1
10
28
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/021c93ee0b9e631798ff0a2d42cfc5d5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Jqod67QU%7Ek9LOyMHscNj7fxrOp%7Egjs5lT8q0VH3iHJle9RX5wGcXDWJzEiHTXUpf84uN9y2rdpj69cNIsHIFJmOD-o%7EIKvYuZdL4gByWciudg-gyIbs7pMrsCGzA2mTrmepqQ3eNdUqOdUt1rY7B5cg-2uF5Cl-JUwAV16TQF1jchLDXSIszmEpn%7EGT-XeUyS6q-vAX4p7ozxk-7QFcLlyerol-0NhR%7Et6lFMCEg20LUGw59GAdpPVkEq2%7EJCNyGxHIKWU7qOKLmYe8m0mGkbooSn3X1wSXezE8qt0Tm8DFVa2FyUWX7M46hfOKruAw3Sn5xHMLX1s9%7EkEhhdp5HNA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
91bb9ceec1a60a6127bb918a642a1537
PDF Text
Text
South Place Chapel, Finsbury,
June, 1884..
The Committee of South Place Religious Society have with much
regret to announce to the Members the approaching resignation by Mr. CONWAY
of his office as Minister of this Congregation.
The Committee have deemed it their duty to immediately make the
Members acquainted with Mr. CONWAY’S decision, and the reasons for it;
which they have also felt would be much better conveyed in Mr. Conway’s
own words than in any of their own selection.
They therefore send to each
Member a copy of Mr. Conway’s letter, which they commend to the most
sympathetic consideration.
It need only be added that a Special Meeting of the Society will be
■summoned in due time to consider how Mr. Conway’s ajHace can be supphmt? *
with the best prospect of carrying on successfully the wrork to which he has
for so many years devoted himself.
[COPY
OF
LETTER.]
London, May <yth, 1884.
To the Committee of the South Place Religious Society.
My Dear Friends,
After much anxious thought, I have concluded to send you my resignation
of the office I hold as Minister of the South Place Religious Society.
The resignation
is hereby made, to take effect at the close of the present year, 1884.
I do not know
that I should have done this so soon had not a paragraph appeared, unfortunately, in
the press announcing my intention of returning to reside in America.
How that
paragraph reached the public I do not know, but suppose that some private conversation
with a friend or relative in America must have passed from one to another until it
fell on the ear of the New York paper which first gave it to the world.
�However, the announcement—though I could have wished it first made through
yourselves—was only premature.
had already come
considerations of a
When I asked for the appointment of a colleague it
before me as a probability, though I then hoped not so near, that
personal nature would draw me back to my native land.
My wife
and I have both and equally endeavoured to prolong our stay in England, for the
sake of our work
in South Place, but have now made up our minds that we cannot
remain in Europe
longer than next year, if so long.
If you should desire me to speak
again at South Place in the earlier part of next year, and I am able to do so, my
present resignation will not prevent it.
Meanwhile, after August, the Society will again
have the opportunity of listening to my colleague, to whom I have been looking, and
still look, to commend himself to you as one able to carry on the work which I
must leave.
It is unnecessary that I should say more concerning the reasons that have
impelled me to this decision, than that they are of a purely private and domestic
character, and include no dissatisfaction with South Place or with the country in which
I have so long and happily resided.
My residence in England was neve^ pleasanter,
-aryl mv relations with^^outh Place. _ so:**fer as I. Anow.
happier-^Ahan
present. The giving up of South Place will mean Blr me giving up the ministry
altogether.
I have no intention of ever again taking charge of a congregation.
It
seems a kind of death to leave the work to which twenty-one years, representing the
heart of one’s life, have been devoted; and as the time of my departure draws near
I trust it may be attended with kindly sentiments, and that I may have the con
solation of passing away amid peace and friendship.
Faithfully yours,
MONCURE D. CONWAY.
�i ;i»-JXt -
’.‘intra ’sali
, 0:
K,‘J
-'
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[Notice, June 1884, announcing Mr. Conway's resignation as Minister and copy of Conway's letter]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
South Place Religious Society
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [2] p. on folded sheet.
Notes: Conway's letter of resignation date May 9th 1884. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5583
Subject
The topic of the resource
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work ([Notice, June 1884, announcing Mr. Conway's resignation as Minister and copy of Conway's letter]), 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 Hall Ethical Society
Conway Tracts
Moncure Conway
South Place Religious Society
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/18cc653202e396e9ab0c2ae58ac2a2df.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=OEt0rc5vjIK42bwU3Sja4dVGc2jDN4DqHgI8iyVEBpes-MjhnPtzD2cg4MpN2cF3y7Pv2cWoHcXckoMkA-dgK68lrGdQGC9t9vEqtHxFAwN35RpkzpKilObWgIqBhcRKeyQV7957s3LuWBUt3JuVO878hfSCJwJpAicjdlyAOf7nYE1AkBC8l6Lwr9ph--l15lgetqApgFrwoQphzzVQnjErvNO0tvKl8wcZoVDliAnQCHvkebMTf4dd1XpQn%7EPq4uq7NC5olZBc5cx727Zm4O11rCEXWTH7qKPX47Z5Uwg8u81e71VPzz7IT7DzfrpDRrpOueURG4JOuDMt1O9ZQw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
2c361b8eb3f816d215a18de092e14318
PDF Text
Text
A
'■
, .
.
■ \
SUMMARY
OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF SOCIALISM
Written for the Democratic Federation,
BY
H» M, Hyndman
and
William Morris,
LONDON!
THE MODERN
13
AND 14,
PRESS,
PATERNOSTER
1884.
ROW, E.C.
��A SUMMARY
OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF SOCIALISM.
O OCIALISM, as a social and political system, depends
altogether upon the history of mankind for a record
of its growth in the past, and bases its future upon a
knowledge of that history in so far as it can be accura
tely traced up to the present time. The groundwork
of the whole theory is, that from the earliest period of
their existence human beings have been guided by the
power they possessed over the forces of nature to
supply the wants arising as individual members of any
society.
Thus Socialism rests upon political economy in its
widest sense—that is, upon the manner in which wealth
is produced and distributed by those who form part of
society at a given time. Slavery, for instance, arose
when men had reached such a point in the progress
of the race that each labourer could produce by his
work for a day, a week, a month, or a year more than
was needed to keep him in health during that period.
Then captives in war, instead of being killed, were
enslaved, and the fruits of their labour, over and above
their necesssary food, were taken by the conquering
tribe; for though slavery arose in the nomadic state the
�earliest form of co-operation and ownership was by a
tribe; and in the tribal relations common property was
the rule alike in the soil and in the produce of labour.
As this common property broke up owing to the pro
gress of the economical forms, the growth of exchange,
the superiority of individuals or families in war or in
the chase, classes or castes were gradually formed, resting
in the first instance upon a necessary division of labour,
though often existing, as in village communities, where a
modified form of common property was still the rule.
Thence,again,institutions developed through custom and
law; religion sanctifying what had previously been found
to be on the whole necessary or expedient. These
institutions, though arising from the material power of
man over nature, had in turn a great influence upon the
manner in which that power was used, and appeared
as the conservative side of human development con
flicting with the progressive or revolutionary side,
which necessarily follows upon the improvement and
adaptation of the methods of producing food and wealth.
From this essential and constant antagonism arises the
conflict between classes in every civilisation of which
we have any knowledge; and upon the struggles due
to this conflict all progress has hitherto depended.
A slight consideration will serve to show that this
is the true explanation of the growth of mankind. The
first object of every animal, man included, is to feed
itself and its offspring ; and man began in the nomadic
state by feeding upon fruits and berries. That the
growth from the early brutish habits upwards to the
taming of beasts and ordered agriculture was the
process, not of thousands but of millions of years, is
�5
now admitted by all scientific writers on the records of
primeval man. But the need for food was followed by
the need for clothing, for warmth, for shelter; and each
of these wants corresponded in turn with changing forms
of social life as they were gratified. The whole, in fact,
moved in one piece as the economical forms developed :
the nomadic life of the woods and plains ; the common
property of the tribe or clan scanty and insufficient;
the more confined area of operations as agriculture
became an increasing business; the struggle with neigh
bouring tribes about rights of pasture or to obtain
coveted spoils; the earlier or later introduction of slavery
in place of wholesale slaughter of captives; the develop
ment of division of labour and exchange slowly break
ing up the common property ; the institution of private
property in land, rendered necessary by the simul
taneous improvements in agriculture; the increase of
individual wealth, as cultivation and division of
labour progressed on a larger scale, due to money
usury and slave-ownership ; the construction of classes
representing divergent interests; the struggle between
the various classes and those above them; the enormous
development of the slave class and the poorer citizens
in Greece and still more in Rome; the gradual forma
tion of customs, laws, religions growing out of these
ever-changing, ever-progressing, economical forms; the
constant appeals of the privileged orders to these cus
toms, laws, and religious doctrines as the wisdom of
the past not to be rudely shaken by the new-fangled,
subversive theories of revolutionists, who were them
selves but the unconscious exponents of such inevitable
modifications — a careful study of each link in the
�6
chain of this long development, will show clearly how
man in society has been the result of ages on ages of
slow growth, in which the individual is lost in utter
insignificance, and special inventions such as fire, the
wheel, the mining, smelting, and working of metals,
become manifestly but the inevitable results of the social
state which produces them.
Leaving on one side the civilisations of Egypt and
Eastern Asia, important as they are to a knowledge of our
social growth—for only seventy generations of thirty
years each take us back to a period when Britain was
practically unknown, and Roman civilisation was in its
infancy—it is sufficient to deal briefly with the decay of
the Roman Empire, the feudal institutions which
sprang up on its overthrow, and, more in detail, with
the special circumstances which have influenced the
progress of the people of Western Europe to the existing
capitalist rule. The fact that the ancient civilisations
of Greece and Rome were supported by open and
acknowledged slavery of the mass of the producing class,
renders all comparison of democracy, in the modern
sense, with the so-called democracies of Greek or
Roman society utterly futile. The economical and
social conditions are entirely different.
Those Greek republics, which have so often been the
theme for adulation on the part of democratic orators,
poets, and artists, were themselves but close oligarchies;
and the slave-class below was the basis of the whole
super-structure alike at Athens, Corinth, and Sparta.
The very numbers of the slaves show how completely the
social arrangement was accepted as inevitable ; for at
Athens there were at least 120,000 slaves’ to 20,000
�7
citizens, while at Corinth the slaves at one period
numbered 460,000. Moreover, economical causes hav
ing produced slavery, force was long little needed to
maintain the supremacy of the upper classes, who
could carry on their own warfare among themselves
almost undisturbed by fears of a slave revolt. In Rome
the same forms appeared in rather different clothing,
though in both the slaves were often learned, highlytrained men, widely different from the ignorant human
machines whom we are accustomed to associate in our
minds with the word slaves. In Rome, the insurrections
of the slaves were more numerous and more formidable
than in Greece. But, in this case, too, the conflicts
between the various sections of the privileged classes
were almost undisturbed, if we except the great insur
rection of Spartacus, by the efforts at enfranchisement
on the part of the slaves, who rarely timed their risings
well and were massacred wholesale in Italy and Sicily
at comparatively little cost of life to their masters.
Early in the record the slave-industry, controlled by
the powerful landlord-capitalists of Rome and the other
great cities of the Empire, began to crush out and even
to enslave the small freeholders who had arisen on the
break up of the tribes, or who belonged to conquered
nations. Their independent work, with a few slaves
around them, could make no head against the enormous
production for gain which their large competitors carried
on. The Licinian Law, and the agitations of the Gracchi
were meant to protect the vigorous yeomen from forcible
and still more from economical expropriation. But the
movement was too strong to be resisted. Large pro
perties grew steadily larger, and these great farms
�8
ruined not only Italy but other portions of the empire.
The soil, though rich, was exhausted in the course of
generations by ceaseless over-cropping for profit alone;
the slave class of the country supported a useless and
very numerous slave class in the towns ; and the con
dition of the poor, free, Roman citizen became so
bad that economically it could scarcely be worse.
Thus, the prosperity of the whole empire was steadily
sapped, and some regions have scarcely recovered the
process unto this day. The Eastern Provinces, which
had a history of their own even throughout the period
of Roman domination, suffered less than the rest,
whilst they provided the great proprietors of the metro
polis with their luxuries, and thus regained in part by
commerce what they lost by tribute.
The whole system of production and exchange was
such that mercenary armies were needed to replace the
old independent military service. Rome followed in
the path of Carthage. Slowly the economical forms
changed, and afterwards the social and political.
From what seemed to contemporary observers the
most dangerous or most worthless portions of the exist
ing civilisation, a new life arose and progress followed.
Out of the rottenness of the Roman Empire of the
West, the slaves within and the barbarians from with
out formed the nucleus of another society. The spread of
a new revolutionary Asiatic creed, with a higher morality
than the popular forms of Paganism, was accompanied
throughout the empire by a rising spirit among the
slave class which provided its earliest converts, and
the barbarian invaders, driven onwards probably by
the exhaustion of their own sources of food supply found
�that the inhabitants of the territories they overran
almost welcomed them. The downfall of the Roman
Empire of the West was, in short, due to the necessary
growth of fresh forces below, which took the place of
worn-out forms that hampered the advance.
Thenceforward slavery in its old form faded into
modern serfdom; and Catholicism, true to its origin,
strove to uproot both, whilst maintaining an equality of
conditions at the start within its own body. Organised
Christianity exercised, in some sense, as a religion, the
power which had belonged to Rome as a centre of
empire.
In Western Europe, through the long
period of the so-called dark ages—so hard to under
stand even by the full light of modern scientific
research—new methods of production and exchange
were taking the place of the old, new relations were
being established between men as individuals, and men
as classes. The decay of the Roman roads shut off the
new communities to a great extent from one another,
as the disbandment of the legions loosened the bonds of
authority; a new art and a new literature grew up in
each country, founded doubtless on the old, but fresh
and vigorous indeed compared with the bastard work
of servile copyists, which well reflected the degradation
of Greek as well as of Roman civilisation; new laws and
new customs necessarily grew out of the changed con
ditions, notwithstanding the partial influence of the
Roman codes. Above all there was the new religion,
which, rising triumphant over the old pagan creeds, had
nevertheless adopted, perforce, the old pagan ceremo
nial and the old pagan festivities; in the same way
that the serfs and domestic retainers, though holding
�far different relations to their superiors from those of
the slaves to their masters, still used the agricultural
implements and handled almost the same primitive
machines as the slave class, who were, so to say, their
economical ancestors.
Instead of the combined landlord and capitalist con
trolling tens, hundreds, or thousands of toilers on his
estate through a bailiff, we have the disruption again
of village communities of free men—traces of which can
be found in all European countries to this day—develop
ing into a system of serfdom where the serfs were bound
to the soil, but bound also by direct personal relations
to their masters. So, too, as these changes acted and
reacted new class-struggles took the place of the old.
Oppressors and oppressed, dominant and servile, lord
and burgher, master and craftsman, seigneur and serf,
stood in antagonism, as mankind were feeling their way
to a wider economical development. Centuries of dis
integration and reconstruction were needed to bring
forth the complete feudal system ; and the earliest
development of modern trade and commerce took place
on the shores of that great inland sea which for ages
was the cradle of western civilisation. Venice, Genoa,
Pisa, followed in the footsteps of Tyre, Corinth, and
Carthage. Rome, instead of being the metropolis of a
great empire, became the head-quarters of a religious
organisation which exercised an influence that reached
the uttermost parts of the western world.
That the influence of the Catholic Church was, in
the main, used in the interest of the people against the
dominant classes can scarcely now be disputed ; nor
that the equality of conditions to start with in the
�II
organisation itself was one of the great causes of its
extraordinary success throughout the so-called dark ages.
Catholicism, in its best period, raised one continuous
protest against serfdom and usury, as early Christianity,
in its best form, had denounced slavery and usury too. But the economical tendencies were too strong for any.
protest to be much regarded at first. Divison of labour,,
and the structure of society thence resulting, at a time.
when the powers of man over nature were still limited,
gave power and importance to the warrior caste and
the priestly caste over the mere hinds and handicrafts
men. Yet, even in the earliest period of feudalism, the
risings of the trading class, and with them at times the
peasants and artizans, against the nobles and territorial
clergy, were neither few nor far between. The engage
ment of the knight and his retainers to defend the
agriculturists, handicraftsmen, and traders who
clustered round the fortress of which he was the lord,
led to demands on his side which the burghers and their
people resented. In Italy, in Germany, in France, and
in England, the great nobles and their feudatories were
in time confronted by municipalities with privileges
granted in return for services rendered, and the great
cities of Flanders and Western Germany almost rivalled
the Italian Republics in the influence they manifested
of town over country which then first began to be felt in
its modern form. The definite struggle between the
nobility and the bourgeoisie, therefore, took shape at the
same time, though assuming different aspects, in different
countries.
On, the other hand, the unorganised risings of the
peasantry, such as the Peasants’ War in England, the
�12
great insurrections of the J acquerie in France, and of the
serfs in Germany, were the attempts of the proletariat
of the middle-ages to obtain some improvement in their
lot apart from the traders, whose position was of course
very different. The serf of the middle-ages shows but
as a sorry figure, indeed, in all countries, as compared
with that splendid chivalry, whose resplendent armour
and noble individual prowess have been the theme of so
much glorification. Yet, for centuries, these despised
churls provided in the form of food and wares, furnished
by the number of days’ work due to their lord for
nothing, the means of providing all the magnificence
which decked out the baron, the abbot, and the
fair ladies of the court. Everywhere, however, at the
height of the feudal domination, the handicraftsman,
more especially at the later period which preceded its
disruption, was a free man. The contrast between
the position of such a man or the yeoman, and the
villeins, was most striking in every respect. The
latter were mere chattels: the former were independent
men; more independent perhaps in England than the
people as a body have ever been economically, socially,
and politically, at any other period of our history.
For in England—and this it is which renders our
own country the most fitting field for the study of
modern development — the enfranchisement of the
peasantry and their settlement upon the land as free
yeomen, took place at a much earlier date than in any
other nation. These yeomen were in fact the main
stay of England for several hundred years, and their
influence can be traced in our national history long
before the enfranchisement of the serfs as a body. The
�great risings, however, of the fourteenth century,
secured for the mass of our people that freedom and
well-being which made common Englishmen for at
least two centuries the envy of Europe. Serfdom was
almost entirely done away, men were masters of them
selves, their land, and their labour. Labourers and
craftsmen were alike well-paid, well-fed people, who
were not only in possession of the land which they
might occupy and till, but were also entitled to rights of
pasturage over large tracts of common land, since robbed
from their descendants by the meanness of an usurping
class who made laws in their own favour to sanctify
pillage.
England, far more densely peopled at that time than
is generally supposed, was in fact inhabited by perhaps
the most vigorous, freedom-loving set of men the world
ever saw, who, having shaken themselves free from
the slavery of the feudal system, were still untrammelled
by the worse slavery of commercialism and capital.
The economical forms, the methods of production, were
the direct cause of this universal well-being and sturdy
independence. Instead of men working under the con
trol of the landlord or the landlord-capitalist as slaves
or serfs for the sake of wealth and profit for their
owners, the yeomen were owners themselves of their
own means of production, and produced for the use of
the family, only paying a portion of such production as
tithes, or dues, or taxes. Rent, in the sense of a com
petition price paid for the occupation of land, was at
this period almost unknown'in Northern and Western
Europe as well as in these islands.
Production therefore being carried on for use, though
�i4
i
only in primitive fashion with small implements adapted to
individual handling, most of the products being consumed
or worked up into rude manufactures on the farm itself,
only the superfluity after the yeoman and his family
were well-fed and well-clothed came into exchange.
And this exchange itself, like the production, was carried
on by the individual. Craftsmen were economically as
independent as the yeomen and free-labourers, though
laws were early made (happily for many generations
without effect) to limit their powers of combination, and
to keep down the rates of wages which either they or
the agricultural labourers could command. They also
were in control of their means of production, and what
they made was the result of their own labour on raw
materials, which they in turn exchanged for other goods
made by men as free as themselves, or were paid for by
the lord or the abbot. Still the relations were in the
main personal, and not pecuniary, still a man who
earned wages for a day was by no means forced to
compete with his neighbour for hire by an employer as
a wage-earner all his life through.
The trade guilds which in the first instance were
thoroughly democratic in their constitution, protected
the craftsmen against unregulated competition, or from
the attempt to oppress them in any way. Moreover, as
it was easy then for a labourer to obtain a patch of
land, and to remove himself wholly or in part from the
.wage-earners, so a journeyman apprentice starting in
life as a mere worker could and generally did attain to
the dignity of a master craftsman in mature age. The
amount of capital to be amassed ere a man could work
for himself was so small that no serious barrier was
�placed between the journeyman and independence;
besides, the arrangements of the guilds were such that
wherever a craftsmen wandered he was received as a
brother of his particular craft. Although also the rest
of Europe was behind England in the settlement of the
people on the soil, the craft-guilds were even more
important in the Low Countries and part of Germany
in the Middle Ages than in England. Thus it should
appear that in the record of the feudal development the
period reached in each country when the peasant was a
free man working for himself upon the land, and the
craftsman was likewise a free man master of his own
means of production represents the time of greatest
individual prosperity for the people.
England, where this independence was on the whole
earliest developed, presented on this very account a
marked contrast to France where the risings of the
Jacquerie had not resulted so well for the people as our
Own peasant insurrections. In Germany and Italy the
rural population was much behind the townspeople
though in Spain, the early communal forms being there
retained, the peasants were better off. The really
important point is that, under such conditions of pro
duction as those described, where the means of pro
duction are at the disposal of the individual, who also
controls the exchange of the superfluity, perfect
economical freedom, as well as political freedom or
freedom before the law, is possible and indeed cannot be
avoided. Men then had something worth fighting for at
home and abroad, and were quite ready to spend theii" own
blood and their own money in fighting for a cause which
they held to be their own. Vicarious sacrifice of the
�i6
lives of mercenary troops and posterity’s money was
nowise to their minds; they took note that such
methods of warfare were at once cowardly and mean.
The Church as a collective body supplemented the
needs of this thoroughly individualist society. The
services rendered by the monasteries, priories, and
nunneries to the people in the shape of constant em
ployment on their estates, of almsgiving, maintenance of
hospitals, schools, inns, maintenance of roads, have been
systematically depreciated by middle-class historians;
but these semi-socialist bodies were of the highest
value in the economy of the middle-ages, more especially
in England, and the lands which they held were used
and their revenues applied in such manner that during
their most flourishing period the noblest institutions
were kept up by their aid. Permanent pauperism was un
known, and vagrancy was charitably restrained so long
as these institutions were in existence. The services
rendered by them in the direction of art and letters it is
needless to recount.
But at the risk of being compelled to repeat later
what is urged here, it is well to consider at this point
the effect which the full development of the individual
man and his power over his own tools, materials, and
the objects he worked upon, had upon art. The
ordinary opinion seems to be that art is bred and sus
tained by the luxury resulting from the present state of
society, with its monstrous contrasts of riches and
poverty. A very brief survey will be enough to show
the falsity of this notion. The slave-served society of
the classical peoples intellectual and highly-refined but
simple in life, and free, in Greece at any rate, from what
�*7
is now called luxury, looked upon art as a necessity,
and found no serious obstacle in the way of surrounding
the daily life of man with beauty. The rigid caste
system of the feudal hierarchy kept up the most vio
lent arbitrary distinctions between classes, but had no
temptation to extend those distinctions to the minds and
imaginations of men, and no means whereby it could
do so. Thus the artificer was left free to express, ac
cording to his capacity, the ideas which he shared with
the noble, developing as a class a hereditary skill and
dexterity in the handling of the simple tools of the time.
Under the craft-gilds of the latter middle-ages the
industrial arts were divided rigidly into corporations,
but inside those corporations division of labour was
yet in its infancy; so that each fully instructed crafts
man was master of his own handicraft, and was by all
surrounding circumstances encouraged to be an artist
whose labour could not be wholly irksome to him. By
this means the taste and knowledge of what art was
then possible were spread widely among the people and
became instinctive in them, so that all manufactured
articles as it were grew beautiful in the unobtrusive and
effortless way that the works of nature grow. The
result of five centuries of this popular art is obvious in
the outburst of splendid genius which lit up the days of
the Italian Renaissance: the strange rapidity with
which that splendour faded as commercialism advanced
is proof enough that this great period of art was
born not of dawning commercialism but of the freedom
of the intelligence of labour from the crushing weight
of the competition market, a freedom which it enjoyed
throughout the middle-ages.
G
�i8
The exquisite armour of the knights , their swords
and lances of perfect temper, the splendid and often
humorous decorations of the stone and wood-work in
the cathedrals, churches and abbeys, the illuminations
of the missals, the paintings of the time, the manner in
which beautiful designs and tracery nestled even in
places where it might be thought that the human eye
could rarely or never reach, nay, even such frag
ments of ordinary domestic furniture and utensils as
have been preserved, all show that the art of the
middle Ages, like the art of Greece, was something loved
and cherished and made perfect for its own sake, that
beauty welled up unbidden from the spontaneous flow
of the ideas of the time. But just at this period of the
fullest individual perfection the necessities of com
petition, arising out of economical changes in the
conditions of labour which have yet to be traced,
gradually turned the workman from the mediaeval artist
craftsman into the mere artisan of the capitalist sys
tem, and almost entirely destroyed the attractiveness of
his labour ; so that when about the end of the 17th
century the work-shop system of labour which had
pushed out the gild system was struggling to perfect its
speciality, the division of labour namely, wherein the
unit of labour is not a single workman but a group, it
found the romance, the soul, both of the higher and the
decorative arts, gone though the commonplace or
body of them still existed.
How then was the artist-craftsman thus turned into
a mere artisan ? How did the competition arise in such
shape that not free rivalry in the creation of beauty but
fierce antagonism in the greed for gain became the rule of
�19
production ? Once more the economical forms changed
and destruction of the old society was the inevitable
result.
As the feudal system was introduced into different
European countries at different periods, as again
the gradual conversion of serfs into free yeomen
and lifeholders was by no means simultaneous in every
nation, as further the formation of the craft-gilds
varied, so the decay and final disruption of the feudal
system took place at widely separated periods of time.
In England the end of the wars of the Roses saw the
commencement of this rapid disintegration. During
those wars the barons had largely increased the numbers
of their retainers, and had thus impoverished them
selves ; the people as a whole standing aloof from the
bootless and bloody Civil War between the houses of
York and Lancaster. Many of the ancient nobility
were utterly exterminated in the course of the struggle ;
and the successors to their estates, when peace was
finally proclaimed on the accession of Henry VII.,
carried on a process, which had begun even earlier, of
turning out their now useless retainers to shift for
themselves. These people formed the first set of
vagrants and wandering bands, who without house,
home, land or any recognised position in, or claim upon
society, roamed through the country in search of labour
and food. The monasteries, however, were still in full
organisation and provided to a large extent for these
wanderers.
But at the same time pressure was brought to bear
upon the innumerable small farmers and yeomen, common land was ruthlessly enclosed, and the nobles
51
/
�20
adopted every conceivable device to enrich themselves
at the expense of those who had a better title to the
land than they had. Hence more vagrants, more
homeless and a manifest decay in the real strength of
the kingdom. Here again the reasons of the change
were economical. The nobles wanted money to pay
the debts which they had incurred during the wars,
and also to maintain themselves at Court which they
now more regularly frequented; just at this time too
the Flanders market afforded a most profitable outlet
for wool. Hence it was advantageous for the land
holders in every way to remove men and substitute
sheep ; since pasture farming, needed fewer hands than
arable and sheep paid better than human beings. This
process of expropriation therefore' went relentlessly on
during the whole of the latter part of the sixteenth
century in spite of numerous statutes against such
action and the never-ceasing protests of men like More,
Latimer, &c., against the mischief that was being
done. Thus by degrees a landless class was being
formed with no property beyond the bare force of labour
in. their bodies; and these people were slowly driven
into the towns where they formed the germ of our
modern city proletariat.
The breakdown of the feudal system led in almost
every country to the establishment of a despotism,
and England formed no exception to the rule. . Henry
VIII. and Thomas Cromwell answer closely enough
. to Louis XIII. and Richelieu. It was the object of
king and minister alike that the crown should be
. supreme, and to a large extent they succeeded in
attaining it: though Cromwell, less dexterous than the
�31
French minister, lost his own head after having
removed the heads of so many others.
But the
Reformation and the consequent downfal of the monas
teries were the most important events in English
history between the Peasant’s War and the great
industrial revolution at the end of the eighteenth
century. The Reformation in Germany was as far
from being a movement of the people as it was in
England; in France also the Protestants were as little
representative of peasantry as the Catholic nobles.
Luther himself, that fierce champion of individualism,
was a bitter opponent of the peasants in their risings
against the nobles. In fact the Reformation every
where, though partly directed against undoubted
abuses in the church, was a thorough middle-class
movement representing fully middle-class aspirations
for individual aggrandisement here and hereafter.
. In England the king was shrewd enough to put him
self at its head knowing that more solid gain was to be
had by the plunder of the church than by maintaining a
resolute attitude as Defender of a Faith that gave him
nothing and took much. Thus the monasteries were
destroyed, and the king was enabled to reconcile the
barons to this pillage by giving them a good share of
the plunder of the lands of the church and the people.
Nearly one-half of the land of England, which had up
to this time been used to a large extent for public
purposes, now became the property of a number of
nobles and courtiers who recognised little or no duty of
trusteeship, and who even allowed the public roads
which the monks had kept up to go to ruin, as they
suffered the magnificent abbeys to decay or be turned
�22
into quarries for building materials. Henceforth the
people of England had no hold upon their own land;
and all the duties which the monks and nuns had filled
in the economy of the middle-ages fell into abeyance
and were left unperformed. As to the inhabitants of the
monasteries, the monks and nuns, friars and sisters who
were turned out of their houses, they joined the army
of miserable vagrants now yearly increasing on the
public highways. With no means of earning a liveli
hood, they and the discharged retainers, the expropri
ated yeomen and the discharged hinds, were a neverceasing source of annoyance to the classes which had
driven them out to starve ; whilst the very abolition of
the monasteries, which intensified the mischief, deprived
these poor people of their last hope of succour.
Such was the pressure on the peasantry, owing to the
enclosures, the robberies of commons, and the seizure of
the Church Lands, that m spite of the infamous atrocities
wreaked upon all disturbers of order and upon the
wretched vagrants themselves, who were hanged and
disembowelled, tortured and flogged in batches, there
were a whole series of insurrections after the sup
pression of the monasteries, some of which were supported
by the well-to-do, and even, as in the case of the insurrec
tion of the Northern Earls, by the nobles themselves.
The new system of production for profit and constant
competition for wages, involving though it did progress,
in the sense of producing more wealth with fewer
hands, by the division of labour and co-operation, was
thus not introduced without a frightful and bloody class
struggle on the part of the people to maintain their old
individual independence. The risings were put down
�23
with frightful cruelty, however, and the laws against
vagrants who were forced to wander by the changed
conditions of agriculture, were harsher than ever
under the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the monarch
whose reign is supposed to embrace the most glorious
period of English history.
It is worthy of remark also that during the
whole Of the sixteenth century the attempts made
to stop the uprooting of the people from the soil by
law were absolutely unavailing.
The class now
gaining power in the country, namely the landlords
with bailiffs, and the large farmers, who both regarded
the land only as a means of making gain, rode rough
shod over the enactments of Parliament in favour of the
poor; though they took care to give full force to all
those which tended in any way to strengthen their own
power. The same with the rising bourgeoisie, who
rapidly gained influence under Elizabeth, and used it
as far as possible to remove those restrictions upon
usury, and laws in favour of the labourers, which in
the middle-age polity had balanced the futile statutes
against combination. By the end of the sixteenth
•century consequently all was ready in our country for
the gradual formation of a competitive wage-slave class
divorced from the soil and deprived of the means of
production, which class must therefore be in a growing
•degree at the mercy of the classes that possessed the
land and the capital.
The increasing amount of capital also needed for
success in business as the markets grew, and the town
supplied not only the country but foreign lands,
gradually broke down the democratic constitution of
/
�24
the trade-gilds. It was no longer a matter of course
for a capable apprentice and journeyman to become in
due time master of the craft. On the contrary, the
minority, the capitalist masters, exercised increasing
authority within the gild and turned its machinery to
the disadvantage of the poorer members.
Thus,
between the landless proletariat, which was being
created by social and economical oppression, and the
landlords letting land for money-rentals in place of the
old feudal services due to the nobles, the middle or
capitalist class, the bourgeoisie, was growing up, whose
bitter antagonism to the landlords has been carried on,
as the necessary result of economical progress, even to
our own day. Farmers who farmed for profit, and.
merchants and manufacturers who employed their men
to gain a profit from their competitive labour, quite
replaced the simpler economy of the middle ages,
when nearly all were farming or producing for direct
use.
During this period of fearful suffering for the mass
of the people, when the foundations of our modern
capitalist society were laid, the greatest and most
sudden development of commerce ever seen on the
planet took place, and international production and
exchange gradually overshadowed the old national
markets and methods of working up home products.
The discovery of America and of the new route round the
Cape to India and China, the conquest of Mexico and
Peru, the conquest of Asia Minor by the Ottoman
Turks, all took place within two generations.
A
new world of adventure, a new world of thought, were
opened up before mankind. A flood of the precious
�25
metals was poured into Europe from America giving in
many ways increased power to the trading and profit
making class, and increasing the accumulation of
capital. The spoils of Mexico and Peru, the wealth ol.
all kinds gained by commerce, forced on the develop
ment at headlong speed. Spain was ruined by the
very circumstances which gave her strength. The
Italian cities lost their commercial supremacy from this
time forward, owing in part to the decay of Asia
Minor and the breakdown of the overland connection .
with the East, following upon the Turkish rule, and
partly to the change in the relative importance of the
trade to America and the West Indies. In consequence
England, France, Spain, Portugal, and the Low
Countries became the chief competitors for the com
merce of the world, Venice lending her spare capital to
the Dutch at good rates of interest, thus encouraging
the very competition that must eventually ruin her.
Hence arose the commercial wars and commercial
rivalries of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in
which Spain at the first had every apparent advan
tage.
Meanwhile in England feudalism had been com
pletely destroyed as a system, and commercialism was
being substituted. Keeping pace with the change in ■
the forms of production, progress in all directions
helped on the new development. The spread of
printing destroyed the monopoly of letters which had
been enjoyed by the clergy and the learned of high'
rank ; the application of gunpowder to war rendered
the common man-at-arms the superior of the most
gorgeously equipped knight. Thus the increase of
t-
�26
general knowledge sapped superstition, and the
musket swept away the last relics of warrior chivalry.
As the markets expanded also, the results of these
great changes in every direction became more and more
apparent. The miserable state of the internal com
munications forced Englishmen more and more into
foreign commerce, which was rendered exceptionally
profitable, not only by the discovery of new markets
that gave great returns to the trader, but also by the
useful adjuncts of piracy and slavery. To keep pace with
this growth of commerce wider organisation of labour
was needed, and, therefore, as already stated, the group
of workmen toiling under the superintendence of
the master, with a more and more regulated
division of labour, supplanted the old handi
craft.
Workshops grew larger and larger, small
factories were formed in certain trades. The workmen
ceased to own any portion of their own product: that, as
a whole, went into the hand of the employer who paid for
a part of its value in wages ; in the same way the agri
cultural labourer ceased to have any interest in the
crops which he raised: they, too belonged to the far
mer, subject to a deduction, for rent to the landlord;
and the labourer also received a part of the value of
his labour in wages. Production had become or was
rapidly becoming social: appropriation and exchange
remained under the control of the individual.
During the whole of the seventeenth and the first
half of the eighteenth century this process went on.
Organised handicraft, factory industry, and house
industry, were still to be seen together. A good many
yeomen remained in some districts, but they were becom-
�ing continually less numerous; though the agricul
tural regions were still much more populous than the
towns, and so remained until the end of the eighteenth
century. On every side commerce was the one prevail
ing object, and to that all was subordinated. Religion
naturally adapted itself to the tone of the time; and the
Protestantism of England became what it has ever since
remained—essentially a creed for the successful trafficker
in wares or in souls.
All through Europe the system of to-day in credit,
competition, and national rivalry was practically
established, and the era of foreign conquest and
colonial empire began.
But still the conflict
of the middle-class against the king and the landed
aristocracy loomed ahead. Wise sovereigns had shown
true policy in yielding to and even in fostering the grow
ing power. Others, perhaps more upright but certainly
less dexterous, precipitated the struggle. In England it
first took shape in serious organised warfare. The
bloody civil war of the seventeenth century was clearly
a, struggle between the ideas of divine right and land
owner supremacy on the one side, against the sanctity of
profit and freedom for the middle-class on the other.
The economical victory already gained in the counting
house was but confirmed in the field; and the reign of
Cromwell served as an introduction to the thorough
middle-class rule of William III.
From this time forward the question was merely
how long it would take for the middle-class to
establish in outward seeming that supremacy which,
in regard to production, they had already to a large
extent secured. Their power was still somewhat
�28
hampered by the relics of the old middle-age
restrictions even after the accession Of William ol
Orange and the House of Brunswick had virtually pro
claimed that capitalism, with its debt funded for
payment by posterity, its standing mercenary army,
and its worldwide international production and
exchange, had become master of the economical, and, in
the strict sense, social field. But division of labour
was carried farther and farther, trade and commerce
developed exceedingly, the settlements in America and
the factories in India helped on the growth, until in the
eighteenth century, the period had manifestly arrived
fpr yet another development which would enable the
productive forces to supply the ever-growing market.
Prior to this new manifestation of the powers of man
over nature and of the method in which, under such
social conditions, as now existed, these powers were
turned to the sole advantage of a class, the condition of
the English worker was better than it had been at any
period since the fifteenth century. His wages both in
town and country bore a higher ratio to the cost of
living than at any intermediate time. Agriculture had
recovered in some degree from the depression of the.
sixteenth century, owing to the demand for cereals in
the growing comercial cities; and the artisan, under the.?
division of labour and the group system of factory pro-,
due <. ion, was in a more favourable position than he had
been when home competition was more severe and
foreign markets were less open.
In France, on the contrary, the peasantry had not
gained ground against the barons to nearly the same,
extent, nor were the bourgeoisie nearly so advanced in
�29
their political struggle as the corresponding classes in
England. Though the serfs had to some degree been
settled upon the land, the oppression of the nobles and
the pressure of taxation, owing to the wars of
Louis XIV., ground down the poor to a level wholly
unknown on this side of the Channel. Moreover, the
rush of speculation and commercialism produced a far
more rapid and complete deterioration of the character
of the whole upper classes in Paris, and in France
generally, than it did in London and England.
' Thus at the end of the eighteenth century France was
fully prepared for a political and social, England was
more ready for an industrial, revolution. The ideas of the
time were much the same in both countries ; but whereas
our middle-class had taken order with their king and his
aristocrats in the seventeenth century, and capital had
secured its firm foothold at that time alike in town and
country, France had yet to pass through a whole series
of events parallel to what had already taken place here
generations before. The English Revolution, the
American War of Independence, stirring the minds of
the middle-class and the people, the utter degradation of
the French nobility by the scenes in the Rue Quincampoix occasioned by their endeavours to make gain out
of Law’s Mississippi scheme and similar ventures, the
destruction of faith in the prevailing religion among the
educated by Voltaire and Rousseau, and the Encyclopae
dists, the prevailing misery among the entire population,
which was totally disregarded by the nobles and the
court, were factors that all tended relentlessly to a
political overthrow.
.
. ’ .
The change in the conditions of the time had not
�30
been recognised. Those economical and social dis
placements which had already prepared the revolution
in the body of society had passed unheeded; and
thus the French Revolution, which was clearly
predicted by a few careful observers, came upon
the world at large as a surprise. It was a rising against
a tyranny alike corrupt, mean, and obsolete. Its
influence spread rapidly at first and, coming after the
noble American Declaration of Independence, produced
a great effect in every European country, not least in
England. That glorious struggle for Liberty, Equality,
and Fraternity, which began in 1789, that temporary
alliance of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat,
though it gave rise to some splendid episodes for
the people, ended in victory for the bourgeoisie
alone. The really great names of the French revo
lution have, of course, been honoured by middle
class abuse. Napoleon, the hero of reaction, used the
enthusiasm born of revolution to spread his self
seeking imperialism through Europe, and enabled
reactionists in other countries to pose as the champions
of national freedom.
The effect of the great revolutionary war upon Eng
land, and the increased power which the long conflict
placed in the hands of the aristocratic and capitalist
classes, was most disastrous from every point of view.
Political progress was thrown back nearly a century,
social reforms were indefinitely postponed, and the
new industrial forces went almost without heed or pro
test into the hands of the profit-making class. And
these industrial forces were of a magnitude, and pro
duced effects the like of which had never been seen in
�3i
the world before. As the great geographical and mer
cantile discoveries at the end of the sixteenth century,
with the rapid development of shipping, ended by
giving England the control of commerce ; so the great
inventions at the end of the eighteenth century resulted
in giving this country the lead in industry. But the
effect upon the people was terrible almost from the
beginning. At first a few benefited by the increased
powers of production alike in labouring on the land and
with respect to working up raw materials.; and the initial
steps were taken towards the formation of an aristocracy
of labour to protect, by means of secret societies,
the interests of the skilled artisans. But the power of
machinery soon broke down these earlier combinations.
The cottage industry was ere long completely de
stroyed. In every branch of trade the development
became so extraordinary that nothing but a constant
supply of fresh hands to work the machines, and in turn
an improvement of machines to restrain the demands of
the hands could keep pace with the growing markets
opened by the increasing cheapness of production.
Competition took another great stride in advance.
Poor Irishmen, driven from their own country by land
lord rascality and oppression, came in to compete at the
lowest standard of life with the already impoverished
Englishmen. Towns grew in magnitude with amazing
rapidity as steam and greater knowledge of the use
of water power increased the size of the factories and
the number of, men, women, and children who could
work under the control of one employer. From being
an agricultural country England in the course of fifty
or sixty years became essentially a country of great.
�32
cities with a proletariat under the control of the capitalist
class in a worse condition (this all official reports show)
than any slave class of ancient times had ever lived in.
For ere long the capitalist class, now almost at the
height of its economical power, had swept away entirely
the restrictions imposed by the middle-age polity.
Freedom of contract between the pauper and the
plutocrat, unrestrained competition between men and
women in order that they might be able to get enough
out of the product of their labour merely to keep body
and soul together, wholesale slaughter of children by
overwork and insufficient nourishment in unhealthy,
overheated factories and ill-ventilated mines—the whole
system was based upon never-ending oppression of the
most horrible kind. Wages fell in proportion to the
cost of living at the very time when enormous fortunes
were being accumulated in the cotton, wool, silk, iron,
and other industries. Women and children were
brought in to reduce the wages of their own fathers and
brothers by competing for under-pay.
The legislature, under the direct control of the
classes interested in maintaining this atrocious slavery
under the guise of freedom, refused at first even to
bring in laws to prevent babes from three to nine years
of age from being worked fourteen,fifteen, sixteen hours
a day. Capital had full swing in every direction and
ground down the body of the people into a hopeless
degradation from which they have never yet emerged.
Risings there were from time to time in the earlier part
of this century against this fearful oppression brought
about by sheer greed for gain. But they were all unsuc
cessful, and not until the half of the century had passed
�33
away were any effective laws enacted, at the instance
of such men as Robert Owen, to check the capitalist
class in their furious haste to be rich at the expense of
the men, women, and children, whom they robbed
wholesale of their labour and ruined in their health.
For now man was slave to the machine, no longer a
free agent in any sense. Division of labour in the
workshop faded into the great factory industry ; and
machines, as they were introduced, served not to
benefit the community and lessen the amount of
labour needed to produce wealth but absolutely
to increase the hours of labour, to degrade the workers
more and more, and, by frequently throwing hands out into
street, gradually to form a fringe of labour, ever on the
verge of pauperism—ready to take the lowest wages,
even when an impetus to trade rendered the capitalist
class anxious for more hands. This introduction of
machinery, this complete domination of the capitalist
class and sweeping expropriation of the labour of the
workers, piled up the wealth for the few which enabled
us to come out triumphant from the great war.
But whence came the wealth thus accumulated by
the few out of the labour of others—by the capitalist
farmers in the country, by the capitalist factory owners
and loiterers in the towns ? Out of the excessive
labour of the workers who were hopelessly divorced from
the means of production, and were compelled to sell their
labour-force to the capitalist for the lowest subsistence
wages. The economical law of such competition
among the workers as that which has gone on in
England since the end of the eighteenth century, is
admitted by the capitalists, and their fuglemen, the
D
�political economists, themselves. The one object of
production being production for profit, the capitalist
of course buys the labour-force which the needy
worker is driven to sell at the lowest possible price in
wages. This price, it is now agreed, corresponds on
the average to the social needs represented by the
standard of life in the class to which the seller of the
labour-force belongs. At times the wages may, and do,
fall far below this level of necessary subsistence, at
other times combination among the workers, or a period
of exceptionally prosperous trade, may temporarily raise
them above this level. But the tendency is always as
stated ; nor does the existence of an aristocracy of
labour modify the truth of the proposition. But when the
capitalist, whether a farmer or a factory-lord, has
bought the destitute worker’s labour-force on the
market, he does so with the intention of applying it to
the growing of his crops, or to the manufacture of the
raw materials which he has purchased at their market
value. Labour-force embodied in commodities, the
cost of production or re-production, that is, of articlesreckoned useful in the social conditions of the time, is
the basis and measure of their average exchange-value
when brought forward for exchange. In the first two or
three hours of the day’s work, however, the labouring class
whose labour-force is thus purchased, refund to the em
ploying class the full value ofthe wages which they receive
in return for the whole day’s work. But the entire
product of the day’s work, or the week’s work, or the
month’s work, or the year’s work, is at the control of
the capitalist who thus appropriates two-thirds or three
quarters of the labourers’ work without paying for it.
�35
In the factory, that is to say, and to an ever increas
ing degree on the farm, the labourers work as a portion
of an association ; their labour is socialised in the
highest degree. But both their products and the
exchange of their products are at the disposal of
individuals who compete with one another for gain
above, as the workers compete against one another for
bare subsistence below.
Here then are the two main features of our modern
system of production for profit. First. The labourers on
the average replace the value of their wages for the
capitalist class in the first few hours of their day’s work ;
the exchange value of the goods produced in the remaining
hours of the day’s work constitutes so much embodied
labour which is unpaid; and this unpaid labour so
embodied in articles of utility, the capitalist class, the
factory owners, the farmers, the bankers, the brokers,
the shopkeepers, and their hangers-on the landlords,
divide among themselves in the shape of profits,
interests, discounts, commissions, rent, &c. Second.
The other feature is the antagonism between the
socialised method of production and the individualised
system of exchange. This brings about unmitigated
anarchy in the shape of a world-wide crisis every ten
years, which throws labourers out of work when they
are as anxious to toil for subsistence as ever they were;
and piles up quantities of goods which these very
labourers are eager to buy, but which owing to the
crisis they cannot earn the means of purchasing,
because the capitalist class will not employ them unless
a profit is to be made, and this profit is rendered
impossible by the very glut of the goods. Such crises
�3^
have now occurred every ten years since 1825, and
owing to these, men and women have been continually
thrown out of work and flung into misery from no fault
whatever of their own.
The introduction of fresh machines is similarly against
workers, tending as it does to increased uncertainty of
employment and to reduce skilled workers to a lower class.
Thus the tendency is to produce not merely a destitute
proletariat forced to remain as a class wage-slaves to
their m isters, body-slaves to the machine, their life long;
but also a fringe of labour employed at scant wages
in “ good times,” thrown into pauperism and starvation
in bad. Hence freedom of contract between those who
have no means of production, and those who have a
monoply of them, simply involves the most terrible
economical tyranny the world has yet seen : the surplus
value provided under this illusory freedom out of unpaid
labour enables the idle classes and their dependants to
live in luxury at the expense of persistent overwork and
misery for the producers themselves.
Thus individual exchange uncontrolled by thought of
collective advantage brings about fearful anarchy in
every direction, which is a satire indeed upon the
middle-class cuckoo cry of “order, order.”
Children are ill-nurtured and underfed, women are
worked to within a few hours of pregnancy, the condi
tions of existence for the mass of the people are such
that health, happiness, and morality are impossible, and
still the capitalist class and their champions, the political
economists, tell us that such is the inevitable outcome of
our mock civilisation. Nor is there any real standard
of honour among the competitors for wealth themselves.
�37
Having robbed the labourers wholesale of their labour,
they proceed to rob one another by underselling, adulter
ation and fraud. As a general result of the system mere
pecuniary relations are paramount. How to make money
is the be-all and end-all of this ruinous system of com
petitive production for profit. Love, honour, ability,
beauty, all are in the market—going, going, going, gone 1
knocked down to the highest bidder.
Art! that necessarily fades under such conditions ;
and machine-work, literally and figuratively, is the pro
duct of the time. This has been gradually brought about
through the operation of the economical forms whose
development has been briefly traced.
Throughout
the 18th century the idea that the making of goods is
the end and aim of manufacture still struggled, with
ever-increasing feebleness, against the real view of
capitalism, that manufacture has no essential aim
save profit for the capitalist-class, and mere occu
pation for the workman: occupation, that is, daily
leisureless labour with no pretence to attractiveness in
it, rewarded by a livelihood whose standard is forced
down by competition, to the lowest point which will be
endured without active discontent.
This view is accepted as a matter past discussion by
the fully-developed capitalism of the 19th century which
has in its turn supplanted the workshop, with its groups
of workmen each skilled in a narrow round of labour,
by the factory with its machines tended by women
and children or by a mere labourer of whom neither
skill nor intelligence is necessarily required. This
system withits unavoidable consequence that the greater
and (commercially) more important part of the wares it
�38
produces are made for the consumption of poor
and degraded people without leisure or taste wherewith
to discern beauty, without money or labour to
pay for excellence of workmanship—this system makes
labour so repulsive and burdensome that art, in the long
run, is impossible under it. Instead of the pleasant,
intellectual, fruitful labour of the middle-ages, we have
the barren, hideous drudgery of the factory and the
cotton-mill. While it lasts all the ordinary surround
ings of life must of necessity be ugly and brutal, and
’ what of art is left for a time, depending as it does, not on
' its own life, but on the memory of past days of glory
" and beauty, must be produced by men of exceptional
' gifts, living isolated amidst the ugliness and brutality of
' their own time and protesting against the spirit of their
own age. Thus the capitalist system threatens to dry
up the very springs of all art, that is, of the external
beauty of life, and to reduce the world to a state of
barbarism.
The proletariat, however, as already remarked, were
not crushed into this helplessness in England without
having struggled against the meanest tyranny that ever
oppressed them. From the end of the last century, when
Trade Societies were established throughout the king
dom, vainly endeavouring to make head against the
steadily growing power of capital, the working classes
kept up an increasing agitation in favour of a more
reasonable lot for themselves and their children.
Another serious class fight had begun. What the
workers saw was this: — that the introduction of
machinery, though it might give wealth to the capitalist
class and to the country at large, brought with it for them
�39
^starvation and intolerable misery, owing to the displace
ment of the old methods and the competition of the
labour of women and children with that of grown men.
During the first three-quarters of the eighteenth cen
tury also the people, as we have seen, were on the whole
better off, their wages would buy them more and better
food and raiment than for two centuries before. Con
sequently the pressure being sudden was more severely
felt and more vigorously resisted than it is to-day. The
'workers saw that the unregulated introduction of
machines meant for them ruin; as Sir James Steuart,
the famous economist, plainly stated it must, ten years
before the publication of “The Wealth of Nations.”
They, therefore, in the first place attacked the machines
themselves ; and bands of workpeople under the name of
Luddites destroyed machinery in many industrial centres,
with the impression that thus they were striking
heavy blows at the real enemy. As a matter of course
their adversaries were not the inert machines, which
"only produced more wealth at the cost of less and less
expenditure of human labour, but the class appropria
tion of these improvements which gave to the labourers,
owing to competition among themselves for employment,
a less and less proportionate share of the wealth
created.
For the cheapening of the products did not benefit
the workers as a class. It only enabled them to take a
lower average wage in times of pressure without ab
solute starvation; whilst the uncertainty arising from
constant improvements and the competition of their
own families rendered their position even worse than
the mere amount of wages for long hours and excessive
�40
overwork would betoken. Thus the very circumstances
which should have bettered their condition and rendered
their life more easy, actually pressed them down to a
K ,< lower standard of existence.
Not until 1802 was any step taken to recognise even
that children were overworked, and the Act then
passed was wholly abortive. In 1814 the capitalist
class even succeeded in removing the last vestige of the
old restrictions notwithstanding the overwhelming array
of petitions from the workers against any such action.
At this time it must be remembered that all combina
tions among the workers to raise wages, or to strike for
any reason whatsoever, were illegal. Soon afterwards
the great war came to an end which had so much
strengthened the power of the landowners, farmers and
capitalists, at the expense of the people; and with its
termination, and the consequent collapse of the fic
titious prosperity created for certain classes, came a
period of even greater pressure upon the people. From
1817 to 1848 was therefore one of almost continuous
turmoil. The middle-class were striving to secure their
complete control over the House of Commons by a
limited extension of the suffrage, and a disfranchise
ment of rotten boroughs; the wage-earners were
combining in all directions to obtain the suffrage for
their class, but also to relieve themselves from the
hideous economical injustice they suffered under.
Riots in the towns and rick-burnings in the country
were frequent.
The time of the fiercest struggle was shortly after the
enaction of the Reform Bill of 1832. Then the effect
of the New Poor Law, the constant immigration from
�41
Ireland owing to economical causes due to landlord
oppression, and the continuous operation of capitalism,
produced such distress that from 1835 to 1842 the country
was described by a careful foreign observer as in a state
of permanent revolt. Now it was that a portion of the
middle-class made common caus with the workers in
their agitation; that the Trade Unionists free to com
bine since 1824, acted in concert to a great extent
with the rank and file of labourers; and that utopian
Socialism, in the shape of schemes for the nationalisa
tion of the land, inherited from Spence and others, as
well as Robert Owen’s plans of co-operation, began to
be recognised as a definite school.
The Trade Unionists at this time were the advanced
guard of the working class party ; and although, early
in the day, the sense of superiority to the unskilled
workers began to show itself among the members, much
of the success which was obtained could never have
been got without their aid. Thus the gradual enaction
and enforcement of Factory Acts, in favour of the
restriction of the labour of women and children within
more reasonable limits as to the number of hours worked,
the rights of free meeting and a free press, were
obtained owing in large part to the steady organised
support given by the Trade Unionists to these mea
sures. In the chartist agitation also which was a
decided movement of the proletariat against the
landlord and capitalist class many Trade Unionists
took an active share, as also in the serious risings
which occurred in Wales, Manchester, Birmingham,
Nottingham and elsewhere.
But for the counter-agitation got up by the capitalists
�42
in favour of Free Trade in corn it is even possible that
the Chartists and Socialists together might have
■achieved, at any rate, a temporary success for the cause
of the people. As it was the Corn Law League drawing
the people off on a false scent—for all can see nowadays
that cheap food meant little more than increased profits
for the capitalist class—the leaders were left almost
without followers; and though in 1848 the renewed stir
on the Continent of Europe gave the workers in this
country every encouragement and an exceptional
opportunity, they failed to resuscitate the energetic
movement of 1842. In fact almost the only great result of
all the long series of agitations for the benefit of the
workers was the final settlement and consolidation in
1852 of the Factory Act of 1847.
' .
But 1848 on the Continent of Europe was a far more
important date than in England. Then first, it may be
said, since Babceufs conspiracy in 1796,—for the
Days of July ” in 1830 in Paris or the outbreak at
Lyons in 1834.were comparatively trifling—did the pro
letariat again show that it had interests which were not
pnly not in accord with, but diametrically hostile to
the interests of the middle class. All over Europe
scientific, as distinguished from mere utopian, Socialism
now began to be felt beneath the efforts for
national independence.
The famous Communist
Manifesto of Marx and Engels which first formulated
in a distinct shape the great truth of the inevitable
Struggle of classes so long as classes exist, the agitations
of Blanqui and the theories of Louis Blanc, Ledru
Rollin, &c., all pointed to an international combination of
' the workers in the interests of the labouring class
�43
which should have a far wider, nobler and more
beneficial influence than endeavours, however glorious,
for mere national independence. It was Socialism as
an organised force based upon the sure ground of
science and political economy which frightened the
statesmen of all countries far more than any idea of
mere national movements in which class gradations
Would still be maintained.
The time was not yet. The middle class triumphed
not only in England but in every European country, the
thousands who fell fighting for the people in Paris died
vainly for the time, and the bourgeoisie gladly supported
order ” under President, King, or Emperor, which
ensured the butchery of the champions of the proletariat
and made them certain of the continuance of the
universal reign of production for profit and the conse
quent wage-slavery of the mass of the producers in all
lands. From 1848 onwards, however, Socialism itself,
international, organised Socialism, has been a moral,
intellectual and physical force to be counted with in all
the councils of Europe. Thenceforward the leaders of
■the proletariat of the world could feel assured that when
the time was ripe for action they had an unshakable
scientific foundation on which to build, to which indeed
each year has added another layer of solid theory and
fact combined.
England, unfortunately, the country where the struggle
between the workers and the capitalists first took an
organised and manifest shape, now, to all appearance,
fell behind. The working classes of England, owing to
the enormous expansion of foreign markets, to the fact
that this country was the first in the field with improved
�44
, .’*
K
machinery and highly socialised factories, to the earlier
development of railways here than elsewhere, to the Free
Trade Policy which kept the necessary standard of life
cheap, to emigration which took off the more energetic
political leaders of the people and afforded a further out
let for goods, to the stagnation of the Trade Unions
which, when they had got what the higher grade of
workers needed most, cared little or nothing for the
welfare of the other classes of labour—the workers of
England, we say, fell behind in their efforts for the
enfranchisement of their class and have been content
since 1848 with that moderation in their requirements
and that bated breath method of urging their simplest
demands which naturally find favour with their Capi
talist masters.
During the thirty-five years which have passed, how
ever, since 1848, wealth in England has increased far
beyond all previous computation or imagination. From all
quarters of the globe the profits ofthe world-market have
been poured into the lap of our merchants and Capitalists.
The landlords also , have gained in rents, but in a very
trifling degree compared with the gain ofthe trading class.
The income tax returns alone show that the increase in
assessable incomes has been from ^275,000,000 in 1848
to nearly £600,000,000 in 1882. The total of realised
wealth seems incredible, being given, by an official
statist, at over £8,500,000,000. In every direction this
expansion of wealth is to be observed. The rich quarters
of our cities have spread beyond all bounds ; numerous
and populous lounger towns have sprung up around our
coasts, where the indolent wealthy may conveniently kill
time in healthy uselessness; the standard of living among
�the middle-class is so high that their chief diseases arise
from gluttony or drink.
Yet at this very time official returns prove conclusively
that vast masses of our countrymen are living on the
very verge of starvation ; that much of the factory popu
lation is undergoing steady physical deterioration ; that
the agricultural labourers rarely get enough food to keep
them clear of diseases arising from insufficient nourish
ment ; while such is the housing of the wage-earners
in our great cities and in our country districts that even
the leading partisans of our political factions at length
have awakened to the fact that civilisation for the poor
has been impossible for nearly two generations under
these conditions, and that some steps ought really to be
taken to remedy so monstrous an evil. Drink, debauchery,
vice, crime inevitably arise under such conditions. For
indigestion arising from bad food, cold arising from insuf
ficient firing,depression arising from unhealthy air and lack
of amusement, necessarily drive the poor to the public
house ; while even the sober have had, too often, no edu
cation which should fit them for the full enjoyment of life.
And drunken and sober, virtuous and vicious—if they
can be called vicious who are steeped in immorality from
their very babyhood—are all subject to never-ceasing
uncertainty of earning a livelihood, due to the constant
introduction of fresh machines over which they have no
control, or to the great commercial crises which come
more frequently and last for a longer time at each recur
rence. There is therefore complete anarchy of life and
anarchy of production around us. Order exists, morality
exists, comfort, happiness, education, as a whole, exist
only for the class which has the means of production, at
�46
the expense of the class which supplies the labour-force
that produces wealth.
The total income of the country is ^1,300,000,000 ; of
this the producers receive ^300,000,000 in wages ; and
of these wages they pay back one-fifth to one-third to the
landlord and capitalist class in rent, apart from the
amount they refund in profits on retail and adulterated
goods. The producers live on the average one-half the
number of years the comfortable classes live. The total
amount of property owned by 220,000 families is nearly
/’6,ooo,ooo,oou, whilst millions are living on insufficient
food and 4,500,000 persons receive charitable relief in
England and Wales alone, in one shape or another,
during the course of the year. The land of England is
practically owned by 30,000 people against 30,000,000
and 8,000 landowners in Great Britain and Ireland
receive no less than ^"35,000,000 a year in rents. Such
plain facts as these are sufficient of themselves to show
the anarchy of what we call civilisation. There have
been no fewer than six commercial crises since the
beginning of the century to crush the workers, not count
ing the Lancashire cotton famine due to the American
Civil War. Meanwhile commercial war—competition
in cheapness, that is, adulteration to make great profits,
and attacks upon helpless people to open up new
markets—has been going on all round.
Yet in the face of all this a certain school still contend
that thei e is no class robbery; that there should be no
class antagonism; that the blessings of peace and
eternal money-getting for all would be ever with us if only
our people—our producing people—would cease to have
any families at all. What is it produces value ?—labour
�applied to natural objects. What is it produces sur
plus value, and thus provides profit, interest, rent,
commissions, &c.—labour applied to natural objects under
the control of the capitalist class who take all the
value produced less the mere average subsistence wages
of the labourer. Yet to provide more wealth we are to
cut off the supply of labour by breeding no labourers.
This foolish Malthusian craze is itself bred of our
anarchical competitive system; and those who are
smitten with it cannot see that the power of man over
nature is such that, if his labour were properly organised,
he would produce in food or its equivalent at least four
times more than the amount of wealth which he would
require, if he lived in absolute comfort, provided he
worked only six hours a day. Were machinery properly
applied, far less than two hours labour a day for each
male above twenty-one would suffice for all to live in
comfort, if none lived in excessive luxury on the labour
of others. As it is, about one-fourth of our adult
population are engaged in actual useful production, often
with inferior machinery, yet the total income is
£1,300 ,000,000 a year.
That the power of man over nature increases in a
far more rapid ratio in all progressive societies than the
increase of population ; that the well-to-do—such as all
would be in an organised Socialist community—breed,
slowly, the poor fast; that the supposed law of dimin
ishing returns to capital (which means in one shape and
another labour) expended on the soil is demonstrably
false ; that England alone could profitably produce food
enough to feed its present population, the return
increasing with each improvement in agriculture ; that
�48
North America by itself would still export enormous
quantities of food after all its inhabitants were well fed
even if it had 800,000,000 inhabitants: these are facts
and estimates of the very highest agricultural and
economical authorities which ought finally to dispose of
the so-called Malthusian theory, even if the supposed
necessity of fictitiously limiting the number of producers
were not on the face of it an absurdity where idlers
who eat enormously and produce not at all form the
majority ofthe population.
From 1848 to 1864 there was little sign of Socialist
movement of an international character, and although
Lassalle’s vigorous agitation in Germany which began
in 1862 produced a great effect in that country no
serious attempt was made to organise a general com
bination of Socialists until two years later.
In
November 1864 a meeting was held in London which
laid the foundation of the International Working Men’s
Association. Karl Marx was the brain of the move
ment which soon spread to every civilised country and
occasioned grave uneasiness to the courts and cabinets
of Europe. The International in effect proclaimed the
“ Solidarity ” of interest between the workers of all
nations, and called upon them to unite in order to
obtain control of the means of production, including the
land, in every country; its leaders declared also
that the war between classes in each state was the real
matter of importance to the labouring class, which every
where suffered from the oppression of the classes above;
that therefore they should sink national differences in a
great international struggle for the emancipation of the
�49
workers. These ideas obtained more ready acceptance
in Germany than elsewhere as might have been
expected from the superior education of the German
working classes and from the fact that the heads of the
movement were Germans; but up to the date of the
declaration of war between France and Germany
the International bid fair to become a most important
body, and to combine the proletariat in a really formid
able movement all over Europe.
When the war was over Paris found that though she
had got rid of the Emperor with his gang of profession
al gamblers and prostitutes, France was to be handed
to the exploitation of a reactionist Republic. The
Parisians, therefore, resenting this mean substitution,
made an attempt to secure perfect commercial indepen
dence before admitting the troops from without. The
movement was at first necessarily in middle-class hands,
and the Socialists of Paris were warned by the leaders
of the International that as a simultaneous rising in
Berlin, Vienna, Madrid, &c., had been impossible to
arrange, failure was certain. The French Socialists were
incensed at this prediction and set to work to discredit
its authors. But, when the Commune had once been
set on foot, it soon became clear that Paris was
destined to be the scene of another bloody but again for
the time, fruitless campaign of the proletariat against
the bourgeoisie. Yet the champions of that class alone
showed unfaltering resolution and dauntless courage
in the face of danger and in the face of death.
Paris was to a large extent injured by the attacks of
the troops, and partly by the action of the beaten forces
of the insurgents ; but the horrors of the cold-blooded
E
�So
massacre which followed, the infamous misdeeds of the
Versailles troops, with such monsters as Gallifet at
their head, and the fearful scenes on the plain of Satory
have effaced almost all memory of the errors of the
vanquished. Once more “ order *’ rose in place of the
best government for the many that Paris had ever seen.
Throughout the world to-day the remembrance of that
fearful struggle and defeat strengthens the determination
of the real leaders of the proletariat revolution.
From that date forward organised Socialism has
made way against many difficulties, the apathy of
Englishmen having largely contributed to check any
real re-commencement of the international movement.
But of late years a change has taken place and the
rapidly growing influence of the Democratic Federation
shows that an avowed Socialist propaganda of an
international character has at last taken root in this
country.
What we have to face now is a bitter class antagon
ism between the classes who own the means of
production which they use to enslave their fellows to
those means of production and the labourers who are
thus economically and socially enslaved. With these
labourers must be numbered a large portion of the lowest
middle-class who practically depend upon and are a
portion of the proletariat, certain of the intellectual
proletariat, clerks, &c., who are learning how they are
being exploited themselves by their employers, and the
domestic servants, whose servile, degraded position will
be felt more and more as education spreads. Here is
the last class antagonism, which indeed is world-wide—
the antagonism between the slaves of the machine, the
�mere social engines for producing surplus value and
contributing to luxury, against the capitalist class and
their hangers-on, the landlords. All other antagonisms,,
complicated as they were, have now faded into this
one simple unmistakeable hostility of clearly defined
inimical interests between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie.
Proletariat production—capitalist appropriation:
workers make—traders take. Socialised production ;
individual exchange. Work in concert: exchange at
war. Supremacy of town: subservience of country.
Overcrowded cities: empty fields.
Such are the
briefest possible statements of the economical and
social forms which result in our present anarchy, not
for one class alone, though that suffers far the most, but
for all. And the system as a whole, is now world-wide,,
though in different shapes. Capital dominates the
planet, acts irrespective of all nationalities, grabs itsprofits irrespective of all creeds and conditions:
capital is international, unsectarian, destitute of regard,
for humanity or religion. The proletariat must learn
from the system which they have to overthrow to be
equally indifferent to class, creed or colour, religion or
nationality, so long as the individuals sink their
personal objects in a resolute endeavour against the
common enemy. Unite ! for this we educate, to this,
end we agitate, to achieve a certain victory for all we
organise. Unite ! Unite ! Unite !
But we are all only working in a great economical
movement, which we can help in some degree to
advance or retard, but which will proceed whatever we
do to push on or to hinder. The very conditions o£
�52
production are bringing about changes in spite of the
efforts of the capitalist class themselves. It has been
found necessary to use the power of the State more and
more to check the unbridled greed of the classes who
confiscate labour. Even the middle-class debating club
at Westminster, which passes muster as the English
House of Commons, has found itself compelled by the
exigencies of the case to interpose between the employers
and their wage-slaves, between the Irish landlords and
their serfs, between adulterating poisoners and their
victims. The domain of laissez-faire, the hideous realm
of mis-rule, has been invaded year by year by the State,
controlled though it is by the oppressing classes,
because some steps were absolutely essential to save the
mass of the population from utter physical, moral and
intellectual deteroriation. Education Acts, Irish Land
Acts, Employers’ Liability Acts, Factory Acts, Artisans’
Dwellings Acts, these and others, are direct evidence of
the tendency to limit that unrestrained free contract so
dear to the capitalist slave-driver of modern times.
They are but half-way measures at best. What more
could they be when enacted, administered and applied
by the very classes which, according to the debased
estimate of the aims and pleasures of life commonly held
among those classes themselves, have most to lose by a
thorough reorganisation ? But their very appearance
•on the Statute Book proves that the era of middle
class rule, and the period of working class apathy are
alike coming to an end.
The fear of pressure from without of a threatening
kind leads the luxurious classes to try to negotiate.
Bankrupt of ideas, destitute of principles, their one
�53
endeavour is to compromise on favourable terms. But
for us no compromise is possible which shall carry with
it the continuance of the present misery.
Yet again we see the power of the State extending.
It organises as well as orders, developes as well as
restrains. This too in despite of huckster economy and
huckster economists, whose principal professors are
forced to eat their own words as administrators and to
stultify their teaching as thinkers by sheer pressure of
the course of events. At this hour the State is by far
the largest employer of labour in the kingdom. The
Post Office, the Telegraphs, the Parcels Post, the State
Banks, the Arsenals, the Dockyards, the Clothing
Establishments, the Army and Navy, are all managed
by the State, and administered by State officials, who
organise the labour below. The objection to the system
is not inefficiency nor even extravagance, but the fact
that those who labour are brought into competition
with the lowest wages outside; and that the profits of
their production or distribution are used by the State
to reduce the taxation which has to be paid by the
middle class.
But in this direction lies the best prospect for reform
and re-organisation without bloodshed. The Railways,
the Shipping Companies, the great Machine Factories,
are even now ready to be handled by the State through
their present officials, but under the direct control of
the producing class (which will comprise the whole
community) and without the endeavour to exact a
profit at the expense of the overwork of the em
ployes as is at present the case. Shareholders and
factory lords have no more power, as assuredly they
�54
have no more right, than landlords to keep back that
organisation of the labour of all, for the benefit of
all, which is the only possible outlet from our pre
sent anarchical system of production for profit and
never-ending round of commercial crises, due to the
revolt of the socialised method of production against
the individualised form of exchange.
When a glut of goods exists on one hand, and men
■eager for those goods and anxious to work stand idle
and foodless on the other, when these two factors of
well-being cannot be brought together because of the
necessity to produce for profit which the very glut
itself prevents, surely anarchy in production and exchange
has been driven to the last ditch of absurdity. When
hundreds of thousands of children are brought into the
world under such conditions that good food, good
health, good education, are for them impossible, the
essential foundations though all three are of true
morality and sound citizenship in later life, surely here
too the anarchy in our commonest social relations is
clearly manifested. When also we look around at the
complete divison between classes, their utter ignorance
of what one another think and feel, the incapacity of
men and women of different classes to sit comfortably
at the same meal table, though of the same race,
language and creed, here, even apart from the necessary
antagonism of economical interests, the social anarchy
which the middle-classes call order once more stares us
in the face.
After these instances of disintegration and disorder,
the ugliness, waste, and adulteration seem comparatively
trifling. Yet so long as competitive commerce and
�55
production for profit continue, based upon wage
slavery below, no change for the better can be
wrought. As capitalism saps :all healthy social
relations and reduces even the closest connection
between the sexes to a mere question of bargain and
sale, so it threatens to destroy the springs of all art, that
is of the external beauty of life, and to reduce the
world to a state of barbarism ; a threat which can only
be met by the demands of social order for the com
munising of exchange and the means of production,
so that labour may be freed from the merely useless
toil in which it is to a large extent at present employed,
so that while machinery is used for performing labour
repulsive to men, the intelligence of the workmen may
be made available for the higher needs of the community,
so that the greater and better part of productive labour
may become a voluntary, reasonable and pleasureable
exercise of the human faculties, instead of a compulsory,
degrading and unhappy struggle for existence, human
in nothing save its suffering, the tragedy of the battle
against starvation.
How then would individuality, that unceasing cry
of the bore and the dullard, be stunted by a
system which should leave full play to the highest
faculties of every man in return for trifling, pleasant
social labour, nay, which should develope those facul
ties for all classes far more than they are developed
to-day ? Under such a system, where mankind
collectively controlled their means of production, with
•machinery ever improving by the genius of their fellows,
but used for instead of against the mass of the human
race, men would at length be really free in every sense
�56
economical, social, and political, save that they
would no longer possess the freedom to enslave and
embrute their fellow men. Individuality is crushed to
day in every direction. The poor slave to the machine,
the overworked hind or domestic drudge have no time
for individuality, no strength left for their own education
or development. Under our present system there is no
individuality for the mass of mankind.
For re-construction and re-organisation, therefore, we
Socialists continually strive, looking to the completest
physical, moral and intellectual development of every
human being as the highest form of the social state, as
the best and truest happiness for every individual and for
every class, where, as none need overwork, so none
shall be able to force others to work for their profit.
And this is Utopian ! Nay; it was utopian perhaps, when
the powers of man over nature were trifling compared
with what they are to-day, and mere division of labour
almost necessarily involved the formation of castes and
classes. But now steam, electricity, the forces growing
daily under our hand, render equality a necessity unless
barbarism and bootless destruction are to come upon
us in our very midst. For as ideas grow, as education
spreads, so does the knowledge of how to turn the
increasing powers of devastation to account increase
among the needy and the oppressed. Gunpowder
helped to sweep away feudalism with all its beauty and
all its chivalry, when new forms arose from the decay of
the old; now far stronger explosives are arrayed
against capitalism; while the ideas of the time are as
rife with revolution as they were when feudalism fell.
To avoid alike the crushing anarchy of to-day and the
�57
fierce anarchy of to-morrow, we strive to help forward
the workers to the control of the State, as the only means
whereby such hideous trouble can be avoided, and
production and exchange can be organised for the
benefit of the country at large. Thus, therefore, we
propose that all should have the vote ; not that the vote
will free them from economical oppression, but because
in this way alone is a peaceable issue possible for the
possessing classes. It is better for them to yield to the
vote of organised numbers than to the victory of even
organised force.
What then are our objects at this hour ? Some of
them we have already stated. We can but point the
road that we believe will be travelled in the near future.
To assert definitely that this or that step must be taken
at any given time would be directly contrary to our
general principles, which depend for their full develop
ment upon the reasoning action ot the class still to be
set free. Forms of government, political devices, party
arrangements, the devious tricks of faction, we contemn
as useless or denounce as harmful. The only end
to be sought in the organisation and representation of
the people is the domination by the people of all
social forces now and in the future. We claim then the
land for the people, that the soil of our country with
whatever is useful or beautiful in or upon it, should no
longer be held by a small minority for their aggrandise
ment and greed, but that it should be owned by all for
all collectively, to be occupied, cultivated, enjoyed,
mined or built over as the majority of the people shall see
fit to ordain. That the economical forms are not yet
fully ready for the completest development of agricul-
�58
rural management is no reason why a handful of persons
should draw vast revenues from a monopoly fraudulently
seized from their countrymen ; still less why the land in
towns, and the minerals below the land in country should
be held for the benefit of the few.
But Socialists have no factious prejudices, and are
influenced by no jealousies of a clique. We call there
fore also for the immediate management and ownership
of the railways by the State, so that the inland
communications of the country may be under the control
of the people at large, and carried on for their benefit,
regard being had to the full remuneration of the labour
of all who are engaged in the work of transport. Here
is no difficulty beyond the prejudice born of a flagitious
monopoly, wrongfully granted by the landlord and
capitalist House of Commons in favour of the capitalist
class. Labour made the railways, and living labour is
confiscated daily to pay interest to the labour of the
dead. It would be far better and easier for the State as
the organised representative of a thorough democratic
community to manage the railways through the present
paid officials than to leave them under the control of a
coterie of political and social adventurers, who use their
railways to serve their politics, and their politics to serve
their railways.
As with railways so with shipping. There the whole
economical forms are ready, in the same way, for
immediate management by the State, and the transfer,
could be arranged almost without a hitch. With mines,
factories, and workshops more direct interest by the
workers engaged in them would be needed, but as
education extends, and the habit of economical collective
�59
freedom grows, it will be as easy for the labourers to
choose their own superintendents, and apply the best
machinery, as it is for the capitalist to choose and use
them to-day. The inventor, the organiser, the manager
are not the people who sweep off the bulk of the surplus
value made by labour as it is, but the idle, useless
capitalists who sit at home and appropriate other men’s
work by means of social conventions which they them
selves have formulated, and they themselves give effect
to by force of law.
Similarly the handling of money and credit must neces
sarily be carried on in future for the advantage of the com
munity at large. National banks, national credit establish
ments, State and Communal centres of distribution for
the purchase and exchange of goods will supplant and
take over the huge enterprises for the gain of a class
which now exercise such enormous influence, and accu
mulate such vast profits under protection of the
middle-class State. As production is inevitably social,
exchange must be social too. Simply as a steppingstone to the attainment of this State organisation of
production and exchange do we advocate the heaviest
cumulative taxation rising upon all incomes derived
from trade or business, as well as upon those drawn
from the land. Only by collective superintendence of
production and exchange, only by the scientific organi
sation of labour at home and supply of markets abroad,
can our present anarchy be put an end to, and a better
system be allowed to grow up. Removal and recon
struction must go on together, and at the same time.
The very existence and increase of Companies, the very
development of State management now going on, point out
�II
6o
'
clearly the lines of necessary progress: with the com
plete organisation of democracy the State, in its present
meaning of class predominance, necessarily disappears.
But this is confiscation. Far from it, it is restitution.
Those who cry for compensation for past robbery, and
shriek confiscation because the right to rob in future is
challenged, should bear in mind that the men and
women whom we would compensate are those who are
now stumbling half-clothed and half-fed from a pauper
cradle to a pauper grave, in order that capitalists and
landlords may live in luxury and excess. The dead have
passed beyond compensation : it will be well if the
living do not call for vengeance on their behalf. Our first
principle as Socialists is that all should be well-fed, wellhoused, well-educated. For this object we urge forward
the Revolution which our enemies hysterically shriek at,
and frantically try to dam back. But we mean wrong
to none. Rather would we claim the aid of such of
the luxurious classes as are willing, so long as they have
still enough and to spare, to forego the frightful privilege
of feeding fat upon the wretchedness of others. Good
housing for all cannot be got if greed is to organise the
new arrangements: good food and physical, mental,
and moral education for all classes cannot be obtained
if factitious superiority and harmful social distinctions
are to be kept up.
Therefore, we say once more this is a class war ; we
know it; we are preparing for it; we rejoice at its near
approach. We mean to break down competition, and
to substitute universal organisation and co-operation.
There lie around us the necessary methods: they need
but to be applied. But there are many difficulties and
�6i
dangers, the power of wealth is great, the unscrupulous
ness of property knows no bounds ? We are well aware
of this : we see and do not shrink from the inevitable
struggle.
But the numbers over against us, the
hosts who may be bribed to fight for their oppressors,
even to their own hurt; there are thousands, perhaps
millions, of such men ? There are. We know that too.
But in a cause like ours, we refuse to recognise difficulties, with such misery around us we cannot stop to
calculate forces, with such a future before us we will
never count heads.
The Revolution is prepared in the womb of society, it
needs but one strenous and organised effort to manifest
the new period in legal and acknowledged shape to the
world. To attempt to return to the old forms of
individual production, would be at the same reactionary
and anarchical. We cannot, if we would, so put back the
hands upon the dial of human development. It is nowise
desirable we should. The increased power of man
over nature is gained by co-operation, by social machinery,
by associated labour, by skilfully concerted work. This
has been due to countless ages of growth and develop
ment, involving often the most horrible oppression, but
ever producing more wealth with less labour. We
inherit the results of this long martyrdom of man to the
forms of production and exchange. It is for us to
take hold of and use these improvements for the
enfranchisement of the people, and for the establish
ment of happiness and organised contentment for man
kind. We in England have arrived at the completest
economical development. Our example therefore, will
guide and encourage the world. All over the planet the
�62
same ideas are abroad. In Germany, France, Scandi
navia, Russia, Italy, Spain, far away in the ancient
empires of Asia, as well as in America, and the other
flourishing Colonies of our days, the labourers stretch out
their hands to one another for help, co-operation and
encouragement in the struggle which manifestly draws
near. Confident in their cause the Socialists alone of
modern parties can march steadily forward in inter
national comity, to the assurance of victory for all.
Thus then, based upon science and political economy,
rejoicing in the beauty of an enfranchised art, with our
social creed as our only religion—the scientific organi
sation of labour, and the universal brotherhood of man
we appeal to men and women of all classes, all creeds
and all nationalities to join us in the struggle wherein
none can fail, to prepare for themselves, and for their
children a nobler, higher lot than has hitherto been
theirs, and to pass on to countless generations that joy,
that beauty and that perfect contentment which can
arise from true Socialism alone.
Signed the Executive Committee of the Democratic Federation.
Herbert Burrows.
R. D. Butler.
H. H. Champion,
Hon. Secretary.
W. J. Clark,
Lecture Secretary.
H. A. Fuller.
H. M. Hyndman,
Chairman.
J. L. JOYNES.
Tom. S. Lemon.
James Macdonald.
William Morris,
Hon. Treasurer
James F. Murray.
H. Quelch.
A. Scheu.
Helen Taylor.
John E. Williams.
�THE MODERN PRESS.
16 pp., Crown 8-vo., in wrapper.
SOCIALISM
versus
SMITHISM,
An open letter from H. M. Hyndman to Samuel Smith,
M. P. for Liverpool.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
*** A reply to an attack by Mr. Smith on “ Socialism made
"Plain,” the manifesto issued by the Democratic Federation..
THE NEW BOOK OF KINGS,
By j. Morrison Davidson.
Price 6d.
Henry George says:—" It would be a great thing if it could be scattered
broadcast over England by hundreds of thousands.”
“ Vivacious and trenchant. . . . Is calculated to open the eyes of
people who now worship monarchy as a fetish."—London Echo.
Monthly, Price One Shilling
“TO-DAY,”
THE
SOCIALIST
MAGAZINE.
Amongst the Contributors are
H. M. HYNDMAN,
STEPNIAK,
WILLIAM MORRIS,
W. HARRISON RILEY,
ELEANOR MARX,
EDWARD CARPENTER,
MICHAEL DAVITT,
E. B. AVELING,
PAUL LAFARGUE,
VERA SASSULITCH,
E. BELFORT BAX,
REV. S. D. HEADLAM,
J. L. JOYNES,
WILLIAM ARCHER,
Win. LIEBKNECHT,
&c., &c.
THE ADVENTURES OF A TOURIST IN IRELAND.
By J. L. Joynes.
Second Edition. (Reduced to) Is.
SOCIALISM AND SLAVERY,
A Reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Article on “The Coming
Slavery,” by H. M. Hyndman. Price 6d.
13 and 14, Paternoster Row, London, E.C.
�THE MODERN PRESS.
NOW READY.
PRICE SIXPENCE.
The Working Man’s Programme,
(A RBEITER-PROGRA MM}
By FERDINAND LASSALLE,
Translated hy EDWARD PETERS (late of the Madras Civil Service)
THE COMING FREEDOM,
A Reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer
ON
THE
COMING SLAVERY.
“Out of thine own mouth will I condemn thee.”
PRICE ONE PENNY.
HYMNS OF PROGRESS,
SPECIALLY COMPILED FOR
THE PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION.
A Collection of Songs not directly founded on theological
conceptions, nor directly antagonistic thereto, but dealing
solely with the largest and simplest aspects of human life,
human love, and human Dope.
_ _______ Price Twopence.
Cloth Fourpenee.
Demy, 8-vo., in wrapper, One Shilling.
THE
ROBBERY OF THE POOR,
By W. H. P. Campbell,
The writer shows in this pamphlet the justice of the attack
of the Socialists on private property and vindicates the right
to “ expropriate the expropriators.”
13
and
14, Paternoster Row, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A summary of the principles of socialism: written for the Democratic Federation
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hyndman, Henry Mayers [1842-1921]
Morris, William
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 62, [2] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Written for the Democratic Federation.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Modern Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
T463
Subject
The topic of the resource
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 (A summary of the principles of socialism: written for the Democratic Federation), 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
Socialism
Socialism-Europe
Socialism-Great Britain
William Morris
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5a2122b15ce17a37506ae3cdc43c2769.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=S0afZbqMqa4OT1mCnMr%7EST4LgfPq4gCoqr9AZ-tIMVSMnHokfT0833l9GVEBi-WzSO0nVfVfjJSUhNbKY8pFFNw2yqe5Ac28DFlTXFjbz2YJTv8oNi4slM%7EukC3F5Aq9geXv%7E-iPwbs3crF7Hdwpczy0enP035oGfMBKrNKwcU5Y26Clz-TadmLDGLpFVlVm50wMOSOSavV%7EIERe6d1dK8BUIOO08RY6xTyj7gaIFT7p-ATrKK%7EB2YwH0ABM-FFmIulBeA-BLTwyJTBDkSVEjtavkh9ab4Y7kODn9uVrZ1Z4zDaqvyLFC%7Ep%7EhgfS52mxfbj81WInObJuEIKhLRdZGg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7580a57627d958ad71e09f53517e027a
PDF Text
Text
Enlarged (140th Thousand)
0^1 NATIONAL secular society
tty
Includes the Bradlaugh, Foote, and “ Freethinkt
Mr. Varley’s letter to the Electors of Nortl
Mr. BRADLAUGH Proved I
Unfit to Represent any English Cons
IND.
>NLY,
AN APPEAL
rime,
wing
TO THE
MEN OF ENGLAND
By HENRY VARLEY
Mr. Bradlaugh asks the sympathy of his fellow countrymen concerning
his rejection by the House of Commons. I remind him that he merits
their sternest reprobation and opposition. He thinks to trade upon their
lack of knowledge. He shall not da it. I challenged him three years
since to refute in a Court of Law the statements made in “ the Appeal."
He dare not attempt it. His recent threat of an action against me, was
simply intended to throw dust in the eyes of those who heard it. It is
monstrous that the daily press should lend itself to circulate his idle
bombast.
MAY, 1884.
LONDON:
Office of the CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH,
73, LUDGATE HILL, E.C.
Can be obtained of all Booksellers, or direct from the Author, by letter
addressed to 32, Clarendon Road, Notting Idlll, 17.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
SPECIAL
TERMS
FOR
LARGE
01’ A NT IT I F S.
�PREFACE.
know to how large an extent the Appeal to the
Li has check-mated Mr. Bradlaugh. I rejoice in this
latest is one in which issues of very grave character are
s question is not one of party politics, much less is it a
■the infringement of the rights of a constituency.” No one
■ than Mr. Bradlaugh does that the opposition which exists
■ rises from his own lawless conduct. For many years, on
Fplatforms in England, he has uttered the most revolting,
>d social blasphemies. Through the medium of the press
ulated these shocking statements by hundreds of thousands.
Lcen done to further his atheistic principles when, under the
'cd title of “Iconoclast,” he went through the Country using
inguage, samples of which are furnished in “This Appeal.”
this, he has circulated books which are loathsome and
II.rule.
These disgusting publications teach doctrines and
cs which are subversive of the Divine institutions of home,
ige, social purity, and national morality.
must not be forgotten that, for publishing and circulating “ The
ts of Philosophy,” Mr. Charles Bradlaugh and the abnormal
Bcsant were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to six months’
Fiiprisonment.
' Mr. Bradlaugh never tires of appealing to the sympathies of his
fellow countrymen on the ground of political liberty. In doing this, I
charge hi n with political dishonesty. Few men know better than he
does how to draw “a red herring” across the scent. Mr. Bradlaugh
represents that the opposition he receives arises from the fact that he is
a representative of working men. This is altogether untrue. Few men
in the House of Commons are more respected than Messrs. Broadhurst
and Burt, who are well-known representatives of the working classes.
The social mischief wrought by his abominable publications in
Northampton is simply deplorable. One of the leading Christian men
and Liberal politicans in the town told me that during the past twelve
years the growth of infidelity, lawlessness, sensual license, and
blasphemy amongst working men and young people has been appalling,
and that the outlook, socially,’was simply deplorable
Mr. Bradlaugh has recently threatened me with an action at law. I
am not in the least alarmed. I sent his solicitor’s letter to my lawyer,
who replied that we should defend any action taken. I am free to
admit that if my statements are not true, I had no right to publish them.
Further, if any man in England should charge me with making or
publishing such statements, and they were not true, I would certainly
give him all which the law should allow. Mrs. Besant has attempted to
reply to this Appeal. A more worthless, or scurrilous diatribe has
seldom been issued. Unable to answer the definite charges made, she
resorted to the old expedient of abusing the plaintiff.
With all the Editorial material in her hands she failed to answer the
charges. Mrs. Besant’s denial of the accuracy of quotation is entirely
false, as the columns of the National Reformer, the Pamphlets, and the
British Museum Library conclusively prove. The statement that 1 had
left out contexts which, if quoted, would have entirely altered the sense
of Mr. Bradlaugh’s words, is absurd and untrue. What context could
alter the blasphemous directness and evident meaning of the sentences
which I have qnoted ?
HENRY VARLEY
�iMAT’ONA’.SECUlARSOCIEn'
TO THE MEN OF ENGLAND.
FOR THEIR PRIVATE READING ONLY.
Gentlemen,—There are times when silence becomes a crime,
and though to me it is utterly repulsive to publish the following
statements, I dare not withhold them from your knowledge. It is
in the interests of right and truth, and on the behalf of home and
women and children that I earnestly appeal to you. This is no
personal quarrel or political party question, but a war in defence
of right and truth. I sound a clarion blast against Charles
Bradlaugh, by his own writings and speeches proved to be the
notorious advocate of social iniquity and lawlessness. If any other
man in England should dare to utter such revolting blasphemies,
or publish and circulate such horrible books and doctrines, I
promise him the same uncompromising opposition which I have
given Mr. Bradlaugh.
Having selected Northampton, Mr. Bradlaugh proceeded, years
since, to educate large numbers of working men into sympathy with
his extreme political views, and his'unclean and lawless social
publications. He industriously kept at this work of personal
propaganda for fifteen years, and gradually succeeded in
demoralising a large part of the constituency. This is how the
return of Mr. Bradlaugh came about. To affirm that the
constituency deal with this question on political grounds, that
they have nothing to do with Mr. Bradlaugh’s opinions or
doctrines, is to assert that politics have nothing to do with a
man’s morals, character, or conduct.
Such a statement is
altogether false.
The law already makes a number of exceptions, e.g., it is not
competent for the electors of Northampton to return an Irish peer,
a clergyman, a bankrupt, an imbecile, a felon, or a woman. Such
is the letter of the law. I hold that the spirit of the law together
with the moral conviction of the nation, forbids the acceptance,
if returned, of such a man as Mr. Bradlaugh.
The basis of English law is found in personal responsibility to
God. No man in England has the right to deny that responsi
bility, though he may have the power to do so. The Legislature
has no right to aid any man in denying that responsibility.
�4
Herein is seen the lawless character of the Affirmation Bill. Forthe first time in the history of England the Government attempted
to pass a measure which would have macle it competent and legal
for any man, if he chose, to deny his responsibility to God. A
more corrupt and false view of liberty, or a more unjust use of the
functions of the Legislature was never attempted.
He again asks the electors of Northampton to uphold him, and
expects that the representatives of the English constituencies will
ignore the law and permit him to enter the House of Commonsunchallenged. God forbid! Let that House stand firm against
the admission of this representative of social iniquity and atheism.
How dare the electors of Northampton speak of their constitu
tional liberties being infringed ? The question is, How they dare
insult the English nation by returning a man to make laws in
regard to national morality and righteousness, whose public
teachings and writings have for years past been disgusting,
lawless, and false, and who has been sentenced to six months’
imprisonment for publishing and circulating the same.
The nation expects the constituencies to send “ fit and proper
persons” to represent them. Such is the law ! How has North
ampton answered that requirement ? She sends the author of the
following blasphemous utterances.
In one of his public discussions Mr. Bradlaugh thus expresses
himself in relation to the Supreme Lawgiver, the Almighty God :—
“If you tell me that by God you mean ‘something’ which
created the universe, which before the act of creation was not:
‘ something ’ which has the power of destroying that universe ;
‘ something’ which rules and governs it, and which is, neverthe
less, entirely distinct and different in substance from the universe—then I am prepared to deny that any such existence can be.”
(Robertson Discussion, p. 12.) Again, he says:—“I hold that
the logical consequence of Secularism is the denial, the absolute
denial of a Providence.” (Holyoake Discussion, p. 29.) In the
same discussion, p. 16, he says:—“Although, at present, it may
be perfectly true that all men who are Secularists are not yet
Atheists, I put it to you, as also perfectly true, that, in my opinion,
the logical consequence of the acceptance of Secularism must be
that the man gets to Atheism, if he has brains enough to com
prehend.” In another place he observes :—“ I urged that Atheism
denied ffie existence of a God controlling the universe.” (New
castle Discussion, p. 74.) He blasphemously affirms that it is
utterly impossible to establish Secularism until not only Chris
tianity, but every form of Theism is completely destroyed. And
this is Charles Bradlaugh, the blasphemer, that Northampton
dares to send to the House of Commons ! There is no mistaking
his language, nor the object that he has in view. He exclaims : —
“ I find the preached ideas of God interfering with the children in
their cradles, with the children in their schools, with the grown-up
�5
children in their churches, and in their daily avocations of life, and
I am obliged to destroy Theism to make way for Secularism.”
Christianity he calls ‘‘a system theoretically unjust and practically
pernicious;” “rotten, intolerant, and false; derived from the
cruelty, the bigotry, the barbarism of a bygone age.” (Barker,
as above, pp. 85-104,) In the same discussion, p. 66, he calls
■Christianity a “cursed, inhuman religion,” while in that on
“What does Christian Theism Teach?” he pronounces it to be
“an accursed creed.” (P. 56 ) In his discussion with Matthias,
p. 179, he adopts the language of Shelley, and denounces Chris
tianity as a “bloody faith.” Again, he says:—“ Christianity is a
system which teaches submission to injury ; courting wrong, and
■volunteering yourself for oppression.” (Cooper Discussion, p. 42.)
Recently, he has said:—“Christianity has been a corroding,
an eating cancer, to empoison the whole life-blood of the world ;
the enemy of all progress ; the foe of all science. What is Chris
tianity ? I give it to you now in a word—it is blasphemy against
humanity, the mockery of humanity; it has crushed our efforts,
has ruined our lives, has poisoned our hearts, and has cursed our
hopes.” {National Reformer, Aug. 15, 1875, p. 108.)
Such is the horrible testimony of Charles Bradlaugh, whose
moderation has become so noticeable since he entered Parliament!
I ask, in all the interests of truth and right, Is this blasphemer a
fit and proper person to represent Northampton or any other
constituency ? It is no answer to affirm that “ They are the proper
judges in the matter, and that if the constituency of Northampton
is satisfied, there is nothing cither to be said or done.”
The character and work of our Lord Jesus Christ is thus spoken
of by Mr. Bradlaugh :—“ The plan of salvation by an atoning
sacrifice is repulsive in its details ;” “ immoral in its tendency;”
“ His mission was a sham ;” in His agony he proved Himself “ a
coward craven : ” when on the cross His language was that “ of
an enthusiast who had been himself deluded, or of a knave who
had deluded others.” “ as this the language (‘ My God, my
God, why hast I hou forsaken Me ?’) of a God, or of an enthusiast
who, in the agony of death, breaks down in despair ?” “ Your
atonement is a sham. Your atonement is a deception. Your
atonement is but a foul leprosy upon human intellect—a plaguespot of priest-craft—and I impeach it.” (Discussion with Barker,
as above, pp. 149, 155, 162, 172.)
Such is the public testimony of Charles Bradlaugh, whom the
electors of Northampton send to represent them in the Empire’s
House of Law. Does Mr. Bradlaugh imagine that such horrible
language as this is going to pass unchallenged ? I promise him
a censorship which he shall know exists. Only in June last at
Leeds Mr. Bradlaugh, speaking of a letter written by the Hon.
W. Fitzwilliam, MB., said that as a professed Liberal it stamped
him as “ a traitor and a coward.” Who is Mr. Bradlaugh that
�6
bis shameless tongue should be permitted to calumniate men who
dare to take their stand against his lawless blasphemies ?
The teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ are thus spoken of by
this blasphemer. Remember, reader, I quote his own words : —
“ I say, that if Jesus lived to day, neither his doctrine nor his life
would be the doctrine or the life of a great reformer.” (Barker,
as above, p. 152.) In his discussion with the Rev. T. D. Matthias,
at Halifax, he g ive utterance to the following sentiments :—“I
have further to say that the doctrine Jesus taught is not the
doctrine of a good man at all;” “never was a doctrine more
calculated to degrade mankind than this (the Sermon on the
Mount), which I place before you in all its monstrosity.” (Bp. 8298.) In the same discussion he argues that Christ was a perse
cutor, a teacher of immorality, and an ignorant man. (1’p. 6285, 124-125, 134-140.) Again, he says:—“ If he wants to tell me
that Christ has given us a moral system without reproach, I will
reply that under no system of morality which can pretend to be
without blemish, is so much vice permitted.” (Cooper Discussion,
p. 42.) Finding fault with Mr. Greg’s conception of the teaching
of Jesus, he says :—“ On the contrary, his (Christ’s) philosophy
is incoherent, his morality often imperfect, his conception of
human duty often unsound, his ideas as to the scope and range of
the human understanding utterly erroneous. The ascctcism some
times inculcated by Jesus was misleading, his injunction to submit
to wrong, absolutely immoral.” {National Reformer, July 31st,
1870.)
Such are the horrible and blasphemous utterances of Charles
Bradlaugh ; and yet, because the electors of Northampton have
returned him, he supposes that he is forthwith to be whitewashed,
and accepted as a legislator.
Hear, again, what Mr. Bradlaugh says of the Bible. Notice,
these are his own words
“ The whole of the book (the Bible) is
a reflex of the wanderings, a mythological representation, the out
growth of an ignorant and barbarous age;” “If you take the
Bible as a guide, immorality must necessarily result
“Immoral
book, I denounce it.” (Barker Discussion, pp. 28, 45, 64.) In the
National Reformer of February 20th, 1876, p. 123, he is repre
sented as saying:—“ So long as the Established Church exists to
teach the people the divinity of the Bible, and School Boards
pollute children’s minds with the same book, we must attack it
wherever and whenever we can, till we have rooted out and de
stroyed the upas-tree of superstition.” With reference to this
extract, Mr. Bradlaugh says, in the National Reformer of
March 12th, 1876, p. 169:—“We have had several letters from
Northampton as to the report of our speech on the Bible, quoted
by Mr. Peek at the School Board. We have been told that, unless,
we modify or explain our statement, we shall lose many votes. To
those whose political vote depends upon a theological statement,.
�7
we have nothing to modify, nothing to explain. To others—who
desire to know our real view on the matter—we answer that no
such sweeping statement could justly be made [quite truej
regarding a book containing so many varying moralities as does
the Bible ; some of it is good and useful, some of it bad and
harmful, reflecting, as it does, the changing civilizations among
which it was written. We emphatically hold that the Bible ought
not to be a school book, and that there are parts of it which must
have a terribly polluting influence on the minds of young children
taught to regard it as a message from an infallible Deity.”
Such are the views of this ‘‘fit and proper person ” who
has been sent by the electors of Northampton, and who profess
themselves to be indignant concerning what they have dared to
call “ the infringement of their constitutional rights.”
Dear, again, what Mr Bradlaugh teaches concerning social
questions. He has in two cases reprinted, and in either case
strongly commended, three books, whose titles I give, “ Elements
of Social Science,” the ‘‘Fruits of Philosophy,” and a recently
republished pamphlet entitled, ‘‘Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus.”
At page io Mr. Bradlaugh says, ‘‘This work 1 specially recom
mend. From its price the book is within the reach of most
working men, and it is from the pen of a man who is thoroughly
versed in the subject he deals with.”
This horrible book, the ‘‘Elements of Social Science,” under
mines the family bond, and is so disgusting that the author was
ashamed to put his name to it. The leading principles of this
book may be thus summarised : First, An exaltation of the animal
and sensual in man over the spiritual and mental. Second, A
condemnation of marriage in the strongest terms. Third, Apolo
gising for the birth of illegitimate offspring. Fourth, Condoning
with prostitution. Fifth, Excusing the evils and diseases resulting
from licentiousness. This is putting the matter in the mildest
form possible. The filthy author says, on p. 355 :—“ Marriage is
one of the chief instruments in the degradation of women.” On
page 366 he teaches :—“ Whether children have been born in
marriage or not, is a matter of comparatively very little import
ance.” On page 270 he declares that ‘‘prostitution should be
regarded as a valuable temporary substitute for a better state of
things,” and adds
‘‘Therefore the deep gratitude of mankind,
instead of scorn, is due, and will be given in future times, to those
unfortunate females who have suffered in the cause of our sexual
nature.”
In course of his discussion with David King, Mr. Bradlaugh
endeavoured to enlist the late Lord Amberley on his side in
defence of this book. He said :—“ I myself heard Lord Amberley
say that this book—the ‘ Elements of Social Science ’—is the best
book that has been written on the subject, and ought to be in the
hands of every working man ; he said that in my hearing, and in
�8
the presence of seventy or eighty of the most respectable physi
cians in the City of London.” (King Discussion, sixth night,
p. 33.) Mr. King wrote to this nobleman to know if Mr. Brad
laugh’s words were true, and received a reply in the negative,
which, when read to the meeting, was greeted with loud and
prolonged cheers. The letter is as follows :—
“ With the book you mention, the ‘Elements of Social Science,’ I am
indeed acquainted, but I regard it with the strongest disapproval. The
author's ideal of society appears to be a state of unlimited license, happi
ness being obtained by the indulgence of degrading passions. I contemplate
such teaching with the utmost aversion, and I consider the wide circulation
of the work which contains it the more to be regretted because its preten
sions to medical authority (to which I am convinced it has but little claim)
may easily mislead unwary or uninstructed readers.
“ Should anyone attribute to me in your presence any sort of agreement
with this pernicious work, I authorise you to contradict the statement in
the most emphatic manner.’’
Mr. Bradlaugh, still persisting in his statements (pp. 39-40),
Mr. King again wrote to Lord Amberley, and received the
following answer:—
“ Sir,—In reply to your letter of the 3rd instant, I have to say that the
speech alluded to by Mr. Bradlaugh was made at the Dialectical Society
on July 1st, 1868.................................. With reference to Mr. Bradlaugh’s
alleged quotation, I may observe that I do not believe I made any reference
to the ‘Elements of Social Science,’ and most certainly not in the terms
stated by Mr. Bradlaugh. I am not at all surprised to learn that he
‘ cannot give ’ the number of the British Medical Journal, since the report
referred to by him contains not the most distant allusion to the work in
question. This will be sufficient to show you with what extreme caution
Mr. Bradlaugh's assertions must be received. In conclusion, my present
estimate of this book is not the result of a change of mind since 1808.__
Yours faithfully,
“ Amberley.”
What, then, are we to think of Mr. Bradlaugh in this matter ?
Simply that he endeavoured to attribute his own words to Lord
Amberley. Having admitted that Mr. Laurie, Lord Amberley’s
tutor, read a paper (p. 39), it was deemed wise to write to him 'on
the subject.
That gentleman (Mr. Laurie) wrote to Lord
Amberley thus:—
“I am convinced you said nothing about the book called ‘Elements of
Social Science.’ But the opinion quoted by Mr. Bradlaugh, and attributed
to you, was delivered by himself after your lordship had left the meeting.”
Having settled the question in relation to Lord Amberley, Mr.
King wrote to the late John Stuart Mill, to ascertain if he had
been fairly represented by the frequent use of his name in con
nection with this abominable book.
That gentleman replied
thus:—
�9
“ Dear Sir,—I have most certainly never on any occas'on whatever, in
public or private, expressed any approbation of the book entitled ‘ Elements
of Social Science.’ Nor am I likely ever to have done so, inasmuch as I
very strongly object to some of the opinions expressed in it. You are
therefore quite at liberty to say that I am not correctly represented by any
one who asserts that I have commended the book.—Yours very faithfully,
“J. S. Mill.”
Well does Mr. King add :—“ Thus this wretched case of falsi
fication of testimony and boldly impudent imposition is completely
exposed.” My readers would do well to obtain this discussion for
themselves, and read carefully the last two nights’ proceedings,
where the above evidence is given in full, for a more thorough
exposure of Mr. Bradlaugh’s shallow pretentiousness, unfairness,
ignorance, and untruthfulness has never been made.
And you are ready to ask, What about the men who became
associated with this unclean blasphemer ? Hear the testimony of
a gentleman well known in Northampton :—‘‘I can well remember
the time when the late Joseph Barker and the present G. J. Holyoake were co-editors with Mr. Bradlaugh of the National
Reformer. Each of them withdrew in disgust from it on account
of Mr. Bradlaugh advocating the ‘Elements of Social Science.’”
The former (Mr. Barker) wrote a review of this book, in which he
says :—‘‘I regard the man who can recommend a book like the
miscalled ‘ Elements of Social Science ’ to unsuspecting boys and
girls, and who can form or patronise associations for the purpose
of stealthily spreading its most deadly poison through the com
munity, as a more dangerous man, as a greater criminal, as a
deadlier foe to virtue and humanity than the vilest murderer that
ever plotted or sinned against mankind. My duty to myself, my
duty to my wife and children, my duty to my readers and friends,
and my duty to the public, require me—and my own heart prompts
me—to separate from such men entirely and for ever, and to wage
an unceasing and unsparing war against their principles.”
Review, p. 26.)
And this is written concerning Charles Bradlaugh, with whose
character and opinions the electors of Northampton are so little
concerned that they count him a ‘‘fit and proper person” to
represent them in the House of Commons.
Another book commended by Mr. Bradlaugh is by one Richard
Harte. It was reviewed by Mr. Bradlaugh in the National
Reformer of August 28th, 1870. He says :—‘‘With Mr. Harte’s
view as to what ought to be essential in the inception, duration,
and termination of the marriage contract we cordially concur.”
Learning, then, what the author’s views on marriage are, we can
easily determine the belief of Mr. Bradlaugh on the subject. On
page 26 we read :—“ Love is a combination of three sympathies—
the moral, the intellectual, and the physical. And since it is
impossible to develope these sympathies, or even to be certain
�IO
that they actually exist without the experience of intimate associaation, it is imperative that marriage should be, to a certain extent,
a matter of experiment. Not only are human beings exceedingly
liable to judge wrongly in matters of love, but, moreover, they are
liable to develope in character unequally and in different direction;
therefore the dissolution of marriage should be as free and
honourable a transaction as its formation.” Mark the last two
lines of the extract. They mean that two persons may live together
for some time as man and wife, to know whether they suit each
other; they mean that any person is free to enter into the marriage
state to-day, and equally free to dissolve the contract to-morrow.
On page 66 we have free love [ ? lust] coming into vogue. It
says :—“ Finally, there can be little doubt that much of that
a priori contempt and hatred for free love which has hitherto been
a fruitful source of want of self-respect in the classes deemed dis
reputable, and consequently of their degradation, is disappearing
from the philosophy of our time.” On page 67 we have the
startling statement :—‘‘And we may conclude that, even if the
effect of the changes I have advocated be to cause all women to
become little better than prostitutes, that, at all events, they will
also have the effect of putting all women into a much tetter
position than wives.”
What can this mean, unless it is that now the position of
the wife is worse than the position of the prostitute ? Husbands
of England! what do you think of this fellow’s teaching ? Re
member that Mr. Bradlaugh endorses it, for he has said :—“ With
Air. Harte’s view as to what ought to be essential in the inception,
duration, and termination of the marriage contract, we cordially
concur.” Before I .give Mr. Bradlaugh’s own words on the
subject, one more quotation from Harte’s book must be recorded.
It is relating to. seduction. On page 84 the words are:—‘‘The
evil effect of seduction lies in the treatment that society accords
to the seduced woman. Were she no longer consigned to misery
and degradation, there would be little or no evil effect produced
by yielding to the promptings of love .... Where there is no.
punishment, there is no crime; neither seducer nor seduced
should be punished for the seduction.” This means, of course, if
punishment for crime be abolished, crime will be no longer crime ;
for, as Harte says, ‘‘Where there is no punishment, there is no
crime.”
Here, then, are two of Mr. Bradlaugh’s admired authors
recognising seduction as a virtue, Air. Harte and the author of
the “ Elements of Social Science,” for, as G. J. Holyoake says of
this last:—‘‘The medical moral of this book has appeared to
some (who are eminently entitled to deference) to be that
seduction is a physiological virtue. If this be so, a more danger
ous licence to vice has never been suggested.” Yet Air. Bradlaugh
says of these two books:—“Richard Harte’s book, or the
�II
‘Elements,’ are at any rate an improvement on these laws of
Christianity [he refers to the Mosaic laws], which are diabolical,
inhuman, and damnable, and, therefore, against which 1 plead.”
(King Discussion, sixth night, p. 36.)
Little need be said of the “Fruits of Philosophy,” by Dr.
Knoulton. My readers well know that for publishing and circu
lating this obscene book Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant have
been convicted, fined, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
The legal technicality which enabled these notorious blasphemers
to escape the actual punishment detracts nothing either from their
guilt or their desert. Notwithstanding their laboured defence of
it before the Lord Chief Justice anda special jury, 1 believe there are
few decent people but will agree with Aiderman biggins that “ it
is a pamphlet not published in the interests of science, but issued
as a popular production at a low price lor general reading, and
that it is a production against the public morals, because it is a
publication which directly points out, not only how the families of
married women may be limited, but how unmarried women may
gratify their passion without fear of the'natural consequences”
{National Reformer, April 29th, 1877, p. 263) ; that it is, to use
the words of the indictment, “ indecent, lewd, filthy, and obscene,
thereby contaminating, vitiating, and corrupting the morals of
youth, and bringing people to a state of wickedness, lewdness,
debauchery, and immorality.”
Mark the following:—Mr. Bradlaugh, in a debate with Mr.
Brown, at Leeds, on “ Miracles,” said of Mr. Muller’s Orphanage
at Bristol, that the sickness took place “ through their having
omitted to look to the drain-pipes,” which sickness the “ Sanitary
Inspector says may be avoided in future if they will pray less and
drain their place better.” {National Reformer, May 14th, 1876,
p. 310.) Mr. Muller’s agent writes about this as follows:—
“There was not the shadow of a foundation for Mr. Bradlaugh s
statement that we omitted to look to the drain-pipes : on the
contrary, the Inspector regarded the drainage as so perfect that
he had nothing to suggest.” What are we to think of such
proceedings as these? These illustrations might be greatly
increased, but sufficient has been adduced to warrant the assertion
that he practically believes in the principles of Voltaire:—“To
lie for a friend is the first duty of friendship. Lying is only a vice
when it does harm, but a very great virtue when it does good.”
{National Reformer, June ptffi 1870.)*______
* With virtuous indignation Mrs. Besant denounced the withdrawal of
the name and date of the National Reformer. in regard to the passage
quoted from Voltaire, as above, and given in the first edition of the
“Appeal.-’ No doubt Mrs. Besant was aware that the error was simply
one of date, and not of fact.
A gentleman, deeply interested in this controversy, sends me the missing
date, viz., National Reformer, June 5th, 1870, p. 355- Mrs. Besant can
hardly have been ignorant of this.
�12
Mr. Bradlaugh is called by his friends a great man ; well,
if to advocate that which is lawless, filthy, blaspheming,
immoral, and destitute of any regard for righteousness and
truth makes a man great, Charles Bradlaugh is a great man
indeed ! I should say the greatest, or more properly, the most
notorious, this century' has seen.
The foregoing extracts are from the pen of a gentlemen well
known in Northampton, who deserves the thanks of the men
of England for the bold and manly exposure that he has given of
this lawless blasphemer.
After these testimonies will any man dare to say that Mr. Brad
laugh is persecuted, or that opposition in his case means the in
fringement of the civil and religious liberty of the subject. Liberty
is a relative term, and comprehends a course of conduct which
is consistent with individual, social and national welfare. There
can be no liberty to do that which is injurious to the interests of
others. No householder is at liberty to store petroleum, dynamite
or gunpowder in his house. The risk to himself and others forbids.
No man is at liberty to keep an immoral house, to publish,
sell, or circulate obscene books, to keep a gambling house, or
to jeopardize the health of his neighbours. For these and similar
acts there is no liberty.
The men who do these things are
lawless. Judged from this standard, Mr. Bradlaugh’s conduct
has been lawless in the most offensive and criminal sense.
Northampton must learn that if her electors have no conscience
in the return of sugIi a man, the House of Commons, the law,
and the country have.
I scatter this broadcast among the men of England, in order that
they may know how it comes about that Mr. Bradlaugh meets and.
merits such unflinching opposition. The question of national
righteousness is at stake, and silence at such a juncture becomes
criminal, and would mean tacit complicity with lawlessness,
iniquity, and profligacy
Henry Varley.
WE COME NEXT TO THE BRADLAUGH,
FOOTE, AND CO. TRIALS FOR BLASPHEMY.
I proceed to ascertain and to make my readers acquainted with
the ground there was for the recent trial, also the relation which
Mr. Bradlaugh sustained to the Freethinker, and what the
character of the atrocious writings allowed to be published and
circulated from his office in Stonecutter Street.
I ask attention to th‘e horrible blasphemies which are appended.
They are quoted from the Freethinker, a periodical which was
commenced in May, 1881, and edited by Mr. G. W. Foote, one of
Mr. Bradlaugh’s prominent supporters at the Hall of Science, and
who has recently served a term of twelve months’ imprisonment
�for printing and circulating this loathsome and disgusting paper.
Mr. Bradlaugh has dared to say that he was not responsible for
what appeared in the Freethinker, but for nearly eighteen
months the Freethinker was published at Mr. Bradlaugh’s office.
Let any one compare the atrocious blasphemies which I have
taken from the Freethinker for December 18th, 1881, with the
quotations from the National Reformer, given in pages 5,6, 7
of this “Appeal,” and it will be seen how entirely they corn spond.
They are alike both in matter and spirit, and might have been
uttered by the same voice, or written by the same hand.
I ask your forbearance whilst I reproduce some of thg horrible
statements. I loathe the whole business, but it is no use to shut
our eyes to the facts. In the interests of righteousness and truth,
I respectfully ask you to hear how the leaders of this school of
blasphemy and atheism write and speak in 1881.
The following quotation, from the pen of Mr. G. W. Foote,
appears in the Freethinker for December 18th, 1881 :—
“Next to the brutality of God, and the barbarity of his chosen people,
the most shocking circumstance in connection with the Bible is the degra
dation and depravity of its women. Scarcely any of the gentler sex whose
shadows flit through the Biblical panorama possess the virtues that should
adorn them. They are cither concubines, like Hagar, artful dodgers, like
Rebecca, harlots and traitors, like Rahab, incestuous, like Lot’s daughters,
or infamously immoral, like Jezebel. Like Potiphar’s wife, they are more
solicitous of entrapping the unwary virtue of man than of guarding pure and
chaste their own. But their conduct is scarcely reprehensible if the pro
fligacy of God is to be piously winked at. For Jehovah, like all the gods
of old, was an unmitigated rake. In one case, thirty-two Midianitish
maidens were delivered over to his unbridled lust. In another, he scurvilv
debauched the fair betrothed of a Jewish carpenter. From the gusto with
which the Holv Ghost has diversified the dull narratives and insipid
twaddling of the Bible with spicily-told indecencies, one may well imagine
in how edifxing a manner God and his pious saints must spend their time
in the heavenly regions, and picture the unctuous debaucheries that while
awav the tedium of their eternal Tc Dciims. No decent woman, unless
possessing the accommodating virtue of a Sarah or a Jezebel, would care
to spend eternity in a heaven presided over by a lecherous-minded God,
and inhabited by pious rakes.
“ Strange it is, despite the infamy with which the Bible brands woman
kind, that the fair sex should be so fondly devoted to the verv emblem and
instrument of their shame and dishonour. Their attachment to Christianity
is an edifying example of self-mortification, prompted, we presume, by
Christ's sublimely absurd maxim:—-Bless them that curse you, and pray
for them that despitefully use you.’ (Luke vi. 28.) That the ladies have set
their affections on an unworthy God, and hallow an unholv Book, the
following facts, in addition to the foregoing, will abundantly prove : —1. In
punishment of Eve's disobedience God inflicts upon her, and all her future
daughters, the sorrow—above all physical sorrows—of the pains of partu
rition. Retribution more fiendish for crime so insignificant could not be
imagined. God, further, ordains man as the ruler, not the equal of woman,
�H
and thus sows the seed of the most widespread of all tyrannies_ the
tyranny of the home, besides laying the foundation of the so'cial and legal
inferiority, which, in all Christian lands, man has adjudged to woman.
“The amatory prowess of King David, the man after Gods own heart, is
notorious. It would require the poetic fervour of an Ovid to adequately
recount the famous exploit which gained for him the hand of Michal, the
daughter of King Saul. For our part, we will simply relate the pathetic
story in the plain prose of holy writ. The tale runs that Saul, whose lofty
mind abhorred ‘ filthy lucre,’ desired no dowry for the young damsel
(i Sam. xviii. 25). but simply ‘an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.’
Whereupon David, who was mighty both in love and war, ‘arose and went,
he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men ; and David
brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he
might be the king s son-in-law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter
to wife’ (v. 27). Will some German princelet take the hint, and bid in
like manner for the hand of Princess Beatrice ?
. “Then, again, the infamous treachery of David in respect to Uriah, and
his adultery with Bathsheba, was punished by the righteous judge ofheaven
—not by the death of the base culprit, but by the death of the child of his
sin. But it was at the dread hour of death that the piety of King David re
asserted itself. For is it not written that he surrendered his soul to God,
and his body to the embraces of a fair damsel, and thus died ‘ safe in the
arms of Jesus’ and Venus (1 Kings i.)
“Abraham—the father of the faithful—who was selected from all the
world's inhabitants to be the founder of Gods chosen nation, did only one
good deed in his whole life. Abraham was an incorrigible liar. He twice
passed his wife off as his sister—not to save her honour, but to save his own
skin ; and on each occasion God punished not the liar, but the persons who
were simple enough to believe him. He turned his own son and the lad s
mother out into the wide world to live or die, with no sustenance except a
little dry bread and cold water. He consented to offer up another son as a
burnt offering to God. True, he was arrested at the critical moment. But
in estimating character, intention is everything. These two occasions show
that he was a murderer at heart. Abraham was therefore a liar, a coward,
and a murderer.”
G. W. Foote.
I charge Mr. Bradlaugh that he allowed, without protest, the
foregoing horrible and utterly false statements to go forth. Let
it be remembered that this is ’but a sample of the writings to be
found, week by week, in the columns of the Freethinker. I charge
Mr. Bradlaugh with being an accessory in this disgusting business.
1 affirm that he knew perfectly well what was being done, and
permitted his offices to be used for spreading the filth of the
atrocious Freethinker amongst thousands of illiterate men and
women. I promise Mr. Bradlaugh that he shall not do such
things with impunity, nor make a catspaw of another Mr. Foo:e.
I will not shock my readers with any more of these revolting
extracts, but I will ask, Can any working man in England wonder
at the strong feeling which exists against Mr. Foote and Mr.
Bradlaugh, or be surprised that Sir Vernon Harcourt refused to
interfere with, or remit any part of, the sentence passed upon Mr.
�i5
Foote? Mr. Justice North deserves the heartiest thanks of the
entire community for the exemplary’ sentence which he passed
upon this blaspheming outlaw, and I believe every right-minded
man in England, when he knows the facts, will say so too. It is
a pity that such men as Dr. Fairbairn and Rev. Guinness Rogers
did not make themselves acquainted with the facts before they
hastened to the defence of these lawless blasphemers. Their
conduct in defending such men on political grounds is simply’
disgraceful
These quotations from the Freethinker show the fearful lengths
to which these blasphemers are prepared to go. They also prove
the exceeding value and importance of the existing law in its
ability to cope with and punish these social outlaws. Mr. B. W.
Newton says of the Christmas (1882) number of this atrocious
publication :—“ It contains a sheet on which are eighteen pictures
or illustrations, loathsome and disgusting, even if designed as
caricatures of the lowest and most debased wretch that can be
found on earth. But these caricatures are not directed against
men, they are avowedly directed against Christ. They are in
tended to ridicule, degrade, and vilify the King of kings and Lord of
lords—even our Lord Jesus Christ—the Saviour. I should not use
too strong words were I to say' that these caricatures are devilish. Of
all the insults that have ever been directed against God, there has
never, I believe, been any greater than this ; and yet the Govern
ment proposes so to alter the laws of England that persons who
might edit, or sustain such publications as the Freethinker would
become eligible for seats in the Legislature.”
Mr. Bradlaugh’s special pleading at the time of his trial for
blasphemy, bamboozled the jury.
Lef us see whether he can
bamboozle the men of England. I am greatly mistaken if he can.
They shall know the true character of the Freethinker, and Mr.
Bradlaugh’s connection therewith. They can here read forthem
selves some of Mr. Foote’s atrocious writings, and become competent to judge for themselves as to the justice or otherwise of the
sentences of imprisonment passed upon Messrs. Foote and Ramsey.
I venture to say' that the thought will fasten itself upon many minds
that the injustice of the position is that Mr. Bradlaugh was not
prosecuted and imprisoned long since. I honestly say that if, as a
publisher, I were to lend my office and influence to publish and
In a displayed advertisement of the National Reformer of the last week
in June, 1881, the following appears :—“ A special feature of No. 3 of the
Freethinker will be a comic sketch of Jonah and the whale, after the
prophet was vomited up. The whale looks the very picture of disgust,
while Jonah is radiant with triumph. A bland smile lights up his Hebrew
features, and he sings a joyous song, accompanying himself on the banjo
—a real side-splitter.” That this was with Mr. Bradlaugh’s knowledge
and consent there can be no doubt.
�16
circulate such a loathsome periodical as the Freethinker, I should
merit a criminal prosecution, the penalties of a lengthened term
of imprisonment, and the detestation of my fellow men.
I am persuaded that when my fellow-countrymen know what
Charles Bradlaugh has said and done, they in the vast majority
will recognise the justice and right of his rejection by the House
of Commons. British working men like fair play, but they are not
prepared to stand side by side with Mr. Bradlaugh’s coarse and
revolting blasphemies.
He has made great capital of their
sympathy by keeping back from their knowledge the real causes
of his rejection. I for one am determined that they shall not be
kept in ignorance any longer. 1 housands of working men ask the
question, “ Why is Mr. Bradlaugh opposed, and why is he refused
admission to the House of Commons?” I answer, Read this
“Appeal,” and you will understand how richly he merits the
strong opposition of his fellow-men. Mr. Bradlaugh talks about
“ his rights.” Will he dare to assert that he ever had the right
to say and to do what these pages prove him to have said and
done ? He had the power, but he never had the right. This
distinction needs to be clearly understood. Mr. Bradlaugh is
reaping the harvest of his own corrupt sowing, and if he thinks the
men of England arc going to endorse his horrible wickedness, he
never made a greater mistake in his life.
Of all the contemptible things which have been recently done,
the latest was Charles Bradlaugh’s subtle special pleading at the
time of his recent trial for blasphemy. To shuffle out of the
responsibility which belonged to him in sheltering and publishing
The Freethinker, merely to save his own skin, is so entirely like
him, that those who know him will not affect the least surprise.
Hear his reasoning, which I summarize: Had he not ceased to
publish The Freethinker ?
Had he not removed his office to
Fleet Street ? Was not the Christmas number of that vile pub
lication, for which Foote was sentenced to twelve months’ im
prisonment, published subsequently to the removal to Fleet Street?
Very clever, no doubt. Very, very convincing to those who knew
no better; but what about publishing, fostering, and circulating
J he Freethinker at the office of 7 tie National Reformer for seven
teen months prior to the removal to Fleet Street, during the whole
of which time such vile and blasphemous articles as those I quote
at pages 13 and 14 were practically endorsed by Mr. Bradlaugh ?
“ No responsibility.” What! This is scandalously false. Common
honesty should have led Mr. Charles Bradlaugh to share the punish
ment with his friend and coadjutor, Mr. Foote. The matter for
astonishment is that Lord Chief Justice Coleridge should have
ignored this damning fact.
It is abominable that these facts
should have been ignored, and the cause of justice subverted and
overthrown. Why did he not direct the case for the prosecution
.0 be so amended, as to shew Mr. Bradlaugh’s connection with
�i7
The Freethinker in Stonecutter Street ? nothing could have been
easier.
Repeal the’ blasphemy laws, indeed!
What! and
play into the hands of Messrs. Foote, Bradlaugh
Co. ? Rather
let us be profoundly thankful that in these days of disgusting
infidelity, law exists which is competent to deal with these un
scrupulous men.
MR. HENRY VARLEY’S LETTER
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
ON THE AFFIRMATION BILL, APRIL, 1882.
Lords
Gentlemen,
The grave mistake made by the Liberal leaders
at the time of the last General Election in endorsing the can
didature of Mr. Bradlaugh, has borne its bitter fruit of discord and
division. That a man who has spoken, written, and circulated
such scandalous and offensive words and such immoral books,
should have been elected for Northampton is bad enough, but that
the Liberal party should be expected to stand with such a man as
Mr. Bradlaugh, simply because he professes himself to be a
Liberal, is abominable, and must be resisted and broken through
at all costs. Many staunch Liberals have refused to follow the
Government in the past, and the unjust cry of “breaking faith
with party,’’ and the silly talk concerning the “ sacred rights of
constituencies,” must not hinder them if necessary from again
protesting against this unpardonable and disgraceful association.
I do not speak as a politician nor as a partisan. Had any other
political party endorsed the candidature of Mr. Bradlaugh, I
should have spoken out just as strongly. To identify the apostle
of Atheism and lawlessness with either political party, means
division, confusion, and trouble to all concerned.
•
It was a great mistake to suppose that the passing of the
Affirmation Bill would settle this question. One of the worst
features of this Bill was that it appeared in the form of an attempt
on the part of the Government to clear Mr. Bradlaugh from the
consequences of his scandalous conduct in the past, and sought
to make the Legislature an agent to open the lawfully closed doors
of the House, in order that the most lawless blasphemer of modern
times might enter. To attempt to separate the political elements
from the individual and moral features of this case, is both
impossible and undesirable.
The law in relation to Affirmation requires of all who make it,
the following testimony, “I, A, B, solemnly, truly, and sincerely
declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors according to
law.” How could these words be used by Mr. Bradlaugh! In
his offensive pamphlet, “ The Impeachment of the House of
Brunswick,” Mr. Bradlaugh says that “one object is to submit
reasons for the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Union as far
and
�i8
as the succession to the throne is concerned after the abdication
or demise of the present Sovereign, and to procure the repeal of
the only title under which any Member of the House of Brunswick
could claim to succeed the present Sovereign on the throne, or to
procure a special enactment which shall for the future exclude the
Brunswick's.” That there may be no mistake, listen to Mr.
Bradlaugh’s own words: “ Do not yet challenge the old and
crumbling dynasty to die ; you cannot expect it to commit suicide,
and your weapons are not strong enough to fight it successfully”
{National Reformer, Jan. 26, 1868). Speaking of H.R.H. the
Prince of Wales, Mr. Bradlaugh has written: “ Wetrust that the
Prince of \\ ales may get fair play ; if he does, most certainly he
will never sit on the throne of England” (National Reformer,
Oct. 30, 1870). In the year 1871, H.R.H. the Prince of Wales
accepted the Presidency of “ The Asylum for Idiots.” Mr. Brad
laugh, in a specially printed leader in the National Reformer of
April 23, 1871, wrote these grossly insulting words: “We are
pleased to see H.R.H. in a station for which the habits of his life
and the traditions of his family so thoroughly qualify him.”
Now, in the face of these insulting statements, how could the
House of Commons become a party to admit Mr. Bradlaugh by
the proposed Affirmation Bill ? Had that measure been carried,
it would have been lawful for him solemnly, truly, and sincerely to
affirm at the door of the House that he would bear faithful alle
giance to Her Majesty the Queen, when he has distinctly stated
that he intends to act in direct opposition to the terms of the
Affirmation. The name of God was to disappear and a lie could
then have been solemnly affirmed without conscience, hindrance,
rebuke, or prevention. Surely this would not have been liberty,
byt corrupt, and shameful license.
In relation to the CL th, it was very properly stated that the
House of Commons could not become a party to its profanation.
1 he House of Commons was invited to lend itself to become a
party to the profanation of the Affirmation. Recognised as
wrong by the Legislature if the Oath was taken by Mr. Bradlaugh
in relation to God, could his affirmation be accepted and right if
made in relation to Her Majesty the Queen ? Given the passing
of this Bill, would the legislature quietly stand by and see Mr.
Bradlaugh solemnly, truly, and sincerely promise “that he would
be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty QueenVictoria,”
in the face of the following words which are found in Mr. Brad
laugh’s pamphlet ?
He says, “ I loathe these small, German,
breast-bestarred wanderers, whose only merit is their loving hatred
of one another.” How could the House of Commons legislate to
this end ? Surely legislation h id never been more foully prostituted.
The Rev. Brewin Grant ven- forcibly said, “ The Affirmation Bill
would have been an Act to legalize hypocrisy or moral perjury.”
Moreover, the Affirmation Bill had become so hopelessly en-
�!9
tangled in the meshes of Mr. Bradlaugh’s notoriety, that *t "as
everywhere known as the Bradlaugh Relief Bill! even Mr. Glad
stone’s great popularity could not prevent it taking this distinct
shape. In the minds ot hundreds of thousands this Act was regal vi
ed as an insult to the Supreme Lawgiver, and it aroused the
conscience of the nation to such an extent that the present Govern
ment, taking sides with Mr. Biadlaugh, was defeated. There
should have been real ground for this legislation. A strong case
could not be made out, not even by Mr. Gladstone, and tlie
measure was most wisely rejected. It is desirable that the fa< is
in regard to the existing law should be carefully considered.. T-he
law which makes the recognition of God, and the expression of
dependence upon and accountability to H im, necessary a.t the door
of the nation’s house of law is neither unjust or oppressive to the
conscience of any man. The Brahmin, the Mohammedan, the
follower of Confucius, has no real ground of complaint against
the existing law.
Even Buddhism, which began as an
Atheistic philosophy, has become an idolatry known as the
worship of Buddha.
Though the thoughts of God amongst
these people differ very much, they all recognise accountability
to God, and should any of these become English subjects
and be returned as parliamentary representatives, the existing
law would impose no injustice upon them.
lhe same is
true concerning the Jews, the Unitarians, and the Friends,
none of these deny Go'd, and all who, on the ground of conscience
toward God, object to take an oath are by law enabled to make
1 ‘ an affirmation. ” Even in the case of the Secularists, no injustice
or oppression exists. These do not deny the existence of God.
The platform of the Secularists in this respect is “ that the exist
ence of God has not been proved.” lhis was well put some time
since by Mr. Holyoake, who, replying to Mr. Bradlaugh’s vehe
ment declaration, “ that such a being as God does not and cannot
exist,” quietly and with keen sarcasm congratulated Mr. Bradlaugh
upon “ his amazing knowledge.” It is clear, therefore, that the
avowed Atheist is the only being in the world who can charge the
existing law with injustice; and the charge, if brought, has no
force in it if Mr. Bradlaugh is accepted as the exponent of Atheism,
for his conscience is so elastic that now he will either affirm, take
the oath, or let it alone, whichever is permitted or most convenient.
Mr. John Stuart Mill, and more recently, Mr. John Morley,
found it practicable and within the range of a good conscience to
take the Oath of Allegiance. Why should the Government turn
aside from the legitimate business of the country to waste time and
strength over this notorious leader of atheistic blasphemy and
social lawlessness ?
It is remarked by some that if what they have been pleased to
call the “ farce of Oath-taking ” could be seen at the commence
ment of the Session, when hundreds of Members hurry and struggle
�20
around the Speaker’s chair, the desirability of abolishing the Oath
altogether would press itself upon all observers. This I think is
mere sentiment. It does not follow that an act done hastily
either by or amongst a crowd, is necessarily irreverent. Were that
so, a crowd pressing into a church or to a religious service should
be decried and condemned. The perfunctory way in which oaths
are administered in our Courts of Justice, is no reflection upon the
ac't of oath-taking, but it is a great scandal to the Tud«es
and Magistrates who permit the officials in our Courts of Justice
t,lu? to tr>fle with the solemn act of invoking the witness and aid
ot the living God in regard to the testimony about to be given.
Another argument used is this. It is said that there are other
members of the House of Commons who are as atheistical as is
Mr. Bradlaugh; and if he is prevented taking the Oath or
Affirmation, so also they should be. Though this were true, such
reasoning is fallacious ; the law can only deal with transgressors
■ftho are found out, or with such as criminate themselves. Its
povver to operate, detect, and punish is in the sphere of discovered
action. Ihousands of dishonest men escape the law because
their actions remain unknown and undetected.
. Though this be true, we do not declaim against the law, or
insist upon its repeal, because many undiscovered and unavowed
criminals escape its detection and punishment. In the case of
the junior Member for Northampton, he has discovered himself,
his character and intentions, to the law, and unless the law
identified with our Parliamentary Constitution be openly violated
or ignored, it will never be competent for Mr. Bradlaugh to take
either the Oath or make an Affirmation in the House of
Commons, except upon the ground of his repentance, and the
complete withdrawal of his blasphemous and disloyal utterances.
Mr Bradlaugh ignores the Lawgiver. The Constitution and
Legislature of the United Kingdom, in harmony with the law,
reverently recognises the Lawgiver. Mr. Bradlaugh says that an
Oath is to him “a meaningless form.” Certainly, upon his own
showing, an Affirmation would be. Now, either the law must be
set aside to meet this condition, or Mr. Bradlaugh must. He is
disqualified for taking the Oath or making the Affirmation,
and the disqualification, be it remembered, is his own act.
It is desirable carefully to notice that it is in the nature of an
Oath absolutely essential to recognise three parties—e.g"., as
between subject, sovereign, and God ; or as between man
AND MAN, AND God. To attempt to shut out the greatest of the
three members nullifies the Oath. To comprehend or take the
Oath as between subject and sovereign only, or man and man
only, without any reference to, or, as in this case, on the grout d
of an absolute denial of God’s existence, destroys the Oa’h by
ignoring the Chief Factor in the Oath—the High Court of App« al
which gives an Oath its solemn character. This is equally true
�2I
in regard to the nature and constitution of an affirmation. No
man, according to the existing law, can claim to affirm on the
ground of his disbelief in the existence of God, or his responsi
bility to Him. There is no law upon the English Statute Book
which sanctions this, and though it. has been permitted by
magistrates and others, such permission involved in every case
a violation of existing law. All the measures which have been
enacted in regard to affirmation have been on the ground of “ a
tender conscience toward God.” In no single instance has the
voice of the legislature been heard giving the atheist, or the man
who denies personal responsibility to God, the right to take the
oath or to make an affirmation. In the nature of the case this
could not be. Such legislation would be in direct opposition to
the fundamental principle which underlies English law, viz., tnat
every man is responsible to God.
To repeal the law in relation to an act which involves recognition
of accountability to Almighty God, is in any case a tremendous
responsibility to assume. To do this in the case of this blas
phemer would be nothing less than a governmental insult to the
King of kings.
It is one thing for a man, as an individual in
the state or nation, to be an Atheist; it is quite another for the
Government of that nation to legislate so that the denial of
responsibility to God becomes an individual legal right, and a
part and parcel of the country’s law. This coquetting with
Atheism and lawlessness on the ground of political freedom and
liberty has done, and is doing, incalculable mischief. Persisted
in, it can only eventuate in the break-up of the party whose policy
is contrary to the traditions of sound Liberalism.
To make this question a political one only is in the highest
degree unwise and impolitic. Any Government insisting upon
legislation in order to secure Mr. Bradlaugh’s admission to
the House of Commons, will surely cut off at a stroke thousands
of staunch and friendly adherents. Large numbers of sincere
Liberals are Christians first and politicians afterwards. They
have no intention to ignore or deny the authority of the living
God, nor will they take sides with falsehood, blasphemy, and
Atheism.
Moreover, they cannot fail to see that such legis
lation is undertaken to faciliate the admission into the
House of a man who has used the most horrible and blasphemous
lang’ age concerning the Holy Son of God.
Mr. Bradlaugh has
trampled under foot the most sacred themes of the Christian faith.
If any other man should use such shocking and offensive language,
and pursue, as Mr. Bradlaugh has doue, a course which should
outrage the moral sense of the nation, the House of Commons
would have a perfect right to fall back upon its own prerogative,
and exclude him from its assembly.
Mr. Bright, speaking in favour of the abolition of oaths, says:
“ Probably there is nothing in the New Testament more especially
�22
condemned and forbidden than oaths.” But surely it should be
borne in mind that our Lord’s words were directed against taking
in vain the Holy Name of God in ordinary conversation, which was
common in H s day, aud alas ! equally so in ours. Moreover,
He was speaking to His disciples. If all men were subject to
His government, His law might be applied to all. But such
is not the case. Mr. Bright argues as though all men were
loyal to truth. The law exists to deter the lawless. Penal law
is excellent both for the righteous and lawless. There is
no element of oppression in just laws to the law-abiding and
upright. The reflex action of law is safeguard and protection
to the great maj rity.
If all men were Joyal to truth, we
could dispense with Oath or Affirmation, whether in Parlia
ment or in our courts of justice. But men are not all truthful.
Solemn tests which can be readily improvised, oaths which
take cognizance of God, and appeal to His knowledge, become
in a high degree important defences against false witness. There
are thousands of men whose characters are such that their
witness ought not to be accepted except upon oath solemnly taken
—taken, let me add, with the distinct understanding that if they
perjure themselves they will be visited with exemplary punishment.
This practice is not only warranted by Divine example, but is
designed to be a valuable safeguard against deception and false
witness. In Hebrews vi. 13-17, we read, “For when God made
promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, He
sware by Himself.
For men verily swear by the greater:
and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs
of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by
an oath.”
It is said that the oath is not deterrent,
but the hesitation, vacilliation, and withdrawal of state
ments repeatedly witnessed in our Courts of Justice prove
the contrary. When false witnesses have been confronted
with the fact that they were giving evidence on oath, and that
they were liable to be committed for perjury, in vast numbers of
cases it has proved an invaluable protection against false evidence
being given. It is conceded that the law does not deter in
every case; but that is true of the law of felony, and, indeed, of
every other law. Thousands of thieves escape the action and
penalty of the law. What then ? Is the law worthless, and
shall the cry be for repeal ? Surely not. Thousands have
been deterred, detected, and punished by the law; and in any
case, the law should stand against the transgressor, and on the
side of the right. By reason of man’s transgression, God added
the law. So long as men are transgressors, such is the wise
example for human legislators to follow. Wise and good laws
are not only a terror to evil-doers, but an essential defence in
order to the security and well-being of society.
�23
THE SUBSTANCE OF MR. HENRY VARLEY’S LAM
THE ELECTORS OF NORTHAMPTON, FEBRUARY
Gentlemen,
It has been my privilege in the past to help you in t
battle which is being fought in your town against infidelity, bias;!
corruption, and lawlesssness.
j
Large numbers in your midst properly feel that you are bond
Charles Bradlaugh, the atheistic demagogue, who for years has .
people of England by his coarse and blasphemous p'atform utteran
printing and circulating such filthv books as The Frui.s of Philoso/ii,
Elements of Social Science. His conection with the Press has been li
as it has been revolting. Certainly, if the law had not been perm:
outraged, Charles Bradlaugh would long since have been where his 1
Foote the Editor of the disgusting Fi ecthlnker is.
Let it be remembered that this is not a question of the rights of the C m
or party politics. It is no question of opposition to the working man s c.
Few men are more respected in the House of Commons to-day than
Broadhurst and Burt, who are well-known representatives of the working via-The opposition against this notorious blasphemer comes by reason of his atroco
utterances and publications. Mr. Bradlaueh alone is responsible for the stroisj
feeling which exists against him. To yield to such a man a place in the Legis«
lature in order to frame laws for the well-being of society is not only monstrous, v
but wickedness of the highest order. Mr. Bradlaugh denies responsibility to God.
Anv man who denies the Supreme Lawgiver, is necessarily unfitted to become a
law-maker. It is said, We do not ask whether a tailor, a bootmaker, or a baker is
an Atheist before we employ him. Certainly not; but. be it remembered, that
boot-making and law-making are two essentially different occupations which
involve immensely different issues. The man who puts bad material into his woik
we can refuse to employ. Corrupt laws, which have been framed and passed by
bad men, are not so easily dealt with or repealed.
Some of the most corrupt corporations on the face of the earth have come into
these conditions through allowing men to fill public positions for which their
base characters always disqualified them. To speak ot his ability, or the expressed will of the constituency as qualifying him for the post ot a Legislator is
not necessarily true. No doubt the devil is both subtle and clever. Is he fitted
to represent Northampton ? Lord Justice Lush, writing to me some time before
his death, and shortly after Mr. Bradlaugh’s contention in the Law Courts,
said, “ I am astounded, as often as I think of Christian men preferring an open
blasphemer and enemy of Christ to a follower of Him, because ot his political
affinity. If Satan himself had appeared in human form, they would have
selected him for the same reason. It is a terrible thought that politics are thus
put in the first place, and a sad feature of the times.”
I have never argued this question on political grounds or as a political partisan.
From the commencement of this important fight I felt certain that a
heritage of weakness and division must come from such a flagrant departure from
the true basis of sound political Liberalism.
.
.
A platform wide enough to take in the devil side by side with the living Hod,
a platform which is to recognise on equal terms light and darkness, truth and
error, law and lawlessness, could only be made by practically discarding any
recognition of, or responsibility to God. Such a platform could only mean
interminable confusion, quarrel, and separation. Truly it has already separated
very fr onds.
.
Let it be borne in mind that the mere voice of numbers gives no necessary
solution to this question. No man can give a satisfactory answer or a conclusive
reason why the majority should rule the minority. We have m principle
and practice consented to this arrangement, but it remains to be proved whether
�24
condemned and- 1 am not affirming which is right; nevertheless, it is true
borne in mind tJf existing institutions concedes the rule everywhere to the
in vain the Ho'V'i61^ ''ell-ordered family in Northampton either the minority
common in Idlddo- In every house of business it is not the employes which,
t‘ ™
em£l0yerS- In every sch001 and fact0IT the same truth holds
ne was speamj Go'ernment, even' army, et ery regiment, every ship the same
His governr.he minority rule. Even a builder who employs twenty or thirty
is not the Ca house must employ a foreman, or the work will not go on. Every
loyal to tru* riment? college, or school, every foreman, forewoman, and pupilis e\-cellerircS a P^lncUde <d government which is not the rule of the majority,
rm Ju™ J a mischievous elements in the social state of a country there are none
no eiemeied the blatant demagogucism of such men as Messrs. Bradlaugh Foote
upright.
Bradlaugh’s statement that he is fighting for “ the rights’of the
to the gr>” is simply dust thrown in the eves of his hearers. Mr.' Bradlaugh
could distec^y
that he has himself to thank for the opposition which exists
m.
Solemn1
which Mr. Bradlaugh edits, is still playing the game
ooieinn .on and shuffle which has characterised its policy for so lore a period
takmort time since it was heralded in bold letters as the champion of
in
find Malthusianism; now, in order to facilitate Mr. Bradlau«h’s
are llssl°n to the House of Commons, these headings are removed. This of course
wit' p 1 d?ne to hlde ’he true character of the National Reformer. Happily
_ ost of us know perfectly well what a chameleon is like.
Mr. Bradlaugh s return, at the last Election, weakened the Liberal party
more than the return of ten Conservative Membeis would have done and-has
produced a strong feeling throughout the country against Mr. Gladstone’s Govern
ment. Ibis is obvious to all thoughtful men. In proof of the feelino- which
exists against Mr. Bradlaugh and his corrupt doctrines, it needs but to recall the
tact that 5,000 petitions, comprehending nearly . five millions (5,000 000) of
signatures, were presented against the Affirmation Bill and Mr. Bradlau<4i’s
admission to the House of Commons in the last Session of Parliament.
°
The numbers in favour of the Bill were roundly stated at 1,000 petitions and
1,000,000 signatures. Thus in the proportion of five to one the public voice said
M e are not going to stand side by side with Atheism and Blasphemy, nor with
the corrupt Socialism advocated in 1'he Elements of Soeinl Science and The
Im its of Philosophy. Despite Mr. Bradlaugh, the people know how to distin
guish between persecution and righteous opposition.
Notting Hill, London.
Feb. 14, 1884.
Henry Varley.
Private, Important, and Invaluable.
LECTURE
TO
MEN
ONLY.
(Delivered to 3,000 Men in Exeter Hall).
On the Advantages and Obligations of Chastity, with special reference to certain
forms of temptation.
Containing invaluable information for Young Men, and those who are married
Post Free lor 5d., or Three Copies for Postal Order, Is.
_
____________________
Two Copies, post free, Is.
LECTURE
TO
YOUTHS
AND
In Stiff Covers' 7d.
YOUNG
MEN.
On Chastity, Strength, and Success in Life.
Containing Selections from Lecture to Men. Adapted for Youths and Yqung Men who
are unmarried.
________________ Price 3jd., post fr.ee, or Twelve Copies, 2s. 9d.
, . An.y °f these Publications can be obtained direct from the Author, by letter
addressed THOMAS E. VARLEY, 32, Clarendon Road, Notting Hill, London, W.
Orders should be prepaid, and, so far as possible, be made by Postal Orders.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
An appeal to the men of England
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Varley, Henry
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Cover pages torn. Includes the "Substance of Mr Henry Varley's last letter to the electors of Northampton, February 1884" (p. 23-24). Union catalogues (COPAC, KVK) list a similar pamphlet by Varley published in 1881 by John F. Shaw (16 p.). Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Office of the Christian Commonwealth
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N650
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
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 (An appeal to the men of England), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Bradlaugh
Great Britain-Politics and Government-1837-1901
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/13141d5fa359a5ff4a38e22179548101.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=v8gfX8vv7-9B82g%7EfDIVdVTGp3Pwm96Sb%7EGgzloYBXrQ1ICY5waYKMpTs-HvJsNBb%7EXGy57bAX07e5r7Kk1fWXrd%7Ehs--QxD3SI23-UUKp6LZBW-lZ98%7E5vZ99HilGm9AZ7-D1i-0VG%7Ezb6MW-QsjrtCFDiJ%7E6lyC84HEdlz0cW97di4SrrQl8ihUbZbC07VHe-umadljMPN7U8rGVNKvTv1AFBhUlRDz2Afl1yLtkQAoSSy4UtwLomjlRErfR%7EQyGb5LuwlAhW2vyRp-fTtAZcJTg3WUYi7sM-Dn5obRn1ydumazDXq1BFKbY3UODO7YnqxbLGf2%7E9NXa3a5m3Opg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ce7197f707d6cf886ca11064aec4efae
PDF Text
Text
8 z^'2-03
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
A CONTRIBUTION TO RELIGIOUS NON-SCIENCE.
---------- -----------By ANNIE BESANT.
---------- *----------
t “ Avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of
science, falsely so-called.”—1 Tim. vi., 20.
In these later days, when science is carrying devastation
into the land of faith, and godless education is everywhereoffering the fruit of the tree of knowledge to the children
of men, it behoves those who still cling to the faith once
delivered to the saints to offer such small aid as they may
in defending the citadel of Christianity, the Holy Bible,
against its foes. And above all things is it necessary to
know thoroughly what is in the Bible, so that those who
“ turn the Bread of Life into stones to cast against their
enemies ” may not suddenly shoot one out of an unsuspected
catapult. Let us search the Scriptures, as did the noble
Bereans, and we shall be rewarded by discovering therein
biological facts that we shall never find if we confine our
selves to works written by mere uninspired scientific men.
And, first, let us reject with indignation the idea that
the Bible is not written to teach us science. All that is in
the Bible is written “for our learning” (Bom. xv., 4),
and if scientific statements are made therein they must be
made for our instruction. It is not conceivable that when.
“ holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost” (2 Peter i., 21) they spake wrong. The very
thought is blasphemy, and must be at once rejected by
every reverent mind. How should we be able to trust the
Bible in its revelations about heaven if we refuse to credit
its revelations about earth ? If it is worthy our faith in
celestial matters, surely we may believe it in matters*
terrestrial. If it is to be our guide to eternal, much more
must it be our guide to temporal, truths. Surely no one
�2
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
will be foolish enough to accept a light to his feet and a
lamp to his paths (see Ps. cxix., 105) if that light is delu
sive on the road along which he walks, and only throws a
glare on the far-off mountains beyond the river of death ?
No! Against all such “oppositions of science falsely
so-called” let us set our faces as flint (see Isa. 1., 7).
Give up one of these precious words, and we give up all.
If God has not “at sundry times and in divers manners ”
spoken “in times past unto the fathers by the prophets”
how can we be sure that he “hath in these last days spoken
unto us by his Son” (Heb. i., 1, 2)? Rather let us
‘ ‘ receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able
to save” our “ souls” (James i., 21), and thank God, who
has hidden these things from the wise and prudent Darwins
and Huxleys, and has revealed them unto babes (see
Matt, xi., 25).
Gen. i. contains some biological facts of great interest
and novelty. Herein we learn that trees brought forth
fruit, and herbs yielded seed, and the earth brought forth
grass, before the sun existed to “ divide the day from^he
night” (verses 11—14). These were the first living things
that existed on the earth. At that time there was no ani
mal life in existence ; no sound of life broke the silence of
those vast woods; for two days the vegetable world tri
umphed in security; no snail smeared the delicate fronds
of the fern ; no caterpillar ate the dainty new-born leaves;
no sparrow pecked the cherry ; no blackbird feasted on the
strawberry. Dogmatic science asserts that these grasses
and herbs and fruit-trees could not have brought forth
their seeds and fruits without the sunrays, but Genesis
knows better. Foolhardy science produces miserable pieces
of rock, containing fossil animals older than any plants,
and sets them against our glorious revelation. But are
men moles or rabbits, that they should burrow in the earth
and bring out these deceiving pebbles which God merci
fully hid out of sight, clearly showing that he intended
them to be out of mind ? Far better leave the earth as
God made it, and live on the surface, where God placed us.
The fossils cannot injure the moles, whereas it is plain
that they are a serious danger to a child-like faith. Are we
not told that except we 1 ‘ become as little children ” we “ shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven ” (Matt, xviii., 3),
and I ask you, as sensible persons, “ I speak as to wise
�BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
O'
0'
men, judge ye what I say” (1 Cor. x., 15), would any
child you ever heard of trouble its little head about Terebratula biplicata, Thecodontosaurus, Pterodactylus crassirostris, Noeggerathia cuneifolia, Homalonotus Delphinocephalas, Gorgonia infundibuliformis ? Would not the
mere names be enough to bring on croup ? And if we are
to become as little children, is it not clear that creatures
possessing names of this description are, by the merciful
dispensation of Providence, stamped as utterly inappropriate
to our present state ?
There is one beautiful suggestion, it would be going too
far to call it thought, of a man of God, which the truly
pious may well ponder over. It is this. Perhaps God
created the earth, just as it is, full of fossils, placing these
apparent records of the past out of the sight of simple
people, but ready to entrap the carnal geologist, as it is
written: “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness”
(1 Cor. iii., 19). Who can say that fossils are not among
the means prophesied of by Paul when he says that “ God.
shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe
a lie : that they all might be damned ” (2 Thess. ii., 11) ?
At any rate, no one ever alleges that people will be damned
for refusing to believe in fossils, while if Christianity be
true, people may be damned for believing them, and it is
surely wiser to be on the safe side. Possils would be no
consolation in hell, especially as they would probably all
become metamorphic rocks.
It is most interesting and comforting to know that GocI
gave man and woman ‘1 dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth ” (Gen. i., 23). It is a little
difficult, perhaps, for a man to exercise this dominion when
his log is seized by a shark, or his body is carried off by a
tiger ; but doubtless if he reminded the animals of Gen. i.,
28, they would at once mend their ways, and restore his
property.
Gen. ii., 21, 22, are verses that have been the source of
wide-spread error—I mean of divine correction of so-called
science. Adam clearly went through life short of one rib,
and it has been generally supposed that his sons have in
herited this peculiarity, and that man has normally an
uneven number of ribs, twelve on one side and eleven on
the other, thus affording a beautiful hereditary proof of
�4
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
ancestral generosity. This pious faith has been rudely
shaken by the study of anatomy, and by the unpleasant
discovery that the number of male ribs is not odd; it now
exists only, I fear, in country villages where science classes
under South Kensington have not yet exerted their sceptic
making influence, and where people do not enquire too
curiously into their internal arrangements.
Gen. iii. presents us with a pleasant picture of inter
course with the lower animals before the fall of our first
parents brought sin into the world. What does scientific
zoology know of a talking serpent ? Can any scientist of
to-day pretend that he has ever met with a specimen able
to talk? Yet this remarkable snake talked with great
effect, and we owe to his well-directed eloquence the
inestimable blessing by which, as God said, “ the man is
become as one of us, to know good and evil” (v. 22). The
serpent in question was remarkable in ways other than his
gift of speech. After God had cursed him, he went about
as snakes do now, but before that he progressed on his
back, or his head, or his tail, in a manner since become as
old-fashioned as the minuet.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of
life, are plants quite beyond the reach of modern botany.
It would have been a priceless blessing for mankind if
Adam and Eve had smuggled some cuttings of these out
of the garden, for knowledge now has to be painfully
acquired, while life closes when experience has brought its
highest utility. It is, perhaps, comforting to know that
in the middle of the street of the throne of God and of the
Lamb, and on either side of the river, there is a tree of
life (Rev. xxii., 1, 2), which bears a different sort of fruit
every month—proving incidentally how very much horti
culture has advanced in that neighborhood—but the
thought intrudes, despite all effort, that we could dispense
with the tree of life after we have risen to immortality,
while it would be invaluable to us as mortals here. It re
quires great faith to feel that God is good in withholding
the tree of life while it would be useful, and in giving it to
us when it will be superfluous.
Gen . xxx., 37—42, gives some suggestions which breeders
of cattle will find useful. Peeled rods of green poplar,
hazel, and chesnut will influence the color of the young
of sheep and cattle. There is no reason why they should,
�BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
■and the whole idea is absurd, but we are assured that by
this means Jacob cheated his uncle Laban in the most
scandalous manner.
The bush which burned with fire and was not consumed
(Ex. iii., 2.) and the rod which became a serpent and then
retransformed into a rod {Ibid iv., 2—4), offer much subject
for study to the pious mind, while the kinds of dust that
became lice (ZJm? viii, 16, 17), and of ashes that became
boils {Ibid ix., 8, 10), are fortunately confined to Egypt.
The cattle that were all killed of murrain {Ibid ix., 6) and
■subsequently plagued with boils {Ibid 9), and later smitten
with hail, so that they died again {Ibid 18—25), and of
which some died a third time {Ibid xii., 29), smitten by the
Lord, and others a third time drowned in the sea {Ibid
xiv., 28) are also confined to that same curious land; in
other countries animals only die once.
Lev. xi. gives some interesting facts of animal life. Nowa-days the camel’s leg does end in two toes, although not
very obvious ones, but in Moses’ time it was not so (v. 4).
The hare that chews the cud (v. 6) has become. extinct,
though all hares have a deceptive habit of munching, and
the bat is not now classified as “ a fowl” (compare verses
13 and 19). Probably at that time the bat was not a
mammal, and it has only become one since with the obj ect
of damning the scientific biologist. The “fowls that creep,
going upon all four ” (v. 20) have also become extinct,
and have left no fossils behind them to perpetuate their
memory; four-legged fowls given to creeping are wholly
unknown. So again with the “flying creeping things
which have four feet,” and go “upon all four” (verses 23,
21), such as locusts, beetles, etc. These have six legs
now-a-days, having acquired two more since the days of
Moses, and I desire to point out to scoffing sceptics that
were it not for this blessed book these remarkable quadru
pedal birds and insects would have remained unknown.
Who after this can dare to say that the Bible makes no
■contributions to science ?
I say nothing of the pregnant suggestion contained in
the reference to the flying, creeping things that “have
legs above their feet” (v. 21). To me this verse contains a
hint that at that time there existed some four-legged birds
with feet above their legs, a peculiarity that would neces
sitate a unique anatomical re-arrangement of the appen
�6
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
dages, and, to our purblind eyes, seems to present certain
difficulties in locomotion. This speculation is full of
interest, but perhaps it is dangerous to press too far
inferences from the sacred text. We must ever remember
that he who adds to the words of this holy book is cursed
with him who takes away from them (Rev. xxii., 19), but
perchance we avoid this danger by not regarding the
existence of these supracrural-footed, flying, creeping
things as a matter of faith, like that of the four-legged
fowls, but only as a pious opinion.
The Israelites must have had serious difficulties during
the period of transition between the queer beasts and
their modern namesakes. Thus a four-legged beetle was“clean” (Lev. xi., 22), but “whatsoever hath more feet
[than four] among all creeping things” was “unclean”
{Ibid. 42), as, for instance, everything now known as a
beetle. Perhaps beetles had four legs until the Jewish
ceremonial law was supplanted by Christianity, and there
upon they suddenly changed into the modern six-legged
kind. This change may have taken place even in the
time of Moses, for it is remarkable that in Deut. xiv., 19
“every creeping thing that flieth” has become unclean
and may not be eaten, and it would reconcile this apparent
contradiction if we suppose that all the insects had sud
denly developed an extra pair of legs, and so had come
under the head of flying creeping things with more legs
than four. Thus beautifully does science throw light on
the dark places in scripture, and cause apparently discord
ant texts to harmonise.
In Numbers xvii. we read of a remarkable rod which in
the space of a single night “budded and brought forth
buds, and bloomed blossoms and yielded almonds.” Sogreatly can God expedite natural processes when he wills.
Indian jugglers can now perform these marvels, but no
one would dream of being so blasphemous as to suggest
that Moses, who was “learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians” (Acts vii., 22), played a conjuring trick in
order to substantiate his brother’s claim to the priesthood.
The unicorn is another animal of which we should know
nothing were it not for the Bible. We find it mentioned
in Deut. xxxiii., 17, in Job xxxix., 9—12, and in Ps.
xcii., 10. There must therefore have been such an animal,
as the Holy Ghost would not talk about a non-existent
�BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
7
creature, and yet there is not a trace of its existence out
side this book of God.
Ezekiel is a book of priceless value from our present
point of view. Who can read without his heart thrilling
of the living creatures that “had the likeness of man,”
and such a man—a man with four faces, with four wings,
with a calf’s feet, and a man’s hands, sparkling like
burnished brass, looking like burning coals of fire and like
the appearance of lamps (Ezek. i., 5—13). The likeness
is clearly not to any man of the past, so it must be to a
man of the future, and under these circumstances well
might John the Apostle say that “it doth not yet appear
what we shall be ” (1 John iii., 2). In the tenth chapter of
Ezekiel the same creatures appear again and are named
cherubims, and we learn the additional fact that “their
whole body, and their backs, and their hands, and their
wings, and the wheels were full of eyes round about ”
verse 12), a superfluity of visual organs that must have
been almost confusing to the possessors. Eirst cousins to
these extraordinary creatures must be the four beasts of
Revelation, who are “full of eyes within” (Rev. iv., 8),
an arrangement admirable for introspection, but otherwise
slightly unsatisfactory. I am almost inclined to think that
these four beasts are made out of one of Ezekiel’s, for a
careful comparison shows that, barring the multiplication
of wings, one beast is exactly a quarter of a cherub.
Jonah’s experiences are full of valuable biological in
formation. The whale (compare Matt, xii., 40), which was
a “great fish” (Jonah i., 17) living in the Mediterranean
Sea, and the internal arrangements of which were suitable
for swallowing a prophet and affording him lodging for
three days ; the gourd which grew up in a night, and the
worm which “smote” the gourd {Ibid iv., 6, 7)—are not
these known to and admired by every student of holy
•writ ?
Space fails to draw attention to all the biological revela
tions made in this blessed book, but I cannot pass over the
withered fig-tree without a word. As against the story
so beautifully told (Matt, xxi., 18, 19; Mark xi., 12—14,
20, 21) of this unhappy tree, on which Jesus “found
nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet,” it is
alleged by infidel critics that if the season for figs had not
•arrived it was absurd for Jesus to expect to find any, and
�8
BIBLICAL BIOLOGY.
they scoff at the explanation given by the true believer that
fig-trees at that time in Judsea (although at no other time
and in no other place) bore figs before they bore leaves,
and that this fig-tree was therefore guilty of false pre
tences, whereby it deceived its Creator. It is perfectly true
that now the fig-tree is covered with leaves long before its
remarkable inflorescence has ripened into fruit, but it is
clear that this particular fig-tree began at the other end
and worked backward, otherwise we should be obliged to
come to the horrible and blasphemous conclusion that Jesus
was both silly and ill-tempered, and that he behaved like
a petulant child, howling because it cannot obtain impossi
bilities.
The Revelation of St. John the Divine offers a rich feast of
creatures unknown to science; I have already mentioned
the quarter-cherubs, and we have in addition a seven
horned seven-eyed lamb (v. 6); locusts shaped like horses,
with men’s faces, women’s hair, lions’ teeth, scorpions’
tails, wearing crowns and breast-plates (ix., 7:—10) ; a red
dragon, with seven heads, ten horns, and a-wonderful tail,
who casts a flood of water out of his mouth (xii. 3, 4, 15) ;
a beast like a leopard, with seven heads and ten horns,
with a bear’s feet and a lion’s mouth, and another with two
horns, who “spake as a dragon” (xiii., 1, 2, 11), how
ever that maybe; yet another, scarlet in color, “full of
names of blasphemy,” as others were full of eyes, and
with seven heads and ten horns (xvii., 3); never was there
suclj a menagerie full of most curiously composite animals
as that seen by the beloved Apostle from “the isle that
is called Patmos ” (Rev. i., 9).
My task is ended; I have shown something of the trea
sures of biological knowledge laid up for us in this most
precious book, and I commend my humble effort to all true
believers, beseeching them to aid it by their prayers.
London : Printed by Annie Be sant and Charles Bbadlaugh,
63, Fleet Street, E.C.—1884.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Biblical biology : a contribution to religious non-science
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N061
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 (Biblical biology : a contribution to religious non-science), 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
Biology
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/77c33e7ebf631b574eefc95eab10ea7b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=jDQ4p%7EHygGHHKSSXeAeXRDqlvCfgaJggcnLrwEgacCG45jWOqh7QthuCbc0r4mLsHFxnyOaxValqy9Y534aXjoDDP3qP8zX2L8hGJRkUUd4ZQabq-fjDWsM%7EE0dapy8AfG1WmLGjTtSDrrjJU%7EoDJ1Ks7Fg71lVR%7EpNygKx35jMcQvZmhhsxs7sB-ERXH-trV5x1EurKkr6O6KGbZyAXCk6T7-EFw%7EwdqP9dJPFmsKGjBgyzg3-TPDWh3RBe8ajHXQfpkgpX0LDW68mJKVRwtEfJd0L9hDQUFqSpnQMtLG0MUXVVhyz7dbrCBdcV9U%7EvYdoF0DIy9pZSAb0b-fcSgA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
85c16aef755ade47ed5503f6532da23e
PDF Text
Text
BLASPHEMY^
>f)outo tbep be aboltWb ?
4
BY
S W. A. HUNTER,
LL.D., M.A.,
BARRISTER-AT-LAW.
PUBLISHED FOR
0T!)e ^ssociatton. for the Bepeal of tf)e -Slaspljenxp Hatofi,
By Rev. W. Sharman (Hon. Sec.), 20, Headland Park, Plymouth.
1884.
J
Price Twopence.
��B
i
N3H
THE
BLASPHEMY
LAWS:
SHOULD THEY BE ABOLISHED.?
have arrived at an interesting
of
WEFreedom. The right of privatestage in the history to
judgment, the right
of free discussion, liberty to think, and therefore liberty
differ, are accepted as indisputable by all parties. The
intellectual basis of intolerance is cut away; the pernicious
sophistry that justified intolerance is discredited. But the
passion of intolerance, although now ranking as a vice, is
by no means extinct. So far we have made progress.
There was a time when the gratification of a depraved
taste for persecution was regarded as the highest of moral
duties. St. Thomas Aquinas—to whom the Pope has
recently invited Christendom to turn as an oracle of philo
sophical truth—St. Thomas Aquinas writes, apparently with
perfect seriousness, that the crime of heresy exceeds the
crime of coining false money. By heresy he meant the
publication of any opinions that were condemned by the
authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. But it is beyond
the power even of a Pope to restore to life the antiquated
opinions of St. Thomas Aquinas. The true doctrine of
intellectual freedom has won an ascendancy among the best
representatives of the Christian faith. The danger now lies
in a different direction. What is to be feared is not a
revival of persecution in its old shape—naked and not
ashamed—but the invention of sophistical excuses to enable
persons to enjoy the exciting pleasure of persecution, while
at the same time they contrive to keep on good terms with
their consciences as consistent supporters of freedom of
speech.
• •’>
�4
The Blasphemy Laws:
Intolerance is a strange passion to be found in a being
endowed with reason. Why should I hate a man, to the
point of taking away his life by torture, merely because he
does not share my opinions? No man is infallible. The
persecutor may be wrong, and not the victim. It is Socrat^t
that was right, not the fanatical demos that made him
drink a cup of poison. And Christians, at least, think that
Jesus Christ was right, and not the Jews who nailed him
to the cross. But even if the persecutor is right, that
does not make his conduct any the more rational. Punish
ment may make a hypocrite, but it cannot make a convert.
All error is involuntary, and even a savage has the sense to
see that it is idiotic to punish a man for that which is
involuntary. No human being can desire to believe false
hood ; naturally we desire that the facts should be agreeable
to us ; but we cannot believe anything that does not appear
to us to be true. Even a persecutor must admit that man
would be unworthy of the reason with which he is endowed
if he were to try to extinguish the light of reason. Intoler
ance is the paradox of human nature; it is the treason of
man against the rational soul that raises him above the
beasts of the field.
How then is the existence of a persecuting spirit to be
accounted for? The law that seems to govern the intensity
of intolerance is that we are angry with those who differ
from us in proportion as we are conscious of weakness in
the grounds of our opinions. The most certain facts are
those that rest upon the direct testimony of the senses. If
a man blind from birth were to argue seriously that there
was no such thing as light, we should not be angry with
him, we should only smile. Of truths not perceptible through
the senses, the most certain are the truths of mathematics.
A man who should contend that two and two make five
would excite perhaps compassion, but certainly not indig
nation. Next in rank of certainty come the established
truths of physical science. Occasionally we meet with a
writer who contends that the law of gravitation is a chimera,
and will undertake to demonstrate that the earth is as flat
as a pancake. But still we retain our composure. If, how
ever, we turn from the established truths of science to the
region of taste, we find a marked change. There is, no
�Shotild they be Abolishedf
5
doubt, such a thing as good taste; but the distinction
between good taste and bad taste is not marked by any
common measure that can be applied with certainty. For
this reason it often happens that some men take deadly
offence when their opinions on a matter of taste are ques
tioned. In politics and sociology we are in a region of
opinion, and not of science—a region not necessarily of
incorrigible uncertainty, but where we are a long way from
any accepted standard of truth. In this region we find that
intolerance displays considerable vigour. There are many
men whose self-love is mortally wounded by any contradic
tion of their favourite political opinions. True, in a free
country, they must sulk and suffer; they are debarred from
the luxury of imprisoning their opponents ; but, in revenge,
they soothe their vanity by describing their opponents as
men of Belial, who are actuated only by the basest motives.
In art, in politics, in the disputed territory where the
conquests of science are not yet assured, intolerance is an
unlovely weed; but it is not a serious social evil. It is
when the passions of the populace are worked up in the
interest of an organized body of men that we learn to what
frightful excesses intolerance will go, and how man’s in
humanity to man is a more deadly evil than hurricanes,
earthquakes, famine, or pestilence.
In religion the conditions are favourable to extreme
intolerance. On the one hand, religion is a subject of the
most intense interest. It must either occupy the highest
place in our esteem, or no place at all. It must be every
thing or nothing. On the other hand, historical facts must
necessarily remain on a lower level of certainty than the
truths of science. The reason of the certainty attainable
in science is that experiments admit of repetition, and that
any intelligent man may put himself in as good a position
to ascertain any truth as the original discoverer of it. The
facts, the experiments, the calculations by which Newton
established the law of gravitation are open to be examined
and tested by any one of us as much as by Newton. We
can appreciate the enormous difference it would make to
the unanimity with which the Newtonian account of the
heavenly bodies is received if the truth of it rested upon a
few transitory events that were known to Sir Isaac Newton
�6
The Blasphemy Laws:
and half a dozen Fellows of Colleges, and were of such a
character that they could never occur again. The truth of
Christianity, to take one illustration, depends upon a series
of events that are alleged to have occurred nearly two
thousand years ago in an outlying portion of the Roman
Empire. These events may be proved to the satisfaction of
individual minds, but they cannot be repeated so that a
doubter may have evidence at first hand; and we cannot feel
surprise that the unanimity that is attained in science should
be very far indeed from being attained in religion.
But after all it is only a few that can spare the time, or
feel themselves qualified, to examine for themselves the
grounds upon which the credibility of historical Christianity
depends. To all of us, in our early years, and to the
enormous majority always, our confidence in Christianity
must depend, not upon proof, but upon authority ; that is,
upon assertion, upon the assertion of persons whom we
have been taught to respect. Thus it comes to pass that
in a community where any form of religion occupies the
highest place in general reverence, the belief of almost the
whole population rests upon assertion, and not upon reason
or evidence. When a believer is then confronted for the
first time with a serious denial of his opinions, he experi
ences a painful and mortifying sensation. What he regards
as truths of infinite importance are assailed, and he is con
scious of a total inability to deal with the arguments by
which they are assailed. He is exposed to the eventual
perils and present torture of doubt. A state of doubt is
distressing in proportion to the importance of the matters in
question, and to the difficulties in the way of restoring calm
and confidence. If man were a being governed by pure
reason he would, under those circumstances, adopt one of
two courses. He would either stop his ears and eyes, and
resolutely turn aside from those who attacked his peace of
mind, or he would follow the alternative and manly course
of examining the evidence for himself, and thus rising from
the lower level of unintelligent belief to the higher platform
of intelligent belief, or else of discarding the ideas instilled
into his youthful mind. But there is a third course, involving
less exercise of self-denial, which has been more generally
pursued, and peace has too often been obtained by turning
�Should they be Abolishedf
?
’
7
round on the person that has disturbed our repose, and
treating him as a malefactor of the worst species. When
the grounds of deeply-cherished beliefs are assailed, man
usually follows the baser course dictated by sloth and vanity,
and seeks peace for his agitated mind, not in the pursuit of
truth, but in the punishment of those who have roused him
from intellectual torpor. If, however, there were nothing
more, intolerance would not lead to much harm beyond an
explosion of bad temper. Other motives are at work.
There is a natural affinity between the baser passions of
human nature, and intolerance soon associates itself with
deadlier allies. With what grim humour does the apostle
relate the instructive episode of the silversmith of Ephesus? .
Demetrius did a good trade in images of Diana, and when
the early Christians laboured, not without success, to expose
the gods and goddesses to ridicule and contempt, with what
virtuous zeal did the pious silversmith lead the mob to the
cry of “ Great is Diana of the Ephesians !” Lord Coleridge,
in his summing up in Foote’s case, suggested that a law of
blasphemy might possibly be defended as a means of pro
tection to freethinkers from lynch law, and he referred to
the mob that burned Dr. Priestley’s house in Birmingham.
Before, however, we censure the mob we ought to know
what was the character of the sermons preached in the
Birmingham pulpits during the months that preceded the
outrage. Possibly an inquiry of that nature might lead us
to a more excellent way of protecting freethinkers than the
choice between imprisonment or mob violence.
In a.d. 325 the Emperor Constantine formally proclaimed
Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. In
the century following an incredible number of statutes was
passed, punishing not merely pagans and Jews, and others
who were not Christians, but prosecuting even Christians
themselves if they departed by a hair’s breadth from the
dogmas of the particular section of the Christians that had
the ear of the imperial throne. The crimes of the Roman
Catholic Church against the intellect of man form one of
the blackest pages in the history of the world. The Pro
testants at first were no better than the Catholics. Until
the year 1677 it was a crime punishable with death to deny
or dispute the doctrin.es of the Church of England; but the
�8
The Blasphemy Laws:
long struggle that ended in the triumph of William ol
Orange convinced even the members of the Church of
England that the Dissenters were too powerful to be
attacked with the clumsy weapons of the criminal law.
Peace was accordingly established on the terms that the
Church should have liberty to persecute the weaker sects.
The reign of William III. is stained by an infamous statute*
imposing three years’ imprisonment, and the forfeiture of all
civil rights upon those who should deny the doctrine of the
Trinity, or the truths of the Christian religion, or the divinej
authority of the Bible. By an accident the statute seems
to have been wholly inoperative. With the intention probl
ably of saving the Jews, the statute applied only to thosd
persons who had been educated in or made a profession
of the Christian religion; and the difficulty of proving
this has thrown persecutors back upon the common law
of blasphemy. It was not until 1813 that the statute was
so far repealed as to permit a denial of the Trinity, and
thus exclude Unitarian Christians from the operation of
the criminal law.
It will not have escaped observation that the statute law is
based upon the naked doctrine of persecution. The mere
denial of the Christian religion, however honest the opponent,
and however respectful his mode of address, is in itself a
crime. That statute remains to this day unrepealed.
The prosecutions, however, that have taken place since
the reign of William III. have been instituted under thcr*
common law. By common law is meant the invention of
law by the judges without any warrant from the legislature!
The name of the common law offence is significant. It is
not Heresy, but Blasphemy. All blasphemy is heresy, but
all heresy is not blasphemy. Looking at the question
historically, I think there can be little doubt that the judges
who invented the law of blasphemy meant to distinguish
between heresy and blasphemy, and to punish merely those
who denied the Christian religion as a whole, and not those
who professing to be Christians entertained heterodox
opinions in regard to some doctrines; but of late years
a tendency has been exhibited to interpret blasphemy in a
different sense, so as to avoid the unpopularity of making
* Appendix, p. 20.
�Should they be Abolished?
9
dissent from religion a crime. This tendency culminated in
the charge of Lord Coleridge to the jury in Foote’s case,
and a discussion on the propriety of abolishing the blas
phemy laws, to be of any use, must proceed on the defini
tion of the common law offence, which his lordship sub
mitted to the jury. Lord Coleridge did not put forth any
definition of his own, but adopted, and lent his high judicial
authority to, the definition contained in Starkie on Libel.
The passage in Mr. Starkie’s work becomes of great im
portance, and is here given at length :
“There are no questions of more intense and awful
interest than those which concern the relations between the
Creator and the beings of His creation j and though, as a
matter of discretion and prudence, it might be better to
leave the discussion of such matters to those who, from
their education and habits, are most likely to form correct
conclusions, yet it cannot be doubted that any man has a
right, not merely to judge for himself on such subjects, but
also, legally speaking, to publish his opinions for the benefit
of others. When learned and acute men enter upon these
discussions with such laudable motives their very contro
versies, even where one of the antagonists must necessarily
be mistaken, so far from producing mischief, must in general
tend to the advancement of truth, and the establishment of
religion on the firmest and most stable foundations. The
very absurdity and folly of an ignorant man, who professes
to teach and enlighten the rest of mankind, are usually so
gross as to render his errors harmless ; but be this as it may,
the law interferes not with his blunders so long as they are
honest ones, justly considering that society is more than com
pensated for the partial and limited mischief which may
arise from the mistaken endeavours of honest ignorance,
by the splendid advantages which result to religion and to
truth from the exertions of free and unfettered minds. It
is the mischievous abuse of this state of intellectual liberty
which calls for penal censure. The law visits not the honest
errors, but the malice of mankind. A wilful intention to
pervert, insult, and mislead others by means of licentious
and contumelious abuse applied to sacred subjects, or by wilful
misrepresentations or artful sophistry, calculated to mislead
the ignorant and unwary, is the criterion and test of guilt.
�IO
i
f
\
V
The Blasphemy Laves:
11A malicious and mischievous intention, or what is
equivalent to such an intention, in law as well as morals, a
state of apathy and indifference to the interests of societyj
is the broad boundary between right and wrong.”
According to Mr. Starkie, “ honest error ” is no crime; a
“ wilful intention to mislead and pervert ” is alone criminal.
Mr. Starkie would seem to have overlooked the fact, that if
this be blasphemy, it is a crime that no one but a lunatic
could possibly commit. A dishonest freethinker in a Christian country such as ours is what metaphysicians would call ■
an unthinkable proposition. If Christians were to-day, as
they were in the second century, a small, a poor and a
despised sect, we could understand dishonest attacks upon
their doctrines. If the preachers of Secularism were re
warded with large incomes, with princely palaces, and with
seats in the House of Lords, we may well believe that a dis
honest secularist would be within the bounds of possibility.
But that any man, not being honest, should publicly em
brace the tenets of Secularism, and expose himself to the
worldly losses and social persecution that is the lot of
secularists, is a wild absurdity.
But when Mr. Starkie puts forward “ honesty ” as the
test of innocence, he does not in the least mean it. What
he does mean is this. Whether a man is honest or not
does not matter; the jury or the law must make him
a criminal in two cases. The first is when “ wilful misre
presentation or artful sophistry calculated to mislead the
ignorant and unwary ” is employed. A greater piece of
nonsense never was written. If a secularist lecturer is to
be sent to prison because twelve jurymen, all Christians, and
all ignorant of the elements of Christian evidences, think
that his arguments are sophistical and his statements misre
presentations, it would be more honest and decent to say
that Secularism is a crime, and to proceed under the in
famous statute of William III. To say that “honest
error ” is no crime, but it is a crime if a jury don’t agree
with your arguments, is to give justice with one hand and to
take it away with the other.
The second case where “ honest error ” is to be turned
into a crime is where contumelious abuse is applied to
sacred subjects. At length we touch something like solid
�Should they be A bolished ?
11
ground. All that Mr. Starkie writes about 11 honest error,”
“ malicious intention,” is mere rhetorical bombast. What
he means apparently is that blasphemy does not consist in
the mere denial of Christianity, so long, as Lord Coleridge
puts it, as the decencies of controversy are observed. The
crime of blasphemy, if we may invoke the shade of Aristotle
to elucidate the mystery, consists, not in the matter, but in
the form; not in the denial of Christianity, but in the way
of doing it. The question is whether the law of blasphemy
thus understood is consistent with free discussion of re
ligion, or whether it is not in the nature of a clever trap,
warranted as good as the statute of William, to catch
heretics.
Let us see how such a law works in practice. Mr. Foote
was convicted, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, not
for being a freethinker, but for violating the decencies of
controversy. But what is or is not consistent with the
decencies of controversy is a matter upon which perfectly
fair and competent men will hold different opinions. Mr.
Foote was tried before three juries. Two of them, one of
these being a special jury, refused to convict. If there was
this difference of opinion among the jurors, it requires but
little charity to suppose that Mr. Foote himself may have
been of opinion that he carefully observed the decencies of
controversy. For this error of judgment, if it be an error,
Mr. Foote receives a severer punishment than if he had
been captain of a ship, and by an error of judgment had
caused the death of hundreds of passengers. Many a man has
beaten his wife to death and escaped with much lighter
punishment. Whence then a sentence of one year’s im
prisonment? The judge did not conceal the motive, and
told the prisoner plainly, if not politely, that it was because
he dedicated his talents to the service of the devil. In
plain English, Mr. Foote was punished for delivering freethought lectures.
Let us consider what sort of political freedom we should
enjoy if the law relating to political debate were modelled
on Mr. Starkie’s law of religious freedom. Let us suppose
that Lord Randolph Churchill is tried, in order to make the
comparison fair, by a jury of pronounced hereditary Radicals,
who have been taught from the time they left their cradles
�12
The Blasphemy Laws:
that Toryism is a horrible creed, and that every Tory either
is or ought to be considered a miscreant. The accusation
is based on one of his lordship’s speeches on what he calls
the Kilmainham Treaty. The judge, if possible a more
bigoted Radical than the jury, informs the jury that honest
political error is not a crime; that the law does not interfere
with the most pronounced political speeches, provided that
the decencies of controversy are observed; that it is law
ful for the defendant to say that Mr. Gladstone is not in
fallible, and in temperate and respectful language even to go
so far as to say that he totally disagrees with the policy of
the Government. All this is lawful; but if the defendant
has employed artful sophistries calculated to mislead the
ignorant and unwary, or has applied contumelious abuse to
Her Majesty’s ministers, then the jury will find him guilty.
Lord Randolph escapes the first jury; but his persecutors
are not done with him, and at length, after several trials, a
jury is found ignorant enough and bigoted enough to find
him guilty. The judge then gives him twelve months’
imprisonment. This is what so many Liberal papers call
freedom of speech.
The first essential of a good law, especially of a criminal
law, is that it should be intelligible. A law is a mere trap
to work injustice if a man cannot tell beforehand whether
he is breaking the law or not, and when he can discover his
offence only when a jury gives a verdict against him. How
can any human being foretell what a jury may or may not
consider to be “the decencies of controversy”? An im
pression has got abroad that Mr. Foote’s case was excep
tional, and that the eminent writers who have published
books hostile to Christianity are free from any danger of
molestation. But if those eminent authors should be pro
secuted they may discover their mistake, and get a year in
Holloway Prison to reflect on the vanity of trying to obey
the law. Lord Coleridge has given them fair warning:
“ With regard to some of the others, passages from whose
writings Mr. Foote read, I heard them yesterday for the first
time. I do not at all question that Mr. Foote read them
correctly. I confess, as I heard them, I had and have a
difficulty in distinguishing them from the alleged libels.
They do appear to me to be open to the same charge, on
�Should they be Abolishedf
13
the same grounds, as Mr. Foote’s writings. He says many
of these things are written in expensive books, published
by publishers of known eminence ; that they are to be found
in the drawing-rooms, studies, and libraries of men of high
position. It may be so. If it be, I will make no distinc
tion between Mr. Foote and anyone else; if there are
men, however eminent, who use such language as Mr. Foote,
and if ever I have to try them, troublesome and disagree
able as it is, if they come before me, they shall, so far as my
powers go, have neither more nor less than the justice I am
trying to do to Mr. Foote.”
The danger of a vague and indefinable law is not dimin
ished when it is applied by a jury. What justice can a
secularist expect from a jury of twelve ignorant and exasper
ated opponents ? If the decencies of controversy are to be
judged of fairly, both sides ought to be heard, and one half
of the jury should consist of secularists. How would a
Protestant lecturer like to be tried by a jury of ignorant
Irish Catholics; or a Catholic lecturer by a jury of Orange
men, the issue being whether they observed the decencies of
controversy in their attacks ? According to this law, the
guilt or innocence of a defendant turns entirely upon the
composition of the jury. If there is even one freethinker
on the jury, there is no danger of a verdict of guilty. But
that profits the prisoner nothing; for the eleven Christians
will stand out for a verdict, and the jury will be discharged.
The prosecutor will try another jury, and so on for a
hundred times, if necessary, until he gets his unanimous
jury of twelve Christians. A secularist can never escape;
for unless he gets a jury wholly composed of secularists he
cannot secure an acquittal, for it must be remembered that
it needs a unanimous jury to acquit as well as unanimity to
convict.
. The decencies of controversy are best observed in those
countries where difference of creed is not exasperated by
the iniquitous use of the criminal law. Freethinkers, in
particular, are bound over by more powerful sanctions to
the observance of those decencies than their orthodox
rivals. A speaker on the popular side does himself no
harm, even if he indulges in the most indecent abuse of his
opponents. But a freethinker cannot get a hearing except
�14
The Blasphemy Laws:
by the most careful style of address. Christianity cannot
be shaken by ridicule. There is only one way by which the
stronghold can be taken. If secularists are to succeed, it
can only be by producing in the minds of sober and
earnest men a conviction that Christianity has no intellectual
basis, and that its foundations rest on sand. If such men
are to be induced even to look at the claims of secularism,
they must be approached in a spirit suitable to the gravity
of the task that is undertaken. From coarse and scurrilous
;> writing no protection is needed; it carries its antidote in
i its sting.
Is a jury, again, a fit tribunal to determine a question of good
taste in religious controversy? To a plain juryman, who is
ignorant of non-Christian and anti-Christian literature, the
mere denial of that which he has been accustomed to regard
with unhesitating reverence as incontestable truth must be in
the highest degree painful, or even horrible. The truth is that,
whatever may be said about decencies of controversy, a
jury of twelve orthodox Christians of the usual unlettered
type would condemn any anti-Christian publication as
blasphemous, if it was written in such plain terms that they
could understand it. No treatise would escape unless it
was so very learned and obscure, or the irony was so fine,
that the twelve plain men did not understand it. What a
task the law throws upon the grocer or baker who is sum
moned as a juror! He is to perform a delicate feat of
mental analysis, and say whether the shock to his system,
from an open denial of his cherished opinions, is due to the
fact of the denial, or to the particular words in which the
denial is expressed. The case of Woolston supplies us
with an illustration in point. Woolston wrote an essay on
miracles, in which with bated breath and apologetic humility
he ventured to say that miracles were not essential to
I Christianity, and were moreover not credible in themselves.
Woolston was a sincere Christian, a man of learning and
piety, a Fellow of Sidney College, Cambridge; but none
the less he was convicted for blasphemy. The fact is that
it is idle to ask a man to distinguish between the matter
and the form of a publication, when the matter is in itself
intensely painful, and can scarcely be aggravated by any
faults oi form. The freedom that a secularist lecturer would
�Should they be Abolished1
?
i5
enjoy under such a law reminds one of the sort of freedom
permitted in one of the petty Republics of ancient Greece.
It was lawful for any man to propose a change in the laws,
and to address the assembled citizens in favour of the
change with all the arguments and eloquence at his com
mand ; but if he failed to convince his audience and carry
the new law, he was to be forthwith put to death. One
might as well pass a law making it lawful to skin eels alive;
but if, in the course of the operation, the operator hurt the
feelings of the eel, he should suffer the utmost severity of
the criminal law.
Let us now try calmly to sum up the results of a pro
secution for blasphemy. First of all, great physical privation
and suffering have been inflicted on Messrs. Foote and
Ramsey. This is an evil to them, and, on the other hand,
is a good to those Christians who harbour feelings of
revenge in their bosom. Perhaps it may be the case that
at relatively no great expense, Messrs. Foote and Ramsey
have been the means of affording a cheap pleasure to a
great number of their fellow-countrymen. But do not these
good people buy their pleasure too»dear? We must credit
them with an honest desire to uphold Christianity; and is
that object likely to be gained by persecuting poor secularist
lecturers ? In the first place, they know well that a system
of religion that cannot maintain itself, except by putting its
opponents in prison, stands self-condemned. The bigot
who persecutes in the criminal courts allows judgment to
go against him by default in the higher court of reason and
conscience. It is idle to say that Mr. Foote is not in prison
because he is a freethought lecturer. When the question
was submitted to a special jury whether he was guilty of
blasphemy in the sense ruled by Lord Coleridge—and it
must be remembered that was the only occasion when the
true issue was fairly put before the jury—the jury could not
agree. And even if Mr. Foote had been fairly convicted
the sentence was a sentence not for blasphemy, but for being
a freethought lecturer, or, as the judge put it, for serving the /
devil. In a short time Mr. Foote will be released. He
will be met at the doors of the prison by a crowd of friends;
he will be carried off to a public entertainment, and receive
in gift a sum perhaps larger than he would have earned if he
�16
The Blasphemy Lazus:
had been engaged in his business. His character suffers no
stain in the eyes of the only people for whose opinion he
can entertain any respect; his influence and popularity as a
freethought lecturer, so far from being diminished, will
increase tenfold; for one man that went to hear him before
a score will go to hear him now. He will be able to ex
patiate on the comparative services of himself and his
persecutor, Sir Henry Tyler, to the world ; he will be able to
draw a powerful picture of the ex-chairman of the Brush
Light Company as the man whom the Christian world loves
to honour. If the career and character of the persecutor
are compared with the career and character of his victim,
Mr. Foote will have an unfailing means of eliciting the
sympathy of his audience. Christianity will suffer badly by
the comparison.
Those who venture to apologize for the blasphemy laws
try to make out that blasphemy is not a spiritual, but a
social offence, and that it consists in wantonly wounding the
feelings of Christians. The short answer to that is, that it
is not true. The offence of blasphemy as the law now stands
is complete without any proof that anybody’s feelings ever
were, or ever were intended to be, hurt. A lecture delivered
to an audience of freethinkers is in law blasphemous, al
though no Christian is present to hear it, and even if no
person would be admitted to the lecture if he were known
to be a Christian. Mere publication, in the legal sense,
constitutes the crime. Suppose a man writing a letter to a
friend makes a joke about the devils that entered into the
swine, and set them running down a steep place into the
sea, that is a publication in the eye of the law, although
the letter should never be seen by Christian eyes.
Mere publication cannot hurt anybody. Before a Chris
tian is able to procure the shock to his feelings that, we are
told, really constitutes blasphemy, it is necessary that he
should procure a copy of the publication and read it. This
is his own voluntary act. The mere publication is inoffen
sive and harmless. The harm and offence arise from the
act of the party who professes to be injured. Now it is a
maxim, not merely of a refined system of jurisprudence,
such as we desire the English law to be, but even of bar
barous systems of law, that no wrong can be done to a man
�Should they be Abolished?
by anything that is done with his own consent. Volenti non
fit injuria. It is quite superfluous for the law to protect us
from injuries that cannot be done without our own wilful
concurrence. A person who chooses to read a blasphemous
publication has nobody but himself to blame. If he does
not want his susceptibilities to be harrowed, he has an easy
and simple remedy in his own hands. Bear in mind that
the sole offence of which Messrs. Foote and Ramsey were
convicted was mere publication, and that, as a matter of
fact, not a single Christian obtained from them a copy of
the Freethinker, even at their own request. The truth is
that few, if any, Christians ever read the publication. It
was a paper written manifestly for non-Christians. The real
reason for the hostility to the publication was, not that it
gave pain to Christians, but that it gave pleasure, or was
supposed to give pleasure, to non-Christians. As Macaulay
says of the Puritans, they objected to bear-baiting, not be
cause it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure
to the spectators.
One of the most surprising things in the discussion to
which recent cases have given rise is, that the Indian Penal
Code should have been quoted in support of the blasphemy
laws. It is with some sense of humiliation that one finds
such an authority invoked. The Government of India has
to control a populace entremely ignorant and very fanatical.
One might be permitted to hope that the measure of re
ligious freedom that was considered safe in India is not to
be taken as indicating the high-water mark of freedom in a
country like ours, that boasts of being free and the great
mother of free nations. But, as a matter of fact, there is
far more religious liberty in India; and we may even go
farther, and say that there is nothing in the Indian Penal
Code to prevent, or even to restrict, the fullest liberty of
speech. There is no section of the Indian Penal Code
under which Mr. Foote could have been indicted. In
India he could edit and publish his Freethinker without
molestation, no man daring to make him afraid. One
blushes to think that there should be less freedom in
religion in this country than is found by experience to be
safe amid the fanatical populations of the East.
The Indian Penal Code contains a chapter on “ Offences
�The Blasphemy Laws:
relating to Religion ” in four sections. The first punishes
the injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to
insult the religion of any class ; the second punishes wilful
disturbance of any assembly lawfully engaged in the per
formance of religious worship or religious ceremonies; and
the third makes it an offence to trespass on a place set apart
for burial or the performance of funeral rites with the inten
tion of insulting the religious feelings of any persons. All
these are very proper regulations.
The fourth section is of wider extent, and must be quoted
in full: “ Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wound
ing the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or
makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes
any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object
in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprison
ment [with or without hard labour] for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”
Under this section no one can be prosecuted for the mere
publication of any matter, however offensive. It proceeds
upon the distinction I have adverted to, that a person who
voluntarily procures or reads offensive publications has
himself to blame if he is pained.
If, however, a person were to exhibit pictures caricaturing
the objects held sacred by Christians, with the deliberate
intention of wounding their religious feelings, he could be
prosecuted under this section.
Whether the exhibition of such pictures, with a view to
sale in the course of ordinary business, although they might
be in such a position that Christians, if they chose, could
see them, would be a violation of the section, is a question
perhaps open to doubt.
But the section proceeds upon the correct lines. It does
not permit a blow to be directed against religious opponents
under the pretext that they have published blasphemous
libels; while it effectually protects the professors of every
form of religion from personal insult.
Our Blasphemy Laws cannot invoke the assistance of the
Indian Penal Code; on the contrary, the law in India puts
us to shame. These laws, at rare intervals, are employed
to subject some freethought lecturers to serious personal
suffering, and to injure their health by long terms of imprison
�Should they be Abolished 1
19
ment. But they have the consolation of knowing that their
sufferings advance the cause they have at heart more effec
tually than their most eloquent discourses. All that is best
in Christianity revolts from such persecutions, that recall
to mind the indignities and cruelties practised upon the
founders of that religion. These laws are, I believe, con
demned by all good men, whatever their views on religion,
as being, not merely at variance with the principles of
justice, but as a weapon that injures most the hand that
wields it. Is it too much then to hope that the Bill * drafted
by Mr. Justice Stephen, for the total abolition of Blasphemy
Laws, may soon be taken into consideration by the legisla
ture and passed into law, and that this miserable relic of
ancient barbarism be entirely swept away ?
* Appendix, p. 23.
�20
The Blasphemy Laws:
APPENDIX.
I. The Statute Law.
(9 Will. ill. c. 32.)
“An Act for the more effectual suppressing of Blasphemy
and Profaneness.
“ Whereas many persons have of late years openly avowed
and published many blasphemous and impious opinions con
trary to the doctrines and principles of the Christian religion,
greatly tending to the dishonour of Almighty God, and may
prove destructive to the peace and welfare of this kingdom ;
Wherefore, for the more effectual suppressing of the said
detestable crimes, be it enacted by the King’s most excellent
Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords
spiritual and temporal, and the commons of this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that if
any person or persons having been educated in, or at anytime
having made profession of, the Christian religion within this
realm shal, by writing, printing, teaching, or advised speaking,
\deny any one of the persons in the Holy Trinity to be Godp\
or shal assert or maintain there are more gods than one, or
shal deny the Christian religion to be true, or the Holy Scriptures
of the Old and New Testament to be of divine authority, and
shal, upon indictment or information in any of his Majesties
Courts at Westminster, or at the assizes, be thereof lawfully
convicted by the oath of two or more credible witnesses, such
person or persons for the first offence shall be adjudged incap
able and disabled in law to all intents and purposes whatsoever
to have or enjoy any office or offices, imployment or imployments, ecclesiastical, civil, or military, or any part in them, or
any profit or advantage appertaining to them, or any of them.
And if any person or persons so convicted as aforesaid shal at
the time of his or their conviction, enjoy or possess any office,
place, or imployment, such office, place, or imployment shal be
voyd, and is hereby declared void. And if such person or
persons shal be a second time lawfully convicted, as aforesaid,
* Repealed 53 Geo. III. c. 160.
�Should they be Abolished1
?
21
of all or any the aforesaid crime or crimes that then he or they
ihal from thenceforth be disabled to sue, prosecute, plead, or
use any action or information in any court of law or equity, or
to be guardian of any child, or executor or administrator of any
person, or capable of any legacie or deed of gift, or to bear any
office, civil or military, or benefice ecclesiastical for ever within
this realm, and shall also suffer imprisonment for the space of
three years, without bail or mainprize from the time of such
conviction.
“ Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority afore
said, that no person shall be prosecuted by virtue of this Act for
any words spoken, unless the information of such words shal
be given upon oath before one or more justice or justices of the
peace within four days after such words spoken, and the prose
cution of such offence be within three months after such
information.
“ Provided also, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid,
that any person or persons convicted of all, or any, of the
aforesaid crime or crimes in manner aforesaid, shal, for the first
offence (upon his, her, or their acknowledgment and renuncia
tion of such offence, or erronious opinions, in the same court
where such person or persons was or were convicted, as afore
said, within the space of four months after his, her, or their
conviction) be discharged from all penalties and disabilities
incurred by such conviction, anything in this Act contained to
the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.”
Depraving, despising, or reviling the Sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper is a misdemeanour, (i Edw. VI. c. I § I; 14 Car.
II. c. 4 § 20.)
It is also a misdemeanour to say anything in derogation or
despising of the Book of Common Prayer. (1 Eliz. c. 2 § 3 ;
14 Car. II. c. 4 § 20.)
It is not known that any prosecution has ever taken
place under the statute of William III.; but no public
record is kept of such prosecutions, and we cannot therefore
say that the statute has been a dead letter.
�22
The Blasphemy Laws:
II. Ecclesiastical Law.
At the present day any person, whether Christian or Tew
may be proceeded against criminally in the Ecclesiastical
Courts “m cases of Atheism, blasphemy, heresy or schism
and other damnable doctrines or opinions, and they may
proceed to punish the crime according to his Majesty’s
ecclesiastical laws, by excommunication, deprivation, de
gradation, and other ecclesiastical censures not extending
to death.
A person convicted of heresy is liable to im
prisonment for not more than six months. The jurisdiction
th-r Ecclesiastical Courts is subject to this qualification,
that if the offence is punishable in the ordinary courts, it is
not a matter of ecclesiastical cognisance. But this is a’poor
consolation; for the ordinary courts have power to inflict a
much longei sentence of imprisonment. Special interest
attaches to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, in view of the more
liberal statement of the common law recently made by the
Lord Chief Justice of England. Whatever is cut out of
the common law thereby at once falls under the Ecclesiastical
Courts, and the liberality of the ordinary tribunals is thus
effectually checkmated.
Let it not be said that no one would dare in the present
day to bring forth the rusty weapons of ecclesiastical censure.
Recent experience warns us that we are never safe so long
as a bad law exists. At any moment some malicious fool
may set the law in motion.
�&
Shotild they be Abolished?
\
23
III. Draft Bill.
n
■
“ Whereas certain laws now in force and intended for the
promotion of religion are no longer suitable for that purpose,
and it is expedient to repeal them,
Be it enacted as follows :
“ 1. After the passing of this Act no criminal proceedings
shall be instituted in any Court whatever, against any person
whatever, for atheism, blasphemy at common law, blasphemous
libel, heresy, or schism, except only criminal proceedings insti
tuted in Ecclesiastical Courts against clergymen of the Church
of England.
“2. An Act passed in the 1st year of his late Majesty King
Edward VI., c. 1, intituled‘An Act against such as shall unreverently speak against the Sacrament of the body and blood
of Christ, commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar, and for
the receiving thereof in both kinds,’ and an Act passed in the
9th and 10th year of his late Majesty King William III., c. 35,
intituled ‘An Act for the more effectual suppressing of blas
phemy and profaneness,’ are hereby repealed.
“ 3. Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed
to affect the provisions of an Act passed in the 19th year of his
late Majesty King George II., c. 21, intituled ‘An Act more
effectually to prevent profane cursing and swearing,’ or any other
provision of any other Act of Parliament not hereby expressly
repealed.”
II?
K<
f
r
>
■i
■ S
/
a
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Blasphemy laws ; should they be abolished?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hunter, W.A.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Plymouth
Collation: 23 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Stamp on front cover: Freethought Publishing Co., Printing Officer. 63 Fleet Street, E.C., A. Bonner, Manager. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Association for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N317
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Blasphemy laws ; should they be abolished?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4d87f8aa2576976198ad5b6b63cf0f15.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=vEEPgEEC6ZWqW3-XUrbeu6DS%7E6G6xpf4yJ9DGMJgQd9CJxQJTFgehUT4jXmy6qh4F9uwuGTUdfoTLrdq1EyC7sdnd9Vi4%7E9M6XmknAQoqydH%7EQtSPRGjIZRQmDbhlOZX9dcux6D64LRWGHHW77TKx68yrcGx1BDQ210um0m7JL2IxFFvl%7E0FBansXvuvrIk21pkG3rllw9znKJfmgtDDpoqaBZ5ELAqHNhVz3CQzmul-RA5wKLP9bd%7EhGhaVt1D6NlJB4VwCZ6Ob0wFWrb6okRd3lW-Skc1AJkqM4tDbuGJ9Zw1wsIUBnhOTrVnYrVzhmGqQ189RjpBiRW8AeV4V7g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a0cdbb9ecf828eca53395e1f2195d16f
PDF Text
Text
CHRISTIANITY:
A Degrading Religion.
BY
ARTHUR
B.
MOSS.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
z
LONDON:
THE PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street.
1884.
�CHRISTIANITY:
A Degrading Religion.
By ARTHUR B, MOSS,
--------- •--------Christianity is a degrading religion. Only mental slaves
or moral cowards can accept it. A believer must begin by
abandoning his reason, and end by shifting the burden
of moral responsibility from his own to other shouldeis.
Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, in stating his noble
eightfold path to happiness, put first the acceptance of
“ right views.” But, in order that a man should know
what views are right, he must have freedom to think.
Gautama saw this, and therefore urged his followers to
inquire diligently after truth.
The founder of Christianity was not so wise. He cared
not how stupid or thoughtless men were so long as they
believed in him. In fact, he declared that he was “ the
way, the truth, and the life ” ; and that no man could be
saved from the wrath of a merciful god but by accepting
him. “ Believe and be saved ; disbelieve and be damned,”
was the foundation-stone of all his teachings.
In point of fact it came to this, that so arrogant and
dogmatic was this peregrinating preacher that he led many
to suppose that he was god almighty; and Christians to
day are driven into the position either of regarding Jesus
as the very god, or of repudiating him altogether as an
impostor. Some say that Jesus must have been a super
natural being, or he would not have made such bold
pretensions. There was no hesitancy about him He
spoke as though he knew everything. But nearly all
religious enthusiasts do that.
Dr. Parker, Mr. Spurgeon, Dr. Talmage, and Mr.
Booth are all little god a’mighties to their respective
�followers. Sydney Smith once satirically remarked : “ I
wish I could be as cock-sure of anything as Tom
Macaulay is of everything.” And Christians to-day take
the strong declarations of Jesus as being sufficient
guarantee of their truth, because they are foolish enough
to imagine that his boldness would have been tempered
with a little discretion if he had not been certain of their
truth. But when Jesus said : “ He that believeth and is
baptised shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be
damned,” he laid the foundation-stone of a religion that is
degrading to humanity.
It is the first duty of every man to think for himself and
examine the credentials of whatever system he is asked to
accept. To be threatened or intimidated into the acceptance
of a religion is a crime—humiliating alike to all concerned.
Every man must do his own thinking and express his own
thoughts. The priest is not a better thinker than the lay
man, and religion is a subject that can be as well under
stood by the common folk as any other, if intelligibly stated.
Why, then, should the layman allow the clergy to think for
him ? Why should he allow his mind^to rust or decay to
jalease the priest ? Again. Why should Jesus state the
whole truth which persons must not disbelieve, in an
obscure corner of the earth, to a number of ignorant and
fanatical followers, and leave mankind without a written
statement of them, except that which was supplied by
persons who never saw, nor heard him, nor even lived until
years after he was dust ? And it must be understood that
Jesus did not ask us to believe self-evident propositions.
He did not come with doctrines as unmistakably true as
the problems of Euclid. If he had we could not help
believing them. But would a logical-minded man like
Euclid say : “ I have written these books : they contain
truths which no man must dare dispute; for I declare that
he who denies the truth of even one single proposition
should be doomed for ever and ever ? ” No ; there was no
need for any such stupid declaration. The truth does not
need to be bolstered up in this way. It will stand by
itself. It will bear looking at fairly. But error shrinks
from the test of examination. With the slippery dexterity
of an eel, it wriggles and writhes in agony as the sharp
knife of criticism cuts it in pieces.
�Christianity, then; is a 'degrading religion because it
fears, examination and commands its adherents to believe,
on the peril of their immortal souls. Perhaps, however,
the most degrading feature of the Christian faith is that by
which the believer suffers himself to be made a child of
god by allowing an innocent person to die in his place
and blot out his sins. It is degrading in the highest
degree to a man of moral courage to allow another to
suffer in his stead. No man with the smallest self-respect
could permit it. And yet we are told that god sent his
only-begotten son to die to blot out the iniquities of man
kind. It would be a libel on the character of any respect
able father to say that he sent his innocent son to gaol to
suffer for a guilty one.
James Mill truly said that the moral difficulties of the
Christian religion were greater than the intellectual ones.
Suppose to-day that some villainous murderer were
sentenced to death, and when the day for the execution
arrived, some innocent person—like Sidney Carton in
Dickens’s admirable story of the “ Tale of Two Cities ”—
stepped forward and said : “ This man is guilty of murder,
and should die ; but he has friends who love him and
desire him to live ; I am innocent, but friendless. If I die
none will miss me. It will be a far nobler thing for me to
die than for this poor wretch. Besides, I shall be but
imitating my lord and savior, Jesus Christ. The death of
the innocent will atone for the sins of the guilty.”
Do you think that the British public would allow the
innocent thus to suffer for the guilty ? Of course not
They would revolt at the idea. But suppose the innocent
one did die, would that blot out the sins of the guilty ?
Would the death of the innocent restore the murdered
man to his family ? But if it were true, I would not accept
Jesus on such terms. I should be degrading myself. I
would neither allow an innocent man nor an innocent god
to die in my place. I am prepared to suffer for my own
faults. I want no deputy. I am prepared to be paid back
in my own coin ; and if my life is vicious, I know I cannot
escape the consequences in this life, whether there is
another or not, whether there is a god or not. I know
that every deed I perform in the world is written indelibly
in the book of nature, and, whether I like it or not,
�cannot be blotted out. I know that virtue shineth like a
star in the world ; that vice poisons the stream of life ;
and I have made up my mind that the love of truth and
the practice of virtue will make the best religion for the
salvation of mankind.
SILLY MIRACLES.
It is a sine qua non of the Christian faith that every true
believer must regard the alleged miracles of Jesus as actual
occurrences, which demonstrate the divine character of the
Nazarene.
When the disciples wrought miracles no claim to divinity
was put forth by them. They were, it was said, merely
“ allowed to work miracles ” by god's help. And had they
been able to eclipse altogether the wonderful performances
of Jesus, nobody would have dreamt of claiming for them
divine attributes. Why ? Because they were men, poor men;
the people who witnessed their performances knew that
they had not been miraculously born; but were acquainted
personally with their parents and friends, and knew exactly
what manner of men they were.
If the gospels give any indication of the character of
Jesus, it is clear from them that he was above and before
them all—a pretentious and dogmatic man ; and modern
Christians, if in nothing else, certainly imitate him in these
respects.
If there is one man more than any other in this wide
world whom I delight in shunning, it is the bombastic
creature who calls himself “ Christian who possesses
none of the higher qualities of Christ; and who has nothing
to recommend him to our notice but the pretentiousness of
the ignoramus and the dogmatism of the bigot.
'
Pretentiousness is not the characteristic of a wise man.
And yet Christians, and even the most learned among them,
have mistaken the self-assertion of Jesus as an evidence of
his wisdom. The wisest of men have always been modest.
Socrates said that if he were wise it was only because he
knew how ignorant he was. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
Epictetus and Plato were wise men, yet who more modest ?
And in the nineteenth century, whose wisdom more con
spicuous than that of the philosopher, John Stuart Mill ;
�6
the scientist, Charles Darwin; the statesman, William
Ewart Gladstone ? Yet who can say that these men were
arrogant or pretentious ? Nay, none so charmingly modest,
unassuming and free from dogmatism than these. And is
it likely that if the almighty maker of Darwins and Glad
stones sent his only begotten son on earth, that he would
have instructed him to comport himself with such un
becoming arrogance as that displayed in the presence of
the woman who had given him birth, and upon other occa
sions, to the dismay of the ignorant and the disgust of the
learned ? I cannot degrade myself into the belief that a
wise and good god would have so conducted himself.
But what of the miracles of Jesus ? Were not many of
them extremely silly ? What good purpose was served by
the miraculous fast for forty days and forty nights ? Would
not Jesus have done more real good if he had eaten sump
tuously during all that time, and when the devil came to
him and demanded to be convinced that he was in reality
the son of god, he had availed himself of the opportunity
and converted the devil ? What a splendid chance was
here thrown recklessly away ! The devil might have been
converted into a friend, into a believer in Christianity;
but now he will be an enemy for evermore.
And what utility was there in the miracle by which some
devils were turned out of two men “ coming out of the
tombs,” which evil spirits ultimately found their way into
the bodies of a herd of swine, and played such havoc with
their constitutions that they immediately committed suicide,
much to the astonishment and pecuniary loss of their
owners ?
And what was the use of Jesus walking on the sea,
during a storm, when he could have stilled the waves before
he commenced his watery tour ?
And what wisdom or goodness was displayed by Jesus
in allowing Lazarus to die, in order that he might have the
pleasure of raising him to life again ? Did Jesus imagine
that people would think him tender and loving because he
wept; or divine because he cried with “ a loud voice ” to
wake a dead man from the dreamless sleep of the grave ?
Or did Jesus perform a useful miracle when he cursed
the fig-tree; or when he came into the house where his dis
ciples were feasting, like a flash of lightning, when all the
�doors and windows were closed ? I say it is degrading to
a man of sense to be asked to believe such nonsense.
I wonder that, when men are seriously asked the question
whether they believe in the miracles of Jesus, they do not
reply: “ Why not ask me to believe in the ‘ Arabian
Nights ’ stories at once ?” Both are alike incredible.”
Bu.t under the influence of Christianity some of the best
men I have ever met have been forced into mental and
moral serfdom. They have been afraid to say how much
of the Christian creed they have repudiated, lest their
religious employers should think that they believed too
little to be honest; or the employers have been afraid to
say how much of it they disbelieved for fear of losing the
custom of some person who puts piety before truth, religion
before honesty.
And so Christianity has become “an organised hypocrisy,”
a game for knaves to play at; and many are they who are
taken in by the sophistry of the special pleader, and the
gorgeous glitter in the churches, and the long array of
fashionables who support the degrading creed. But the
creed is decayed and crumbling ; its debris lie athwart our
path, waiting for the sons of Freethought and moral
courage to clear it away.
QUEER MORALITY.
When men talk of the sublime morality taught by Jesus,
they either speak recklessly or in utter ignorance of the
teachings of the Nazarene carpenter. Most true Jesus
did give utterance to some noble sentiments ; and some of
his teachings were of a very elevating character. But
what public teacher could hope to gain the ear of the
multitude who did not say something of an inspiring or
wise nature ? Most reformers appeal to the better feel
ings and lofty aspirations of their hearers ; and it is no
wonder that Jesus followed the long succession of religious
teachers in this regard. But in very truth, all he taught
that was entirely original was of a very harmful character,
and his good doctrines had been taught by other teachers
long before he was born.
�8
i
x
Now, does it not strike the sincere Christian as some
what singular that Jesus, who had been sent into the
world by the infinite author of the universe, and who was
himself a part of the god-head, should waste his time on
earth in performing miracles which were useless or absurd,
or proclaiming doctrines which others had taught more
successfully before him, or enjoining men to perform
certain actions, the tendency of which was to throw the
world back into absolute barbarism ?
Fortunate, indeed, it is for the world that even the
followers of Christ have never attempted to act out in its
entirety the teachings of their master. What sort of
persons would the Christians—our parents and friends—
have been had they believed Jesus when he said : “ If any
man come unto me and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his
own life also, he cannot be my disciple ? ” (Luke xiv., 26).
Such persons must have been bereft of all humanity.
What loving mother would leave her babe to follow a
fanatical preacher ? What kind husband would abandon
the wife of his bosom, even for the salvation of his own
insignificant soul ? Better far be consigned to eternal
torment than get eternal bliss on such hateful terms. Why
I have seen a kind-hearted, loving woman cling through
twenty years of a miserable life to a drunken villain of a
husband—who treated her with great harshness and
cruelty, and starved the children she had borne him—
rather than leave him to his fate , which meant certain
ruin, perhaps the gaol, or even the gallows. I have known
men who, for love of wife or children, would have suffered
pain unutterable, would have gone readily to a painful
death to snatch them from the flames or rescue them from
the surging waves; yet these are to be told that Jesus
cannot accept them unless they hate those whom they love
better even than life itself.
Surely it cannot be said that Jesus propagated lofty
morality when he declared : “ Think not that I came to
send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a
sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against
his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law ; and a man’s
foes shall be of his own household ” (Matthew x., 34—36).
�9
Assuredly a very strange mission this ■ A devil could not
come on a worse errand. And yet Christians call this
“ tidings of great joy.” To whom ? Humble Christians
like Uriah Heep might like it, and Daniel Quilp might
chuckle over it; but most persons would prefer that their
family relations were not interfered with in this un
warrantable fashion.
When Jesus said, “ Love your enemies,” he must have
been joking; for, clearly, he never attempted to display
any affectionate feeling towards his adversaries; and
Christians of the present day appear to relish the joke
immensely. But never was he more in earnest than when
he said, “ Blessed be ye poor.” Yet nobody appears to
appreciate the degrading influence of this doctrine more
than the Christians themselves.
A certain sect of Christians have just issued a little book
called, “ The Bitter Cry of Outcast London,” revealing the
state of things that obtains in the poorest parts of the
metropolis to-day; and a very good commentary it is on
the teachings of Jesus.
It is not, and never was, a blessing to be poor. To be
poor in a great town—surrounded by those who live in
.luxury, and know not what it is to want a meal—is a
positive curse. What is the condition of the poor in
London ? Let the Christian answer. The writer of the
pamphlet named says : “Few who will read these pages
have any conception of what these pestilential human
^rookeries are—where tens of thousands are crowded
together amidst horrors which call to mind what we
have heard of the middle passage of the slave-ship. To
get into the houses of the poor you have to penetrate
courts reeking with poisonous and malodorous gases,
arising from accumulations of sewage and refuse scattered
in all directions, and often flowing beneath your feet;
courts, many of them, which the sun never penetrates
which are never visited by a breath of fresh air, and which
rarely know the virtue of a drop of cleansing water. You
have to ascend rotten staircases which threaten to give
way beneath every step, and which in some places have
already broken down, leaving gaps that imperil the limbs
and the lives of the unwary. You have to grope your way
along dark and filthy passages swarming with vermin.
�10
Then, if you are not driven back by the intolerable stench,
you may gain admittance to the dens in which these
thousands of beings who belong, as much as you, to the
race for whom Christ died, herd together.”
He continues : “ Every room in these rotten and reeking
tenements houses a family—often two. In one cellar a
sanitary inspector reports finding a father, mother, three
children and four pigs. In another room a missionary
found a man ill with small-pox, his wife just recovering
from her eighth confinement, and the children running
about half naked and covered with dirt. Here are seven
people living in one underground kitchen, and a little dead
child lying in the same room. Elsewhere is a poor widow,
her three children, and a child who has been dead thirteen
days. Her. husband, who was a cabman, had shortly
before committed suicide.” This does not look as though
poverty were a blessing.
From hard and painful experience I have come to the
opinion that nearly all the misery and crime in the world
may be traced to poverty as its primary cause. “ Take no
thought for your life, what ye shall eat and what ye shall
drink ” (Matthew vi., 25) has been acted upon by some
persons, and the effect has been that our workhouses and
gaols are filled, and the deserving and struggling citizens
have to pay the piper.
“ Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the
one cheek , turn to him the other also. And if any man
shall sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him
have thy cloak also” (Matthew vi., 39—40). This is very
good morality for ruffians and thieves, but not for honest
men; and I will not degrade myself, nor humiliate my
fellows, by attempting to put such detestable teachings
into practice.
PUNISHMENT WITH A VENGEANCE.
Besides the impracticable and decidedly hurtful doctrines
I have already enumerated, there are others belonging to
the Christian creed which no man in his senses would ever
attempt to put into practice.
The young man who asked Jesus what he should do to
be saved, himself illustrated the impractibilitv of Christ’s
�11
teachings. All the commandments, he affirmed, he had kept
with rigorous self-control from his youth up. He had re
frained from stealing, from murder, from lying, slandering
and all uncharitableness; had honored his father and
mother with a fidelity becoming a dutiful son. This was
insufficient to win the admiration of Jesus and deserve
salvation.
“ One thing thou lackest,” says the Nazarene. “ Sell all
thou hast and give to the poor and follow me.” Crest
fallen ancl disgusted, the young man app^St'S’t'O'hg've'tfifned*
from Jesus, probably to find some other religious teacher
whose doctrines were more compatible with reason and
justice. Surely it cannot be a high recommendation for any
religion that believers must render themselves veritable
beggars before they can accept it.
This is one of the criteria by which we are to know
true Christians—that they are ever ready to “ sell all they
have and give to the poor
and, like their master, “ have
not where to Jay their head,” in order to demonstrate their
sincerity.
And, judged by this standard, what a sham Christianity
really is in this country. Are there any Christians at all ?
Lord Shaftesbury, good man though he undoubtedly is,
cannot be numbered among the Christians. “ Lay not up
for yourselves treasures on earth,” is a command which has
no weight with him. “ It is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of heaven” (Mark x., 25). “ Blessed be ye that hunger
now for ye shall be filled ” (Luke vi., 21). What do rich
Christians who are clothed in fine linen and fare sumptuously
every day, care for blessedness such as this ?
"* And neither can we honestly say that those large-hearted
clergymen, who are helping on the time when we shall all
be intellectually free, are true Christians, for do not they
trample under. foot the degrading teaching that a fol
lower of Christ must on no account have “ fellowship with
unbelievers ?”
And is it fair, is it honest, that men who repudiate with
scorn every unreasonable teaching of Jesus, and who in
their daily lives do not emulate his noble characteristics—
is it manly, I ask that such as these should “ profess and
�12
call themselves Christians ” and be accepted as good sheep
in the Christian flock ?
JESUS AS AN EXEMPLAR.
Sometimes it is urged that though it is well nigh (m
possible to put into practice all the doctrines of Jesus, one
thing every Christian can and should do—he should take
the life of his “ Blessed lord and savior as a model,” for it
was clearly the intention of Jesus, when he took upon him
self the form of man, to act as an example to humanity in
all subsequent ages.
Take then the life of the Nazarene carpenter, and see
in what respects it supplies a perfect model for man to
follow.
When Jesus was twelve years of age he strayed away
from his parents, who had been to a feast at Jerusalem ; and
after they had sought in vain for three days to find their
child, they discovered him at last in the Temple, discussing
with learned doctors and putting to them questions which
they found exceedingly difficult to answer (Luke ii., 42-46).
Weary with travelling and bowed down with sorrow,
the parents came upon their missing boy.
Naturally, one would have supposed that the boy would
have warmly embraced his loving parents and expressed
regret at having given them so much trouble and anxiety.
Instead of that however, when his mother, with womanly
dignity, properly rebuked him for his apparent heedless
ness, as he sat undisturbed by her appearance, continuing
to question the doctors, he turned upon her and rudely
answered : “ How is it that ye sought me ? wist ye not
that I should be about my father’s business ?”
But as neither Joseph nor Mary knew anything con
cerning the divine character of their son, they were only
the more bewildered and pained by what appeared the
insolence of his answer.
Nor would it be well for children of Christian parents
to act in like fashion in these days, unless they wished to
be something more than sharply rebuked for their pains.
I am well aware that many children in these modern times
are not characterised by their good manners, but the cause
may be easily traced to the parents’ carelessness or negli
�13
gence. An exemplar of the human race, however, should
not manifest in his youth those bad qualities of behavior
which we most strongly condemn in our own children.
Again, when Jesus had grown to manhood, and com
menced his mission as a preacher, we have a right to
expect that he would treat his opponents courteously, no
matter how unfair they acted towards him.
But not so. Jesus set an example which Christians
unfortunately have since most faithfully followed—viz.
that of abusing, in strong terms of insult, those of his
opponents whose arguments he was probably unable to
answer (Matt. 23-33).
If Jesus were to be taken as an exemplar in every detail
of his life, and Christians in all their conduct endeavored
as far as possible to imitate him, what extraordinary events
we should daily witness !
Jesus fasted forty days and forty nights, and therefore
Dr. Tanner should be canonized for the bravery he dis
played in his marvellous imitation of his Master, though
he as near as possible committed suicide.
Jesus fed five thousand hungry people on five loaves and
two fishes, and worthy philanthropists would deserve admi
ration who attempted to achieve a like result.
Insufficient faith, no doubt, is the chief cause of their
inability to perform such tasks, for it was Jesus who said
that the possession of faith, infinitesimal in quantity as a
grain of mustard-seed, would suffice to remove a mountain.
How much of the article would be required to feed five
thousand on five loaves and two fishes is a problem which
the rules of arithmetic afford no aid in supplying.
But suppose men to-day were, in imitation of Jesus, to
destroy a herd of fat pigs, would not the proprietors thereof
sue them (and this not in imitation of their unworthy
predecessors) for heavy compensation ? Or suppose some
Christian, taking Jesus as his model, went to the Stock
Exchange and commenced horsewhipping the members ;
or suppose he put in an appearance at Tattersall’s and re
buked the wealthy betting men who stake all that belongs
to them and a good deal that does not, on the chance of a
horse winning a race, how would such a person be treated ?
And when he had been struck on one cheek he turned
�14
to his assailant the other, he would probably get kicked in
a fashion he would not be likely to forget.
Or suppose, like Jesus, some poor Christian was home
less, and friendless, and wandered wearily from street to
street, and from door to door, finding no shelter—suppose
such an individual were brought before Sir Robert Carden,
the kindly-hearted Christian City magistrate and aiderman,
he would most certainly be sent to gaol for one month as
a “ rogue and a vagabond,” and get soundly condemned in
the bargain for being foolish enough to have no home, and
no food, and no friends, in free country like England.
Suppose, again, a man saw a barren fig-tree and began
to curse it because it had not borne fruit out of season.
If he acted in this extraordinary fashion his friends would
probably procure a keeper for him or have him safely
lodged in a lunatic asylum.
If, in imitation of Jesus, some ardent enthusiast should
mount a couple of borrowed donkeys and ride in triumph
through the streets—unless he did so on Blackheath on
Bank Holiday—he would be taken either as a madman or
a thief. In any case he would not be applauded as a
wise and useful citizen.
Take the last scene of all that ends this interesting
drama. Jesus is arrested and charged with blasphemy. He
who is the very god, who has wrought numerous miracles
in the sight of his disciples, this god-man has made so little
impression on the minds ofjiis followers that in the hour.,
of danger they desert him and leave him to his fate.
But the end is near, and now indeed we must expect a
grand display of heroism on the part of Jesus—a dignified
bravery worthy of the imitation of the noblest among men
under the most trying circumstances. Instead of this what
have we ? We have a god (who cannot die) who has come
to save the world by the shedding of his innocent blood,
afraid at the last hour to go through the terrible ordeal.
“ Oh, my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
me ” (Matt, xxvi., 39). What an awful exhibition~of weakT"
ness we have here—a weakness which manifested itself
even more strikingly in the agonising exclamation : “ Eloi,
eloi, lama sabachthani ?” (My god^my god,_y?:hy hast thou
forsaken me ?) (Matt, xxvii., 40). If Jesus were indeed
�15
the very god what an example he has set for frail humanity
|
in the hour of peril !
f
How different was the death of Giardano Bruno ! Not
L-..,.
T
only did he suffer for eight long years in prison, but when
"^‘’■’^at last he was brought to |he stake he murmured not. but,_
fv
like a true man, met his death with a defiant heroism that
\
) puts to shame the painful weakness of th6NazareneJlw*'
<
And yet Jesus is the exemplar, and Bruno'o'hTy' ^' JJt)^'*^**^J
mistaken heretic, unworthy even of the admiration of his
fellow men. For my part I cleave to the heroic Bruno,
and desire to emulate his noble qualities, and turn dev"
liberately from Jesus, regarding him not as a model, but
as a poor, weak enthusiast, who, in the terrible hour of
suffering, felt himself alike forsaken by god and man.
'
Y
FUTURE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS.
Let us, before concluding, look at the dreadful teaching
of Jesus in respect to future rewards and punishments. A
man is not to be punished according to his deeds, which
would be bad enough in all conscience, seeing that most men
suffer for their misdeeds in this world, whether there is
another or not. According to Jesus, “ belief ” will save a
man without works, but works without belief will be con
sidered as worse than useless.
What will it avail a man that he has rescued thousands
of his fellow creatures from a life of ignorance or misery;
that he has fought and spent his life’s blood in a revolution
to free the slave ; that he has been tortured on the rack,
or consumed at the stake for teaching science ; that he has
struggled against fearful odds for social, political or religious
reform. If he has not believed in Jesus it were better for
him that he had never been born, for he is doomed to suffer
agony through all eternity.
What an infamy ! A human judge would not act with
such mercilessness, and shall it be said that the infinite god
of the universe, who will preside at the great trial on the
“ day of judgment,” will act with less kindness and
humanity than the creatures of his manufacture
A man who tells a lie—one little lie—who tells a plainfaced maiden that she is the prettiest girl in the world when
he knows she is not—will be punished with the same
«
I >
J
Q.,
j
''**'*’
�16
severity as a villain who perhaps has poisoned the minds of
hundreds, robbed his own kith and kin, or been instrumental
in the slaughtering of thousands of inoffensive black-a’
moors.
Is a man who is destitute, and who steals a loaf of bread
to feed his starving wife and chfcilden, as great a criminal
as one who deliberately, to serve his own selfish purpose,
cuts a human being’s throat ? I think not.
Heaven and hell. There are only these two places to go
to, and all who are not sent to the former must of necessity
be consigned to the latter, unless a few more establishments
are opened for the purpose. Think of it, Christian ! Was
I not right when I said that Christianity was a “ Degrading
Religion ?”
But some say that the doctrine of hell-fire was not taught
by Jesus. Who then manufactured it ? Priests! Ah,
priest-made religions are always humiliating. But why did
the church teach this horrible doctrine through centuries
of ignorance until Freethinkers pointed out its wickedness ?
Why have the clergy frightened thousands into a declaration
of belief in Christianity by a threat of eternal damnation,
if Jesus never taught the terrible doctrine ?
And are we now to be told that we are not to be damned,
but merely condemned ? What for ? For disbelief ? I
cannot help it. God has no right to punish me for being
true to myself. If god gave me brains with which to think,
did he not render me incapable of disbelief in that
which is so necessary for my salvation ? Salvation ! did I
say ? If damned only means condemned, how do we know
that being saved means any more than being exempt from
■------------ damnation ? Take away hell-fire, and away go also tKe
haips and heavenly mansions! ~ 'Blit'_I say'that it will
■not do to discharge the devil in this summary fashion
without also considering what we shall do with god. How
ever we may rest in peace. Of one thing we may all be sure,
and that is, that in time the vast majority of mankind will
reject Christ also, and improve upon his “ Degrading
Religion.”
Printed and Published by W. J. Ramsey and G. W. Foote, at
28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Christianity: a degrading religion
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Moss, Arthur B.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Printed and published by W.J. Ramsey and G.W. Foote. Annotations in pencil.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5782
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Free thought
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 (Christianity: a degrading religion), 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
Christianity
Free Thought
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e55ca3fdefe21dcc616b69ada9779fc5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=c8VeQrYpCnKKFi6zrvOMhGulUIcpqc1XGFxOJqwIAgGG1oSKxmP0TfEidFNrsrJFC6gjdrqhyaGwRQMu0ilOT3ZPDbrYUBZt6KtSHS3-vQahqyE6on1PSqOyimYnm8DH1JsvqdzOX2ZSBDtjqWLWlZ0950t5adREQfZ-92NN2Z7I8Tv9kYZiPor%7EF3ybM%7EgQlHZIywK2Ckt9mJaB-nv%7ENkcb5JsdLu6fCvQwi91uWJIL67yBOpRWv2VTC7HJch2zraqGI-jpROwoORQJzRG2woo%7ENYXyNLSW03jFtOZCbmXXY9870Ul6Xr-kzImTwbOy-1rmxVR%7Ew9Ud5gKqTEx6YA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0f0ff68edb488848c4a4e6d1fc15e59a
PDF Text
Text
NATIONALSECULARSOCIETY
COMMON
SENSE.
BY
THOMAS PAINE.
Wiflj
arár an
fxr
LONDON:
FREETHOUG-HT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET
STREET, E.C.
1884.
PRICE
SIXPENCE
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63, FLEET STREET, ®.C
�B "2^5
INTRODUCTION.
4
'
In the T08 'years which have passed since Thomas Paine ad
dressed this pamphlet to the Anglo-Saxons in British North
America, the extension of the territory and population has been
of the grandest description. The jurisdiction of the thirteen
colonies was then everywhere circumscribed by the Indian lines,
and the number of the population—when the United States first
declared themselves a confederation—did not exceed three mil
lions. To-day in 88 States and in 10 territories, with an area of
3,603,844 square miles, exclusive of the Indian territory, the
American Republic has a population of more than 50,000,000.
When Paine penned the words now re-printed, the doctrine of
independence was scarcely comprehended by any ; George Wash
ington was a Royalist by education and association, and even the
most advanced disciples of Otis shrank from breaking with the
Monarchy. Paine’s “ Common Sense ” appealed, however, to
the people, and their decision was swift, universal, and perma
nent. The 4th of July was the grand answer of the American
people—an answer they have never had reason to regret.
The very month it was issued Washington regarded the situa
tion as “ truly alarming,” and wrote that “ the first burst of
revolutionary zeal had passed away.” Paine’s pen revived the
zeal, and achieved a victory which at that time Washington’s
sword was insufficient to conquer. In England the fear of
Paine’s pen was widespread, as may be seen by reading the trial
of the shoemaker, John Hardy, for high treason.
|To-day Paine’s “ Common Sense ” has a merit beyond its mere
local significance, mighty as this was, and no apology is needed
for its re-publication.
Chaeles Beadlaugh.
��AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION
-------- ♦--------
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not
yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor ; a long
habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appear
ance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in
defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes
more converts than reason.
As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of
calling the right of it in question (and in matters which might
never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated
into the inquiry), and as the King of England hath undertaken
in his own right to support the Parliament in what he calls theirs,
and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by
the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into
the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of
either.
In the following sheets the author hath studiously avoided
everything which is personal among ourselves. Compliments
as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The
wise and the worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and
those whose sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease
of themselves, unless too much pains are bestowed upon their
conversion.
The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all
mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not
local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers
of mankind are affected, and in the event of which their affections
are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword,
declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extir
pating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the con
cern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feel
ing ; of which class, regardless of party censure, is
The Author.
Philadelphia, Feb. 14, 1776.
��COMMON SENSE.
-------- ♦--------
Of the Origin and Design of Government in general, with concise
Remarks on the English Constitution.
Some writers have so confounded Society with Government, as
to leave little or no distinction between them ; whereas they are
not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced
by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former
promotes our happiness positively, by uniting our affections; the
latter negatively, by restraining our vices. The one encourages
intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron,
the last a punisher.
Society, in every state, is a blessing ; but government, even in
its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an
intolerable one ; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same
miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country
without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting, that
we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like
dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are
built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For, were the
impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed,
man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case,
he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to
furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is
induced to do by the same prudence which, in every other case,
advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore,
Security being the true design and end of Government, it un
answerably follows, that whatever form thereof appears most
likely to ensure it to us with the least expense and greatest bene
fit, is preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of
government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in
some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest;
they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of
the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their
first thought. A. thousand motives will excite them thereto ; the
strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so
unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek
assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the
same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable
dwelling in the midst of a wilderness; but one man might labor
Out the common period of his life without accomplishing any
thing ; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor
erect it after it was removed; hunger in the meantime would
�Common Sense.
urge him from his work, and every different want call him a
different way. Disease, nay, even misfortune, would be death ;
for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him
from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might be
rather said to perish than to die.
Thus, necessity, like a gravitation power, would soon form our
newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of
which would supersede and render the obligations of law and
government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to
each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it
will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount
the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in
a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attach
ment to each other; and this remissness will point out the neces
sity of establishing some form of government to supply the
defect of moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a state-house, under the
branches of which the whole colony may assemble to deliberate
on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws
will have the title only of regulations, and be enforced by no
other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament
every man by natural right will have a seat.
But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase
likewise, and the distance at which the members may be sepa
rated will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on
every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their
habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This
will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the
legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from
the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at
stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in
the same manner as the whole body would act, were they present.
If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to
augment the number of the representatives ; and that the interest
of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found
best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending
its proper number; and that the elected may never form to them
selves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point
out the necessity of having elections often; because, as the elected
must by that means return and mix again with the general body
of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be
secured by the prudent reflexion of not making a rod for them
selves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a com
mon interest with every part of the community, they will mutually
and naturally support each other: and on this (not the unmean
ing name of king) depends the strength of government and the
happiness of the government.
Here, then, is the origin and rise of government; namely, a
mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to
govern the world; here too is the design and end of government,
viz., freedom and security. And however our eyes may be
�Common Sense.
9
dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however
prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understand
ing, the simple voice of nature and of reason will say it is right.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in
nature, which no art can overturn, viz., that the more simple any
thing is the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier re
paired when disordered : and with this maxim in view I offer a few
remarks on the so-much-boasted constitution of England. That
it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erec
ted is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the
least remove therefrom was a glorious risk. But that it is im
perfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what
it seems to promise is easily demonstrated.
Absolute governments (though the disgrace of human nature)
have this advantage with them, that they are simple ; if the
people suffer they know the head from which their suffering
springs, know likewise the remedy, and are not bewildered by a
variety of causes and cures. But the constitution of England is
so exceedingly complex that the nation may suffer for years to
gether without being able to discover in which part the fault
lies ; some will say in one, and some in another, and every po
litical physician will advise a different medicine.
I know it is difficult to get over local or long-standing pre
judices ; yet if we suffer ourselves to examine the component
parts of the English constitution we shall find them to be the
base remains of two ancient tyrannies, compounded with some
new Republican materials.
First.—The remains of monarchical tyranny in the person of
the king.
Secondly.—The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons
of the peers.
Thirdly.—The new Republican materials in the persons of the
commons, on whose virtue depends the freedom of England.
The two first being hereditary are independent of the people,
wherefore, in a constitutional sense they contribute nothing to
wards the freedom of the state.
To say that the constitution of England is a union of three
powers, reciprocally checking each other is farcical; either the
words have no meaning or they are flat contradictions.
To say that the commons are a check upon the king, presup
poses two things :
First.—That the king is not to be trusted without being looked
after, or, in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the
natural disease of monarchy.
Secondly.—That the commons, by being appointed for that
purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the
crown.
But as the same constitution which gives the commons power
to check the king, by withholding supplies, gives afterwards the
king a power to check the commons, by empowering him to
reject their other bills, it again supposes that the king is wiser
�10
Common Sense.
than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him.
A mere absurdity.
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition
of monarchy ; it first excludes a man from the means of informa
tion, yet it empowers him to act in cases where the highest judg
ment is required. The state of a king shuts him from the world,
yet the business of a kiDg requires him to know it thoroughly;
wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing and des
troying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and
useless.
Some writers have explained the English constitution thus:
the kiDg, they say, is one, the people another; the peers are a
house in behalf of the king, the commons in behalf of the people;
but this hath all the distinctions of an house divided against
itself; and though the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet
when examined they appear idle and ambiguous; and it always
happens that the nicest construction that words are capable of,
when applied to the description of something which either can
not exist or is too incomprehensible to be within the compass of
description, will be words of sound only, and though they may
amuse the ear they cannot inform the mind; for this explanation
includes a previous question, viz., “ How came the king by a
power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged
to check ? ” Such a power could not be the gift of a wise
people, neither can any power which needs checking be from
God ; yet the provision which the constitution makes supposes
such a power to exist.
But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either
cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a
felo de se; for as the greater weight will always carry up the less,
and as all the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one, it
only remains to know which power in the constitution has the
most weight; for that will govern ; and though the others, or a
part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity
of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it their endeavors
will be ineffectual, the first moving power will at last have its
way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.
That the crown is this overbearing part of the English con
stitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole
consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions
is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been wise enough to
shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy, we at the same
time have been foolish enough to put the crown in possession of
the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen in favor of their own govern
ment, by king, lords, and commons, arises as much or more from
national pride than reason. Individuals are, undoubtedly, safer
in England than in some other countries, but the will of the
king is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with
this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his
mouth it is handed to the people under the formidable shape of
�Common Sense.
11
an Act of Parliament. For the fate of Charles the First hath
only made kings more subtle;—not more just.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in
favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly
owing to the constitution of the people, and not to the constitu
tion of the government, that the crown is not so oppressive in
England as in Turkey.
An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English form
of government is at this time highly necessary : for as we are
never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we
continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither
are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered
with an obstinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a
prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge a wife, so any prepos
session in favour of a rotten constitution of government, will
disable us from discerning a good one.
Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession.
Mankind being originally equal in the order of creation, the
equality only could be destroyed by some subsequent circum
stances ; the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure
be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh
and ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression
is often the consequence, but seldom the means, of riches ; and
though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously
poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.
Bftt there is another and greater distinction, for which no
truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the
distinction of men into kings and subjects. Male and female
are the distinctions of Nature ; good and bad, the distinctions of
Heaven ; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted
above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth
enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or
of misery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to the Scripture
Chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which
was, there were no wars. It is the pride of kings which throws
mankind into confusion. Holland, without a king, hath enjoyed
more peace for the last century than any of the monarchical
governments in Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark;
for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs have a happy
something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the
history of Jewish royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced to the world by
the heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the cus
tom. It was the most prosperous invention the devil ever set
on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The heathen paid divine
honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath
improved on the plan, by doing the same to its living ones. How
�12
Common Sense.
impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in
the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be
justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be de
fended on the authority of Scripture; for the will of the
Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet ,Samuel,
expressly disapproves of government by kings. All antimonarchical parts of the Scripture have been very smoothly
glossed over in monarchical governments; but they undoubtedly
merit the attention of countries which have their governments
yet to form. “ Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,”
is the Scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of
monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without
a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.
Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic
account of the creation, till the Jews, under a national delusion,
requested a king. Till then, their form of government (except
in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was
a kind of Republic, administered by a judge and the elders of
the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to
acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts.
And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage
which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that
the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a
form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative
of Heaven.
Monarchy is ranked in Scripture as one of the sins of the
Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them.
The history of that transaction is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites,
Gideon marched against them with a smsll army, and victory,
through the Divine interposition, decided in his favor. The
Jews, elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of
Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, “ Rule thou over
us, thou and thy son, and thy son’s son.” Here was a tempta
tion in its fullest extent: not a kingdom only, but a hereditary
one. But Gideon in the piety of his soul, replied, “ I will not
reign over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the Lord
shall rule over you.” Words need not be more explicit.
Gideon doth not decline the honor, but denieth their right to
give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented decla
rations of his thanks, but in the positive style of a prophet
charges them with disaffection to their proper sovereign, the King
of Heaven.
About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again
into the same error. The hankering which the Jews had for the
idolatrous customs of the heathen, is something exceedingly un
accountable ; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct
of Samuel’s two sons, who were entrusted with some secular
concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to
Samuel, saying, “ Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in
�Common Sense.
13
thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the other
nations.” And here we cannot but observe that their motives
were bad, viz., that they might be like unto other nations, i.e.,
the heathen; whereas their true glory laid in being as much un
like them as possible. “Bat the thing displeased Samuel when
they said, Give us a King to judge us ; and Samuel prayed unto
the Lord, and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the
voice of the people in all they say unto thee, for they have not
rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not
reign over them. According to all the works which they have
done since the day that I brought them out of Egypt, even unto
this day; wherewith they have forsaken me and served other
gods ; so do they also unto thee. Now, therefore, hearken unto
their voice, howbeit protest solemnly unto them, and show the
manner of a king that shall reign over them (z.e., not of any
particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth,
whom Israel was so eagerly copying after; and notwithstanding
the great difference of time, and distance, and manners, the cha
racter is still in fashion). And Samuel told all the words of
the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he
said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over
you ; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for
his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before
his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of
impressing men), and he will appoint them captains over thou
sands, and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his
ground, and to reap his harvest, and make his instruments of
war, and instruments of his chariots; and he will take your
daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be
bakers (this describes the expense and luxury as well as the
oppression of kings), and he will take your fields and your olive
yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants;
and he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards,
and give them to his officers and his servants (by which we see
that bribery, corruption and favoritism are the standing vices of
kings) ; and he will take the tenth of your men-servants, and
your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your
asses, and put them to his work; and he will take the tenth of
your sheep, and you shall be his servants ; and ye shall cry out
in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen,
and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”
This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do
the characters of the few good kings who have lived since either
sanctify the title or blot out the sinfulness of the origin ; the
high encomium given of David takes no notice of him officially
as a king, but only as a man after God’s own heart. “Never
theless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel, and
they said, Nay, but we will have a King over us, that we may be
like all the nations, and that our King may judge us, and go out
before us, and fight our battles.” Samuel continued to reason
with them, but to no purpose ; he set before them their ingrati
�14
Common Sense.
tude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their
folly, he cried out: “I will call unto the Lord and he shall send
thunder and rain (which then was a punishment, being in the
time of wheat harvest), that ye may perceive and see that your
wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight of the Lord,
in asking you a king. So Samuel called unto the Lord, and the
Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly
feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said unto
Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we
die not, for we have added unto our sins this evil, to ask a king.”
These portions of Scripture are direct and positive. They admit
of no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath there
entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or
the Scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe
that there is as much of kingcraft as priestcraft in withholding
the Scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy
in every instance is the Popery of Government.
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary
succession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of
ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult
and imposition on posterity. For all men being originally equal,
no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in
perpetual preference to all others for ever ; and though himself
might deserve some decent degree of honors of his contempo
raries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit
them. One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of heredi
tary right in kings is, that nature disproves it, otherwise she
would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind
an ass for a lion.
Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public
honors than were bestowed upon them, so the givers of those
honors could have no right to give away the right of posterity.
And though they might say: “ We choose you for our head,”
they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say,
“that your children and your children’s children shall reign over
ours for ever,” because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural com
pact might, perhaps, in the next succession, put them under the
government of a rogue or a fool. Most wise men, in their
private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with con
tempt ; yet it is one of those evils which, when once established,
is not easily removed; many submit from fear, others from super
stition, and the most powerful part shares with the king the
plunder of the rest.
This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to
have had an honorable origin; whereas it is more than probable
that, could we take off the dark covering of antiquity and trace
them to their first rise, we should find the first of them nothing
better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose
savage manners or pre-eminence in subtilty, obtained him the
title of chief among plunderers; and who, by increasing in
power, and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet and
�Common Sense.
15
defenceless to purchase their safety by frequent contributions.
Yet his electors could have no idea of giving hereditary right to
his descendants, because such a perpetual exclusion of themselves
was incompatible with the free and unrestained principles they
professed to live by. Wherefore hereditary succession in the
early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of claim,
but as something casual or complimental; but as few or no re
cords were extant in those days, and traditionary history is
stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few
generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently
timed, Mahomet-like, to cram hereditary right down the throats
of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threaten, or seemed
to threaten, on the decease of a leader, and the choice of a new
one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) in
duced many at first to favor hereditary pretensions ; by which
means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was
submitted to as a convenience was afterwards claimed as a right.
England, since the conquest, hath known some few good
monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad
ones, yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under
William the Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French
bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing him
self King of England, against the consent of the natives, is, in
plain terms, a very paltry, rascally original. It certainly hath
no divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time
in exposing the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so
weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass
and the lion, and welcome ; I shall neither copy their humility,
nor disturb their devotion.
Yet I should be glad to ask, how they suppose kings came at
first? The question admits but of three answers, viz., either
by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first king was
taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which ex
cludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession
was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction,
there was any intention it ever should. If the first king of any
country was by election, that likewise establishes a precedent
for the next; for to say that the right of all future generations
is taken away by the act of the first electors, in their choice, not
only of a king but of a family of kings for ever, hath no parallel
in or out of Scripture, but the doctrine of original sin, which
supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam; and from such
comparison (and it will admit of no other) hereditary succession
can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the
first electors all men obeyed; so in the one all mankind are
subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty: as our
innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and
as both disable us from re-assuming some further state and privi
lege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary suc
cession are parallels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion !
Yet the most subtle sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
�16
Common Sense.
As to usurpation no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and
that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be
contradicted. The plain truth is that the antiquity of English
monarchy will not bear looking into.
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary
succession which concerns mankind. Did it insure a race of
good and wise men, it would have the seal of divine authority;
but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked, and the im
proper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men, who look
upon themselves as born to reign, and on the others to obey,
soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind, their
minds are easily poisoned by importance, and the world they act
in differs so materially from the world at large that they have
but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when
they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignor
ant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the
throne is liable to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which
time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, has every
opportunity and inducement to betray its trust. The same
national misfortune happens when a king, worn out with age
and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In both
these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant who
can tamper with the follies either of infancy or age.
The most plausible plea which hath ever been offered in favor
of hereditary succession is, that it preserves a nation from civil
wars; and were this true it would be weighty ; whereas, it is
the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The
whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and
two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the
conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revo
lution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions.
Wherefore, instead of making for peace it makes against it, and
destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.
The contest for monarchy and succession between the houses
of York and Lancaster laid England in a scene of blood for many
years. Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges,
were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry
prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And
so uncertain is the fate of war, and temper of a nation, when
nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that
Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and
Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as
sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his
turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled to succeed
him ; the Parliament always following the strongest side.
This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was
not entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the
families were united; including a period of sixty-seven years,
viz., from 1422 to 1489.
In short, monarchy and succession have laid, not this or that
�Common Sense.
17
kingdom only, but the world in blood and ashes. It is a form of
government which the word of God bears testimony against, and
blood will attend it.
If we inquire into the business of a king we shall find that in
iome countries they have none ; and after sauntering away their
lives without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation,
withdraw from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the
same idle ground. In the absolute monarchies the whole weight
of business, civil and military, lies on the king ; the children of
Israel, in their request for a king, urged this plea, “ that he may
judge us and go out before us, and fight our battles.” But in
countries where he is neither a judge nor a general a man would
be puzzled to know what is his business.
The nearer any government approaches to a Republic the less
business there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find a
proper name for the government of England. Sir William
Meredith calls it a Republic; but in its present state it is un
worthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown,
by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swal
lowed up the power and eaten out the virtue of the House of
Commons (the Republican part of the constitution), that the
government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France
or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them,
for it is the Republican, and not the monarchical, part of the con
stitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz., the liberty
of choosing a House of Commons from out of their own body ;
and it is easy to see that when Republican virtue fails slavery
ensues. Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because
monarchy hath poisoned the Republic, the crown hath engrossed
the Commons ?
In England the king hath little more to do than to make war
and give away places; which, in plain terms, is to impoverish
the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business
indeed, for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling
a-year for, and worshipped into the bargain ! Of more worth is
One honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the
crowned ruffians that ever lived.
Thoughts on the present State of American Affairs.
In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts,
plain arguments, and common sense ; and have no other prelimi
naries to settle with the reader than that he will divest himself
Of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his feelings to deter
mine for themselves; that he will put on, or rather that he will
not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge
his views beyond the present day.
Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle
between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked
in the controversy, from different motives, and with various
designs ; but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate
�18
Common Sense.
is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest; and
the appeal was the choice of a king, and the continent hath
accepted the challenge.
It hath been reported of the late Mr. Pelham, who, though an
able minister, was not without his faults, that on his being
attacked in the House of Commons on the score that his measures
were only of a temporary kind, replied: “They will last my time.”
Should a thought so fatal and unmanly possess the colonies
in the present contest, the name of ancestors will be remembered
by future generations with detestation.
The sun never shone on a cause of greater worth. It is not
the affair of a city, a county a province, or of a kingdom, but of
a continent—of, at least, one-eighth part of the habitable globe.
It is not the concern of a day, a year, or an age ; posterity are
involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even
to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed
time of continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture
now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the
tender rind of a young oak; the wound will enlarge with the
tree, and posterity read it in full-grown characters.
By referring the matter from argument to arms, a new era for
politics is struck, a new method of thinking hath arisen. All
plans, proposals, etc., prior to the 19th of April, i.e., to the
commencement of hostilities, are like the almanacks of last year,
which, though proper then, are superseded and useless now.
Whatever was advanced by the advocates on either side of the
question then terminated in one and the same point, viz., a
union with Great Britain ; the only difference between the parties
was the method of affecting it, the one proposing force, the
other friendship ; but it hath so far happened that the first hath
failed, and the second hath withdrawn her influence.
As much hath been said of the advantages of reconciliation,
which, like an agreeable dream, hath passed away and left us as
we were, it is but right that we should view the contrary side of
the argument, and inquire into some of the many material
injuries which these colonies sustain, and always will sustain, by
being connected with, and dependent on, Great Britain. To
examine that connexion and dependence, on the principles of
nature and common sense, to see what we have to trust to, if
separated, and what we are to expect, if dependent.
I have heard it asserted by some that, as America had
flourished under her former connexion with Great Britain, the
same connexion is necessary towards her future happiness, and
will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious
than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because
a child has thriven upon milk it is never to have meat, or that the
first twenty years of our lives are to become a precedent for the
next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true, for I
answer roundly that America would have flourished as much, and
probably much more, had no European power anything to do
with her. The commerce by which she hath enriched herself are
�Common Sense.
19
the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating
is the custom of Europe.
But she has protected us, say some. That she has engrossed
us is true, and defended the continent at our expense as well as
her own is admitted ; and she would have defended Turkey from
the same motive, viz., the sake of trade and dominion.
Alas! we have been long led away by ancient prejudices, and
made large sacrifices to superstition. We have boasted of the
protection of Great Britain, without considering that her motive
was interest, not attachment; but she did not protect us from
our enemies on our account, but from her enemies on her own
account, from those who had no quarrel with us on any other
account, and who will always be our enemies on the same
account. Let Britain waive her pretensions to the continent, or
the continent throw off the dependence, and we should be at
peace with France and Spain were they at war with Britain.
The miseries of Hanover, last war, ought to warn us against
connexions.
It has lately been asserted in Parliament that the colonies have
no relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e.,
Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister
colonies by the way of England ; this is certainly a very round
about way of proving relationship, but it is the nearest and only
true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and
Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be, our enemies as
Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.
But Britain is the parent country say some. Then the more
shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young,
nor savages make war on their families; wherefore the assertion,
if true, turns to her reproach ; but it happens not to be true, or
only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath
been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with a
low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous
weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent
country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for
the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty in every part
of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces
of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so
far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first
emigrants from home pursues their descendants still.
In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow
limits of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England),
and carry our friendship on a larger scale; we claim brotherhood
with every European Christian, and triumph in the generosity
of the sentiment.
It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we sur
mount the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaint
ance with the world. A man born in any town in England
divided into parishes, will naturally associate with his fellow
parishioner, because their interests in many cases will be com
mon, and distinguish him by the name of neighbor ; if he meet
B2
�20
Common Sense.
him but a few miles from home, he salutes him by the name of
townsman ; if he travel out of the county, and meet him in any
other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and
calls him countryman, ie., county man ; but if in their foreign
excursions they should associate in France, or in any other part
of Europe, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that
of Englishman. And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans
meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are
countrymen ; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when
compared with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger
scale, which the divisions of street, town and county, do on the
smaller ones; distinctions too limited for continental minds.
Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of
English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent
or mother country applied to England only, as being false,
selfish, narrow, and ungenerous.
But admitting that we were all of English descent, what does
it amount to? Nothing. Britain being now an open enemy,
extinguishes every other name and title ; and to say that recon
ciliation is our duty, is truly farcical. The first king of England
of the present line (William the Conqueror) was a Frenchman,
and half the peers of England are descendants from the same
country; wherefore by the same method of reasoning, England
ought to be governed by France.
Much hath been said of the united strength of Britain and the
colonies; that in conjunction they might bid defiance to the
world. But this is mere presumption; the fate of wars is un
certain ; neither do the expression mean anything; for this
continent never would suffer itself to be drained of inhabitants,
to support the British arms in either Asia, Africa, or Europe.
Besides, what have we to do with setting the world at defi
ance ? Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will
secure us the peace and friendship of all Europe ; because it is
the interest of all Europe to have America a free port. Her
trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and
silver secure her from invaders.
I challenge the warmest advocate for reconciliation to show
a single advantage this continent can reap by being connected
with Great Britain ; I repeat the challenge, not a single advan
tage is derived. Our corn will fetch its price in any market in
Europe, and our imported goods must be paid for, buy them
where you will.
But the injuries and disadvantages we sustain by that con
nexion are without number ; and our duty to mankind at large,
as well as to ourselves, instructs us to renounce the alliance, be
cause, any submission to, or dependence on, Great Britain tends
to involve this continent in European wars and quarrels, and set
us at variance with nations who would otherwise seek our friend
ship, and against whom we have neither anger nor complaint.
As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial
connexion with any part of it. It is the true interest of America
�Common Sense.
21
to steer clear or European contentions, which she can never do,
while by her dependence on Britain she is made the make-weight
in the scale of British politics.
Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at
peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any
foreign power the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her
connexion with Great Britain. The next war may not turn out
like the last, and should it not the advocates for reconciliation
now will be wishing for a separation then, because neutrality
in that case would be a safer convoy than a man of war. Every
thing that is right or natural pleads for a separation. The blood
of the slain, the weeping voice of nature, cries. It is time to part.
Even the distance at which the Almighty hath placed England
and America, is a strong and natural proof that the authority of
the one over the other was never the design of heaven. The
time, likewise, at which the continent was discovered, adds to the
weight of the argument, and the manner in which it was peopled
increases the force of it. The reformation was preceded by the
discovery of America, as if the Almighty graciously meant to
open a sanctuary to the persecuted in future years, when home
should afford neither friendship nor safety.
The authority of Great Britain over this continent is a form
of government which, sooner or later, must have an end; and a
serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward,
under the painful and positive conviction, that what he calls
“ the present constitution ” is merely temporary. As parents we
can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently
lasting to ensure anything which we may bequeath to posterity ;
and by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next
generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise
we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line
of our duty rightly we should take our children in our hands,
and fix our station a few years farther into life; that eminence
will present a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices
conceal from our sight.
Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offence
yet I am inclined to believe that all those who espouse the doc
trine of reconciliation may be included within the following
descriptions : Interested men, who are not to be trusted ; weak
men, who cannot see ; prejudiced men, who will not see ; and
a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European
world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged
deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this conti
nent than all the other three.
It is the good fortune of many to live distant from the scene
of sorrow ; and the evil is not sufficiently brought to their doors
to make them feel the precariousness with which all American
property is possessed. But let our imaginations transport us for
a few moments to Boston ; that seat of wretchedness will teach
us wisdom, and instruct us for ever to renounce a power in whom
we can have no trust; the inhabitants of that unfortunate city,
�22
Common Sense.
who but a few months ago were in ease and affluence, have now
no other alternative than to stay and starve, or turn out to beg.
Endangered by the fire of their friends if they continue within
the city, and plundered by the soldiery if they leave it. In their
present condition they are prisoners without the hope of redemp
tion, and in a general attack for their relief they would be ex
posed to the fury of both armies.
Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the
offences of Britain, and still hoping for the best, are apt to call
out: “ Come, come, we shall be friends again, for all this.” But
examine the passions and feelings of mankind, bring the doctrine
of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me
whether you can hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve the
power which hath carried fire and sword into your land ? If you
cannot do all these then you are only deceiving yourselves, and
by your delay bringing ruin upon posterity. Your future connex
ion with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will be
forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of
present convenience will in a little time fall into a relapse more
wretched than the first. But if you say you can still pass the
violations over then I ask, hath your house been burnt ? Hath
your property been destroyed before your face ? Are your wife
and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on ?
Have you lost a parent or child by their hands, and you yourself
the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are
you a judge of those who have ? But if you have, and still can
shake hands with the murderers, then you are unworthy the name
of husband, father, friend, or lover ; and whatever may be your
rank or title in life you have the heart of a coward, and the
spirit of a sycophant.
This is not inflaming or exaggerating matters, by trying them
by those feelings and affections which nature justifies, and
without which we should be incapable of discharging the social
duties of life, or enjoying the felicities of it. I mean not to
exhibit horror for the purpose of provoking revenge, but to
awaken us from fatal and unmanly slumbers, that we may pursue
determinately some fixed object. It is not in the power of
Britain, or of Europe, to conquer America, if she do not conquer
herself by delay and timidity. The present winter is worth an
age, if rightly employed, but if neglected the whole continent
will partake of the misfortune; and there is no punishment which
that man will not deserve, be he who, or what, or where he will,
that may be the means of sacrificing a season so precious and
useful.
It is repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things, to
all examples of former ages, to suppose that this continent can
longer remain subject to any external power. The most sanguine
in Britain does not think so. The utmost stretch of human
wisdom cannot, at this time, compass a plan short of separation,
which can promise the continent a year’s security. Reconciliation
is now a fallacious dream. Nature has deserted the connexion
�Common Sense.
and art cannot supply her place ; for as Milton wisely expresses:
“ Never can true reconcilement grow where wounds of deadly
hate have pierced so deep.”
Every quiet method for peace hath been ineffectual. Our
prayers have been rejected with disdain, and only tended to
convince us that nothing flatters vanity or confirms obstinacy in
kings more than repeated petitioning ; and nothing hath contri
buted more than that very measure to make the kings of Europe
absolute; witness Denmark and Sweden. Wherefore, since
nothing but blows will do, for God’s sake let us come to a final
separation, and not leave the next generation to be cutting of
throats under the violated, unmeaning names of parent and
-child.
To say they will never attempt it again is idle and visionary ;
we thought so at the repeal of the Stamp Act, yet a year or two
undeceived us ; as well may we suppose that nations which have
been once defeated will never renew the quarrel.
As to government matters, it is not in the power of Britain to
do this continent justice. The business of it will soon be too
weighty and intricate to be managed with any tolerable degree
of convenience by a power so distant from us and so very ignorant
of us; for if they cannot conquer us, they cannot govern us.
To be always running three or four thousand miles with a tale
or petition, waiting four or five months for an answer, which,
when obtained, requires five or six more to explain it, will in
a few years be looked upon as folly and childishness. There was
a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to
cease.
Small islands, not capable of protecting themselves, are the
proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there
is something very absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetu
ally governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the
satellite larger than its primary planet; and as England and
America, with respect to each other, reverse the common order of
nature, it is evident they belong to different systems : England,
to Europe ; America, to itself.
I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to
espouse the doctrine of separation and independence. I am
clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the
true interest of the continent to be so ; that everything short of
that is merely patchwork, that it can afford no lasting felicity,
that it is leaving the sword to our children, and slinking back at
a time when a little more, a little farther, would have rendered
the continent the glory of the earth.
As Britain hath not manifested the least inclination towards
a compromise, we may be assured that no terms can be obtained
worthy the acceptance of the continent, or any ways equal to the
expense of blood and treasure we have been already put to.
The object contended for ought always to bear some just pro
portion to the expense. The removal of North, or the whole
detestable junto, is a matter unworthy the millions we have ex
�24
Common Sense.
pended. A temporary stoppage of trade was an inconvenience
which would have sufficiently balanced the repeal of all the Act»
complained of, had such repeals been obtained ; but if the whole
continent must take up arms, if every man must be a soldier, it is
scarcely worth our while to fight against a contemptible ministry
only. Dearly, dearly do we pay for the repeal of the Acts, if that
is all we fight for ; for, in a just estimation, it is as great a folly
to pay a Bunker Hill price for law as for land. As I have always
considered the independence of the continent as an event which,
sooner or later, must arise, so from the late rapid progress of thè
continent to maturity, the event could not be far off. Wherefore,
on the breaking out of hostilities, it was not worth while to have
disputed a matter which time would have finally redressed, unless
we meant to be in earnest ; otherwise it is like wasting an estate
on a suit of law, to regulate the trespasses of a tenant whose
lease is just expiring. No man was a warmer wisher for recon
ciliation than myself before the fatal nineteenth1 of April, 1775 ;
but the moment the event of that day was made known, I rejected
the hardened, sullen-tempered Pharaoh of England for ever, and
disdained the wretch that, with the pretended title of Father of
his People, can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter, and com
posedly sleep with their blood upon his soul.
But, admitting that matters were now made up, what would be
the event ? I answer, the ruin of the continent. And that for
several reasons.
First. The powers of governing still remaining in the hands
of the king, he will have a negative over the whole legislation of
the continent. And as he hath shown himself such an inveterate
enemy to liberty, and discovered such a thirst for arbitrary power,
is he, or is he not, a proper man to say to these colonies : “You
shall make no laws but what I please ” ? And is there any in
habitant in America so ignorant as not to know that, according,
to what is called the present constitution, this continent can.
make no laws but what the king gives leave to ? And is there
any man so unwise as not to see (considering what has happened)
he will suffer no law to be made here but such as suits his pur
pose? We may be as effectually enslaved by the want of laws
in America as by submitting to laws made in England. After
matters are made up, as it is called, can there be any doubt but.
the whole power of the crown will be exerted to keep this con
tinent as low and as humble as possible ? Instead of going
forward, we shall go backward, or be perpetually quarrelling or
ridiculously petitioning. We are already greater than the king,
wishes us to be, and will he not endeavor to make us less ? To
bring the matter to one point : Is the power who is jealous of
our prosperity a proper power to govern us ? Whoever says no
to this question is an independent ; for independency means no
more than whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the
king (the greatest enemy this continent hath or can have) shall
tell us : “ There shall be no laws but such as I like.”
1 Lexington.
�Common Sense.
25
But the king, you will say, has a negative in England; the
people there can make no laws without his consent. In point of
right and good order, there is something very ridiculous, that a
youth of twenty-one (which hath often happened), shall say toseven millions of people, older and wiser than himself—I forbid
this or that act of yours to be law. But in this place I decline
this sort of reply, though I will never cease to expose the absur
dity of it, and only answer that England, being the king’s resi
dence, and America not so, make quite another case. The king’s
negative here is ten times more dangerous and fatal than it can
be in England ; for there he will scarcely refuse his consent to a
bill for putting England into as strong a state of defence as pos
sible, and in America he would never suffer such a bill to be
passed.
America is only a secondary object in the system of British
politics. England consults the good of this country no farther
than it answers her own purpose. Wherefore her own interest
leads her to suppress the growth of ours in every case which
doth not promote her advantage, or in the least interfere with it.
A pretty state we should soon be in under such a second-hand
Government, considering what has happened! Men do not
change from enemies to friends by the alteration of a name;
and in order to show that reconciliation now is a dangerous
doctrine, I affirm, that it would be policy in the King at this
time to repeal the Acts, for the sake of reinstating himself in the
government of the provinces ; in order that he may accomplish
by craft and subtlety, in the long run, what he cannot do by force
and violence in the short one. Reconciliation and ruin are nearly
related.
Secondly. That as even the best terms which we can expect to
obtain, can amount to no more than a temporary expedient, or a
kind of government by guardianship, which can last no longer
than till the colonies come of age, so the general face and state
of things, in the interim, will be unsettled and unpromising.
Emigrants of property will not choose to come to a country
whose form of government hangs but by a thread, and that is
every day tottering on the brink of commotion and distur
bance, and numbers of the present inhabitants would lay hold of
the interval to dispose of their effects, and quit the continent.
But the most powerful of all arguments is, that nothing but
independence, i.e., a continental form of government, can keep
the peace of the continent, and preserve it inviolate from civil
wars. I dread the event of a reconciliation with Britain now, as
it is more than probable that it will be followed by a revolt
somewhere or other ; the consequences of which may be far mor©
fatal than all the malice of Britain.
Thousands are already ruined by British barbarity ! thousands
more will probably suffer the same fate! Those men have other
feelings than we, who have nothing suffered. All they now
possess is liberty; what they before enjoyed is sacrificed to its
service, and having nothing more to lose, they disdain submission.
�26
;
, j
•Common Sense.
Besides, the general temper of the colonies towards a British
government, will be like that of a youth who is nearly out of his
time ; they will care very little about her. And a government
which cannot preserve the peace is no government at all, and in that
case we pay our money for nothing ; and pray what is it Britain
can do, whose power will be wholly on paper, should a civil
tumult break out the very day after reconciliation ? I have heard
some men say, many of whom, I believe, spoke without thinking,
that they dreaded an independence, fearing it would produce
civil wars. It is but seldom that our first thoughts are truly
correct, and that is the case here ; for there are ten times more
to dread from a patched-up connexion than from independence.
I make the sufferer’s case my own, and I protest, that were I
driven from house and home, my property destroyed, and my
circumstances ruined, that, as a man sensible of injuries, I could
never relish the doctrine of reconciliation, or consider myself
bound thereby.
The colonies have manifested such a spirit of good order and
obedience to continental government as is sufficient to make
every reasonable person easy and happy on that head. No man
can assign the least pretence for his fears on any other ground
than such as are truly childish and ridiculous, viz., that one colony
will be striving for superiority over another.
Where there are no distinctions, there can be no superiority ;
perfect equality affords no temptation. The Republics of Europe
are all, and we may say always, at peace. Holland and Switzer
land are without wars, foreign and domestic: monarchical gov
ernments, it is true, are never long at rest; the crown itself is a
temptation to enterprising ruffians at home ; and that degree of
pride and insolence, ever attendant on regal authority, swells into
a rupture with foreign powers, in instances where a Republican
government, by being formed on more natural principles, would
negociate the mistake.
If there is any true cause of fear respecting independence, it is
because no plan is yet laid down : men do not see their way out.
Wherefore, as an opening to that business, I offer the following
hints ; at the same time modestly affirming, that 1 have no other
opinion of them myself, than that they may be the means of
giving rise to something better. Could the straggling thoughts
of individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials
for wise and able men to improve into useful matter.
Let the assemblies be annual, with a president only. The re
presentation more equal; their business wholly domestic, and
subject to the authority of a continental congress.
Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten convenient
districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to
congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole
number in congress will be at least three hundred and ninety.
Each congress to sit * * * * and to choose a president by the
following method :—When the delegates are met, let a colony be
taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot; after which let the
�Common Sense.
27
whole congress choose, by ballot, a president from out of the
delegates of that province. In the next congress, let a colony be
taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from which
the president was taken in the former congress, so proceeding on
till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And
in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is satis
factorily just, not less than three-fifths of the congress to be
called a majority. He that will promote discord under a govern
ment so equally formed as this, would have joined Lucifer in his
revolt.
But as there is a peculiar delicacy, from whom and in what
manner this business must first arise; and as it seems most
agreeable and consistent that it should come from some inter
mediate body between the governed and the governors, that is,
between the congress and the people, let a continental conference
be held, in the following manner and for the following
purpose:—
A committee of twenty-six members of congress, viz., two for
each county. Two members from each house of assembly or
provincial convention; and five representatives of the people at
large, to be chosen in the capital city or town of each province,
for and in behalf of the whole province, by as many qualified
voters as shall think proper to attend from all parts of the pro
vince for that purpose; or, if more convenient, the representatives
may be chosen in two or three of the most populous parts there
of. In this conference thus assembled will be united the two
grand principles of business, knowledge and power. The
members of congress, assemblies, or conventions, by having had
experience in national concerns, will be able and useful coun
sellors ; and the whole, empowered by the people, will have a
truly legal authority.
The conferring members being met, let their business be to
frame a continental charter, or charter of the united colonies,
answering to what is called Magna Charta of England; fixing
the number and manner of choosing members of congress, mem
bers of assembly, with their date of sitting, and drawing the line
of business and jurisdiction between them ; always remembering
that our strength is continental, not provincial; securing freedom
and property to all men ; and, above all things, the free exercise
of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; with such
other matter as it is necessary for a charter to contain. Imme
diately after which the said conference to dissolve, and the bodies
which shall be chosen conformable to the said .charter to be the
legislators and governors of the continent for the time being,
whose peace and happiness may God preserve ! Amen.
. Should any body of men be hereafter delegated for this or some
similar purpose, I offer them the following extract from that wise
observer on governments, Dragonetti:—“ The science,” says he,
“ of the politician consists in fixing the true point of happiness
and freedom. Those men would deserve the gratitude of ages,
who should discover a mode of government that contained the
�Common Sense.
greatest sum of individual happiness, with the least national
expense.”—Dragonetti, on “ Virtue and Rewards.”
But where, some say, is the king of America ? I will tell you,
friend, he reigns above, and does not make havoc of mankind,
like the royal brute of Britain. Yet, that we may not appear to
be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set
apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth, placed
on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed
thereon, by which the world may know that so far we approve of
monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute
governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought
to be king, and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use
should afterwards arise, let the crown, at the conclusion of the
ceremony, be demolished and scattered among the people, whose
right it is.
A government of our own is our natural right; and when a
man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he
will become convinced that it is infinitely wiser and safer to form
a constitution of our own in a cool, deliberate manner, while we
have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to
time and chance. If we omit it now, some Masaniello may
*
hereafter arise, who, laying hold of popular disquietudes, may
collect together the desperate and discontented, and by assuming
to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the
liberties of the continent like a deluge. Should the government
of America return again to the hands of Britain, the tottering
situation of things will be a temptation for some desperate
adventurer to try his fortune; and in such a case, what relief
can Britain have ? Ere she could hear the news, the fatal busi
ness might be done, and ourselves suffering, like the wretched
Britains, under the oppression of the conqueror. Ye that oppose
independence now, ye know not what ye do ; ye are opening a
door to eternal tyranny.
There are thousands and tens of thousands who would think it
glorious to expel from the continent that barbarous and hellish
power which hath stirred up the Indians and negroes to destroy
us ; the cruelty hath a double guilt—it is dealing brutally by us
and treacherously by them.
To talk of friendship with those in whom our reason forbids us
to have faith, and our affections, wounded through a thousand
pores, instruct us to detest, is madness and folly. Every day
wears out the little remains of kindred between us and them,
and can there b§ any reason to hope that, as the relationship
expires, the affection will increase ; or that we shall agree better
when we have ten times more and greater concerns to quarrel
over than ever ?
Ye that tell us of harmony and reconciliation, can ye restore to
* Thomas Aniello, otherwise Masaniello, a fisherman of Naples, who, after
spiriting up his countrymen in the public market-place against the oppression of
the Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject, prompted them to revolt, and
in the space of a day became king.
�Common Sense.
29
us the time that is past? Can you give to prostitution its former
innocence ? Neither can ye reconcile Britain and America. The
last cord now is broken, the people of England are presenting
addresses against us. There are injuries which nature cannot
forgive; she would cease to be nature if she did. As well can a
lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress as the continent forgive
the murderers of Britain. The Almighty hath implanted in us
these unextinguishable feelings for good and wise purposes.
They are the guardians of his image in our hearts. They
distinguish us from the herd of common animals. The social
compact would dissolve and justice be extirpated from the earth,
or have only a casual existence, were we callous to the touches
of affection. The robber and the murderer would often escape
unpunished, did not the injuries which our temper sustains pro
voke us into justice.
O ye that love mankind; ye that dare oppose, not only the
tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth ; every spot of the old world
is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round
the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her, Europe
regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning
to depart. O receive the fugitive ; and prepare in time an asylum
for mankind.
Of the present Ability of America, with some miscellaneous
Reflexions.
I have never met with a man, either in England or America
who hath not confessed his opinion that a separation between the
two countries would take place one time or other. And there is
no instance in which we have shown less judgment than in
endeavoring to describe what we call the ripeness or fitness of
the continent for independence.
As all men allow the measure, and vary only in their opinion
of the time, let us, in order to remove mistakes, take a general
survey of things, and endeavor, if possible, to find out the very
time. But we need not go far, the inquiry ceases at once, for
the time hath found us. The general concurrence, the glorious
union of all things, prove the fact.
It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies;
yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all
the world. The continent hath, at this time, the largest body of
armed and disciplined men of any power under heaven, and is
just arrived at that pitch of strength in which no single colony
is able to support itself, and the whole, when united, can accom
plish the matter ; and either more or less than this might be fatal
in its effects. Our land force is already sufficient, and as to naval
affairs, we cannot be insensible that Britian would r ever suffer an
American man-of-war to be built while the continent remained
in her hands, wherefore we should be no forwarder a hundred
years hence in that branch than we are now; but the truth is, we
shall be less so, because the timber of the country is every day
�30
Common Sense.
diminishing, and that which will remain at last will be far off
and difficult to procure.
Were the continent crowded with inhabitants, her sufferings
under the present circumstances would be intolerable. The more
sea-port towns we had, the more should we have both to defend
and to lose. Our present numbers are so happily proportioned
to our wants, that no man need to be idle. The diminution of
trade affords an army, and the necessities of an army create a
new trade.
Debts we have none, and whatever we may contract on this
account will serve as a glorious memento of our virtue. Can we
but leave posterity with a settled form of government, an inde
pendent constitution of its own, the purchase at any price will be
cheap. But to expend millions for the sake of getting a few vile
acts repealed, and routing the present ministry only, is unworthy
the charge, is using posterity with the utmost cruelty; because
it is leaving them the great work to do, and a debt upon their
backs from which they derive no advantage. Such a thought is
unworthy a man of honor, and is the true characteristic of a
narrow heart and a peddling politician.
The debt we may contract doth not deserve our regard, if the
work be but accomplished. No nation ought to be without a
debt; a national debt is a national bond, and when it bears no
interest, is in no case a grievance. Britain is oppressed with a
debt of upwards of one hundred and fifty millions sterling, for
which she pays upwards of four millions interest. As a compen
sation for the debt, she has a large navy ; America is without a
debt and without a navy; yet, for the twentieth part of the
English national debt, could have a navy as large again. The
navy of England is not worth more at this time than three
millions and a half sterling.
The charge of building a ship of each rate, and furnishing
her with masts, yards, sails, and rigging, together with a pro
portion of eight months’ boatswain’s and carpenter’s sea stores,
as calculated by Mr. Burchett, Secretary to the Navy, is as
follows:—
For a ship of 100 guns...................................... £35,552
90
.................................... 29 886
80
23.638
70
17,785
60
14,197
50
................................... 10,606
40
7,758
30
5,846
20
3,710
And from hence it is easy to sum up the value, or cost rather,
of the whole British navy, which, in the year 1757, when it was
at its greatest glory, consisted of the following ships and
guns:—
�Common Sense.
Ship.
Guns.
Cost of one.
31
Cost of all.
£35,553 ............. ........... £213 318
100
6
29,886 ............. ...........
358 632
12
90
23,638 ............. ...........
283 656
12
80
17,785 ............. ............
70
764.755
48
14,197 ............. ...........
60
496.895
35
10,606 ............. ...........
40
50
424,240
7,758 ............. ...........
40
344,110
45
3,710 ............. ...........
58
20
215,180
85 Sloops, bombs, and)
fireships, one with;- 2,000 ..........................
170,000
another.
J
----------Cost ......................... 8,270.786
Remains for guns
....
229,214
£3,500,0001
No country on the globe is so happily situated, or so internally
capable of raising a fleet, as America. Tar, timber, iron, and
cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for
nothing. Whereas the Dutch, who make large profits by hiring
out their ships of war to the Spaniards and Portuguese, are
obliged to import most of the materials they use. We ought
to view the building a fleet as an article of commerce, it being
the natural manufactory of this country. It is the best money
we can lay out. A navy, when finished, is worth more than it
cost; and is that nice point in national policy in which commerce
and protection are united. Let us build; if we want them not,
we can sell; and by that means replace our paper currency with
ready gold and silver.
In point of manning a fleet people in general run into great
errors. It is not necessary that one fourth part should be sailors.
The “Terrible,’’privateer,Captain Death, stood thehottestengagement of any ship last war, yet had not twenty sailors on board,
though her complement of men was upwards of two hundred. A
few able and sociable sailors will soon instruct a sufficient number
of active landsmen in the common work of a ship. Wherefore,
we never can be more capable to begin on maritime matters than
now, while our timber is standing, our fisheries blocked up, and
our sailors and shipwrights out of employ. Men of war of
seventy and eighty guns were built forty years ago in New
England, and why not the same now? Ship building is America’s
greatest pride, and in which she will in time excel the whole
world. The great empires of the east are mostly inland, and
consequently excluded from the possibility of rivalling her.
Africa is in a state of barbarism, and no power in Europe hath
either such an extent of coast, or such an internal supply of
materials. Where nature hath given the one she has withheld
1 Mr. Paine would be a little astonished if he could to-day examine
the estimates for an English ironclad.
�32
Common Sense.
the other. To America only hath she been liberal in both. The
vast empire of Russia is almost shut out from the sea ; where
fore her boundless forests, her tar, iron, and cordage are only
articles of commerce.
In point of safety, ought we to be without a fleet ? We are not
the little people now which we were sixty years ago. At that time
we might have trusted our property in the street, or field rather,
and slept securely without locks or bolts to our doors or
windows. The case now is altered, and our methods of defence
ought to improve with our increase of property. A common
pirate, twelve months ago, might have come up the Delaware and
laid the City of Philadelphia under instant contribution for what
sum he pleased, and the same might have happened to other places.
Nay, any daring fellow, in a brig of fourteen or sixteen guns,
might have robbed the whole continent, and carried off half a
million of money. These are circumstances which demand our
attention, and point out the necessity of naval protection.
Some, perhaps, will say that after we have made it up with
Britain, she will protect us. Can we be so unwise as to mean
that she shall keep a navy in our harbors for that purpose?
Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored
to subdue us is, of all others, the most improper to defend
•us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship,
and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last
cheated into slavery. And if her ships are not to be admitted
into our harbors, I would ask, how is she to protect us ? A
navy three or four thousand miles off can be of little use, and on
sudden emergencies none at all. Wherefore, if we must here
after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves ? why do it
for another ?
The English list of ships of war is long and formidable, but
not a tenth part of them are at any one time fit for service,
numbers of them not in being, yet their names are pompously
continued in the list, if only a plank be left of the ship; and not
a fifth part of such as are fit for service can be spared on any one
station at one time. The East and West Indies, Mediterranean,
Africa, and other parts over which Britain extends her claim,
make large demands upon her navy. From a mixture of preju
dice and inattention, we have contracted a false notion respecting
me navy of England, and have talked as if we should have the
/vnole of it to encounter at once, and for that reason supposed
mat we must have one as large, which not being instantly prac
ticable, has been made use of by a set of disguised Tories to
discourage our beginning thereon. Nothing can be farther from
truth than this, for if America had only a twentieth part of the
naval force of Britain, she would be by far an overmatch for her,
because, as we neither have nor claim any foreign dominion, our
own force will be employed on our own coast, where we should,
in the long run, have two to one the advantage of those who had
three or four thousand miles to sail over before they could
attack us, and the same distance to return in order to refit and
�33
Common Sense.
recruit. And although Britain, by her fleet, hath a check over
our trade to Europe, we have as large a one over her trade to the
West Indies, which, by lying in the neighborhood of the continent,
is entirely at its mercy.
Some method might be fallen on to keep up a naval force in
the time of peace, if we should not judge it necessary to support
a constant navy. If premiums were to be given to merchants, to
build and employ in their service ships mounted with twenty,
thirty, forty, or fifty guns (the premiums to be in proportion to
the loss of bulk to the merchants,) fifty or sixty of those ships,
with a few guardships on constant duty, would keep up a suffi
cient navy, and that without burdening ourselves with the evil
so loudly complained of in England, of suffering their fleet, in
time of peace, to lie rotting in the docks. To unite the sinews of
commerce and defence is sound policy, for when our strength and
our riches play into each other’s hands we need fear no external
enemy.
In almost every article of defence we abound. Hemp flourishes
even to rankness, so that we need not want cordage. Our iron
is superior to that of other countries. Our small arms equal to
any in the world. Cannon we can cast at pleasure. Saltpetre
and gunpowder we are every day producing. Our knowledge is
hourly improving. Resolution is our inherent character, and
courage hath never yet forsaken us. Wherefore, what is it we
want ? Why is it that we hesitate ? From Britain we expect
nothing but ruin. If she is once admitted to the government of
America again, this continent will not be worth living in.
Jealousies will be always arising ; insurrections will be constantly
happening; and who will go forth to quell them ? Who will
venture his life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign obedi
ence ? The difference between Pennsylvania and Connecticut,
respecting some unlocated lands, shows the insignificance of a
British government, and fully proves that nothing but continental
authority can regulate continental matters.
Another reason why the present time is preferable to all others
is, that the fewer our numbers are, the more land there is yet
unoccupied, which, instead of being lavished by the king on his
Worthless dependents, may be hereafter applied, not only to the
discharge of the present debt, but to the constant support of
government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage
as this.
The infant state of the colonies, as it is called, so far from being
against, is an argument in favor of independence. We are suffi.
oiently numerous, and were we more so, we might be less united.
It is a matter worthy of observation that the more a country is
peopled, the smaller their armies are. In military numbers the
ancient far exceeded the moderns; and the reason is evident, for
trade being the consequence of population, men become too much
absorbed thereby to attend to anything else. Commerce dimiishes the spirit both of patriotism and military defence; and
history sufficiently informs us, that the bravest achievements
C
�34
Common Sense.
were always accomplished in the nonage of a nation. With the
increase of commerce, England hath lost its spirit. The city of
London, notwithstanding its numbers, submits to continued
insults with the patience of a coward. The more men have to
lose, the less willing they are to venture. The rich are in general
slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling
duplicity of a spaniel.
Youth is the seed-time of good habits, as well in nations as in
individuals. It might be difficult, if not impossible, to form the
continent into one government half a century hence. The vast
variety of interests, occasioned by the increase of trade and popu
lation, would create confusion. Colony would be against colony.
Each being able, might scorn each other’s assistance ; and while
the proud and foolish gloried in their little distinctions, the wise
would lament that the union had not been formed before. Where
fore, the present time is the true time for establishing it. The
intimacy which is contracted in infancy, and the friendship which
is formed in misfortune, are of all others the most lasting and
honorable. Our present union is marked with both these cha
racters ; we are young, and we have been distressed; but our
concord hath withstood our troubles, and fixes a memorable era
for posterity to glory in.
The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time which never
happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of forming itself into
a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and
by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their
conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves. First, they
had a king, and then a form of government; whereas, the articles
or charter of government should be formed first, and men dele
gated to execute them afterwards; but from the errors of other
nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present oppor
tunity—to begin government at the right end.
When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave them
law at the point of the sword, and until we consent that the seat
of government in America be legally and authoritatively occupied,
we shall be in danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruf
fian, who may treat us in the same manner; and then, where
will be our freedom ? where our property ?
As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all
governments to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I
know of no other business which government hath to do there
with. Let a man throw aside that narrowness of soul, that sel
fishness of principle, which the niggards of all professions are so
unwilling to part with, and he will be at once delivered of his
fears on that head. Suspicion is the companion of mean souls,
and the bane of all good society. For myself, I fully and con
scientiously believe that it is the will of the Almighty that there
should be a diversity of religious opinions among us; it affords a
larger field for our Christian kindness. Were we all of one way
of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for
probation; and on this liberal principle, I look on the various
�Common Sense.
35
denominations among us to be, like children of the same family,
differing only in what is called their Christian names.
In page twenty-seven I threw out a few thoughts on the pro
priety of a continental charter (for I only presume to offer hints,
not plans), and in this place I take the liberty of re-mentioning
the subject by observing that a charter is to be understood as a
bond of solemn obligation, which the whole enters into, to sup
port the right of every separate part, whether of religion, per
sonal freedom, or property. A firm bargain and a right reckon
*
ing make long friends.
In a former page I likewise mentioned the necessity of a large
and equal representation, and there is no political matter which
more deserves our attention. A small number of electors, or a
small number of representatives, are equally dangerous ; but if the
number of the representatives be not only small, but unequal, the
danger is increased. As an instance of this I mention the follow
ing : When the Associators’ petition was before the House of
Assembly of Pennsylvania twenty-eight members only were pre
*
sent; all the Bucks county members, being eight, voted against it,
and had seven of the Chester members done the same, this whole
province had been governed by two counties only, and this danger
it is always exposed to. The unwarrantable stretch, likewise,
which that House made in their last sitting, to gain an undue
authority over the delegates of that province, ought to warn the
people at large how they trust power out of their own hands. A
set of instructions for the delegates were put together, which in
point of sense and business would have dishonored a schoolboy ;
and after being approved by a few, a very few, without doors,
were carried into the House, and there passed in behalf of th®
whole colony; whereas, did the whole colony know with what
ill-will that House had entered on some necessary public
measures, they would not hesitate a moment to think them un
*
worthy of such a trust.
Immediate necessity makes many things convenient, which, if
continued, would grow into oppressions. Experience and right
are different things. When the calamities of America required
a consultation, there was no method so ready, or at that time so
proper, as to appoint persons from the several Houses of As
sembly for that purpose ; and the wisdom with which they have
proceeded hath preserved this continent from ruin. But as it is
more than probable that we shall ever be without a Congress,
every well-wisher to good order must own that the mode for
choosing members of that body deserves consideration. And I
put it as a question to those who make a study of mankind,
whether representation and election are not too great a power
for one and the same body of men to possess? When we are
planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary.
It is from our enemies that we often gain excellent maxima
and are frequently surprised into reason by their mistakes. Mr.
Cornwall, one of the Lords of the Treasury, treated the petition
c 2
�36
Common Sense.
of the New York Assembly with contempt, because that House’
he said, consisted but of twenty-six members, which trifling
number, he argued, could not with decency be put for the whole.
We thank him for his involuntary honesty.
*
To conclude : however strange it may appear to some, or how
ever unwilling they may be to think so, matters not; but many
strong and striking reasons may be given, to show that nothing
can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined
declaration for independence. Some of which are:
First. It is the custom of nations, when any two are at war, for
some other powers not engaged in the quarrel, to step in as
mediators, and bring about the preliminaries of a peace; but
while America calls herself the subject of Great Britain, no power,
however well-disposed she may be, can offer her mediation.
Wherefore, in our present state, we may quarrel on for ever.
Secondly. It is unreasonable to suppose that France or Spain
will give us any kind of assistance, if we mean only to make use
of that assistance for the purpose of repairing the breach, and
strengthening the connexion between Britain and America, be
cause those powers would be sufferers by the consequences.
Thirdly. While we profess ourselves the subjects of Britain,
we must, in the eyes of foreign nations, be considered as rebels.
The precedent is somewhat dangerous to their peace, for men to
be in arms under the name of subjects ; we, on the spot, can solve
the paradox; but to unite resistance and subjection requires an
idea much too refined for common understandings.
Fourthly. Were a manifesto to be published, and dispatched
to foreign Courts, setting forth the miseries we have endured,
and the peaceable methods we have ineffectually used for redress,
declaring, at the same time, that not being able any longer to live
happily or safely under the cruel disposition of the British Court,
we had been driven to the necessity of breaking off all connexion
with her; at the same time assuring all such Courts of our
peaceable disposition towards them, and of our desire of entering
into trade with them ; such a memorial would produce more good
effects to this continent than if a ship were freighted with petitions
to Britain.
Under our present denomination of British subjects, we can
neither be received nor heard abroad; the custom of all Courts
is against us, and will be so until, by an independence, we take
rank with other nations.
These proceedings may at first appear strange and difficult;
but like other steps which we have already passed over, will in a
little time become familiar and agreeable; and until an indepen
dence is declared, the continent will find itself like a man who
continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day,
yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over,
and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity.
♦Those who would fully understand of what great consequenee a large
and equal representation is to a State, should read Burgh’s “ Political Disquisi
tions.’’
�Common Sense.
37
APPENDIX.
„
5
*
Since the publication of the first edition of this pamphlet, or
rather on the same day on which it came out, the king’s speech
made its appearance in this city. Had the spirit of prophecy
directed the birth of this production, it could not have brought
it forth at a more seasonable juncture, or a more necessary time.
The bloody-mindedness of the one shows the necessity of pursu
ing the doctrine of the other. Men read by way of revenge.
And the speech, instead of terrifying, prepared a way for the
manly principles of independence.
Ceremony, and even silence, from whatever motive they may
arise, have a hurtful tendency, when they give the least degree of
countenance to base and wicked performances ; wherefore, if this
maxim be admitted, it naturally follows, that the king’s speech,
as being a piece of finished villainy, deserved, and still deserves,
a general execration both by the Congress and the People. Yet
as the domestic tranquillity of a nation depends greatly on the
chastity of what may properly be called national manners, it is
often better to pass some things over in silent disdain, than to
make use of such new methods of dislike as might introduce the
least innovation on the guardian of our peace and safety. And,
perhaps, it is chiefly owing to this prudent delicacy, that the
king’s speech hath not, before now, suffered a public execration.
The speech, if it may be called one, is nothing better than a
wilful, audacious libel against the truth, the common good, and
the existence of mankind ; and is a formal and pompous method
of offering up human sacrifices to the pride of tyrants. But this
general massacre of mankind is one of the privileges, and the
certain consequence of kings: for as Nature knows them not,
they know not her; and although they are beings of our own
creating, they know not us, and are become the gods of their
creators. The speech hath one good quality, which is, that it is
not calculated to deceive; neither can we, even if we would, be
deceived by it; brutality and tyranny appear on the face of it.
It leaves us at no loss ; and every line convinces, even in the
moment of reading, that he who hunts the woods for prey, the
naked and untutored Indian, is less a savage than the king of
Britain.
Sir John Dalrymple, the putative father of a whining, Jesuitical
piece, fallaciously called “The Address of the People of England
to the Inhabitants of America,” hath, perhaps, from a vain sup
position that the people here were to be frightened at the pomp
and description of a king, given (though very unwisely on his part)
the real character of the present one. “ But,” says this writer,
“if you are inclined to pay compliments to an administration
which we do not complain of ” (meaning the Marquis of Rock* ngham’s at the repeal of the Stamp Act), “ it is very unfair in
ou to withhold them from that prince by whose nod alone they
�38
Common Sense.
were permitted to do anything.” This is Toryism with a witness!
Here is idolatry even with a mask! and he who can calmly hear
and digest such doctrine hath forfeited his claim to rationality—
an apostate from the order of manhood—and ought to be con
sidered as one who hath not only given up the proper dignity of
man, but sunk himself beneath the rank of animals, and con
temptibly crawls through the world like a worm.
It is now the interest of America to provide for herself. She
hath already a large and young family, whom it is more her duty
to take care of than to be granting away her property, to sup
port a power who is become a reproach to the names of men and
Christians. Ye, whose office it is to watch over the morals of a
nation, of whatsoever sect or denomination ye are of, as well as
ye who are more immediately the guardians of the public liberty,
if ye wish to preserve your native country uncontaminated by
European corruption, ye must in secret wish a separation. But
leaving the moral part to private reflexion, I shall chiefly coniine
my farther remarks to the following heads:—
First. That it is the interest of America to be separated from
Britain.
Secondly. Which is the easiest and most practicable plan,
Reconciliation or Independence ? with some occasional remarks.
In support of the first, I could, if I judged it proper, produce
the opinion of some of the ablest and most experienced men on
this continent; and whose sentiments on that head are not yet
publicly known. It is in reality a self-evident position ; for no
nation in a state of foreign dependence, limited in its commerce,
and cramped and fettered in its legislative powers, can ever arrive
at any material eminence. America doth not yet know what
opulence is; and although the progress which she hath made
stands unparalleled in the history of other nations, it is but child
hood, compared with what she would be capable of arriving at,
had she, as she ought to have, the legislative power in her own
hands. England is, at this time, proudly coveting what would
do her no good, were she to accomplish it; and the continent,
hesitating on the matter, which will be her final ruin, if neglected.
It is the commerce and not the conquest of America by which
England is to be benefited ; and that would in a great measure
continue, were the countries as independent of each other as
France and Spain; because in many articles, neither can go to a
better market. But it is the independence of this country of
Britain or any other, which is now the main and only object
worthy of contention ; and which, like all other truths discovered
by necessity, will appear clearer and stronger every day.
First. Because it will come to that one time or other.
Secondly. Because the longer it is delayed the harder it will
be to accomplish.
I have frequently amused myself, both in public and private
companies, with silently remarking the specious errors of those
who spoke without reflecting. And among the many which I have
heard, the following seems the most general, viz.: That had this
�Common Sense.
39
rupture happened forty or fifty years hence, instead of now, the
continent would have been more able to have shaken off the de
pendence. To which I reply, that our military ability, at this
time, arises from the experience gained in the last war, and which,
in forty or fifty years’ time, would have been totally extinct. The
continent would not, by that time, have had a general, or even
a military officer, left; and we, or those who may succeed.us,
would have been as ignorant of martial matters as the ancient
Indians. And this single position closely attended to, will unan
swerably prove, that the present time is preferable to all others.
The argument turns thus: At the conclusion of the last war we
had experience, but wanted numbers, and forty or fifty years
hence we shall have numbers without experience ; wherefore, the
proper point of time must be some particular point between the
two extremes, in which a sufficiency of the former remains, and a
proper increase of the latter is obtained; and that point of time
is the present time.
The reader will pardon this digression, as it does not properly
come under the head I first set out with, and to which I shall
again return by the following position, viz :
Should affairs be patched up with Britain, and she to remain
the governing and sovereign power of America (which, as matters
are now circumstanced, is giving up the point entirely), we shall
deprive ourselves of the very means of sinking the debt we have
or may contract. The value of the back land, which some of
the provinces are clandestinely deprived of, by the unjust exten
sion of the limits of Canada, valued at only five pounds sterling
per hundred acres, amounts to upwards of twenty-five millions
Pennsylvania currency ; and the quit rents at one penny sterling
per acre, or two millions yearly.
It is by the sale of those lands that the debt may be sunk,
without burden to any, and the quit-rent reserved thereon will
always lessen, and in time will wholly support the yearly expense
of government. It matters not how long the debt is in paying,
so that the lands, when sold, be applied to the discharge of it;
and for the execution of which, the Congress for the time being
will be continental trustees.
I proceed now to the second head, viz.: Which is the easiest
and most practical plan, Reconciliation or Independence ? with
some occasional remarks.
He who takes nature for his guide is not easily beaten out of
his argument, and on that ground I answer generally—that
independence being a Bingle simple line contained within our
selves, and reconciliation a matter exceedingly perplexed and
complicated, and in which a treacherous, capricious court is to
interfere, gives the answer without a doubt.
The present state of America is truly alarming to every man
who is capable of reflection. Without law, without government,
without other mode of power than what is founded on, and
granted by courtesy; held together by an unexampled occurrence
of sentiment, which is nevertheless subject to change, and which
�40
Common Sense.
every secret enemy is endeavoring to dissolve. Our present
condition is legislation without law, wisdom without a plan, a
constitution without a name ; and what is strangely astonishing,
perfect independence contending for dependence. The instance
is without a precedent; the case never existed before ; and who
can tell what may be the event; the property of no man is secure
in the present embarrassed system of things; the mind of the multi
tude is left at random; and seeing no fixed object before them,
they pursue such as fancy or opinion starts. Nothing is criminal ;
there is no such thing as treason; wherefore everyone thinks
himself at liberty to act as he pleases. The Tories dared not to
have assembled offensively, had they known that their lives,
by that act, were forfeited to the laws of the state. A line of
distinction should be drawn between English soldiers taken in
battle, and inhabitants of America taken in arms. The first are
prisoners, but the latter traitors. The one forfeits his liberty,
the other his head.
Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in
some of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions.
The continental belt is too loosely buckled ; and if something be
not done in time, it will be too late to do anything, and we shall
fall into a state, in which neither reconciliation nor independence
will be practicable. The Court and its worthless adherents are
got at their old game of dividing the continent; and there are not
wanting among us printers, who will be busy in spreading specious
falsehoods. The artful and hypocritical letters which appeared,
a few months ago, in two of the New York papers, and likewise
in two others, are an evidence, that there are men who want
either judgment or honesty.
It is easy getting into holes or corners, and talking of recon
ciliation ; but do such men seriously consider, how difficult the task
is, and how dangerous it may prove, should the continent divide
thereon ? Do they take within their view all the various orders
of men, whose situations and circumstances, as well as their own,
are to be considered therein ? Do they put themselves in the
place of the sufferer whose all is already gone, and of the soldier
who hath quitted all for the defence of his country ? If their
ill-judged moderation be suited to their own private situations
only, regardless of others, the event will convince them “that
they are reckoning without their host.”
Put us, say some, on the footing we were on in sixty-three.
To which I answer, the request is not now in the power of
Britain to comply with ; neither will she propose it; but if it
were, and even should be granted, I ask, as a reasonable question,
by what means is such a corrupt and faithless Court to be kept
to its engagements? Another Parliament, nay, even the present,
may hereafter repeal the obligation, on the pretence of its being
violently obtained, or unwisely granted ; and in that case, where
is our redress ? No going to law with nations; cannon are the
barristers of crowns ; and the sword, not of justice, but of war,
decides the suit. To be on the footing of sixty-three, it is not
�Common Sense.
41
sufficient that the laws only be put on the same state, but that
our circumstances, likewise, be put on the same state ; our burnt
and destroyed towns repaired or built up; our private losses
made good, our public debts (contracted for defence) discharged ;
otherwise, we shall be millions worse than we were at that envi
able period. Such a request, had it been complied with a year
ago, would have won the heart and soul of the continent—but it
is now too late, “ the rubicon is passed.”
Besides, the taking up arms merely to enforce the repeal of a
pecuniary law, seems as unwarrantable by the divine law, and as
repugnant to human feelings, as the taking up arms to enforce
obedience thereto. The object on either side does not justify
the means ; for the lives of men are too valuable to be cast away
on such trifles. It is the violence which is done and threatened to
our persons ; the destruction of our property by an armed force ;
the invasion of our country by fire and sword, which conscien
tiously qualifies the use of arms; and the instant in which such
a mode of defence became necessary, all subjection to Britain
ought to have ceased ; and the independence of America should
have been considered as dating its era from, and published by the
first musket that was first fired against her. This line is a line of
consistency ; neither drawn by caprice, nor extended by ambition;
but produced by a chain of events, of which the colonies were
not the authors.
I shall conclude these remarks with the following timely and
well-intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there are three
different ways by which an independency can hereafter be effected ;
and that one of those three will one day or other be the fate of
America, viz. : By the legal voice of the people in Congress, by a
military power, or by a mob. It may not always happen that our
soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men;
virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it
perpetual. Should an independency be brought about by the first
of those means, we have every opportunity and every encourage
ment before us to form the noblest, purest constitution on the
face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world
over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened
since the days of Noah till now. The birthday of a new world
is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe
contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event
of a few months. The reflexion is awful—and in this point of
view, how trifling, how ridiculous, do the little paltry cavillings of
a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the
business of a world.
Should we neglect the present favorable and inviting period,
and an independence be hereafter effected by any other means, we
must charge the consequence to ourselves, or to those rather
whose narrow and prejudiced souls are habitually opposing the
measure, without either inquiring or reflecting. There are reasons
to be given in support of independence, which men should rather
privately think of, than be publicly told of. We ought not now
�42
Common Sense.
to be debating whether we shall be independent or not, but
anxious to accomplish it on a firm, secure, and honorable basis,
and uneasy rather that it is not yet begun upon. Every day
convinces us of its necessity. Even the Tories (if such beings
yet remain among us) should, of all men, be the most solicitous
to promote it; for, as the appointment of committees at first
protected them from popular rage, so a wise and well-established
form of government will be the only certain means of continuing
it securely to them. Wherefore, if they have not virtue enough
to be Whigs, they ought to have prudence enough to wish for
independence.
In short, independence is the only bond that can tie and keep
us together ; we shall then see our object, and our ears will be
legally shut against the schemes of an intriguing, as well as a
cruel enemy. We shall then, too, be on a proper footing to treat
with Britain; for there is reason to conclude that the pride of
that Court will be less hurt by treating with the American States
for terms of peace, than with those whom she denominates
“rebellious subjects,” for terms of accommodation. It is our
delaying it that encourages her to hope for conquest, and our
backwardness tends only to prolong the war. As we have, with
out any good effect therefrom, withheld our trade to obtain
a redress of our grievances, let us now try the alternative by
independently redressing them ourselves, and then offering to
open the trade. The mercantile and reasonable part in England
will be still with us, because, peace with trade is preferable to
war without it; and if this offer be not accepted, other courts
may be applied to.
On these grounds I rest the matter. And as no offer hath yet
been made to refute the doctrine contained in the former editions
of this pamphlet, it is a negative proof that either the doctrine
cannot be refuted, or that the party in favor of it are too
numerous to be opposed. Wherefore, instead of gazing at each
other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us hold
out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in
drawing a line which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in
forgetfulness every former dissension. Let the names of Whig
and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard amoDg us than
those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous
supporter of the rights of mankind, and of the free and inde
pendent States of America.
�Common Sense.
43
To the Representatives of the Religious Society of the People called
Quakers, or to so many of them as were concerned in publishing
a late Piece, intituled: “ The Ancient Testimony and Principles
of the People called Quakers renewed, with respect to the King and
Government, and touching the Commotions now prevailing in these
and other parts of America, addressed to the People in England.'’’
The writer of this is one of those few, who never dishonor
religion, either by ridiculing or cavilling at any denomination
whatsoever. To God, and not to man, are all men accountable
on the score of religion. Wherefore this epistle is not so properly
addressed to you, as a religious, but as a political body, dabbling
in matters, which the professed quietude of your principles
instruct you not to meddle with.
As you have, without a proper authority for so doing, put
yourselves in the place of the whole body of the Quakers, so the
writer of this, in order to be on equal rank with yourselves, is
under the necessity of putting himself in the place of all those
who approve the very writings and principles, against which your
testimony is directed ; and he hath chosen this singular situation
in order that you might discover in him that presumption of
character which you cannot see in yourselves. For neither he
nor you can have any claim or title to political representation.
When men have departed from the right way, it is no wonder
that they stumble and fall. And it is evident from the manner
in which ye have managed your testimony, that politics (as a reli
gious body of men) is not your proper walk ; however well
adapted it might appear to you, it is, nevertheless, a jumble of
good and bad put unwisely together, and the conclusion drawn
therefrom, both unnatural and unjust.
The two first pages (and the whole doth not make four), we
give you credit for, and expect the same civility from you because
the love and desire of peace is not confined to Quakerism, it is
the natural as well as the religious wish of all denominations of
men. And on this ground, as men laboring to establish an
independent constitution of our own, do we exceed all others in
our hope, end, and aim. Our plan is peace for ever. We are tired
of contention with Britain, and can see no real end to it but in final
separation. We act consistently, because for the sake of intro
ducing an endless and uninterrupted peace, do we bear the evils
and burdens of the present day. We are endeavoring, and will
steadily continue to endeavor, to separate and dissolve a con
nexion, which hath already filled our land with blood; and
which, while the name of it remains, will be the fatal cause of
future mischiefs to both countries.
We fight neither for revenge nor conquest; neither from pride
nor passion; we are not insulting the world with our fleets and
armies, nor ravaging the globe for plunder. Beneath the shade of
�44
Common Sense.
our own vines are we attacked; in our own houses, and in our own
land, is the violence committed against us. We view our enemies
in the character of highwaymen and housebreakers; and having
no defence for ourselves in the civil law, are obliged to punish
them by the military one, and apply the sword in the very case
where you have before now applied the halter. Perhaps we feel
for the ruined and insulted sufferers in all and every part of the
continent, with a degree of tenderness which hath not yet made
its way into some of your bosoms. But be ye sure that ye
mistake not the cause and ground of your testimony. Call not
coldness of soul religion, nor put the bigot in the place of the
Christian.
O ye partial ministers of your own acknowledged principles!
if the bearing arms be sinful, the first going to war must be more
so, by all the difference between wilful attack and unavoidable
defence. Wherefore, if ye really preach from conscience, and
mean not to make apolitical hobby-horse of your religion, convince
the world thereof, by proclaiming your doctrine to our enemies,
for they likewise bear arms. Give us a proof of your sincerity by
publishing it at St. James’s, to the commanders-in-chief at Boston,
to the admirals and captains who are piratically ravaging our
coasts, and to all the murdering miscreants who are acting
in authority under the tyrant whom ye profess to serve. Had
ye the honest soul of Barclay, ye would preach repentance
*
to your king ; ye would tell the despot of his sins, and warn him
of eternal ruin. Ye would not spend your partial invectives
against the injured and the insulted only, but like faithful
ministers, would cry aloud and spare none. Say not that ye
are persecuted, neither endeavor to make us the authors of
that reproach, which ye are bringing upon yourselves, for we
testify unto all men that we do not complain against ye because
ye are Quakers, but because ye pretend to be, and are not
Quakers.
Alas! it seems by the particular tendency of some part of your
testimony, and other parts of your conduct, as if all sin was
reduced to, and comprehended in, the act of bearing arms, and
that by the people only. Ye appear to us to have mistaken party
for conscience ; because the general tenor of your actions wants
uniformity ; and it is exceedingly difficult to us to give credit to
many of your pretended scruples ; because we see them made by
the same men, who, in the very instant that they are exclaiming
against the mammon of this world, are, nevertheless, hunting after
* “ Thou hast tasted of prosperity and adversity! thou knowest what it is to be
banished thy native country, to be overruled as well as to rule, and set upon the
throne: and being oppressed,thou hast reason to know how hateful the oppressor
is both to God and man. If after all these warnings and advertisements, thou dost
not turn unto the Lord with all thy heart, but forget him who remembered thee in
thy distress, and give up thyself to follow lust and vanity, surely great will be thy
condemnation; against which snare, as well as the temptation of those who may or
do feed thee, and prompt thee to evil, the most excellent and prevalent remedy will
be to apply thyself to that light of Christ which shineth in thy conscience, and
which neither can, nor will flatter thee, nor suffer thee to be at ease in thy sins.”
Barclay’s Address to Charles II.
�Common Sense,
45
it with a step as steady as time, and an appetite as keen as
death.
The quotation which ye have made from Proverbs, in the third
page of your testimony, that when a man’s ways please the Lord,
he maketh “ even his enemies to be at peace with him,” is very
unwisely chosen on your part, because it amounts to a proof that
the tyrant whom ye are so desirous of supporting does not please
the Lord, otherwise his reign would be in peace.
I now proceed to the latter part of your testimony, and that for
which all the foregoing seems only an introduction, viz:—
“ It hath ever been our judgment and principle, since we are
called to profess the light of Christ Jesus manifested in our con
sciences unto this day, that the setting up and putting down kings
and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative for causes best
known to himself ; and that it is not our business to have any hand
or contrivance therein ; nor to be busy-bodies above our station,
much less to plot and contrive the ruin, or overturn of any of
them, but to pray for the king and safety of our nation and good
of all men ; that we might live a peaceable and quiet life, in all
godliness and honesty, under the government which God is
pleased to set over us.” If these are really your principles, why
do ye not abide by them ? Why do ye not leave that which ye
call God’s work to be managed by himself ? These very principles
instruct you to wait with patience and humility for the event of
all public measures, and to receive that event as the divine will
towards you. Wherefore, what occasion is there for your political
testimony, if you fully believe what it contains ? And, therefore,
publishing it proves that you either do not believe what ye
profess, or have not virtue enough to practice what ye believe.
The principles of Quakerism have a direct tendency to make a
man the quiet and inoffensive subject of any and every govern
ment which is set over him. And as the setting up and putting down
of kings and governments is God’s peculiar prerogative, he most
certainly will not be robbed thereof by us; wherefore the prin
ciple itself leads you to approve of everything which ever
happened, or may happen, to kings, as being his work. Oliver
Cromwell thanks you. Charles, then, died, not by the hands of
men; and should the present proud imitator of him come to the
same untimely end, the writers and publishers of the testimony
are bound, by the doctrine it contains, to applaud the fact.
Kings are not taken away by miracles, neither are changes in
governments brought about by any other means than such as
are common and human ; and such as we are now using. Even
the dispersion of the Jews, though foretold by our Savior, was
effected by arms. Wherefore, as ye refuse to be the means on
one side, ye ought not to be meddlers on the other, but to wait
the issue in silence; and unless ye can produce divine authority,
to prove that the Almighty, who hath created and placed this new
world at the greatest distance it could possibly stand, east and
west, from every part of the old, doth, nevertheless, disapprove of
its being independent of the corrupt and abandoned Court of
�46
• Common Sense.
Britain; unless, I say, ye can show this, how can ye, on the ground
of your principles, justify the exciting and stirring up the people
“ firmly to unite in the abhorrence of all such writings and mea
sures as evidence a desire and design to break off the happy con
nexion we have hitherto enjoyed with the kingdom of Great
Britain, and our just and necessary subordination to the king,
and those who are lawfully placed in authority under him."
What a slap of the face is here ! the men who, in the very para
graph before, have quietly and passively resigned up the order
ing, altering, and disposal of kings and governments into the
hands of God, are now recalling their principles, and putting in
for a share of the business. Is it possible that the conclusion which
is here justly quoted, can any ways follow from the doctrine laid
down ? The inconsistency is too glaring not to be seen; the
absurdity too great not to be laughed at; and such as could
only have been made by those whose understandings were
darkened by the narrow and crabbed spirit of a despairing poli
tical party; for ye are not to be considered as the whole body of
the Quakers, but only as a factional or fractional part thereof.
Here ends the examination of your testimony (which I call
upon no man to abhor, as ye have done, but only to read and
judge of fairly), to which I subjoin the following remark : “ That
the setting up and putting down of kings,” must certainly mean,
the making him a king, who is yet not so, and the making him
no king who is already one. And pray what hath this to do in
the present case? We neither mean to set up nor to put down,
neither to make nor to unmake, but to have nothing to do with
them. Wherefore, your testimony, in whatever light it is viewed,
serves only to dishonor your judgment, and for many other
reasons had better have been left alone than published.
First. Because it tends to the decrease and reproach of all
religion whatever, and is of the utmost danger to society, to
make it a party in political disputes.
Secondly. Because it exhibits a body of men, numbers of
whom disavow the publishing political testimonies, as being
concerned therein and approvers thereof.
Thirdly. Because it hath a tendency to undo that continental
harmony and friendship which yourselves, by your late liberal
and charitable donations, have lent a hand to establish ; and the
preservation of which is of the utmost consequence to us all.
And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell.
Sincerely wishing that, as men and Christians, ye may always
fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right;
and be in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that
the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion
with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabi
tant of America.
�Works by CHAS. BRADLAUGH—
The Freethinker’s Text-Book. Part I.¥ Section I.—“The Story
of the Origin of Man, as told by the Bible and by Science.” Sec
tion II.—“What is Religion?” “How^has it Grown ?” “God and
Soul.” Bound in cloth, price 2s. 6d.
Impeachment of the House of Brunswick.—Ninth edition. Is.
Political Essays. Bound in cloth, 2s. 6d.
Theological Essays. Bound in cloth, 3s.
Hints to Emigrants, containing important information on the
United States, Canada, and New Zealand. Is.
Debates—
Four — with the Rev. Dr. Baylee, in Liverpool; the Rev. Dr.
Harrison, in London; Thomas Cooper, in London; the Rev.
R. A. Armstrong, in Nottingham ; with Three Discourses by
the Bishop of Peterborough and replies by C. Bradlaugh.
Bound in one volume, cloth, 3s.
. gji-w
What does Christian Theism Teach ? A verbatim report' of two
nights’ Public Debate with the Rev. A. J. Harrison. Second
edition. 6d.
God, Man, and the Bible. A verbatim report of a three nights’
Discussion at Liverpool with the Rev. Dr. Baylee. 6d.
On the Being of a God as the Maker and Moral Governor of the
Universe. A verbatim report of a two nights’ Discussion with
Thomas Cooper. 6d.
Has Man a Soul? A verbatim report of two nights’debate at
Burnley, with the Rev. W. M. Westerby. Is.
Christianity in relation to Freethought, Scepticism and Faith.
Three Discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough with
Special Replies. 6d.
’
Secularism Unphilosophical, Unsocial and Immoral.
Threo
nights’ debate with the Rev. Dr. McCann. Is.
Is it Reasonable to Worship God? A verbatim report of two
nights’ debate at Nottingham with the Rev. R. A. Armstrong
Is.
The True Story of my Parliamentary Struggle. Contain
ing a Verbatim Report of the proceedings before the Select
Committee of the House of Commons ; Mr. Bradlaugh’s
Three Speeches at the Bar of the House, etc., etc.
0 6
Fourth Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons. 30th
Thousand
0
May the House of Commons Commit Treason? ...
0
A Cardinal’s Broken Oath
0 1
Perpetual Pensions. Fortieth thousand
...
0 2
Civil Lists and Grants to Royal Family
...
0 1
The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle...
0 2
Five Dead Men whom I Knew when Living. Sketches of
Robert Owen, Joseph Mazzini, John Stuart Mill, Charles
Sumner and Ledru Rollin ...
0 4
Cromwell and Washington: a Contrast...
0 6
Anthropology. In neat wrapper
0 4
When were our Gospels Written ?
0 6
Plea for Atheism
0 3
Has Man a Soul ?
0 2
The Laws Relating to Blasphemy and Heresy
0 6
Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus, an Essay on the Population
Question
0 2
�Verbatim Report of the Trial of C. Bradlaugh before Lord Cole
ridge for Blasphemy, in three Special Extra Numbers of the
National Reformer. 6d.
Verbatim Report of the Trial, The Queen against Bradlaugh and
Besant. Cloth, 5s. With Portraits and Autographs of the two
Defendants. Second Edition, with Appendix, containing the
judgments of Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett, and Cotton.
Works by ANNIE BESANT—
The Freethinker’s Text-Book. Part II. “On Christianity.”
Section I.—“Christianity: its Evidences Unreliable.” Section
II—“Its Origin Pagan.” Section III.—“Its Morality Fallible.”
Section IV.—“Condemned by its History.” Bound in cloth,
3s. 6d.
History of the Great French Revolution. Cloth, 2s.
My Path to Atheism. Collected Essays. The Deity of Jesus—
Inspiration—Atonement— Eternal Punishment—Prayer — Re
vealed Religion—and the Existence of God, all examiner) and
rejected; together with some Essays on the Book of Common
Prayer. Cloth, gilt lettered, 4s.
Marriage: as it was, as it is, and as it should be. Second Edition.
In limp cloth, Is.
Light, Heat, and Sound. In three parts, 6d. each. Illustrated.
Bound in limp cloth, Is. 6d.; cloth, 2s.
The Jesus of the Gospels and The Influence of Christianity on
the World. Two nights’ Debate with the Rev. A. Hatchard. Is.
Social and Political Essays. 3s. 6d.
Theological Essays and Debate. 2s. 6d.
Fruits of Christianity
...
...
...
... q 2
The Gospel of Christianity and the Gospel of Freethought 0 2
The Christian Creed; or, What it is Blasphemy to Deny... 0 6
God’s Views on Marriage
...
...
...
... o g
The Gospel of Atheism. Fifth Thousand
...
... o 2
Is the Bible Indictable ?
...
...
...
... q 2
The True Basis of Morality. A Plea for Utility as the
Standard of Morality. Seventh Thousand ...
... 0 2
The Ethics of Punishment. Third Thousand ...
... 0 1
Auguste Comte. Biography of the great French Thinker,
with Sketches of his Philosophy, his Religion, and his
Sociology. Being a short and convenient resumd of Posi
tivism for the general reader. Third Thousand
... 0 6
Giordano Bruno, the Freethought Martyr of the Sixteenth
Century. His Life and Works. Third Thousand
... 0 1
The Law of Population: Its consequences, and its bearing
upon Human Conduct and Morals. Seventieth thousand 0 6
Social Aspects of Malthusianism
...
...
... 0 q
The Physiology of Home — No. 1, “Digestion”; No. 2,
“Organs of Digestion”; No. 3, “Circulation”; No. 4,
“Respiration”; Id. each. Together, in neat wrapper ... 0 4
Electricity and its modern applications. Four lectures.
Id. each. Together, in wrapper
...
...
... 0 4
Eyes and Ears
...
...
...
...
’ q 3
Vivisection...
...
...
...
...
q q
The Political Status of Women. A Plea for Women’s Rights.
Fourth Thousand...
...
...
...
... q 2
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 63, Fleet Street.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Common sense : with appendix and an address to Quakers
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Paine, Thomas [1737-1809]
Bradlaugh, Charles [1833-1891]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 46, [2] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. First published Philadelphia: William and Thomas Bradford, 1776. Works by Bradlaugh and Besant listed on unnumbered pages at the end. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N526
Subject
The topic of the resource
Politics
Republicanism
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 (Common sense : with appendix and an address to Quakers), 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
Monarchy
NSS
Political science-History-18th century
United States-Politics and Government-1775-1783
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c9b5044a49fa229820d2a19275716f07.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VBI4xd9TkKPWaMNZOkF7bdT7NaqL-0uoSRysTuI63cZhfYXBvNF1zL2PIVzIhtRNfFz4yXNTIFK7Zidns5lul5qaiR2%7EeTlzmUzCCK-9XvXK0d0XTsCfjPbO5TrjR-RzXcgrpemRMg8QI2tQb0kPGajlV0j7vtukaj5gtByoaY3K839rPdqzkIdmC9dsunctKK%7ERjeh%7EkEq0GXVsxzKDUTdvmAN%7EoWe67DaAuDLLXbeoWpgzllOwvlxXRUQKt57LaRKwkfDe7XHJ9xC%7Eq7Jm1JYpkC8vbGIwntGHNDYBLYrmP5M4mfVUl-FuhUVx44kkU%7EKJEV2YFpyLHMVGtp5kzg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b90e2752ccca26a7c1cc27121b23d16a
PDF Text
Text
.NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
FREETHOUGIIT PITBLISHING COMPANY’S EDITION'.
BY
COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
[tenth
thousand.]
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63, FLEET STREET E.C.
1 8 8 4.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BT ANNIE BESAHT AND CHARLES BRADLAVGII,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�DIVINE
VIVISECTION.
a bell was born of revenge and brutality on the one
side, and cowardice on the other. In my judgment the American
people are too brave, too charitable, too generous, too magnanimous, to believe in the infamous dogma of an eternal hell. I have
no respect for any human being who believes in it. I have no
respect for any man who preaches it. I have no respect for the
man who will pollute the imagination of childhood with that in
famous lie. I have no respect for the man who will add to the
sorrows of this world with that frightful dogma. I have no respect
for any man who endeavors to put that infinite cloud, that infinite
shadow, over the heart of humanity.
For a good many years the learned intellects of Christendom
j
into the religions of other countries in the
world, the religions of the thousands that have passed away. They
examined into the religion of Egypt, the religion of Greece, the
religion of home and of the Scandinavian countries. In the pre
sence of the ruins of those religions the learned men of Christen
dom insisted that those religions were baseless, that they were
fraudulent. But they have all passed away. While this was being
done the Christianity of our day applauded, and when the learned
^?en
brpugh with the religions of other countries they turned
bhen attention to our religion. By the same mode of reasoning,
by the same methods, by the same arguments that they used with
the old religions,. they are overturning the religion of our day.
Why Every religion in this world is the work of man. Every
t?k
bas been written by man. Men existed before the books.
It books had existed before man, I might admit there was such a
thing as a sacred volume. Man never had an idea, man will never
have an idea, except those supplied to him by his surroundings,
very idea m the world that man has, came to him by nature.
You can imagine an animal with the hoof of a bison, with the
pouch of the kangaroo, with the wings of an eagle, with the beak
of a bn’d, and with the tail of the lion; and yet every point of this
monster you borrow from nature. Every thing you can think of,
eveiy 'thing you can dream of, is borrowed from your surround
ings. And there is nothing on this earth coming from any other
sphere whatever. Man has produced every religion in the world.
And why Because each religion bodes forth the knowledge and
the belief of the people at the time it was made, and in no book is
there any knowledge found, except that of the people who wrote
it. In no book is there found any knowledge, except that of the
�20
firnn in which it was written. Barbarians have produced, and
always will produce, barbarian religions; barbarians have pro
duced, and always will produce, ideas in harmony with then- sur
roundings, and all the religions of the past were produced by
barbarians. We are making religions to-day. That is to say, we
are changing them, and the religion of to-day is not the religion
of one year ago. What changed it ? Science has done it edu
cation and the growing heart of man has done it. And just to the
extent that we become civilised ourselves, will we improve thereligion of our fathers. If the religion of one hundred years ago,
compared with the religion of to-day, is so low, what will it be nr
one thousand years ?
, .
,
3
-u- 1,
If we continue making the inroads upon orthodoxy which we
have been making during the last twenty-five years, what will it
be fifty years from to-night ? It will have to be remonetized by
that time, or else it will not be legal tender. In my judgment,
every religion that stands by appealing to miracles is dishonored.
Every religion in the world has denounced every other rehgion asa fraud. That proves to me that they all tell the truth aBout
others. Why, suppose Mr. Smith should tell Mr. Brown that he
—Smith—saw a corpse get out of the grave and that when he
first saw it, it was covered with the worms of death, and that in
his presence it was reclothed m healthy, beautiful flesh. Ai
then suppose Mr. Brown should tell Mr. Smith I
sa
thing myself. I was in a graveyard once, and I saw a dead man
rise.” Shippose then that Smith should say to Brown, You re a
liar” and Brown should reply to Smith, “And you re a bar
what would you think ? It would simply be because Smith, never
having seen it himself, did’nt believe Brown; and Brown, nevei
bavin* seen it, did’nt believe Smith had. Now, if Smith had
really°seen it, and Brown told him he had seen it too, then Smith
would regard it as a corroboration of his story, and he would legard Brown as one of his principal witnesses. But, on the con
trarv he says, “You never saw it.” So, when a man says, 1
was5 upon Mount Sinai, and there I met God, and he told me,
‘ Stand aside and let me drown these people ;
and anotJe1’
savsto him, “ I was up upon a mountain, and there 1 met tne
Supreme Brahma,” and Moses says, “That’s not true and con
tends that the other man never did see Brahma, and he conten
that Moses never did see God, that is in my judgment proof that
tkEver°y\X^onmthS,’ has charged every other religion with
havino-^been an unmitigated fraud ; and yet, if any man had evei
seen the miracle himself, his mind would be prepared to believe
that another man had seen the same thing. Whenever a man
appeals to a miracle he tells what is not true. Truth relies upon,
reason and the undeviating course of all the laws of nature.
Now, we have a religion—-that is, some people have.
ij
pretend to have religion myself. I Believe m
“ *
L t
—that’s my doctrine—to make everybody happy that y ou can.
�21
the future take care of itself, and if I ever touch the shores o£
another world, I will be just as ready and anxious to get into some
ramnn era,five employment as anybody else. Now, we have got in
this country a religion which men have preached for about eighteen
hundred years, and just in proportion as their belief in that religion
has grown great, men have grown mean and wicked; just in pro
portion as they have ceased to believe it, men have become just
and charitable. And if they believed it to-night as they once be
lieved it, I wouldn’t be allowed to speak in the city of New York.
It is from the coldness and infidelity of the churches that I get my
right to preach; and I say it to their credit. Now, we have a.
religion. What is it ? They say in the first place that all this
vast universe was created by a Deity. I don’t know whether it
was or not. They say, too, that had it not been for the first sin of
Adam there never would have been anyMdevil in this world, and if
there had been no devil there would have been no sin, and if there
had been no sin there never would have been any death. For my
part, I am glad there was death in this world, because that gave
me a chance. Somebody had to die to give me room, and when
my turn comes I’ll be willing to let somebody else take my place.
But whether there is another life or not, if there is any being who
gave me this, I shall thank him from the bottom of my heart, be
cause, upon the whole, my life has been a joy. Now they say,
because of this first sin all men .were consigned to eternal hell.
And this because Adam was our representative. Well, I always
had an idea that my representative ought to live somewhere about
the same time I do. I always had an idea that I should have some
voice in choosing my representative. And if I had a voice I never
should have voted for the old gentleman called Adam. Now, in
order to regain man from the frightful hell of eternity, Christ
himself came to this world and took upon himself flesh, and in
order that we might know the road to eternal salvation he gave us
:a book, and that book is called the Bible, and wherever that Bible
has been read men have immediately commenced cutting each
others’ throats. Wherever that Bible has been circulated, they
have invented inquisitions and instruments of torture, and have
commenced hating each other with all their hearts. But I am told
now, we are all told, that this Bible is the foundation of civilisa
tion ; I say that this Bible is the foundation of hell, and we never
shall get rid of the dogma of hell until we have got rid of the idea
that it is an inspired book.
Now, what does the Bible teach ? I am not going to talk about
what this minister or that ministei’ says it teaches ; the question
is: “ Ought a man to be sent to eternal hell for not believing this
Bible to be the work of a merciful Father ? ’ ’ and the only way to
find out is to read it; and as very few people do read it now, I will
read a few passages. This is the book to be read in the schools, in
•order to make our children charitable and good ; this is the book
that we must read in order that our children may have ideas of
mercy, charity, and justice.
�22
Does the Bible teach mercy ? Now be honest. I read : “ I will
make mine arrows drunk with blood; and my sword shall devour
flesh” (Deut. xxxii., 42). Pretty good start for a mercifjil God!
‘ ‘ That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and
the tongue of thy dogs in the same” (Ps. lxviii., 23.) Again:
‘ ‘ And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by
little and little; thou mayst not consume them at once, lest the
beasts of the field increase upon thee” (Deut. vii., 23).
Pead the glorious exploits of Joshua, chosen captain of theLord, and note how, having coveted the fertile land of Goshen, he
smote the people, houghed their horses, despoiled their cities, and
put all that breathed to the edge of the sword, as the moral God
had commanded. Moreover, he came against them suddenly, not
a solitary trumpet blast from the celestial orchestra was therecalling upon the people to yield, or to move out of their country,
bag and baggage. No; instantaneous fire and butchery. Ob
serve, too, the charming naivete of the statement: ‘ ‘ There was
not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the
Hivites.” Why ? Because the Lord “ hardened their hearts, that
they should come against Israel in battle that he might destroy
them utterly.”
Do you wish further examples of a God of mercy ? Pead in
Exodus how the Lord ordered the harrying of cities and thewholesale slaughter of the inhabitants. ‘ ‘ Thou shalt save alive
nothing that breatheth; but thou shalt utterly destroy them.”
The old men and the maidens, and the sweet-dimpled babe smiling
upon the lap of its mother.
Pecollect, these instructions were given to an army of invasion,
and the people who were fighting were guilty of the crime of
fighting for their homes. The Old Testament is full of curses,
vengeance, jealousy, and hatred; of barbarity and brutality..
Now, do not for one moment believe that these words were written
by the most merciful God. Don’t pluck from the heart the sweet
flowers of piety and crush them by superstition. Do not believe
that God ever ordered the murder of innocent women and helpless
babes. Do not let this supposition turn your hearts into stone.
When anything is said to have been written by the most merciful
God, and the thing is not merciful, then I deny it, and say he
never wrote it. I will live by the standard of reason, and if'
thinking in accordance with reason takes me to perdition, then I
will go to hell with my reason rather than to heaven without it.
Now, does this Bible teach political freedom, or does it teach
political tyranny ? Does it teach a man to resist oppression ? Does ■
it teach a man to tear from the throne of tyranny the crowned
thing and robber caUed a king ? Let us see. “ Let every soul be
subject to the higher powers ; for there is no power but of God:
the powers that be are ordained of God ” (Pom. xiii., 1). All the
kings and princes, and governors, and thieves, and robbers that
happened to be in authority were placed there by the infinite fatherof all! “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the
�23
ordinance of God.” And when George Washington resisted the
power of George the Third, he resisted the power of God. And
when our fathers said “resistance to tyrants is obedience to God,”
they falsified the Bible itself. “ For he is the minister of God to
thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for,he
beareth not the sword in vain ; for he is the minister of God, the
revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore
ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for con
science’s sake ” (Eom. xiii., 4, 5).
I deny this wretched doctrine. Wherever the sword of rebellion
is drawn to protect the rights of man, I am a rebel. Wherever the
sword of rebellion is drawn to give man liberty, to clothe him in
all his just rights, I am on the side of that rebellion. I deny that
rulers are crowned by the Most High; the rulers are the people,
and the presidents and others are but the servants of the people.
All authority comes from the people, and not from the aristocracy
of the air. Upon these texts of Scripture which I have just read
rest the thrones of Europe, and these are the voices that are re
peated from age to age by brainless kings and heartless kings.
Does the Bible give woman her rights ? Is this Bible humane ?
Does it treat woman as she ought to be treated, or is it barbarian ?
Let us see. “Let woman learn in silence with all subjection” (1
Timothy ii., 11). If a woman would know anything let her ask
her husband. Imagine the ignorance of a lady who had only that
source of information. “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor
to usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence.” Observe the
magnificent reason. “ For Adam was first formed, then Eve.. And
Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the
transgression.” Splendid! “But I would have you know that
the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is of
the man ; and the head of Christ is God.” That is to say, there is
as much difference between the woman and man as there is between
Christ and man. There is the liberty of woman. “For the man
is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man. Neither was
the man created for the woman.” Well, who was he created for ?
“ But the woman was created for the man.” “Wives, submit your
selves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord.” There’s libe-ty 1
‘ ‘ For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is, the
head of the church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore,
as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own
husbands in everything.” Even the Savior didn’t put man and.
woman upon any equality. The man could divorce the wife, but
the 'wife could not divorce the husband, and according to the Old
Testament, the mother had to ask forgiveness for being the mother
of babes. Splendid!
Here is something from the Old Testament: “ When thou goest
forth' to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath
delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive.
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire
unto her, that thou wouldst have her to thy wife. Then thou shalt
�24
bring lier home to thine house ; and she shall shave her head, and
pare her nails” (Deut. xxi., 10, 11, 12). That is in self-defence, I
suppose!
This sacred book, this foundation of human liberty, of morality,
does it teach concubinage and polygamy ? Read the thirty-first
chapter of Numbers, read the twenty-first chapter of Deuteronomy,
read the blessed lives of Abraham, of David, or of Solomon, and
then tell me that the sacred scripture does not teach polygamy and
concubinage ! All the language of the world is not sufficient to
express the infamy of polygamy ; it makes a man a beast and
a woman a stone. It destroys the fireside and makes virtue an out
cast. And yet it is the doctrine of the Bible. The doctrine
defended by Luther and Melancthon ! It takes from our language
those sweetest words—father, husband, wife, and mother, and
takes us back to barbarism and fills our hearts with the crawling,
slimy serpents of loathsome lust.
Does the Bible teach the existence of devils? Of course it
does. Yes, it teaches not only the existence of a good Being, but
a bad being. This good Being had to have a home ; that home
was heaven. This bad being had to have a home j and that home
was hell. This hell is supposed to be nearer to earth than I would
care to have it, and to be peopled with spirits, hobgoblins, and all
the fiery shapes with which the imagination of ignorance and fear
could people that horrible place ; and the Bible teaches, the ^existence of hell and this big devil and all these little devils. The
Bible teaches the doctrine of witchcraft, and makes us behove that
there are sorcerers and witches, and that the dead could be raised
by the power of sorcery. Read the account of the spiritual séance
at which Saul and the Witch of Endor assisted, and which resulted
in the calling up of Samuel. Does anyone believe that now t
In another place it is declared that ‘witchcraft is an abomination
unto the Lord. He wanted no rivals in this business. Now what
does the New Testament teach ? Turn to the story of Jesus being
led into the wilderness for the devil to experiment upon him. He
was starved forty days and nights, and then asked to work a
miracle ! After that the devil placed him on a pinnacle of the temple,
ami endeavored to persuade him to cast himself down to prove that
he was the Son of God. Is it possible that anyone can believe that
the devil absolutely took God Almighty, and put him on the pin
nacle of the temple and endeavored to persuade him to jump down/
» Again the devil taketh him into an exceeding high mountain,
and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of
them ; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee,, it thou
wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him. Get
thee hence, Satan, for it is written, Thou shalt worship the
thy God, and him only shalt thou serve ” (Matt, iv., 8—11). ^9^’
the devil must have known at that time that he was God, and God.
at that time must have known that the other was the devil.. How
Could the latter be conceived to have the impudence to promise God
a world in which. he did not have a tax-title to an inch of land ♦
�25
Then there is that pig story. When, the “boss devil had left
Jesus and angels had ministered unto him, and he had taken a
short sea voyage, there came out to meet him a man possessed of a
number of minor devils, and a man whom no one could tame, nor
bind, no not with chains, and who dwelt among the tombs. A nice
puict citizen truly ! And after some parley the devils beseech Jesus,
saying:—“Send us into the swine that we may enter into them.
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits
went out, and entered into the swine ; and the herd ran violently
down a steep place into the sea (there were about two thousand)
and were choked in the sea.” No doubt a good riddance; hut what
the owner of the swine thought of the transaction, or whether he
was indemnified for the loss of his porkers deponent cannot say.
Are we reasonable men in the nineteenth century in the United
States of America and believe this ? I deny it. These fables of
devils have covered the world with blood; they have Tilled the
world with fear, and I am going to do what I can to free the
world of these insatiate monsters. Small and great, they aavG
-filler! the world with monsters, they have made the world a
synonym of bar and ferocity.
_
And it is this book that ought to be read in all the schools this book that teaches man to enslave his brother. If it is larceny
to steal the result of labor, how much more is it larceny to steal
the laborer himself ? ‘ ‘ Moreover, of the children of the strangers
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye ouy, and of their
-Families that are with you, which they begat in your- land ; and
they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an in
heritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a posses
sion; they shall be your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren
the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with
rigor ” (Lev. xxv., 45, 46). Why i Because they are not as good
as you will buy of the heathen roundabout.
These are edifying texts. Consult also Exod. xxi., where you
will find a complete slave code. No detail is wanting. . Ender cer
tain conditions the master is to bring his servants to the judges, then
he is to lug him to the doorpost and bore his ear through with an
awl—“And he shall serve him for ever.” This is the doctrine which
has ever lent itself to the chains of slavery, and makes a man im
prison himself rather than desert wife and children. I hate it!
What does this same book with its glad tidings of great joy for
all people say of the rights of children ? Let us see how they are
treated by the “ most merciful God.” “ If a man hath a stubborn
and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father,, or
the voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened him,
will not hearken unto them. Then shall his father and his mother
lay hold of him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and
unto the gate of his place. And they shall say unto the elders of
his city : This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey
our voice, he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his
city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put evil
�26
away from among you; and all Israel shall hear and fear ” ("Dout.
xxi., 18).
Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice,
and he intended to obey. The boy was not consulted.
Did you ever hear the story of Jcpthah’s daughter ? Is there in
the history of the world a sadder story than that ? Can a God who
would accept such a sacrifice be worthy of the worship of civilised
men ? I believe in the rights of children. I plead for the republic
of home, for the democracy of the fireside, and for this I am culled
a heathen and a devil by those who believe in the cheerful and
comforting doctrine of eternal damnation. Dead the book of Job I
God met the devil and asked him where he had been, and he said:
“Walking up and down the country,” and the Lord said to him :
c ‘ Have you noticed my man Job over here, how good he is ? ” And
the devil said : “Of course he’s good, you give him everything he
wants. Just take away his property and he’ll curse you. Youjust
try it.” And he did try it, and took away his goods, but Job still
remained good. The devil laughed and said that he had not been
tried enough. Then the Lord touched his flesh, but he was still
true.. Then he took away his children, but he remained faithfid,
and in the end, to show how much Job made by his fidelity, his
property was all doubled, and he had more children than ever. If
you have a child, and you love it, would you be satisfied with a
God who would destroy it, and endeavor to make it up by giving
you another that was better looking ? Mo, you want that one ;
you want no other, and yet this is the idea of the love of children
taught in the Bible.
Does the Bible teach you freedom of religion ? To-day we say
that every man has a right to worship God or not, to worship him
as he pleases. Is it the doctrine of the Bible ? Bead Deut. xii., 6.
If a brother, or son, or daughter or wife proposes to serve any god
but your own, or that of your fathers, thou shalt not pity, nor
spare, nor conceal. “ Thou shalt surely kill him ; thine hand shall
be the first upon him to put him to death, and thou shalt stone
him with stones that he die.”
. And do you know, according to that, if you had lived in Pales
tine, and your wife that you love as your own soul had said to
you: ‘ ‘ Let us worship the sun whose golden beams clothe the
world in glory; let us bow to that great luminary; I love the sun
because it gave me your face; because it gave me the features of
my babe ; let us worship the sun ; ” it was then your duty to lay
your hands upon her, your eye must not pity her, but it was your
duty to cast the first stone against that tender and loving breast!
I hate such doctrine' I hate such books ! I hate gods that will
•write such books ! I tell you that it is infamous! That is the
religious liberty of the Bible—that’s it. And this God taught that
doctrine to the Jews, and said to them, “Anyone that teaches a
different religion, kill him ! ” Now, let me ask, and I want to do
it reverently:
If, as is contended, God gave these frightful laws to the Jews,
�and afterwards this same God took upon himself flesh, and came
among the Jews, and taught a different religion, and these Jews,
in accordance with the laws which this same God gave them, cruci
fied hire, did he not reap what he had sown. ? The mercy of all
this comes in what is called “the plan of salvation.” What is
that plan? According to this great plan the innocent suffer "for
the guilty to satisfy a law.
What sort of a law must it be that would be satisfied with the
suffering of innocence ? According to this plan, the salvation of
the whole world depends upon the bigotry of the Jews and the
treachery of Judas. According to the same plan, there would have
been no death in the world if there had been no sin, and if there
had been no deaths you and I would not have been called into ex
istence, and if we did not exist we could not have been saved, so
we owe our salvation to the bigotry of the Jews and the treachery
of Judas, and we are indebted to the devil for our existence. I
speak this reverently. It strikes me that what they call the atone
ment is a kind of moral bankruptcy. Under its merciful provisions
man is allowed the privilege of sinning credit, and whenever he is
guilty of a mean action, he says : “Charge it.” In my judgment,
this kind of bookkeeping breeds extravagance in sin.
Suppose we had a law in New York that every merchant should
give credit to every man who asked it, under pain and penitentiary,
and that every man should take the benefit of the bankruptcy sta
tute any Saturday night ? Doesn’t the credit system in morals
breed extravagance in sin ? That’s the question. Who’s afraid of
punishment which is so far away ? Whom does the doctrine of
hell stop ? The great, the rich, the powerful ? No ; the poor, the
weak, the despised, the mean. Did you ever hear of a man going
to hell who died in New York worth a million of dollars, or ■with
an income of twenty-five thousand a year ? Did you ever hear of
a man going to hell who rode in a carriage ? Never. They are the
gentlemen who talk about their assets, and who say: “ Hell is not
for me, it is for the poor. I have all the luxuries I want, give that
to the poor.” Who go to hell ? Tramps !
Let me tell you a story. There was once a frightful rain, and all
the animals held a convention to see whose fault it was, and the fox
nominated the bon for chairman. The -wolf seconded the motion,
and the hyena said, that suits. When the convention was called to
order, the fox was called upon to confess his sins. He stated, how
ever, that it would be much more appropriate for the bon to com
mence first. Thereupon the lion said: “I am not conscious of
having committed evil. It is true I have devoured a few men, but
for what other purpose were men made ? ” And they all cheered,
and were satisfied. The fox gave his views upon the goose ques
tion, and the wolf admitted that he had devoured sheep, and occa
sionally had killed a shepherd, but “ ab acquainted with the history
of my family wib bear me out when I say that shepherds have been
the enemies of my family from the beginning of the world.” Then
away in the rear there arose a simple donkey, with a kind of Abra-
�28
hamic countenance. He said: “I expect it’s, I. I had eaten nothing
for three days except three thistles. I was passing a monastery;
the monks were at mass. The gates were open leading to a yard
full of sweet clover. I knew it was wrong, but I did slip in and I
took a mouthful, but my conscience smote me, and I went out.”
Then all the animals shouted, “He’s the fellow! ” and in two
minutes they had his hide on the fence. That’s the kind of people
that go to hell.
Now, this doctrine of hell, that has been such a comfort to my
race, which so many ministers are pleading for, has been defended
for ages by the fathers of the Church. Your preachers say that the
sovereignty of God implies that he has an absolute, unlimited, and
independent right to dispose of his creatures as he will, because he
made them. Has he ? Suppose I take this book and change it
immediately into a sentient human being. Would I have a right
to torture it because I made it ? No ; on the contrary. I would
say: Having brought you into existence, it is my duty to do the
best for you I can. They say God has a right to damn me because
he made me. I deny it.
Another one says: God is not obliged to save even those who
believe in Christ, and that he can either bestow salvation upon his
children or retain it without any diminution of his glory. Another
one says : God may save any sinner whatsoever, consistently with
his justice. Let a natural person—and I claim to be one—moral or
immoral, wise or unwise, let him be as just as he can, no matter
what his prayers may be, what pains he may have taken to bo saved,
or whatever circumstances he may be in, God, according to this
writer, can deny him salvation, without the least disparagement of
his glory. His glories will not be in the least obscured; there is
no natural man, be his character what it may, but God . may cast
him down to hell, without being charged with unfair dealing in any
respect with regard to that man. Theologians tell us that God’s
design in the creation was simply to glorify himself. Magnificent
object! “ The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of .God,
which is poured out • without mixture into the cup of his indigna
tion ; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb
(Rev. i., 10).
Do you know nobody would have had an idea of hell in this
world if it hadn’t been for volcanoes ? They were looked upon as
the chimneys of hell. The idea of eternal fire never, would have
polluted the imagination of man but for them. An eminent theolo
gian, describing hell, says : ‘ ‘ There is no recounting up the million
of ages the damned shall suffer. All arithmetic ends here ” and
all sense, too .' “ They shall have nothing to do in passing away
this eternity but to conflict with torments. God shall have no other
use or employment for them.” These words were said by gentle
men who died Christians and who are now in the harp business in
the world to come. Another declares there is nothing to keep any
man or Christian out of hell except the mere pleasure of God, and
�29
their pains never grow any easier by their becoming accustomed to
them P It is also declared that the devil goes about like a hon, ready
to devour the wicked. Did it never occur to you what a con
tradiction it is to say that the devil will persecute his own friends
He wants all the recruits he can get; why then should he PerS0cute
his friends ? In my judgment he should give them the best hell
It is in the very nature of things that torments inflicted have no
tendency to bring a wicked man to repentance. Then why tor
ment him if it will not do him good ? It is simply unadulterated
revenge. All the punishment in the world will not reform a man
unless he knows that he who inflicts it upon him does it for the
sake of reformation, and really and truly loves him and has his
¡rood at heart. Punishment inflicted for gratifying the appetite
makes man afraid, but debases him. Various, reasons are given
for punishing the wicked; first that God will vindicate his ^jured
majesty. Well, I am afraid of that 1 Second, He will glorify his
justice-think of that. Third, He will show and glorify his grace
Every time the saved shall look upon the damned in hell it will
cause in them a lively and admiring sense of the grace of God.
Every look upon the damned will double the ardor and the joy of
the saints in heaven.' Can the believing husband in heaven look
down upon the torments of the unbelieving wife in hell and then
feel a thrill of joy ? That’s the old doctrine—that if you saw your
wife in hell—the wife you love, who, in your last sickness, nursed
you, that perhaps supported you by her needle when you were ill ;
the wife who watched by your couch mght and day, and held youi
corpse in her loving arms when you were dead—the sight would
give you great joy. That doctrine is not preached to-day. Ihey
do not preach that the sight would give you joy; but they do
preach that it will not diminish your happiness. That is the doc
trine of every orthodox minister in New York, and I repeat that
I have no respect for men who preach such, doctrines, lne signt
of the torments of the damned in hell will increase the ecstasy of
the saints for ever ! On this principle a man never enjoys a good.
dinner so much as when a fellow-creature is dying of famine before
his eyes, or he never enjoys the cheerful warmth of his own fiiesi e
so greatly as when a poor and abandoned wretch is dying on the
door-step. The saints enjoy the ecstasy, and the groans of the
tormented are music to them. I say here to-night that you cannot
commit a sin against an infinite being. I can sm against my
brother or my neighbor, because I can injure them. There can be
no sin where there is no injury. Neither can a finite being commit
infinite sin.
......
r
n.
An old saint believed that hell was in the interior of the earth,
and that the rotation of the earth was caused by the souls trying
to get away from the fire. The old church at Stratford-on-Avon,
Shakspere’s home, is adorned with pictures of hell and the like.
One of the pictures represents resurrection-morning. People are
getting out of their graves, and devils are catching hold oi tneir
�30
heels. In one place there is a huge brass monster, and devils are
driving scores of lost souls into his mouth. Over hot fires hang
chaldrons with fifty or sixty people in each, and devils are poking
the fires. People are hung up on hooks by their tongues, and
devils are lashing them. Up in the right-hand corner are some of
the saved, with grins on their faces stretching from ear to ear.
They seem to say: “Aha, what did I tell you ? ”
Some of the saints—gentlemen who died in the odor of sanctity,
and arc now in glory—insisted that heaven and hell would be
plainly in view of each other. Only a few years ago, Eev. J.
Furniss (an appropriate name) published a little • pamphlet called
“ A Sight of Hell.” I remember when I first read that. My little
child, seven years old, was ill and in bed. I thought she would
not hear me, and I read some of it aloud. She arose and asked :
“Who says that?” I answered: “That’s what they preach in
some of the churches.” “ I never will enter- a church as long as I
live ' ” she said, and she never has.
The doctrine of orthodox Christianity is that the damned shall
suffer torment for ever and for ever. And if you were a wanderer,
footsore, weary, with parched tongue, dying for a drop of water,
and you met one who divided his poor portion with you, and died
as he saw you reviving—if he was an -unbeliever and you a believer,
and he called you from hell for a draught of water, it would be
your duty to laugh at him.
Eev. C. Spurgeon says that everywhere in hell will be written
the words “for ever.” They-will be branded on every wave of
flame, they will be forged in every link of every chain, they will
be seen in every lurid flash of brimstone—everywhere will be the
words ‘ ‘ for ever.” Everybody will be yelling and screaming them.
Just think of that picture of the mercy and justice of the eternal
Father of us aU. If these words are necessary why are they not
written now everywhere in the world, on every tree, and every
field, and on every blade of grass ? I say I am entitled to have it
so. I say that it is God’s duty to furnish me with the evidence.
In old times they had to find a place for hell, and they found a
hundred places for it. One said that it was under Lake Avernus,
but the Christians thought differently. One divine tells us that
it must be below the earth because Christ descended into hell.
Another gives it as his opinion that hell is the sun, and he tells us
that nobody, without an express revelation from God, can prove
that it is not there. Most likely. Well, he had the idea at aU
events of utilising the damned as fuel to warm the earth. Another
divine preached a sermon no further back than 1876, in which he
said that the damned will grow worse, and the same divine says
that the devil was the first Universalist. Then I am on the side
cf the devil.
The fact is, that you have got not merely to believe the Bible ;
but you must also believe in a certain interpretation of it, and,
mind you, you must also believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.
If you don’t understand it, it is your own fault. You must believe
�31
in it all the same. If you do not all the orthodox churches agree
in condemning you to everlasting flames. We have got to burn
through all our lives simply with the view of making them happy.
We are taught to love our enemies, to pray for those that perse
cute us, to forgive. Should not the merciful God practise what he
preaches ? I say that reverently. Why should he say ‘ ‘ Fosgive
your enemies ” if he will not himself forgive ? Why should he say
‘ ‘ Pray for those that despise and persecute you, but if they refuse
to believe my doctrine I will burn them for ever?” I cannot
believe it. Here is a little child, residing in the purlieus of the
■city—some little boy who is taught that it is his duty to steal by
his mother, who applauds his success, and pats him on the head
.and calls him a good boy—would it be just to condemn him to an
eternity of torture ? Suppose there is a God; let us bring to this
■question some common sense.
I care nothing about the doctrines of religions or creeds of the
past. Let us come to the bar of the nineteenth century and judge
the matter by what we know, by what we think, by what we love.
But they say to us : “If you throw away the Bible what are we to
depend on then ? ” But no two persons in the world agree as to
what the Bible is, what they are to believe, or what they are not to
believe. It is like a guide-post that has been thrown down in
some time of disaster, and has been put up the wrong way. No
body can accept its guidance, for nobody knows where it would
direct him. I say, “ Tear- down the useless guide-post,” but they
.answer : “ Oh, do not do that or we will not have nothing to go
by.” I would say: “ Old Church, you take that road, and I will
take this.” Another minister has said that the Bible is the great
town clock, at which we all may set our watches. But I have said
to a friend of that minister: ‘ ‘ Suppose we all should set our
watches by that town clock, there would be many persons to tell
you that in old times the long hand was the hour hand, and be
sides, the clock hasn’t been wound up for a long time.” I say, let
us wait till the sun rises and set our watches by nature. For my
part I am willing to give up heaven to get rid of hell. I had
rather there should be no heaven, than that any solitary soul
should be condemned to suffer for ever and ever. But they tell
me that the Bible is the book of hope. Now, in the Old Testa
ment there is not, in my judgment, a single reference to another
life. Is there a burial service mentioned in it, in which a word of
hope is spoken at the grave of the dead ? The idea of eternal
life was not born of any book. The wave of hope and joy ebbs
and flows, and will continue to ebb and flow as long as love kisses
the lips of death.
Let me tell you a tale of the Persian religion—of a man who,
having done good for long years of his life, presented himself at
the gates of Paradise, but the gates remained closed against him.
He went back and followed up his good works for seven years
longer, and the gates of Paradise still remaining shut against him,
he toiled in works of charity until at last they were opened unto
�32
him. Think of that, and send out your missionaries among those
people. There is no religion but goodness, but justice, but charity.
Religion is not theory—it is life. It is not intellectual conviction
■—it is divine humanity, and nothing else. There is another tale
from the Hindu of a man who refused to enter Paradise without a
faithful dog, urging that ingratitude was the blackest of all sins.
“And the god,” he said, “ admitted him, dog and all.” Compare
that religion with the orthodox tenets of the city of New York.
There is a prayer which every Brahmin prays, in which he de
clares that he will never enter into a final state of bliss alone, but
that everywhere he will strive for universal redemption,' that
never will he leave the world of sin and sorrow, but remain suffer
ing and striving and sorrowing after universal salvation. Comparethat with the orthodox idea, and send out your missionaries to the
benighted Hindus.
The doctiine of hell is infamous beyond all power to express. I
wish there were words mean enough to express my feelings of
loathing on this subject. What harm has it not done? What
waste places has it not made ? It has planted misery and wretched
ness in this world; it has filled the future with selfish joys and.
lurid abysses of eternal flame. But we are getting marc sense
every day. We begin to despise those monstrous doctrines. If
you want to better men and women, change their conditions here.
Don’t promise them something somewhere else. One biscuit will do
more good than all the tracts that were ever peddled in the world.
Give them more whitewash, more light, more air. You have to
change men physically before you change them intellectually. I
believe the time will come when every criminal will be treated as
we now treat the diseased and sick, when every penitentiary will
become a reformatory; and that if criminals go to them with
hatred in their bosoms, they will leave them without feelings of
revenge. Let me tell you the story of Orpheus and Eurydice.
Eurydice had been carried away by the god of hell, and Orpheus,
her lover, went in quest of her. He took with him his. lyre, and
played such exquisite music that all hell was amazed. Ixion forgot
his labors at the wheel, the daughters of Danaus ceased from their
hopeless task, Tantalus forgot his thirst, oven Pluto smiled, and,
for the first time in the history of hell, the eyes of the Furies were
wet with tears. As it was -with the lyre of Orpheus, so it is to-day
with the great harmonies of science, which are rescuing from theprisons of superstition the torn and bleeding heart of man.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Divine vivisection
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: [19]-32 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N340
Subject
The topic of the resource
Hell
Christianity
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 (Divine vivisection), 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
Devil-Christianity
Hell
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c52086dca71b0ed83cb53d75bda3a8ea.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=nWpD9%7EU1UAS3IOo86RCYWIV32Msdw4rHnKNLmCzPoLGS0TXKmwGdqhFveh8T%7EqRerMzzZtyJqfbrDjikvFXKBTDQo1qek4URIOqrceLQql86C8MZ5ImsouGoKClj7lhmDJnuutBSsBywlgiSK2UVlf5EBzkGMSqUwG7scm3XewtMgf2aA3GoGm6ws%7EhApSMlaAEaRwqR2o2XWUCZkwbo3-NCt8eqwVRE%7Elf-hW8P0rhOo4Vm8A%7EnwYKOjARHUjaYE0bWu%7EXU8XYl0mOIliTWd0RDe%7EzHUDfxP5vPFb7wUkGon7-ed6aV6vPUnkVDsbL8zJbXx2MKv20i6KU-dhwZAw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ad9e85b989a0c13b0084e223c3073d02
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
grfte Atheistic platform.
X.
DOES
ROYALTY
PAY?
GEORGE STANDRING,
Editor
of
“The Republican.”
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 884.
PRICE
ONE PENNY.
COMPANY,
�THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
Under this title is being issued a fortnightly publi
cation, each number of which consists of a lecture
delivered by a well-known Freethought advocate. Any
question may be selected, provided that it has formed the
subject of a lecture delivered from the platform by an
Atheist. It is desired to show that the Atheistic platform
is used for the service of humanity, and that Atheists war
against tyranny of every kind, tyranny of king and god,
political, social, and theological.
Each issue consists of sixteen pages, and is published at
one penny. Each writer is responsible only for his or her
own views.
1. —“ What is the use of Prayer ? ” By Annie Besant.
2. —“ Mind considered as a Bodily Function. By Alice
Bradlaugh.
3. —“ The Gospel of Evolution.” By Edward Aveljng,
D.Sc.
4. —“ England’s Balance-Sheet.” By Charles Bradlaugh.
5. —“ The Story of the Soudan.” By Annie Besant.
G.—“ Nature and the Gods.” By Arthur B. Moss.
These Six, in Wrapper, Sixpence.
7. —“ Some Objections to Socialism.” By Charles Brad
laugh.
8. —“Is Darwinism Atheistic?” By Charles Cockbill
Cattell.
9. —“ The Myth of the Resurrection.” By Annie Besant.
�DOES ROYALTY PAY?
TFriends,—Napoleon I. is said to have described the
English as a “nation of shopkeepers,” that is, a people
whose minds were “cribb’d, cabin’d, and confin’d” by the
sordid considerations of commerce, and were unable to
rise to the grandeur of the occasion when wars of conquest
and schemes of European domination were in question.
It is to you as shopkeepers or as commercial men that I
now wish to propound this question: 11 Does Royalty
Pay<n Is it a profitable investment to the nation? Is
?'
our servant paid too high a wage? Is it necessary, or
even prudent, to retain his “ services ” any longer ?
No employer of labor would fail to ask himself such a
question as regards the men in his employ. A large mill
owner, paying an overseer £1000 per annum to superin
tend his business, would find it necessary to make some
alteration in his arrangements if he were to find that, for
several months during the year his servant’s coat, thrown
over an empty chair, alone represented the individual
whom he employed! Such a system of business surely
would not “ pay.”
The national balance-sheet in regard to royalty would
stand thus :
Expenditure.
Receipts.
£
s. d.
£ s. fd.
To Guelph & Co., one
year’s salaries and
expenses .. .. 1,000,000 0 0
By services ren
dered per con
tra ................... 0 0 0
Surely this is a most unsatisfactory item in the accounts
of the nation! Let us see in what fashion this expensive
encumbrance of a useless monarchy has come down to us.
�148
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
By tracing the history of royalty in England through a
few of its most important phases, we shall be able to arrive
at a true estimate of its position and character in these latter
days. We shall see monarchy gradually dwindling from
a position of absolute dominance to its present degraded
and anomalous condition. Together with an oppressed
and uncivilised people we find a powerful sovereign; with
a free and enlightened nation monarchy exists but as a
mere costly sham. From this I think we may fairly infer
that the system we are discussing is fit only for a crude
and barbarous stage of society; and that with the growth
of popular intelligence and patriotism the old dominance
becomes less and less possible.
When William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, assisted
by a select band of continental cut-throats, invaded Eng
land and vanquished the Saxons, he established the feudal
system in its most rigorous form. The barons to whom he
allotted the land were responsible to him, and to him alone,
for their actions. The people were simply serfs or villeins,
without rights or duties as citizens. They were mere
chattels appertaining to the estates of their lords and
owners, and politically were of no account whatever. Thus
the centralised power of the Crown was originally domi
nant ; the nobles existed as dependents of the Crown, and
the people, as a political power, were practically non
existent. Thus was the “ State ” constituted towards the
end of the eleventh century.
It would be a most interesting study,'but it is absolutely
impossible to pursue it within the limits of a lecture, to
trace the gradual development of popular liberty; to see
the quarrels between the Crown and the nobles ; to observe
the first struggles of the populace in the direction of
freedom and independence. It will, however, be possible
to glance at certain epochs of our history in which the
gradual decay of the monarchical institution may be
traced.
First, then, let us turn to the period when the principle
of “Divine Bight ” was eliminated from English royalty.
Charles I. appears to have conscientiously held the view
that the Almighty had selected the Stuart family as “fit
and proper persons” to hold absolute and irresponsible
sway over the British people. With the courage of his
convictions, he sought to enforce his views, even to the
�DOES ROYALTY PAY ?
149
-desperate length of a resort to arms. God upon that occa
sion did not support his chosen one; and when the head of
Charles fell upon the scaffold at Whitehall it may be said
the doctrine of divine right fell with it, for it has never
been seriously maintained, as a political principle, in Eng
land since that time.
If we turn now to the end of the seventeenth century,
we shall note a further advance in the direction of popular
freedom. James II. had become so obnoxious to the
■country that he wisely fled and abandoned the throne.
William, Prince of Orange, was therefore invited by the
Lords and Commons to assume the Crown. An attempt
was made, however, to limit William’s authority, and to
this the Dutch prince would not agree. He told the English representatives that he was perfectly contented with
his position in Holland; a crown was no great thing, and
he had no wish for it; the English had sought him and
not he the English; and if they wished for his services
“they must agree to his terms. Ultimately the Dutchman
ascended the throne of Great Britain as William TTT.
upon a distinct contract with the [nominal] representatives
•of the people. “The Constitution,” says Hume, in his
History of England, “had now assumed a new aspect.
The maxim of hereditary indefeasible right was at length
venounced by a free Parhament. The power of the Crown
was acknowledged to flow from no other fountain than
that of a contract with the people. Allegiance and pro
tection were declared reciprocal ties depending upon each
other. The representatives of the nation made a regular
claim of rights on behalf of their constituents ; and Wil
liam III. ascended the throne in consequence of an express
capitulation with the people.”
Here, then, is a great advance. The people and the
'Crown are the two parties to a contract. Such a contract
may be determined by either of the parties ; and the con
stitutional Republican agitation of to-day is a movement
directed towards the lawful, peaceful termination of such
contract, as being no longer useful or necessary. The
object is a purely legal and justifiable object; and when
our opponents describe the Republican agitation as “sedi
tious” they merely expose their malice and ignorance.
It would be at once interesting and instructive to trace
-the history of English monarchy from the commencement
�150
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
of the eighteenth century down to the present time. We
should see how the importation of a disreputable German
family brought the Crown into contempt—how the German
mistresses of George I. and his successor had “ exploited”
the British—and how the people had been estranged from
their rulers. We should see the pious but stupid and pre
judiced George III. exercising his authority upon the side
of privilege and oppression, and retarding, to the full ex
tent of his power, every movement in the direction of
popular progress and freedom. The foes of liberty were
the “King’s friends,” and, necessarily, the friends of the
people were the “King’s enemies.” The student of his
tory will be aware that the influence thus exercised by
George III. was a very real and weighty factor in political
affairs. That estimable monarch died sixty-four years ago;
and it will be instructive to note the vast change in the
power and status of the Crown that this comparatively
brief period has brought about.
Queen Victoria ascended the throne of England seyenteen years after the death of George III. • and in the year
1840 was married to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg. This
gentleman came from a small German court, and the pro
spect of wielding a certain degree of influence over the
affairs of a mighty nation was very attractive to his mind.
His position in this country was somewhat anomalous ; the
Queen took precedence of her Consort, and politically
Albert was a fifth wheel in the coach. w It was taken for
granted by the people that the Prince would not meddle in
political business, and time after time he was publicly com
plimented on the supposed fact that, recognising his posi
tion in this country, he had abstained from interference in
the national affairs. Albert, however, had been so inter
fering in a secret and underhand fashion; and when the
fact became known, public indignation was aroused. The
Queen and her Consort thereupon wrote to Baron Stockmar, asking for his advice and assistance. Stockmar, it may
be explained, had been a long-life friend and counsellor
of the Queen, and his direction would naturally have much
weight with her. In reply to the Queen’s appeal, Stockmar wrote a long and tedious letter (given at length in Sir
Theodore Martin’s “Life of the Prince Consort”) from
which one or two passages may be given. He pointed out
that, “in our time, since Reform .... and the growth
�DOES ROYALTY DAY?
151
of those politicians .... who treat the existing Consti
tution merely as a bridge to a Republic, it is of extreme
importance that this fiction should be countenanced only pro
visionally, and that no opportunity should be let slip of vindicat
ing the. legitimate position of the Crown.11 Stockmar then
discusses the imaginary situation of a stupid or unscrupu
lous Minister pursuing a foolish or mischievous policy, to
the detriment of the public welfare. The only punishment
that could be inflicted in such a case is “the removal or
resignation ” of the offender. But the divine system of a
properly-constituted monarchy would, Baron Stockmar
alleged, provide an efficient safeguard against such dis
astrous mismanagement. Who, he asks, “could have
averted the danger, either wholly or in part ? Assuredly
he [the Sovereign], and he alone, who, being free from
party passion, has listened to the voice of an independent
judgment [i.e., his own]. To exercise this judgment is,
both in a moral and constitutional point of view, a matter
of right, nay, a positive duty. The Sovereign may even
take a part in the initiation and the maturing of the Gov
ernment measures ; for it would be unreasonable to expect
that a King, himself as able, as accomplished, as patriotic (
as the best of his Ministers, should be prevented from
making use of these qualities at the deliberations of his
Council.”
Writing thus to a member of the House of Hanover,
Stockmar must have been singularly ignorant or strangely
oblivious of the history of that family. Where, since the
Guelphs first landed upon our shores, shall we find the
sovereign “as able, as accomplished, as patriotic as the
best of his ministers ” ? Can we so describe George I.,
ignorant of the English tongue, absolutely indifferent to
the national welfare, contented to pass his time carousing
with his fat German mistresses ? Is it possible thus to re
gard his scarcely more estimable successor, George II.;
the ignorant, bigoted, obstinate madman, George III.; the
profligate and unprincipled George IV. ; or his successor,
William IV., who, as Greville declared, would make a
good king if he did not go mad? And, looking to the
future, can we dare to anticipate that the Prince of Wales,
if he ever ascend the throne, will display either ability o
patriotism in a very eminent degree ? Baron Stockmar
urged the Queen to avail herself of every opportunity to
�152
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
vindicate the “legitimate position of the Crown.” This clear
and decided advice, it must be remembered, was given by
the Queen’s most trusted counsellor in response to a direct
appeal for such aid; but can it be pretended that Her
Majesty has ever followed it? Is it under the reign of
Victoria that the dwindling prerogatives of the monarch
have been strengthened and extended ? On the contrary,
the forty-seven years of the present reign have seen the
almost absolute self-effacement of the sovereign as a politi
cal and social factor. Parliament is opened by “commis
sion ” in the absence of the Queen; drawing-rooms are
held by the Princess of Wales, in the absence of the Queen.
Whilst the political machine is running, and the wheels of
society are swiftly revolving in their appointed fashion, the
nominal head alike of the State and of Society is buried in
the remote fastnesses of Balmoral, the solemn glories of
Windsor, or the sylvan glades of Osborne. Privacy of the
most complete nature is all that is apparently sought. In
short, Her Majesty is teaching the English how easily and
comfortably they may exist without a Queen!
Politically, the Sovereign now only operates as a machine
for affixing the sign-manual. The responsibility for every
measure, for every action, rests upon the official advisers
of the Crown. Without their aid there could be nothing
to sign; but—according to the glorious principles of our
constitution—the result of their labor and genius would be
null and void, minus the signature of the Sovereign. The
sole object, then, for which monarchy now exists, politi
cally, would be equally well served by an india-rubber
stamp, an impression of which could be affixed to any
document or measure that had received the sanction of
both Houses of Parliament. And the cost of this need not
exceed the moderate sum of one shilling.
With reference to the functions of the Sovereign, I am,
however, bound to admit that the view I have just endea
vored to state is not universally accepted as correct. There
can be no possible doubt that the principle that “ the Sove
reign reigns but does not govern ” is the only one upon which
the majority of Englishmen would tolerate the existence of
royalty. The spirit of democracy has so deeply permeated
English political life that the exercise of an irresponsible
unrepresentative power in public affairs would not long be
permitted to exist. Supposing, for instance, that a Fran-
�DOES ROYALTY I’AY ?
153
•chise Bill, after being passed by the Commons and Lords,
should be vetoed by the Crown, such use of the royal pre
rogative—although legally perfectly justifiable—would be
the death-warrant of the monarchy. But, judging from
■certain statements that have been made public, and which
have emanated from responsible sources, it seems probable
that, in truth, the Queen does exercise a very real influence
over public affairs, but it is an influence of which the
public officially knows nothing. Several years ago Mr. Dis
raeli stated in a public speech, at Hughenden, that the duties
performed by the Queen were “weighty,” “unceasing,”
and “laborious.” “There is not,” he said, “ a dispatch re
ceived from abroad, nor one sent from this country, which
is not submitted to the Queen. ... Of our present SoveTeign it may be said that her signature has never been
placed to any public document of which she did not know
the purport, and of which she did not approve.” Now Mr.
Disraeli was on many occasions extremely parsimonious of
the truth; and it is quite possible that the startling statement
there made was merely a vivid flash of the imagination.
Dor what does it amount to ? If the Queen signs no
document of which “she does not approve,” then her
influence in the State is paramount, and if any difference
of opinion arise between the Sovereign and the Ministry
it is the latter that must accommodate itself to the former
before anything can be done. If all that Mr. Disraeli
said at Hughenden on thjs subject be true, it is difficult
to detect the essential difference between the “ constitu
tional rule” of Victoria and the “autocratic sway” of
Alexander III. of Russia! I for one cannot believe it.
If the judgment of the Prime Minister and the Govern
ment is to be on occasion subjugated to the conflicting
judgment of a doubtless honest and well-meaning, but
very commonplace old lady, the sooner the people under
stand this the better for us all. But, I repeat, I cannot
believe it. Shrewdness is a prominent trait in the Queen’s
character; and I cannot conceive it possible that she
should dare to follow the course of action indicated by the
words of Mr. Disraeli. Certain it is that the people
officially know nothing of it; and, judging from the facts
as they are displayed before us, we are justified in re
garding the monarchy as simply useless—not worse than
useless.
�154
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
At present our india-rubber stamp costs us at least a
million sterling per annum. The Civil List of £385,000'
represents but a portion of the outlay which the mainten
ance of royalty involves. The pensions and allowances to
members of the Queen’s family; the cost of maintaining
and repairing the numerous palaces required for their
accommodation ; and innumerable indirect expenses which
are carefully dispersed amongst various branches of the
public accounts, fully make up the enormous total given.
Sir Charles Dilke, for instance, whilst investigating this
matter some years ago, found that a certain number of
men were continually employed in painting the ornamental
fire-buckets on board one of the royal yachts. Year in
and year out their sole duty was to paint these buckets.
As soon as they were finished the work was begun over
again.
What advantage does the nation derive from the exer
tions of its most expensive “servant”? The Daily Tele
graph and other pious and loyal journals sometimes urge
that the Queen furnishes us with a noble example of a
sovereign and mother. But how ? Officially she has for
over twenty years almost entirely neglected the public duties
of her high position. And where is the nobility of her ex
ample as a mother ? Many a poor widow toils incessantly
in order to maintain her young family, denying herself
proper rest and food, so that her children may be decently
clothed, fed, and educated, and obtain a fair start in life.
Such cases of devotion and self-denial are frequent amongst
the poorest classes of society. Is not this a nobler example
than that of a lady in possession of immense wealth, who
is perfectly well able to support the whole of her numerous
family, but who yet permits the burden of their mainten
ance to be thrown upon the nation ? The private wealth
of the royal family must be enormous, and abundantly
adequate for their needs; and yet how many appeals for
charitable grants have been made upon their behalf I
Prince after prince, and princess after princess, have thusbeen quartered upon the nation as out-door paupers, re
cipients of a charity that is disgraceful, and would be de
grading to any family save the Guelphs.
Let us glance at the long roll of pauper princes, and
see what advantage the nation derives in return for their
generous allowances. The Prince of Wales receives an
�DOES ROYALTY PAY ?
155-
income of more than £150,000 a year, including his wife’s
allowance, but not including the accumulations of the
Duchy of Cornwall, or various sums that have been voted
for exceptional purposes. His Royal Highness is a Field
marshal of the British army, and honorary colonel of
several regiments. Now, what is the work that H.R.H.
performs in return for his ample wage of £3,000 per week?
Upon this point I will cite the evidence of the Daily News,
a Liberal, pious, and respectable authority: “The Prince
of Wales had a hard day’s work on Saturday. In tho
afternoon, besides holding a levee, he unveiled a statue of
Sir Rowland Hill at Cornhill, and in the evening he dined
with the Lord Mayor and the provincial mayors at the
Mansion House, afterwards witnessing part of the per
formance of ‘ The Marriage of Figaro ’ at the Covent
Garden Theatre.” And this, O ye Gods ! was a hard day’a
work! Not one of the simple rounds of daily toil, but
over-time - into the bargain ! Cannot such labor be per
formed at a cheaper rate ? Cannot some patriotic indi
vidual be induced to expend his energies in the service of
the State at a more reasonable rate of remuneration than
£3,000 per week? Surely if the contract were submitted
to public competition the Prince’s post could be filled, his
arduous labors performed, more economically than is now
the case.
Take, again, the Prince’s oratory. He opens bazaars,
lays foundation stones, and performs similar ornamental
if not useful functions. At Norwich, opening the Agri
cultural Hall in that city, Albert Edward eloquently re
marked: “Mr. Birkbeck and Gentlemen,—I have the
greatest pleasure iu declaring this hall to be now open.
It is worthy of the County of Norfolk and the City of
Norwich. (Loud cheers.)” Is this the oratory of our
£3,000 per week Demosthenes? Without any desire to
over-estimate my own ability, I could venture to under
take to make a much better speech than that at a mere
fraction of the cost.
As to the Prince’s military worth I am not in a position
to offer any facts or opinion. His uniforms are covered
with medals, and it therefore follows that the Prince must,
during some portions of his career, have earned those
decorations by many acts of bravery and devotion. I have
searched the pages of contemporary history for the records
�156
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
of these deeds of heroism, but, alas! I have found them
not. It is difficult to account for the remissness of histori
ans in this matter. * In none of their works do we find a
line or a sentence referring to the Prince’s exploits on the
battle-field, to the deeds of valor which bear their outward
and visible signs in the Prince’s medals. I do not, how
ever, despair of obtaining the information some day.
Take another Guelphic hero and warrior, the Duke of
■Connaught. This young man is a major-general in the
British army, and in due course—if the monarchy survive
long enough—will doubtless be appointed commander-inchief when the Duke of Cambridge shall have passed
away, and his umbrella alone shall remain as a memento
of his glorious career. The Duke of Connaught has taken
a more or less active part in the military service, and it is
clearly to his ability alone that his rapid promotion is to
be traced. Unlike the heir-apparent, our major-general
can point to the records of history in proof of his achieve
ments. When the English troops were sent to Egypt to
crush the national movement organised and directed in
that country by Arabi, it was deemed advisable that a
prince of the blood should accompany the expedition. The
flagging popularity of the Crown needed a stimulant, and
it was hoped that the participation of a member of the
royal family in the noble work of suppressing Egyptian
freedom would bring about this result. Statements were
circulated to the effect that the Prince of Wales, inflamed
with military ardor, desired to take part in the war, but
that, “in deference to the highest authority,” he had
decided to remain at home. His younger brother, how
ever, was nominated to an important command, and his
departure from our shores was the signal for the most
fulsome and ridiculous panegyrics from “loyal” journa
lists. The Daily Telegraph in bombastic and inflated
language described the satisfaction that every Englishmen
must feel at the sight of one of the princes placing himself
at the head of British troops and leading them to glory on
the battlefield. A special general was sent out to see that
the duke got into no danger; a special doctor accompanied
him, and every precaution was taken for his comfort and
safety. Soon after his arrival the battle of Kassassin was
fought, and telegrams reached this country extolling the
bravery of the duke during the combat. It subsequently
�DOES ROYALTY PAY ?
157
became known that while the battle of Kassassin was
taking place the Duke of Connaught was ten miles in the
rear! It is not a difficult matter to display the most reck
less heroism when one is ten miles from any danger.
Artemus Ward escaped a fatal wound at Sebasto
pol by not being there, and our major-general owes
his preservation to a similar piece of good fortune.
I believe the only privation to which the Duke was sub
jected during the campaign was a temporary scarcity of
soda and brandy. At the conclusion of the war many of
the troops returned to England, and were enthusiasti
cally received by their countrymen. A certain number of
picked men were summoned to Windsor, when the Queen
affixed a medal to the breast of every soldier who had
distinguished himself. And, as a grand climax, the Duke
of Connaught came forward, his royal mother fastened
a decoration upon his already overloaded uniform, and affec
tionately imprinted a kiss upon his martial brow I Could
any more ridiculous farce be imagined ? The carpet
warrior who had merely accompanied the expedition as an
ornamental appendage, who was never in real danger—to
him was vouchsafed the same reward as to the men who
had risked their lives in the discharge of their duty.
However little we may admire the trade of the soldier, it
is matter of credit to him when he bravely performs the duty
imposed upon him, and the decoration earned by devotion
and heroism is an honor to him. But as for the rows of
medals and ribands that are so thickly strewn upon the
uniforms of princely toy«soldiers, they might just as well
be fixed upon a German sausage for any relevance that
they bear to the object upon which they appear.
The sham heroes of English royalty are in perfect keep
ing with the system to which they belong. They form
part of an institution that was once terrible and powerful,
but which is now as weak as it is contemptible and ridicu
lous. The political aspect of monarchy has entirely dis
appeared ; it is not merely useless, but an actual clog and
nuisance in the work of the State. Its social duties are
frivolous and unimportant, and its “services” could be
dispensed with, not only without detriment, but with
actual advantage to the nation. We are sometimes told
that England is a wealthy country and can afford to
bear the expense entailed by royalty. I deny the state
�158
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
ment absolutely and in all earnestness. Whilst we find
large numbers of people dying from starvation in our
midst; whilst we see so many thousands of our country
men barely able, by the most arduous exertions, to keep
the wolf at bay; whilst we find that misery and want are
rife among the laboring classes of the community, I say
that it is criminal extravagance to maintain in idleness
and luxury a family that perform no service to the country,
and whose position is based upon a barbarous and obso
lete form of government.
I should be performing but a portion of the task which
I have undertaken, if I failed to point out one considera
tion that is too often overlooked. The huge sum of money
appropriated to the maintenance of royalty does not go
into the pockets of the royal family, and by far the greater
portion of it is absolutely outside of their control. The
institution of monarchy is in this country the means of
supporting that huge crowd of lazy aristocrats who have
been irreverently but not inaptly termed “Court Flun
keys.” If the British tax-payer were to take the trouble
to enquire what is done with the money which he grum
bles so loudly at paying, he would find that it filters in
many ways into the pockets of the Crown’s most devoted
adherents. The royal family are bound by the iron fetters
of custom and precedent, and many huge establishments
have to be supported, at enormous expense to the country,
for their accommodation. A glance at the composition of
the royal household would show “about one thousand
unselected, vested-interest, hungry, hereditary bondsmen
dancing round the Crown like Red Indians round a stake,
and scrambling for £325,000 of the £385,000 that is
thrown to them every year by a liberal and unenquiring
country.” Royalty requires a whole army of attendants,
and all of them have to be highly paid. Many of the
superior officials do absolutely nothing. Their offices are
sinecures; and, in many cases, even when certain duties
have to be performed, the country, while paying A. a
handsome salary for occupying the office, obligingly pays
B. to do the work. It would be instructive to repro
duce the mere list of officials and servants employed in the
service of royalty. It comprises offices that are obsolete,
offices that are ridiculous, and offices that are unnecessary.
We have an aristocratic Master of the Tennis Court, with
�DOES ROYALTY PAY ?
159
a large salary but no Tennis Court; a barge-master with
two men to help him, but no barge—only the salary;
there are chamberlains of various kinds, chief clerks, ordi
nary clerks and assistant-clerks; lords in waiting, grooms
in waiting; gentlemen ushers and ushers who presumably
are not gentlemen ; masters of the ceremonies, assistants,
and people to assist the assistants; state pages, pages of
the back-stairs, a page of the chambers, pages of the
presence, and pages’ men to wait upon the pages, of whom
—reckoning all varieties—there are sufficient to make a
large volume ; several kinds of serj eants-at-arms, kings-ofarms, heralds, chaplains, dentists, painters, librarians;
gold sticks, silver sticks, copper sticks and sugar sticks;
secretaries to everybody and under-secretaries to the secre
taries; inspectors, equerries, footmen, “three necessary
women,” priests, painters, organists, composers, etc., ad
infinitum.
These officials pass their lives comfortably and luxu
riously, subsisting upon the public money. If any one of
them has any work to do it will be found that three or
four others are provided and paid to help him; and their
assistance is sometimes afforded when there is actually
nothing to be done. To these men and to their relations
royalty is the best possible form of government, and
they will defend to the last gasp the institution which
enables them to live in idleness upon the fruits of honest
industry.
I should like to suggest a possible way in which many
of these tax-eaters could be got rid of. A short Act might
be passed ordaining that the salaries of “Court Flunkeys”
should in future be collected direct from the people by the
holders of the offices in person. The “bargemaster” and
his two “watermen,” who so efficiently help him to do
nothing, might possibly be able to gather in the £400 per
annum that they receive for their valuable services; but I
am rather doubtful whether, after deducting wear and
tear of clothing (damaged in frequent kickings-out),
doctors’ bills, time, trouble, etc., they would find the
pecuniary results to be worth consideration. There would
be fair ground for hoping that in a very few years the
greater part of these useless offices would fall into
desuetude.
We may venture to trust that, in time, the English
x
�160
THE ATHEISTIC PLATFORM.
people will open their eyes to the anomaly of their position.
With a political system in which the Republican spirit is
the very breath of life, we foolishly continue the ex
pensive luxury of a useless monarchy. The only terma
upon which we consent to retain and maintain the mon
archical element is, that it shall do nothing to logically
justify its existence. The misfortune is that the nation
has not the courage of its convictions. The facts of our
political existence are democratic; the fictions—and most
expensive fictions—are monarchical. But the day is not
far distant when the scales of prejudice and ignorance will
fall from the eyes of our people; when they will be
aroused to the dignity and independence of their man
hood ; when, being no longer children, they will put’ aside
childish things, dismiss the useless representatives of a
bygone system, and transfer their allegiance from the
Crown to the Commcnwealth.
London: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugii,
63, Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Does royalty pay?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Standring, George
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [147]-160 p. ; 18 cm.
Series title: Atheistic Platform
Series number: 10
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Publisher's series list on p. [146]. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N621
Subject
The topic of the resource
Republicanism
Monarchy
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 (Does royalty pay?), 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
Monarchy-Great Britain
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/da5ccf363ebdfbed6268cab162a98eb0.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=d1GHzBR5nwJucYQSb8NVv5yo60rZc5AbP7ff01j4MjtMKMz6IgAfXsFQ5p1ozs6d0hhAbYd-b97lcsLCOdBry9DpD0W5tkKYavGqms1J95lMDwk23E5oxR8a7gbDoaxtujR4WutMSMWSpixkf0jzyxY4qzTe2gKz7lASlxqdNT3aLFRvMVhbQM5iJu%7Er%7EFEitpcgjetVlJBgNYQV0mfYmbTKMaUiVLcA9cK-g7wPwZOwez5bCBPHFTg4RQL6PIrwcqRySdiw48EilqHjl4qFsrLv%7EHOV1rvBM2-0TITTTo8z%7EEbmoNgua%7E6paYw4v1WuI26wJZGO%7EKWqMJniD2F%7Egw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
330b1d109757243237b9cdced172270c
PDF Text
Text
Amongst the rocky Cyclades was a small isiand that by
passing travellers of old was never visited. To the eye of
the Grecian navigator its rugged cliffs appeared to pro
mise a barren surface, unfit for the habitation of man,
and tempted no adventurer to explore the recesses that
lay within. But if any such had climbed the steep granite
precipice,—as my imagination has done,—and had once
safely gained the verdant slope that ascends to the in
land plains, how rich a prospect would have rewarded
the bold attempt!
Never did the glorious sun smile upon a lovelier spot
of earth. Sparkling streams trickled along the green
meadows, or leapt amidst the trees down the steep
ravines, opening into beautiful valleys embosomed in
groves below : where, between the dark cypress and grace
ful olive, glittered the marble dwellings whose light and
stately forms proclaimed their inhabitants to be the sons
of tasteful Greece. The mountain walls of the island rise
highest to the north ; but all around it is encircled by
massive crags,—which, however, are deeply enough cleft
for breezes continually to enter and, hiding amid the
branches, to murmur out tales of sportive malice, about
bewildered boats left tossing outside.
�-■c
■
FTlcwmlw
2
Beautiful Heliados! My subject is the hearts of thy
children, yet I linger in fancy on the verdant summit
of thy plains, and seem bathed in delight at the scene
spread before me. The deep blue sea, dotted with distant
is,lets, sleeps calm o’er the white ridges to south and
west. Dark pines crown the peak that rises high to the
north. But the eastern waves are all dancing in flame,
because soon will the God of light ascend his radiant
car, to lead his splendid course on this day of trium
phant rejoicing. For the day beheld is indeed that on
which Helios attains to his prime glory of solstitial
dominion: the day of annual jubilee to his adorers.
Where was the worship of Helios rendered with purer
and more exclusive honours than on his own island of
Heliados?----- He was to these scholars of nature the One
Supreme Deity; while a secondary homage, and no more,
was paid to the Queen of night and her attendant stars.
The simple cult might seem to show an Eastern origin:
yet this people was undoubtedly sprung from Greece. It
was a colony that had been planted thence in what were
now remote ages, and that consisted of some of the best
and wisest of that land, banished in civic struggle from
their native soil. The children of the first settlers soon for
got the traditions which they had heard from their fathers,
save alone their one ever-memorable legend. The legend,
namely, which related how, when the frail vessel that
bore them was cast wildly about on raging waves, under
heavens all wrapt in storm-clouds, the trembling exiles
prayed to Helios, and He, the gracious God, divided the
clouds, and stood—nay, stood forth in the divine beauty
of his hfiman form, and shot down an arrow before
them into the sea, * whence immediately arose the
rock-bound Heliados. They, singing aloud the praise of
their Deliverer, beat their oars with renewed strength,
and safely moored their bark in a cavern of the island,
* See Grote’s “Greece” Vol. I., p. 327.
.oTtah
-no ana I offv or rerracrauron, w mnn
�3
while the waves contended sullenly in vain against the
outward walls, indignant for their rescued prey.
To Helios the grateful settlers dedicated their new
abode. To Helios their piou3 offspring ascribed all the
blessings that multiplied around them. The high-priest
of Helios was the chief magistrate in their little state :
without whose sanction the deliberations of their repub
lican assemblies never passed into law.
For many generations the contented philosophic race
cultivated their island without a wish beyond. But at
length, as their skill increased, some adventurous youths
were bold enough to explore the seas, and seek out their
parent land. And' thence they brought back to the
wondering Heliadans a glowing report of the arts, and
the science, and, above all, of the gods of Greece. By
the knowledge of the latter the allegiance of some was
nearly drawn aside from their own exclusive Deity.
But the eloquence of the sage Philinos convinced all
hearts anew of the superiority of their own simple faith.
“Zeus, Athene, Heracles,” said he, “are figments of
• tradition; but our God is visibly manifest, pouring down
on us, from his benignant throne, life, light, and bless
ing.” The people heard him with gladness, and pro
claimed afresh with solemn vows that Helios alone was
their God, and that only . Him would they serve.
'
The communication with Greece was closed by the
breaking out of the Persian war. But a new stimulus
had been given to the minds of the inhabitants of
Heliados.
Now see from all sides the white-robed trains that
wind up the highest ascent, emulous to gain a place
nearest to the rounded platform at the top. Here, in
dazzling relief against the black pines that crown the
summit, stands an altar with a semi-circular marble
�_ __ meo.tvmhfir
»
4
alcove, fronting the mid-day sun : to which lead twelve
steps, so numbered from the months of the year.
Foremost the Priests with stately gait lead up the
procession, and range themselves around the altar. Next
follows a troup of young virgins, dedicated to the service
of the temple. Train after train succeeds, till the whole
mountain-side is covered with the band of worshippers,
all robed in white, and garlanded with myrtle or with
flowers. Motionless they stand, till from the glowing
waves emerges the first beam. Then, all arms are raised
aloft, instruments of music give forth a mighty clang, and
as from one voice bursts forth the universal chorus,
“ Ilail to our God, all hail! ”
The chorus swells into full harmony, and lasts until the
full round orb hangs suspended o’er the sea—or, rather,
until Helios has shaken the spray from his golden hair,
and, casting one bright glance along the glittering waves,
springs on in his car of flame to mount the unclouded
heaven.
Then the measure of the music changes. The magnifi
cent hymn subsides into a lighter strain. The multitudes
separate into groups, and around the altar youths and
maidens weave a mazy dance; while song and laughter
resound, and all presents a scene of exuberant but grace
ful mirth. Meanwhile, one individual after another, in
unbroken succession, ascends to the temple, and lays his
offering of fruits or flowers upon the altar, loading the
air with a delicious perfume.
Thus the hours wore on, until the fervid beams of
the mounting sun began to fall too intensely on the ex
posed worshippers. The languid dancers sank on the
heated ground, waving green branches over their heads.
Offerings ceased to be brought, and the songs were grad
ually silenced. Especially within the temple the glare
i5>L-p«
nn HhoioffvorreLracLaLioii, uuv mon
�reflected from the marble walls became intolerable.----- At
a signal from the High Priest, all fell prostrate on the
ground, and a chorus broke forth, solemn and grand, but
subdued and reverential to the degree of extreme awe:—
“Helios! Almighty! We have felt thv power. We adore
thee. The creatures of earth cannot sustain thy glance. Be
merciful in thy majesty!”
When the solemn strain was concluded, the priests led,
and all followed, down the mountain to the shady plains
below, while the virgins sang in cheerful measure,—
" He gave us groves for shelter, and running brooks.’’
Various paths brought the festive crowds again to
assemble on the cool borders of the translucent lake into
which all the tricklings from the mountains discharged
themselves. Here, abundant refreshments were placed,
and, reclined on the soft turf, each indulged himself as
his sportive fancy inclined. For wit and mirth were held
an acceptable homage to the God of light and beauty,
when in this way called forth, and consecrated by the
conscience of his presence. It was thus that sang their
poets, and thus that their priests approved ; for the wor
ship of the Grecian heart was joy. All-comprehensive
must be the homage paid to Him who is Sovereign over
all. Hence also, while the playfulness of lighter spirits
was thus benignly regarded, the graver and the more
philosophic spent the hours of this noontide repose in
the fashion that was their own, of learned converse.
Many a knot was gathered round some favourite sage,
who explained results of scientific research; or hung on
the lips of some traveller returned from Greece, in
structing them in wonders of art, or showing to them
the horrors of military invasion, contrasting with their
own happy tranquility, or, still more appropriately to
the day, giving them cause for a new exulting in the
intelligence and simplicity of their own worship, through
�rTloo.emhp.i’
6
description of idolatrous rites beheld there, to the mul
tiplied deities of the divided land, where gods as much
battled in heaven as their votaries below.
“But where is our Orthinos?” was inquired by many
a disappointed group. “ Has he no new discoveries to
impart to us on this great day of our rejoicing? Who
like him can exalt the praises of Helios, by bringing, as
he has done to us, continually new proof of his mighty
working?”
“See,” said a child, “I have a wondrous gift from
Orthinos. Through it I have seen the beauty of an in
sect’s wing. The master said to me, ‘Behold: thus are
the lowly offspring of earth adorned by the All-bounteous
One.’ He also showed me the secret wonders of fruits
and flowers.”
And in thez group where the priests sat apart, the
Sovereign spoke with displeasure. “Where is Orthinos?
Why addresses he not the people to-day ? ”
“ Sacred Father,” answered an aged priest with mild
and kindly countenance, “thou knowest that Orthinos
is dear to me as an only son. Last night I went to his
dwelling, and found him so deeply plunged in his studies
that he scarcely heeded my entrance. When I bid him
remember the holy assembly of this day, the beam of
his eye, as he looked up, was like that of Helios himself.
He pressed my hand, and words seemed struggling for
utterance; but when I listened as for the inspiration of
the Glorious One, he turned away from me and entreated
me to leave him. I obeyed, for I thought, surely the
God is mighty within him, and he will pour forth his
message to-morrow.”
“ Brother,” said the High Priest, “ I fear we have
erred greatly in our regard to this man. He seeks too
daringly to penetrate the mysteries of heaven. He has
turned his magic instruments to the face of Helios him-
mak-ps no a.noloffvorTe.vr<iCLavroii, mio mniu<.a,
�7
self—not for worship, but in presumptuous curiosity. We
have held our peace, for we deemed him the favourite of
our God. But am not I the accepted minister of Helios ?
And this day he is bold enough to disobey my ordinance.
Henceforth, I will look nearer to this Orthinos.”
“Great King of heaven forbid!” exclaimed Chares.
“ Shall it be suspected that the brightest and noblest son
of Heliados is an enemy to its God!—Is he not the des
cendant of that holy man who denounced the vanity of
the gods of Greece, and first proclaimed the great Helios
for our God alone ? ”
“ Yes: but by the ordinance of that same Philinos was
I appointed the minister of Helios, and the guardian of
his people.”
When the intensity of npon-day heat was past, and
the slanting beams of the descending sun fell with a
milder but a richer glow on the turfy glades, again the
song resounded, and the clang of tymbals woke the
sprightly dance. And as the Monarch sank into his ocean
bed, again did all voices unite in a solemn chorus of
richest harmony,. dying away in soft cadence with the
fading tints of heaven.
Unwilling to disperse, the white bands yet lingered on
the darkened hills:—for loving hearts are closer knit by
the communion of gracious piety. But my fancy now
follows alone the beautiful young maiden that steals
silently away to the depths of a distant grove:—Selene,
whose sweet voice has been trilling like the lark’s, as she has sung in delicious rapture the praises of the God
of day.
In a dark chamber, amidst strange instruments of his
own invention, sits Orthinos. Motionless he has remained
since light vanished out of heaven. Nor yet now is he
aroused by the light step of the maiden as she glides in,
,*
�J" Cl.__ J.,
rnonpmlip.r
8
till her soft arms have been laid about his neck, and she
has whispered,—“ My brother, would’st thou have me
with thee ? ’ ’
Orthinos drew her to his side, and passed his arm around
her.
“So weary and sad!—and all but thee have been so
happy on this' glorious day! Would that thou too----Thou dost shake thy head. Then I know that some dis
covery has rewarded thy labour. Wilt thou not impart
it to me ? ’’
“Ask me not. Do thou rather, my Selene, tell me all
the joy of thy innocent heart.”
“Ah! that my joy could shine out upon thy soul—that
I could reflect on thee, like the Queen of night, all the
gladness that has been mine on this day! Am not I thy
Selene, thy moon, who have received from thee all the
light of my mind?—And oh! my brother, this day when
all were rejoicing in the glory of our G-od, how much
brighter was that glory to me for all thou hast taught me
to know of him. I felt how blest was my lot to be near
unto one so wise.----- Why dost thou sigh ? ”
“ Go on, my sister. Tell me all thou hast felt.”
“ Never have I felt so vividly as this day the living in
fluence of our religion. What would be the light of the
sun to us if we knew not that it was the intelligent smile
of our G-od! As plants collapse and shrivel without his
vital warmth, so would even our souls without the blessed
consciousness of his presence. Every chord of our nature
is struck by him, and, tuned by piety, should respond
like Memnon’s lyre. Our eyes behold him; our senses
feel his genial heat; our souls believe and worship. He
is not a God hidden and unknown, but he suffers us to
behold him as he dwells in mysterious solitude in the blue
expanse of heaven. And though at times he may veil
his form, for anger at our sins, or for trial of our faith,
yet for ever he leaves us a glimmering assurance of his
a
unnino-v oTreiraciaiionroab nrru
�9
presence. And when he dismisses us at night, in order
that our mortal senses may have repose from too constant
a communion with his Divineness, he commits us in
charge to his gentle vicegerent. Here, Orthinos, how has
thy science come in aid of religion. For, while our ances
tors believed that in storm and at night Helios was
departed from us, now we know that it is only our earth,
changeful like its creature man, that then turns itself
away, and that He rests for ever fixed in central repose,
the Unchangeable I—I could smile, but that others believe
them now, at the images which held my infant reverence,
of a throned charioteer, careering round the level earth.
How far more glorious is the revelation of thy science, of
Helios holding-in worlds and worlds by his mighty energy,
as they roll and roll around him, ever ready to dash off
into destruction, if his hand were for an instant relaxed,
—he himself being all the time throned immovably on the
middle point of the universe! ”
“No!----- He moves: Helios too moves!----- Yesterday,
while I was watching him intently, the idea occurred to
me. This day I have re-examined all my evidence, and
I am sure. He does not truly occupy the centre of the
world of planets, but is just so far away from it as should
have been, if they, in their turn, have a power over him,
small but real, of the same kind as is that which he holds
over them. And, if so——”
“And, if so, what then?”
“ If so, he is no longer a God, but he is a world like
our own ! ”----“ The voice of Orthinos uttering blasphemy ! ” exclaimed
Chares, who suddenly entered.
“ Convince him that he is wrong, father,” cried Selene,
as she fell at the old man’s feet. “I am lost, myself,
in a fearful amazement. But you will show to him his
error.”
With eager enthusiasm, the philosopher drew forth his
�rTJonombp.i*
10
charts, and rapidly unfolded the course of his discovery
to the priest, who had been hitherto his admiring scholar,
and repeated the awful result. “Is it not manifestly so ?
Every indication confirms the suspicion that this vast
central power is governed by the same laws that deter
mine our own inferior action, and is therefore of a similar
nature.”
“ I am confounded, and know not how to answer thee,”
returned the simple-minded priest. “ But this I know,
that in thy blind pursuit of science thou art overthrowing
a faith which is supported firmly in every other kind of
way.”
“ Father, I have gone over the whole field of nature,
so far as it lies open before me, but all strengthens me in
the belief that there is a sameness of character in that
bright orb of heaven and this our earth.”
“I speak not of evidence that is of sense, rash Orthinos,
but of the stronger proof that touches straight on the
heart of man.”
“I know not what may serve for conviction to other
hearts ; but I myself am a man, and have listened to the
voice of my own heart; and it tells me that that alone is
adorable which is true.”
“Unhappy deluded one! does thy heart then say that
there is no God?”
“ Not so. On the contrary, all nature proclaims a Cause
that is well thought of as Divine. But I see still that
that Cause is far from such as we have believed.”
“How! A God unseen, unfelt? What is that but the
same as nothing—or, at least, a dim something in which
we have no concern, and is therefore no better to us than
nothing ? ”
“ A heaven without our Helios!” cried Selene. “Cold,
dread order, in the place of intelligence and love! To
believe that day restores us to the sight of him, not by
his loving, paternal will, but as a result of dead necessity,
icftrAH Tin a.nmoyv or
oiiavuwiwx,
�11
—to feel but the sort of warmth we might derive from
earthly fuel,—to see but a lamp in heaven, in place of
that clear revelation of Deity, which through our senses
draws our hearts to a constant living perception of a
power above us !----- And is this, then, the fruit of science :
by the bringing us to nearer vision to annihilate the
glorious mystery which dazzled our imagination, to dis
perse the divine phantoms of our own creation, and show
to us that our heaven is but the magnified reflection of
earth!----- Shall then the faith of man for ever yearn and
strive for a something above him, and for ever by know
ledge be cast back upon himself! ”
“I too have felt this,” said Orthinos, not unmoved.
“ But the light has come to me, and how shall I gainsay
it?”
‘‘Listen to me, my son,” rejoined Chares. “Have the
traditions of our fathers any weight with thee ? ”
“None: I have observed too well how superstition can
invent and disguise.”
“Then I will forbear to speak of these. But thou hast
granted that all nature proclaims a Maker?”
“I have. I believe it.”
“ Thou knowest that light and heat are the means of
all growth—that no chemical change ever happens, not
any blade of grass issues forth, no kind of living being is
formed, and thence is no human soul produced, except
through their ministering agency?”
“All this have my experiments gone to prove.”
“And light and heat come alone from the Sun?”
“ Apparently.”
“ Then is Helios the Author of all good! ”
“Or the Instrument.”
“ Granted, my son,” cried the old man triumphantly.
“ But so immediately, so exclusively the instrument, that
he is, as it were, the right hand of all Godhead, the breath
of its mouth, and the one form which it is pleased to put
�on,—and therefore to us the same as full Deity, being
that which is all that we can know of it.”
“Nay, but I have confident expectation that by search
ing I shall truly find out more.”
“Believe it not. Once quitting this safe and certain
ground, a cold and dead negative alone will lie before thee.
And for this thou wilt abandon the warm and cheering
faith which animates the heart and rouses up the virtue
of worshippers ; which lifts their eyes from a grovelling
on this base earth to the ennobling contemplation of
heaven.----- Interrupt me not. I read what thou would’st
say. Who of the Heliadans has gazed upon heaven like
thee? But oh! my son, to look upon heaven with bold
inquiring eye, feeling that thy spirit is master of its
secrets, and that heavenly bodies only lie as it were
beneath thee, to be investigated,—what is this but a
making of thyself the God thou worshippest ? And how
different, how incomparably more becoming to a mortal
being, is the state of mind where the adoring believer
bows consciously himself, before acknowledged Higher
Being, seeing and feeling that he himself is ever subject
to the inspection of Divinity.”
“ Father,” returned Orthinos after a pause, “ there is
much weight in your appeal. I feel there is a moral
difficulty to overcome.”
“Give heed to it, my son: give heed to it. Ponder it
in thy heart; and above all beware that thou disturb
not the faith of others.”
“I will not, while a doubt remains to my own mind.
Too much already I have perhaps said. My Selene, go
thou with this kind father, and let him pour comfort
into thy heart.”
“I will not leave thee, my brother. But oh! father,
bless me still in the name of Helios,” exclaimed the weep
ing girl as she knelt before Chares.
“ May Helios beam into thy soul, my daughter, and
�13
disperse thy doubts as he chaseth the mists of night.
For thee, Orthinos ”—and the old man hesitated and
shuddered, “I dare not say, may Helios bless thee!”
Chares hastened away, and as he passed through the
midnight shade of the grove, the thought of his mind
was a trembling rejoicing that this blasphemy had not
been uttered in the face of day.
With early dawn Selene left her restless couch that
she might go forth, and meet the first glance of rising
Deity. But in passing by the apartment where her brother
was wont to study she stopped, for she saw that he re
mained still seated as she had left him over-night. There,
amid his charts and instruments, he was slumbering with
a smile upon his lips like a happy infant. Selene bent
over him, and dropped a gentle kiss on his large smooth
brow. Orthinos awoke, and the clear soul that beamed
from his eyes seemed full of noble confidence, as of one
that has been in communion with lofty' thoughts. The
ruddy dawn shone into the chamber as Selene extinguished
the flickering lamp; and with one consent the brother
and young sister issued forth.
She looked inquiringly in his face as she turned their
steps to the accustomed hill.----- “ Whither thou wilt.”
In silence they mounted the hill and turned to the
crimson east.----- “ For worship, brother?” murmured the
maiden.
“ Yes, Selene, for worship :—here,—everywhere. Wher
ever we turn, new wonders unfold themselves, beyond the
feeble ken of man. Never was my soul so tuned to wor
ship as now that I seem to have first opened my eyes
upon the miracles of nature. Last night, Selene, as I
pursued my researches, schemes of such vastness of con
ception dawned on me as almost dazzled my imagination.
As yet they are no more than faint gleams; but I shall
trace them into the boundless space before me.”
�“And leave behind thy religion and thy God! What
then shall science avail thee ! ”
“No! if my science be true,—and, I think, none can
prove it false,—that which we have been adoring is no
God, and his worship is superstition, not religion.”
“Whom, what, then shall we worship?”
“ That yet is unknown. But do not shrink from the
idea. He does not the less exist, because we are not yet
able to discern Him.----- 1 will confess to thee that at first,
when it seemed to me truly that the'Maker was annihilated
from creation, I felt dismayed: as if the universe were
suddenly dead, without a soul. But I re-consider, and
find that it is our imagination about Him, not Himself,
that in reality is departed. And though He is yet to seek,
all the proofs we have ever had of His being still remain
as much as ever in full force.”
“But oh1 if invisible, if no object of sense, it seems to
me that He can be no object of love !----- Brother, are
the arguments of Chares without weight ? ”
“Not entirely so. The practical worth of any doctrine
is a testimony in its favour.
The moral value found
in it ought to serve as a guard against our rashly aban
doning it. But it cannot prove, nor can anything prove,
that it is criminal to seek for more knowledge; and much
less can it impugn the claim on us which is that of any
knowledge once surely gained. The really good must be
inevitably at one with the really true. But how can we
know under what influence the old ideas may have sprung
forth, which now are clothed with the sacred form of
religion, and which, having been received as such, have
twined themselves about the deepest and the dearest parts
of our nature—nay, which indeed have by a beautiful
sublimation in character become actually that which they
at first but pretended to be ?
I have spoken to thee of
successive eras in the formation of our globe ;—so, in the
progress of humanity, has religious faith taken stand on
�15
different stages, as new layers of moral civilization have
spread over the rude mental world; and in each success
ive case, no sooner have the flooding waters subsided than
life newly has shot from every pore, fresh verdure has
covered the rocky bed, and a glad creation has arisen as
if it were to endure for ever 1
How ruthless appears to
us, the ephemeral creatures of earth, the destruction that
has repeatedly swept over it, appearing as if destined to
hurl nature back into chaos:—instead of which, each in
stance of destruction has brought it to onward stages of
perfection. Even so it is painful to break up old forms
of religion—to tear away from the heart its long-cherished
associations. Even so is there destruction for a while, in
partial measure, to even morality and virtue. But fear not
in the end for either virtue or religion. These truly are
divine—divine in themselves. They are immortal energies,
inseparable from true human nature, however the facile
images they have been decked in by rude invention may
truly prove destined to perish.”
Orthinos paused, for Helios was breaking forth from
the waves. It was the signal at which all Heliadans were
wont to fall prostrate, and worship. Selene threw her arms
around hei- brother. He pressed her to his bosom, and
together they watched the noblest spectacle of nature.
“ Glorious is that beam,” said the philosopher, “ but
more glorious to me, Selene, was the light that broke in
upon my mind, when the thought flashed on me of the
wondrous balance on which are worlds poised in the
real heaven.”
They descended the hill, and Selene felt that there was
a power in her brother’s soul on which she could rest,
even as she hung upon his arm for bodily support.
Orthinos returned to his study, and the maiden wandered
alone. Alone! yes, Selene felt that she was indeed alone!
She sought the thickest groves, and if a sunbeam crossed
�JL £L
rTJpnornbftr
16
her path., she shrank aside. But the shades were oppres
sive, and seemed to her like the mansion of death. And
when the voices of distant virgins, chanting their morn
ing hymn to Helios, were borne to her on the breezes,
Selene wept. Yet not in thought did she reproach her
brother that he had revealed to her truths too vast and
stern for her weaker soul.
She gloried in his superior
mind. She felt her own enlarged : for hers was of the
kindred nature which could receive, if not originate;
it could appreciate and admire, if it could not itself
accomplish, the daring and undeviating pursuit of truth.
Hers too was the love that would share in all things. He
could not lead, where she was unwilling to follow. But,
now, as a thousand images of home-nourished association
crowrded into her mind, she felt as if the pathway before
her were a drear and barren wilderness, beyond which,
if there lay a fairer home, her strength might fail to
reach it. He, her guide, it appeared to her, was now to
be her all, in earth and heaven.
Meanwhile the youths who were accustomed to be taught
by Orthinos, lamented that he came not forth. Still by
these, who respected his retirement, he was left in quiet.
Nevertheless, it was not long that his study was undis
turbed. For the High Priest sent Chares to summon
him to the royal presence.
Orthinos prayed his friend that he might delay till he
had finished the calculation in which he was plunged.
Bnt the command was imperative, and reluctantly he
obeyed. “ The Ruler of our Isle,” he said, “ has a right
to know the doctrines that are promulgated among his
people ; and I am willing to explain to him, as to all
Heliadans, the discoveries that have opened themselves
to me.”
“ I beseech thee, forbear I Dost thou not perceive that
these notions of thine are utterly subversive, not only of
Tin H.T1UIOH V vr ’
vciutvii,
�17
the religion, but of the whole government of our Isle ;
and that therefore thou must appear to the Ruler, not
only as an impious blasphemer, but also as a rebel ? ”
The idea was startling to Orthinos. For, wholly im
mersed as he had been in his discoveries, he had never
yet contemplated this consequence.
“Be guided by me, my son,” urged the old man, with
tears of earnest affection.
“ Keep these thoughts all
within thy own breast.”
“It is impossible! For all will come and question me
—unless, indeed, I be shut up, or banished from commu
nion with men.----- 1 have no wish to interfere with the
government of our Isle.
We have lived freely and
happily under the paternal sway of our Priest.----- Yet,
I bethink me, this was owing to the cause that our
religion gave its sanction to the yoke, whence voluntarily
was it that we bent to it. I see that if truly our faith
be changed, nought can hinder but that discord and
rebellion will follow.----- -Even so was it, father, that in
the realm of my own nature were discord and rebellion
also stirred. But not for these, nevertheless, did I swerve
from my course. Nor will I now, from any fear of what
may happen to others. For them and me, I am per
suaded, there is no better guide than honest truth.”
Chares would have urged farther, but reverence for
his Sovereign, and religion towards his God, restrained
his lips.
Boldly, but without defiance, Orthinos made his con
fession before the High Priest; and, subsequently, before
the assembled chiefs of the island. Horror and dismay
were in all hearts, contending with the esteem in which
he was universally held, as the wisest of their learned
men. Hitherto, it had never happened in Heliados that
any shedding of blood should appear needful at the bar
of justice. But this was an unheard-of crime; and how
�18
should they arrest its fearful contagion from spreading
amongst the people? dhey would gladly have imposed
silence, and left the inflicting of punishment to the offended
Deity himself. But little would this avail. “ Know,”
said Orthinos, “that the way of science which I have
opened to multitudes of young inquiring minds will lead
also them to the same end that I have gained. In spite
of any endeavours to stop the current of thought, my
example will be repeated a hundred fold Yes, surely as
the light of another morrow will succeed on the darkness
of night, will truth arise on other souls as it has arisen
on mine.”
“He has spoken to his own condemnation,” said the
High Priest. “It is true that even now are there rumours
afloat of impiety diffused among the people. And we
must therefore set a warning before them to restrain
them from following his example. The denier of Helios
must die 1 ”
Thus the deliberations of the day were ended. And
at midnight the prisoner was left for the few short hours
of darkness to feel the unutterable cruelty of his doom.
He prayed that for one year,—one month,—he might enjoy
the precious boon of life. He prayed, at least, that this
night they would allow him his instruments and papers,
that he might finish the scheme on which he had entered.
But the judges—the priestly judges—were inexorable ; and
he repressed the deep anguish of his soul. All access
to his polluting presence was denied. Selene had been
committed to the charge of Chares, who was rendered
responsible that she should neither imbibe nor propagate
the impiety of her brother.
A third morning dawned on Heliados. And once more
the people assembled in crowds on the temple mountain.
But it was not now for joy and exulting worship. On
this day is a sacrifice to be rendered to the Mighty One: —
Tna.KeN nu nruivcr
'i
. 1
I
I
■
|
I!
|
�19
a crowning act of homage, but one of which the memory
will embitter all the worship to follow after.
Again arises Helios, glorious and unclouded in his
majesty. But a blighting mist is already filling the moral
atmosphere that will speedily dim for ever the faith of
his votaries.
The people whispered amongst one another in won
dering indefinite alarm till the white band of priests
appeared and wound up the ascent. Then an utter con
sternation seized on all, for as the priests opened their
ranks, and stood around the altar, they discovered in
the midst their Orthinos! The Sovereign Pontiff stood
forth, and with hand out-stretched towards the God
of day, commanded in the name of Helios that all
should listen.
“This man whom I have sanctioned to teach, and
from whom ye have loved to learn, has become a blas
phemer of our God. While the hearts of all his country
men have been glowing with a loving and grateful homage
to their Founder and Preserver, he has buried himself in
darkness with the spirits of darkness, and has only come
forth to deny the very being of our Helios. What fiery
indignation, what plagues, may not the offended God
hurl down on us, if we suffer this great criminal to dwell
amongst us unpunished ! Wherefore I have commanded
him to be brought here, that he may either worship,
or die.”
rl hen all fixed their eyes with trembling horror on the
prisoner, waiting breathless for his reply.
“I have found that Helios is no God, and I cannot
worship him.”
“Ye have heard his blasphemy, 0 Heliadans. Lift up
your voices with me, and deprecate the wrath of the
Mighty One from falling on us also.”
And the people obeyed, while at the signal of their
Sovereign the priests bound Orthinos to the altar; placing
�XILan<a.mheiy
20
at his feet the instruments of his science, the fruits of
the labour of his life, doomed also to destruction.
‘‘Thus,” said the High Priest, “we commend to Helios
his own victim. In darkness has this sin been engen
dered : let him now feel the potency of the God, warm
and gracious at first, but increasing to fierce overpower
ing might. Until noon shall he remain, in order that
perchance the God may have mercy on him, and touch
his heart.”
Orthinos would have spoken to the people, but they
were bidden to retire out of hearing of his voice, “ in
order,” it was said, “ that he might commune with
Helios alone.”
But there was one whom no command could force to
retire. On the steps of the altar knelt Selene, her
appalled guardian at her side. The woeful interval had
been passed by them in alternate efforts on his part to
console the maiden, and to renew her shaken faith. Now,
in the weariness of her intense sorrow there was but one
thought that remained to her:—“If Helios be a God, he
will spare my godlike brother.” And the vehemence of
this assurance still upheld her.
The hours moved slowly on, and the heat became more
and more intense, so that those that stood within the
temple sickened and grew faint. And yet no cloudy veil
was spread in mercy, no breeze was made to fan the
heavy air. The fire of heaven burned fiercely, as if with
indignant ire.
The shadow of the altar dwindled till it fell only on
the very centre of the alcove.
Then the Pontiff once
more approached, and addressed his victim. “Dost thou
now adore the Omnipotent Helios ? ”
Orthinos raised his languid head, and once more cast
a glance around on the exquisitely-beautiful landscape,
—on the many well-loved ones whose hearts were now
agonizing for him,—on her, chiefly, who was the nearest
�21
and best loved. And his soul shrank from the blank
region of death, the dread expanse without a shore and
without a God:—and it struggled convulsively for life.
But on this side was a Lie. And his lips uttered the
firm resolve, “ Let me die I ”
Then the priests drew from amongst his instruments a
clear transparent circle, by the aid of which he had been
wont to regard the heavens. “ With this,” said the High
Priest, “ has he lifted presumptuous gaze to the mysteries
of heaven. Behold, what shall happen when the God in
like manner looks down upon him! ”
And they held it over the head of the victim. The
glowing beams were concentrated on his brow and pierced
direct to his brain. Sense and life were instantaneously
extinguished, and the stricken frame held Orthinos no
more.
What should have followed for a people thus robbed
of their noblest teacher but a bitter season of contention,
between those who admired him and those who con
demned:—between those who would have saved him with
their lives, and those who abhorred him with all their
souls ?
I see the image of my unhappy Selene, after she had
passed through the paroxysm of her anguish, reviving some
what into a gentle consolation, through the force of her
pure instincts. Her thoughts hovered ceaselessly over
the region where the spirit of her brother was now a
sojourner. Faith grew up for her out of love, and her
loving faith created or discovered a Heaven. Nor was
it long ere thither also her own spirit followed.
For the G-od-deprived island in general, however, in
creasing discord and increasing persecution raged long in
the manner of ujiholy demons:—until at last a great
�rT)dp.f>mhfir
22
solution was evolved. The conviction was brought forth
into a ripe truth, that undoubtedly is the soul of man
in itself a surer medium for the manifesting of Deity
than any exhibitor of mere physical glory.
And it
happened therefore, inevitably, that the repentant and
grateful countrymen of Orthinos turned to worship him
self as their God.
. With this consummation the history of the Heliadans
closed. Shortly after, their island was submerged by an
earthquake.
Sara S. Hennell.
Hackney, November, 1846.
�[This little tale is now printed with a view to private use.
The date attached to the manuscript copy is retained as a
necessary index; but none the less, as requires to be ack
nowledged, has the original version been subjected through
out, under present revision, to some measure of correction
of a slight kind.
The passage from Grote’s “Greece” which is referred to,
and which was the obvious source of the whole story’s com
position, is the following:----“After leaving Corcyra, the Argo was overtaken by a perilous storm
near the island of Thera: the heroes were saved from imminent peril by
the supernatural aid of Apollo, who, shooting from his golden bow an
arrow which pierced the waves like a track of light, caused a new island
suddenly to spring up in their track and present to them a port of refuge.
The island was called Anaphe; and the grateful Argonants established
upon it an altar and sacrifices to Apollo jEgletes, which were ever after
wards continued, and traced back by the inhabitants to this originating
adventure.”
8. 8. H.]
COVENTRY, March, 1884.
CURTIS AND BEAMISH, PRINTERS, COVENTRY.
�---- —"-- -—“--- “
------f---- .— 2*. Cl
rTianomllP.r
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Heliados a mythical legend
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hennell, Sara Sophia
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Coventry
Collation: 22, [1] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Curtis and Beamish, Coventry. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT61
Subject
The topic of the resource
Mythology
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 (Heliados a mythical legend), 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
Legends
Mythology