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and profaneness are hereby repealed.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expressly repealed."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
last relics of religious persecution. What Lord Coleridge read from
Starkie as the law of blasphemous libel, I regard with Sir James Stephen
as "flabby verbiage." Lord Coleridge is himself a master of style, and
I suppose his admiration of Starkie's personal character has blinded his
judgment. Starkie simply raises a cloud of words to hide the real nature
of the Blasphemy Laws. He shows how Freethinkers may be punished without
avowing the principle of persecution. Instead of frankly saying that
Christianity must not be attacked, he imputes to aggressive heretics "a
malicious and mischievous intention," and "apathy and indifference to
the interests of society;" and he justifies their being punished, not
for their actions, but for their motives: a principle which, if it were
introduced into our jurisprudence, would produce a chaos.

Could there be a more ridiculous assumption than that a man who braves
obloquy, social ostracism, and imprisonment for his principles,
is indifferent to the interest of society? Let Christianity strike
Freethinkers if it will, but why add insult to injury? Why brand us as
cowards when you martyr us? Why charge us with hypocrisy whe