When the jury retired there was but one opinion in court, namely, that we had won our case.  But they were absent for an hour and thirty-five minutes, and we learned afterwards that several were anxious to convict, not so much because of the book as because we were Freethinkers.  At last they agreed to a compromise, and the verdict delivered was:  “We are unanimously of opinion that the book in question is calculated to deprave public morals, but at the same time we entirely exonerate the defendants from any corrupt motives in publishing it.”

The Lord Chief Justice looked troubled, and said gravely that he would have to direct them to return a verdict of guilty on such a finding.  The foreman, who was bitterly hostile, jumped at the chance without consulting his colleagues, some of whom had turned to leave the box, and thus snatched a technical verdict of “guilty” against us.  Mr. George Skinner, of 27, Great Chapel Gate, Westminster, wrote to me on the following day to say that six of the jurymen did not consent to the verdict of “guilty”, and that they had agreed that if the judge would not accept the verdict as handed in they would then retire again, and that they would never have given a verdict of guilty; but the stupid men had not the sense to speak out at the right time, and their foreman had his way.  The Lord Chief Justice at once set us free to come up for judgment on that day week, June 28th—­the trial had lasted till the 21st—­and we went away on the same recognizances given before by Mr. Bradlaugh, an absolutely unprecedented courtesy to two technically “convicted prisoners".[1]

[Footnote 1:  A Report of the Trial can be obtained from the Freethought Publishing Company, price 5s.  It contains an exact report of all that was said and done.]

XVI.

The week which intervened between the verdict of the jury and the day on which we were ordered to appear in Court to receive sentence was spent by us in arranging all our affairs, and putting everything in train for our anticipated absence.  One serious question had to be settled, but it did not need long consideration.  What were we to do about the Knowlton pamphlet?  We promptly decided to ignore the verdict and to continue the sale.  Recognising that the fact of this continued sale would be brought up against us in Court and would probably seriously increase our sentence, we none the less considered that as we had commenced the fight we were bound to maintain it, and we went on with the sale as before.

On June 28th we attended the Court of Queen’s Bench to receive judgment, the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Mellor being on the Bench.  We moved to quash the indictment, on arrest of judgment, and for a new trial, the first on the ground that the indictment did not set out the words complained of.  The judges were against us on this, but it is interesting to note that the Lord Chief Justice