ference, I ask, is there between that strong
description and the sentence quoted from the _Freethinker_ in our
Indictment, which declared the same being as "cruel as a Bashi-Bazouk
and bloodthirsty as a Bengal tiger"? The one is an abstract and the
other a concrete expression of the same view; the one is philosophical
and the other popular; the one is a cold statement and the other a
burning metaphor. To allow the one to circulate with impunity, and to
punish the other with twelve months' imprisonment, is to turn a literary
difference into a criminal offence.

Further, as Sir James Stephen has observed, it is absurd to talk about
bringing "the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion into disbelief
and contempt." One of these words is clearly superfluous. Considering
the extraordinary pretensions of the Bible and Christianity, it
is difficult to see how they could be brought into contempt more
effectually than by bringing them into disbelief.

But greater absurdities remain. Our Indictment averred that we had
published certain Blasphemous Libels "to the great displeasure of
Almighty God, to the scandal of the Christian religion and the Holy
Bible or Scriptures, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her
crown and dignity." Let us analyse this legal jargon.

How did our prosecutors learn that we displeased Almighty God? In what
manner did Sir Henry Tyler first become aware of the fact? Was it,
in the ancient fashion, revealed to him in a dream, or did it come by
direct inspiration? What was the exact language of the aggrieved Deity?
Did he give Sir Henry Tyler a power of attorney to defend his character
by instituting a prosecution for libel? If so, where is the document,
and who will prove the signature? And did the original party to the suit
intimate his readiness to be subpoenaed as a witness at the trial? All
these are very important questions, but there is no likelihood of their
ever being answered.

"The scandal of the Christian Religion" is an impertinent joke.
Christianity, as Lord Coleridge remarked, is no longer, as the old
judges used to rule, part and parcel of the law of England. I argued the
matter at considerable length in addressing the jury, and his lordship
supported my contention with all the force of his high authority. After
pointing out that at one time Jews, Roman Catholics, and Nonconformists
of all sorts--in fact every sect outside the State Church--were under
heavy disabilities for r