Part 11 (1/2)

”The said Annie Besant is, by addresses, lectures, and writings, endeavoring to propagate the principles of Atheism, and has published a book int.i.tuled: 'The Gospel of Atheism'. She has also a.s.sociated herself with an infidel lecturer and author, named Charles Bradlaugh, in giving lectures and in publis.h.i.+ng books and pamphlets, whereby the truth of the Christian religion is impeached, and disbelief in all religion is inculcated.

”The said Annie Besant has also, in conjunction with the said Charles Bradlaugh, published an indecent and obscene pamphlet called 'The Fruits of Philosophy'.

”The said pamphlet has recently been the subject of legal proceedings, in the course of which the said Annie Besant publicly justified its contents and publication, and stated, or inferred, that in her belief it would be right to teach young children the physiological facts contained in the said pamphlet. [This was a deliberate falsehood: I had never stated or inferred anything of the kind.] The said Annie Besant has also edited and published a pamphlet int.i.tuled 'The Law of Population; its consequences, and its bearing upon human conduct and morals', to which book or pamphlet your pet.i.tioners crave leave to refer.”

The pet.i.tion was unfortunately heard before the Master of the Rolls, Sir George Jessel, a man animated by the old spirit of Hebrew bigotry, and who had superadded to this the coa.r.s.e time-serving morality of ”a man of the world”, sceptical of all sincerity, and contemptuous of all self-devotion to a cause that did not pay, as of a weakness by which he was himself singularly una.s.sailable. The treatment I received at his hands on my first appearance in Court told me what I had to expect. After my previous experience of the courtesy of English judges, I was startled to hear a harsh, loud voice exclaim, in answer to a statement from Mr.

Ince. Q.C., that I appeared in person:

”Appear in person? A lady appear in person? Never heard of such a thing!

Does the lady really appear in person?”

After a variety of similar remarks, delivered in the most grating tones and with the roughest manner, Sir George Jessel tried to attain his object by browbeating me directly.

”Is this the lady?”

”I am the respondent to the pet.i.tion, my lord--Mrs. Besant.” ”Then I advise you, Mrs. Besant, to employ counsel to represent you, if you can afford it, and I suppose you can.”

”With all submission to your lords.h.i.+p, I am afraid I must claim my right of arguing my case in person.”

”You will do so if you please, of course, but I think you had much better appear by counsel. I give you notice that, if you do not, you must not expect to be shown any consideration. You will not be heard by me at any greater length than the case requires, nor allowed to go into irrelevant matter, as persons who argue their own cases generally do.”

”I trust I shall not do so, my lord; but in any case I shall be arguing under your lords.h.i.+p's complete control.”

This encouraging beginning may be taken as a sample of the case. Mr.

Ince, the counsel on the other side, was constantly practising in the Rolls' Court, knew all the judge's peculiarities, how to flatter and humor him on the one hand, and how to irritate him against his opponent on the other. Nor was Mr. Ince above using his influence with the Master of the Rolls to obtain an unfair advantage, knowing that whatever he said would be believed against any contradiction of mine: thus he tried to obtain costs against me on the ground that the public helped me, whereas his client received no subscriptions in aid of his suit; yet as a matter of fact subscriptions had been collected for his client, and the Bishop of Lincoln, and many of the princ.i.p.al clergy and churchmen of the diocese had contributed liberally towards the persecution of the Atheist.

Mr. Ince and Mr. Bardswell argued that my Atheism and Malthusianism made me an unfit guardian for my child; Mr. Ince declared that Mabel, educated by me, would ”be helpless for good in this world”, and ”hopeless for good hereafter”; outcast in this life and d.a.m.ned in the next; Mr. Bardswell implored the Judge to consider that my custody of her ”would be detrimental to the future prospects of the child in society, to say nothing of her eternal prospects”. I could have laughed, had not the matter been so terribly serious, at the mixture of Mrs. Grundy, marriage-establishment, and h.e.l.l, presented as an argument for robbing a mother of her child. Once only did judge and counsel fall out; Mr.

Bardswell had carelessly forgotten that Sir George Jessel was a Jew, and lifting eyes to heaven said:

”Your lords.h.i.+p, I think, will scarcely credit it, but Mrs. Besant says in a later affidavit that she took away the Testament from the child, because it contained coa.r.s.e pa.s.sages unfit for a child to read.”

To his horror, Sir George Jessel considered there were ”some pa.s.sages which a child had better not read in the New Testament”, and went on:

”It is not true to say there are no pa.s.sages that are unfit for a child's reading, because I think there are a great many.

”Mr. BARDSWELL: I do not know of any pa.s.sages that could fairly be called coa.r.s.e.

”Sir G. JESSEL: I cannot quite a.s.sent to that.”