to justice. If he is correct in his citations from these writers, it seems to me that some of them are fairly liable to such a prosecution as his. Suppose they are, that does not show that he is not. What Mr. Foote had to show was, not that other people were bad, but that he was good; not that other persons were guilty, but that he was innocent. It is no answer to bring forward these other cases. It is not enough to say these other persons have done these things, if they are not brought before us. Gentlemen, I not only admit, but I urge upon you, and on every one who hears me, that whilst laxity in the administration of the law is bad, the most odious laxity of all is discriminating laxity, which lays hold of particular persons and lets other persons equally guilty go scot free. That may be, that is so, but it has nothing to do with this case. The question here is not whether other persons ought to be standing where Mr. Foote and Mr. Ramsey now stand, but what judgment we ought to pass on Mr. Foote and Mr. Ramsey, who do stand here. In short and in fine, we have to administer the law whether we like it or no. It is undoubtedly a disagreeable law, or may become so, but I have given you some reasons for thinking it not so bad nor so indefensible as Mr. Foote has argued that it is. I think it, on the contrary, a good law that persons should be obliged to respect the feelings and opinions of those amongst whom they live. I assent to the passage from Michaelis, that in a Catholic country we have no right to insult Catholic opinion, nor in a Mohammedan country have we any right to insult Mohammedan opinion. I differ from both, but I am bound as a good citizen to treat with respect opinions with which I do not agree. Take these publications with you; look at them; if you think they are permissible attacks on the religion of the country you will find the defendants not guilty. Take these cartoons. Mr. Foote says they are not attacks upon, and are not intended for caricatures of, Almighty God. If there be such a being, says Mr. Foote, he can have no feeling for Almighty God but profound reverence and awe, but this he says is his mode of holding up to contempt what he calls a caricature of that ineffable Being as delineated in the Hebrew Scriptures. This is for you to try. Look at them and judge for yourselves whether they do or do not come within the widest limits of the law. If they do, then as with the libels find the defendants not guilty. But if you think that they do not come within the most liberal and largest view that anyone can give of the law as it exists now, then find them guilty. Whatever may be the consequences-you may think the prosecution unwise, you may think the law undesirable, you may think no publications of this sort should ever be made the subject of criminal attack (I do not say you do think so, but you may), it matters not-your duty is to obey the law; not to strain it in favour of the defendants because you do not like the prosecution; not to strain it against them because you do not yourselves agree with the statements they advocate, as you are certain entirely to disapprove of the manner in which they advocate them. Take all these alleged libels into your consideration and say whether you find Mr. Foote or Mr. Ramsey, both or either, guilty or not guilty of this publication. APPENDIX C. A Bill for the abolition of Prosecutions against Laymen for the expression of opinion on matters of Religion. WHEREAS certain laws now in force which were intended for the promotion of religion are no longer suitable for that purpose, and it is expedient to repeal them : Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows: 1. After the passing of this Act no criminal proceedings shall be instituted in any court against any person for schism, heresy, apostacy, blasphemous libel, blasphemy at common law, or atheism; excepting only proceedings instituted in ecclesiastical courts against spiritual persons of the Church of England, or in the courts of the Church of Scotland against ministers or preachers of that church. 2. The Acts contained in the schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent in the third column of that schedule mentioned. 3. Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect the provisions of an Act passed in the nineteenth year of his late Majesty King George the Second, chapter twenty-one, intituled "An Act more effectually to prevent profane cursing and swearing," or any other provision of any other Act of Parliament not hereby expressly repealed. * Provided moreover that any person who, with the intention of The language of this concluding proviso is perhaps too wide. It is not intended to impose any restriction whatever on the freest exposition of opinions, however heretical; and its language might be amended so as to prevent any possible misconstruction. Some such clause is in my opinion desirable, and indeed necessary. (See ante, pp. 469, 470.) wounding the religious feelings of any person or persons, shall in any public place utter any word, or make any gesture, or exhibit any object within the hearing or sight of any person or persons whose religious feelings are likely to be thereby wounded, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour; and on being convicted thereof, shall be liable to fine or imprisonment, or both, as the court may award, such imprisonment not to exceed the term of one year. 4. This Act may be cited as the Religious Prosecutions Abolition Act, 1887. SCHEDULE. Extent of Repeal. Session and Title or Short Title. 1 Edw. 6, c. 1. An Act against such as shall The whole Act. |