1
10
11
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/43060a095c88de6ea91a285d9166e00c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=eeKh4aONMUDFhjBv7dyCP-kYs7xQsyXt2tdUsPbzUs%7E3juninB8mgzGdNWQTBvIq4l23-wphJve6LrD2-5uup1218xnV8f0ynfeCHFDGYYYXEaWlqCPu3RDCMPa0j0nIyQ81o0YwGaUyxNjK12P%7EAkKsATixluF3CuLGOuCYwA9Jvh5x7dqRX9WwLu8LPgelBKqeQBBpFKCRbUmFW7zU9nQeRlsk9lNZPE0HPIDEmFGu7DyU81HIVLNe9k%7EHtg5P2H4K2XPjumMFk91i9lNQF-Xd8yLZCLyKqC8-9yq9jl4yJASk7Ea-YxFhbzfvmObS0p4A2pdwgWrRG1IStHwKYw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2d72c752b835ffdada2ce818a75532ad
PDF Text
Text
& Bibliographer.
251
full and consecutive account that has yet been published of the restoration
and remodelling of the Benedictine Order in England, abridged from the
two folio volumes of Weldon’s original “ Memoirs,” which were finished
in 1709, it is to be hoped that the wants hitherto felt have, in some
measure, been supplied. The editor has appended to his introductory
remarks a full and interesting biographical sketch of Bennet Weldon, the
pious and learned author of these “ Notes.”
Travels in South Kensington, with Notes on Decorative Art ana
Architecture in England. By MONCURE D. Conway. Triibner &
Co. 1882.
In this handsomely-illustrated volume, the author of “ Sacred Anthology,”
&c., tells in an amusing, and at the same time instructive manner, a great
deal that is worth knowing concerning the rise and progress of the South
Kensington Museum, from its establishment in 1857 down to the present
time, and discourses at length
on its collection of objects,
its educational or art training
method and character, and
on what is to be learnt that
may be useful in architecture
and decoration by a study of
its contents. “ The little six
penny guidebook sold at the
door,” as our author tells us,
“ is necessarily provisional ;
the historical and descriptive
volume which such an institu
tion requires must remain a
desideratum so long as the
Museum itself is changing
and growing daily before our
eyes.” In the volume under
notice, Mr. Conway has at
tempted to do no more than
convey his impression of the
value of the collection as a
whole, as a medium of edu
cation. He has illustrated
his remarks with engravings
of several interesting objects,
including a Chasse, or reli
IVORY TANKARD (AUGSBURG, I7TH CENT.)
quary (13th century), pastoral
staves (14th century), an ancient Persian incense-burner, an Italian salt
cellar (15th century), and the Cellini sardonyx ewer, mounted in enam
elled gold, and set with gems (Italian, 16th century). This last-named
engraving, and also that of an ivory tankard (Augsburg, 17th century), we
are enabled, by the kindness of the publishers, to reproduce as examples
of the illustrations.
The second half of Mr. Conway’s book, dealing with “ decorative art
and architecture in England,” embraces a wide range of subjects, from the
railway-bridge at Charing-cross and the Albert Memorial in Hyde
Park, to the decoration of Penkiln Castle in Ayrshire, and of Sir Walter
Trevelyan’s house at Wallington, in Northumberland.
�252
The Antiquarian Magazine
Mr. Conway concludes his work with a short and graphic account of
that “ Utopia in brick and paint in the suburbs of London,” called Bedford
Park, in the neighbourhood of Turnham-green,—a little red-brick town,
made up of the quaintest of “ Oueen Anne” houses.
Kelly's Directory of the Six Home Cotinties. o. vols. Edited by E. R.
Kelly, M.A., F.S.S. London : Kelly & Co. 1882.
A quarter of a century ago Kelly’s Post Office Directory for the Six
Home Counties was a modest volume of less than 1,500 pages ; but such
has been the increase of population in the suburbs of London of late
years, that it has been found necessary to divide the work into two parts,
each forming a volume, and embracing the home counties north and
south of the Thames respectively. The first volume, dealing with Essex,
Herts, and Middlesex, extends to over 1,500 pages, the corresponding
portion of the same book in 1845 having been comprehended in rather
less than 300 pages ; whilst in the second volume the County of Surrey
alone claims 915 out of a total of 2,474 pages. In contrasting the present
edition with those of earlier years, one cannot fail to be struck with the
great improvement which has taken place in the historical portion of the
work, and consequently, the antiquarian and archaeologist may now find
plenty of food to suit his taste in the notices of the several parishes, for
not only is mention made of the foundation of its church, schools, and
other institutions, but short descriptions are added of its ancient castles,
fortifications, ho^telries, and manor-houses, where such are to be found.
Exception must be taken, perhaps, in some instances to the editor’s state
ments with respect to the styles of ecclesiastical architecture ; but in such
matters there is ample room for differences of opinion, for it must be
remembered that until a very recent date nearly every Norman building
was set down as “ Saxon.” However, it may be safely stated that in by
far the majority of instances Messrs. Kelly’s descriptions are thoroughly
correct.
Les Melanges Poetiques d’Hildebert de Lavardin. Par B. HAUREAU,
Membre de l’Institut. 8vo. Paris : Pedone-Lauriel.
The works of Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours, were pub
lished in 1708 by the Benedictine monk Beaugendre, in one folio volume ;
they comprise, as most scholars are aware, not only metaphysical treatises,
but a considerable number of poems, which procured for their author,
among his contemporaries, the reputation of an elegant writer and of an
enthusiastic admirer of classical antiquity. We might easily fill pages
with quotations testifying to the popularity enjoyed in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries by him who was universally designated as the “ egregius versificator,” but want of space prevents us from doing so, and we
shall merely transcribe, by way of specimen, the following elegiac couplets
of Laurentius, Abbot of Westminster:—
‘ ‘ Inclytus et prosa, versuque per omnia primus,
Hildebertus olet prorsus ubique rosam.
Diversum studium fidei subservit eidem ;
Multa camcena quidem tendit ad illud idem.”
Students of mediaeval literature are, of course, anxious to know whether
Hildebert de Lavardin deserves all the praise which has been lavished
upon him, and they would naturally turn either turn to Beaugendre’s
edition or to the reprint given in the Abbe Migne’s collection, and by the
Abbe Bourasse. Unfortunately, the learned Benedictine, who was nearly
eighty years old when he undertook to publish the Archbishop’s works,
�
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 & 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
Travels in South Kensington
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 251-252 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. A review by an unknown reviewer of Moncure Conway's work 'Travels in South Kensington' from 'The Antiquarian Magazine & Bibliographer', May 1883.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5610
Subject
The topic of the resource
Book reviews
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Travels in South Kensington), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><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
Book Reviews
Conway Tracts
Kensington (West London)
Moncure Conway
South Kensington Museum
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/53fb6798435d7983b38c4f02568e44f0.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=fPeQwY-aaoDrKol1BnTKunGgSMm0jvITV--7eqFVMJAJIFg5XIPV5tUywuswMDGlwm3p%7EXZA-kJq6KBfeQ3nxp-l8UuEzFUPJ8S9m7K1-2Fk6Xzda6LWEsY-bmAiJu8IEEfSPj%7EaESw8xaYQhoZI2GOfPToxDZdzhkvc8nwsVq4RZZCEeqH3AgXvemR92kIPvasq353p1wyCxlAF2Qq677tlNXJMGf5M88roz-kh1505Y%7EhnLdQyFDhuxgUYFhvPud64KCXzopET-j6HqFWjllDE5U3ba5SLaA1X1cQlnCL1eztn8WkI8DllBxJiCopwpNYTtt0Hkc6kSwOY6wJvtQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fb04323f895e70acb7fcdb3946a7fc92
PDF Text
Text
CT 8V
A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
A Fabricated Account of a Scene at the Death
bed of Thomas Paine. Did Bishop
Fenwick Write It?
“I have lived an honest and useful life to mankind; my time
has been spent in doing good, and I die in perfect composure
and resignation to the will of my creator God ” (Will of Thomas
Paine, Jan. 18, 1809).
Several newspapers, religious and secular, have
lately published a long and libelous account of “The
Last Hours of the Great Infidel Thomas Paine,” pur
porting to be a letter signed “ ^Benedict, Bishop of
Boston.” The Bight Bev. Benedict Joseph Fenwick,
D.D., was born in St. Mary’s county, Meh, Sept., 3,
1782, was bishop of Boston in 1825, and died Aug,
11, 1846. The letter, if authentic, was written to his
brother Enoch, who died in 1828. It begins thus,: ?
‘■'A short time before Paine died I was sent for by him. He
was prompted to this by a poor Catholic woman who went to see
him in his sickness, and who told him among other things that
in his wretched condition, if anybody could do him good it would
be a Roman Catholic priest. This woman was an American con
vert (formerly a shaking Quakeress), whom I had received into
the church only a few weeks before. She was the bearer of this
message to me from Paine. I stated the circumstance to
Ffather] Kohlman at breakfast, and requested him to accompany
me. After some solicitation on my part he agreed to do so, at
which I was greatly rejoiced, because I was at the time young
and inexperienced in the ministry, and glad to have his assistance,
as I knew from the great reputation of Paine that I should have
to do with one of the most impious as well as infamous of men.”
Father Fenwick at this time had been a Jesuit priest
about one year, was not yet twenty-seven years.old,
�2
A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
and was sent in that very year from Georgetown, D.C.,
with Father Kohlman, another Jesuit, to take charge
of the only Catholic church in New York city. Now
there were two classes of men that Paine hated
above all others, namely, Scotch tories and Catholic
priests. But the writer of this letter tells us unequiv
ocally and repeatedly that Paine sent a poor shaking
Catholic Quakeress to invite a Eomish priest to visit
him, and that she accordingly went and summoned a
young Jesuit father who had just become pastor of
the only Catholic church in New York. Credat Jesuiticus cum pelle caudce /
Arriving at the house where Paine lodged, the two
priests were met at the door by a “decent-looking,
elderly woman,” who inquired if they were the Cath
olic priests. “For,” said she, “Mr. Paine has been so
much annoyed of late by ministers of other denom
inations calling on him that he has left express orders
with me to admit no one to-day except the clergymen
of the Catholic church.”
Poor pestered Paine ! Parsons Milledollar and Cun
ningham had been there, and the latter had said to
him, “ You have now a full view of death ; you cannot
live long, and whosoever does not believe in the Lord
Jesus Christ will assuredly be damned.” And to this
pious and polite address Paine had replied : “ Let me
have none of your popish stuff. Get away with you.
Good morning, good morning.” And when Mr. Mille
dollar attempted to address him he was interrupted
with the same language. And when they were gone
Paine said to Mrs. Heddon, an elderly woman em
ployed to wait on him, “Don’t let’em come here
again; they trouble me” (Sherwin’s Paine, 220).
Other clergymen had spoken to him in a similar man
ner, and were similarly repelled. But after all this we
are told that Paine sent for a Jesuit and gave orders
to his pious Protestant attendant to let in none that
day but Catholics ! Credat holy friar!
�A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
3
The two priests entered the parlor. Paine was
asleep, and the housekeeper said it wouldn’t do to
wake him, it made him so cross. Mr. Sherwood, a
neighbor, who frequently visited Paine in his illness,
says that old Mrs. Hedden was a religious bigot, and
never let slip an opportunity of teasing Paine with
her clattering tongue, and that she was artfully sent
by priests to attend on him during his illness. She
would frequently read the Bible to him, but to this he
paid no attention (Sherwin’s Paine, 222, 226).
The Jesuits resolved to wait until Paine awoke.
Meanwhile the woman said to them :
“ Gentlemen, I really wish you may succeed with Mr. Paine,
for he is laboring under great distress of mind ever since he was
informed by his physician that he cannot possibly live, and must
die shortly. He sent for you to-day because he was told that if
■any one could do him good you might.”
Credat Joseph Cook !
The next sentence of this woman’s reported conver
sation is remarkable:
“Possibly he may think you know of some remedy which his
^physicians are ignorant of.”
As if Dr. Manley and other regular physicians were
to be superseded by the medical skill of a youthful
priest who had recently arrived from the Jesuit col
lege of Georgetown, D. C. Oredat ex-Surgeon-General
Hammond!
But now comes a sentence for which we happen to
hav a prior parallel in a letter written Sept. 27, 1809,
by Paine’s physician, Dr. Manley, at the request of
the malignant libeler, Cheetham, and published that
same year. Here are the parallel sentences:
From Dr. Manley’s Letter, 1809.
From, the Fenwick Letter, 1819.
He would call out during his
paroxysms of distress, without
intermission, ‘O Lord, help me!
God help me! Jesus Christ
help me!” etc., repeating the
same expressions without the
least variation, in a tone of voice
that would alarm the house.”
“‘0 Lord, help me!” he
will exclaim in his paroxysms of
distress, ‘ God help me ! Jesus
Christ help me ! ” repeating the
same expression without the
least variation, in a tone of
voice that would alarm the
house.”
�4
A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
Here is a sentence of thirty-seven words plagiarized
from Dr. Manley’s letter. The only words that differ
from Manley’s are “will exclaim in” for “would call
out during.” Four words are transposed and two
omitted by the literary thief. This evidence alone
stamps the Fenwick letter as a fabrication. Its first
publication was in the United States Catholic Magazine
for 1846, and in the Catholic Herald, Oct. 15, 1846.
That was the year Bishop Fenwick died, and was
eighteen years after the death of the brother to
whom it purports to have been addressed. And now
the question for the Catholic church in America to
answer is, Did Bishop Fenwick write it? Credat Leo
XIII.
But now we propose to prove that Dr. Manley’s
statement is untruthful. It is certainly a gross per
version of the facts. He says he was called upon by
accident to visit the patient on the 25th of February,
1809; that the next day he related his condition to
two of Paine’s friends, one being an executor of his
estate (the will is dated Jan. 18th, and the executors
named are Walter Morton, Thomas Addis Emmett,
and Mrs. Bonneville, all legatees), and being requested
to pay him particular attention, he from that time
considered Paine under his care. It certainly looks
as if Dr. Manley sought to be employed, and his
whole conduct was, to say the least, unfair and de
ceitful. Soon after writing that letter he joined the
church. It was written at the solicitation of Paine’s
enemy and calumniator Cheetham, to be incorporated
into Cheetham’s “Life of Paine,” then preparing for
the press. The author solicited Dr. Manley’s observa
tions on Paine’s “temper and habits, the cause and
nature of his disease, the kind of persons by whom
he was visited during his illness, their general con
versation with him respecting his Deistical works, his
own remarks, opinions, and behavior” (Cheetham’s
Paine, 300). Five days after the date of that re
�A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
5
quest Dr. Manley has an answer completed, filling
eleven pages of Cheetham’s lying biography. The
doctor says:
“ I hasten, in conformity to your wishes, to communicate the
information I possess respecting its subject. Though my oppor
tunity has been great, you will, no doubt, observe my knowledge
to be very limited ” (Ibid).
The house where Paine died was owned by Amasa
Woodsworth, who was living as late as 1839 in East
Cambridge, Boston. In that year he made an author
ized statement to Gilbert Vale about Paine’s last
days, in which he characterizes Dr. Manley’s pub
lished account as false. He says that he visited
Paine every day for six weeks before his death, fre
quently sat up with him, and did so on the last two
nights of his life. He was always there with Dr.
Manley, assisted him in lifting Paine, and was pres
ent when the doctor asked him if he wished to be
lieve that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and heard
Paine’s emphatic answer, “ I have no wish to believe
on that subject” (Vale’s Paine, 156).
Now at that very time Dr. Manley says he intro
duced the subject to Paine by saying :
“ ‘ Why do you call on Jesus Christ to help you? Do you be
lieve he can help you? Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus
Christ? Come, now, answer me honestly. I want an answer
from the lips of a dying man, for I verily believe that you will not
live twenty-four hours.’ I waited some time at the end of every
question; he did not answer, but ceased to exclaim in the above
manner. Again I addressed him: ‘Mr. Paine, you have not an
swered my questions. Will you answer them? Allow me to ask
again, “ Do you believe, or, let me qualify the question, Do you
wish to believe, that Jesus Christ is the son of God?’” After
a pause of some minutes he answered, ‘ I have no wish to be
lieve on that subject’” (Cheetham’s Paine, 307).
These were Paine’s last words, and were uttered in
the hearing of Dr. Manley and Amasa Woodsworth.
we now quote from the latter’s authorized statement in
1839, made to Paine’s biographer, Vale :
“He informs us that he has openly reproved the doctor for the
falsity contained in the spirit of that letter, boldly declaring before
�6
A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
Dr. Manley, who is yet living, that nothing which he saw justi
fied his (the doctor’s) insinuations.”
The fact was, as Woods worth, states, that Paine was
too ill and too much tortured to converse on abstract
subjects. And anyone can see that Dr. Manley was
impertinent and cruel in insisting upon an answer to
such a question from a dying man. And his re
peated . statement about Paine’s calling on Jesus
Christ to help him is a gross perversion. For this
same Woodsworth in 1842 was asked by Philip
Graves. M.D., if Paine recanted and called upon God
to save him. And Woodsworth replied :
“ No. He died as he had taught. He had a sore upon his side,
and when we turned him it was very painful, and he would cry
out, ‘ 0 God!’ or something like that. But that was nothing,
for he believed in a God ” (Ingersoll’s Paine Vindicated, Truth
Seeker Tract No. 123, p. 21).
Another probable source of this perversion of facts
is an extract from the journal of Stephen Grellet, a
Quaker preacher, made in the fall of 1809. He re
cords the falsehoods of Mary Roscoe. We quote
the last few lines:
“ She told him [Paine] that when very young his ‘ Age of
Reason ’ was put into her hands, but that the more she read in it
the more dark and distressed she felt, and she threw the book into
the fire. ‘ I wish I had done as you,’ he replied, ‘ for if the devil
ever had any agency in any work, he has had it in my writing
that book.’ When going to carry him some refreshments, she
repeatedly heard him uttering the language, ‘0 Lord!’ ‘Lord
God!’ or ‘Lord Jesus, hav mercy on me!’” (Ibid, pp. 13, 14).
The reader will now begin to see the probable
source of the Manley inspiration. Cheetham wanted
evidence of Paine’s recantation. The lying Mary
Roscoe, who probably never visited Paine, was re
porting to her Quaker brethren that Paine regretted
his Deistical work and called on Jesus to have mercy
on him.
Ten years later, when Mary Roscoe had become
Mary Hinsdale, another Quaker, Charles Collins, learn
ing that William Cobbett contemplated writing a life
�A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
7
of Paine, went to him and wanted to persuade him
that Paine had recanted. Cobbett laughed at him,
and sent him away. The wily Quaker came again
and again; he wanted Cobbett to say, “ It was said
that Paine recanted.” “No,” said Cobbett; “but I
will say that you said it, and that you tell a lie, unless
you prove the truth of what you say. Griv me proof,
name persons, state times and precise words, or I will
denounce you as a liar.” Friend Charley was posed,
but something had to be done. He at last brought a
paper cautiously and craftily drawn up and signed
with initials. Cobbett compelled him to give the full
name : it was Mary Hinsdale. As soon as practicable,
Cobbett called on Friend Mary. She shuffled, evaded,
equivocated. It was so long ago she could not speak
positively of anything; she had never seen the paper ;
had never given Friend Charley authority to say any
thing in her name. And finally she said:
“I tell thee that I have no recollection of any person or thing
that I saw at Thomas Paine’s house ” (Vale’s Paine, 183, 184).
The falsehood about Paine’s recantation is now so
apparent that no intelligent and reputable person pre
tends to believe it The following letter, therefore,
from the Rev. A. W. Cornell, of Harpersville, N. Y.,
to the New YoxkWorld in 1877, will be highly amus
ing to those who never read it before:
“I see by your paper that Bob Ingersoll discredits Mary Hins
dale’s story. . . . Ingersoll is right in his conjecture that
Mary Roscoe and Mary Hinsdale was the same person. Her
maiden name was Roscoe. . . . My mother was a Roscoe,
a niece of Mary Roscoe, and lived with her for some time. I
have heard her relate the story of Tom Paine’s dying remorse, as
told her by her aunt, who was a witness to it. She says (in a
letter I have just received from her) ‘he (Tom Paine) suffered
fearfully from remorse, and renounced his Infidel principles,
calling on God to forgive him, and wishing his pamphlets and
books to be burnt, saying he could not die in peace until it
was done’” (Ingersoll’s Paine Vindicated, Truth Seeker Tract
No. 123, p. 57).
Reader, what do you think about the case now ?
The Rev. A. W. Cornell says in another part of his
�8
A ROMAN
CATHOLIC CANARD.
letter, “ No one who knew that good lady [Mary Ros
coe Hinsdale] would for one moment doubt her ve
racity, or question her testimony.” Credat Cornell!
But let us return to the Fenwick letter. The talk
of the old housekeeper to the Jesuit priests con
tinues ;
“Sometimes he cries, ‘0 God ! what have I done 'to suffer so
much?’ Then shortly after, ‘But there is no God!’ And again
a little after, ‘Yet, if there should be, what will become of me
hereafter ?’ ”
The original of this falsehood will be found in the
journal of the Quaker Greliet in 1809, as quoted
above. Mary Roscoe said that she repeatedly heard
Paine say, “ O Lord I” “ 0 God I” or “ Lord Jesus, have
mercy on me.” And Parson Cornell says her veracity
was beyond question. But it so happens that the
Quaker merchant and preacher Willet Hicks, whose
standing was beyond reproach, discredits Mary’s story
altogether. He was in the habit of visiting Paine,
and sending little delicacies to him by his daughters,
one of whom afterward stated that their hired girl
Mary Roscoe “ once wished to go with her but was
refused” (Vale’s Paine, 177-178).
In 1841 Gilbert Vale interviewed the venerable
Willet Hicks, concerning the last hours of Paine. The
old gentleman said that his servant Mary Hinsdale
never saw Paine to his knowledge. After Paine’s
death, the Friends annoyed and pressed him to say
something detrimental to Paine. He was beset by
them here and in England, where he went soon after.
They wished to convict Paine of calling on Jesus, and
they would say: “Did thee never hear him call on
Christ?” And he added:
“You cannot conceive what a deal of trouble I had; and as for
money, I could have had any sums if I would have said any
thing against Thomas Paine, or if I would even have consented to
remain silent. They informed me that the doctor [Manley !] was
willing to say something that would satisfy them if I would
engage to be silent only. But, they observed, he (the doctor)
knows the standing of Willet Hicks, and that lie knows all about
�A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
9
Paine, and if he (Hicks) should contradict what I say [i. e., what
the doctor says] he would destroy my [i. e., the doctor’s] tes
timony.”
The reader will perceive from this that Dr. Manley’s
testimony might have been still more false but for the
fear of Willet Hicks.
In conclusion, Mr. Hicks said to Mr. Vale, who took
down the words and published them:
“Thomas Paine was a good man—an honest man.”
And with great indignation he added :
“He was not a man to talk to Mary Hinsdale” (Vale’s Paine,
178, 179).
When Cobbett had got from Mary Hinsdale a re
cantation of the falsehood that Paine had recanted, he
sought to bring Friend Charley’s nose to the grind
stone; but Charley had left town for fear of the yel
low fever, and Cobbett soon returned to England.
Some years afterward this same Collins called at the
house of Gilbert Vale to beg him not to leave the
Beacon at his house. Mr. Vale then asked Collins
what induced him to publish the account of Mary
Hinsdale. Collins said he thought it true ; he believed
she had seen Paine, who might confess to a girl what
he would not to Willet Hicks. He knew that Hicks
and many other respected Friends did not believe it,
but yet it might be true. Vale asked him what he
thought of her character now He replied: “ Some
of our Friends believe she indulges in opiates, and do
not give her credit for truth.” “ Do you believe they
are justified in their opinions?” said Vale. “ Oh, yes,”
said Collins; “ I believe they speak the truth, but this
does not affect her testimony when a young woman ;
she might then have spoken the truth ” (Ibid, 185,186).
No more need be said on the question of the verac
ity of Mary Roscoe Hinsdale, or whether the dying
Deist said in her hearing, “Lord Jesus, have mercy on
me.” Nor will any intelligent reader of Paine’s “Age
of Reason ” believe that he ever cried out in the hear
�10
A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
ing of his housekeeper, “ But there is no God ! ” Or
that he ever said in his senses, “Yet if there should
be, what will become of me hereafter? ” Credat Mrs.
Partington !
The old housekeeper continued her talk to the Jes
uits. as reported in the Fenwick letter:
“Thus he will continue some time, when on a sudden he will
scream as if in terror and agony, and call out to me by name.
On one of these occasions, which are very frequent, I went to
him and inquired what he wanted. ‘ Stay with me,’ he replied,
‘for God’s sake, for I cannot bear to be left alone.’ I then ob
served that I could not always be with him, as I had much to at
tend to in the house. ‘ Then,’ said he, ‘send even a child to stay
with me, for it is hell to be alone.’ I never saw, she concluded,
a more unhappy, a more forsaken man; it seems as if he cannot
reconcile himself to die.”
This is borrowed from Dr. Manley, who says :
“He would not be left alone night or day; he not only required
tohave some person with him, but he must see that he or she was
there, and would not allow his curtain to be closed at any time;
and if, as would sometimes unavoidably happen, he was left
alone, he would scream and holla until someperson came to him.”
The doctor had previously said that at first Paine
was satisfied to be left alone during the day, but later
he was afraid he should die when unattended. And
though he professed to be above the fear of death,
some parts of his conduct were with difficulty reconcilable with his belief. But he further states that
Paine’s expressed anxiety was concerning the disposal
of his body, an application being pending for an inter
ment in the Friends’ burying-ground, which was at
last rejected, And in this conversation the doctor re
ports Paine as saying, what one may well imagine
he would, “ I think I can say what they make Jesus
Christ to say—‘My God, my God, why hast thou for
saken me ? ’ ” Such expressions may be used by sick
or distressed people, and it is easy to torture them into
profanity. But Paine was never charged with pro
fanity of speech, and Dr. Manley introduced the sub
ject of religion to him by saying:
�A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
11
“ You have never been in the habit of mixing in your conver
sation words of coarse meaning; you have never indulged in the
practice of profane swearing.”
We now return to the Fenwick letter. Paine hav
ing awoke, the two Jesuits were conducted into his
room :
“On entering we found him just getting out of his slumber.
A more wretched beingin appearance I never before beheld. He
was lying in a bed, sufficiently decent of itself, but at present
besmeared with filth.”
O holy mother! Did the “decent-looking elderly
woman,” who was expecting the priests to call that
day, introduce them to the dying man in a bed be
smeared with filth ? Why did not Dr. Manley or the
executors discharge such a nasty nurse ? Credat Lord
Dundreary !
“His look was that of a man greatly tortured in mind; his eyes
haggard, his countenance forbidding, and his whole appearance
that of one whose better days had been one continual scene of
debauch.”
Paine was troubled in mind about his burial, just
as Voltaire was before him. Dr. Manley argued with
him that that should be a matter of least concern.
Paine answered “ that he had nothing else to talk
about, and that he would as lief talk of his death as
of anything; but that he was not so indifferent about
his corpse as I appeared to be.” The description of
Paine’s person in the Fenwick letter is borrowed from
various accounts by his lying adversaries in those
times. Credat Dr. Talmage!
“His only nourishment at this time, we are informed, was
nothing more than milk punch, in which he indulged to the full
extent of his weak state.”
Did the scholarly bishop of Boston, ex-president of
Georgetown College, commit the solecism, “ only
nothing more than ? ” Credat Artium Magister !
When Dr. Manley first saw Paine he had been dis
pensing with the usual quantity of stimulus, which
privation seemed to make him worse, and he had just
�12
A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
resumed it. And the doctor further says, “ He never
slept without the assistance of an anodyne.”
The Fenwick letter proceeds :
“He had partaken, undoubtedly, but very recently of it, as the
sides and corners of his mouth exhibited very unequivocal traces
of it, as well as of blood which had also followed in the track and
left its mark on the pillow. His face to a certain extent had also
been besmeared with it.”
Shame on such a nurse! At this time Paine’s ex
ecutors were paying $20 a week for the sick man’s
board and attendance. Why didn’t this “decent
looking ” nurse wipe her patient’s face before bring
ingin these two priests ? Credat Mark Twain!
Dr. Manley says that, about a fortnight after his
first attendance on the patient,
“ He became very sore, the water which he passed in bed ex
coriating the parts to which it applied, and this kind of ulcera
tion, which was sometimes very extensive, continued in a greater
or less degree till the time of his death. ... In this deplor
able state, with confirmed dropsy, attended with frequent cough,
vomiting, and hiccough, he continued growing from bad to worse,
till the morning of the 8th of June, when he died. . . . Dur
ing the last three weeks his situation was such that his decease
was confidently expected every day, his ulcers having assumed a
gangrenous appearance, being excessively fetid, and discolored
blisters having taken place on the soles of his feet, without any
ostensible cause, which baffled the usual attempts to arrest their
progress; and when we consider his advanced age, the feebleness
of his constitution, his constant practice of using ardent spirits
ad libitum, till the commencement of his last illness, so far from
wondering that he died so soon, we are constrained to ask, How
did he live so long ?”
Mark the language—“ using ardent spirits ad libitum
till the commencement of his last illness." The doctor is
unwilling to attest the ad libitum indulgence during the
last sickness, and what did he know about prior in
dulgence? It looks as if Cheetham had a hand in the
draft of the Manley letter. The doctor evidently
stopped the diet of milk punch and prescribed mor
phine, for he says the patient never slept without the
assistance of an anodyne.
The stories about Paine’s beastly intemperance are
�A ROMAN
CATHOLIC CANARD.
13
all lies. They were started by Cheetham, the con
victed libeler, and were continued by Grant Thorburn,
who after Paine’s death was compelled by advice of
his counsel, the late Horace Holden, to retract a libel
about Mrs. Bonneville, if we remember rightly, but
incidentally about the deceased Infidel. Perhaps the
most plausible authentic testimony against Paine’s so
briety was given by Carver, who invited him to board
at his house. Nothing was said about charging for
board, and Paine remained with him some months.
While there Paine had a stroke of apoplexy, and
for a while had to have a nurse. Carver got straitened
for money, and sent Paine a bill for board for himself
and nurse. Paine was indignant, and was going to pay
it and cut Carver’s friendship. But his friends said
the charge was exorbitant and persuaded him to resist
payment. Then Carver wrote a scurrilous letter in
which he accused Paine of helping himself too freely
from Carver’s demijohn of brandy, and pretending
that it was a stroke of apoplexy that caused him to
fall down stairs. But that it was apoplexy appears
from Dr. Manley’s letter, who says he found the pa
tient in a “ fever, and very apprehensive of an attack
of apoplexy, as he stated that he had had that disease
before, and at this time felt a degree of vertigo.” And
in August, 1806, Paine wrote to his farm tenant Dean,
saying that he had a stroke of apoplexy, Sunday, Aug.
15th, the fit taking him on the stairs, that he was sup
posed to be dead at first, and had not been able to get
out of bed since. “ I consider the scene I have passed
through,” he writes, “ as an experiment on dying, and
I find that death has no terrors for me.”
For a complete refutation of the libels about Paine’s
intemperance, see Vale’s “ Life of Paine,” and Inger
soll’s “Vindication of Paine,” Truth Seeker Tract No.
123. Paine intended to make Carver one of his lega
tees, but after this affair he renounced him. The bill
was amicably settled by Paine’s friends, and Carver
�14
A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
confessed that he wrote in anger. But he was angrier
still some years later to see the correspondence repub
lished by Grant Thorburn, and cut it out of the book.
He said that Cheetham first printed the letter without
his consent for base purposes. And when Paine was
on his death-bed Carver wrote him a tender letter of
apology and sympathy, which is published in the pref
ace of Vale’s “Life of Paine.” Jarvis, the celebrated
portrait painter, with whom Paine lived after leaving
Carver, says that Paine was neither dirty in his habits
nor drunken.
In a compendium of the “Life of Paine” by the
same author (New York, 1837) Mr. Vale says:
“In reply to a query which we recently put to Col. Burr,
as to Mr. Paine’s alleged vulgarity, intemperance, and want of
cleanliness, as disseminated by those who wished it true, he re
marked, with dignity: ‘Sir, he dined at my table!’ Then, am I to
understand that he was a gentleman? ‘Certainly, sir,’replied
Col. Burr; ‘I always considered Mr. Paine a gentleman, a pleas
ant companion, a good-natured and intelligent man, decidedly
temperate, and with a proper regard to his personal appearance,
whenever I saw him.’”
But to return to the Fenwick letter:
“As soon as we had seated ourselves F[ather] Kohlman, in a
very mild tone of voice, informed him that we were Catholic
priests and were come on his invitation to see him. Paine made
no reply.”
They had come on his'invitation, and he had in
structed the housekeeper to admit that day none but
Catholic priests, and yet they said to him : “We are
Catholic priests, come on your invitation!” Credat
tonsured monk !
“After a short pause Ffather] Kohlman proceeded thus, ad
dressing himself to Paine in the French language, thinking that
as Paine had been in France he was probably acquainted with
that language (which however was not the fact) and might better
understand what he said, as he had at that time greater facility,
and could express himself better, in it than in the English.”
Perhaps Father Kohlman, whose name is a German
one, could talk French better than English ; but when
the writer says that Paine, who had lived nine years
�A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
15
in Paris, was not acquainted with, the French language,
Credat Ollendorf!
The newspaper copy of this letter omits the French.;
we supply it from the lives of “ Deceased Bishops,”
published by O’Shea, New York, 1872.
“‘Mons. Paine, j’ai lu votre livre intitule L’Age de la Raison,
ou vous avez attacque l’ecriture sainte avec une violence, sans
bornes, et d’autres de vos ecrits publies en Prance, et je suis per
suade que’”—•
“Paine here interrupted him abruptly, and in a sharp tone of
voice, ordering him to speak English thus : “ Speak English,
man ; speak English.’ ”
As if Paine could not understand French ! for that
is not only the inference but the fact alleged by the
writer. As if Paine had to wait until forty words of
a foreign language were spoken before he interrupted
the speaker! And as if Father Fenwick many years
afterward could report the very words spoken in
French, and remembered that Father Kohlman was
interrupted at the particle que ! Credat notre Dame I.
The apocryphal character of the Fenwick letter is
now so apparent that perhaps further comment will
be superfluous. The writer translates the beginning
of the sentence, and has Father Kohlman complete it
with variations, thus :
‘“Mr. Paine, I hav read your book entitled, the “Age of Rea
son,” as well as your other writings against the Christian religion,
and am at a loss to imagin how a man of your good sense could
hav employed his talents in attempting to undermine what, to
say nothing of its divine establishment, the wisdom of ages has
deemed most conducive to the happiness of man. The Christian
religion, sir—’ ”
“ ‘That’s enough, sir, that’s enough,’ said Paine, again inter
rupting him. ‘I see what you would be about; I wish to hear no
more from you, sir. My mind is made up on that subject. I
look upon the whole of the Christian scheme to be a tissue of ab
surdities and lies, and J. C. [sic] to be nothing more than a cun
ning knave and an impostor.’ ”
Any one who bas read the “ Age of Reason ” knows
that Paine never could have said that Jesus Christ
was a knave and an impostor. JJredat ignoramus !
The next three paragraphs being omitted in the
�16
A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
newspaper copy, we supply them from the book.
canard is incomplete without them:
The
“Ffather] Kohlman here attempted to speak again, when
Paine, with a lowering countenance, ordered him instantly to be
silent, and to trouble him no more. ‘ I hav told you already
that I wish to hear nothing more from you.’
_ “ ‘ The Bible, sir,’ said F. Kohlman, still attempting to speak,
‘ is a sacred and divine book, which has stood the test and criti
cism of abler pens than yours—pens which have at least made
some show of argument, and—’
“‘Your Bible,’ returned Paine, contains nothing but fables;
yes, fables, and I have proved it to a demonstration.’
“All this time I looked upon the monster with pity mingled
with indignation at his blasphemy. [Here the newspaper copy
begins again], I felt a degree of horror at thinking that in a very
short time he would be cited to appear before the tribunal of his
God, whom he so shockingly blasphemed, with all his sins upon
him.. Seeing that F. Kohlman had completely failed in making
any impression upon him, and that Paine would listen to nothing
that came from him, nor would even suffer him to speak, I finally
concluded to try what effect I might have. I accordingly com
menced with observing:
“ ‘ Mr. Paine, you will certainly allow there exists a God, and
that this God cannot be indifferent to the conduct and action of
his creatures.’
“ ‘ I will allow nothing, sir,’ he hastily replied. ‘I shall make
no concessions.’
“ ‘.Well, sir, if you will listen calmly for one moment,’ said I,
‘ I will prove to you that there is such a being, and I will demon
strate from his very nature that he cannot be an idle spectator of
our conduct.’
“ ‘Sir, I wish to hear nothing you have to say. I see your
object, gentlemen, is to trouble me; I wish you to leave the
room.’
“ This he spoke in an exceedingly angry tone, so much that he
foamed at the mouth.
“ ‘Mr. Paine,’ I continued, ‘I assure you our object in coming
hither was purely to do you good. We had no other motive.
We had been given to understand that you wished to see us, and
we are come accordingly, because it is a principle with us never
to refuse our services to a dying man asking for them. But for
this we should not have come, for we never obtrude upon any
individual.’
“ Paine, on hearing this, seemed to relax a little. In a milder
tone than he had hitherto used he replied:
“‘You can do me no good now; it is too late. I have tried
different physicians, but their remedies have all failed. I have
nothing now to expect’ (this he spoke with, a sigh) ‘but a
speedy dissolution. My physicians have indeed told me as much.’
“ ‘You have misunderstood,’ said I, immediately, to him; ‘we
�A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
17
are not come to prescribe any remedies for your bodily com
plaints; we only come to make you an offer of our ministry for
the good of your immortal soul, which is in great danger of being
forever cast off by the Almighty on account of your sins, and es
pecially for the crime of having vilified and rejected his word
and uttered blasphemies against his Son. ’
“ Paine, on hearing this, was roused into a fury; he gritted his
teeth, turned and twisted himself several times in his bed, utter
ing all the while the bitterest imprecations.”
Dr. Manley does not describe the patient as able to
turn and twist in his bed, and he expressly says he
was not a profane man. But this writer says he ut
tered the bitterest imprecations. CredatAnthony Com
stock !
“ I firmly believe that such was the rage in which he was at
the time that if he had a pistol he would have shot one of us,
for he conducted himself more like a madman than a rational
creature.”
What a lucky escape for Father Fenwick! Just
think of the youthful priest being sent straight to
paradise by a pistol shot from the trembling hand of
the dying Infidel ! Credat George Francis Train!
“ ‘Begone !’ said he, ‘and trouble me no more. I was in peace,’
he continued, ‘till you came.’
“ ‘ We know better than that,’ replied F. Kohlman; ‘ we know
that you cannot be in peace; there can be no peace for the wicked;
God has said it.’ ”
And why didn’t he add, “Your housekeeper has
confirmed it?” Credat Judge Benedict!
“ ‘ Away with you, and your God, too; leave the room instantly,’
he exclaimed; ‘all that you have uttered are [sic] lies, filthy lies,
and if I had a little more time [and strength ?] I would prove it,
as I did about your impostor Jesus Christ.’ ”
In the “ Age of Beason ” Paine says of Jesus Christ,
“ He was a virtuous and amiable man.” Now he tells
the Jesuits that he was an impostor! Credat Beelze
bub !
“ ‘ Monster !’exclaimed F. Kohlman in a burst of zeal; ‘you
will hav no more time; your hour has arrived. Think rather of
the awful account you have already to offer, and implore pardon
of God. Provoke no longer his just indignation upon your head.’
�18
A ROMAN CATHOLIC CANARD.
. “ Paine here again ordered us to retire in the highest pitch of
his voice, and seemed a very maniac with his rage and madness.
‘ Let us go,’ said I to F. Kohlman, ‘ we have nothing more to do
here; he seems to be entirely abandoned by God; further words
are lost upon him.’ ”
Yes, of course; and why should not the Jesuits
have discovered that at first? Was it not evident to
the dullest mind ? And how thin the pretense that
after repeatedly refusing to hear any argument about
the Bibie and Christianity Paine relaxed when told
that they had come purely to do him good, and at his
own invitation, and that he then expected them to
prescribe some remedy for his disease! Their per
sistence was far greater than that of the hypocritical
Manley. The insolent priests did not go until ordered
to do so some six times. Credat Diabolus ridens !
“Upon this we both withdrew from the room, and left the un
fortunate man to his thoughts. I never before or since beheld a
more hardened wretch. This you may rely upon; it is a faithful
and correct account of the transaction.”
Credat Baron Munchausen !
The newspaper copy adds what the book does not,
to wit:
“I remain your affectionate brother,
“ f Benedict, Bishop of Boston.”
Gloria patri Benedicto !
And now we challenge the dignitaries of the Cath
olic church to produce the original' letter and prove
who wrote it We do not believe that Bishop Fen
wick ever saw it. It is a fabrication, like the Decre
tals of the primitive popes, and the apocryphal gos
pels of the early Catholic church. By such forgeries
Christianity was propagated through the Dark Ages;
but they only serve a contrary purpose now.
“And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the
beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed
their tongues for Paine ” (Rev. xvi, 10}.
�19
THE TRUTH SEEKER OFFICE.
INGERSOLL’S WORKS.
[Sold Wholesale and Retail at The Truth Seeker Office.]
The Gods.
Paper, 50 cents; cloth, $1.25.
In five lec
tures, comprising, “The Gods,” “Humboldt,” “Thomas Paine,”
“Individuality,” and “Heretics and Heresies.”
The Ghosts. Paper, 50 cents; cloth, $1.25. Including,
“Liberty for Man, Woman, and Child;” “The Declaration of
Independence,” “About Farming in Hlinois;” “The Grant
Banquet,” “The Rev. Alexander Clarke,” “The Past Rises be
fore Me Like a Dream,” and “A Tribute to Ebon C. Ingersoll.”
Some Mistakes of Moses.
Its chapters are :
Some
Mistakes of Moses, Free Schools, The Politicians, Man and
Woman, The Pentateuch, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, He Made the Stars Also, Friday, Saturday, Let us.
Make Man, Sunday, The Necessity for a Good Memory, The
Garden, The Fall, Dampness, Bacchus and Babel, Faith in
Filth, The Hebrews, The Plagues, The Flight, Confess and
Avoid, Inspired Slavery, Inspired Marriage, Inspired War,
Inspired Religious Liberty, Conclusion. Paper, 50 cents;,
cloth, $1.25.
The Christian Religion.
By R. G. Ingersoll, Judge
Jeremiah S. Black, and Prof. George P. Fisher. This is a
series of articles which appeared in the North American Review,
and excited great interest from the high position of the au
thors. Judge Black refused to answer Mr. Ingersoll’s second
paper and the services of Mr. Fisher were obtained. Paper,
50 cents.
Interviews on Talmage.
Being Six Interviews with
the Famous Orator on Six Sermons by the Rev. T. DeWitt
Talmage, of Brooklyn, to which is added “A Taimagian Cate
chism.” Stenographically reported by I. Newton Baker.
Printed in bold, clear type, on heavy, tinted paper, and hand
somely bound in muslin, with heavy boards, beveled edges,
gilt top. Octavo, 443 pages, $2.00. Paper, $1.00; plain cloth,
$1.25.
What Must We Do to be Saved ! In this pamphlet
Mr. Ingersoll analyzes the so-called gospels of Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John, and devotes a chapter each to the
Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Presbyte
rians, the Evangelical Alliance, and answers the question of
the Christians as to what he proposes instead of Christianity,
the religion of sword and flame. Paper, 25 cents.
�20
BOOKS FOR SALE AT
WORKS BY PROF. WILLIAM DEN^
TON.
Be Thyself. Price, 10 cents.
Christianity no Finality; or, Spiritualism Superior to
Christianity.
Price, 10 cents.
Common Sense Thoughts on the Bible. Price, 10 cts.
Garrison in Heaven. A Dream. Price, 10 cents.
Geology: The Past and Future of our Planet. Price,
$1.50.
Is Spiritualism True? Price, 10 cents.
Man’s True Savior. Price, 10 cents.
Orthodoxy False, since Spiritualism is True. Price,
10 cents.
Radical Discourses on Religious Subjects.
Price,
Radical Rhymes. Price, $1.25.
Sermon from Shakspere’s Text. Price, 10 cents.
Soul of Things; or, Psychometric Researches and Dis
coveries.
In three volumes.
Price; $1.50 per volume.
The Deluge in the Light of Modern Science.
10 cents.
Price,
The God Proposed for Our National Constitution.
Price, 10 cents.
The Irreconcilable Records; or, Genesis and Geology.
Cloth, 40 cents; paper, 25 cents.
The Pocasset Tragedy. Price, 10 cents.
What is Right ? Price, 10 cents. '
What Was He; or, Jesus in the Light of the Nineteenth
Century.
Price, cloth, $1.25; paper, $1.
Who are ChristiansPrice, 10 cents.
Who Killed Mary Stannard ! Price, 10 cents.
�THE TRUTH SEEKER OFFICE.
21
LIST OF
FREETHOUGHT WORKS
FOR SAFE AT
THE TRUTH SEEKER OFFICE.
[Wholesale and Retail.]
A. Few Days in Athens.
By Frances Wright.
Em
bellished with the portrait of Epicurus, the Greek philosopher,
and the author. Price, 75 cents.
A Legacy to the Friends of Free Discussion.
By
Benjamin Offen, formerly Lecturer of the Society of Moral
Philanthropists, at Tammany Hall, New York. Price, $1.
A Modern Symposium. Subjects: The Soul and a Future
Life. By Frederick Harrison, R. H. Hutton, Prof. Huxley,
Lord Blackford, Hon. Roden Noel, Lord Selborne, Canon
Barry, Rev. Baldwin Brown, Dr. W. G. Ward. The Influence
upon Morality of a Decline in Religious Belief. By Sir James
Stephen, Lord Selborne, Frederick Harrison, The Dean of St.
Paul’s, The Duke of Argyll, Prof. Clifford, Dr. W. G. Ward,
Prof. Huxley, R. H. Hutton. Utterances never surpassed by
writers and all important subjects. Noted for their terse
originality. Price, $1.25.
An Eye-Opener.
“Citateur. Par Pigault.”
Doubts of Infidels.
50 cents.
By Zepa.
Le Brun,
Price, cloth, 75 cents; paper,
Antiquity and Duration of the World. By G.
man.
Toul-
Price, 20 cents.
Apocryphal New Testament.
Being all the gospels,
epistles, and other pieces now extant attributed in the first
four centuries to Jesus Christ, his apostles, and their com
panions, and not included in the N«w Testament by its com
pilers. Price, $1.25.
Apples of Gold.
A story book for boys and girls.
Miss Susan H. Wixon.
Price, $1.75.
By
�BOOKS FOR SALE AT
A Short History of the Bible.
Being a Popular Ac
count of the Formation and Development of the Canon. ' By
Beonson C. Keeler. This is a splendid work, showing how
the Bible was manufactured by the church and ecclesiastics.
Limp cloth, 75 cents; paper, 50 cents.
Astronomy and Worship of the Ancients.
<.ilbebt \ ale.
By
Price, 20 cents.
Astro-Theological Lectures. Rev. Robt. Taylor. Price,
cloth, $2.
Autobiography of Robert Cooper.
Price, 15 cents.
Bhagavad-Gita; or, A Discourse on Divine Matters
between Krishna and Arjuna.
Price, $1.75.
Bible Balanced.
By J. Cockbubn Thompson.
The Infidel’s Text Book; comparing
some of the best teachings and sayings of the Bible with those
of Sages and Philosophers who lived previous to the Authors
of the Bible; also a Partial Exposition of its Errors. By Geo.
C. Darling. Price, 50 cents.
Bible in India; Hindoo Origin of Hebrew and Chris
tian Revelation. Translated from “Le Bible dans Inde.” By
Louis Jacolliot. Price, $2.
Bible in the Balance.
By Rev. J. G. Fish.
A text-book for investigators.
Price, $1.50.
Bible Inquirer; or, Key to Bible Investigation.
Con
taining one hundred and forty-eight propositions; with refer
ences to the most plain and striking self-contradictions of the
so-called Inspired Scriptures. Also one hundred and fifty-two
references to the most marvelous occurrences. Each quotation
has a short description of its contents. By A. Jacobson, Price,
15 cents.
Bible Myths, and their Parallels in Other Religions:
being a comparison of the Old and New Testament Myths
and Miracles with those of Heathen Nations of Antiquity, con
sidering also their Origin and Meaning. With numerous illus
trations. 1 vol. Royal 8vo. 567 pages. Cloth, $4.00.
The object of this work is to point out the myths with which
the Old and New Testaments abound; to show that they
were held in common with other nations; and then to trace
them to their evident origin and explain their meaning.
It
contains quotations from nearly all the sacred books of
heathen nations, and from other rare and valuable works
which are not accessible to people in general. The chapters
are so arranged that it is a perfect cyclopaedia of reference.
�23
THE TRUTH SEEKER OFFICE.
Years of research would be necessary to discover all the infor
mation it contains. It is a most searching investigation into
the origin of Christianity. Every fact is verified by copious
notes and authorities, so that it maybe trusted as a thoroughly
reliable work. It contains information which will be startling to
many.
Bible of Bibles; or, Twenty-Seven Divine Revelations,
containing a description of twenty-seven bibles and an expo
sition of two thousand biblical errors in science, history, mor
als, religion, and general events. Also a delineation of the
characters of the principal personages of the Christian Bible
and an examination of then doctrins. By Kersey Graves.
Price, $2.00.
Bible of Humanity.
By Jules Michelet.
Translated
from the French by V. Calfa. 8vo. cloth, $3. This is a large
epic in prose. The artist-historian sings the evolution of man
kind. He throws brilliant glimpses of light on the long course
of events and works which he unfolds.
Bible of Rational Mind and Religion.
ligion and morals.
Mo. Price, $3.
Rational Re
By Thomas J. Vadien, M.D., of St. Louis,
Bible of the Religion of Science.
By H. S. Brown,
M. D., “This volume is most respectfully dedicated to those
who will cordially unite with others to establish the religion
of truth and a just Government, by the scientific methods of
reason, experience, experiments, and observations. For this
is the way to wisdom, and to the material, mental, moral, so
cial, and spirited sciences, that make peace on earth and good
will among men.” Price, cloth, $1.50.
Bible of To-Day.
By John W. Chadwick.
This is a
condensed result of the scientific criticisms of the separate
books of the Bible. Price, $1.50.
Bible: Whence and What: By R. B. Westbrook, D.D.
LL. B. The questions, Where did the books of the Bible come
from ? What is their authority ? and, What is the real source
of dogmatic theology? are treated fearlessly in the light of
history, philosophy, and comparative religion. Price, $1.
Biography of Satan; or, a Historical Exposition of the
Devil and his Fiery Domains.
cents.
By Kebsey Graves. Price, 35
Birth and Death of Religions.
Price, 10 cents.
Christian and Deist.
Beligious Views.
and inhumanity.
By John E. Burton.
A Business Man’s Social and
Bold and trenchant blows against theology
Price, $1.00
�24
BOOKS FOR SALE Al
Christianity from a Scientific and Historical Stand'
point. By Wm. N. McLaren, attorney at Law. Con
tents, Introduction, Unrevealed Religion, Old Testament
Religion, Evidence in support of Christianity, Alleged Failure
of Christianity. Proposed Substitute for Christianity, Conclu
sion. Price, CO cents.
Christ of Paul: or, the Enigmas of Christianity. St.
John never in Asia Minor, Irenaeus the author of the‘Fourth
Gospel; The Frauds of the Churchmen of the Second Century
Exposed. By George Reber. Extra cloth, 12mo, 400 pp
Price, $2.
Classified Biblical Extracts; or, the Holy Scripture?.
Analyzed.
By Robert Cooper.
Confessions of an Inquirer.
By James Jackson Jarves.
Price, 25 cents.
Why and What Am I ?
Price, $1.25.
Cooper’s Lectures on the Soul.
In which the doctrin
of immortality is religiously and philosophically considered.
Price, 75 cents.
Cradle of the Christ. A study in Primitive Christianity.
By 0. B. Frothingham.
Price, $1.75.
Cultivation of Art, And Its Relations to Religious Pu
ritanism and Money-Getting. By A. R. Cooper. 12mo, 48 pp.
Price, flexible cloth, 35 cents; paper, 20 cents.
Divine and Moral Works of Plato.
the original Greek.
notes. Price, $2.50.
Translated from
With introductory dissertations and
Doctrine of Inspiration ; being an Inquiry Con
cerning the Infallibility, Inspiration, and Authority of Holy
Writ. By the Rev. John Macnaught, M.A., Incumbent of St.
Chrysostom’s church, Everton, Liverpool, England. Price,
$1.50.
Elegant Extracts from the Bible.
would be a more proper term.)
English Life of Jesus.
(Perhaps inelegant
Price, 10 cents.
By Thomas Scott.
Dedicated
to those who seek rather to know the truth of facts than to
look on unhistorical pictures. Price, $1.50.
Epidemic Delusions. A lecture by Frederic R. Marvin,
M. D.
Price, 10 cents.
Essays on Mind, Matter, Forces, Theology, etc.
By
Chart.es E. Townsend. Extra cloth, 12mo, 404 pp. Price,
$1.50. Sequel to Essays. By same author. Price, 75 cents.
�
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 & 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
A Roman Catholic canard. A fabricated account of a scene at the deathbed of Thomas Paine. Did Bishop Fenwick write it?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Burr, William Henry
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: New York
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list on last six pages. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Date of publication from KVK. Concerning an account of "The last hours of the great infidel, Thomas Paine", published in several newspapers and purporting to be a letter written by Bishop Fenwick of Boston to his brother Enoch, describing a visit to Paine shortly before his death.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Truth Seeker Publishing House]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT82
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (A Roman Catholic canard), 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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Benedict Joseph Fenwick
Conway Tracts
Thomas Paine
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f145c23e5bd44a96c8f9a47771ff0964.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=AbPCYMlh8JFHNs-XaNaWPVfiAyYMRNbFVoh0Fi5cT7vPimiOu4fI7QEeYLLr1VQc-SrBYZpPbdY6IzyIhxuGMR1ToK1vI3Rjgp28x0tOoBMzJqqiy1LjMEM9gfDd0G1gqQAWWstYUKzmlq7zSGAXcX8Z237j2DMoSJzR6TikXpGrbXd9cHgn5akLdJIXZelyvjHUvaToB5M22BAq7bHzo9u0R1aK7I5DhNXpWyphCdGAj%7EURV8XHFXb86kVzbw7B9Xf0P6-SwBmp0kOJzATujYRns00O72U3t8PMCciopNV3FxSuAGV3JKj-VUiztj2jeKYZ4F8CbAMfypsO1jkEjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d4069d58b917bc50ca2e92164918a4b1
PDF Text
Text
16
THE INTOLERANCE OF HETERODOXY, AND THE
NARROWNESS OF LATITUDINARIANISM.
A recent article in this Magazine directed attention to the remarkable
mutilations to which many well-known Christian hymns had been subjected,
in order that they might find acceptance with the congregation worshipping
at Bedford Chapel, under the leadership of the Rev. Stopford Brooke.
It must have occasioned surprise and mortification in many quarters,
and especially in quarters where Mr. Brooke was known simply
as a competent critic and able literary man, to follow the pastor of
Bedford Chapel in his crusade of slaughter against the hymnology of
Christendom. We had a right to expect at least that the laws of good
taste would not be violated by a public teacher whose writings bear every
sign of a refined and cultivated mind. If certain hymns were unsuited to
the new requirements of the congregation worshipping at Bedford Chapel,
it surely would have been the fairer course frankly to pass them by in the
compilation of the new collection. Such a hymn-book might possibly have
formed a very thin volume, but it would have had an unity of its own.
The inevitable problem arising from such a circumstance is briefly this:
What can be the nature of that intellectual change whose first result, in
the mere sphere of literature, is that a master of criticism sins flagrantly
against the laws of criticism, and a teacher of the broadest tolerance
publishes a book of hymns which, from one point of view at least, may be
considered as masterly a specimen of intolerance as hymnology possesses?
The publication of a book of Christian Hymns, in which every trace of
Christ is carefully eliminated by a cultured and accomplished critic,
preacher, and biographer, would not however be sufficient in itself to justify
the title that stands at the head of this paper. The circumstance is simply
suggestive of a line of criticism which it may be profitable to follow out,
and the material for that criticism is found in two small volumes, which
bear the title of South-Place Discourses. South Place, Finsbury, is the
locale of the well-known Unitarian chapel with which the eloquent
W. J. Fox was for many years connected. His place is now filled by
Mr. Moncure D. Conway, who, however, does not call himself a Uni
tarian. Mr. Conway, too, is a man of fine literary taste; he is well
known in the literary circles of London; and his congregation, like Mr.
Brooke’s, is eclectic in the extreme. Mr. Brooke, however, is a new convert
to Unitarianism, while Mr. Conway, as becomes the traditions of SouthPlace Chapel, is in the van of the new beliefs, and his congregation is composed
of the Pharisees of the Pharisees in the ‘ advanced school ’ of religious
criticism. The order of service adopted at South Place is printed with the
sermons, and it presents a curious study. Occasionally passages from the
Scriptures are read by way of lesson, but oftener the reading is from
�The, Intolerance of Heterodoxy.
17
purely secular publications. Thus the readings for a single service, are as
follows :
‘Declaration of the Minimite Fathers concerning the motion of the
Earth.’
‘ Personal Experiences of George Coombe.’
‘ Professor Clifford on the Publication of Truth.’
In this instance the English Bible is entirely closed. The place of prayer
appears to be given up to what is styled a meditation on such subjects as
‘ Sociability,’ ‘ Little by Little,’ and ‘ Absolute Relativity.’ The service
of song includes such lines as
‘ I slept, and dreamed that life was Beauty,
I woke, and found that Life was Duty.’
'Longfellow’s Psalm of Life, and original hymns by A. T. Ellis, F.R.S.
etc., whose discourses are printed together with Mr. Conway’s, and of whose
genius for hymnology the following is a specimen :
‘ None has learned, and none can tell
When Death flits from each to all,
And Life fails upon our ball,
Where or whither it shall dwell.
L
‘ This the darkness I have past,
Darkness haunted still with dreams,
Dread surmises, doubting screams,
Souls staked madly on a cast.’
By, way of ‘ Dismissal,’ after the singing of this hymn, the congregation is
invited to enter upon a somewhat analytical explanation of its scope and
meaning: and we cannot doubt that it needs it. ‘ Doubting screams’ is in
itself a phrase so daring and original, that it alone might well absorb the
entire time devoted to explanation.
But the nature of this programme of worship provokes more than a
mere sensation of curiosity; we cannot but ask, Is this, after all, any intel
lectual advance upon the ordinary manner of worship among the orthodox?
We have a right to press the question, because the assumption which under
lies each of the five discourses by Mr. Ellis, and the ten by Mr. Conway, is
that of complete contempt for orthodox modes and manners. When we
are rebuked for our fanatical regard for the ancient customs of universal
Christendom; when the prayers of the Litany, for example, are held up
for scornful vivisection j when the intellectual blindness, stubbornness, and
prejudice of believers are made matter for repeated ironical compliment, it
is only natural that we should seek instruction from our critics, and
narrowly observe the methods of our adversaries. Mr. Conway tells us
that ‘ the Isle of England rises from the night, its awakened eye holding
.the Apocalypse of Man.’ He firmly believes that the party he leads is in
�18
The Intolerance of Heterodoxy, and the
the van of true progress, that already it has possessed itself of the ‘ shining
summits ’ of the future, and that the world, as it grows in enlightenment,
must needs follow. Is, then, the manner of service here described the best
that he can offer for the future worshippers ? Mr. Conway’s opinions on
the doctrine of inspiration may be widely divergent from ours, but surely, the
sublimest sacred Book the world possesses, is scarcely treated with common
fairness when, in three services out of five, it is not so much as opened. Interest
ing as the 1 Declaration of the Minimite Fathers concerning the Motion of the
Earth ’ may be, we cannot help thinking that the Sermon on the Mount,
or even certain passages of Old Testament poetry, might afford infinitely
higher intellectual, as well as moral, stimulus and comfort; and the 1 Ex
periences of George Coombe ’ must be poor reading as a substitute for the
experiences of the Apostle Paul. The Litany may be offensive to those
who are freed from the ‘ superstition ’ of prayer, for which ‘ Meditation ’ is
made not the incitement but the substitute; but what sort of substitute is
a quarter of an hour’s ‘ Meditation’ on A bsolute Relativity? The hymns
of Wesley, one of which is quoted by Mr. Conway in support of an even
more than usually unfair and distorted criticism, may have literary demerits
as well as literary merits which are sufficiently well established, and are
fairly open to criticism in common with all hymns; but what shall we say
of such a hymn as that already quoted, with its ‘ doubting screams ? ’
Can a more doleful caricature of the holy cheerfulness of a Christian
Sabbath-day’s service be painted, than the picture of a congregation rising
after a ‘ Meditation ’ on 1 Absolute Relativity,’ to sing such a verse as
this :
‘ None has learned, and none can tell,
How Life burst upon our ball,
Whence, diffused to each through all,
Thought upon the Wanderer fell ? ’
Even when a somewhat more cheerful lyric is announced, whose first
lines run :
‘ “ Go, my child,” thus saith the Highest,
“ Warning, cheering, day by day,” ’
we are carefully informed in a foot-note that ‘ the Highest ’ does not mean
the Most High God; but is meant to signify merely ‘ earthly being.
Humanity, speaking by the mouth, and loving with the heart of the wise
and good, at all times and in all places.’ What can be the reason of this
-evident uneasiness lest the name of God by any accident should slip into a
hymn meant for Divine worship! Is there any other solution of this
strange phenomenon, except the terrible hypothesis that the leaders of what
they choose to term ‘ Rational Religion ’ in South Place, do ‘ not like to retain
God in their knowledge’? Yet Mr. Conway is, avowedly, not an atheist; and
if we may judge of his creed by the ten sermons before us, he is still less a
Positivist. If God be worshipped at South Place, why is it necessary to
explain that one of the titles by which we know God really means nothing
�Narrowness of Latitudinarianism.
19
of the sort, but some vague abstraction of Humanity ? If the minister and
congregation of South Place are really inspired with the sublime belief
that they are in the ‘ foremost files of time; ’ that they are emancipated
from superstitions that hold half the world in night; that they are sure of
victorious recognition by the future generations for whom they are heroic
pioneers,—how is it such exalted sentiment finds expression in no more
hopeful hymnology than such doubtful hymns and anthems as we have
quoted, one of them carefully fenced and purged from all suspicion of
God, and another dreary enough to have been sung in the awful blackdraped cathedral of James Thomson’s ghastly dream, where the preacher
is an atheist, and the text is Suicide ? There is a certain brilliance of
rhetoric and paradox about the utterances of the South-Place pulpit:
but surely, after all, that creed must be cursed with intellectual and
spiritual sterility that has such scanty power of inspiration for sentiment
and emotion.
It is in this and similar matters that we see what we have ventured to
call the intolerance of heterodoxy. The process of heterodoxy is essentially
narrowing. It pretends to extreme 1 breadth; ’ in reality it is extreme
narrowness. The fascination that heterodoxy has for the unwary is that it
offers magnificent promises of emancipation from vulgar prejudices; it
assumes that orthodoxy must needs imply a fettered intellect ; that to live
in the light of the faith of Christendom is really to live in spiritual dark
ness j that, indeed, orthodoxy must needs riiean intellectual imbecility, or
intellectual prostitution: while heterodoxy is the proud stronghold of
gigantic minds who have achieved a great deliverance and entered ona glorious
liberty. All this is absurd assumption, but it serves its purpose. This
is one-half of the programme, and it effectually appeals to human vanity
and pride. The other half describes heterodoxy as the higher spirituality j
as the purer and loftier worship, freed from vain and polluting traditions.
And it is this portion of the programme that seduces some higher natures—
young men of more than common earnestness of thought, through their
very earnestness; devout natures, through their very devoutness; though
never even in these rare cases without some side-appeal to the intellectual
pride that loves to have its own way, even though it must emigrate to a
desert in order to secure it. But where is the breadth and charity of view
that heterodoxy promises ? It passes from its criticism of the Bible to its
degradation. In its effort to avoid the habits of worship sanctioned and
sanctified by centuries of devotion, it closes a Book which even Freethinkers have valued as a source of priceless instruction, or it varies the
words of the ‘ Fourth Gospel ’ with the ‘ Experiences of George Coombe.’
In its fear lest it should approach too nearly to the dangerous phraseology
of orthodox hymnology, it hastens to explain away its hymns, and to assure
us that though the Scripture term for God is used, yet nothing of the kind
is meant. Is this breadth or is it narrowness ? Does it not appear as if the
spirit of denial, once admitted into the temple, closes window after window
c2
�20
The Intolerance of Heterodoxy, and the
to the light, until but one outlook is left—the narrow aperture of solitary
dogmatism ? Stripped of the false romance that usually attaches itself to
intellectual adventure, what fascination is there in such a position of
isolated denial ? And whether is the more tolerable, the bondage of this
individual dogmatism which walks in fear of itself, or the wholesome
restraints which are no more than the landmarks of guidance which
experience has set up ?
This process of contraction and distortion in the intellectual outlook is
strikingly illustrated in some portions of the fifteen discourses that con
tain the views of Mr. Conway and Mr. Ellis, Mr. Conway in his fifth
discourse dwells very strikingly upon what he terms the ‘ morality of the
intellect.’ He says that there may be and is such a thing as intellectual
immorality: ‘ To believe a proposition aside from its truth, to believe it
merely because of some advantage, becomes intellectual prostitution. The
purity of the mind is bargained away.’ In this we heartily agree, and we
do not for a moment suppose that Mr. Conway and his followers have
fallen into the sin he so forcefully repudiates. But it seems to us that the
code of intellectual morality includes many things not covered by the
definition of Mr. Conway. It includes fairness of thought, and soberness
and perfect integrity of judgment. It commands that the balances be held
evenly, that judgment shall be in strict accordance with facts, and that the
verdict should be received and recorded, even though it be adverse to the
claim of the most favourite theory. And it seems to us, upon full and
honest examination, that the ‘higher culture’ of the advanced school has
only resulted in the flagrant violation of each of these laws; that its awards
are partial, its views one-sided, and its judgments of others chiefly distin
guished by wilful distortion and misapprehension. And this is all the more
remarkable because it is the work of trained thinkers, of scholars and
gentlemen, from whom we should at least expect that the intellect would be
free from warp, whatever the deranging bias of the creed.
But as mere matter of human experience, it must be noted that the creed
a man holds is really the lever of his actions, and a greater thinker than
Mr. Conway — Goethe — has remarked that ‘everything depends on
what principle a man embraces ; for both his theory and practice will be
found in accordance therewith.’ Probably the critics of South Place would
vehemently dispute this axiom, for the uselessness of creeds is a favourite
subject for derision, and Mr. Conway has announced that Theology—which
is the scientific statement of creed—‘ is the great enemy of Religion.’ But
so many things are disputed, and so wilfully, with so great a lack of intel
lectual conscientiousness, that this passes for a very small matter. Thus
the most striking discourse of Mr. Ellis—The Dyers Hand—contains a con
temptuous attack on Paley’s argument of design, on this ground,—that to
design is not to invent; that the maker of a watch invents nothing; he
discovers natural laws and properties, and in making his chronometer he is.
simply a designer.
�Narrowness of Latitudinarianism.
21
‘So then (says Mr. Ellis) all that man does with his materials is to put them together.
And we say that grand abstraction, “ Nature,” does the rest. Now if we apply this
to God, we see that some other god must have made the materials, and their laws, and
the laws of their connection, and that He merely puts them together. What a degrading
conception ! The great God, the expression of utter boundlessness, a piecer of other
, gods’ goods 1 Shame on man that he ever inculcated such a doctrine. Shame on
those natural theologians who would found our very reason for believing in the
existence of a God on such transparent fallacies, which can be knocked down like
nine-pins by the first bowl of a cunning atheist 1 ’
But we ask, who ever did inculcate such £ a degrading conception ’ ? Who
but Mr. Ellis ever conceived it ? Boes Mr. Ellis suppose that Paley repre
sents God as only £ the piecer of other gods’ goods ’; or does he really
imagine that this conception of the argument of design, upon which he wastes
so much indignation, is one of the stupid follies of orthodox belief ? It
needs no very £ cunning atheist ’ to bowl down such a conception; but any
candid atheist of average ability will see at a glance that the nine-pins he
knocks down so easily are set up by Mr. Ellis himself, and not by Dr.
Paley. We are well aware that one of the meanings of the Latin word
designo, and one of the meanings of the English word design, is : ‘ to mark
out, to trace out; ’ but who does not also know that the Latin word also
means £ to contrive ’; and that language is largely determined by usage, and
very frequently departs more or less in that process from what was originally
its most prominent meaning ? The average mind understands with perfect
clearness what Paley means by the term £ design,’ and the dictionary is clear
enough. The argument to which Mr. Ellis applies the term £ preposterous
nonsense/ is certainly not Paley’s, but Mr. Ellis’s own quibbling caricature
of Paley’s ; and Mr. Ellis’s whole position is occupied by taking an unworthy
advantage of the fact that one word has often more than one meaning, and
by arbitrarily fastening on that word a meaning far different from that
which the great reasoner obviously attached to it, in accordance with
common usage. Mr. Ellis is welcome to his conception; but it is disingenuous
to assume that ‘orthodox Christendom ’ can in any such manner misinterpret
the language of a standard English writer who is also a consummate
reasoner.
The very same strategy is employed by Mr. Conway in his last discourse
on The Ascension of the Criminal, in which Methodism is introduced, in the
garments of her hymnology, as a witness to the immoralities of orthodoxy.
It is a strategy which requires no genius for either its conception or its
execution; it creates a false assumption, accredits it to orthodoxy, and
then exposes orthodoxy to ridicule for what orthodoxy never said or
thought. If it can be made clear that orthodoxy does not hold what her
critics so confidently assume and assert that she does, the whole attack,
delivered with so much vehemence and passion, is merely a sham-fight
contrived for the entertainment of the South-Place congregation.
It is sufficient to quote from this single discourse to prove that the above
statement is fully borne out by the facts of the case. Thus Mr. Conway
�22
The Intolerance of Haterdoxy, and the
starts with the proposition that 1 religion and morality use totally different
weights and measures. The vilest scoundrel to one may be a saint to the
other.’ The religious instruction provided for the masses teaches them,
says he, ‘ that the supreme rewards of existence are attainable without
reference to life and character. The voice most authentic to the masses says
to them,—In the name of God we declare to you that your thefts, murders,
adulteries, cruelties, and general baseness, may be to man of vast import
ance ; but to God the one question is, Do you believe in His Son or not ? ’
Christianity finds its strongest motives of appeal in a judgment day and
an eternal hell. ‘ Now these,’ says Mr. Conway, £ would be very strong if
they were penalties for immorality; but Christianity ’ (sic, not orthodoxy
merely) ‘ repudiates the idea. Hell, it declares, is for those that forget God,
or do not believe in His Son. Consequently the criminal may snap his
fingers at the day of judgment. . . .Those sects that deal with the masses are
pervaded with a contempt for good works. The Wesleyans sing :
“ Let the world their virtue boast,
Their works of righteousness ;
I, a wretch undone and lost,
Am freely saved by grace;
Other title I disclaim ;
This, only this, is all my plea,
I the chief of sinners am,
But Jesus died for me.” ’
The charge culminates thus, that Christianity positively discourages ‘ the
formation of self-reliant and moral character ’; in the ‘ plan of salvation no
provision is made for morality. Not one item in it refers to morality.
Morality is not made a condition, nor immorality a disqualification for its
full enjoyment’; so that Christianity is a criminal system—‘ it assures the
criminal, converted after he can sin no more, that heaven has the same
place and rewards for the fife of crime and the life of virtue.’ Indeed,
the success of orthodox Christianity is represented as chiefly due to the
fact that it appeals powerfully to the criminal instincts of mankind, that is
to say, to the instincts of the criminal mind, whose creed is to secure all
the advantages of virtue with the weapons of vice.
We have purposely avoided the more offensive sentiments in this remark
able discourse, simply selecting the brief sentences that indicate the course
of thought pursued in it. We can only ask, with something like amaze
ment, Can Mr. Conway bring himself to sincerely believe that this loath
some monstrosity which he paraded before the congregations assembling at
South Place, and the Athenaeum, Camden-Road, on the 2nd of March,
1879, as orthodox Christianity, is the actual Christianity preached in
so many hundreds of pulpits on every side of him, and sung by so
many thousands of worshippers, from Sabbath to Sabbath ? From what
pulpit has he ever heard it announced that ‘ the supreme rewards of exist
ence are attainable without reference to life and character ’ ? Where has
he heard it proclaimed that ‘ the adulteries, cruelties and general baseness ’
�Narrowness of Latitudinarianism.
23
of mankind are of no importance to God, or that the dreadful penalties of
future judgment pass over the immoralities of men, and fall only upon
those who have departed from the faith of orthodoxy, and have denied the
Divine Sonship of the Saviour ? If a life of baseness and immorality bo
not 1 forgetting God,’ what is ? How is it that a man who is capable of
writing able and sympathetic criticism upon secular subjects, can allow
himself to be so unfair as to take a single hymn, which is the lyrical
expression of personal conviction, expressly designed and designated ‘ For
mourners convinced of sin,’ as a complete summary of orthodox belief,
and to infer from the omission of any mention of the deeds of a holy life
in a solitary verse of Wesleyan hymnology, that the Wesleyans have a
‘ contempt for good works.’
A similar process of criticism, confined to garbled utterances and founded
on omission, might be made to prove the grossest calumnies against the
greatest authors. And how can any man who has read the Gospels and
Epistles, and who knows that it is from the Divine ethics of Christianity
that a thousand pulpits are drawing their inspiration and instruction from
Sabbath to Sabbath, dare to stand up and affirm that Christianity is a
criminal system, and makes no provision for morality! If orthodox
Christianity is a criminal system, how is it that it has proved the most
powerful deterrent from vice ? And if Mr. Conway’s scheme of religion is so
much loftier, why is it that it exhibits itself mainly in false paradox and the
intellectual fireworks of an explosive and yet random criticism, instead of
weaving its mightier spell for the exorcising of the foul spirits that defile
and deform society, and which, according to his view of the case, Chris
tianity encourages, but cannot cast out ? We can only suppose, in charity,
that Mr. Conway knows next to nothing of the Christianity which he so
wantonly caricatures. And what can be a preacher’s notion of the Ethics of
Quotation who, having given one verse of a hymn, is careful to keep
back another verse which would at once refute his calumny:
‘ Jesus, Thou for me hast died,
And Thou in me shalt live,
I shall feel Thy death applied,
I shall Thy life receive?
And what a reckless and audacious contempt for recent history, as well as
for conspicuous and admitted contemporary facts, is betrayed by an able
* public teacher—fair-speaking on all other subjects but Christianity—
who can, within a few yards of Moorfields and City Road Chapel, coolly
tell his disciples that the Wesleyans have ‘ a contempt for good works.’
Who does not know that by the self-same tactics John Wesley and the
Wesleyans have been denounced as ‘ merit-mongers ’ and ‘ Pelagians,’ and
Papistical criers up of the desert and absolute necessity of ‘ good works,’ and
the attempt to sustain the charge has been made precisely on the same principle,
or with the same disregard of principle, as is exhibited by Mr. Conway. Only
�24
The Intolerance of Heterodoxy.
the slightest observation is sufficient to bid back again the spectral de
formity which he has conjured up and misnamed orthodox Christianity.
■The self-styled ‘rational religion’has a strange method of cultivating
and inculcating intellectual morality, when it can deliberately set forth from
both pulpit and press Charles Peace as a representative Christian saint, and
can make his last utterances the typical confession of orthodox piety, in order
to construct a sermon, under the title of The Ascension of the Criminal.
Nor does it shape well with the laws of intellectual morality that it should
be conveniently forgotten in such an attack upon Christianity and Chris
tians, that orthodox Christianity teaches that ‘ faith, if it hath not works, is
dead, being alone ’ (James ii. 17). And surely Mr. Conway’s revolt is not
so much from revelation as from common sense, when he can venture to
quote an obscure Indian myth concerning all animals being once imprisoned
in a monster, and owing their deliverance to co-operation—with the solemn
announcement that this ‘ is a much more moral and scientific genesis of
man than that in the Bible.’
Such, then, is the tolerance of1 heresy. The spirit of denial proves him
self to be no holy iconoclast, who moves onward through the wreck of
crumbling traditions to a larger inheritance of truth. It is simply a
mocking, railing spirit, unable or unheedful to discriminate between good
and evil. We are so often taunted with the bigotry of orthodoxy, the
galling fetters it imposes on the intellect, the fierce anathemas it thunders
forth to all who cast away its shibboleth, that it is time to look our accusers
in the face. It seems to us that the palm of intolerance belongs to hetero
doxy, and its bigotry is all its own. It professes to reject the tyranny of
any standard of faith; but it sets up its own crude standards of faith
nevertheless, in the arrogant egotism of its high priests. It weaves its
boasted ethics from negations; it affirms only to accuse. Of its charity
and tolerance let Mr. Conway’s own discourses bear witness. We are told
that our generation is stricken with the pestilence of doubt, though there
is good reason to believe that large exaggerations are mixed with its
statistics. The infected area is probably much smaller than some think.
However this may be, contemporary literature swarms with smart doubters,
with whom the lack of faith is no longer considered a calamity, but a badge
of intellectual distinction. They invite the novice to the larger air of lib
eral ideas, but the novice soon finds that ‘ free thought ’ has its Inquisition,
and that denial has its dogmas. He flees from orthodoxy because his new
instructors have branded it as narrow and intolerant, to find, when the
awakening comes, and natural revulsion follows fascination, that he has
fallen at the feet of an arrogant heterodoxy, immeasurably narrower and
more intolerant.
D. J. W.
�
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 & 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 intolerance of heterodoxy and the narrowness of latitudinarianism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Dawson, W.J. [Dawson]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 16-24 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. A review essay by Rev. W.J. Dawson of 'South Place Discourses' from Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, January 1883. The article is signed D.J.W. but is known to be the Rev. W.J. Dawson.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5608
Subject
The topic of the resource
Book reviews
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The intolerance of heterodoxy and the narrowness of latitudinarianism</span>), identified by <a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Human</a><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">ist Library and Archives</a></span><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
Book Reviews
Conway Tracts
Heterodoxy
Latitudinarianism
Moncure Conway
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6be21587e085f0f6bbeb5e0bab4f5452.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=EBR54fD-1DZWrdwKj3QqNE2sUU8w488gWA4JZAXojsIShO8F5zX7PUAelGrgLmu5GNcHDHQ5jCSVjZS1YbcpZki9HuKO7wPHR60mavMpeY7fFtqIYRPUwj55YOyc1DTOnUrxg0%7Ez8KqtAHUeqIZH2hff9eWnNQZ4JLT5hhNhxcjDcWMhDWoxIiB3nVr87nEbLFZjzs2I65dbJJ3ADvvy%7ENd3LzKTAe8dv%7EQV9Knre65VHaHK5GcPNE7jgGiCY4jghCG%7EVowuXX3dRJJCzpgyVdws3gkr7d%7E12UoiTjeiVwHModztGjUX05iLq7Hc0U4JI4uT7PDORMqaPdrKWOO-KA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
882ad8c1cc7055f07b75fd19d24a6431
PDF Text
Text
THE PROSECUTION OF
MESSRS. FOOTE AND RAMSEY FOR
BLASPHEMY.
In the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice on
Tuesday, April the 24th, the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury
had before them the case cf the Queen v. Ramsey and Foote,
the registered proprietor and alleged editor of the “ Freethinker ”
newspaper. The defendants were charged on indictment,
removed into this court by certiorari from the Central Criminal
Court, for the publication in the “Freethinker” of aseriesof “blas
phemous libels,” and on conviction were sentenced to imprison
ment in Holloway Gaol. They were now brought up on Habeas
Corpus, in charge of the governor of the gaol. A fortnight
since the two defendants were placed on their trial along with
Mr. Bradlaugh, for the same offence ; but on the application of
the latter, he was tried alone, the result being that he was
acquitted. The present prosecution was directed against the
two defendants, Ramsey and Foote. They pleaded Not
Guilty.
Sir Hardinge Giffard, Q.C., Mr. Maloney, and Mr. Woodfall
were counsel for the Crown. Mr. Horace Avory appeared for
Ramsey, while Mr. A. R. Cluer held a watching brief for
Foote.
Mr. Avory: My lord, before the jury is sworn I think it right
to mention at once that I am told that there is some question as
to who, under these circumstances, may be liable to any additional
expense occasioned by the calling of a special jury.
Lord Coleridge : Whose special jury is it?
Mr. Avory: The defendant Bradlaugh moved that this case
should be removed from the Old Bailey by certiorari to this court,
�2
and it was his application originally for a writ of certiorari.
That matter was disposed of the other day, and the special
jury was charged with it.
Lord Coleridge: Yon are not quite accurate, Mr. Avory.
The removal was by Mr. Bradlaugh; the application for a special
jury was by Mr. Ramsey.
Mr. Avory: I did not know that that was so. There is another
matter I should mention. I don’t know whether your lordship
is aware of the previous trial which took place at the Central
Criminal Court. Although the defendants are not in a position
to plead because the indictment charges other numbers of the
newspaper than that on which they are convicted, yet in effect
they have been tried, and those numbers have been given in
evidence before Mr. Justice North.
Lord Coleridge : What has that to do with the present state
of things?
Mr. Avory : I thought perhaps your lordship might put it to
the prosecution whether the court should be occupied in trying
the matter again.
Lord Coleridge : No, no. In any other case I should have made
a great many remarks and suggestions, but I think it better to
let this proceed in the ordinary way.
Mr. Avory: I thought it right, my lord, to mention this. I
only appear here on behalf of Ramsey to watch the legal aspect,
and I think it my duty to say that these counts should be
quashed on the ground of uncertainty. I can give you the
number of counts.
Lord Coleridge: I heard Mr. Bradlaugh upon this. If you
mean to take those same points you need not reargue it.
Mr. Avory : I simply take the same objection, my lord, that
they are bad for that reason.
Lord Coleridge : That is those which refer to the printing of
the newspaper.
Mr. Avory: Those counts which say the defendants printed,
published, or caused and procured it to be printed and
published.
Lord Coleridge : I think there is nothing in that.
Mr. Avory: I thought it my duty, my lord, to take the
objections.
Mr. Cluer: Before the jury are sworn, on behalf of the
defendant Foote, I have to submit that the indictment should be
quashed on this ground ; that it charges a joint offence, and that
it is conclusively proved, as Mr. Bradlaugh has been acquitted,
these were separate offences, and in all cases where three are
joined together for libel, the Court refuses to arrest judgment
on the ground that the act was a joint act.
Lord Coleridge: Are you asking me to rule on the indict
�3
ment that three persons must be either acquitted or convicted.
If you indict persons for a joint act, you can acquit all or
-convict one, and acquit the others. If you indict A, B and C,
for doing something, and you prove it against A, it does not
follow that you can convict B and C.
Mr. Cluer : They are charged with one joint act.
Lord Coleridge : It doesn’t follow the jury will acquit the
•other two because they have acquitted one.
Mr. Cluer: I submit they cannot be put in charge on this
-count at all.
Lord Coleridge : I cannot agree with you there.
Mr. Cluer : One other objection to the indictment is this. In
the 2nd, 4th, and 6th counts, the charge is in these terms. In
the 2nd count, the charge is that of publishing a libel of and
concerning religion. I submit that this is not properly stated as
it does not say of the Christian religion. I submit there is no
offence really to go to the jury in a count that merely charges an
offence against religion. It must either be amended or the count
•struck out.
Lord Coleridge : I don’t think so. Do you wish to put in
“ Christian religion ?”
Mr. Maloney: No, my lord.
Mr. Cluer : I submit that that is void.
Mr. Maloney : If I consented to that, my lord, it might lead
to something else.
Lord Coleridge : That is the introduction ; the rest are merely
settings out.
Mr. Cluer: It is four lines from the end—“ and concerning
religion.”
Lord Coleridge : There is nothing in that. Now, what is your
•other objection?
Mr. Cluer: There is one further point I wish to urge. In the
ninth count—it may be a mistake in my copy—of the indictment
just before the quotation is made, a charge is made concerning
the Book of Revelations as part of the Holy Bible. There is no
such Book strictly speaking in the Bible, and I submit that
should be amended.
Lord Coleridge I think it is quite good enough.
Mr. Cluer: Such things have been held in other cases, and I
submit it is a matter for amendment. The Book is of course the
Book of Revelation.
Lord Coleridge : It is—to follow the words—“meaning the
Book of Revelations as aforesaid.”
Mr. Cluer: It has reference to something that doesn’t exist.
Lord Coleridge : I cannot take judical notice that there is no
such Book as Revelations in Holy Scripture.
�4
Mr. Cluer: I have a copy in my chambers I can brine:
(Laughter.)
Mr..Maloney then proceeded to open the case for the crown.
He said,—May it please your lordship, gentlemen of the jury,—
the indictment in. this case charges that the defendants William
James Ramsey, and George William Foote, published a blas
phemous libel in a newspaper called the “Freethinker” in
various numbers of that paper between the months of March and
the months of June, 1882. To that indictment the defendants
pleaded Not Guilty, and it is your duty to try whether they are
guilty or not. In the temporary absence of my learned leader,
Sir Hardinge Giffard, it falls upon me to explain the facts
of this case to you, and what has occurred already this
morning. What has occurred previously in the history of'
this case will to some extent render my duty and yours,
I hope, not a long one here to-day. I think the atmosphere
has been cleared this morning of some of the technical objections
which perhaps might have otherwise occupied some time. Mr.
. Avory this morning referred to something which took place, not
with reference to the numbers indicted here to-day, but with
reference to a special issue of the “ Freethinker,” the Christmas
Number. This took place a couple of months ago, and resulted
! in a certain event respecting Ramsey and Foote. It is necessary,
I first, to narrate to you something of the history of these
proceedings. Some of you have doubtless seen something
in the papers about them before to-day. The prosecution in
, this case, of the defendants Foote and Ramsey, commenced
at the Mansion House before the Lord Mayor on the 11th
of July last. After the first hearing Mr. Bradlaugh was
made a co-defendant, and the charge was investigated. They
were committed to the Central Criminal Court, and the case
was afterwards removed into the Court of Queen’s Bench
just before the long vacation, when the defendants entered
I an appearance in the month of November and pleaded Not Guilty.
In December it was set down for hearing, and so it comes on
here. That explains how it is that such a long time has elapsed
since the commencement of this prosecution. After the case had
been removed to the Court of Queen’s Bench a special number
of the “Freethinker” was issued, and proceedings were taken
by the Corporation of London against that particular issue of
the paper. The question you are here to-day to determine has
nothing to do with anything that took place subsequent to the
month of June last year. Prosecutions for blasphemy have
* happily been rare in London. Certainly in Middlesex, prose
cutions for blasphemy have disappeared from the Law Courts
for thirty or forty years, and doubtless it will be urged by the
defendants in this case, that that was sufficient evidence to show
�5
that the whole system upon which prosecutions for blasphemy
were based is effete, and that persons should not prosecute for
blasphemy now-a-days. But when you see the papers you will
perhaps be inclined to conclude that prosecutions for blasphemy
within the last generation have been unusual in London ; because
' there was no reason, because newspapers and books did not con’ tain what was an ontrage upon the feelings of the community at
. large ; and I think when you see the libels they are charged with,
‘ you will say that this at any rate is a publication about the blas
phemous nature of which there can be no doubt, or as to the
propriety of stopping or curtailing its licentiousness to some
extent. An event which has occurred since these proceedings
took place, and which condemned the persons responsibe for the
Christmas Number is an argument in favor of this prosecution
as showing that it was time steps should be taken, and that the
steps taken in this prosecution were not taken too soon. Doubt
less it will be put forward that this is a political movement. I
think they will have some difficulty, so far as they are concerned,
in proving that. The defendants will find some difficulty in
making you believe that this prosecution was commenced from
political motives. The prosecution was commenced against
these two alone originally, and it was only afterwards that a
summons was issued against Mr. Bradlaugh. You heard that
Mr. Bradlaugh was acquitted a week ago in this court by a
special jury. I cannot recognise any of your faces as having
been on that jury, but doubtless you know a good deal of what
took place. Mr. Bradlaugh was acquitted on that occasion.
There were two questions discussed by my lord, and what
you will have to consider to-day is this, Does this publication
come within the definition of blasphemy, a definition which I
will shortly briefly avert to. The next question you will have
to consider is, Are the defendants responsible for the pub
lication of it ? Have they aided and assisted in producing
this paper from week to week and selling it ? Those are the two
questions you have to consider. First, is it a blasphemous paper,
and are these incriminated passages blasphemous ? Secondly,
Did the defendants publish or procure these to be published ? I
don’t mean in the ordinary trade sense—because one of the
defendants, Mr. Foote, is charged with being the editor. The
question is, Did they aid in sending forth this blasphemous matter
either by editing, selling over the counter, being proprietors,
deriving profits, or in any other way ? The question discussed on
the last trial was mainly whether the then defendant was respon
sible for the publication, and there was very little discussion
whether the matter was blasphemous itself. I think here to-day
the principal struggle will be not as to whether Ramsey and
Foote are responsible for this paper, because the evidence I shall
�6
call will bring conviction to your minds that Ramsey is respon
sible for the publication as he is registered as printer, proprietor,
and publisher under a recent Act of Parliament, and that is
facie evidence. It will be for him to show you that he is not
printer, publisher, or proprietor. I shall give evidence to show that
Ramsey has sold this paper in the shop in Stonecutter Street,
which was the publishing office of the paper and the publishing
office of the National Reformer. After the proceedings had com
menced at the Mansion House—and this may become important—
a month or two afterwards, there were published other numbersheaded Prosecuted for Blasphemy. There can be no doubt that
Ramsey was active in procuring publication of the issues of this
paper and these numbers. As to Foote the evidence will show
you that from the time the paper began in May, 1881, down to
a time subsequent t® the dates in this indictment, he was the
editor of the paper. His name appears on the front of every
paper as editor, and inside the paper it is stated that all com
munications are to be addressed to him as editor of the “ Free
thinker,” at his private lodgings. I shall call evidence to satisfy
you that he was and has been the editor from the very first. On
the recent trial of Mr. Bradlaugh, Sir Hardinge Giffard quoted
what the law of blasphemy is, as it is very appropriately defined
in a standard work on Libel, and that is the law of blasphemy
which the prosecution here to-day will ask you to carry in your
minds when reading the libels in this indictment. Mr. Starkiesays : “ The law distinguishes between honest errors and malice
of mankind. The wilful intention to insult and mislead others
by means of licentious and contumelious abuse applied to sacred
subjects, or by wilful misrepresentation or artful sophistry calcu
lated to mislead the ignorant and unwary, is the criterion and
the test of guilt. The malicious and mischievous intention, or,
what is equivalent to such an intention in law as well as
in morals, a state of apathy or indifference to the interests
of society, is the broad boundary between right and wrong.”
Now, gentlemen, when you bear that definition in mind, recol
lect that there is no attempt here, and if the attempt were made
it would be useless in the present day—no attempt is being,
made to suppress free discussion or the liberty of the press, or to
interfere with the just rights of any subject. Every person has
the right in this country to discuss controversial matters so long
as he keeps himself within the bounds of decency and reason..
But when a person indulges in malignant scoffing, and abuse, and
derision, gross caricatures, and parodies, flagrant insults, and
outrages to the feelings of ninety-nine people out of a hundred
in this country ; when you see in this paper they have passed all
the bounds of decency, I think you will come to the conclusion
that this case comes within the definition of Starkie, and that it
�7
deserves the censure of the law. You will have an opportunity
of reading the libels. It is usual to read out the libels in court,
but I shall follow the example set at the last trial, and I shall not
read them and offend the people in court by so doing. I shall
not read them unless compelled. It is somewhat interesting to
find what Ramsey and Foote think of their own writings, and
there are two passages in the sixth count of the indictment which
show they knew what they were doing; that their intention
was to outrage the feelings of the people of this country; that
there was an intention to commit blasphemy and violate the
law. They themselves say they intended to commit blasphemy.
I read from the first portion of the sixth count, my lord. There
is set out in that count an extract from one of the Atheistic
sermons, which appear from week to week in this newspaper. I
shall not read the infamous and loathsome comparison between
the deity and Shylock given in that sermon, but in one passage
occurs these words: “lam told that people are shocked at my
Atheistic Sermons ; their blasphemy is so terrible. Well, well, it is
disgust which compels me to pen them. I do it from a sense of
duty. I am fighting against the most disgusting book in the
world. Don’t expect me to speak gently of it. I owe a duty to
mankind, and I will perform it. Godism must be destroyed.”
Such is the opinion Foote and Ramsey put forward as to the
nature of the matter issued in violation of the law, and outraging
the feelings. Then I come to another portion which is in the
ri
newspaper, page 158, of the 14th of May, and which is set out I
in the indictment under the heading of “Acid Drops.” It is
as follows: “ The bigots of to-day are the rankest cowards. They
will not proceed against any Secular leaders for ‘blasphemy,’
although our lectures and articles are full of it; but they are
ready to harrass any less-known Freethinker who may be more
safely dealt with. Down at Tunbridge Wells, Mr. Seymour, the j__
secretary of the local branch of the N. S. S., has recently been
singled out as a victim. He was cited before the Justices of the
Peace, on Monday last, to answer the charge of having issued a
blasphemous placard, libelling the Christian religion and the
holy Scriptures. The ‘great unpaid’ committed him to the
Assizes, which will take place about July, bail for a hundred
pounds being required in the interim. No doubt the bigots
fancy they will score an easy success. But they may find them
selves mistaken. The Freethought party will stand by Mr. Sey
mour to the end, and the case will be fought through every
stage. We are not going to let pious humbugs seize and imprison our members without a struggle, and we are prepared to
protect the humblest Freethinker in the exercise of his personal
rights. Secular Societies are not to be molested with impunity
for advertising their proceedings in an orderly way, while the
�8
Salvation mob is allowed to parade the street and to kick up a dis
graceful row like hell let loose. Mr. Foote lectured at Tunbridge
Wells a few days after Mr. Seymour received his summons. The
papers will not advertise, the police had frightened all the billstickers, and it was given out that all who came to the Hall would
be spotted. One or two local personages came to report the
proceedings. Mr. Foote crammed his lecture with blasphemy,
and challenged the authorities to prosecute him. But they
haven’t the courage. These bigots are a set of blustering
bullies who are afraid of a fair fight; they like instead to get
hold of some unprotected victim and kick him to death.”
That was Mr. Foote’s challenge, “ that he crammed his lectures
with blasphemy and challenge the authorities to prosecute.” In
answer to that Mr. Foote is here to-day. He will have, I am sure,
full justice at your hands, and will have a fair fight as he calls it.
That blustering challenge of Mr. Foote’s for the authorities to
come forward and prosecute, is as much as to say that he and
those behind him were stronger than the laws of this country,
and stronger than the sense of right of the community at large.
I read these passages to show you what legal view these gentle
men take of the stuff which they sent out from their office. They
crammed their lectures with blasphemy, and a truer word was
never spoken by Mr. Foote when he set out in that article that
these lectures are crammed with blasphemy. He has told you
before that their intention is to outrage the feelings of people
and of the community. All this was not dwelt upon so much
on the last occasion. The question then was, whether Mr.
Bradlaugh was or was not responsible for this matter. The
struggle to-day will be whether these are blasphemous, and the
defendants will try to import other matter to get the jury to
take a favorable view of the matter. Now I see my learned
leader is here, I may say, I have dwelt so long on this case,
because I bear in mind something that occurred when Foote and
Ramsey were convicted at the Old Bailey. It seems in this case
the defendants may not call any evidence, and there may not be
an opportunity of my addressing you again.
Lord Coleridge : Is there no summing-up by the counsel for
the prosecution in this case ?
Sir Hardinge Giffard: Not unless the defendants appeared by
counsel.
Mr. Maloney: I knew it was not usual, and I have therefore
dwelt at some length upon these matters on that account. I
think you will be inclined to think that though prosecutions for
blasphemy have been rare, it was due to the fact that no such
outrage upon public decency has been perpetrated as these; and
that the time has arrived when some effort should be made by
the public authorities, or somebody setting the public authorities
�9
in motion, to stop this, and to prevent people who are passing
through the streets from having their eyes shocked by pictures
in shop windows. In conclusion, I would say that though the
law has been often remiss, and is often remiss and slow, yet it
generally ends by catching those who outrage it; and whether
they challenge the law in so many words, or whether they go
along quietly, using some other person to challenge the law on
their behalf, the law in the end secures them and lays them by
the heels. I think you will conclude that this is an instance
upon which the censure of the law ought to be visited.
The events which have put Ramsey and Foote in their present
position will be taken into consideration by the Court. The
•censure of the law is what we ask for, and the censure of the
law is worthily visited upon persons who make a profit in spread
ing such vile corruption through the country.
Lord Coleridge: Can you give me a shorthand note of
Brother North’s sentence ?
Mr. Avory : Here are the shorthand writer’s notes.
Lord Coleridge: I wanted to know whether in the sentence
passed at the Old Bailey the subject matter of this indictment
was considered.
Mr. Maloney: No, my lord.
Mr. Avory: My friend was not there, and therefore he cannot
decide. You will find the evidence of Kelland, the clerk to the
•solicitors prosecuting. He then produced all those numbers
charged in this indictment in evidence. Those numbers were
handed in. He gave evidence as to the person of whom he pur
chased them, so that the evidence to be given here to-day was
before the learned Judge who tried that case.
Mr. Maloney: The evidence was with a view of showing the
■ connexion between all the defendants and the paper. Those
numbers were put in evidence with the purpose of showing
Foote’s name was on them, and that he was charged in the month
■ of July with having published them.
Mr. Avory : The point is that all the evidence that could be
given as to the defendant’s connexion with this paper was practi
cally given upon that trial. The papers were actually handed in
to the learned judge who saw every one of those numbers. There
were none read in court.
Lord Coleridge : This case has been tried at the Old Bailey,
and if Mr. Bradlaugh had not been connected with it, this would
have been heard before the trial on the Christmas Number.
Mr. Maloney: It would have been heard at the July sittings.
Lord Coleridge: It would have been heard before the
■.Christmas Number case.
Mr. Cluer: I have an informal shorthand note of the sentence,
�10
but I can say from memory that what has been said by Mr.
Avory is absolutely correct.
Mr. Maloney : The defendants, Foote and Ramsey, joined in.
the application for removal, and one of the reasons was that the
fiat of the Public Prosecutor was too general—that is, as to the
form of the fiat given.
Lord Coleridge : Was there more than one libel ?
Mr. Avory: Different parts of the Christmas Number were
made the subject of different counts.
Lord Coleridge: Very well. I must ascertain as well as
I can.
The first witness called was,
Frederick George Frayling, who was examined as follows by
Mr. Maloney:—
Are you a clerk in the office of the Director of Public Prosecu
tions ?—I am.
Do you produce his fiat authorising this prosecution?—Yes.
[Fiat handed in.]
That is signed by him?—Yes.
Mr. Avory: I think it necessary to take the same objection to
this fiat as was taken on a former occasion. The objection taken,
to it was that it was too general, that it did not name anybody,
and that the fiat of prosecution should name the person. Thisappears to be a copy of a section of the Act of Parliament.
Lord Coleridge : Let it be read. [The fiat was read accordmgiy.]
Lord Coleridge : I think it is enough.
James Barber, examined by Mr. Maloney:—
You are Assistant Registrar at Somerset House—Registrar of
newspapers ?—Yes.
Do you produce the file of registration relating to the “Free
thinker?”—I do.
Give the date of the first entry?—Friday, the 26th ofNovember, 1881.
The date of the next entry ?—August 2nd, 1882.
And the next?—February 7th, 1883.
Mr. Maloney: I wish, my lord, to point out when Mr. Ramsey
is registered as proprietor.
Witness: The first registration is of William James Ramsey,
who is registered as proprietor and publisher; place of business,
28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.; place of residence, 20
Brownlow Street, Dalston, E.
And the signature?—William James Ramsey.
What is at the foot of it ?—Printer and publisher.
Those words are printed?—Yes, they are printed in and not
written, and he signs below them.
Was this form partly printed and partly filled in ?—Yes.
�11
Now, the next ?—August 2nd, 1882. This return, also, has
Ramsey as proprietor.
The next ?—There is no place of business given in this return,
and it differs from the other in that respect. The next return is
in the form of William James Ramsey ceasing to be the pro
prietor. It is a return pursuant to the 11th section of the Libel
Act.
Lord Coleridge: Just read that. Under the title of News
papers—“Freethinker names of persons who cease to be pro
prietors—William James Ramsey; names of persons who become
proprietors—George William Foote; occupation of new pro
prietor, journalist.
Mr. Maloney: Do you know in whose handwriting it is ?—Yesr.
Mr. Foote’s.
That is the defendant ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : How is this material in this matter ?
Mr. Maloney : As regards Foote it will be very material.
Lord Coleridge : All this occurred since the indictment.
Mr. Maloney : It is after the indictment.
Lord Coleridge: That would not affect the state of things
under the indictment.
Mr. Maloney: I think it would be evidence of his connexion
with the paper and with 28 Stonecutter Street.
Lord Coleridge : Before the indictment?
Mr. Maloney: It would be some evidence of his connexion
even before the indictment.
Lord Coleridge : Oh, no.
Mr. Maloney: I want it for the purpose of identifying Mr.
Foote.
Lord Coleridge : I won’t stop you about anything before the
indictment. What has anything he has done since the indict
ment to do with the state of things before ?
Mr. Maloney : It would show his connexion with the paper,
his name being upon any issue of it.
Lord Coleridge : I have not stopped you upon that. I don’t
stop you up to the date of the indictment. I don’t see what
right you have to go to August 2nd.
Mr. Maloney: The way I put it is this. The name on the
paper continued the same before the indictment and after the
indictment.
Lord Coleridge : What have we to do with after? You must
show at the time of the indictment he was connected with the
paper. Things done after cannot be material.
Mr. Maloney: Suppose the defendant puts forward something—■
Lord Coleridge: If he says and signs that he was connected
with that paper, it is a different matter.
Mr. Maloney: If a man registers himself, his name being on-
�12
the newspaper from the commencement—surely that is suffi
cient.
Lord Coleridge : You want to show that this is against Mr.
Foote. You want to show that he was the proprietor of the
paper.
Mr. Maloney: No ; editor of the paper.
Lord Coleridge : Well then, editor of the paper in July, 1882.
Suppose this was the only evidence in the case, would you go to
the jury as to his being editor of a paper in July, 1882, because
he becomes proprietor in February, 1883 ?
Mr. Maloney: He is charged with being the man whose name
was on the paper in July, 1882, and with being editor of it.
After that charge is made his name continues still, and goes on
in the paper until December.
Lord Coleridge: I am not dealing with that.
Mr. Maloney: If I find in the month of February, 1883,
something which says I am proprietor now, is not it sufficient ?
Lord Coleridge : If you want a signature, I agree with you*
If you want evidence of handwriting, it is correct.
Mr. MaloneyThe identity of the person is what I want.
Lord Coleridge •. If you want proof of his handwriting, you
can show that.
Mr. Maloney: I don’t think at present I require proof of the
handwriting, but proof of the identity.
Lord Coleridge: I don’t think I can hold it as evidence at
present, but I won’t reject it. I have taken that signature as
Foote’s. I cannot say it is any evidence for the purpose that
you wish.
Examination of witness continued by Mr. Maloney: Who came
to register the paper?—Mr. Foote and Mr. Ramsey.
Both appeared at your office ?—They did.
Lord Coleridge : Do you wish to ask anything, Mr. Ramsey ?
Mr. Ramsey: No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Do you, Mr. Foote ?
Mr. Foote : No, my lord.
George John Lavejl, examined by Mr. Woodfall: You are a
clerk in the office of the solicitors to the prosecution, are you
not ?—I am.
You have purchased several numbers of the “ Freethinkeer ” ?
—I have.
Where did you purchase them ?—At 28 Stonecutter Street.
Do you produce the numbers of the “ Freethinker ” which you
purchased ?—They are in court.
Will you give me the dates of them?—March 26th, 1882.
What was the date on which you purchased that number ?—I
don’t know the date.
�13
Could you give me anywhere about the date ?—Somewhere
about the date of the paper.
Was the next one May 21st?—-No.
What was the next you purchased ?—June 11th.
And when did you purchase the next?—On June 14th.
Are those the only two that you purchased ?—-I had purchased
other numbers, but they are the only two I produce.
What time of the day did you purchase ?—Between the hours
of 11 and 4.
During the hours of business?—Yes.
Whom did you see in the shop?—I saw Mr. Ramsey in the
shop.
Who was it sold you the papers ?—Mr. Norrish.
How often have you seen Ramsey there ?—I cannot say posi
tively. I have seen him on more than one occasion.
Did you serve any notice to produce upon the defendants ?—I
did, on the defendant Foote.
And on the solicitor for the other defendant?—No.
That was the only notice you served ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : Mr. Ramsey, do you wish to say anything ?
Air. Ramsey: No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Do you, Air. Foote ?
Air. Foote : Yes, my Idrd.
Cross examined by Air. Foote : You don’t remember the dateon which you purchased the number of the “ Freethinker ” for
Alarch 26th ?—No.
How do you remember the date of your purchase of the number
for June 11th ?—Because I put the date on when I purchased it.
Where ?—On the paper.
When did you put it there ?—The same day I purchased it.
Where did you write it ?—At the left-hand corner.
In what place ?—In the office.
How is it you omitted to put the date of purchase on the
number for March 26th?—I cannot tell you how it was I
omitted to do that.
How are you sure in your own mind at all about the purchase
of the number for Alarch 26th?—Because the paper never went
out of my possession until I had a conversation with my em
ployer about it.
About what time was it ?—About the date of its issue ; within
a few days.
How did you remember these two dates ?—June 11th by my
own handwriting.
How do you recognise the other?—Through having a con
versation with my principal.
Although that was only a few days afterwards you could not
�14
charge your memory with the date you purchased it?—It may
have been a week afterwards, but I could not charge my
memory.
You could not charge your memory for a week ?—Not in
this case.
Is your memory better in other cases ?—Sometimes.
You served me with a notice to produce ?—I did.
Where ?—At Holloway Gaol.
Mr. Foote: That is all, my lord.
.Mr. Maloney: The notice to produce was not put in. This
'witness served the notice to produce.
[Notice to produce put in.]
Edward John Kelland, examined by Mr. Maloney :—You are
a clerk to the solicitors for the prosecution?—Yes.
And you purchased copies of the “Freethinker” at 28 Stone
cutter Street?—Yes.
Will you check the dates. Which of these did you purchase ?—
April 9th, 1882.
When did you purchase that ?—June 30th.
What is the next number ?—April 23rd.
When did you purchase that?—June 30th.
What is the next ?—April 30th.
When did you purchase that ?—June 30th.
What is the next ?—May 7th.
When did you purchase that ?—June 30th.
What is the next ?—May 14th.
When did you purchase that?—On the same date.
"What is the next?—May 21st.
When did you purchase that ?—May 24th.
What is the next ?—May 28th.
When did you purchase that?—June 4th.
Mr. Maloney: That is all I ask you about the dates. Other
numbers were purchased by you also ?
Witness: Yes. There is another number, my lord, June 18th,
which was purchased June 15th.
Lord Coleridge : No, no.
Witness: Yes, my lord. It was dated Sunday, but you can
get them previously.
Mr. Maloney: Do you recollect whom you purchased them
from ?—Mostly of Ramsey.
Do you recollect the placards posted outside the shop?—Yes,
I saw them.
And inside the shop?—Yes.
Contents bills ?—Yes.
Have you seen copies of the paper exposed in the window?—I
saw a number of May 28th exposed in the window.
Did you see them subsequent, or prior to the proceedings at
�15
-the Mansion House ?—I have seen numbers week after week in
the shop window, but I cannot say for certain.
Did you serve that notice to produce on Ramsey?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ramsey: You say you purchased most
of the numbers produced of me?—Yes.
Do you identify any of those you purchased from me?—I
•don’t identify any particular number.
How do you know they were purchased from me?—I can
recollect I have purchased them from you.
By what means do you know you purchased most of them from
me ?—I can recollect you serving me ; that is the only thing.
Did you produce those numbers at the Old Bailey when I was
tried ?—Yes.
Were they handed in to the learned Judge ?—Yes.
Did you also give evidence that you had purchased them ?—
Yes.
Mr. Ramsey : That is all, my lord.
Cross-examined by Mr. Foote : You have not told the Court
of whom you purchased all the copies you produced. You
purchased most of the eopies of Mr. Ramsey. Did you purchase
any of them from me?—No, never.
Did you purchase any in my presence ?—No. 1 purchased
copies one day when you were coming down stairs.
You have told the Court you may have seen me come down
some stairs as you were purchasing a number ?—1 said I had
seen you coming down stairs when I had purchased a number.
Before you said you may have seen me. Doi understand you
to say you have seen me when you were purchasing one of these
numbers ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : He did not say that. He said he saw you
after he had purchased them, and when you had gone out of the
shop.
Witness: That is so. You had come down stairs as I had just
bought the papers.
Lord Coleridge: I correct you ; it is better for you.
Mr. Foote: Thank you, my lord. (To Witness) : Did you say
at the Old Bailey you had only seen me once at Stonecutter
Street, and that on February 16th of this year?—That is so.
Now, I ask you how you reconcile these statements. At the
Old Bailey you said you had only seen me once at Stonecutter
Street, and that on February 16th in the present year. You in
your evidence now tell the Court that it is within a few months
of your purchase of one of the numbers you now produce ?—
I beg to correct that. I made a mistake. I was purchasing
copies as I usually do, and after I had purchased a copy I saw
you come down stairs.
Let us understand. What day is it you are referring to ?
�16
Lord Coleridge: You don’t mean that they apply to any of'
these ?
Witness : No, my lord.
Mr. Foote : That was on February 16th ?—Yes.
Mr. Foote : That is all I wanted, just to show that the witness
had only seen me once, and that on February 16th in this year.
Mr. Maloney: Would your lordship kindly read on the front
page?
Lord Coloridge : What is it you want me to read ?
Mr. Maloney: On the front page of the paper is ‘ ‘ Edited by
G. W. Foote.” Then in the inside, under notice to correspon
dents, “ Literary communications to the Editor, G. W. Foote,
9, South Crescent, Bedford Square, London. All business com
munications to be addressed to the publisher, 28 Stonecutter
Street.”
Lord Coleridge: How is this at present evidence against
Foote ?
Mr. Maloney: My lord, I will call further evidence.
Lord Coleridge: At present this is only evidence against
Ramsey. This gentleman says he bought most of these papers
from Ramsey.
Mr. Maloney: At the end it says printed and published by
W. J. Ramsey, 28 Stonecutter Street.
Edward Whittle, senior, examined by Mr. Woodfall:—Do you.
reside at 4 Coulthurst Road, New Cross?—Yes.
Are you a compositor ?—Yes.
Where are you employed ?—I work at 170 St. John Street,.
Clerkenwell.
Is that the office of your son ?—Yes.
He is a printer?—Yes.
Do you know where the “ Freethinker ” is composed ?—I don’t
know where it is composed.
Were you examined at the Mansion House ?—Yes.
Were the numbers of the “Freethinker” put in printed
by you?—No. To the best of my recollection the majority of
them were printed in St. John Street.
You know that is so ?—Yes.
At the office of your son ?—Yes.
Do you know who was editor of these numbers ?
Lord Coleridge •. Oh, no. You cannot ask a question of that
sort of this witness. Editor is a complex term. It may mean a
variety of things. I may know Mr. Smith, say, as editor of the
“ Quarterly Review.” I know that merely as a matter of social
gossip. If I were asked in the witness-box if I knew who was
the editor of the “ Quarterly Review,” I should say I know
nothing about it. For the purposes of society I know who the
editor of the “ Quarterly Review” is, but I don’t give evidence
�17
in a criminal case of what I may know in that way. If I was a
compositor, and Mr. Smith told me to compose something, I
should say that.
Examination continued by Mr. Woodfall: Do you know
Foote ?—I do.
Have you seen him at the office in John Street?—I believe I
have.
Don’t you know you have ?—To the best of my recollection I
have seen him there, but I cannot say how many times.
Do you know to whom the proofs are sent ?
Mr. Cluer : I submit the question is not a proper one.
Mr. Woodfall: Do yon send the proofs?—No.
Do you know the proofs are sent to Mr. Foote ?—I don't
know.
You don’t know?—I don’t know. I have no means of
knowing.
Lord Coleridge: There must be some person who takes
the proofs.
Mr. Woodfall: Do you know who takes the proofs?—They
may be either sent by post or hand.
To whom would they be sent ?
Lord Coleridge : The rules of evidence say you have got to
make out your case. Of course the Court knows there are a
variety of things you cannot prove in courts of justice.
Mr. Maloney: May I be allowed to ask whether he knew of
any instance of proofs having been sent from the office in St.
John street, prior to the month of July?
Mr. Cluer: That is the same question in a worse form.
Lord Coleridge : Wait a moment. Let me hear the question.
Mr. Maloney: Do you know what proofs are ?—Yes.
Do you recollect proofs to have been sent prior to the date of
your examination at the Mansion House ?—Certainly.
To whom?—To Mr. Bradlaugh. (Laughter.) I don’t refer tn
proofs of the “ Freethinker,” my lord. (Laughter.)
Lord Coleridge : You don’t?—No.
Mr. Maloney: I asked you about the “ Freethinker.”
Witness: You asked me about any proofs, not about the
“ Freethinker.”
Mr. Maloney: Any proofs of the “Freethinker”?_ I don’t
know. (Laughter.)
You don’t recollect whether proofs of the “ Freethinker ” were
sent to any person?—No, I don’t. They may have been sent
but not to my knowledge.
f
Do you recollect being examined at the Mansion house ?_ Yes
Mr. Maloney: I call your lordship’s attention to the first
deposition of this witness.
B
�18
Mr. Cluer : If Mr. Maloney is going to cross-examine his own
witness, I shall have something to say.
[First deposition handed in.]
Mr. Maloney: Has your lordship got to the part, “ I don’t
know who takes the proofs?” Then something else occurs, and
I ask your lordship to permit me to read that.
Lord Coleridge : I think if you read that you should read the
whole of it. He says, “ I believe Mr. Foote is the editor of the
‘Freethinker,’ because I see his name is on the front of the
paper. I have seen him at St. John Street. I don’t know where
the first proof is sent. I don’t know who takes the proofs.
Sometimes they are sent to Mr. Foote, I suppose. I do not
know that they are sent by hand, ‘ Copy ’ is sent by hand or
post. I don’t know anything about the ‘ Freethinker.”
Mr. Maloney: Will your lordship look at the end of the
second deposition ?
Lord Coleridge : He says this : “Do you really know of your
■own knowledge whether Mr. Foote was or was not the editor of
the ‘ Freethinker ?’ I don’t. I only have an opinion merely
because I have seen his name on the front of the paper. That is
the only conclusion I can arive at.”
Mr. Maloney: Allow me to ask him about the proofs being
sometimes sent to Foote.
Lord Coleridge : They may have been sent. Do you know as
a matter of fact they have been sent to Mr. Foote ?
Witness: They may have been sent, but I am not positive.
Mr. Maloney: Does he know Mr. Foote’s handwriting?
Lord Coleridge : You know Mr. Foote’s handwriting by seeing
it at the office ?—Yes, but not in St. John Street.
Mr. Maloney: You did not see his handwriting on any docu
ments in St. John’s Street?—No.
Where ?—At Lisson Grove.
Where was that?—My son’s office in St. John’s Street, Olerkenwell, was a printing office. Lisson Grove was the printing
office before we came to St. John’s Street.
Lord Coleridge: There was composition done at St. John’s
Street, and printing done at Lisson Grove?—Yes; but not at
the same period. Composing was done at both places.
Mr. Maloney: Have you seen matter of the “Freethinker”
in the handwriting of Mr. Foote ? You need not answer unless
you please.
Lord Coleridge: Oh, stop.
Mr. Maloney: I told him he need not answer.
Lord Coleridge: Then why do you ask the question? You
could not possibly suppose that was a proper question to put.
Mr. Maloney: I am thinking about the depositions.
Lord Coleridge: I have not seen the depositions. I know
�19
■nothing about it. I have not looked at them, except so far as
you tell me. I see not a word about that here. All I have read
•of the depositions is those two bits I Lave read. I don’t see
how they will justify your question. I see nothing in these depo
sitions to justify the question about his handwriting. Then, I
really don’t understand you. You first put a question, which I
think any man at the Bar must know was improper and irregular •
•then you say it is not improper and irregular because it is in
the depositions, and when I look at the depositions it is not
there.
Mr. Maloney: I am treating this as a hostile witness.
Lord Coleridge : That doesn’t make it proper. Cross-examina
tion must be a proper process. You have no right to ask
questions that are not evidence. You must know, in a criminal
case, I should not have allowed you to ask a question which is
not permissible. Have you, Mr. Ramsey, anything to ask the
witness ?
Mr. Ramsey : No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Have you, Mr. Foote ?
Mr. Foote : No, my lord.
Edward William Whittle, son of last witness, examined by
Mr. Maloney:—You were examined as a witness here the other
day?—Yes.
You are a printer carrying on business at 170 St. John Street ?
—Yes.
Look at those numbers before you of the “ Freethinker.” You
.saw those numbers when you were here last week?—I did sir.
Were these printed by you ?—Yes.
For whom?—Mr. Ramsey.
Do you know defendant, Foote p—Yes.
Has he been there in reference to the “ Freethinker?”
Lord Coleridge : You cannot ask that.
Mr. Maloney: What has he done there?—He has come in
reference to matters he had to give me.
Anything else ?—With orders.
What orders?—For pamphlets I have printed for him,
Anything else?—No.
Do you use the word orders there in the sense of directions or
in the trade sense ? I want to know whether you mean directions
or in the trade sense ?—If he wanted a pamphlet he would come
/and give me directions to print it.
Mr. Malony: May I ask him if he has had directions or orders
.as to newspapers p
Lord Coleridge : I think you may ask about the subject
matter of the indictment.
Mr. Maloney: have you had any orders in that sense of
direction ?
�20
Lord Coleridge: You have had orders about some of thosepapers?—Yes, my lord.
Mr. Maloney : What rvasthe nature of your directions?
Mr. Cluer: Were they in writing?
Witness: No.
Mr. Malony : Who would send the “ copy,” and say it must be
set up ?
Witness : Would be set up for what?
Mr. Maloney: The “ Freethinker.” Did the manuscript of the“Freethinker” come to you?-—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : Do you mean the whole of the manuscript
came to you?—The majority of the manuscript.
Mr. Maloney : Did you usually see the manuscript of the
‘‘ Freethinker ? ”—Yes.
Did you know Mr. Foote’s address?—Yes.
That is the address in the paper, I may take it ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge: What is the address?—9 South Crescent,..
Bedford Square, my lord.
Mr. Maloney: Is there a proof “ pulled ” before the paper goesout ?-—Sometimes.
Lord Coleridge: 1 do know what a proof is, but I don’t knowthe other word, “pulled.”
Mr. Maloney: “Pulled,” my lord, is, I believe, the usual,
word.
Lord Coleridge : What is “pulled?”
Witness : Simply rolling the type and pulling an impression..
Mr. Maloney : Were you in the habit of sending proofs to any
body?—Yes.
To whom ?— Sometimes to the author of the articles, and
sometimes to Mr. Foote.
Is that the usual course?—Yes.
When you sent proofs to Mr. Foote, to what_ address did you.
send them ?— South Crescent.
Did you send by post, or how?—Sometimes by post.
Sometimes by post, sometimes by letter?—Yes.
Has he taken proofs away on those occasions when he has beenat your office ?—I should say not.
Have any proofs come back from him which you had sent tohim ?—Yes.
Have any come back with corrections?—Yes.
Any come back with headings put in ?
Lord Coleridge: I don’t like to confine you too strictly. L
take it for granted you are limiting your examination to the
matters under discussion.
Mr. Maloney: Yes, my lord.
Mr. Cluer : That is not in the evidence of the witness as yet.
Lord Coleridge : Otherwise, I don’t see that this is admissible.
�21
Mr. Cluer : It is irrelevant, my lord.
Lord Coleridge: Do I understand you that this happened
-with reference to these people ?
Mr. Oluer: I submit the witness should have before him the
•specially incriminated article.
Lord Coleridge : Let us see, first of all, if he has anything to do
with each number.
Mr. Maloney: Had you anything to do with the number of
March 26th ?
Mr. Cluer : I object to this.
Lord Coleridge : Had Mr. Foote anything to do with that ?
Witness : Yes.
Lord Coleridge: What did Mr. Foote do in respect of the
number of March 26th?
Mr. Maloney : Did the manuscript come through his hands ?—
I cannot say as to the whole of it.
Can you say as to the publication ?—I cannot say as to the
first article.
Lord Coleridge : What do you say of the first article ?—That
i-came from him.
Do you mean that the manuscript is composed, as far as the
manuscript is concerned, by him?—Yes, my lord.
Is it in his handwriting ?—Yes, my lord.
Mr. Cluer: This is not indicated, my lord. What page is that
on—page 98?
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Cluer : Page 99 is the first indicated.
Lord Coleridge : Just give me the beginning.
Mr. Maloney: “That is the god whom Christians love and adore.”
Lord Coleridge : Do you see the passage ?—Yes, my lord.
What do you say about that passage ?—I should not like to
■say where they came from.
Mr. Maloney: To the best of your belief ?—To the best of
:my belief it would come from Mr. Foote.
Is it in the same article with the paragraph which begins
Friends and favorites of Jehovah ” ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : Are these all out of one article?
Mr. Maloney : I don’t know.
Lord Coleridge : Well; but really you should know. Is that all
iin one article?—Yes.
Is the manuscript in his handwriting ?—Ao ; it is signed
William Heaford.
Then it was not in his handwriting?—Ko, my lord.
Mr. Maloney: The question I put to you was, through whose
Chands, or from whom did the manuscript come ? From whom
•did directions come to insert it in the paper ?
Lord Coleridge : First of all, did it come ?
�22
Mr. Maloney: That manuscript that came to you for the“ Freethinker ” would come from Mr. Foote ?—I should imagine it does.
After it had been set up, do you know whether you sent a
proof to Mr. Foote ?—I should not like to say.
Have you any belief?—I have no belief about it. We don’t
send proofs of everything.
When a proof is sent out, is it printed on a slip of paper?—It
is printed on a long slip on one side only.
Mr. Maloney : Now we will go to the next number.
Lord Coleridge: Stay; we have not done with this. You
imagine it came from Mr. Foote. By whose orders was it put in'
the paper ?—By those of Mr. Foote. (To Mr. Maloney) : I.
protest against having to lead you.
Mr. Maloney: I was only afraid of going too far.
Lord Coleridge : That is perfectly legitimate. Of course, it is
perfectly legitimate to put it in that way----- I am not prose
cuting counsel.
Mr. Maloney: Now we will come to the number of April 9th.
Had Mr. Foote anything to do with that paper ?
Lord Coleridge: You have not got through your work. I wilb
not help you any more ; you must go on your own way,
Mr. Maloney: All the papers have been printed by you?—
Yes.
Had Mr. Foote anything to do with that number of April'
9th ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge: That begins, “ Joshua’s first victory ”?—Yes.Lord Coleridge: What page is that ?
Mr. Maloney: Page 113, my lord. (To witness): Have you
page 113 before you ?—Yes.
You see “Joshua’s first victory”?—Yes.
From whom did the manuscript of that come ?—That is Mr.Foote’s.
By whose directions was it printed in the paper?—Mr. Foote's,
Turn to page 116 of that issue. You will see a paragraph
beginning “ All those Christians.” By whose directions was that
put in the paper?-—Mr. Foote’s.
Do you know who is the author ?—No.
Turn to the number of April 23rd. You see the cartoon on
the front page ?—Yes.
Had Mr. Foote anything to do with it? By whose directions
was it issued in the paper ?—Mr. Foote’s.
Turn to the issue of May 7th, page 150. You see the para-graph beginning with “It strikes me god must have been suffer
ing from bile ” ?—Yes.
Do you know who is the author of that?—Yes.
Who ?—Mr. Symes.
�23
By whose directions was it inserted in the paper?—Mr.
Foote’s.
Now turn to page 158 of the paper, that same number. Do
you see an article there called “Atheistic Pulpit;” the first
portion of it?—Yes.
By whose directions was that inserted ?—Mr. Foote’s.
Look at page 155, “ Acid Drops.” You see the paragraph,
“The bigots of to-day are arrant cowards,” and, going to the
end, “Mr. Foote lectured at Tunbridge Wells, and challenged
the authorities to prosecute him ” ?—Yes.
Who is the author of that?—-Mr. Foote.
• By whose instructions was it inserted?—-Mr. Foote’s.
Turn to May 14th, page 158 ; again, on the 7th count. Do you
see the paragraph, beginning, “After Moses, Joshua was his
favorite or vizier”?—Yes.
Do you remember who was the author?—Yes.
Who ?—Mr. Symes.
By whose directions was it inserted ?—Mr. Foote’s.
May 21st, has an article headed “What shall I do to be
damned; ” page 162. Did you see that ?—Yes.
Who is the author?—Mr. Heaford.
By whose directions was it inserted?—Mr. Foote’s.
Page 163—“The mind turned topsy-turvy with fear and
dread at the mere thought of the awful possibility of one of
these rampagious beasts in Revelations lying down after dinner
with the lamb of god inside him.” Is that in the same
article ?—Yes.
Lord Coleridge : That is the same thing.
Mr. Maloney : May 28th, page 174. Do you see a paragraph
beginning “ The last day of damnation? ”—Yes.
By whose directions was that inserted?—Mr. Foote’s.
Turn to the front page of that number. You see a comic
Bible sketch, “The Divine Illumination?”—Yes.
By whose directions was that put in the paper?—Mr. Foote’s.
Is that a representation of almighty god ?-—
Lord Coleridge : Where does that begin ?
Mr. Maloney : The charge is last in the indictment.
Lord Coleridge : That is for the jury.
Mr. Maloney : Now turn to June 11th. That question, my
lord, rather goes to three of the counts. Would you allow me
to ask this witness as to the picture ?
Lord Coleridge : 1 don’t think you ought to ask this witness.
“ What do you think of that picture.” The picture tells its own
story. You charge it as a blasphemous libel, and you say Mr.
Foote ordered it to be put in. You can show it to the jury,
but you have no right to ask this gentleman what he thinks
of it.
�24
Mr. Maloney: Did he authorise the cartoon of June 11th, “ A
miss and a hit ?”
Witness: “ Yes, I should say so.
Has Mr. Foote spoken to you at any time in reference to the
meaning of any of these cartoons ?—No.
Mr. Maloney: May I ask him whether he knows who was
editor of those numbers ?
Lord Coleridge: No; certainly not. That is a complex
question. Editor may mean a great many things. A man may
be editor, and not authorise the publication of any one of these
things. I cannot help saying, Mr. Maloney, that this was sug
gested to you. I have eyes, and I cannot help seeing what is
going on. You ought not to take suggestions that are not proper.
This case must be tried like every other case. I have regretted
to observe the feeling imported into this prosecution. On a
former occasion I restrained myself for obvious reasons. Why
cannot this case be tried, like any other case, without going one
inch out of the legal path. Why does counsel go and examine a
man’s bankers-book.
Mr. Maloney: Will your lordship allow me to ask the witness
whether Mr. Foote has spoken to him as to the person who was
editor of this paper ?
Lord Coleridge : If it bears against Foote or Ramsey, you have
no right to ask it. (To witness) : Has Mr. Foote ever told you
who edited the paper?—No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : That is a totally different thing. Anything
Foote says against himself is evidence against him. Do you wish
to ask anything, Mr. Ramsey ?
Mr. Ramsey : No, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Do you, Mr. Foote ?
Mr. Foote : No, my lord.
Mr. Maloney : That is the case, my lord.
Lord Coleridge (to defendants) : If you would rather take
your luncheon first, before addressing the jury, do so by all
means.
Mr. Ramsey : I should, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : Gentlemen of the jury, you must come back
by half-past one.
Mr. Maloney: 1 didn’t quite hear whether evidence for the
defence is to be called, and I should like to know that, because
of some of the official witnesses. I want to free some of the
official witnesses.
Lord Coleridge : I cannot press these gentlemen ; they must
take their own course. If they think right to call witnesses they
must do so.
After the adjournment for luncheon, Mr. Maloney said: In
�25
■ reference to handing the libels themselves to the jury, I suppose
that will be done at the end of the case.
Lord Coleridge : I should think so.
Mr. Avory: There will be no witnesses for the defence.
Mr. Maloney: Then I don’t address the jury.
Mr. Ramsey then proceeded to address the jury as follows :—
Gentlemen of the jury,—I appear before you to-day to
answer this charge under circumstances of extreme difficulty.
For eight weeks I have been in close confinement in prison,
cut off from all participation in the active life and business of
■ the world around me; away from home, from family, and all
I hold most dear. With the exception of one short hour each
• day spent in pacing round and round a track in company
with the vilest dregs of London criminality—whose very pre-sence is like some loathsome contagion—and a brief visit on
• each alternate day to chapel—in the same company—all the
time has been passed in a narrow cell in solitude and silence,
with nothing but the duty calls of the prison officials to vary
the horrible monotony ; my mind a prey to such torture as
;an_y man must feel, who separated from those whom he loves,
'with no knowledge of what is happening to them, knows only
too well that their comfort, their happiness, their very lives
> are dependent on him. All this, combined with the prospect
■of nine weary months of such misery before me, has brought
. about a state of mental depression against which I have been
unable to successfully battle. So that although during the
. last two weeks, thanks to the kindly considerateness of his
• lordship and the indulgence of the governor of the prison, I
have been supplied with the means for preparing to meet this
• -charge, I have found myself unequal to the task. I therefore,
gentlemen, crave your indulgence for any deficiencies in my
defence, and ask you to believe that the great principle of
■“ Free speech and Freethought,” assailed here to-day, is
■ capable of being sustained by the best of arguments and the
. grandest of oratory. I stand before you charged with blas
phemy—an offence which is not of the nature of a crime like
theft or murder, but (is a manufactured offence, differing in
various countries (blasphemy in Spain is orthodoxy in
.England, blasphemy in India is orthodoxy in England), made
for the purpose of maintaining the doctrines of the Esta
blished Church and suppressing all opinions which differed
■from them. During the time that the Church had supreme
■control over the making and administering of the laws of the
country, prosecutions were plentiful. Quakers were branded
.■and flogged as blasphemers, Unitarians were punished as
blasphemers, and are even now indictable under this same
■Jaw under which I am prosecuted. Deistical writings were
�26
prosecuted as blasphemous and the publishers sent to prison.
But gradually as dissent grew more powerful, as opinions
more in accordance with freedom and justice permeated the ■
minds of the people, as religious tests and disabilities were
abolished, and men, for the suppression of whose opinions ■
these laws were made, began to take part in the legislation of
the country, so these infamous prosecutions grew less and less
in number, the law falling at last into such disuse, that for more than fifty years no prosecution of this character has
been instituted in the City of London, although hundreds of
attacks upon Christianity have been made during that time,
some of a far more severe character than those for which men
were sent to prison, mostly published within the city precincts
and all liable to prosecution under this law, by any public
company manipulator who, finding his financial reputation
growing shady, thinks he may obtain a cheap reputation forpiety by posing before a gullible public as a modern defender of
i he faith, and gain a substantial profit at the same time. Into •
such disuse have these laws fallen that the highest and
most honored expositors of English law are at utter variance ■
as to what should be their modern interpretation. One view
is that Christianity being by law established, any publication
which denies its truth must be blasphemous. Mr. JusticeStephens lays it down that the blasphemy lies in the matter ■
not in the manner. If this be so, then the major portion of the
best works of the leading scientists of the day should have
been indicted as blasphemous. If your verdict should be in
accordance with this view, then this prosecution will be the
precursor of a general raid. This is not a mere idle assertion,
for emboldened by the initiation of these prosecutions a society
is already in existence with the Rev. “ Dr.” Wainwright at its
head, which has announced in the “Times ” its intention of
prosecuting the works of Messrs. Huxley, Tyndall, Darwin,
Herbert Spencer, and others as rapidly as its funds will allow.
This may appear ridiculous, but the ridiculousness is the
fault of the law, not the men. They are logical enough, and
certainly far more honest than the instigators of this prose
cution. Another view is, that controversy on any subject
should be permitted which is carried on in decorous language
and in good faith; but that ridicule, abuse, contumelious
reproach, or the use of language calculated to wound the
feelings of Christians, should be held to be blasphemous. This
has the merit of plausibility, but I trust I shall succeed in
proving to you that it has nothing more. Before accepting
this view, you must believe that these laws were made for the
purpose of protecting the feelings of members of the Estab
lished Church, while the feelings of all else might be outraged
�27
with impunity. The test for blasphemy would be whether
some one's feelings had been hurt, and then, as Lord Shaftes
bury has denounced the proceedings of the Salvation Army as
outrageous and blasphemous, it would be the duty of the
authorities to consign General Booth and his companions toprison. But to satisfy even the most rudimentary notions of
justice, the law should at any rate be reciprocal, and each
should be compelled to refrain from hurting the feelings
of every other, whether he be Churchman, Dissenter, Jew,
Mahomedan, Freethinker, or anything else. It could not
even stop at that. There are a great number of people who are
far more sentitive on political questions than on theological
ones, I believe that many times more people had their feelings
outraged by the cartoon which appeared in a so-called comic
paper a few weeks since, representing Mr. Gladstone as thenotorious and infamous “ No. 1,” than have ever experienced
the slightest annoyance at anything appearing in the “Free
thinker.” Bo that to be just, the law should protect the feelings
of every political partisan. The same argument will hold
good in science and literature. In short, it would be a
criminal law for the enforcement of politeness all round j
and that no law could possibly accomplish, even it were
desirable to attempt it by such means. iStarkie, held to be an
authority for this view, says: “ A wilful intention to pervert,
insult and mislead others by means of licentious and contu
melious abuse applied to sacred subjects, or by wilful mis
representations, or by artful sophistry, calculated to mislead
the ignorant or unwary, is the criterion and test of guilt.”
Now, gentlemen, we are not charged with using licentious
language ; there is not the faintest trace of it; the prosecution
would have been glad to seize on it if there had been. Do not
be misled by the prurient hints of the learned counsel sug
gestive of obscenity and indecency, which are used for the
sole purpose of insinuating a charge he dared not openly
make. Which would you consider to be “ artful sophistry
calculated to mislead the ignorant or unwary ?” the mere
banter, and ephemeral jests never intended and never supposed
to be serious, appearing in a little obscure periodical, here to
day and gone to morrow; or the works I have alluded to, not
ephemeral, but taking their place as standard literature, not
intended and not thought to be jest, but the serious reasonings
of thoughtful men with all the authority of world-wide repu
tation. Artful sophistry can only mean that which has the
appearance of wise reasoning, and is not; and I submit,
gentlemen, that there can be no doubt as to which class of
publication that epithet most fitly applies to in the mind of
a firm believer. Most certainly these works have done ten.
�28
thousand times more to undermine and destroy the Christian
faith than the “ Freethinker” could do in a century. These
laws really owe their retention to their disuse. Whilst all
liberal-minded men who knew of their existence were ashamed
of them, nobody thought them worth troubling about, believing
them to be dead. They would have been abolished long since
had the prosecution been honest in its bigotry instead of
hypocritical, and had it attacked wealthy firms which have
issued high-priced blasphemy for the cultured classes. If
these laws were not in existence, not even the most bigoted
man in the House of Commons would think of attempting to
make them, or, if he did, could carry his project one solitary
stage. This was abundantly proved, when not long since,
Lord Redesdale sought to bring in a bill in the House of
Lords, imposing a religious test on Members of Parliament.
The bill was contemptuously thrown out. But now the solong dormant monster of Religious Persecution is to be gal
vanised into new life and prosecutions are in full swing, not
against wealthy firms, who may publish as much blasphemy
as they like in costly volumes—that would be too dangerous ;
• but against men who, because they are poor, are easier to
attack. The courage of the prosecution is that of a big bully
who valiantly assails a small boy. And what is the pretext ?
that the limits of controversy have been overstepped. But
what are the limits of controversy? Every doctrine in the Bible,
every article of the Church of England, almost every verse
from Genesis to Revelation has been the subject of controversy,
not alone between Christians and Freethinkers but between
the thousand and one sects into which Christianity itself is
split in every direction. The learned counsel has not at
tempted to define those limits, nor to say when or by
whom they were made. The words might have some meaning
if we had in England an Inquisition which from time to time
issued an edict and said “ in criticism thus far shalt thou
go and no farther; ” but until we have such a tribunal the
words are meaningless. It is merely the cant phrase which
has always been used when bigotry has sought to crush hos
tile opinion, and each counsel, half ashamed of the task he
has in hand, borrows it from his predecessor. Since these
old laws fell into disuse a great change has come about in
religious controversy. Education has advanced with great
and rapid strides, and heresy has kept pace with it, so that
opinions are freely expressed to-day which less than a century
ago would have sent their author to prison. The Rev. W.
Woolston was sent to prison for a long time for denying the
truth of the Pentateuch. To-day Colenso does the same thingand
remains and receives the salary of a bishop of the Established
�29
Church; and he employs the same weapon of attack, namely,,
ridicule, as we are charged with using. He over and over
again shows the falsity of the stories in the Pentateuch by
reducing them to an absurdity; as, for instance, wherehe cal
culates that, according to the biblical account, every mother
in Israel must have had. forty-two sons besides a proportionate
number of daughters. His works have been before the public
for twenty years, and yet no one dreams of prosecuting
Messrs. Longmans, the publishers of them. Peter Annett
denied the authenticity of the Pentateuch, and was sent to
prison for more than a year, and twice stood in the pillory.
Dr. Temple does the same thing in the famous “ Essays and
Reviews,” and is rewarded by being made Bishop of Exeter;
and, although Lord Shaftesbury denounced the work as “ blas
phemous productions vomited forth from hell,” yet no one has
prosecuted or thinks of prosecuting t'he publisher. When
Wiliams was prosecuted for selling Paine’s “ Age of Reason,”
Lord Chief Justice Kenyon said, in passing sentence, that if such
works were permitted to be sold the law would be stripped of
one of its principle sanctions—the dread of future punish
ment. Canon Farrar may to-day publish his disbelief in a
hell, and, instead of being placed in a criminal dock, he ismade a high dignitary of the Church of England. In nearly
the last indictment for blasphemy, Messrs. Moxon were found,
guilty of blasphemy for publishing Shelley’s “ Queen Mab,”
under a similar indictment to that on which I stand,
arraigned. To-day we find that no less a person than the late
First Lord of the Admiralty publishes that same Shelley’s
Queen Mab,” upon every railway-bookstall in the Kingdom,
without let or hindrance, and in absolute defiance of the
verdict of the jury which condemned it; and when he wasappointed to that high office in the State, noc one member of
the House of Commons rose to protest or say a word about
it—not even the learned counsel for the prosecution, who sat
in the House as a member. He not only said nothing about
it, but actually accepted the office of Solicitor-General, thus
becoming legal adviser to one who was deliberately setting
the Blasphemy Laws and a jury’s verdict at defiance. What
conclusion can you come to, gentlemen, other than that the
learned counsel and the whole of the House of Commons con
sidered these laws to be obsolete and the jury’s verdict
worthless ? What value, gentlemen, will you put on the new
found zeal for enforcing these laws on the part of one who
was quite content to condone blasphemy when the blasphemer
could confer place, power, and emolument ? The exact value
may be found in figures at the back of his brief. Surely
gentlemen, when we find so great a change has taken placed
�30
that men may now say with impunity, and with honor, that
which, when those laws were in operation, would have sent
them to prison ; when we find that that which less than
a century ago would have ensured the author a long confine
ment in gaol, is now rewarded with a bishopric ; when we find
that a bishop may say (and still retain his office) that for which
a man was sent to prison and the pillory; when we find
the Quaker, whipped and branded in one age. lately sitting in
the Cabinet itself; when we find a Cabinet Minister himself
setting at defiance the verdict of a comparatively modern
jury, and deliberately publishing the blasphemy they con
demned without protest or hindrance on the part of the autho
rities so defied; surely, gentlemen, it is not too much to ask
you to believe that the promoters of this paper were not
actuated by any desire to commit a breach of the peace, but'
were fully persuaded that, in view of the many and great
changes that had taken place—to some of which I have drawn
your attention; with the knowledge that the law had been
regarded as obsolete for many years—no one would think of
dragging from its obscurity this barbaric relic of the legisla
tion of a bad bygone time and setting it in force against them.
No good was ever done by these prosecutions, even from the
point of view of the prosecutors themselves; they do but dra w
attention to that which was sought to be suppressed. No
work was ever yet suppressed by prosecution. Paine’s “Age
of Reason ” and “ Rights of Man ” have been prosecuted over
and over again, and to-day their sale is greater than ever.
Of those who are prosecuted it makes martyrs, for these laws
have never been directed against real criminals but always
against honest citizens. I stand before you to-day charged
with a criminal offence, and yet am a man whose character is
unspotted, whose honor is unimpeached, whose integrity is
unquestioned; and whatever bodily torture and mental agony
an adverse verdict might inflict—it might kill me, but it could
not sully my reputation nor blacken my name. I ask of you,
gentlemen, a deliverance from this cruel and hateful law ; I
ask you to say by a verdict of Not Guilty that you refuse to
define blasphemy anew ; and stamp with your disapproval
these disgraceful attempts to revive the fossil remains of laws
which, passed in an ignorant, barbarous, and brutal time, are
an anachronism out of all harmony with the growing freedom
of the age. I ask you to refuse to reopen that page of
English history of which we should all feel ashamed, stained
as it is with the blood and tears of thousands of victims to
priestly intolerance and persecution; that page which all
right-thinking men would gladly see blotted out for ever.
As Professor Hunter truly says: “ The Heresy Laws bring
�31
before us one of the most melancholy aberrations of legisla
tion. These laws have caused prodigious suffering, but they
'never conferred on the human race one iota of countervailing
■ advantage. They represent a dead loss to the credit side of
human happiness, and the passions which gave rise to them,
-are an unmitigated and unredeemed evil. Black is the guilt
•of those who have abused their position as the guides and
instructors of mankind, to plant in the infant mind the seeds
•of unfounded and irrational hatred, and so have helped to pile
up that great mountain of persecution of man’s inhumanity
to man, which has made countless thousands mourn.”
Mr. Foote next addressed the jury. He said: “My lord and
■gentlemen of the jury, I am very happy, not to stand in this
position, but to learn what I had not learned before—how a
•criminal trial should be conducted, notwithstanding that two
months ago I was tried in another court, and before another
judge. Fortunately, the learned counsel who are conducting this
prosecution have not now a judge who will allow them to walk
out of court whilst he argues their brief for them in their
absence.
Lord Coleridge : You must learn one more lesson, Mr. Foote,
and that is, that one judge cannot hear another judge censured
-or even commended.
Mr. Foote : My lord, I thank you for the correction, and I
will simply, therefore, confine what observations I might have
made on that head to the emphatic statement that I have learnt
to-day, for the first time—-although this is the second time I have
had to answer a criminal charge-—how a criminal trial should be
conducted. And, notwithstanding the terrible nature of my
position, there is some consolation in being able, for the first
time in two months, to talk to twelve honest men. Two months
;ago I fell amongst thieves, and have had to remain in their
society ever since, so long as I have been in any society at all.
It is not my intention, it is not even my wish, to go over the
ground which was traversed by my co-defendant in his very
eloquent and pathetic account, his manly and simple account of
the mental difficulties which accompanied the preparation of his
defence; but I will add, that although we have profited—I may
say in especial by the facilities which his lordship so kindly
ordered for us, and by the kind consideration of the governor
of Holloway Goal—yet it has been altogether impossible, in
the midst of such depressing circumstances, for a man to
do any justice to such a case as I have to maintain. Prison
diet, gentlemen, to begin with—a material item—is not of
the most invigorating character. (Laughter.) My blood is
to some extent impoverished, my faculties are to a large
•extent weakened, and it is only with considerable difficulty
�32
that I shall be able to make them obey the mandate of my
■will. The mental ciicumstances, how depressing have they
been ! In looking over a law book I saw something about soli
tary confinement as only being allowable for one month at a
time, and for not more than three months in one year. What
the nature of the confinement is I am unable to ascertain, but
it strikes me that twenty-three hours’ confinement out of twentyfour, in a small cell about six feet wide, comes as close as
possible to any reasonable definition of solitary confinement.
Still it is no use wearying you with the difficulties that have
attended the preparation of my defence. This much, however,
must be said in connexion with it; that a change has come
over the method of treating those who are found guilty and',
sentenced to punishment under these laws. Gentleman, as a
matter of fact, an indisputable matter of fact, I and my co
defendants are undergoing essentially the severest punishment
that has been inflicted for any blasphemous libel for the last
120 years. Since Peter Annett’s confinement in Clerkenwell
Gaol with twelve months’ hard labor, in the year 1763, there has
been no punishment meted out to a Preethought publisher or
writer at all approximating to what we have to undergo. The
sentence, even before the law practically fell into disuse from
forty to fifty years ago, gradually dwindled to six, four, and>
three months. Our sentence, gentlemen, was twelve months.
Again, prisoners were nearly all treated as first-class misdemea
nants—as far as I can ascertain, all were—they were not sentencedto twelve months—not merely of intellectual death—but twelve
months of conscious intellectual death. They were not debarred
from access to their friends, and most of them even carried on
their literary work, and supported those near and dear to them.
We have to depend on the charity of those who, notwithstanding
the position in which we stood two months ago, and stand now,
do not esteem us the less—who understand that there is a great'
vital principle struck at through us, however unworthy we may
be to defend it, and who in lending their aid to see that our in
terests do not suffer so much as they otherwise would, are
actuated by more than friendship for us, by their love of that
principle which has been assailed by our conviction, sentence,
and committal to gaol, and is again assailed in the prosecution
which is being conducted here to-day. A change, gentlemen,
has come over the public mind with respect to heresy and blas
phemy, which every reader of history finds intelligible. Reli
gious bigotry is never more vicious than when it has a large
infusion of hypocrisy. While people feel that their cause can
be defended by argument they are ready to defend it by those
means. While they feel that supernatural power is maintainingtheir creed they are to a large extent content in trusting their
�33
cause to the deity in whom they believe. But when they feel
that the ground, intellectually and morally, is slipping away
under their feet; when they feel that the major portion of the in
tellectual power of their day and generation is arrayed against
their creed, when it is not scornful or indifferent to it; when, in
short, the creed is not only losing its members’ brains, but its
own wits ; then it turns in wrath, not upon the high-class heretics
who are striking week after week the most deadly blows at the
creed in which these prosecutors profess to believe, but at those
who happen to be poor and comparatively obscure. These
poorer and more pronounced Freethinkers, are made the
scapegoats for the more respectable Agnosticism of the day,
which is more cultured, but infinitely more hypocritical.
The martyrdom of olden times had something of the
heroic in it.
A man was led out to death. He could
summon courage for the minutes or hours during which
he still had to face his enemies. They placed faggots
round his funeral pyre. In a few minutes, at the outside, life
ended; and a man might nerve himself to meet the worst under
such circumstances. Then also the persecutors had the courage of
the principles on which they proceeded, and said, “We do this
to the heretic in the name of god ; we do it because he has
outraged the dignity of god, and because he has preached ideas
that are leading others to eternal destruction with him.” But
now orthodoxy has a large infusion of hypocrisy ; like Pilate,
it washes its hands. But, gentlemen, all its pretences will be
discounted, 1 believe, by you. When it is said, “We don’t do
this in the interests of outraged omnipotence, and we, the finite,
are not arrogantly championing the power, or even the dignity
of omnipotence when they say “We are only carrying out a
measure of social sanitation, and preventing men from making
indecent outrages on the feelings of othersyou will agree
with me in believing that this is hypocrisy and cowardice
also. Looked at clearly, it is utterly impossible that you
can draw any line of demarcation between the manner of contro
versy in religion and that in politics, or any other department
of intellectual activity, unless you make a difference as to
the matter, unless you go the full length of the principle
which is implied, and logically say: “ We do so because religion
is not as these. There is matter as well as manner, and we
protect the feelings of men with respect to these subjects, because
•there is invulnerable truth somewhere imbedded in their belief,
and we will not allow it to be wantonly assailed.”
I will now dismiss that, and will ask your attention,
before I proceed to deal with matters of more importance,
and certainly more dignity, to some remarks that fell from
the lips of the junior counsel for the prosecution, in what
G
�34
he called the temporary absence of his leader—a temporary
absence which has turned out to be considerably protracted. One
remark he made use of was that we had attempted to make a
wicked and nefarious profit out of the trade in these alleged
blasphemous libels. That seemed to me to be very superfluous,
because if, as he held, the libels were wicked and nefarious, there
was no need to say anything about the nature of the profit. But
he himself ought to know—at any rate his leader would have
known—that a passage was read at our previous trial, and
nsed as evidence against me in particular—a passage which
distinctly stated that notwithstanding the large sale—and a large
sale is always a comparative term, for what may be a large sale
for the “Freethinker” would not be large for the “Times”—
the proprietor was many pounds out of pocket. The learned
counsel for the prosecution, I daresay, knew that, but then it
suited his denunciatory style to talk about wicked and nefarious
profit. (Laughter.) I have no doubt he makes profit out of the
prosecution—it is his business. You can get any quantity of
that sort of thing by ordering it, provided you at the same time
give some guarantee that after ordering, it will be paid for. He
spoke of a blustering challenge which was thrown out in one of
the alleged libels, and he gave you a quotation from it in which
the word “ blasphemy ” was used. The report said that a man
at Tunbridge Wells was being prosecuted for blasphemy. The
learned counsel omitted to tell you what you will find by referring
to the indictment, that the word “blasphemy” is between in
verted commas, which shows it was employed there, not in the
sense of the writer, but as a vague word, to which he might
not attach the same meaning as those using it. So much for
that.
And now one word more as to his introduction before I
proceed. The word “licentiousness” was introduced. The word
“decency” was introduced. I have to complain of all this. 1 pro
pose to follow the method which was followed in Mr. Bradlaugh’s
trial some days ago in this court, and had the full approval of his
lordship. I don’t propose to do what the junior counsel for the
prosecution did, notwithstanding he said he would not, and read
to you any passages from those alleged libels. Although 1 do
that, I feel what an immense disadvantage results to me because
the words “indecency,” “licentiousness,” are bandied about out
side before the great jury of public opinion, and we are accused,
and may be pronounced guilty and sentenced for offences which
people outside have never had properly explained to them.
Thus we are brought in guilty of blasphemy, and people
say we should have been so sentenced and punished be
cause our attack was indecent. Now, the word “indecency”
as you know, has a twofold meaning. It may mean un-
1
�35
■becoming or obscene. People will take which meaning best
suits their purpose, and so we are at this great disadvantage
when none of these libels are read out, that we may be brought
in guilty of a charge and sent to prison on it, and people outside
may think that we are really guilty of another offence and actually
punished for that, the other being a cloak and pretence. I leave
the junior counsel for the prosecution.
My co-defendant has referred to the impolicy of these prose
cutions. I wish to say a word or two on that head. They have
one great disadvantage from the point of view of the prosecution
—they advertise and disseminate widely the very opinions which
they try to suppress; and it seems to me if they were really
honest and had the interests of their own professed principles at
heart, they would shrink from taking any such steps. Then
again, history shows us that no work that was ever prosecuted
was successfully put down. There was only one method of perse
cution that succeeded, and that was persecution to the extent of
extermination. If you take the case of the massacre of the
Albigenses, or take the case of early Christian heresies—the very
names of which read as the names of some old fossil things that
belonged to a different era of the world’s history—you will find
wherever a sect has been crushed out it has been by extermination
—that is, by putting to death everybody suspected of holding the
objectionable opinion ; but when books and pamphlets have
been prosecuted they have never been put down. Unless you
can seize and secure everybody infected with heresy, naturally
you arouse their indignation and excite their fervor—you make
those who were before critics afterwards fanatics, and conse
quently they fight ail the harder for the cause attacked. Paine’s
“ Age of Reason ” was a prosecuted work. Richard Carlile was
sent to gaol for nine years for selling it; his wife and sister were
«ent to gaol; shopman after shopman went to gaol. You would
have thought that would have suppressed the “Age of Reason
yet, as a matter of fact, that work still has a large circulation,
and. a sale all the larger because of the prosecutions instituted
against it fifty or sixty years ago. Take the case of a
prosecuted work belonging to another class of literature—
a pamphlet published by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant,
the prosecution of which was denounced by the then Lord
Chief Justice from the Bench. By that prosecution, a work
that had been circulated at the rate of one hundred per year
for forty years, was run up to a sale of one hundred and seventvfive thousand. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that in that
■case the prosecutors had defeated their own object. When a
question as to the “Freethinker” was asked in the House of
Commons, so far back as February in last year, Sir William
Harcourt replied that it was the opinion of all persons who
�36
had to do with these matters, that it was not politic to proceed
legally against such a publication. That answer was made to
Mr. Frcshfield. A few days afterwards he made a similar answer
to Mr. Redmond. But there is a class of people who rush in
“ where angels fear to tread,” and the prosecution has un
fortunately done that. It is a curious thing, gentlemen,
that all those who have been moving against the persons who
are alleged to be responsible for the “ Freethinker,” belong
to one political party. The junior counsel for the prosecution
told you that no doubt one of the two defendants would ask you
to believe this was a political move, and I do ask you to believe it
is almost entirely a political move. Every person connected
with it has been a Tory. Mr. Freshfield represents the immacu
late borough of Dover, and Mr. Redmond is the representative of
a small Irish constituency, the whole of whose voters could beconveyed to Westminster in a very few omnibuses. (Laughter.)
Next, gentlemen, comes the Corporation of the City of London
that secured a verdict against myself and my co-defendant two
months ago. I need not tell you what the politics of the Corpora
tion of the City of London are, nor will I undertake to prophesy
what they will be when brought into something like acccord with
the spirit of the age by the new Bill which is to be introduced.
The • prosecuting counsel, Sir Hardinge Giffard, is also a Tory.
1 don’t mean to say that he is the worse for that. Every man
has a right to belong to which political party he pleases. Tory,
Whig, Conservative and liberal, are great historic names, and
men of genius and high character may be found on both sides.
But it is a curious thing that this prosecution should be con
ducted so entirely by men of one political persuasion, while
those struck at belong to the extreme opposite political per
suasion. These two things should operate in your minds, and
influence your views as to the motives which animate those who
conceived this persecution, and find the funds to carry it out. And
last, though not least, we have Sir Jtlenry Tyler, also a Tory of
the deepest dye, who has been the pronounced and bitter
public enemy of Mr. Bradlaugh, one of my co-defendants who
is released from his position of danger by a verdict of acquittal.
At my previous trial the jury were told that the real prosecutor'
was not the City Corporation but our lady the Queen. Iam very
glad indeed to be able to rely on the authority of his lordship
in saying that the nominal prosecutor in this case is the Queen,
and the actual prosecutor who sets the Crown in motion is
Sir Henry Tyler. Now, gentlemen, what was the real reason
for Sir Henry Tyler’s moving in this case at all ? Sir Henry
Tyler was known to be engaged in the City in financial pursuits.
He was known to be a dexterous financier and an experienced
director of public companies. He was known to be not so much
�37
•loved by shareholders as by political friends, and you would
think if outraged deity wanted a champion, Sir Henry
Tyler would be one of the last persons who would receive
an application. (Laughter.) Sir Henry Tyler had an enemy in
Mr. Bradlaugh. Sir Henry Tyler had been rebuked in the House
of Commons, by a minister of the Crown, for his mad antago
nism to Mr. Bradlaugh. It is he who has found all the funds
for this prosecution, and I ask you to believe that this prosecu
tion was initiated and carried on by Sir Henry Tyler and
his political friends for a purely political purpose ; to cripple, if
possible, Mr. Bradlaugh, and so to win through religious preju
dice what could not be won by open political warfare. As I
said before, men of genius and high character are to be
found in the two great political camps, but this is a miser
able descent for a great historic party, which once had its
Peels and its Pitts, and now has its Churchills, its Newdegates, its Tylers and its Giffards. (Laughter.)
Our offence is blasphemy. The word “blasphemy ” has a theo
logical meaning as well as amoral and legal one ; and directly you
put the question theologically, What is blasphemy? you are stunned
by a, babel of contradictory answers. In our own country the
Christian says Jcxus Christ is god, and it is blasphemy to say he
is not. A Jew, also a citizen, and who may sit in our national
legislature, says Jesus Christ was not god, and it is blasphemy to
say he was. In short, one might say theologically, that blasphemy
is entirely a question of geography; the answer to the question
will depend upon the country you are in and the time you put
the question. It is a matter of longitude and latitude, and if we
are to rely upon the very loose view of the law I shall have to
refer to, as given by Starkie., it is a matter of very considerable
latitude. The Bible, which it is alleged we have assailed, does
not help us very much. The blasphemy referred to in the
Old Testament is simply that of cursing god, which I suppose no
one would do, if even he had a monitress like Job’s wife, except his
proper position was not in Holloway Gaol but in Colney Hatch.
(Laughter.) The Jewish law is very unfortunate, and it is
unfortunate to refer to, because it culminated in the judicial
murder of Jesus Christ. And you have the spirit of the
blasphemy law brought out in the prosecution of Jesus of
Nazareth, and, as related in the Acts of the Apostles, the
proceedings for blasphemy against St. Paul. With the Jews
a man was soon found guilty, and very often after they had
stoned him to death they settled at leisure the question
whether he was really guilty or not. It was Pontius Pilate, who
represented the majesty of the law, that stood between the bigotry
of the Jews and their victim. And you will remember that it
.was the Roman power, the secular power, which cared for none
�38
of these things, that St. Paul appealed to and that saved his
life from his Jewish enemies, who would have put him todeath as a blasphemer. Morally, blasphemy can only becommitted by a person who believes in the existence of the deity
whom he blasphemes. Lord Brougham has left that on record in
his “ Life of Voltaire.” He says that ridicule or abuse of deities in
whom he doesn’t believe is only ridicule and abuse of ideas which
have no meaning to him, and he cannot be guilty of blasphemy
unless he believes in the being whom he blasphemes. In practice,
blasphemy means, always did and always will, a strong attack
upon what we happen to believe. The early Christian used to
blaspheme before he gained a victory over Paganism, and he
was put to death. The Protestant used to blaspheme before he
triumphed in England over the Catholic. The Dissenter blas
phemed before he won political rights as against a domineering
State Church, and he was put to death. The Unitarians
blasphemed and they were imprisoned; but when they
became a powerful section of the community they were
tolerated, and more extreme Freethinkers became blas
phemers. It is particularly necessary you should bear this in
mind, because you must consider the very unfair position in
which a man stands who is brought before a tribunal believing in
the existence of the deity and the attributes of the deity, who is
said to be blasphemed in a publication for which it is maintained
he is responsible ; and when at the same time they have to adju
dicate, not only upon the matter of it, but the manner of it.
If they dislike the matter they are sure to object to the manner;
and so a man in my position stands at a dreadful disadvantage.
Blasphemy means a strong attack upon our belief, whatever it
happens to be—that is, our religious belief; and, curiously
enough, I have noticed many publications which urged that the
blasphemy laws should be amended, and it should be made a
crime to insult any form of religious belief. I should not oppose
any such amendment as- that, because it would very soon reduce
the whole thing to an absurdity; for every sect would be prose
cuting every other sect; courts of justice would be filled with
disputes, and the whole blasphemy law would have to be
abolished, and every form of opinion would be equal in the eye of
the law, as I hold it should be.
Our indictment is at common law. The great danger
of this is, there is no statute to be appealed to accurately
defining the crime. Blasphemy is not like theft or murder
—it is more a matter of opinion and taste. And it really
comes to this—that no man can know thoroughly what a
blasphemous libel is; and no man can be sure whether he is
penning a blasphemous libel or not; and the only way to find
out what the offence is, is to go to Holloway Gaol for twelve
�39
months, which is a very unpleasant way of deciding a matter of
this kind. It means that a jury is summoned, and the matter is
put into their hands; and if they don’t like it, that is sufficient
for a verdict of Guilty. It is a very unfortunate thing that any
man should be tried for such an offence at common law. Recently,
when I was tried at the Old Bailey, Mr. Justice North, in his
summing-up, told the jury that any denial of the existence of
deity was blasphemy. On the first occasion the jury would not
bring in a verdict of Guilty, and had to be discharged ; and I was
kept in prison until the next trial took place. Mr. Justice North
told the jury on the second trial nothing of the sort. He left
out altogether the words as to denying the existence of
deity. What made the change in three days ? It is impossible
for me to say. It may be he thought a conviction easier
with such an interpretation of the law; or it may be that
even he, a judge, had read the comments in the daily press,
and that some alteration had been made, perhaps for the
better. The view which was entertained by Mr. Justice
North does not seem to be the view entertained by the Lord
Chief Justice, in whose presence, fortunately, I now stand, if I
may judge by his summing up on the trial of one of my co
defendants in this action last week. Then, again, we have Mr.
Justice Stephen, whois practically at variance, not only with Mr.
Justice North, but with the still higher authority of his lordship;
so that it would largely depend, in being tried at common law,
whether one happened to have one’s trial presided over by this
judge or the other. In the particular case I cited one jury
brought in a verdict of Guilty, but another jury four days before—
although the evidence was exactly the same—declined to. So
that you have a double uncertainty—your fate depends upon the
view of the law entertained by the judge who presides at the
trial, and on the tastes and the convictions of the jury. I submit,
gentlemen, that is a very grave defect, and puts at great disad
vantage men who stand in my position. If a man is to be sent
to gaol for twelve months, blasphemous libel should be defined
by statute. The 9th and 10th William III. is the only statute
dealing with blasphemy. It was held in the Court of Queen’s
Bench when Mr. Bradlaugh moved to quash the indictment,
on which I am now being tried, that this statute was aimed
at specific offenders, and only laid down so much law as re
ferred to them. No doubt that is true enough; but still, if
the statute does not fully define blasphemy, yet everything’
included within the statute is clearly blasphemy. There is not a
word about ridicule, abuse, or contumely. The statute says any
body who has professed the Christian religion within these
realms, shall, for denying the existence of god, or saying there are
more gods than one, or denying the truth of Christianity, be sub
�40
ject to certain penalties. The law was called “ ferocious ” by Mr.
Justice Stephen himself, and it admirably enlightens us as to the
nature of the age in which those Blasphemy Laws originated.
So that even the statute appears to contain a view of the
law. which the Lord Chief Justice so considerately said he should
not feel justified in being a party to, unless it were clearer than it
seemed to him.
Having said we were tried at common law, and dwelt
on its disadvantages, I ask what is common law? Com
mon law is judge-made law and jury-made law. Mr. Justice
Stephen on this point has some very notable remarks in
the introduction to his “Digest of the Criminal Law”:—“It
is not until a very late stage in its history that law is regarded
as a series of commands issued by the sovereign power of the
State. Indeed, even in our own time and country that concep
tion of it is gaining ground very slowly. An earlier and, to some
extent, a still prevailing view of it is, that it is more like an art
or science, the principles of which are first enunciated vaguely,
and are gradually reduced to precision by their application to
particular circumstances. Somehow, no one can say precisely
how, though more or less plausible and instructive conjectures
upon the subject may be made, certain principles came to be
accepted as the law of the land. The judges held themselves
bound to decide the cases which came before them according to
those principles, and as new combinations of circumstances
threw light on the way in which they operated, the principles
were, in some cases, more fully developed and qualified, and
in others evaded or practically set at nought and repealed.”
That is precisely what I ask you to do in this case. I ask you
to consider that this common law is merely old common usage,
altogether alien to the spirit of our age; and that it cannot be
enforced without making invidious, unfair, and infamous distinc
tions between one form of heresy and another ; and I ask you to
say that it shall not be enforced at all if you have any
power to prevent it.
<
Why should you, as a special jury in this High Court
of Justice, not set a new precedent? I propose briefly
to give a few reasons why you should. Blasphemy, my
co-defendant told you, was a manufactured crime. I urge
that it is altogether alien to the spirit of our age. The junior
counsel for the prosecution said blasphemy was prosecuted very
seldom ; it had not been prosecuted in the City for fifty years ; and
he urged as a reason that blasphemy was not often committed.
“ For fifty years !” That is not true. From my slight knowledge
of literature, which is not, as one of the journals said, entirely
confined to Tom Paine and the writings of Mr. Bradlaugh, I
could undertake to furnish the junior counsel for the prosecu-
�41
lion with some tons of blasphemy published during that fifty
years; although I probably could not find the prosecution such a
powerful motive as they have recently had for proceeding against
these blasphemous libels. The law against blasphemy is practi
cally obsolete—the fact that there have been no such prosecutions
for fifty years ought to settle that point. Mr. Justice Stephen
himself, as to chapter 17 of his “ Digest,” which includes the
whole of the offences against religion, says: “The whole of this
law is practically obsolete, and might be repealed with ad
vantage ; ” and he further said it would be sufficient as
to blasphemy if the power of prosecution were confined to
■the Attorney-General. In this case the Attorney-General
has had nothing to do with the prosecution. The jury were
told in another court the Public Prosecutor had instituted it.
As a matter of fact, he simply allowed it. The Public Prose
cutor has undergone himself a good deal of ridicule, and I
submit that his allowance or disallowance is scarcely equivalent
to the allowance or disallowance of the Attorney-General, and cer
tainly not equivalent to the institution of proceedings by the
Attorney-General. Mr. Justice Stephen says: “My own opinion
is that blasphemy, except cursing and swearing, ought not to be
made the subject of temporal punishment at all, though, if it
tended to produce a breach of the peace, it might be dealt with
on those grounds.” I shall have a few words to say about breach
■of the peace shortly. Thus Mr. Justice Stephens says: “This law
is practically obsolete,” and further that no temporal punishment
should be inflicted for it. You are made the entire judges of
this question, under the very clear language of the celebrated
Libel Act, called “Fox’s Act,” passed in 1792, to regulate libel
trials. When issue was joined between the Crown and one or
more defendants, it was there laid down that the jury were not
bound to bring in a verdict of guilty merely on the proof of
the publication by such defendants of a paper, and of the sense
ascribed to the same in the indictment. So that I hold
you are the complete judges; there is no power on earth that
can go behind your judgment. You are not bound to give a
reason for your verdict; you are simply called upon to say
guilty or not guilty; and I submit you have a perfect right to
say guilty or not—especially not guilty—on the broad issue of
the question ; and thus to declare that 'this blasphemy law is
utterly alien to the spirit of our age.
It would be impossible for the old common law to be enforced
now. The old common law was never put in force against
persons who only ridiculed the Christian religion. Our
indictment charges us with bringing the Christian religion into
■disbelief ; so that bringing it into disbelief is blasphemy. That
is logical—bringing it into disbelief is bringing it into gross con
�42
tempt. All the cases, from Nayler down to the latest cases of
forty years ago, and as far down as the year 1867, turn upon
the right of a man to questi m and oppose publicly the truth
of the Christian religion. Peter Annett stated in the “ Free
Inquirer” his disbelief in the inspiration of the Pentateuch, and
was punished for it; Bishop Colenso can prove the same thing in
seven big volumes, and not only remain a colonial Bishop
of the English Church, but men of culture, like Mr. Matthew
Arnold rebuke him for disproving what no sensible
person believes. In the case of Woolston, he languished
in Newgate year after year, and I believe he died there.
For what? For saying that the miracles of the New Testament
should not be taken literally, but allegorically. Mr. Matthew
Arnold says that the Bible miracles are fairy tales, and are all
doomed, and that educated and intelligent men treat them as
portions, of the world’s superstition. Nobody now thinks of
prosecuting Mr. Matthew Arnold, yet he is guilty of the same
offence as Woolston. Bishop Colenso is guilty of the same
offence as Peter Annett, and yet no one thinks now-a-days of
punishing him. If, gentlemen, the common law is more humane
now, it is only because the spirit of the age is more
humane. That you are bound to take into consideration, and
that should influence you in giving a verdict of not guilty to me
and to my co-defendant.
I may refer you to a case which occurred in the year
1867, which will show you that the common law has always
held that it is a crime to call in question the truth of
the Christian religion. In the year 1867 the case of Cowan
v. Milbourn was decided in the Court of Exchequer • it
originally arose in Liverpool. The secretary of the Liverpool
Secular Society had engaged the assembly room for the purpose
of two lectures. The lectures were entitled, “The character
and teaching of Christ; the former defective, the latter mis
leading;” and the second, “The Bible shown to be no more
inspired than any other book.” There is not a word of ridicule,
sarcasm or contumely in this language ; yet when the owner of the
rooms, after the expense of advertising had been incurred, refused
the use of them for the lectures, and declined to compensate
the persons who had rented for those two nights, it was held by
the Court of Exchequer that it was an illegal act to deliver such
lectures with such titles, and that no damages could be re
covered, because the rooms had been declined for the perpetration
of an illegal act. Acting on this case, some solicitors at South
ampton last summer, after the expenses of advertising had been
incurred, refused the use of the Victoria Assembly Room for a
lecture by myself, on the ground that the lecture would be an
illegal act. The lady who owned the room was pious, althorrgb
�43
she had not the honesty to recompense my friends for damages
they had incurred on the strength of her own agent’s written
contract. As far back then as 1867, it was held that any im
pugning of the truth of Christianity was an illegal act, and my
contention, therefore, holds good that bringing Christianity into
disbelief is as much a part of blasphemy as bringing it into
contempt.
I know there are objections urged against this view.
It is said that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of
England. We have had, fortunately, a trenchant criticism of
this by his lordship. It was pointed out by his lordship, in
language so precise that I am sorry I cannot quote it, that if
Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the land, in the
sense in which the words are generally used, then it would be
impossible to bring about any reform of law, because, no law
could be criticised, much less ridiculed, on the same ground that
Christianity, which is part of the law, cannot be ridiculed or
criticised. Something occurred to me which seems to go even
further than that; and that is, that if Christianity were part and
parcel of the law of the land, then the prosecution for blasphemy
would be an absurdity. There is no crime in criticising any law,
or ridiculing any law, in the pages of “ Punch.” If Christianity
were part and parcel of the law of the land, there could be no
crime in criticising it. That view was taken by the Royal Com
missioners in 1841. In their report they went into it at great
length. The Royal Commission did endorse that view, and
pointed out fully that if Christianity were part of the law of the
land, still the law could be criticised and ridiculed, and, there
fore, no blasphemy indictment could lie on any such grounds. Sir
Matthew Hale, a judge of the 17th century, first said that
Christianity was part and parcel of the law of the country.
He was a man of great intellectual ability, and a most upright
judge ; but if he lived in our age, would he endorse such ridicu
lous. language now? He was infected by the superstition
of his age. This same judge sentenced two women to be hung
for witchcraft, an offence which we now know never could exist,
notwithstanding the verse in Exodus, “Thou shalt not suffer
a witch to live.” The time will come when it will be thought
quite as absurd to prosecute people for the crime of blasphemy
as we think it now to hang people for witchcraft. If blasphemy
be a crime at all, it is only a crime against god, who, if he be
omniscient, knows it all, and who, if omnipotent, is quite
capable of punishing it all.
Since Sir Matthew Hale’s time there have been great altera
tions. in the state and in society, alterations which will justify
you in setting this old barbarous law aside. To begin with,
compulsory oaths have been abolished in our courts of justice
�44
Evidence can now be given by Freethinkers on affirmation.
Mr. Bradlaugh last week was acquitted on the evidence of
people, every one of whom affirmed, and not one of whom
took the oath. Next, Jews are admitted to Parliament. I
don’t wish to enter into a religious discussion, or to provoke a
dying bigotry, but I do say, that if with the views the Jews are
known to entertain of the founder of Christianity, and if with
the acts of their high priests and scribes, as recorded in the New
Testament, still unrepudiated by the Jewish people, they
can be admitted in our national legislature, and help to
make laws which are stupidly said to be protective of Chris
tianity, then it is absurd for Christians to prosecute Freethinkers
for carrying on honest criticism of doctrines and tenets they don’t
believe, and which they think they are bound to oppose and
attack. Then again, the Christian oath of allegiance that used to
be taken in Parliament, has been abolished. Now the House of
Commons simply clings to a narrow theistic ledge. I have
heard not only counsel but a judge speaking to a jury of Jesus
Christ as our lord and savior, when they ought to have
known—perhaps did know, but didn't remember in the heat of
enthusiasm—that the jury were not bound to be Christians ; that
there might Ise some among them who knew Christianity and
rejected it. That shows you, still further, that the principles
and opinions which lie at the base of these proceedings ‘ire not
universal as they were once ; and that it is time all invidious
distinctions were abolished, and all forms of opinion made to
stand on their own bottom; and if they cannot stand on
their own bottom, then in the name of goodness let them fall.
Now these alterations in the state of society are more particu
larly shown in the writings of our principal men. Mr. Leslie
Stephen, for instance, in anwsering the question, “Are we
Christians?” says: “No. I should reply we are not Christians; a
few try to pass themselves off as Christians, because, whilst
substantially men of this age, they can cheat themselves into
using the old charms in the desperate attempt to conjure down
alarming social symptoms; a great number call themselves
Christians, because, in one way or another, the use of the old
phrases and th e old forms is still enforced by the great sanction
of respectability; and some for the higher reason, that they fear
to part with the grain along with the chaff; but such men have
ceased substantially, though only a few have ceased avowedly to
be Christian in any intelligible sense of the name.” No one who
has any knowledge of the kind of language held by intelligent
men will doubt that such sentiments are exceedingly common.
You all know the great and honored name of Darwin,
who spent his whole life in undermining the very foun
dations of Christianity and all supernatural belief. I know
�45
when the bigotry which opposed him, and under the prostituted
name of religion said, “ Thus far shalt thou go, and no further,”
saw it was evident he was victor, it professed to honor him and
had him buried in Westminster Abbey; but the world is begin
ning to know if the Church has Darwin's corpse, it is all of
Darwin that the Church has had or ever will have.
A great scientist who doesn’t confine himselfto mere science, as
for the most part Darwin did, says: “ The myths of Paganism are as
dead as Osiris and Zeus, and the man who should revive them would
be justly laughed to scorn ; but the coeval imaginations current
among the rude inhabitants of Palestine, recorded by writers
whose very name and age are admitted by every scholar to be
unknown, have unfortunately not yet shared their fate, but,
even at this day are regarded by nine-tenths of the civilised
world as the authoritative standard of fact, and the criterion of
the justice of scientific conclusions in all that relates to the origin
of things, and among them, of species. In this nineteenth cen
tury, as at the dawn of science, the cosmogony of the semibarbarous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher and the
opprobrium of the orthodox. Who shall number the patient
and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until now,
whose lives have been embittered and their good name blasted
by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolaters ? Who shall count the host
of weaker men whose sense of truth has been destroyed in the
effort to harmonise impossibilities—whose life has been wasted
in the attempt to force the generous new wine of science into
the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by the outcry of the same
strong party ? It is true that if philosophers have suffered their
cause has been amply avenged. Extinguished theologians lie about
the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of
Hercules, and history records that whenever science and ortho
doxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to
retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed, if not annihilated,
scotched if not slain. But orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the
world of thought. It learns not, neither can it forget; and
though, at present, bewildered and afraid to move, it is as wil
ling as ever to insist that the first chapter of Genesis contains the beginning and end of sound science, and to visit, with such
petty thunderbolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl those
who refuse to degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism.”
Professor Huxley writes that, but he doesn’t stand here on the
charge I have to answer, and why ? One is, the language of
a ten-and-sixpenny book, and the other the language of a penny
paper.
J
Now, gentlemen, take another case. Dr. Maudsly says €
in his work on “Responsibility in Mental Disease,that
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea, the prophets, were all three mad,
J
�46
{Laughter.) He doesn’t stand here. Why? Because it would
not be safe to attack a man like that He is part of a powerful
corporation that would rally round any of its members attacked
and, therefore, he is left unmolested. Mr. Herbert Spencer, in
his “ Study of Sociology,” speaks thus of the Christian Trinity:
u Here we have theologians who believe that our national welfare
will be endangered, if there is not in all churches an enforced
repetition of the dogmas that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are
each of them almighty; and yet there are not three almighties
but one almighty; that one of the almighties suffered on the
cross and descended into hell to pacify another of them; and
that whosoever does not believe this ‘without doubt shall
perish everlastingly.’ ” That is language which is, perhaps, as
scornful as any language a man like Mr. Herbert Spencer could
use. There is no essential difference between that and language
of the mcst militant Freethought. Mr. John Stuart Mill, who
was not only a writer with a world-wide reputation, but who
occupied a seat in the House of Commons, said that his father
looked upon religion as the greatest enemy of morality; first by
setting up “fictitious excellencies, belief in creeds, devo
tional feelings and ceremonies, not connected with the good of
human kind—and causing these to be accepted as substitutes for
genuine virtues; but, above all, by radically vitiating the
standard of morals, making it consist in doing the will of a
being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the phrases of adulation,
but whom in sober truth it depicts as eminently hatefuL I have
a hundred times heard him say, that all ages and nations have
represented their gods as wicked, in a constantly increasing pro
gression, that mankind have gone on adding trait after trait till
they reached the most perfect conception of wickedness which
the human mind can devise, and have called this god, and
prostrated themselves before it. This
plus ultra oi wicked
ness be considered to be embodied in what is commonly pre
sented to mankind as the creed of Christianity,” In one of
those alleged libels, the only passage I shall refer to, there is a
statement to the effect—a statement not in my handwriting—
(unfortunately I am in the position of having not only to defend
my own right but the right of others to be heard) in one of those
libels, not written by me, it is said that the deity of the Old
Testament is as ferocious as a tiger. Wbat is the difference
between a phrase like that and the extract I have read from
the writings of John Stuart Mill ? It is even worse to say “ that
the god of Christianity is the perfection of conceivable wickedness.”
The difference is that one is the language of a nine-shilling
book, and the other the language of a penny paper. Writers
and publishers of nine-shilling books should not be allowed to go
scot free and the writers of penny papers be made the scape-
�47
goat of the cultured agnostics of the day. John Stuart Mill, in
another book, says: “Think of a being who could be the ideali
sation of wickedness.” That is the language of John Stuart
Mill. His great friend, George Grote, the author of the
“ History of Greece,” is commonly admitted to be the
author of a little book, “An Analysis of the Influence of Natural
Religion,” which he put together from the notes of that great
jurispr'udist Jeremy Bentham, in which natural religion is
described as one historic craze, the foe of the human race,
and its doctrines and priesthood are denounced in the most
extreme language. I will ask your attention to another writer.
Lord Derby—who has given his support to a movement for the
abolition of the blasphemy laws—some months ago, presiding at a
meeting at Liverpool, said Mr. Matthew Arnold was one of the
few men who had a rightful claim to be considered a thinker.
He is a writer of culture so fine that some people say he is a
writer of haughty-culture. (Laughter.) In his fine and delicate
way he ridicules the Christian Trinity. He says : “In imagining
a sort of infinitely magnified and improved Lord Shaftesbury,
with a race of vile offenders to deal with, whom his natural
goodness would incline him to let off, only his sense of justice
will not allow it; then a younger Lord Shaftesbury, on the scale
of his father and very dear to him, who might live in grandeur
and splendor if he liked, but who prefers to leave his home, to
go and live among the race of offenders, and to be put to an
ignominious death, on condition that his merits shall be counted
against their demerits, and that his father’s goodness shall be
restrained no longer from taking effect, but any offender shall
be admitted to the benefit of it on simply pleading the satis
faction made by the son ; and then, finally, a third Lord Shaftes
bury, still on the same high scale, who keeps very much in the
background, and works in a very occult manner, but very
efficaciously nevertheless, and who is busy in applying every
where the benefits of the son’s satisfaction and the father’s
goodness.” Again, the same writer says: “ For anyone who
weighs the matter well, the missionary in clerical coat and gaiters
whom one sees in woodcuts preaching to a group of picturesque
orientals, is from the inadequacy of his criticism, both of his
hearer’s religion and of his own, and his signal misunderstanding
of the very volume he holds in his hand, a. hardly less grotesque
object in his intellectual equipment for his task than in his out
ward attire.” The same writer actually introduces, by way of
showing the absurdities into which Christians themselves have
run, a long and learned discussion which took place at the
University of Paris nearly three centuries ago, as to whether
Jesus at his ascension had his clothes on, or appeared naked
before his disciples ; and if he did, what became of his clothes ?
�48
(Laughter.) If such a thing had appeared in the “ Free
thinker,” the junior counsel for the prosecution would havesaid “they are bringing our savior’s name into contempt,
they are reproaching the Christian religion, and we bring
them before you that they may be handed over to the tender
mercies of the law.” Mr. Matthew Arnold is in no fear of
prosecution; it is only the poorer and humbler Freethinkers
who are to be attacked. Mr. John Morley-—who has thrown his
great influence in the scale against me—in his book on
. “Voltaire,” says, “That a religion which has shed more
blood than any other religion has no right to quarrel over a few
I epigrams.” There are writings of Voltaire’s which, if published
in England now, would be made the subject of a prosecution, if
there was any honesty in conducting these prosecutions.
Mr. Morley now joins the chorus of those who howl the false word
“indecent” at me ; but no living person, no sentence under this
old law, can rob me of the esteem of my friends or the approval of
my conscience ; and I say deliberately, I would rather be sitting
down in my cell, or meditatively walking up and down with racking
anxiety at my breast, than walk into the House of Commons
throwing my past behind me, and treating those whose views
are essentially identical with mine with all the rancor of a
renegade.
Lord Amberley, who is not even a plebeian, writes as
follows of the Old Testament: “Such a catalogue of crimes
would be sufficient to destroy the character of any Pagan divi
nity whatever. I fail to perceive any reason why the Jews alone
should be privileged to represent their god as guilty of such
actions without suffering the inference which in other cases
would undoubtedly be drawn—namely, that their conceptions of
deity were not of a very exalted order, nor their principles of'
morals of a very admirable kind. There is, indeed, nothing ex
traordinary in the fact that, living in a barbarous age, the ancient
Hebrews should have behaved barbarously. The reverse would
rather be surprising. But the remarkable fact is, that their
savage deeds, and the equally savage ones attributed to their
god, should have been accepted by Christendom as growing in
the one case from the commands, in the other, from the imme
diate action of a just and beneficent being. When the Hindusrelate the story of Brahma’s incest with his daughter, they add
that the god was bowed down with shame on account of his
subjugation by ordinary passion. But while they thus betray
their feeling that even a divine being is not superior to all the
standards of morality, no such consciousness is ever apparent
in the narrators of the passions of Jehovah. While far worse
offences are committed by him, there is no trace in his character
of the grace of shame.” If that had appeared in the “ Free
�49
thinker ” it would have formed one of the counts of the indict
ment. But no one has interfered with Lord Amberley. A
question was asked by the junior counsel for the prosecution of
one witness, whether a certain illustration in one of the numbers
was meant to caricature almighty god. The question was
stopped by his lordship. With Lord Amberley’s words before
us, it is easy to understand that could not be meant to represent
almighty god. A man who after careful reflexion, after weigh
ing evidence, after exercising his full intellectual and moral
faculties upon the question, has arrived at the conclusion that there
is an infinite spirit of the universe akin to ours, though greater
—such a man would never hear any ridicule or sarcasm from my
lips, or from the pen or lips of any Freethinker in the country,
because his belief is not amenable to such criticism or attack. It
is not almighty god who could be ridiculed in a picture like that.
It is the Hebrew deity—the deity of semi-barbarous people who
lived 3000 years ago ; a deity reflecting their own barbarity, who
told them to go to lands they never tilled, and cities they had never
built, to take possession of them in the name of god, and brutally
murder every man, woman, and child in them. Can it be a crime
to ridicule or even to caricature a mythological personage like
this? It is not almighty god who is ridiculed, it is simply
the deity of those barbarous Hebrews who have become decent
and civilised now. The influences of culture and humanity are
at work, and although we utter the same old shibboleths, we
have different ideas, different tastes, and I hope different aspira
tions.
The Duke of Somerset has openly impugned the Chris
tian religion. He gives up the deity of Jesus, and critieises
in a hostile manner the holy scripture. If the law were put
in force fairly, it would be put in force there. Shelley has been
referred to. Shelley wrote, among other poems, one called
“ Queen Mab.” He speaks of the deity of the Christians as a
vengeful, pitiless, and almighty fiend, whose mercy is a nick
name for the rage of tameless tigers, hungering for blood. As
the rest of this extract is couched in similar language, I forbear,
out of consideration for the feelings of those who may differ
from me, from reading further. But what I have read is suffi
cient to show that Shelley’s writing is as blasphemous as anything
that is to be found in any of these alleged libels. And in
one of his maturer poems, that magnificent “ Ode to Liberty,”
he speaks of Christ as the “ Galilean serpent”—
44 The Galilean serpent forth did creep,
And made thy world an indistinguishable heap.”
Nobody thinks of prosecuting those who sell Shelley’s works
D
�50
now, and even the leading counsel for the prosecution could
actually accept office under a Ministry, of which the First Lord
of the Admiralty, on whose bookstalls Shelley's works are ex
posed for sale, was a member. Of the poets of our day, it mav
be said, three-fourths of them write quite as blasphemously,
according to the language of the prosecution, as any one in the
“Freethinker.” Mr. Swinburne, one of our greatest, if not our
greatest poet—some say he is our greatest, I don't think so—uses
in a poetical form the same language that was usedby Elijah to the
priests of Baal. You will remember the priests of Baal and Elijah
had a sort of competitive theological examination, and they
put the question to a practical test They built altars and
they cried respectively on their gods. The priests of Baal cut
and gashed themselves and cried aloud, but the fire would not
come. W hat did Elijah do ? Did he call them to a kind of
theological discussion, and say: “Now there is a mistake some
where, and we must thrash this out according to the well-known
canons of logic ?” No, he turned upon the priests with what
Rabelais would call savglante derision, and he said, in the
language of to-day: “ Where is your god, what is he doing, why
doesn’t he answer you, has he gone on a journey, what is the
matter with him ?” That is the language of irony and the deadliest
sarcasm, and it is a wonder to me the priests of Baal didn’t turn
round and kill the prophet on the spot. If they had had one
tithe of the professed religious bigotry of our prosecutors they
would have done so, but history doesn’t record that they did.
Mr. Swinburne, in his great “Hymn to Man,” turns the same
kind of derision on the priests of Christendom. He repre
sents them as calling upon their deity, and he says: “ Crv
aloud, for the people blaspheme.” Then he says, by way of
finish:—
“ Kingdom and will hath he none in him left him, nor warmth in
his breath ;
Till his corpse be cast out of the sun will ye know not the truth
of his death ?
Surely, ye say, he is strong, though the times be against him and
men,
Yet a little, ye say, and how long, till he come to show judgment •
again ?
Shall god then die as the beasts die ? who is it hath broken his
rod?
O god, lord god of thy priests, rise up now and show thyself god.
They cry out, thine elect, thine aspirants to heavenward, whose
faith is as flame;
O thou the lord god of our tyrants, they call thee, their god by
thy name .
�51
By thy name that in hell-fire was written, and burned at the
point of thy sword,
Thou art smitten, thou god, thou art smitten ; thy death is upon
thee, O lord.
And the love-song of earth as thou diest resounds through the
wind of her wings—
Glory to man in the highest! for man is the master of things.”
In his lines apostrophising Jesus on the Cross he says :—
“ O hidden face of man, whereover
The years have woven a viewless veil—
If thou wast verily man’s lover,
What did thy love or blood avail ?
Thy blood the priests make poison of,
And in gold shekels coin thy love.
So when our souls look back to thee
They sicken, seeing against thy side,
Too foul to speak of or to see,
The leprous likeness of a bride,
Whose kissing lips through his lips grown
Leave their god rotten to the bone.
When we would see thee man, and know
What heart thou hadst toward men indeed,
Lo, thy blood-blackened altars ; lo,
The lips of priests that pray and feed
While their own hell’s worm curls and licks
The poison of the crucifix.
Thou bad’st let children come to thee ;
What children now but curses come ?
What manhood in that god can be
Who sees their worship, and is dumb ?
No soul that lived, loved, wrought, and died,
Is this their carrion crucified.
Nay, if their god and thou be one,
If thou and this thing be the same,
Thou shouldst not look upon the sun;
The sun grows haggard at thy name.
Come down, be done with, cease, give o’er;
Hide thyself, strive not, be no more.”
Mr. Swinburne here draws a distinction which Freethinkers
would draw. Freethinkers may ridicule a mythological deity;
�52
they may ridicule miracles; but they will ’never ridicule the
tragic and pathetic sublimities of human life, which are
sacred, whether enacted in a palace or in a cottage. We know
how to draw the distinction which Mr. Swinburne draws here.
If the quotations 1 have read you had appeared in the “ Free
thinker ” they would have formed one of the counts of the
indictment. The only difference between them is, that one
is in a twelve-shilling book, and and the other in a penny paper.
One short extract from another poet, who is recognised as
possessing the highest excellence by the greatest critics, whose
writings have been praised in the “ Athenaeum ” and the “ Fort
nightly Review.” I am referring to Mr. James Thomson. He
says:—
“ If any human soul at all
Must die the second death, must fall
Into that gulph of quenchless flame
Which keeps its victims still the same,
Unpurified as unconsumed
To everlasting torments doomed;
Then I give God my scorn and hate
And turning back from Heaven’s gate
(Suppose me got there!) bow Adieu!
Almighty Devil da/mn me too.”
If that language had appeared in the “ Freethinker,” it would
have formed one of the counts of the indictment. What is the
difference ? Again, I say, the difference is between a five-shilling
book and a penny paper. When those books were reviewed, did
men point out those passages and condemn them ? Not at all.
They simply praised his genius; blasphemy is not taken into
consideration by men who write for papers of such stand
ing. George Eliot has written many a biting sarcasm, aimed
at the popular idols of the day. She translated Feuerbach’s
“Essence of Christianity,” and Straus’ “Life of Jesus,” both
of which are indictable at common law, though they have never
been attacked. Renan, in his “ Life of Jesus,” supposes that
the raising of Lazarus took place at a time, when under the
messianic delusion the mind of Jesus had become perverted,
and that he had arranged the thing with Lazarus. Anonymous
books are pouring from the press. Here is one published by
Williams and Norgate. It is called the “Evolution of Chris
tianity.” Speaking of the Hebrew scriptures, it says: “Truly,
if the author of Exodus had been possessed of the genius
of Swift, and designed a malignant satire on the god of
the Hebrews, he could have produced nothing more terribly true
to his malicious purpose than the grotesque parody of divine in
tervention in human affairs, depicted in the revolting details
�53
of the Ten Plagues ruthlessly inflicted on the Egyptian
nation.” Only one other instance of ridicule. The writer,
referring to the sudden and mysterious death of Ananias
and Sapphira, as narrated in the Acts of the Apostles, says:
“Ananias and Sapphira his wife sold some property, and
kept back a portion of the price. Perhaps Ananias was a
shrewd practical man, distrustful of socialism, and desirous
of holding something in reserve for possible contingencies.
Or Sapphira may have hinted that, if anything should happen
to her husband before the advent of Jesus in the clouds,
she would not like the position of a pauper scrambling among
the other widows for her daily rations. Whatever may have
been the motives of the doomed couple, if they had been
arraigned before Jesus, he would have assuredly condoned so
trivial an offence; but under the new regime of the holy ghost,
this unhappy husband and wife were condemned to instant
execution.” That is the language of satire, and if it had appeared
in the “Freethinker,” it might have formed one of the counts of
our present indictment.
I have referred you to great Eving writers, to foreign
works pouring into the country ; 1 have referred you
to anonymous writings, and now I hold one .in my hand
which is circulated over the country and bears’ the imprint
of Messrs John and Abel Heywood. It speaks in this way
of Christianity: “Buddhism is the only religion which has
made its way by sheer moral strength; it has become the vast
religion that it is, without the shedding of one drop of blood to
propagate its tenets. The edifice of Christianity is polluted with
blood from keystone to battlement; its tenets and dogmas are
redolent of the savage reek of gore, from the death of its lamb
to that fountain of blood that its poets are never tired of
hymning. . Misery and tears still attend its idiotic dogma of
original sin, and its horrible threatenings of eternal fire.
Buddhism is to Christianity as is a palace of light to a foetid
dungeon.” That is being circulated wholesale by respectable
pubhshers, and it again, I say, might have formed one of the
counts of our indictment if it had appeared in the “ Freethinker.”
Yet we know these publishers will never be molested because
they are not poor, and especially because they don’t happen to be
friendly with a politician, whose enemies want to strike him
with, a religious dagger when they fail to kill him with the
pohtical sword.
I leave that and take the objection that will be raised, that we
have dealt too freely in ridicule. What is it? You will remember
the ending of some of the problems in Euclid, which is what is
called a reductio ad absurdum, that is reducing a thing to an
absurdity. That is ridicule. Ridicule is a method of argument.
�54
The comic papers, in politics, are constantly using it. Why may
it not be used, in religious matters also ? Reference was made to
a caricature, in one of our political journals, which shall be
nameless here. Mr. Gladstone is represented as “ Number 1 •”
and morally the conclusion is that he was the murderer of one
of his dearest friends. Nobody thinks of prosecuting that
paper the idea would be laughed at. We may caricature living'
statesmen, but not what are to us are dead dogmas. Surely
you will not give your warrant to such an absurdity as that. Mr
Buckle says that every man should have a right to treat
opinion as he thinks proper, to argue against it or to ridicule
it, however “ sacred ” it may be. A greater writer than Buckle,
John Stuart Mill, wrote an article in the “Westminster
Review,” on the Richard Carlile prosecutions, in the year 1824 •.
and speaking of ridicule in that article, he says: “If the
proposition that Christianity is untrue, can leg’ally be conveyed
to the mind, what can be more absurd than to condemn it when
conveyed in certain terms ?” I say that this weapon of ridicule
has been used by a very large proportion of the great intellectual
emancipators of mankind; Socrates used it, and at the risk
of offending some, I may say that Jesus used it; Lucian
used it; the early Christian Fathers used it unsparingly
against their Pagan contemporaries ; and I might cull from their
works such a collection of vituperative phrases as would throw
into the shade anything that ever appeared in the “Freethinker.”
Luther used it, and used it well; Erasmus used it; the Lollards
used it; and it was freely used in the Catholic and Protestant
controversy that raged through and after the reign of Henry
VHI. It has been used ever since. Voltaire used it in France.
I know some may think that it is impolitic to introduce the name
of \ oltaire here, but Lord Brougham says that Voltaire was the
greatest spiritual emancipator since the days of Luther. Theonly difference between such men as Voltaire, D’Alembert, and
Diderot, was his illimitable wit. He had wit and his enemies
hated him for it. Ridicule has been used in all times.
To take ridicule. from our literature you would have to go
through such a winnowing and. pruning process that you would
destroy it. Eliminate from Byron his ridicule, eliminate from
Shelley his ridicule, eliminate from other great masters their
ridicule, and what a loss there would be ! Ridicule is a weapon
which has been used by so many great emancipators of man
kind ; and if we have used it, even in a coarser manner than
they, it is the same weapon; and if the weapon is a legal one
there can be no illegality in the mere method of using it, and
there has been no such illegality shown. If ridicule is a legal
weapon, the mere style or manner cannot render it illegal. I
say that it is a dangerous thing to make men amenable to criminal.
�55
prosecution simply on a question of opinion and taste. Really if
you are to eliminate ridicule from religious controversy,' you
hand it over entirely to the dunces. The two gravest things living
are the owl and the ass. But we don’t want to become asinine
or owl-like. (Laughter.) It seenjs to me, if I may make a pun,
that the gravest thing in the world is the grave ; and if gentlemen
want the world to be utterly grave they will turn it into a grave
yard, and that is precisely what the bigots have been trying to
do for many thousands of years. I ask you not to abet them by
subjecting us to a daily unseen torture—which means slow
murder ; which cannot kill a strong man in two or three months,
but which may, in twelve months, convert him into a physical
and mental wreck, may make him a byword and scorn. Another
evidence forsooth of the truth and mercy of their creed!
And now, gentlemen, I will ask your attention for a minute
or two to the argument about outraging people’s feelings.
You never heard it proposed that this should be mutual; it is
always a one-sided thing. As Mill says in his great essay on
“Liberty:” “With regard to what is commonly meant by in
temperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and
the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more
sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to
both sides ; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of
them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing
they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will
be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest
zeal and righteous indignation.” I should regard with more
favor this argument if it were attempted to be made mutual.
Suppose I were to put into your hands a book like that of Father
Pinamonti’s “Hell open to Christians,” which is circulated by
the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It contains a
picture of the torments of hell for every day in the week. That
is repulsive to my mind. In my opinion it would debauch the
minds of children into whose hands it fell, but I should not think
of calling in the law to stop it. Opinion and taste must correct
opinion and taste, and the proper jury to sit upon such a question
is the great outside jury of public opinion. Indecent attacks on
religion it is said must be put down. I want you to cast out
ofyour minds altogether the absurd talk of indecency or licentious
ness. If we are to be brought in guilty, let it be of clean blas
phemy if you will; and don’t by confusing the real nature of our
alleged offence, say that if we ought not to be punished for
blasphemy, we ought to be punished for indecency, of which
I say we are not guilty.
It is said we must not make ourselves a nuisance. I have
looked through the law of nuisance, and I don’t think there is
anything in it to which this libel can approximate. If a man
�56
starts chemical works close to you, and poisons the atmosphere
you breathe, you have no remedy but to go to law and stop it, or
else remove your business and residence. That is trenching
on your rights. In a case of this sort every man has his
remedy. There is no Act of Parliament to compel any person to
purchase a copy of the “ Freethinker.” The copies that will be
placed in your hands were purchased, not to be read, but for the
purposes of prosecution. It was not a surreptitious thing; it was
not a publication entitled the “ Christian Investigator,” with
freethought of the most insidious kind in every line. It is
called the “ Freethinker; ” the man who purchased it must have
done so deliberately, and gone into the shop to do it. As it was
not a paper freely exposed in the shop windows in London, a
man must have meant, before he went into the shop, to purchase
that very thing, and must have known the character of the con
tents before be purchased it. I submit that as a man is not
forced to purchase or read the paper, the least he can do is
to allow other people to exercise their rights. It appears now
that liberty is to be taken in the sense of the rough Yankee, who
defined it as the right to do as he pleased and to make everybody
else do so too. Bigotry puts forward a claim, not only to be
protected from having unwelcome things forced on its attention,
but to prevent all men from seeing what it happens to dislike.
Now, I will just draw your attention to what we have been told
is the proper view of this question. Starkie on “Libel” has
been quoted. I have not got Starkie’s work, but I have got
Folkard’s edition of the “Law of Libel,” and I must quote from
that. The fact that I have not been able to get a copy of Starkie
shows in itself the ridiculous nature of this prosecution. That a
man should be in peril of losing his liberty on the dictum of
“the late Mr. Starkie” is a most dreadful thing. I hope that
won’t continue. He says: “A malicious and mischievous
intention, or what is equivalent to such an intention in law, as
well as in morals—a state of apathy and indifference to the
interests of society—is the broad boundary between right and
wrong.” I say it is not so, and that an overt act of crime is
broad boundary between right and wrong. If it be alleged I am
apathetic to the interests of society, I give it the most emphatic
denial. When “nefarious profit” is talked about, I tell the
learned gentlemen for the prosecution that they get far more
out of their advocacy than I do out of mine. I tell them that a
man who throws in his lot with an unpopular cause must
not count on profit; he can only count on the satisfaction
of what to him is duty done. There is no such thing as
apathy here to the interests of society. I have given of my time
and means, for great political and social causes, as much as these
men. I am no more apathetic to the interests of society than
�57
"they are. All these words mean very little. The contention
that has been raised is unsubstantial, and rests merely upon the
use of adjectives. These are not questions of fact, and when the
prosecution talk about “ maliciously insulting,” “ wickedly doing
so and so,” they simply use a string of adjectives which every
man may interpret differently from every other man, a string of
adjectives which I am quite sure would not allow any jury of
Freethinkers to bring in a verdict of Guilty against me and my
co-defendant. I am sorry if that is the kind of law by which a
man is to be tried. If it is so I can only deplore it; but it seems
I® me that Starkie’s law of blasphemous libel is simply a noose put
round, the neck of every man who writes or speaks on the subject
of religion; and if he happens to be on the unpopular side some
body will pull the string, and without being worse than those in
the race before him, he is tripped up, and it may be strangled.
I hope I am not to be tried under that law—if it must be so I
can only deplore it.
I am now, gentlemen, drawing nearly to a close. I want to
say that blasphemy is simply a relic of ecclesiasticism. Kenan
says he has searched the whole Roman law before the time
•of . Constantine, without finding a single edict against any
Opinions. Professor Hunter says practically the same thing.
Blasphemy and heresy were originally not tried by secular courts
like these at all—they were tried by ecclesiastical courts. Lord
' Coke, of ancient but of great authority on the subject of law,
said blasphemy belonged to the king’s ecclesiastical law;
and when the writ de lieretico comburendo was abolished in the
reign of Charles H., there was still special reservation made for
ecclesiastical courts to try offences. But when the clergy began
to lose their power over the people, the judges brought in the
very heresy law that had been abolished; the same heresy
with another name and a cleaner face. Without the slightest
disrespect to the judges of to-day, one can maintain that
in bad old times, when judges depended so much upon the favor
of the Crown and the privileged classes, and when the Church
of England was held necessary to the maintainance of the con
stitution, it was not wonderful that they should deliver
judgments on the question of blasphemy, which really made
it heresy as against the State Church. I say that blas
phemy meant then, and always has meant, heresy against the
State Church. I am told we might have discussion on con
troverted points of religion if decently conducted. That was not
the language of those great judges of the past. They say we
might discuss controverted points of the Ohnsticcn religion_
those that were controverted amongst learned Christians; but
that the great dogmas that lay at the base of the articles of the
Established Church could not be called in question; and I could
�58
give judgment after judgment. But I will give you one casethat happened in this century. In the case of the Queen against
Gathercole, in which the defendant libelled the Scorton Nunnery,.
Baron Alderson laid it down : “ That a person may without bei-ng
liable to prosecution for it, attack Judaism or any religious sect
(save the established religion of the country), and the only reason
why the latter is in a different situation from the others is,,
because it is the form established by law, and it is therefore a part
of the constitution of the country.” Russell on “Crimes,”
volume 3, page 196, gives the case a little more fully. He
says: “When a defendant was charged with publishing a libel
upon a religious order, consisting of females, professing the
Roman Catholic faith, called the Scorton Nunnery, Alderson,
B., observed a person may, without being liable to prosecution
for it, attack Judaism or Mahomedanism, or even any sect of the
Christian religion save the established religion of the country,,
and the only reason why the latter is in a different situation from
the other is, because it is the form established by law, and is
therefore part of the constitution of the country.”
Now, gentlemen, that supports my contention that heresy
and blasphemy originally meant, and still ought to mean,,
simply ridicule of the State Church or denial of its doctrines
that where religious sects differ from the State Church,
no matter what sect of Nonconformity it be, whether it be a
section of the great Roman Catholic Church itself, or a
Jewish body or Mahomedan believing in the existence of a deity,
yet on those grounds, when they differ from the Established
Church, they have no protection against ridicule or sarcasm at
law. Gentlemen, will you yield that preposterous and invidious
right to the Established Church ? If any of you is a Dissenter,
remember the murders, the robberies, and the indignities in
flicted on your ancestors by the State Church. If any one of you
is a Quaker, remember that the gaols of London were full of
your ancestors who literally rotted away in them. Gentlemen,
remember that, and don’t give this State Church any protection..
Is it to be protected against ridicule, sarcasm, or argument, or
other forms of attack ? It has its livings worth ten or twelve
millions a year ; its has its edifices for worship in every parish of
the country; it has funds for the purposes of propaganda and
defence apart from its State connexions. It has had, until very
recently, practically all the educational appliances in its own
hands; and is it, gentlemen, to be protected against the onslaughts
of a few comparatively poor men? If a Church with such
advantages cannot hold it own, in the name of truth let it
go down. To prosecute us in the interests of this Church, though
ostensibly in the name of god, is to prostitute all that is sacred in.
religion, and to degrade what should be a great spiritual power,.
�59
into a mere police agent, a haunter of criminal courts, and an
instructor of Old Bailey special pleaders.
Every man has a right to three things—protection for person,
property, and character, and all that can be legitimately derived
from these. The ordinary law of libel gives a man protection for his
character, but it is surely monstrous that he should claim protection
for his opinions and tastes. All that he can claim is that his tastes
shall not be violently outraged against his will. I hope, gentlemen,
you will take that rational view of the question. We have libelled
no man’s character, we have invaded no man’s person or pro
perty. This crime is a constructed crime, originally manu
factured by priests in the interests of their own order to put
down dissent and heresy. It now lingers amongst us as a legacy
utterly alien to the spirit of our age, which unfortunately
we have not had resolution enough to cast among those absur
dities which Time holds in his wallet of oblivion.
One word, gentlemen, about breach of the peace. Mr. Justice
Stephen said well, that no temporal punishment should be in
flicted for blasphemy unless it led to a breach of the peace. I
have no objection to that, provided we are indicted for a breach
of the peace. Very little breach of the peace might make
a good case of blasphemy. A breach of the peace in a case like
this must not be constructive ; it must be actual. They might
have put' somebody in the witness-box who would have said that
reading the “ Freethinker ” had impaired his digestion and dis
turbed his sleep. (Laughter.) They might have even found
somebody who said it was thrust upon him, and that he was
induced to read it, not knowing its character. Gentlemen, they
have not attempted to prove that any special publicity was
given to it outside the circle of the people who approved
it. They hav6 not even shown there was an advertisement
of it in any Christian or religious paper. They have not
even told you that any extravagant display was made of it;
and I undertake to say that you might never have known of it if
the prosecution had not advertised it. How can all this be con
strued as a breach of the peace ? Our indictment says we have
done all this, to the great displeasure of almighty god, and to the
danger of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. You
must bear that in mind. The law books say again and again that
a blasphemous libel is punished, not because it throws obloquy
on the deity—the protection of whom would be absurd—but
because it tends to a breach of the peace. It is preposterous to
say such a thing tends to a breach of the peace. If you want
that you must go to the Salvation Army. They have a perfect
right to their ideas—I have nothing to say about them; but
their policy has led to actual breaches of the peace ; and even
in India, where, according to the law, no prosecution could be
�60
started against a paper like the “ Freethinker, ” many are sent
to gaol because they will insist upon proeessions in the street.
We have not caused tumult in the streets. We have not sent
out men with banners and bands in which each musician plays
more or less his own tune. (Laughter.) We have not sent out
men who make hideous discord, and commit a common nuisance.
Nothing of the sort is alleged. A paper like this had to be
bought and our utterances had to be sought. We have not
done anything against the peace. I give the indictment
an absolute denial. To talk of danger to the peace is
only a mask to hide the hideous and repulsive features of
intolerance and persecution. They don’t want to punish
us because we have assailed religion, but because we have
endangered the peace. Take them at their word, gentlemen.
Punish us if we have endangered the peace, and not if we have
assailed religion ; and as you know we have not endangered the
peace, you will of course bring in a verdict of Not Guilty.
Gentlemen, I hope you will by your verdict to-day champion
that great law of liberty which is challenged—the law of liberty
which implies the equal right of every man, so long as he does not
trench upon the equal right of every other man, to print what he
pleases for people who choose to buy and read it, so long as
he does not libel men’s characters or incite people to the com
mission of crime.
Gentlemen, I have more than a personal interest in the result of
this trial. 1 am anxious for the rights and liberties of thousands
of my countrymen. Young as I am, I have for many years
fought for my principles, taken soldier’s wages when there were
any, and gone cheerfully without when there were none, and
fought on all the same, as I mean to do to the end; and I am
doomed to the torture of twelve months’ imprisonment by the
verdict and judgment of thirteen men, whose sacrifices for con
viction may not equal mine. The bitterness of my fate can
scarcely be enhanced by your verdict. Yet this does not diminish
my solicitude as to its character. If, after the recent scandalous
proceedings in another court, you, as a special jury in this High
Court of Justice, bring in a verdict of Guilty against me and my
co-defendant, you will decisively inaugurate a new era of perse
cution, in which no advantage can accrue to truth or morality,
but in which fierce passions will be kindled, oppression and
resistance matched against each other, and the land perhaps
disgraced with violence and stained with blood. But if, as I
hope, you return a verdict of Not Guilty, you will check that
spirit of bigotry and fanaticism which is fully aroused and
eagerly awaiting the signal to begin its evil work; you will
close a melancholy and discreditable chapter of history; you
will proclaim that henceforth the press shall be absolutely free,
�61
unless it libel men’s characters or contain incitements to crime,
and that all offences against belief and taste shall be left to the
great jury of public opinion; you will earn the gratitude of all
who value liberty as the jewel of their souls, and independence
as the crown of their manhood ; you will save yonr country from
becoming ridiculous in the eyes of nations that we are accustomed
to consider as less enlightened and free; and you will earn for
yourselves a proud place in the annals of its freedom, its pro
gress, and its glory.
Mr. Foote’s speech, which occupied over two hours and a half in
delivery, created a profound impression on the Court, and evi
dently aroused a feeling of admiration on the part of the jury
and the Lord Chief Justice. At its close,
Lord Coleridge, addressing the jury, said: Gentlemen, I should
have been glad to have summed up this evening, but the truth
is, I am not very strong, and I propose, therefore, to address
you in the morning, and that will give you a full opportunity of
reflecting calmly on the very striking and able speech you have
just heard.
SECOND
DAY.
The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up to the jury, said—Gentlemen of the jury, the two prisoners, Foote and Ramsey,
are indicted before you for the publication of blasphemous libels,
and two questions arise. First of all, are these things in them
selves blasphemous libels ? secondly, if they are, is the publication
of them traced home to the defendants ? I will begin with the
last because it is the shorter and simpler question. Both are
questions entirely for you ; and when you have heard what I have
to say about the state of the law as 1 understand it, it will be for
you to pronounce a general verdict of Guilty or Not Guilty. For
the purposes of the second question, which I take first, I will
assume that these are blasphemous libels. I assume it only for
the purpose of discussing the second question, and I will discuss
it on this basis. Logically, if they are not blasphemous libels,
we don’t want to discuss the second question. In discussing the
second question, I must assume for the purpose of argument that
they are blasphemous libels. Assuming these to be Ebels, is the
publication of them traced home to the defendants? Formerly,
the fact that a man was engaged in the publication of a paper of
�62
this sort—of any sort—and that he was either editor, publisher
or printer of a publication coming out from time to time, and
issued under his sanction, made him in a civil action responsible
for what appeared in it. It was held also to constitute a criminal
libel; and although the publication may have been, in point of
fact, by a servant of his, it would make him responsible in a civil
action, because in a civil action he would be responsible for the
acts of his servants. Yet the case of libel is a peculiar case, in the
existence of which sometimes things are assumed, by great
judges undoubtedly, and a series of decisions arrived at which
modify the law. It was undoubtedly an anomaly in our system
that in the case of libel only, facts which would not have justified
a criminal conviction against a defendant in any other form of
crime, did justify a conviction in the particular case of libel
—seditious or even personal libel. But at the same time, in
the time of Lord Campbell, when he was in the House of Lords,
an Act of Parliament was passed which altered the law in that
respect. The law as altered in that respect came under the con
sideration of the Court of Queen’s Bench in the time of my pre
decessor Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and was the subject mattei
of two decisions. I am obliged to go through this again, although
I went through it with the jury who tried Mr. Bradlaugh, and,
therefore, I must tell you what I told the jury in that case. In
the case of the Queen and Holbrook, which was a case of this
sort, there was a bad libel published on the town clerk of Ports
mouth in a Portsmouth paper, and the proprietor of the paper
was indicted for this libel. It was tried twice over, once before
Mr. Justice Lindley and once before Mr. Justice Grove, and on
both occasions the judges laid down the law sufficiently favorably
as the Court of Queen’s Bench were of opinion, for the person
accused. They laid down the law substantially in this way. If it
was proved, as in that case, that the proprietor of the paper made
over absolutely the control of a particular part of the paper to a
sub-editor or agent, and told him to use his own discretion, to
■do what he thought right from time to time in relation to that
paper, Mr. Justice Lindley and Mr. Justice Grove substantially
told the jury that they were at liberty to infer it was as if in
each particular case the active positive sanction of the defendant
had been obtained to a particular publication. Well, on both
occasions that was held by the Court of Queen’s Bench not to be
the proper way to lay down the law since Lord Campbell’s Act.
And the law now is that it is not enough to connect the defendant
with the publication in which the libel appears, but you must
connect the defendant with the libel itself in the publication.
They all say when a man has edited in any vague sense you like,
when he has been editor of a particular number of a paper in
which there has been a libel, that that will not do unless you
�63
.give evidence to show that he edited, sanctioned, or in some
manner had to do with the particular publication incriminated.
Now that is the way in which Justice Lush—of whose words I
am always glad to avail myself—that is the way in which he lays
down the law in the second case of the Queen and Holbrook.
The section is this : “ If in respect of the trial of any indictment
or information for the publication of a libel, under the plea of
not guilty, evidence shall have been given which shall establish a
presumptive case of publication against the defendant by the act
of any other person, or by his authority, it shall be competent for
.such defendant to prove that such publication was made without
his authority, consent or knowledge, and that the said publica
tion did not arise from want of due care and caution on his part.”
Then the learned judge goes on to say: “ The effect of the statute,
read by the light of previous decisions, must be that an authority
from the proprietor of a newspaper to the editor to publish
what is libellous, is no longer to be, as it formerly was, a question
of law, but a question of fact.” Before that Act passed, the
only question of fact was whether the defendant authorised the
publication of the paper. Now the question is whether he
authorised the publication of the “libel.” Therefore you
must, in this case, have evidence to connect the two defendants
with the publication of the libel as well as with the publi
cation of the paper. Now I think you will be of opinion
that this case has been very ably defended by the two persons
who are incriminated, but I must say they have not defended it
on the true grounds, but only on what they think true grounds.
The grounds to them are true, and upon it they desire to succeed
if they can—not that they would be unwilling to avail themselves
■of any advantage in their favor, because, in a legal sense, they
would have a perfect right to stand upon the strictest
technicality, if in their favor. But, as a matter of fact,
they have not in their defence taken the true points. They have
preferred to rest their case upon that which is the second branch
of this inquiry, and they have not seriously contested that they
did both authorise, sanction and engage in the pubheation, not
■only of the papers in which the libels appeared, but of the libels
themselves. Still, although they have not chosen to raise that
question in argument, it is proper you and I should see that there
is legal evidence on which we can fairly and properly say—
supposing these to be libels—you are guilty of the publication of
them. Now the evidence is certainly all one way. Mr. Kelland,
who is a clerk to the solicitors for the prosecution, is called, and
says he purchased copies of the “Freethinker” at 28 Stone
cutter Street; that he purchased, upon the 30th of June, publi
cations of the 9th of April, the 23rd of April, the 30th of April,
the 7th of May, the 14th of May—all in 1882. The publication and
�64
purchase were in 1882. He bought at the same place a paper of
the 21st of May on the 24th of May, a paper of the 28th of May
on the 4th of June, and a paper of the 18th of June on the loth
of June. That I ought to explain, seeing it is published some
days before the date. They have a Sunday date upon that, and
the papers can be procured some days before the date, therefore
the paper of the 18th of June was bought on the 15th, and then
he says, “I purchased these mostly of Ramsey.” Now, any of
them—because really I cannot regard, and I suppose you will not
regard the publication of more than one of these—three or four—
of these libels, assuming them to be libels, as more than one, the
first one—the publication of any of the libels is sufficient, if it be a
libel, to bring the defendants within the meshes of this indictment..
And if you think Ramsey sold the papers across the counter—and
the witness was not cross-examined effectively upon that point,
and Ramsey did not dispute that he had sold those papers to
him—then as far as Ramsey is concerned, there is a distinct proof
of the publication of a number of these libels at all events,
because he was the proprietor of the paper and sold the copies
produced in court. That, according to any view of the law, is
distinct evidence of publication personally by Ramsey. As I
say, Ramsey is entitled to the credit of not having seriously dis
puted it. He doesn’t deny it. Still it is right it shouid be
proved, and it is proved by a witness that is not cross-examined.
If you believe Mr. Whittle, I don’t know that it is neces
sary to go further, as far as Ramsey is concerned, to connect
him with the actual publication of these libels. The
matter stands differently as regards Foote, because Mr.
Kelland, in reply to Foote, said, “ I purchased none of you; never.
I have seen you coming down stairs, not more than once, and
that was on the 16th of February. That is the time when I said
I saw you coming down stairs at Stonecutter Street.” That is
nothing, because in the first place it is months after these sales
had taken place ; and under the authority of the Queen and Hol
brook, if a man is seen coming down stairs it is not sufficient
for a libel. Then Air. Edward Whittle is called, and he says he
has seen Foote’s writing on particular papers, but not at St.
John Street. Whittle was not cross-examined. On looking at his
evidence before the Lord Mayor, it did not appear there was any
particular need to examine him. He said here substantially what
he said before the Lord Mayor. Whittle says he is a printer,,
carrying on business at 170 St. John Street. “ Those numbers,
which are the subject-matter of the counts of the indictment,
were printed by me for Ramsey. I know Foote, who has come
to give me orders for anything he wanted. I have had orders from
him as to some of these papers. He sent the manuscript for
the ‘Freethinker.’ The greater part came from Foote.
L
�65
usually saw the manuscript of the ‘Freethinker.’ I believe a
proof is sometimes pulled. I have seen proofs of the other
articles. The first article, that is the article in the first count
came from Foote. 1 know his handwriting.” This is—I won’t
say a friend in any bad sense, since he is an acquaintance of
Foote, by reason of his having printed for Foote. He has
really no hostility to Foote, but he is obliged, by force of law
to say what is the truth—that the first libel, in the first incrimi
nated paper came from Foote, and was sent in his handwriting.
If so, there is abundant evidence to show, as far as that is
concerned, that he is connected with it. He takes the second
and says: “Ishould not like to say where it came from. To
the best of my belief it came from Foote. It was in Foote’s
handwriting. I should imagine it came from Foote. This was
putin the paper by order of Foote. This paper was printed by me
by his orders.” It is impossible to say that is not evidence to con
nect Foote withtbe second incriminated passage. Then they take
the third. That was in Foote’s manuscript, and it was printed in
the paper by Foote’s orders. It is impossible to say that is not evi
dence that Foote is connected with this. The third, that is the illus
tration, was put into the paper by Foote’s direction. Then the
fourth. Foote didn’t write this one, but it was inserted in the
paper by his directions. Then as to to the next count. Foote
directed the insertion of this article. As to the next one, the
witness said : “I don’t know who wrote it, but Foote ordered it
to be inserted.” Then the next. “ Foote didn’t write this, but
ordered it to be put in the paper.” As to the next, witness
says: “Mr. Heaford wrote this.” Then the next. “ Mr.
Foote ordered this to be inserted.” “Mr. Foote’s name is on
the paper.” Then the last one. “He authorised this also; he
has never spoken to me about the meaning of these cartoons he
has never told me he edited the paper.” You will remember that
yesterday, I prevented a general question put in that form, bear
ing in mind the Queen v. Holbrook. A man may be the editor
of a paper but it doesn’t follow, because he is the general editor
of a paper, everything in that paper makes him criminally liable.
It must be shown that the incriminated portions of the paper
have had, so to say, his mind upon them, and that his mind has
gone with the publication of them. Now on the part of young Mr.
Whittle we have had this evidence, which certainly is sufficient,
uncontradicted—and it is uncontradicted—to show that Foote*
as well as Ramsey, was actively, and within the decision to which
I have already adverted, connected with the publication of these
incriminated passages. There is no evidence on the other side.
I must say that Mr. Foote, in his very able speech, rather
assumed that he was responsible for these publications, that he
authorised them, and that his mind did go with them. Anything;
E
�66
he said in his speech would probably be not enough, but here is
the evidence of Whittle, whom he did not cross-examine ; who
gave his evidence with reluctance—not unbecoming reluctance—
because he was giving evidence against a person by whom he was
employed. So he gives evidence which fastens on Foote the
responsibility of the publication of every one of these incriminated
passages. I don’t know that it is proved he wrote them in the
sense of having composed them, but with regard to all of them
it is shown he sent them to the printer with directions to have
them printed in the “Freethinker.” Now that is enough to
satisfy you, unless you can see some reason which I cannot
suggest to you, to doubt this evidence. Supposing you assume
these to be libels—Foote and Ramsey both are answerable for
their publication. That, however, of course, is, comparatively
speaking, the least matter which you had discussed yesterday,
because the proof was clear, and the proof was not, in fact, dis
puted. The other point, which is first in logical relation, remains—
Are, these within the meaning of the law blasphemous libels?
Now that is a matter that as you have been truly told is
entirely for you. You have the responsibility of looking at them,
and of pronouncing whether they are or are not blasphemous
libels. My duty is to express to you, as clearly as I can, what is
the law. upon the subject; I will not say to answer, because it
is not the duty of a judge to answer, the speeches made;
but it is, as I conceive, his duty to point out to you which
■of the observations are well founded in his judgment. No one
knows more than I how erring and feeble that judgment is. Still
it is to be exercised to the best ability god has given me, and
you must take it for what it is worth, and then the matter is for
you. In addressing any jury, but more especially a jury like this,
I should feel the most absolute confidence that a jury in a criminal
case would obey the law as laid down, and whether they liked it
oi' not, they would take the law from the judge and apply it like
honest men to the facts; because, as I said a week before, it is far
more important that the law should be administered conscien
tiously, than that the law in a particular case should be a good or
bad law ; because the moment judges or juries go beyond their
functions, and take upon them to find one way or the other—
not according to the law as it is but as they think it ought to be
—then, instead of any certainty, anything upon which any sub
ject can rely, we are left to an infinite variety of human opinion,
to the caprice—excuse me using the expression—to the caprice
that may at any moment influence the best of us, to the preju
dices that bias—I will not say that, because sometimes prejudices
are good—but to the feelings and prejudices which distort and
disturb the judgment from the simple operation of ascertaining
whether the facts proved come within the law, as they are
�67
’bound to take it. You have heard, and heard with truth, that
these things are, according to old law, old dicta of old judges,
'undoubtedly blasphemous libels, because they asperse the truth of
Christianity. I said a week ago—and I see no reason to doubt that
I said correctly—in regard to these words and to these expres
sions, for reasons which I will give presently, from the very cases
in which these expressions have been used, that can no longer be '
taken to be a statement of the law'in the present day. It is no longer
true in the sense in which it was true when those statements were
■made. It may be true in another sense—-I don’t say it is not—but it
is no longer true, in the sense in which those statements were made,
that Christianity is the law of the land. Jews, Nonconformists,
Mahomedans, and a variety of persons in the times when these
dicta proceeded from great judges, were treated as having scarcely
■any- civil rights at all. It was impossible, in a free country, to
persecute them to death, but almost everything short of persecu
tion to death was enacted deliberately by the Parliament of this •
country against such persons—I don’t mean by name because it
was not so ; and it has often been pointed out that the exclusion
-of the Jews was an exclusion
accident, although I am bound
to confess I had never much faith in that. They were histori
cally excluded, probably because, at the time when the statute
was passed, they were not thought sufficiently worthy an Act
■of Parliament. But now—I may be in error—but as far as I know “
the law a Jew maybe Lord Chancellor. Certainly a Jew may
be Master of the Rolls; certainly, by the merest accident when
the late Master of the Rolls was appointed, before the Judicature
Act came into operation, a great and illustrious lawyer, whose
loss the whole profession is deploring, and in whom those who
were honored with his friendship knew they lost a warm friend
and loyal comrade—he might have sat here and tried this very
case, and he might have been called upon to say—at least if the
■law be correct, that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of
the land. He, a Jew, might have been bound to lay down, accord
ing to that view, to a jury in which there might have been half
a dozen Jews, that it was a breach of the law, subjecting a man
to twelve months’ imprisonment, to deny that Jesus Christ was the
Messiah, a thing which he himself did deny, which every Jew in
■the land must deny, which Parliament has deliberately allowed
them to deny, and which it is just as much now under the law of
the land their right to deny, as it is your right and mine, if we
believe it, to assert it. Therefore, to base the prosecution of an
aspersion on Christianity per se—I shall, I hope, be taken to mean
no more than I exactly express—to base a prosecution for an
aspersion of Christianity perse, on the ground that Christianity is in
the sense of Lord Hale, Lord Raymond, or Lord Tenterden, part of
the law of the land, is, in my judgment, to forget that law grows
�68
like other things, that though the principles of law remain, yet that
the law grows. And it is one of the inestimable advantages of
the common law that it is so, that the principles of law have tobe applied to infinitely changing circumstances and to growth—
some people would say towards retrogression, but I should venture
to say towards progression of human opinion. Therefore, merely to
discover that Christianity is denied, or the truth of Christianity is
denied, on general grounds, and to say, therefore, that a man may
be indicted for a blasphemous libel, is absolutely untenable ; and 1,
for one, will certainly never, until I am boundtodoso—of course
I should be happy to obey the law like a dutiful subject, if
it is expressed in a way I cannot fail to understand—
but, until it is so expressed, I shall not lay down the law in a
way which cannot be historically justified. The Acts being
passed, Parliament is the maker of the laws, and if Parliament
has passed laws which make the dicta of the old judges no
• longer applicable it is no disrespect to those judges to say
that laws made under one state of things are no longer law under
_ another state of things, which Parliament has altered. When I
_
last addressed the jury on this subject I said—and 1 thought that
I said—this shows how careful you should be—that I said what
appeared to me almost a reductio ad absurdum ; that if tnis were
still the law of the land—1 put it respectfully—I said it would be
impossible to discuss any question of the law as it is, that there
could be no reform, that it would not be possible to discuss the
question whether a Republican or Monarchical form of Govern
ment was the best, as Harrington did in his “ Oceana,” and as
other writers have done, without danger of being prosecuted for
a seditious libel. But this case has led me to look into such few
books as I possess ; and what 1 thought was a reductio ad
absurdum I find is held in the case of the King v. Bedford.
There a man is prosecuted for discussing gravely and civilly,
and, as the report says, “with no reflexion whatever upon
any part of the existing Government.” He was actually con
victed of a seditious libel because he said hereditary principles
were not the wisest. I find 150 years ago a man was actually
convicted for gravely and seriously maintaining that which I
thought could be seriously and gravely maintained without any
infringement of the law. I need hardly say if the case came up
now no judge or jury would convict. It would be monstrous
such a thing should be done. That may show shortly that the
bare statement that it is enough that these things are denials,
utter denials, of the tiuth of the religion of Christ is not
maintainable. I should not think that it was enough to show a
mere denial of Christianity in the present to make the thing
capable of being attacked. “But, no doubt, whether we like it or
not, we must not be guilty, and Imust not be guilty, of anything
�69
like taking the law into one’s own hands, and to wrest the law
from what it really is, and to convert it into what I may think in
my foolish judgment it ought to be. I must lay down the law
to you as I understand it and find it in books of authority. Mr.
Foote, in his very able speech yesterday, spoke with something
like contempt of the late Mr. Starkie. Well, he did not know
the late Mr. Starkie, and how very able and good a man he was.
When I was young I knew him. He was not only a man of
remarkable powers of mind—perhaps he never had his rightful
estimate in the world—he was a man of liberal opinions, and a
person in whose hands—if law-making can be safe in anyone’s
hands—I should have thought it might be safely left. Whether
I am right or not is immaterial, because this view of Mr. Starkie’s
has been again and again assented to, and it appears to me to con
tain a correct statement of the existing state of the law. He says :
“There are no questions of more intense and awful interest
than those which concern the relations between the creator and
the beings of his creation ; and though, as a matter of discretion
and prudence, it might be better to leave the discussion of such
matters to those who, from their education and habits, are most
likely to form correct conclusions, yet it cannot be doubted
that any man has a right, not merely to judge for himself on such
subjects, but also, legally speaking, to publish his opinions for
the benefit of others. When learned and acute men enter upon
those discussions with such laudable motives, their very contro
versies, even where one of the antagonists must necessarily be
mistaken, so far from producing mischief, must in general tend
to the advancement of truth and the establishment of religion
on the firmest and most stable foundations. The very absurdity
and folly of an ignorant man, who professes to teach and
enlighten the rest of mankind, are usually so gross as to render
his errors harmless; but be this as it may, the law interferes not
with his blunders so long as they are honest ones—justly con
sidering that society is more than compensated for the partial
and limited mischief which may arise from the mistaken endea
vors of honest ignorance by the splendid advantages which
result to religion and truth from the exertions of free and nnfettered minds. It is the mischievous abuse of this state of
intellectual liberty which calls for penal censure. The law visits
not the honest errors but the malice of mankind. A wilful in
tention to pervert, insult, and mislead others by means of
licentious and contumelious abuse applied to sacred subjects, or
by wiful misrepresentations or artful sophistry, calculated to mis
lead the ignorant and unwary, is the criterion and test of guilt.
Malicious and mischievous intention, or what is equivalent to such
an intention in law as well as morals—a state of apathy and in
difference to the interests of society—is the broad boundary
�70
between right and wrong.” Now, gentlemen, I believe that to be acorrect statement of law. Whatever it ought to be, the law is not
a matter for you or me. I have only to ascertain what is the
law, and, having ascertained it, to explain it to you, as far as my
powers of explanation enable me, and to leave you to apply the
facts to the particular case before you. I cannot help saying,
there is a great deal that strikes my mind in the way in whichMr. Foote dealt with this passage on these principles of Mr.
Starkie, but there is more to be said, I think, than at first sight
perhaps, appears; and there is a passage in this same book of
Mr. Starkie’s—not a passage of his own, as I understand it,,
though it is not quite clear whether it is or not, but I believe it.
to be a translation from the work of Michaelis, in which he says
that which is true enough. He says it is not clear whether it is a
bad thing for the libeller that he should be punished by the law
rather than by the rougher handling of an angry populace. And
he says: “Were the religion in question only tolerated, still
the State is bound to protect every person who believes it from
such outrages, or it cannot blame him if he has not the patience
to bear them. But if it be the established national religion—and
of course the person not believing it, is only tolerated by the
State, though he enjoys its protection just as if he were in a
strange house—such an outrage is excessively gross, and unless
we conceive the people so tame as to put up with any affront,
and of course likely to play but a very despicable part on thestage of the world, the State has only to choose between the two
alternatives of either punishing the blasphmer himself, or else
leaving him to the fury of the people. The former is the milderplan, and, therefore, to be preferred, because the people are apt
to gratify their vengeance without sufficient inquiry, and of
course it may light on the innocent. Nor is this by any means a
right which I only claim for the religion which I hold to be thetrue one; I am also bound to admit it, when I happen to be
among a people from whose religion I dissent. Were I in a
Catholic country to deride their saints, or insult their religion
by my behavior, were it only rudely and designedly putting onmy hat, where decency would have suggested the taking it off; or
where I in Turkey to blaspheme Mahomet, or in a heathen city,.
its gods—nothing would be more natural than for the people,.
instead of suffering it, to avenge the insult in their usual way—
that is tumultously, passionately, and immediately ; or else the
State would, in order to secure me from the effects of their fury,
be under the necessity of taking my punishment upon itself; and.
if it does so, it does a favor both to me and other dissenters from
the established religion, because it secures us from still greater
evils. Therefore it is not socleartomy mindthatsome sort of pro
tection of the constituted religion of the country is not a good*.
�71
'thing even to those who differ from it because if there were no
such protection the consequences pointed out by Michaelis
might ensue. It does not follow that because the objects of
popular dislike differ in different ages—it does not follow (I
wish it did) that the populace of one age is much wiser than the
populace of another. It is not so very long ago since a Bir
mingham mob wrecked the house of Dr. Priestley, as good, dis
tinguished and illustrious a man as probably has ever been an
English subject. And that was not, remember, the State that
did that—it was the populace that wrecked his house and
destroyed his library. Therefore, it is not quite so sure to my
mind, that some sort of blasphemy laws, reasonably enforced,
are not to the advantage of persons who differ from the religion
of the country, and who are intending and desire to destroy it.
Therefore, it must not be taken as so absolutely certain that all
those laws against blasphemy are tyrannical. It is not so sure.,
when you come to look at the matter calmly and quietly, and
not from Mr. Foote’s or Mr. Maloney’s point of view, it is not
so sure that some kind of law of this sort is not advan
tageous. However, the principle is to be found laid down in
Starkie, and that principle is as I have expressed it to you. I
think it right to say that the cases that I have quoted to you—I
don’t pretend that I have the time or the learning to read every
case written upon the subject—but the cases which I have been
able to study, do not satisfy me that the law was ever different
from the way in which Starkie has laid it down. I have taken three
cases, about seventy or eighty years apart, and I find that the
law, as I understand it, is laid down exactly the same in all those
three cases. The first case is a case decided by that great
lawyer of whom Mr. Foote spoke, Lord Hale. He rightly said
he was a man of absolute integrity and great intellectual
force; and perhaps if he had read, as I have done, all the trial
of the witches before Lord Hale, he would have seen that Lord
Hale was there doing, what many a judge has to do—was ad
ministering a law he did not like, and so gave the accused per
son every advantage which his skill and the law allowed him, but
neither the prisoners nor jury would take advantage of it. The
case is a very curious one, and if any one reads it, I think it
would be a very rough analysis of it to say, that Lord Hale bung
people for witchcraft because of a passage in the Bible, though,
no doubt, the passage was referred to. Anybody who will be at
the pains to read that case will say there is more to be said for
Lord Hale than the general run of mankind believe. Lord Hale
in the case of Taylor had these words before him—and you
must always take a case according to the subject matter it
decides, and the opinion contained—these expressions, ter
rible to read, namely, “That Jesus Christ was a bastard, a
�72
whoremaster, an imposter, and a cheat, and that he, Taylor,
neither feared god, man, nor deviL” Those were the words
upon which Lord Hale had to decide in that case, and
Lord Hale said that such kinds of blasphemous words
were not only an offence against god and religion, but a crime
against the laws and therefore punishable. He did not say that
a grave argument against the truth of revelation was so punish
able, but that such kind of wicked and blasphemous words were.
That is what Lord Hale held in that case. That is one of the
■earliest cases on the subject. You may find expressions which
seem to go further, but you ought to look before you cite these
cases so glibly as some people do. You should look and see
v hat was the subject matter of the decision. Lord Hale held
that to be a blasphemous libel, and if it was a matter of law I
should be compelled to say it was a blasphemous libel, though I
trust I am not disposed to hang witches. (Laughter.) But I
believe that to be a perfectly accurate description of the state
of the law as it is at present. The next case which has been
so much cited from Strange, although it is better reported from
Fitz-Gibbon, is that of Woolston, who was convicted of blas
phemous discourses on the miracles of our lord, and the Court
laid very great stress on the words in the indictment “ general and
indecent attacks,” and stated that they did not intend to include
disputes between men on controverted points. That is the law
as laid down by Lord Raymond. The case that has been com
monly cited as bringing it down later is that of the King
Waldington, which was decided by Lord Tenterden, and the
words of the libel were—“That Jesus Christ was an impostor,
a murderer and a fanatic.” The Lord Chief Justice laid it down
that that was a libel, and a juryman asked the Lord Chief
Justice whether a work tliat denied the divinity of our savior
was a libel. Now mark the answer given by Lord Tenterden,
one of the most cautious and justly respected men. He answered
thata work speaking of Jesus Christ in the language referred to
was,a libel. His answer is that a work speaking of Jesus
Christ in the language used in the publication in quesquestion is a libel, and I have read the words. That case came
before the King's Bench, which consisted of Lord Tenterden,
Mr. Justice Bayley, Mr. Justice Ilolroyd, with Mr. Justice Best.
The three first-named judges being as great lawyers as ever sat
upon the Bench, and I think no one would compare Mr. Justice
Best with Lord Tenterden, Mr. Justice Bayley, or Mr. Justice
Holroyd, When the case was moved to the King’s Bench, Lord
Tenterden said: “I told the jury that any publication in which
our savior was spoken of in the language used in this publica
tion was a libel, and I have no doubt whatever that it is so. I
have no doubt it is a libel to publish the words that our savior
�73
was an impostor, a murderer, and a fanatic.” Mr. Justice
Bayley says: “ It appears to me that the direction of the Lord
Chief Justice was perfectly right. There cannot be any doubt
that a work which does not merely deny the godhead of Jesus
Christ, but which states him to have been an impostor and a
murderer is at common law a blasphemous libel.” Mr. Justice
Holroyd says: “I have no doubt whatever that any publication
in which Jesus Christ is spoken of in the language used in this
work is a blasphemous libel, and that therefore the direction was
right in point of law.”
Mr. Justice Best gives a longer
judgment, in somewhat more rhetorical language, but to the
same effect; and he concludes: “It is not necessary for me to
say whether it be libelous to argue from the scriptures against
the divinity of Christ.
That is not what the defendant
professes to do.” Then he says: “ The Legislature has never
altered the law, nor can it ever do so while the Christian
religion is considered to be the basis for that law. There is a
case which is often cited as an authority to show that to deny or
dispute the truth of Christianity is an offence against the law,
because there is a statement that Christianity is part, or ought to
be part and parcel of fthe law of the laud. That is the case of
the King v. Waddington, which is one of the latest which binds
me here, and upon which I shall be bound to direct you. I
think when you come to consider the cases you will very much
doubt whether the old law is open to the strong attacks that
have been made upon it. I doubt extremely whether, if you
come carefully and quietly to look at and read through—not
merely look at—the notes and extracts read from cases, and
master the facts of the cases upon which those old decisions
were pronounced—I doubt if they will be found to be so
illiberal and harsh as it has been the fashion to describe them in
modern times. After all, I say as I said before, that Parliament
has altered the law on the subject; it is no longer the law that
none but holders of the Christian religion can take part in the
State, or have rights in the State ; but, on the contrary, others
have just as much right in civil matters as any member of the
Church of England has. The condition of things is no longer the
same as it was when those great judges pronounced those
judgments which I respectfully think have been misunderstood,
and strained to a meaning they do not warrant. It is a comfort
to think that things have been altered, because I observe that in
the case of the Attorney-General v. Pearson, which is a very
interesting case, decided'in 1817 by Lord Eldon, it seems there
was some doubt expressed as to whether the 9th and 10th
IVilliam the Third as to persons denying the Trinity were
still in operation. I do not want to be a defender of old things ;
they are shocking enough, and under this Act men are prevented
�74
from holding any kind of office if they deny this or that; inshort, if he does not hold the Thirty-nine Articles a man is
liable to punishment, and after a second offence still more
terrible things are to follow. It must be remembered what was
the state of the country at the time that statute was passed, who
was the king upon the throne, the state of political factions, what
were the feelings that not unnaturally agitated men’s minds
And regard being had to all that—I am not going to defend it
for a moment, I do not say it is to be defended—then it is to be a
good deal more explained than at first sight appears. At all
events, it is enough to say no man could dream of enacting 9th
and 10th William the Third at the present day; and 1 hope
and trust that Lord Eldon’s doubts as to whether some parts
of these are still in existence will never be brought to
a solution in a court of law which says they are well
founded. Such are the rules by which you are to judge of these
libels. You have heard a great deal—and here is the least
pleasant part of my duty, which I wish I could avoid—you have
heard a great deal very powerfully put to you by Mr. Foote,
about the inexpediency of these laws, and the way these laws areworked. It might, perhaps, be enough to say that is a matter
with which you and I have nothing to do. What we have to dois simply to administer the law as we find it; and if we find the
law such as we don’t like, the only thing to do is to try to get it
altered, and in a free country, after discussion, public agitation,
and excitement, a change is always effected, if it approves itself
to the general sense of the community. But there is no doubt it
has been very well put to you, and it is worth observation that
there is a good deal to be said for the view Mr. Foote has so ably
put forward. It is true if this movement is to be regarded as perse
cution, it is perfectly true—unless persecution is thorough-going—
it seldom succeeds. Mere irritation, mere annoyance, mere punish
ment that stops short of extermination, have very seldom the effect
of altering men’s religious convictions. 1 suppose—because they
are passed away—I suppose that, quite without one fragment of
rhetorical exaggeration, I may say that the penal laws, which fifty
or sixty years ago were enforced in Ireland, were unparalleled
in the history of the world. They had existed 150 years; they
had produced upon the religious convictions of the people abso
lutely no effect whatever. You could not exterminate the Irish
people. You did everything that was possible by law, short of
actual violence and extermination, but without the slightest effect.
And, therefore, there is no doubt that the observation is a correct
one, that persecution, as a general rule, unless it is more
thorough-going, than, at any rate, in England, and in the nine
teenth century, anybody would stand—is, generally speaking,,
of little avail. It is also true—and I cannot help assenting to it—
�that it is a very easy form of virtue. A difficult form of virtue
is quietly and unostentatiously to obey what you believe to be
god’s will in your own lives. It is not very easy to do that and if
you do it, you don’t make much noise in the world. It is very
easy to turn upon somebody who differs from you, and in the
guise of zeal for god’s honor, to attack somebody who differs from
you in point of opinion, but whose life will be very much more
pleasing to god, whom you profess to honor, than your own.
When it is done by persons whose own lives are full of pretend
ing to be better than their neighbors, and who take that parti
cular form of zeal for god which consists in putting the criminal
law in force against somebody else—that does not, in many
people’s minds, create a sympathy with the prosecutor, but rather
with the defendant. There is no doubt that will be so ; and if
they should be men—-I don’t know anything about these persons—
but if they should be men who enjoy the wit of Voltaire, and
who do not turn away from the sneer of Gibbon, but rather relish
the irony of Hume—one’s feelings do not go quite with the pro
secutor, but one’s feelings are rather apt to sympathise with the
defendants. It is still worse if the person who takes this course
takes it not from a kind of rough notion that god wants his
assistance, and that he can give it—less on his own account than
by prosecuting others—or if it is mixed up with anything of a
partisan or political nature, then it is impossible that anything
can be more foreign from one’s notions of what is high-minded,
religious, and noble. Indeed, I must say it strikes me that anyone
who would do that not for the honor of god, but for his own
purposes, is entitled to the most disdainful disapprobation that
the human mind can form. However, the question here is not
with the motives—of which I know nothing—nor with the
character, of which I know less, of the prosecutors, or those who
instituted these proceedings, but with the proceedings them
selves, and whether they are legal. The way in which that
matter has been dealt with by Mr. Foote is extremely able and
well worthy of your attention ; and it is for you to say, after a
few words from me, what effect it produces upon your minds.
Mr. Foote’s case is, as I understand it, this—he will forgive me
if I do not quite state it accurately : “I am not going to main
tain that this is in the best taste; some of it may be coarse, some
of it may to men of education give offence. It is intended to be
an attack on Christianity ; it is distinctly intended to be an attack
on. what I have seen in the publications of cultivated agnosticism.
It is meant to point out that in the books, which you Christians
and professing Christians call sacred, are to be found records of
detestable crimes, of horrible cruelties, all of which are said to
have been pleasing to almighty god. I do mean to attack this
representation of god. I mean to say all that is not true : I say it
�76
is a detestable superstition. I mean it, and if I have said it in
coarse language, that is because (though he need not have
said this) I have not sufficient education or culture to cull
my words carefully; but I will bring before you a number
of books, sold upon every bookstall, written by persons
admitted to the very highest society in the land, in
which not only are the same things to be found, in point
of matter, but I will read you passages in which there is very
little difference between the matter and the manner, and I
will read you, for example, passages from Mr. John Stuart Mill,
-Mr. Grote, passages from Shelley, and from other persons. I
mention those who are dead so as not to wound the feelings of
any. Nobody ever dreamed of attacking Shelley (that is not 1
quite correct, for the publisher was prosecuted, and he himself I
was deprived by Lord Eldon of the custody of his children). I '
will show you, says the defendant, things written by them quite
as strong and as. coarse as anything to be found in these
publications of mine; and, says Mr. Foote, it is plain the law
cannot be as suggested, because it cannot be said that a poor
man can not do what a rich man may ; it cannot be said you may
blaspheme in civil language. And more than that, he says, £;I
will show you that the manner of some of these publications is
no better than mine.” Let me say upon that subject two things;
one is in Mr. Foote’s favor and one is against him. He wished
strongly to have brought to your minds that in the sense in
which .Starkie used the words—that is the ordinary sense of the
word licentious—Mr. Foote is anxious to have it impressed on you
that he is not a licentious writer, and that this word does not
fairly apply to his publications. You will have the documents
before you, and you must judge for yourselves. I should say
that he is right. He may be blasphemous, but he certainly is not
licentious, in the ordinary sense of the word; and you do not
find him pandering to the bad passions of mankind. That is a
thing in his favor, and is entitled to be said. With regard to the
other point, if the law as I have laid it down to you is correct,
so far as the decencies of controversies are observed—as far as I
can see, it always has been the law, and certainly I lay down
as law to you now—that if decencies of controversy are observed,
even the fundamentals of religion may be attacked without a
person being guilty of blasphemous libels. There may be many
great and grave writers who have attacked the foundations of
Christianity. Mr. Mill, undoubtedly, did so, and some great
living writers may also have attacked Christianity; but no one
can read these articles without seeing a difference between
them and the incriminated publications which I am obliged to
say is not a difference of degree but of kind. There is a grave,
earnest, reverent—perhaps I may say religious—tone about the
�77
Very attacks upon Christianity itself, which show that what isaimed at is not insult to the opinions of the majority of mankind,
or the holders of- Christianity, but a real, quiet, earnest
pursuit of the truth. If the truth at which they have arrived is
not the truth we have been taught, and which, perhaps, if we
thought for ourselves we should arrive at, yet because their con
clusions differ from ours, they are not to be the subject matter of
a criminal indictment. Therefore with regard to many of the
people whose writings have been very properly brought before
you by Mr. Foote—with regard to many of those persons I
should say they are within the protection of the law and
are well within the authority of the passage I have read to
you, and which I remind you of, as containing my judgment.
With regard to some of the others from whom Mr. Foote quoted
passages, I heard many of them for the first time. I do not at
all question that Mr. Foote read them correctly.
They
are passages which, hearing them only from him for the
first time, I confess I have a difficulty in distinguishing
from the incriminated publication. They do appear to me
to be open to exactly the same charge and the same grounds of
observation that Mr. Foote’s publications are. He says—and 1
don’t call upon him to prove it, I am quite willing to take his
word—he says many of these things are written in expensive
books, published by publishers of known eminence, and that they
circulate in the drawing-rooms, studies, and libraries of persons
of position. It may be so. All I can say here is—and so far I
can answer for myself—I would make no distinction between
Mr. Foote and anybody else ; and if there are persons, however
eminent they may be, who used language, not fairly distinguish
able from that used by Mr. Foote, and if they are ever brought
before me—which I hope they never may be, for a more trouble
some or disagreeable business can never be inflicted upon me_
if they come before me, so far as my poor powers go, they shall
have neither more nor less than the justice I am trying to do to
Mr. Foote ; and if they offend the Blasphemy Laws they shall 1
find that so. long as these laws exist—whatever I may think
about their wisdom—they will have but one rule of law laid down
in this court. That Mr. Foote may depend upon, and I admit,
as far as I can judge, some of them, that they are strong,
shall I.say coarse expressions of contempt and hatred for the
recognised—generally recognised—truths as we take or have
accepted them of Christianity, and of the Hebrew Scriptures,
which are said to have been inspired of god himself. Mr. Foote
must however forgive me for saying that that is no argument in
his favor. It is no argument for a burglar—I mean nothing
offensive to him—I should be unworthy of my position if 1
insulted anyone in his position—it is no argument in favor of a
�78
■burglar to say that some other person has committed a burglary.
Because some persons may have escaped, in the infinite variety
of human affairs, that is no reason why others should not be
brought to justice. If he is right in his quotations from these
writers, it appears to me they are fairly subject matter of such a
prosecution as this. Suppose they are, it does not show that he
is not. What Mr. Foote had to show—which he did to the best
of his ability, and it is not his fault if the law is against him—
. what he had to show was, not that other people were bad, but
that he was good; not that other persons were guilty, but that
he was innocent. And it is no answer to bring forward these
■cases, some of which I confess I cannot distinguish from some of
these incriminated articles. It is not enough to say these
persons have done these things if they are not brought before
us. I not only admit, but I urge upon you, and everybody who
hears my opinion, that whilst laxity in the administration of the
law is bad, the most odious is the discriminating laxity, which lays
hold of particular persons and does not lay hold of others liable
to the same censure. That may be, and is so, but it has
nothing to do with this case. The case is here, not whether
other persons ought to be standing where Mr. Foote and Mr.
Ramsey stand, but what judgment you ought to pass upon them.
We have to administer this law, whether we like it or not. It is,
undoubtedly, a disagreeable law, but I have given you reasons for
thinking it is not quite so bad, or quite so indefensible, as Mr.
Foote, from his point of view, thinks it is. On the contrary, I
think it is a just law that persons should be obliged to respect
the feelings and opinions of those amongst them. I assent to the
passage of Michaelis, that in a Catholic country we have no right
to insult Catholic opinion, nor in a Mahomedan country have we
any right to insult Mahomedan opinion. I differ from both, but
I should feel that I was bound to treat with respect opinions with
which I might not agree. You will see these publications, and
if you think they are permissible attacks upon the religion of
the country you will find the defendants Not Guilty; but if you
think that they do not come within the most liberal and the
largest view that anyone can give of the law as it exists now,
as I have laid it down to you, then, whatever may be the j
consequences, and however little you may think the prosecution
wise, or however little you may think the thing itself desirable,
however little you may think any kind of publication should i
ever be made subject matter of attack, yet it is your duty to
administer the law as you find it, not to strain it in Mr. Foote’s
favor because you think he ought not to be prosecuted, still less
to strain it against the defendants because you may yourselves
not agree with the sentiments which they advocate, as you
certainly are not likely to agree with the manner in which they
�79
•advocate them. Take these libels into your consideration and
say whether you find Mr. Foote or Mr. Ramsey Guilty or Not
Guilty of the publication.
Mr. Maloney: Would your lordship give the jury the papers?
L°rd Coleridge: I beg your pardon, there are some cartoons
that are offensive. Mr. Foote’s excuse is that they are not attacks
upon, and not mtended to be a caricature of almighty god If
there be such a being, says Mr. Foote, he can have no feeling for
him but a profound reverence and awe, but this is his mode of
holding up to contempt what he calls a caricature of that being
as it appears in the Hebrew scriptures. That is for you to trv
You must look at them and judge for yourselves whether thev
do or do not come within the law.
J
On the conclusion of the summing-up which occupied an
hour and forty-five minutes, at twenty minutes past twelve
o clock the jury retired to consider their verdict, taking with
them the incriminated publications.
&
Shortly before two o’clock, Lord Coleridge, who had received
a communication from the jury, said : I have been informed
that they are not able to agree to a verdict, and I ought to
be at Westminster to meet the Lord Chancellor and the fudges
who are members of the Rule Committee. Indeed I ought to
have been there at ten o’clock this morning, but I was anxious
to dispose of this case. The jury inform me that there is no
prospect of an agreement, but perhaps they have not been
long enough m consultation to be able to say that it is impos
sible that they should come to an agreement. I have spoken
to Mr. Serie, my associate, and I have mentioned an hour at
which the jury, in the event of their not being able to ao-ree
shall be discharged. What do you propose to do, Mr. Malonev’
if they should disagree ?
J
Mr. Maloney : I should like, my lord, to consult with Sir
Hardmge Giftard as to that, and let the case stand on the
Lord Coleridge : Is he in the building ?
Mr. Maloney : Within the next quarter of an hour I will
see him. My own desire .is . that the case should stand in the
list tor trial at the next sittings.
Lord Coleridge : Why at the next sittings ? Why should
I postpone it?
J UVU1UMr. Maloney : I merely say that, my lord, for the conve
nience of all parties.
Mr. Avory: On behalf of the defendants my lord, I have
to say that I do not desire it to be postponed, and would prefurtherVelay b6
again’ that ifc should be tried without
�80
Lord Coleridge : I have already intimated that is my view.
In case the jury disagree, Mr. Maloney, you must be ready
with your answer to-morrow morning, as to what course you
intend to pursue.
Mr. Maloney : In the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, your lordship
allowed the jury to have the prints.
Lord Coleridge : They have got them.
Mr. Maloney : I beg your lordship’s pardon, I was not
aware of that.
Lord Coleridge : Supposing that there should be a verdict
of Guilty , I would pass sentence to-morrow morning. Sup
posing there should be a verdict of Not Guilty, it is not
necessary to consider the matter further. Supposing there
is a disagreement, I shall want to know in the morning what
the prosecution intend to do.
Mr. Maloney : I shall try to find out before half-an-hour
what Sir Hardinge Giffard intends to do.
Lord Coleridge: I cannot stay; I ought to have been at
Westminster at ten o’clock.
Mr. Avory : If there should be a verdict of Guilty, I should
move for an arrest of judgment.
Lord Coleridge: That would be very improper.
Mr. Maloney • If there should be a verdict of Guilty and
your lordship proposes to sentence to-morrow morning, I
should be prepared on the part of the prosecution to say
that they desire to have a lenient view taken of this particular
case.
Lord Coleridge: If they are found guilty of it, the defen
dants must appear to-morrow morning before me. If you
think it is in the interests of your clients to raise that then,
you may do so.
Mr. Maloney : Very well, my lord.
Lord Coleridge then retired.
At three minutes past five the jury came into court, when,
the Associate addressing them said :
Gentlemen of the jury, are you agreed?
The Foreman: No.
The Associate: Then gentlemen of the jury you are dis
charged, but I must ask you to attend on Saturday at half
past ten in case you are wanted.
THIRD DAY.
At the sitting of the Court this morning (Thursday), Mr.
Foote and Mr. Ramsey, coming down again in the custody of
�81
the Governor of Holloway Gaol, were present by the direc
tion ot his lordship given on the previous day, in the event of
the jury disagreeing m their verdict. This, as will be seen
tteywTe
B}raseyeandSFoot6,Ca^n° °V6r
°aSe °7
gainst
The Lord Chief Justice, addressing Sir Hardinge Giffard
said :
Hardinge what course do you propose to take?
..
Hardin(^1®ard:
lOT<i5 if your lordship desires
that this case should go on now, I am ready to go on now.
Lord Coleridge : Just as you please.
Mr. Foote: My lord, I respectfully beg your lordship’s in
dulgence I am not practically prepared to defend mvself
now. I didn t know how much prison diet and confinement
fad weakened me, until I had to make an effort for my defence
the day before yesterday, and the Governor of the Gaol can
mform your lordship how physically, prostrated I was after it.
i Lord Coleridge: I have just been informed, and I hardlv
knew.it before, what such imprisonment as yours means, and
what m the form it has been inflicted upon you it must mean ■
but now.that I do know of it, I will take care that the proper
sup^°r t"168 ^n°W
also and
see fhaf you have proper
Mr. Foote : Thank you. my lord
Sir Hardinge Giffard : Will next week suit your lordship to
hands!"18 CaSG? °f C°UrSe 1 am qUite in your lordship’s
day1?' 1,00116 : Oould y°ur lordship take the case next Tues-
. Lord Coleridge : Yes, I think I can if that will suit you. It
is so entirely unusual to pursue a case in this way that I will
do anything you wish.
J
Mr. Foote: Thank you, my.lord. If your lordship would
fix it for that day it would suit us.
Lord Coleridge : Very well.
Mr. Foote : If your lordship pleases----Sir Hardinge Giffard: After your lordship gives that
opinion, I should certainly feel it my duty to recommend my
clwnt to acquiesce m anything your lordship should sugLord Coleridge : It is extremely unusual when a conviction
X»:SrP“y,he same sort
Lord Coleridge : I am perfectly aware of that.
�82
Sir H. Giffard : And that the indictment contains different
libels.
Lord Coleridge: I am aware of that, too.
Sir Hardinge Giffard: The second indictment, your lordship
will remember, was preferred against the defendants by the
Corporation of the City of London.
Lord Coleridge : I am quite aware of that, and I am also
aware {hat they were different subject matters. That is the
reason I said the same sort of thing.
Sir Hardinge Giffard : This is the earliest in point of
date.
Lord Coleridge : Yes, I know.
Sir Hardinge Giffiard: I only want your lordship to have
the facts before you. Anything your lordship suggests I will
advise my client to accede to.
Lord Coleridge: I have acted upon one rule throughout
the whole of this case. In any other case I might have said a
great deal, but in this I decline to make the slightest sugges
tion of any kind or description. I must leave it entirely in
the hands of the prosecution on their own responsibility. But
as I have had information from the highest source—the Gover
nor of the Gaol—that Mr. Foote is physically suffering from
the prison discipline (the Governor of the Gaol cannot help
it); but as Mr. Foote is physically suffering from it, I will cer
tainly do all I can to put him in a physical position to defend
himself, and I will take the defence whenever he pleases.
Sir Hardinge Giffard: After what your lordship has said I
quite acquiesce in the adjournment until Tuesday, and in the
meantime I will consult those who have instituted this prosecu
tion, for what they believe to be right and proper purposes,
and I will take their direction as to what shall be done, and
then ask them to take into account the imprisonment of the
defendants and the disagreement of the jury. I have no
doubt all that will be fully considered by those for whom I
act.
Lord Coleridge: As I said yesterday—and I don’t say it
satirically—the names of the parties who have instituted
these proceedings are unknown to me, and of their motives
and character I am absolutely ignorant.
Sir Hardinge Giffard : If it should be determined not to go
on with this prosecution, probably it would be unnecessary
that the defendants should be brought here again, because in
that event notice would be given, and the bringing up of the
defendants from the gaol be unnecessary ?
Lord Coleridge: As you please about that At any rate, it
can stand for the present, and the case be taken on Tuesday.
Does that suit you ?
�83
Mr. Foote : Yes, my lord. As the trial in that case is a
matter of contingency, I would ask your lordship to direct
the Governor of the Gaol to allow us proper food in the
interval.
Lord Coleridge: I believe I have no authority over the
Governor of the Gaol. Let me do him the justice to say if it
had not been for his communication, I should not have known
that you were suffering from what he is obliged to do by law
He is a minister of the law.
Mr. Foote : Quite so, my lord.
Lord Coleridge : If there is any difficulty about it, I will
take care that the Home Secretary or the Prison Inspectors
or whoever are the proper authorities, shall know of this if
there is any difficulty in the way.
’
Mr. Foote: Thank you, my lord. I am quite content to
leave it there.
Lord Coleridge (addressing the Governor of the Gaol)
said: Yon will understand that the same facilities are to be
continued to Mr. Foote and Mr. Ramsey for preparing their
defence, as I ordered before.
°
The defendants then left the court in custody, after shaking
hands with numerous friends who crowded round
°
It is only fair to the Governor of Holloway Gaol to say
that owing to his kindness, Mr. Foote and Mr. Ramsey
garb^6^ ln C°Urfc in
ordinary dress instead of the prison
)
�APPLICATION FOR A NOLLE
TO BE ENTERED.
PROSEQUI
[Before the Loud Chief Justice, on Saturday, April 28th.~]
Mr. Maloney said : Will your lordship allow me to mention
the case of the Queen v. Foote and Ramsey? What occurred
on Wednesday was communicated to the prosecutor, and he
has accordingly informed those who act for him—Sir H.
Giffard and myself—to state to your lordship that it is his
desire that a nolle prosequi should be entered a- rega ds the
defendants Foote and Ramsey.
Lord Coleridge: I cannot do that; it is for the AttorneyGeneral to do it.
Mr. Maloney: It is our intention to apply to the Attorn eyGeneral for his permission.
Lord Coleridge: The Attorney-General must do it for
himself.
Mr. Maloney: The prosecution will apply to him to enter a
nolle prosequi, and whatever steps may be necessary for that
end will be taken.
Lord Coleridge : You must not assume that he will do it.
As I have always understood when the Attorney-General does
this, he takes upon himself a certain responsibility. I did it
myself once or twice when I was Attorney-General. It is
the prerogative of the Attorney-General.
Mr. Maloney: I have made some inquiry at the Grown
Office about it.
Lord Coleridge: No doubt it can be done. The AttorneyGeneral can do it if he likes, but you must not assume in a
case of this kind that he will release you from the responsi
bility of going on, or not going on. That is what I mean.
Mr. Maloney: It is intended to make application to the
Attorney- General.
Lord Coleridge : I am much obliged to you for telling me
this, but I can make no order upon it; therefore the matter
must stand until Tuesday. It is impossible to say what the
Attorney-General may say as to this. I may say it is not a
case in which on behalf of the Crown I will interfere; the
�85
prosecutor must act upon his own responsibility. He can
either go on or not, just as he pleases.
Mr. Maloney: If the prosecutor is willing not to go on, I
suppose it is optional with him ?
Lord Coleridge : I say nothing about it except this; that
you put upon the Attorney-General a personal responsibility
which he may be willing to accept or not; but that is entirely
for him to say.
Mr. Maloney: My instructions are, that the prosecutor wished
whatever steps might be necessary to be taken for the with
drawal of the prosecution, should be taken.
Lord Coleridge : That is another matter, if he is willing
to appear on Tuesday and offer no evidence.
Mr. Maloney: I think some difficulty might arise out of
that, because it might lead to the supposition that the papers
charged in the indictment were not blasphemous, and lead
to their being re-pnblished again.
Lord Coleridge : I only point out that when you tell me
that you assume on the part of a great public functionary
that he will take the responsibility, it is by no means certain
that he will accept it. If he likes to take it, by all means
let it be so; but I only point out to you that you must not
assume he will do it as a matter of course, and so relieve
you from a responsibility which at present lies upon you.
That is all I mean—he may not take the responsibility.
Mr. Maloney : I thought it right that I should mention it
to your lordship at the earliest possible moment.
Lord Coleridge : You are quite right to do so ; the case
must stand in the paper for Tuesday morning.
Mr. Maloney: Very well, my lord.
�ABANDONMENT OF THE PROSECUTION.
In the Court of Queens Bench on Tuesday, May 1st, before
Lord Coleridge, the Lord Chief Justice of England, on the
case of the Queen v. Ramsey and Foote being called,
Mr. Maloney (in the absence of his leader, Sir Hardinge
Giffard, Q.C.,) said: After mentioning this case to your lord
ship on Saturday a petition was drawn up and lodged with
the Attorney-General yesterday morning, for a nolle prosequi
on behalf of the prosecutor, and this very instant the AttorneyGeneral’s clerk has handed in his fiat granting a nolleprosequi.
Lord Chief Justice: Very well; you must let me see it,
please.
Mr. Maloney (handing the fiat to the Lord Chief Justice) :
Your lordship sees the petition.
Lord Coleridge (after reading the fiat) said: I have said
not a word about this being unadvisable, not one single
syllable. The statement in this petition is absolutely inaccu
rate. That I have intimated in the slightest manner whether
it was advisable, or the contrary, is absolutely untrue. I took
particular care to leave the responsibility with the prosecutor,
and I have intimated not a word as to whether it was
advisable or not to go on. I find the petitioner states that I
thought it was unadvisable to proceed. I said nothing of the
sort.
Mr. Maloney: I don’t remember, my lord.
Lord Coleridge: I took particular care not to say anything
at all, one way or the other.
Mr. Maloney: Will your lordship allow me to read the
words?
Lord Coleridge: Do you mean to say the word “ unad
visable ” is not there ? If it is not you may contradict me.
Mr. Maloney: No, my lord, I don’t mean to say that.
Lord Coleridge: Then I don’t understand your applica
tion. I take exception to one word, which is utterly inac
curate. If that word is not there, contradict me in what 1
say. I have nothing further to do of course, if the AttorneyGeneral has entered a nolle prosequi. I cannot have anything
further to do. I don't know exactly what is done in these
�87
cases. I shall, of course, not think of going on with the
case. After the Attorney-General has entered a nolleprosequi
there is an end to the case as far as I am concerned. Some
thing, however, must be done.
Mr. Maloney: The usual course, my lord, is for the Queen’s
Coroner to draw up a nolle prosequi, and to enter it upon the
record. That is as I understand the practice. That fiat is
the Attorney-General’s authority to the Crown to act, and it
is lodged at the Crown Office.
Lord Coleridge : The Crown Office doesn’t open until eleven,
and, technically speaking, I cannot proceed for ten minutes,
(it was ten minutes to eleven). Of course, under these cir
cumstances, I should not think of proceeding. You will
undertake to see that this is done now, Mr. Maloney ?
Mr. Maloney: Yes, my lord.
Lord Coleridge: Under those circumstances I have nothing
further to do than to call the next case.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY EDWARD B. AVELING, D.SC., AT
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�
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 & 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 prosecution of Messrs. Foote and Ramsey for blasphemy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Ramsey, William James
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 87 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Report of Queen v. Ramsey and Foote, in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, 24 April [1883]. Includes addresses to the jury by Ramsey (p.25-31) and Foote (p.31-61). Annotations (corrections, marks) in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Edward B. Aveling
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N259
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Trials
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 prosecution of Messrs. Foote and Ramsey for blasphemy), 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
Blasphemy-Great Britain
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
NSS
Trials (Blasphemy)-Great Britain
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b22d3950b975f037595fdcdb398e37ee.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=v9ikRTi4ChdxjO4UZ1vzOPKugCRwKh534VaM5jqSS2U27P9I7hH0jpdj5zbopEURowSV2Dzc4FzHapf3cSpTPd-PNGGOYBGze%7E1B9YKyZbjlc7%7EUaPrHuSkP%7EiuhBbAZ7MWyNyfK5WCcnccQb1eV1w4bbAkSrJ8REXSKE3sKztTkI-V8tSj--Mxre1u16pKcmS7Z3QDZYm-6NUWYm5ds2D8-nZfHLNoX08rWd%7EHs9sL6gAdVZukUKX7c1YDxm1MqnvyD80%7Erbg%7E6U3GghAn2mLAJbpG9kAVXyXu6FLxdHiGnzMGHcZc4Bh36zKdnwS8IprPu1hNVOJBFv9ZyPDghpw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d33eba880e163ea77a022c677b861a45
PDF Text
Text
62-03
HATIONALSECUEARSOCffiTY
Michael Servetus.
A DISCOURSE SUGGESTED BY THE
* BLASPHEMY
PROSECUTION
OF
1883,
• ♦
. Delivered in the Free Christian Church, Colne,
It
7
;
BY THE
REV. HERBERT V. MILLS.
--------- o----------
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
o-
COLNE:
R. Hyde & Sons’, “Times” Office’, Exchange-street.
i
�©ruth be silent because torn* fnrtons/'
YOUNG.
. *W '
\ ■ r >»,
i .^1 .?-l M ?L i i
-/
- /
�MICHAEL SERVETUS.
AM sorry that in taking up the life of Michael Servetus I am
perforce obliged to express my opinion of John Calvin. Many
of my fellow-townsmen have been led to regard John Calvin as a
source of credit to tli& Christian Church; they are looking up to him
with that peculiar reverence given by the Catholic Church to some
of the saints. Hero-worship is an attitude of the mind which
ought not to be rudely handled. It ennobles far more than it
debases : for when a hero is truly worshipped his vices are reverently
forgotten, and only the nobler traits in his character and career are
remembered. And I am sure it is so in the case of John Calvin. If
therefore, I am compelled to-night to dwell upon foul traces of per
secution which stain his history, I would not have the Calvinists of
this town believe that I charge them with admiring the qualities
which I here denounce; nor would I have them imagine that I find
nothing in Calvin wort hy of regard.
I
The attitude of Calvin towards Servetu!s is a fitting subject for
meditation at this present time, because the imaginary crime of
blasphemy was that which gave rise to the persecution of Servetus
and his final martyrdom- I have called it an imaginary crime: I
believe it to be as impossible and as absurd as the charge of witch
craft. To stigmatise as a blasphemer every man who opposes the
established and popular religion of the day, is to make the chief
merit of all great lives, blasphemy. If this is blasphemy, then
Christ was chief amongst blasphemers. Martin Luther and John
Wesley were opponents of established religions, and were hence in the
strictest legal sense, blasphemers. It is well known to you that
efforts are now being made to secure the repeal of the Blasphemy
Laws. For many years past they have been regarded as quite
obsolete, and have consequently been allowed to remain on the
Statute Book without molestation. But it has suddenly been shewn
that the penalties under the Blasphemy Laws are still applicable to
English men and English women of this generation. They have
this year been imposed upon three men found guilty of the charge.
Now it is of no consequence to us to know the details of any othei’
offences of which these three men may or may not have been guilty
�4
Theii* charge is “ blasphemy,” their imprisonment is for “blasphemy.”
That, and nothing else. .And if we take anything else into consider
ation we shall forget our duty.
Suppose that some man guilty of theft was tried in court upon
an indictment charging him with teetotalism, and that he were
sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment for being a teetotaller,
how would the total abstainers rise up in indignation! There are
people no doubt who would say, “ Oh, never trouble about it. If he
had not been imprisoned for this he would have been imprisoned for
his theft; it is all the same.” “ But,” you retort, “ total abstinence
is a virtue; his conviction as it now stands is an insult to us;
so long as he is suffering for a virtuous thing he is a martyr and not
a convict, and we object to have a thief posing as a martyr on our
account.” All this, and much more would be said by these indignant
temperance people. And they would be right. Their best interests
would be at stake.
But in addition to the strong feelings which would naturally be
excited in the circumstance I have suggested, there is, in the real
case, another stimulating feature : there is the hearty detestation
which all liberal men feel, of the very name of the offence called
blasphemy. It is a word which suggests inhumanity and cruelty of
the most revolting nature. Its historical associations within the
past three hundred years are almost enough to make any man
ashamed of the human race. When I look back to the year 1619
and find a crowd of fiendish Hollanders beheading the grand-pen
sionary Barneveldt at the age of seventy-two, “ for having,” says
his sentence, “ used his uttermost endeavours to vex the Church of
God,’1 I do not marvel at the indignation which has been recently
called forth. The indictment against Barneveldt is a literal rendering
of the offence which has procured the imprisonment of the three
Freethinkers.
I regard it therefore, as a spirit of Christian 'patriotism which
is now urging men to do their utmost to obliterate from the statutes
of our time these Blasphemy Laws. They are utterly incompatible
with Christ’s religion. I cannot imagine any man pleading for the
retention of these laws, if he had learnt the lesson of doing unto
others as he would have them do to him. The advocate of these
ancient laws practically says to his fellowbeings—“ Thou shalt believe
�as I beTievdi^v enithough thou canst not, or I will bind thee to do
one of two things, -either to maintain eternal silence, or to speak
always falsely and to act hypocrisy.” It is manifest that such an
attitude is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the lessons of
Christ. But I regret to acknowledge that it is in complete accord
ance with the attitude hitherto taken by the majority of those who
have'called themselves Christians.
There never was a leader so belied by his followers as Christ,
^he late Emperor of China once said—“ I notice that wherever
Christians go, they whiten the soil with human bones ; and I there
fore will not have Christianity in my empire.” What an impeachment
of the Christians ! and how miserably, disgracefully true it is ! He
gave us a gospel of peace and forgiveness. “ Wherever Christians go
they whiten the soil with hitman bones." How faithless have the
Christians been ! He gave us a gospel of love. “ Wherever Christian s
go they whiten the soil with human bones.” How cruelly have the
Christians crucified their Lord ! How have they slighted and spurned
him who said—“ If ye love me keep my commandments ! ” Christi
anity is a gospel of liberty, a gospel of toleration, a gospel of faith
in the Truth—for the Truth’s sake. And yet we enforce a law against
what is called “ blasphemy ” in the year 1883, and thousands of
professing^Christians are'exulting over the severity of the penalties.
What an exposure of^their faithlessness !
We have therefore to learn a lesson for the hour from the
martyrdom of Servetus. Whilst we are reflecting upon the ignorance,
the bigotry, and the unchristian intolerance of that sixteenth century
which gave Servetus bitter scorn in return for love and faithful
service, whilst we regard it as a spirit hostile to the mission of
Christ, let us not for a mement lose sight of the fact that it is a
spiritual disease prevalent to-day amongst many who claim to be his
followers.
Servetus was a’physician and a literary man; and he was eminent
in both departments. He was author of many books upon religious,
geographical, and^physiological subjects. He edited a folio edition
of Pagninus’s J,Bible. He lived contemporaneously with Luther,
Melancthon, and_John Calvin. Being a man of original mind and
honest intentions, he resolved to examine scrupulously all matters
that fell in his way, and, he naturally took up a position in both
�science and religion which was opposed to the notions then current.
It has been claimed on his account that he discovered the circiilaipM
of the blood. A great part of the credit of this discovery is beyond)
doubt due to him. It is now conceded that he was the first to expound
the true way in which the blood passes from the right side of the
heart through the lungs to the left side. But although this explan
ation was published by Servetus in 1553, Harvey has been credited
with the whole discovery, who was not born until 1568. I suppose
the exact tiuth is that both men were eminently deserving of grati
tude for their devotion to physiological science, and for the light
which they were able to throw upon this particular branch of it. I
may add, however, in passing, that the circulation of the blood was
never definitely proved even in Harvey's time. No one at that
time was able to show how the blood passed from the final branching
of the arteries into the final branching of the veins. The literal
proof, which consisted in the exhibition of the capillary tubes, was
reserved for Malpighi’s microscope. The account of the discoveries
of Servetus upon this subject, is contained in his book entitled
“ Christianismi Bestitutio,” or the restoration of Christianity. This
book was so bitterly hated by the people, and was greeted with such
craven fear by the learned, that Calvin seized upon it as a pretext for
causing Servetus to be apprehended and cast into prison on a charge
of heresy.
Calvin has denied this charge, but with all reliable historians
his denial is considered as additional proof of his detestably low
qualities. Seven years before Calvin had compassed his cruel end,
he wrote a lettei’ to Peter Viret, in which he said that if ever Servetus
should come to Geneva, he would not allow him to return from it
alive. It is also asserted on good authority, that there is in existence
at the present day, in Paris, another letter written to Farel seven
years before the martyrdom of Servetus, in which the following
sentence occurs in the handwriting of John Calvin:—“ Servetns has
lately written to me and sent meat the same time a large book. . .
He offers to come hither if I like it, but I will not engage my word ;
for if he comes and if any regard be had to my authority, I will not
allow him to escape with his life.”
Calvin at that time was a man of great influence in Geneva.
His dictum in almost all religious matters was regarded as final, and
he was so thoroughly accustomed to this deference, that when
�1
Servetus denied the doctrine of the Trinity and exposed the false
basis, upon which Calvin’s harsh system was resting, all his former
reverence for the learning of Servetus was put aside, and he became
inBnt upon his speedy death. Do you wonder that Servetus rejected
the doctrine of the Trinity ? It was the most natural thing in the
world. With a heart set free from superstition, and an independent
judgment, no other result is possible. Of all theological impositions
there has never been anything propounded so bewildering to reason
as this. Heathendom never prostrated the intellects of its votaries
before such palpable contradictions as are contained in the unchristian
idea of a three-in-one Deity. It is a doctrine obscure in its origin,
lame in its occasional efforts at reconciliation with nature, and unable
to live in the light of free enquiry. You ask, •* Why then has it
existed so long ? ” and my reply is this :—“ It has been maintained
by brute force.” If nature had not been tampered with, the doctrine
of the Trinity would long since have passed into that obscurity
which engulphs all that is worthless and false. But alongside this
dogma there has been inculcated the idea that free enquiry in
religious matters is sinful. Even those who have made a sacred
principle of the right of private judgment have hitherto been
timorous in their defence of it, and have contended only for half
measures. But in the time of Servetus there were none who dared
to maintain on his behalf the inherent right of the human mind to
the exercise of all its faculties. In the eyes of Calvin there was no
crime so great as the effort to oppose the popular religion of the
day. Idleness and debauchery were regarded as virtues when they
stood in comparison with heresy. In order to avoid threatening
dangers, Servetus made his escape, and assuming another name, went
to live at Vienna. Calvin traced his footsteps, and suborned men to
expose him. He was apprehended and cast into prison, but having
a good reputation in the town, he was treated with unusual
kindness. Men who were not blinded by religious intolerance could
discern in Servetus nothing but virtue, industry, and simplicity.
He lived with God in such untroubled love,
And clear confiding, as a child on whom
The Father’s face has never yet but smiled ;
And with men even, in such harmony
Of brotherhood, that whatsoever spark
Of pure and true in any'.human heart
Flickered and lived, it burned itself towards him
In an electric current through all bonds
�8
Of intervening race and creed and time,
And flamed up to a heat of living faith
And love, and love’s communion, and the joy
And inspiration of self-sacrifice.
Calvin, however,was not to be defeated in his intention ; and Serveti®,
finding further traces of his diabolical design, it dawned suddenl*
upon his mind that Calvin was not merely his theological opponent
but his mortal enemy; and, seizing upon a suitable opportunity, he
escaped from his confinement, and determined to settle at Naples as
a physician.
I cannot understand whether it was a panic of fear that seized
him, or whether it was a desire to talk with Calvin in private and
utter some remonstrance concerning his cruelty towards him; but
certain it is, that notwithstanding the fact that Calvin was allpowerful there, he travelled by way of Geneva, and Calvin, who had
heard of his escape from Vienna, and that he was coming towards
Geneva on his way to Naples, was on the watch for him, and he had
scarcely arrived in the city before he was apprehended and cast into
prison. Thirty-eight separate indictments were preferred against
him, and the name of all the indictments was heresy. The thirtyseventh is a fair example of the rest, in which it is said that Servetus
in a printed work had defamed the doctrine preached by Calvin, and
decried and caluminated it in every possible way, contrary to a decree
passed on the 9th of November in the preceding year., which had
pronounced that doctrine sacred and inviolable.
He admitted all that was truth in the indictments. He would
utter no falsehood even to save his life.
When the trial had been going on for seven days, Calvin came
into court and opposed Servetus in person ; and then, two days
afterwards, fearing that death might not be the penalty, the Procureur-General brought in no less than thirty new indictments
which related chiefly to his personal history. Servetus, whilst
refusing to abandon the truth, endeavoured to defend himself. Cal
vin drew up a written reply to this defence, which was put into
the hand of Servetus as he stood before the judge on the 15th
September. Calvin had taken a fortnight in its preparation ; Ser
vetus was called upon to refute it extemporaneously. But he took
no further notice of it than to express briefly the extreme contempt
�9
which, he felt for its author, and to add—“ In a cause so just, I am
firm; I have not the least fear of death.”
On the 26th October, Servetus was condemned to be burnt to
cleath in a slow fire as a warning to all reformers, that they
should not dare to oppose the popular notions of their time. A
message was sent immediately to Calvin to tell him of the judge’s
decision, and sacrificing duty to pleasure, he put aside every work
and appointment, and made great haste, in ordei’ that he might
witness the execution.
In a letter written on the Sth September by Calvin, he says,—
‘ The judges will be very cruel, very unjust to Christ and the doctrine
which is according to Godliness, and they will be real enemies of the
Church if they are not moved by the horrible blasphemies with
which so vile a heretick assails the Divine Majesty.” The sentence
passed upon Servetus was this :—“ We condemn thee, Michael
Servetus, to be bound and carried to the Lieu de Champel, and there
to be tied to a stake, and burnt alive with thy book, written with
thine own hand, and printed, till thy body is reduced to ashes ; and
thus shall thou end thy days to serve as a warning to others who are
disposed to act in the same manner. And we command you, our
lieutenant, to cause our present sentence to be carried into effect.”
On the morning of the day following, Servetus was visited in
prison and urged to recant. They implored him to say that Christ
was God. What a useless assertion it would have been, seeing that
Servetus had proved his belief in the opposite 1 But it only proves
to us the fact that when the spirit of persecution is abroad, being a
bad thing in itself, it draws after it all the most diabolical vices of
the lower nature. The love of truth is rudely trampled under foot;
the command “ Thou shalt not kill,” is set at defiance ; mercy and
toleration are cast forth as if they had no right to a place in the
human heart, and we find both men and women revelling and rejoic
ing in the cruel death of a fellow-being. Servetus was desired to
deliver an address to the crowd before his execution, but he had
other things to think about, and refused to do so. Calvin described
this silence as “ proof of his beastly stupidity those are his words.
The pile consisted of wooden faggots, many of them still green and
with leaves upon them. The poor victim was fastened to the trunk
of a tree fixed in the earth, his feet reaching to the ground. A crown
of straw sprinkled with brimstone was placed upon his head. His
body was bound to the stake with an iron chain, and a coarse twisted
�10
rope was loosely thrown round his neck. His book was next fastened
to his thigh. He then begged the executioner to put him out of his
misery as speedily as possible. The fire was lighted, and he cried
out most piteously as. the flames scorched his flesh,—for he had an
extremely sensitive nervous organisation, and he felt the pain keenly.
Some of the bystanders, at last, out of compassion, supplied the fire
with fresh fuel, hoping to put an end to his misery. One writer tells
us that a strong breeze sprang up and scattered the flames, and that
Servetus was writhing in the fire between two or three hours.
Many attempts have been made to screen Calvin from odium. I
for one am not interested in his impeachment. I care nothing for
discussion concerning such individuals, but it is of vital importance
to you and me that we should realise what a horrible and degrading
thing is this spirit of persecution for blasphemy. It is reckoned a
crime more vile than robbery or fraud. Men may kill thmr wives in
quarrel and yet escape with lighter punishments than are awarded
to those who try to be reformers in their own time. The persecutor
says that blasphemy or heresy is an injury to God. God is infinite,
and the punishment must be commensurate with the greatness of
the Being injured. Now it is just absffrd beyond all other things,
that you should think such a thing possible. How can any man
injure God? Or how can any human law-court defend God? Is it
not sacrilege of a viler kind to set up a magistrate as the protector
of Almighty ? What more blasphemous thing could we be called
upon to tolerate than that ?
There is nothing more degrading in all the annals of the world
than this same spirit of persecution which has recently sent three
journalists to prison for an impossible offence. It behoves us, as we
respect our own rights, to do all we can to protest against the ver
dict. It behoves us, as we love our country and take pride in its
greatness, to use every effort for the repeal of all such enactments.
I have very little more to say to you to-night by way of appli
cation. You have glanced hastily with me at the influence of these
laws against heresy in the case of Calvin and Servetus, and you
know that the same laws still exist in this country and that they are
not obsolete. In the year 1861, in the Court of Common Pleas, Lord
Chief Justice Erie, in giving judgment said—“ There are opinions
which are in law a crime.” Little attention was paid to this state
ment at the moment. Recent circumstances, however, have proved
�11
two things : first, the truth of the words spoken; and second, the
ufrgent need of an agitation in favour of the immediate and total
repeal of all Heresy and Blasphemy Laws. It is a mistake to suppose
that they can serve any good purpose. I am not called upon in this
discourse to recapitulate the reasons which exist in favour of political
or religious liberty. To many of you they are perfectly familiar. It
is manifest that where discussion is forbidden, all progress is tram
meled. If in those countries where idols of wood and stone are
worshipped it is reckoned a criminal offence to oppose the popular
religion, there will be few facilities for improvement; but if free
discussion is permitted and encouraged, all their bad institutions
will be exposed, and the good ones will be better understood and
appreciated. Their useless idols will be dethroned, and there will be
progress,—for no matter how long the struggle may be continued,
truth will infallibly come out victorious. The attitude which ought
to be taken up by Unitarians is that described by the poet Henry
Taylor, in “ Isaac Commenus.”
“ Whatsoe’er possible evils lie before,
Let us sincerely own them to ourselves
With all unstinting unevasive hearts
Reposing in the-eonsciousness of strength,
Or ferventejhope to be endowed with strength
Of all-enduring temper,—daring all truth.”
Let me in conclusion urge upon you the importance of a singleminded action in this matter. I would, for our own sake, that it had
been a Unitarian and not an Atheist who was imprisoned. I dare
say we cannot defend oui' position without being misunderstood.
But this is of no consequence. Our duty is plain. They who call
themselves the Freethinkers are suffering falsely, and therefore
unjustly. All other questions are merged into this, and until they
are released and the Act is repealed, the nation lies under a cloud of
ignominy painful to contemplate. My earnest wish is, that we may
all be able to do something to help on the work.
��
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 & 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 martyrdom of Michael Servetus : a discourse suggested by the blasphemy prosecution of 1883, delivered in the Free Christian Church, Colne
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mills, Herbert V.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Colne
Collation: 11 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Michael Servetus was a Spanish theologian, physician, cartographer, and Renaissance humanist. He participated in the Protestant Reformation, and later developed a heterodox view of the Trinity and Christology. After being condemned by Catholic authorities in France, he fled to Geneva where he was burnt at the stake for heresy by order of the city's governing council. Date of publication from KVK. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Hyde & Sons
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N489
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
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 martyrdom of Michael Servetus : a discourse suggested by the blasphemy prosecution of 1883, delivered in the Free Christian Church, Colne), 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
Blasphemy
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
Heresy
Michael Servetus
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/25f3a1c2e55b0e9322ec38afd04a5350.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=UfNXOfMXhUwXd44lbAClIJRnZkZlUbApWC6MCBpt9Rg1bTy29C-7wKq3LbnH1nQNL-i7bclTs8J008gAeEK6GZrqHZ4dzieB0TRX30os4xnMlejttJXUbBFK9FkeppuzNpqQW2Z20t9sit4nwU3MA9OvcXGjEkQjeAKnGZI-lv1kgTH%7Ee5OZSv0RrWPlsZzoGRuPw2AVxX7aEQbeBjV4ll4Md4P1oN%7EibI-NGg8SIk2XFQPSA77og6dX%7E00YnN19EdDq5%7EEEhwEGqZthVxf5g9JEXDPBxAAq%7EvftPFE7l1F8h21l5qdg4U%7EgCj0NnGB8W3rDNeHn4vjYOjFu%7ELrK4w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
01437570639a971d4807738817d8ae82
PDF Text
Text
SOUTH PLACE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY,
flNSBURY.
REPORT
OF THE
PUBLISHING COMMITTEE,
.
In accordance with the resolution passed at the last annual
meeting a Special Committee was appointed to consider the
best means of securing a wider publicity for the teaching which
all members of South Place Religious Society feel to be so
valuable, and they now submit the following brief Report.
The result of their deliberations has already been made
known, not only by circular, but still more effectually by the
actual publication of‘‘ Lessons for the Day,” and it only remains
to state what measure of success has attended the enterprise.
In response to the appeal which was made a guarantee fund of
■^267 was subscribed, of which one-fourth has been paid, and
a second instalment of like amount will shortly be called up,
the greater part of the first having been expended in pre
liminary advertising and printing. 5>oo° copies of No. 1 were
printed, of which about 1,000 were distributed gratuitously by
the Committee ; the remainder were soon all disposed of, and
a second edition was printed, so that complete sets might be '
made up. In order to prevent the additional expense thus
involved, a larger number has been printed than would suffice
to meet the immediate weekly demand, which of course leaves
a considerable stock on hand, and entails an outlay for which
there is no immediate return. About 36,000, however, of the
first 13 numbers have been actually sold, and the average
weekly sale is about 2.500. This result is by no means dis
couraging, considering that scarcely anything has been spent in
advertising since October, and the comparatively select class
who can be expected to purchase such a periodical. There
�have been many expressions, both in the press and privately)
of the high estimation in which the “ Lessons ” are held by
those under whose notice they have come, and it may fairly be
hoped that a further continued effort to make their existence
known amongst earnest-minded liberals will make the enter
prise self-supporting. The present. returns are very nearly
sufficient to meet the expense of printing and publishing, and
even if no great improvement should be attained during the
coming year, your Committee believe that the Subscribers to
the Guarantee Fund, or the members at large, will feel that the
amount required for author’s remuneration is very usefully
expended in diffusing generally the intellectual and moral
advantages which have hitherto been restricted to South Place.
In addition to the direct moral influence thus exerted, the
publicity given to our services can hardly fail to produce a
favorable effect on the position of the Society, and it has in
fact been already observed that an unusually large number of
strangers have visited the Chapel during the last three
months.
It is hoped that the measures taken will meet with the
approval of the members, and that those who have not yet
taken an active part in this most useful portion of the Society’s
work, will now do so, either by adding their names to the
Guarantee Fund, or by exerting themselves (as many have
already most usefully done) to promote the circulation of the
“ Lessons for the Day.” The Committee are most anxious not
to have to make repeated appeals for subscriptions, and as a
weekly sale of 5,000 would make the work self-supporting,
they trust that a special effort will be made in this direction
during the coming year.
January 23rd, 1883.
�■
Statement of Revenue and Expenditure for first three months ending
December 31st, 1882.
��
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 & 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
South Place Religious Society. Report of the Publishing Committee [1882]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
South Place Religious Society
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: [3] p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[South Place Religious Society]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5618
Subject
The topic of the resource
Conway Hall Ethical Society
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 (South Place Religious Society. Report of the Publishing Committee [1882]), 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
Conway Tracts
South Place Religious Society
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/244a96e55cb7442c06cd3ce4a4d0d8de.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=tyPRf65ragNow8lAWFzTgXwCFz7X2wH-GKyT%7E2NJ3iYItKHzU5LKs35w464yLPNQT1QfjNcS0eAE6b1RkArONYQyBQbFm9tNQZx4dNMdGgPmCi7R0M%7E7J%7Ee52LJ5EmLF2RjtK2ch9dvVbIjB2DdvLcq7Db7AV1iNrn0%7E87q42qj3lpDPWYnk4Vt2wm1ZjcmtOcPKwP5XdoM3nexiS0%7E%7E6lLSEhHfleP11T%7EIgpHjSQQuTFpcfqRKcIUO8zyWdtDcg%7EiRSPWkP036smXXlMcUGvyaLRZT7sg2xM6qZFfe6oCaxOOy2Pe74bNsqUmNvVCgK21OqBIBjGaISOMlan%7EwrA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
777d902da48d3c63628a8fc250e9cb67
PDF Text
Text
REPORT
OF THE
COMMITTEE
SOUTH PLACE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY.
�SOUTH PLACE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY,
1882.
MINISTER.
MONCURE D. CONWAY, M.A., Inglewood, Bedford Park, Chiswick, W,
COMMITTEE.
Dr. E. BERDOE.
Capt. J. BERDOE.
Mr. G. W. COOKE.
Mr. T. DIXON.
„ E. DALLOW.
„ S. G. FENTON.
Mrs. I. FISHER.
Miss C. FLETCHER.
Mr. J. A. GOTCH.
Mrs. GOFF.
Mr. J. HALLAM.
Mr. G. HICKSON.
„ J. KNIGHT.
„ A. LAURIE.
Mr. E. R. LEVEY.
Miss E. PHIPSON.
Mr. W. J. REYNOLDS.
Miss SHAPLAND.
Mr. H. THORNDIKE.
„ J. H. K. TODD.
„ G. WALKER.
TREASURES AHO CHAIRMAN.
Mr. GEORGE HICKSON, 35, Highbury New Park. N.
SECRETARY.
Miss C, FLETCHER, 17, Darnley Road, Hackney, E.
Mr. J. A. LYON.
AUDITORS.
|
Mr. C. H. SEYLER.
TRUSTEES.
Mr. W. BURR.
„ G. HICKSON.
„ J. A. LYON.
„ M.E. MARSDEN.
„ W. C. NEVITT.
Mr. J, L.SHUTER.
„ F. WALTERS.
Sir S. H. WATERLOW,
Bart,, M.P,
Mr. A. J. WATERLOW,
TRUSTEES OF THE MORTGAGE REDEMPTION FUND.
Mr. M. E. MARSDEN,
Mr, R, CARTER.
Mr, T. HEALEY,
SECRETARY SOIREE COMMITTEE.
Miss E. PHIPSON, 5, Park Place, Upper Baker Street, N,W,
\
/
CHOIR MASTER AND ORGANIST.
Mr, J, S, SHEDLOCK, 4, Lower James Street, Golden Square, W,
�SOUTH PLACE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY.
REPORT FOR 1882.
It affords your Committee much pleasure to be able to con
gratulate the congregation on the continued progress of the
Society.
That the principles of religious freedom are obtaining
wider recognition is manifest from the increasingly large
attendances at the services.
The high degree of intellectual vigour which has marked
Mr. Conway’s discourses during the year, affords gratifying
evidence of his continued physical and mental well being.
In accordance with a resolution passed at the last Annual
Meeting, a Committee was formed to arrange for the consecutive
publication of Mr. Conway’s discourses, and the first number
was issued m October. In order to accomplish this object, it was
necessary to form a guarantee fund, and the society at large is in
debted to the guarantors for the issue of “ Lessons.for the Day.”
It is confidently hoped that this publication will have a long life,
but being in the nature of a missionary effort, it will take some
time before a guarantee fund can be dispensed with. In the
Report and Balance-sheet of the Publishing Committee full
information will be found upon this subject.
In the course of the year Dr. Andrew Wilson and Mr. W. C.
�4
Coupland delivered discourses which were highly appreciated
by the Society.
Many changes have taken place in the personnel of the
choir since Mr. Shedlock took up the leadership, and it is only
since October last that the choir, as at present constituted, has
had the advantage of regular and united practice. Increased
efficiency in the musical portion of the service is now confi
dently anticipated by the Committee.
The monthly soirees during the year have been, as usual,
a source of great pleasure to the Members, and the Committee
tender their thanks to those ladies and gentlemen who have
worked so energetically and successfully to arrange such pleasant
and sociable evenings. The New Year’s dance, and the annual
dance in April, were admirably organized and well attended.
The opportunities for friendly intercourse afforded by these
reunions are of great value to the social life of the Society.
It is satisfactory to report that the sum of ^33 14s. 2d.
has been contributed by the Soiree Committee to the Mortgage
Redemption Fund, The total amount contributed towards the
reduction of the Mortgage Debt during the year amounts to
^*155 12s. 4d. This, together with ^"74 is. 8d. contributed in
1881, has been invested by trustees appointed for the purpose.
In addition to this the fund has been augmented by the gift from
Mr. Thomas Dixon, of ^250 fully paid-up shares in the
Anglo-African Diamond Mining Company.
Under the auspices of the Lectures Committee, the chapel
has been occupied on Tuesday evenings during the winter
months, and some very able and interesting papers on various
subjects have been contributed by gentlemen interested in the
success of the movement.. A special feature of these meetings
has been that the reading of the papers has been followed by
�5
highly interesting and instructive discussions. The series will
be continued up to Easter, when a short course of lectures will
be commenced by J. Allanson Picton, M.A.
The chapel has been occupied on Sunday evenings by the
Peoples’ Concert Society, whose admirable selections of music
have been received with great enthusiasm by crowded and
attentive audiences. Seeing how keenly these evenings are
enjoyed, it is a matter for profound regret that this is the only
chapel in London at which such an entertainment is given.
The past year has been marked by the loss of three eminent
men who have greatly furthered the cause of free thought, Charles
Darwin, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry Wadsworth Long
fellow. In commemoration of their deaths, special discourses were
delivered, and in the discourse delivered on the occasion of the
death of Longfellow, an interesting incident was related by Mr.
Conway. In 18 5 3 he was told by the poet that on his visit to Eng
land many years before, he was one Sunday alone in London and
experienced a great sense of solitude : he went to South Place
Chapel : as he entered the congregation was singing the “ Psalm
of Life,” the cheering effect, the thrill of joy which he felt, was
with him ever a cherished reminiscence of that visit to London
—he had never before heard his poem sung.
The financial position of the Society as shown by the
Balance-sheet is, as far as regards its ordinary income and ex
penditure of a satisfactory character ; but owing to the necessity
of renewing the mortgage, an extraordinary expenditure of
^42 4s. 2d. was incurred. In addition to this expense an
indebtedness of ^47 for interest upon the old mortgage was
considered by the Auditors as properly chargeable to the pre
sent year, making a total of ^89 4s. 2d. Your Committee think
it would be advisable to appeal to the Society for funds in pre
ference to carrying forward a deficit to the new year.
The increase of the seat rents, an increase maintained at
�6
about the same amount for two successive years, is most en
couraging from a financial point of view, and not less so as an
evidence of the growth of the Society.
�NOTICE.
In accordance with the Rules, seven members of the Committee
will retire from office at the ensuing Annual Meeting, and are not
eligible for re-election until next year. The members so retiring
are Mr. S. G. Fenton, Captain J. Berdoe, Mr. J. Knight, Mr.
E. R. Levey, Miss Phipson, Mr. W. J. Reynolds, and Miss
Shapland. In addition Mr. A. Laurie has resigned. The Society
will, therefore, have to elect eight new members to serve on
the Committee and two Auditors. Nominations for the above
offices must be forwarded to the Secretary (in writing) on or
before February ist. Printed forms for nominations can be
obtained in the library, or will be forwarded by the Secretary
upon application.
The Annual General Meeting will be held on Thursday,
February 15th, at 7 p.m. precisely.
�FORM OF BEQUEST TO THE MORTGAGE
REDEMPTION AND REBUILDING FUND.
The cost of the freehood land and buildings belonging to the Society was
defrayed by thefounders in
1825, a sum of £2,?>^q, being raised thereon by
mortgage for the purpose of making certain alterations and additions to the
premises. It is desirable that this indebtedness should be cancelled in order that
the Society may occupy a secure financial position, and that no obstacle of this
nature may in the future retard the erection of a building suitable to its in
creasing needs.
I give, and bequeath unto the Treasurer, for
the time being of “ South Place Religious
Society,” the sum of
to be raised and paid by and out of my personal
estate and effects, such sum to be applied in the
first place towards the redemption of the mort
gage upon the land and buildings of the Society
situated and being in South Place, Finsbury, or
secondly towards providing a fund for the re
building of the said premises.
N.B.—Devises of land, or bequests of money
charged on land, are void by the Statute of
Mortmain.
��O ^-oocw o
on
o*
O N
N
tn
O ’-fr
M
so
o
«4 xj-
£
Ai
O
£
o*
m
tn
F-*.
SO
O*
co
f*.
O
oo
o O ►«
SO
SO
o
tnOO
•
cn
On*
©» xfr •
SO
M*
O c«
o w C*
tn
XT O\O SO
<S
.
on
O -ef
.
2
M
C#
5
tut
s :
a i? 22 c«
H4QOO.Q
£ 59 o C<3
so O Q*O
SO O O
00
SO O oo
« o r^-
00M-
cnrs oo
r**« o
oo o*
« tn
M M
:
1 :
°
~
'St
xfso
m
00 oo
os o
cn «
-fi
TJ M :
Q OO •
U3 °0
0*0 « o
Os
c* 1
mo
O*
O* I
M* Os
so o 3-00
r*
Less :—Extra Subscription,
Painting Outside
■
ME.
msubsci
Hiding,
•
o
in June
cn os
•
�m
00
CSV©
COQ\
m
cn
s5
©O'© oo m cn o
THE
IO
.Os
►*1O
m eq
VD
o
ooo oom «
►4 M •“< M
r*
Tt" o O CO xj- M
o
cn
c*
KJ K
Fv
ML
O
m
GO
M C4
Tfr m
t>.m
£s 8
O
M
o*
Ci
Cl
s?
QSO O
O
$
is
esc* xi*
O SO O
N «
S3
��
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 & 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
Report of the committee of South Place Religious Society [for the year 1882]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
South Place Religious Society
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 6, [4] p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Includes Form of Request to the Mortgage Redemption and Rebuilding Fund.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[South Place Religious Society]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5582
Subject
The topic of the resource
Conway Hall Ethical Society
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 (Report of the committee of South Place Religious Society [for the year 1882]), 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
Conway Tracts
South Place Religious Society
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0046ce84e4c8392d519f9f15665e5e59.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=HB0b03NAwuFII7CXvbgQ9SrWYOB2it7i8b9HgXM1hblWxfkXY1rjE%7Ej6u5ROHVyvdCQqtt1gAs0AcQ1NR49LGKyHh-ErVvK%7EtpzgXLMy9Mq5U-ta-JIcbCG7WWdqz7YQhsbDXiN6kShOmbg8BoblUbSv%7E1Kd0ebq5ZTT4FjMpy02qbzTd3uvy7Hc7bpdWFOBF34sQCq9FV9r-cV90w1ukqvnAkiH3Eq6izwTg%7EbpQIZ8C74XD7nVXhL5r-LIVLflzFqOYZsIJrlyLATngB120OFHG0kGzeLRg6F1Asnxffuisv7PX8ZQ%7EHbZTX%7EwVSb8Jb7HIHPe8uuLAmXQuLleEg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1d480dde71039a73a59b6a6335fb2d58
PDF Text
Text
SOUTH PLACE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY,
flNSBURY.
REPORT
OF THE
PUBLISHING COMMITTEE.
'
In accordance with the resolution passed at the last annual
meeting a Special Committee was appointed to consider the
best means of securing a wider publicity for the teaching which
all members of South Place Religious Society feel to be so
valuable, and they now submit the following brief Report.
The result of their deliberations has already been made
known, not only by circular, but still more effectually by the
actual publication of “ Lessons for the Day,” and it only remains
to state what measure of success has attended the enterprise.
In response to the appeal which was made a guarantee fund of
^267 was subscribed, of which one-fourth has been paid, and
a second instalment of like amount will shortly be called up
the greater part of the first having been expended in pre
liminary advertising and printing. 5,000 copies of No. 1 were
printed, of which about 1,000 were distributed gratuitously by
the Committee ; the remainder were soon all disposed of, and
a second edition was printed, so that complete sets might be
made up. In order to prevent the additional expense thus
involved, a larger number has been printed than would suffice
to meet the immediate weekly demand, which of course leaves
a considerable stock on hand, and entails an outlay for which
there is no immediate return. About 36,000, however, of the
first 13 numbers have been actually sold, and the average
weekly sale is about 2,500. This result is by no means dis
couraging, considering that scarcely anything has been spent in
advertising since October, and the comparatively select class
who can be expected to purchase such a periodical. There
�have been many expressions, both in the press and privately,
of the high estimation in which the “Lessons” are. held by
those under whose notice they have come, and it may fairly be
hoped that a further continued effort to make their existence
known amongst earnest-minded liberals will make the enter
prise self-supporting. The present returns are very nearly
sufficient to meet the expense of printing and publishing, and
even if no great improvement should be attained during the
coming year, your Committee believe that the Subscribers to
the Guarantee Fund, or the members at large, will feel that the
amount required for author’s remuneration is very usefully
expended in diffusing generally the intellectual and moral
advantages which have hitherto been restricted to South Place.
In addition to the direct moral influence thus exerted, the
publicity given to our services can hardly fail to produce a
favorable effect on the position of the Society, and it has in
fact been already observed that an unusually large number of
strangers have visited the Chapel during the last three
months;
It is hoped that the measures taken will meet with the
approval of the members, and that those who have not yet
taken an active part in this most useful portion of the Society’s
work, will now do so, either by adding their names to' the
Guarantee Fund, or by exerting themselves (as many have
already most usefully done) to promote the circulation of the
“ Lessons for the Day.” The Committee are most anxious not
to have to make repeated appeals for subscriptions, and as a
weekly sale of 5,000 would make the work self-supporting,
they trust that a special effort will be made in this direction
during the coming year.
January 23rd, 1883.
�Sold and distributed
-
- 40,250
��
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 & 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
South Place Religious Society. Report of the Publishing Committee [1882]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
South Place Religious Society
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: [3] p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[South Place Religious Society]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5688
Subject
The topic of the resource
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (South Place Religious Society. Report of the Publishing Committee [1882]), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><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
Conway Tracts
South Place Religious Society
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8ffe9c5aec35e0c96639bba362a9021c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=JxvDQ%7EUKR6oTF7SeTZeovRPzflOrzbnBv4LMjJKRKR18T9QKUOuj9nW83ZUZ-QcrJ4ZCabekksYWtE7%7EKqfdU606NfRBgJU7HzAZdDtFxNWLZFXPHCuFc%7EMPj368zY7pv58DV-OeX8VY%7EuIQbRLqidRIZv%7E3kYrZEv8Ddx7%7Ed7JHT5siG%7EVsPLBhfZNfIfJTLwH1FyMKBDrMywjaQJvQFfaYYyPU%7EpbMsCROBCL25KP31XTBP8-rQWuWrdfMX14yj0ywRkO-PG68d%7EPhtat%7E1U9kxZMqwcgiqAowAwYCHt9Motm7vyX-74sNY2ygZXGHKKgbnYr6rPDsg4HOAU6YIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
dc574926af3fd0a425349fccc572a7c3
PDF Text
Text
��������������������
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 & 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
Christ and liberty: an address to Northampton secularists
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Stubbs, Charles William [Bishop of Truro]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16, [2] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Published for the Guild of S. Matthew. Donated by Mr. Garley. "This address was one of a course of lectures delivered in St. Edmund's Church, Northampton, in Lent 1882" [Title page]. A list of pamphlets, dated April 1883, from the Guild of S. Matthew on unnumbered pages at the end. Extracts from review of 'Politics: Addresses and Sermons on the Labour Question' by Stubbs on back cover. Includes bibliographical references. Annotations in pencil. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Frederick Verinder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5124
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
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 (Christ and liberty: an address to Northampton secularists), 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
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/50cf2cf40fb931e977a8c5e8a1170031.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=E-4YK7nO2A6y6pXh6tdOmDsRdQSf-e%7EfrOBTjLGcpLzk4EUwW6njyx8U1bNypi6MSr%7EGxzJACkHfiCyroxFN9E75vIcuVosrRbi5TfsKPCdSk25Igyo2VzYoZ6gmrqAHIQsSKSD7bEbWmPqDwlkzDAMs4jo8ndBDXZaZvcdCtYGCn3PvE0q-TAbTNha4nFQ6U8Wih7e-0C6-FtnyWdTCROnAV1pdetnOFZ22x6QZl8ImOpV2qkpv825qiTwduym00PqkC674I09f10MuES8qxei2chsLa0PP8I09lCxfrDZxeDC66uFodF37STcqfPe8o7Gx5tCDV8wmcrbaXqSdvg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
93d4f534a0457a89a0204bf8b32214d2
PDF Text
Text
*
AFFIRMATION
BILL
. REASONS WHY IT CANNOT BE
PERMITTED TO BECOME THE LAW OF THE LAND
CONSIDERED AND STATED.
IN A PUBLIC LETTER ADDRESSED
TO THE
Right
The Speaker of the House of Commons
Snti to all
T U L L I A N.
Justutn et tenacem propositi virum
Non civium ardor prava j ubentium,
Non vultus instantis tyranni,
Mente quatit solida ;
Hor. hi. Odes iii. I.
LONDON:
DAVID BOGUE, 3, ST. MARTINS PLACE,
TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
��NATIONAL secular society
THE
AFFIRMATION
BILL.
REASON’S WHY IT CANNOT BE
PERMITTED TO BECOME THE LAW OF THE LAND
CONSIDERED AND STATED.
IN A PUBLIC LETTER ADDRESSED
TO THE
Right Hon. The Speaker of the House of Commons,
Slntr in all its fKemtiers.
BY
TERTULLIAN.
Justum et tenacem propositi virum
Non civium ardor prava jubentium,
Non vultus instantis tyranni,
Mente quatit solids ;
Hoe. iii. Odes iii. I.
LONDON:
DAVID BOGUE, 3, ST. MARTIN’S PLACE,
TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
�4
SECTION
EAGE
whose one sole chief end of his being would seem to be to make
himself as widely known as possible as the man who denies the
existence of GOD, and the consequent possibility of any religion.
34
IX. A second brief word touching the horns of a comical dilemma of which
the supporters of Mr. Bradlaugh will be compelled to make the
best that they can................................................................................. 35
X. The near view of the precipice.. ................................................................ 35
A Word in Conclusion.
If every Member of the House of Commons has bound himself to the
duty of defending the Throne by his having sworn his Oath of
Allegiance, how will such Member be able to vote for the removal
of one of the principal safeguards and defences of the Throne in
any other way than by the perjury of his Oath ?
... 39
�THE AFFIRMATION BILL:
REASONS WHY IT CANNOT BE SUFFERED TO
BECOME THE LA W OF THE LAND.
Eight Honourable Sir,
There cannot be a better proof of the honour and
dignity which the Empire of Great Britain confers upon
those who inherit by birth and social standing the privilege
of being its citizens, than the liberty of speech which is their
birthright, and of which it must be their constant solicitude to
prove themselves worthy, by the care they are seen to take
not to overstep in their use of it, the limits of justice and
becoming respect for all its constituted authorities. It is,
then, this privilege of freedom of speech which is the
English citizen's highest honour, so long as he studies not
to abuse it to unworthy ends, that enables one who other
wise would be but a humble and retiring member of the
commonwealth, known only as a person engaged in the
usual pacific employment of his everyday life, to take up
his pen to address the Speaker of the most eminent and
powerful legislative assembly, which is known to the civi
lized nations of the world. How great this assembly is over
which you, sir, so worthily preside in the name of the
Majesty which sits on the time-honoured Throne of Eng
land, the laws emanating from it, whose jurisdiction com
prises a far wider expanse of the territory of the earth than
that which two thousand years ago was subject to the rule
�6
of the far-famed. Senate of Rome, bear their ample and
world-wide testimony.
When St. Paul had the privilege granted to him, by
way of a special favour, that he might have a public hearing
for his cause before the King Agrippa who happened at
that moment to be a distinguished visitor of the Roman
procurator Festus, whose prisoner Paul was, this was to
him a source of the most real rejoicing. Now he knew
that he should be at least able to plead his cause and give
an account of himself in the presence of one whose ears
would be open to listen to him as an obligation of public
justice. But he had even a still stronger reason for re
joicing than this. He knew that he was to plead before
one, who, by reason of his Jewish education and his know
ledge of, and respect for, the Sacred Scriptures, was both
able and willing to give, that which must ever be the
highest good to the public speaker, after that of having
a just and religious cause—the most appreciable boon of a
right-minded and intelligent hearing.
It is in a like
manner a source, to the present writer, of a similar unfeigned
satisfaction to know, that his Englishman’s birthright, his
freedom of speech and his right to raise his voice, in season
and out of season, in defence of the cause of God and of his
country—-procures for him the honour of pleading his cause
in the hearing of one, to whom, as Speaker of the House of
Commons, the true and lasting welfare his country will ever
be the supreme rule and guide of his judgment.
He may not, indeed, hope that it should be given to
him to emulate the eloquence of the Apostle, but he may
hope to be found not to fall too far below the inspired
model that is before him in point of courage and fidelity
to his cause. From the Apostle he may learn that it can be
the duty of a Christian to resist any adversary, even one,
the excess of whose confidence in his own powers stands.
�7
forward in a singularly marked contrast with the infamy
and abjection of the designs which he is pursuing.
The Tertullian whom he ventures to take as the especial
model and pattern of his undertaking, has put before man
kind the example,—that with a view the better to secure a
calm and dispassionate hearing for the many remonstrances
which belong to his cause and its pleading, there may be
circumstances when it will be the wisest course to trust
entirely to the efficacy of what he calls the “ occulta via
tacitarum literarum,” the retiring method of silently advo
cating his cause in writing. This is, then, his choice. His
cause is too grave and sacred for the counter recourse to
a rival antagonist, noisy clamour of street gatherings, and
to further poisoned vehemence of the partizan oratory
specially designed and prepared for them.
Elijah on the Mountain Horeb was witness to the strong
wind that passed over the mountain and its effect, but
“ the Lord was not in the wind’-’—then followed the earth
quake, but “ the Lord was not in the earthquake/-’—then
after the earthquake there came a fire, but “ the Lord was
not in the fire.” After all these had passed, there then came
the “still small voice,” and this was the voice of the Lord
(1 Kings xix. 12).
In the phenomena which have already manifested them
selves in Mr. Bradlaugh’s short career, a very little gift
of discernment is all that is needed to perceive, at least the
first beginnings of the same calamities about to be visited
upon the kingdom and people of England which are wellknown to have desolated the neighbouring land of Erance
for the whole of the present century. In the wind is
figured the storm of atheistic impure and revolutionary
doctrines, which have been desseminated with an evil energy
on purpose to carry away the masses of the population
from all the ancient hereditary landmarks and strongholds
�8
of the Christian religion, as well as to make war on the
boasted belief of the English people in the inspiration of the
Bible as the Word of God.
These atheistic impure and revolutionary doctrines are
planned to prepare the way for the “ earthquake/'’ which
will first manifest itself in the overthrow of the right of all
private property, the fruit of legitimate industry and labour,
and in the sinking of all in one level of indiscriminating
communism. To this will be added the abolition of the
sanctity of family life, and the establishment in its stead
of the brute beast state of promiscuous concubinage, falsely
honoured with the inviting but appallingly deceptive name
of socialism.
But as nothing can subsist any length of time that
presumes to place itself in an attitude of defiance to the
Law and the Will of the Divine Creator and Sovereign
Lord of His Creation, the state of things which will follow
the contemplated earthquake of communism and socialism
is aptly figured by the pregnant term “ fire.’"’ “ Eire^ is a
word that expresses far more if left to stand by itself than
would be gained by attempting a commentary. Nor will
it serve the cause of the profane and impious mockers of
sacred truth to say, that the day for believing in the Bible is
past; mankind has been held long enough in bondage to
its pious and totally vain terrors. Let these impious
scoffers account for the phenomenon of one of the most
distinguished poets of the present or indeed of any century,'
giving the form of his imperishable verse to his perfectly
similar provision of the kind of future which is in store for
the nations where the storm of revolutionary doctrines is
allowed to have its free course to work out their destructive
issues. I may now be allowed in the present state of our
knowledge of German to cite the lines in the original, to
which no translation can render adequate justice :
�9
Da werden Weiber zu Hyiinen
Und treiben mit Entsetzen Scherz;
Noch zuckend, mit des Panther’s Zahnen
Zerreisen sie des Feindes Herz.
Nichts heiliges ist mehr, es losen
Sich alle Bande frommer Scheu,
Der Gute raumt den Platz dem Bdsen
Und alle Laster walten frei.
Schiller’s Lay of the Bell.
Such is the future prospect for human society under the
ascendency of the career, the beginnings of which Mr.
Bradlaughhas,by the sheer strength of the rage which displays
so much power of moving forward to its evil ends, for the
reason which the Scripture gives, because it knows “ that its
time is short.”
The former, Tertullian, it may be easily perceived, had a
very different task before him from that which lies before
the writer who succeeds to his name. The Christian cause
then was comparatively weak in numbers, but it was strong in
mind, and was, in the main, lion-hearted in the presence of
its rival and persecutor—the great Imperial power of Rome.
This power is known to have elected to throw all the weight
of its administrative action to the propping up the falling
cause of the idolatrous popular religion. The present
moment, it must be confessed, appears to have witnessed a
strange phenomenon of a totally contrary kind—a temporary
paralysis of all the ancient Christian statesman-like courage
and discernment of the nation. We wonder what has become
of all the vigorous independent power of thought and
judgment which has, in all great emergencies, been known
as the chief honourable mark and sign of the true English
man. Numbers, whose ruling characteristics are to be
sought for in their feebleness, cowardice, and helplessness,
it must be borne in mind, cannot possibly be the strength
of any cause however good in itself. On the contrary, they
a 3
�IO
are the incurable weakness of their cause, whatever it may
be. Nothing can possibly lead cowards to victory.
We must be extremely careful, however, how we risk a fall
into a most serious error. We must not mistake for cow
ardice what it is incomparably more reasonable to suppose
can be in reality nothing more serious than a momentary
and passing fit of stupor. Such a stupor it is quite easy
to conceive might be for a time occasioned by the unex
pected and unparalleled effrontery of one single man,
destitute of any single qualification other than that of his
present unexampled boldness in daring to offer himself as
the leader of a public cause. It is too terrible a thought to
have to contemplate even the possibility of a cowardice which
renders a whole multitude, comprising the entire wealth,
property, and education of the nation, incapable of stirring
a hand or foot in the defence of all that they are bound to
hold to be dearer to them, even than life.
The moment for waking up must come ! The Roman
poet, indeed, has given utterance to a very undoubted
truth—
Qui sibi fidit,
Dux regit examen.
But Heaven save our country from the depth of its
fall over the precipice which is being prepared for it. It
must be absolutely impossible for it to be true that the
educated classes of Great Britain can have come into the
condition of consenting to be the mindless swarm, helplessly
led in obedience to his will, by the atheist, Bradlaugh.
The task, then, for the Tertullian of the present time is
the quiet, unpresuming labour of a patient remonstrance,
addressed to the higher intelligence of the nation, which
may be most truly said to find its honourable represen
tative in yourself, as the Vicegerent of the Throne, and the
Speaker or President of the chief really great Legislative
�11
assembly of the world at the present time. His work has to
offer itself as the “small still voice” of Divine truth, opposing
itself to the noisy clamour of the streets, and calling all who
love their country and who, as legislators, are responsible to
God and the throne, to seek its true prosperity in the only paths
in which it is to be found, the fear and honour of God. He has
the honourable task of asking them to weigh well and consider
the exceeding great issues about to be placed before them.
It is then with this weighty task resting upon him that the
Tertullian of the present hour ventures to crave your
attention for the truths which he now proceeds to submit
to consideration, in the order in which they are laid out to
view in the Table of Contents.
I. The inevitable degradation, in the eyes of the whole world, which
an Imperial Legislature must submit to incur, if it should be
seen to have legislation forced upon it by a mere mob outcry
confined to a simple handful of its own towns.
The Legislature of Great Britain, as it is almost out of
place in an ordinary citizen of the land to venture to sub
mit to those who are its legislators, is a “ city set on a hill
which cannot be hid.” 'Whatever its legislative acts are—
wise, just, and statesmanlike as every true citizen of the
empire will always desire that they may be ; or extorted
from its unworthy fears, by a noisy and godless clamour
outside—nothing can be more certain, than that such as
the acts of the Legislature of Great Britain may be, they are
passed under the destiny of being carried by the newspaper
press to the knowledge and judgment of all the civilized
nations of the world.
It has again often been said that the Imperial power
of Great Britain stands upright in the world not so
much by the force of its armaments, which are less
than those of other nations, as by the known solid
a 4
�12
character, both of its legislature and of its executive
government.
The virtues of truth, firmness, and justice
are honourably recognized in the world at large as placing
British power above the reach of being swayed by the voice
of faction, or of being misled by mean and unworthy
motives. In this respect the history of the present times
only repeats the lesson of former periods. In the ancient
military Rome, the empire of the city over the nations is
seen in her history to have been firm and stable so long as
the Senate of Rome was able to impress upon the nations
the universal sense of fear, and respect for the justice, capacity,
and inviolable fidelity of its senators. And in proportion
as the respect of the nations for the Senate of Rome, which
appears almost always to have been willingly given, was
rendered no longer possible in consequence of the too
manifestly feeble and unmanly character of the Senate itself
and its public action, the power of Rome over the nations
then began to dwindle away, until it at length died out.
What can be a more fatal sign of the danger of an irrup
tion of a similar spirit of disastrous degeneracy into the
Imperial Senate of the British Empire, than that it should
be universally seen to be willing to suffer itself, even for a
moment, to submit to the disgrace of allowing a mere mob
leader outside itself, to dictate to it what its legislation is to
be or what it is not to be ? How is this manifest proof of
-degeneracy to be possibly concealed from the rest of the
-world ? Will not the other nations at once take up their
parable against Great Britain, and say to her, “ Art thou
-also become weak as we ? Art thou become like to us ?
Thy pomp is brought down to the grave; the worm is
spread under thee; the worms cover thee.’7
Yet it is the boast of Great Britain, that as the Assyrians
■were the Romans of the early civilization of the world, so
’Great Britain is the Rome of the living world. And this
�13
resemblance of the English character to that of the ancient
Romans, the conquerors, legislators, and peacemakers of the
world, has been very remarkably recognized by an extremely
distinguished French writer, the Compte de Champagny.
In the first volume of his history of the Empire of Rome,
he says that John Bull has always appeared to him to
be the younger brother of Romulus. Accepting, then, a
testimony which is as honourable to the giver as it must be
gratifying to the receiver, allow me to pass from my first
point, by citing an example of the manner in which the spirit
of ancient Rome could reject with the sternest indignation
the very thought of accepting the least legislation in obedience
to an external dictation. The passage of history occurs
in the eighth book of Livy, § v. and runs as follows :—
“ A certain Annius, a native of the municipality of Setia
(now Sezza), on the confines of the Pontine marshes, came
to Rome in the year of the city 415, as the legate of the
Latin Confederacy, to demand that one of the consuls of
Rome should be chosen from Latium.” The Senate paid
the Latin envoy the mark of deference to hold a special
assembly for the purpose of hearing and considering his
demand, which it would appear that Annius made in an
extremely confident and peremptory manner. This attempt
to dictate to Rome what its legislation ought to be, so
stirred the Roman spirit of Titus Manlius, the consul, as
to cause him to rise up from his seat there and then, and
to exclaim aloud, “ that if any such madness could come
upon the conscript fathers that they could be ready to take
their laws from a man of Setia, he would come himself
into the Senate house, sword in hand, and with his own
arm slay any man of Latium whom he found in it?"’
The senators of your honourable assembly, Mr. Speaker,
will hardly fail here to perceive that the Lucius Annius
above mentioned as the representative of the entire Latin
�14
Confederacy^ contrasts more than favourably with the man
who has outraged the Christian religion of the entire
nation by his impious denial of the very existence of God.
And yet the Rome which at that time repelled Lucius Annius
was only a city in the Latin Confederacy; without the least
prestige of any sort or kind to maintain in the sight of the
wide world. Notwithstanding this; Rome; the simple isolated
city; standing by herself; is seen to have made it a point of
honour to herself to repudiate so much as the thought of
submitting to the least approach of dictation from without.
II. A great and fundamental change of the law is proposed to be
introduced, subversive of the entire religious constitution of
the empire. Is there one solitary spokesman representing the
property and education of the empire, who is known to have
directly called for this change ?
When Esther; the Persian Queen; fell down before
Ahasuerus; to intercede for the life of her people; the
King in amazement asked her, “ Who is the man, and what
is his power; that he durst presume in his heart to do this
thing
The whole of the education and property of the
entire empire asks itself the question in a perfectly similar
amazement; Who is the man, and what is the secret of
his power; who has been able to prevail so far; as to cause
a formal proposal to be entertained by your Honourable
Assembly; to take the initiative step to bring about this con
templated subversive change in the time honoured constitution
of the kingdom ?
Great legislative assemblies; it is undoubtedly true;
have been known to have been led into their legislative
acts by the voice of one man.
The life of the late
Mr. Wilberforce affords a remarkable example of this kind.
The counsels of the nation unquestionably suffered them
selves in the end to be moulded in conformity with the
�policy of which for some time he stood alone by himself as
the advocate. But between the case of Mr. Wilberforce and
that of Mr. Bradlaugh, where does the shadow of a parallel exist
that can be perceived ? In the one instance we have the man
of piety and religion, pleading the cause of the natural right
of an oppressed race to their liberty, and step by step, through
his assiduity, his patient eloquence and powers of persuasion,
winning over the thoughtful religious men of the nation to
befriend his cause, which indeed was that of suffering and
downtrodden humanity. In the other, we see the man of
impiety and irreligion, by his own avowal the profane dis
believer in God and the despiser of His laws, the advocate
of no known cause, except that of his own wild will to
break through the barrier which the existing immemoria
constitution of the kingdom places in the way of his
ambition. Is this the man to mould the counsels of an
empire ?
Bor the sake of this man, however, it is now proposed that
a sacred, ancient, and immemorial religious landmark of the
Christian religion is to be removed. Can it be shown that
this man has won over so much as a solitary representative of
the independent property and education of the country to
desire the proposed change for its own sake ? The extreme
suddenness, added to the intrinsic impiety and irreligion of
the proposed change, may doubtless have produced a momen
tary sense of stupor and paralysis, and for a time have kept
back the expression of the deep-seated horror that is enter
tained against it. But in the nature of things, the stupor
and paralysis will pass away, while the horror and the
detestation will remain.
�i6
III. The Prime Minister is seen to be reduced to the humiliating
position of the humble slave of Mr. Bradlaugh’s dictation. The
question to come before the Legislature will be, will it elect to
become a participator in the Prime Minister’s humiliation ?
No doubt that it would be perfectly possible fortlie Prime
Minister, if he were honestly to elect to come before the
empire of whose destinies he has been raised to be the chief
arbiter, as a convert of conviction to the denial of God—to
which alone his new protege owes the degree of unhappy
notoriety which he has gained—to make good by such an
avowal his claim to be Mr. Bradlaugh's free, noble, and
most enlightened patron. In this case, nothing could be
more unjust and unfounded than to attempt to breathe a
word about the Prime Minister being the slave of Mr.
Bradlaugh's dictation. He might then say to Mr. Bradlaugh,
Welcome brother in unbelief and in the contempt of God
and his law. Too late in life have I learned the folly and
emptiness of my former belief in the inspiration of the books
of the Bible. What might I not have spared myself if I
could have come earlier to share in your illumination. But
henceforth, at least, I shall be able to walk arm in arm with
you in the light of day, emancipated from all the vain
superstitions and empty dreams of my previous life.” If
Mr. Gladstone would only come before his country with a
full and open avowal of the errors and deceptions of his past
life as a religious man, and profess himself to have become
henceforward a free and enlightened follower of the
“ Fruits of Philosophy” of his new political associate, we
could then perfectly understand his position.
But nothing of this kind is suffered to appear. Mr.
Gladstone is known through the pages of the Graphic as
one who thinks himself honoured by being permitted to
wear a surplice, and to deliver before a lectern in his parish
church the lessons from the books of the Sacred Scripture,
�the reading of which in- the presence of the people is an
appointed part of the public offices of prayer in all the
national sanctuaries. It is, of course, simply intolerable to
associate the name of Mr. Gladstone in such acts as those
described, with the thought of any possible histrionic ritual
exhibition of himself, or any hypocritical performance gone
through for the purpose of acquiring a reputation for
religion. No ; the Prime Minister, like all the still sound
part of his countrymen, is a believer, ex animo, in the books
of the Sacred Scripture, as containing the Word of God
spoken to man for his guidance and direction, and for his
instruction as well in the lessons of wisdom that are good
for the present life, as in the wisdom which teaches and
smoothes the way to the promised heaven of the life that
is future.
But the merest tyro in the knowledge of the truth that
is contained in the books of the Bible knows as well as
possible that nothing in the world can be further removed
than Bible truth from observing the least thought of
neutrality towards the class of men of whom it is Mr.
Bradlaugh-’s boast, not merely that he is an advanced
specimen of their genus, but that he is a distinguished
and foremost champion of their speedy exaltation to political
power and pre-eminence. Mr. Bradlaugh may be a short
lived hero in the eyes of the mob-following which he has
gathered about himself, but before the judgment of the
Sacred Scripture, he is nothing more than “ the fool that
“ saith in his heart there is no God” (Ps. xiv. 1). He
belongs to the class of those of whom God says, “ I will
“ beat them as small as the dust before the wind ; I will cast
“them out as the clay of the streets” (Ps. xviii. 42). He is
but one of the men of whom the inspired word says, “ He
“ loved not blessing, therefore it shall be far from him; he
“ clothed himself with cursing as with a raiment, and it shall
A 3
�18
“ come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones”
(Ps. cix. 16). Of such men as he is, the word of God
in the Bible exclaims, (< O my soul, come not thou into
“ their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou
‘‘united” (Gen. xlix. 6).
With such sentiments as the above, which meet our eye
in almost every page of the inspired volume, and with a
Prime Minister who professes in public his belief in the Bible
as the Word of God, what bond of real friendship and mutual
confidence can, by any possibility, unite him and his Govern
ment to the cause of Mr. Bradlaugh ?
Plainly none! If the religious Prime Minister of Great
Britain has consented to espouse the cause of Mr. Bradlaugh,
there can be but one explanation : Mr. Bradlaugh has become
the master by the sheer force of his boldness and firm
tenacity of purpose; and the Prime Minister, fearing for
the security of his own hold of power, has consented to
become the servant. Mr. Bradlaugh holds the instruments of
torture, and says—
If ihou ncglcctest or dost unwillingly
What I command, I’ll rack thee with old cramps, &c.
And the Prime Minister of the greatest of existing empires
replies—
No pray thee,
I must obey; his art is of such power.
Tempest, Act i. sc. 2.
IIow far more noble would have been the Prime Ministeps
position—what an infinitely more lasting title to the grati
tude of his country he would have earned—had he taken the
following all but inspired lines of the Roman poet for his
rule of policy :—
Ac veluti magno in populo qtium ssepc cooi'ta cst
Seditio, sajvitque anirnis ignobile vulgus,
Jamquo faces et saxa volant, furor arma ministrat.
Turn pictatc gravem et meritis si forte virum quern
�19
Congpexere, silent, arrectisque auribus adstant.
Iste regit animos dictis et pectora mulcet.1
BEneid i. 148.
Alas, then, we have but to say, alas for the fall of a great
man—Would that charity could throw a veil over his fall !
But his fall is the danger of the constitution of the kingdom.
To minor political adversaries who may be disposed to mock
at his fall, it might justly be said, “ Howl, fir tree, for it
is the cedar that is fallen.”
But still, if the cedar is
fallen, it is a matter of the highest import that the tree
should lie where it has fallen, and that it should not be
allowed to draw others after it to be the partakers of its
fall.
IV. An atheist faction conspiring to undermine the ancient religious
constitution of the kingdom could not hope to succeed in open
warfare. To gain their ends, therefore, its leaders have been
compelled to take recourse to a juggle and fraud of words.
The atheist faction having to their great joy, in all
probability not a little mingled with surprise, gained over
an adherent in the Prime Minister, practically fallen from
his religious belief, has still to encounter an obstacle of no
ordinary magnitude, which by some means or other has to
be overcome before any benefit can possibly be derived from
their unlooked for conquest in the surrender of the Prime
Minister.
To awaken the dormant religious energies of the nation
3 “ As oft when micl’st the multitude has ris’n
Sedition, rage in heart the ignoble crowd ;
And now stones, torches fly—what fury finds—
If chance some venerated sage they view,
In sober sanctity severe, at once
Mute, motionless, they stand around,
He rules with salutary words their minds,
And mollifies their breasts.”
Beresford’s Version.
�20
and to call these into life by the faction letting their
scheme come to be discovered before its time, would be
totally to shipwreck their design.
There is even yet an
energy of religion in the land and a vigour of action sur
viving among the people who still retain their old traditional
veneration for the sacred volume, that it would be perilous
in the extreme for the faction to do anything whatever
calculated even to awaken suspicion, much less to rouse these
up into wakefulness and action.
For this end the leaders of the faction in question propose
to have recourse to a manifestly unscrupulous, if not, after
all, so very crafty a fraud and juggle of words. The fraud
is really not so surpassingly profound but that it may be
quite readily seen through and detected, even by any
ordinarily attentive observer. Nevertheless, its devisers
evidently rely upon its being accepted by what they
appear confidently to expect will be, the imperturbably
guileless and unsuspecting simplicity of the great multi
tude of the good and peace-loving people whom it is
their intention to deceive by it. That the Prime Minister
himself should be held to be a bona fide participator in this
guileless unsuspecting simplicity of the multitude, on which
the faction place so much reliance, this not even his most
deeply fascinated admirers, will find it a very easy task to
persuade themselves. But let this pass, and let us have
the intended juggle and the fraud of words, on which all
their hopes are to be embarked, placed before us in the light
of day.
This, then, consists in their purpose of attempting to
palm off the ordinary common affirmation of daily life (the
only affirmation which an atheist can possibly have the
power of making) for the “ solemn” affirmation which is in
its very nature an act of religion, and therefore not capable
of being performed by any man who does not profess his
�2I
belief in God; as St. Paul says, as “ existing and as being
the rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. xi. 6).
Their trick, then, is to dress up their jackdaw atheist
affirmation in the feathers of the jay, and to try to pacify
the religious people, always well disposed to ease and quiet,
by saving to them, What would you have more, you good
religious people ? Have we not given you, for your com
fort, a SOLEMN affirmation ?
Loes any one, however, in his senses, suppose for a single
moment that the Prime Minister is deceived by this jack
daw atheist affirmation ? Singular, it certainly is, that the
atheist faction should have ever proposed to dress up their
jackdaw in the feathers of the jay to try even to make
it pass off with the simple people ; just as if after being thus
dressed up, it could possibly in the nation of things be the
real solemn affirmation which is the exclusive act of the man
of religion ! Have they, then, really thought all the world
to be nothing but absolute simpletons ?
Or have they,
perchance, been so lifted up with the conceit of the towering
height of their own intelligence, that it has never occurred
to them that compliance with their fraud could be by
any possibility refused.
V. A reason briefly stated, why it can never be anything else than a
conscious act of the most deliberate, barefaced fraud to attempt
to palm off the affirmation of an atheist as even capable of hav
ing any thing in common with the SOLEMN affirmation of the
man of religion.
A gulph or chasm, it is nevertheless true, and this of an
impassable width, separates the affirmation of the atheist
(which nothing that he has at his command can by any pos
sibility cause to become solemn) from the affirmation of the
man of religion, which is made solemn by the fact of its
being an act of his religion.
�22
A very few words will suffice to make it clear in what
this impassable gulph consists. Let us take for our test
case the oath of allegiance. This is what is known in law
as the “ juramentum promissorium.” It is a sworn promise
of true allegiance to the person and prerogatives of the
monarch, confirmed by the formula, “So help ms God,”—
Or, as the same would be expressed more fully—So help me
God as I truly keep my promise, and so avenge Thyself
against me, God, as I may forswear my promise.
Between this oath and the true “ solemn affirmation”
there is virtually no difference whatever. The religious
man affirming solemnly has the form of words which he
scruples on grounds of religion to utter remitted; but the
understanding is nevertheless clear on both sides—viz., on
the side of the proponent of the affirmation and on that of
the person who makes it—that the person affirming appeals
to God to reward or to punish him according as he promises
or affirms truly or falsely. The “ solemn affirmation” is thus
perceived to be lifted up above the ordinary affirmation by
the appeal made in it to God, which differs only in the par
ticular form of words used from the similar appeal made to
God in the ordinary oath.
Now everyone must see there is nothing of this nature to
be found in the atheist’s affirmation to lift it up above the
level of the affirmation of ordinary life.
The atheist can
know of nothing in the whole of creation higher than him
self. The God of Heaven and the Creator of the Earth can
indeed swear by Himself, because He alone can know nothing
higher than Himself by which He can swear, as St. Paul
tells us (Heb. vi. 13). But if the forlorn and abject atheist,
in the judicial blindness of his pride, were to claim the
right to say, “ I also am able to make a solemn affirmation,”
all that he could possibly hope to gain thereby would be to
exhibit himself to the derision of every man of understanding.
�23
No man of sense could see in liim anything but a contemptible
caricature., trying as a perishable worm of the earth to put
himself on a level with the Eternal Sovereign of the Universe;
while hoping to be able to make himself the passing wonder
of the moment, for the few fools who for the time being
might be deceived into a little shortlived marvel at his daring.
But this is somewhat to anticipate.
A brief survey of
the practice of swearing the oath of religion in the past
history of mankind must now engage our best attention. It
is indispensable to the completeness of our subject, and not
impossibly it may bring to light some few details of antiquity
not commonly known, and not without their own claim to
prove of interest to their readers.
VI. A brief survey of the reasons which render the swearing of an
oath of religion indispensable to the well-being of all civilized
society, with a rapid glance at the history of its immemorial
practice at every known period of the world.
The reason why the practice of swearing the oath of reli
gion is indispensable to the well-being of civilized society,
as well in public or political as in private life, is very easily
given. It is seen at once to come under the rule of St.
Vincent of Lerins, “ Quod ubique/’“ quod semper/-’ “ quod
ab omnibus?'’ That which exists everywhere, which has
always been, and is received and accepted by all, is placed
thereby beyond the reach of controversy or doubt. The
oath of religion is no invention of yesterday, but is as
old as the civilization itself, which, from our earliest records,
is known as simply unable to exist in a condition of well
being without it.
The reason of this inability to dispense with the oath of
religion, which is understood and known all over the
world, is found in the necessity for truth as the basis of all
the human society which aspires to lift itself up to any
�^4
degree of civilization. The Word of God says : “ Who shall
dwell upon Thy holy hill?—even he that speaketh the truth
from his heart (Ps. xv. 2); and, as regards public life, the
same Word says, “ Open ye the gates that the righteous
nation that keepeth the truth may come in” (Isaiah xxvi. 2).
Precisely the same sound is that which is echoed back from
all the great voices of the Gentile world. Pythagoras being
asked, “ In what men in their actions can become like to the
gods,” answered “ If they speak the truth” (Stob. Fiori, xi.
25). Pindar says—
AX«0«a Svyarijp Awe.—(01. xi. 4.)
Truth the daughter of God.
Cicero says that the foundation of justice is good faith—•
that is, the firmness and truth of all that is said, and of every
thing that is matter of compact (Off. i. 7). Csecilius, the
jurisconsult, in his dispute on the subject of the laws of
the Twelve Tables with Favonius the philosopher, says:
“ The Roman people, by the sedulous practice of every kind of
virtue, rose from a very small beginning to their marvellous
extent of power; but above all their virtues they ever
studied, in the first place, to cultivate good faith, and
always held good faith to be most sacred and holy in both
public and private life” (A. Gell. xx. i. 39.) Quintilian
says : “ Fides supremum rerum humanarum vinculum est
good faith is the supreme bond of human business.
But this truth and good faith, thus pronounced to be so
supremely needed, exists now no longer by nature in
human society, since the footing which the devil, the father
of lies, has been permitted to gain for himself in our world.
David says: “ I said in my ecstasy, all men are liars”
(Ps. cxvi. 12), which St. Paul confirms in the words : “ Let
God be true, but every man a liar.” It is under this
supreme need of truth, beset as it is by the ever present
peril of falsehood, that the entire human family, from the
�25
earliest existing record up to the actually present hour, in
every known civilized nation under the sun, has discovered
no other recourse than the invocation of the Supreme God
of heaven—not, however, excluding the lesser celestial
powers—to which invocation we now give the name of an
OATH, known to the Greeks as op/coc, and to the Komans
as “ juramentum, or jusjurandum?'’1
The oath, then, consists in the solemn formal invocation of
God as witness of the truth and good faith of all that
is spoken, and as the avenger of any falsehood or breach of
faith that may subsequently be committed. The oath,
consequently, is at one and the same time both a prayer for a
blessing and the imprecation of a curse; it is a declaration of
the love of truth and of the hatred of a lie. It is a calling upon
God, who is believed to be present, to the effect that He
should deign to prosper the speaker in so far as he speaks the
truth, and to punish him in the same degree as he may speak
falsely. An oath, says Cicero, is “a religious affirmation
of which God is the witness” (Off iii., 19); a little
after adding, Nullum vinculum ad adstringendam fidem,
jurejurando majores arctius esse voluerunt; id indicant leges
in duodecim tabulis, indicant sacratse,” &c. (Off iii., 31).
Our ancesters have provided by law no power more binding to
secure good faith than an oath. This is shown in the laws of
the Twelve Tables, and in those known as sacratae, (i.e., to
the non-observance of which a ban was attached).1
To create the binding force, then, of the oath, it becomes easy
to perceive in what way two distinct motives have to concur.
1 The following are Greek testimonies to the necessity for the Oath as the
binding power of political society:—
To avvsxov -n}v Sr)p.oK.paTiav opKOQ sari. “That which holds the State
together is the oath?’ “ Lycurgus adv. Leocratem,” p. 79. povov in op leaped a
ffyvXaK-njpiov rov opicov Kai tt]v e7riKX7]ffiv riSv deZv.—We have provided for our
only protection the oath and the invocation of the Gods.—(Themistius Orat.
XXI.)
�26
And these, indeed, equally concur in the case of every human
virtue. There must be as the foundation—faith in the ex
istence of God and of His presence and power—to which
succeed, in due order (1) the wish to please Him and to
earn His promised reward by acting with loyal truthfulness;
and (2-) the desire to escape the penalty to be incurred from
His anger against deception and false swearing.
Without
these two grounds there can be no oath.1
If an objector should here attempt to argue that the
great facility, added to the incessant actual occurrence of
the perjuries which have been known in all ages, abun
dantly proves the futility of trusting to the protection of
any oath, nothing could be more absurd. Fidelity to the
obligation of an oath is the virtue to which perjury is
attached as its correlative vice.
But then, in the
same way, drunkenness and incontinency are the vices
attached to the virtues of sobriety and continence. Yet to
what man in his senses could it ever occur that the
practice of sobriety and continency were to be abandoned as
superfluous because of the existence of the vices opposed to
them.
The perfect love and fear of God would doubtless
suppress all perjury, and give increased value to the binding
power of an oath for the great improvement of human
life. But then it would do exactly the same for the
suppression of all the other vices, and give a wonderful
1 The accustomed form of the conclusion of the oath among the Greeks as
numerous inscriptions which have been found upon various public monuments,
was the following:
“ evopicovvTi p'tv pot ev eh], ttycopKouvri Se e£<i>Xeia Kai aiirip Kai ytvei
Tip
spoil.”
(May it be well with me if I am true to my oath, but if I forswear myself, may
utter ruin come upon me and all my race).
This is the formula of the oatn which Demosthenes swears in his Oration de
Corona.
�27
impulse to the contrary virtues. Only our world is without
the perfect love and fear of God, and yet we do not there
fore abandon all thought of the practise of virtue as an
impossible chimera.
The ordinary economy of the government of God in
dealing with both the virtues and the forfeits of those who
swear His oaths, may be easily seen to be conspicuous in
an eminent degree for its efficacy and considerate wisdom.
His rewards for the faithful observance of the obligations
contracted are neither so openly manifest as to assume the
character of a bargain, nor are the punishments for falsehood
so certain as to provoke impious and daring contumacy and
resistance. There is sufficient concealment of both the one
and the other to leave men on the one hand in full possession
of their liberty, and on the other to try and prove their
fidelity and attachment. It is clearly his perceiving the
above truth that has caused Solomon to say: “ Because
sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily,
therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them
to do evil; nevertheless, though a sinner do evil a hundred
times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it
shall be well with them that fear God, and which fear before
Him : but it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall
he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he
feareth not before God^ (Eccles, viii. 11).
With the above judgment of Solomon the voice of man
kind in general has never been otherwise than in the most
complete accord. It has ever borne witness that a marked
prosperity has, on the whole, been well-known to attach to
the faithful observance of an oath, while a contrary marked
career of mishap and misfortune has always, on the whole,
followed in the wake of false swearing and perjury. Pindar
says ;—
IloXXai 5’ oSol
Suv S'eotf evirpaliiag.
�28
The favour of the gods is the way to every sort of good
fortune; and in the extravagant caricature which Aristo
phanes appears to have been prompted to make of Socrates,
Strepsiades, in questioning him upon the subject of the
nature of thunder, expresses the universal sense of the
Athenian world that the perjured man was the certain object
of the anger of the gods :—
tovtov
yup Sr) <j>avep&£ 6 Zei>£ iija’ erri tovq STriopicovQ ("Nub.” 397.)
At least it is clear that Jupiter hurls this (thunder)
against those who forswear their oaths.1
Cicero again admits that the Greeks were possessed of ex
cellent doctrines as regards the obligation of an oath, but they
had to come to the Romans for examples of their doctrines
being carried out into practice
De Oratore,’-’ iii. 34), and
Quintilian says the same: “ Quantum Grseci praeceptis valent
tantum Romani, quod est magis, exemplis” (xii. 2, 30). And
the corresponding result is patent on the face of history. The
Greek cities soon lost their autonomy and independence,
while the Roman power, founded on its love for truth, came
to be so firm and stable that it advanced in the world at
large, without any effort at seeking this, to acquire from all
the nations the attribute and character of eternity.1
2
Herodotus, in his history, happens to relate an anecdote
of a certain Glaucus, which sums up in so singularly de
scriptive a manner the vivid sense that has pervaded the
whole human race, that perjury cannot possibly go un
punished, that I must ask leave to relate it in the words of
Herodotus’ own narrative. “ One Glaucus, a citizen of
1 Compare “Iliad IV.” 166 and “JEneid XII.” 894.
2 Cicero has the following testimony concerning the faithlessness of the Greeks
to their oaths :—Hoc dico de toto genere Graecorum; tribuo illis litteras, do
multarum artium disciplinam, non adimo sermonis leporem; ingeniorum acumen,
dicendi copiam, denique si qua sibi alia sumant non repugno ; testimoniorum
religionem et fidem nunquam ista natio coluit, totiusque hujusce rei quae sit vis
quae auctoritas, quodpondus, ignorat.—(Orat. pro. Flacco, iv. 9.)
�29
Sparta, had a great reputation for justice, which induced a
citizen of Miletus to deposit a large sum of money in his
care, to be given to whoever later on should present the
tokens agreed upon • Glaucus received the money on these
conditions. After a long time had elapsed the sons of the
man who had deposited the money came to Sparta, and
having addressed themselves to Glaucus, and having shown
the tokens, demanded back the money. Glaucus repulsed
them, answering as follows : I neither remember the cir
cumstance, nor does it occur to me that I know anything
of the matter you mention, but if I can recall it to my
mind I am willing to do everything that is just; and if,
indeed, I have received it, I wish to restore it correctly ;
but if I have not received it at all I shall have recourse to
the laws of the Greeks against you. I therefore defer
settling this matter with you for four months from this
present time. The Milesians, therefore, considering it a
great calamity, departed as being deprived of their money.
But Glaucus went to Delphi to consult the oracle; and
when he asked the oracle whether he should make a
booty of the money by an oath, the Pythian assailed
him with the following words : “ Glaucus, son of Epicydes,
thus to prevail by an oath and to make a booty of the
money will be a present gain; swear, then, for death awaits
even the man .who keeps his oath. But there is a name
less son of perjury, who has neither hands nor feet, but he
pursues swiftly, until, having seized, he destroys the whole
race, and all the house. But the race of a man who keeps
his oath is afterwards more blessed., The Pythian also said,
that to tempt God and to commit the crime was the same
thing.
“ Glaucus, therefore, having sent for the Milesian strangers,
returned them the money. With what design, O Athenians,
this story has been told you shall now be mentioned. There
�/
30
is at present not a single descendant of Glaucus, nor any
house which is supposed to have belonged to Glaucus, but
he is utterly extirpated from Sparta. Thus it is right
to have no other thought respecting a deposit than to
restore it when it is demanded (“ Erato” 86, Cary’s transla
tion).
The visitor to the quiet little market town of Devizes, in
Wiltshire, who takes his stroll into the market place, may
there have his attention drawn to a remarkable record engraved
on a metal plate stating the year and the day of the occur
rence. It relates the judgment of sudden death inflicted by
the hand of God, on a market woman, who falsely took God
to witness, something in the manner that Glaucus had only
turned over in his mind, that she had duly paid her share
of a joint purchase, when the money was found fraudulently
concealed in her hand.1
1 The subjoined extract gives the full details of this striking instance of the
divine punishment of a perjury :—
“ The Mayor and Corporation of Devizes avail themselves of the stability of
this building (the market cross) to transmit to future times the record of an
awful event which occurred in the market place in the year 1753, hoping that
such a record may serve as a salutary warning against the danger of impiously
invoking Divine vengeance, or of calling on the holy name of God to conceal
the devices of falsehood and fraud.
“ On Thursday, the 25th of January, 1753, Ruth Pierce, of Potterne, in this
county, agreed with three other women to buy a sack of wheat in the market,
each paying her due proportion towards the same. One of these women, in
collecting the several quotas of money, discovered a deficiency, and demanded of
Ruth Pierce the sum which was wanting to make good the amount. Ruth
Pierce protested that she had paid her share, and said, she wished she might
drop down dead if she had not. She rashly repeated the awful wish, when, to
the consternation and terror of the surrounding multitude, she instantly fell
down and expired, having the money concealed in her hand.
“ The narrative of this solemn event was, by order of the authorities, recorded
on a tablet and hung up in the market house (a row of sheds near the cross).
When the building was taken down, Mr. Halcombe, who kept the Bear Inn, in
order that the remembrance might not be lost, caused it to be inscribed on the
pediment of a couple of pillars which stood opposite liis inn, supporting the sign
of the Bear.
“ The sign was removed in 1801, and a few years after, Lord Sidmouth, having
presented to the town the new cross, which forms the central ornament of the
�31
Between the date of the judgment which brought total
extirpation upon Glaucus and his family and that which
brought the visitation of sudden death on the market woman
of Devizes, who shall say how many and how signal have
been the similar acts of the judgment of God falling on the
heads of the perjurers of their oaths ? Who, then, will very
easily dare to maintain that an oath which calls upon the
God of Heaven to be the witness to the truth with which
it is spoken is a thing devoid of sanction, notwithstanding
that the general rule of the Divine Government is well
known to be-one of long proved patience and forbearance,
under which the perjurer is permitted often for years, and
sometimes for the whole of the present life, to be seen to go
unpunished.
It is beyond doubt, then, that the interests of the truth
which human society needs as the basis of its well-being,
and for the securing of which the recourse to an oath has
remained the uninterrupted practice of nearly four thousand
years standing in every civilized nation of the earth, may,
as constant experience shows, be defeated and undone in
the particular case, by the sin and crime of perjury. Who
does not know this perfectly well ? Nevertheless, remove
the extremely real sanction and protection of truth, which
the most just fear of visitation from the anger of God and
of infamy in the sight of man necessarily strikes into the
soul of the intending perjurer, and you will have inflicted
a most deadly wound upon the welfare and happiness of
human life. Does not an apostle say to us, “ Men swear
by the greater, and in every dispute of theirs, the oath is
marketplace, the Mayor and Corporation ‘availed themselves,’ to use their own
language, ‘ of the stability of the new structure to transmit to future time a
record of the awful death of Ruth Pierce, in hope that it might serve as a
salutary warning against the practice of invoking the sacred name to conceal
the devices of falsehood and fraud.’ ”—“The Other World; or, Glimpses of the
Supernatural. By F. G. Lee. Pp. 289, 290. London. 1875.
�32
final for confirmation.” (Heb. vi. 16.) 'Wherever we turn,
to the pages of inspiration or to the histories of Gentile and
Christian writers, to the books of j urists and the homilies of
the Divine, we always hear one and the same concordant
testimony, bearing its witness to the indispensable need of
the maintenance of the oath of religion, in the full measure
of the religious honour and solemnity which is due to it.1
What, then, must be the inevitable conclusion from this
brief and rapid survey of the reasons of this immemorial
recourse to the oath of religion ? The first conclusion will
be that Mr. Bradlaugb/s impious denial of the existence of
God necessarily takes away the possibility of this indispen
sable recourse to the oath of religion “in radice/'’ in its
very root. Where no God is held to exist, what can be
more idle and absurd than to say that there can be any
appeal for the guarantee of truth to that which, according
to Mr. Bradlaugh s doctrine, is pure and simple vacuum,
mere negation of being, absolute nothing ?2
And, again, further, in the same degree in which the
preceding survey, brief and imperfect as it has been, has
succeeded in bringing to light the truth that the oath
of religion is an indispensable condition of the well-being of
civil society, and this equally in its public as in its private
life, the conclusion must be just as inevitable—that Mr.
Brad laugh, by his open denial of the existence of God, is to
be held by all reasonable men, to be not only a very bad enemv
1 The Roman Jurisconsults re-echo St.Paul’s testimony:—Maximum remedium
expediendar um litium .in usum venit juris jurandi religio, qua, vel ex pactione
ipsorum litigatorum, vel ex auctoritate judicis deciduntur controversial—Gaius,
fragm. (xii. 2).
a The following are the testimonies of Juvenal to the little credit to be
attached to the oath of an atheist, and still less to his affirmation:—
Sunt qui nullo credunt mundum rectore moveri
Atque ideo intrepide queecunque altaria tangunt.—Sat. XIII. 89.
Falsus erit testis vendens perjuria summit
Exigua, Cereris tangens aramque pedemque.—Sat. XIII. 218.
�of God; but likewise also in the same degree,, an equally bad
enemy of the social well-being of his fellow-men.
Are the above-mentioned truths, then, it is to be asked,
things that are wholly unknown to the Prime Minister?
Ask, rather, are they things that can by any possibility be
unknown to whoever possesses even the ordinary education
which is the necessary preparation to entering into any ODe
of the learned professions ? Certainly not! To what honest
ordinary man, indeed, can they be unknown, seeing that
they are the elementary traditions of the original primitive
revelation [made to man in the beginning of the world?
The Gospel has but gathered them together from the wreck
of the Old World, and rehabilitated them with new and still
stronger sanctions for the light and guidance of the Chris
tian people.
How is it, then, it is to be asked, that the Prime Minister
and his Government are found openly espousing the cause
of a man, whom on this showing it would be an insult to
their understanding, to suppose that they do not recognize
in him equally the enemy of God and the enemy of his
fellow-man ?
Singular fascination of the hope of being able to gain
a little political support which appears to have the power to
blind their eyes to the reality of what they are doing.
Experience, nevertheless, has shown that precarious political
support may at times be bought too dear even for the transi
tory ends for which the price for it has to be paid.
When the great Divine truths on which human society is
known to have been built from the beginning of the world
are to be made the price of a few paltry votes, the outcome
of the bargain may disappoint the calculation on which
it was made. The hoped-for gain may find itself simply
struck down to the ground with a sudden terror at the
very magnitude of the forfeit about to be consummated.
�34
VII. The designs of the atheist faction may, in the meanwhile, be
most effectually resisted, by the unsparing exposure of their
fraud, in attempting to palm off the common affirmation of the
atheist, for the solemn affirmation of the man of religion.
The legislator here who is determined to discharge the
duty of his conscience to God, and not to suffer himself to
be hoodwinked by mere words, may be asked to say to himself, Before I will vote I will insist upon an explicit formal
definition being embodied in the bill, “ sine dolo malo,” de
claring in express words, what it is to be—that is, to make
the affirmation of a man declaring himself to be an atheist
become a solemn affirmation. I will not be consciously a
party to any fraud or deceit on this point. I will resist to
the last and protest against any ambiguity or obscurity
on this head. Ambiguity or obscurity in this matter carries
with it—the guilt and shame of conscious fraud upon the
religious conscience of the nation. It also involves open
derision of the Majesty of God by the Legislature appearing
to be willing to try to palm off an affirmation in the face of
day as solemn, in which there cannot possibly be any act of
religion. The fraud is recommended under the false guise
of the equivocal use of the Name of “ solemn/"’ It
will be in effect the saying to God, we are going to deceive
you with the use of a name, that cannot have any meaning
whatsoever, which will be to your honour.
VIII. A brief word on the comic absurdity of the pretence which,
proposes to give the name of an act of religion to the act of a
man, whose one sole chief end of his being would seem to be to
make himself as widely known as possible as the man who
denies the existence of GOD, and the consequent possibility of
any religion.
The best generally received definition of the word “ reli
gion” derives it from the word religare, to reunite or to bind
together, and therein points to the rehabilitation of the
�35
union, of friendship between God and man, which it is the
mission of religion to restore. If so extremely serious a
subject could be allowed to have its comic side, this would
be certainly found in the singularly burlesque spectacle
which Mr. Gladstone and his Government now propose to
introduce on to the arena of public life, and to exhibit to
the astonished eyes of all the nations and people of the
world.
This new and unexpected spectacle, then, is Mr. Bradlaugh,
the Atheist, the profane scorner of God and the denier of
the mere possibility of such a thing as any religion, intro
duced into the British Parliament, as quite capable in the
judgment of Mr. Gladstone and his Ministry, making of the
solemn affirmation of the man of religion ! The nineteenth
century is certainly fruitful in wonders !
IX. A second brief word touching the horns of a comical dilemma of
which the supporters of Mr. Bradlaugh will be compelled to
make the best that they can.
The absolutely open and avowed atheist platform is not yet
a possible thing in Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Bradlaugh, consequently, atheist as he avows him
self to be, and as he seeks to be universally known, cannot,
nevertheless, for the present hope to be able to enter the British
Parliament in any other way than as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Atheist, as he persists in calling himself, he has no chance
whatever of being admitted, except under the disguise of a
man of religion. He must be held to be capable of perform
ing the act of religion, known as a “ solemn affirmation.”
His supporters, in consequence, find themselves in the
following dilemma :—
This solemn affirmation, which Mr. Bradlaugh hopes by
their aid to be allowed to make, and so to enter to take his
seat, is compelled to be one or other of two things—
�36
(I.) Either it is the fraud already exposed, invented and
designed by malice prepense, to deceive religious people,
and to throw dust in their eyes; or
(II.) It is in itself a real, true, and genuine solemn
affirmation, “ sine ullo dolo malo,” without a shadow of
deception.
In the first case, the British Legislature will expose
itself to the whole world, as has been pointed out, as
lending itself to a proceeding of simple fraud. In the
second case, if the affirmation is to be maintained to be
“ solemn,” then there must needs be something special
which can be the root and cause of this solemnity. This
something will of necessity have to be sought for in the
person of Mr. Bradlaugh himself for the obvious reason that
it is not to be found anywhere else. On his own reiterated
averments he knows of nothing in creation greater than
himself. So that in order to make good the claim that his
affirmation is to be held to be solemn, the British Legisla
ture will have to exhibit him to the wide world as a little
pseudo divinity of their own making, as in short a very
small comic caricature of the God of Heaven, who swears
by Himself because He knows of nothing greater than
Himself by whom he could swear.
X. The near view of the precipice.
It is, of course, possible for a man to be found walking
close upon the very edge of a precipice, without his, for
the moment, adverting to the fact that the precipice is
there, and that to take only a single step more in the
direction of the precipice will be to fall over it and to be
afterwards taken up dead.
Let none of the members of your honourable House,
together with yourself, shut their eyes to the real facts of
�37
the case that will shortly come before them. Your Legis
lative Assembly is now actually brought to the edge of such
a precipice., the fall over which involves the being after
wards taken up dead. Of course dead,, in the sense of
having the seeds of future death deeply planted in its con
stitution. The Legislative Assemblies of great Imperial
Powers require a considerable time before they can actually
die, but unhappily for them they can plant the seeds of
future death in themselves in a very short time.
It is proposed, then, by the Affirmation Bill, to remove
the oath of religion, promising true allegiance to the throne
under the sanction of an appeal to God, from its being the
necessary legal condition of a legislator taking his seat and
exercising his functions as a maker of the laws and as
guardian of the public purse of the Empire. Henceforward
the law is to stand that it is to be a simple matter of per
sonal option, to swear this oath or not to swear it, the law
providing an open alternative in the form of a nominally
“ solemn affirmation/’
What this “ solemn affirmation” is to be and what is to
be the power generative of its solemnity, if any,—nothing
as yet appears to be known.
The solemnity of it, however, is, as has been said, hope
lessly discredited by the fact that, whereas the Oath of
Religion for which it is to be substituted is so solemn a
thing that Mr. Bradlaugh the atheist cannot by any possi
bility be permitted to profane it, the solemn affirmation will
be so unsolemn a thing that there will be no objection at
all, of any sort or kind whatsoever, to Mr. Bradlaugh the
atheist being permitted to profane it. Let this proposed
substitution of a nominal fictitious solemn thing, which any
atheist may profane at his own perfectly free will and
pleasure, without rendering himself liable to any sort of
penalty or ill consequence whatsoever, either from God or
�man, for the immemorial Oath of Religion be effected, and
then see what must inevitably follow.
It must inevitably follow, that if the Oath of allegiance
to the Throne is not necessary, and may be replaced at the
mere will or fancy of each individual by a purely nominal
and fictitious substitute as the sole guarantee to be demanded
from a legislator of the Empire, neither in this case, as has
been already said publicly, will the oath remain necessary,
but may be replaced by the same purely nominal and
fictitious substitute
for the monarch on the throne,
for the judges who administer the laws of the land,
for the witnesses who give testimony in courts of law,
for the soldiers serving in the army and their officers,
for the sailors serving in the navy and their officers.
The entire body politic of the empire will thus find itself
on the high road to be constituted in a condition of open
and avowed denial of God, and the contempt of His sove
reignty of the world of which He is the Creator.1
' The true safety of the Christian religion is not to he sought in proofs of the
existence of legal enactments in its favour, but in the solid and fervent attach
ment of the people to its altars and its doctrines. Nevertheless, in an appeal to
the legislature of the United Kingdom it will not be wholly out of place to lay
before them legal testimonies to the truth that Christianity is even yet the law
of the land.
“ A sound, solid, contention might be had that any enactment of Parliament,
in which Christianity were renounced and repudiated, was ipso facto null and
void”—p. 37. Life of the worthy and illustrious Thomas Holt, Knight,
Recorder of the borough of Abingdon, and one of the King’s Serjeants, &c.
Oxford: L. Litchfield. 1706.
“ No administration of the oath............ taken by common jurymen, or by
any other, either as witness or testifying, could be too reverent or too solemn ;
for such are bound to tell the whole truth who so call the Almighty God notably
to witness that it be the truth.”—“ State Trials,” in Seven Parts. Vol. III.
p. 140. London: G. Strahan. 1720.
“In Cowan v. Milbourne (L. R. Q. Ex. 230), Kelly, L.C.B., said that
Christianity was part of the law of the land. This case, tried in 1867, contains
the latest judicial utterance on the matter. In R. v. Williams (1797), a cele
brated case, where the man was tried for publishing Paine’s “Age of Reason,”
�39
Such is the precipice!
Let every member of your
assembly look at it, and study it well. Now, what can be
the claim of this single man, Bradlaugh the atheist, the
daring and profane denier of the existence of God, to push
the chief legislative assembly of the world over such a
precipice as this must be seen to be ?
A Word in Conclusion.
If every Member of the House of Commons has bonndhim
self to the duty of defending the Throne by his having
sworn his Oath of Allegiance, how will such Member be
able to vote for the removal of one of the principal safe
guards and defences of the Throne in any other way than
by the perjury of his Oath ?
No statesman or legislator of the kingdom will very easilv
dare to say that the Throne of the United Kingdom with
the person of the Monarch has not its just rights under the
constitution of the Empire, which as true statesmen they
are bound to maintain and defend. Again, no statesman
or legislator of the Empire will very easily dare to deny
that the oath of true allegiance to the throne, which every
one has sworn under the formula SO HELP ME GOD,
does not bind the legislator who has sworn it positively to
maintain and to uphold,—and that it does not likewise strictly
prohibit him from any act whatever calculated even to weaken,
let alone remove,—that which is acknowledged and confessed
to be the mainstay of the rights of the throne and the pre
rogatives of the person of the Monarch.
On this point there cannot be a doubt raised.
On the question that the oath of allegiance is and always
has been held to be the mainstay and bulwark of the rights
and to be found 26 St. Tr. 653, Lord Kenyon told the jury that “the Christian
religion is part of the law of the land.” Kelly’s exact words in Cowan v. Mil
bourne were “ There is abundant authority for saying that Christianity is part
and parcel of the law of the land.”
�of the throne, only open and avowed atheists can take the
side of negation. Every one who believes in the Person of
a Divine Creator and Sovereign Ruler of the world, and
who, sine dolo malo and bond fide has sworn his oath
promising true allegiance to the throne, by the very fact of
such belief stands on the side of the affirmative.
How, then, will those members of your honourable assem
bly, who confess this oath of allegiance to be under God the
mainstay of the rights of the throne, and who at the same
time confess that their oath of allegiance binds them to the
firm upholding of this same acknowleged indispensable main
stay be able to give their vote for its removal ? How can
they do this without directly forswearing the terms of the
oath by which they have bound themselves, and without
subjecting themselves to all the penalties attached to such
an act of perjury.
Public perjury under the laws of the twelve tables was
dealt with thus. “ Perjurii, poena divina exitium, humana
dedecus“The punishment with which God visits perjury
is destruction, man inflicts infamy/'’ Time and the belief
of the Christian world has added to, and has not taken any
thing away, from the force of the ancient Roman law.
I remain,
Right honourable Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
TERTULLIAN.
PRINTED AT THE BALLANTYNE PRESS, CHANDOS STREET, W.C,
��
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 & 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 Affirmation Bill : reasons why it cannot be permitted to become the law of the land considered and stated, in a public letter addressed to the Right Hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons and to all its members by Tertullian
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Tertullian
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 40 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from British Library record. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
D. Bogue
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N636
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
Secularism
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 Affirmation Bill : reasons why it cannot be permitted to become the law of the land considered and stated, in a public letter addressed to the Right Hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons and to all its members by Tertullian), 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
Charles Bradlaugh
Freedom of Speech-History
NSS
Oaths and Affirmations
William Ewert Gladstone