On that day we moved to quash the indictment and for a new trial, partly on a technical ground and partly on the ground that the verdict, having acquitted us of wrong motive, was in our favour, not against us.  On this the Court did not agree with us, holding that the part of the indictment alleging corrupt motive was superfluous.  Then came the question of sentence, and on this the Lord Chief Justice did his best to save us; we were acquitted of any intent to violate the law; would we submit to the verdict of the jury and promise not to sell the book?  No, we would not; we claimed the right to sell, and meant to vindicate it.  The judge pleaded, argued, finally got angry with us, and, at last, compelled to pass sentence, he stated that if we would have yielded he would have let us go free without penalty, but that as we would set ourselves against the law, break it and defy it—­a sore offence from the judge’s point of view—­he could only pass a heavy sentence on each of six months’ imprisonment, a fine of L200, and recognisances of L500 for two years, and this, as he again repeated, upon the assumption “that they do intend to set the law at defiance.”  Even despite this he made us first-class misdemeanants.  Then, as Mr. Bradlaugh stated that we should move for a writ of error, he liberated us on Mr. Bradlaugh’s recognisance for L100, the queerest comment on his view of the case and of our characters, since we were liable jointly to L1,400 under the sentence, to say nothing of the imprisonment.  But prison and money penalties vanished into thin air, for the writ of error was granted, proved successful, and the verdict was quashed.

Then ensued a somewhat anxious time.  We were resolute to continue selling; were our opponents equally resolved to prosecute us?  We could not tell.  I wrote a pamphlet entitled “The Law of Population,” giving the arguments which had convinced me of its truth, the terrible distress and degradation entailed on families by overcrowding and the lack of the necessaries of life, pleading for early marriages that prostitution might be destroyed, and limitation of the family that pauperism might be avoided; finally, giving the information which rendered early marriage without these evils possible.  This pamphlet was put in circulation as representing our view of the subject, and we again took up the sale of Knowlton’s.  Mr. Bradlaugh carried the war into the enemy’s country, and commenced an action against the police for the recovery of some pamphlets they had seized; he carried the action to a successful issue, recovered the pamphlets, bore them off in triumph, and we sold them all with an inscription across them, “Recovered from the police.”  We continued the sale of Knowlton’s tract for some time, until we received an intimation that no further prosecution would be attempted, and on this we at once dropped its publication, substituting for it my “Law of Population.”

[Illustration:  CHARLES BRADLAUGH M.P.]