The sentence and the reason for its heavy character have been so misrepresented, that I print here, from the shorthand report taken at the time, the account of what passed:—­

“The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, after having conferred for some minutes with Mr. Justice Mellor, said:  The case has now assumed a character of very, very grave importance.  We were prepared, if the defendants had announced openly in this Court that having acted in error as the jury found—­of which finding I think they are entitled to the benefit—­but still having been, after a fair and impartial trial, found by the jury guilty of doing of that which was an offence against the law, they were ready to submit to the law and to do everything in their power to prevent the further publication and circulation of a work which has been declared by the jury to be a work calculated to deprave public morals, we should have been prepared to discharge them on their own recognizances to be of good behavior in the future.  But we cannot help seeing in what has been said and done pending this trial, and since the verdict of the jury was pronounced, that the defendants, instead of submitting themselves to the law, have set it at defiance by continuing to circulate this book.  That being so I must say that that which before was an offence of a comparatively slight character—­looking to what the jury have found in reference to the contention of the defendants—­now assumes the form of a most grave and aggravated offence, and as such we must deal with it.  The sentence is that you, Charles Bradlaugh, and you, Annie Besant, be imprisoned for the term of six calendar months; that you each pay a fine of L200 to the Queen; and that you enter further into your own recognizances in a sum of L500 each to be of good behavior for the term of two years; and I tell you at the same time that you will not be of ‘good behavior’ and will be liable to forfeit that sum if you continue to publish this book.  No persuasion or conviction on your part that you are doing that which is morally justifiable can possibly warrant you in violating the law or excuse you in doing so.  No one is above the law; all owe obedience to the law from the highest to the lowest, and if you choose to set yourself at defiance against the law—­to break it and defy it—­you must expect to be dealt with accordingly.  I am very sorry indeed that such should be the result, but it is owing to your being thus contumacious, notwithstanding that you have had a fair trial, and the verdict of a competent jury, which ought to have satisfied you that you ought to abstain from doing what has been clearly demonstrated and shown to be wrong.

“Mr. BRADLAUGH:  Would your lordship entertain an application to stay execution of the sentence?

“The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:  Certainly not.  On consideration, if you will pledge yourselves unreservedly that there shall be no repetition of the publication of the book, at all events, until the Court of Appeal shall have decided contrary to the verdict of the jury and our judgment; if we can have that positive pledge, and you will enter into your recognizances that you will not avail yourselves of the liberty we extend to continue the publication of this book, which it is our bounden duty to suppress, or do our utmost to suppress, we may stay execution; but we can show no indulgence without such a pledge.