1 10 16 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0b61f71bcb4d998616e1c7e6df95b69d.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=EVEsM8Zni3jwGahOLl71clSN2E3cOHj0RHROoo%7EjzknE%7E7wFj%7EqtQUqu9v1syCY3lzP8k8w%7Eeahv8WFf36P2h1qIY-Hy63o3vUpvsMCyFi6kmGyeKlcfCrk96A04MbaGVcBYC0ywE4qOaIhdndUezaEby%7EaLalq7SzsOFCDqxTXf2Ob9WMRMcXvshsy3SXqArdbjxskWOeCwiqVCIBZV6S7gy%7ExI3nFKtz4epinZyVA3%7EBy-kVABAGMROVorMhqYp2tLQx6AyAh%7EIPWQlj9QF3fJZjUGLLxdwMriCyFiUpItsfq8syR4652tVPEahqovKf5Oz-a9lDZ5GjhUSubpbQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM d653c41e87d229c76ba9009d48351a71 PDF Text Text N -2-1'3 NATIONAL SECULAR SOCI «TY Atheism AND A Reply SUICIDE. to ALFRED TENNYSON, Poet Laureate. BY G-. W. FOOTE. ------- ♦------- Mr. Tennyson has written some fine poetry in his old age, and he has also written a good deal of trash. Most of the latter has appeared in the hospitable columns of the Nine­ teenth Century. Mr. James Knowles, the editor of that magazine, is an excellent man of business and knows what takes with the British public. He is fully aware that Mr. Tennyson is the popular poet of the day, and with com­ mendable sagacity, he not only accepts the poet-laureate’s verses whenever he can get them, but always prints them in the largest type. Mr. Tennyson opened the first number of his magazine with a weak sonnet, in which men like Pro­ fessor Clifford were alluded to as seekers of hope “ in sunless gulfs of doubt.” That little germ has developed into the longer poem on “Despair” that appears in the current number of the Nineteenth Century. The critics have lauded this poem. Nothing else could be expected of them. Mr. Tennyson is the popular poet, the household poet, the Christian poet, and scarcely a critic dares give him aught but unstinted praise. The ordinary gentle­ men of the press write to order; they describe Mr. Tenny­ son’s poetry as they describe Mr. Irving’s acting; they are fettered by great, and especially by fashionable reputations ; and when the publi? has settled who are its favorites they never resist its verdict but simply flow with the stream. In the course of time there grows up a sanctified cant of criticism. If you are rash enough to doubt the favorite’s greatness, you are looked upon as a common-place person incapable of appreciating genius. If you object to the popular poet’s intellectual ideas, you are rebuked for not seeing that he is divinely inspired. Yet it is surely indis­ putable that ideas are large or small, true or false, whether they are expressed in verse or in prose. When poets con­ descend to argue they must be held amenable to the laws of reason. The right divine of kings to govern wrong is an exploded idea, and the right divine of poets to reason wrong should share the same fate. �2 Mr. Tennyson’s poem is not too intelligible, and with a proper appreciation of this he has told the gist of the story in a kind of “ argument.” “ A man and his wife having lost faith in a God, and hope of a life to come, and being utterly miserable in this, resolved to end themselves by drowning. The woman is drowned, but the man is rescued by a minister of the sect he had abandoned.” Now Mr. Tennyson has not worked fairly on these lines. The question “ Does Atheism, as such, incline men to self­ destruction ?” is not touched. The Atheist husband of “ Despair” loses more than belief in God and hope of a life to come. His wife suffers from a malady only curable, if at all, by the surgeon’s knife. His eldest son has forged his name and ruined him, while it is hinted that another son has sunk to a still worse depth of vice. And he describes him­ self as “ a life without sun, without health, without hope, without any delight.” All this is very inartistic. An Atheist under such a burden of trouble might commit suicide just as a Christian might. Dr. Newman well says that by a judicious selection of facts you may prove anything, and Mr. Tennyson has judiciously selected his facts. He could not kill his hero with Atheism, and so he brings in bad health, a diseased wife, cruel and criminal children, and a ruined home. Any one of these might prompt to suicide, without the introduction of Atheism at all. Mr. Tennyson’s lack of art in this poem goes still farther. He makes the husband and wife drown themselves theatri­ cally. They walk out into the breakers near a lighthouse. This is mere melodrama. Why did they not take poison and die in each other’s arms ? The only answer is that Mr. Tennyson wanted to use that lighthouse, and as he could not bring the lighthouse to them he took them to the lighthouse. He wished to make the husband think to himself as he looked at its rolling eyes— “Does it matter how many they saved? We are all of us wreck’d at last.” This is an old trick of Mr. Tennyson’s. He is always making his wonderful and vivid perceptions of external nature compensate for his lack of spiritual insight and power. The melodrama of “ Despair ” is continued to the end. The wife is successfully drowned as she was not required any further in the poem, but the husband is rescued by (of all men in the world!) the minister of the chapel he had �3 forsaken. He loaths and despises this preacher, yet he tells him all his domestic secrets and reveals to him all his motives. Nay more, he wastes a great of denunciation on his rescuer, and vehemently protests his intention to do for himself despite his watcher’s “lynx-eyes.” Why all this pother? Earnest suicides are usually reserved and very rarely make a noise. Why not hold his tongue and quietly seize the first opportunity ? But Mr. Tennyson’s heroes are generally infirm of purpose. He can make his characters talk, but he cannot make them act. Another defect of Mr. Tennyson’s heroes is their abnormal self-consciousness. The hero of “ Maud ” rants about him­ self until we begin to hope that the Crimea will really settle him. The hero of “ Locksley Hall” is a selfish cad who poses through every line of faultless eloquence, until at last we suspect that “ cousin Amy ” has not met the worst fate which could befall her. And the hero of “ Despair ” is little better. After powerfully describing the walk with his wife to the breaker’s edge of foam, he says that they kissed and bade each other eternal farewell. There he should have stopped. But he must go on with— “ Never a cry so desolate, not since the world began! Never a kiss so sad, no, not since the coming of man ! ” This little speculation could not be verified or disproved. It is one which selfish people usually entertain. They nearly always think their own sorrows the greatest the world ever saw. Fortunately, although it may be news to Mr. Tenny­ son, all Atheists are not of that kind. Some of them, at least, are capable of the heroic joys of life, and of con­ suming their personal sorrows in the fire of enthusiasm for lofty and unselfish aims. Mr. Tennyson should remember the sad end of Brutus in “Julius Caesar.” Perhaps he does, for some of his language seems borrowed from it. Brutus has lost what he most values. His country’s liberties, for which he has fought and sacrificed all, are lost, and his noble wife has killed her­ self in a frenzy of grief. He kills himself too rather than witness the dishonor of Rome and minister to the usurper’s pride. But he does not pule and whine. He also bids his dearest left adieu— “ For ever, and for ever, farewell, Cassius ! If we do meet again, why, we shall smile; If not, why then, this parting was well made.” And Cassius replies in the same magnanimous vein. There �4 is a large and noble spirit which can face even suicide with dignity and without repining. So infected with selfishness is Mr. Tennyson’s Atheist that he doubts the utility of virtue— “ Does it matter so much whether crown’d for a virtue, or hang’d for a crime ? ” Yes, it does matter; or why does he cry out against his son’s wickedness ? If the young man’s crime “ killed his mother almost,” other people’s crime injures mankind, and that is its condemnation. The real Atheist has his moral creed founded on fact instead of fancy, and therefore, when things go wrong with him, he does not rail against virtue. He knows it to be good in the long run to the human family whatever may be his own fate. The hero of “Despair” had evidently been a Calvinist. He reminds the minister of his having “ bawled the dark side of his faith, and a God of eternal rage.” And he exclaims— “What! I should call on that Infinite Love that has served us so well ? Infinite wickedness rather that made everlasting Hell, Made us, foreknew us, foredoom’d us, and does what he will with his own; Better our dead brute mother who never has heard us groan ! Hell? if the souls of men were immortal, as men have been told, The lecher would cleave to his lusts, and the miser would yearn for his gold, And so there were Hell for ever! but were there a God as you say, His Love would have power over Hell till it utterly vanish’d away.” Now Calvinism is certainly not the creed any man could regret to find untrue. And to our mind a man who could live for years in the belief that the evils of this life are ordained by God, and will be followed by an ordained hell in the next life, is not likely to destroy himself when he finds that the universe has no jailer and that all the evils of this life end with it. The man and his wife turn from the “ dark fatalist creed ” to the growing dawn “ When the light of a Sun that was coming would scatter the ghosts of the Past, And the cramping creeds that had madden’d the peoples would vanish at last.” �5 But when the dawn comes, they find that they have “ past from a cheerless night to the glare of a drearier day.” They are without a real God, for what deity remains is only a cloud of smoke instead of a pillar of fire. Darwinism they find to be very cold comfort, and they wail over them­ selves as “poor orphans of nothing,” which is a comical phrase, and one which we defy Mr. Tennyson or anybody else to explain. If the Poet Laureate thinks that Darwinian Atheists go about bemoaning themselves as poor orphans, he is very much mistaken. He had better study them a little before writing about them again. They are quite content to remain without a celestial father. Earthly parents are enough for them, earthly brothers and sisters, earthly wives, and earthly friends. And most of them deem the grasp of a father’s hand, and the loving smile on a mother’s face, worth more than all the heavenly parentage they are satisfied to lack. Mr. Tennyson’s husband and wife, being utterly forlorn, resolve to drown themselves, and the husband gives their justication:— “ Why should we bear with an hour of torture, a moment of pain If every man die for ever, if all his griefs are in vain, And the homeless planet at length will be wheel’d thro’ the silence of space, Motherless evermore of an ever-vanishing race, When the worm shall have writhed its last, and its last brother­ worm will have fled From the dead fossil skull that is left in the rocks of an earth that is dead ? ” Now all this will no doubt happen. Many millions of years hence this world will be used-up like the moon; and there­ fore, according to Mr. Tennyson’s argument, we should commit suicide rather than put up with the toothache. It will be all the same in the end. True ; but it is a long while to the end. And people who act on Mr. Tennyson’s principle must either forget this, or they must resemble the man who refused to eat his dinner unless he had the guarantee of a good dinner for ever and ever, with a dessert by way of Amen. Elsewhere they express pity for others as well as for them­ selves— “ Pity for all that aches in the grasp of an idiot power, And pity for our own selves on an earth that bore not a flower; Pity for all that suffers on land or in air, or the deep, And pity for our own selves till we long’d for eternal sleep.” �6 Mr. Tennyson may well make his Atheist husband say “ for we leaned to the darker side.” This is an earth without a flower! In every sense it is untrue. There are flowers of beauty in the natural world, and flowers of greater beauty in the human garden, despite the weeds. This suicidal pair are fond of what Mr. Tennyson has himself called “the falsehood of extremes.” Sincere pessimists do not advocate suicide. Schopenhauer himself condemns it as a superlative act of egoism. If here and there a pessimist destroys himself, how can that make things better for the masses who are governed by instinct and not by metaphysics ? Mr. Tennyson does not see that the most confirmed pessimist may, like George Eliot, believe in Meliorism ; that is, not in perfection, but in improvement. Nature, we may be sure, will never produce a race of beings with a general taste for suicide; and it is therefore the duty of those who deplore the ineradicable evils of life, to stay with their brethren and to do their share towards improving the common lot. If they cannot really make life happier, they may at least make it less miserable, which is very much the same thing. Has Mr. Tennyson been reading that grand and powerful poem of Mr. James Thomson’s, and is “ Despair ” the result? If so, it is a poor outcome of such a majestic influence. Mr. Tennyson has misread that great poem. Its author has his joyous as well as his sombre moods, and he has himself indicated that it does not cover the whole truth. Pessimists, too, are not so stupid as to think that the extinction of a few philosophers will affect the general life, or that a universal principle of metaphysics can determine an isolated case. They know also that philosophy will never resist Nature or turn her set course. They see that she is enor­ mously fecund, and is able to spawn forth life enough to outlast all opposition, with enough instinct of self-preserva­ tion to defy all the hostility of sages. And it is a note­ worthy fact that the chief pessimists of our century have not courted death themselves except in verse. Schopen­ hauer lived to seventy-two ; Hartmann is one of the happiest men in Germany; Leopardi died of disease ; and the author of “The City of Dreadful Night’’has not yet committed suicide and probably never will. It is one thing to believe that, considered universally, life is a mistake, and quite another thing to cut one’s own throat. The utmost that even Schopenhauer suggested in the way of carrying out his principles, was that when the human race had become far �7 more intellectual and moral, and far less volitional and egoistic, it would cease to propagate itself and so reaeh. Nirvana. Whoever expects that to happen has a very farreaching faith. If the sky falls we shall of course catch larks, but when will it fall ? Atheists, however, are not necessarily pessimists, and in fact few of them are so. Most of them believe that a large portion of the world’s evil is removable, being merely the result of ignorance and superstition. Mr. Tennyson might have seen from Shelley’s writings that an Athest may cherish the noblest hopes of progress. Perhaps he would reply that Shelley was not an Atheist, but few will agree with him who have read the original editions of that glorious poet and the very emphatic statements of his friend Trelawny. Does Atheism prompt men to suicide ? That is the question. Mr. Tennyson appears to think that if it does not it should. We cannot, however, argue against a mere dictum. The question is one of fact, and the best way to answer it is to appeal to statistics. Atheists do not seem prone to suicide. So far as we know no prominent Atheist has taken his own life during the whole of this century. But let us go farther. There has recently been published an erudite work * on “ Suicide, Ancient and Modern,” by A. Legoyt, of Paris. He has given official tables of the reasons assigned for suicides in most of the countries of Europe; and although religious mania is among these causes, Atheism is not. This dreadful incitement to self destruction has not yet found its way into the officia statistics even of Germany or of France, where Atheist abound I Suicides have largely increased during the last twenty years. In England, for instance, while from 1865 to 1876 the population increased 14-6 per cent., suicides increased 27T per cent. In France, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Swit­ zerland and Belgium the increase is still more alarming. But during the same period lunacy has wonderfully in­ creased ; and the truth is that both are caused by the everincreasing velocity and complexity of modern life, which makes greater demands on our cerebral power than we are able to answer. By-and-bye this will rectify itself through * Ze /Swicicfe, Ancien et Moderne. Etude Historique, Philosophique Morale et Statistique. Par A. Lïgott. Paris : A. Drouin. �8 natural selection, but for the present our brains are not strong enough for their sudden access of work. Hence the increase of nervous derangement, lunacy, and suicide. But it may be urged that religion keeps down the number of suicides which would be still more plentiful without it. That, however, is a mere matter of opinion, which can hardly be verified or disproved. Religion does not restrain those who do commit suicide, and that fact outweighs all the fine talk about its virtue in other cases. Some Christian apologists have made much capital out of George Jacob Holyoake’s meditation on suicide in Gloucester jail, when he was imprisoned for “ blasphemy,” or in other words, for having opinions of his own on the subject of religion. Mr. Holyoake’s mental torture was great. His wife was in want, and his favorite daughter died while he was in prison. Fearing that his reason might forsake him, and being resolved that the Christian bigotry which had made him suffer should never reduce him to an object of its derision, he prepared the means of ending his life if the worst should happen. “ See,” say these charitable Christians, “ what a feeble support Atheism is in the hour of need! Nothing but belief in Christ can enable us to bear the troubles of life.” But our answer is that Mr. Holyoake did not commit suicide after all; while, on the other hand, if we may judge by our own notes during the past six months, one parson cuts his throat, or hangs, or drowns, or poisons himself, on an average every month. Recurring finally to Mr. Tennyson, we say that his poem is a failure. He does not understand Atheism, and he fails to appreciate either its meaning or its hope. We trust that he will afflict us with no more poetical abortions like this, but give us only the proper fruit of his genius, and leave the task of holding up Atheists as a frightful example to the small fry of the pulpit and the religious press. November 14iA, 1881. PRICE ONE PENNY. London : Fbeethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter Street, Farringdon 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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Atheism and suicide : a reply to Alfred Tennyson, Poet Laureate Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, George W., 1843-1886 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1881 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Subject The topic of the resource Atheism Suicide Ethics 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 (Atheism and suicide : a reply to Alfred Tennyson, Poet Laureate), 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> Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N223 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 Alfred Tennyson Atheism NSS Suicide https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/63dc81e4e6082167614567c023645223.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=GXwIRWbC6mJ0st0umj-8ZyOmSZpnp%7E6hT4lyRDo6hP5cvX5ZA2gQitPmAd0ER7%7EG0Z4qeA8yn6BAa59exCbdGVixCuKriMu7153J80zhur1H-fYiZISbtzBLZ35vg8AUPlrLmNbcHRpBW96ixVbKFJq3niuiJxzSWsuwbfaqthvwQhXtZ3BuqzrV0xrw38T%7E-vDq1MUMhEk-5y51b0rMABgVx84ut9enyuGUXXlC66YMmkCIJ0tId5FMbHItzdZNcqZPfVML5t85JirXyNktB9AND-EhRho-HHNrfaCMJQOx72JUJG2Grets%7EhbC8mLbHJmgqiCypJSNNDpzMmtnOg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 10c28627585fed6d4c038fcea1af89da 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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A short account of Dorchester, past and present Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource MacFarlane, William Charles Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Oxford; London Collation: 20 p. ; 21 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Parker and Co. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1881 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT64 Subject The topic of the resource Dorchester History 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 (A short account of Dorchester, past and present), 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 Dorchester (Oxfordshire) https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/efe06a29ebea93c020a7b188bc6565ca.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=JA1vtnIzU%7El%7ECmUEDYwpDot3ArCMhNWNF8SlVqoP0CqHdMJvNmEX8GjFna9cIyt8tGFGRbatsB%7Exh2bdraCqxt93Tdl5LyGtEBgAwod9Z5BDjzoNXxZxWWCIPybTmSpf5stR6zr2uAW7fO-iI17WTYfPDfvimIM0ct0O5zwZGzk0rRE0Vlb5Fl0fs3gXxd-U9O4bhLvBAVAd1ZuuBC2XopKKDCgSf2XpmTIlHHAZEByKxFKq2AcHjWyAWbo9CRFPvd-e9nNYUFKkOtF0Kesn8UO2RFy8cZl8rs0MORD2o6Ls2kz1WPlxQuKnKdf-%7EP6Kf5Pdaew7ZSHm2GXjWXp1pg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 526b38cdb6240bdd5362f6a403e38080 PDF Text Text VICTORIES OF SCIENCE IN ITS WARFARE WITH SUPERSTITION. • ’ * DELIVERED BEFORE THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY, ON SUNDAY AFTERNOON, 20th FEBRUARY, 1881, 2U■ BY A. ELLEY FINCH. j'lwdu* 1 i-niiHfirhi -sawi) PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY. 1881.. PRICE THREEPENCE. �SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY, To provide for the delivery on Sundays in the Metropolis, and to encourage the delivery elsewhere, of Lectures on Science, —physical, intellectual, and moral,—History, Literature, and Art; especially in their bearing upon the improvement and social well-being of mankind. PRESIDENT. W. B. Carpenter, Esq., C.B., LL.D., M.D., F.R.S., &c. VICE-PRESIDENTS. Professor Alexander Bain. Charles Darwin, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S. Edward Frankland, Esq., D.C.L., Ph.D., F.R.S. James Heywood, Esq., F.R.S., F.S.A. Ser Arthur Hobhouse, K.C.S.I. Thomas Henry Huxley, Esq., LL.D., F.R.S., F.L.S. Benjamin Ward Richard­ son, Esq., M.D., F.R.S. Herbert Spencer, Esq. W. Spottiswoode, Esq., LL.D., Pres.R.S. John Tyndall, Esq., LL.D., F.R.S. THE SOCIETY’S LECTURES ABE DELIVERED AT ST.. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLACE, On SUNDAY Afternoons, at FOUR o’clock precisely. (Annually—from November to May.) Twenty-Four Lectures (in three series) ending 25th April, 1881, will be given. Members’ £1 subscription entitles them to an annual ticket, trans­ ferable (and admitting to the reserved seats), and to eight single resOrved-seat tickets, available for. any lecture. Tickets for each series (one for each lecture) as below,— • To the Shilling Reserved Seats —5s. 6d. To the Sixpenny Seats—2s., being at the rate of Threepence each lecture. For tickets, and for list of the Lectures published by the Society, apply (by letter) to the Hon. Treasurer, Wm. Henry Domville, Esq., 15, Gloucester Crescent, Hyde Park, W. Payment at the door:—One Shilling (Reserved Seats);—Six­ pence and One Penny. . . �The Society’s Lectures by the same Author, now printed, are—on , “ Erasmus ; his Life, Works, and Influence upon the Spirit of the Reformation.” (Price 3d., or post free 3|d.) “ Civilization : a Sketch of its Rise and Progress, its Modem Safe-guards, and Future Prospects.” (Price 3d., or post free 3jd.) “The Influence of Astronomical Discovery in the Development of the Human Mind.” (Price 3d., or post free 3^d.) “The Principles of Political Economy; their Scientific Basis, and Practical application to Social Well-being.” (Price 3d., or post free 3£d.) “The English Free-thinkers of the Eighteenth Cen­ tury.” (Price 3d., or post free 3jd.) “The Science . free 3 jd.) of Life worth Living.” (Price 3d., or post “ The Inductive Philosophy : including a Parallel between Lord Bacon and A. Comte as Philosophers.” With Notes and Authorities, (pp. 100, cloth 8vo., price 5s., or post free 5s. 3d.) “ The Pursuit of Truth : as Exemplified in the Principles of Evidence—Theological, Scientific, and Judicial.” With Notes and Authorities, (pp. 106, cloth 8vo., price 5s., or post free 5s. 3d.) . • . ’9 f Can be obtained (on remittance by letter of postage stamps or order) of the Hon. Treasurer, Wm. Henry Domville, Esq., 15, Gloucester Crescent, Hyde Park, W., or at the Hall on the days of Lecture; or of Mr. John Bumpus, 158, Oxford Street, W. �SYLLABUS. Vast number, variety, and vacillation of Religious Beliefs, pre­ sented to us by the history of the Human Race. Distribution amongst mankind of the eight great Theologies (book-religions) of the present day, viz., Zoroastrianism— Brahmanism—Buddhism—Confucianism —Tao-ism—Mosaism— Christianism—Mahommedanism. No generally acknowledged standard of Theological truth, and why. Theology explained as a human (logical) system, based upon the blending of Religion with Superstition. Religion as defined by Herbert Spencer, the late Lord Amberley, and Dr. James Martineau. Superstition defined as credulity concerning manifestations of the Supernatural inconsistent with the experienced order and veracity of Reason and Nature. Science explained as generalized human knowledge of Natural Phenomena. The criticism of Science purifies Theology by purging it of Superstitions, thereby compelling it to undergo transmutations corresponding to the progress of human intelligence. Illustrations from the conflict of Science with the following Superstitions:— 1. The relative magnitude, flat form, and immobility of the Earth. (Conflict with Astronomical Science.) 2. The six days creation of the world 6,000 years ago. (Conflict with Geological Science.) 3. The government of human life by Special Providence. (Conflict with Physical Science.) 4. The Theological theory of disease, involving miracle-cure, relic-cure, prayer-cure, &c. (Cwflict with Sanitary Science.) 5. Anthropomorphic conceptions of the Nature, Attributes, and Will of Deity. (Conflict with Mental and Mol'd Science.) Probability that popular Theologies are still saturated with Superstitions (e.g., belief in the objective efficacy of sacerdotal supplications, humiliations, and asceticisms, supernatural revela­ tions, and exclusive salvations) which the expansion of Science must eventually explode. Summary of evils of life inflicted by Superstition, and ameli­ orations of human well-being achieved by Science, showing that the increase of Health, Happiness, and the Moral Virtues is coincident with the decline of Superstition and the advancement of Science. The debt Religion owes to Science. �THE VICTORIES OF SCIENCE IN ITS WARFARE WITH SUPERSTITION. HE modern student 'of Universal History, seeking T to enlarge and generalize his conception of human nature by the contemplation of the life of man in almost every discovered clime, and throughout the ages of recorded time, finds himself at the confluence of the greatest number of streams of knowledge that have ever been found flowing and converging together; greatly embarrassed therefore, not to say overwhelmed, by the multiplicity and diversity of his materials. . Even limiting his research to that emotional and imaginative yet transcendently interesting aspect of the human mind presented by religious phenomena, he quickly discovers that he is surrounded by a vast number, variety, and almost incessant fluctuation of Beliefs con­ cerning the supernatural, that have everywhere been found more or less prevailing from the earliest dawn of authentic history. On the one hand, it is remarkable that no people, or trace of a people, has hitherto been discovered absolutely destitute of some of the ultimate elements or sentiments of Beligion, Travellers and thinkers entertaining diverse views on historical, political, and social questions, who have made the early history of man, or his most savage condition subjects of careful study, are really agreed on this fundamental point. On the other hand, the most civilized and polished nations on the fa,ce of the globe have exhibited, and still �6 The Victories of Science in its exhibit almost endless differences, divisions, and distinc­ tions in their theological creeds, rites, and ceremonies. The time now at our disposal would not suffice for the slightest allusion to the numerous Religions or Mythologies of even the chief Nations of the ancient world. Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Arabians (before conversion), Greeks, Romans, various Teuton, Celtic, and Sclavonic Nations, the Astecs of Mexico, the Incas of Peru—all having their indigenous and various ways of regarding and. worshipping the supernatural—must now be passed by, in order that I may concentrate some general observations, suggested by so endless a variety of supernatural beliefs, upon those great Theologies or book-religions which constitute the religious faiths of the present inhabitants of our globe— viz.—(taking them in the order of their antiquity)— Zoroastrianism, with its sacred Zend-Avesta, the religion of the Parsees, descendants of the ancient Persians— Brahmanism and Buddhism, with their sacred Vedas and Tripitaka, the chief religions of the inhabitants of the great Indian Peninsula.— Confucianism and Tao-ism with their sacred books of Kings and Tad-te-King, the religions of the Chinese — Mosaism with the Hebrew Scriptures, the religion of the Jews—Christianity with the New Testament, the religion of modem Europeans and Americans—and Mahommedanism, with its sacred volume the Koran, the religion of the Turks and Arabians, and other considerable peoples in Asia. The numbers of the respective members of these several faiths, as given in Johnston’s Physical Atlas, may be summed up thus—assuming the entire population of the earth at 1,000 millions, the Christians constitute 340 millions, the Buddhists 300 millions, the Brahmins 130 millions, the Mahommedans 124 millions, the Jews 6 millions, and all other religions 100 millions. A some­ �Warfare' with Superstition. 7 what different proportion is cited by Professor Max Muller from the geography of Berghaus; where the Buddhists are stated to constitute 31 per cent, of the entire population of the globe, the Christians 30 per cent., the Mahommedans 15 per cent., the Brahmins 13 per cent, the Jews a fraction of 3, and all other religions 8 per cent. These different estimates call of course be only roughly approximate, but either is sufficiently near for illustrating our present purpose. If we looked somewhat closer we should find that these several religious faiths are mostly subdivided in­ ternally into numerous conflicting sects. Christianity, the religion of the most intellectual and cultured peoples in existence, is almost infinitely so divided. In Pro­ fessor Schaff’s comprehensive and learned work upon ‘ The Creeds of Christendom ’ we are furnished with the literal texts of nearly 100 distinct creeds, confessions, articles and formularies of faith of the almost endless denominations among which dogmatic Christianity has now become dispersed. i“ When the mind is thus brought into the simultaneous presence of the irreconcilable dogmas of the numerous and conflicting theological faiths, all devoutly believed in by their respective worshippers, it is difficult to conceive how any one of them can be considered as constituting a supernatural universal scheme necessary for the Salvation of Mankind, seeing th^it it has not, after upwards of 1,800 years, been believed in, or even sb much as heard of by more than about a third part of the great human race. In view of such manifold differences of theological belief as a simple comparison of creeds discloses, it is almost obvious to observe that there can be no generally acknowledged standard or infallible test of theological truth. To use the words of a late accomplished historian—- �8 The Victories of Science in its Henry Thomas Buckle—“ Theological systems are sub­ jects upon which different persons and different nations, equally honest, equally enlightened, and equally com­ petent, have entertained and still entertain the most different opinions, which they advocate with the greatest confidence, and support by arguments perfectly satis­ factory to themselves, but contemptuously rejected by their opponents.” It is so very difficult to place oneself at the point of view of any religion save our own that we invariably hear with amazement the arguments or evidence adduced by the advocates of other religions. Dr. Sprenger, in the course of a theological discussion, was seriously asked by a Mussulman how he could possibly disbelieve the religion of Islam, seeing that Mahomet’s name was written on the gates of Paradise I and Dr. Morell, in his thoughtful work on “ The Philosophy of Religion,” relates the following authentic incident. A distinguished friend of his in the East had been arguing for some time with a Mahommedan upon the evidences of Christianity, and apparently with some success. At length the Mahom­ medan, who had been listening attentively, exclaimed— “ I tell you what it is, Rajah. You Franks are very clever people; God has given you the power to make ships and houses and penknives, and to do a great many wonderful things, but he has granted to us what he has denied to you—the knowledge of the true Religion.” The philosopher, though he is confident that all theo­ logical systems cannot be wholly true, yet feels that in the search after truth it must be possible, however difficult, to arrive at some explanation that may seem to reconcile the existence of so many divergent faiths; and if we look a little carefully into the constituents of theology we may I think discover a clue to the desired solution. Now we find on examination of any theology �Warfare with Superstition. 9 or book-religion that it essentially consists of a body of connected propositions, logically deduced by the human mind from certain assumed to be inspired writings. So long then as to err is human, and man remains short of being infallible, it is clear that such a system of knowledge must contain some amount of error, and we may therefore assert with tolerable accuracy, that every theology the world has seen will be found on analysis to be compounded of two elements—viz., a germ or sub­ stratum of probable truth, and a superstructure or ad­ mixture of positive error. The substratum of truth must ultimately be the same in all theologies, but their several superstructures of error will be found to vary; partly in accordance with difference of climate and other geogra­ phical circumstances ; partly on account of the differing race or genius of the peoples, and their stage of civilization, amongst whom the various theologies have respectively arisen, or by whom they have since been adopted; and partly from the dissimilar mental idiosyncracies of their respective founders or principal expositors. For the purpose of our argument this afternoon, we may conveniently designate the substratum of truth as Religion, and the superstructure of error as Superstition. Now, keeping this simple distinction clearly in view, we shall find that notwithstanding the abuse and vituperation which the Religious World (as it is phrased), have so incessantly heaped upon Science and its professors, men of science, whose noble purpose ever is simply to arrive at truth, and who, for that end, would impress on us the duty of enquiry, and the folly of credulity, have in reality never attacked Religion at all, but that in their discoveries and contentions for the purpose of enabling truth to pre­ vail, they have only been attacking or unmasking the falsehood and error that are ever found lurking in the guise of Superstition. Superstition—that incubus upon �IO The Victories of Science in its the human mind, whose malediction was so eloquently pronounced by Buckle, who declared that against the vitality of that dark and ill-omened principle there was only one weapon, and that weapon was Science. I will now define more exactly what we should under­ stand by the terms Religion and Superstition, in connection with the present discourse. Religion, whatever other quality we claim for it, must certainly be regarded as true. Its intellectual meaning then must be strictly limited to assertions that cannot be contradicted by the discoveries of Science now or hereafter, or by the truly religious assumption of any theology whatever; for religious and scientific truth must ever be one. In reference to this its fundamental requisite, we find that Religion has been defined by many thoughtful minds. Thus, our profound philosopher Herbert Spencer has described it as “ our consciousness of an Inscrutable Power or Cause manifested to us through all phenomena, but whose nature transcends intuition, and is beyond imagination.” The late lamented Lord Amberley, in his exhaustive “ Analysis of Religious Belief,” describes Re­ ligion as ‘ an abstract indefinable pervading sentiment corresponding to the relation subsisting between the hyperphysical (or supernatural) power in the Universe, and the hyperphysical entity in Man.” Dr. James Martineau, one of the most highly cultured and liberalminded of our theologians, has defined or distinguished Religion and Science thus—“Science discloses the method of the World, Religion its cause, and there is no conflict between them, except when either forgets its ignorance of what the other alone can know.” Dr. Martineau however does not leave his definition there. He boldly ventures into the region of assumptions, and affirms “that the universe which includes us and folds us round is the life-dwelling of an Eternal Mind ; that the �Warfare with Superstition. • 11 world of our abode is the scene of a moral government incipient but not yet complete; and that the upper zones of human affection above the clouds of self and passion raise us into the sphere of a Divine Communion.” These three assumptions he considers to be independent of any possible result of the natural sciences. Now let us turn to the consideration of what we are to understand by the term Superstition. Here we have to deal with something that should be regarded as the opposite of Religion, for it is something, which taking its rise from the faculty of fear or dread of the unknown, imaginatively figures to itself the features of some super­ natural or super-human power which is manifested in ways that are inconsistent with our knowledge of the established order of nature and the veracity of human reason; based as such knowledge is on the verified dis­ coveries of science and on the uniformity and analogy of invariable human experience. Superstition then is that which assumes thus to know and to describe the super­ natural. But what, we may ask, is the supernatural ? It was well argued by the sublime philosopher Spinoza (whose noble moral life, and subtle thoughts have lately been so powerfully portrayed by the pen of our good friend and lecturer Frederick Pollock) that “ we cannot pretend to determine the boundary between the natural and the supernatural until the whole of nature shall be open to our knowledge,” and the late Oxford professor, Baden Powell, in his striking Essay on the Order of Nature has remarked, and in approval of this acute observation of Spinoza, that the supernatural can really never be a matter of science or knowledge at all, for the moment it is brought within the cognizance of reason it ceases to be supernatural; and he affirms that all assumed knowledge of the supernatural is the off- �12 . The Victones of Science in its spring of ignorance, and the parent of superstition and idolatry. Now let us briefly consider what, in connection with our subject, we should understand by the term Science. Science you know does not pretend to deal with the supernatural. Its views and its researches are limited entirely to Nature. The natural phenomena, matter, force, and energy are its sources of knowledge, whilst its organon of induction, or methods of investigation subordinate the suggestions of the imagination and the emotions to the dictates of Beason and the evidence of Nature — Science then simply signifies methodized or reasoned knowledge of the experienced course of Nature, i.e. those invariable co-existences and successions of phenomena — which the human mind discovers by accurate observation and reflection, and then generalizes as laws of Nature or unalterable rules constituting the actual or ultimate government of the course of our lives. In an abstract sense these laws, being inferences drawn by the human mind from the observed uniformity of Nature, may be said to possess in themselves no governing power ; and that the force we seem to observe in natural law may in reality be a force behind Nature. This criticism many of you may remember was most ably and lucidly submitted to us by our respected Presi­ dent Dr. Carpenter in the opening lecture of this year. But the practical danger of pressing this metaphysical assumption of some recondite force, of which Science knows and can know nothing, appears to be this, that it has a manifest tendency to cause us to retrogade from Science back to Superstition, for the mystery it involves inevitably allures the mind to disregard the clearly observed Law, and to make its appeal to the force or power assumed to exist behind the law. �Warfare with Superstition. 13 Now, so far as scientific knowledge extends, the exis­ tence of any such force has nowhere been proved. Natural law is apparently universal and ultimate. “ The growing belief” observes Herbert Spencer “in the uni­ versality of law is so conspicuous to cultivated minds as scarcely to need illustration, but,” (he shrewdly adds,) “ Though the fact is sufficiently familiar, the philosophy of the fact is not so.” “ A natural philosopher,” (says Professor Jowett) “ capable of seeing creation with a real scientific insight, would behold the reign of law every­ where ; one and continuous in all the different spheres of knowledge, in all the different realms of Nature, throughout all time, and over all space.” “ And,” (says Dr. Carpenter, referring for instance to the law of gravi­ tation) “ we feel an assurance of its truth which nothing save a complete revolution in the world of matter or in the world of mind can ever shake.” Although then the inference which the mind draws from observing the uniformity of Nature is, at the out­ set, simply a scientific assumption, similar to the meta­ physical assumption of a force existing behind Nature, yet the substantial difference between the two is really this—that whilst the metaphysical assumption ever remains an assumption, the scientific assumption becomes verified as true through the evidence of universal experience. Such undoubtedly are the conclusions of science, and if they cannot be disproved I submit to you, not specu­ latively, but as an important practical matter, that we should be counselled to regulate our lives in obedience to, or conformity with the discovered and verified Law of Nature, and not in reference to some unknown force assumed to exist behind Nature. If now we turn and limit our attention to the more recent history of European Communities we find that �14 The Victories of Science in its their advance in civilization, that is in material and social comfort, and in the conveniences and even neces­ saries of civilized life, has progressed in a remarkable manner parallel with the development of Science. There is scarcely an improvement in real life that is not strictly traceable to scientific discovery or invention, and all such discovery and invention being the result of the exercise of natural human sagacity is, by its very nature, antagonistic to Superstition; and the process of continu­ ally ascertaining and applying the natural law, by which the events of life on earth are found to be really regu­ lated, has the necessary gradual effect of purifying theology, so far. as it superstitiously attributes such events to the immediate action of supernatural causes, and thereby of compelling theology to undergo interpre­ tations and modifications corresponding more or less closely, to the continual progress of human intelligence. We shall I think meet with ample evidence of this progressive change in theological beliefs if we examine, by way of illustration, some few of the more con­ spicuous examples of that ceaseless conflict which Science, since the establishment of Christianity in Europe, has ever had to wage with superstition, and where it has come into collision with the prevailing theological dogmas of the day. The first of these memorable contests which I will mention relates to the supposed magnitude, immobility, and flat form of the Earth. At the time when this con­ flict seriously arose (about the beginning of the 16th century), the Bible was universally believed to be an inspired supernatural authority for every matter asserted or treated of within its various pages, and its true interpretation in any ambiguous matter to have been authoritatively declared in the dogmas decreed by suc­ cessive Councils of the Church, or in the commentaries �Warfare with Superstition. 15 of a succession of personages of extraordinary learning and sanctity termed the Fathers, and it was not only thought to be utterly fallacious but to be awfully wicked for anyone to set up an opinion adverse to so revered a weight of authority as the Bible, Councils, and Fathers combined was held to be. Amongst other matters of fact, believed to have been thereby decided as infallibly true, were the size and shape of the Earth. It was declared to be the largest Or chief body in the Universe, and in form or shape to be a flat plane—and relatively immoveable—and that the sun, moon, and stars all moved round it; and every attempt to show, from observation of Nature or calcula­ tions of the reason based on such observation, that these views were physically untrue was met for a long time with simple scorn and derision : which only became con­ verted into the actual persecution of Science and its professors when so large an amount of evidence to the contrary had been collected, and marshalled in such a way as to produce a profound impression upon the lay intelligence of the age, and when therefore the scientific views could no longer be safely ignored by ecclesiastical power. This evidence I can only glance at, and indeed we are all now of course more or less familiar with it. For instance, the voyages of those adventurous navigators Columbus and Vasco de Gama in the years 1492—97, and of Magellan in the year 1519, who had amongst them actually sailed round the earth, proving to demonstration by this astonishing achievment that it was of definite and comparatively small size, and not in form a flat plane, but a circular or globular body. Then the startling astro­ nomical researches of Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler, had resulted in demonstrating the Earth’s motion round the Sun. That it was the Sun that was stationary �16 The Victories of Science in its and not the Earth: and then Galileo who, supplementing previous discoveries by his own, and by the aid of the telescope, then recently invented, verified, visually as well as mathematically, the great outline of our Solar System in a manner that utterly contradicted and indeed outraged all that men had been taught to believe, and did then verily believe, on the faith of scriptural and patristic authority. The discoveries resulting from the invention of the telescope were indeed simply astounding, and they exer­ cised such a withering influence upon the prevailing orthodox theories that many of the theologians refused even to look through the telescope, being afraid to behold the heavenly phenomena then revealed for the first time to mortal eyes. A most amusing letter on the subject from Galileo to Kepler, written in the year 1609 has been preserved: “Oh, my dear Kepler,” he writes, “how I wish we could have one hearty laugh together. Here, at Padua, is the professor of Philosophy, whom I have repeatedly requested to look at the moon and planets through my glass, pertinaciously refusing to do so. Why are you not here ? What laughter we should have at this glorious folly, and to hear the professor labouring before the Grand Duke with logical arguments, as with magical incantations, to charm the new planets out of the sky! ” Now Galileo, you remember, was accused of having attacked Religion; he was prosecuted accordingly, and, though the consummate audacity of the infallible Roman Church has since been equal to the denial of its com­ plicity in his condemnation—he was summoned before the tribunal of the Holy Inquisition, the grand ecclesi­ astical Court of the time, and he was made, as you know, to recant all his scientific convictions. We have the exact words of his recantation, and they sre still worthy �Warfare with Superstition. 17 of being repeated. Galileo was compelled to declare— first, bis proposition, “that the Sun is the Centre of the World and immovable from its place,” is absurd, philo­ sophically false, and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. Secondly, his proposition, “ that the Earth is not the Centre of the World nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion,” is absurd, philosophically false, and theologically considered, erroneous in faith. Now it should be observed that the Cardinal Inquisi­ tors who sentenced Galileo were amongst the most enlightened ecclesiastics of their age; they were not bad men, they acted conscientiously according to their light, and their views were in harmony with the generally accepted religious knowledge and sentiments of the time. The case therefore was one in which it was solemnly adjudged by theologians that Science had attacked and was in conflict with Religion. We, living now, know perfectly well that it was nothing of the sort—that it was Science in possession of the truth, sapping the superstitions that formed the superstructure of the theo­ logical system of the day; and now every Schoolboy is taught that Galileo’s recanted propositions are matters of verified astronomical science, and therefore cannot be contradictory to, but must be in harmony with, real re­ ligious truth. Thus the discoveries and reasoning of these astronomers and their illustrious successors Newton, Laplace, Herschel, and divers others, constitute the first complete victory achieved by Science over Super­ stition. I need not stop to dilate upon the deep importance to our thoughts and lives of the transcendent truths dis­ covered by Astronomers, having given a summary of the subject in a lecture delivered here four years ago, and �18 The Victories of Science in its still in print, “ On the Influence of Astronomical discovery “ in the development of the human Mind.” We will now turn to a second illustration of the main argument of the present lecture. Until quite recently, almost within the memory of living men, we were sup­ posed to possess in the Bible a supernatural revelation of the Creation of the World, and the time when and the manner in which it took place. There are ecclesiastical commentaries on the book of Genesis which undertake to inform the reader by means of biblical interpretation the exact month and day of the week when this stupendous event occurred. Generally however, what is known as Archbishop Ussher’s chronology was believed as a part of religious faith, and that system of dates placed the Crea­ tion as occurring precisely 4004 years before the birth of Christ; and the authority of other books of the Penta­ teuch is explicit and confirmatory of the Creation having been accomplished in six days, and according to the method described in the opening chapters of Genesis. We read therein, amongst other amazing assertions, that God rested on the seventh day, and we, or those to whom these writings are assumed to have been addressed, are commanded to keep the seventh day holy on that account, and there can be no doubt of belief in these narrative and injunction being considered as an essen­ tial part of religious faith. Indeed the wearying gloom and austerity in which the religious world still struggle to retain our Sunday are strictly traceable to credulity in the superstition in question. Now, the science of Geology, which, as most of you know, consists primarily of an actual examination of the Earth’s crust or surface and strata beneath for the pur­ pose of ascertaining what they may teach concerning the Earth’s age and history, establishes the existence of a multiplicity of facts which are utterly contradictory to �Warfare with Superstition. 19 and subversive of^-first, the alleged creation of the Earth only some 6,000 years ago, and secondly, of its present order of inhabitants, vegetable, animal, and human, having then been brought into existence in the course of the six days mentioned in the Book of Genesis, and in the order of succession therein particularised. How thoroughly irreconcileable with the Biblical account of the Creation are the scientific conclusions of Geology will sufficiently appear from the consideration of, amongst others, the two following well-established geological con­ clusions :—Evidence has been obtained in Egypt of the existence of inhabitants to some extent civilized in that country 13,000 years ago, and geologists of eminence, however differing on the details of their science are agreed that the present condition of the rocks over and near to which flow the Falls of Niagara evidencing the recession of the falls from Queenstown to their present site, has been occasioned by the continuous action of water throughout a period of 30,000 years—and the most trustworthy and recent geological authorities, such as Lyell, Croll, Darwin, Haeckel, Boyd-Dawkins, and Geikie concur in considering that the antiquity of man is to be reckoned not by tens of thousands, but by hundreds of thousands of years ! But I need not occupy your time by considerations showing how utterly fallacious were the religious notions on the subject derived simply from the study of the Scriptures—their fallacy is now on all hands conceded. I may quote as recent theological authority for our present scientific views the statement of the Bev. Bobert Main, Badcliffe observer in the University of Oxford:— “ Some school books,” he remarks, “ still teach to the ignorant that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that all things were created in six days—No well educated person of the present day shares in the delusion. What- �20 The Victories of Science in its ever the meaning of the six days, ending with the seventh day’s mystical and symbolical rest, indisputably we cannot accept them in their literal meaning, they as plainly do not denote the order of succession of all the individual creations.” And Dr. James Martineau has declared emphatically “ that the whole history of the' genesis of things Religion must now unconditionally surrender to Science.” Well, but there is hardly any class of scientific men who have been more vehemently denounced for attacking religion than the geologists. The great argument used to discredit their researches was the old cry that their conclusions contradicted Scripture, and accordingly volumes upon volumes have been published all composed on the same argumentative basis, viz., That what contra­ dicts Scripture cannot be true—an argument as some of you may have heard, as old at least as the time of Galileo. “If nature contradicts Scripture” (said the schoolmen to Galileo), “ Nature must be mistaken, for we know that the Scriptures are true! ” And now how does the case stand as regards our illustration. Geological science being true could not have been attacking religion, but only those parts of the theological system which had been constructed from the superstitions of the day, and thus it has come to pass that, through the discoveries of the geologists, a second great victory has been achieved by Science in its warfare with Superstition. A third illustration I will refer to relates to the super­ stition which I have mentioned in the syllabus of the Lecture as belief in the government of human life by special Providence;—the question being whether the affairs of life are carried on subject to incessant super­ natural intervention, or Whether they take place through the operation of constant invariable natural law. �Warfare with Superstition. 21 Previously to the rise of the physical Sciences, especially Astronomy and Geology, the almost universal belief of Christian Europe was that every significant act #nd occurrence of life was the direct result of the exercise of the providence of God, or the power of the Devil. Not only was this conclusion directly deducible from the literal interpretation of the language of the Bible, but, it being the manifest interest of a priesthood, (whose aim is ever to stand between the prayer of the Votary and the providential act,) to encourage this belief, books of devotion are composed by them based upon this idea, in which instructions are given to enable the worshipper to beseech the Almighty in a becoming manner for almost every conceivable thing the circumstances of his life may for the time being seem to require. The church of England book of Common Prayer com­ piled more than three centuries ago, that is long before the Physical Sciences had been popularly heard of in this Country, need only to be opened at random to confirm what I am now submitting to you. But the progress of Science has proved beyond rational doubt, that those circumstances of our lives which were theologically re­ ferred to as direct Providential or Satanic interventions, the inflictions, chastisement, temptations, judgments, or whatever other sacerdotal phrases are employed to define supposed manifestations of supernatural Will, are the result of the operation of natural Law, that is, they are the direct consequences of the disregard of SQme natural law which might have been observed and obeyed by the sagacious use of man’s natural and moral intelligence. So now, in reference, for example, to the cause and cure of sickness, our attention is being most usefully drawn away by Science from miserably moping over manuals of devotion to the exhilirating study of handy books on the laws of health—and thus it is, in the words of �22 The Victories of Science in its Professor Huxley, that “ Science is teaching the World that the ultimate Court of Appeal is observation and experiment, and not theological authority, she is teaching us to estimate the value of evidence, she is creating a firm and living faith in the existence of immutable moral and physical laws, perfect obedience to which is the highest possible aim of an intelligent being.” No one then who has impartially watched the course and improvement of human life, since we have come to study and to treat its healthy physical and moral exis­ tence as immediately dependent upon the observance of natural law, can doubt that the illustration we are considering constitutes another most important triumph of Science over Superstition. Connected with the last illustration, or rather a con­ tinuation of it, is what we may not inaptly term the theological theory of disease—viz. the notion that diseases, and epidemics especially, were punishments or judgments inflicted by the hand of the Almighty for some individual or national sins, and that they are to be cured sometimes by a miracle, sometimes by devotion to the shrine or relics of a Saint, and sometimes by simple prayer addressed to the Supreme. All these various ways and practices of appealing for relief to supernatural power were until quite recent times devoutly believed in throughout almost the whole of Europe, and were supposed to form essential parts of religious faith. Even now in visiting Boman Catholic Churches, espe­ cially on the Continent, you cannot fail to observe the number of Votive offerings that are fixed or suspended round the shrine and image of a favorite Saint by those who believe that they have recovered from diseases or misfortunes through the intervention of the Saint in answer to the invocations of the patient. This practice, (like the Ritualistic lighting of candles on the Altars of �Warfare with Superstition, 23 Churches in the day time,) has been copied from the ser­ vice of the Temples of the Pagan religions which prevailed in Ancient Rome at the time of the establishment of Christianity in the reign of the Emperor Constantine. Well therefore asks the astute Middleton, in his instruc­ tive “Letter from Rome,”—“ what is all this but a revival of the old impostures, with no other difference, than what the Pagan priests ascribed to the imaginary help of their Deities, the Romish priests as foolishly impute to the favor of their Saints.” Of course it has been the policy of the Church to discourage the physician and his science. He interfered too much with the gifts to and profits of the shrines. At one time it was a constant practice on the breaking out of an epidemic to carry the relics of the Patron Saint of the locality round the infected districts to drive the disease away. The superstitious belief we are considering had become so extravagant, and the practice in connection with it had obtained a height so ludicrous, that no longer ago than the end of the last century, the clergy in Spain induced the people to believe that a pestilence then raging was caused by their allowing the performance of so un­ godly an entertainment as the opera, and it is a fact that the opera had actually on that account to be put a stop to 1 Although sanitary science has now in this country com­ pletely triumphed over the Superstition in question, yet owing to our still continued narrow theological teaching very lamentable occurrences are occasionally seen to happen. For instance, it is still taught at those strong­ holds of sacredotalism, our two great Universities, that the Bible is in every part of it supernaturally inspired truth. Mr. Burgon, recently one of the select preachers at Oxford, in a work addressed to the junior members of the University, thus expressed himself:—“ The Bible is �24 The Victories of Science in its none other than the Voice of Him that sitteth upon the Throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God—not some part of it more some part of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the Throne—absolute, faultlegs, unerring, supreme ! ” We cannot wonder then that there should be persons who repose faith in its verbal teaching as applicable at the present time, and who seek to derive benefit from strictly and literally following its plainly expressed precepts. One of the apparently plainest of its injunctions is contained in the general Epistle of St. James the 5th chap, and the 14th and 15th verses. “ Is any sick among you ?, Let him call for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up.” A religious sect known as the Peculiar People rigidly follow this injunction in cases of sickness, and it is not so long since we were scandalized by the spectacle of a cri­ minal prosecution, on account of the death of a child whose parents had treated it biblically and not medically, and the Magistrate, (Bible and University theological teaching non obstante,) found the Parents to have been guilty of culpable neglect for relying on the Bible, with­ out calling in medical assistance, and punished them accordingly. This case strikingly illustrates the spirit of our age, showing as it does that secular teaching is in point of intelligence very far in advance of theological teaching ; yet it is impossible not to feel commiseration for the unfortunate people who are so drugged with dognfa that their religious beliefs actually become conducive to the deaths of their own offspring, and who are only roused �Warfare with Superstition. 25 out of their superstitions by finding them thus rudely shocked by the judgment and penal sentence of the law. With this exception we in England may be said to have entirely freed ourselves from the folly of this branch of superstition, unless it may be thought still to linger at Guy’s Hospital, where, as we have lately seen, praying nurses are placed in authority over scientific physicians ! The only further illustration I will now give you has reference to those anthropomorphic conceptions of Deity which have more or less disfigured all the theological systems of the world,.and until recently characterised our own conception of the God of Christianity, who is of course the historical continuation of the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures ; for, though the Deity of the New Testament has attributes somewhat different from those of Jehovah (to which I shall presently refer), He is evidently the same God throughout. It might not be easy, it would indeed be impracticable within the time now at our disposal, to exhibit the successive steps which have resulted in generally endow­ ing the foremost minds of our generation with that correct and exalted standard of morality or moral sense by which our social actions, opinions, and beliefs are righteously judged in the last resort, and whereby the practice of life has become so mild and humane and unselfish compared with that of our ancestors, or other semi-barbarous peoples. One great effort to improve the morality of Princes and Rulers stands out conspicuous—I mean the great work of Hugo Grotius published at Paris in the year 1625 and entitled, “ Three books concerning the Rights of War and Peacea work whose main objects were, First—To induce nations to abstain as far as possible from resorting to the dreadful ordeal of war. and to �26 The Victories of Science in its cultivate that noble ideal of the lovers of mankind—a perpetual peace. To recognise the sovereignty of the moral or social law, and to submit their quarrels and conflicting claims to be judged at the bar of conscience. To this end to establish Courts of Conciliation, and agree to settle international disputes by arbitration. Secondly—when that could not be done, or war avoided, to conduct their warfare with as generous a humanity as possible. And thirdly—To treat prisoners of war with the clemency due to them as human beings and brothers, and not with the relentless cruelties that were then habitu­ ally practised towards those unfortunate persons. The chief contents of Grotius’ grand work consist of discussions historical and moral enlivened and embel­ lished with abundant and interesting citations from the most celebrated authors of classical and sacred antiquity —poets, orators, historians, philosophers, and sages of all times and nations are, with the very splendour of learning, laid under contributions for the purpose of supporting, by their conspiring sentiments and reason­ ings, the benevolent objects of the good and great Grotius ; showing in short the unanimity of the higher order of minds of the whole human race on the great rules of duty, and the fundamental principles of morals. If we, studying the lofty argument of Grotius at the present day,’ can hardly fail to find our views of virtue and humanity expanded and inspired by so impressive a display of the principles it expounds, we can easily be­ lieve what is related of it when first published—viz. that it at once fascinated all the sovereigns and ministers and great men of the time ; that the king of Sweden, Gustavus Adolphus carried it about with him and kept it under his pillow ; that a professorship was founded to teach and diffuse its doctrines ; and that it was translated (from its original latin) into most modern languages. �Warfare with Superstition. 27 There has been of course, since the time of the illustri­ ous Grrotius, a succession of similar though lesser lights, whom I will not now stop to name, all exhibiting and enforcing his humane and philanthropic views. Another cause operating in the same direction has been the gradual improvement in the nature and number of criminal punishments. The penal codes of all Euro­ pean nations during the times of theological ascendency were painfully disfigured by the practice of judicial torture and arbitrary imprisonments, and the cruel and vindictive punishments inflicted upon criminals. Bearing in mind too how large an extent the moral sense or conscience of a community is a reflection of its legal system, the pre­ sent mitigated severity and graduated scale of punish­ ments, more or less proportioned to the nature and gravity of the offence, and to the frailty of and tempta­ tion besetting the offender, must have materially assisted in maturing and refining the public moral sentiment. A similar effect is also observable as proceeding from the more civilized character of our popular amusements —bear baiting, bull baiting, badger baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting and shying, and other cruel and depraving sports have now almost ceased amongst us, and if we desire an example to show the connection between such barbarous cruelties and the influence of Superstition, we need only turn our gaze towards Spain, where we see the most brutalizing of sports—bull-fighting—is still the principle pastime of the most superstitious people on the face of Europe. Now that the cause of our advance in intelligence and morality, and of our more earnest love of toleration and truth, has' been scientific or secular, and not theological, seems plain from the fact that it has resulted in causing us to view with a sentiment akin to horror, some of the anthropomorphic attributes and commands of Deity that �28 The Victories of Science in its we find recorded in the books of the Bible, and which previously to the scientific culture and elevation of our moral sense were generally acquiesced in quite as a matter of course; were to be believed (suggested an eminent theologian, the late Dean Mansel,) as God’s temporary suspensions of the laws of moral obligation, or moral miracles ! Thus, in the old Testament the Almighty is represented as walking on the Earth, eating with Abra­ ham, wrestling with Jacob, appearing in a visible form to Moses, .tempting men, and speaking with human speech. Then the shocking stories related, such as the Divine sanction of the frightful massacres of the Canaanites and Levites, with the ruthless slaughter of women and childred, the divine patronage of the odious Jacob—and numerous instances of extraordinary cruelties ascribed to Jehovah in the books of the Pentateuch, making him out to be a man of war, cruel, capricious, revengeful, and not to be trusted. In the New Testament indeed we find an improved character of the Deity, and one in many important aspects widely different. There is however attributed to the God of the New Testament what, if rigorously balanced against the failings ascribed to Jehovah, must be considered to outweigh them all; viz., the eternity of punishment which he will inflict in a future life. No efforts of the disci­ plined human reason, which is guided by the conscious­ ness of right, can discover any justification for the creation of beings whose lives are to terminate in endless torment. The enlightened intellectual and moral capacity of civil­ ized man rejects the idea of eternal punishment as utterly revolting to its sense of justice, mercy, and charity,, and any attempt to realise ‘ in the unpolluted temple of the mind ’ an enormity so awful causes it to recoil from its imputed author, who (as is alleged) could create the human race with the infallible foreknowledge, and therefore �Warfare with Superstition. 29 with the intention, that the majority, or even some were eventually to be consigned to the horrible and everlasting torture of Hell-fire I From the slight review we have now taken of the influ­ ence of Science upon Superstition, and the modifications that religious creeds have thereby undergone, we may feel assured that the process is not yet ended, and that popu­ lar theologies are still disfigured by superstitions which expanding science will explode. Such for instance prob­ ably, as belief in the objective efficacy of the supplications, humiliations, fastings, and other asceticisms prescribed by preistcraft, and not improbably, I venture to think, our beliefs in supernatural revelations and exclusive salva­ tions. We now know through the Science of Geology, whose connected sequence of events was so admirably summar­ ised by Professor Ramsay, in his Presidential address last year to the British Association for the advancement of Science, that in the physical government of the world, throughout the long ages whose history is embraced by this marvellous science, all progress has been continuous and orderly, not varying in kind and intensity from that of which we now have experience, is indeed the effect of causes still in full operation, that is, without cataclysms or catastrophes of any kind. Reasoning by analogy we should say that if such has been the course of the mate­ rial world the course of the spiritual world (the sphere of religious development) has most probably been similar, and that if there has been no physical cataclysm in the one world, neither has there been a spiritual cataclysm in the other, such as a sudden supernatural revelation accompanied by miracles would undoubtedly be, but that throughout the ages all spiritual enlightenment has pro­ gressed by the same means and in the same manner as at the present moment. �30 The Victories of Science in its Probably therefore it may come to be generally believed that the only real revelation is in Science, which, as Herbert Spencer observes, is a continuous disclosure, through the intelligence with which we are endowed, of the established order of the Universe. If time permitted me now to enter upon a catalogue of the evil effects wrought by Superstition, that is false demoralising beliefs relating to the supernatural, we should find that there is scarcely a single one of the great miseries of life that is not distinctly traceable to this, cause. I will only now recall to your mind the horrors of the Crusades, the numerous religious wars, the Spanish Inquisition, the persecutions, burnings, martyrdoms, massacres, and other hideous atrocities that for ages formed part of the very staple of European history, and which directly arose out of the superstitious beliefs en­ gendered by their dogmatic Theology, which, in its merci­ less endeavours to crush freedom of thought and speech, has impelled man to inflict upon his fellow-man every species of cruelty and calamity that bigotted and intoler­ ant fanaticism could devise. Now one of the habits engendered by superstitious belief is of course a tendency to assume that everything happens through the interposition of providence, and. must accordingly be right however unscrutable; and,, however disastrous, yet sent for some good purpose and to chasten or to benefit us somehow and eventually. Of course such a tendency operates mischievously by its withdrawing our minds and energies and precious time from the search in this world for those natural causes of misery which when discovered show that it is remediable by scientific effort, in other words, that it is to be alleviated by the application of our natural intelligence, and not by our taking refuge in that sanctuary of Superstition (pro­ fanely called) the Will of God. �Warfare with Superstition* 31 To enumerate the ameliorations of human well-being that have been achieved through the exercise of man’s natural intelligence would be a theme almost exhaustless. In reference to these I will now confine myself to merely quoting to you the striking summing-up by Macaulay in his brilliant Essay on Lord Bacon, of the utilitarian result of the development of scientific method, so luminously expounded to his contemporaries, and impressed upon his posterity by the genius of the great English Philosopher, who enunciated the fruitful axiom that true philosophy, whatever its theory, is practically the application of the discoveries and methods of the sciences to the regulation of the affairs and conduct of our lives “ Ask a follower of Bacon what Science has effected for man-> kind and his answer is ready. It has lengthened life; it has mitigated pain; it has extinguished diseases; it has increased the fertility of the soil; it has given new securities to the mariner; it has furnished new arms to the warrior; it has spanned great rivers with bridges of form unknown to our fathers; it has guided the thunderbolt innocuously from heaven •to earth ; it has lighted up the night with the splendour of the day; it has extended the range of the human vision; it has multiplied the power of the human muscles; it has accelerated motion; it has annihilated distance; it has facilitated inter­ course, correspondence, all friendly offices, all dispatch of business; it has enabled man to descend to the depths of the sea, to soar into the air, to penetrate securely into the noxious recesses of the earth; to traverse the land in carriages which whirl along without horses, and the ocean in ships which run ten knots an hour against the wind. These are but a part of its fruits, and of its first fruits—for Science never rests, its law is progress.” But in truth every page of the history of civilization shows us that improvement in the health, the happiness, and the virtue of mankind has taken place entirely through the intellectual and moral progress resulting from the teaching of Science. You will find the un­ answerable details of this history very clearly exhibited in Dr. Draper’s remarkable work on “ The intellectual development of Europe,” and also in its condensed and �32 Victories of Science in its Warfare with Superstition. lucid summary, published under the title of ‘ The Con­ flict between Religion and Science.’ An unhappy misnomer this title, however, if the argument of my lecture be a sound one, viz., That it is not Religion that Science has attacked or come into conflict with—but only the superstitions of the hour, that were ignorantly and erroneously supposed to form parts of Religion, and that were 1 intent on offering to the Author of Truth the unclean sacrifice of a lie.’ Now, in exposing and stamping out Superstition and that old theological spirit which has brought so much misery upon the world, Science has actually rendered the most vital service to Religion; for the true beliefs which Science has thus compelled Theology to adopt are far more really reli­ gious than the superstitious beliefs which Science has from time to time forced Theology to surrender. Let us rejoice, in the cause of Humanity, that such has been the case, and moreover that this purifying process is yet proceeding, and that Science, whose coura­ geous career has hitherto been unstained by cruelty, oppression, or crime, will, in her warfare with Supersti­ tion, still continue marching on to Victories alike beneficent and bloodless; for Science is a child as yet, And her power and scope shall grow, And her triumphs in the future Shall diminish toil and woe. Kenny & Co., Printers, 25, Camden Road, N.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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The victories of science in its warfare with superstitions: a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, on Sunday afternoon, 20th February 1881 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Finch, A. Elley Description An account of the resource Place of Publication: London Collation: 32 p. ; 18 cm Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 5. The Society's lectures by the same author on p. [3]. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Sunday Lecture Society Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1881 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G3428 Subject The topic of the resource Science Superstition 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 />This work (The victories of science in its warfare with superstitions: a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, on Sunday afternoon, 20th February 1881), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions. 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 Morris Tracts Science and Religion Superstition https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ee4c7b507e92efe6294a49cc4fe453be.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=CkPllIMLyk1JOsP7EOEAVo7LbtYNu4QBFg0xmFybFiZWSR89EAVAFGb%7EHvu9bImPAtgBO0Y1%7EZP8g7ABNEldpf8ZUlKCr9B5AmIZ8i30ehELTg55Qdrs0x5ivcrdl%7EyoCu6grwfxp9W%7E1R0Tt4B5sAjwqjpwiP0S0KM6Sdif8xIzRAXyAlVotIGf3ZaHJA3OLcrsjlr9j0iBSzqVQYj3DP4oj-yKpzLYR-tMPTy9BodOiaXsIBJB37ijsyo35tdc19BNr9tr8OcGvQg95eGUm59h-5DyazPfkpLGk53cpUJbOKbaJOq8HjS3UpB6KNufwz1xOvwcQu28SC37bEdB%7EQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 360b1460875c5421f997f63e3aebdaf4 PDF Text Text CHRISTIANITY. THIRD PART. MONASTICISM AND SCHOLASTICISM: INVENTIONS AND DISCOVERIES; FAITHAND SCIENCE; HEBRAISM AND HELLENISM. BEING lecture DELIVERED BEFORE THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY, ST. GEORGE’S IIALL, LANGHAM PLACE, ON SUNDAY, 20th NOVEMBER, 1881, BY Dr. G. G. ZERFFI, F.R.S.L., F.R.Hist.S. Honljon: PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY. 1881. PRICE THREEPENCE. �SYLLABUS. Influence of Heathenism on Christianity. Monks and Monasteries; Cloisters and Nuns. The Crusades. East and West. Gregory VII. Church and State. The Popes and the German Emperors. Conflict between the Static and Dynamic Forces working in Humanity. Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas. Demonology and Angelology. Occam—Inventions and Discoveries. The Reformation, an apparently retrograde movement. The Conflict between Hebraism and Hellenism an undoubtedly progres­ sive movement. Conspiracies against the rights of Humanity. The Inquisition. The Dawn of Modern Thought. Francis Lord Bacon, Newton, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant, and the Hierarchy. Spiritual Despotism and Intellectual Democracy. �CHRISTIANITY. ------------ 4------------ III. Monasticism and Scholasticism. and Science. Inventions and Discoveries. Faith Hebraism and Hellenism. N tracing step by step, and date by date, the historical evolu­ tion of Christianity, we are by the gradual, everIincreasing influence of Heathenismstrucka religion which in its pure on origin made the most determined opposition to all outward ritual and idolatrous ceremonial. Christianity was to have redeemed man’s higher spiritual nature from all fetters of dogmatism and theological obscurantism. The “ word” as the most important living manifestation of the divine Spirit in love, wisdom, and truth, engendering pure thoughts, pure words, and pure actions, had been already with the ancient Persians the primitive force, spreading spiritual enlightenment all over the world. Its symbol was the Sun. The “ word,” as. the condensation of God’s breath, was with the Indians the very foundation of their religious development. The “word”—or God—the universal “neuter,” the “Thad,” the im­ personal, became Creator, Preserver and Transformer, as the three cosmical forces working in one.—Ideas which may be expressed in words, preserved in traditions or writings, and transformed, con­ tinually producing new ideas and words, were with the Indians the elements of progressive culture. With the Egyptians Toth, or Hermes, the “ Logos,” the “ word ” in its spiritual sense, was the life-giver, the founder of all wisdom and truth. With the Greeks the myth, that Pallas-Athene, provided with helmet, spear and shield, had sprung from the head of Zeus, meant symbolically that the “ word,” clad in wisdom, justice, and truth, was the most inlportant embodiment of the divine Spirit. Pythagoras (569 b.c.), initiated at Thebes into the mysteries of the Egyptian priests (after this distinction had been refused to him at Heliopolis and Mem­ �4 Christianity. phis), brought thence the knowledge of the “ Logos ” (the word), as the first vivification of the divine Spirit, without which the very notion of the Deity would be impossible. Plato (380 B.o.) learnt in Egypt that the voSs (Spirit) can only become reality through the X&yos (the word), and he proclaimed that God was the word—the beginning of all things —that He was goodness. Plato, therefore, opposed the ancient notion that God could be passionate, envious, or jealous, or that evil could have originated with Him. Intellect was with Plato productive (creative), indivisible, and all-pervading. No thoughts could come to reality without “ words.”—The word, with Plato, was God, in the sense of the Egyptians, and “ God was in the beginning the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God,” and was adopted in the spirit of Plato by the later Christians. * According to Philo (a contemporary of Christ), the Jews be­ lieved God to be enthroned in eternal perfection and wisdom in Heaven, rewarding the good and the virtuous. All other divine deeds were done by different spirits (messengers)—especially the judging and punishing of the wicked. God did not judge, but a Being standing next to Him—the divine “ Logos ”—the “ word ” (reason, intellect, understanding,) performed that function. The Logos was with Philo the invisible, bodiless spiritual essence of all things visible; it was no person, nothing tangible or expanded, but the purest manifestation of mind, the principal element of all ideas, the life of life, the eye of eyes, the primitive conception of the universe. The “ Logos ” was omniscient, it was past, present, and future; it was the Alpha and the Omega of all things ; it was imperishable, eternal, passionless, and infallible. God was its father, Sophia (wisdom) its mother. It was the splendour, reflection, and essence of God. It was God’s angel and messenger. God’s ser­ vant and mediator. The “ word ” had created the world, and given laws and order. The “word” was the supreme judge be­ tween God and man, mortality and immortality, the spiritual and the material; it was the light of God and of the world ; the ruler and guide of all things created, and all creatures. The “ Logos ” was the first-born “ Son of God.” All these notions were applied tQ Christ, though they are distinctly found in the mysteries, and * See—Plato: Phsedrus, Theaetetus, Sophist, &c. C. S. Henry, D.D. *“ An Epitome of the History of Philosophy,” London: Longman and Co., 1849.—Dr. Kostlin, “ Theologische Jahrbiicher,” 1851.—Dr. Zeller, “Theol. Jahrb.,” 1841.—Ackermann, “ Das Christliche in Plato,” 1835. �Christianity. 5 philosophical systems of the Heathens and Jews. So far as the spiritual essence of all this metaphysical symbolism is concerned, it was unquestionably correct to have ascribed it to Christ, for we < may trace to him and his pure, unalloyed teachings, the principle of the Logos as universal love and brotherhood. But historical Christianity, as it evolved itself in time and space, did not maintain this spiritual broadness, this homogeneous foun­ dation, which could have turned humanity into one great brother­ hood. It is a fact, an incontestable historical fact, that nearly all the more highly developed religious systems of humanity had at first monotheism for their basis. This, however, did not long satisfy the craving of the masses for emotional excitement. The Fathers “ majorum gentium” were followed by Fathers “ minorum gen­ tium.” The unity of the Deity was divided into three persons. A disguised Polytheism was slowly, but surely, introduced through the worship of various angels and saints—opposed by correspond­ ing demons and wicked spirits. The Heathens, with their poetical impersonations of the forces and phenomena of nature, were abhorred and cursed, and yet their polytheistic mode of thinking and worshipping was adopted. Up to the year 60 a.d. the Chris­ tians had to observe the diet of the Jews, and to practise circum­ cision. The use of holy water was ordered by the Christians 120 a.d., in conformity with the Persians, Egyptians, Jews, Greeks, and Romans, who looked upon water as the mysterious life-giving ele­ ment. According to the Indian sacred writings, “ When the world was still buried in the night of chaos, water existed, veiling as the breath of the Divinity the unshapen earth.” According to the G-enesis of Manti, “ Water separated heaven and earth.” “ Water was the essence of life, when the earth was still barren and uninha­ bited.” The efficacy of water was recognised thousands of years ago by the lawgivers of India and their Brahmans; the Persians intro­ duced baptism, the Egyptians hallowed it; the Jews had it; the Essenes considered it an essential act, symbolic of the purification from all worldliness, and the Greeks practised it in their Orphic mysteries. We trace the rites of baptism over the Atlantic Ocean, and find that they were observed by the Aztecs in America. Water was considered all over the world the “ fountain of regeneration,” “ the symbol of life.” “ Man must be born anew of water.” Through water the Heathens of old, and the Christians of a later’ period, were to enter into rpligious communities. “ Water mysti­ �6 Christianity. cally washed away the sins of the world, water made ns twice-born, and admitted us into the state of chosen Brahmans.” In order to detach Christianity from Judaism, the celebration of the Sunday, instead of the Sabbath, was decreed in the second century, after Christ himself had opposed the rigid observance of that day with all his power. At the same period (150 a.d.) the worship of Christ as God was instituted. Not in the sense of the “Logos,”but in the sense of the worship of the visible ancient Heathen Gods. His form, as the good shepherd, was carved and painted, he was represented on the Cross, with a drooping head, a picture of suffering and misery. The bright, the glorious Redeemer of humanity, the incarnation of love, was not shown with a beam­ ing countenance, rejoicing that he had fulfilled his destiny—but ' heart-broken, and writhing in the agony of death, though death could not exist for a God ! By degrees the Apostles and Saints received body and form, and the worship of images was introduced 350 A.n. The old Boman household gods were exchanged for images of the saints. The “ Lararium,” a recess for the tutelary god in every Pagan house, became an “ Oratorio.” Cybele, the mother of the heathen gods, had her substitute in Mary, the mother of Christ. The Christian images began to weep, to perspire, and to wink, just as the miraculous images of the Heathens had done, like Apollo at Cumae, and Juno at Lanuvium. The images of Christ,—the Virgin and some saints were dressed, decorated with jewels, and carried about in processions, in the same way as the heathen images had been treated in India, Egypt, Greece, and Borne. This led to a schism in the church. Some Christians, strengthened in their abhorrence of these idolatrous practices by the purer monotheistic Jews and Arabs, by Greek and Boman philosophers, considered that the teachings of Christ were being defiled, and the first “ iconoclasts ” began to rage against customs and ceremonies which they held were opposed to the fundamental principles of Christ­ ianity. We trace the same iconoclastic spirit in the Netherlandish image-breakers and the Puritans of England, as the survival of a tendency which manifested itself during the earliest times of Christianity. The establishment of monks and monasteries, of cloisters and nuns, followed next, in imitation of Indian Vanaprasthas (inhabi­ tants of woods, deserts and caves), Sunnyasis, Yogis, or Bisbis, who for the greater glory of God were. capable of standing on one �Christianity. 7 leg for twelve years, or holding up their clasped hands until their nails grew through their flesh. Like Egyptian and Buddhistic fanatics who thought idle contemplation far more meritorious than useful activity, monks and nuns began to take possession of Christianity. They indulged in peculiar hoods, beards, caps, and dresses; affected sombre colours in combination with white and brown, or red and blue; some wore shoes, others had none; some neglected personal cleanliness, others did not comb or trim their beards, or cut their hair ; others made themselves a crown of thorns of their hair by shaving the top of the head; some wore iron girdles studded with nails round their waists on the bare skin. Some lived on locusts, others on dry bread; others again, as the “ Boskoi ” (grazing monks), on grass. Some lived alone in caves and huts. Claudius Rutilius Numantianus (in the 5th cent, a.d.), gives a description of the island of “ Capreria,” in his “ Itinerarium,” which runs thus: “ The whole island is filled, or rather defiled by men who fly from the light. They call themselves Monks or Solitaries, because they choose to live without any witnesses of their actions. They fear the gifts of fortune, from the apprehension of losing them, and, lest they should be miserable, they embrace a life of voluntary wretchedness.” The sensible Roman writer then exclaims: “ How absurd is this choice! how perverse their understanding! to dread evils without being able to support the blessings of the human condition. Either this melan­ choly madness is the effect of disease, or else the consciousness of guilt urges these unhappy men to exercise on their own bodies the tortures which are inflicted on fugitive slaves by the hand of justice.” The glorious teachings of Christ were turned more and more into a gloomy ritual, deadening common sense and destroying the reasoning faculty in those who did not shrink from allowing superstitious frenzy to become master of their better understanding. There is no delusion which these men and women did not turn into an act of pious worship. “ Stylytes ” and “ Sancti Columnares ” began to abound. In imitation of their founder, Simeon, a Syrian, these saints used to stand on pillars 40 feet high, and there pray, in opposition to Christ’s distinct condemnation of those hypocrites “ who pray standing in the synagogues, and standing in the corners of streets that they may be seen.” “ When thou pravest,” said Christ, “Enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door pray to thy Father which is in secret.” Osten­ �8 Christianity. tation, pride, and boastfulness were fostered, instead of a correct understanding of true Christianity, and this form of Fanaticism produced, as all action does, a strong reaction. The Shemitic spirit of the East revolted against this terrible mixture of a pure monotheism with the most complicated and mystic polytheism, and as I had the pleasure of showing in my lecture “ On the Eastern Question,” delivered on the 25th of March, 1877, Mahomet rose, and East and West were rent asunder, until “Blood and Iron,” nearly 200 years later, gave another form to Christianity. Whilst the establishment of monks and nuns was a silent, con­ templative delusion, the crusades were a noisy and raving madness, and as all raving, howling, screaming madness is to some extent contagious, the whole of Europe was drawn into its vortex, and millions of otherwise peaceful and sober-minded men were driven to certain death on the distant battlefields of Asia and Africa. This astonishing commotion had, however, a most salutary effect on the culture and further development of Humanity. Europe got rid of the noisy, fighting, drinking knights, and the temporal possessions of the killed fell into the hands of the Church, or were acquired by toiling, working, trading towns-men. What had been till then, without real discipline and cohesion, received a firm and undisputed organization. It is true that before this happened Christianity had to undergo considerable changes. In 325 the Duality of the Godhead in the Father and the Son was established, and in 348 the monastic life was decreed to be sacred. Nothing was then easier than to become a saint, it was only necessary to retire from the world and do nothing; but at a later period canonization became a rather expensive distinction. In 381 the doctrine of the Trinity of the Godhead was decreed, and ten years later, in 391, the Latin mass was introduced, in order to separate the praying priests from the people who spoke different languages. Up to 433 the worship of the Virgin Mary, in imitation of the Egyptian Virgin and Goddess Isis with her son Horus, had been optional; it now became essential, and the double nature of Christ, as God and Man, was made an indisputable article of faith. In 533 the belief in the double nature of Christ was advanced to an indispensable dogma, necessary for our salvation. In imitation of Indian, Persian, and Egyptian customs, extreme unction was intro­ duced as a means of entering heaven. Festive days in imitation of Indians, Persians, Egyptians, Phoe­ nicians, Phrygians, Jews, Greeks, and Bomans were established. �Christianity. 9 The Purification, Annunciation, Assumption, &c. of the Virgin Mary became holy days. In imitation of the heathen ceremonies in honour of Vesta, the Church ordained a corresponding festival. Asses were walked in procession, decorated with flowers and leaves. Prophets, Sybils, and Balaam himself were represented on such occasions. A Virgin and a child were seated on a donkey, and led by the motley crowd into one of the Churches. High Mass was said, and priest and people brayed, instead of chanting “ Amen.” Sometimes the revellers had the churches to themselves, like the Babylonians when worshiping Mylitta (the Goddess of Love), once a year, or like the Greeks and Bomans, when worshipping the God of Wine, Dyonisius or Bacchus. The Christians on such occasions dressed themselves as Satyrs or wild beasts, they celebrated a burlesque mass of their own composition, consumed fat bacon, and played at dice on the altar. A pope or abbot of fools was chosen. This custom still survives in Mayence and Cologne, where the feasts of Pools, “ the feriae stultorum ” of the Pagans are celebrated. The Carnival, followed by fasting, was instituted in imitation of the Saturnalia and Lupercalia of the Bomans. Prom the Indian Brahmans, Buddhists, and Egyptians the doctrine of purgatory was borrowed, and became from 593 one of the most profitable sources for enriching the Papal exchequer. It was, however, also instru­ mental, after more than 900 years, in breaking up a system built on the distorted teachings of Christ. In 653 East and West separated doctrinally, the Clergy in the East not acknowledging the likeness and equality of the Eather and Son, but asserting that the Son though like, was not equal to the Pather. The West, on the other hand, insisted on the likeness and equality of the Pather and the Son. In the year 750, as another means to enrich the Church and priesthood, Masses for departed Souls were ordered to be said. How vast the spread of idolatry and superstition amongst Christ­ ians must have been, may best be judged from the decision of the Synod, held at Prankfort in 794, which forbade the offering of prayers to Saints. Like the Indians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Bomans, the Christians had their patron Saints. God, the Logos and his incarnation Christ were forgotten and ignored, but the worship of Saints and relics was introduced, altogether changing the sublime character of Christianity, whose founder had discarded all outward formal observances, and taught us the most exalted principles of morals and mutual love. Belies were suddenly not only introduced, but prayed to. A kind of Eetish-worship was �10 Christianity. established. The priests pretended to possess a feather from the wing of the Archangel Gabriel; the sword and shield of the Archangel Michael; some of the breath of Christ preserved in a sacred pyx; a bottle filled with Egyptian darkness I sounds from the bells which were rung at the entrance of Christ in Jerusalem ; a ray of the star which guided the Wise Men from the East. Later they pretended to possess a piece of the skin of St. Dorotheus, who was flayed alive; some of the pitchers used at the wedding at Cana; the comb of the Virgin Mary; the pole on which the Cock perched when he crew after Peter had thrice denied his master; some feathers from the wings of the same bird ; hay from the manger in which Christ had lain ; the staff with which Moses divided the Red Sea; thorns from the fiery bush before which Moses stood. The chains of Peter, Paul, and John the Baptist; a tooth of St. John, the Evangelist, and a piece of his shirt; a piece of the arm of St. Anne, the mother of the Virgin Mary ; the sword of St. Maurice which an Angel brought from heaven (at Nurem­ berg, 1464) ; the head of John the Baptist; the bones of Balaam’s ass ; the slippers of St. Clara, and nails from the cross (at Amiens). All this may seem barely credible, but it must not be forgotten that in our own century, this nineteenth century of progress and en­ lightenment, the seamless Coat which Christ was said to have worn, was exhibited at Treves, and attested to have worked miracles. Of the cross to which Christ was nailed, more chips were sold than of the 7 bones of Buddha, each of which was said to have been divided into 12,000 pieces, making 84,000 fragments; if collected these splin­ ters of the one cross would probably have furnished enough material for some 12,000 crosses. Not less important were the real skulls of the three Wise Men of the East, “ Caspar,” “ Melchior,” and “ Bal­ thazar,” which were preserved in three different places, making nine heads for the three, or three heads for each Saint. More miraculous still was “ the house of the Virgin Mary,” which is not to be found in Palestine, but at Loreto in Italy. The Legend tells us that, when the Saracens conquered Judaea, Angels bore away the house in which Mary had dwelt, and first deposited it at Tersate, near Eiume, but later took it to Loreto, where it bears the following Inscription: — “ The house of the Mother of God in which the word became Flesh.” There is, however, some doubt as to whether this is the house in which Christ was conceived at Nazareth, or the one in which Christ was born at Bethlehem. If this legend may be believed in, why not that which makes the Wizard, Merlin, �Christianity, 11 carry Stonehenge through the air from Giant’s Causeway to the plains of Salisbury; or why should it not be true that Zarathustra lived for 40 years on one piece of cheese, which never grew old or diminished in size. The terrible, sunken state of Christianity at this period may be further studied in the dry enactments of the Church in 800 a.d. An English Monk, Winfred, known under the name of Bonifacius, attempted at this time to reform the morals of the Clergy, and exhibited great zeal in propagating Christianity in Germany. He assisted Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus) in his endeavour to bring some kind of order into the dissolute state of the Church. Win­ fred succeeded in persuading the first German-Roman Emperor to submit to the sole authority of the Pope. The Bishops were in future to be confirmed by the Pope, their provincial Synods were to be abolished, and their resolutions declared null and void. Legates, as representatives of the Pope, were sent all over the Christian world, and it was their duty to carry out the dictates of the one and indivisible central Papal power. The Pope was then to be raised to the dignity of a temporal Prince, and united in his per­ son Church and State, or rather the power over Heaven, Earth, and Hell. In 805 the decree forbidding direct prayers to Saints was enforced by Charlemagne. In 850 the Episcopal power, as an independent element, was abolished by means of the falsified Decrees of Isidorus, which began to form the basis of the Pope’s supremacy in lay as well as in spiritual matters. In 993 Pope John XV. ordered the worship of the Mother of Christ, as the Mother of God : many Saints were canonized, and the right of' canonization by Bishops was approved. In 1000 Church Bells came into general use for the first time. In the year 1015 the monks had to conform to a strict rule of celibacy, and in 1074, Gregory VII. extended celibacy to all priests. The Church became day by day wealthier. Masses for the dead and the living were to be paid for; relics were sold wholesale; sins were forgiven according to fixed tariffs ; souls were freed from purgatory for so much money paid into the Pope’s exchequer; dis­ pensations from fasting, and eating fish on Fridays, or from contract­ ing forbidden marriages, were bargained for ; pilgrimages were en­ couraged to obtain money from the deluded wanderers; the dying were assiduously attended to, and their last wills carefully drawn up, generally ensuring the augmentation of the worldly goods of the church in exchange for the spiritual welfare guaranteed to the tes- �12 Christianity. tator in another world. Tithes were imposed, alms were demanded, subscriptions were solicited, collections were made; kings, princes, counts, nobles, citizens, traders, and even beggars, had to pay for licences, in order to practise their vocations. Heretics were ferreted out, their bodies burned in reality, or in effigy; and their goods and chattels, their lands and property invariably con­ fiscated for the benefit of the Church. On all occasions, in all churches, throughout the whole of Christendom, the phrase re­ sounded “blessed are the poor” not so much “in Spirit” as in worldly goods, “ for their’s is the kingdom of Heaven.” By means of a distorted phrase of Christ’s teachings the Church grew richer and richer, so that more than two-thirds of the landed property of Europe fell into the hands of the clergy. These were the component elements which enabled one of the most accomplished rulers of the Christian Church, Gregory VII., to establish its supremacy and universal dominion. Studies were commended; arts were cultivated; schools, seminaries, and univer­ sities were established with one exclusive aim: to increase the temporal and spiritual power of the Pope. This provoked the antagonism of the Teuton Emperors who with their indomitable subjects, more than any other nation, stood in need of the Christian discipline of passive obedience, and con­ trolled activity. But the acting forces of morals and intellect, if one-sidedly cultivated in humanity, may, through this dangerous disturbance, easily come into conflict; and this now happened. The lay-power saw itself reduced to a nonentity; altogether effaced in temporal as well as in spiritual matters by the Popes, and their obedient tools. The emperors began to revolt—not for intellectual, but for pecuniary reasons. The bishops and other church-digni­ taries had hitherto been called upon to pay to the imperial ex­ chequer a certain sum for their investiture. This privilege was now taken from the emperors, and the popes were endowed with the sole right to appoint bishops and other church-dignitaries, and to receive the fees for such investitures. This led to one of the grandest struggles, recorded in the annals of history, between Henry IV. and Gregory VII. At a diet, called together at Worms (1076), the Pope was deposed, and in answer to this insult he ex­ communicated the German Emperor, and all those who supported him, and absolved his subjects of their allegiance to their lawful lord and king. The dukes and nobles in the north of Germany were for the Emperor, but most of the princes of southern Germany took �Christianity. 13 the part of the Pope. The majority of the bishops who felt the autocratic power of the Pope, sided with the Emperor; but the monks, controlling the consciences of the ignorant masses, fought the battle of the Pope, and were successful. The Emperor saw himself day by day more deserted and isolated, and resolved at last to ask the forgiveness of his spiritual superior, who had fled to Canossa. Three days and three nights the mighty Emperor of Germany had to stand, barefooted, bareheaded, in a penitent’s white dress, exposed to hunger and thirst, to cold and ignominy, to receive at last the Pope’s forgiveness. This did not prevent the long and sanguinary strife which the revengeful, insa­ tiable, and indomitable High-priest of the Romish Church kindled in the German Empire. Bishops and counter-bishops, kings and counter-kings, fought against one another. The battle-cries, “ Pope ” or “ Emperor,” resounded everywhere. Devastation ruled supreme. Fanaticism and superstition, plague and hunger, held their awful revels, and death mowed down the people by thousands. This terrible storm, produced by a conflict between the conservative static power of morals, one-sidedly used by the Church, and the pro­ gressive dynamic force of intellect as embodied in the lay-power of the German emperors, was however most salutary in its effects on humanity. The storm subsided. Towns and monasteries learned to know their own powers. The former in opposing, the latter in supporting the papal authority. Towns and monasteries became the next safe refuges of wealth, free-thought, and learning. The oppressed and neglected, or only one-sidedly cultivated dynamic force broke forth into glorious activity in those very caves, holes and dungeons which had been erected to destroy man’s reasoning, inquiring, inventing and discovering faculty,—to turn him into a groaning, praying, sighing, chanting, and altogether useless machine. Prior to the ninth century there had been no system either in History, or Philosophy. All was legendary poetry. Dead bodies carried their own heads under their arms. Saints were seen at the same time in different places. The sacred tooth of Apollonia (still preserved in a jewelled casket at Cologne) cured tooth-ache, when merely looked at. Records abounded of fires which had been extinguished by the mere mention of the name of Florian; and pigs and fishes were said to have listened with rapt attention to eloquent sermons on the “conditional immortality of the soul.” It was here, in England, that from the dark recesses of the lonely cloisters and monastic schools, Scotus �14 Christianity. Erigena, the founder of the Nominalists, proclaimed his meta­ physical hypotheses “ On nature,” based on the following four forces: а. One that creates, and is not created. б. One that is created, and creates. c. One that is created, but does not create. d. One that is neither created, nor creates. The “ Nominalists” who relied on Aristotle, were opposed by the “ Realists” who took Plato for their foundation, and had their leader in St. Anselm (Archbishop of Canterbury), who devoted the whole of his life to find out the real “ origin of evil.” Sanguinary battles did not cease; but men began to take an interest in those word-tournaments that took place in the different theatres of the universities at Salerno, Bologna, Florence, Cordova, Paris, Oxford, Montcassin, &c. “ The disputants both fought with dialectical Grecian swords, Roman clubs, and theological word-spears, they quoted and re-quoted, explained, finessed with phrases, thrust in > the name of Aristotle, and parried with a sentence from Plato.” * In the midst of the dark night of Mediaeval superstition and artificially kept up ignorance we hear Bonaventura discoursing on the external, and the inferior ; the internal, and the superior fight; till we come to Friar Boger Bacon, who attempted experimental philosophy, whilst the angelic Doctor Thomas Aquinas discoursed on the substance of “ absolute” or “ relative” angels; whether there are different species of angels, and whether they are corruptible or incorruptible; in what direct or indirect relation do angels stand to time or space, and how many angels might concentrate on one mathe­ matical point. This led to another learned dissertation on the ques­ tion how many angels could assemble on the tip of a needle; whether angels are of matter, and what kind of matter; whether angels have the power to understand, to comprehend, to communicate what they think; whether their cognition is sharper in the morning than in the evening; whether angels are capable of love and hatred; whether they delight in bodily, or only spiritual enjoyments; whether they can multiply, and how they originated; whether they were created in grace, and whether they partake of the eternal beatitude and glory, or whether they can be wicked and sinful. Finding that some of the angels had been proud and overbearing, the transition from Angelology to Demonology was easy, and the angelic Doctor shows himself as well acquainted with all the subtle niceties of devilry, the pride and insolence of devils, their mis* “ The Historical Development of Idealism and Realism,” by Dr. G. G. Zerffi. Trans: R. Hist. Soc. Vol. VII., p. 136. �Christianity. 15 chievous propensities and unlimited wickedness, as though he had lived a hundred years amongst the demons, and explored the physical geography, topography, climate, fauna and flora of the different infernal regions. Let us not assume for one moment that the intellectual powers of Thomas Aquinas were uselessly wasted. It was he who proved to demonstration and conviction that one may talk any amount of nonsense in the mystic garb of dialectical sense; that one may use first, second, and thirdly with great apparent learning, to prove nothing, and fill the air by means of lung-power with empty words —words—words. We ought diligently to study the 10 volumes of Thomas Aquinas’s “ Summa Totius Theologiae.” Many learned men have done so, and left the barren fields of metaphysics in consequence, turning, like Occam, the invincible Doctor, to common sense, and demanding a total reform of philosophy, just as we in modern times insist on a total reform of education. The vagaries and dreams, the delusions and hallucinations of the “ Patres minorum gentium,” led to a better study of the hidden forces of nature. Abstractions and reflections were made subor­ dinate to impressions, exciting perceptions, engendering sensations, which had to be mastered, grouped, and classified on the basis of causation by a clear self-conscious mind, able to distinguish between the probable and possible, and the improbable and im­ possible. In spite of St. Benedict’s assertion that there was such a thing as “ ignorant knowledge ” and ” wise ignorance,” one of a number of senseless sayings which have served to check Humanity in the proper exercise of its reasoning powers, a better appreciation and application of arithmetic, mathematics and geometry worked great changes in the intellectual world. Agriculture was treated scien­ tifically by the monks; classics were copied; bridges were built; abbeys, cathedrals and churches constructed; works of art pro­ duced ; colours used, leading to the study of chemistry, and gra­ dually the inherent dynamic force of humanity burst asunder the chains of gross ignorance, and became, through “ gunpowder,” the torch-bearer of equality and brotherly love in the dark night of superstition. America was discovered, and the dogmatically con­ tradicted rotundity of the earth established. Mother Church con­ demned the new-fangled ideas, and burnt heretics who ventured to assert that the earth was moving round the sun, and not the sun round the earth. More powerfully even than gunpowder and the �16 Christianity. discovery of America, the invention of the “ art of printing ” con­ tributed to the possibility of the grand and mighty Reformation, which was instituted by Wyckliff, Huss, Beuchlin, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Luther, and Melanchthon. The Reformation en­ deavoured to lead Christianity back to its primitive purity,—and assumed, therefore apparently, a retrograde movement. This Re­ formation is still going on—in spite of the stationary efforts of some sects, however powerful, who think that man ought to pro­ gress materially, financially, commercially, hygienically, and tech­ nically, that he ought to be a free-trader, but on no account a free­ thinker who dares to inquire into the past historical develop­ ment of Humanity from a higher scientific point of view, with the same freedom that is conceded to researches into the statistical tables of export and import, of diseases, of births, deaths, and marriages, the mileage of railways and electric wires, the state of the army and navy, and the land-question. It is still the spirit of authority, borrowed from the Hebrews, that opposes the spirit of inquiry, taught us by the Hellens. Faith and Science—or Hebraism and Hellenism are at war. In speaking of Hebraism I must not be understood to attack those who now profess the Jewish religion ; all who have followed my lectures will know that I have at all times advocated, and shall always advocate, complete tolerance of all creeds, and equal civil right® for all races, whether white, yellow, or black. It is, however, my duty to point out the influences of Hebraism and Hellenism from a historical point of view, and in doing this, I do not mean to abuse the one or inordinately to exalt the other. Both Faith and Science are based on ignorance, with this distinction, that the votaries of Faith submit to a doubtful authority, arbitrarily set up by most distinguished, wise, and moral men who, however, could not possibly have known more than the spirit of the times in which they lived allowed, or the means of acquiring knowledge at their dis­ posal enabled them to learn, but who are to be looked upon as in­ fallible authorities for all times to come. This assumption neces­ sarily led to a stationary state of believing, and checked the im­ portant faculty of inquiry. Hebraism was bent one-sidedly on proving that the past alone was true, that it was to be invariably so in the present and the future; though this is contrary to the very thinking, reasoning, inquiring spirit of intellect, with which God has endowed us, and which was developed in us by Christ. Science, on the other hand, endeavours to vanquish the curse �Christianity. 17 of ignorance by free-inquiry, and not by Faith. The supernatural may be there, the miraculous may have occurred, but neither of them can be an object of Science. For if supernatural, it must be incomprehensible, and to treat the incomprehensible scientifically is in itself an idle attempt. We must not assume that the static force can alone push on humanity, nor discard the dynamic power, which fosters in us the good sense to acknowledge the necessity of a counteracting power, and is ready to do justice to the past, in endeavouring to change it slowly, by degrees, and with all reverence for its antiquity. But the spirit of reaction, of stability, of retrogression, is always directed to the past, complaining bitterly that the present and future will not abide by its notions, and to this phantom millions and millions of human beings have been sacrificed. What are all the conspi­ racies against single despots, popes or autocrats, in comparison with the conspiracies of priests and blinded sectarians against the innocent masses of the people whom they trampled under foot, left in ignorance, and who were generally murdered, if in their misery they endeavoured to improve their wretched lot. According to the Old Testament, millions were slaughtered because they worshipped a golden calf, set up by one of their rulers; or because they could not pronounce the word “ Shibboleth,” looked at the broken ark, or had a king after “ God’s own heart,” who committed every pos­ sible crime, but generally did penance, and managed to have his people punished for the wrong he had done. Wholesale murders of the people attributed to the allwise, just, and merciful God, with which the records of the past abound, were initiated by the Jews, who began their proscriptions of the Gentiles under Trajan, and were at last proscribed themselves. Theodosius persecuted the Thessalonians in this spirit, and had 8000 of them massacred in the amphitheatre. The Empress Theodora, a professed pious Chris­ tian lady, blinded and maddened by misunderstood piety, had 100,000 inoffensive Manichseans slaughtered. For a thousand years the world had to witness the persecution, torture, and murder of innocent, hard-working Jews; but on what principles did the deluded Christians base their wholesale massa­ cres ? On the terrible law of retaliation, abolished by Christ: “ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth : But I say unto you That ye resist not evil.” We can have no right to persecute any human being on account of his religious opinions. We should endeavour, without any distinction of race �18 Christianity. or creed, to inspire humanity with loftier ideas of forgiveness, patience, kindness, humility, and, above all, mutual love. We should cease to perpetuate the inherited sin of exclusiveness, ignor­ ing all that was glorious and divine in other nations, and not so loudly proclaim our own holiness, because we adhere to certain dogmas, or keep certain ritual and ceremonial formalities. The seeds of stubborn righteousness; of cavilling on words ; on the observance of outward postures without inward sense or meaning; of hatred, persecution, and murder, were sown by those heartless and narrow-minded Christians who endeavoured to oppose Hellen­ ism, and fostered the dark spirit of Hebraism. These were the men who checked the study of astronomy; discarded the knowledge of geography; ignored zoology and ethnology; declared chemistry a sinful prying into Grod’s mysteries; denied that geology was a science; repudiated the theory of evolution; falsified chronology and history, and treated cosmology with utter contempt. They placed the spirit of stationary Hebraism above the progressive tendency of Hellenism, inspired by the more cheerful and tolerant spirit of Christianity. “ If any prophet comes who dreams a dream, you shall put him to death.” This terrible saying became a religious brain incrusta­ tion, a pious unrelenting brain-petrification, and was the cause of the Crusades, the persecution of the Albigenses, * the Sicilian Vespers, the 30 Years’ War, the misdeeds of the Inquisition, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the Dragonades in Alsace. A wild chaos of superstition and ignorance spread its poisoning influence all over the regions where Christians ruled under the false pretence of “ Loving their neighbours as themselves.” Witch­ hunters with retrievers went out to discover the hidden haunts of the Devil, in a squinting woman, a mole on the body of a child, or the unholy speeches of old crones. The slightest doubt in a dogma was sufficient cause to have a man or a woman put to the rack, and finally under ceremonies which might almost be called comical, if they had not been so revoltingly cruel, burnt to death. Even Popes did not escape suspicion. One of them, who studied at the University of Cordova, and was well versed in the rule of three, was suspected of having been aided in acquiring this astounding accomplishment by his Infernal Majesty “in propria persona.” An Archbishop of Mayence was accused of downright heresy, be­ cause he dared to make some chemical experiments. The mother of the celebrated Astronomer Kepler, who was accused by hei’ �Christianity. 19 son-in-law of witchcraft, escaped being burned alive only through the presence of mind of her son, who proved by mathematical calculations that the dates of her birth, her age, and the constel­ lations at the time of her marriage, were all in contradiction of her being a witch. Terrible madness, under the garb of a distorted Christianity, deluded even the most learned of those times. Fury, envy, covetousness, ignorance, prejudice, and intolerance sought everywhere for sanguinary sacrifices, because the blinded Theolo­ gians in their zealous excitement, were more bent on the perpetua­ tion of a spirit of hatred and wholesale murder, than the practice of Christ’s command : “ Ye have heard that it had been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you.” Had human beings understood Christ’s teachings and philosophy, supported by however superficial a knowledge of the historical progress of humanity, they could never have committed such crimes. Christians sacrificed, at the lowest possible computation, 16,083,019 human beings in 1600 years to their theological differences, endeavouring to oppose Philosophy and History with the same cruelty as the Bomans opposed Christianity at its bright dawn. Science now occupies the same position in regard to antiquated superstitions, as did Christianity in opposition to the sunken morals of the Heathens, and the petrified formalism of the He­ brews. All the military force of the world cannot stop the pro­ gress of Modern Thought. And what is that progress ? Is it destructive or constructive? Are its tendencies bent upon the annihilation of true Christianity, or are the followers of Francis Lord Bacon in endeavouring to study nature and her phenomena not promoting true Christianity ? Are we not to leave the Idols of the tribe, the cave, the market-place, and the pulpit, in order to practise benevolence and kindness, not only towards dumb crea­ tures, but also towards human beings ? In our social organization, we have neither attained the solution of the, mathematically correct, moral laws of Spinoza, nor the sublime laws ruling the universe as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton, being attraction (love), and gravitation (order). The “ monas monadum ” of Pythagoras revived by Leibnitz, is not yet Christ’s loving Father “ who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.” Had we earnestly acted upon this principle, the terrible scene enacted at the gates of one of our workhouses, �20 Christianity. where a poor woman died on a cold November morning—refused admittance by the heartless master—could never have occurred. This man escaped unpunished, whilst another individual who sent six canaries through the post, had to suffer two months hard labour, because two of the birds were found dead. Is this fact not a clear proof that the life of a canary bird is of far greater value to us, than that of a human creature ? But why ? Because we trouble ourselves far more about the mystery of Transubstantiation or grace, decreed as an article of faith, necessary to our salvation by Innocent III. in 1215; or the necessity of auricular confession in imitation of Egyptians and Greeks, ordered by the same Innocent III., and revived by some clergymen, though they are members of the reformed Church of England. We are still uncertain, whether the Church had a right in 1440 to prohibit the Sacrament of the Communion to be given to laymen in the two elements. It was only in 1563 that all ecclesiastical power was to be concentrated in the Pope, and that the Bishops were deprived of their rights to hold regular convocations. The Christian faith, as late as 1563, at the Council of Trent, was for ever established as the only true faith, proclaiming the eternal damnation of all those who did not profess the Christian, or rather, Papal faith. This astounding belief, so degrading to the Creator, may be best illustrated by calculating only the followers of Buddha, who must have numbered since 500 B.C., that is for 2,300 years, no less than 17,250,000,000,000 of human beings, all created by an Almighty and merciful God, sent into this world, in order to toil, to do no special harm, to die, and then to be cast for ever into Hell fire. I know that this is not the view of all Divines, for some of them have kindly invented a neutral place in the universe for shady, colourless souls, who are not exactly good enough for heaven, nor bad enough for the infernal regions; for souls of good and kind-hearted men who do no harm, but think for themselves, and who do not wish humanity to be governed by the hierarchical dictates of spiritual despots, but by the laws of an Intellectual Democracy that knows the limits of its own power. The conclusive philosophy of Immanuel Kant shows us the real tendency of our modern times, “ to spread the greatest amount of happiness among the people of all languages and creeds,” bringing them into one common brotherhood. But Kant’s philo­ sophy has done more than this; the mode of reasoning propounded in it has unconsciously become the logical and mental heredity in our generation. We think differently; the glorious awe of mys- �Christianity. 21 tery, and the wonderful uncertainty of knowledge—the marvellous domains of the supernatural—fade more and more away. It is in vain that the grand-mother of Christ, the Holy Anne, should have been distinguished according to a decree of the Church in 1854, by an immaculate conception; that Pope Pius IX. should have issued a syllabus in 1864, declaring war against all the scientific efforts of our age, leading to scepticism, infidelity, and a prospective de­ crease of the Peter’s pence; it is in vain that Pius IX. should have established in 1870, to his own satisfaction, the infallibility of the Pope—the electric light of common sense is opposed to all supernatural agencies. We have only to try to be moral, and to be intellectually cultivated, and all other unintelligible subjects can be left to themselves. History teaches us the great fact that there have been good and bad men, in all ages, at all places under all religious creeds; and that with the growth of learn­ ing and the spread of education, at all events we have become more tolerant, and are now convinced that, no matter what a man may profess, if his actions are in contradiction, with our common laws, based on justice, he is a bad man. The limits of our pure reasoning faculty have been narrowed, but our powers to promote and develope our intellectual force have marvellously increased with each succeeding generation. This power will go onwards, unchecked by any artificial means. This process of our progressive development I may illustrate by a scene from life. A father sat one morning in his library pondering over his books, when his eldest son, a boy just in his teens, rushed in with a joyful face and exclaimed “ Papa, Colenso is right! ” The father turned round astonished at his boy’s theological learn­ ing, and asked him quietly, “ Have you read Colenso ? ’’ “ No,” replied the boy, “ I have read a refutation of him, called ‘ Moses, or the Zulu,’ which has convinced me that Colenso must be right.” The father was silent, but was deeply impressed with the use­ lessness of the exertions of the reverend opposer to Bishop Colenso vainly applied in this age, when our whole brain-formation is revolting against mere dialectical efforts; when an intellectual democracy sways the minds of our very children, to check which would be a crime—a crime which to commit, is becoming day by day a greater impossibility. A bright and glorious future is before humanity, when Christianity will revive, and turn our Arm­ strongs and Woolwich infants into locomotives and motors of electric light, when the last remnants of our monasteries and �22 Christianity. nunneries will be changed into schools and lecture halls; when sects shall cease. Then a new heaven, and a new earth will be visible, and the Alpha and the Omega of humanity will be love in truth and truth in love. This future state of Christianity, based on science and justice, on intellect and morals, I will endeavour to describe in my next, the fourth and last lecture on “ Christianity.” The Society’s Lectures by Dr. Zerffi. which have been printed, are— On “Natural Phenomena and their Influence on different Religious Systems.” On “The Vedas and the Zend-Avesta: the First Dawn of Religious Consciousness in Humanity.” On “ The Origin and the Abstract and Concrete Nature of the Devil.” On “ Dreams and Ghosts.” On “ Ethics and ^Esthetics.” The above are out ofprint. On “ The Spontaneous dissolution of Ancient Creeds.” On “ Dogma and Science.” On “ The Eastern Question; from a Religious and Social point of view.” On “ Jesuitism; and the Priest in Absolution.” On “ Pre-Adamites; or, Prejudice and Science.” On “ Long and short Chronologists.” On “ Christianity—I. The Origin of Christianity from a strictly historical point of view.” II. “The Influence of the ‘Fathers’ on the further deve­ lopment of Christianity.” III. “Monasticism and Scholasticism; Inventions an Discoveries; Faith and Science; Hebraism and Hellenism.” All price 3d., or post-free 3£d. By the same Author are the following Works:— “Faust,” by Goethe, with Critical and Explanatory Notes. Second Edition. London: David Nutt, 270, Strand. 1862. “ Spiritualism and Animal Magnetism.” Third Edition. London: Hardwicke and Bogue, 192, Piccadilly. 1876. “ A manual of the Historical Development of Art: Pre-historic, Ancient, Classic, and Early Christian.” London: Hardwicke and Bogue, 192, Piccadilly. 1876. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Christianity : third part. Monasticism and scholasticism; inventions and discoveries; faith and science; hebraism and hellenism, being a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St George's, Langham Place, on Sunday 20th November 1881 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Zerffi, G. G. (Gustavus George) Sunday Lecture Society Description An account of the resource Dr. G. G. Zerffi discusses a variety of topics in the third part of his series of lectures on the history of Christianity, including the influence of Heathenism, the Crusades and the Reformation. Place of publication: London Collation: 22, [2] p. ; 18 cm Notes: A list of the Society's lectures listed p. 22 and the following unnumbered page. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Sunday Lecture Society Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1881 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G3433 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <strong><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></strong><br />This work (Christianity : third part. Monasticism and scholasticism; inventions and discoveries; faith and science; hebraism and hellenism, being a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, St George's, Langham Place, on Sunday 20th November 1881), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions. 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 Christianity Christianity https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/026c3b9dfe33615a2ef8e63376c11aaa.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=Gp-kI9rULQlqOqj3qp96ZxORx5vYZ3BrsD9-3ALXMYyZqfxDr-gv55NtU7pJrVJCaNgoQvxWV6wj0njeqeAKZsBBrV8MELpXfibtGbiC%7EvDFqQ4ZPBEwN7DcRQBc5T7r3au0Q1Y%7E0R-6q4RF8p%7EZ2X01Ufu5XKl3Gr5MXTYp2Gs-ksMuqOSW6nhpIqnmnQU4IMWPnYzMNdwDO-1yQhTn7p8hcbdUtQJqikRtHgPvHfUdUP92cg3XQRPzFQG25rT%7EnFzgzabgHM2KaoZIFz-Y%7EKsr4zuhZ4Nn5m-%7EUONmNvlJuTz1GRAJYy5Oxj5E5BaxO9MhFl9rNRfvFGpquxyXnw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM a48cc30f0b4c2cf2243ae783c3cfd858 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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource What must I do to be saved? Description An account of the resource Edition: 3rd ed. Place of publication: Leek Collation: 88 p. ; 13 cm. Series title: Bijou reprints Series number: No. 1 Notes: Extensively annotated in pencil and ink. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available John Barrs Michael Wright Philip Wright W. Larner Sugden Josiah Gimson Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1881 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G5774 Subject The topic of the resource Religion 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 (What must I do to be saved?), 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 Salvation https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/22a6a75d9dc8ef1e3a5dc4accfe99361.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=TAWai0j3IZlQNHRSJNZ00ZkVzToYg9Fwj03KzcBdlfr79z5JrPaKm-aoSKujP2E1UEKSUNOrPPTugy6CKh8lRfeS95K0ETThDp6IjaYNytZmOzSevyl-nTDuqj4whlKIeuSKBnfmDaVwkJuh8i0OaabnOoJJ02ONMHM46gV92FA%7E4YGyePqkfynvgFvH0d-etxUSfOSzH7RPWcSbQCIQP66Vy-KJwIvV1HJMoTgThSwsbB4CEIO1Le7ipD9fGNrg5jwc%7Ed%7EK-Rj%7E-Klep8XA5VBdZJ%7ER7Iku7S8nFceEpeovBm3wHdCDmRZe4Be1Vgqjdb2iP2qcL2Ibt7c%7E3CqIdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 3b29585fd9ee8d276c29e34f98527535 PDF Text Text 7 4 OS THE TEXT-BOOK OF DEMOCRACY. ENGLAND FOR ALL. BY H. M. HYNDMAN. DEDICATED TO THE DEMOCRATIC AND WORKING MENS CLUBS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. Mention: E. W. ALLEN, 4, AVE MARIA LANE, 1881. \_All rights reserved.^ E.C. �8 g' nr �PREFACE TO CHEAP EDITION. DURING the past three months I have been fre­ quently asked by working men and working women to publish a cheap edition of this little work. This I have now done at a price which will bring it within reach of all. The cordial reception accorded to the first edition by the producing classes, whose interests it was written to serve, leads me to hope that the plain statement of the wrongs under which they suffer may induce them to combine for their own cause. H. M. H. September 12th, 1881. io, Devonshire Street, Portland Place, London, W. �PREFACE. In this changeful period, when the minds of men are much troubled about the future, and many seem doubtful whither we are bound, I have attempted to suggest for the Democratic party in this country a clear and definite policy. The views expressed in this little work do not, I am aware, accord with the commonly received politics and economy of the day. Holding, as I do, strong opinions as to the capacity of the great English-speaking democracies to take the lead in the social reorganization of the future, I think it right to state them, and to show at the same time how seriously the working people suffer under our present landlord and capitalist system. From the luxurious classes, as a whole, I expect little support. They have plenty of writers ready to champion their cause. To the people alone I appeal, and their approval will be my reward. It was for the Democratic Federation that I originally wrote this book, and I present to its members the first copies to-day. For the ideas and much of the matter contained in Chapters II. and III., I am indebted to the work of a great thinker and original writer, which will, I trust, shortly be made accessible to the majority of my countrymen. H. M. H. June Zth, 1881. io, Devonshire Street, Portland Place, London, W. �CONTENTS. PAGE Introduction . . ’.................................................................................................................... i CHAPTER I. .7 .............................................................. The Land CHAPTER II. ........... 32 Labour CHAPTER III. Capital . 65 ................................................................. CHAPTER IV. Organization................................................................................... CHAPTER V. Ireland............................................................................................ .... CHAPTER VI. Indta....................................................................... e . . 131 CHAPTER VII. The Colonies.................................................................................. 132 CHAPTER VIII. Foreign Affairs......................................................................... 169 Conclusion • 193 �■» ”>J '• �ENGLAND FOR ALL. INTRODUCTION. It is impossible to survey our modern society without at once seeing that there is something seriously amiss in the conditions of our every-day life. All may indeed lament the inequalities around them, the wasted wealth and excessive luxury of the rich, the infinite misery and degradation of the poor. So clear is the mischief which results from causes apparently beyond control, that now and then a paroxysm of self-reproach seizes upon the comfortable classes, and they try some new-fangled scheme of charity to remedy the ills which, for the moment, they think must be due to them. But this temporary feeling is very short-lived. The conditions of human existence are said to be unchangeable by collective, far less by individual, action, and religion is often called in to justify the let-alone policy which is so far the most convenient to the well-to-do. Possibly, however, a change is at hand. In Eng­ land as elsewhere, ideas in these days move fast. That disgust with both the political parties in the State which has long been felt by the more intelligent of B �2 ENGLAND FOR ALL. the working-class—that rooted impression that men in broadcloth, no matter how they label themselves, are banded together, in spite of their pledges at the polls, to keep the men in fustian from their fair share of the enjoyments of life, is spreading now from the abler men to the less far-sighted. More and more clear is it becoming to our people that their interest in politics is something which, if fully understood, lies far deeper than that of their daily or weekly wage. “ We working men,” said one, “ shall never know our real interest in politics till the mother teaches the truth about them to her childand this phrase by itself happily shows that a very different view of the duty of the community to all is growing up from that indifference and sluggishness which have hitherto checked progress. How could it be otherwise ? Is it conceivable that the men who make the wealth of the country will permanently be satisfied with a sys­ tem which shuts them out for ever from all interest in their own land ? that they will be content to live from hand to mouth on the strength of mere phrases, and that they will always consent to be deprived of their due share of representation ? They are indeed shortsighted who so suppose. Now therefore it be­ comes necessary that people of all classes who desire that our existing society should be peacefully modified should be content to examine, a little more deeply than heretofore, into the present state of things. This, so far as the wealthy are concerned, from the most selfish point of view ; for there is nothing here in the eternal fitness of things. The evolution of mankind will not stand still, in order that landowners �INTRODUCTION. 3 and capitalists may continue their present leisurely existence, or that the well-to-do generally may regard the sufferings of the toilers as of small account. Such poverty as now exists is not an inseparable accom­ paniment of human society ; neither is such excessive concentration of wealth an incentive to human pro­ gress. The gospel of greed and selfishness, of cor­ ruption and competition, now proclaimed as the only means of social salvation, is seen to be false in its principles, and baneful in its results. This furious development of wealth, on which we sometimes con­ gratulate ourselves, has done little to elevate, and much to lower, the tone even of the classes which have benefited by it. What has it done for the working class ? Never at any period in our history were the many who work and the few who live upon their labour so wide apart, socially and politically, as they are to-day ; ’’never—and this is becoming in itself serious—has there been such a general sensation of uneasiness without any immediate cause. Yet who can wonder that uneasiness there should be ? Political reforms have done very little for our people. Periods of flash prosperity, speedily followed by depression which pinches and starves even the best artisan class ; education progressing so slowly that still another generation will be suffered to grow up instructed enough only to be ignorant ; overcrowded insanitary dwellings permitted to continue, and paid for at an exorbitant price because this is to the benefit of the classes who trade upon the necessities of their fellows ; vast monopolies encouraged and overwork scarcely checked,—here we have the boasted freedom B 2 �4 ENGLAND FOR ALL. of the latter half of the nineteenth century. The very champions of free trade as the universal panacea are themselves driven to confess that, true though their theory is, it has not produced the social effect they predicted.1 The rich have grown richer ; but the poor —their condition is but little bettered, and relatively has gone back. Our civilization is in many respects but an organized hypocrisy, filming over as ulcerous places below as ever disgraced the worst periods of past history. But there is something more than hypocrisy or indifference to account for the crying evils of our great cities, and the miserable poverty and bad lodgment which degrade our agricultural popu­ lation. More general causes than any which individuals can right, are at work. Private enterprise has been tried and found wanting : laissez-faire has had its day. Slowly the nation is learning that the old hack argu­ ments of “ supply and demand,” “ freedom of con­ tract,” “ infringement of individual liberty/’ are but so many bulwarks of vested interests, which inflict misery on the present, and deterioration on the next, generation, in the name of a pseudo-science of govern1 Two professors of the straitest sect of economic orthodoxy, Mr. Henry Fawcett and Mr. Thorold Rogers, are of the same opinion on this point. Free trade is undeniably true in theory, but they agree that it has benefited the poor very little in comparison with the enormous wealth it has given to the rich. Free Trade lowers the price of the necessaries of life ; but it also keeps wages lower than they otherwise would be. It would be easy to show that the working'classes owe all the improvement that has been made in their condition, not to free trade, but to combination among themselves, and to legislation carried directly in the teeth of the most violent opposition from the leaders of the free trade party. �introduction. 5 merit. Bad as is the education of the majority of Englishmen compared with what it ought to be, they have learnt enough to be dissatisfied with arrange­ ments which, when more ignorant, they might have accepted as inevitable. Of the sufferings which the real producers of this great industrial community undergo, the comfortable classes hear but little. They barely talk of their troubles to their most intimate friends. The natural inclination of Englishmen is to bear in silence. Hitherto many have found consola­ tion in religion, which held out to them the prospect of happiness hereafter in return for sorrow and misery here. That resource is now failing, and the bolder spirits—it is useless to blink plain truths—openly deride those “ drafts on eternity ” which they say are issued solely in the interest of employers and rich men. Their own ills nevertheless they may bear: that they will consent to hand on the same lot to their children is very unlikely. The day for private charity and galling patronage is at an end ; the time for com­ bination and political action in redress of social wrongs is at hand. Such changes as are needed may be gradual, but they must be rapid. In England, fortunately, we have a long political history to lead up to our natural development, the growth of a great nation such as ours has its effect on all portions of the people. Patriotism is part of our heritage ; self-restraint neces­ sarily comes from the exercise of political power. Even the poorest are ready to accept the assurance of real reform, rather than listen to those who would urge them to resort in desperation to violent change. �6 ENGLAND FOR ALL. Yet these reforms must in the end be far more thorough than the enthusiasts of compromise, and the fanatics of moderation are ready to admit. Hitherto there has been patience, because all have hoped for the best. But longer delay is not only harmful but dangerous. We are ready enough to talk about justice to others. Greeks, Slavs, Bulgars, Boers, Negroes, are ever appealing to our sense of what is due to the oppressed. Let the people of these islands, without despising others, now be just to themselves. If the theories now gaining ground all over the Continent, as well as here with us, are to be met peace­ fully, and turned to the advantage of all, the necessary change of front can no longer be delayed. The State, as the organized common-sense of public opinion, must step in, regardless of greed or prejudice, to regu­ late that nominal individual freedom which simply strengthens the domination of the few. Thus only shall the England of whose past we all are proud, and of whose future all are confident, clear herself from that shortsighted system which now stunts the physi­ cal and intellectual growth of the great majority, knit together the great democracies near and far under our flag, and deal out to our dependencies a full measure of that justice which alone can secure for us and for ours the leadership in the social reorganization which will be our greatest claim to respect and remembrance from countless generations of the human race. �THE LAND. 7 CHAPTER I. THE LAND. POSSESSION of the land is a matter of such supreme importance to the liberty and well-being of Englishmen, that the only marvel is not that there should be a growing agitation on the subject to-day, but that the nation should ever have been content to bear patiently the monopoly which has been created during the past 300 years. It affords indeed a strange commen­ tary upon the history of human progress, that we have to look back more than 400 years to the period when the mass of the people of these islands were in their most prosperous and wholesome condition. In those middle ages which our school-books still speak of as days of darkness and ignorance, the great body of Englishmen were far better off in every way than they are now. The men who fought in the French wars, and held their own against every Conti­ nental army, were sober, hardworking yeomen and life-holders, who were ready to pay for their victories out of their own pockets, instead of saddling their descendants with a perpetual mortgage in the shape of a huge national debt. They owned the soil and lived out of it, and having secured for themselves �8 ENGLAND FOR ALL. power at home and freedom by their own firesides, they kept them. The fifteenth century was the golden age of agri­ cultural England. Villenage had disappeared ; the country—far more populous at that time than is commonly supposed—was occupied and cultivated by free men, who tilled their own lands, subject only to light dues payable to feudal superiors. Such daylabourers as there were, lived in perfect freedom, owned plots of land themselves, and shared in the enormous common land which then lay free and open to all. Landless, houseless families were almost unknown, permanent pauperism was undreamt of. The feudal lords who maintained around them crowds of retainers were at this time merely the heads of a free, prosperous society, which recognized them as their natural leaders alike in war and peace. Notwith­ standing, or rather by reason of the great subdivision of land, the wealth of the bulk of the people was extraordinary. They were their own masters, and could speak their own minds freely to all ; the degrading servility of the agricultural labourer of to­ day had not appeared to take the place of the thraldom of the old serfs. No description ever given of any people shows a more prosperous set of men than the Englishmen of that time. Their sturdy freedom was based upon property and good living. “ The King of England cannot alter the laws or make new ones without the express consent of the whole kingdom in Parliament assembled. Every inhabitant is at his liberty fully to use and enjoy whatever his farm produceth, the fruits of the earth, �THE LAND. 9 the increase of his flock, and the like ; all the improve­ ment he makes, whether by his own proper industry or of those he retains in his service, are his own to use and to enjoy without the let, interruption, or denial of any. If he be in any wise injured or oppressed, he shall have amends and satisfactions against the party offending. Hence it is that the inhabitants are rich in gold, silver, and in all the necessaries and conveniences of life. They drink no water, unless at certain times, and by the way of doing penance. They are fed in great abundance with all sorts of flesh and fish, of which they have plenty everywhere; they are clothed throughout in good woollens ; their bedding and other furniture in their houses are of wool, and that in great store. They are also pro­ vided with all other sorts of household goods, and necessary implements for husbandry. Every one according to his rank hath all things which conduce to make life easy and happy.” This was merrie England, in short—merrie, that is, for Englishmen as a whole, not merely for the landlords and capitalists at the top, who live in ease on the fruits of their labour. For a day-labourer, a plain, unskilled hand—with his geese, and sheep, and cow on the common—could then get something for his day’s work. That of course is the real test of the comfort and well-being of the mass of the people, at all periods and under all governments —what food and what clothing a man can get for so many days’ work. A common day-labourer, then, in the fifteenth century could earn a fat sheep by four days’ work, a fat ox by twenty days’ work, and a fat hog two years old by �IO ENGLAND FOR ALL. twelve days’ work. Clothing he could obtain on at least equally good terms. His own labour for others and on his own plot supplied him and his family well with all “ the necessaries and conveniences of life?’ Those even of the poorer sort lived upon beef, pork, veal, and mutton every day. There is no dispute about this. There are the recorded lists of prices for food, drink, and raiment, the rates paid in parish after parish for unskilled labour. Men so different as Cobbett and Fawcett, Thornton and Rogers, are all agreed on these points. They are of one mind, that the working agriculturist of the fifteenth century was a well-to-do free man. How do our present agricultural labourers figure in comparison ? How much of such fare as that given above are hired labourers on ten and twelve shillings a week likely to get, and what sort of houses do they too often inhabit ? We all can judge of that, even if the reports of Agricultural Commissions were not at hand to tell us. The agricultural labourer of to-day is a mere pauper beside his ancestor of 400 years ago, who probably owned the land out of which the landowner and the farmer now permit his descendant to work a scanty subsistence which barely enables him to taste meat once a month. His wages are shameful and his cottage a disgrace. What is the reason then of all this increasing penury, accompanied in rural districts by an astounding decrease of population ? Unques­ tionably the entire removal of the people from the land is the chief cause of the mischief. Those yeomen and free farmers, and fat well-fed labourers, who secured for us those liberties which of late years have been �THE LAND. 11 made such surprisingly little use ofwere turned out, and the history of how it was done, and how our present hand-to-mouth population was formed, is not a plea­ sant tale. The mass of men have now no real freedom either in country or town, because the land has been taken by the great landholders and never yet restored to the nation at large. Thus the sense of property, of ownership, individual or collective, is done away. From our own land still comes the bulk of the wealth of the country, the food, the ores, the coal, which enable us to hold our own, and get a return from other parts of the world. But the workers who do this for England have no part nor lot in their country of to­ day. They own nothing but their bare right to compete with their fellows in the labour-market. Who can fail in such circumstances to recall these stirring words ? “ Freedom is not an empty sound ; it is not an abstract idea ; it is not a thing that nobody can feel. It means, and it means nothing else, the full and quiet enjoyment of your own property. If you have not this—if this be not well secured to you, you may call yourself what you will, but you are a slave. Now our forefathers took special care upon this car­ dinal point. They suffered neither- kings nor parliaments to touch their property without cause clearly shown. They did not read newspapers, they did not talk about debates, they had no taste for ‘ mental enjoyments but they thought hunger and thirst great evils, and they never suffered anybody to put them on cold potatoes and water. They looked upon bare bones and rags as indubitable marks of slavery; and they never failed to resist any attempt �12 ENGLAND FOR ALL. to affix these marks upon them.” And we too hold much the same opinions, we too regard pauperism and destitution as disgraces to a free country. But unfortunately this generation, and others before it, have grown up to think such “ indubitable marks of slavery ” unavoidable, and hold that land should rightfully belong in perpetuity to the handful of men who drove the mass of the population from the soil, or who bought from the descendants of those who did. But the life of a nation like ours outlasts all such temporary troubles ; its rights, though long in abeyance, are never done away. The truth that the land of England belongs to the people of England is coming home to men of all classes ; and the best proof that our existing system will no longer be borne with contentment is that the historical wrong which has been done is daily more and more considered. That revolution which supplied England with a bountiful succession of paupers, and laid the founda­ tion of landlordism in the country, and of capitalism in the towns commenced in the last quarter of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth. After the wars of the Roses had impoverished the nobility, the dismissalof numerous baronial households launched upon the country a whole horde of landless people, without house or home. These unfortunates had no place whatever in society as it then existed, and became at once mere vagrants and competitors for all sorts of chance employments. But for the monasteries and other religious establishments their condition would have been far worse than it was. Even these outcasts, however, might have been �THE LAND. 13 gradually absorbed; but about the same time the great nobles, who were at variance with the crown and the parliament, set to work to restore their fortunes by turning out the peasant owners, who under the feudal law had at least as good a title as their own to their holdings. Such raids were followed up by encroach­ ments on the common lands, which the labourers depended upon for depasturing their animals. Ac­ companying these robberies also was a steady conver­ sion of arable land into pasture, on the ground that more was to be gained by feeding sheep than men —a contention which has of late been put forward also in Scotland, Ireland, and in newly-settled coun­ tries. To compete profitably in the wool-markets of Flanders was more important than to maintain a race of independent peasant farmers. These changes worked a deplorable deterioration in the condition of the mass of the people. The number of the agricultural population who could find employ­ ment in the old way rapidly lessened. Even now, with our improved methods of cultivation, and laboursaving machinery, arable land will employ more than twice as many men as pasture—and raise more beasts, for that matter, as well. But in those days the pro­ portion was probably far larger. At any rate, numbers were thrown out of employment in that way. So serious did all this become that Henry VII. and his Parliament made constant efforts to check the rapacious and harmful action of the barons ; but un­ fortunately to little purpose. The people were more and more interfered with, and depopulating enclosures were going on regularly. Laws were even framed of �14 ENGLAND FOR ALL. the most stringent character to prevent ejection of the peasants and the destruction of their houses. All without effect. The landless class still increased, and more and more people became dependent on others for support. Henry VII., a great though penurious monarch, saw clearly that the welfare of the mass of his subjects, not the inordinate wealth and aggran­ dizement of the few, constituted the real strength of his kingdom, however much he might attempt to fleece them by monopolies out of part of their sub­ stance. He was anxious therefore to keep the land in the hands of the small owners, who were really the bone and sinew of the country. Even the daylabourer received consideration, and was secured by the laws four acres of land to his cottage. But the process of expropriation went relentlessly on not­ withstanding, and had already produced a serious effect. But the confiscation of the lands of the monasteries, and priories, and nunneries, at the time of the Reformation, was a far graver blow to the welfare of the people. Carried out with a shameless disregard for the rights and privileges of the people, by the most violent and despotic monarch who ever sat on the English throne, this was the greatest injury inflicted on the poor which our history records. The property of the Catholic Church, though not always well administered, was in reality at the service of the poor and needy. Whatever might be urged against abbots and friars, pauperism was then unknown. The celibate parish priests had small expenses, and the land they held was held, it may almost be said, in trust for the �THE LAND. 15 people. The yeomen and labourers on their estates, never disturbed or interfered with from generation to generation, were a prosperous, vigorous folk. Besides, the service of the Church was almost the only career, except successful murder, by which a poor lad might in those days rise to the highest dignities of the State. Prelates and monks were founders of our noblest schools of learning. They were, however, swept away, their goods seized, and the lands taken from the people, to be held by the king or given to his favourites. Parlia­ ment then, as later, was bribed to sanction illegal and improper action, by which many of its members largely profited. King and barons were once more knit together in that happy participation in plunder which has been the surest bond of union between monarchs and aristocrats all over the world. Thus the poor who had ever obtained ready relief from the Church, the wayfarers who could always find food and shelter in the religious houses, the children of the people who repaired to the convent for guidance and teaching, were deprived at one fell swoop of alms, shelter, and schools. When, however, the monasteries were thus destroyed, and their lands confiscated for the benefit of the King and the aristocracy, not only was almost the last hold of the English people on their own soil torn off, but the monks and nuns, priests and friars, were turned loose upon the world to swell the ranks of the have-nots. The shiftless hand-to-mouth class thus grew with fearful rapidity. The whole country was overrun with loafers and vagrants, deprived of the means of living by no fault of their own. Not even �ENGLAND FOR ALL. the most atrocious laws could keep them within limits, though they drove them into the towns, and into the power of the shopkeeping class, now gaining strength. Paupers being thus numerous, in the 43rd year of Elizabeth—who had resumed all the confiscated lands —a Poor Law was passed ; and from that time to this pauperism has formed as integral a portion of our social constitution as the aristocracy who created the necessity for the law. How could it be otherwise? The landed rights of the many had been sacrificed to the greed of the few; and confiscation, really put in force to bolster up luxury and selfishness, was carried on in the name of religion. Between the fifteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century the whole face of England had been changed. In place of well-being, contentmenf, and general prosperity, as described by Fortescue? depression and misery had become the common lot of the people who owned no land. The mere wage-earner took the place of the labouring, petty farmer—a man at the mercy of his employer. For the fine old yeoman class fell more and more into decrepitude, and the downfall of the ecclesiastical property pre­ ceded their own final ruin by but a short interval. Yet even so late as the end of the seventeenth cen­ tury eighty per cent, of the population of England was still purely agricultural. By the middle of the eighteenth century there was scarcely a yeoman of the old type left in a county. The Stuarts were bad enough, but William III. was worse than any of his immediate predecessors. This great Whig hero treated England as if he had con? �The land. 17 quered it in respect to all he could lay hands upon, and gave away lands he had no right whatever to dispose of to his thick-headed and greedy Dutch followers. Their descendants prey upon us to this hour, though, with the exception of Lord William Bentinck, not a single one of them has been of the slightest genuine service to the State whose land they have seized, or has illustrated our history even by a crime. All this long series of robberies from the people, helped on by economical causes, ended in an aggregation of property and influence in a few hands to an extent never before equalled. It was followed by an enclosure of the common lands of a character even more nefarious. Parliament, made up almost exclusively of landowners, and in no sense whatever representative of the mass of the people, framed bill after bill for the enclosure of the commons, which alone were left to show that the soil of England had formerly been looked upon as the property of the great majority. No man, not a land­ lord, can read through the records of this disgraceful pillage even now without a feeling of furious bitter­ ness. Nothing more shameful is told in the long tale of class greed than this of the seizure of the common lands by the upper and middle classes of Great Britain. To deprive the people of their last vestige of independent holding, and thus to force all to become mere hand-to-mouth wage-earners at the mercy of the growing capitalist class, such was the practical effect of these private enactments, conceived in iniquity, and executed in injustice. For up to so recent a date as 1845 these enclosures were done by private bill, and c �ENGLAND FOR ALL. of course exclusively in private interest. There was no public discussion whatever ; rich men who coveted a few thousand acres of common which belonged to their poorer neighbours, simply laid hands upon them and added them to their estate. Fierce pro­ tests were often made in the neighbourhood, but they were invariably unavailing. In the course of 150 years, between 1700 and 1845, no fewer than 7,000,000 acres of public land, and probably a great deal more, were enclosed by the landowners of England in Parliament assembled, without one halfpenny of real compensation ever having been made to the public whose rights were thus ridden over. At that time, be it remarked, the people of England—but shabbily represented now—had practically no voice in public affairs at all, and such a man as Sir Robert Walpole just “ ran the machine ” in the sole interest of his class, for all the world like a Pennsylvanian log-roller or wire-puller of our own day. Not even scraps of those great and valuable common lands remain in some districts to remind the English people of the robberies that have been committed upon them. Even since the introduction of public bills to regu­ late these enclosures matters were, until quite lately, very little better. A wealthy landgrabber would purchase land all round a common, and then stealthily get it enclosed on some shallow pretext. This occurred over and over again. The hard fight which such a body as the Corporation of the City of London had to wage in order to keep for the people of London what remnant there is of Epping Forest, shows the pertinacity with which individual selfishness �THE LAND. 19 works on. Conservatives and Liberals who stand up for the ancient and indefeasible rights of property at the expense of others should look into these things. The very people who ate up the whole country away from their countrymen and make land a monopoly, cry out fiercely that they are being ill-used and robbed when an attempt is made to reassert some small portion of the rights of the nation over that which is, and always has been, the property of the nation—the land of England. What sort of title have many of them to their lands ? Let them answer who made the laws which gave the eternal right to harm the people. Why, they themselves and their fathers before them. None other. The owners of the land had no voice ; violence, wrong, and fraud weigh still upon the country. But there need be no fear for those who profited by these encroachments. The people are never unjust, even in their own interest: they pay to get back their simplest rights. The effect of this seizure of the commons upon the rural population has been most sad. Their condition, never very flourishing since they were deprived of individual ownership, became yet worse. But I will quote a calm writer, who is fully convinced of the beneficial effects of supply and demand, and freedom of contract:—“ Many of the descendants of those who once possessed valuable rights of common are agricul­ tural labourers, to whose miserable condition allusion has already been made. Our rural population has been deprived of that which once gave a most impor­ tant addition to their income. The common often enabled them to keep some poultry, a pig, and a cow. C 2 �20 ENGLAND FOR ALE Many villages may now be traversed, and not a single labourer can be found possessing a head of poultry; few even keep a pig, and not one in 10,000 has a cow. What is the result of this ? The labourer does not live as he did 100 years since; he and his family seldom taste meat, and his children suffer cruelly from the difficulty he has in obtaining milk for them.” This, indeed, is a matter of common consent. The agricultural labourer is far worse off than his fore­ fathers. But if the people have, been deprived of their commons, so also have their plots of ground to their ill-drained, overcrowded cottages disappeared. They make them too “independent.” No property, low diet, a pretence of education, and enforced servility to their “ betters ”—that was the way to bring down the “ proud peasantry ” from their high looks of the fifteenth century to the abasement of a ten-shilling-aweek agricultural labourer, ever begging for some dole out of the fruits of his own labour to be given back to him, from the Hall, the Rectory, or the poor­ house. This kept him “ in that state of life ” which the Church Catechism enjoins upon the lowly. No agricultural labourer, it needs hardly be said, has ever yet sat in the House of Commons to represent the wrongs of his class. These unfortunate families, deprived of their own land and ousted from their common lands, became, as we have seen, fair game for the most abominable legislation. The laws against vagrants and men out of work were ferocious and brutal, to a degree scarcely to be credited until they were actually revived in America the othei' day. By these means they came �THE LAND. 21 into the towns, where, refused the right to combine, and wholly destitute of means, they were delivered over to a form of tyranny the more trying from its being carried on under the name of freedom. The very idea that the unfortunate had a definite interest in the country was done away. The poor were only not criminal. And this feeling grew among the dominant class with the growth of that shopkeeper spirit which has been paramount with English parties, to the almost entire exclusion of any sense of justice to the bulk of the community. The few landowners of genuine old family who still remain, and who, one would have thought, would look back with pride to the times when their ancestors were the leaders of well-to-do free men, have been as bad as the rest. They have thought that their duties, such as they were, began and ended with their tenantry. If the labourers received a small pittance in charity after having worked their lives through on starvation wages, that was as much as they could expect. The eternal law of supply and demand justified meat once a fortnight, and short commons all the year round. There stood the workhouse: what more could the people want ? But now what has been the outcome to us of to-day of all these uncompensated expropriations in Eng­ land—of the ducal razzias like those of the Dukes of Sutherland and Argyll in Scotland (the latter worthy peer naturally standing out with his fellow Liberal of Lansdowne in favour of the perpetuation of serfdom in Ireland)—what do we of the present generation derive from all this long succession of �22 ENGLAND FOR ALL. past iniquities ? Nothing is easier than to sum it all up. We have then a great body of landowners, 2000 of whom alone hold actually 38,000,000 acres of our land in estates of over 5000 acres each, the total agricultural rental of this vast domain being not less than 25,000,000/. annually. The whole of the agricul­ tural land in the kingdom is practically owned by less than 30,000 persons ; and not all the systematic fudging resorted to in the Landlord’s Return, known as the <l New Doomsday Book,” has been able to shake that fact out of the minds of the people of England. In that book Lord Overstone—formerly Mr. Jones, a banker of enormous wealth, who turned landgrabber after the manner of his kind—the Duke of Buccleuch, and the Duke of Devonshire are put forward as thirty-three different owners. This is only a specimen of how the truth is blinked and covered up by those who are interested in hiding it away from their countrymen. And this monstrous monopoly the landowners, and the big capitalists who hope to be landowners, and their friends and relations the lawyers, who live upon the complications of the laws they themselves have formulated, are now striving to per­ petuate. Not to speak of the injurious consequences politi­ cally of such a concentration of excessive wealth and power in a few hands, the economical drawbacks stare us in the face. Men who own half-a-dozen large pro­ perties in several different counties must be permanent absentees from some of them. They take the rents and spend them elsewhere, being themselves the heaviest of all the burdens on the land. The majority �THE LAND. 23 of landowners cannot do justice to the land they have taken even in their own narrowest sense. Cumbered up with mortgages, settlements, rent-charges, heaven knows what, they are in no case to face a great fall in rents, to encounter competition from without, or to bring to bear that skill, labour and personal attention now essential to success in agriculture. The sacred trinity of landlord, capitalist-farmer, and agricultural labourer has broken up. The labourer can be screwed no lower, the farmer has had enough of giving his capital to the landlord as rent. American “ wheat centres” have proved clearly that landlords are not an essential element in English agricultural production. A great change is therefore at hand. Agricultural ex­ perts aver with confidence that if the land of England were properly handled, if sufficient labour and manure were applied, we could profitably produce twice the quantity of food we do from the existing cultivated acreage. What stops us ? Unquestionably that de­ termination of landowners to bold on to their false idea of greatness, and to those miserable customs of settlement and entail which will necessarily be put an end to as a wider and more useful method of dealing with our soil opens up before us. Happily the land­ lords are themselves beginning to feel the pinch, and may lead the way in the reforms which have now become essential. If they don’t it is no great matter ; for sooner or later the people of England mean to have back the land, and the sooner the better for the interest of the landlords themselves. For let it be remembered that the dominant classes have done more than take the land ; by their Parlia­ �24 ENGLAND FOR ALL. ments they have actually shuffled on to the shoulders of the mass of the people nearly all the taxes and obligations which formerly came out of their rents as a portion for the State and the poor. Laws enacted by men for their own benefit in direct contravention of the tenure on which the lands were originally taken have no binding force whatsoever on posterity. Yet the landowners of Great Britain were formerly subject to a land-tax of four shillings in the pound on their assessment. This they have whittled away almost to nothing, and now the land-tax under their skilful manipulation, produces but 1,074,919/., instead of 18,802,337/. as it ought. That is to say, the landowners of Great Britain put into their pockets a sum of little less than 18,000,000/., which, but for their own self­ gratifying ordinances would, according to the old laws of this kingdom, have gone into the treasury of the country at large. No wonder that our privileged classes and their hangers-on howl “confiscation/ “ communism,” “ socialism,” and words more English and less nice, when any fearless man begins to rake up the history of their “ sacrifices ” to patriotism. True patriots they ; for be it understood They robb’d their country for their country’s good 1 But this is not all either. Agricultural property is well enough in its way, but the mines, all that under­ lies the soil has fallen also into the grip of the small minority, and it is impossible to get a bill through Parliament which will even compel the owners to protect the lives of the men who work in them. The miners should know their place, and have power to �THE LAND. “ contract out of the Act.” What matters the risk of loss of life ? Then the urban properties, again, with their vast unearned increment of rent, and the power given to individuals to obstruct improvements whilst they benefit by the expenditure of the public money or railroads carried through by the decision of Parlia­ ment. What, in the name of all that is reasonable, have Grosvenors or Bentincks done for England that they and theirs should interfere for ever with the management of London, and pocket increasing rents which, if exacted at all, should go to the munici­ pality which must shortly be created for this great metropolis, and benefit the whole community ? Is it well that millions should be spent on the Thames embankment, for instance, and that landowners should pocket thousands a year by the improvement of their property ? These are points which come home to all, and must, ere long, force on a change. Such enormous revenues as those which were squandered in digging catacombs in Welbeck Park, or laid out in providing Westminster with a dukedom, ought not to be at the unrestrained disposal of any single family. For no idea whatever of duty is attached to these great pos­ sessions ; and artisans’ dwellings, or a market, in a fashionable locality might “damage the property,” and so are warned off. How is it that the landowners themselves, or such at least as come fairly by their property, do not see that their political future depends upon recognizing the vast changes going on beneath them, and endeavour to associate themselves with the future of their country ? Their object, one would think, would �26 ENGLAND FOR ALL. necessarily be to meet and guide that flow of demo­ cratic opinion which manifestly precedes a new social evolution. To stand on the brink and wring their hands in dismay is both cowardly and foolish. For in a small, densely-peopled country like ours the whole hangs together—land in country and land in towns, mines, communications, all go to make up the complicated system under which we live. But agricultural land of necessity stands first. Mr. Clare Read, the farmer, says that all will come right, and that twenty-five years or so hence the territorial grandee will rise again to the enjoyment of his unearned increment, the farmer shall be a man of wealth and substance, and the agricultural labourer—well, what tenant-farmer ever thinks about him ? Landlord-made laws must undergo revision in the interests of the landlords themselves, but far more for the sake of the mass of their countrymen now dissociated altogether from the land. It is humiliating to look back fifty years, and note how little has been done since the able band of democratic writers, headed by Cobbett, first forcibly pointed out the historical injuries from which Englishmen are still suffering. As it was yesterday, so it is to-day; but so shall it not be to-morrow. The importance of the Land Question in England is now fully understood by the inhabitants of the counties as well as of the towns, and up to a certain point a vast majority will combine to over­ throw the existing system, which lies like a dead weight upon it. When we come to the direction in which changes should be made, however, the widest differences arise. �THE LAND. Some seem to imagine that mere free trade in land, even without the plan of compulsory subdivision, would bring about the planting of the people on the land ; others look upon the removal of settlement and entail as only preliminary to nationalisation, in the sense that by limitation of the right of inheritance and compulsory purchase at a valuation, the State, the county, or the municipality should come into the possession of all land within a calculable period. All depends upon what we desire to bring about. Many ardent reformers look forward to the day when English farmers shall hold their ten, twenty, fifty-acre farms, interspersed with larger holdings, as in former times. Is this to be done? Can we thus put back the clock 400 years ? It would scarcely seem so ; yet on the whole it should appear that small farmers who depend chiefly on their own labour for their return have suffered less in all parts of the country, and have been readier to pay rent, than the large. In America also, the unincumbered farmer holding no large extent of land fared on the whole better than his wealthier neighbour, who was growing not for produce so much as for profit. The main object necessarily is to get as much out of the land as possible, and at the same time to secure the agricultural labourer, and those of the townspeople who take to the land, a fair return for their labour, and a prospect of obtaining possession of land if they desire to do so. Evidently the labourer and the townsman will gain nothing by giving the farmers in England fixity of tenure, nor by freetrade in land. All evidence goes to show, however, �28 ENGLAND FOL ALL. that even under present conditions the more secure the tenure, in an increasing ratio up to freehold, the better on the whole the farming, until the limit of acreage is reached where the owner thinks he can afford to lie by and make an income by letting to others. But the present tenants would be no better employers as owners, or tenants on a permanent settlement, than they are now; the agricultural labourer who really does the work would still get his ten and twelve shillings a week, his cottage would be equally destitute of garden. On the other hand, if the capitalists came in, does their behaviour in the large cities make us very hopeful of what would take place under their management in the country ? These are difficulties which-at once arise in any scheme of individual im­ provement. Even the virtual limitation of the amount of land which may be held by any individual by means of cumulative taxation—the only fair taxation by the way—might not give the labourer on the land that independence which would enable him to hold his own. What the better, in short, would the mass of the population be for any of the reforms proposed ? Granting that twofold would be produced, would the labourers or the urban population get a greater share of it ? No doubt the diminution of the absurd social influence attaching to the ownership of land would have a great effect in lowering its value to a mere idler, espe­ cially if the game laws are speedily repealed. But all this does not help the man who does the work for ten and twelve shillings a week to get some fair portion of the fruits of his labour—to secure a decent home, a plot of ground, least of all a small farm. What is �tltE LAND. being done for Ireland, then, ought on a larger scale to be done here; though unfortunately want of educa­ tion and knowledge cripples the present generation, and they have been more completely uprooted from the soil than even the Irish. We are manifestly here, as elsewhere, in a transi­ tion period. The stage of dominant landlordism is passing away rapidly—that of State management, or co-operation in the interest of all, has apparently not been reached. Granting therefore that the com­ pletes! reforms of the land laws, in the shape of abo­ lition of settlement and entail, complete subdivision, simplified registration, mortgage made illegal, and so forth, have been carried, much will remain to be done. Private enterprise cannot satisfactorily deal with the many important changes to be made. Benevolent investments at five per cent, are, in American parlance, “ a fraud.” What a miserable hand-to-mouth creature the agricultural labourer is to-day we know. Let, then, that point be borne in mind in all reforms, that until the labourer is placed in a position where he is really able to contract freely, either by combination, or by State assistance in the shape of permanent leases of land, subject to disturbance only for bad culture or non-payment of fair rent, no great change will ever be made in his condition for the better. For this too is for the interest of all. The titles of English landlords are none so good that they can afford any longer to run the risk of the cry, “ The Land for the People/’ Hitherto powers of expropria­ tion and interference have been used solely in the in­ terest of the upper and middle classes, who hold the �3° ENGLAND FOR ALL. control. Ere long a similar process will be demanded by the great majority in their favour, though not with equal injustice. As stepping-stones to further development, the following reforms may be demanded at once :— Reform of the law of settlement and entail, putting an end to the existing system altogether. Compulsory registration of title, so as to make transfer of land as easy as it is in America. Extension of the powers of local bodies to acquire land for all purposes and to lease it in small portions. Compensated expropriation of property-owners in large cities.1 No confiscation or revenge for the forced removal of the people from the land is asked for. But the unborn have no rights, and the nation has always both the power and the right to take any land at a fair valuation. By immediate limitation of the right of inheritance, and an application of the power of purchase, the State or the local authority would speedily come into possession of land, which could be used for the common interest, and some comfort and security obtained for those who at present have neither. No longer then should the agriculturist be per­ manently kept away from possession of the soil; no 1 “ Nationalisation” of the land is, of course, the only logical outcome of any thorough suggestions for reform; but this, unless accompanied by nationalisation of railways and of capital, would be of little use to the mass of the workers of the country. Meanwhile, however, the only safe course is to work in the direction of steadily restricting the rights of private property in land. �THE LAND. 3i longer should the dweller in the city feel that, happen what might, he could never leave the street or alley. Hitherto the State has been regarded as an enemy : the time is coming when all will be ready to recognize that its friendly influence is needed to prevent serious trouble, and to lead the way to a happier period. That the landowners of England should join in a re­ solute endeavour to remedy the mischiefs which affect them in common with the rest of the population is apparently too much to expect. True, their interest lies in this direction. To stir up class hatred is easy enough, when, in spite of all sentimental talk and useless charity, the men who work see that nothing is really done which will permanently benefit them. A higher ideal than mere selfishness may indeed be held up, but if reforms are to be peaceful those who are rich and powerful must lead the way. Of this truer patriotism there is at present no sign among those who claim to be the “natural leaders” of the people. �32 ENGLAND FOR ALL. CHAPTER II. LABOUR. In every civilized society the main point to be con­ sidered is the manner in which labour is applied to production, and the share of his own labour which in one shape or another the labourer gets in return. The ancient historical civilizations were chiefly built upon slavery. Here the labourer, his force of labour, and the material on which he expended it, all belonged to the master ; and the wealth of the latter might almost be gauged by the number of slaves he possessed, though only a portion of them would be actually employed in the work of production. This employment of slave­ labour renders any comparison between the state of society then and now almost futile; but the condition of the poor freemen in Rome and Athens, constantly ex­ posed to the competition of slave-labour if they desired to work themselves, resembled that of the mean whites in the Southern States before the Civil War. The peasant proprietor, or the member of a village com­ munity, holds again a totally different position from that of the slave or the labourer of modern times. The peasant proprietor, or the craftsman owning his own tools and able to obtain his own materials, is master of himself, of his means of production, and of �LABOUR. 33 his produce, even though he may have to pay a por­ tion of the latter to a feudal chief or rajah. In both cases, that of individual proprietorship and that of ownership in common of the produce'of a community, there may be and generally is perfect freedom, save the restrictions which arise from the necessity of pro­ ducing sufficient for the social necessaries of life. It is quite possible that a man and his family may live on the produce of their own farm, carry on the simple operations of manufacture necessary to clothe them, and rarely have the need to exchange anything which they possess for the work of others. A good harvest, or a favourable season with cattle, will repre­ sent so much extra wealth, which will provide against bad times, or enable the little household to devote more labour to increase of comfort. With a village com­ munity the necessity for exchange may arise less often ; for these units of civilization comprise within themselves the means of providing all the ordinary needs, and some even of the luxuries of life. It is to the interest of the whole family or village community that all should be well nourished and strong for the daily duty ; it is also advisable that a certain provision should be made against the prospect of bad seasons. Civilization, therefore, presupposes great forethought in its earlier stages, or it would soon fall back again to the condition of the Paraguayans, who ate the seed given them by the missionaries. But all the wealth thus produced by the work of individuals or com­ munities is clearly due to labour; and that is not wealth which is not recognized as an object of utility in the social conditions of the time. D �34 ENGLAND FOR ALL. The great majority of economists before and since Adam Smith have agreed that labour is the source of value. “The real price of everything,” says Adam Smith himself, “what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What everything is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose on other people. Labour was the first price —the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. In that early and rude state of society which precedes both the accumulation of stock and the appropriation of land, the proportion between the quantities of labour necessary for acquiring different objects seems to be the only circumstance which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another. If among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually costs twice the labour to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one beaver would naturally be worth, or exchange for, two deer. It is natural that what is usually the produce of two days’ or two hours’ labour should be worth double of what is usually the produce of one day’s or one hour’s labour.” “ That this,” adds Ricardo, “ is really the foundation of the exchangeable value of all things, excepting those which cannot be increased by human industry, is a doctrine of the utmost importance in political economy. If the quantity of labour realized in com­ modities regulate their exchangeable value, every increase of the quantity of labour must augment the value of that commodity on which it is exercised, as �LABOUR. 35 every diminution must lower it.” This labour, of course, includes the work necessary to replace the wear and tear of.tools and machinery, as well as the labour which is actually expended on and realized in the commodities. Every useful article produced by labour has two values, its value in use alone, and its value in exchange. Its value in use is developed only by being used and consumed : its value in exchange consists in obtaining other useful articles in its place. Water, air, virgin soil, &c., are useful, but by them­ selves they constitute no value. A man may also expend his labour on useful articles which never become commodities or goods for exchange. These may be destined simply for his own use, and never for exchange. In all countries, however, where the capitalist system of production prevails, wealth appears in the shape of an accumulation of com­ modities or merchandise. Those products of human labour devoted to natural objects are exchanged according to the average quantity of human labour expended in producing them. If wheat and axes are exchanged in definite proportions, they are thus bartered with reference to the common element in each, by virtue of which an equality between them is established. This is the quantity of human labour expended in bringing them forward for exchange. So many days of average labour embodied in one article of utility, are equal to so many days of average labour embodied in another article of utility. Thus then the general rule is, that labour is the basis of value, and quantity of labour the measure of value of D 2 �36 ENGLAND FOR ALL. commodities, or social values for the use of others, all the world over.1 Say that a coat is worth twice as much as ten yards of cloth. The coat is useful and satisfies a particular want. Two kinds or qualities of labour are embodied in it—that of the tailor who made the coat, and that of the weaver who wove the cloth. So far as its use­ fulness is concerned also, it makes no difference whether the tailor wears it or his customer. Now as to its value. The coat is assumed to be worth twice as much as the ten yards of cloth—worth that is, twenty yards of cloth. In point of value coat and cloth are but expressions of labour itself. Thus the coat is worth twice as much as the cloth, because the cloth contains only half as much human labour; and it needs twice the quantity of labour to produce the coat complete, cloth and all, as to pro­ duce the cloth alone. Reduce the quantity of labour needed to make a coat by one half, and two coats are only worth what one was before. Double the quantity of labour needed to make a coat, and one coat is worth what two were before. In the same way, “ if a piece of cloth be now of the value of two pieces of linen, and if, in ten years hence, the ordinary value of a piece of cloth should be four pieces of linen, we may 1 Professor Stanley Jevons has convinced himself that labour has no influence on value. Utility is the sole source of value. Labour, supply, utility—such is the progression. This is not the place to discuss this theory, which is of course turned to ac­ count at once by capitalists. The cloud of differentiations and metaphysics which Mr. Jevons throws up as he goes along does not, however, obscure the fact that without labour there would be no value at all. �LABOUR. 37 safely conclude that either more labour is required to make the cloth, or less to make the linen, or that both causes have operated.” Thus then, no matter whether the productive power of average human labour in producing any article of utility—and utility is, of course, an essential element of exchangeable value—is increased or diminished, the same length of labour, or the same quantity of labour, always repre­ sents the same value. But of course, if the labour is more productive, more values in use are obtained in a given time, and if less productive, less: only the value for exchange remains unaltered. But the above illustrations are easily extended. When a coat is said to be worth twice as much as ten yards of cloth, or worth, that is, twenty yards of cloth, this means, as has been said, that the quantity of human labour contained in the one is equal to, or expressed in, the quantity of human labour contained in the other. So with other articles of utility. A coat may likewise be equal in value to ten pounds of tea, or to half a ton of iron, or to a quarter of wheat, or to two ounces of gold ; all these products of human labour being also equal in value to twenty yards of cloth, and varying in exchangeable value in propor­ tion to the amount of labour embodied in them ; the simple meaning of the equality being that the tea, the iron, the wheat, the gold, and the cloth, repre­ sent, each and all, the same quantity of labour in the several amounts of commodities. But it so happens that it has been found convenient for ages to express this general form of value in one particular commodity. This in nowise changes the �3? ENGLAND FOR ALL. fundamental proposition that labour is the basis of value, and quantity of labour its measure. The only further result is, that the coat, the ten pounds of tea, the half a ton of iron, the quarter of wheat, the twenty yards of cloth, are all equal in value, not only to one another, but to the two ounces of gold, which henceforward are taken as a meaure of value for them all and become money. When commodities now are valued, they are valued with reference to the gold, which forms not only a real but an ideal valua­ tion. It is not the money which enables the com­ modities to be valued. Far otherwise. It is because all commodities represent realized human labour already expended on natural objects, thus producing articles of utility, that their relative value is conse­ quently measureable by one another, and that they can all be valued together in one special commodity. This last becomes money, and is a measure for them all, though, like the rest, its value consists in the fact that it represents the expenditure of human labour. But money is not only a convenient measure of value, but also a means of putting commodities in circulation. A commodity is exchanged for its equivalent in money, and then again the money is ex­ changed for another commodity. In order to promote a circulation of commodities there must be a sufficiency of money, or the representative of money in some form of currency, to avoid congestion. To bring about the regular interchange of articles of utility in civilized life, such a change of commodities for money, and again into commodities, being the rule. This fact formed the basis of the theory of the celebrated Law, who �LABOUR. 39 desired to substitute for gold and silver, which cost labour to produce, and yet are in themselves of little utility, paper certificates of labour expended, which would cost nothing, and yet serve the purposes of cur­ rency. Without however, entering upon the pheno­ mena connected with money, it is now clear that in all exchangeable value the human labour expended is the basis of the value of commodities, and the quantity of human labour the measure. There is, of course, nothing new in all this. That natural objects are of no value unless human labour is expended on them is a truth as old as the world. That labour is the real basis, not only of value but of all civilized society, needs no elaborate demonstration at this time of day. Yet it is precisely from this generally admitted but little regarded truth that consequences follow of the highest importance to our modern society. Here come in those “ differences of value,” those strange manipulations of the worth of commodities, which go to the root of all business. A merchant has a sum of money, say a hundred pounds sterling. Therewith he buys on the market say a hundred pounds’ worth of cotton. So far the exchange may be perfectly fair and exact. The merchant has given his labour as expressed in a hundred pounds sterling for another man’s labour as embodied in a mass of cotton. But, having bought, hs goes away and sells his purchased cotton to an­ other person for 110Z., making, as it is said, 10Z. by the transaction. . His 100Z. was turned into its equivalent in merchandise, and then appeared again as 110Z. Not only is the original sum replaced, but more is �40 ENGLAND FOR ALL. added, and the merchant’s money becomes capital. The merchant buys not for himself, or to work up for the use of others, but merely to sell the cotton again at an enhanced price. This is something very different from the use of money as the measure of the value of commodities, or as the means of facili­ tating exchange. It is commercial capital, which its owner takes upon the market for the purpose of increasing it. Money to start with; then, after a longer or a shorter interval, more money—that, leaving out the intermediate process of buying the cotton, is the process. But the amount of value in circulation at any given moment—that is, the quantity of human labour on the average embodied in commodities— cannot increase of itself. If a merchant has in his possession a commodity whose value is expressed in money by 10Z., this value can only be increased absolutely, and made say nZ., by the addition of more labour to the labour-value represented in the first instance—as by making a coat of cloth. The coat is worth more than the cloth, but the value of the cloth remains the same. Thus then all conditions remaining the same, the owner of the money to start with must buy a piece of merchandise at its exact value, and sell it again for what it is worth, and yet have at the end more value than he had at the beginning. Now the problem begins to take shape. The increase of value by which money becomes more money and is turned into capital, obviously cannot arise from the money itself. It follows then that the conversion of money into merchandise, and then of that same merchandise into more money, is �LABO UR. 4i due to the merchandise. But how ? Commodities can no more increase their own exchangeable value than money. In order to obtain an additional ex­ changeable value from a commodity a sort of mer­ chandise must be found which possesses the remark­ able quality of being itself the source of exchangeable value, so that to consume it would be to obtain that labour-force embodied in value, and consequently to create value. Now it so happens that the capitalist in embryo does find on the market a purchaseable commodity endowed with this specific virtue. This is called labour, or force of labour. Under that name is com­ prised the entire capacities, physical and intellectual, which exist in the body of a man, and which he must set in motion in order to produce articles of utility. Evidently the force of labour cannot present itself on the market for sale, unless it is offered by its owner; he must be able to dispose of it—that is, be the free owner of his labour, of the force of his own body. The moneyed man and he meet on the market; one buys, and the other sells, and both are quits. But the owner of this labour-force must only sell it for a definite time ; if he sells it for an indefi­ nite time, from being a merchant, he himself, his force of labour and all, becomes a mere commodity. He is a slave or serf at the command of his master as a chattel. The essential condition for the capitalist to be able to buy the force of labour is, that the owner of the labour instead of being able to keep himself by work on his own land, or to sell goods on which he has himself expended his labour, should be �42 ENGLAND FOR ALL. obliged to sell the labour-force in his body pure and simple. A man in order to sell goods of his own making, must of course command the means of pro­ duction—tools, raw material, &c. Then he is master of his own labour, an independent man; he has the means of exchanging his own labour as embodied in useful articles for other men’s labour also embodied in useful articles upon equal terms. But in order that money should be converted into capital the workman himself must be free in a very different sense ; not only must he be ready to sell his labour as a commodity, but further, he must be free—so very free that he has nothing else in the world but his power of labour to sell—that he should be completely destitute of the means of realizing his own force of labour in commodities by himself, having neither tools, nor land, nor raw materials wherewith to do so. How does this free labourer thus find himself on the market, ready to enter into free contract ? That does not concern the owner of the money, who looks upon the labour-market as a mere branch of the rest of the market for commodities, and governed by the same laws. The appearance of this destitute labourer there is nevertheless, as has been seen, the outcome of a long series of economical evolutions and revolu­ tions extending over centuries. Driven from the land, deprived of the possibility of earning a living, the mass of the people find themselves concentrated in the towns. Nature most assuredly does not turn out possessors of money or goods on the one side, and ownersof their pure labour-force, and nothing else, on the other; nor is such a social state common to �LABOUR. 43 most periods of history. So long, for example, as the produce of labour is used to supply the needs of the labourer, it does not, as has been seen, become mer­ chandise ; in the same way, the production and cir­ culation of commodities may take place under many forms of society. It is not so with capital; that only makes its appearance when that part of the wealth of a country which is employed in production, con­ sisting of food, clothing, tools, raw materials, ma­ chinery, &c., necessary to give effect to labour, is found in the hands of an owner, who meets on the market the destitute free labourer come thither to sell his labour. Capital then forms an epoch in social production. What, however, is this force of labour, which the free owner of it comes on to the market to sell ? Clearly it is a human force,physical, moral, intellectual, which requires certain material, food, and clothing and lodging—all at the command of the moneyed man, and not of the labourer—to keep it in order and supplied, so that the waste of one day may be made good, and it may return with equal vigour the next. These necessaries vary, of course, with different climates, and with different degrees of civilization ; but in any given country and period the average needs of the labourers are known. Nor is this fact altered by the other fact that, as pointed out by Mill, a series of circumstances may reduce the standard of supposed necessaries. The amount of average neces­ saries thus ascertained is called by Ricardo, the “ natural price of labour,” and is “ that price which is necessary to enable the labourers one with another to �44 ENGLAND FOR ALL. subsist, and to perpetuate their race without either increase or diminution.” In this way we have that amount of average daily necessaries which will maintain the present race of destitute bargainers, and provide them with equally destitute successors. Assume then that the cost of this amount of daily foods, the natural price of human labour comprised in the necessaries for existence for the twenty-four hours—representing by rights only the quantity of human labour expended in their production—is six hours’ work. Half a day’s average work is needed then to reproduce the average amount of labour-force expended. Take this at three shillings as expressed in money. Then the owner of the labour who sells its work for six hours at three shillings, sells it for its exact value. “ It is when the market price of labour exceeds its natural price that the condition of the labourer is flourishing and happy—that he has it in his power to command a greater proportion of the necessaries and enjoyments of life. When the market price of labour is below its natural price, the condition of the labourers is most wretched; then poverty deprives them of comforts which custom renders absolute necessaries.” So far Ricardo again. But the natural price of labour reaches its minimum when it is reduced to the value of the means of subsistence physiologically indispensable. When it falls to this minimum, the price has reached a level below the value of the labour-force, which then only just maintains itself without immediate deterioration. For example, a man who sells his labour for just enough to keep himself and his family without �LABOUR. 45 making any provision for old age, or future ill-health from which he may suffer, is clearly going down hill. The natural price of his labour has not in this case taken a sufficiently wide range, When also the capitalist buys the labour, it is the owner of that labour who sells on credit. He advances his labour to the capitalist; the capitalist advances nothing to him without having been previously paid for it. In every country where the capitalist system prevails, the labourer is only paid after he has worked for a certain period—a week, a fortnight, a month—on credit. This enables the capitalist to “turn round.” If the employer fails, the labourers suffer: they are not paid; for the labour has been sold beforehand, and duly delivered by the expenditure of force from the labourer’s body. An illustration of this occurred not long since in the great strike of colliers in the north against the masters, who wished to make their men break the law by contracting out of the Employers’ Liability Act. Once out on strike they insisted most strongly upon the reduction of the length of the advance of their labour to the capitalist, from the fortnight to the week. This point they carried. Fortnightly or monthly wages are a hardship to the labourer, which, like many others, can only be removed by resolute combination ; for that value in use which the owner of the labour advances to the buyer, only shows itself in employment. And this consumption of force of labour produces, not only commodities, but surplus value besides. Everything else needed for the purposes of production—raw materials, machinery, &c.—have been bought by the �46 ENGLAND FOR ALL. capitalist at their actual value, and paid for at their actual price. It is labour only, the labour-force of human beings, from which he derives his surplus value. Out of this, his last purchase, bought on credit, the capitalist makes his capital breed. This labour, bought in the open market, and realized in the commodity— this it is which gives the capitalist the additional value he hungers for. Now we begin to see how it comes about that 10Z. turns into i iZ., that 100Z. swells into 110Z., without additional value. Now, too, the admirable working of “ freedom of contract ” and “ supply and demand ” in our modern society appears. Hear, too, William Cobbettfora moment: “ To those who labour, we who labour not with our hands owe all that we eat and drink and wear, all that shades us by day and that shelters us by night, all the means of enjoying health and pleasure ; and therefore if we possess talent for the task, we are ungrateful or cowardly, or both, if we omit any effort within our power to prevent them from being slaves. What is a slave ? For let us not be amused by a name. A slave is in the first place a man who has no property; and property means something that he has, and that nobody can take from him without his leave or consent. A slave has no property in his labour ; and any man who is com­ pelled to give up the fruit of his labour to another at the arbitrary will of that other, has no property in his labour, and is therefore a slave, whether the fruit of his labour be taken from him directly or indirectly. If it be said that he gives up the fruit of his labour by his own will, and that it is not forced from �LABOUR. 47 him, I answer, To be sure he may avoid eating and drinking, and may go naked ; but then he must die ; and on this condition, and this condition only, can he refuse to give up the fruit of his labour. ‘ Die, wretch, or surrender as much of your income or the fruit of your labour as your masters choose to take.’ ” To return. The working man who has sold his labour works, of course, under the control of the capi­ talist to whom his labour thus belongs, and whose object it is that he should work hard and continuously. Besides, the product in which his force of labour is embodied is the property of the capitalist, and in no sense that of the labourer. The capitalist merely pays him his wages, just as he would pay for the hire of a horse or a mule. Then the employer applies the human merchandise he has thus bought to his raw materials and machinery. The result is a value in use to be passed on to others ; and not only such value, but a surplus value for the capitalist himself, derived from this purchased labour. Take, for example, cotton yarns. The capitalist buys, say, ten pounds of raw cotton for I ox In that price there is already expressed the average labour needed for the production, transport, and marketing of the raw cotton. Now put the wear and tear of the spindles, machinery, &c., in working up the raw material into yarn at 2s. If a piece of gold of the value of 12s. is the output of twenty-four hours’work, it follows that there are, apart from the labour in the factory, two full days of work (at the assumed natural rate of 3x for six hours’ work) embodied in the yarn. This accounts for the original labour needed to raise �48 ENGLAND FOR ALL. and transport the raw cotton, as well as the labour needed to replace the wear and tear. It has already been assumed that the workman must give six hours’ labour in order to earn 3^., the natural price of his labour required to supply him socially with his absolute necessaries. Now assume further that it takes six hours’ labour to turn ten pounds of cotton into ten pounds of yarn ; then the workman has added to the raw cotton a value of 3s1., a half-a-day’s work. So at the end the ten pounds of yarn contain altogether two days and a half of labour; raw cotton and wear and tear of spindles stand for two days ; and half-a-day has been absorbed by the cotton in the process of spinning. This quan­ tity of labour is therefore reckoned in a piece of gold of the value of 15^.; that is to say, the price of the yarn worked up from the cotton is ix. 6d. a pound. Here obviously is no gain to the capitalist. His raw material, his wear and tear of machinery, his wages paid for the labour which he has purchased, eat up the whole of the capital advanced, and yet the ten pounds of yarn only fetch ij-. 6d. a pound, which is the value of the average quantity of labour contained in it. This shows no profit whatever, much to the horror of the capitalist if he stopped there. But the employer has bought the labourer’s whole day’s work upon the market. He can make him work therefore not merely the six hours required to produce the return of the 3^. paid, but twelve hours—a day’s work. Now if six hours’ work produces ten pounds of yarn from ten pounds of cotton, twelve hours’ work will give twenty pounds of yarn from twenty pounds �LABOUR. 49 of cotton. These twenty pounds of yarn will thus con­ tain five days’ labour, of which four are contained in the raw cotton and the wear and tear of machinery and spindles, and one day is absorbed by the yarn during the process of spinning. The expression in money then of these five days’ work is 30^. That, therefore, is the price of the twenty pounds of yarn, Thus the yarn is sold now as it was before at ij1. 6d. a pound. But the sum of the values of the merchandise (includ­ ing labour in the factory) embodied in the yarn does not exceed 27 s.; that is to say, 2OJ. for the raw cotton, 4j. for the wear and tear, and 3s. for the labour in the factory. The value of the product has therefore increased. The 27s. have become 30J. Those 27s. advanced by the capitalist have begotten a surplus value of 3^., and the trick is done. The capitalist has used a certain amount of another man’s labour for his own behoof without paying for it, and the trick is done at that man’s expense. That free labour which is sold in the open market enables the capital­ ist to sell the twenty pounds of yarn he has made at the regular price of Ij. 6d. a pound, and, neverthe­ less, to increase his capital by 3^. on the output of twenty pounds. Labour thus used is the origin of surplus value, and all’s well. Once more it is permissible to look back to the ioZ. made into 11Z., to the 100Z. swollen into 110Z. The iZ. like the 10Z. is obtained from that free labour which is bound to be sold for less than its worth, in order that its possessor may continue to keep body and soul together. And the surplus value so produced the capitalist, the merchant, the shopkeeper, divide among themselves. E �50 ENGLAND FOR ALL. In existing conditions of agricultural production, the agricultural labourer in the same way provides on his part the surplus value which the landowner, the rent-charger, the farmer, the mortgagee, divide, in the shape of rent, settlement, profit on capital, and interest on money lent. The labourer himself, earning his low to I2w a week, is the man upon whom all these worthy people live, though they do so in a more indirect manner than the capitalists of the large towns, and have perhaps a trifle more conscience left to appeal to. Capital itself, however, is divided into two parts, that w’hich is used to buy machinery and means of production, and that which is expended on labour. The former portion is constant, and is simply repro­ duced without increase, the latter is variable, and is that which produces surplus value. Ordinarily the rate of surplus value is calculated on the total amount of capital employed, constant and variable, and is dubbed profit on capital. But this is wholly incorrect. The rate of surplus value produced, the proportion of labour turned to account by the capitalist, should be reckoned only on the amount of capital advanced to pay the owner of that labour the natural price of his labour. What now is the pro­ portion which the necessary labour for this purpose bears to the extra labour which is used for the benefit of the capitalist alone ? Nothing will illustrate this so clearly as actual figures taken from the regular operations of a factory. A mill with 10,000 spindles spins yarn No. 32 with American cotton, and produces every week a pound �LABOUR. 5i of yarn to the spindle. The waste of the cotton amounts to six per cent. Therefore 10,600 pounds of cotton are each week converted into 10,000 pounds of yarn, and 600 pounds of waste. In April, 1871, this cotton cost 7|</. a pound, and consequently 342Z. were paid for the 10,600 pounds, in round figures. The 10,000 spindles, including the spinning machines and the engine, cost io,oooZ.; their wear and tear amounts to ten per cent., or 1000Z. a year, or 20Z. a week. The ground-rent is 300Z. a year, or 6Z. a week. Coal, gas, oil, &c., cost 4Z. ioj. every week; the total weekly expenses in constant value amounting to 378Z. The wages of the hands are 52Z. a week ; the price of the yarn at I2|</. a pound for 10,000 pounds is 510Z. The additional value produced each week is consequently 510Z. —378Z., or 132Z. Now deduct the variable capital, the wages of the hands, or 52Z., and there remains a surplus value of 80Z. Here the rate of surplus value is therefore as 80Z. to 52Z., or upwards of 153 per cent. That is to say, for an average day’s work of ten hours the necessary labour is but four hours, and the extra labour six hours ; or, the labourer works four hours for himself, and six for other people, who divide his extra work among them. And yet how unreasonable that the “hand,” silly fellow, should object to this division of his extra and unpaid for labour, and fancy that somehow somebody has got the better of him. Fool that he is, let him listen to the voice of the preacher and the political economist:—“ What you need, my weary, povertystricken, Christian brother, is not to get back your own extra labour, which you have expended, in the E 2 �52 ENGLAND FOR ALL form of money or goods for your own use. That is— believe us, who are your true friends—robbery of the capitalists. You, my good man, should be thrifty, abstinent, saving, economical, and still go on steadily providing extra labour for others, until you in turn cease to be a labourer, turn capitalist, and extort extra labour yourself.” What, however is this day’s work, necessary labour and extra labour together, which the capitalist buys on the market ? Obviously there must be some limit to it. A man can’t work twenty-four hours on end every day in the week, that is clear. But the limits of the day’s work are very elastic. We find ten hours, twelve hours, fourteen, sixteen, even eighteen hours, given as the amount of a day’s work. And this limit, however loose already, capitalists, from the shirt-sweaters up to the railway companies, are always striving to extend. They invoke the sacred laws of supply and demand and freedom of contract, to sanction an amount of daily toil which leaves a man or a woman utterly exhausted at its close, which weakens health, reduces vitality, and hands on a broken constitution to the progeny. And all for what? In order to swell that surplus value which “ society ” depends upon for its excessive luxury and continuous laziness. “But,” say the labourers when adjured not to endanger society, “ that is all very well; but society is shamefully wronging us. It is society which, having entire command of the police and military forces of the country, enables the capitalist class thus to violate every law of exchange with impunity. These are they who pay us only one-half or one-third or one- �LABOUR. 53 quarter of the real value of our day’s work. They then are the people who are endangering' society, of which we form by far the most important part—not the working men, who ask only that their labour should not be taken for nothing.” There is a comparison at hand which philanthro­ pizing capitalists—and there are many of them—will understand, if they do not appreciate. Under the old system of corvee a man was obliged to give say one day’s work in the week, or at most two, to his feudal lord without any payment. Such a man, though he had the remaining five or six days wholly to himself, was thought little better than a slave. Nor was he. English capitalists would, of all men, subscribe largely to relieve human beings from continuing in such a shameful and degraded position. But here at home, we have men, women, and children, who are obliged to give four, five, six hours a day to the capitalist for nothing, and yet are thought free. A factory hand who, as in the instance given above, provides six hours a day of extra labour, makes the capitalist a present of three days’ work in the week for nothing. He gives, in fact, three times as much labour for no­ thing in the week to his employer, as the serf who works one day in the week under corvee is obliged to offer in unpaid labour to his lord. . But in the one case, under the system of daily or weekly wages, the neces­ sary labour and the extra labour are lumped to­ gether as so much paid-for labour ; in the other, they are divided. Thus the forced, extra, unpaid labour for the capitalist—the industrial corvee—escapes notice, though it is three times greater than the other, �54 ENGLAND FOR ALL. and the capitalist is thrice as heavy a master as the feudal lord. Moreover, the capitalist class has ever been on the look-out to increase the hours of labour beyond measure, in order that they may obtain more extra labour, and thus secure more surplus value. We in England have had sad experience of the baneful effects upon the working population of the neverceasing endeavours to increase the number of working hours. The reports of the Factory Inspectors up to a comparatively recent date, are positively filled to overflowing with instances of the efforts made by the capitalists to crowd extra labour on men, on women, and, above all, on children. A little is filched from the meal times ; the mill is opened a trifle earlier, closed something later, than the prescribed hour. Always this persistent scheming for extra labour.2 Not only up to the passing of the Factory Acts, but ever since, the same tendency has been relentlessly displayed. Free Trade, by reducing the natural price of labour, increased the profit of capitalists and the number of hours on which they could depend for the production of surplus value. Women and children have, of course, suffered fearfully. They were used up as so much 2 Mr. Watherston, a jeweller, who has grown rich on other men’s labour, wrote not long ago to the Economist to complain of the miserably short hours of work Englishmen now have. They must work more, or trade—his profits, he meant—would suffer. Of course this was the very man for the capitalist party. They got him at once as chairman of the Westminster caucus. How long will working men be gulled by landlords and capitalists into providing them with more unpaid labour, under the pretence of improving trade ? �LABOUR. 55 food for surplus value, without the slightest regard to humanity, or to the interest of the country at large. The average age of the working classes was fearfully shortened by the excessive toil. The cotton industry of Lancashire alone in ninety years, or three genera­ tions of ordinary men, devoured nine generations of work-people. What mattered that to the manu­ facturers ? There were more where they came from. The poor bargainers reproduce themselves, and sup­ ply and demand goes merrily on as before. The Factory Acts themselves, still by no means so stringent nor so rigidly administered as they ought to be, were carried against the bitterest opposition of the capi­ talist class, because the nation had gradually roused itself to the truth that the whole population was rapidly deteriorating, owing to the systematic overwork of women and children. There are even still economists of liberal views, who hold that women in particular ought to be allowed to work in factories as long as they choose, and that the State has no right to interfere to protect the coming generation. Argu­ ment after argument is put forward also that longer hours than those to which the Trade Unions have happily reduced the working day are essential, because otherwise capitalists cannot compete with foreign nations.3 3 To show how impossible it is for the capitalist class to shake themselves clear of the prejudices in which they have been brought up, it is almost enough to say that Mr. Bright—a man surely distinguished foi- his humanity in general concerns— opposed the Factory Acts, which may fairly be regarded as the most beneficent measures of this century, with all his might ; that when President of the Board of Trade he declared that �56 ENGLAND FOR ALL. There is, unfortunately, no need to go back to the horrible details contained in the Health Reports of a few years ago, as to the condition of the working classes, whilst wealth is being piled up by their labour all round them. In spite of a little permissive legis­ lation—well-intended, but by no means effectual— things are almost as bad to-day. Some there are of course who, rejoicing in the fact that our population has consumed on the average ‘ooi lb. per head more of bacon in the last ten years, or '002 lb. per head more adulteration was a legitimate form of competition ; and that to this hour he cannot see that interference with freedom of con­ tract as between the capitalist and the labourer may be abso­ lutely essential in the interests of the community at large. Sir Thomas Brassey, as Professor Cairnes has pointed out, could not understand that a reduction of profits might be quite as desirable as a reduction of wages. It is amusing, too, to see Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, a capitalist who has taken 700,000/. out of the working classes by extra labour, and owns a rigid monopoly, posing as a leader of the democracy. Doubtless they all think themselves thoroughly in earnest; but how can hunters after surplus value, men who are every day engaged in putting wages at a lower level than they ought to be in order to enhance their own profits from unpaid labour, really lead or benefit them by pretending to lead, the working class ? The Liberal benches in the House of Commons at this very time are closely packed with plutocrats, who have made all their wealth, and mean to make more, out of the unpaid labour of their own countrymen. The Conservative benches seat a grow­ ing proportion of men of the like kidney. What wonder that working men who really understand what is going on around them, almost despair of success in carrying measures which are absolutely essential to the welfare of their class, when the power of capitalism is increasing in every direction, when there is not a single daily newspaper in existence which represents their interests or advocates their claims, and when only three of their class sit in Parliament ? �LABOUR. 57 cheese, decline to look to that portion of the people who bring down the average. Such a speech as that delivered by the Bishop of Manchester in June, 1880, ought to awaken the nation to the mischief which is still being done. He, worthy man, wrings his hands in despair at the state of affairs in his own diocese. People living in the most mise­ rable poverty, from which there seems no escape. Misery, filth, starvation, overcrowding, followed by inevitable deterioration. Sadness and hopelessness brood over the streets, and alleys, and cellars, he has explored. What can education do with children living in such conditions as those which he has so graphically described ? The men and the women work hard enough when they can get the chance— work endless hours too—do enough in short to feed, and lodge, and clothe themselves in comfort. Yet in Manchester and Salford, in Stockport and Altrincham, in Oldham and Macclesfield, throughout the whole of these great- industrial districts, thousands on thou­ sands of labourers exist in good times in squalor, whilst bad times drive them at once to the wall. Dr. Fraser himself had shown a few years before what the condition of the agricultural labourer was in this respect, how hard he too works, how little he gets, how foully he is lodged in many cases. Even orthodox economists show further how farmers and manufac­ turers alike combine to keep down the rate of wages to the bare natural price, or below it, whilst exacting the longest possible hours of toil. Admitting that in some respects matters have improved, owing to the determination of the working �58 ENGLAND FOR ALL. classes no longer to submit to such neglect and oppression as of old, the very last report of the Factory Inspectors shows how much remains to be done, and how little machinery there is to do it. The long weary struggle which has been carried on by the working class, without even proper representation, against laissez-faire, political economy, and selfish ideas of freedom, seems still far from being successful. A mere list of the provisions of the Factory Acts to restrict tyranny by the masters and injury resulting to the hands, proves conclusively that, but for State intervention a condition of slavery of the worst kind would exist now, as it did forty years ago. Meals for instance are not allowed nowto be taken in rooms where the atmosphere is poisonous, and some restrictions are even imposed upon keeping men, women, and children employed in the poisonous atmosphere. In Bradford, a city which has long lived in the full and rather greasy odour of Liberal sanctity, the wool-sorting has for years been carried on in such a manner as directly to involve the loss of the lives of many of the hands. Not a single improvement did the capitalists—Mr. Coercion-Act Forster is a Bradford man—introduce, till forced to do so bylaw, and by public opinion following upon the verdict of coroners’ juries as to the infamous state of things which brought about the death of the wool-sorters. Children still go to work full time in the collieries when they are twelve years old, though in factories they, fortunately, may not do so until they are thirteen or fourteen. The parents, eager to get their children’s wages, take advantage of this, and the capitalist colliery owner of course is always ready to employ �LABOUR. 59 cheap child-labour for his engines or other pur­ poses. In the dangerous trades great improvements have been made by the Factory Acts, but still it is evident far more stringent inspection and regulation is required. In the brickworks we read of a girl carry­ ing to and fro eleven tons of clay in the day for 2s. a day. Brickmaking, to which women are wholly unsuited, fell into their hands, we are told, “ because masters at one time got wages down very low”—• wanted to work women on the cheap in fact. In the great cotton and iron industries years must still elapse before the people recover from the deteriorating effects of unrestricted competition. The best factories and ironworks are not yet controlled sufficiently in the interest of the men, women, and children who work in them. But those who wish to understand what capitalism is capable of, and what is its natural bent, should read the reports of the factory inspectors, Messrs. Lakeman and Gould, on the sweating system at the East End of London, and the dens in which the unfortunate milliners and dressmakers work at the West End. “Workshops,” says Inspector Lake­ man, “are generally small, over-crowded, very dirty, overheated, badly ventilated ; and when half a dozen gas burners are alight for five or six hours in a twelve-feet square room, one can imagine that the term ‘ sweater ’ is not inappropriate. ... So gigantic has the sweating system become, so rapid the produc­ tion (for the division of labour is strictly carried out), so varied are the wants of each occupier, that one despairs of making any impresssion upon these people �6o ENGLAND FOR ALL. except by compulsion. They are bound to a system which excludes freedom, and from long habit it seems impossible to move them out of it. Now when we see a cloth coat made, lined, braided by hand, the silk and thread found by sweater, all for 2s. ^d., and if the total number be not returned to the clothier completed by the time specified, then a fine of six­ pence (I have seen one shilling) levied for each gar­ ment, one cannot wonder at the desire of the sweater to keep his team late at night to complete his task.” Coats are sometimes “(finished in this style,” however, as low as 2s. id. “NTcien one thinks that there are about 18,000 to 20,000 people toiling at this one trade of making ready-made clothing, can we wonder at beholding the palace-like premises of merchant tailors who can advertise garments at a very low price, which to them is the cost of material, and say 2s. id. for the making of a coat? It does not require much depth of reasoning to judge where the profit comes from.”4 No, worthy Mr. Inspector, it does not. The profit of the merchant tailor, like the profit of his noble allies the cotton lords and the wool factors, comes out of the unpaid labour of others, whom he throws upon the streets when they have served his turn of providing surplus value according to the universal law of supply and demand and freedom of contract. But again ; hear Mr. Inspector Gould :—“ There is, however, one branch of work, giving employment to 4 Lord Salisbury spoke at the Merchant Tailors’ Hall not long since, of the absurdity of “ plate-hunger.” It seemed more ridicu­ lous to his aristocratic mind than even the earth-hunger of the Irish. Had he by chance a Conservative sweat er at his elbow ? �LABOUR. 61 thousands of girls and women, which, although entirely harmless in itself, is yet, unfortunately, solely by reason of the conditions under which it is carried on, a typically unhealthy business, I need hardly say that I refer to the making of all articles of ladies’ clothing, and principally to the dressmaking section of the trade. Of the thousands of young and delicate girls who are engaged in trying to earn a bare sub­ sistence in a deleterious atmosphere, no one can tell how many go down in the struggle. No statistics can be formed of the percentage of deaths, of enfeebled constitutions, of the amount of disease engendered in the first instance by the deadly atmosphere of the workrooms in second and third class establishments devoted to the dressmaking and ladies’ clothing trade in the West End of London. I know of no class of female workers whose vital interests are so entirely neglected, and who labour under such disadvantageous conditions, as the unlucky victims of the dressmaking industry. Nothing is more surprising than to hear the advocates of ‘ women’s rights ’ of both sexes, in full knowledge apparently of the hardships undergone by the very class whose battle they profess to fight, cry out for absolute liberty of action to all females employed in labour ! ” Evidently Mr. Gould is quite ignorant of the real bigotry of the advocates of free­ dom, and had better look to himself. In the shops themselves things are little better. Men and women are kept at work from thirteen to fourteen hours a day for five days in the week, and for sixteen hours on the sixth day. As to the accommodation of the labouring class, �62 ENGLAND FOR ALL. out of whose unpaid toil the capitalist makes his profit and society waxes fat, the Reports on Artisans’ Dwellings, give deplorable facts. Two and three families pigged together into one or two small rooms ; streets of houses torn down for improvements, and their occupiers forced to crowd in upon the already overcrowded streets adjoining. This is the rule through­ out all our great cities. London is no worse than Glas­ gow, nor Glasgow worse than Birmingham, Bradford, Leeds, Manchester, or Newcastle. The latter city, indeed, is perhaps the worst of all in this respect in comparison to its population. Hitherto the mere Permissive Acts to remedy this state of things have been almost useless. Yet the homes of the poor are not cheap; they are dear. Cubic space for cubic space, the dens of the East and West End cost more than the mansions of the rich, who have good air, good light, plentiful supply of water, and all that’s needed for healthy existence. Those who provide them with all these benefits are left to take care of themselves. No compulsion: that would be too serious. What ? force the municipalities to tear down foul, unhealthy dwellings, at the expense of the rich, and build up proper accommodation for the poor ? “ Never,” say the ratepayers ; “that would touch us : it is communism, confiscation, the overturn of society.” We are now in a brief cycle of rising prosperity for the moneyed and manufacturing class. Now is their opportunity to endeavour to remedy in their turn some of the mischiefs below and around them. They justly denounce the selfishness of landlords ; let them, too, look at home. But the working class should rely �LABOUR. 63 on their own power and peaceful strength—they must trust to themselves alone. To them, then, I say All wealth is produced by labour, and goods exchange in proportion to the quantity of human labour which is embodied in them. Between the workers of all civilized coun­ tries there is no real difference: they create the wealth and produce the food, and, under proper conditions, all would live in moderation all would have enough. But landowners, capitalists, mer­ chants, money-lenders, have possessed themselves of the land, of the machinery, of the currency, of the credit. They therefore compel the workers to labour long and live hardly for their benefit; they take of the time, and the life, and the labour of their fellows for nothing. Those who own the soil, and those who manufacture—those who live on interest, and those who trade on differences of value, live alike in luxury and in idleness out of the sweat and the misery of others. They, therefore, are the enemies of the great mass of the people, to be overcome by voluntary combination and peaceful endeavour. You, then, who produce the wealth in every country, consider where you stand ; you, men who have seen your homes broken up, your health destroyed, have beheld your wives and children fade away under the tyranny of capitalism, stop and think. Let all who are made poor and miserable for the advantage of others, take heed to themselves. And having thus considered, thus thought, and thus looked at home, stretch out your hands, now powerless, to the workers of the world as your friends, and begin a new and better �64 ENGLAND FOR ALL. social epoch for humanity. Working men and working women of Great Britain and Ireland, who now toil and suffer that others may be lazy and rich— Unite I Working men and working women of Europe and America, who now rejoice in the gleam of a transient prosperity, only to be cast into deeper despair on the next stagnation—Unite ! Unite ! In union alone is safety and happiness for the future, as in difference and selfishness have been danger and misery in the past. Therefore, once more, working men and working women, ye who live hardly to day, to pass on sadness and poverty to your children to­ morrow, Unite! Unite! Unite! �CAPITAL. CHAPTER HI. CAPITAL. Capital is the produce ofpast labour devoted to present production. “ The wealth which has been accumu­ lated with the object of assisting production, is termed capital; and therefore the capital of the country is the wealth which is not immediately consumed unproductively, and which may consequently be devoted to assist the further production?’ Capital is in fact the saving of past labour, for the special purpose of increasing the future store. Undoubtedly capital originally may have been acquired by saving or by inheritance, though that is only pushing the accumu­ lation a step further back; and the grain pits of Northern India, the yam barrows and tabu cocoa-nut groves of Polynesia, the stores of the Mexican aborigines, represent early and useful forms of capital. “ No­ thing,” says Mr. Fawcett, “ more distinctly marks the superiority of man over the brute creation than the prudent foresight wrhich causes an adequate provision to be made for the future. The more civilized men are, the more is this foresight shown. Civilized men anticipate with keen perception the wants of the future. To provide against the contingencies of the �66 ENGLAND FOR ALL. future, engrosses perhaps the too anxious care of the nation.” In these sentences Mr. Fawcett expresses far too favourable a view of the foresight of the present gene­ ration of civilized men. Never perhaps since civiliza­ tion was first seen on the planet, have so many human beings been passing through life at the same time on insufficient food, as at the present moment. Nothing, indeed, is more striking than, the want of foresight displayed under our present capitalist system of production. Whichever quarter of the globe we look to, we see the future entirely disregarded. We in England, for example, a vast industrial community, are content to base our supplies more and more upon countries thousands of miles from our shores. America, which affords us our chief quantity of food, is using up wheat centre after wheat centre in a fashion similar to that not long since in vogue in South Australia ; forests, which can perhaps never be replaced, are swept away, in every direction, to the permanent injury of the climate. In England, manure to the value of at least 25,000,000/. a year, is sent down into the sea, though our soil is deteriorating for want of it. Foresight, therefore, in any extended sense, cannot cer­ tainly be claimed for our existing civilization, unless the Romans showed foresight when they worked out the Campagna to ruin, and destroyed the future of Sicily by their exactions. What capital has done for India I shall show later on ; what it would do, if left unre­ strained, for our own people has been seen, in part, in the last chapter. But granting that the capital which begins work is the result of past frugality on the part �CAPITAL. of some hard-working man with a keen eye to the good of his species, as well as to his own immediate interest, what is the next capital, and the next, and the next, which rolls up so rapidly in this island of ours ? Let us go back to the great cotton industry once more, and look about us there. A man has a capital of say io,oooZ., inherited from his thrifty parent, who bequeathed if to him after a long life of usefulness, with many prayers that he would make it fructify. He does. Four-fifths he devotes to buying machinery, raw cotton, &c., and one-fifth he expends in wages. Every year he produces 240,000 pounds of cotton yarn of the value of I2,oooZ. His io,oooZ. has been reproduced, and his surplus value is in the 40,000 pounds of yarn, which are sold for the sum of 20O0Z. This 2000Z. of surplus value forms a new capital, which, when set to work in like manner, will produce in its turn a surplus value of 400Z.—and so on, and so on, as may seem convenient to the capitalist. The original IO,OOOZ. came from the pious parent, but the history of the new capital of the 2000Z., of the 400Z. &c., stares us in the face. It is simply surplus value, other people’s unpaid extra labour, capitalized. The means of production in which this additional extra labour is embodied, as well as the means which support it, are only portions of the tribute levied every year from the working class by the capitalist class. It is, of course, per­ fectly in accordance with the economical laws which govern the production of commodities, and with the ever sacred rights of property which follow thereupon. Nevertheless there are the following results F 2 �68 ENGLAND FOR ALL. 1. That the product belongs to the capitalist, and not to the producer. 2. That the value of this product includes both the value of the capital and the surplus value, which costs the workmen labour, but the capitalist whose lawful property it becomes, nothing. 3. That the labourer has kept up his force of labour • and can sell it again on the market, if he is lucky enough to find a buyer. Thus capital rolls up by crystallizing unpaid labour in the hands of the capitalist. That the general position of the modern labourer in dealing with his master the capitalist is bad enough, has been shown only too clearly. Whenever the Government slackens its intervention for a moment, even with existing Factory Acts in full force, the employers, as a class, strive their utmost to extend the hours of labour, and thus to get more unpaid work out of their hands. Not the slightest regard is paid to the health or well-being of the men, women, and children whose lives are used up thus lelentlessly ; the truck system, which filches wages, is resorted to wherever possible; and adulteration has become the rule rather than the exception in trade. To increase the rate of surplus value produced per head employed is of course a great gain ; the average amount of profit on the variable capital used is at once increased likewise. Who can wonder then that having the control of the powers of the country, and the recog­ nized political economists as their submissive fuglemen, the capitalist class should so long have ridden rough­ shod over the working class in the name of freedom ? �CAPITAL. 69 In considering, however, the origin of the capitalist system, it becomes clear that without a minimum amount of variable capital wherewith to pay wages, that mode of production cannot begin. A man who works for himself alone, need work only the eight hours which we may assume to be required, on the average, to provide him with the necessaries of subsistence. He would need then only the means of production for his eight hours’ work; whilst the capitalist, who makes him work an extra four hours, needs an additional sum of money to provide the means of production for those four hours. Moreover, the capitalist, even if he lived no better than the workmen he employed, would have to keep two of them at work for twelve hours a day, in order that he himself might have the necessaries of life in idleness. Even so there would be no surplus wealth. So that, according to this calculation, the lazy capitalist, in order to be able to live without work even twice as well as his workmen, and turn into capital half the surplus value produced, must advance eight times the amount of capital required for a single independent ■workman, though only four hands will be employed in producing surplus value. This done, capital at once becomes master of the situation. The workman no longer turns the means of production to account, but they turn him to account, and work up his force of labour into surplus value to an extent which has never been brought about under any system of forced labour known to history. The history of the development of capitalist pro­ duction, from simple cooperation and manufacture up �?o ENGLAND FOR ALL. to the present preponderance of the great machine industries, shows an enormous growth of wealth for the capitalist class, combined with steady pressure upon the labourer to produce more surplus value by low wages and overwork. At first the true capitalist method scarcely makes head; but when once labourers are collected together in one building, to do separate tasks at the bidding of an employer, they cease to be separate individuals, and become an organism, bound to exercise their collective capacity in accordance with the rules of capital. Here comes in that minute division of manual labour, so advantageous to pro­ duction, which has been described with so much enthusiasm by many economists. The object of the collection of the labourers together was, of course, to cheapen the production of merchandise. The extra ability which the workman derives from devoting his attention to one operation instead of to several, the time saved by the juxta-position of the labourers, &c., all tell in favour of the capitalist, whose interest is henceforth exclusively consulted. For the labourer has already become a mere tool. He no longer pro­ duces commodities himself, as he did before, but embodies his work in bits of commodities, or in help­ ing to make a complete commodity, only valuable when put together. To carry on perpetually one petty operation in a complicated whole, working day in and day out to produce surplus value for the capitalist by a series of purely mechanical operations, such is the la­ bourer’s portion in this system of manufacture. He still seems to be an independent agent working with his own tools, but this is precisely what in reality he is not. �CAPITAL. 71 Glass-making, watch-making, pin-making, and other trades, are still to a great extent conducted on this transition method, and afford illustrations of what was not long since general. Whilst then the social division of labour, with or without the exchange of commodi­ ties, belongs to the economical forms of most various societies, the manufacturing division of labour is the special creation of the capitalist system of production. The workshop is in fact a machine, of which the parts are human beings. Dissociate the individuals from the machine as a whole, and they become almost as useless as a crank, a pin, or an eccentric, detached from a steam-engine. The labourer, to start with, sells his force of labour to capital because he is desti­ tute of the means of production himself; now his labour has become absolutely useless unless it is sold. He can work henceforth to advantage only in the workshop of the capitalist. It is also the tendency of manufacture thus conducted to employ more and more hands as capital accumulates and the minimum of capital needed to commence, increases. This sort of co-operation was a historical necessity, in order to convert isolated labour into social work. It begins about the middle of the sixteenth century, and lasts to the latter half of the eighteenth century, as the chief method of production in capitalist coun­ tries. During the whole of this period, and far on into the nineteenth century, the most atrocious laws were enacted by the small minority of the population who owned the Houses of Parliament against the increase of wages, or any combination on the part of the working classes to secure for themselves justice and �72 ENGLAND FOR ALL. consideration. Capitalists might combine at their pleasure; employers might break their contract at will; but, woe betide those unlucky workmen who thought that freedom meant the right to strike to get better wages, or to step out of a contract which im­ perilled their health. For them the prison, flogging, branding, forced labour at the filthiest tasks. But for the capitalist ?—he went on his way rejoicing, with more and yet more of other men’s labour at his mercy, and in due course of time he “ founded a family/’ figured as an Abolitionist, and died in the odour of sanctity. Steam machinery gave a new turn to the screw which pressed down the working class, and began those periods of inflation and stagnation, of over-pro­ duction and depression, which many have come to regard as inevitable accompaniments of all produc­ tion. The machine sprang naturally out of manu­ facture, but the use of steam as a motive power gave it a development in many directions which could never have been obtained in any other way. At first sight it would appear that machines must of necessity improve the lot of the bulk of mankind—that as they so vastly enhance the productive power of human labour, men would be relieved from excessive drudgery, and yet wealth would abound more than at any pre­ vious period. This was the view of the ancients. Aristotle fore­ saw that slavery could be done away if machines were invented ; and others have dreamed of a state of society where, by their help, the history of the people should cease to be one of perpetual poverty and degradation. �CAPITAL, 73 As machines save labour alike in agriculture and in working up the raw material, there is nothing neces­ sarily chimerical in such ideas. But capital has stepped in and taken order with these vain imaginings. The riches due to machinery have gone to the few: the many have become mere slaves to the machine. For that is the result : human beings no longer make use of their implements ; they themselves are made to serve the machine. The machine of course, though it increases the pro­ ductive power of the human labour employed, adds no more value to the commodity produced than the wear and tear during the process of work. But the first effect of its introdi tion is to bring into com­ petition with adult male 1 our that of women and children, who could, and do, serve machines as well as the superior force of the men, and serve also to reduce their wages—the main object of the capitalist. But another advantage is afforded by the machine to the employer. We have seen that the profit of the capitalist depends upon the amount of unpaid labour he can exact from the free workman. In ordinary circumstances this can only be increased by the lengthening of the hours of labour. But by the aid of machines the labour can be intensified as well as pro­ longed. Thus a man may produce the necessary amount of labour-value in a shorter period, and leave a larger portion of the working day as surplus value to his employer, by an improvement in machinery which renders the labour rapid and severe. Ever since the law stepped in to shorten the hours of labour for women and children, and men combined to shorten �74 ENGLAND FOR ALL. their own hours, the endeavour to intensify labour by increasing the rapidity of machines has been unceas­ ing. This has produced in the cotton and silk factories a state of nervous excitement among the workers which has greatly augmented the proportion of chest complaints. Twelve hours’ work are now compressed into ten hours. This work, too, is of the most monoto­ nous, uninteresting character. In return for that ex­ hausting labour the working classes as a body suffer as the Bishop of Manchester has described. But the effect of the introduction of new machines of greatly improved capacity, used not for the benefit of the whole community, but primarily for that of the dominant class, has a far more serious influence upon the working class than even the competition of women and children which it admits of, or the intensity of labour which results therefrom. A new labour-saving machine means so much labour thrown upon the market without the means of earning subsistence. This effect of improved machinery is admitted by Ricardo, who, after having previously held the contrary opinion, satisfied himself “ that the substitution of machinery for human labour is often very injurious to the class of labourers.” This view is taken less clearly by Macculloch, and Mill, and Fawcett; but they con­ tend that the compensations are rapid, and in the end beneficial. The labouring classes, according to them, are therefore benefited, not injured, by the introduction of improved machinery in every case. The labourers whom the machine displaces are nevertheless thrown upon the market, where they certainly increase the amount of labour available for the capitalist. This is �CAPITAL. 75 -in itself a terrible matter for them all. But the amount of capital invested in the machine ceases also to be available for wages ; and if the machine works up an increased amount of raw material with far fewer hands, the constant capital is clearly greatly augmented at the expense of the variable, or that which is imme­ diately available for the payment of wages. The men thus thrown out of work are good for very little in other employments, and consequently fall to a lower grade. If they get fresh work in the same trade, that is owing to the introduction of some new capital, not cer­ tainly to that which is already locked up in the machine, and employed in obtaining food for it in the shape of raw materials. The machine itself has nothing to do with the sad effect produced. The result of its em­ ployment is that the product is cheaper and more abundant than ever before ; yet the workman is thrown aside into penury, and the capitalist pursues his triumphant career. For this temporary inconvenience is now of perpetual recurrence ; and the fate of the miserable hand-loom weavers of India, starved in the interests of Manchester manufacturers, is reproduced in a milder form among the English labourers whose interests these very cotton-lords were pretending to serve. The necessary influence of the machine under present conditions is to place the labourers at an increasing disadvantage—a disadvantage which they can never overcome, save by political and social com­ binations and rearrangements, carried out with stead­ fastness and zeal for at least a generation. For this brings the question home to that miserable see-saw of inflation and depression to that sad con­ �76 ENGLAND FOR ALL. dition of the mass of the labouring poor in the evergrowing population of our great cities, to which reference has so often been made. “ Oh yes,” say the followers of Malthus, by no means confined to Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant, " but this over-population is ‘at the root of the whole mischief. If only the working class would keep itself under restraint, and not breed at such a terrible pace, they would at once raise their wages by the .eternal law of supply and demand. They have to thank their own early mar­ riages and excessive birth-rate for much of their present misery.” Is this so ? The evidence is really all the other way. There is nothing whatever to show that these islands are overpeopled [in proportion to the wealth that is being accumulated. Very much the contrary. The population of Great Britain and Ireland has doubled in the last seventy years. It is now increas­ ing at the rate of about one-and-a-half per cent, in every ten years. But the riches, the income, the accu­ mulations of the country, are they increasing at a less rate so that abstention from marriage and Malthusian devices are so essential ? Why, it is notorious to all that our wealth .has increased out of all calculable proportion to our population during the present cen­ tury. The whole world is laid under contribution, to furnish additional wealth for the exported savings of unpaid labour made by the comfortable classes here at home. English capital brings back its return from all quarters of the globe ; whilst in these islands, the comparison between what was and what is, can scarcely be expressed in sober language. Nay, even �CAPITAL. 77 during this late period of prolonged depression, when the hard, rough men of the iron districts, as well as the distressed cotton-spinners and miners, were declaring that they would not go into the workhouse, and yet could not “ clem ” for another winter—even in those hardest of hard times, it was calculated by an expert that in addition to ordinary investments, which were going on all the time, no less than 250,000,000/. were watching the opportunity to belaid out to a profit when, to use the cant phrase, business once more recovered. Whilst population is now increasing at the rate of one-and-a-half per cent, in every ten years, capital, and wealth squandered in luxury, are rolling up at the rate of ten, twenty, thirty per cent, per annum. A few figures will make this quite clear. Taking the years 1848 and 1878, the period of one generation since last there was an agitation in favour of justice to the multitude, we find that the total gross annual value of property and profits assessed to Income Tax in Great Britain and Ireland—about half the actual gross annual value, or less—was in round figures 275,000,000/. in 1848, against 578,000,000/., in 1878, or an increase on assessmentfor income alone of up­ wards of 110 per cent, in the thirty years. A truly enor­ mous increase. Yet the total population in 1848 was 28,000,000, as against nearly 34,000,000 in 1878. Here, then in the United Kingdom, an increase of the annual assessed income of no per cent, or of 303,000,000/., since 1848, was accompanied by an increase in the population of only 6,000,000, or at the rate of less than twenty per cent, in the thirty years. �78 ENGLAND FOR ALL. What fatal nonsense then is it to talk of over­ population in such a case as this. If the increased capital had been used for the benefit of all, then these extra 6,000,000, as well as the 28,000,000, would have been living in comfort, health, and well-being —well-housed, well-clothed, well-fed, well-educated. The over-population which the Malthusians think to check by their wrong and mistaken methods, is due to the special system of production under which we groan, and will continue so long as, and no longer than, it is brought under restraint for the advantage of all. It is the deprivation of the means of selling their labour on fair terms that does the mischief to the mass of the population. Let the people remem­ ber, that if no one were overworked in this free land of ours, there would not at this moment be hands enough in the country to carry on its business—that if only one-half of the livers in luxury and idleness on the excessive labour of others turned to some higher ideal of patriotism, there would be plenty for all. It is not the population that crowds on the means of subsistence, but the concentration of the produce of their toil in so few hands, that is obnoxious ; though the way out to a better and fairer distribution is not so simple as some of the easy handlers of the complicated machinery of our modern society would imagine. This over-population then, which occasions such sad scenes in times of depression, and is ever close at hand in the flushest days of trade, is not actual but relative, and is directly due to the employment of machines and the growing proportion of constant to �CAPITAL. 79 variable capital. Natural causes—great famines in the East, serious wars in Europe, short harvests at home, may aggravate the depression, as sloth and unthrifti­ ness add to the misfortunes of the working class. But such decennial crises as those now observable date from the present century, and owe their development to the circumstances stated. The reproduction of capital necessarily carries with it the simultaneous reproduction of the source of sur­ plus value—force of labour. Accumulation of capital involves at the same time increase of the mere wage­ earning class. The payment of wages presupposes that a certain amount of labour is given for nothing. Wages, therefore, can only rise because there is an increase of capital in excess of the labour offered. The rise of wages and consequent diminution of unpaid labour do not mean that the domain of capitalism is restricted : small profits only necessitate bigger capitals, and the workman sees in the wealth of his master his only hope of safety. The ordinary expla­ nation is either that the rise in the rate of wages retards the accumulation of capital in comparison to the labour on offer, and then wages fall to the level which suits the views of capital; or on the other hand, wages are low, and then the amount of capital seeking employment in comparison to the labour on offer is excessive, causing wages to rise. Thus the see-saw goes on. Now an excess of capital arising from accelerated accumulation, which renders the labour on offer insufficient and raises its price; again a slackened accumulation makes the labour on offer relatively excessive and reduces its �8o ENGLAND FOR ALL. price. AU this has nothing to do with the increase or decrease of population, but may occur, and does occur, when the population is stationary. The real law however of capitalist production is this : —The relation between the accumulation of capital and the rate of wages is only a relation between unpaid labour converted into capital and the overplus of paid labour that this additional capital needs in order to set to work. This then is not a relation between two matters quite independent of one another—that is to say,"on the one side the magnitude of the capital, on the other the number of the working population ; but a relation only betzveen the paid and the unpaid labour of the same working population. If the quantity of unpaid labour which the working class supplies and the capitalist class accumulates increases with sufficient rapidity for its conversion into additional capital to necessitate an extraordinary addition to the quantity of paid labour, wages rise. Other things remaining the same, unpaid labour diminishes in proportion. So soon, however, as this diminu­ tion reaches the point when the extra labour which furnishes the additional capital is no longer forth­ coming in the usual quantity, a reaction ensues. A less part of the return is converted into capital, and the rise of wages is checked. Thus—and this is the point of most serious import to the working classes of this country—the price of labour can never rise except between limits which leave quite untouched the groundwork of the capitalist system and ensure the reproduction of capital on a progressive scale. Never then until the working class shake thertfcelves clear �CAPITAL. 81 of the notion that a mere rise of wages is all they have to strive for, will they be able to control the capitalist class. The labourer is really the slave of his own production in existing economical conditions. For, as has been stated more than once, the demand for labour is occasioned, not by the actual amount of capital but by that of its variable portion, which alone employs labour. But the magnitude of this portion relatively to the whole is constantly decreasing. At times, however, the conversion of variable into con­ stant capital is less felt, machines are introduced less frequently. Then there arises that greater demand for labour which under ordinary conditions follows upon the accumulation of capital. Yet at the very moment when the number of the workmen employed by the capital reaches its maximum, there is such a glut of produce that at the slightest check in disposing of the goods the whole social machinery seems to come to a dead stop, the discharge of workmen comes suddenly on a vast scale and in violent manner, and the very upset forces capitalists to excessive efforts to economize labour. Improved machinery is introduced again, and the wheel works round. Thus the tendency of our system of production and the increasing accumulation of capital, is to increase at the same time the amount of the over-population relatively to the means of employment. An indus­ trial army of reserve is maintained of increasing dimensions, ever at the disposal of capital, ready to be absorbed during times of expansion, only to be thrown back in periods of collapse. Only under the control of the great industrial movement of our �82 ENGLAND FOR ALL. time, does the production of a superfluous population become a definite means for the development of wealth. During periods of stagnation -this industrial army of reserve presses on the army in active employ­ ment to reStrain its demands, when at length comes the period of [over-production and great apparent prosperity. Thus, then, the law according to which an ever-increasing mass of riches can be produced with a less and still lessening expenditure of human force—this law which enables man as a social being to produce more and more with less labour, is turned by our capitalist system—where the means of pro­ duction are not at the service of the labourer, but the labourer at the mercy of his means of production— directly to his disadvantage. As a direct consequence, the more power and resources placed at the command of labour, and the greater the competition of labourers for means of employment, the more precarious be­ comes the condition of the wage-earner, and his op­ portunities of selling his labour. The productive population is always increasing in a more rapid ratio than the capital has need of it, All recent events do but serve to exhibit the general truth of this in more striking shape. Look at the movement of population ; take note of the operation of strikes ; observe the world-wide effect of crises at the present time : how the numbers of those who live from hand to mouth, or minister as domestic servants to the luxuries of the comfortable classes, grow in proportion to the rest of the population ; how the strikes invariably fail on a falling market, and often leave the workmen in a worse condition than they �CAPITAL. S3 were before they began; how, when a crisis begins in Vienna it is felt at once through the world, to the United States, and we see, even in that great territory 3,000,000 of tramps, without house or home, wander­ ing through the country, exposed to the most furious laws enacted by the well-to-do, and waiting till capi­ tal shall be good enough to employ them again, and again turn them adrift; how we ourselves discovered that the capitalized unpaid labour taken from our peo­ ple to lend to rotten States, like San Domingo, Hon­ duras, Paraguay, and Peru, had merely brought about here at home a fictitious industrial prosperity, to be followed by the longest, and for the mass of the working people the most trying, crisis known in re­ cent times ; how—but it is needless to go further ; the facts, the bare hard facts, condemn unceasingly our unregulated system of capitalist production, which, based solely on selfishness and gratifying greed, takes no account of the morrow, nor any note whatever of the mischief inflicted on the human race. Where the State has interfered to control and change the bale­ ful conditions of life for the mass of our countrymen, there, and there alone, has some little good been done. What then, say the let-alone school, would you stop the operation of machinery, throw back the evo­ lution of the race, and return to the natural savage for a reorganization of modern society ? They who ask such questions are as silly as those who think all attempts to change our social organization must be necessarily traced to the French Revolution, and that those who, like myself, are determined to modify existing political and social conditions, must wish and G 2 �84 ENGLAND FOR ALL. strive for a general overturn. It is not so. But the working of capital is essentially immoral. It moves on irrespective of all human considerations, save the accumulation of wealth and the provision for ease and luxury. For fifty years England has been under the domination of the classes who live and trade upon unpaid labour. Surely it is high time that those people who provide it should be heard in their turn as to the system which weighs them down. To expect that the nation will at once abandon its idea of fancied individual freedom in favour of a real col­ lective freedom which shall consult and care for the interests of all, is a chimera. But seeing, as we cannot but see, the plain economical basis of so much of the misery all deplore, is it not reasonable that more rapid steps should be made in the direction of general improvement ? So far all the sacrifices have been made by the working class. What they in their turn may rightfully demand at once as reason­ able and practicable remedies for some portion of their ills, are i1— 1. A curtailment of the hours of labour, eight hours being the working day. 2. Free and compulsory education in its widest sense. 3. A compulsory construction by the municipalities and county assemblies of fitting dwellings for the working classes, including a good and free supply of light, air, and water, and garden-ground where possible. 1 I need scarcely say that personally I should welcome far more stringent reforms, but the very people who suffer most under present economical conditions are not prepared to change them completely. �CAPITAL. 85 4. Really cheap transport, so that artisans may live at a distance from their work without incurring heavy expenditure. Such social reforms would produce an effect more speedily than might be supposed ; and the expenditure would be far more than repaid to the community at large by the increased physical strength, the superior intelligence and morality, and the greatly enhanced patriotism, in its best sense, of the mass of the com­ munity. That these changes would check the fearful crises consequent upon the capitalist system of pro­ duction is nowise probable; but they would lead the way gradually to a better system, when all might enter more fully upon their duties to the whole country. Men who are now deprived of the fruits of their labour, who live under bad social conditions, who are forced to resort to scamped work and adulterated manufacture in order that their employers may make a profit, would feel very differently if for their honest labour embodied in sound goods they could obtain a rightful return themselves. The magic of property would then be felt in the general as well as the individual improvement. That industry will always have the better of laziness, that thrift must be more beneficial than extravagance, are truths which no political or social changes can shake. But as we stand, our laws and customs are directly calculated to foster excessive wealth on the one side and miserable poverty on the other. What wonder that the people should begin to ask themselves the why and the wherefore of all this disparity between the men who work and those who use them ? None are more �86 ENGLAND FOR ALL. ready to pay for mental toil than those who work with their hands, none more ready to give up a por­ tion of their labour for the benefit of their fellows. Nov/, however, the perpetual conflict of wages, the strife with capital, where the possibility of final success is pushed farther and farther into the distance, necessarily blunts that feeling of national greatness in the best sense which does so much to sweep away, even as it is, the meanness engendered by mere nar­ rowness and greed. Those who are never certain of continuous employment, and have little time left for education, might well be pardoned if they thought only of their own selfish interests. That in the mass they do not do so, is the best hope for the future. But in coming changes it behoves us to be careful, lest, in getting rid of the excessive influence of one dominant class, we do but strengthen the power of a meaner and a worse one in its place. If possession of land—as all reformers agree—should be regulated in the interests of the country in time to come, so also must capital, machinery, and the national highways. Conservatism has come to mean the dominance of landowners : Liberalism has been degraded to the service of capitalists. There is little perhaps to choose ; but for the people it is to the full as important in the future that capital should be controlled as the land. Mere destruction for its own sake is not in accordance with the views of Englishmen. To pull down a system, however bad, they must see that something is ready to take its place. The infinite mischiefs of capitalism must be removed as a better method of production grows up from below. We have sad experience that our so- �CAPITAL. 87 called individual liberty means too often only the development of monopoly and the tyranny of wealth. But that faculty of organization, that ingenuity in turning science and invention to account, may as well be used in the service of the many as to the selfish gratification of personal desires. There is room enough for the use of the highest powers, without the perpetual money-getting now in the ascendant. No man can live out of the current of his age ; but it is time that a higher ideal were placed before the nation, and that the common sense of the community at large should save the next generation from the power of oppression now accorded to a system which developes in those who handle it neither foresight, patriotism, nor honesty. The very tendency of capital itself renders this essen­ tial. Each year sees it rolling up into larger and larger masses. The great joint-stock enterprises, where enormous capital is obtained from many contributors, gradually crush out smaller houses ; large emporiums undersell small; large factories dwarf smaller. With this increase too, the personal relation between em­ ployers and employed ceases, and powerful corpora­ tions begin to assert themselves as a political influence solely for selfish ends, and with the cold persistence and disregard for human interests which such asso­ ciations invariably display. England, the greatest capitalist country, may well show the world how to take order with this dangerous growth which threatens to overshadow human progress, and regulate without injustice those purely selfish motives which hitherto have been looked to as the sole hope of advance in civilization. �88 ENGLAND FOR ALL. CHAPTER IV. ORGANIZATION. Now does any one imagine that with our present restricted suffrage we are likely to carry in town or country the social changes absolutely essential for the well-being of the majority, or to reorganize our political machinery in a workable shape within a reasonable time ? Those who think thus must be of a very sanguine disposition. When in history did classes who hold property and power give up any portion of their valuable and lucrative monopolies until they saw clearly that surrender would be less harmful than defeat ? The natural inclination of so-called Conservatism is to make a dead stand against all reform ; only now and then does a man arise in any country who can persuade the people in possession that, if they wish to avoid an overturn, they must have a distinct constructive policy of their own. Yet it is true that mere extension of the suffrage by itself does not suffice to bring about much beneficial change. In France manhood suffrage imposed upon the people the rule of Napoleon III., with his gang of gamblers and political thimble-riggers for twenty years. The master may have meant well enough in his way, but his men and their mistresses looked upon France �ORGANIZATION. 89 as their fair prey. In Germany, as we see, universal suffrage has not prevented Prince Bismarck from maintaining the dominance of military Junkerdom over a well-educated and, in the main, peaceful people. In America the injurious influence of great capitalists is severely felt, though there the people have the power to put an end to their tyranny at once by com­ bination at the polls. Even here in England we may observe the same slow action on the part of voters to bring forward social grievances. Wonders, for instance, were looked for from the Reform Bill of 1832. It would be quite amusing, if it were not a little sad, to read in the writers of the first quarter of this century what changes for the better would be made so soon as rotten boroughs were swept away, and the power of aristocrats shaken. Yet, all this enthusiasm notwithstanding, fourteen years elapsed before even the Corn Laws were repealed—and that was a capi­ talist not a working-class measure, inasmuch as cheap food kept wages lower ; and the Factory Acts were not passed, in a shape to be of any service, for sixteen years. Then, too, the man who did more than any other to force them on the legislature, in the face of the interested opposition of the capitalists, was a non­ political aristocrat, the present Lord Shaftesbury. So with the Reform Bill of 1867, which in the eyes of such a man as Mr. Lowe involved nothing short of revolution. What great measures for the advantage of the community at large have yet resulted from that ? Ireland, no doubt, has secured some attention; and the School Boards have commenced the work of educa­ tion ; but on the whole it is surprising how little has �90 ENGLAND FOR ALL. been achieved in fourteen years. Still, it is impossible to doubt that pressure from without would assume a very different shape if every man in the British Islands not a felon were entitled to"a vote. It is fair to assume that no further change is pressed on now with vigour, because the mass of the present voters have got all they want. For though it is the fashion to say that the Reform Bill of 1867 gave power to the democracy, there is little evidence of that as yet. To this day the working class is outvoted by the shopkeeping class ; and the preposterous absurdity of three-cornered constitu­ encies has been foisted on us by political theorists, to make matters worse. The extension of the borough franchise to the counties will, no doubt, make a difference to theagricultural labourer, and facilitate the dealing with the land ; but that only puts the increas­ ing working class in the towns at a greater relative disadvantage. Manhood or adult suffrage is really the only logical outcome of any arguments in favour of the extension of the suffrage at all. Those who make the wealth of the country have the right, if any­ body has, to vote as to how it should be governed. Drawbacks to such an extension there are, of course; and elsewhere, as has been already remarked, mere universal suffrage has not secured the social advance­ ment which might have been hoped for. But unless those who suffer most under present arrangements have at least the means of putting forward repre­ sentatives definitely pledged beforehand to redress their grievances, the very motive power for reform is lacking alike in Parliament and in local assemblies. �ORGANIZA TION. 9i We are now in a vicious circle. Shut men out from voting, and a minority unjustly controls the country: give the vote to all, and there is the risk of whole­ sale corruption, as well as that ignorance should become the ultimate court of appeal. What probability is there, however, that, under any circumstances,Tree compulsory education to remedy this ignorance—or the enactment that bribery shall be felony, to put a stop to corruption—will be carried in our existing Parliament with the present suffrage ? The idea is by no means confined to the Conserva­ tives that universal education must involve a very inconvenient growth of independence, which will ren­ der men and women disinclined to supply menial positions in the old-fashioned way. Possibly, too, the workers of the community would begin to inquire into the reasons of the present excessive disparity of wealth, which would be more inconvenient still. School Boards are already too expensive for some. The con­ tention that really complete free education is the duty of the State for the protection of the common interest, is looked upon as little short of socialism by the w’ell-to-do, who of course wish their children to start lightly handicapped with a good education in the race of life. The old hierarchical notions indeed still go on, and people who have to fill the lower stations ought in the opinion of many of the well-to-do to be mere animals, without too much knowledge to make them anxious for higher things. In this matter England is still far behind countries which in respect of political intelligence and political training are greatly our inferiors. We who have hitherto led the way �92 ENGLAND FOR ALL. in so many European improvements, need not surely look any longer across the sea to find that Frenchmen and Germans have more share in the government of their country than ourselves. More than ever important is it then, as the first step towards the organization of democracy, that all who add to the wealth of the coun­ try shall have a voice in ordering how taxation should be levied and spent. Manhood or adult suffrage could alone supply the power to carry out genuine reform. But other mere mechanical changes are needed at the same time. That a Parliament should last six years without a dissolution, has been found to be a matter of serious inconvenience to the State at large. Men who know that they are irremovable for so long a period trust to national forgetfulness to cover up their blunders. Many instances could be given of this calculation, and its effects upon the course of public business. Triennial Parliaments, or, better still, a retirement of one-third of the members each year, would keep the House of Commons thoroughly in har­ mony with the constituencies, and quicken the general interest in political affairs. Equal electoral districts necessarily follow upon manhood or adult suffrage. Any other arrangement would inevitably bring about in a new form that injustice which we wish to get rid of. The right of all to a vote once conceded, no man can claim a greater share in representation than another. In the same way payment of all election expenses, whether parliamentary or municipal, out of the public funds, is essential. Wealth has already far too much influence, without making political life almost im­ �ORGANIZATION. • 93 possible to the poor man, and especially to the work­ ing class. Why should a man be called upon to pay a large fine in order to fill a public office for which his countrymen think him qualified ? The working class can never hope to be fairly represented till this has been carried at the least. In the same way, pay­ ment of members is but justice. Unpaid work as a whole is bad work, done as a rule for social aggran­ dizement, personal advancement, or the like. A re­ presentative ought to feel that he is the servant of the State, quite open to form his own judgment, but still as much a part of the general executive as any Minister. Moreover, this mere money business must act as a drawback, or almost as exclusive, to poor men. Few can afford to throw their whole time into the House of Commons work on Committees, &c., with­ out remuneration. Those who do, have generally contrived as a body—landlords, capitalists, railway directors, &c.—to reimburse themselves handsomely at the expense of the country at large. These four points therefore are imperatively needed as the means towards a better organization :— Manhood or Adult Suffrage. Triennial or Annual Parliaments. Equal Electoral Districts. Payment of Members and especially of all Election Expenses, out of public funds. They are but means to an end; yet it is humi­ liating to remember that they were demanded in 1848 by a powerful organization, and now here we are in 1881 still without them. Englishmen have lost pluck under middle-class rule. The influence �94 ENGLAND FOR ALL. of the perpetual money-getting seems to have exer­ cised a weakening effect’ on every portion of the body politic. Nowadays, any sturdy demand for plain rights is styled revolutionary ; and a sort of cant patter-song of moderation is chanted by both parties, who on all these matters are practically at one. It does one good at such times to breathe the free bluff air of downright agitation, when men call a spade a spade, and a trimmer a useless flabby creature, to be thrown into the political gutter as soon as may be. For the definite issue we are now debating has been led up to for at least three generations. The shock of the Revolution in France enabled the upper and middle classes here to set back reforms till our day which were recognized as essential in a far different state of things by such a man as Lord Chatham. Now we see on every side nations beginning to govern themselves wholly for the sake of the people. That government of the people by the people of which noble Abraham Lincoln spoke on the battle-field of Gettysburg as the cause for which men fell there, is the cause which we have yet to fight out peacefully here. For at this present moment, whilst we are discussing the expediency of this or that step, a process of cen­ tralization and decentralization is going forward, which, unless we take means to understand and take advantage of it, will land us all in administrative anarchy. Universal suffrage, giving vent to direct personal interest, but harmonized and consolidated into a general effort for the public good, must be the basis of that new social and political period on which we �ORGANIZA TION. 95 are now entering. By itself it can do nothing ; but it is surely possible, at our stage of political development, to combine the full satisfaction of the wishes of the people, and the improvement of their social position, with the ideal of a great country leading European development by virtue of true sagacity and healthy vigour. It is such an ideal of public advantage that can alone stimulate men to sacrifice their individual crotchets to attain a great end. To stand still is out of the question. Parliament, as every one can see, no longer holds the position in public esteem, or is able to carry on its work, as it did. How far the House of Lords and the House of Com­ mons may require remodelling is a point on which men differ. That great changes are needed, alb are agreed. The House of Lords stands only by reason of its past. Many hesitate to attack it, as the City hesitated to remove Temple Bar. It is antiquated and cumbrous, and unquestionably blocks the way 5 but there are still historical associations which induce men to shrink from a definite agitation for its over­ throw. Besides, it is at the present time the best debating club of its kind in Europe. There, on great occasions, the traditions of oratory, which are begin­ ning to fade from the House of Commons, may still be found as a living force. But it is sad to see so much ability fired into the air. Their lordships only exchange their ordinary attitude of wrell-bred indif­ ference and drowsiness for a more active interest when some reactionary motion has to be affirmed to no purpose. Young men who grow up in that dull atmosphere early acquire an apparent consciousness �9$ ENGLAND FOR ALL. of their own uselessness. Why should they longer suffer, poor fellows, from this hereditary boredom ? It would be charitable to relieve them from so false a position as that which they now hold. A closer con­ tact with the moving forces of English political life might perhaps develope in some of them a worthy ambition to lead, instead of languidly attempting to dam back, the current of their time. This at any rate is certain, that the time is rapidly passing away when a caucus of territorial magnates can play at being superior creatures to their fellow-countrymen, and amuse themselves by retarding legislation which the mass of Englishmen have decided upon. To sweep away any institution altogether is, how­ ever, scarcely our English way. So long as it can be advantageously modified we cling to the old form. That the hereditary principle must be done away with as an anachronism and an absurdity would be ad­ mitted by thousands, who would still wish to have a second chamber—not to interfere with or hamper the direct representatives of democracy, but to maintain a continuity in general policy which such a body as a reformed House of Commons could scarcely command. Here, of course, is the great difficulty of our party system of Government, and it can never be lessened save by the formation of some great consultative assembly, in which representatives of all portions of our great commonwealth and dependencies find a seat* It may be that the American Senate, devised by men who had thoroughly studied the dangers of waves of popular excitement, is too powerful a body for us to wish to constitute a similar check upon the Lower �ORGANIZATION. 97 House ; for the Senate in the United States, owing to its method of election, the personal reputation of its members, and the authority accorded, is the powerful House ; whilst with us, if parliamentary government is maintained in its present shape, the House of Commons can scarcely fail to be supreme. The danger of dead­ locks here, however, would not be nearly so great as in our colonies, where the power of the purse is divided. What we need in place of the House of Lords is a Great Council for the public discussion and revision of treaties, the maintenance of a constant survey of our foreign relations—which will be greatly facilitated when the present system of secret diplomacy is put an end to—and a regulation of the policy towards our great colonies and dependencies, in conjunction with direct representatives from them. These duties are now not performed at all; during the last twenty years we have had but too many occasions to lament that lack of continuity in our policy which at times makes us the laughing-stock of the world. Such a great consultative and deliberative council might worthily take the place which the House of Lords held when it was really a power in the State. Now it is merely a nuisance ; and the sooner a change is made which shall bring the second chamber once more into a useful sphere of existence, the better for the stability of the Constitution in its best sense. Such a modification, indeed, though radical to start with, would be highly conservative in the best sense in the long-run. The abler men would probably welcome a change which whilst, as we see in France, it makes no great difference in their social distinction—for certain classes cling to H �98 ENGLAND FOR ALL. ancient lineage as something to worship—freed their hands and enabled them to enter into the real poli­ tical strife of the day without restraint. The future of the House of Commons is a very different matter. At the present time, partly by its own fault, and partly by the force of circumstances, that noble historical assembly has also lost influence with the people, because it has grasped at more power than it can conveniently handle, and is far too slow to suggest any reform of itself. Did any body of men, by the way, ever reform themselves ? That is really the difficulty we are at present in. There is no power outside the House of Commons to reform the House of Commons ; to hear some members talk, one might suppose it was still the collective wisdom of the nation. Such scenes, however, as those which occurred with regard to the Irish members, the voting on the Brad­ laugh oath, and the hopeless block of legislation— occasioned not so much by obstruction, though there has been a great deal of that without the justification which the Irish members could claim on the Coercion Bill, as by the endless flood of conversational small talk which men of no special knowledge or ability seem to think they owe to their constituencies—• have gradually convinced the country that a complete change in the functions of Parliament can alone right the existing state of things. Neither manhood suffrage nor the reform of methods of election will put an end to obstruction, check silly garrulity, or remove the excessive business with which the House of Commons is cumbered. And here we come to a point at which much difference of opinion �ORGANIZA TION. 99 must necessarily arise. That greater powers should be given to local assemblies to deal with many matters which now come before the House of Commons, may be admitted without dispute ; but howfar the authority of these local assemblies should extend is a matter of difference. Irishmen demand home rule, or even separation ; Scotchmen and Welshmen have as yet no such anxiety to obtain parliaments to themselves. But with manhood suffrage in full force, it is clear that the rights of the people will be far more completely pro­ tected than they are at present, and that power could be more safely handed over to local authorities. National and Federal parliaments, desirable as they are, can scarcely be organized till there is a more active demand for them. The Irish do make the demand, and the possibility of fairly meeting it without actual disruption of the Empire is a pressing question at this moment. In England, Scotland, and Wales, however, the county, the municipality, the township, are old wellunderstood divisions, and to them, under one or other of the numerous schemes which have been before the public, might be handed over jurisdiction in respect of many matters on which the House of Commons has at present to be consulted. Local representative assemblies, properly elected to transact the rapidly growing business of the whole population, would take an amount of petty work off Parliament, with which it ought never to have been saddled. All this, of course, will shortly be attempted ; and with the power of the democracy brought to bear for the collective adyantage, the old local bodies will be H 2 �TOO ENGLAND FOR ALL. invigorated with fresh life. County assemblies and municipal boards will then perhaps cease to be, as they so often are now, mere inefficient and corrupt vestries. It is unreasonable that the House of Commons should undertake to settle what these local bodies could equally well arrange for themselves. A wide scheme of decentralization, carried out with a view to interesting the whole population in their local business, would but serve to strengthen the House of Commons for dealing with affairs now pushed aside by less important matters to the injury of the whole com­ munity, and raise again the character of its debates. It is remarkable, indeed, that as wealth, power, and political influence have been concentrated in the hands of the upper and middle classes local vigour has to a certain extent died down. In the future the municipalities, as we can already see, will have far wider duties to undertake than those which they perform at present. Lighting, water, artisans’ dwellings—these, instead of being left to individual companies will be undertaken by the local bodies, as also the providing of public parks and recreation-grounds. When full power is vested in such corporations and county boards to take what land is needed at a valuation for the purpose either of building or of granting per­ manent leases for agricultural purposes, a far greater amount of interest will attach to the improvement of the management, and men of a superior character will be anxious to take part in the business. All such decentralization, in the sense that these bodies are given great powers without applying to Parliament, will also act in the direction of peaceful development, and �ORGANIZA T10N. IOI give the working classes that impetus towards social improvement by their own energy which is so mani­ festly necessary. At the same time, though municipal and local business may form a good training for local adminis­ tration, it by no means follows that a good vestryman or aiderman makes a good member of Parliament when obligations beyond the range of a three months’ bill are under discussion. It is remarkable indeed that in such matters working men, who literally do not know whether their present week’s wage will be continued the next, have a far wider idea of their duties, and take a much higher view of the position which a great country like ours ought to assume in its dealings with its dependencies and foreign powers, than mere mercantile men. The latter are far too apt to consider everything from the pounds, shillings, and pence point of view. Will such a policy increase immediately the national turn over ? then it is excellent. Will it involve doubtful expen­ diture for a great moral principle, or serious political agitation for a great future national benefit? such a proposal must of necessity be unsound. This sort of reasoning is well enough up to a certain point, and the kind of intelligence which developes it—Lord Derby probably has that sort of capacity to the highest degree of any man living—is most careful to secure economy in local affairs; but where business of national or imperial importance is involved, such counsellors are feeble and dangerous. Now as in the management of general municipal improvements and county affairs of all kinds, local �102 ENGLAND FOR ALL. energy, and even, in the wide sense, personal objects ought to be allowed free play, so in these more general concerns, where the necessity for a greater centraliza­ tion is manifestly increasing, a reformed House of Commons should exercise far more direct control, delegating its authority, as at the present time, to a great officer of State and his department. All can see quite plainly that in certain matters management by the State is essential to efficiency. It is perhaps a question whether the post and telegraphs ought to be worked at a profit; but no one doubts nowadays that the business is on the whole better and more cheaply done than if it were in private hands. Blunders are made, no doubt; but mistakes are easily complained of and remedied. Obviously the railways must sooner or later follow the same course. This is one of the reasons why local business should be removed from Parliament. It destroys the sense of perspective for members to have constantly to adjudicate on petty private bills, when matters of really great national concern ought to be continually before them. Nothing more shortsighted was ever done by an English Parliament—middle-class busi­ ness men, too, let us remember—than the turning over of the great new highways of the country to monopolists for ever. This is what has been—nay, what is being, done to the permanent and growing disadvantage of the whole community. No idea seems to have entered the minds of our worthy rulers that this handing over in perpetuity was as mischievous a piece of folly as ever was perpetrated. We Englishmen often jeer at Frenchmen for their �ORGANIZATION. fondness for paternal rule ; and we certainly should not submit for a week to many of the restrictions on individual liberty which Republican France bears without a murmur. Their tariff also we regard as injurious, and many of their arrangements as mistaken. Yet they were shrewd enough to see that to saddle coming generations with payments to private investors was a grave injury to the nation and a sacrifice of public property. As a result, within fifty or sixty years France will be relieved entirely of her national debt by the falling in of the railways, or transport at cost will be secured to the community. Now that is business; that is foresight for a people. Such an advantage we cannot secure, save by some great change in the right of inheritance or by purchase. The present system cannot be allowed to go on for ever. That the labour of succeeding generations should be eternally handicapped by payments to the labour of the dead, is too preposterous. If turnpikes have been found to be an intolerable nuisance, and fees for bridges have been done away, it is scarcely probable that we shall much longer put up with a system of railway management so entirely opposed to the interests of the mass of the people, as well as of the trading class, as that which now we suffer from. We are a long-suffering people, but we shall never stand that. This question of monopolies is rapidly coming to the front. The old notion that competition would always come in to serve the community, has proved wholly fallacious. Combination has in many instances perhaps in most, defeated the calculations of the legis­ �104 ENGLAND FOR ALL. lature ; and the power of the great companies to fight off those whom they consider intruders, has been exercised without any scruple whatever. All the recent evidence tends in the same direction. The railway companies treat their customers as if the public had been specially created by some beneficent providence for these monopolists to prey upon and get interest for shareholders. This view is natural enough ; and we see in America that the system is carried yet further. Monopolies granted by the State are made the means of fleecing the community. Thus once more we have the illusory freedom of con­ tract. The House of Commons, as representative of the people, allows a monopoly to be created, and then this monopoly is used to the public detriment. Unfortu­ nately, the remedy is not so easy as might appear. The total price of the railways at present quo­ tations would exceed i ,000,000,oooZ., and he would be a bold financier who should propose to increase the national debt by that sum at the present time. But pri­ vate interests cannot be allowed to stand permanently in the way of the community at large. The right of interference has never been disputed. If the House of Commons had not been full of representatives of the Railway interest, steps would long since have been taken by the Government to secure for Englishmen at large far greater advantage in return for the monopoly granted. It is plain, for example, that the State could construct a railroad from London say to Liver­ pool or Manchester, at a very much less cost than the capitalized value of either of the existing lines. If the stockholders have not taken this fact into account, �ORGANIZATION. io5 that is their own look-out. No Parliament nor any succession of Parliaments, could guarantee a mono­ poly against another company that showed good cause for the construction of a line ; still less could it be assured against the State. Consequently when it becomes necessary, as it shortly must, to acquire the railways, no such absurd estimate of value need be made as in the case of the London water com­ panies. Our tendency has been as the nation to show ourselves too considerate of so-called vested interests, simply because the classes which hold those vested interests have had the entire control in every way— to assume, indeed, when the State has to deal with them that some exceptional price must be paid. This is quite incorrect. When the decision is come to that for the national interest the railways should be ac­ quired, it would be perfectly fair to purchase at a valuation, without any reference whatever to a future monopoly-value, which does not and could not exist against the country at large. A special issue of ter­ minable annuities might be made to cover the whole matter. But without entering on details, it is clear that the recent arbitrary action of Railway Companies, especially towards the working classes, will, ere long, bring this whole question to a climax.1 That State management would pay, there is very little doubt. Improved organization would produce 1 The infamous overwork of their servants by the Railway Companies as recently exposed, is alone enough to call for im­ mediate State interference. The brutal greed of corporations was never exhibited in a more shameless form at the expense of both the men and the public. �io6 ENGLAND FOR ALL. a profit by the reduction of working expenses. But far more important than any idea of profit, is the prospect, under proper direction,”of cheapening trans­ port, and securing for the working-classes really cheap travel in the neighbourhood of large cities. It is scarcely too much to say that sixpenny weekly tickets, available for any distance within ten miles, coupled with a well-regulated system of artisans’ dwellings, erected by the muncipality and let at rents to cover cost of construction, would completely change the whole life of our great cities, reducing rents for unwholesome tenements, and gradually leading to a better condition in every respect. It is also by no means certain that the suggestion made by a Civil En­ gineer that a one shilling fare should apply to the whole United Kingdom, would not, in some modified form, prove as great a success as the penny post. In any case it is manifest that the Railways are the national highways, that in regard to the transfer of both goods and passengers they work for the shareholders and not for the community, and that consequently the busiof the country is carried on at a growing disadvantage. Besides, the land and the railways are inseparably bound up together, and those who talk about “nationalising” the one without touching the other, overlook a most important feature in thewholebusiness. The chief objection to the acquirement of the railways even on terms which might seem highly advantageous from a financial point of view, would doubtless be the danger of increasing the power of the Government by the formation of so vast a bureaucracy. But this ought to involve no political danger, with full pub- �ORGANIZA TION. 107 licity and a distinct removal of the railways from the sphere of State patronage. Certainly the fear of what might happen in this way ought not to keep back the country from laying hands upon a set of corporations whose directors work their influence with the most perfect selfishness, using their railroads to help their politics, and their politics to help their railroads. That sort of see-saw is quite as objectionable as any bureaucratic taint. With the advance of democracy, and the reference of all questions to the people, it has become more and more clear that the Civil Service, as a profession, should be kept clear of politics and party. Where this is not done all sorts of mis­ chief creep in ; where it is, and full publicity is main­ tained—an essential point too—there the organization is a great gain to all. The right of representation of grievances by State officials must of course be fully secured. Railways, then, like the control of mines, factories, and workshops, must be placed under the State—the former for management, the latter for supervision. These are matters which affect the entire national welfare, and can only be adequately dealt with by national ordinance. Manifestly rivers, canals, and drainage, fall under the same head. The neglect of these as a matter of national importance is really most astonishing. At present our rivers—dhe water­ shed and drinking source of the whole country—are treated as municipalities, or even as individuals, think fit. This too, though the urban population, as the late census clearly shows, is increasing in density almost to the danger-point. Decentralization in this �io8 ENGLAND FOR ALL. matter is really ruinous to the public interest. Drain­ age works are carried out, sewage and refuse of the most unpleasant nature are disposed of, without much reference to the effect which the action of one town or one owner may produce in other directions. No doubt there are bye-laws and statutes, but they have never been properly put in force. The injury already done by this separatist system is enormous. For the future, therefore, all arrangements affecting rivers or canals should be under the management of a public department, specially constituted to take in the bear­ ings of the whole subject, whilst leaving to the county assemblies, local boards, municipalities, and even township vestries, the fullest powers of carrying out their own projects within the limits that concern only themselves. As the powers of these local bodies to acquire land and other property can scarcely fail to be largely in­ creased in the near future and their rights to make improvements extended, it is the more essential that to start with the due position of the central authority should be clearly defined, secured, and strengthened. Of the existing departments, or the proposal to create a Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, it is need­ less to speak here; that is a mere matter of conveni­ ence in separating functions now combined. But in all such matters the tendency towards the simul­ taneous operation of causes which tend to centraliza­ tion, as well as those which invite the strengthening of local forces, ought not to be neglected. To create social or political machinery is beyond the power of assemblies or autocrats ; to take care that the natural growth of a nation should be fostered instead of �ORGANIZATION. 109 hindered is the true function of a statesman. Surely it is reasonable to foresee that the existing fierce competition will in many directions besides that of railroads develope into combination, and thus gradually be turned to the advantage of all. There is no need to fear the crushing of individuality in all this. Rather will there gradually rise up a higher individuality, when each can look to his own develop­ ment as contributing to the advancement of all. But the success of any movement depends upon the mass of the people, and the readiness of those who ought already to have voting power to press forward earnestly the interests of themselves and their chil­ dren. Nothing can be done unless the people are prepared to organize their forces. Here, however, are what seem the natural reforms demanded for the organization of the great democracy on which the future of England depends :—Manhood or adult suffrage, with the other electoral reforms already specified. The reform of the House of Lords into a Great Council, in which our colonies and dependencies should be fully represented. The restriction of the House of Commons as a whole to dealing with national questions ; the arrange­ ment of great committees, &c., being adjusted to the changed conditions. A great increase of power to be given to county boards and municipal councils, to purchase land for public use, &c.,so that even without federal parliaments all matters affecting separate districts could be dealt with locally, subject to the general law. �no ENGLAND FOR ALL. The entire system of national railways to be pur­ chased ■ at a valuation, by annuities secured on the railways, and managed by a State department in the interest of the mass of the community. A department to be formed dealing more directly with the main watercourses, canals, and forestry than any now in existence. An extension of the Factory and Mines Acts, and inspection of shipping, so as to constitute the State more completely the protector of men and women who under freedom of contract are, bound unfairly to risk their lives and their health to get a bare subsistence. To these may be added the social reforms previously advocated:— Free compulsory education for all. Eight hours to be the working day. Compulsory erection of artisans’ dwellings by muni­ cipalities and county assemblies in place of unhealthy houses or dwellings removed for improvements. Cheap trains, at the rate of sixpence for a weekly ticket, on all lines within ten or fifteen miles of a great city. By these means centralization and decentralization would have free play to work themselves out ; a great pressure would be removed from our historical assem­ blies—both of which would be strengthened by a reduction of numbers and a more direct representa­ tion of the mass of the people and the interests of the whole empire. Those who suppose that democracy tends to dis­ organization and anarchy quite misread the signs of �ORGANIZATION. hi the times. Wherever educated democracy has the freest play, precisely there will be found the most complete organization, both in public and in private affairs. The danger arises, if at all, from the opposite quarter. But Englishmen have clearly begun to see that in this direction only can their further develop­ ment go on. The aristocracy had their day; in 1832 their power was shaken, to be gradually sapped up to the present time. They have chosen to throw in their lot with the bourgeoisie, and to trade on the necessities of the labourer with them. For fifty years we have experienced middle-class rule: that is tottering to its fall, with no record but selfishness in home affairs. Now comes the turn of England at large as represented by the men who are really the England of to-day. It is for them to see that their future is worthy of the greatness of their country, ensuring the physical and moral welfare of all by organization and self-sacrifice. �112 ENGLAND FOR ALL. CHAPTER V. IRELAND. It is perhaps the most telling commentary upon our government of Ireland, that in dealing with the affairs of that island English statesmen are still obliged to proceed in every respect upon the separate system. Ireland has been an integral portion of the United Kingdom for eighty years, and yet we have at this time more than 30,000 troops and 12,000 constabulary occupied in keeping down a serious rebellion. This, at any rate, is the contention of the people immediately responsible for that law and order to secure which a Liberal Ministry has been content to override the first guarantee of all liberty, and to proclaim the capital of the country in a state of siege. There is, perhaps, no need for the mass of Englishmen to take special blame to themselves for the harm which has been done. They are scarcely responsible for a policy over which [as a mass they have exercised no real control. Yet it is impossible to compare what has happened with Ireland to that which has taken place in regard to Alsace and Lorraine, or Savoy and Nice, without being compelled to acknow­ ledge that in all that relates to a subject people they manage these matters better in France. Reforms in �IRELAND. ii3 Ireland—political, religious, economical, social—have in every case been delayed, until they have ceased to be boons to the people ; pressure from without has been waited for in every instance, until it took an explosive shape; and men who to start with were ready to welcome moderate measures, have been driven to combine on an almost revolutionary pro­ gramme, from sheer hopelessness of obtaining justice in any other way. There is no need to go back to the history of cen­ turies of misgovernment to account for what we see to-day. Doubtless the wrongs of the past have done much to embitter the relations between two coun­ tries which ought to be at one; but enough has occurred within the lifetime of the present genera­ tion to account for that sad state of affairs which politicians of all parties deplore and all ought to strive to remedy. In Ireland, as in England and Scotland, the people have been deprived of the pos­ session of their own land in favour of a small minority. Such manufactures as existed having been destroyed long since by English legislation, and Ireland not producing iron and coal to a profitable extent, the men have been unable to seek in the cities the work which their brothers in destitution across the chan­ nel were enabled to obtain. Hence arose that earth­ hunger which enabled landowners to exact rackrents, and left the people to multiply on poor food, nearer and ever nearer to the limit of starvation. Foreign conquest and absenteeism have aggravated the mischief politically and economically. Difference of race and religion rendered grave social ills more I �114 ENGLAND FOR ALL. difficult to deal with. But the great catastrophe of 1847 ought to have opened our eyes to some por­ tion of the truth—ought to have shown the people of England that here we nad an exceptional problem to deal with, and that such dominance as had been esta­ blished was discreditable to the rulers and ruinous to the ruled. That fearful famine formed the starting-point of the modern history of Ireland. It had been predicted by men of very different views and capacities. It came, as such cataclysms sometimes do come, in its worst possible shape, and was followed up by revolu­ tionary legislation which all can now see was most, unfortunate. Instead of accepting the wise recom­ mendations of the Devon Commission-—made, be it remembered, three years before the famine—or the still wiser advice of Lord Beaconsfield, given about the same time, but latei* so unfortunately withdrawn —full rights were given to landlords, new and old,. to uproot the population, tear down their miserable dwellings, and hurry them across the Atlantic, famine fever wearing out their bodies, and fury at such in­ justice and tyranny rankling in their minds. Who that has read through the details of that miserable time, when men, women, and children were turned out of their holdings,—as they are now being turned out, though happily in far fewer numbers—to wander in starvation and misery along the highways, can wonder that a generation has grown up in Ireland and in the United States which regards with inextinguish ­ able hatred England and all that belongs to her ? The very Encumbered Estates Act, a most valu- �IRELAND. ii5 able measure in itself if carefully carried out, forced the lands of ancient proprietors who under­ stood the people, not into the control of the State, which would have acted with some consideration, but into the hands of foreign speculators, who bought at a low price with the express purpose of raising the rents upon the tenants. An absenteeism was thus created worse than that which had existed before. In the end, doubtless, good came out of evil for those who were left; but twenty-four years elapsed before any effort was made on the part of the Imperial Parliament to secure to the mass of the people of Ireland some portion of the benefits which even the Devon Commission had urged. All this while, over the greater part of Ireland a purely agricultural community had no security of tenure of any sort or kind, and the church of the small minority was kept up at the expense of those who were of a different creed. Irishmen, who in the United States did an amount of hard work which almost reconciled the not very sympathetic Americans to their gregarious habits in the cities, and their religious belief, so hostile to the Puritanism which even sceptics in that great country still consider it prudent to affect—Irishmen, who in our colonies, notwithstanding many defects, have brought them­ selves to the front by their industry, were accused in their own country of idleness and indifference, because, after centuries of misrule, they could see no object in giving their masters their labour for nothing. That was really the fact. All accounts agree that wherever in Ireland a man has a permanent tenure of I 2 �116 ENGLAND FOR ALL. a fair piece of land, in the great majority of cases he works as hard as an Indian ryot or French peasant­ proprietor. It is absurd, of course, to deny the in­ fluence of race and climate; none would contend that a Saxon and an Irishman have the same quali­ ties. But the remarkable feature in the whole matter is, that the descendants of Saxons have been just as much opposed, and more violent in showing their opposition to the landlord-made legislation, as the Irish themselves. Nor have they been one whit more industrious than their Celtic neighbours. The descendants of Cromwell’s soldiery, though more turbulent under injustice, have not been any more inclined to give the fruits of their labour to their landlords than the Catholics around them. But wherever tenant-right has been introduced-and fairly held to, there, notwithstanding the fact that economical disturbances — American competition, slackened demand for store beasts in England and Scotland, no requirement for casual Irish labour in the summer—have affected the whole island, there peace and quiet have in the main pre­ vailed. As a mere matter of national business it would have been cheap to have given the tenants a permanent hold upon the soil, even if the landlords had been compensated beyond the value of what they parted with. The cost of the maintenance of a large army and a great constabulary in Ireland cannot well be estimated in actual money. Many considerations are involved. But in any case, have we the right to pre­ vent 5,500,000 people from settling their own local �IRELAND. 117 business in their own way ? Surely there is not an Englishman of either party who does not feel that our present attitude is somewhat hypocritical. It may be that Irishmen if left to themselves would not make the best possible settlement of their own affairs ; but are English landlords qualified to judge of the matter for them any better ? They have hitherto constituted the ultimate court of appeal. When we speak of the unfairness of Irish juries in agrarian cases, let us at least remember the persistent unfairness of the great English jury of legislators on this question of life or death to the people of Ireland. Even when the House of Commons has been willing to give in, the House of Lords has stood by their own class; and here, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, we have as honest and patriotic a man as ever lived, hotheaded and furious though he be, taken and put in gaol, though also a member of Parliament, for having denounced, and urged his countrymen to resist, a most tyrannous system of evictions. And let us bear this in mind, that unfortunately the immense majority of the Liberal party were highly delighted at the arrest of Mr. Dillon, and cheered like madmen at the arrest of Mr. Davitt. The history of the last few months of panic and misgovernment in Ireland is worth consideration by all who hold that justice and freedom are worth some­ thing in themselves, aside from the question whether a party chooses to throw them over or not. What has occurred since July of last year is alone enough to prove conclusively that no country could be peace­ able under such a rule as we have inflicted upon the �118 ENGLAND FOR ALL. people of Ireland. Steady despotism would be far preferable to such miserable incapacity and vacillation as have been exhibited. For here is what has taken place. Last year, after Ireland had suffered from a period of severe privation, which fell upon the small tenant-farmers and the labourers with redoubled severity owing to their being unable to obtain work in England, the landlords —or rather a few of the baser sort—began to evict their tenantry. Hunger and sense of injustice combined made men desperate. The Land Bill of 1870, though by no means a satisfactory measure, had given a tenant a certain claim to compensation for disturb­ ance in all cases save non-payment of rent. If evicted for not paying his rent, however, this right to com­ pensation was gone, and he went out upon the high roads a pauper, with the workhouse as his only refuge. This eviction, therefore, was felt to be a greater hardship than any previous eviction, because it was not only harsh, but in the view of the tenant unjust. Good landlords, of course, were considerate in Ireland as elsewhere : people like Lord Lansdowne, whose idea of landed property necessarily involved serfdom and servility (as he was good enough to inform the Americans, of all people in the world, through the Chicago TriJmne), were naturally eager not to lose the advantage of any misfortune among their tenantry. That few should have acted in this contemptible fashion gives no conception of the alarm produced. Not a very large proportion of tenants in the year are rack-rented ; but that proportion acts as a damper upon thousands of others in improving �IRELAND. 119 their farms, and prevents them from making the best of their labour. These evictions, then, having begun, and going on in an increasing ratio, the Government boldly and rightly introduced a Bill of the most carefully-guarded character, to prevent downright oppression and tyranny from being brought to bear. That Bill, after some of the most bitter discussions in the House of Commons and in the press ever known, wras passed by a considerable majority, the Prime Minister making himself prominent of course in its champion­ ship, and saying, what recent events have proved only too clearly to be the truth, that if it were not passed we should be within a measureable distance of civil war. This, be it remembered also, took place after the Government had declined to renew the Peace Preservation Act, on the express ground that it was .contrary to the principles of liberty and Liberalism. Very well. What followed was not only probable but certain. The House of Lords, seeing the whole right of eviction when contrary to common interest jeopar­ dized by the measure, threw out the Bill. The Government—that is the opinion of all parties in Ireland—winked at the agitation which followed. That agitation was, in view of what had passed, justifiable and righteous, and was carried on, when once the Land League had obiained a hold upon the people, with surprisingly little bloodshed or bad action. A vast agrarian strike was organized—not against all rent, but against rent above a certain valuation. There were also rattenings and boycottings, where men took land from which tenants had been evicted. �120 ENGLAND FOR ALL. Many things, no doubt, were done, and are being done now, most obnoxious to Englishmen : the injuries to cattle in particular are dastardly in the extreme. Gradually, as evictions went on, and help was received from sympathizers in America, temper rose, and the feeling—mingled with that race and religious hatred which is the worst feature of all, because the least capable of yielding to reason—became very bitter. But what has it been after all ? A trifle beside the agitations of 1848 and 1833, and to be met—that was the just contention of the Government and the Liberal party—not by repression, but by reform. “ Force is no remedy,” said Mr. Bright, strong as he always has been on this Irish question ; and there was not a genuine liberal Englishman in the country who would not have stood behind those words. And force has been no remedy—has only aggravated the whole mischief. But what comes now ? The Cabinet having been summoned in hot haste in December, decided that in these days we must deal with popular grievances, even when exaggerated, by reason and argument, and not by bullets and buckshot—and separated without calling Parliament together. A little while and Mr. Forster again comes over, with woe-begone visage, and Parliament is summoned. A Coercion Act and Arms Act become law, at what a strain to our whole system of parliamentary govern­ ment we perhaps yet scarcely know. Members of the House of Commons, acting no doubt very provokingly, but still entirely within their rights, are silenced and ejected; and Ireland is put under a suspensive state of siege. �IRELAND. 121 Thus the very Government which had declared that evictions of a certain kind were most unjust, and must be restrained, put in the hands of the landlords as complete a machinery of eviction as they had ever possessed, and backed it up by pouring troops into the country. And evictions soon multiplied. Men, women, and children were turned out under circum­ stances which reproduced here in England would have brought about an insurrection. What ? Let us for once use plain language about these things. Has a Government, have any number of landlords, sitting in Parliament to represent a dominant caste, the right to turn a man, his wife, and children, out into the bitter air of January, because, poor devil, there had been a famine, and he could not pay his rent ? I say No. Last year the vast majority of the House of Commons said No ; and if the ques­ tion were fairly put to them I believe the vast majority of Englishmen to-day would say No. Ire­ land, it is true, cannot hope to resist successfully such shameful oppression, but why should English work­ ing men sanction and support action which, if applied to themselves, they would rise against ? The truth is, and this will shortly become apparent to all, the tenant-farmers and labourers of Ireland are fighting the battle of the working-classes of England in relation to the land, and get far less support than they ought to get on grounds where they are both agreed. This, at least, is certain, that unless the Land League had been formed, and the Irish had stood together in a great economical movement, no such Land Bill as that of 1881 would have been �122 ENGLAND FOR ALL. brought before the English House of Commons at ■all. The Land League, whether it be called com­ munistic, nationalistic, or what not, brought the first genuine attempt yet made at reform within the range of practical politics, and must be maintained to give it effect. The facts in relation to Irish land have been made known to all by means of the propaganda which they carried on. There are but 12,000 landowners in all Ireland, and 1000 of them own two-thirds of the island. One fourth of these landowners are permanent absen­ tees, who take their rents to the amount of millions sterling out of the country, and spend them elsewhere. And yet six-sevenths of the population have to derive their subsistence from the land, and naturally enough compete against one another to such an extent as to raise rents to a high figure. Say the theorists, Irishmen are too fond of land, are too much given to agricul­ ture. .This is quite absurd. In the. United/States the Americans make precisely the opposite complaint. They say that the Irish are too much addicted to crowding into the cities; and ‘so they undoubtedly are,. But iruJreland they stick to the land, for the best of all possible reasons, that there is nothing else for them to get a living out of; and as arable land is being continually turned into pasture by the large landowners and large farmers, there is less and less employment for them as labourers, and less and less land which they can take up to feed themselves and their, families upon. Noone disputes the sad condi­ tion of a vast proportion of the tenant farmers who hold under fifteen acres, which amount to more than �IRELAND. 123 half the whole 500,000. Those who drag out a miserable existence in Mayo and Connemara, would be no better off if they held their patches in fee. Migration and emigration are the only possible remedies for these people. But here, as in England, the first step is to get the land out of the hands of the large proprietors, and enable the people of Ireland to work out their own social difficulties. The great main drainage works which some reformers clamour for, cannot possibly be carried out for the benefit of the landowners, whose properties would be improved; neither can reclama­ tion go on without some regard to economical and physical conditions. The tendency of bog to revert to bog is as well-known in Scotland as in Ireland. That Ireland is in itself a poor country has lately been disputed, and with good reason. It is not a poor country, but a poor people, that we have to deal with. In Ireland, to take the same comparison as was made in the case of England, the population has decreased nearly 3,000,000 in thirty years, and the assessment to income-tax has grown by 15,000,000/. annually. Moreover, the deposits in the banks point in the same direction. Ireland itself, therefore, has become far richer in the last generation, but the dis­ tribution of that wealth is so faulty that a year of bad crops means little short of famine to a large population. Happily, the Act of 1881 accepts principles which have hitherto been scouted as communistic. The distinct object which underlies the economical clauses is to secure to a portion at least of the population that right to the fruits of their labour, �124 ENGLAND FOR ALL. of which they have hitherto been deprived by land­ lords under the name of freedom of contract. Why is it that peasant proprietorship has, on the whole, been beneficial where people have been settled on the soil ? Surely because in this way alone could a man and his family, in our existing system of society, be secure of the fruits of his own labour. In every other case, where the poor man wishes to obtain employment he is deprived of a portion of his produce for the benefit of others. Unquestionably the Liberal Government has made a great step forward when it recognizes in a definite measure that freedom of contract, where the force is all on one side, may, and in many cases must mean, injustice and tyranny. But to suppose that any Land Act, however care­ fully drawn—that any courts, however impartial—will settle the Irish question, is to assume far more than the facts warrant. Nothing was more noteworthy than the disposition of the tenant-farmers all over the country to sink their differences in view of the agita­ tion for a mitigated form of the three F’s, which will probably break down—or a peasant proprietorship, which will involve the pressure of the gombeen man. This latter point is worth a moment’s consideration. India is, it is true, different in many ways from Ireland ; but there the right of eviction by the money­ lender has been found more dangerous and objec­ tionable than eviction by any other method. Should not restriction be placed on mortgage and bill of sale here, too, if we desire to prevent similar expropria­ tions from taking place, and giving rise to a dis­ tinctly socialist agitation, whicly could not be dealt �IRELAND. 125 with under present conditions ? But the Land Act as it has passed constitutes such an enormous advance upon what seemed possible even a few months ago, that Irishmen would be foolish indeed not to make as much of it as they can. To secure the tenants in their holdings, to obtain assistance in settling a peasant proprietory on the land, and help for emigra­ tion and migration, are steps towards that pacification which full patience alone can bring about. But for the shameful and silly Coercion Act a hope might have arisen, not of a settlement of all Irish difficulties —such impatience to get rid of the natural troubles of administration argues weakness and incapacity— but of a better understanding between the English and the Irish peoples. That, little as it may seem to be so at this moment, has really been the outcome of the agitation. For the first time in recent Irish history, a vast number of Englishmen of all classes have felt that wrong was being done in their name when the common rights of the United Kingdom were suspended in deference to the clamour of an interested and panic-stricken minority. Even the race hatred and the jealousy of keen competitors in the labour-market have been to a certain extent laid aside in view of the fact that injustice was being done. Had the Irish managed their own case better, and kept religious differences altogether out of sight when a political end was in view, this understanding between the democracy of the two countries might have already progressed even farther than it has. There need be no real differ­ ence. There is room enough and to spare for the �126' ENGLAND FOR ALL. workers of both races under a better system than that which has hitherto found favour. We are, let us hope, approaching the time when we shall endeavour to rule in all cases with the consent of the majority— when the highest aim of every statesman will be to reconcile all to a beneficial union, in which every member is contented and free. That many grievances still remain unredressed even now that the Land Act has been passed, is unfortunately but too certain. That absurd playing at Viceroyalty in Dublin, with an English Chief Secretary, and a worn-out bureaucracy at the Castle, would aggravate a less touchy people than the Irish. What do they want with a Viceroy and underlings, any more than the Scotch ? Why should Irishmen more than Scotchmen be shut out from the management of their own affairs ? “ They hate you, it is said, and long to drive you out.” Has any reason for love been given ? At least let us wait to see whether a definite alliance between the English and Irish democracies be not possible, before continuing to support such methods as have hitherto been favoured. Local administration there must be. The management of local business in Ireland as a whole must henceforth be carried on by Irishmen, if there is to be any success at all. That process of decentralization which must go on in Scotland, Wales, and England, is applicable to Ireland too. There, more than here even, the railway, and drainage, and road systems need to be under one great administra­ tion. Let them in Heaven's name try their hand with manhood suffrage, at the improvement of their �IRELAND. 127 own country ; leave them the task of carrying out the detail of the reforms they have rightly forced us to adopt. This at least we must all admit; that we cannot continue parliamentary government if we are per­ sistently to run counter to the opinions of the majority of 5,000,000 of people represented in our own House of Commons. It is because separation would be injurious to both countries, as mutual under­ standing would be beneficial, that Irishmen should at length be granted fair play and self-government. Take the absentees, for instance. They are not dealt with ; and yet no man can hold that absenteeism is not a< serious drawback to Irish prosperity. Such a question concerns the whole country most seriously ; but their compulsory expropriation or a heavy exceptional tax­ ation—which commended itself even to Lord George. Bentinck—has not been suggested by the Govern­ ment. The labourers also have to be considered. It is true that the fullest justice to .the. farmers does not directly benefit them, though the well-being of one class might slowly re-act upon the other. Here again is encountered, in a less complicated shape, the same problem that is met with in England—how to benefit the real workers on the soil at the same time that the most is made of the land. The 500,000 tenant farmers of Ireland form, however, a very different pro­ portion of the entire population, as well as of the agri­ cultural population, from that which a similar class does here with us. To improve their condition with­ out injustice to others, if this can be done, is already much gained. ................ ...\ 1 . �128 ENGLAND FOR ALL. There is no reason however, why we should stop there. Men who know that they are secure of posses­ sion are always ready to reclaim land, and might well be given the option of taking part in such reclamation, or in being assisted to obtain farms in English colonies. Let us not, however, lose sight of the principles in­ volved in all such proposals. We recognize thereby that the State is responsible for the removal of the causes which can be proved to lead to the wretched poverty of the mass of the people. We are entering plainly upon the path of restriction of selfish compe­ tition, because, under certain conditions it has failed in agriculture as it has in other directions. Hitherto in Ireland brute force—the brute force of the people of England—has stood behind the dominant class, ready to maintain their views of a political economy which mighthave been invented in the interest of monopolists. A peaceful revolution has to be brought about, and the first step has been taken.- Those, however, who con­ tend that the modification of the land laws of Ireland must extend to England have right on their side. It is impossible any longer to use two sets of argu­ ments on the two sides of the Irish Channel. Now, therefore, that fixity of tenure, purchase of property, reclamation of land, assisted emigration, and main drainage, have been accepted for Ireland, we are not far__we could not be far—from the consideration of similar proposals for England and Scotland. But even supposing the land question in a fair way of settlement, an Irish Parliament with local administra­ tion set on foot, there remain the race and religious hatreds to consider. These of course are difficulties �129 IRELAND. of a very different character from any which Acts of Parliament can touch. How can Celts and Saxons, Catholics and Protestants, live together in unity ? Yet such things have been ; at this moment the leader of the irreconcileable Irish party is neither an Irishman nor a Catholic. Leave the Irish liberty to arrange their own business, and they will find out some way of getting on with one another, when the injustice complained of for centuries has been remedied. Ireland has been conquered by arms from generation to generation ; it remains for us to conquer finally by justice, magnanimity and consideration. Many of the noblest names in English history and literature are those of Irishmen ; the Irish party in the House of Commons to-day contains men of ability out of all proportion to its numbers ; the two most distinguished of our younger generals are Irishmen by birth. Would it not be well, then, for all to con­ sider whether, everr. at the cost of some sacrifice of consistency, and some forgetfulness of past domina­ tion, the loyalty of such a people could be secured, by a freedom which is yet reconcilable with common action ? The national feeling now running so high in Ireland could find as full an outlet in the British Empire as that of Scotland, when once it is under­ stood that supremacy is no longer claimed in the interests of a small minority, but to give satisfaction to the high ideals of empire and greatness which a petty island like Ireland, overshadowed perpetually by English power, could never attain. A complete agreement between England and Ireland will be possible only when the people of both countries can K �130 ENGLAND FOE ALL. control their own policy, and secure at home and abroad that the benefit of the many, not the gain of the few, should be the end. The refusal of the Government to release the “ suspects ” imprisoned without evidence of guilt or trial for assumed offences, and the maintenance of the infamous Coercion Act and Arms Act, have shown that Liberals cannot govern Ireland without resort to despotic methods. When men like Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Cham­ berlain compel Radicals to support such a disgraceful rule of informers and sub-inspectors of police as that now in force in Ireland, the end cannot be far off. I for one have no feeling but contempt for those sham Liberals and pseudo-Radicals who prate of freedom and practise despotism. Legislative inde­ pendence for Ireland is a necessity if we Englishmen are to continue Parliamentary Government. �INDIA. CHAPTER VI. INDIA. If Ireland, a little island close to our own shores, its people speaking our language, sharing our civilization and religion, with all its problems lying, as it were, in the hollow of our hand and open to inspection with the naked eye—if, after centuries of absolute rule over the inhabitants, we are beginning to confess that the matter is well-nigh too hard for us, and look to enlist­ ing Irishmen in the government of their own country as our only hope of success in the future—if, I say, this little business has plagued us so sore, what are we to think of the task of ruling 200,000,000 of people, of totally different race, language, civilization, and creeds, thousands of miles away from England, by means of 900 young gentlemen who do not set foot in the country till they are over twenty years of age, and work without the slightest help from the natives in the higher branches of administration ? Yet this is what we, the English people, are now trying to do in India; and with such unfortunate results to the inhabi­ tants, that it is absolutely essential that the great mass of the community, on whose shoulders now. rests the weight of this vast empire, should take the matter into their own hands. This, indeed, is now the only hope__ �132 ENGLAND FOR ALL. that the English people will see the mischief that is being done, and insist that neither vested interests nor regard for individual reputations shall longer stand in the way of absolutely essential reforms. No man can read the history of our early conquests in India without a strange admixture of feeling. Deeds of the noblest heroism and determination are found side by side with the records of such meanness, cruelty, and greed, that at times we doubt whether it is possible that qualities so different should have belonged to the same race. A mere merchant com­ pany, humbly suing for permission to trade, grew into power and influence in spite of themselves, till they became of necessity the heirs of the Great Mogul, and the conquerors of the rising Mahratta confederation ; their clerks and supercargoes, their shopmen and peddlers, figured forth before the world as warriors, statesmen, and administrators. Whilst the king and the aristocracy were losing, by sheer ignorance and incompetence, the noblest inheritance across the Atlantic that ever fell to the lot of any nation, ordi­ nary Englishmen were conquering an empire just in the way of everyday business, which, had it been properly managed, would in some degree have com­ pensated for that monstrous blunder. A great and ancient civilization had fallen under their control, and it needed but a right comprehension of its tendencies to lead the people on, with little of change, to a wider and a higher development, which should have been to the advantage of all. This was the idea of some of the nobler spirits, who saw clearly that a growth of thousands of years equid not suddenly be twisted in �INDIA. 133 accordance with foreign notions without grave danger of injury to rulers and ruled. To raise the tone of the native Governments to the best native standard, slowly introducing the leaven of Western ideas into the administration without altering the form of society or pursuing the fatal policy of complete annexation —this was the view of men who had, unfortunately, too little weight as against more vehement coun­ sellors. The East India Company itself, however, protested constantly against the violent methods of its own servants; but the inexorable necessity of paying interest had, very early in its history, a most baneful influence upon the system pursued by us in India. Annexation became the rule; and even forty or fifty years ago the natives of India had begun to discuss the effect of the drain of produce to England consequent upon the multitudes of fortunes made by Englishmen and withdrawn on their leaving. The nabobs who returned after shaking the pagoda-tree, represented so much wealth taken out of India, which was never returned. Nevertheless, the rule of the East India Company was on the whole economical. It was soon found out that countries governed by foreigners, in which the old native system had been broken down, seemed somehow not to have the elasticity and power of recovery for which India had been celebrated for centuries. India, the administra­ tors in Leadenhall Street discovered was a poor country, not to be treated as if untold wealth could be taken for the asking without harming the people. To enter upon the beneficial changes made in native �134 ENGLAND FOR ALL. usages, the noble work of Sleeman in uprooting the Thugs, of Outram in settling the Bheels, of Edwardes on the Indus border, or, on a wider field, the reforms adopted by Lord William Bentinck, would be to extend this chapter far beyond the limits of this little work. Natives of India know well that had Englishmen confined their efforts to such objects as these nothing but good would have come of their rule. To this day the government of the old East India Company, in those countries where good native customs were respected and the people not worried, is looked back to with regard and even affection. Men who went out to India as mere boys got to know the people, and loved them ; they made their homes in the country, and returning but rarely to England, held a very different position from that of their successors of to-day. Asia is the land of long memories, and those who treat its people with justice, firmness, and consideration pass on their legacy of good feeling to the next gene­ ration. All who read the writings of Metcalfe, Shore, Malcolm, Mountstuart Elphinstone, Henry Lawrence, Meadows Taylor, or Sleeman, will find that below the surface there is a constant undercurrent of regret at the needless Europeanization which they see going on. And the natives of India have ever been most easily led by men who, whilst combatting their faults, were not above appreciating their good qualities, even when they have shown themselves rigorous and exacting. Thus it happened that, notwithstanding many great errors, and a gradual impoverishment, which was then scarcely perceived, the agricultural �INDIA. 135 population of British India—fully three-fourths of that vast population—was loyal to the rule of the great Company when Lord Dalhousie was appointed Governor-General. It was the mission of this arbi­ trary bigot to overthrow all the best traditions of our rule in India, to shock every native idea of jus­ tice or good faith, to commence that course of un­ scrupulous annexation and wholesale Europeanization from which our Empire is now suffering, and to lead up by his policy to one of the most serious rebel­ lions that ever shook the power of any Government. The great Mutiny of 1857 was the direct outcome of Lord Dalhousie’s headlong career of violence and chicanery. How the rebellion was put down, and what marvellous vigour and tenacity our countrymen showed in resisting the attack of their own trained soldiery, assisted in the more recently annexed terri­ tory by the people themselves, are matters of history. It was again a story of marvellous capacity chequered by grave mistakes. Peace was at length restored ; the rule of the East India Company came to an end ; and with the as­ sumption of the government by the Crown the English people became directly responsible for the beneficent management of their own great dependency. Throughout the fierce conflict which was waged the sympathy of the mass of the people was with us rather than with the mutineers. If it had not been, we could not possibly have overcome the rebellion. Here, then, if ever in history, was an opportunity for the governing race. It lay with Englishmen to ac•cept the better portion of the system which had been �136 ENGLAND FOR ALL. superseded, and to retain the goodwill of the people by light taxation and consideration of their ancient customs. Unfortunately a different course was adopted. At first all went well. Lord Canning, to his eternal honour, kept his head in panic-stricken Calcutta, and refused to allow millions to be treated with cruelty and injustice because a few infamous ruffians had been guilty of horrible, never-to-be-forgotten outrages. The Queen’s Proclamation of 1858 was an admir­ able document, rightly called the Great Charter of India. Princes and people looked forward to a period when all the advantages which had been secured to them by the Company—peace, order, freedom from exaction—should be combined with a gradual preparation for self-government and a careful reorganization of native rule under English guidance. But it was not to be. The word went forth from high quarters that India had been neg­ lected, that what she stood in need of was English capital, at five per cent, guaranteed interest paid half-yearly—and English energy, at very high sala­ ries paid quarterly. India, in fact, became the out­ let for the savings of the upper and middle classes ■and an opening for their sons. Now began the reign of capital in good earnest and with it a pres­ sure of taxation, an increase of famines, a deteriora­ tion of the soil, and an impoverishment of the mass of the people unprecedented in the long history of India. But the administration comes first. In this, one fatal principle has been followed out for the last three- �INDIA. 137 and-twenty years. Wherever room could be found for a European, he has been chosen in place of a native. Even in the judicial department, where the natives have greatly distinguished themselves, none of the highly-paid posts are open to them—although at a lower salary, and with less important positions, they try cases involving quite as grave issues as those tried by the Europeans. The extent to which this employment of Europeans has been carried in every department, surpasses belief. Young natives are educated in the colleges for the highest class of ad­ ministrative work, but no prizes are ever open to them. They receive the compliments of the Chan­ cellor of the University, who is perhaps also the Governor of the Presidency, on their ability—and then they find themselves ousted by a number of Englishmen from posts in which they might fairly hope to serve their country. Now this has been very far worse under the Crown than it ever was in the Company’s time. In the Public Works Department alone, the European esta­ blishment actually cost 2,300,000/., a year or two ago ; this too, though the natives of India are specially apt at engineering, and all the great irrigation works in the country of any real value have been built by natives, or constructed by Europeans on native principles. Where these have been abandoned the grossest blunders have been made, and millions of acres of land ruined. Time after time requests have been put forward by the people of India, through the only channel open to them, that the total amount paid in salaries to Euro­ peans in India should be published, but this has never �138 ENGLAND FOR ALL. been done. The effect of this excessive employment of Englishmen is most serious in everyway. Millions sterling every year which might go to the people of the country are taken by foreigners, who, though honest enough, and in some respects more capable than natives, yet really devour the substance of the people whose country they no doubt wish to benefit. More than this, in addition to the salaries they re­ ceive in the country, and spend on luxuries which a native would rarely dream of, or the savings which they bear away to England when they depart, every European who leaves Government employment re­ ceives a pension, which likewise is so much paid by India to Englishmen out of the country. But there, is a further objection still. By this enormous mass of snperincumbent Europeans, who fill every office of importance in a country inhabited by 200,000,000 people, those who might be in training for self-govern­ ment, and who in time might be able to carry on our best methods without their drawbacks, are turned into a disaffected class. These men see their country, as they think, ruined in the interest of foreigners who have less and less sympathy with the people they rule. Europeanization is stunting all natural growth in India, and this with less and less excuse every day ; for civilians and others no longer live in India as they used to do, rarely make real friends of the people, and are perpetually moved about from post to post or come home on furlough. But they equally prevent any change of system ; and on their return to England they form, with some few noble exceptions, a com­ �INDIA. 139 pact body, opposed both by interest and tradition to any real justice to India. Now if this administration were on the whole succesful, it would not even then outweigh the enormous economical drawbacks involved. As, however, it is a failure in almost every branch, and we are now obliged to go back in sheer desperation to some modi­ fied form of the old native laws, surely no longer ought we to hesitate to make a definite change. For take even our civil courts ; these we were confident could not fail to be successful. What has occurred ? They are a complete curse to the people, bringing about endless litigation, and involving gross injustice to the poor, owing to their expense. Our land laws : these are found to be utterly ruinous, not in one part of India alone but in many, driving the cultivators first into the hands of the money-lenders and then into gaol. Our educational system : of that it is needless to speak. So far, it is practically non-existent, save for the well-to-do. Our public works—but these come under another head more conveniently. Now all these objections to our existing methods are made, not by outsiders, but by tried and trained official Englishmen, who having been appointed to account for the mis­ chiefs which have arisen, speak plainly of the baneful effects of our blunders, and themselves suggest a re­ version to native plans, which we had discarded before as unsuited to the people. It is painful to read their confession that somehow our system does not work, and yet to find that the very men who honestly admit this are averse from the only possible remedy. For now comes the most serious part of the matter. �140 England fol all. India is a poor country. We have been trying to enrich her, and this is how we have done it. In 1856, a year before the mutiny, the sum of 23,000,000/. was taken from the people of India for the purposes of government; in 1880, twenty-four years after, no less a sum than 68,000,000/. was taken from them for the same purpose. Has India, then, become so much richer in the quarter of a century ? There is no evi­ dence to that effect; much the other way. We know from official reports and official protests that, light as the taxation may seem to us, it is heavier than the people of India can bear. Any increase would be—I know no authority to the contrary of that—politically dangerous. The salt tax—levied, bear in mind, to the tune of 700 per cent, ad valorem—interferes with the consumption of that necessary of life most seriously; whilst no less a man than the late Lord Lawrence thought the murrains among the cattle which have been so frequent of late years were, in part at least, due to the want of salt owing to its ex­ cessive price. But there is graver evidence than the death of cattle, the ever-increasing spread of famines, and consequent death of men. Famines are far more frequent than they were. In the last twenty-three years there have been not fewer than six serious famines, which have swept away millions of the people, and millions of cattle too. The last great famines—those of Bombay and Madras, and the North-West Provinces—were something terrible ; not fewer certainly than 7,000,000 of people died of starvation and famine-fever between 1876 and 1879 in those provinces. This is the worst �INDIA. 141 famine of which there is any record whatever ; and it occurred, not in the India of old time, with difficult communications, tottering Governments, indifferent and careless administrations, but in the India of to­ day, with a powerful Central Government, with rail­ roads and highways, canals and irrigation works—to say nothing of money freely poured forth to save these people from their dreadful fate. But this was an exceptional affair, it may be said ; there was some phenomenal drought all over the country ; the rains ceased, the whole land was barren. Drought no doubt there was, but by no means of inordinate severity, and this alone would not have accounted for the fearful mortality. Nowadays, sad to say, our people—the greater part of the 200,000,000 we are responsible for —are living nearer, and ever nearer, to the limit of starvation ; thus what in happier periods would have been a scarcity, now deepens into a serious famine. The main causes for this miserable state of things are not far to seek. The total net revenue of the Government of India raised from the many and various races under our rule does not exceed 38,000,000/. a year, after making de­ ductions for the cost of collection. This revenue so raised cannot safely be increased : the mass of the people are, as has been said, taxed up to the hilt. But year after year we take out of the country agricul­ tural produce to the amount of 20,000,000/ at the very lowest estimate, to bring to us here in England, in order to pay interest, pensions, and home charges, for which there is no commercial return. Now just think for a moment what this means. It �142 ENGLAND FOR ALL. means that this very year we Englishmen are taking from the people of India, for European rule and the use of European capital, more than we have ever taken: it means that this amounts to more than the total land revenue of all British India—to more than half the net income from all sources as calculated above. Yet India is a poor country—a very poor country, as Indian officials tell us. And this is how we “ develope ” it. We drain away from the country that produce which might be so beneficially employed by our fel­ low-subjects ; and then we beat our breasts when famine comes, and call out to Providence to wipe off those spots on the sun which somehow or other do all the mischief. What cowardly pretence is this. The truth lies open to all. We are ruining India because our upper and middle classes will persist in exacting from its people agricultural produce to pay interest, home charges, and pensions. No country in the world, not blessed with virgin soil of exceptional fertility, could possibly stand such a drain without exhaustion. The real effect of this drain once fully grasped, all talk even about the uncertain opium revenue, about the grinding salt tax, about the mischievous licence and stamp tax, becomes idle; for by this constant demand we are draining away the very life-blood of our people. What would Englishmen say if the whole agricultural rent of the country went over to France every year, because we had French prefects in every county, and French money had built our railroads and excavated our canals? Yet the agricultural rent of England is a mere fleabite in comparison with the drain from �INDIA. 143 India, the relative wealth of the two countries being taken into account. “ But then,” say investors, “ the railroads, the canals, have increased the wealth of India; we must have interest from our money, no matter how many are starved every now and then to pay us. To argue otherwise would be communism, confiscation again. It is absurd to forego interest to keep people alive.” Well, have the railroads increased the wealth of India ? are the numberless foreigners employed a burden or the reverse? The matter really requires little con­ sideration. Railroads do but transport wealth from one point to another more conveniently than common roads. They themselves, make no wealth, neither do they add to that already in existence. Those who find the capital deduct a certain proportion of the produce transferred for the payment of working expenses and interest. Now if this proportion of produce remains in the country, and is paid to natives, it is still at hand to feed the people; but if it is loaded on board ships, as jute, cotton, or indigo, and sent to a foreign country to pay interest on capital [which as we have seen, means the wages of past (unpaid) labour, now owned by those who neither toil nor spin], then so much wealth is taken clean out of that country, never to reappear Jor to return to fer­ tilize the soil. There are new colonies, no doubt, which can afford to pay this toll to foreigners, because the application of labour to virgin soil is exceedingly profitable, though even in that case the drain is often more injurious than it seems at the time. But in the case of India the result is disastrous from the first. �144 ENGLAND FOR ALL. Interest is taken away, and Europeans are paid high salaries, alike in famine and in plenty, in drought and in flood. - Moreover, much more than 20,000,000/. have been thus paid away under the guarantee which have never been earned at all. Losing railways have consequently been made profitable investments to home capitalists by the truly beneficent interven­ tion of their own Government. Railways therefore in India, worked by Europeans at a high salary, and paying interest on the money borrowed by sending agricultural produce out of the country, are very different from railways here with us in England. This has now been acknowledged. Borrowing out of India is seen to be most injurious ; and yet the country is getting deeper and ever deeper into debt for public works, and the exhausting drain is being increased by the employment of more Europeans. The truth is that, built with the best possible in­ tentions, the public works of India are a burden on the people. Eager to enrich the country and yet to derive advantage from it, our proceedings for the last three-and-twenty years have been harmful and ruin­ ous in the highest degree. This is no secret. The most important officials at the India Office know it well. The fearful effect of the drain from India has been the subject of more than one grave confidential memorandum, as well as of protests from Indian Finance Ministers, who, however, could not see them­ selves that the construction of unremunerative public works out of borrowed money was ruinous. But such is capitalism—selfishness so ingrained that five per cent, per annum cannot possibly be wrong, though �INDIA. U5 millions may starve because it must be punctually paid. We have lent nearly 25.0,000,000/. to India, and must have our return, though the people had no voice whatever in the borrowing, and now begin to feel only too sadly that their substance is being taken from them, they scarcely know how. But this drain must be stanched; the taxation must be lowered ; more natives must be employed. Eng­ land, in short, must rise to the level of her great respon­ sibilities, and take order with the ex-officials who pour forth optimist harangues in praise of their own administrative capacity. For hear what all agricultual experts say. With one accord Mr. Buck, Mr. Harman, and Mr. Robertson declare that the soil of India is undergoing steady and permanent deteriora­ tion—that it will support fewer men and fewer bullocks as years pass by. Mr. Robertson puts the deteriora­ tion at not less than thirty per cent, in thirty years. Thirty per cent, less produce per acre in thirty years ! Who can wonder? The produce of the earth is taken away to be brought over here, to an increasing extent, and there is now less manure than ever to put into the soil. At the same time the destruction of the forests for railway sleepers and fuel has, as in the United States and Australia, most seriously affected the climate for the worse. Drought and floods alter­ nate in districts where formerly the rainfall was beneficial and equable. Such is the foresight of capital in India—the care of our civilization of to-day for the civilization of the human beings of to-morrow. From all provinces comes the same sad cry. From the North-West and from Oude, from Bombay as well L �146 ENGLAND FOR ALL. as from Madras, from large tracts of Bengal, and even from the Punjab, one mournful story is heard ; the land does not, as of old bring forth of its abun­ dance ; there is no blessing on the crops in our day. A deteriorated race of men, an inferior description of bullocks, bear witness to the truth of what they say. So serious did all this seem, so fearful was the famine period of 1876-79, that Mr. James Caird was sent out to India as a Special Famine Commissioner, with the ready consent of both parties in the State, to examine, as the ablest English agricultural expert, into the condition of our noble dependency. He returned to tell us that unless we change our system a great catastrophe is inevitable. Catastrophe is easily written, but Mr. Caird evidently used the word in no light sense. After an elaborate investigation of the state of things, he too came to the conclusion that the soil of India is deteriorating, whilst the popula­ tion is increasing in certain districts, so that the people live in perpetual semi-starvation. The very next famine period may therefore bring with it an economical cataclysm beside which even the great Irish destruction will sink into insignificance. Mr. Irwin prepares us in Oude for similar fearful trouble ; Mr. Connell from the North-West Provinces takes up the tale. But Mr. Caird’s earnest protest has, so far, produced no effect; so what should they avail ? Even Mr. W. W. Hunter, the DirectorGeneral of Indian Statistics, and a year ago advo­ cate of the interests of the Indian bureaucracy and capitalists at home, even he, alarmed at last by his own very inaccurate figures, tells us that at �INDIA. J47 least 40,000,000 of the people for whose welfare we are responsible—100,000,000 would be nearer the mark—are going through life on insufficient food. Nay, more ; he shows that the Mogul Emperors raised far more than twice the revenue we now get out of India, for six generations, without exhausting the country, whilst we who drain away the produce can­ not take our present revenue without a great risk of collapse. By the side of this drain, and the conse­ quent deterioration of the soil, helped on by denuda­ tion, all the rest of our blunders, great as they are, are mere child’s-play. Another famine period is even now approaching, no preparations have been made to meet it, and how far the inordinate cost of the Afghan wars has crippled our Indian exchequer is not even yet fully known. Thus on every side the prospect is gloomy and overcast, and in' the opinion of the ablest observers we are drawing nearer and nearer to an almost overwhelming disaster. Year after year we take from India agricultural produce which she cannot spare, because we are masters of the country, and, paying ourselves handsomely all round, leave those who depend upon us for safety to perish from want; Whilst we are disputing about the defence of the empire we ourselves are preparing its ruin, only to learn the truth too late: the knocking will come through the darkness from without—the murder within will be done. Let then the sun of English justice arise and shine—outshine all the glories of the East; let a message of mercy, whose wings are as silver wings and her feathers as gold, go forth from L 2 �148 ENGLAND FOR ALL the people of England to the many races and nations under their rule, saying to all that, though they have ills of their own to suffer from and endless sorrows to bear, they would not that others should be made poorer or more miserable for them. So"] as death shall close our eyelids in never-ending slumber, we may feel that countless millions have some share of happiness which but for us they would have lacked, some joy and contentment which but for us they never would have known. For the alternative course lies open before us once more. There are in India, as in Ireland and at home, two policies, the one of mock freedom and real op­ pression, the other of beneficent government and steady progress. Strange that having tried both methods in India, we should as a nation stick to the failure and discard the success. Wherever native administration has had free play under gentle European guidance, there we have seen prosperity and contentment spring up and endure. In Travancore and Baroda, in Mysore and Hyderabad, wherever English influence has been confined to supporting upright native rule, the change has been marvellous for the better, though the tendency even then is to interfere too much by the introduction of Western ideas. Still it is not Euro­ pean administration that is necessarily ruinous : that we have seen in numerous instances. It is not that public works are not highly beneficial. But when European agency and public works are alike over­ done ; when foreign soldiers and foreign systems are imposed upon the population to an extent which savours of the very fanaticism of so-called improve­ �INDIA. 14 ment, then, as we see, the result is starvation, ruin, and death, a famine-stricken people, and an exhausted soil. The recent return of Mysore to native administra­ tion after fifty years of European rule is, we may hope, of good omen for the future. Our task now is to cut down the European establishments in every possible way—to curtail the home charges, even if we have to reduce the rate of interest arbitrarily by one half and take some portion of the pensions on to our own shoulders. This money that is now taken is not ours, and no native has ever voted a single rupee of it to us. The enormous expense of the European army must likewise be curtailed, and a very different policy from that of suspicion and hauteur adopted towards the native princes. We have, in fact, to prepare the many peoples of India for self-government, by a pro­ cess of decentralization, by building up the old States again wherever possible, and by removing the crowd of Europeans who now eat out the prosperity of the country. Let any man consider. No such system as that which we now foster could by any possibility succeed. The old Mogul rulers were wrong-headed enough in many ways, but they were not such fools as to think they could govern India from Samarcand and in accordance with Mussulman prejudice, or that they could dispense with the assistance of the able Hindoo administrators in the management of their provinces. Akber was perhaps the greatest monarch that the East ever produced, yet he relied—and as the event showed, wisely relied—upon the noble rajah Toder Mull to reorganise his finances, With us �ENGLAND FOR ALL. Toder Mull, the most masterly financier beyond all comparison that has ever had control of the Indian exchequer, would have been “ a damned, nigger accountant, who would keep writing to the papers.” Such incapacity to appreciate the abilities of our own subjects, let us remember—such eagerness to crush down rather than to raise up—such sad indifference to the ruin being wrought in our own territory, when close at hand countries equally under our control, but managed by natives, are flourishing and prosperous— such strange determination not to understand, I say, will gain us but a doubtful reputation for foresight with those who come after, even if it do not involve ourselves in ruin. But if, on the other hand, we resolve to make the necessary changes at once, and to restore to the natives, in some degree at least, the control of their own Governments and their own property, then India may more than repay us for our sympathy and good­ will. There, directly or indirectly under our rule, are 250,000,000 of the human race, who, weary as they are of waiting for fair treatment, would recognize with joyous loyalty a determined effort to relieve them from the excessive pressure of foreign government, and the ruinous drain for foreign payments, which now impoverish them more and more. This assuredly is no party question ; but those who profit by India’s ruin will scarcely of their own motion make the sacri­ fices needful to restore her prosperity. It is to the mass of Englishmen, then, to the great democracy of this country, that the peoples of India must now appeal for justice. Represented fairly here at home, �INDIA. 151 they might hope to secure their long-delayed heading, and with that hearing consideration for their wrongs. Here too, I say once more, the right course is that which is best also for our own people. Let the people of India but grow in wealth, as they would under any fair conditions of existence,'with but slight supervision from us, and the exchange of their products for ours would be far more advantageous than the continuous impoverishment which disenables them from making purchases. On every ground, therefore, of humanity, morality, self-interest, future credit, and ordinary common sense, we ought not longer to postpone the necessary reorganization. But our present parlia­ mentary system has proved quite inadequate to cope with this great crisis. If India is to be retained at all, she must have a direct voice in her own administra­ tion, as well in England as in India. �152 ENGLAND FOR ALL. CHAPTER VII. THE COLONIES. There is happily one portion of our empire which is almost entirely free from the political difficulties we encounter elsewhere. The drawbacks to our great self­ governed colonies are common to our age and civiliza­ tion ; their advantages are peculiar to themselves. Notwithstanding the mistakes of both political parties in dealing with South Africa—mistakes which have, to a great extent, overclouded the prospect in that par­ ticular region—the colonies are, and will remain, the chief mainstay of Anglo-Saxon dominion outside these islands, when India has returned to native rule, and our other dependencies are held rather as a duty than as contributing to our power. With them, indeed, and the United States, lies 'the future expansion of our race. For although the Americans were driven into hostility more than a century ago, we may still hope that in time to come the great English-speaking democracies of England, Australia, and North America, may find ground for a common under­ standing, which will enable them to secure peace and justice throughout the civilized world, by the overwhelming force they could array against any �THE COLONIES. 153 aggressor- This, however, is for the moment no more than a pleasant vision. The possibility of a closer connexion with our colonies is an immediate practical business. On this point too, fortunately, men who differ most widely on other questions are often agreed. Taught by the disastrous result of the attempt to tyrannize over the North American colonists, we have carried the doc­ trine of self-government almost further than the colonists themselves wished. Not content with granting them the most complete home rule, we have at times repulsed their advances towards a closer union, and, on the other hand, wronged our poorer classes by handing over the entire administration of an almost limitless unoccupied territory to the handful of people who first settled there. But even so the result is surely in marked contrast to our relations with Ireland. No portion of our dominions are so loyal to the British connexion at this very time, none so anxious that England should rightfully maintain her position in the world, as the colonists. Left to solve their own social and political problems, they turn naturally to the mother country to keep alive the 1 “ Blood is thicker than water,’’ said Admiral Farragut when he stood by our sailors in the China seas. Years later, after the grand old man had been the soul of the Northern navy during the Civil War, he was in port in the Mediterranean with his wooden flagship. A fleet of British ironclads was there at the same time. As he weighed anchor and sailed out to sea, the English ships also left their moorings and made two lines for him to pass through. The compliment was wholly unlookedfor, but it thoroughly expressed the feelings of the nation to­ wards that noble seanian. �ENGLAND FOR ALL. ideal of a greater political action than any which can be hoped for from mere separation and local ambition. And this feeling grows even at the time when absen­ tees are being denounced, and the power of demo­ cracy gains ground each day. There, as at home, centralization and decentralization are working them­ selves out; though, by the mistake of not maintaining a federal union, great difficulties are now encountered in bringing together colonies which ought never to have lost the common tie, even on matters which could manifestly be handled best by all collectively. There can be no greater contrast between the relation which Canada now bears to the United Kingdom than that of the North American colonies, when they fought for independence. In that case we insisted upon the right to tax without permitting the colonists the right of representation. Now we have given Canada not only self-government, but the right to impose almost prohibitive duties on our own goods. That this need not have occurred had a better under­ standing been kept up with the colonists, and freetrade, when commenced, enacted as the law for all self-governed portions of the empire, we can scarcely doubt. The history of Canada, however, since the separation of the American colonies, is creditable to her and to the home country. At first sight it would have seemed impossible that the French colonies of Lower Canada, conquered by a people with whom their nation was at perpetual war, should ever have come to be loyal to the English Crown. But the consideration shown for their language, creed, and customs, the steady determination not to interfere �THE COLONIES. 155 with their local rule, gradually won over the French settlers, until at the present time they are as devoted to the British connexion as any portion of the popu­ lation of English descent. Troubles at times there have been with the English colonists, and rather more than forty years ago a rebellion was threatened. Yet all settled down ; and now it seems that the Dominion of Canada has before her as fine a career in the future as the more energetic democracy on the other side of the border. That the withdrawal of our troops was brought about in a most unmannerly fashion, and in such wise as to offend the best in­ stincts of the Canadians—that also Lord Carnarvon’s plan of federation was premature, and carried by doubtful means, have not changed the sentiments of the colonists towards the mother country. Incorporation with the United States would leave less of freedom for natural expansion than there is at present under England’s light rule. A race of sturdy sober-going men and women have grown up in that rude Canadian climate, who will carry on the best traditions of English Government side by side with the great Republic. There, in the great expanse of the Far West, lies an opening for those who, in the coming changes here at home, may think they see their way to a wider field, still under the name and in connexion with the old country. In Canada, even more than in the United States, the natural inclina­ tion of our race for the sea manifests itself. The 4,000,000 who make up the Dominion of Canada own the fourth largest mercantile marine in the world. As, also, the new continental railroad is pushed forward �ENGLAND FOR ALL. to the Pacific slope, the splendid region of British Columbia will be opened up to colonization, and yet another connexion made with the English colonies in the South Pacific. Nor, when the distance by sea is spoken of, and the impossibility of a permanent connexion insisted upon, should we forget that Canada and the other colonies of the Atlantic slope are nearer to us to-day than Aberdeen or Cork were a century ago. Canada is now wholly self-supporting, costs the people of England not one farthing of expenditure, whilst the increasing power of democracy would find a help and offer valuable assistance to a similar growth with us at home. The Dominion will, we may hope, as time passes on, bind together closer the various set­ tlements. Already the Parliament at Ottawa—sitting in the finest block of buildings on the American con­ tinent—worthily represents the Federal Union of a magnificent group of peoples. Let them also find representation here in England, and thus'bring to bear upon all international arrangements the ever-increas­ ing force of a united democracy of English-speaking peoples. At the crisis of the Eastern question when it seemed as if England might be involved in conti­ nental warfare, the Canadians were not slow to offer their assistance in a cause where their own interests were in no way involved. Surely it is for the great mass of the people of England to hold out their hands in fellowship to those who wish nothing better than to work together on the same lines for the strengthen­ ing and improvement of all. There is something in great ideas which vivifies and enlarges the national �THE COLONIES. *57 imagination. We here at home have indeed much to carry out ere we can achieve our own full government of ourselves, or place ourselves on the same level which the Canadians have already happily attained to in many respects. Reason the more that we should endeavour to make common cause in the direction of further progress. But if this applies to Canada, still more true is it of the Australian colonies and New Zealand. These colonies are the growth of the present generation. In the last thirty years they have sprung up from mere settlements to be great and prosperous commu­ nities. In Australia—Victoria and New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, and West Australia, form a group of states unsurpassed in any part of the world for energy, enterprise, and growing con­ sideration for the education and well-being of the rising generation. That the distribution of wealth is here also sadly faulty is indeed too certain. In Mel­ bourne and Sydney, cities large out of all proportion to the population engaged in agriculture or mining, the contrast between the wealth of the few and the poverty of the many, is at times very serious. Here, too, is felt the alternation of inflation and stagnation consequent upon our capitalist system, and the large capitalists, either English or native, are gradually acquiring excessive preponderance. But the possi­ bility of a man taking himself out of the wage-earning class is, of course, as in Canada and the United States, far greater than in England. The abundance of virgin soil, the rapid increase of wealth in proportion to the population, keep wages at a higher level than �I58 ENGLAND FOR ALL. in old countries. Both politically and socially, how­ ever, the Australian colonies are passing through a phase in their history which is of the highest impor­ tance, and corresponds to similar changes here at home. In purely political matters the democracy is increas­ ing in strength day by day ; but unfortunately these colonies have not, until of late years, had anything to compare to the admirable school system of America which should bring the whole population within reach of education. This, however, is being remedied ; and in Victoria, the most democratic colony of all, the people are beginning to learn that a sober combina­ tion to deal with existing difficulties—which may well perplex the ablest statesman—is in the long-run better for the interests of all than a hasty agitation which overthrows confidence in present arrangements with­ out substituting anything in their place. Those who fasten their attention on Victoria, and declaim against the folly of a democracy because it favours protection, conveniently forgot that New South Wales, where the people are equally masters, is in favour of free trade, and South Australia shows a growing tendency in the same direction. Nothing, indeed, is more absurd than to gauge the political intelligence of a country by such a test. If protection can keep up the relative wages of the mass of the working people above the level which they will obtain under free trade, then beyond all question protection is, on the whole, the policy best suited to the welfare of the mass of that community. Theorists who reason as if the only object of all human society were to make the �THE COLONIES. 159 rich richer and the poor poorer would, of course, not admit even that. But it may be reasonably allowed as absurd that colonies founded by men of the same nation, and living under the same government, in the same terri­ tory, should deliberately set up tariffs against one another, and against the mother country. This is what we see in Australia, and it shows clearly how important a better understanding is between the various colonies on matters which concern the in­ terests of all. The difficulty of bringing about a federation in Australia, even on this simple matter of customs, seems insuperable. Time after time have re­ presentatives met, but on each occasion have separated without coming to any definite arrangement. Local interests and local ambitions shut out the view of the general advantage which would be gained by a closer understanding. But the completion of a railroad between Sydney and Melbourne, and the rapid ex­ tension of the other Australian railways, must bring this question again to the front. It may be that the solution will be found in that wider federation which, without in any way sacrificing the local administration, may bring about the full representation of Australia in a general council where the interests of all will be fully considered. There are, in these days, many matters which can be better settled when dealt with as a whole than when regarded piecemeal, and few can doubt that such enterprises as the railways and public works of Australia could be better and more cheaply handled together than separately. �i6d ENGLAND FOR ALL. In these Australian colonies also, and particularly in New Zealand, may be seen the system of State management carried out under the most democratic form of government. Railways, posts, telegraphs, public works, schools, public lands, are all entirely under the control of the bureaux appointed by the State, and managed by a responsible Minister. Where the appointments also are kept clear of poli­ tical influence, the system works well. There are temptations to grave jobbery, doubtless, but they are kept under restraint by universal publicity; and the mass of the population have abundant opportunities of making themselves felt. A graver danger than any arising from over-officialism is that of over­ borrowing from the mother country. In New Zealand especially this danger is very great. Not only is the Government largely pledged to pay the produce of the 400,000. colonists to home lenders, but the settlers themselves have pledged their resources to an enor­ mous extent to English capitalists. These vast pay­ ments out of the country for money borrowed can scarcely go on for ever. Labour expended on virgin soil will no doubt produce enormously; but slack times come even there, and the difficulties which we have seen in India will be reproduced on a smaller scale. This vast tribute, in the shape of interest on money lent, which the English colonists have to transmit out of their labour to the mother country, is one of the least pleasant features of the colonial connexion. It may be that under a better arrangement the colonists in all our great free-governed dependencies will be able to combine with the mother country for �THE COLONIES. the more adequate development of their magnificent territories, in the interest of the whole of the federated portions of our empire. In their temperate climate, and with their unrivalled soil—in Canada, Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand—millions on millions of our race might find happiness and comfort, which would re-act upon the welfare of our people at home. As our home arrangements undergo modification, we ought to carry with us the people of the colonies in aiding to bring about, without disturbance or blood­ shed, a more equitable distribution of wealth than that which now we see. Those who desire to leave our shores to try a fresh life in another country, might then feel sure, not of the coddling of a maternal government, but of assistance, encouragement, and capital, where now all these are lacking. The great disparity between the sexes in England in one direc­ tion, and in the colonies in the other, alone shows how faultily the present arrangements have worked. It is with a view to bringing about a more com­ plete understanding on all such questions, a regulation of the mere laissez-faire system which up till now has found favour, that a nearer connexion is so essen­ tial. Friendly democracies can always help each other. They have no real ground of mutual distrust. But when we see in the United States such misery as that produced by the late stagnation ; when we know that in New South Wales, Victoria, and New Zealand, men were thrown out of work and clamouring for employment, though millions of unoccupied fertile land lay at their disposal all round them, then it becomes more clearly apparent than ever how misM �162 ENGLAND FOR ALL. chievous is the system which refuses to make the most of such enormous advantages, and supposes that stagnation and depression are really inevitable because those who hold the capital choose to make it so. It tis because social matters are kept so carefully in the background, and the real producers of wealth, whether in England, Ireland, or abroad, are shut out from comparing notes on matters which so nearly concern them, that these serious errors are made. Even as it is the colonies, with their marvellous power of recovery, have been our best customers, and have enabled the English working class at home to pass through the long period of crisis with less of pressure than would otherwise have been felt. Here, even in business, where sentiment is said to have no play, we find the trade follows the flag—that men prefer to deal with their own people. Surely those who are in favour of a unity of all peoples, who hold that in the near future the men who have hitherto worked for others will see that in common action lies the hope for humanity, cannot fail ere long to understand that the first step towards this great end must be a closer and yet closer union of peoples of the same race, lan­ guage, and political traditions, working together for the good of all portions of that noble federation. Leaving freedom to all, and enforcing none—holding up before us a high ideal in which all may share and all may find full development—thus, and thus only, shall we gather them in. But it is not merely in relation to their own indi­ vidual interests that it would be of the highest impor­ �THE COLONIES. 163 tance that our great democratic communities beyond the sea should be represented. Difficulties affecting all "portions of the empire have to be considered, which can never obtain proper attention save by the personal discussion of those who have a direct interest in their wise settlement. The questions of tariff and trade have already been spoken of. No complete arrangements on these heads can possibly be arrived at so long as the hide-bound bureaucrats of the Colonial Office, with their encrusted traditions of meddling and muddling, have full swing. Only when men see for themselves that local selfishness can fitly be merged in a greater and more enlightened common interest, will they abandon ideas which they have adopted almost as an evidence of free judgment. A Customs Union of the British Empire will be the outcome of the representation of our colonies in the Great Council which will take the place of our present worn-out second chamber. Or it may be even that we shall follow the French system, and invite colonies to send representatives to the popular House, when local business has been properly handed over to local authorities. Whichever course may be adopted, there is a growing opinion, both in the colonies and in England, that in such representation lies the true solution of many problems which now seem most thorny. A complete Union thus brought about could scarcely fail to have a peaceful influence on the whole civilized world. Such an overwhelming combination of naval strength as could then be relied upon, could be made by no conceivable alliance of despotic powers. M 2 �164 ENGLAND FOR ALL. This, however, brings us at once to the question of general defence, which is now being discussed by a Royal Commission. On that Commission the colonies are inadequately represented, yet it is of the last importance that they should enter completely into any plans that may be suggested. For on the due ordering of our Imperial defences, and the security of our lines of communication, can we alone depend for maintaining in time of trouble that connexion with our countrymen across the sea, and for the certainty of obtaining our food supplies, which are essential not only to our influence but to our safety. These matters have been sadly neglected under the happygo-lucky regime of the past twenty or thirty years. Men who are always looking to throw off what they call the “ burden of empire,” regardless of the help and encouragement we can obtain in coming political changes from the democracies of our own race, natu­ rally looked askance at any measures which should tend to unite and not to separate, to bring together and not to drive away. It is well that at this par­ ticular time another view should be taken. By a careful organization of our resources, and a judicious strengthening of the many ports we possess, it would be made quite impossible for any enemy or enemies to interfere seriously with our affairs even in time of war, whilst the denunciation of the Declaration of Paris would make us more powerful than we ever were before. In these days coal and coaling-stations, the opportunity to go into port and refit at all times, are essential. And these advantages we possess to such an extent, that it may almost be said that all �THE COLONIES. 165 the rest of the world together could not rival us. In the Atlantic and Pacific, in European waters and the China seas, from the Cape of Good Hope to Cape Horn, and from the British islands to Australia and India, we hold a chain of posts which will enable us to exercise at the fitting moment an almost over­ whelming pressure, if in time of peace we take the means to prepare for any difficulty. Halifax and Vancouver’s Island, Bermuda and the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Malta, and Aden, Sydney, Mel­ bourne, King George’s Sound, and Auckland, to say nothing of the Indian ports, and scarcely less valu­ able possessions elsewhere, such as Hong-Kong, Fiji, and the Mauritius, constitute an array of maritime citadels which, maintained in proper defence by our ourselves and our colonies, must, in conjunction with a fleet proportioned to our maritime interests, render future naval war against us almost impossible. Nor should we hold or exercise this truly enormous power for our own selfish advantage. English ports are open to the ships of all nations without let or hind­ rance ; we throw open to the world the advantages we possess, asking nothing in return. Here, then, when fully represented, our colonists may fairly take their share in arranging with us the defence of the common interest, and organizing the national defence. Still more necessary, however, is colonial help in considering the bearing of treaties which we may negotiate with foreign powers, or the action which the colonists themselves may take in their own interest. At present there is no special consideration given to the effect which may be produced on our existing �166 ENGLAND FOR ALL. artificial system by any fresh arrangement so far as it affects colonies or colonists, and our greatest de­ pendency counts for still less in such matters ; whilst as to the colonists themselves, it is sufficient to note their action with regard to the Chinese to recognize at once that questions may arise which can only be dealt with from the point of view of general interest. This Chinese question is indeed one which by itself needs the gravest consideration, as a political, social, and international problem of the greatest difficulty. Here we are in fact threatened with a conflict of races and civilization, the like of which has never yet been seen on the face of the planet. China has awakened from her long sleep of centuries, and is fast breaking from her isolation, and entering into the full stream of the political and social life of our times. What the results of this may be no man can foretell. A people who have been civilized for ages, who yet retain vigour, capacity, and physical qualities whose bearing on the future we do not yet fully understand, are now absorb­ ing the newest truths of Western investigators. The effect upon us so far has been to bring the industrious Chinese, with their ideas of individualism only modi­ fied by their secret societies, into direct competition with our own colonists. There are thousands on thousands of Chinamen under our rule in the East alone, and as workmen and merchants they are most formidable rivals. But with the emigration to the freegoverned colonies and America a new feature begins. Our colonists positively will not put up with them, any more than the Americans will. At this very time the people of British Columbia, as well as the colonies of �THE COLONIES. 167 Australia, have decided to keep out the Chinese. They are to our modern industrial colonies what shells are at sea—missiles to be kept out, at any cost to theory or beauty of design. But the result is at once seen to be serious. It is the recognition of a per­ turbing element in all calculations—of an incapacity on the part of our race to face a nation of protec­ tionists who regard themselves as mere passers-by in every country they enter. That our colonists should have the right to tax every Chinaman who lands, surely carries with it the right of Chinese to tax every Englishman who lands in China. As our relations with China grow, and these points come more promi­ nently forward, the absolute necessity for some general understanding will become apparent. Perhaps ere another generation has passed away the question of our relation to China will completely dwarf all others in importance. Meantime the commercial connexion between Australia and Asia is rapidly growing ; and in view of the unfitness of the northern portion of that great island-continent for colonization by men of our race, it is even possible that immigrants from India or China may find place in that vast unpeopled region. These, however, are the possibilities of the future. What most concerns us now is, to lay the foundation of a cordial understanding between all portions of our great colonial empire—to bring together on the wider field of a wide-reaching policy of the commonwealth those who in their own several spheres, are striving to bring about a better social and political system than that which now presses upon all portions of the empire, �168 ENGLAND FOR ALL. though less in the colonies than elsewhere. The natural and wholesome pride of a Canadian, an Australian, or a New Zealander in the growing great­ ness of his country, need in no way be irreconcilable with a deep love for the old home, and a yet higher pride in sharing in a general improvement which shall embrace and welcome all. The Anglo-Saxon race, which has shown the world how to reconcile freedom and order with steady progress, can by combination and determined effort secure for themselves and their children the leadership in the social changes and re­ forms which are close at hand. Those great demo­ cracies of English-speaking peoples, who now have complete control over their own affairs, will find that in permanent union with the more ancient democracy of England lies the best hope of securing the fullest development in the future. �FOREIGN AFFAIR'S. CHAPTER VIII. FOREIGN AFFAIRS. The relation which England should bear to the nations of the Continent of Europe, and the action which ought to be taken in reference to foreign policy generally, would be very summarily settled by one party among us. Non-intervention is their sole idea of the management of such affairs. Let others do what they like to or with one another, we will severely mind our own business, look after our trade, and, secure behind the silver streak, amass money—for the comfortable classes of course—to our hearts’ content. Thus the individual selfishness, upon which they are content to rely absolutely for all management at home, is fitly supplemented by a still more thorough collective selfishness applied to affairs abroad. Capital is timid, it is said, peace is our greatest interest, intervention means, sooner or later, war or threat of war. A soldier or a sailor therefore, in the opinion of these gentlemen, ought to be scouted as a pariah, though, as all save fanatics can see, our army and navy are as natural portions of our industrial organism in the present state of international morality and economi­ cal development, as our custom-house or excise. Only stand aside, such is the argument, and no one �170 ENGLAND FOR ALL. will harm you. A purely trading power will arouse no jealousies ; and Europe will see in England a country which, in the plenitude of its strength, steps aside from all save commercial transactions, and is content to figure simply as a pattern to others. Now, few would doubt that if all were like-minded in this matter—if the lion of greed could indeed lie down with the lamb of wealth outside him, that here is the true in­ dustrial future for the human race. But we are, alas ! far from such a happy state of things. No nation in existing conditions can thus safely boycott itself, without grave risk of being boycotted, or perhaps preyed upon, by others. And we, of all countries in the world, are the least capable of secluding ourselves, and enriching ourselves whilst others look on. Our flag floats on every sea ; our trade competes with every nation ; our absolutely necessary supplies, without which we should starve, come to us from far and near.1 A commercial country owning such extended terri­ tory is more open to attack than any other; and even on the ground of simple selfishness, some alliances should be made, and some preparations maintained against danger. But there are higher reasons even than those of expediency for taking part in the politics of the world. A great country has moral duties, as a man has moral duties ; and these are not confined to simple business relations and trading for gain. We are, or might be, the leaders and protectors of free­ 1 We have ordinarily less than three weeks’ supply of food at hand. A naval combination which could blockade our ports for a fortnight, could starve us out. Two powers, acting to­ gether, could even now have a stronger fleet in the Channel than we could command. �FOREIGN AFFA IRS. 171 dom, independence, and true liberty in Europe, as we were in the time of the Great Protector Our power, properly organized, and wielded with the con­ sent of a united people, may suffice at no distant date to turn the scale in that great struggle between militarism and industrialism, between tyranny and freedom, perhaps between barbarism and civilization, now threatening on the continent. To stand aloof finally when such issues as these are being debated is not, as I venture to think, the nature of my coun­ trymen. They have often fought in times gone by to save others from foreign domination ; it maybe that in the near future a still greater task will be theirs. The history of the modern connexion of England with continental affairs, may be said to begin with the accession of William III. That long policy of secret negotiations carried on by Elizabeth with the Pro­ testant populations of Europe, had involved us in war with Spain ; the policy of the Stuarts had, after Cromwell’s short and glorious period of supremacy, made England subservient to France. But these wars and alliances had really as little to do with the events which followed, as the old wars in France under the Plantagenets. With William III., however, began that bitter rivalry with France which thencefor­ ward became the mainspring of English foreign policy for at least five generations. Rivalry no doubt ex­ isted between Englishmen and Frenchmen when the Prince of Orange came to the throne, but thencefor­ ward it spread from the people to the Governments, and the fierce struggle which followed spread to all quarters of the globe. William III., in fact, began a settled policy of interference in European State poli­ �172 ENGLAND FOR ALL. tics in the interest of Holland and Germany, as distinct from any cause which called us to take the field on our own account. As a consequence we were driven to fight foreign battles by means of subsidies and mercenary troops, instead of trusting to our power at sea, where lies our real strength. For, strange to say, it never occurred to either the Plantagenets, the Tudors, or the Stuarts that it would redound to our credit and influence to carry on cam­ paigns on land with German soldiers at England’s expense. William III., however, commenced the system, because it aided the policy of his own country laid down by himself—that of persistent opposition to Louis XIV. and the French. The result has been a crushing load of debt, permanently imposed for foreign objects on the English people. For the House of Brunswick, confirmed and greatly extended the mischievous policy introduced by the Dutch king, and henceforth England became the citadel of German resistance to French attacks upon Germany. We no longer had a continental policy of our own ; every step taken had reference to the relations and intrigues of other Powers, who came to look upon England and English Ministers as necessary supports of a system of international war and jealousy, with which, as a matter of fact, the English people had nothing what­ ever to do. The unquestioned facts that we fought bravely, won battle after battle, and acquired some magnificent colonies, are mere incidents of this State­ system which blind us to the true bearing of the policy itself. Had not the Dutch and German elements become paramount in the guidance of our foreign relations, �FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 173 there was no such necessary antagonism to France as has been pretended. Lord Chatham himself, whose management of our external affairs was the wonder of Europe, wras vehemently opposed to the “ German War,” which, having once commenced, not even his genius could clear us from. Thus England was dragged along at the heels of Frederick II. the most unscrupulous adventurer who ever made a kingdom out of a province, and we of to-day have the privilege of paying, in the shape of interest on the national debt, for the position which Prussia holds in Europe. This went on, notwithstanding protests from patriotic men against this ruinous squandering of the resources of the country, until the time of the French Revolution, when our antagonism to France, already pronounced enough, was still further aggravated by the calculated panic of the governing and well-to-do classes. With the internal affairs of France we had no concern; and the mass of the people of England sympathized with the men who had overturned the meanest, and at the same time most galling tyranny that could oppress an agricultural people. The loss of the American Colonies, when Germans and Indians were used to shoot down and scalp men who were fighting for their rights, had opened the eyes of the poorer classes to the real bearing of the vicious mercenary system. A magnificent heritage had been lost, because the men at the head of affairs set aside the advice of English­ men like Chatham and Burke, to pander to the pre­ judices of a German king and the aristocrats around him. France had now learnt something from America ; and there was more admiration than ill-feeling to begin with on our side of the Channel. �174 ENGLAND FOR ALL. But in all this the rulers of that day saw—and rightly saw—a grave danger to themselves. The rupture with France was made unavoidable by the counsel and support extended to her invaders. Once involved in the anti-revolutionary fever, nothing was easier than to inflame still further the national rivalry, until for nearly a generation the very name of French­ man became obnoxious to English ears, and children grew up to be men believing that only by the de­ struction of France could England be made secure. The astounding career of Napoleon I., and the state­ craft of his reactionary empire, gave our policy a further push forward in the same direction. England became the rallying-point of resistance to a military usurper, who evidently aimed at the dominance of Europe. His answers to our persistent hostilities took the shape of a threat of invasion, and a continental blockade against English goods. The first of these two measures became hopeless after Nelson’s crowning victory at Trafalgar. The second was rendered futile —though the fact is not generally known—by the friendly policy of the Ottoman Empire. The remark­ able geographical configuration of that State gave us an advantage which Napoleon was unable to over­ come. The Turks opened their numerous ports, and Europe was flooded with smuggled English goods. Thereupon the blockade became useless ; Power after Power withdrew from the league, and we were relieved from further anxiety in regard to the most dangerous plan of campaign ever formulated against us. As a natural sequence of our long opposition to France, �FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 175 we were driven more and more into alliance with the despotic powers of Europe. Those armies which overthrew Napoleon, were as much intended for re­ pression at home as to repel the foreign invader ; and Europe was prepared by the Treaty of Vienna for the supremacy of the Holy Alliance. The great name associated with all this policy is that of Castlereagh, who bound us hand and foot to Russia, and made us little better than a hanger-on to the Holy Alliance itself. Thus for thirty years England was linked on the continent of Europe with powers whose very existence depended upon the denial of freedom to the peoples. Upon this phase followed a modification rather than a change of policy. The extravagant pretensions of the Holy Alliance with reference to Spain, and the absurd claim of its members to regulate the internal affairs of every kingdom of Europe, brought about the policy of which Canning became the chief ex­ ponent. This was the support of constitutionalism in Europe, as equally opposed to autocracy and to revolution. It was an attempt to trim between two irreconcilable opposites. Canning himself called into existence that remarkable New World to redress the • balance of the Old which, since it first came above the political horizon in the House of Commons, has been wholly incapable of balancing even itself. The rest of the policy had as little solid foundation as this famous outburst. Constitutionalism did not thrive, in spite of English protection; and we gradually drifted into a defence of what appeared our most tangible, interest—that of the overland route to India. Canning was followed by Palmerston and Russell. �176 ENGLAND FOR ALL. The episode of Navarino, which weakened Turkey without constituting a strong Greece, was merely a prelude to a definite championship of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire, involving Lord Palmerston’s Syrian policy, and eventually leading up to the Crimean War. Jealousy of France, and desire to maintain the balance of power, still had a great influence. But capitalism was now beginning to assert its sway, and plain Whig principles meant compromise at home and selfishness abroad. There was not even the violent old Toryism of Pitt and Castlereagh to rouse opposition or stir enthusiasm. The shake of 1848 brought the weakness of this whole system into clear relief. Unpleasant people, who thought a dungeon smelt quite as dank under “moderate constitutionalism, ” as when kept exclu­ sively at the service of autocrats, gave the constitu­ tionalists many awkward misgivings. London at this time naturally became the headquarters of the consti­ tutional monarchs, and the metropolitan bankers the custodians of their savings. We, however, in the struggle which followed, neither gained nor deserved the gratitude of either party. Opposed to auto­ cracy, we showed a friendship for Hungary, which the horror of our middle classes for real revolution quickly induced us to betray. Matters were worse with Venice, Sardinia, and Sicily, when England deliberately abandoned people who had been in­ duced by surreptitious assurances to rely upon her for assistance. “ England wishes only for peace,” Pasini wrote, bitterly, to Manin ; and that summed up, not perhaps Lord Palmerston’s own policy, but the �FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 177 policy of the capitalist class, now gaining power rapidly, and to which all Foreign Ministers have since been forced in some way to bow down. But here, nevertheless, lay the true line for Eng­ land. In 1848 she could have placed herself at the head of the enfranchised peoples of Europe, and lent her unrivalled naval power to support those who, with her assistance, could not have been subdued. The time however, was not ripe for so bold a policy; the dreaded principles of revolution were once more abroad. Chartism at home was affiliated to the accursed thing. So, without absolutely allying our­ selves with the oppressors, Great Britain saw without regret the re-establishment of autocracy, which to her self-seeking merchants was so far preferable to the rule of the people. Thus the general result of our moral support of constitutionalism and Liberal prin­ ciples was the firm re-establishment of despotism in Europe. At this period too was shown fully that absolute agreement between Russia and Prussia which has been the key to continental policy since 1821. Russia came forward in 1848 as the protector of despotism in every country. Germany and Austria were completely under her thumb. Every petty princeling whose throne had been pulled from under him, stretched out his hands in prayer to the deity of St. Petersburg to set him up straight again ; and Nicholas, to do him justice, did his king-making in fine old barbaric style. So long as these small fry, from the King of Prussia downward, obeyed his Imperial behests, and abstained from all tampering with liberalism or revolution he was content to support N �178 .ENGLAND FOR ALL. them for the mere gratification of the thing. The Power which held Poland could not afford that either freedom or the rights of nationalities should be dis­ cussed in her neighbourhood. It was a revival of the policy of the early portion of the century, in a more pronounced shape. An armed barbarism lent its aid to all the reactionary influences in Europe, and Liberal England was content to stand aloof and wish well to the oppressed nationalities, without raising a hand to help them. Plad a more far-seeing plan been adopted, the Crimean War, with its unfortunate alliance with the Second Empire in France might have been unnecessary. Turkey was saved from Russia by that war, at the expense of thousands of lives and a hundred millions of money to this country. But for twenty years, though the Liberal party was almost continuously in office, no steps whatever were taken to reorganize the Ottoman Empire, or to help the better elements to organize themselves, whilst we lent the corrupt clique of Pashas at Constantinople tens of millions, which were squandered in corruption and debauchery. The close of the Crimean War, however, was signalized by a treaty, which could only have been reasonably accepted by us if we had been defeated instead of vic­ torious. Hampered by our alliance with the Govern­ ment, and not with the people of France, we were con­ strained to make peace practically on the terms which suited our ally. A step also was taken, without any reference to the people of England, by the two English Plenipotentiaries, which sacrificed the only important weapon that an essentially naval power like ourselves �FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 179 has in a continental war. The history of the deplor­ able surrender is even yet not fully know ; its effect we shall only feel when we are again opposed—as we may be at any moment opposed—by a European coalition directed against us. During the long wars with France under the Republic and Napoleon we held one great advantage, but for which we could scarcely have faced the com­ bination which that great genius contrived to work up against us. This went by the name of Maritime Rights. Supreme on the ocean, and able to cover the seas with a swarm of privateers, the carrying trade of the world was at our mercy. The Right of Search was the point on which this power hinged. This meant that if neutral vessels were carrying our enemies’ goods, we had the right, whether contraband of war or not, to stop those vessels and confiscate those goods. Thus we could rely upon our real arm, that which is given us by our geographical position and the hereditary capacity of our men—the knowledge and mastery of the sea. Time after time when the for­ tunes of the country had seemed at the lowest ebb, this power sufficed to turn the tide in our favour. Its possession made us a valuable ally to the most powerful continental state ; whilst, as we have seen, with the friendly connivance of Turkey it enabled us to break up the famous continental blockade against our goods. Naturally this unequalled weapon, for a country of such wealth as ours, had been envied us by the continent ever since we began to use it, and con­ stant efforts had been made by our rivals and enemies to deprive us of it. Up to the date of the Congress N 2 �i go ENGLAND DOR all. of Paris, however, all such pretensions had been scouted by English statesmen as absolutely inadmis­ sible, and ruinous to our country. Nothing to the contrary of this had or has ever been shown. The cry of “ free ships, free goods,” had been raised by those who wished the downfall of England’s influence ; for once admitted, it reduced our fighting power to nothing. All these facts notwithstanding, Lord Clarendon and Lord Cowley, acting in that spirit of the pure trading interest which had then become really paramount in English foreign politics, gave up by the Declaration of Paris, without argument, debate, or proper authority, those maritime rights which could alone enable the growing democracy of these islands to exercise due weight and influence in Europe. No such sacrifice has ever been made by any country. That we should permanently adhere to it is incredible. The United States was guilty of no such folly. Her statesmen declined to give up privateering, except under pro­ visions which they knew would not be accepted. No long period can elapse before this whole question is again brought forward. When it is, the people of England should never cease to recall the fact that their position in the world awakens the jealousies of other nations, that these are the days of violent aggression and secret combinations, and that the weapon, the only weapon which nature has placed in our hands wherewith with perfect freedom to face and overcome the military despotisms of Europe, is that of being able Jo dominate the commerce of the globe. Soon after the Treaty of Paris, the Indian Mutiny �FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 181 broke out. It ended in the handing over of India to the Government of the Crown. The effect of the com quest of India upon our foreign policy has been two­ fold. First, the direct necessity of taking certain strong places on the route to our great dependency, and our alliance with the Porte. From England to the East we hold a chain of posts which are essential to the safety of our communications, but which render us liable as time goes by to the maintenance con­ stantly in the Mediterranean of a fleet at least equal to that of France and Italy combined. Secondly, our hold upon India has greatly increased our timidity in championing any great cause, and has turned our attention from the sea, where our real strength lies, to the land, on which our national aversion from conscrip­ tion must always make us fight at a disadvantage. In India England is perforce a great military power; and this, which is wholly at variance with our tradi­ tions—for, as has been well said, we are a warlike, but not a military people—tinges the whole current of our foreign policy. Indian policy on more than one occa­ sion has taken precedence of English ; Asiatic ideas have had too great influence ; we have, in short, what with fear of invasion, and dread of a rising in India itself consequent upon misfortune in Europe, lost all sense of proportion in considering the external rela­ tion of such a country as ours. Asiatic politics must inevitably enter largely into our calculations merely on the ground of our commercial interests ; but India, with its 60,000 European troops, is, as at present governed, a source of increasing weakness to the people of these islands, who may find themselves �182 ENGLAND FOR ALL. seriously hampered at a great national crisis by the necessity for protecting their countrymen in Hindostan. This will become more clear now that our frontier all but marches with that of a great and troublous military power. India, consequently, will prove a more disturbing element in our foreign policy of the future than it has been in the past. With the Treaty of Paris, however, England may be said to have entered practically on the stage of per­ manent non-intervention in continental affairs. Our efforts to preserve peace when it was once understood that under no circumstances whatever would we go to war, became futile and even ludicrous. This was apparent with regard to the French campaign against Austria. Had we proclaimed our intention of siding with either party, war would not have been declared. But the establishment of the independence of Italy, by French arms first, and by Garibaldi’s expedition afterwards, met with the cordial sympathy of the great mass of Englishman. Though the upper classes still clung to the Austrian alliance, the people were more clear-sighted, whilst Cavour’s happy moderation reassured the middle class. Thus, all rejoiced at the rise of Italy into a great power, and the extra­ ordinary reception accorded to Garibaldi by the democracy of London, gave evidence that the real feeling of Englishmen is with the peoples of the continent, and needs but a proper occasion to mani­ fest itself in full force. The contest between the North and the South in America, brought this truth into stronger relief. Once more the upper and middle classes, as in 1848 and 1859, linked themselves with �FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 183 the side of reaction, and that side, unfortunately for their credit and influence, was this time the weaker. Nothing finer is recorded than the behaviour of the Lancashire operatives during that awful period of con­ tinuous want. The capitalists who employed them showed no such real perception of the truth, and their selfishness appeared in protesting against any scheme which might remove the hands, and thus perhaps raise wages on the return of trade. That by the way. The fact that the working class saw that the issue lay between freedom and despotism, and clung to their opinion under every discouragement, is evidence of a capacity which needs but education and organiza­ tion to have a deep effect in other fields of foreign policy. The hare-brained French expedition to Mexico was the outcome of the American Civil War, and this eventually brought the French Empire to destruction. For no sooner was the shameless attack upon Denmark by Prussia and Austria at an end—when German in­ fluence again appeared in our counsels—than the two great Powers who took part in that act of brigandage fell out themselves. The cooler-headed brigand fell upon his neighbour, and by the victory of Sadowa the supremacy of Germany was gained by Prussia. Here, of course, was an end of all international law. Thence­ forward we have been living in an epoch of wrong and robbery. France, crippled by the Mexican campaign, could not afford to help Austria against Prussia and Italy—merely, in fact, displaying her weakness to a watchful enemy. England counted for nothing in all this, and the only benefit which accrued to the �184 ENGLAND FOR ALL. peoples from the bloodshed and treachery was the annexation of Venice by Italy. The extension of the power of military Junker-ridden Prussia over the pacific old Bund could only be viewed with satisfaction by those who, whilst pretending to be Liberals, secretly sympathize with brute force so long as it is organized against the mass of mankind. In any case Prussia, still closely allied with Russia, became the first Power in Europe, and the next move was merely a matter of time and opportunity. By the year 1870 England had not only ceased to have a continental policy, but she positively had not the least idea of what was going on. It is really alarming, especially at a time like the present, to note the depth of ignorance in the English Foreign Office eleven years ago. At the very moment when the Frederick the Great of modern diplomatic Ger­ many had made up his mind to strike France once for all, and had contrived to “ localize ” the war after his favourite fashion by arrangements with Russia and Italy, our Foreign Office had come to the con­ clusion that no elements of war so much as remained in Western Europe at all. France was easily over­ thrown ; and England, unfortunately for our credit and our interests, refused to help the Republic which rose upon the ruins of the Empire. Then, if the phrase ever meant anything, was the time to show the meaning of a real balance of power. France had been beaten ; the Empire, with its wretched array of stock-jobbers and intriguers, had been swept away. So far we had no right to interfere; but the people of France were in nowise responsible for the errors of �FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 185 Napoleon ; and a bold policy would have rallied Italy and Austria at once to our side, to prevent a brave nation from being crushed. That course was not adopted, and any remonstrance met with insolence from the German Government. Our position became indeed that for which our non-interventionists had striven. Of course further plots could be carried on inde­ pendently of any consideration for the only Power in Europe which has no real interest except in fair play to the peoples. It is needless to pass through the long and troubled period which began with the Austrian imperial intrigues in Bosnia and the Herzegovina, the Servian War, and can scarcely be said to have ended with the Treaty of Berlin. That a whole scheme was laid down for the partition of the Ottoman Empire by the renewed Holy Alliance, is clear. Russia, Germany, and Austria had each their portions assigned, whilst the advantages to be received by France and England were doubtless considered ; perhaps the latter might be content with nothing at all. The Bulgarian atrocities helped Russia to carry out her part of the programme, though the weakness engendered by the war has certainly not been repaid by the advantages she has as yet secured. England’s part in the business has again been most unsatisfactory. A war in Europe was avoided ; but a war in Asia was begun, which has saddled our impoverished dependency with a fearful expenditure. By showing, however, even a moderately bold front in Europe, the Conservative Government proved conclusively the influence which England could exert, if only casting aside all lust for �186 ENGLAND FOR ALL. territory, and all underhand intrigue, she stood once more with clean hands before the world as the reso­ lute champion of justice and freedom, honesty and pub­ lic faith. Then she could rally to her side the alliances of the future, beside which the possession of Cyprus, or even the control of Constantinople and Asia Minor would seem mean and contemptible. But the result of the game of brag which the last Government played was not creditable. Instead of holding forth a plain, intelligible policy to Englishmen, and appealing to them to stand by even a downright Tory self-assertion, there was a mixture of trimming and secrecy, of com­ promise and timidity, which spoke of divided counsels and irresolute minds. The people of England there­ fore refused to go “ blind ” into a business which com­ bined secret agreements abroad with the threat of reaction in Ireland and at home. These, happily, are the days of democracy, publicity, and open speech. The statesman who is ambitious to lead England in such times must take the people into his confidence, and convince them that he is using their influence and their power not ‘merely for selfish national interests, but for the best interests of Europe and the world. That the result of our secret diplomacy and party foreign policy has not yet been fully seen is plain enough. Non-intervention to start with, and secret bargaining to end with, have landed us in a very un­ enviable position. The nation refused to countersign the policy of the Conservative Government, and the Liberals came in with the promise of a special under­ standing with France and perfect openness to the country. France has so far dissembled her love for �FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 187 the Liberal administration that she has kicked our Foreign Secretary downstairs at three bounds. Greece, the Commercial Treaty, and Tunis, are evidences of the perfect entente cordiale which exists. The last coup was the worst of all, for it came after assurances of the most solemn nature that nothing whatever was meant. Can we be surprised ? A policy of pure selfishness has ended in our complete isolation. The behaviour of France is shameful, and contrary to her best interest. Granted. The treatment which we have received in the matter would in different times have led to a rupture of friendly relations between the two countries. But at this moment we cannot rely upon a single ally on the continent; and for all we know, arrangements may be contemplated which would occasion us very grave uneasiness. For those who talk of non-intervention forget that we have entered into definite guarantees, which the least bellicose among us could not wish to shirk. The overthrow of international law, which is pretty complete now, would be fully accomplished indeed, if England were to withdraw from her defence of liberal little Belgium. We have had of late very valuable experience as to what the concert of Europe amounts to when booty is in the wind. It is more than probable that the redistribution of territory and power, which began in 1866, will not be con­ fined to Eastern Europe. Should we desire, then, to see the same sort of morality, which is good enough for Turks, applied to Dutch, Belgians, and Swiss ? The idea that justice influences either republics or empires in these days had better be laid aside for the �188 ENGLAND FOR ALL, present as the figment that it is. A power which could act as France has acted about Tunis, would have small scruple in using similar tactics nearer home. But even more important to us than any bargaining which may be going on, is the general aspect of European affairs. We see four, not to say five, great Powers absolutely bowed down with the weight of their military expenditure ; whilst the great country which in 1848 acted as the guardian of autocracy in Europe, hovers between bankruptcy and revo­ lution. Whatever else may be doubtful, this is past all question, neither Germany nor Austria can per­ manently bear the strain of the tremendous armaments now kept up. For these armaments not only exhaust the resources of the several countries, but prepare the ground for internal revolution of the most serious character. It is not Russia alone which is honey­ combed with secret societies and festering disaffection. There, indeed, the situation is graver than elsewhere. Over-taxation, the drain of produce to Western Europe, the influence of capitalism, and the break up of the Mir coming at a time of serious famine, have produced a state of affairs throughout the Empire which would probably lead to revolution in one shape or another, if the Nihilists had never been heard of. That extraordinary conspiracy is but the natural out­ come of a still more remarkable condition below. Western civilization, with all its paraphernalia of stockjobbing, corruption, and extravagance, has been imposed on a country but just emerging from barbarism, Almost anything may occur in such cif’ �FOREIGN AFFAIRS. cumstances. The murder of the late Czar shocked Europe : but the cruelties which led up to that crime were really even more shocking than'the revenge. More people were swept off to Siberia without trial by the benevolent Alexander II. than ever found their way thither within an equal period during the worst days of the reign of Nicholas. Now there is another Czar, who lives in constant fear for his life; and the recent changes seem to betoken a continuance of autocratic rule at home, combined possibly with a renewal of aggression abroad. Men live as in expectation of an earthquake; and the attacks upon the Jews and other money-lenders in Southern Russia look like the pre­ monitory shocks. If the disturbances do begin in earnest in Russia, they are almost certain to lap over into other countries. Already the grave social issues involved in the existing capitalist system as applied to agri­ culture and business are being debated with increasing earnestness all over Europe. In Germany the party of the Social Democrats has gained strength of late years to a surprising extent, notwithstanding the pressure of similar laws to those which we are now applying with such great success in Ireland. Con­ scription does but give the disaffected more confidence; and as they see that peaceful agitation is considered a crime, the propaganda might easily assume a more dangerous shape. A military system like that of Germany carries with it the certainty of its own destruction at no distant date. All Prince Bismarck’s unscrupulous energy will not suffice to stop the current of ideas which show men how and why they �190 ENGLAND FOR ALL. are robbed and oppressed.' In Austria the agrarian difficulty is assuming daily a graver aspect. Nor is it the less serious because the people have not as yet dissociated the agitation from religion or loyalty. They scarcely understand themselves how it is that capitalism and difference of value impoverish them. In France a party holding similar views to that of the Labour party in Germany, has been formed, and they alone have had the courage to protest against the attack on Tunis, as contrary to the interest and the true sense of morality of the French people. How far these various socialist bodies in Russia, Germany, Austria, France, and Italy, would act together in any general programme may be doubtful. But these organizations—consisting almost exclu­ sively of working men—alone seem to have grasped the truth that the people of the various countries have nothing to expect from war but loss and suffering ; consequently they alone are prepared to consider existing difficulties with a view to their peaceful settlement. Men who hold that their class is under­ going suffering and misery because the workers of all nations are not sufficiently at one, will not be likely to foment those national hatreds which are in­ variably turned to the aggrandisement of individuals. But this rising feeling of democracy, this growing dis­ inclination of the men who work to be handled any longer for the advantage of emperors, aristocrats or even bond-buyers, is viewed with very uneasy eyes by the military powers of Europe. It is not the assassination of the- late Czar, or threats against the present, which are drawing together “ saviours of �FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 191 society on the continent. They see that, let affairs in Russia take what turn they may, another and more serious ’48 movement is going on below the surface, which they wish beforehand to encounter and defeat. Hence the attempts to bring about some understand­ ing with reference to the surrender of political re­ fugees, and the demands which have been made, or will be made, upon us. Now arises an important question for us English­ men—and especially for those of the working classes —to decide. Will they in the coming struggle between militarism and democracy lend their aid in any way to the former, or even stand aloof and see the peoples of Europe repressed as they were a gene­ ration since ? I judge not. Jealousy of this or that nation there may be for a time, and French vanity and unfortunate spread-eagleism may render all combinations in Western Europe impossible. But with the rising feeling of democracy here at home, any understanding with reaction as in old days would be ruinous to the party which attempted it, as any effort to convert us into a military power may be fatal to our existing system of government. As time has passed on, it has become more and more clear that in the direction of the national inclination of the great majority of Englishmen lies at the same time the most advantageous policy for England. Lying apart from the continent of Europe, and practically free from the risk of invasion, we can not only shelter men who are driven from their country for mere political offences, but we can rightfully stand forth at the critical moment on behalf of those who at �ENGLAND FOR ALL. present think that England must necessarily range herself on the side of a conservatism which has come to be revolutionary. Each nation, doubtless, must work out its own social troubles ; but a combination of despotisms can only be met and overcome by a combination of peoples. The true alliances for England in the future are the democracies of Europe, and her real strength is on the sea. �CONCLUSION. 193 CONCLUSION. THUS in every direction the policy of the demo­ cracy is clear and well-defined. Freedom, social reorganization, thorough unity at home, justice, selfgovernment, and consideration for our colonies and dependencies, and a warm friendship and ready assis­ tance for the oppressed peoples abroad,—such is the work we are called upon to begin and carry out. Democracy, which the so-called “ governing classes ” jeer at as anarchy, incapacity, and self-seeking, means a close federation, first, of our own people and next of the workers of the civilized world. This is a policy not of to-day or of to-morrow, now to be taken up and again to be laid aside ; it is an undertaking in which each can continuously bear his share, and hand on the certainty of success to his fellow. The current of events will help on the cause of the people. Within the past generation greater changes have been wrought than in centuries of human exis­ tence before. For the first time in the history of mankind the whole earth is at our feet. Railways, telegraphs, steam communications, have but just begun to exercise an influence. Education and in­ tercourse are breaking down the barriers of ages. The men who do the work of the world are learning from one another how it is that the poor and the o �194 ENGLAND FOR ALL. miserable, the unfortunate and the weak, suffer and fall by the wayside. In our own country, which has led the way to the new stage of social development, all can see that the lot of the many is sad, whilst the few are rich and luxurious far beyond what is bene­ ficial even to them. Our action in redress of these inequalities and better ordering of our affairs will guide and encourage the world. We, perhaps, alone among the peoples can carry out with peace, order, and contentment those changes which continental revolutionists have sought through anarchy and bloodshed. Religion, which should have helped in this striving for a happier period, has suffered the rich and powerful to twist its teachings to their own account. Now, therefore, is the time, in the face of difficulties and dangers which threaten from many quarters, for Englishmen of all classes,’ creeds, and conditions to push aside the petty bickerings of faction or the degrading influence of mere selfish interests, to the end that by sympathy and fellowfeeling for their own and for others they may hold up a nobler ideal to mankind. Such an ideal is not unreal or impracticable. Not as yet of course can we hope to realize more than a portion of that for which we strive. But if only we are true to one another, and stand together in the fight, the brightness of the future is ours—the day before us and the night behind. So, when those who come after look back to these islands as we now look back to Athens or Palestine, they shall say,—“ This was glory—this true domination ; these men builded on eternal foundations their might, majesty, dominion, and power.” � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource England for all Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hyndman, Henry Mayers [1842-1921] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: [4], 194 p. ; 19 cm. Series title: Text-book of Democracy Notes: Dedicated to the Democratic and Working Men's Clubs of Great Britain and Ireland. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available E. W. Allen Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1881 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context T405 Subject The topic of the resource Democracy Socialism 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 (England for all), 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 Democracy Marxian Economics Social change Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0a69e02a0095dafda63250817aa8b9d9.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=KG10znMW9ooy8z260RpRpsVP8b6sMbMcl9VH6zRAAQIos%7EiEFh7coXS3jMJcX1zt9EktMAWJ5-FR24tUU1oCxpVzsuEs8evhEzErUKDvwxfKWtn6fb9DYIVfnvN5TkyD9R0NGgC0%7E0%7EF9%7EO4krW1oIFA65Lum6cv-b75s1PgoEHp3YLXTJc-HPZypiuRi2XwTATyJdIYS-sGg5onbQu4q44MtP0dV5jqwdsBRXSRGWGw1u-VfibzHdeEM7SoQLxXnMmcMF7lzx1ziGUhT2ko5QbYYbFUkN5mO%7EB53%7E-rmkQBx-Jngc68fgz%7E3Y9Dmhrx5hJxCZj-mHEazYzp%7ELT-Zw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM fd57b18f6844a76fa6acdb3b1743783a PDF Text Text A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM: BEING A LECTURE DELIVERED IN MERCANTILE HALL, BOSTON, APRIL 10, 1861, BY MRS. ERNESTINE L. ROSE. BOSTON: • PUBLISHED BY J. P. MENDUM, INVESTIGATOR OFFICE. 1881. ��A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. My Friends :—In undertaking the inquiry of the existence of a God, I am fully conscious of the difficulties 1 have to encounter. I am well aware that the very question produces in most minds a feeling of awe, as if stepping on forbid­ den ground, too holy and sacred for mortals to approach. The very question strikes them with horror, and it is owing to this prejudice so deeply implanted by education, and also strengthened by public sentiment, that so few are willing to give it a fair and impartial investigation,—knowing but too well that it casts a stigma and reproach upon any person bold enough to undertake the task, unless his previously known opinions are a guar­ antee that his conclusions would be in accordance and harmony with the popular demand. But be­ lieving, as I do, that Truth only is beneficial, and Error, from whatever source, and under whatever name, is pernicious to man, I consider no place too holy, no subject too sacred, for man’s earnest investigation; for by so doing only can we arrive at Truth, learn to discriminate it from Error, and be able to accept the one and reject the other. Nor is this the only impediment in the way of this inquiry. The question arises, Where shall we begin ? We have been told, that “ by search­ ing none can find out God,” which has so far �4 A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. proved true ; for, as yet, no one has ever been able to find him. The most strenuous believer has to acknowledge that it is only a belief, but he knows nothing on the subject. Where, then, shall we search for his existence? Enter the material world ; ask the Sciences whether they can disclose the mystery ? Geology speaks of the structure of the Earth, the formation of the different strata, of coal, of granite, of the whole mineral kingdom.— It reveals the remains and traces of animals long extinct, but gives us no clue whereby we may prove the existence of a God. Natural history gives us a knowledge of the animal kingdom in general; the different organ­ isms, structures, and powers of the various species. Physiology teaches the nature of man, the laws that govern his being, the functions of the vital organs, and the conditions upon which alone health and life depend. Phrenology treats of the laws of mind, the different portions of the brain, the temperaments, the organs, how to develop some and repress others to produce a well balanced and healthy condition. But in the whole animal econ­ omy—though the brain is considered to be a “ mi­ crocosm,” in which may be traced a resemblance or relationship with everything in Nature—not a spot can be found to indicate the existence of a God. Mathematics lays the foundation of all the ex­ act sciences. It teaches the art of combining num­ bers, of calculating and measuring distances, bow to solve problems, to weigh mountains, to fathom the depths of the ocean; but gives no directions how to ascertain the existence of a God. Enter Nature's great laboratory—Chemistry.— She will speak to you of the various elements, their combinations and uses, of the gasses con­ �A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. 5 stantly evolving and combining in different pro­ portions, producing all the varied objects, the in­ teresting and important phenomena we behold. She proves the indestructibility of matter, and its inherent property—motion; but in all her opera­ tions, no demonstrable fact can be obtained to in­ dicate the existence of a God. Astronomy tells us of the wonders of the Solar System—the eternally revolving planets, the ra­ pidity and certainty of their motions, the distance from* planet to planet, from star to star. It pre­ dicts with astonishing and marvellous precision the phenomena of eclipses, the visibility upon our Earth of comets, and proves the immutable law of gravitation, but is entirely silent on the exist­ ence of a God. In fine, descend into the bowels of the Earth, and you will learn what it contains; into the depths of the ocean, and you will find the inhab­ itants of the great deep; but neither in the Earth above, nor the waters below, can you obtain any knowledge of his existence. Ascend into the heavens, and enter the “ milky way.” go from planet to planet to the remotest star, and ask the eternally revolving systems, Where is God ? and Echo answers, Where ? The Universe of Matter gives us no record of his existence. Where next shall we search ? En­ ter the Universe of Mind, read the millions of volumes written on the subject, and in all the speculations, the assertions, the assumptions, the theories, and the creeds, you can only find Man stamped in an indelible impress his own mind on every page. In describing his God, he delineated his own character: the picture he drew represents in living and ineffaceable -colors the epoch of his existence—the period he lived in. �6 A DEFENCE OF /THEISM. It was a great mistake to say that God made man in his image. Man, in all ages, made his God in his own image; and we find that just in accordance with his civilization, his knowledge, his experience, his taste, his refinement, his sense of right, of justice, of freedom, and humanity,—so has he made his God. But whether coarse or re­ fined ; cruel and vindictive, or kind and generous; an implacable tyrant, or a gentle and loving fa­ ther ;—it still was the emanation of his own mind —the picture of himself. But, you ask, how came it that man thought or wrote about God at all? The answer is very sim­ ple. Ignorance is the mother of Superstition. In proportion to man’s ignorance is he superstitious— does he believe in the mysterious. The very name has a charm for him. Being unacquainted with the nature and laws of things around him, with the true causes of the effects he witnessed, he as­ cribed them to false ones—to supernatural agen­ cies. The savage, ignorant of the mechanism of a watch, attributes the ticking to a spirit. The so-called civilized man, equally ignorant of the mechanism of the Universe, and the laws which govern it, ascribes it to the same erroneous cause. Before electricity was discovered, a thunder-storm was said to come from the wrath of an offended Deity. To this fiction of man’s uncultivated mind, has been attributed all of good and of evil, of wis­ dom and of folly. Man has talked about him, written about-him, disputed about him, fought about him,—sacrificed himself, and extirpated his fellow man. Rivers of blood and oceans of tears have been shed to please him, yet no one has ever been able to demonstrate his existence. But the Bible, we are told, reveals this great mystery. Where Nature is dumb, and Man igno­ �A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. 7 rant, Revelation speaks in the authoritative voice of prophecy. Then let us see whether that Reve­ lation can stand the test of reason and of truth.— God, we are told, is omnipotent, omniscient, om­ nipresent,—all wise, all just, and all good; that he is perfect. So far, so well; for less than per­ fection were unworthy of a God. The first act recorded of him is, that he created the world out of nothing; but unfortunately the revelation of Science—Chemistry—which is based not on writ­ ten words, but demonstrable facts, says that Noth­ ing has no existence, and therefore out of Nothing, Nothing could be made. Revelation tells us that the world was created in six days. Here Geolo­ gy steps in and says, that it requires thousands of ages to form the various strata of the earth. The Bible tells us that the earth was flat and station­ ary, and the sun moves around the earth. Co­ pernicus and Galileo flatly deny this 7^ assertion, and demonstrate by Astronomy that the earth is spherical, and revolves around the sun. Revela­ tion tells us that on the fourth day God created the sun, moon, and stars. This, Astronomy calls a moo» story, and says that the first three days, before the great torchlight was manufactured and suspended in the great lantern above, must have been rather dark. The division of the waters above trom the wa­ ters below, and the creation of the minor objects, I pass by, and come at once to the sixth day. Having finished, in five days, this stupendous production, with its mighty mountains, its vast seas, its fields and woods; supplied the waters with fishes—from the whale that Jonah swal­ lowed to the little Dutch herring; peopled the woods with inhabitants—from the tiger, the lion, the bear, tire elephant with his trunk, the drome­ �8 A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. dary with his hump, the deer with his antlers the nightingale with her melodies, down to the serpent which tempted mother Eve ; covered the fields with vegetation, decorated the gardens with flowers, hung the trees with fruits; and survey­ ing this glorious world as it lay spread out like a map before him, the question naturally suggested itself. What is it all for, unless there were beings capable of admiring, of appreciating, and of en­ joying the delights this beautiful world could af­ ford ? And suiting the action to the impulse, he said, Let us make man.” “ So God created man in his own image; in the image of God cre­ ated he him, male and female created he them.” I presume by the Term “image,” we are not to understand a near resemblance of face or form, but in the image or likeness of his knowledge, his power, his wisdom, and perfection. Having thus made man, he placed him (them) in the garden of Eden the loveliest and most enchanting spot at the very head of creation, and bade them (with the single restriction not to eat of the tree of knowledge,) to live, to love, and to be happy. What a delightful picture, could we only rest here ! But did these beings, fresh from the hand of omnipotent wisdom, in whose image they were made, answer the great object of their creation? Alas ! no. No sooner were they installed in their Paradisean home, than they violated the first, the only injunction given them, and fell from their high estate; and not only they, but by a singular justice of that very merciful Creator, their inno­ cent posterity to all coming generations, fell with them ! Does that bespeak wisdom and perfec­ tion in the Creator, or in the creature ? But what was the cause of this tremendous fall, which frus­ trated the whole design of the creation ? The �A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. 9 serpent tempted mother Eve, and she, like a good wife, tempted her husband. But did God not know when he created the serpent, that it would tempt the woman, and that she was made out of such frail materials, (the rib of Adam,) as not to be able to resist the temptation? If he did not know, then his knowledge was at fault; if he did, but could not prevent that calamity, then his power was at fault; if he knew and could, but would not, then his goodness was at fault. Choose which you please, and it remains alike fatal to the rest. Revelation tells us that God made man perfect, and found him imperfect; then he pronounced all things good, and found them most desperately bad. “ And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagina­ tion of the thought of his heart was evil continu­ ally. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” ct And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth ; both man and beasts, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them.” So he destroyed everything, except Noah with his family, and a few household pets. Why he saved them is hard to say, unless it was to reserve materials as stock in hand to commence a new world with; but really, judging of the character of those he saved, by their descendants, it strikes me it would have been much better, and given him far less trouble, to have let them slip also, and with his improved experience made a new world out of fresh and superior materials. As it was, this wholesale destruction even, was a failure. The world was not. one jot better after the flood than before. His chosen children were �10 A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. just as bad as ever, and he had to send his proph­ ets, again and again, to threaten, to frighten, to coax, to cajole, and to flatter them into good be­ haviour. But all to no effect. They grew worse and worse: and having made a covenant with Noah after he had sacrificed of “ every clean beast and of every clean fowl,”—“ The Lord smelt the sweet savour; ai\d the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth ; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done.” And so he was forced to resort to the last sad al­ ternative of sending “his only begotten son,” his second self, to save them. But alas! “ his own received him not,” and so he was obliged to adopt the Gentiles, and die to save the world. Did he succeed, even then ? Is the world saved ? Saved I From what? From ignorance ? It is all around us. From poverty, vice, crime, sin, mis­ ery, and shame ? It abounds everywhere. Look into your poor-houses, your prisons, your lunatic asylums; contemplate the whip, the instruments of torture, and of death ; ask the murderer, or his victim ; listen to the ravings of the maniac, the sirieks of distress, the groans of despair; mark the cruel deeds of the tyrant, the crimes of slave­ ry, and the suffering of the oppressed; count the millions of lives lost by fire, by water, and by the sword; measure the blood spilled, the tears shed, the sighs of agony'- drawn from the expiring vic­ tims on the altar of fanaticism;—and tell me from what the world was saved? And why was it not saved? Why does God still permit these horrors to afflict the race? Does omniscience not know it? Could omnipotence not do it? Would infi­ nite wisdom, power, and goodness allow his chil­ �A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. 11 dren thus to live, to suffer, and to die? No! Humanity revolts against such a supposition. Ah ! not now, not here, says the believer. Here­ after will he save them. Save them hereafter! From what? From the apple eaten by our mo­ ther Eve? What a mockery! If a rich parent were to let his children live in ignorance, poverty, and wretchedness, all their lives, and hold out to them the promise of a fortune at some time here­ after, he would justly be considered a criminal, or a madman. The parent is responsible to his off­ spring—the Creator to the creature. The testimony of Revelation has failed. Its account of the creation of the material world is disproved by science. Its account of the creation of man in the image of perfection is disproved by its own internal evidence. To test the Bible God by justice and benevolence, he could not be good ; to test him by reason and knowledge, he could not be wise; to test him by the light of truth, the rule of consistency, we must come to the inevita­ ble conclusion that, like the Universe of matter­ and of mind, this pretended Revelation has also failed to demonstrate the existence of a God. Methinks I hear the believer say, you are un­ reasonable ; you demand an impossibility; we are finite, and therefore cannot understand, much less define and demonstrate the infinite. Just so ! But if I am unreasonable in asking you to demon­ strate the existence of the being you wish me to believe in, are you not infinitely more unreason­ able to expect me to believe—blame, persecute, and punish me for not believing—in what you have to acknowledge you cannot understand ? But, says the Christian, the world exists, and therefore there must have been a God to create it. That does not follow. The mere fact of its exist­ �12 A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. ence does not prove a Creator. Then how came the Universe into existence? We do not know ; but the ignorance of man is certainly no proof of the existence of a God. Yet upon that very igno­ rance has it been predicated, and is maintained. From the little knowledge we have, we are justi­ fied in the assertion that the Universe never was created, from the simple fact that not one atom of it can ever be annihilated. To suppose a Uni­ verse created, is to suppose a time when it did not exist, and that is a self-evident absurdity. Be­ sides, where was the Creator before it was creat­ ed ? Nay, where is he now? Outside of that Universe, which means the all in all, above, be­ low, and around? That is another absurdity. Is he contained within? Then he can be only a part, for the whole includes all the parts. If only a part., then he could not be its Creator, for a part cannot create the whole. But the world could not have made itself. True; nor could God have made himself; and if you must have a God to make the world, you will be under the same ne­ cessity to have another to make him, and others still to make them, and so on until reason and common sense are at a stand-still. The same argument applies to a First Cause. We can no more admit of a first than a last cause. What is a first cause ? The one immediately pre­ ceding the last effect, which was an effect to a cause in its turn—an effect to causes, themselves effects. All we know is an eternal chain of cause and effect, without beginning as without end. But is there no evidence of intelligence, of de­ sign, and consequently of a designer? I see no evidence of either. What is intelligence? It is not a thing, a substance, an existence in itself, but simply a property of matter, manifesting itself �A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. 13 through organizations. We have no knowledge of, nor can we conceive of, intelligence apart from organized matter: and we find that from the small­ est and simplest insect, through all the links and gradations in Nature’s great chain, up to Man— just in accordance with the organism, the amount, and quality of brain, so are the capacities to re­ ceive impressions, the power to retain them, and the abilities to manifest and impart them to others, namely, to have its peculiar nature cultivated and developed, so as to bear mental fruits, just as the cultivated earth bears vegetation—physical fruits. Not being able to recognize an independent intelli­ gence, I can perceive no design or designer except in the works of man. But, says Paley, does the watch not prove u watchmaker—a design, and therefore a designer ? How much more then does the Universe? Yes; the watch shows design, and the watchmaker did not leave us in the dark on the subject, but clearly and distinctly stamped his design on the face of the watch. Is it as clearly stamped on the Universe? Where is the design, in the oak to grow to its ma­ jestic height ? or in the thunderbolt that rent it asunder? In the formation of the wing of the bird, to enable it to fly, in accordance with the promptings of its nature ? or in the sportsman to shoot it down while flying? In the butterfly to dance in the sunshine? or its being crushed in the tiny fingers of a child ? Design in man’s capacity for the acquisition of knowledge, or in his groping in ignorance? In the necessity to obey the laws of health, or .in the violation of them, which pro­ duces disease ? In the desire to be happy, or in the causes that prevent it, and make him live in toil, misery, and suffering ? The watchmaker not only stamped his design �14 A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. on the face of the watch, but he teaches how to wind it up when run down; how to repair the machinery when out of order; and how to put a new spring in when the old one is broken, and leave the watch as good as ever. Does the great Watchmaker, as he is called, show the same in­ telligence and power in keeping, or teaching oth­ ers to keep, this contemplated mechanism—Man -—always in good order? and when the life-spring is broken replace it with another, and leave him just the same? If an Infinite Intelligence designed man to possess knowledge, he could not be igno­ rant; to be healthy, he could not be diseased; to be virtuous, he could not be vicious ; to be wise, he could not act so foolish as to trouble himself about the Gods, and neglect his own best interests. But, says the believer, here is a wonderful adapt­ ation of means to ends; the eye to see, the ear to hear,. &c. Yes, this is very wonderful; but not one jot more so, than if the eye were made to hear, and the ear to see. The supporters of De­ sign use sometimes very strange arguments. A friend of mine, a very intelligent man, with quite a scientific taste, endeavored once to convince me of a Providential design, from the fact that a fish, which had always lived in the Mammoth Cave of Kentucky, was entirely blind. Here, said he, is strong evidence; in that dark cave, where noth­ ing was to be seen, the fish needed no eyes, and therefore it has none. He forgot the demonstrable fact that the element of light is indispensable in the formation of the organ of sight, without which it could not be formed, and no Providence, or Gods, could enable the fish to see. That fish story reminds me of the Methodist preacher who proved the wisdom and benevolence of Providence in always placing the rivers near large cities, and �A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. 15 death at the end of life ; for Oh 1 my dear hearers, said he, what would have become of us had he placed it at the beginning? Everything is wonderful, and wonderful just in proportion as we are ignorant; but that proves no “design” or “designer.” But did things come by chance ? I am asked. Oh ! no. There is no such thing as chance. It exists only in the perverted, mind of the believer, who, while insisting that God was the cause of everything, leaves Him without any cause. The Atheist believes as little in the one as in the other. He knows that no ef­ fect could exist without an adequate cause ; that everything in the Universe is governed by laws. The Universe is one vast chemical laboratory, in constant operation, by her internal forces. The laws or principles of attraction, cohesion, and re­ pulsion, produce in never-ending succession the phenomena of composition, decomposition, and recomposition. The how, we are too ignorant to understand, too modest to presume, and too hon­ est to profess. Had man been a patient and im­ partial inquirer, and not with childish presump­ tion attributed everything he could not under­ stand, to supernatural causes, given names to hide his ignorance, but observed the operations of Na­ ture, he would undoubtedly have known more, been wiser, and happier. As it is, Superstition has ever been the great impediment to the acquisition of knowledge. Ev­ ery progressive step of man clashed against the two-edged sword of Religion, to whose narrow re­ strictions he had but too often to succumb, or march onward at the expense of interest, reputa­ tion, and even life itself. But, we are told, that Religion is natural; the belief in a God universal. Were it natural, then �16 A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. it would indeed be universal; but it is not. We have ample evidence to the contrary. According to Dr. Livingstone, there are whole tribes or na­ tions, civilized, moral, and virtuous; yes, so hon­ est that they expose their goods for sale without guard or value set upon them, trusting to the honor of the purchaser to pay its proper price.— Yet these people have not the remotest idea of a God, and he found it impossible to impart it to them. And in all ages of the world, some of the most civilized, the wisest, and the best, were en­ tire unbelievers, only they dared not openly avow it, except at the risk of their lives. Proscription, the torture, and the stake, were found most effi­ cient means to seal the lips of heretics ; and though the march of progress has broken the infernal ma­ chines, and extinguished the fires of\the Inquisi­ tion, the proscription, and more refined but not less cruel and bitter persecutions of an intolerant and bigoted public opinion, in Protestant coun­ tries, as well as in Catholic, on account of belief, are quite enough to prevent men from honestly avowing their true sentiments upon the subject.— Hence there are few possessed of the moral cour­ age of a Humboldt. If the belief in a God were natural, there would be no need to teach it. Children would possess it as well as adults, the layman as the priest, the heathen as much as the missionary. We don’t have to teach the general elements of human na­ ture,—the five senses, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. They are universal; so would religion be were it natural, but it is not. On the contrary, it is an interesting and demon­ strable fact, that all children are Atheists, and were religion not inculcated into their minds they would remain so. Even as it’is, they are great �A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. 17 sceptics, until made sensible of the potent weapon by which religion has ever beyn propagated, name­ ly, fear—fear of the lash of public opinion here, and of a jealous, vindictive God hereafter. No • there is no religion in human nature, nor human nature in religion. It is purely artificial, the re­ sult of education. while Atheism is natural, and, were the human mind not perverted and bewil­ dered by the mysteries and follies of superstition, would be universal. But the people have been made to believe that were it not for religion, the world would be de­ stroyed-;—man would become a monster, chaos and confusion would reign supreme. These erro­ neous notions conceived in ignorance, propagated by superstition, and kept alive by an interested and corrupt priesthood who fatten on the credulity of the public, are very difficult to be eradicated. But sweep all the belief in the supernatural from the face of the earth, and the world would remain just the same. The seasons would follow each other in their regular succession ; the stars would shine in the firmament; the sun would shed his benign and vivifying influence of light and heat upon us; the clouds would discharge their burden in gentle and refreshing showers; the cultivated fields would bring forth vegetation ; summer would ripen the golden grain, ready for harvest; the trees would bear fruits; the birds would sing in accordance with their happy in­ stinct, and all Nature would smile as joyously around us as ever. Nor would man degenerate. Oh ! no. His nature, too, would remain the same. He would have to be obedient to the physical, mental, and moral laws of his being, or suffer the natural penalty for their violation; observe the mandates of society, or receive the punish­ �18 A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. ment. His affections would be just as warm, the love of self-preservation as strong, the desire for happiness and the fear of pain as great. He would love freedom, justice, and truth, and hate oppression, fraud, and falsehood, as much as ever. Sweep all belief in the supernatural from the globe, and you would chase away the whole fra­ ternity of spectres, ghosts, and hobgoblins, which have so befogged and bewildered the human mind, that hardly a clear ray of the light of Rea­ son can penetrate it. You would cleanse and puri­ fy the heart of the noxious, poisonous weeds of superstition, with its bitter, deadly fruits—hypoc­ risy, bigotry, and intolerance, and fill it with charity and forbearance towards erring humanity. You would give man courage to sustain him in trials and misfortune, sweeten his temper, give him a new zest for the duties, the virtues, and the pleasures of life. Morality does not depend on the belief inany religion. History gives ample evidence that the more belief the less virtue and goodness. Nor need we go back to ancient times to see the crimes and atrocities perpetrated under .its sanction. We have enough in our own times. Look at the present crisis—at the South with 4,000,000 of human beings in slavery, bought and sold like brute chattels under the sanction of religion and of God, which the Reverends Van Dykes and the Raphalls of the North fully endorse, and the South complains that the reforms in the North are owing to Infidelity. Morality depends on an accu­ rate knowledge of the nature of man, of the laws that govern his being, the principles of right, of justice, and humanity, and the conditions requi­ site to make him healthy, rational, virtuous, and happy. �A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. 19 The belief in a God has failed to produce this desirable end. On the contrary, while it could not make man better, it has made him worse ; for in preferring blind faith in things unseen and un­ known to virtue and morality, in directing his at­ tention from the known to the unknown, from the real to the imaginary, from the certain here to a fancied hereafter, from the fear of himself, of the natural result of vice and crime, to some whimsi­ cal despot, it perverted his judgment, degraded him in his own estimation, corrupted his feelings, destroyed his sense of right, of justice, and of truth, and made him a moral coward and a hypo­ crite. The lash of a hereafter is no guide for us here. Distant fear cannot control present passion. It is much easier to confess your sins in the dark, than to acknowledge them in the light: to make it up with a God you don’t see, than with a man whom you do. Besides, religion has always left a back door open for sinners to creep out of at the eleventh hour. But teach man to do right, to love justice, to revere truth, to be virtuous, not be­ cause a God would reward or punish him here­ after, but because it is right; and as every act brings its own reward or its own punishment, it wouid best promote his interest by promoting the welfare of society. Let him feel the great truth that our highest happiness consists in making all around us happy ; and it would be an infinitely truer and safer guide for man to a life of useful­ ness, virtue, and morality, than all the beliefs in all the Gods ever imagined. The more refined and transcendental religionists have often said to me, if you do away with re­ ligion, you would destroy the most beautiful ele­ ment in human nature—the feeling of devotion and reverence, ideality, and sublimity. This, too, �20 A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. is an error. These sentiments would be cultivat­ ed just the same, only we would transfer the de­ votion from the unknown to the known ; from the Gods, who, if they existed, could not need it, to man who does. Instead of reverencing an imagi­ nary existence, man would learn to revere justice and truth. Ideality and sublimity would reline his feelings, and enable him to admire and enjoy the ever-changing beauties of Nature; the vari­ ous and almost unlimited powers and capacities of the human mind ; the exquisite and indescribable charms of a well cultivated, highly refined, virtu­ ous, noble man. But not only have the priests tried to make the very term Atheism odious, as if it would destroy all of good and beautiful in Nature, but some of the reformers, not having the moral courage to avow their own sentiments, wishing to be popular, fearing lest their reforms would be considered Infidel, (as all reforms assuredly are,) shield them­ selves from the stigma, by joining in the tirade against Atheism, and associate it with everything that is vile, with the crime of slavery, the corrup­ tions of the Church, and all the vices imaginable. This is false, and they know it; Atheism protests against this injustice. No one has a right to give the term a false, a forced interpretation, to suit his own purposes, (this applies also to some of the Infidels who stretch and force the term Atheist out of its legitimate significance.) As well might we use the terms Episcopalian, Unitarian, Universalist, to signify vice and corruption, as the term Atheist, which means simply a disbelief in a God, because finding no demonstration of his existence, man’s reason will not allow him to believe, nor his conviction to play the hypocrite, and profess what he does not believe. Give it its true significance, �A DEFENCE OF ATHEISM. * 21 and he will abide the consequence; but don’t fasten upon it the vices belonging to yourselves. Hypocrisy is the prolific mother of a large family ! In conclusion, the AtheistJ says to the honest, conscientious believer, Though I cannot believe in your God whom you have failed to demonstrate, I believe in man ; if I have no faith in your religion, I have faith, unbounded, unshaken faith in the principles of right, of justice, and humanity. Whatever good you are willing to co for the sake of your God, I am full as willing to do for the sake of man. But the monstrous crimes the be­ liever perpetrated in persecuting and exterminat­ ing his fellow man on account of difference of be­ lief, the Atheist, knowing that belief is not volun­ tary, but depends on evidence, and therefore there can be no merit inathe belief of any religions, nor demerit in a disbelief in all of them, could never be guilty of. Whatever good you would do out of fear of punishment, or hope of reward here­ after, the Atheist would do simply because it is good • and being so, he would receive the far surer and more certain reward, springing from well-doing, which would constitute his pleasure, and promote his happiness. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A defence of atheism: being a lecture delivered in Mercantile Hall, Boston, April 10, 1861 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Rose, Ernestine L. (Ernestine Louise) [Mrs] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: Boston Collation: 21, [3] p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Copy CT92 presented in Memory of Dr. Moncure D. Conway by his children, July Nineteen hundred & eight. Ernestine Louise Rose was a freethinker, a feminist, and an abolitionist. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available J.P Mendum Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1881 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N555 N556 CT92 Subject The topic of the resource Atheism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img style="border-style:none;" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a> <br />This work (A defence of atheism: being a lecture delivered in Mercantile Hall, Boston, April 10, 1861), identified by <a href="www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a>, is free of known copyright restrictions. 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 Atheism Conway Tracts NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/044c01547fa3da254c5e5189a7b15668.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=nI3XeGaPM5usRlohEJBXsRa5MINpDA1Rm-KI%7E0JLg%7EFV7GY5HJ7ucL5r77fhrzq5vzqyDJfnEAw5AWLuUrNKsiw7xfIlENMTdfX7dVxTouNDmZpdWp-64BQyWCuMO0HiiVw78wZ-suSy-5Hx-zKtWFALvLTaeb20jkWqtLAEcvW4cbGVqUnG364LCxxBHHVv4ktcaAX1DiOPcAS9E8XtvFpC-GsvR5nDdF4o4ca5hffrhVEAu6OQ-5xFNs5-uetCJimITM5fXl66gW8qojHdirYVMZ48LXoudj6TMLQ%7EwwUrJQkOX-ysm2Ut5lWWEVbxrEIDkOSXKPqZUlQpLwHblg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 459918f8bfe08162256b6e7700683d87 PDF Text Text P> 2^4~ national secular society WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ? BY CHARLES BRADLAUG1L [fourth edition.] LONDON: FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28, STONECUTTER STREET E.C. 1881. �i �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? ----- . AN ANSWER TO THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY. The Religious Tract Society, some time since, issued, pre­ faced with their high commendation, a translation of a pamphlet by Dr. Constantine Tischendorf, entitled “ When were our Gospels Written ? ” In the introductory preface we are not unfairly told that “ on the credibility of the four Gospels the whole of Christianity rests, as a building on its foundations.” It is proposed in this brief essay to deal with the character of Dr. Tischendorf’s advocacy, then to examine the genuineness of the four Gospels, as affirmed by the Religious Tract Society’s pamphlet, and at the same time to ascertain, so far as is possible in the space, how far the Gospel narrative is credible. The Religious Tract Society state that Dr. Tischendorf’s brochure is a repetition of “ arguments for the genuineness and authenticity of the four Gospels,” which the erudite Doctor had previously published for the learned classes, “ with explanations ” now given in addition, to render the arguments “ intelligible ” to meaner capacities ; and as the “Infidel ” and “ Deist ” are especially referred to as likely to be overthrown by this pamphlet, we may presume that the society considers that in the 119 pages—which the trans­ lated essay occupies—they have presented the best paper that can be issued on their behalf for popular reading on this question. The praise accorded by the society, and sundry laudations appropriated with much modesty in his own preface by Dr. Constantine Tischendorf to himself, compel one at the outset to regard the Christian manifesto as a most formidable production. The Society’s translator impressively tells us that the pamphlet has been three times �6 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? printed in Germany and twice in France ; that it has been issued in Dutch and Russian, and is done into Italian by an Archbishop with the actual approbation of the Pope. The author’s preface adds an account of his great journeyings and heavy travelling expenses incurred out of an original capital of a “ few unpaid bills,” ending in the discovery of a basketful of old parchments destined for the flames by the Christian monks in charge, but which from the hands of Dr. Tischendorf are used by the Religious Tract Society to neutralise all doubts, and to “ blow to pieces ” the Ration­ alistic criticism of Germany and the coarser Infidelity of England. Doubtless Dr. Tischendorf and the Society con­ sider it some evidence in favor of the genuineness and authenticity of the four Gospels that the learned Doctor was enabled to spend 5,000 dollars out of less than nothing, and1 that the Pope regards his pamphlet with favor, or they would not trouble to print such statements. We frankly accord them the full advantage of any argument which may fairly be based on such facts. An autograph letter of endorse­ ment by the Pope is certainly a mattei* which a Protestant Tract Society—who regard “ the scarlet whore at Babylon” with horror—may well be proud of. Dr. Tischendorf states that he has since 1839 devoted himself to the textual study of the New Testament, and it ought to be interesting to the orthodox to know that, as a result of twenty-seven years’ labor, he now declares that “ it has been placed beyond doubt that the original text . . . . had in many places undergone such serious modi­ fications of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the apostles had actually written,” and that “ the right course to take” “is to set aside the received text altogether and to construct a fresh text.” This is pleasant news for the true believer, promulgated by authority of the managers of the great Christian depot in Paternoster Row, from whence many scores of thousands of copies of this incorrect received text have nevertheless been issued without comment to the public, even since the society have published in English Dr. Tischendorf’s declaration of its unreliable character With the modesty and honorable reticence peculiar to great men, Dr. Tischendorf records his successes in reading hitherto unreadable parchments, and we learn that he has. �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 7 received approval from “ several learned bodies, and even from crowned heads,” for his wonderful performances. As a consistent Christian, who knows that the “ powers that be are ordained of God,” our “ critic without rival,” for so he prints himself, regards the praise of crowned heads as higher in degree than that of learned bodies. The Doctor discovered in 1844 the MS. on which he now relies to confute audacious Infidelity, in the Convent of St. Catherine at Sinai; he brought away a portion, and handed that portion, on his return, to the Saxon Government—they paying all expenses. The Doctor, however, did not then divulge where he had found the MS. It was for the advan­ tage of humankind that the place should be known at once, for, at least, two reasons. First, because by aid of the re­ mainder of this MS.—“ the most precious Bible treasure in existence ”—the faulty text of the New Testament was to be reconstructed; and the sooner the work was done the better for believers in Christianity. And, secondly, the whole story of the discovery might then have been more easily confirmed in every particular. For fifteen years, at least, Dr. Tischendorf hid from the world the precise locality in which his treasure had been discovered. Nay, he was even fearful when he knew that Other Christians were trying to find the true text, and he experienced “peculiar satisfaction” when he ascertained that his silence had misled some pious searchers after reliable copies of God’s message to all humankind; although all this time he was well aware that our received copies of God’s revelation had undergone “serious modifications” since the message had been delivered from the Holy Ghost by means of the Evangelists. In 1853, “ nine years after the original discovery,” Dr. Tischendorf again visited the Sinai convent, but although he had “enjoined on the monks to take religious care” of the remains of which they, on the former occasion, would not yield up possession, he, on this second occasion, and apparently after careful search, discovered “ eleven short lines,” which convinced him that the greater part of the MS. had been destroyed. He still, however, kept the place secret, although he had no longer any known reason for so doing; and, having obtained an advance of funds from the Russian Government, he, in 1859, tried a third time for his �8 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ? pearl of St. Catherine,” which, in 1853, he felt convinced had been destroyed, and as to which he had nevertheless, in the meantime, been troubled by fears that the good cause might be aided by some other than Dr. Tischendorf discover­ ing and publishing the “priceless treasure,” which, according to his previous statements, he must have felt convinced did not longer exist. On this third journey the Doctor dis­ covered “ the very fragments which, fifteen years before, he had taken out of the basket,” “ and also other parts of the Old Testament, the J\ew Testament complete, and, in addi­ tion, Barnabas and part of Hermas.” With wonderful preciseness, and with great audacity, Dr. Tischendorf refers the transcription of the discovered Bible to the first half of the fourth century. Have Dr. Tischen­ dorf s patrons here ever read of MSS. discovered in the same Convent of St. Catherine, at Sinai, of which an account was published by Dr. Constantine Simonides, and concerning which the Westminster Review said, “ We share the suspicions, to use the gentlest word which occurs to us, entertained, we believe, by all competent critics and anti­ quarians.” In 18b3 Dr. Tischendorf published, at the cost of the Russian Emperor, a splendid but very costly edition of his Sinaitic MS. in columns, with a Latin introduction. The book is an expensive one, and copies of it are not very plentiful in England. Perhaps the Religious Tract Society have not contributed to its circulation so liberally as did the pious Emperor of all the Russias. Surely a text on which our own is to be re-constructed ought to be in the hands at least of every English clergyman and Young Men’s Christian Association. “ Christianity,” writes Dr. Tischendorf, “ does not, strictly speaking, rest on the moral teaching of Jesus “it rests on his person only.” “ If we are in error in believing in the person of Christ as taught in the Gospels, then the Church herself is in error, and must be given up as a deception.” “ All the world knows that our Gospels are nothing else than biographies of Christ.” “We have no other source of information with respect to the life of Jesus.” So that, according to the Religious Tract Society and its advocate, if the’’ credibility of the Gospel biography be successfully impugned, then the foundations of Christianity are destroyed. �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 9 It becomes, therefore, of the highest importance to show that the biography of Jesus, as given in the four Gospels, is absolutely incredible and self-contradictory. It is alleged in the Society’s preface that all the objections •of infidelity have been hitherto unavailing. This is, however, not true. It is rather the fact that the advocates of Chris­ tianity when defeated on one point have shuffled to another, ■either quietly passing the topic without further debate, or loudly declaring that the point abandoned was really so utterly unimportant that it was extremely foolish in the assailant to regard it as worthy attack, and that, in any case, all the arguments had been repeatedly refuted by pre­ vious writers. To the following objections to the Gospel narrative the writer refuses to accept as answer, that they have been pre­ viously discussed and disposed of. The Gospels which are yet mentioned by the names popu- I larly associated with each do not tell us the hour, or the ■day, or the month, or—save Luke—the year, in which Jesus was born. The only point on which the critical divines, who 'have preceded Dr. Tischendorf, generally agree is, that Jesus was not born on Christmas day. The Oxford Chronology, collated with a full score of recognised authorities, gives us a period of more than seven years within which to place the ■date. So confused is the story as to the time of the birth, ? that while Matthew would make Jesus born in the lifetime ■of Herod, Luke would fix the period of Jesus’s birth as after ■ Herod’s death. Christmas itself is a day surrounded with curious cere­ monies of pagan origin, and in no way serving to fix the 25th December as the natal day. Yet the exact period at which Almighty God, as a baby boy, entered the world to redeem long-suffering humanity from the consequences of Adam’s ancient sin, should be of some importance. Nor is there any great certainty as to the place of birth of > Christ. The Jews, apparently in the very presence of Jesus, reproached him that he ought to have been born at Bethlehem. Nathaniel regarded him as of Nazareth. Jesus never appears to have said to either, “I was born at Bethlehem.” In Matthew ii., 6, we find a quotation from the prophet: “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least amongst the princes of Juda, for �10 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule my peopleIsrael.” Matthew lays the scene of the birth in Bethlehem, and Luke adopts the same place, especially bringing the child to Bethlehem for that purpose, and Matthew tells us it is done to fulfil a prophecy. Micah v., 2, the only place in which similar words occur, is not a prophecy referring to Jesus at all. The words are: “ But thou Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that isto be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” This is not quoted correctly in Matthew, and can hardly be said by any straining of language to apply to Jesus. The credibility of a story on which Christianity rests is bolstered up by prophecy in default of contemporary corroboration. The difficulties are not lessened in tracing the parentage. In Matthew i., 17, it is stated that “ the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen genera­ tions.” Why has Matthew made such a mistake in his computation of the genealogies—in the last division we have only thirteen names instead of fourteen, even including the name of Jesus? Is this one of the cases of “painful uncertainty ” which has induced the Religious Tract Society and Dr. Tischendorf to wish to set aside the textus receptus altogether ? From David to Zorobabel there are in the Old Testament twenty generations ; in Matthew, seventeen generations ; and in Luke, twenty-three generations. In Matthew from David to Christ there are twenty-eight generations, and in Luke from David to Christ forty-three generations. Yet, according to the Religious Tract Society, it is on the credi­ bility of these genealogies as part of the Gospel history that the foundation of Christianity rests. The genealogy in the first Gospel arriving at David traces to Jesus through Solomon; the third Gospel from David traces through Nathan. In Matthew the names from David are Solomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias; and in the Old Testament we trace the same names from David to Ahaziah, whom I presume to be the same as Ozias. But in 2nd Chronicles xxii., 11, we find one Joash, who is not men- �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 11 tioned in Matthew at all. If the genealogy in Matthew is correct, why is the name not mentioned ? Amaziah is mentioned in chap, xxiv., v. 27, and in chap, xxvi., v. 1, Uzziah, neither of whom are mentioned in Matthew, where Ozias is named as begetting Jotham, when in fact three generations of men have come in between. In Matthew and Luke, Zorobabel is represented as the son of Salathiel, while in 1 Chronicles iff., 17—19, Zerubbabel is stated to be the son of Pedaiah, the brother of Salathiel. Matthew says Abiud was the son of Zorobabel (chap, i., v. 13). Luke iii., 27, says Zorobabel’s son was Rhesa. The Old Testament contradicts both, and gives Meshullam, and Hananiah, and Shelomith, their sister (1 Chronicles iii., 19), as the names of Zorobabel’s children. Is this another piece of evidence in favor of Dr. Tischendorf’s admirable doctrine, that it is necessary to reconstruct the text ? . three names agreeing after that of David, viz., Salathiel, Zorobabel, and Joseph—all the rest are utterly different. , | ! 1 The attempts at explanation which have been hitherto offered, in order to reconcile these genealogies, are scarcely creditable to the intellects of the Christian apologists. They allege that “ Joseph, who by nature was the son of Jacob, in the account of the law was the son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob were brothers by the same mother, and Heli, who was the elder, dying without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow; in consequence of such mar­ riage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the son of Heli.’^ This is pure invention to get over a difficulty—an invention not making the matter one whit more clear. For if you suppose that these two persons were brothers, then unless you invent a death of the mother’s last husband and the widow’s remarriage Jacob and Heli would be the sons of the same father, and the list of the ancestors should be identical in each genealogy. But to get over the difficulty the pious j do this. They say, although brothers, they were only half­ brothers ; although sons of the same mother, they were not sons of the same father, but had different fathers. If so, how is it that Salathiel and Zorobabel occur as father and son in both genealogies ? Another fashion of accounting for the contradiction is to give one as the genealogy of Joseph and the other as the genealogy of Mary. “ Which? �12 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? I “ Luke,” it is said. Why Luke ? what are Luke’s words ? Luke speaks of Jesus being, “as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.” When Luke says Joseph, the son of Heli, did he mean Mary, the daughter of Heli ? Does the Gospel say one thing and mean another ? because if that argument is worth anything, then in every case where a man has a theory which disagrees with the text, he may say the text means something else. If this argument be permitted we must abandon in Scriptural criticism the meaning which we should ordinarily intend to convey by any given word. If you believe Luke meant daughter, why does the same word mean son in every other ' case all through the remainder of the genealogy ? And if the genealogy of Matthew be that of Joseph, and the genealogy of Luke be that of Mary, they ought not to have any point of agreement at all until brought to David. They, nevertheless, do agree and contradict each other in several places, destroying the probability of their being intended as distinct genealogies. There is some evidence that Luke does not give the genealogy of Mary in the Gospel itself. We are told that Joseph went to Bethlehem to be numbered because he was of the house of David : if it had been Mary it would have surely said so. As according to the Christian » theory, Joseph was not the father of Jesus, it is not unfair to ask how it can be credible that Jesus’s genealogy could I be traced to David in any fashion through Joseph? So far from Mary being clearly of the tribe of Judah (to which the genealogy relates) her cousinship to Elizabeth would make her rather appear to belong to the tribe of Levi. To discuss the credibility of the miraculous conception and birth would be to insult the human understanding. The mythologies of Greece, Italy, and India, give many prece­ dents of sons of Gods miraculously born. Italy, Greece, and India, must, however, yield the palm to Judea. The inIcarnate Chrishna must give way to the incarnate Christ. A miraculous birth would be scouted to- day as monstrous ; -antedate it 2,000 years and we worship it as miracle. 1 Matt, i., 22, 23, says: “ Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ? 13 being interpreted is, God with us.” This is supposed to be a quotation from Isaiah vii., 14—16 : “ Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign ; Behold a virgin shall con­ ceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.” But in this, as indeed in most other cases of inaccurate quotation, the very words are omitted which would show its utter inapplicability to Jesus. Even in those which are given, the agreement is not complete. Jesus was not called Emmanuel. And even if his mother Mary were a virgin, this does not help the identity, as the word OLME in i Isaiah, rendered “virgin” in our version, does not convey the notion of virginity, for which the proper word is nbUTZl BeThULE; OLME is used of a youthful spouse recently married. The allusion to the land being forsaken of both her kings, omitted in Matthew, shows how little the passage is prophetic of Jesus. The story of the annunciation made to Joseph in one Gospel, to Mary in the other, is hardly credible on any ex­ planation. If you assume the annunciations as made by a God of all-wise purpose, the purpose should, at least, have been to prevent doubt of Mary’s chastity; but the annun­ ciation is made to Joseph only after Mary is suspected by Joseph. Two annunciations are made, one of them in a dream to Joseph, when he is suspicious as to the state of his betrothed wife ; the other made by the angel Gabriel (whoever that angel may be) to Mary herself, who apparently conceals the fact, and is content to be married, although with child not by her intended husband. The statement— that Mary being found with child by the Holy Ghost, her husband, not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily—is quite incredible. If Joseph found her with child &?/ the Holy Ghost, how could he even think of making a public example of her shame when there was nothing of which she could be ashamed— nothing, if he believed in the Holy Ghost, of which he need have been ashamed himself, nothing which need have in­ duced him to wish to put her away privily. It is clear— according to Matthew—that Mary was found with child, �14 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? and that the Holy Ghost parentage was not even imagined by Joseph until after he had dreamed about the matter. Although the birth of Jesus was specially announced by an angel, and although Mary sang a joyful song consequent on the annunciation, corroborated by her cousin’s greeting, yet when Simeon speaks of the child, in terms less extra­ ordinary, Joseph and Mary are surprised at it and do not understand it. Why were they surprised ? Is it credible that so little regard was paid to the miraculous annuncia­ tion? Or is this another case of the “painful uncertainty” alluded to by Dr. Tischendorf ? Again, when Joseph and Mary found the child Jesus in the temple, and he says, “ Wist ye not that I must be about my father’s business ? ” they do not know what he means, so that either what the angel had said had been of little effect, or the annunciations did not occur at all. Can any reliance be placed on a narrative so contradictory ? An angel was specially sent to acquaint a mother that her son about to be born is the Son of God, and yet that mother is astonished when her son says, “ Wist ye not I must be about my father’s business ? ” The birth of Jesus was, according to Matthew, made publicly known by means of certain wise men. These men saw his star in the East, but it did not tell them much, for they were obliged to come and ask information from Herod the King. Is astrology credible ? Herod inquired of the chief priests and scribes; and it is evident Jeremiah was right, if he said, “ The prophets prophecy falsely and the priests bear rule by their means,” for these chief priests misquoted to suit their purposes, and invented a false pro­ phecy by omitting a few words from, and adding a few words to, a text until it suited their purpose. The star, after they knew where to go, and no longer required its aid, went before them, until it came and stood over where the young child was. The credibility of this will be better understood if the reader notice some star, and then see how many houses it will be over. Luke does not seem to have been aware of the star story, and he relates about an angel who tells some shepherds the good tidings, but this last-named adven­ ture does not appear to have happened in the reign of Herod at all. Is it credible that Jesus was born twice ? After the wise men had left Jesus, an angel warned Joseph to flee �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 15 with him and Mary into Egypt, and Joseph did fly, and re­ mained there with the young child and his mother until the •death of Herod ; and this, it is alleged, was done to fulfil a prophecy. On referring to Hosea xi., 1, we find the words have no reference whatever to Jesus, and that, therefore, -either the tale of the flight is invented as a fulfilment of the prophecy, or the prophecy manufactured to support the tale of the flight. The Jesus of Luke never went into Egypt at all in his childhood. Directly after the birth of the child his parents instead of flying away because of persecution into Egypt, went peacefully up to Jerusalem to fulfil all things according to the law, returned thence to Nazareth, and apparently dwelt there, going up to Jerusalem every year until Jesus was twelve years of age. In Matthew ii., 15, we are told that Jesus remained in Egypt, “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, Out of Egypt have I called my sou.” In Hosea ii., 1, we read, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” In no •other prophet is there any similar text. This not only is not a prophecy of Jesus, but is, on the contrary, a reference to the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. Is the prophecy manu­ factured to give an air of credibility to the Gospel history, or how will the Religious Tract Society explain it? The Gospel writings betray either a want of good faith, or great incapacity on the part of their authors in the mode adopted of distorting quotations from the Old Testa­ ment ? When Jesus began to be about thirty years of age he was baptised by John in the river Jordan. John, who, according to Matthew, knew him, forbade him directly he saw him; but, acccording to the writer of the fourth Gospel, he knew him not, and had, there­ fore, no occasion to forbid him. God is an “ invisible ” “spirit,” whom no man hath seen (John i., 18), or can see (Exodus xxxiii., 20); but the man John saw the spirit of God descending like a dove. God is everywhere, but at that time was in heaven, from whence he said, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” Although John heard this from God’s own mouth, he some time after sent two of his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were really the Christ (Matthew xi., 2, 3). Yet it is upon the credibility �16 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ? of this story, says Dr. Tischendorf, that Christianity rests like a building on its foundations. It is utterly impossible John could have known and not have known Jesus at the same time. And if, as the New Testament states, God is infinite and invisible, it is in­ credible that as Jesus stood in the river to be baptised, the Holy Ghost was seen as it descended on his head as a dove, and that God from heaven said, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” Was the indivisible and invisible spirit of God separated in three distinct and two separately visible persons ? How do the Religious Tract Society recon­ cile this with the Athanasian Creed ? The baptism narrative is rendered doubtful by the lan­ guage used as to John, who baptised Jesus. It is said, “ This is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Isaiah xl., 1—5? is? “ Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned ; for she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins. The voice of him that crieth in the wilder­ ness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low : and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain : and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed.” These verses have not the most remote relation to John ? And this manufacture of prophecies for the purpose of bolstering up a tale, serves to prove that the writer of the Gospel tries by these to impart an air of credibility to an otherwise incredible story. Immediately after the baptism, Jesus is led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. There he fasts forty days and forty nights. John says, in chapter i., 35, “Again, the next day after, John stood and two of his disciples ; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he said, behold the Lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.” Then, at the 43rd verse, he says, “ The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, follow me.” And in chapter ii., 1, he says, “And �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 17 the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there ; and both Jesus was called and his disciples unto the marriage.” According to Matthew, there can be no doubt that immediately after the baptism Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. And we are to believe that Jesus was tempted of the Devil and fasting in the wilderness, and at the same time feasting at a marriage in Cana of Galilee ? Is it possible to believe that Jesus actually did fast forty days and forty nights ? If Jesus did not fast in his capacity as man, in what capacity did he fast ? And if Jesus fasted, being God, the fast would be a mockery; and the account that he became a hungered must be wrong. It is barely possible that in some very abnormal condition or cataleptic state, or state of trance, a man might exist, with very slight nourishment or without food, but that a man could walk about, speak, and act, and, doing this, live forty days and nights without food is simply an impossibility. Is the story that the Devil tempted Jesus credible ? If Jesus be God, can the Devil tempt God ? A clergyman of the Church of England writing on this says: “ That the Devil should appear personally to the Son of God is cer­ tainly not more wonderful than that he should, in a more remote age, have appeared among the sons of God, in the presence of God himself, to torment the righteous Job. But that Satan should carry Jesus bodily and literally through the air, first to the top of a high mountain, and then to the topmost pinnacle of the temple, is wholly inadmissable, it is an insult to our understanding, and an affront to our great creator and redeemer.” Supposing, despite the monstrosity of such a supposition, an actual Devil—and this involves the dilemma that the Devil must either be Godcreated, or God’s co-eternal rival; the first supposition being inconsistent with God’s goodness, and the second being inconsistent with his power; but supposing such a Devil, is it credible that the Devil should tempt the Almighty maker of the universe with “ all these will I give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me ? ” In the very names of the twelve Apostles there is an un­ certainty as to one, whose name was either Lebbmus, Thad­ daeus, or Judas. It is in Matthew x., 3, alone that the name of Lebbaeus is mentioned, thus—“Lebbaeus, whose surname �18 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? was Thaddaeus.” We are told, on this point, by certain Biblicists, that some early MSS. have not the words “ whose surname was Thaddaeus,” and that these words have pro­ bably been inserted to reconcile the Gospel according to Matthew with that attributed to Mark. In the English version of the Rheims Testament used in this country by our Roman Catholic brethren, the reconciliation between Matthew and Mark is completed by omitting the words “ Lebbaeus whose surname was,” leaving only the name “ Thaddaeus ” in Matthew’s text. The revised version of the New Testament now agrees with the Rheims version,, and the omission will probably meet with the entire concur­ rence of Dr. Tischendorf and the Religious Tract Society,, now they boast autograph letters of approval from the in­ fallible head of the Catholic Church. If Matthew x., 3,. and Mark iii., 18, be passed as reconciled, although the first calls the twelfth disciple Lebbeeus, and the second gives him the name Thaddaeus; there is yet the difficulty that in Luke vi., 16, corroborated by John xiv., 22, there is a disciple spoken of as “ Judas, not Iscariot,” “Judas, the brother of James.” Commentators have endeavored to clear away this last difficulty by declaring that Thaddams is a Syriac word, having much the same meaning as Judas. This has been answered by the objection that if Matthew’s Gospel uses Thaddaeus in lieu of Judas, then he ought to speak of Thad­ daeus Iscariot, which he does not; and it is further objected’ also that while there are some grounds for suggesting a Hebrew original for the Gospel attributed to Matthew, there is not the slightest pretence for alleging that Matthew wrote in Syriac. The Gospels also leave us in some doubt as to. whether Matthew is Levi, or whether Matthew and Levi are two different persons. The account of the calling of Peter is replete with con­ tradictions. According to Matthew, when Jesus first saw Peter, the latter was in a vessel fishing with his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea of Galilee. Jesus walk­ ing by the sea said to them—“Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” The two brothers did so, and they became Christ’s disciples. When Jesus called Peter no one was with him but his brother Andrew. A little further on, the two sons of Zebedee were in a ship with their father mending nets, and these latter were separately called. From �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 19 John, we learn that Andrew was originally a disciple of John the Baptist, and that when Andrew first saw Jesus, Peter was not present, but Andrew went and found Peter who, if fishing, must have been angling on land, telling him !:we have found the Messiah,” and that Andrew then brought Peter to Jesus, who said, “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas ; thou shalt be called Cephas.” There is no mention in John of the sons of Zebedee being a little further on, or of any fishing in the sea of Galilee. This call is clearly on land. Luke’s Gospel states that when the call took place, Jesus and Peter were both at sea. Jesus had been preaching to the people, who pressing upon him, he got into Simon’s ship, from which he preached. After this he directed Simon to put out into the deep and let down the nets. Simon answered, “ Master, we have toiled all night and taken nothing ; nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.” No sooner was this done, than the net was filled to breaking, and Simon’s partners, the two sons of Zebedee, came to help, when at the call of Jesus, they brought their ships to land, and followed him. Is it credible that there were three several calls, or that the Gospels being inspired, you could have three contradic­ tory versions of the same event ? Has the story been here “ painfully modified,” or how do Dr. Tischendorf and the Religious Tract Society clear up the matter? Is it credible that, as stated in Luke, Jesus had visited Simon’s house, and cured Simon’s wife’s mother, before the call of Simon, but did not go to Simon’s house for that purpose, until after the call of Simon, as related in Matthew ? It is useless to reply that the date of Jesus’s visit is utterly unimportant, when we are told that it is upon the credibility of the complete narrative that Christianity must rest. Each stone is im­ portant to the building, and it is not competent for the Christian advocate to regard as useless any word which the Holy Ghost has considered important enough to reveal. Are the miracle stories credible ? Every ancient nation has had its miracle workers, but modern science has relegated all miracle history to realms of fable, myth, illusion, delusion, or fraud. Can Christian miracles be made the exceptions ? Is it likely that the nations amongst whom the dead were restored to life would have persistently ignored the author of such miracles? Were the miracles purposeless, or if in­ �20 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? tended to convince the Jews, was God unable to render his intentions effective ? That five thousand persons should be , fed with five loaves and two fishes, and that an apparent f excess should remain beyond the original stock, is difficult to believe; but that shortly after this—Jesus having to again perform a similar miracle for four thousand persons— his own disciples should ignore his recent feat, and wonder from whence the food was to be derived, is certainly start­ lingly incredible. If this exhibition of incredulity were pardonable on the part of the twelve apostles, living wit­ nesses of greater wonders, how much more pardonable the unbelief of the sceptic of to-day, which the Religious Tract Society seek to overcome by a faint echo of asserted events all contrary to probability, and with nineteen centuries intervening. I The casting out the devils presents phenomena requiring j considerable credulity, especially the story of the devils and t the swine. To-day insanity is never referable to demoniacal possession, but eighteen hundred years ago the subject of lunacy had not been so patiently investigated as it has been since. That one man could now be tenanted by several devils is a proposition for which the maintainer would in the present generation incur almost universal contempt; yet the repudiation of its present possibility can hardly be consistent with implicit credence in its ancient history. That the devils and God should hold converse together, although not with­ out parallel in the book of Job, is inconsistent with the theory of an infinitely good Deity ; that the devils should address Jesus as son of the most high God, and beg to be allowed to enter a herd of swine, is at least ludicrous ; yet all this helps to make up the narrative on which Dr. Tischendorf relies. That Jesus being God should pray to his Father 4 that “ the cup might pass ” from him is so incredible that even the faithful ask us to regard it as mystery. That an angel from heaven could strengthen Jesus, the almighty God, is equally mysterious. That where Jesus had so pro­ minently preached to thousands, the priests should need any -one like Judas to betray the founder of Christianity with a kiss, is absurd; his escapade in flogging the dealers, his wonderful cures, and his raising Lazarus and Jairus’s daughter should have secured him, if not the nation’s love, faith, and admiration, at least a national reputation and �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ? 21 notoriety. It is not credible if Judas betrayed Jesus by a kiss that the latter should have been arrested upon his own statement that he was Jesus. That Peter should have had I a so little faith as to deny his divine leader three times in a < few hours is only reconcilable with the notion that he had i remained unconvinced by his personal intercourse with the ; incarnate Deity. The mere blunders in the story of the I j denial sink into insignificance in face of this major difficulty. Whether the cock did or did not crow before the third denial, whether Peter was or was not in the same apartment with Jesus at the time of the last denial, are comparatively trifling questions, and the contradictions on which they are based may be the consequence of the errors which Dr. Tischendorf says have crept into the sacred writings. Jesus said, “ as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Jesus was crucified on Friday, was buried on Friday evening, and yet the first who went to the grave on the night of Saturday as it began to dawn towards Sunday, found the body of Jesus already gone. Did Jesus mean he should be three days and three nights in the grave ? Is there any proof that his body remained in the grave for three hours ? Who went first to'* the grave? was it Mary Magdalene alone, as in John, or two Maries as in Matthew, or the two Maries and Salome as in Mark, or the two Maries, Joanna, and several unnamed women as in Luke ? To whom did did Jesus first appear? Was it, as in Mark, to Mary Magdalene, or to two disciples going to Emmaus, as in Luke, or to the two Maries near the sepulchre, as in Matthew? Is the eating boiled fish and honeycomb by a dead God credible ? Did Jesus ascend to heaven the I very day of his resurrection, or did an interval of nearly six weeks intervene ? Is this history credible, contained as it is in four con- ' t tradictory biographies, outside which biographies we have, ■ as UrTTischendorf admits, “no other source of informa- • tion with respect to the life of Jesus ” ? This history of III an earth-born Deity, descended through a crime-tainted . ancestry, and whose genealogical tree is traced through one I I who was not his father ; this history of an infinite God nursed G as a baby, growing through childhood to manhood like any J �22 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? frail specimen of humanity; this history, garnished with bedevilledjnen, enchanted tig tree, myriads of ghosts, and scores of miracles, and by such garnishment made more akin to an oriental romance than to a sober history ; thjs picture of the infinite invisible spirit incarnate visible as, man; immutability subject to human passions and infirmi­ ties ; the 'creator come to die, yet wishing to escape the death which shall bring peace to Tris God-tormented crea­ tures; God praying to himself and rejecting his own prayer; God betrayed by a divinely-appointed traitor ; God the immortal dying, and in the agony of the death-throes— stronger than the strong man’s will—crying with almost the last effort of his dying breath, that he being God, is God forsaken ! * If all this be credible, what story is there any man need hesitate to believe ? Dr. Tischendorf asks how it has beeu possible to impugn the credibility of the four Gospels, and replies that this has been done by denying that the Gospels were written by the men whose names they bear. In the preceding pages it has A , been shown that the credibility of the Gospel narrative is impugned because it is uncorroborated by contemporary history, because it is self-contradictory, and because many of its incidents are prima facie most improbable, and some of them utterly impossible. Even English Infidels are quite prepared to admit that the four Gospels may be quite anony­ mous ; and yet, that their anonymous character need be of • no weight as an argument against their truth. All that is | urged on this head is that the advocates of the Gospel history ■ have sought to endorse and give value to the otherwise un- | reliable narratives by a pretence that some of the Evange­ lists, at least, were eyewitnesses of the events they refer to. ‘ Dr. Tischendorf says: “The credibility of a writer clearlyic* I' depends on the interval of tifrle which lies between him and | I the events which he describes. The farther the narrator is ■ i removed from the facts which heTays before us the more ( y, his claims to credibility are reduced in value.” Presuming t truthfulness in intention for any writer, and his ability to comprehend the facts he is narrating, and his freedom from a prejudice which may distort the picture he intends to paint correctly with his pen: we might admit the correctness of the passage we have quoted; but can these always be pre­ �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ? ( 23 sumed in the case of the authors of the Gospels ? On the contrary, a presumption in an exactly opposite direction may he fairly raised from the fact that immediately after the Apostolic age the Christian world was flooded with forged testimonies in favor of the biography of Jesus, or in favor of his disciples. A writer in the Edinburgh Review observes : “ To say nothing of such acknowledged forgeries as the Apostolic constitutions and liturgies, and the several spurious Gospels, the question of the genuineness of the alleged remains of the Apostolic fathers, though often overlooked, is very material. Any genuine remains of the ‘ Apostle ’ Barnabas, of Hermas, the contemporary (Romans xvi., 14), and Clement, the highly commended and gifted fellow laborer of St. Paul (Phil, iv., 3), could scarcely be regarded as less •sacred than those of Mark and Luke, of whom personally we know less. It is purely a question of criticism. At the present day, the critics best competent to determine it. have, agreed in opinion, that the extant writings ascribed to Bar­ nabas and Hermas are wholly spurious-—the frauds of a later age. How much suspicion attaches to the 1st Epistle of Clement (for the fragment of the second is also generally rejected) is manifest from the fact, that in modern times it has never been allowed the place expressly assigned to it among the canonical books prefixed to the celebrated Alex­ andrian MS., in which the only known copy of it is included. It must not be forgotten that Ignatius expressly lays claim to inspiration, that Ireneeus quotes Hermas as Scripture, and Origen speaks of him as inspired, while Polycarp, in modestly disclaiming to be put on a level with the Apostles, clearly implies there would have been no essential distinction in the way of his being ranked in the same order. But the question is, how are these pretensions substantiated ? ” So far the Edinburgh Review, certainly not an Infidel publica­ tion. Eusebius, in his “Ecclesiastical History,” admits the4 *’ existence of many spurious gospels and epistles, and some . writings put forward by him as genuine, such as the corres­ pondence between Jesus and Agbaras, have since been rejected as fictitious. It is not an unfair presumption from it this that many of the most early Christians considered the then existing testimonies insufficient to prove the history of �24 WHEN WERE O'UR GOSPELS WRITTEN? Jesus, and good reason is certainly afforded for carefully examining the whole of the evidences they have bequeathed us. On p. 48, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Irenaeus, whose writings belong to the extreme end of the second century, as though that Bishop must be taken as vouching the four Gospels as we now have them. Yet, if the testimony of Irenaeus be reliable (“ Against Heresies,” Book III., cap. i.) the Gospel attributed to Matthew was believed to have been composed in Hebrew, and Irenaeus says that as the Jews desired a Messiah of the royal line of David, Matthew having the same desire to a yet greater degree, strove to give them full satisfaction. This may account for some of the genealogical curiosities to which we have drawn attention, but hardly renders Matthew’s Gospel more reliable ; and how can the / | suggestion that Matthew wrote in Hebrew prove that Mat- I ithew penned the first Gospel, which has only existed ini Greek ? Irenaeus, too, flatly contradicts the Gospels by \ declaring that the ministry of Jesus extended over ten years I and that Jesus lived to be fifty years of age (“Against £ Heresies,” Book II., cap. 22). If the statement of Irenaeus (“Against Heresies,” Book’ 11“ III., cap. 11) that the fourth Gospel was written to refute the 1 errors of Cerinthus and Nicolaus, have any value, then the ’ actual date of issue of the fourth Gospel will be consider- £. * ably after the others. Dr. Tischendorf’s statement that i Polycarp has borne testimony to the Gospel of John is noth, I even supported by the quotation on which he relies. All w that is said in the passage quoted (Eusebius, “ Ecc. Hist.(” " Book V., cap. 20) is that Irenaeus when he was a child heard Polvea.rn reneat from memorv the dise.onrses of John I? - in the time of Polycarp it would have been at least as easy jj to have read them from the MS. as to repeat them from n memory. Dr. Tischendorf might also have added that I the letter to Florinus, whence he takes the passage on ' which he relies, exists only in the writings of Eusebius, to , whom we are indebted for many pieces of Christian evidence since abandoned as forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says : “Any testimony of Polycarp in favor of the Gospel refers us back to the Evangelist himself, for Polycarp, in speaking to Irenaeus of this Gospel as the work of his master, St. John, must have learned from the lips of the apostle himself,. �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 25 evidence whether he was its author or not.” Now, what evidence^ is there that Polycarp ever saida single word as to the authorship of the fourth Gospel, of of any Gospel, or that , he even said that John had penned a single word? In the (\\ [ I Epistle to the Philippians (the only writing attributed to ; Polycarp for which any genuine character is even pre­ tended), the Gospel of John is never mentioned, nor is there even a single passage in the Epistle which can be identified with any passage in the Gospel of John. Surely Dr. Tischendorf forgot, in the eager desire to make his witnesses bear good testimony, that the highest duty of an advocate is to make the truth clear, not to put forward a pleasantly colored falsehood to deceive the igno­ rant. It is not even true that Irenasus ever pretends1 , that Polycarp in any way vouched our fourth Gospsl as having been written by John, and yet Dr. Tischendorf had the cool audacity to say “there is nothing more damaging to the doubters of the authenticity of St. John’s Gospel * than this testimony of St. Polycarp.” Do the Religious Tract Society regard English Infidels as so utterly ignorant that they thus intentionally seek to suggest a falsehood, or are the Council of the Religious Tract Society themselves unable to test the accuracy of the statements put forward on their behalf by the able decipherer of illegible parch­ ments ? It is too much to suspect the renowned Dr. Con­ stantine Tischendorf of ignorance, yet even the coarse English sceptic regrets that the only other alternative will be to denounce him as a theological charlatan. Dr. Mosheim, writing on behalf of Christianity, says that | the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians is by some treated' . as genuine and by others as spurious, and that it is no easy matter to decide. Many critics, of no mean order, class it I amongst the apostolic Christian forgeries, but whether the / Epistle be genuine or spurious, it contains no quotation I I from, it makes no reference to, the Gospel of John. M ‘ To what is said of Irenasus, Tertullian, and Clement of l\ Alexandria, it is enough to note that all these are after a.d. 150. Irenasus may be put 177 to 200, Tertullian about 193, and Clement of Alexandria as commencing the third' _ century. One of Dr. Tischendorf’s most audacious flourishes is that (p. 49) with reference to the Canon of Muratori, which we �26 I | I ' i I i, ' ' WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? are told “enumerates the books of the New Testament which, from the first, were considered canonical and sacred,” and which “ was written a little after the age of Pins I, about a.d. 170.” First the anonymous fragment contains books which were never accepted as canonical; next, it is quite impossible to say when or by whom it was written or what was its original language. Muratori, who discovered the fragment in 1740^ 1| conjectured that it was written about the end of the second i dr beginning of the third century, but itjg, noteworthy that neither Eusebius nor any other of the ecclesiastical advocates ofjhe third, fourth, or fifth centuries, ever refers to it. It may be the compilation of any monk at any date prior to 1740, and is utterly valueless as evidence. Dr. Tischendorf’s style is well exemplified by the positive manner in which he fixes the date a.d. 139 to the first apology of Justin, although a critic so “ learned ” as the un­ rivalled Dr. Tischendorf could not fail to be aware that more than one writer has supported the view that the date of the first apology was not earlier than a.d. 145, and others have contended for a.d. 150. The Benedictine editors of Justin’s works support the latter date. Dr. Kenn argues for a.d. 155—160. On page 63, the Religious Tract Society’s champion appeals to the testimony of Justin Martyr, but in » order not to shock the devout while convincing the profane, he omits to mention that more than half the writings once attributed to Justin Martyr are now abandoned, as either of doubtful character or actual forgeries, and that Justin’s value as a witness is considerably weakened by the fact that he quotes the acts of Pilate and the Sybilline Oracles as though they were reliable evidence, when in fact they are both admitted specimens of “ a Christian forgery.” But | what does Justin testify as to the Gospels ? Does he say that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were their writers ? On the contrary, not only do the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never occur as Evangelists in the writings of Justin, but he actually mentions facts and sayings as to Jesus, which are not found in either of the four Gospels. The very words rendered Gospels only occur where they are strongly suspected to be interpolated, Justin usually speaking of some writings which he calls “ memorials ” or “memoirs of the Apostles.” » . I j ’ �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 27 Dr. Tischendorf urges that in the writings of Justin the G-ospels are placed side by side with the prophets, and that “this undoubtedly places the Gospels in the list of canon­ ical books.” If this means that there is any statement in -Justin capable of being so construed, then Dr. Tischendorf was untruthful. Justin does quote specifically the Sybilline oracles, but never Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. He ‘-quotes statements as to Jesus, which may be found in the -apocryphal Gospels, and which are not found in ours, so that if the evidence of Justin Martyr be taken, it certainly does not tend to prove, even in the smallest degree, that four Gospels were specially regarded with reverence in his day. The Rev. W. Sanday thinks that Justin did not assign an ex­ clusive authority to our Gospels, and that he made use also of other documents no longer extant. (“ Gospels in 2nd Century,” p. 117.) On p. 94 it is stated that “as early as the time of Justin i» ’ the expression ‘ the Evangel ’ was applied to the four 7 Gospels.” This statement by Dr. Tischendorf and its » "publication by the Religious Tract Society call for the I strongest condemnation. Nowhere in the writings of Justin are the words “the Evangel” applied to the four Gospels. Gardner only professes to discover two instances in which the wTord anglicised by Tischendorf as “Evangel,” occurs; ■€.vayyeX.L<i> and evayyeXca, the second being expressly pointed out by Schleiermacher as an interpolation, and as an in­ stance in which a marginal note has been incorporated with the text; nor would one occurrence of such a word prove that any book or books were so known by Justin, as the word is merely a compound of ev good and ayyekta message; nor is there the slightest foundation for the statement that in the time of Justin the word Evangel was ever applied to ■designate the four Gospels now attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Dr. Tischendorf (p. 46) admits that the “ faith of the I ! Church . . . would be seriously compromised ” if we ; >do not find references to the Gospels in writings between / a.d. 100 and a.l>. 150; and—while he does not directly ' .assert—he insinuates that in such writings the Gospels were “ treated with the greatest respect,” or “ even already treated as canonical and sacred writings and he distinctly affirms that the Gospels “ did see the light ” during the �28 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ? “ Apostolic age,” “ and before the middle of the second’ century our Gospels were held in the highest respect by the Church,” although for the affirmation, he neither has nor advances the shadow of evidence. The phrases, “ Apostolic age ” and ‘‘Apostolic fathers” denote the first century of the Christian era, and those fathers who are supposed to have flourished during that period, and who are supposed to have seen or heard, or had the opportunity of seeing or hearing, either Jesus or some one or more of the twelve Apostles., Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, are those whose names figure most familiarly in Christian evidences as Apostolic fathers. But the evidence from these Apostolic fathers is of a most unreliable character. Mosheim (“ Ecclesiastical t History,” cent. 1, cap. 2, sec. 3, 17) says that “ the Apostolic history is loaded with doubts, fables, and difficulties,” and that not long after Christ’s ascension several histories were current of his life and doctrines, full of “ pious frauds and fabulous wonders.” Amongst these were “The Acts of Paul,” “ The Revelation of Peter,” “ The Gospel of Peter,” I “The Gospel of Andrew,” “The Gospel of John,” “The .Gospel of James,” “The Gospel of the Egyptians,” etc. The attempts often made to prove from the writings of Barnabas, Ignatius, etc., the prior existence of the four Gospels, though specifically unnamed, by similarity of phraseology in quotations, is a failure, even admitting for the moment the genuineness of the Apostolic Scriptures, if the proof is intended to carry the matter higher than that such and such statements were current in some form or other, at the date the fathers wrote. As good an argument might ’ be made that some of the Gospel passages were adopted from * the fathers. The fathers occasionally quote, as from the 4 mouth of Jesus, words which are not found in any of our four Gospels, and make reference to events not included in the Gospel narratives, clearly evidencing that even if the four documents ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were in existence, they were not the only sources of infor­ mation from which some of the Apostolic fathers derived their knowledge of Christianity, and evidencing also that the four Gospels had attained no such specific superiority as to entitle them to special mention by name. Of the epistle attributed to Barnabas, which is sup- �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 29 <posed by its supporters to have been written in the latter part of the first century, which, Paley says, is probably genuine, which is classed by Eusebius as spurious (“Eccle­ siastical History,” book iii., cap. 25), and which Dr. Donaldson does not hesitate for one moment in refusing to ascribe to Barnabas the Apostle (“ Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. i., p. 100), it is only necessary to say that so far from speaking of the Gospels with the greatest respect, it does not mention by name any one of the four Gospels. There are some passages in Barnabas which are nearly identical in phraseology with some Gospel passages, and which it has been argued are quotations from one or other of the four Gospels, but which may equally be quotations from other Gospels, or from writings not in the character of Gospels. There are also passages which are nearly identical with several of the New Testament epistles, but even the great framer of Christian evidences, Gardner, declares his convic­ tion that none of these last-mentioned passages are quota­ tions, or even allusions, to the Pauline or other epistolary writings. Barnabas makes many quotations which clearly demonstrate that the four Gospels, if then in existence and if he had access to them, could not have been his only source of information as to the teachings of Jesus (E. G., cap. 7). “ The Lord enjoined that whosoever did not keep the fast should be put to death.” “ He required the goats to be of goodly aspect and similar, that when they see him coming they may be amazed by the likeness to the goat.” Says he, “ those who wish to behold me and lay hold of my kingdom, must through tribulation and suffering obtain me” (cap. 12). And the Lord saith, “When a tree shall be bent down and again rise, and when blood shall flow out of the wound.” Will the Religious Tract Society point out from which of the Gospels these are quoted ? Barnabas (cap. 10) says that Moses forbade the Jews to eat weasel flesh, “ because that animal conceives with the mouth,” and forbad them to eat the hyena because that animal annually changes its sex. This father seems to have made a sort of melange of some of the Pentateuchal ordinances. He says (cap. 8) that the Heifer (mentioned in Numbers) was a type of Jesus, that the three (?) young men appointed to sprinkle, denote Abraham, Isaac, and - -Jacob, that wool was put upon a stick because the �30 I . , 1 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? kingdom of Jesus was founded upon the cross, and (cap. 9) that the 318 men circumcised by Abraham stood for Jesus crucified. Barnabas also declared that the world was to come to an end in 6,000 years (“Free­ thinkers’ Text Book,” part ii., p. 268). In the Sinaitic Bible, the Epistle of St. Barnabas has now, happily for misguided Christians, been discovered in the original Greek. To quote the inimitable style of Dr. Tischendorf, “ while so much has been lost in the course of centuries by the tooth of time and the carelessness of ignorant monks, an in­ visible eye had watched over this treasure, and when it was on the point of perishing in the fire, the Lord had decreed itsdeliverance;” “while critics have generally been divided between assigning it to the first or second decade of the second century, the Sinaitic Bible, which has for the first time cleared up this question, has led us to throw its com­ position as far back as the last decade of the first century.” A fine specimen of Christian evidence writing, cool assertion without a particle of proof and without the slightest reason given. How does the Siniatic MS., even if it be genuine, clear up the question of the date of St. Barnabas’s Epistle? Dr. Tischendorf does not condescend to tell us what has led the Christian advocate to throw back the date of its com­ position ? We are left entirely in the dark: in fact, what Dr. Tischendorf calls a “throw back,” is if you look at Lardner just the reverse. What does the epistle of Barnabas prove, even if it be genuine ? Barnabas quotes, by name, Moses and Daniel, but never Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Barnabas specifically refers to Deuteronomy and the pro­ phets, but never to either of the four Gospels. There is an epistle attributed to Clement of Rome, whichhas been preserved in a single MS. only where it is coupled with another epistle rejected as spurious. Dr. Donaldson(“ Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. i-, p. 3) declares that who the Clement was to whom these writings are ascribed cannot with absolute certainty be determined. Both epistles stand on equal authority; one is rejected by Christians, the other is received. In this epistle while there is a distinct reference to an Epistle by Paul to the Corinthians, there is no mention by name of the four Gospels, nor do any of the words attri­ buted by Clement to Jesus agree for any complete quotation with anyone of the Gospels as we have them. The Rev. �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 31 W. Sanday is frank enough to concede “ that Clement is not quoting directly from our Gospels.” Is it probable that Clement would have mentioned a writing by Paul, and yet have entirely ignored the four Gospels, if he had known that they had then existed ? And could they have easily existed in the Christian world in his day without his knowledge ? If anyone takes cap. xxv. of this epistle and sees the phoenix given as a historic fact, and as evidence for the reality of the resurrection, he will be better able to appreciate the value of this so-called epistle of Clement. The letters of Ignatius referred to by Dr. Tischendorf are regarded by Mosheim as laboring under many difficul­ ties, and embarrassed with much obscurity. Even Lardner, doing his best for such evidences, says, that if we find matters in the Epistles inconsistent with the notion that Ignatius was the writer, it is better to regard such passages as interpolations, than to reject the Epistles entirely, especially in the “ scarcity ” of such testimonies. There are fifteen epistles of which eight are undisputedly forgeries. Of the remaining seven there are two versions, a long and a short version, one of which must be corrupt, both of which may be. These seven epistles, however, are in no case to be accepted with certainty as those of Ignatius. Dr. Cureton contends that only three still shorter epistles are genuine (“Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. i., pp. 137 to 143). The Rev. W. Sanday treats the three short ones as probably genuine, waiving the question as to the others (“ Gospels in Second Century,” p. 77, and see preface to sixth edition “ Supernatural Religion”), Ignatius, however, even if he be the writer of the epistles attributed to him, never mentions either of the four Gospels. In the nineteenth chapter of the Epistles to the Ephesians, there is a statement made as to the birth and death of Jesus, not to be found in either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. If the testimony of the Ignatian Epistles is reliable, then it vouches that in that early age there were actually Chris­ tians who denied the death of Jesus. A statement as to Mary in cap. nineteen of the Epistle to the Ephesians is not to be found in any portion of the Gospels. In his Epistle to the Trallians, Ignatius, attacking those who denied the real existence of Jesus, would have surely been glad to �32 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? quote the evidence of eye witnesses like Matthew and John, if such evidence had existed in his day. In cap. eight of the Epistles to the Philadelphians, Ignatius says, “I have jlr heard of some who say : Unless I find it in the archives I *' will not believe the Gospel. And when I said it is written, they answered that remains to be proved.” This is the most distinct reference to any Christian writings, and how little does this support Dr. Tischendorf’s position. From which of our four Gospels could Ignatius have taken the words, “lam not an incorporeal demon,” which he puts into the mouth of Jesus in cap. iii., the epistle to the Smyrnasans ? Dr. Tischendorf does admit that the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles is not of decisive value; might he not go farther and say, that as proof of the four Gospels it is of no value at all ? On page 70, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Hippolytus without any qualification. Surely the English Religious Tract Society might have remembered that Dodwell says, that the name of Hippolytus had been so abused by impostors, that it was not easy to distinguish any of his writings. That Mill de­ clares that, with one exception, the pieces extant under his name are all spurious. That, except fragments in the writ­ ings of opponents, the works of Hippolytus are entirely lost. Yet the Religious Tract Society permit testimony so tainted to be put forward under their authority, to prove the truth of Christian history. The very work which Dr. Tis­ chendorf pretends to quote is not even mentioned by Euse­ bius, in the list he gives of the writings of Hippolytus. On page 94, Dr. Tischendorf states that Basilides, before ». \ a.d. 138, and Valentinus, about a.d. 140, make use of three out of four Gospels, the first using John and Luke, the second, Matthew, Luke, and John. What words of either Basilides or Valentinus exist anywhere to justify this , reckless assertion ? Was Dr. Tischendorf again presuming ’ on the utter ignorance of those who are likely to read his pamphlet ? The Religious Tract Society are responsible for Dr. Tischendorf’s allegations, which it is impossible to support with evidence. The issue raised is not whether the followers of Basilides or the followers of Valentinus may have used these gospels, but whether there is a particle of evidence to justify Dr. 'Tischendorf’s declaration, that Basilides and Valentinus �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 33 themselves used the above-named gospels. That the four Gospels were well known during the second half of the first century is what Dr. Tischendorf undertook to prove, and statements attributed to Basilides and Valentinus, but which ■* ought to be attributed to their followers, will go but little way as such proof (see “ Supernatural Religion,” vol. ii., pp 41 to 63). It is pleasant to find a grain of wheat in the bushel of Tischendorf chaff. On page 98, and following pages, the erudite author applies himself to get rid of the testimony of Papias, which was falsified and put forward by Paley as of great importance. Paley says the authority of Papias is com- 1 plete; Tischendorf declares that Papias is in error. Paley says Papias was a hearer of John, Tischendorf says he was / not. We leave the champions of the two great Christian evidence-mongers to settle the matter as best they can. If, however, we are to accept Dr. Tischendorf’s declaration that the testimony of Papias is worthless, we get rid of the chief link between Justin Martyr and the apostolic age. It pleases Dr. Tischendorf to damage Papias, because that father is silent as to the gospel of John ; but the Religious Tract Society must not forget that in thus clearing away <1 the second-hand evidence of Papias, they have cut away their only pretence for saying that any of the Gospels are mentioned byname within 150 years of the date claimed for the birth of Jesus. In referring to the lost work of Theo­ philus of Antioch, which Dr. Tischendorf tells us was a kind of harmony of the Gospels, in which the four narra­ tives are moulded and fused into one, the learned Doctor forgets to tell us that Jerome, whom he quotes as giving I some account of Theophilus, actually doubted whether the ; so-called commentary was really from the pen of that writer. Lardner says : “ Whether those commentaries which » > St. Jerome quotes were really composed by Theophilus may | be doubted, since they were unknown to Eusebius, and were ■ observed by Jerome to differ in style and expression from his other works. However, if they were not his, they were the work of some anonymous ancient.” But if they were the work of an anonymous ancient after Eusebius, what be­ comes of Dr. Tischendorf’s “ as early as a.d. 170?” 1 Eusebius, who refers to Theophilus, and who speaks of his using the Apocalypse, would have certainly gladly quoted �34 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ? the Bishop of Antioch’s “ Commentary on the Four Gos­ pels,” if it had existed in his day. Nor is it true that the references we have in Jerome to the work attributed to Theophilus, justify the description given by Dr. Tischendorf, or even the phrase of Jerome, “gm quatuor Evangelistarum in unum opus dicta comping ens. ” Theophilus seems, so far as it is possible to judge, to have occupied himself not with a connected history of Jesus, or a continuous discourse as to his doctrines, but rather with mystical and allegorical eluci­ dations of occasional passages, which ended, like many pious commentaries on the Old or New Testament, in leaving the point dealt with a little less clear with the Theophillian com­ mentary than without it. Dr. Tischendorf says that Theo­ doret and Eusebius speak of Tatian in the same way—that is, as though he had, like his Syrian contemporary, composed a harmony of the four Gospels. This is also inaccurate. Eusebius talks of Tatianus “having found a certain body and collection of Gospels, I know not how,” which collection Eusebius does not appear even to have ever seen; and so far from the phrase in Theodoret justifying Dr. Tischendorf’s explanation, it would appear from Theodoret that Tatian’s Diatessaron was, in fact, a sort of spurious gospel, “The Gospel of the Four” differing materially from our four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Neither Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, or Jerome, who refer to other works of Tatian, make any mention of this. Dr. Tischendorf might have added that Diapente, or “the Gospel of the Five,” has also been a title applied to this work of Tatian. , In the third chapter of his essay, Dr. Tischendorf refers /' to apocryphal writings “which bear on their front the names of Apostles” “used by obscure writers to palm off” their forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says that these spurious books were composed “partly to embellish” scripture narratives, and “ partly to support false doctrine ; ” and he states that in early times, the Church was not so well able to distin­ guish true gospels from false ones, and that consequently some of the apocryphal writings “ were given a place they did not deserve.” This statement of the inability of the Church to judge correctly, tells as much against the whole, \ as against any one or more of the early Christian writings, and as it may be as fatal to the now received gospels as to I �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN ? 35 those now rejected, it deserves the most careful conside­ ration. According to Dr. Tischendorf, Justin Martyr falls into the category of those of the Church who were “not so critical in distinguishing the true from the false; ” for Justin, says Tischendorf, treats the Gospel of St. James and the Acts of Pilate, each as a fit source whence to derive mate­ rials for the life of Jesus, and therefore must have regarded the Gospel of St. James and the Acts of Pilate, as genuine and authentic writings; while Dr. Tischendorf, wiser, and a greater critic than Justin, condemns the Gospel of St. James as spurious, and calls the Acts of Pilate “a pious fraud ; ” but if Dr. Tischendorf be correct in his statement that * “Justin made use of this Gospel” and quotes the “Acts of Pontius Pilate,” then, according to his own words, Justin did not know how to distinguish the true from the false, and the whole force of his evidence previously used by Dr. Tischendorf in aid of the four Gospels would have been seriously diminished, even if it had been true, which it is not, that Justin Martyr had borne any testimony on the subj’ect. Such, then, are the weapons, say the Religious Tract Society, by their champion, “which we employ against un­ believing criticism.” And what are these weapons ? We have shown in the preceding pages, the suppressio veri and the suggestio falsi are amongst the weapons used. The Religious Tract Society directors are parties to fabrication of evidence, and they permit a learned charlatan to forward the cause of Christ with craft and chicane. But even this is not enough ; they need, according to their pamphlet, “ a new weapon; ” they want “to find out the very words the Apostles used.” True believers have been in a state of delusion ; they were credulous enough to fancy that theft authorised version of the Scriptures tolerably faithfully 1 represented God’s revelation to humankind. But no, says ‘ Dr. Tischendorf, it has been so seriously modified in the copying and re-copying that it ought to be set aside alto-i gether, and a fresh text constructed. Glorious news thisk for the Bible Society. Listen to it, Exeter Hall 1 Glad tidings to be issued by the Paternoster Row saints 1 After spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in giving away Bibles to soldiers, in placing them in hotels and lodging-houses, and shipping them off to negroes and savages, it appears that �36 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? | the wrong text has been sent through the world, the true version being all the time in a waste-paper heap at Mount Sinai, watched over by an “invisible eye.” But, adds Dr. | Tischendorf, “if you ask me whether any popular version contains the original text, my answer is Yes and No. I say Yes as far as concerns your soul’s salvation.” If these are enough for the soul’s salvation, why try to improve the matter? If we really need the “full and clear light” of the Sinaitic Bible to show us “ what is the Word written by God,” then most certainly our present Bible is not believed by the Religious Tract Society to be the Word written by God. The Christian advocates are in this I dilemma : either the received text is insufficient, or the pro* posed improvement is unnecessary. Dr. Tischendorf says ( that “ The Gospels, like the only begotten of the Father, will endure as long as human nature itself,” yet he says “ there is a great diversity among the texts,” and that the Gospel in use amongst the Ebionites and that used ’^amongst the Nazarenes have been “ disfigured here and there with certain arbitrary changes.” He admits, more1 over, that “ in early times, when the Church was not so critical in distinguishing the true from the false,” spurious Gospels obtained a credit which they did not deserve. And - while arguing for the enduring character of the Gospel, he requests you to set aside the received text altogether, and to try to construct a new revelation by the aid of Dr. Tischendorf’s patent Sinaitic invention. We congratulate the Religious Tract Society upon their manifesto, and on the victory it secures them over German Rationalism and English Infidelity. The Society’s trans­ lator, in his introductory remarks, declares that “ circum­ stantial evidence when complete, and when every link in the chain has been thoroughly tested, is as strong as direct testimony; ” and, adds the Society’s penman, “ This is the kind of evidence which Dr. Tischendorf brings for the genuineness of our Gospels.” It would be difficult to imagine a more inaccurate description of Dr. Tischendorf’s work. Do we find the circumstantial evidence carefully tested in the Doctor’s boasting and curious narrative of his journeys commenced on a pecuniary deficiency and culmi­ nating in much cash ? Do we find it in Dr. Tischendorf’s concealment for fifteen years of the place, watched over by �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 37 an invisible eye, in which was hidden the greatest biblical treasure in the world ? Is the circumstantial evidence shown in the sneers at Renan ? or is each link in the chain tested by the strange jumbling together of names and con­ jectures in the first chapter ? What tests are used in the cases of Valentinus and Basilides in the second chapter? How is the circumstantial testimony aided by the references in the third chapter to the Apocryphal Gospels? Is there a pretence even of critical testing in the chapter devoted to the apostolic fathers ? All that Dr. Tischendorf has done is in effect to declare that our authorised version of the New Testament is so unreliable, that it ought to be got rid of altogether, and a new text constructed. And this declara­ tion is circulated by the Religious Tract Society, which sends the sixpenny edition of the Gospel with one hand, and in the other the shilling Tischendorf pamphlet, declaring that many passages of the Religious Tract Society’s New Testament have undergone such serious modifications of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what was originally written. The very latest contribution from orthodox sources to the study of the Gospels, as contained in the authorised version, is to be found in the very candid preface to the recentlyissued revised version of the New Testament, where the ordinary Bible receives a condemnation of the most sweeping description. Here, on the high authority of the revisers, we are told that, with regard to the Greek text, the trans­ lators of the authorised version had for their guides “manu­ scripts of late date, few in number and used with little critical skill.” The revisers add what Freethinkers have long maintained, and have been denounced from pulpits for maintaining, viz., “ that the commonly received text needed thorough revision,” and, what is even more important, they candidly avow that “it is but recently that materials have been acquired for executing such a work with even approximate completeness.” So that not only “ God’s Word” has admittedly for generations not been “God’s Word ” at all, but even now, and with materials not formerly known, it has only been revised with “ approximate com­ pleteness,” whatever those two words may mean. If they have any significance at all, they must convey the belief of the new and at present final revisers of the Gospel, that, even �38 WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? after all their toil, they are not quite sure that god’s reve­ lation is quite exactly rendered into English. So far as the ordinary authorised version of the New Testament goes— i and it is this, the law-recognised, version which is still used in administering oaths—we are told that the old translators “used considerable freedom,” and “ studiously adopted a variety of expressions which would now be deemed hardly con­ sistent with the requirements of faithful translation.” This I is a pleasant euphemism, but a real and direct charge of dis­ honest translation by the authorised translators. The new revisers add, with sadness, that “ it cannot be doubted that they (the translators of the authorised version) carried this liberty too far, and that the studied avoidance of uniformity in the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same context, is one of the blemishes of their work.” These blemishes the new revisers think were increased by the fact that the translation of the authorised version of the New Testament was assigned to two separate companies, who never sat together, which “ was beyond doubt the cause of many inconsistencies,” and, although there was a final super­ vision’, the new revisers add, most mournfully : “ When it is remembered that the supervision was completed in nine months, we may wonder that the incongruities which remain are not more numerous.” Nor are the revisers by any means free from doubt and misgiving on their own work. They had the “ laborious task ” of “ deciding between the rival claims of various readings which might properly affect the translation,” and, as they tell us, “ Textual criticism, as applied to the Greek New Testament, forms a special study of much intricacy and’ difficulty, and even now leaves room for considerable variety of opinion among competent critics.” Next they say: “ the ■ frequent inconsistencies in the authorised version have caused | us much embarrassment,” and that there are “ numerous passages in the authorised version in which .... the studied variety adopted by the Translators of 1611 has pro­ duced a degree of inconsistency that cannot be reconciled with the principle of faithfulness.” So little are the new revisers always certain as to what god means that they provide “alternative readings in difficult or debateable passages,” and say “ the notes of this last group are numerous and largely in excess of those which were ad­ �WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? 39 mitted by our predecessors.” And with reference to the pronouns and other words in italics we are told that “ some of these cases .... are of singular intricacy, and make it impossible to maintain rigid uniformity.” The new revisers conclude by declaring that “ through our manifold experience of its abounding difficulties we have felt more and more as we went onward that such a work can never be accomplished by organised efforts of scholarship and criticism unless assisted by divine help.” Apparently the new revisers r are conscious that they did not receive this divine help in their attempt at revision, for they go on: “We know full H well that defects must have their place in a work so long and so arduous as this which has now come to an end. Blemishes and imperfections there are in the noble translation which 11 we have been called upon to revise ; blemishes and imper- ‘ fections will assuredly be found in our own revision; . . . . we cannot forget how often we have failed in express- I ing some finer shade of meaning which we recognised in the original, how often idiom has stood in the way of a perfect rendering, and how often the attempt to preserve a familiar form of words, or even a familiar cadence, has only added , I another perplexity to those which have already beset us.” J THE END. �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource When were our gospels written? Description An account of the resource Edition: 4th ed. Place of publication: London Collation: 39 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Annotations in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891] Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Freethought Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1881 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N105 Subject The topic of the resource Bible Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (When were our gospels written?), 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 Bible. N.T. Gospels NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1aa776e91d181f322afaa931e82becb5.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=kdibhKQi7jdWp0YB7zu2Gl8ygEOrckosBMnyDqd2oUSrt9o%7EQLUnu3fsWgG0JkkOs6hqG9uBUUXH-TNEVGqTUJ8I2gEOwaF8ObqBYsey3ZHI3nQ4JL6RasxZX7Yc18ZY9mRqOX4PAZFY7jtblrSsdOk-sOKiqfkWSMC2Zal8l4gys6E7S86YSORsS5o58RGzcgZif061FyHDT06vwVg1WTMXoufHKiWJW6nAfEDIT0HCWDh8MUn1cyOALdLk0j%7E28riHrHFW6yn4YX7%7ENjrvGFKW0oU7AbvyAa6eX2cFYZ5fU-6QHxonc7amK-v0h-fZafguRWh6ANIhKGMr3i6XzA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM b37593f1fe6cfc4dc31cf74589f2a15f PDF Text Text LE CLERGE BELGE EN 4881 D’APRES LES DEPOSITIONS FAITES SOUS LA FOI DU SERMENT DANS L’ENQUETE PARLEMENTAIRE DISCOURS PRONONCE A LA CHAMBRE DES REPRESENTANTS DANS LA SEANCE DU 22FEVRIER PAR le comte GOBLET D’ALVIELLA BRUXELLES M. WEISSENBRUCH, IMPRIMEUR-EDITEUR 45, RUE DU POINCON, 45 1881 ��d’apres les depositions f aites sous la foi du serment DANS L’ENQUETE PARLEMENTAIRE DISCOURS PRONONCE A LA CHAMBRE DES BEPRESENTANTS DANS LA SEANCE DU 22 FEVRIER 1881 par le comte GOBLET D’ALVIELLA Discussion du budget de la Justice pour Vexercice 1881 {chapitre des cudtesj ■ M. Goblet d'Alviella.-—Messieurs, je regrette et jem’applaudis a la fois de devoir prendre la parole apres l’honorable membre qui vient de se rasseoir. Je le regrette, car la sympathie et l’estime qui entourent la parsonnalite de l’honorable chanoine de Haerne m’embarrassent un peu dans les accusations que j’ai a diriger contre le corps dent il porte la robe et dont il a pris la defense dans son discours. Mais, d’autre part, ,le tableau qu’il nous a tracb du clergd, tableau que justifie et sa propre personne et peut-etre aussi ses souvenirs de 1830, ce tableau de ce que devrait etre ou de ce qu’a ete le clergh beige est de nature d mieux faire sentir le, contraste de la description que j’ai d vous en faire aujOUrd’hui. �Je ne suivrai pas l’honorable membre dans tous les ddveloppements par lesquels il s’est efforcd de prouver que les traitements du clergd catholique etaient une simple indemnity, Equivalent des revenus eccldsiastiques supprim6s en 1790. Je congois qu’on considere le traitement du clergy comme une indemnity si l’on reconnait a l’Eglise catholique le caractere de socidt6 perpetuelle et autonome, existant par elle-meme en presence de l’Etat. Mais pour nous autres qui nous inspirons du droit moderne, du droit constitutionnel, qui ne voyons en presence de l’Etat que des ministres du culte, et non une dglise ou meme des 6glises, nous devons declarer, comme l’honorable M. Thonissen l’a lui-meme quelque peu reconnu dans son rapport, que le clerg6 catholique comme les autres clergds, doit etre rdmun^rd en proportion du service social qu’il rend. Or, comment mesurerons-nous Etendue de ce service social? Il y a deux elements A prendre en consideration A cet dgard: — d’abord le nombro des fideles que l'e clerge est appele A desservir, — ensuite la convenance avec laquelle il remplit sa mission religieuse. C’est l’Etat qui paye les ministres du culte; l’Etat a done le droit d’apprecier leurs services dans les limites de son droit constitutionnel. En thdorie, beaucoup de gens pensent, et je suis de ce nombre, qu’il ne faudrait r^mundrer aucune espece de clerge; mais je suis le premiei’ & reeonnaitre que la Constitution de 1830 nous oblige & rdmund» rer le clergd proportionnellement aux services qu’il rend. Pour apprdcier ces services, je compte done m’appuyer sur des docu» ments officiels, sur des depositions faites sous la foi du serment, sur les aveux du clerge lui-meme, en un mot sur toutes les revelations de l’enquete scolaire. Cette enquete ne fait que commencer. Elie ne s’est portee que sur certains cantons, et cependant le jour qu’elle jette sur les paroles et les actes du clerge me semble pleinement suffisant pour justifier les amendements que nous avons eu 1’honneur de proposer au budget des cultes. J’avais commence a relever, dans ces depositions, toutes les attaques, toutes l,es insinuations, toutes les calomnies que, d’apres certains temoignages, des ministres du culte, dans la plupart des paroisses, auraient dirigees non pas seulement contre les liberaux, contre les institutcurs, contre les peres de famille qui envoient leurs enfants aux ccoles communales, mais encore contre toutes les autorites qui, d’une fagon quelconque, cooperent A l’ex6cution de la loi scolaire : depuis les adminis­ trations des moindres villages jusqu’aux Chambres, aux ministres, au Roi lui-meme, dont la personne n’a pas toujours dte respectee dans cette triste campagne. Mais, au bout de quelques pages, je dois dire que, devant l’abondance et surtout la qualite des materiaux, la plume m’est tomb^e des mains de ddgout autant que de lassitude. �— 3 — ■* . Je laisserai done le soin de poursuivre ces recherches A ceux qui - veulent voir par eux-memes comment la majority de notre clergb professe l’amour du prochain et le respect de l’autoritb. Je me bornerai pour le moment h montrer combien se sont trompbs les membres de la droitequi, avec une parfaite bonne foi.je le veuxbien, —dans une excellente intention, je le veux bien encore, — mais induits en erreur par des renseignements incomplets, et peut-etre sous l’empire de ces illusions que favorise l’esprit de parti, sont venus prbtendro que les sacrements btaient partout accordbs aux enfants des bcoles communales et h leurs parents, ou du moins que le refus des sacrements A ces deux categories btait la rare exception. Je ne pense pas qu’apres avoir jetb les yeux sur les documents de l’en» quote parlementaire, on puisse encore soutenir que ces refus soient l’exception, car ils constituent au contraire la regie presque invariable; c’est l’octroi des sacrements qui est l’exception, la rare exception. Commengons par les enfants. Non seulement nous voyons les sacrements refuses aux Aleves des -- deoles communales qui ont dbj^, fait leur premiere communion, mais encore aux bleves des bcoles d’adultes et des bcoles dominicales, ou la religion n’est pas et n’a pas btb enseignbe. Quant h la premiere communion, on ne l’a pas refusbe directement, mais on a tout fait pour arriver au meme but, soit en refusant de donner l’enseignement du catbchisme aux enfants des ecoles communales, soit en donnant cet enseignement exclusivement dans le local des bcoles litres, soit meme en le donnant dans leglise aux heures qui contra, riaient le plus le programme de l’enseignement communal. On vous a dbjh retracb le tableau de toutes les avanies que les min-rstres du culte prodiguent aux enfants des bcoles communales, depuis la simple injure jusqu’aux sbvices dont les tribunaux ont du s’occuper. Ainsi que l’honorable M. Bara l'avait dbjh affirme, l’an dernier, dans la discussion du budget de la justice, on a vu, dans plus d’une locality, les dlbves des bcoles communales arrachbs de leur banc au catbchisme et forcbs de s’agenouiller sur les dalles nues, ou encore consignbs h la porte de l’bglise et exposes A toutes les intempbries, uniquement pour atteindre leurs parents qui les maintenaient aux bcoles offlcielles ou peut-etre pour les dbgouter de cette frbquentation I Ce n’est pas tout. Le clergb a trouvb un moyen plus radical encore ; d’empecher les enfants des bcoles communales de faire leur premiere communion : il a tout simplement supprimb la premiere communion de 1’annbe derniere. C’est ce qui s’est passb a Gedinne, a Malvoisin, h Patignies, a Fescheux, & Bolinne, — car c’est ainsi que l’Eglise applique ' s �ddsormais la belle parole du Christ : « Laissez venir & moi les petits enfants. » Quant aux parents, on a refuse l’absolution, non seulement aux peres et aux meres des sieves, mais encore — comme & Couvin et & Focant — aux grands-peres et aux grand’meres, aux oncles et aux tantes. A Louette-Saint-Denis, le secretaire communal depose qu’il a ete excommunie parce qu’ayant un enfant de 4 ans, il n’a pas voulu s’engager & le mettre a lecole catholique, le jour ou il aurait atteint lage d’ecole, si alors l'ecole catholique existait encore. A Fagnolles, le bourgmestre a ete excommunie avecsa femme, parce qu’il gardait chez lui le fils d’un ami et que ce jeune homme frequentait l’ecole communale. A Pondrome, on a etendu le refus des sacrements a ceux qui frequentaient les families dont les enfants suivaient l’hcole communale. A Doel, on a excommunie un douanier parce qu’il recevait de 1’instituteur des repetitions de grammaire et d’arithmetique. M. J.-B. Nothomb a hcrit un jour qu’il n’y avait pas plus de rapport entre l’Etat et la religion qu’entre l’Etat et la geomdtrie. Il me semble cependant que le clerge trouve aujourd’hui certains rapports entre l’arithmetique et la religion. Je ne parlerai pas de la commune de Seloignes, oule cure excommuniaitle conseil communal jusqu’kla quatrieme generation, parce qu’il s'etait avise de nommer une institutrice laique qui lui dhplaisait. Le fait se passait sous l’ancienne loi scolaire, bien qu’il ait ete seulement revele dans la presente enquete. Mais dans d’autres localites, notamment A Oisy, on est alle jusqu’A menacer les parents qui enverraient des enfants aux ecoles communales de ne plus baptiser leurs nouveau-nhs. Il semble que ce soit la une menace en Fair, devant la doctrine formelie de l’Eglise romaine en matiere de bapteme. Il y a cependant un pretre qui a accompli & peu pres ce veritable tour de force, c’est le cure d’Oordeghem, dans le canton d’Alost. M. Van Wambeke. — Dans le canton d’Alost? M. Goblet d’Alviella. — Oui, monsieur Van Wambeke, dans votrc arrondissement. Un sieur Van Impe avait ses enfants a l’ecole commu­ nale. Comme il venait deluiarriver un dixieme enfant, on avait projeth de celebrer le bapteme avec une certaine solennite. Le Roi avait envoyb une gratification et deux personnes notables de la commune etaient designees pour parrain et marraine. •» La veille du bapteme, depose le docteur Dooreman, le cure accom- �^pagn6 du sacristain vint chez Van Impe et demanda & voir l’enfant. On le lui presenta; il tira de sa poche une petite dole pleine d’eau. La mere . pensait qu’il voulait settlement assurer l’enfant; mais quand le lendemairi Van Impe alia demander a quelle lieure le bap terne aurait lieu, le curt lui repondit : Ge n’est pas nhcessaire; l’enfant est dhjd baptist. » 5 Le tour estjoli. Vous voyez que j’avais raison de le qualifier de tour de force, ear c’est un veritable escamotage de bapteme. Malheureusement, Messieurs, les pratiques du clergd ne sont pas toujours aussi inofiensives. Certes, il a le droit de refuser les sacrements quand il lui plait, en toutes circonstances. Mais je ne maintiens pas moins, en me plagant, sinon au point de vue religieux, du moins au point de vue de l’humanith, que des refus de sacrements se sont produits dans des circonstances ou ils constituent de vhritables actes de rtvoltante cruaute. Jeveux parler du refus de sacrement a des agonisants, parce que leurs enfants frtquentaient l’bcole publique. Ces cas sont si nombreux que je dois renoncer & les citer (1). Je ne puis cependant ne pas citer ici la-deposition du bourgmestre de Fagnolles. Ecoutez cette deposition : - « La femme Mouchette, etant au lit de mort, a fait appeler le cure. - Le cure lui a dit -. Promettez-moi de mettre vos enfants d l’ecole catholique, ou pas de sacrements! La femme, qui avait encore de l’energie, . a dit non. Il est revenu ala charge et a cssuyc le meme refus. Enfin, une troisieme fois, il est revenu; la femme htait affaissde et sans force. Il lui a demande la meme promesse, l’a obtenue et lui a donne l’absolution. La femme est morte une heure apres. Je tiens le fait du mari luimeme, La seconde fois que le curt s’est presente, la femme m’a demands si elle serait enterrte en terre sainte si elle mourait sans sacrement. Je lui ai promis que oui, dussc-je pour cela briser la porte du cimetiere. » Dans bien des cas, il est aish de comprendre que ces actes de cruaute aggravent l’htat des malades, si meme ils ne hatent leur fin. Ce sont les mddecins meme qui en dhposent. M. le docteur Fhrier, de Florenville, cite h lui seul plusieurs faits de ce genre dans sa clientele : « J’ai 6th appelh un jour, d’urgence, chez Stevenot, Auguste, martchalferrant & Sainte-Cecile. J’ai trouve la. maison investie par beaucoup de personnes. Le malade avait l’air tout dgart. Les assistants htaient (1) Rien que dans le 1" fascicule des documents, 4 Bohan p. 4, it Louette-SaintPierrep. 135, a Olloy p. 223, a Virton p. 533, a Florenville p. 631, it Beauraing. p.399, Si Heyst p. 466, & Oostcamp p. 557, etc., etc. �6 effrayds et ils m’ont dit que le curd avait arrache du malade k promesse de retirer ses enfants de l’dcole communale en le menagant dune inert tres rapide. Il devait, disait-il, mourir dans les quatre heures. Le malade dtait en proie & une fievre violente, il dtait dans le ddlire et incapable de prendre une resolution rdfldchie. « Des scenes de ce genre faites aupres des malades sont regrettables au point de vue medical. Je dirai, notamment, A ce propos, qu’une scene analogue s’est passde chez l’institutrice de Chassepierre, M1Ie Dumont, dont j’dtais le mddecin. Celle-ci dtait atteinte dune maladie mortelle, et ■ cette scene a exerce sur l’dtat de sa santd une influence ddfavorable. Ells me l’a dit, du reste, spontandment. Le curd se promenait dans la cbambre, frappant la table de son tricorne, lui disant qu’elle serait enterrde dans le trou aux chiens, en un mot, il lui avait fait une seen© de violence qui lui avait fait du mal. » Avant d’abandonner ce sujet des refus de sacrement, je veux repro, duire une derniere ddposition ; celle-ci se passe de commentaires, car les faits qu’elle rdvele parlent assez haut a quiconque conserve dans l’ame quelque sentiment d’humanite et de justice. Je ne connais pas dans l’enquete tout entiere de fait plus navrant et plus profonddment ddplorable. Il s’agit d’une pauvre vieille femme de 67 ans, menagere a Habay-kVieille; elle raconte comment le curd n’avait pas voulu confesser sa fill© mourante, parce que celle-ci avait des enfants a l’dcole communale. « La pauvre femme, disait-elle en parlant de la mourante, jgfa.it - ' presque a bout, elle et moi. Chaque fois que la porte s’ouvrait, elle crayait que c’etaitM. le curd. Aminuit, comme j’dtais tres fatigude, elk me dit : « Allez vous coucher, maman. M. le curd viendra domain. ■» J’dtais tres tourmentde. Je me suis rdveillee et je l’ai trouvee morte. J’ai dtd saisie d’une telle douleur en la voyant ainsi morte sans confession, que je suis tombde sans connaissance. Je suis restee dans cet dtat pen­ dant une heure et a la suite de ce triste dvdnement, je suis tombde malade. J’ai eu une hydropisie des mains que j’attribue au saisissement qui s’est empard de moi. — Au ddbut de sa ddposition, ajoute le proeds* verbal, le tdmoin est en proie A une grande emotion et pleure. Il dit en terminant : Depuis cette dpoque, je ne suis plus la meme personne, je. pense toujours d ma pauvre fllie qui est partie sans confession. J’ai dit encore au curd : Le bon Dieu vous tiendra, vous serrera et vous - jugera. » Encore le refus des sacrements n’est-il qu’un des nombreux moyens employ ds par le clerge. Ld, ou le pere de famille se rit de l’excommunication, on s’adresse d la mere, & la femme, qui subit plus aisdment l’influence du pretre, et pour �arriver a ses fins, le clergd n’hSsitera pas A. jatei’ sciemment la discorde dans les manages. Rien que dans les quatre premiers cantons visiles par la commission d’enqucte scolaire, je trouve ce fait rdpdtd dans vingt-cinq temoignages rdparte dans presque toutes les communes (1). « Il est b, ma connaissance et A la connaissance de tout le village, dit notatanent le bourgmestre de Gros-Fays, que le curd a dtd jusqu’a de­ clarer en chaire que le devoir des femmes, dont les maris seraient rebelles a ses conseils, dtait de rdsister & leurs maris, et au besoin de les ab&ndonner. » D’apres M. Julien Adam, A Naomd, le curd aurait dit en chaire -. “ Et vous, meres de famille, il faut tourmenter vos maris jusqu’A ce que vous soyez mattresses de vos enfants, vos obsessions dussent-elles meme amener de l’humeur dans le mdnage. » Le curd d’Eghezde, d’apres la conversation que reproduit l’dpouse Dohet, lui aurait dit de tourmenter son mari “ jusqud pendant la nuit » pour le determiner A retirer ses enfants de l’dcole communale. Toutes ces ddpositions sont terriblement uniformes et c’est le cas de dire qu’on y a l’embarras du choix ■ en voici cependant une derniere qu’il est bon de relever : A Fraipont, la dame Octavie Dupont raconte une ddmarche analogue du curd. « Il m’a dit que si je voulais, je parviendrais bien & tourner mon mari, que je n’avais qua revenir souvent A la charge. Je lui ai reprdsentd quejene voulais pas, moi, faire mauvais mdnage. Il rdpondait que cela ne faisait rien, qu’il fallait seulement A tout prix le tourner. Il disait qu’il valait mieux que je misse mes enfants a l’dcole catholique et que je laissasse mon mari boire une piece ou deux de cinq francs au cabaret; quesije faisais cela, il se laisserait bien determiner A mettre 1’enfantA 1 ecole catholique. » M. Bouvier. — Quelle belle morale 1 v M. Goblet d Alviella. — D’autant plus belle, — pour confirmer 1 interruption de l’honorable M. Bouvier, — qu’A cet dgard, j’ai dtd tres surpris de lire bier, dans un des derniers numdros d’un journal que MM. les dveques ne desavouent certainement pas, la phrase suivante -. “ Nous, catholiques, — dit le Courrier de Bruxelles a propos de l’admission des femmes dans le service tdldgraphique — enfants de cette civilisation que 1 Eglise a fondde et que nous voulons ddfendre, nous avens du mariage une idde tout autre que celle dont le libdralisme se 372 iOO13^’ 42’ r6' 7°’ 71' 7?’ 98, 102,105, 126, 137, 231, 257, 2731 2'9’285’ 337 ’ �plait A nous faire un grossier Ctalage. Nous croyons que l’acte sacramentel est le point de depart terrestre dune union sainte qui doitse - continuer dans le ciel; nous voyons dans l’Cpoux la tete de l’Cpouse, - caput mulieris, comme dit saint Paul ; et nous croyons avec l’apotre que, dans le respect et 1 amour, 1 Spouse doit etre soumise A l’Cpoux comme l’Eglise est soumise au Christ: s/cut Ecclesia subjecta est Christo, ita et mulieris viris suis in omnibus. * Il parait, Messieurs, que le clerge de nos provinces tient pour les idees de l'honorable M. Pirmez contre celles de l’honorable M. Nothomb et du Courrier de Bruxelles. Pour ma part, j’en fhliciterais volontiers notre clergd catholique, sije ne savais encore qu’il y a la une simple . application de la morale constamment enseignCe par les jesuites, qu’un mari, qu’un pere de famille perd tous ses droits lorsqu’il dbsobeit A l’Eglise. Il arrive, heureusement, que dans la plupart des cas ces incitations odieuses viennent se heurter contre l’affecti on conjugate et le bon sens des meres de famille. Alors, puisque peres et meres Cchappent A l’influence de l’Eglise, on s’adresse, en dhsespoir de cause, aux enfinte eux-memes pour leur enseigner qu’ils doivent obhir a l’Eglise want d’obdir & leurs parents. Tel est, ici encore, le langage foimel qti’on voit prefer au clerge dans la grande majorite des communes1. Permettez-moi d’en relever quelques exemples pris dans la masse. “ Dans un catechisme qui a eu lieu il y a peu de temps, peut-etre deux mois,—dit M. Ch. Francois, a Olloy,—le curd a recommandC aux enfants de pleurer pour decider les parents a les envoyer a l’bcole catholique. Il leur disait qu’& Dinant et & Namur, il y avait des enfants qui avaient fait la meme chose et dont les parents avaient fini par cCder. » “ A Rienne, — d’apres M. Brichet — le curb a notamment recoinmandh, en plein catCchisme, aux enfants qui l’Ccoutaient, de se laisser battre, tuer s’il le fallait, plutot que de se laisser placer dans les Ceoles officielles, disant qu’ainsi ils seraient agrhables & Dieu. » Encore une deposition sur ce sujet; c’est celle de M. Dropsy, institateur it Meirx-le-Chateau : “ Le curb leur a dit qu’ils devaient desobeir it leurs parents et fail's I’ecole buissonniere plutot que d’aller a l’Ccole communale. Les Cleves me l’ont ddclarh. A un autre enfant, le curb a dit : Ne pretez pas atten­ tion aux lemons de votre maitre, ce sera un pretexte pour lui de vows’ renvoyer de la classe. A une autre, il a dit qu’eZ/e pouvait dtsobdir & son pere, parce que celui-ci etait remarid cwilement en secondes noces. » (1) Pages 11, 19, 38, 42, 06, 70, 93, 110, 129, 222,229, 208, 278, 282, 290, 295, 413 (1« fascile>. �. y ■ — 9 — - Quelles belles applications du commandement du Ddcalogue:«Honore ton pere et ta mere. » Je sals bien ce qu’on object®, ce qu’on a objects a toutes ces deposi­ tions. Malgrd la golennitd du serment sous la foi duquel elles sont pro-duitesrm^g’rt leur universality et leur concordance, malgrd la naivetd m&nie qui en dtablit la sincbritd, nos adversaires ne manquent pas de pi’Otendre que ce sont autant de calomnies, de parjures, d’inventions liberates, diaboliques. Mais que peuvent-ils dire, lorsqu’il s’agit des aveux du clergy lui-meme ou tout au moins des dypositions de certains pretres qui, tout en se dyfendant d’avoir intentionnellement prechd la dOsobdissance et la discorde, laissent cependant dchapper des aveux oft la verity delate tout entiere pour quiconque se rend compte de la situation? Le cury de Musson est accusd dans plusieurs ddpositions d’avoir dit aux enfants que, si les parents voulaient les envoyer a l’dcole communale, ils devaient formellement leur ddsobdir, et d’avoti ddclard aux femmes que, si leurs maris voulaient envoyer leurs enfants a l’dcole , coinmunale, il y avait la un cas de sdparation : • Je nie, ddpose le curd, avoir dit que les enfants pouvaient manquer ; au respect d. leurs parents. J’ai dit, au contraire, qu’ils leur devaient le respect, meme lorsqu’ils leur commandaient quelque chose de contraire & la loi de l’Eglise, mais pas I’obeissance. — Je nie avoir dit que si le marl, contrairement a la volontd de sa femme, mettait son enfant dans nn© dcole communale, il y aurait lieu de se sdparer de son mari. Mais j’ai citd ce texte de l’Evangile : Celui qui ne hait pas son pere, ou sa mere, ou son enfant, ou son epouse, a cause de moi, n’est pas digne de moi. » Voito, certes, des distinguo que ne ddsavoueraient pas les casuistes citds dans les Provinciates. D’apres M. J.-B. Lemaire, de Rulles, le curd de cette commune disait .aux meres de famille « de se dresser comme des lionnes contre leurs maria, plutot que de leur laisser envoyer leurs enfants dans les dcoles communales » ; il ajoutait « qu’elles devaient se battre, s’il le fallait », et d'apres un autre tdmoin, Hippolyte Hubert, il disait « que les enfants qui dtaient envoyds par leurs parents aux dcoles communales avaient le droit dene plus leur obdir ». — “ J’ai dit, ddpose le curd deRulles, qu’il valait mieux obdir h Dieu qu’aux hommes, et cela a propos de la loi sur les denies et tfes enfants que leurs parents envoient dans les ecoles commitnales. J’ai dit que les femmes devaient faire le possible et meme I’impossible pour amener leur mari a mettre leurs enfants dans les dcoles catfaoliques. » Ln wry de Hachy dtait accusd, entre autres extravagances, d’avoir �— 40 dit qu’h partir de l’age de distinction, c’est-h-dire de lage de sept ans, un enfant ne devait plus obdir & ses parents, lorsqu’ils refusaient de l’envoyer a l’dcole catholique. « J’ai prechd, dit-il, que les enfants arrivds A Page de distinction doivent savoir ce qu’ils font, et que si leurs parents leur commandent une chose contraire a leur conscience, a la loi de Dieu et de l’Eglise, ils ne clowent pas obeir. » C’est le meme pretre qui, accusd par plusieurs tdmoins d’avoir dit que, sile Roi signait la loi du ler juillet 1879, il serait un homme de paille (brodjong), reconnait avoir prechd que, « si le Roi voulait agir en bon catholique, en homme religieux, il devrait donner sa demission plutbt que de signer la loi sur l’enseignement primaire ». En rdalitd, c’est toujours le systeme du Syllabus, admirablement rdsumd, d'ailleurs, dans cette meme enquete, par le curd Werrebrouck, de Zedelghem. « Le tdmoin, constate le proces-verbal, ne croit pas avoir dit que les seules lois a observer etaient les lois des dveques; mais, si cela en venait la, je dirais que, si les lois humaines dtaient en opposition avec les lois de l’Eglise, les lois de l’Eglise sont seules obligatoires. « Chaque fois, depose, de son co th, le curd de Leuze-Longchamp, chaque . fois que la loi de l’Eglise sera en contradiction avec la loi civile, je ddsobdirai h la loi civile. * Ce sont la de veritables apologies du droit h l’insurrection sur lesquelles il est bon de greffer le commentaire du curd de Virginal: « J’ai dit que c’dtait un moindre mal de tuer un homme que de voter pour un liberal, parce que le libdralisme est une hdrdsie. » Que prouvent toutes ces declarations, dont l’origine n’est pas suspects I Elies prouvent une fois de plus que pour ces membres du clergd catho­ lique il n’existe hors de l’Eglise ni dquite, ni justice, ni morale, ni loismeme. Et notez que je n’ai relevd ici que les imputations dont le clergd reconnait lui-meme le fondement; et je n’ai pas parld des faits extremament graves qui, a diverses reprises, ont dtd alldguds contre des mem­ bres du clergd, mais qui ne sont mentionnds que dans des depositions isoIdes. Les accusations que j’ai produites suffisent, du reste, pour faire de cette enquete — au sujet de laquelle nous devons tdmoigner notre reconnaissance d, l’honorable M. Malou, qui 1’a rdclamde le premier — Pacte d’accusation le plus formidable qui ait jamais dtd formuld contre le clergd salarid d’un pays lib re. Et quelles sont les consdquences de cette monstrueuse croisade contre nos institutions scolaires ? L’enquete nenous les rdvele que trop. Il n’est plus une commune ou la vie privde et la vie publique ne soient profonddment troubldes. Le clergd a souffld la ddsobdissance dans l’ame des enfants. �— 11 — Li ou les parents imposent leur volonth, les enfants suivent le consell de ceux qu’on leur a imprudemment representes comme les interpretes de Dieu sur la terre, ils pleurent, se regimbent, negligent leurs devoirs, font l’eeole buissonniere, travaillent A se faire chasser de l’dcole, bombent malades sous l’empire de la surexcitation qu’on a rdussi A leur inspirer, et on voit desjeunes filles de dix-sept ans s’enfuir nuitamment du toit paternel plutot que de frequenter une ecole reprouvde par leur confesseur (1). —- LA ou les parents se montrent d’un caractere faible, hcoutez ce qui se passe : « Mes enfants, dit entre autres M. Jules Botte A Bievre, suivent maij/remoz l’ecole catholique, etj’ai perdu toute autorith sureux depuis qu’ils ont dtd retires de lecole communale. J’ai voulu, moi-meme, aller rechercher mon fils qui est A l’ecole catholique. Il est agh de treize ans. Il & rdpondu en termes orduriers qu’il se moquait de moi. Il a ajoutd : « Coupez-moi en morceaux si vous le voulez, je n’obdirai qu’A ce qui est j-xiste et raisonnable; mais pour les ecoles communales je n’irai pas. » Mon enfant s’est alors sauvh. » La discorde est entr.be au sein des manages jusque-lA unis. Que de tristes Episodes, de drames intimes viennent s’htaler, comme autant de plaies faites par le clergd, dans les pages de l’enquete ! - « Depuis ces sermons, dbposeM. Pierre Ghrard, cultivateur A Naomh, 1& discorde est entree dans le menage, ma femme ne cessant d’insister pour que je mette mes enfants A l’bcole catholique; c’est A tel point que j'ai pensb un moment A la renvoyer chez son pere. » « Dans un sermon, dit le sieur Jacqmay A Hanret, le curb a dit que les femmes devaient combattre jusqu’A la mort pour contraindre leur mari A envoyer leurs enfants A 1’ecolc catholique. A la suite de ce ser­ mon, ma femme, A mon insu, a retire ma fille de lecole communale, et l’a envoybe A l’hcole catholique. Mon manage, ou la paix regnal t avant ch sermon, est aujourd’hui completement trouble. Depuis tout cela, mon enfant n’a plus aucune obdissance envers moi. » Ailleurs encore, ce sont des femmes qui, suivant A la lettre les conseite du cure, quittent le domicile conjugal et se refusent A y retourner teat que leur mari n’aura pas pris l’engagement d’envoyer les enfants A l’^cole catholique. Du foyer domestique, la discorde s’est glissee dans les relations aoeiales. Que de fois nous voyons se reproduire cette deposition sthrhotyphe : “ La commune etait autrefois calme et paisible : le trouble et la division y sont entres par suite des violences du clergh. » Nos tribunaux en savent d’ailleurs quelques chose, et, si ces divisions ne sont pas allbes (1) Voirp. 93 ia deposition de M. P.-J. Clarinval, echevin de Gedinne, �— 12 — plus loin, dans bien des cas ce n’est pas faute des excitations parties du haut de la chaire. “ La conduite du curd a suscitd le trouble dans la commune, dit entee ? autres un tdmoin de Robermont; les enfants des deux dcoles se sont: battus les uns contre les autres, et peu sen est fallu que les parents eux-memes n’en vinssent aux prises. » Tout cela parce que, a Robermont comme ailleurs, le clergd, suivant l’expression pittoresque d’un tdmoin de Sdloignes, a cessd d’etre le curd de la paroisse pour devenir le curd dune dcole. \. Ces violences ont eu encore un autre rdsultat, et ici je rentre dans la seconde partie de mon sujet; ce resultat, c’est, dans une grande partie du pays, le ddpeuplement partiel des dglises, et j’appelle tout particu* lierement sur ce point l’attention de l’honorable ministre de la justice. Pour justifier l’augmentation du clergd catholique, l’honorable M. de Haerne nous a parld tantdt de l’augmentation correspondante de la population pendant la pdriode de 1830 h 1880. Ici je dois tout d’abord placer une observation gdndrale : c’est que l’augmentation du clergd n’a nullement suivi dans les diverses locality une marche parallele h l’accroissement de la population. Ainsi, en ce qui concerne les agglomdrations urbaines, — c’est-h-dire lh ou l’on ne peut invoquer, pour justifier une augmentation dispropoi*tionnde du clergd, les espaces inhabites & parcourir entre les diffdrents points de la commune, la par consdquent ou c’est exclusivement le chiffre de la population qui devrait ddterminer le chiffre des ministres du culte, sans dgard pour l’dtendue du territoire, — nous pouvons prendre comme type l’agglomdration bruxelloise, oil l’on ne dira certes pas que le clergd est insuffisant pour les besoins religieux de la population. Eh bien, h Bruxelles, d’apres ce que nous disait, l’autre jour, l’honorable ministre de la j ustice, on compte 100 ministres du culte pour une population de 400,000 habitants(l). Qu’a-t-on eu besoin des lors de porter cette proportion — pour ne pas sortir du Brabant — dans la ville de Hal h 1 pour 1,800 habitants, dans la ville de Louvain h 1 pour 1,300, dans la ville de Wavre A 1 pour 1,400, — c’est-h-dire qu’h Wavre et A Louvain un ministre du culte a trois fois moins de besogne qu’h Bruxelles? A Louvain cependant on ne comptait que 11 ministres du culte en 1842. Dans certaines parties de nos campagnes, c’est mieux encore. La Flandre liberate publiait dernierement une statistique fort curieuse, rddigde h l’aide d’dldments pris dans l’exposd de la situation (1) Soit 1 pour 4,000 hab. �— 13 — ■ -. administrative de la province. On y remarque que dans l’arrondisse- ment de Gand un grand iiombre de local ires ont vu leur population - dAcroltre depuis 1846 dans une proportion qui va de 8 A 20 p. c. Et - 'cependant dans la meme periode le clerge catholique s’est accru de 77 nouveaux pretres salaries. A ce compte-lA, si nous ajoutons les innombmbles convents qui se sont certainement htablis dans ces communesdA comme ailleurs, nous finirions, pour peu que la population continue a decroitre en raison inverse du clergh shculier et rhgulier, i par arri ver A cette situation peu enviable de certains pays bouddhistes ou l’on trouve plus de clergh que de fideles. Je maintiens que presque partout ou la population a augments dans ' fes proportions tithes par l’honorable M. de Haerne, le chiffre des fideles r. n’ena pas moins diminuh depuis 1830, et je n'en veux pour preuve que les revelations de l’enquete. Non settlement nous voyons le clergh lui-meme refuser partout les sacraments aux categories directement vishes par les instructions hpis■. copales, savoir les instituteurs et les institutrices qui donnent l’enseip; gnenaent religieux, les eleves des ecoles normales et les membres des comites scolaires, mais nous voyons encore, dans la grande majority des communes, cette phnalith s’htendre aux Cleves des hcoles communales et A leurs parents, ainsi qu’aux membres des administrations communales ' qui font leur devoir en concourant A l'exhcution de la loi. Et ce n’est ■pas tout, car il convient d'y ajouter le nombre bien plus considerable de - toils ceux que les violences du clergh ont systhmatiquement hloignhs de l’Eglise. Autrefois on ne trouvait guere dans cette cathgorie que les librespenseurs des grandes villes. Aujourd’bui, meme en pleine campagne, nous voyons des groupes entiers de population s’hcarter d’une institution qui fait trop de politique pour donner satisfaction A leurs besoins relii/' gieux. La commission d’enquete n’a pu visiter que quelques communes, . ill® ne s’est pas occuphe de la frdquentation des hglises. Voyez, cepen■ dant, que de declarations spontanhes dhnongant l’htat de choses auquel r ' je fais allusion I Ainsi A Gros-Fays, —je choisis cette commune parce qu’elle est la [ ou ait siegh la commission d’enquete, — le bourgmestre dhpos® : « Autrefois il n’y avait A Gros-Fays que deux personnes qui ne remplissaient pas leur devoir pascal. Aujourd’hui il y en a, A mon avis, une centaine. » - - * Depuis les violences de M. le curd Georges, dit un autre habitant t de la meme commune, un tres grand nombre, environ cent cinquante, . se sont abstenus d’accomplir leurs devoirs religieux. » Il faut savoir que % x lacommune de Gros-Fays ne compte que 370 habitants. Je releve des depositions analogues dans le canton de Gedinne, A �— 14 — Bievre, A Louette, a Petit-Fays, a Houdremont, & Sart-Custinne, a Patignies. Dans le canton de Couvin, & Cul-des-Sarts, & Gonrieux, & Frasnes, & Petite-Chapelle, & Fagnolles, A Bleid. Dans le canton de Beauraing, a Felenneet aFocant. Dans le canton de Florenville, 6 Chasse» pierre, a Chiny, A Florenville, & Grand-Reny, a Faurceulx. Dans le canton d’Etalle, & Bellefontaine, A Etalle, a Vance, a Thuillies. Dans le canton de Louveignd, & Louveignb, A Aywaille, & Noncevaux. Dans le canton d’Eghezde, & Hanret, etc. A Patignies, d’apres deux dhposants dont l’un a mdrno occupb les fonctions de chantre & l’dglise, » les trois quarts de la population ont cesse de frequenter les sacrements. » Voila done l’Eglise romaine devenue l’Eglise de la minority.—Meme proportion & Fblenne, d’apres l’bchevin et le bourgmestre. « Autrefois, dans notre commune, dit un bchevin de Bleid, on comptait ceux qui n’allaient pas & confesse; aujourd’hui on compte ceux qui y vont. » « Auparavant, dit le bourgmestre de Chiny, il y avait dans la com­ mune trois ou quatre personnes qui ne faisaient pas leurs paques, au­ jourd’hui, il y en a 300 ou 400. » Chiny est une commune de 1,041 ha­ bitants. A Florenville, le bourgmestre depose : « Le doyen a tres mal fait de diviser notre paroisse, qui btait une des plus belles de la Belgique. Au­ trefois, il n’y avait guere ici que deux individus qui ne faisaient pas leurs paques ; aujourd’hui, il y en a 500 4 600. L’ancienne eglise, la petite^ serait diijd trop grande pour les besoms du culte. ” M. Bouvier. — C’est general. M. Goblet d’Alviella.— Florenville est une commune de 1,805 ha­ bitants ; elle compte un curb et un vicaire. Si les faits sont exacts, le devoir du gouvernement n’est-il pas tout trace ? Je lui adresserai la meme question a propos de la commune de SaintEdger, oil le bourgmestre depose -. « Jusque dans ces derniers temps, il n'y avait point de vicaire a Saint-Lbger ; le cure suffisa.it parfaitement aux besoins de la commune. Au mois d’oetobre de l’annee derniere, il nous est arrive un vicaire qui s’occupe a peu pres exclusivement de l’ecole catholique. » En vdrite, messieurs, est-ce pour cette besogne-la que l’Etat paye des vicaires la oil le besoin ne s’en fait pas sentir? M. Bara, ministre de la justice. — C’est une erreur. M. Goblet d’Alviella. — C’est la deposition du bourgmestre de Saint-Ldger. �— 15 — M. Il ARA, minirtr® de la justice. — C’est un vicaire qui n est pas payb ?".. par 1’Etat. ’M. JBotviER. —C’est un rare avis. (Hilarite.) M. Goblkt d’Alviklla. —Du reste, le meme argument peut sappliqner & nombre de desservants qui semblent avoir des loisirs de plus en. plus considerables pour s’occuper des bcoles catholiques. _ • Le elergb de Binche, dbpose le bourgmestre de cette commune li' importante, a refuse les sacrements aux parents des enfants de nos - deoles. Cela diminuait sa besognp de phis de moitid. Aujourd’hui, une z grande partie de notre population ne frbquente plus l’bglise, oil Ion ne f preche plus que la revolte contre les lois. » ' “ Tous les parents des bleves des bcoles communales, dit bgalement nn tbmoin dans la commune de Mont-Saint-Aldegonde, ne regoivent plus l’absolution. Cela facilite d’autant la besogne de M. le curb, car cette mesure frappe la moitie de la commune. » Je ne vous parlerai pas de Rebecq-Rognon, ou, d’apres le bourg- mestre, on parle de huit it neuf cents personnes qui ne vont plus a IMglise, ou pin tot qui ne regoivent plus les sacrements ; ni de Tubize * ou, d’apres la deposition du secretaire communal, tant de personnes se f sont retirbes de l’bglise que la recette des chaises a diminub et que la ■ fabrique elle-meme a du rbduire le traitement du curd; ni de cette comt mune de Bellefontaine oil il y a actuellement pour une population de 1,362 habitants, deux desservants et un chapelain, bien que d’apres Fenquete line grande partie des habitants de la commune ait cesse de frequenter les sacrements; ni d’Aywaille, oil il y a 4 desservants pour une population de 3,445 habitants et oil d’apres la deposition de M. Ed. Cornesse, membre du comitb scolaire •—- j’ignore si c’est un parent de | notre honorable collegue, — un grand nombre de personnes ne vont plus a l’bglise, ni de Ceroux-Mousty, oil d’apres M. le notaire Thibeau * la majority de la commune & cessb de frequenter l’bglise », < m enfin de Couture-Saint-Germain oil, d’apres le bourgmestre, « l’ex^Bdmjnunication a btb presque gbnbrale, la majority de la commune a Kf; cessb de frequenter l’bglise. » Mais je dois cependant faire observer que, I \‘ dans toute ces communes, le clerge a btb plus ou moins augmente depuis L 1830, sinon depuis 1842. ■ Sous ce rapport, du reste, voici mieux encore, et ici les faits sont si -z flagrants que je demande formellement h M. le ministre s’il ne pense pas K ; qu’il y a des mesures immbdiates a prendre. " Nivelles avait en 1842 •— les renseignements antbrieurs me manquent —►Unolergb de cinq ministres rbtribubs pour une population de 7,884habitants, soit 1 par 1,637 habitants, — presque trois fois plus qu’a �— 46 — ' Bruxelles proportionnellement. — Depuis cette dpoque, la population ne s’est accrue que de 2,000 habitants, c’est-h-dire un peu plus d’un cinquieme, et cependant dans la meme pdriode le chiffre de ses pretres rdtribuds a double; il est month de 5 a 10. Or, le plus beau de l’histoire, c’est que, d’apres la deposition de M. Gheude, secretaire du parquet hNivelles, il s’y est produit dans ces derniers mois un mouvement protestant et « le nombre des personnes qui se rendent & l’dglise diminue de jour en jour »». Voilh done une commune ou le nombre des fideles a diminue depuis 1842 et oil cependant on a double, dans la meme periode, le nombre du clerge. Cette situation n’est du reste point particuliere & Nivelles; j’ai pu l’y constater, graced, l’enquete. Maisje suis convaincu que M. le ministre, avec les moyens d’investigation que lui fournissent ses bureaux, la retrouverait dans une grande partie du pays, qu’il s’agisse des villes ou des campagnes. On nous dira peut-etre : Prenez garde de blesser les populations ruv rales qui tiennent au chiffre de leurs pretres, afin de ne pas se trouver genees dans leurs habitudes religieuses, dans le nombre de leurs messes, par exemple. Messieurs, tel n’est plus, on peut l’afflrmer hautement, tout au moins dans la partie wallonne du pays, le sentiment de nos popula­ tions rurales. « A la suite des faits cites, dit un dchevin de Grand-Reny, le village autrefois uni est aujourd’liui divisd; c’est ce qui fait que je ne comprends pas qu’on puisse encore salarier les personnes qui travaillent contre les • lois du pays. » A Estinne un temoin dit « qu’une faible minority s’est seule approchde des sacrements » et le bourgmestre ajoute : « Le curd paye annuellement 1,500 francs pour soutenir les hcoles libres. J’insiste sur ce point parce qu’il est inutile de donner de l’argent il des personnes qui en. ont autant, que cela et qui ne rendent plus de services. » Non settlement ce sentiment se manifeste par tout dans nos campagnes; mais il y a meme nombre de communes qui ont sous ce rapport donnd au gouvernement des exemples, pour ne pas dire des logons. A Leval-Trahegnies, canton de Binche, le bourgmestre depose : « Lors de la discussion du budget, il a dtd proposh de retirer le traitement accordh au clergh. Cette proposition, discuthe en seance publique, a hth vothe a l’unanimitd. La dheision, jointe au proces-verbal, est motivhe par l’opposition systhmatique du curb A, la loi. » Dans une autre commune de ce meme canton, h Anderlues, le conseil communal a dgalement supprimd les suppldments de traitement au curd �47 et au vicaire, « eeuX-ci », dit la decision jointe au proces-verbal de l’enquete, « s’attachant par leurs paroles et leurs actes a ddtruire, a amoindrir et a ddnigrer les institutions communales, les lois du pays et les actes du gouvernement. » — Mais ce qu’il y a de plus curieux dans ce Mernier fait, et j’avoue que c'est a peine croyable, c’est, d’apres la depo­ sition du bourgmestre, qua la seance du conseilcommunal oille budget, aiilsi amende, fut vote a I’unanimite, il y avait cinq liberaux et quatre catholiques. Voila la solution de la difficult^ presente, fournie par le bon sens Bellaire, un bon sens qui ne date pas d’hier. Je lisais l’autre jour dans la Revuepolitique qu’au moyen age les bourgeois de Vezenay, ayant 6td 'sjcommunihs, se bornerent a repondre : « Puisque nous sommes excommunihs, nous devons agir en excommunihs et ne plus payer ni dimes ni cens. » M. Bouvier. — Ils avaient raison. M. Gobuet d’Alviella. — Vous voyez, Messieurs, que nous avons des logons a recevoir, meme de l’ancien regime. r L’honorable M. Delcour nous disait triomphalement, l’autre jour, qu’il y avail en Belgique cinq millions de catholiques. Le systeme est com­ mode. Quand il s’agit de payer, oh I alors, tous catholiques. Mais quand il s’agit de beneficier des avantages spirituels que le clerge a pour mission d’&asurer aux fideles, oh, alors, il n’y a plus de catholiques que eeux qui envoient leurs enfants dans les ecoles orthodoxes ! Ce systeme a deux poids et deux mesures est-il juste, est-il rationnel, est-il conforme a la theorie qu’il faut mesurer le chiffre du clergh et le. salaire de chefs a l’htendue des services qu’ils sont appeles a rendre et qu’ils rendent reellement au pays ? Voix A DROIte : A demain! A demain ! M Goblrt d’Alviella. — Jusqu’ici, je n’ai guere citd que les rhsultatsdo l’enquete dans les pays wallons. _ n faut reeonnaitre, en effet, qu’il y a une profonde difference dans les depositions de l’enquete relatives aux cantons wallons et aux cantons flamands. Dans les cantons wallons, l’esprit d’indhpendance, ou, si vous voulez, l’esprit d’herhsie, ne perd jamais ses droits. « Si nous ne pouvons plus nous eonfesser aux liommes, nous nous confesserons a Dieu, » dit une brave femme a Sart-Custinne. Et elle ajoute : « ce qui est encore meilleur. » — « Je suis excommunih, vient dhposer un vieillard de Beh&ne, mais ma conscience est tranquille, je crois que c’est la le pre-, mier juge. »> Ces rhponses ne se rencontrent pas jusqu’ici dans les depositions des populations flamandes. La, il faut bien le reconnaitre, si l’on excepte les �— 18 — grandes villes, ainsi que certains centres de population plus dclairds, le silence est complet. Les dglises restent pleines et ce sont les dcoles qui sont vides. Mais si l’orthodoxie y est victorieuse, elle y triomphe comme I’ordre triomphait & Varsovie, apres avoir fait autour d’elle la terreur et la solitude. Je ne connais, pour ma part, rien de plus navrant que la situation des quelques malheureux assez osds pour rdsister, dans les campagnes flamandes, a cette tyrannie spirituelle. On a parld ici de la tyrannie des commissaires spdciaux. On dira.it vraiment qu’en denongant cette tyrannie avec tant de grand fracas, on. a voulu donner le change sur les vrais persdcuteurs et les vraies perse­ cutions. Et quand je parle de tyrannie spirituelle, ce n’est pas a dire que le clergd se borne a employer des moyens spirituels pour assurer sa domination. Lisez l’enquete. A chaque page, dans le pays flamand, vous voyez reparaitre sur ses levres, a l’adresse des recalcitrants, cette phrase odieuse : « Je vous ruinerai. » Et ce qu’il dit, il lefait! Denonciations du haut de la chaire, appels a l’intervention des bureaux de bienfaisance et des propridtaires, vdritables mises en quarantaine, il n’y a rien qui soit dpargnd pour fournir a l’honorable M. Malou les elements de ces belles statistiques scolaires qu'il a si triomphalement produites a la Chambre. Ici, ce sont des ouvriers tonneliers forces de quitter leur commune ou ils ne trouvent plus d’ouvrage, parce qu’ils ont un frere dans l’enseignement communal; la, c’est une malheureuse cabaretiere qui tenait uh pe­ tit cabaret ou, d’apres sa deposition, elle pouvait gagner 1,500 francs par an et qui, apres avoir vu sa clientele l’abandonner sous la pression du clerge, est forcde de quitter la commune et tombe a charge de son fils, instituteur dans une commune voisine. Ailleurs, c’est un boulanger que le clergd de sa commune a ruind, parce qu’il maintenait ses enfants a l’dcole communale et qui a dtd rdduit a s’engager comme domestique dans sa propre commune. Je ne m’dtendrai pas sur tous ces faits qui sont d’tine monotonic 'vrai­ ment lugubre, je ne m’dtendrai pas sur les retraits de terres, les ddnonciations de baux, les pertes d’emplois, dus uniquement a l’intervenrion du clergd; je ne m’dtendrai pas non plus sur la situation de ces malheu­ reux instituteurs isolds en plein pays fanatisd. L’heure est avancde et, du reste, la question pourra revenir lorsquenous discuterons le budget de l’instruction publique. Je dois cependant faire cette observation : On a beaucoup discutd, j’aurais dit ergotd si le fait ne s’dtait pas pro/ duit dans cette Chambre, sur la distinction entre rexcommunication et �le refus des sacrements. Que signifie le mot excommunier, sinon retrancher de la communaute des fideles? Des lors, les faits que j’ai rappelds ne sont-ils pas des excommunications, et des excommunications sous leur pire forme, vdri tables interdictions de l’eau et du feu? Je n’hdsite pas & le dire, si pareille situation dont je rougis pour mon pays devait se perphtuer, il faudrait bien, coute que coute, recourir, — et pas seulement en matiere hlectorale, — & ces mesures que plusieurs associations liberates ont deji rhclamdes pour rdprimer les abus de la pression spirituelle et ce que les Anglais ont appele dans leur legislation 1’intimidation cleric ale. x Je veux cependant espdrer que la situation s’ameliorera. Oh! je ne m’attends pas a de la moderation de la part du clerge; il est trop tard; ce serait s’avouer battu, et quand on se pretend infaillible, on n’avoue pas sa defaite. Cette reaction, je l’attends du bon sens et de l’dnergie de nos populations flamandes. Ecoutez un de ces cris prophdtiques que l’exces de la misere, aux dpoques troublees, met quelquefois dans la bouche des opprimes et des faibles, Il s’agit encore une fois d’une pauvre femme tracassee, persecutee, pourchassee pai' le clerge, une cabaretiere de 70 ans, qui a du renoncer A son commerce et abandonner sa commune. Elle raconte un dernier entretien quelle a eu avec le vicaire de sa paroisse et comme celui-ci, suivant l’habitude de ces messieurs, recourait A l'ultima ratio de l’envoyer tout droit en enfer, elle se redresse enfin sous la main qui la broie et apres avoir replique : « J’ai fait mon enfer sur terre » elle se retourne et s’derie •. « Ces gens-la nous feront douter de notre foi! » (Sensation.) Que le clerge prenne garde! Quand la reaction se produira, elle sera plus forte, en raison meme des violences dont on aura souffert et alors il regrettera, trop tard, ses exces d’aujourd’hui. Les Flandres qui en plein moyen age repondaient aux excommunica­ tions en brulant les bulles papales sur leurs places publiques, les Flandres, qui au xvie siecle rdpondaient it l’inquisition en acclamant la rdforme, les Flandres ne laisseront pas faire aux successeurs de Pie IX ce que les papes les plus puissants du moyen age n’ont pu accomplir qu’avec le bras de l’dtranger. . Si je reclame la reduction des traitements du clerge supdrieur qui est 1 instigateur de toute cette croisade, si je rdclame, non pas la reduction des traitements du clergd inferieur comme a sembld l’admettre tan tot l’honorable M. de Haerne, mais la reduction du chiffre des ministres du culte, partout ou, suivant l’expression du ministre de la justice, ils se font de veritables agents de desordre, si je rdclame ces mesures avec tent d insistance, c’est que j’ai la conviction de parler, non pas au nom �de quelques libres-penseurs et de quelques dissidents, mais au nom de centaines de mille de nos compatriotes qui sont aujourd’hui ecartes de l’Eglise et qui ne veulent pas contribuer aux charges et aux frais d’unsj organisation dont ils n’ont plus iji les droits ni les benefices. (Tres bien! a gauche.') On a parib de represailles. Il faut nous entendre sur ce mot. Si par la on veut dire une rancune de parti, l’effet du ressentiment du parti liberaL & raison des invectives et des attaques du clergb, notre pai-ti est audessus dune pareille tactique, et la preuve s’en trouve bien dans cefait que, depuis de nombreuses annbes, depuis que le parti liberal existe pour ainsi dire, le Merge nous combat avec les memes moyens, et, cependant, comme l’honorable ministre le rappelait l’autre jour, le parti liberal a fait plus pour le clerge infbrieur que le parti catholique lui-meme n’a osb faire pendant ses passages au pouvoir. C’est le parti liberal qui, h tort ou a raison, a surtout augments le nombre des ministres du culte dans nos campagnes. C’est au parti libe­ ral que le clergh infhrieur doit la principale augmentation de son traftement. C’est enfin le parti liberal qui a fait a Rome la dernier® tentative pour assurer l’independance des desservants contre l'arbitraife episco­ pal. Nous sommes done au dessus d’un pared reproche. Mais il ne s’agit pas ici d’injures de parti a venger, il s’agit de 1’inth- ; grite de nos institutions, il s’agit de la majesty de la loi, il s'agit des. droits les plus saerfis de la conscience irnpuntjment violes dans plusieurs de nos provinces, et, puisque nous ne pouvons pas empecher -directe-' ment de pareils attentats, montrons du moins que nous ne voulons pas en accepter la complicite, en supprimant a ceux qui s’en rendent coupables tous les avantages, toutes les faveurs que nous ne sommes pas absolument obliges de leur accorder en vertu de la Constitution et des lois. Ce n’est done pas un acte de represaille, mais un acte de reparation et de justice, un nouveau pas dans la voie des reformes inevitables dontle ’ clerge semble prendre lui-meme a tache de precipiter l’accomplissement, comme s’il voulait justifier l’antique adage « Quos vultperclere Jupiter demented ». (Applaudissements prolongds a gauche.) � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Le clergé Belge en 1881 d'après les depositions faites sous la foi du serment, dans l'enquête parlementaire. Discours prononcé a la chambre des représentants dans la séance du 22 Février, par le comte Goblet D'Alviella Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource d'Alviella, Goblet Description An account of the resource Place of Publication: Brussels Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Text in French. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Weissenbruch Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1881 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT88 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><span>This work (Le clerg</span></span>é Belge en 1881 d'après les dépositions faites sous la foi du serment dans l'enquête parlementaire)<span>, 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 French Subject The topic of the resource Clergy Belgium Belgium Clergy Conway Tracts Religion https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4d85f9a28f39a3792ccb83c3d159d49e.pdf?Expires=1785369600&Signature=MyjxKlVElbq1XS1EytvV4Rk8OQx3OIxMsqSlgFe3mfqYfA1KnLbgRLd00Oc5hu65SHTnye4ApmF5SaeXubbwbhHbuMrKG-2FWuDlB7wX1gcKX6%7EmBzSmMnSuBjskmM3BVRzMXEFYghlMv1HsbSimBPb8hVR3Br2ys2JNWDkbRPrBFkov86N88zI2inH6EnNSHl2%7EQnBcis%7EaLKfrOHhumkyri27mtanzDdwU%7E9cZG1YSzVeMEvdl-bLeJWw15OSqfx8exNmBQLsWLqKu1vo5iHYOHIC8vCJCpYeX7wUKdsLy5i48QvDWazdwZb%7E7A7Hc2%7EQUN58PJjqIXvQtNTQ-Jw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM f827b565c43443266a29a97d159b1233 PDF Text Text CHRISTIANITY. I. THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY FROM A STRICTLY H HISTORICAL POINT OF VIEW, • BEING DELIVERED BEFORE THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY, ON SUNDAY, 21st NOVEMBER, 1880, BY Dr. G. G. ZERFFI, F.R.S.L., F.R.Hist.S. PUBLISHED BY THE SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY. 1881. PRICE THREEPENCE. �How to obtain a clear and intelligible notion of the Origin of Christianity. The component elements of Christianity. Some questions to be answered by Historians of other creeds. Universalism pervading Christianity The Finite and the Infinite in the East and West. The Jews and their Sects. The Pharisees, Zaducees, Essenes, Ebionites, Therapeutics and Samaritans, Hebraism and Hel­ lenism. Description of the Social Condition of Humanity at the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Universal Love the Essence of Christianity. An Arab Legend. Christ’s conception of the Deity. Reason, Science, and Truth. The Historical Causes of the Spread of Christianity. Buddha and Christ. Difference between Christianity and Buddhism. Early Christian Sects.—Dogmatists, Sophists, Talmudists, Apologists, Fathers, Scholastics, Theologians. General History. Justin Martyr. Conclusion. The Second Lecture to treat of the Fathers “ majorum gentium” and “minorum gentium.” �CHRISTIANITY, •------------- <----------------------- I. The Origin of Christianity from a strictly Historical Point of View. ISTORIANS may be divided into three distinct classes— (1.) The Obstructives, (2.) The Destructives, and (3.) The Constructives. Until recently almost all theological historians were, by their very nature, Obstructives—that is, they were compelled to abide by facts as transmitted to them by tradition, or in sacred records, and were therefore neces­ sarily stationary. To inquire was in itself a dangerous action—undermining the very foundations of faith. To this class of historians belong the Brahmans, Bonzes, Rabbis, Priests of the Romish Church, Ulemas, Clergy­ men of the Anglican Church, or other Protestant sects, and their disciples, educated in the same stationary way, forced to regard certain assertions concerning events, or certain calculations concerning the time in which these events happened as facts—though they may have been anything but facts. We may best classify these writers as Orientalists. The past, in the received form of some Sacred Book, was everything with them. The very word History signified to them a sacrilegious attempt to un­ settle the assumed truth of their particular facts,—which alone could be true ; whilst they asserted with admirable self-reliance and conceit that the records of all other nations were nothing but falsehoods. Next we have the Destructives, in whom doubt and scepticism work supreme; who do not see how one and the same fact could have happened in two different ways; why one witness should be credited more than another; or how two witnesses could have seen one and the same fact happening in different places, under entirely different circumstances, and with altogether different results. H �4 Christianity. The Destructives began timidly to pull down, they shook the foundation of credulity, they suddenly saw the whole past tumble into ruins. Horrified at the havoc which they had brought about, they stopped half-way, and the past became nothing but a heap of dust, lumber, and fact-rubbish. We may best classify these people as Galileans. They are a necessary element in the progres­ sive development of Humanity, for unless the old tottering building of assumed facts, cemented together with dog­ matic lime and sand were first destroyed, no new building could be erected. And last we have the Constructives—those who re-arrange facts on the principles of probability and possibility; who consult the ancient documents of different nations, not with a mind filled with hatred and contempt for everything not contained in their own sacred records, which they were made to choose by mere chance of birth, education, and established custom, but with an equal veneration for those periods in which each tribe, race, and nation, had their own sacred book—sacred because transmitted to them from father to son ; and -what is more sacred to a son than that which a kind and loving father has left him ? That the ancient nations throughout the world, in the fulness of their grateful hearts, should have assumed that the first father who spoke to them was Gfod Himself, proves only the Sameness and Oneness of Humanity, arti­ ficially divided into innumerable quarrelling sects, tribes, and peoples. The Constructives, therefore, compare, draw analogies, separate the separables, dissect myths, explain symbols, connect equals, inquire, sift, and finally build up their historical edifice on the firm basis of cau­ sation with facts that are facts, and cement them with common sense—discarding all arbitrariness, all exceptional providential interference in favour of Brahmans, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks, Bomans, Scotch or Irish—anxious to discover what we have in common as human beings—never fostering dissent, ani­ mosity, contempt or hatred, but sympathy, forbearance, kindness, and love. We may best-elassify the Construc­ tive Historians as the Hellenic-Teuton element in Hu­ manity. The spirit of these three groups of historians may be �Christianity. 5 studied in three works recently published on the “ Life of Jesus,” by an anonymous English Professor of one of our Universities, by Renan, the Frenchman, and by Dr. Strauss, the German. The Englishman is obstructive, the Frenchman destruc­ tive, and the German constructive. Dr. Strauss is learned, conscientious, and systematic. He is full of veneration, and yet unflinchingly truthful without predilection, bias, or prejudice, and gives us the true history of the foundation of Christianity. His great merit lies in his having drawn a distinction between the historical and mythical Jesus of Nazareth. Histori­ cally he describes the birth of Jesus, His relation to John the Baptist, the laws of Moses, the Gentiles, and the belief in His being the expected Messiah. The mythical account is divided into three chapters and twelve sub­ divisions concerning the pre-historic myths of Jesus, the mythical account of the life of Jesus, and the mythical record of His suffering, death, and resurrection. Dr. Strauss wrote his work with the view of furthering Protestantism on the firm basis of historical continuity, and eliminating from the glorious teachings of Jesus of Nazareth whatever was merely accidental, secondary, symbolic, and allegorical, borrowed from more ancient creeds, which at the time of Christ were in a state of spontaneous and natural dissolution. For whoever wishes to have a clear and unbiassed notion of the his­ torical Christ, must free Him and His doctrine from the obscuring veil of dogmatism. The Frenchman, Renan, is learned, but his learning- is too much tainted with emotional outbursts of refined phrases; his imagination outruns his criticism, and his criticism loses itself in romantic dreams and visions. He is far more bent on destroying an idol of the Romish Church, than on discovering to what extent it had become in time an entity, to dissolve which will need more than the superficial pen-strokes of a witty Frenchman. The English professor is grave—very grave. He pub­ lished his work under the title of “ Ecce Homo,” but he has neither the learning nor the courage of Dr. Strauss, nor the sprightliness and imagination of Renan. He has, however, his inherited predilections, which are apparently �6 Christianity. shaken by his studies and the intellectual atmosphere of the nineteenth century. He has heard of Strauss with conventional horror; he has heard of Renan with in­ herited contempt, and he wishes to free his soul from all doubts by arguing himself out of doubt; and yet, of the three books, this one, written with apparent obstructive faith, is the most destructive. It must necessarily lead to a despairing scepticism, because the positive assertions are made so timidly, that one sees the trembling writer afraid to touch his subject, lest his dogmatic Christ might crumble into dust under his own hands, and turn into a true “ Bcce Homo,”—“ Behold a Man I ” To be able to give a clear and intelligible picture of the origin and spread of Christianity from a strictly historical point of view, we must make ourselves acquainted with the moral, political, religious, and intellectual elements that pervaded Humanity at the advent of Christ. To detach Christianity from the influences of the different creeds that preceded its foundation, is to know nothing of Christianity. The essence of the teachings of all law­ givers and founders of religious systems was the redemp­ tion of man from the bondage of his animal nature, and the development and culture of his higher intellectual and spiritual nature. To separate Christianity from the causes of which its origin and working were a necessary effect or sequence, is to transport it into the realm of miracles. But in assuming Christianity to have been a miracle, we raise terrible phantoms of doubt, or rather of piety and veneration for the Diety, in the shape of grave questions which necessarily present themselves to the thinking mind: Why was the advent of this miracle so long delayed ? Why were millions and millions of creatures left with­ out salvation, and, as some pious divines will have it, predestined to eternal damnation ? Why should the sanguinary miracle of a self-sacrificing God have had so partial and sloiv an effect 1 Why was the miracle not made universally known ? Why had Christianity to be established in torrents of blood, amidst the horrible shrieks of tortured and martyred human sacrifices ? Why was the efficacy of the miracle quite imperceptible, �Christianity. 7 save in such progress as was natural to any creed, sup­ ported by fire and sword, by money, and state authority ? Why should the early Christian authorities have deli­ berately destroyed all writings bearing on the origin, growth, and development of Christianity, if it was a miracle ordained by God ? Why should the Emperor Theodosius have felt him­ self compelled to issue the following proclamation?:— “We decree, therefore, that all writings whatever which Porphyry, or any one else, has written against the Christian religion, in the possession of whomsoever they shall be found, should be committed to the fire; for we would not suffer any of these things so much as to come to men’s ears, which tend to provoke God and so offend the minds of the pious.” In a spirit of true tolerance, the same Emperor ordered, “ that all those who should object to the dogma of the Trinity, besides the condemnation of Divine justice, would have to expect to suffer the severe penalties which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, may think proper to inflict upon them.” Why should it have been an axiom of the Church “ that it was an act of virtue to deceive and to lie, when by that means the interest of the Church might be promoted?” Why all these threatening laws, these anxious jealousies, the falsifications of documents, the oppression of learning, the abhorrence of our reasoning power, if this was a miraculously ordained divine act, performed for the sal­ vation of Humanity ? In historically analysing the elements which compose Christianity, we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that it has become the universal storehouse of all the different creeds that have swayed the human mind from the first dawn of its arising consciousness. We find in Christianity the strictest Monotheism mixed with the Trinitarian mys­ teries of the Brahmans, Buddhists, and Egyptians; the Incarnation and Atonement theories of the Indians and Egyptians; the dualistic principle of the Avesta; the Jewish and Persian assumptions of angels and devils; the lofty moral enactments of Confucius and Sokrates; the dreamy idealism of Plato, and the more practical realism of Aristotle. �8 Christianity. Mystics and Rationalists, Believers and Free-thinkers, Fanatics and Latitudinarians, Spirit-rappers and Philo­ sophers, rich and poor, mighty and weak, learned and ignorant, may find in the tenets of Christianity some congenial and sympathetic, some suggestive and comfort­ ing elements. The most important fact with regard to the “ new faith ” was that Christianity became but another name for those universal principles and eternal laws which, if recognised, and put in motion, stimulate the innate dor­ mant moral and intellectual forces of our human nature into activity. This fact must explain the superior vitality of Christianity, which has led Humanity in the West and North-West of the world slowly, gradually, yet unin­ terruptedly on the path of progress in arts, discoveries, inventions, and sciences to the very highest achievements. The followers of any other creed must endeavour to answer the following questions in their turn: Why did empires and communities professing other beliefs remain stationary in their development, in spite of their undoubted priority in many useful arts and inventions ? and why should the Christians have succeeded, by degrees, in working out wise and beneficial laws, in producing poetical works of unsurpassed excellence, and in raising sciences to a climax never attained before ? Suns and planets are measured by Christians ; the rays of light analysed; the gradual formation of the earth’s crust is recognised; the different chemical elements, in apparently indivisible atoms, are traced; Christians speak by means of electri­ city at distances of thousands of miles, reducing space in its dimensions; and travel by means of fire and water at an unheard-of speed, reducing time in its duration. The Universalism pervading true Christianity alone can serve as an explanation of this phenomenon. As we may trace in nature positive and negative electricity, so we can see the working of positive and negative intellectual currents in humanity. The currents in the East were generally negative. To look backwards, to hope, as it were, everything from the past, was the characteristic of Oriental nations. The intellectual currents in the West were positive ; to look to and to trust in the future, whether worldly or spiritual, �Christianity. 9 was and is the distinguishing feature of the Western World. Man in the East shuns new spheres of thought, and is content to move round and round in the ever unchangeable circle of fixed notions, ceremonies, and customs. Man in the West strives for freedom and an eternal activity; he must have some goal to long for, which presents itself in the form of religious enthusiasm, chivalrous daring, a thirst for inquiry and learning, a contempt for all danger, and a struggle with real or imaginary monsters. The finite submitted in humble acquiescence to the infinite in the East. In the West the finite strove to grasp the infinite, and to bring harmony into the dis­ cordant elements of good and evil, light and darkness, mind and matter, God and nature. These contradictory phenomena led the East very early to endeavour to cast a light upon the mysterious nature of self-conscious man, the mystic phenomena of nature, and to attempt the solution of the riddle of life by means of allegories, sym­ bols, wild fictions, incredible fables, and inspired guesses. The nation that felt the double nature of humanity most keenly, and first proclaimed a more spiritual concep­ tion of a God, was the Jewish. In the mystic schools of the priests of Egypt, their leaders were made acquainted with the universal “ Monotheos,” but the Jews deprived Him of his universality, and transformed Him into a national Deity, who was only a merciful God to His chosen people, under certain outward ceremonial con­ ditions, and a God of wrath and merciless persecution to all those who had not the good fortune to belong by mere chance of birth to that chosen people. The Chinese taught Humanity filial love, and social order; the Indians unravelled the beauties of the universe in the eternal Trinitarian process of Creation, Preservation, and Trans­ formation ; the Egyptians established the “ I am I” mys­ tery; the Persians endeavoured to practice purity in thoughts, purity in words, and purity in deeds; the Greeks fostered taste and refinement in arts, exalted humane feelings in their poetry, and manifested a deep critical discernment in philosophy; the Romans organised, regulated, conquered, and developed an unsurpassed patriotism ; and the Jews ?—they taught humanity reli­ �10 Christianity. gious exclusiveness, proud and fanatical intolerance, and have had themselves to suffer under these curses for more than 2,900 years. Even at this very moment we see them harassed and persecuted in Germany, a country which boasts of the highest civilization, a country which produced a Lessing, the Apostle of true Christian Tolerance, and a Herder, the founder of “Humanism.” To the honour of that country, it may be said that every distinguished German, every learned Historian, and every true Christian abhors the anachronistic movement of the Ultramontanes, which is worthy of the dark middle ages of superstition and gross ignorance. The Jews, as ever in the past, are still at war with the Grentiles all over the world; they use up the Gentiles for their special purposes, but never look upon them as their equals. The Jews hoping against hope, sublimely singing and prophesying in their despair, loudly proclaiming their thirst after God, their fervid longing for righteousness and holiness, formed with their theological sentiments a terrible sanguinary leaven of a new faith, which was a possibility only after Persian ethics, Brahmanic tenets, Egyptian mysteries and rituals, Buddhistic miracles and dogmas, Jewish prophesies, Greek philosophical researches, and Boman disciplinary organisations, had been pounded together by the pestle of time in the mortar of History. The Jews became the most important element in the historical development of Humanity. They inherited the dualistic theory of God and Devil from the Egyptians and Persians, and worked it out theologically through their deeply-learned prophets, who saw the terrible con­ flict manifested in virtue and sin, of which they became conscious at an earlier period and in a higher sense. By means of this consciousness they approached a state of reconciliation ; for self-conscious virtue must be based on a self-conscious knowledge of evil, bringing harmony into man’s animal and spiritual nature, developing to the utmost his moral and intellectual faculties. In spite of this higher moral state, they found themselves cruelly oppressed. They prayed, sighed, and mourned at Babylon, and mingled their scalding tears with the waves of the Euphrates; they were driven from state to state; they �Christianity. 11 waited and watched; they fought like despairing lions; they clung to their God, who had so few blessings, and so many sufferings for them on earth. They were still con­ vinced “that the sceptre should not depart from Judah; and unto him should the gathering of the people beand yet they were trampled under foot by Boman Tetrarchs and Praetors, had no political or social freedom, and were themselves divided by religious sects and factions. Amongst these were the Phabisees, who clung to the dead letter of the law. The Gaulonites or Galileans, a still more fanatical branch of the Pharisees, who professed “that no one must obey any mortal in authority, for God alone is our Lord.” (This sentence enables us to understand those Pharisaical survivals who, under the pretence of obeying the self-constituted authority of their God, defy the law of the land, and turn true religion into mockery.) These fanatics hoped everything from the internal dissolution of the Boman Empire. The Pharisees brought into religion the most contemptible spirit of trading; they always tried to make a profitable bargain with their God. Plenty on earth was the reward of godliness. Their piety had to manifest itself in eating and drinking. “ At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread, and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God,” was the foundation of the egotistical creed of the Pharisees. To eat and drink was, with the Jews, the most solemn initiation and termination of all their reli­ gious ceremonies. The Greeks cultivated man’s higher artistic and philosophical aspirations ; the Persians ruled, the Bomans legislated; the Egyptians built imperishable monuments; the Indians worked out mystic problems— the Jews did eat and drink. When the seventy (properly seventy-two) elders accompanied Moses on Mount Sinai and saw the God of Israel, they did eat and drink. If we do not correctly study the principles of the different Jewish sects of this period, we can never properly under­ stand the peculiar fanatics, intolerant bigots, eating and drinking pious hypocrites, who still grace our own social organisation, as so many survivals in the flesh of a preChristian world. The Sadducees (the just) were next in importance �12 Christianity. to the Pharisees; they were the broad-minded followers of Zadak. They rejected all artificial explanations of the Scriptures, and studied the prophets most diligently; they had a supreme contempt for all those who continually occupied their minds with mysterious benedictions, sancti­ fications, days of atonement, fasting and feasting, leavened or unleavened bread, palm branches, trumpets, sacred vessels, offerings, defiled or undefiled gifts, trespasses, red cows, the blood of calves and goats, scarlet wool, hyssop, and dead bodies; and despised all those who neglected doing good to their fellow creatures. The Sadducees believed neither in the immortality of the soul, nor in punishment or reward after death. They denied the existence of angels and devils—although they thoroughly believed in the Scriptures. They were notorious for their virtue, honesty, tolerance, learning, and, above all, for their justice and humanity. The Essenes, so called from the Hebrew “ asa ” or the Chaldaean “ asaya,” meaning “to heal”—or according to others “ the retired ”—were still more important. They lived a solitary life ; they devoted themselves to the study of medicine, to the art of working miracles, and to pre­ dicting the future. They practised baptism. In con­ formity with the ancient Indians and Egyptians, water was with them the mysterious life-giving element. Water had been the essence of life when the earth was still barren and uninhabited. They considered water to be the fountain of regeneration, the symbol of life ; man to be good and free from sin was to be born anew of water. Water mystically washed away the sins of the world. Water made the Essenes, like the Indians, twice horn. John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth were both Essenes, and were both baptized. The opinions advanced by Matthew Tyndal in a work, published 150 years ago, entitled “ Christianity as old as the Creation,” are borne out by Eusebius, who has a whole chapter under the title, “The Religion published by Jesus Christ is neither new nor strange; ” and this author also states, in the most unqualified manner, in the 17th Chapter of his 2nd Book that the ancient Therapeutics were Christians, and that their ancient writings were our Gospels and Epistles. The Therapeutics, Ebionites or Essenes were “ Chres- �Christianity. 13 tianse,” from “ Chrestos,” good. They were Eclectics; they held Plato in. the highest esteem, though they scrupled not to add to his doctrines whatever they thought conformable to reason in the tenets and opinions of other philosophers. According to Thomas Burnet, the Essenes were offshoots of the Brahmans and Bud­ dhists, devoting themselves to the contemplation of the transitoriness of human life. At last we must mention the Samakttans, who were the independent among the Jews. They considered Jews and Heathens equal, if good and kind, and because of this very cosmopolitan sentiment were held in abomina­ tion by all the other Jewish sects, who most furiously quarrelled both with the outer world and amongst them­ selves.—-When the Jewish Scriptures became more gene­ rally known through the Greek translation, the “ Septuagint ” there suddenly sprang into unparalleled activity— Hebraism as the static, ’and Hellenism as the dynamic force, working in Humanity, in History, and Religion. Dogmatism and morals were so closely interwoven in these Scriptures that the study of history became a religious duty. The past was to be taken on faith ; the assertions of the Hebrew writers were not to be doubted ; everything was to be declared credible or incredible by reference to some scriptural passage and inquiry, and Scepticism was to be banished from the world. This banishment aroused a mighty spirit of controversy; the classic writers were looked upon as perverse liars, desti­ tute of light, since they had not known the True God who had revealed Himself exclusively to the Jews. An infinite number of lying spirits were assumed to have deluded Humanity. The glorious works of art, sculp­ ture, architecture, poetry and philosophy of the numerous nations of the Earth were suddenly decried as the out­ growths of sin, inherited from Adam. The Greeks had been taught by Satan; the Persians, Assyrians, and Babylonians had been annihilated by the God of Israel for their idolatry; the Indians were children of Beelzebub; the Buddhists horrible Atheists. All the monuments of antiquity became objectionable works, conceived in pride by the fallen angels ; all the historical writings and records of all nations were considered false and untrue, �14 Christianity. and the Jewish records placed above them as the only true revealed Word of God who had forsaken and abandoned all His other creatures, and held communica­ tion exclusively with the Jews. From that moment up to our own times, there has been something wonderfully majestic in this terrible conflict between Hebraism and Hellenism, keeping humanity in a continuous exertion of its moral and intellectual forces ; now devoting every thought to theology, then again pro­ moting the loftiest inquiries of science, leading us to a state in which morals and knowledge will no more be considered as antagonistic, but completing elements of man’s progressive development. We have to deal with the beginning of the new historical phase of a spiritual life that took its origin in the Eastern provinces of the Boman Empire. False prophets and philosophical teachers abounded everywhere. Greek mock philosophers discussed the most abstruse spiritual problems in the market-places. Egyptian priests of Osiris, Isis and Horus, divulged the unintel­ ligible symbolisms of their ancient creed; and the Persian worship of Mithras (meaning the Bedeemer or Inter­ mediator) was revived with all its deep mysticism. Numbers of Boman legal casuists engaged in searching for lawsuits, discussed everything, whilst knowing very little of anything. The Jewish sects, in spite of their dissensions and mutual hatred, were all equally oppressed and plundered by Herod the Great; superstition, ignor­ ance, despair and credulity were the distinguishing fea­ tures of the Boman world. The East was crowded with dreamers, visionaries, traders in charms, augurs, horoscopists, miracle-workers (Thaumaturgi), soothsayers, cabalists and priests of an infinite variety of gods and goddesses. All was spiritual chaos, like that at the dawn of the Creation of the material world, when Jesus oe Nazareth was Born. We have very little reliable historical information con­ cerning the life of “ Christ,” meaning the Anointed. So much we do know, that we may make of Christ what we please; we may comment upon His recorded teachings exegetically or in any other form. We may altogether deny the whole later Ecclesiastical structure, built upon �Christianity. 15 His utterances. We may demonstrate that all that was asserted of Him, was also believed of Melchisedech, Krishna, Osiris, Buddha, Apollo or Mithras. We may trace in Him and to Him all the legends of divine incar­ nations through which man, having become conscious, wished to find an explanation of his own low animal desires, and the lofty intellectual longings of his mind, thus working out divine models of human beings, or gods in human form. We may study the Gospels and their contradictory views, and critically wade through the still more contra­ dictory writings of the Bathers. We may show how dogma after dogma was attributed to Christ, which He neither enunciated nor ever could have thought of, because, whatever contradictions may be recorded of Him, there was no contradiction between His teachings, and His own self-sacrificing life. We may prove how the Councils of the Church changed the true doctrine of Christ, misunderstanding it altogether; we may reject the dictates of certain synods and accept others. We may be Papists, Episcopalians or Methodists, Presby­ terians or Ritualists, Lutherans or Quakers, Dissenters or Shakers, Idealists or Realists, Believers or Free­ thinkers ; we may quarrel and hate one another with the same fervour as did the Jewish sects, and curse every one who does not hold our own opinions as to the sensations of the beatitude, the length of the wings of the angels in heaven, or the horns of the devils in hell. We may laugh at our petty controversialists who talk of vestments and postures, candlesticks, crosses, rubrics, grace, conscience, transubstantiation, real and unreal presence, and the thousand and one unintelligible, anagogical, parabolical, allegorical and symbolic niceties and difficulties, which may all be easily settled, if no one asks questions, and if all men have faith, and do not use their thinking and reasoning faculty, the brightest gift of the Creator, under whatever name He be worshipped. But we cannot deny the immense influence which Christ’s teachings have exercised on the Western miud. Let all the circumstances and details have been what they may, historians must deal with Christ’s Spirit, as it pre­ sents itself, as one of the greatest of historical phenomena. �16 Christianity. For though we may divest Christ of all the miracles, rightly or falsely attributed to Him, we cannot divest Him of one grand immortal fact, “ That he died for Love, murdered by those whom He taught with a heart full of universal love—that the whole of humanity was one great brotherhood ; that every human being was to love his neighbour as himself; that every human being was the cherished child of one Father, who loved all His children equally, and who was in heaven ! ” Had but this simple doctrine of mutual and universal love been taught for the last 1880 years with the same fervour as the mystiff dogmas with which Christ’s teachings were perverted, and which were each and all borrowed from Egyptian, Assyrian, Persian, Indian and Homan religious systems, the world would undoubtedly be more Christian, and humanity would have saved millions of precious lives which have been wasted on the propagation, not of Christianity, but “ of prejudiced credulity, and priestly tyranny.” We have, unfortunately, failed to learn to look upon Christ as He is characterised in the following ancient Arab legend:—“ A dog had stolen some meat from a Jewish butcher’s shop; the dog was stoned, then hanged, then thrown into the street, and the angry Jews formed a circle round the dog, spat on him and cursed him; all at once a mild and gentle voice was heard asking the enraged crowd, whether they could find nothing worthy of admiration in the poor dead animal; there was suddenly a deep silence, and the speaker pointed to the beautiful pearly-white teeth of the dog. The people grumbled, and it was whispered among them that the speaker must be Jesus of Nazareth, for He alone was capable of finding something good even in a dead dog! ” This is Chbistiajstity. The Deity of the Jews was a stem, and revengeful Despot; Christ’s Gfod was a loving Father. The beginning of wisdom with the Jews was fear; with Christ, the beginning of wisdom was love. With the Jews, God was a God of wrath, persecution and slaughter ; with Christ, a God of mercy, forgiveness, and boundless love. The God of the Jews, who, like the inexorable Fate of the Greeks, or the sanguinary monsters enthroned in the Imperial purple of Home, punished the sins of the �Christianity. 17 fathers unto the third and fourth generation, and de­ manded holocausts of murdered sacrifices, was changed by Christ into a God of infinite kindness, rejoicing over one repentant sinner more than over ninety and nine just persons. Christ’s doctrine in its primitive purity was the ever true Law of Peace, Love and Tolerance, satisfying Season, leading to Science, and to the Search for Truth. These are the fundamental elements of Chris­ tianity, towards which, freed of all dogmatic unintelligi­ bilities, humanity is striving consciously or unconsciously, in spite of the thousands of sects, and the numberless commentators who have done their uttermost to destroy the simplicity and universality of Christ’s teachings. But Beason cannot be stifled by persecution ; Science cannot be annihilated by superstition; and Truth cannot be silenced by blind fanaticism. Christianity checked He­ braism, fostered Hellenism, brought life into the Ancient World, and established Humanism, the last possible phase in the development of Humanity. If we look for the principal historical causes of the sudden spread of Christianity, we have : 1st. The extent of the Boman Empire, with two prin­ cipal languages—Greek and Latin. 2nd. The scattering ofthe Jews and the Jewish Christians. 3rd. The general tendency to mysticism, fanaticism, and symbolism, and the total absence of a correct know­ ledge of the Laws of Nature. 4th. The immense number of freed men, slaves, and beggars. To such people equality was preached; equality before a God in whose eyes the living visible God on earth—the Emperor was no more than the lowest beggar. The poor grew proud, and condescended to admit the rich into their now blessed community; and the rich, terrified by the hungry and haggard looks of the people, enervated by profligacy and licentiousness, were glad to be made partakers of a future kingdom of bliss, since they did not feel very safe on earth, and trembled equally before the covetousness of the tyrants in power, and the daily increasing number of homeless slaves. 5th. The decline of faith in the old gods of the classical world, who were now proved to have been mere idols of stone, or brass, as otherwise they could �18 Christianity. not have permitted humanity to sink to such a depth of immorality as was reached under the Emperors, for men’s lives had no value, justice was nowhere to be found. 6th. The sanguinary political and religious persecution which the Emperors repeatedly ordered against the everincreasing Christians. The Greeks and Romans were in general extremely tolerant in religious matters. They had either a personal or a political interest in persecuting some single individual, and used the religious fanaticism of the mob as the means to attain their special political or worldly object. They never had priests in our sense of the word. The early Christians began slowly to find favour at Court in conse­ quence of their universalism. They proved that they did not hold all the exclusive, national opinions of the Jews, who would not recognise any other authority but that of Javeh—they honestly referred to Christ’s command : “ Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s ”— and the new Religion was at last introduced at Court under the Emperor Alexander Severus, whose mother, Mammsea, was said to have been a true Christian. Decius tried in vain to stamp out the Christians. Under Gallienus they enjoyed peace ; and the last vain attempts to abolish Christianity by means of sanguinary persecu­ tions were made under the Emperor Diocletian. As is invariably the case, cruelty only served the more to develop the whole vitality of Christianity. At this period certain causes were at work, which altogether changed, if not the essence, at least the form of Chris­ tianity. Some sudden disturbances occurred in the provinces, situated between China aud the Caspian Sea, which had been conquered about the first Century of the Christian Era. “ It appears that, in consequence of these convulsions, the Samanseans, disciples of Buddha, (who probably lived about the time of the Israelitish Kingdom of the Ten Tribes,) departed from their former seat, the ancient Aria, and took refuge in the mountains of Cashmere and Thibet.” Some of these disciples must have also settled in the more western parts of Asia, and must have come into contact with the then more and more spreading Christians, who endeavoured with all the �Christianity. 19 activity of their intellectual power to bring Christianity into a system—a dogmatic system. In many of their details, the tenets of Buddha bear the greatest resem­ blance to certain superadded Christian dogmas; “Bor the chief doctrine of the Sainansean Bonzes was, that Buddha was of Royal descent, born of the Virgin Maja, worthy of adoration as next in dignity to God whose ninth incarnation he was, and that he would assume at the end of all earthly things his tenth incarnation as Kali, and appear on a white horse to judge the quick and the dead.” The Samansean priesthood taught men to prepare for this event, to lead a retired contemplative life, to suffer persecution but never to persecute, humbly to submit to any lay power, since this world was a mere fleeting, transitory abode of misery and decay, prepara­ tory to a higher spiritual life to be enjoyed in Eternity in Nirvana, the unceasing contemplation of the Deity in His eternal peace and glory. Christianity absorbed ail these elements, but with the Christians, the endeavour to spread this belief in the bliss of redemption became a sacred duty, which they thought themselves justified in performing by means of violence, inexorable cruelty, cruci­ fixions, boilings and burnings, by fire and sword “Ad majorem Dei gloriam.” Here the striking difference between Buddhism and Christianity becomes apparent. Buddhism is passive contemplation ; Christianity is positive activity. The one remained stationary, the other progressively developed and is still developing. The one acquiesced in any form so long as the worship of Buddha was the aim ; the other devoted itself to an unparalleled spiritual activity, en­ dowing Christianity with mystic meanings, allegorical beauties, dressed in the. shreds of myths and fables, col­ lected from all the religious systems of the ancient world, adorned with Platonic dreams and visions, and Aristotelian sophistries and dialectics. Intolerance and fanaticism spread more and more; and delusion and ignorance served to build up that glorious spiritual Revolution which brought new life into the world. Scarcely had Christ expired on the Cross when a host of pious preachers and teachers inundated the world with descriptions of the details of His private and public life. �20 Christianity. St. Luke informs us “ that many have taken in hand to set forth those things which are most surely believed among us.” There were about 146 independent sacred writings, among which were 34 Gospels, 20 Epistles, 22 Acts, 5 Revelations, and 22 miscellaneous works ; several books published under the name of James, and books under the name of Peter. That these works existed, is undeniable, for the various diverging and quarrellinosects of early Christianity were founded on the very possession of these different sacred books. Letters were forged, interpolations fabricated, omissions resorted to, fictions invented, exaggerations propounded, miracles pro­ claimed, and interpretations given, so that it is exceed­ ingly difficult to gather any reliable facts. To prove how far such deceptions went, we may point out that Gregory, of Tours, in the sixth Century a.d., firmly believed that he possessed the authenticated account of the miracles at the death and resurrection of Christ in the very docu­ ment which Pilate had sent to the Emperor Tiberius. Lucian, in the latter half of the second Century after the birth of Christ, bitterly complained that the Christians were so reserved respecting their mysteries. Tacitus, Pliny, and others could not understand why morals and truth should be proclaimed by miracle­ workers, magicians and necromancers, who began to drive a very profitable trade. At first, Jewish and Pagan priests had heaped opprobrious calumnies upon the Christians on account of the simplicity of their worship, esteeming them little better than Atheists, because they had no temples, altars, sacrifices, priests nor any of that external pomp in which the vulgar are so prone to place the essence of religion. The rulers of the Christians now adopted external, mystic ceremonies, and suddenly the primitive simplicity which had characterised the first followers of Christ was gone, and a multitude of half-Jewish and half-Pagan enthusiasts, visionaries, theosophists, snake-charmers, and adepts abounded in the Chris­ tian communities, and proclaimed themselves to be Ascetic, self-denying, miracle-working Christians. Mysticism and symbolism became the leading elements in Christianity. The mysteries engendered sects, in accordance with the various explanations given ro the meaning of the different �Christianity. 21 symbols, allegories, types, prophesies, gospels, epistles, or any vague traditions. Sects persecuted sects, each stig­ matising their opponents as heretics. Every one of these sects pretended to have received certain traditions from the founder of Christianity Himself, or at least from prophets, apostles, or pious men who had stood near to Christ; yet subsequently, all their dogmas were declared to have been heresies by later councils and synods. The Gnostics, Ebionites, Marcionites, Alogians, Manichaeans, Novitians, Sabellians, Patripassians, and Arians, &c., may be adduced to prove that Christianity was at first broad-hearted and broad-minded, so long as it was not yet fettered by the inexorable power of the State. Dog­ matists were permitted to put forward new dogmas and mysteries, but unfortunately Constantine, in the fourth century a.d., adopted Christianity as a state religion, and employed learned converted Talmudists and Sophists to shape the simple tenets of Christ, and from that time down to the Reformation everything received a theological basis, and was looked upon from a one-sided religious point of view. Gregory of Nazianzen says of this period ; “ the learned diatribes of Stoics, Platonists, Aristotelians, and even the teachings of the most important Fathers were silenced, and every “shop-boy” preached and talked on the Trinity in Unity of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or on the “ Hypostasis,” meaning the subor­ dinate substances of the Trinity. The City of Constan­ tinople was full of working men and slaves who were profound theologians, and preached in their workshops and in the streets. If you wanted of anyone change for a silver coin, he informed you of the distinction between Father and Son; if you asked for the price of a loaf of bread, you were lectured on the inferiority of the Son to the Father; and if you asked whether the bread were baked, the rejoinder was that the Son had been created out of nothing.” It was in vain that Justin Martyr, one of the most zealous defenders of Christianity, proved with trenchant conviction that Christ was the Logos, or “ Universal Reason,” of which mankind were all partakers: and, therefore, those who lived according to the Logos or Reason, were Christians, notwithstanding that they �22 Christianity. might pass for Atheists. Such among the Greeks were Sokrates and Herakleitos, and the like; and such among the Barbarians were Abraham and Ananias, and many others. So on the other hand, those who had lived in former times in defiance of the Logos or Reason were evil, and enemies to Christ, and murderers of such as lived according to the Logos or Beason; but those who made or make the Logos or Reason the rule of their actions, were and are “ Christians, and men without fear and trembling.” It is deeply to be regretted that Christ’s teachings were deprived of their charming simplicity. But it could not be otherwise. By the daily increasing number of theological Sophists, Greek and Roman Dialecticians, converted Talmudists and Cabalists, who made it their duty to obscure every intelligible passage in the Old and New Testaments; to find types where there were none; to take allegories and metaphors to the letter; and to transform into deep symbols what had been the literal record of some every-day occurrence. Man was to be forced into the narrow Procrustean bed of Dogmatism, and to know nothing but incomprehensible mysteries. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy raised their spiteful and venomous heads, aud spread like dragons the fire of destructive disunion throughout the world. Councils and Synods denounced and persecuted, excommunicated and succeeded in bringing about a dead silence in the realm of thought, or submissive professions of the pre­ scribed religious formulae. In the sixth century after Christ the Church, with the aid of the lay power, at last was enabled to stamp out by fire and sword all the so-called Heretics, and the Bathers, Apologists, and the Church dignitaries began to rule supreme. The writings of the Bathers are the only important literary products of these times which throw a considerable light on the gradual development of Chris­ tianity from the second to the twelfth century a.d. The Bathers, like the ancient Patricians of Pagan Rome, were divided into two classes. Those from the second to the sixth century a.d. were the “ Patres majorum gentiumwhilst those from the seventh to the twelfth century A.D. were the “Patres minorum gentium.” �Christianity. 23 During the mediseval period of history the priests of the Romish Church, occupying themselves with writing on or discussing theology, were called “ Scholastics,” and only since the Reformation the Clergy treating religious mat­ ters philosophically or ethically, assumed the title of “ Theologians” (Scientists of God). We cannot fail to perceive that the struggle between faith or religion, and reason or science was the vital force that made it possible for Christians to progress, morally as well as intellec­ tually. The principal tendency of the most learned and most honest theologians of our day (like Dean Stanley, Prin­ cipals Tulloch and Caird,—Stopford Brooke and many others) is to restore to Christianity that universal spirit of tolerance which will make culture and true civilisation a common good, not dependent on rubrics, eastern postures, vestments, or articles, but on a correct understanding of our nature, humanising even the bigoted middle classes; purifying society and making it a general philanthropic brotherhood, turning capital into a blessing instead of a curse ; and endowing our dogmatic and arbitrary educa­ tional institutions with one analogous system, fitted to bring out all our higher reasoning faculties. Thus the pure spirit of true Christianity will once more sway our hearts and vivify our lifeless and cold, yet eternally quarrelling, denominational sects. Science and art will work together, spiritualising our higher nature, foster­ ing Hellenic-Teuton culture instead of Romano-Hebrew narrow-mindedness, leading us to a universal bodily and mental happiness, and establishing a practical—not clerical—“ Millenium.” We shall endeavour in future lectures to trace how the historical development of Christianity commenced in a controversial thunderstorm, fierce, terrible and destructive at first; followed by a gloomy calm, silent, deadening and oisZrucZwe; and at last arousing science, purifying our moral and intellectual atmosphere, spreading the broad daylight of culture in union with morals, enabling humanity to be free, good, and truly constructive. �The Society’s Lectures by Dr. Zerffi, which have been printed, are— On “Natural Phenomena and their Influence on different Religious Systems.” On “The Vedas and the Zend-Avesta: the first Dawn of Religious Con­ sciousness in Humanity.” On “The Origin aud the Abstract and Concrete Nature of the Devil.” On “ Dreams and Ghosts.” On “ Ethics and ^Esthetics.” The above are out of print. On “ The Spontaneous Dissolution of Ancient Creeds.” On “ Dogma and Science.” On “ The Eastern Question; from a Religious and Social point of view.” On “Jesuitism: and the Priest in Absolution.” On “ Pre-Adamites; or, Prejudice and Science.” On “ Long and Short Chronologists; or Egypt from a Religious, Social, and Historical point of view.” All price 3d., or post-free 3|d. SUNDAY LECTURE SOCIETY. To provide for the delivery on Sundays in the Metropolis, and to encourage the delivery elsewhere, of Lectures on Science,— physical, intellectual, and moral,—History, Literature, and Art; especially in their bearing upon the improvement and social well­ being of mankind. THE SOCIETY’S LECTURES are delivered at ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LANGHAM PLAGE, On SUNT)A Y Afternoons, at FO UR o’clock precisely. (Annually—from November to May.) Twenty-four Lectures (in three series), ending 24th April, 1881, will be given. Members’ £1 subscription entitles them to an annual ticket, trans­ ferable (and admitting to the reserved seats), and to eight single reserved seat tickets, available for any lecture. Tickets for each series (one for each lecture) as below,— To the Shilling Reserved Seats—5s. 6d. To the Sixpenny Seats—2s., being at the rate of Threepence each lecture. For tickets, and the printed Lectures, and for list of all the Lectures published by the Society, apply (by letter) to the Hon. Treasurer, Wm. Henry Domville, Esq., 15, Gloucester Crescent, Hyde Park, W. Payment at the door:—One Penny;—Sixpence;—and (Reserved Seats) One Shilling. Kenny & Co., Printers, 25, Camden Road, London, N.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 &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Christianity: the origin of Christianity from a strictly historical point of view, being a lecture delivered before the Sunday Lecture Society, on Sunday, 21st November, 1880 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Zerffi, G. G. (Gustavus George) Description An account of the resource Place of Publication: London Collation: 23, [1] p. ; 18 cm. Notes: List of the Society's lectures on unnumbered page at the end. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed at the Industrial Press Works, Greek Street, Soho, London. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Sunday Lecture Society Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1881 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CT89 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 (Christianity: The origin of Christianity from a strictly historical point of view), 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 Christianity Christianity Conway Tracts