The _Daily News_ printed a leading article on the case, calling on the Home Secretary to remit the rest of our sentence.

The _Times_ published a long and admirable report of my defence, as well as of Lord Coleridge's summing-up, and predicted that the trial would be historical, "chiefly because of the remarkable defence made by one of the defendants." A similar prediction appeared in the Manchester _Weekly Times_, according to which "the defendant Foote argued his case with consummate skill." Across the Atlantic, the _New York World_ said that "Mr.Foote, in particular, delivered a speech which, for closeness of argument and vividness of presentation, has not often been equalled." Even the grave and reverend _Westminster Review_ found "after reading what the Lord Chief Justice himself characterises as Mr.Foote's very striking and able speech, that the editor of the _Freethinker_ is very far from being the vulgar and uneducated disputant which the _Spectator_ appears to have supposed him." Other Liberal papers, like the _Pall Mall Gazette_ and the _Referee_, that had at first joined in the chorus of execration over the fallen "blasphemer," now found that my sentence was "monstrous." So true is it that nothing succeeds like success! I did not let these compliments turn my head.

My speeches at the Old Bailey were little, if anything, inferior to the one I made in the Court of Queen's Bench.
There was no change in me, but only in the platform I spoke from.

The great fact to my mind was this, that given an impartial judge, and a fair trial, it was difficult to convict any Freethinker of "blasphemy" if he could only defend himself with some courage and address.

This fact shone like a star of hope in the night of my suffering.