{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_36799/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_36799","id":"gutenberg_36799","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36799","summary":null,"tags":["Atheism -- England","Category: Biographies","Category: History - British","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Holyoake, George Jacob, 1817-1906 -- Trials, litigation, etc.","Trials (Blasphemy) -- England"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by David Widger\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE HISTORY OF THE LAST TRIAL BY JURY FOR ATHEISM IN ENGLAND:\n\nA Fragment of Autobiography\n\nSubmitted For The Perusal Of Her Majesty's Attorney-General And The\nBritish Clergy.\n\nBy George Jacob Holyoake\n\nI was present in the court, to witness the trial of George Jacob\nHolyoake. I heard Wooler and Hone defend themselves successfully in\n1817; but I would prefer to be declared guilty with Holyoake to being\nacquitted on the ground of Wooler and Hone.--Richard Carlile.\n\nLONDON: JAMES WATSON, 3, QUEEN'S HEAD PASSAGE,\n\nPATERNOSTER ROW. 1850.\n\nTO\n\nWILLIAM JOHN BIRCH, M.A.,\n\nOF NEW INN HALL, OXON.\n\nIN WHOM FREE DISCUSSION HAS FOUND\n\nAN ACCOMPLISHED DEFENDER AND MUNIFICENT FRIEND;\n\nWHO WAS FIRST TO HELP US\n\nWHEN A FRIEND IS TWICE A FRIEND,\n\nWHEN WE WERE UNKNOWN AND STRUGGLING;\n\nTHIS HISTORY OF SIX MONTHS IMPRISONMENT\n\nPREFACE.\n\nThe events, more than half of which are newly narrated in this\n'History,' are recited from recollection. It is not pretended that all\nthe conversations took place with the brevity with which they are\ngiven here. In the lapse of eight years there is much which I must have\nforgotten; but what I have told I distinctly remember, and the actors\nliving will not, I think, contradict it.\n\nAs, by a creditable improvement in English law, the recommencement\nof prosecutions for (ir)religious opinion can originate with the\nAttorney-General alone, I have ventured to hope that, if this narrative\nshould fall into the hands of that officer for the time being, it may\npresent some reasons to him why this 'Last Trial by Jury for Atheism'\nshould be the _last_.\n\nThere are some passages in these Fragments over which some will be sad\nwith me. Others will assume them to be written for effect; for such, let\nme say, they were not written at all. These pages will leave me for the\npress with much more pleasure if I can believe that no one will connect\nthem with me, but read them as a posthumous record of bygone events. At\ntimes I thought I would omit all incidents of feeling; but I felt, that\nif I did so the narrative would not represent the whole (personal) truth\nof these proceedings--and, as they stand, they may serve to suggest to\nsome a doubt of the correctness of the oft-repeated dictum of the Rev.\nRobert Hall, that 'Atheism is a bloody and a ferocious system,\nwhich finds nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken\ntenderness.'\n\nWhether these are sufficient reasons for the purpose, I know not; but\nthis I know--they are the true ones. As I very much dislike being\nan object of pity, those will much mistake me who suppose that this\nnarrative has been written to excite it. In my estimation, imprisonment\nwas a matter of conscience. I neither provoked prosecution nor shrank\nfrom it; and I am now as far from desiring it as I trust I ever shall\nbe from fearing it. I do not pretend to despise public approval, but\nI think it should be regarded as a contingent reward, not as the sole\nmotive of action; for he who only works while the public (always fickle\nin memory) care to remember him, is animated by a very precarious\npatriotism. As I have once, before said, it is an encouragement to\nme that others may profit by any public principle I may assist in\nmaintaining: but my interest in it is personal also. Though no one\nelse desired freedom, it is enough for me that I desire it; and I would\nmaintain the conflict for it, as best I could, though no one else cared\nabout it; and, as I choose to make the purchase, I do not higgle\nabout the price. Tyranny has its soldiers, and why not Freedom? While\nthousands daily perish at the shrine of passion, what is the pain of a\nsacrifice now and then for public principle or personal freedom?\n\nG. J. H.\n\n\n\n\nTHE HISTORY OF THE LAST TRIAL BY JURY FOR ATHEISM.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.--BEFORE THE IMPRISONMENT.\n\nThat day is chilled in my memory when I first set out for Cheltenham.\nIt was in December 1840. The snow had been frozen on the ground a\nfortnight. There were three of us, Mrs. Holyoake, Madeline (our first\nchild), and myself. I had been residing in Worcester, which was the\nfirst station to which I had been appointed as a Social Missionary. My\nsalary (16s. per week) was barely sufficient to keep us alive in summer.\nIn winter it was inherent obstinacy alone which made us believe that we\nexisted. I feel now the fierce blast which came in at the train windows\nfrom 'the fields of Tewkesbury,' on the day on which we travelled from\nWorcester to Cheltenham. The intense cold wrapped us round like a cloak\nof ice.\n\nThe shop lights threw their red glare over the snow-bedded ground as we\nentered the town of Cheltenham, and nothing but the drift and ourselves\nmoved through the deserted streets. When at last we found a fire we had\nto wait to thaw before we could begin to speak. When tea was over we\nwere-escorted to the house where we were to stay for the night. I was\ntold it was 'a friend's house.' Cheltenham is a fashionable town, a\nwatering, visiting place, where everything is genteel and thin. As the\nparlours of some prudent house-wives are kept for show, and not to sit\nin, so in Cheltenham numerous houses are kept 'to be let,' and not\nto live in. The people who belong to the apartments are like the\nsupernumeraries on a stage, they are employed in walking over them.\nTheir clothes are decent--but they cannot properly be said to wear them:\nthey carry them about with them (on their backs of course, because that\nmode is most convenient) but simply to show that they have such things.\nIn the same manner eating and drinking is partly pantomime, and not a\nreceived reality. Such a house as I have suggested was the 'friend's\nhouse' to which we were conducted till lodgings could be found. We were\nasked to sit by the kitchen fire on 'the bench in the corner,' and there\nwe sat from eight till one o'clock, without being asked to take anything\nto eat. Madeline, deprived of her usual rest, continued sucking at\nthe breast till her mother was literally too exhausted to speak.\nA neighbouring festivity kept my 'friends' up that night till two\no'clock--up to which time we saw no prospect of bed or supper. As we\nentered the house, Eleanor, with a woman's prescience, said 'George, you\nhad better go and buy some food.' 'Buy food,' I replied, in simplicity,\n'the people at this fine house will be outraged to see me bring in\nfood.' Retribution was not far off. I repented me of my credulity that\nnight. When at last I clearly comprehended that we were to have nothing\nto eat, I proceeded to take affairs into my own hands, and being too\nwell assured of the insensibility of my host, I did it in a way that I\nconceived suited to his capacity, and began as follows:\n\n'We have talked all night about social progress, and if you have\nno objection we will make some. And if eating,' I added, 'be not an\nirregular thing in your house, we will take some supper.'\n\n'I am very sorry to say,' he answered, 'we have nothing to offer you.'\n\n'Charge me bed and board while we are with you,' I rejoined, 'but let us\nhave _both_. You have bread, I suppose?'\n\n'We have some rice bread.'\n\n'Perhaps you will toast it.' 'Will you have it _toasted?_\n\n'I will. Could you not make coffee?'\n\n'We have no coffee.'\n\n'Tea?'\n\n'We have no tea.' 'Any water?'\n\n'No _hot _water.'\n\n'Any butter?'\n\n'Yes, we have _salt_ butter.'\n\n'Then put some on the bread,' I added, for he did not even propose to do\nthat. I had to dispute every inch of hospitality with him. My 'friend,'\nMr. V., was an instance of that misplacement of which Plato speaks\nin his 'Republic' What a capital Conservative he would have made! No\ninnovation with him--not even into his own loaf! I was obliged to take\nthe initiative into the 'salt' butter.\n\nAfter seeing the bread toasted, and buttering it myself, to make sure\nthat it was buttered, I put on my hat and went into the streets, in\nsearch of material out of which to manufacture a cordial, for eight\nhours had then elapsed since Eleanor had had any sustenance, and my\ngood host's choice reserve of cold water did not seem quite adequate to\nrevive her.\n\nWhen I reached the dark streets, to which I was so absolute a stranger,\nnot knowing where I stood on the slippery ground, made so by frozen rain\non a bedding of snow, I had not gone (or rather _slipped_) far before I\nwas fairly lost. Like the sense in a Rousseauian love-letter, I neither\nknew whence I came nor whither I was going, and when I succeeded in my\nerrand it was at the last place at which I should wish to be found.\n\nDuring my absence that voluptuous caterer, 'mine host,' whom I had left\nbehind--whose counterpart Maginn must have had before him when he drew\nthe portrait of 'Quarantotti'--had proceeded so far as to boil some\nwater. The evening ended without inconsistency, and the bed corresponded\nwith the supper.\n\nThe next day I took lodgings, where, expecting nothing, I was no longer\ndisappointed. But on this occasion, profiting by the experience of\nthe preceding night, I went provided with a small stock of loaves and\nchocolate. My stay in Cheltenham was more agreeable than was to be\nexpected after such an introduction; but I remember that I had to pay my\nexpenses back again, and though they only amounted to 12s., I felt the\nwant of them for a long time afterwards. Yet Cheltenham was not without\ngenerous partizans, but, as is common in the incipiency of opinion, they\nwere at that time among that class who had fewest means. The experience\nhere recounted was a sample of that frequently recurring, but not\nexactly of the kind on which vanity is nurtured, as the reader will\nthink as he reverts (from a speech to be recited) to these incidents. He\nwho reads thus far will acquit me of any premeditation of disturbing the\npeace of the religious inhabitants of Cheltenham, for it is certainly\nthe last town I should have selected as the scene of such an occurrence\nas the one which I have to narrate.\n\nMy next location was in a northern manufacturing town, where I was\ntreated like its iron-ware--case hardened. My salary there of 30s. per\nweek was a subject of frequent discussion by the members of the Branch.\nFor this sum I taught a Day School and lectured on Sunday. And as he\nwho lives the life of a child all the week (as he must do who teaches\nchildren to any purpose) finds it hard to live that of a man on Sunday,\nmy duties were wearying and perplexing. Those who grudged my salary made\nno sufficient allowance for that application necessary for the discharge\nof my duties--an application which often commenced long before they were\nup in the morning, and continued long after their mechanical employment\nwas over at night. Not comprehending myself, at that time, that they\nwho work for the improvement of others must not calculate on their\nappreciation as an encouragement, but as a _result_, I was thrown into\nthat unpleasant state in which my pride incited me to stop and my duty\nto go on. It was not till subsequent to my return from Glasgow, four\nyears afterwards, that I mastered the problem thus raised which so many\nhave been ruined in solving. Though an Anti-Priest, my treatment\nwas that of a priest. My congregation, as is the case with most\nFreethinkers, objected to the pay of the priest, when the true quarrel\nwas with error, and not with payment: for if a man has the truth, it is\nwell that it should be his interest to hold it. But Dissent, objecting\nto the pay of others, has been left without pay itself--hence its\napostles have been reduced to fight the lowest battles of animal wants,\nwhen they should have been fighting for the truth. Dissent has too\noften paid its advocates the bad compliment of supposing, that if placed\nwithin reach of competence they would either fall into indolence or\nhypocrisy. It has acted practically upon the hypothesis, that the only\npossible way of ensuring their zeal and sincerity was to starve them--a\npolicy which leaves progress to the mercy of accident. For a long period\nthe operation of this policy chilled me. My initiation into affairs of\nprogress was in company with men who estimated, above all other virtues,\nthe virtue which worked for nothing. They would denounce the patriotism\nof that man who accepted a shilling for making a speech, although it had\ncost him more to compose it than those who heard it would probably give\nto save their country. Nine tenths of the best public men and women I\nhave known, have turned back at this point. Not any new conviction--not\nany bribe of the enemy, but the natural though unwise revolt against\nbeing considered mendicants, has forced them back into supineness,\nindifference, or even into the very ranks of oppression. True, I felt\nthat he who labours with his brains is worthy of his hire as well as\nhe who labours with his hands. As often as I read a book or heard a\nlecture, which threw new light on the paths of life, I found that it not\nonly relieved me from the dominion of ignorance, but imparted to me the\nstrength of intelligence. I felt indebted to the author and speaker, for\nI found that knowledge was not only _power_, but _property_. I knew all\nthis, but painful years passed over me before I acquired the courage\nto offer what instruction I had to impart as an article of commercial\nvalue. Those who have encountered this kind of experience know that the\nfeeling it engenders is one of indifference, and that an unusual\nspeech would arise in a cold sense of duty, and not in wantonness or\nwickedness. Thus much will inform the reader of the circumstances under\nwhich I spoke the alleged blasphemy in Cheltenham.\n\nA fellow-missionary, Mr. Charles Southwell, had, in conjunction with\nMr. Chilton and Mr. Field, set up an Atheistical periodical in Bristol,\nentitled the _Oracle of Reason_--which the authorities attempting\nforcibly to put down, Mr. Southwell was sentenced to twelve months'\nimprisonment in Bristol Gaol. On a visit to him I walked ninety miles\nfrom Birmingham to Bristol, and as my way lay through Cheltenham, I\nstaid a night in that town to deliver a lecture on 'Home Colonisation as\na means of superseding Poor Laws and Emigration.' At the conclusion of\nthe lecture I instructed the chairman to make the announcement, which\nI still make after my lectures, viz., that any of the audience may\nput relevant questions or offer what objections they consider\nuseful--whereupon a person stood up of the name of Maitland, a\nteetotaller, and sort of local preacher, and complained that 'though I\nhad told them their duty to man, I had not told them of their duty\nto God,' and inquired 'whether we should have churches and chapels in\ncommunity?'\n\nI answered thus: 'I do not desire to have religion mixed up with an\neconomical and secular subject, but as Mr. Maitland has introduced\nquestions in reference to religion I will answer him frankly. Our\nnational debt already hangs like a millstone round the poor man's neck,\nand our national church and general religious institutions cost us, upon\naccredited computation, about twenty millions annually. Worship being\nthus expensive, I appeal to your heads and your pockets whether we are\nnot too poor to have a God? If poor men cost the state as much, they\nwould be put like officers upon half-pay, and while our distress lasts\nI think it would be wise to do the same thing with deity. Thus far\nI object, as a matter of political economy, to build chapels in\ncommunities. If others want them they have themselves to please, but I,\nnot being religious, cannot propose them. Morality I regard, but I do\nnot believe there is such a thing as a God.* The pulpit says \"Search the\nScriptures,\" and they who are thus trepanned get imprisoned in Bristol\njail, like my friend Mr. Southwell. For myself, I flee the Bible as a\nviper, and revolt at the touch of a Christian.'\n\nPerhaps this reply was indecorous, but it was nothing more, and as it\nwas delivered in a tone of conversational freedom, it produced only\nquiet amusement on the meeting. The next day I continued my journey\nto Bristol. A day or two after I received the _Cheltenham Chronicle_,\ncommonly called the Rev. Francis Close's paper, it being the organ of\nhis party, in which I read the following paragraph--written with that\nexaggerated virulence which Archdeacon Hare has subsequently deprecated\nas the bane of religious journalism, but which at that time was\nconsidered as a holy ornament:--\n\n     * I do not remember using this phrase, but as the witnesses\n     reported it perhaps it was so; but I still incline to the\n     opinion that it was an expression they fell upon in stating\n     their impressions of the meeting to their employers, and all\n     working in one office, they fell into one story, either\n     through inadvertence or from precaution.\n\nAtheism and Blasphemy.--On Tuesday evening last a person named Holyoake,\nfrom Manchester, (?) delivered a lecture on Socialism (or, as it\nhas been more appropriately termed, devilism), at the Mechanics'\nInstitution. After attacking the Church of England and religion\ngenerally for a considerable time, he said he was open to any question\nthat might be put to him. A teetotaller named Maitland then got up, and\nsaid the lecturer had been talking a good deal about our duty to man,\nbut he omitted to mention our duty towards God, and he would be glad\nto know if there were any chapels in the community? The Socialist then\nreplied that he professed no religion at all, and thought they were too\npoor to have any. He did not believe there was such a being as a God,\nand impiously remarked that _if there was_* he would have the deity\nserved the same as government treated the subalterns, by placing him\nupon half-pay. With many similar blasphemous and awful remarks, which\nwe cannot sully our columns by repeating, the poor misguided wretch\ncontinued to address the audience. To their lasting shame, be it spoke,\na considerable portion of the company applauded the miscreant during the\ntime he was giving utterance to these profane opinions.\n\nWe have three persons in our employ who are ready to verify on oath\nthe correctness of the above statements. We therefore hope those in\nauthority will not suffer the matter to rest here, but that some steps\nwill immediately he taken to prevent any further publicity to such\ndiabolical sentiments.--Ed. Cheltenham Chronicle.*\n\n     * This is an interpolation.\n\nSome have censured the openness of my answer to Mr. Maitland as being\ninexpedient. It is not impossible to justify it on that ground, but I\nhave an aversion to do it. Expediency has nothing to do with what a man\nshall say. Expediency may close the mouth, but it has no power over the\nspeech if the mouth once opens. A man may keep silence if he chooses,\nbut if he does speak he has no alternative but to speak that which is\nfrank and true. But at that time there were political reasons why\nI should not evade the question put to me. The _Odd Fellow_ of Mr.\nHetherington (under the editorship of W. J. Linton) had shortly before\ncontained an able article beginning thus:--\n\nThe world need not be much frightened at the present race of Socialists.\nHowever heinous their doctrines may be thought, there need be no fear,\nthey will not act in too close accordance with them. For ourselves,\nhaving been among them at various times, we have never yet been able\nto discover any certain marks, whether of manner, of opinion, or\nof conduct, whereby to distinguish them from the mass of professing\nChristians. However heterodox their innermost sentiments, they usually\nmaintain as decent an appearance of conformity with custom as the most\nworldly and orthodox could desire.\n\nThis was a character which no progressive party could live with, and\nas the hypocrisy here charged upon us was generally believed, and not\nwholly without reason, it became necessary either to give up the party\nor refute the accusation. The attack on Mr. Owen's friends, by the\nBishop of Exeter in the House of Lords, had been evaded, not met, and a\nnoble opportunity, such as bigotry seldom affords to a rising party,\nhad been suffered to pass away unused. The enemy triumphed. In this\nvery town of Cheltenham a young poet, named Sperry, who betrayed\nfreethink-ing tendencies, had been called upon to recant. He did so,\nand then he was treated with contempt by those who intimidated him.\nThey first destroyed his moral influence, and then despised him. I had\ntherefore sufficient public reasons for not tempting a similar fate.\nIf I had refused to reply, it would have been said I held opinions too\nhorrible to avow. Had I evaded the answer I should have been considered\na time-server, and if I answered frankly there were the legal\nconsequences in prospect. I was not very much skilled in policy, but\nI knew this much that when a man cannot take care of consequences, he\nought to take care of the credit of his cause. A little anticipating\nthis history I may say that the expediency of the course I took, if\nthe expediency must be defended, was shown in the altered tone of the\nauthorities, both in Cheltenham and Gloucester, after my trial. Instead\nof that contempt with which persons holding Socialist opinions are\ntreated, there was a somewhat respectful recognition of them. However\ncrude might be considered my defence of my views, nothing escaped me\nthat could be distorted into a willingness to avoid any suffering at the\nexpense of my adherence to the principles I had adopted. Many persons\nwho would not have spoken to me before came and expressed regret at what\nhad happened, and I met with many instances of regard from persons who\nhad formerly despised those with whom I acted.\n\nI was indebted to the _Odd-Fellow_ of July 23, then edited by Eben\nJones, author of 'Studies of Sensation and Event,' for the fairest\nstatement of my conduct and of the point in question, which the press\ngave. It was thus expressed:--\n\nWe cannot refrain from saying, that under the peculiar circumstances,\nMr. Holyoake (presuming his disbelief in a God to be sincere) could not\nhave said other than he did say, and at the same time have continued\nhonest. It is true he was not asked, 'Do you believe in a God?' but a\nquestion was put to him which assumed his belief in a God, and had he\nnot testified at once his disbelief, he would have sanctioned the false\nassumption: and if not a liar, would have been at least the permitter of\na lie; between which is no distinction recognised by an honourable man.\nIn arguing thus we would not express any sympathy whatever with Mr.\nHolyoake's atheism, we are merely concerned to show that it was not Mr.\nHolyoake's right alone, but absolutely his duty, to say that 'he did\nnot believe in a God.' It was his duty, if it be the duty of man to be\nhonest; he could not have spoken otherwise, unless he had 'lied against\nhis heart,' and lied towards mankind.\n\nThe next number of the aforesaid _Cheltenham Chronicle_ brought me this\nfurther notice:--\n\nHolyoake the Blasphemous Socialist Lecturer.--In reference to a\nparagraph which appeared in the last _Chronicle_ regarding this monster,\nthe magistrates read the article alluded to, and expressed their opinion\nthat it was a clear case of blasphemy. In order to check the further\nprogress of his pernicious doctrines, the superintendent of police was\nordered to use every exertion to bring him to justice.\n\nOn reading this paragraph I lost no time in setting out for Cheltenham,\nto hold a public meeting and justify myself to the town. Foot-sore and\nweary--for the journey was more than thirty miles, and the day very\nhot--I reached Cheltenham on the 1st of June, and proceeded as privately\nas a 'monster' could to my friends the Adamses. The next night I slid\nlike sleep into the meeting, lest the police should prevent me from\naddressing it. Mr. Leech, a leading Chartist, presided, and the meeting\nwas addressed by Messrs. Parker, jun., Geo. Adams, W. Bilson, and J. B.\nLear. The Chartists of Cheltenham at that time held possession of the\nMechanics' Institution, and they were threatened with the loss of it,\nif they let it to me to speak in any more. But as I required it in\nself-defence they generously disregarded the menace, and permitted me\nthe use of it. My friends in the distant town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne\nafterwards gracefully acknowledged this kindness by making a collection\nfor Mrs. Holberry, the wife of a Sheffield Chartist who had perished in\nprison. Before I had been long in the meeting, Superintendent Russell\ncame in with about a dozen men, who were arranged on each side the door,\nand their glazed hats formed a brilliant, but a dubious back-ground for\na meeting on Free-Discussion. I spoke an hour after they came in. So\nrare an audience was not to be thrown away, and I thought we might\nconvert some of them. At the conclusion Superintendent Russell, who\nhad the politeness to wait till we had done, intimated that he had\ninstructions to apprehend me. I asked for his warrant. He said he had\nnone. It was in vain that I protested against the irregularity of\nthe proceeding. He replied that his instructions were imperative upon\nhim--and it was thereupon arranged that I should walk down to the\nstation with Mr. Hollis, a well-known gun maker of Cheltenham, and\nthere, the meeting following, we arrived in procession between eleven\nand twelve o'clock.\n\nTo the truth, it is no great proof _a posteriori_ of a man's\nextravagance, that he should be involved in legal proceedings in\nCheltenham on account of freedom of speech. Owing to priestly and\nconventional influences, that town will furnish a jury who would,\nunder direction, bring in any man guilty of blasphemy who boiled his\ntea-kettle on a Sunday. Not long before the time now spoken of, a Mormon\npreacher, holding forth there, happened to say that the Elements of\nEuclid were as true as the Bible: and for this he was indicted for\nblasphemy, and was only saved from imprisonment by the grand jury (who\nmust have had infidel tendencies) throwing out the bill.\n\nOn the morning after my apprehension I was taken before the Rev. Dr.\nNewell, R. Capper, and J. Overbury, Esquires, magistrates of Cheltenham.\nThe Rev. Dr. Newell ought to have had the pride, if not the decency, to\nhave kept away.\n\nThe _Cheltenham Chronicle_ reported that' George Jacob Holyoake, who was\ndescribed as a Socialist lecturer, and as the editor of the _Oracle\nof Reason_, was charged with delivering atheistical and blasphemous\nsentiments at the Mechanics' Institution, on the evening of the 24th\nof May. The prisoner had been apprehended last night, after delivering\nanother lecture at the same place. The affair appeared to have caused\ngreat sensation, and several persons attended at the office anxious\nto hear the examination. Amongst the number were some individuals\nwho, without the blush of shame mantling their cheeks, acknowledged\nthemselves friends of the accused.'\n\nMr. Bubb, a local solicitor, a particularly gross and furious man, then\nsaid--'I attend to prefer the charge of blasphemy, and I shall take my\nstand on the common unwritten law of the land. There have been a variety\nof statutes passed for punishing blasphemy, but these statutes in no way\ninterfere with the common unwritten law. (Mr. Capper nodded assent.)*\nAny person who denies the existence or providence of God is guilty\nof blasphemy, and the law has annexed to that offence imprisonment,\ncorporal punishment, and fine. I shall give evidence of the facts, and\nI shall ask that he be committed for trial, or required to find bail for\nhis appearance. The offence is much aggravated by his having put forth\na placard, announcing a lecture on a subject completely innocent, and\nhaving got together a number of persons, has given utterance to those\nsentiments which are an insult to God and man.'\n\n     * Mr. Bubb took his stand on the common law because his\n     object was to make it a _sessions_ case, and to take it out\n     of the statuary law, which (9 & 10 Will. 3, c. 32) would\n     have required that information of the words spoken should be\n     laid before a justice of the peace within four days from\n     their utterance, and would likewise have implied a trial at\n     the _assizes_.\n\nThe assertion that I had employed duplicity in choosing my subject was\nquite gratuitous. Addressing the Bench, I asked whether it was legal in\nthese cases to apprehend persons without the authority of a warrant?\n\nMr. Capper replied, 'Any person in the meeting would be justified in\ntaking you up without the authority of a warrant,' which showed that\nthe Bench were better read in Bigotry than in Blackstone. I said it was\ncustomary in other towns, where bigotry existed to a greater degree\neven than it did there, for information to be laid and a regular notice\nserved.\n\nMr. Capper said, 'We refuse to hold an argument with a man professing\nthe abominable principle of denying the existence of a supreme Being,'\nThis was not a very legal way of getting rid of my objections, but it\nanswered in Cheltenham.\n\nTwo witnesses, James Bartram and William Henry Pearce, both of the\n_Chronicle_ office, were adduced to report the words that formed the\nground of the indictment. Neither of them could recollect anything else\nbut the objectionable words reported in their own paper, and to these\nthey did not swear positively, but only to the 'best of their belief.'\nMr. Pearce was not produced at the trial at the Assizes, he having no\nlocal reputation but that of a dog-fancier and fighter, which did not\nrender him a creditable authority on matters pertaining to religion.\nBartram's sister was a Socialist, and she came to me some years after,\nin Manchester, to apologise for the disgrace brought upon her family by\nthe weakness or the ignorance of her brother.\n\nMr. Overbury said he considered the case satisfactorily proved, and\nadded, 'Whether you are of no religion _is of very little consequence to\nus_, but your attempt to propagate the infamous sentiment that there is\nno God, is calculated to produce disorder and confusion, and is a breach\nof the peace.' This was the remark of an ill-informed politician rather\nthan of a Christian.\n\nBeing required to enter into my own recognizances of L100, and find\ntwo sureties of L50 each, Mr. Partridge became one, and Mr. Henry Fry,\neditor of the _Educational Circular_, offered himself as the other. But\nthe Rev. Dr. Newell objected to Mr. Fry's bail, on the ground that he\ndid not swear positively that he was worth L50 when all his debts\nwere paid. He swore only that 'to the best of his belief he was so. I\nreminded the Bench that they had accepted the evidence of the witnesses\nagainst me on the same ground, namely 'the best of their belief.'\nHereupon the Rev. Dr. Newell, with an air of outraged morality,\nexclaimed 'Come, come! we'll have no quibbling.'\n\nI answered that I did not propose to quibble, for if that had been to my\ntaste I might have avoided standing there at that moment. Mr. Bubb then\ninterjected that he should demand twenty-four hours' notice of bail.\nAnother gentleman then offered himself, whom I desired to sit down and\nlet the Bench take their own course. This indifference with regard to\nthe Bench incensed them very much.\n\nMr. Capper said, 'Even the heathens acknowledged the existence of a\nDeity. If you entertain the same pernicious opinion on your death-bed\nyou will be a bold man indeed. But you are only actuated by a love of\nnotoriety.' I only answered, 'Why do you address me thus, since you will\nnot allow me to reply?' and I turned away repeating to myself the words\nof Sir Thomas Browne--'There is a rabble amongst the gentry as well as\nthe commonalty; a sort of plebeian heads, whose fancy moves with the\nsame wheel as these: men in the same level with mechanics, though their\nfortunes do somewhat gild their infirmities, and their purses compound,\nfor their follies.'\n\nBut I ought to say that during these proceedings the people in the\ncourt, of juster feeling than the magistrates, frequently expressed\ntheir disapprobation of the speeches made to me.\n\nMr. Capper's assertion that I was only actuated by a love of notoriety,\nwere just the words to do me injury. The respectable people near, and\nthe intelligent people at a distance, would believe the magistrate and\ndisbelieve the sceptic, who had no friends to rebut the imputation. The\nvulgar bearing of this brutal old man lingered long in my memory as the\nmost distinct thing of these proceedings. I should have thought less\nof it had it not come from an old man. The aged always inspire me with\nreverence, in their kindly aspects. They are the links which nature\nperpetuates between old time and our time--the human chroniclers of an\nexperience the young can never know. They have followed the hearse of\nthe old world, and are the legatees of Time, who has bequeathed to them\nhis secrets and his conquests, which they in their turn distribute to\nus. When living at Islington, in 1848, I frequently passed, but not\nwithout sadness, nor sometimes without tears, an old man who stood near\nthe Merlin's Cave to beg. He resembled one whom I cannot name. I could\nsee on his brow the fresh traces of a struggle still going on between\ndignity and destitution. And I often gave him the price of the biscuit\nintended for my dinner, in the secret hope we all have in a kind act\nthat some one else may repeat it to those we love; and I indulged the\nhope that others might approach with the same respectful feelings him\nto whom I have alluded, if ever, with untamed pride and broken heart,\nhe should stand in his grey hairs on the high way to beg--which I have\ndreaded through so many years.\n\nWhen taken back to the station-house, Captain Lefroy, who was at the\nhead of the police, introduced me to Mr. Pinching, surgeon of the same\ncorps. The captain, in a gentlemanly way, inquired if I would allow\nMr. Pinching to reason with me on my opinions? I said, 'Certainly.'\nMr. Pinching asked me the irrelevant question 'Did I believe in Jesus\nChrist?' and began a dry, historical argument to prove that there was\nthe same evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ as for that of Henry\nthe Fourth. I said, 'The argument is unnecessary with me. I do not care\nto argue whether he existed or not. My inquiry is not whether he lived,\nbut what he _said._' Mr. Pinching's next speech was delivered with an\nair of sharp authority, and he began to address me rather rudely.\n\nHe asked me was it not Robert Owen who made me an atheist? I replied,\nMr. Owen himself was not an atheist. For myself, I had not become\nso till after the imprisonment of Mr. Southwell, which had led me to\ninquire into the grounds of religious opinion more closely than I had\nbefore done, and it had ended in my entire disbelief.\n\nMr. Pinching now became impatient and abusive, allowing me no\nopportunity of replying, and I said 'Stop! stop! sir, you must not treat\nme as a prisoner if you intend me to hear you. Unless you converse with\nme upon equal terms I shall not answer you.' Lefroy laughed, and said,\n'Come! come! Pinching, I think you are not quite fair. After this Mr.\nPinching became more abusive, and I turned away--when he ended the\nconversation by saying, 'I am only sorry the day is gone by when we\ncould send you and Owen of Lanark to the stake instead of to Gloucester\ngaol.'\n\nNot allowed to wait twenty-four hours to see if I could obtain bail,\nI was soon after sent off to Gloucester, nine miles away, the same\nafternoon, where the difficulty of negotiating my release was so much\nincreased that it took me a fortnight to do it.\n\nAfter my conversation with Mr. Pinching I was shut up in a very filthy\nplace with a lousy man. I was handcuffed with small old irons that\npinched my wrists, and I begged to have another pair of handcuffs put\non, which was done: then I was made to walk through Cheltenham town and\nsuburbs, and afterwards through Gloucester city, with the hand irons on.\nAs I had walked thirty miles to be apprehended, they had no reason\nto suspect me of making my escape; nor was it customary to handcuff\nprisoners conveyed to Gloucester on foot. In my case it was done to pain\nand degrade me.\n\nA memorial of a public meeting, sent from the town of Cheltenham to\nthe House of Commons, on this subject, stated 'That notwithstanding Mr.\nHolyoake offered no resistance to any officer or procedure, and was at\nthe same time in very delicate health and much exhausted, yet it was\ndeemed necessary to lock both his hands in irons and make him walk to\nGloucester--a distance of near nine miles--on a most sultry day, but\non the way thither his friends interfered and obtained leave for him to\nride, on condition only that they should pay his expenses as well as the\nexpenses of two policemen to accompany him.' And it may be added that\nthough I sat an hour at the station, waiting for the train, my hands\nwere not unlocked.\n\nThe same memorial also alleged 'That the conduct of the magistrates\nduring the proceedings indicated a predisposition to punish Mr.\nHolyoake, independently of any evidence which he might have offered in\ndefence of his own conduct.'\n\nThe Member for Bath, to whom this memorial was entrusted, paid to it the\nmost generous attention, and immediately returned the following reply:--\n\nLondon, June 23rd, 1842.\n\nSir,--The petition you sent me is of a nature that demands serious\ninquiry, and I thought I should best discharge my duty towards the\npetitioners and Mr. Holyoake by at once addressing myself to Sir James\nGraham. He has very promptly taken up the inquiry, and I have no doubt\nbut that substantial justice will be done. If, however, the petitioners\nshould hereafter deem that justice has not been done, I can present\ntheir petition after the inquiry which has been undertaken by the Home\nSecretary has been closed. I have taken this liberty with the petition\non my own responsibility, hoping that the petitioners will here trust\nto my discretion, and they for the moment will put confidence in\nmy judgment. I will write you word so soon as I hear from the Home\nSecretary, who has now the petition in his hands for the purpose of\nimmediately instituting a searching inquiry.\n\nI am, sir, your obedient servant,\n\nMr. H. Fry. J. A. Roebuck.\n\nThe committal the police bore with them was to the following effect:--\n\n[Gloucestershire to wit.]--To all and every of the constables and other\nofficers of the peace for the said county, and to the keeper of the gaol\nat Gloucester in the said county--\n\nWhereas George Jacob Holyoake is now brought before us, three of Her\nMajesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the said county, and charged,\non the oaths of James Bertram and William Henry Pearce, with having, on\nthe twenty-forth day of May last, at the parish of Cheltenham in\nthe said county, wickedly and profanely uttered, made use of, and\nproclaimed, in the presence of a public assembly of men, women, and\nchildren, then and there assembled, certain impious and blasphemous\nwords against God, and of and concerning the Christian religion, to wit,\n'That he was of no religion at all,' and 'that he did not believe there\nwas such a thing as a God,' and 'that if he could have his way he would\nplace the Deity on half-pay, as the government of this country did the\nsubaltern officers,' against the peace of our lady the Queen, her crown\nand dignity. And whereas we, the said justices, have required the said\nGeorge Jacob Holyoake to become bound in the sum of one hundred pounds,\nand to find two sufficient sureties in the sum of fifty pounds each,\nconditioned for the appearance of the said George Jacob Holyoake at the\nnext Quarter Sessions of the peace, to be holden at Gloucester, in\nand for the said county, and then and there to answer to any bill of\nindictment that may be preferred against him for his said offence, which\nhe hath neglected to do.\n\nThese are therefore in Her Majesty's name to command you, and every of\nyou the said constables, forthwith safely to convey and deliver into the\ncustody of the keeper of the said gaol the body of the said George Jacob\nHolyoake.\n\nAnd you, the said keeper, are hereby required to receive the said George\nJacob Holyoake into your said custody, and him safely keep until\nthe said next general Quarter Sessions of the peace, to be holden at\nGloucester, in and for the said county, or until he become bound and\nfinds such sureties as aforesaid, or until he shall be thence delivered\nby due course of law. And for your so doing this shall be to you and\nevery of you a sufficient warrant.\n\nGiven under our hands and seals the third day of June, in the year of\nour Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty-two.\n\nRobt. Capper, J. B. Newell, Joseph Overbury.\n\nTwenty-four hours' notice of bail to be given.\n\nI hereby certify that the above is a true 'copy' of a warrant, by virtue\nof which the within named George Jacob Holyoake was brought into custody\nthe 3rd day of June, 1842. Witness my hand,\n\nThomas Moore, Clerk to the county gaol of Gloucester.\n\n\nSome of the magistrates characterised the speech for which I was\ncommitted as 'Felony,' 'a breach of the peace,' etc., and I was told\nthat my committal was made out for 'felony.' Serious comments were made\nthereupon by the public. Able strictures on the subject were made by\n'Philo Publicola,' in the _Weekly Dispatch_. But the magistrates grew\nwiser as they grew cooler, and on the copy of the committal subsequently\nfurnished to me, the charge of felony did not appear.\n\nA very curious circumstance deserves mentioning here. The magistrates\nbeing censured in the House of Commons for their 'irregularities' in my\ncase (as will be explained in my defence further on) an attempt was\nmade to fix the blame on Mr. Russell, superintendent of the police.\nThis induced me to address the following letter to the editor of the\n_Cheltenham Free Press_:--\n\nSir,--Observing an attempt has been made in Parliament by the Hon.\nCraven Berkley to fix the blame of my 'harsh treatment' on the\nconstables of your town, and to implicate Superintendent Russell, I beg\nto say that after my committal I never saw Mr. Russell, and never once\nsaid, or suspected, that the harshness exercised towards me, while\nostensibly in his custody, originated with him. His courtesy to me on\nthe night of my apprehension, of which I retain a lively sense, forbids\nsuch a conclusion.\n\nI shall be glad if you will insert this in your next number. I can never\nconsent to purchase public sympathy by a silence which may unjustly\nsacrifice any person's interest. I was justified in making the\ncomplaints I have, but would rather they were for ever unredressed than\nthat an innocent man should suffer.\n\nBirmingham, July 30, 1842. G. Jacob Holyoake.\n\nSoon after Mr. Russell left the corps, and appears to have been offered\nup by the magistrates as a sacrifice for the irregularities _they_ had\ncommitted.\n\nOn my arrival my pockets were searched, and even my pocket-book and\nletters taken from me. This I felt not only as an indignity, but also as\na breach of faith. Before leaving Cheltenham, and when in communication\nwith my friends, I inquired if my papers would be taken from me at\nGloucester, and the officers answered 'No,' (but they must have known\ndifferently). Trusting their answer, however, I brought with me papers I\nshould not otherwise have brought. Perhaps I was fevered after my walk,\nbut the cell I was put into gave me a new sense. There had been times\nwhen I had wished for a sixth sense, but this was not the sense I\ncoveted, for it was a sense of suffocation. The bed was so filthy that\nI could not lie down, and sat on the side all night. When taken into the\ngeneral room next morning the prisoners surrounded me, exclaiming,' What\nare ye come for?' As I made no reply, another observed, 'We always\ntells one another,' 'Oh! blasphemy,' I replied. 'What's that,' said one.\n'Aren't you 'ligious?' said another.\n\nBut as these rustics were happily unacquainted with doctrinal piety,\nthey said nothing rude; and seeing my loaf unbroken, and that I could\nnot eat, 'Here,' said four or five at once, 'will you have some of this\ntea, zir?'--which was mint-tea, the reward of some extra work, and the\nnicest thing they had to offer.\n\nWhen the chaplain of the gaol, the Rev. Robert Cooper, came to see me,\nI told him that before I took anything from him for my soul, I wanted\nsomething from him for my defence; and I demanded my note book and\npapers. Mr. Samuel Jones, a visiting magistrate, brought me a few pencil\nnotes which I had made during my examination in Cheltenham and some\nprivate papers, but he withheld many others relating to matters of\nopinion, saying that _he_ 'did not think them necessary to my defence.'\nThe clergyman has a veto on all books admitted, and of a list which\nI gave him, which I wanted to read for my trial, he only allowed me\nthirteen. He said the others 'were of an unchristian character,' and\nhe could not let me have them. 'I told him I was not going to make an\northodox defence. He would not relax, so I would not have any spiritual\nconsolation, and we lived on very indifferent terms.\n\nOne day Mr. Bransby Cooper, and Mr. Samuel Jones (just mentioned), both\nold magistrates, came to visit me. Mr. Jones, I was told, had at one\ntime been a preacher among the Methodists. He told me he would be kind\nto me, but all his kindness was religious kindness--the worst kindness\nI have ever experienced. I was then the sole occupant of the Queen's\nevidence side of the prison, a place I had chosen as I preferred to be\nalone. I had a large yard and all the cells to myself. In this solitary\nplace these magistrates visited me. After teazing me with Leslie for a\nlong time, Mr. Bransby Cooper concluded thus--'Now! Holyoake, you are\na Deist--are you not?' I shook my head. 'You cannot be an atheist,' he\ncontinued, 'you don't look like one.' He said this, I suppose, seeing no\nhorns on my head, and no eyes on my elbows, as he expected. I answered\nthat I felt very unpleasantly how much I was in their power, and had\ntherefore some reason to desire to oblige them. Though sorry to say what\nmight outrage them or look like obstinacy, yet out of respect to my own\nconscience I must say that I _was_ an atheist. Upon these they both flew\ninto indignant revulsions, and shouted 'a fool! a fool!' till the roof\nrang. Capt. Mason (the governor), who accompanied them, turned away\na few paces, with the air of one not caring to be witness of so much\nrudeness.\n\n     * See Report of Gloucester Trinity Sessions in the county\n     papers of that period.\n\nBefore leaving they said of course I should employ counsel to defend\nme. I answered, 'No, I should defend myself as well as I was able.\nBarristers were not good at stating a case of conscience.' They urged,\nthey even coaxed me to abandon the idea of defending myself; but finding\nme not to be deterred, they threatened me that it would aggravate my\ncase--reminded me of Hone and others, and said that the judge would put\nme down and not hear me. This menace, as will be seen hereafter, did me\ngreat harm. They reported my determination at the Trinity Sessions as\nthough it was a matter desirable to be averted.\n\nMr. Bransby Cooper was a brother of Sir Astley Cooper. He was formerly\nmember for Gloucester, and when he suspected that I did not regard his\ndignity sufficiently, he would slide in some remark about 'his\nfriend' Sir James Graham, who was then Secretary of State for the Home\nDepartment. Bransby Cooper was the senior magistrate at this time--a man\nof venerable and commanding aspect, generous to a fault in matters of\nhumanity, harsh to a fault in matters of religion. On his way through\nthe city, old women would way-lay him to beg. First raising his stick\nagainst them--then threatening to commit them as vagrants--they fled\nfrom him in mock terror, but knowing the generous feelings of the man\nthey returned again, and before he reached home he would empty his\npockets among them. One minute he would growl at me like an unchained\ntiger--the next he would utter some word of real sympathy, such as came\nfrom no one else, and at the end of my imprisonment I parted from him\nwith something of regret. He had the voice of Stentor, and though at\nfirst his savage roar shook me, at last I acquired an artistic liking\nfor it, and his voice was so grand that I came to the conclusion that\nhe had a natural right to be a brute. The old man, after his fashion,\nlaboured very hard for my conversion. His son Robert was chaplain of the\ngaol, and had I happily been brought over, the old man would have\ngiven the credit to his boy. My conversion was thus a sort of family\nspeculation.\n\nThose who sent me to prison in default of bail, took care to make\nbail impossible to me by intimidating those who would have become my\nsureties, and after two weeks' anxiety I was obliged to accept the\ngenerous offer of two friends in Worcester--James Barnes and John Dymond\nStevenson--to come from that city and enter into recognizances for\nme, and I was indebted to them for my liberation, after sixteen days'\nimprisonment.\n\nSo near was my trial upon my release that I had to return to Gloucester\nwithin a fortnight. A great desire of my youth had been to see London.\nWhen I found myself suddenly shut up in gaol, in prospect of an\nindefinite term of imprisonment, which in my then state of health might\nprove fatal, my sole remorse was that I had never seen that city of\nmy dreams. Once again at liberty I made a short visit to my family in\nBirmingham, and the next week found me in London.\n\nChafed and sad, with tremulous heart and irresolute step, it seems but\nyesterday that I walked through Woburn Place into the city in which I\nnow write. Its streets, its pride, its magnificence enthralled me, and\nits very poverty fascinated me because nearer to my destiny. Savage and\nJohnson had walked those squares houseless, and why not I. Chatterton\nhad perished in a garret, and garrets had something sacred in them.\nSolitary in that two million multitude, I was hardly known to any one\nin it, yet when I remembered that I was in London I felt an enchanted\ngladness, and in all vicissitudes of fortune and chequered struggles\nwith fate, I have walked its magical streets with undimmed joy, and it\nis to me still a fairy land, whose atmosphere of enchantment feels as if\nit would never leave me.\n\nHow sweetly, how gratefully to me (as words never read before) came the\nnotice the _Weekly Dispatch_ gave of my first lecture in London. All\nthe night before I had sat up with Ryall, answering correspondence and\nconcerting my defence. When I reached the Rotunda it was more fitting\nthat I should have found a bed there than a rostrum, for when I rose to\nspeak I was weak as well as timid. To succeed in any way in London was\nmore than I ventured to expect, and the nature of the report in the\n_Weekly Dispatch_ inspired me with the hope of at least being tolerated.\n\nI hastened back to Gloucester. Either a Secretary of State's order, or\na Bill had come into operation, I was never correctly informed which,\nremoving my trial from the Sessions to the Assizes, which gave me an\nimpartial Judge to determine my case. At a Sessions' trial the parties\nwho had caused my imprisonment, and the magistrates who had shown\nthemselves my personal opponents, would have sat on the Bench to try me.\nThough unable to proceed with my trial after having committed me, they\nput me to the expense of bringing my bail from Worcester, and charged me\nL1 9s. for renewing my sureties.\n\nMy arrest caused a demand for atheistical publications in Cheltenham,\nwhich Mr. George Adams, partly as a friend to the free publication of\nopinion and partly from personal friendship to me, undertook to supply.\nIn this he was joined by his wife, Harriet Adams, a very interesting\nand courageous woman. On Monday evening, June 13th, at a public meeting\ncalled to consider the grounds of my own apprehension, Mr. George Adams\nwas arrested for selling No. 25 of the _Oracle_, and forthwith conveyed\nto the station-house. As soon as a knowledge of the arrest came to the\nears of Mrs. Adams, she went to the station-house to see her husband,\nwhen she, likewise, was served with a warrant for selling No. 4. Mrs.\nAdams says, (the account cannot be better rendered than in her own\nwords) 'I went to see my husband at the station-house, when I was\ndetained; a policeman was sent home with me to fetch my infant, and\nI had to leave four at home in bed. The man that went with me to the\nstation was a rude fellow; he was quite abusive to me, telling me I\nshould be locked up from my husband; saying, it was quite time such\nthings were put a stop to. When we arrived at the station-house he would\nhave locked me in a cell with drunken women, had I not sat down in the\nyard and insisted on seeing the superintendent, who then allowed me to\nsit up in a kitchen, where policemen were coming in and out all night.\nMy husband was much troubled on my account.' The four children were left\nlocked up in the house alone.\n\nMr. Bubb's speech, when Adams was brought up, is so curious a relic of\nprovincial barbarism that I preserve it, or those who are told of it in\ntime to come will regard the story as some malicious fiction. Mr. Bubb\nopened the charge by justifying himself and clients--'It has been said\nthat we are prosecuting here for the entertaining of opinions merely.\nThat proposition I deny. The entertaining of opinions is not opposed to\nlaw if people keep them to, themselves. If they step out of the way, and\nseek to propagate them by undermining the institutions of the country,\nby denying the existence of a God, by robbing others of \"the hopes set\nbefore them,\" without offering the flimsiest pretext, it is the duty of\nall to prevent this. Such is the opinion of those gentlemen who set on\nfoot these proceedings, and no clamour of persecution will prevent them\nfrom doing what they believe to be their duty. And if there are any here\npresent disposed to take up this unfortunate trade, I would assure them\nthat as long as the law punishes, and the magistrates uphold the law, so\nlong will they bring offenders to justice. So long as men say there\nis no God, or that the religion of the state is a farce and a fallacy,\nthese gentlemen will not be deterred by any clamour.' If this threat\nwere carried out the magistrates on every Bench would have constant\nemployment--especially if they would undertake, as Mr. Bubb appeared to\npromise, to ascertain whether or not we had the 'flimsiest pretext' to\noffer in defence of the course we took.\n\nAdams and his wife were committed to take their trials at the\nSessions--in the wife's case it was purely vexatious, as there was\nno one bound over to prosecute her. Yet Adams, nearly blind from an\ninflammation of the eyes, and his wife with her child in her arms, were\nkept several days in attendance at Gloucester--though the same law which\nprevented the court proceeding in my case, prevented the court from\ntrying the Adamses. In further aggravation of loss, L1 17s. 6d. were\ndemanded for discharge of bail and entering new sureties--nor was time\nallowed to fetch the bail (after they were demanded) from Cheltenham,\nthe clerk announcing that they would be estreated at once. Upon this I\ndirected Mr. and Mrs. Adams to go into court and say they were prepared\nto take their trial _then_, and there was no occasion to estreat the\nproperty of their friends. Time was then allowed.\n\nMrs. Adams was never tried. Mr. Adams's trial took place at Gloucester\nassizes, immediately before my own.\n\nThe passage from No. 25 of the _Oracle_, for which Adams was\nindicted, was written by my friend Mr. Chilton, who was outraged at my\nimprisonment, and ran as follows:--\n\nWhat else could be expected of men who deify a real or imaginary\nindividual, a compound of ambition and folly, of mock humility and\nrampant tyranny; who, though called the 'Prince of Peace,' declared he\ncame to bring a sword in the world? This hellish mission he performed to\nperfection, for never since his time has blood and misery ceased to flow\nfrom his dogmas and mysteries.\n\nAs I was very anxious to save Adams from consequences which he incurred\nthrough friendship to me, I advised him to let Mr. Thompson defend him.\nThis gentleman began by sympathising with all the disgust invented\nby the counsel who opened the prosecution, and he ended by expressing\nAdams's sorrow and contrition for what he had done--a contrition which\nhe did not feel, and would rather have undergone much imprisonment than\nhave had it said that he did. During the whole of the trials arising out\nof the _Oracle_, Mr. Ralph Thomas, barrister, was the only counsel\nwho defended us in court without sacrificing us. Taking warning by Mr.\nThompson's example, I made it a rule to advise all our friends to defend\nthemselves, and where unaccustomed to public speaking, to write a brief\ndefence in their own language, and after some legal friend had revised\nit, to read it to the court. We do not want lawyers to defend our\nopinions, those opinions not being their own, but we want them simply\nto maintain our right to publish what are to us important convictions.\nInstead of this they commonly agree with the crown that we are criminal\nfor having a conscience, and then, in our name, recant with 'contrition'\nthe opinions which we go into court to maintain.\n\nAdams's sentence was delivered in the following words by Mr. Justice\nErskine:--'George Adams, you have been convicted of the offence of\npublishing a blasphemous libel, and the libel which was proved to have\nbeen published by you was one of a most horrid and shocking character.\nWhatever a man's opinions may be, he can have no right to give vent to\nthem in that language. If there was evidence to prove that you were the\nauthor, or that you were engaged as an active disseminator, I should\nhave thought it my duty to have inflicted on you a very serious\nimprisonment. Although by the law of this country every man has a right\nto express his sentiments in decent language, he has no business to make\nuse of such shocking language as this. But you have expressed, through\nyour counsel, contrition; and trusting that this is the general feeling\nof your mind, I shall not think it necessary to pass on you a severe\nsentence this time. But if you ever offend again, it will then be known\nthat you are determined to persevere, and it will be seen whether the\nlaw is not strong enough to prevent it. The sentence of the court\nis, that you be _imprisoned in the Common Gaol of this county for one\ncalendar month._\n\nI was with Adams during the term of his imprisonment, and although his\nlosses and the privations of his family were great, he never uttered a\nmurmuring word. From first to last he behaved well, and Mrs. Adams, as\nwomen usually do, behaved better.\n\nIt is worthy of remark that when a gentleman deposed that the character\nof Mr. Adams 'was a pattern of morality,' Mr. Justice Erskine told the\njury that 'had Adams committed a robbery such a character might have\nweight, but in extenuation of religious offence it was of no service.'\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. THE TRIAL\n\nThe Assizes opened on the 6th of August, 1842, but my case did not come\non till the 15th, Mr. Knight Hunt (the author of the 'Fourth Estate')\nwas the gentleman engaged to report my trial. As the judge was informed\nthat I intended to defend myself he resolved to take my case last. This\ncaused the assizes to extend into a second week. Saturday came before\nthe calendar was exhausted, and as there was no knowing whether my trial\ncould be gone through in a day, the fear of trespassing on Sunday led to\nthe court's being ordered to open on Monday, to the annoyance of javelin\nmen kept there unexpectedly, to jury men who had left tills, ploughs,\nand orange baskets unprotected--and not least to my prosecutors, who saw\nwith some consternation some L200 added to the county expenses, for in\nCheltenham bigotry is greatly preferred when it is _cheap_.\n\nIf ignorance would look upon its own degradation, let it spend a few\nhours in an assize court. One trial I witnessed was of two men for an\noffence which indeed arose out of depravity, but the depravity arose out\nof bad training and vicious circumstances. The oldest man, between forty\nand fifty, was sentenced to transportation for life to Norfolk Island,\nthe most ferocious sentence an English judge can pronounce. When the man\nheard it, he bowed in genuine and awkward humbleness, and said, as\nhe made a rustic bow to the bench, '_Thank'ee, my Lord!_' Such abject\nhumiliation of spirit I had never conceived before. Ignorance never\nappeared to me so frightful, so slavish, so blind, as on this occasion.\nUnable to distinguish a sentence passed upon him from a service done\nhim, he had been taught to bow to his pastors and masters, and he bowed\nalike when cursed as when blessed. The measured contempt with which the\nwords were spoken by the judge which blasted the man's character for\never--the scorn with which he was thrust out of the pale of society,\nnever again to know freedom or reputation, made no impression on his\ndark and servile soul. That appalling weight of infamy falling on his\nhead and on the heads of his children--for which he might justly\nhave cursed society--only elicited from him a 'Thank'ee, my Lord!' If\nignorance would see its own degradation, would feel the incalculable\ndepth of its abjectness, let it sometimes sit for instruction in an\nassize court.\n\nThe preliminary proceedings at the trial I shall render as Mr. Hunt gave\nthem, in the third person--adding what, from various causes, was omitted\nat the time.\n\nOn the morning of the trial the Court-house at Gloucester was very\ncrowded. Many ladies were present from all parts of the county: the\nwives of clergymen, and some of the nobility, were among them, attracted\nby curiosity, and by the opportunity which might never occur to them\nagain of hearing, without loss of caste, a little heresy defended in\nperson. The audience continued undiminished till ten o'clock at night.\n\nAs the name of George Jacob Holyoake was called, he advanced and entered\nthe dock. Mr. Ogden, the turnkey in charge of prisoners, directed him\nwith the usual air of official impatience to take his place at the bar.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Do not be in a hurry. First hand me my books.\n\nMr. Ogden. (Looking indignantly at a large corded box lying outside the\ndock.) You can't have that box here. You must go to the bar and plead.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Nonsense. Hand me the box.\n\nIt being reluctantly handed up, Mr. Holyoake applied to the judge, Mr.\nJustice Erskine, for the use of a table.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. There is one. (He referred to some boarding behind\nthe bar), and there Mr. Holyoake proceeded to arrange his books and\npapers--although the situation was not advantageous, it being lower than\nthe bar where the prisoners usually stand. Mr. Holyoake employed twenty\nminutes in this operation, and when he had done, the dock resembled,\na young bookseller's stall. Mr. Holyoake then advanced to the bar and\nbowed to the court.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine (who had waited with great patience). Are you ready?\n\nMr. Holyoake replied affirmatively, and the clerk proceeded to read the\nindictment as follows:--\n\n[Gloucester to wit.]--The Jurors for our lady the Queen, upon their\noath, present that George Jacob Holyoake, late of the parish of\nCheltenham, in the county of Gloucester, labourer,* being a wicked,\nmalicious, and evil-disposed person, and disregarding the laws and\nreligion of the realm, and wickedly and profanely devising and intending\nto bring Almighty God, the Holy Scriptures, and the Christian religion,\ninto disbelief and contempt among the people of this kingdom, on the\ntwenty-fourth day of May, in the fifth year of the reign of our lady\nthe Queen, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county\naforesaid, in the presence and hearing of divers liege subjects of our\nsaid lady the Queen, maliciously, unlawfully, and wickedly did\ncompose, speak, utter, pronounce, and publish with a loud voice, of\nand concerning Almighty Gog, the Holy Scriptures, and the Christian\nreligion, these words following, that is to say, 'I (meaning the said\nGeorge Jacob Holyoake) do not believe there is such a thing as a God; I\n(meaning the said George Jacob Holyoake) would have the Deity served as\nthey (meaning the government of this kingdom) serve the subaltern, place\nhim (meaning Almighty God) on half-pay'--to the high displeasure\nof Almighty God, to the great scandal and reproach of the Christian\nreligion, in open violation of the laws of this kingdom, to the evil\nexample of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace\nof our lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.\n\n     * It was pure invention that described me as a' labourer.'\n     It was a term of degradation in the county, and therefore\n     employed--my profession was that of a Mathematical Teacher.\n\nMr. Holyoake pleaded _Not Guilty_, and applied to have the names of the\njury called over singly and distinctly.\n\nMr. Alexander, counsel for the prosecution, said the offence being only\na misdemeanour, the defendant had no right to challenge.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. Of course not, unless reasons are given in each\ncase.\n\nClerk. The name of John Lovesey is first.\n\nMr. Holyoake. I object to Lovesey. He sat on the bench when I was before\nthe magistrates at Cheltenham, and approved the proceedings against me.\nHe is not disinterested in this matter.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine said that was not sufficient reason for challenging.\n\nLoresey declared he 'shuddered at the crime of the prisoner,' and after\nsome further conversation, the judge having observed it was 'as well to\ngo,' Lovesey left the box.\n\nMr. Holyoake. In the case of Mr. Southwell he was allowed to challenge.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. I am not bound by the Recorder of Bristol.\n\nThe names of the other jurors having been called over, Mr. Holyoake\nobjected to one on the ground of his being a farmer, and from his\nprofession not likely to be acquainted with the nature of the question\nat issue.*\n\nMr. Justice Erskine said he could not sit there to listen to such\nobjections. Mr. Holyoake saying he had no objection to urge which his\nlordship would allow, 'seven farmers, one grocer, one poulterer,\none miller, one nondescript shopkeeper, and one maltster, were then\nimpaneled to ascertain whether one George Jacob Holyoake had had a\nfight with Omnipotence, whether he had done his utmost to bring the\nDeity into contempt, whether he had fought Omnipotence with force of\narms, and had spoken against it or him with a loud voice.'**\n\n     * A poulterer is called upon, under oath, to decide this\n     great theological and philosophical question that has\n     agitated the world for so many hundred centuries.......To\n     make a poulterer a sovereign judge of theology is on a par\n     with making the Archbishop of Canterbury a judge of\n     poultry.--Weekly Dispatch, August 18. 1842. [It has been\n     objected to this that very likely his Grace of Canterbury is\n     a very good judge of poultry.]\n\n     ** 'Publicola's' second letter to Judge Erskine.--Weekly\n     Dispatch, Sep 18, 1842\n\nThe following is the list of the jury:--\n\nThomas Gardiner, grocer, Cheltenham, Foreman.\n\nJames Reeve, farmer, Chedworth.\n\nWilliam Ellis, farmer, Chedworth.\n\nAvery Trotman, farmer, Chedworth.\n\nWilliam Mathews, poulterer, Cheltenham.'\n\nSimon Vizard, shopkeeper, Oldland. Isaac Tombs, farmer, Whitcomb.\nWilliam Wilson, maltster, Brimpsfield. Edwin Brown, farmer, Withington.\nBevan Smith, farmer, Harescomb. William Smith, miller, Rarnwood. Joseph\nShipp, farmer, Yate.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Can I have a copy of the indictment?\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. I had one made for you in consequence of your\napplication to the court last week.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Yes, my lord, but after I had thanked you for your\ncourtesy in so doing, I was asked 8s. 6d. for it by (not being able to\ncall him by his name, Mr. Holyoake said) that sour looking gentleman\nthere, (pointing to the clerk of the court, an individual as dusty\nand as forbidding as an old penal statute, and who always spoke to\nMr. Holyoake like one. The court laughed, the judge frowned, the clerk\nlooked indignant, but before censure could fall, Mr. Holyoake escaped\ninto the next sentence, adding), after the numerous exactions I\nwas subjected to at the sessions, after being brought here by the\nmagistrates and then not tried, I did not think myself justified in\npaying any more, and the clerk refused it me.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. I ordered a copy to be made for you, but did not\nthink it necessary that you should have it on any other than the usual\nconditions.*\n\nMr. Holyoake. Can I be allowed to read the indictment against me?\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. Certainly.\n\nThe clerk then handed a copy to Mr. Holyoake, who on observing the\ncounsel for the prosecution rise, left the bar and placed himself where\nhe could face Mr. Alexander, with a view to take notes. The judge very\ncourteously asked if Mr. Holyoake desired note-paper and pens, which he\naccepted, and:\n\nMr. Alexander said--Gentlemen of the jury: The defendant at the bar is\nindicted, not for writing, but for speaking and uttering certain wicked\nand blasphemous words. This person is not, as in the case previously\nbrought before your attention,** the _vendor_, but he is the _author_\nof the blasphemy. From the coincidence of words, he is the editor-Mr.\nJustice Erskine. You must not proceed in that way. You must not assume--\n\n     * This copy of Indictment occupied not quite one sheet of\n     paper, for which eight shillings and sixpence were asked!\n\n     **That of George Adams.\n\nMr. Alexander. I am aware, my lord, that I may not assert the identity\nof the defendant with the work alluded to--I was only going to draw the\nattention of the gentlemen of the jury to the coincidence of the words.\nBut I will proceed with my case. The defendant, on the 24th of May last,\nissued placards for a lecture to be delivered in Cheltenham. In these\nplacards he announced, not the diabolical, the dreadful topics which he\ndescanted upon, not anything which would lead the reader to imagine or\nexpect what really took place--but he gave out his subject as a lecture\nupon Home Colonisation, Emigration, and the Poor Laws. Mark this,\ngentlemen of the jury. Had he given in his announcements any hint\nof what was to take place, his end might have been defeated, and no\naudience attracted to listen to the blasphemous expressions you have\nheard set out in the indictment. But he did obtain an audience, a\nnumerous audience, and then declared that the people were too poor\nto have a religion--that he himself had no religion--that he did not\nbelieve in such a thing as a God; and--though it pains me to repeat the\nhorrible blasphemy--that he would place the Deity upon half-pay. I shall\ncall witnesses to prove all this, and then it will be for you to say\nif he is guilty. It may be urged to you that these things were said\nin answer to a question, that the _inuendoes_ must be made out.\n_Inuendoes!_ I should think it an insult to the understandings of\ntwelve jurymen--of twelve intelligent men--to call witnesses to prove\ninuendoes: but I shall place the case before you, and leave it in\nyour hands. I am sure I need not speak, I need not dilate upon the\nconsequence of insulting that Deity we are as much bound, as inclined,\nto reverence. He then called James Bartram--who said: I am a printer at\nCheltenham, employed upon the _Cheltenham Chronicle_; attended the\nlecture of defendant, just after nine o'clock; there were about one\nhundred persons present of both sexes; the placard announced 'Home\nColonisation, Emigration, Poor Laws Superseded;' heard a man put a\nquestion to Mr. Holyoake; he said,' The lecturer has been speaking of\nour duty to man, but he has said nothing as regards our duty towards\nGod.' Prisoner replied, 'I am of no religion at all--I do not believe in\nsuch a thing as a God. The people of this country are too poor to have\nany religion. I would serve the Deity as the government does the\nsubaltern--place him on half-pay.' He was the length of the room off;\nI heard him distinctly; he spoke in a distinct voice.\n\nCross-examined by Mr. Holyoake. You say I said the people were too poor\nto have any religion; will you state the reasons I gave? Witness. I can\ngive the substance, if not the words; 'you said, 'The great expense of\nreligion to the country.'\n\nMr. Holyoake. I will thank you to state the other reasons?\n\nWitness. I don't recollect any other reason*\n\nMr. Holyoake. Now, you have sworn the words are blasphemous--\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. No, he has not.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Will you state if the words are blasphemous?\n\nMr. Justice Erskine said such a question could only be put through him.\nHe then put the question--do you consider the words blasphemous?\n\nWitness. I do.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Why do you think them blasphemous?\n\nWitness. Because they revile the majesty of heaven, and are calculated\nto subvert peace, law, and order; and are punishable by human law,\nbecause they attack human authority.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Who has instructed you to define blasphemy thus?\n\nWitness. I have not been instructed, it is my own opinion.\n\nMr. Holyoake. At Cheltenham, during my examination before the\nmagistrates, you did not appear to have these notions. Will you swear\nyou have not concocted that answer for this occasion?\n\nWitness. I did not expect such a question would be put; I did not expect\nto be catechised.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Who advised you to attend as a witness? Witness. The\nmagistrates sent for me.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Did you not know before the day of my commitment something\nof this matter?\n\nWitness. There was some 'chaff' in the office about it; that's all I\nheard of it; a policeman was sent from the magistrates for me to give\nthe names of witnesses who were to appear. Don't know why the policeman\ncame to me; don't know his name; no clergyman has spoken to me, that I\nrecollect, upon the subject of this prosecution; not sure of it; several\npersons have spoken to me, cannot say they were clergymen; I do not know\nthe parties who got up the prosecution, or sent the policeman to me; the\nreport was furnished to the paper I work on by another person; I saw\nthe reporter's notes, but not the editor's observations till the galleys\nwere pulled. Mr. Justice Erskine. What do you mean by galleys pulled?\nWitness. Brass slides, my lord.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. You mean, I suppose, till all the types were up?\n\nWitness. Yes, my lord.\n\nCross-examination resumed. Do not know of my own knowledge who made the\nreport; have been ten years in employment at _Chronicle_ office; know it\nwas said in that paper that three witnesses from that office could prove\nwhat had occurred at the lecture; the name of reporter of our paper is\nEdward Wills; I heard your lecture, you said nothing against morality.\nMr. Holyoake. Will you state your opinion of morality? Mr. Justice\nErskine. The question is irrelevant. Mr. Holyoake. Did you think I spoke\nmy honest convictions? Witness. I thought you spoke what you meant; you\nspoke straightforwardly.\n\nThe judge here interposed, to stop Mr. Holyoake from asking as to\nwitness's opinions.\n\nCross-examination resumed--Witness. I should not have lost my situation\nif I had not come forward in this case; in my opinion you spoke\nwickedly, as stated in indictment; I did not notice that you spoke\ncontemptuously when using the word _thing_, but you used the word; there\nwere other words between those used in indictment; they did not, is\nin that document, follow one another; I do not remember the words; you\nspoke of the enormous sums of money spent upon religion, and the poverty\nof the people, and afterwards, and in connection with that, said you\nwould place Deity as government did the subalterns--on half-pay; I have\nbeen a preacher.\n\nRe-examined by Mr. Alexander. I have been uninterruptedly ten years in\nthe same employment; do not give evidence from fear or reward; but from\na sense of duty.\n\nMr. Alexander. That is the case for the prosecution, my lord.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. Now is the time for your defence.\n\nMr. Holyoake. I am not a little surprised to hear that the case for the\nprosecution is closed. I have heard nothing, not one word, to prove the\ncharge in the indictment. There has been adduced no evidence to show\nthat I have uttered words _maliciously_ and _wickedly_ blasphemous. I\nsubmit to your lordship that there is not sufficient evidence before the\nCourt.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. That is for the jury to decide.\n\nMr. Holyoake. I thought, my lord, as the evidence is so manifestly\ninsufficient to prove _malice_, you would have felt bound to direct my\nacquittal.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. It is for the jury to say whether they are\nsatisfied.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Then, Gentlemen of the Jury, it now becomes my duty to\naddress you on the nature of the charge preferred against me, and of the\nevidence by which it is attempted to be supported. When I stood in this\ncourt a week ago, and saw the grand jury with Mr. Grantley Berkeley at\ntheir head as foreman--when I heard his lordship, surrounded by learned\ncounsel, deliver his charge in the midst of persons distinguished for\nlearning, for eloquence, for experience, and for literary attainments--\n\nI then thought, as I now do, that this court could find nobler means\nthan the employment of brute force to counteract anything I could\nattempt--which I never have done--to bring the truly sacred into\ncontempt. I thought I never should be called upon to stand in this dock,\nwith all its polluting and disgusting associations, to answer for mere\nmatters of speculative opinion. I did think that such persons possessed\na sense of the powers of the human mind that would have prevented the\ninterposition of penal judges upon such subjects.\n\nBut to Mr. Grantley Berkeley, as foreman of the grand jury who found\na true bill against me, I beg to draw your attention. Mr. Grantley\nBerkeley, as you are aware, is brother to the member, Mr. C. Berkeley,\nwho attempted to vindicate the conduct of the Cheltenham magistrates\nfrom the allegations against them by Sir James Graham in the House of\nCommons. In the recent case of Mr. Mason, who was taken from a meeting,\nas I was at Cheltenham, by a policeman, illegally, without a warrant,\nthe doctrine was laid down by a cabinet minister, in the House of\nCommons, that if the person so arrested was subsequently found guilty by\na jury, the illegal apprehension was justified. See how this applies\nto my case. I was taken from a public meeting a week after the\nobjectionable words were spoken; was taken by a policeman at near\nmidnight; without a warrant. This was justly deemed illegal. I sat\nin the gallery of the House of Commons when the Hon. Member for Bath\nbrought forward my case, and when Sir James Graham, in reference to\nthe correspondence which had taken place with the magistrates, had the\nfrankness to say, 'there had been serious irregularities and unnecessary\nharshness used in the case of Holyoake.' In this country four thousand\napplications are annually made to the Secretary of State for the Home\nDepartment, and out of that four thousand my case is spoken of as one\nin which serious irregularities had occurred, and unnecessary harshness\nbeen employed. And that amid the numerous affairs of this great empire\nit should have received this distinct notice is presumptive evidence\nthat it contained much that should be corrected. On Thursday, July\n21, the Hon. Mr. C. Berkeley, addressing the Speaker of the House of\nCommons, said, 'I wish to ask the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for\nthe Home Department a question, but in order to make it intelligible to\nthe House, it will be necessary for me to refer to what took place on\nTuesday last. It appears that upon that day the Hon. member for Bath\nstated, \"that as a person named Holyoake had been committed to prison,\nat Cheltenham, in an improper manner, he wished to know whether the\nRight Hon. the Secretary for the Home Department had any objection to\nproduce the correspondence which had taken place upon that subject\"--to\nwhich the Right Hon. Baronet replied that, \"he felt called on in\nthe discharge of his duty to inquire into the circumstances of the\ncommitment in question--he found that serious irregularities had been\ncommitted, and he expressed his opinion to that effect--but as legal\nproceedings were likely to result out of what had occurred, he did not\nthink it would be judicious in the Hon. and learned Gentleman to press\nfor the production of the correspondence.\"...\n\n...The Right Hon. Baronet knows, or at least ought to know, that no such\nimputation could with propriety be cast upon the magistrates, for by the\n3rd section of the 2nd and 3rd of Victoria, commonly called the County\nConstabulary Act, no magistrate or magistrates, in petty sessions\nassembled, can interfere with or control the chief constable, or any\nsub-constable, in the discharge of their duties, as the rules and\nregulations for these all emanate from the office of the Right Hon.\nBaronet. It therefore was exceedingly unfair that these imputations\nshould go forth, and I have therefore now to ask, on behalf of\nthe magistrates, whether the Right Hon. Baronet objects to the\ncorrespondence being printed and circulated with the votes of the house,\nand in case he should object I shall offer it for the perusal of the\nHon. Member for Bath.' Sir James Graham, in reply, said, 'I had no\nintention whatever to cast any imputation on the gentlemen, who that day\nformed the Petty Sessions. My observation more properly applied to\nthe capture of Holyoake, and the unnecessary harshness used in his\nconveyance from the magistrates' office. At the same time I shall object\nto the printing of the correspondence with the votes, as no good result\nwould come from it. Of course the hon. member is at liberty to offer it\nto the Hon. Member for Bath if he chooses--but I repeat, that as legal\nproceedings were pending, I think such course not advisable.'\n\nThis is a most flagrant attempt at justification. The Act the hon.\nmember quoted related to Petty Session magistrates, before whom he knew\nmy case had never come, and of whom, therefore, no complaint could\nhave been made. But Mr. Berkeley had a friendly purpose to serve. The\nmagistrates and their friends have the strongest motives for finding\na true bill against me--and they have motives equally powerful for\ndesiring that your verdict should be 'guilty,' inasmuch as that\nverdict will justify all these 'irregularities'--all the 'unnecessary\nharshness'--will remove from their shoulders all the responsibility\nwhich they incurred by the course they have pursued towards me. Bear in\nmind, gentlemen of the jury, if the rights are to be enjoyed about which\nwe so much glorify ourselves, cases of this kind must not be allowed\nto pass unnoticed. 'Serious irregularities' demand serious notice.\nArbitrary infraction of the liberty of the subject must not receive\nthe sanction of a jury. Recollect that the same course may be pursued\ntowards any one of you, and that if it receives your sanction it will be\nmade a precedent of law--and pernicious may be its influence.\n\nBut I would draw your attention to a printed report of remarks, made by\nhis lordship, in his charge to the grand jury upon my case, I do not for\na moment believe that his lordship had other than fair intentions, but,\nunfortunately, his remarks will have a contrary effect on those who\nhave to judge my case. I have in my hand the _Cheltenham Chronicle_, of\nWednesday last, August 10th, from which I will read. 'These offences,'\nhe said, referring to the cases of blasphemy, 'lay at the root of all\nthe crime which prevailed, and a consideration of the causes out\nof which they sprung pointed to the only efficient remedy for their\nremoval. In the case of Holyoake, his lordship observed that a work\ncalled the _Oracle of Reason_ had been printed and circulated containing\nlanguage which he did not think it right to repeat; language in which\nthe writer traced all the evil which existed in the world, not to the\nreal cause--the evil passions of the human heart--but to the existence\nof Christianity itself. This was followed by the most opprobrious\nlanguage'--\n\nMr. Justice Erskine (interrupting). I never said anything of that\nkind--that printed report is entirely incorrect.\n\nMr. Holyoake. I will read some notes of your lordship's charge, taken\nat the time of its delivery by a reporter. But whether the report in the\n_Chronicle_ is correct or incorrect, it has had its influence in leading\nthe public, and probably this jury, to a prejudgment of my case.\n\n'There are other charges which seem at once to lead the mind to the\nconsideration of the root of all the evil which forms the subject of our\npresent consideration. I allude to two charges of blasphemy. In one the\naccused is said to have sold and published a paper called the _Oracle of\nReason_ containing language which I shall not think it right to read, in\nwhich the writer traces the evils at present existing, not to the evil\npassions of man, but to the existence of Christianity, and follows it\nup with the most opprobrious language to the Saviour and his system,\ncharging him with being the occasion of all the crime and misery which\nprevail. The second charge is against a man who gave a lecture, in the\ncourse of which he discussed the proper way of teaching man his duty\nto his neighbour. A person _suggested_ that he had said nothing about\nteaching man his duty to his God. That led to a statement which shows\nthe folly of the person; and he followed it up by making use of such\nlanguage that, if you believe it was intended to have destroyed the\nreverence for God, he has subjected himself to punishment. There is\nanother thing--he does not appear to have intended to discuss this; but\nif you are convinced that, by what he has said, he intended to bring\nreligion into contempt, he is guilty of blasphemy. If such addresses had\nbeen directed to the educated classes, it might have been thought they\nwould remedy themselves; but when they are delivered among persons\nnot educated, the greatest danger might be expected. It is not by the\npunishment of those who attempt to mislead the ignorant that we can\nhope to cure the evil. If we feel that it is from the ignorance of those\npersons to whom the addresses are delivered that the danger is to be\napprehended, it becomes our imperative duty to teach those persons. Some\npersons have said, \"Instruct the poor in reading and writing, but leave\nthem to learn religion at home.\" But what would you say to a man who\nwould manure his land, and leave it to find seed for itself? It would\nproduce nothing but weeds. I know there is great difficulty in arranging\nany national schools; but, as we are all individually sufferers, I hope\nwe shall join in extending a national religious education, so that all\nmay learn to do right, not from a fear of punishment, but from a far\nnobler motive--the knowledge that offences against the laws are contrary\nto the precepts of the word of God, and hostile to the best interests of\nsociety.'\n\nI fear his lordship may not give me credit for sincerity; but I\ndo assure you, gentlemen of the jury, no one heard _some_ of those\nsentiments with more pleasure than I did. I did not expect so much\nliberality. If such advice had been followed, I should not now be\nstanding here to defend points of a speculative nature. Such errors\nshould be corrected by argument, in the arena of public opinion. Where I\nuttered these words, they should have been refuted. The witness against\nme says he is a preacher; had he no word in answer? could he say no word\nfor his God? No; he, and those who employ and abet him, shrink from the\nattempt, and seek to punish in this dock opinions they cannot refute. Is\nthis a course becoming those who say they have _truth_ on their side?\n\nHis lordship said 'emissaries are going about.' I am no emissary, and\nthe term as applied to me is unjust. I might, even by the admission of\nMr. Bubb, 'undermine' men's religion, go about secretly disseminating my\nopinions, without danger of standing here. But I spoke openly; and you\nwho usually have to punish _dishonesty_, are now called upon to punish\nits non-committal, for a little lying would have saved me from this\ncharge. I have infringed no law, injured no man's reputation, taken no\nman's property, attacked no man's person, broken no promise, violated no\noath, encouraged no evil, taught no immorality--set only an example of\nfree speaking. I was asked a question, and answered it openly. I am\nnot even charged with declaring dogmatically, 'There is no God.' I only\nexpressed an opinion. I should hold myself degraded could I descend to\ninquire, before uttering my convictions, if they met the approval of\nevery anonymous man in the audience. I never forget that other men's\nopinions may be correct--that others may be right as well as myself, I\nhave put forth my own opinions openly, from a conviction of their truth;\nand the sentiments I cannot defend I should scorn like my prosecutors to\ninvoke an attorney-general to protect. I seek a public place, where any\nman may refute me if he can, and convict me as wilful or ignorant. I\nshould think myself degraded if I published secretly. What can we think\nof the morality of a law which requires secret inquiry, which prohibits\nthe _free_ publication of opinion?\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. You must have heard me state the law, that if it be\ndone seriously and decently all men are at liberty to state opinions.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Whatever the law says, if an informer can carry the words\nto persons interested in their suppression--if policemen can be sent\nto apprehend, without warrants, the man who publicly expresses his\nopinions--if he can be handcuffed like a felon, and thrust into a\ngaol--if indictments can be brought against him, and he be put to\nruinous expenses and harassing anxieties, however honest the expression\nof opinion may be--then, I say, this 'liberty-law' is a mockery. But by\nthe word 'decent' is meant 'what those in authority think proper.' There\nshould be no censorship of opinions; but I am told that because I spoke\nto ignorant people, I am criminal. To educated persons, then, I might\nhave said what I did with impunity--\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. I only, after speaking of education, said that an\nhonest man, speaking his opinions decently, was entitled to do so.\n\nMr. Holyoake. There is no evidence to show that my audience were unable\nto distinguish decency and propriety. But it must be already clear\nenough to you, gentlemen of the jury, who have been employed during the\npast week determining violations of the law, that I am placed here for\nhaving been more honest than the law happens to allow. I am unaccustomed\nto address a jury, and I hope to avoid the charge of presumption or\ndogmatism. I have no wish to offend the prejudices of any man in this\ncourt, and have no interest in so doing, when his lordship is armed with\nthe power of the law to punish it. But, while I profess respect for your\nopinions, I must entertain some for my own. There are those here\nwho think religion proper, and that it alone can lead to general\nhappiness--I do not, and I have had the same means of judging. You say\nyour feelings are insulted--your opinions outraged; but what of mine?\nMine, however honest, are rendered liable to punishment. I ask not\nequality of privileges in this respect; I seek not the power of\npunishing those who differ from me--nay, I should disdain its use.\nChristianity claims what she does not allow, although she says 'All men\nare brothers.'\n\nIt is from no disrespect to the bar that I did not give my case into the\nhands of counsel, but because they are unable to enter into my motives.\nThere is a magic circle out of which they will not step; they will argue\nonly what is orthodox; and you would have had no opportunity from them\nof learning my true motives, or seeing the real bearings of this case.*\n\n     * From what subsequently appeared in the _Cheltenham Free\n     Press_, I learned that some of the bar took offence at these\n     remarks; and one revenged himself by describing me, in the\n     _Morning Chronicle_, as 'a wretched-looking creature,\n     scarcely emerging from boyhood, whose wiry and dishevelled\n     hair, \"lip unconscious of the razor's edge,\" and dingy\n     looks, gave him the appearance of\n\nThe author of the paragraph which led to this day's proceedings applied\nto me the epithets of 'wretch,' 'miscreant,' 'monster'--represented me\nas one who discoursed 'devilism.' The _Gloucester Chronicle_ laboured\nto prove that I was a _malicious_ blasphemer, a low German student,\nis evidently, from his pronunciation and language, a most ignorant and\nilliterate character, and no doubt courted the present prosecution tor\nthe sake of notoriety.'\n\nThe Cheltenham Examiner--the editor of which, I understand, is Mr.\nJelinger Symons--draws a parallel between me and the reputed regicide,\nwho has recently shot at the Queen. These are the words:--'Akin to the\noffence for which Holyoake has been committed is the crime for which\nFrancis, also a mere stripling, is likely to forfeit his personal\nliberty, if not his life. The crimes of blasphemy and treason have many\npoints of great similarity, and frequently result from the same causes;\nand it would not be an uninstructive task to trace out the progress of\nthose causes which lead the minds of the unguarded to the extreme points\nwhen they become dangerous to society. Holyoake, the bold assertor\nof the non-existence of a God, did not become an infidel at once; and\nFrancis, the would-be regicide, did not level his pistol at oar beloved\nsovereign without his mind having been acted and prepared by previous\ncircumstances.... In both cases a morbid imagination, an affectation\nof superiority, a contempt for and a dissatisfaction with existing\ninstitutions, and a craving after notoriety, are the primary incentives\nto action,' This ungenerous and offensive parallel was drawn out through\na long leading article. The effect, if not the object, of all this is to\nprejudge my case, to awaken all the bitter prejudices which lurk around\nreligion, and to secure my condemnation before my trial.\n\nAnother paper,* in which justice was done me in some respects, called me\na 'bigot.' I am not a bigot. I do not assume that I alone am right; nor\ndid I speak of Deity, declaring dogmatically his non-existence. I spoke\nonly of my own disbelief in such an existence. Of all _isms_ I think\ndogmatism the worst. I do not judge other men by the agreement of their\nopinions with my own. I believe you consider Christianity a benefit.\nI regret that I feel it is not so, and I claim the privilege of saving\nwhat is true to me. I have ever been ready to acquire correct notions. I\nhave publicly called upon parties whose duty it was to teach me--and who\nwere well paid for teaching--to assist me in sifting out the truth. But\nthey have chosen the strong arm of the law rather than strong argument.\nJean Jacques Rousseau says in his 'Confessions,' 'Enthusiasm for sublime\nvirtue is of little use in society. In aiming too high we are subject to\nfall; the continuity of little duties, well fulfilled, demands no less\nstrength than heroic actions, and we find our account in it much better,\nboth in respect to reputation and happiness. The constant esteem of\nmankind is infinitely better than sometimes their admiration.' As the\nworld goes there is much good sense in this, and I have read it to show\nhow fully I accord with these sentiments. I am not aiming at sublime\nvirtue, but rather at the continuity of little duties well fulfilled. It\nis enough for Me if I can be true and useful.\n\n     * The National Association Gazette.\n\nI was greatly surprised to find the learned gentleman engaged as\nprosecuting counsel had so-little to say in reference to the case\nentrusted to his charge, but I presume it must be attributed to the fact\nthat little could be said upon the subject. All his ingenuity, all his\nlegal skill could not discover an argument at all tenable against me.\nI certainly expected to hear him attempt to prove to you that these\nprosecutions were either useful or necessary, but he could only tell you\nthat my sentiments were very horrible, without adducing proof that his\nassertions were true. He dealt liberally in inuendoes, particularly in\nreference to the placards exhibited previous to the lecture, and the\nmotive for issuing them. But you have been able to glean from his own\nwitness the truth of the matter. I had completed my discourse, which\nwas of a secular character, and was preparing to return home, when one\nMaitland questioned me on the subject of my opinions. I did not get up\na meeting under one pretence to use it for another. I employed no scheme\nto allure an audience to listen to what I did not openly avow, although\nit has been unfairly insinuated that I did so.\n\nWhen I was first apprehended my papers were taken from me. They would\nnot even leave me the papers necessary for my defence, and I do not\nknow what use was made of them, or that this day the information thus\nunfairly obtained may not be employed against me. I will read the\nmemorial on this subject, which I forwarded to the Secretary of State.\n\n'_Memorial of the undersigned George Jacob Holyoake, prisoner in\nGloucester County Gaol, on the charge of Blasphemy, to Sir James Graham,\nHer Majesty's Secretary of State,_\n\n'Shewith,--That your memorialist was committed to this gaol from\nCheltenham, on the vague charge of blasphemy, on June 3rd.\n\n'That in consequence of representations made to him by the police\nauthorities in Cheltenham, your memorialist brought with him to the gaol\nsome private papers, hastily selected, for his defence--and that, on\narriving here, the said papers were seized, and the visiting magistrate\nrefused to allow your memorialist the use of them, or to give them up to\nhis friends to be used for his advantage.\n\n'That, as these papers were brought in confidence that your memorialist\nwould have been allowed to consult his own thoughts in his own\ndefence--and as they are no man's property but his own--and, also,\nas without them your memorialist will not have a fair chance of\ndefence,--he trusts you will order them to be restored to him without\ndelay.\n\n'The offence with which your memorialist stands charged occurred as he\nwas journeying homeward, in a town where he was a comparative stranger.\nConsequently, and owing to great bigotry on religious subjects, your\nmemorialist has been unable to obtain bail, and has suffered fourteen\ndays' imprisonment, which time he has spent in fruitless applications to\nthe authorities here for proper books and papers to prepare his defence.\nOut of a list of thirty-one books submitted for that purpose only\nthirteen are allowed.\n\n'That, as the trial of your memorialist is to take place at the next\nsessions of this county, to be holden on the 28th inst., and he is\nwithout the means of defence or hope of justice, and has a wife and two\nchildren dependent on him for support, he is placed in circumstances of\npeculiar anxiety.\n\n'Hence your memorialist earnestly hopes that you will direct that his\npapers, seized as before mentioned, be immediately restored to him, and\nalso that he be allowed free access to such works and papers as he may\ndeem necessary for his defence, and that without further delay.\n\n'(signed) George Jacob Holyoake.\n\n'County Gaol, Gloucester, June 14, 1842.'\n\nThe papers were _afterwards_ returned; but, had it not been for friends\nin the House of Commons, and in various parts of the country, I should\nhave been deprived of the materials for my defence. Public opinion did\nfor me that which Christian charity refused.*\n\n     *  At the Gloucester Trinity Sessions, Mr. R. B. Cooper\n     stated, in contradiction of the prayer of this memorial,\n     that 'as soon as I mentioned that my papers were necessary\n     for my defence they were returned to me.' Mr. S. Jones said\n     he 'took my papers home, and _every one_ I wanted for my\n     trial on the morrow I had given to me.' Both these\n     statements were untrue, and I stated so at the time in the\n     _Cheltenham Free Press_, and my assertion was never\n     impugned.\n\nStrong prejudices exist against me as being a Socialist. Your local\nnewspapers have denounced me on this ground. To show that I deserve no\ncondemnation on this account I shall draw your attention to the nature\nof Socialism. I have here a little book, stated to be published by the\n'Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.' If it had been stated to be\na 'society' for disseminating 'malicious knowledge' the title-page would\nhave been correct--for a more gross series of misrepresentations were\nnever strung together. If what it says of Socialism were true, then I\nmight be abused; but Socialism as I have learned or explained it, would\nnever lead to the injury of peace or the disturbance of public order.\nThe first paragraph of Godwin's 'Political Justice' is an epitome\nof Socialism as developed in this country hitherto s it is 'an\ninvestigation concerning that form of political society, that system\nof intercourse and reciprocal action extending beyond the bounds of\na single family, which shall be found most conducive to the _general_\nbenefit--how may the peculiar and independent operation of each\nindividual in the social state most effectually be preserved--how\nmay the security each man ought to possess as to his life, and the\nemployments of his faculties according to the dictates of his own\nunderstanding, be most certainly defended from invasion--how may\nthe individuals of the human species be made to contribute most\nsubstantially to general improvement and happiness.' But I shall\nnot content myself with one authority; and to avoid the charge of\npresumption, I have gathered much of my defence from other men's\nwritings, and shall make them speak for me.\n\nSocialists have been declared to have dangerous metaphysical notions.\nThe whole question has been expressed by the poet-philosopher Goethe in\nfour lines, translated by Ebenezer Elliott, thus--\n\n     How like a stithy is this land!\n     And we lie on it, like good metal\n     Long hammer'd by a senseless hand;\n     But will such thumping make a kettle?\n\nMeaning that senseless hammering and senseless legislation could\nneither make the dull iron into a kettle, nor a vicious people into\nan enlightened nation. Socialism says, all men have in them the true\nmetal--the elements of goodness, which all governments are responsible\nfor moulding. Socialism proposes to substitute other means than\npunishments for the prevention of crime, and that you may not think\nthese chimeras of my own, I will read you the opinion of a Lord Cardinal\nto a certain High Chancellor of England, Sir Thomas More, who, in his\n'Utopia.' says, 'When I was in England, the king depended much on his\ncouncils....\n\nOne day when I was dining with him there happened to be at table one of\nthe English lawyers, who took occasion to run out in high commendation\nof the severe execution of justice upon thieves, \"who,\" as he said,\n\"were then hanged so fast that there were sometimes twenty on one\ngibbet!\" and upon that he said, \"he could not wonder enough how it came\nto pass, that since so few escaped there were so many thieves left, who\nwere still robbing in all places.\" Upon this, I (who took the boldness\nto speak freely before the cardinal) said, \"there was no reason to\nwonder at the matter, since this way of punishing thieves was _neither\njust in itself nor good for the public_; for as the severity was too\ngreat, so the remedy was not effectual; simple theft not being so great\na crime, that it ought to cost a man his life: no punishment, how severe\nsoever, being able to restrain those from robbing who can find no other\nway of livelihood. In this (said I) not only you in England but a\ngreat part of the world, imitate some ill masters, that are readier to\nchastise their scholars than teach them. There are dreadful punishments\nenacted against thieves, _but it were much better to make such good\nprovisions by which every man might be put in a method how to live and\nso be preserved from the fatal necessity of stealing, and of dying for\nit._\"' Socialism would try to obtain a remedy for the evils which judges\ngo round year by year lamenting; Socialism would suggest a means of\naffording employment, and thus mitigate the crime which judges and\njuries are called to punish.\n\nSuch objects may be declared chimerical, but surely it is not criminal\nto hope that they can be carried out, and to feel that they ought.\nI could read many other passages to show that under no circumstance\nSocialism merits that character which has been ascribed to it But I do\nnot deem it necessary, as I think I have said enough to prove that. Nor\ndo I want to instil my sentiments, but merely to disabuse your minds of\na prejudice which has been disseminated to my disadvantage.\n\nMy assuming the right of free expression inculcated by Mr. Owen, and\nwhen asked a question, refusing to equivocate, are opposed, it would\nappear, to the laws of this country. But this I have learned from\nSocialism, that there can be no public or private virtue, unless\nthe foundation of action is the practice of truth. Passing through\nCheltenham to pay a visit to a friend, I delivered a lecture. After\nwhich the words were uttered which are here indicted. When I had read\nthe _Cheltenham Chronicle_, in the city of Bristol, I returned to\nCheltenham. If I had been conscious of guilt, should I have returned?\nOn the night of my apprehension marks of kindness were shown me by the\npeople. If I had acted disgracefully, would the people of Cheltenham\nhave met a stranger and showed him marks of esteem and friendship?\nI went to the station-house and remained there all night. When taken\nbefore the magistrates, Mr. Capper told me I was not fit to be reasoned\nwith, because I did not believe in a God, and that it was from a love of\nnotoriety that I acted: but from the love of mere notoriety I have never\nuttered any sentiments, for I hold such conduct in contempt. After I was\ntaken from the magistrates' office, I was treated with contumely at the\npolice-station. Surgeon Pinching, finding me completely in his power,\nsaid he was sorry the days were gone by when I could hold up my head,\nand wished the inquisition could be put in force against such persons\nas myself. I was thrust into a filthy cell, and my hands were bolted\ntogether and the skin pinched off. I was brought to Gloucester on a\nsultry day, and should have been made to walk had not some friends\ninterfered and obtained permission for me to ride, on paying my own fare\nand that of two policemen. There was no indication from my manner that\nI wished to make my escape, and the company of two policemen was\nsufficient to prevent it. It was thought if I was chained like a felon\nand dragged through two towns, it would wound my feelings. If these are\nthe ways in which the truths of Christianity are to be taught, I leave\nyou to judge of them. Two of your magistrates conversed with me, and\nshouted with much rudeness that I was a fool for holding my opinions. I\nnever could have said this to any man, and yet such treatment I received\nfrom magistrates old enough to be my grandfathers.\n\nHere Mr. Bransby Cooper, who sat upon the left of the Judge, was so\nmoved by this remark, that he rose and ejaculated something in Court;\nbut the Judge peremptorily commanded him to sit down.\n\nMr. Holyoake then read the memorial of the public meeting of the\ninhabitants of Cheltenham, before quoted, referring to the conduct, at\nthe examination, of Joseph Overbury, Robert Capper, and the Rev. T. B.\nNewell, D.D., magistrates.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. You ought not to read any statement not\nauthenticated by evidence, which reflects on any person.\n\nDefendant. This is a petition of a public meeting.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. It is not evidence.\n\nDefendant continued. I have never been anxious under any circumstances\nto obtrude my opinions on the public. I confined myself strictly to\nthe subject on which I lectured, and should not have introduced my\nsentiments on religion, should not have spoken another word after my\nlecture, if I had not been publicly questioned. I have held various\nsituations, and in all secular ones I have strictly kept religious\nopinions out of view. It is known that I have taught that and that\nonly which I have been employed to teach. In proof of this I may cite\ntestimonials given me upon the occasion of my applying for the\nsituation of collector at the Birmingham Botanic Gardens. They are from\nmagistrates and gentlemen of Birmingham, and the post was one requiring\na person of trust, as considerable funds would have to pass through his\nhands in a year.\n\nMr. Holyoake here quoted from numerous testimonials. One of them, from a\nmagistrate, F. Lloyd, Esq., stated that Mr. Holyoake obtained the first\nprize at the Mechanics' Institute, some years ago, for proficiency\nin mathematics, a proficiency attained, too, under most discouraging\ncircumstances.' Another of the testimonials was from the Rev. S. Bache,\none of the ministers of the New Meeting House congregation. Having read\nthese documents, Mr. Holyoake resumed.\n\nDuring one of those commercial panics, which a few years ago passed over\nthis country like a pestilence, my parents were suddenly reduced from\na state of comparative affluence to one of privation. At one of these\nseasons my little sister became ill. While she was so the Rev. Mr.\nMoseley, M.A., Rector of St, Martin's, Birmingham, sent an order to us\nfor his Easter due of fourpence. On previous occasions this demand had\nbeen cheerfully and promptly paid; but now, small as the sum was, it was\nsufficient materially to diminish the few comforts our house of illness\nunfortunately afforded; and it was therefore discussed whether the\ndemand of the clergyman should be paid, or whether it should be expended\nin the purchase of some little comforts for my sick sister. Humanity\ndecided; and we all agreed that it should be devoted to this latter\npurpose. It was; but, I think, the very next week, a summons came for\nthe Easter due, and two shillings and sixpence were added, because of\nthe non-payment of \"the _fourpence_\". The payment of this could now no\nlonger be evaded, for in a few days a warrant of _distraint_ would have\nrudely torn the bed from under her, as had been the case with a near\nneighbour. Dreading this, and trembling at the apprehension, we gathered\ntogether all the money we had, and which was being saved to purchase a\nlittle wine to moisten the parched lips of my dying sister, for at this\ntime her end seemed approaching. My mother, with a heavy heart,\nleft home to go to the Public Office. The aisles there were cold and\ncheerless like the outside this court, and there, all broken in health\nand spirits, worn out with watching, and distracted by that anxiety for\nher child a parent, under such circumstances, only could feel, she\nwas kept from five to six hours waiting to pay the two shillings\nand ten-pence. When she returned all was over--my sister was dead.\nGentlemen, will you wonder if, after this, I doubted a little the\nutility of church establishments?* and if, after the circumstances\nI have related, I did not think so highly of church 'as by law\nestablished' as before, can you be surprised? Can you punish me for it?\n[At this point many ladies wept, and the Court manifested considerable\nattention.]\n\n     * I have since learned that Mr. W. J. Fox read this passage\n     in a Sunday morning lecture on the events of the month,\n     delivered at South-place in the September following my\n     trial; and I take this opportunity of acknowledging that Mr.\n     Fox was the only occupant of a pulpit from whom I received a\n     friendly line during my entire imprisonment.\n\nI have been told to look around the world for evidences of the truth\nof the Christian religion; to look upon the world and draw different\nconclusions. It is well for those who enjoy the smiles of fortune to say\nso. For them all shines brightly--for them all is fair. But I can see\ncause of complaint, and I am not alone in the feeling. Mr. Capel Lofft\nhad said, 'the sours of life less offend my taste than its sweets\ndelight it.' On this Kirke White wrote:--\n\n     Go to the raging sea, and say\n     'Be still!' Bid the wild lawless winds obey thy will;\n     Preach to the storm, and reason with despair--\n     But tell not misery's son _that life is fair_.\n\nThou, who in plenty's lavish lap hast roll'd, And every year with new\ndelight hast told--Thou, who, recumbent on the lacquer'd barge, Hast\ndropt down joy's gay stream of pleasant marge, Thou may'st extol life's\ncalm, untroubled sea--The storms of misery ne'er burst on thee. Go to\nthe mat where squalid want reclines; Go to the shade obscure where merit\npines; Abide with him whom Penury's charms control, And bind the rising\nyearnings of his soul--Survey his sleepless couch, and, standing there,\nTell the poor pallid wretch _that life is fair_!\n\nLo! o'er his manly form, decay'd and wan, The shades of death with\ngradual steps steal on; And the pale mother, pining to decay, Weeps, for\nher boy, her wretched life away.\n\nGo, child of fortune! to his early grave, Where o'er his head obscure\nthe rank weeda wave; Behold the heart-wrung parent lay her head On the\ncold turf, and ask to share his bed. Go, child of fortune, take thy\nlesson there, And tell us then that life is _wondrous fair_.\n\nAs I grew up I attended missionary meetings, and my few pence were given\nto that cause. When told of heathen kings who knew not God, and caged\ntheir miserable victims, I shuddered at their barbarity and prayed for\ntheir conversion. O waste of money and prayers that should have been\nemployed on Christian men. O infantile fatuity! Do I not reap the\nwhirlwind for my pains? I learned the accents of piety from my mother's\nlips. She was and still is a religious woman. Whatever may be the\ndissent I entertain, I have never spoken of her opinions in the language\nof contempt. I have always left her (as she to her honour has left me),\nto enjoy her own opinions. In early youth I was religious. I question\nwhether there is any here who have spent more time than I did as\na Sunday school teacher. I have given hours, which I ought to have\nemployed in improving myself, in improving others. It is not without\ngiving to Christianity time and attention--without knowing what it\nwas--that I have given it up. Some lines I contributed to a religious\npublication at that time, will show the tone of thought which inquiry\nhas subsequently changed:--\n\n     THE REIGN OF TIME.\n\n     The proudest earthly buildings show,\n     Time can all things devour;\n     E'en youth and beauty's ardent glow,\n     And manhood's intellectual brow,\n     Betray the spoiler's power:\n     How soon we sink beneath his sway--\n     He glances, and our heads turn gray.\n     Though, over all this earthly ball,\n     Time's standard is unfurled,\n     And ruins loud to ruins call\n     Throughout this time-worn world--\n     Yet from this wreck of earthly things,\n     See how the soul exulting springs.\n     And after the archangel's wand\n     Has wav'd o'er earth and sea,\n     And Time has stopped at his command,\n     The soul will nourish and expand\n     Through all eternity.\n     Religion--lovely, fair, and free--\n     Holds forth this immortality.\n     By all the glories of the sky,\n     To mortals yet unknown--\n     And by the worm that ne'er shall die,\n     The fires that always burn--\n     By all that's awful or sublime,\n     Ye sons of men improve your time.*\n\n          * 'Baptist Tract Magazine.' Vol. ii., p. 341.\n\n\nIt was stated by one of the magistrates that my being of no religion was\nno crime. I may conclude from what I heard this morning that I am not to\nbe punished for not being religious. It was argued in, the _Cheltenham\nChronicle_ that my expressing my opinions was no crime, and I was at\nsome loss to know what my crime was. The charge stated I was guilty of\n_blasphemy_. In the depositions made against me, it is stated that I\nwas brought before the Cheltenham magistrates on a charge of felony. I\nbelieve now what I have to answer is the accusation of uttering certain\nwords offensive to the _Cheltenham Chronicle_.\n\nThis paper stated that 'three persons were ready to give evidence on\nthe matter.' And yet the witness says he knew nothing of it till the\npoliceman came for him. He says they were 'chaffing' about my remarks\nin the office--that is, joking upon them. It does not say much for his\nseriousness--reporting these 'horrid sentiments' at night, and the next\nmorning '_chaffing_' about them. If it was an aggravation of my crime\nto have chosen an innocent subject, what would the learned counsel have\nsaid if I had chosen a guilty one? It has been sworn by the witnesses\nthat I said I did not believe there was such a _thing_ as a God, and an\nattempt has been made to make you believe that I used the term 'thing'\ncontemptuously, but the witness admits that I did not use it in a\ncontemptuous sense. The same word occurs in some lines by Thomas\nMoore:--\n\n     Man, in the sunshine of the world's new spring,\n     Shall walk transparent like some holy thing.\n\nI must have used the word 'thing' in some such sense as it is used in\nthese lines.\n\nIt is laid down by the Common Law, that a person denying the existence\nof a God is a blasphemer. It has not been shown that I did this. I\nmerely stated my disbelief--and disbelief is not included by the law.\nThere is a great difference between denial and disbelief. If I had said\ndistinctly 'there is no God,' it would have been stating that I was\nquite sure of it. I could not have said that, because I am not sure of\nit. I saw reasons for disbelief, but did not assert denial. Disbelief is\nall I profess. Those dogmatise who affirm, rather than those who deny a\nproposition. Mr. Southwell put this point in its proper light:--\n\n'If God had never been affirmed, he could not have been denied. It is a\nrule of logic, and a very sensible rule, that the _onus probandi,_\nthat is the burthen or weight of proving, rests on those who affirm a\nproposition. Priests have affirmed the existence of a God, but who will\nmaintain that they have complied with the rule of logic?'*\n\nWe can only, I think, arrive at a conviction of the existence of a God\nby the following modes:--\n\n1. By the medium of _innate ideas_, which we are said by some divines to\npossess, and which intuitively lead us to entertain the idea of a God.\n\n2. By the _senses_, the sole media by which all _knowledge_ is acquired.\n\n3. By _conjecture_.--This is employed by those who suppose there must be\na God from their inability otherwise to account for the existence of the\nuniverse, and are not willing to allow it to be inexplicable.\n\n4. By _analogy_.--Comparison is the basis of this argument. Analogy is\nthe foundation of natural theology.\n\n5. By _revelation_.--In this country the Bible is said to contain the\nrevelation of a God.\n\nOf these it may be remarked:--\n\n1. _Innate ideas_.--With regard to these, very conclusive reasons have\nbeen advanced by eminent philosophers for disbelieving that we have\nany. And human experience confirms this conclusion. Some nations, as\nthe people of the Arru Islands, have no idea of a God. So this source of\nknowledge concerning one is, to say the least, dubious.\n\n2. _Senses_.--'No man hath seen God at any time,' is a sufficient reply\nto this--for the same may be affirmed of every other sense, which is\nhere affirmed of sight.\n\n3. _Conjecture_.--This defies us. We only prove our own inability and\nmultiply difficulties. For when we suppose a God, we cannot suppose how\nhe came, nor how he created something out of nothing, which is held by\nthe learned to be plainly _impossible_.**\n\n     * Oracle of Reason, No. 31, p. 251.\n\n     ** Since this time Mr. Francis William Newman has put this\n     argument unanswerably in these words; 'A God uncaused and\n     existing from eternity, is to the full as incomprehensible\n     as a world uncaused and existing from eternity'--'The Soul,'\n     p. 36.   Second edition.\n\n4. _Analogy_ will not inform us. A small pivot or wheel cannot\n_infallibly_ indicate to us the mechanism to which it belongs, nor\nanything conclusive as to whether the whole had only one or more makers.\nSo of the universe, no part can shadow forth the whole of that, nor\ninform us conclusively whether it had a creator or creators. And here\nit is to be observed the difficulty is greater than with machines--for\na pivot or wheel is a finite part of a finite whole, and _both\ncomprehensible_; but with the universe, all we can take cognisance of is\nbut a very finite part of an _infinite_ whole, and that whole to all\nmen acknowledged _incomprehensible_. Moreover, _creation_ can have no\nanalogy--no one ever saw or can conceive of anything being created. So\nthat this mode of learning the existence of a God fails. The Rev. Hugh\nM'Neile, M.A., minister of St. Jade's Church, Liverpool, in a lecture\ndelivered to above four hundred of the Irish clergy, at the Rotunda in\nDublin, said in reference to this part of the question, 'I am convinced,\nI say, that, from external creation, no right conclusion can be drawn\nconcerning the _moral_ character of God. Creation is too deeply and\ndisastrously blotted in consequence of man's sin, to admit of any\nsatisfactory result from an _adequate_ contemplation of nature.\nThe authors of a multitude of books on this subject, have given an\ninadequate and partial induction of particulars. Already aware (though\nperhaps scarcely recognising how or whence) that \"God is love,\" they\nhave looked on nature for proofs of this conclusion, and taken what\nsuited their purpose. But they have not taken nature _as a whole_, and\ncollected a conclusion fairly from impartial premises. They expatiate on\nthe blessings and enjoyments of life, in the countless tribes of earth,\nair, and sea. But if life be a blessing, death is a curse. Nature\npresents the universal triumph of death. Is this the doing of a God of\nlove? or are there two Gods--a kind one, giving life; and an unkind one\ntaking it away; and the wicked one invariably the victor? In external\ncreation, exclusively and adequately contemplated, there is no escape\nfrom Manichaeism. It is vain to say that the death of the inferior\ncreatures is a blessing to man; for why, in the creation of a God of\nlove, should any such necessity exist? And how would this account for\nthe death of man himself?' So far the argument of analogy.\n\n5. _Revelation_.--We have _none_. If others ever had, we can only\ndetermine it by human reason, and for this purpose Leslie has furnished\nhis well-known rules. Therefore, as revelation means something\nsuperadded to reason, we cannot be said to possess it, for reason has to\ndetermine what is, and what is not revelation, and therefore is superior\nto it. Also, it is contended by divines that, but for the Bible we\nshould know nothing of a God, which shows the unsatisfactory nature of\nthe four methods of learning his existence we have gone through. And\nLord Brougham contends that but for natural theology, or the analogy\nargument, which has been shown to be no argument at all, the Bible would\nhave no other basis than mere tradition.\n\nSo you see, gentlemen, the philosophical difficulties besetting the path\nof a young inquirer into sacred things. These difficulties are to me\ninsuperable, and hence I find myself incapable of employing language you\nare more fortunate in being able to adapt to your conscience.*\n\n     * The object of this passage was to show the jury the\n     intellectual difficulties belonging to this subject, and the\n     passage formed but an episode among the moral issues I\n     raised. A friend of mine asking an eminent divine at one of\n     Dr. Elliotson's seances, and who afterwards entered\n     parliament, what he thought of my defence. 'Oh it turned\n     upon that eternal conundrum the existence of God,' was the\n     answer. But I hope the reader will see something more in my\n     defence than the frivolity that employs itself on riddles.\n\nBut it has been stated I said I would put the Deity on half-pay. After\nfirst stating that I did not believe there was a Deity, is it likely\nI should say I would put him on half-pay? Would you put a servant on\nhalf-pay whom you never hired or had? All my expressions went to prove\nthat I referred to the expenses of religion. I could not suppose that\nthere is a being capable of governing the world, and consider him good\nand kind, and yet have any intention of bringing him into contempt. I\nhad no personal reference to the Deity. I made use of that figure of\nspeech because I thought they would understand it better, and they\ndid understand it. I was saying we had many heavy burdens to pay to\ncapitalists and others, and that I thought it hung like a millstone\nround us. Sir R. Peel said, when he introduced the income-tax, that\nthe poor man could bear no more. I said there were twenty-four millions\ntaken from us for the support of religion, and that they would do well\nto reduce that one-half. Suppose, gentlemen, that I did refer to the\nDeity, was my notion a dishonourable one? What man of you who had enough\nand to spare, and seeing the people around him in poverty, would not\nwillingly relinquish part of his income to give them a bare subsistence?\nWho will deny that in England there are honest, industrious,\nhard-working men, honourable women, and beautiful children, who have not\nthe means of obtaining food? Did I do him a disgrace if I thought he,\nwho is called our Father, the Most High, would have dispensed with\none-half of the lip-service he receives in order to give his creatures\nnecessaries!\n\n[It being nearly four o'clock the Jury asked leave to retire, to which\nMr. Holyoake consenting, they left the Court for a short time. Some\nladies who represented themselves as wives of clergymen, came round the\ndock offering Mr. Holyoake confections and refreshment, and expressing\ntheir regret at the treatment he had received, and the position in which\nhe was placed.]\n\nMr. Holyoake, on resuming, said--According to a calculation that has\nnever been disputed, the\n\n'Pay to their Clergy.\n\n    Catholics, numbering...         124,672,000...      L6,106,000\n    Protestants       \"   ...        54,046,000...      11,906,000\n    Greek Church      \"   ...        41,000,000...         760,000\n\n    Total of Christians             219,718,000        L18,762,000\n\n'Of which England, for twenty-one millions of people, pays more than\none-half.'* Thus the English pay five times more according to their\nnumbers--I proposed a reduction of only one-half.\n\n     * 'Cheap Salvation.'   By Henry Hetheringten.\n\nMr. W. J. Fox has told us--'If the government of the country disposed of\nthe mismanaged funds of the clergy, they would have sufficient for their\nannual needful expenditure.'\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. If you can convince the jury that you only meaning\nwas that the incomes of the clergy ought to be reduced, and that you\ndid not intend to insult God, I should tell the jury you ought not to be\nconvicted. You need not go into a laboured defence of that.\n\nMr. Holyoake. It was stated by one of the witnesses at Cheltenham that I\nsaid Christians are worshippers of Mammon. I thought it necessary for me\nto refer to it.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. There is no evidence of that.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Then turn to the question _What is blasphemy?_ In the case\nof Mr. Southwell, one of the witnesses for the prosecution stated his\nopinion that the crime was '_bringing a scandal on the religion of the\nmagistrates_.' Perhaps this is as correct a definition as can be given.\nIt has been said to be 'an injury to God,' Men who could not string\nsix sentences together grammatically, have told me they would defend\nGod--men whom I should be ashamed to have defending me. But blasphemy is\nimpossible in the sense of annoyance to God. Jonathan Edwards says--'The\nfollowing things may be laid down as maxims of plain truth and\nindisputable evidence:--\n\n'1. That God is a perfectly happy being, in the most absolute and highest\nsense possible.\n\n'2. It will follow from hence, that God is free from everything that is\n_contrary to happiness_: and so that in strict propriety of speech there\nis no such thing as any pain, grief or trouble in God.\n\n'3. Where any intelligent being is really crossed and disappointed, and\nthings are contrary to what he truly desires, he is less pleased, or\nhas the less pleasure, his pleasure and happiness are diminished, and he\nsuffers what is disagreeable to him, or is the subject of something that\nis of a nature contrary to joy and happiness, even pain and grief.\n\n'From this last maxim it follows, that if no distinction is to be\nadmitted between God's hatred of sin, and his will with respect to the\nevent and existence of sin, as the all-wise determiner of all events,\nunder the view of all consequences through the whole com pass and series\nof things; I say, then, it certainly follows, that the coming to pass of\nevery individual act of sin is truly, all things considered, contrary\nto his will, and that his will is really crossed in it, and that in\nproportion as he hates it. And as God's hatred of sin is infinite, by\nreason of the infinite contrariety of his holy nature to sin; so his\nwill is infinitely crossed in every act of sin that happens. Which is\nas much as to say:--he endures that which is infinitely disagreeable to\nhim, by means of every act of sin he sees committed--and so he must be\ninfinitely crossed and suffer infinite pain every day, in millions of\nmillions of instances, which would be to make him infinitely the most\nmiserable of all beings.'*\n\nBut _blasphemy_ is an antiquated accusation. In a work** by Col.\nFeyronnet Thompson, it is remarked--'what a turmoil, what a splutter,\nwas in this land, when men first announced that they would not eat fish,\nthey would not bow down, they would not confess but when they liked, and\nthis because the secret had got wind that these things were either\nnot in the priests' own rule, or were against it! What threats of hell\nflames, what splashing about of fire and brimstone, what registration\nof judgments on men choked with a beef-steak on Friday! Look at one\nof those simple men in the present day, who shock themselves with the\nbarouches, the cigars, the newspapers, and the elephants of a London\nSunday, and occasionally digress to Paris, for the keener excitation of\nseeing Punch upon the Boulevards, and wondering where heaven reserves\nits thunder. And put the parallel case; that a good Austrian or\nNavarrese Catholic came here, and grieved his heart with our weekly\ndoings on a Friday, to say nothing of our more wholesale offences for\nforty days together in Lent. \"Such frying; such barbecuing; in no place\ndid I see anybody having the smallest notion of a red herring! All are\ninvolved in one flood of sin and gravy! How fathomless the patience of\nheaven, that such an island is not swallowed up of the deep!\" We have\nlooked into the rule he professes to go by; and we declare it is not\nthere, but the contrary. We know we must appear in the next world with\nall our mutton on our heads. But we have done our best to look at the\nrule with the light that God has given us; and in spite of Austria\nor Navarre, we will take the risk of His not being angry with us, for\nseeing no prohibition of mutton there.' Thus we see that _mutton-eating_\nwas at one period blasphemous.\n\n     * Quoted from 'A Commentary on the Public Discussion on the\n     subjects of Necessity and Responsibility,' &c By Jonathan\n     Jonathan, late of the United States.\n\n     **  'The Question of Sabbath Observance, tried by the\n     Church's own rule,' &c. By Col. Peyronnet Thompson, F.R.S,\n     of Queen's College, Cambridge.\n\nMr. Sergeant Talfourd told the jury, in the case of Hetherington\nv. Moxon, that if the government were consistent in carrying out\nprosecutions for blasphemy--Shakspere, Milton, Byron, Shelley,\nSouthey--might be prohibited. This perhaps would be an agreeable result\nto a reverend gentleman well known in this court and county, who says\nall science should be destroyed; but I trust you entertain no such\nfeelings, and that if I can show that my sentiments cannot be productive\nof harm, you will feel called upon to acquit me. I claim no inherent\nright of expressing my opinions, I only contend for liberty of\nexpression because required for the public good. A doctrine was laid\ndown by Lord John Russell upon the occasion of the presentation of the\nNational Petition, which I will quote as a view of the subject of human\nrights well expressed.\n\n'I am aware,' he said, 'that it is a doctrine frequently urged, and I\nperceive dwelt upon in this petition, that every male of a certain age\nhas a right, absolute and inalienable, to elect a representative to take\nhis place among the members in the Commons' House of Parliament. Now,\nsir, I never could understand that indefeasible right. It appears to\nme that that question, like every other in the practical application\nof politics, is to be settled by the institutions and the laws of the\ncountry of which the person is a native. I see no more right that a\nperson twenty-one years of age has to elect a member of parliament than\nhe has to be a juryman. I conceive that you may just as well say that\nevery adult male has a right to sit upon a jury to decide the most\ncomplicated and difficult questions of property, or that every man has\na right to exercise the judicial functions, as the people did in some of\nthe republics of antiquity. These things, as it appears to me, are not\nmatters of right; but if it be for the good of the people at large, if\nit be conducive to the right government of the state, if it tend to the\nmaintenance of the freedom and welfare of the people, that a certain\nnumber, defined and limited by a reference to a fixed standard of\nproperty, should have the right of electing members of parliament, and\nif it be disadvantageous to the community at large that the right of\nsuffrage should be universal, then I say that on such a subject the\nconsideration of the public good should prevail, that legislation must\nact upon it as on every other, and that no inalienable right can be\nquoted against that which the good of the whole demands.'\n\nIf Lord Russell did not, I do see a difference between the claim of an\nelector and the right of a juryman. The elector is chiefly concerned\nwith his own interests, the juryman with other people's--one is simple,\nthe other complex. But with the measure of right laid down by his\nlordship in the sentiments I have quoted, I perfectly accord, and if it\ncould be shown that freedom of expression produced public harm, then\nI would give it up. But I believe such a right would produce good, and\ntherefore I claim it at your hands upon the ground of public good.\n\nIn what I urge, it is not faith but reason, as far as I understand it,\nthat I take for my guide--a rule of argument I trust you will accept.\n'Reason contents me,' was inscribed as the motto on the seal of\nthe letter from Sir James Graham, acknowledging the receipt of the\nCheltenham memorial. If reason 'contents' the Secretary of State, and\n'fountain of justice,' surely it ought to 'content' the channels through\nwhich such justice is diffused over society. Reason would always be\npreferred by us were we not differently instructed. 'Bewildered,' says\nDiderot, 'in an immense forest during the night, and having only one\nsmall torch for my guide, a stranger approaches and thus addresses me:\n\"_Friend, blow out thy light if thou wouldst make sure of the right\npath_\" The \"forest\" was the world--the \"light\" was my reason---the\n\"stranger\" was a priest.'\n\nAfter several quotations showing the dubious and often pernicious\ninfluence of sacred authority, Mr. Holyoake observed---Religious\nsanctions are regarded only by the ignorant, whom they confirm in folly.\nThe good find their sanction in the satisfaction ef a virtuous act\nperformed. In an address of the Rev. F. Close, delivered a short time\nsince at the Church of England Tradesmen and Working Men's Association\nof Cheltenham, he said, 'that the more a man is advanced in human\nknowledge, the more is he opposed to religion, and the more deadly\nenemy he is to the truth of God.' If this Christian minister is to\nbe believed, then may you burn your books--forsake all mental\nrefinement--and be equal in piety and ignorance. If Christianity is\nopposed to human improvement, then should all systems of ignorance be\npatronised by Christians. Sentiments like these would lead us to give up\nBoyle, Locke, and Newton, and regard them, with the Rev. Mr. Close, with\ndetestation.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. Let me see the discourse of Mr. Close from which\nyou are quoting.\n\nThe book was handed to his lordship.\n\nMr. Holyoake. If the correctness of that report be doubted, I may state\nthat the sentiments of Mr. Close were replied to by Mr. G. Berkeley.\n\nPermit me now to draw your attention strongly to what has been said by\nmen in authority of the impolicy of these prosecutions--that even if you\nwere justified in inflicting punishment on me, it would not be wise to\ndo so, Lord Brougham, three or four years ago, said, 'I may underrate\nthe power of truth opposed to error, and I may overrate the good\nsense of my fellow country men in rejecting it, but one thing I do not\noverrate--the power of persecution to spread that which persecution only\ncan spread.' When I walk through any of those ancient places, as I did\nyesterday through your beautiful cathedral, I feel the majesty they ever\npresent, and think of the manner in which our Catholic ancestors acted\non the minds of men. There were sublimity and pageantry and pomp to\ncreate awe. We have none now of that beauty of architecture in our\nmeagre churches and more meagre chapels. They had a service more\nimposing than we ever had. Recollecting all these things, I have\nwondered how anything could be found sufficiently powerful to shake them\noff. I have wondered how Luther, with his rude vulgarity, could have\neffected so much. I can only account for it in this way--that when\nthe Catholics dragged his followers to gaol, it was found that human\nfeelings were stronger than human creeds.\n\nThese prosecutions are entirely in opposition to the sentiments\npromulgated by yourselves, as appears from a book given me in gaol\ncalled the 'Manual of Devotion.' I amused myself by contracting the\nprofession contained in it with the practice of my opponents. It is\npublished by the 'Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.' In\nthe 'Discourse concerning Prayer,' it is laid down that the 'second\nqualification for prayer is charity or love. There is nothing so\ncontrary to the nature of God, nothing so wide of the true spirit of a\nChristian, as bitterness and wrath, malice and envy; and therefore it\nis vain to think that even our prayers can be acceptable to God, till we\nhave put on, as the elect of God, bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness\nof mind, meekness, long-suffering, forbearing one another, and\nforgiving one another, as St. Paul commands.' Gentlemen, where are these\nsentiments evinced in this prosecution?\n\nThe 'third qualification--Is faith. If any of you lack wisdom, says St.\nJames, let him ask of God, but let him ask in faith.' My prosecutors\nhave asked Mr. Bubb, have had faith in policemen, and confidence only in\nthe 'common law.'\n\nThe 'fourth qualification is--That in all things of a temporal concern,\nwe must exercise an entire submission to the will of God. A good\nChristian will be sure to leave the issue in God's hands.' In my case\nnot the will of God, but the will of bigots was done, and the 'issue'\nleft in the turnkey's hands.\n\nThe 'fifth qualification--Is that the person praying hath a good\nintention; that he asks for a good end. We must not pray as the\nrevengeful man when he prays for authority, that he may have the more\npower to effect his evil designs.' What can be more wholly condemnatory\nof these proceedings than these instructions of the 'Manual of\nDevotion?'\n\nWhen the 'Life of Christ,' by Dr. Strauss, appeared in Berlin, contrary\nto usages in such matters, the Prussian government consulted the clergy\nto ascertain from them whether it would not be prudent to prohibit this\nextraordinary production. The celebrated Bishop Neander was commissioned\nby the ecclesiastical body of Berlin, to peruse the book and to\nreturn an answer. Neander did so, and declared in reply, that the work\nsubmitted to his examination threatened, it was true, the demolition of\nall creeds; nevertheless, he requested that full liberty should not be\ndenied to his adversary, in order that full and free discussion might\nbe the only judges between truth and error. And when asked whether it\nshould be prosecuted, said, 'No, I will answer it.'\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. That work was temperately written.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Neander did reply to it, and Strauss had the manliness to\nacknowledge that it had corrected many of his errors. Would that have\nbeen done had he been prosecuted? Dr. Strauss's work on the scriptures\ngot him a professor's chair in Germany. In this country it would have\nmade him amenable to the common law, and to one, two, or three years'\nimprisonment.\n\nGentlemen, in the pertinacity of my open reply to Maitland, you may find\nsomething objectionable, but I happen to be an admirer of that sentiment\nexpressed by the honest 'Vicar of Wakefield'--'In all human institutions\na smaller evil is allowed to procure a greater good; as in politics, a\nprovince may be given away, to secure a kingdom; in medicine, a limb may\nbe lopt off, to preserve the body. But in religion, the law is written\nand inflexible, _never_ to do evil.' Then, gentlemen, I ought to be\ntolerated in the truthfulness of my answer. Milton, in his Prose Works,*\nin reference to an incident in his travels, says:--\n\n     * Milton's Prose Works, pp. 933-4, 8vo edit.   Edited by\n     Fletcher.\n\n'While I was on my way back to Rome, some merchants informed me that\nthe English Jesuits had formed a plot against me, if I returned to Rome,\nbecause I had spoken too freely of religion; for it was a rule which I\nlaid down to myself in those places, never to be the first to begin\nany conversation on religion--but, if any questions were put to me\nconcerning my faith, to declare it without any reserve or fear.'\n\nThis is the rule which I myself have followed in this case.\n\nSince his lordship--with more liberality than is customary, and with\nmore philosophy than I expected on matters of religion (on which I hear\nhis lordship thinks very devoutly)--has said, that any religion may be\ndiscussed in temperate language, it is not necessary for me to prove, as\nI should have done, that it would be useless liberty for me to entertain\nopinions without permission to publish them. The only question is\nwhether, in the expression of these opinions, I used a proper kind of\nlanguage. I think I have proved that I was far from having any of those\n'malicious' feelings the indictment presupposes. Many figures of speech\nhave been used in this court from which my feelings revolted as much\nas those of any person could from what I said. No allowance is made\nfor this, and too much importance is attached to what is assumed to be\nridicule. A short time ago it was argued, that if the political squibs\nwhich are seen in shop windows were permitted to be published, they\nwould bring government into contempt, and you would soon have no\ngovernment. Their publication has been permitted. Have we no government\nnow? I feel the utility of a government, and no force of ridicule could\nshake my belief in the importance of good government. So it is with\nreligion. Nothing that is uttered, however contemptuous, can bring it\ninto contempt, if it really is useful and beneficial. We might defy all\nthe wits and caricaturists in the world to bring the problems of Euclid\ninto contempt. No man can bring into contempt that which is essential\nand true.\n\nThe counsel who opened the case did not state whether the indictment was\nat statute or common law.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. Common law.\n\nMr. Holyoake. Then, gentleman of the jury, I shall draw your attention\nto that, and I hope I shall be able to explain the law bearing on my\ncase.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. The jury must take the law from me. I am\nresponsible for that.\n\nMr. Holyoake. I know, my lord; but still I may refer to it. A friend of\nmine consulted the works bearing upon the law of this case.* I have here\nthe results of his labours, and, if I am wrong, your lordship will, in\nsumming up, correct me.\n\n     * I was indebted to Mr. J. Homffrey Parry, barrister, for\n     the revision of the argument I employed.\n\nGentleman of the jury, the common law is a judge-made law. A judge\nlaid down, some years ago, that to say anything against the Christian\nreligion was an indictable offence. Another judge followed him and said\nthe same; and at last it came not to be doubted. If I show there is no\nlaw properly made in parliament assembled, you ought to acquit me.\n\nThe offence with which I am charged is an offence at common law. There\nis no statute which punishes a man simply for denying the existence\nof God. There is a statute (9 and 10 Wm. III., c. 32) directed against\nthose who denied the Trinity and who renounced Christianity. But the\nformer part has been repealed in favour of Unitarians, by the 53rd Geo.\nIII., e. 160; and the words I am charged with having spoken cannot be\nbrought within the latter. There is a statute against profane cursing\nand swearing (19 Geo. II., c. 21), but it takes no cognisance of this\noffence. Human beings have also been put to death for witchcraft (33\nHen. VIII., c. 8; and 1 James I., c. 12), under the merciless statutes\nwhich were enacted in times of the grossest ignorance and superstition;\nbut those statutes have been repealed (9 Geo. II., c. 5). This offence,\ntherefore, is an offence against the common law, if it is an offence at\nall. It is to be found in the recorded decisions of the judges, if it is\nto be found anywhere; and the punishment for it is in their discretion.\nHad it been an offence under a statute, it would have been impossible\nfor me to have denied the authority of the statute; but, as it is an\noffence at common law, it is quite competent for me to show that the\nauthorities which have been supposed to constitute the offence do not\nwarrant such a construction. Should your lordship even declare that you\nhad no doubt upon the subject, it would still be competent for me to\nbring before you the decisions of former judges, to argue upon those\ndecisions, and to show, if I could, that there was some mistake or error\nrunning throughout the whole of them. Your lordship, I am sure, will\nadmit that judges are fallible, and that a blind, unreasoning submission\nto them no man should give. As some excuse for presuming to doubt the\ndecision of some of your lordship's predecessors, I shall quote\nthe following passage from the preface to Mr. Watkin's treatise on\nConveyancing, allowed to be a master-piece of legal sagacity and method.\n'I believe,' writes that gentleman, 'it will be found, on examination,\nthat an implicit submission to the assertions of our predecessors,\nwhatever station those predecessors may have held, has been one of the\nmost certain sources of error, Perhaps there is nothing which has so\nmuch shackled the human intellect, nothing which has so greatly promoted\nwhatever is tyrannic, preposterous, and absurd, nothing perhaps which\nhas so much degraded the species in the scale of being as the implicit\nsubmission to individual dicta.' And he then goes on in vigorous terms\nto reprobate the practice of allowing 'authority to shoulder out common\nsense, or adhering to precedent in defiance of principle.' Upon the\nprinciple contained in this passage I shall act, in claiming the\nattention of your lordship, and you, gentlemen of the jury, whilst I\nexamine the authorities for the doctrine which brings the offence with\nwhich I am charged within the jurisdiction of the temporal courts. Your\nlordship will, perhaps, refer to these books.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine, No need of that. If it is not an offence at common\nlaw, this indictment is worth nothing. You can take it before the\nfifteen judges on a writ of error. I sit here, not to correct the law,\nbut merely to administer it.*\n\n     * I have been told by a legal friend of great experience,\n     that at this point I might have taken the judge at his word,\n     and have carried the case before the judges for decision;\n     but I was unacquainted with the forms of law in such cases,\n     and I moreover distrusted the judge.\n\nMr. Holyoake resumed. In the fourth volume of 'Blackstone's\nCommentaries,' p. 59, in speaking of offences against God and religion,\nthat writer says, 'The fourth species of offences, therefore, more\nimmediately against God and religion, is that of blasphemy against\nthe Almighty, by denying his being or providence, or by contumelious\nreproaches of our saviour, Christ. Whither also may be referred all\nprofane scoffing at the holy scripture, or exposing it to contempt\nand ridicule. These are offences punishable at common law by fine and\nimprisonment, or other infamous corporal punishment; _for Christianity\nis part of the laws of England_.' Blackstone quotes, in support of the\nfirst species, a volume of 'Ventris' Reports,' p. 298; and the second\nfrom the second volume of 'Strange's Reports,' p. 834. Mr. Christian,\nthe commentator upon Blackstone, adds, in a note, a passage from the\n'Year Book' (34 Henry VI.), folio 43.\n\nThe earliest case is that from the year book, in the 34th year of Henry\nVI. (1458). Mr. Christian quotes from it this passage--'Scripture\nest common ley, sur quel toutes manieres de leis sont fondes' (i.e.,\nScripture is common law, upon which all descriptions of laws are\nfounded). Were this quotation correct, and did the word scripture here\nmean 'holy scripture,' or what is generally understood by the Bible,\nthen I admit this passage would be a good foundation to build up Mr.\nJudge Blackstone's law. But it is no such thing. The case in the year\nbook is a case of _quare impedit_, and, in the course of the argument\nthe question arose whether, in a matter of induction to a benefice by\nthe ordinary (i.e., the bishop) the common law would take notice of,\nor be bound by, the law or practices of the church. Where-. upon, Chief\nJustice Prisot says--'To such laws, which they of the holy church have\nin \"ancient writing,\" it becomes us to give credence, for such is common\nlaw, upon which all descriptions of laws are founded. And therefore,\nsir, we are obliged to recognise their law of the holy church--likewise\nthey are obliged to recognise our law. And, sir, if it appears to us now\nthat the bishop has done as an ordinary should do in such a case, then\nwe ought to judge it good--if otherwise, bad.'\n\nIn this passage, then, there is not one word about scripture in the\nsense of 'holy scripture.' Judge Prisot says, 'To such laws as the\nchurch has in ancien scripture (t. e.9 ancient writing) we ought to\ngive credence.' And what does he mean by 'laws which the church has in\nancient writing?' not any laws that are to be found in the Bible, but\nthe canon or ecclesiastical laws by which the temporal concerns of the\nchurch are guided. And the reason he uses the phrase 'ancien scripture,'\nor ancient writing, is that the laws were not then printed; the only\nrecord of them was in writing. Printing had not been introduced into\nEngland, and was only just discovered on the continent, the laws\ntherefore of the spiritual and temporal courts were only to be seen in\nwriting. And as though there should be no doubt as to his meaning, he\ngoes on to say, 'And as we are obliged to recognise their laws (that is\nthe ecclesiastical laws, or laws of the spiritual courts), so they\nare obliged to recognise our laws (that is, the laws of the temporal\ncourts).' It must therefore be evident that this quotation of Mr.\nChristian is a perversion or mistake, a judicial forgery or a judicial\nblunder, and in either case its authority is of no value. It must be\ndismissed altogether from our minds in considering what the law is upon\nthis point--that is, whether Christianity is or is not a part and parcel\nof the law of England. Unfortunately, however, we shall find that this\ncase is actually made the substratum of the law. In proving, therefore,\nthat it cannot warrant such a law, surely I prove that at common law, at\nleast to speak against Christianity, is not an offence.\n\nThe next case is that in Ventris' Report, vol. 1, p. 293. It is called\nTaylor's case, and Chief Justice Hale certainly declares explicitly in\nthis case, 'that Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.' But he\ncites no authority whatever.\n\nIn the case analysed from the year book, it is expressly said, that the\ncommon law is to be found in 'ancient writings,' and the unsupported\ndictum of a judge in the middle of the seventeenth century cannot be\nconstrued as a part of the ancient writings of the common law. Either\nthe law already existed or it did not. If it did, the question is--where\nis it? If it did not, Chief Justice Hale could not then make it for the\nfirst time; and this case in Ventris' cannot be said to lay down the\nlaw. The case in the second volume of Strange is the King v. Woolston.\nThe defendant had been convicted of writing four blasphemous discourses\nagainst the divinity and character of Christ; and upon attempting to\nmove in arrest of judgment, the court declared they would not suffer it\nto be debated whether to write against Christianity in general was an\noffence punishable in the temporal courts of common law. And they cited\nTaylor's case, which has been shown to be an insufficient authority, or\nrather no authority at all, and the King v. Hale, in the same volume of\nStrange, p. 416, but which was an indictment under the statute (9 & 10\nWm. HI.) for speaking against the Trinity, and therefore cannot in any\nway support the common law doctrine.\n\nThe first person who called attention to the utter want of authority in\nthe common law for the dictum 'that Christianity was part of the common\nlaw,' was Jefferson, the second president of America--himself a\nprofound lawyer, and to his references I am indebted for the foregoing\nauthorities, which, however, have been carefully verified. Mr.\nJefferson, in a letter to Major Cart-wright, to be found in vol. ii., p.\n272, of his 'Memoirs,' exposes the mode in which this law was created.\nAlluding to the case of Prisot, he says, 'Finch in his first book, c. 3,\nis the first who afterwards quotes this case. He misstates it thus:\n\"To such laws of the church as have warrant in holy scripture, our law\ngiveth credence,\" and cites Prisot, mistranslating \"ancien scripture\"\ninto holy scripture. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the\ndictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a\nmaxim of the common law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot.\nShephard, title \"Religion,\" in 1675, copies the same mistranslation,\nquoting the year book, finch, and Wingate. Hale expresses it in these\nwords, \"Christianity is parcel of the laws of England,\" but quotes no\nauthority. Wood, 409, ventures still to vary the phrase, and says, \"that\nall blasphemy and prophaneness are offences by the common law,\" and\nBlackstone repeats the words of Hale.' In the case of the the King v.\nCarlile, decided since Mr. Jefferson wrote this letter, there was\nno argument as to the common law. The question was as to whether the\nstatute (9 & 10 Wm. III.) had superseded the common law. But the common\nlaw itself was not called in question, which I submit it should be, and\nby a wise example superseded.\n\nBut let us see what Christianity is according to common law? We may\nremark--\n\n1. Its inconsistency.--It calls blasphemy the greatest crime man\ncan commit. Yet in the case of Hetherington v. Moxon, it permits the\n_respectable_ blasphemer to go free. Blasphemy in guinea volumes it\nallows, but exhibits the holiest horror at it when in penny pamphlets.\n\n2. Its barbarity, as in Peter Annet's case.--In Michaelmas term, M. 3.\nG. 3. Peter Annet was convicted on an information for writing 'a most\nblasphemous libel,' in weekly papers called the _Free Inquirer_, to\nwhich he pleaded guilty; in consideration of which, and of his poverty,\nof his having confessed his errors in an affidavit, and of his being 74\nyears old, and some symptoms of wildness that appeared on his inspection\nin court, the court declared they had mitigated his punishment to the\nfollowing: To be imprisoned in Newgate for one month; to stand twice\nin the pillory with a paper on his forehead, inscribed Blasphemy; to be\nsent to the House of Correction to hard labour for a year; to pay a fine\nof 6s. 8d., and to find security himself in L100, and two sureties in\nL50 each for his good behaviour during life.*\n\n3. Its capriciousness.--The common law before the time of Henry VIII.\nwas one thing, but afterwards it was another. The language which\nwas blasphemy at the first period, was not so in the other. Those\nexpressions which insulted God before Henry the Eighth was born, did not\ninsult him afterwards. Henry the Eighth's opinion made the difference.\nLord Commissioner White-locke (5 Howell's State Trials, p. 826), in\nDebate whether James Nayler the quaker should suffer death, remarked,\n'I remember a case in our book H. 7, where the bishop committed one to\nprison for a heretic, and the heresy was denying that tythes were due to\nthe parson. This at that time was a very great heresy.'\n\n4. Its disregard of equal justice.--A British subject would be punished\nfor firing into a Turkish vessel; but he is not punishable for attacking\nthe captain and sailors with Bibles and tracts, which, if they read\nand believe, will make them apostates from the faith of Mahomet, and\nblasphemers of the Koran. While on terms of amity with the Sublime\nPorte, the laws of England restrain us from despoiling them of their\nproperty, but not from despoiling them of their religion.**\n\n     * Blackstone's Reports, p. 305.\n\n     ** Vide Freethinker's Information for the People.\n\n5. It debases religion as best set forth.--'Religion (says Miss\nMartineau) is, in its widest sense, \"the tendency of human nature to the\ninfinite;\" and its principle is manifested in the pursuit of perfection\nin any direction whatever. It is in this widest sense that some\nspeculative atheists have been religious men; religious in their efforts\nafter self-perfection; though unable to personify their conception of\nthe infinite. In a somewhat narrower sense, religion is the relation\nwhich the highest human sentiments bear towards an infinitely perfect\nbeing. There can be no further narrowing than this. Any account of\nreligion which restricts it within the boundaries of any system, which\nconnects it with any mode of belief, which implicates it with hope\nof reward, or fear of punishment, is low and injurious, and debases\nreligion into superstition.' How much more is religion degraded that is\nmade the subject of reward and punishment here?\n\nThus speaks the common law upon these points, and thus, as part of the\ncommon law, speaks Christianity. Will you, by a verdict of guilty this\nday, send forth to the world this card of credentials of the religion of\nJesus?\n\nThe intention of a libel constitutes its criminality. It is for you,\ngentlemen, to say whether I knowingly, wickedly, and maliciously\noffended the law? Malice is necessary to a libel--conscientious words\nare allowable, 'Contumely and contempt are what no establishment can\ntolerate: but on the other hand it would not be proper to lay any\nrestraint upon rational and dispassionate discussions of the rectitude\nand propriety of the established mode of worship.' 4 Bla. Com. 51; 1\nPmp. 219. And Mr. Starkie, on the subject, says 'that it may not be\ngoing too far from the principles and decisions, that no author or\npreacher who fairly and conscientiously promulgates the opinions with\nwhose truth he is impressed for the benefit of others, is for so doing\namenable as a criminal, that a malicious and mischievous intention is in\nsuch case the broad boundary between right and wrong; and that if it can\nbe collected from the offensive levity with which so serious a subject\nis treated, or from other circumstances, that the act of the party was\nmalicious, then, since the law has no means of distinguishing between\ndifferent degrees of evil tendency, if the matter published contain any\nsuch tendency, the publisher becomes amenable to justice.'*\n\n     * Starkie on Libel, pp. 496-7.\n\nAs to the duty of the jury, I have Lord Chief Justice Abbott's opinion,\nin his charge to the jury in summing up the evidence against Mr. Joseph\nRussell at the Warwick Summer Assizes, on Friday, August 13, 1819, for\na political libel, being Mr. Hone's 'Parody on the litany.' Mr. Russell\nargued that as Hone had been acquitted for publishing it, he also ought\nto be. 'No one,' says his lordship, 'is more inclined than myself to\nspeak reverently of the decision of juries. But, gentlemen, you cannot,\nunder the sanction of an oath, take the verdict of those juries either\ndirectly or indirectly as your guide in the verdict you are called upon\nto give in this case. Those juries, no doubt, returned their verdicts\nhonestly and conscientiously according to the evidence that was layed\nbefore them. What that evidence was you can know nothing of. You are to\ntry the question by your own consciences and by your own reason. They\nmight have been right in their decision, and you should be careful that\nyou are right in yours.'\n\nAfter this, you will see it is clear that though a jury had before\nfound a person guilty of the offence I am charged with, it will be no\njustification of your doing so too. Here Mr. Holyoake, perceiving that\nhe would be heard fairly, and that no attempts to put him down were\npractised, laid aside a handful of notes, and said:--\n\nI have to thank your lordship, and you, gentlemen of the jury, for the\ncourtesy and attention with which I have been heard. Gentlemen, if I\nhave occupied you long you will find my apology in the circumstance that\nyour verdict against me will occupy me longer. I could wish that justice\nto me and your convenience had permitted brevity. The length of my\ndefence has originated with the charge against me, and not with myself.\n\nIt is said, that when Southey was asked if he were not ashamed of having\nwritten _Wat Tyler_, he answered, no more ashamed than I am of having\nbeen young. Meaning, any man may err in youth. So I erred in being\nreligious in my early days. If I am not religious now, deem me not\ncriminal. Religion never did me a service, how then should I love it?\nBut it assailed my youth with gloomy dogmas, now it assails my liberty.\n\nGentlemen, if during my address to you I have offended by the frankness\nof my avowals, it has not proceeded from a disregard of your feelings,\nbut from the belief that, as men, you would prefer independence to\nservility of speech.\n\nOf the nature of the charge against me I add no further word. My\nonly crime has been the discharge of what I considered a duty. For my\ndifference in opinion with you upon the question of Deity, I offer no\napology. I have made no contract to think as you do, and I owe you no\nobligation to do it. If I commanded you to abjure your belief, you would\ndisregard it as impertinence, and if you punish me for not adjuring\nmine, how will you reconcile it with 'doing as you would wish to be done\nunto?'\n\nHad I said, that there is no God, still I should not deserve the\npenalties of the law. If I point to the wrong I see in this Christian\ncountry, and ask, is this Christianity? you would reply, 'No; what you\nrefer to results from men who live without God in the world.' Then,\ngentlemen, would you punish me for simply saying that which other men,\nunpunished, are every day doing?\n\nIf I have said that religious revenues should be reduced one half,\nI spoke only the dictates of humanity at this season of national\nsuffering. Surely it is not blasphemous to argue that human misery\nshould be alleviated at the expense of spiritual pride.\n\nI ask not equal rights with yourselves. You, as Christians, can imprison\nthose who differ from you. I do not offend your pride by asking to be\nadmitted your equals here. I desire not such privileges. I claim merely\nthe right to speak my convictions; to show a man the right path when I\nthink he takes the wrong one.\n\nIt is a melancholy maxim in these courts of law, that the greater the\ntruth the greater the libel; and so it would be with me this day could\nI demonstrate to you that there is no Deity. The more correct I am the\nseverer would be my punishment, because the law regards the belief in\na God to be the foundation of obedience among men. But I trust I have\nconvinced you that my views of this question are compatible with the\npractice of all our duties to our fellow-men, borne out by eminent\nauthority and long experience.\n\nSetting aside the reprobation of persecution by Middleton, by Clarke, by\nLatimer, and other divines I have quoted; Leslie, Reid, and Bulwer\nhave contended that the objections of the sceptic merely strengthen\nthe fabric of piety they pretend to assail. Gentlemen, which is to be\nbelieved, divines and philosophers, or the common law? These persons\nspeak as though they believed Christianity to be true; the common law\npunishes as though it knew it to be false.\n\nIf the state religion be true, my opinion can never overcome it; and by\nconvicting me you publish your consciousness of error in the cause you\nare placed there to defend as truth. If God be truth you libel him and\nhis power, and publish the omnipotence of error.\n\nWhen in gaol, I one day opened the rules drawn up by the judges. The\n167th opens thus: 'No prisoner shall lie.' Now, gentlemen, how is a man\nto act under these circumstances in which I am placed? If you find me\nguilty upon the indictment before you, my case stands in this manner--if\nI do not lie you imprison me, and if I do you punish me. Turning back to\nthe morality of ancient days, and meditating with delight on their noble\nsincerity and love of truth, am I to count it a misfortune to live in\nmodern times and among a Christian people?\n\nIn your churches, as I have read to you, you implore that truth and\njustice may descend among men, and: the supplication is a noble one.\nGentlemen, will you pray for truth in your churches and brand it in your\ncourts?\n\nThe atmosphere of your gaols as little assimilates with my taste as\ntheir punishments will accord with my constitution, I seek not these\nthings, I assure you, but when they lie in the path of duty I trust I\nshall ever prefer them to a dereliction from it.\n\nBut, gentlemen, supposing that they are my sentiments that you are\nrequested to punish; you should first do yourselves the justice to\nreflect what has been said about them and insinuated in this court.\nLearned divines, and sage writers on atheism, agree that it is too\nabsurd to need refutation--too barren to satisfy, too monstrous to\nattract, too fearful to allure, too dumb to speak, and too deathly not\nto appal its own votaries. It is styled too grave to entertain youth,\nand too devoid of consolation for the trembling wants of age--too\nabstract for the comprehension of the ignorant, and too unreasonable\nto gain the admiration of the intelligent. That it is alarming to the\ntimid, and disquieting to the brave-that it negatives everything, and\nsets up nothing, and is so purely speculative that it can never have a\npractical bearing on the business of life. Gentlemen, will you disturb\nthe harmony of these conclusions by a verdict against me, and attack\nthat which never existed, and place upon the grave records of this court\na slaying of the self-slain? Will you thus draw attention to a subject\nyou perhaps think had better be forgotten, and create a conviction\nthat it must be a greatly important one, since you erect it into public\nnotice by directing the thunders of the law at young and comparatively\ninexperienced believer in its principle?\n\nWould you test my opinions by my emotions on the bed of death? Let me\nassure you, that if men can expect to die in peace who can send their\nfellow men to a gaol because of honest difference of opinion, I have\nnothing to fear.\n\nI am told I may hold opinions, but must keep them to myself--which\nmeans, I may know and feel what is right, but must never do it. I must\nsee my fellow-men in error, but never put them right. Must live every\nday below the standard of right my sense of duty and conscience sets\nup, and all my life long 'prove all things' and never 'hold fast to the\ngood.'\n\nThe indictment charges me with having 'wickedly, maliciously, and with\nevil design,' against the peace of the Queen, uttered certain\nwords. What shadow of evidence has been adduced to substantiate this\nextravagant charge?\n\nWill you suffer this court to proclaim the sacred nature of an oath, and\nopenly violate it in the same hour and under the same roof? I might ask\nin the spirit of that Christianity you sit there to administer, how do\nyou propose to answer to your God in that day when the secrets of all\nhearts are to be opened, when all dissembling is to be exposed, and all\nperjury punished; how do you pro-pose to answer for having invoked the\nname of God in this assembly only to disregard it, on the poor plea of\nprecedent--that others have done so before? For, gentlemen, there is\nnothing else that even the subtlest sophistry can conjure up to justify\nyou. But I best prefer appealing to you as honest men, in the spirit of\nmy own reasoning, and thinking; as men with an eye to the improvement of\nmankind, who would break the unjust shackles that bind them, who would\ndiscard prejudice in order to be just, who will not condemn me because I\nam not rich, and who will listen to humanity rather than to bigotry, and\nrespect truthfulness wherever you may find it. I believe that in every\nhonest heart there is a sense of rectitude that rises superior to\ncreeds, that respects all virtue and protects all truth, that asks for\nno names and seeks no precedents before resolving to do rightly, that\nfears no man's frowns, and dares to be just without custom's permit.\nTo this feeling, gentlemen, only do I appeal, and by its verdict I am\nwilling to abide.\n\nMr. Justice Erskine: Gentlemen of the jury, although the lengthened\naddress of the defendant has demanded from you so long endurance, in\nthis vitiated atmosphere, I still trust we shall have enough of power\nleft to direct our minds to the parts of this case which are important.\nThe greater part of the time has been wasted on subjects with which you\nhave nothing to do. We are not sitting here as a deliberative assembly\nto consider whether in respect of such cases as this it is politic or\nwise to imprison for opinions--whether men ought to be punished for\nuttering such sentiments--and I shall have nothing to say to you on\nthat point. We have to decide on the law as we find it. I shall make no\nlaw--the judges made no law, but have handed it down from the earliest\nages. I should have no more power to alter this than to say the eldest\nson is not the heir of his father. Allusion has been made to some\nexpressions of mine, when in the course of my duty I directed the\nattention of the grand jury to these cases. Certainly the printed report\nwas highly incorrect. I said nothing to prejudice them. Inasmuch as\nthis offence directly tended to take away that foundation on which\nreal morality can alone be safely based, I told them what I feel,\nthat without religion there is no morality. I recommended that that\nfoundation may be made by early education and habits of thought, but\nin so doing I did not mean to prejudge, nor do I seem to have been\nconsidered as doing so, I am not going to lay down as law that no man\nhas a right to entertain opinions opposed to the religion of the state,\nnor to express them. Man is only responsible for his opinions to God,\nbecause God only can judge of his motives, and we arrogate his duties if\nwe judge of men's sentiments. If men will entertain sentiments opposed\nto the religion of the state we require that they shall express them\nreverently, and philosophers who have discussed this subject all agree\nthat this is right Mr. Archdeacon Paley has stated this in language\nso plain, far better than any words I could supply myself. 'Serious\narguments are fair on all sides. Christianity is but ill-defended by\nrefusing audience or toleration to the objections of unbelievers. But\nwhilst we would have freedom of inquiry restrained by no laws but those\nof decency, we are entitled to demand, on behalf of a religion which\nholds forth to mankind assurances of immortality, that its credit\nbe assailed by no other weapons than those of sober discussion and\nlegitimate reasoning.' Our law has adopted that as its rule, and men are\nnot permitted to make use of indecent language in reference to God\nand the Christian religion, without rendering themselves liable to\npunishment. You have had a great number of books read to you, arguing\nwhether it was politic to prosecute in such cases. One of the sentiments\nwas a dignitary's reply, 'I will answer it.' That points out the\ndifference in these cases.\n\nSober argument you may answer, but indecent reviling you cannot, and\ntherefore the law steps in and punishes it. You have been told you have\nto consider what is blasphemy. He asked the witness what he considered\nblasphemy, and he gave him a very sensible answer. What you have to try\nis, whether the defendant wickedly and devisedly did intend to bring the\nChristian religion into contempt among the people, by uttering words\nof and concerning Almighty God, the holy Scriptures, and the Christian\nreligion. The charge is, that he uttered these words with the intention\nof bringing Almighty God, the Christian religion, and the holy\nScriptures, into contempt. You are not called upon to say whether in\nyour judgment the opinions of the defendant are right or wrong--whether\nit is right or wrong that words like these should be punished,\nbut whether he uttered these words with the intent charged in the\nindictment. These words were proved by a witness who admits that others\nwere used, that they did not follow consecutively, and that other words\nwere interspersed. It is right that you should have the whole set before\nyou, for a man is not to be judged for what is partly set before you,\nand therefore it was necessary you should have the whole of what was\nsaid. The way in which the witness related the statements made by\ndefendant was this: He said he had been lecturing on 'Home Colonisation,\nEmigration, and Poor-Laws superseded.' After the lecture had been\nclosed, some man whose name he did not then know, said the lecturer had\nbeen speaking of our duty to our fellow-men, but he had not spoken of\nour duty to our God, and it is important that you should notice that the\nwords were not the subject of the lecture, but uttered in answer to a\nquestion put to him. There is no evidence that he intended to have said\nanything--there is no evidence that this person is a friend of the other\nperson, or that this question was asked so as to give him an opportunity\nof uttering these sentiments,* If that had been the case it would have\nmade it worse than if he had introduced it. This challenge having been\nmade by this person, whoever it was, the defendant said--'I am of no\nreligion at all; I do not believe in such a thing as a God.' There is\nnothing in the introduction of the word 'thing' to show that he intended\nto-treat the subject with levity and contempt. You might take it that he\nsaid he did not believe there is such a being as a God.\n\n     * The artifice which Mr. Justice Erskine here suggested to\n     the jury never entered into my imagination. The evidence\n     could not have given the jury any such idea, and I was\n     pained and astonished to hear the judge employ it.\n\nThe witness went on: 'He said the people of this country are too poor\nto have any religion, he would serve the Deity as the government did the\nsubaltern officers--place him on half-pay; I was near the door; you said\nthe reason was the expense of religion. And then he was asked as to his\nopinion of blasphemy. He is then cross-examined as to his knowledge of\nsome report made by another person. You did not lay any emphasis on the\nword thing; you said the word in the ordinary tone of voice.' There\nis something which defendant has alleged himself to have stated* which\ngives a stronger sting than that which was given by the witness--'I flee\nthe Bible as a viper.' The question is whether these words were uttered\nwith the intention of bringing God and the Christian religion into\ncontempt. Then the charge is made out, for I tell you that it is an\noffence at common law. If it is not an offence, the indictment is not\nworth the parchment it is written upon--if there is no such authority\nas that which I have laid down. Any man who treats with contempt the\nChristian religion, is guilty of an indictable misdemeanour. You have\nto consider the language and a passage read to you from a charge of a\nlearned judge. 'It may not be going too far to state, that no author or\npreacher is forbidden stating his opinions sincerely. By maliciously is\nnot meant malice against any particular individual, but a mischievous\nintent. This is the criterion, and it is a fair criterion, if it can be\ncollected from the offensive levity in which the subject is treated, if\nthe matter placed in the indictment contains any such tendency.' If\nthe words had appeared in the course of a written paper you would have\nentertained no doubt that the person who had uttered these words had\nuttered them with levity. The only thing in his favour is, that it\nwas not a written answer. The solution given by the defendant is, that\nalthough his opinions are unhappily such that he has no belief in a God,\nhe had no intention of bringing religion into contempt. He went on\nto state that he considered it the duty of the clergymen of the\nestablishment to have reduced their incomes one-half. If he had meant\nthis, he ought to have made use of other language. You will dismiss from\nyour minds all statements in newspapers, or other statements made out\nof court, and consider it in reference to the evidence. If you are\nconvinced that he uttered it with levity, for the purpose of treating\nwith contempt the majesty of Almighty God he is guilty of the offence.\nIf you think he made use of these words in the heat of argument without\nany such intent, you will give him the benefit of the doubt. If you\nare convinced that he did it with that object you must find him guilty,\ndespite of all that has been addressed to you. If you entertain a\nreasonable doubt of his intention, you will give him the benefit of it.\n\n     * In the report of my original speech to Maitland, which I\n     read to the court from the Oracle.\n\nThe jury, after a very brief deliberation, returned a verdict of\n_Guilty_.\n\n[One of the jury was a Deist, a professed friend of free speech, and who\nhad said that he never could convict me, but he wanted courage when the\nhour of the verdict came, and gave in against me. For myself, I never\nfor a moment expected an acquittal. During the few moments of the jury's\nconsultation, I took my watch from my neck and gave it, with my keys, to\nmy friend, Mr. Knight Hunt. My papers I consigned to my friend Mr. W. B.\nSmith, as for all I knew they might the next moment become the property\nof the court by virtue of the sentence.]\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. George Jacob Holyoake, if you had been convicted as\nthe author of that paper which Adams has been convicted of publishing,\nmy sentence must have been very severe. But, although the name is the\nsame, there is no evidence of it.* You have been convicted of uttering\nlanguage, and although yom have been adducing long arguments to show\nthe impolicy of these prosecutions, you are convicted of having uttered\nthese words with improper levity. The arm of the law is not stretched\nout to protect the character of the Almighty; we do not assume to be\nthe protectors of our God, but to protect the people from such\nindecent language. And if these words had been written for deliberate\ncirculation, I should have passed on you a severer sentence. You uttered\nthem in consequence of a question--I have no evidence that this question\nwas put to draw out these words. Proceeding on the evidence that has\nbeen given, trusting that these words have been uttered in the heat\nof the moment, I shall think it sufficient to sentence you to be\n_imprisoned in the Common Gaol for Six calendar months_.\n\n     * This is another of those unwarranted suppositions in which\n     the judge ought not to have indulged. 'That paper' was\n     written by my friend Mr. Chilton, Editor of the Oracle in my\n     absence, and signed with his initials. The judge might have\n     known that I was in Gloucester Gaol when it was written and\n     published. I should have stopped the judge and corrected\n     him, but I feared by seeming to separate myself from Adams,\n     to be thought capable of saving myself at his expense, or\n     exposing him to new rigour.\n\nMr. Holyoake. My lord, am I to be classed with thieves and felons?\n\nMr. Justice Erskine. No; thieves and felons are sentenced to the\nPenitentiary, you to the Common Gaol.\n\nThe court adjourned at ten o'clock.\n\n\nWhat was advanced by the counsel and the judge has been rendered in full\nin the foregoing report, but I have contented myself with an abstract\nof what I urged myself. The _Times_ said I quoted from more than thirty\nauthors, which is very likely; but it was not because I was not sensible\nof the good taste of brevity that I occupied the bench so long. I was\nstanding that day in court fourteen hours, and, including the cross\nexaminations, I was speaking more than eleven hours. I prepared notes\nto last me two days; and after the first six hours, my voice, usually\nshrill and weak, became full and somewhat sonorous. I could have spoken\nall night, and I should have done it had the judge attempted to put me\ndown. But I willingly acknowledge that, on the whole, the conduct of\nthe judge was fair to me, and patient to a degree that inspired me with\ngreat respect for the dignity of the bench, and I dedicated my 'Short\nand Easy Method with the Saints' to Mr. Justice Erskine, as an actual\nexpression of my respect. The governor of the gaol one day said to me,\nthat I ought not to regret six months' imprisonment after occupying\nthe court and public so many hours. I did not regret it. Indeed, I more\ndeserved the sentence for the length of my defence than for the words\nfor which I was indicted. But it was the menace of the magistrates\n(before recounted) that I should not be heard, that did me the harm,\nand exposed me to the imputation of wanting good sense, which is a worse\nimputation than that of wanting orthodoxy. This came of inexperience in\nimprisonment. The menaces of magistrates will not so mislead me another\ntime.\n\nWhen I now read the notices of these proceedings which I furnished to\nthe _Oracle_ at the time, I smile at the juvenility of comment in which\nI indulged. When similarly-worded reports reach me for the _Reasoner_,\nmy practice is to extract the simple facts--and, of course, the writers\nremonstrate with me; but how grateful should I be now if some one had\ndone the same by me then. The principle on which we proceeded with our\n_Oracle_ was that every man should express himself in his own words and\nin his own way, and we thought it a crime against freedom to distinguish\nbetween weak comment and the report of essential facts, or the\nexpression of vital principle. The report of the proceedings rendered\nin these pages is given in some measure upon the rule of discrimination\nwhich I have described. But, in this, I have been impartial to others,\nand have omitted many things on the part of my opponents which I\nbelieve they would not repeat, and which I, therefore, have no wish to\nperpetuate. The remaining variations between this report and that which\nformerly appeared will be found to be partly on the side of greater\naccuracy in some respects, and more fulness in others. The original\nreport presented most of the quotations, calling them a string of\npearls, but left in a very unravelled state the string which tied\nthem--and hence they read like abrupt interpolations. I have now given\nthe connecting observations, the spirit of the extracts, and, in cases\nwhere the extracts have not since that time grown familiar to the public\near, I have given them also.\n\nThe influence of my defence upon the public at Gloucester and\nCheltenham, notwithstanding the difficulties under which I laboured, was\nin my favour beyond my expectation. The newspapers stated that the court\nand jury were attentive throughout, and the numbers who thronged the\ncourt behaved in the most decorous manner, testifying their interest in\nthe proceedings by a uniform silence, manifesting neither approbation\nnor disapprobation.' Several newspapers gave nine or ten columns of\nthe proceedings, which was valuable propagandism. And it is due to the\n_Cheltenham Examiner_ (whose parallel between me and Francis the reader\nwill not have forgotten), to state that it gave an effective rendering\nof my defence, and added these compensatory words to its report:--'The\ndefendant spoke throughout in a temperate manner, and his defence\nappeared to tell in his favour, so far as regarded the honesty of his\nmotives.'\n\nLet me say here that my grateful acknowledgments are due to the editor\nof the _Cheltenham Free Press_. That paper reported whatever concerned\nmy liberty, my conscience, or my character. It risked much in defending,\nalone among its local contemporaries, the freedom of speech violated in\nmy person. It opened its columns to Goodwyn Barmby's proclamations, to\nCatherine Barmby's letters, to Richard Carlile's defences, and to the\nnumerous communications of my friends on my behalf.\n\nMy acknowledgments are also due to the _Weekly Dispatch_. On my visiting\nLondon 'Publicola,' then Captain Williams, invited me to call upon him,\nand inform him of my position with respect to the pending trial; and his\nable Letters to Justice Erg-kine, after my conviction, produced great\nuneasiness at the gaol, and each number of the _Dispatch_ was awaited\nfor some weeks by the authorities around me, as I learned from the\ngaolers, with anxiety.\n\nMy defence, considered as a defence of the wide and momentous question\nof atheism, was crude enough. No one can be more sensible of that than I\nam. On the moral aspects of atheism and its relation to public polity\nI feared to enter, lest in my own newness to the study of so large\na subject I should compromise it by unskilfulness of statement;\nI therefore confined myself to pleading that the right of public\nexpression was the sequence of the right of private judgment--that\nthe right of expression was consonant to the common law as well as to\nreason, and that the right of expression being necessary to private\nmorality, it could not be incompatible with the public peace.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. AFTER THE SENTENCE\n\nAs soon as the sentence was pronounced, I was taken to the ceils under\nthe court. Captain Mason, the governor, said there was another prisoner\nto go down besides me and Adams. It was a case of felony. He said 'Would\nI go with him?' i replied 'I would not.' He then asked if I 'objected to\ngo with Adams.' That I cheerfully agreed to, and, handcuffed with Adams,\nI walked down to the gaol. Having taken nothing since morning but a\nlittle raspberry vinegar, with which Mr. Carlile supplied me, I began\nto feel weak, but nothing was offered me except a little warm water, for\nwhich I asked, and this, with a very hard and bitter apple, constituted\nmy supper. The transition from the excitement of the court to the\ndarkness and coolness of the night-cell, made me feel as if going into a\nwell, and my supper not serving to compose me, I continued restless till\nthe morning.\n\nNext day I felt so weak that I could scarcely stand upright. About\ntwelve o'clock Mr. Bransby Cooper and the Rev. Samuel Jones came round.\nWhen Mr. Cooper saw me, he said, 'Why, Holyoake, I did not know you\nyesterday.'\n\n'Why, sir?'\n\n'You did not seem to be the same person you were before.'\n\n'In what respect was I different?'\n\n'Before you were so gentle and submissive, but yesterday there was so\nmuch _hauteur_ about you.'\n\nI answered, 'Here I had to endure your authority; in court I had to\ndefend my character and liberty. It was my turn yesterday, it is yours\nagain to-day.'\n\nAbout the middle of the first day's imprisonment I was startled by the\nsonorous voice of the street cryer, passing near the walls of the gaol,\ncrying with a loud voice--'Howitt's correct list of all the cast, quit,\nand condemned;' and specifying, with marked emphasis, far above that\nbestowed on two cases of _wilful murder_, the case of George Jacob\nHolyoake, for uttering certain Blasphemous words against God, and of and\nconcerning the Christian Religion.' The above words and specification\nare to be found in the said 'Correct List,' which a turnkey bought for\nme at my request, and which I still have. On the second morning after\nmy sentence, I was sitting by the (very little) fire in the common room,\ncontemplating, with very critical air, a can of somewhat indifferent\ngruel, which I had not the slightest disposition to eat, when the prayer\nbell rung, which did not at all improve my temper. Where the gaol was\nsituated, I enjoyed such a propinquity to dock bells, basin bells,\ncathedral bells, and gaol bells, that had I been inclined to _rebel_,\nit would have chimed in with the others. Upon the aforesaid prayer bell\nringing, all my fellow-prisoners made a rapid escape. I could not tell\nwhat had become of them. Over my head was a large grating, for the\nconvenience of gaolers overlooking the room. Down this grating there\ncame a tremendous voice, shouting 'Holyoake! Holyoake! Holyoake!' The\nvoice belonged to Ogden, a man whom Carlyle would have delighted to\nhonour. Nature made him for a gaoler. Looking up, I said 'What do you\nwant?'\n\n'Did you not hear that bell?'\n\n'Yes,' I said; 'what of that?'\n\n'All the other prisoners are gone to prayers.'\n\n'Well, let the poor devils go, if they like it.'\n\n'I can't be talked to in this way,' he roared out, in his surliest\ntones; 'you must go.'\n\n'I am afraid that is a mistake of yours.'\n\n'Don't you know where you are?'\n\n'Yes; I'm in Gloucester Gaol, sitting over a can of very bad gruel.'\n\n'Don't you know you are a prisoner?' 'Oh! yes; I am quite sensible of\nit.'\n\n'Well, you must do as the others do, and you must go to prayers.'\n\n'Then you must carry me.'\n\n'I'll report you to the clergyman.'\n\n'Give the clergyman my compliments, and say I'm not coming to prayers.'\n\nHe stalked away with the air of one whose dignity was greatly outraged.\nDuring the time of this colloquy prayers were suspended, and the\nclergyman was waiting my arrival in order to begin. As soon as prayers\nwere well over, an order came for me--'The clergyman wanted me.'\n\n'Well, Mr. Holyoake,' he said, when I met him, 'how is it you did not\ncome to prayers?'\n\nI answered, 'You cannot expect me to come to prayers; you imprison me\nhere on the ground that I do not believe in a God, and then you would\ntake me to chapel to pray to one. I cannot prevent your imprisoning me,\nbut I can prevent your making me a hypocrite, and must.'\n\n'But if you attended the ordinances of grace, it might lead you to\nbelieve in the Christian religion.'\n\n'I should be very sorry for that.'\n\n'Really me--how can you say so, sir?'\n\n'Because I should be very sorry to treat those who differ from me as you\ntreat me.'\n\n'You do not understand us. It is not you we persecute--it is your\nopinions.'\n\n'Then I wish you would imprison my opinions, and not me.' Here he\nturned to refresh himself by looking at the rules for the regulation\nof prisoners in Gloucester gaol. He resumed--'But you must attend\nprayers--it's the rule of the gaol.' 'I must do what I must do, I know;\nbut, if I do that, I must be carried into chapel every morning, and that\nwill not edify the remainder of your congregation. What can I do if\nI go? I could not say, \"O Lord, I have erred and strayed like a lost\nsheep.\" You see yonder gratings? I'm not likely to err and stray, for\nthe next six months, beyond those bars.' 'Ah! that is not what we mean.'\n\n'Then what do you mean? Can I join with those men in saying, \"O Lord,\nwho hath given us grace with one accord to make our common supplications\nunto thee,\" when I shall make no supplications, unless I am forced to\nit? You know the prisoners only go because the turnkey is behind them?'\nThen I showed him the passage, 'We have done those things which we ought\nnot to have done,' &c, and asked him what I had done, or had the chance\nof doing, wrong, since I came there? At this he was puzzled a little,\nand he at last answered--\n\n'Ah! but we think there is a divine influence in prayer, which might\noperate upon you.'\n\n'Not in this place,' I answered, 'where it is so much contradicted by\nyour practice. I will agree to this, that when on Sundays you preach,\nand I may hear something new, I will come.'\n\nHe ended the colloquy after a very Christian manner, by saying, 'Well,\nif you don't come to prayers, you shall be locked up.'\n\nI answered, 'Well, sir, give your orders.' I need scarcely say this was\ndone, in one form or other, to the end of my imprisonment. Sometimes\nI was locked in my sleeping cell, but generally in the day room; but\nI found it more agreeable than the litany, and I never asked for any\nalteration. I went to chapel only on Sunday (the preaching day), but\nnever to the week-day prayers.\n\nOffensive regulations were often sought to be applied to me. One was\nan attempt to make me wear the prison dress. I said I preferred my\nown clothes. The answer was, the rules were imperative, and they must\nenforce them. I inquired whether they had any spare time on their hands,\nfor it would be necessary to dress me every morning. My answer was\nreported to the magistrates, and I heard no more of the project.\n\nOut of doors much is said against passive resistance, but in prison it\nis the only resistance possible, and is often very effective, If you\nspeak or act, you are at the mercy of those in whose power you are. Take\nany aggressive step and your gaoler knocks you down, or locks you up in\na moment. But if you simply will not do a thing, if without bluster or\nbravado you leave it to them to make you do it, or to do it themselves,\nthey often find it of rather awkward accomplishment. To carry me\nto prayers or to dress me every morning was far more offensive and\ntroublesome to them than breaking my head, so they left me alone.\n\nOld Mr. Jones, the magistrate, paid me frequent visits. One day he took\nme to the door, and pointing upwards, asked, 'did I not see there\nproofs sufficient of the existence of a God?' I answered, that 'when the\nboundless expanse of the skies had been before me I had been unable to\nthink so, and now the few square feet, which the high walls of the gaol\npermitted me to see, were still less likely to inspire me with that\nconviction.'\n\nA little reflection ought to have shown these gentlemen, who made these\nappeals to me, that the time and place were both inauspicious in which\nto address to me such interrogatories. Indeed it was offensive, and on\nmore than one occasion I told them, that having undertaken to compel my\nacquiescence with them by imprisonment, I could never divest myself of\nthe conviction that it was superfluous to pretend to win me by argument.\n\nThe last visit Mr. Jones paid was to read me a psalm. As on my trial I\nhad complained of the discourtesy of their calling me a fool, the old\nman was particularly anxious to justify himself. He found what seemed to\nhim a favourable opportunity in the circumstance that a German scholar\nhad at this time published a new translation of the Psalms of David. As\nI had spoken favourably of German theologians, he concluded that this\none would have weight with me. He brought down the book, summoned the\nwhole class of prisoners, and we stood twelve or eighteen in a row.\nProclaiming attention, he said he wished to read to us, and particularly\nto me, the 14th Psalm. Reading aloud the first verse where David\nobserves 'the fool hath said in his heart there is no God,' Mr. Jones\nsaid, 'Now, Holyoake, you complained that we called you a fool--you\nsee David says you are a fool.' The old man looked round with an air of\ntriumph, which was considerably moderated when I gently but distinctly\nobserved that 'I no more liked rudeness in the mouth of David than\nin the mouth of a magistrate.' My fellow-prisoners glanced around in\nconsternation at my audacity, and expected to hear me ordered into the\ndark cell, but old Mr. Jones turned round, shut up his book, and walked\naway without saying a word, and I never saw him afterwards.\n\nThe next day I wrote to the Board of Magistrates to say that 'if\nvisiting magistrates continued to question me before other prisoners,\nwhere the discipline of the gaol forbade adequate reply, I should refuse\nto answer.' In future I was always called out by myself and spoken with\nalone.\n\nBefore my trial the same Mr. Jones told me that my friend, Mr. Richard\nCarlile, had died in London a very horrible death, recanting all his\nprinciples before he expired, and urged me to take warning by his\nexample and do the same. Shortly after Mr. Jones was surprised to meet\nMr. Carlile in the corridor of the gaol bringing me refreshments, which\nhis experience assured him I needed. And it was not the least part of\nmy pride on the day of my trial that he sat near me from morning till\nnight, encouraging me by his presence, and assisting me by his wisdom.\nAfter my conviction he vindicated me assiduously through the press,\naddressed to me public letters, and wrote to Justice Erskine and Sir\nRobert Peel, threatening to renew his former war against the Church if\nmy situation was not ameliorated--a very curious species of recantation\nit must be confessed, but a fair sample of the usual death-bed 'scenes'\nwhich the pulpits relate.\n\nMy company as a prisoner was not of a very agreeable kind, I had to\nlisten to recitals of depravity such as I never heard before, and do\nnot wish to hear again. But this was not all. Sometimes a companion was\nfilthy as well as wicked. One man sent in among us had the itch, and\nbefore I found it out he had held me by the wrists in some accidental\nwrestle--which misfortune might have subjected me to a taste of prison\ndiscipline which few will be able to imagine.\n\nWhen the surgeon finds that a prisoner has this disease he makes no\nremark, but shortly after, the man is called out by the turnkey, whom\nhe has to follow through various corridors to remote cells at the top\nof the gaol, near the gallows. Upon entering one, he is told to take\noff his clothes. As soon as he is in a state of nudity, his clothes\nare taken away, and locked up. He is then shown a cask filled with\nbrimstone, grease, and other mixture, of the consistence of pitch,\nand quite as offensive to the sight. With this he is made to smear\nhis entire person over; when this is done, he is left locked up in the\nplace. All he finds about him is a bed on which are two blankets, in\nwhich hundreds, smeared as he is, have lain before. When no longer able\nto endure the cold, he may lie in this place. Thick and chilly, these\ndisgusting coverings adjust themselves to the body when softened by the\nwarmth, where, without caution, the liquid will run into the eyes and\nthe mouth. Here he remains some days and eats the uncut food which is\nbrought to him as well as he can with his filthy fingers.\n\nSuch is the description of a process of cure (as I gathered from\nseveral whose experience I heard narrated), to which I might have been\nsubjected, if, when I discovered pustules on my wrists similar to those\non the infected man, I had not kept from the observation of the surgeon\nwhile they remained. My habit of daily ablution, and some medicine I\nprocured, saved me from more than temporary discomfort. I need scarcely\nadd, that had such a cure been attempted on me, I should have had to\nbe carried to the place, and the application must have been effected by\nforce.\n\nAfter some weeks' imprisonment, and when I had had sufficient\nopportunity of noticing the disposition of the authorities, and\nestimating the treatment to which I was to be subjected, I addressed the\nfollowing, slightly abridged--\n\nMemorial of George Jacob Holyoake, prisoner for Blasphemy* In Gloucester\n\nCounty Gaol, to Sir James Graham, her Majesty's Secretary of State.\n\nSir,--At the recent Gloucester Assizes your memorialist was sentenced by\nMr. Justice Erskine to six months' imprisonment for the alleged offence\nof blasphemy.\n\nSince that period he has been confined in the common gaol and fed on\nconvict gruel, bread, rice, and potatoes. It is true your memorialist\nis allowed the privilege of purchasing, to some extent, better food,\nbut his imprisonment renders this privilege valueless, without the\nassistance of friends, upon whom are the claims of his family left\ndependent by his incarceration.\n\nUnder these circumstances your memorialist applied to the surgeon of the\ngaol for other diet; by the surgeon he was referred to the governor;\nby the governor to the visiting magistrates, and by the visiting\nmagistrates back to e surgeon, who subsequently has _recommended_,\nthough not prescribed, better diet: but from the recommendation of\nit, your memorialist concludes that in that gentleman's opinion it\nis necessary. Two other surgeons whom your memorialist consulted on\nentering his prison warned him that a generous diet was absolutely\nrequisite, and the decay of your memorialist's health is a testimony of\nits truth.\n\nHe prays for other regulations than those under which he sees visitors.\nThey have always to stand, sometimes to talk through the bars of a gate,\nand are permitted to stay but a few minutes. As your memorialist is far\nfrom his friends, these rules continually prevent him seeing them, and\nreceiving those attentions to his wants he otherwise would.\n\nHe wishes permission to remain up in an evening until the hour of the\ndebtors' retiring (9 o'clock), or at least to be allowed the use of\na light in his cell, in which he is confined from twelve to fourteen\nhours, and during the winter he will be so shut up sixteen hours and a\nhalf. Thus much time will be lost your memorialist could employ upon\na little mathematical speculation.** which would afford him the\ngratification of contributing himself to the support of his family.\n\n     * I always said 'Prisoner for Blasphemy' in all my\n     communications, and directed my friends so to address me, to\n     which the magistrates objected. But if I was to be written\n     to at a gaol, I preferred to be known as a prisoner for\n     opinion rather than as a prisoner for crime.\n\n     ** Mentioned to prevent the supposition on the part of Sir\n     James that the time would be employed in writing blasphemy,\n     which would be fatal to the application.\n\nAs every newspaper sent your memorialist is retained by the governor,\nyour memorialist prays the liberty of reading them.\n\nThe visiting magistrates have said they should have no objection to\ngrant what your memorialist asks, had they the power; and hence he prays\nthe exercise of your authority on his behalf.\n\nAs custom attaches little weight to the opinion of a prisoner, it\nbecomes not your memorialist to speak of his own case, but trusts he\nmay with propriety refer to it as one in which he believes will be found\nlittle that is aggravated. Seduced in the warmth of debate to express\nhis honest opinion on a religious question, young and inexperienced, he\ntook not the hypocrite's crooned path, nor the dissembler's hidden way,\nbut unwarily uttered language disingenuousness would have concealed\nor art have polished, and became in consequence the ready victim of\nChristianity. Criminal without intention, punishment brings with it\nno consciousness or guilt, and hence that which in other circumstances\nwould be light, is, in his, a bitter infliction.\n\nGeorge Jacob Holyoake.\n\n\nSir James gave me permission to remain up till 9 o'clock after I had\nbeen three months in prison. But for the concession it required an\neffort to be grateful, for it was a permission to remain up without fire\nand without light. For unless I could pay for fire and light, I had to\ngo without. Whether Sir James Graham intended this, I have no means of\nknowing; he probably expected that the magistrates would not interpret\nhis order as a privilege to sit up in the cold and in the dark, which\nwould be a greater punishment than going to bed. But they did put this\nconstruction upon it. As Sir James did not mention fire and light, they\nrefused to supply them.\n\nMathematical studies were impossible, for the authorities also refused\nto allow me my instruments, lest I should commit suicide with them; but\nI had provided for that, as every man should who goes to gaol. There was\njust width enough in my cell to admit of the heavy iron bed-frame being\nraised on one end. By marking a circle round one of the legs, which I\ndid with a fragment of stone, I determined the place on which the leg\nwould fall when the frame was pulled down. My head once placed on that\nspot, the great weight of the frame would have sent the narrow leg\nthrough the brain, and death must have been instantaneous. I am no\nfriend of suicide, and had a thousand reasons for living; but I had\nnot been long in gaol before I saw many things to which none but the\ndegraded or the weak would submit--and lest they should come to my turn,\nI provided against them.\n\nAbout this time an event occurred in my family which converted my\nimprisonment into an unexpected bitterness. Against that 'love abroad\nwhich means spite (or indifference) at home,' I early set my face.\nBetween me and Eleanor, my wife, there always existed an understanding\nas to the risks I ran in my free speaking. Whatever consequences fell\nupon my own head alone, I had myself only to please in incurring: but\nthose which affected others, I had no right to invoke, without their\nconsent--and this consent I always sought from my wife, in any special\ncase which arose. At our marriage, Eleanor very well understood that\nmy life somewhat resembled a soldier's, and that it would often include\nduties and dangers not compatible with perennial fireside comfort Nor\ndid she object to this, and I have had the sweet fortune always to be\nleft to do whatever I should have done, had I been single and childless.\nOn my saying, on the imprisonment of Mr. Southwell, first editor of the\n_Oracle_, that it was my duty to take his place, Eleanor replied--'Do\nwhat it seems your duty to do, and I and the children will take care\nof ourselves as well as we can. When they grow up, I trust they will\ncontemplate with little satisfaction any advantage they might have\nenjoyed at the expense of their father's duty. We can leave them no\nriches, but we may at least leave them a good example, and an unsoiled\nname.'\n\nIt was therefore that when I came to leave home, to go to my trial, all\nwas calm and cheerful as usual, though there was much around to suggest\nuneven thoughts. On that day no one came to accompany me or to spend an\nhour of solace with those from whom I parted. Had there been a single\nfriend present to have made up the appearance of society after I was\ngone, the loneliness would have been less bitter. As I left the house I\nheard that cry break forth which had been suppressed that it might\nnot sadden my departure. Before I had proceeded far up Windsor Street,\nAshted, I was arrested by Madeline's silvery voice calling 'good bye,\ndada,' and turning round I saw her large bright, black eyes (which every\nbody praised) peering like two stars round the lintel of the door. I am\nglad I did not then know that I should never hear that voice again, nor\nsee those bright eyes any more. To turn the attention of mankind in an\natheistical direction may do harm to some. The propagation of all\nnew views does harm, more or less. As in commercial speculations much\ncapital is sunk before any returns come in, so in the improvement of\nthe people, you sacrifice some old feeling which is good, before the\nnew opinion, which is better, can be created. But all the new opinions\nI have at any time imbibed have never produced so much harm in me as\nthe prudential doctrines of Political Economy. The doctrine that it is\ndisreputable in the poor to have children, is salutary, no doubt--but\nit requires to be enforced under limitation. To regard the existence\nof your little ones as an expense, and the gentle love of children as\na luxury in which you cannot indulge without reproach, is to sour life,\ndry up affection, and blight those whose tender years should be passed\nin a perpetual smile of joy. To look into the face of your child and\nfeel that the hand of death, which shall hush that gentle voice, pale\nthose rosy cheeks, and quench those animated eyes--is a political\nblessing, is horrible. I look back with mute terror on the day when I\nwas under the influence of those feelings. I cannot dwell upon it. I\nwould burn all the books of Political Economy I ever read (and I think\nit the science of many blessings) if I could feel once more on my knee\nthe gentle hand of my child from whom I parted that day, too stoical to\nshed a tear.\n\nAfter a few weeks of my imprisonment had passed away, hint--words came\nof Madeline's failing health. Out of some money sent by my private\nfriends, John Fowler and Paul Rodgers, of Shefield, to buy better food\nthan the gaol afforded, I saved a guinea and sent it to Birmingham to\npurchase Madeline a winter cloak--it was spent in buying her a coffin.\nThough of perfect health and agility, she was one of those children\nwho require entire preservation from exposure, want, or fatigue. On ten\nshillings per week, which was all that the Anti-Persecution Union could\nprovide, this could not be done, as Eveline, then in arms, left her\nmother no opportunity of increasing that small income. Cold succeeded\ncold, when want of more means caused them all to go to live in a house\nill ventilated, and where several were ill of fever, which soon attacked\nMadeline.\n\nMr. Chilton sent me several intimations to prepare for the worst, should\nit happen. But I could not believe in the worst happening, and indeed\nI had yet to realise what the worst implied. At length one morning\nthe heavy corridor door grated on its harsh hinges, and the morose\nturnkey--fit messenger of misery--put a letter into my hand. As it had\nbeen, as usual, broken open--for there is no feeling, not even that of\naffection and death, respected in a gaol--Ogden knew its contents,\nand in justice to him I must say he endeavoured, as well as one whose\nability lay in his moroseness could, to speak a word of apology and\nsympathy. The strangeness and awkwardness of the attempt drew my\nattention to the fatal black border, which gave me sensations such as I\nnever received before and never shall again, for the first death of one\ndear to you, like that of the first love, brings with it a feeling which\nis never repeated. I remember that some prisoner came and covered me\nwith a coat, for I had walked into the yard without one. Captain Mason\nand two friends came round, but I could not speak to them. He addressed\na few words to me, but I turned away.\n\nThen Madeline had died the death of the poor; she had perished among the\npeople who know neither hope nor comfort, a pledge that I shall never\nforsake those with whose sad destiny one so dear to me is linked. Though\nin the death of poverty there is nothing remarkable, though hundreds\nof children are daily killed off in the same way, yet parents unused to\nthis form of calamity find in it, the first time, a bitterness which can\nnever be told. The ten shillings per week income of the family was made\nup by small subscriptions by some who knew me, and by a few outside\nwho happened to think useful the course I had taken. One or two friends\nwhose professions had beforetime been profuse, Eleanor met. They were\ncold, or to her they seemed so. She thought they feared a continued\nacquaintance might lay them under some tax to contribute to her support.\nThis she could never bear. Offering her hand to one who did not take\nit, she went home, and nothing induced her to subject herself to such\nsuspicion any more. A quick and enduring sense of independence, which no\nprivation could disturb, was an attribute in her character I had always\nadmired, and this dreadful form of its operation I have never been able\nto censure. The Roman mother put on the armour of her son as he went\nout, and saw him brought home dead from the fight without weakness: but\nin that case, the strife of arms, the glory of victory, the sublimity\nof duty, and the applause of the senate, were so many supports to the\nmother's heroism; but harder far is it for a mother to bend over her\nchild day by day and night after night, and see relentless death eat\nlike a canker into the bud of the damask cheek of beauty, and be too\npoor to snatch it from the tomb--and this with no trumpet note, no clang\nof arms to drown the dying scream, no incense of glory to raise\nthe sinking heart, no applause of a generous people to reward the\nsacrifice--without one soul near who could penetrate to the depth of\nthat desolation, and utter those words of sympathy which is all which\nhumanity can do to soothe in the face of death. There were indeed those\nnear who might have done so, but some could not comprehend this grief,\nand others, for reasons of Political Economy, 'did not see the good of\nregret' at a child dying, and they will learn from these pages for the\nfirst time that these wounds existed which, after eight years, are still\nfresh.\n\nThere are homesteads that have witnessed deeds That battle fields, with\nall their bannered pomp, Have little to compare with. Life's great play\nMay, so it have an actor great enough, Be well performed upon a humble\nstage.\n\n'My dada's coming to see me,' Madeline exclaimed on the night of her\ndeath, with that full, pure, and thrilling tone which marked her when\nin health. 'I am sure he is coming to night, mama,' and then remembering\nthat that could not be, she said 'write to him, mama, he will come to\nsee me;' and these were the last words she uttered--and all that remains\nnow is the memory of that cheerless, tireless room, and the midnight\nreverberation of that voice which I would give a new world to hear\nagain.\n\nFor her father, he was debating in incoherence the vain proposition as\nto whether he could prevail on the Governor to let him go home for\none night to smooth and watch over that dying pillow, and he would\ncheerfully and gratefully have expiated the privilege by six or twelve\nmonths' additional imprisonment.\n\nO liberty! whom the nations welcome with triumphant shouts, Whom all to\nwhom the world owes its progress have worshipped--over how many graves\nhast thou walked! Rising with the morning's dawn, making all people\nradiant with thy presence, the poet thrills as thy chariot is borne on\nthe tarn's golden beams, and he hails thee as a goddess, and blesses\nthee as a bride, and sings of thy triumphs and benefactions! But those\nwho serve thee--who make their lives a sad and desert waste that thy\npathway through the world may be unobstructed--who kneel to thee in\ntheir dungeon-churches and pour out the incense of life's young warm\nblood at gibbet-altars: they know thee by thy gory garments dripping\nwith the blood of the father and the tear of the orphan, and the\ndesolation which precedes thy progress. The anthems of thy march are\nhollow voices from Siberia's mines, and Vinceanes' cells--the wail of\nwomen under the Russian knout, the groans of Konarski and the whistle\nof bullets which slay the Bandiera and Blum--thy trophies are the fresh\ngraves of Hungary and Rome, thy throne is on a hecatomb of earth's\nnoblest and bravest sons. Yet art thou still sacred in the eyes of man.\nQueen of Genius and Progress! emblem of that suffering through which\nHumanity is purified and developed! Thou hast trodden on the grave of\nmy child, and I worship then still, although thou mayst yet tread on my\nown.\n\nYes, though I neither hope--for that would be presumptuous--nor expect\nit, seeing no foundation, I shall be pleased to find a life after this.\nNot a life where those are punished who were unable to believe without\nevidence, and unwilling to act in spite of reason--for the prospect of\nannihilation is pleasanter and more profitable to contemplate: not a\nlife where an easy faith is regarded as 'easy virtue' is regarded\namong some men--but a life where those we have loved and lost here are\nrestored to us again--for there, in that Hall where those may meet who\nhave been sacrificed in the cause of duty--where no gross, or blind, or\nselfish, or cruel nature mingles, where none sit but those whom human\nservice and endurance have purified and entitled to that high company,\nMadeline will be a Hebe. Yes, a future life, bringing with it the\nadmission to such companionship, would be a noble joy to contemplate.\nBut Christianity has no such dream as this.\n\nOn making arrangements for the burial, at the Birmingham Cemetery,\nthe clerk asked whether they should provide a Minister, or whether the\nfriends of the deceased would do so? The answer was--'A minister was not\ndesired. 'Then I presume,' the clerk observed, 'you mean that you will\nprovide one yourselves?' The answer again was, 'we do not require one at\nall. Please send the beadle merely.'\n\nOn the day of the interment the beadle attended as requested. He was\ninstructed to conduct the burial party direct to the grave; and not into\nthe chapel, which he did without remark: and when the coffin, plain but\npretty, without tinsel or angels, was lowered, each threw a bouquet\nof flowers in, and when the grave was made up they returned home. Thus\nMadeline was buried, as became her innocence and her fate, without\nparade, without priest, or priestly ceremony. Had hesitation been\ndisplayed, or previous inquiries been made as to whether what was done\ncould have been permitted, no question but that a priest would have\nbeen inflicted, as at the grave of Carlile and others--for Christianity,\nalways officious and rude to the dissentient, is never more so than\nwhen opposition is paralysed by agony on the bed of death, or hushed in\nspeechless sadness by the side of the grave.\n\nAs it would only be painful to Mrs. Holyoake, I never wished her to\nvisit me; but after the death of Madeline she desired it, and she\nbrought little 'Eveline' (a name given to her in lieu of her own because\nof its similarity to Madeline.) On this occasion Mr. Bransby Cooper sent\nto say that the magistrates' Committee-room, an elegant and cheerful\napartment, should be at my service, at Mrs. Holyoake's visit. Mr. Cooper\nwas the first of the magistrates to send a message of condolence on the\ndeath of Madeline, and in this instance his kindness was delicate and\ngenerous. As on the day Mrs. Holyoake came the magistrates happened to\nhold a meeting in it, an apology was sent me, and the Lodge placed at my\nservice. No turnkey was sent in, and I was permitted to see my friends\nwith an air of perfect freedom. My sister Caroline, who was one of the\nparty, brought me a present of wine and cigars. As both were forbidden\nby the rules of the gaol, I declined to touch them. As I was trusted\nwithout restraint, I was doubly anxious to respect a liberty so\ngenerously conceded. Had they set a watch over me, I should have had\nless scruple, and perhaps have thought it a merit to defeat their\nsuspicions.\n\nCaptain Mason, the governor, was a study--a type of the gentleman,\nofficial, and conventional, whose qualities were instructive. Bland,\nimperturbable, civil, and firm, he was never weak and never rude.\nAmong the uneducated, all decisive action is announced in commotion or\nbluster. The gentleman is never in a hurry, never in a contention. If\nyou annoy him, are rude to him, impose upon him, or menace him, perhaps\nhe quietly indicates his opinion of the impropriety, perhaps his\nresolution is taken without. He avoids you. His defence is prevention.\nRenewal of offence, renewal of intercourse, chance of altercation or\nrepetition, is simply impossible. Such was Captain Mason. I watched\nhis manners with pleasure--he governed the gaol like a drawing room,\nexcepting that the _desserts_ were not quite the same. I saw rude\nmen baffled, they could not make out how. Possibly he had nerves and\nsensibility, but these articles were not in common use. They were kept\nunder lock and key, and never brought out in the routine of official\nduties. As blandly and courteously as he wished me good morning, he\nwould have conducted me to the gallows, had instruction to that effect\nreached him. He would have apologised for the inconvenience, but he\nwould have hung me while I was saying 'pray don't mention it.'\n\nExcepting in one transaction our intercourse was unruffled. When I\nhad left the gaol, a prisoner (the Master of a Post Office) the\nonly gentleman on my side of the prison, addressed to me a letter of\naccusation against the governor--an act which made me a participator\nin his sentiments. As it passed through the governor's hands, he wrote\nunder the name the crime and sentence of the writer--a brief and bitter\nretort. I reenclosed the letter to the writer with a note to Captain\nMason, observing that on leaving the gaol I had expressed to him the\nonly opinion I entertained of him, and I should regard it as unmanly to\nbe a party to reproaches which I did not see reason to address to him in\nperson. He wrote me back, with a soldier's honourable frankness, that 'I\nhad always behaved honourably in my intercourse with him, and he did not\nbelieve I would do an unmanly thing.'\n\nThe exceptional transaction with the Captain referred to was this.\nOne of my fellow-prisoners was an epileptic man, whose ignorance and\nirritability, more than any crime, had led to his imprisonment. As I\nkept a sort of school in our common room, and taught a few things to\nthose about me who were disposed to learn, I had become interested in\nUpton, a humble and unhappy man, who learned at grammar anxiously. Some\nnights he would fall out of bed in an epileptic fit, and lie groaning\non the stone floor for an hour or more together. It was in vain that\nwe shouted to the turnkeys. They who can hear a man think of escaping,\ncannot hear when he breaks his neck. Upton representing that a little\ntobacco, to which he had been accustomed, would save him from the\nfrequency of these fits, I procured him some. Smoking it one day in a\ncorner, in a paper pipe made for the purpose out of one of my letters,\nthe governor came upon him through a side door. Upon being asked how\nhe procured it, he answered, 'From a man who had just come in from the\nSessions.' This the governor did not believe. At night Ogden made\nan immense speech at me, in which that luminous functionary inserted\nseveral elephantine hints, to the effect that he knew the source whence\nthe aforesaid tobacco came. It was a treat to hear Ogden hint; it was\nlike a hippopotamus putting his paw out, or kicking a man down stairs.\nAs soon as I could get to speak to Upton, I prevailed upon him to allow\nme to write to the governor, tell him the truth, and take the blame upon\nmyself, reminding Upton that a good man might be surprised into a lie,\nbut only a bad man would persist in one. The retaliation of the governor\nwas refined and vindictive. Instead of ordering me into a dark cell\non bread and water for two or three days, which was the authorised\npunishment, he ordered two gates to be locked between me and my\nvisitors, so that those who spoke were obliged to shout to me. This he\ncontinued, with slight variation, to the end of my imprisonment. This\ndeprived me of the pleasure of seeing ladies who called, as I would\nnever consent to see them under circumstances of so much humiliation.\n\nCaptain Mason had had previous proof that my professions might be\ntrusted. When first imprisoned, the reader perhaps remembers I was\nkept (though on my way home after a journey) a fortnight while the\nmagistrates played at bail. When at length they signified their\nintention of accepting it, Captain Mason took me, through the city, to\nBransby Cooper's house, where the bail-deed was to be completed. On our\nway I asked him if it would be necessary for me to take an oath, before\nmy own bond could be accepted, as I should object to take an oath? He\nturned round and replied--'Why, Holyoake, as you don't believe in any of\nthe Gods, you could have no objection to swear by them all.' I explained\nto him that if the Magistrate would regard my oath as a mere ceremony,\nby which I rendered myself liable to penalties in case of violated truth\nor failure in my bond, I would take the oath readily, if all the Gods of\nthe Pantheon were in it: but if it were regarded as a profession of my\nreligious faith, I would not take it. It was better that I should go\nback to gaol, than to make a profession of belief which would mislead\nothers. I told Mr. Cooper the same when we reached his house. He,\nhowever, said my signature would do.\n\nOne day I concluded a dialogue with my chaplain upon the principle\nof reciprocation, i. e. of retorting his language upon himself, and,\nI think, not without utility, for he never afterwards fell into that\ninsensible arrogance of speech so common among pastors. On the occasion\nreferred to, he began--'Are you really an atheist, Mr. Holyoake?'\n'Really I am.'\n\n'You deny that there is a God?'\n\n'No; I deny that there is sufficient reason to believe that there is\none.'\n\n'I am very glad to find that you have not the temerity to say that there\nis no God.'\n\n'And I am very sorry to find that you have the temerity to say there is\none. If it be absurd in me to deny what I cannot demonstrate, is it not\nimproper for you to avert so dogmatically what you cannot prove?'\n\n'Then where would you leave the question of atheism?'\n\n'Just where it leaves us both. 'It is a question of probability.' 'Ah!\nthe probabilities in favour of atheism are very few.'\n\n'How know you that? Did you ever examine the question without prejudice,\nor read that written in its favour without fear? Those who dare not look\nat all never see far.'\n\n'But if the atheist has so much on his side, why does he not make it\nknown? We do not keep back our evidences.'\n\n'Has the atheist an equal opportunity with you? Is it generous in you\nto taunt him with lack of evidence, when you are prepared to punish its\nproduction?'\n\n'The reason is that your principles are so horrible; as Robert Hall has\nsaid, 'Atheism is a bloody and ferocious system.'\n\n'Permit me, sir, to return that gentle speech--to tell you that your\nprinciples are horrible, and that Christianity is a bloody and ferocious\nsystem.'\n\n'Really I am shocked to hear you speak so dreadfully of Christianity.'\n\n'Why should you be shocked to hear what you are not shocked to say?'\n\n'But atheism is so revolting.' 'But Christianity is so revolting.'\n\n'How dangerous is it for atheism to corrupt the minds of children.'\n'How pernicious is it for Christian doctrines to corrupt the thoughts of\ninfancy.'\n\n'But you are only asserting.'\n\n'Are you doing otherwise? I sometimes think that Christians would be\nmore respectful in their speech if the same language could be applied to\nthem with impunity which they apply to others.'\n\n'But, my dear sir, the language of the atheist is so shocking to\nChristian feeling.'\n\n'And, my dear sir, has it never occurred to you that the language of the\nChristian is shocking to atheistical feeling?'\n\n'Atheists have a right to their opinions, I allow, but not to publish\nthem.'\n\n'I shall think you speak reasonably when you permit the same rule to be\napplied to the Christian.'\n\n'But you really cannot be an atheist?'\n\n'And you say this who have been a party to imprisoning me here for being\none! If you believe yourself, go and demand my liberation.'\n\n'Ah! when you come to die you will wish that you were a Christian.'\n\n'Can it be that I shall wish to hold a creed that I distrust--one\nthat leads me to deny another the liberty I claim for myself? If to be\ncapable of looking back with satisfaction on conduct like this is to be\na Christian, may I never die the death of the righteous, and may my last\nend never be like his.'\n\nAs the general treatment pursued towards me did not work an satisfactory\nconversion, some attempts were made by gentler means. Taken one day\ninto a sleeping cell for privacy, one who had the power to fulfil his\npromises passed in review the casualties of a life like mine, and asked\nwhether I had not better change it. Thinking I was seduced by some\nattraction which belonged to my position, he suggested how fickle a\nthing was popularity, and how soon the applause of friends might die\naway, or change with the growth or refinement of my conviction, into\nsuspicion or even hate. Had I not better accept the editorship of a\npaper, where I should not be required to contradict, but merely to avoid\nadvocating my views? Had I not better accept a school in a retired part\nof the country---a girls' school also might be given to Mrs. Holyoake,\nand our joint incomes would ensure competence, respectability, and\nusefulness? I answered, 'I think you have mistaken me. The opinions I\ndefended are also my convictions; and thinking them useful, it seems my\nduty to propagate them, and the discharge of this duty is more serious\nin my eyes than you suppose; nor do the inducements you picture exist.\nDo you not see that I am nearly friendless? I am without even the\nattentions of those from whom I have some right to expect it. Except\nMr. Farn, Mr. Watts, and Mr. Campbell, none of my colleagues among the\nSocial Missionaries have written me a friendly word. The editor of the\n_New Moral World_, upon whose protection I have some claim, has written\nno word in my favour. The only public defence for which I am indebted\nhas come from strange papers, and unknown men. Even Mr. Owen, the\nadvocacy of whose opinions involved me in this prosecution, he who\noccupied the largest share of my veneration, has not even recognised my\nexistence by a single line. This affair may have made some noise, but\nI am not so young as to mistake noise for popularity, nor so weak as\nto think popularity the one thing needful. Popularity, is to be won by\nthose who can flatter the public, but that estimation which is alone\nworth having is only to be won by the service of the people, and that is\nnot the work of youth but of life. That which you call my cause is yet\nin an infantine state. It has no attractions but the rude ones of daring\nand truth. It requires to be divested of antagonism, and developed in\nits relations to political and social interests and personal character.\nThis must be the work of time, and judging from the present, it will\nbe a work of difficult and precarious effort. At present we number no\npublic friends of wealth or influence. We have every thing to gain--yet\nthe comparative affluence you offer would be a canker to my peace, while\nit was the price of duty evaded. My self-chosen faith, presumptuous\nand thorny, will be sweeter to walk. It is enough that you see I am not\nmisled by its attractions. Now I tread these floors with a proud step,\nand meet your eye with unblenched brow, because it is necessary to show\nyou that in defence of my opinions I feel neither fear nor guilt--but\nwhen I walk from this place into the wilderness of the world, my steps\nwill falter and my face will pale, because my path will lie over the\ngrave of my child.'\n\nAll I remember farther is that my tempter made a few not unfeeling\nremarks, and led me back in silence to my usual cell.\n\nThe final efforts for my conversion were on this wise. The Rev. Mr.\nCooper sent for me, a few days before my liberation, and asked me\nto follow him to the chapel. Arrived there, he ascended the pulpit,\nmotioning me to a prisoner's pew without even asking me to be seated. My\nneck was stiff with a severe cold, and I was as ill able as ill disposed\nto be catechised. I stood leaning on the spikes--not inapt emblems of\nsuch Christian love as I had there been made acquainted with. The good\nChaplain prayed--I did not move. He looked at me to catch my eye--I kept\nmine fixed on the spikes. He addressed me--I made no sign. He spoke some\nminutes--still I remained motionless. He paused and asked what I thought\nof his representations--I answered no word. He seemed to think he\nwas making a favourable impression. He resumed, and came to another\nperoration, and again besought me to answer--still no motion, no word\nfrom me. He began a third time, and touched all serious topics which he\ncould command, and came again to an elaborate peroration on deathbeds;\nand as I remained still silent and immovable, he said, somewhat\nperplexed this time, 'Holyoake, won't you speak?' I then answered 'Not\nwhile we occupy these places. Do you not preach to me and place me\nhere where prisoners stand? I take this to be a ceremony, and not a\nconversation.' He walked down from his pulpit and asked me to accompany\nhim, when he took me into several cells till he found one warmed with\nhot air, and asked would I speak with him there on friendly terms? I\nanswered, 'with pleasure;' and there we conversed for the last time. I\ntroubled him to repeat his arguments, as I would not admit that I had\nattended to a word. When he had done, I briefly assured him that my\nexperience there had not created in me any desire to be a Christian:\nhe had brought before me no new evidences, and as it had been found\nnecessary to enforce those I knew before by penal reasons, the operation\nhad rather diminished their weight in my estimation.\n\nHe professed himself anxious to 'present me with a Bible'--a fact which\nI knew was destined to make a figure in the next Gaol Report to the\nCounty Magistrates; I therefore resolved to have one worth acceptance,\nor not one at all. When he brought to me the usual prison copy, I\nrespectfully declined it, I said, a thin copy bound in calf, in pearl\ntype, with marginal references, would be interesting to me, but the\ndumpling-shaped book he offered, I could never endure in my library.\nHe deliberated--the trade price of the Bible he offered me was\nabout tenpence, that I desiderated would cost him half a guinea. The\nreflection was fatal. The Bible never came, and the evangelical fact\nthat 'The prisoner George Jacob Holyoake was presented with a copy of\nthe Holy Scriptures before leaving the gaol, which it is hoped, under\nthe Divine blessing, will be the means of bringing him to the knowledge\nof the truth'--was never recorded.\n\nAbout this period I saw the magistrates for the last time. There seemed\nto be a full Board of them, and Mr. Bransby Cooper was in the chair.\nBefore withdrawing I addressed Mr. Cooper, and said--'As in a short time\nI shall leave this place, I wish, before doing so, to express to you\nmy sense of the kindness and consideration shown me by you when Mrs.\nHolyoake visited me here. It is one of the few things I shall remember\nwith pleasure when again at liberty. You will not, I fear, believe in\nthe possibility of one of my opinions feeling gratitude, but I will at\nleast assure you of it.' The answer he made was a compensation for much\nthat I had experienced. In that loud voice in which he usually spoke, he\nexclaimed--'Yes, I will say this, that I believe you, Holyoake. I don't\nbelieve that you could be a hypocrite.'\n\nOne day a magistrate, described to me as the Hon. and Rev, Andrew Sayer,\nsent me a copy of Paley's works, requesting my particular attention to\nhis Natural Theology. 'Did I put into your hands,' I said, addressing\nthat gentleman, 'an atheistic work, you would tell me of the\ncontamination you dread; and may I not plead the same risk in perusing\nyour theistical book? But, as all in the search after truth must venture\nthrough phases of error, I shall not hesitate to comply with your\nrequest; and that you may be certain that I do so, you may, when I have\nended, put to me any question upon the contents you please.' It happened\nthat my examination resulted in my writing 'Paley Refuted in his Own\nWords.' When Mr. Sayer came to ask me what conclusions I had come to\non the books he had lent me, I made this answer to him--* Sir, I\nam surprised at your asking me this question. Does it become you, a\nclergyman and a magistrate, to ask me to commit crime?'\n\n'What do you mean?' he inquired.\n\n'I mean this,' I replied, 'that in having punished my last expression of\nopinion as a crime, by bringing me here, it does not become you to put\nreligious inquiries to me again.' He seemed confounded; and on this\noccasion I showed him, that while Christianity punished as crime the\nexpression of dissentient opinions, Christians were disqualified from\nseeking the state of any man's thoughts with respect to religion. Unless\none volunteers explanations, Christians have plainly no right to demand\nthem. They put themselves out of the pale of ordinary privilege.\n\nWriting 'Paley Refuted' and the 'Short and Easy Method with the\nSaints'--a title suggested by 'Leslie's Short and Easy Method with the\nDeist,' another book put into my hands by the authorities--occupied me\ntill the end of my imprisonment. On the 15th of February, 1843, I was\nliberated; and three days after (having paid visits of acknowledgment to\nmy friends in Gloucester, Cheltenham, and Worcester) I rejoined (what I\nmight then term the remains of) my family in Birmingham.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. AFTER THE LIBERATION\n\nOn rejoining my colleagues of the _Oracle of Reason_, I proceeded to\nissue an address to our readers. The substance of it, which was as\nfollows, comprises some additional facts of my prison experience:--\n\n'My Friends,--It is now six months since cut and hacked, \"I fell,\" not\nmerely in the language of the parable but literally, \"among thieves.\" Of\nthose who caused that contact, I am afraid I must say, as William Hutton\nsaid of an untoward sweetheart--\"There was little love between us\nat first, and heaven has been pleased to decrease it on a further\nacquaintance.\" Christians profess to draw men to Jesus with \"cords of\nlove,\" but were it not for their judicious foresight in telling us that\nthey axe \"cords of love,\" few would find it out.\n\n'To friends in Gloucester,* Cheltenham, Birmingham, London,** and other\nplaces, I owe many thanks for what has been contributed for my support,\nand for that of my family, during my imprisonment.\n\n     * To Gloucester two special acknowledgments are due. First\n     to a young lady, the niece of the Innkeeper, in whose house\n     I resided, when awaiting Trial, both at the sessions and\n     assises. With no other knowledge of me than these occasions\n     afforded, and with no prepossession in favour of my\n     opinions, but simply from that generous sympathy women often\n     display, she frequently brought me refreshments to the gaol,\n     and was a medium of communication with my friends, and often\n     answered inquiries of my family which the restrictions of\n     the gaol sometimes rendered it impossible for me even to\n     know. In the romance of incident, she afterwards became the\n     wife of my friend Mr. Chilton. The other instance was that\n     of Mrs. Price, a woman in humble circumstances, who, during\n     the latter part of my imprisonment, brought me dinner every\n     Sunday.  Both Mrs. Price and her husband were utterly\n     unknown to me.\n\n     ** At the time of the death of Madeline, Mrs. Ralph Thomas,\n     of London, sent to Mrs. Holyoake L3, subscribed by herself\n     and personal friends.\n\nFor their attentions I believe no thanks were asked and none are wished.\nYet I am concerned to make acknowledgments, because a man always values\nhighly the kindness he does not expect. When the words were spoken which\nled to my prosecution, I expected that the cautious would think that\nI had gone \"too far\"--that the prudent would think that I had been too\nrash--that my friends would be afraid for me, and that the timid would\nbe afraid for themselves. But I held with Polydamus, that\n\n     To speak his thoughts is every freeman's right--\n     In peace and war, in council and in fight.\n\n'And, what I regarded as greater than my right, I felt it to be my\nduty. Besides, my honour was concerned. I could not descend to that\ndisingenuousness I had often counselled others to scorn. Hence, in the\ncourse I took, I did not think it necessary to calculate consequences;\na man's true concern is with his principles, and not with his fate. I\npretended to no public virtue, and I laid claim to no praise--I did\nno more than every man ought to do. That doing so little has been so\nrewarded by the exertions of many friends for my protection, I must be\npleased--but had nothing been done, I trust I should have found pride\nin penury and satisfaction under neglect, in the reflection that I had\ndischarged my duty and preserved consistency.\n\n'When my memorial to Sir James Graham was returned to the magistrates\nfor their opinion, they came to me, and Mr. Bransby Cooper stormed out\nwith great violence--\"You were sent here, sir, for punishment, and you\nhave nothing else to expect. I consider you worse than the greatest\nfelon in the gaol; you have been guilty of the most atrocious crime a\nman can possibly commit. I have told Sir James Graham what you deserve.\"\nI knew that these magistrates were Christians. I was told they were\ngentlemen, but I thought them furies.*\n\n     * Yet such is the inconsistency of the Christian character\n     when allied to a generous nature, that Mr. Bransby Cooper\n     who, as a Christian, behaved with so much rudeness, had just\n     before given instruction to the turnkeys to treat me with\n     respect, with a view to save me from less harshness from\n     other officials than that which, in other moods, he so\n     plentifully inflicted on me himself.\n\n'The prison diet was bread, gruel, and potatoes. On two days in each\nweek boiled rice was substituted for potatoes; and after I had been in\nprison nine weeks I was, by the rules, allowed a small portion of salt\nbeef on Thursdays and Sundays. As this fare is deemed in Gloucestershire\na famous specific for the cure of atheism, it may not be out of place\nto explain its virtues. The gruel was little remarkable for its delicate\nflavour and little celebrated for its nutritious qualities, and known by\nthe luxurious cognomen of \"skilly.\" The rice had a blue cast, a saline\ntaste, and a slimy look. The beef I could not often taste, seldom chew,\nand never digest--I should say it was rather _leather_ mode than _a\nla mode_. The whole of the food could only be taken by a ploughman's\nappetite, and only be digested by a navigator's stomach.\n\n'The indirect occasion of my prosecution was the editorship of the\n_Oracle_. When Mr. Southwell was apprehended no Social Missionary\ncame forward to continue his paper, although many of them were better\nqualified to do so than myself. Socialism had always attached great\nimportance to freedom of expression, and Socialism's advocates had been\nstyled \"apostles of freethought.\" Knowing this, I felt that it would be\na dishonourable reflection should any one refuse personally to support\nwhat he was known publicly to approve. Had Mr. Fleming been placed in\nMr. Southwell's situation, and had he been of opinion that I could have\ndefended his violated liberty by taking his place, I should have edited\nthe _New Moral World_ as cheerfully as I did the _Oracle of Reason_.\nWhen I speak of \"freedom of speech\" and \"liberty for all,\" I know of no\ndistinction between myself and those who differ from me--I see with an\nequal eye the Atheist and the Christian, the violent and the gentle, the\ndogmatic and the modest.\n\n'That is true of Christianity which has been said of Catholicism,\n\"Humane individuals may express their abhorrence of the sentiments of\npersecution--bodies of men, sections of the church itself, nay many of\nthe dignitaries may abjure them, and protest that they have never acted\nupon them, nor ever will enforce them--yet all this will not avail\nto give a discerning man the smallest security for his liberty, his\nproperty, or his life; for as long as those intolerant decrees remain\nupon the statute book, they can at any time be revived.\" It therefore\nbehoves everyone to set a guard over that liberty, for the loss of which\nno religion will ever compensate. The conviction should be permanent\nthat Christianity is a fearful thing. But bad men may laud it--mistaken\nmen may contend that there is some good in it--unthinking men may give\ncurrency to its terms--and weak men may connive at its delusions, but we\nought to regard with different sentiments a system which tramples upon\nthe feelings of humanity and the principles of liberty. Let us then\nsecure the antidote--free expression of opposite opinion. Shall it be\nsaid that we are content to wear mental fetters? When Protestants, who\ndare never think without the Bible and Prayer Book, have shaken off the\niron despotism of Catholicism--when Methodists and even Ranters have\nrefused to submit their thoughts to be cut down to the Procrustean\nbed of conventional opinion--let not Christians mock at Freethinking\npusillanimity and deride us as holders of craven principles. Not only\nfor ourselves but for others are our exertions demanded. What patrimony\nhas the poor man but his free thoughts? Industry will not save him from\nchill penury's grip, nor virtue from the poor-house grave--let us\nthen preserve and perfect the humble inheritance of those who have no\nother.'*\n\nIn prison it is not _safe_ to make complaints. You are too much in the\npower of those around you to escape reprisals of a serious kind, but\nthis did not deter me from what I conceived to be a duty, and which\nmight make the future easier for others who might follow me in the same\nway. Besides the endeavours I had made within the prison, with a view to\ntolerable treatment, I addressed, on my release, the following letter to\nthe editor of the _Cheltenham Free Press_--\n\n'Mr. Editor,--As prisons and prison discipline have lately occupied much\npublic attention, I am induced to offer to your notice a little recent\nexperience in such matters. What I have written, I intended to have\nstated to a public meeting, but suffering from debility, which makes me\nglad to avoid excitement, I seek the calmer medium of your paper.\n\n'I speak of Gloucester County Gaol. I believe the prison inspector is\nof opinion that the rules of that place are \"_harsh and cruel_.\" Now,\nshould a prisoner seek a partial exemption from their operation, the\nprocess he goes through is very curious. He applies to a turnkey--the\nturnkey answers, \"my duty is determinate and my province clear; I cannot\ndo it.\" Probably, he refers the prisoner to the surgeon. The surgeon\nis seen--he refers him to the governor, the governor refers him to\nthe visiting magistrates--they reply, \"we have no power to grant\nthe request, Sir James Graham only can do that.\" Sir James Graham is\nmemorialised, who, as is usual, answers, \"The visiting magistrates best\nknow what is proper--I only grant what they recommend.\" Any further\napplication to them would be construed into a wilful annoyance, and the\nprisoner is fortunate who can sit down like Sterne's happy man--pleased\nhe knows not why, and contented he knows not wherefore. Of course I\nblame no one, for there is no one to blame, and this constitutes the\nbeauty of the system.**\n\n     * Revised and abridged from the _Oracle_.\n\n     ** It seemed to me useful to make applications for what I\n     wanted in writing. It prevented mistakes, and afterwards\n     admitted of proof. The governor used to come to me and say,\n     'Now, Holyoake, it is of no use sending this memorial.\n\nIt is sure not to be attended to, and he would so obligingly bestow upon\nme the treasures of his experience on the futility of the course I was\npursuing, that at times it really did seem not only useless--but uncivil\nto persist. But I used to say, 'Captain Mason, I suppose you are right\nas to the result. That makes no difference, however, as to my duty; you\nmay put my memorials in the fire, if you like, as soon as I have written\nthem; still I will make the proper application to every officer and\nevery authority, and deliver them to your care, as in duty bound.' I\nknew the Captain would not burn them--I knew more, I knew he dare not\nburn them. I knew, also, that each would be duly delivered to the proper\nparty. Further I knew this, that if his dissuasions had deterred me from\nsending in my complaints, that when I left the prison the authorities\nwould destroy every representation I might make, by saying 'If there had\nbeen anything wrong Holyoake would have complained, but as he has not\ndone so, the aggravation he points out could not have existed, or could\nnot have been grievous.' Foreseeing this I provided against it, and\ndisregarding the refusal of my applications, I addressed them all round\nwith scrupulous formality. The result was, that on my liberation I found\nmyself in a position to defy contradiction in any allegations I had to\nadvance; and though I published this letter immediately under the eyes\nof the magistrates, it was never contradicted.\n\nShould I individualise, it would only be to say, that the governor is a\ngentleman of some excellent qualities, and some unintelligible conduct;\nthat the surgeon possesses the _suaviter in modo_ without the _fortiter\nin re_; and that the magistrates are little gods, who, like Jupiter,\nthunder oftener than they smile.\n\n'What of health I have, I owe to my friends, who supplied me with such\nfood as my constitution required, for had I been compelled to subsist on\nthe diet of the prison, my health, by this time, would have been quite\nbroken. With the direction of my own medical adviser, I made this\nrepresentation to the proper authorities at the gaol; I made them to\nthe commissioners who were lately there, and I made them to Sir James\nGraham;* I therefore conceive that I am justified in repeating them\nhere. The surgeon admitted the necessity of better diet, but referred\nme to the governor, and he sent me the fruitless round I have described.\nNow the province of the governor was the care of my person, and the\nprovince of the surgeon the care of my health. The governor ought not to\nhave permitted the reference to him, and the surgeon ought not to have\nmade it. Either the surgeon should have refused my application with\ndecision, or have allowed it with independence. Upon this subject, the\ncommissioners reminded me, \"that if the surgeon did not order what was\nnecessary for my health, he was responsible for it.\" I replied \"that\nI knew this, and that they also knew, that a prisoner, like Beale\nof Northleach, must die before he could avail himself of such\nresponsibility, and that this was but grave consolation.\" But of the\nsurgeon I wish to speak impartially, and I gladly admit, that his manner\nwas always very kind, but I complain that his answers were always very\nindecisive. What he recommended he seldom prescribed, and professed that\nhe must consult the governor when he should have consulted only himself.\nThis fault may seem little, but its effects are great. In a gaol, the\nsurgeon is the only person who stands between a prisoner and the\ngrave, and it is indispensable that to the quality of humanity those of\nindependence and decision should be joined. The kind of answers to which\nI have alluded were given to me more than once, and given to others as\nwell as to me. And I again repeat, that had I been without friends, I\nshould have left my prison without health.\n\n     * In consequence of these representations some medical\n     gentlemen of the city were brought in to examine me, who\n     pronounced my life to be in no danger, and therefore (so it\n     seemed) my health was not regarded as worth improving by\n     better food. Provided I did not make a case fer the House of\n     Commons, that was enough. They appeared to consider\n     themselves as bound to keep me alive and no more.\n\n'Akin to the want of better food, was the want of exercise, and no want\nof damp. The yard in which I walked was so small, that I always became\ngiddy, through the frequent turnings, before I became refreshed. The\ngovernor sometimes permitted the \"Fines-Class\" in which I was, to walk\nin his garden; but the occasions came seldom and lasted not long--and\nI was previously so enervated by confinement, that the unusual exercise\nthus taken, threw me into a slight fever. Generally speaking, the\nplace in which I was confined was miserably humid, and, although I took\nperpetual care, I had almost a perpetual cold.\n\n'An application for a trivial favour often brought down upon me ruthless\ntreatment. The visiting magistrates would come, and before the other\nprisoners denounce me as the \"worst felon in the gaol, and the most\natrocious of criminals.\" I was directed to ascribe this to the petulance\nof age and the rancour of orthodoxy; but I thought it proceeded from bad\ntaste and worse feeling.\n\n'From first to last, every newspaper sent me was detained; every letter\nfrom me was perused, and every one to me was broken open and read--and\nthe very seals, if they happened to be heterodox, were interdicted. Thus\nthe privacy of affection and friendship were violated, and mind as well\nas body laid under one restraint.\n\n'When I saw friends it was but for a few minutes, and then through the\nbars of a gate; to shake hands was a privilege, and to converse unheard,\nimpossible. To me it was a momentary satisfaction made an enduring\nmortification. To the public it may seem a light matter that nothing can\nbe spoken to a visitor unheard by officers, but it is no light matter to\na prisoner. The commissioners inquired--\"Can you make no communication\nto your friends without its passing under the eyes of the governor, or\nthrough the ears of the turnkey?\" I answered--\"None; and that it was not\nprudent for a prisoner to mention openly what affected persons in whose\npower he was put--that no prisoner must calculate on gaolers being\ngenerous, for they owned few virtues not written in their rules.\" I\nspoke from experience, and gave them cases in point.*\n\n'During the latter portion of my time all my friends were denied access\nto me, which, though it interfered with the supply of my wants, I did\nnot, for the reasons stated, much regret. But this I did regret--all\nmy letters were detained, and I was refused the privilege of writing a\nsingle letter to my family. The reason assigned by the governor for this\nwas the enforcement of new rules, but I know that they were enforced\nwithout proper authority, and I believe applied only to me.***\n\n'Those are happy who are for ever preserved from the reception cells of\nGloucester Gaol. Of the one in which I was put, the floor was filthy,\nthe bed was filthier, and the window was filthier still, for in\nthe window was--what I sicken at while I write--a rag full of human\nexcrement. And of the bed, a prisoner assured me that when he lay in\nit the lice crept up his throat off the corners of the blanket\nwhich covered him. This statement, on my direction, he made to the\ncommissioners.\n\n     * One case I allude to was this. Mr. Bransby Cooper and Mr.\n     Jones had called me out to state that an application I had\n     made for better dietary would not be acceded to. Mr. Cooper\n     said the surgeon did not prescribe any other diet. I said,\n     'It appears to me, sir, that the surgeon dare not prescribe\n     any other diet, unless he was first assured you would\n     approve of it.' The answer of Mr. Cooper was loud, harsh,\n     brief, and decisive. 'Of course, sir, he dare not.' Thus the\n     fierce candour of this man broke through the web-work of\n     cautiousness which surrounded prisoners there, and spoke the\n     truth for once.\n\n     ** I have since been told that Mr. Alcott, of America, was\n     among the number, who, being a visitor in England, had but\n     one opportunity of calling upon me.\n\n     ***On one occasion Richard Carlile brought me a present of a\n     handsome pair of large razors, which were sent back lest I\n     should cut my throat with them. The rules of the gaol forbid\n     the entrance of such articles, but this reason for their\n     rejection was not in the rules, but added as suitable to my\n     case.\n\n'The gaol chapel is a cold place. Often, on entering it, I have\nexclaimed, with Jugurtha, on entering his Roman dungeon--\"Heavens! how\ncold is this bath of yours!\" Yet in this place, during this inclement\nseason, the prisoners are assembled every morning to hear prayers, on\nempty stomachs, after sixteen hours' confinement in their night\ncells. On the \"long prayer\" mornings, they are detained in chapel\nthree-quarters of an hour, and the penitentiary men, on their return\nto their cells, find their gruel on the stone floor, gone cold in their\nabsence. I mention this matter with reluctance, as some may suppose that\nI notice it only from want of religion; but perhaps a little reflection\nwill convince them that believers, as well as unbelievers, can\nappreciate a warm breakfast on a cold morning!--and that an asthmatical\nman, however sound his faith, will have his affection painfully\nincreased by enervation, inanition, and sudden cold. This practice I do\nnot say is contrary to the rules, for it would be difficult to say what\nis, or what is not, contrary to them--and I never met with any one at\nthe gaol who could tell. But the practice is contrary to the act of the\n4th of Geo. IV., chap. 64, see. 30, which is professed to regulate it.\n\n'A circumstance' of a different nature from any of the foregoing I\nthink it my duty to notice. After a considerable portion of my term of\nimprisonment had elapsed, and after I had memorialised Sir James Graham,\nI was permitted to remain up in an evening with my books. To this I owe\nwhat of pleasure I can be said to have experienced in gaol, and with\npleasure I acknowledge it.*\n\n     * Before this privilege was conceded I whiled away the long\n     nights by writing on the cover of a book, on which I had\n     adjusted threads at equal intervals; under these threads I\n     slipped paper, and thus wrote on the lines made by the\n     threads, which kept in the dark the words from running into\n     each other. When a boy I learned to write with my eyes shut,\n     and my playful acquirement now became of service to me. In\n     this way I wrote some letters for the _Oracle,_ and much of\n     my correspondence. Scattered by force, our little party at\n     that time, and for some years after, had to be kept together\n     oy letters, and, incredible as it will sound, I wrote during\n     my imprisonment from first to last nearly 2000 letters. The\n     governor did not see them all, but he saw so many, that one\n     day he said I sent out more letters than usually went\n     through a local post office.\n\n'I prefer leaving these statements without comment, and content myself\nwith saying, that I can abundantly substantiate every one of them. On\nSaturday last they were partly examined at the gaol by the magistrates,\nbut I heard nothing that impugned their correctness or affected the\npropriety of their appearing before the public. If I have made any\nmisrepresentations, I shall be sorry; and what is proved to be wrong I\nwill cheerfully retract. I have written from no malevolence, for I feel\nnone, and, as what I have related affects me no longer, my only motive\nis the hope of benefiting the unfortunate beings whom I have left behind\nme. My object is not, as some may suspect, to excite commiseration on\nmy own part; to do this I have no wish, and no expectation, for in\nCheltenham it seems to be a received maxim, that they who have little\nfaith have no feelings--certainly, none are respected.\n\n'How my imprisonment is supposed to affect me toward religion, I cannot\ntell; I only know that I have no change of sentiment to own. During six\nmonths I have been \"shut out from the common light and common air\"--from\nthose whom the bonds of friendship connected, and the ties of affection\nendeared; and some of these ties are broken for ever. After this, I can\nonly say, that I have greater difficulty than ever in believing\nthat humanity is the associate of piety; and if Christianity has no\nexpounders more attractive than those I have fallen in with, the day of\nmy conversion is still distant.\n\n'It was taught to me that the religion of Jesus cherished kindness, that\nit promoted our best affections, and reclaimed the erring in love. But\nhow is this accomplished in gaol? The man who goes there must leave his\naffections, his feelings, and his sensibilities behind him--for in gaol\nall are blighted, deadened, and destroyed. There no appeals are made but\nto coward fears, and no antidote applied to error but misery. Indeed,\nI cannot dwell upon Christianity's treatment of what she considers my\nerrors, without wishing, with Themistocles, that I could learn the art\nof forgetting. With regard to the cause of my prosecution, I admit that\nI might be wrong in the sentiments which I held, but I could not be\nwrong in frankly avowing them. And I may answer to Christians, as did\nAristides to the tyrant Dionysius--\"I am sorry for what you have\ndone, but I am not sorry for what I have said.\" Despite all that has\nsucceeded, I still prefer integrity to liberty. My resolution has long\nbeen taken, to speak nothing or to speak what I think--for\n\n     Who dares think one thing and another tell,\n     My heart detests him as the gates of hell.\n\n'Christians speak what they think useful, and the same privilege\nought to be conceded to me. A difference in faith ought not to make a\ndifference in right. But while it does so, those who cannot pronounce\nthe required Shibboleth must arm themselves to bear. Those are poor\nprinciples for which a man is unwilling to suffer when they are in\ndanger. It is an encouraging reflection, that though a man's fate may be\nat others' disposal, his character is ever at his own--and that no enemy\ncan dishonour him who will not dishonour himself.\n\n'Yours respectfully,\n\n'Gloucester, Feb. 7, 1843.\n\n'G. J. Holyoake.'\n\n\nThe Commissioners referred to in this letter asked me, when I was first\ntaken before them, whether I had any complaint to make?\n\nI said I had.\n\nDid I wish to give it as evidence?\n\nI said I did.\n\nIn the evening of the next day, between 9 and 10 o'clock, I was called\nup and taken into their presence again. The governor of the gaol,\nCaptain Mason, and the surgeon, Mr. Hicks, were present.\n\n'Take a seat, Mr. Holyoake,' said the speaker of the Board--Dr. Blissett\nHawkins, I believe. I did so.\n\n'Now, Mr. Holyoake, what have you to complain of?' said the speaking\nCommissioner.\n\n'Nothing, sir.'\n\n'Nothing! Why what do you mean?'\n\n'What I say, sir.'\n\n'But did you not say that you had evidence that you wished to give?'\n\n'I did.'\n\n'Has it not been at your request that you have been brought before us\nfor that purpose?'\n\n'It has?'\n\n'Then what are we to understand by your present statement?'\n\n'Why, sir, what you hardly need me to explain. I cannot give evidence\nbefore these gentlemen,' looking towards the governor and the surgeon.\n\n'True,' said the questioner. 'Captain Mason, Mr. Hicks, you will please\nto withdraw.'\n\nWhen they were gone, 'Now, Mr. Holyoake, you can speak freely,' said the\nchairman.\n\n'But first I must have your guarantee that I shall suffer no\ninconvenience in consequence.'\n\n'Why what danger do you run?' was asked me.\n\n'This. Am I not in the power of governor and surgeon? Can they not\nretaliate in your absence? No prisoner is safe in any gaol, as you ought\nto know, if the authorities come to regard him as reporting them. If you\ndecline to give me this guarantee I shall not make any communication\nto you, and when I am at liberty again, I shall have a right to publish\nthat your commission did not learn the whole truth at this gaol--that it\ndid not even put itself in a condition to learn it.'\n\n'Well,' the chairman said, 'We guarantee that you shall suffer no\ninconvenience in consequence of any evidence you may give to us.'\n\nThen, and not till then, did I proceed to explain what in the last\nletter and notes is recounted. The commissioners kept their word. The\nseverity of the discipline, instituted by the governor when a visitor\ncame, was somewhat relaxed; and once or twice, when I was suffering from\ncold (before unnoticed), a can of mutton broth was ordered me by the\nsurgeon, in which I found a very sensible looking piece of mutton.\n\nNothing more of importance remains to be narrated. Concluding, let me\nsolicit consideration to the moral aspects of Christianity, as set forth\nin this narrative, and to what I consider the political moral of these\npages. Many persons whose candour and general intelligence I do not\ndistrust, tell me that the persecution here recounted, is not to be\nascribed to Christianity. To this I make the answer made on this subject\n(the imprisonment of myself, Adams, and others) by my late friend,\nMaltus Questell Ryall. 'Christians set a watch upon them--Christians\ninformed against them--Christians prejudiced the public against them.\nBy Christian pay were hireling lawyers retained--by Christian witnesses\nconfronted--by the Christian Press misrepresented--by Christian juries\nfound guilty, by Christian judges condemned.' It is necessary to put the\nargument in this cumulative form to satisfy some understandings; but a\nwell-informed and candid Christian can hardly be supposed to need formal\nproof on this head. A careful study of the Evangelists some time after\nthis imprisonment, satisfied me that the religion of Jesus involves\npersecution. A man who believes that men need saving, that there is only\none way whereby they can be saved, that _his_ way is that way, and that\nit is better for a man to lose the whole world than to lose his own soul\nby missing that way, such a believer will inevitably coerce all he can\ninto it. If he is not a persecutor he ought, in moral consistency, to\nbe one. Having the fear of the philanthropists and of the humanitarians\nbefore his eyes, he may modify his practice, but it will be at\nthe expense of his penetration or of his religious duty. I have no\ndifficulty whatever in understanding that the conscientious among the\nold inquisitors might be men of benevolence--spiritual physicians, who\namputated existence with a view to save the eternal life of the patient.\nIt is now many years since I wrote or spoke against them on religious\ngrounds, and for a long period I have ceased to speak of persecution as\nbeing either unscriptural or unchristian.\n\nIt will not do to say that what we have seen of persecution has been\nbut the abuse of Christianity. It is in itself a condemnation of\nChristianity to be obliged to repudiate the conduct of all Christian\nchurches. It will not do to say that Christians have not been wise\nenough to see, nor good enough to image, the divine gentleness of\nChrist. The Christian churches have been presided over by pastors who\nhave possessed both penetration and purity in the highest degree--who\nwere able to see what there was to be seen, and devout enough to render\nit in their lives. Try the question even in our day. If Christ be the\nsymbol of love and gentleness to all who believe in his name, how is it\nthat in every part of the world the Freethinker should fear to fall into\nthe hands of the Christian? How is it that he must set a watch upon his\nwords in every town and hamlet in our own land, lest the free expression\nof his deepest convictions should cost him his position, his employment,\nand his character? Branded, outcast, and friendless, the Christian's\ndoor is the last at which he would knock--the Christian's fireside is\nthe last at which he would find a welcome--and the Christian pastor, who\nin knowledge, duty, and example, most nearly resembles the Christ whom\nhe preaches, is the last man whose path the Freethinker would wish\nto cross, or into whose ear he would venture to pour the tale of his\nexpatriations.\n\nIn one passage in my defence I represent persecution, as Lord Brougham\nand others have done, as a power which spreads opinion. I believed so\nthen, but believe it no longer. I have lived to watch the effects of\npersecution, and have seen it put down the truth so often, as no longer\nto doubt its bad efficacy. The ignorant, the timid, the opulent, and the\nconventional (and these make up the mass of mankind), are all deterred\nby danger or opprobrium, The resolute and the reckless, the only parties\nwho persist, labour under accumulated disadvantages. Condemned to spend\nthen time in self-defence, development of doctrine--the legitimate and\nonly source of permanent influence--is nearly impossible to them: and it\nis well for them if they escape acquiring an antagonistic spirit, which\ndisfigures their advocacy and misrepresents their character. Their only\nproselytes are those who come to them out of spite or out of sympathy,\nand who of course miss the intellectual ground of conviction, and can be\nof little real service until they have been re-educated.\n\nIf, as I admit, persecution will put down opinion, what objection's\nthere to its employment when it puts down error? I answer, 'Beware of\nits use, because it may put down the truth also.' Persecution is not an\nordeal. Free discussion is the only test capable of distinguishing and\nestablishing the truth. The proper condemnation of persecution is, that\nit is an illegitimate opposition which is sure to be discountenanced as\nmen become manly and refined. The armies of a civilised people observe,\neven in the deadly strife of battle, some rules of honourable warfare,\nand do not descend to the arts of treachery or tactics of savages.\nWe may surely hope that in the battle for religious truth, a sense of\nhonour will prevent the dominant party from taking against its opponents\nthe undue advantage of persecution. Montaigne relates that when\nPolyperchon advised Alexander to take advantage of the night for\nattacking Darius, 'By no means,' answered the noble general; 'It is not\nfor such a man as I am to steal such an advantage; _I had rather repent\nme of my fortune than be ashamed of my victory_,' It is not too much to\nexpect that Christianity will always be less refined than War.\n\nPersecution, always a disaster, was not however with us a defeat. We\nwere not put down by persecution; we continued the _Oracle_ a hundred\nand four weeks, then the Movement, sixty-eight weeks, and the _Reasoner_\nwill soon have completed ten volumes. Besides having written in our\npublications, we have, in almost all the principal cities and towns\nin the kingdom, spoken, since the trial at Gloucester, with the utmost\nexplicitness. The imprisonment has at least been of this service--and\nthis is all--it has enabled me to speak accredited by the sincerity\nwhich otherwise could not have been so satisfactorily manifest to the\nmultitude. To have spent, without shrinking, some portion of life in\nprison in defence of public liberty, gives the same authority among the\npeople as having graduated at a university does among scholars.* The\nfact is a sad illustration of the brutal manner in which the people\nare condemned to win the enlargement of their liberties. In cases where\nclergymen have menaced me with renewed imprisonment, I have always\nanswered--'I consider myself as having taken out a license to speak\nfreely. The government made a charge to me of six months' imprisonment\nfor that privilege, and I paid the price. If you have renewed demands\nupon me, let me know them, and I will endeavour to meet them; but do not\ninterrupt me.'\n\n     * When the Prizes were awarded me for writing the Literary\n     Lectures of the Manchester Unity, an attempt was made to\n     cancel the award on the ground of my having been imprisoned,\n     but it was immediately quashed. When the legislation of the\n     Order was before the House of Lords, the Bishop of Oxford\n     (in Committee) made an objection to the Lectures on account\n     of the Authorship, but the Unity refused to withdraw them,\n     and they are in use to this day. The objections of this\n     nature made in some instances by the Press have been\n     inoperative where the people have been concerned.\n\nIn the present structure of English political society, to preserve\nthe ability to be imprisoned is necessary to usefulness. When the\nassociations of home have twined themselves around the feelings--after\nlong industry and patient frugality have surrounded a man with some\ncomforts unknown to his youth--few have the temper which will part from\nthem and walk into a gaol at the call of duty. I should think this state\nthe death of progress. When, some time ago, insuring my life in the\nEquity Law Insurance Office, I asked, before I took out my policy,\nwhether it would be forfeited if my death was occasioned by imprisonment\nor transportation. The Directors naturally asked whether I was liable\nto those casualties. I said, not particularly liable I hoped; but to\nbe able to be imprisoned, if it seemed a duty, I valued as a great\nprivilege, and I would not barter my right to be imprisoned. I am afraid\nthey smiled at my eccentricity, but they assured me that that accident\nwould not involve the forfeiture of my policy--which I then took out.\n\nNo one who reads thus far will, I hope, consider me as a candidate for\neither imprisonment or transportation. I have too keen an insight into\ntheir misery for that. But he who pretends to take the side of the\npeople ought to see his way all through, and not incur a danger he has\nnot weighed, and not suffer any to ascribe to him a virtue he does not\nmean to maintain.\n\nIf any, from what I have just expressed, or from the transactions of\nthis narrative, shall conclude that I am disposed to regard law-breaking\nlightly, they will mistake me. Respect for the law is an intelligent\nvirtue--a sign of fitness for freedom so important that none but an\nenemy would obscure the duty or weaken the sentiment. If accused, in the\nmatter which led to my Trial, of breaking the law, I might plead that\nthere was no law to break, and therefore I could not break one. What\nis called the common law relating to blasphemy is a mere caprice, an\nopinion interpreted by ignorance or sectarian prejudice, and enforced at\nthe call of bigotry--malevolent to the humble while neutral towards the\nrich. Against this tyranny one is obliged to rebel. It is disastrous\nthat we should have to set up the standard of resistance even in a\ncase of this kind, and the chief justification is that a democratic\ngovernment is denied us. Had the people a voice in making the laws,\nthe breaking of any law would require grave justification. Men have two\nlives--a private and a public one. Conscience is the guide of all that\nrelates to private duty, but law is the conscience of society, and it\nis best when private conscience can be subordinate to the public\nconscience. Private conscience may be the child of selfishness,\nfanaticism, or vanity, as well as of the greatest purity and\nintelligence. A man, therefore, should be careful how he places so\nuncertain a thing above the law. If private conscience be more just and\nintelligent than the public conscience, a democratic form of government\naffords peaceful facilities whereby it can come into the ascendant.\nBut where these modes are denied, no alternative remains but that of\nrebellion or unconditional and indefinite submission. Resistance to the\nlaw, however, or to what is tacitly accepted by the majority as law, is,\nunder any form of government, so pernicious an example, is so liable\nto be abused, so liable to unfit the people who learn the lesson,\nfor submission to legitimate authority, that these cases demand the\nstrictest surveillance before they receive the sanction of a friend\nof the people. In all instances in which conscience is the ground of\nresistance, the wrong done to conscience ought to be clear, deep,\nand momentous, and the necessity which obliges the claims of private\nconscience to be put above the laws ought to be made so evident that\nthe sentiment of freedom shall not deteriorate that of legitimate and\nhonourable allegiance. If the political moral of this narrative be\ntherefore drawn with discrimination, we may do little harm even if\nmistaken in the belief that the prevalence of our views of life may be\na public good; and if this belief prove to be right in the main, we do\nwhat reformers are said often to forget--we make a past to which the\nfuture may refer for authority and instruction.\n\n     Then not 'in vain!' Even obscurest weeds\n     Nourish the roots of fruitfulest fair trees\n     So from our Fortune  loathed Hope proceeds\n     The experience that may base high victories.*\n\n          * W. J. Union.\n\nWhat 'our views' are this is not the place to state; as to some it would\nseem that under the pretext of a plea for Free Utterance, sentiments\nwere obtruded upon the reader he was not forewarned to expect. I\ntherefore limit myself to saying (and that only for the sake of others\nwho will decline to concede free utterance until they know what has to\nbe uttered) that whoever sees in Atheism simply the development of\na negation, sees but half the truth. Even in this respect (supposing\nexisting theological systems to be erroneous) Atheism has the merit of\nclearing the way for Pure Moralism--which is the other half, or positive\nground of Atheism. The latest writers on the Philosophy of Religion\nresolve religion into _Dependance_; by which its modern theory at length\ncoincides with its ancient practice. We venture to think that this is\nnot salutary teaching. Life should be self-reliant. It seems to us that\nthe light of Nature and the experience of man are anterior to the dogmas\nof Priests, and are the sources whence guidance and duty independently\nspring. The Priest breaks in upon the integrity of life, and diverts its\ncourse. He says he makes an addition to our knowledge--we do not find it\nso. He professes to show us the hidden mysteries of the future--we fail\nto see them. He simply encumbers us, and we pray him to stand aside. The\nresponsibility of our course is our own and not his, and we have a right\nto be left free. Rejecting his advices, he proclaims that we reject\ntruth, honour, justice, love. This is his error or the retaliation of\nhis disappointment. We appeal to the candid and the impartial to judge\nbetween us. We respect Theology as the science of man's destiny, and\nregret that it bears no fruits for us: but this is not our fault; and\nwe therefore attempt to solve the problem of life for ourselves. Our\nprogress already counts some distinct steps. We have recast the practice\nof controversy: we forbid to ourselves to suspect evil motives, or to\nimpute insincerity to others; the doubtful act we propose to judge by\nevidence alone, and to put the best construction on the dubious word.\nThus we annihilate Antagonism, the eldest foe of Progress, by imposing\nlaws on impulse. Our search in every system is directed after _moral\ntruth_; and, less exacting than the Christian, we accept it, whether\ngiven by Inspiration, confirmed by Miracle, attested by Prophecy, or\nnot. Probity of word and act may be securely based on the intelligence\nand refinement of mankind--and this we labour to enforce. To restrict\nhuman expectation to that which is ascertainable by reason, must have\nthe effect of concentrating attention on humanity, and intensifying\ninterest in human exertions. In Solidarity we find the encouragement\nto public endeavour, and we sum up private duty in Honour, which is\nrespecting the Truth; in Morality, which is acting the Truth; and in\nLove, which is serving the Truth.\n\nTHE END.\n\n     Holyoake Brothers, Printers,\n     3. Queen's Head-passage,\n     Paternoster-row.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The History of the Last Trial by Jury for Atheism in England: A Fragment of Autobiography Submitted for the Perusal of Her Majesty's Attorney-General and the British Clergy","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":49307}