THE DEVONPORT CASE, 1861.
In the early sixties the Freethinkers of Plymouth were a fairly active
body; their hall, the "Free Institute," in Buckland Street, they owed
to the liberality of one of their members, Mr Johns, and there were
some tolerably energetic spirits to carry on the work. At that time Mr
George J. Holyoake was a great favourite in the Western towns, and Mr
Bradlaugh was fast winning his way. He was gaining public popularity
and private friendships on all sides, when an incident occurred which
brought out some of his most striking characteristics and rivetted some
of these friendships with links of steel.
He had arranged to lecture at Plymouth for five days during the
first week in December 1860. The first three and the last of these
lectures were given in the Free Institute; but that for the Thursday
was announced to be given in Devonport Park. At the appointed time a
considerable number of people had assembled, and Mr Bradlaugh was just
about to address them when he was accosted by the Superintendent of
the Devonport Police, who stated that he was authorised by the Town
Council to prevent such lectures, and "all such proceedings in a place
created alone for the recreation of the public." Mr Bradlaugh pointed
out that the Temperance advocates used the Park; why should not he?
Mr Edwards, the Police Superintendent, not only refused to argue the
matter, but said further that if Mr Bradlaugh persisted in his lecture
he should use measures to eject him from the Park. There was a little
more talk, during which Mr Bradlaugh reflected that he was by no means
certain as to what were his rights in the Park; and in the end he
decided not to lecture there that evening. To use his own words, he
"submitted, but with a determination to do better at some future time."
Mr John Williamson (now in Colorado), writing at the time, says: "On
Monday, the 3rd. Iconoclast arrived by the 5 p.m. train, very much
fatigued, and looking ill; he had to go to bed for a couple of hours
before lecturing ... during his stay he suffered much from neuralgia,
which interfered with his rest by night." These few words as to the
state of my father's health will give us some idea of the strain upon
him in all these stormy scenes, added to the anxiety of earning his
living. A comparison of dates will show that many of these episodes ran
concurrently, although I am obliged to tell them separately for the
sake of clearness. I take these incidents in order of their origin; but
while one was passing through its different stages others began and
ended. In addition to these more important struggles, there was also
many a small matter which as yet I have left untouched. All this must
be borne in mind by readers of these pages who wish to get a clear idea
of Mr Bradlaugh's life. My pen, unfortunately, can only set down one
thing at a time, though careful reading can fill in the picture.
The prohibition at Devonport Park was merely a sort of prologue; the
real drama was to come, and the first act was played exactly three
months later. Mr Bradlaugh had, as he said, determined "to do better at
some future time;" with this end in view he set aside a fortnight early
in March, to be devoted to the conquest of Plymouth, and the campaign
opened on Sunday the 3rd.
A field known as the "Parson's Field," or "Parsonage Field,"
adjoining Devonport Park, was hired in February for "two lectures by
a representative of the Plymouth and Devonport Secular Society," for
the first two Sundays in March. Accordingly, about half-past two on
the afternoon of Sunday the 3rd, Mr Bradlaugh went thither accompanied
by two friends, Mr Steed and Mr John Williamson. He took his place
upon a gravel heap, and was just about to speak, when he was informed
that the police were coming into the field, and on looking round he
saw Mr Edwards (the Superintendent), Mr Inspector Bryant, and several
constables. Mr Edwards forbade him to proceed with his lecture, saying
that he had authority to remove him from the field. Mr Bradlaugh
answered that he had given way in Devonport Park because he was then
uncertain as to his rights; now the Superintendent had no right to
interfere; he had an agreement with the owner of the field; he was the
tenant, and there he should remain unless he was removed by force. He
thereupon turned to the audience and commenced his lecture with these
words: "Friends, I am about to address you on the Bible----." His
speech was here brought to an abrupt conclusion, for, acting under the
orders of the Superintendent, he was seized by six policemen,[59] of
whom he said:--
[Footnote 59: It is not without interest to note the number of police
that were always employed when there was any question of forcibly
removing Mr Bradlaugh. The Devonport superintendent contented himself
with six. Twenty years later the House of Commons employed fourteen--at
least, I am told that it was eleven policemen and three messengers.]
"Two attended to each arm, the remaining two devoting themselves
to the rear of my person. One, D. 19, I should think had served an
apprenticeship at garrotting, by the peculiar manner in which he
handled my neck. Our friends around were naturally indignant, so that
I had the threefold task to perform of pacifying my friends to prevent
a breach of the peace, of keeping my own temper, and yet of exerting
my own physical strength sufficiently to show the police that I would
not permit a continuance of excessive violence. In fact, I was obliged
to explain that I possessed the will to knock one or two of them down,
and the ability to enforce that will, before I could get anything like
reasonable treatment."
D. 19 in particular made himself very objectionable; twice Mr Bradlaugh
asked him to remove his hand from the inside of his collar, but D.
19 would not, so at length he had to shake him off. When the six
policemen, aided by their Superintendent and Inspector, succeeded in
getting Mr Bradlaugh out of the field, Inspector Bryant told him to go
about his business. He replied, "My business here to-day is to lecture;
if you let me go, I shall go back to the field." The Superintendent
said that in that case he would take him to the Station-house. Mr
Bradlaugh, who was all this time bareheaded in the keen air of early
March, asked for his hat. Mr Williamson stepped forward to hand it to
him, but was pushed roughly aside by the police, and Mr Bradlaugh did
not get his hat till later.
At the Police Station he was detained for some time whilst the question
of bail was under discussion. This was twice refused, once on the
ground that there was no power to accept bail on a Sunday; and after
being subjected to the indignity of being searched, Mr Bradlaugh was
taken into an underground stone cell, without fire, light, chair,
or stool. In the cell there was "a straw palliasse, with a strange
looking rug and one sheet." This cell, it afterwards transpired, had
not been used for two years. In this dungeon-like place he was kept
for four and a-half hours, from half-past four until nine o'clock on
an evening in the beginning of March. At this hour the Superintendent
allowed him the luxury of a stone corridor in which there was a fire;
he was placed here in charge of a policemen, and also allowed the
company of Mr Steer, a Freethinker, who had attended the meeting and
had been taken into custody on a charge of assaulting Mr Edwards while
"in the execution of his duty." Mr Bradlaugh was at the outset charged
with inciting to a breach of the peace, but on Monday was also further
charged with an assault upon Mr Edwards. In the morning he and Mr Steer
were brought up, like felons, through a trap-door into the prisoner's
dock. Their appearance in court was greeted with a hearty burst of
cheering, which the magistrates (of whom there were not less than nine
upon the bench) tried in vain to suppress. The Court was very full, and
such a great crowd had assembled outside the Guildhall, previous to the
opening of the doors, that the Mayor (J. W. W. Ryder, Esq.) decided
that the Court ordinarily used for police business was too small, and
that the case should be heard in the large hall. The case was opened
by Mr Little, of the firm of Messrs Little and Woolcombe, on behalf
of the plaintiff, Mr Superintendent Edwards. After he had recited the
charges, he said he was instructed by the magnanimous Edwards that he
had no desire "to press strongly against the parties, if they would
make a promise not again to make an attack upon public morals." Once or
twice during the progress of the case, Mr Bradlaugh came into collision
with Mr Bone, the magistrate's clerk, but on the whole he carried his
points fairly easily. The case lasted the whole day right into the
evening, and was adjourned to Friday the 8th to give Mr Bradlaugh time
to procure evidence. He and Mr Steer were bound over in their own
recognizances of £20 each.
The Court was again crowded on Friday, every part of the building being
crammed, and the spectators included several dissenting ministers of
various denominations. When Mr Bradlaugh made his appearance in the
dock he was, as before, greeted with tremendous and repeated cheering.
The magistrate's clerk got quite excited, and called out again and
again, "You ought to be ashamed of yourselves." The Mayor commanded the
police to keep their eyes on the persons guilty of such manifestations,
and to take them into custody if necessary. During the course of the
proceedings he gave this order several times in one form or another,
and succeeded in provoking a considerable burst of laughter, as
occasionally nearly every person in Court was cheering or hissing
according to his sentiments, and the Superintendent could hardly have
afforded six constables to capture each disturber. However, at my
father's request, his friends ceased to cheer. The charge against Mr
Bradlaugh was dismissed without hearing the whole of the evidence for
the defence.[60] The magistrates found Mr Steer guilty, but said that
they did not consider the assault to have been of a severe character,
and therefore fined him only 5s. and costs, not to include attorney's
costs. Of course, the question of religious belief was raised on
the swearing of the witnesses for the defence, but the only two who
were questioned happened to be religious persons--one, indeed, was an
"Independent Nonconformist," who was on his way to chapel, and was
attracted to the field by the crowd and the presence of the police. On
the following day (March 9th) notices were served by the authorities,
representing the War Department in Devonport, on the Plymouth
Freethinkers and others concerned, forbidding the use of the Park for
the purpose of lectures; Mr Bradlaugh therefore lectured on Sunday[61]
in the Free Institute, while he turned over in his mind a plan for the
following Sunday (17th). He announced to his audience that he intended
to lecture "very near the Park," but the precise spot would not be made
known until it was too late for the police to interfere.
[Footnote 60: The descriptions of Mr Bradlaugh which appeared in some
of the Devonshire papers, and the opinions expressed in them, are
rather amusing to read now, so many years after they were written. The
_Devonport Telegraph_ said that Mr Bradlaugh was twenty-eight years of
age, and his cross-examinations were such "as would have done credit to
an able barrister."
The _Western Morning News_ said that he was "apparently about
thirty-four years of age, and 5 ft. 10 ins. in height, is stoutly
built, of a sallow complexion, and his countenance is adorned with
neither whiskers nor moustache. He possesses intelligent features,
and a commanding forehead, and he wears his hair brushed behind his
ears.... His examination of the witnesses was conducted with facility
and with much regularity.... He sustained his equanimity of temper in
an admirable manner."
The _Devonport Independent_, referring to the presence in Court of
the various dissenting ministers and others, said "they could not
help admiring his [Mr Bradlaugh's] remarkable precision, his calm and
collected demeanour, and the ability with which he 'conducted his own
case' as well as that of his friend.... He is about twenty-eight years
of age, slight, and of a fair complexion, above the ordinary height,
and bearing the impress of an intelligent countenance."
The _Plymouth Mail_ thought "the infidel lecturer Bradlaugh and his
friend Steer got off easily."
The _Western Daily Mercury_ gave very full reports of the trial, and
under the heading "Scandala Magnata" wrote a condemnation of the
prosecution. It also inserted a number of letters on both sides:
one, from "an old subscriber," who described himself as "the father
of a family and lover of the truths of Scripture," wished that
the inhabitants had "routed the wicked man Bradlaugh out of the
neighbourhood," and expressed a desire that the Government should
punish the dockyard men who co-operated with Bradlaugh.]
[Footnote 61: Meanwhile the Park was occupied by the military and the
police in readiness to clear away the "infidels" should they appear.]
Bills were posted to the following effect:--
"In consequence of advice received, 'Iconoclast' will deliver an
open-air address on Sunday forenoon, and will be present near the
Devonport Park Lodge about half-past ten in order to vindicate the
right of free speech."
Considerable excitement prevailed in Plymouth. Some thought that,
in spite of the notice from the War Office representatives, the
lecture was to be given in the Park itself; others thought a certain
three-cornered field had been hired. All were wrong; private ground
could not be had for love or money, the owners and renters of all such
having joined the police and the clergy; vacant land belonging to the
borough was also out of the question, because my father felt that to
have lectured on such ground must have resulted in a collision with
the police, and might have ended disastrously for some of his friends.
Mr Bradlaugh, Mr Williamson, and Captain Trenaman consulted together,
and--who originated the idea I do not know--after ascertaining that
all the water was under the jurisdiction of the Saltash Corporation,
it was resolved to give the lecture from a boat in such a way that
while the audience were in the borough of Devonport, the speaker, only
a few yards distant from his hearers, should be outside the Devonport
jurisdiction.
"On Sunday morning, unfortunately, it rained in torrents and blew great
gales," lamented Mr Bradlaugh, in a brief description of the day's
adventures. "We, however, determined to persevere, and on arriving
near the Devonport Park Lodge I soon found myself at the head of a
considerable number, who, despite the rain and the wind, followed me
to Stonehouse Creek, a small tributary of the river Tamar, where I
embarked on board the boat previously hired, and on which we erected
a sort of platform from which I delivered a short address, the union
jack being hoisted at the head of the boat. Directly after I had
commenced to speak, Mr Superintendent Edwards made his appearance, and
certainly looked most disconsolate when he found the plan I had adopted
to avoid his vigilance. As it was still raining very hard, I made my
address a very brief one, telling the people that I was very glad of
the opportunity of asserting the right of free speech, and promising to
assert it again when I next visited Devonport. I was cheered several
times notwithstanding the still descending torrent. Mr Edwards, who
had nearly captured the cab containing my wife, had under his command
no less than twenty-eight policemen besides Inspector Bryant, and the
Mayor was prepared with the Riot Act; but all their precautions were
set at naught, and the right of open-air propaganda was victoriously
asserted. Mr Superintendent Edwards, with scarcely bottled up ire and
indignation, endeavoured to find a victim in the licensed waterman, but
even here he was defeated, as Captain Trenaman had taken his own crew."
Mr Bradlaugh concluded his account by thanking the friends who had
helped him "and the bold Trenamans, father and son, who commanded
under me my first marine endeavour at Freethought propaganda."
Immediately after the conclusion of the police proceedings Mr Bradlaugh
wrote a letter to Superintendent Edwards demanding that he should
publish an apology in certain papers and pay £10 to the Devon and
Cornwall Hospital, £10 to the Stoke Female Orphan Asylum, and his (Mr
Bradlaugh's) witnesses' expenses; but the messenger who delivered the
letter was informed by Edwards that he would take no notice of the
communication, but would consign it to the wastepaper basket. In fact,
all the written reply that Edwards did make was of the shortest and
curtest; it consisted merely of these words: "I beg to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of this morning." After such a letter, my
father put the matter into the hands of his solicitor, who laid it
before counsel for advice, with the result that legal proceedings were
commenced against Mr Edwards for assault and false imprisonment.
A little later at a meeting of the Devonport Town Council the Watch
Committee reported that they had instructed the Town Clerk to take
measures for Mr Edwards' defence, and asked the Council's approval of
what they had done. After considerable discussion twenty-eight persons
voted for the adoption of the report and two against. The names of
those voting were formally taken down, and it is rather curious to find
that at least four members of the Council who voted that the Town of
Devonport should undertake the expense and conduct of the defence of
the Police Superintendent, had sat upon the Bench and decided against
him without troubling my father to go through the whole of his case. In
their capacity as magistrates they were compelled by the evidence to
find him wrong: as Town Councillors they allowed their prejudices full
scope, and voted that the borough of Devonport should find money to
support the Superintendent in his defence of what they themselves had
agreed were wrongful acts.
The case against Mr Superintendent Edwards came on at the Devon Lammas
Assizes at Exeter, before Mr Baron Channell, on Monday, July 29th. The
reports[62] say that
"the Court was crowded, great interest being excited in the case. Many
ladies were present, and nearly the whole of the briefless barristers
on the circuit seemed roused from their ordinary drowsy dulness into
something like life and activity. The case lasted from ten in the
forenoon until nine in the evening, and was tried before a special
jury."
[Footnote 62: _National Reformer_, the _Western Morning News_, and
_Western Daily Mercury_.]
Unfortunately, Mr Bradlaugh made one great and irreparable blunder.
Instead of conducting the case himself, he allowed himself to be
persuaded into briefing counsel, Mr Robert Collier, Q.C., M.P., and
Mr Cole. The nature of this blunder, and its importance before a
special jury in a cathedral city, may be realised by reading a few
words of comment from a hostile leader on the case which appeared in
the _Western Morning News_ for July 31st. This journal, which was
so unfriendly towards my father's cause as to aver that the devout
Christian looked "to the State to keep the Queen's highway free from
Atheist lecturers and infidel propagandists," nevertheless stated in
the most distinct fashion that "the counsel for the plaintiff was far
more anxious to assert his own orthodoxy than his client's rights." And
with this opinion I think most people will agree who read the Counsel's
speech for the defence; not, however, that I intend to give the whole
of Mr Collier's speech, because it is at once too long, and it goes
over ground with which we are already familiar; still, I will quote a
few of his expressions to prove that I am not judging him too hardly.
Almost in the opening words of his speech Mr Collier said: "I am
informed that Mr Bradlaugh desired to deliver a lecture or a sermon--I
hardly know which." This was pure prevarication, as the utmost pains
had been taken to give Mr Collier the whole facts of the case. A little
later he stated:--
"Mr Bradlaugh belonged to a Society called the 'Secular Society.'
Now I have never heard of the Society until this, nor did I ever
hear of 'Iconoclast' before.... I really don't know what their [the
Secularists'] tenets are, but I believe they are connected in some way
with the Unitarians."
This assertion was so monstrous that it immediately brought forth a
letter of repudiation from the Rev. Henry Knott, Unitarian Minister of
Plymouth; although, to do this gentleman justice, he said he believed
that the Secularists were themselves "much too honest to wish to
identify themselves with a body of Christians who have frequently
opposed them in fair and open controversy." Mr Collier then wrote
a letter to the Rev. Henry Knott in reply, regretting that he had
misrepresented the Unitarians, and saying further:--
"As to the 'Secularists,' I had never heard of them until I had
received the brief in 'Bradlaugh _v._ Edwards.' I have since
ascertained, however, that they are a considerable sect; so much so,
that I wonder that I had not heard of them. _I was informed that a
portion of them was connected with the Unitarians_, and therefore
supposed that a portion of them acknowledged the Divine origin of
Christianity; _if I was misinformed_, I am very sorry for it."
The italics are mine; and if Mr Collier meant to imply that he received
this information from his client or his attorney--the only persons
from whom he should have received information bearing on the conduct
of this case--he still further dishonoured himself, because the
utmost candour was shown him in laying the facts before him, and most
assuredly no such statement as that quoted could have been made to him
by sane men who knew the facts.
But to return to Mr Collier's speech. I will give just two more
quotations, and then leave it:--
"I should be extremely sorry," he said, "if I were understood, as
the advocate of Mr Bradlaugh or anybody else, as for one moment
defending any circulation, either by printing or by word of mouth, of
anything libellous, seditious, or blasphemous.... If Mr Bradlaugh had
been permitted to preach, and if he had preached anything improper,
blasphemous, or seditious, I should not have complained of the
superintendent; on the contrary, I should praise him if he had taken
the proper measures for bringing him before a court of justice."
"I will conclude," he further said, "with this remark, that I cannot
help thinking that if the doctrines of this Secular Society, or any
other Society, are preached, which you and I and all of us may think
pernicious, by far the best thing is to let them alone. 'Truth is
great and will prevail,' and we need not fear that the foundation of
our religion will be shaken by a thousand Bradlaughs; and I cannot
think of anything so pernicious and likely to prevent that very object
we seek to accomplish, and to elevate persons such as these from
obscurity into fame, as by making them unjustly martyrs. I cannot
help thinking that the superintendent of the police, although acting
from the very best motives, was acting with very great haste and
indiscretion."
If Mr Collier had been briefed by the other side also, he could hardly
have made a more equivocal speech; and it will be easily understood
how much it was likely to prejudice both the judge and jury against a
man whose opinions were so well known, and who had made no pretence of
concealing them. The defence made every effort to avail themselves of
the _odium theologicum_ when it came to Mr Bradlaugh's turn to take
his place in the witness-box. Mr Montagu Smith, Q.C., counsel for the
defence, wished to cross-examine Mr Bradlaugh on some former lectures
in which he expressed his disbelief in the Bible; Mr Collier objected;
Mr Smith persisted; Baron Channell then allowed the question, taking
note of Mr Collier's objection; Mr Smith again put his question, and my
father replied: "I object to answer that question on the ground that
if I answer it in the affirmative it will subject me to a criminal
prosecution." Then came a little scene, which will strike those
who have been in the law courts with Mr Bradlaugh as by no means
unfamiliar:--
"His Lordship then asked for the Act of Parliament, and
"The Plaintiff immediately replied: It is the 53rd William III.
Archbold recites the statute.
"His Lordship and the learned counsel were then engaged in finding
it; and after having spent some time in vain, the plaintiff asked for
a book, and on its being presented to him, he immediately found the
statute in question, which he handed to his lordship. The learned
judge then read it to the counsel, and said, this statute only applies
to those educated in or making profession of Christianity. In answer
to his question,
"The Plaintiff said: I was educated according to the Church of England.
"His Lordship: I allow the objection, witness claims exemption, and he
is entitled to it."
Six times Mr Montagu Smith put similar questions to Mr Bradlaugh,
and six times Mr Bradlaugh answered him in the same words. In his
summing-up the judge, Mr Baron Channell, seemed determined not to
be outdone by Mr Collier in evoking the religious prejudices of
the jury. From Mr Smith, for the defence, such conduct was in some
degree pardonable, even if not altogether in accordance with ordinary
un-Christian notions of strict honour; but in Mr Collier, counsel for
the plaintiff, and Mr Baron Channell, presiding over what was supposed
to be a Court of Justice, it was unpardonable. His Lordship regretted
"that the constitution of the plaintiff's mind was such as to render
him unable to believe in those great truths which afforded so much
comfort and satisfaction to others; the notion of going about and
delivering lectures on those views he considered fraught with mischief
and calculated to produce the greatest possible evil," while he further
enlarged upon the "wickedness of disseminating such opinions."
After the summing-up of this just judge the jury gave a verdict for
the plaintiff, with one farthing damages. The evidence was so strong,
and some of the witnesses for the defence were so extravagant and
unsatisfactory, that in spite of their prejudices the jury could not
do other than decide in Mr Bradlaugh's favour; but they did it as
grudgingly as they could, and recorded their animus in the "damages"
they awarded. On the following morning Mr Baron Channell carried this
a step further, and when Mr Collier made the formal application for the
plaintiff's costs he refused to certify.
In spite of all the prejudice roused against him, Mr Bradlaugh met with
considerable sympathy from the press, from foes[63] as well as friends.
[Footnote 63: The _Western Times_ (Exeter, August 3rd), _a hostile
paper_, said: "The plaintiff certainly established his case, and the
verdict was on the face of it ridiculous." "The religious feelings of
the jury neutralized the spirit of the law by the ridiculous 'damages'
which they awarded for his wrongs."
The _Morning Star_ (August 2nd) had a most indignant article,
condemning such a verdict "as a flagrant denial and mockery of
justice." The _Bradford Review_ was courageously outspoken, and urged
that a new trial should be moved for.
In a leaderette the _Weekly Dispatch_ (August 4th) thought that this
Devonshire dealing was altogether a scene for Spain rather than for
England, and condemned Mr Collier's conduct of the case. In the
following issue _Publicola_ had a long article on the proceedings, in
which he deplored "that such an institution as that of trial by jury,
to which we are indebted for magnificent assertions of political right
and freedom, which, generally speaking, is a safeguard against social
injury, should, by the conduct described, become a portion of the
machinery of persecution."
_Punch_ (August 10th) joined in its voice, and published a flippant
article on "A Short Way with Secularists," in which it tells the
story of the seizure of "that fellow Bradlaugh, who calls himself
Iconoclast," and hailed with mock delight the advent of the "orthodox
reaction." Said _Punch_, "The magistrates becoming judges of
controversy, and the policemen forcing their decrees, the office
of justice of the peace will become a holy office indeed, and the
constabulary will rise into familiars of a British Inquisition."
Not the least remarkable article appeared in the Catholic _Tablet_ for
August 3rd. It speaks of the arrest and imprisonment of Mr Bradlaugh as
"frightful persecution," and says: "His legal rights have been violated
by the police, and a jury of British Protestants have refused him
redress, because his interpretation of the Scriptures is different from
theirs. Either that is religious persecution or there is no such thing."
In 1861 the English Roman Catholics regarded Mr Bradlaugh as a weak
and (to them) harmless unit, and they affected to espouse his cause
as a weapon against their deadly enemies, the Protestants. What a
change in less than twenty years to the time when "Henry Edward,
Cardinal-Archbishop," and Prince of the Church of Rome, thought it
necessary, with his own powerful hand, to write protest after protest
in the _Nineteenth Century_, against Mr Bradlangh being allowed to take
his seat in the Commons House at Westminster! What a change from 1861
to 1882, when this same great prelate thought it necessary to pay a
formal visit in solemn state to the town of Northampton itself to use
his mighty influence to turn the electors against "this poor Secular
Iconoclast," as the _Tablet_ once called him.]
Mr Bradlaugh was not the man to remain content with such an
unsatisfactory verdict, and accordingly he moved for a new trial.
The motion was heard in the Court of Common Pleas, Westminster, on
November 4th and 5th of the same year, before the Lord Chief Justice,
Sir William Erle, and the Justices Williams, Byles, and Keating.
Mr Bradlaugh asked for a new trial on the grounds of misdirection,
improper rejection of evidence tendered by the plaintiff, improper
reception of evidence tendered by the defendant; and that the verdict
was a perverse one and against evidence. After reciting the course of
the trial at Exeter, he pointed out that in that trial he "laboured
under a double disadvantage, not only in having all the jury selected
from the county [of Devon], where there was great feeling existing in
the matter, but that they were selected from among men who had to pay
the costs in the action,[64] and who would have to pay further damages
and costs if in my favour, which a verdict of the jury would have given
me."
[Footnote 64: This refers to the decision of the Devonport Town
Council.]
After a lengthy discussion, in which all the judges took active part,
the Lord Chief Justice said that they would consult "brother Channell"
before they gave their answer.
Judgment was given the following day. The rule was refused, and the
plaintiff insulted. Said Lord Chief Justice Erle--
"I know not in the least what are the opinions of the plaintiff that
he was bent upon publishing; all that I am certain of is that there
are opinions which are most pernicious. There are opinions which are
in law a crime, and which every man ought--that is, every man of sound
sense and generally esteemed of sound sense, would generally consider
to be wrong. I do not know what these opinions are, but there are such
opinions. If the plaintiff wanted to use his liberty for the purpose
of disseminating opinions which were in reality of that pernicious
description, and the defendant prevented him from doing that which
might be a very pernicious act to those who heard him, and if the
estimate I have mentioned be the true one, might be a matter he might
afterwards deeply regret, it might be that the jury thought the act of
imprisonment of the plaintiff under such circumstances was in reality
not an injury for which a large money compensation ought to be paid,
but on the contrary was an act which in its real substantial result
was beneficial to the plaintiff, and so the nominal wrong would be
abundantly compensated by the small sum given."[65]
[Footnote 65: Shorthand report.]
The other judges concurred with their leader, Mr Justice Keating
making a yet further addition to the remarkable record of intolerant
utterances in this case.
"I think," said he, "that questions should be put within a certain
limit to the witness as to his opinion and belief, and that it is
right the jury should have an opportunity of judging either from his
answer or from his refusal to answer--should have an opportunity to
form their own sentiment of the credibility to be attached to it [the
evidence]."
This judgment, and even more the bigotry apparent throughout the
judgment, was a great blow to Mr Bradlaugh, and he appealed against
the decision. The appeal came on before the very same four judges
on the following Friday (November 8). In spite of his most eloquent
pleading--in which he was repeatedly interrupted by the Lord Chief
Justice--the rule was refused; the Lord Chief Justice kept religiously
(I use the word advisedly) to his already expressed opinion that a
witness "is by implication discredited by his refusal to answer;" and
that he could see no "intentional violation of right;" he further
clinched the matter by saying that "in the present instance there is
nothing which could induce me to interfere."
These proceedings did their work in helping to form public opinion in
favour of free speech, but they cost my father several hundreds of
pounds, and burdened him with a debt which took long to clear off.