Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History

Book

Open Original Text

Knowledge! Has not this been the law
of England, and is it not in fact the sentiment of certain Englishmen
even to-day?

As the particulars conveyed in this formidable "information" differed
somewhat from those furnished in the earlier _subpoena ad respondum_,
Mr Bradlaugh applied to the Courts to compel further and better
particulars concerning the penalties for which judgment was prayed.
This application was heard on the 30th May, in the Court of Exchequer,
before Mr Justice Montague Smith, and was opposed by counsel (of whom
there was quite an array) on behalf of the Crown. After a "lengthy
and rather sharp passage of arms" the Judge decided in favour of
the application, and ordered the solicitor to the Inland Revenue to
"deliver to the defendant a further and better account in writing
of the particulars of the statutes referred to in the 3rd and 6th
counts."[41] This victory over the law officers of the Crown was of
trifling consequence, except as giving a little additional time for
pleading, and as showing his opponents that they had to deal with a man
ready to see and ready to use every advantage given him. This second
victory, small perhaps as bearing on the final issues, was of vast
moral importance, for it forced the Crown to state that they relied on
the obnoxious statute of George III. for the enforcement of the 3rd and
6th counts. The assistant-solicitor, Stephen Dowell, Esq., made this
admission in the briefest possible language, abandoning the "to wits"
and other ornamental phraseology of the original wordy information. On
the 1st June Mr Bradlaugh entered four pleas in his defence; but it
was now the turn of the law officers of the Crown to interpose, and
they objected that a defendant might only plead one plea, and referred
their opponent to the 21 James I., cap. iv. sec. 4, as bearing on the
case. The letter conveying this objection was put into my father's
hands at Euston Station just as he was leaving by the 2.45 train for
Northampton, the suffrages of which town he was then seeking to win
for the first time. That very day was the last for giving notice for
the next sittings, and half-past three was the latest time available
on that day. Mr Bradlaugh felt himself in a position of considerable
embarrassment. There was no time for consideration; he doubted the
accuracy of the Government, but he was not acquainted with the wording
of the statute of James; his train was on the point of leaving for
Northampton, and some decision must be come to immediately. He
dispatched a clerk to Somerset House with authority to modify his plea
according to the terms of the solicitor's letter, but reserving his
right to inquire into the matter, and take such course upon it as the
law permitted.

[Footnote 41: The 4th, 5th, and 6th counts were identical with the 1st,
2nd, and 3rd, except that they referred to a different issue of the
paper.]

On his return from Northampton, he went at once to Messrs Spottiswoode,
the Queen's Printers, and there he learned that the statute of James
was "not only out of print, but had not been asked for within the
memory of the oldest employee in the Queen's Printing Office." On
referring to the Statute Book, he arrived at the opinion that Mr
Melvill was once more in error, and therefore went himself to Somerset
House, where, to his "great surprise," he found that the Government
lawyers were no better informed than himself, and merely sheltered
themselves under an opinion of the counsel to the Treasury that he
had no right to plead more than one plea. Upon hearing this, Mr
Bradlaugh immediately wrote Mr Melvill that unless he at once pointed
out the authority under which his right of pleading was limited to
"Not Guilty," he should apply to a judge at chambers to have his
pleas reinstated. Mr Melvill replied on the same day repeating his
declaration, but without giving his authority. The next day (Friday,
June 5th) Mr Bradlaugh was served with a rule that the case should be
tried by a special jury, and that the jury should be nominated on the
Tuesday following. On Saturday the application to reinstate the pleas
was heard before Mr Justice Willes. After a great deal of discussion,
the judge at length endorsed the summons with a declaration giving Mr
Bradlaugh liberty to raise upon the trial all the issues involved in
his pleas.

The trial came on in the Court of Exchequer on Saturday, June 13th,
before Mr Baron Martin. The Court was filled with Mr Bradlaugh's
friends, to witness this great forensic contest between himself,
on behalf of a free, unshackled press on the one hand, and on the
other, Her Majesty's Attorney-General, Sir John Karslake, Kt.,
aided and assisted by the Solicitor-General and an inferior legal
gentleman "in stuff," on behalf of the Government and the oppressive
press laws of George and William. When the jury was called only ten
gentlemen answered to their names; thereupon the Associate asked the
Attorney-General, "Do you pray a tales?" The Attorney-General answered,
"We do not pray a tales." The Associate then asked Mr Bradlaugh the
same question, to which he also replied in the negative. Upon this the
jury was discharged, and the great press prosecution entered into by
the moribund Tory Government of 1868 came to an abortive end.

"It is not in mortals--least of all, in mortals mean as these--to
command success. I make no doubt that the man who has the courage to
defy them will at least do more--deserve it." So wrote "Caractacus"
before this nominal trial came on, and assuredly whatever measure of
success there was in it was surely on my father's side. Mr Bradlaugh
did not "pray a tales," because by so doing he would have forfeited
certain rights; but by not praying a tales, and by not asking for
fines to be imposed upon the absent jurymen, the law officers of the
Crown most clearly showed their eagerness to seize upon any excuse
to abandon the proceedings upon which they had so rashly embarked.
To do the Government justice, I think they had been rather driven
into the matter by their bigoted followers. As far back as 1866 we
find the English Church Union urging the prosecution of an "infidel
newspaper, reputed to possess a considerable circulation." The matter
had actually been brought before the Attorney-General, with a view to
legal proceedings, and he, "whilst suggesting the necessity of mature
consideration as to the desirability of procuring prominence for a
comparatively obscure publication by means of a public prosecution,
promised that the question should be very carefully considered." In
1867 the _Saturday Review_ tried week by week to inflame the mind of
the public against the _National Reformer_ and Mr Bradlaugh, and other
Tory journals followed the example so worthily set them. Judging from
all this, one can hardly be assuming too much in supposing the action
of the Government was not altogether spontaneous.

At the meeting of members of Parliament and others interested in the
matter to which I have alread

Previous Next