A "BLASPHEMOUS" JOURNAL.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3521, 20 October 1882, Page 4

A "BLASPHEMOUS" JOURNAL.

The Home correspondent of a contemporary writes:—Within the past week or two a prosecution has been instituted against the interminable Mr Bradlangh for publishing a series of blasphemous articles in a periodical called the Freethinker. Mr Bradlaugh denies his connection with the paper, and until a jury has decided the question against him he is entitled to have it assumed that he is innocent. But there is little doubt about the nature of the publication, although there may be as to the wisdom of bringing it from out of its previous obscurity by a public prosecution. I confess never to have seen the publication itself, but from what I am told the blasphemies complained of are of the most offensive character. In one number the Deity was represented in the form of an old ragman lighting a fusee on the heel of his boot, and underneath were printed the words, ' The Lord said let there be light, and there was lisht.' Anything more shocking could scarcely be conceived, and the case falls well within the modern definition of blasphemy—viz., matter relating to God intended to wound the feelings of mankind. But, nevertheless, with,regard to the expediency of the present proceedings, the question may well be asked, Ctii bonol The blasphemies complained of are published in a paper the title of which is sufficiently indicative of the contents to warn away from it people whose sense of decency and propriety would be outraged by the perusal of such matter. It is somewhat difficult, therefore, to see how the act of Mr Bradlaugh, or whoever else is the guilty person, can be said to offend against society, and the time has gone by in the history of this country when an act is punishable on the ground of its being an offence against religion. In a case of blasphemy which was tried before Mr Justice Hawkins during the recent circuit, the prisoner, who was found guilty by the jury, was discharged on his own recognisances, to come up for judgment when' called upon, which practically simply meant;' Don't do it again.' What would happen in Mr Bradlaugh's case, should he be found guilty, of course remains to be seen. As one result of his being convicted, it is said that he would forfeit all claim to his seat in Parliament —a claim of which, during the present session, we have heard a great deal more than was expected. The result, of course, remains in mibibus for the present, but whatever the issue may be, the general opinion will remain that the prosecutions should ever have been instituted. The nominal prosecutor is Sir Henry Tylor, who has opposed Mr Bradlaugh tooth and nail from the first, and considerations of personal dislike have doubtless as much to do with the institution of these proceedings as anything else.