Prisoner for Blasphemy | Page 8

stay this hideous prostitution of the liberty of the Press, by
making these shameless blasphemers amenable to the existing law."
It is a curious thing that such a fervid champion of religion should
always attack unbelievers with private circulars. Yet this is the policy

that Henry Varley has always pursued. He is a religious bravo, who
lurks in the dark, and strikes at Freethinkers with a poisoned dagger.
More than once he has flooded Northampton with the foulest libels on
Mr. Bradlaugh, invariably issued without the printer's name, in open
violation of the law. He is liable for a fine of five pounds for every
copy circulated, but the action must be initiated by the
Attorney-General, and our Christian Government refuses to punish
when the offence is committed by one of their own creed, and the
sufferer is only an Atheist.
Varley's circular served its evil purpose, for soon after Parliament
assembled in February, Mr. C. K. Freshfield, member for Dover, asked
the Home Secretary whether the Government intended to prosecute the
Freethinker.
Sir William Harcourt gave the following reply:
"I am sorry to say my attention has been called to a paper bearing the
title of the Freethinker, published in Northampton, and I agree that
nothing can be more pernicious to the minds of right-thinking people
than publications of that description-- (cheers)--but I think it has been
the view for a great many years of all persons responsible in these
matters, that more harm than advantage is produced to public morals by
Government prosecutions in cases of this kind. (Hear, hear). I believe
they are better left to the reprobation which they will meet in this
country from all decent members of society. (Cheers)."
This highly disingenuous answer was characteristic of the member for
Derby. His reference to the Freethinker as published at Northampton,
clearly proves that he had never seen it; and his unctuous allusions to
"public morals" and "decent members of society" are further evidence
in the same direction. The Freethinker was accused of blasphemy, but
until Sir William Harcourt gave the cue not even its worst enemies
charged it with indecency. In a later stage of my narrative I shall have
to show that the "Liberal" Home Secretary has acted the part of an
unscrupulous bigot, utterly regardless of truth, justice and honor.
I thought it my duty to write an open letter to Sir William Harcourt on

the subject of his answer to Mr. Freshfield, in which I said-- "I tell you
that you could not suppress the Freethinker if you tried. The martyr
spirit of Freethought is not dead, and the men who suffered
imprisonment for liberty of speech a generation ago have not left
degenerate successors. Should the necessity arise, there are
Freethinkers who will not shrink from the same sacrifice for the same
cause." The sequel has shown that this was no idle boast.
A few days later the Freethinker was again the subject of a question in
the House. Mr. Redmond, member for New Ross, asked the Home
Secretary "whether the Government had power to seize and summarily
suppress newspapers which they considered pernicious to public morals;
and, if so, why that power was not exercised in the case of the
Freethinker and other papers now published and circulated in
England." Sir William Harcourt repeated the answer he gave to Mr.
Freshfield, and added that it would not be discreet to say whether the
Government had power to seize obnoxious publications.
Mr. Redmond's question was a fine piece of impudence. Assuming that
he represented all the voters in New Ross, his constituents numbered
two hundred and sixty-one; and they could all be conveyed to
Westminster in a tithe of the vehicles that brought people to Holloway
Gaol to welcome me on the morning of my release. The total
population of New Ross, including men, women and children, is less
than seven thousand; a number that fell far short of the readers of the
Freethinker even then. Representing a mere handful of people, Mr.
Redmond had the audacity to ask for the summary suppression of a
journal which is read in every part of the English-speaking world.
Nothing further of an exciting nature in connexion with my case
occurred until early in May, when a prosecution for Blasphemy was
instituted at Tunbridge Wells against Mr. Henry Seymour, Honorary
Secretary of the local branch of the National Secular Society. This
Branch had been the object of continued outrage and persecution,
chiefly instigated, I have reason to believe, by Canon Hoare. The
printed announcements outside their meeting-place were frequently
painted over in presence of the police, who refused to interfere. Finally

the police called on all the local bill-posters and warned them against
exhibiting the Society's placards. Stung by these disgraceful tactics, Mr.
Seymour issued a jocular