who desire to oppose and to deny it." But this is an
inversion of the natural order of things. What reason is there in
imprisoning an innocent man because some one meditates an assault
upon him? Would it not be wiser and juster to restrain the intending
criminal, as is ordinarily done? I object to being punished because
others cannot keep their tempers; and I say further, that to punish a
man, not because he has injured others, but for his own good, is the
worst form of persecution. During the many years of my public advocacy
of Freethought in all parts of Great Britain, both before and since my
imprisonment, I have never been in a moment's danger of violence and
outrage. I never witnessed any irritation which could not be allayed
by a persuasive word, or any disturbance that could not be quelled by a
witticism. With all deference to Lord Coleridge, whom no one admires
and respects more than I do, I would rather the law left me to my own
resources, and only interfered to protect me when I need its assistance.

Now for the counts of our Indictment. There is danger in writing about
them, as it is held that the publication of matter found blasphemous
by a jury, except in a legal report for the profession, is itself
blasphemy, and may be punished as such. I am not, however, likely to be
deterred from my purpose by this consideration. On the other hand, as
the incriminated passages were all carefully selected from many numbers
of a journal never remarkable for its tender treatment of orthodoxy,
I do not see any particular advantage to be derived from their
republication. They are, of course, far more calculated to shock
religious susceptibilities (if these are to be considered) when they are
picked out and ranked together than when they stand amid their
context in their original places. Such a process of selection would be
exceedingly hard on any paper or book handling very advanced ideas, and
very backward ones, in a spirit of great freedom. Nay, it would prove
a severe trial to most works of real value, whose scope extended beyond
the respectabilities. Not to mention Byron's caustic remarks on the
peculiar expurgation of Martial in Don Juan's edition, it is obvious
that the Bible and Shakespeare could both be proved obscene by this
process; and setting aside ancient literature altogether, half our own
classics, before the age of Wordsworth and Scott, would come under the
same condemnation. I know I am intruding among my bet