Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History

Book

Open Original Text

own, 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 e

Previous Next