Produced by Freethought Archives
PRISONER FOR BLASPHEMY
By George William Foote
Originally published 1886
Persecution is not refutation, nor even triumph: the
"wretched infidel" as he is called, is probably happier in
his prison than the proudest of his assailants--BYRON.
London:
Progressive Publishing Company
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1886
CHAPTERS
I. The Storm Brewing
II. Our First Summons
III. Mr. Bradlaugh Included
IV. Our Indictment
V. Another Prosecution
VI. Preparing for Trial
VII. At the Old Bailey
VIII. Newgate
IX. The Second Trial
X. "Black Maria"
XI. Holloway Gaol
XII. Prison Life
XIII. Parson Plaford
XIV. The Third Trial
XV. Loss and Gain
XVI. A Long Night
XVII. Daylight
PREFACE.
This little volume tells a strange and painful story; strange, because
the experiences of a prisoner for blasphemy are only known to three
living Englishmen; and painful, because their unmerited sufferings are a
sad reflection on the boasted freedom of our age.
My own share in this misfortune is all I could pretend to describe with
fidelity. Without (I hope) any meretricious display of fine writing,
I have related the facts of my case, giving a precise account of
my prosecutions, and as vivid a narrative as memory allows of my
imprisonment in Holloway Gaol. I have striven throughout to be truthful
and accurate, nothing extenuating, nor setting down aught in malice;
and I have tried to hit the happy mean between negligence and prolixity.
Whether or not I have succeeded in the second respect the reader must
be the judge; and if he cannot be so in the former respect, he will at
least be able to decide whether the writer means to be candid and bears
the appearance of honesty.
One reason why I have striven to be exact is that my record may be of
service to the future historian of our time. It is always rash to
appeal to the future, as a posturing English novelist did in one of his
Prefaces; and it is well to remember the witticism of Voltaire, who,
on hearing an ambitious poeticule read his Ode to Posterity, doubted
whether it would reach its address. But it is the facts, and not
my personality, that are important in this case. My trial will be a
conspicuous event in the history of the struggle for religious
freedom, and in consequence of Lord Coleridge's and Sir James Stephen's
utterances, it may be of considerable moment in the history of the
Criminal Law. It is more than possible that I shall be the last prisoner
for blasphemy in England. That alone is a circumstance of distinction,
which gives my story a special character, quite apart from my
individuality. As a muddle-headed acquaintance said, intending to be
complimentary, Some men are born to greatness, others achieve it, and I
had it thrust upon me.
Prosecutions for Blasphemy have not been frequent. Sir James Stephen was
able to record nearly all of them in his "History of the Criminal
Law." The last before mine occurred in 1857, when Thomas Pooley, a poor
Cornish well-sinker, was sentenced by the late Mr. Justice Coleridge to
twenty months' imprisonment for chalking some "blasphemous" words on
a gate-post. Fortunately this monstrous punishment excited public
indignation. Mill, Buckle, and other eminent men, interested themselves
in the case, and Pooley was released after undergoing a quarter of his
sentence. From that time until my prosecution, that is for nearly a
whole generation, the odious law was allowed to slumber, although tons
of "blasphemy" were published every year. This long desuetude induced
Sir James Stephen, in his "Digest of the Criminal Law" to regard it as
"practically obsolete." But the event has proved that no law is obsolete
until it is repealed. It has also proved Lord Coleridge's observation
that there is, in the case of some laws, a "discriminating laxity," as
well as Professor Hunter's remark that the Blasphemy Laws survive as a
dangerous weapon in the hands of any fool or fanatic who likes to set
them in motion.
In the pamphlet entitled _Blasphemy No Crime_, which I published during
my prosecution, and which is still in print if anyone is curious to
see it, I contended that Blasphemy is only our old friend Heresy in
disguise, and that, we know, is a priestly manufacture. My view has
since been borne out by two high authorities. Lord Coleridge says that
"this law of blasphemous libel first appears in our books--at least the
cases relating to it are first reported--shortly after the curtailment
or abolition of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts in matters
temporal. Speaking broadly, before the time of Charles II. these things
would have been dealt with as heresy; and the libellers so-called of
more recent days would have suffered as heretics in earlier times."
[Reference: _The Law of Blasphemous Libel_. The Summing-up in the case
of Regina v. Foote and others. Revised with a Preface by the Lord Chief
Justice of England. London, Stevens and Sons.] Sir James Stephen also,
after referring to the writ _De Heretico Comburendo_, under which heresy
and blasphemy were punishable by burning alive, and which was abolished
in 1677, without abridging the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts
"in cases of atheism, blasphemy, heresie, or schism, and other damnable
doctrines and opinions," adds that "In this state of things, the Court
of Queen's Bench took upon itself some of the functions of the old
Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission, and treated as misdemeanours
at common law many things which those courts had formerly punished...
This was the origin of the modern law as to blasphemy and blasphemous
libel." [Reference: _Blasphemy and Blasphemous Libel_. By Sir James
Stephen. _Fortnightly Review_, March, 1884.]
Less than ten years after the "glorious revolution" of 1688 there was
passed a statute, known as the 9 and 10 William III., c. 32, and
called "An Act for the more effectual suppressing of Blasphemy and
Profaneness." This enacts that "any person or persons having been
educated in, or at any time having made profession of, the Christian
religion within this realm who shall, by writing, printing, teaching, or
advised speaking, deny any one of the persons in the Holy Trinity to be
God, or shall assert or maintain there are more gods than one, or shall
deny the Christian doctrine to be true, or the Holy Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament to be of divine authority," shall upon conviction
be disabled from holding any ecclesiastical, civil, or military
employment, and on a second conviction be imprisoned for three years and
deprived for ever of all civil rights.
Lord Coleridge and Sir James Stephen call this statute "ferocious," but
as it is still unrepealed there is no legal reason why it should not
be enforced. Curiously, however, the reservation which was inserted to
protect the Jews has frustrated the whole purpose of the Act; at any
rate, there never has been a single prosecution under it. So much of
the statute as affected the Unitarians was ostensibly repealed by the 53
George III., c. 160. But Lord Eldon in 1817 doubted whether it was
ever repealed at all; and so late as 1867 Chief Baron Kelly and Lord
Bramwell, in the Court of Exchequer, held that a lecture on "The
Character and Teachings of Christ: the former defective, the latter
misleading" was an offence against the statute. It is not so clear,
therefore, that Unitarians are out of danger; especially as the judges
have held that this Act was special, without in any way affecting
the common law of Blasphemy, under which all prosecutions have been
conducted.
Dr. Blake Odgers, however, thinks the Unitarians are perfectly safe, and
he has informed them so in a memorandum on the Blasphemy Laws drawn
up at their request. This gentleman has a right to his opinion, but no
Unitarian of any courage will be proud of his advice. He deliberately
recommends the body to which he belongs to pay no attention to the
Blasphemy Laws, and to lend no assistance to the agitation for repealing
them, on the ground that when you are safe yourself it is Quixotic to
trouble about another man's danger; which is, perhaps, the most cowardly
and contemptible suggestion that could be made. Several Unitarians were
burnt in Elizabeth's reign, two were burnt in the reign of James I., and
one narrowly escaped hanging under the Commonwealth. The whole body was
excluded from the Toleration Act of 1688, and included in the Blasphemy
Act of William III. But Unitarians have since yielded the place of
danger to more advanced bodies, and they may congratulate themselves on
their safety; but to make their own safety a reason for conniving at the
persecution of others is a depth of baseness which Dr. Blake Odgers has
fathomed, though happily without persuading the majority of his fellows
to descend to the same ignominy.
It will be observed that the Act specifies certain heterodox _opinions_
as blasphemous, and says nothing as to the _language_ in which they
may be couched. Evidently the crime lay not in the _manner_, but in
the _matter_. The Common Law has always held the same view, and my
Indictment, like that of all my predecessors, charged me with bringing
the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion "into disbelief and
contempt." With all respect to Lord Coleridge's authority, I cannot but
think that Sir James Stephen is right in maintaining that the crime of
blasphemy consists in the expression of certain opinions, and that it
is only an _aggravation_ of the crime to express them in "offensive"
language.
Judge North, on my first trial, plainly told the jury that any denial
of the existence of Deity or of Providence was blasphemy; although on
my second trial, in order to procure a conviction, he narrowed his
definition to "any contumelious or profane scoffing at the Holy
Scriptures or the Christian religion." It is evident, therefore, what
his lordship believes the law to be. With a certain order of minds it is
best to deal sharply; their first statements are more likely to be
true than their second. For the rest, Judge North is unworthy of
consideration. It is remarkable that, although he charged the jury
twice in my case, Sir James Stephen does not regard his views as worth a
mention.
Lord Coleridge says the law of blasphemy "is undoubtedly a disagreeable
law," and in my opinion he lets humanity get the better of his legal
judgment. He lays it down that "if the decencies of controversy are
observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked without a
person being guilty of blasphemous libel."
Now such a decision can only be a stepping-stone to the abolition of the
law. Who can define "the decencies of controversy?" Everyone has his own
criterion in such matters, which is usually unconscious and fluctuating.
What shocks one man pleases another. Does not the proverb say that one
man's meat is another man's poison? Lord Coleridge reduces Blasphemy to
a matter of taste, and _de gustibus non est disputandum_. According to
this view, the prosecution has simply to put any heretical work into the
hands of a jury, and say, "Gentlemen, do you like that? If you do, the
prisoner is innocent; if you do not, you must find him guilty." Such
a law puts a rope round the neck of every writer who soars above
commonplace, or has any gift of wit or humor. It hands over the
discussion of all important topics to pedants and blockheads, and bans
the _argumentum ad absurdum_ which has been employed by all the great
satirists from Aristophanes to Voltaire.
When Bishop South was reproached by an Episcopal brother for being witty
in the pulpit, he replied, "My dear brother in the Lord, do you mean to
say that if God had given you any wit you wouldn't have used it?" Let
Bishop South stand for the "blasphemer," and his dull brother for the
orthodox jury, and you have the moral at once.
"Such a law," says Sir James Stephen, "would never work." You cannot
really distinguish between substance and style; you must either forbid
or permit all attacks on Christianity. Great religious and political
changes are never made by calm and moderate language. Was any form of
Christianity ever substituted either for Paganism or any other form of
Christianity without heat, exaggeration, and fierce invective? Saint
Augustine ridiculed one of the Roman gods in grossly indecent language.
Men cannot discuss doctrines like eternal punishment as they do
questions in philology. And "to say that you may discuss the truth
of religion, but that you may not hold up its doctrines to contempt,
ridicule, or indignation, is either to take away with one hand what you
concede with the other, or to confine the discussion to a small and in
many ways uninfluential class of persons." Besides, Sir James Stephen
says,
"There is one reflection which seems to me to prove with
conclusive force that the law upon this subject can be
explained and justified only on what I regard as its true
principle--the principle of persecution. It is that if the
law were really impartial, and punished blasphemy only because
it offends the feelings of believers, it ought also to punish
such preaching as offends the feelings of unbelievers. All
the more earnest and enthusiastic forms of religion are extremely
offensive to those who do not believe them. Why should not
people who are not Christians be protected against the rough,
coarse, ignorant ferocity with which they are often told that
they and theirs are on the way to hell-fire for ever and ever?
Such a doctrine, though necessary to be known if true, is, if
false, revolting and mischievous to the last degree. If the
law in no degree recognised these doctrines as true, if it were
as neutral as the Indian Penal Code is between Hindoos and
Mohametans, it would have to apply to the Salvation Army the
same rule as it applies to the _Freethinker_ and its contributors."
Excellently put. I argued in the same way, though perhaps less tersely,
in my defence. I pointed out that there is no law to protect the
"decencies of controversy" in any but religious discussions, and this
exception can only be defended on the ground that Christianity is
true and must not be attacked. But Lord Coleridge holds that it may be
attacked. How then can he ask that it shall only be attacked in polite
language? And if Freethinkers must only strike with kid gloves, why are
Christians allowed to use not only the naked fist, but knuckle-dusters,
bludgeons, and daggers? In the war of ideas, any party which imposes
restraints on others to which it does not subject itself, is guilty
of persecution; and the finest phrases, and the most dexterous special
pleading, cannot alter the fact.
Sir James Stephen holds that the Blasphemy Laws are concerned with the
_matter_ of publications, that "a large part of the most serious
and most important literature of the day is illegal," and that every
book-seller who sells, and everyone who lends to his friend, a copy of
Comte's _Positive Philosophy_, or of Renan's _Vie de Jesus_, commits a
crime punishable with fine and imprisonment. Sir James Stephen dislikes
the law profoundly, but he prefers "stating it in its natural naked
deformity to explaining it away in such a manner as to prolong its
existence and give it an air of plausibility and humanity." To terminate
this mischievous law he has drafted a Bill, which many Liberal
members of Parliament have promised to support, and which will soon be
introduced. Its text is as follows:
"Whereas certain laws now in force and intended for the promotion
of religion are no longer suitable for that purpose and it is
expedient to repeal them,
"Be it enacted as follows:
"1. After the passing of this Act no criminal proceedings
shall be instituted in any Court whatever, against any person
whatever, for Atheism, blasphemy at common law, blasphemous
libel, heresy, or schism, except only criminal proceedings
instituted in Ecclesiastical Courts against clergymen of the
Church of England.
"2. An Act passed in the first year of his late Majesty King
Edward VI., c. 1, intituled 'An Act against such as shall
unreverently speak against the sacrament of the body and blood
of Christ, commonly called the sacrament of the altar, and for
the receiving thereof in both kinds,' and an Act passed in the
9th and 10th year of his late Majesty King William III., c. 35,
intituled an Act for the more effectual suppressing of blasphemy
and profaneness are hereby repealed.
"3. Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed
to affect the provisions of an Act passed in the nineteenth year
of his late Majesty King George II., c. 21, intituled 'An Act
more effectually to prevent profane cursing and swearing,' or
any other provision of any other Act of Parliament not hereby
expressly repealed."
Until this Bill is carried no heterodox writer is safe. Sir James
Stephen's view of the law may be shared by other judges, and if a bigot
sat on the bench he might pass a heavy sentence on a distinguished
"blasphemer." Let it not be said that their _manner_ is so different
from mine that no jury would convict; for when I read extracts from
Clifford, Swinburne, Maudsley, Matthew Arnold, James Thomson, Lord
Amberley, Huxley, and other heretics whose works are circulated by
Mudie, Lord Coleridge remarked "I confess, as I heard them, I had, and
have a difficulty in distinguishing them from the alleged libels. They
do appear to me to be open to the same charge, on the same grounds, as
Mr. Foote's writings."
Personally I understand the Blasphemy Laws well enough. They are the
last relics of religious persecution. What Lord Coleridge read from
Starkie as the law of blasphemous libel, I regard with Sir James Stephen
as "flabby verbiage." Lord Coleridge is himself a master of style, and
I suppose his admiration of Starkie's personal character has blinded his
judgment. Starkie simply raises a cloud of words to hide the real nature
of the Blasphemy Laws. He shows how Freethinkers may be punished without
avowing the principle of persecution. Instead of frankly saying that
Christianity must not be attacked, he imputes to aggressive heretics "a
malicious and mischievous intention," and "apathy and indifference to
the interests of society;" and he justifies their being punished, not
for their actions, but for their motives: a principle which, if it were
introduced into our jurisprudence, would produce a chaos.
Could there be a more ridiculous assumption than that a man who braves
obloquy, social ostracism, and imprisonment for his principles,
is indifferent to the interest of society? Let Christianity strike
Freethinkers if it will, but why add insult to injury? Why brand us as
cowards when you martyr us? Why charge us with hypocrisy when we dare
your hate?
Persecution, like superstition, dies hard, but it dies. What though I
have suffered the heaviest punishment inflicted on a Freethinker for a
hundred and twenty years? Is not the night always darkest and coldest
before the dawn? Is not the tiger's dying spring most fierce and
terrible?
My sufferings, therefore, are not without the balm of consolation. I see
that the future is already brightening with a new hope. Without rising
to the supreme height of Danton, who cried "Let my name be blighted that
France be free," I feel a humbler pleasure in reflecting that I may
have been instrumental in breaking the last fetter on the freedom of the
press.
G. W. FOOTE.
_February 1st_, 1886.
CHAPTER I. THE STORM BREWING.
In the merry month of May, 1881, I started a paper called the
_Freethinker_, with the avowed object of waging "relentless war against
Superstition in general and the Christian Superstition in particular." I
stated in the first paragraph of the first number that this new journal
would have a new policy; that it would "do its best to employ the
resources of Science, Scholarship, Philosophy and Ethics against the
claims of the Bible as a Divine Revelation," and that it would "not
scruple to employ for the same purpose any weapons of ridicule or
sarcasm that might be borrowed from the armoury of Common Sense."
As the _Freethinker_ was published at the people's price of a penny,
and was always edited in a lively style, with a few short articles and
plenty of racy paragraphs, it succeeded from the first; and becoming
well known, not through profuse advertisement, but through the
recommendation of its readers, its circulation increased every week.
Within a year of its birth it had outdistanced all its predecessors. No
Freethought journal ever progressed with such amazing rapidity.
True, this was largely due to the fact that the Freethought party had
immensely increased in numbers; but much of it was also due to the
policy of the paper, which supplied, as the advertising gentry say, "a
long-felt want." Although the first clause of its original programme was
never wholly forgotten, we gradually paid the greatest attention to the
second, indulging more and more in Ridicule and Sarcasm, and more and
more cultivating Common Sense. A dangerous policy, as I was sometimes
warned; but for that very reason all the more necessary. The more
Bigotry writhed and raged, the more I felt that our policy was telling.
Borrowing a metaphor from Carlyle's "Frederick," I likened Superstition
to the boa, which defies all ponderous assaults, and will not yield to
the pounding of sledge-hammers, but sinks dead when some expert thrusts
in a needle's point and punctures the spinal column.
I had a further incentive. Mr. Bradlaugh's infamous treatment by the
bigots had revolutionised my ideas of Freethought policy. Although never
timid, I was until then practically ignorant of the horrible spirit of
persecution; and with the generous enthusiasm of youth I fondly imagined
that the period of combat was ended, that the liberty of platform and
press was finally won, that Supernaturalism was hopelessly scotched
although obviously not slain, and that Freethinkers should now devote
themselves to cultivating the fields they had won instead of raiding
into the enemy's territory. Alas for the illusions of hope! They were
rudely dispelled by a few "scenes" in the House of Commons, and barred
from all chance of re-gathering by the wild display of intolerance
outside. I saw, in quite another sense than Garth Wilkinson's, the
profound truth of his saying that--
"The Duke of Wellington's advice, Do not make a little war, is
applicable to internal conflicts against evil in society. For
little wars have no background of resources, they do not know
the strength of the enemy, and the peace that follows them for
the most part leaves the evil in dispute nearly its whole territory;
perhaps is purchased by guaranteeing the evil by treaty; and
leaves the case of offence more difficult of attack by reason
of concession to wrong premises."
("Human Science and Divine Revelation," Preface, p. vi.)
Yes, the war with Superstition must be fought _a outrance_. We must
decline either treaty or truce. I hold that the one great work of our
time is the destruction of theology, the immemorial enemy of mankind,
which has wasted in the chase of chimeras very much of the world's best
intellect, fatally perverted our moral sentiments, fomented discord
and division, supported all the tyranny of privilege and sanctioned all
debasement of the people. Far be it from me to argue this point with
any dissident. I prefer to leave him to the logic of events, which has
convinced me, and may some day convince him.
But to recur. Before the _Freethinker_ had reached its third number I
began to reflect on the advisability of illustrating it, and bringing in
the artist's pencil to aid the writer's pen. I soon resolved to do this,
and the third and fourth numbers contained a woodcut on the front page.
In the fifth number there appeared an exquisite little burlesque sketch
of the Calling of Samuel, by a skilful artist whose name I cannot
disclose. Although not ostensibly, it was actually, the first of those
Comic Bible Sketches for which the _Freethinker_ afterwards became
famous; and from that date, with the exception of occasional intervals
due to difficulties there is no need to explain, my little paper was
regularly illustrated. During the whole twelve months of my imprisonment
the illustrations were discontinued by my express order. I was not
averse to their appearing, but I knew the terrible obstacles and dangers
my temporary successor would have to meet, and I left him a written
prohibition of them, which he was free to publish, in order to shield
him against the possible charge of cowardice. Since my release from
prison they have been resumed, and they will be continued until I go to
prison again, unless I see some better reason than Christian menace for
their cessation.
The same fifth number of the _Freethinker_ contained an account of
the first part of "La Bible Amusante," issued by the Anti-Clerical
publishing house in the Rue des Ecoles. That notice was from my own pen,
and I venture to reprint the opening paragraphs.
"Voltaire's method of attacking Christianity has always approved
itself to French Freethinkers. They regard the statement that
he treated religious questions in a spirit of levity as the
weak defence of those who know that irony and sarcasm are the
deadliest enemies of their faith. Superstition dislikes argument,
but it hates laughter. Nimble and far-flashing wit is more
potent against error than the slow dull logic of the schools;
and the great humorists and wits of the world have done far
more to clear its head and sweeten its heart than all its
sober philosophers from Aristotle to Kant.
"We in England have Comic Histories, Comic Geographies, and
Comic Grammars, but a Comic Bible would horrify us. At sight
of such blasphemy Bumble would stand aghast, and Mrs. Grundy
would scream with terror. But Bumble and Mrs. Grundy are less
important personages in France, and so the country of Rabelais
and Voltaire produces what we are unable to tolerate in thought."
I concluded by saying--"We shall introduce the subsequent numbers to the
attention of our readers, and, if possible, we shall reproduce in the
_Freethinker_ some of the raciest plates. We shall be greeted with
shrieks of pious wrath if we do so, but we are not easily frightened."
There was really more than editorial fashion in this "we," for at
that time Mr. Ramsey was half proprietor of the _Freethinker_, and his
consent had of course to be obtained before I could undertake such a
dangerous enterprise. I gladly avow that he showed no hesitation; on
the contrary, he heartily fell in with the project. He frankly left the
editorial conduct of our paper in my hands, despised the accusation
of Blasphemy, and defied its law. His half-proprietorship of the
_Freethinker_ has terminated, but we still work together in our several
ways for the cause of Freethought. Mr. Ramsey went with me into the
furnace of persecution, and he bore his sufferings with manly fortitude.
The _Freethinker_ steadily progressed in circulation, and in January,
1882, I was able to secure the services of my old friend, Joseph Mazzini
Wheeler, as sub-editor. He had for long years contributed gratuitously
to my literary ventures, and those who ever turn over a file of the
_Secularist_ or the _Liberal_ will see with what activity he wielded his
trenchant pen. When he became my paid sub-editor, our relations remained
unchanged. We worked as loyal colleagues for a cause we both loved, and
treated as a mere accident the fact of my being his principal. The same
feeling animates us still, nor do I think it can ever suffer alteration.
The new year's number, dated January 1, 1882, referred to Mr. Wheeler's
accession, and to that of Dr. Edward Aveling, who then became a
member of the regular staff. It also referred to the policy of the
_Freethinker_, and to another subject of the gravest interest--namely,
the threats of prosecution which had appeared in several Christian
journals. As "pieces of justification," to use a French phrase, I quote
these two passages:
"Our ill-wishers (what journal has none?) have been of two kinds.
In the first place, the Christians, disgusted with our "blasphemy,"
predicted a speedy failure. The wish was father to the thought.
These latter-day prophets were just as false as their predecessors.
Now that they witness our indisputable success, they shake their
heads, look at us askance, mutter something like curses, and pray
the Lord to turn us from our evil ways. One or two bigots, more
than ordinarily foolish, have threatened to suppress us with the
strong arm of the law. We defy them to do their worst. We have
no wish to play the martyr, but we should not object to take a
part in dragging the monster of persecution into the light of day,
even at the cost of some bites and scratches. As the _Freethinker_
was intended to be a fighting organ, the savage hostility of the
enemy is its best praise. We mean to incur their hatred more
and more. The war with superstition should be ruthless. We ask
no quarter and we shall give none.
"Secondly, we have had to encounter the dislike of mealy-mouthed
Freethinkers, who want omelettes without breaking of eggs
and revolutions without shedding of blood. They object to
ridiculing people who say that twice two are five. They even
resent a dogmatic statement that twice two are four. Perhaps
they think four and a half a very fair compromise. Now this
is recreancy to truth, and therefore to progress. No great
cause was ever won by the half-hearted. Let us be faithful
to our convictions, and shun paltering in a double sense.
Truth, as Renan says, can dispense with politeness; and while
we shall never stoop to personal slander or innuendo, we shall
assail error without tenderness or mercy. And if, as we believe,
ridicule is the most potent weapon against superstition, we
shall not scruple to use it."
These extracts from my old manifestoes may possess little other
value, but they at least show this, that the peculiar policy of the
_Freethinker_ was not adopted in a moment of levity, but was from the
first deliberately pursued; and that while I held on the even tenor of
my way, I was fully conscious of its dangers.
Early in January there fell into my hands a copy of a circular to
Members of Parliament by Henry Varley, the Notting Hill revivalist.
This person was a notorious trader in scandal, and he still pursues
that avocation. Many of his discourses are "delivered to men only,"
an advertisement which is sure to attract a large audience; and one
of them, which he has published, is just on a level with the quack
publications that are thrust into young men's hands in the street. Henry
Varley had already issued one private circular about Mr. Bradlaugh,
full of the most brazen falsehoods and the grossest defamation; and
containing, as it did, garbled extracts from Mr. Bradlaugh's writings,
and artfully-manipulated quotations from books he had never written or
published, it undoubtedly did him a serious injury. The new circular was
worthy of the author of the first. It was addressed "To the Members
of the House of Commons," and was "for private circulation only." The
indignant butcher, for that is his trade, wished "to submit to their
notice the horrible blasphemies that are appended, and quoted from a new
weekly publication issued from the office where Mr. Bradlaugh's weekly
journal, the _National Reformer_, is published. The paper is entitled
the _Freethinker_, and is edited by G. W. Foote, one of Mr. Bradlaugh's
prominent supporters, and one of his right hand men at the Hall of
Science." The Commons of England were also requested to notice that
"Dr. Aveling, who for some years has been one of Mr. Bradlaugh's chief
helpers, is another contributor to this disgraceful product of Atheism."
In conclusion, they were called upon to "devise means to stay this
hideous prostitution of the liberty of the Press, by making these
shameless blasphemers amenable to the existing law."
It is a curious thing that such a fervid champion of religion should
always attack unbelievers with private circulars. Yet this is the policy
that Henry Varley has always pursued. He is a religious bravo, who lurks
in the dark, and strikes at Freethinkers with a poisoned dagger. More
than once he has flooded Northampton with the foulest libels on Mr.
Bradlaugh, invariably issued without the printer's name, in open
violation of the law. He is liable for a fine of five pounds for
every copy circulated, but the action must be initiated by the
Attorney-General, and our Christian Government refuses to punish when
the offence is committed by one of their own creed, and the sufferer is
only an Atheist.
Varley's circular served its evil purpose, for soon after Parliament
assembled in February, Mr. C. K. Freshfield, member for Dover, asked
the Home Secretary whether the Government intended to prosecute the
_Freethinker_.
Sir William Harcourt gave the following reply:
"I am sorry to say my attention has been called to a paper
bearing the title of the _Freethinker_, published in Northampton,
and I agree that nothing can be more pernicious to the minds of
right-thinking people than publications of that description--
(cheers)--but 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. (Hear, hear). I believe
they are better left to the reprobation which they will meet
in this country from all decent members of society. (Cheers)."
This highly disingenuous answer was characteristic of the member for
Derby. His reference to the _Freethinker_ as published at Northampton,
clearly proves that he had never seen it; and his unctuous allusions to
"public morals" and "decent members of society" are further evidence
in the same direction. The _Freethinker_ was accused of blasphemy,
but until Sir William Harcourt gave the cue not even its worst enemies
charged it with indecency. In a later stage of my narrative I shall
have to show that the "Liberal" Home Secretary has acted the part of an
unscrupulous bigot, utterly regardless of truth, justice and honor.
I thought it my duty to write an open letter to Sir William Harcourt on
the subject of his answer to Mr. Freshfield, in which I said--"I tell
you that you could not suppress the _Freethinker_ if you tried. The
martyr spirit of Freethought is not dead, and the men who suffered
imprisonment for liberty of speech a generation ago have not
left degenerate successors. Should the necessity arise, there are
Freethinkers who will not shrink from the same sacrifice for the same
cause." The sequel has shown that this was no idle boast.
A few days later the _Freethinker_ was again the subject of a question
in the House. Mr. Redmond, member for New Ross, asked the Home Secretary
"whether the Government had power to seize and summarily suppress
newspapers which they considered pernicious to public morals; and, if
so, why that power was not exercised in the case of the _Freethinker_
and other papers now published and circulated in England." Sir William
Harcourt repeated the answer he gave to Mr. Freshfield, and added that
it would not be discreet to say whether the Government had power to
seize obnoxious publications.
Mr. Redmond's question was a fine piece of impudence. Assuming that he
represented all the voters in New Ross, his constituents numbered two
hundred and sixty-one; and they could all be conveyed to Westminster in
a tithe of the vehicles that brought people to Holloway Gaol to welcome
me on the morning of my release. The total population of New Ross,
including men, women and children, is less than seven thousand; a number
that fell far short of the readers of the _Freethinker_ even then.
Representing a mere handful of people, Mr. Redmond had the audacity to
ask for the summary suppression of a journal which is read in every part
of the English-speaking world.
Nothing further of an exciting nature in connexion with my case occurred
until early in May, when a prosecution for Blasphemy was instituted at
Tunbridge Wells against Mr. Henry Seymour, Honorary Secretary of the
local branch of the National Secular Society. This Branch had been the
object of continued outrage and persecution, chiefly instigated, I have
reason to believe, by Canon Hoare. The printed announcements outside
their meeting-place were frequently painted over in presence of the
police, who refused to interfere. Finally the police called on all the
local bill-posters and warned them against exhibiting the Society's
placards. Stung by these disgraceful tactics, Mr. Seymour issued a
jocular programme of an evening's entertainment at the Society's hall,
one profane sentence of which, while it in no way disturbed the peace or
serenity of the town, aroused intense indignation in the breasts of the
professional guardians of religion and morality. They therefore cited
Mr. Seymour before the Justices of the Peace, and charged him with
publishing a blasphemous libel. He was committed for trial at the next
assizes, and in the meantime liberated on a hundred pounds bail. Acting
under advice, Mr. Seymour pleaded guilty, and was discharged on finding
sureties for his appearance when called up for judgment. This grievous
error was a distinct encouragement to the bigots. Their appetite was
whetted by this morsel, and they immediately sought a full repast.
My own attitude was one of defiance. In the _Freethinker_ of May 14 I
denounced the bigots as cowards for pouncing on a comparatively obscure
member of the Freethought party, and I challenged them to attack its
leaders before they assailed the rank and file. This challenge was cited
against me on my own trial, but I do not regret it; and indeed I doubt
if any man ever regretted that his sense of duty triumphed over his
sense of danger.