Mr.Maloney then proceeded to deal with the numbers before the Court.

There were numerous blasphemies which, if we were committed for trial, would be set forth in the indictment, but he would "spare the ears of the Court." One passage, however, he did read, and it is well to put on record, for the sake of those who talk about our "indecent" attacks on Christianity, what a prosecuting barrister felt he could rely on to procure our committal.
It was as follows: "As for the Freethinker, he will scorn to degrade himself by going through the farce of reconciling his soul to a God whom he justly regards as the embodiment of crime and ferocity." Those words were not mine; they were from an article by one of my contributors; but I ask any reasonable man whether it is not ludicrous to prate about religious freedom in a country where writers run the risk of imprisonment for a sentence like that?
As Mr.Maloney ended the quotation his voice sank to a supernatural whisper, he dropped the paper on the desk before him, and regarded his lordship with a look of pathetic horror, which the worthy magistrate fully reciprocated.

As I contemplated these two voluntary augurs of our national faith, and at the same time remembered that far stronger expressions might be found in the writings of Mill, Clifford, Amberley, Arnold, Newman, Conway, Swinburne, and other works in Mudie's circulating library, I could scarcely refrain from laughter.
The witnesses for the prosecution were of the ordinary type--policemen, detectives, and lawyer's clerks--with the exception of Mr.Charles Albert Watts, who by accident or design found himself in such questionable company.

This young gentleman is the son of Mr.Charles Watts and printer of the _Secular Review_, and he was called to prove that I was the editor of the _Freethinker_.

With the most cheerful alacrity he positively affirmed that I was, although he had absolutely no more _knowledge_ on the subject--as indeed he admitted on cross-examination--than any other member of the British public.