"Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT—The question of my hon. friend is founded
upon misconception of the duties and rights of the Secretary of
State in reference to sentences of the law, which I have often
endeavoured to remove, but apparently with entire want of success.
It is perfectly true that I have received many memorials on this
subject, most of them founded on misconception of the law on
which the sentence rested. This is not a matter I can take into
consideration, either upon my own opinion or upon that of 'clergymen
of the Church of England, Nonconformist ministers, and persons of
high literary and scientific position.' I am bound to assume that
until Parliament alters the law that law is right, and that those
who administer the law administer it rightly. If I took any other
course, outside my opinion—if I had one upon this subject—I should
be interfering with the making and with the administration of the law,
and transferring it from Parliament to the Executive and to a Minister
of the Crown. I am quite sure my hon. friend would not like that
course. It has been said, "Oh, but you can deal with sentences."
(Hear, hear.) Sentences must be dealt with not upon the assumption
that the law was wrong, and that the jury and judge were wrong,
but upon special circumstances applicable to the particular case
which would justify a Minister in recommending to the Crown a
remission of sentence. What are the circumstances? Nobody—I do
not care whether legal persons or belonging to the classes mentioned
in this question—who has not seen the publication can judge of
the matter. I have seen it, and I have no hesitation in saying
that it is in the most strict sense of the word an obscene libel.
It is a scandalous outrage upon public decency. (Opposition cheers.)
That being so, the law has declared that it is punishable by law.
I have no authority to declare that the law shall not be obeyed;
nor do I think that within less than half the period of the punishment
awarded by the Court, if I were to advise the Crown to remit the
sentence, I should be discharging the responsibility which rests
upon me with a sound or sober judgment. (Opposition cheers, and
murmurs below the gangway.)"
The Tory cheers which greeted this malicious reply suffice to condemn it. Sir William Harcourt has told many lies in his time, but this was the most brazen of all. He knew we were not prosecuted for obscenity; he knew there was not a suggestion of indecency in our indictment; and he had before him the distinct language of the Lord Chief Justice of England, exonerating us from the slander. Yet he deliberately libelled us, in a place where his utterances are privileged, in order to conciliate the Tories and please the bigots. Some of the Radical papers protested against this wanton misrepresentation, but I am not aware that a single Christian journal censured the lie which was used to justify persecution.
Freethinkers have not forgotten Sir William Harcourt, nor have I. Some day we may be able to punish him for the insult. Meanwhile, I venture to think that if the member for Derby and the editor of the Freethinker were placed side by side, an unprejudiced stranger would have little difficulty in deciding which of the two was the more likely to be bestial.
Poor Mr. Ramsey, not knowing his man, innocently petitioned the Home Secretary from prison, pointing out that he was tried and imprisoned for blasphemy, asking to be released at once, and offering to supply Sir William Harcourt with fresh copies of our Christmas Number for a new trial for obscenity. Of course he received no reply.
My counsel, Mr. Cluer, gallantly defended my reputation in the columns of the Daily News, and he was supported by one of the Jury, who wrote as follows:
"SIR,—From the reference in your short leader on the subject,
it appears that the Home Secretary, in answer to Mr. Taylor,
declined to consent to the release of Messrs. Foote and Ramsey,
on the ground that they had published an obscene libel. On
the late trial before the Lord Chief Justice, certain numbers
of the Freethinker, on which the prisoners were being tried,
were charged by the prosecution with being (inter alia) blasphemous
and indecent. The judge in the course of his remarks said, the
articles inculpated might be blasphemous, but assuredly they
were not indecent. The opinion of Sir William Harcourt,
consequently, though in harmony with that of the junior counsel
for the prosecution, is altogether opposed to that of Lord Coleridge,
who was the judge in the case."
The Daily News itself put the matter very clearly. "Mr. Foote and Mr. Ramsey," it said, "were sent to prison by Mr. Justice North for publishing a blasphemous libel. Sir William Harcourt declines to release them on the ground that they have published an obscene libel. It is not usual to keep Englishmen in gaol on the ground that they committed an offence of which they have not been convicted, and against which they have had no opportunity of defending themselves." But Sir William Harcourt thought otherwise, and kept us in prison, acting at once as prosecutor, witness, jury and judge.
Mr. Gladstone was appealed to, but he "regretted he could do nothing," presumably because we were only Englishmen and not Bulgarians. An answer to this piece of callous hypocrisy came from the London clubs. One resolution passed by the Combined Radical Clubs of Chelsea, representing thousands of working men, characterised our continued imprisonment as an indelible stigma on the Liberal Government.