The blasphemy trial of Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Foote, and Mr. Ramsey now came on, but this time in the Queen’s Bench, before the Lord Chief Justice Coleridge.  I had the honour of sitting between Mr. Bradlaugh and Mr. Foote, charged with the duty of having ready for the former all his references, and with a duplicate brief to mark off point after point as he dealt with it.  Messrs. Foote and Ramsey were brought up in custody, but were brave and bright with courage unbroken.  Mr. Bradlaugh applied to have his case taken separately, as he denied responsibility for the paper, and the judge granted the application; it was clearly proved that he and I—­the “Freethought Publishing Company”—­had never had anything to do with the production of the paper; that until November, 1881, we published it, and then refused to publish it any longer; that the reason for the refusal was the addition of comic Bible illustrations as a feature of the paper.  I was called as witness and began with a difficulty; claiming to affirm, I was asked by the judge if the oath would not be binding on my conscience; I answered that any promise was binding on me whatever the form, and after some little argument the judge found a way out of the insulting form by asking whether the “invocation of the Deity added anything to it of a binding nature—­added any sanction?” “None, my Lord,” was the prompt reply, and I was allowed to affirm.  Sir Hardinge Giffard subjected me to a very stringent cross-examination, doing his best to entangle me, but the perfect frankness of my answers broke all his weapons of finesse and inuendo.

Some of the incidents of the trial were curious; Sir Hardinge Giffard’s opening speech was very able and very unscrupulous.  All facts in Mr. Bradlaugh’s favour were distorted or hidden; anything that could be used against him was tricked out in most seductive fashion.  Among the many monstrous perversions of the truth made by this most pious counsel, was the statement that changes of publisher, and of registration of the Freethinker were made in consequence of a question as to prosecuting it put in the House of Commons.  The change of publisher was admittedly made in November; the registration was made for the first time in November, and could not be changed, as there was no previous one.  The House of Commons was not sitting in November; the question alluded to was asked in the following February.  This one deliberate lie of the “defender of the faith” will do as well as quoting a score of others to show how wickedly and maliciously he endeavoured to secure an unjust verdict.