reign, two were burnt in the reign of James I., and one narrowly
escaped hanging under the Commonwealth. The whole body was excluded
from the Toleration Act of 1688, and included in the Blasphemy Act
of William III. But Unitarians have since yielded the place of
danger to more advanced bodies, and they may congratulate themselves
on their safety; but to make their own safety a reason for conniving
at the persecution of others is a depth of baseness which Dr. Blake
Odgers has fathomed, though happily without persuading the majority
of his fellows to descend to the same ignominy.

It will be observed that the Act specifies certain heterodox _opinions_
as blasphemous, and says nothing as to the _language_ in which they
may be couched. Evidently the crime lay not in the _manner_, but
in the _matter_. The Common Law has always held the same view,
and my Indictment, like that of all my predecessors, charged me
with bringing the Holy Scriptures and the Christian religion "into
disbelief and contempt." With all respect to Lord Coleridge's authority,
I cannot but think that Sir James Stephen is right in maintaining
that the crime of blasphemy consists in the expression of certain
opinions, and that it is only an _aggravation_ of the crime to express
them in "offensive" language.

Judge North, on my first trial, plainly told the jury that any denial
of the existence of Deity or of Providence was blasphemy; although
on my second trial, in order to procure a conviction, he narrowed
his definition to "any contumelious or profane scoffing at the
Holy Scriptures or the Christian religion." It is evident, therefore,
what his lordship believes the law to be. With a certain order of
minds it is best to deal sharply; their first statements are more
likely to be true than their second. For the rest, Judge North