Prisoner for Blasphemy | Page 4

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