Prisoner for Blasphemy

why I did not wish to be

in and out of work, some caressing a brief and some awaiting one; and a large sprinkling of idle persons, curious after a fresh sensation and eager to gratify a morbid appetite for the horrible. How could the greatest orator hope to overcome the difficulties presented by such surroundings? The most magnificent speech would be shorn of its sp

at the rule should be taken out of its order in the Crown Paper, and argued on the following Tuesday. Seeing that the Court was determined to assist him, I acquiesced in the motion rather than waste my time in futile obstruction. On Tuesday, February 27, Sir Hardinge Giffard duly appeared, supported by two junior counsel, Mr. Poland and Mr. F. Lewis. The judges, as on the previous Saturday, were Baron Huddleston and Mr. Justice North. The former displayed the intensest bigo

charged; put in a copy of the Christmas Number of the Freethinker, which he described as a gross and intentional outrage on the religious feelings

that the law of blasphemy, which had not been interpreted for a generation, was very indefinite, and a common jury might be easily misled; that as contradictory statements of the common law existed, it was highly advisable to have an authoritative judgment in a superior Court; that grave questions as to the relations of the

contumelious reproach on our Blessed Savior. But that was not the point at issue. Whether the prosecuted publication was a blasphemous libel or not, was a question for the jury at the proper time and in the proper place. All Baron Huddleston was concerned w

ld probably have to try the case at the Old Bailey himself. What a pity he did not reflect on the injustice

he day before, there had been no time to prepare an adequate defence. His lordship refused to grant us an hour for that absurd purpose. Directly I sat down Mr. Poland arose, and begged that our trial might be deferred until the morrow, as his leader, Sir Hardinge Giffard, was obliged to attend elsewh

five minutes after I laid my head on the pillow. Only for a moment was I even perturbed. It was when I was giving Mr. Wheeler his last instructions. Pointing to my book-shelves, I said: "Now, Joe, remember that if Mrs. Foote has any need, or if there should ever be a hitch with the paper, you are to sell my books-all of them if necessary." A great sob shook my friend from he

no flaw in our Indictment, and his air was that of a man who sees no hope, but is reluctant to say so. Mrs. Besant was full of

hat we should not meet our fellow-councillors again for some time, and solemnly wished them good-bye, with a hope that, if we were sent to prison,

se. Mr. A. Hilditch was the friend on whom I relied in this emergency; and I am indebted to him for aid in many other difficulties arising from my prosecution. My foreman printer, Mr. A. Watkin, superintended the rem

the reader, and I was never given to wearing my heart upon my sleeve. Let it suffice that I fought down even the last weakness. When I stepped into

dited for twelve months. My final article was entitled, "No Surrender," and I venture to quote it

is lavishly spending

t down the Freethink

boiling. He employs

rs in Court, and ha

se surreptitious ge

ng crime, are busily

aying newsvendors' me

ing notices on the de

ned and unscrupulous

re is one thing it

alienate the sympa

a widespread consp

l at the Old Bailey i

urderers, and other

pany is not very agre

d between two thieve

t of the three, just

han the vilest crimin

versed the judgment

verse the ju

ive a verdict again

osecutors will prob

t publication. The ap

s on, and demands sac

by the aroused spiri

e years the great bea

rable damage before i

ness a repetition of

when scores of brav

for Freethought, tir

and made the Blasphe

on. May our victory

r sufferin

ss? Who knows? They

grown so cold-bloode

days' that blasphem

en. There is a certa

arded to heretics to

the struggle for a f

ss misdemeanants; th

whatever fare they

of books and writin

ers from gaol. All

is sent to prison

is obliged to subsi

ssed in the prison

of physical indigni

th his relatives or

ond three months, is

from all reading exc

re the only countrie

en press offenders a

t which was meted o

when his grey hairs

the outspoken scepti

enturies of Christiani

tian 'evidences,' s

he challenge o

er, cannot terrorise

inciples at all ha

e might concede to c

e Freethinker, we r

esult of the present

standard-bearer is

dly and bravely as

haps, but flying,

e persons, instigated by the Devil to publish certain blasphemous libels in the Christmas Number of the Freethinker, to the danger of the Queen's Crown and digni

tation and examination of many witnesses, Mr. Smart, Q.C., urged upon the jury that there was absolutely no evidence against the prisoners. It was perfectly clear that they were not the authors of the libels; their names had been used without their knowledge or sanction; and he confidently appealed to the jury for a

bright, satirical way; and a century hence people will be astonished to learn that such a piece of defensible irony, every line of which mi

xt; and also a few facetious "Answers to Correspondents," mangled in the same way. Certainly an

. If they never happened, why should they enjoy more respect and protection than other delusions? Why should one man be allowed to deny miracles, and another man imprisoned for laughing at them? Must we regard long-faced scepticism as permissible heresy, and b

eve that our publication was "obscene." In reality the obscenity is in the Bible. The writer of Exodus contemplated sheer nudity, but the Freethinker dressed Jahveh in accordance with the more decent customs of the age of reason. I would cite

ibed the libels as 'i

vey to the public an

ne about the pictur

e coarsest picture

laborer's garb, the

Only when one knows

uld any shock be fe

nt' was accentuated

bels were too bad

re withheld from th

its imagination. Th

ed to punish some Ath

e eminent men equally

etending they had com

his is not

pell-mell, he sings, as Carlyle says, "with a wild burst of spiritual enthusiasm, the charms of the rearward part of certain men; and what a royal ecstatic felicity there is in indispu

ai vu c

onces en c

neur de v

why Carlyle's "Frederick" circulates with impunity and even applause, while the Freethinker is condemned and denounced. Judge North may be ignorant of Carlyle's masterpiece, but I can hardly presume the same ignorance in Sir William Harcourt. He probably s