But relevant or irrelevant, by hook or by crook, the religious question was almost invariably dragged in against Mr Bradlaugh: and just as invariably a bad case was bolstered up by diverting the minds of the jury from the real merits of the case to a contemplation of the wickedness of Atheistic opinions. Hence, according to the usual procedure, Mr Digby Seymour began: "You are the proprietor of the _National Reformer_, I think?" Mr BRADLAUGH: I decline to answer that question on the ground that it might make me liable to a criminal prosecution. I am threatened with one at the present moment. Mr S.: Oh, you state that, do you? Mr B.: Yes, I do. Mr S.: I think you hold strong opinions on political subjects as well as on religion? Mr B.: Well, I hold opinions some of which are similar to those held by Dean Stanley, Mr J. S. Mill, and others. Mr. S.: Without putting it unfairly, you hold extreme opinions? Mr B.: I hold opinions held by a great many of the first men in Europe. Mr S.: And I suppose, as you have refused, I must not ask you any question as to the contents of this _National Reformer_ (holding one in his hand). May I ask if you think Christianity has a ludicrous aspect? Mr B.: You may ask, but I shall not answer the question. Mr S.: Do you know a work called "The Ludicrous Aspects of Christianity"? Is it in your library? Mr B.: It is not in my library. Mr S.: Then you think that Christianity has a ludicrous aspect? Mr B.: I cannot answer that. Mr S.: At all events, under your eloquent handling, I believe Christianity has been made to assume ridiculous aspects? Mr B.: I have never written such a pamphlet as you refer to, nor delivered lectures under such a title. At this point the Judge interfered, and after pointing out that the lectures to be delivered at Mirfield were of a political character, warned Mr Seymour that such questions were unnecessary. "If they were to destroy Mr Bradlaugh's credit I should not object, but there is really no part of his evidence in dispute," he said. As Mr Bradlaugh had not otherwise sufficient evidence of the lettings of the hall, he was obliged to call the hall-keeper himself. This man, Thomas Balme, was, as might be expected, a very unwilling witness, with a peculiarly defective memory. Having heard him, Mr Justice Mellor came to the conclusion that he really had no authority to let the hall, and that consequently the plaintiff must be non-suited. Mr Bradlaugh decided to try for a new trial, and applied to Mr Justice Willes at Judges Chambers a few days later that judgment might be stayed until the fifth day of Michaelmas Term, in order to enable him to move the Court of Queen's Bench. Mr Thomas Chitty appeared for the defendants.