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

Book

Open Original Text

e Crown to take two penalties," therefore a verdict might be
for the defendant upon the second and fifth counts. As though when
penalties had reached well into seven figures, a million or two less
was of much consequence! Mr Austin Holyoake, in a descriptive article
upon the prosecution, which he found it difficult to class as either
tragedy or farce, since "it resembles very much a melodrama in two
gasps and a tableau," says in regard to the suggested non-enforcement
of full fines:--

 "This relieved my mind very much; for as the penalties have
 accumulated since May last to between three and four millions had
 we been suddenly called upon to pay, I feel sure the sum I had with
 me would have fallen short by at least two millions of the amount
 forfeited to 'our sovereign lady the Queen.' The Chancellor of the
 Exchequer is very busy devising schemes to create a surplus for his
 next budget. Perhaps this is one of them."

The learned Attorney-General, Sir Robert Collier, in the course of his
opening speech, read the statute of the 60 Geo. III. chap. 9, sec. 8,
which laid down regulations as to the publication of any paper, etc.,
which "shall not exceed two sheets, or which shall be published at a
less price than sixpence." In reading this statute, Sir Robert Collier
remarked that the provision as to pamphlets had been repealed. When it
came to Mr Bradlaugh's turn to speak in his defence, he pointed out the
error of this. The Attorney-General "has read to you the statute of the
60 Geo. III. chap. 9, and he himself, the representative of the Crown
here to-day, knows so little of the statute that he ... states that the
part as to pamphlets is a part which has been repealed. The fact is
that the whole of this Act of Parliament is a living Act."

Having put the Attorney-General right in the matter of law, it was
now Mr Bradlaugh's turn to inform the officials at Somerset House of
what went on in their own department. At the trial Mr Edward Tilsley,
a clerk in the office of the Solicitor of Inland Revenue, had sworn,
accurately sworn, under the cross-examination of the defendant, that
the _Sporting Times_ was not registered. On the 4th of February all the
morning papers contained a letter from Mr Tilsley announcing that he
had made a search, and that the _Sporting Times_ was registered, and
he asked for publicity of this fact "in justice to the proprietors of
that paper." The proprietors must have been considerably astonished.
Mr Bradlaugh was; and to such an extent did his amazement carry him,
that he immediately went to Somerset House, where he also searched the
register. The result of his search appeared in the following letter,
published in the papers of the 5th:--

 "SIR--With reference to Mr Tilsley's letter in your issue
 of to-day, permit me to state that I have this morning searched the
 registers at Somerset House in the presence of that gentleman, and
 that his evidence in court seems to have been more correct than his
 correction. The _Sporting Times_ is not registered. Mr Tilsley's
 error, when writing to you, arose from the fact that another paper
 with the same name was once registered, but this was before the
 popular journal of Dr Shorthouse came into existence. I believe
 Dr Shorthouse would contend, as I contended at the trial, that
 his publication does not come under the statutory definition of a
 newspaper."

As the days flew by Mr Bradlaugh grew more and more confident that he
had a good case to go before the judges in asking for his rule, and he
notes that "a feeling in favour of my ultimate success seems gaining
ground in many competent quarters, although the utmost surprise is
felt that a Liberal Government should persist in such a prosecution."
A petition was drawn up setting forth the chief points in the
prosecution, and praying that all such enactments as create differences
between high and low priced publications to the detriment of the
latter might be repealed. Mr Bradlaugh sent his petition to Viscount
Enfield, Member for Middlesex, who duly presented it. For thus doing
his bare duty to one of his constituents, Viscount Enfield was most
virulently attacked by the _Blue Budget_. Lord Enfield and Mr Bradlaugh
were unknown to each other, and the former had merely fulfilled the
obligation of his Parliamentary membership; for this he was accused of
being the apologist for Mr Bradlaugh, for whom he did "not object to
risk his reputation."

On Thursday, April 15th, Lord Chief Baron Kelly, Baron Bramwell, and
Baron Cleasby, sitting in the Exchequer Court, heard the motion for a
new rule. The three judges listened to Mr Bradlaugh with the greatest
attention, and took the utmost care to fully comprehend the bearing of
every argument he put forward, although their continuous interruptions
were rather embarrassing to him. Having heard what he had to urge,
a rule _nisi_ was granted him on three points; if he succeeded in
maintaining his rule on either of two points, the prosecution was at
an end; if he failed in these, but succeeded in the third, then there
would have to be a new trial. It is hardly wonderful that, having
gained so much, he began to feel fairly sanguine of success; nor is it
less wonderful that, with all the worry and all the work, he should
be feeling rather bitter against the Government, which had actually
brought in a Bill on April 8th to repeal those enactments which they
were at that very moment trying to enforce against him.

"If the Gladstone Cabinet had been a generous one," he wrote, "it
would have abandoned a prosecution which, when carried on by the late
Government, some of the members of the present Cabinet had already
emphatically condemned. If the Gladstone Government had been just and
consistent, it should at least, when bringing in a Bill to repeal
the very laws under which we are prosecuted, have delayed the legal
proceedings in this case until after the debate in the House upon this
Bill, which has now actually passed its second reading."

The rule of court granted by the judges was served upon the solicitor
to the Inland Revenue on the 16th of April. Upon the 23rd that
gentleman wrote Mr Bradlaugh that as it was proposed to repeal the
enactments under which the proceedings had been instituted, "the Law
Officers of the Crown will agree to a _stet processus_ being entered,"
and asked if he would consent to this course. To this Mr Bradlaugh made
answer:--

 "SIR,--I will consent to a _stet processus_ being entered,
 not because of the Bill now before the House of Commons, but because I
 am sick of a litigation involving loss of time, anxiety, and expense;
 and I consent only with the distinct declaration on my part, that I
 am not liable under the statutes under which I am prosecuted, and
 protesting that a Liberal Government ought never to have carried on
 such a prosecution. If the Law Officers of the Crown had proposed
 a _stet processus_ when the new Government came into office, the
 act would have been graceful; now,

Previous Next