The Life & Work of Charles Bradlaugh. J. M. Robertson
In their capacity as magistrates they were compelled by the evidence to find him wrong: as Town Councillors they allowed their prejudices full scope, and voted that the borough of Devonport should find money to support the Superintendent in his defence of what they themselves had agreed were wrongful acts.
The case against Mr. Superintendent Edwards came on at the Devon Lammas Assizes at Exeter, before Mr. Baron Channell, on Monday, July 29th. The reports[62] say that
"the Court was crowded, great interest being excited in the case. Many ladies were present, and nearly the whole of the briefless barristers on the circuit seemed roused from their ordinary drowsy dulness into something like life and activity. The case lasted from ten in the forenoon until nine in the evening, and was tried before a special jury."
Unfortunately, Mr. Bradlaugh made one great and irreparable blunder. Instead of conducting the case himself, he allowed himself to be persuaded into briefing counsel, Mr. Robert Collier, Q.C., M.P., and Mr. Cole. The nature of this blunder, and its importance before a special jury in a cathedral city, may be realised by reading a few words of comment from a hostile leader on the case which appeared in the Western Morning News for July 31st. This journal, which was so unfriendly towards my father's cause as to aver that the devout Christian looked "to the State to keep the Queen's highway free from Atheist lecturers and infidel propagandists," nevertheless stated in the most distinct fashion that "the counsel for the plaintiff was far more anxious to assert his own orthodoxy than his client's rights." And with this opinion I think most people will agree who read the Counsel's speech for the defence; not, however, that I intend to give the whole of Mr. Collier's speech, because it is at once too long, and it goes over ground with which we are already familiar; still, I will quote a few of his expressions to prove that I am not judging him too hardly. Almost in the opening words of his speech Mr. Collier said: "I am informed that Mr. Bradlaugh desired to deliver a lecture or a sermon—I hardly know which." This was pure prevarication, as the utmost pains had been taken to give Mr. Collier the whole facts of the case. A little later he stated:—
"Mr. Bradlaugh belonged to a Society called the 'Secular Society.' Now I have never heard of the Society until this, nor did I ever hear of 'Iconoclast' before. … I really don't know what their [the Secularists'] tenets are, but I believe they are connected in some way with the Unitarians."
This assertion was so monstrous that it immediately brought forth a letter of repudiation from the Rev. Henry Knott, Unitarian Minister of Plymouth; although, to do this gentleman justice, he said he believed that the Secularists were themselves "much too honest to wish to identify themselves with a body of Christians who have frequently opposed them in fair and open controversy." Mr. Collier then wrote a letter to the Rev. Henry Knott in reply, regretting that he had misrepresented the Unitarians, and saying further:—
"As to the 'Secularists,' I had never heard of them until I had received the brief in 'Bradlaugh v. Edwards.' I have since ascertained, however, that they are a considerable sect; so much so, that I wonder that I had not heard of them. I was informed that a portion of them was connected with the Unitarians, and therefore supposed that a portion of them acknowledged the Divine origin of Christianity; if I was misinformed, I am very sorry for it."
The italics are mine; and if Mr. Collier meant to imply that he received this information from his client or his attorney—the only persons from whom he should have received information bearing on the conduct of this case—he still further dishonoured himself, because the utmost candour was shown him in laying the facts before him, and most assuredly no such statement as that quoted could have been made to him by sane men who knew the facts.
But to return to Mr. Collier's speech. I will give just two more quotations, and then leave it:—
"I should be extremely sorry," he said, "if I were understood, as the advocate of Mr. Bradlaugh or anybody else, as for one moment defending any circulation, either by printing or by word of mouth, of anything libellous, seditious, or blasphemous. … If Mr. Bradlaugh had been permitted to preach, and if he had preached anything improper, blasphemous, or seditious, I should not have complained of the superintendent; on the contrary, I should praise him if he had taken the proper measures for bringing him before a court of justice."
"I will conclude," he further said, "with this remark, that I cannot help thinking that if the doctrines of this Secular Society, or any other Society, are preached, which you and I and all of us may think pernicious, by far the best thing is to let them alone. 'Truth is great and will prevail,' and we need not fear that the foundation of our religion will be shaken by a thousand Bradlaughs; and I cannot think of anything so pernicious and likely to prevent that very object we seek to accomplish, and to elevate persons such as these from obscurity into fame, as by making them unjustly martyrs. I cannot help thinking that the superintendent of the police, although acting from the very best motives, was acting with very great haste and indiscretion."
If Mr. Collier had been briefed by the other side also, he could hardly have made a more equivocal speech; and it will be easily understood how much it was likely to prejudice both the judge and jury against a man whose opinions were so well known, and who had made no pretence of concealing them. The defence made every effort to avail themselves of the odium theologicum when it came to Mr. Bradlaugh's turn to take his place in the witness-box. Mr. Montagu Smith, Q.C., counsel for the defence, wished to cross-examine Mr. Bradlaugh on some former lectures in which he expressed his disbelief in the Bible; Mr. Collier objected; Mr. Smith persisted; Baron Channell then allowed the question, taking note of Mr. Collier's objection; Mr. Smith again put his question, and my father replied: "I object to answer that question on the ground that if I answer it in the affirmative it will subject me to a criminal prosecution." Then came a little scene, which will strike those who have been in the law courts with Mr. Bradlaugh as by no means unfamiliar:—
"His Lordship then asked for the Act of Parliament, and
"The Plaintiff immediately replied: It is the 53rd William III. Archbold recites the statute.
"His Lordship and the learned counsel were then engaged in finding it; and after having spent some time in vain, the plaintiff asked for a book, and on its being presented to him, he immediately found the statute in question, which he handed to his lordship. The learned judge then read it to the counsel, and said, this statute only applies to those educated in or making profession of Christianity. In answer to his question,
"The Plaintiff said: I was educated according to the Church of England.
"His Lordship: I allow the objection, witness claims exemption, and he is entitled to it."
Six times Mr. Montagu Smith put similar questions to Mr. Bradlaugh, and six times Mr. Bradlaugh answered him in the same words. In his summing-up the judge, Mr. Baron Channell, seemed determined not to be outdone by Mr. Collier in evoking the religious prejudices of the jury. From Mr. Smith, for the defence, such conduct was in some degree pardonable, even if not altogether in accordance with ordinary un-Christian notions of strict honour; but in Mr. Collier, counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Baron Channell, presiding over what was supposed to be a Court of Justice, it was unpardonable. His Lordship regretted "that the constitution of the plaintiff's mind was such as to render him unable to believe in those great truths which afforded so much comfort and satisfaction to others; the notion of going about and delivering lectures on those views he considered fraught with mischief and calculated to produce the greatest possible evil," while he further enlarged upon the "wickedness of disseminating such opinions."
After the summing-up of this just judge the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with one farthing damages. The evidence was so strong, and some of the witnesses for the defence were so extravagant and unsatisfactory, that in spite of their prejudices the jury could not do other than decide in Mr. Bradlaugh's favour; but they did it as grudgingly as they could, and recorded their animus in the "damages" they awarded. On the following morning Mr Baron Channell carried this a step further, and when Mr. Collier made the formal application for the plaintiff's costs he refused to certify.
In spite of all the prejudice roused against him, Mr. Bradlaugh met with considerable sympathy from the press, from foes[63] as well as friends.
Mr. Bradlaugh was not the