relations of life, was sentenced to twenty-one months' imprisonment,
for uttering, and writing on a gate, some offensive words concerning
Christianity. Within a month of the same time, at the Old Bailey,
two persons, on two separate occasions,*(2) were rejected as jurymen,
and one of them grossly insulted by the judge and by one of the
counsel, because they honestly declared that they had no theological
belief; and a third, a foreigner,*(3) for the same reason, was denied
justice against a thief.

  * Thomas Pooley, Bodmin Assizes, July 31, 1857. In December
following, he received a free pardon from the Crown.

  *(2) George Jacob Holyoake, August 17, 1857; Edward Truelove, July,
1857.

  *(3) Baron de Gleichen, Marlborough Street Police Court, August 4,
1857.

  This refusal of redress took place in virtue of the legal
doctrine, that no person can be allowed to give evidence in a court of
justice who does not profess belief in a God (any god is sufficient)
and in a future state; which is equivalent to declaring such persons
to be outlaws, excluded from the protection of the tribunals; who
may not only be robbed or assaulted with impunity, if no one but
themselves, or persons of similar opinions, be present, but any one
else may be robbed or assaulted with impunity, if the proof of the
fact depends on their evidence. The assumption on which this is
grounded is that the oath is worthless of a person who does not
believe in a future state; a proposition which betokens much ignorance
of history in those who assent to it (since it is historically true
that a large proportion of infidels in all ages have been persons of
distinguished integrity and honour); and would be maintained by no one
who had the smallest conception how many of the persons in greatest
repute with the world, both for virtues and attainments, are well
known, at least to their intimates, to be unbelievers. The rule,
besides, is suicidal, and cuts away its own foundation. Under pretence
that atheists must be liars, it admits the testimony of all atheists
who are willing to lie, and rejects only those who brave the obloquy
of publicly confessing a detested creed rather than affirm a
falsehood. A rule thus self-convicted of absurdity so far as regards
its professed purpose, can be kept in force only as a badge of hatred,
a relic of persecution; a persecution, too, having the peculiarity
that the qualification for undergoing it is the being clearly proved
not to deserve it. The rule, and the theory it implies, are hardly
less insulting to believers than to infidels. For if he who does not
believe in a future state necessarily lies, it follows that they who
do believe are only prevented from lying, if prevented they are, by
the fear of hell. We will not do the authors and abettors of the
rule the injury of supposing that the conception which they have
formed of Christian virtue is drawn from their own consciousness.

  These, indeed, are but rags and remnants of persecution, and may
be thought to be not so much an indication of the wish to persecute,
as an example of that very frequent infirmity of English minds,
which makes them take a preposterous pleasure in the assertion of a
bad principle, when they are no longer bad enough to desire to carry
it really into practice. But unhappily there is no security in the
state of the public mind that the suspension of worse forms of legal
persecution, which has lasted for about the space of a generation,
will continue. In this age the quiet surface of routine is as often
ruffled by attempts to resuscitate past evils, as to introduce new
benefits. What is boasted of at the present time as the revival of
religion, is always, in narrow and uncultivated minds, at least as
much the revival of bigotry; and where there is the strong permanent
leaven of intolerance in the feelings of a people, which at all
times abides in the middle classes of this country, it needs but
little to provoke them into actively persecuting those whom they
have never ceased to think proper objects of persecution.* For it is
this- it is the opinions men entertain, and the feelings they
cherish, respecting those who disown the beliefs they deem
important, which makes this country not a place of mental freedom.

  * Ample warning may be drawn from the large infusion of the
passions of a persecutor, which mingled with the general display of
the worst parts of our national character on the occasion of the Sepoy
insurrection. The ravings of fanatics or charlatans from the pulpit
may be unworthy of notice; but the heads of the Evangelical party have
announced as their principle for the government of Hindoos and
Mahometans, that no schools be supported by public money in which
the Bible is not taught, and by necessary consequence that no public
employment be given to any but real or pretended Christians. An
Under-Secretary of State, in a speech delivered to his constituents on
the 12th of November, 1857, is reported to have said: "Toleration of
their faith" (the faith of a hundred millions of British subjects),
"the superstition which they called religion, by the British
Government, had had the effect of retarding the ascendancy of the
British name, and preventing the salutary growth of Christianity....
Toleration was the great corner-stone of the religious liberties of
of this country; but do not let them abuse that precious word
toleration. As he understood it, it meant the complete liberty to
all, freedom of worship, among Christians, who worshipped upon the
same foundation. It meant toleration of all sects and denominations of
Christians who believed in the one mediation." I desire to call
attention to the fact, that a man who has been deemed fit to fill a
high office in the government of this country under a liberal
ministry, maintains the doctrine that all who do not believe in the
divinity of Christ are beyond the pale of toleration. Who, after
this imbecile display, can indulge the illusion that religious
persecution has passed away, never to return?