elp reflecting that only the rich could afford it, and that
the poor might as well have no law at all.

Mr. Bradlaugh next moved to quash the indictment. He argued that the
public prosecutor's fiat was bad, as it did not name the persons who
were to be proceeded against, and thus resembled a general warrant,
which in the famous Wilkes case the judges had held to be invalid. On
this point, however, two judges, one of them being Sir James Stephen,
gave judgment against him. The case was argued on Mr. Bradlaugh's part,
the judges said, with "great power and learning." For my part, I think
he showed a greater knowledge of "cases" than both the legal luminaries
on the bench, who laid their heads close together over many a knotty
point of the argument.

Beaten on the main issue, Mr. Bradlaugh was successful, however, on
the subsidiary one. Two counts were struck out of the indictment. The
excision made no difference to me, but a great deal of difference to
him. Two numbers of the _Freethinker_ were thus disposed of bearing
the imprint of the Freethought Publishing Company--under which name Mr.
Bradlaugh and Mrs. Beasant traded--and owing to the lapse of time it
was impossible to open a fresh indictment. Of course I saw what Mr.
Bradlaugh was driving at, and I could not but admire the way in which he
made light of this point, arguing it baldly as a formal matter on which,
as their lordships would see at a glance, he was absolutely entitled
to a judgment. They would see that he was still open to all the other
counts of the indictment, and therefore it might make very little
difference, but right was right and law was law. Under the spell of
his persuasive speech, it was amazing to see the judges smoothing their
wrinkled fronts. I fancy they gave him his second point the more readily
because they were against him on the first; indeed, they seemed to think
it a pity, if not a shame, that all his learning and ability should be
displayed for _nothing_.

Our indictment went into the list of Crown Cases Reserved, and did not
come on for trial till the following April. Meanwhile I was prosecuted
again, and failing to get a writ of _certiorari_, owing to the flagrant
bigotry of Baron Huddleston and Justice North, I was tried at the Old
Bailey, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment like a common
thief--as Mr. Bradlaugh had predicted.

During my trouble Mr. Bradlaugh lent me every assistance, furnishing
me with legal books and