Prisoner for Blasphemy

G >> G. W. [George William] Foote >> Prisoner for Blasphemy

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

Prisoner for Blasphemy
by George William Foote (11-Jan-1850 to 17-Oct-1915)
Originally published 1886

Transcribed by the Freethought Archives

PRISONER FOR BLASPHEMY

by

G. W. Foote

Persecution is not refutation, nor even triumph: the "wretched infidel"
as he is called, is probably happier in his prison than the proudest
of his assailants--BYRON.

London:
Progressive Publishing Company
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1886

CONTENTS

Preface

CHAPTERS

I. The Storm Brewing

II. Our First Summons

III. Mr. Bradlaugh Included

IV. Our Indictment

V. Another Prosecution

VI. Preparing for Trial

VII. At the Old Bailey

VIII. Newgate

IX. The Second Trial

X. "Black Maria"

XI. Holloway Gaol

XII. Prison Life

XIII. Parson Plaford

XIV. The Third Trial

XV. Loss and Gain

XVI. A Long Night

XVII. Daylight

PREFACE.

This little volume tells a strange and painful story; strange, because
the experiences of a prisoner for blasphemy are only known to three
living Englishmen; and painful, because their unmerited sufferings
are a sad reflection on the boasted freedom of our age.

My own share in this misfortune is all I could pretend to describe
with fidelity. Without (I hope) any meretricious display of fine
writing, I have related the facts of my case, giving a precise
account of my prosecutions, and as vivid a narrative as memory
allows of my imprisonment in Holloway Gaol. I have striven throughout
to be truthful and accurate, nothing extenuating, nor setting down
aught in malice; and I have tried to hit the happy mean between
negligence and prolixity. Whether or not I have succeeded in the
second respect the reader must be the judge; and if he cannot be
so in the former respect, he will at least be able to decide whether
the writer means to be candid and bears the appearance of honesty.

One reason why I have striven to be exact is that my record may be
of service to the future historian of our time. It is always rash
to appeal to the future, as a posturing English novelist did in one
of his Prefaces; and it is well to remember the witticism of Voltaire,
who, on hearing an ambitious poeticule read his Ode to Posterity,
doubted whether it would reach its address. But it is the facts,
and not my personality, that are important in this case. My trial
will be a conspicuous event in the history of the struggle for religious
freedom, and in consequence of Lord Coleridge's and Sir James Stephen's
utterances, it may be of considerable moment in the history of the
Criminal Law. It is more than possible that I shall be the last
prisoner for blasphemy in England. That alone is a circumstance
of distinction, which gives my story a special character, quite
apart from my individuality. As a muddle-headed acquaintance said,
intending to be complimentary, Some men are born to greatness,
others achieve it, and I had it thrust upon me.

Prosecutions for Blasphemy have not been frequent. Sir James Stephen
was able to record nearly all of them in his "History of the Criminal Law."
The last before mine occurred in 1857, when Thomas Pooley, a poor
Cornish well-sinker, was sentenced by the late Mr. Justice Coleridge
to twenty months' imprisonment for chalking some "blasphemous" words
on a gate-post. Fortunately this monstrous punishment excited public
indignation. Mill, Buckle, and other eminent men, interested themselves
in the case, and Pooley was released after undergoing a quarter
of his sentence. From that time until my prosecution, that is for
nearly a whole generation, the odious law was allowed to slumber,
although tons of "blasphemy" were published every year. This long
desuetude induced Sir James Stephen, in his "Digest of the Criminal Law"
to regard it as "practically obsolete." But the event has proved
that no law is obsolete until it is repealed. It has also proved
Lord Coleridge's observation that there is, in the case of some
laws, a "discriminating laxity," as well as Professor Hunter's
remark that the Blasphemy Laws survive as a dangerous weapon in
the hands of any fool or fanatic who likes to set them in motion.

In the pamphlet entitled _Blasphemy No Crime_, which I published
during my prosecution, and which is still in print if anyone is
curious to see it, I contended that Blasphemy is only our old friend
Heresy in disguise, and that, we know, is a priestly manufacture.
My view has since been borne out by two high authorities. Lord Coleridge
says that "this law of blasphemous libel first appears in our books--
at least the cases relating to it are first reported--shortly after
the curtailment or abolition of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical
Courts in matters temporal. Speaking broadly, before the time of
Charles II. these things would have been dealt with as heresy; and
the libellers so-called of more recent days would have suffered as
heretics in earlier times." [Reference: _The Law of Blasphemous Libel_.
The Summing-up in the case of Regina v. Foote and others. Revised
with a Preface by the Lord Chief Justice of England. London,
Stevens and Sons.] Sir James Stephen also, after referring to the
writ _De Heretico Comburendo_, under which heresy and blasphemy
were punishable by burning alive, and which was abolished in 1677,
without abridging the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts "in cases
of atheism, blasphemy, heresie, or schism, and other damnable doctrines
and opinions," adds that "In this state of things, the Court of Queen's
Bench took upon itself some of the functions of the old Courts of Star
Chamber and High Commission, and treated as misdemeanours at common law
many things which those courts had formerly punished... This was the
origin of the modern law as to blasphemy and blasphemous libel."
[Reference: _Blasphemy and Blasphemous Libel_. By Sir James Stephen.
_Fortnightly Review_, March, 1884.]

Less than ten years after the "glorious revolution" of 1688 there
was passed a statute, known as the 9 and 10 William III., c. 32,
and called "An Act for the more effectual suppressing of Blasphemy
and Profaneness." This enacts that "any person or persons having
been educated in, or at any time having made profession of, the
Christian religion within this realm who shall, by writing, printing,
teaching, or advised speaking, deny any one of the persons in the
Holy Trinity to be God, or shall assert or maintain there are more
gods than one, or shall deny the Christian doctrine to be true, or
the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be of divine
authority," shall upon conviction be disabled from holding any
ecclesiastical, civil, or military employment, and on a second
conviction be imprisoned for three years and deprived for ever
of all civil rights.

Lord Coleridge and Sir James Stephen call this statute "ferocious,"
but as it is still unrepealed there is no legal reason why it should
not be enforced. Curiously, however, the reservation which was
inserted to protect the Jews has frustrated the whole purpose of
the Act; at any rate, there never has been a single prosecution
under it. So much of the statute as affected the Unitarians was
ostensibly repealed by the 53 George III., c. 160. But Lord Eldon
in 1817 doubted whether it was ever repealed at all; and so late
as 1867 Chief Baron Kelly and Lord Bramwell, in the Court of Exchequer,
held that a lecture on "The Character and Teachings of Christ: the
former defective, the latter misleading" was an offence against the
statute. It is not so clear, therefore, that Unitarians are out of
danger; especially as the judges have held that this Act was special,
without in any way affecting the common law of Blasphemy, under
which all prosecutions have been conducted.

Dr. Blake Odgers, however, thinks the Unitarians are perfectly safe,
and he has informed them so in a memorandum on the Blasphemy Laws
drawn up at their request. This gentleman has a right to his opinion,
but no Unitarian of any courage will be proud of his advice. He
deliberately recommends the body to which he belongs to pay no
attention to the Blasphemy Laws, and to lend no assistance to the
agitation for repealing them, on the ground that when you are safe
yourself it is Quixotic to trouble about another man's danger;
which is, perhaps, the most cowardly and contemptible suggestion
that could be made. Several Unitarians were burnt in Elizabeth's
reign, two were burnt in the reign of James I., and one narrowly
escaped hanging under the Commonwealth. The whole body was excluded
from the Toleration Act of 1688, and included in the Blasphemy Act
of William III. But Unitarians have since yielded the place of
danger to more advanced bodies, and they may congratulate themselves
on their safety; but to make their own safety a reason for conniving
at the persecution of others is a depth of baseness which Dr. Blake
Odgers has fathomed, though happily without persuading the majority
of his fellows to descend to the same ignominy.

It will be observed that the Act specifies certain heterodox _opinions_
as blasphemous, and says nothing as to the _language_ in which they
may be couched. Evidently the crime lay not in the _manner_, but
in the _matter_. The Common Law has always held the same view,
and my Indictment, like that of all my predecessors, charged me
with bringing the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion "into
disbelief and contempt." With all respect to Lord Coleridge's authority,
I cannot but think that Sir James Stephen is right in maintaining
that the crime of blasphemy consists in the expression of certain
opinions, and that it is only an _aggravation_ of the crime to express
them in "offensive" language.

Judge North, on my first trial, plainly told the jury that any denial
of the existence of Deity or of Providence was blasphemy; although
on my second trial, in order to procure a conviction, he narrowed
his definition to "any contumelious or profane scoffing at the
Holy Scriptures or the Christian religion." It is evident, therefore,
what his lordship believes the law to be. With a certain order of
minds it is best to deal sharply; their first statements are more
likely to be true than their second. For the rest, Judge North
is unworthy of consideration. It is remarkable that, although
he charged the jury twice in my case, Sir James Stephen does not
regard his views as worth a mention.

Lord Coleridge says the law of blasphemy "is undoubtedly a disagreeable
law," and in my opinion he lets humanity get the better of his legal
judgment. He lays it down that "if the decencies of controversy are
observed, even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked without
a person being guilty of blasphemous libel."

Now such a decision can only be a stepping-stone to the abolition
of the law. Who can define "the decencies of controversy?" Everyone
has his own criterion in such matters, which is usually unconscious
and fluctuating. What shocks one man pleases another. Does not
the proverb say that one man's meat is another man's poison?
Lord Coleridge reduces Blasphemy to a matter of taste, and
_de gustibus non est disputandum_. According to this view, the
prosecution has simply to put any heretical work into the hands
of a jury, and say, "Gentlemen, do you like that? If you do, the
prisoner is innocent; if you do not, you must find him guilty."
Such a law puts a rope round the neck of every writer who soars
above commonplace, or has any gift of wit or humor. It hands over
the discussion of all important topics to pedants and blockheads,
and bans the _argumentum ad absurdum_ which has been employed by
all the great satirists from Aristophanes to Voltaire.

When Bishop South was reproached by an Episcopal brother for being
witty in the pulpit, he replied, "My dear brother in the Lord,
do you mean to say that if God had given you any wit you wouldn't
have used it?" Let Bishop South stand for the "blasphemer,"
and his dull brother for the orthodox jury, and you have the
moral at once.

"Such a law," says Sir James Stephen, "would never work." You
cannot really distinguish between substance and style; you must
either forbid or permit all attacks on Christianity. Great
religious and political changes are never made by calm and
moderate language. Was any form of Christianity ever substituted
either for Paganism or any other form of Christianity without heat,
exaggeration, and fierce invective? Saint Augustine ridiculed one
of the Roman gods in grossly indecent language. Men cannot discuss
doctrines like eternal punishment as they do questions in philology.
And "to say that you may discuss the truth of religion, but that you
may not hold up its doctrines to contempt, ridicule, or indignation,
is either to take away with one hand what you concede with the other,
or to confine the discussion to a small and in many ways uninfluential
class of persons." Besides, Sir James Stephen says,

"There is one reflection which seems to me to prove with
conclusive force that the law upon this subject can be
explained and justified only on what I regard as its true
principle--the principle of persecution. It is that if the
law were really impartial, and punished blasphemy only because
it offends the feelings of believers, it ought also to punish
such preaching as offends the feelings of unbelievers. All
the more earnest and enthusiastic forms of religion are extremely
offensive to those who do not believe them. Why should not
people who are not Christians be protected against the rough,
coarse, ignorant ferocity with which they are often told that
they and theirs are on the way to hell-fire for ever and ever?
Such a doctrine, though necessary to be known if true, is, if
false, revolting and mischievous to the last degree. If the
law in no degree recognised these doctrines as true, if it were
as neutral as the Indian Penal Code is between Hindoos and
Mohametans, it would have to apply to the Salvation Army the
same rule as it applies to the _Freethinker_ and its contributors."

Excellently put. I argued in the same way, though perhaps less tersely,
in my defence. I pointed out that there is no law to protect the
"decencies of controversy" in any but religious discussions, and
this exception can only be defended on the ground that Christianity
is true and must not be attacked. But Lord Coleridge holds that it
may be attacked. How then can he ask that it shall only be attacked
in polite language? And if Freethinkers must only strike with kid
gloves, why are Christians allowed to use not only the naked fist,
but knuckle-dusters, bludgeons, and daggers? In the war of ideas,
any party which imposes restraints on others to which it does not
subject itself, is guilty of persecution; and the finest phrases,
and the most dexterous special pleading, cannot alter the fact.

Sir James Stephen holds that the Blasphemy Laws are concerned with
the _matter_ of publications, that "a large part of the most serious
and most important literature of the day is illegal," and that every
book-seller who sells, and everyone who lends to his friend, a copy
of Comte's _Positive Philosophy_, or of Renan's _Vie de Jesus_,
commits a crime punishable with fine and imprisonment. Sir James Stephen
dislikes the law profoundly, but he prefers "stating it in its natural
naked deformity to explaining it away in such a manner as to prolong
its existence and give it an air of plausibility and humanity."
To terminate this mischievous law he has drafted a Bill, which many
Liberal members of Parliament have promised to support, and which
will soon be introduced. Its text is as follows:

"Whereas certain laws now in force and intended for the promotion
of religion are no longer suitable for that purpose and it is
expedient to repeal them,

"Be it enacted as follows:

"1. After the passing of this Act no criminal proceedings
shall be instituted in any Court whatever, against any person
whatever, for Atheism, blasphemy at common law, blasphemous
libel, heresy, or schism, except only criminal proceedings
instituted in Ecclesiastical Courts against clergymen of the
Church of England.

"2. An Act passed in the first year of his late Majesty King
Edward VI., c. 1, intituled 'An Act against such as shall
unreverently speak against the sacrament of the body and blood
of Christ, commonly called the sacrament of the altar, and for
the receiving thereof in both kinds,' and an Act passed in the
9th and 10th year of his late Majesty King William III., c. 35,
intituled an Act for the more effectual suppressing of blasphemy
and profaneness are hereby repealed.

"3. Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed
to affect the provisions of an Act passed in the nineteenth year
of his late Majesty King George II., c. 21, intituled 'An Act
more effectually to prevent profane cursing and swearing,' or
any other provision of any other Act of Parliament not hereby
expressly repealed."

Until this Bill is carried no heterodox writer is safe. Sir James
Stephen's view of the law may be shared by other judges, and if a bigot
sat on the bench he might pass a heavy sentence on a distinguished
"blasphemer." Let it not be said that their _manner_ is so different
from mine that no jury would convict; for when I read extracts from
Clifford, Swinburne, Maudsley, Matthew Arnold, James Thomson, Lord
Amberley, Huxley, and other heretics whose works are circulated by
Mudie, Lord Coleridge remarked "I confess, as I heard them, I had, and
have a difficulty in distinguishing them from the alleged libels. They
do appear to me to be open to the same charge, on the same grounds, as
Mr. Foote's writings."

Personally I understand the Blasphemy Laws well enough. They are
the last relics of religious persecution. What Lord Coleridge read
from Starkie as the law of blasphemous libel, I regard with Sir James
Stephen as "flabby verbiage." Lord Coleridge is himself a master
of style, and I suppose his admiration of Starkie's personal character
has blinded his judgment. Starkie simply raises a cloud of words to
hide the real nature of the Blasphemy Laws. He shows how Freethinkers
may be punished without avowing the principle of persecution. Instead
of frankly saying that Christianity must not be attacked, he imputes
to aggressive heretics "a malicious and mischievous intention," and
"apathy and indifference to the interests of society;" and he justifies
their being punished, not for their actions, but for their motives:
a principle which, if it were introduced into our jurisprudence,
would produce a chaos.

Could there be a more ridiculous assumption than that a man who braves
obloquy, social ostracism, and imprisonment for his principles, is
indifferent to the interest of society? Let Christianity strike
Freethinkers if it will, but why add insult to injury? Why brand
us as cowards when you martyr us? Why charge us with hypocrisy
when we dare your hate?

Persecution, like superstition, dies hard, but it dies. What though
I have suffered the heaviest punishment inflicted on a Freethinker
for a hundred and twenty years? Is not the night always darkest
and coldest before the dawn? Is not the tiger's dying spring most
fierce and terrible?

My sufferings, therefore, are not without the balm of consolation.
I see that the future is already brightening with a new hope. Without
rising to the supreme height of Danton, who cried "Let my name be
blighted that France be free," I feel a humbler pleasure in reflecting
that I may have been instrumental in breaking the last fetter on the
freedom of the press.

G. W. FOOTE.

_February 1st_, 1886.

CHAPTER I.

THE STORM BREWING.

In the merry month of May, 1881, I started a paper called the
_Freethinker_, with the avowed object of waging "relentless war
against Superstition in general and the Christian Superstition in
particular." I stated in the first paragraph of the first number
that this new journal would have a new policy; that it would
"do its best to employ the resources of Science, Scholarship,
Philosophy and Ethics against the claims of the Bible as a Divine
Revelation," and that it would "not scruple to employ for the same
purpose any weapons of ridicule or sarcasm that might be borrowed
from the armoury of Common Sense."

As the _Freethinker_ was published at the people's price of a penny,
and was always edited in a lively style, with a few short articles
and plenty of racy paragraphs, it succeeded from the first; and
becoming well known, not through profuse advertisement, but through
the recommendation of its readers, its circulation increased every
week. Within a year of its birth it had outdistanced all its
predecessors. No Freethought journal ever progressed with such
amazing rapidity. True, this was largely due to the fact that the
Freethought party had immensely increased in numbers; but much of
it was also due to the policy of the paper, which supplied, as the
advertising gentry say, "a long-felt want." Although the first
clause of its original programme was never wholly forgotten, we
gradually paid the greatest attention to the second, indulging
more and more in Ridicule and Sarcasm, and more and more cultivating
Common Sense. A dangerous policy, as I was sometimes warned; but for
that very reason all the more necessary. The more Bigotry writhed
and raged, the more I felt that our policy was telling. Borrowing
a metaphor from Carlyle's "Frederick," I likened Superstition to the
boa, which defies all ponderous assaults, and will not yield to the
pounding of sledge-hammers, but sinks dead when some expert thrusts
in a needle's point and punctures the spinal column.

I had a further incentive. Mr. Bradlaugh's infamous treatment by the
bigots had revolutionised my ideas of Freethought policy. Although
never timid, I was until then practically ignorant of the horrible
spirit of persecution; and with the generous enthusiasm of youth
I fondly imagined that the period of combat was ended, that the
liberty of platform and press was finally won, that Supernaturalism
was hopelessly scotched although obviously not slain, and that
Freethinkers should now devote themselves to cultivating the fields
they had won instead of raiding into the enemy's territory. Alas for
the illusions of hope! They were rudely dispelled by a few "scenes"
in the House of Commons, and barred from all chance of re-gathering
by the wild display of intolerance outside. I saw, in quite another
sense than Garth Wilkinson's, the profound truth of his saying that--

"The Duke of Wellington's advice, Do not make a little war, is
applicable to internal conflicts against evil in society. For
little wars have no background of resources, they do not know
the strength of the enemy, and the peace that follows them for
the most part leaves the evil in dispute nearly its whole territory;
perhaps is purchased by guaranteeing the evil by treaty; and
leaves the case of offence more difficult of attack by reason
of concession to wrong premises."
("Human Science and Divine Revelation," Preface, p. vi.)

Yes, the war with Superstition must be fought _a outrance_. We must
decline either treaty or truce. I hold that the one great work of
our time is the destruction of theology, the immemorial enemy of
mankind, which has wasted in the chase of chimeras very much of
the world's best intellect, fatally perverted our moral sentiments,
fomented discord and division, supported all the tyranny of privilege
and sanctioned all debasement of the people. Far be it from me to
argue this point with any dissident. I prefer to leave him to the
logic of events, which has convinced me, and may some day convince him.

But to recur. Before the _Freethinker_ had reached its third number
I began to reflect on the advisability of illustrating it, and
bringing in the artist's pencil to aid the writer's pen. I soon
resolved to do this, and the third and fourth numbers contained a
woodcut on the front page. In the fifth number there appeared an
exquisite little burlesque sketch of the Calling of Samuel, by a
skilful artist whose name I cannot disclose. Although not ostensibly,
it was actually, the first of those Comic Bible Sketches for which
the _Freethinker_ afterwards became famous; and from that date,
with the exception of occasional intervals due to difficulties
there is no need to explain, my little paper was regularly illustrated.
During the whole twelve months of my imprisonment the illustrations
were discontinued by my express order. I was not averse to their
appearing, but I knew the terrible obstacles and dangers my temporary
successor would have to meet, and I left him a written prohibition
of them, which he was free to publish, in order to shield him against
the possible charge of cowardice. Since my release from prison they
have been resumed, and they will be continued until I go to prison
again, unless I see some better reason than Christian menace for
their cessation.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15