When, for instance, I ventured to correct Sir Hardinge Giffard on a mere matter of fact, as is quite customary in such cases; when I sought to point out that the Indictment already removed included Mr.Ramsey and myself, and not Mr.Bradlaugh only; Justice North stopped me with "Not a word, sir, not a word." Sir Hardinge Giffard made a very short speech, knowing that such judges did not require much persuasion.

He moved that the rule _nisi_ should be discharged; put in a copy of the Christmas Number of the _Freethinker_, which he described as a gross and intentional outrage on the religious feelings of the public; alleged, as was perfectly true, that it was still being sold; and urged that the case was one that should be sent for trial at once.
My reply was longer.

After claiming the indulgence of the Court for having to appear in person, owing to my purse being shorter than the London Corporation's, I laid before their lordships my reasons for asking them to make the rule absolute.

I argued that, as a press offence, our case was eminently one for a special jury; that the law of blasphemy, which had not been interpreted for a generation, was very indefinite, and a common jury might be easily misled; that as contradictory statements of the common law existed, it was highly advisable to have an authoritative judgment in a superior Court; that grave questions as to the relations of the statute and the common law might also arise; that it was manifestly unfair, while a sweeping Indictment for blasphemy was removed to a higher Court, that I should be compelled to plead in a lower Court on a similar charge; and that it was unjust to try our case at the Old Bailey when the City Corporation was prosecuting us.
To none of these reasons, however, did their lordships vouchsafe a reply or extend a consideration.

Baron Huddleston simply held the Christmas Number of the _Freethinker_ up in Court, and declared that no sane man could deny that it was a blasphemous libel--a contumelious reproach on our Blessed Savior.