Prisoner for Blasphemy

l is supposed to enjoy the utmost fair play, and according to legal theory is entitled to every advantage in his defence, as a matter of fact, u

amusement in the Court of Queen's Bench when, in the gravest manner, he drew attention to these errors. Lord Coleridge as gravely replied that he could not take judicial cognisance of them. Whereupon Mr. Cluer quietly observed that he was ready to produce the authorised version of the Bible in court in a few minutes, as he had a copy in his chambers. This r

wicked and evil-disposed persons, and disregarding the laws and religion of the realm, and wickedly and profanely devising and inte

otect himself. Omnipotence is able to punish those who offend it, and Omniscience knows when to punish. Man's interference is grossly impertinent. When the emperor Tiberius was asked by an informe

edness which the human mind can devise." What difference, I ask, is there between that strong description and the sentence quoted from the Freethinker in our Indictment, which declared the same being as "cruel as a Bashi-Bazouk and bloodthirsty as a Bengal tiger"? The one is an abstract and the other a c

to disbelief and contempt." One of these words is clearly superfluous. Considering the extraordinary pretensions of the Bible and

the great displeasure of Almighty God, to the scandal of the Christian religion and the Holy Bible or Script

iration? What was the exact language of the aggrieved Deity? Did he give Sir Henry Tyler a power of attorney to defend his character by instituting a prosecution for libel? If so, where is the document, and who will pro

y. After pointing out that at one time Jews, Roman Catholics, and Nonconformists of all sorts-in fact every sect outside the State Church-were under heavy disabilities for religion and regarded as hardly having civil rights, and that undoubtedly at that time the doctrines of the Established religion were part and parcel of the law of th

ow, a Jew might be L

be Master of the

[Sir George Jessel]

ng, and in whom his f

a loyal colleague; he

efore the Judicature A

circuit, might have s

as this, might have

at 'Christianity is

tended for, to lay it

have been Jews,-tha

blasphemy, to deny t

which he himself did

eny, and which it is

may deny, as it is y

ve it, t

s not a crime to publish anything "to the scandal of the Christian Re

bly be construed as a political one, and it is hard to perceive how the Queen's dignity could be imperilled by the act of any person except herself. What I refer to is the statement that we had pr

about breach of th

t no temporal punishme

it led to a breach

t, provided we are

little breach of th

my. A breach of the

structive; it must b

the witness-box who

er had impaired his d

ht have even found

and that, he was in

r. Gentlemen, they h

publicity was given t

proved it. They have

of it in any Christia

old you that any ext

dertake to say that

rosecution had not a

d as a breach of the

this, to the great d

of our Lady the Queen

n mind. The law-book

libel is punished,

-the protection of w

to a breach of the pe

ends to a breach of t

the Salvation Army

s-I have nothing to

to actual breaches

cording to the law,

a paper like the Fr

e they will insist

e not caused tumul

en with banners and

or less his own tu

ous discord, and comm

is alleged. A pape

ances had to be soug

peace. I give the I

anger to the peace i

ive features of intole

nish us because we ha

endangered the peace

nish us if we have

ssailed religion; an

ace, you will of cour

men, I hope you will

law of liberty which

lies the equal right

the equal right of ev

people who choose to

libel men's charac

mmission

every subject? We are perhaps more profoundly impressed than others with the idea that all institutions are the outward expression of inward thoughts and feelings, and that it is impossible to forestall the advance of public sentiment by the most cunningly-devised machinery. We are par excellence the party of order, though not of stagnation. It

nversion of the natural order of things. What reason is there in imprisoning an innocent man because some one meditates an assault upon him? Would it not be wiser and juster to restrain the intending criminal, as is ordinarily done? I object to being punished because others cannot keep their tempers; and I say further, that to punish a man, not because he has injured others, but for his own good, is the worst form of persecution. During the many years of my public advocacy of Fre

, of course, far more calculated to shock religious susceptibilities (if these are to be considered) when they are picked out and ranked together than when they stand amid their context in their original places. Such a process of selection would be exceedingly hard on any paper or book handling very advanced ideas, and very backward ones, in a spirit of great freedom. Nay, it would prove a severe trial to most works of real value, whose scope extended beyond the respectabilities. Not to mention Byron's caustic remarks on the peculiar expurgation of Martial in Don Juan'

in which he endeavors to show that the Prophet of Nazareth passed through certain recognised stages of brain disease. Referring to the close of his career, I wrote that, "When Jesus made his triumphant entry into Jerusalem he was plainly crazed." That one sentence was picked out from a long review, running through three numbers of the Freethinker, and filling six columns of print. The third sentence was a satirical comment on the sensational and blasphemous t

ations of the sentence I have already quoted about the cruel character of the Bible God. I did not, however, dwell on this fact in my address to the jury. I took the full

e 11 (1882). Readers who care to see what they were like can refer to the file in the British Museum. Those illustrations have not been declared blasphemous, fo

isonment, was a later one. It was based on the Christmas Number, 1882, to which