tyrannical and execrated Court,
he stood face to face before his judges as before his friends; he
talked to them as friends, for he could not make speeches ; and he
relied, not on his talents, but on his innocence. Another objection
to the proceeding by information was, that it was much more
expensive; he could not procure copies of the charge, but for a
considerable sum; and when he was brought up to plead, he was
the more anxious to obtain them, because he had heard that in
Wilkes’s case the information had been altered by order of Lord
Mansfield, though, he admitted, after notice to the attorney for the
defendant, who was unable to leave his bed. At the time he (the
defendant) was brought up, on the 3rd of May, he really had not
the money to pay for copies; and he ought to have been furnished
with them by order of the Court.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h said, that no subject of the realm was
furnished with a copy of any indictment; he gathered the
contents from the perusal of it by the officer. This was the
common everyday practice.
Mr. Ho n e —I admit that it is common; and I say, on behalf
of the whole people of England, that to those who may be placed
in my situation, it is a great grievance. I assert, that every man
accused ought to be furnished with a copy of the ex-officio
information.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —In a common indictment for larceny it is
not furnished; if it be a grievance, it applies to every case.
Mr. Ho n e _ And so it does; but give me leave to say, that
there is a great difference between an indictment for a larceny, and
an information for a libel. If I pick a man’s pocket, the offence
�SECOND TRIAL.
95
is clearly and specifically stated; the day, the circumstances, are
mentioned. but libel is an undefined crime; and who shall say
that he can be master of the matter of a complicated information,
because it is once read over to him,
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —The information contained nothing
the libel, which you have admitted that you published.
Mr. Ho n e —protested against this unfair use of his admission
he had not sold one after the 22nd of February. If copies
been given him, he should have been ready to plead in six hours.
His case, in this respect, and many others, was not solitary.
Some unhappy beings had been compelled to travel 200 miles
to plead to some of these informations. Was there no law in
the country to punish this offence? Could no indictment at
the sessions have been preferred, where the poor wretch might
have taken his trial without an information ? But, forsooth, it
was necessary to proceed in a summary way, without any of the
ordinary formalities; and some of the victims of this tyrannical
proceeding had actually been in solitary confinement for nine
weeks, like felons, in Chester Gaol, with 641bs. weight of fetters
upon their emaciated limbs. Was this proceeding in a summary
way ? was this that speedy justice for which ex-officio informations
were designed ? *
. * The persons alluded to were Me l l o r and Pil l a n s : they were imprisoned
in Lancaster not Chester Castle, and suffered severely in their persons from the
crue ty of solitary confinement, and by anxiety of mind for their poor helpless
families. But there was a person in Chester Castle, named Ro b e r t Sw in d e l l s
whose case is marked with almost the extremity of distress. Thi«
�96
SECOND TRIAL.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I take it for granted that you will
prove all this.
Mr. Ho n e —I will prove it.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Your being able to prove it will be no
warrant for me to receive the evidence; but I will allow you to
prove what you assert, if your witnesses are here.
Mr. Ho n e —They are not here, my lord. I did not expect
to be called upon; but I can prove it.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —This is only wasting time: proceed to
the business of your defence. I will hear very anxiously what
relates to your defence, but I will not let you be wasting tune.
Mr. Ho n e —Wasting time,, my lord ’ I feel the grievance of
which I complain; I am to be tried, not you ! When I shall have
been consigned to a dungeon, your lordship will sit as coolly on
that seat as ever; you will not feel the punishment : I feel the
grievance, and I remonstrate against it. I am the injured man.
I am upon my trial by those gentlemen, my jury.
Mr. Ho n e , after a pause of a few moments, objected to the
mode "in which the Attorney-General could suspend ex-officio
informations over the heads of the King’s subjects. True it was,
the accused could demand a trial; but then it must be at bar,
before a special jury-a situation a hundred times worse than that
in which he (the defendant) was now placed. Another evil was,
that a man was not tried by his peers, and sometimes not by those
amona whom he lived. He complained of the odium and pre
judice0 under which he had long laboured because the late
• O- ten flin st the sleeping child she escaped with from her bed, and terrified to
covering, tending the s pg
sndden and calise]ess devas_
agony by fears for her husband_s '
haJess wife, on the departure of the
tation committed on
°° busband and repeatedly afterwards to others, that
marauders, declaied to
.‘
, hpl. death • her health declined—
the affrighting scene. of tUt ^Ind Xe died, leaving her new-born infant,
1 Xt'Xch Se fondled on the fatal night, without a mother! The unfortunate
�SECOND
TRIAL.
97
Attorney-General had chosen, in a speech, to term these parodies
blasphemous publications. He was about to detail some of the
facts relating to the putting of his plea, when Lord Ellenborough
interposed, and observed, that every indulgence had been shown him
on that occasion. Do you remember, said his lordship, that you were
committed until a future day, that you might have time to plead ?
Mr. Ho n e Oh, yes, my lord, I well remember that; you
committed me to the King’s Bench Prison.* I well remember the
many bitter nights and days I there passed.
Mr. To ppin g (for the Crown) observed, that the defendant had
been committed until the next term, that he might have time to plead.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Then, you see, you state false grava
mina. The Court was extremely studious to give you every
indulgence, and means of understanding the information,
Mr. Ho n e I could not plead guilty, when I knew I was not
guilty.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Why, you have just admitted the
publication.
Mr. Ho n e —But have I admitted that it is a libel ?
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —But you yourself had the libel in your
possession; you published it, and you might have read it till you
were tired of it, as I am.
Mr. Ho n e further entreated the jury to dismiss the unfair
prejudice which might have been excited against him from the
highest authority; for by one of the secretaries of state—by Lord
Sidmouth, night after night, he had been denounced as a blas
phemer and a wretch. Many of the newspapers had re-echoed
the false and scandalous charge; even after the verdict of acquittal
from the charge of a profane libel yesterday, some of them had
ventured to repeat it. He held in his hand the Day newspaper, +
* By the Act 5 Victoria, c. 22, the Queen’s Bench, Fleet, and Marshalsea were
consolidated as the Queen’s Prison for debtors, prisoners committed for libel
assaults, court-martial, &c., under the control of the Home Secretary of State.
’
f An obscure newspaper, called The Day, was set up as a trading specula
tion by some puffing auctioneers, and became a little notorious by a prosecution
against it for libel. The editors of this paper are now
“ Two single gentlemen rolled into one.”
The unhappy Doctor Slop’s imagination is so extravagantly at variance with
H
�98
SECOND TRIAL.
published a few hours ago, in which he was designated a
blasphemer-----Lord El l e n b o r o ü g h —Really, you are getting so far out of
the case : what have I to do with the libels published against
you 1 we are not trying that newspaper.
Mr. Ho n e —I hope, and firmly believe, that I have an impar
tial jury, who will be unprejudiced by every thing they may have
heard or seen in or out of court.
Lo r d El l e n b o r o ü g h —Why, nobody can have read that news
paper you speak of; what have I or the jury to do with-----Mr. Ho n e —My lord 1 My lord ! it is I who am upon my trial,
not your lordship. I have to defend myself, not your lordship.
Long-continued acclamations here interrupted the proceedings
of the Court. Lord Ellenboroügh directed one of the sheriffs to
leave the bench, and to go to the bottom of the court to quell
the disturbance. When order was in some degree restored, his
lordship said, “It is impossible that the officers can be doing
their duty; let them bring any man before me, and I will soon
put an end to this.”
The Sh e r if f , remaining on the bench, asked Mr. Under-Sheriff
Smith if he had succeeded in taking any of the offenders, and was
answered in the negative.
truth a,nd memory, that he can neither remedy unto himself, nor be controlled by
moral management. He runs a-muck at all he meets, with a soft goose qui 1,
cursing and swearing in the same fashion as Peter in the Tale of a Tub; and,
unless brought to his senses for a moment by an antagonist who knocks him down,
he outstrips pursuit, and bays the moon till he is exhausted. In two respects,
however, he is honest to himselfa renegade in politics, he secretly admires the
Beformists, whose ranks he left for the Treasury clerks that crowd his office, and
toss him sops;—a high-flier in religion, he really despises the bigotry and fanati
cism which he puts forth in his tawdry journal. Hence it is not surprising that
the poor man is almost constantly furious or cataleptic; or that, in his lucid inter
vals, he wears a red night-cap with a lily in it, as emblems of his loyalty to the
houses of Bourbon and Brunswick, and struts in his turned coat as unblushingly as a fifty-times-lashed incorrigible deserter, when he is drummed to a con
demned regiment to the tune of the Rogue’s March. Mr. Hone, on his third trial,
gave the lie direct to Dr. Slop’s aspersions. The crazy charlatan took advantage
of Mr Hone’s declaration in court, that he would only rebut the press by the
press- and the hypocrite, finding the trials ended, and that Mr. Hone had no
means of reply to him, like a bully and a coward, fell to his dirty work again.
�SECOND TRIAL.
S9
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Open your eyes, and see; and stretch
out your hands, and seize. You must have observed somebody.
Mark where the noise comes from, and note the man,
Mr. Ho n e continued—The interruption could be occasioned
by no friend of his : whoever disturbed the Court was his bitter
enemy : his friends could not so conduct themselves ; and the noise
could only proceed from some designing emissaries, who were
anxious that he should be taken from the Court to a prison. He
held m his hand two newspapers that were published this
morning-----
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I must not have the trash of the news
papers produced here, unless you can apply it in some way. If
you thought there was anything in them that would prejudice
the jury on your trial, you ought to have applied at the sitting
of the Court upon affidavit, and it might probably have been
postponed.
Mr. Ho n e But this attack was much better timed: it was
introduced after I had been acquitted by one jury last night, and
before the time of my being tried now—to be acquitted, as I hope
by another.
r ’
Lord ELLENBOROUGH-Still, if you thought that the minds of
the jury had been in any way poisoned, the Court would have ffiven
you an opportunity of being tried at a more impartial moment.
Mr. Ho n e —It did not occur to me that that mode of pro
ceeding was necessary. In fact, both the newspapers who have
thus accused me of blasphemy well knew the contrary, for they
contain reports of the trial of yesterday, when I was acquitted
even of profaneness. One of them begins thus : “It will be seen
by our Law Report ”■
-----Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —We cannot enter upon that, after I
have said that you might have stated the fact in a way to deserve
attention.
Mr. Ho n e —I trust that I, being a publisher, shall never
apply to a court of justice to restrict a publication.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —But you will do well to complain if
the publication be intended to corrupt the sources of justice. At
�100
SECOND TRIAL.
a proper time I shall be glad to hear you; but do not introduce
it as a hash into your speech.
Mr. Ho n e replied, that he had only heard of it five minutes
before he came into court.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l formally objected.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —If the defendant has been libelled, he
may either bring an action for damages, or put the criminal law
in motion; that is the proper mode : but he cannot do it now
here.
Mr. Ho n e —God forbid that I should force the bitterest enemy
I have into the Crown Office! I have suffered too much there
already myself. No, my lord, I would suffer the foulest impu
tations before I would take that step even against the man who
had most deeply injured me. The defendant then said, he should
now proceed to show, that for years parodies had existed unques
tioned, and even the particular species of parody of which he stood
accused. He should also, from this universal practice, and fiom
examples which he should give, establish beyond a doubt, that it
was possible to parody without ridiculing the thing parodied. He
asserted that the parody on the Litany was written to excite a
laugh_ not at the production which was parodied, but entirely
independent of it. The first parody he should produce was on
that useful instrument the thermometer, by the late Dr. Lettsom;
who, by a scale, graduated after the manner of the thermometer,
attempted to show that temperance was conducive to health and
morals, and that intemperance was destructive to both. There
was an ascending and a descending scale, from strong beer to
spirits, and punch occasionally, up to dram drinking at morning,
noon, and night, against which the effects on the morals were
placed; these different degrees of intemperance, ending with
Botany Bay, the hulks, and the gallows. The advantages of tem
perance were illustrated in the same manner. Who would say,
that in this publication, Dr. Lettsom intended to bring into con
tempt the thermometer? yet it was a parody on that instrument
in every sense of the word. There was another, which he held in
his hand, which was a parody on the barometer; a parody for
�SECOND TRIAL.
101
religious purposes. It described the progress of a mind from
religious indifference, through different stages of religious observ
ance, up to happiness on earth, and salvation hereafter; and, on
the other hand, down to death and perdition. Here the thing
parodied was secular, and the parody was for religious purposes;
in his case the parody was of a religious work for secular purposes.
The intent of this parody was not to bring into contempt the
barometer, nor did he mean to ridicule the Litany. The practice
of parodying religious works, even parts of the Holy Scriptures,
on different occasions, was adopted by men whose sentiments with
regard to those writings were above suspicion. The first parodist
he should cite was the first restorer of the purity of the Christian
religion. Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, in 1518,
had a controversy with certain other persons of the reformed
religion, in the course of which he parodied the first verse of the
first Psalm
Blessed is the man that hath not walked in the
way of the Sacramentarians, nor sat in the seat of the Zuinglians,
nor followed the counsel of the Züricher.” The next parody he
should allude to was by Dr. John Boys, who was Dean of Canter
bury in the reign of James I, It would have been inconvenient
to bring a folio volume into court, and therefore he quoted from
Buck s Anecdotes.
It was there said that Dr. Boys had gained
great applause by a parody of the Lord’s Prayer, in a sermon
which he preached at Paul’s Cross. The parody was to this
effect:—
‘•Our Pope, which art in Rome, cursed be thy name ; perish may
thy kingdom ; hindered may thy will be, as it is in heaven, so in
earth. Give us this day our cup in the Lord’s Supper ; and remit our
moneys which we have given for thy indulgencies, as we send them
back unto thee, and lead us not into heresy j but free us from misery *
for thine is the infernal pitch and sulphur, for ever and ever. Amen,”
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h asked, do you contend that the parody
by Dr. Boys is an innocent publication : or that, if he now stood
where you do, he might not have been prosecuted for it, though it
is against the Pope ?
Mr. Ho n e —My lord, he was a dignified clergyman.
�102
SECOND TRIAL.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —But that would not warrant the impiety
of others. A dignified clergyman has committed forgery, but does
that fact render it less a crime ?
Mr. Ho n e added, that Martin Luther and the Dean of Canter
bury were grave and high authorities in his favour.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I will tell you now the observation I
shall make regarding the existence of parodies at other times, how
ever numerous; unless there be something advanced to prove
them to be perfectly innocent—unless something be shown as a
standard of their innocence, I shall not attend to them, for they
do not at all mitigate your offence.
Mr. Ho n e —I perfectly understand your lordship’s intention.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I do not know whether these were or
were not produced yesterday, but they ought not to be our fare
every day.
Mr. Ho n e —They were produced yesterday.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I am sorry for it; that is all.
Mr. Ho n e said, that his defence rendered their production
indispensable.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I told you early, to save trouble, that
if you tendered it in evidence, I should refuse it; but in an address
to the jury a wider latitude of observation is allowed; therefore
I shall not check you.
. .
.
Mr. Ho n e said he did not want to put it in as evidence. He
merely wished to show that parodies had at all times been per
mitted, and that they had been published without any improper
intention. If there had been anything criminal in Dr. Boys’
parody, would it not have been noticed? At that time the
Ecclesiastical Courts were most severe in censures on those who
they conceived deserved them; and no man, however high, who
offended those tribunals could hope to escape with impunity.
There were also grave and learned judges and law officers—there
was Lord Coke among others; and was it supposed, if this was an
offence against the law, notorious as the act was, that it would
not have been taken notice of, or that these great lawyers were
ignorant of their duty ? It was impossible that the sermon should
�SECOND TRIAL.
103
not have been well known, as it was preached at Paul’s Cross,
the place where the commonalty of the city of London were
usually addressed by popular preachers of that day. The audiences
on such occasions were most numerous.
The next parody he should mention was in the Harleian
Miscellany, or the tracts of Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford. This
was peculiarly opposite, because it parodied a part of the “ Book
of Common Prayer,” for parodying another part of which he was
now tried. The part parodied in the tract printed in that collec
tion was the Service for the Visitation of the Sick. It was
originally printed in 1647, and entitled “The Plague at West
minster; or an Order for the Visitation of a Sick Parliament,
grievously troubled with a new disease, called a consumption of
their members; with a form of prayer, and other rites and cere
monies, to be used for their recovery: strictly commanded to be
used in all churches, chapels, and congregations, throughout his
Majesty’s three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, &c.,
&c.” Mr. Hone read this parody, as he did on the first trial
(p. 21) ; and said that this was precisely a similar case to his own:
it was a parody on a part of the Common Prayer; it was directed
also against supposed abuses in the Commons’ House of Parliament
and other branches of the state; and it was also calculated to
circulate among the common people, and to excite laughter, not
at the thing parodied, but at the Parliament at Westminster. It
was to be remembered that this was written by one of a highchurch party, a party which made sacrifice of wealth and life to
maintain the rites and ceremonies of the Church, which were
attacked by the Republicans and Puritans of that day. So far
were these men from supposing that this sort of parody would
bring the productions parodied into contempt, that to ridicule
their enemies they parodied one of the forms of the Church which
they were in the act of maintaining with all their strength.
The next parody which he should mention was from the col
lection of the tracts of Lord Somers, a great lawyer and statesman,
who contributed more perhaps than any other individual to the
expulsion of James the Second, and the settlement under which
�104
SECOND TRIAL.
the present dynasty was seated on the throne. In his collection
there was a parody, not on the Common Prayer, but on the New
Testament. (It closely followed the first Chapter of Matthew, and
was the same that he read yesterday; see First Trial, p. 30.)
This parody, it was also very evident, was written by a zealous
partisan of the high-church party, as it was composed in 1648, in
behalf of King Charles.
Mr. Ho n e said, the next article he should mention was con
tained in the Rev. Mark Noble’s Continuation of the Rev. Mr.
Granger’s “ Biographical History of England, which, though it
was not a parody on Scripture, showed that it was never appre
hended by the most pious men, that a casual association of
ludicrous images with matters of the Christian religion tended to
weaken the respect due to that faith. Mr. Noble, in his work,
said, that there was a song respecting Dr. Burnett, the author of
« The Theory of the Earth,” and Master of the Charter-House,
beginning : —
A dgan and prependary
Had once a new vagary ;
And were at doleful strife, Sir,
Who led the better life, Sir,
And was the better man,
And was the better man.
When Mr. Hone had quoted to the end of the last verse but two,
(see First Trial, p. 31.)
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h interrupted him. That is such mis
chievous matter that I shall prohibit its being read. No person,
under pretence of explaining one libel, shall offend the ears of
public decency by the recital of such profanations. I took down
two lines
That all the p00ks of Moses
Were nothing but supposes.
And I prohibit the remainder.
Mr. Ho n e —I pledge myself that the few lines of the song I
have not read have a perfectly moral tendency.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I will not hear them. It would deserve
severe punishment if it were a modern publication.
�SECOND TRIAL.
Mr. Ho n e —My lord, it has been published over and
again of late years, and no notice taken of it.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I am sorry for it: mischievous people
are to be found at all times.
Mr. Ho n e —The Rev. Mark Noble, the author, is a beneficed
clergyman of the Church of England, and, I venture to say, has
no sense of the impropriety; and if a man so well instructed
could forget himself, and publish what was of a mischievous tend
ency, no man will charge that he did it with a view to bring
religion into contempt.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Under pretence of defending yourself
from one crime, you are not to commit another.
Mr. Ho n e —If your lordship will but allow me to finish the
song, I will consent to be called a liar, I had almost said a blas
phemer, or any other epithet however approbrious, if your lordship
do not pronounce it perfectly innocent.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —You seem to attach an extraordinary
value to the remainder : let it be read, in deference to your
opinion.
Mr. Ho n e —I am sure I shall have your lordships assent to
my assertions, when I have finished.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —No : let it be read.
Mr. Ho n e read as follows—
Thus, in this battle royal.
As none would take denial,
The dame for whom they strove, Sir,
Could neither of them love, Sir,
Since all had given offence,
Since all had given offence.
She therefore slily waiting,
Left all three fools a-prating,
And being in a fright, Sir,
Religion took her flight, Sir,
And ne’er was heard of since,
And ne’er was heard of since.
�106
SECOND TRIAL.
Mr. Ho n e then continued, in nearly the same order as on his
first trial yesterday, to refer to various parodies. There was one,
also, called Old England’s Te Deum in the “ Humourists’ Maga
zine ” ; and there was a parody of the Te Deum published against
Buonaparte in six languages. (Mr. Hone here read again Mr.
Richardson’s Te Deum against Buonaparte; for which see the
first trial, p. 42.) There was also in a work of the well-known
Captain Grose, the author of the “ Antiquities of England,” &c.
called “ Grose’s Olio,” a parody on the Chronicles, called The
Chronicles of Coxheath camp. He now came to a book which
abounded in parodies; it was “ The History of the Westminster
Election,” which contained, among many others, a parody on the
Chronicles, called The Chronicles of Westminster. This was pub
lished in a quarto volume by Debrett, by Beckett, bookseller to
the Queen, by Eaulder, the publisher of Paley’s works, and other
booksellers. Even Edmund Burke was a parodist. In a speech
of his in the House of Commons, on the dissolution of the Rock
ingham administration, at a time when it was expected that the
House of Commons also was to be dissolved, he thus parodied that
most solemn part of the Common prayer, the Burial Service :—
Speaking of the House of Commons, he said, “ And now I hereby
commit their body to the grave, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, m
certain hope and expectation of the glorious resurrection, which
by its good deeds it shall surely see.” &c. The enlightened mind
of Mr. Burke saw in this no tendency to irreligion, and he
delivered it in the House of Commons itself; and yet Mr. Burke
would now be told, perhaps, were he living, that he had been
guilty of an impious libel.
He would now call their attention to a parody which was pub
lished by Mr. Reeves, some years ago, when he was at the head oi
a society for supporting loyalty and property against Jacobins and
levellers. (See the parody, First Trial, p. 35;) The AttorneyGeneral had spoken of the small sum for which his (the defendant s)
publications were sold : but Mr. Reeves’s parody was published for
a penny Mr. Reeves, however—he knew not how—had greatly
improved his condition since that time, and his name stood in the
�SECOND TRIAL.
107
title-page of the book of Common Prayer in most general use, as
patentee. In that Prayer Book he had inserted a preface, dedi
cated to her Majesty, in which he paid her many compliments.
The gentlemen would observe also, that Mr. Beeves was a lawyer__
he was a barrister, and had been a commissioner of bankrupts ;
but he (the defendant) did not believe that when Mr. Beeves pub
lished his parody, he had any conception that he was reviling
religion. His intention merely was to convey an instruction by
parodying the Catechism • and if he were now standing where the
defendant did, he, as a lawyer, would tell them they could not
convict him : but he had never been prosecuted; and those two
books, Mr. Beeves’s Common Prayer, and the parody Mr. Beeves
published on the Catechism, would now go together. His lordship
would doubtless recollect, that one of his sons was a member of
that Association at the “ Crown and Anchorbut so ardent was
the zeal of Mr. Beeves to put down levellers and reformers, that
Mr. Law withdrew himself from the society. Mr. Beeves was now
in R very different situation from the defendant: Tvlr. Beeves was a
rich man, and held a situation under Government; the defendant
was a poor humble shopkeeper. Would his Majesty’s AttorneyGeneral bring Mr. Beeves before the Court ? No : and he ought
not to bring him there ; for his lordship would tell them, that Mr.
Beeves had no intention to ridicule the Catechism. Neither had
the defendant any such intention when he published his parody.
Mr. Beeves thought that the publication of his little Tract would
serve his side in politics • and the defendant had merely done the
same thing with the same view. Both had made use of the press ;
and it was not proper that the press should be shackled, or those
who availed themselves of its power oppressed and persecuted under
false pretences. The press was common property • it was a great
security which every man in England felt he had against injustice.
Even he, as he stood there, felt that there was no one in that
Court, even if disposed (which he hoped there was not) to do him
an injustice, who would dare, do so : and why ? Because the act
could not be hidden in a corner; it would be made known by
means of a free press, and excite a public opinion which would be
�108
SECOND TRIAL.
terrible to the most powerful of evil-doers. Let then this prosecu
tion, which aimed at so valuable a privilege as the liberty of the
press, be put on its true ground, and bestripped of its hypocritical
pretext.
_
_
.
.
Mr. Ho n e then quoted the sermon of Bishop Latimer, as m his.
First Trial, p 26. In that sermon the learned prelate had spoken
of the affections and passions of men ; and the defendant might
turn to the Attorney-General, and ask him, when those passions
arose in the breast, whether he might not have considered to what
' ", Did
end his little productions tended. Lid none of us sin without
forgiveness 1 As men standing together in society, as Christians,
there should be a feeling of mercy. This prosecution was insti
tuted against him by the administration, and those men- shou
have the feelings of Christians. The Attorney-General he
thought, had done him an injustice, and yet he did not think him
an unjust man. The poor unhappy men who were to come up
to plead here after him, what had they done ? The publication o
his work might have done an injury, but he was not sure that i
had done so. The secret committees of both Houses, m their
reports, had spoken of blasphemous publications : but when he read
those passages, it never entered into his mind that they alluded to
his publications; he thought they referred to some productions
which had really reviled the Scriptures, and brought religion m o
contempt. As soon as he found that his parodies were meant,
when he heard that they produced impressions on the minds of some
which they conceived injurious to religion, and they thought it
was wrong, he immediately, though he had not published them
with a wrong intention, withdrew them from circulation He did
this without any intimation whatever, either from the AttorneyGeneral or any person connected with the government.
His lordship had, perhaps, heard that Divines of the Established
Church made, as he before said, occasional allusions to Scripture,
which were not of the most reverential kind. It might, per aps,
be within his lordship’s memory, that Archdeacon Paley, who he
believed, was his lordship’s tutor, preached a sermon at Cambridge,
. at a time when Mr. Pitt, then a young man and a minister, hap-
�SECOND TRIAL.
109
pened to be on a visit at the University. The text of this sermon
was and, no doubt, with a view to the minister, whom he knew
to be present e' Lo ! here is a lad that hath five loaves and two
small fishes to divide j but what are they among so many of us ?”
Dr. Paley was not a man of impiety—but one actively employed
inculcating &ound morals into the minds of the first youth in
the country. He was the author of “ The Elements of Moral
Philosophy,” and yet he preached this sermon-----Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Ho, he did not. Ell correct your fact—
there was never any such sermon preached.
Mr. Ho n e My lord, was there no such text mentioned ?
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I can’t enter into controversy. It was
hardly worth interrupting you to give this denial of your fact.
Mr. Ho n e It really is generally understood that such a
sermon was preached. I am glad to hear it was not. I had
it only from the current anecdote, which hitherto hath passed
with belief.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —You are confounding two things ; there
was no such sermon preached. You have heard some story, and
that has misled you.
Mr. Ho n e —The anecdote misled me. Your lordship must
have heard it talked of.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —There was some such anecdote, and I
am very sorry for it • but there was no sermon preached.
Mr. Ho n e —I will not persist, my lord, because I feel much
obliged to your lordship for stating that there had been a story of
the kind.—Gentlemen of the jury, with a view still further to
show that an article may be humourously parodied, in order to
excite ridicule, without either the humoui' or the ridicule bein«directed towards the article parodied, I shall read a parody on
Hamlet s Sofiloquy, which appeared in the Horning Herald in
1808.
,
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Now, what has that to do with your
case ? It is a parody, as you say, on some part of the play of
Hamlet, and not on the Scriptures. It is obvious enough that it
can have no reference to your case ; and the jury, as sensible men,
�SECOND TRIAL.
110
must see that it has not.
They should not have their time taken
up in this manner.
Mr. Ho n e —My lord, I understand your lordship’s notion of
sensible men in a jury box very well. What your lordship means
by calling the jury sensible men, is, that they will find me guilty;
but my notion of their being sensible men, is, that they will acquit
me. He (Mr. Hone) wished, by anything he said or read, to show
the jury that in his publication he had no intention to ridicule the
Scripture or the Common Prayer. If he had not, then there was
no crime. The parody on Hamlet’s Soliloquy commenced this way :
To stand, or not to stand—that is the question.
Whether ’tis nobler for us to lose th’ Election,
And all the honours that attend upon it,
Or to demand a poll, and risk th’ expense, &c. &c.
Mr. Ho n e , proceeding with the parodies, said, there was a
parody from the True Briton, in the Spirit of the Public Journals,
of 1807, on the Lord’s Prayer. The proprietor of the paper at
that time was Mr. John Heriott, who had a place or pension from
his Majesty’s Government. Was it honourable, or manly, to make
such a distinction between parodists ? He was quite sure that, if
he had the files in Court of the Morning Chronicle, Morning Herald,
the Morning Post, and of The Times some years ago, he could have
produced hundreds of parodies on the Scriptures.. After a lapse,
however, of more than three hundred years, during which such
parodies had been published, he was now first selected as the sub
ject of prosecution ; and he was persuaded that he w„as so selected
merely because he entertained certain political opinions. He would
now produce to them a parody, written by a gentleman who was
virtually, though not ostensibly, one of his prosecutors, inasmuch
as he was a Minister and a Member of the Cabinet Council—he
meant the Kight Hon. George Canning. Why was he to be pro
secuted by that gentleman for doing that which he had done
himself, and for the doing of which he had not been prosecuted ?
Nine days after he was sent to the King’s Bench Prison on the
present charge, he had read this celebrated parody by the Kight
Hon. George Canning, one of the Members of the Cabinet, under
�SECOND TRIAL.
Ill
whose authority this prosecution proceeded. Was it fair that
Ministers, to excite a prejudice against a man who had only been
in the habit of doing what they themselves had done, should charge
him with blasphemy a crime which they knew he had never com
mitted. He would advise the noble lord (Sidmouth), and his
friends around him, to consider well before they marked out any
individual for punishment on account of such publications. He
should read that parody from the Parliamentary Reports lately
published by Mr. Robert Harding Evans. There were other
reports of the proceedings in Parliament, but he gave the preference
to this, because it appeared to be got up with a great deal of care,
and bore the character of an authentic book. (The parody was
cited by Earl Grey, from the Anti-Jacobin, and is the same as in
the First Trial, p. 31.) The Courier newspaper, mentioned in the
first line of the parody, was then an opposition paper, but it was
not so now; that is, it was not now in opposition to anything
except the rights and liberties of the people of England. Mr.
Southey, who was mentioned in the parody, was now PoetLaureate;* but some years ago he published a poem, called “Joan
of Arc,” to which were affixed “ The Visions of the Maid of Arc;”
and among the persons who, in the early editions, were there con
signed to the place of perdition, was that only person in this
kingdom who, by a maxim of law, “ can do no wrong.” What
would the jury think of this, and yet the poet was now the Court
Laureate. On the 14th of May last, when Earl Grey introduced
Mr. Canning’s parody into his speech, he recommended that its
author should be prosecuted for such a blasphemous production,
if it really were such. But he (the defendant) did not find that
the Attorney-General had prosecuted Mr. Canning. If, therefore,
they were to punish him, and did not punish Mr. Canning, great
injustice would be done. Justice to him must be justice to Mr,
Canning, and so the people of England would determine. The
English government was founded on public opinion ; without that
i.t could not exist—that is, it could not exist as a free government__
it would be an arbitrary despotism.
* Southey died, 1843.
The present Poet Laureate is Alfred Tennyson.
�112
SECOND TRIAL.
Mr. Ho n e then exhibited Gillray’s print, illustrative of Mr.
Canning’s parody. The poem itself, he said, appeared originally
in the Anti-Jacobin newspaper, which was supported by Mr.
Canning, Mr. Hookham Frere, and other gentlemen of Pitt prin
ciples, and paid for by a subscription raised among the Pitt school.
And now, forsooth, these very men, affecting peculiar regard for
religion, attacked him on that ground on which they themselves
had in the same way formerly taken a stand. This zeal for religion
was false. They were enraged against him for his political
opinions ; and in their madness they cared not what they did.
He smiled at their malice he despised them for thus abusing
their power ; and he would say, as it is fabled one of old said
to Jupiter, who thundered instead of answering the man who
was arguing with him, ££ A_h, Jupiter, I know thou canst kill
me; but if thou wilt argue, why dost thou not answer me :
instead of using thy reason, thou art flashing thy thunder.
Ah, Jupiter, thou dost it in a passion, because thou art in the
wrong !”
Mr. Ho n e then requested the j ury to examine the print to Mr.
Canning’s parody. One Lepaux, a Frenchman, was represented as
the apostle or priest of Atheism, surrounded by a group at the
altar, amongst whom were The Morning Post and The Courier.
In the pocket of the latter was a French paper. The jury,
perhaps, might not have heard of the matter to which this alluded.
There was, at the time alluded to, an evening paper called The
Telegraph, the circulation of which pressed close upon The Courier.
The present proprietor of The Courier wanted to sink the
reputation of The Telegraph; and, to effect his purpose, he forged
a French paper, called E Eclair, and had it sent as from France to
The Telegraph, where it was eagerly inserted. The news it
contained immediately affected the funds. The reputation of the
latter paper of course became injured on account of the fabrication;
but at length the present proprietor of The Courier was discovered
to have been the author, and paid damages to The Telegraph for
the abominable fabrication. It was no libel upon Scripture for
the Pitt school to have published the print with the Leviathan
�SECOND TRIAL.
113
(an animal only known in Scripture), representing the Duke of
Bedford with a hook in his nose, and Mr. Fox, Mr. Tierney, Mr.
Nicholls, and Mr. Thelwall, on his back; Mr. Whitbread floating
on a barrel of porter in the yeasty main behind them; the present
Lord Erskine, then at the bar, and in his gown and wig, was also
m the group. All this was a libel on the right side, and therefore
passed with impunity. Mr. Godwin and the late excellent Gilbert
Wakefield were in the print, preceded by Messrs. Coleridge and
Southey as asses supporting a cormcqpfo of Ignorance, without
any other difference between them that he could perceive than
that the ears of the latter were longer than those of the former.
All this was in illustration and furtherance of Mr. Canning’s
parody.
•
°
Mr. Hone then produced the Religious Play-Bill, entitled
The Great Assize; and the Religious Recruiting Bill, for
volunteers to serve in the regiment raising by the Lord Jehovah.
He likewise alluded to the letter of Jesus Christ, in posses
sion of the Lady Cuba at Mesopotamia, all of which are
detailed in the report of the first trial. He also alluded to
the manner in which the different sacred hymns had been
applied by the Dissenters to lay tunes, with the most laudable
intent; a practice, however, which would be reprehensible on
the same grounds on which parodies were reprehended; he
repeated the instances of this practice, which he had adduced
on his former trial. But these proved that persons who had the
most decided religious feelings might make use of secular means
for the purpose, not of bringing religion into contempt, but of
supporting it.
Mr. Hone then, proceeded to produce instances of parodies on
that part of the Common Prayer which he was charged, by the
present information, with having parodied. The first he mentioned
was from “ The Rump; or, An exact Collection of the choicest
Poems and Songs relating to the late times; by the most eminent
Wits: from Anno 1639 to Anno 1661: London, 1662, octavo.”
These were all written by the Cavaliers in support of prerogative
and arbitrary power in Church and State against the Common
�114
SECOND TRIAL.
wealthmen. and the Puritans and Dissenters.
following, entitled,
He cited the
A LITANY FOR THE NEW YEAR.
>
i
From all and more than I have written here,
I wish you well protected this New year ;
From Civil War, and such uncivil things,
As ruine Law and Gospel, Priests and Kings ;
From those who for self-ends would all betray,
From such new Saints that pistol when they pray,
From flattering Faces with infernal Souls,
From new Reformers, such as pull down Paul’s,
From linsey-wolsey Lords, from Town-betrayers,
From Apron-preachers and Extempore prayers,
From Pulpit Blasphemy, and bold Rebellion,
From Bloud and—somethings else that I could tell ye on,
From new False Teachers which destroy the old,
From those that turn the Gospel into Gold,
From that black Pack where Clubs are always Trump,
From Bodies Politique and from the Rump,
From those that ruine when they should repair,
From such as cut off Heads instead of Hair,
From twelve-months’ Taxes and Abortive Votes,
From chargeable Nurse-Children in red Coats,
From such as sell their Souls to save their Sums,
From City Charters that make heads for Drums,
From Magistrates which have no truth or knowledge,
From the Red Students now in Gresham College,
From Governments erected by the Rabble,
From sweet Sir Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table.
Good Lord, deliver us.
Then followed another from the same Book, called “The City
of London’s Litany,” of which he read a short extract:—
From Rumps that do Rule against Customes and Laws,
Brom a fardle of Fancies stil’d a Good Old Cause,
From Wives that have nails which are sharper than claws,
Good Jove, deliver us.
�SECOND TRIAL.
From Men who seek right where it’s not to be had,
From such who seek good where all things are bad,
From Wise Men far worse than fools or men mad,
Good Jove, &c.
From soldiers that wrack the poor out of doors,
From Rumps that stuff Coffers to pleasure their Whores,
Which they secretly squeeze from Commonwealth scores,
Good Jove, &c.
lhe next was from the “ Collection of the newest and most
ingenious Poems, &c., against Popery,” in quarto, published soon
after the Revolution :—
A NEW PROTESTANT LITANY.
From Cobweb-Lawn Charters, from sham-freedom banters,
Our Liberty-keepers and new Gospel-planters,
And the trusty kind hands of our great Quo Warrantos,
Libera Nos, 8,-c.
From High-Court Commissions, to Rome to rejoin us,
From a Rhadamanth Chancellor, the Western Judge Minos,
Made Head of our Church by new Jure Divino’s,
Libera Nos, <§•<?.
From our great Test Records, cut out into thrums,
From waste-paper Laws, us’d with pasties and plums,
Magna Charta, Magna Farta, made fodder for bums,
Libera Nos, <$-e.
From a new-found Stone Doublet, to th’ old Sleeve of Lawn,
And all to make room for the Pope-Lander-Spawn ;
To see a Babe born, through bed-curtains close drawn,
Libera Nos, tyc.
From resolving o’er night, where to lye-in to-morrow,
And from cunning back-door to let Midwife thorow,
Eight months’ full-grown man-child, born without pang or sorrow,
Libera Nos, fyc.
From a God-father Pope, to the Heir of a Throne ;
From three Christian names to one Sir-name unknown,
With a Tyler milch-nurse, now the Mother’s milk’s gone,
Libera Nos, Syc.
�116
SECOND TRIAL.
There was one from the 2nd part of the same Collection^
beginning—
From immoderate fines and defamation,
From Braddon’s merciless subornation,
And from a bar of assassination,
Libera nos, Domine.
From a body that’s English, a mind that is French,
From a Lawyer that scolds like an oyster wench ;
And from the new Bonner upon the Bench,
Libera nos, Domine, <§•<?.
Mr. Ho n e read many others in the same spirit. There wasone which he had omitted to mention in regular order, which heshould now mention. It was a parody on our Litany, by Ben
Jonson, in his play called Cynthia’s Levels.
Amo. From Spanish shrugs, French faces, smirks, irps, and all
affected humours,
Ch o r u s —Good Mercury, defend us.
Pha. From secret friends, sweet servants, loves, doves, and such
phantastique humours,
Ch o r u s —Good Mercury, defend us.
Amo. From stabbing of armes, flap-dragons, healths, whiffes, and
all such swaggering humours,
CnoRUS—Good Mercury, defend us.
Pita. From waving fannes, coy glances, glickes, cringes, and all
such simp’ring humours,
Ch o r u s —Good Mercury, defend us.
Amo. From making love by attorney, courting of puppets, and
paying for new acquaintance,
Ch o r u s —Good Mercury, deliver us, &c.
This, the play said, was “acted first in 1600, by the then
children of Queen Elizabeth’s chapel, and allowed by the master
of the revels;” so that in those days, Ben Jonson, who, from his
works, was evidently a man of rectitude as well as genius, did not
think it unbecoming to write a parody; nor did a Queen, who
was scrupulous in requiring respect to things established, think it
unfit to be recited, even before herself, by the children of her
chapel.
�SECOND TRIAL.
117
Mr. Ho n e read other parodies on the Litany : one of which he
produced illustrated by a coloured print of a nobleman, who was
represented to have composed it, as follows :—
LITANY.
0 Ar is t o c r a c y ! Government divine ! !—have mercy upon us
miserable place-men.
O Aristocracy, Government divine, &c.
Stars, Garters, and Promotions, proceeding from aristocracy, and
power, have mercy upon us miserable placemen.
Stars, Garters, and Promotions, &c.
Femember not our offences, nor the offences of our fore-fathers
when in office,—neither take from us our places or pensions. Spare us,
aristocracy—spare the creatures thou hast raised, and be not angry
with thy servants.
Aristocracy, spare us.
From all democracy, and new-fangled doctrines,
Aristocracy, deliver us.
From fish-women, mobs, and lamp-posts,
Aristocracy, deliver us.
From national assemblies, national guards, and national cockades,
Aristocracy, deliver us.
From people who judge for themselves, and pretend to the rights of
man,
Aristocracy, deliver us.
From To m Pa in e ’s rabble and inflammatory pamphlets,
Aristocracy, deliver us.'
From the insertion of paragraphs foreign to thy laws, and the
liberty of the press in general,
Aristocracy, deliver us.
From all revolution meetings, and Ca Ira clubs,
Aristocracy, deliver us.
From all investigations and reforms,
Aristocracy, deliver us.
We place-men do beseech thee to hear us—O aristocracy—and that
it may please thee to govern the Church in thine own way,
Aristocracy, we beseech thee to hear us.
�118
SECOND TRIAL.
That it may please thee to illuminate the head of our governor, and
make it rich in understanding,
Aristocracy, we beseech thee to hear us.
That it may please thee to bless and preserve the governor’s wife,
and keep from her all uncharitableness,
Aristocracy, we beseech thee to hear us.
That it may please thee to shower down fat livings on all righteouspastors of the church, so that they may enjoy every luxury, and by
their preaching and living show it accordingly,
Aristocracy, we beseech thee to hear us.
That it may please thee to preserve for our use, the kindly fruits of
the earth, and all the game thereof, so that no other may enjoy them,
Aristocracy, we beseech thee to hear us.
That it may please thee to protect such as are in power, both in
church and state ; to raise up them that fall; and finally, to beat down
farmers, curates, and shopkeepers, beneath our feet,
Aristocracy, we beseech thee to hear us.
He produced another, of still later date, printed on a half
sheet, and sold at three-half-pence, entitled,
THE POOR MAN’S LITANY.
From four pounds of Bread, at Sixteen-pence price,
And Butter at Eighteen, though not very nice,
And Cheese at a shilling, though gnaw’d by the mice,
Good Lord, deliver us I
From stale Clods of Beef, at a Shilling a pound,
Which, in summer, with fly-blows and maggots abound,
Or dried by the wind, and scarce fit for a hound,
Good Lord, deliver us !
From the Tax upon Income, invented by Pitt,
Though the Great Ones contrive to lose nothing by it,
Yet we who have little are sure to be bit,
Good Lord, deliver us 1
From Taxes Assess’d, now rais’d at a nod,
While Inspectors rule o’er us with their iron rod,
And expect homage paid them like some demi-god,
Good Lord, deliver us !
�SECOND TRIAL.
119-
From Forestalled, Regraters, and all that curs’d train,
Who, to swell out their bags, will hoard up the grain,
Against which we cry out with our might and main,
Good Lord, deliver us !
From a Workhouse where hunger and poverty rage,
And distinction’s a stranger to birth, sex, or age;
Lame and Blind, all must work, or be coop’d in a cage,
Good Lord, deliver us!
From six in a bed in those mansions of woe,
Where nothing but beards, nails, and vermin do grow,
And from picking of Oakum in cellars below,
Good Lord, deliver us !
From Stickings of Beef, old, wither’d, and tough,
Bread, like Saw-dust and Bran, and of that not enough,
And scarcely a rag to cover our Buff,
Good Lord, deliver us !
From the tantalised sight of viewing the Great
Luxuriously rolling in coaches of state,
While thousands are starving—for something to eat,
Good Lord, deliver us I
From feasts and rejoicings, ye Gluttons, abstain,
Since the blessings you boast of but give the Boor pain,
And of which one and all so loudly complain,
Good Lord, deliver us !
But these Burthens remov’d, then united we’ll pray,
Both the young and the old, the grave and the gay—
“May the rulers be happy, and live to be grey
Rejoice then, ye Britons, that’s our Jubilee day,
We beseech thee to hear us, Good Lord.
Mr. Ho n e said, that having shown that parodies were not
necessarily disrespectful to the work parodied, and that they had
been uniformly allowed, he should now show that his did not
deserve to be made an exception to the general rule. In doing
this, he said, it became necessary for him to rebut a charge in this
information, of seditiously libelling the Prince Regent, the House
of Lords, and the House of Commons; and here he felt a little,
and only a little, embarrassed. His difficulty proceeded from his
�120
SECOND TRIAL.
conceiving the political opinions of the gentlemen of the jury
might be opposed to his own. Bnt here the difficulty was trifling,
because he was sure that prejudices were fast wearing away ; that
men, as they intermixed more kindly, respected the conscientious
opinions of each other; and believing, as he did most sincerely,
that opinions wholly opposed to his views were honestly entertained
by most respectable and worthy men, he also believed that such
men would give him credit for as much honesty in his persuasions,
and thus each would tolerate the other. He therefore, from a jury
of enlightened merchants of the City of London, claimed their
protection of his right to express his opinions, opposed, as he
imagined they might be, to their own; and he was persuaded, that
just and liberal feelings would rally in the hearts of his jurymen,
and that they would do unto him as they would that men should
do unto them.
Mr. Ho n e then proceeded to remark upon the several passages
of the Litany which was the subject of prosecution, selecting such
as appeared to give most offence to the political gentlemen who
sought, under the guise of religion, to effect a political object in
his ruin. His parody prayed our delivery, 1st, from “an un
nationaldebt;” 2nd, from “ unmerited pensions ;” 3rd, from “ sine- •„
cure places;” 4th, from “an extravagant Civil List;” and 5th,
from “ utter starvation.” Now, as to the first, how few were they
who doubted that many debts had been contracted by our rulers
for purposes by no means national. But good Ministers could
have nothing to fear from the promulgation of such things. No
government could, indeed, have so much reason to fear anything
as the effects of such a prosecution as he had been subjected to in
this instance, in consequence of the frank expression of his mind.
Then as to unmerited pensions, that was not to be understood as
applying to the reward of public servants; such, for instance, as
really performed their duty, upon the Bench or elsewhere, but to
those wrho derived fortunes from the public purse, without any
public service whatever; and how many such men -were to be
found in England ! Of the “ extravagant Civil List,” he did not
think it necessary to say anything; nor of “utter starvation”
�SECOND TRIAL.
121
eitherj for no one acquainted with London, dr any of the great
towns in the country, for the last twelve months, could require
any information upon that point. He had himself, indeed, seen
two human beings who had actually expired in the streets from
absolute want. But similar scenes must have been witnessed by
numbers of those who heard him, as well as by the members of
the jury. In every direction the ravages of distress were visible,
and most sensibly felt. Next, our delivery was prayed from the
blind imbecility of ministers, as well as from the pride and vain
glory of warlike establishments in time of peace. This prayer
might be found fault with by his political prosecutors; but yet,
who could doubt the imbecility of Ministers'? He, for one,
confessed that he could not. There were, he believed, some men
of honest purpose among the Ministers, while they evinced the
want of wisdom; but there were others connected with that body,
who. while they had reputation for talent, had equal reputation
for the want of principle. What then was to be expected from
such a combination of integrity without talent, and talent without
integrity? Nothing, surely, but imbecility. In asserting that
implicitly, however, he did not mean to reflect upon the private
life of any man; for, correctly speaking, the private life of a man
had no connection with his fitness or capability for the performance
of the great duties of a statesman. A man might be very amiable
towards his family and friends, and exemplary in the performance
of all the moral duties, while his mind was not large enough to
conceive the obligations which attach to the character of a states
man. The mind of a good private man might indeed be quite
incompetent to embrace a statesman’s views, or to understand his
duties. A very good, man might, therefore, from such incapacity,
grope as the present Ministers do, like a mole in the dark. Such
a man might, notwithstanding the honesty of his intentions, or
the purity of his principles, be wholly incapable of devising moans
to maintain the lustre, the dignity, and the honour of the country.
Every little thing would be to them of a distorted importance, as
to an animalcule a grain of granite was a universe. He could
mean no reflection, therefore, upon the personal character of the
�122
SECOND TRIAL.
Members of the Administration, when he charged them with
imbecility. Now, as to the warlike establishments in time of
peace, he put it to the jury, whether such establishments did not
at this moment notoriously exist. There was an Act of Parliament,
no doubt, to sanction their establishments; but this country had
often witnessed Acts of Parliament which were not entitled to
public respect—which were, indeed, in direct contradiction to the
principles of the British constitution. This he said, because he
thought so; and was it not better that he and others should be
encouraged to express their mind, than to conceal it, and reserve
the expression for secret conspiracies 1 Every rational man would
answer in the affirmative. It was always more desirable to any
considerate man to be told when and where he was wrong, than to
have the advantage of such information withheld from him. Such
must be the case with every man who was not deaf to his own
interest. Eor himself, he could have no hesitation in saying, that
he should esteem the friend who frankly told him that he was
wrong, because he should thus learn how to correct himself; and
the Ministers who' did not so feel towards any man who informed
them of their errors, must be insensible to their interest, as well
as indifferent to their character. A government which would not
hear the truth must be a despotism. He did not mean that
calumny should be tolerated, but that the expression of truth
should be encouraged. No honest men could have anything to
fear even from misrepresentation; for honesty was always sure to
defeat that, whether it applied to government or to individuals.
Why should government be afraid of truth or falsehood in any
case 1 Nothing but weakness could produce such fear, and that
weakness must be pitiable. Another prayer appeared in the
Litany, that the country should be delivered from all the deadly
sins attendant upon a corrupt method of election—from all the
deceits of the pensioned hirelings of the press. But who could
deny that the most flagitious corruption prevailed in the prevalent
system of election for Members of Parliament. Such corruption
was indeed as notorious as the sun at noon-day; and therefore this
prayer could not be condemned, unless upon the ground that truth
�SECOND TRIAL.
123
was a libel j and this was a doctrine never recognised by any jury
(who were entitled to judge of the law), although generally
asserted by the judges. But for himself, he could not conceive how
truth, with respect to any public act or public officer, could be
deemed a libel; and he hoped the jury whom he had the honour
to address would not give up their right of decision upon this
material point to the dictum of any individual. Another prayer
appeared in this Litany, for our deliverance from taxes levied by
distress—from gaols crowded with debtors—from poor-houses
overflowing with paupers. As to the first, it was universally
known that the greater part of the taxes were levied by distress
at the time this Litany was published. One tax-gatherer, indeed,
employed in the vicinity of Fleet Street, had told him, that he had
levied more distress for the payment of taxes within the preceding
nine months than he had done within the sixteen preceding years.
When, then, such calamity existed—when all things were going
wrong, where was the harm of saying so ? or was it not rather
desirable to make it known? Were an individual told that his
affairs were going wrong, his first object would be to cast up his
accounts, in order to see the magnitude of his danger, and to provide
some remedy, while he would thank the person who roused him to
a sense of his danger. And why should not the government be
equally grateful for similar information and excitement to inquiry ?
It would be so, if its members were not imbecile, self-conceited,
and supine. Then as to prisons crowded with debtors, was there
a quarter of England, or a man in the country, that could not
testify to this fact ? He himself had seen the condition of the
King’s Bench Prison. The day upon which he was committed to
the King’s Bench Prison in consequence of this prosecution, he
was put inside the gate, and found himself within the walls—
at liberty to go where he liked for an abiding place. At length
he applied at the door for the tipstaff by whom he was taken into
custody, and brought in, requesting to know where he was to get
a lodging ? In consequence of this application he was conducted
to the coffee-room, where alone he could, from the crowded state
of the prison, find any sort of decent accommodation. Such was
�124
SECOND TRIAL.
the statement to him at the time, and such he afterwards found to
be the fact. At the coffee-room he took up his abode as a boarder;
for he was under the necessity of paying three shillings a night for
sleeping in a room, in another part of the prison, with three other
persons. This inconvenience, which he most sensibly felt, both in
person and in pocket, was inevitable, from the extremely crowded
state of the prison. Another proof of the crowded state of our
prisons he had lately seen at Maidstone, where a prison to occupy
fourteen acres of ground, was nearly completed, avowedly with a
view to provide accommodation for the miserable prisoners of the
county of Kent, in addition to that afforded by the county gaol.
With respect to the overflow of poor-houses, he did not think it
necessary to say anything upon that point, as every gentleman of
the jury must, no doubt, be competent, from his own experience
and information, fully to decide the truth of that allegation. The
next prayer of this publication was as to “a Parliament chosen
only by one-tenth of the people—taxes raised to pay wholesale
butchers their subsidies—false doctrines, heresy, and schism—
conspiracies against the liberty of the people, and obstacles thrown
in the way of our natural and constitutional rights.” That
Parliaments were not chosen by more than one-tenth of the people
was, he apprehended, an indisputable fact. He himself had been
for the most part of his life a housekeeper, and yet he had never
enjoyed the right of voting for a member of the House of
Commons. This he must and ever should consider a great
grievance. He, and others similarly circumstanced, were no doubt
told that they were represented virtually as some class. But this
was a mere delusion, only aggravating the unjust privation of his
right by an insult to his understanding. Then, as to human
butchers, in what other light were those to be regarded who let
out their subjects to be shot at, or to shoot at others for hire ?
False doctrines were surely chargeable upon those who sanctioned
those notions of “legitimate right,” which were inconsistent with
the constitution and conduct of this country. But such doctrines
were to be expected from those ministers who were inattentive to
the wants of the people, who disregarded the example of the noble
�SECOND TRIAL.
125
Sully, the great minister of that truly great sovereign, Henry IV.,
who said, in the spirit of real benevolence and princely duty, that
his utmost ambition was that every peasant in his dominions
should have each day a pullet in his pot. The existence of con
spiracies against the liberties of the people was, he observed,
sufficiently obvious from the suspension and re-suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act. The next prayer to the government was,
“that ye spend not extravagantly the money raised from the
production of our labours, nor take for yourselves that which ye
need not.” This was surely not to be condemned, especially aftei*
government had sanctioned the scandalous Lisbon job, in which
Mr. Canning took from the public purse no less than £14,000 for
doing nothing, in a situation in which his predecessor, who had
something to do, received only £6,000. Yet this deduction from
the public purse, at a period of dire distress, Ministers made for
this most improper purpose, and Mr. Canning accepted the bribe
without the excuse of necessity, for his means were ample. Did
not such a transaction, amidst a thousand others, justify an allusion
to public money spent extravagantly, and given to those who
needed it not ?
Mr. Ho n e then adverted to the mode of prosecution by informa
tion, which was adopted against him, and said, that the statesmen
who effected the Devolution had expressly stipulated for the
abolition of this practice, though the stipulation appeared not to
have been subsequently fulfilled. The whole of the recent pro
ceedings of the Administration had his total disapprobation, and
therefore he commented upon them through the medium of paro
dies. Their measures were those of little men of little minds ;
their measures were the objects of his contempt, and the men
themselves, as Ministers, were the objects of his pity. It was
with pleasure, therefore, that he ever from that quarter heard any
thing accidentally advantageous to the country, and thence he
was gratified by the declaration of the Attorney-General on the
preceding day, that he held in equal estimation all classes
of Christians, no matter what were their particular forms of
worship.
�126
SECOND TRIAL.
Mr. Ho n e said, he was by no means exhausted, but he was
afraid of tiring the jury, whom he most respectfully and sincerely
thanked for their patience. If they required it, he would go
through every supplication to our rulers in the parody, to show
that what he said he was justified in saying—that it was true, and
not libellous—that if there was ridicule, those who rendered them
selves ridiculous, however high their station, had no right to cry
out because they were ridiculed. He intended to laugh at them.
They were his vindictive prosecutors, and his hypocritical perse
cutors ; and laugh at them he would, till they ceased to be the
objects of his laughter by ceasing to be Ministers. He expressed
a willingness to expound the whole of the parody, in order to
remove the imputation of libel, if the jury thought it necessary;
but perhaps the specimen of his remarks on the parts he had read
would be sufficient. The gentlemen of the jury would take the
parody with them, and consider it coolly at their leisure, and draw
their own conclusions, whether he proceeded through the whole or
not. Mr. Hone was resuming when he was stayed by ■
A Ju r y m a n —It is not necessary for you to read any further;
we are satisfied.
Mr. Ho n e said, Gentlemen, I thank ye—He was glad on many
accounts to hear the jury were satisfied, and would trouble the
jury but a short time longer. He never intended by these parodies
to excite ridicule against the Christian religion, and none but the
weakest men could honestly suppose so, and even they did it
without consideration. His intention was merely political. It
was done to excite a laugh. Was a laugh treason ? Surely not.
“ The lean-faced Cassius never laughs.” The learned judge who
tried the cause yesterday (Mr. Justice Abbott) had said, that to
take the name of the Lord in vain was profanation. Let Mr.
Attorney-General look to this ; for he found that he had made a
free use of this hallowed name at the late trial of Mr. Wooler.
When he made this allusion, he begged to assure the learned gen
tleman that nothing was further from his mind than any notion
that in the extracts from the Attorney-General’s speech, which he
was about to read, the name of God was introduced in any other
�(s( 'J
SECOND TRIAL.
\
way than that which might be done in an earnest ana^a^id\" o
delivery. But the Attorney-General had made in his speech on
Mr. Wooler’s trial, the following expressions :—
“ There are some persons who suppose, or choose to state they sup
pose, that persons filling the situation which I fill {God knows un
worthily) are servants of the Crown.”
“ The prosecution is not instituted on my own judgment (for God
knows that is weak), but in concurrence with that of my learned
friends.”
“ If any man can doubt that the defendant meant this as a libel
upon Ministers, God defend my understanding.”
“ If he did not mean to violate the law of the country, in God's
name let him show it.”
“ If he can show, by a preceding or following sentence, that this is
not the meaning intended to be expressed, in the name of Heaven let
him do it.”
“ God knows a great deal of my life has been spent in public.”
“ God forbid, that it should be said the highest and lowest man are
not equal in the eye of the law.”
“ Thank God, the richest and the poorest man are equally protected.”
Mr. Ho n e begged to remind the Attorney-General of what he
had stated yesterday respecting the Ten Commandments, and the
reverential awe which ought to be entertained for them. One of
these commands was, “ Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord
thy God in vain;” but it appeared that the learned gentleman
himself had broken this commandment. He was sure that the
learned gentleman had no intention of breaking the commandments,
or degrading sacred subjects, and therefore he was morally absolved
from the consequences of the impression which such irreverent
appeals to the Deity might produce. The defendant absolved him
from any intention of taking God’s name in vain, and he wished
the same construction to be put on the parodies which he had
written.
He concluded by imploring the jury, if they thought him
capable of sending forth the publication with the intent attributed
to him, to find him guilty; but if, as he anticipated, they dis-
><
�128
SECOND TRIAL.
believed that he had published with such an intention, then he
relied on a verdict of Not Guilty. His politics was his crime;
and if he were guilty, the real libellers were those who instituted
the prosecution against him, for their punishment should precede
his. Why did Mr. Canning escape, if he, Wm. Hone, were guilty ?
The Ministers knew they had among them those who had gone
unwhipped of justice.
The Right Hon. George Canning was
the man represented in Gillray’s graphic parody on the ascent of
Elijah, which he had in his hand, as holding forth his arms to
catch the mantle falling from Mr. Pitt, who was, like Elijah,
mounting in his chariot to the skies. He thanked the jury for
their patience; everything he valued in life was in their hands_
his character, his reputation, his subsistence. He asked from
them no mercy, he wanted only justice. If they thought he pub
lished the parody with the intent attributed to him, then let him be
“ Lash’d for a rascal naked through the world.”
If, as his conscience told him, they thought otherwise, then they
would send him home to his family instead of the King’s Bench
Prison.
Mr. Hone’s address lasted from a quarter to eleven o’clock to a
quarter past five o’clock. He was about to call evidence to prove
that he stopped the circulation of the parodies when he found they
were considered offensive ; when
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l rose, and submitted that evidence of
stopping the publication could not be received in a case where the
mere fact and intent of that publication were to be considered.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —You are right as to the rule of evidence.
It has nothing to do with the issue on the verdict of Guilty or Not
Guilty. At the same time I shall take this evidence as a circum
stance to be considered in mitigation of punishment, if the
defendant should be convicted. This may be a convenient way
of taking the evidence for him, as he might be put to the expense
of affidavits on a future occasipn, if it were now rejected.
Mr. Ho n e —I merely adduce it to show how soon I stopped
the publication.
�SECOND TRIAL.
129
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —That will not do away the offence,
though it may be a very considerable mitigation of the punishment.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l —In that light I can have no possible
objection to its being received.
Be n j a m in Gr im s e n deposed, that he was the defendant’s shop
man at the time the sale of the parodies was stopped by order of
defendant. Witness entered into defendant’s service at the
beginning of January last, at which time the sale of the parodies
was very considerable. They were indeed in the highest sale at
the time they were stopped. There was a great deal of application
for them both by private individuals and by booksellers, after the
sale was stopped. It was stopped on the 22nd of February. There
were about 3,000 sold altogether.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l —We admit the defendant stopped
his own sale on the 22nd of February.
Mr. Ho n e —I am obliged to the Attorney-General, but I would
rather the jury should take it from the mouth of the witness.
Wm . M‘Do n n e l l deposed, that he was the shopman of Mr.
Hone, and had immediately succeeded Benjamin Grimsen ; that
he was never allowed to sell “ Wilkes’s Catechism,” although
several persons applied to him for it; some of those applicants
having tendered half-a-crown and more for a copy of it, while one
offered a pound note. To a question from the Judge, witness
answered that he entered into the defendant’s service about the
beginning of April last. He was cautioned against selling any of
these parodies.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Then you had them in the shop ?
Witness—No, my lord.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —What do you mean by being cautioned ?
—a caution would be superfluous, if the parodies were not there.
The Witness—Large sums were offered. I could have got £1
for one; and the caution was, lest a stray one should be picked
up in rummaging the shelves.
Ge o r g e Bu t l e r , of Castle Street, in the Borough, deposed,
that he called at the defendant’s house about April last, with a
view to purchase some copies of “ Wilkes’s Political Catechism,”
K
�130
SECOND TRiÀL.
but that the shopman, as well as the defendant himself, refused to
let him have any; that this refusal served to interrupt a friendship
of twenty years’ standing, which he had had with the defendant.
Mr. Hit c h in g s deposed, that he applied in vain at the defend
ant’s shop, about the beginning of March last, for copies of the
parodies, including “ Wilkes’s Catechism that he did not know
anything about those parodies, until he heard of their having been
prosecuted, and then, from curiosity, he became anxious to sec
them.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l rose to reply—He said, that the
consideration of this case had occupied so much time, that he
would endeavour to compress what he had to say into as little
compass as possible.. The defendant had alluded to some expres
sions which he supposed had fallen from him on a former occasion.
In speaking of toleration, the defendant had supposed that he
held in equal esteem and veneration men of all professions of
religion.' This was a mistake : what he had said was, that if a
man was a Christian, though his mode and form of worship might
differ from the forms of the Established Church, to which he him
self belonged, yet if he performed his duty towards his God, and
believed in the essential articles of the Christian faith, he held
that man in estimation and regard—not in equal estimation. As
to the allusion to his having taken the name, of God in vain on a
former trial; all he had to say was, that he knew nothing of the
accuracy of the report; but if Mr. Hone could derive any advan
tage from his admission, he was free to say, that he had much
blame to take to himself for making too free a use of the name
of his Maker in attesting the sincerity of the opinions lie was then
delivering. This he confessed was wrong; for he hoped that all
persons would remember that the great Mr. Boyle never uttered
the name of God without a pause, at the same time showing his
reverence by the obeisance of his body. But this really had
nothing to do with the question. The impropriety of one man
could not be an excuse for that of another. As to the filing of an
information ex officio, it was part of the law of the land : it had
been part of the common law from the earliest times, and was
�SECOND TRIAL.
131
recognised by the statute law. The subject did not pass over
without great consideration at the time of the revolution. The
great men of that day redressed such abuses as they thought
required redress. There having been a right to file informations
by the Master of the King’s Bench, and private persons having
made use of him to create vexatious proceedings, a law was passed
in the 4th of 'William III., reciting those facts, and transferring
and confining the power to the Attorney-General. He denied
that the defendant had any ground of complaint on account of the
delay, which had, in fact, arisen from a desire to show all reason
able indulgence. It was for them to consider whether this wTere a
libel, and whether the intention of the publisher was to produce
those consequences which must result from it. The defendant
had occupied a considerable portion of their time in stating that,
at different periods of our history, parodies had been published on
the Scriptures. This fact, however to be lamented, afforded no
justification ; many of those parodies which he had read to-day
were profane, were impious, were libellous. Without meaning to
detract from the debt of gratitude owing to Martin Luther, he
must say, that he had profaned the Holy Writ. The same might
be said of Dr. Boys. And as to the other parodies of later times,
by whomsoever written, they were profane, and, being profane,
were the subject of prosecution. The Scriptures should be looked
upon with a sacred eye, and never be used for secular purposes.
Equally objectionable would it be to apply obscene tunes to the
Psalms of David, or even the hymns of Dr. Watts. But these
points had as little to do with the case, as the prints which the
defendant had exhibited. He (the Attorney-General) had selected
the defendant for prosecution because he had taken the lead in
these recent parodies. The defendant asserted, that he did not
mean to do wrong ; but we must judge by the actions of men ;
and what he charged was, that no man could read this work
without seeing that it must lessen that sacred regard and reverence
which every Christian owed to the public service of the Church.
If any man were to parody the prayers of any of the sectaries of
the Church, supposing them to be consistent with Christian wor
�132
SECOND TRIAL.
ship, he would commit an offence against religion. If the
doctrines urged by the defendant to-day were to be established in
a court of justice, it would produce such an inundation of blas
phemous publications as nothing perhaps could check. He saw
from the title-page that the defendant had published several tracts
of a similar nature, which were to be had at his shop, in order, no
doubt, that there might be a collection of parodies like those which
he had read to-day. He should, to the last hour of his life, declare,,
that he should not have been fit, nor ought he to have been
suffered to have retained his situation a moment longer, as the lawofficer of the public, if he had not followed up these prosecutions.
He called himself the law-officer of the public, because he stood
there as counsel and prosecutor for the sake of preserving reverence
and awe for religion and the sacred service of the Church of
England. Take, said the Attorney-General to the jury, this
Prayer Book and this pamphlet, compare them together, and I
have no doubt you will say that the latter was intended to bring
the former into contempt. I have done my duty; I leave you
to do yours.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h then proceeded to charge the jury. They
would recollect the evidence they had heard on the part of the
defendant, that he had stopped the circulation of this work on the
27th of February; but when he told them this, it was no matter
of consideration on the question of Guilty, or Not Guilty. Every
man might endeavour to do away his offence by a sort of repara
tion : he had, however, had the painful duty of sitting, when the
crime of forgery was brought before him, in cases where the money
had been sent back ; but so little had this been attended to, that
the severest penalties of the law had been enforced. The fact
which the defendant had proved could only have effect in mitigntion of punishment. The information charged that this was an
impious and profane libel: it was a libel on one of the most
beautiful compositions that ever came from the hands of men : it
was a part of the ritual even before the Protestant form of worship
was established ; and to bring this into ridicule, to endeavour to
write down the Litany, was impious and profane. It was said
�SECOND TRIAL.
133
that there was no such intention ; but the law considered that
every man intends that which he has done. The smallness of the
price for which these works were sold only accelerated the sale,
and increased the danger. One offence could not be justified by
another : on the contrary, it was an aggravation to say, that
persons had done so before, and thence to add to the number of
offenders. Amongst all the parodies which the defendant had
read, he could not find any that bore any proportion to the
enormity of the present. The Litany, and all the forms of prayer,
were in our statute books, as much as the law of inheritance,
which gives to a son the estate of his father. Lord Hale, venerable
as well for the sanctity of his character, as for the profundity of
his learning, had declared, as the Attorney-General had told them,
that Christianity was part of the common law of the land. If this
publication were not to ridicule religion, let them take it with
them, and see what other purpose it could answer. To raise a
laugh—a laugh at whom, if it were not at religion ? The last
passage in the work seemed to be the worst; for there, instead of
the solemn and impressive words, “ May the grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy
Ghost, be with you all evermore ; it said, “ May the grace of our
Lord George, and the love of Louis XVIII., and the fellowship of
the Pope, be with you all evermore.” The defendant had adverted
to many grievances that did not exist. The right of filing informa
tions ex officio was expressly saved to the Attorney-General by the
statute of William. And as to granting copies of the information,
in what instance had such copies ever been granted to any subject
■of the realm ? Did the defendant wish a particular law for him
self ? He said he was ignorant of the charge to which he had to
plead. What! did he not publish this work ; and how could he
not know what the charge contained ? Then what other grievance
had he to complain of ? Was it that he was discharged upon his
own recognisance ? It was now for them to consider whether the
defendant was guilty. Different persons, it was said, had pub
lished similar things. As to going up to the time of Martin
Luther, Boys, and so on, the habits of those times were totally
�1.34
SECOND TRT A T..
diffeient, the first scenic performances were mysteries or repre
sentations of incidents in Sacred Writ. Luther himself was not
very temperate when he was engaged in controversy. There were
many things in the parodies which have been read that must be
considered as profane and impious; but this of the defendant
transcended them all in magnitude. He would deliver them his
solemn opinion, as he was required by Act of Parliament t.o do ;
and under the authority of that Act, and still more in obedience
to his conscience and his God, he pronounced this to be a most
impious and profane libel. Believing and hoping that they (the
jury) were Christians, he had not any doubt but that they would
be of the same opinion.
(His lordship, who appeared much oppressed with indisposition
during the latter part of the trial, delivered his charge in so faint
a tone, that it was scarcely audible beyond the Bench.)
. The jury then, ata quarter past six, retired; at eight they
returned; and their names having been called over, the foreman,
in a steady voice, pronounced a verdict of—NOT GUILTY.
The Court was exceedingly crowded; and as soon as the deci
sion was heard, loud and reiterated shouts of applause ensued.
His lordship called upon the sheriffs to preserve order ; but the
expression of feeling was so universal, that all interposition was
impossible. The crowd then left the Court, and, mixing with themultitude in the hall and in the passages, communicated their
feelings with their news, and the loudest acclamations of applause
filled the avenues, and were echoed through Guildhall and KinoStreet, which were extremely crowded. Never, indeed, was a
greater degree of public interest excited upon any trial. The Court
was crowded throughout the day ; and for several hours before the
jury retired, Guildhall was as full as upon the assemblage of a
Common Hall. The sensation produced by the result of this
important trial cannot be described. Before his lordship left the
Couit, he asked the Attorney-General what case he would take
next. The Attorney-General replied, that he should take next
that which stood next in order—“ The Kin g against Ho n e , for
the ‘ Sinecurists’ Creech’”
�SECOND TRIAL.
135
Mr. Hone endeavoured to leave the Court privately; but he
was recognised by some persons in the Court, who, in their exul
tation, were forgetful of the great fatigue he had undergone during
his trials on this and the preceding day. He was pressed upon by
innumerable greetings, and hands shaking, and was desired on all
sides to get into a coach ; but this he positively declined, and
almost, overpowered by the eagerness of salutation, escaped into
the Baptist-Head Coffee House, Aldermanbury; where he was
joined by a few friends. After having taken some slight refresh
ment, he 'walked home unrecognised, to his anxious family. On
his arrival he was much indisposed, and apparently too much
exhausted to undergo the fatigue of defending himself on the
third trial, which was appointed by the Attorney-General and
Lord Ellenborough for the next morning, at half-past nine o’clock,
on an ex-offido information for publishing a third Parody, entitled
“ The Sinecurists’ Creed.”
��THIRD TRIAL.
THE KING
a g a in s t
WILLIAM HONE,
OX AN EX-OFFICIO INFORMATION FOR PUBLISHING A PARODY
ON THE ATHANASIAN CREED,
ENTITLED
“THE SINECURISTS’ CREED.”
Tr ie d
in
Gu il d h a l l , Lo n d o n , o n Sa t u r d a y , De c e m b e r 20, 1817, a t t h e
Lo n d o n Sit t in g s a l t e r Mic h a e l ma s Te e m .
BEFORE LORD ELLENBOROUGH AND A SPECIAL JURY.
On the night of Friday, the 19th of December, 1817, imme
diately after the verdict of Not Guilty on the trial of the second
information against Mr. Hone, for the parody on the “ Litany,” it
was settled by the Lord Chief-Justice and the Attorney-General,
that the trial of the third information, for the parody on the
“ Athanasian Creed,” should commence the next morning ; yet it
was believed on all hands, that the third information would not be
then brought on j and, indeed, it was generally supposed it would
be abandoned altogether. The most obvious reasons were, that as
two verdicts had been given for Mr. Hone, by two different
juries, the Ministers of the Crown could with no good grace put
him upon his trial a third time; and further, that fatigued as he
had been, by long previous anxiety, and the exertions of two suc
cessive days—on the first of which he spoke near six hours, and
on the second near seven hours—it would be indecent to briim
�138
THIRD TRIAL.
him into Court a third time, without the lapse of a single day,
and calculate upon the previous exhaustion of his bodily strength
lor that success which they could not hope for while he retained it.
However, it being understood on the following morning,
Saturday, December 20th, that the third information would
really be tried, the avenues of the Court were crowded at an
earlier hour than on the two former days, and public curiosity
was at its height. The sheriffs, city marshals, and an increased
body of peace-officers, were in attendance. At a quarter-past nine
the Attorney-General appeared in Court, and about the same time
the youth (Mr. Hone’s brother) brought in a larger quantity of
books than before, which he placed in order on the table of the
Court. Mr. Hone himself did not arrive until half-an-hour
afterwards. He appeared exceedingly ill and exhausted.
At a quarter before ten o’clock, Lord Ellenborough being
seated on the bench, Mr. Law stated that the prosecution was the
King against Hone, on an ex-officio information ; and proceeded to
call over the names of the jury. Though the Court was crowded
to excess, the most profound silence prevailed.
Only seven special jurymen attending, the At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l
prayed a tales.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l challenged William Green, one of the
talesmen who served on the jury-the day before.
Mr. Ho n e immediately rose, evidently labouring under great
indisposition, and begged that he might be allowed time to
recollect himself. A moment after, he said he objected to
that peremptory challenge of a common juror, and required the
cause of it.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l observed that the Crown had a right
to challenge, without assigning any cause, until the panel was gone
through. If there did not then appear to be a sufficient number
to form a jury, he should, if called upon, state his reasons for
challenging any individuals.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h said—The defendant might in that case
call upon the Attorney-General, but not before—that he believed
was the rule of law.
�THIRD TRIAD.
139
Mr. Ho n e was at this time sitting down, and appeared ex
tremely agitated.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I believe, Mr. Hone, you have not heard
the observation of the Attorney-General.
Mr. Ho n e replied, that he did not distinctly hear it.
His lordship repeated the words, and assured the defendant
that he should have the benefit of any legal objection that appeared
material to his defence.
Mr. Ho n e —I am thankful to your lordship.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l challenged J. Matthews, merchant.
Mr. Ho n e again rose to object to the challenge.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h repeated the assurance he had made, and
the defendant sat down evidently seriously indisposed—he was
much convulsed.
A.gentleman at the bar, who sat near the Attorney-General,
having made some remark upon the appearance of Mr. Hone,—
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l addressed his lordship—What he had
to state, he said, did not arise from a wish on his part to postpone
the proceedings of the Court; it arose from a very different source.
Mr. Hone appeared to be very unwell ; and it had been just
suggested, that a delay of the proceedings might be necessary, in
consideration of his probable inadequacy to enter upon his defence
with the full command of those energies which he possessed in a
very considerable degree. This was a ground of postponement
that could by no means be controverted.
Mr. Ho n e —I make no request, my lord.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l —The defendant certainly appeared
unable to make any great physical exertion, and as it was necessary
for him to have a full control upon so serious an occasion, the
postponement might be desirable.
Mr. Ho n e said, he was thankful for the offer of indulgence. He
certainly felt much agitation, but it was not agitation of mind.
He was merely exhausted from the effort of the day before. In a
little time, he hoped to be so far recovered as to be able to enter
upon his defence.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Mr. Hone, you will now make a pru-
�140
THIRD TRIAL.
dent and discreet election ; for if the trial begins, I shall not be
able to put a stop to it.
Mr. Ho n e My lord, I make my election to proceed now, if
your lordship pleases.
The following gentlemen were then sworn :__
THE JURY.
Ge o r g e Mo r e w o o d , Pancras Lane.
Ge o r g e El w a l l , Love Lane.
Eg b e r t Ed g a r , Fenchurcli Street.
Da n ie l Ec k e n s t e in , College Hill.
Ja m e s Ba r r y , Cateaton Street.
Ja me s Br o c k b a n k , Bucklersbury.
Wil l ia m Cl e r k , Philpot Lane.
Merchants.
Bic h a r d Le w is .
Al f r e d Co l e s .
Ja m e s Pe a r c e .
Fr e d e r ic k Sa n s u m .
An t h o n y Kin g Ne w m a n .
Talesmen.
xr
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —The jury is now formed ; and, lest you
may suppose that you can object to them hereafter, I must state,
that you will not have such an opportunity. If you have any
objection, advance it now—there will not be an opportunity at a
future time. Should you have any objection to the AttorneyGeneral’s challenge, you must rely on it now.
Mr. Ho n e —I thought there would be a future time to
discuss it.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —There will not. I rather think you
will find nothing in the challenge to excite suspicion; but don’t be
advised by me.
Mr. Ho n e —The jury are all strangers to me. I have no doubt
that they are respectable and conscientious men, and I wave the
objection altogether.
Mr. Sh e ph e r d then opened the pleadings. This was an in
formation filed by the Attorney-General against the defendant, for
publishing an irreligious and profane libel on that part of the
Divine Service of the Church of England, denominated “The
Creed of St. Athanasius,” with intent to scandalise and bring into
contempt the said Creed.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l now commenced his address to the
�THIRD TRIAL.
141
jury, observing, that the information which he had thought it a
part of his official duty to file against this defendant, charged him
with the publication of a profane libel on that part of the service
of the Church of England which was called the “ Creed of St.
Athanasius.” The tendency, if not the object, of such a libel,
appeared to him to be to excite impiety and irreligion in the minds of
those who might read it, and to bring into ridicule and contempt
the mode of celebrating Divine worship in this country. That
Christianity was a part of the law of England, was a proposition
which no man could deny; for it had been so held from the earliest
periods of our history. At the Reformation, and by several sub
sequent Acts in the reigns of Edward VI. and of Elizabeth, the
form of the national religion was established. But after the re
storation of Charles II. the Act of Uniformity, as it was called, was
passed, and provided that form of public prayer which was inserted
in the Common Prayer Book, and ordained to be kept in all parts
of the country, as a record to be produced, if necessary, in Courts
of Justice. Whatever relaxation from penalties imposed by this
statute might have taken place since that time, the Act, in other
respects, remained untouched, the established form of prayer was
left sacred, and was to be defended against all who sought to bring
it into contempt. Whatever differences of opinion might prevail
on the doctrinal points of the Athanasian Creed, amongst different
religious sects, it was a part of the Church Service, as established
by law in England. And although the law did not forbid the
decent discussion of the theological subjects to which it referred,
it ought not to allow it to be scoffed at, or treated with general
ridicule. It was for the jury to decide whether this was not the
true character of the. publication recited on the record, and whether
this did not amount to the offence of libel. There could, he
apprehended, be no doubt with regard to the tendency of the
work : but it might be urged in the course of the defence, that
such was not the object of the author in publishing it. But he
must take leave to say, that if a man advisedly did a wrong act,
he was answerable for its natural consequences, because it was his
duty to reflect upon its tendency and nature before he committed
�142
t h ir d t r ia l
.
It. Now, writing and publishing were plainly acts of deliberation,
in excuse of which, if they were wicked or unjustifiable, it was
impossible to allege a momentary impulse or the infirmity of
human nature. He was astonished, indeed, that such a pretence
should be employed, as that the defendant was unconscious of the
tendency of the writing in question. From the number of books
which he saw on the table, it might be attempted to show that
similar works had been circulated by other persons. But whoever
they were, or whatever their merits in other respects, he had no
hesitation to say, that they had been guilty of the same offence,
and that such instances could, therefore, constitute no justification
of the defendant’s conduct. The libel in question must be judged
upon its intrinsic contents alone, and not by the authority of
parodies equally offensive. The Attorney-General then read several
passages from the paper he held in his hand, which was entitled
11 The Sinecurists’ Creed,” and proceeded to show that those pas
sages were a parody upon many parts of St. Athanasius’s Creed,
by reading the corresponding paragraphs. The injury likely to
arise from the dissemination of this awful system of impiety would
be, the Attorney-General observed, particularly great in the case
of those who were not enlightened by education, and who were
therefore easily initiated into bad principles by publications of
that kind. But that was not the only class that would suffer.
When children were brought up in the principles of Christianity,
the best expectations might be entertained from their mature
years ; but if they were not protected from these inroads, the great
bond that linked man to man would be shaken, and there was no
vice that did not afford a speedy promise of becoming greater and
more uncontrollable. The man whose acts led to this unfortunate
event must be responsible. His fault arose not from oversight or
thoughtlessness, but from a cool deliberation. It would be for the
jury to say whether the defendant’s publication was calculated to
have the impression he described.
Mr. Sw a n s o n , clerk in the office of the Solicitor to the
Treasury, proved that he purchased the pamphlet on the 17th
February, at Mr. Hone’s late shop in Fleet Street, &c.
�THIRD TRIAL.
143
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Perhaps it may not be thought necessary
by the defendant, that St. Athanasius’s Creed should be read.
Mr. Ho n e wished it to be read, that he might have the more
time to prepare his defence.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h -—I had better give you time expressly
than take up the time of the Court unnecessarily. The Creed
shall, however, be read, if it is your wish.
Mr. Law read St. Athanasius’s Creed; after which he read the
publication charged as a libel.
Th e SINECURISTS’ CREED, or BELIEF ; as used throughout the
Kingdom. Quicunque vult. By Authority. From Hone’s Weekly
Commentary, No. II., London : Printed for one of the Candidates
for the Office of Printer to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, and
Sold by Wil l ia m Ho n e , 55, Fleet Street, and 67, Old Bailey, three
Doors from Ludgate Hill. 1817. Price Twopence.
THE CREED OR BELIEF.
ST Upon all suitable occasions may be sung or said the following
CONFESSION—upstanding and uncovered.
Quicunque vult.
WHOSOEVER will be a Sinecurist: before all things it is necessary
that he hold a place of profit.
Which place except every Sinecurist do receive the salary for, and
do no service : without doubt it is no Sinecure.
And a Sinecurist’s duty is this: that he divide with the Ministry
and be with the Ministry in a Majority.
Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing with the Opposition.
For there is one Ministry of Old Bags, another of Derry Down
Triangle : and another of the Doctor.
*
But the Ministry of Old Bags, of Derry Down Triangle, and of the
Doctor, is all one : the folly equal, the profusion co-eternal.
Such as Old Bags is, such is Derry Down Triangle : and such is the
Doctor.
Old Bags a Mountebank, Derry Down Triangle a Mountebank : the
Doctor a Mountebank.
* Triangle is a thing having three sides; the meanest and most tinkling of all
musical instruments; machinery used in military torture.
�144
THIRD TRIAL.
Old Bags incomprehensible, Derry Down Triangle incomprehensible :
the Doctor incomprehensible.
Old Bags a Humbug, Derry Down Triangle a Humbug: and the
Doctor a Humbug.
And yet they are not three Humbugs : but one Humbug.
As also they are not three incomprehensibles, nor three Mounte
banks : but one Mountebank, and one incomprehensible.
So likewise Old Bags is All-twattie, Derry Down Triangle Alltwattle : and the Doctor All-twattle.
And yet they are not three All-twattles : but one All-twattle.
So Old Bags is a Quack, Derry Down Triangle is a Quack: and the
Doctor is a Quack.
And yet they are not three Quacks : but one Quack.
So likewise Old Bags is a Fool, Derry Down Triangle is a Fool: and
the Doctor is a Fool.
And yet not three Fools : but one Fool.
For like as we are compelled by real verity : to acknowledge every
Minister by himself to be a Quack and Fool;
So are we forbidden by state etiquette: to say there be three
Quacks, or three Fools.
Derry Down Triangle is made of none : neither born nor begotten.
Old Bags is of himself alone : a Lawyer bred, a Lord created, by
his Father begotten.
The Doctor is of Old Bags, and of Derry Down Triangle : neither
made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Old Bags, not three Old Bags: one Derry Down
Triangle, not three Triangles : one Doctor, not three Doctors.
And in this Ministry none is afore'or after the other : none is greater
or less than another.
But the whole three Ministers are co-Charlatans together, and
co-Tricksters.
So that, in all things, as is aforesaid: the Majority with the Ministry,
and the Ministry in the Majority, is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be a Sinecurist, must thus think of the
Ministry.
Furthermore it is necessary to his Sinecure’s preservation : that he
also believe nightly the mystification of Derry Down Triangle.
For the Sinecurist’s right faith is, that he believe and confess : that
Derry Down Triangle, the qkeue* of the Ministry of the great man now
no more, is now both Minister and Manager.
* Kyntie, sf. tail, stalk, cue, trail, &c.
�THIRD TRIAL.
145
Minister, first selling the substance of his own country to this:
Manager scattering the substance of this over all the world;
Perfect Knave and perfect Fool: of unsparing despotic views—on
overstrained taxation subsisting;
Equal to Old Bags as touching grave Trickery : and inferior to the
Doctor as touching his Mummery.
Who although he be Knave and Fool, yet he is not two, but one
Minister ;
One ; not by a conversion of the Charlatan into the Minister ; but by
shooting a more showy juggler, who wanted, and still wants, to be a
Minister.
One altogether ; squandering in profusion our substance : by votes
of corrupt Majorities.
For as by power of Dupery, and our Money, he makes whom he
will his own : so by Intrigue and Cajolery, he is Minister :—
Who, to talk for our Salvation, descended to kiss the Nethermost
End of Tally-high-ho ; and rose again as a giant refreshed •
He ascended into a higher place, he sitteth at the right hand of the
Chair ; from whence he shall hear how those who being starved,—‘ by
the Visitation of God,’—became Dead.
At whose nodding all Sinecurists shall rise again, and again ;
and with their voices cry Aye! Aye! and the Laureate, in
token of joy, shall mournfully chaunt the most doleful Lay in his
Works.
And they that have said Aye ! Aye ! shall go into place everlasting;
and they that have said No ! shall go into everlasting Minorities.
And Co l e r id g e shall have a Jew’s Harp, and a Rabbinical Talmud,
and a Roman Missal: and Wo r d s w o r t h shall have a Psalter, and a
Primer, and a Reading Easy : and unto So u t h e y ’s Sack-but shall be
duly added: and with Harp, Sack-but, and Psaltery, they shall
make merry, and discover themselves before Derry Down Triangle,
and Hu m his most gracious Master, whose Kingdom shall have
no end.
This is. the Sinecurist’s duty, from doing more than which, except he
abstain faithfully, he cannot be a Sinecurist.
if Glory be to Old Bags, and to Derry Down Triangle, and to the
Doctor.
As it was in the Beginning is now and ever shall be, if such things
be, without end. Amen.
[Here endeth the Creed or Belief.]
L
�146
THIRD TRIAL.
During the Attorney-General’s opening, and whilst the Creed
and the alleged libel were being read, Mr. Hone was occasionally
occupied in making notes, but he seemed weak, and not collected
in his mind. He was engaged in writing when Mr. Law concluded
the reading of the Sinecurists’ Creed.
Mr. Ho n e rose and stated, that he was not quite prepared; he
craved the indulgence of the Court for a short time, whilst he
arranged the few thoughts he had been committing to paper; his
mind had not been quite cool ; he should be ready in five minutes,
at farthest; he would certainly not detain the Court longer than
that.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —The Attorney-General warned you, and
admonished you, in the situation you were placed as to health. I
offered you the indulgence of postponing the trial, but we really
cannot have delay interposed from time to time in the course of
the trial. If you shall wish even now to have it postponed, I
venture to predict that you will be suffered to request a delay of
the trial; but it must be a request, and unless you make it, the
trial must go on. Do you make such request ?
Mr. Ho n e (in a determined tone, and with an expression of
countenance which did not indicate much respect for his lordship
personally)—No 1 I make no such request! (His powers seemed
renovated by the refusal of the Court to give him time, and pausing
a few seconds, he said) My lord and gentlemen of the jury—
(turning from the jury to Lord Ellenborough, he exclaimed with
earnest vehemence), my lord, I am very glad to see your lordship
here to-day ; (with increased vehemence) I say, my lord, I am very
glad to see your lordship here to-day, because I feel I sustained an
injury from your lordship yesterday—an injury which I did not
expect to sustain. I do not know how very well to measure my
words, and yet I know I should do so in anything I have to
remark upon your lordship’s conduct; but if the proceedings of a
solemn trial, like that of yesterday, and this to-day are to be
interrupted—and I say that, because I think the charge your
lordship gave-----Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I cannot hear any observations in that
�THIRD TRIAL.
147
way now, on what passed yesterday. You may make common
and ordinary observations, but I cannot sit here to be attacked.
Mr. Ho n e —(pausing, and looking significantly at Lord Ellenborough) I will not attack your lordship.
Mr. Ho n e —Gentlemen of the jury, I will not say what his
lordship did on the trial last night; but if his lordship should
think proper, on this trial to day, to deliver his opinion, I hope
that opinion will be coolly and dispassionately expressed by his
lordship. I say, if his lordship should think proper to give an
opinion, because notwithstanding what has been stated, his lord
ship is not bound to give an opinion; I repeat, gentlemen (most
vehemently), by Mr. Fox’s Libel Bill, the judge is not bound
to give an opinion: the Act does not make it imperative, but
leaves it discretionary with the judge whether he shall give his
opinion or not. It is true, there may be Acts of Parliament or
difficulties of law, the explanation of which requires the opinion
and the intervention of the judge ; but such is not the case upon
the occasion to which I allude. I will not relate what passed
upon my last trial, but I will suppose the case of a defendant
asking the opinion of the court for information, and answered in
a manner calculated rather to cause confusion in his mind than to
clear up the difficulty : and I will ask, whether such ought to be
the conduct of a person presiding in a court of justice1? An Act
of Parliament should be so clear, that he who runs may read; and
that is, that he who reads it may understand its meaning, without
the intervention of a judge; and I take this Act to be so. But,
nevertheless, if legal opinion be desired, there is the exposition of
the Vinerian Professor of Law upon it, Mr. Christian—no mean
authority; for this gentleman is distinguished for his learning and
legal knowledge, and is himself a judge, being Chief Justice of
Ely. That learned person, observing on Mr. Fox’s Libel Bill, in
his notes on Blackstone’s Commentaries (B, 4. p. 151, Ed. 1795)
says, “ That Statute provides that the judge may give his opinion
to the jury respecting the matter in issue,” not shall-----Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —You are mis-stating the statute.
Mr. Ho n e (l o u d )—I beg your lordship’s pardon (vehemently),
�148
THIRD TRIAL.
you are interrupting me, my lord. I was not quoting the statute,'
I was reading, as the gentlemen of the jury know, to whom I am
addressing myself, the Exposition of Professor Christian upon the
words of----Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —The words in the statute are “ shall or
may give his opinion.”
Mr. Ho n e —I shall read the statute presently.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Well, go on.
Mi. Ho n e (earnestly and slowly)—My lord, I think it neces
sary to make a stand here. I cannot say what your lordship may
consider to be necessary interruption, but your lordship interrupted
me a great many times yesterday, and then said you would inter
rupt me no more, and yet your lordship did interrupt me after
wards ten times as much as you had done before you said you
would interrupt me no more. I feel it proper to make this obser
vation upon this interruption. Gentlemen, it is you who are
trying me to day. His lordship is no judge of me. You are my
judges, and you only are my judges. His lordship sits there to
receive your verdict. He does not even sit there to regulate the
trial—for the law has already regulated it. He sits there only as
the administrator of that law—to take care that nothing in the
regulation of the law prejudice the prosecutor or the defendant.
I hope that unless I transgress the law I shall not be again inter
rupted to day—but if I do, I crave interruption, for it will be
necessary. I hope for that necessary interruption, but then it
must be necessary interruption. If I transgress the law, I shall
do it unwittingly. I trust that I shall not be allowed to do it,
and then like a poor fly in the web of a spider, be pounced upon
and crushed !
Mr. Ho n e , resuming his argument, contended that by Mr.
Fox’s bill the judge was not bound to give any opinion on the
question, whether the thing under consideration was libel or not,
but that it was left discretionary for him to do so or not, as he
thought proper. His lordship seemed to think otherwise, and
that it was a part of his duty to give that opinion. His lordship
would, therefore, no doubt, pursue that course to-day—he would
�THIRD TRIAL.
149
not say what his lordship did yesterday, but he trusted his lord
ship to-day would give his opinion coolly and dispassionately,
without using either expression or gesture which could be con
strued as conveying an entreaty to the jury to think as he did.
He hoped the jury would not be beseeched into a verdict of guilty.
He was now brought to answer to a third accusation for a similar
alleged offence, by his Majesty’s Attorney-General; and he came
into Court wholly unprepared, unless from such preparation as
he might have collected from the probation of his two former
trials. The Attorney-General had behaved towards him most cour
teously, so far as he was concerned. He had experienced this
both on his trial and previous to it. He had no charge to bring
against that gentleman. He did not know how far the AttorneyGeneral acted in this business from his own private j udgment, or
in what degree he was subject to ministers. He was unacquainted
with the relation in which he stood; but had he received any
intimation from ministers to that effect, he believed he would not
thus have proceeded to bring him into Court a third time; he
should not have been once more dragged from his bed to appear
before a jury. Before coming into Court, he was so ill that he
thought he should not have been able to proceed. He had taken
no refreshment since yesterday, except one glass of wine, and was
so feeble last night, that he could not get into bed without help.
He was apprehensive that notwithstanding he had received medi
cal aid, he should not have been able to stand up in Court: but
had he not been able to walk, he should have ordered himself to
be brought in his bed, and laid upon the table, for the purpose of
making that defence, even in a state of feebleness, which he unex
pectedly found himself now able to enter upon with more strength
than he had hoped to possess : indeed, his powers were restored in
an extraordinary measure. He should, even under the most help
less debility, have defended himself against the charge of circu
lating a publication which was called a libel, but which he knew,
and should prove, to be no such thing. He should regret much,
if in the course of his trial any such expression of feeling should
be manifested as occurred yesterday. They who were present
�150
t h ir d t r ia l
.
ought to command themselves, and remember that he was on a
trial of life or death. Such was truly the case; for, if found
guilty, he knew he should receive sentence for such a term of
imprisonment as to deprive him of health, and eventually of life
Those who interrupted yesterday did what was wrong, but it was
not the only wrong to be complained of. He had that morning
complained to the sheriff then sitting by his lordship (De s a n g e s )
that two of his witnesses were refused admission into Court on the
trial yesterday, though they produced their subpcenaes at the door.
That little indulgence might have been granted to those who lived
in his service, and entertained some friendship for him, merclv
because he had not used them ill.- It was attempted to turn the
laugh which had been excited yesterday in Court to his disadvan
tage. It was attributed by the Attorney-General to an irreligious
feeling occasioned by the parodies which he had published. This
he could not consider very fair; it had a tendency to make the
jury believe that this laugh was one of the irreligious effects
arising from the productions he had published; whereas, it was
the effect of the ridiculous allusions to his Majesty’s ridiculous
Ministers, without the least reference or thought for an instant
respecting the Athanasian Creed. The parody for which he was
at present upon trial, had been reserved, he believed, for no other
reason but because it was the weakest of the three. The AttorneyGeneral, no doubt, had selected the parody on the catechism as
the first object of accusation, for no other reason but because he
looked upon it as the strongest case; that on the Litany was the
next; the last was beyond comparison the weakest. It was an
old saying, that experience made fools wise. Experience, however
never made fools wise. It made men of understanding wiser, but
not fools. If there was any truth in the proverb, he should not
then have been a third time in Court, after being twice acquitted
upon similar charges. He did not impute folly to the AttorneyGeneral. On his part, the proceedings arose perhaps from an
error in judgment; but there were others who, after the experience
of the last two days, were so foolish as to allow him to be brought
a third time to trial, though the chance of being found guilty was
�THIRD TRIAL.
reduced even, to less than, the proportion of 1 to 99$
General, neither upon this, nor upon the former
much by way of authority to enforce his opinion. All the au
thority was upon his (Mr. Hone’s) side. It was contained in the
books that lay upon the table. He had selected many passages
from them which he should have occasion to read once more.
They all proved that parodies upon the Scripture had been in fre
quent use even among pious and enlightened men. The opinion
of Sir Matthew Hale had been mentioned and quoted as the
highest, authority upon the subject of religion as connected with
the state. He was, no doubt, an honest, wise, upright, and pious
judge. He could not say he was in error in the particular opinion
alluded to on a former trial, but he was not infallible, and might
have been deceived as well as others. That pious and upright
judge actually condemned to death some persons for being witches.
He might have been a great man, but this was a proof that he
was weak at least in one respect. With respect to the authorities
he had quoted upon the subject of parody, there was a great
difference of opinion between him and the Attorney-General.
He should, however, quote them again, and should tell the jury
that Martin Luther was a parodist as well as William Hone.
In the title page of Wilkes’s Catechism, he had stated that it was
never before published; he afterwards, however, discovered that
it had been printed and published before. This information he
had from a gentleman of the bar, Mr. Adolphus, who came into
his shop to purchase the Catechism, and seeing it mentioned on the
title-page that it had never before been published, informed him
that it was printed and published in the 1st volume of the
Morning Chronicle,, remarking at the same time, that the title
page was an imposition. Such was the fact. Was Mr. Adolphus
in court ? he believed that gentleman would have no hesitation
in admitting it. Truth was always his leading principle, as it
should be that of every other man. He defied any person with
whom he had the least dealing, to bring a charge of falsehood
against him. With respect to the parody on Wilkes’s Catechism,
he wrote it himself upon a manuscript which had been put into
�152
THIRD TRIAL.
his hands by a gentleman, who told him, at the same time, that it
was never before published. That gentleman belonged to the
profession of the law. He was a regular attendant upon church,
and his lordship heard of him every term he sat. Whatever might
be the consequence to himself, no consideration could induce him
to disclose the name of the person who furnished him with the
manuscript of Wilkes’s- Catechism, although that person had not
once called upon him, or in any other way noticed him since this
prosecution. He was persuaded though, that if he conceived it
to be a blasphemous publication, or to have the evil tendency
attached to it upon the trial, the gentleman to whom he alluded
would have been the last man to put such a production in a
train for circulation. The Attorney-General, in his reply on the
former day, seemed to think that the Litany was not published
before. The truth, however, was, that three weeks previous to
his publishing it, it had been circulated widely in very populous
distiicts. It was sent to him, not by the author, whom he did
not know at the time, but by another person, whose name had
been heard by every man in England. The author had called on
him before the prosecution, and avowed it to be his; but it would
have been courteous in that person to visit him in prison, or at
least to have sent him a line, were it only with a view of consoling
him in his trouble. It was true he (Mr. Hone) made some altera
tions in it. He introduced some additional supplications, the
Glory be to George : and the Collect for Ministers; “ Enlighten
our Darkness,” &c. This last prayer, however, had no effect on
ministers j for otherwise, after being acquitted twice before, they
would have been enlightened to the folly of putting him a third
time upon trial. He did not pretend to be well acquainted with
the law of libel; but he was far from thinking that all truth was
a libel, though there were many things true that should not be
told or written. Were he, for instance, to give a scandalous
history of all he knew, or could learn, of a certain great personage,
from his birth to the present day, however true it might be, no
person could say that the publication of it would not be equally
scandalous. Such a publication differed very much from what
�THIRD TRIAL.
153
might accidentally or carelessly occur in conversation, or slip from
a person’s pen while writing. The doctrine of libel was quite
undefined; but he had no doubt that the day would come when
nothing would be considered libel until it was declared so
by a jury.
Parodies, it was said by the Court and the Attorney-General,
should not now be defended by the production of similar publica
tions by other persons, and at former periods But why, he would
ask, single him out, after he had been twice before acquitted by
two juries, even af'tei' all the picking and packing of the Crown
Office? Why send him now a third time before another jury,
selected in the same way ? With respect to parody, it was as
ancient even as the time of Homer. The finest productions of
genius were produced in ancient as well as modern times. They
were parodied because they were generally known, and were in
themselves original and beautiful, obtaining for that reason an
extensive popularity. The thing was not done from motives of
contempt—quite the contrary. If parodies on Scripture were
criminal, they must have been so at all times, whoever might have
been the author, and whoever might have then been AttorneyGeneral. The informations against him were filed by the late
Attorney-General. He was brought into Court on the 5th of May
last, and that very day Sir William Garrow resigned his situation.
He would not say the resignation arose from his being ashamed of
his conduct, but it was remarkable that the informations filed by
him upon that occasion were the last acts of his political life as
Attorney-General. No information was filed against others who
had written parodies. An information had not, and would not,
he believed, be filed against Mr. Canning, for his parody on Job.
The reason was, perhaps, that it was known that Mr. Canning
could make a good defence, while he (Mr. Hone) was supposed
unable to make one, was brought before a jury three times suc
cessively. He never before in his life spoke in the presence of
more than ten persons. If Providence ever interfered to protect
weak and defenceless men, that interference was most surely
manifested in his case. It had interposed to protect a helpless
�154
t h ir d t r ia l
.
and defenceless man against the rage and malice of his enemies.
He could attribute his defence to no other agent, for he was weak
and incapable, and was at that moment a wonder unto himself.
(Here a mixed murmur of applause and pity was heard from the
crowd assembled.) As the law of libel stood at present, it was not
possible to be understood. It was, in its present state, only cal
culated to entrap and deceive people into punishment, and reminded
him of the conduct of one of those despots, who, in all countries,
frequently get into the possession of power, and use it only for
the purpose of punishment and oppression. The person to whom
he alluded was the tyrant of Syracuse. It was his custom, when
laws were promulgated, to have them written in very small
letters, and placed so high that they could not be read; but who
ever dared to transgress them were punished with all the severity
of a despot, though the wretches who suffered the punishment
could not possibly have known the law, for the pretended trans
gression of which they suffered. Such exactly was the law of
Lbel. In fact, there was no such thing as law of libel; or, if there
was, the law was written upon a cloud, which suddenly passed
away, and was lost in vapour. Nothing was a libel until a jury
pronounced it such. He was pointed at, and showed as one guilty
of publishing the most blasphemous productions. When in the
King’s Bench, he was shunned as a pestilence, even by those who
were, or pretended to be, formerly his friends—by those whom, as
David said of Jonathan, his heart loved. His acquaintance, it
was true, recommended him to counsel, but some objections were
urged against all whom they pointed out to him. Some from
motives of etiquette, could not attend upon him in prison. Others,
though they might have talent, had not courage to undertake his
defence. Without courage it would be useless to attempt it. The
question he put, upon such recommendation of counsel being made,
was, has he courage, ? Will he be able to stand up against my
Lord Ellenborough ? Will he withstand the brow-beating of my
Lord Ellenborough? It was necessary that a person under
taking his defence should be a stranger to fear; for, if he per
sisted in saying anything when once his lordship had made an
�THIRD TRIAL.
155
objection, the consequence would be to lose what is called the ear
of the Court.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l —I cannot sit here quietly and hear
such language directed to the Court. I submit, my lord, whether
it be right ?
e
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Perhaps, Mr. Attorney, you might
have interposed your objection sooner; but you have heard the
sort of attack which was made upon me. I think the best course
will be to let the thing blow over us !
Mr. Ho n e would, he said, entreat pardon, if anything painful
to the gentlemen of the bar had fallen from him. Talent and
courage, he perceived, were necessary to his defence. As to
talent, he possessed, if any, but a very humble share ; but mental
fear was a thing to which he was, and ever had been, an utter
stranger. He did not know what fear was ; and while he con
ceived himself to have truth and justice on his side, no earthly
consideration could deter him from expressing his opinion, and
doing what he thought right, which he ever did, and ever should
do, without thinking of consequences to himself. There was a
circumstance which occurred previous to his coming into Court,
that gave him great pain. It proceeded from Dr. Slop, the editor
of one of those publications that were always ready to perform any
dirty work which they deemed acceptable to men in power. It
stated, that a person who had been tried and convicted, was to
receive twelve months’ imprisonment for publishing one of those
parodies, for which he (Mr. Hone) had been twice acquitted, and
would, he hoped, be acquitted again that day. This man applied
to a solicitor, by whom he was recommended to let judgment go
bv default, as the best course which he could adopt.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l —I am quite sure nobody on my part
or by my desire, ever had any communication with the person
alluded to, or ever advised him to either plead guilty or not guilty.
Mr. Ho n e observed, that all he meant to say was, that the man
was not convicted, was not tried, but suffered judgment to go by
default. There were, however, communications between this man
and the solicitor who conducted the present prosecution ; and yet
�156
THIRD TRIAL.
he received a sentence equal in extent to anything which might
have been expected, even by a man who had been found guilty by
a jury of his country ; and, what was very extraordinary, on the
very morning this person was brought up to receive his sentence,
he (Mr. Hone) received the first notice of his trials. It was
equally extraordinary that this person called on him three or four
times previous to his going up to Court, to ask him for his advice,
although antecedent to those occasions he had actually taken advice,
and had determined upon the course he should pursue. Williams
was what was described as a loyal man • that was to say, a sort of
thick and thin man ; who, if a person in authority were to say go,
he goeth; come, and he cometh. (Murmurs of approbation.) He
was m a corps of yeomanry, and he told him (Mr. Hone) that he
had often printed for Government. His full conviction was, that
if he (Hone) had been found guilty, the man would not long have
remained in prison. He thought he had a strong right to com
plain of one or two gross and infamous falsehoods inserted in a
paper which was published every morning at six o’clock, and which
' there had been time, therefore, for every one of the jury to have
seen before he entered the box. At six o’clock every morning did
the ghost of Dr. Slop (a name acquired by Dr. Stoddart, on account
of the profane curses lavished by him upon Buonaparte, before he
was dismissed from The Times Journal) walk forth in Crane Court
Fleet Street. By this ghost it had been stated (for what purpose"
unless to prejudice him on his trial, could not be imagined) that
Williams had been found guilty by the verdict of a jury for the
same publication. This was as false as was another statement,
that he was in the practice of selling obscenity, which he detested
and despised as much as any man. Such falsehoods put forth at
such a time, when he was standing up in that Court, in the hour
of peril, to vindicate his innocence, could only have proceeded
fi om one who was ct viUcviTb to the btxch-bone. And such he would
proclaim Dr. Slop to his face, whenever and wherever he should
meet him.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Do not use such expressions. You say
you have got through life free from private and acrimonious
�THIRD TRIAL.
157
bickering; do not say that now which may hereafter provoke it.
I say this merely for your own preservation, and not with a view
to interrupt you.
Mr. Ho n e assured his lordship that he sincerely acknowledged
the propriety of his interference, though it was difficult for him to
restrain his feelings. It was nevertheless true that he cherished
no hatred against this individual; he was indeed an object of
contempt, and not of hatred, and was regarded by him in no other
light than as a lost, unfortunate, and abandoned man. He had
come into Court with strong feelings of irritation, which he could
not well restrain when he found that this man’s statements went
to impute to him the publication of sedition, blasphemy, and
obscenity. He denied that he had ever suffered any obscene work
in his shop ; and if it could be proved that he had, he called upon
the jury to find him guilty of blasphemy, in order that under that
verdict he might receive the punishment due to obscenity; for,
next to blasphemy, he considered obscenity the greatest offence
which a man could commit. He had, however, no hatred for such
a man; and although Dr. Slop had attempted to do him this injury
in the moment of peril, if the miserable man were in distress
to-morrow, and it was in his power to relieve him, he would not
hesitate to hold him out a helping hand. This feeling had been
cherished in his breast ever since he knew right from wrong.
(Murmurs of Applause.) He wished he could have had it in his
power to say that his trial had not come on that day, merely for
the sake of being able to say something in favour of his persecutors.
Some of those grave personages went to the Chapel Royal with
their Prayer-books on the Sabbath-day. It was to be lamented
that they lost sight of those principles of Christianity which he
hoped they were in that place accustomed to hear. He by no
means wished that justice should not be done; for to neglect to'do
justice would be injustice; but he thought, in the present case,
they might have borrowed a little of the character, the precept,
nd the example, of one whose name he could not mention without
reverence and humility—he meant Jesus Christ. He would not
be so irreverend as to read any passage to illustrate the character
�158
THIRD TRIAL.
of that Divine Being; but he well recollected that when Jesus
was on earth, he continually exhorted his followers to the exercise
oi mercy, charity, love, and goodwill. This was exemplified in
many instances, but in one more finely than in all the rest. He
had heard various sermons on this subject, but none of them
produced an impression equal to that which he experienced on
reading the relation to which he referred when alone and in his
room. That to which he alluded was the story of the woman
taken m adultery. The Pharisees went to Christ in the temple,
and brought to him a woman whom they had taken in adultery, a
ciime the greatest that it was possible for a wife to be guilty of.
She did not deny her guilt, but Christ, turning to the Pharisees,
said, “He that is without sin let him cast the first stone; ” her
guilty accusers withdrew in silence, leaving the woman alone with
Jesus, who desired her to “ Go, and sin no more.” If there were
nothing but this to excite veneration in the human mind for that
Divine Being, it was sufficient; and he had only to lament that
such an admirable example had not been followed by those who
had brought him there that day. By the Jewish laws, the woman
who had committed adultery was liable to be stoned to death, and
yet none of her accusers could say they themselves were without
sins. Were his prosecutors without sins, he would ask ? Were
they not open to impeachment ? He would impeach them !
These Pharisees were guilty of the same crime for which they
were now seeking to punish him ! The miserable hypocrites 1
The wretches 1 (Murmurs from the Crowd.) That was a strong,
a very strong phrase ; he did not mean to apply it to any person
in particular; all he meant to urge was that his accusers had
themselves done what they ought not to have done, and ought
therefore to look with the greater lenity towards him. He had
now to ask the jury, for it was too late to ask his accusers, to
follow the precept of our Saviour in another part of the Testament,
v*z'—“to do unto others as you wish others to do unto you.” He
felt much better to-day than yesterday. He was animated by the
consciousness of having done no wrong. Por any wrong he might,
have unwittingly done he was exceedingv sorry. He was ex
�THIRD TPvIAL.
159
ceedingly sorry if anything he had written or published had a bad
tendency. His lordship had misconceived the cause of stopping
the sale of his publications. He had not stopped it because lie
thought the publication wrong, but because persons whom he
respected had been hurt by them. He esteemed the hearts, though
he could not respect the judgment, of those persons. He would
hurt no man’s mind. Sorry, sorry, sorry, was he, that the prosecu
tion was not stopped. Although his prosecutors had thought of
bringing him to trial at alL and had actually put him on his trial;
although they had done so a second day, after a jury of honest
Englishmen had acquitted him; yet he should have been happy,
for their own sake, that his prosecutors had made some atonement
by a twelfth hour repentance.
See the odds against me, he
exclaimed, in a fervid tone; it is one farthing against a million of
gold. My prosecutors have laid a wager with public opinion; but
they will lose it to their irretrievable shame. “ Skin for skin (he
exclaimed, vehemently), all that a man has will he give for his
life1” I am here on trial for my life. If you, the jury do not
protect me, my life must fall a sacrifice to the confinement that
shall follow a verdict of guilty. My prosecutors, my persecutors,
are unrelenting. I feel now as vigorous as when I was in the
middle of my defence on Thursday last; and I talk to you as
familiarly as if you were sitting with me in my own room; but
then, gentlemen of the jury, I have not seats for you; I have not
twelve chairs in my house; but I have the pride of being in
dependent. None is supposed to be independent without property.
I have never had any property. Within the last twelve months
my children had not beds, At this moment there is not furniture
sufficient for the necessary enjoyment of life. Eor the last two
years and a half I have not had a complete hour of happiness,
because my family have been in such misery that it was impossible
for a man of my temperament to know anything of happiness. I
have been asked, why I have not employed counsel ? I could not
fee counsel. I have been asked, when I should publish my trial ?
I could not pay a reporter; and at this moment I have no reporter
in Court. Gentlemen, you do not see me in that dress which my
�IGO
x
THIRD TRIAL.
respect for you, and for myself, would make me anxious to appear
in. I did resolve to get a suit of clothes for these trials, but the
money I had provided for that purpose I was obliged to give for
copies of the informations against me. These things I mention to
show you what difficulties I had to encounter in order to appear
to possess independence of mind, and to let men know how
cautious they should be in judging of men. Seven or eight years
ago I went into business with a friend in the Strand. I had then
a wiie and four children, and I was separated from them by evils
accumulated from endeavouring to help those who could not help
themselves. I attempted, in conjunction with the friend, who
originated the plan, to establish something of an institution similar
to the saving-banks that are now so general. There was a number
associated for this purpose, and I was their secretary. Our object
was to get the patronage of Ministers for our scheme. Mr. Fox
was then in power. It was the Whig Administration. We hoped
to throw a grain into the earth which might become a great tree—
in other hands it has succeeded. It was very Quixotic—we were
mad; mad because we supposed it possible, if an intention were
good, that it would therefore be carried into effect. We were not
immediately discouraged, but we met with that trifling and
delaying of hope which makes the heart sick.
[Here a person fainted among the crowd, and was carried out.
The Court and jury took the opportunity to take some refresh
ment. Mr. Hone withdrew, for a few minutes, from the Court,
threw of his coat, washed his arms and face with cold water, and
rinsed his mouth; and when the Court was ready resumed.]
I find I was entering into too much detail. I meant simply to
state that I lost every thing, even the furniture of my house.
With that friend I got again into business. We became bankrupts,
owing to the terms on which we commenced it. But, on the'
meeting of our creditors, the first question was, 1 Where is your
certificate?’ All signed it at once, save one, who was uninten
tionally the cause of my failure, two years 'and a half ago, when I
went into prison for debt, and was discharged by the insolvent act.
Having then got some books to sell, being always fond of old
�THIRD TRIAL.
161
books, I took a shop in Fleet Street, at the cornei- of Lombard
Street. It was three feet wide in front. I had no place there for
my wife and my seven children. The shop was in consequence
broken open three times, and all that was worth anything in it
taken away. I was now in desperation, thrown on a wide ocean
without a shore, and without a plank of safety. I then accidentally
wrote something which happened to sell. By this success I got a
place for my family, which was scarcely a dwelling for human
beings. From my anxiety for my family, and the harassed state
of my mind, I was attacked with apoplexy, and my family were
thrown into the utmost alarm. I was obliged to remove to save
my life. I then took a place in the Old Bailey. I could furnish
only one room. I would not let lodgings, because I would not
expose my state of destitution. Just as I was getting my head a
little above water, this storm assailed me, and plunged me deeper
than ever. I am as destitute as any man in London. I have not
one friend in the world. It has been said that I am hacked. No !
friends are got by social intercourse; and the expense of social
intercourse I have never been able to afford. I have as true a
relish for the comforts, as well as the elegancies of life, as most
men in much higher ranks ; but I have ever been independent in
mind, and hence I am a destitute man. I have nevei’ written or
printed what I did not think right and true; and in my most
humble station have always acted for the public good, according to
my conception, without regard to what other men did, however
exalted their rank.
The defendant now apologised to his lordship, the AttorneyGeneral, and the bar, if he had offended them by anything he had
said; and entered upon what was immediately connected with his
defence. Informations by the Attorney-General had been defended,
he said, as always known in the practice of the law. He denied
this. To hold to bail for libel was illegal; and in support of that
proposition he quoted a passage from a letter written by Mr.
Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton, in the following words —
“ I never heard, till very lately, that Attorney-Generals, upon the
caption of a man, supposed a libeller, could insist upon his giving
M
�162
THIRD TRIAL.
securities for his good behaviour. It is a doctrine injurious to the
freedom of every subject, derogatory from the old constitution, and
a violent attack, if not an absolute breach, of the liberty of the
press. It is not law, and I will not submit to it.”—(Mr. Dunning’s
Letter concerning Libels, Warrants, &c. p. 31.) He next referred
to the information filed against him, and from which he quoted,
and submitted that the only question the jury had to try was, as
to his intention when the publication in question issued from his
hand. That his intention was such as was imputed to him he
utterly denied. Nothing was further from his ideas than to excite
irreligion and impiety in the minds of his Majesty’s subjects. The
jury were his judges. They were to decide both upon the law
and the fact • and by their decision his fate would be decided. He
stopped the publication, not, as he was a living man, because he
thought it criminal, but he gave way to the wishes of persons not
to be argued with.
He would now prove this parody to be no libel. It was
possible to parody the most sacred work, without bringing the
work itself into ridicule and contempt. The parody might be used
as the vehicle of inculcating, by the peculiar language of the thing
parodied, an impression of a different tendency. Parody was a
ready engine to produce a certain impression on the mind, without
at all ridiculing the sentiments contained in the original work.
Such was the object of Martin Luther’s parody on the first Psalm;
and such also was the object of Dr. Letsom’s Thermometer of
Health, and a number of works applying religious phraseology to
give a more solemn impression to the moral or the sentiments
inculcated. In illustration of this position, he proceeded to submit
to the jury the same works of which he availed himself on the
preceding trials; amongst which were Dr. Boys’, the Dean of
Canterbury’s parody on the Lord’s Prayer. There was no doubt
that Dr. Boys bad written his parody unadvisedly, but certainly
without a bad intention. Such was his (the defendant’s) parody
on St. Athanasius’s Creed. It was not written for a religious, but
for a political purpose—to produce a laugh against the Ministers.
He avowed that such was his object; nay, to laugh his Majesty’s
�THIRD TRIAL.
Ministers to scorn.; he had laughed at them, and, ha 1 ha !
laughed at them now, and he would laugh at them, as long as
were laughing stocks ! Were there any poor witless men less
ridiculous than these Ministers, his persecutors; one of whom was
himself a parodist, sitting now in the Cabinet, winking at, insti
gating, aiding and abetting, this prosecution. George Canning was a
parodist, with William Hone and Martin Luther. (Applause.)
George Canning come into Court. George Canning come into
Court! make way for him if you please. No, gentlemen of the
jury, you will not see Mr. Canning here to-day; but had I him
now in the box. I would twist him inside out. Mr. Canning had
parodied the Scriptures, but he (Mr. Hone), had only parodied the
Common Prayer. He next adverted to the caricature called
“The Mantle of Elijah.” And who was the Elijah personified?—
why, Mr. Pitt! And who was the mantle-catcher ?—why, this
same George Canning, who was now one of his persecutors.
Before he had spoken of this Bight Honourable with forbearance ;
but now he must speak with contempt of the man who could act
thus towards the poor miserable, and supposed to be defenceless,
bookseller of the little shop in Eleet Street. This very caricature
was published under the auspicies of Mr. Canning; certainly, at
least, with his entire knowledge. Mr. Canning ought to have been
a willing witness for him on the present occasion; he ought to
come into the witness box, to confess his own sins, and plead the
defendant’s cause. It was hoped, he had no doubt, by certain very
grave members of the Cabinet (my Lord Sidmouth and my Lord
Liverpool), that William Hone could not stand the third day—
that he would sink under his fatigues and want of physical power.
“ He can’t stand the third trial,” said these humane and Christian
Ministers ; “ we shall have him now; he must be crushed.” (Great
shouts of applause.) Oh, no ! no ! he must not be crushed; you
cannot crash him. I have a spark of liberty in my mind, that
will glow and burn brighter, and blaze more fiercely, as my mortal
remains are passing to decay. There is nothing can crush me, but
my own sense of doing wrong; the moment I feel it, I fall down
in self-abasement before my accusers : but when I have done no
�164
THIRD TRIAL.
wrong, when I know I am right, I am as an armed man; and in
this spirit I wage battle with the Attorney-General, taking a tilt
with him here on the floor of this Court. The consciousness of
my innocence gives me life, spirits, and strength, to go through
this third ordeal of persecution and oppression. He should order
a frame for Elijah’s Mantle in his way home to his family, and he
should place it over his mantle-piece, for his children to laugh at.
He said he should do this to-night, because he had no doubt that
the jury would acquit him without retiring from the box. (Great
applause.) He next adverted to Lord Somers’s tracts, and called
in aid the parody of the Genealogy of Christ, and accompanied it
with a powerful appeal to the jury, upon the iniquity of this last
effort to overwhelm him—to send him to Gloucester goal, to rot
and perish under the weight of his afflictions. The Harleian
Miscellany contained a parody on the Lord’s Prayer.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l objected to its being read, as too
indecent for the ears of any persons in these times.
Mr. Ho n e said, in courtesy to the Attorney-General, he would
not persist in reading this work. He then went over the same
ground which he had pursued yesterday, bringing under the atten
tion of the jury a great variety of different parodies, written by
churchmen and many other persons, considered in their times as
most religious and venerable men. One of which he had not before
read, was by the Rev. Mr. Toplady, a very popular preacher, of
great talent, amongst the Calvinists, who died greatly lamented,
at a very early age. Mr. Toplady’s object was to ridicule Lord
Chesterfield’s Letters,* and the morals therein inculcated. It was
entitled—•
“Ch r is t ia n it y Re v e r s e d , &c . ; or, Lo r d Ch e s t e r f ie l d ’s New Creed.
“I believe, that this world is the object of my hopes and morals ;
and that the little prettin esses of life will answer all the ends of human
existence.
“ I believe that we are to succeed in all things, by the graces of
civility and attention; that there is no sin, but against good manners;
and that all religion and virtue consist in outward appearance.
• Can be had of the Publishers of this work, in 2 vols., edited by Charles
¿Stokes Carey.
�THIRD TRIAL.
165
“ I believe that all women are children, and all men fools ; except a
few cunning people, who see through the rest, and make their use of
them.
“I believe that hypocrisy, fornication, and adultery, are within
the lines of morality ; that a woman may be honourable when she has
lost her honour, and virtuous when she has lost her virtue.
“ This, and whatever else is necessary to obtain my own ends, and
bring me into repute, I resolve to follow ; and to avoid all moral
offences, such as scratching my head before company, spitting upon the
floor, and omitting to pick up a lady’s fan. And in this persuasion I
will persevere, without any regard to the resurrection of the body, or
the life everlasting. Amen.
“ Q. Wilt thou be initiated into these principles ?
“A. That is my inclination.
“ Q. Wilt thou keep up to the rules of the Chesterfield morality ?
“ A. I will, Lord Chesterfield being my admonisher.
“ Then the Ojficiator shall say,
“Name this child.
“ A. A f in e Ge n t l e m a n .
“ Then he shall say,
“ I introduce thee to the world, the flesh, and the devil, that thou
mayest triumph over all awkwardness, and grow up in all politeness ;
that thou mayest be acceptable to the ladies, celebrated for refined
breeding, able to speak French and read Italian, invested with some
public supernumerary character in a foreign court, get into Parliament
(perhaps into the Privy Council), and that, when thou art dead, the
letters written to thy bastards may be published, in seven editions, for
the instruction of all sober families.
“Ye are to take care that this child, when he is of a proper age, be
brought to C—t, to be confirmed?
Of the other works to which he particularly alluded, was
Mr. Reeves’s penny publication entitled the “ British Freeholder’s
Political Catechism.” That gentleman had himself been prose
cuted ; not, however, for his catechism, but for having depicted
the British Constitution as a tree, the branches of which might be
lopped off, and yet the trunk remain. For this libel he was
prosecuted under the direction of the House of Commons, although
it was carried on very unwillingly. Mr. Reeves published his
�166
THIRD TRIAL.
parody on the catechism no doubt with the best intentions, because
he used the parody as a popular mode of inculcating what that
gentleman considered wholesome truth. Such was the object of
the parody now prosecuted. But what was the difference between
his situation and Mr. Beeves’s ? Mr. Reeves was basking under
the sunshine of a court, and was a placeman. If he (Mr. H.) was
convicted, there was no doubt that he also would become a govern
ment placeman : but where ?—in Gloucester gaol! To the
jury, however, he looked for his rescue from this bigoted perse
cution. He was charged with parodying the language and style
of sacred works. But what was that style and language?—it
happened to be translated nearly three centuries ago, but the lan
guage of that time was not, on that account, peculiarly sacred.
There was no doubt that if the Bible was re-translated, it must be
so altered as hardly to be known, except by its sense. If a parody
on the style only was the offence, even Mr. Canning himself, as a
literary man, as a man of taste, and a man of words, would acquit
him. But whatever might be the motive of this prosecution, there
could hardly be any doubt that it was an unchristian feeling on
the part of my Lord Sidmouth, to suffer him to stand here for the
third time to take his trial for an offence which two juries of inde
pendent Englishmen had pronounced not to be libels. He would
not say that Lord Sidmouth was a bigot; but he must say that
the spirit of persecution and unchristian feeling marked this
abominable attempt to sacrifice, by all or any means, a defenceless
and innocent man, for party purposes. Lord Sidmouth himself
knew, and every man in the country, even the most bigoted must
know, that this parody was not written for irreligious purposes.
The fact was, the hopeful Ministers of the Cabinet wanted to make
him a scape-goat for their political sins; those which were his own
particular sins he should glory in, so long as he lived, because he
knew that his objects were truly constitutional, and aimed at the
happiness of his country. The jury must see that the parodies
which he read were not calculated to injure religion. Most of
them had political or moral objects. Of the former description
was the parody in the Oracle newspaper, and the parody on the
�THIRD TRIAL.
167
Te, Deum, adapted in five languages, to the combined royal armies,
lately employed against Buonaparte; and of the latter was the
religious play-bill, which he had read on the other trials, which
was printed by one of the Society of Friends. Such also was the
parody on the recruiting bill, the object of which was to draw the
attention of the idle and dissolute to spiritual concerns. Of the
like description were the hymn tunes played at Rowland Hill’s
Chapel, although they were the popular and national airs per
formed at theatres and other places of amusement. Dr. John
Rippon, an eminent and most respectable teacher of religion
amongst the Baptists, had adapted such tunes to the most pious
strains of psalmody. For instance, such tunes as “ Drink to me
only with thine eyes,” “Rule Britannia,” “God save the King,”
&c. The hymns of Dr. Collyer, Lady Huntingdon, Dr. Watts,
and others, were adapted to operatic and military airs, &c. These
tunes, no man could doubt, were used as vehicles for religious
worship, and exciting moral feelings. His parody was adapted
exclusively to a similar subject, and was not meant, directly or
indirectly, to affect the sacredness of religious worship. Profane
ness and irreligion must be the same at all times, and in all places;
and if the most venerable and sacred pillars of religion had re
sorted to this mode of inculcating religious sentiments, the offence
must have been as culpable in their times, if it was an offence, as
in the present. Bishop Latimer, who had burned at the stake, a
martyr for religion, had spiritualised a pack of cards, as John
Bunyan had the fig-tree, for the most moral purposes. He blamed
the Attorney-General for the cruelty of cutting.one crime into
piecemeal; for all these three informations might have been
included in one. An hundred libels might have been embraced
in one information. But no; the object was to embarrass and
entrap him. One chance of catching him was not sufficient for the
vindictive spirit of his Majesty’s Ministers. They were determined
to have him at all events; and therefore three hooks were baited ;
but he hoped the jury would save him from the third. All these
snares were laid for his ruin, by a ministry remarkable alike for
bigotry of spirit and hostility to freedom. They were laid by that
�168
THIRD TRIAL.
ministry, who not long since endeavoured to interfere with those
principles of religious toleration which were held sacred by all
good and rational men, by introducing a bill into Parliament for
restraining the right of preaching among the Dissenters. Yes,
that odious bill, which was scouted out of Parliament, through the
firm and manly appeals of the Dissenters themselves, originated
with Lord Sidmouth, by whom he had been most unjustly held
out to the country as a blasphemer, although now persecuted by
that minister only for a profane parody. This minister endea
voured in Parliament to stigmatise him for an offence which could
not be even alleged against him before a jury. This minister of
the Crown took the advantage of abusing him in a place where he
(Mr. Hone) could make him no answer, and this was a practice
too common with his unmanly colleagues. But here he would
answer that minister by affirming, that which he would challenge
the Attorney-General to contradict, namely, that to impute to him
the crime of blasphemy was a foul and unfounded slander. Such
slanders, however, were not uncommon. Mr. Canning was quite
in the habit of abusing men in the House of Commons, whom he
would not venture to meet face to face : while he was in a ra^e if
o
any the most indirect allusion was made in that house to any
member of that confederacy of literary hirelings and political apos
tates, of which he had been so long the principal leader and active
patron. Yes, any man who could write in that style, about which
Canning was so peculiarly solicitous, that it seemed, in that
gentleman’s view, more material than thought, was secure of ministerial patronage, if the writer could only follow Mr. Canning in
the desertion of principle and the sacrifice of real independence.
But to return to the subject under the consideration of the
Court. He observed that parodies had been so numerous in this
country, that no one could suppose them subject to any legal cen
sure. He remembered a parody levelled at Lord Grenville, in the
Oracle newspaper, when it was a ministerial print, as indeed, it
had always been for several years before its death; for that paper
was dead, notwithstanding the support it received from ministers;
and having mentioned that support, he could not help stating the
�THIRD TRIAL.
169
manner in which it was usually afforded to newspapers. When
the venal journalist could write what was deemed a good article in
favour of the ministry, 500 or 600 of his journal were bought by
the Treasury, and gratuitously circulated among their partisans
through the country. Those purchases were made indeed as often
as the journalist appeared to his patrons to deserve attention ; and
they were made, too, with the public money. Thus the money
wrung in taxes from the pocket of the people was distributed
among those prostituted writers who were employed in endea
vouring to pervert their understanding. How much of this
money was given to the Oracle for abusing every principle and
advocate of liberty, he could not pretend to say, but its death was
a pregnant proof of the integrity, power, and judgment of the
people, among whom it could obtain no currency. For, after all,
if a paper could not obtain circulation among the people, ministers
must feel it of no use to them, and therefore withdraw their
patronage from a hireling as soon as the people discard his
productions; which they will always do as soon as they clearly
understand his character—such had been the fate of many news
papers and other periodical publications in this country. Heriott’s
paper, the True Briton, met the fate of the Oracle, and for the
same reasons. When Heriott was provided with a place, which
he now held, Cobbett was offered the True Briton, but he refused
it. The True Briton, too, under Mr. Heriott had its share of
parodies, which were always of course pointed against the
opposition.
He then addressed himself to the particular parody charged as
a libel, and adduced a parody on the Athanasian Creed, from the
Foundling Hospital for Wit, as follows :—
PROPER RULES AND
INSTRUCTIONS, WITHOUT WHICH NO PERSON
CAN BE AN EXCISEMAN.
Quicunque vult.
Whosoever would be an exciseman, before all things it is necessary
that he learns the art of arithmetic.
Which art, unless he wholly understand, he, without doubt, can be
no exciseman.
�170
THIRD TRIAD.
Now the art of arithmetic is this, we know how to multiply and
how to divide. Desunt pauca.
The 1 is a figure, the 2 a figure, and the 3 a figure.
The 1 is a number, the 2 a number, and the 3 a number, and yet
there are Desunt plurima.
For like as we are compelled by the Rules of Arithmetic, to acknow
ledge every figure by itself to have signification and form :
So we are forbidden, by the rules of right reason, to say, that each
of them have three significations or three powers.
The 2 is of the l’s alone, not abstracted, nor depending, but produced.
The 3 is of the 1 and 2, not abstracted, nor depending, nor produced,
but derived. So there is one figure of 1. Desunt nonnulla.
He therefore that will be an Exciseman, must thus understand his
figures.
Furthermore, it is necessary to the preservation of his place, that he
also believe rightly the authority of his Supervisor.
For his interest is, that he believes and confesses that his Supervisor,
the servant of the Commissioners, is master and man : Master of the
Excisemen, having power from the Commissioners to inspect his books;
and man to the Commissioners, being obliged to return his accounts.
Perfect master and perfect man, of an unconscionable soul and frail
flesh subsisting ; equal to the Commissioners, as touching that respect
which is shown him by the Excisemen, and inferior to the Commissioners as touching their profit and salary.
Who, although he be master and man, is not two, but one Supervisor.
One, not by confusion of place, but by virtue of his authority ; for
his seal and sign manual perfect his commission; his gauging the
vessels, and inspecting the Excisemen’s books, is what makes him
Supervisor.
Who travels through thick and thin, and suffers most from heat or
cold, to save us from the addition of taxes, or the deficiency in the
funds, by corruption or inadvertency.
Who thrice in seven days goes his rounds, and once in six weeks
meets the Collectors, who shall come to judge between the Exciseman
and Victualler.
At whose coming all Excisemen shali bring in their accounts, and
the Victuallers their money.
And they that have done well by prompt payment, shall be well
treated.
And those that have done ill, by being tardy in their payment, shall
�THIRD TRIAL.
171
be cast into jail; and the Excisemen whose books are blotted, or
accounts are unjustifiable, shall be turned out of their places.
These are the rules, which except a man follows, he cannot be an
Exciseman.
Honour to the Commissioners, fatigue to the Supervisor, and bribery
to the Exciseman.
As it was from the beginning, when taxes were first laid upon Malt,
is now, and ever will be, till the debts of the nation are paid. Amen.
Mr. Ho n e then read a parody on the Athanasian Creed, from
the 11 Wonderful Magazine,” entitled—
THE MATRIMONIAL CREED.
Whoever will be married, before all things it is necessary that he hold
the conjugal faith, which is this, That there were two rational beings
created, both equal, and yet one superior to the other ; and the inferior
shall bear rule over the superior ; which faith, except every one do keep
whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall be scolded at everlastingly.
The man is superior to the woman, and the woman is inferior to the
man ; yet both are equal, and the woman shall govern the man.
The woman is commanded to obey the man, and the man ought to
obey the woman.
And yet, they are not two obedients, but one obedient.
Eor there is one dominion nominal of the husband, and another
dominion real of the wife.
And yet, there are not two dominions, but one dominion.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge
that wives must submit themselves to their husbands, and be subject to
them in all things :
So are we forbidden by the conjugal faith to say, that they should be
at all influenced by their wills, or pay any regard to their commands.
The man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.
Yet the man shall be the slave of the woman, and the woman the
tyrant of the man.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the subjection of the superior to
the inferior is to be believed.
He, therefore, that will be married, must thus think of the woman
and the man.
Furthermore, it is necessary to submissive matrimony, that he also
believe rightly the infallibility of the wife.
�172
THIRD TRIAL.
For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that the wife is
fallible and infallible.
Perfectly fallible, and perfectly infallible ; of an erring soul and un
erring mind subsisting ; fallible as touching her human nature, and in
fallible as touching her female sex.
Who, although she be fallible and infallible, yet she is not two, but
one woman ; who submitted to lawful marriage, to acquire unlawful
dominion; and promised religiously to obey, that she might rule in
injustice and folly.
This is the conjugal faith ; which except a man believe faithfully, he
cannot enter the comfortable state of matrimony.
There were others, but the next, and only one he should read,
was from the “ New Foundling Hospital for Witit was written
against the late Lord Chatham, as follows :—
A NEW POLITICAL CREED.
FOR THE YEAR MDCCLXVI.
Quicunque volt.
Whoever will be saved : before all things it is necessary that he
should hold the Chatham faith.
Which faith, except every man keep whole and undefiled, without
doubt he shall sink into oblivion.
And the Chatham faith is this : that we worship one Minister in
Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity :
Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.
For the Privy Seal is a Minister, the Secretary is a Minister, and the
Treasurer is a Minister.
Yet there are not three Ministers, but one Minister ; for the Privy
Seal, the Secretary, and the Treasurer are all one.
Such as the Privy Seal is, such is the Secretary, and such is the
Treasurer.
The Privy Seal is self-create, the Secretary is self-create, and the
Treasurer is self-create.
The Privy Seal is incomprehensible, the Secretary is incomprehen
sible, and the Treasurer is incomprehensible.
The Privy Seal is unresponsible, the Secretary is unresponsible, and
the Treasurer is unresponsible.
And yet there are not three incomprehensibles, three self-created, or
three unresponsibles : but one incomprehensible, one self-create, and
one unresponsible.
�THIRD TRIAL.
173
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity, to acknowledge
every person by himself to be God and Lord ;
So are we forbidden by the articles of the Chatham alliance, to say
there are three Ministers .
So that in all things, the Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, are
to be worshipped ; and he who would be saved, must thus think of
the Ministry.
Furthermore, it is necessary to elevation that he also believe rightly
of the qualities of our Minister.
For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that this son of
man is something more than man; as total perfection, though of an
unreasonable soul, and gouty flesh consisting.
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into opposition, rose again
the third time, and ascended into the House of Peers.
He sitteth on the right hand of the------- , from whence he shall
come to judge the good and the bad.
And they that have done good, shall go into patent places, and they
that have done bad, shall go into everlasting opposition.
This is the Chatham faith ; which except a man believe faithfully,
he cannot be promoted.
As he was in the beginning, he is now, and ever will be.
Then all the people, standing up, shall say,
O blessed and glorious Trinity, three persons and one Minister, have
mercy on us miserable subjects.
These parodies were known to almost every reading man, and
yet none of them were ever prosecuted, nor was there an instance
upon record of the prosecution of any parody. How then could
he suppose the publication of the parody before the Court an
illegal, a guilty act ? But he had no such feeling—he declared
most solemnly that he had no intention to commit any offence in
this publication, and the jury were to judge of intention. But to
dissuade the jury from such a rule of judgment, a course of delusive
observation was addressed to them. They were told truly, that
they were to judge of a man’s intention by his act, and not by his
declaration. Granted: but upon what ground should he think
his act an offence, or that sort of publication criminal, which had
never been so pronounced ? There was no analogy between his
�174
THIRD TRIAL.
act and the commission of any crime defined and forbidden by the
law, although such analogy had been urged on the other side. If
he had committed any act denounced by the law, or deemed a
crime by the common sense of mankind, he should not have pre
sumed to speak of the purity of his intentions. Ho jury, indeed,
could attend to declarations of innocent intention from any man
committing an act of acknowledged criminality; but that was not
the nature of the publication which he had uttered, and for which
he was prosecuted. Therefore he could conscientiously say that
he had no guilty intention in sending forth that publication, and
he had no doubt that the jury would believe him, and would send
him home to his family, in spite of all the expedients used in this
extraordinary prosecution ; for extraordinary it truly was, the
Attorney-General having split into three indictments matter,
which being of the same character, he might have comprehended
in one. But were the matter even different, did it consist of two
or three different subjects, he was assured by the most eminent
barristers, that the Attorney-General could have included them in
one information. Why then should so many informations be pre
ferred against him, but for a purpose which he trusted the integrity
and judgment of the jury would defeat ? They would not, he was
sure, be persuaded to think his publication a fit subject for punishment, after such parodies had been overlooked as he had just read
to the Court.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h observed, that every one of the parodies
the defendant had quoted, were as prosecutable as that with which,
he then stood charged.
Mr. Ho n e admitted this; but why, he asked, were they not
prosecuted? Where were the Attorney-Generals of those days?
Why did they abandon their duty ? The Attorney-General might
any day go into the Crown Office, and file an information against
any man who wrote anything in opposition to the Government.
A parody was never seized before. Why was his parody now
attacked? Was it because Lord Sidmouth was the only good
Secretary of State for the Home Department ? He charged that
noble secretary with having put all the people of England against
�I'lIlKB TKIAL.
175
liim as a blasphemer. There were persecutions of various kinds
for blasphemy, and also for atheism. A man charged with atheism
had been punished in Poland, in the beginning of last century,
whom he believed to have been certainly as honest a man as the
Secretary of State. One of the poor creature’s hands was cut oft’
with an axe by the executioner, and afterwards the other was
chopped off; his two bleeding stumps were then thrust into boiling
pitch, and the miserable man was burned alive, whilst—lifting his
eyes and his mutilated arms to heaven—he cried, “ Oh, God of
Abraham ! Oh, God of Judah ! have mercy upon me ! Oh, God of
my fathers ! have pity upon me.” Who, 0 who (cried Mr. Hone,
raising his voice to a tone of the utmost vehemence), who were
the blasphemers ? Who were the Atheists ? Were they not the
bloody-minded men who called themselves Christians, rather than
the defenceless man whom they put to death in that horrible and
cruel manner. (Great applause instantaneously burst from every
part of Guildhall; and Lord Ellenborough declared he would
adjourn the Court if greater order were not observed.) During
the whole of Pitt’s administration, there was not one prosecution
for libel • and yet party feeling never ran higher, and cheap pub
lications were never more numerous. In the volume that contained
the parodies on the Westminster election, he could find 100 more
of them as strong as his, yet for none of them was ever a prosecu
tion instituted. He on all occasions made frequent use of the
language of Scripture. That proceeded from his intimate ac
quaintance with it. He had ever delighted to read its beautiful
narrations. He had long been employed in preparing a publica
tion on the Bible, and he hoped yet to finish it, and to give it to
the world, notwithstanding he had been called a blasphemer. In
no age of the world was there before a prosecution for parody.
He had seen a letter pretended to have been written by Jesus
Christ, and found sixty-four years after his death, now in the pos
session of Lady Cuba in Mesopotamia. He believed the author
was not a blasphemer, but that he ought to be put into a cookshop, and to be fed on beef-steaks. This letter pretended, that a
woman in labour, who had it, should be safely delivered. It gave
�176
THIRD TRIAL.
instructions as to the Sunday and Good Friday. All this was
quite absurd; but he would on his knees entreat the AttorneyGeneral not to prosecute the author. Indeed, he had seen such
letters from a child; and a gentleman had one of them that was
150 years old. Parodies of all kinds used to be circulated in
Westminster, and even to be paid for by the Treasury, before
Westminster became independent.
Mr. Canning, the right
honourable parodist, had been a member of Lord Townsend’s Com
mittee, though a secret one, for he was then a trimmer ; and from
them issued many parodies. Why did not the Attorney-General
prosecute Mr. AValter Scott * for the u Tales of my Landlord, a
work which abounded with Scriptural phrases, set in the most
absurd and ridiculous view ? He would ask whether Sir Samuel
Shepherd would prosecute this poetical placeman, or would he
prosecute him (Mr. Hone) if he published a dozen pages from the
work of Mr. Scott, while the original author was left untouched ?
Sure he was, that the Attorney-General would not prosecute Mr.
Walter Scott for using Scriptural phrases upon similar subjects,
notwithstanding all the solicitude which the learned gentleman pro
fessed, to hold the language of the Gospel sacred to religious purposes.
But he would ask the Attorney-General which he thought worse,
blasphemy or atheism ? And did not the learned gentleman know
that there were hundreds of atheistical works at present in circu
lation 1 Nay, did he not know that many eminent persons in this
country openly professed atheism 1 And was no solicitude felt for
the cause of religion, unless its language were employed to expose
the character of ministers, or to subject them to ridicule ?
It had been observed by the learned judge, in his charge to the
jury yesterday, that he (Mr. H.) was not entitled to draw any
argument in his defence from the parodies which had been hereto
fore published, because, as his lordship observed, “ the publication
of parodies upon the Scripture, or the use of scriptural language
for jocular purposes, had never had any legal sanction.” Now he
held in his hand publications, in which such language appeared,
under the direct authority of government.
* Born, 1771.
Created a Baronet, 1820. Died, 1832.
�177
THIRD TRIAL.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h said that he did not recollect having used
the words imputed to him by the defendant. He might have used
some such words, but he did not remember the precise words that
fell from him.
Mr. Ho n e declared that he quoted the words referred to with
accuracy, and that he had no wish whatever to misrepresent his
lordship. He was in the recollection of the short-hand writers in
Court. But to the point. He was surely justified in concluding
that his lordship’s impression was rather erroneous; the Lord
Chamberlain sanctioned, and a succession of Crown lawyers and
judges having seen and enjoyed that which he was’about to cite.
Here Mr. Hone read the following passage from the “ Hypocrite” ;*
. Lady Lamb. O dear ; you hurt my hand, sir.
Doctor Cantwell. Impute it to my zeal, and want of words for ex
pression : precious soul! I would not harm you for the world ; no, it
would be the whole business of my life—
And again, Lady Lamb says, you are above the low momentary
views of this world.
Dr. Cant. Why, I should be so ; and yet, alas ! I find this mortal
clothing of my soul is made like other men’s, of sensual flesh and blood,
and has its frailties.
Lady Lamb. We all have those, but yours are well corrected by
your divine and virtuous contemplations.
Dr. Dant. Alas 1 Madam, my heart is not of stone : I may resist,
call all my prayers, my fastings, tears, and penance to my aid; but yet
I am not an angel j I am still but a man ; and virtue may strive, but
nature will be uppermost. I love you, then, Madam,
It was well known that the person meant to be represented
and ridiculed in the character of Dr. Cantwell, was that celebrated
preacher, Mr. Whitfield; and the sentences he was made to utter,
as Dr. Cantwell, were varied from his own journal. This distin
guished man had, with John Wesley and others, done great good
in promoting morality. If, indeed, those excellent persons had
rendered no other service to humanity than that of civilising the
Kingswood colliers, they were entitled to the praise of mankind.
• By Isaac Eickerstaff. Born, 1735.
1<
Died, 1787.
�178
THIRD TRIAL.
Yet Mr. Whitfield and his language were thus caricatured upon
the stage, with the authority of one of the first officers of the
Crown. But again Mr. Whitfield was still more ridiculed in
Foote’s* Farce of “The Minor,” from which Mr. Hone read the
following extracts :
Mrs. Cole. I am worn out, thrown by, and forgotten, like a tattered
garment, as Mr. Squintum says. Oh, he is a dear man ! But for him
I had been a lost sheep ; never known the comforts of the new birth !
Ay, I have done with these idle vanities ; my thoughts are fixed upon
a better place. What, I suppose, Mr. Loader, you will be for your old
friend the black-ey’d girl from Rosemary Lane. Ha, ha! Well, ’tis a
merry little tit. A thousand pities she’s such a reprobate !—But she’ll
mend ; her time is not come : all shall have their call, as Mr. Squintum
says, sooner or later ; regeneration is not the work of a day. No, no,
no.—Oh !—
Loader. Crop me, but this Squintum has turned her brains.
Sir Geo. Nay, Mr. Loader, I think the gentleman has wrought a
most happy reformation.
Mrs. Cole. Oh, it was a wonderful work. There had I been tossing
in a sea of sin, without rudder or compass. And had not the good
gentleman piloted me into the harbour of grace, I must have struck
against the rocks of reprobation, and have been quite swallowed up in
the whirlpool of despair. He was the precious instrument of my spi
ritual sprinkling.
Dr. Squintum was the character in which Mr. Whitfield was
again ridiculed, and Mother Cole was meant to represent an
infamous woman of that day, whose name was Douglas. In the
preface to this farce, the -writer says, that ££ it must be useful,
while there was a bawd in the street, an auctioneer in the rostrum,
or a Methodist in the pulpit.” All this was tolerated, and no one
was heard to complain of any disposition in these dramatic writers
to make use irreverently of scriptural language, although applied
to the most ludicrous purpose. But it was not directed against
* Samuel Foote was designed for the law, but relinquished the study, and was
driven by necessity to the stage. In 1747 he became manager of the Haymarket
Theatre. He wrote, besides his various mimetic entertainments, twenty dramas.
His style he seems to have borrowed from Molière, but his humour was original
and peculiar. Born, 1721. Died, 1777.
�/SJS'sgi»'
THIRD TRIAL.
I I
tod
Ministers, nor against the Established Church, and it seSnu
in such cases alone was the use of scriptural language call
to bring religion into contempt. To those, however, who dissented"
from the Church, or the Ministers, scriptural language could, it
would seem, be applied with impunity. So it appeared from the
parodies which he had quoted, as well as from the following pas
sages in “ The Weathercock,” which was a farce not long since
written :
Variella. \ ea, verily, I saw a damsel, friend, clad in gaudy apparel.
Tristram Fickle. You say true ; very gaudy and fantastical, unlike
the modest attire which thy fair form gives grace to.
Var. [aside]. So ! so !
Tris. Zounds ! What a most delectable creature she is ! I was
always fond of the Quakers. There is something so neat about them.
Such a charming modesty.—You did see that person then ?
Var. \ ea, the sight of her flaunting attire did offend my eyes.
Tris. ’Tis a pity such a pair of eyes should be offended. Poor con
ceited little ape ! Why you look a thousand times better in that simple
dress, than she did in all her frippery.
Var. I seek not to look well.
Tris. And" therefore thou art a thousand times more lovely. For
thy sake, fair maid, I will become a stiff Quaker. Wilt thou introduce
me to thy con-ven-tide ?
Var. Yea; and it does rejoice me exceedingly, that the spirit doth
move thee towards us—Hum.
Tris. Hum.
Var. And wilt thou listen to the good things which are said unto
thee ? Wilt thou learn therefrom ? And wilt thou not sigh for the
damsel in the colours of vanity ?
' Old Fickle. What is here ? May I believe my eyes ?
Tris. If they tell thee that thou seest before thee one of the faith
ful, verily thou may’st believe what they say, for they speak unto thee
that which is true.
0. F. And you are. turned Quaker ?
Tris. Yea, a damsel hath wrought my conversion—yea, a fair dam
sel. Wilt thou give thy consent that I espouse her, and make her a
thing of my own ? Verily I do expect the damsel to join with me in
the reauest, that we two may be made one.
�180
THIRD TRIAL.
Here there was the use of scriptural language tolerated on thestage, for the very purpose of ridiculing a most amiable and
respectable class of Dissenters, the Quakers ; yet this Farce had
the sanction of the Lord Chamberlain. But, with facts before
them, how could the jury, whom he had the honour to address, or
any body of respectable men, conclude that he, in publishing the
parody under prosecution, could suppose he was committing a
criminal or an illegal act ? The parodies, however, which he had
quoted, and in reading which he feared he had trespassed upon the
attention of the j ury, formed but a small part of those which he
had it in his power to bring forward. He could, indeed, have
covered the table with such compositions. How many could he
have taken from Chalmers’ Poets : and was it meant, if he should
be convicted, to have an index expurgatoris applied to this, and the
numerous other works in our language which contained parodies
upon the Scriptures ? He referred to the History of the West
minster Election, in which Lord J. Townshend was a candidate,,
for a number of parodies from both sides. Some of those parodieswere probably from the pen of Mr. Canning, who had a notorious
taste for such composition, and that gentleman was, in the contest ■
alluded to, a member of the committee for conducting Lord John
Townshend’s election. But he was a secret member; for this gen
tleman was then ready to serve the Eoxites, with whom he pro
fessed to concur, while he wished to conceal his operations from the
Minister, whose patronage he was intriguing to obtain. Thus Mr.
Canning played the same double game many years ago which he
had lately performed towards his militant friend Lord Castlereagh.
But how would the jury feel, as honourable men, towards a pro
secution instituted against him by the authority of this very
Minister ? Was he to be punished for imitating the example of
Mr. Canning, in writing parodies, while that gentleman enjoyed
impunity and power ? Was it becoming on the part of Mr.
Canning, or of Lord Sidmouth, who was also, he understood, a
party m the AVestminster contest to which he had alluded, to
institute this prosecution against him t But, independently of the
parodies he could have quoted from the history of this contest, he
�THIRD TRIAL.
181
■could adduce many others from the first periodical publications.
Who that had, for instance, been in the habit of reading the
Morning Chronicle, could forget the many interesting parodies
which appeared, especially in the early numbers of that excellent
paper—yes, most excellent paper, he must call it; he meant for
the character of its politics.
Mr. Ho n e here presented several prints which he had adduced
•on his previous trials. He exhibited Mr. Fuseli’s celebrated print of
“ The Night Mare;” and then showed a parody upon it represent
ing the Lord Mayor (Wood)4' as the night mayor (mare), upon the
breast of a girl. What, he would ask, did this parody ridicule ?
Was it Fuseli’s print, or was it Aiderman Wood ? The Attorney■General had not prosecuted—for ridicule upon Aiderman Wood
was not unacceptable to ministers. Did the Aiderman bring an
action 1 That excellent man, and able magistrate, had too much
sense to do so. The print ridiculed his well-meant, though,
perhaps injudicious, efforts to clear' the streets from prostitutes.
By neglecting it he made it harmless. He was afraid that his
lordship would think the introduction of all the prints he had
before him unmeaning.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h (smiling)—I am afraid I may say so.
Mr. Ho n e —The object was to show that the design and effect
in all those parodies were to impress something on the mind quite
■unconnected with the thing parodied, and that the thing parodied
had suffered nothing from such a use of it.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —The picture is ground for indictment.
Mr. Ho n e granted it; but what was gained by indicting?
Where was a man more ridiculed than Sir William Curtis ? Yet
he only bought as many as he saw of them, to laugh at them.
Prosecution created a demand for the thing prosecuted; and, in
consequence either of prosecution or suppression, curiosity was
always excited to a publication supposed to be unattainable or
scarce. When Mr. Horne Tooke’s “ Diversions of Purley” (a work
which every man who knew the English language read and admired)
was first published, it was in octavo. A second edition in quarto
* Twice Lord Mayor—1815-16.
�182
THIRD TRIAL.
was preparing, but, in the meantime, a well-known bookseller,,
still living, pirated the octavo edition, and sold it for one guinea
the copy. It was thus that a great demand was created, by giving
publicity to a work. He then read the subject of libel, and com
mented with great spirit and force upon the different parts of it.
He would ask any man coolly to lay his hand on his breast, and to
say that the Sinecurists’ Creed was written with the design and
intention to ridicule St. Athanasius’s Creed. His lordship was
once a member of the Cabinet, and had differed on a great question
of state from the other members. His lordship was of one opinion,
and the rest were of another opinion; yet there were not two
Cabinets, but one Cabinet. Was this parodical phrase impiety ?
He had taken that mode of expressing truths which he could not
otherwise have declared; for if he had attended the Prince
Regent’s levee, and in his presence called any of his ministers
incomprehensible, a fool, a humbug, or a mystificator, his Royal
Highness might, perhaps, be of a different opinion. At least,
his telling his thoughts in that way would be rather useless and
unpleasant. He then exhibited several prints by Gillray, the
Prodigal Son, representing two high personages; the Devil
addressing the Sun, representing Buonaparte and the Prince
Regent; the Hand-writing on the Wall, representing Buonaparte
in the midst of his council; the ascent of Mr. Pitt as Elijah ; and
General Hoche’s apotheosis. He now recapitulated the principal
points of his defence. Luther had parodied the Bible, and yet no
information had been filed against him. The Attorney-General
and his lordship had excused Luther as he had done it in a
moment of irritation, against persons who had been troublesome to
him. Could not the same persons find any excuse for William
Hone ? He had been attacked as showing a bad example to his
family. He had indeed written this parody in twenty minutes,
while he held his infant on his knee. But let them recollect that
Martin Luther had a family. He had not always continued a
monk. Yet he parodied the first Psalm. He was as pure as
Luther, and claimed the same excuse. But no excuse was neces
sary, for there was no wrong done. Gillray was a parodist; he
�THIRD TRIAL.
183
employed Iiis transcendent talents in parodying Scripture for poli
tical purposes. In the ascent of Mr. Pitt, as Elijah, George
Canning was represented as catching the dropping mantle. Fox,
the most humane, the best man that ever sat in an English
Cabinet, was represented on a dunghill, with a Jacobin red cap on
his head. He wished Mr. Fox’s spirit predominated now in our
counsels, and the nation would be in a far different state. The
power of government would not be made execrable by the perse
cution of an innocent and defenceless man. O the persecutors,
the persecutors, the persecutors, that obliged him now to stand
the third day on his trial ! Why did they not, to save Mr. Can
ning’s character, abstain from this prosecution? Mr. Canning
would have thanked them, and said, “ Hone is a poor fellow; I
am a parodist too ; this prosecution is a nasty thing ; I don’t like
it.” There was Lord Sidmouth, a grave, a good, a religious, and
surely a charitable man; there was Lord Ellenborough, a very
grave man (his lordship could not resist a smile here) j why did
they not step forward to help a poor oppressed man ? 0 no ! he
could not stand three daysj their united force would surely crush
the insect? Ho, he defied their power. They could only immor
talise him. He would at least go down to posterity with George
Canning. If this right honourable parodist ascended after Mr Pitt,
he would lay hold of his left leg, and ascend along with him. They
would perhaps have spared him this third trial, if he had implored
their mercy. But no ; he disclaimed, he anathematised their
mercy. They were below the contempt of William Hone, the
humble bookseller of No. 67, in the Old Bailey. Walter Scott had
edited the parody of Lord Somers. "Why was he not prosecuted ?
O no ! this Mr. Scott, a man of great talents, was ministerial, and
had held a little ogling for the laureateship with Robert Southey.
Who was plain Robert Southey, when he wrote Wat Tyler, and
such publications as displeased Ministers. He was now a pen
sioner and Robert Southey,
He (Mr. Hone) had occasion
when he edited the “ Critical Review,” which he did for six
months, to see the Stuart Papers. They were published by-the
librarian to the Prince Regent. There was no prosecution against
�184
THIRD TRIAL.
that gentleman publishing a partial and insidious apology for those
tyrants. No; a great deal of the spirit of “ the bonny king and
mickle wise mon” was still to be perceived. The Stuarts must be
excused and spoken gently of; they must not be talked of as the
tyrants, the hypocrites, the bloody-minded persecutors they really
were. Such language was unacceptable to courtly taste. Mr.
Reeves had parodied the Catechism, but afterwards obtained a
pension. But his politics were different. Royalty had singled
him (Mr. Hone) out for persecution, on account of his politics. He
could not pretend to have become known to Royalty, but ministers
would make him known. This was entirely a political prosecution.
Lord Sidmouth had before tried his hand at persecution, when he
brought in his bill against the Dissenters. The same noble lord
left him to stand three days in that Court. When such a man
was Secretary of State, there was very little chance of the liberty
of England being protected. The Morning Herald, of the 4th of
May, 1812, parodied Scripture to ridicule Lord Grenville, but it
was for and on behalf of ministers, and there was no prosecution.
The language of ministers was, “Everything must be done to keep
down those confounded fellows, the Whigs, curse them.” The
people were taxed to pay these expenses. He, poor as he was,
contributed to pay the secret service money. Every morsel of
bread that went into his children’s mouths was taxed for the paltry
purposes of his pitiful prosecutors. He now made a solemn appeal
to his conscience as to the innocence of his intentions. He would
submit to be posted up as a liar, and to bend his head whenever
he walked in public, if he once uttered there, or anywhere else,
what he did not believe to be true. Upon his conscience, then,
he assured them, that he had no more intention to ridicule St.
Athanasius’s Creed, than he had now of murdering his wife and
children when he went home ; for he was sure the jury would send
him home to his family. He knew none of them : but he hoped,
and he believed, that they were honest-minded and independent
men. The Sinecurists’ Creed had an extraordinary sale, but not
so extraordinary as the Litany. However, he stopped it, from the
motives he had mentioned. He confidently put himself under
�THIRD TRIAL.
185
their protection. As to St. Athanasius’s Creed, Gibbon stated
that it was not written by Athanasius. Some said that it was in
fact a parody upon his creed, and written by Yigilius, four cen
turies after Athanasius had died. "Warburton expressly states
that it was not his. Waterland mentions that it was doubted.
Archbishop Tillotson on one occasion exclaimed, “ I wish we were
well rid of itand in recent days, upwards of 200 clergymen met,
and solicited the late Dr. Porteus, Bishop of London, to take some
steps to put an end to the obligation at present imposed on them
to read it. Even his lordship’s father, the Bishop of Carlisle, he
believed took a similar view of the creed-----Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —I do not know what his opinion was on
this point; you, perhaps, have had better opportunity of knowing
his belief. Whatever that opinion was, he has gone many years
ago, where he has had to account for his belief and his opinions.
Mr. Ho n e was about to make some particular references to the
Bishop of Carlisle’s opinions, when-----Lord El l e n b o r o u g h interrupted him, and said, For common
delicacy forbear ”-----MI. Ho n e (Id a subdued and respectful tone.)—O, my lord,
I shall most certainly! Sure he was, that this creed was not
generally believed even by Churchmen.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —It is not alleged to be Athanasius’s
Creed here. It is said only to be commonly called the Creed of
St. Athanasius.
Mr. Ho n e —Then it would seem to be the Attorney-General’s
opinion, from the form of the information to which your lordship
has just referred, that the Athanasian Creed is apocryphal, and
cannot be viewed as genuine by my prosecutors.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —Yes ; but the Act of Uniformity made
it that which it is now described to be.
Mr. Ho n e —The Act of Uniformity! God forbid that the
Act of Uniformity could have had the effect of making this what
it is deemed to be, from its import, by some persons. God forbid
that this Act could make all men think alike on such a subject as
this.
�186
THIRD TRIAL.
. Lord El l e n b o r o u g h —It is not intended to have that effect.
It merely operates to create uniformity amongst those who conform
to certain religious opinions. It is not intended to compel those
of a different persuasion to believe it.
Be it so (resumed Mr. Hone); whether this creed were written
by St. Athanasius or not, he was not himself prepared to state.
He had intended to read a speech made by the Bishop of Clogher
on this creed, but it was long, and not essentially material to the
case ; for the question here was, whether the publication before
the Court was meant to bring that creed into contempt, and to
that he could give the most conscientious negative. But the jury
would, he had no doubt, consider, not the tendency, but the
intention. They were not bound to follow his lordship’s opinion.
If his lordship’s opinion were adopted, he should at once have to
walk to the King’s Bench. To the jury he looked, and to them
alone, for protection; for from them alone could he expect aid or
advice; and he took leave to observe that it would answer the
ends of justice to pay more attention to what he said, than to
what might be urged by the Judge or the Attorney-General He
had declared that he had no intention to publish a libel, and this
declaration was entitled to credit upon this ground, wdiich he
would undertake to affirm was the law of the land, namely, that
the production before the Court was not a libel, until the jury had
so pronounced it. With them alone the power of making that
decision rested ; and he appealed to them as men, as Christians, as
men and brethren, to consider what he had said. Bor whether
they differed from him in political or religious opinions, he trusted
they would, in the spirit of justice and Christian charity, examine
his case, and consider the terrible sentence that awaited him if
they should find a verdict against him. He might happen to differ
in political opinions from many of the gentlemen of the jury, but
he hoped that they would feel that tolerant spirit towards him
which he himself had always practised and recommended to others.
For he never could conceive any man entitled to that infallibility,
which, by some people, was attributed to the Pope ; and without
such arrogance no man would attempt to prescribe or censure those
�THIRD TRIAL.
187
who conscientiously differed from his opinions. Were such a
practice indeed indulged, perpetual disputes must arise, harmony
be destroyed, and men be reduced to the savage state. But the
liberality that was especially of late years so widely spreading,
promised to guard the world from such a state of discord and
misery. Differences on politics and religion were not now found
to interfere with the charities of social life, or the performance of
moral duties, and therefore he could not apprehend that prejudice
could be found to operate in the breast of any Englishman acting
under the solemn obligation of an oath. He felt the most un
qualified confidence in the principles and judgment of the jury,
whose attention, he feared, he had too long occupied. But he felt
that he was struggling for life, for should he have the misfortune
to be pronounced guilty by the jury, the punishment which awaited
him would be equal to the loss of it. In such a struggle he fancied
himself gifted with supernatural powers, but he feared he had
trespassed too much upon the time of the Court. He had, however,
no disposition to give offence, and this he begged to be understood.
He might have been in some instances too eager or peremptory in
replying to the Judge and the Attorney-General, but he most
sincerely assured his lordship and the learned gentleman, that he
had no intention whatever to offend. Feeling that his all was at
stake, he hoped he should be excused for the many materials he
had brought forward, perhaps unnecessarily. He could still go to
the King’s Bench, and lay his head down there with the greatest
composure, but for his family. If the jury felt doubts, they would
be reasonable doubts, and they knew that he was entitled to the
benefit of them. He committed himself to them. The liberty of
the press was attacked through him. The prosecution had nothinobut a political ground-work. Two juries of cool honest men had
already acquitted him. He had no doubt but they, too, would
send him home to dine on Sunday with his family
After a speech of precisely eight hours and five minutes, he
concluded, amid the applause of the immense multitude that
crowded the Court and all the passages to it.
Mr. Ho n e declined to adduce the witnesses who proved on the
�188
THIRD TRIAL.
former trials that he had stopped the publication of the parodies
as soon as he understood that they were deemed libellous by
Government, upon Lord Ellenborough’s undertaking to read his
notes of that evidence to the jury. The notes were read by his
lordship, and Mr. Hone called
Th o m a s Cl e a r y , Esq., who deposed, that on the 21st of Feb
ruary (a day he had reason to remember), he met Mr. Hone near
Charing Cross, who stated to witness his intention of stopping the
publication of the parodies, as they had been called, in the report
of the House of Lords, profane and seditious, or something to that
effect. That witness remarked, their being so characterised in the
report, did not make them profane or seditious, and stronglyrecommended Mr. Hone not to take what witness considered so
ill-advised a step; as it would by implication be an admission that
he (Mr. Hone) considered the parodies profane and seditious, while
nobody but the Borough-mongers so considered them. That
notwithstanding this advice, Hone stopped the publication the
following day; for which witness told him he was a fool.
The At t o r n e y -Ge n e r a l rose to reply—He observed upon the
remark of Mr. Hone, as to the division of the charges against him
into three informations, stating, that such proceeding was agreeable
to practice, especially where the publications charged as libellous
were quite distinct and separate, as was the case in this instance.
Therefore the defendant had no right to complain, and still less
could he warrant the complaint which he had made, of having the
present trial brought forward to-day, after two days of previous
trials. For it must be in the recollection of the Court, that before
the jury were sworn, he proposed to postpone this trial, in con
sequence of an understanding that Mr. Hone was indisposed, from
the fatigue of the two preceding days, and that that gentleman
declined to avail himself of the proposition. Were Mr. Hone
unequal to make his defence, or did he feel unable to proceed, he
could have had time for repose and recovery; and therefore he
could not attribute to the counsel for the prosecution, the slightest
disposition to subject him to any unnecessary inconvenience. But
the propriety of persisting in this prosecution, notwithstanding
�-c I
THIRD TRIAL.
the previous acquittals of Mr. Hone upon similar charges,
.P'
he hoped, be felt by every reflecting mind, from the very principar
upon which Mr. Hone had rested his defence this day; for Mr.
Hone had distinctly asserted his right to publish the paper which
was under prosecution, and having stood upon that ground, he (the
Attorney-General) should have felt himself guilty of gross dere
liction of duty, if he had not persevered in this prosecution. On
the former days, the defendant, with a view to induce a belief
that he had no intention to publish a libel, rested particularly upon
his stoppage of the publication of the parodies, but to-day, he had
openly contended for his right to publish them. But if this plea
of right were admitted, what was to prevent the defendant from
publishing those parodies again on Monday ? He would not say
that the defendant expressed or entertained any such intention,
but if his claim of right were admitted, what was to prevent him
or any other person from republishing this parody ? and to
abandon the present prosecution would be tantamount to an
admission of that claim. What a serious responsibility, then,
should he incur, if he exposed the cause of religion, and of the
country, to the evils too likely to result from such an admission.
What a door would be opened for the incursion of profaneness.
In his notions of the duty of a judge upon the trial of libel, he
undertook to say that Mr. Hone was quite mistaken. Bor the
judge derived no authority from the statute, commonly called Mr.
Box’s, which he did not possess before. His lordship had unques
tionably the right of stating his opinion upon the Jaw to the jury,
upon this as well as upon every other question; and if he did not
enjoy that right, what would become of the function and office of
a judge 2 But the judge was invested with the power of stating
the law upon the subject of libel, with a view to guard against in
consistent decisions, or the establishment of capricious conceptions,
as to the principles of the law. Besides, by the statute alluded to,
provision was made peculiarly favourable to the accused, if any
special verdict were found, or any appeal made to the judges upon
the finding of a verdict against him contrary to law. But the
defendant seemed entirely to misunderstand the character and
�190
THIRD TRIAL.
object of the statute. Now as to the question before the Court,
the defendant had adduced a number of parodies, some of which
were even worse than that which he had himself published, and
none of which were such as he (the Attorney-General) was disposed
to defend. Being of opinion that the more becoming course was to
reserve Scriptural language for appropriate purposes, he could not
approve of its application to different objects. Then as to the
prints, it might be that the caricature of Mr. Fuseli’s night-mare
was meant merely to ridicule the late Lord Mayor, but even so it
was an indictable publication. So would any print reflecting upon
an individual. But if any painter were to make a ludicrous
application of the sufferings of our Saviour, who could doubt that
such application would outrage the feelings of every Christian, and
amount to a profane libel ? So if any one who should parody the
paintings of Rubens or Mr. West, upon sacred subjects, he would
be indictable for a profane libel; for no man would be justified in
exciting mirth, or ridicule, or prejudice, through the medium of
sacred subjects. So of certain obscene airs, which were too
familiar to the vulgar, and which he was sorry to have ever heard
were applied to the Psalms of David, such an application would
be profane. As to the parodies quoted from Luther and others,
he heard them with regret; but they were the effusions of
excessive zeal, and he apprehended that zeal in excess was
generally vice. Of the parodies adduced by Mr. Hone, he thought it
proper to take some notice. First, as to that from Mr. John Reeves,
it was clear that it was not the object of that parody to bring
religion into contempt, although Scriptural phrases were made use
of, from which it would have been better to abstain. The same
might be said of the parody from Mr. Toplady. But there were
other parodies adduced by Mr. Hone, which all Christians must
condemn—must review indeed with disgust and abhorrence.
With respect to the 11 Tales of my Landlord,” Mr. Walter Scott
had no doubt made use of a great deal of Scriptural language,
which, however, was put into the mouths of zealots, at a time that
such language was much more familiar than in modern times.
But yet the object of this language was by no means to bring
�THIRD TRIAL.
191
religion into contempt. On the contrary, the evident end of the
author was to ridicule fanaticism, and to expose the artifice of
hypocrites, who sought to palliate vice and knavery by the use of
Scriptural language. Mr. Hone was therefore mistaken in sup
posing the “ Tales of my Landlord ” any precedent for his system
of parody, or any excuse for his conduct. He was also mistaken
in his conception of the several acts of the legislature with respect
to toleration; for no act, either ancient or modern, tolerated that
which was forbidden by the common law, namely, railing or
scoffing at the Trinity, or the Ritual of the Church. To illustrate
this, the learned gentleman referred to the Acts of James I.,
Charles I., and Charles II., upon the subject of religious toleration.
As to the paper before the Court, the learned gentleman read
several passages of it, from which he argued that its object was to
ridicule the Creed of St. Athanasius, which was a part of the
Church Ritual, The whole, he thought, evidently a scoffing at
the Trinity, in the terms of “ Old Bags, Derry Down Triangle, and
the Doctor.” But Mr. Hone had said that he did not intend to
ridicule the Trinity or the Creed of St. Athanasius; but a man’s
intention was to be judged by his acts or their effects, and not by
what he declares to be his intention. For, if the declaration of
an intention on the part of the accused were to be taken as evi
dence, no one accused would ever be found guilty. But so far
indeed from that being the conception of the law, there was a case
in the books where a man who had thrown a piece of wood from
the top of a house into the street, was found guilty of murder,
because that wood killed a passenger upon whom it had fallen.
Therefore, the law would not excuse any one who committed a
crime, whatever might be said as to his intention. The man who
flung down the wood had most probably no intention to kill the
passenger, but then he "was bound not to do that from which mischief was likely to accrue. So Mr. Hone was answerable for the
evil but too likely to result from that publication which he deliber
ately published; for it could avail nothing to any man to make
protestations of innocent intention, while he scattered about his
firebrands and arrows of death. The jury would recollect, that
�192
THIRD TRIAL.
the object of prosecution was to repress offences. Blackstone had
very properly observed, that the end of punishment was not to
afflict individuals, but to prevent offences. Such, and such alone,
he declared to be the object and end of the present prosecution.
For he had no personal animosity whatever towards Mr. Hone;
but he felt it his duty to the public to institute this prosecution,
with a view to prevent the issue of such publications in future
as were calculated to undermine the religion of the country,
and so to destroy the basis of morality, comfort, happiness, and
prosperity.
Lord El l e n b o r o u g h then charged the jury. He pronounced
the complaint of the defendant as to his peculiar grievances, in
consequence of the conduct of the present prosecution, to be en
tirely groundless. It was the duty of the Attorney-General to
institute this prosecution; and although the defendant was right
in his opinion that the Attorney-General might include different
charges in the same indictment, yet it was indisputably at his
discretion to do so; and the course the learned gentleman had
taken was agreeable to practice. The defendant appeared to think
that libels upon the Scriptures formed a sort of composition ex
empted by law from prosecution or punishment; but the cases
of Woolston and Paine should have informed him that his impres
sion was unfounded; so was his assertion that there was no law of
libel; for from the earliest records that law had existed, and been
well understood by the judges. The Act of Mr. Fox, as it was
called, had indeed made no change in that law. That was no
doubt a proper legislative provision. Chief Justice Eyre had
stated, that if the jury had only the power of deciding upon the
fact of publication, the printer of the libel itself might be liable to
conviction for libel. He thought the case put by that learned
judge quite too strong, because the interposition of the judge must
in such a case serve to prevent a verdict; but still he approved of
the statute. In this statute, however, there was nothing to pre
vent a libel from being tried like all other offences, in which the
judge was called upon to state his opinion upon the law to the
jury. For, according to his construction of the statute, the judge
�THIRD TRIAL.
193
was bound to state his opinion upon such prosecutions, and that
was also the construction of his learned predecessor; otherwise,
indeed, the functions of a judge would cease in such a case. Mr.
Hone had, no doubt, told the jury, not to attend to the opinion of
the judge, and he might think himself justified in so saying.
Unquestionably the jury were not bound to adopt the opinion, or
follow the advice of the judge; but without wishing to invade
their province he felt himself imperatively called upon to perform
his duty, by stating his opinion upon the paper under prosecution.
After that opinion was stated, it would be for the jury, from a
calm and candid review, as well as of that opinion, as of the paper
charged as a libel, to declare their judgment. The main defence
was parodies written by other men at different times. The
Exciseman’s Creed was very offensive. In Bishop Latimer’s time
much greater familiarity was used in public discourses than at the
present period. The parodies quoted by the defendant appeared
to his mind to offer nothing in defence of the paper before the
Court, which was in fact worse than any of those parodies, even
bad as they were. But if the mode of defence pursued by the
defendant was valid, what criminal could be convicted ? Eor there
was not one offender perhaps, who could not quote one hundred
instances in which persons committing the offence with which he
stood charged had escaped with impunity. Mr. Hone had, he
apprehended, very truly conceived, that if he had employed any
barrister, the course of defence upon which he had determined
would not be followed up by such barrister; for from his (Lord
Ellenborough’s) experience of the profession, he did not think that
there was a gentleman at the bar, who would outrage decency and
propriety so far as to exhibit such disgusting parodies and prints,
or at least persist in such exhibitions, especially after the judge
had expressed his decided disapprobation of them. God knows that
he (Lord Ellenborough) had no wish to do the defendant or any other
man an injury, but he felt it due to the ends of public justice and
the preservation of individual character, to interpose occasionally
his advice to Mr. Hone. Finding that advice, however, unavailing,
he had declined to interfere, and let the defendant pursue his own
o
�THIRD TRIAL.
course. But yet he called upon the jury not to allow the numer
ous libels which Mr. Hone had thought proper to read, or the
gross calumnies which he had uttered against individuals, to
operate upon their minds in considering the question, whether the
paper before them was or was not a profane libel. The defendant
had repeatedly declared that he had no intention to publish a libel
in sending forth this paper, but upon that point the observations
of the Attorney-General were perfectly just, for the law always
concludes as to the intent of any man from his act; and here the
question being, whether the defendant intended to bring into ridicule
the Athanasian Creed, the jury were to decide that question from a
review of the paper before them, and not from the declarations of
the defendant. Here the learned lord read the parody itself, and
expressing his belief that the terms of “Old Bags, Derry Down
Triangle, and the Doctor,” were meant to be applied to some
public men, commented on each article as he proceeded. The
only question for them was, whether this was a libel. Did it force
ludicrous and absurd images into the mind when the creed was
read? The Father was Old Bags, the Son was Derry Down
Triangle, the Holy Ghost was the Doctor. The defendant asked
whom the laugh excited by this was against ? But although the
laugh might be against the persons represented under those terms,
did not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, form a part of
the association in this laugh? If they found that there was a
mixed profanity of this kind in the subject of the libel, they must
find a verdict of guilty; if both the subject and the object of the
parody were made ridiculous in the conjunction, they must come
to this conclusion. He had not a doubt that the parody before
them was a profane and impious libel. This paper was not charged
as a political libel, and therefore it must be found as a profane
libel, which it was described in the record. His lordship entreated
the jury to consider the importance of the case which they were
called upon to decide—that the temporal comforts and spiritual
interests of their countrymen . might defend their verdict. He
begged them to recollect, that if such publications as that before
them were not prohibited and punished, the country was too liable
�THIRD TRIAL.
195
to be deluged by irréligion and impiety, which had so lately pro
duced such melancholy results in another nation. The learned
lord, after some comment upon the defendant’s stoppage of this
publication, which fact would no doubt have due weight upon
those who, in the event of a verdict of conviction, would be called
upon to pronounce sentence, observed that it should have no
weight whatever with the jury.
The jury retired at half-past eight to consider their verdict.
In twenty minutes the jury returned into court, and the fore
man, after the usual forms had been observed, pronounced Mr.
Hone NOT GUILTY.
The moment the verdict was announced, a spontaneous burst
of applause issued from the crowd in the Court.
This soon extended to the crowd without ; and for some
minutes the hall and adjoining avenues rung with the loudest
. acclamations. The crowd waited for some time for Mr. Hone, in
order to greet him as he passed. By an intended manœuvre,
however, two groups passed out, in one of which it was expected
he was, and it was cheered accordingly. He afterwards passed
out through the immense multitude, alone and unnoticed.
During the absence of the jury, a gentleman was brought into
Court in the custody of the Chief and Deputy Marshals of the
City, charged with riotous conduct on the steps leading from
Guildhall to the Court. It appeared, that towards the close of
the evening a prodigious crowd of persons, amounting to the
number of not less than 20,000, had assembled in the hall, and
in the avenues leading thereto. Many of these persons were
desirous of forcing their way into the Court, but their efforts were
resisted. Among others, the gentleman now brought forward.
He attempted to push up the steps, when Mr. Wontner, the Chief
Marshal, told him he could not pass. He replied that it was an
open Court, and he had a right to admission. This observation
attracted the attention of the crowd, which moved towards the
spot. Mr. Wontner then said, if lie questioned his authority to
prevent his entrance, he must take him before Lord Ellenborou<di
With this view, he laid his hand on his arm, when a scuffle ensued,
�196
THIRD TRIA.L.
and some disturbance, which ended by two of the officers being
struck, and one of them knocked down, principally, as it was
stated, through the conduct of the prisoner. These facts were
proved by several witnesses. The gentleman on being called on
for his defence, stated his name to be Mr. Thomas Wetherell; that
he had been five years at King’s College, Cambridge, and had but
recently returned from the West Indies. He had certainly
attempted to come up the steps, and did not conceive he was
acting improperly by attempting to enter an open Court. The City
Marshal had laid hold of his arm, and in attempting to extricate
himself from his grasp, all the subsequent confusion happened. A
gentleman named Marsh corroborated his statement.
Lord Ellenborough fined Mr. Wetherell twenty pounds, and
directed that he should be detained in custody till the fine was
paid.
On Thursday, the first day’s trial, before Mr. Justice Abbott,
Mr. Hone spoke near six hours. On Friday, the second day’s
trial, he spoke near seven hours. On Saturday, the third day, he
spoke in his defence upwards of eight hours.
�TRIAL BY JURY
AND
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
THE
PROCEEDINGS
AT THE
PUBLIC MEETING,
DECEMBER 29, 1817,
tfje Og of bonbon Wabern,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENABLING
WILLIAM HONE
TO SURMOUNT THE DIFFICULTIES IN WHICH HE HAS BEEN PLACED BY BEING
SELECTED BY THE MINISTERS OF THE CROWN AS THE OBJECT
OF THEIR PERSECUTION.
Mr . WAITHMAN
in t h e
CH A TH,,
WITH THE
Mesulutions arór tlje Speeds
OF
MR.
SIR
MR.
MR.
MR.
WAITHMAN,
FRANCIS BURDETT,
ALDERMAN THORP,
PERRY,
P. WALKER,
LORD COCHRANE,
MR. CHARLES PEARSON,
MR. STURCH,
AND
MR. WOOLER.
ALSO,
THE SUBSCRIPTION’S RECEIVED FROM TIME TO TIME,
WITH ALL THE NAMES, MOTTOES, &c.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY AND FOR WILLIAM HONE, 67, OLD BAILEY;
AND SOLD BY ALL BOOKSELLERS.
’ 1818.
PRICE SIXPENCE.
��MR. HONE.
TRIAL BY JURY
AND
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
A Me e t in g of the friends of the Liberty of the Press and Trial by
Jury was held at the City of London Tavern, Bishopsgate Street,
on Monday, December 29, 1817, to consider of the best means to
promote a subscription in aid of Mr. Hone, who had so nobly and
successfully struggled against Ministerial persecution. The meeting
was one of the most numerous and respectable we have for a long
time witnessed. The great room was completely filled at an early
hour by an anxious auditory, amongst whom we observed several
elegantly dressed females. A few minutes before one o’clock—
’■'Mr. Wa it iim a n took the chair. He was accompanied into the
room by Sir Prancis Burdett (who was loudly cheered on his
entrance), Aiderman Thorp, Aiderman Goodbehere, Mr. Jones
Burdett, Mr. Perry, Mr. Hare Townsend, Major James, Mr. John
Williams (the banker), Mr. Sturch, Mr. Charles Pearson, Mr.
Woolier, <fcc. Lord Cochrane entered soon after the business had
begun, and was received with long continued plaudits.
Mr. Wa it h m a n , immediately after he had taken the chair, rose
and addressed the assembly as follows :—
“ Gentlemen,—Although I may have to regret that the chair is
not more ably filled, yet I can assure you that I never undertook a
* Elected Aiderman, 1818; Lord Mayor, 1823.
�200
TRIAL BY JURY
duty with more satisfaction than I do the present; because I am
convinced that no object can possibly tend more to support the
liberties of Englishmen than that which we have this day in view.
Gentlemen, I had no previous acquaintance whatever with Mr.
Hone ; and, about a week or two before his trial, when he spoke
to me in the street to request that I would look over his jury list, I
did not recognise his person. With respect to the Parodies I never
read them till they were published after the trials; and though,
gentlemen, I have no particular taste for these sort of productions,
yet I have seen articles of this kind published on various occasions,
and I believe you all know that in no instance until the present
were they prosecuted by the Government, or taken notice of by
the Law Officers of the Crown. (Applause). I am sure, gentle
men, not one of us can entertain a doubt that if those Parodies had
been published in favour of Administration—if they had been
published in ridicule of Reformers—if they had been published
against the rights of the people—his Majesty’s Government would
never have attended to them. (Applause.) If, indeed, the object
of ministers had been to rescue religion from any insidious attack
of the kind alleged the laws of the country were open to them, and
they might have proceeded in the usual way; but that would not
answer the purpose they had in view, and therefore they resorted
to less honourable expedients. In all ordinary cases, I believe,
where the law was doubtful, and the object was to define it and
make it generally known, the Law Officers of the Crown have been
accustomed to proceed in the most cautious and delicate manner.
It was the custom in such cases not to render the law an engine of
oppression, but by its means to bring offenders fairly to justice and
to make their fate a warning to others. On this point it may seem
improper that I should enlarge; but, perhaps, as our object is
precisely the same, as we have not met to discuss any question on
which I think there can arise a difference of opinion, I may be
allowed to make an observation or two on this subject, and, there
fore, I think it right to call your attention to the origin of those
prosecutions and the way in which they have been conducted.
When the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was contemplated,
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
201
and Committees of both. Houses of Parliament were formed in
order to examine information that was to be laid before them by
ministers, a great deal was said to inflame the public mind and to
render the country outrageous, not only with respect to those
publishers, but with reference to other individuals engaged in the
cause of Reform. Little doubt can now be entertained, gentlemen,
but that the outrages spoken of as a ground for suspending the
Habeas Corpus Act were caused by the exertions of those infamous
spies and informers who were hired by the Government, and whose
conduct it is unnecessary for me to descant upon. (Loud applause.)
Gentlemen, instead of indicting this individual (Mr. Hone), as
they would have done if their object had been that which they
pretended, ministers took a widely different course, having first
taken care that everything should be done by those committees to
agitate and inflame the public feeling. The Habeas Corpus Act
was suspended. Mr. Hone was dragged from his family and con
signed to prison—(these prosecutions have been hanging over his
head ever since)—and, at length, the Law Officers of the Crown had
brought him to trial. All these preparations which I have men
tioned, gentlemen, were to make conviction more certain. Had
the intention of ministers been to rescue religion from any insidious
attack, they would, as I have before observed, have proceeded by
indictment, and not by ex-officio information. If their motives
were pure, they would have tried him on one case only. They
would not have assailed him three times with the manifest intention
of inflicting a vindictive punishment on an individual for transgres
sing a law, the breach of which had not previously occasioned any
person to be brought up to trial. (Applause.) I attended the
court during the whole of the last day’s trial, and for some time on
the preceding days, and I there witnessed, with feelings of the
highest gratification, the exertions made by Mr. Hone on behalf of
the liberties of the whole people of England. (Applause.) I say
the liberties of the people of England, for we cannot be said to
have any liberties unless we have a Free Press and an unshackled
Trial by Jury. (Applause.) The freedom of the press was sup
ported by Mr. Hone in a manner so much to my satisfaction that I
�202
TRIAL BY JURY
felt it my duty to do everything in my power to rescue that
individual from the consequences with which those prosecutions
must necessarily visit him, if his case be not boldly taken up by
his fellow citizens. (Applause.) Therefore it was that the present
meeting originated with a few individuals who attended at the last
day’s trial, and afterwards proceeded to take refreshment at a
neighbouring coffee-house. They felt, as Englishmen ought to feel
(and they took no credit to themselves for such a feeling), that
Mr. Hone deserved to be supported—that, having exerted his
abilities in a manner so honourable to himself and so useful to the
country, he ought to be shielded from the effects which these pro
secutions must otherwise bring upon him—and they determined
to do all that lay in their power to enable him to support his wife
and numerous family in a manner worthy of him and of them.
(Applause.) The gentlemen who then formed themselves into a
committee had prepared some resolutions which will be submitted
to you this day. I shall be very glad to hear any observations that
may be made thereon, or to receive any suggestions that may tend
to further the object we have in view.
Sir Er a -n u t s Bu r d e t t * then stood forward, and was about to
address the meeting, but was prevented, for several minutes, by
the cheering which his presence excited, and the cries which pro
ceeded from the individuals at the lower end of the room, who
were anxious that he should mount upon the table. In order to
procure silence—
Mr. Wa it h m a n rose and said, “ Gentlemen, if you will have
the goodness not to stand on the forms, every one of you will have
a good view, and be enabled to hear perfectly well.”
This appeal produced immediate order.
gjr pq Bu r d e t t then ascended the table, and after the shouts
of exultation had subsided, proceeded to deliver his sentiments.
He commenced by stating, that he could not but feel extremely
flattered at the manner in which his countrymen had been pleased
* An eminent, popular, and parliamentary leader. Elected, 1807, to represent
Westminster in the House of Commons, and he sat for that constituency nearly
thirty years.
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
203
to receive him on this occasion. At the same time, he feared that
the very few words it would be his lot to address to them at
present, would scarcely repay them for the deep anxiety they
manifested. If he went over all the topics connected with the
subject of their meeting this day, he was sensible that he would
take up more time than they could possibly spare—and, as there
was no feeling of difference on this occasion, as they had a specific
object in view—it would perhaps be an improper opportunity for
impressing on the minds of the assembly those sentiments, with
respect to the Liberty of the Press, and Trial by Jury, which he
had always nourished, and which, on many occasions, he had pub
licly declared. Next to that paramount object—the preservation
of the Liberty of the Press—their greatest exertions ought to be
made to support an honest countryman, struggling in opposition
to the oppressions exercised against him, on scandalous hypocritical
pretences. (Applause.) Those who made use of those pretences,
seemingly intended only to crush an humble individual; but they
meant, in reality, through his person, to destroy the free press of
the country. (Applause.) The resolutions that were put into his
hands this day, fully expressed those sentiments, and pointed out
the necessity of supporting their oppressed countryman under these
circumstances. He had fully merited their kindest consideration ;
and, when such a claim of gratitude, when such a debt of justice
was due by them for the exertions that individual had made in
favour of their liberties, it was incumbent on them to express the
feeling which they, in common, he believed, with the whole British
public, entertained of the scandalous conduct of the Government
of the country, both with respect to the origin of those prosecu
tions, and to the infamous manner in which they were carried on.
(Applause.) The resolutions comprised several most important
points—first, the conduct of the individual—next, the importance
of the struggle in which he had engaged, and the circumstances
under which he undertook it—and then, what was a corollary of
all that preceded it, the debt of justice and of gratitude which
they owed him, and which, beyond a doubt, they were most
anxious to repay. (Great applause.) Agreeing as he did in all
�204
TRIAL BY JURY
the sentiments of their worthy chairman—agreeing with him, as
they all must, in the importance of the Liberty of the Press, and
of Trial by Jury, he would still go one step further, and say, there
was no solid support for either of those great privileges, but by
the existence of a third—-he meant a fair representation of the
people in Parliament. (Applause.) They had no security for the
Liberty of the Press—they had no security for the personal liberty
of any man amongst them—they had no security for a pure Trial
by Jury—if the House of Commons were not what it was intended
to be—and what the people had as much right to have, as those
who held property under the present system had to it, or as the
King had to the Crown—namely, a free, fair, and honest repre
sentation of the people. (Great applause.) The excluded people
(he would not now call them the deluded people, for their eyes were
opened, and information on the subject of a representative form of
Government, a subject formerly supposed to be far beyond the
grasp of an ordinary mind, was now industriously circulated) had
every reason to complain—but they began to feel their power, and
they were no longer to be duped by fallacies as they had been.
The people had at length attained the knowledge so necessary to
their existence as freemen, that the superintending body over those
two great essentials should consist of an unpolluted representation
of themselves. Their eyes are open to what appeared before
beyond their comprehension, and what now must appear to be
superior in importance to everything else—the necessity of elect
ing those who should take care of the Trial by Jury, of the Freedom
of the Press, and -who would see that the judges of the land acted
according to the Law and the Constitution. (Loud applause.) Of
Mr. Hone’s merits he might say with truth (although he blushed
to say it), that he absolutely defeated, by dint of ability and manly
exertion, the judges and the Crown lawyers. (Hear, hear.) For
oppression and undue advantage against a meritorious but defence
less man, this prosecution on the part of his Majesty’s Ministers
was without a parallel. Indeed, it would be almost impossible to
pick out an instance in which injustice and oppression had been
so decidedly marked, even if they were to look to the volume of
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
205
State Trials, ■which had been, called a libel on. the judges of
England. Few men in the country could have fought their way
with such manly intrepidity, and at the same time with such elas
ticity of moral and intellectual vigour. He believed the country
was quite alive on the subject to which he now called their atten
tion—and if they were so, to whom was it owing ? Certainly to
Mr. Hone—who at the peril of his life—at the expense of the
destruction of his fortune—and, finally, when the annihilation of
all his future views was threatened—stood forward, undismayed,
and dauntlessly dared the worst his adversaries could do. (Ap
plause.) For this they were deeply indebted to him. With Mr.
Hone’s conduct hereafter he had nothing to do—but, he conceived,
they had no right to doubt but that it would be honourable and
manly, when they recollected the courage he had evinced, and the
spirit of honest independence which he had displayed, when
beset by dangers calculated to embarrass and appal men much
better known to the public. (Applause.) There was another
individual (Mr. C. Pearson*), whose name ought not to pass un
noticed on the present occasion, although it had not been alluded
to by the worthy Chairman—an individual, whose exertions had
been of the utmost consequence to the liberty of the subject, in as
far as the Trial by Jury was connected with that sacred object.
The gentleman to whom he alluded was entitled to the thanks of
his country for the pains he had taken to obtain an important
reformation of the Special Jury List. The object attained by that
persevering and disinterested individual, he considered as one of
the most important that had been accomplished during the event
ful period in which he lived. For, when a system of corruption
existed, he conceived that a greater good could not be effected
than the compelling the friends of oppression to give up that old
corrupt list of jurymen, and to procure another, containing the
names of upright and honourable, and perfectly disinterested men.
(Applause.) Mr. Pearson had effected this, and by so doing had
perhaps laid the foundation for all those defeats which the officers
. * Appointed “ City Solicitor ” 31st October, 1839. Died, 14th September, 1862.
He was the originator of tho Metropolitan Under-ground Railway.
�206
TRIAL BY JURY
of the Crown, had experienced. This he considered as the first
fruits—as a foretaste of the invaluable blessings resulting from a
constitutional reformation. An appeal to an honest and upright
jury might be truly said to be a trial by the country, not a trial
by a sham time-serving pack of ministerial tools. Now, it might
well be expected that the object of Court vengeance could appeal
with confidence to a jury of Englishmen, who were armed against
treasury influence, and who would stand firm in the cause of
liberty. If this glorious reformation could be extended to the
county of Middlesex, and the Middlesex Special Jury List were
purged of corruption, then would a fair prospect be opened of
setting at defiance, as Mr. Hone did on this occasion, the unfair
practices of Judges in the Courts of Law. He conceived that a
more improper doctrine was never laid down on any occasion,
than what had been promulgated by a learned judge in the course
of these prosecutions. How could he so mistake the case, as to
state, that an Act meant to protect the Liberty of the Press,
should be turned against the very purpose for which it had been
introduced? Never had any attempt of this sort been more
glaring than the construction put upon Mr. Eox’s Libel Bill, the
professed object of which was to support the Liberty of the Press.
But the Learned Judges attempted a construction which was in
direct opposition to the object for which it was framed; for, accord
ing to them, the judge on the bench had a right to act as foreman
of the jury, and deliver his own verdict first—-(hear, hear)—
and this with all due theatrical solemnity—the hand upon the
Peart—at least, the hand where the heart should be—(laughter)—
and under the pompous solemnity of an oath of office; but this
too with all the aggravations and exaggerations of the importance
of the trial—before the jury opened their mouths, or even had an
opportunity of forming their own conscientious opinion upon the
subject. Now this could not be'the true construction of Mr. Fox’s
Act • for if it were, the King’s subjects were in a worse situation
than they were before the passing of the Act. If he (the Hon.
Bart.), read the Act rightly, it was, that the judge should give his
opinion to the jury as in other cases. Now, if that were so, he
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
207
would ask, whether the judge in. this case ought not to give such
an opinion as would be most conducive to the ends of justice, and
most favourable to the liberty of the country. But Mr. Hone and
an honest jury had put the right construction upon the Act, and
they happened to put a very different construction upon it from
that of the learned judge. They could not be reasoned out of their
own plain, unsophisticated, common sense—they could see no guilt,
where the intention did not accompany the act, and conforming to
the general principles of the Law of England, they could not find
a man guilty, who had no intention to commit offence. The
intention was the gravamen of the charge, and unless the intention
was corrupt, there could be no guilt. The fact, however, was,
that he never knew a lawyer able to perform a common-sense idea
upon the subject of the law of libel. Unfortunately, there was no
settled and defined law upon the subject; and, indeed, so uncertain
was the law of libel, that a man could hardly be able to tell, in
nine instances out of ten, when he had or had not written a libel.
Nay, a man who set out with an avowed intention of writing a
libel, might fail of his object, though he meant to break the law.
There were cases in which a man would be justifiable in writing a
libel; for instance, when the object was to awake his countrymen
to a sense of some dangerous inroads upon their liberty. Such
might fairly be called an honest libel; but it was most lamentable
that there was no certain rule of law applicable to offences of this
description. All other offences in the criminal code of the country
had some technical name by which they were respectively known
and defined. The plainest understanding could comprehend the
meaning of burglary, murder, &c.—offences which were known to
the common law of England. But there was no knowing what a
libel meant. It was an offence which carried with it the marks of
its accursed origin,—namely, as the invention of the Star Chamber,
founded upon musty remnants of the Civil Law, which was
contrary to the genuine principles of the law of England. All
offences injurious to the country were clearly defined by the latter;
but this new fangled offence was founded in artifice and false
pretence. By this law, a man of the purest motives and most
�208
TRIAL BY JURY
upright character might be doomed to linger out a miserable
existence within the walls of a dungeon, without even being
aware that he was committing any offence. Libel was really any
thing which the law officers of the Crown could persuade twelve
men, picked and chosen by the master of the Crown Office, to
believe to be an offence against his Majesty’s Ministers. To Mr.
Charles Pearson’s manly exertions, however, was the country
indebted for a change in this unjust system of packing and
culling jurymen. But in truth, it might be said (with his friend
Mr. Horne Tooke) of the old jury list, that it was like offering a
man a basket of rotten oranges, from which he was at liberty to
take his choice. (A laugh and much applause.) It seemed,
however, that the judges of the King’s Bench had laid it down as
a broad position, that the master of the Crown Office had a right to
nominate and choose the jury from the jury list. This was a
position which was without any legal authority, and one which the
common sense of the people would not endure. It was impossible
to bear the people down with doctrines so diametrically opposite to
the principles of common justice. This was a subject into which
it was impossible now to enter. Mr. Hone, by his' manly and
courageous exertions, had achieved a public good; and in that
sense must his recent painful trials be considered. Like the man
who used to exhibit his head in the lion’s mouth, he had had his
head in the lion’s mouth, but fortunately for him the lion had not
wagged his tail, or probably his fate would have been the same with
the unfortunate showman. His perilous situation ought not to be
forgotten. But upon this subject it was unnecessary for him to say
a word. The numerous assembly present marked the sense of
public feeling on the occasion, and he was quite persuaded that
Mr. Hone would meet with that reward which his distinguished
merits deserved. But, because he had won the victory, they were
not to suppose that he had not encountered any danger; because
he had returned to his family, they were not to imagine that he
was not near being snatched away from them. If a verdict could
have been obtained against him, he probably never would have
returned to them again. But, as he had gone through his critical
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
209
trials with manly intrepidity, with a boldness truly English,
without offence and without fear—he conceived that his conduct
called on them to put him in such a situation, that, for the rest of
his life, he should feel the benefit of those rare good qualities which he
had so eminently displayed through the whole of this business. He
should now conclude, although the subject was one fluent as the
sea, and, were all its sands eloquent tongues, it comprised matter
to employ them all. He felt it unnecessary to address such an
assembly—an assembly of Englishmen—in a strain of exhortation
on the sufferings which Mr. Hone had endured. He would not say
a word on that point, because he knew full well that their feelings
would dictate to them what they ought to do. He knew that they
needed not to be prompted on such an occasion ; and, therefore,
he should conclude by moving that the resolutions be read.
’’Alderman Th o r p declared his unwillingness to offer himself
to public notice on any occasion, but when called upon to perform
an important public duty, he should rather be thought obtrusive
than reluctant. Therefore, he had no hesitation to second the
motion, which had been so ably supported by the worthy baronet
who preceded him. It was impossible, in his judgment, for any
Englishman not to exult in the issue of Mr. Hone’s trials, and in
the manly manner in which that meritorious individual had con
ducted himself throughout; for while that conduct presented a
most interesting example of the genuine spirit of an Englishman,
the result afforded a most important testimony of the value of the
trial by jury, and an additional barrier for the Liberty of the
Press.
He cordially congratulated the Meeting upon this
inestimable victory, feeling, as he did, the great benefits of the
Trial by Jury, and the Liberty of the Press; for without those
invaluable privileges, no country could be free, and with them no
country could be enslaved. The three Juries, therefore, who tried
Mr. Hone, and who might well be regarded as the representatives
of the uncorrupted population of England, had asserted their
right to maintain the Trial by Jury in the fulness of its purity, as
well as performed their duty in defending the Liberty of the Press.
* Elected Alderman, 1817. Lord Mayor, 1820.
�210
TRIAL BY JURY
Such Jurors were entitled to the universal thanks of their country
in establishing the triumph of sound reason and common sense
over hypocrisy and sophistry. (Applause.) The Worthy Aider
man concluded with a panegyric upon the motion, which was put,
and carried unanimously.
The Resolutions were then put by the Chairman seriatim, and
were carried unanimously, and with the loudest acclamations.
RESOLUTIONS.
1. That the Liberty of the Press is one of the dearest rights and
proudest distinctions of Englishmen, and is inseparably connected with,
and wholly dependant on the purity of the Trial by Jury.
2. That the inestimable importance of the sacred and constitutional
right of Trial by Jury, has never been more demonstratively proved
than by the recent prosecutions and honourable acquittals of Mr.
William Hone.
3. That Parodies on Scripture having been written and published
by Martin Luther, the Father of the Reformation, by Dignitaries of
the Church, and by other eminent and learned personages down to the
present time, we are persuaded that the exception taken to the parodies
of Mr. Hone by the present Ministers of the Crown was to answer
political purposes against the Liberty of the Press.
4. That a hypocritical prostitution of Religion, and a pretended
zeal for its defence, when used by corrupt Statesmen as a mask for
political persecution, must ever be held by all sincere Christians as the
worst profanation of its sacred name.
5. That it is evident from the manner in which those prosecutions
were commenced and conducted, that the real object of Ministers was
not to protect Religion; but to crush an apparently defenceless indi
vidual, who had exposed their political delinquencies, to stifle public
discussion, to destroy the Liberty of the Press, and to uphold existing
abuse.
6. That the extensive knowledge, the varied talents, the manly
intrepidity, the energy of mind, and the unshaken perseverance which
enabled Mr. William Hone so dauntlessly to resist the reiterated
assaults of Ministerial persecution, entitle him to the gratitude and
support of every friend to constitutional freedom.
7. That a Subscription be now opened, and that the money which may
be subscribed, be placed in the hands of a Committee to be used in such
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
211
way as shall appear to them best calculated to promote the permanent
welfare of Mr. Hone and his Family.
8. That the following Gentlemen be of the Committee :—Aiderman
Goodbehere,* Aiderman Thorp, Robert Waithman, Joseph Hurcombe,
William Sturch, Samuel Brooks, William Williams, William Teesdale.
9. That Robert Waithman be the Treasurer.
Mr. Wa it h m a n now observed that he should have stated that
there had already been subscriptions to a very good extent received.
The Chairman was called on to read the names, and immediately
proceeded to state the names, &c., under which the subscriptions
had been received; among others, were, from a lady, £50; No
Politician, £5 ; No Parodist, but an enemy to persecution, ¿£21 ;
Mr. Waithman, ¿£10; Mr. Sturch, ¿£10; Pro Bono Publico, ¿£2 2s.;
Aidermen Goodbehere and Thorp, ¿£10 each; An Englishman,
.£10; James Perry, Esq., ¿£20; Sir Richard Phillips, ¿£5; Jones
Burdett, Esq., £o, and so on to a very considerable amount.
Mr. Waithman next observed that he had a very gratifying th ing
to communicate; it was, that he had received through a friend
known to them all, a subscription of ¿£100. (Loud applause, and
cries of “Name! name!”) He did not know who this liberal
■contributor was, although, perhaps, his name might be collected
from the manner in which the subscription was given; it was
accompanied by the following sentenceFrom a Member of
the House of Peers—an enemy to persecution, and especially to
religious persecution employed for political purposes.” (Loud and
continued cheers.) The worthy Chairman, in conclusion, said,
that it was impossible for any person not present at Mr. Hone’s
trial, to form the least conception of the ability, courage, and
feeling displayed by that worthy man in the trial. He appeared
on the highest pinnacle on which a man could be placed, while all
around him looked little, very little. “I’d sooner forget all I ever
saw beside, than be without the impression which I felt on wit
nessing such a scene.” (Great applause.)
Mr. Pe r r y , of the Morning Chronicle, rose amidst tumultuous
applause, for the purpose, he said, of taking a part in the pro* Elected Alderman, 1809.
�212
TRIAL BY JURY
ceedings of that day, than which none could have been more
grateful to his feelings—it was to propose the thanks of the
assembly to that eminent and distinguished patriot, whose'merits
were too strongly engraven on the mind of every man who heard
him to require enumeration—he meant Sir F. Burdett. (Cheers.)
To do justice to the character of that enlightened statesman, would
require a portion of the eloquence which had been displayed by
Mr. Hone in the course of his able defence; he felt that he was
incompetent to the task, and could only say, that they all owed
the deepest obligations to one who had so bravely, with so much
eloquence, and with such unabated zeal fought their battles.
(Loud cheers.) He was delighted to find that the enthusiasm of
the meeting corresponded with his own. It might with truth be
said, that no man deserved more the admiration of his countrymen
than the Hon. Baronet to whom he alluded. Met as they wereto defend the liberty of the press—for unless the press were free,
no man corlld exist in society—it was the light of the mind, it
was to the mind as air was to the human body, without it they
must expire. ‘(Cheers.) He said, met as they were for this
purpose, it was impossible to tell what was the amount of the
debt of gratitude which they owed to those individuals who had.
stood forward to protect that which was the food of the human
mind. (Cheers.) The Hon. Baronet (Sir F. Burdett) had said,
that, in point of fact, the law of libel was utterly undefined, and
that men with the best intention, and with their eyes open, might
write a libel. This was, indeed, a faithful representation of the
case. The interpretation which he had heard given to a libel, and
more especially by those who were interested in meeting the
wishes of Ministers, was, that truth was a libel, that anything
which was written or published, of which any body complained,
was what the law designated a libel. In other words, that any
man who dared to publish the truth, however important the truth
might be to the interest of the community, was a libeller. He
could only say, that he for one would brave this construction.
He would publish the truth, though he should provoke his
Majesty’s Ministers to attack him. (Applause.) He denied that
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
truth was a libel. To tell the truth was a
they were born, and was one which he would not be
sacrifice. The Hon. Baronet had said that he did not know a
single lawyer who had ever formed a common-sense idea upon the
question of libel. Although it gave him pain to differ in the
slightest degree from one for whom he entertained so much
respect, yet in this particular he was bound to disagree with him,
and he thought the Hon. Baronet would be a convert to his
opinion. There was a lawyer who had been able to come to a
just conclusion on this subject. He meant that individual who
had been the real parent of the libel bill—one who had defended
him successfully under prosecutions for libel, and one to whom his
country would ever feel indebted—he meant Lord Erskine
*
(Loud and reiterated cheers.) Lord Erskine was a lawyer who
had grappled with the greatest judges of his day, in the first stage
of his legal business, when he had everything to dread from their
power, and everything to hope from his subserviency. Before he
proceeded to read the resolution, to move which was the object of
his rising, he begged leave to suggest the expediency before they
separated of some steps being taken to have another meeting. He
conceived it was of the highest importance that they should have
an opportunity to express their feelings on the great cause of all
those persecutions. That which he wished was, that an expression
of public feeling should go forth, and that a meeting of the
Freeholders of the county of Middlesex should be called, for the
purpose of making a declaration upon the suspension of the Habeas
Corpus Act, and upon that abominable circular which had been
issued by the Ministei' of the Home Department; by which he
had prohibited the circulation of what he was pleased to call
blasphemous Hbels, and empowered the magistracy to send to
prison those by whom they were sold. These publications had
now, by the acquittal of Mr. Hone on three successive trials, and
* Born about 1750. On the death of Mr. Pitt in 1806, when Lord Grenville
received the commands of George III. to form a new administration, Mr. Erskine
was created a peer, and raised to the dignity of Lord High Chancellor of Great
Britain, Died, 1823.
�214
TRIAL BY JURY
on three successive days, during which he had been tormented
physically as well as mentally, been pronounced no libels. The
whole foundation of the suspension of their liberties was a mere
fallacy; and under such circumstances, were they, with their eyes
open, to suffer the act by which those liberties were suspended to
'expire of itself? (Shouts, and cries of “No! no!”) Would
they not, by an expression of public feeling, call for its instant
repeal, and not by acquiescence, as with the Mutiny Bill, or a
common Shipping Bill, have it hereafter renewed as a matter of
course once a year? (Cries of “Yes! it must be repealed with
out delay.”) Let a requisition be sent to the Sheriff of Middlesex,
and let it be known that it came from that room, requiring him
to call a meeting for this purpose; and let the committee appointed
on the present occasion bring the matter forward in such shape as
to them might seem proper. He trusted their example would
be followed by others, and that the feeling would go round the
country. Mr. Perry concluded by moving:—
10. That the thanks of this meeting are due to Sir Francis Burdett,
Bart., for his spontaneous offers of co-operation with the gentlemen
originating the subscription, in strict conformity with a life of pure
patriotism and love of country.
Mr. Wa l k e r rose to second this motion, which had his most
complete and unqualified concurrence. The worthy baronet full
well knew the feelings of Englishmen. (Applause.) He had too
much judgment to dwell on any exhortation to them to subscribe
on an occasion of this kind, he left that point in its proper place,
well knowing that they would exercise their zeal upon it in a man
ner becoming such a subject. He would take this opportunity of
paying a proper tribute to the fair sex, a few of whom were then
in the room. (Some interruption here took place.) They recol
lected that one fair lady sent ¿£50 to grace their subscription.
(Great applause and laughter.) They ought also to bear in mind
that one juror on the first day’s trial stepped forward on behalf of
Mr. Hone, when he was about to be put down for using what the
judge thought irrelevant matter, and said that he thought the
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
215
matter relevant.
*
Such a man deserved public thanks for the ex
pression of his honest feeling. (Applause.) It maintained and
supported at such a moment in Court a struggling and nearly
overpowered man, and enabled him, under Jwry-masts, to trim his
little bark, then exposed to the pelting of the pitiless storm, and
bring it round into the harbour with safety. The gale which was
chasing bigotry from the shores of South America would not allow
that hideous monster to take refuge in England; but entering
Guildhall it rived the very trappings of the Judge, who was obliged
to exclaim to the Attorney-General, who felt the blast, “ we had
better let it blow over us.” (Much laughter.) The worthy gentle
man concluded by an eloquent appeal to the meeting on behalf of
Mr. Hone and his infant family.
The resolution of thanks was then carried by acclamation.
Sir Fr a n c is Bu r d e t t rose and returned thanks. He felt that
this new subject on which Mr. Perry had touched in so handsome
a manner towards him, and with so much eloquence in descanting
upon the topic, was one on which he (Sir Francis) could say little,
except that he highly cherished and esteemed this expression of
their good opinion; and that he also considered the good opinion
of his fellow-citizens as the only reward he could hope for, wish, or
experience throughout the whole of his life. (Applause.) On the
same principles which this day received the stamp of their much
valued approbation, they might reckon on his future efforts, be the
time long or short that may remain for his public career. Before
he entered on a more pleasing task than self-allusions, he would
make one or two observations on an allusion made by Mr. Perry, to
the opinion of an eminent lawyer relative to the law of libel.
There was, doubtless, no person more conversant than that gentle
man with the subject, or fitter to pronounce an opinion upon it.
Mr. Perry and himself (Sir Francis) were equally convicted libellers,
and they had a right to look closely to this matter. [Here it was in
* He said that he was prepared to die, if need be, rather than pronounce a
man “ guilty” who was manifestly prosecuted, not for blasphemy or sedition, but
for exposing abuses which were eating into the very heart of the nation. This
juror was an eminent London merchant, named Elwall.
�216
TRIAL BY JURY
timated to the worthy baronet that Mr. Perry had not been convicted
on the occasion he alluded to.] Sir Francis then observed that he
had committed a mistake j he certainly recollected very well that
his friend was indebted to a very able defence which he made in
person for his acquittal on a groundless charge of libel, but he
thought that he had been convicted on a former occasion, and on
that account he thought he might have considered him as his fellow
colleague. He had himself been imprisoned for what was called a
libel, and he wight be so again ; but no fear of that kind would
ever deter him from exposing a corrupt Assembly that acted in
the name of the people, just as the ministers were acting in the
name and on behalf óf his Majesty. (Applause.) Ho penalties
that Assembly could inflict should ever deter him from speaking
the truth in defence of the liberties of the people. Whenever they
attempted to enact measures trenching upon the natural, unalien
able, imprescriptible, rights of Englishmen, there was no penalty,
there should be no laws, which should ever deter him from incur
ring that penalty, from breaking those laws whenever the rights
a,nd liberties of his country required such a sacrifice. (Loud and
continued cheering.) As to the observation respecting the opinion
of a certain great lawyer on the subject of libel, he did not think
there was any disagreement between them on this point. Lord
Erskine, when at the bar, did certainly bear up most nobly against
the oppressive doctrines of judges, but he never did define what a
libel was; anda gentleman who was in the habit of writing, like
his friend, did not now know any lawyer to whom he could go and
consult as to what was libel or what was not; and if he did consult
lawyers they would give different opinions according to their private
views. In short, no one ever could define what a libel was ; and for
himself he believed everything he ever wrote might by some lawyers
be called libels. (Laughter.) There never was such a despotism
as this Law of Libel, as it was called, had reared. It was a
thousand times worse than the plan adopted by the tyrant Caligula,
who posted up his laws, but in places so high and in letters so
small that, though it was impossible to read them, it was death to
commit an infraction upon their provisions. A different plan was,
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
217
indeed, practised in the early times of England. The statutes were
then really promulgated—they were posted in the market places
and read in all the churches. This fair notification may be said to
justify the maxim that ignorance of the law was no excuse for its
infraction. But what was the case now, they had rooms full of
statutes on every simple subject? Lawyers did not know the law,
they only went to look after it among the books on receiving their
fee. (Great laughter.) There never had been a common-sense
dennition of the Law of Libel, or of the offence itself. The only
fair definition was that any writing was a libel which a person
belonging to the Government thought so. (Applause.) The notion
that a thing was a libel because it tended to a breach of the peace
was nonsense—it was absurd. A man, forsooth, was accused of
writing something which may possibly provoke, not himself, but
some other man to do a criminal act. This, was pretty common
sense and excellent law—it was in so many words to say that if an
individual laid down his goods where some thief was tempted to
take them away, the owner should be punished for his tempting,
and not the thief who stole the property. (Great applause.) He
had now the pleasing task of drawing their attention to the exer
tions of a gentleman who had deserved well of his country. He
meant Mr. Pearson, who, along with Mr. Wooler, was the first to
attack the abominable system of striking special juries. And not
only Mr. Hone, but the public at large were indebted to that
gentleman for having so bravely placed himself in the gap, and
endeavoured to break down that practice. In reforming that
obsolete and imperfect list, he maintained that the greatest practical
benefit ever conferred in his time was thus bestowed on the com
munity. He thus brought home one of the greatest and most
leading benefits of the British Constitution. He accomplished this
great act by his own exertions, and through the medium of his
own intellect, which enabled him to see his way clearly and properly
to the real evil at issue. The worthy baronet concluded by
moving—
11. That the thanks of this meeting are hereby given cordially to
Mr. Charles Pearson, for his manly and successful struggle in correcting
�218
TRIAL BY JURY
the corrupt system of packing juries, which has contributed so essen
tially toward the present triumph; and especially for the gratuitous
advice and assistance given to Mr. Hone throughout the whole of the
prosecutions, affording a rare example to his profession of zeal, inde
pendence, and disinterestedness.
Lord Co c h r a n e then rose, and was received with loud cheers.
He said, that in doing himself the honour of seconding the motion
just made, he could not refrain from expressing the great gratifi
cation he felt at seeing such a meeting assembled, for a cause in
which they must have the concurrence of every honest man
throughout the nation. (Hear, hear.) With very different feel
ings he appeared in that room on a former occasion, when an
attempt was made to practise a delusion upon the people, by telling
them that their distresses arose from the sudden transition from a
state of war to a state of peace. This delusion he, at the time,
assisted to dispel. They had now to contemplate a very different
spectacle; they had to witness the triumph of the oppressed over
his oppressors; and to learn from it the wholesome lesson, that
while the purity of an honest Trial by Jury existed, and while
English jurors were faithful to their trust, tyranny could never
shackle the people. (Great applause.) But this triumph never
could have been obtained, had not the Jury List been purified.
Was it to be endured, that in such a metropolis as London, only
480 men (the number on the old list) were qualified to perform the
important office of jurors ? It was thus that previous convictions
had been obtained ; for in all other cases juries were found to take
the law of libel at once from the judge. The present, however,
was the greatest blow that tyranny ever met with in this country.
Short of a radical reform in the House of Commons, this reform in
the Trial by Jury was the most important. When any of the
gentlemen who heard him, therefore, sat on juries, he hoped they
would guard themselves against the misrepresentations which were
made by lawyers j and he hoped this subject would be soon taken
up in a proper manner in Parliament. He spoke feelingly on this
subject. (Applause.) But the case of others had been much
worse, for many were convicted and punished with death, on the
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
219
evidence of the most abandoned characters; men were convicted
by packed juries, and on the evidence of suborned and false wit
nesses. His lordship afterwards adverted to the sentence that had
been passed on him upon an unjust conviction for breaking out of
prison. A fine of ¿£100 had been thus imposed on him; but
sooner than have paid that fine, he would have remained and
rotted in prison; his constituents paid it for him, and relieved
him from his most painful situation. That money he wished now
to return; and with feelings of heartfelt thankfulness to Mr.
Hone for his manly and able exertions in defence of the liberties
of the people, he would now lay down the ¿£100 which he then
held in his hand, in addition to the sums already subscribed for
him. (Here there were torrents of applause, which lasted several
minutes.) He said he never in his life did any act with more
satisfaction than this. He wished he had the means of doing1
o
more. (Cries of 11 Bravo ! ”) He had attempted to convert the
money with which he would pay his subscription, into the ancient
coin of the realm, but the Bank would only pay old outstanding
notes in this manner; they knew that no such were to be had,
and this they called a resumption of cash payments. (Applause.)
He might have got Sovereigns or Regents, but he knew that they
had nothing to do with this subscription, and he therefore did not
bring them. (Laughter.) What other names for coin there might
be by and bye, he knew not now. The good old Crowns would
be called, perhaps, Boroughmongers; the Half-crowns, Sinecurists ;
the Shillings, Placemen; and the Sixpences, Expectants. (Con
tinued laughter and applause.) The noble lord animadverted
with great indignation on the prosecution he had endured, and
pledged himself to unfold such a scene, with reference to the
transactions imputed to him, as would shock every honest and
feeling mind. He concluded by repeating his eulogium on Mr.
Pearson, and seconding the motion of thanks to that gentleman.
(Great applause.)
The motion was unanimously carried.
Mr. C. Pe a r s o n —Gentlemen, I rise under considerable
trepidation to acknowledge the obligation I feel myself under for
�220
TRIAL BY JURY
the kindness I have just experienced. In acknowledging my gra
titude for that exhibition of friendship which you have so feelingly
manifested towards me on this occasion, in consequence of the
part I have taken in this business, I feel a very great degree of
difficulty,—because it is the first time in my life that I have
addressed so large an assembly—and it is certainly the first time
that I ever addressed an assembly on such an occasion. If I do
not return thanks so expressively as you may conceive I ought, it
is not because my heart cannot feel emotions of gratitude. My
heart has felt them in hallowed silence—you have touched its
most sensitive chord—but I am unable to sweep the strings, on
this occasion, with the same facility that I might do on others.
(Applause.) My exertions were called forth, on the recent
struggle, because I saw such abilities and talents in the gentleman
whose conduct has earned your approbation this day, as led me to
believe that he would be able to make a powerful stand against
the inroads of power. (Applause.) I hope this applause is given
to me, not for what I have done, but because I am a new soldier
in the cause of freedom, whom you would wish to encourage; I
hope it is bounty, given to me, as a recruit—and permit me to
observe, if such be the fact, that Mr. Hone is my bringer—and I
trust the bringer will be liberally rewarded. (Applause.) When
I went to the Crown Office with Mr. Hone to strike the jury, and
to endeavour to abolish that system, which has sent many persons
as innocent as he is, to dungeons and to death, I found there the
Ostlers of the Augean Stable, with the hacks of the Court in
waiting, and the Jehus of the law ready mounted in order to ride
over the liberties of people. (Applause.) I found them, like the
Indian worshippers, ready to sacrifice to the God of their idolatry,
by driving the chariot of power over this oppressed man. (Ap
plause.) They said, “ Gentlemen, there shall be no selection—
there shall be an indiscriminate taking—you may proceed to any
part of the stable—well knowing that the sorry jades in that
stable, almost worn out in the service of corruption, were ready to
give us the long-trot the moment they were employed. I was for
tunate enough to produce an opposition to this system. I stated
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
221
my determination to attack, in every way, a system detested by
good men in all times—a system reprobated on the trial of Mr.
Horne Tooke—a system, the principles of which those who have
been the victims of it never took on themselves to investigate,
because they felt so many strong prejudices embarked in favour of
what appeared to be a fair jury. (Applause.) We, however, sent
their hackneys back to the stable—(applause)—and, I am happy to
say, I have secured stable and all, and have them now in my pos
session. (Laughter.). I feel much obliged to many individuals in
this room for the triumph that has been obtained—because I
know it is to be ascribed to them in a great measure. Their manly
exertions—their exalted names—their honourable characters—
carried forward my views in that Court (the Common Council)
before which it was necessary that I should appear, for the purpose
of effecting the great object I contemplated. I allude more parti
cularly to the honourable individual who now tills your chair.
From him I received the most polite attention, the most manly
and candid support. (Applause.) It was no trifle, when he, a
veteran in arms, who had led so often to victory, condescended to
follow the suggestions of a raw recruit, who might be said never
to have seen a musket, and to be completely ignorant of the use of
it. (Applause.) Gentlemen, though much has been done—much
yet remains to do. We have not only to put down the system for
the present, we must effectually provide against its recurrence at
a future period. (Applause.) I hope we shall not let the present
year pass away without doing that which will stand on record for.
ages, as essentially beneficial to the country. I trust that in this
year, when the great luminary of our Constitution, the Habeas
Corpus Act, has been eclipsed, that we shall not be plunged in
total darkness ; but that the renovated Jury List will be left to
cheer and console us ; I trust it will rise as the evening star of
our liberties, when all beside is dim and cloudy. (Applause.)
Mr. St u r c h said, a resolution had been put into his hand which
did not require any deep reasoning or great preparation in order to
introduce it to the meeting. If it had been otherwise he should
have declined bringing it forward, because he came into that room
�222
TRIAL BY JURY
totally unprepared to take any active part in the business of the
day, and was quite ignorant of the resolutions that were intended
to be proposed. He knew indeed the general purpose of the meet
ing. He considered it to be a most laudable one, and he entirely
approved of it. The resolution which he was about to move
accorded entirely with his sentiments, and, he was convinced, with
those of every person present. It required no ability to bring it
forward, and therefore he undertook the task, not only without
reluctance, but with pleasure, because it afforded him an oppor
tunity of expressing the gratitude of his heart to those worthy
gentlemen who were the cause of calling this meeting, and particu
larly to his valued friend who now presided in the chair. The
situation was indeed one of which any individual might be justly
proud—because he presided over an assembly of freemen, met for
the sacred purpose of supporting and protecting those rights and
privileges which were dear to them as their lives. The motive
which induced him to take that chair was the same that had
directed his conduct during a long life spent in the public service—
namely, a wish to serve that great and noble cause of liberty in
which they were all so deeply interested. (Applause.) He had
also another gratification of coming forward with this resolution,
because it gave him an opportunity of expressing his indignation
at, and his reprobation of, that most unjust and cruel persecution
which Mr. Hone had experienced—(applause)—which was carried
on under the hypocritical pretence of zeal for religion and morality
__(applause)—at the very moment that those who were engaged in
it knew that religion had nothing to do with it; that it was
fomented by a feeling of political revenge on then pait, and that,
in fact, the publications had no obj ect but a political one. (Applause.)
He could not help confessing that at some moments he was inclined
to look with an eye of pity and compassion on the Attorney-General
and other persons connected with him in these prosecutions. He
could easily conceive the difficulties they laboured under; and if
he thought that the law of England would excuse one more parody
before they were laid by for ever, he would say, “It is easier for a
camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a Crown Lawyer
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
223
to be an honest man ! ” (Laughter.) In conclusion, after a hand
some eulogy on the public and private virtues of Mr. Waithman,
it was moved by Mr. Sturch—
12. That the thanks of this meeting be given to Mr. Waithman for
his conduct in the chair, and for his exertions upon all occasions to sup
port the cause of liberty.
Mr. Wo o l e r stood forward amidst a scene similar to that which
the theatre presents when Mr. Kean* appears in a favourite character.
He said he rose on the present occasion to second the motion that
had been just introduced to their notice, and he did so with the
greatest pleasure, because there was no man whom he could feel
greater pride to see in the chair than the gentleman who now filled
that situation. He thought it was as decisive a proof as that
gentleman could give (if proof were necessary) of his entire devotion
to those principles of reform and liberty which they all wished to
rescue from the powerful grasp of tyranny. The present was one
of the most important cases on which a, public meeting could be
convened. It was a meeting of the inhabitants of this great me
tropolis, hurling back on those slanderers who had deprived them
of their rights the charge of sedition, disaffection, and disloyalty,
which they had preferred against them ; and telling those who had
dared to infringe on their liberties that they were ready to defend
them. (Great applause.) The result of those trials had proved
the truth of a proposition which he always had and ever would
maintain namely, that there was nothing so contemptible as
usurped power, and nothing so formidable as courageous innocence
and a determined spirit. (Applause.) The result of those trials
had finely exemplified the moral observation of our great poet__
“Thrice is he arm’d who hath his quarrel just—
And he but naked, though lock’d up in steel,
Whose conscience with injustice is polluted.”-}-
This remark might fairly be said to have been literally fulfilled in
Mr. Hone’s case. Thrice was he assailed, thrice was he armed for
* Edmund Kean, an eminent English tragedian, was born in London about
1787; died, May loth, 1833.
f Shakespeare.
�224:
TRIAL BY JURY
the attack, and thrice he returned successful from the combat.
(Applause.) The array which he had to encounter was dreadful.
Awful was the appearance behind the bar and on the bench of wigs,
and gowns, and gravity—all summoned to oppose him. (Laughter.)
He was encountered by those who deemed their forensic parapher
nalia more important than did the contending heroes of old the
armour of Achilles ; by those who sometimes seemed to forget that
imagination might lead people to look for a man beneath the gown,
or a head under the wig, however ill its interior might be furnished.
(Laughter.) Those gentlemen depended much on their gravity;
but when they learned from natural history that the gravest quad
ruped was an ass, and the gravest bird an owl, men of common
sense would not pay much attention to this qualification. (A laugh.)
The character of an English Judge ought to be one of the noblest
titles that a man could boast. (Applause.) He ought to hold the
scale of justice equally between power on the one hand and passion
on the other. (Applause.) He should hold his hand as steadfastly
opposed against the Minister of the Crown, if the minister meant
to wrong the people, as he would against any portion of that people
who had been misled into the commission of crime, and were pro
secuted for a breach of the laws. (Hear, hear.) While English
Judges maintained this character, and pursued this conduct, England
was safe ; but when the man was seen on the Bench and not the
when he who wore the judge’s gown appeared to be the friend
of Ministers ; when he was seen acting with them on all occasions
and abetting all their proceedings ; when, instead of being counsel
for the prisoner, he appeared as his vindictive prosecutor what
might not the country fear ? (Great applause.) He could applaud
ambition when greatness of mind accompanied it, although he
might lament its career ■ but he hated that grovelling meanness
which clung to place only for its emoluments ? (Applause.) When
dignity of conduct was seen in high situations it was respected as it
ought to be; but where littleness of mind appeared, conjoined
with high rank, it met with merited contempt. If such contempt
had fallen on some persons in this country were the people to
blame? Had they sought to bring greatness into disrepute?
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
225
No; it was not the people. They never harboured such an idea.
Those persons only had wrought this effect who employed their
power and greatness where it ought not to have been exerted;
who used their influence where it ought to have been unknown.
(Applause) A good deal was ever said about the credulity of
Englishmen—they were usually reproached with being too fond of
confiding in appearances. They all knew, as a matter of history,
that a measure was passed early in his present Majesty’s reign,
which, as the name went, had for its object, making the judges
independent of the Crown. But it was a strange independence for
these high characters that the Crown should appoint them in the
first instance; and that they should afterwards for life retain the
same high salaries. Brom the Crown then they got everything—
from the people nothing—and did not the regular march of judicial,
like any other official patronage, show the independent qualities for
which Judges were selected by the Crown. Did the people not
see it in the opinions invariably pronounced by Learned Judges in
every case of libel which came under their cognisance. (Applause.)
The people of England stood now on a proud eminence. They saw
before them two high barriers erected for the preservation of
British freedom—one, the Trial by Jury; the other, the Liberty
of the Press; they had also to look forward to the proper guard
and protection of both—a constitutional Representation of the
People. (Applause.) The first of these great barriers was incontestibly erected. Thirty-six Englishmen, on three successive trials,
had finished that great work. A free Press also remained • and
if the people would only do their duty, and assert their rights with
proper spirit, so as to recover the true tone and stamp of Englishmen- then also the great barrier of constitutional representation
would be found to rear its head. (Applause.) The worthv Baronet
near him (Sir E. Burdett) had boldly and honestly told them that
if fresh laws for restraining what were called libels were made, or
even the old ones continued with their common constructions, he
should not hesitate to break them if he found it necessary so to do
in the assertion of a public right, or the advocacy of a public
principle. (Hear, hear.) The Hon. and worthy Baronet would,
Q
�226
TRIAL BY JURY
in so acting, do wisely, honestly, and rightly; for he would have,
if attacked, the proud shield of constitutional judges, whose
special province it would be to say, whether he had acted under a
right motive or a wrong one, in the infraction of law with which
he stood charged. (Applause.) Mr. Horne Tooke had ably drawn
the distinction between the province of a judge and a jury. The
former he truly described, as being but the senior officer of the
Court, whose duty it was to preserve order, and facilitate the
progress of judicial inquiry and investigation. But judges, nowa
days, enlarged the scope of their authority. When, on a late
occasion, the Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench gave a
decisive opinion against a point urged by Mr. Hone, in the course
of his defence, or rather of one of his defences, the latter happened
to say, “That is only your opinion, my lord.” “Yes,” rejoined
the judge, “ it is not only my opinion, but the opinion of every
other lawyer of the day.” So that according to the dictum of the
judge, the opinions of the lawyers were to be the law for English
men to obey, and not the plain principles of law as bequeathed by
their ancestors. (Applause.) The gravamen of Mr. Hone’s admir
able defence was, that he had no intention of committing the
crime wherewith he stood charged, and that he knew of no law
forbidding the act he had done. “ 0 !” said the judge, “it is not
for what you intended you are to be punished, but for what its
tendency may be on the minds of others.” On the same rule, the
language and conduct of the judge ought to be impeached, not
indeed for his intention to the words he uttered, but their ten
dency on the minds of others, for they evidently went to subvert
the whole Trial by Jury. (Laughter and applause.) He (Mr.
Wooler) had accidentally been brought before the public, and
by no less a personage than the Attorney-General, to whom, for
his favour, he owed many thanks. (Laughter.) In the situation
in which he was thus placed he hoped he would be found to do
his duty. He had early learned a lesson, which every man would
find it his best interest to make the rule of his conduct, namely, to
resist oppression, whenever and wherever it appeared, and it soon
nust be destroyed. In the accidental way in which he had been
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
227
thrown upon the public, he first had the advantage of that individual’s
assistance, to whom allusion had so often been made this day—he
meant Mr. Pearson, who did for him, at an early period, what he had
since done for Mr. Hone, who generously gave up in his behalf the
application of that valuable time and talent, which, in the end,
led to such invaluable result—(applause)—a result which put it
out of the possible reach of the Crown to pack a jury for a political
verdict. (Hear, hear.) The master of the Crown Office may still
amuse himself by looking over the jury book for the names of any
of his old acquaintances; but as it is not likely he will find any, or
at least many of them in the list, the people may consider them
selves in something like comparative safety. To be sure there were
men enough to be found ready to commit any crime for lucre-sake,
and these men had got good patrons, for the Government had
kindly taken all the Castles, and Olivers, and Reynoldses under
their fostering protection. (Applause.) The people could only
lament that such was the melancholy fact, but they had also the
consolation to know that these men went about branded by society,
and would hardly be found now with courage enough to show
their heads to do their dirty work. If judges proclaimed that the
Crown Officer had a right to nominate, or, in other words, to pack
ajury, a juror so selected would feel the situation in which he was
placed, and even the most cowardly and venal slave would be
ashamed of performing the office for which he was culled, and
would sneak off from the Minister’s call. (Applause.) The
enemies of the people were strong—but they were so, because
the people suffered themselves to be weak; they were powerful,
because the people would be impotent. If the latter once shook
off their apathy, if they once more roused that voice, which
compelled the tyrant, John, to sign Magna Charta, and which
drove James from the throne, and dictated terms to William
that a compromising Parliament failed to enforce; if they, he
repeated, now raised that voice, it would be heard in thunder.
If they were but faithful to themselves, the attacks of their
enemies would soon be repelled. They had only to emulate
the spirit which reigned over Mr. Hone’s three recent trials,
�228
TRIAL BY JURY
and the result on future occasions would ever be found to
correspond. (Applause.)
Mr. St u r c h here said, as it would not be proper for the Chair
man to put this resolution, he begged to be allowed himself to do
so. It was then put and carried by acclamation.
Mr. Wa it h m a n then rose, and returned thanks in the following
manner:—“ Gentlemen, I feel under difficulties of several kinds
at the present moment. One of them, you must perceive, is a
severe cold under which I labour, and which has confined me to
my house for the last week; indeed nothing would have at this
moment called me from it but the important business of this day.
(Applause.) The next difficulty is, that I do not like to exhaust
the time which you would wish yourselves to devote to the real
business of the day, the subscription of Mr. Hone. (Applause.)
I hope this will not be deferred until a more convenient season, no
timcan be more convenient than the present; let every man
come forward with his subscriptions. (A laugh and applause.)
Although I am not a raw recruit in political debate, yet I assureyou that I am embarrassed and inexperienced in meetings of this
kind. I seldom have the fortune to address an assembly composed
of all friends of liberty, and therefore I am at a loss what to say.
(Laughter and applause.) You know that my general sphere of
action is among men who are not exactly unanimous in the support
of the principles and measures which I think congenial to the
spirit of our constitution. Such is the force of habit that I really
feel at a loss, I feel in fact awkward, when I look round the room,
for a political combatant and can find none. (Laughter and
applause.) I am never so much at home as when I find that sort
of obstruction which is likely to put one on his metal, and call his
spirit into action in fair political combat. (Applause.) It is
not then, as now, a choice to play one’s part, but it becomes an
imperative duty for an honest man to raise his voice against an
opponent in asserting the rights and liberties of mankind.
(Great applause.) I was present during parts of the two first
days of Mr. Hone’s trial, and I was close to him during the
whole of the third and last day. The only merit I lay claim
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
to relative to this business is, that on his quitting the
a free man on Saturday night, I accompanied him into a neigh
bouring coffee-house, to get some refreshment, and I believe
was the first to suggest the idea of convening this meeting.
(Applause.) In doing so, I only did what, under the same circum
stances any one of you would have done. I felt as an Englishman,
and expressed myself like one. (Applause.) There was one
remarkable occurrence on Mr. Hone’s trials, which has not, I
believe, been mentioned by any of the gentlemen who have
touched on the subject. When this worthy and honest man, with
all the courage, and principle, and talent, of a patriotic English
man, was adducing in his vindication proofs of similar parodies
having been published by other men high in Church and State,
and urging that this was his only vindication (and he could have
no other nor better), he was stopped by the solemn declaration of
opinion notified by the judge, who said, ‘this was no defence.’
The man was, in fact, tried and judged before he entered Court;
for, many months ago, I find, by a newspaper report which but
lately fell into my hands, the Law Officers of the Crown declared
in the House of Commons that ‘ copies of these infamous and
atrocious blasphemies’ had been transmitted to them. Thus he
was prejudged, tried, cast, and condemned, and merely brought
into Court to have the legal forms of his conviction observed and
recorded. In vain did Mr. Hone urge to the judge that he only
took these parodies as a medium for conveying political squibs
against certain characters in office, to whose principles he was
opposed, and not as meaning to ridicule the Scriptures; in vain
did he plead the precedent of great statesmen and great divines.
‘No,’ said the judge, ‘it is useless to produce these authorities,
they are all libels no matter from whom they emanated. I have
no hesitation in saying, that the authors of them, be they who
they may, ought to stand where you do now—Don’t produce them
here.’ But the jury thought otherwise, and on their production
acquitted the defendant. (Applause.) Mr. Hone had no other
course than to persevere in adducing his precedents, and he very
properly did so. What answer had the judge to give to this
I
1
!i
�230
TRIAL BY JURY
■manly declaration of Mr. Hone? If all these are libels, my lord,
what answer has the Attorney-General, have all the AttorneyGenerals, in a long course of time, to give for not prosecuting the
authors ? Were they asleep? Who of all the parodists has been
charged for publishing his parody ? If it is evil intention in me,
what prevents it from being evil intention in the Right Hon.
George Canning ? If I am to be at the bar, why does he not
stand at my elbow? This was the only line of defence he could
have fairly made, and he made it like a man. (Hear, hear.) It
was notorious that heretofore publications of this sort were eithei
permitted or winked at j if, then, Ministers were determined to
take a new course, they should have given fair notice of it, and
not have suddenly pounced upon a helpless and solitary man, to
inflict, a penalty which it was notorious had so long remained
dormant. Three honest juries defeated such unworthy prose
cutions, and consequently stamped their opinion on the motives
from which they sprung. (Applause.) The struggle to effect this
triumph was glorious for Mr. Hone, but still more so for the
people of England, in behalf of whose rights and liberties it was
virtually made, rights and liberties that were preserved by his
courage. If there rested on the head of such a man any stigma or
imputation, the people would nevertheless be his debtors for what
he has done in their behalf; but where there is, as I have heard,
no such stigma or imputation, the claims of the individual for
public gratitude and protection are strong and irresistible.
(Applause.) As to myself, I can only say, in return for your
favours, that I cannot describe the gratitude I feel for this expres
sion of your good opinion; nor can I repay it so well as by steadily
persevering in that course and. support of your freedom and
liberties, which has gained for me this mark of your approbation.
And allow me to say, with the worthy Baronet near me, that as
the good opinion of my fellow-citizens was the only award I ever
had the ambition to look for, so it shall be the only one to which
I shall ever aspire in my future life; conscious that, in seeking
the continuance of your good wishes, I shall be pursuing a just
and liberal line of conduct.
�AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
231
The worthy Chairman then announced a subscription of <£100
from Sir Francis Burdett, which was received with loud cheering.
Mr. Hone being loudly called for—
Mr. Wa it h m a n rose to say, that he had early in the day
prevailed on Mr. Hone to leave the Tavern, and depart to his
own house. It now appeared that some gentlemen regretted this,
and wished to hear him. (Cries of “No ! No !”) I advised what
I have told you from delicacy to Mr. Hone, for I think he is in
one respect like myself, though far superior to me in courage and
talent. When I say he is in one respect like myself, I mean that
he would rather meet a host of adversaries in the field, than the
friends assembled here to day. (Laughter and applause.) I hope,
therefore, gentlemen, you will excuse.” (Cries of “ Bravo !
Certainly.”)
Mr. Jo n e s Bu r d e t t next stood forward, and, after briefly
adverting to the persecution which Lord Cochrane had sustained,
and the sufferings he had undergone, proposed—
13. That the thanks of this meeting be given to Lord Cochrane, for
his zealous endeavours on the present occasion.
This resolution having been carried with acclamation,
Lord Co c h r a n e begged the assembly to accept the very inadequate expression of his sense of the high honour they had conferred
on him ; it was such as they could best appreciate by a reference
to their own sensations ; it was too powerful for him to describe.
His feelings were such as no ordinary vote of thanks could excite.
When he found—after all the calumnies that had been levelled at
his honour—after witnesses had been produced against him, who
were supported by thé same hands that fostered Olivei' and Castles—
after a trial before the very judge who would have consigned Mr,
Hone to a dungeon—that he still retained the esteem and con fl deuce of his fellow-countrymen, no words in the English language
could adequately express the feelings that arose in his breast.
(Applause.) At the time he alluded to, that system was in its
infancy. It had not arisen to that maturity of infamy that now
distinguished it. But he was sure that the result of the late
�232
TRIAL BY JURY AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
trials had given it a mortal stab—it could not survive such a
•wound. Juries would know their power, and they would use it.
They would no longer be terrified by the fiat of a judge—they
would assert that prerogative, without which liberty could not
exist. He pledged himself, that, before one month elapsed, he
would lay before the public a statement relative to the measures
resorted to in his own case, by the side of which the villanies of
Oliver and Castles would appear diminutive. This exposure would
for ever deter the Government from having recourse to such base
artifices. He was grateful to his fellow-countrymen for the honour
they had done him—he thanked them for the unshaken opinion
they entertained of his honour and integrity j and he would
endeavour, while he existed, to uphold that character, without
•which every man’s life must be miserable. (Applause.)
The meeting then separated with the most perfect order.
Towards the conclusion of the meeting, the crowd became so
excessive, that the room, which is one of the largest in London,
would admit of the entrance of no more. The consequence was,
that several hundreds were obliged to retire without being able to
hear a syllable.
The crowd followed Sir Francis Burdett, at the conclusion of
the meeting, with the loudest cheers, to his house in St. James’s
Place.
�SUBSCRIPTIONS RECEIVED
£ s.
His Grace the Duke of Bed
ford
...
.............. 105
The Marquis of Tavistock ... 50
The Earl of Darlington
105
The Earl of Sefton ...
105
A Member of the House of
Lords—an enemy to per
secution, and especially to
religious persecution, em
ployed for political pur
poses
.......................... 100
Sir Francis Burdett, Bart.... 100
Lord Cochrane
.............. 100
25 one, and 5 five pound
notes, from a lady unknown 50
Robert Waithman.............. 10
10
Aiderman Goodbehere
Aiderman Thorp
10
Walter Fawkes, Farnley Hall,
Yorkshire.......................... 21
James Perry..............
20
10
William Williams ...
Hon. Marmaduke Dawnay... 10
W. Crawshay, Thames Street 20
S. Curtis, Billiter Lane
21
The Proprietors of the Bri
tish Press and Globe
20
A few Friends to the Liberty
of the Press and Trial by
Jury, from the Ward of
Cripplegate Without (first
subscription)
.............. 20
A Country Gentleman—pre
sented with the above
2
Nathaniel Newnham
10
Joshua Grigby, Drinkston,
Suffolk
...
............... 10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
£
Francis Canning, Foxcote,
near Shipston, on Stour ...
The Constitution, the whole
Constitution, and nothing
but the Constitution
Leigh and John Hunt, Ex
aminer Office—not what
they would, but what they
could
R. Waithman, jun. ...
J. Waithman
W. Waithman
Charles Pearson
..............
John M'Creery
Thomas Keys
..............
An Englishman
J. C. Hitchins
----- Atkinson, Milk Street
J. K. C....................................
An Enemy to Persecution...
Rev.B. Treleaven, Reading...
Thomas Jonathan Wooler ...
Jones Burdett
...............
William Sturch
Wm. Teasdale, St. Paul’s
Churchyard
...............
Seven Friends at Liverpool...
John Wilks..........................
John Tennant
Whiston Powell
Wm. Lawrence, M.D., College
of Physicians
...............
----- Powle ............................
F. P..........................................
J. Pearson, Rutland Wharf...
Joseph Hurcombe, St. Paul’s
Churchyard
s.
10
0
10
0
5
1
1
1
5
2
2
10
2
1
2
5
1
2
10
5
0
1
1
1
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
30
5
5
2
0
0
5
0
0
5 0
1 1
5 0
0 2
2 2
�234:
SUBSCRIPTIONS RECEIVED.
£ s.
Robert Carter, Minories
... 1 1
H. Dibbing, Basing Lane ... 1 1
T. .. ............................................... 1 1
James Hoppe, St. Pauls
Churchyard.
1 1
Robert Kirby, Kennington ... 2 2
Perrot Fenton, jun. ...
... 2 2
----- Thompson
................ 1 0
A Friend to an Impartial Jury 1 0
----- Sherwin
2 0
P. T. Lemaitre
•••
••• 1 0
A Briton
.......................... 1 A
Josephus
.............................. 2 A
A Friend to Justice ...
••• 1 0
Clement Poole, White Cross
Street
.............................. 5 0
A Friend, by the same
... 1 1
Martin’s Lane
...
••• 1 0
P.W. ...
.......................... 1 0
Godfrey Higgins, Skellow
Grange, Yorkshire.............. 5 0
No Parodist, but an Enemy to
Persecution
...............10
0
A Briton
.......................... 1 A
W. Prater, Noble Street
... 5 0
J. .. ........................................... 1
0
Geo. Weatherstone............... 5 0
Old Bags
..............
••• 2 2
Anonymous.........................2
0
Sam. Sampson, Sise Lane ... 2 0
William Wansey
............... 1 1
John Wansey..................... 1 1
S. Roberts, Fleetmarket
... 1 0
W. Deykes, Thavies Inn
... 2 2
JohnDeykes, Bartlett’s Build
ings ...
.......................... J *
J. Morrison, Fore Street ... 0 0
Croft Ryland ...
.............. 2 2
J. Chatfield, Stockwell
... 5 0
Thomas Vyse, Holborn
... 1 1
W. A. .. .................................... 11
William Routh
............... 2 2
W. Hall, Grove, Hackney ... 1
0
W.V................................... 10
Thomas Reeve
............... 1 0
William Griffith
.............. 10
£ s.
W. .. .......................................... 10
Wm. Blissett, Holborn
... 1 0
J. T. Clarke, Uxbridge
... 5 0
George Pole ...
.............. ?
2
Thomas Wishart
.............. 2 2
Richard Crawshay .............. 2 2
William Hallet, Berks
... 5 5
Edward Franks
...
••• 1 1
R. ............................................ 1
1
.. ............................................... 1
Q
J. .. ........................................... 10
Pro Bono Publico .............. 2 2
J. ... .......................................... 2
01
One who thinks highly of Mr.
Hone’s conduct ............... 2 U
----- Major ........................... 1 A
Iota ......................................2 2
A Briton (2nd subscription)... 1 0
Sir Richard Phillips ...
••• 5 5
Major Charles James
... 5 5
John Elsee, Chigwell Row ... 2 0
P. P. Baraud, Cornhill
... 5 5
T. A. Phipps, News Office ..- 5 0
J. S....................
............... 1 1
R. J...........................................1
0
J. F. Gwynn ...
............... 1 1
Richard Taylor
.............. 2 2
Areopagiticas..............
••• 2 0
J. Norris, Tokenhouse Yard 2 0
William Barker
............... 11
Joseph Gray.......................... 1
0
----- Foster, Corbett Court...... 1 0
----- Brent ...
2 0
Samuel Sharewood
5 Bi
Henry Hare Townsend ... 5 0
----- Young ...
............... 1 1
William Stevens
.............. 1 1
Rev. Wm. James Fox
• •• 11
Rev. James Gilchrist.............. 1 1
J. .. ........................................... 1
1
No Politician.......................... 5 A
Elhanan Bicknell, Newington
Butts
.......................... 1 1
William Clarke
..
••• 1 0
I John Mason..............
— 1 1
I E. L. Gee
...
—
— 1 1
�SUBSCRIPTIONS RECEIVED. ;
£ s.
1 0
1 1
3 3
1 0
5 0
2 0
5 0
2 0
5 0
w. s.............................. 1 0
T. S.......................................... 1 0
T. Halchin .......................... 1 0
W. Leaf, jun............................ 2 2
Edward Hancock
1 0
Samuel Parkes
1 1
J. Wild
.......................... 1 0
----- Smith ........................... 1 1
Thomas Gibbs
.............. 1 0
Sam. Oliver, Distaff Lane ... 1 1
J. Souter
..............
1 1
Anthony Soulby
............... 2 2
Bobert Stevenson .............. 2 2
John Foster, Bromley, Mid
dlesex
..............
1 1
Thomas Dean
1 1
William Mitchell
1 1
P. W......................................... 2 2
Twattie
.......................... 1 1
M.............................................. 2 0
T. Cartwright, Thames Street 1 1
W. Williams ...
2 0
George Blundell
.............. 1 0
B. L. Jones .......................... 1 1
William Ellis ...
.............. 1 0
----- Fether, King Street
1 1
Mrs. Fether,
ditto
1 1
Stephen Newman ... 1 1
Thomas Gainsborough
2 2
Bev. Ebenezer Jones...
1 0
Alex. Galloway, Holborn
2 0
James Webb ...
1 1
J. T. Mount, St. Alban’s, Caerleon...................................... 1 0
The Doctor in Bedlam
1, 1
A Disciple of C. J. Fox
1 1
An Enemy to Corruption
1 0
Samuel Saxton
.
AV. Jacobson ...
.............
Captain Savigne
.............
G. M.Ball, Shadwell...
James Mather
..............
A Friend
..........................
C. J. Hector ...
John Cross
B. S. ...
...
...
...
\
\
\ i
/ry p
Yr)
fel
<zy
An obscure Donation to Pul
lie Merit
. 1
A Friend
......................... . 1
Thomas Taylor
... \ .. . 5
Henry Brandon
. 1
A Friend to the Innocent .. . 1
Thomas Frost
............. . 1
William Morley
............. . 1
----- Mallett ...
. 1
A Friend
......................... . 2
United Englishmen ...
. 5
Charles Hicks
............. . 2
----- Williams
1
John Jones
1
Derry Triangle
.............
1
Thomas Gibson
2
John Greaves.......................... 1
A Gentle Shepherd.............. 2
Thomas Frost
.............
1
J. W.........................................
5
B. W......................................... 5
Samuel Smith...
.............
2
John Stewart...
1
T. P.......................................... 1
H. H......................................... 1
A Cornishman
1
H. T. L.................................... 1
----- Cullen ...
1
An Enemy to Hypocrisy
1
A. andB.
2
Gratitude to Mr. Hone
1
B. E.......................................... 1
H. W........................................ 1
J. B........................................... 1
W.............................................. 1
P. W......................................... 2
— Keys, Aidgate High Street 2
A............................................... 1
V. F.......................................... 1
Facts ...
.......................... 1
C................................................ 1
Sundry Sums subscribed, each
less than £1
................ 10
A Juryman on the third day’s
trial...
1
H.
...
.......................... 5
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
o
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
7
1
0
�236
SUBSCRIPTIONS RECEIVED.
£ s.
£ s.
...
... 5 5
Peter Moore, M.P. ...
••• 5 0 A few Scotchmen
Thomas Groom, Esq., late
George Dawson
...
... 5 5
Mayor of Maidenhead ... 1 0
David Taylor.............................. 5 0
George Taylor
............. 5 0 Rev. R. Aspland, Hackney
Road
.......................... 1 1
An Enemy to Hypocrisy ... 5 5 .
James King, Terling.............. 1 0 John Atkinson, ForeStreet... 1 1
... 1 1
George A. Carruthers
... 1 0 A Village Curate’s Mite
Goss & Co., surgeons, BouA Genuine Eriend of the
verie Street...
...
••• 3 0
Liberty of the Press and
William Webb
.......... 11
Trial by Jury
.............. 1 0
“ The Doctor”
.......... 1 1
An Abhorer of Tyranny and
Wm. Broad ...
•••
••• 1 1
Oppression.......................... 10
Afew Friends at a Bookseller’s
An Admirer of Honest and
Shop, implacable enemies to
Undaunted Jurors...
... 1 0
iniquity in the cloak of
H. D. Parker.......................... 1 0
justice, or hyopcrisy under
A Eriend to even-handed Jus
the veil of religion; and
tice ...
...............
••• 1 1
consequently warm advo
Ellen-Borough
............... 3 2
cates for a persecuted hus
An Enemy to Political and
band, his deserving wife,
Religious Persecution
... 1 1
and their helpless family ... 4 0
Sandford and Huxley
... 2 0
To Right freed from Might... 1 0
Alexander Turnbull ...
— 1 0
T. P. Glassington, Strand ... 2 2
Eor Mr. Hone
.............. 1 0
“ My name would ruin me”... 2 2 An Admirer of Undaunted
Juries
.......................... 1 1
Alfred Thorp............... 11
Rev. J. Holme
..
••• 1 1
J. . ............................................1
0
T. C. ...
......................... 1 0
S.W..................................... 1
0
The Struggler, 33, Coventry
W. Sowerby.........................1
1
Street
.......................... 1
®
W. H. Butler......................... 3
0
T. Newman, Alton, Hants ... 2 0
G. A. S. May the Light of
W.C....................................... 1
0
Reason obscure the Lamp
The Ghosts of Jeffries and Sir
of Corruption
.............. 1 0
William Noy
............. 3 3
Oh! Minions of Pitt
— 1 0
Andrew Wilson
...
••• 3 3
Who increaseth the Miseries
of the World
.............. 1 0 James Ramshaw, a friend to
religion, but an enemy to its
Oil for the Hone
.............. 1 0
being used as an engine of
Charles Edward Hanford ... 2 2
persecution.......................... 1 0
Joseph Martin
....
— 3 3
...
••• 3 3
John Horman...
.............. 3 3 Richard Flower
••• 1 1
J. Robinson........................ 1
1 Benjamin Flower ...
George Flower
......... 1 1
D.. ............................................10 0
The Ghost of Dr. Slop's Dirty
Isaac Harrop, Altringham ... 2 0
Shirt
........................ 1 0
Y. Z., Birmingham.......... 5
0
Edward Langley
.............. 33
William Frend
............... 5 5
L. Hind, Rockingham Row ... 1 0
Henry Francis Harrison ... 5 0 I The Ghost of Judge Jeffries... 1 1
Samuel Lewen
.............. 5 5
�SUBSCRIPTIONS RECEIVED.
£ s.
Wm. Buckeridge
...
... 1 0
A conscientious Jury and a
conscientious Attorney ¿£1 6s. 8d.
George Goodwin
.............. 1 0
Emily.......................................... 1 o
G. Davis, Scarborough.
... 2 0
An Enemy to Ex-Officio In
formations .......................... 1 0
James Street.......................... 10
F. Hebb
.......................... 1 1
Jas. Young, to Mr. Hone, for
defending in his own person
the freedom of the Press,
attacked for a Political ob
ject, under the old pretence
of supporting Religion ... 2 2
E M..............................................1 1
An Enemy to Oppression un
der all masks, particularly
those of Religion and Jus
tice ..
..............
... 1 o
George Long..............
... 1 1
William Adams
......... 2 0
Dean and Miller
......... 2 2
An Enemy to Oppression ... 1 0
Michael Bush.......................... 2 2
F. M. a cut at Corruption ... 5 0
John Hollis.......................... 5 5
The respectable 36, per do.... 2 2
S. Sparks, Crewkeme
... 5 5
Percy B. Shelly, Marlow ... 5 0
Samuel Athawes
...
... 5 0
Rev. W. T.................................... 5 5
D. Sykes, Raywell, near Cave,
Yorkshire ...
...
... 5 0
A Whig
.......................... 5 0
From all weak and wicked
Ministers andunjust Judges
deliver us ...
...
... 5 0
An Enemy to the Establish
ment of a British Inquisi
tion .......................................... 2 0
R. Jones
.
... j q
Thomas Wood
.............. 3 0
Benj. Godfrey Windus
... 1 1
T. Pinsent, Plymouth Dock
1 0
237
£ s.
R. Cunliffe, Blackburn
... 5 0
----- Morgan............................2 0
Dr. Brandy ...
...
1 1
Two Brothers, who think true
Religion never was, nor ever
will be, injured by the Li
berty of the Press.............. 2 0
E. Clark, Ormond Street ... 1 1
J. H. Green ...
...
... 2 2
B. G.......................................... 1
0
S. S....................
...............11
John Snowden, Stroud, Glou
cestershire .......................... 2
2
No Parodist, but a Friend to
Freedom, ditto
...
... 1 0
A Foe to tyrannical Judges,
ditto...................................... 1 0
W. E. ...................................... 2 2
An Earldom for Myself and a
Translation for my Brother 1 0
Temperance, Soberness, and
Chastity, in Honour, Trust,
and Dignity
...
... 1 1
A Despiser of the Perverters
of any Oaths, particularly
of “Oaths of Office”
... 1 1
A Cobler’s Mite
.............. 1 0
T.L.G..........................................1 0
A Friend to the Liberty ofthe
Press
.............................. 1 0
R. Essex
...
...
... 1 1
“As false as Hell” ............... 1 1
J.B..................................T1 0
J. B.................................... 0 3
EL..................................... 1 0—2 3
Gregory Speck Lee
1st Trial .............. , 1 1
2nd Trial.............. 1 1
3rd Trial .............. 1 l_g 3
Thomas Jecks
......... 1 1
B-B............................................... 1 1
Captain Milligans Spilligans
Hilligans, of the Ship Re
form, bound to Toleration
Bort..........................................
0
Major Cartwright ................. 20 0
�238
SUBSCRIPTIONS RECEIVED.
£ s.
A Friend to Liberty and Jus
tice ...
...
•••
25 0
Thomas Creevey, M.P.
... 10 0
Harvey Combe, Charlotte
Street
............................ 10 0
Anonymous ...
•••
••• 10 10
A steady Friend to Reform
and a Just Representation
of the People and Property
of the Country, and an
Enemy to Prosecution,much
more Persecution under
Religious or other False
Pretences, but an Enemy
equally to Universal Suf
frage, as leading to Universal Rapine............................ 10 0
William Carr ...
...
••• 5 5
Rowland Hunter
......... 5 5
Timothy Trueman, Bucking
hamshire ...
••• 5 5
Robert Canning, Houndshill,
near Stratford-on-Avon ... 5 0
Thomas Northmore, Cleve
House, near Exeter
... 5 0
Thomas Church, Acton
... 5 0
Thomas Phillips, of Middlehill,
Broadway, Worcestershire
5 0
H. G. B........................................ 5 0
An Enemy to Hypocrisy and
Persecution, by W. Sturch
5 0
William J. Sturch .............. 1 0
John Sturch.............................. 1 0
Anthropos
.............................. 5 0
George Hart ...
•••
••• 2 8
William Sealey
•••
••• 2 2
One who disapproves of the
Parodies, but abhors Per
secution ...
•••
••• 5 0
B. Boothy, Chesterfield
... 1 0
----- Silver, Hammersmith ... 1 1
From a SchoolBoy, who wishes
Mr. Hone to have a very
grand subscription
... 1 0
An Old Eccentric—an Enemy
to all Informers .............. 2 2
<£ s.
— Bond, Esq., Crooked Lane 1 1
George Fitch..............
... 2 0
J.W......................................... 1 1
Vox Populi Vox Dei ...
... 1 0
A few Admirers of William
Hone, Ship, Talbot Court... 2 3
A few Friends, Cock and
Hoop, Old Artillery Ground,
Spitalfields...
...
••• 2 5
A few Friends, Enemies to
dictatorial Judges ...
... 5 10
T. Chapman, Manchester ... 2 0
W. H. C................................... 1 1
Not W. Holmer, sen., Borough 1 1
A Member of Trinity
... 1 0
F. Newbum, Darlington ... 1 0
The Misses Greathead, ditto 1 0
J. Peacock, M.D., ditto
... 1 0
G. C. Ashley, King’s Row,
Pimlico
...
...
••• 1 0
R. Lee, Clapham
................ 2 2
W. J. Sewell, but no Scrip
ture Parodist
...
0 10
T. Burn, Camberwell
... 1 1
A Friend to a Free Press ... 1 1
J. D. and W. S............................ 1 0
For Delicacy’s sake forbear—
“ and Felix trembled” ... 1 0
Not Wm. Fairbrother, High
bury Place ...
...
10s. fid.
Not Jno. Wass, W’indsor
Terrace, City Road
10s. fid.
J. Hutchinson
1 1
J. S. Hutchinson
.............. 1 1
Equity versus Law ... ' ...2 0
V. Rumley .......................... 1 1
Philip Guy ...
•••
10s. 6d.
H. T.............................................. 1 0
Tartufie Sidemouth.............. 1 0
“Open your Eyes and see—
stretch out your hands,
seize, and bring him into
Court.”—Bombastes Furioso 1 1
The Ghost of Horne Tooke ... 1 0
“ The hope of the Hypocrite
shall perish”
...
10s. fid
�SUBSCRIPTIONS RECEIVED.
£ s.
“ Balsam for a legal gripe”. . 1 0
John Pickard, Noble Street. . 2 2
John Pickard, jun................. . 1 1
Joseph Pickard
10s. 6d.
Alfred Pickard
10s. 6d.
G. Dyer
......................... . 1 0
H. B. Rosser and Friends £2 4s. 6d.
One who abhors an arbitrary
and merciless Judge
. 1 0
John Cross
. 1 1
J. W., a Friend to Religion,
Courage, and Talent
. 1 1
J. Apperley, Long Lane
. 1 1
G. Fordham, Odsey ...
1 1
J. Fordham, ditto
1 0
Mr. Nash, Royston ...
1 0
J. Fordham, ditto .............
1 0
John Butler, ditto .............
1 0
E. K. Fordham, ditto
1 0
James Piggott, ditto.............
0 10
J. Butterfield, ditto.............. 0 10
George Fordham, Sandon ... 0 15
Swan Nash, Ch ester ford
0 10
David Lilley, Cambridge
1 0
Samuel Fordham. Kelshall ... 1 0
Geo. Fordham, ditto.............. 1 0
J. Lilley, Bassabourn
0 10
W. C. Carver, Melbourn
0 10
George Wallis, Harston
0 10
E. W. Fordham, Broadfield... 0 10
J. Trigg, Melbourn ...
0 10
W. Corrington,Biggleswade... 1 0
Thomas Wade, Hitchen
1 0
J. M. B.................................... ’
1 0
Mrs. Faircloth, Foulmire
0 10
T. Wallis Sheppreth...
0 10
W. Beddam, Royston
0 10
J. Sampson, Chesterford
0 10
W. Wedd, Foulmire.............. 1 0
— Peppercorn, Stamford Bury 1 0
J. H. S..................................... 1 1
J. Wigget, Drury Lane
2 0
Freemen stand or Freemen fa’ 1 0
Robert Hall, Borough
1 1
W. Addams, Rotherhithe ... 1 0
William Broad
.............. 1 1
239
£
S.
W. H. Parker...
...
... 2 o
S. H. T.B................................... 2 0
H.W.B....................................... 2 0
Thomas Parker
.............. 1 1
Borough of Caine, Wilts ... 10 10
A few Inhabitants of ditto ... 5 10
Geo. Lister, Ginley House,
Lincolnshire
................. 10 0
R. Moline, Gracechurch Street 6 0
R- w...........................................
5
An Enemy to Jefferies
... 5 5
“ I will go to him myself to
morrow!” ...
...
... 1 0
T-A.......................................... 1 1
T. Sharp, Newgate Street ... 1 1
Geo. Stevenson, Bow Lane ... 1 0
An Enemy to Packed Juries,
as well in the City as the
Country .............................. 2 2
Samuel Nicholson ...
... 2 0
An Admirer of Firmness in a
Jury, and Modesty in a
Judge
...
.............. 1 o
James Curtis, Old Fish Street 1 0
G. R. W.
............................. ! 0
Anticipated Retrenchments
for 1818, per Old Bags ... 2 0
J. Goldsmith, Hambledon,
Hants
.......................... 2
0
A Friend to the Liberty of the
Press
.......................... 3
3
T. P. Cooper, Brighton
... 1 1
Three B’s at the Shades
... 0 15
G. of Highgate
...
... 1 y
Allen Fordham
...£1 Hs. gj.
No Admirer of anEarldom
hunting Judge
.......... J 0
Rt. Wakefield...
...
... j q
A few Friends at Horsham ... 2 0
For value received
.......... j q
Thos. Chaplin
...
... j q
James Mumford
...
... j j
William Barnard
.......... 2 q
John Barnard
.......... j j
----- Bags, jun., Derry Down,
jun., Monte Banquo
... 2 0
�240
SUBSCRIPTIONS RECEIVED.
£ s.
An Independent Weekly Paper 2 0
Christopher Terry .............. 2 0
James Albright
.............. 1 0
A Priend
...
............... 1 4
Judge Jefferies Works rebound
in Calf by Law
...
• •• 2 2
Collected by Mr. Sandars at
Liverpool
...
...
••• 30 0
John Fisher.................... 1
0
Wm. Rigby,Oldfield
Haff,
Cheshire
...
...
10 0
No Scripture Parodist, hut a
Detester of Hypocrisy and
Persecution...
...
••• 5 0
E. & W. Johnson, 7, Bishop
gate Street.......................... 5 0
Keep us from Law, and from
the Shepherd’s Paw
... 5 0
p* t .......................................... 5 0
“I must not give you my
name, but God bless you”... 1 0
An Enemy to Political Judges
from Leighton Buzzard ... 1 0
A Miller’s Mite
... . ...10
The Barber to the Skinners’
Club for the use of the Hone 1 0
The Constitution of “ The
Universal Church,” and of
“Religious and Civil Union”
towards the defence of the
Liberty of the Press
... 1 1
The Ghosts of Ludlam and
Turner, by Mrs. Blake
... 2 2
J. Beldam, Reed, Herts
... 1 0
A. Herbert, Coventry
... 1 0
Thos. Gardyne, county of
Angus, N.B.
...
••• 3 3
David Carnegy, do., N.B. ... 3 3
William Weep for all, with his
blessing
.......................... 1 0
May Jefferies never he for
gotten, and Law become
mild and humane.............. 1 0
Friends from Principle and
Interest to the Freedom of
the Press .......................... 11
£ s.
0 10
No!!!..............
Thos. Kenward, Battel, a mo
derate Reformist.............. 1 1
F. J. Nash, Bishops Stortford 1 1
W. Johnstone, ditto.............. 1 1
W. R. Hawkes, ditto.............. 1 1
W. Bird, ditto
.............. 0 10
T. Bird, ditto.......................... 0 10
1 1
Case and Patmore, ditto
1 1
W. Daniel, jun., ditto
T. Special, ditto
.............. 1 1
1 1
Thos. Joslyne, ditto ...
One who dislikes Parodies on
Scripture, but is an Enemy
2 2
to Persecution, ditto
Thos. Holme, Westerham,
Kent
.......................... 1 1
1 0
Wm. Allinson...
A few Friends to the Liberty
of the Press at Melbourne,
5 13
Dorsetshire, per ditto
1 1
A Whitby Friend
As much like Judge Jefferies
as the present Times will
1 0
admit
Francis Burdett Haines,Fore
1 1
mark House, Poplar
May Jefferies’ Fame and Jef-^
feries’ Fate
¡-1 0
On every modern Jefferies
wait.
A Foe to Tyranny .............. 1 0
Thomas Welby, Northmore... 3 3
No Parodist, but an Admirer
of the Man, who, by his
ability and courage, has
proved the fallacy of the
the Lawyer’s Law, that
when a Man is his own
Advocate, he has a Fool
for his Client
.............. 1 0
A Mussulman, who thinks it
would not be an impious
Libel to Parody the Koran 1 0
Enemies to Jefferies in the
19th Century, Fifeshire ... 1. 0
�241
SUBSCRIPTIONS RECEIVED.
£
S. T. Dawson........................... £1 0
Thomas Nutter, Cambridge
1 0
John Eaden, ditto ...
... 1 0
John Lloyds, Potton, Beds... 3 3
An American Citizen
... 1 0
John Sermon...
...
... 1 1
T. C. Hansard
...
... 1 1
I have folly equal, I have pro
fusion co-eternal ...
... 1 0
A speedy Reformation, no
Revolution, the same King
and Constitution.............. 1 1
Alex. Cassy, Pentonville ... 1 1
Edmund Hergeen, jun., Quar. les, near Wells, Norfolk ... 1 0
Manus Inimica Tyrannis ... ’1 0
May the Suspenders of the
Habeas Corpus be speedily
Suspended..............
... 1 0
H. Smith
.......................... 1 1
Isaac Pitcher...
...
... 1 1
Old Bags’s Wife
............ 0 10
William Smith
............ 1 1
Gaunt and Turton
........... 0 10
G. H...................................... 0
10
May the Persecuted never
want Friends
...
... 1 1
Subscriptions received at the
Office of the Bury Paper ... 15 3
A few Erlends to the Liberty
of the Press at Dudley ... 11 0
Wm. Strutt, Derby ...
... 10 0
Joseph Strutt, ditto ...
... 10 0
J. Douglas Strutt, ditto
... 2 2
E. M. Barrett, Hope-end,
Ledbury, Herefordshire ... 10 0
Thos. Rawson, Wards-end,
near Sheffield
...
...5 5
Alexander Campbell, Waltonon-Thames...
...
... 5 5
James Crompton, Paddington 5 0
H. C........................................... 5 5
H. C., jun..................................... 5 5
“A Venial Offence” compared
with partiality, hypocrisy,
&c............................................. 5 0
R
£ s.
S.
The Man who so bravely pro
tested against Ex-Officio
Informations
.............. 1 0
John Blackett
...
... 1 1
“ Open your eyes and see,
stretch out your hands and
take”—Chief Justice
... 1 0
William Moore
...
IQs. 6d.
May the Persecuted never
want Friends
...
.... 1 1
Jas. Thomas, Colford, Glou
cestershire .......................... 1 0
An intense hater of Tyranny
under every form ...
... 1 1
Isaac Cox, solicitor, Honiton 1 1
Ed. William Gray, Newberry,
Berks
.................... 1 0
May the unblemished Hone
never want the Oil of Jus
tice .......................................... 1 0
Thomas Smith, Easton Grey,
Gloucestershire ...
... 1 1
Three times twelve for thrice-.
tried Hone,
Who cleared the course him
self alone,
[-1 16
And won three heats by twelve |
to one
...
...
...J
L. M. Simon ...
...
...
R. G. Thomas
...
...
Thomas Hovell, Cambridge...
J. R. Hovell, ditto ...
...
William Eaden, ditto...
...
A little more Oil for the Hone
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
From Manchester, per E. Baxter.
T. and R. Potter
Baxter and Croft
...
T. B. W. Sanderson ...
Richard Malley
Thomas Stevens
John Wood ..............
Samuel Pullein
S. W. Blencowe
Samuel Jackson
Swan and Buckley ...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
5
5
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
1
0
�242
SUBSCRIPTIONS r e c e iv e d .
£
8.
John Anderson
.............. 1 0
A Friend.
..........................
Alexander Petty
... ••• 1 ®
Gallemore and Co.
... ••• 1 0
Religion can protect itself ... 1 0
John Hall
...
••• •••
®
J.A......................................... 1
0
A. Clegg
......................... 1
0
Weight and Hermitage
... 1 0
Justice versus Law ............... 1 0
Thomas Wilkins
.............. 1 0
R. Wilson
.............................. 1 ®
J. L....................
2 0
A well-wisher..............
••• 1 0
Joseph Johnson
.............. 0 10
W. Shawcross............................... 0 10
John Mitchell, sen., M.D. ... 1 0
G. W. Wood.............................. 1 0
A. and B.
.............................. 2 0
Spirit of Sir William Jones ... 1 0
John Thompson
............... 1 0
A Conscientious Attorney £1 6s. 8d.
T .. .......................................... 0 10
J. Robinson.................................... ®
Ogden and Thornley.............. 1 0
J. and S. Bates
.............. 1 0
J. Croft
.............................. 0 10
J. Rawson
..........................
®
Gleave and Fellows ...
••• 1 0
John Mason.............................. 10
Chr. Pöttinger
......... 1 1
J. .. ...............................
— 2
William Lindsey, Leeds
... 1
One who during Mr. Hone’s
three days’ Persecution,
sympathised with his agony
of suspense, pitied his bodily
fatigue, and admired his
mental energy
— 2
Robert Knight, Barrells, Hen
ley, in Arden
.................10
W. P., Phillimore Place
••• 10
Thomas Bonham, Petersfield 5
Jon. Walsh, Halifax ...
••• 5
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
£ s.
Jno. Hancock, Nottingham ... 5 0
John Rawson, Sheffield
... 5 0
A swarm of B’s from Somerset
shire, whose stings are for
the oppressors of Law, and
whose honey is for the op
pressed by Law ...
... 5 0
The returned interest of an
honourable Debtor, by J. S. 1 1
B. P. ...
•••
...
••• 0 10
J. Corder, Springfield, Essex 1 1
Sidmouth, Oliver, and Co.,
perW. G.................................. 1 1
Two determined Enemies to
Tyranny and Oppression,
firm Friends to the Protest
ant Religion, but no great
admirers of St. Athanasius 2 0
Rev. T. B. Morris, Rector of
Shelfanger, who disapproves
of the Parodies, but abhors
the making an affected
zeal for Religion, the pre
text for Political Persecution..........................................3 3
John Pigott, Ulting, Essex ... 1 0
J. C. Agnes, Langford
... 1 0
Thomas Nash...
...
••• I ®
One who considers (to use the
words of the great and ex
cellent Charles James Fox)
“ Hypocrisy to be the most
odious and degrading of all
human vices ”
............... 2 0
Thomas Berry, Walton Ter
race, Aylesbury
...
••• 1 0
Thomas Squire, Epping
... 1 0
T. W. ...
.......................... 1 0
Green and Son
.............. 1 0
J. D. “It may operate in
mitigation of punishment!” 1 0
J. M- (Second Subscription)... 3 3
Edm. Waller, Luton, Beds ... 1 1
J. A.W.
.......................... 10
“ For Shame!!! ”
..............
®
J. Mortimer, Wareham
... 1 0
�SUBSCRIPTIONS RECEIVED.
=e s.
Capt. Ellis, do. ; R. N.,per do. 1 0
T. Brown, do., per do.
...10
R. G., do., per do..................... 2 0
A Lady, 10s. Cd. ; J. B., 10s. ;
two Purbeck Men, 10s. each;
and sundry subscriptions,
19s. 6d., per do.................... .3 0
<1. D., Hammersmith
... 2 2
Further Subscriptions from
the Office of the Burypaper 2 0
John Clark, Lempsfield, Surrey 1 0
William Philpot
...
... 1 o
A Broker
...
...
...
q
A Poor Vulcan
...
... p o
A Lawyer opposed in principle
to Law
...
...
. . g Q
----- Searle
...
...
... p q
Reformation ...
...
... p p
J. V. Earle, Winchester
... 2 0
“ Man is as his mind is” ... P 0
For the Hone that set the
Razor that shaved the Rats
T. C..........................................
George and James Goy
D—, “ Take Physic, Pomp !”
May Heaven born truth no
longer be endured by the
people of England..............
Samuel Parr (D.D.), who most
seriously disapproves of all
Parodies upon the hallowed
language of Scripture, and
the contents of the PrayerBook, but acquits Mr. Hone
of intentional impiety, ad
mires his talents and his
fortitude, and applauds the
good sense and integrity of
his Juries ...
..............
Mark Wilks ..............
.”
1
1 0
0 10
2 0
2 2
1 0
5 0
*** The, Proprietors of several Independent COUNTRY
NEWSPAPERS, considering that the Liberty of the Public
Press has been essentially promoted by Mr. Ho n e ’s exertions,
have most handsomely opened Boohs for Subscriptions at their
respective Offices, and voluntarily in their Journals promoted the
object which the Committee have in view. Sums so subscribed
as well as those procured by the spontaneous kindness of other
Individuals in the Country, who are desirous of contributing
by their exertions to the future welfare of Mr. Ho n e and his
family, may be transmitted as often as convenient to Mr. Wa it ii ma n , the Treasurer, or to either of the other Gentlemen authorised
to receive Subscriptions in London.
Subscriptions will be received by ROBERT WAITHM A N
the Treasurer, Bridge-street, Blackfriars; Aiderman THORP
Aidgate, High-street; ROBERT CARTER, Minories; JOSEPH
HURCOMBE, St. Paul’s Churchyard; WILLIAM TEASDALE
St. Paul’s Churchyard; SAMUEL BROOKS, Strand- and
ALEXANDER GALLOWAY, High Holborn.
��Th r e e Hu n d r e d a n d Tw e n t y -s e c o n d Th o u s a n d .
November, 1880.
CATALOGUE OF WORKS
SOLD BY THE
FREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
COMPANY,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, FARRINGDON STREET, E.C.
Orders should be sent to the Manager, Mr. W. J. Rams et , accompanied
with Post Office Order, payable at Ludgate Circus, or Cheque
Grossed “ London and South Western Bank.”
The Freethinker’s Text-Book.—Part I.
By 0. Br a d l a u g h
Section I.—‘ ‘ The Story of the Origin of Man, as told by the Bible
and by Science.” Section II.— “ What is Religion ? ” “ How has it
Grown ?” “God and Soul.” Each Section complete in itself, with
copious index. Bound in cloth, price 2s. 6d.
Part II., by An n ie Be s a n t .— “On Christianity.” Section I.—
“Christianity : .its Evidences Unreliable.” Section II.—‘‘ Its Origin
Pagan.” Section III.—•“ Its Morality Fallible.” Section IV.—
“ Condemned by its History.” Bound in cloth, 3s. 6d.
History of the Great French Revolution.—By An n ie Be s a n t .
Cloth, 2s. 6d.
Impeachment of the House of Brunswick.—By Ch ar l es
Br a d l a u g h .
Seventh edition.
Is.
What does Christian Theism Teach ?—A verbatim report of
two nights’ Public Debate between the Rev. A. J. Ha r r is o n and
C. Br a d l a u g h . Second edition. 6d.
God, Man, and the Bible.—A verbatim report of a three nights’
Discussion at Liverpool between the Rev. Dr. Ba y l e e and C
Br a d l a u g h .
This is the only debate extant on the purely Socratic method. fid.
Heresy; its Morality and Utility.—A Plea and a Justification.
By Ch a r l e s Br a d l a u g h . 9d.
On the Being of a God as the Maker and Moral Governor
oi the Universe.—A verbatim report of a two nights’Discussion
between Th o m a s Co o pe r and C. Br a d l a u g h .
6d.
When, ■y[er® °u.r Gospels Written ?—A Reply to Dr. Tischendorf
and the Religious Tract Society. By Ch a r l e s Br a d l a u g h . 6d.
Mas Man a Soul ?—A verbatim report of two nights’ debate at
«t , .
between theRev. W. M. We s t e r b y and C. Br a d l a u g h . Is .
Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism and
± aith.—Three Discourses by the Bis h o p o f Pe t e r b o r o u g h , with
Special Replies by Ch a r l e s Br a d l a u g h . New edition, reduced
to fid.
�2
Is it Reasonable to Worship God ?-A verbatim report of two
nights’ debate at Nottingham between the Rev. R. A. Ar m s t r o n g
and C. Br a d l a u g h . Is .
National Secular Society’s Tracts— 1. Address to Christians.
2. Who was Jesus? 3. Secular Morality. 4. The Bible and
Woman. 5. Secular Teachings. fi. Secular Work. 7. What is
Secularism? 8. Who are the Secularists? _ 9. Secular Responsi
bility. 7|d. per 100, post free. 10. Fruits of Christianity, by
An n ie Be s a n t . 2d.
My Path to Atheism.—Collected Essays of An n ie Be s a n t . The
* Deity of Jesus—Inspiration—Atonement—Eternal Punishment—
Prayer—Revealed Religion—and the Existence of God, all examined
and rejected ; together with some Essays on the Book of Common
Prayer. Cloth, lettered, 4s.
Marriage: as it was, as it is, and as it should be. By
An n ie Be s a n t . In limp cloth, Is.
_
Verbatim Report of the Trial, The Queen against Brad
laugh and Besant.—Neatly bound in cloth, price os., post free.
With Portraits and Autographs of the two Defendants.
Second Edition, with Appendix, containing the judgments of
Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett, and Cotton.
The Biography of Charles Bradlaugh.—Written by Ad o l ph e
S. He a d in g l e y . Crown 8vo., cloth, 332 pages, price 7s.
PAMPHLETS BY ANNIE BESANT.
The True Basis of Morality. A Plea for Utility as the Standard
Auguste Comte* Biography of the great French Thinker with
7
Sketches of his Philosophy, his Religion, and his Sociology.
Being a short and convenient resumé of Positivism for the
Giordano Bruno, the Freethought Martyr of the Sixteenth
Century. His Life and Works
...
,"-h- t ,+„
The Political Status of Women. A Plea for Women s Riohts ...
Civil and Religious Liberty, with some Hmts taken from the
French Revolution ...
The Gospel of Atheism ...
Is the Bible Indictable ? ...
England, India, and Afghanistan ...
The Story of Afghanistan ...
•••
.
The preceding two pamphlets bound together in limp cloth,
■ The Law of Population: Its consequences, and its Bearing upon
Human Conduct and Morals. Fortieth thousand
...
An additional twenty-five thousand of this have also been
printed in America, and translations have been issued and
widely sold in Holland, Italy, and Fiance.
Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity...
s. d.
0
2
0
6
0 1
0 2
0
0
0
0
0
Is.
3
2
2
9
2
0
6
0
1
�3
« w
Landlords, Tenant Farmers, and Labourers
...
0*1
The God Idea in the Revolution ..
...
"" q j
The Gospel of Christianity and the Gospel of Freethought
0 2
English Marseillaise, with Music ...
...
.
0 1
English Republicanism ...
...
...
"* q .
Essays, bound in one volume, cloth
...
3 0
Christian Progress
...
...
The English Land System
...
...
.. ’
q j
Large Portrait of Mrs. Besant, fit for framing, 2s. 6d ” ’
A splendidly executed Steel Engraving of Mrs. Besant, price 2d.
PAMPHLETS BY C. BBATLAUGH.
Hints to Emigrants, containing important information on the
United States, Canada, and New Zealand
... '
Cromwell and Washington : a Contrast
A-Lecture delivered to large audiences throughout the
United States.
Five Dead Men whom I Knew when Living. Sketches of Robert
Owen, Joseph Mazzini, John Stuart Mill, Charles Sumner
and Ledru Rollin
...
...
’
AmeXlipolitici MaIthu8’ an Essay 011
Population Question
d.
1
0
0
6
0 4
0 2
0 2
Life of George, Prince of Wales, "with Recent Contrasts and
Coincidences
0 2
Real Representation of the People...
0 2
Toryism from 1770 to 1879
0 1
Letter to Aibert Edward Prince of Wales, on Freemasonry
0 1
Why do Men Starve?
...
...
J
0 1
Poverty and its effect upon the People
0 1
Labour’s Prayer
0 1
The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle
0 2
Plea for Atheism
...
...
88
0 3
Has Man a Soul ? New Edition ...
0 2
Is there a God ?
0 1
Who was Jesus ?
0 1
What did Jesus Teach ? ...
0 1
The Twelve Apostles
0 1
The Atonement...
0 1
Life of David ...
- ...
0 2
Life of Jacob
0 1
Life of Abraham
0 1
Life of Moses
0 1
Life of Jonah
0 1
A Few Words about the Devil
0 1
Were Adam and Eve our First Parents ?
0 1
Large Photograph of Mr. Bradlaugh for Framino2 6
Taxation ; how it originated, who bears it, and who ought to
bear it
... 0 6
�0 6
The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy
Or to be obtained in volumes.
Political Essays.—By C. Br a d l a u g h . Bound in cloth, 2s. 6d.
Theological Essays.—By G. Br a d l a u g h . Bound in cloth, 3s.
Five Debates between C. Br a d l a u g h and Rev. Dr. Ba y l e e , in
Liverpool; the Rev. Dr. Ha r r is o n , in London ; Wil l ia m Br o w n ,
M.A., in Leeds ; Th o m a s Co o pe r , in London; and the Rev. R. A.
Ar m s t r o n g , in Nottingham. Just published, bound in one
volume, cloth. Price 3s.
Chromo-litho of Mr. Bradlaugh.—Cabinet size, Id. In Letts’s
protecting case, post free 2d.
Splendid Chromo-litho of Mr. Bradlaugh.—Large size, 6d.
In Letts’s protecting case, post free 7d.
The Value of this Earthly Life. A Reply to W. H. Mallock’s
“Is Life worth Living?” By Ed w a r d B. Av e l in g , D.bc., r.L*b.,
Fellow of University College, London. Price Is.
Science and Secularism.—By Ed w a r d B. Av e l in g , D.Sc ., I .L.8.
Price 2d.
Science and Religion.—By Ed w a r d B. Av e l in g , D.Sc ., r .L.S. la.
The Sermon on the Mount.—By Ed w a r d B. Av e l in g , D.Sc.,
F.L.S. Id.
Superstition.—By Ed w a r d B. Av e l in g , D.Sc ., F.L.S. Id.
Wealthy and Wise. A lecture introductory to the Study of
Political Economy. By J. Hia m Le v y . 6d.
Past and Present of the Heresy Laws.—By W. A. Hu n t e r ,
M.A., Barrister-at-Law, Professor of Jurisprudence, University
College, London. (The Counsel who so ably defended Mr. Ed w a r d
Tr u e l o v e before the Lord Chief Justice of England, and again
before Mr. Baron Pollock). Price 3d.
Court Flunkeys their Work and Wages.—By G. St a n d r in g . Id.
The Education of Girls.—By He n r y R. S. Da l t o n , B.A., Oxon.
Second Edition. Price 6d.
Ish’s Charge to Women. By H. R. S. Da l t o n . 4d.
Religion and Priestcraft. By H. R. S. Da l t o n . 2d.
On the Connection of Christianity with Solar Worship.
By T. E. Pa r t r id g e . Is . (Translated from Dupuis.)
Clericalism in France.—By Prince Napoleon Bonaparte (Jerome).
Translated by An n ie Be s a n t . Price 6d.
.
The Cause of Woman.—From the Italian of Louisa To-Sko. By
Be n W. El m y . Price 6d.
Studies in Materialism.—By Be n . W. El m y . Price 4d.
„
Lectures of Colonel Robert Ingersoll.—“ Oration on the Cods.
Price 6d.—“Oration on Thomas Paine.” Price 4d.—“Heretics and
Heresies.” Price 4d.— “ Oration on Humboldt.” Price 2d.—
“ Arraignment of the Church.” Price 2d. These can be supplied
in one volume neatly bound in limp cloth. Price Is. 6d.
City Missionaries and Pious Frauds.—By W. R. Cr o f t s . Id
�5
The Ten Commandments.—By W. P. Ba l l Price id
Board Schools.—By W. P. Ba l l . 2i 1 ’
coupes* %
Asironomico-iheoiogical Discourses.—By the Rev. Ro b e r t Ta y l o r , B.A., of St. John’«
College, Cambridge; author of the “ Diegesis ” “Svntaerna ” Xr»
v!lT’±f] TfpT *ichard Earlileioriginal editio^. ’ 1^2
Natural
m clot^’.8s: Or in forty-six numbers, 2d. eacK
Si eason versus Divine Revelation.-An appeal for
The Dver°’sgHandy "b ^T Edlted V Ro b e r t Le w i n s , M.D. «d.
AoKfIand-—By Al e x a n d e r J. El l is . 2d.
Cabinet Photographs of Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant —
n
Stereoscopic Company. 2s. each
Cartes de Visite, taken from the above, each Is
*he Vm der W<Vd« L«h‘ P™««, ’«ry remark-
The Methodist Conference and Eternal Punishment • Do
its Defenders Believe the Doctrine P_ Bv Jo s e ph
formerly Wesleyan Minister. 3^ OCtrine r
Jo SEr a Sy m e s ,
G-wthP
£ Man “
amongst
Philosophic Atheism. By J. Sy m e s . 4d.
1
AMly*ed> with Skefeh *
iisra.8™-’®New
By
New Theory of Poverty.—By H. Au l a . Id.
Liberty and Morality. By M. D. Co n w a y . 3d.
Guy+Otns -Barth and Man ; OT Physical Geography in its Relation
to the History of Mankind. With additions by Professors Ag a s s iz
Pie r c e , and Gr a y . 12 Maps and Engravings on Ste^ some
Illustrations"
8v°’ °loth 6xtra’
^Or o o k e s F1oTiCW-f?iStOry °rua °andle- Edited by W.
extra 4s 6d.
mmerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth
Faraday’s Various Forces of Nature. Edited by W. Cr o o k e s
S.
D. With numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 4s. 6d’.
c?enP°,PU1^i1On Question- By
R- Dr y s d a l e , M.D. Is .
bnelley s Works, reprinted from the original MSS.—The Poet of
Pleteln Self vT^1?
volumes each com
VM3Pnfh
V°lEarly Poems. Volume 2, Later Poems
Vol. 3, Posthumous Poems. Vol. 4, Prose Writings. 2s. each
°bMCD°’ 2dUd the Diseases
Produces. By C. R. Dr y s d a l e ,
Alcohol. By C. R. Dr y s d a l e , M.D. 6d.
Theod?i®t0ry °fXTclerkenwell. By the late W. J. Pin k s with
iXS
J- w»»d-
�6
and Testament, and a Steel Portrait.
a ;k X
Cloth. 3s
Sb X -*•
B-
Bsslyi on Miracles. By Da v id Hu m s . A new edition, complete,
Tixe’lmioSX’A Soul Philosophically Considered.
Seven Leota™ by Ro b s m Cooranin
“d “ —' 8B-
Life of ■D^Xldt^u^^ugnce of Natural Religion on the
Analysis of_the Iniiue
oi
PHILIp Be a u c h a m p (aJX-W a" tbeWian oi Greece). Pp.
TheDiegesta By Bomsar Ta v l o k (coadjutor ol Richard Carlile,
s“o Wen01o^nd: ¿t U Music ior
Fine Large Portrait of John Bright, for framing, sme 23J by
The1 Oity'ofdreadful Night, and other Poems. By Ja m e s
t^Mld^^pplo,..1d. ..The Bible
Devil ” Id.
“ Atheism and Morality, 2a.
"•¿j u ’s
rno/ic-f-n-np and
sir
$ Prxff“.h,irre.t >»
Radical Oauges and their oniy
arising frOm Landlord, thirteen from
r t,eBilvtteelntar oi«1 landlord» andTenanU” 6d.
Vaccination;7 Opposed to Science, and a disgrace to English Law.
wrapper, Is 6d
The Crisis in ^rming ,
By .tar. Wmm.SK. H.
inMtation of the wie(
ErSrStST„°f“Swith special re^no^hg.per, and
his works. ByA.F.SrAtaXm, LL.B. Cloth^Erfra os.
The First Seven Alleged Persecutions. AD. 64 to A.D.
By Th o s . L’Es t r a n g e . 6d.
The B?taeatt™ paipMe1T«. higd'y recommended as able oontritie» a to freethought enquiry.
��
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 three trials of William Hone : for publishing three parodies : viz. The late John Wilkes's catechism, the political litany, and the sinecurist's creed : on three ex-officio informations, at Guildhall, London, during three successive days, December 18,19, & 20, 1817 : before three special juries, and Mr. Justice Abbott, on the first day, and Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough, on the last two days.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hone, William [1780-1842]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 243, 6 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: A collection of all three trials celebrating Hone's innocence on charges of profane and seditious libel and upholding freedom of the press. Printed by and for William Hone,67, Old Bailey. William Hone was an English writer, satirist and bookseller. His victorious court battle against government censorship in 1817 marked a turning point in the fight for British press freedom. Stamp of Hall of Science Club and Institute on title page and elsewhere. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William Hone
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1818
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5773
Subject
The topic of the resource
Freedom of the press
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 three trials of William Hone : for publishing three parodies : viz. The late John Wilkes's catechism, the political litany, and the sinecurist's creed : on three ex-officio informations, at Guildhall, London, during three successive days, December 18,19, & 20, 1817 : before three special juries, and Mr. Justice Abbott, on the first day, and Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough, on the last two days.), 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
Censorship
Freedom of the Press
NSS
Satire
Trials (Blasphemy)-Great Britain
Trials (Libel)
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6be21587e085f0f6bbeb5e0bab4f5452.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=EBR54fD-1DZWrdwKj3QqNE2sUU8w488gWA4JZAXojsIShO8F5zX7PUAelGrgLmu5GNcHDHQ5jCSVjZS1YbcpZki9HuKO7wPHR60mavMpeY7fFtqIYRPUwj55YOyc1DTOnUrxg0%7Ez8KqtAHUeqIZH2hff9eWnNQZ4JLT5hhNhxcjDcWMhDWoxIiB3nVr87nEbLFZjzs2I65dbJJ3ADvvy%7ENd3LzKTAe8dv%7EQV9Knre65VHaHK5GcPNE7jgGiCY4jghCG%7EVowuXX3dRJJCzpgyVdws3gkr7d%7E12UoiTjeiVwHModztGjUX05iLq7Hc0U4JI4uT7PDORMqaPdrKWOO-KA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
882ad8c1cc7055f07b75fd19d24a6431
PDF Text
Text
THE PROSECUTION OF
MESSRS. FOOTE AND RAMSEY FOR
BLASPHEMY.
In the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice on
Tuesday, April the 24th, the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury
had before them the case cf the Queen v. Ramsey and Foote,
the registered proprietor and alleged editor of the “ Freethinker ”
newspaper. The defendants were charged on indictment,
removed into this court by certiorari from the Central Criminal
Court, for the publication in the “Freethinker” of aseriesof “blas
phemous libels,” and on conviction were sentenced to imprison
ment in Holloway Gaol. They were now brought up on Habeas
Corpus, in charge of the governor of the gaol. A fortnight
since the two defendants were placed on their trial along with
Mr. Bradlaugh, for the same offence ; but on the application of
the latter, he was tried alone, the result being that he was
acquitted. The present prosecution was directed against the
two defendants, Ramsey and Foote. They pleaded Not
Guilty.
Sir Hardinge Giffard, Q.C., Mr. Maloney, and Mr. Woodfall
were counsel for the Crown. Mr. Horace Avory appeared for
Ramsey, while Mr. A. R. Cluer held a watching brief for
Foote.
Mr. Avory: My lord, before the jury is sworn I think it right
to mention at once that I am told that there is some question as
to who, under these circumstances, may be liable to any additional
expense occasioned by the calling of a special jury.
Lord Coleridge : Whose special jury is it?
Mr. Avory: The defendant Bradlaugh moved that this case
should be removed from the Old Bailey by certiorari to this court,
�2
and it was his application originally for a writ of certiorari.
That matter was disposed of the other day, and the special
jury was charged with it.
Lord Coleridge: Yon are not quite accurate, Mr. Avory.
The removal was by Mr. Bradlaugh; the application for a special
jury was by Mr. Ramsey.
Mr. Avory: I did not know that that was so. There is another
matter I should mention. I don’t know whether your lordship
is aware of the previous trial which took place at the Central
Criminal Court. Although the defendants are not in a position
to plead because the indictment charges other numbers of the
newspaper than that on which they are convicted, yet in effect
they have been tried, and those numbers have been given in
evidence before Mr. Justice North.
Lord Coleridge : What has that to do with the present state
of things?
Mr. Avory : I thought perhaps your lordship might put it to
the prosecution whether the court should be occupied in trying
the matter again.
Lord Coleridge : No, no. In any other case I should have made
a great many remarks and suggestions, but I think it better to
let this proceed in the ordinary way.
Mr. Avory: I thought it right, my lord, to mention this. I
only appear here on behalf of Ramsey to watch the legal aspect,
and I think it my duty to say that these counts should be
quashed on the ground of uncertainty. I can give you the
number of counts.
Lord Coleridge: I heard Mr. Bradlaugh upon this. If you
mean to take those same points you need not reargue it.
Mr. Avory : I simply take the same objection, my lord, that
they are bad for that reason.
Lord Coleridge : That is those which refer to the printing of
the newspaper.
Mr. Avory: Those counts which say the defendants printed,
published, or caused and procured it to be printed and
published.
Lord Coleridge : I think there is nothing in that.
Mr. Avory: I thought it my duty, my lord, to take the
objections.
Mr. Cluer: Before the jury are sworn, on behalf of the
defendant Foote, I have to submit that the indictment should be
quashed on this ground ; that it charges a joint offence, and that
it is conclusively proved, as Mr. Bradlaugh has been acquitted,
these were separate offences, and in all cases where three are
joined together for libel, the Court refuses to arrest judgment
on the ground that the act was a joint act.
Lord Coleridge: Are you asking me to rule on the indict
�3
ment that three persons must be either acquitted or convicted.
If you indict persons for a joint act, you can acquit all or
-convict one, and acquit the others. If you indict A, B and C,
for doing something, and you prove it against A, it does not
follow that you can convict B and C.
Mr. Cluer : They are charged with one joint act.
Lord Coleridge : It doesn’t follow the jury will acquit the
•other two because they have acquitted one.
Mr. Cluer: I submit they cannot be put in charge on this
-count at all.
Lord Coleridge : I cannot agree with you there.
Mr. Cluer : One other objection to the indictment is this. In
the 2nd, 4th, and 6th counts, the charge is in these terms. In
the 2nd count, the charge is that of publishing a libel of and
concerning religion. I submit that this is not properly stated as
it does not say of the Christian religion. I submit there is no
offence really to go to the jury in a count that merely charges an
offence against religion. It must either be amended or the count
•struck out.
Lord Coleridge : I don’t think so. Do you wish to put in
“ Christian religion ?”
Mr. Maloney: No, my lord.
Mr. Cluer : I submit that that is void.
Mr. Maloney : If I consented to that, my lord, it might lead
to something else.
Lord Coleridge : That is the introduction ; the rest are merely
settings out.
Mr. Cluer: It is four lines from the end—“ and concerning
religion.”
Lord Coleridge : There is nothing in that. Now, what is your
•other objection?
Mr. Cluer: There is one further point I wish to urge. In the
ninth count—it may be a mistake in my copy—of the indictment
just before the quotation is made, a charge is made concerning
the Book of Revelations as part of the Holy Bible. There is no
such Book strictly speaking in the Bible, and I submit that
should be amended.
Lord Coleridge I think it is quite good enough.
Mr. Cluer: Such things have been held in other cases, and I
submit it is a matter for amendment. The Book is of course the
Book of Revelation.
Lord Coleridge : It is—to follow the words—“meaning the
Book of Revelations as aforesaid.”
Mr. Cluer: It has reference to something that doesn’t exist.
Lord Coleridge : I cannot take judical notice that there is no
such Book as Revelations in Holy Scripture.
�4
Mr. Cluer: I have a copy in my chambers I can brine:
(Laughter.)
Mr..Maloney then proceeded to open the case for the crown.
He said,—May it please your lordship, gentlemen of the jury,—
the indictment in. this case charges that the defendants William
James Ramsey, and George William Foote, published a blas
phemous libel in a newspaper called the “Freethinker” in
various numbers of that paper between the months of March and
the months of June, 1882. To that indictment the defendants
pleaded Not Guilty, and it is your duty to try whether they are
guilty or not. In the temporary absence of my learned leader,
Sir Hardinge Giffard, it falls upon me to explain the facts
of this case to you, and what has occurred already this
morning. What has occurred previously in the history of'
this case will to some extent render my duty and yours,
I hope, not a long one here to-day. I think the atmosphere
has been cleared this morning of some of the technical objections
which perhaps might have otherwise occupied some time. Mr.
. Avory this morning referred to something which took place, not
with reference to the numbers indicted here to-day, but with
reference to a special issue of the “ Freethinker,” the Christmas
Number. This took place a couple of months ago, and resulted
! in a certain event respecting Ramsey and Foote. It is necessary,
I first, to narrate to you something of the history of these
proceedings. Some of you have doubtless seen something
in the papers about them before to-day. The prosecution in
, this case, of the defendants Foote and Ramsey, commenced
at the Mansion House before the Lord Mayor on the 11th
of July last. After the first hearing Mr. Bradlaugh was
made a co-defendant, and the charge was investigated. They
were committed to the Central Criminal Court, and the case
was afterwards removed into the Court of Queen’s Bench
just before the long vacation, when the defendants entered
I an appearance in the month of November and pleaded Not Guilty.
In December it was set down for hearing, and so it comes on
here. That explains how it is that such a long time has elapsed
since the commencement of this prosecution. After the case had
been removed to the Court of Queen’s Bench a special number
of the “Freethinker” was issued, and proceedings were taken
by the Corporation of London against that particular issue of
the paper. The question you are here to-day to determine has
nothing to do with anything that took place subsequent to the
month of June last year. Prosecutions for blasphemy have
* happily been rare in London. Certainly in Middlesex, prose
cutions for blasphemy have disappeared from the Law Courts
for thirty or forty years, and doubtless it will be urged by the
defendants in this case, that that was sufficient evidence to show
�5
that the whole system upon which prosecutions for blasphemy
were based is effete, and that persons should not prosecute for
blasphemy now-a-days. But when you see the papers you will
perhaps be inclined to conclude that prosecutions for blasphemy
within the last generation have been unusual in London ; because
' there was no reason, because newspapers and books did not con’ tain what was an ontrage upon the feelings of the community at
. large ; and I think when you see the libels they are charged with,
‘ you will say that this at any rate is a publication about the blas
phemous nature of which there can be no doubt, or as to the
propriety of stopping or curtailing its licentiousness to some
extent. An event which has occurred since these proceedings
took place, and which condemned the persons responsibe for the
Christmas Number is an argument in favor of this prosecution
as showing that it was time steps should be taken, and that the
steps taken in this prosecution were not taken too soon. Doubt
less it will be put forward that this is a political movement. I
think they will have some difficulty, so far as they are concerned,
in proving that. The defendants will find some difficulty in
making you believe that this prosecution was commenced from
political motives. The prosecution was commenced against
these two alone originally, and it was only afterwards that a
summons was issued against Mr. Bradlaugh. You heard that
Mr. Bradlaugh was acquitted a week ago in this court by a
special jury. I cannot recognise any of your faces as having
been on that jury, but doubtless you know a good deal of what
took place. Mr. Bradlaugh was acquitted on that occasion.
There were two questions discussed by my lord, and what
you will have to consider to-day is this, Does this publication
come within the definition of blasphemy, a definition which I
will shortly briefly avert to. The next question you will have
to consider is, Are the defendants responsible for the pub
lication of it ? Have they aided and assisted in producing
this paper from week to week and selling it ? Those are the two
questions you have to consider. First, is it a blasphemous paper,
and are these incriminated passages blasphemous ? Secondly,
Did the defendants publish or procure these to be published ? I
don’t mean in the ordinary trade sense—because one of the
defendants, Mr. Foote, is charged with being the editor. The
question is, Did they aid in sending forth this blasphemous matter
either by editing, selling over the counter, being proprietors,
deriving profits, or in any other way ? The question discussed on
the last trial was mainly whether the then defendant was respon
sible for the publication, and there was very little discussion
whether the matter was blasphemous itself. I think here to-day
the principal struggle will be not as to whether Ramsey and
Foote are responsible for this paper, because the evidence I shall
�6
call will bring conviction to your minds that Ramsey is respon
sible for the publication as he is registered as printer, proprietor,
and publisher under a recent Act of Parliament, and that is
facie evidence. It will be for him to show you that he is not
printer, publisher, or proprietor. I shall give evidence to show that
Ramsey has sold this paper in the shop in Stonecutter Street,
which was the publishing office of the paper and the publishing
office of the National Reformer. After the proceedings had com
menced at the Mansion House—and this may become important—
a month or two afterwards, there were published other numbersheaded Prosecuted for Blasphemy. There can be no doubt that
Ramsey was active in procuring publication of the issues of this
paper and these numbers. As to Foote the evidence will show
you that from the time the paper began in May, 1881, down to
a time subsequent t® the dates in this indictment, he was the
editor of the paper. His name appears on the front of every
paper as editor, and inside the paper it is stated that all com
munications are to be addressed to him as editor of the “ Free
thinker,” at his private lodgings. I shall call evidence to satisfy
you that he was and has been the editor from the very first. On
the recent trial of Mr. Bradlaugh, Sir Hardinge Giffard quoted
what the law of blasphemy is, as it is very appropriately defined
in a standard work on Libel, and that is the law of blasphemy
which the prosecution here to-day will ask you to carry in your
minds when reading the libels in this indictment. Mr. Starkiesays : “ The law distinguishes between honest errors and malice
of mankind. The wilful intention to insult and mislead others
by means of licentious and contumelious abuse applied to sacred
subjects, or by wilful misrepresentation or artful sophistry calcu
lated to mislead the ignorant and unwary, is the criterion and
the test of guilt. The malicious and mischievous intention, or,
what is equivalent to such an intention in law as well as
in morals, a state of apathy or indifference to the interests
of society, is the broad boundary between right and wrong.”
Now, gentlemen, when you bear that definition in mind, recol
lect that there is no attempt here, and if the attempt were made
it would be useless in the present day—no attempt is being,
made to suppress free discussion or the liberty of the press, or to
interfere with the just rights of any subject. Every person has
the right in this country to discuss controversial matters so long
as he keeps himself within the bounds of decency and reason..
But when a person indulges in malignant scoffing, and abuse, and
derision, gross caricatures, and parodies, flagrant insults, and
outrages to the feelings of ninety-nine people out of a hundred
in this country ; when you see in this paper they have passed all
the bounds of decency, I think you will come to the conclusion
that this case comes within the definition of Starkie, and that it
�7
deserves the censure of the law. You will have an opportunity
of reading the libels. It is usual to read out the libels in court,
but I shall follow the example set at the last trial, and I shall not
read them and offend the people in court by so doing. I shall
not read them unless compelled. It is somewhat interesting to
find what Ramsey and Foote think of their own writings, and
there are two passages in the sixth count of the indictment which
show they knew what they were doing; that their intention
was to outrage the feelings of the people of this country; that
there was an intention to commit blasphemy and violate the
law. They themselves say they intended to commit blasphemy.
I read from the first portion of the sixth count, my lord. There
is set out in that count an extract from one of the Atheistic
sermons, which appear from week to week in this newspaper. I
shall not read the infamous and loathsome comparison between
the deity and Shylock given in that sermon, but in one passage
occurs these words: “lam told that people are shocked at my
Atheistic Sermons ; their blasphemy is so terrible. Well, well, it is
disgust which compels me to pen them. I do it from a sense of
duty. I am fighting against the most disgusting book in the
world. Don’t expect me to speak gently of it. I owe a duty to
mankind, and I will perform it. Godism must be destroyed.”
Such is the opinion Foote and Ramsey put forward as to the
nature of the matter issued in violation of the law, and outraging
the feelings. Then I come to another portion which is in the
ri
newspaper, page 158, of the 14th of May, and which is set out I
in the indictment under the heading of “Acid Drops.” It is
as follows: “ The bigots of to-day are the rankest cowards. They
will not proceed against any Secular leaders for ‘blasphemy,’
although our lectures and articles are full of it; but they are
ready to harrass any less-known Freethinker who may be more
safely dealt with. Down at Tunbridge Wells, Mr. Seymour, the j__
secretary of the local branch of the N. S. S., has recently been
singled out as a victim. He was cited before the Justices of the
Peace, on Monday last, to answer the charge of having issued a
blasphemous placard, libelling the Christian religion and the
holy Scriptures. The ‘great unpaid’ committed him to the
Assizes, which will take place about July, bail for a hundred
pounds being required in the interim. No doubt the bigots
fancy they will score an easy success. But they may find them
selves mistaken. The Freethought party will stand by Mr. Sey
mour to the end, and the case will be fought through every
stage. We are not going to let pious humbugs seize and imprison our members without a struggle, and we are prepared to
protect the humblest Freethinker in the exercise of his personal
rights. Secular Societies are not to be molested with impunity
for advertising their proceedings in an orderly way, while the
�8
Salvation mob is allowed to parade the street and to kick up a dis
graceful row like hell let loose. Mr. Foote lectured at Tunbridge
Wells a few days after Mr. Seymour received his summons. The
papers will not advertise, the police had frightened all the billstickers, and it was given out that all who came to the Hall would
be spotted. One or two local personages came to report the
proceedings. Mr. Foote crammed his lecture with blasphemy,
and challenged the authorities to prosecute him. But they
haven’t the courage. These bigots are a set of blustering
bullies who are afraid of a fair fight; they like instead to get
hold of some unprotected victim and kick him to death.”
That was Mr. Foote’s challenge, “ that he crammed his lectures
with blasphemy and challenge the authorities to prosecute.” In
answer to that Mr. Foote is here to-day. He will have, I am sure,
full justice at your hands, and will have a fair fight as he calls it.
That blustering challenge of Mr. Foote’s for the authorities to
come forward and prosecute, is as much as to say that he and
those behind him were stronger than the laws of this country,
and stronger than the sense of right of the community at large.
I read these passages to show you what legal view these gentle
men take of the stuff which they sent out from their office. They
crammed their lectures with blasphemy, and a truer word was
never spoken by Mr. Foote when he set out in that article that
these lectures are crammed with blasphemy. He has told you
before that their intention is to outrage the feelings of people
and of the community. All this was not dwelt upon so much
on the last occasion. The question then was, whether Mr.
Bradlaugh was or was not responsible for this matter. The
struggle to-day will be whether these are blasphemous, and the
defendants will try to import other matter to get the jury to
take a favorable view of the matter. Now I see my learned
leader is here, I may say, I have dwelt so long on this case,
because I bear in mind something that occurred when Foote and
Ramsey were convicted at the Old Bailey. It seems in this case
the defendants may not call any evidence, and there may not be
an opportunity of my addressing you again.
Lord Coleridge : Is there no summing-up by the counsel for
the prosecution in this case ?
Sir Hardinge Giffard: Not unless the defendants appeared by
counsel.
Mr. Maloney: I knew it was not usual, and I have therefore
dwelt at some length upon these matters on that account. I
think you will be inclined to think that though prosecutions for
blasphemy have been rare, it was due to the fact that no such
outrage upon public decency has been perpetrated as these; and
that the time has arrived when some effort should be made by
the public authorities, or somebody setting the public authorities
�9
in motion, to stop this, and to prevent people who are passing
through the streets from having their eyes shocked by pictures
in shop windows. In conclusion, I would say that though the
law has been often remiss, and is often remiss and slow, yet it
generally ends by catching those who outrage it; and whether
they challenge the law in so many words, or whether they go
along quietly, using some other person to challenge the law on
their behalf, the law in the end secures them and lays them by
the heels. I think you will conclude that this is an instance
upon which the censure of the law ought to be visited.
The events which have put Ramsey and Foote in their present
position will be taken into consideration by the Court. The
•censure of the law is what we ask for, and the censure of the
law is worthily visited upon persons who make a profit in spread
ing such vile corruption through the country.
Lord Coleridge: Can you give me a shorthand note of
Brother North’s sentence ?
Mr. Avory : Here are the shorthand writer’s notes.
Lord Coleridge: I wanted to know whether in the sentence
passed at the Old Bailey the subject matter of this indictment
was considered.
Mr. Maloney: No, my lord.
Mr. Avory: My friend was not there, and therefore he cannot
decide. You will find the evidence of Kelland, the clerk to the
•solicitors prosecuting. He then produced all those numbers
charged in this indictment in evidence. Those numbers were
handed in. He gave evidence as to the person of whom he pur
chased them, so that the evidence to be given here to-day was
before the learned Judge who tried that case.
Mr. Maloney: The evidence was with a view of showing the
■ connexion between all the defendants and the paper. Those
numbers were put in evidence with the purpose of showing
Foote’s name was on them, and that he was charged in the month
■ of July with having published them.
Mr. Avory : The point is that all the evidence that could be
given as to the defendant’s connexion with this paper was practi
cally given upon that trial. The papers were actually handed in
to the learned judge who saw every one of those numbers. There
were none read in court.
Lord Coleridge : This case has been tried at the Old Bailey,
and if Mr. Bradlaugh had not been connected with it, this would
have been heard before the trial on the Christmas Number.
Mr. Maloney: It would have been heard at the July sittings.
Lord Coleridge: It would have been heard before the
■.Christmas Number case.
Mr. Cluer: I have an informal shorthand note of the sentence,
�10
but I can say from memory that what has been said by Mr.
Avory is absolutely correct.
Mr. Maloney : The defendants, Foote and Ramsey, joined in.
the application for removal, and one of the reasons was that the
fiat of the Public Prosecutor was too general—that is, as to the
form of the fiat given.
Lord Coleridge : Was there more than one libel ?
Mr. Avory: Different parts of the Christmas Number were
made the subject of different counts.
Lord Coleridge: Very well. I must ascertain as well as
I can.
The first witness called was,
Frederick George Frayling, who was examined as follows by
Mr. Maloney:—
Are you a clerk in the office of the Director of Public Prosecu
tions ?—I am.
Do you produce his fiat authorising this prosecution?—Yes.
[Fiat handed in.]
That is signed by him?—Yes.
Mr. Avory: I think it necessary to take the same objection to
this fiat as was taken on a former occasion. The objection taken,
to it was that it was too general, that it did not name anybody,
and that the fiat of prosecution should name the person. Thisappears to be a copy of a section of the Act of Parliament.
Lord Coleridge : Let it be read. [The fiat was read accordmgiy.]
Lord Coleridge : I think it is enough.
James Barber, examined by Mr. Maloney:—
You are Assistant Registrar at Somerset House—Registrar of
newspapers ?—Yes.
Do you produce the file of registration relating to the “Free
thinker?”—I do.
Give the date of the first entry?—Friday, the 26th ofNovember, 1881.
The date of the next entry ?—August 2nd, 1882.
And the next?—February 7th, 1883.
Mr. Maloney: I wish, my lord, to point out when Mr. Ramsey
is registered as proprietor.
Witness: The first registration is of William James Ramsey,
who is registered as proprietor and publisher; place of business,
28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.; place of residence, 20
Brownlow Street, Dalston, E.
And the signature?—William James Ramsey.
What is at the foot of it ?—Printer and publisher.
Those words are printed?—Yes, they are printed in and not
written, and he signs below them.
Was this form partly printed and partly filled in ?—Yes.
�11
Now, the next ?—August 2nd, 1882. This return, also, has
Ramsey as proprietor.
The next ?—There is no place of business given in this return,
and it differs from the other in that respect. The next return is
in the form of William James Ramsey ceasing to be the pro
prietor. It is a return pursuant to the 11th section of the Libel
Act.
Lord Coleridge: Just read that. Under the title of News
papers—“Freethinker names of persons who cease to be pro
prietors—William James Ramsey; names of persons who become
proprietors—George William Foote; occupation of new pro
prietor, journalist.
Mr. Maloney: Do you know in whose handwriting it is ?—Yesr.
Mr. Foote’s.
That is the defendant ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : How is this material in this matter ?
Mr. Maloney : As regards Foote it will be very material.
Lord Coleridge : All this occurred since the indictment.
Mr. Maloney : It is after the indictment.
Lord Coleridge: That would not affect the state of things
under the indictment.
Mr. Maloney: I think it would be evidence of his connexion
with the paper and with 28 Stonecutter Street.
Lord Coleridge : Before the indictment?
Mr. Maloney: It would be some evidence of his connexion
even before the indictment.
Lord Coleridge : Oh, no.
Mr. Maloney: I want it for the purpose of identifying Mr.
Foote.
Lord Coleridge : I won’t stop you about anything before the
indictment. What has anything he has done since the indict
ment to do with the state of things before ?
Mr. Maloney : It would show his connexion with the paper,
his name being upon any issue of it.
Lord Coleridge : I have not stopped you upon that. I don’t
stop you up to the date of the indictment. I don’t see what
right you have to go to August 2nd.
Mr. Maloney: The way I put it is this. The name on the
paper continued the same before the indictment and after the
indictment.
Lord Coleridge : What have we to do with after? You must
show at the time of the indictment he was connected with the
paper. Things done after cannot be material.
Mr. Maloney: Suppose the defendant puts forward something—■
Lord Coleridge: If he says and signs that he was connected
with that paper, it is a different matter.
Mr. Maloney: If a man registers himself, his name being on-
�12
the newspaper from the commencement—surely that is suffi
cient.
Lord Coleridge : You want to show that this is against Mr.
Foote. You want to show that he was the proprietor of the
paper.
Mr. Maloney: No ; editor of the paper.
Lord Coleridge : Well then, editor of the paper in July, 1882.
Suppose this was the only evidence in the case, would you go to
the jury as to his being editor of a paper in July, 1882, because
he becomes proprietor in February, 1883 ?
Mr. Maloney: He is charged with being the man whose name
was on the paper in July, 1882, and with being editor of it.
After that charge is made his name continues still, and goes on
in the paper until December.
Lord Coleridge: I am not dealing with that.
Mr. Maloney: If I find in the month of February, 1883,
something which says I am proprietor now, is not it sufficient ?
Lord Coleridge : If you want a signature, I agree with you*
If you want evidence of handwriting, it is correct.
Mr. MaloneyThe identity of the person is what I want.
Lord Coleridge •. If you want proof of his handwriting, you
can show that.
Mr. Maloney: I don’t think at present I require proof of the
handwriting, but proof of the identity.
Lord Coleridge: I don’t think I can hold it as evidence at
present, but I won’t reject it. I have taken that signature as
Foote’s. I cannot say it is any evidence for the purpose that
you wish.
Examination of witness continued by Mr. Maloney: Who came
to register the paper?—Mr. Foote and Mr. Ramsey.
Both appeared at your office ?—They did.
Lord Coleridge : Do you wish to ask anything, Mr. Ramsey ?
Mr. Ramsey: No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Do you, Mr. Foote ?
Mr. Foote : No, my lord.
George John Lavejl, examined by Mr. Woodfall: You are a
clerk in the office of the solicitors to the prosecution, are you
not ?—I am.
You have purchased several numbers of the “ Freethinkeer ” ?
—I have.
Where did you purchase them ?—At 28 Stonecutter Street.
Do you produce the numbers of the “ Freethinker ” which you
purchased ?—They are in court.
Will you give me the dates of them?—March 26th, 1882.
What was the date on which you purchased that number ?—I
don’t know the date.
�13
Could you give me anywhere about the date ?—Somewhere
about the date of the paper.
Was the next one May 21st?—-No.
What was the next you purchased ?—June 11th.
And when did you purchase the next?—On June 14th.
Are those the only two that you purchased ?—-I had purchased
other numbers, but they are the only two I produce.
What time of the day did you purchase ?—Between the hours
of 11 and 4.
During the hours of business?—Yes.
Whom did you see in the shop?—I saw Mr. Ramsey in the
shop.
Who was it sold you the papers ?—Mr. Norrish.
How often have you seen Ramsey there ?—I cannot say posi
tively. I have seen him on more than one occasion.
Did you serve any notice to produce upon the defendants ?—I
did, on the defendant Foote.
And on the solicitor for the other defendant?—No.
That was the only notice you served ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : Mr. Ramsey, do you wish to say anything ?
Air. Ramsey: No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Do you, Air. Foote ?
Air. Foote : Yes, my Idrd.
Cross examined by Air. Foote : You don’t remember the dateon which you purchased the number of the “ Freethinker ” for
Alarch 26th ?—No.
How do you remember the date of your purchase of the number
for June 11th ?—Because I put the date on when I purchased it.
Where ?—On the paper.
When did you put it there ?—The same day I purchased it.
Where did you write it ?—At the left-hand corner.
In what place ?—In the office.
How is it you omitted to put the date of purchase on the
number for March 26th?—I cannot tell you how it was I
omitted to do that.
How are you sure in your own mind at all about the purchase
of the number for Alarch 26th?—Because the paper never went
out of my possession until I had a conversation with my em
ployer about it.
About what time was it ?—About the date of its issue ; within
a few days.
How did you remember these two dates ?—June 11th by my
own handwriting.
How do you recognise the other?—Through having a con
versation with my principal.
Although that was only a few days afterwards you could not
�14
charge your memory with the date you purchased it?—It may
have been a week afterwards, but I could not charge my
memory.
You could not charge your memory for a week ?—Not in
this case.
Is your memory better in other cases ?—Sometimes.
You served me with a notice to produce ?—I did.
Where ?—At Holloway Gaol.
Mr. Foote: That is all, my lord.
.Mr. Maloney: The notice to produce was not put in. This
'witness served the notice to produce.
[Notice to produce put in.]
Edward John Kelland, examined by Mr. Maloney :—You are
a clerk to the solicitors for the prosecution?—Yes.
And you purchased copies of the “Freethinker” at 28 Stone
cutter Street?—Yes.
Will you check the dates. Which of these did you purchase ?—
April 9th, 1882.
When did you purchase that ?—June 30th.
What is the next number ?—April 23rd.
When did you purchase that?—June 30th.
What is the next ?—April 30th.
When did you purchase that ?—June 30th.
What is the next ?—May 7th.
When did you purchase that ?—June 30th.
What is the next ?—May 14th.
When did you purchase that?—On the same date.
"What is the next?—May 21st.
When did you purchase that ?—May 24th.
What is the next ?—May 28th.
When did you purchase that?—June 4th.
Mr. Maloney: That is all I ask you about the dates. Other
numbers were purchased by you also ?
Witness: Yes. There is another number, my lord, June 18th,
which was purchased June 15th.
Lord Coleridge : No, no.
Witness: Yes, my lord. It was dated Sunday, but you can
get them previously.
Mr. Maloney: Do you recollect whom you purchased them
from ?—Mostly of Ramsey.
Do you recollect the placards posted outside the shop?—Yes,
I saw them.
And inside the shop?—Yes.
Contents bills ?—Yes.
Have you seen copies of the paper exposed in the window?—I
saw a number of May 28th exposed in the window.
Did you see them subsequent, or prior to the proceedings at
�15
-the Mansion House ?—I have seen numbers week after week in
the shop window, but I cannot say for certain.
Did you serve that notice to produce on Ramsey?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ramsey: You say you purchased most
of the numbers produced of me?—Yes.
Do you identify any of those you purchased from me?—I
•don’t identify any particular number.
How do you know they were purchased from me?—I can
recollect I have purchased them from you.
By what means do you know you purchased most of them from
me ?—I can recollect you serving me ; that is the only thing.
Did you produce those numbers at the Old Bailey when I was
tried ?—Yes.
Were they handed in to the learned Judge ?—Yes.
Did you also give evidence that you had purchased them ?—
Yes.
Mr. Ramsey : That is all, my lord.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote : You have not told the Court
of whom you purchased all the copies you produced. You
purchased most of the eopies of Mr. Ramsey. Did you purchase
any of them from me?—No, never.
Did you purchase any in my presence ?—No. 1 purchased
copies one day when you were coming down stairs.
You have told the Court you may have seen me come down
some stairs as you were purchasing a number ?—1 said I had
seen you coming down stairs when I had purchased a number.
Before you said you may have seen me. Doi understand you
to say you have seen me when you were purchasing one of these
numbers ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : He did not say that. He said he saw you
after he had purchased them, and when you had gone out of the
shop.
Witness: That is so. You had come down stairs as I had just
bought the papers.
Lord Coleridge: I correct you ; it is better for you.
Mr. Foote: Thank you, my lord. (To Witness) : Did you say
at the Old Bailey you had only seen me once at Stonecutter
Street, and that on February 16th of this year?—That is so.
Now, I ask you how you reconcile these statements. At the
Old Bailey you said you had only seen me once at Stonecutter
Street, and that on February 16th in the present year. You in
your evidence now tell the Court that it is within a few months
of your purchase of one of the numbers you now produce ?—
I beg to correct that. I made a mistake. I was purchasing
copies as I usually do, and after I had purchased a copy I saw
you come down stairs.
Let us understand. What day is it you are referring to ?
�16
Lord Coleridge: You don’t mean that they apply to any of'
these ?
Witness : No, my lord.
Mr. Foote : That was on February 16th ?—Yes.
Mr. Foote : That is all I wanted, just to show that the witness
had only seen me once, and that on February 16th in this year.
Mr. Maloney: Would your lordship kindly read on the front
page?
Lord Coloridge : What is it you want me to read ?
Mr. Maloney: On the front page of the paper is ‘ ‘ Edited by
G. W. Foote.” Then in the inside, under notice to correspon
dents, “ Literary communications to the Editor, G. W. Foote,
9, South Crescent, Bedford Square, London. All business com
munications to be addressed to the publisher, 28 Stonecutter
Street.”
Lord Coleridge: How is this at present evidence against
Foote ?
Mr. Maloney: My lord, I will call further evidence.
Lord Coleridge: At present this is only evidence against
Ramsey. This gentleman says he bought most of these papers
from Ramsey.
Mr. Maloney: At the end it says printed and published by
W. J. Ramsey, 28 Stonecutter Street.
Edward Whittle, senior, examined by Mr. Woodfall:—Do you.
reside at 4 Coulthurst Road, New Cross?—Yes.
Are you a compositor ?—Yes.
Where are you employed ?—I work at 170 St. John Street,.
Clerkenwell.
Is that the office of your son ?—Yes.
He is a printer?—Yes.
Do you know where the “ Freethinker ” is composed ?—I don’t
know where it is composed.
Were you examined at the Mansion House ?—Yes.
Were the numbers of the “Freethinker” put in printed
by you?—No. To the best of my recollection the majority of
them were printed in St. John Street.
You know that is so ?—Yes.
At the office of your son ?—Yes.
Do you know who was editor of these numbers ?
Lord Coleridge •. Oh, no. You cannot ask a question of that
sort of this witness. Editor is a complex term. It may mean a
variety of things. I may know Mr. Smith, say, as editor of the
“ Quarterly Review.” I know that merely as a matter of social
gossip. If I were asked in the witness-box if I knew who was
the editor of the “ Quarterly Review,” I should say I know
nothing about it. For the purposes of society I know who the
editor of the “ Quarterly Review” is, but I don’t give evidence
�17
in a criminal case of what I may know in that way. If I was a
compositor, and Mr. Smith told me to compose something, I
should say that.
Examination continued by Mr. Woodfall: Do you know
Foote ?—I do.
Have you seen him at the office in John Street?—I believe I
have.
Don’t you know you have ?—To the best of my recollection I
have seen him there, but I cannot say how many times.
Do you know to whom the proofs are sent ?
Mr. Cluer : I submit the question is not a proper one.
Mr. Woodfall: Do yon send the proofs?—No.
Do you know the proofs are sent to Mr. Foote ?—I don't
know.
You don’t know?—I don’t know. I have no means of
knowing.
Lord Coleridge: There must be some person who takes
the proofs.
Mr. Woodfall: Do you know who takes the proofs?—They
may be either sent by post or hand.
To whom would they be sent ?
Lord Coleridge : The rules of evidence say you have got to
make out your case. Of course the Court knows there are a
variety of things you cannot prove in courts of justice.
Mr. Maloney: May I be allowed to ask whether he knew of
any instance of proofs having been sent from the office in St.
John street, prior to the month of July?
Mr. Cluer: That is the same question in a worse form.
Lord Coleridge : Wait a moment. Let me hear the question.
Mr. Maloney: Do you know what proofs are ?—Yes.
Do you recollect proofs to have been sent prior to the date of
your examination at the Mansion House ?—Certainly.
To whom?—To Mr. Bradlaugh. (Laughter.) I don’t refer tn
proofs of the “ Freethinker,” my lord. (Laughter.)
Lord Coleridge : You don’t?—No.
Mr. Maloney: I asked you about the “ Freethinker.”
Witness: You asked me about any proofs, not about the
“ Freethinker.”
Mr. Maloney: Any proofs of the “Freethinker”?_ I don’t
know. (Laughter.)
You don’t recollect whether proofs of the “ Freethinker ” were
sent to any person?—No, I don’t. They may have been sent
but not to my knowledge.
f
Do you recollect being examined at the Mansion house ?_ Yes
Mr. Maloney: I call your lordship’s attention to the first
deposition of this witness.
B
�18
Mr. Cluer : If Mr. Maloney is going to cross-examine his own
witness, I shall have something to say.
[First deposition handed in.]
Mr. Maloney: Has your lordship got to the part, “ I don’t
know who takes the proofs?” Then something else occurs, and
I ask your lordship to permit me to read that.
Lord Coleridge : I think if you read that you should read the
whole of it. He says, “ I believe Mr. Foote is the editor of the
‘Freethinker,’ because I see his name is on the front of the
paper. I have seen him at St. John Street. I don’t know where
the first proof is sent. I don’t know who takes the proofs.
Sometimes they are sent to Mr. Foote, I suppose. I do not
know that they are sent by hand, ‘ Copy ’ is sent by hand or
post. I don’t know anything about the ‘ Freethinker.”
Mr. Maloney: Will your lordship look at the end of the
second deposition ?
Lord Coleridge : He says this : “Do you really know of your
■own knowledge whether Mr. Foote was or was not the editor of
the ‘ Freethinker ?’ I don’t. I only have an opinion merely
because I have seen his name on the front of the paper. That is
the only conclusion I can arive at.”
Mr. Maloney: Allow me to ask him about the proofs being
sometimes sent to Foote.
Lord Coleridge : They may have been sent. Do you know as
a matter of fact they have been sent to Mr. Foote ?
Witness: They may have been sent, but I am not positive.
Mr. Maloney: Does he know Mr. Foote’s handwriting?
Lord Coleridge : You know Mr. Foote’s handwriting by seeing
it at the office ?—Yes, but not in St. John Street.
Mr. Maloney: You did not see his handwriting on any docu
ments in St. John’s Street?—No.
Where ?—At Lisson Grove.
Where was that?—My son’s office in St. John’s Street, Olerkenwell, was a printing office. Lisson Grove was the printing
office before we came to St. John’s Street.
Lord Coleridge: There was composition done at St. John’s
Street, and printing done at Lisson Grove?—Yes; but not at
the same period. Composing was done at both places.
Mr. Maloney: Have you seen matter of the “Freethinker”
in the handwriting of Mr. Foote ? You need not answer unless
you please.
Lord Coleridge: Oh, stop.
Mr. Maloney: I told him he need not answer.
Lord Coleridge: Then why do you ask the question? You
could not possibly suppose that was a proper question to put.
Mr. Maloney: I am thinking about the depositions.
Lord Coleridge: I have not seen the depositions. I know
�19
■nothing about it. I have not looked at them, except so far as
you tell me. I see not a word about that here. All I have read
•of the depositions is those two bits I Lave read. I don’t see
how they will justify your question. I see nothing in these depo
sitions to justify the question about his handwriting. Then, I
really don’t understand you. You first put a question, which I
think any man at the Bar must know was improper and irregular •
•then you say it is not improper and irregular because it is in
the depositions, and when I look at the depositions it is not
there.
Mr. Maloney: I am treating this as a hostile witness.
Lord Coleridge : That doesn’t make it proper. Cross-examina
tion must be a proper process. You have no right to ask
questions that are not evidence. You must know, in a criminal
case, I should not have allowed you to ask a question which is
not permissible. Have you, Mr. Ramsey, anything to ask the
witness ?
Mr. Ramsey : No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Have you, Mr. Foote ?
Mr. Foote : No, my lord.
Edward William Whittle, son of last witness, examined by
Mr. Maloney:—You were examined as a witness here the other
day?—Yes.
You are a printer carrying on business at 170 St. John Street ?
—Yes.
Look at those numbers before you of the “ Freethinker.” You
.saw those numbers when you were here last week?—I did sir.
Were these printed by you ?—Yes.
For whom?—Mr. Ramsey.
Do you know defendant, Foote p—Yes.
Has he been there in reference to the “ Freethinker?”
Lord Coleridge : You cannot ask that.
Mr. Maloney: What has he done there?—He has come in
reference to matters he had to give me.
Anything else ?—With orders.
What orders?—For pamphlets I have printed for him,
Anything else?—No.
Do you use the word orders there in the sense of directions or
in the trade sense ? I want to know whether you mean directions
or in the trade sense ?—If he wanted a pamphlet he would come
/and give me directions to print it.
Mr. Malony: May I ask him if he has had directions or orders
.as to newspapers p
Lord Coleridge : I think you may ask about the subject
matter of the indictment.
Mr. Maloney: have you had any orders in that sense of
direction ?
�20
Lord Coleridge: You have had orders about some of thosepapers?—Yes, my lord.
Mr. Maloney : What rvasthe nature of your directions?
Mr. Cluer: Were they in writing?
Witness: No.
Mr. Malony : Who would send the “ copy,” and say it must be
set up ?
Witness : Would be set up for what?
Mr. Maloney: The “ Freethinker.” Did the manuscript of the“Freethinker” come to you?-—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : Do you mean the whole of the manuscript
came to you?—The majority of the manuscript.
Mr. Maloney : Did you usually see the manuscript of the
‘‘ Freethinker ? ”—Yes.
Did you know Mr. Foote’s address?—Yes.
That is the address in the paper, I may take it ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge: What is the address?—9 South Crescent,..
Bedford Square, my lord.
Mr. Maloney: Is there a proof “ pulled ” before the paper goesout ?-—Sometimes.
Lord Coleridge: 1 do know what a proof is, but I don’t knowthe other word, “pulled.”
Mr. Maloney: “Pulled,” my lord, is, I believe, the usual,
word.
Lord Coleridge : What is “pulled?”
Witness : Simply rolling the type and pulling an impression..
Mr. Maloney : Were you in the habit of sending proofs to any
body?—Yes.
To whom ?— Sometimes to the author of the articles, and
sometimes to Mr. Foote.
Is that the usual course?—Yes.
When you sent proofs to Mr. Foote, to what_ address did you.
send them ?— South Crescent.
Did you send by post, or how?—Sometimes by post.
Sometimes by post, sometimes by letter?—Yes.
Has he taken proofs away on those occasions when he has beenat your office ?—I should say not.
Have any proofs come back from him which you had sent tohim ?—Yes.
Have any come back with corrections?—Yes.
Any come back with headings put in ?
Lord Coleridge: I don’t like to confine you too strictly. L
take it for granted you are limiting your examination to the
matters under discussion.
Mr. Maloney: Yes, my lord.
Mr. Cluer : That is not in the evidence of the witness as yet.
Lord Coleridge : Otherwise, I don’t see that this is admissible.
�21
Mr. Cluer : It is irrelevant, my lord.
Lord Coleridge: Do I understand you that this happened
-with reference to these people ?
Mr. Oluer: I submit the witness should have before him the
•specially incriminated article.
Lord Coleridge : Let us see, first of all, if he has anything to do
with each number.
Mr. Maloney: Had you anything to do with the number of
March 26th ?
Mr. Cluer : I object to this.
Lord Coleridge : Had Mr. Foote anything to do with that ?
Witness : Yes.
Lord Coleridge: What did Mr. Foote do in respect of the
number of March 26th?
Mr. Maloney : Did the manuscript come through his hands ?—
I cannot say as to the whole of it.
Can you say as to the publication ?—I cannot say as to the
first article.
Lord Coleridge : What do you say of the first article ?—That
i-came from him.
Do you mean that the manuscript is composed, as far as the
manuscript is concerned, by him?—Yes, my lord.
Is it in his handwriting ?—Yes, my lord.
Mr. Cluer: This is not indicated, my lord. What page is that
on—page 98?
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Cluer : Page 99 is the first indicated.
Lord Coleridge : Just give me the beginning.
Mr. Maloney: “That is the god whom Christians love and adore.”
Lord Coleridge : Do you see the passage ?—Yes, my lord.
What do you say about that passage ?—I should not like to
■say where they came from.
Mr. Maloney: To the best of your belief ?—To the best of
:my belief it would come from Mr. Foote.
Is it in the same article with the paragraph which begins
Friends and favorites of Jehovah ” ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : Are these all out of one article?
Mr. Maloney : I don’t know.
Lord Coleridge : Well; but really you should know. Is that all
iin one article?—Yes.
Is the manuscript in his handwriting ?—Ao ; it is signed
William Heaford.
Then it was not in his handwriting?—Ko, my lord.
Mr. Maloney: The question I put to you was, through whose
Chands, or from whom did the manuscript come ? From whom
•did directions come to insert it in the paper ?
Lord Coleridge : First of all, did it come ?
�22
Mr. Maloney: That manuscript that came to you for the“ Freethinker ” would come from Mr. Foote ?—I should imagine it does.
After it had been set up, do you know whether you sent a
proof to Mr. Foote ?—I should not like to say.
Have you any belief?—I have no belief about it. We don’t
send proofs of everything.
When a proof is sent out, is it printed on a slip of paper?—It
is printed on a long slip on one side only.
Mr. Maloney : Now we will go to the next number.
Lord Coleridge: Stay; we have not done with this. You
imagine it came from Mr. Foote. By whose orders was it put in'
the paper ?—By those of Mr. Foote. (To Mr. Maloney) : I.
protest against having to lead you.
Mr. Maloney: I was only afraid of going too far.
Lord Coleridge : That is perfectly legitimate. Of course, it is
perfectly legitimate to put it in that way----- I am not prose
cuting counsel.
Mr. Maloney: Now we will come to the number of April 9th.
Had Mr. Foote anything to do with that paper ?
Lord Coleridge: You have not got through your work. I wilb
not help you any more ; you must go on your own way,
Mr. Maloney: All the papers have been printed by you?—
Yes.
Had Mr. Foote anything to do with that number of April'
9th ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge: That begins, “ Joshua’s first victory ”?—Yes.Lord Coleridge: What page is that ?
Mr. Maloney: Page 113, my lord. (To witness): Have you
page 113 before you ?—Yes.
You see “Joshua’s first victory”?—Yes.
From whom did the manuscript of that come ?—That is Mr.Foote’s.
By whose directions was it printed in the paper?—Mr. Foote's,
Turn to page 116 of that issue. You will see a paragraph
beginning “ All those Christians.” By whose directions was that
put in the paper?-—Mr. Foote’s.
Do you know who is the author ?—No.
Turn to the number of April 23rd. You see the cartoon on
the front page ?—Yes.
Had Mr. Foote anything to do with it? By whose directions
was it issued in the paper ?—Mr. Foote’s.
Turn to the issue of May 7th, page 150. You see the para-graph beginning with “It strikes me god must have been suffer
ing from bile ” ?—Yes.
Do you know who is the author of that?—Yes.
Who ?—Mr. Symes.
�23
By whose directions was it inserted in the paper?—Mr.
Foote’s.
Now turn to page 158 of the paper, that same number. Do
you see an article there called “Atheistic Pulpit;” the first
portion of it?—Yes.
By whose directions was that inserted ?—Mr. Foote’s.
Look at page 155, “ Acid Drops.” You see the paragraph,
“The bigots of to-day are arrant cowards,” and, going to the
end, “Mr. Foote lectured at Tunbridge Wells, and challenged
the authorities to prosecute him ” ?—Yes.
Who is the author of that?—-Mr. Foote.
• By whose instructions was it inserted?—-Mr. Foote’s.
Turn to May 14th, page 158 ; again, on the 7th count. Do you
see the paragraph, beginning, “After Moses, Joshua was his
favorite or vizier”?—Yes.
Do you remember who was the author?—Yes.
Who ?—Mr. Symes.
By whose directions was it inserted ?—Mr. Foote’s.
May 21st, has an article headed “What shall I do to be
damned; ” page 162. Did you see that ?—Yes.
Who is the author?—Mr. Heaford.
By whose directions was it inserted?—Mr. Foote’s.
Page 163—“The mind turned topsy-turvy with fear and
dread at the mere thought of the awful possibility of one of
these rampagious beasts in Revelations lying down after dinner
with the lamb of god inside him.” Is that in the same
article ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : That is the same thing.
Mr. Maloney : May 28th, page 174. Do you see a paragraph
beginning “ The last day of damnation? ”—Yes.
By whose directions was that inserted?—Mr. Foote’s.
Turn to the front page of that number. You see a comic
Bible sketch, “The Divine Illumination?”—Yes.
By whose directions was that put in the paper?—Mr. Foote’s.
Is that a representation of almighty god ?-—
Lord Coleridge : Where does that begin ?
Mr. Maloney : The charge is last in the indictment.
Lord Coleridge : That is for the jury.
Mr. Maloney : Now turn to June 11th. That question, my
lord, rather goes to three of the counts. Would you allow me
to ask this witness as to the picture ?
Lord Coleridge : 1 don’t think you ought to ask this witness.
“ What do you think of that picture.” The picture tells its own
story. You charge it as a blasphemous libel, and you say Mr.
Foote ordered it to be put in. You can show it to the jury,
but you have no right to ask this gentleman what he thinks
of it.
�24
Mr. Maloney: Did he authorise the cartoon of June 11th, “ A
miss and a hit ?”
Witness: “ Yes, I should say so.
Has Mr. Foote spoken to you at any time in reference to the
meaning of any of these cartoons ?—No.
Mr. Maloney: May I ask him whether he knows who was
editor of those numbers ?
Lord Coleridge: No; certainly not. That is a complex
question. Editor may mean a great many things. A man may
be editor, and not authorise the publication of any one of these
things. I cannot help saying, Mr. Maloney, that this was sug
gested to you. I have eyes, and I cannot help seeing what is
going on. You ought not to take suggestions that are not proper.
This case must be tried like every other case. I have regretted
to observe the feeling imported into this prosecution. On a
former occasion I restrained myself for obvious reasons. Why
cannot this case be tried, like any other case, without going one
inch out of the legal path. Why does counsel go and examine a
man’s bankers-book.
Mr. Maloney: Will your lordship allow me to ask the witness
whether Mr. Foote has spoken to him as to the person who was
editor of this paper ?
Lord Coleridge : If it bears against Foote or Ramsey, you have
no right to ask it. (To witness) : Has Mr. Foote ever told you
who edited the paper?—No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : That is a totally different thing. Anything
Foote says against himself is evidence against him. Do you wish
to ask anything, Mr. Ramsey ?
Mr. Ramsey : No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Do you, Mr. Foote ?
Mr. Foote : No, my lord.
Mr. Maloney : That is the case, my lord.
Lord Coleridge (to defendants) : If you would rather take
your luncheon first, before addressing the jury, do so by all
means.
Mr. Ramsey : I should, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Gentlemen of the jury, you must come back
by half-past one.
Mr. Maloney: 1 didn’t quite hear whether evidence for the
defence is to be called, and I should like to know that, because
of some of the official witnesses. I want to free some of the
official witnesses.
Lord Coleridge : I cannot press these gentlemen ; they must
take their own course. If they think right to call witnesses they
must do so.
After the adjournment for luncheon, Mr. Maloney said: In
�25
■ reference to handing the libels themselves to the jury, I suppose
that will be done at the end of the case.
Lord Coleridge : I should think so.
Mr. Avory: There will be no witnesses for the defence.
Mr. Maloney: Then I don’t address the jury.
Mr. Ramsey then proceeded to address the jury as follows :—
Gentlemen of the jury,—I appear before you to-day to
answer this charge under circumstances of extreme difficulty.
For eight weeks I have been in close confinement in prison,
cut off from all participation in the active life and business of
■ the world around me; away from home, from family, and all
I hold most dear. With the exception of one short hour each
• day spent in pacing round and round a track in company
with the vilest dregs of London criminality—whose very pre-sence is like some loathsome contagion—and a brief visit on
• each alternate day to chapel—in the same company—all the
time has been passed in a narrow cell in solitude and silence,
with nothing but the duty calls of the prison officials to vary
the horrible monotony ; my mind a prey to such torture as
;an_y man must feel, who separated from those whom he loves,
'with no knowledge of what is happening to them, knows only
too well that their comfort, their happiness, their very lives
> are dependent on him. All this, combined with the prospect
■of nine weary months of such misery before me, has brought
. about a state of mental depression against which I have been
unable to successfully battle. So that although during the
. last two weeks, thanks to the kindly considerateness of his
• lordship and the indulgence of the governor of the prison, I
have been supplied with the means for preparing to meet this
• -charge, I have found myself unequal to the task. I therefore,
gentlemen, crave your indulgence for any deficiencies in my
defence, and ask you to believe that the great principle of
■“ Free speech and Freethought,” assailed here to-day, is
■ capable of being sustained by the best of arguments and the
. grandest of oratory. I stand before you charged with blas
phemy—an offence which is not of the nature of a crime like
theft or murder, but (is a manufactured offence, differing in
various countries (blasphemy in Spain is orthodoxy in
.England, blasphemy in India is orthodoxy in England), made
for the purpose of maintaining the doctrines of the Esta
blished Church and suppressing all opinions which differed
■from them. During the time that the Church had supreme
■control over the making and administering of the laws of the
country, prosecutions were plentiful. Quakers were branded
.■and flogged as blasphemers, Unitarians were punished as
blasphemers, and are even now indictable under this same
■Jaw under which I am prosecuted. Deistical writings were
�26
prosecuted as blasphemous and the publishers sent to prison.
But gradually as dissent grew more powerful, as opinions
more in accordance with freedom and justice permeated the ■
minds of the people, as religious tests and disabilities were
abolished, and men, for the suppression of whose opinions ■
these laws were made, began to take part in the legislation of
the country, so these infamous prosecutions grew less and less
in number, the law falling at last into such disuse, that for more than fifty years no prosecution of this character has
been instituted in the City of London, although hundreds of
attacks upon Christianity have been made during that time,
some of a far more severe character than those for which men
were sent to prison, mostly published within the city precincts
and all liable to prosecution under this law, by any public
company manipulator who, finding his financial reputation
growing shady, thinks he may obtain a cheap reputation forpiety by posing before a gullible public as a modern defender of
i he faith, and gain a substantial profit at the same time. Into •
such disuse have these laws fallen that the highest and
most honored expositors of English law are at utter variance ■
as to what should be their modern interpretation. One view
is that Christianity being by law established, any publication
which denies its truth must be blasphemous. Mr. JusticeStephens lays it down that the blasphemy lies in the matter ■
not in the manner. If this be so, then the major portion of the
best works of the leading scientists of the day should have
been indicted as blasphemous. If your verdict should be in
accordance with this view, then this prosecution will be the
precursor of a general raid. This is not a mere idle assertion,
for emboldened by the initiation of these prosecutions a society
is already in existence with the Rev. “ Dr.” Wainwright at its
head, which has announced in the “Times ” its intention of
prosecuting the works of Messrs. Huxley, Tyndall, Darwin,
Herbert Spencer, and others as rapidly as its funds will allow.
This may appear ridiculous, but the ridiculousness is the
fault of the law, not the men. They are logical enough, and
certainly far more honest than the instigators of this prose
cution. Another view is, that controversy on any subject
should be permitted which is carried on in decorous language
and in good faith; but that ridicule, abuse, contumelious
reproach, or the use of language calculated to wound the
feelings of Christians, should be held to be blasphemous. This
has the merit of plausibility, but I trust I shall succeed in
proving to you that it has nothing more. Before accepting
this view, you must believe that these laws were made for the
purpose of protecting the feelings of members of the Estab
lished Church, while the feelings of all else might be outraged
�27
with impunity. The test for blasphemy would be whether
some one's feelings had been hurt, and then, as Lord Shaftes
bury has denounced the proceedings of the Salvation Army as
outrageous and blasphemous, it would be the duty of the
authorities to consign General Booth and his companions toprison. But to satisfy even the most rudimentary notions of
justice, the law should at any rate be reciprocal, and each
should be compelled to refrain from hurting the feelings
of every other, whether he be Churchman, Dissenter, Jew,
Mahomedan, Freethinker, or anything else. It could not
even stop at that. There are a great number of people who are
far more sentitive on political questions than on theological
ones, I believe that many times more people had their feelings
outraged by the cartoon which appeared in a so-called comic
paper a few weeks since, representing Mr. Gladstone as thenotorious and infamous “ No. 1,” than have ever experienced
the slightest annoyance at anything appearing in the “Free
thinker.” Bo that to be just, the law should protect the feelings
of every political partisan. The same argument will hold
good in science and literature. In short, it would be a
criminal law for the enforcement of politeness all round j
and that no law could possibly accomplish, even it were
desirable to attempt it by such means. iStarkie, held to be an
authority for this view, says: “ A wilful intention to pervert,
insult and mislead others by means of licentious and contu
melious abuse applied to sacred subjects, or by wilful mis
representations, or by artful sophistry, calculated to mislead
the ignorant or unwary, is the criterion and test of guilt.”
Now, gentlemen, we are not charged with using licentious
language ; there is not the faintest trace of it; the prosecution
would have been glad to seize on it if there had been. Do not
be misled by the prurient hints of the learned counsel sug
gestive of obscenity and indecency, which are used for the
sole purpose of insinuating a charge he dared not openly
make. Which would you consider to be “ artful sophistry
calculated to mislead the ignorant or unwary ?” the mere
banter, and ephemeral jests never intended and never supposed
to be serious, appearing in a little obscure periodical, here to
day and gone to morrow; or the works I have alluded to, not
ephemeral, but taking their place as standard literature, not
intended and not thought to be jest, but the serious reasonings
of thoughtful men with all the authority of world-wide repu
tation. Artful sophistry can only mean that which has the
appearance of wise reasoning, and is not; and I submit,
gentlemen, that there can be no doubt as to which class of
publication that epithet most fitly applies to in the mind of
a firm believer. Most certainly these works have done ten.
�28
thousand times more to undermine and destroy the Christian
faith than the “ Freethinker” could do in a century. These
laws really owe their retention to their disuse. Whilst all
liberal-minded men who knew of their existence were ashamed
of them, nobody thought them worth troubling about, believing
them to be dead. They would have been abolished long since
had the prosecution been honest in its bigotry instead of
hypocritical, and had it attacked wealthy firms which have
issued high-priced blasphemy for the cultured classes. If
these laws were not in existence, not even the most bigoted
man in the House of Commons would think of attempting to
make them, or, if he did, could carry his project one solitary
stage. This was abundantly proved, when not long since,
Lord Redesdale sought to bring in a bill in the House of
Lords, imposing a religious test on Members of Parliament.
The bill was contemptuously thrown out. But now the solong dormant monster of Religious Persecution is to be gal
vanised into new life and prosecutions are in full swing, not
against wealthy firms, who may publish as much blasphemy
as they like in costly volumes—that would be too dangerous ;
• but against men who, because they are poor, are easier to
attack. The courage of the prosecution is that of a big bully
who valiantly assails a small boy. And what is the pretext ?
that the limits of controversy have been overstepped. But
what are the limits of controversy? Every doctrine in the Bible,
every article of the Church of England, almost every verse
from Genesis to Revelation has been the subject of controversy,
not alone between Christians and Freethinkers but between
the thousand and one sects into which Christianity itself is
split in every direction. The learned counsel has not at
tempted to define those limits, nor to say when or by
whom they were made. The words might have some meaning
if we had in England an Inquisition which from time to time
issued an edict and said “ in criticism thus far shalt thou
go and no farther; ” but until we have such a tribunal the
words are meaningless. It is merely the cant phrase which
has always been used when bigotry has sought to crush hos
tile opinion, and each counsel, half ashamed of the task he
has in hand, borrows it from his predecessor. Since these
old laws fell into disuse a great change has come about in
religious controversy. Education has advanced with great
and rapid strides, and heresy has kept pace with it, so that
opinions are freely expressed to-day which less than a century
ago would have sent their author to prison. The Rev. W.
Woolston was sent to prison for a long time for denying the
truth of the Pentateuch. To-day Colenso does the same thingand
remains and receives the salary of a bishop of the Established
�29
Church; and he employs the same weapon of attack, namely,,
ridicule, as we are charged with using. He over and over
again shows the falsity of the stories in the Pentateuch by
reducing them to an absurdity; as, for instance, wherehe cal
culates that, according to the biblical account, every mother
in Israel must have had. forty-two sons besides a proportionate
number of daughters. His works have been before the public
for twenty years, and yet no one dreams of prosecuting
Messrs. Longmans, the publishers of them. Peter Annett
denied the authenticity of the Pentateuch, and was sent to
prison for more than a year, and twice stood in the pillory.
Dr. Temple does the same thing in the famous “ Essays and
Reviews,” and is rewarded by being made Bishop of Exeter;
and, although Lord Shaftesbury denounced the work as “ blas
phemous productions vomited forth from hell,” yet no one has
prosecuted or thinks of prosecuting t'he publisher. When
Wiliams was prosecuted for selling Paine’s “ Age of Reason,”
Lord Chief Justice Kenyon said, in passing sentence, that if such
works were permitted to be sold the law would be stripped of
one of its principle sanctions—the dread of future punish
ment. Canon Farrar may to-day publish his disbelief in a
hell, and, instead of being placed in a criminal dock, he ismade a high dignitary of the Church of England. In nearly
the last indictment for blasphemy, Messrs. Moxon were found,
guilty of blasphemy for publishing Shelley’s “ Queen Mab,”
under a similar indictment to that on which I stand,
arraigned. To-day we find that no less a person than the late
First Lord of the Admiralty publishes that same Shelley’s
Queen Mab,” upon every railway-bookstall in the Kingdom,
without let or hindrance, and in absolute defiance of the
verdict of the jury which condemned it; and when he wasappointed to that high office in the State, noc one member of
the House of Commons rose to protest or say a word about
it—not even the learned counsel for the prosecution, who sat
in the House as a member. He not only said nothing about
it, but actually accepted the office of Solicitor-General, thus
becoming legal adviser to one who was deliberately setting
the Blasphemy Laws and a jury’s verdict at defiance. What
conclusion can you come to, gentlemen, other than that the
learned counsel and the whole of the House of Commons con
sidered these laws to be obsolete and the jury’s verdict
worthless ? What value, gentlemen, will you put on the new
found zeal for enforcing these laws on the part of one who
was quite content to condone blasphemy when the blasphemer
could confer place, power, and emolument ? The exact value
may be found in figures at the back of his brief. Surely
gentlemen, when we find so great a change has taken placed
�30
that men may now say with impunity, and with honor, that
which, when those laws were in operation, would have sent
them to prison ; when we find that that which less than
a century ago would have ensured the author a long confine
ment in gaol, is now rewarded with a bishopric ; when we find
that a bishop may say (and still retain his office) that for which
a man was sent to prison and the pillory; when we find
the Quaker, whipped and branded in one age. lately sitting in
the Cabinet itself; when we find a Cabinet Minister himself
setting at defiance the verdict of a comparatively modern
jury, and deliberately publishing the blasphemy they con
demned without protest or hindrance on the part of the autho
rities so defied; surely, gentlemen, it is not too much to ask
you to believe that the promoters of this paper were not
actuated by any desire to commit a breach of the peace, but'
were fully persuaded that, in view of the many and great
changes that had taken place—to some of which I have drawn
your attention; with the knowledge that the law had been
regarded as obsolete for many years—no one would think of
dragging from its obscurity this barbaric relic of the legisla
tion of a bad bygone time and setting it in force against them.
No good was ever done by these prosecutions, even from the
point of view of the prosecutors themselves; they do but dra w
attention to that which was sought to be suppressed. No
work was ever yet suppressed by prosecution. Paine’s “Age
of Reason ” and “ Rights of Man ” have been prosecuted over
and over again, and to-day their sale is greater than ever.
Of those who are prosecuted it makes martyrs, for these laws
have never been directed against real criminals but always
against honest citizens. I stand before you to-day charged
with a criminal offence, and yet am a man whose character is
unspotted, whose honor is unimpeached, whose integrity is
unquestioned; and whatever bodily torture and mental agony
an adverse verdict might inflict—it might kill me, but it could
not sully my reputation nor blacken my name. I ask of you,
gentlemen, a deliverance from this cruel and hateful law ; I
ask you to say by a verdict of Not Guilty that you refuse to
define blasphemy anew ; and stamp with your disapproval
these disgraceful attempts to revive the fossil remains of laws
which, passed in an ignorant, barbarous, and brutal time, are
an anachronism out of all harmony with the growing freedom
of the age. I ask you to refuse to reopen that page of
English history of which we should all feel ashamed, stained
as it is with the blood and tears of thousands of victims to
priestly intolerance and persecution; that page which all
right-thinking men would gladly see blotted out for ever.
As Professor Hunter truly says: “ The Heresy Laws bring
�31
before us one of the most melancholy aberrations of legisla
tion. These laws have caused prodigious suffering, but they
'never conferred on the human race one iota of countervailing
■ advantage. They represent a dead loss to the credit side of
human happiness, and the passions which gave rise to them,
-are an unmitigated and unredeemed evil. Black is the guilt
•of those who have abused their position as the guides and
instructors of mankind, to plant in the infant mind the seeds
•of unfounded and irrational hatred, and so have helped to pile
up that great mountain of persecution of man’s inhumanity
to man, which has made countless thousands mourn.”
Mr. Foote next addressed the jury. He said: “My lord and
■gentlemen of the jury, I am very happy, not to stand in this
position, but to learn what I had not learned before—how a
•criminal trial should be conducted, notwithstanding that two
months ago I was tried in another court, and before another
judge. Fortunately, the learned counsel who are conducting this
prosecution have not now a judge who will allow them to walk
out of court whilst he argues their brief for them in their
absence.
Lord Coleridge : You must learn one more lesson, Mr. Foote,
and that is, that one judge cannot hear another judge censured
-or even commended.
Mr. Foote : My lord, I thank you for the correction, and I
will simply, therefore, confine what observations I might have
made on that head to the emphatic statement that I have learnt
to-day, for the first time—-although this is the second time I have
had to answer a criminal charge-—how a criminal trial should be
conducted. And, notwithstanding the terrible nature of my
position, there is some consolation in being able, for the first
time in two months, to talk to twelve honest men. Two months
;ago I fell amongst thieves, and have had to remain in their
society ever since, so long as I have been in any society at all.
It is not my intention, it is not even my wish, to go over the
ground which was traversed by my co-defendant in his very
eloquent and pathetic account, his manly and simple account of
the mental difficulties which accompanied the preparation of his
defence; but I will add, that although we have profited—I may
say in especial by the facilities which his lordship so kindly
ordered for us, and by the kind consideration of the governor
of Holloway Goal—yet it has been altogether impossible, in
the midst of such depressing circumstances, for a man to
do any justice to such a case as I have to maintain. Prison
diet, gentlemen, to begin with—a material item—is not of
the most invigorating character. (Laughter.) My blood is
to some extent impoverished, my faculties are to a large
•extent weakened, and it is only with considerable difficulty
�32
that I shall be able to make them obey the mandate of my
■will. The mental ciicumstances, how depressing have they
been ! In looking over a law book I saw something about soli
tary confinement as only being allowable for one month at a
time, and for not more than three months in one year. What
the nature of the confinement is I am unable to ascertain, but
it strikes me that twenty-three hours’ confinement out of twentyfour, in a small cell about six feet wide, comes as close as
possible to any reasonable definition of solitary confinement.
Still it is no use wearying you with the difficulties that have
attended the preparation of my defence. This much, however,
must be said in connexion with it; that a change has come
over the method of treating those who are found guilty and',
sentenced to punishment under these laws. Gentleman, as a
matter of fact, an indisputable matter of fact, I and my co
defendants are undergoing essentially the severest punishment
that has been inflicted for any blasphemous libel for the last
120 years. Since Peter Annett’s confinement in Clerkenwell
Gaol with twelve months’ hard labor, in the year 1763, there has
been no punishment meted out to a Preethought publisher or
writer at all approximating to what we have to undergo. The
sentence, even before the law practically fell into disuse from
forty to fifty years ago, gradually dwindled to six, four, and>
three months. Our sentence, gentlemen, was twelve months.
Again, prisoners were nearly all treated as first-class misdemea
nants—as far as I can ascertain, all were—they were not sentencedto twelve months—not merely of intellectual death—but twelve
months of conscious intellectual death. They were not debarred
from access to their friends, and most of them even carried on
their literary work, and supported those near and dear to them.
We have to depend on the charity of those who, notwithstanding
the position in which we stood two months ago, and stand now,
do not esteem us the less—who understand that there is a great'
vital principle struck at through us, however unworthy we may
be to defend it, and who in lending their aid to see that our in
terests do not suffer so much as they otherwise would, are
actuated by more than friendship for us, by their love of that
principle which has been assailed by our conviction, sentence,
and committal to gaol, and is again assailed in the prosecution
which is being conducted here to-day. A change, gentlemen,
has come over the public mind with respect to heresy and blas
phemy, which every reader of history finds intelligible. Reli
gious bigotry is never more vicious than when it has a large
infusion of hypocrisy. While people feel that their cause can
be defended by argument they are ready to defend it by those
means. While they feel that supernatural power is maintainingtheir creed they are to a large extent content in trusting their
�33
cause to the deity in whom they believe. But when they feel
that the ground, intellectually and morally, is slipping away
under their feet; when they feel that the major portion of the in
tellectual power of their day and generation is arrayed against
their creed, when it is not scornful or indifferent to it; when, in
short, the creed is not only losing its members’ brains, but its
own wits ; then it turns in wrath, not upon the high-class heretics
who are striking week after week the most deadly blows at the
creed in which these prosecutors profess to believe, but at those
who happen to be poor and comparatively obscure. These
poorer and more pronounced Freethinkers, are made the
scapegoats for the more respectable Agnosticism of the day,
which is more cultured, but infinitely more hypocritical.
The martyrdom of olden times had something of the
heroic in it.
A man was led out to death. He could
summon courage for the minutes or hours during which
he still had to face his enemies. They placed faggots
round his funeral pyre. In a few minutes, at the outside, life
ended; and a man might nerve himself to meet the worst under
such circumstances. Then also the persecutors had the courage of
the principles on which they proceeded, and said, “We do this
to the heretic in the name of god ; we do it because he has
outraged the dignity of god, and because he has preached ideas
that are leading others to eternal destruction with him.” But
now orthodoxy has a large infusion of hypocrisy ; like Pilate,
it washes its hands. But, gentlemen, all its pretences will be
discounted, 1 believe, by you. When it is said, “We don’t do
this in the interests of outraged omnipotence, and we, the finite,
are not arrogantly championing the power, or even the dignity
of omnipotence when they say “We are only carrying out a
measure of social sanitation, and preventing men from making
indecent outrages on the feelings of othersyou will agree
with me in believing that this is hypocrisy and cowardice
also. Looked at clearly, it is utterly impossible that you
can draw any line of demarcation between the manner of contro
versy in religion and that in politics, or any other department
of intellectual activity, unless you make a difference as to
the matter, unless you go the full length of the principle
which is implied, and logically say: “ We do so because religion
is not as these. There is matter as well as manner, and we
protect the feelings of men with respect to these subjects, because
•there is invulnerable truth somewhere imbedded in their belief,
and we will not allow it to be wantonly assailed.”
I will now dismiss that, and will ask your attention,
before I proceed to deal with matters of more importance,
and certainly more dignity, to some remarks that fell from
the lips of the junior counsel for the prosecution, in what
G
�34
he called the temporary absence of his leader—a temporary
absence which has turned out to be considerably protracted. One
remark he made use of was that we had attempted to make a
wicked and nefarious profit out of the trade in these alleged
blasphemous libels. That seemed to me to be very superfluous,
because if, as he held, the libels were wicked and nefarious, there
was no need to say anything about the nature of the profit. But
he himself ought to know—at any rate his leader would have
known—that a passage was read at our previous trial, and
nsed as evidence against me in particular—a passage which
distinctly stated that notwithstanding the large sale—and a large
sale is always a comparative term, for what may be a large sale
for the “Freethinker” would not be large for the “Times”—
the proprietor was many pounds out of pocket. The learned
counsel for the prosecution, I daresay, knew that, but then it
suited his denunciatory style to talk about wicked and nefarious
profit. (Laughter.) I have no doubt he makes profit out of the
prosecution—it is his business. You can get any quantity of
that sort of thing by ordering it, provided you at the same time
give some guarantee that after ordering, it will be paid for. He
spoke of a blustering challenge which was thrown out in one of
the alleged libels, and he gave you a quotation from it in which
the word “ blasphemy ” was used. The report said that a man
at Tunbridge Wells was being prosecuted for blasphemy. The
learned counsel omitted to tell you what you will find by referring
to the indictment, that the word “blasphemy” is between in
verted commas, which shows it was employed there, not in the
sense of the writer, but as a vague word, to which he might
not attach the same meaning as those using it. So much for
that.
And now one word more as to his introduction before I
proceed. The word “licentiousness” was introduced. The word
“decency” was introduced. I have to complain of all this. 1 pro
pose to follow the method which was followed in Mr. Bradlaugh’s
trial some days ago in this court, and had the full approval of his
lordship. I don’t propose to do what the junior counsel for the
prosecution did, notwithstanding he said he would not, and read
to you any passages from those alleged libels. Although 1 do
that, I feel what an immense disadvantage results to me because
the words “indecency,” “licentiousness,” are bandied about out
side before the great jury of public opinion, and we are accused,
and may be pronounced guilty and sentenced for offences which
people outside have never had properly explained to them.
Thus we are brought in guilty of blasphemy, and people
say we should have been so sentenced and punished be
cause our attack was indecent. Now, the word “indecency”
as you know, has a twofold meaning. It may mean un-
1
�35
■becoming or obscene. People will take which meaning best
suits their purpose, and so we are at this great disadvantage
when none of these libels are read out, that we may be brought
in guilty of a charge and sent to prison on it, and people outside
may think that we are really guilty of another offence and actually
punished for that, the other being a cloak and pretence. I leave
the junior counsel for the prosecution.
My co-defendant has referred to the impolicy of these prose
cutions. I wish to say a word or two on that head. They have
one great disadvantage from the point of view of the prosecution
—they advertise and disseminate widely the very opinions which
they try to suppress; and it seems to me if they were really
honest and had the interests of their own professed principles at
heart, they would shrink from taking any such steps. Then
again, history shows us that no work that was ever prosecuted
was successfully put down. There was only one method of perse
cution that succeeded, and that was persecution to the extent of
extermination. If you take the case of the massacre of the
Albigenses, or take the case of early Christian heresies—the very
names of which read as the names of some old fossil things that
belonged to a different era of the world’s history—you will find
wherever a sect has been crushed out it has been by extermination
—that is, by putting to death everybody suspected of holding the
objectionable opinion ; but when books and pamphlets have
been prosecuted they have never been put down. Unless you
can seize and secure everybody infected with heresy, naturally
you arouse their indignation and excite their fervor—you make
those who were before critics afterwards fanatics, and conse
quently they fight ail the harder for the cause attacked. Paine’s
“ Age of Reason ” was a prosecuted work. Richard Carlile was
sent to gaol for nine years for selling it; his wife and sister were
«ent to gaol; shopman after shopman went to gaol. You would
have thought that would have suppressed the “Age of Reason
yet, as a matter of fact, that work still has a large circulation,
and. a sale all the larger because of the prosecutions instituted
against it fifty or sixty years ago. Take the case of a
prosecuted work belonging to another class of literature—
a pamphlet published by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant,
the prosecution of which was denounced by the then Lord
Chief Justice from the Bench. By that prosecution, a work
that had been circulated at the rate of one hundred per year
for forty years, was run up to a sale of one hundred and seventvfive thousand. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that in that
■case the prosecutors had defeated their own object. When a
question as to the “Freethinker” was asked in the House of
Commons, so far back as February in last year, Sir William
Harcourt replied that it was the opinion of all persons who
�36
had to do with these matters, that it was not politic to proceed
legally against such a publication. That answer was made to
Mr. Frcshfield. A few days afterwards he made a similar answer
to Mr. Redmond. But there is a class of people who rush in
“ where angels fear to tread,” and the prosecution has un
fortunately done that. It is a curious thing, gentlemen,
that all those who have been moving against the persons who
are alleged to be responsible for the “ Freethinker,” belong
to one political party. The junior counsel for the prosecution
told you that no doubt one of the two defendants would ask you
to believe this was a political move, and I do ask you to believe it
is almost entirely a political move. Every person connected
with it has been a Tory. Mr. Freshfield represents the immacu
late borough of Dover, and Mr. Redmond is the representative of
a small Irish constituency, the whole of whose voters could beconveyed to Westminster in a very few omnibuses. (Laughter.)
Next, gentlemen, comes the Corporation of the City of London
that secured a verdict against myself and my co-defendant two
months ago. I need not tell you what the politics of the Corpora
tion of the City of London are, nor will I undertake to prophesy
what they will be when brought into something like acccord with
the spirit of the age by the new Bill which is to be introduced.
The • prosecuting counsel, Sir Hardinge Giffard, is also a Tory.
1 don’t mean to say that he is the worse for that. Every man
has a right to belong to which political party he pleases. Tory,
Whig, Conservative and liberal, are great historic names, and
men of genius and high character may be found on both sides.
But it is a curious thing that this prosecution should be con
ducted so entirely by men of one political persuasion, while
those struck at belong to the extreme opposite political per
suasion. These two things should operate in your minds, and
influence your views as to the motives which animate those who
conceived this persecution, and find the funds to carry it out. And
last, though not least, we have Sir Jtlenry Tyler, also a Tory of
the deepest dye, who has been the pronounced and bitter
public enemy of Mr. Bradlaugh, one of my co-defendants who
is released from his position of danger by a verdict of acquittal.
At my previous trial the jury were told that the real prosecutor'
was not the City Corporation but our lady the Queen. Iam very
glad indeed to be able to rely on the authority of his lordship
in saying that the nominal prosecutor in this case is the Queen,
and the actual prosecutor who sets the Crown in motion is
Sir Henry Tyler. Now, gentlemen, what was the real reason
for Sir Henry Tyler’s moving in this case at all ? Sir Henry
Tyler was known to be engaged in the City in financial pursuits.
He was known to be a dexterous financier and an experienced
director of public companies. He was known to be not so much
�37
•loved by shareholders as by political friends, and you would
think if outraged deity wanted a champion, Sir Henry
Tyler would be one of the last persons who would receive
an application. (Laughter.) Sir Henry Tyler had an enemy in
Mr. Bradlaugh. Sir Henry Tyler had been rebuked in the House
of Commons, by a minister of the Crown, for his mad antago
nism to Mr. Bradlaugh. It is he who has found all the funds
for this prosecution, and I ask you to believe that this prosecu
tion was initiated and carried on by Sir Henry Tyler and
his political friends for a purely political purpose ; to cripple, if
possible, Mr. Bradlaugh, and so to win through religious preju
dice what could not be won by open political warfare. As I
said before, men of genius and high character are to be
found in the two great political camps, but this is a miser
able descent for a great historic party, which once had its
Peels and its Pitts, and now has its Churchills, its Newdegates, its Tylers and its Giffards. (Laughter.)
Our offence is blasphemy. The word “blasphemy ” has a theo
logical meaning as well as amoral and legal one ; and directly you
put the question theologically, What is blasphemy? you are stunned
by a, babel of contradictory answers. In our own country the
Christian says Jcxus Christ is god, and it is blasphemy to say he
is not. A Jew, also a citizen, and who may sit in our national
legislature, says Jesus Christ was not god, and it is blasphemy to
say he was. In short, one might say theologically, that blasphemy
is entirely a question of geography; the answer to the question
will depend upon the country you are in and the time you put
the question. It is a matter of longitude and latitude, and if we
are to rely upon the very loose view of the law I shall have to
refer to, as given by Starkie., it is a matter of very considerable
latitude. The Bible, which it is alleged we have assailed, does
not help us very much. The blasphemy referred to in the
Old Testament is simply that of cursing god, which I suppose no
one would do, if even he had a monitress like Job’s wife, except his
proper position was not in Holloway Gaol but in Colney Hatch.
(Laughter.) The Jewish law is very unfortunate, and it is
unfortunate to refer to, because it culminated in the judicial
murder of Jesus Christ. And you have the spirit of the
blasphemy law brought out in the prosecution of Jesus of
Nazareth, and, as related in the Acts of the Apostles, the
proceedings for blasphemy against St. Paul. With the Jews
a man was soon found guilty, and very often after they had
stoned him to death they settled at leisure the question
whether he was really guilty or not. It was Pontius Pilate, who
represented the majesty of the law, that stood between the bigotry
of the Jews and their victim. And you will remember that it
.was the Roman power, the secular power, which cared for none
�38
of these things, that St. Paul appealed to and that saved his
life from his Jewish enemies, who would have put him todeath as a blasphemer. Morally, blasphemy can only becommitted by a person who believes in the existence of the deity
whom he blasphemes. Lord Brougham has left that on record in
his “ Life of Voltaire.” He says that ridicule or abuse of deities in
whom he doesn’t believe is only ridicule and abuse of ideas which
have no meaning to him, and he cannot be guilty of blasphemy
unless he believes in the being whom he blasphemes. In practice,
blasphemy means, always did and always will, a strong attack
upon what we happen to believe. The early Christian used to
blaspheme before he gained a victory over Paganism, and he
was put to death. The Protestant used to blaspheme before he
triumphed in England over the Catholic. The Dissenter blas
phemed before he won political rights as against a domineering
State Church, and he was put to death. The Unitarians
blasphemed and they were imprisoned; but when they
became a powerful section of the community they were
tolerated, and more extreme Freethinkers became blas
phemers. It is particularly necessary you should bear this in
mind, because you must consider the very unfair position in
which a man stands who is brought before a tribunal believing in
the existence of the deity and the attributes of the deity, who is
said to be blasphemed in a publication for which it is maintained
he is responsible ; and when at the same time they have to adju
dicate, not only upon the matter of it, but the manner of it.
If they dislike the matter they are sure to object to the manner;
and so a man in my position stands at a dreadful disadvantage.
Blasphemy means a strong attack upon our belief, whatever it
happens to be—that is, our religious belief; and, curiously
enough, I have noticed many publications which urged that the
blasphemy laws should be amended, and it should be made a
crime to insult any form of religious belief. I should not oppose
any such amendment as- that, because it would very soon reduce
the whole thing to an absurdity; for every sect would be prose
cuting every other sect; courts of justice would be filled with
disputes, and the whole blasphemy law would have to be
abolished, and every form of opinion would be equal in the eye of
the law, as I hold it should be.
Our indictment is at common law. The great danger
of this is, there is no statute to be appealed to accurately
defining the crime. Blasphemy is not like theft or murder
—it is more a matter of opinion and taste. And it really
comes to this—that no man can know thoroughly what a
blasphemous libel is; and no man can be sure whether he is
penning a blasphemous libel or not; and the only way to find
out what the offence is, is to go to Holloway Gaol for twelve
�39
months, which is a very unpleasant way of deciding a matter of
this kind. It means that a jury is summoned, and the matter is
put into their hands; and if they don’t like it, that is sufficient
for a verdict of Guilty. It is a very unfortunate thing that any
man should be tried for such an offence at common law. Recently,
when I was tried at the Old Bailey, Mr. Justice North, in his
summing-up, told the jury that any denial of the existence of
deity was blasphemy. On the first occasion the jury would not
bring in a verdict of Guilty, and had to be discharged ; and I was
kept in prison until the next trial took place. Mr. Justice North
told the jury on the second trial nothing of the sort. He left
out altogether the words as to denying the existence of
deity. What made the change in three days ? It is impossible
for me to say. It may be he thought a conviction easier
with such an interpretation of the law; or it may be that
even he, a judge, had read the comments in the daily press,
and that some alteration had been made, perhaps for the
better. The view which was entertained by Mr. Justice
North does not seem to be the view entertained by the Lord
Chief Justice, in whose presence, fortunately, I now stand, if I
may judge by his summing up on the trial of one of my co
defendants in this action last week. Then, again, we have Mr.
Justice Stephen, whois practically at variance, not only with Mr.
Justice North, but with the still higher authority of his lordship;
so that it would largely depend, in being tried at common law,
whether one happened to have one’s trial presided over by this
judge or the other. In the particular case I cited one jury
brought in a verdict of Guilty, but another jury four days before—
although the evidence was exactly the same—declined to. So
that you have a double uncertainty—your fate depends upon the
view of the law entertained by the judge who presides at the
trial, and on the tastes and the convictions of the jury. I submit,
gentlemen, that is a very grave defect, and puts at great disad
vantage men who stand in my position. If a man is to be sent
to gaol for twelve months, blasphemous libel should be defined
by statute. The 9th and 10th William III. is the only statute
dealing with blasphemy. It was held in the Court of Queen’s
Bench when Mr. Bradlaugh moved to quash the indictment,
on which I am now being tried, that this statute was aimed
at specific offenders, and only laid down so much law as re
ferred to them. No doubt that is true enough; but still, if
the statute does not fully define blasphemy, yet everything’
included within the statute is clearly blasphemy. There is not a
word about ridicule, abuse, or contumely. The statute says any
body who has professed the Christian religion within these
realms, shall, for denying the existence of god, or saying there are
more gods than one, or denying the truth of Christianity, be sub
�40
ject to certain penalties. The law was called “ ferocious ” by Mr.
Justice Stephen himself, and it admirably enlightens us as to the
nature of the age in which those Blasphemy Laws originated.
So that even the statute appears to contain a view of the
law. which the Lord Chief Justice so considerately said he should
not feel justified in being a party to, unless it were clearer than it
seemed to him.
Having said we were tried at common law, and dwelt
on its disadvantages, I ask what is common law? Com
mon law is judge-made law and jury-made law. Mr. Justice
Stephen on this point has some very notable remarks in
the introduction to his “Digest of the Criminal Law”:—“It
is not until a very late stage in its history that law is regarded
as a series of commands issued by the sovereign power of the
State. Indeed, even in our own time and country that concep
tion of it is gaining ground very slowly. An earlier and, to some
extent, a still prevailing view of it is, that it is more like an art
or science, the principles of which are first enunciated vaguely,
and are gradually reduced to precision by their application to
particular circumstances. Somehow, no one can say precisely
how, though more or less plausible and instructive conjectures
upon the subject may be made, certain principles came to be
accepted as the law of the land. The judges held themselves
bound to decide the cases which came before them according to
those principles, and as new combinations of circumstances
threw light on the way in which they operated, the principles
were, in some cases, more fully developed and qualified, and
in others evaded or practically set at nought and repealed.”
That is precisely what I ask you to do in this case. I ask you
to consider that this common law is merely old common usage,
altogether alien to the spirit of our age; and that it cannot be
enforced without making invidious, unfair, and infamous distinc
tions between one form of heresy and another ; and I ask you to
say that it shall not be enforced at all if you have any
power to prevent it.
<
Why should you, as a special jury in this High Court
of Justice, not set a new precedent? I propose briefly
to give a few reasons why you should. Blasphemy, my
co-defendant told you, was a manufactured crime. I urge
that it is altogether alien to the spirit of our age. The junior
counsel for the prosecution said blasphemy was prosecuted very
seldom ; it had not been prosecuted in the City for fifty years ; and
he urged as a reason that blasphemy was not often committed.
“ For fifty years !” That is not true. From my slight knowledge
of literature, which is not, as one of the journals said, entirely
confined to Tom Paine and the writings of Mr. Bradlaugh, I
could undertake to furnish the junior counsel for the prosecu-
�41
lion with some tons of blasphemy published during that fifty
years; although I probably could not find the prosecution such a
powerful motive as they have recently had for proceeding against
these blasphemous libels. The law against blasphemy is practi
cally obsolete—the fact that there have been no such prosecutions
for fifty years ought to settle that point. Mr. Justice Stephen
himself, as to chapter 17 of his “ Digest,” which includes the
whole of the offences against religion, says: “The whole of this
law is practically obsolete, and might be repealed with ad
vantage ; ” and he further said it would be sufficient as
to blasphemy if the power of prosecution were confined to
■the Attorney-General. In this case the Attorney-General
has had nothing to do with the prosecution. The jury were
told in another court the Public Prosecutor had instituted it.
As a matter of fact, he simply allowed it. The Public Prose
cutor has undergone himself a good deal of ridicule, and I
submit that his allowance or disallowance is scarcely equivalent
to the allowance or disallowance of the Attorney-General, and cer
tainly not equivalent to the institution of proceedings by the
Attorney-General. Mr. Justice Stephen says: “My own opinion
is that blasphemy, except cursing and swearing, ought not to be
made the subject of temporal punishment at all, though, if it
tended to produce a breach of the peace, it might be dealt with
on those grounds.” I shall have a few words to say about breach
■of the peace shortly. Thus Mr. Justice Stephens says: “This law
is practically obsolete,” and further that no temporal punishment
should be inflicted for it. You are made the entire judges of
this question, under the very clear language of the celebrated
Libel Act, called “Fox’s Act,” passed in 1792, to regulate libel
trials. When issue was joined between the Crown and one or
more defendants, it was there laid down that the jury were not
bound to bring in a verdict of guilty merely on the proof of
the publication by such defendants of a paper, and of the sense
ascribed to the same in the indictment. So that I hold
you are the complete judges; there is no power on earth that
can go behind your judgment. You are not bound to give a
reason for your verdict; you are simply called upon to say
guilty or not guilty; and I submit you have a perfect right to
say guilty or not—especially not guilty—on the broad issue of
the question ; and thus to declare that 'this blasphemy law is
utterly alien to the spirit of our age.
It would be impossible for the old common law to be enforced
now. The old common law was never put in force against
persons who only ridiculed the Christian religion. Our
indictment charges us with bringing the Christian religion into
■disbelief ; so that bringing it into disbelief is blasphemy. That
is logical—bringing it into disbelief is bringing it into gross con
�42
tempt. All the cases, from Nayler down to the latest cases of
forty years ago, and as far down as the year 1867, turn upon
the right of a man to questi m and oppose publicly the truth
of the Christian religion. Peter Annett stated in the “ Free
Inquirer” his disbelief in the inspiration of the Pentateuch, and
was punished for it; Bishop Colenso can prove the same thing in
seven big volumes, and not only remain a colonial Bishop
of the English Church, but men of culture, like Mr. Matthew
Arnold rebuke him for disproving what no sensible
person believes. In the case of Woolston, he languished
in Newgate year after year, and I believe he died there.
For what? For saying that the miracles of the New Testament
should not be taken literally, but allegorically. Mr. Matthew
Arnold says that the Bible miracles are fairy tales, and are all
doomed, and that educated and intelligent men treat them as
portions, of the world’s superstition. Nobody now thinks of
prosecuting Mr. Matthew Arnold, yet he is guilty of the same
offence as Woolston. Bishop Colenso is guilty of the same
offence as Peter Annett, and yet no one thinks now-a-days of
punishing him. If, gentlemen, the common law is more humane
now, it is only because the spirit of the age is more
humane. That you are bound to take into consideration, and
that should influence you in giving a verdict of not guilty to me
and to my co-defendant.
I may refer you to a case which occurred in the year
1867, which will show you that the common law has always
held that it is a crime to call in question the truth of
the Christian religion. In the year 1867 the case of Cowan
v. Milbourn was decided in the Court of Exchequer • it
originally arose in Liverpool. The secretary of the Liverpool
Secular Society had engaged the assembly room for the purpose
of two lectures. The lectures were entitled, “The character
and teaching of Christ; the former defective, the latter mis
leading;” and the second, “The Bible shown to be no more
inspired than any other book.” There is not a word of ridicule,
sarcasm or contumely in this language ; yet when the owner of the
rooms, after the expense of advertising had been incurred, refused
the use of them for the lectures, and declined to compensate
the persons who had rented for those two nights, it was held by
the Court of Exchequer that it was an illegal act to deliver such
lectures with such titles, and that no damages could be re
covered, because the rooms had been declined for the perpetration
of an illegal act. Acting on this case, some solicitors at South
ampton last summer, after the expenses of advertising had been
incurred, refused the use of the Victoria Assembly Room for a
lecture by myself, on the ground that the lecture would be an
illegal act. The lady who owned the room was pious, althorrgb
�43
she had not the honesty to recompense my friends for damages
they had incurred on the strength of her own agent’s written
contract. As far back then as 1867, it was held that any im
pugning of the truth of Christianity was an illegal act, and my
contention, therefore, holds good that bringing Christianity into
disbelief is as much a part of blasphemy as bringing it into
contempt.
I know there are objections urged against this view.
It is said that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of
England. We have had, fortunately, a trenchant criticism of
this by his lordship. It was pointed out by his lordship, in
language so precise that I am sorry I cannot quote it, that if
Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land, in the
sense in which the words are generally used, then it would be
impossible to bring about any reform of law, because, no law
could be criticised, much less ridiculed, on the same ground that
Christianity, which is part of the law, cannot be ridiculed or
criticised. Something occurred to me which seems to go even
further than that; and that is, that if Christianity were part and
parcel of the law of the land, then the prosecution for blasphemy
would be an absurdity. There is no crime in criticising any law,
or ridiculing any law, in the pages of “ Punch.” If Christianity
were part and parcel of the law of the land, there could be no
crime in criticising it. That view was taken by the Royal Com
missioners in 1841. In their report they went into it at great
length. The Royal Commission did endorse that view, and
pointed out fully that if Christianity were part of the law of the
land, still the law could be criticised and ridiculed, and, there
fore, no blasphemy indictment could lie on any such grounds. Sir
Matthew Hale, a judge of the 17th century, first said that
Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the country.
He was a man of great intellectual ability, and a most upright
judge ; but if he lived in our age, would he endorse such ridicu
lous. language now? He was infected by the superstition
of his age. This same judge sentenced two women to be hung
for witchcraft, an offence which we now know never could exist,
notwithstanding the verse in Exodus, “Thou shalt not suffer
a witch to live.” The time will come when it will be thought
quite as absurd to prosecute people for the crime of blasphemy
as we think it now to hang people for witchcraft. If blasphemy
be a crime at all, it is only a crime against god, who, if he be
omniscient, knows it all, and who, if omnipotent, is quite
capable of punishing it all.
Since Sir Matthew Hale’s time there have been great altera
tions. in the state and in society, alterations which will justify
you in setting this old barbarous law aside. To begin with,
compulsory oaths have been abolished in our courts of justice
�44
Evidence can now be given by Freethinkers on affirmation.
Mr. Bradlaugh last week was acquitted on the evidence of
people, every one of whom affirmed, and not one of whom
took the oath. Next, Jews are admitted to Parliament. I
don’t wish to enter into a religious discussion, or to provoke a
dying bigotry, but I do say, that if with the views the Jews are
known to entertain of the founder of Christianity, and if with
the acts of their high priests and scribes, as recorded in the New
Testament, still unrepudiated by the Jewish people, they
can be admitted in our national legislature, and help to
make laws which are stupidly said to be protective of Chris
tianity, then it is absurd for Christians to prosecute Freethinkers
for carrying on honest criticism of doctrines and tenets they don’t
believe, and which they think they are bound to oppose and
attack. Then again, the Christian oath of allegiance that used to
be taken in Parliament, has been abolished. Now the House of
Commons simply clings to a narrow theistic ledge. I have
heard not only counsel but a judge speaking to a jury of Jesus
Christ as our lord and savior, when they ought to have
known—perhaps did know, but didn't remember in the heat of
enthusiasm—that the jury were not bound to be Christians ; that
there might Ise some among them who knew Christianity and
rejected it. That shows you, still further, that the principles
and opinions which lie at the base of these proceedings ‘ire not
universal as they were once ; and that it is time all invidious
distinctions were abolished, and all forms of opinion made to
stand on their own bottom; and if they cannot stand on
their own bottom, then in the name of goodness let them fall.
Now these alterations in the state of society are more particu
larly shown in the writings of our principal men. Mr. Leslie
Stephen, for instance, in anwsering the question, “Are we
Christians?” says: “No. I should reply we are not Christians; a
few try to pass themselves off as Christians, because, whilst
substantially men of this age, they can cheat themselves into
using the old charms in the desperate attempt to conjure down
alarming social symptoms; a great number call themselves
Christians, because, in one way or another, the use of the old
phrases and th e old forms is still enforced by the great sanction
of respectability; and some for the higher reason, that they fear
to part with the grain along with the chaff; but such men have
ceased substantially, though only a few have ceased avowedly to
be Christian in any intelligible sense of the name.” No one who
has any knowledge of the kind of language held by intelligent
men will doubt that such sentiments are exceedingly common.
You all know the great and honored name of Darwin,
who spent his whole life in undermining the very foun
dations of Christianity and all supernatural belief. I know
�45
when the bigotry which opposed him, and under the prostituted
name of religion said, “ Thus far shalt thou go, and no further,”
saw it was evident he was victor, it professed to honor him and
had him buried in Westminster Abbey; but the world is begin
ning to know if the Church has Darwin's corpse, it is all of
Darwin that the Church has had or ever will have.
A great scientist who doesn’t confine himselfto mere science, as
for the most part Darwin did, says: “ The myths of Paganism are as
dead as Osiris and Zeus, and the man who should revive them would
be justly laughed to scorn ; but the coeval imaginations current
among the rude inhabitants of Palestine, recorded by writers
whose very name and age are admitted by every scholar to be
unknown, have unfortunately not yet shared their fate, but,
even at this day are regarded by nine-tenths of the civilised
world as the authoritative standard of fact, and the criterion of
the justice of scientific conclusions in all that relates to the origin
of things, and among them, of species. In this nineteenth cen
tury, as at the dawn of science, the cosmogony of the semibarbarous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher and the
opprobrium of the orthodox. Who shall number the patient
and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until now,
whose lives have been embittered and their good name blasted
by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolaters ? Who shall count the host
of weaker men whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the
effort to harmonise impossibilities—whose life has been wasted
in the attempt to force the generous new wine of science into
the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by the outcry of the same
strong party ? It is true that if philosophers have suffered their
cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished theologians lie about
the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of
Hercules, and history records that whenever science and ortho
doxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to
retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed, if not annihilated,
scotched if not slain. But orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the
world of thought. It learns not, neither can it forget; and
though, at present, bewildered and afraid to move, it is as wil
ling as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis contains the beginning and end of sound science, and to visit, with such
petty thunderbolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl those
who refuse to degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism.”
Professor Huxley writes that, but he doesn’t stand here on the
charge I have to answer, and why ? One is, the language of
a ten-and-sixpenny book, and the other the language of a penny
paper.
J
Now, gentlemen, take another case. Dr. Maudsly says €
in his work on “Responsibility in Mental Disease,that
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea, the prophets, were all three mad,
J
�46
{Laughter.) He doesn’t stand here. Why? Because it would
not be safe to attack a man like that He is part of a powerful
corporation that would rally round any of its members attacked
and, therefore, he is left unmolested. Mr. Herbert Spencer, in
his “ Study of Sociology,” speaks thus of the Christian Trinity:
u Here we have theologians who believe that our national welfare
will be endangered, if there is not in all churches an enforced
repetition of the dogmas that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are
each of them almighty; and yet there are not three almighties
but one almighty; that one of the almighties suffered on the
cross and descended into hell to pacify another of them; and
that whosoever does not believe this ‘without doubt shall
perish everlastingly.’ ” That is language which is, perhaps, as
scornful as any language a man like Mr. Herbert Spencer could
use. There is no essential difference between that and language
of the mcst militant Freethought. Mr. John Stuart Mill, who
was not only a writer with a world-wide reputation, but who
occupied a seat in the House of Commons, said that his father
looked upon religion as the greatest enemy of morality; first by
setting up “fictitious excellencies, belief in creeds, devo
tional feelings and ceremonies, not connected with the good of
human kind—and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for
genuine virtues; but, above all, by radically vitiating the
standard of morals, making it consist in doing the will of a
being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation,
but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hatefuL I have
a hundred times heard him say, that all ages and nations have
represented their gods as wicked, in a constantly increasing pro
gression, that mankind have gone on adding trait after trait till
they reached the most perfect conception of wickedness which
the human mind can devise, and have called this god, and
prostrated themselves before it. This
plus ultra oi wicked
ness be considered to be embodied in what is commonly pre
sented to mankind as the creed of Christianity,” In one of
those alleged libels, the only passage I shall refer to, there is a
statement to the effect—a statement not in my handwriting—
(unfortunately I am in the position of having not only to defend
my own right but the right of others to be heard) in one of those
libels, not written by me, it is said that the deity of the Old
Testament is as ferocious as a tiger. Wbat is the difference
between a phrase like that and the extract I have read from
the writings of John Stuart Mill ? It is even worse to say “ that
the god of Christianity is the perfection of conceivable wickedness.”
The difference is that one is the language of a nine-shilling
book, and the other the language of a penny paper. Writers
and publishers of nine-shilling books should not be allowed to go
scot free and the writers of penny papers be made the scape-
�47
goat of the cultured agnostics of the day. John Stuart Mill, in
another book, says: “Think of a being who could be the ideali
sation of wickedness.” That is the language of John Stuart
Mill. His great friend, George Grote, the author of the
“ History of Greece,” is commonly admitted to be the
author of a little book, “An Analysis of the Influence of Natural
Religion,” which he put together from the notes of that great
jurispr'udist Jeremy Bentham, in which natural religion is
described as one historic craze, the foe of the human race,
and its doctrines and priesthood are denounced in the most
extreme language. I will ask your attention to another writer.
Lord Derby—who has given his support to a movement for the
abolition of the blasphemy laws—some months ago, presiding at a
meeting at Liverpool, said Mr. Matthew Arnold was one of the
few men who had a rightful claim to be considered a thinker.
He is a writer of culture so fine that some people say he is a
writer of haughty-culture. (Laughter.) In his fine and delicate
way he ridicules the Christian Trinity. He says : “In imagining
a sort of infinitely magnified and improved Lord Shaftesbury,
with a race of vile offenders to deal with, whom his natural
goodness would incline him to let off, only his sense of justice
will not allow it; then a younger Lord Shaftesbury, on the scale
of his father and very dear to him, who might live in grandeur
and splendor if he liked, but who prefers to leave his home, to
go and live among the race of offenders, and to be put to an
ignominious death, on condition that his merits shall be counted
against their demerits, and that his father’s goodness shall be
restrained no longer from taking effect, but any offender shall
be admitted to the benefit of it on simply pleading the satis
faction made by the son ; and then, finally, a third Lord Shaftes
bury, still on the same high scale, who keeps very much in the
background, and works in a very occult manner, but very
efficaciously nevertheless, and who is busy in applying every
where the benefits of the son’s satisfaction and the father’s
goodness.” Again, the same writer says: “ For anyone who
weighs the matter well, the missionary in clerical coat and gaiters
whom one sees in woodcuts preaching to a group of picturesque
orientals, is from the inadequacy of his criticism, both of his
hearer’s religion and of his own, and his signal misunderstanding
of the very volume he holds in his hand, a. hardly less grotesque
object in his intellectual equipment for his task than in his out
ward attire.” The same writer actually introduces, by way of
showing the absurdities into which Christians themselves have
run, a long and learned discussion which took place at the
University of Paris nearly three centuries ago, as to whether
Jesus at his ascension had his clothes on, or appeared naked
before his disciples ; and if he did, what became of his clothes ?
�48
(Laughter.) If such a thing had appeared in the “ Free
thinker,” the junior counsel for the prosecution would havesaid “they are bringing our savior’s name into contempt,
they are reproaching the Christian religion, and we bring
them before you that they may be handed over to the tender
mercies of the law.” Mr. Matthew Arnold is in no fear of
prosecution; it is only the poorer and humbler Freethinkers
who are to be attacked. Mr. John Morley-—who has thrown his
great influence in the scale against me—in his book on
. “Voltaire,” says, “That a religion which has shed more
blood than any other religion has no right to quarrel over a few
I epigrams.” There are writings of Voltaire’s which, if published
in England now, would be made the subject of a prosecution, if
there was any honesty in conducting these prosecutions.
Mr. Morley now joins the chorus of those who howl the false word
“indecent” at me ; but no living person, no sentence under this
old law, can rob me of the esteem of my friends or the approval of
my conscience ; and I say deliberately, I would rather be sitting
down in my cell, or meditatively walking up and down with racking
anxiety at my breast, than walk into the House of Commons
throwing my past behind me, and treating those whose views
are essentially identical with mine with all the rancor of a
renegade.
Lord Amberley, who is not even a plebeian, writes as
follows of the Old Testament: “Such a catalogue of crimes
would be sufficient to destroy the character of any Pagan divi
nity whatever. I fail to perceive any reason why the Jews alone
should be privileged to represent their god as guilty of such
actions without suffering the inference which in other cases
would undoubtedly be drawn—namely, that their conceptions of
deity were not of a very exalted order, nor their principles of'
morals of a very admirable kind. There is, indeed, nothing ex
traordinary in the fact that, living in a barbarous age, the ancient
Hebrews should have behaved barbarously. The reverse would
rather be surprising. But the remarkable fact is, that their
savage deeds, and the equally savage ones attributed to their
god, should have been accepted by Christendom as growing in
the one case from the commands, in the other, from the imme
diate action of a just and beneficent being. When the Hindusrelate the story of Brahma’s incest with his daughter, they add
that the god was bowed down with shame on account of his
subjugation by ordinary passion. But while they thus betray
their feeling that even a divine being is not superior to all the
standards of morality, no such consciousness is ever apparent
in the narrators of the passions of Jehovah. While far worse
offences are committed by him, there is no trace in his character
of the grace of shame.” If that had appeared in the “ Free
�49
thinker ” it would have formed one of the counts of the indict
ment. But no one has interfered with Lord Amberley. A
question was asked by the junior counsel for the prosecution of
one witness, whether a certain illustration in one of the numbers
was meant to caricature almighty god. The question was
stopped by his lordship. With Lord Amberley’s words before
us, it is easy to understand that could not be meant to represent
almighty god. A man who after careful reflexion, after weigh
ing evidence, after exercising his full intellectual and moral
faculties upon the question, has arrived at the conclusion that there
is an infinite spirit of the universe akin to ours, though greater
—such a man would never hear any ridicule or sarcasm from my
lips, or from the pen or lips of any Freethinker in the country,
because his belief is not amenable to such criticism or attack. It
is not almighty god who could be ridiculed in a picture like that.
It is the Hebrew deity—the deity of semi-barbarous people who
lived 3000 years ago ; a deity reflecting their own barbarity, who
told them to go to lands they never tilled, and cities they had never
built, to take possession of them in the name of god, and brutally
murder every man, woman, and child in them. Can it be a crime
to ridicule or even to caricature a mythological personage like
this? It is not almighty god who is ridiculed, it is simply
the deity of those barbarous Hebrews who have become decent
and civilised now. The influences of culture and humanity are
at work, and although we utter the same old shibboleths, we
have different ideas, different tastes, and I hope different aspira
tions.
The Duke of Somerset has openly impugned the Chris
tian religion. He gives up the deity of Jesus, and critieises
in a hostile manner the holy scripture. If the law were put
in force fairly, it would be put in force there. Shelley has been
referred to. Shelley wrote, among other poems, one called
“ Queen Mab.” He speaks of the deity of the Christians as a
vengeful, pitiless, and almighty fiend, whose mercy is a nick
name for the rage of tameless tigers, hungering for blood. As
the rest of this extract is couched in similar language, I forbear,
out of consideration for the feelings of those who may differ
from me, from reading further. But what I have read is suffi
cient to show that Shelley’s writing is as blasphemous as anything
that is to be found in any of these alleged libels. And in
one of his maturer poems, that magnificent “ Ode to Liberty,”
he speaks of Christ as the “ Galilean serpent”—
44 The Galilean serpent forth did creep,
And made thy world an indistinguishable heap.”
Nobody thinks of prosecuting those who sell Shelley’s works
D
�50
now, and even the leading counsel for the prosecution could
actually accept office under a Ministry, of which the First Lord
of the Admiralty, on whose bookstalls Shelley's works are ex
posed for sale, was a member. Of the poets of our day, it mav
be said, three-fourths of them write quite as blasphemously,
according to the language of the prosecution, as any one in the
“Freethinker.” Mr. Swinburne, one of our greatest, if not our
greatest poet—some say he is our greatest, I don't think so—uses
in a poetical form the same language that was usedby Elijah to the
priests of Baal. You will remember the priests of Baal and Elijah
had a sort of competitive theological examination, and they
put the question to a practical test They built altars and
they cried respectively on their gods. The priests of Baal cut
and gashed themselves and cried aloud, but the fire would not
come. W hat did Elijah do ? Did he call them to a kind of
theological discussion, and say: “Now there is a mistake some
where, and we must thrash this out according to the well-known
canons of logic ?” No, he turned upon the priests with what
Rabelais would call savglante derision, and he said, in the
language of to-day: “ Where is your god, what is he doing, why
doesn’t he answer you, has he gone on a journey, what is the
matter with him ?” That is the language of irony and the deadliest
sarcasm, and it is a wonder to me the priests of Baal didn’t turn
round and kill the prophet on the spot. If they had had one
tithe of the professed religious bigotry of our prosecutors they
would have done so, but history doesn’t record that they did.
Mr. Swinburne, in his great “Hymn to Man,” turns the same
kind of derision on the priests of Christendom. He repre
sents them as calling upon their deity, and he says: “ Crv
aloud, for the people blaspheme.” Then he says, by way of
finish:—
“ Kingdom and will hath he none in him left him, nor warmth in
his breath ;
Till his corpse be cast out of the sun will ye know not the truth
of his death ?
Surely, ye say, he is strong, though the times be against him and
men,
Yet a little, ye say, and how long, till he come to show judgment •
again ?
Shall god then die as the beasts die ? who is it hath broken his
rod?
O god, lord god of thy priests, rise up now and show thyself god.
They cry out, thine elect, thine aspirants to heavenward, whose
faith is as flame;
O thou the lord god of our tyrants, they call thee, their god by
thy name .
�51
By thy name that in hell-fire was written, and burned at the
point of thy sword,
Thou art smitten, thou god, thou art smitten ; thy death is upon
thee, O lord.
And the love-song of earth as thou diest resounds through the
wind of her wings—
Glory to man in the highest! for man is the master of things.”
In his lines apostrophising Jesus on the Cross he says :—
“ O hidden face of man, whereover
The years have woven a viewless veil—
If thou wast verily man’s lover,
What did thy love or blood avail ?
Thy blood the priests make poison of,
And in gold shekels coin thy love.
So when our souls look back to thee
They sicken, seeing against thy side,
Too foul to speak of or to see,
The leprous likeness of a bride,
Whose kissing lips through his lips grown
Leave their god rotten to the bone.
When we would see thee man, and know
What heart thou hadst toward men indeed,
Lo, thy blood-blackened altars ; lo,
The lips of priests that pray and feed
While their own hell’s worm curls and licks
The poison of the crucifix.
Thou bad’st let children come to thee ;
What children now but curses come ?
What manhood in that god can be
Who sees their worship, and is dumb ?
No soul that lived, loved, wrought, and died,
Is this their carrion crucified.
Nay, if their god and thou be one,
If thou and this thing be the same,
Thou shouldst not look upon the sun;
The sun grows haggard at thy name.
Come down, be done with, cease, give o’er;
Hide thyself, strive not, be no more.”
Mr. Swinburne here draws a distinction which Freethinkers
would draw. Freethinkers may ridicule a mythological deity;
�52
they may ridicule miracles; but they will ’never ridicule the
tragic and pathetic sublimities of human life, which are
sacred, whether enacted in a palace or in a cottage. We know
how to draw the distinction which Mr. Swinburne draws here.
If the quotations 1 have read you had appeared in the “ Free
thinker ” they would have formed one of the counts of the
indictment. The only difference between them is, that one
is in a twelve-shilling book, and and the other in a penny paper.
One short extract from another poet, who is recognised as
possessing the highest excellence by the greatest critics, whose
writings have been praised in the “ Athenaeum ” and the “ Fort
nightly Review.” I am referring to Mr. James Thomson. He
says:—
“ If any human soul at all
Must die the second death, must fall
Into that gulph of quenchless flame
Which keeps its victims still the same,
Unpurified as unconsumed
To everlasting torments doomed;
Then I give God my scorn and hate
And turning back from Heaven’s gate
(Suppose me got there!) bow Adieu!
Almighty Devil da/mn me too.”
If that language had appeared in the “ Freethinker,” it would
have formed one of the counts of the indictment. What is the
difference ? Again, I say, the difference is between a five-shilling
book and a penny paper. When those books were reviewed, did
men point out those passages and condemn them ? Not at all.
They simply praised his genius; blasphemy is not taken into
consideration by men who write for papers of such stand
ing. George Eliot has written many a biting sarcasm, aimed
at the popular idols of the day. She translated Feuerbach’s
“Essence of Christianity,” and Straus’ “Life of Jesus,” both
of which are indictable at common law, though they have never
been attacked. Renan, in his “ Life of Jesus,” supposes that
the raising of Lazarus took place at a time, when under the
messianic delusion the mind of Jesus had become perverted,
and that he had arranged the thing with Lazarus. Anonymous
books are pouring from the press. Here is one published by
Williams and Norgate. It is called the “Evolution of Chris
tianity.” Speaking of the Hebrew scriptures, it says: “Truly,
if the author of Exodus had been possessed of the genius
of Swift, and designed a malignant satire on the god of
the Hebrews, he could have produced nothing more terribly true
to his malicious purpose than the grotesque parody of divine in
tervention in human affairs, depicted in the revolting details
�53
of the Ten Plagues ruthlessly inflicted on the Egyptian
nation.” Only one other instance of ridicule. The writer,
referring to the sudden and mysterious death of Ananias
and Sapphira, as narrated in the Acts of the Apostles, says:
“Ananias and Sapphira his wife sold some property, and
kept back a portion of the price. Perhaps Ananias was a
shrewd practical man, distrustful of socialism, and desirous
of holding something in reserve for possible contingencies.
Or Sapphira may have hinted that, if anything should happen
to her husband before the advent of Jesus in the clouds,
she would not like the position of a pauper scrambling among
the other widows for her daily rations. Whatever may have
been the motives of the doomed couple, if they had been
arraigned before Jesus, he would have assuredly condoned so
trivial an offence; but under the new regime of the holy ghost,
this unhappy husband and wife were condemned to instant
execution.” That is the language of satire, and if it had appeared
in the “Freethinker,” it might have formed one of the counts of
our present indictment.
I have referred you to great Eving writers, to foreign
works pouring into the country ; 1 have referred you
to anonymous writings, and now I hold one .in my hand
which is circulated over the country and bears’ the imprint
of Messrs John and Abel Heywood. It speaks in this way
of Christianity: “Buddhism is the only religion which has
made its way by sheer moral strength; it has become the vast
religion that it is, without the shedding of one drop of blood to
propagate its tenets. The edifice of Christianity is polluted with
blood from keystone to battlement; its tenets and dogmas are
redolent of the savage reek of gore, from the death of its lamb
to that fountain of blood that its poets are never tired of
hymning. . Misery and tears still attend its idiotic dogma of
original sin, and its horrible threatenings of eternal fire.
Buddhism is to Christianity as is a palace of light to a foetid
dungeon.” That is being circulated wholesale by respectable
pubhshers, and it again, I say, might have formed one of the
counts of our indictment if it had appeared in the “ Freethinker.”
Yet we know these publishers will never be molested because
they are not poor, and especially because they don’t happen to be
friendly with a politician, whose enemies want to strike him
with, a religious dagger when they fail to kill him with the
pohtical sword.
I leave that and take the objection that will be raised, that we
have dealt too freely in ridicule. What is it? You will remember
the ending of some of the problems in Euclid, which is what is
called a reductio ad absurdum, that is reducing a thing to an
absurdity. That is ridicule. Ridicule is a method of argument.
�54
The comic papers, in politics, are constantly using it. Why may
it not be used, in religious matters also ? Reference was made to
a caricature, in one of our political journals, which shall be
nameless here. Mr. Gladstone is represented as “ Number 1 •”
and morally the conclusion is that he was the murderer of one
of his dearest friends. Nobody thinks of prosecuting that
paper the idea would be laughed at. We may caricature living'
statesmen, but not what are to us are dead dogmas. Surely
you will not give your warrant to such an absurdity as that. Mr
Buckle says that every man should have a right to treat
opinion as he thinks proper, to argue against it or to ridicule
it, however “ sacred ” it may be. A greater writer than Buckle,
John Stuart Mill, wrote an article in the “Westminster
Review,” on the Richard Carlile prosecutions, in the year 1824 •.
and speaking of ridicule in that article, he says: “If the
proposition that Christianity is untrue, can leg’ally be conveyed
to the mind, what can be more absurd than to condemn it when
conveyed in certain terms ?” I say that this weapon of ridicule
has been used by a very large proportion of the great intellectual
emancipators of mankind; Socrates used it, and at the risk
of offending some, I may say that Jesus used it; Lucian
used it; the early Christian Fathers used it unsparingly
against their Pagan contemporaries ; and I might cull from their
works such a collection of vituperative phrases as would throw
into the shade anything that ever appeared in the “Freethinker.”
Luther used it, and used it well; Erasmus used it; the Lollards
used it; and it was freely used in the Catholic and Protestant
controversy that raged through and after the reign of Henry
VHI. It has been used ever since. Voltaire used it in France.
I know some may think that it is impolitic to introduce the name
of \ oltaire here, but Lord Brougham says that Voltaire was the
greatest spiritual emancipator since the days of Luther. Theonly difference between such men as Voltaire, D’Alembert, and
Diderot, was his illimitable wit. He had wit and his enemies
hated him for it. Ridicule has been used in all times.
To take ridicule. from our literature you would have to go
through such a winnowing and. pruning process that you would
destroy it. Eliminate from Byron his ridicule, eliminate from
Shelley his ridicule, eliminate from other great masters their
ridicule, and what a loss there would be ! Ridicule is a weapon
which has been used by so many great emancipators of man
kind ; and if we have used it, even in a coarser manner than
they, it is the same weapon; and if the weapon is a legal one
there can be no illegality in the mere method of using it, and
there has been no such illegality shown. If ridicule is a legal
weapon, the mere style or manner cannot render it illegal. I
say that it is a dangerous thing to make men amenable to criminal.
�55
prosecution simply on a question of opinion and taste. Really if
you are to eliminate ridicule from religious controversy,' you
hand it over entirely to the dunces. The two gravest things living
are the owl and the ass. But we don’t want to become asinine
or owl-like. (Laughter.) It seenjs to me, if I may make a pun,
that the gravest thing in the world is the grave ; and if gentlemen
want the world to be utterly grave they will turn it into a grave
yard, and that is precisely what the bigots have been trying to
do for many thousands of years. I ask you not to abet them by
subjecting us to a daily unseen torture—which means slow
murder ; which cannot kill a strong man in two or three months,
but which may, in twelve months, convert him into a physical
and mental wreck, may make him a byword and scorn. Another
evidence forsooth of the truth and mercy of their creed!
And now, gentlemen, I will ask your attention for a minute
or two to the argument about outraging people’s feelings.
You never heard it proposed that this should be mutual; it is
always a one-sided thing. As Mill says in his great essay on
“Liberty:” “With regard to what is commonly meant by in
temperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and
the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more
sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to
both sides ; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of
them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing
they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will
be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest
zeal and righteous indignation.” I should regard with more
favor this argument if it were attempted to be made mutual.
Suppose I were to put into your hands a book like that of Father
Pinamonti’s “Hell open to Christians,” which is circulated by
the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It contains a
picture of the torments of hell for every day in the week. That
is repulsive to my mind. In my opinion it would debauch the
minds of children into whose hands it fell, but I should not think
of calling in the law to stop it. Opinion and taste must correct
opinion and taste, and the proper jury to sit upon such a question
is the great outside jury of public opinion. Indecent attacks on
religion it is said must be put down. I want you to cast out
ofyour minds altogether the absurd talk of indecency or licentious
ness. If we are to be brought in guilty, let it be of clean blas
phemy if you will; and don’t by confusing the real nature of our
alleged offence, say that if we ought not to be punished for
blasphemy, we ought to be punished for indecency, of which
I say we are not guilty.
It is said we must not make ourselves a nuisance. I have
looked through the law of nuisance, and I don’t think there is
anything in it to which this libel can approximate. If a man
�56
starts chemical works close to you, and poisons the atmosphere
you breathe, you have no remedy but to go to law and stop it, or
else remove your business and residence. That is trenching
on your rights. In a case of this sort every man has his
remedy. There is no Act of Parliament to compel any person to
purchase a copy of the “ Freethinker.” The copies that will be
placed in your hands were purchased, not to be read, but for the
purposes of prosecution. It was not a surreptitious thing; it was
not a publication entitled the “ Christian Investigator,” with
freethought of the most insidious kind in every line. It is
called the “ Freethinker; ” the man who purchased it must have
done so deliberately, and gone into the shop to do it. As it was
not a paper freely exposed in the shop windows in London, a
man must have meant, before he went into the shop, to purchase
that very thing, and must have known the character of the con
tents before be purchased it. I submit that as a man is not
forced to purchase or read the paper, the least he can do is
to allow other people to exercise their rights. It appears now
that liberty is to be taken in the sense of the rough Yankee, who
defined it as the right to do as he pleased and to make everybody
else do so too. Bigotry puts forward a claim, not only to be
protected from having unwelcome things forced on its attention,
but to prevent all men from seeing what it happens to dislike.
Now, I will just draw your attention to what we have been told
is the proper view of this question. Starkie on “Libel” has
been quoted. I have not got Starkie’s work, but I have got
Folkard’s edition of the “Law of Libel,” and I must quote from
that. The fact that I have not been able to get a copy of Starkie
shows in itself the ridiculous nature of this prosecution. That a
man should be in peril of losing his liberty on the dictum of
“the late Mr. Starkie” is a most dreadful thing. I hope that
won’t continue. He says: “A malicious and mischievous
intention, or what is equivalent to such an intention in law, as
well as in morals—a state of apathy and indifference to the
interests of society—is the broad boundary between right and
wrong.” I say it is not so, and that an overt act of crime is
broad boundary between right and wrong. If it be alleged I am
apathetic to the interests of society, I give it the most emphatic
denial. When “nefarious profit” is talked about, I tell the
learned gentlemen for the prosecution that they get far more
out of their advocacy than I do out of mine. I tell them that a
man who throws in his lot with an unpopular cause must
not count on profit; he can only count on the satisfaction
of what to him is duty done. There is no such thing as
apathy here to the interests of society. I have given of my time
and means, for great political and social causes, as much as these
men. I am no more apathetic to the interests of society than
�57
"they are. All these words mean very little. The contention
that has been raised is unsubstantial, and rests merely upon the
use of adjectives. These are not questions of fact, and when the
prosecution talk about “ maliciously insulting,” “ wickedly doing
so and so,” they simply use a string of adjectives which every
man may interpret differently from every other man, a string of
adjectives which I am quite sure would not allow any jury of
Freethinkers to bring in a verdict of Guilty against me and my
co-defendant. I am sorry if that is the kind of law by which a
man is to be tried. If it is so I can only deplore it; but it seems
I® me that Starkie’s law of blasphemous libel is simply a noose put
round, the neck of every man who writes or speaks on the subject
of religion; and if he happens to be on the unpopular side some
body will pull the string, and without being worse than those in
the race before him, he is tripped up, and it may be strangled.
I hope I am not to be tried under that law—if it must be so I
can only deplore it.
I am now, gentlemen, drawing nearly to a close. I want to
say that blasphemy is simply a relic of ecclesiasticism. Kenan
says he has searched the whole Roman law before the time
•of . Constantine, without finding a single edict against any
Opinions. Professor Hunter says practically the same thing.
Blasphemy and heresy were originally not tried by secular courts
like these at all—they were tried by ecclesiastical courts. Lord
' Coke, of ancient but of great authority on the subject of law,
said blasphemy belonged to the king’s ecclesiastical law;
and when the writ de lieretico comburendo was abolished in the
reign of Charles H., there was still special reservation made for
ecclesiastical courts to try offences. But when the clergy began
to lose their power over the people, the judges brought in the
very heresy law that had been abolished; the same heresy
with another name and a cleaner face. Without the slightest
disrespect to the judges of to-day, one can maintain that
in bad old times, when judges depended so much upon the favor
of the Crown and the privileged classes, and when the Church
of England was held necessary to the maintainance of the con
stitution, it was not wonderful that they should deliver
judgments on the question of blasphemy, which really made
it heresy as against the State Church. I say that blas
phemy meant then, and always has meant, heresy against the
State Church. I am told we might have discussion on con
troverted points of religion if decently conducted. That was not
the language of those great judges of the past. They say we
might discuss controverted points of the Ohnsticcn religion_
those that were controverted amongst learned Christians; but
that the great dogmas that lay at the base of the articles of the
Established Church could not be called in question; and I could
�58
give judgment after judgment. But I will give you one casethat happened in this century. In the case of the Queen against
Gathercole, in which the defendant libelled the Scorton Nunnery,.
Baron Alderson laid it down : “ That a person may without bei-ng
liable to prosecution for it, attack Judaism or any religious sect
(save the established religion of the country), and the only reason
why the latter is in a different situation from the others is,,
because it is the form established by law, and it is therefore a part
of the constitution of the country.” Russell on “Crimes,”
volume 3, page 196, gives the case a little more fully. He
says: “When a defendant was charged with publishing a libel
upon a religious order, consisting of females, professing the
Roman Catholic faith, called the Scorton Nunnery, Alderson,
B., observed a person may, without being liable to prosecution
for it, attack Judaism or Mahomedanism, or even any sect of the
Christian religion save the established religion of the country,,
and the only reason why the latter is in a different situation from
the other is, because it is the form established by law, and is
therefore part of the constitution of the country.”
Now, gentlemen, that supports my contention that heresy
and blasphemy originally meant, and still ought to mean,,
simply ridicule of the State Church or denial of its doctrines
that where religious sects differ from the State Church,
no matter what sect of Nonconformity it be, whether it be a
section of the great Roman Catholic Church itself, or a
Jewish body or Mahomedan believing in the existence of a deity,
yet on those grounds, when they differ from the Established
Church, they have no protection against ridicule or sarcasm at
law. Gentlemen, will you yield that preposterous and invidious
right to the Established Church ? If any of you is a Dissenter,
remember the murders, the robberies, and the indignities in
flicted on your ancestors by the State Church. If any one of you
is a Quaker, remember that the gaols of London were full of
your ancestors who literally rotted away in them. Gentlemen,
remember that, and don’t give this State Church any protection..
Is it to be protected against ridicule, sarcasm, or argument, or
other forms of attack ? It has its livings worth ten or twelve
millions a year ; its has its edifices for worship in every parish of
the country; it has funds for the purposes of propaganda and
defence apart from its State connexions. It has had, until very
recently, practically all the educational appliances in its own
hands; and is it, gentlemen, to be protected against the onslaughts
of a few comparatively poor men? If a Church with such
advantages cannot hold it own, in the name of truth let it
go down. To prosecute us in the interests of this Church, though
ostensibly in the name of god, is to prostitute all that is sacred in.
religion, and to degrade what should be a great spiritual power,.
�59
into a mere police agent, a haunter of criminal courts, and an
instructor of Old Bailey special pleaders.
Every man has a right to three things—protection for person,
property, and character, and all that can be legitimately derived
from these. The ordinary law of libel gives a man protection for his
character, but it is surely monstrous that he should claim protection
for his opinions and tastes. All that he can claim is that his tastes
shall not be violently outraged against his will. I hope, gentlemen,
you will take that rational view of the question. We have libelled
no man’s character, we have invaded no man’s person or pro
perty. This crime is a constructed crime, originally manu
factured by priests in the interests of their own order to put
down dissent and heresy. It now lingers amongst us as a legacy
utterly alien to the spirit of our age, which unfortunately
we have not had resolution enough to cast among those absur
dities which Time holds in his wallet of oblivion.
One word, gentlemen, about breach of the peace. Mr. Justice
Stephen said well, that no temporal punishment should be in
flicted for blasphemy unless it led to a breach of the peace. I
have no objection to that, provided we are indicted for a breach
of the peace. Very little breach of the peace might make
a good case of blasphemy. A breach of the peace in a case like
this must not be constructive ; it must be actual. They might
have put' somebody in the witness-box who would have said that
reading the “ Freethinker ” had impaired his digestion and dis
turbed his sleep. (Laughter.) They might have even found
somebody who said it was thrust upon him, and that he was
induced to read it, not knowing its character. Gentlemen, they
have not attempted to prove that any special publicity was
given to it outside the circle of the people who approved
it. They hav6 not even shown there was an advertisement
of it in any Christian or religious paper. They have not
even told you that any extravagant display was made of it;
and I undertake to say that you might never have known of it if
the prosecution had not advertised it. How can all this be con
strued as a breach of the peace ? Our indictment says we have
done all this, to the great displeasure of almighty god, and to the
danger of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. You
must bear that in mind. The law books say again and again that
a blasphemous libel is punished, not because it throws obloquy
on the deity—the protection of whom would be absurd—but
because it tends to a breach of the peace. It is preposterous to
say such a thing tends to a breach of the peace. If you want
that you must go to the Salvation Army. They have a perfect
right to their ideas—I have nothing to say about them; but
their policy has led to actual breaches of the peace ; and even
in India, where, according to the law, no prosecution could be
�60
started against a paper like the “ Freethinker, ” many are sent
to gaol because they will insist upon proeessions in the street.
We have not caused tumult in the streets. We have not sent
out men with banners and bands in which each musician plays
more or less his own tune. (Laughter.) We have not sent out
men who make hideous discord, and commit a common nuisance.
Nothing of the sort is alleged. A paper like this had to be
bought and our utterances had to be sought. We have not
done anything against the peace. I give the indictment
an absolute denial. To talk of danger to the peace is
only a mask to hide the hideous and repulsive features of
intolerance and persecution. They don’t want to punish
us because we have assailed religion, but because we have
endangered the peace. Take them at their word, gentlemen.
Punish us if we have endangered the peace, and not if we have
assailed religion ; and as you know we have not endangered the
peace, you will of course bring in a verdict of Not Guilty.
Gentlemen, I hope you will by your verdict to-day champion
that great law of liberty which is challenged—the law of liberty
which implies the equal right of every man, so long as he does not
trench upon the equal right of every other man, to print what he
pleases for people who choose to buy and read it, so long as
he does not libel men’s characters or incite people to the com
mission of crime.
Gentlemen, I have more than a personal interest in the result of
this trial. 1 am anxious for the rights and liberties of thousands
of my countrymen. Young as I am, I have for many years
fought for my principles, taken soldier’s wages when there were
any, and gone cheerfully without when there were none, and
fought on all the same, as I mean to do to the end; and I am
doomed to the torture of twelve months’ imprisonment by the
verdict and judgment of thirteen men, whose sacrifices for con
viction may not equal mine. The bitterness of my fate can
scarcely be enhanced by your verdict. Yet this does not diminish
my solicitude as to its character. If, after the recent scandalous
proceedings in another court, you, as a special jury in this High
Court of Justice, bring in a verdict of Guilty against me and my
co-defendant, you will decisively inaugurate a new era of perse
cution, in which no advantage can accrue to truth or morality,
but in which fierce passions will be kindled, oppression and
resistance matched against each other, and the land perhaps
disgraced with violence and stained with blood. But if, as I
hope, you return a verdict of Not Guilty, you will check that
spirit of bigotry and fanaticism which is fully aroused and
eagerly awaiting the signal to begin its evil work; you will
close a melancholy and discreditable chapter of history; you
will proclaim that henceforth the press shall be absolutely free,
�61
unless it libel men’s characters or contain incitements to crime,
and that all offences against belief and taste shall be left to the
great jury of public opinion; you will earn the gratitude of all
who value liberty as the jewel of their souls, and independence
as the crown of their manhood ; you will save yonr country from
becoming ridiculous in the eyes of nations that we are accustomed
to consider as less enlightened and free; and you will earn for
yourselves a proud place in the annals of its freedom, its pro
gress, and its glory.
Mr. Foote’s speech, which occupied over two hours and a half in
delivery, created a profound impression on the Court, and evi
dently aroused a feeling of admiration on the part of the jury
and the Lord Chief Justice. At its close,
Lord Coleridge, addressing the jury, said: Gentlemen, I should
have been glad to have summed up this evening, but the truth
is, I am not very strong, and I propose, therefore, to address
you in the morning, and that will give you a full opportunity of
reflecting calmly on the very striking and able speech you have
just heard.
SECOND
DAY.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up to the jury, said—Gentlemen of the jury, the two prisoners, Foote and Ramsey,
are indicted before you for the publication of blasphemous libels,
and two questions arise. First of all, are these things in them
selves blasphemous libels ? secondly, if they are, is the publication
of them traced home to the defendants ? I will begin with the
last because it is the shorter and simpler question. Both are
questions entirely for you ; and when you have heard what I have
to say about the state of the law as 1 understand it, it will be for
you to pronounce a general verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty. For
the purposes of the second question, which I take first, I will
assume that these are blasphemous libels. I assume it only for
the purpose of discussing the second question, and I will discuss
it on this basis. Logically, if they are not blasphemous libels,
we don’t want to discuss the second question. In discussing the
second question, I must assume for the purpose of argument that
they are blasphemous libels. Assuming these to be Ebels, is the
publication of them traced home to the defendants? Formerly,
the fact that a man was engaged in the publication of a paper of
�62
this sort—of any sort—and that he was either editor, publisher
or printer of a publication coming out from time to time, and
issued under his sanction, made him in a civil action responsible
for what appeared in it. It was held also to constitute a criminal
libel; and although the publication may have been, in point of
fact, by a servant of his, it would make him responsible in a civil
action, because in a civil action he would be responsible for the
acts of his servants. Yet the case of libel is a peculiar case, in the
existence of which sometimes things are assumed, by great
judges undoubtedly, and a series of decisions arrived at which
modify the law. It was undoubtedly an anomaly in our system
that in the case of libel only, facts which would not have justified
a criminal conviction against a defendant in any other form of
crime, did justify a conviction in the particular case of libel
—seditious or even personal libel. But at the same time, in
the time of Lord Campbell, when he was in the House of Lords,
an Act of Parliament was passed which altered the law in that
respect. The law as altered in that respect came under the con
sideration of the Court of Queen’s Bench in the time of my pre
decessor Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and was the subject mattei
of two decisions. I am obliged to go through this again, although
I went through it with the jury who tried Mr. Bradlaugh, and,
therefore, I must tell you what I told the jury in that case. In
the case of the Queen and Holbrook, which was a case of this
sort, there was a bad libel published on the town clerk of Ports
mouth in a Portsmouth paper, and the proprietor of the paper
was indicted for this libel. It was tried twice over, once before
Mr. Justice Lindley and once before Mr. Justice Grove, and on
both occasions the judges laid down the law sufficiently favorably
as the Court of Queen’s Bench were of opinion, for the person
accused. They laid down the law substantially in this way. If it
was proved, as in that case, that the proprietor of the paper made
over absolutely the control of a particular part of the paper to a
sub-editor or agent, and told him to use his own discretion, to
■do what he thought right from time to time in relation to that
paper, Mr. Justice Lindley and Mr. Justice Grove substantially
told the jury that they were at liberty to infer it was as if in
each particular case the active positive sanction of the defendant
had been obtained to a particular publication. Well, on both
occasions that was held by the Court of Queen’s Bench not to be
the proper way to lay down the law since Lord Campbell’s Act.
And the law now is that it is not enough to connect the defendant
with the publication in which the libel appears, but you must
connect the defendant with the libel itself in the publication.
They all say when a man has edited in any vague sense you like,
when he has been editor of a particular number of a paper in
which there has been a libel, that that will not do unless you
�63
.give evidence to show that he edited, sanctioned, or in some
manner had to do with the particular publication incriminated.
Now that is the way in which Justice Lush—of whose words I
am always glad to avail myself—that is the way in which he lays
down the law in the second case of the Queen and Holbrook.
The section is this : “ If in respect of the trial of any indictment
or information for the publication of a libel, under the plea of
not guilty, evidence shall have been given which shall establish a
presumptive case of publication against the defendant by the act
of any other person, or by his authority, it shall be competent for
.such defendant to prove that such publication was made without
his authority, consent or knowledge, and that the said publica
tion did not arise from want of due care and caution on his part.”
Then the learned judge goes on to say: “ The effect of the statute,
read by the light of previous decisions, must be that an authority
from the proprietor of a newspaper to the editor to publish
what is libellous, is no longer to be, as it formerly was, a question
of law, but a question of fact.” Before that Act passed, the
only question of fact was whether the defendant authorised the
publication of the paper. Now the question is whether he
authorised the publication of the “libel.” Therefore you
must, in this case, have evidence to connect the two defendants
with the publication of the libel as well as with the publi
cation of the paper. Now I think you will be of opinion
that this case has been very ably defended by the two persons
who are incriminated, but I must say they have not defended it
on the true grounds, but only on what they think true grounds.
The grounds to them are true, and upon it they desire to succeed
if they can—not that they would be unwilling to avail themselves
■of any advantage in their favor, because, in a legal sense, they
would have a perfect right to stand upon the strictest
technicality, if in their favor. But, as a matter of fact,
they have not in their defence taken the true points. They have
preferred to rest their case upon that which is the second branch
of this inquiry, and they have not seriously contested that they
did both authorise, sanction and engage in the pubheation, not
■only of the papers in which the libels appeared, but of the libels
themselves. Still, although they have not chosen to raise that
question in argument, it is proper you and I should see that there
is legal evidence on which we can fairly and properly say—
supposing these to be libels—you are guilty of the publication of
them. Now the evidence is certainly all one way. Mr. Kelland,
who is a clerk to the solicitors for the prosecution, is called, and
says he purchased copies of the “Freethinker” at 28 Stone
cutter Street; that he purchased, upon the 30th of June, publi
cations of the 9th of April, the 23rd of April, the 30th of April,
the 7th of May, the 14th of May—all in 1882. The publication and
�64
purchase were in 1882. He bought at the same place a paper of
the 21st of May on the 24th of May, a paper of the 28th of May
on the 4th of June, and a paper of the 18th of June on the loth
of June. That I ought to explain, seeing it is published some
days before the date. They have a Sunday date upon that, and
the papers can be procured some days before the date, therefore
the paper of the 18th of June was bought on the 15th, and then
he says, “I purchased these mostly of Ramsey.” Now, any of
them—because really I cannot regard, and I suppose you will not
regard the publication of more than one of these—three or four—
of these libels, assuming them to be libels, as more than one, the
first one—the publication of any of the libels is sufficient, if it be a
libel, to bring the defendants within the meshes of this indictment..
And if you think Ramsey sold the papers across the counter—and
the witness was not cross-examined effectively upon that point,
and Ramsey did not dispute that he had sold those papers to
him—then as far as Ramsey is concerned, there is a distinct proof
of the publication of a number of these libels at all events,
because he was the proprietor of the paper and sold the copies
produced in court. That, according to any view of the law, is
distinct evidence of publication personally by Ramsey. As I
say, Ramsey is entitled to the credit of not having seriously dis
puted it. He doesn’t deny it. Still it is right it shouid be
proved, and it is proved by a witness that is not cross-examined.
If you believe Mr. Whittle, I don’t know that it is neces
sary to go further, as far as Ramsey is concerned, to connect
him with the actual publication of these libels. The
matter stands differently as regards Foote, because Mr.
Kelland, in reply to Foote, said, “ I purchased none of you; never.
I have seen you coming down stairs, not more than once, and
that was on the 16th of February. That is the time when I said
I saw you coming down stairs at Stonecutter Street.” That is
nothing, because in the first place it is months after these sales
had taken place ; and under the authority of the Queen and Hol
brook, if a man is seen coming down stairs it is not sufficient
for a libel. Then Air. Edward Whittle is called, and he says he
has seen Foote’s writing on particular papers, but not at St.
John Street. Whittle was not cross-examined. On looking at his
evidence before the Lord Mayor, it did not appear there was any
particular need to examine him. He said here substantially what
he said before the Lord Mayor. Whittle says he is a printer,,
carrying on business at 170 St. John Street. “ Those numbers,
which are the subject-matter of the counts of the indictment,
were printed by me for Ramsey. I know Foote, who has come
to give me orders for anything he wanted. I have had orders from
him as to some of these papers. He sent the manuscript for
the ‘Freethinker.’ The greater part came from Foote.
L
�65
usually saw the manuscript of the ‘Freethinker.’ I believe a
proof is sometimes pulled. I have seen proofs of the other
articles. The first article, that is the article in the first count
came from Foote. 1 know his handwriting.” This is—I won’t
say a friend in any bad sense, since he is an acquaintance of
Foote, by reason of his having printed for Foote. He has
really no hostility to Foote, but he is obliged, by force of law
to say what is the truth—that the first libel, in the first incrimi
nated paper came from Foote, and was sent in his handwriting.
If so, there is abundant evidence to show, as far as that is
concerned, that he is connected with it. He takes the second
and says: “Ishould not like to say where it came from. To
the best of my belief it came from Foote. It was in Foote’s
handwriting. I should imagine it came from Foote. This was
putin the paper by order of Foote. This paper was printed by me
by his orders.” It is impossible to say that is not evidence to con
nect Foote withtbe second incriminated passage. Then they take
the third. That was in Foote’s manuscript, and it was printed in
the paper by Foote’s orders. It is impossible to say that is not evi
dence that Foote is connected with this. The third, that is the illus
tration, was put into the paper by Foote’s direction. Then the
fourth. Foote didn’t write this one, but it was inserted in the
paper by his directions. Then as to to the next count. Foote
directed the insertion of this article. As to the next one, the
witness said : “I don’t know who wrote it, but Foote ordered it
to be inserted.” Then the next. “ Foote didn’t write this, but
ordered it to be put in the paper.” As to the next, witness
says: “Mr. Heaford wrote this.” Then the next. “ Mr.
Foote ordered this to be inserted.” “Mr. Foote’s name is on
the paper.” Then the last one. “He authorised this also; he
has never spoken to me about the meaning of these cartoons he
has never told me he edited the paper.” You will remember that
yesterday, I prevented a general question put in that form, bear
ing in mind the Queen v. Holbrook. A man may be the editor
of a paper but it doesn’t follow, because he is the general editor
of a paper, everything in that paper makes him criminally liable.
It must be shown that the incriminated portions of the paper
have had, so to say, his mind upon them, and that his mind has
gone with the publication of them. Now on the part of young Mr.
Whittle we have had this evidence, which certainly is sufficient,
uncontradicted—and it is uncontradicted—to show that Foote*
as well as Ramsey, was actively, and within the decision to which
I have already adverted, connected with the publication of these
incriminated passages. There is no evidence on the other side.
I must say that Mr. Foote, in his very able speech, rather
assumed that he was responsible for these publications, that he
authorised them, and that his mind did go with them. Anything;
E
�66
he said in his speech would probably be not enough, but here is
the evidence of Whittle, whom he did not cross-examine ; who
gave his evidence with reluctance—not unbecoming reluctance—
because he was giving evidence against a person by whom he was
employed. So he gives evidence which fastens on Foote the
responsibility of the publication of every one of these incriminated
passages. I don’t know that it is proved he wrote them in the
sense of having composed them, but with regard to all of them
it is shown he sent them to the printer with directions to have
them printed in the “Freethinker.” Now that is enough to
satisfy you, unless you can see some reason which I cannot
suggest to you, to doubt this evidence. Supposing you assume
these to be libels—Foote and Ramsey both are answerable for
their publication. That, however, of course, is, comparatively
speaking, the least matter which you had discussed yesterday,
because the proof was clear, and the proof was not, in fact, dis
puted. The other point, which is first in logical relation, remains—
Are, these within the meaning of the law blasphemous libels?
Now that is a matter that as you have been truly told is
entirely for you. You have the responsibility of looking at them,
and of pronouncing whether they are or are not blasphemous
libels. My duty is to express to you, as clearly as I can, what is
the law. upon the subject; I will not say to answer, because it
is not the duty of a judge to answer, the speeches made;
but it is, as I conceive, his duty to point out to you which
■of the observations are well founded in his judgment. No one
knows more than I how erring and feeble that judgment is. Still
it is to be exercised to the best ability god has given me, and
you must take it for what it is worth, and then the matter is for
you. In addressing any jury, but more especially a jury like this,
I should feel the most absolute confidence that a jury in a criminal
case would obey the law as laid down, and whether they liked it
oi' not, they would take the law from the judge and apply it like
honest men to the facts; because, as I said a week before, it is far
more important that the law should be administered conscien
tiously, than that the law in a particular case should be a good or
bad law ; because the moment judges or juries go beyond their
functions, and take upon them to find one way or the other—
not according to the law as it is but as they think it ought to be
—then, instead of any certainty, anything upon which any sub
ject can rely, we are left to an infinite variety of human opinion,
to the caprice—excuse me using the expression—to the caprice
that may at any moment influence the best of us, to the preju
dices that bias—I will not say that, because sometimes prejudices
are good—but to the feelings and prejudices which distort and
disturb the judgment from the simple operation of ascertaining
whether the facts proved come within the law, as they are
�67
’bound to take it. You have heard, and heard with truth, that
these things are, according to old law, old dicta of old judges,
'undoubtedly blasphemous libels, because they asperse the truth of
Christianity. I said a week ago—and I see no reason to doubt that
I said correctly—in regard to these words and to these expres
sions, for reasons which I will give presently, from the very cases
in which these expressions have been used, that can no longer be '
taken to be a statement of the law'in the present day. It is no longer
true in the sense in which it was true when those statements were
■made. It may be true in another sense—-I don’t say it is not—but it
is no longer true, in the sense in which those statements were made,
that Christianity is the law of the land. Jews, Nonconformists,
Mahomedans, and a variety of persons in the times when these
dicta proceeded from great judges, were treated as having scarcely
■any- civil rights at all. It was impossible, in a free country, to
persecute them to death, but almost everything short of persecu
tion to death was enacted deliberately by the Parliament of this •
country against such persons—I don’t mean by name because it
was not so ; and it has often been pointed out that the exclusion
-of the Jews was an exclusion
accident, although I am bound
to confess I had never much faith in that. They were histori
cally excluded, probably because, at the time when the statute
was passed, they were not thought sufficiently worthy an Act
■of Parliament. But now—I may be in error—but as far as I know “
the law a Jew maybe Lord Chancellor. Certainly a Jew may
be Master of the Rolls; certainly, by the merest accident when
the late Master of the Rolls was appointed, before the Judicature
Act came into operation, a great and illustrious lawyer, whose
loss the whole profession is deploring, and in whom those who
were honored with his friendship knew they lost a warm friend
and loyal comrade—he might have sat here and tried this very
case, and he might have been called upon to say—at least if the
■law be correct, that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of
the land. He, a Jew, might have been bound to lay down, accord
ing to that view, to a jury in which there might have been half
a dozen Jews, that it was a breach of the law, subjecting a man
to twelve months’ imprisonment, to deny that Jesus Christ was the
Messiah, a thing which he himself did deny, which every Jew in
■the land must deny, which Parliament has deliberately allowed
them to deny, and which it is just as much now under the law of
the land their right to deny, as it is your right and mine, if we
believe it, to assert it. Therefore, to base the prosecution of an
aspersion on Christianity per se—I shall, I hope, be taken to mean
no more than I exactly express—to base a prosecution for an
aspersion of Christianity perse, on the ground that Christianity is in
the sense of Lord Hale, Lord Raymond, or Lord Tenterden, part of
the law of the land, is, in my judgment, to forget that law grows
�68
like other things, that though the principles of law remain, yet that
the law grows. And it is one of the inestimable advantages of
the common law that it is so, that the principles of law have tobe applied to infinitely changing circumstances and to growth—
some people would say towards retrogression, but I should venture
to say towards progression of human opinion. Therefore, merely to
discover that Christianity is denied, or the truth of Christianity is
denied, on general grounds, and to say, therefore, that a man may
be indicted for a blasphemous libel, is absolutely untenable ; and 1,
for one, will certainly never, until I am boundtodoso—of course
I should be happy to obey the law like a dutiful subject, if
it is expressed in a way I cannot fail to understand—
but, until it is so expressed, I shall not lay down the law in a
way which cannot be historically justified. The Acts being
passed, Parliament is the maker of the laws, and if Parliament
has passed laws which make the dicta of the old judges no
• longer applicable it is no disrespect to those judges to say
that laws made under one state of things are no longer law under
_ another state of things, which Parliament has altered. When I
_
last addressed the jury on this subject I said—and 1 thought that
I said—this shows how careful you should be—that I said what
appeared to me almost a reductio ad absurdum ; that if tnis were
still the law of the land—1 put it respectfully—I said it would be
impossible to discuss any question of the law as it is, that there
could be no reform, that it would not be possible to discuss the
question whether a Republican or Monarchical form of Govern
ment was the best, as Harrington did in his “ Oceana,” and as
other writers have done, without danger of being prosecuted for
a seditious libel. But this case has led me to look into such few
books as I possess ; and what 1 thought was a reductio ad
absurdum I find is held in the case of the King v. Bedford.
There a man is prosecuted for discussing gravely and civilly,
and, as the report says, “with no reflexion whatever upon
any part of the existing Government.” He was actually con
victed of a seditious libel because he said hereditary principles
were not the wisest. I find 150 years ago a man was actually
convicted for gravely and seriously maintaining that which I
thought could be seriously and gravely maintained without any
infringement of the law. I need hardly say if the case came up
now no judge or jury would convict. It would be monstrous
such a thing should be done. That may show shortly that the
bare statement that it is enough that these things are denials,
utter denials, of the tiuth of the religion of Christ is not
maintainable. I should not think that it was enough to show a
mere denial of Christianity in the present to make the thing
capable of being attacked. “But, no doubt, whether we like it or
not, we must not be guilty, and Imust not be guilty, of anything
�69
like taking the law into one’s own hands, and to wrest the law
from what it really is, and to convert it into what I may think in
my foolish judgment it ought to be. I must lay down the law
to you as I understand it and find it in books of authority. Mr.
Foote, in his very able speech yesterday, spoke with something
like contempt of the late Mr. Starkie. Well, he did not know
the late Mr. Starkie, and how very able and good a man he was.
When I was young I knew him. He was not only a man of
remarkable powers of mind—perhaps he never had his rightful
estimate in the world—he was a man of liberal opinions, and a
person in whose hands—if law-making can be safe in anyone’s
hands—I should have thought it might be safely left. Whether
I am right or not is immaterial, because this view of Mr. Starkie’s
has been again and again assented to, and it appears to me to con
tain a correct statement of the existing state of the law. He says :
“There are no questions of more intense and awful interest
than those which concern the relations between the creator and
the beings of his creation ; and though, as a matter of discretion
and prudence, it might be better to leave the discussion of such
matters to those who, from their education and habits, are most
likely to form correct conclusions, yet it cannot be doubted
that any man has a right, not merely to judge for himself on such
subjects, but also, legally speaking, to publish his opinions for
the benefit of others. When learned and acute men enter upon
those discussions with such laudable motives, their very contro
versies, even where one of the antagonists must necessarily be
mistaken, so far from producing mischief, must in general tend
to the advancement of truth and the establishment of religion
on the firmest and most stable foundations. The very absurdity
and folly of an ignorant man, who professes to teach and
enlighten the rest of mankind, are usually so gross as to render
his errors harmless; but be this as it may, the law interferes not
with his blunders so long as they are honest ones—justly con
sidering that society is more than compensated for the partial
and limited mischief which may arise from the mistaken endea
vors of honest ignorance by the splendid advantages which
result to religion and truth from the exertions of free and nnfettered minds. It is the mischievous abuse of this state of
intellectual liberty which calls for penal censure. The law visits
not the honest errors but the malice of mankind. A wilful in
tention to pervert, insult, and mislead others by means of
licentious and contumelious abuse applied to sacred subjects, or
by wiful misrepresentations or artful sophistry, calculated to mis
lead the ignorant and unwary, is the criterion and test of guilt.
Malicious and mischievous intention, or what is equivalent to such
an intention in law as well as morals—a state of apathy and in
difference to the interests of society—is the broad boundary
�70
between right and wrong.” Now, gentlemen, I believe that to be acorrect statement of law. Whatever it ought to be, the law is not
a matter for you or me. I have only to ascertain what is the
law, and, having ascertained it, to explain it to you, as far as my
powers of explanation enable me, and to leave you to apply the
facts to the particular case before you. I cannot help saying,
there is a great deal that strikes my mind in the way in whichMr. Foote dealt with this passage on these principles of Mr.
Starkie, but there is more to be said, I think, than at first sight
perhaps, appears; and there is a passage in this same book of
Mr. Starkie’s—not a passage of his own, as I understand it,,
though it is not quite clear whether it is or not, but I believe it.
to be a translation from the work of Michaelis, in which he says
that which is true enough. He says it is not clear whether it is a
bad thing for the libeller that he should be punished by the law
rather than by the rougher handling of an angry populace. And
he says: “Were the religion in question only tolerated, still
the State is bound to protect every person who believes it from
such outrages, or it cannot blame him if he has not the patience
to bear them. But if it be the established national religion—and
of course the person not believing it, is only tolerated by the
State, though he enjoys its protection just as if he were in a
strange house—such an outrage is excessively gross, and unless
we conceive the people so tame as to put up with any affront,
and of course likely to play but a very despicable part on thestage of the world, the State has only to choose between the two
alternatives of either punishing the blasphmer himself, or else
leaving him to the fury of the people. The former is the milderplan, and, therefore, to be preferred, because the people are apt
to gratify their vengeance without sufficient inquiry, and of
course it may light on the innocent. Nor is this by any means a
right which I only claim for the religion which I hold to be thetrue one; I am also bound to admit it, when I happen to be
among a people from whose religion I dissent. Were I in a
Catholic country to deride their saints, or insult their religion
by my behavior, were it only rudely and designedly putting onmy hat, where decency would have suggested the taking it off; or
where I in Turkey to blaspheme Mahomet, or in a heathen city,.
its gods—nothing would be more natural than for the people,.
instead of suffering it, to avenge the insult in their usual way—
that is tumultously, passionately, and immediately ; or else the
State would, in order to secure me from the effects of their fury,
be under the necessity of taking my punishment upon itself; and.
if it does so, it does a favor both to me and other dissenters from
the established religion, because it secures us from still greater
evils. Therefore it is not socleartomy mindthatsome sort of pro
tection of the constituted religion of the country is not a good*.
�71
'thing even to those who differ from it because if there were no
such protection the consequences pointed out by Michaelis
might ensue. It does not follow that because the objects of
popular dislike differ in different ages—it does not follow (I
wish it did) that the populace of one age is much wiser than the
populace of another. It is not so very long ago since a Bir
mingham mob wrecked the house of Dr. Priestley, as good, dis
tinguished and illustrious a man as probably has ever been an
English subject. And that was not, remember, the State that
did that—it was the populace that wrecked his house and
destroyed his library. Therefore, it is not quite so sure to my
mind, that some sort of blasphemy laws, reasonably enforced,
are not to the advantage of persons who differ from the religion
of the country, and who are intending and desire to destroy it.
Therefore, it must not be taken as so absolutely certain that all
those laws against blasphemy are tyrannical. It is not so sure.,
when you come to look at the matter calmly and quietly, and
not from Mr. Foote’s or Mr. Maloney’s point of view, it is not
so sure that some kind of law of this sort is not advan
tageous. However, the principle is to be found laid down in
Starkie, and that principle is as I have expressed it to you. I
think it right to say that the cases that I have quoted to you—I
don’t pretend that I have the time or the learning to read every
case written upon the subject—but the cases which I have been
able to study, do not satisfy me that the law was ever different
from the way in which Starkie has laid it down. I have taken three
cases, about seventy or eighty years apart, and I find that the
law, as I understand it, is laid down exactly the same in all those
three cases. The first case is a case decided by that great
lawyer of whom Mr. Foote spoke, Lord Hale. He rightly said
he was a man of absolute integrity and great intellectual
force; and perhaps if he had read, as I have done, all the trial
of the witches before Lord Hale, he would have seen that Lord
Hale was there doing, what many a judge has to do—was ad
ministering a law he did not like, and so gave the accused per
son every advantage which his skill and the law allowed him, but
neither the prisoners nor jury would take advantage of it. The
case is a very curious one, and if any one reads it, I think it
would be a very rough analysis of it to say, that Lord Hale bung
people for witchcraft because of a passage in the Bible, though,
no doubt, the passage was referred to. Anybody who will be at
the pains to read that case will say there is more to be said for
Lord Hale than the general run of mankind believe. Lord Hale
in the case of Taylor had these words before him—and you
must always take a case according to the subject matter it
decides, and the opinion contained—these expressions, ter
rible to read, namely, “That Jesus Christ was a bastard, a
�72
whoremaster, an imposter, and a cheat, and that he, Taylor,
neither feared god, man, nor deviL” Those were the words
upon which Lord Hale had to decide in that case, and
Lord Hale said that such kinds of blasphemous words
were not only an offence against god and religion, but a crime
against the laws and therefore punishable. He did not say that
a grave argument against the truth of revelation was so punish
able, but that such kind of wicked and blasphemous words were.
That is what Lord Hale held in that case. That is one of the
■earliest cases on the subject. You may find expressions which
seem to go further, but you ought to look before you cite these
cases so glibly as some people do. You should look and see
v hat was the subject matter of the decision. Lord Hale held
that to be a blasphemous libel, and if it was a matter of law I
should be compelled to say it was a blasphemous libel, though I
trust I am not disposed to hang witches. (Laughter.) But I
believe that to be a perfectly accurate description of the state
of the law as it is at present. The next case which has been
so much cited from Strange, although it is better reported from
Fitz-Gibbon, is that of Woolston, who was convicted of blas
phemous discourses on the miracles of our lord, and the Court
laid very great stress on the words in the indictment “ general and
indecent attacks,” and stated that they did not intend to include
disputes between men on controverted points. That is the law
as laid down by Lord Raymond. The case that has been com
monly cited as bringing it down later is that of the King
Waldington, which was decided by Lord Tenterden, and the
words of the libel were—“That Jesus Christ was an impostor,
a murderer and a fanatic.” The Lord Chief Justice laid it down
that that was a libel, and a juryman asked the Lord Chief
Justice whether a work tliat denied the divinity of our savior
was a libel. Now mark the answer given by Lord Tenterden,
one of the most cautious and justly respected men. He answered
thata work speaking of Jesus Christ in the language referred to
was,a libel. His answer is that a work speaking of Jesus
Christ in the language used in the publication in quesquestion is a libel, and I have read the words. That case came
before the King's Bench, which consisted of Lord Tenterden,
Mr. Justice Bayley, Mr. Justice Ilolroyd, with Mr. Justice Best.
The three first-named judges being as great lawyers as ever sat
upon the Bench, and I think no one would compare Mr. Justice
Best with Lord Tenterden, Mr. Justice Bayley, or Mr. Justice
Holroyd, When the case was moved to the King’s Bench, Lord
Tenterden said: “I told the jury that any publication in which
our savior was spoken of in the language used in this publica
tion was a libel, and I have no doubt whatever that it is so. I
have no doubt it is a libel to publish the words that our savior
�73
was an impostor, a murderer, and a fanatic.” Mr. Justice
Bayley says: “ It appears to me that the direction of the Lord
Chief Justice was perfectly right. There cannot be any doubt
that a work which does not merely deny the godhead of Jesus
Christ, but which states him to have been an impostor and a
murderer is at common law a blasphemous libel.” Mr. Justice
Holroyd says: “I have no doubt whatever that any publication
in which Jesus Christ is spoken of in the language used in this
work is a blasphemous libel, and that therefore the direction was
right in point of law.”
Mr. Justice Best gives a longer
judgment, in somewhat more rhetorical language, but to the
same effect; and he concludes: “It is not necessary for me to
say whether it be libelous to argue from the scriptures against
the divinity of Christ.
That is not what the defendant
professes to do.” Then he says: “ The Legislature has never
altered the law, nor can it ever do so while the Christian
religion is considered to be the basis for that law. There is a
case which is often cited as an authority to show that to deny or
dispute the truth of Christianity is an offence against the law,
because there is a statement that Christianity is part, or ought to
be part and parcel of fthe law of the laud. That is the case of
the King v. Waddington, which is one of the latest which binds
me here, and upon which I shall be bound to direct you. I
think when you come to consider the cases you will very much
doubt whether the old law is open to the strong attacks that
have been made upon it. I doubt extremely whether, if you
come carefully and quietly to look at and read through—not
merely look at—the notes and extracts read from cases, and
master the facts of the cases upon which those old decisions
were pronounced—I doubt if they will be found to be so
illiberal and harsh as it has been the fashion to describe them in
modern times. After all, I say as I said before, that Parliament
has altered the law on the subject; it is no longer the law that
none but holders of the Christian religion can take part in the
State, or have rights in the State ; but, on the contrary, others
have just as much right in civil matters as any member of the
Church of England has. The condition of things is no longer the
same as it was when those great judges pronounced those
judgments which I respectfully think have been misunderstood,
and strained to a meaning they do not warrant. It is a comfort
to think that things have been altered, because I observe that in
the case of the Attorney-General v. Pearson, which is a very
interesting case, decided'in 1817 by Lord Eldon, it seems there
was some doubt expressed as to whether the 9th and 10th
IVilliam the Third as to persons denying the Trinity were
still in operation. I do not want to be a defender of old things ;
they are shocking enough, and under this Act men are prevented
�74
from holding any kind of office if they deny this or that; inshort, if he does not hold the Thirty-nine Articles a man is
liable to punishment, and after a second offence still more
terrible things are to follow. It must be remembered what was
the state of the country at the time that statute was passed, who
was the king upon the throne, the state of political factions, what
were the feelings that not unnaturally agitated men’s minds
And regard being had to all that—I am not going to defend it
for a moment, I do not say it is to be defended—then it is to be a
good deal more explained than at first sight appears. At all
events, it is enough to say no man could dream of enacting 9th
and 10th William the Third at the present day; and 1 hope
and trust that Lord Eldon’s doubts as to whether some parts
of these are still in existence will never be brought to
a solution in a court of law which says they are well
founded. Such are the rules by which you are to judge of these
libels. You have heard a great deal—and here is the least
pleasant part of my duty, which I wish I could avoid—you have
heard a great deal very powerfully put to you by Mr. Foote,
about the inexpediency of these laws, and the way these laws areworked. It might, perhaps, be enough to say that is a matter
with which you and I have nothing to do. What we have to dois simply to administer the law as we find it; and if we find the
law such as we don’t like, the only thing to do is to try to get it
altered, and in a free country, after discussion, public agitation,
and excitement, a change is always effected, if it approves itself
to the general sense of the community. But there is no doubt it
has been very well put to you, and it is worth observation that
there is a good deal to be said for the view Mr. Foote has so ably
put forward. It is true if this movement is to be regarded as perse
cution, it is perfectly true—unless persecution is thorough-going—
it seldom succeeds. Mere irritation, mere annoyance, mere punish
ment that stops short of extermination, have very seldom the effect
of altering men’s religious convictions. 1 suppose—because they
are passed away—I suppose that, quite without one fragment of
rhetorical exaggeration, I may say that the penal laws, which fifty
or sixty years ago were enforced in Ireland, were unparalleled
in the history of the world. They had existed 150 years; they
had produced upon the religious convictions of the people abso
lutely no effect whatever. You could not exterminate the Irish
people. You did everything that was possible by law, short of
actual violence and extermination, but without the slightest effect.
And, therefore, there is no doubt that the observation is a correct
one, that persecution, as a general rule, unless it is more
thorough-going, than, at any rate, in England, and in the nine
teenth century, anybody would stand—is, generally speaking,,
of little avail. It is also true—and I cannot help assenting to it—
�that it is a very easy form of virtue. A difficult form of virtue
is quietly and unostentatiously to obey what you believe to be
god’s will in your own lives. It is not very easy to do that and if
you do it, you don’t make much noise in the world. It is very
easy to turn upon somebody who differs from you, and in the
guise of zeal for god’s honor, to attack somebody who differs from
you in point of opinion, but whose life will be very much more
pleasing to god, whom you profess to honor, than your own.
When it is done by persons whose own lives are full of pretend
ing to be better than their neighbors, and who take that parti
cular form of zeal for god which consists in putting the criminal
law in force against somebody else—that does not, in many
people’s minds, create a sympathy with the prosecutor, but rather
with the defendant. There is no doubt that will be so ; and if
they should be men—-I don’t know anything about these persons—
but if they should be men who enjoy the wit of Voltaire, and
who do not turn away from the sneer of Gibbon, but rather relish
the irony of Hume—one’s feelings do not go quite with the pro
secutor, but one’s feelings are rather apt to sympathise with the
defendants. It is still worse if the person who takes this course
takes it not from a kind of rough notion that god wants his
assistance, and that he can give it—less on his own account than
by prosecuting others—or if it is mixed up with anything of a
partisan or political nature, then it is impossible that anything
can be more foreign from one’s notions of what is high-minded,
religious, and noble. Indeed, I must say it strikes me that anyone
who would do that not for the honor of god, but for his own
purposes, is entitled to the most disdainful disapprobation that
the human mind can form. However, the question here is not
with the motives—of which I know nothing—nor with the
character, of which I know less, of the prosecutors, or those who
instituted these proceedings, but with the proceedings them
selves, and whether they are legal. The way in which that
matter has been dealt with by Mr. Foote is extremely able and
well worthy of your attention ; and it is for you to say, after a
few words from me, what effect it produces upon your minds.
Mr. Foote’s case is, as I understand it, this—he will forgive me
if I do not quite state it accurately : “I am not going to main
tain that this is in the best taste; some of it may be coarse, some
of it may to men of education give offence. It is intended to be
an attack on Christianity ; it is distinctly intended to be an attack
on. what I have seen in the publications of cultivated agnosticism.
It is meant to point out that in the books, which you Christians
and professing Christians call sacred, are to be found records of
detestable crimes, of horrible cruelties, all of which are said to
have been pleasing to almighty god. I do mean to attack this
representation of god. I mean to say all that is not true : I say it
�76
is a detestable superstition. I mean it, and if I have said it in
coarse language, that is because (though he need not have
said this) I have not sufficient education or culture to cull
my words carefully; but I will bring before you a number
of books, sold upon every bookstall, written by persons
admitted to the very highest society in the land, in
which not only are the same things to be found, in point
of matter, but I will read you passages in which there is very
little difference between the matter and the manner, and I
will read you, for example, passages from Mr. John Stuart Mill,
-Mr. Grote, passages from Shelley, and from other persons. I
mention those who are dead so as not to wound the feelings of
any. Nobody ever dreamed of attacking Shelley (that is not 1
quite correct, for the publisher was prosecuted, and he himself I
was deprived by Lord Eldon of the custody of his children). I '
will show you, says the defendant, things written by them quite
as strong and as. coarse as anything to be found in these
publications of mine; and, says Mr. Foote, it is plain the law
cannot be as suggested, because it cannot be said that a poor
man can not do what a rich man may ; it cannot be said you may
blaspheme in civil language. And more than that, he says, £;I
will show you that the manner of some of these publications is
no better than mine.” Let me say upon that subject two things;
one is in Mr. Foote’s favor and one is against him. He wished
strongly to have brought to your minds that in the sense in
which .Starkie used the words—that is the ordinary sense of the
word licentious—Mr. Foote is anxious to have it impressed on you
that he is not a licentious writer, and that this word does not
fairly apply to his publications. You will have the documents
before you, and you must judge for yourselves. I should say
that he is right. He may be blasphemous, but he certainly is not
licentious, in the ordinary sense of the word; and you do not
find him pandering to the bad passions of mankind. That is a
thing in his favor, and is entitled to be said. With regard to the
other point, if the law as I have laid it down to you is correct,
so far as the decencies of controversies are observed—as far as I
can see, it always has been the law, and certainly I lay down
as law to you now—that if decencies of controversy are observed,
even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked without a
person being guilty of blasphemous libels. There may be many
great and grave writers who have attacked the foundations of
Christianity. Mr. Mill, undoubtedly, did so, and some great
living writers may also have attacked Christianity; but no one
can read these articles without seeing a difference between
them and the incriminated publications which I am obliged to
say is not a difference of degree but of kind. There is a grave,
earnest, reverent—perhaps I may say religious—tone about the
�77
Very attacks upon Christianity itself, which show that what isaimed at is not insult to the opinions of the majority of mankind,
or the holders of- Christianity, but a real, quiet, earnest
pursuit of the truth. If the truth at which they have arrived is
not the truth we have been taught, and which, perhaps, if we
thought for ourselves we should arrive at, yet because their con
clusions differ from ours, they are not to be the subject matter of
a criminal indictment. Therefore with regard to many of the
people whose writings have been very properly brought before
you by Mr. Foote—with regard to many of those persons I
should say they are within the protection of the law and
are well within the authority of the passage I have read to
you, and which I remind you of, as containing my judgment.
With regard to some of the others from whom Mr. Foote quoted
passages, I heard many of them for the first time. I do not at
all question that Mr. Foote read them correctly.
They
are passages which, hearing them only from him for the
first time, I confess I have a difficulty in distinguishing
from the incriminated publication. They do appear to me
to be open to exactly the same charge and the same grounds of
observation that Mr. Foote’s publications are. He says—and 1
don’t call upon him to prove it, I am quite willing to take his
word—he says many of these things are written in expensive
books, published by publishers of known eminence, and that they
circulate in the drawing-rooms, studies, and libraries of persons
of position. It may be so. All I can say here is—and so far I
can answer for myself—I would make no distinction between
Mr. Foote and anybody else ; and if there are persons, however
eminent they may be, who used language, not fairly distinguish
able from that used by Mr. Foote, and if they are ever brought
before me—which I hope they never may be, for a more trouble
some or disagreeable business can never be inflicted upon me_
if they come before me, so far as my poor powers go, they shall
have neither more nor less than the justice I am trying to do to
Mr. Foote ; and if they offend the Blasphemy Laws they shall 1
find that so. long as these laws exist—whatever I may think
about their wisdom—they will have but one rule of law laid down
in this court. That Mr. Foote may depend upon, and I admit,
as far as I can judge, some of them, that they are strong,
shall I.say coarse expressions of contempt and hatred for the
recognised—generally recognised—truths as we take or have
accepted them of Christianity, and of the Hebrew Scriptures,
which are said to have been inspired of god himself. Mr. Foote
must however forgive me for saying that that is no argument in
his favor. It is no argument for a burglar—I mean nothing
offensive to him—I should be unworthy of my position if 1
insulted anyone in his position—it is no argument in favor of a
�78
■burglar to say that some other person has committed a burglary.
Because some persons may have escaped, in the infinite variety
of human affairs, that is no reason why others should not be
brought to justice. If he is right in his quotations from these
writers, it appears to me they are fairly subject matter of such a
prosecution as this. Suppose they are, it does not show that he
is not. What Mr. Foote had to show—which he did to the best
of his ability, and it is not his fault if the law is against him—
. what he had to show was, not that other people were bad, but
that he was good; not that other persons were guilty, but that
he was innocent. And it is no answer to bring forward these
■cases, some of which I confess I cannot distinguish from some of
these incriminated articles. It is not enough to say these
persons have done these things if they are not brought before
us. I not only admit, but I urge upon you, and everybody who
hears my opinion, that whilst laxity in the administration of the
law is bad, the most odious is the discriminating laxity, which lays
hold of particular persons and does not lay hold of others liable
to the same censure. That may be, and is so, but it has
nothing to do with this case. The case is here, not whether
other persons ought to be standing where Mr. Foote and Mr.
Ramsey stand, but what judgment you ought to pass upon them.
We have to administer this law, whether we like it or not. It is,
undoubtedly, a disagreeable law, but I have given you reasons for
thinking it is not quite so bad, or quite so indefensible, as Mr.
Foote, from his point of view, thinks it is. On the contrary, I
think it is a just law that persons should be obliged to respect
the feelings and opinions of those amongst them. I assent to the
passage of Michaelis, that in a Catholic country we have no right
to insult Catholic opinion, nor in a Mahomedan country have we
any right to insult Mahomedan opinion. I differ from both, but
I should feel that I was bound to treat with respect opinions with
which I might not agree. You will see these publications, and
if you think they are permissible attacks upon the religion of
the country you will find the defendants Not Guilty; but if you
think that they do not come within the most liberal and the
largest view that anyone can give of the law as it exists now,
as I have laid it down to you, then, whatever may be the j
consequences, and however little you may think the prosecution
wise, or however little you may think the thing itself desirable,
however little you may think any kind of publication should i
ever be made subject matter of attack, yet it is your duty to
administer the law as you find it, not to strain it in Mr. Foote’s
favor because you think he ought not to be prosecuted, still less
to strain it against the defendants because you may yourselves
not agree with the sentiments which they advocate, as you
certainly are not likely to agree with the manner in which they
�79
•advocate them. Take these libels into your consideration and
say whether you find Mr. Foote or Mr. Ramsey Guilty or Not
Guilty of the publication.
Mr. Maloney: Would your lordship give the jury the papers?
L°rd Coleridge: I beg your pardon, there are some cartoons
that are offensive. Mr. Foote’s excuse is that they are not attacks
upon, and not mtended to be a caricature of almighty god If
there be such a being, says Mr. Foote, he can have no feeling for
him but a profound reverence and awe, but this is his mode of
holding up to contempt what he calls a caricature of that being
as it appears in the Hebrew scriptures. That is for you to trv
You must look at them and judge for yourselves whether thev
do or do not come within the law.
J
On the conclusion of the summing-up which occupied an
hour and forty-five minutes, at twenty minutes past twelve
o clock the jury retired to consider their verdict, taking with
them the incriminated publications.
&
Shortly before two o’clock, Lord Coleridge, who had received
a communication from the jury, said : I have been informed
that they are not able to agree to a verdict, and I ought to
be at Westminster to meet the Lord Chancellor and the fudges
who are members of the Rule Committee. Indeed I ought to
have been there at ten o’clock this morning, but I was anxious
to dispose of this case. The jury inform me that there is no
prospect of an agreement, but perhaps they have not been
long enough m consultation to be able to say that it is impos
sible that they should come to an agreement. I have spoken
to Mr. Serie, my associate, and I have mentioned an hour at
which the jury, in the event of their not being able to ao-ree
shall be discharged. What do you propose to do, Mr. Malonev’
if they should disagree ?
J
Mr. Maloney : I should like, my lord, to consult with Sir
Hardmge Giftard as to that, and let the case stand on the
Lord Coleridge : Is he in the building ?
Mr. Maloney : Within the next quarter of an hour I will
see him. My own desire .is . that the case should stand in the
list tor trial at the next sittings.
Lord Coleridge : Why at the next sittings ? Why should
I postpone it?
J UVU1UMr. Maloney : I merely say that, my lord, for the conve
nience of all parties.
Mr. Avory: On behalf of the defendants my lord, I have
to say that I do not desire it to be postponed, and would prefurtherVelay b6
again’ that ifc should be tried without
�80
Lord Coleridge : I have already intimated that is my view.
In case the jury disagree, Mr. Maloney, you must be ready
with your answer to-morrow morning, as to what course you
intend to pursue.
Mr. Maloney : In the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, your lordship
allowed the jury to have the prints.
Lord Coleridge : They have got them.
Mr. Maloney : I beg your lordship’s pardon, I was not
aware of that.
Lord Coleridge : Supposing that there should be a verdict
of Guilty , I would pass sentence to-morrow morning. Sup
posing there should be a verdict of Not Guilty, it is not
necessary to consider the matter further. Supposing there
is a disagreement, I shall want to know in the morning what
the prosecution intend to do.
Mr. Maloney : I shall try to find out before half-an-hour
what Sir Hardinge Giffard intends to do.
Lord Coleridge: I cannot stay; I ought to have been at
Westminster at ten o’clock.
Mr. Avory : If there should be a verdict of Guilty, I should
move for an arrest of judgment.
Lord Coleridge: That would be very improper.
Mr. Maloney • If there should be a verdict of Guilty and
your lordship proposes to sentence to-morrow morning, I
should be prepared on the part of the prosecution to say
that they desire to have a lenient view taken of this particular
case.
Lord Coleridge: If they are found guilty of it, the defen
dants must appear to-morrow morning before me. If you
think it is in the interests of your clients to raise that then,
you may do so.
Mr. Maloney : Very well, my lord.
Lord Coleridge then retired.
At three minutes past five the jury came into court, when,
the Associate addressing them said :
Gentlemen of the jury, are you agreed?
The Foreman: No.
The Associate: Then gentlemen of the jury you are dis
charged, but I must ask you to attend on Saturday at half
past ten in case you are wanted.
THIRD DAY.
At the sitting of the Court this morning (Thursday), Mr.
Foote and Mr. Ramsey, coming down again in the custody of
�81
the Governor of Holloway Gaol, were present by the direc
tion ot his lordship given on the previous day, in the event of
the jury disagreeing m their verdict. This, as will be seen
tteywTe
B}raseyeandSFoot6,Ca^n° °V6r
°aSe °7
gainst
The Lord Chief Justice, addressing Sir Hardinge Giffard
said :
Hardinge what course do you propose to take?
..
Hardin(^1®ard:
lOT<i5 if your lordship desires
that this case should go on now, I am ready to go on now.
Lord Coleridge : Just as you please.
Mr. Foote: My lord, I respectfully beg your lordship’s in
dulgence I am not practically prepared to defend mvself
now. I didn t know how much prison diet and confinement
fad weakened me, until I had to make an effort for my defence
the day before yesterday, and the Governor of the Gaol can
mform your lordship how physically, prostrated I was after it.
i Lord Coleridge: I have just been informed, and I hardlv
knew.it before, what such imprisonment as yours means, and
what m the form it has been inflicted upon you it must mean ■
but now.that I do know of it, I will take care that the proper
sup^°r t"168 ^n°W
also and
see fhaf you have proper
Mr. Foote : Thank you. my lord
Sir Hardinge Giffard : Will next week suit your lordship to
hands!"18 CaSG? °f C°UrSe 1 am qUite in your lordship’s
day1?' 1,00116 : Oould y°ur lordship take the case next Tues-
. Lord Coleridge : Yes, I think I can if that will suit you. It
is so entirely unusual to pursue a case in this way that I will
do anything you wish.
J
Mr. Foote: Thank you, my.lord. If your lordship would
fix it for that day it would suit us.
Lord Coleridge : Very well.
Mr. Foote : If your lordship pleases----Sir Hardinge Giffard: After your lordship gives that
opinion, I should certainly feel it my duty to recommend my
clwnt to acquiesce m anything your lordship should sugLord Coleridge : It is extremely unusual when a conviction
X»:SrP“y,he same sort
Lord Coleridge : I am perfectly aware of that.
�82
Sir H. Giffard : And that the indictment contains different
libels.
Lord Coleridge: I am aware of that, too.
Sir Hardinge Giffard: The second indictment, your lordship
will remember, was preferred against the defendants by the
Corporation of the City of London.
Lord Coleridge : I am quite aware of that, and I am also
aware {hat they were different subject matters. That is the
reason I said the same sort of thing.
Sir Hardinge Giffard : This is the earliest in point of
date.
Lord Coleridge : Yes, I know.
Sir Hardinge Giffiard: I only want your lordship to have
the facts before you. Anything your lordship suggests I will
advise my client to accede to.
Lord Coleridge: I have acted upon one rule throughout
the whole of this case. In any other case I might have said a
great deal, but in this I decline to make the slightest sugges
tion of any kind or description. I must leave it entirely in
the hands of the prosecution on their own responsibility. But
as I have had information from the highest source—the Gover
nor of the Gaol—that Mr. Foote is physically suffering from
the prison discipline (the Governor of the Gaol cannot help
it); but as Mr. Foote is physically suffering from it, I will cer
tainly do all I can to put him in a physical position to defend
himself, and I will take the defence whenever he pleases.
Sir Hardinge Giffard: After what your lordship has said I
quite acquiesce in the adjournment until Tuesday, and in the
meantime I will consult those who have instituted this prosecu
tion, for what they believe to be right and proper purposes,
and I will take their direction as to what shall be done, and
then ask them to take into account the imprisonment of the
defendants and the disagreement of the jury. I have no
doubt all that will be fully considered by those for whom I
act.
Lord Coleridge: As I said yesterday—and I don’t say it
satirically—the names of the parties who have instituted
these proceedings are unknown to me, and of their motives
and character I am absolutely ignorant.
Sir Hardinge Giffard : If it should be determined not to go
on with this prosecution, probably it would be unnecessary
that the defendants should be brought here again, because in
that event notice would be given, and the bringing up of the
defendants from the gaol be unnecessary ?
Lord Coleridge: As you please about that At any rate, it
can stand for the present, and the case be taken on Tuesday.
Does that suit you ?
�83
Mr. Foote : Yes, my lord. As the trial in that case is a
matter of contingency, I would ask your lordship to direct
the Governor of the Gaol to allow us proper food in the
interval.
Lord Coleridge: I believe I have no authority over the
Governor of the Gaol. Let me do him the justice to say if it
had not been for his communication, I should not have known
that you were suffering from what he is obliged to do by law
He is a minister of the law.
Mr. Foote : Quite so, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : If there is any difficulty about it, I will
take care that the Home Secretary or the Prison Inspectors
or whoever are the proper authorities, shall know of this if
there is any difficulty in the way.
’
Mr. Foote: Thank you, my lord. I am quite content to
leave it there.
Lord Coleridge (addressing the Governor of the Gaol)
said: Yon will understand that the same facilities are to be
continued to Mr. Foote and Mr. Ramsey for preparing their
defence, as I ordered before.
°
The defendants then left the court in custody, after shaking
hands with numerous friends who crowded round
°
It is only fair to the Governor of Holloway Gaol to say
that owing to his kindness, Mr. Foote and Mr. Ramsey
garb^6^ ln C°Urfc in
ordinary dress instead of the prison
)
�APPLICATION FOR A NOLLE
TO BE ENTERED.
PROSEQUI
[Before the Loud Chief Justice, on Saturday, April 28th.~]
Mr. Maloney said : Will your lordship allow me to mention
the case of the Queen v. Foote and Ramsey? What occurred
on Wednesday was communicated to the prosecutor, and he
has accordingly informed those who act for him—Sir H.
Giffard and myself—to state to your lordship that it is his
desire that a nolle prosequi should be entered a- rega ds the
defendants Foote and Ramsey.
Lord Coleridge: I cannot do that; it is for the AttorneyGeneral to do it.
Mr. Maloney: It is our intention to apply to the Attorn eyGeneral for his permission.
Lord Coleridge: The Attorney-General must do it for
himself.
Mr. Maloney: The prosecution will apply to him to enter a
nolle prosequi, and whatever steps may be necessary for that
end will be taken.
Lord Coleridge : You must not assume that he will do it.
As I have always understood when the Attorney-General does
this, he takes upon himself a certain responsibility. I did it
myself once or twice when I was Attorney-General. It is
the prerogative of the Attorney-General.
Mr. Maloney: I have made some inquiry at the Grown
Office about it.
Lord Coleridge: No doubt it can be done. The AttorneyGeneral can do it if he likes, but you must not assume in a
case of this kind that he will release you from the responsi
bility of going on, or not going on. That is what I mean.
Mr. Maloney: It is intended to make application to the
Attorney- General.
Lord Coleridge : I am much obliged to you for telling me
this, but I can make no order upon it; therefore the matter
must stand until Tuesday. It is impossible to say what the
Attorney-General may say as to this. I may say it is not a
case in which on behalf of the Crown I will interfere; the
�85
prosecutor must act upon his own responsibility. He can
either go on or not, just as he pleases.
Mr. Maloney: If the prosecutor is willing not to go on, I
suppose it is optional with him ?
Lord Coleridge : I say nothing about it except this; that
you put upon the Attorney-General a personal responsibility
which he may be willing to accept or not; but that is entirely
for him to say.
Mr. Maloney: My instructions are, that the prosecutor wished
whatever steps might be necessary to be taken for the with
drawal of the prosecution, should be taken.
Lord Coleridge : That is another matter, if he is willing
to appear on Tuesday and offer no evidence.
Mr. Maloney: I think some difficulty might arise out of
that, because it might lead to the supposition that the papers
charged in the indictment were not blasphemous, and lead
to their being re-pnblished again.
Lord Coleridge : I only point out that when you tell me
that you assume on the part of a great public functionary
that he will take the responsibility, it is by no means certain
that he will accept it. If he likes to take it, by all means
let it be so; but I only point out to you that you must not
assume he will do it as a matter of course, and so relieve
you from a responsibility which at present lies upon you.
That is all I mean—he may not take the responsibility.
Mr. Maloney : I thought it right that I should mention it
to your lordship at the earliest possible moment.
Lord Coleridge : You are quite right to do so ; the case
must stand in the paper for Tuesday morning.
Mr. Maloney: Very well, my lord.
�ABANDONMENT OF THE PROSECUTION.
In the Court of Queens Bench on Tuesday, May 1st, before
Lord Coleridge, the Lord Chief Justice of England, on the
case of the Queen v. Ramsey and Foote being called,
Mr. Maloney (in the absence of his leader, Sir Hardinge
Giffard, Q.C.,) said: After mentioning this case to your lord
ship on Saturday a petition was drawn up and lodged with
the Attorney-General yesterday morning, for a nolle prosequi
on behalf of the prosecutor, and this very instant the AttorneyGeneral’s clerk has handed in his fiat granting a nolleprosequi.
Lord Chief Justice: Very well; you must let me see it,
please.
Mr. Maloney (handing the fiat to the Lord Chief Justice) :
Your lordship sees the petition.
Lord Coleridge (after reading the fiat) said: I have said
not a word about this being unadvisable, not one single
syllable. The statement in this petition is absolutely inaccu
rate. That I have intimated in the slightest manner whether
it was advisable, or the contrary, is absolutely untrue. I took
particular care to leave the responsibility with the prosecutor,
and I have intimated not a word as to whether it was
advisable or not to go on. I find the petitioner states that I
thought it was unadvisable to proceed. I said nothing of the
sort.
Mr. Maloney: I don’t remember, my lord.
Lord Coleridge: I took particular care not to say anything
at all, one way or the other.
Mr. Maloney: Will your lordship allow me to read the
words?
Lord Coleridge: Do you mean to say the word “ unad
visable ” is not there ? If it is not you may contradict me.
Mr. Maloney: No, my lord, I don’t mean to say that.
Lord Coleridge: Then I don’t understand your applica
tion. I take exception to one word, which is utterly inac
curate. If that word is not there, contradict me in what 1
say. I have nothing further to do of course, if the AttorneyGeneral has entered a nolle prosequi. I cannot have anything
further to do. I don't know exactly what is done in these
�87
cases. I shall, of course, not think of going on with the
case. After the Attorney-General has entered a nolleprosequi
there is an end to the case as far as I am concerned. Some
thing, however, must be done.
Mr. Maloney: The usual course, my lord, is for the Queen’s
Coroner to draw up a nolle prosequi, and to enter it upon the
record. That is as I understand the practice. That fiat is
the Attorney-General’s authority to the Crown to act, and it
is lodged at the Crown Office.
Lord Coleridge : The Crown Office doesn’t open until eleven,
and, technically speaking, I cannot proceed for ten minutes,
(it was ten minutes to eleven). Of course, under these cir
cumstances, I should not think of proceeding. You will
undertake to see that this is done now, Mr. Maloney ?
Mr. Maloney: Yes, my lord.
Lord Coleridge: Under those circumstances I have nothing
further to do than to call the next case.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY EDWARD B. AVELING, D.SC., AT
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The prosecution of Messrs. Foote and Ramsey for blasphemy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Ramsey, William James
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 87 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Report of Queen v. Ramsey and Foote, in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, 24 April [1883]. Includes addresses to the jury by Ramsey (p.25-31) and Foote (p.31-61). Annotations (corrections, marks) in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Edward B. Aveling
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N259
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Trials
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The prosecution of Messrs. Foote and Ramsey for blasphemy), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy-Great Britain
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
NSS
Trials (Blasphemy)-Great Britain
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8bae7fbbc69ea20d6706adb0fbf77ba2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nQaYgl4OVCpTRcVn4t29EZdt70SvXZbRG%7EUHwLpXgow7VsVo0o8YXtI49LeVlvJxifP7sD0GBdmbprSwe954Kw1D1HSm-FSh6qP5Lzm2jpFKNqto5pikQkRC3N0EmjkCzLIqkU--boJVk2FWbQOcUuFLWN5hK7VhkdMpdJmRgCMQQ0Gk6TeOQL-rNbETjpjJUS3mDKTicsXUdPnHaDlywNX9O8DUUPGnGbinUxWBlQLjg91lMekeBPFW4KkWE1yikszHzr9hDRIYzuVUoEQ1NN4yboFUFeLhNaguAeJ1xKsMddBlFEWCtmjmVaYLMB-yJxFBWUC1Hxm77bCGqZc3PQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f109b8df0125e057c0f9d599bfb7c03a
PDF Text
Text
national secular society
Verbatim Report
OF THE
TWO TRIALS
OF
G. W. Foote,
W. J. Ramsey and H. A. Kemp,
FOR
Blasphemous Libel in the Christmas Number
of the “ Freethinker.”
Held at the OLD BAILEY on Thursday, Ma/rch 1st, and on
Monday, March 5th, 1883,
Before Mr. Justice North and Two Common Juries.
PRICE
ONE
SHILLING.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
��DEDICATED
TO
THE PEOPLE
OE
ALL
N A T I O N S.
��THE “FREETHINKER” CHRISTMAS
NUMBER PROSECUTION.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, OLD BAILEY.
Thursday, March 1st, 1883.
(Before Mr. Justice North and a Common Jury.)
George William Foote, the editor • W. J. Ramsey, proprietor and Henry Arthur Kemp, printer and publisher, surrendered to
their bail to answer a charge of having published a blasphemous
libel in the 44 Freethinker,” the indictment being grounded on
matter found in the columns of the Christmas Number of that
journal.
. Sir Hardinge Giffard, Q.C., Mr. Poland, and Mr. H Lewis
instructed by Sir II. T. Nelson (the City Solicitor), on behalf of
the Public Prosecutor, conducted the prosecution; Mr. Horace
Avoi-y appeared for Kemp, and Foote and Ramsey were unrepre-
in °Pening the case for the prosecutionsaid that the defendants were indicted for the offence of blas
phemy, and happily, prosecutions of that character were rare
m this country. The offence of blasphemy consisted in, among
other things, making contumelious or disrespectful reproaches
against the Christian religion or the Holy Scriptures. By the
law of this country Christianity was part of our common law and
whatever people’s private feelings might be, the publication of
gross and violent attacks upon the Christian religion, insulting as
they were to the feelings of a Christian community, was a matter
which when it reached a certain point it was absolutely necessary
+i° +
was said’and he dare sa? veryoften
said
that the dragging into the light of publications of a blasphemed
or indecent character sometimes did mischief by attracting public
attention to that which would otherwise pass unnoticed. That
observation was, however, subject to this exception, that if the
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
nature or publication was such that it grieved and insulted the
feelings of the community; if, for instance, in a shop-window in
a public thoroughfare, things were exhibited to every young
and innocent mind which ridiculed what they had been taught
from their earliest years to regard with the utmost reverence, it
was the duty of the authorities to take action to put a stop to such
publication. In so doing, they did not drag into light subjects
which but for the interference would have remained in obscurity.
On the other hand, they drove at all events from the public
thoroughfares and from the public- notice things which when
displayed in shop-windows would necessarily attract a crowd.
The authorities were either compelled to allow so great an out
rage to public decency to continue, or they were called upon to
vindicate the law. A great deal also must depend not only on the
mode of publication, but also on the nature of the publication
itself. There were some things—some doubts set forth in books
and directed against the reverence which the law regarded as
part of the law of the country, but which, nevertheless, were so
expressed as to form no insult to those who thought differently.
Doubts on many points—or many theological tenets—had of
course occupied the minds of men for more than 1800 years, and
so long as doubts of this description were expressed with due
regard to the feelings of others, and without the intention of
outrage and insult, he would be a very rash person indeed, who
would think to drag into a criminal court disquisitions conceived
in such a spirit, even although they might be adverse to the views
which the great majority of Christian people entertained. Of
course, whenever an outrage of the present character was the
subject matter of complaint, it was common to hear observations
directed to the supposed liberty of discussion, freedom of press
and so forth. These were very plausible words to make use of,
but when he called the attention of the jury to the nature of
these publications, they would probably be of opinion that, quite
apart from any question of theological difference, quite apart
from any honest doubts people might entertain, those who were
guilty of so great an outrage of public decency had no right to
appeal to such topics as freedom of the press or liberty of dis
cussion. The point to which he should have to direct the
attention of the jury, was the outrage that had been committed
on the feelings of a Christian community. When he said this,
it was undoubtedly a fact that it had been found necessary, for
instance, in our great Indian dominions, where Christianity was
by no means the creed of the majority of the population, to pro
tect the freedom of conscience, and the right of every man to
hold his own faith by making criminal offenders of those who for
-outrage and insult thought it necessary to issue contumelious or
scornful publications concerning any religious sect, though not a
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
3
Christian sect. Probably their own feelings of what was right,
and of what was due to the real freedom of mankind, would
teach them that people should be allowed to hold their own
views and to strenuously fight for them, but it was no part of the
freedom of every man to insult, and revile, and hold up to
ridicule everything which other people held in reverence. He
had thought it right to make these observations, because it
seemed to him a prostitution of great names to bear the titles of
freedom of the press and liberty of discussion made use of when
he had to call attention to such ribaldry as was contained in the
present publication. He would not read, nor did he think it at
all desirable that he should describe what that publication was.
They would have it in their own hands and would form their own
judgment on it. He certainly would not be a party publicly to
describe the sort of thing that he had before him at that moment.
This was the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker.” To make
the Christmas Number appropriate, he presumed, to the season,
the composers of this publication had thought it right to have a
series of pictures respecting incidents in the life of our Lord and
Savior.
To say that they were caricatures would be an
inadequate statement. Each incident, round some of which
clustered the most awful mysteries of the Christian faith, formed
the subject of the grossest and most degrading caricature. The
Almighty himself was the subject matter of one of these pictures,
and accompanied with them was letter-press, including a ribald
song or poem so gross and outrageous in its character, that
beyond calling the attention of the jury to it he would not out
rage public decency by referring to it. Each and all of these
matters were intended to insult and grieve the conscience of
every man who was a Christian—nay, he would say any sincere
worshipper of the great God above us, whatever form of belief he
might hold. This was the object and intention of the paper of
this character. If the subject matters of the indictment were not
libels, he did not know what could be, for no indecency or out
rage in language or picture could exceed the violence of this
publication. The learned counsel then proceeded to describe the
evidence he intended to produce, observing in conclusion that if
the paper did not speak for itself, as to. the hideous and out
rageous blasphemy of its contents, he could only say that no such
offence could be known to the law.
Evidence was then called in support of the prosecution.
Robert Sagar, a constable in the City of London Police
Force, stated that on the 16th of last December he went to the
bookseller’s shop at 28 Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Road,
and purchased two copies (produced) of the Christmas Number
of the “Freethinker.” The defendant Kemp was serving in the
shop and received sixpence from him in payment for the two
�4
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
copies. On the 20th of January he purchased two more copies
at the shop from the defendant Kemp, and on January 31st he
agafn saw him behind the counter.
Mr. Poland said that the numbers produced were entitled
Christmas Number of the “Freethinker,” and were stated on
the title-page to be “edited by G. W. Foote.” On the back
sheet was an advertisement of Mr. Foote’s publications. . At the
end of the book it was stated to be printed and published by
H. A. Kemp, 28 Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Street, London,
E.C. He put in the certificate of registration of the “ Free
thinker,” from which it appeared that the name of the proprietor
was given as IV. J. Ramsey, and the signature was that of H. A.
Kemp, and the date of the signature being July 31st, 1882.
In cross-examination by Mr. Avory, Sagar stated that he saw
a number of books and other publications in the shop besides
the “ Freethinker.”
John Lowe, collector of rates for the parish of St. Brides,
stated that on the 7th of November he received a cheque signed
by Mr. W. J. Ramsey, in payment of a rate of £2 Is. 3d., in
respect of 28 Stonecutter Street.
W. G. Mitchell, cashier in the Birkbeck Bank, proved that the
cheque in question had been duly debited to Mr. Ramseys
account.
William John Norrish, of 20 Fowler Street, Camberwell, who
made affirmation instead of taking the oath, said that he lived
for five years at 28 Stonecutter Street, and up to the time when
he left in October last, it was the office of the Freethought Pub
lishing Company. That Company had, however, removed to
Fleet Street at the end of September. Witness was Mr. Brad
laugh’s servant while at Stonecutter Street. Mr. Ramsey was
manager of the Freethought Publishing Company, but witness
was not aware that the “ Freethinker ” was at that time pub
lished at the shop in Stonecutter Street. The name of the pub
lication was not painted up over the door at the time he left,
although it was there now. The defendant Kemp was not em
ployed there at the time, but he went there occasionally, and
witness had seen him there since ; Mr. Foote also used to look
in occasionally.
In cross-examination by Mr. Avory, witness said that while
he was employed at Stonecutter Street there was no printing
press nor were there any facilities for printing a newspaper
there, and no printing was done on the premises.
By Mr. Foote : Mr. Foote did not call often, and witness
never saw him transact any business there.
James Barber, assistant registrar of newspapers, stated that
the last registration of the “ Freethinker ” related to a change
�Tieport of Blasphemy Trials.
5
of proprietorship—Mr. Foote becoming proprietor in place of
Mr. Ramsey. This was on the 7th of February last.
William Oakhampstead, detective of the City of London Police
Force, produced a copy of the “ Freethinker,” bought by him of
Mr. Kemp, at 28 Stonecutter Street, on the 16th of February,
in which appeared a notice stating that, although the Christmas
Number had had a very large sale, the conductors were several
pounds out of pocket by it.
Sir H. Giffard pointed out that this notice appeared after the
proprietorship of the paper was transferred to Mr. Foote.
. John Edward Kellan, of 19 East Street, D'Oyley Square,
solicitor’s clerk, produced several copies of the “Freethinker,”
purchased by him at the office in Stonecutter Street, at various
times. He went there principally in May and June last, and he
had seen all the defendants there. All the copies bore the
notice “edited by G. W. Foote,” and “printed and published
by G. W. Ramsay, 28 Stonecutter Street.” There was also
a notice to correspondents directing that all business com
munications should be directed to Mr. W. J. Ramsey, 28
Stonecutter Street, and literary communications to the editor,
Mr. G. W. Foote, 9 South Crescent, Bedford Square, W.C.
In July last at the Mansion House witness gave evidence, and
the attention of Messrs. Foote and Ramsay, who were then
defendants, was called to these notices. Witness saw Mr. Foote
at the shop on the 16th of February.
By Mr. Foote: Witness had only seen Mr. Foote at the offiee
on one occasion—on the 16th of February.
By Mr. Ramsey: The name of Mr. Ramsey did not appear oil
any of the copies of the “ Freethinker ” witness had bought
since July.
William Loy, City Constable, said he had seen the defendant
Kemp in the office in Stonecutter Street every day in the week
during the present year, the defendant Ramsey most days, and
the defendant Foote occasionally.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote : How long have you been
watching the place ? I have been on duty there for the last tw®
years. I have not been watching the place more than others.
You were not instructed to watch it? (No reply.) Were
Further evidence was given by Mr. Foote’s landlady and her
servant and by two postmen, to show that he had had letters
addressed to him at his lodgings as editor of the “Freethinker,”
but in cross-examination, all these witnesses admitted that they
had never seen letters addressed to him as editor of the Christ
mas Number of the “ Freethinker.”
This concluded the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Avory said, with reference to the defendant Kemp, he did
aiot think it right to occupy the time of the court by contesting
�6
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
the fact that the defendant had been at the shop selling these
papers. He was bound to accept the definition laid down by his
lordship the merest office-boy would be considered a publisher
in the eyes of the law, and he would therefore reserve any
observation he might have to make.
Mr. Foote : My lord, at this stage of the proceedings, I am
going to ask the prosecution to elect against which of the three
defendants in this case they will go to the jury. There is no
allegation of conspiracy, and no evidence has been presented to
the court to support the charge of a joint act. I submit that
even if the allegations sought to be proved, were proved—that I
am editor of the particular number of the “ Freethinker” against
which these proceedings are taken, that Mr. Ramsey is the pro
prietor, and Mr. Kemp is printer and publisher,—still whatever
act we have committed would not be a joint offence. There has
been no evidence tendered to the effect that any copy of this
paper was purchased in the presense of all of us. It is not con
tended that we ever acted together at one and the same time, in
one and the same place. It is not urged that we all three wrote
any one of the libels in the indictment; it is not urged that
we all three printed; and I submit to your lordship that the
offences, if any, are distinct. What I might do as editor of
any particular publication, what the defendant Ramsey might
do as publisher or proprietor, and what the defendant Kemp
might do as printer, or even as shopman, must be considered
as entirely distinct matters having no necessary connexion.
For instance, I might write an article which might be a blas
phemous One. I might hand it to a printer to print. . In
letting it go out of my hands into the printing-office I might
be proved guilty of the offence of blasphemy, and it could not
in any way concern the printer. If the printer prints it, he
cannot in any way be concerned with any action except one
commenced after the article was put into his possession, and
which ends after his work is completed. The publisher’s act,
again, is a different act, in a different place, and can have no
necessary connexion with the two previous acts, as a thing
might be written, and printed, and not even published. I sub
mit then, your lordship, there is no allegation of conspiracy.
As these actions are several, and not joint, it is altogether im
proper to include the three of us in one indictment, and the
prosecution should be called on to elect as to which they will
go to the jury on. In support of this I may mention to your
lordship the case of the Queen against Bolton and Park, in
which the Lord Chief Justice used some language which could
scarcely be exceeded in its strength. The reference is in the
12th Cox Criminal Law Cases, p. 87. The Lord Chief Justice there
dwelt upon the damage which must necessarily be done to more
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
7
than one defendant joined in one indictment, on the ground that
evidence which is given against one of the defendants might serve
to the detriment of another defendant, while it would not be
admissible if the defendants were being tried separately. There
have been cases, too, in which, when several defendants have
been joined in one indictment, the indictment has been subse
quently quashed on this ground. There is the King against
Lynn and Debney, 1, Carrington and Payne, 128; and there is
also the case of the Queen against Tucker, 4, Burrows 2046.
It was held by the court in these cases that the indictment
was bad, because the action proved against the co-defendants
was not a joint action,
Mr. Justice North: I cannot hear you say now that the indict
ment ought to be quashed. You should have taken that
objection long since.
Mr. Foote : I am not doing so, my lord.
Mr. Justice North: That is the point you are putting to me
now.
Mr. Foote : No, my lord. I am very sorry if I have misled
your lordship. My point is that on this ground the prosecution
should be called on to elect which of us they should go to the
jury against. Indeed, in the case of the King agains t Lynn and
Debney, the prosecution was so called on.
Of course the
object, my lord, is obvious. If the prosecution decline to elect,
then we shad have a case for appeal in the Court of Crown
Cases-Reserved; if, on the other hand, the prosecution do elect,
it will greatly diminish the work before the court, and it will
not inflict injustice upon co-defendants, who, even if they suc
ceed eventually in their appeal, will have, in the meantime, to
undergo imprisonment.
Mr. Ramsey also urged that the prosecution should be called
on to elect against which of the defendants they would go to the
jury, on the gro.und that there had been no evidence of a joint
offence.
Mr. Justice North: I see no reason for calling on the prose
cution.
Mr. Ramsey: I ask your lordship to make a note of this for
the consideration of the Court of Crown cases Reserved.
Mr. Justice North: Go on. As regard the note, I have made
a note.
Mr. Ramsey : Thank you, my lord.
Mr. Justice North: Do not let my last observation mislead
you, Ramsey. I have made a note, but I do not say I have made
a note for the consideration of the court.
Mr. Foote : My lord, in my case I submit there is no evidenceto go to the jury. To begin, my lord, I will go back to the
7th of February, when according to the evidence given in court,,
�3
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
a change was made in the proprietorship of the “Freethinker.”
I was then registered as proprietor, but, my lord, I submit that no
registration of my proprietorship on the 7th of February could
at all prove or even indicate that I was editor of a particular
publication bearing whatever title, which according to the indicment it is alleged was published on the 16th of December, nearly
two months before. Then, my lord, what does the evidence
amount to in general against me ? We have the evidence of one or
two police officers who say that they have seen me at 28 Stone
cutter Street, the place of publication, as it is alleged of this
paper, and these police officers admit that my visits have been
comparitively few, and that they have been distributed over a
considerable space of time. In conjunction with this, we have
the evidence of the witness Nourish, to the effect that I have been
for years in the habit of occasionally calling at 28 Stonecutter
Street, so that whatever there may be in the testimony of the
police officers, it is only, so to speak, a continuation of the
evidence of Mr. Norish, and his evidence is that I have called
at 28 Sonecutter Street occasionally in a friendly way, but that
he has never seen me transact business there. Neither of the
police officers say that they have seen me transact business there.
Now what is the evidence to go to the jury upon as to the specific
publication in which these alleged libels are to be found ? I
submit, my lord, that if I were proved to have been the editor of
every other number bearing the title of the “ Freethinker,” it
would not be proof that I was editor of this specific publication.
It is not like a newspaper which runs from day to day, and from
week to week. This is a special publication. It might or it
might not have been edited by whoever is proved to have
been the editor of the ordinary numbers of the paper, and
I submit that there has not been the slightest shred of evi
dence that could connect me with the editorship of this
particular Christmas Number, which is before the court.
The letter-carriers cannot say that they have ever delivered
an envelope directed to me as editor of the Christmas “ Free
thinker,” or as editor of the Christmas Number of the “ Free
thinker.” They cannot even swear that they have delivered
letters addressed to me as editor of the “ Freethinker ” at any
time whatever between November 16th and December 16th,
during which time it might reasonably be supposed that my
editorial work in connexion with the Christmas Number of the
“ Freethinker ” would have been done. Then, my lord, we come
to the evidence of the witness Curie. She says that she has
seen envelopes addressed to me as editor of the “ Freethinker.”
She also has never seen any envelope addiessed to me as editor
of the Christmas Number of the “Freethinker.” She knows
nothing of the Christmas Number. Then we have the evidence
�'Report of Blasphemy Trials.
9
■of Mary Finter. She also has never seen any letters which could
be connected with this specific publication; and although it is
true she says she has seen a copy of the Christmas “ Free
thinker ” in my room, she also cannot say that there was more
than one copy. She admits that she saw in my room papers of
all shapes and colors, and therefore it is nothing extraordinary
—when according to the prosecution that paper has had an enor
mous sale—that a man who has in his room papers of all shapes
and colors should also have in his room a publication which has
attracted so much public attention as this. There is one remark
of Sir H. Giffard’s which I might refer to. He said there had
been no attempt on the part of the defendant Foote to deny that
he was in any way responsible for this alleged publication of a
blasphemous libel or of any others which had appeared in the
numbers of the “ Freethinker.” But I am not in the witnessbox, I am not before this court tendering evidence, and it is not
for me to help or in any way suggest lines of argument to the
prosecution, or to save them their trouble, which cannot be a very
burdensome matter when they have behind them such very
powerful friends with such very long purses. It is not for me
to make any such statements. I am simply dealing, and I am
bound simply to deal, with the evidence of the prosecution—all
the evidence which great expenditure of money and a large
issue of subpoenas has been able to produce ; and I submit that
there is no evidence to connect me with this Christmas Number
of the’“ Freethinker,” and that even if I had been proved to
have edited every other number, it would not be proof sufficient
that I had edited this particular number. I lay great stress upon
this point, because Sir H. Giffard evidently imagines that an
adverse verdict of the jury, if we should have to appeal to them,
would entail upon all of us, and upon me in particular, very
grave penalties. For this reason I think the court ought to be
perfectly satisfied that there is ample evidence to go to the jury
upon before deciding that my case should be presented to them.
I submit, my lord, that there is no evidence to go the jury upon.
Mr. Justice North : You had better address the jury, Foote ;
I am of opinion that there is.
Mr. Foote : Does your lordship propose any adjournment?
Mr. Justice North : Presently • not just yet.
Mr. Foote : I may take considerable time.
Mr. Justice North: I do not say that there will not be an
adjournment before you finish ; but the usual time is half-past
one. You had better begin. We will break off at about half
past one, at whatever time will be most convenient to you.
Mr. Foote : My lord and gentlemen of the jury. The case
which is before you is one which the learned counsel for the pro
secution has described as very grave ; and, although in one
�10
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
sense of the word I might seriously differ from him, I do agree
that in another sense of the word the case is grave, because you
are asked to give a verdict against me for an alleged blasphe
mous libel, and both the law and the punishment involved m it
have come down from barbarous and illiberal times, and that
makes the case all the more grave. I will ask you to divest your
minds, if possible, of all pre judice ; I will ask you to divest your
minds entirely, if it be possible, of all memory of some of the
language which was used by the learned counsel for the prosecu
tion. I am prosecuted for blasphemous libel, and in the remainder
of my remarks, for brevity’s sake, I shall simply use the word
blasphemy. The learned counsel used this word once or twice
in his opening, but he used the words decency and indecency at
least six times as often. I am not prosecuted here on a charge
of indecency. I am prosecuted on a charge of blasphemy. I
can quite understand that, by substituting the word decency,
other associations might be raised and other ideas excited in the
minds of the jury, and that while a verdict was asked for on one
ground, it might be sought to be snatched on another. I would
ask you, therefore, to throw aside the word decency altogether.
There is no obscenity alleged. The question before us is one
of blasphemy, and I shall have to ask you in the course of my
remarks to dismissfrom your minds also one or two misstatements
of fact that were made by the learned counsel, and one of these
I consider it necessary that you should divest your minds of at
the present moment. Sir Hardinge G-iffard told you that even
in India, where there are so many diverse and conflicting
sects—and, indeed, the learned counsel might have said with
quite as much truth where there were so many diverse and con
flicting religions, amongst them being the religion, of our own
country-—-that even in India the law had made it a criminal
offence, to use contumelious language against the beliefs of
others.' That is not true. The law relating to the subject in
India is simpler and more liberal than that. It does not deal
with words or with opinions—it deals with overt acts, and even
those acts must be of the nature of obtrusion. The law of India
does not make it criminal for a member of one religious sect to
use the most contumelious language to a member of the same
sect or to any other person on whom he did not voluntarily force
himself, with respect to the tenets of any other sect, JTo, thelaw of India, which of course is the law therefore of a part of
our British Empire, gives the same right to every sect and every
religion—unlike the law to which Sir H. G-iffard appeals this
morning. If you interfere with the religious worship in India
of any other sect, if you commit a breach of the peace, not by
words but by action, if you desecrate any shrine, or if you make
a physical attack upon an idol—in that case the law of India
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
11
finds that you are interfering with the religious liberties of all.
You have a perfect right, according to the law, to say what you
please to people who choose to hear you, and to write what you
please to people who choose to read what you write. You have
no right to go further and compel people to listen to your con
temptuous language, or to see you desecrate what they
consider to be sacred. Quite recently in India, as the learned
counsel most know, members of a body calling themselves the
Salvation Army—with what right I will not now examine—have,
under the law of India, been arrested, although they are Chris
tians, and have gone to India for the purpose of converting the
natives to what is, according to the learned counsel, the only true
religion and the religion of this state ; they have been arrested
for walking in procession through the streets, on the ground that
they were flaunting themselves objectionably before members of
other religious persuasions, and that such conduct would natu
rally lead to a breach of the peace between the contending sects.
The law of India, therefore, is not what the learned counsel
says it is. If that law were applied to this country, as some day
I hope it will be, an action could be brought against a Christian
for outraging the feelings of a Freethinker. I will draw your
attention, gentlemen of the jury, to a letter which appeared in
the Daily News, signed by no less a person than Professor
Hunter, of the,University College, London.
Mr. Justice North: How has that anything to do with the
case ? Mr. Foote : I am not going into the letter. I am only going
to refer to it as containing a full proof of what I am saying to
the jury. I am only dealing with Sir H. Giffard’s statement.
Mr. Justice North: I am not going into that statement at all.
The jury will not have to consider what the law of India is, but
what the law affecting this case is.
Mr. Foote : Then, my lord, I will discontinue my remarks on
this point, expressing my regret that the learned counsel should
have thought it necessary to occupy the time of the court with
it. (Laugher.) The learned counsel for the prosecution told
you that all you had to do was to determine the question of
publication—that all the rest lay with the learned judge. I
submit that that is not so.
Sir H. Giffard : You have quite misunderstood me.
Mr. Justice North: I did not understand you to say that.
Sir H. Giffard \ On the contrary, I left both questions to the
jury—whether it was blasphemy and whether it was published
by the defendants.
Mr. Foote continued: I will ask the gentlemen of the jury to
take a copy of an Act passed in the 32nd year of George ITT.,
which is an Act dealing with trials for libel. It is entitled “ an
�12
lieport of Blasphemy Trials.
Act to remove doubts respecting the functions of juries in cases
of libel.” The first clause runs thusWhereas doubts have
arisen whether on the trial of an indictment or information for
the making or publishing any libel, where an issue or issues are
joined between the King and the defendant or defendants, on
the plea of not guilty pleaded, it be competent to the jury im
panelled to try the same to give their verdict upon the whole
matter in issue: Be it therefore declared and enacted by the
King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and con
sent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this
present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of.the same,
that on every such trial, the jury sworn to try the issue may
give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty upon the whole
matter put in issue upon such indictment or information; and
shall not be required or directed, by the Court or Judge before
whom such indictment or information shall be tried, to find the
defendant or defendants guilty, merely on the proof of the pub
lication by such defendant or defendants of the paper charged
to be a libel, and of the sense ascribed to the same in such indict
ment or information.” So, gentlemen, you have practically the
decision of this whole matter in your own hands. I ask, my
lord, that this Act shall be passed to the jury.
Mr. Justice North: I shall tell them what points they will
have to decide.
Mr. Foote : May they not have a copy of the Act, my lord ?
Mr. Justice North: No ; they will take the law from the
directions I give to them ; not from reading Acts of Parliament.
Mr. Foote : Gentlemen of the jury, I hope to obtain your
verdict of not guilty on much broader grounds than those which
have been up to the present indicated. I hope that you will
remember that, bound as you are to give no man a reason for
your verdict, vou are the ultimate court of appeal on all questions
affecting the liberty of the press, the right of free speech, and the
right of freethought, and that if some old laws which are even
now unrepealed, such as laws dealing which excommunicate people,
were made the ground of an indictment, you would without
hesitation exercise the right which resides in you and give a
verdict of Not Guilty, whatever might be the nature of the offence.
I have even from the courts of law some justification for this
appeal to you, because it is not so very long ago since a London
magistrate refused a summons against a citizen under the law of
Maintenance on the ground that the law of Maintenance was obso
lete. It would be difficult to decide, if such a point were raised,
what lapse of time renders a law obsolete, but I will ask you,
gentlemen of the jury, to remember that it is more than fifty
years since any prosecution for blasphemy took place in the
City of London, and more than twenty-five years since any
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
13-
prosecution for blashphemy took place in the whole of the
country. That, in the meantime, attacks on religion have been
published, and that some of them have been of a fierce and
remorseless character, are facts of which the prosecution must be
thoroughly aware. Would such a lapse of time make the law
obsolete ? It would be difficult to lay down any hard and fast
line, but I submit, that if a magistrate has a right to refuse to
grant a summons under a certain law, on the ground that such
law is obsolete, a jury would have a right tosayNot Guilty instead
of Guilty, and refuse to send a man to gaol through their verdict,
or to cripple him with a heavy fine, when they are equally aware
that the law set in motion against him has not been enforced for so
many years, and more, they see that men are singled out for prose
cution, whose distinctive crime is not that they have used ridicule,
even if all the accusations against them were proved—not that they
have used sarcasm and irony, because it is well known that ridicule,
sarcasm, and irony are used in all controversy, whether religious
or otherwise—but simply because their publication is issued
in a cheap form which brings it within the reach of
the people. Prosecutions of this kind are never commenced
against the rich and powerful or against the writers of 12s.
books; they are always directed against men whose poverty
makes them seem friendless, always against men who are
speaking to the masses of the people; simply because the law
under which such prosecutions are begun partakes of the
nature, of a police law, and was intended to keep the masses of
the people in a kind of bondage, a kind of political and social
slavery to those who had the making of it, and who are, there
fore, interested in seeing it carried out. Now, gentlemen of the
jury, I want you to observe that the law under which we are being
prosecuted—-as the learned judge, Mr. Justice Stephen, onlyrecently
pointed out in a decision in the Court of Queen’s Bench—began
with burning alive. The writ relating to heretics was only
abolished in the reign of Charles II., and under that writ a man
pronounced a heretic might be taken to the stake and burnt to
ashes. That is a significant fact which ought to influence your
minds to-day, as it shows that the origin of all such pro
ceedings as the present is simply persecution. It shows that the
law itself originated in a persecuting and barbarous age, that it
is a relic of the past, a disgrace to civilisation, and a scandal to
humanity; and a jury of intelligent and honest Englishmen
ought not to allow themselves to be made the instruments of
enforcing such a law. It is a remarkable thing that while the
learned counsel for the prosecution observed that no one would
think of interfering with what he called decent discussion of
controverted points of religion, and while also he said that he
did not think any proceedings for such an offence would lead to
�14
iJ
J
£■
*
A
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
anything, yet it was necessary that publications which outraged
the feelings of the Christian public should be put down. Well,
gentlemen, as the learned judge I have no doubt will tell you,
the law is perfectly clear as to heresy and blasphemy, and one
of our high judges—no less a person than Mr. Justice Stephens
_ Pas recently in his ‘ ‘ History of the Criminal Law, stated that
the real law in the matter of blasphemy is that the offence lies
in the matter and not in the manner, and that any attack on the
established religion of the country is blasphemous, and under
that law could be punished as such. You have only to remember
that what are called now controverted points of religion—such for
instance as the subjects dealt with by Bishop Golenko in his <6
great work on the Pentateuch—were points that might not be
controverted only a century before, and that while Bishop
Colon Iso can still remain a colonial bishop of the English Church
notwithstanding that he is the author of these volumes, impugning the authority of these five books of the Bible, yet the Bev.
Mr. Wolston was actually sent to prison, and kept there for
years, tor making the proposition now put forward by Bishop
Colenzo. To that it is only a question of the public opinion of
the country, measuring itself against the rigidity of the old law.
As to the statute law there can only be one opinion. There is, I
believe, only one statute against blasphemy in the statute book
—the 9th and 10th William III. We are not indicted under that
statute, but I think it necessary to point out to you the nature
of the statute, so that you may understand the spirit of these
laws. I find that any person who denies any member of the
Trinity to be God, or says there are more gods than one, or
denies that Jesus Christ was God, or denies the inspiration of
the Holy Scriptures, is, on a first conviction, to be deprived of
any post he may occupy in the country; and, on a second ccm"
viction, to be sent to gaol for three years, and to be deprived of
his civil rights for the remainder of his natural life, so that he
would be incapable of sueing any person who owed him any
thing, and of defending himself against any person who sued him
in an unjust suit.
.
At this point the court adjourned for lunch, Mr. Justice Aorth
intimating to Mr. Foote that it was of no use for him to address
t the jury on points that were not law. The jury would take what
| was the existing law from him.
On the resumption of the proceedings,
Mr. Foote continued his speech as follows:—Gentlemen of
the jury,—while I shall be exceedingly sorry to trespass out
side my proper province and on the province of the learned
judge, an while I propose not to follow the observations I was
addressing to you immediately before the adjournment, I wish
to call your attention to the fact that the indictment on which I
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
15
am prosecuted is an indictment at common law. Common law
is a question of precedent. It is unwritten law except for pre
cedent. The judges and juries have made it. It has contracted and
expanded with the public opinion of the times, and I submit that
as this indictment is under common law, with the Act of Geo. TIT ,
which I quoted before, you have a right to frame your decision
upon the entire question, and the arguments I shall now address
to you will be based on the assumption. Of course in what I
shall say I am to a very large extent in his lordship’s hands. I
should be exceedingly sorry to say anything that may be miscon
strued into disrespect of the court, and I trust that anything I
may say will be considered as merely the effort of a man untrained
in law and untrained in the ■ procedure of courts, to defend
himself for the first time in his life against a charge like this.
Any unintelligible breach of etiquette I may commit will be,
therefore, I am sure, overlooked. Now, we are told by the
learned counsel in his opening address that Christianity is part
and parcel of the law of the land. That may be true ; probably
the learned judge will direct you that it is true. But, after all,
gentlemen, the question of blasphemy is not such a question as
that of theft or murder. It must be largely if not entirely a
question of opinion, because even the learned counsel, in his
opening remarks, observed that some latitude of dissent from
Christianity, which was the law of the land, would be permitted,
though there was a certain latitude which would not be permitted.
Clearly,. therefore, the learned counsel is proceeding on the
assumption that after all the guilt would lie in the manner and not
the matter of the blasphemous libel. Now, gentlemen, I shall
ask your attention to something which I consider ought to in
fluence your judgment in this matter. I would ask you to bear
in your minds the words which conclude the first count of the
indictment. I am charged with having published blasphemous
libels “to the great scandal and reproach of the Christian religion
to the high displeasure of Almighty God, and against the peace
of our Lady the Queen, her Crown, and dignity.” It may be
that this is merely the phraseology of indictments, but I have
nothing whatever to do with that; I take the language of the
indictment as it stands, and I would submit to you, gentlemen,
that if one part of blasphemy consists in giving great displeasure
or high displeasure to Almighty God, you cannot possibly have
any evidence in support of this charge. Surely, gentlemen, the
question of whether any words or pictures, which are only
speeches addressed to the eye, are displeasing to Almighty God,
is a question which you must be content to leave to the Deity to
decide ; and if you believe in a Deity, and in future rewards find
punishments, you will, I am sure, be content not to take up a
position of protection, not to allow the finite to champion the
�16
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
interests of the infinite ; but to leave to the high tribunal in
which you believe the judgment of all offences against itself.
The learned counsel emphasised the words “ to the evil example
of all those in like cases offending.” Well, gentlemen, you cannot
be ignorant of the fact, as men of the world, moving about from
day&to day, and week to week, and reading papers of all descrip
tions that a prosecution like this even if successful m an adverse
verdict, could not at all prevent the propagation of here
tical opinions, even if those opinions were expressed or rather
maintained with a degree of levity which you yourselves would
disapprove I do not think that the terrorism of an adverse
verdict could at all influence the very large number of heretics
that exist in this country; but, on the contrary, 1 shall ask you
to believe that it would be construed as persecution, and that
persecution has, according to the showing of history unless, it
has exterminated, always, by arousing the fervor of men, in
creased the strength of their cause. In this case, instead of an
adverse verdict being deterrent, it would only excite interest m
the ideas that are stigmatised by it, and would only lead to a
far greater curiosity about them; and as the learned counsel
knows curiosity in such a case as this is very unfortunate be
cause it frequently leads to results the very opposite to those
which the plaintiffs desire. I am charged with the publica
tion of a blasphemous libel “ to the great scandal and reproach o
the Christian religion.” I would ask you to consider the real
facts of this alleged blasphemous libel, and its publication. ±t
is not alleged that men have been sent out into the streets to
force the publication into people’s hands. It is not even alleged
that people had it pressed on their notice, or that any extraordi
nary prominence has been given to it other than that which the
curiosity of the reader, who may have been informed of its
existence, might imply. With this fact on your mind, what
weight can you attach to the declaration of the learned counsel for
the prosecution that the obvious intention was to outrage the
feelings of the Christian public. The Christian public is a very
wide one, and an outrage on the Christian public m the street
might perhaps have a wider effect and publicity than any
outrage through the press. Nothing of this kind is alleged. It
is a press offence. There is no declaration whatever within the
borders of the incriminated number of the “Freethinker that
its object is to outrage any person’s feelings. Does not the
learned counsel know—gentlemen you must—-that a paper which
may be considered blasphemous by authority may be written,
and published, and sold, and printed, by those who be
lieve in what is stated in the publication, for people who
equally believe in it. On the very face of the thing, we must
assume with respect to any publication, whether heretical or
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
17
foihthem’ostanaiitiSthireCt17 intended
P^P1* who entertain
tor the most part the views propounded in it. If you were to
start a paper m the hope that those who hold opinions
directly opposite to those expressed in it, would support it you
would very soon be undeceived. That is a matte?which will
not create much controversy. I submit, therefore, that it is
not a question of what any Christian, whether sensitive or in
sensitive, might dislike m a Freethought paper which may be
written printed, published, sold for people who believed the
men who are responsible for the publication, and who also be
lieve m the policy which guides them in disseminating their
views. I would, therefore, ask you not to attach any particular
importance to the learned counsel’s observations on^his pjint
I submit that there has been no proof of the alleo-nd in
tendon ; on the contrary, ah the evidLce is ¿SX
The last charge of the first count in the indictment is that
the libel is against the peace of our Lady the Queen her Crown I
»nd dr^ty. There, again, I daresay I shah be¡¿formed tZ
that is the legal way of stating that a blasphemous libel has bZ
committed; but gentlemen, these are in the nature of reasons
These are in the nature, if I may use such language of
lustrations of the concrete effects of disseminating such ™ Mica
tions, and if these concrete results do not follow“ that ough" to
¡''"i."''“ y0U ““
verdict you give. I utterly deny thatothere
has been any evidence whatever tendered to show or that
pZZZ oWHhee XS X&TX'u"
ZaSZ’ °i crd lead> t0
ob&e‘"on &
trary there has been caused a feeling of excitement of a
pleasant character, and what may prove to be 5
mental character by the commenXS
would not have taken place if the incriminated paper had been left
alone to find its own public that approved it, and to be despised
if you will, by the public that disapproved it. ‘ ‘ BrS of
the peace, gentlemen! I think youwill find that
i
Freethinkers and heretics a“e not prone to bt/ol?
the neaee Ynn vwin t +n- i V
pi one to breaches of
«
J i r 11’-1 thmk’ be aware that there has been
a good deal of excitement in the streets of
of the peace have oceur^b“
law, simply because the pX^fX^aXTaX/
B
�18
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
leads to breaches of the peace. I submit that the proper way of
Healing with matters of this kind—the mode which public
opinion is slowly beginning to appreciate—is to deal with breaches
of the peace as they occur, and that it should not be argued
that the expression of certain opinions m a particular form
will necessarily lead to breaches of the peace, unless it
can be shown that such breaches of the peace have occured
in the past, and that there are indications that they will
in all probability occur in the future. With regard to
these concrete results that are predicted from the blasphemous
libels set forth in the indictment, I shall ask you to give a
verdict of Not Guilty, and to withhold the verdict of Guilty.
Now gentlemen, I leave the indictment for a moment, and I
come to other considerations. Whether Christianity is really
nsrt and parcel of the law of the land is a question which I
Eve Si the hands of the learned judge He will direct you,
gentlemen, on that subject. But I do affirm that dissent from
Christianity is so widespread m our country that fair-play, justice
and humanity, alike demand that a jury should not give a verdict
of guilty in the case of a prosecution for blasphemy, unless they
are fully persuaded that those who are accused really wished
really intended, and really designed, not only that the feelings of
others should be outraged, but that some commotion might be
raised some violent commotion which might be called a breach
of the peace and from which it might be inferred that they
designed the promotion of their own views through the disruption
of society and the violation of public order. Now, gentlemen,
I told you before that one of the reasons in my opinion why the
present prosecution was commenced, was that the alleged blasphemous>libels were published m a cheap paper, and I asked you
to bear in mind, that there was plenty of heresy in expensive
books published at 10s., 12s., and even as much as £1 and
more.’ I think I have a right to ask that you should have some
proof of this statement. I think I can show you that similar views
are expressed by the leading writers of to-day—not perhaps in
precisely the same language—for it is not to be expected that the
paper which is addressed to the many will be conducted on just
the same level, either intellectually or aesthetically speaking, as a
pubbeation in the form of an expensive book which is only
intended for men of education, intelligence, leisure, and learning
—but such views are put before the public by the most prominent
writers of the day. You will, of course, expect to find differences
in the mode of expression—and as a matter of course differences
of taste • but I submit that differences of taste affect the question
vervhttie, unless, as I have said, they actually lead to breaches
of the peace. But in a case like this there ought to be no dis
tinction1^on grounds of taste. Surely the man who says a thing m
�Tieport of Blasphemy Trials.
19
one way is not to be punished, while the man who says the same
thing m another way is to go scot free. You cannot make a
distinction between men on grounds of taste. I can imagine that
lfthere were a parliament of aesthetic gentlemen, and Mr. Oscar
**, j yer.e ma^e Prime Minister, some such arrangement as that
W01U1iLfind3 wei.gbt before the jury; but in the present state of
enlightened opinion, I do not think that any such arrangement
would be accepted by you. Now, gentlemen, I shall call your
attention first of all to a book which is published by no less a
firm than the old and well established house of Longmans The
author of the book----Mr. Justice North : What is the name of the book.
MMr; Foote : The book is the “Autobiography of John Stuart
Mr. Justice North : What are you going to refer to it for ?
lord 'b00te: 1 am going t0 refer t0 one PaSe of it, my
Mr. Justice North: What for?
Mr- Foote : To show that identical views to those expressed in
volumes^ paper before tbe court are expressed in expensive
Mr. Justice North : I shall not hear anything of that sort. I
am not trying the question, nor are the jury, whether the views
expressed by other persons are sound or right. The question is
a blasPhemous libel. I shall direct
them that it will be for them to say whether the facts are proved
m this case.
1
1 e111! * al1 your attention, my lord, to the remarks
i*
of Lord Justice Cockburn m the case.
;,¥r’ ¿jUSfclCe N°rth : I will hear anything relevant to the sub
ject. My reason for asking-you was to find out whether vou
were going to quote a law book.
Mr. Foote : I will quote a verbatim report.
Mr. Justice North : I can hear that.
Annie Bes°ant
Charles Bradlaugh and
Mr. Justice North : By whom is your report published.
m
a verbatim report published by the Freethought Publishing Company—the shorthand notes of the full
theCcoeurkgS’
h the cross-examination and the judgment of
hem*1it?UStiCe N°rt11: Tbere is no evidence of that.
*
Did you
did11"’ F°°te: 1 dld nOt Personally Pear it; but my co-defendants
Mr. Justice North: I will hear you state anything you suogest as being said by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.
7 * * *°
�20
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
Mr. Foote : Mrs. Besant was about to read a passage from
“Tristram Shandy”----Mr. Justice North : You have not proved the publication.
Mr. Foote: Quite so, my lord; but although this is not
formal evidence and only the report of a case, I thought your
lordship would not object to hear it. [Mr. Foote here handed
in a copy of the report to the judge, and pointed out that the
Lord Chief Justice had said he could not prevent Mrs. Besant
from committing a passage to memory or from reading books if
reciting from memory.]
Mr. Justice North: 1 will allow you to go on, either quoting'
from memory or reading from the book; but I cannot go into
the question of whether this is right or not.
Mr. Foote: I am not proposing that. I am only going to
show that opinions like those expressed here extensively prevail.
Mr Justice North: That is not the question at all. If they
extensively prevail, so much the worse. What somebody else
has said, whoever that person may be, cannot affect the question
in this case.
„ ,
Mr. Foote : But, my lord, might it not affect the question of
whether a jury might not themselves by an adverse verdict be
far more contributing to a breach of the peace than the publica
tion in which they are asked to adjudicate.
Mr. Justice North: I think not, and it shall not do so it 1
can help it. It is a mere waste of time to attempt to justify
anything that has been said in the alleged libel by showing that
someone else has said the same thing.
Mr. Foote : In all trials the same process has been allowed.
Mr. Justice North : It will not be allowed on this occasion.
Mr Foote : If your lordship will pardon me for calling atten
tion to the famous case of the King against Wiliam Hone, I would
point out that there Hone read extracts to the jury.
P Mr. Justice North: Very possibly it might have been very
relevant in that case.
.
.
.,
Mr Foote • But, my lord, it was precisely a similar case; it
was a case of a blasphemous libel. Lord Ellenborougb sat on
the Bench.
Mr. Justice North : Possibly.
Mr. Foote: And Lord Ellenborough allowed Mr. Hone to
read what he considered justificatory of his own publication, lhe
same thing occurs in the case of the Queen agamst Bradlaugh
^Mr Justice North: We have nothing to do to-day with the
question whether any author has taken the views which are
taken in these libels, whoever the author was.
Mr. Foote : Does your lordship mean that I am to go on read
ing or not ?
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
21
Mr. Justice North : Go on with your address to the jury sir •
that’s what I wish you do. But you cannot do what you’were
about to do—refer to the book you mentioned for any such pur
poses as that you indicate.
r
Mr. Foote : I hope your lordship does not misunderstand me.
1 am simply defending myself against the very grave charge
under an old law.
s
Mr Justice North: Go on, go on, Foote. I know that. Go
on with your address.
Mr. Foote : Your lordship, these questions are part of my
address. Gentlemen (turning to the jury), no less a person than
a brother of one of our most distinguished judges has said___
Mr. Justice North: Now, again, I cannot have you quoting
books not m evidence, for the sake of putting before the jury
m 3?aiiterT th?L,Sta<te- The Passage you referred to is one in
done the L°rd CiUef dustlce pointed out that that could not be
Mr. Foote: But the action, my lord, of the Herd Chief Jus
tice did not put a stop to the reading. ’ He said he would allow
Mrs. Besant to-XTquote any X---------- dUlHUSS. of her address.
passage as part
TIT
T
xn
Mr. Justice North: Go on.
Mr Foote : No less a person than the brother of one of our
most learned----do^hatJUStiCe N°rth : N°W did 1 UOt teH y°U that y0U could not
this^case*?0^6 ' WU1 y°Ur lordship give a most distinct ruling in
Mr. Justice North: I am ruling that you cannot do what you
Are trying to do now.
J
I100?.6 : dam sorry> my lord, I cannot understand.
Mr Justice North: I am sorry for it. I have tried to make
myself clear.
Mr. Foote : Does your lordship mean that I am not to read
from any letter to show lustification of the libel 9
be^hown°te : My 1OTd’ “ aU °rdinary libel case Justification can
Mr. Justice North : Go on.
Mr. Foote : 1 do not wish to occupy the time of the court un-
�22
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
necessarily, but really I think your lordship ought to remember
the grave position in which I stand, and ought not to stand m
the way of anything which I consider to be of vital importance
to my defence.
. T
•
Mr. Justice North: 1 have pointed out to you what I consider
to be questions the jury have got to decide. I hope you will no
go outside the lines I have pointed out to you, but, with these
remarks, I am very reluctant to interfere with any prisoner sayin* anything which he considers necessary, and I will not stop
you. I hope you will not abuse the concession I consider I am
making to you.
_
■
Mr. Foote : I should be very sorry, my lord.. I am only
■ stating what I consider necessary. To the question of Are
we Christians ?” which was propounded by the late German
writer, Strauss, the gentleman to whom I refer, answers
“ No ! I should reply ; we are not Christians ; a tew try to pass
themselves off as Christians, because, whilst substantially men
of this age, they can cheat themselves into using the old
charms in the desperate attempt to conjure down alarming
social symptoms ; a great number call themselves Christians,
because, in one way or another, the use of the old phrases and
the old forms is still enforced by the great sanction of respec
tability ; and some for the higher reason, that they fear to part
with the grain along with the chaff; but such men have
ceased substantially, though only a few have ceased avow
edly, to be Christian in any intelligible sense of the name
Gentlemen, you will all have heard, I am sure, of the great
name of John Stuart Mill, who was not only a great writer,
whichis his highest claim to distinction, but was also a member
of Parliament, elected, despite the most unscrupulous use ot
the fact that he was a heretic, by the constituency of West
minster. John Stuart Mill says he was brought up without
religion, and states that his father, who brought him up
“ looked upon it as the greatest enemy of morality: first, by
setting up fictitious excellencies,—belief in creeds, devotiona^
feelings, and ceremonies, not connected with the good ot
human-kind,—and causing these to be accepted as substitutes
for genuine virtues : but above all, by radically vitiating the
standard of morals ; making it consist m doing the will of a
being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation,
but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hateful. J.
have a hundred times heard him say, that all ages and nations
have represented their gods as wicked, in a constantly in
creasing progression, that mankind have gone on adding trai
after trait till they reached the most perfect conception of
wickedness which the human mind can devise, and have called
this God, and prostrated themselves before it. This neplus ultra
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
23
of wickedness he considered to be embodied in what is com
monly presented to mankind as the creed of Christianity.”
That is very emphatic language, and if a great writer, with
not only an English or even a European, but a universal re
putation can disseminate, such language as that through the
agency of respectable publishers and in expensive books
surely those who occupy the same ground, teach the same
ideas m their own way to those who are willing to listen to
them without forcing them on anyone’s attention, should
enjoy immunity from such penalties as are inflicted in a
case like this, and should enjoy exactly the same rights as
those who differ from them—I suppose, gentlemen, I shall
not trespass too much on your patience if I ask you to go
back for a moment to the fact that I mentioned before the
adjournment, namely, that it is a quarter of a century since
there was any prosecution for blasphemy in England,
lhe case was that of a poor Cornish well-sinker, who was
sent to gaol for having chalked some silly words on a gate
which words the witnesses could not agree about. This man
was liberated after a very short incarceration, because public
opinion was aroused against the sentence, and the authorities
round it necessary to remit the larger portion of it. A great
ea 0 controversy was excited at the time, and among other
gentlemen who took part in it was no less a person than the
great historian, Mr Henry Thomas Buckle, and he stated
It should be clearly understood that every man has an abso
lute and irrefragable right to treat any doctrine as he thinks
proper; either to argue against it, or to ridicule it. If his
arguments are wrong, he can be refuted; if his ridicule is
t ohsh, he can be out-ridiculed. To this there can be no ex
ception. It matters not what the tenet may be, nor how dear
it is to our feelings. Like all other opinions, it must take its
chance; it must be roughly used ; it must stand every test: it
must be thoroughly discussed and sifted. And we mav
truth 7t that lf
really be a great and valuable
truth, such opposition will endear it to us the more, and
that we shall cling to it the closer in proportion as it is
argued against, aspersed, and attempted to be overthrown ”
beTt W X’ 1*aSkZ°U toJemem?er this language-to rememher that this great man has said m language which I would
I a riht6 5U°,ted ,lf 1 C0uld only emulate it, that we all have
a right to treat any mere doctrine as we may think fit
Gentlemen ideas are the possession of no man. The reputa
tions of individuals in bygone generations are not the vested
right of men of to-day. If we really believe that no man
who ever existed in the world was possessed of divine attri
butes, then we ought to be as free to impugn, ridicule and
�24
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
caricature what one has done as well as another. If you
should imagine, or believe, or feel thoroughly convinced, that
exception must be made in the case of one reputed man, and
that he had the attributes of divinity, yet, remembering that
you cannot be the judges of others, and that your sentiments
cannot be the criterion of other people’s conduct, I think you
will be disposed to accede the demands of justice, and will
not give the verdict of guilty asked for by the prosecution,
but will return a verdict of not guilty for the defendants.
Another great writer of to-day, Professor Huxley, has. used
language about the dogmas of Christianity, such as, if the
law as explained by the learned counsel for the prosecution
were in force, would lead to his standing in this dock on a
criminal charge ; and if the law were carried out vigorously,
would lead to his incarceration in gaol. Surely, if that be
true, as every reader of the literature of to-day must know,
you have to ask yourselves whether, after all, there is not a
seoret motive behind this prosecution which has induced the
movers in it to select these particular men and to charge them
with blasphemous libel, while others, guilty at law of pre
cisely the same offence, are allowed to go scot free, and are
sometimes even patronised ano praised. You ought to deter
mine that by your verdict you will show that the liberties of
those who seem friendless and poor shall not be rashly im
perilled in the interests of classes, but that every man,
whether poor or rich, and whether he addresses his fellow
men through the medium of a penny paper or a twelve
shilling book has precisely the same rights. I will ask you
to treat the law under which we are being tried as the magis
trate treated the law of maintenance—as obsolete in this
country. It is very often said, and has been said to-day by
the learned counsel for the prosecution, that ridicule is not
allowable, and that learned men who controvert disputed
points of religion or topics of religion refrain from ridi
cule. I might give you the example of Mr. Matthew Arnold,
son of Dr. Arnold, the celebrated head-master of Rugby
School. Lord Derby, the other day at Liverpool, declared that
Mr. Matthew Arnold possessed the title of original thinker if
any one could make that claim. Yet we find him speaking in
a book on “ God and the Bible,” in language which might have f
been used in the “ Freethinker” or any other heretical publi
cation. One of his phrases runs thus
” Given the problem
of getting the infant Christ born without the assist
ance of a Father.” Certainly nothing stronger than
that could have been quoted by the learned counsel, who
had refrained from making any quotation, as if he not only
intended to snatch a verdict, but also to prevent the outside
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
25
world from understanding what the offence charged really
amounted to, and to induce them to think that the libels were
indecent as well as blasphemous. Mr. Matthew Arnold spoke
of the Trinity as “ Three Lord Shaftesburys.” If a poor man
had done this he would have been put on his trial; but Mr.
Matthew Arnold is screened because of his position. I might
give you more from Mr. Matthew Arnold; but I refrain. I
have quoted from Professor Huxley, but there is one passage
in which he distinctly repudiates belief in the fuller part of
the Old Testament, which is alleged to be blasphemously
libelled in one of the drawings of the “ Freethinker.” Pro
fessor Huxley says that people who call themselves Christians,
believe that “Adam was made out of earth somewhere in
Asia, about six thousand years ago ; that Eve was modelled
from one of his ribs; and that the progeny of these two
having been reduced to the eight persons who landed on the
summit of Mount Ararat after an universal deluge, all the
nations of the earth have proceeded from these last, have
migrated to their present localities, and have become con
verted into Negroes, Australians, Mongolians, etc., within
that time. Five-sixths of the public are taught this Adamitic Monogenism as if it were an established truth, and believe
it. I do not; and I am not acquainted with any man oj
science, or duly instructed person, who does; ” and Professor
Huxley in the same address, has an eloquent fling at
those- who, as he says, would make the myths of the
Hebrews obligatory on the Englishmen of to-day, and who
would. degrade the people of this country to the level of
primitive Judaism. Now, gentlemen, I pass by Professor
Huxley and Mr. Matthew Arnold, and come to Viscount
Amberley.
Mr. J"ustice North: Do you really think you are doing your
self any good by this mode of address to the jury, who have
only to decide the questions which I have pointed out to you
just now p
Mr.. Foote: I do, my lord. Lord Amberley distinctly
repudiates all Christian belief, and says, for instance, with
respect to the subject of the libel which is referred to in the
indictment as to pages 8 and 9 of the “ Freethinker.” [Here
Mr. Foote quoted a passage which shall be given in full in
the last Part.]
Now, gentlemen, is not this language as extreme as any
thing that has been stated or pointed out to you as forming
part of the blasphemous libel before you ? Just one other
quotation.. One of the illustrations which is mentioned as
occuring in this blasphemous libel on page 7 of the Christmas
Number of the “ Freethinker,” is called “ A back view.”
�26
Iteport of Blasphemy Trials.
That, on the face of it, does not represent a Deity. It
represents a Hebrew myth—a Hebrew legend, if yon prefer
the phrase—which, if one does not believe in its truth as
history, and as matter of fact, is as much a subject of
caricature, of ridicule, and of sarcasm, as the myths of the
Greeks and Romans, or of any other people. Surely,
gentlemen, you are not going to make it an offence to
caricature the myths of Greece and Rome, which were coeval
with the days of the Hebrews, who were much more barbarous
than the Greeks and Romans, because they were much less
informed as to natural laws, and were the most credulous and
ignorant people who ever attracted the notice of the world.
Another writer has said in an expensive book, “ Truly if the
author of Exodus,”—and the quotation under this drawing was
taken from the book of Exodus—“ had been possessed of the
genius of Swift, and designed a malignant satire on the God
of the Hebrews, he could have produced nothing more ter
ribly true to his malicious purpose than the grotesque parody
of divine intervention in human affairs, depicted in the re
volting details of the Ten Plagues ruthlessly inflicted on the
Egyptian nation.” (“ The Evolution of Christianity,” p. 25 ;
William and Norgate ; 1883.)
There are many other paragraphs following, which deal with
other aspects of the character of the same Deity, all breathing
the same sentiment. Gentlemen, so far I have proved my
point, that in expensive books the same kind of heresy, and
the same kind of language are employed, as are to be found in
the publication which is now before you. I ask you, gentlemen,
to believe that there must be some other reason prompting the
prosecutors than those which are ostensibly on the face of
their declarations, and that they are really seeking to
gratify some ulterior design—probably seeking only the same
objects as were sought in the previous prosecution for blas
phemy, which is still pending—namely, an attack on a political
opponent under an obsolete religious law, which was allowed
to slumber until his enemies found it a useful weapon to
employ against him for political ends. Now, gentlemen, I
have given you one or two illustrations of permitted blasphemy
in expensive books, and I will go on to trouble you for a
minute or two with a few instances of permitted blasphemy in
cheap publications which, however, are ignored because they
call themselves Christian, and because those who conduct
them are patronised by ecclesiastical dignitaries. One passage
in a paper I hold in my hand, a Christian paper, says:—
[Here follows a passage from the War Cry, impounded, but
which we hope to give in our last Part.]
Mr. Justice North: Now, Foote, I am going to put a stop to
�Tieport of Blasphemy Trials.
27
this. I will not allow any more of these illustrations of what
you call permitted blasphemy in cheap publications. I decline
to have any more of them put before me.
Mr. Foote: My lord, I will use them for another purpose,
if you will allow me.
Mr. Justice North: You will not use them here at all, sir.
Mr. Foote : May they not be used, my lord, to show that an
equally free use of religious symbols, and religious language,
prevails widely in all classes of literature and society ?
Mr. Justice North : No, they may not. I decline to hear
them read. They are not in evidence, and I refuse to allow
you to quote from such documents as part of your speech.
Mr. Foote : Well, gentlemen, I will now ask your attention
very briefly to another branch of the subj ect—one that 1 have
mentioned before, and one that I wish to dwell upon at greater
length now. The learned counsel for the prosecution told
you—and this I hold is fatal to his case, if it is to be a question
of logic—that discussion on controversial points of religion,
even when they are conducted warmly by learned men, would
not be made the subject of prosecution at law—that nothing
would result from them ; by which I suppose he meant that a
jury would not give a verdict against the prosecuted persons :
thus showing that, in his opinion a jury has a very large dis
cretion in the matter. I submit that this very statement
carries with it a complete refutation of his argument. When
these obsolete laws were being enforced against Richard
Carlile and others, the prosecuted periodicals had a larger
sale, and the society which was promoting them had a larger
accession of strength, and was able to hold its own much
better than before. John Stuart Mill pointed out at that time
in the Westminster Review that, it is absurd to say a subject is
open to discussion, and at the same time to bar one method of
discussion. . Ridicule, gentlemen—what is it ? A logician
would call it the reductio ad absurdum—that is to say, it reduces
a. thing to absurdity. Some of you must know that ridicule
is a most potent form of argument as used by so great a
logician as Euclid. Why then, with respect to controverted
points of religion, should a man be deemed a criminal because
he has applied ridicule to those points, either pictorially, or
in the language of every-day life ? Suppose you look around
and take letters, or politics, or social matters, do you not find,
that ridicule plays an important and growing part in every
one of them?^ Do you not find that the comic journals are
constantly rising, that the rate of the old-established ones is
constantly increasing, and that their influence is constantly
extending ? You do. And why is it you permit ridicule in
controversy on all social matters ? Simply because the whole
�28
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
question is open to the fullest discussion, and you have no
reservations. Ridicule is not a form of argument which is
necessarily used to outrage the feelings of those from whom
we differ, lent to point out absurd conclusion, and to show
more clearly the ridiculous side of a thing. If the illustration
takes the form of pictures instead of letterpress what
essential difference can it make ? It is simply appealing to
the eye instead of the ear, and can make no essential difference.
If you agree with the learned counsel, that discussion on
points of theology is allowable, and the widest difference on
such points is allowable, you cannot logically bring in a person
guilty of blasphemy—simply he differs in a usual way. When
you allow that religion may be discussed without any reser
vation you cannot exclude ridicule, which is only a form of
argument, and has been found one of the most potent forms
not only by philosophers and logicians, but by the greatest
Christians, from Tertullian and other early Fathers, down to
Martin Luther, who was the most practised hand at that, to
our own time, when, if you look at the religious papers, either
High Church or Low Church, you will find that they employ
it most freely one against the other, considering it a fair and
legitimate weapon of controversy. I will ask you to consider
this question of outraging people’s feelings. Whose feelings,
I would ask, have been outraged by the publication of this
alleged blasphemous libel p I am not arguing whether I have
been proved to have been connected with it. That is a
question which I have raised before ; but I ask what evi
dence is there that this publication, notwithstanding all the
denunciations of the learned counsel for the prosecution, has
outraged the feelings of those who differ from the doctrines
propounded in it? The learned counsel may say liis feelings
have been outraged; but, gentlemen, I do not think you will
attach much importance to that. You can get any amount of
denunciation from a prosecuting counsel, and his denunciations
-can generally be measured by the number of guineas marked
upon his brief. But I will put it to the prosecuting couusel—
what feelings have been outraged ? They ought to have pro
duced evidence that the feelings of certain people had been
outraged. The question of outraging people’s feeling is open
to unlimited controversy. If a shot is being fired in a par
ticular direction, you can say what its tendency is. If certain
physical forces are working together, you can say what the
resultant tendency will be, but when you ^y that a thing
tends to outrage the feelings of others, what criterion do you
set up ? No criterion is possible. The only way in which
such a question could be settled, is by producing witnesses.
Probably, this might not be possible or practicable; but this
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
29
is not my fault. Witnesses ought to be produced, who will
either solemnly affirm, or swear, that their feelings have been
outraged by this publication—that it has in any way injured
their digestion and disturbed their sleep. Really, gentlemen,
when people talk of outraged feelings, they ought to consider
that this is a two-edged argument. I do not know that any
persons in this country are called on every time they put pen
to paper, or use their tongues for those who in the main
believe as they do, and agree with their policy—I do not know
that any persons other than Freethinkers, are called upon
every time they speak or write to consider the feelings of
those who differ from them. You know, gentlemen, as well
as I do, that if any person were prosecuted, because, either by
pen or tongue, he had outraged the feelings of Freethinkers—
and, gentlemen, through all grades of society, there are very
many of them—the very idea would be scouted. This talk
about outraging other people’s feelings, is only one way of
cloaking the hideousness of an old persecuting law, only a
mark put before the repulsive features of that persecution,
which has in the past deluged the earth with blood, which is
still capable of depriving a mother of her children, and of
depriving a citizen of his civil and political rights, but which
is happily losing its power day by day, and is destined to lose
its power altogether before long.
Now, gentlemen, I will ask you to consider in a separate
way the question of a breach of the peace. What is the mean
ing of. breach of the peace. It is exactly like the talk about
outraged feelings ; it is only another cloak, another mask.
There has not been the slightest evidence produced that any
thing I have done has led to a breach of the peace or is in any
way likely to do so. There has been no gathering in the
streets, outside shops ; no expulsion from lecture halls—in
fact, there has been absolutely nothing, except the fact that
people who have bought the paper for the purposes of prose
cution dislike it, or say they do, in order to wring a verdict of
guilty from you. A breach of the peace, gentlemen, if it were
actually committed, would be rightly regarded as a grave
offence. It is the active interference with the liberty of
another, the violation of his individual right. If we had
been proved guilty of a breach of the peace what justification
could I offer or make ? None. I have been proved guilty of
nothing of the sort. The language of the indictment is mis
leading. I shall not ask you to go over the ground I tra
versed as to the law of India, but I will ask you to bear it in
mind. India is part of our British Empire. If we hold an
empire I suppose we feel obliged to rule it on principles of
justice, and you cannot divorce justice from truth. Religion
�30
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
can only be upheld by law, and protected by law, in so far as
it is considered necessary for the public peace and safety, or
as it is considered necessary for our eternal salvation, and
that whoever impugns it does so to the danger of others.
But if these reasons are good here, they must be good every
where the British flag flies ; they must be as good and true
for India as for England. But why not attempt to force them
there ? Because the vast majority of the people there are not
Christians. Here the majority of the people are Christians—
by profession, at least—and we have an established religion in
the form of a State Church. It is therefore only a question
of numbers. In India Christians cannot get any special pro
tection—although they are under the same ruler—simply
because they are in a minority ; but here the right is claimed
of crushing out opposition to Christianity because it is in the
majority. But surely such an argument should not prevail;
.and if you think that each man has an equal right with every
other man, and that if he is not trenching on the right of any
other man. he ought not to be punished, you will withhold
a verdict of guilty from the prosecution, and award a verdict
of not guilty to me. Let me say what it is that any Free
thinker could demand. Does he ask for privileges, does he
■demand exceptional advantages for himself ? I for one
should be the very last to make any such claim, but unless
you have evidence before you that this publication has been
forced on the attention of others, unless you have evidence
that it has been surreptitiously placed in their way and that
they have unheedingly fallen into the trap, and have read it
without knowing what they were doing ; unless you have evi
dence that there has been some conspiracy to place this in the
hands of children of Christian parents unknown to those
parents—unless something of this kind can be proved, you
ought to remember that all we ask, and that all I personally
ask, is that you should yield to every other man the right
which you would certainly claim for yourselves. You ought
by a verdict of not guilty to allow it to go forth that you as
twelve Englishmen, free men in a free country, recognise the
grand principle of religious as well as civil liberty, and believe
that every man has a right to say what he pleases to the people
who choose to hear it and write what he pleases to people who
choose to read it. Ho Freethinker could demand more than
that. The whole history of the world, and especially the
history of this country, ought to show you that those who
claim what I have stated, while they demand more, will
never rest satisfied with less.
And now, gentlemen, just one thing more. If blasphemy is
an offence at all it can, I argue, only be an offence against
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
31
the deity blasphemed. In various parts of the world the defi
nitions of blasphemy differ. The Christian in this country says
that to deny the divinity of Christ is blasphemy ; the J ew, that
to affirm his divinity is blasphemy—yet even Jews and Chris
tians, who differ so widely as to the specific character of blas
phemy, are to be seen not only in the same executive branches
of our national life, but even sitting together in the very
legislative body that makes the laws of which we are told
Christianity is part and parcel. You haxe Jews, Christians
and heretics sitting together in the same House and helping
to make our Christian laws 1 I have a great authority to sup
port me in saying that blasphemy can only be committed
against a specific deity in whom we believe.
Mr. Justice North : I am not going to hear any argument
to the effect that blasphemy is not against the law of the land.
I say it is against the law of the land. The question for the
jury will be whether this is blasphemy. I decline to hear
argument that blasphemy is not against the law of the
land.
Mr. Foote: If blasphemy is an offence against the law of
the land might not the jury be influenced in giving their
verdict by the consideration as to whether the person specifi
cally charged with the offence could really be guilty of it.
Mr. Justice North: You may say anything you please on
the question of whether you are guilty of the offence with
which you are charged, or not. But I shall direct the jury
that the alleged libel is against the law of the land.
Mr. Foote: That may be ; I am not now trespassing on that
ground.
Mr. Justice North: Yes, you are, because you are addressing
yourself to the question whether blasphemy ought to be the
law of the land. f That I stopi1Mr. Foote: A great lawyer—no less a person than the late
Lord Brougham—publicly asserted in a book written by him
that, properly speaking, blasphemy is an offence that can
only be committed by a believer in the deity blasphemed,
and, gentlemen, this is a fact which I am desirous of im
pressing upon you. The very statute which the learned judge
will interpret to you, if he deals with it at all, sets forth that
persons brought up in the Christian religion are to be subject
to penalties if they are proved guilty of blasphemy.
Mr. Justice North: You need not address yourself to that.
We have nothing to do with the statute at this moment.
Mr. Foote: Quite so, my lord. I am only attempting to
impress on the jury a fact which I think ought to constitute
a part of their consideration when they are forming their
judgment preparatory to giving their verdict—a fact which
�32
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
stands on the great and transcendant authority of a lawyer
like Lord Brougham. Now, gentlemen, I will ask your atten
tion to what is, perhaps, after all the most important thing
to consider, even from the point of view of the prosecution
itself. I affirm, and I have all history to support me, that
these prosecutions necessarily fail in their desired efEect.
Gentlemen, that ought to be a consideration that should
weigh heavily with you. In the book I hold in my hand there
is a poem which a jury declared to be blasphemous, notwith
standing an eloquent defence by Serjeant Talfourd. Did that
stop the sale ? Gentlemen, that poem is included in the col
lected editions of Shelley, published by all sorts of firms, in
every part of the English-speaking world, including our own
country ; and “ Queen Mab ” is far more extensively sold and
read to-day than it ever was before the publishers of it were
prosecuted. There was another book prosecuted again and
again, and its publisher, Richard Carlile, went to gaol year
after year. He spent nine years in gaol, and his wife, sister,
and shopman, went to gaol one after the other, while men
also went to gaol in all parts of the country. You would have
thought that such a sweeping execution of the law would
have stopped the circulation of the book for ever, but, as a
matter of fact, that book enjoys an exceedingly large circula
tion to-day. I am within the truth when I say that consider
ably over 1000 copies are sold every year. The prosecu
tion did not stop its sale, it only gave it a wider circulation ;
and Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason,” with his “Rights of
Man,” which were both the subjects of prosecution, are read
more than they ever would have been if the attempt to sup
press them had not given them a wider publicity, and a more
extensive circle of readers. You will have in your minds, I
am sure, the prosecution instituted against Mr. Bradlaugh
and Mrs. Besant for publishing the book on the population
question ; and it will be well for you to remember that it was
openly stated in court, that while the sale of this little work
had only been about 100 copies a year for thirty or forty years
before, it was absolutely sent up by the prosecution to the
enormous circulation of 150,000. That prosecution did not
succeed in putting down the obnoxious publication. I submit
that no such prosecution can possibly succeed. Prom the
point of view of the prosecutors themselves it is a mistake.
You only give a wider sale; you excite a greater curiosity;
you bring, as it were, within the influence of the ideas dis
seminated. by the publication, a larger number susceptible of
receiving them; and you only tend to enlarge the class
of men, who, if the laws of the land were carried out,
might be treated as outlaws, and deprived of all their civil
�Tieport of Blasphemy Trials.
33
aP’!^ political rights. IP this be so, you have a very serious
thing to consider.
Mr. Justice North Foote, I shall tell the jury that they
have nothing whatever to do with that. If the prosecution is
ill-advised and should lead to a great circulation of these
papers, so much the worse, but that cannot throw any light
whatever on what the jury ought to decide in your case.
Mr. Foote: Gentlemen of the jury, I have only said what
seemed to me necessary to influence your judgment—necessary
for my own defence, necessary to obtain from you a verdict
of Dot guilty. I again repeat that I had no intention of tres
passing on the province of the learned judge. It is perfectly
impossible, however, that a case like mine can be argued
without occasionally something being said which the learned
judge may think outside the province of a defendant, and if I
were a lawyer (ike Sir Hardinge Giffard and had the purse of
the Corporation of the (’ity of London to supply his legal skill,
it might be different, f am too poor to employ such, legal
assistance, and I can only use such arguments as seem to me
to be likely to have their effect on your minds. I have tra
versed a very large space, not only of time but of ground. I
nave uenied utterly that Christianity can be considered in
the sense stated by the learned counsel for the prosecution as
protected by the law. I have denied that I am guilty of the con
crete offences which are stated in this indictment. I deny
that there has been or can be any proof that I have done any
thing to the high displeasure of Almighty God ; I deny that
1 have done anything against the peace of our Lady the
(¿ueen, her Crown, and dignity. I have also stated that this
is an age of intellectual fair-play, that all kinds of argument
eVuI1iK arSuIQeilt absurdum—ridicule—must be tolerated’
and that as it is allowed in politics, literature, philosophy, and’
social matters, it. must be allowed in religion too. I have
argued that no evidence has been adduced to show that there
has been any forcing of this publication on the attention of
people who wish to have nothing to do with it. I have shown
you and there has been no attempt to prove anything to the
contrary, that there was no malignant motive in my mind
and 1 believe none in the minds of either of my co-defendants’
in anything we have ever done. No such evidence has been
tendered, and unless you consider that there has been such
malignant motive, and that we have intended to cause a
breach of the peace, and to forcibly outrage the feelings of
those from whom we happen to differ—unless you believe this
gme me a Ver^^ Of not guilfcF- lf y°u have the
smallest doubt in your minds as to the sufficiency of the evi
dence, 1 ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt. I ask
�34
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
you to act on the old English maxim that a man is innocent
until he is proved to be guilty.
I told you at the outset that you are the last Court ot
Appeal on all questions affecting the liberty of the press
and the right of free speech and Freethought. When I
say Freethought, I do not refer to specific doctrines that
may pass under that name, but I refer to the great right of
Freethought, that Freethought which is neither low as a
cottage nor lofty as a pyramid, but is like the soaring azure
vault of heaven, which over-arches both with equal ease.
I ask you to affirm the liberty of the press, to show by your
verdict that you are prepared to give to others the same
freedom as you claim for yourselves. I ask you not to be
misled by the statements that have been thrown out by the
prosecution, not to be misled by the authority and influence
of the mighty and rich Corporation which commenced the
action, has found the money for it, and whose very solicitor
was bound over to prosecute. I will ask you not to be
influenced by these considerations, but rather to remember
that this present attack is made upon us probably because we
are connected with those who have been struck at again and
again by some of the very persons who are engaged in the
prosecution; to remember that England is growing day y
day in its humanity and love of freedom; and that, as blas
phemy has been an offence less and less proceeded against
during the past century, so there will probably be fewer and
fewer proceedings against it in the next. Indeed there may
never be another prosecution for blasphemy, and I am sure
you would not like to have it weigh on your minds that you
were the instruments of the last act of persecution, t a you
were the last jury, who sent to be caged like wild beasts, men
against whose honesty there has been no charge. I am quite
sure you will not. allow yourselves to be made the agents of
sending such men to herd with the lowest criminals, to be
subject to all the physical indignities such punishment
involves, but that you will send me as well as my co-defendants,
back to our homes and friends—who do not think the worse of
us for the position in which we stand ; that you will send us
back to them unstained, giving a verdict of not guilty for ma
and my co-defendants, instead of the verdict of guilty for the
prosecution; thus, as English juries have again and again done
before, vindicating the glorious principle of the freedom of
the press, against all the interested, religious, and political
factions that may seek to impugn them for tneir own ends.
(Applause in court.)
,___
Mr. Ramsey then addressed the jury as followsGentlemem
1 stand indicted before you for an alleged blasphemous libel, and
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
35
upon you the law throws the duty of defining what is and what
is not blasphemy at common law. And yet the meaning of the
word blasphemy has strangely changed and varied during the last
250 years, lhen Quakers were held to be blasphemous, and
were punished as such. They were branded and flogged at the
carts tail m the vain attempt to silence their blasphemy and
jury after jury returned verdicts of guilty against men and wrnnen
tor •holdingp the opinions which have proved iiu bar to the
no Mar io cue
■i
•
t i
-a . 7— -------T
admission of John Bright to the Cabinet. Surely this fact alone
should make a modern jury careful how they condemn any form
of thought, even though it be as blasphemous in their eyes as the
opinions of the Quakers were blasphemous in the eyes of the
juries who condemned them, and who are now, in their turn
condemned by every rational person. Later still, Unitarians were
indictable and were punished as blasnhemprs
____
Unitarians are found such names as those of John Milton Dr
Priestley the discoverer of oxygen, and Isaac Newton. Even
now Unitarians are punishable under the same law of blas
phemy under which you are asked to find me guilty, and are at
the mercy of any common informer or over-zealmis
�36
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
from any respectable bookseller throughout the country, while
as to the “ dread of future punishment,” the law is stripped of
thia “ one of its principal sanctions,” by men hke Canon tarrar
preaching, in Westminster Abbey, against the doctrine of eternal
punishment. Will you, gentlemen, add your names to the shame
ful list of those juries who tried—and tried vainly—by verdicts
of “ guilty of blasphemy” to check the progress of free inquiry
and free criticism. Less than a century ago Canon Farrar would
by direction of Lord Chief Justice Kenyon, have been found
guilty of blasphemy. In the last century prosecutions for
heresy or blasphemy were plentiful, but to-day the spread of
education has created a sounder public opinion. In nearly
the last indictment for blasphemy m Middlesex Messrs.
Moxon, the publishers of Shelley’s “Queen Mab, were
found guilty under a similar indictment to that under which
I now stand arraigned; yet to-day you may buy this blas
phemous poem on any- railway bookstall in the country, and
the inane verdict of the jury which condemned it is regarded
with contempt and scorn. Is it in the company of that jury that
your names, gentlemen, are to be recorded? A similar indict
ment might to-day be preferred against Messrs Longmans as the
publishers of the works of Bishop Colenso ; Chapman, Hall an
Co. and Macmillan might equally be indicted for the publication
of many of the essays of the late William Kingdon Clifford; and
your verdict may revive a menace against the utterances of some
of our best known writers and thinkers. It is idle to say that
there is no intention of prosecuting these men ; any one who is
vicious enough and bigoted enough can mdict the most respect
able bookseller for blasphemy, and the law of blasphemy deals
with matter not with manner; the law of blasphemy condemns
equally Professor Clifford’s mocking account of the creation
stories in Genesis, as it may condemn the mocking in the news
paper before you.
Messrs. Macmillan publish as to these
creation stories these words: “One is an account of a wet be
ginning of things, after which the waters were divided by a firm
canopy of sky, and the dry land appeared underneath. Plants
and animals and men were successively formed by the word of
a deity enthroned above the canopy. Another account is ot a
dry beginning of things—namely, a garden, subsequently watered
bv a mist in which there were no plants until a man was put
there to till it. This man was made from the dust of the ground
bv a deity who walked about on the earth, and had divine
associates, jealous of the man for sharing their privilege of
knowing good from evil, and fearful that he would gam that
of immortality also. The deity had taken a rib out of the man,
and made a woman of it.” They publish : “ Now, to condemn
all mankind for the sin of Adam and Eve ; to let the innocent
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
37
suffer for the guilty; to keep any one alive in torture for ever
and ever—these actions are simply magnified copies of what bad
men do. No juggling with ‘ divine justice and mercy ’ can make
them anything else.” Herbert Spencer writes, and King and Co.
publish: “ Here we have theologians who believe that our
national welfare will be endangered if there is not in all our
churches an enforced repetition of the dogmas that Father, Son
and Holy Ghost are each of them almighty; that yet there are
not three Almighties, but one Almighty; that one of the
Almighties suffered on the cross and descended into hell to
pacify another of them.” Objection is raised to the strength of
the language used with respect to God, yet the City does not
prosecute the “Nemesis of Faith,” which says of God:
He ! to have created mankind liable to fall—to have laid them
in the way of a temptation under which he knew they would fall
and then curse them and all who were to come of them, and ali
the world for their sakes ; jealous, passionate, capricious, re
vengeful, punishing children for their father’s sins, tempting men
or at least permitting them to be tempted into blindness and
folly, and then destroying them..............This is not God. This
is a fiend. .... I would sooner perish for ever than stoop down
before a Being who may have power to crush me, but whom my
v air ^orbids me to reverence.” Mr. Matthew Arnold, published
by Messrs. Smith, Elder and Co., describes the Trinity as the three
Shaftesbury s, and terms God the Father £ithe elder Lord
Shaftesbury.” What is therein the “Freethinker ”more outrageous
than this ? John Stuart Mill, published by Longmans, declares
that “The only difference between popular Christianity and
the religion of Ormuzd and Ahriman is that the former pays its
d Creator the bad compliment of having been the maker of
the Devil, and of being at all times able to crush and annihilate
him and his evil deeds and counsels, which nevertheless he does
not do. To all these considerations ought to be added the
extremely imperfect nature of the testimony itself which we
possess for the miracles, real or supposed, which accompanied
the foundation of Christianity and of every other revealed reli
gion. lake it at the best, it is the un-crossexamined testimony
of extremely ignorant people, credulous as such usually are.”
y°u condemn me, remember that your verdict
will be taken as an encouragement for prosecution of all these.
1 have no right to ask you to question the law, because to you and
to the learned judge is given the duty of administering the law
as
? but 1 would respectfully submit that the laws
against blasphemy belong to a period when men foolishly sought
to control opinion by legislation, and that the nower of defining
what is a blasphemous publication lies in your hands. To-day
.eminent men like Lord Shaftesbury condemn as blasphemous
�38
Report of E lasphemy Trials.
the publications of the Salvation Army; and if to bring religion
into mockery and contempt be blasphemy, there is none more
outrageous than that committed by these fanatics. In strong
terms the same Lord Shaftesbury, a few years ago, denounced
as blasphemous the famous volume “ Ecce Homo.’’ This prose
cution challenges really the right of free and unlicensed print
ing, so highly valued in England, and for which Milton so ably
and earnestly pleaded; it assails that spirit of free inquiry,
which is really the basis of all our progress, the spur and aid to
all intellectual effort. I submit that you are not sitting as a
jury to condemn us for want of good taste ; that is a matter for
the wider jury of public opinion ; you are asked to condemn us
as criminals because our opinions on theology differ from yours,
and because jou may dislike our modes of expressing our
opinions; you are asked to send us to undergo a punishment
intended for grave crimes of conduct merely because we do not
share your opinions on speculative matters. However the pro
secution may try to gloss it over, you are asked to revive perse
cution for the sake of gagging opinion, and to send men against
whose lives and characters no fault is alleged to keep company
with the scum of society. It is alleged that the publication of
so-called blasphemy is an outrage; even if that be so it is an
outrage from which no one need suffer save by his own free
will • the persons whose feelings you are asked to guard by
imprisoning us can guard their feelings by not buying the papers
which when bought, and not till then, inflict on them pain.
The use of ridicule and strong words by religionists against
Freethinkers is common enough within the limits of this empne.
The missionaries use mocking words of Hindu and Mahornedan forms of faith. If you would judge fairly of the criminality
of the paper indicted, you should think of the pictures as de
picting some god in whom you do not believe. Those who
would punish with imprisonment the publisher of a print of
Jupiter smoking a pipe might punish us. But no one else should
do so. You may think that a peculiar picture of a pagan god is
in bad taste—many people, Christians and Freethinkers, would
acrree with you. But a man ought scarcely to be punished as a
criminal for a breach of good taste, even admitting that such has
been committed. Whether this be wise or unwise is another
question. My appeal to you is to widen the liberty of speech
enjoyed, not to restrict it. If you hold our methods of utterance
improper in form or in method, your verdict, if it mark us as
criminals, will make mankind look at our punishment rather
than at our error. Every attempt is being made to rouse your
supposed prejudices and to excite your feelings. I ask you to
remember the essential question at issue, and not to allow
yourselves to be blinded by the side issues so skilfully raised to
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
89
conceal the real point. Every attempt hitherto made to suppress
opinion has ended in the wider diffusion of the opinions thus
attacked. Persecution does not silence, it makes of the perse
cuted heroes and martyrs, and gives to them a tenfold strength.
No service will be done to morals by sending us to consort
with criminals, and to you the sole authority is given of doing
with us as three juries in this very building did with William
Hone. He was indicted for blasphemy, and on three separate
trials three verdicts of acquittal did then what I appeal to you
to do now. They left opinion free for opinion to condemn, but
refused to condemn the mere use of hard or mocking words as
crime.
Mr. Justice North, after remarking that Mr. Foote had wasted
the time of the court by devoting a large portion of his address
to matters which the jury had not to consider, that he had
allowed him to read some extracts from books which perhaps he
ought to have stopped, and that the jury must excuse him for not
having done so, because he had been very reluctant to do any
thing which might prevent a defendant saying anything he sup
posed to be of value in his own defence, said: You have nothing
to do with the definition of a blasphemous publication. The
law says what a blasphemous pubheation is, but it is your duty
to say whether the publication in this case is what the law con
siders a blasphemous pubheation or not. The law as to blas
phemy is clear, and I am going to tell you what is sufficient to
constitute blasphemy. The illustrations I am going to give you,
however, will not cover the whole of what may be blasphemy^
Now, if by writing or verbally, any one denies the existence of '
the Deity, or denies the providence of God, if he puts forward
any abuse or contumely or reproach with respect to the
Almighty, or holds up the persons of the Trinity, whether it is
our Savior Christ or anyone else, to contempt, or derision ; or
ridicules the persons of the Trinity, or God Almighty, or ’the
Christian religion, or the Holy Scriptures in any way—that is
what the law considers to be blasphemy. It is for you to say
whether you consider the publication before you as having come
within this definition of blasphemous libel or not. It is said that
the law had better not pay any attention to blasphemy, and should
not deal with it. It is essential that the law should do so,
because blasphemous libels have a strong tendency to subvert
religion and morality, and tend in a great measure to interfere
with the law itself. But I do not dwell on this, because you
will with me accept the law as it is, without hearing reasons for
it. This being the definition of a blasphemous libel, let us con
sider whether this paper comes within the definition. Does it
or does it not scoff at the Almighty, and throw contempt on the
tenets, or views entertained by professors of the Christian religion ?
�40
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
I am not going to call attention in public to the details of the
charge. The learned counsel, who opened this case to you, very
wisely refrained from stating in public the particular matters
which you have to deal with. I shall do the same. I shall not
read them in public or anything of the sort. I must, however,
make a few remarks in respect to the questions you must put to
yourselves regarding each. Now, the first count relates to what
appears on pages 8, 9, and 10 of this publication, pages 8 and 9
being occupied entirely with pictures, and there being over the
top of page 10 two pictures more. Now, just look at those
pictures for yourselves. Look on page 9, at the top, on the left,
on the picture below that. Look at the others in the left-hand
column. Look at the first, I might say, and look at the last,
and consider in looking at them whether they or any of them
throw contempt on religion, or treat with derision the Holy
Scriptures, the Christian religion, or the Deity. The second
count relates to the woodcut on page 7. In connection with
that, is the stanza below—the nine lines beginning with the
words, “Now Moses,” which I daresay you have read. Now just
look at the whole of that, looking at the picture and the words
below it, and those nine lines below. What do you say to that?
Then again the third is at page 8, near the bottom of the right-hand
column, the third paragraph from the bottom. It begins with the
word“ converted.” Now, just look at that. What, gentlemen, do
you think of that? Something has been said about the right
of free discussion, the right of controversy about matters
of religion, in respect to which persons may take different
views, and the right of conveying your own ideas to others.
Look at that paragraph and consider whether that can
possibly be justified on the ground of its being controversy or
discussion or anything like it. Now look at the fourth ; the fourth
is at pages 4 and 5. It purports to be an account of a trial for a
blasphemous libel. If you read the first four lines you will see
who the alleged prisoners are ; I daresay you may have seen the
contents of it. I will ask you in particular to look at the second
paragraph, beginning at the words “ The indictment.” It is after
the first four lines stating who the parties are, and then comes
the first paragraph “ The indictment.” There is one other part I
will just call your attention to there. In the middle of the first
column of page 5 you see the words “ This concluded the case
for the prosecution.” Now look at the eight or ten lines follow
ing that. I myself, gentlemen, have read the whole of these
pages through. I do not call your attention to these pages as
being worse than the rest, but as being what seems to be a fair
sample of the rest. At any rate, they are found there. The
sixth count relates to a passage at page 14, the second column,
the second paragraph from the top. It begins with the word
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
41
“ Holyyou see what I refer to. I ask you to consider, gentle
men, whether the proper term for that would be controversy or
free discussion on a point to be reasonably considered, or whether
the proper description of that would not be rather a piece of
ribald obscenity. Then, gentlemen, there is only one other count,
six, and that is really putting the first in a different way. After
the time that has been taken up, I am not going to waste your
time, and I am not going to give to this paper any of that
notoriety which its authors would desire for it by dwelling on
it at any length. I am not going to insult your understandings
by supposing that any one of you requires any further explanation
from me to enable you to form an opinion as to whether these
are or are not blasphemous libels, having regard to that which I
have told you as to what a blasphemous libel is—that is to say,
whether this is a case of contumelious reproach or profane scoff
ing against God Almighty, or the Persons of the Trinity, or the
Holy Scriptures, or the Christian religion. As to that, gentlemen,
I will say no more, but will leave it to you to consider. That is
the first part of the case—and the question you have there to
consider is, whether, having regard to this definition, these differ
ent paragraphs are libels or not. I am proceeding now to the
second point—but if you find that they are not libels, of course
the result would be that the prisoners would be acquitted, but
if you find that they are, the result would be that to that extent
the prisoners are guilty. Their cases stand somewhat differently.
I take Kemp first, as his learned counsel has not thought it neces
sary to address you. He said very properly that as the evidence
showed beyond a doubt that Kemp was proved to have sold
the papers he would not address you on that point. You
will recollect in regard to Kemp also that it is quite clear that on
the 2nd of August, 1882, he signed the register of the news
paper as the printer and publisher. Therefore, as regards
Kemp, the only question is whether you are of opinion that
it was a blasphemous libel or not. That he sold it is
quite out of the question. Then next I take the case of Ramsey.
What is his position ? As regards that, the law requires that
newspapers should be registered, and it says—after providing for
the way in which registration is to be made, which has been
carried out as regards this paper by the documents produced
here to-day—that every copy and extract from the registry of
these documents shall be received as conclusive evidence of the
contents of the register itself, so far as the same appears in the
copy or extract. I read to you from the original, which has no
magic force, but a copy of it is in evidence before you, and
that copy is made by the statute sufficient evidence of the
matters and things therein appearing. What appears ? As
regards Ramsey, what appears is this, that when the “Free
�42
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
thinker” is first registered, on the 6th of November, 1881,
Ramsey is the person who goes to the registry and who appears
in the register as proprietor of the paper, and he signs his name
at the bottom, stating that he is the printer and publisher also.
On the 2nd of August, 1882, a change takes place. But before
going to that, perhaps I should call your attention to these copies
of the “ Freethinker ”—the first batch that were purchased before
the proceedings at the Mansion House in July last, and of these
I only take the first and last. It appears they are said to be
edited by Foote, and in the notice to correspondents appears,
“All business communications to be addressed to Mr. W. J.
Ramsey, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. ; literary communications
to the editor, Mr. G. W. Foote, No. 9 South Crescent, Bedford
Square, London, W.C.” At the foot of the last page is,
“Printed and published by W. J. Ramsey, 28 Stonecutter
Street.” Then, in August, 1882, a change takes place, and the
register shows that Ramsey is continued as proprietor, but the
printer and publisher then is Kemp. He is the one who signs
the register as printer and publisher, but Ramsey is continued as
proprietor down to and after Christmas 1882, while this Christ
mas publication is issued ; in fact, down to February 7th, 1883.
On that day a change takes place. Foote effects a new registra
tion, from which it appears that Ramsey ceases to be proprietor
of the paper, and Foote becomes proprietor. That is the history of
the paper as it stands, so that Ramsey’s connexion is that he
was proprietor from April, 1881, down to the 7th of February,
1883. That is his position. The proprietor of a newspaper is and
was liable for all libels that appear in that paper. The theory was
and is that if he is the person who prints and publishes the news
paper himself he is responsible for the contents of it, and that
if he does not do it himself he is responsible for the person who
does it for him. That sometimes worked very hardly on the pro
prietor, as he was found guilty of the offences of other persons.
The law in this respect was therefore changed, and now the
proprietor is not liable in that case. If in an indictment for the
trial of a libel a plea is put in by the proprietor that he is not
guilty, and evidence is given, and the evidence established a case
against him by the act of any other person, it is competent for
him to prove that the publication was made without his autho
rity, consent, or knowledge, and that it did not arise from want
of due care or caution on his part. In the present case there
has been no attempt whatever made by Ramsey to prove any of
these things. He has not attempted to escape from his primary
responsibility by proving that this was done without his know
ledge or consent, or that there was wanting due care on his
part, and therefore, though the proprietor, might have satisfied
you that although he was proprietor you ought not to find
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
- 43
him guil ty; no attempt has been made to do so. He might
have shown that the state of things appearing from this certi
ficate was not correct, and that he was not proprietor ; but he
has not done so, nor has he attempted to show that for some
reason, to be proved by him, he is not responsible as proprietor
for what a proprietor, generally speaking, would be responsible
for—unless he proved that proper care and caution had been
taken by him. Therefore, it being beyond all question that
he was proprietor at that date, there is nothing whatever to
show that he was not responsible. It goes further than
that, because it is shown that he was connected with the par
ticular premises, and was often there, and that he paid
the rates. Well, there remains Foote ; and Foote is in a different
position to that, and the question is whether you are satisfied that
be has committed an offence in printing, publishing, or causing
or permitting to be printed or published this paper. What is
the position of things ? First of all, he says there is no evidence
whatever to show that he had anything whatever to do with this
particular Christmas Number, and you may recollect that he
asked three or four persons who said that they had seen letters
addressed to him as editor of the “ Freethinker,” whether they
had ever seen letters or documents addressed to him as editor of
the Christmas “Freethinker” or the Christmas Number of the
“Freethinker.” Of course they said no. One could hardly
imagine any circumstances under which such letters should be
so addressed. What is the “Freethinker”? It is apparently
a^weekly paper. I find here a number of the 23rd of April,
and a number of the 30th of April. This purports to be, on
the face of it, the Christmas Number of the “Freethinker”
for 1883, price 3(7.
On the face of it, these words indi
cate that it is one of a series. The Christmas Number of the
“ Graphic ” or the “ Illustrated London News ”—what would you
understand by that ?—not a separately sold paper, but the number
for Christmas of a publication coming out in numbers. Take the
Christmas Number of “All the Year Round,” In considering
who is the editor of this particular number, is there any reason
for supposing that the editor of this number is a different person
from the editor of the “ Freethinker,” which is coming out in
numbers ? We find Mr. Foote’s name as editor on this number
of the “ Freethinker.” It might be that it was put there with
out his authority, and it is not enough to prove and show that
he is editor because it stated on the face of it that he is. It
might have your name or mine on it, and it would be a monstrous
thing to say that, simply because your name or mine appears on it,
we had placed it there. That, I say, is not enough in itself, but
it is one of several pieces of evidence to which I am going to call
your attention. On the first page we have “The Christmas
�44
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
Number of the ‘Freethinker,’ Edited by G. W. Foote.”
Another thing is, that if you turn to the end you get a reference
to his publications. You have “Mr. Foote’s Publications,” and
then you have “ Blasphemy no Crime. The whole question
fully treated with special reference to the prosecution of the
‘ Freethinker.’ ” That is one of the documents put forward with
reference to Mr. Foote’s publications. Then there is this
additional proof to show that the prisoner Foote is editor of this
and other documents. These copies of the “ Freethinker,” from
the 6th of March, down to the middle of June, state, every one
of them, that the “Freethinker” is edited by Mr. G. W. Foote,
and in the middle, in the page which I called your attention just
now, besides the direction that business communications were to
be directed to the manager, is one that literary communications
were to be directed to Mr. G. W. Foote. It is possible that
this might be done without his authority and knowledge, but
it is not likely. But what is there to bring it home to him ?
There is direct evidence that a trial took place at the Mansion
House in July last, and it appears from the evidence of Kellan,
who bought these numbers, and from whose custody they came,
that he was examined as a witness in July last at the Mansion
House. Ramsey and Foote were two of the defendants then,
and Kellan proved the purchase of these numbers, all of which
have “Edited by G. W. Foote,” and printed and published by
Ramsey. He said attention was then drawn to these matters in
the presence of Foote and Ramsey. Therefore, if you believe
him, you have this fact, that it was called to Foote’s attention
that these documents purported to be edited by him. If,
knowing that it was stated they were edited by him, he does
not choose to contradict it, it is very strong proof that it was
done with his authority. We have the other batch of copies of
this production, commencing on the 6th of August, 1882, and
ending in January, 1883, and in these it appears in the same
way from beginning to end, “ Edited by G. W. Foote.” Then
we have “Printed and published by H. A. Kemp,” and then
what appears to be precisely the same words as before, “All
business communications to be addressed to the publisher ;
literary communications to the editor, Mr. G. W. Foote, No. 9
South Orescent, Bedford Square, W.C.” Then what other
evidence is there? You have this fact, that the woman in whose
house he lodges, and the servant, both speak of having seen
letters addressed to him as editor—sometimes with and some
times without his name ; letters and parcels addressed to him as
editor of the “ Freethinker,” and the poBtman gave as the
reason why it should be pressed more on their attention than in
usual cases—that several parcels came in that way that could not
be put in through the door, and thad to be .handed in to the
�Report of. Blasphemy Trials.
45
person who answered the bell. You have the evidence of these
four or five persons, all stating teat letters addressed to Foote
at that place were delivered there, left there, and were not
taken away. There is another thing. He has defended himself.
Has he denied that he is editor, or has he attempted to justify
his opinions? Do you believe that he was defending a publica
tion of his own or not, that the arguments he used were con
sistent with the contention that he is responsible for it as editor
or not? There is one other thing 1 should say. There is
evidence of this one particular number of the publication being
seen in his room. That is particular evidence as regards him. I
ask you to say, taking these facts into consideration, whether
he published or printed, or composed this document, or caused
it to be published or printed, or composed. If he was the editor
of it—if you come to the conclusion on the facts that he was
editor of it—you must find that he published or printed, or com
posed it, or caused it to be published, printed, or composed.
Some remarks have been addressed to you about interfering
with the liberty of the press, Freethinking, and so on. Do you
suppose that in confining the authors of this infamous publica
tion you will be interfering with the liberty of the press ? bl oh for a
moment. Do you think you will be interfering with the right of
free expression ? Not for a moment. We do not live in a country
of unbridled license, where a man has a right to say anything he
chooses to anybody. Laws are necessary in a civilised com
munity, and if it is said that we are approaching a smte of thingsin which a man may say that he has a right to say anything in all
places, it might also be said that two women in the street at
night might go on abusing one another to their heart’s content,
and were to be allowed to go on if they liked. It seems to me
to be much more serious to say that persons should have the
right of placarding and holding up to the public gaze, and
asking persons to come and look at things of this kind, in order
that they may be induced to buy them. If such a state of
things existed, it would not be Freethought, but would be un
bridled license. I do not think I need dwell on this further.
You will hardly require being told that in finding persons guilty
who did this, you would not be in the slightest degree interfering
with the right of free speech or free discussion in any way.
Something was said about the terms of the indictment. The
prisoner Foote commented a good deal on the particular form of
the indictment. He said, among other things, a certain thing
which.seemed to me to be
. Well, I would rather not touch
upon it. He also said that it had not been proved that this act
was a breach of the peace. T he form of the indictment is pub
lishing these documents and tending to a breach of the peace.
That formal part need not take any consideration. That is the
�46
Report -ef Blasphemy Trials.
legal result indicated. If you find that he did publish the libels,
that is the formal conclusion arrived at. There is one thing
further. It has been said that a prosecution of this sort does
not answer any useful purpose, but that it leads to the dissemi
nation of the libel. That is a very serious consideration for
persons commencing proceedings of this sort, and no doubt it
has been, carefully considered by the persons who instituted
these proceedings. But such a state of things may be reached
that one cannot refrain from taking action. The question for
you is not what the result of this will be. The fact is that you
are asked to say they are Not Guilty, because it can be of no use
to find them Guilty, and it will perhaps increase the harm
instead of decreasing it. That you have nothing whatever to do
with. This prosecution has been commenced not without serious
consideration whether it would be effectual or not. If the
result is such as the prisoner Foote has indicated, that would be
a matter we should all regret. Putting that out of sight, do
you consider that this document is a blasphemous libel ? and,
having regard to the evidence which has been given, do you
think that the defendants have been proved to have taken part
in publishing it ? I merely say, in conclusion, as to the way in
which the prisoners have held themselves up as if they were
being treated rather as what people call martyrs, that the question
is whether they have committed the offence or not.
The jury retired at ten minutes to five o’clock, and remained
out until five minutes past seven, when
The learned Judge caused them to be called into court, and
asked them if he could in any way assist them by explaining the
law again to them.
The Foreman replied they all understood the law, but he
tho ught there was no chance of their agreeing.
The learned Judge—Would not a further consultation be at
all likely to lead you to a conclusion ?
The Foreman—I am afraid not, my lord.
The learned Judge—Then I am very sorry to say I must dis
charge you, and have the case tried again. (To the Clerk of
Arraigns) I will attend here on Monday and try the case again
with a different jury.
Mr. Foote applied to be allowed out on bail, but
The learned Judge peremptorily and very harshly refused the
request.
At the conclusion of the case, and on the learned Judge leav
ing the bench, a large number of sympathisers of the defendants
ran forward and shook hands with them over the dock-rail, and
there were some cries of “Cheer up!” and “Bravo jury!”
The court was, however, soon cleared.
�THE
SECOND TRIAL.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, OLD BAILEY.
Monday, March 5th, 1883.
{Before Mr. Justice North and a Common Jury.)
George William Foote (the editor), William James Ramsey
and Henry Arthur Kemp, printer and publisher of the “Free
thinker,” were brought upto undergo a fresh trial on a charge of
having published a number of blasphemous libels in the Christmas
Number of that journal. It will be remembered that on the
previous Thursday the jury were unable to agree to a verdict on
the charge against the defendants, and were accordingly dis
charged.
Sir Hardinge Giffard, Q..C., Mr. Poland, and Mr. F. H. Lewis
prosecuted for Sir Thomas Nelson, the City Solicitor (instructed
by the Public Prosecutor) ; Mr. Horace Avory defended Kemp •
and Mr. Cluer watched the legal points of the case for Foote and
Ramsey, who otherwise conducted their own defence.
Long before the opening of the court, large numbers of
persons waited patiently in the street, and when the doors were
thrown open there was a rush to obtain seats, the gallery and
body of the building being crowded within a period of two
lmnutes.
During a portion of the day, Aiderman Fowler, M.P. a
member of the Corporation of the City of London, occupied a
seat on the bench, as he visibly winced when Mr. Foote pointedly
referred to his presence and denounced the prosecution instituted
by the City Authorities.
On the learned judge taking his seat,
Mr Cluer said: My lord, I am retained, on behalf of the
defendants Foote and Ramsey, to argue points of law only •
generally they defend themselves. In accordance with the
�48
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
practise laid down in the case of King against. Parkins, I am
here merely to address the court on technical points. The first
point is, that your lordship should quash this indictment entirely
on the ground that it is substantially bad in charging, these tlmee
persons together in committing one crime, whereas,. in fact, it is
a distinct offence in the case of each of them, and it is contrary
to the usual course of justice to put prisoners on their trial
together, and so prevent them calling one another as witnesses
in their defence when that can be done.
.
Mr. Justice North: You say the three ought to be indicted
separately?
. .
,
Mr. Cluer: Separately, my lord. I rely principally upon the
case of the Queen against Bolton and Park, reported in 12th Cox,
page 87), and the words of the Lord Chief Justice are at page
93. That case, my lord, was a charge of conspiracy.
Mr. Justice North: Are the other cases you refer to in the
books belonging to the court?
. .
Mr. Cluer : I am going to refer to one which is in court, ana
it is reported in Archibald. The case of the Queen against
Bolton and Park was an indictment. The learned counsel having
read the language of the late Lord Chief Justice. Cockburn,
proceeded—That, my lord, merely states the Lord Chief Justice, s
opinion as to the procedure that should have been adopted m
that case, and that was a case of conspiracy in which the law
does allow great latitude to the prosecution in the way of joining
proceedings together. He has also expressed his disapproval of
doing so in a case of conspiracy. The strongest case m my favor
is that of King against Tucker (4th Burrows, page 97), that is for
exercising a trade, and it was held that it was a distinct offence
and could not therefore be made the subject of a joint prose
cution. This, I submit, is a joint prosecution, and the evidence
distinct evidence on the part of each of the prisoners, and there
fore, I move your lordship to quash the indictment, or call upon
the prosecution to elect against which of the prisoners they will
now proceed.
Sii- Hardinge Giffard: It is a perfectly elementary proposition
that in all misdemeanors they are co-defendants, and are so
indicted. Where there are distinct and separate acts which may
or may not form evidence of a conspiracy, it is not necessary to
go into a particular act. They are charged for the purpose of
showing that they conspired. It was sought to show in the case
to which my friend has referred that each of them had com
mitted a felony, and the nature of the felony was one in which
it was impossible that more than two of them could be parties
to the felony. The Lord Chief Justice expresses his opinion
that it was undesirable, while he sought to establish a case, of
conspiracy, to attempt to prove that by a case of felony, which
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
49
ought to be made the subject of a specific indictment. What
relation has that to this case, or the indictment before you ?
Mr. Justice North: The case against those for conspiracy
against trade was a misdemeanor.
Sir H. Giffard: Without the facts of that case before me, I
am not prepared to say what may be the meaning of the obser
vation. I dare say it will be found to be a very intelligible
matter. As plainly dealt with by Archibald it is an elementary
proposition. Your lordship will find on page 70, where several
persons join in the commission of an offence the whole of them
may be indicted for it, or each separately.
Mr. Cluer: What authority have you for that, Sir Hardinge ?
Sir H. Giffard: Pray don’t interrupt. What has been urged
on your lordship is the nature of the indictment. For this
purpose your lordship knows nothing about the indictment.
Mr. Justice North: I won’t trouble you, Sir Hardinge.
Mr. Cluer: This is a distinct offence in each person. I think
the case of King v. Tucker applies.
Mr. Justice North: Tell me the name of the case nearest to
the passage, that I may find it.
Sir H. Giffard: The first authority quoted, the King against
Atkinson. This Subject was made the subject of specific
argument.
Mr. Cluer: Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Stephens both
agreed this was a proper question to bring before vour lordshin
at the trial, and not one they could deal with.
P
Mr. Justice North: It is quite a proper matter to bring
before me, but 1 cannot accede to it. It seems to me that the
prisoners may be properly charged conjointly; and having
regard to the facts put before me a few days ago, I don’t see
how any of them can be prejudiced by being tried collectively
instead of separately.
J
The Deputy Clerk of Arraigns (Mr. Avory) then proceeded to
CaTr°UXthe names of the Jury> and the prisoner Foote challenged
a Mr. Thomas Jackson, who was on the list,
n ir’ Jackson was accordingly put in the witness-box and asked
by Mr. Cluer: Have you expressed an opinion adverse to the
defendants m this case ?—Yes.
Mr. Cluer: Thank you.
The learned Judge: Sir Hardinge, is it not better to with
draw this juryman at once ? Whatever the verdict of the jury,
1 should be sorry to have a man among them who had expressed
himself as prejudiced.
1
SiF Hardinge Giffard: Oh yes, my lord; I withdraw him.
It will be much more satisfactory to the Crown and everybody
else concerned.
J
J
Mr. Jackson accordingly withdrew.
D
�50
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
Sir Hardinge Giffard then proceeded to open the case for the
prosecution in similar terms to those he employed in the previous
TWe do not propose to repeat the evidence of the whole of the
witnesses, which was substantially the same as that given in the
first prosecution, and shall confine ourselves substantially to their
cross-examination.]
The first witness called was
Robert Sagar, who was cross-examined by Mr. Avory.
This shop is an ordinary bookseller's shop ?—Yes.
With many other publications of different kinds there?—
Yes.
Did you say for what purpose you wanted this?—No.
Or on a subsequent occasion?—No, sir.
Mr. Foote : You purchased the first two copies of the Christ
mas Number on the 16th December ?—Yes.
Who told you to purchase them?—I had instructions from my
superiors.
.
From your superior officer?—Yes.
Who was that?—Detective Inspector McWilliams..
Who gave you the money to purchase them ?—I paid for them
out of my own pocket.
Who paid you back again?—No one yet.
Do you expect to be refunded ?—Yes.
.
When you went a second time to purchase the two copies, who
sent you then—the same gentleman?—Yes.
Did he give you any money then ?—No.
Have you had any since ?—Not for those copies..
What then, have you had money for ?—Travelling expenses.
Do you expect to be refunded for those second two copies ?—
Yes
Have you any idea where the money will come from for your
superiors to pay you with?—Yes.
Where ?—The City Solicitor.
Sir Thomas Nelson?—Yes.
The gentleman who is in court now ?—Yes.
When you purchased the first two copies did you see me in
the shop?—Ko.
. „
Did you see me when you purchased the second two copies?
_ hJo
Cross-examined by Mr. Ramsay : Do you remember having
any conversation with me about this case ?—You spoke once or
twice about it.
.
Do you remember me saying the City were spending plenty
of money in engaging Sir Hardinge Giffard, who would not come
without a large fee?—Fes.
_ n
.
□
Do you remember saying the City had plenty of money, ana
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
51
■were quite prepared to spend it ?—I don’t remember saying
that.
Will you swear you did not?—No. I may have said so-.
Have you any recollection?—None at all. I recollect you
mentioning Sir Hardinge Giffard’s name.
Don't you remember saying the City had plenty of money, and
were not afraid to spend it ?—No.
You may have said so ?—Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Poland: McWilliams is your superior
.officer ?—Yes.
You were acting under his instructions in this matter?—Yes.
When you purchased the copies in the shop, do you say there
was a stock in the shop ?—I saw a pile of them.
When was it you saw Foote in the shop ?—After I purchased
the two second copies on the 20th of January.
Lewis John Lowe was cross-examined as follows:—
By Mr. Avory: Whose name was on the rate-book?—Charles
Bradlaugh and Annie Besant.
Mr. Justice North : The names, you mean, that were then on
the rate-book ?—Yes, my lord.
By Mr. Avory: My question to you is, Whose name is there
now?—The same names are still there.
Re-examined by Mr. Poland: The rate is dated 5th of Octo
ber ?—Yes.
The cheque that you received was in payment of that particular
rate ?—Yes.
How long is a rate made for?—For six months.
The usual demand note is sent in?—Yes.
This cheque is for the full rate ?—Yes, up to the end of this
month.
I suppose the practice is, when you get notice of change of
occupation to alter the rate-book ?—Yes.
William John Norrish was cross-examined by Mr. Avory as
follows :—
Were you there at Stonecutter Street as a weekly servant?—
I was.
You were there in the service of the Freethought Publishing
Company at a weekly salary ?—Yes.
Did you act there simply as a shopman to sell ?—Simply as a
shopman.
Under orders in everything you did ?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote: You have seen me, Mr.
Norrish, only occasionally at Stonecutter Street ?—Only occa
sionally.
The “Freethinker,” I believe, had been sold at Stonecutter
Street a considerable time before you removed to the employ
ment of the Freethought Company ?—Yes.
�52
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
And during the period it was so sold did you often see me
there?—No.
.
Did you ever see me transact any business there ?—JN ever.
Had you any reason to suppose I was transacting business
there?—None whatever.
By Mr. Ramsey: Was I manager of the Freethought Publish
ing Company at the time you lived at Stonecutter Street?—You
Was I manager when you went to Fleet Street ?—You were.
Am I manager now ?—You are.
Did we remove to Fleet Street in consequence of requiring
larger premises ?—We did.
Was I entirely engaged in Fleet Street in managing the busi
ness of the Company?—Not entirely.
By Mr. Avory : Was there any facility for printing at Stone
cutter Street?—None whatever.
The learned Judge: I think you said the other day no print
ing whatever was done there ?
Witness: Yes, my lord.
By Mr. Poland: When Foote came to Stonecutter Street, did
he remain in the shop or go into a private part of the house ?
Sometimes he would visit my own apartments.
That is in a private part of the house-—the rooms you occu
pied?—Yes.
Mr. Justice North : That is what you mean ?
Witness: Yes, my lord.
.
.
Mr. Poland: I suppose Ramsey would sometimes be m the
shop and sometimes in that part of the house ?
Witness: Yes.
.
Mr. Janies Barber, who proved the registration of the “ free
thinker,” was not cross-examined. _
.
Okehampsted, an officer in the City police detective depart
ment, was being shown a number of the “Freethinker” dated
18th of February, and asked whether he purchased the copy at
Stonecutter Street, when
Mr. Cluer said: I object to this evidence.
The learned Judge : On what ground ?
Mr. Cluer: I submit he has no right to produce the paper.
The learned Judge: How can I say he cannot produce a
PaMr.' Cluer: The date has been mentioned. My friend can
read to the jury as evidence of the Christmas Number.
Mr. Justice North: It can be used in that way. It doesn’t
follow it is in evidence in that case.
Mr. Cluer: I was obliged to interfere in order that it should
not be tendered to the jury.
The learned Judge : I cannot say it is not evidence. It would.
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
53
not be evidence if used as indicated by Mr. Cluer, but it might
be evidence in other ways. I cannot reject it.
Air. Poland: When did you purchase it?—On the 16th of
February.
Mr. Poland: Of whom?—Of the defendant Kemp.
Mr. Poland : At the shop in Stonecutter Street ?—Yes.
Mr. Poland: I propose to put that in evidence. I think I
have established my right.
The learned Judge: You are going to read a certain para
graph. Show it to Mr. Cluer, and if he has any legal objection
I will hear him.
Mr. Cluer: I submit my friend has no power to put this in
evidence against all the prisoners. It only, shows what very
learned judges have held the extreme indiscretion of binding the
prisoners altogether. There is no power to put this in against
all the prisoners. He must state against whom it is directed, and
he must prove who are the persons referred to in this paragraph,
and who are the publisher and proprietor and printer of this par
ticular number.
The learned Judge: Look at the end.
Mr. Cluer : That is in evidence. My name might be printed
there as publisher unknown. It is published on February 18th,
and bought on February 16th by this witness. I have no right
to cross-examine the witness. I submit the witness has con
tradicted himself as to this. I want my friend to prove who are
the publisher, printer, and proprietor.
Mr. Poland : I submit I have proved that already.
Mr. Cluer : It was bought on the 16th of February.
Mr. Poland: I tender it as evidence against Foote.
Mr. Cluer : It was published before he was proprietor.
The learned Judge: It is bought from Kemp ; and I consider
it evidence against Foote.
Mr. Cluer : It was purchased by this witness on the 16th.
The learned Judge : It is published whenever it is issued. It
was proved it was handed to the witness on the 16th of
February.
Mr. Cluer: I submit my friend cannot contradict his own
evidence. He puts before the jury February 18th.
Mr. Justice North: He proves a paper dated the 18th of Feb
ruary was handed to the witness on the 16th.
Mr. Poland : You made this note that you had bought it?
Mr. Justice North: That is in evidence.
Mr. Poland : Are you sure?
Witness : I am positive. You can get them on a Thursday.
They are all dated up to the Sunday following in each week.
Mr. Justice North: Is this a Sunday paper?—It is dated for
Sunday.
�54
Report of Blaspli&my Trials.
Mr. Poland : I propose to put this in evidence. The para
graphs I think it necessary to read are those beginning with the
words “ The Christmas Number of the ‘ Freethinker ’ has had an
incredible sale,” etc. (To witness) I think you said you bought
that of Mr. Kemp ?—Yes.
Mr. Poland: Just look at this notice (produced). Did you
serve a notice, of which that is a copy, on Mr. Foote, by leaving
it at 9 South Crescent, Bedford Square, on February 22nd?—
Yes.
The learned Judge : There was another notice this witness
produced. That, however, is not material.
Mr. Poland : That is not material, my lord.
Mr. Justice North: All that is proved at present is that this
notice was left at Foote’s house.
Mr. Foote : The prosecution seem to have forgotten that they
have joined us in one indictment. (To witness) With whom
did you leave this notice? The servant, Mary Finter—Miss
Finter.
You did not see me at that time ?—I did not.
Have you been doing anything in this case besides serving
notices and subpoenas?—Yes, buying some numbers.
Who told you to buy them?—My inspector.
Inspector McWilliams?—Yes.
Did he give you money to purchase them?—No.
You expect he will?—No, I don’t expect he will.
Mr. Justice North: You advanced it yourself, and you expect
it will be repaid ?—Yes, my lord.
Mr. Foote : That is what I asked you. He said, my lord, he
did not expect to be repaid.
Witness: Not from Inspector McWilliams.
Mr. Foote : You expect to be paid at some time from some
body ?
Witness: Yes.
The learned Judge : I put it more shortly, Foote. You expect
to be paid at some time from somebody ?
Witness: Yes.
By Mr. Foote : Have you any idea when?—Not when.
Have you any idea from whom?—Yes.
From whom ?—The City Solicitor.
_
Cross-examined by Mr. Ramsey: Have you any idea where the
funds are to come from for this prosecution?—Not further than
from the City Solicitor.
Do you think he is finding it out of his own pocket ?—1 have
no idea.
You cannot answer ?—I cannot answer.
Mrs. Curie was not cross-examined ; she did not add anything
to her evidence on the previous occasion. Mr. Lewis examined
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
55
her as follows Have you a-servant named Mary Finter ?—Yes.
She waits upon Mr. Foote.
...
0
Did you as his landlady occasionally go into his room?—
Occasionally; very seldom.
The learned Judge : Does he live there down to the present
time?—Yes.
.
.
Mr Lewis: Did you see the Christmas Number of rhe free
thinker ” in Mr. Foote’s room ?—I would not swear. I did not
notice any book particularly.
To the best of your belief ?—I may have seen it.
To the best of your belief have you seen the Christmas
Number of the “ Freethinker ” there ?—I would not swear.
The learned Judge: You are asked whether to the best of
your belief you have or have not.—I could not swear.
The learned Judge : That will not do. You are asked as to
the best of your belief.
Witness: I have seen divers colored books there.
Mr. Lewis: Have you to the best of your belief seen a number
of the »Freethinker” there with that yellow cover ?—I have seen
that cover or one the color of it.
Containing a Number of the “Freethinker ” ?—Not a number
of the “ Freethinker,” to my knowledge.
Have you seen copies of the “Freethinker” m his room?—1
may have done.
What is your belief. To the best of your belief have you seen
there numbers of the “Freethinker”?—! may have done, but I
could not swear to it.
T mean something like that in that particular number . 1 may
have seen that. I am not interested in it. I have never examined
any book.
The learned Judge : The question is whether, to the best of
your belief, you have or have not seen a number of the “Free
thinker ” there ?
Witness: I have seen the color.
The learned Judge: We are not speaking to you about the
color, but about the document handed to you.
Witness: I could not swear.
Mary Finter, the servant to the last witness, was examined in
chief by Mr. Poland as to having seen numbers of the “Free
thinker ” in Mr. Foote's room, and as to the reception of letters
addressed to Mr. Foote, and
Mr. Poland called upon Mr. Foote to produce the letters m
which he was described as “ G. W. Foote, ‘ Freethinker,’ ” or
“ G. W. Foote, Editor, ‘ Freethinker,’ 9 South Crescent, Bedford
Square.”
Mr. Cluer: I object, my lord, to that.
The learned Judge: I don’t trouble you, Mr. Poland, about
�56
Jieport of Blasphemy Trials.
the words addressed to hiiti, but as to the rest of the notice I
will hear Mr. Cluer.
Mr. Cluer: It is not proved this notice has been served on
Foote.
The learned Judge: He has lived at this house.
Mr. Cluer : That is not enough.
The learned Judge : Not to produce the documents?
Mr. Cluer: Certainly not, my lord.
The learned Judge: Do you wish to ask him any more
questions ?
Mr. Poland: No, rhy lord.
Mr. Cluer: It is hot even proved this is Foote’s servant.
The learned Judge : I will hear all your objections.
Mr. Cluer: My objections, my lord, are, first, that it is not
sufficient service; secondly, that my friend has not proved that
.the defendant was there at the time it was served.
The learned Judge : What do you mean by not being there?
Mr. Cluer : My learned friend does not ask any question as to
whether Foote was there at the time, and whether the notice was
handed to the defendant or not.
The learned Judge : It is unnecessary to hand it to him if the
first service was properly effected.
Mr. Cluer: The second point is that the notice to produce
letters involves describing him as “Mr. G. W. Foote, ‘Free
thinker,’” or “ G. W. Foote, Editor ‘ Freethinker? ” My
friend is not entitled to produce these in evidence against the
defendant.
The learned Judge : They are not proved yet.
Mr. Cluer: There’is another objection. The notice was served
too late, last Tuesday the 27th.
The learned Judge : Six days ago.
Mr. Cluer: No, my lord; it was served only thirty-six hours
before the trial.
The learned Judge : That took place last Tuesday.
Mr. Cluer: The notice must be served a reasonable time
before the trial. They cannot rely upon this being served now.
The learned Judge : As to the length of notice, I don’t trouble
you. What do you say about the service?
Mr. Poland: It is proved defendant was living at this place at
this timé, and notice was delivered to the servant who attends
on him at the house at which he is living. It is not necessary to
prove personal service.
The learned Judge : It might be served on a solicitor.
Mr. Poland : It might be served on a solicitor if proof be
given he is his solicitor at the time.
The learned Judge : It need not be personal service.
Mr. Poland: The question is whether there is reasonable
�Tieport of Blasphemy Trials.
57
ground for believing it would find its way to his possession.
I submit that is the usual way of serving notice. That is
sufficient if it is proved he is living there at the time.
Mr. Cluer: That has not been proved.
The learned Judge: That is in evidence.
Mr. Oluer: That it was served on him is not proved, and
that he lives there up to the present day is positively untrue.
Mr. Poland: It was served on his servant.
Mr. Cluer: Not on his servant.
Mr. Poland: The servant to Mrs. Curie.
The learned Judge : The person who waits upon him.
Mr. Poland : I submit, my lord, that is reasonable service.
The learned Judge : I don’t think there is sufficient notice.
Mr. Poland: Very well, then, my lord, I shall ask a further
question upon that. (To witness Finter) Was defendant living
at this address last week ?
Witness : Yes.
Until the trial, did he sleep there every night ?—I cannot
say.
Was he there every day ?—Yes.
When papers are left for him, what do you do ?—I take
them and put them in his room.
Do you remember the witness Okehampsted giving you a
paper last week ?—Yes.
What did you do with it P—I took it up to Mr. Foote’s
room.
You remember going down to the trial last week ?—Yes.
Did Mr. Foote sleep in the house the night before the trial ?
—Yes.
The learned Judge: You mean Foote slept in the house last
Wednesday night?
Witness: Yes.
The learned Judge : This is put in his room.
Mr. Cluer : I submit it is not proved it is served properly.
It must be served a certain time according to law. My
learned friend must prove that it was served before a certain
hour. That is not proved yet. Is it proved conclusively that
this has come to the defendant’s knowledge ? It is said it
was put in his sitting-room, but that is not sufficient.
The learned Judge: When did you put it in his room ?
Witness: Directly it was given to me.
The learned Judge : About what time?
Witness : About half-past five in the afternoon.
Mr. Oluer: Would your lordship ask if Foote slept there
on Tuesday night ?
The learned Judge: Yes, certainly. Do you remember if
he slept there the night before ?
�58
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
Witness : I don’t think he did.
Mr. Cluer: I submit that is not sufficient service. The
servant only says that she left it in his room on the Thursday,
and on the Tuesday night he did not sleep there.
The learned Judge: I think that is sufficient.
Mr. Cluer : She is not his servant.
The learned Judge: She is the person who waits upon him.
It does not appear he had a settled servant of his own. I
presume he is a lodger there, who pays for lodging.
Examination of witness continued by Mr. Poland :—
I suppose there is a letter-box at your house?
Witness: Yes.
Do you take out the letters in the morning ?—Yes sir.
What do you do with letters addressed to Mr. Foote P—I
put them on the hall table.
Are his rooms on the ground floor, or on the first floor ?
On the third floor.
How were those letters addressed to Mr. Foote ?
Mr. Cluer: I object to that question, my lord. I submit
that whatever he may have been called, or whether he was
addressed as editor of the “ Freethinker,” would be no evidence
against the defendant. If a person chooses to address me as
Bachelor of Arts, it is no proof.
The learned Judge : If letters are addressed to you as editor
of a newspaper, and you receive them, is not that evidence P
Mr. Cluer : I submit, my lord, it is not the sort of evidence
in a criminal case that should go to the jury. I think your
lordship should withdraw such evidence from the jury..
The learned Judge: Receiving letters so addressed without
objection on his part would be evidence to submit to them
for what it is worth.
Examination continued by Mr. Poland: How were letters
addressed there?—Some to Gr. W. Foote, 9 South .Crescent,
Bedford Square, and some were addressed to the editor of the
“ Freethinker.”
The learned Judge: Tell me that again. .
t
Witness: Some were addressed to the editor of the ‘ Free
thinker,” but very seldom.
Mr. Foote : She said, my lord, that letters were addressed
to me as Mr. Foote, and that letters were also addressed to the
editor of the “ Freethinker.”
The learned Judge : There are some letters, but very seldom
addressed to you as editor of the “ Freethinker.”
Mr. Foote: No, my lord, that is not so.
The learned Judge : Tell me what you say. Had some Mr.
Foote’s name as editor p
Witness : Some had, and some had not.
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
59
Mr. Cluer: Your lordship rules that the continuous reception
of letters is evidence ?
.
The learned Judge: There is always difficulty in dealing
with the admissibility of evidence in connexion with letters
one has not heard of. I only put to you the case.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote : You could not say you had
seen more than one copy of the Christmas Number of the
“ Freethinker ” in my room.
Witness : I could not.
You don’t believe you have ?—No.
You have seen in my room papers of all shapes, sizes, and
colors ?—Yes sir.
. , ,
,
Did you ever see any letter or envelope with the words
“ Editor of the Christmas Number of the ‘ Freethinker ’ ”
on ?—No sir. Never.
Could you swear that you saw any envelope or any document addressed as “Editor of the ‘ Freethinker,”’between
the 16th of November and the 16th of December ?—I cannot
SaYou are quite certain that you had only occasionally, and
indeed but seldom, seen letters addressed to the editor of the
“ Freethinker?
The learned Judge : Very seldom is what she said.
Mr. Foote: In order that there may be no doubt as to the
witness understanding, I ask, Have you ever seen an envelope
addressed to Gr. W. Foote, and also on the same envelope the
words “ Editor of the ‘ Freethinker ’ ” ?
Witness : I have seen it.
Mr. Foe q e: Am I entitled to ask this witness a question
arising out of her examination, as to my being at 9 South
Crescent in time to receive the notice a witness said he
served ?
The learned Judge : Certainly to ask any question relevant
in any way. You mnst make it relevant to that case. Subject to that there is no limit.
Mr. Foote : You received this notice to produce about five
on Tuesday afternoon ?
The learned Judge: This matter has been gone into by your
counsel; it has been exhausted, but I won’t stop you. You
may put any question you like.
Mr. Foote : It is only a question to show the time.
The learned Judge: I am allowing you to put it.
Mr. Foote: Did you see me at any time between the receipt
of that notice and the following morning ?—I cannot say.
To the best of your belief was I in the house between the
serving of that notice to produce and the following morning?
—You may have been, but I did not see you myself.
�60
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
You. didn’t see me ?—No.
You answer the door, do you not ?—Yes, sir.
Mr. Foote: That is all, my lord, I wish to ask.
Mr. Poland: You answer the door, do you P
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Poland: Do lodgers have keys to let themselves in p
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Poland : Had Mr. Foote a latch key ?
Witness: Yes.
Thomas James Alford, in the employment of the PostmasterGeneral, proved delivering letters at 9 South Crescent, Bed
ford Square, addressed “ G. W. Foote, Esq., Editor of the
‘ Freethinker.’ ”
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote: Did you ever make any
memorandum at any time of a delivery to 9 South Crescent,
of letters addressed to me as editor of the ‘ ‘ Freethinker ” ?—
I have since Christmas.
You have no memorandum before Christmas ?—No.
By Christmas of course you mean the 25th of December ?
—Most decidedly.
Who served you with your subpoena ?—The police-officer
Okehampsted.
Had you seen him before he served you with the subpoena?
—Yes.
Had you any conversation with him about this prosecution?
—No.
Will you swear you have had no conversation with him
upon this prosecution ?—He called at the office.
What office ?—Our district office.
The post-office?—Yes. I was called upstairs to see the dis
trict postmaster.
Was this gentleman who served you with a subpoena there
then?—Yes. ’
Will you tell us what took place in his presence ?—The
Postmaster asked me several questions. He asked me if I
new Mr. Foote. I said I did. He also asked me if I had
delivered any letters addressed 9 South Crescent.
Did he ask you if you had delivered any letters addressed
to the editor of the “ Freethinker”?—No.
When did this interview take place ?—I cannot say.
The learned Judge: How long since about ? How many
weeks since ?—It is about a month back.
Mr. Foote: Had you had any conversation with any one
about this prosecution before the interview ?—No.
What induced you then to make a memorandum of the
delivery of letters as far back as Christmas ?—If I am in
structed by my superior officer I must do it.
�Ilcport of Blasphemy Trials.
61
You. were instructed to do this by your superior officers ?
—Yes.
The learned Judge : When ?
Witness: I should say about a month ago.
Mr. Foote: My lord, I must go back on the question. (To
witness) I ask you again, as you have only given me in reply
something which took place about a month ago, what it was
induced you to make memoranda or a memorandum of a
delivery of letters as far back as Christmas ?
The learned Judge: He has not said he began to make
memoranda at Christmas. It is only since Christmas he
began.
Mr. Foote: The words would certainly bear that meaning.
You only began making these memoranda after that interview
with the person who served you with a subpoena and after the
orders of your superior officer ?—Just so.
And that is about a month ago ?—I should say about a
month ago.
You have no memorandum going further back than that ?
—No.
The learned Judge: Have you got the book here ?
Witness: Yes.
The learned Judge: Well you can tell us the day on which
you made the first memorandum.
Witness: The 10th of February.
Thomas Campbell, another letter-carrier, gave evidence as
to delivering letters at 9 South Crescent, some of which
were addressed “ G-. W. Foote, Esq.,” and others “ Mr. Gr. W.
Foote, editor of the ‘ Freethinker.’ ”
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote: Have you ever made any
memorandum of the delivery of letters addressed to me at
9 South Orescent ?—I have since I saw the detective who
served me with the subpoena.
How long ago was that?—I believe on the 9th of last
month.
The 9th of last month is the earliest day of any memo
randum you have ?—I did not make any memorandum on that
day. The first I took was on the 10th.
Do you often deliver letters or packets to the editor of the
“ Freethinker ” ?—I often recollect letters, but I only recol
lect one packet.
You had often seen on letters “ Editor of the ‘ Freethinker ’ ”?
—Yes.
What made you so particularly notice this large packet ?—
It is the only large packet I can recollect delivering with the
address on. It was too large to put through the box, and I
had to wait for the servant to answer the door.
�•62
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
This happened three or four months ago ?—Yes.
Could you say-whether it is nearer three or four?—Might
it not be as long as four months ?—Yes.
Might it not be longer?—Yes, it might be longer.
Will you swear you delivered any letter, packet, or document
of any kind, addressed to the editor of the “ Freethinker,” 9
South Crescent, Bedford Square, any time between the 16th
of November, and the 16th of December?—I cannot swear
that I have, because I didn’t take any notice.
You would not be at all surprised to learn that you hadn’t?—
I should be rather surprised to learn that I hadn’t.
W’hy ?—Because my belief is, I have delivered letters pretty
well every week to you so addressed.
But you could not swear as to that individually ?—No, I
could not.
How long before the subpoena was served upon you had
you any conversation about this prosecution?—I believe it was
’ on.the 9th of Febraury.
That was the first time you had any conversation upon the
subject ?—Yes.
You have not been paid anything to come here to-day ?—I
expect to be paid my expenses. It has cost me six shillings to
come here.
I have no doubt you will get it. Have you been paid any
thing besides P^-I received half a crown the night my subpoena
was served.
Anything besides ?—Nothing else besides.
William Loy, a constable, proved that he knew all the
defendants, and was examined as follows :—
Mr. Lewis : When did you last see Kemp on the premises
in Stonecutter Street?—On Wednesday last.
:
And Foote: On the 16th of February.
And Ramsey: On Tuesday or Wednesday last.
In a general way, how long have you seen any of the
defendants at the shop ?
Mr. Cluer: I object to that.
Mr. Lewis: How long have you seen Kemp there ?—Several
m >nths.
And Foote : Four or five months.
And Ramsey : I have seen Ramsey for the last two years.
By Mr. Avory: Where have you seen Kemp ?—-I have seen
Kemp serving customers.
Standing behind the counter acting as shopman?—Yes, sir.
What is the earliest time in the morning you have been
oub?—Six o’clock.
lave you ever seen Kemp come to open the shop ?—I cannot
say that he has opened the shop.
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
63
Have you ever seen anyone open the shop ?—Yes.
Within the last three or four months?—Yes.
Can you say who closed it ?—I have seen a boy.
How many times ?—I cannot say.
As far as you know within the last few months, has anyone
slept there ?—Not to my knowledge.
Have- you seen Kemp there serving persons who went into
the shop with books and publications of different kinds P—Yes.
Books and other publications ?—Papers generally.
Have you seen books in the shop for sale ?—Yes.
Can you fix the earliest day when you saw Kemp there at
all ?—I cannot say.
Well approximately ?—Four or five months back.
I understand four or five months back is the earliest time
you saw him there ?—Yes, it may have been, but I cannot fix
the date.
The learned Judge : How far was it back ?
Witness : Four or five months to the best of my recollection.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote: You say you have seen me
at Stonecutter Street occasionally ?—Yes.
How many times might that be altogether —Four or five
times.
How long is it since the first time you saw me there ?—I
cannot fix the earliest date.
But about ?—The earliest day I remember was on the 28th
of January, but I had seen you before that time.
The learned Judge: Without fixing the date, how far back
do you think P
Witness : About four or five months.
The learned Judge: You cannot exactly fix the date P
Witness : No, my lord.
Mr. Foote: What you mean is, you have seen me in Stone
cutter Street three or four times during the past four or five
months ?
The learned Judge : Four or five times.
Mr. Foote : My estimate as to three or four times was
very excusable. Do you remember how many times
you said you had seen me in your evidence before the
Lord Mayor ? Do you remember how many times you said
you had seen me in Stonecutter Street in your deposition
before the magistrate ?—Four or five times, I think.
You would not be surprised to hear after all it was three
or four times P—It might be three or four times.
Instead of four or five ?—Yes.
Do you know what you deposed before the magistrates as
to the period of time over which those three or four times
extended ?—Several months.
�64
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
In your deposition before the magistrates you told them
that these three or four times extended over two or three
years. You now tell us you have seen me four or five times
instead of three or four, and that that occurred during the
last three or four months.
The learned Judge: Four or five months.
Mr. Foote: How do you explain this tremendous discre
pancy?
* <
Witness: I have seen you there once since the first hearing
before the magistrates.
Mr. Foote : You now say you have seen me a certain .num
ber of times during a certain number of months^ and before
the magistrates you say you saw me three times during a
period of two or three years.
The learned Judge: He answered that by telling you
three or four times, and he has seen you once since the trial.
Mr Foote: That does not explain the difference between
the months and the years.
The learned Judge: As to one, he has explained. As to
the other, he has not, and you have a right to get it.
Mr. Foote : How do you explain this discrepancy between
four and five months and two or three years ?
Witness: I had been on duty there two or three years.
Mr Foote: The words, my lord, are very plain: “ I saw
you three or four times.” Did you say this then ?
Witness : Three or four then, and four or five now.
Mr. Foote: You don’t know whether it was during four or
five months or two or three years ?
Mr Poland: You had no special reason for watching ?
Witness: No.
.
.
Mr. Poland: And do you account for the difference m that
way?
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Foote : Can you offer any explanation as to this vast
difference ?
.Witness: I had no special reason for taking dates.
Mr. Foote: I am speaking of the period over which the
times are distributed.
Witness: I have no further explanation to offer.
Mr. Foote : What was the last time you saw me there ?
Witness: 16th of February.
Mr. Foote: You have no precise recollection of the first
time ?
Witness : I have not.
Mr Foote: Have you seen me during any of those unfixable times transacting what looked to be business ?
Witness : No, I have not.
�65
lieport of Blasphemy Trials.
Mr. Foote: You have seen me go into the shop and come
out of it ?—Yes.
Were my stays long, do you know ?—That I cannot say.
By Mr. Ramsey: Do a large number of people go in and
out ?—Yes.
A great number of books and papers are sold there ?—I saw
a great number in the shop. I cannot say what are sold out.
You have seen a number of people go in and out ?—Yes.
You have seen me go in and out ?—Yes.
Like the others ?—Yes.
Who instructed you to watch the premises?—Detective
Sager spoke to me on the subject a week or ten days before
the first hearing. He said, “ Just take notice of whom you
see go in and out.”
Did he say, “ You will be wanted to give evidence as to
Ramsey going in here ”?—No.
Did you depose to that effect before the magistrate?—I
don’t remember.
Is it true ?—I don’t remember it.
Did he say, “ You will be wanted to give evidence as to
Ramsey going in there ”?—I don’t remember.
Did he or did he not say so ?—I don’t remember.
Will you swear he did not say so ?—He may have said so.
You won’t swear he didn’t ?—No, and I won’t swear he did.
If you said in your deposition before the magistrate you
would be wanted to give evidence, would that have been
true ? Supposing you said so before the magistrate, was that
true? Would it have been true if you had deposed that
before the magistrate ?—I don’t remember.
Mr. Ramsey ■ My lord, I am putting a very plain question.
The learned Judge : Oh yes, it is quite plain enough, and
he says he doesn’t know.
Witness : I don’t remember.
John Edward Kelland, clerk to Messrs. Batten, and Co.,
solicitors, of Victoria Street, Westminster, said in reply to
Mr. PolandDuring the last year, I went frequently to the
house in Stonecutter Street and purchased there weekly
numbers of the “Freethinker.” I know the whole of the
defendants. I have seen them at Stonecutter Street. In
July I purchased copies of the “ Freethinker” from Ramsey,
I have got the numbers I purchased from Ramsey. Each of
these I produce was purchased from Ramsey. Ramsey was
one of the defendants examined at the Mansion House in July.
Foote was also there, but Kemp was not. The numbers I
purchased were given in evidence in the presence of the two
defendants. Attention was called to the fact that they
appeared to be edited by G. W. Foote.
The notice to
K
�66
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
correspondents, which directed letters and literary communi
cations to be sent to G-. W. Foote, editor, 9 South Crescent, was
also called attention to. That notice appeared in these numbers,
and at the end is a statement that they were printed and
published by Ramsey at Stonecutter Street. The first I pro
duce is dated March 26th, 1882, and the last, June 18th, 1882.
After that occasion at the Mansion House, I purchased
various other numbers at the same shop, the majority of them
from Kemp. Those begin August 6th, and run on every week
to December. In the number for December 3rd, the Christmas
Humber of the “ Freethinker” is advertised. In the Number
it says, “ Ready next week the Christmas Number of the
‘ Freethinker.’ ”
The learned Judge: Tell me what the date of the latest
number of that parcel is.
Witness : January 28th, my lord.
The learned Judge : Do you remember about what time you
saw Mr. Foote at Stonecutter Street?
Witness : On the 16th of April.
Examined by Mr. Avory : What was the earliest day you
saw Kemp there ?—I cannot say the precise day. It was soon
after the prosecution at the Mansion House.
When did you purchase the first copy from Kemp ?—I can
not say.
May it have been two or three months after the first prose
cution p—Before then I should say.
Would y ou swear you ever purchased one until September ?—
I cannot say the precise date.
You were clerk to the solicitor who was prosecuting the
matter in July p—Yes.
Did you ever ask Kemp for anything else except the “ Free
thinker ?”—Yes the “ National Reformer.”
Anything else P—No other papers.
Did you see other things there?—Yes a great number of
other books and publications.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote : When did you first see me
at Stonecutter Street ?—On the 16th of February.
Did you ever purchase a copy of rhe Christmas Number of
the “ Freethinker ” in my presence ?—No.
How do you recognise the numbers of the “ Freethinker”
you have put in p
Witness : I don’t understand what you mean.
The learned judge : Where do they come from ?
Witness : From Stonecutter Street.
Mr. Justice North: They were handed in at the Mansion
House p
Witness: Yes.
�Bepori of Blasphemy Trials.
67
Mr. Justice North: In whose custody were they before
they were handed in ?
Witness: In the custody of the solicitors to the first prose
cution.
By Mr. Foote : What leads you to recognise these as the
copies you purchased when they are put before you?—My
signature.
Did you put your signature on them at the time of pur
chase?—I did.
Inside the shop ?—At the office.
Did anyone see you sign them ?—No, not particularly.
Did you make any note of the fact ?—No.
In any memorandum book ?—No.
Did you make any memorandum of the purchase ?—No.
You are with Messrs. Batten and Co.?—I am a clerk in
their office.
They are solicitors to Sir H. Tyler ?—They are. _
The firm gave you money to purchase these copies?—Yes.
You have reason to suppose Sir H. Tyler will refund the
money?—That I know nothing about.
Do you make out bills of costs ?—I don’t.
Do you see them when they are made out ?—No.
Messrs. Batten are still Sir H. T} ler’s solicitors ?—Yes.
How did you come to put these numbers into the hands of
the prosecution in this case?—Because I was subpoenaed to do
so.
Had you any conversation with any of them before you
were subpoenaed ?—No.
No conversation about the numbers which you have pur
chased since the first prosecution?—No,, only when Mr.
Poland asks me to produce them I do.
Are you aware how Mr. Poland became aware of your
possession of them?—I am not.
Do you think it is likely your employers tendered them ?—
No they didn’t tender them at all.
Do you think it is likely they informed the prosecution
where they could be had ?—I cannot say ; it has nothing to do
with me.
To the best of your belief has there been any interview or
correspondence between your employers (Sir H. Tyler’s solici
tors) and the prosecutors in this case ?—There may have been.
But are you aware whether there has or not ?—There were
two or three letters.
There have been letters ?—There may have been. 1 cannot
say; I don’t look after the letters.
Mr. Foote: You just said there had been.
The learned judge: There might have been.
�68
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
Mr. Foote: He said some letters passed. He said there
had been two or three letters.
The learned judge: He said there had been some letters
passed.
Mr. Foote : Had there been p
Witness: I cannot say; there might have been.
Mr. Foote : You could not swear that letters had not passed ?
Witness: No.
_
_
.
Mr. Foote : Have you any idea in your mind, speaking with
out reservation, as to how the prosecution became aware of
the fact that your employers had deposited with them copies
of the “ Freethinker,” since the first prosecution, which you
have purchased ?
'
Witness: I don’t know, I am sure.
Mr. Foote: Will you get any extra payment for this case?
Witness : That I don’t know.
Mr. Foote: Do you expect any ?
Witness: I don’t know whether I expect any or whether I
don’t.
Mr. Foote: You expect to be treated liberally?
Witness: Yes, I suppose I may say so.
Mr. Foote: Then that is all, my lord.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ramsey: You say you have pur
chased copies of the “ Freethinker ’’ before July last—I under
stand you to say—chiefly from me ?—Yes, that is so.
Was I in the habit of being in the shop when you came ?—
Yes.
Serving behind the counter ?—Yes.
,
Have you bought any since July of me ?—I don t think 1
have of you.
. ,
Re-examined by Mr. Poland: In July you were examined
before the Lord Mayor ?—Yes.
Sir H. Tyler was the prosecutor ?—Yes.
That related to some of these numbers ?—Yes.
Did you give your evidence in open court in the ordinary
way ?—Yes.
„
And were your depositions taken and signed, r x es.
Were you examined on the 28th of July and various other
days ?—Yes.
.
Were you called more than once and the depositions taken
on such occasion ?—Yes.
.
Do you attend by subpoena in this case P—Yes.
And it was tendered in the ordinary way ?—Yes.
Mr. Poland: That, my lord is the case on the part of the
prosecuti
: As regards the defendant Ramsey I submit
there is no evidence to go to the jury on any single count on
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
6»
the charge brought against him. The only evidence, as far as
I can gather from the notes, is that he was not the registered
proprietor at any time, but that he was the manager of the
Freethought Publishing Company before and after removal.
The learned Judge: Are you aware he is the registered
proprietor from 1881 to 1883 ? That is in his own hand
writing.
Mr. Oluer: I beg your lordship’s pardon. My bad sight has
led me wrong. Beyond that there is absolutely no evidence
whatever.
The learned Judge: What more do you want ?
Mr. Cluer: That does not connect him with this Christmas
Number.
The learned Judge: Doesn’t it ?
Mr. Cluer: The prosecution must prove it is published in
order to prove their case. They must prove that they com
posed, printed and published, or caused and procured to be
published, the libel in question. The only evidence there is
to go to the jury that Ramsey had anything to do withit is the
certificate of the registration to him as proprietor of the
journal and nothing else.
The learned Judge: Assuming there is nothing else, what
more is wanted for this action ?
Mr. Cluer : There is no publication proved, my lord.
The learned Judge: There is ample evidence of publica
tion.
Mr. Cluer: If there is it must be pointed out to me. It has
not been shown. It is a matter of the person who published.
I submit all that has been proved is that this was sold by
Kemp on two occasions, two numbers each time. It is said
that Kemp was a servant of Ramsey’s. It seems to me that
the sole facts that the prosecution have proved against
Ramsey, are that he was registered as proprietor and that the
policeman sometimes saw him enter the shop in Stonecutter
Street during the last two years, and that copies were bought
®f him by the last witness. As regards Ramsey I submit
there is no case to go to the jury.
The learned Judge: I think there is ample evidence to go
to the jury, Mr. Cluer.Mr. Cluer: I have to submit on this indictment that your
lordship should call upon the prosecution to elect against
whom they will proceed.
The learned Judge: I have already decided that.
Mr. Cluer: I am moving after evidence has been given. I
was then moving as to whether the indictment should be
quashed as it stood. I am now moving that the prosecution
should be called upon to elect whether they will proceed
�70
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
against Kemp, Ramsey, or Foote. I base my application
upon the fact that the evidence is insufficient, and I think
that it is exceedingly clear.
The learned Judge: Don’t mind what you think about it,
Mr. Cluer.
Mr Cluer: The charge is a joint offence. They are charged
jointly with a joint offence. They are not charged separately
with having committed an offence, but charged jointly with
having published blasphemous libels in the Christmas Num
ber of the “ Freethinker.” I ask to be shown any word of
evidence that supports that charge of a joint offence in pub
lishing, writing, or composing this Christmas Number. In
the case of the King against Lynn and Daveney, reported in
Carrington and Payne, which was a case of obstruction of
the highway, there was evidence of obstruction separately,
although the parties were charged jointly; and the learned
udge said the prosecution should elect against which they
would proceed. I submit there is no evidence of a joint
offence. If they are charged jointly the evidence must be
proved jointly. I deny that the prosecution has proved any
thing of the kind, and on the authority of this case I ask
your lordship to call upon the prosecution to elect against
which they will proceed.
The learned Judge: My opinion is against you.
Mr. Cluer: Will your lordship reserve the point P
The learned Judge: I see no reason.. No. I forbear
giving my reasons because I could not give them without
Slating my opinion of the evidence, and that I wish to avoid.
Mr. Cluer : Will your lordship reserve this point, because
I consider this one of importance ?
The learned Judge: I don’t think it is.
Mr Cluer: Will you consider it ? I think it is a fit case.
The learned Judge : I don’t want you to tell me what you
think. I know it is only your way of speaking. I see no
similarity between this case and the one you have quoted.
Mr. Cluer: They were charged with a joint offence.
The learned Judge: No, I don’t reserve anything on that.
Mr. Cluer: I ask you to withdraw the case from the jury
as regards Foote.
The learned Judge: Your first point is on behalf of Ramsey
alone ; your last point was on behalf of both. Now it is on
hehalf of Foote.
Mr. Cluer: The evidence is that of the detective Sagar, who
produced two certificates of the registration of the “Free
thinker,” and the second one of February 7th, 1883, shows it
was transferred to Foote as proprietor. The other evidence is
that of Norrish, who had only occasionally seen Foote at
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
71
Stonecutter Street. He did not see him often or see him
transact business, nor had he reason to suppose he transacted
business. The only other evidence I can find, is the fact of^
letters being addressed to him as editor of the “ Freethinker.”
I have to submit that that is not sufficient to convict him of
having published this particular number on which he is in
dieted jointly with the other defendants. The evidence goes
to this, that he has been seen at the place and that the paper
bears his name as editor of the “ Freethinker.
That I sub
mit is not to be taken as an admission by the defendant in any
way of the prosecution having proved he was editor, or trans
acted any business, or did anything to show that he wrote or
published the print. I submit the prosecution have failed to
prove that Foote has in any way published this Christmas
Number of the “ Freethinker.”
The learned Judge: I think there is evidence to go to the
jury upon the point. Portions of the evidence that bear upon
Foote I will point out by and bye.
,
Mr. Avory: With regard to the defendant Kemp, I don t
feel in a position to contest' the fact that he has been selling
these papers over the counter, and his share in the responsi
bility is rather a question for your lordship. The general
question I leave to be dealt with by the other defendants.
Mr. Foote in a most eloquent and able address said: Gentle
men of the jury, I stand in a position of great difficulty and dis
advantage. On Thursday last I defended myself against the
very same charges in the very same indictment. The case lasted
nearly seven hours, and tne jury retired for more than two hours
without being able to come to an agreement. They were then
discharged, and the learned judge said he would try the case
again on Monday with a new jury. As I had been out on bail
from my committal, and as I stood in the same position after
that abortive trial as before it commenced, I asked the learned
judge to renew my bail, but he refused. I pleaded that I should
have no opportunity to prepare my defence, and I was peremp
torily told I should have the same opportunity as I had had that
day. Well, gentlemen, I have enjoyed the learned judge’s
opportunity. I have spent all the weary hours since Thursday,
with the exception of the three allowed for bodily exercise
during the whole interval, in a small prison-cell six feet wide,
and so dark that I could neither write nor read at midday with
out the aid of gaslight. There was around me no sign of the
animated life I am accustomed to, nothing but the loathsome
sights and sounds of prison life. And in these trying and de
pressing circumstances I have had to prepare to defend myself in
a new trial against two junior counsel and a senior counsel, who
have had no difficulties to contend with, who have behind them
�12
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
the wealth and authority of the greatest and richest Corporation
in the world, and who might even walk out of court in the
perfect assurance that the prosecution would not be allowed to
suffer in their absence. Now, gentlemen of the jury, I want
you to bear in mind who it is, or rather who they are, that insti
gated this prosecution, commenced it, have found all the money
for it, and are still carrying it on. There can be no doubt in
your minds after the examination and cross-examination you
have listened to, that all the money for this prosecution will be
found by the Corporation of the City of London, a body which
seems to have more money than it knows what to do with, a fact,
however, which will not surprise you when you consider that
such a body can go to the expense of £30,000 to give a dinner to
a prince. Some of you may have noticed within the precincts
of the City of London—holy as they are—certain publications
hawked about the streets, with which there is no interference;
publications hawked about in a manner intended to excite
prurient curiosity on the part of the people who purchase them.
These periodicals are not interfered with, while the periodical
which is before you, or rather the publication which is before
you, considering the small publicity that appears to have been
given to it before the Corporation of London gave it such a
splendid advertisement, seems to have been ferreted out from
comparative obscurity in order that a ground of indictment may
be found against those who are alleged to be connected with
it, and in order that the City of London may show—before the
Government absorbs it into a larger and, I hope, more effective
and beneficent Corporation—a last remnant of its old character;
may go back for fifty years of its own history to apply again
principles that have never been appealed to since the prosecu
tion in London of the Rev. Robert Taylor; may show to the
whole of the Kingdom that the City of London, with almost its
last breath, is determined to uphold those principles which are,
I have no doubt, at its base in the past, and to show how
much evil it can do before it is abolished for ever. It is
alleged I am the editor of the “ Freethinker.” Supposing it were
true, I am not in the witness-box and I am not here to give evi
dence. Neither affirmations nor denials are my business. Sup
pose I had edited every number of the “ Freethinker,” that would
not give you sufficient proof to warrant you putting me in peril
of the grave penalties that your verdict of Guilty would render
me liable to. Even that would not show I was really responsible
for the publication which lies before you. Again I say you must
judge from what evidence has been tendered by the prosecution.
Of course if men may be committed for trial on speculation
and sent to gaol on suspicion, it may be pleaded that there are
many old precedents which would even justify such a course as
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
73
that, but I think, gentlemen, you will agree with me that such
a course ought not to be, and shall not be justified, if you have
any power of deciding this by the verdict you give. The evidence
against me, technically speaking, is rubbish. You have one or
two witnesses that really speak as if they mean all they say, and
all the evidence they can give against me is that I have been
seen at Stonecutter Street a few times, amounting, as one wit
ness said, to four or five times, over a period of several years.
Some other persons who say they have seen me go in and out are
very shaky in their evidence, and if the policeman is only as
shaky on his legs as in his evidence, it is a wonder to me he can
continue to be an efficient officer of the force. What value is
there in the testimony of a witness like this, who deposes before
one court that there are four or five times extending over as
many months, and in another court that there are three or four,
extending over two years? You have the fact alleged, and it
may be considered proved, I supposed, by the learned counsel for
the prosecution—I don’t know whether he takes that view of it
or not—that on the 6th of February there was a change made
in the registration of the proprietorship of the “ Freethinker,”
and from that time I stood in the position of proprietor. That
is a considerable distance from the 16th of December, when,
according to the indictment, the blasphemous libels are said to
have been committed. Tne reference which has been read to
you from a recent number is one which in continuity of business
would evidently be made by anybody concerned in it. These
things don’t call for public statements to readers of papers. What
is said in a police court or criminal court like this is naturally
authoritative. What is said in newspapers is only with a view to
the interest of the publication and the just curiosity of the readers
in certain matters and certain words. Evidence has been ten
dered that letters addressed to me as editor of the “Freethinker”
have been delivered at South Crescent to me, but neither of the
two postmen can swear he delivered any document so addressed
to me between the 16th of November and the 16th of December,
when you would naturally say any editorial work connected with
the publication would have to be done. The evidence of the
servant girl Finter is that she saw one copy of the Christmas
Number of the “ Freethinker ” in my room. She admits that
she saw, and has seen in my room, papers of all shapes, sizes,
and colors. The learned counsel for the prosecution read you
an extract from a number of the “ Freethinker ” to the effect
that it had a large circulation, and I feel quite sure in my own
mind that no Christmas Number nor any other Freethought pub
lication would be interfered with unless it had a large sale. So
long as a Freethought publication has a small sale there is no
danger; it is only when it thrives and when its principles are
�74
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
beginning to permeate large sections of society that men think it
necessary to interfere on behalf of their own threatened interests.
All indications point to the fact that this publication would have a
large sale, and it would not be a wonderful thing if a copy of the
paper were found in the room of a man whose room is littered
with papers of all sorts, colors, and sizes. I make no statements
or denials; I merely deal with the evidence. I say there is not
a shred of evidence which would justify you in your position,
having to give a grave legal verdict, to say in that position and
capacity that I am responsible for this or any blasphemous libel
which can be found within the corners of the publication.
I will leave all that. It is not a kind of business in
which I am particularly skilled or interested. I respect thetalent, ability and character of the learned gentlemen, but I
should not care to make it my business to participate in such
work as they have to do. I will proceed with what to me is of
more interest, the consideration of the grounds of this prosecution,
not from a technical point of view as the evidence concerns my
self, but: rom the broader point as it may concern myself and co
defendants alike. What is it? Were I in your position, and a
man were brought before me on a grave criminal charge, I should
ask this question—Under what statute is he prosecuted ? I am
perfectly aware you will get your legal directions as to the law
as it now stands from the learned judge, but I am not less aware
that in defending myself I have all the privileges of a counsel,
that I have a right to deal with everything included within the
borders of the indictment; and I submit if there is any dis
tinction to be made between a counsel in the law pleading for his
elient, and a defendant who can only plead for himself, because
his purse is not long enough to purchase that legal defence—if
any such distinction is to be made, it should be made in favor of
the man who stands in such a position of danger as I have the
misfortune to stand in now. If you ask under what statute I am
prosecuted, you will have as an answer, no statute. This is an.
indictment at common law. Common law is what ? Judge-made
law. I have the very highest respect for the intellectual power,
the legal accomplishments, and the character of the learned judges
who occupy our bench, but I do say that all judges—no matter
what their position might be; no matter however wise or
disinterested their judgments may be on ordinary criminals—
necessarily from their position, are inheritors of that old and
bad tradition of the priority of the Crown in all Crown prosecutions,
especially when they touch the liberty of the press or the liberty
of association, and the fight of free speech, bad traditions which
have, unfortunately, as every reader of Government-allowed pro
secutions during the last 150 years knows, stained our legal
records and too often turned courts of justice into halls of
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
75
oppression. Now, gentlemen, I am making no invidious com
ments ; I am only stating general principles and general facts ;
and it is because of these facts and the principles which are implied
in them that I want to impress upon you, the necessity of not
allowing yourselves to be enmeshed by merely legal cobwebs. You
have to give a decision on this very grave question, which I shall
have to show you later on in my address, will have far reaching
consequences whichever way your verdict goes, to give that
decision on the broad, grounds of common sense and equity,
with a due regard to what I have to say and a full regard to what
the learned judge may have to say to you in his direction. J
said the common law was judge-made law. We have been told
by the learned counsel for .the prosecution, that we cannot
permit insults to the Christian religion, that we may permit dis
cussion on controverted points of religion, but we cannot allow
insults to Christianity. I have to complain that while the
language of old decisions is referred to, absolute and accurate
language is not cited. I defy anybody to point out a single case
in which any man has been prosecuted, much less in which any
man has been convicted and sentenced, on a charge of merely
bringing the true religion into contempt. The word contempt
has always been coupled with the word unbelief or disbelief—to
bring the Christian religion into disbelief or contempt. You must
see the reasonableness of so coupling it. You must couple the
truth of the thing with its immunity from insult, and so in all
decisions the word disbelief was used with contempt. The phrase,
“ controverted points of religion ” has never been used. It was held
by Lord Justice Abbot, that while no general attack on Christianity
could be permitted or tolerated, discussion on controverted points
was allowable. Now, the learned counsel for the prosecution
did not even dare to put the language of the learned judges to
you in its old and, as I think, hideous nakedness; but he used
the word religion, implying you were to believe that contro
verted points of religion in general were to be discussed, but
that no religion was to be insulted. I affirm broadly, and I don’t
think it can be contradicted, that it is only religion established
by law which has any standing in this country.
In proof of this, Mr. Foote quoted the case of the Scorton
Nunnery, reported at page 196 in the third volume of “Russell
•n Crimes,” and proceeded:—
So that you see here the learned judge lays it down that
Mahomedans, Jews, and even Roman Catholics, may be insulted
with impunity, so long as you only insult the latter sects on those
points on which they happen to differ from the religion esta
blished by law in our own country. Does not that show that
we are dealing simply with a judge-made law, called common
law, for the protection of the Church as by law established?
�76
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
Some very grave remarks on that will occur a little later on. I
ask you to consider, what is it really that lies behind all this?
There can be no doubt whatever that the basis of all law against
blasphemy, whether statute or common law, is priestcraft. It is
a commonplace of the history of English law, as well indeed as
of the law of Christendom at large, that all laws against heresy
were originally not only punishable by, but tryable by, ecclesias
tical courts. I don’t mean that the ecclesiastical courts punished
the offender, but they pronounced sentence upon him, and then
handed him over to the secular power to be dealt with according
to the judgment of the Church. Mr. Justice Stephens says that
law is not abolished yet; but what I want to show you is that
the common law was really brought effectively into operation
after the abolition of the writ de heretico comburendo in the
reign of Charles II., that the common law is the after glow of
the setting sun of persecution, and that the judges brought it
in not to serve the public, but to serve the Church. Who was
the first man who used the words that “ Christianity is part and
parcel of the law of England ” ? Sir Matthew. Hale was the first
judge who used those words. Without refering anybody to the
statute on which he relied, the judge sentenced people to be
burnt to death for witchcraft, or to be hung ; and no doubt his
common sense was quite as great in the one case as the other.
What is the prosecution of Freethinkers but the outcome of the
same superstition which in the old days burnt and hanged .poor
women and children for a crime we know now to be impossible ?
And the time will come when we shall recognise the crime of
blasphemy to be impossible. When a great Roman Emperor,
Tiberius, was asked by an informer to allow a prosecution for
an offence against the gods, his reply was that the wrongs against
the gods must be dealt with by the gods. *1 hat is a point you
will have to consider more fully when you come to the indict
ment. The spirit which underlies all prosecutions for blasphemy
has its origin in priestcraft in the past, and the credulity and
ignorance thus engendered support it to-day. Samuel Taylor
Coleridge, the poet, well said that the statement that Christianity
is part and parcel of the law of the land is as absurd as if one
were to say—supposing there to be a law to. protect carpenter«
and builders in the exercise of their profession—that architec
ture was a part of the British Constitution. Let us see if
Christianity can be declared to be part and parcel of the law of
the land. What is the source of law ? The House of Commons
and the House of Lords, and the Crown giving its assent, to bills
passed by those two Houses. The House of Commons initiates
matters of legislation. But are all the members of that House
Christians ? The Christian oath every member was obliged to
take before he took his seat—-the oath of allegiance—has been
�Ileport of Blasphemy Trials.
77
broken down for many years, and a theistic oath substituted, for
it; so that we have in the House of Commons—Jews, who cer
tainly are not Christians, whose ancestors crucified Jesus Christ,
whom Christians believe to have been, and to be, God,—Jews,
who believed that Jesus Christ was not God, and that he was a
blasphemer—and they have a hand in making the laws of the
country in which Christianity is part and parcel of the law of
the land ! There are many men inside the House of Commons
who had not the same odium and obloquy to encounter as Mr.
Bradlaugh, but who still, in secret, are known to be sharers in
his views. We had lately returned to the House of Commons, as
member for Newcastle, Mr. .Morley. He is well known as a
Positivist. A Positivist is one who believes in Auguste Comte’s
philosophy, a man whom the late Léon Gambetta declared to
have been the greatest thinker of the 19th century. What was
the object of Comte's philosophy? It was to reorganise society
by the systematic cultivation of humanity. Mr. Morley is a
believer in that. Mr. Morley took to spelling god with a small
g, and the Spectator, in retaliation, printed Mr. Morley’s name Í
with a small m. Mr. John Morley is returned by the electors of |
Newcastle, and takes his seat in the House of Commons to help ■
to make the laws of the country in which Christianity is part
and parcel of the law of the land! You have not only Jews
and heretics in that House, but you have men shaky in their
religious belief. I suppose if one said several of the Radical
members of the House were Christians, one would be asked if
he had been dining too much. There are men of all shades of
opinion, not only of opposite opinions, but opinions antagonistic
to Christianity, sitting in our national Legislature, helping to
make the laws of the land. How, therefore, can it be said that
Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land? It has
been said, and said in this court—not to-day, but on a previous
trial—under this very same indictment, that a belief in the
divinity of Jesus Christ as lord and savior,- and many other
doctrines of Christianity, are necessary, because without them
you have no guarantee for morality, and you have without them
no guarantee as to the evidence tendered in a court. The phi ase
used was that it interfered with the proper administration of the
law. How can a disbelief in Christianity interfere with the
administration of the law? The judgeshave over and over again
said that the great sanction of the oath was a belief in future
rewards and punishments. I scarcely condescended to examine
such an argument, which makes—
“ The fear of hell the hangman’s whip
To hold the wretch in order,”
and which degrades a being far below the level at which I would
�78
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
call him a man. I scorn to examine such an argument, but I
want you to see this. If a belief in the doctrine is the great sanc
tion of the oath, the oath has been practically abolished by legis
lation, because though it is true the oath is taken in a court of
justice, it is also true that the oath may be replaced by
an affirmation; and the prosecution know very well that
the evidence of the men given on affirmation is as good as that
o-iven on oath. It is clear that there is no compulsory oath now,
and that consequently there is no reason whatever for saying
that if certain doctrines be perverted, the sanctity of the oath is
«■one too. You know there is a large amount of perjury takes
place in the courts of justice. Who are tie perjurers—the people
who give their evidence on oath or who give it on affirmation ?
Gentlemen, it is a fact that the perjurers don’t come from those
who give evidence on affirmation, but from those who give it on
oath, so that the sanctity of the oath may be one thing, and the
sanctity of a man’s word another thing. Just glance for a
moment over one or two instances of prosecution that have
occurred under these laws. I will carry you back to the time of
Naylor who, for blasphemy, was brought up beiore Lord Com.
missioner Whitelocke. They had whipped him, imprisoned him,
and they wished to put him to death. Lord Whitelocke gave it
as his opinion that the time had passed for putting people to
death. He said the power has lapsed, and Naylor was not put to
death' So that you see what is considered blasphemy in one
age and for which a man may be put to death, in another age
may not be so considered, clearly showing that blasphemy is a
matter of opinion amongst rival contending sects, and that those
who have the upper hand would make a denial of their doctrines
blasphemy. I want you to bear that carefully m mind. 1 now
come to the last century. Woolston was sent to gaol and lmo-ered there for years, because he did not believe that the five
books of the Pentateuch were inspired. Bishop Colenso can prove
the same thing to day without refutation, aud still remain a
Bishop of the English Church. We have changed very much, I
think, since then. Peter Annett was sentenced to a month m
Newgate, ordered to stand in the pillory twice, had to undergo
a year’s imprisonment, and was brought back toNewgate until he
found sureties for his good behavior. . What was his offence?
His offence was denying the authenticity of the Pentateuch.
The same thing is done by the Bishop of Exeter, one of the con
tributors to “Essays and Reviews,” which Lord Shaftesbury
declared to be blasphemous productions vomited forth from
hell You, gentlemen, have heard the name of Gibbon, who
said that the religions of the ancients were thought by the
philosophers as equally false, by the people as equally rue, and
by the statesman as equally useful. Gibbon was a sceptic, xou
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
79
know of Hume, one of the greatest metaphysicians that ever
lived, and of Bolingbroke, the great orator and statesmen, both
■of whom were Freethinkers. These men’s writings, all men of
learning and leisure read. Nobody ever thought of’ interfering
with them, but when the men of the people come and utter the
same doctrines they propounded, and sell them at the people’s
price, in the language of the people, it is called blasphemy—thus
clearly showing that blasphemy only means heresy written for
the people at the people’s price. You have always had blas
phemy prosecutions against cheap papers, showing the clear
motive in the minds of those who institute those proceedings.
The seller of the works of Thomas Paine was prosecuted^
Richard Carlile spent nine years in gaol for selling prosecuted
publications, but in the end he triumphed; and I say that the
exertions of that man and those who took part in the strugo-le
with him, gave us more than a generation of peaceful enjoyment
of one of the grandest principles—the liberty of the press, which
is seriously threatened by proceedings like this. For if you get a
verdict against one paper for one offence, you may bring prose
cutions against other publications; and I see there is an*3associa
tion started with a live secretary, whose object it is, seeing that
the monster of Persecution has been roused out of its lair, to
prosecute such writers as Professor Huxley, Professor Tyndall,
Mr. Herbert Spencer, and others of that class. It is therefore
clear that these bigots will be overjoyed if you give a verdict
against us, because they know that ttien bigotry in this country
will become active and give them support, so that they may
crush down those who turn back from the darkness of the past
and throw out the effulgent light of the sun of knowledge and
progress, in whose meridian beam will bask the generations
of those who follow us. Supposing you believe there is proof
of publication against me and my co-defendants of the alleo-ed
blasphemous libel which lies before you, still the proof of publi
cation does not suffice. You have to bear in mind that belief
on your part that this is a blasphemous libel does not suffice.
You have to find there was malice in the case. Our indictment
charges us with having wickedly published this, so that you must
find theie was malice in the case before you can brin.tr jjx &
verdict of Guilty.
°
T
from Folkard On the “Law of Slander and
Label Mr. Foote proceeded: We, as the defendants, say that
there has been no malice whatever. There has been no evidence
tendered as to malice. There is plenty of money behind the pro
secution ; plenty of detectives have been engaged; plenty of
spies may be purchased at a price. Those spies may have been
paid to follow us, to listen to our conversation, to hear what we
say, and whether we ever stated our object was to outrage public
�gO
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
feelings or to make malicious insults. Nothing of that sort has
been done, for the simple reason that no such evidence ever
existed and could not be proved by any number of spies or
detectives. There has been no malice proved, and 1 don t know
that it is necessary to do anything except to draw your attentio
to Folkard, who says malice must be proved before you can bring
in a verdict of Guilty. It has not only not been proved, but
there has been no evidence tendered; therefore you are h°und
to believe there has been no malice, and bring m a verdict of Not
Guilty, and withhold your verdict of Guilty from theprosecutors,
who have the Corporation of the City of London behind them
One of the members (Aiderman Fowler) of the Corporation is
now sitting on the bench while the case is being tried. Now
gentlemen^ when we talk about outraging people s f eelings I
want to know whose feelings are referred to. Does e p .
cution really think it can get you to believe that the^jmlemical
language of Christian controversies is not as outrageous to the
feehngs of those they are opposed to as anything you can^find
in the pages of that publication? If I give you a few choice
epithets Ised by Christian polemists, you will agree there
isPnothing exceptmnal. The following epithets are all extracted
from onegecclesiastical historian, and as he was a Christian you can
find no fault with him there. In Mosheim we find the lofiowmg
choice epithets:-“ A set of^iserable and
“ Malignant and superficial reasoners.
That refers
thinkers. When you remember that there was no prosecution o
this language and when you remember it has been said that the
Wood of martyrs is the seed of the Church, andnoticethe persistent
use by Christians of weapons of ridicule against Paganism, which
was the established religion of the Roman people, then yoube
able to measure at its true value the charge against us—that we
have used ridicule and malice in our attack on religion estabSa by law in our own land. Some of these phrases whmh
were applied to the Romans were “servile; . perfidious,
“ bloodsuckers ;” “ ignorant, wretched ;” “ exercised unna, ur
lusts-” “procuring abortion;” consecrated brothels to divmitíí"
stupidity;” ferocious;” olieentmus people;”
“bigoted multitude;” savage tyranny of Ro“a“i.1^Pfer®2v
Here is a description of Christians :—fhey are “guilty of man}
forgeries •” have “ given us a series of fables;” their martyrologies
beXmaAsof “ignorance and falsehood;” the early history of
the apostles is “loaded with fables, doubts and difficulties,
shortly after Christs death there were “several historiansfull
of pious frauds and fabulous wonders; they were super
stitious*” “ignorant;” Christian books were “corrupted and
interpolated by Christians;” men have “forged books in_the
name*of Christ and his apostles.” These beautiful descnptio
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
81
are to be found in “Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History,” and
give a good idea of how Christians treat their enemies or those
who differ from them in religion. Mr. Foote next submitted, from
the same book, Christian descriptions of ancient philosophers:_
“ Enslaved to superstition;” “perfidious accusers;” “virulent;”
had recourse to “ wild fictionsand romantic fables;” “ malignant
calumniators;” “trifling cavillers;” “supercilious;” “volup
tuous;” “ sensual.” Christian description of heretics and their
beliefs : “ None had real piety at heart;” “wild and fanatical ;”
“ monstrously abused Christian religion to the encouragement
of their vices;” “pretended reformers;” having “licentious
imaginations;” “delusion;” “folly;” “impious;” “extrava
gant;” had “fictitious writings;” “blasphemers;” “fictitious
miracles;” “vile impostors;” “pernicious;” “odious magicians ;” “lunatics;” “fornicators;” “grossly immoral;” believed
in a “multitude of fictions;” “ impious doctrines ; ” favored the
“lusts and passions ” and “all sorts of wickedness;” “impious,
blasphemous, absurd notions ;” “full of impiety ;” “ most horrid,
licentiousness;” “enormous wickedness;” “ignorant fanatics.”
Christian description of priests of other religions: “Licen
tious ;” ministered to “vice,” “cunning;” “crafty;” “cheats-”
“ lazy and selfish ;” “ rabble ;” “ perfidious ;” “ virulent ;” “ bloody
priesthood ;” “ bloodthirsty ;” “ little better than atheists.” Chris
tian descriptions of Jews: “ Gave vigor to every sinful desire;”
“sunk in ignorance;” “profligate wickedness;” “licentious;”
“hypocrites;” “virulent and malignant;” “abandoned people;”
“inhuman;” “perfidious.” Christian description of the sacred
things of the Jews: “Extravagant and idle fancies ;”“ idolatry."
Christian ridicule of the religion of others : “ Grossest idolatry •”
offered “prayers void of piety and sense;” transacted tiling
“ contrary to modesty and decency ;” “ object of ridicule and
contempt;” “wretched theology;” “inhuman rites;” “vulgar
superstition;” “corrupt and most abominable system of super
stition ;” “fables of the priests ;” “superstition of the heathen
priests.’ Christians description of gods of other people:
“ Famous for their vices ;” “egregious criminals.” Christian de
scription of Roman magistrates : “ Suborned false accusers •”
were “corrupt judges. Mr. Foote continued as follows:—
When one sees all the sects have been doing and saying of one
another, one can only settle as to which to believe by adopting
Voltaires plan, who, when he saw two old ladies quarrelling
said, u Well, I believe them both.’* In all ages contending parties
have reviled each other. Lucian lampooned the Christians, and
they were as severe on the Pagans. The “Octavius” of
Minutius Felix is a dialogue in which, while Cæcilius (the heathen)
complains that Christians spit on Pagan gods, Octavius (the
Christian) satirises the Pagans for, of all things, what think you?
v
�g2
lieport of Blasphemy Trials.
—for worshipping the cross with a man upon it. Iren seus calls
his opponente ‘‘slimy serpents” and many abusive epithets,
Scules the ceons. Tertullian abuses Marcion and Herbe seen in Gibbon's account of the Anan
^Mother of God controversy. It was the same wi h Clement
of Alexandria and other writers against heretics. A <^e num
ber of Lollard ballads, writings, and prints were satirical, an
in the times of the Reformation caricatures on religious subjects
were common. Erasmus’ -Praise of Folly,” which was Ulusfra+ed bv Holbein who caricatured the Pope, is full of gwis
iTisar« This work, says D’Aubigne, did more than any
thin o- else to confirm the sacerdotal tendency of the age. I he
Catholics said Erasmus, laid the egg and Luther batched it. The
Reformers were treated with the grossest abuse and scunrl.ty
wh ch they amply repaid. D’Aubigne, in his “ History of the
Reformation of the 16th Century,” saysLuther s name
X^std^
pasXTof IjeopfSCalled
fortnight or a mOnth at most,’ said they, ‘ and this notorious
heretic will be burnt.’ ” Luther wrote, but did not publish, a
little treatise “De Execranda Venere Romanorum which I
thtek W best be left untranslated. Luther was a Protestant
and Henry VIII. became a Protestant too, after quai idling with
Se Pope bocanse he would not gratify his lust
I will show myself -“^^XVhorei Iwd) tuTmLe^on
SmgOai waiepr'ovoke Satan until he falls down lifeloss and
the weapons they are Pow ^“^^“Tliai Aquinas?'
TTnll in his “Modern Infidelity” says of mfadels .— rmy rov«
darkness rather than lmht, because their deeds are evil (pieface).
3s£i»ienTeVS°“^
notltog to 2osPe youtside of. the churches and creeds. If you
�Tieport of Blasphemy Trials.
83
take up the journals devoted to the promulgation and mainten
ance of rival ideas, you will find they are full of abuse of each
other, the Protestant papers speaking of the Roman Catholics as
being professors of a religion which they describe as the ___ _
1 wiil not use the strong expression they employ~the scarlet lady
of Babylon. Do not they call Catholics idolators and blasphemers
and do not the Roman Catholics turn round and call the Pro
testants heretics and blasphemers? Do not men callin»• them
selves the Salvation Army go about and use the symbols and the
time-honored expressions of the creed, and associate them with
the most brutal language of military camps; yet, because they
wear the label of Cnnstians, they are not blasphemers. Nobody in
this country, whatever his religion, is called upon to respect the
feelings of anyoody else. It is only the Freethinker who is
told to respect the feelings of people from whom he differs
and to respect them how ? To respect not when he enters the
place of their worship, not when he stands side by side with
them m the public streets in the business or pleasure of life but
to respect their feelings even when he reads only what is in
tended to be read, by Freethinkers without even knowing that a
single pair of Christian eyes is to scan the page. Is not that
similar to what is attempted here ? I think you will agree that
it is. Whose feelings have been outraged ? Would it not have
been well to have put some one in that box who was prepared to
swear that his feelings had been outraged ? With the wealth of
the Corporation of the City of London a quantity of any feelinoof outrage against this or any other publication can b A manufac°
tured. Whose feelings have been outraged by the publication
which lies before you? It bears its name outside ■ th-re is
nothing, surreptitious about it; anybody who purchased it would
do so with his eyes open ; those who purchase it must want it •
it is not thrust into their hands by some one who said “ I am a
Freethinker, I want your feelings outraged, your ’sense of
decency scarified, and therefore I put this into your hand ”
Nothing of the sort has been done, nothing of the kind Las
been proved. Those who purchased the paper have done so by
going for it into the shops themselves. Whose feelinp-s there
fore have been injured? Nobody's except those who went into
the shops to purchase copies of the paper to prosecute, and whose
feelings are not worthy of your consideration. Come for a
moment to. the question of ridicule. Take the comic papers.
I hey contain sometimes ridicule of a serious nature You mns*
never suppose because a man pulls a long face that he is wiser
and better than others. You must never imagine because a man
has a serious look that his judgment is better than that of a
happy-looking person. Often the finest wit in the world haa
been summed up in an epigram, and some of the greatest men
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
g4
who have ever contributedIt. ft. ^ptogressrf mankind
^ponente t"'“so th^’bad no wit
&g that made Voltaire hated was tart Only recently
Cl d’Sone't ?X\’eXmX dXivesareP looking after.
Didthe Liberal Party on that subject say •‘We ™t a —s
• i +u„ odiMr of that paper because our feelings nave oceu
SXdeXleem^
^°c^
X^o^^w^^^^obU«
we can ridicule people.
.rxrrj„„ ufP
Why is this?
Because
how^idteulcms^t1^ the consequence isthathe begins torecognise
Its absurdity. Suppose you were to take the
poi
f
pictures called A back vie
.
Looked at from the
view of the Freethinker,
Christian whose state of
point of view of the s>mPle c*e ™ Christians of the middle ages
Hd ^?:^"ddev» j“X holy ghost and
to depict god and Jesus ana
,g in pictures and on
vi^1D’
impassive • but looked§at from the point of view
walls, it may be impressive,
matter of scripture
of the Freethinker, put W
P absurdity For it is prebefore you, you reduce^it to an utter
h
when the
posterousm an age like thrs to be neve si .
fuU q{
foundations of the old fait
„rotten bv no one knows whom,
scholarship, to believe in writings writtenby no one know^
at a time no one knows when, an
P
in the old Hebrew
It is impossible, I say that any one can be
t
the
myth ridiculed in that picture. Cai\y0nVboimd to believe he
infinite, the spirit of the universe as y <
a ppj and sent
is if you are theists, ever stopped o
stav a few days with
S“C“e^
Sy^cd”"iJto^
own creatures, and that the man kep
hia
i£ man
.
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
85
to see his back parts ? I shall not trouble you with any comic
-extracts from the Bible, but I might give you plenty of illus
trations of ridicule from the Bible. Don’t you remember that
altercation that took place between the prophet Elijah and
the priests of Baal? They built altars and they called
respectively on their gods. The priests of Baal cried and
cut themselves, but the fire would not come. What did
Elijah do? Did he say “I have been reading your philo
sophical treatise on the subject of Baal, and I find there
a difficulty in the way of accepting your creed?” Did he
say “ there are controverted points which I think we ought to
dispute about and settle”? -Nothing of the sort; he turned to
them with the gravest irony and said: “ Where is your god? Is
he asleep? Has he gone on a journey?” Gentlemen, that is the
.language of ridicule, and if what the learned counsel for the pro
secution has told you to-day be true, the priests of Baal would
have been perfectly justified in turning upon the prophet Elijah
and settling him upon the spot; but they seemed to have more
sympathy than even the learned counsel for the prosecution.
Ridicule is only irksome to priests and preachers of religion.
They are the only people who ask to be protected from ridicule.
Did you ever hear of a man going to a court and asking for a
summons for ridiculing an astronomer ? Did you ever hear of
a summons being demanded for ridiculing a geologist? You
never, heard of such a thing as an astronomer, a geologist,
chemist, or man of science, asking to be protected from ridicule.
If you went to a physiologist like Professor Huxley and laughed
at the truth of his deductions he would say “ Laugh away, but it
doesn’t touch the truththerefore he would never think of seek
ing protection. Why ?—because he has got the truth, and the
truth can protect itself. These men don’t dread ridicule because
they know they have the truth and can prove it to every in
quiring mind. It is only priests and preachers of religion who
claim protection. I am a Freethinker, but I know my Bible
well, and perhaps knowing it so well has made me a Freethinker;
and I know, gentlemen, the life recorded in that book of the
founder of Christianity. I know, gentlemen, whatever failings or
flaws Freethinkers may think they find, not so much in his cha
racter as in his teaching, and which I can quite understand as he
was not in the possession of the knowledge of to-day, yet wo
can say this, that he never gave any instructions to his dis
ciples to bring men who differ from them or who would
not receive their doctrine before the magistrate. He never
told them to spend their money in employing learned counsel
to prosecute those men before the judges and juries in order
to cast them into gaol or cripple them by fine. He tells his dis
ciples all were to agree together, and that the separating of th©
�86
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
wheat from the tares was to be left to a greater wisdom than
theirs. From the Atheist point of view that is the true doctrine.
Surely god must know his need! Surely he is powerful enough
to avenge an insult against himself! Surely the all-searching
eye of him, who you believe can pierce into the recesses of
other men’s ’hearts and know all, must disapprove of avenging
his insulted majesty by bringing an impeachment against men
such as befits those who lived in barbarous times, and who were
excluded from the light of science and scholarship which we
enjoy to-day! It is only priests and teachers of religion who
claim protection, because they feel that their authority depends
upon privilege. They feel that unless they make a bold stand
for their hold upon law, their hold upon the people may slip.
They feel that it is necessary to guard their dogmas from the
rough approach of common sense, and therefore those laws
are always enforced in their interests. I ask you whether^ it is
not a ghastly mockery to say when after 1800 years of Chnstianity^which is supposed to be divine, there are men who not
only disbelieve it, and men in growing numbers who. disbelieve
it, men who can actually assail it as they think in the interests of
the salvation of mankind, that there should be such a prosecu
tion as this ? Surely the god who said, “ Let there be light and
there was light,” when he sent religion, would know of its effectupon the world: and the fact that the world is not convinced is
to my mind conclusive proof that god has not spoken, for if he
had no one could have resisted his voice. Why may not Chris
tianity take its chance ? If it is argued against let it defend
itself, not by the policeman’s truncheon ; let it defend an artistic
or intellectual attack by intellectual or artistic weapons, and not
confess itself beaten and then rush to drag its adversaries before
judges, just as the Jews and Pagans dragged Christians ?v“en
they could not put them down. The time has passed for
certain ideas to be privileged, and every doctrine must
take its chance. You will find that we are charged in
the indictment with “publishing blasphemous libels against
the Christian religion, to the high displeasure of almighty
god, to the scandal and reproach of the Christian pro
fession, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her
Crown, and dignity.” The high displeasure of almighty S0“^3
a matter you will not touch. If you believe in god, and the
words of your oath imply you do, then you know he is omnipo
tent, that he is all-seeing, that he is all-wise, all-just, and you
must leave to that high tribunal the punishment or the forgive
ness of any offence against itself. It has often been said in books
of law that it is not for the protection of god, or even for theprotection of the Christian religion as such that these blasphemy
laws are applied,' but to prevent the scandalising of the name o
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
87
almighty god, ■which, tends to a breach of the peace. That is the
last clause stated here. The high displeasure, of almighty god
we dismiss. The reproach to the Christian religion we may also
dismiss pretty briefly. As a matter of fact, the reproach to the
Christian religion is being carried on to-day by the leading
scholars and scientific men, not only of England but of every
country in the civilised world. It is as well you should reflect
upon this. I have already mentioned certain names selected
by the Protestant Prosecution Society to be proceeded against:
Professor Huxley, Professor Tyndall, Mr. Morley, and others.
These men are all writing to the scandal of the Christian
religion. Is it not a greater scandal to religion to say it is
false than to laugh at it? Is it not worse to call a man a
liar than to laugh at him? There can be no greater offence
to Christianity, if it is to be fenced about by law, than that
which nine-tenths of the leading writers in every country are
committing. The clergy bewail it every year; the bishops are
constantly lamenting the decline of religion, and one of them
has said that god is being pushed from our popular life, and
that the intellect of the nation instead of supporting the
Christian religion is arrayed against it. What greater scandal
can there be than that ? I can understand the logical bigotry
of the men who want to prosecute leading blasphemers. John
Stuart Mill, who was brought up without any Christian belief,
whose father said that the idea of deity which the Christian
religion taught was the highest conception of wickedness—John
Stuart Mill disbelieved Christianity. He has left it on record in
his autobiography, and in the “ Essays on Atheism ” published
since his death. Those are two instances. Herbert Spencer
speaks in the freest way in his books about the Trinity, in which
one person is offended for the sins of persons outside the
Trinity, and another person of the Trinity makes atonement,
and yet all three are one. In his “ Sociology ” he cites many in
stances of the lengths to which bigotry and credulity have gone.
He illustrates the absurdity of the Trinity by three persons
endeavoring to stand on one chair. If the “Freethinker '’ made
a drawing of that kind to show the absurdity of the Trinity it
would be a blasphemy, but a Christian, although a philosopher,
is not a blasphemer when he gives the illustration I have men
tioned. As reading quotations is a weariness of spirit to the
reader and listener, I shall only trouble you with a few, but I
shall run over the cases of one or two men outside the
churches, and I will go to two dead men besides John Stuart
Mill I speak of them as of to-day because their writings are of
to-day, and the spirit of their works lives with us. You have
heard of Shelley's “ Queen Mab.” That work has been sold for
a generation and is being sold now by the leading publishers of
�88
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
England and America. No person would think of prosecuting
for the sale of Shelley’s “ Queen Mab ” now, and yet it is full of
the completest dissent from, and reproach to, the Christian reli
gion and all religion. I don’t propose to read you any extract
from that. Mr. Foote having referred to Byron’s poem in reply
to Southey’s, in which the king is described as slipping into
heaven, and concluding with the lines—
“ When the tumult dwindled to a calm,
He left him practising the Hundredth Psalm,”
he remarked that nobody ever thought of proceeding against the
sale of Byron’s works. He next proceeded to refer to Professor
Huxley’s works, and quoted the following from his “Lay Ser
mons” : “Themyths of Paganism are as dead as Osiris or Zeus,
and the man who should revive them, in opposition to the know
ledge of our time, would be justly laughed to scorn; but the
coeval imaginations current among the rude inhabitants of Pales
tine, recorded by writers whose very name and age are admitted
by every scholar to be unknown, have unfortunately not yet
shared their fate, but, even at this day, are regarded by ninetenths of the civilised world as the authoritative standard of fact
and the criterion of the justice of scientific conclusions, in all
that relates to the origin of things, and among them, of species.
In this nineteenth century, as at the dawn of modern physical
science, the cosmogony of the semi-barbarous Hebrew is the
incubus of the philosopher and the opprobrium of the orthodox.”
Having referred to the “Evolution of Christianity,” from which
he read an extract, Mr. Foote read the following two quotations
from “Mill on Liberty”: “No Christian more firmly believes
that Atheism is false, and tends to the dissolution of society, than
Marcus Aurelius believed the same things of Christianity; he
who, of all men then living, might have been thought the most
capable of appreciating it. Unless anyone who approves of
punishment, for the promulgation of opinions flatters himself that
he is a wiser and a better man than Marcus Aurelius—-more
deeply versed in the wisdom of his time, more elevated in his
intellect above it, more earnest in his search for truth, or more
single-minded in his devotion to it when found ; let him abstain
from that assumption of the joint infallibility of himself and the
multitudes which the great Antonius made with so unfortunate a
result. . . . The man who left on the memory of those who wit
nessed his life and conversation such an impression of his moral
grandeur, that eighteen subsequent centuries have done homage
to him as the almighty in person, was ignominiously put to
death, as what ?—as a blasphemer. Men did not merely mistake
their benefactor; they mistook him for the exact contrary of
what he was, and treated him as that prodigy of impiety which
�'Report of Blasphemy Trials.
89
they themselves are now held to be, for their treatment of him.”
Mr. Foote also quoted in support of his argument from Mr.
Leslie Stephens, who, in the current number of the “Nineteenth
Century,” contended that there ought to be no interference with
expressions in papers or from platforms of opinions on religious
matters, even when expressed in an abusive or ridiculous manner,
because everybody had the remedy in his own hands.
Mr. Justice North: Be good enough to tell me the name of
the book you are now quoting from ?
Mr. Foote: “Essays in Freethinking,” my lord. He pro
ceeded further to refer to Professor Huxley, who, speaking of
the story of the creation, said: “There are those who represent
the most numerous, respectable, and would-be orthodox of the
public, and are what may be called ‘Adamites,’ pure and simple.
They believe that Adam was made out of earth somewhere in
Asia, about six thousand years ago ; that Eve was modelled from
one of his ribs; and that the progeny of these two having been
reduced to the eight persons who were landed on the summit of
Mount Ararat after a universal deluge, all the nations of the
earth have proceeded from these last, have migrated to their
present localities, and have become converted into Negroes,
Australians, Mongolians, etc., within that time. Five-sixths of
the public are taught this Adamitic Monogenism, as if it
were an established truth, and believe it. I do not; and
I am not acquainted with any man of science or duly in
structed person who does.” Mr. Foote quoted from Mr.
Matthew Arnold, who said that the personages of the Christian
confession and their conversations were no more a matter of
fact than the persons of the Greek Olympus and their conver
sation. Viscount Amberley, speaking of the incarnation of Jesus,
says: “ That some among these many female followers were
drawn to him by that sentiment of love is, at least, highly probable.
Whether Jesus entertained any such feelings towards one of them
it is impossible to guess, for the human side of his nature has
been carefully suppressed in the extant legend.” Again, the
same writer remarked: “ As to the god of Israel, one of these
two charges he cannot escape. Either he knew when he created
Adam and Eve, that their nature was such that they would
disobey, or he did not. In the first case he knowingly formed
them liable to fall, knowingly placed them amid conditions which
rendered their fall inevitable ; and then punished them for the
catastrophe he had all along foreseen, as the necessary result of the
character he had bestowed on them. In the second case, he was
ignorant and short-sighted, being unable to guess what would be
the nature of his own handiwork; and should not have under
taken tasks which were obviously beyond the scope of his faculties.”
He did not .believe in the perfection of the character of Jesus
�90
. Report of Blasphemy Trials.
even as a man, and he believed the gospel narrative not to be
divine but to have been put in human form. Professor Clifford,
and the Duke of Somerset might be added to the list of writers
he had quoted from. Those should satisfy them that belief
in the old testament as a piece of mythology was common in the
highest circles of literature, and though they had not been made
the subject of reproach, yet thosi who expressed the same thing
in plain language, by plain illustration, were prosecuted. The
defendant quoted a very amusing passage from the works of
Colonel Ingersoll, to show how ridicule was used, and went on
to ask, why are we singled out for prosecution? You will
remember hearing me ask one of the witnesses, Kelland, in whose
employ he was, and his answer was Messrs. Batten and Co.,
solicitors. They are the solicitors to Sir Henry Tyler. Sir'
Henry Tyler is a man whose name you are somewhat familiar
with by this time. All sorts of rumors have been flying about
with reference to this gentleman. He has relinquished his
position as president of the Brush Light Company. He is, a man
of excessive piety, although it is true the shareholders don t like
him much. In the House of Commons he made himself especially
obnoxious—not to Mr. Bradlaugh personally, but to the House
generally, and the members of his own Conservative party marked
their disapproval of his conduct by walking out of the House and
leaving him alone, when he put his question, not in his glory but
in his shame. He put questions with reference to ladies
associated with Mr. Bradlaugh by ties of blood, knowing that
owing to the discreditable interference with the right of an
English constituency—Mr. Bradlaugh would not be in his place
in the House to speak, and knowing also that the ladies were
not present. Sir Henry Tyler is a very pious man, who
considers that blasphemy should be put down. He supported a
former prosecution against the “Freethinker,’ but he was par
ticularly careful to drag into the prosecution the name of Mr.
Bradlaugh, although there was no evidence that he had been
editor, publisher, proprietor, or in any way connected with it
Sir H. Tyler is a political opponent of Mr. Bradlaugh s, and Mr.
Bradlaugh was therefore, in the most unwarrantable manner,,
involved in an expensive litigation. Mr. Newdegate was sueing
him at the same time for £500 not due and not yet paid. I he
suit was very protracted, and Sir H. Tyler and other personages
thought if Mr. Bradlaugh could only be brought in Guilty of a
blasphemous libel, and if the penalties of the statute of
■William IV. could be imposed upon him, he would not only be
deprived of his position in the House of Commons, but would be
declared without right for the rest of his life to be a Party *o
any suit—so that this would be a disfranchisement under the.
statute, and Mr. Newdegate would get his £500 and costs. Sir
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
91
H. Tyler is a political opponent of Mr. Bradlaugh’s, and a
political opponent of the most pronounced type; and when
political opponents of the most pronounced type take to de
nouncing each other on a charge of blasphemy, you can under
stand very readily that the motive is not so much religious as
political, and it is pretty sure that if they can only cripple him
in a political point of view, they will not trouble themselves
about his religion. Sir T. Nelson (the City solicitor) and Sir H.
Tyler are working together amicably, and it occurs to me there
may be a malicious motive behind this prosecution, a motive of
political animosity, and that- it is sought to strike at Mr. Brad-.
laugh through men known to be connected with him in public
and other work. May it not be hoped by these very political
adversaries, that if a verdict of Guilty can be snatched in this
case, which is being hurried on with such indecent haste, it will
be easier to get a verdict against Mr. Bradlaugh in the other
case, and that then he may be crippled in political life—a desire
that his enemies wish so ardently to see realised. I hope you
will decide, whatever may be the opinions of the prosecutor or
others in this case, on the striptly legal merits, without being in
fluenced by any religious or political considerations. I hope
you will show by your verdict that you are not going to allow
yourselves to be made the prosecuting instruments in a political
fight,, but that you will let them fight it out in the arena of
politics without recourse to the political weapons which they put
in your hands, when they are afraid to strike themselves. Our
indictment says we have done what ?—we have done something
to the displeasure of almighty god and to the danger of the peace.
A breach of the peace is a very serious and grave thing, and it quite
justifies Mr. Justice Stephens in putting in a clause of reserva
tion at the end of a sentence in which he disapproves of blas
phemy prosecutions in his “ Digest of the Criminal Law ” (quota
tion read). Here we have one of the very highest judges, who
says he thinks no temporal punishment should be inflicted on a
charge of blasphemy unless it can be shown that the blasphemy
tends to a breach of the peace. That is a perfectly reasonable
reservation. Then if it be a reasonable reservation it is only
proper that its condition should be fulfilled by the prosecution.
There has been no evidence to show that anything we have done
has tended to a breach of the peace. You must not understand
as tending to a breach of the peace something which differs
from what you hold and that you may dislike. Before you come
to the conclusion that a thing has a tendency to a breach of the
peace you must be perfectly satisfied it would lead to an actual
breach of the peace. What breach of the peace could the offence
with which we are charged lead to ? There has been no allega
tion that even a crowd assembled to look at it. The “Free-
�92
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
thinker ” was exposed for sale in shop-windows, but the prose
cution don’t show that anybody was tempted to break a pane of
glass in consequence. There has been no allegation of tumult in
the street. Not even a boy has snatched another boy’s hat over
the subject; there has not been a single blow struck, not a single
disturbance or obstruction of thoroughfare; and if that be so,
and there be no evidence tending to show anything to the con
trary, you ought, considering there has been no breach of the
peace, and no probability of any breach of the peace occurring,
to pronounce your judgment on this very reasonable reservation,
and say, that as its conditions have not been complied with, you
will not give a verdict of Guilty but one of Not Guilty, and show
that the time has arrived for the abolition of temporal punish
ment for a spiritual offence. There is good, reason to believe
that most people of any liberality of mind object to prosecutions
of this kind. Dr. Hynes stated, on the 19th of May, 1819, that
these Acts being enforced against Richard Carlile and others, did
not stop the publications. He further said that Christianity dis
claims them, that reason was every day gaining ground, and that
they ought to abandon those prosecuting statutes, fit only to bind
demons. Jeremy Bentham, in his “Letters to Count Lor eno on
the Proposed Penal Code of the Spanish Cortes, speaking of
blasphemies, said : “ To no end could I think of applying punish
ment in any shape for such an offence.” Bentham further speaks
of “theliberty of the press as the foundation of all other liberties.
Let me give you the opinion of Professor Hunter, Professor of
Roman Law at University College, London. Professor Hunter, in a
letter to the “ Daily News,” says: “ The English law on the sub
ject of blasphemy is a relic of barbarism and folly. It owes its
place in our law-book simply to the fact that it has been a dead
letter. To enforce it is to invoke all that is just and honorable
in public opinion to demand its destruction. It is a weapon
always ready to the hand of mischievous fools or designing
knaves.” I don’t know in which category he would place this
prosecution, whether that of mischievous fools or designing
knaves. Buckle took exactly the same view. Mill, in an,article
on Religious Prosecution, in the “Westminster Review, July,
1824, shows that “the line between argument and reviling is too
difficult for even legal acuteness to draw ; that he who disbe
lieves and attempts to disprove Christianity can put his arguments
into no form which may not be pronounced calumnious and ille
gal ; and that therefore the only mode of securing free inquiry is
to tolerate the one as well as the other. ’ He aiso says: lo
declare that an act is legal but with the proviso that it be per
formed in a gentle and decorous manner, is opening a wide door
for arbitrary discretion on the one part and dissatisfaction on
the other. The difficulty is greatly increased when the act itself
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
93
is offensive to those who sit in judgment upon the manner of its
performance.” Carlyle, in “Sartor Resartus,” says: “Wise man
was he who counselled that speculation should have free course,
and look fearlessly towards all the thirty-two points of the compass,
whithersoever and howsoever it listed.” Sir W. Harcourt, reply
ing to Mr. Freshfield, said: “I think it has been the view for a
great many years of all persons responsible in these matters that
more harm than advantage is produced to public morals by
Government prosecutions in cases of this kind.” Again the
Home Secretary, in reply to Mr. Redmond, observed: “Istated
the other day that I thought it not wise to proceed legally
against such publications.”- Mill speaks of the injustice of
debarring “a man who may have a comprehensive and vigorous,
though a vulgar and coarse mind, from publishing his speculalations on theological topics because his style lacks the polish of
that of Hume and Gibbon.” Again, says the same writer: “If
the proposition that Christianity is untrue may be legally con
veyed to the mind, what can be more absurd than to say that to
express that proposition by certain undefined and undefinable
selections of terms, shall constitute a crime ?” No infidel socalled—a name every Freethinker disclaims—would disclaim any
such protection as that which Mill pleads for. All we demand is
equality—equal right with all our fellow citizens. We are with
them citizens of one State, and should be equal in the eye of the
law. Our lives are as public as other men’s, and is it found we
are worse than other men ? In the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, you
know that everything that malice could invent has been invented
with reference to him since he was elected to represent North
ampton ; but although the fierce light of scandal has beaten upon
him, yet even scandal, however vicious, and calumny however
unfounded, has never been able to fasten upon a single foul spot
in his life which could be held up for the reproach and the indig
nation of mankind. Our lives are as good as the lives of others.
Our doctrines may be different, but they are ours. If we speak
in our homes, nobody need cross the thresholds ; if we write in
papers we don’t give them away—people who want them must buy
them. Everybody outraged has his remedy : he need not buy our
paper; he need not listen to our doctrines or read them; and
why should people who did not force their publications on
him not be allowed the enjoyment of their tastes ? There is one
thing I wish to call your attention to, and that is that these pro
secutions never succeed. It has been said that the blood of the
martyrs is the seed of the Church. Although one doesn’t want to pose
as a martyr, still this prosecution is nothing less than martyrdom.
It is not we who stand here of our own free will; it is not we
who sought incarceration ever since Thursday in the dungeons
behind. We would much rather have been about our business
�94
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
and our pleasure. We only wish, for freedom to do what we
think is right. These prosecutions never succeed ; it is impossible
that they should. In his article in the “Nineteenth Century,”
Mr. Leslie Stepens says, and says truly, that there is only one
form of persecution that you can justify on grounds of policy
if you believe in the principle which underlies it, and that is
extermination. Heresy may be treated by the orthodox Chris
tian as he pleases, but then you cannot stamp out the disease by
attacking a person here and there ; unless you can stamp out
the germ you can do nothing. Lou cannot crush out a patty
which numbers its tens of thousands by prosecutions of this de
scription, while adherents are found from one end of the country
to the other ; you cannot crush out a party here whose repre
sentatives in France are actually in possession of the governmental
affairs of that country. You cannot expect to crush out a party
so multitudinous as that unless you exterminate it. It is im
possible to succeed thus. In attempting it you would only deal
a blow at your own faith and general liberty, and as for the men
who are thrown into gaol or crippled by fine, do you think your
treatment would strongly and favorably impress them with the
reasonableness of your faith? You don t teach in that way now.
You cannot, as in the old days, thrash ideas into children with
the stick. The policy doesn’t succeed ; and endeavoring to thrash
Christianity into people by means of a foulsome prison and a
crippling fine, is worthy only of the times when the policy was
adopted of enforcing argument on children, as it has been aptly
described a posteriori, instead of trying to put argument into the
child’s brains through the eyes and ears. Gentlemen, that policy
will not succeed, and yon must know that it won’t. I ask you
by your verdict of Not Guilty to show that you believe it, and to
send us back to work, to take our part in the business of li.e,
and to do what is incumbent upon us in our relationships as
brothers, sons, husbands, citizens. Gentlemen, carry your minds
back across the chasm of eighteen centuries and a half. You
are in Jerusalem. A young Jew is haled along the street to the
place of judgment. He is brought before his judge. 1 here is
nothing repulsive about his lineaments. People who knew him
_ not the people who were prosecuting him—loved him; and
their verdict after all is the right one.. There is even the fire
of genius smouldering in his eyes, notwithstanding.the depressing
circumstances around him. He stands before his judge ; he is
accused—of what, gentlemen? You know what he is accused
of_ the word must be springing to your lips—Blasphemy!
Every Christian among you knows that >our founder, Jesus
Christ, .was crucified after being charged with blasphemy ;. and,
gentlemen, it seems to me that no Christian should ever bring in
a verdict of blasphemy after that, but that the very word ought
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
95
to be wiped from your vocabulary, as a reproach and a scandal
to Jesus Christ. Surely, Christians, your founder was murdered
as a blasphemer, for, although done judicially, it was still a
murder. Surely you will not, when you have secured the
possession of power, imitate the bad example of those who
killed your founder, violate men's liberties, rob them of all
that is perhaps dearest to them, and brand them with a stigma
of public infamy by a verdict from the jury-box! Surely,
gentlemen, it is impossible that you can do that! Who are we?
Three poor men. Are we wicked? No, there is no proof of
the charge. Our honor and honesty are unimpeached. It is not
for us to play the Pharisee and say that we are better than other
men. We only say that we are no worse. Our honor and our
honesty are unimpeached. What have we done to be classed
with thieves and felons, and dragged from our homes and sub
mitted to the indignities of a life so loathsome and hideous, that
it is even revolting to the spirits of the men who have to exercise
-authority within the precincts of the gaol? You know we have
done nothing to merit such a punishment. Therefore you ought
to return a verdict of Not Guilty against us, because the prose
cution have not given you sufficient evidence as to the fact; be
cause whatever shred there is to gain from the decisions of judges
in the past must be treated as obsolete, as the London magistrate
treated the law of maintenance. On the ground that we have
done nothing, as the indictment states, against the peace ; on the
ground that our proceedings have led to no tumult in the streets
no interference with the liberty of any man, his person or pro
perty ; on the ground, gentlemen, that no evidence has been
tendered to you of any malice in our case ; that there is no wicked
motive animating anything we have done ; on the ground, if you
-are Christians, that the founder of your own creed was murdered
on a very similar charge to that of which we stand accused now;
and. lastly, on the ground that you should in this third quarter of
the nineteenth century, assert once and for ever the great principle
of the absolute freedom of each man, unless he trench on the
equal freedom of another, assert the great principle of the
liberty of the press, liberty of the platform, liberty of free thouo-lit
and liberty of free speech; I ask you to prevent such prosecu
tions as are hinted at in the Times this morning; not to allow
sects once more to be hurling anathemas against each other, and
flying to the magistrates to settle questions which should be
settled by intellectual means and moral suasion; not to open a
discreditable chapter of English history that ought to have been
closed for ever; but to give us a verdict of Not Guilty, to send
us back home and to stamp your brand of disapprobation on the
prosecution in this case, that is I say in certain interests of re
ligion, and is degrading religion by associating it with all that
�g6
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
• ™„al obstructive, and loathsome ; to stamp that prosecution
with the brand of your condemnation; to allow us to go away
tarn tere free meni and so make it impossible that there over
Hoi once Ld for ever, and associate your names on the page of
Sy S liberty, ¿regress, and -e^^eV’ "
xL’Sl.rrv:
!aES;^~=^~Ss
&nd
peculiar clrcunXnces u^de/which it has
rSfx’Ssii»“«
S=KWS=S=
men charged with a ballabie , d de’clared themselves unable
S .‘•--K 1
4
St
iron grating within earshot of a police offic •
tirrender
position has always been allowed to come b“«“d surrender
S^pie^uX:i, Ld up»“ yoi the law Uws the
�97
lieport of Blasphemy Trials.
duty of defining what is and what is not blasphemy at com
mon law; and I desire, gentlemen, with all due respect to
the court to press upon you that on you by statute lies the
responsibility of making this decision. It is by statute for
you to say whether the publication indicted comes or does not
come within the definition of blasphemy. In the long struggle
for civil and religious liberty 111 this country the gradual
emancipation of thought and action has been largely/rouX
by English juries. They have gradually widened our freedom
by refusing to find men guilty for publishing specula^
opinions, and have thus rendered obsolete ba?barous laws
passed in savage and persecuting times ; they have stood
between prisoners and j’udges pressing for a harsh constru/
tion of a harsh law, and have delivered from cruel sentences
over and over again men of untainted moral character but of
heretical opinions. Your deliverance is here supreme but
your verdict once spoken your power is gone. If bv brii^in J
m a verdict of Guilty you hand us over to the lawf then?hat
law, cruel as it is, can be exercised in its full severity, and no
disapproval on your part of a vindictive sentence will be of
the smallest avail. That sentence will really be of your in
feting, for you know what the law permits as punishment for
heretical thought, and you have the power to prevent the
infliction by returning a verdict of acquittal. Already one
jury has refused to hand us over to such punishment Ldl
press upon you at least not to fall below the level of their
yerdict. You are not dealing here with a crime of conduct ■
you are dealing with an alleged crime of speculative thought
and of the expression of that thought
° l
Mr. Ramsey then urged the arguments used in his speech
to the former jury, and concluded by saying: Gentlemen I
ask of you a yerdict of deliverance from this cruel law—a law
born of religious persecution, which has caused more misery
broken more hearts, and ruined more lives, than the woX
war ever waged. Supposing all was proved that the p™
cation allege to what does it amount ? That I have permitted
a paper, of which I was the registered proprietor, to be used
for the purpose not of attacking Ohristianity-for that of
itself, the counsel for the prosecution has told you, would not
be prosecuted—but of attacking it in a manner which over
stepped the bounds of good taste. Surely such torture 2 I
have undergone during the last few days is far more than all
the pain this paper has inflicted-to be caged like some wUd
beast m a den. Think what it is to one, to whom freedom! d
liberty are dearer than life itself, to be surrounded wub an
atmosphere of crime, to herd with wretches whose very presence
is like some noxious pestilence. All this is loathsome to the
G
�gg
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
last decree. Think, gentlemen, of what it is to pace a narrow
cell thinking, thinking of the anxious, loved ones at home
until the heart aches with very weariness. I would not plead
thus gentlemen, if we ha<j. done wrong to anyone if we had
Jobbed if we had injured; but we have not. We are not
criminals—we are not of that class of wretches who prey on
their fellow-men. Like all who have been persec uted by these
hateful lais we are honest, sober, peaceful citizens. Hismy
nrkle and ¿Toast, which I will keep till I die, that, through
out mv life of nearly forty years, I have never wronged, never
Tnhiied never slandered I human being, nor made an enemy
of3an honest man. We are men to whom the ties of home rf
love of friendship, are the very essence of our lives. Think
of lying on a wretched pallet unable to close your eyes all
nieht from the knowledge that other eyes are sleepless and
Tearful on your account, that little lips have gone sobbing to
bed because you were not there to kiss them good-night, and
then ask yourselves whether all the annoyance that this paper
JeSd nSv have caused can equal one hour of this. I ask
vou gentlemen, for a verdict of deliverance from this cruel
law’fhat we may return to our homes and make them once
more happy ; to our friends and make them once more glad.
I ask yon to say that you will not permit the serpent of r ligious persecution to again rear its head. It has lain dorrrMnt for fifty years, and some of us hoped, for the credit
humanity tWit was dead; but bigotry has warmed it into
h?e again, and now, gentlemen, it is for you to place your
heel upon it, and crush it for ever.
,,
Many remarks were made by persons in court as to the
marked inattention shown by the jury during the defence.
Mr Justice North: Gentlemen of the jury, it is now the
usual'hour ^ o’clock, for the rising of the court. Would
you prefer’ that I should address you now or to morrow
“ TWForeman of the Jury: We should prefer your lordship
U£r°CJust?c°eWNorth: Very well, gentlemen.' A great many
toWs have been introduced and urged upon you very elo
quently and powerfully with which you have Whmg; to do,
and which you must dismiss entirely from your attention.
Whatyou have to consider is not what the law ought to be,
but what the law is. The two questions you have to ask are—
First whether these passages from this paper which are the
subject of the present indictment, are or are not bJasPhe™°™
libels • then, in the second place, whet her each of the prisoners
respectively is responsible for its publication. Those are the
two questions for your consideration. A passage has
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
99
read from the introduction by a living and learned iud»e to
what he calls a “ Digest of the Criminal Lawa statement as
to what the law is, or rather what he considers it is. It is
his suggestion, and in the course? of that he states what he
considers the law is. The passage he quoted was not fully
quoted. The learned judge having read the whole, proceeded:
This prosecution could not have been instituted without the
sanction of the person appointed to look after prosecutions of
this description, whose consent is rendered necessary by
the Act passed s>nce that time. The consent not only
■pf the Attorney-General but also of the Public Prosecutor
ns requisite. 1 hat has been obtained for this prosecution.
You have to consider whether this document is or is not
a blasphemous publication, and that is the opinion he
gives—that is what he says is the law now, as distinguished
from the suggestion put forward as to what the law ou°-ht to
be and how it should be altered. To put it shortly as regards
the definition, what you have to consider is—Is there any
contumelious or profane scoffing against Holy Scripture ? I
leave out the otner parts. Is there any contumelious reproach
or profane scoffing against, the Holy Scriptures, or anything
^e Holy Scriptures to ridicule, contempt, or derision?
that is the question you have to put to yourselves. Are any
of those passages put before you calculated to expose to ridi
cule, to contempt or derision the Holy Scriptures or the Chris
tian religion ? I must ask you to look at the passages, because
1 am not going to read to you any of the contents. I will
only refer to tnem incidentally as they are all before you. I
will ask you to look at the pictures on pages 8 and 9.
There you will find the words “ A New Life of Christ.” One
of the prisoners said that he was familiar with his Bible and
knew what was staged in the Scriptures with respect to Christ
and the Christian religion. What we know is this. He went
home with his parents and was subject to them. Look at
picture number 5 on page 8 in the left hand column, and con
sider whether you find anything in the volume referred to
that enables you to—I won’t say justify—say that it is fair
honest criticism, with respect to the topic to which that pic
ture refers. Look again at any one of the pictures in either
of those pages, and asx yourselves whether it is contumelious
contempt or profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures and the
Christian religion. Look at the second page : look at pictures
10 and 11; those are the two at the top, and ask yourselves
again, is that fair or honest argument upon a point that
might be open to controversy *? You have heard a good
many extracts read from various publications written by some
very eminent men. Has anything been quoted from those
�2Q0-
lieport of Blasphemy Trials.
works corresponding with the passages you find here ? Has
anything like it. been produced from any source ? Look again
at page 10 : look at the first of those pictures. We know the
history that is given to us, and the way m which the ¿lsclPjes
acted at a time of extreme sadness and tribulation, at a time
in which they believed they had lost a person for whom they
had respect. Look at that ; look at our savior and say, gentle
men what you think of that. The next is that at page 7.
That is one upon which one of the prisoners has made certain
remarks to you. The picture at the top you also see—those
clouds, or whatever they are, and then you come to a P1®0®
poetry, with reference to which I ask you, first of all, to look
at the title, “ Jocular Jehovah.” Then omitting the first mi e
lines, which are not the subject of a particular count the.next
nine lines are the subject ot the second cpunt-thatis a thing
which is said to be a blasphemous libel. I don t know
whether you have read those nine lines, but if you have not I
would ask you to do so. Look at the last line but one m par
ticular and say what you think of that. Then the next is at
page 3’ I think. There you will see a greater portion of two
columns is taken up with a piece of poetry. At the bottom
of the second column there are four paragraphs. The second
of these paragraphs is the subject of the third count
that suggest no meaning? Is it argument? Is it reason
able? Is it a fair putting forward of the view a man may
take upon a matter in dispuie, or is it profane scoffing • N
turn over to page 4. There is a picture at the top of page 4,
and then comes what purports to be a report of a trlai.
vou look at the first lour lines you will see who the prisoners
are described to be. Then look at the next paragraph begin
ning with the words ” the indictment.
1 hen again theie
is another passage I call your
theie
the middle of the first column of page 5. You will see tnere
is a reference to a certain person, who on rising stated so and
so Just look at the first two lines of that. I callyour atten
tion to these passages and desire you to pay them special
attention. The* subject of the other count is to be found op
pagi u In the second column there are notices to corres
pondents I ask your attention particularly to the name of
So eo^poMeut5 (Holy Gh-i). Just loot: at.the next but
two notices to that, and say what you
hire
attention to these, not because it is the libel charged here,
but it
in the Axwvr. to Ct > reapondonta and you may
legitimately use it. 1 ou see that ».egmnmg One of the Wise
Men ” I ask you to 1 ead that. Look at the one after, begmX‘with the words •• Long-faced Christians? There is one
other 1 would ask you to look at; it is the fifth below that,
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
101
«beginning with the words “ Happv Sal.” I ask you a<>ain to
put to yourselves the question—Is it or is it not a contu
melious reproach or profane scoffing against Holy Scripture
and the Christian religion? A few observations I must make
Ujion the topics that have been urged upon you. It has been
said you are the persons who are to say what the law of libel
is. It is nothing of the kind. What you are to say is, taking
the law from me, whether these particular things are or are
uot blasphemous libels, having regard to the definition of a
blasphemous libel. It is said you are the arbiters as to whether
these persons are to suffer sentence or not. You are nothin^
of the kind. You are simply to answer the question, Are or
are not these documents blasphemous libels? It is said that
these prosecutions are a mistake, that they should never have
been commenced and that they do harm. As to that I may
^ay that it is open to considerable doubt. It is said that
these prosecutions only gain for the parties additional noto
riety, and that it would have been better to have allowed them
to wallow in their own filth. This is a serious matter to take
into consideration. Something has been said about the real
prosecutor, and reference has been made to his antecedents,
lhe real prosecutor is her Majesty the Queen, and the person
■by whom this prosecution is instituted is the Public Prose- j
cutor without whose sanction it could not have been com- '
menced. It has been, you may rely upon it, considered most
senously whether it would or wouid not be wise to prosecute
the parties who publish this paper, and whether it would not
be better to prevent them obtaining any notorietv that a
prosecution of this nature might give them. You may think
ttat the prosecution is a mistake, that it would have been
better to have left it alone and better if nothing had been done
Ao give it notoriety. There may be other persons who take
the viewthat feelings ought not to be outraged with impunity in
the thoroughfares of London, and that the authorities should
use their best endeavors to put such down and brine the per
sons responsible for it to justice. What I want to put before
you is this—you have nothing whatever to do with that. We
are not responsible for this prosecution. We have not com
menced it; we cannot prevent it. All that is to bedone by you is
not tor you to consider whether it was wisely or unadvisedly
■commenced. It is brought here and it is for you to say whether
having been brought here, it is what I have defined to be a
-blasphemous libel. A good deal has been said of the effect
1C
v^dict would have upon liberty of speech, liberty of
thought, liberty of the press, and other things of that kind.
A good many fine phrases have been brought into play, but
.uhese are not material to the purposes of this inquiry. It is
�102
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
for you. to consider what the document is. Do you suppose
that any of the public writers whose works have been referred
to ever used such arguments, such a mode of putting their
views before the public in their books—many of them con
taining expressions of opinion with which you may or may
not agree ? From some of them you may differ or you may
agree with them. At any rate they have been put forward
by persons with a feeling of responsibility, and the fact that
they have expressed their views stronglv is perhaps not a
matter for which they are to be blamed. They have expressed
them in a decent manner, and not in such a manner as. to
outrage the community. Are the passages like those to which
I have directed your attention in this publication ? You may
depend upon it that, whatever the view you take, there
is not a respectable paper in the country that would
have sullied its pages with these passages. Whether justi
fiable or not you need hardly say that such matters as
these should not be put forward. It has been suggested
that it has not been proved that what has been done here
is done wickedly and corruptly. It is said it is not done
with malice. Is this a document that ought to have been
published? Is the document such as I have described to you
one that ought to be published or not? If it is not, the mere
fact of its being such as I have described is enough to show
malice. Maliciousness in point of law is that it is dime. Has
anv legal justification been produced here ? Further, it is
said it is not done unlawfully. It is said it is not
contrary to the peace or likely to lead to a breach of
the peace With respect to that, any libel is likely to
lead to a breach of the peace, and that is the reason it is
stated. As to the words “ wickedly and corruptly, those are
words which if you think the libel is such as I have described
a blasphemous libel to be, you will have to consider in con
nexion with the illustrations to which I have drawn your
attention. Then again it is said these are published with an
object. If it is for an object, is it such fair discussion as
may peaceably be allowed? If it is not, then the reason for
which they are put forward cannot matter. Supposing a per
son publishes an obscene libel in the street he would be tried
for the crime. I just remind you of this, that m the ^mtment it is not an obscene libel. The fact that you may think
some of them are obscene is not any ground for thinking
persons guilty unless they are blasphemous With these
remarks I shall leave this part of the case. If you say these
are not blasphemous libels you will acquit the prisoners. If
VOU think they are blasphemous libels, then the question is
whether each of the prisoners respectively is responsible tor
�Report of Blasphemy Trials.
103
them. With respect to that I take first of all the simplest
©ase, that of Kemp. He is defended by counsel. His counsel
will say that the proof of sale was too clear to be resisted and
that it could not leave any doubt. You have got the fact
that there is a publication,by reason of the sale of copies. As
far therefore as you are concerned, do you think the docu
ments blasphemous libels ? The next case is that of Ramsey.
Newspapers have now to be registered, and on November 26th,
1881, the “ Freethinker ” was registered. It was presented
for registration by Ramsey. He gave his name as proprietor,
and he also describes himself as a publisher, of 28 Stonecutter
Street, London. At the bottom of the form is a place for the
printer and publisher to sign, and that is signed November,
1881. . The next registration is on August 2nd, 18s2, when it
is registered, not by Ramsey, but by Kemp, and the registra
tion is'altered for that reason. Kemp is the person who pre
sents it, and his name appears as printer and publisher, but
the name of the proprietor remains the same. Then the next
change took place on February 7th, 1883—that is after this
Christmas Number is published. Then Ramsey ceases to be
proprietor, and the registration is effected by Foote, who
describes himself as of Stonecutter Street. Ramsey’s name
is given in the column of persons who cease to be proprietors
and Foote’s name is inserted as proprietor. Foote is described
as a journalist of Stonecutter Street, London, and his resi
dence as 9 South Crescent, London. That is signed by Foote
on February 7th, 1883. Ramsey was proprietor of the paper
to February 7th, 1883, during the period that this document
was published. There is to be remembered also, if it were
necessary to go into it, that it is proved he paid rates with
respect to this house in Stonecutter Street. As regards this,
under the Act of Parliament I have referred to, I shall tell
you that registry is in itself sufficient prima, facie evidence.
Therefore that document itself proves the proprietorship
during the period when this was in preparation and execution.
Though the contrary was set up, no attempt has been made
to show the contrary. I will tell you this, further: the pro
prietor of a newspaper is liable for what appears in it. It is
his business to take care that the contents are such as they
ought to be ; and if he allows through neglect or insufficient
editorial supervision, or from whatever reason, an indecent
libel to appear, he is criminally responsible for it. In one or
two cases that has undoubtedly produced hardship. A man
was held criminally liable although he was not in the country
at the time the libel was published. Therefore, to obviate
that hardship, the law was altered thirty years ago. It is
proved that Ramsey was the proprietor of the paper at the
�104
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
iime these passages were published, and if they were put in
without his exercising due care or caution he is criminally
responsible. The next case is that of Foote, because you
understand one might be guilty and the other not. First of
all it was contended that there was nothing to show he was
the editor of this particular number; and you may recollect
he asked a question, of one of those persons who left letters,
for the purpose of eliciting whether he had delivered any
letter addressed to Mr. Foote as editor of the Christmas
Number of the paper. You will recollect this paper is the
Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker ” for 1882. It is not
an isolated publication; it is a number published in connexion
with something published in a series, as the Christmas Num
ber of the “ Graphic,” “ Illustrated London News,” or the
Christmas number of “ Belgravia.” Here you have got the
Christmas Number for 1882. You have got proof that it is a
weekly publication a little before Christmas. In one of the
numbers it states the Christmas Number of the “ Freethinker ”
will be ready next week. It states what the articles are and
the illustrations. Is not that a subject of the libel ? I will
now call your attention to the contents. The advertisement is
connecting it with the regular publication. You may have
noticed it states at the top of the “ Freethinker ”—“ edited by
G W. Foote and on the outside, though that is perhaps of
minor importance, there appears an advertisement showing
Foote's publications. The statement at the top of it is not
of itself conclusive evidence about it, because it is possible
the name of one of you might have been put there. For
instance, it might be that Foote could show he had nothing to
do with it. Ttie question is whether you find anything to show
he was editor of it. With respect to that there are several
matters. First, you recollect that it is proved that he and
Ramsey, and two other* persons, were prosecuted the July
previous. Copies of the “ Freethinker ” published incidentally
at the time were part of the charge, and proved in evidence.
The fact that these were edited by Foote was drawn to his
attention, and the notice at the foot as to printing and pub
lishing. In each of those notices to correspondents what
appears is, that all business communications are to be addressed
to Ramsey, and literary7 communications to Foote. At the
end it appears, “ Printed and published by W. J. Ramsey, at
28 Stonecutter Street.” It is the same in the whole of those
papers. Therefore you have this fact—that at this time, at
the top of the first page, were the words, “ edited by G. W.
Foote;” that this is brought to his attention and put in evi
dence against him in July, and therefore he knows all about
it. No alteration takes place, because that continues the
�Be,port of Blasphemy Trials.
105
same down to February. One change ultimately took place.
“ Notices to correspondents ” was changed to “ literary commu
nications to the editor, G. W. Footeand at the end there is
an alteration made in the printing. That is now by Kemp
and not by Ramsey. After Foote’s attention had been called
to it, the notices to correspondents remained the same. Tben
you have this also : letters are received by the servant de
livered by the postmen at the address, and naturally enough
their recollection is hazy ; but one of them, when pressed by
the prisoner Foote, spoke about a parcel being too large to go
into the letter-box, and that while waiting there for the ser
vant to open the door he looked carefully at the address. You
have the fact that during the few months preceding the issue
■of this number Foote is receiving letters addressed to him as
editor. That is a matter for your consideration. There is a
circumstance which is rather material, and that is the paper
proved to have been seen in his room. That; would not go far
by itself, but the possession of a paper in his room in which
he is described as editor is another matter, and it is hardly
•likely he would not know of it. On February 7th he became
proprietor^ and publisher, and the paper is proved dated
February 18th, purchased on the 16th, which states, “ edited
and printed by G. W. Foote,” and the notice to correspondents
is the same as it is when the paper contains this passage at
the time Foote is proprietor and editor; and what he says is
this: that “ the Christmas Number of the ‘ Freethinker ’ had
an incredible sale, and yet, notwithstanding the enormous
sale, they were actually several pounds out of pocket. I ask
you whether you believe it to be proved that Foote was editor
or not. If he is editor, the charge against him is of print
ing and publishing, and causing—and you must be satisfied
that he did print, or cause to be printed, and published, and
composed—this paper before you can convict. In his address
he justifies the publication. That is a matter you are entitled
to take into consideration, whether he is not one of the
persons who composed this. With these remarks I leave the
case in your hands to say whether in your opinion these are
blasphemous libels, and to say, if they are, whether these
prisoners are. liable for the publication. I ought to say
gentlemen, this paper of February 18th dees not affect Ramsey
in any way—it was published by Kemp. Objection was taken
as to its being evidence against Ramsey.
The jury then considered their verdict, and after a consul
tation of about two minutes returned a verdict of “ Guilty ”
against all three prisoners. This announcement was received
with a murmer of surprise from the gallery, which was filled
with sympathisers of the defendants. The murmurs quickly
�106
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
turned to loud groans and hisses, in the mist of which a young
woman, from whom a loud cry had broken, was carried out
in a hysterical fit. Order having been with some difficulty
restored ; after his lordship had threatened to have the court
cleared,
Mr. Avory said: With regard to Kemp, my lord, I hope I
have not been understood as admitting anything more with
regard to him.
The learned Judge: You admitted the publication was so
clear you could not contest it.
Mr. Avory: I hope I have not been understood to say any
thing more than that he was a shopman and sold the papers in
theshop in the ordinary way. He was nothing more nor less than
a paid servant. He is a married man with a family ; he was
paid a weekly salary, and he was simply acting under the
influence of the other prisoners. As to his name appearing
on the papers, it was put there—Kemp’s name was substituted
there as the nominee of those paying him, and afterwards, when
he is brought into difficulty by his name being there, his name
is taken out. He acceded to his name being put there no
doubt, without any idea of making himself responsible. Of
oourse, the object of the Newspaper Act is to have some one
primarily liable for the publication of this matter, but it is
not intended to include such men as Kemp. Norrish, wlu>
practically occupied the same position as Kemp, is here as a
witness for the prosecution. He has been there only for a
few months, and Norrish was there for five years. This man
must have lost his place if he had refused to sell anything.
There is no suggestion that he derived any profit from the
sale; he received nothing beyond his salary. Ou these
grounds I hope your lordship will say this is a case to be
dealt with differently from one in which you supposed he
was deriving any profit from this matter. I may say,
your lordship, any undertaking your lordship would impose
upon him not to sell this again would be cheerfully agreed
to by him.
Mr. Justice North addressing Foote, said : George William
Foote, you have been found Guilty by the jury of publishing
these blasphemous libels. This trial has been to me a very
painful one. I regret extremely to find a person of your
undoubted intelligence, a man gifted by god with such great
ability, should have chosen to prostitute his talents to the
services of the Devil. I consider this paper totally different
from any of the works you have brought before me in every
way, and the sentence I now pass upon you is one of imprison
ment for twelve calendar months.
�Report of Blasphemy Trials,
107
Immediately upon the passing of this sentence a scene of the
greatest excitement and tumult ensued in the gallery before
mentioned as being full of the prisoners’ friends. Rising, as
it seemed with one accord, they burst forth into a storm of
hissing, groaning, and derisive cries. The prisoner Foote
brought about a momentary lull, as, looking towards the
Bench, he cried, “ My Lord, I thank you; it is worthy of your
creed!” But immediately afterwards the uproar became worse
than ever, several persons calling out “ Christians, indeed 1”
“ Scroggs ” and ‘‘ Judge Jeffries.” It being found impossible
for the officers of the court to obtain anything like decent
order from the defiant audience in the gallery, the judge
ordered that portion of the court to be summarily cleared,
which was done after some little trouble by the police, and
even then the roar of the crowd in the street could» be plainly
heard inside.
Addressing Ramsey, the learned Judge said:—William
James Ramsey, you have been found guilty of publishing these
same libels, but I don’t look upon you as deserving so severe
a punishment as Foote, because I look upon you as more an
agent to other persons. I don’t think the documents we have
seen have emanated from you, for they show marks of intel
ligence and ability, however perverted. But you are the
person who has been the proprietor of the paper, and it is
necessary that it should be known that a proprietor is respon
sible if he publishes libels in his paper. I sentence you to
nine months’ imprisonment. (Slight hissing at the back of
the court, which was promptly suppressed.)
The learned Judge, addressing Kemp, said:—Henry Arthur
Kemp, you are the seller of this paper. You for some time
were the printer and publisher, and you are the person who
had the conduct of the sale of it. I think you less responsible
for it than either of the other two, and I shall pass upon you
a lighter sentence. At the same time, it is to be known that
persons in your position are liable to punishment, and I
hope that this will be a lesson to you and others. The
sentence I pass upon you is imprisonment for three calendar
months.
THE CASE OF MR. CATTELL.
Cattell, the Fleet Street newspaper agent, who had been
oonvicted on Thursday last of selling the Christmas Number
of the “ Freethinker,” was then put into the dock to receive
sentence. Mr. Keith Frith addressed the court in mitigation
of punishment, and the prisoner was ordered to enter into his
�108
Report of Blasphemy Trials.
own recognisances in £200, and to find one surety in £100. to
•come up for judgment when called upon.
For a considerable time after the court rose crowds remained
in the streets discussing the sentences passed, and much
indignation was expressed at what were regarded as harsh
and unmerited treatment.
MEMORIAL.
“ To the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Home
Department.
“The Humble Memorial of the undersigned.
Sheweth
“ That George William Foote, William James Ramsey,
and Henry Kemp were on Monday, March 5th, found guilty
of blasphemy at common law and sentenced to imprisonment,
respectively, G. W. Foote, 12 months; W. J. Ramsey,
9 months ; and H. Kemp, 3 months.
“Your memorialists respectfully submit that such an
enforcement of laws against Blasphemy is out of accord
with the spirit of the age, and humbly pray the mercy of
the Crown in remission of the sentences imposed.”
Friends will do good work by copying this out and obtain
ing as many signatures as possible to each copy. The
Memorial and the signatures should be sent to the Home
Secretary as speedily as possible. It is particularly requested
that no other form may be used than the one given above.
�PRISON
NOTES.
I have been addressing the jury for half-an-hour when the
judge adjourns for lunch. A friend runs across the way to ordei
in a plateful of something for me and my co-defendants. While
he is gone, we—Mr. Ramsey, Mr. Kemp, and I—are invited to
retire down the dock stairs to a subterranean refectory. We
enter a gaslit passage with a dark cell on either side. Into one
of these miserable holes we go. The aged janitor, who holds
the keys and looks very much like St. Peter, gazes reproachfully
as though our descent into his Inferno were full proofs of our
criminality. As we cross the threshold something stirs in the
darkness. Is it a dog or a rat? No, it is Mr. Cattell. He hasbeen shivering there ever since ten o’clock, and it is now halfpast one. He is very glad to see us, and almost as glad to get a
sup from our bottle of claret. Our platefuls of meat and vege
tables look nice and smell nice ; our appetites are keen, and our
stomachs empty, but there are no knives and forks. Stay, there
are forks, but no knives. These lethal instruments are forbidden
lest prisoners should cut their throats. Throughout the gaol
similar precautions are taken. I am even writing with a quill
(fortunately my preference) instead of a steel pen, because the
latter is dangerous. A prisoner here once stabbed away at his
windpipe with one, and they had much trouble in saving his life.
These elaborate precautions and my own experience, although
so brief, convince me that even in a House of Detention more
than half the prisoners would commit suicide if they could.
But revenons a nos moutons, or rather to our forks. We split
the meat and gnaw it after the fashion of our primitive ancestors.
The vegetables disappear somehow, and somehow we all denounce
the miserably small capacity of the claret bottle. Then we feel
cold in our subterranean dungeon, which never will be warm
until the Day of Judgment. We walk up and down (it’s about
three steps each way) like the panthers in the Zoo,- or rush round
in Indian file like braves on the war-trail. We speculate how
many laps to the mile. By way of stimulating my imagination,
I suggest a million. The other beasts in the opposite den, whose
mostly stupid faces we catch a glimpse of through the bars, evi
�110
Prison Notes.
dently regard us as imbeciles by the way they grin. St. Peter
suddenly appears at the gate. We are summoned to the dock,
and I must resume my address to the jury. It is two o’clock.
It is four o’clock, I have concluded my address, and sit down
a bit tired. Mr. Ramsey has a shott innings of about twenty
minutes, reading from manuscript, every word to the point.
Then the judge sums up in his peculiar prosecuting style. The
jury retire ; and we pop half way down the dock stairs to make
room for Mr. Cattell, who now takes the trial he has waited for
all day. When his jury have delivered their verdict, the judge
defers sentence until our jury return. We again descend to the
Inferno. Minute after minute goes by, and we are half dis
tracted with expectation. It is a mild agony of suspense. Our
janitor gives us water to drink; we taste it, anti find a little
goes a long way. The summons comes at last, after two hours
and ten minutes waiting. There is profound silence in court.
The judge tells the jury he has sent for them to know if he can
assist them. I see what he means, and fear that the foreman
may commit himself. But in quiet, firm tones he replies that
the judge cannot help them; that they all know the law as well
as the fact, and that there is no hope of their agreeing. Reluc
tantly, very reluctantly, the judge discharges them. Then I ask
him for bail. In bitter, vindictive tones he refuses, and we are
marched off by an underground passage to Newgate Gaol.
Newgate appears to be a large rambling structure. There are
courtyards and offices in profusion, but the cells seem to be all
together. Tier above tier of them, with galleries and staircases,
look down the great hall, which commands a view of every door.
We inscribe our names in a big book, and a dapper little officer,
with a queer mixture of authority and respectfulness, writes out
a description as though he were filling up a passport. All money,
keys, pencils, etc., we are requested to give up, but I am allowed
to retain my eyeglass. I am taken to cell Number One, which
they tell me is about the best they have. It is asphalted on the
floor and white-washed everywhere else ; height about nine feet,
length ten, and breadth six, I am a little taken aback. Of
course I knew that a cell was small, but the realisation was a bit
rough. Here, thought I is a den for a blasphemer! Hell i»
hotter, but more commodious. Why don't they send me there at
once ? The head-warder comes to tell me that my friend with
the big head has just called to do what he can for us. This is
his facetious way of describing the junior member for North
ampton. The honorable gentleman has ordered our meals to be
sent in from across the way. After consuming a little coffee and
�Prison Notes.
Ill
toast I retire to—anything but sleep. My bed is a rough ham
mock strapped from side to side of the cell. It is very narrow,
so that my shoulders abut on eitLer side. The clothes keep
slipping off. and I keep imitating them. At last I find a good firm
position, and lie still, clutching the refractory sheets and blankets.
For a while my brain is busy. The thought of one or two I love
most makes me womanish. But soon a recollection of the malig
nant judge mak< s me clench my teeth, and with a phantas
magoria of the trial before my eyes I gradually sink into a rest
less sleep.
Ding, ding—ding, ding—ding, ding! I open my eyes half
startled. It is pitch dark save the faint glimmer of a distant
lamp through the thick window. Suddenly the square flap in
the centre of my door is let down with a bang; a little hand
lamp is thrust through, and a gruff voice cries, “Now then, get
up and light your gas ; look sharp.” I make no indecent haste
nr response to his shouting, but leisurely light my gas. As soon
as I am dressed the head warder summonses me down stairs,
where he weighs and measures me. Height, five feet ten, in my
shoes; weight, twelve, stone nine and a half, in my clothes. I
see the prosecution, with all its worry and anxiety, has not pulled
me down in flesh any more than it has in spirit. Breakfast comes
in at eight, consisting of coffee, eggs and toast. At half-past we
are taken out to exercise. We are all glad to see each other’s
faces again. I hey take us to a middle court by ourselves, where
we walk round and round and round, like pedestrains in a match.
I hear my name called, and, on rushing down to the spot whence
the voice issued, I see Mr. Bradlaugh’s face through iron rails
on my side, then three feet of air and again iron rails on his side,
lhis is how you see your friends. After Mr. Bradlaugh comes
Mrs. Be sant, who thought she would have been able to shake
one by the hand. “We are all very proud,” she says, “ of the
brave fight you made yesterday.” I promised to scarify the judge
on Monday ; and after a few more words we say good-bye. Mr.
Wheeler comes next on business, as well as friendship. After
the hour s exercise is over, we are marched back to our cells,
where we are doomed to remain until the next morning. We
prisoners are suddenly summoned into court; the officer thinks
they are going to grant us bail after all. We reach the dock
stairs (out of sight of the court) just in time to hear Mr. Avow
asking for bail for Mr. Kemp. Justice North refuses in his vin
dictive style. He has very evidently let the sun go down on his
wrath. Mr. Avory asks him whether he makes no distinction
between convicted and unconvicted prisoners. We hear his
brutal reply, and then hurry back to our cells. Fortunatelv I
have plenty of writing to do ; several letters arrive for me, and
�such an unusual prisoner.
Saturday passes very much like Friday ; indeed the greatest
curse of prison life is its awful monotony. We meet at half-past
ei»ht for one hour’s trot round the yard, where we see two friends
each for fifteen minutes. The rest of the day I spend in reading
and writing. Dr. Aveling sends in his card with a cheery word
scrawled on the back, and soon after I received a welcome parcel
of clean linen, etc.
Sunday morning is a little less varied in one way, and a little
more varied in another. In order to keep the blessed Sabbath
holy (and miserable), we are not allowed to see any friends, and
I observe that the regulation dinner for the day is the poorest in
the week. We take our constitutional, however; and as the
confinement is beginning to tell on me, I enjoy the exercise more
than ever. After the stagnant air in my cell, even the air of this
yard, enclosed on every side by high walls, seems a breath of
Paradise. I throw back my shoulders, and expand my chest
through mouth and nostrils. I lift my face towards the sky.
Ah blessed vision 1 It is only a pale gleam of sunshine through
the' canopy of London smoke, but it is light and heat and hf e to the
prisoner and beyond it is infinitude into which his thoughts may
soar. At eleven o’clock I go to chapel. Any change is a relief,
and I am anxious to know what the Rev. Mr. Duffeld will say.
He is chaplain of Newgate, but I have not seen him yet. Per
haps he is ashamed to meet me. There is no organ m the chapel
and no choir, and if it were not for the cook the singing would
break down. Mr. Duffeld’s voice is not melodious, and although
he starts the hymn he does not appear to possess much sense of
tune- but the Francatelli of this establishment makes up for the
parson’s deficiencies. The prayers are rushed through at sixty
miles an hour, so are the responses and everything else. _ Mr.
Duffeld reads a short sermon, not bad in its way, but quite inap
propriate Then he marches out, the tall Governor follows with
long strides, and then the prisoners file in silence through the
. door It is a ghastly mockery, a blasphemous farce. What a
' commentary on the words “ Our Father ”! Now to work again
I feel fresh strength to fight the bigots with. If the worst
happens I must bear it.
Printed and Published by Edward 3. Aveling D.Sc., for the Pro
gressive Publishing Company, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Verbatim report of the two trials of G.W. Foote, W.J. Ramsey and H.A. Kemp for blasphemous libel in the Christmas number of the "Freethinker"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Ramsey, William James
Kemp, Henry Arthur
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 112 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Trials held at the Old Bailey, 1 and 5 March 1883, before Mr Justice North and two common juries. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N267
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Verbatim report of the two trials of G.W. Foote, W.J. Ramsey and H.A. Kemp for blasphemous libel in the Christmas number of the "Freethinker"), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy-Great Britain
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
NSS
Trials (Blasphemy)-Great Britain