ent,
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 remarked that "the
language of the book is not open to any particular objection". I argued
that the jury, having exonerated us from any corrupt motive, could not be
regarded as having found us guilty on an indictment which charged us with
a corrupt motive: the Lord Chief Justice held that "in the unnecessary
and superfluous part of the indictment, there is no judgment against
you", and refused to believe that anyone would be found afterwards so
base as to accuse us of evil intent, because of the formal words of the
indictment, the jury having acquitted us of any corrupt intention. The
judge unfortunately imputed to others his own uprightness, and we have
found many--among them Sir W.T. Charley, the present Common Sergeant--
vile enough to declare what he thought impossible, that we were found
guilty of wilfully corrupting the morals of the people. The judges
decided against us on all the points raised, but it is due to them to say
that in refusing to quash the indictment, as Mr. Bradlaugh asked, they
were misled by the misrepresentation of an American case by Sir Hardinge
Giffard, and, to quote the words of the Lord Chief Justice, they
sheltered themselves "under the decisions of the American Courts, and
left this matter to be carefully gone into by the Court of Error".

The question of sentence then arose, and two affidavits were put in, one
by a reporter of the _Morning Advertiser_, named Lysaght. This individual
published in the _Advertiser_ a very garbled report of a meeting at the
Hall of Science on the previous Sunday, evidently written to anger the
Lord Chief Justice, and used by Sir Hardinge Giffard with the same
object. In one thing, however, it was accurate, and that was in stating
that we announced our intention to continue the sale of the book. On this
arose an argument with the Lord Chief Justice; he pointed out that we did
not deny that the circulation of the book was going on, and we assented
that it was so. It was almost pathetic to see the judge, angry at our
resolution, unwilling to sentence us, but determined to vindicate the law
he administered. "The question is," he urged, "what