2 10 14 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3662d5d53410b5372489ea1206356a79.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=Qv7dFnISuysYNJL1OMwvBT3ZDF8UKouzivySOvFlunYbWNCwRRcaQLnmgUTdLf%7Eq6hK6Xw3LBAU2kDtrOTuSUT92oORN4DdZRfqucFxIbrZnflBSKI1i%7ESw1KVfbDkgWPqwPa%7ErXQ7k6VV8PQd2eTfgwa0fnckOqn8l8t7v1c3RCDNhGTE5uLRd9x76n5NOw%7EnGtYH6mONNh7nReRccYn9M5AV599MoIntMT12c%7EIq7yRlurm0nom1RRTSDJj1XaDOveKIun1P3V7fyF3M8MlYXvF01k-O7H6vsKUZOqHyt-q76z2IKbIyfTbvcC7v74TRUGmi48NNstDMzg50WTLg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 97d8705d23f6bd56ddb9acc914a49354 PDF Text Text B'ZrXS NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY POVERTY: ITS EFFECTS ON THE . POLITICAL CONDITION OF TEE PEOPLE. BY CHARLES BRADLAUGH. LONDON: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING 63 FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 8 9 0. PRICE ONE PENNY. COMPANY, �Since this little pamphlet was first issued, nearly twentyfive years ago, there have been enormous changes. The Reform Bills of 1867 and 1884 have placed the suffrage in town and country in the hands of the very lowest. The working of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, has developed in the masses a higher and more acute sense of suffering as well as capacity for happiness. The incite­ ments to the poorest to require from the legislature and the executive remedies for all wrongs are loud and frequent. There are fairly good people, as well as very wild ones, who seem to think that an Act of Parliament or an Order in Council can provide food for the hungry and work for the unemployed. In 1877, I was indicted for trying to place within the reach of the very poor the knowledge necessary to the application of the arguments here outlined. From 1877 until now I have, on this ground, been the object of coarsest assailment and grossest misrepresentation. Yet, at least, I have the satisfaction of knowing that the birth-rate in this country has sensibly diminished; that an association of Church clergymen and others in the East End of London has helped in this direction; and that a respectable journal, the Weekly Times and Echo, has boldly taken the very course for which I was nearly sent to gaol. I have had, too, the advantage of reading a judicial deliverance at the Antipodes, which more than outweighs many of the hard things said of me here. My co-defendant in 1877 has, in her “Law of Population”, dealt with details necessary to be known by the very poor. This pamphlet is, as it was at first intended, only a finger-post to a possible road. 1890. �POVERTY, AND ITS EFFECT ON THE POLITICAL CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE. ‘'•'Political Economy does not itself instruct how to make a nation rich, but whoever would be qualified to judge of the means of making a nation rich must first be a political economist.”—John Stuart Mill. “The object of political economy is to secure the means of sub­ sistence of all the inhabitants, to obviate every circumstance which might render this precarious, to provide everything necessary for supplying the wants of society, and to employ the inhabitants so as to make their several interests accord with then- supplying each other’s wants.”—Sir James Stewart. At the close of the eighteenth century, a people rose searching for upright life, who had previously, for several generations, depressed by poverty and its attendant hand­ maidens of misery, prowled hunger-stricken and discon­ solate, stooping and stumbling through the byways of existence. A terrible revolution resulted in much rough justice and some brutal vengeance, much rude right, and some terrific wrong. Amongst the writers who have since narrated the history of this people’s struggle, some penmen have been assiduous and eager to search for, and chronicle the errors, and have even not hesitated to magnify the crimes, of the rebels; while they have been very slow to recognise the previous demoralising and dehumanising tendency of the system rebelled against. In very briefly dealing with the state of the people in France immediately prior to the grand convulsion which destroyed the Bastille Monarchy, and set a glorious example of the vindication of the rights of man against opposition the most formidable that can be conceived; I hold that in this illustration of the condition of the masses in France who sought to erect on the ruins of arbitrary power the glorious edifice of civil and religious liberty, an answer may be found to the question—“What is the.effect of poverty on the political condition of the people? ” In taking the instance, of France, it is not that the writer for one moment imagines that poverty is a word without meaning in our own lands. In some of the huge aggre­ gations making up our great cities there are extremes of poverty and squalor difficult to equal in any part of the �4 civilized world. But in England poverty is happily partial, while in France in the eighteenth century outside the palaces of the nobles and the mansions of the church, where luxury, voluptuousness, and effeminacy were supreme, poverty was universal. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries travellers in France could learn from the sadness, the solitude, the miserable poverty, the dismal nakedness of the empty cottages, and the starving, ragged, population, how much men could endure without dying . On the one side a discontented, wretched, hungry mass of tax-providing slaves, and on the other a rapacious, pampered, licentious, spendthrift monarchy. This culmi­ nated in the refusal of the laborers to cultivate the fertile soil, because the tax-gatherer’s rapacity left an insufficient remnant to provide the cultivator with the merest necessaries of life. Then followed “ uncultivated fields, unpeopled villages, and houses dropping to decay; ” the great cities— as Paris, Lyons, and Bordeaux—crowded with begging skeletons, frightful in their squalid disease and loathsome aspect. Even after the National Assembly had passed some .measures of temporary alleviation, the distress in Paris itself was so great that at the gratuitous distributions' of bread ‘‘old people have been seen to expire with their hands stretched out to receive the loaf, and women waiting their turn in front of the baker’s shop were prematurely delivered of dead children in the open street ”. The great mass of the people were as ignorant as they were poor; were ignorant indeed because they were poor. Ignorance is the pauper’s inalienable heritage. Partial education to a badly fed and worse housed population is only the stimulus to the expression of discontent and disaffection. When the struggle is for the means of subsistence, and these are only partially obtained, there is little hope for the luxury of a leisure hour in which other emotions can be cultivated than those of the mere desires for food and rest—sole results of the laborious monotonousness of machine work; a round of toil and sleep closing in death—the only certain refuge for the worn-out laborer. Without the opportunity afforded by the possession of more than will satisfy the immediate wants, there can be little or no culture of the mental faculties. The toiler, when badly paid and ill-fed, is separated from the thinker. Nobly-gifted, highlycultured though the poet may be, his poesy has no charms for the father to whom one hour’s leisure means short �5 food for his hungry children clamoring for bread. At best the song like that of the Corn Law Rhymer, or the Ca Ira of Paris, serves as a hymn of vengeance. The picture gallery, replete with the finest works of our greatest masters, is rarely trodden ground to the pitman, the ploughman, the poor pariahs to whom the conceptions of the highest art-treasures are impossible. The beauties of nature are almost equally inaccessible to the dwellers in the narrow lanes of great cities. Out of your narrow wynds in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and on to the moor and mountain side, ye poor, and breathe the pure life-renewing breezes. Not so ; the moors are for the sportsmen and peers, not for peasants ; and a Scotch Duke—emblem of the worst vices of a selfish, but fast decaying House of Lords—closes miles of heather against the pedestrian’s foot. But even this paltry oppression is unheeded. Duke Despicable is in unholy alliance with King Poverty, who mocks at the poor mother and her wretched, ragged family, when from the garret or cellar in a great Babylon wilder­ ness they set out to find green fields and new life. Work days are sacred to bread, and clothes, and rent; hunger, in­ clement weather, and pressing landlord forbid the study of nature ’twixt Monday morn and Saturday night, and on Sunday God’s ministers require to teach a weary people how to die, as if the lesson were not unceasingly inculcated in their incessant toil. Oh! horrid mockery; men need teaching how to live. According to religionists, this world’s bitter misery is a dark and certain preface, “ just pub­ lished,” to a volume of eternal happiness, which for 2,000 years has been advertised as in the press and ready for publication, but which after all may never appear. And notwithstanding that everyday misery is so very potent, mankind seem to heed it but very little. The second edition of a paper containing the account of a battle in which some 5,000 were killed and wounded, is eagerly perused, but the battle in which poverty kills and maims hundreds of thousands, is allowed to rage with com­ paratively small expression of concern. “ If a war or a pestilence threatens us, every one is excited at the prospect of the misery which may result; prayers are put up, and every solemn and mournful feeling called forth; but these evils are to poverty but as a grain of sand in the desert, as the light waves that ruffle a dark sea of despair. Wars come, and go, and perhaps their greatest evils consist in their �6 aggravation of poverty by the high prices they cause ; pesti­ lences last a season and then leave us; but poverty, the grim tyrant of our race, abides with us through all ages and in a 1 circumstances. For each victim that war and pestilence have slain, for each, heart that they have racked with suffering, poverty has slain its millions whom it has first condemned to drag out wearily a life of bondage and degradation.” The poor in France were awakened by Rousseau’s start­ ling declaration that property was spoliation; they knew they had been spoiled, the logic of the stomach was con­ clusive ; empty bellies and aching brains were the pre­ decessors of a revolution which sought vengeance when justice was denied, but which full-stomached critics of later days have calumniated and denounced. Warned by. the past, ought we not to make some endeavor to give battle to that curse of all old countries -—poverty ? The fearful miseries of want of food and leisure which the poor have to endure seriously hinder their political enfranchisement. Those who desire that men and women shall have the rights of citizens, should be conscious how low the poor are trampled dowm, and how incapable poverty renders them for the performance of the duties of citizenship. The question of political freedom is really determined by the wealth or poverty of the masses; to this, extent, at any rate, that a poverty-stricken people must, if that state of pauperism has long existed, neces­ sarily be an ignorant and enslaved people. The problem is, how to remove or at least to lessen poverty,. as it is only by the diminution of poverty that the political emancipation of the nation can be rendered possible. Twenty years ago the average food of the agricultural laborer in England was about half that allotted by the gaol dietary to sustain criminal life. So that the peasant who built and guarded his master’s hay­ stack got worse fed and worse lodged than the incendiary convicted for burning it down. An anonymous writer, thirty years ago, said :— The rural population of many parts of England are, as a general rule, half-starved. They have to toil like bond­ slaves, with no leisure for amusement, education, or any other blessing which elevates or sweetens human life; and after all, they have only half enough of the very first essential of life, the working classes in the towns, are also miserably paid, often half-starved ; and are sweated to death in unhealthy sedentary diudgery, such as tailoring, cotton-spinning, weaving, etc.” �4 How can suoli poverty bo removed and prevented? “ Thero is but one possible mode of preventing any evil— namely, to seek for and romovo its cause. The cause of low wages, or in other words of Poverty, is over-population; that is, the existence of too many people in proportion to the food, of too many laborers in proportion to the capital. It is of the very first importance, that the attention of all who seek to remove poverty, should never be diverted from this great truth. The disproportion between the numbers and the food is the only real cause of social poverty. Individual cases of poverty may be produced by individual misconduct, such as drunken­ ness, ignorance, laziness, or disoaso ; but these of all other accidental influences must bo wholly thrown out of the question in considering the permanent cause, and aiming at the pre­ vention of poverty. Drunkenness and ignorance, moreover, a,re far more frequently tho effect than the cause of poverty. Population and food, like two runners of unequal swiftness chained together, advance sido by side; but tho ratio of increase of tlio former is so immensely superior to that of tho latter, that it is necessarily greatly cheeked ; and tho chocks are of course either more deaths or fewer births—that is, either positive or preventive.” Unless the necessity of the preventive or positive chocks to population bo perceived ; unless it be clearly seen, that they must operate in one form, if not in another; and that though individuals may escape them, the race cannot; human society is a hopeless and insoluble riddle. Quoting John Stuart Mill, the writor from whom the foregoing extracts have been made, proceeds— “The groat object of statesmanship should bo to raise tho habitual standard of comfort among the working classes, and to bring them into such a position as shows them most, clearly that their welfare depends upon themselves. For this purpose ho advises that there should bo, first, an ex­ tended scheme of national emigration, so as to produce a, striking and sudden improvement in the condition of the laborers loft at home, and raise their standard of comfort; also that tho population truths should bo disseminated as widely as possible, so that a powerful public fooling should bo a,wakened among tho working classes against undue pro­ creation on tho part of any individual among them- a feel­ ing which oould not fail greatly to influence individual conduct; and also that we should use every endeavor to got rid of tho present system of labor—-namely, that of employers and employed, and adopt to a. great extent that of independent or associated industry. His res,son for this is, that a, hired laborer, who has no personal interest in tho work he is �8 engaged in, is generally reckless and without foresight, living from hand to mouth, and exerting little control over his powers of procreation; whereas the laborer who has a personal stake in his work, and the feeling of independence and self-reliance which the possession of property gives, as, for instance, the peasant proprietor, or member of a co­ partnership, has far stronger motives for self-restraint, and can see much more clearly the evil effects of having a large family.” The end in view in all this is the attainment of a greater amount of happiness for humankind—the rendering life more worth the living, by distributing more equally than at present its love, its beauties, and its charms. In one of his latest publications, John Stuart Mill wrote— ‘ ‘ In a world in which there is so much to interest, so much to enjoy, and so much also to correct and improve, every one who has a moderate amount of moral and intellectual requisites is capable of an existence which may be called enviable; and unless such a person, through bad laws, or subjection to the will of others, is denied the liberty to use the sources of happi­ ness within his reach, he will not fail to find this enviable existence, if he escape the possible evils of life, the great sources of physical and mental suffering, such as indigence, disease, and the unkindness, worthlessness, or premature loss of objects of affection. The main stress of the problem lies, therefore, in the contest with these calamities, from which it is a rare good fortune entirely to escape, which, as things now are, cannot be obviated, and often cannot be in any material degree mitigated. Yet no one whose opinion deserves a moment’s consideration can doubt that most of the great positive evils of the world are in themselves removable, and will, if human affairs continue to improve, be in the end reduced within narrow limits. Poverty, in any sense implying suffering, may be completely extinguished by the wisdom of society, combined with the good sense and providence of individuals. Even that most intractable of enemies, disease, may be in­ definitely reduced in dimensions by good physical and moral education and proper control of noxious influences, while the progress of science holds out a promise for the future of still more direct conquests over this detestable foe.” My desire is to provoke discussion of this subject amongst all classes, and I affirm, therefore, as a proposi­ tion which I am prepared to support—‘1 That the political condition of the people can never be permanently reformed until the cause of poverty has been discovered and the evil itself prevented and removed.” Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Beadlaugh, 63 Fleet St., E.C.—1890. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Poverty : its effect on the political condition of the people Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: First published 30 May 1863 in the National Reformer. - 1890 ed. has a foreword, unsigned, by Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1890 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N102 Subject The topic of the resource Social problems Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Poverty : its effect on the political condition of the people), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English NSS Political Economy Poverty https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e9d251061049dd89e1f0a5108bbb2bdd.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=lfCKFihEv%7EpJU0h7zkcxzEp4BM%7EHS%7EIbO8ICTPpsRG-LnesRUPgm%7El8IFq1s6zkwAflQPT22ZW3ayN3IpB7Kncxi9x4Rj6L7R4wi03fHnqsWq7dMpI8GS9LXQB7eDQ1Rzj9KqWMQ%7EgzaTG6Z44aJpnOvcOXq7p0HYUs4%7EY%7ES5ltKWRquVioHlj5YLIPgraHpNXkXKCGytmtnoH1LNIvtnTUPj9N%7EvP3z5WsnlthLjxwUx5UmPW2zVwKdCZoCZNa6HptHpfvWtRiEpNzkhb0xr14aFGSOCHcekSruDP-OuGybfHv8I2qaZuztb2c45fv1doowFVS2E25IIML8Afz39w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 5c69a8d9d69e624f857e13aba9b1728b PDF Text Text NATIONAL secular society HUMANITY’S GAIN from UNBELIEF. BY CHARLES BRADLAUGH. [Reprinted from the “North American Review” of March, 1889.J LONDON: •FREETHOUGrHT PUBLISHING- 63 FLEET STREET, E.C. 1 8 8 9. PRICE TWOPENCE. COMPANY, �LONDON : PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH, 63 ELEET STREET, E.C. �HUMANITY’S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF. As an unbeliever, I ask leave to plead that humanity has been real gainer from scepticism, and that the gradual and growing rejection of Christianity—like the rejection of the faiths which preceded it—has in fact added, and Will add, to man’s happiness and well being. I maintain that in physics science is the outcome of scepticism, and that general progress is impossible without scepticism on matters of religion. I mean by religion every form of belief which accepts or asserts the supernatural. I write as a Monist, and use the word “nature ” as meaning all phenomena, every phenomenon, all that is necessary for the happening of any and every phenomenon. Every religion is constantly changing, and at any given time is the measure of the civilisation attained by what Guizot described as theywszte milieu of those who profess it. Each religion is slowly but certainly modified in its dogma and practice by the gradual development of the peoples amongst whom it is professed. Each discovery destroys in whole or part some theretofore cherished belief. No religion is suddenly rejected by any people ; it is rather gradually out-grown. None see a religion die ; dead religions are like dead languages and obsolete customs; the decay is long and—like the glacier march—is only perceptible to the careful watcher by comparisons extending over long periods. A superseded religion may often be traced in the festivals, ceremonies, and dogmas of the religion which has replaced it. Traces of obsolete religions may often be found in popular customs, in old wives’ stories, and in children’s tales. �4 humanity’s GAIN FROM UNBELIEF. It is necessary, in order that my plea should be under­ stood, that I should explain what I mean by Christianity ; and in the very attempt at this explanation there will, I think, be found strong illustration of the value of unbelief, Christianity in practice may be gathered from its more ancient forms, represented by the Roman Catholic and the Greek Churches, or from the various churches which have grown up in the last few centuries. Each of these churches calls itself Christian. Some of them deny the right of the others to use the word Christian. Some Christian churches treat, or have treated, other Christian churches as heretics or unbelievers. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants in Great Britain and Ireland have in turn been terribly cruel one to the other; and the ferocious laws of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, enacted by the English Protestants against English and Irish Papists, are a disgrace to civilisation. These penal laws, enduring longest in Ireland, still bear fruit in much of the political mischief and agrarian crime of to-day. It is only the tolerant indifference of scepticism that, one after the other, has repealed most of the laws directed by the Established Christian Church against Papists and Dissenters, and also against Jews and heretics. Church of England clergymen have in the past gone to great lengths in denouncing non­ conformity ; and even in the present day an effective sample of such denunciatory bigotry may be found in a sort of orthodox catechism written by the Rev. F. A. Gace, of Great Barling, Essex, the popularity of which is vouched by the fact that it has gone through ten editions. This catechism for little children teaches that “ Dissent is a great sin ”, and that Dissenters “ worship God according to their own evil and corrupt imaginations, and not ac­ cording to his revealed will, and therefore their worship is idolatrous ”. Church of England Christians and Dissent­ ing Christians, when fraternising amongst themselves, often publicly draw the line at Unitarians, and positively deny that these have any sort of right to call themselves Christians. In the first half of the seventeenth century Quakers were flogged and imprisoned in England as blasphemers ; and the early Christian settlers in New England, escaping from the persecution of Old World Christians, showed scant mercy to the followers of Fox and Penn. It is �humanity’s gain from unbelief. 5 customary, in controversy, for those advocating the claims of Christianity, to include all good done by men in nomi’ nally Christian countries as if such good were the result of Christianity, while they contend that the evil which exists prevails in spite of Christianity. I shall try to make out that the ameliorating march of the last few centuries has been initiated by the heretics of each age, though I quite concede that the men and women denounced and per­ secuted as infidels by the pious of one century, are fre­ quently claimed as saints by the pious of a later genera­ tion. What then is Christianity ? As a system or scheme of doctrine, Christianity may, I submit, not unfairly be gathered from the Old and New Testaments. It is true that some Christians to-day desire to escape from submis­ sion to portions, at any rate, of the Old Testament; but this very tendency seems to me to be part of the result of the beneficial heresy for which I am pleading. Man’s humanity has revolted against Old Testament barbarism; and therefore he has attempted to disassociate the Old Testa­ ment from Christianity. Unless Old and New Testaments are accepted as God’s revelation to man, Christianity has no higher claim than any other of the world’s many religions, if no such claim can be made out for it apart from the Bible. And though it is quite true that some who deem themselves Christians put the Old Testament completely in the background, this is, I allege, because they are out-growing their Christianity. Without the doctrine of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, Christianity, as a religion, is naught; but unless the story of Adam’s fall is accepted, the redemption from the consequences of that fall cannot be believed. Both in Great Britain and in the United States the Old and New Testaments are forced on the people as part of Christianity; for it is blasphemy at common law to deny the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be of divine authority; and such denial is punishable with fine and imprisonment, or even worse. The rejection of Christianity intended throughout this paper, is therefore the rejection of the Old and New Testaments as being of divine revelation. It is the rejection alike of the authorised teachings of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England, as these may be found in the Bible, the creeds, the encyclicals, �6 HUMANITY S GAIN FKOM UNBELIEJ’. the prayer book, the canons and homilies of either or both of these churches. It is the rejection of the Christianity of Luther, of Calvin, and of Wesley. A ground frequently taken by Christian theologians is that the progress and civilisation of the world are due to Christianity; and the discussion is complicated by the fact that many eminent servants of humanity have been nominal Christians, of one or other of the sects. My allegation will be that the special services rendered to human progress by these exceptional men, have not been in consequence of their adhesion to Christianity, but in spite of it; and that the specific points of advantage to human kind have been in ratio of their direct opposition to precise Biblical enactments. A. S. Farrar says1 that Christianity “ asserts authority over religious belief in virtue of being a supernatural communication from God, and claims the right to control human thought in virtue of possessing sacred books, which are at once the record and the instrument of the communi­ cation, written by men endowed with supernatural inspira­ tion ”. Unbelievers refuse to submit to the asserted authority, and deny this claim of control over human thought: they allege that every effort at freethinking must provoke sturdier thought. Take one clear gain to humanity consequent on unbelief, i.e., in the abolition of slavery in some countries, in the abolition of the slave trade in most civilised countries, and in the tendency to its total abolition. I am unaware of any religion in the world which in the past forbade slavery. The professors of Christianity for ages supported it; the Old Testament repeatedly sanctioned it by special laws ; the New Testament has no repealing declaration. Though we are at the close of the nineteenth century of the Christian era, it is only during the past three-quarters of a century that the battle for freedom has been gradually won. It is scarcely a quarter of a century since the famous emancipa­ tion amendment was carried to the United States Constitu­ tion. And it is impossible for any well-informed Christian to deny that the abolition movement in North America was most steadily and bitterly opposed by the religious bodies in the various States. Henry Wilson, in his “Itise and 1 Farrar’s “ Critical History of Fieethought ”, �humanity’s GAIN from unbelief. 7 Fall of the Slave Power in America ” ; Samuel J. May, in his “Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict ” ; and J. Greenleaf Whittier, in his poems, alike are witnesses that the Bible and pulpit, the Church and its great influence, were used against abolition and in favor of the slave­ owner. I know that Christians in the present day often declare that Christianity had a large share in bringing about the abolition of slavery, and this because men pro­ fessing Christianity were abolitionists. I plead that these so-called Christian abolitionists were men and women whose humanity, recognising freedom for all, was in this in direct conflict with Christianity. It is not yet fifty years since the European Christian powers jointly agreed to abolish the slave trade. What of the effect of Christianity on these powers in the centuries which had preceded ? The heretic Condorcet pleaded powerfully for freedom whilst Christian France was still slave-holding. For many centuries Christian Spain and Christian Portugal held slaves. Porto Rico freedom is not of long date; and Cuban emancipation is even yet newer. It was a Christian King, Charles 5th, and a Christian friar, who founded in Spanish America the slave trade between the Old World and the New. For some 1800 years, almost, Christians kept slaves, bought slaves, sold slaves, bred slaves, stole slaves. Pious Bristol and godly Liverpool less than 100 years ago openly grew rich on the traffic. During the ninth century Greek Christians sold slaves to the Saracens. In the eleventh century prostitutes were publicly sold as slaves in Rome, and the profit went to the Church. It is said that William Wilberforce, the abolitionist, was a Christian. But at any rate his Christianity was strongly diluted with unbelief. As an abolitionist he did not believe Leviticus xxv, 44-6; he must have rejected Exodus xxi, 2-6 ; he could not have accepted the many permissions and injunctions by the Bible deity to his chosen people to capture and hold slaves. In the House of Commons on 18th February, 1796, Wilberforce reminded that Christian assembly that infidel and anarchic France had given liberty to the Africans, whilst Christian and monarchic England was “obstinately continuing a system of cruelty and injustice”. Wilberforce, whilst advocating the abolition of slavery, found the whole influence of the English Court, and the �8 HUMANITY S GAIN FBOM UNBELIEF. great weight of the Episcopal Bench, against him. George III, a most Christian king, regarded abolition theories with abhorrence, and the Christian House of Lords was utterly opposed to granting freedom to the slave. When Christian missionaries some sixty-two years ago preached to Demerara negroes under the rule of Christian England, they were treated by Christian judges, holding commission from Christian England, as criminals for so preaching. A Christian commissioned officer, member of the Established Church of England, signed the auction notices for the sale of slaves as late as the year 1824. In the evidence before a Christian court-martial, a missionary is charged with having tended to make the negroes dissatisfied with their condition as slaves, and with having promoted discontent and dissatisfaction amongst the slaves against their lawful masters. For this the Christian judges sentenced the Demerara abolitionist missionary to be hanged by the neck till he was dead. The judges belonged to the Estab­ lished Church ; the missionary was a Methodist. In this the Church of England Christians in Demerara were no worse than Christians of other sects : their Boman Catholic Christian brethren in St. Domingo fiercely attacked the Jesuits as criminals because they treated negroes as though they were men and women, in encouraging “two slaves to separate their interest and safety from that of the gang ”, whilst orthodox Christians let them couple pro­ miscuously and breed for the benefit of their o wners like any other of their plantation cattle. In 1823 the Royal Gazette (Christian) of Demerara said : “We shall not suffer you to enlighten our slaves, who are by law our property, till you can demonstrate that when they are made religious and knowing they will continue to be our slaves.” When William Lloyd Garrison, the pure-minded and most earnest abolitionist, delivered his first anti-slavery address in Boston, Massachusetts, the only building he could obtain, in which to speak, was the infidel hall owned by Abner Kneeland, the “infidel” editor of the Boston Investigator, who had been sent to gaol for blasphemy. Jlvery Christian sect had in turn refused Mr. Lloyd Garri­ son the use of the buildings they severally controlled. |jloyd Garrison told me himself how honored deacons of �humanity’s GAIN UHOM UNBELIEF. 9 a Christian Church, joined in an actual attempt to hang him. When abolition was advocated in the United States in 1790, the representative from South Carolina was able to plead that the Southern clergy “did not condemn either slavery or the slave trade ” ; and Mr. Jackson, the repre­ sentative from Georgia, pleaded that “from Genesis to Revelation ” the current was favorable to slavery. Elias Hicks, the brave Abolitionist Quaker, was denounced as an Atheist, and less than twenty years ago a Hicksite Quaker was expelled from one of the Southern American Legislatures, because of the reputed irreligion of these abolitionist “ Friends ”. When the Fugitive Slave Law was under discussion in North America, large numbers of clergymen of nearly every denomination were found ready to defend this infamous law. Samuel James May, the famous aboli­ tionist, was driven from the pulpit as irreligious, solely because of his attacks on slaveholding. Northern clergy­ men tried to induce “silver tongued” Wendell Philips to abandon his advocacy of abolition. Southern pulpits rang with praises for the murderous attack on Charles Sumner. The slayers of Elijah Lovejoy were highly reputed Christian men. Guizot, notwithstanding that he tries to claim that the •Church exerted its influence to restrain slavery, says (“European Civilisation”, vol. i., p. 110) : “It has often been repeated that the abolition of slavery among modern people is entirely due to Christians. That, I think, is saying too much. Slavery existed for a long period in the heart of Christian society, without its being particularly astonished or irritated. A multitude of causes, and a great development in other ideas and principles of civilisation, were necessary for the abolition of this iniquity of all iniquities.” And my contention is that this “development in other ideas and principles of civilisation ” was long retarded by Governments in which the Christian Church was dominant. The men who advocated liberty were imprisoned, racked, and burned, so long as the Church was strong enough to be merciless. The Rev. Francis Minton, Rector of Middlewich, in his recent earnest volume1 on the struggles of labor, admits 1 “ Capital and Wages”, p. 19. �10 humanity’s gain from unbelief. that “ a few centuries ago slavery was acknowledged throughout Christendom to have the divine sanction.......... Neither the exact cause, nor the precise time of the decline of the belief in the righteousness of slavery can be defined. It was doubtless due to a combination of causes, one probably being as indirect as the recognition of the greater economy of free labor. With the decline of the belief the abolition of slavery took place.” The institution of slavery was actually existent in Christian Scotland in the 17th century, where the white coal workers and salt workers of East Lothian were chattels, as were their negro brethren in the Southern States thirty years since; they “ went to those who succeeded to the property of the works, and they could be sold, bartered, or pawned”? “There is”, says J. M. Robertson, “no trace that the Protestant clergy of Scot­ land ever raised a voice against the slavery which grew up before their eyes. And it was not until 1799, after republican and irreligious France had set the example, that it was legally abolished.” Take further the gain to humanity consequent on the unbelief, or rather disbelief, in witchcraft and wizardry. Apart from the brutality by Christians towards those suspected of witchcraft, the hindrance to scientific initia­ tive or experiment was incalculably great so long as belief in magic obtained. The inventions of the past two centuries, and especially those of the 18th century, might have benefitted mankind much earlier and much more largely, but for the foolish belief in witchcraft and the shocking ferocity exhibited against those suspected of necromancy. After quoting a large number of cases of trial and punish­ ment for witchcraft from official records in Scotland, J. M. Robertson says: “The people seem to have passed from cruelty to cruelty precisely as they became more and more fanatical, more and more devoted to their Church, till after many generations the slow spread of human science began to counteract the ravages of superstition, the clergy resist­ ing reason and humanity to the last ”. The Rev. Mr. Minton1 concedes that it is “ the advance 2 of knowledge which has rendered the idea of Satanic 1 “ Perversion of Scotland,” p. 197. 2 “ Capital and Wages ”, pp. 15, 16. �HUMANITY S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF. 11 agency through the medium of witchcraft grotesquely ridiculous”. He admits that “ for more than 1500 years the belief in witchcraft was universal in Christendom ”, and that “ the public mind was saturated with the idea of Satanic agency in the economy of nature ”. He adds: “ If we ask why the world now rejects what was once so unquestioningly believed, we can only reply that advancing knowledge has gradually undermined the belief ”. In a letter recently sent to the Pall Mall Gazette against modern Spiritualism, Professor Huxley declares, “that the older form of the same fundamental delusion—the belief in possession and in witchcraft—gave rise in the fifteenth,, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries to persecutions by Chris­ tians of innocent men, women, and children, more extensive, more cruel, and more murderous than any to which the Christians of the first three centuries were subjected by the authorities of pagan Borne.” And Professor Huxley adds : “No one deserves much blame for being deceived in these matters. We are all intellectually handicapped in youth by the incessant repetition of the stories about possession and witchcraft in both the Old and the New Testaments. The majority of us are taught nothing which will help us to observe accurately and to interpret observations with due caution.” The English Statute Book under Elizabeth and under James was disfigured by enactments against witchcraft passed under pressure from the Christian churches, which Acts have only been repealed in consequence of the disbelief in the Christian precept, ‘1 thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”. The statute 1 James I, c. 12, condemned to death “all persons invoking any evil spirits, or con­ sulting, covenanting with, entertaining, employing, feed­ ing, or rewarding any evil spirit ”, or generally practising any “infernal arts”. This was not repealed until the eighteenth century was far advanced. Edison’s phono­ graph would 280 years ago have insured martyrdom for its inventor; the utilisation of electric force to transmit messages around the world would have been clearly the practice of an infernal art. At least we may plead that unbelief has healed the bleeding feet of science, and made the road free for her upward march. �12 humanity’s gain from unbelief. Is it not also fair to urge the gain to humanity which has been apparent in the wiser treatment of the insane, consequent on the unbelief in the Christian doctrine that these unfortunates were examples either of demoniacal possession or of special visitation of deity? For centuries under Christianity mental disease was most ignorantly treated. Exorcism, shackles, and the whip were the penalties rather than the curatives for mental maladies. From the heretical departure of Pinel at the close of the last century to the position of Maudsley to-day, every step illustrates the march of unbelief. Take the gain to humanity in the unbelief not yet complete, but now largely preponderant, in the dogma that sickness, pesti­ lence, and famine were manifestations of divine anger, the results of which could neither be avoided nor pre­ vented. The Christian Churches have done little or nothing to dispel this superstition. The official and authorised prayers of the principal denominations, even to-day, reaffirm it. Modern study of the laws of health, experiments in sanitary improvements, more careful applications of medical knowledge, have proved more efficacious in preventing or diminishing plagues and pestilence than have the intervention of the priest or the practice of prayer. Those in England who hold the old faith that prayer will suffice to cure disease are to-day termed “peculiar people”, and are occasionally indicted for manslaughter when their sick children die, because the parents have trusted to God instead of appealing to the resources of science. It is certainly a clear gain to astronomical science that the Church which tried to compel Galileo to unsay the truth has been overborne by the growing unbelief of the age, even though our little children are yet taught that Joshua made the sun and moon stand still, and that for Hezekiah the sun-dial reversed its record. As Buckle, arguing for the morality of scepticism, says1 : “ As long as men refer the movements of the comets to the immediate finger of God, and as long as they believe that an eclipse is one of the modes by which the deity expresses his anger, they will never be guilty of the blasphemous presump­ tion of attempting to predict such supernatural appearances. 1 “ History of Civilisation,’’ vol. i, p. 345. �HUMANITY S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF. 13 Before . they could dare to investigate the causes of these mysterious phenomena, it is necessary that they should believe, or at all events that they should suspect, that the phenomena themselves were capable of being explained by the human mind.” As in astronomy so in geology, the gain of knowledge to . humanity has been almost solely in measure of the rejection of the Christian theory. A century since it was almost universally held that the world was created 6,000 years ago, or at any rate, that by the sin of the first man, Adam, death commenced about that period. Ethnology and Anthropology have only been possible in so far as, adopting the regretful words of Sir W. Jones, “intelligent and virtuous persons are inclined to doubt the authenticity of the accounts delivered by Moses concerning the primi­ tive world ”. Surely it is clear gain to humanity that unbelief has sprung up. against the divine right of kings, that men no longer believe that the monarch is “God’s anointed” or that “the powers that be are ordained of God”. In the struggles for political freedom the weight of the Church was mostly thrown on the side of the tyrant. The homilies of the Church of England declare that “even the wicked rulers have their power and authority from God ”, and. that “such subjects as are disobedient or rebellious against their princes disobey God and procure their own damnation ”. It can scarcely be necessary to argue to the citizens of the United States of America that the origin of their liberties was in the rejection of faith in the divine right of George III. Will any one, save the most bigoted, contend that it is not . certain gain to humanity to spread unbelief in the terrible doctrine that eternal torment is the probable fate of the great majority of the human family? Is it not gain to have diminished the faith that it was the duty of the wretched and the miserable to be content with the lot in life which providence had awarded them ? If it stood alone it would be almost sufficient to plead as justification for heresy the approach towards equality and liberty for the utterance of all opinions achieved because of growing unbelief. At one period in Christendom each Government acted as though only one religious faith could be true, and as though the holding, or at any rate the �14 humanity’s gain from unbelief. making known, any other opinion was a criminal act deserving punishment. Under the one word “ infidel”, even as late as Lord Coke, were classed together all who were not Christians, even though they were Mahommedans, Brahmins, or Jews. All who did not accept the Christian faith were sweepingly denounced as infidels and therefore //ors de la loi. One hundred and forty-five years since, the Attorney-General, pleading in our highest court, said1 : “What is the definition of an infidel? Why, one who does not believe in the Christian religion. Then a Jew is an infidel.” And English history for several centuries prior to the Commonwealth shows how habitually and most atrociously Christian kings, Christian courts, and Christian churches, persecuted and harassed these infidel Jews. There was a time in England when Jews were such infidels that they were not even allowed to be sworn as witnesses. In 1740 a legacy left for establishing an assembly for the reading of the Jewish scriptures was held to be void2 because it was “ for the propagation of the Jewish law in contradiction to the Christian religion”. It is only in very modern times that municipal rights have been accorded in England to Jews. It is barely thirty years since they have been allowed to sit in Parliament. In 1851, the late Mr. Newdegate in debate3 objected “that they should have sitting in that House an individual who regarded our Redeemer as an impostor”. Lord Chief Justice Raymond has shown4 how it was that Christian intolerance was gradually broken down. “A Jew may sue at this day, but heretofore he could not; for then they were looked upon as enemies, but now commerce has taught the world more humanity.” Lord Coke treated the infidel as one who in law had no right of any kind, with whom no contract need be kept, to whom no debt was payable. The plea of alien infidel as answer to a claim was actually pleaded in court as late as 1737.5 In a solemn judgment, Lord Coke says6: “ All infidels are in law perpetui inimici; for between them, as 1 Omychund v. Barker, 1 Atkyns 29. 2 D’Costa v. D’Pays, Arab. 228. 3 3 Hansard cxvi. 381. 4 1 Lord Raymond’s reports 282, Wells v. Williams. 5 Ramkissenseat v Barker, 1 Atkyns 51. 6 7 Coke’s reports, Calvin’s case. �humanity’s gain from unbelief. 15 with, the devils whose subjects they be, and the Christian, there is perpetual hostility ”. Twenty years ago the law of England required the writer of any periodical publica­ tion or pamphlet under sixpence in price to give sureties for £800 against the publication of blasphemy. I was the last person prosecuted in 1868 for non-compliance with that law, which was repealed by Mr. Gladstone in 1869. Up till the 23rd December, 1888, an infidel in Scot­ land was only allowed to enforce any legal claim in court on condition that, if challenged, he denied his infidelity. If he lied and said he was a Christian, he was accepted, despite his lying. If he told the truth and said he was an unbeliever, then he was practically an outlaw, incompetent to give evidence for himself or for any other. Fortunately all this was changed by the Royal assent to the Oaths Act on 24th December. Has not humanity clearly gained a little in this struggle through unbelief ? For more than a century and a-half the Roman Catholic had in practice harsher measure dealt out to him by the English Protestant Christian, than was even during that period the fate of the Jew or the unbeliever. If the Roman Catholic would not take the oath of abnegation, which to a sincere Romanist was impossible, he was in effect an outlaw, and the “jury packing” so much com­ plained of to-day in Ireland is one of the habit survivals of the old bad time when Roman Catholics were thus by law excluded from the j ury box. The Scotsman of January 5th, 1889, notes that in 1860 the Rev. Dr. Robert Lee, of Grey friars, gave a course of Sunday evening lectures on Biblical Criticism, in which he showed the absurdity and untenableness of regarding every word in the Bible as inspired ; and it adds : “We well remember the awful indignation such opinions inspired, and it is refreshing to contrast them with the calm­ ness with which they are now received. Not only from the pulpits of the city, but from the press (misnamed religious) were his doctrines denounced. And one eminent U.P. minister went the length of publicly praying for him, and for the students under his care. It speaks volumes for the progress made since then, when we think in all probability Dr. Charteris, Dr. Lee’s successor in the chair, differs in his teaching from the Confession of Faith much more widely than Dr. Lee ever did, and yet he is considered supremely orthodox, whereas the stigma of heresy was attached to the other all his life.” �16 humanity’s gain from unbelief. And this change and gain to humanity is due to the gradual progress of unbelief, alike inside and outside the Churches. Take from differing Churches two recent illustrations: The late Principal Dr. Lindsay Alexander, a strict Calvinist, in his important work on “ Biblical Theology”, claims that “ all the statements of Scripture are alike to be deferred to as presenting to us the mind of God ”. Yet the Rev. Dr. of Divinity also says: “We find in their writings [i.e., in the writings of the sacred authors] statements which no ingenuity can reconcile with what modern research has shown to be the scientific truth— i.e., we find in them statements which modern science proves to be erroneous.” At the last Southwell Diocesan Church of England Con­ ference at Derby, the Bishop of the Diocese presiding, the Rev. J. G. Richardson said of the Old Testament that “ it was no longer honest or even safe to deny that this noble literature, rich in all the elements of moral or spiritual grandeur, given—so the Church had always taught, and would always teach—under the inspiration of Almighty God, was sometimes mistaken in its science, was sometimes inaccurate in its history, and sometimes only relative and accommodatory in its morality. It assumed theories of the physical world which science had abandoned and could never resume; it contained passages oi narrative which devout and temperate men pronounced dis­ credited, both by external and internal evidence; it praised, or justified, or approved, or condoned, or tolerated, conduct which the teaching of Christ and the conscience of the Christian alike condemned.” Or, as I should urge, the gain to humanity by un­ belief is that “the teaching of Christ ” has been modi­ fied, enlarged, widened, and humanised, and that “the conscience of the Christian ” is in quantity and quality made fitter for human progress by the ever increasing additions of knowledge of these later and more heretical days. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Humanity's gain from unbelief Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Reprinted from the North American Review of March 1889. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1889 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N095 Subject The topic of the resource Atheism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Humanity's gain from unbelief), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Atheism NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b17e54a0ca78b8e5523efa4ba566a1ba.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=U18hwcB3Uh5dQcMgvjvnYxqWAVuBzPJvp31GQrzkw8AIe7nc2sUM9AKjIk8KxHW-Z5KUYIlEv9FOwpIid9Fy7omJyJeNX5nurrvvz2hpQYA-gaNEoUCbvx5IK3xEsODzhJQWQWXi5jSCgfePNUZIw6sxQyq%7Ex-hq1dXZcLYX0AjWEiJILJvXFJoFjB-OB1Ix%7EZB2va%7E4zk4PJCvOHX7sWKbqtznz5h%7EZFh-WblVckqOcrp4-MgU%7EBWyBk%7EVGuLHmgFg5-e8z7Iu-FiG4gXUCkyLxqA0RvlakDgegnE0Q5qvkEc6PptAluB19hEgOkvPbgnA0wsEbguF7DCIsi2mAuA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM fc867c8a956e4cdece02e876219417d8 PDF Text Text (Llj£ Cbljnmwl ®nnnd: OUGHT THE DEMOCRACY TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT IT? <* --------------------- - By CJ^LEg BHJTOIiJlU'QjI, JI.P. LONDON: Printed and Published by A. Bonner, 34, BOUVERIE STREET, FLEET STREET, E.C. Price 2d. ��THE CHANNEL TUNNEL: OUGHT THE DEMOCRACY TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT IT ? ---------- +---------- I went down to the House of Commons on August 3rd intending to speak and vote in favor of the second reading of the Channel Tunnel Experimental Works Bill, but on the appeal made first by the Chairman of Committees, and repeated by the leader of the House—an appeal also con­ curred in by Mr. John Morley, speaking on behalf of the front Opposition bench—I refrained from speaking, and contented myself with a silent vote in favor of the measure. Since then I find such a concurrence of opinion in the press hostile to the Channel Tunnel that I think it my duty to publicly state my reasons for my vote, especially as Sir Edward Watkin, in moving the Bill, directly asked for an expression of opinion from the English democracy, and on the division being taken the representatives of labor in the House were in opposing lobbies on the question. A circular signed by Mr. C. Sheath, Secretary pro tem. of the Channel Tunnel Company, clearly stated the objects of the Bill voted on, i.e., “To authorise the promoters to prosecute the experimental works which they have commenced at their own cost under authority granted �4 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. by Parliamant in 1874, to test the practicability of con­ structing a tunnel beneath the Straits of Dover”; and explained that “the Bill empowers her Majesty’s Govern­ ment, in the event of the experimental works proving successful, to sanction the prosecution of permanent works under such conditions and safeguards as the Government in their absolute discretion may impose. The experi­ mental works for which permission is now sought will be made upon the promoters’ own property and at their own cost. The public are not asked to contribute towards the work, which will not impose any pecuniary obligation upon the country.” I, however, quite admit that those who are prepared to support the experimental works ought also to be pre­ pared—in the event of these workings proving successful •—to authorise the construction of a complete working tunnel, and that any objections which might be valid as against the complete undertaking ought to be admitted as conclusive against the experimental proposal. I am personally in favor of the Channel Tunnel because I believe it would promote peaceful relations between the peoples of France and England. I am not a shareholder in either the French or English scheme solely because I have not the pecuniary means to acquire shares. I believe that peaceful relations between Great Britain and Europe would be rendered more probable by the facilities afforded for commercial intercommunication. I hold that the more peoples trade with each other, the more they know one another, the less likely they are to fight one another. It is because I am in favor of peace between France and England that I am in favor of the Channel Tunnel. Here I only reaffirm what was so well �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 5 •said by the late Richard Cobden, speaking on this very question of a tunnel between England and the Continent: “It is not enough to put the Government and the higher ■classes of each country on a friendly footing; that good feeling ought to penetrate the masses of the two nations ; and it is our duty to multiply all the means for an inces­ sant contact, which will certainly put an end to super­ annuated prejudices and old ideas of antagonism?’ The horribly increased and always augmenting Euro­ pean army and navy expenditure of the last twenty-five years, the British share of which Lord Randolph Churchill now strongly denounces, can only be efficiently checked by concurrent and decided peace action on the part of all European peoples. The great need for early disarming is admitted. The peaceful co-operation of France and England would enable each, relying on the other’s good will, to waste less money in warlike preparations. It is in this interest that I support the proposed submarine pathway between this island and the Continent. I believe that increased facilities for friendly intercourse would pro­ mote and secure the peaceful co-operation I desire. Something has already been done towards showing that the Channel betwixt Kent and the Pas de Calais can be tunnelled. Last year I visited the works, near Shakspere’s Cliff, on the west of Dover, and penetrated under the sea to the place where the engine, worked by compressed air, had bored from England through the greyish clay chalk If miles in the direction of France. I found the piece of tunnel already executed quite dry; the air was perfectly pure, the ventilation being provided by the compressed air which works theboringmachine; and the work of tunnelling—which under the supervision of a Government official was allowed �6 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. to be continued for a few seconds—seemed astonishingly easy, as the revolution of the machine cut the chalk away and delivered it into the waggon behind ready for removal.. The experimental tunnel is bored in the strata which are sup­ posed to represent the continuous earth surface—between what are now the coasts of France and England—in pre­ historic times when the land, now these islands, formed, part of the great European continent. Messieurs Lavalley, Larousse, Potier, and Lapparent, in their report to theFrench Channel Tunnel Company, presented in 1877, say: “Examination of the cliffs on each coast of the Straitsshows that the geological strata are the same in the area which concerns us, and which includes especially thecretaceous formation. On both sides are the same strata, with the same characteristics, and, remarkable to say, with, the same thickness. Hence the presumption—authorised indeed by other considerations—that in the prehistoricperiod, instead of an arm of the sea, separating two coasts, there stretched here a continuous, more or less undulating, plain, between the points at which have since been built Calais and Boulogne on the one side, Folkestone and Doveron the other. According to this hypothesis, the Straits would be due to the gradual erosion of a soil of slight consistency, such as the cretaceous formation in general, which yielded before the ceaseless repetition of blows from, the waves of the Northern Sea, a sea so stormy during therougher months of the year. From this we gather thehope that the strata encountered beneath the sea, through which the tunnel must be driven, will be free from seriousdislocations, and will only present slight undulations to which it will generally be possible to conform the plan of.' the subterranean railway without any great difficulty. �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 7 “ This hope is confirmed by the following circumstance: the strata of the chalk formation on the two sides of the Straits, although thrown out of the horizontal plane they first occupied, have not acquired a steep inclination. The inclination is always slight. Over the greater part of the area of the Straits, starting from France, the gradient is but f, a fact that seems to indicate that the force of the upheaval which threw the strata out of the horizontal plane was not violent.” I am told that on the French side a similar boring to the one which I visited near Dover has been made towards this country, so that about one-eighth of the experimental work has already been executed. Why is it not continued to completion? The promoters on both sides are ready enough; the French Government is willing; but the British Government—influenced as I think by the worst form of national prejudice—absolutely forbids further working on this side, and the French are of course unwilling to continue costly works—which can only be completed with our full consent—until that con­ sent is officially secured. The only reason for objecting to the Channel Tunnel is that it will render us specially liable to invasion. Some contend that the Tunnel will not pay ; but that, as the British Government said thirteen years ago, is rather the business of those who, believing in the probabilities of its financial success, are willing to risk their moneys in the hope of reasonable financial profit. The war danger is the only cry to which the democracy need pay any attention. When the matter was discussed between the Governments of Great Britain and France thirteen years ago, this war danger was examined by the Government of the day of this country �8 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. and dismissed as not serious. In a despatch from the Foreign Office to Count de Jarnac, the French Ambassador, dated 24th December, 1874, the Earl of Derby wrote that “Her Majesty’s Government consider that it is for the promoters of the undertaking to weigh well the questions of the physical possibility of the undertaking, and its probable financial success; but they see no objection to the proposed preliminary concession to the French pro­ moters, for the execution of the preliminary works, for a term of three years, nor to the concession of five years for making a definite contract with an English Company for the completion of the undertaking, on the understand­ ing that, should the promoters fail to fulfil these condi­ tions, the land in England occupied by them, and the works upon it, should revert to the Crown, or other present owners thereof, so that the occupation of the land by a Company which has failed, may not stand in the way of any other undertaking. “Her Majesty’s Government have no objection to offer to the proposed grant to the promoters of a monopoly for thirty years after the final completion of and opening of the tunnel, nor to the concession itself extending to a period of ninety-nine years from the same date, the ques­ tion being reserved of some limitation being imposed as tothe date of the final completion.” And it is clear that the military side of the question had not been overlooked, for Lord Derby in a dispatch of the same date to Lord Lyons says: “In regard to the refer­ ence made in the papers received from Count de Jarnac to the military necessities of either country, her Majesty’s Government will only now observe that they must retain absolute power not only to erect and maintain such works �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 9 at the English mouth of the tunnel as they may deem expedient, but also, should they apprehend danger of war, or of intended war, to stop traffic through the tunnel; and it remains to be considered whether they should not have the right to exercise their power without claim for com­ pensation.” Nor was the military question neglected or glossed over, for two months later the following memorandum was submitted to the Surveyor-General of Ordnance by Sir W. Drummond Jervois, Deputy-Director of Works, on 3rd March, 1875, Sir Frederick Chapman being at that time the Inspector-General of Fortifications : ‘1 Memorandum with Deference to the Proposed Tunnel between England and France. “ There appears to be no military objection to the pro­ posed tunnel, provided due precautions be adopted. “Should this country, in alliance with France, be at war with another Continental power, the existence of the tunnel might be advantageous. “ Should this country be at war with France, the pro­ posed tunnel could no doubt be readily closed. Having regard, however, to the possibility of the tunnel being unnecessarily injured under the influence of panic, and to the probable cost of repairing such injury, it is desirable to obviate, as far as possible, the necessity for adopting extreme measures, and with this object to pay due regard to defensive considerations in the construction of the tunnel. “ Moreover, unless proper military precautions be taken, it might under some circumstances happen that France might be able, in anticipation of a declaration of war, to �10 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. send a body of troops through, the tunnel, and thus obtain an important military advantage. Such a body of troops could readily intrench themselves, and could be rapidly reinforced. “ If, however, suitable defensive arrangements are made, such an undertaking would be impracticable, and even in case of war being imminent, no fears need be entertained which might lead to the partial destruction of this costly work.” In April, 1876, the French Ambassador at the Court of St. James applied on behalf of La Societe Frangaise Concessionnaire du. Chemin de Fer Sous-Marin entre la France et l’Angleterre for the permission of her Majesty’s Govern­ ment to take soundings in British waters near Dover for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the bottom of that part of the English Channel, and the Board of Trade were informed by the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s Treasury, on the 10th June following, that the necessary application had been granted. Although a Channel Tunnel Company, with Lord Stalbridge (then Lord R. Grosvenor) as chairman, had ob­ tained an Act of Parliament in 1875 authorising the com­ mencement of experimental tunnelling works, nothing was really done by way of submarine boring from the English coast until the summer of 1880, when the borings just referred to were commenced by the South Eastern Railway, which obtained special powers from Parliament in 1881 for continuing the work and purchasing the necessary land. These works and powers were taken over and con­ tinued in 1882 by the Submarine Continental Railway Company, Limited. The new company, however, found itself almost immediately interrupted in the work by the �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 11 intervention of the English Government, such intervention being the result of a panic created by military alarmists. In August, 1881, the Board of Trade wrote to the Admiralty that “ the work of forming a subway under the Channel was making considerable progress ”, and that “public susceptibility having been aroused as to possible danger to this country from a tunnel under the Channel”, the Board desired “to be fortified with the opinion of the naval and military authorities ”. In January, 1882, Admiral Cooper Key sounded the panic trumpet, and did much to excite the opposition which has, up to the present, proved fatally obstructive to the progress of the English borings. In May, 1882, a memorandum—most important because issued after the panic opposition had got into full cry— was issued by Sir John Adye, then Surveyor-General of the Ordnance, embodying the report of a military com­ mittee, presided over by General Sir A. Alison, which had been instructed to consider “the means by which, sup­ posing the Channel Tunnel completed, its use could be interdicted to an enemy in time of war ”. Sir J. Adye says : “The military precautions necessary to provide against such a contingency almost naturally divide themselves into two parts:—1. The defence or command of the exit by means of batteries and fortifications. 2. The closing or destruction of the tunnel itself, either temporarily or per­ manently, both as regards its land and submarine portions. The Committee have dealt with both points in some detail. As regards the former they urge, that whilst the land portion of the tunnel should be constructed in the vicinity of a fortress, it is also important that its exit should lie outside but under the full command of the �12 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. batteries in the outworks of the fortress itself. With respect to the partial closing or entire destruction of the tunnel, both in its land and submarine portions, the Com­ mittee have entered into various details, and have made numerous proposals by which, if necessary, these objects may be accomplished. According to my judgment their recommendations, both as to defence and closure, are sound and practical, can be carried on without great cost or difficulty, and will amply suffice for the objects in view. I agree with them that the general line of the land portion of the tunnel had better be constructed not far from the lines of a fortress, whilst the exit should also be under the command of the guns of its outworks. Such a dis­ position of the tunnel will facilitate the arrangements in respect to the preparation of mines, etc., whilst a full command of the mouth will render its use or occupation by an enemy practically impossible. The various details and proposals of the Committee as to obstruction and closure, partial or permanent, are such as, I think, will commend themselves to engineers, civil or military, as being efficacious for the purpose; and I would further point out that whilst they are comparatively simple, it is evident they can be multiplied indefinitely, and have the further advantage, that the possession of the tunnel and its exit by an enemy would not prevent their being carried into effect; and even should some of them fail, such a contingency would not necessarily entail the failure of others. The means of obstruction, in short, are not only various but are independent of each other, and many of them could be improvised or multiplied even at the last moment. Nothing, indeed, is more obvious than the facility with which the tunnel can be denied to an enemy, �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 13> by means which no vigilance on his part could prevent or remove.” And yet the British democracy are in 1887 asked to reject the tunnel scheme because a real or counterfeit fear, in any case begotten of ignorance and prejudice, has seized on some of our “great generals” and hysterical journalists. In April, 1883, a joint Select Committee of the Lords, and Commons, five members from each House, was. appointed ‘ ‘ to inquire whether it is expedient that Par­ liamentary sanction should be given to a submarine com­ munication between England and France ; and to consider whether any or what conditions should be imposed by Parliament in the event of such communication being sanctioned This Committee, presided over by the Marquis of Lansdowne, held fifteen sittings, but although several draft reports were prepared none was accepted, but the majority of the Committee, six against four, wereof “opinion that it is not expedient that Parliamentary sanction should be given to a submarine communication between England and France The minority report pre­ sented by Lord Lansdowne is a paper of remarkable ability, and sets out with great clearness the reasons for and against the proposed tunnel. General Sir Edward Hamley, M.P., who rose to speak against the tunnel, as I rose to speak in its favor, but who did not deliver his speech for the same reason which kept me silent, wrote a letter to the Times, which the editor, also hostile to the tunnel, says, “contrasts the position of an invading army which had succeeded in effecting a landing before a tunnel was formed with that of such an army in the event of a tunnel being constructed—its helplessness and peril, the difficulty in getting supplies �14 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. or reinforcements, the risk that we should again obtain command of the Channel in the former case, and the power to draw indefinite supplies through the tunnel in the latter case. The letter brings into relief the fact that even if we succeeded in preventing an invader from coming on our soil by means of this communication, it would be a great .aid to invaders who had actually made good their footing ■otherwise.” 11 1 The possession of both ends would render the invader independent of the sea. . . . Night and day a stream of troops and supplies would be pouring through the tunnel, possibly under the keels of our victorious but helpless Channel fleet. Now, in this case—and I would impress this point—it would no longer be a contest between two armies, but between the entire military resources of France on the one side and what we could oppose on the other.’ Thus a tunnel makes hostile occupation, if not invasion, easier.” I submit that this is really carrying panic to madness point, for, if an invading army, large enough and strong enough to capture Dover, had landed otherwise than through the tunnel, our state must have become so hope­ less that discussion as to how such an enemy would get supplies and reinforcement would cease to be material. Such an army so invading England, otherwise than by the tunnel, would be as dangerous to England whether or not the tunnel existed. The view now put forward by Sir E. Hamley was fully raised and considered in 1883, and discussed in the Minority Report of Lord Lansdowne, Lord Aberdare, the Right Hon. W. E. Baxter, and Mr. Reel, now Speaker of the House of Commons. The editor of the Times treats Sir E. Hamley’s objection as not having been answered; �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 15 but it was in truth exhaustively examined and completely answered in that Report. In paragraph 92 the Report examines seriatim the principal apprehensions expressed for the safety of the tunnel. “ These are to the effect that it might pass into the hands of an enemy— “(1) By surprise, effected through the tunnel itself; “(2) By surprise, effected by a force landed in the neighborhood of the tunnel, with or without the aid of troops passed through the tunnel; 11 (3) By surprise, facilitated by treachery; “ (4) After investment by an invading force; “ (5) By cession as the condition of a disastrous peace.” All these apprehensions are really expressions of fear of hostility from Prance. If anyone of these apprehen­ sions had carried weight with Italy, Germany, or France, the St. Gothard Tunnel, or the Mont Cenis Tunnel would never have been made. The three suppositions, 1, 2, and 3, are possible in case of an attempt made by Frenchmen when France and England are both at peace, and indeed this is Lord Wolseley’s contention. “ The seizing of the tunnel by a coup de main is, in my opinion,” says his lord­ ship, “ a very simple operation, provided it he done without any previous warning or intimation whatever by those who wish to invade the country.” “My contention is, that were a tunnel made, England, as a nation, could be destroyed without any warning whatever, when Europe was in a condition of profound peace............. the whole plan is based upon the assumption of its being carried out during a time of profound peace between the two nations, and whilst we were enjoying life in the security and unsuspicion of a fool’s paradise.” My short answer to this wild contention is that all �16 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. intercourse between nations would be impossible and life would be unendurable, if in time of “ profound peace ” we are always to treat neighboring nations as ever ready without provocation to suddenly assail our shores in order to rob and destroy. The European experience of the past century is entirely against the monstrous con­ tention put forward by Lord Wolseley that Erance might suddenly surprise us whilst we were in peace and alliance with her and all European powers. It is an insult to suspect our French neighbors of any such possible treason. The repetition of such insulting suspicions is in itself a provocation. In modern times there is no instance of any outbreak of hostilities between two great powers which has not been preceded at least by rumors and ex­ pressions of uneasiness and highly strained diplomatic negotiations on the points likely to culminate in rupture of peaceful relations. Yet, except on such a traitorous sur­ prise, Lord Wolseley himself guarantees the safety of the tunnel, for he says that, if sufficient notice were to be given, “fifty men at the entrance of the tunnel can pre­ vent an army of 100,000 men coming through it ”. The strongest military objections to the proposed tunnel are those stated with considerable literary skill, heightened by strong flavor of romance, in the long Memorandum of Adjutant-General Sir Garnet (now Lord) Wolseley, dated 16th June, 1882. The weight of Lord Wolseley’s objec­ tions on military grounds is a little weakened by the almost special pleading in which he indulges on the com­ mercial and diplomatic aspects of the question. The whole attitude of Lord Wolseley towards the Channel tunnel is that of an advocate who has a very hostile brief. He is not in this memorandum a serious military �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL, 17 counsellor, warning his countrymen against real dangers. He has recourse to poetry, pathos, general denunciation of treaties as valueless, and to tricks of curiously irrelevant appeal to national passion and national fear. Every objection stated by Lord Wolseley was seriously weighed by Lord Lansdowne and those who concurred in the minority report. ‘‘With regard to the possibility of seizing the English end of the tunnel by means of a small force landed in its neighborhood,” Lord Lansdowne and those concurring with him report: “we have endeavored to ascertain pre­ cisely the conditions, of which the presence would be indispensable if such an attempt were to have any chance of success. Those conditions would, we understand, be the following: “(1.) It would be necessary that the invading force should be despatched with absolute secrecy. “ (2.) That it should cross the Channel unobserved and unmolested by our fleet. “ (3.) That the state of the weather should offer no difficulties to the disembarcation. “(4.) That its landing should be effected without hindrance. “ (5.) That it should advance without molestation from the point at which it might be landed to the works by which the exit of the tunnel would be protected. “(6.) That it should find the garrison in a state of absolute unpreparedness. “(7.) That it should succeed in carrying by a simul­ taneous rush the whole of the various works surrounding the exit of the tunnel. “ (8.) That this capture should be effected so rapidly as �18 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. to render it impossible for the defenders of those works to have recourse to any of the means which would be in existence for the purpose of closing or destroying the tunnel, or, that the whole of those means should simul­ taneously chance to be out of working order. “ That every one of these conditions should be present at the same time appears to us most improbable. We can well conceive that, with the rapid communications now available for the movement of troops by land or sea, a force such as that contemplated might be collected and despatched, and possibly reach our coasts without warn­ ing. That its landing, formation, and forward movement could altogether escape detection we can scarcely conceive. It would, we learn from Admiral Rice, take twelve hours, even under the most favorable conditions, and assuming the landing to be unresisted, to land 20,000 men, the force contemplated by Sir Lintorn Simmons. Such a force could not, however, in Admiral Rice’s opinion, be landed with­ out attracting attention. A smaller body could, of course, be landed with greater rapidity, but the diminution of its numbers would not increase its chance of success. A force of 1,000 men could, Sir Cooper Key informs us, be landed under favorable circumstances in an hour; ‘the larger the number of men,’ however, this witness adds, ‘ the more the difficulties that would arise against the time, but I have no hesitation in saying, that if they were equipped for it, with boats properly prepared, and a good clear beach, they could land 10,000 men under ten hours.’ That such a force, or one approaching to it in strength, should be able to traverse without detection or hindrance, the distance intervening between the point of landing and the exit of the tunnel, which, unless the recommendations �THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. 19 of the military committee are altogether disregarded, would be at a considerable distance from the shore, appears to us difficult to conceive; were it to be detected, and the alarm given, the complete surprise of the garrisons of the different forts would no longer be possible.” One most extraordinary objection to the tunnel was gravely urged before the joint Committee of Lords find Commons in the evidence by the late Mr. Eckroyd, M.P. for Preston, in answer to a suggestive question from the Earl of Devon : “ Earl of Devon : You spoke of the probable influence you anticipated from the introduction of Erench labor upon the pecuniary interests of the British workman in the manufacturing departments of industry with which you are concerned; does it occur to you that any other evil might arise by the spread of Socialistic or Com­ munistic views from an increased intercourse between the large body of French and English workmen ?—Mr E.: That is an apprehension that is very often felt; and I believe we have found that, specially in periods of slack­ ness of employment and discontent, there would be an active propaganda of an Atheistic and Socialistic kind ” As though any ideas now circulated in France or on the Continent could be hindered from permeating here by mere refusal to construct a submarine tunnel! Lord "Wolseley and the Duke of Cambridge fear that French soldiers may conquer us bodily, coming for that purpose secretly through the tunnel. The Earl of Devon and Mr. Eckroyd have like fears of French Atheists and Socialists, who would find in the Channel tunnel a con­ venient conduit-pipe for their propaganda! The great plague of Europe just now, and one that has been increasing in its virulence and oppressiveness for the �20 THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. last quarter of a century, is the huge waste of men and material in every European country in preparing for armed offence and defence. If the figures compiled by Mr. Lewis Appleton are correct, then during the year ending 31st December, 1886, Europe had under arms, not including reserves, no less than 4,123,675 men, and the European forces available for war, including reserves, were 16,697,484. In 1886 Europe spent on army and navy no less than £187,474,522. Unless there be disarmament, there must be fierce war or terrible revolution. The burden of in­ creasing taxation is too continuously heavy for long peaceful bearing. The rulers find pride and pomp in the controlling and array of huge masses of armed men. It is the peoples who pay and suffer. Commerce is an eloquent peace preacher; the frequent and more complete intermingling of unarmed peoples begets distaste for war; national prejudices die away under frequent contact; explanations are easier as peoples know one another better. I am in favor of this Channel tunnel because it will give to us in this island easier moans of seeing our European brethren in their own cities. It will afford to the folk of France the opportunity of knnwing for themselves that the English workmen do not desire quarrel or war. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Channel Tunnel : ought the democracy to oppose it or support it? Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available A. Bonner Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N082 Subject The topic of the resource International relations Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Channel Tunnel : ought the democracy to oppose it or support it?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Channel Tunnel France Great Britain-Foreign Relations-France NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bf51d1fe908d7f25339604a28adf46e6.pdf?Expires=1777507200&Signature=scCvnFvmDNkW8KiX-0r9qW-jzfNJV%7EG4cEmWdeKD73BHnPKlrG6IhXie%7EmBJ6l0097XuXizqEgq5XeXycWiUG5469KkscIleTYppFo7i%7EEboU3j31HeuK86V2RjF9cIhS3DtfnhF9aLZqPf5yCVNc-7gRyqrNO-Jj%7Ekw6e7p%7E0RQkommPH742Rx1%7ES0vIKLjrAnPcmxhCH%7EJoriS71PHHnR7ih2VWia4RWOJ5SDi8Qy2ejVpTcvDu3kdAGKZBAFJBjSBPSyP3MY69Cu%7EcK0iSGfmPCv4oukDG7RuTHTGGD4F%7Epea5lRE%7EwViYtDB6IZeV-uAOaH%7EbFCg6NE18zLMZw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 5fbc9e292c88dfe78331c2ddc850e248 PDF Text Text g X2^7 0 ?B NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY NEW LIFE OF DAVID. BY i CHARLES BRADLAUGH. [revised edition.] LONDON: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING 63, FLEET STREET E.C. 1 8 8 4. PRICE TWOPENCE. COMPANY. �LONDON: PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH, 63, FLEET STREET, E.C. �NEW LIFE OF DAVID. -------------- _ In compiling a biographical account of any ancient per­ sonage, impediments often arise from the uncertainty, party bias, and prejudiced coloring of the various tra­ ditions out of which the biography is collected. Here no such obstacle is met with, no such bias can be imagined, for, in giving the life of David, we extract it from an all­ wise God’s perfect and infallible revelation to man, and thus are enabled to present it to our readers free from any doubt, uncertainty, or difficulty. There is perhaps the fear that the manner of this brief sketch may be adjudged to be within the operation of such common law as wisely protects the career of the saints from mere sinful common-sense criticism; but as the matter is derived from the authorised version for which England is in­ debted to James, of royal and pious memory, this new life of David may be safely left to the impartial judgment of Mr. Justice North, aided by the charitable and pious counsel of Sir Hardinge Giffard. The latter, who has had more than one criminal client for whom he has most ably pleaded, might be relied on to make out a strong, if not a good, case for punishing any one who is unfair to the man after God’s own heart. Mr. Justice Stephen has furnished me with some slight guide in his notice of Voltaire’s play called “ David ” :— “ It constitutes, perhaps, the bitterest attack on David’s character ever devised by the wit of man, but the effect is produced almost exclusively by the juxtaposition, with hardly any alteration, of a number of texts from different parts of David’s history. It would be a practical impossibility to charge a jury in such a case, so as to embody Lord Coleridge’s view of the law. The judge would have to say : “ It is lawful f.o say that David was a murderer, an adulterer, a treacherous �4 NEW LIFE OF DAVID. tyrant who passed his last moments in giving directions for assassinations; but you must observe the decencies of contro­ versy.. You must not arrange your facts in such a way as to mix ridicule with indignation, or to convey too striking a contrast between the solemn character of the documents from which the extracts are made, and the nature of the extracts themselves, and of the facts to which they relate.” It is in the spirit of this paragraph that I have penned the present life. The father of David was Jesse, an Ephrathite of Bethle­ hem Judah, who had either-eight sons, (1 Samuel c. xvi., w. 10 and 11, and c. xvii., v. 12), or only seven (1 Chronicles, c. ii., vv. 13 to 15), and David was either the eighth son or the seventh. Some may think this a difficulty, but such persons will only be those who rely on their own intellectual faculties, or who have been misled by arithmetic. If you are in any doubt, consult some qualified divine, and he will explain to you that there is really no difference be­ tween eight and seven when rightly understood with prayer and faith, by the help of the spirit. Arithmetic is an utterly infidel acquirement, and one which all true believers should eschew. The proposition that three times one are one is a fundamental article of the Christian faith. When young, David tended his father’s sheep, and apparently while so doing he gained a character for being cunning in playing, a mighty valiant man, a man of war and prudent in matters. He obtained his reputation as a soldier early and wonderfully, for he was “but a youth;” and God’s most holy word asserts that when going to fight with Goliath, he tried to walk in armor and could not, because he was not accustomed to it (1 Samuel c. xvii., v. 39 c. f. Douay version). Samuel shortly prior to this anointed David, who, while yet a lad, had been selected by the (Lord to be King of the Jews in place and stead of Saul, who had wickedly disobeyed the commands of the Lord, who in his infinite love and mercy had said (1 Sam., c. 15, v. 3): “ Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Saul, however, behaved unrighteously, for he “ spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, i and of the failings, and the lambs, and all that was good, * and would not utterly destroy them.’’ This not unnaturally �NKW LIFE 01* DAVID. 5 irritated and annoyed the Lord. “ Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be King : for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments,” and the Lord bid Samuel fill a “horn with oil,” and sent Samuel, who anointed David the son of Jesse in the midst of his brethren, and the spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward. If a man takes to spirits his life will probably be one of vice, misery, and misfor­ tune ; and if spirits take to him, the result in the end is nearly the same. Every evil deed which the Bible records as having been done by David was after the spirit of the Lord had so come upon him. Saul being King of Israel, an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.. The devil has, it is said, no love for music, and Saul was recommended to have David to play on a harp, in order that harmony might drive this evil spirit back to the Lord who sent it. The Jew’s harp was played successfully, and Saul was often relieved from the evil spirit by David’s ministrations. There is nothing miraculous in this; at the People’s Concerts many a working man has beenrelieved from the “bluedevils” by a stirring chorus, a merry song, or patriotic anthem; and on the contrary many evil spirits have been aroused by the most unmusical performances of the followers of General Booth. David was appointed armor-bearer to the King; but curiously enough, this office does not appear to have interfered with his duties as a shepherd; indeed, the care of his father’s sheep took precedence over the care of the king’s armor, and in the time of war he “ went and returned to feed his father’s sheep.” Perhaps his ■“ prudence in matters ” induced him thus to take care of himself. A Philistine, one Goliath of Gath (whose height was six cubits and a span, or about nine feet six inches, at a low computation) had defied the armies of Israel. This Goliath was (to use the vocabulary of a reverend sporting corres­ pondent to a certain religious newspaper) a veritable cham­ pion of the heavy weights. He carried in all about two cwt. of offensive and defensive armor upon his person, and his challenge had great weight. None dared accept it amongst the soldiers of Saul until the arrival of David, who brought some food for his brethren. David volnnteered to fight the giant, but Elias, David’s brother, having �6 NEW LIFE OF DAVID. mocked the presumption of the offer, and Saul objecting’ that the venturesome lad was not competent to take part in a conflict so dangerous, David related how he pursued a n lion and a bear, how he caught him, by his beard and slew ' him. Which animal it was that David thus bearded the i text does not say. The Douay says it was “a lion or a bear.” To those who have chased the king of the.forests or studied the habits of bears, the whole story looks, on an attentive reading, “very like a whale.” David was permitted to fight the giant; his equipment was simple, a ) * sling and stones, and with these, from a distance, he slew the giant. Some suggest that the weapon Goliath fell under was the long bow. This suggestion is rendered pro­ bable by the book itself. One verse says that David slew the Philistine with a stone, another verse says that he slew him with the giant’s own sword, while in 2 Samuel c. xxi., v. 19, we are told that Goliath the^Gittife”was slain by Elhanan. Our translators, who have great regard for our faith and more for their pulpits, have kindly inserted the words “the brother of ” before Goliath. This emendation saves the true believer from the difficulty of understanding how Goliath of Gath could have been killed by different \ men at different times. David was previously well known to Saul, and was much loved and favored by that monarch. He was also seen by the king before he went forth to do battle with the gigantic Philistine. Yet (as if to verify the proverb that kings have short memories for their friends) Saul had forgotten his own armor-bearer and much-loved harpist, and ’was obliged to ask Abner who David was. Abner, captain of the king’s host, familiar with the person of the armor-bearer to the king, of course knew David well; he therefore answered: “As thy soul liveth, 0 king, I cannot tell.” David, having made known his parentage, was appointed to high command by Saul; but the Jewish women over-praised David, and thus dis­ pleased the king. One day the evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul and he prophesied. Men often talk great nonsense under the influence of spirits, which they some­ times regret when sober. It is, however, an interesting4It tyl fact in ancient spiritualism to know that Saul prophesied I I with a devil in him. Under the joint influence of the devil i and prophecy, Saul tried to kill David with a javelin, and this was repeated, even after David had married the king’s �NEW LIFE OF DAVID. 7 daughter (whose wedding he had secured by the slaughter of two hundred men). Saul then asked his son and ser­ vants to kill David; but Jonathan, Said’s son, loved David, ‘ ‘ And Saul hearkened unto the voice of Jonathan: and Saul sware, As the Lord liveth, he shall not be slain.” It is interesting as showing the utility of oaths that after having thus sworn Said was more determined than ever to kill David. To save his own life David fled to Naioth, and Saul sent there messengers to arrest David; but three sets of the king’s messengers having in turn all become pro­ phets, Said went himself, and the spirit of the Lord came upon him also, and he stripped off his clothes and pro­ phesied as hard as the rest, “laying down naked all that day and all that night.” David lived in exile for some time in godly company, having collected round him every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented. Saul made several fruitless attempts.<to effect his capture, with no better result than that he twice placed himself in the power of David, who twice showed the mercy to a cruel king which he never conceded to an unoffending people. David having obtruded himself upon Achish, King of Gath, doubtful of his safety, feigned madness to cover his retreat. He then lived a precarious life, sometimes levying a species of black mail upon defence­ less farmers. Having applied to one farmer to make bim some compensation for permitting the farm to go unrobbed, and his demand not having been complied with, David, who is a man after the heart of God of mercy, immediately determined to murder the farmer and all his household for their wicked reluctance in submitting to his extortions. The wife of farmer Nabal compromised the matter. David '''accepted her person ” and ten days after Nabal was found dead in his bed. David afterwards went with 600 men and lived under the protection of Achish, King of Gath, and while thus residing (being the anointed one of God who says, “ Thou shalt not steal ”) he robbed the inhabitants of the surrounding places. Being also obedient to the statute, “Thou shall do no murder,” hs slaughtered, and left neither man nor woman alive to report his robberies to King Achish; and as he “ always walked in the ways ” of a God to whom “ lying lips are an abomination,” he made false reports to Achish in relation to his actions. Of �NEW LINE OF DAVID. course this was all for the glory of God, whose ways are not as our ways. Soon the Philistines were engaged in another of the constantly recurring conflicts with the Israelites. Who offered them the help of himself and band ? Who offered to make war on his own countrymen ? David, the man after God’s own heart, who obeyed God’s statutes and who walked in his ways, to do only that which was right in the sight of God. The Philistines rejected the traitor’s aid, and prevented the consnnmm.fion of this baseness. While David was making this un­ patriotic proffer of his services to the Philistines, his own city of Ziglag was captured by the Amalekites, who were doubtless endeavoring to avenge some of the most unjusti­ fiable robberies and murders perpetrated by David and his followers in their country. David’s own friends evidently thought that this misfortune was a retribution for David’s crimes, for they spoke of stoning him. The Amalekites had captured and carried off everything, but they do not seem to have maltreated or killed any of their enemies. David was less merciful. He pursued them, recaptured the spoil, and spared not a man of them, save 400 who escaped on camels. In consequence of the death of Saul, David was elevated to the throne of Judah, while Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, was made king of Israel. But Ishbosheth having been assassinated, David slew the assassins, when they, hoping for reward, brought him the news, and he reigned ultimately over Israel also. As religious readers are doubtless aware, the Lord God of Israel, after the time of Moses, usually dwelt on the top of an ark or box, between two figures of gold; and on one occasion David made a journey with his followers to Baal, to bring thence the ark of God. They placed it on a new cart drawn by oxen. On the journey the oxen stumbled, and consequently shook the cart. One of the drivers, whose name was Uzzah, possibly fearing that God might be tumbled to the ground, took hold of the ark, apparently in order to steady it, and prevent it from overturning. God, who is a God of love, was much displeased that any one should presume to do any such act of kindness, and killed Uzzah on the spot as a punishment for his sin. This shows that if a man sees the Church of God tumbling down, he should never try to prop it up; if it be not strong enough to save itself, the sooner it falls the better �NEW LIFE OF DAVID. 9 for humankind—that is, if they keep away from it while it is falling. David was much displeased that the Lord had killed Uzzah; in fact, David seems to have wished for a monopoly of slaughter, and always manifested dis­ pleasure when any killing was done unauthorised hy himself. Being displeased, David would not take the ark to Jerusalem, but left it in the house of Obed Edom; then, as the Lord proved more kind to Obed Edom than he had done to Uzzah, David determined to bring the ark away, and did so, dancing before the ark in a state of semi-nudity, for which he was reproached by Michal. Lord Campbell’s Act is intended to hinder the publication of indecencies, but the pages of the Book which the law affirms to be God’s most holy word do not come within the scope of the Act, and lovers of obscene language may therefore have legal gratification so long as the Bible shall exist. The God of Israel, who had been leading a wandering life for many years, and who had “walked in a tent and in a tabernacle,” and “from tent to tent,” and “from one tabernacle to another,” and “who had not dwelt in any house” since the time that he brought the Israelites out of Egypt, was offered “ an house for him to dwell in,” but he declined to accept it during the lifetime of David, although he promised to permit the son of David to erect him such an abode. David being now a powerful monarch, and having many wives and concubines, saw one day the beautiful wife of one of his soldiers. To see with this licentious monarch was to crave for the gratification of his lust. The husband Uriah was fighting for the king, yet David was base enough to steal his wife’s virtue during Uriah’s absence in the field of battle. “ Thou shalt not commit adultery ” was one of the commandments, yet we are told by God of this David, that he was one ‘ ‘ who kept my command­ ments, and who followed me with all his heart to do only that which was right in mine eyes” (1 Kings, c. xiv., v. 8). David having seduced the wife, sent for her husband, wishing to make him condone his wife’s dishonor. In modern England under a Stuart or a Brunswick, Uriah might have become a Marquis or a Baron. Some hold that virtue in rags is less worth than vice when coroneted. Uriah would not be thus tricked, and David, the pious David, coolly planned, and without mercy caused to be executed, the treacherous murder of Uriah. God is all­ �10 NEW LIFE OF DAVID. just; and David having committed adultery and murder, God punished and killed an innocent child, which had no part or share in David’s crime, and never chose that it should be born from the womb of Bathsheba. After this king David was even more cruel and merciless than before. Previously he had systematically slaughtered the inhabitants of Moab, now he sawed people with saws, cut them with harrows and axes, and made them pass through brick-kilns. Yet of this man, God said he “did that which was right in mine eyes.” So bad a king, so treacherous a man, a lover so inconstant, a husband so adulterous, was of course a bad father, having bad children. We are little surprised, therefore, to read that his son Amnon robbed of her virtue his own sister, David’s daughter Tamar, and that Amnon was afterwards slain by his own brother, David’s son Absalom, and we are scarcely astonished that Absalom himself, on the house-top, in the sight of all Israel, should complete his father’s shame by an act worthy a child of God’s select people. Yet these are God’s chosen race, and this is the family of the man “who walked in God’s ways all the days of his life.” God, who is all-wise and all-just, and who is not a man that he should repent, repented that he had made Saul’ king because Saul spared one man. In the reign of David the same good God sent a famine for three years on the descendants of Abraham, and upon being asked his reason for thus starving his chosen ones, the reply of the Deity was that he sent the famine on the subjects of David because Saul slew the Gibeonites. Satisfactory reason!—because Oliver Cromwell slew the Eoyalists, God will punish the subjects of Charles the Second. One reason is, to profane eyes, equivalent to the other, but a bishop or even a rural dean would soon show how remarkably God’s justice was manifested. David was not behindhand in justice. He had sworn to Said that he would not cut off his seed—2.0., that he would not destroy Saul’s family. He therefore took two of Saul’s sons, and five of Saul’s grandsons, and gave them up to the Gibeonites, who hung them. Strangely wonderful are the ways of the Lord! Saul slew the Gibeonites, therefore years afterwards God starves Judah. The Gibe­ onites hang men who have nothing to do with the crime of Saul, except that they are his descendants, and then we are told “the Lord was intreated for the land.” The �NEW LIFE OF DAVID. II anger of the Lord being kindled against Israel, he, want­ ing some excuse for punishing the descendants of Jacob, moved David to number his people. The Chronicles say that the tempter was Satan, and pious people may thus learn what there is of distinction between God and Devil. Philosophers would urge that both personifications are founded in the ignorance of the masses, and the continu­ ance of the myth will cease with the credulousness of the people. David caused a census to be taken of the tribes of Israel and Judah. There is a trival disagreement of about 270,000 soldiers between Samuel and Chronicles, but readers must not allow so slight an inaccuracy as this to stand between them and heaven. What are 270,000 men when looked at prayerfully ? That any doubt should arise is to a devout mind at the same time profane and preposterous. Statisticians suggest that 1,570,000 soldiers form a larger army than the Jews are likely to have possessed; but if God is omnipotent, there is no reason to limit his power of miraculously increasing or decreasing the armament of the Jewish nation. David, it seems, did wrong in numbering his people, but we are never told that he did wrong in robbing or murdering their neighbors, or in pillaging peaceful agriculturists. David said: “I have sinned,” and for this an all-merciful God brought a pesti­ lence on the people, and murdered 70,000 Israelites, for an offence which their ruler had committed. The angel who was engaged in this terrible slaughter stood some­ where between heaven and earth, and stretched forth his hand with a drawn sword to destroy Jerusalem itself; but even the bloodthirsty Deity of the Bible “repented him of the evil,” and said to the angel: “It is enough.” Many volumes might be written to answer the enquiries—where did the angel stand, and on what ? Of what metal was the sword, and where was it made ? As it was a drawn one, where was the scabbard ? and did the angel wear a sword-belt ? Examined in a pious frame of mind, much holy instruction may be derived from the attempt to solve these solemn problems. David now grows old and weak, and at last his deathhour comes. Oh! for the dying words of the Psalmist I What pious instruction shall we derive from the death-bed scene of the man after God’s own heart I Listen to the last words of Judah’s expiring monarch. You who have �12 NEW LIFE OF DAVID. been content with the pions frauds and forgeries perpe­ trated with reference to the death-beds and dying words of the great, the generous, the witty Voltaire; the manly, the self-denying, the incorruptible Thomas Paine; the humane, simple, child-like man, yet mighty poet, Shelley— you who have turned away from these with unwarranted horror—come with me to the death-couch of the special favorite of God. Bathsheba’s child stands by his side. Does any thought of the murdered Uriah rack old David’s brain, or has a tardy repentance effaced the bloody stain from the pages of his memory? What does the dying David say ? Does he talk of cherubs, angels and heavenly choirs ? Nay, none of these things passes his lips. Does he make a confession of his crime-stained life, and beg his son to be a better king, a truer man, a more honest citizen, a wiser father ? Nay, not so—no word of sorrow, no sign of regret, no expression of remorse or repentance escapes his lips. What does the dying David say ? This foul monster whom God has made king; this redhanded robber, whose life has been guarded by “our Father which art in Heaven; ” this perjured king, whose lying lips have found favor in the sight of God, and who, when he dies, is safe for Heaven. It is written: “ There shall be more joy in heaven before God over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine righteous men.” Does David repent ? Nay, like the ravenous wolf, which, tasting blood, is made more eager for the prey, he too yearns for blood; and with his dying breath begs his son to bring the grey hairs of two old men down to the grave with blood. And this is God’s anointed king, the chief one of God’s chosen people. The learned and pious Puffendorf explains that David having only sworn not himself to kill ‘Shimei (1 Kings ii. 8) there was no perjury on the part of David in persuad­ ing Solomon to contrive the killing from which David had sworn to personally abstain. David is alleged to have written several Psalms, but of this there is little evidence beyond pious assertion. In one of these the psalmist addresses God in pugilistic phrase°l°gy, praising Deity that he had smitten all his enemies on the cheek-bone, and broken the teeth of the ungodly. In these days when “muscular Christianity ” is not without advocates, the metaphor which presents God as a sort of �NEW LIFE OF DAVID. 13 magnificent Benicia Boy may find many admirers. In the eighteenth Psalm, David describes God as with “smoke coming out of his nostrils and fire out of his mouth,” by which “coals were kindled.” He represents God as coming down from heaven, and says: “he rode upon a cherub.” The learned Parkhurst gives a likeness of a one-legged, four-winged, four-faced animal, part lion, part bull, part eagle, part man, and if a cloven foot be any criterion, part devil also. This description, if correct, will give some idea to the faithful of the wonderful character of the equestrian feats of Deity. In addition to a cherub, God has other means of conveyance at his disposal, if David be not in error when he says that the chariots of the Lord are 20,000. In Psalm xxvi. the writer adds hypocrisy in addition to his other vices. He has the impudence to tell God that he has been a man of integrity and truth, and that he has avoided evil-doers, although, if we are to believe Psalm xxxviii., the hypocrite must have already been subject to a loathsome disease—a penalty consequent on his licentious­ ness and criminality. In another Psalm, David the liar tells God that “ he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.” To understand David’s pious nature we must study his prayer to God against an enemy (Psalm cix., w. 6-14) : “ Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be con­ demned : and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few : and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be con­ tinually vagabonds, and beg : let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath ; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him : neither let their be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sin' of his mother be blotted out.” A full consideration of the life of David must give great help to the orthodox in promoting and sustaining faith. While spoken of by Deity as obeying all the statutes and keeping all the commandments, we are astonished to find that murder, theft, lying, adultery, licentiousness, and �14 NEW LIFE OF DAVID. treachery are amongst the crimes which may be laid, to his .charge. David was a liar, God is a God of truth ; David was merciless, God is merciful, and of long suffering; David was a thief, God says: “Thou shalt not steal;” David was a murderer, God says : ‘‘ Thou shalt do no mur­ der;” David took the wife of Uriah, and “ accepted” the wife of Nahal, God says : “ Thou shalt not covet thy neigh­ bor’s wife.” Yet, notwithstanding all these things, David was the man after God’s own heart! Had this Jewish monarch any redeeming traits in his character ? Was he a good citizen? If so, the Bible has carefully concealed every action which would entitle him to such an appellation. Was he a kind and constant husband ? To whom ? To which of his many wives and mistresses ? Was he grateful to those who aided him in his hour of need? Bather, like the serpent which, half-frozen by the wayside, is warmed into new life in the traveller’s breast, and then treacherously stings his succorer with his poisoned fangs, so David robbed and murdered the friends and allies of the King of Gath, who afforded him protection against the pursuit of Saul. Does his patriotism outshine his many vices ? Does his love of country efface his many misdoings ? Not even this. David was a heartless traitor who volun­ teered to serve against his own countrymen, and would have done so had not the Philistines rejected his treacherous help. Was he a good king? So say the priesthood now; but where is the evidence of his virtue ? His crimes brought plague and pestilence on his subjects, and his reign is a continued succession of wars, revolts, and assassinations, plottings and counterplots. The life of David is a dark blot on the page of human ’ history, fit in companionship for the biographies of Con­ stantine the Great and Henry VIII.; but it is through David that the genealogies of Jesus are traced, and with­ out David there would be no Christian faith. �Works sold by the Freetliought Publishing Com­ pany, 63, Fleet Street, London, E.C. Postage must be sent with Orders less than One Shilling in value. Cheques should be crossed “ London and South- Western Bank.” Bradlaugh., Charles—(See also Biternational Series.) Genesis : its Authorship and Authenticity. Cloth, gilt, pp. 341, 5s. The Freethinker’s Text-Book. Part I. Section I.—“ The Story of the Origin of Man, as told by the Bible and Science.” Sec­ tion II.—« What is Religion “ How has it Grown ?” “ God and Soul.” Bound in cloth, price 2s. 6d. Impeachment of the House of Brunswick. Ninth edition. Is. Political Essays. Bound in cloth, 2s. 6d. Theological Essays. Bound in cloth, 3s. Hints to Emigrants, containing important information on the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. Is. Debates—All Verbatim Reports. Four—with the Rev. Dr. Baylee, in Liverpool ■ the Rev. Dr. Harrison, in London ; Thomas Cooper, in London ; the Rev. R. A. Armstrong, in Nottingham; with Three Discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough, and Replies by C. Bradlaugh. Bound in one volume, cloth, 3s. What does Christian Theism Teach ? Two nights’ Public Debate with the Rev. A. J. Harrison. 6d. God, Man, and the Bible. Three nights’ Discussion, at Liverpool, with the Rev. Dr. Baylee. 6d. God as the Maker and Moral Governor of the Universe. Two nights’ Discussion with Thomas Cooper. 6d. Has Man a Soul ? Two nights’ Debate, at Burnley, with the Rev. W. M. Westerby. Is. Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism, and Faith. Three Discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough, with Special Replies. 6d. Secularism Unphilosophical, Unsocial, and Immoral. Three nights’ Debate with the Rev. Dr. McCann. Is. Is it.Reasonable to Worship God ? Two nights’ Debate, at Not­ tingham, with the Rev. R. A. Armstrong. Is. �Bradlaugii, Charles {continued)—• Pamphlets— s. d. The True Story of my Parliamentary Struggle. Contain­ ing a Verbatim Report of the proceedings before the Select Committee of the House of Commons; Mr. Bradlaugh’s Three Speeches at the Bar of the House etc., etc. ... 0 & Fourth Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons. 30th Thousand ... ... ... ... ... 0 | May the House of Commons Commit Treason ? ... ... 0 £ Correspondence with Sir Stafford Northcote, M.P. ... 0 2 John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough—“Mob,” “Scum,” and “Dregs” ... ... ... ... ...0 2 A Cardinal’s Broken Oath ... ... ... ... 0 1 Perpetual Pensions. Fortieth thousand ... ... 0 2 Civil Lists and Grants to Royal Family ... ... 0 1 Real Representation of the People ... ... ... 0 2 Letter to Albert Edward Prince of Wales, on Freemasonry 0 1 Why do Men Starve ? ... ... ... ...0 1 Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus: an Essay on the Population Question ... ... ... ... ... 0 2 Poverty and its effect upon the People ... ... 0 1 Labor’s Prayer ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle ... 0 2 India. A lecture ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 Five Dead Men whom I Knew when Living. Sketches of Robert Owen, Joseph Mazzini, John Stuart Mill, Charles Sumner, and Ledru Rollin... ... • ... ... 0 4 Cromwell and Washington: a Contrast ... ... 0 G Anthropology. In neat wrapper ... ... ... 0 4 When were our Gospels Written ? ... ... ... 0 6 Plea for Atheism ... ... ... ... ... 0 3 Has Man a Soul ? ... ... ... ... ... 0 2 Is there a God? ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 Who was Jesus Christ? ... ... ... , ...01 What did Jesus Teach ? ... ... ... ... 0 1 The Twelve Apostles ... ... .. ..0 1 The Atonement ... ... ... ... ...0 1 Life of David ... ... ... ... ... 0 2 Life of Jacob ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 Life of Abraham ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 Life of Moses ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 Life cf Jonah ... ... ... ... ...0 1 A Few Words about the Devil . . ... ... 0 1 Were Adam and Eve our First Parents ? ... ... 0 1 Heresy: its Morality and Utility. A Plea and a Jus: ification ... ... ... ... ... ... 0 9 The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy ... ... 0 6 Verbatim Report of the Trial of C. Bradlaugh before Lord Cole­ ridge for Blasphemy, in Three Special Extra Numbers of the National Reformer. 6d. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource New life of David Description An account of the resource Edition: Rev. ed. Place of publication: London Collation: 14, [2] p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Annotations in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891] Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1884 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N098 Subject The topic of the resource Bible Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (New life of David), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Hebrew Bible King David NSS