Prisoner for Blasphemy | Page 2

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the event has proved that no law is obsolete until it is repealed.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