2 10 25 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/f3d658a369013348e36a4db63ebc5c47.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=X113Jy%7E31PXhigZniUGvR%7ENrk5wvRLaFVqnk-nBf12nHx8cb0E-H21FpulZwuQ3viQoTXrPD6-cSsZ8bf2iVqj9H%7EXr2u%7ERAEcp3ommpCqrP64Z1XKmtth8LjmAqLcpP6rOKoHaHoyS-P9lluMZji7X8hnznpuBuRBR07yh-mQWr1IbupiC6Rg0WSihq0k-YDNpGJpTjSGLiSBoGEOwq0S1C2-m54nSrr7XHqMnAgHhNn%7EWPUclLE4pJVGytC77G9SMa%7EYWbiV0zghaJVLsvCAE6CX9u8H5dumTn9aCgJIA5heGtXo8IAWO-Ww2yNYP5-fFSFn25BqMKJuWF6nQpuA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 6b3ce4e0cefc756657933ec14f6c52d4 PDF Text Text OF PRAYER G. W. FOOTE. (Third Edition.) TWOPENCE. PRICE LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.G. 1887. �LONDON : MINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �fS 2474- INTRODUCTION. The following Essay was first published in 1880, and a second edition was published in 1884, with an introduction dealing with current illustrations of the doctrine of prayer. In issuing this third edition I rewrite that Introduction, bringing the subject “up to date.” My Essay was originally entitled 77/e Futility of Prayer, but the second edition bore the more forcible title of The Folly of Prayer. I am con­ vinced that Heine was right when he said that “ the superfluous is harmful.” Progress is so huge a task, so arduous, and so painful, that any diversion of human energy into unprofitable channels is a disaster. If prayer is futile, it is a folly. I omitted in my Essay to mention the recovery of the Prince of Wales from gastric fever, many years ago, and the National Thanks­ giving Service held in St. Paul’s Cathedral. What orgies of religious excitement were worked up by the London press, and notably by that eminently pious journal, the Daily Telegraph ! How we were bidden tofwatch the great national wave of prayer surging against the throne of grace! Thanks to a good constitution, and the highest medical skill, the Prince recovered. But the clergy insisted that his recovery was due to prayer. Accordingly they organised a stupendous farce at St. Paul’s, where they thanked God for his marvellous mercy. But amidst all the delirium the authorities retained a little sagacity. The doctors were handsomely rewarded, and one of them was elevated to the dignity of a knight. Deity received the empty praise, and the phvsiciansthe solid pudding. Several years after that interesting event, President Garfield was assassinated by a wretched being, whose mind was diseased with vanity and religion. Week after week science fought with death over the President’s sick bed, while prayers for his recovery were offered up in every church and chapel in the United States. But his life ebbed slowly away amid a people’s supplications. If prayer saved the life of �Introduction. the P rince of Wales, why did it not save the life of President Garfield ? Is God a respecter of persons? Or is the Deity so monarchical that he will not succor the President of a Republc ? It is difficult to see how the fatality of Guiteau’s bullet can be explained, without denying the effioac y of prayer, or impeaching the character of God. When France and Italy were visited by the cholera, in 1884, it naturally excited the popular superstition. Religious processions and public prayers to the Virgin were frequently demanded, but the civic authorities resisted these pious clamors, and it is a remarkable fact that they were usually supported by the higher priests, who were sensible enough to perceive that excitement would render the multitude more susceptible to the plague. There can be litttle doubt that, if England were visited by the plague, our higher clergy would exhibit the same prudence, although our Prayer Book contains a form of “prayer in time of sickness.” During the present year the north of Italy and the south of France have suffered from earthquakes. But while the gambling hell of Monte Carlo was scarcely shaken, the sacred edifices of many other towns have been injured or demolished. The inhabitants of Bajardo fled from their dwellings at the first shock, and assembled in the parish church, where they fell on their knees, and implored the divine pro­ tection. The priests and the people were praying with one voice, when the celestial answer arrived. A fresh wave of earthquake rent the walls, and the roof fell in on the devoted crowd, killing three hundred, and mutilating as many more. Such an appalling illustration of the folly of prayer might be thought sufficient to destroy the doctrine. But superstition is not so easily extinguished. Faith is superior to logic, and there is always a loophole for the Deity's c scape. Prayer is like the quick-tongued gambler ; it plays on the principle of “ heads I win, tails you lose.” All the facts on one side are counted, and all on the other side neglected. There is even a subtler form of the same irrationality. It is sometimes said that God helps those who help themselves. We must trust in God, but we must also keep our powder dry. This exhortation, however, loses sight of the very essence of the problem. The deity is supplicated when our own resources fail, and it is certainly absurd to credit another being, however exalted, with the fruits of our own wisdom, our own courage, and our own strength. Such a one-sided doctrine is not too severely atirised in the following epigram by James Thomson : �Introduction. “ God helpeth him who helps himself, They preach to us as a fact, Which seems to lay up God on the shelf, And leave the man to act. Whish seems to mean—You do the work, Have all the trouble and pains, While God, that indolent grand Old Turk, Gets credit for the gains.” It may be safely said that there is very little practical belief in the efficacy of prayer among the clergy themselves. Whole regiments of the Black Army may be seen at places like Bath, in search of health and rich widows. When they fall ill they act like other men. They con­ sult Dr. Science instead of Dr. Providence, and leave the Lord’s vine­ yard for the seaside. Faith is the same in both places, but the air is different, and it is a curious fact in religious chemistry that prayer is more efficacious when it is taken with oxygen than when it is taken with carbonic acid gas. Mr. Spurgeon, for instance, is accounted one of the most orthodox preachers of our age. He maintains all the time-honored doctrines of Christianity, and among them the efficacy of prayer. But his own practice is a curious commentary on his teaching. Whenever he is troubled by his old acquaintance the gout, he rushes off to Mentone, and leaves his congregation at home to pray for him ; and as soon as the Mediterranean air and sunshine have given him relief, he writes to the Tabernacle “ Beloved, the Lord has heard our prayers.” The unctuous hypocrisy of all this would be beneath contempt, if religion were not such a lively influence for evil. Not 'only could God cure Mr. Spurgeon’s gout in South London as easily as in the South of France, but he might extend his divine assistance to the myriad suf­ ferers from disease in the back-streets and slums of the metropolis, who do-not earn a few thousands a year by preaching the gospel, and are unable to take a month’s holiday at a fashionable watering-place. �THE FOLLY OF PRAYER. “ Thebe was,” says Luther in his Table Talk, “ a great drought, as it had not rained for a long time, and the grain in the field began to dry up, when Dr. M. L. prayed continually and said finally with heavy sighs : 0 Lord, pray regard our petition in behalf of thy promise. ... I know that we cry to thee and sigh desirously ; ivhy dost thou not hear us ? And the very next night there came a very fine fruitful rain.” From Luther to Sammy Hicks the Yorkshireman is a fap cry, but an episode of his history somewhat resembles this naive story of the great Reformer. Sammy Hicks was a miller and a Methodist, and once while looking forward to a Love Feast, at which cakes were consumed, he was sorely troubled by a dead calm that lasted for days together,'and caused a complete stoppage of his windmill. It so happened that all the flour was exhausted before the calm was broken, and on the very eve of the Love Feast there was none left for the cakes. In this extremity recourse was had to prayer. Sammy himself, who excelled in that line, petitioned Heaven for a breath of wind to fill his sails. In a few moments the cheeks of the suppliants were fanned by a gentle zephyr, which rapidly grew to a strong breeze. Around went the sails of Sammy’s mill, until enough flour was ground to make the Love Feast cakes, when the wind suddenly subsided and died away as miraculously as it came. How amusing are both Luther and Sammy Hicks, in these instances, to the educated minds of to-day! Yet amongst, the ignorant and those who are not imbued with the spirit of Science, the old superstition of prayer still lingers, and ever and anon betrays itself in speech and act. Whatever remnant of superstition exists the priests are very careful to foster. Accordingly, whenever an opportunity occurs, they stimulate popular folly and make them­ selves the laughing-stock or contempt of the wise and thoughtful. In Catholic countries the miracles of the Middle Ages are even now, in this age of railways and electric telegraphs, repeated before the shrines of new-fangled saints. Pilgrims journey to Lourdes and other holy places, where the credulity of the multitude is equalled by the imposture of their priests. The blood of St. Januarius still liquefies annually at Naples, precious relics heal all manner of �The Folly of Prayer. 7 diseases, and the Virgin appears to prayerful peasants and hysterical nuns. In England these things do not happen, for there is not faith enough to make them possible. Yet here also the Catholic priests get souls out of purgatory by the saying of masses which have to be duly paid for; and our own Protestant priests, who have relinquished almost every peculiar function of their office, still retain one, that of standing between us and bad weather. We may call them our Kain Doctors, a name applied to the African medicine­ men, who beat gongs and dance and shout to scare off the sun and bring down rain when the land is parched with drought. The difference between a bishop of the English Church praying for sun­ shine and an African medicine-man howling for wet, is purely accidental and nowise intrinsic. Intellectually they stand on the same level, the sole difference being that one goes through his per­ formance in a vulgar and the other in a high-bred fashion. Perhaps there is another difference ; one may be honest and the other dis­ honest, one sincere and the other hypocritical. Cato wondered how two augurs could meet without laughter, and probably it would be comical to witness the meeting of two friendly parsons after a lusty bout of prayer for fine weather. In 1879 we were afflicted with a descent of rain scarcely paral­ leled in the century. Through the spring and through the summer the deluge persisted, and each month seemed to bring more violent storms than its predecessors. Yet our Hain Doctors kept as quiet as mice. Perhaps they reflected that it was scarcely politic to pray for sunshine until the Americans had ceased to telegraph the approach of fresh tempests. How different from the African Bain Doctors, who will pray for rain while the sun glares torrid and implacable, and no cloudlet mitigates the awful azure of heaven ! But, deceived by a brief spell of fine weather in the middle of July, they suddenly plucked up courage and proceeded to counsel Omni­ science. The result was woeful. On the very next Sunday after prayers for fine weather began to be offered, a terrific storm burst over the land, and for weeks after the rain was almost incessant. During one week in August only seventeen hours of sunshine were registered in London. The harvest was spoiled, about forty million pounds’ worth of produce was lost to the country, and farmers looked in the face of ruin. This was the answer to prayer ! Yet the votaries of superstition and their priestly abettors will not admit the futility of prayer. Their reasoning is like the gambler’s “ heads I win, tails you lose ” ! All the facts that tell for their case are allowed to count, and all that tell against it are excluded. If what they pray for happens, that proves the efficacy �8 The Folly of Prayer. of prayer ; if it does not happen, that proves nothing at all. Such is the logic of superstition in every age and clime. Notwithstanding the occasional outbursts of our Rain Doctors, it is evident that the docrine of Prayer is being gradually refined away, like many other doctrines of theology. It originated in simpler times, when people thought that something tangible could be got by it. Whenever danger or difficulty confronted our bar­ barous ancestors, they naturally looked to the god or gods of their faith for assistance. If any transcendental philosopher or mystical theologian had told them that prayer was not a practical request but a spiritual aspiration, they would have answered with a stare of astonishment. Even the New Testament embodies the belief of the savage, although in a slightly refined form, and the Lord’s Prayer contains a distinct request for daily bread. Before the advent of science, when men ignorantly and unskilfully wrestled with the 'manifold evils of fife, their prayers for aid were grimly earnest, and often the last cry of despair. Fire, earthquake, flood, famine, and pestilence, afflicted them sorely ; often they gazed blankly on sheer ruin ; and in lifting their supplicating hands and eyes and voice, they besought no spiritual anodyne, but a real out­ ward relief. The hand of supernatural power was expected to visibly interpose on their behalf. Now, however, the idea of prayer is greatly changed for all save a few fools or fanatics. Educated Christians, for the most part, do not appear to think that objective miracles are wrought in answer to prayer. They think that now God only works subjective miracles, and by operating upon men’s hearts, produces results that would not happen in the natural course of things. According to this subtler form of superstition, outward circumstances are never interfered with, but our inward condition is changed to suit them. Thus, if a ship were speeding onward to some fatal danger of simoon or sunken reef, God would not alter the circuit of the storm, or remove the rocks from the ship’s path, but if he deigned to interpose would work upon the captain’s mind and induce him to deviate from his appointed course.' If an innocent man were sentenced to be hung, God would not break’the rope or strike the executioner blind, but he might influ­ ence the Home Secretary to grant a reprieve. Or if in a thunder­ storm we had sought the shelter of a tree, God would not divert the lightning, although he might, just before it struck the tree, whisper that we had better move on. This last refinement of the doctrine of the efficacy of prayer is very intelligible to the psychologist. Physical science has thoroughly demonstrated the reign of law in the material universe, and educated people are indisposed to look for miracles in that direc- �The Folly of Troyer. 9 tion, notwithstanding the occasional attempts of our rain doctors to cure bad weather with spiritual medicines. But mental science has produced much less effect. Man’s mind is still supposed to be a chaos, haunted and mysteriously influenced by a phantasmal free­ will. Save by a few philosophers and students, the reign of law is not suspected to obtain there. Accordingly the miracles which were thought to occur in the material world are now relegated to the spiritual world—a ghoul-haunted region wherein there survives a home for them. Yet progress is being made here also, and we1 may confidently predict that as miracles have been banished from the domain of matter, so they will be banished from the domain of mind. The reign of law, it will be perceived, is universal within us as without us. It is manifested alike in the growth of a blade of grass and in the silent procession of the stars ; alike in tumult and in peace, in the loud overwhelming storm or engulphing earth­ quake, and in the soft-falling rain or golden sunshine nurturing the grass in a thousand valleys and ripening the harvest on a thousand plains ; and no less apparent in the noblest leaps of passion and the highest flights of thought, but binding all things in one harmonious whole, so that the brain of Shakespeare and tne heart of Buddha acknowledge kinship with the mountains, waves and skies. e Meanwhile the sceptic asks the believer in prayer to justify it, and show that it is not merely a superstitious and foolish waste of energy. The proper spirit in which to approach this subject is the rational and not the credulous. The efficacy of prayer is a question to be decided by the methods of science. If efficacious, prayer is a cause, and its presence may be detected by experiment or investiga­ tion. The experimental method is the best, but there is difficulty in applying it as the believers perversely refuse to undertake their share of the process. Professor Tyndall on behalf (I think) of Sir Henry Thompson, has proposed that a ward in some hospital should be set apart, and the patients in it specially prayed for, so that it might be ascertained whether more cures were effected in it than in other wards containing similar patients, and tended by the same medical and nursing skill. This proposal the theologians fought shy of ; and one of them (Dr. Littledale) gravely rebuked Professor Tyndall for presuming to think that God Almighty would submit to be made the subject of a scientific experiment. Theologically there is much force in this objection, although scientifically and morally there is none. A universal Father would assuredly welcome such a test of his goodness, but the proud irascible God of theology would be sure to frown upon it, and signalise his preference for the fine old plan of closing our eyes while opening our mouths to �10 The Folly of Prayer. receive his benefactions. There is a way, however, to take him at it were by a side-wind. There are certain things impossible even to Omnipotence. Sidney Smith (I think) said that God himself could not make a clock strike less than one. Nor can any power revoke what has already occurred. “Not heaven itself upon the past has power,” as Dryden tells us. The past is irrevocable, and we may investi­ gate it for the purpose of ascertaining whether prayer has been efficacious, without the least fear of being baffled by any power in the heavens above, in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. People have prayed enough in the past—far more, indeed, than they are likely to pray in the future—and if we find that their prayers have been futile, the whole question at issue must be con­ sidered as practically decided in the negative. Let us dismiss all appeals to individual experience, and deal only with broad classes of facts. It is quite impossible in any particular case to determine whether prayer has been answered or not, even when the object besought has been wholly obtained. A single result is so often produced by a combination of causes, some obvious and direct, and others obscure and indirect, that we cannot abso­ lutely say whether the natural agencies have operated alone or in conjunction with a supernatural power. If after long and fervent prayers a precious life has been spared, it cannot be affirmed that prayer was a cause of the recovery, since the sick person might, have recovered without it. Nor, on the other hand, can it be affirmed that prayer was not a cause, since the sick person might, have died without it. Our ignorance in such cases precludes us from deciding one way or the other. The only way to neutralise this is to examine general categories, to take whole classes of persons, and see whether those who pray get what they ask for any more than those who do not pray, or if classes of persons who are prayed for by others are more favored than those who enjoy no such advantage. Pursuing this line of inquiry, Mr. Francis Galton, the author of a remarkable work on “Hereditary Genius,” was led many years ago to collect and collate statistics relative to the subject of prayer, which he subsequently published in the Fortnightly Review of August, 1872. Mr. Galton’s article did not, so far as I am aware, attract the attention it deserved. Its facts and conclusions are of great importance, and the remainder of my own essay will be largely indebted to it. Let us take first the case of recovery from sickness. It has been frequently remarked that sickness is more afflictive than death �The Folly of Tray er. 11 itself, and it is common for persons who suffer from it, if they are at all of a religious turn of mind, to pray for relief and restoration to health. Their relatives also pray for them. However pious men may be, they always submit to Omniscience their own view of the case when their lives are in the least degree endangered; and how­ ever fervently they believe in the eternal and ineffable felicities of heaven, they are scarcely ever content to leave this vale of tears. They desire as long a continuance of life on this earth as the sceptic does. Often, indeed, they repine far more than the sceptic at the ordinance of fate. Now, as a matter of fact, is it found that pious persons of a prayerful disposition recover from sickness more frequently than worldly persons who are not in the habit of praying at all? If so, the medical profession would long ago have dis­ covered it, and prayer would have taken a recognised place among sanative agencies. On this point Mr. Galton writes as follows :— “ The medical works of modern Europe teem with records of individual illnesses and of broad averages of disease, but I have been able to discover hardly any instance in which a medical man of any repute has attributed recovery to the influence of prayer. There is not a single instance, to^my knowledge, in which papers read before statistical societies have recognised the agency of prayer either on disease or on anything else. The universal habit of the scientific world to ignore the agency of prayer is a very important fact. To fully appreciate the ‘ eloquence of the silence ’ of medical men, we must bear in mind the care with which they endeavor to assign a sanitary value to every influence. Had prayers for the sick any notable effect, it is incredible but that the doctors, who are always on the watch for such things, should have observed it, and added their influence to that of the priests towards obtaining them for every sick man. If they abstain from doing so, it is not because their attention has never been awakened to the possible efficacy of prayer, but, on the contrary, that although they have heard jt insisted on from childhood upwards, they are unable to detect its influence.” It thus appears that prayer is a medicine only in the pharma­ copoeia of the priests. Many doctors rather dislike it. A medical friend of mine, who hated the sight of a parson, used always to keep any member of the clerical fraternity waiting outside the sick-room door in extreme cases, until it was certain that death would supervene. He would then allow the reverend gentleman to go through his performance, knowing that he could do harm. My friend said that when his patients required absolute repose their nerves were often agitated in his absence by obtrusive and officious priests. A class of persons who are specially and generally prayed for are kings and queens and other members of royal families. A high value is always set on things which cost a great deal. Royal per­ sonages are very expensive, and we naturally esteem and love them according to their cost. Animated by an amiable desire that they �12 The Folly of Prayer. may long live to spend the money we delight to shower upon them, ' we pray that God will prolong their existence beyond that of ordinary mortals. “ Grant her in health and wealth long to live,” is the prayer offered up for the Queen in our State churches, and the same petition is made in hundreds of Nonconformist chapels. If, then, there be any efficacy in prayer, kings should enjoy a greater longevity than their subjects. We do not, however, find this to be the case. The average age of ninety-seven members of royal houses who lived from 1758 to 1843, and survived their thirtieth year, was 54-04 years, which is nearly two years less than the average age of the shortest-lived of the well-to-do classes, and more than six years less than that of the longest. Sovereigns are literally the shortest lived of all who have the advantage of affluence. In their case it is evident that prayer has been absolutely of no avail. Another class of men very much prayed for are the clergy. They pray for themselves, and as they all profess to be called to the ministry by the Holy Ghost their prayers should be unusually effica­ cious. If there be any faith capable of removing mountains, they should possess it. If the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much, the fervent prayer of a parson should avail exceedingly. Now the clergy pray not for spiritual light and help, but also for temporal blessings. They like to prosper here as well as hereafter, and are adepts in the sublime art, reprobated by Jesus but lumi­ nously expounded and forcibly commended by Dr. Binney, of making the best of both worlds. They believe in heaven, but are in no haste to get there, being content to defer occupation of the heavenly " mansions in store for them until they can no longer inhabit the snug residences provided for them here. With a laudable desire to enjoy the bird-in-the-hand to the uttermost before resorting to the bird-in-the-bush, which is sure to await their convenience, they naturally pray for health, and therefore long life, since health and longevity are inseparable friends. Yet we do not find that they live longer than their less pious brethren. The average age attained to by the clergy from 1758 to 1843, according to Mr. Galton’s statistics, was 69-49 years, while that of lawyers was 68-14, and of medical men 67-31. Here is a slight advantage on the side of the clergy, but it is amply accounted for by the greater ease and com­ fort so many of them enjoy, and the general salubrity of their surroundings. The difference is, however, reversed when a comparison is made between distinguished members of the three classes—that is to say, between persons of sufficient note to have had their lives recorded in a biographical dictionary. Then we find the respective mean ages of the clergy, lawyers and doctors, are 66-42, 66-51 and 67-04, the clergy being the shortest lived of the �The Folly of Prayer. 13 three. Thus they succumb sooner than the members of secular professions to a heavy demand on their energies. Prayer does not protect them from sickness, does not recover them when they are laid low, or in the least prolong their precious lives. They are no more favored than the ungodly; one fate befalls them both. In their case also prayer has been absolutely of no avail. The same law obtains with regard to missionaries. They are not miraculously protected from sickness or danger, from perils by night or the pestilence that walketh by day. The duration of life among them is accurately proportioned to the hazards of their profession. Yet theirs is a case wherein prayer should be peculiarly effectual. Arriving in a remote region of the earth, they are almost powerless until they have acquired a thorough knowledge of the language and habits of the people. They are engaged in the Lord’s work, and if any persons are watched over by him they should be. Yet at dangerous stations one missionary after another dies shortly after arrival, and their efforts are thus literally wasted, while the work naturally suffers because the Lord does not economise the missionary power which has been provided for it. Ships also have sunk with missionaries on board before they could even reach their destination ; and the Lord has so far refrained from working sub­ jective miracles on their behalf, that missionaries have been in some cases digested in the stomachs of the very savages whose souls they had journeyed thousands of miles to convert. Parents are naturally very anxious as to their offspring, and it is to be presumed that the children of pious fathers and mothers are earnestly and constantly prayed for. This solicitude antedates birth, it being generally deemed a misfortune for a child to be still-born, and often a serious evil for death to deprive it of baptism, without which salvation is difficult if not impossible. In extreme •cases the Catholic Church provided for the baptism of the child in the womb. Yet the prayers of pious parents are not found to -exercise any appreciable influence. Mr. Galton analysed the lists of the Record and the Times of a particular period, and the propor­ dion of still-births to the total number of deaths was discovered to be exactly the same in both. A more conclusive test than this could scarcely be devised. Our nobility are another class especially prayed for. The pre­ scription for their case may be found in the Church Liturgy. In a worldly sense they are undoubtedly very prosperous ; they live on the fat of the land, and enjoy all kinds of privileges. But these are not the advantages we ask God to bestow upon them ; we pray “ that the nobility may be endued with grace, wisdom and under­ standing.” And what is the result ? The history of our glorious �14 The Folly of Prayer. aristocracy shows them to have always been singularly devoid of “ grace,” in the religious sense of the word; and they have mani­ fested a similar plentiful lack of “wisdom and understanding.” Even in politics, despite their exceptional training and opportunities, they have been beaten by unprayed-for commoners. Cromwell, Chatham, Pitt, Fox, Burke, Canning, all arose outside the sacred precincts of nobility. Gladstone is the son of a Liverpool merchant, and Earl Beaconsfield was the son of a literary Jew. In science, philosophy, literature and art, how few aristocrats have distinguished themselves! Further, as Mr. Galton points out, “wisdom and understanding ” are incompatible with insanity. Yet our nobility are not exempted from that frightful scourge. On the contrary, owing to their intermarriages, and the lack of those wholesome restraints felt in humbler walks of life, they are peculiarly liable to it. Clearly the aristocracy have not been benefited by our prayers. Let us now turn to another aspect of the question. How is it that insurance companies make no allowance for prayers ? When a man wishes to insure his life, confidential questions are asked about his antecedents and his present condition, but the question, “ Does he habitually pray ?” is never ventured. Yet, if prayer conduces to health and longevity, this question is of great import­ ance ; nay, of the very greatest; for what are hereditary tendencies to disease, or the physical effects of previous modes of living, to a man under the especial protection of God ? Insurance offices, however, eliminate prayer from their calculations. They do not recognise it as a sanitary influence, and this fact proves that there is no efficacy in prayer or that its efficacy is so slight as to be altogether inappreciable. Suppose the owner of two ships, similarly built and rigged, and bound for the same port, wanted to insure them for the voyage ; and suppose the one ship had a pious captain and crew taken redhot from a Methodist prayer-meeting, while the captain and crew of the other ship, although excellent seamen, never entered a place of worship, never bent their knees in prayer, and never spoke of God except to take his name in vain. Would any difference be made in the rate of insurance ? Assuredly not. And if the owner, being a soft-headed sincere Christian, should say to the agent: “ But, my dear sir, the ship with the pious captain and crew, who will certainly pray for their safety every day, runs much less risk than the other, for the Lord has promised that he will answer prayer, that he will watch over those who trust him, and that what­ soever they ask, believing, that they shall receive,” what would the answer be ? Probably this : “ My dear sir, as a Christian I admit �The Folly of Prayer. 15 the truth of what you say, but I can’t mix up my religion with my business. That sort of thing is all very well in church on Sunday, you know, but it doesn’t do any other day in the week down in the City.” The decline and final extinction of belief in ordeals and duels is an episode in the history of prayer. Both these superstitious processes were appeals to God to decide what was indeterminable by human logic. In the ordeal of jealousy, so revoltingly set forth in the fifth chapter of Numbers, the same curious concoction was given to all suspected wives, and the difference in the effect pro­ duced was attributable solely to the interposition of God. The same idea prevailed in other forms during the chaotic Middle Ages, notably in connection with the witch mania. Some idea of the critical ability which accompanied it may be gathered from the fact that “ witches ” were often tied at the hands and feet, and thrown into the nearest pond or river : if they swam they were guilty, and at once burnt or hung, and if they sank they were innocent, but of course they were drowned! The duel was explicitly sanctioned and sometimes commanded by the ecclesiastical and secular autho­ rities, and it was devoutly believed that God would give the victory to the just and overthrow the wrong. This belief has died out, but a reflex of it exists in the fond idea, not yet wholly discarded, that the God of battles fights on the side of his favorites. Only the simpletons think thus, and only the charlatans of clericalism abet them. All the praying in the world is powerless against superior tactics, more scientific arms, greater numbers, and better discipline. Victory, as Napoleon remarked, is on the side of the heaviest battalions ; and prayer, as a counteractant to such advan­ tages, is just as efficacious as the celebrated pill to cure earthquakes. Driven from all tangible strongholds by inevitable logic, the believers in prayer take final refuge in their cloud-citadel of faith. They maintain that there is a spiritual if not a material efficacy in prayer, that communion with God exalts and purifies their inner nature, and thus indirectly influences the course of events. “ Cer­ tainly,” says a man of magnificent genius, though not a Materialist, “it does alter him who prays, and alters him supremely, changing despair into hope, confusion into steady light, timidity into confi­ dence, cowardice into courage, hatred into love, and the genius of compromise into the spirit of martyrdom.”* Far be it from me to deny this. It is attested by the life and death of many a patient saint and martyred hero. But the God communed with has been after all not a person, but a lofty ideal, varying in each according * Dr Garth Wilkinson, Human Science awl Divine Revelation, p. ■8). �16 The Folly of Prayer, to the greatness and purity of his nature. A similar communion, in essence the very same, is possible to the Humanitarian, who feels himself descended from the endless past, bound to the living and working present, and in a measure the parent of an endless future. His ideal of an ever-striving and ever-conquering Humanity, emerging generation after generation into loftier levels, and leaving at its feet the lusts and follies of its youth, serves him instead of a personal God; and in moments snatched from the hot strife of the world he can commune with it, either through its .great poets and prophets, or solely through the vision of his own higher self, which is essential humanity within him, and thus find serenity and ennoblement of resolve. This communion, into which religious prayer may ultimately merge, will survive, because while inspiring it does not outrage intellect and fact. The laws of nature will not be suspended to suit our needs; for—• “ Nature with equal mind Sees all her sons at play; Sees man control the wind, The wind sweep man away 1 Allows the proudly riding and the foundered bark.”* But “ the music born of love,” as another poet tells us, will “ ease the world’s immortal pain.” Finding no help outside ourselves, seeing no Providence to succor and comfort the afflicted, no hand to lift up the down-trodden and establish the weak, to wipe the tears from sorrowing eyes and convey balm to wounded hearts ; knowing that except we listen the wail of human anguish is un­ heard, and that unless we give it no aid can come ; we shall feel more imperative upon us the duties and holy charities of life. If the world’s misery cannot be assuaged by. fatherly love from heaven, all the more need is there for brotherly love on earth. ♦ Matthew Arnold, Empedocles on Etna. Printed and Published by G. W. Foote at 28 Stonecutter Street, London. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The folly of prayer Description An account of the resource Edition: 3rd ed. Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references. First published 1880 under title The futility of prayer; 2nd ed. 1884. Printed and published by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N239 Subject The topic of the resource Prayer Religious practice Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The folly of prayer), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English NSS Prayer https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e05f74daba8074a25d1d54a88ee6372b.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=n5-oIj8deEgo7b4FcoizcEVPVM7lAWAY9-8laXEnmq9646tGJaR6TP1kSTncgkZLp2Ck%7EYEvAZ-KXirnJf%7ENXjy0%7E-E55OaojMJI7dx0lInQw3ueyx6egC0YtLRt12MqNaIPkOukN9AiJ53yPjOWxB5%7EUEfRGaMq5B58esSu-uAgGmdmIjz8lPIEUIrzqQkAXv60TPCBeGond-iEEX3RFyZcY8-570KhuWmYyXvvF6yAFY0JNmPfUVSv2DLkZ12f%7EPvyuNhUItaJpNEsg1bP3eVqiTtD3vHN4Xkjv%7EGju9xvTYISs77XRdOzbJaB71CfGandrIr7z92UUhsPdE28uA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 493692d85326f07c2a0542e209785b92 PDF Text Text WHAT WAS CHRIST? JL REPLY TO JOHN STUART MILL. BY 1 : : : TWOPENCE, PRICE i 4 J : ♦ ♦ 4 4 4 4 4 t LONDON : PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. 1887. �LONDON : POINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. EOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �11 national secular society WHAT WAS CHRIST? Thebe are many passages in John Stuart Mill’s Three Essays on Religion which the apologists of Christianity very prudently ignore. Orthodoxy naturally shrinks from the descrip­ tion of a God who could make a Hell as a “ dreadful idealisa­ tion of wickedness.” Nor is it pleasant to read that “ Not even on the most distorted and contracted theory of good which ever was framed by religious or philosophical fanaticism, can the government of nature be made to resemble the work of a being at once good and omnipotent.” But Christian lecturers are never tired of quoting the pane­ gyric on their blessed Savior, which occurs in another part of the same volume. They never mention the fact that the Essay which contains this eulogium was not revised by the author for publication, while the other two essays were finally prepared for the press. It is enough for them that the passage is found in a volume of Mill’s. Whether it harmonises with the rest of the volume, or whether the author might have considerably modified it-in revision, are questions with which they have no concern. “ Here is Mill’s testimony to Christ,” they cry, “ and we fling it like a bombshell into the Freethought camp.” We propose to pick up this bombshell, to dissect and analyse it, and to show that it is perfectly harmless. Mill’s panegyric on Christ, as Professor Newman says, “ caused surprise.”* Professor Bain, who was one of Mill’s most intimate friends, and has written his biography,f uses the very same expression. The whole of the Essay on Theism “was a surprise to his friends,” not for its attacks on orthodoxy, but for its concessions to “ modern sentimental Theism.” Professor Bain observes that these concessions have been made the most of, “ and, as is usual in such cases, the inch has been stretched to an ell.” Speaking with all the authority of his position, Professor Bain adds that the “ fact remains that in everything * “ Christianity in its Cradle,” p. 57. f “ John Stuart Mill: A Criticism; with Personal Recollections.” �(4 ) characteristic of the creed of Christendom, he was a thorough­ going negationist. He admitted neither its truth nor its utility.” How, then, did Mill come to write those passages of his Three Essays which caused such surprise to his intimate friends ? The answer is simple. “ Who is the woman ? ” asked Talley­ rand, when two friends wished him to settle a dispute. There was a woman in Mill’s case. Mrs. Taylor, afterwards his wife, and the object of his adoring love, disturbed his judgment in life and perverted it in death. He buried her at Avignon, and resided near her grave until he could lie beside her in the eternal sleep. No doubt the long vigil at his wife’s tomb shows the depth of his love, but it necessarily tended to make his brain the victim of his heart. There can be no worse offence against the laws of logic than to argue from our feelings; and when Mill began to talk about “ indulging the hope ” of immortality, he had set his feet, however hesitatingly, on the high road of senti­ mentalism and superstition. How different was his attitude in the vigor of manhood, when his intellect was unclouded by personal sorrow ! In closing his splendid Essay on fhe Utility of Religion, he wrote : “ It seems to me not only possible, but probable, that in a higher, and, above all, a happier condition of human life, not annihilation, but immor­ tality, may be the burdensome idea; and that human nature, though pleased with the present, and by no means impatient to quit it, would find comfort and not sadness in the thought that it is not chained through eternity to a conscious existence which it cannot be assured that it will always wish to preserve.” How great is the range of egoism, even with the best of us! Writing before his own great loss, Mill sees no argument for immortality in the yearning of bereaved hearts for reunion with the beloved dead ; but when- he himself craves “ the touch of a vanished hand and the sound of a voice that is still,” he perceives room for hope. His own passion of grief lights a beacon in the darkness, which his sympathy with the grief of others had never kindled. We can easily understand how Mill’s profound love for his wife affected his intellect after her death, when we see how it deluded him while she lived. In his Autobiography he describes her as a beauty and a wit. Mr. Maccall says that she was 'not brilliant in conversation, and decidedly plain-looking; and the same objection appears to be hinted by Professor Bain. Carlyle refers to her several times in his Reminiscences, always as a light gossamery creature. It is notorious that the Grotes regarded �( 5 ) Mill’s attachment to her as an infatuation. And certainly he did a great deal to justify their opinion. In the dedication of his Essay on Liberty, he refers to her “ great thoughts and noble feelings,” and her “ all but unrivalled wisdom. This eulogium a little astonished those who had read her Essay in the West­ minster Review, reprinted by Mill in his Dissertations and Dis­ cussions, which revealed no very wonderful ability, and assuredly did not place her beside Harriet Martineau or George Eliot. But in his Autobiography this panegyric was completely eclipsed. Mill informs the world in that volume that her mind “included Carlyle’s and infinitely more,” and that in comparison with her Shelley was but a child. Apparently seeing, however, that sceptics might inquire why a woman of such profound and original genius did not leave some memorable work, Mill con­ fidingly tells us that she was content to inspire other minds rather than express herself through the channels of literature. In other words, she played second fiddle in preference to first, which is exactly what men and women of original genius will never do. But whom did she inspire ? We know of none but Mill, and on examining his works chronologically we find that all his greatest books were composed before he fell under her influence. Mr. Gladstone explains Mill’s “ ludicrous estimate of his wife’s powers,” by saying that she was a quick receptive woman, who gave him back the echo of: his own thoughts, which he took for the independent oracles of truth. Over the tomb of this idolised wife, whom his fancy clothed with fictitious or exaggerated attributes, Mill wrote his Essay on Theism. Miss Helen Taylor says it shows “the carefullybalanced results of the deliberations of a life-time.” But she allows that— “ On the other hand, there had not been time for it to undergo the revision to which from time to time he subjected most of his writings before making them public. Not only, therefore, is the style less polished than of any other of his published works, but even the matter itself, at least in the exact shape it here assumes, has nevei' undergone the repeated examination which it certainly would have passed through before he would himself have given it to the world.” If Mill had lived, he would perhaps have made many improve­ ments and excisions in this unfortunate essay. As it stands it is singularly feeble in comparison with the two former Essays. He “hopes” for immortality, and “regrets to say” that the Design Argument is not inexpugnable, as though this were the language of a philosopher or a logician. After writing several pages on the “Marks of Design in Nature,” he passingly notices the �( 6 ) Darwinian Theory and admits that, if established, it “would greatly attenuate the evidence ” for Creation. Yet he drops this great hypothesis in the next paragraph, and talks about “ the large balance of probability in favor of creation by intel­ ligence ” in the present state of our knowledge. What he meant was, in the present state of our ignorance. Mill neither under­ stood nor felt the force of Darwinism. We shall find, in examining his panegyric on Christ, that he understood that subject just as little, and that, where his knowledge did apply, he flatly contradicted what he had written before. Let us now ascertain what were Mill’s qualifications for the task of estimating the teachings and personality of Christ. He had a subtle logical mind, strong though restricted sympathies, a singular power of mastering an opponent’s case, and remark­ able candor in stating it. But his intellect was of the purely speculative order. He possessed a “ rich storage of principles, doctrines, generalities of every degree, over several wide depart­ ments of knowledge,” as Professor Bain says ; but he “ had not much memory for detail of any kind,” although “ by express study and frequent reference he had amassed a store of facts bearing on political or sociological doctrines.” In short, “ he had an intellect for the abstract and the logical out of all pro­ portion to his hold of the concrete and the poetical.” He was cut out for a metaphysician, a political speculator and a sociologist. But he never could have become an historian or a man of letters. He had little sense of style, no faculty of literary criticism, a dislike of picturesque expression, a scanty knowledge of human nature, and an extremely feeble imagina­ tion. He was a great philosopher, but perhaps less an artist than any other thinker of the same eminence that ever lived. Now the faculties required in dealing with the origin of Christianity, including the character of its founder, are obviously those of the literary critic and the historian, in which Mill was deficient. He was, therefore, not equipped by nature for the task. Had he even the necessary knowledge ? Certainly not. There is not the slightest evidence that he had studied the relation of Christianity to previous systems, the growth of its literature, the formation of its canon, and the development of its ethics and its dogmas. He probably knew next to nothing of the oriental religions, and was only acquainted with the name of Buddhism. Nay, if we may trust Professor Bain (his friend, his biographer, and his eulogist), he knew very little of Chris- �( 7 ) inanity itself. He “ searcely ever read a theological book,” and he only knew “ the main positions of theology from our general literature.” Just when Mill’s Three Essays on Eehgwn ap­ peared, Strauss’s Old Faith and the New was published m England, and Professor Bain justly remarks that Anyone reading it would, I think, be struck with its immense superiority to Mill’s work, in all but the logic and metaphysics. Strauss speaks like a man thoroughly, at home with his subject. Mill does indeed say, in his Autobiography, that Ins. father made him, at a very early age, “a reader of ecclesiastical history ; but he does not tell us that he continued so in his after lite, and even if he did, ecclesiastical, history begins just where the problem of the origin of Christianity ends. . Another thing must be said. Professor Bain states, and we can well believe him, that Mill was “ not even well read, m the sceptics that preceded him.” He was really ignorant on both sides of the controversy. His idea of Christ was formed from a selection of the best things in the New Testament. A most uncritical process, and in fact an impossible one ; for the New Testament is not history, but an arbitrary selection from a mass of early Christian tracts, of uncertain authorship, different dates, and various value. The literature on this subject, even from the pens of eminent writers, is vast enough to show, its immense complication. Unless it is read m a cluld-like spirit which in grown men and women is childish, the New. Testament needs to be explained ; and when the process has fairly begun, you find all the familiar features shifting like the pieces in. a kaleidoscope, until at last they reassume an organic, but a dif­ ferent, form and color. Twenty Christs may be elicited from the New Testament as it stands. Mill deduced one, but the nineteen others are just as valid. . Strictly speaking, our task is completed. It would logically suffice to say that Mill’s panegyric on Christ is a mere piece of fancy. Like other men of genius, he had his special aptitudes and special knowledge, and his authority only extends as far as they carry him. Mr. Swinburne’s opinion of Newton is of no particular importance, and Newton’s famous ineptitude about Paradise Lost in no way affects our estimate of Milton. Let us go further, however, and examine Mill’s panegyric on Christ in detail. In justice to him, as well as to the subject, it should be quoted in full: “Above all, the most valuable part of the effect on the character which Christianity has produced by .holding up m a Divine Person a �ÉTotíe ufnbpH±nCe Td a m°del f01’ÍmÍtatÍOn’ bailable even to the absolute unbellever and can never more be lost to humanity. For is Christ, lather than God, whom Christianity has held up to believers as the pattern of perfection for humanity. It is the God ideahsede’hTs°teithan Gfd °/ tbe JeWS or °f Nature, who being AndhXbdfh ^ken so,great and salutary a hold on the modern mind, is stiH íeft T 6lS-e mac be tak<3n aWay fr°m US by rational criticism, Christ hL fnii ’ Umq?K figUre’ n0t more unlike a11 his precursors than 4» Ins followers even those who had the direct benefit of his personal teachhiSoric« «nA th tOi Say tha\Ohrist as exhibited in the Gospels is not sunerad/lía h 7® ^°W n?tbow much of what is admirable has been suffice« Í 7 t tradition of his followers. The tradition of followers miSelf? any number °f marvels’ and may have inserted all the dSS™hlCh .rePutedt°have wrought. But who among his ascGbld + among their proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings SV i,eT.01; Of lma«lnin& the life and character revealed in the p ? / ertamly not the fishermen of Galilee; as certainly not St. Sil í J th® cbara<^®rand idiosyncracies were of a totally different sort: fb?f th the TTly1 9bristlan writers m whom nothing is more evident than ' fXiS F? wbicb.was m timm was all derived, as they always professed that it was derived, from a higher source. What could be added XJ^w rd?y a dlsclPle we may see in the mystical parts of the gospel of St John, matter imported from Philo and the Alexandrian himSí t mt° the mouth of the Savior in long speeches about tffi?™h S as?be/tber Gospels contain not the slightest vestige of, though pretended to have been delivered on occasions of the deepest interest and when his principal followers were all present; most promt, nently at the last supper. The East was full of men who could have stolen any quantity of this poor stuff, as the multitudinous Oriental sects of Gnostics afterwards did. But about the life and sayings of Jesus there • 13vVa-?P of Per®onal originaiity combined with profundity of insight, which if we abandon the idle expectation of finding scientific precision wheie something very different was aimed at, must place the Prophet of Nazareth, even m the estimation of those who have no belief in his inspiration, m the very first rank of the men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast. When this pre-eminent genius is combined with the qualities of probably the greatest moral reformer, and martyr to that mission, who ever existed upon earth, religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching on this man as the ideal representative ana guide of humanity; nor even now, would it be easy, even for ail un• a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete, than to endeavor so to live that Christ would approve our life. Our first complaint is that the whole passage is too vague and rhetorical. What is the meaning of “ the absolute unbeliever ” m the first sentence ? If it means a person who rejects all the pretensions of Christ, the sentence is absurd. If it means a person who rejects his divinity, it is practically untrue ; for. as a matter of fact, those who have thought themselves out of Chris­ tianity (which Mill did not, as he was never in it) very seldom do take Christ as “ a standard of excellence and a model for �(9) imitation,” much less as “ the pattern of perfection for humanity.” When the supernatural glamor is dispelled, we see that Christ is no example whatever. He is simply a preacher, and his personal conduct fails to illustrate a single public or private virtue, or assist us in any of our practical diffi­ culties as husbands, fathers, sons, or citizens. Mill has himself shown that even Christians do not attempt to imitate their Savior ; and we are puzzled to understand how he could speak of Christ’s having “ taken so great and salutary hold on the modern mind ” after telling us, in his Essay on Liberty, that he has done nothing of the kind. He there says: “ By Christianity, I here mean what is acconnted such by all churches and sects, the maxims and precepts contained in the New Testament. These are considered sacred, and accepted as laws by all professing Chris­ tians. Yet it is scarcely too much to say that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individual conduct by reference to those laws. . . . Whenever conduct is concerned, they look round for Mr. A and B to direct them how far to go in obeying Christ.” Had Mill forgotten this passage when he wrote the Essay on Theism, or had Christendom changed in the interval ? Scarcely the latter. John Bright has justly said that the lower classes in England care as little for the dogmas of Christianity as the upper classes care about its practice. Until Christians follow their Savior’s teachings, it is idle to expect unbelievers to do so. Yet it is perhaps as well they do not, for there are many things recorded in the Gospels which are far from redounding to his credit. It is a great pity that Mill, before eulogising Christ, could not read the chapter on “Jesus of Nazareth ” in Professor Newman’s last work. Why did Jesus consort with Publicans (or Roman tax-gatherers), rhe very sight of whom was hateful to every patriotic Jew ? .Why did he herd with Sinners, who so far despised ceremony as to dip in the dish with dirty fingers ? Why did he avoid all who were able to criticise him ? Why did he exclaim, “Ye hypocrites, why put ye me to proof?” when the Jews sought to test his claims, and to act on his own advice to “ Beware of false prophets ” ? Why did he rudely repel educated inquirers, and then solemnly thank God that “ he had hidden these things from the wise and pru­ dent, and revealed them unto babes ” ? Why did he denounce inhabitants of cities he could not convince, and prophesy that they would fare worse in the Day of Judgment than the filthy inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah ? Why did he assail his religious rivals with invectives which, as Professor Newman �( 10 ) says, “ outdo Tacitus and Suetonius in malignity,, and seem to convict themselves of falsehood and bitter slander ?” Why, in short, did he so constantly display the vanity and passion of a spoilt child ? Surely these are not characteristics we should emulate, but glaring blots in a “ pattern of perfection.” When the arrogance of Christ is countenanced by a writer like Mill, these defects must be insisted on. Professor Newman rightly says that “ If honor were claimed for Jesus as for Socrates, for Seneca, for Hillel, for Epictetus, we might apologise for his weak points as either incident to his era and country or to human nature itself—weakness to be forgiven and forgotten. But the unremitting assumption of super-human wisdom, not only made for him by the moderns, but breathing through every utterance attributed to him, changes the whole scene, and ought to change our treatment of it. Unless his prodigious claim of divine superiority is made good in fact, it betrays an arrogance difficult to excuse, eminently mischievous and eminently ignominious.” But this prodigious claim cannot be made good. As Pro­ fessor Newman says : “It is hard to point to anything in the teaching of Jesus at once new to Hebrew and Greek sages, and likewise in general estimate true.” The same view was ex­ pressed by Buckle, with more vigor if less urbanity. “ Whoever,” he said, “ asserts that Christianity revealed to the world truths with which it was previously unacquainted, is guilty either of gross ignorance or of wilful fraud.” Mill had himself, in the Essay on Liberty, shown the evil of taking Christ, or any other man, as “the ideal representative and guide of humanity.” He there charged Christianity with possessing a negative rather than a positive ideal; abstinence from evil rather than energetic pursuit of good constituting its essence, in which “ thou shalt not ” unduly predominated over “ thou shalt.” He accused it of making an idol of asceticism, of holding out “ the hope of heaven and the threat of hell as the appointed and appropriate motives to a virtuous life, and of thus “ giving to human morality an essentially selfish character.” And he added that— “ What little recognition the idea of obligation to the public obtains in modern morality, is derived from Greek and Roman sources, not fiom Christian; as, even in the morality of private life, whatever exists of magnanimity, high-mindedness, personal dignity, even the sense of honor, is derived from the purely human, not the religious, part of our educa­ tion, and never could have grown out of a standard of ethics in which the only worth, professedly recognised, is that of obedience.” Mill does indeed throw a sop to orthodoxy by allowing that Christ and Christianity are different things ; but he is obliged �(11) to add that the Founder of Christianity failed to provide for “ many essential elements of the highest morality.” He main­ tains that “ other ethics than any which can be evolved from exclusively Christian sources must exist side by side with Christian ethics to produce the moral regeneration of mankind.” And he deprecates ihe policy of “formingthe mind and feelings on an exclusively religious type.” Surely these arguments are quite inconsistent with Mill’s later notion of taking Christ as our ideal, and living so that he would approve our life. Besides, as Professor Bain points out, the morality of Christ belongs to this exclusively religious type. Its sanctions are all religious, and if religion is dispensed with they “ must lose their suitability to human life.” Professor Bain very justly observes that “the best guidance, under such altered circumstances, would be that furnished by the wisest of purely secular teachers.” That Christ was “ probably the greatest moral reformer ” that ever lived is a statement easy to make and difficult to prove. When Mill, in the Essay on Liberty, twits the Chris­ tians with professing doctrines they never practise, he furnishes ■a catalogue of the duties they neglect. “ All Christians believe that the blessed are the poor and humble, and those who are ill-used by the world ; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; that they should judge not lest they should be judged; that they should swear not at all; that they should love their neighbors as themselves ; that if one take their cloak, they should give him their coat also ; that they should take no thought for the morrow; that if they would be perfect they should sell all they have and give it to the poor.” Surely Mill was aware that all these absurd and impracticable maxims were taught by Christ. Hgw, then, except on the theory we have advanced, could he call him the greatest moral reformer in history ? The “rational criticism ” by means of which Mill obtains the “ unique figure ” of Christ is a purely arbitrary process. George Eliot, who knew the subject far better, said in one of. her letters that the materials for any biography of Jesus do not exist. The Unitarians have tried Mill’s process with small success ; and, as Professoi’ Bain maliciously observes, “ It would seem in this, as in other parts of religion, that what the rationalist disapproves of most the multitude likes best.” Professor Bain’s remarks on Mill’s construction of his “ unique figure ” from the Gospels are so pertinent and happy that we venture to give them in full: �(12) “ We are, of course, at liberty to dissent from the prevailing view, which makes Christ a divine person. But to reduce a Deity to the human level, to rank him simply as a great man, and to hold ideal intercourse with him in that capacity is, to say the least of it, an incongruity. His­ torians and moralists have been accustomed to treat with condemnation those monarchs that, after being dethroned, have accepted in full the position of subjects. Either to die, or else to withdraw into dignified isola­ tion, has been accounted the only fitting termination to the loss of royal power. So, a Deity dethroned should retire altogether from playing a part in human affairs, and remain simply as an historic name.” Mill finds in Christ “ sublime genius ” and “ profundity of insight.” Surely it did not require any very sublime genius to teach those peculiar doctrines which Mill catalogued for back­ sliding Christians, nor any very great profundity of insight to see that none but paupers and lunatics could evei’ practise them. Many of the best sayings ascribed to Jesus were the common possession of the East before his birth ; but many of the worst seem more his own. “ Leave all and follow me ” is a vain and foolish command. “ Give to everyone that asketh ” is an excel­ lent rule for pauperising society. “ That industry is a human duty,” says Professor Newman, “ cannot be gathered from his doctrine: how could it, when he kept twelve religious men­ dicants around him ?” “ Resist not evil ” is a premium on tyranny. “ Blessed be ye poor ” and “• Woe unto you rich ” are the exclamations of a vulgar demagogue, a cunning agent of privilege, or an irresponsible maniac. “ By shovelling away wealth,” says Professor Newman, “ we are to buy treasures in heaven. Unless our narrators belie him, Jesus never warns hearers that to give without a heart of charity does not prepare a soul for heaven nor ‘ earn salvation ’; and that ¿elfish pre­ speculation turns virtue into despicable marketing. To forgive that we may be forgiven, to avoid judging lest we be judged, to do good that we may get extrinsic reward, to affect humility that we may be promoted, to lose life that we may gain it with advantage, are precepts not needing a lofty prophet.” - It is also from the words of Christ alone, according to the New Testa­ ment, that the doctrine of Eternal Punishment can be estab­ lished ; and he is responsible for the intellectual crime of identifying Credulity with Faith, which has been a fatal rotten­ ness at the very core of Christianity. As for the “personal originality” of Mill’s “ unique figure, ** he might be safely challenged to demonstrate it from the Gospels. We shall have something more to say about the originality of Christ’s teaching presently ; we confine our- �( 13 ) «elves now to his personal character. Take away from the Gospel story the pathetic legend of Calvary, which throws around him a glamor of suffering, and what is there in his whole life of a positive heroic quality ? He is a tame, effeminate, shrinking figure, beside hundreds of men who have not been made the -object of a superstitious cultus. His brief, ineffective career, so ■soon closed by his own madness or ambition, will not bear a moment’s comparison with the long and glorious life of Buddha. It pales into insignificance before the mighty genius of Muhammed. Doctrine apart, the Nazarene is to the Meccan as a pallid moon to a fiery sun. With the single exception of •Cromwell, who was a more original character than twenty Christs rolled into one, where shall we find Muhammed’s equal in history ? As Eliot Warburton well said, he stands almost alone in “ the sustained and almost superhuman energy with which he carried out his views, in defiance, as it would seem, of God and man.” Christ quails in his Gethsemane. Muhammed struggles through his seven years’ ordeal of obloquy and danger like a resolute swimmer, who scorns to turn back, and will reach the ■other shore or die. When his followers faint under the burning desert sun, he tells them that “Hell is hotter,” and silences their murmurs. Christ cries in ah agony of despair, “My ■God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ” When Muhammed’s assassination is resolved on at Mecca, each of the tribes devoting a sword to drink his blood, and Abubekar, the companion of his flight, says “We are but two,” the indomitable prophet answers “We are three, for God is with us.” Christ implores “ 0 my' father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” When Muhammed is threa­ tened by the Koreishites, so that his most devoted followers remonstrate against his projects, he makes the sublime answer, “ If they should place the sun on my right hand, and the moon on my left, they should not divert me from my course.” Within a century after the Hegira, the empire of Islam had spread from Arabia eastward to Delhi and westward to Granada. Oh, it is •said, Muhammed used the sword. True, but not before it was drawn against him. The man who rode to Jerusalem, and -called himself King of the Jews, would have used the sword too had he dared. “ The sword indeed,” snorts Carlyle at this rubbish, “ but where will you get your sword ? Every new ■opinion, at its starting, is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone there it dwells as yet. That Ae'take a sword •and try to propagate with that will do little for him. You �( 14 ) must first get your sword. On the whole, a thing will propa­ gate itself as it can. We do not find, of the Christian religion either, that it always disdained the sword, when once it had gotone.” True, thou sarcastic old sage of Chelsea, and the sting is in the tail. From Constantine downwards, Christianity has not been imposed on mankind without, as Sir James Stephen remarks, exhausting all the terrors of this life as well as the next. Mill tells us that Christ was a “martyr” to his “mission ” as a “moral reformer.” We should like to know how he dis­ covered the fact. Certainly not from the Gospels. It was not the Sermon on the Mount, but his vagaries at Jerusalem, that led to the crucifixion. Christ deliberately chose twelve disciples, the legendary number of the tribes of Israel, and told them that when he came into his kingdom they should sit on twelve " thrones as judges. Professor Newman answers those who call this language figurative with the just remark that “ we should call a teacher mad who used such words to simple men, and did not expect them to understand him literally.” When the dis­ ciples ask him, “ Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom ' unto Israel ?” he does not rebuke them (although it is after his resurrection), but simply says that the time is a secret. His triumphal entry into Jerusalem can only be considered as a , declaration of sovereignty, and his countenancing the shout ' of Hosanna! (the war cry of previous insurrections, and an appeal to Jehovah against the foe) could only be construed as rebellion against Rome. His conduct inside Jerusalem was that of a man intoxicated with vanity and ambition, without judg­ ment, policy, or purpose. The very inscription on the cross shows that he was believed to aim at earthly royalty. Pontius Pilate tried to save Jesus, acting wisely and humanely as the repre­ sentative of an empire that was always tolerant in matters of religion. He would not receive a charge of blasphemy, but he could not overlook a charge of sedition. Yet he still gave Jesus an opportunity of escaping. “ Come now,” he seems to say, “ your enemies want your blood. Your blasphemy is no businessof mine, and I shall not decide a squabble between your rabid sects. But I must try you if they accuse you of sedition. You are young, and cannot wish to die. Plead ‘not guilty.’ Deny the charge. Say you are not the King of the Jews and do not contemplate rebellion. One word, and I save you from death. You shall go free though all the rabbis in Jerusalem howled like mad dogs. Rome shall stand between bigotry and blood.” But- �( 15 ) Jesus actually admits the indictment, and afterwards remains contumaciously silent. Pilate had no alternative ; he sentenced Jesus to execution ; but amid all the absurd fictions of the nar­ rative, the fact shines out clearly that he did so with the utmost reluctance. To call the death of Christ, in these circumstances, a martyrdom, is to degrade the name. He died for no principle. The truth would have saved him, and he would not utter it. Either he was in a stupor of despair, or so crazed with the Messianic delusion that he still trusted to the legion of angels for his rescue. In any case it was an act of insanity. He courted his doom. It was not a martyrdom but a suicide. We may also observe that, if a cultus had not been formed around it, and men’s imaginations suborned in its favor from the cradle, the “ martyrdom ” of Christ would be obviously lesssevere than that of many persecuted reformers. Giordano Bruno’s Gethsemane was an Inquisition dungeon, where he languished in solitude for seven years, and was tortured no one knows how often. What was Christ’s few hours’ agony of weakness before death compared with this ? Bruno died by. fire, the most cruel form of murder, whilst Christ suffered the milder doom of crucifixion. Christ was watched by weeping women, whose sympathy must have alleviated his pain; and it was not until the hand of death touched his very heart that he despaired of assistance from heaven. Bruno stood alone against the world, without any sources of courage but his own quench­ less heroism. Christ quailed before the inevitable. Bruno met it with a serene smile, for he had that within him which only death could extinguish—a daring fiery spirit, that nothing could quell, that outsoared the malice of men, and outshone the flames of the stake. Mill’s remarks on the originality of Christ’s teaching betray his utter ignorance of the subject. It is of no use, he says, to assert that the Christ of the Gospels is not historical. Begging his pardon, that is the most important factor in the problem. If the Gospels are what we allege (and no scholar would dispute it), George Eliot is right in saying that the materials for a biography of Jesus do not exist, and Mill’s “ rational criticism ” is a purely fantastic process. But the reason he assigns for his position is still more absurd. Who, he asks, could have in­ vented the sayings ascribed to Jesus ? Certainly, he says, not St. Paul: a sentence which alone stamps him as an incompetent critic. No man who understood the subject would ever have thought of anticipating such a preposterous objection. “Cer­ �( 16 ) tainly not the fishermen of Galilee,” is equally futile, for no student of the origin of Christianity supposes that the Gospels were written by the first disciples. They are of much later date. But except for that fact, why might not the “ fishermen of Galilee ” have been able to invent the logia of the Gospels as well as Jesus ? He was only a carpenter, and there is no reason in the nature of things why fishermen should not equal carpenters as prophets, preachers, and moralists. Mill is alto­ gether on the wrong scent. There was no need for Christ or his disciples to invent the sayings ascribed to him. As we have already remarked, they were the common possession of the East before his birth. The Lord’s Prayer is merely a cento from the Talmud, and, as Emanuel Deutsch showed, every catchword of Christ’s was a household word of Talmudic Judaism before he began his ministry. There is not a single maxim, however good or bad, however sensible or silly, in the whole of Christ’s dis­ courses that cannot be found in the writings of Pagan moralists and poets or Jewish doctors who flourished before him; and his best sayings, if they may be called his, were all anticipated by Buddha several centuries before he was born. It is also well known that the Golden Rule, as it is called, was taught by Con­ fucius long before the time of Christ, without any of the absurdities with which the Nazarene surrounded it. “ Love your enemies,” says Christ, as though it were wise or possible to do so. Confucius corrected this exaggeration. “No,” he said, “ if I love my enemies, what shall I give to my friends ? To my friends I give my love, and to my enemies—justice.! ” We think we have said enough to show that Mill’s panegyric on Christ is utterly valueless. Mr. Matthew Arnold is far more subtle and dexterous in his eulogy; but he knows the subject as well as Mill knew it badly. If the apologists of Christianity are prudent, they will cease to make use of Mill’s tribute to their Blessed Savior, or at least employ it only before people who are in that blissful ignorance which fancies it folly to be •wise. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource What was Christ? a reply to John Stuart Mill Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 17 cm. Notes: Reply to passages in Mill's Three essays on religion. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Printed and published by G.W. Foote. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Limited Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N269 Subject The topic of the resource Jesus Christ Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" name="graphics1" align="bottom" width="88" height="31" border="0" alt="88x31.png" /></p> <p class="western">This work (What was Christ? a reply to John Stuart Mill), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p> 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 Jesus Christ John Stuart Mill NSS https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/608de521cb5991c71bd97c8d6b0a49c6.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=MnFmN8-QixBu0zVZIhCPjbXfdypMZW0H5-DP99SlSdCmak6XCufB9CKddeXZ8bbEvqa0M9zKa-hKaFHyi6ay9zLJfhe0uw2XTUy4m%7Eh-ckKfkobSHqK6St%7Eldec7ikG3eEhkLC6BbNLx2l3Z73M-%7EbmycH5Evt-9uAgxfRRkqV9Vcwz2mPHKcE9Z4tw%7EJn4Haufu%7EwjBVKB8HsGV4cpkCxGEgEIZwA%7E%7E5AoCvBOCCRXC9xPwJEbgmj6ecFN3EEEChoR3h5PF-PfjBcFK%7EPs%7EOD3LhJgPwh0OKsOslGScjTC72Y0LCxvNSsSpkE6HLSzv-IYF7%7EDCnUsvqEPg3BjmFw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM be99d0910501fa37475a11c54633344b PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY ROYAL PAUPERS A Radical’s Contribution TO THE JUBILEE. SHOWING What Royalty does for the People AND What the People do for Royalty. BY G. W. FOOTE. -------- --------------- PRICE TWOPENCE. '• ■• 4 4 4 4 4 LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. 1887. �LONDON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �ROYAL PAUPERS. -----------♦----------- “ Our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen Vic­ toria,” as the Prayer Book styles her, has occupied the throne for nearly half a century, and as she is blessed with good health and a sound constitution, she may enjoy that exalted position for another fifteen or twenty years, and perhaps prevent her bald-headed eldest son from acceding to the illus­ trious dignity of King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and Emperor of India. Whether she does or does not linger on this mortal stage, and whether the Prince of Wales will or will not live long enough to succeed her, is a matter of trifling importance to anyone but themselves and their families. The nation will have to support “ the honor and dignity of the throne,” whoever fills it, without the least abatement of expense; unless, indeed, the democratic spirit of the age should ques­ tion the utility of all “ the pride, pomp, and circum­ stance ” of royalty, and either abolish it altogether or seriously diminish its cost. This being the fiftieth year of Her Majesty's reign, the hearts of all the flunkeys in the nation are stirred to their depths. There is quite an epidemic of loyalty. Preparations are being made on all sides �4 to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Busybodies are meeting, discussing, and projecting. All sorts of schemes are mooted, but the vital essence of every one is—Cash ! The arts of beggary are devel­ oped on the most magnificent scale, without regard to the Vagrancy Act; and titled ladies, parsons’ wives, and Primrose Dames, condescend to solicit pennies from sempstresses and charwomen. The Prince of Wales, meanwhile, is devoting his genius and energies to floating the Imperial Institute, which promises to be a signal failure, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to its assistance, because the royal whim of fixing it in a fashionable quarter, in­ stead of in the commercial centre of London, is a barrier to its success. How much of the money drained from British pockets by such means will be spent on really useful objects ? It may be safely predicted that a consider­ able portion will flow into the pockets of the wire­ pullers, but will any appreciable amount go to benefit all classes of the community ? Will there, in parti­ cular, be any advantage to the masses of the working people, whose laborious lives contribute more to the greatness and prosperity of the state than all the titled idlers, whether scions of royalty or members of the aristocracy, who live like gilded flies “basking in the sunshine of a Court ” ? Time will prove, but unless we are very much mistaken, the Jubilee will be just as advantageous to the people as loyal move­ ments have ever been. It is a sign of the wholesome democratic spirit which is beginning1 to animate the nation, that a few �5 towns have absolutely refused to trouble their heads, and still less to tax their pockets, with regard to the Jubilee. But the most cheerful indication comes from Wexford. The municipal council of that his­ toric Irish city has ventured to make the following sensible suggestion: “ If the ministers of the Crown wanted to govern this country in a quiet and peaceable manner, and not by fire and sword, they would advise her Majesty to send to the starving poor of this country, to relieve their distress, the half of that eight millions which she has lying in the Funds, and which she has received from the ratepayers. By this means they would require no Coercion measure, but would make this one of the most happy, peaceable, and law-abiding countries in the world.” This spirited though courteous suggestion implies that Royalty has done less for the People than the People have done for Royalty, that the balance of profit is not on the national side of the account, and that gratitude is not due by those who confer bene­ fits, but by those who receive them. During the present reign, the Royal family has obtained from the nation nearly twenty-four million pounds. What has the nation received in exchange for that enormous sum ? I do not propose to reckon in this place the value of the normal functions of Royalty, as I intend to estimate it when I have calcu­ lated the annual cost of the institution. I simply inquire, at present, what special advantage has accrued to us from her Majesty, and not another per­ son, having worn the crown for the last fifty years. Ireland may be dismissed from the inquiry at once. She has no opportunity of gazing on the Queen’s classical features, or even of being splashed �6 with the mud of her carriage wheels; and, on the other hand, the statistics of Ireland’s fifty years’ his­ tory show that 1,225,000 of her children have died of famine, while 3,650,000 have been evicted by the landlords, and 4,186,000 have emigrated to foreign lands. There has, however, been considerable progress in Great Britain. Our national wealth has immensely increased, but Royalty has only assisted in spending it. Science has advanced by gigantic strides, but Royalty has not enriched it by any brilliant disco­ veries ; for since George the Fourth devised a shoe­ buckle, the inventive genius of the House of Bruns­ wick has lain exhausted and fallow. Our commerce has extended to every coast, and our ships cover every sea; but the Prince of Wales’s trip to India, at our expense, is the only nautical achievement of his distinguished family, unless we reckon the Duke of Edinburgh’s quarter-deck performances, and Prince Lieningen’s exploit in sinking the Mistletoe. Our people are better educated, but Royalty has not instructed them. Our newspapers have multiplied tenfold, but Royalty is only concerned with the Oourt Circular. The development of the printing press has placed cheap books in the poorest hands, and our literature may hold its own against the world. But what contributions do we owe to Royalty ? Her Majesty has published two volumes of Leaves from her j ournal, which had an immense sale, and are now forgotten. They chronicle the smallest talk, and express the most commonplace sentiments, the prin­ cipal objects on which the Royal author loved to �7 expatiate being the greatness and goodness of Prince Albert and the legs and fidelity of John Brown. Thousands of ladies, and probably thousands of school-girls, could have turned out a better book. And when we recollect that the Queers diary was prepared for the press by the skilful hand of Sir Arthur Helps, we may be pardoned for wondering into what depths of inanity he cast his lines to fish up such miraculous dulness. The only son her Majesty has lost, and whose expenses the nation has saved, was “ studious,” as that word is understood in royal circles; but his speeches, although they were furbished up by older and abler hands, will never figure in any collections of eloquence, and it is doubtful whether a lengthy life would have enabled him to shine at Penny Readings without the advan­ tage of his name. The Prince of Wales’s sons have also put two big volumes on Mudie’s shelves (it would be too much to say into circulation), yet their travelling tutor acted as their literary showman; and what parts of the exhibition were his and what theirs, God alone knoweth except themselves. It is not one of the stipulated functions of a Queen, but it is reasonably expected, that she should produce an heir to the throne. Her Majesty, in obedience to the primal commandment, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,” which is seldom neglected in royal families, has borne the desired heir, and many other children to take his place if he or his offspring should come to an untimely end. Her progeny is, indeed, remarkably numerous, if we reckon all the branches, and if they breed like­ �8 wise it will ultimately become a serious question whether they or we shall inhabit England. As it is, everyone of them is kept by the nation, for Her Majesty, although fabulously rich, or as Johnson said, “ wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice,” is never­ theless too poor to maintain her own children. We support them, and in the most extravagant fashion. Yet they have absolutely no public duties to perform. The Queen's duties are not onerous, and still less necessary, but they are real however light. Her offspring and relatives, however, do nothing for their pensions. They never did anything, and never expect to do anything. They are the recipients of public charity, which does not change its essence because it is administered by special Acts of Parliament. Dr. Findlater defines a pauper as “ a poor person : one supported by charity or some public provision.” Does not this exactly apply to all our Royal pensioners ? Am I not strictly justified in calling them Royal Paupers ? There are paupers in palaces as well as in workhouses, and in many, if not most cases, the latter are the more honorable. Thousands of men who have worked hard in their younger days far scanty wages, hundreds who have paid rates and taxes to support the state burdens, have eked out the sombre end of their lives in the Union, and have been buried in a parish egg­ box. They were called paupers, and so they were, for there is no disputing the fact. But are not they worse paupers who have never worked at all, who live on other people from the cradle to the grave, who add impudence to their dependence, and glory in their degradation ? �9 Why should the people fling up their caps and rend the air with their shouts ? They owe Royalty nothing, and they have no particular occasion for gladness. It is, however, perfectly natural that the Queen and her family should rejoice over her Jubilee. Fifty years of unearned prosperity is something to be grateful for, and if the members and dependents of the House of Brunswick wish to join in a chorus of thanksgiving, by all means let them do so; but let them also, out of their well-filled purses, defray the expenses of the concert. Let us now estimate the annual cost of these Royal Paupers, and of the Royal Mother of most of the brood; in other words, let us reckon the yearly amount which John Bull pays for the political luxury of a throne. When Her Majesty came to the throne, in June, 1837, it was ordered by the House of Commons ee that the accounts of income and expenditure of the Civil List from the 1st January to the 31st December, 1836, with an estimate of the probable future charges of the Civil List of her Majesty, be referred to a Select Committee of 21 members/'’ Those gentlemen went to work with great simplicity. They ascer­ tained what it cost King William to support “ the honor and dignity of the Crown” during the last, year of his reign, and they recommended that Queen Victoria should be enabled to spend as much money and a little more, for they put the cost of the various branches of the Civil List into round figures, and always to her advantage. One ’of King William/s bills was £11,381 for “ upholsterers and cabinet- �1G makers/'’ but they surely could not have imagined that her Majesty could require nearly twelve thou­ sand pounds* worth of furniture every year. Nor could they really have thought that she would spend £3,345 a year on horses, or £4,825 a year on carriages. Probably they felt that the subject was too sacred for criticism. At any rate, they speedily produced an estimate of £385,000 per annum as the amount necessary “ for the support of her Majesty's house­ hold, and of the honor and dignity of the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.” The Civil List was settled at this figure by an Act of Parliament, which received the Royal Assent on December 23, 1837. No doubt Her Majesty signed that precious document with the most cordial satisfaction. In February, 1840, Her Majesty married. Her husband, of course, was imported from Germany. The Queen was anxious that he should be hand­ somely supported by Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotchmen. A desperate effort was made to procure him an allowance of £50,000 a-year; but through the patriotic exertions of a band of Radicals, headed by Joseph Hume, the sum was reduced to £30,000. On that paltry income Prince Albert had to live. It was a severe lesson in economy, but his German training enabled him to pass through the ordeal, and in time he increased his scanty income by other emoluments. He took £6,000 a-year as FieldMarshal; £2,695 a-year as Colonel of the Grenadier Guards ; £238 a-year as Colonel-in-Chief of the Rifle Brigade; £1,000 a-year or so in the shape of per- �11 quisites as Grand Ranger of Windsor Great Park; £500 a-year or so as Grand Ranger of the Home Park; and £1,120 a-year as Governor and Constable of Windsor Castle. Besides these posts, he filled some which were honorary, and some whose value was a secret to common mortals. When the lucky German prince died he left a very large fortune, but how much he contrived to amass is unknown, for his will has never been proved. Returning to the Civil List, we find it divided up as follows :—Her Majesty's Privy Purse, £60,000; Household Salaries, £131,260; Tradesmen's Bills, £172,500; Royal Bounty and Special Services, £9,000 ; Alms and Charity, £4,200 ; Unappropriated Money, £8,040—Total, £385,000. The £60,000 of Privy Purse money the Queen spends as she pleases. She can say like Shylock, “'Tis mine, and I will have it." The £8,040 of Unappropriated Money appears to have been thrown in to make up a round rum, or perhaps to provide the Queen with pin-money, so that she might not go abroad without small change in her pocket. The £13,200 for Bounty and Alms is supposed to be spent on deserving objects of charity. How much of it is spent we know not. But the fact that the sum is voted for that purpose is calculated to lessen our appreciation of Royal benevolence. When the ladies get hold of the morning papers, and see by the Daily Telegraph, or some other loyal newspaper, that Her Majesty has sent so much to this charity, and so much to that, they exclaim, “ What a dear good lady the Queen is to be sure." They never suspect that her �12 Majesty’s charity is exercised with other people’s money. The poorest and the most penurious might be charitable on the same easy conditions. According to the Civil List Act, the other sums were to be rigorously spent in maintaining the Royal dignity; indeed, a clause was inserted to prevent savings, except of trifling amount, from being carried from one category to another. Yet it is well-known that many sinecure offices in the Royal Household have been abolished, while large reductions have been made in the Household expenditure. Who benefits by these savings ? Can any person do so but the Queen ? Would she allow them to be appropriated by others ? But if she “ pockets the difference ” it is in violation of the Act. Whatever reductions are made, so much less is admitted to be necessary for the purposes specified by law, and it is the sovereign who makes the admission. Surely, then, these savings, these reductions in the expenditure on maintaining “ the honor and dignity of the Crown,” should accrue to the State, and not swell the private income of a fabulously rich old lady. We shall peep into the Royal Household presently. Before doing so, however, we must see the full extent of the Queen’s resources. Besides what she derives from the Prince Consort’s will, she has the income accruing from the Nield legacy. Mr. J. C. Yield died in 1852, and not knowing a more proper object of charity, he left his poor Queen the sum of £250,000, in addition to real estate. Her Majesty is reported to have invested heavily in the Funds. She has also private estates in England and Scotland, to say �13 nothing of her estates in Germany. They are returned as 37,643 acres, at an annual rental of £27,995. Finally, there is the splendid revenue of the Duchy of Lancaster, which, in 1886, amounted to £45,000. Being so enormously wealthy, her Majesty might, taste the luxury of contributing, however slightly, to the expenses of government. She voluntarily undertook to do so in 1842, but never appears to have kept her word. When Sir Robert Peel intro­ duced his Income Tax Bill, in August of that year, he made the following announcement: “ I may take this opportunity of making a communication which, I am confident, will be received by the House with great satisfaction. When in an interview with her Majesty, a short time since, I intimated that her Majesty’s servants thought that the financial difficulties of the country were such that it was desirable, for the public interest, to submit, all the income of this country to a charge of £3 per cent., her Majesty, prompted by those feelings of deep and affec­ tionate interest which she has always shown for the welfare and happiness of her people, observed to me that if the necessities of the country were such that, in time of peace, it was necessary to impose a charge of £3 per cent, on income, it was her own voluntary determination that her own income should be subject to a similar deduction.” There is no positive proof, but there is negative proof, that this “ voluntary determination” was not carried out. Mr. C. E. Macqueen, secretary of the Financial Reform Association, wrote to Mr. J. Wilson, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on December 1, 1855, inquiring “ whether her Majesty and the Royal Consort contribute their respective quotas to the income and property tax.’'’ Mr. Wilson replied that it was contrary to practice to answer �14 such inquiries. He was technically right, but his official reserve would scarcely have prevented his making the statement, if it could be made, that Her Majesty had paid the tax in accordance with her promise. So much for the Queen’s “ deep and affec­ tionate interest in the welfare and happiness of her people.” It should be added that the Royal estates escape all Probate Duty, and that none of the Royal Family have to pay Legacy and Succession Duties. Every­ thing is arranged by a loyal nation for their comfort and profit. But, strange as it may sound, we have not yet done with the cost of a Queen. There is a long list of further expenses which, for the sake of convenience, and that the reader may get a bird’s-eye view of them, I print in a tabular form. The figures given are for the year 1884-5. Pensions granted by hei’ Majesty .............. £24,072 Royal Palaces, occupied wholly or partially by her Majesty .............................................. 15,466 Royal Palaces, not occupied by her Majesty ... 19,783 Royal Yachts, etc................................................. 39,732 Royal Escort (Household Troops, etc.).............. 31,150 £130,203 Here we have £130,203 expended by or on the Sovereign, in addition to the Civil List of £385,000 and the revenue of £45,000 from the Duchy of Lan­ caster. This makes a grand total of £560,203. What a sum to lavish on the pride and luxury of one person ! The President of the United States only receives £10,000 a year. It is evident, there­ �15 fore, unless there is no truth in Cocker, that the people of this old country fancy a Queen is worth fifty-six Presidents. The Yankees, however, have a very different opinion: they laugh at John Bull for lavishing so much wealth on a single human being, and facetiously ask him why he complains of bad trade and hard times when he can afford to fool away his money in that fashion. Now, let us turn our profane gaze into the sacred arcana of the Boyal Household, ft is a pity that such a glorious Flunkey's Paradise cannot be accu­ rately and graphically described by a master hand. What a wonderful picture of sinecure sloth and corruption it would be to posterity ! Some writer, with the pen of a Dickens steeped in the gall of a Carlyle, should have a carte blanche commission for the task. He should have unlimited opportunity to study the ins and outs of the establishment, and the lives of its officers and servants; and he should be free to write exactly what he saw and heard, as well as his own reflections on the matter. Were that done, there would be at least one imperishable monument of “ low ambition and the pride of kings." There is no accessible account of the detailed ex­ penditure in this Flunkey's Paradise at present, but we have a full account of the expenditure in 1836, on which the amount necessary for Tradesmen's Bills was calculated. In the Lord Chamberlain's department there is a bill of £11,381 for “uphols­ terers and cabinetmakers," and another of £4,119 for “ locksmiths, ironmongers, and armorers." £284 is paid to sempstresses, so there must be a deal of �16 shirt-making and mending. The washing bill is £3,014, and £479 is paid for soap. Doctors and chemists receive £1,951 for attending and physicing the flunkeys. Turning to the Lord Steward’s De­ partment, we find £2,050 worth of bread consumed, and £4,976 worth of butter, bacon, eggs, and cheese. The butcher’s bill comes to £9,472, and the amount is so great that one wonders there is not a royal slaughter-house. The flunkeys and the cats con­ sumed £1,478 worth of milk and cream, and perhaps the cats helped the flunkeys to devour the £1,979 Worth of fish. Groceries come to £4,644, fruit and confectionery to £1,741, wines to £4,850, liqueurs, etc., to £1,843, and ale and beer to £2,811. Ifthere is as much boozing now in the Royal Household, it is high time that Sir Wilfrid Lawson turned his attention to the subject. The New River Water Company would supply Buckingham Palace, at least, with a sufficiency of guzzle at a much cheaper rate. The nation would gain by the change, and if the superior flunkeys’ noses were compulsorily toned down, it might not be very much to their disadvan­ tage either. The Household Salaries are allotted to hundreds of flunkeys, from the Lord Chamberlain to the lowest groom or porter. All the chief officials are lords and ladies. These have to be in immediate attendance, and Royalty could not tolerate the con­ tiguity of plebeians. Pah I an ounce of civet, good apothecary ! Chief of the flunkeys is the Lord Chamberlain. This nobleman’s salary is £2,000 a year. He is the �17 master of the ceremonies, and has to be perfect in the punctilios of etiquette. Besides looking after the other flunkeys, he oversees the removal of beds and wardrobes, and superintends the revels, corona­ tions, marriages, and funerals. Lest these onerous duties should impair his health, he has a Vice­ Chamberlain, who is also a nobleman, to assist him at a salary of £924 a year. Undei’ these gentlemen there is an Examiner of Plays. This person is paid £400 a year, besides fees, to decide what plays shall be placed on the stage. He is also authorised to strike out from the plays he condescends to license everything likely to contaminate the public morals, or bring the Church and State into disrespect. This official is almighty and irresponsible. There is no appeal against his fiat. Thirty-five millions of people have to be satisfied with what he permits them. He is the despot of the drama; they are his slaves; and they pay him "several hundreds a year by way of gild­ ing their fetters. The result is precisely what might be expected. While the most vulgar farces and the most suggestive opera, bouffe are licensed for the pub­ lic delectation, some of the noblest masterpieces of continental dramatic literature are tabooed, because they deal with profound problems of life and thought in a manner that might affront the susceptibilities of Bumble and Mrs. Grundy. Even Shelley's Cenci was prohibited, and the Shelley Society was obliged to circumvent the Examiner of Plays by resorting to a “ private performance." No matter that the loftiest names in current English literature were associated with the production of this magnificent play; the �18 authority of Robert Browning and Algernon Swin­ burne was overshadowed by that of the autocrat of the Lord Chamberlain’s office, who has no standing in the republic of letters, whose very name is un­ known to the multitude of playgoers, who belongs to the ranks of what Shelley called “ the illustrious obscure.” Among the female flunkeys, if I may be allowed the appellation, are the Mistress of the Robes, with £500 a year, and eight Ladies of the Bedchamber, with the same salary. They are required to keep Her Majesty company for a fortnight, three times in the course of each year, and when in attendance they dine at the Royal table. There are also eight Bed­ chamber women, at £300 a year each, to serve in rotation; and eight Maids of Honor, at the same salary, who reside with Her Majesty in couples, for four weeks at a time. It was remarked, in the days of Swift, that Maids of Honor was a queer title, as they were neither the one nor the other. But let us hope that a great improvement has taken place since then. There is a large Ecclesiastical staff attached to the Royal Household, but it only costs £1,236 a year. The smallness of the sum does not imply that clergy­ men are cheap, but that many will gladly officiate for little or nothing at Court, as such appointments are always considered stepping-stones to valuable pre­ ferments. More than twice as much is expended on the mortal bodies of the Royal Household as on their immortal souls. £2,700 a year is paid to Court �19 physicians, surgeons, apothecaries, and chiropodists, some receiving salaries, and others fees when in attendance. The salaries of the Kitchen Department amount to no less than £9,983 a year, enough to excite the wonder of Lucullus. We have no space to recite the interminable list of menials. Suffice it to say that the wine-taster has a salary of £500, the chief con­ fectioner £300, the chief cook £700, and three master cooks £350 each. There are also three well-paid yeomen in charge of the Royal plate, the value of which is reckoned at two millions sterling. Lowest of all in the scale of payment is the Poet Laureate. His post is a survival of Feudalism. The Court used to keep a dwarf and a jester, but these have been discarded, and only the versifier is retained. His duty is to grind out loyal odes whenever a member of the Royal family is born, marries, or dies. A more wretched office could scarcely be conceived. Yet it is held by Lord Tennyson, who bestows the ex­ crements of his genius on the Court. His latest Jubilee Ode might have been composed by a printer’s devil, whose brains were muddled by two poems of Walt Whitman and Martin Tupper set in alternate lines. The salary of the Laureateship is £100 a year. Seven hundred a year to the chief cook, and one hundred a year to the poet! Such are the respective values of cooking and poetry in the Royal estimation. When Gibbon presented the second volume of his immortal histoiy to George the Third, the farmer-king could only exclaim, “ What, another big book, Mr. �20 Gibbon ? ” The House of Brunswick has thus been consistent in its appreciation of literature. Having taken a rapid look at the Court Flunkeys, let us come to the great brood of Royal Paupers. Such a poverty-stricken woman as the Queen cannot be expected to maintain her children; they are there­ fore supported by the State on a scale commensurate with the Civil List. The Princess Royal, who is the wife of the Crown Prince of Germany, receives £8,000 a year. When she married the nation voted her a dowry of £40,000, and £5,000 was devoted to fitting up the Chapel Royal for the wedding. The Prince of Wales has a pension of £40,000 a year. He takes £1,350 for the colonelcy of the Tenth Hussars, a purely sinecure office. Probably the regi­ ment would not recognise him if they saw him in uniform. He lives rent free in Marlborough House, on which £2,120 was spent in repairs in 1884-5, and there is a somewhat similar bill every year. The revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall swell the Prince’s income by £64,641. Those were the figures in the year just referred to. During his minority the revenues of the Duchy accumulated to the amount of £601,721. A third of this sum was invested in the purchase of his Sandringham estate, and the rest in other ways. Returns show that the Prince has 8,079 acres in Norfolk, and 6,810 in Aberdeenshire, the rental being given at the extremely low figure of £9,727. When the Prince of Wales married, the nation voted him an extra grant of £23,455, and as he was �21 too poor to support a wife £10,000 a year was secured to her from the national purse, with a further pro­ mise of its being made £30,000 if she survives her husband. When the Prince visited India, in 1875, he was allowed £142,000 for the expenses of the trip, £60,000 being pocket money, for the exercise of generosity. The presents he gave we paid for; the presents he received are his. Evidently the Prince of Wales has much to be thankful for, and he may celebrate the Jubilee with the utmost cordiality. Even if he never becomes king, he will have had a fine old time, and his appearance shows how well it agrees with him. The Duke of Edinburgh was voted £15,000 a-year on attaining his majority in 1866. When he married, in 1874, the amount was increased to £25,000, although a few brave and honest Radicals opposed the additional grant to the Prince “ for marrying the richest heiress in Europe His wife is the Czar’s daughter; she brought him a private fortune of £90,000, a marriage portion of £300,000, and a life annuity of £11,250. Being a royal pauper, the Duke does nothing for his pension. He takes £3,102 for his post in the navy. They give him command of the Mediterranean Fleet in time of peace, but in time of war his fiddling tunes might be preferable to his shouting orders. Let us, however, be fair. There are some who say that he handles a fleet splendidly; yet there are others who believe that if the Peers took a trip round the world in one of our ironclads, under the actual command of the Duke of Edinburgh, there would be no need to �22 agitate for their abolition. We may add that the Duke has a yearly allowance of £1,800 from SaxeCobourg, and on the death of his uncle, the reigning Duke, he will inherit a fortune of £30,000 a year. AVhen he comes into that windfall he will, perhaps, resign the pension of £25,000 a year he draws from us. It would be a graceful act. But, alas! the House of Brunswick has never been noted for grace. The Princess Christian receives £6,000 a year, and £30,000 was voted to her on her mam'a,go, The Princess Louise had a similar dowry, and her pension is also £6,000 a year. The Duchess of Albany, widow of Prince Leopold, has £6,000, the Princess Mary £5,000, and the Princess Augusta £3,000. The Duke of Connaught's pension is £25,000. His military reputation was achieved in Egypt, where Lord Wolseley officiated as his wet-nurse. He was kept out of danger, and specially mentioned in a des­ patch from the field of battle. At present he is Commander-in-Chief in Bombay, a post whose abolition was recommended by the Military Com­ mission. He draws pay at the rate of £6,000 a year. Sir John Gorst will ask Parliament to pass a Bill authorising the Duke to come home to celebrate the Jubilee without forfeiting his office. Of course the . Bill will pass, but the cream of the joke is that we shall have to pay the cost of his journey. The move­ ments of princes are expensive. The national exchequer trembles when they blow their noses. Another Royal Paupei’ of the warrior caste is the Duke of Cambridge, This Prince is the Queen’s uncle. His pension is £12,000 a year. His salary �23 and perquisites as Banger of St. James’s, Green, Hyde, and Richmond Parks are estimated at over £2,000 a year. As Field Marshal Commander-in-Chief he takes £4,500 a year. He is also Colonel of the Grenadier Guards at £2,132 a year. His military / genius is renowned throughout the world, and his noble brow is circled with the deathless laurels he won in the Crimea. His corpulence makes him a commanding figure, and although his sword is not famous, his umbrella is the terror of our enemies. It only remains to add that poverty prevents him from maintaining a wife. The Duchess of Cambridge, therefore, enjoys a separate pension of £6,000 a year. Besides the Royal pensioners, there are a few of the Queen’s relatives (Germans, of course) who sponge on the British taxpayer. Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar draws £3,384 a year from the Army, and his Dublin residence is worth another thousand. Prince Deiningen takes £593 a year as a half-pay Vice-Admiral. Count Gleichen receives £740 as a retired Vice-Admiral, and £1,120 as Governor of Windsor Castle. There is always a make-weight, even in accounts. Accordingly we find a lot of extra expense in the £4,881 paid in pensions to various surviving friends and servants of George III., George IV., William IV., and Queen Charlotte. Directly and indirectly the Royal Family costs the nation the stupendous sum of £808,316 a year. The vastness of such an amount is difficult for ordinary minds to realise. Let us, therefore, analyse it, and see what it makes in detail. It would maintain �24 10,365 families at £1 10s. a week. It represents £2,215 every day, £92 an hour, and £1 10s. 6d. every minute. We frequently hear it said that the payment of Members of Parliament would be too expensive. But £300 a year is the outside salary proposed by Radicals; and the annual cost of the Royal Family would suffice to pay every member of the House of Commons that salary four times over. Thick-and-thin loyalists sometimes urge that we have no right to grumble at the expense of Royalty. The sovereign, they say, accepts a Civil List in lieu of the Royal Revenues, and the nation gains by the contract. But this argument is unconstitutional. The Crown Revenues are not private property; they belong to the monarch, just as the crown does, by virtue of Acts of Parliament, and all Acts of Parlia­ ment can be modified or repealed. If the Crown Lands, for instance, were personal estate, they could not be alienated from the present possessor. Should the Queen, however, turn Roman Catholic, she could not continue to occupy the throne. The Prince of Wales would succeed her at once, and if Tie turned Roman Catholic, the next heir would immediately succeed him. In each case the Crown Revenues would change hands. It is obvious, therefore, that those Revenues are the appanage of the Crown solely by virtue of law ; and it necessarily follows that the nation has the legal as well as the moral right to settle the Civil List as it pleases. Other Loyalists urge the spendthrift objection that the cost of the Royal Family- is trifling when distri­ buted over the entire population. Why make a fuss, r �25 they ask, about fivepence half-penny each ? It is less than the price of a quart of beer, or two ounces of cheap tobacco. True, but many mickles make a muckle. The lavish expenditure on Royalty corrupts our national 'economy. The cost of government, the expenses of the Army and Navy, rise higher and higher every year. Since the Queen’s accession, indeed, they have nearly quadrupled. A nation cannot waste its money on titled idlers without lavishing it shamefully in other directions. There is another way of replying to this foolish objection. What good might be done with that £808,316 a year if it were otherwise expended ! It would maintain museums, art galleries, and public libraries throughout the country on the most munifi­ cent scale, as the following table very clearly shows. Towns. Per Year. Total. 5 at £20,000 = £100,000 10,000 = 100,000 10 „ 5,000 = 20 „ 100,000 2,500 = 40 „ 100,000 100 „ 1,000 = 100,000 616 „ 500 = 308,000 £808,000 This is only one illustration. The ingenious reader will think of many more, and he can work out the figures himself. Now let us glance at the functions of Royalty. We have seen its cost, and we must try to ascertain its worth. �26 “ The King reigns but does not govern," and therefore “the King can do no wrong.’' These maxims of constitutional monarchy imply that the sovereign exercises no direct power. Even Lord Salisbury, who is a thorough-paced courtier, would shrink from publicly maintaining “ the right divine of Kings to govern wrong." The Queen rules through her Ministers. What they resolve on is executed in her name. But she herself has no choice in the matter. She is nominally able to refuse her assent to an Act which has passed both branches of the Legislature, but the first time she ventured to exert that cc right ” the Crown would be brought into^dangerous collision with the people. Nor can* her Ministers act without the Consent of Parliament. The monarchy has been gradually shorn of its perogatives, until it has become a political fiction. We are really living under a veiled Republic, and the sooner the mischievous and costly disguise-is flung aside the better for the welfare and integrity of the nation. Calling one of her “ subjects ” to form a Ministry is the Queen’s first function. But this involves no wisdom or decision, for there is no choice. It is not Her Majesty,‘but the electorate, that decides who shall be Premier. The Queen simply summons the acknowledged leader of whichever party triumphs at the ballot. If the Conservatives win she calls Lord Salisbury, if the Liberals win she calls Mr. Gladstone. Her personal wishes count for less than those of the humblest ratepayer, for he has a vote and she has none. Her next business is to open and close Parliament. This duty, however, is seldom performed. Her �Majesty rarely emerges from her widowed seclusion, except to give a fillip to a Tory government. For many years after Prince Albert’s death she felt unequal to the exertion, although she had strength enough to participate in ghillie balls. If a washer­ woman complained that she was so cut up by the death of her husband that it was impossible to work, and expected regular payment without sending home any clean linen, she would quickly weary her patrons, and find it prudent to return to the tub. Yet a Queen can indulge in the luxury of woe for twenty years, and her flatterers will account it a virtue. Thomas Carlyle wrote a significant little sentence on this subject. Acknowledging a presentation copy of Gilchrist’s Life of William Blake, which Mrs. Gilchrist bravely saw through the press after her husband’s death, Carlyle wrote : “ Your own little Preface is all that is proper—could but the Queen of these realms have been as Queen-like in her widowhood I ” As for the Queen’s Speech, it is a ridiculous farce. The document is drawn up by the Ministry, and its sentiments differ with the succession of parties. Generally, too. it is read by proxy. Her Majesty, therefore, neither reads it nor writes it. It is no more hers than mine. When Parliament is opened or prorogued in the Queen’s absence, the royal robes are thrown over the royal chair, and the Lords bow in passing them, precisely as though the sovereign sat there. The garments do as well as the wearer. Why, then, go to the expense of filling them out ? With all rever­ ence, I make the following suggestion. Let half-a- �dozen of our finest artists be commissioned to carve and chase a Phidean statue in ivory and gold, tn occupy the royal chair instead of the Queen. The expense would be incurred once for all, and we should know the full extent of our liability. The present monarchical idol could then be discarded for the cheaper substitute, which would probably be quite as useful, and certainly quite as handsome. Next, her Majesty signs Acts of Parliament. I would undertake to sign them all for £50 a year, and my handwriting is as good as the Queen’s. As a matter of fact, it is not the Royal signature that gives validity to statutes. During one of George the Third’s, fits of insanity, it is said that Lord Eldon used acounterfeit of the King’s signature, which was engraved for the purpose; yet the Acts of Parliament thus ratified were no less operative than those which bore the King’s autograph. Under the Common­ wealth the Great Seal was broken up, and a new one substituted. On one side was a map of England and Ireland; on the other, the device, “ In the first year of freedom, by God’s blessing restored.” AIL resolutions and orders of the House were signed by the Speaker as nominal Chief of the State. “ Mr.. Speaker ” is still the First Commoner, and why can­ not his signature be attached to Acts of Parliament instead of an hereditary official’s ? The laws of a freecountry are the expression of the people’s will, and they depend on no individual’s concurrence for theirvalidity and force. These are absolutely all the“ functions” of Royalty,, though there are other reasons adduced in its favor.. �29 While we retain a throne, filled by hereditary right, it is urged that we avoid an undignified scramble for the highest position in the State. But what scramble is there for the Presidency in France ? Or what particular scramble is there for it in the United States, where the President is elected by a kind of plebiscite ? Whatever scramble there is, some very good men manage to win. From Washington to Cleveland there have been many illustrious names. Have we had a single sovereign who could be men­ tioned in the same breath with the best of them ?' What is our boast ? George the Third, the madman George the Fourth, the profligate; William the Fourth, the ninny; and Victoria, whose loftiest virtue is that, being a Queen, she has lived like an honest woman. The single name of Lincoln outweighs a thousand such; nay, compared with his greatness, they are but dust in the balance. We are further told that Society (with a capital S) must have a head. But what' is this Society ? Does it include the great thinkers and workers, th ez poets, artists, philosophers, and scientists ? No; it com­ prises the lazy, pampered classes, whose wealth and titles are their only passports to esteem, whose highest ambition is to be presented at Court and invited to royal levees. These people are not a sign of national health, but a sign of national disease. Let them, if they must, pursue their idle round of foolish pleasure, but let them elect and support their own “ head ” without expecting the nation to countenance their frivolity by maintaining the Head of the State as the master or mista\ ss of their foppish ceremonies. �Lastly, the monarchy is defended on the ground that a State must have a figure-head. But this is a fatal plea. When monarchy was a reality the King stood at the helm. If the sovereign is to be an orna­ mental figure under the bowsprit, why should he cost us an admiral’s salary for painting and gilding ? Besides, figure-heads become very expensive when they beget little figure-heads, whose maintenance in a proper state of decoration is a first charge on the freightage. There is one function which her Majesty, ever since Prince Albert’s death, has been unconsciously performing. She has been teaching the people that the monarchy is not indispensable. By habituating them to dispense with its forms and pageants, she has shown them how unessential it is to our political life. Without the least intention, she has been pre­ paring the way for a Republic. A few timid Radi­ cals, and many Liberals, may stand aghast at the prospect, but they cannot escape the result of cen­ turies of historic tendency. From the day when the Long Parliament condemned to death ie the man Charles Stuart,” and established a Commonwealth, “without King or House of Lords,” the fire of Republicanism has never been extinguished in the heart of England. It was allayed by Cromwell, and it almost expired under Charles the Second, but it faintly revived under his successor, and it has gradually strengthened ever since. It gleamed in many an epigram of Pope, it shone in the eloquence of Bolingbroke, it quivered in many a line of Cowper, it kindled the young muse of Words- �31 worth, it glowed in the songs of Burns, it coruscated in the satire .of Byron, it flamed in the lyrics of Shelley, it burned with a steady light in the prose of Thomas Paine. Nor was the noble tradition lost in the reaction after the French Revolution. For two generations it survived in the genius of Landor, and since his death it has inspired the genius of Swinburne. Royalty is now moribund, and democracy is striding to the throne. After centuries of slumber the People are at length awake, and the noble words of John Milton may be re-echoed in a later age. “ Methinks 1 see in my mind a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks. Methinks I see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth, and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full midday beam, purging and unsealing her longabused sight at the fountain itself of heavenly radiance/'’ While she was asleep the privileged classes, from the monarch to the meanest aristocrat, battened upon her like vampires. But their night is over. They lurk and wait in vain for her relapse. They fancy the daylight an illusion, yet they are~ deceived. Democracy is like the grave, it yields nothing back; and a nation once awakened does not sleep again until she dies. The day of her freedom is the day of her life. For as';the dull sense of the brute grows into full consciousness in man, s® the rude instincts of the multitude grow into the con­ scious life of a people, widening and clearing for evermore. �THE Shadow of the Sword. SECOND EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED. BY Gm Wm FOOTE. PRICE TWOPKWOE. PRESS OPINIONS. “ An ably-written pamphlet, exposing the horrors of war and the burdens imposed upon the people by the war systems of Europe. . . . The author deserves thanks for this timely publi­ cation.”—Echo. “ A trenchant exposure of the folly of war, which everyone should read.”—Weekly Times. “ A wonderfully eloquent denunciation of the war fever.”— Birmingham Owl. “ This pamphlet presents us with some startling truths that are well worth preserving.”—The People (Wexford). “ Should be in the hands of all advocates of peace.”—Our Corner. Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C. f r. V jk f F � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Royal paupers : a radical's contribution to the Jubilee, showing what royalty does for the people and what the people do for royalty Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 31 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N262 Subject The topic of the resource Monarchy 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 (Royal paupers : a radical's contribution to the Jubilee, showing what royalty does for the people and what the people do for royalty), 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 Queen Victoria https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e7910f259dd601cedf0a793babeab7e2.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=WKwhi466atgjy0TxezaM-o0yekk7KP0Ygv2OuZ2vIMRvSXqRSOyJ7nHuUQisjibHSWQC06s1gQ8QSZ%7EuE4gAGvbyKetPVtVpyNQ0wWzxn5FW8boe7j15AexyRnUZK5iUIDZNrA8U5QVCwhtegpFHeQHJeqR%7EjgfKVWs2ueSv-xP2A3f4phlRrIjXlwYZ9DiwVt58s9tN-dPINcmO6JAJ8yT4hDSs00392I%7EmEyJmTNRCI-4WKnC%7ExggsdJ0IFzzbUW57tTk6dzDGpeMvO5E42RjAQoE8-5I%7EYmiuWaA2dUu0xJs9auYkjb528Col2dWixzzs0KnXNGaHRv9OrcIuww__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ce6a71b3edd1c356642b41a3a5e4fa8a PDF Text Text HA-nONALSECULARSOCffiTV “THERE WAS WAR IN HEAVEN.” jlnfiòtl Sermon Delivered to the Portsmouth Branch of the National Secular Society BY ROBERT FORDER. , ‘ And there was war in Heaven : Michael and his angels plight against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his mg els.”—Rev. xii. 7. ONE PENNY, LONDON: R. FORDER, 28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. 1887. �28, S-ton4.cu-W^c S-tre-^t, S.S. �r \ \ *l Mib ifjere was Mar in tjcaucn.” (Bev. xii. 7.) "Friends,—The text that has just been read cannot "but bring forcibly to your minds the picture of the ter­ rible affray in the celestial regions, which may indeed be described as “ the cause of all our woe.” To ascribe the entry of sin and misery into the1 world as due to our first parents eating fruit that was forbidden them by Jehovah is obviously a mistake, for the vanquished leader of the rebel host was only continuing the strife in another portion of the victor’s dominions, when-Ae persuaded’ poor Eve that that apple was both pleasant to the eye, -agreeable to the taste, and requisite to give the know­ ledge that she then lacked. The fall, therefore, was a defeat of Jehovah, and an effect of the war being trans­ ferred to the new-made earth, to which Satan had been so unceremoniously hurled. But where, when, and how did this unbloody war begin? Do your priests tell you? Is it explained in your catechisms or made clear in your creeds ? Do any of the ministers of the Gospel ever venture to fix a date? No. It is left to the preachers of the gospel of freethought . to faithfully set before their friends. the time ' when this conflict began and the causes that led to the outbreak of hostilities. God’s holy word, aided by one of his. faithful servants, John Milton by name, shall be requisitioned into our service, with an occasional aid from more profane but equally well-informed sources, so determined are we that the whole truth shall be fully set forth. ’ ............. . . �Jehovah, then, once upon a time alone with his three selves, made out of what they alone know, a, company of beings generally known as archangels, seraphs, cherubim, and the rank and file known as angels. When this was is not known. But as Jahveh is the only “ eternal,” it must have been after his devel­ opment. These seem to have been all male, as none of the gentle sex are mentioned. Some impious mortals have not hesitated to name their children after t]u? highest of these beings, for Michael, Gabriel, and. Raphael are by no means uncommon amongst Irishmen, and Jews. If it is any consolation to my lady hearers, I may at once cheer them with the welcome news that, unlike many of the wars that have desolated the earth, the cause of this one was' not woman. And women ought to be glad when, together with this testimony as to the non-existence of feminine aboriginal angels, there is the negative evidence of the whole of the Bible that no women have got there, coupled with the undeniable assertion of St. John the Divine that “ there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour ” (Rev. viii. 1). Bor this wise provision Milton even compliments Jahveh, but he almost upbraids him for giving Satan such an opportunity by making a woman upon earth. Hear him :— “ O, why did God, Creator wise, that peopled heaven With spirits masculine, create at last This novelty on earth, this fair defect Of Nature, and not fill the world at once With men as angels without feminine! Or find some other way to generate Mankind ?” But the divine John had, we are told, a termagant wife, and this must be his excuse for his impious and ungallant thought. The archangels, then, were named, and among them was Lucifer. Jahveh, who certainly could not have * foreseen the consequences that resulted from the creation, of this being, must have made him imperfect, for ho sooner or later showed signs of having a will of his own, growing at last into open rebellion against his Maker. But let us pause here, and ask, from our experience of �(5) similar events amongst us, whether there must not have Jbeen a reason for this insubordination ? Rebellion is 'always brought about by the tyranny of rulers or the 'ambition of rivals. .Which was it, think you, that actuated Lucifer ? Is it possible to imagine that abuses had crept into the imperial government ? Were services -required of a degrading and unworthy character? Or Hid his highness the Devil fancy he could boss the con­ cern with a view to the greatest happiness of the greatest number? Was his employment that apportioned after­ wards to the four-headed beasts, and which is vividly depicted for us by the other John in his Revelation, who rest not day and night saying, Holy, Holy, Holy,” “before the great white throne ? This occupation would certainly after a time become tedious, and there would be some excuse for trying to bring such antics to a close. Or had Satan charge of the stables of the heavenly toenagerie, and did he ask for a change of duties and get ■refused? No one knows. But he rebelled ; and we find from the fact of his following being numerous that a "Spirit of dissatisfaction must have been prevalent among the angels also. Here let me quote, with approval, a remark from the article “ Satan” in Smith’s Bible Dic­ tionary : “ We cannot, of course, conceive that anything essentially and originally evil was created by God.” Therefore it follows that circumstances over which Jahveh had no control led up to a feeling in myriads of his angels that things were getting very bad there, and that radical reform was necessary. Lucifer unfurled the banner of revolt, and “ Hoping by treason foul to get Into the great Jehovah’s seat; And drawing in by wiles and snares ■Angels of all sorts unawares,” ............. ■ > < ’ wept into the fight in earnest. Here Holy Scripture fails Ils when we ask for particulars. We know nothing as to the beginning of hostilities—who sent the declaration of war; whether either side was equally well armed ; whether the commissariat had been properly attended to ; and whether adequate preparation had been made for the nursing of the sick and the wounded. But Mil­ ton assists us here; for ammunition appears to ba.vetutt, short on the Imperial side, and Michael’s followers . �“ From their foundations loosening to and fro O' ■ ' They plucked the seated hills with all their load.” ’’ ‘These they hurled at the rebel hosts, and terror was naturally excited in their breasts when they saw coming thick upon them . & “ The bottom of the mountains upward turned.” But Nick was not to be outdone by Mick at this game and, giving the order, “ Up, lads, and at ’em ! ” to his ■Captains, they, “ In imitation, to like arms Betake them, and the neighboring hills uptore i So hills amid the air encountered hills, Hurled to and fro with jaculation dire I That underground they fought in dismal shade.” £ , "What carnage ! And heaven is a holy place, my friends > there no sin or sorrow can enter; there all is joy and love’ Is it ? . Ask your Christian teachers for a guarantee thatwar will not occur there again. Look at the danger into which you are needlessly running by going there, now that it is the home of most of the scoundrels that have desolated the earth ; of atrocious murderers— wretches who have been assured by priests, while on the very point of being "jerked to Jesus,” that they were going straight to glory ! There is infinitely more pro­ bability of a row there now than there was when all the inhabitants of the celestial regions were aboriginals, and had not incurred the risk of being corrupted by the miscreants that have gone there during the last six thousand years. But to the field again. Besides this Brobdignagiaq. ammunition, cutlery was brought into use, although it is difficult to understand how immortal beings could slash and maim one another. Yet so it was, for “ The girding sword with discontinuous wound, Passed through him, but the ethereal substance closed, 7 Not long divisible.----- Yet soon he healed.” • This peculiar action of “ ethereal substance ” prompted Cobbett to remark : “I am abused for my notions of Milton and Shakespeare ; but why abuse me ? 1 If there?be persons who are delighted with the idea of an angef being split down the middle, and of the two halves com- �(f) ing (slap !) together again, intestines and’ all, they surely let me pass without abuse for not haying sb re * fined a taste.” ; The conflict raged for a long time, with varying for? tune, Satan displaying generalship not unworthy of a> Wellington or a Napoleon. Milton even seems proud of his prowess and gallantry, for thus he . sings his valor in the fray:—' . D, r , . ’ -: “ ........................ ... down they fell ' By thousands, angel on archangel rolled. ‘ ..................... Satan beheld their flight, And to his mates thus in derision called : ‘ O, friends, why come not on these victors proud ? Erewhile they fierce were coming.’” ; , •» •' .; , J But all great battles must come to an end; and so» Jahveh finished this bloodless struggle by pursuing Satan: . “ With terrors and with furies to the bounds <; And crystal wall of heaven, which, opening wide, c- Rolled inward, and a spacious gap disclosed. . 4,., . Into the wasteful deep eternal wrath Burnt after them to the bottomless pit. ’ . Nine days they fell.” •' J ? : ' • - . Here Milton’s genius seems to. have deserted him, for,’ if the pit was bottomless, they would still be tumbling, and Satan would be powerless. But the other John aversthat they were cast out into the earth, though this state­ ment is curiously contradicted by Christian theologians, who have invented a hell in which to preserve him. This, assertion may seem to Christians present to be a very, reckless one indeed ; but it is the opinion of the writer Of the article “ Hell,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, a view that we may fairly take to be that of all’ the eminenttheologians who contributed to that important biblicalcyclopaedia. Hear what Hell is. “ This is the word,' generally and unfortunately used by our translators tb> render the Hebrew Sheol. It would, perhaps, .have beenbetter to retain the Hebrew word Sheol, or else render it always by ‘ the grave,’ or ‘ the pit.’............. .The Hebrew ideas respecting Sheol were of a vague description. Gen­ erally speaking, the Hebrews regarded the grave as the * end of all sentient and intelligent existence.” It may bet * Urged that Jesus often used, the words hell and hellfire ;> hut we must not allow the ignorance? of! a poor Jew, see ? * �/ (8) Ing that there Js no evidence that he understood a word of Hebrew, to influence us on this question. His reported passionate and revengeful speeches, in which those words 'occur, were probably invented' by artful priests in the Second or third century of our era. Besides, the Revised Version has generally substituted Sheol for “ Hell ” in the Old Testament ; and Hellophiles are sadly distressed in consequence. Satan, then, was hurled from heaven to earth; «.nd here we may now expect to find him. It would be nnfa.ir to charge him with that artful trick of chousing Jahveh in Eden, but for the fact that orthodox Christians iden­ tify him with the serpent. Of this there is no evidence whatever, and the view cannot be supported by a single Sentence from the Hebrew books. We first find him and Michael “at it again,” contending about the body of Moses (Jude 9), but whether for a dissecting room or in the interest of rival undertakers “ no one knoweth unto this day. Certain it is, however, that Mick showed due and proper respect to his whilom confrere, and subsequent antagonist, as he dared not bring a railing accusation against him, but simply said at the end of the conflict: “ The Lord rebuke thee.” Certain it is, therefore, that Satan secured the body of Holy Moses, either for an hospital or for some professional Mr. Mould, Round three for Satan. Pursuing our inquiries about this time, we find that Nick, having entered into a kind of treaty of peace with Jahveh, again became on friendly terms with his rival. “ There was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them” (Job i. 6). Of course he did; what was to prevent him? “Ha! how do, Sate?” said Jahveh. “ All right, old boy; how are things up here?” replied Nick. “Very quiet indeed; scarcely any addition to our circle,” says Jahveh, “ since you sent most souls another way by that Eden escapade of yours, old man.” “ No recriminations, let byegones be byegones!” sharply replied the Old One, a reply which brought Jahveh back to the novelty of the situation. “Where have you been lately, Satan? ” said the elder Old One in his blandest tone; to which the younger Old One answered: “ Oh, only having a run up and down the earth.” “ And how are matters generally in �(9) that neighborhood,” queried the Omniscient, “ and by the bye, do you ever get as far as Uz?”* “ Oh, yes, I have a country house there, and generally spend a part of the autumn in the locality.” “ Do you know a big pot down there named Job ? ’’ “ Know him well, as well as I know you. Saw his missus home from a party the other night—Job, who keeps good hours, having gone home early.” “What’s your opinion of the old chap, Satan—tell us the truth now? I consider him to be a right good sort, in fact there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man.” “Is he?” said Satan; “you don’t know him as well as I do. See what you have done for him, made his fortune for him, blessed him with a large family, enabled him to become prime minister of his country, and protected him on every hand. Take these advantages from him, and he’ll repudiate you at once.” “ I don’t believe it; but I know, Satan, you’re a man of your word. Promise me you won’t hurt the old fellow, and you may try the experiment of depriving him of all his property, knocking his house down about his ears, and you can even go so far as to smite his sons and daughters; but don’t meddle with Job, and respect his missus.” “ That’s a bargain, Jahveh; you may trust me to keep my word respecting Job, and nothing wTould induce me to harm his missus. Ta, ta! ” Now, if the story in the Book of Job be true (and we must assume that it is), Satan went straight from Heaven to Uz, and played the devil with poor Job in real earnest. The Sabeans carried off all his oxen and donkeys, the Chaldeans stole his camels, and, probably, in order that nothing should be left, God himself lent a helping hand in this work of destruction by dropping down fire from Heaven on the poor sheep, being rewarded, no doubt, by “ a sweet savour ” of which we know from holy writ that he was' exceedingly fond. In this general destruction, my friends, do not forget that the whole of Job’s servants, with the exception of three or four, were Either burnt to death by God or murdered by those bands . * Only Jahveh and Nick knew this country. “ Whether the name of Uz'survived to classical times is uncertain.”—Die. of the Bible. ' �that, fell, on his. flocks; and,, to complete this- hellish. Satan-Jahveh experiment, a hurricane was sent which wrecked the house of Job’s eldest son, in which were gathered Job’s other sons, and daughters, all of whom met with a violent death. O■•! friends, it was a dreadful thing to fall under the notice of the living God; but, fortunately for humanity, he is dead now, or gone, on a, journey, or is asleep. Amid all this carnage and des­ truction it is satisfactory to. state of Satan that he was a man of his word; he faithfully kept the promise he. made to Jahveh not to harm Job. Bound four for Satan» Satan returned, to Heaven on the next Levée day, pre­ sumably to report progress, for the conversation is a repetition of the former interview, Jahveh again asking Nick what was his opinion of Job. If the Devil’s character has not been grossly misrepresented, his Christian enemies have credited him with being possessed of craft, cunning, and deceitfulness to such a degree that even saints have for a time been deceived by him. We may, therefore, assume that Nick took in the sitúa-, tion at once, laid his plans accordingly, and reasoned thus: “I have with very little difficulty got round my old enemy, and have bamboozled him by blarney sufficient to allow me to go and punish, with his permission (al­ though I could have done it without), one of his most obsequious followers ; and if I. only humor him a little * more, I have no doubt I can get round him and obtain his permission to go and torment old Job with small-póx, fever, or blotches. . I will therefore tempt him.” So Satan acted; poor old Jahveh fell into the trap, not; without some suspicion, however, that Nick was diddling him, for he pathetically reproached Satan with having “ movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.’’ “Skin for skin,” said Nick, “all that aman hath will he give for his life. Put forth thine hand now, and touch' his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee- to thyface.” The historian of the transaction has suppressed1 the remainder of the conversation, but let us try and fill up the hiatus. Jahveh exclaimed : “I don’t believe it.” “ Try him,” said Satan, “ and see if I don’t know^ him better than you do.” “ Well, Sate, “ replied Jabyqh, ** most honorably have. you .kept your word in conducting the last mission; make me a solemn promise bn your �’<11) yvord as a devil that you won’t take his- life from him, and a further experiment shall be tried.” “ I will swear it, if you doubt me,” began Nick ; but he was instantly stopped by Jahveh exclaiming : “ No—no oath; I myself sware one once to Abraham and have been unable to* perform it. Your word is sufficient.” Here the inspired, chronicler comes. again to our aid. “Behold, he is in thine hand; but spare his life.” Off went the old onn to Uz, “ and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to his crown.” You will notice, my friends, how ‘clearly every fact is stated in this holy book; you cannot possibly mistake the character of these boils. They were sore boils ; boils that were not sore were none of Satan’s production. Poor Job seems to have had a sour-tempered wife, like= Milton, for, instead of at once making him some strong, linseed-meal poultices, or looking him up a box of Hollo­ way’s'ointment, she began reproaching him, Job getting, out of her way by going out and lying down on the dust heap in the back-yard, scraping his boils with a piece of a broken tea-cup. There’s a spectacle, my friends L there’s an incentive to be good ! What an awful example, of serving Jahveh faithfully 1 Beware of him, shun him. as you would the----- boils. But in order that theremay be no doubt whatever of the truth of this event, the narrative relates that-Job had three friends ; and soaccurate is the book in small matters, as well as great, that it descends to telling their names. There was. Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar“ the Naamathite; but where these countries were the: Devil only knows. These three men began comforting, poor Job by tearing up their coats and throwing dirt om their heads—actions which by no stretch of the imagina? tion can be considered as cures for boils ; they finished,, however, by sitting down on the ground by Job’s midden “ for seven days and seven nights, and none spake a. word to him.” Tins round must certainly be given tothe Devil. Score : Devil four, God one. You will have noticed that after Satan’s repulse hewas cast out into the earth, and all his angels were castout with him ; and the history in Job certainly corrobo— •See Genesis, xxvi—3. �■Tates this, for it speaks of him walking up and down in it then. Subsequently we find him playing pranks with ¿David, tempting him to take a census of his kingdom — * a little eccentricity indulged in by us every decade in Great Britain and Ireland, just to show that we are still faithful to the Prince of this world, and respect his coun■sel and follow his advice. True, a few devoted followers ■of Jahveh the younger indignantly protested against this -device when it was first adopted; but they were met with scorn and derision in Parliament and in the press. Satan again triumphed, and the result of his victory in this bout has been of immense advantage to his subjects here. Jahveh waxed angry with David for taking that first census, and, possibly being afraid to engage in open ¿hostilities with Satan, resolved to punish the old Jewish ¿king. So he sent to David a certain fortune-teller, named Gad, with a message of a most engaging nature. “I, .■Jahveh, am determined to be revenged for this your action in following the advice of Satan: choose, therefore, how you will be punished. You can have three years of famine,, or three months in flight before your enemies, or I will gird my angel Michael with one of my best Dam­ ascus blades, and he shall have three days’ sport among your people.” David, feeling assured that Satan would stand by him, chose the last alternative, and Jahveh’s -deputy went at it with a pestilence, and smote 23,333J •persons per day for three days—70,000 in all. Not a bad three days’ work, was it ? Consider, too, how just naid moral it was—killing the people for being counted, -and sparing the king who counted them, and Satan who “ moved ” the king thereto. It is only fair to say that -another writer in this blessed book declares that it was Jahveh himself who “ moved ” David to number his sub­ jects ; but that is manifestly impossible, as it would make of Jahveh a fool as well as a murderer. Besides, "the writer shows his ignorance of the details of the affair ■by making the three years’ famine into seven. It is possible to believe that three are equal to one; but to /require assent to the proposition that three are equiva­ lent to seven is rather too much—even for the faithful. . Satan and his angels are more frequently met with in * I Chron. xxi. 1. �( 13 ) ; later times.- When Jesus was led up by the spirit into-y the wilderness, it was on purpose to be tempted by the , Devil. On another occasion we find some of Satan’s, angels taking up their abode inside the body or bodies of a man or men (for Matthew and Mark relate the story ■ differently as to the number; and, while one lays the scene in Gergesha, the other is positive that it was at Gedara). In this affair we learn that the devils knew < Jesus although they were inside the man, and begged of ■ Jesus, if he evicted them, to permit them to take up their. residence inside two thousand pigs that were in the neigh- , borhood. This being conceded, the pigs—doubtless won- • dering what the devil was the matter with them—ram headlong “ down a steep place into the sea,” and were-' drowned. The news of this destruction of these Jews’ pigs brought the people out of the city, and they very naturally “besought him that he would depart out of • their coasts.” This is not the only story told of devils in God’s Word. Jesus, in choosing his twelve apostles, admitted that one. of them was a devil; and, in another place, we have this, apostle identified, when Jesus says to Peter: “ Get thee, behind me, Satan.” In those authentic productions of the early Christian writers we have numerous instances, of the trouble caused by devils to the Christian Church. Some of these veracious writers descend to particulars f and thus enable us to estimate their power in this fight. Hear St. Cyprian : “They (the devils) insinuate them­ selves into the bodies of men, raise terrors in the mind,, distortions in the limbs, break the constitution, and bring on diseases—yet, adjured by us in the name of the true God, they presently yield, confess, and are forced to quit the bodies which they possessed.” This work of exor­ cism went on for more than a thousand years, the Church drawing up a form of prayer to drive devils out of dwell­ ings—an operation which took seven days to perform. The whole of this office has been preserved by Bourne in his Antiquities, and I will cite a pertinent remark of Brand, another antiquary, in introducing it in his work : “ Here follows the tedious process for the expulsion of Daemons, who, it should seem, have not easily been ferretted out of their quarters, if one may judge of their unwillingness to depart by the prolixity of the subsequent �removal-warrant, which I suppose the Romish clerical bailiffs were not at the trouble of serving for nothing.” Rather Montfaucon has recorded, in his Journey, an in­ stance of how these devils vexed the faithful in later times. In the Church of St. Maria del Popolo, at Rome, ie found an altar bearing upon it an inscription in the Latin tongue, which his English translator renders thus: '“This altar, solemnly erected by Pope Paschal II., in "this place, upon a Divine Inspiration, by which he soon <lrove out the tall Devils who, sitting on the Nut Tree, cruelly insulted the people as they passed by, was, by the authority of Pope Urban VIII., removed to the higher place,, where you now see it, in the year of our Lord; 1527.” To-day it is not uncommon, among people that are very religious and very ignorant, to believe in the raising and laying of the Devil. I know that in Norfolk ' it is a widespread form of this Bible superstition, and the charms employed to remove the Evil. One are many and' quaint. Saying the Lord’s Prayer backwards, whilst. walking round the parish church, is one of these ; but a much easier method is to be found in the Jewish records. Eor the use of those who may at any time be troubled by having the Devil in their houses, we will relate how he was got rid pf. There was a young man named Toby,' who fell dn love with a young lady named Sara, and, like most young men under similar circumstances, he ‘ proposed marriage to her. The girl was young and ; pretty, and she had been married to seven men, all of whom went to bed on their wedding-night well and strong, but all were found dead beside her the next morning. The Devil was in love with her, and was de- ' termined that no one but he should be her spouse. When Toby discovered this he was not quite so anxious to make her his wife. However, one evening he went down to the river Tigris to wash himself, when a fish ' jumped up and sought to devour him. No doubt it was Jonah’s whale on the rampage again ; but Toby eluded it. Looking round he saw the angel Raphael, who shouted: “Toby, put in your hand and pull out that; fish.” A fish that is about to swallow you is the sort of . fish to pull out with your hand. Toby did so. Then Raphael gave instructions to Toby to take out the heart, liver and gall, and put them away safely. The fish' was1' �015 ) ¿ext cooked and eaten for supper by Toby and the angel, after which they both jogged on together to Ecbatane. Here we may remark that whenever the angels came down to. earth they were noted for indulging in a goodSquare meal; in Abraham’s time roast veal was the billOf fare ; in this it is roast fish. Perhaps up above they are restricted to manna, and are glad of a change when: Put visiting. On the way, the angel assured the young man that he could now safely marry the girl, but the fate ofher seven husbands troubled, poor Toby. He, however,, being assured by the angel, went to the girl, proposed, and was accepted. Raphael gave him instructions how to “ lay ” the Devil, and after they had supped, they brought the girl to Toby’s bedroom ; he made a fire in it and put the heart and liver of the fish on it “ and made a smoke therewith.” You may take it for granted that if he had kept those organs of that fish long he would, have made a stink also ; and this is borne out by the statement of the writer, who says : “ The which smell, when the evil spirit had smelled, he fled into the utter-, most parts of Egypt, and the angel bound him.” So you see, my friends, that if you should be troubled by Satan, leave holy water,.prayers, and signs of the cross alone— give him a dose of ^stinking fish! There was war in Heaven; but let us again remark that it was only discovered by the last writer in the Bible. Similar tales were prevalent with nearly all the peoples from most remote antiquity. In the Persian, Etruscan, Indian, Egyptian, and Assyrian cosmogonies this story is variously related, and there has recently Been unearthed what are known as the Chaldean creation tablets, which have been translated by the late George Smith. In editing a popular History of Baby- ■ Ionia, written by Mr. Smith, the Rev. A. H. Sayce, an Oxford professor, says : “ Connected with these creation, tablets are others which describe the fall of man, brought about by the tempter, the great dragon Tiamatu (Tehamtu), or the ‘ Deep,’' as well as another series which recounts the war of Merodach, the sun-god, with Tiamatu and her allies. This- war reminds us of the1* Biblical passage (Rev. xii. 7), in which it says there wash­ war in heaven.” (History of Babylonia from the Monu­ ments, p. 53.) ' Remind us, good heavens ! remind us of �( U ) what ? Why, that the early Christians cribbed from the old, hated Babylonian sun-myths their pretended origin, of the Devil, and-foisted it on a credulous and ignorant people as a revelation from God. ’ . Such, then, is the origin of this story, which has been of enormous advantage to priests in all times, but which is now laughed at and derided by the wisest and.' best of men. Let us all do our best to exorcise this wretched superstition from earth—by logic, if you like,, by reasoning, if you will, but, more potent than either of these, by ridictile and laughter, as adopted by us to-night. Tilly » DE VII/S t PULPIT. Forty-six Discourses by the Rev. Robert Taylor, B.A. 734 pages, cloth, 2/- (postage 6d.) For delivering two of these Discourses the author was indicted for Blasphemy, and sentenced, on July 4, 1831, to two years’ imprisonment, to pay a fine of £200, and to find two sureties for £250 each for five years. THE TRUE SOURCE OF CHRISTIANITY; OR, A VOICE FROM THE GANGES. By AN INDIAN OFFICER. IN PAPER COVERS, Is.; CLOTH, Is. 6d. POST FREE Frauds and Follies of the Christian Fathers. By JOSEPH MAZZINI WHEELER. Price Threepence. BSF The icorks of Voltaire, Paine, Volney, Holyoake, Bradlaugh, Besant, Foote, Ingersoll, and other Free­ thinkers, always in stock. Orders to the amount of one shilling sent post free. R. Forder, 28, Stonecutter Street, E.C. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource "There was War in Heaven" : an infidel sermon, delivered to the Portsmouth Branch of the National Secular Society Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Forder, Robert Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's advertisements on back cover. Text taken from Rev. xii. 7 'And there was war in heaven...'. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available R. Forder Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N274 Subject The topic of the resource Secularism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" name="graphics1" align="bottom" width="88" height="31" border="0" alt="88x31.png" /></p> <p class="western">This work ("There was War in Heaven" : an infidel sermon, delivered to the Portsmouth Branch of the National Secular Society), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English Bible. N.T. Revelation NSS Original Sin https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/875249d1dc691fb934359c9db111fa42.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=GXfkdT0wOLprrwLhxGV-L4ichZ6Hsr4UHYjlTVq51SDeN18c%7ExznOdK5Ar8wrzyEDB29hYGTD52hT2FAsDRFEZOKYESkAKb7r7j8V91jrFjV5isNN%7ETe3uwh6mOD4VVrDlmjiIY6J-UCHPpJweC1P1H2t-ab83xWHR40JUeG00259glX5xM2kHO2ooV%7EfM-Pl0Ql2gFc4JfVp6k8%7EfjPIlSYaH6Ma28QjJGIjYVknieJdoq7wo4bn1mjqDpjXxyX0%7EBK%7EulqclsFraVLCYC7DpZVNE32yfmVkT%7EJAvl331VCZvqcgl-eZn3jiTNrwjwQJ57fQHCiw55YUkpJq9vPIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ccefbc5561ec629647e7c440704b1ecb PDF Text Text WORK AND WEALTH ESSAY AN ON THE OF ECONOMICS SOCIALISM, BY J. K. INGALLS. ONE PENNY. LONDON: INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING COMPANY, * r 35, NEWINGTON GREEN ROAD, N. 1887. ��WORK AND WEALTH.4 <Ti HAVE chosen the above terms in preference to Labour and W Capital, because they convey more exact ideas. Thè word labour carries with it the impression of compulsory, or servile toil. Capital is a word which economists themselves cannot satis­ factorily define, and to which they apply only an arbitrary meaning. The things signified by work and wealth are subject to no equivocal interpretation, are understood by all, and stand to each other in the relation of a natural sequence. Speaking from the standpoint of the trader, from which political economists mainly speak, Adam Smith lays down this fundamental proposition : “ It was not by gold or silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased.” For him the term labour was appropriate, because, in his time, a large proportion of the world’s work was performed by bondmen or by hirelings, even more the mere dependents of the legal possessors of the world’s wealth than are the workers of to-day. Starting from this comprehensive, but exact, proposition that work is the only source from which wealth can be produced or purchased as an axiom, the opposite of which is simply unthinkable, let us direct our attention to an inquiry into the manner in which wealth to appearance is transferred so often in exchange for no equivalent in labour. Even the trader may be interested in the attempt to account for the fact that wealth, at first purchasable only by work, comes to be possessed mainly by those who do no work. The thing which a man has produced by his work, and which is an object of desire to himself and others, can be transferred in several different ways. The natural or simplistic methods are: (r) Force, involving robbery, theft, and, in an advanced stage, cheating, over­ reaching, and advantage-taking of every description ; (2) Gift, involving partial and invidious bestowments, as well as noble gene­ rosities ; (3) Hazard, involving all kinds of gaming, and, in the progress of society, all speculative ventures. * This paper originally appeared in the Ameiican “ Radical Review.” * �4 v i The rational method, and one which is arrived at only by culture and the recognition of social obligations, is mutual exchange. With the earlier method^ as they have existed in the past, we need have no quarrel. They were the only ones possible under the con­ dition of social and moral development then obtaining. Robbery is the main element of organic and animated life. The carnivorous animals all support life by drawing it from orders less powerful or aggressive than themselves, and even the herbivorous sustain life by devouring vegetable life. Man destroys the lives of the creatures beneath him that he may eat their flesh and robe himself with their furs and skins.. He robs the sheep of its fleece, the silk-worm of its web that he may clothe himself. That he pursues a similar course with his fellow is not to be wondered at. Only a conception of the brotherhood of man and the real dignity of work can win him from his tendency to devour the substance of the weak and simple who fall into his hands, instead of producing wealth for himself. The rude man, who has spent hours in the forest gathering fagots, but lies down at night without a fire, while another enjoys the genial warmth those same fagots yield while burning, may have transferred their possession in several different ways. He may, with a certain degree of equity, have exchanged them, for different products which the other had worked to obtain ; he may have engaged in some game of chance, and lost them wholly ; or he may have been met by a stronger man, while returning laden, and deprived of his fagots by force. Or, he already may have been reduced to a bond-slave, his life having bten spared in war on condition of his submission to a life of slavery; and thus have given his captor the perpetual ability to purchase wealth with his and his childrens’ toil. From the mental state which results from such motives as sway the successful warrior and slave-holder, to that of the enlightened moralist and economist who discovers that, if another has created wealth which he himself desires, the true thing to do is to create something which the other will equally desire, that so the transfers may be mutually agreeable and beneficial, is a distance which requires ages of toil and struggle to overcome. It may be urged that in the capture and management of slaves, who would not willingly work if left to themselves, a certain necessary work was performed, and a larger production of wealth obtained. If we were to admit this as regards the past, it would serve as no justi­ fication for the continuance of slavery ; but it should also be con­ sidered that the robber class, until taught by the toil of the indus­ trious that labour will produce or purchase wealth, never seeks to subject the toilers to slavery. Besides, all experience shows that ••• �5 slavery, so far from promoting industry, begets a general repugnance to work on the part of both slave and slave owner : thus the thing urged in its justification is seen to have been caused mainly by itself. It was not till after centuries of advancement that civilized nations began to discourage chattel slavery. Its entire abolition in our country is a recent event. But by its abolition we have by no means reached any thing like an equitable system of exchange. We still have class legislation, protecting the vast accumalations of wealth and ownership of land in unlimited quantities, just as incom­ patible with justice as the older tyranny. To be able to purchase wealth with others’ labour, it is not at all necessary to own their bodies. The strong assumed “ property in ■ man ” and “ property in the soil ” at the same time. Now, since the soil is absolutely essential to the application of labour to productive uses, he who has an exclusive claim to it can labour under any tribute he pleases, or deny it opportunity to employ itself or be employed at all. Since ownership in man has been abolished, private ownership of land is the chief basis, the great fulcrum, of alt devices for purchasing wealth by the work of others. By the workers themselves this power is little understood, because it affects them indirectly. They come in immediate contact with their employers, and questions of raising or lowering wages, lengthen­ ing or shortening hours, attract their attention and divert it from more fundamental questions. They hardly reflect that their em­ ployers are also subject to the competitive struggle, and are often broken down by the operation of the same law which shortens the rations, and renders more and more precarious the employment, on which the labourer depends. The indifference of the working-men to this question of the land, and their failure to obtain even enough of it to enable them to rear homes for themselves and families, has a curious, as well as sad, result. Quite twenty-five per cent, of the earnings of labourers, clerks, and mechanics who do not own a home of their own, goes to the landlords for rent. In many instances, this is for structures which have been paid for a hundred times over, and are not worth in their material the labour of pulling down and carrying away. It is true that a portion of this rent comes back in payment of repairs, taxes, etc., but still leaving a large percentage for which labour receives no return whatever, and may almost be said to yield voluntarily, thus permitting others, to that extent, to purchase wealth with their unrequited toil. Had our Government established a system of easy access to the * �6 soil through nationalization of the land or a judicious limitation to private ownership, the questions arising between employer and em­ ployed would have a ready solution. On the recurrence of a de­ pression in business, general or special, the parties feeling themselves crowded would betake themselves to the cultivation of the soil, or some self-employment; or at least enough would do so to relieve the overstocked labour market, thus increasing the demand for the things which had been over-produced. Out of our semi-feudal land system grow also many of the giant evils which afflict our commerce and finance. The man who has no land must hire it or pay for its use, before he can apply his labours in cultivation, however willing and capable he may be. This basic necessity of borrowing is the foundation of all other borrowing ; paying for the use of land is the basis of all rent and usury and speculative profit of every description. Distressed by unnatural dis-'“*^* possession and deprivation, people are in no condition to resist the temptation to borrow anything which promises relief, and to pledge themselves to pay therefor impossible rates of interest. The poor man, to free himself from present deprivation, borrows the means to do a little business • the man of considerable means borrows that he may do more business; and for the result, we have most of the real estate and much of the personal property of both in the hands of the money-lender through foreclosures. A large proportion of all transfers of real estate, especially for the last three years, has been through foreclosures, and to avoid foreclosures. An annual half-billion does not cover the amount which goes into or through the hands of corporations in the form of interest in this country, not to mention the enormous rentals, private speculative profits, etc. The industrious man, who purchases by his work any desired wealth, gets only one-half, or less, himself,—the other half going to the usurer, landlord, or profit-monger. These are enabled to pur­ chase, or get recognized possession of, this other half through unlimited control of land, and the system of usance and annuities growing up from that basis. It may be said with too much truth that working-men get now more than they wisely use; but it is still truer that, in proportion as their share in what they have produced is diminished, they become more and more indifferent to saving, and more and more shiftless and unreliable. It is not the purpose of this paper to attempt to point out what is right and equitable between employer and employed under our system of wages. W-hen any considerable portion of mankind �7 desires equity and mutualism in industry and division, there will be no difficulty in arriving at exact conclusions. My object will be more than realized, if I draw attention to these things as they actually exist, and to the positive relation which work and wealth sustain to each other, the truth in regard to which can only be ascertained by careful analysis. Into all production of wealth only two factors enter: (i) the raw material—the soil or its spontaneous productions; (2) human effort. However complex or extended, in the last analysis only these two elements are found. It is not the carbon and nitrogen, the salts and gases, of which our food and clothing are composed, which we pro­ duce as wealth, but that specific form and aptitude for use which our work has wrought or effected. According to that ingenious political economist, Bastiat, even when we purchase things with money or by barter, we do not exchange things, but forms of service. The inference, however, which he draws from this truthful proposition—that, therefore, any one in possession of wealth to whatever amount must necessarily have rendered an equivalent service for that wealth (either by him­ self, or through an ancestor or donor)—is so monstrous as to be accepted only by specialists in 11 exact science.” On the contrary, we find mutuality of service nowhere recognized as at all requisite in the business transactions of the world. We might as well look for it under the chattel system, where men and women are bought and sold, and where labour does not have to be purchased with equiva­ lent service, but can be enforced by the lash. Adam Smith says : “ It is impossible for one to become excessively rich without making many others correspondingly poor.” This is a result which could not possibly arise from any mutual exchange of services, or from any honest transfers of equivalents, any more than we can have an equation with one side plus and the other minus. Hence it follows that, where inordinate wealth exists, it has been purchased by the labour of others than the possessors, and through transfers by force, fraud or hazard. To produce or have wealth at all, human effort must be put forth. Even the spontaneous productions of Nature cannot constitute wealth, until taken out of their natural state. The savage who has fagots and game in store for a week has wealth, as compared with him who has to gather a daily supply. Application and frugality seem the only requisites for its acquirement. By a wise division of labour and special adaptation of functions, the wealth of the world has been vastly increased; but we must not let the complexity of work and diversity of employments confuse our ideas in regard to �8 * the main question,—namely, the source of wealth, and the equity or iniquity of the present method of distribution. As society advanced from the simply savage state, the search, capture, and transportation of natural wealth was followed by various handicrafts which added value thereto. It was work, nothing less and nothing more, of hand and brain which formed social wealth from the resources of Nature. In all these elaborate transforma­ tions, we can discover no other earthly agency, nor indeed make any material distinction in the essential character of these varied services. One and all are necessary to each other. By no logic can we decide that one service is more important than another, except in the utility of its product. If one has discovered, another secured, and a third transported the prize to the place where it is needed for consumption, we can decide no otherwise than that the pay of each should be propor­ tioned to the time employed in labour and the useful result accom­ plished. Even the labour necessary to divide and distribute it comes in justly for a share. So far all must be plain in regard to the facts involved in our question. It seems to me the principles must also be clear. But it will be answered that still the distinctions in life and the inequali­ ties of distribution of which we complain have been transmitted to us from previously existing conditions, and result from the operations of forces that can be traced back through every form of civilization. This is, however, very far from proving that they exist in accordance with elementary principles or any rational interpretation of law. Really it comes to this,—whether we will continue the essential injustice, while dropping the barbaric methods of the savage, or attempt a truly scientific solution of the problem of work and wealth. In the discovery, procurance, and manipulation of natural produc­ tions, I have indicated all the steps in the production of wealth. Services in the preservation or conservation of wealth are equally entitled to consideration, but cannot be yielded a superior claim. With our inequitable division, and the disorganized methods of dis­ tribution which it begets, the number of traders becomes sadly disproportioned to the number of actual producers ; and since those despoiled are chiefly those who perform the most useful labour, the smart and shrewd seek the more indirect methods of obtaining wealth. And just here the principle of competition, which political economists seem to think ought to reconcile the wealth producers to starvation, does not work with facility, for no one can do a business at a loss, and hence society has to support numbers to do the work which one might do. �9 I may, in this connection, refer to the instrumentality of money or currency, serviceable in moving crops and the work of distribu­ tion generally. Its importance, however, is ’ mainly due to the want of mutualism in our distributive system and of equity in our methods of exchange. A charge for the time-use of this instrument, in defiance of the sentiments of all moralists from Moses and Cato to Ruskin and Palmer, has been enforced by our laws, because labour was at the mercy of the few who hold the soil, and because operations could be made to pay dividends out of the wealth purchased by the labour of the poor arid simple. Chattel slavery enabled the planter to pay interest. ‘Land monopoly enables the capitalist to assume that there is a usufruct ’to wealth. In return, usury has been the great lever by which millions of homes have been alienated, and gone to swell the domain of avarice and love of lordly domination. As war was the parent of slavery, by which whole families, tribes, and nations were reduced to bondage,—made “ hewers of wood and drawers of water” to the victors,—so it has been employed to enslave labour by the creation of immense national debts, the mere interest of which is an onerous tax upon the worker. Hazard has also played as large, if not so conspicuous, a part as war in reducing labour to the condition of dependence and distress. The liberty of self, wife, and children, in barbaric times, was often staked. And when this was not done, borrowing to prolong play was practised, as to-day in Turkey and in some Christian and even republican countries, upon conditions and at rates which can have no termina­ tion but in life-long bondage or peonage. To relieve present dis­ tress, or deluded by the hope of acquiring the ability to live by others’ labour, many people to-day, who would despise the mere gambler, fall into a similar fatuity, and wake from it only to find themselves slaves to the power they expected to use to lay others* labour under contribution. I am not urging sympathy for these dupes. I am only pointing out some of the causes, still in operation, which have resulted in making the few the actual masters of labour, and given them the ability to purchase wealth without work of their own. In our country and time we do not enforce gambling debts as they do in Turkey ; but we do enforce contracts to pay interest, often just as oppressive, and only outwardly less barbarous and inhuman. In.thus tracing the. working of these crude methods, we find that the productive labour of our time has its .inheritance, through the wage system, serfdom, and slavery, from primitive subjection to force; or through speculative trade, from the hazard which ruined �ro the victim without permanently benefiting the winner. It is not important to our purpose to inquire whether the plunderers or plundered are more to blame, or the greater sufferers. This is plain; with the land in the hands of the hereditary or speculative lord, the labourer has no resources for self-employment, however fit or unfit he may be. The working-man can obtain independence now only by the possession of exceptional powers, or by special good fortune, and then only through schemes and operations which raise one at the expense of many. The inheritance of the property class consists of a transmission of power attained by forceful conquest, or by the varied forms of hazard, fraud, and corruption. With their wealth they inherit generally the tendency to take advantage of the necessities of others, and to apply new methods of overreaching when the spirit of progress will no longer tolerate the old ones. 1 do not make this application to individuals, but only to those given to the shrewd use of wealth; well I know that many parvenus far outdo, in management, those who inherit wealth. In this country we have changed some things to suit republican prejudices. For instance, our land is no longer entailed in a family. Yet it is all falling into the hands of a class; and although the great fortunes sometimes change to other hands, they are controlled by those with still greater, and their attitude and relation to industry remain the same. Of the large fortunes now enjoyed in New York and New England, many had their foundations laid by successful privateers and slave traders ; and by other methods no less dis­ cordant with principles of natural justice. The immense fortunes made by two well-known citizens in the generation now past are quite exceptional, and yet they well illustrate the present divorced relation between work and wealth. In a certain sense, both were industrious workers. Each has said of himself that, when he worked in the ordinary way, his income was trifling. It was only after lon^ struggle, in which many worthy men went to the wall, that their fortunes began to accumulate with great rapidity. Both were greatly indebted to our civil war, which reduced whole populations to poverty, left the nation three billions in debt, and sacrificed a million lives. It is also worthy of note that a great banker at our nat onal capital was made rich by privileges granted him to trade during the Mexican war. When it is said in justifica­ tion of these men that they did not go outside the acknowledged rules of I usiness. it is admitting that our systems of trade, finance, etc., are essentially the same as in barbarous ages whose forms we have discarded. �11 Another great estate, also recently left in the city of New York was mainly inherited, being now in the possession of the third gene­ ration. In mentioning these instances I disclaim any purpose of judging the men. They were what inheritance and environment made them. My only purpose is to show the irrational and fatal policy which places in the hands of any men, however good or great, the power to purchase, ad libitum, wealth with other people’s work. I am quite well aware that for many years to come this remonstrance will remain measurably unheeded. The workers are so depressed with hardship, or so readily elated with the prospect of success in some exceptional field, that they are quite unwilling to look away from prospects of temporary relief to the consideration of broad questions of reform, even if they were less idiotically joined to party, labelled republican or democratic, by leaders who form a mutual ring, whichever party attains power, and conspire to make the plunder of public funds and public trusts a fine art. But from the operation upon the public mind of works like those of Spencer, Mill, Lewes, and Ruskin, much is to be hoped. Our own country, also, has the names of men, not unknown to fame, who are deeply impressed with the importance of this vital social and ethical problem. Its development promises to take form like this : First, As a civil right,—freedom of access to the soil and oppor­ tunity of self-employment; Second, As a principle of law,—the partnership of all concerned in the production of wealth requiring division of labour; Third, As a matter of commercial ethics,—equivalents of service in all exchanges. In connection with these developments in the intellectual and ethical field, it occurs to me that there is a probability, at least, of a movement which shall greatly hasten the downfall of our barbarous system of division, and the approach of the era when work shall be the only recognized title to wealth. Within the present century, men like Robert Owen, Peter Cooper, Gerrit Smith, and many others who could be mentioned, have shown, with more or less success, that it is “nobl-e to live for others,” and that personal interests may be subordinated to social aims. It seems to me no dream of romance to indulge the faith that, at a time near at hand, a class of true men and women will arise and form an order, which will abstain from preying on the results of others’ toil. These social knights-errant will scorn to rely on the efforts of others for their support, or to apply to their own use, in any way, that for which another has wrought. They will no more consider the necessity or �12 weakness of their toiling fellow a reason why they should overreach and plunder him, than would the model knight of the days of chivalry have considered that the weakness and defenceless state of a persecuted woman was a reason why he should outrage rather than protect her. These will organize industries on an equitable basis, promote emigration to districts where the exactions of landlords are less intolerable, and turn the current of many now questionable, though well-intended, charities into channels of self-employment and self-help. It is not too much to hope that they will be able ulti­ mately to change the application of the vast amount of labour and wealth now expended in “ plans of salvation ” to save the souls of men in a future world, into a broadly beneficent measures of indus­ trial organization and social renovation, and thus render possible the coming of the “ kingdom of heaven upon the earth,” under the equitable rule of which it<£ shall be given to every one according to his work.” PUBLICATION LIST. P. J. PROUDHON : A Biographical Sketch, with Portrait. Seymour. By Henry Post free, I ^d. SAMFUNDET DAGEN EFTER REVOLUTIONEN (Society on the Morrow of the Revolution). Translated from the French into Danish. 32 pp. and Coloured Cover Post free 2|d. THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT. By “An English Anarchist.” Reprinted from “The Anarchist,” to which is added an Appendix. Post free, 1 jd. THE MALTHUSIANS. A Socialistic attack on the doctrine of Malthus. By P. J. Proudhon. Post free, i|d. EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION. A Scientific Essay on the doctrine of Evolution. By M. Elisee Reclus. Post free, i^d. LAW AND AUTHORITY. An essay on the error and usurpation of politi­ cal legislation, and its concomitant evils. By Pierre Kropotkine. Post free, 2|d. GESETZ UND AUTORITAET (Law and Authority). German Edition. Post free, 2.jd. THE PLACE OF ANARCHISM IN SOCIALISTIC EVOLUTION. By the same author. Post free, i|d. EXPROPRIATION. By the same author. Post free, i|d. WAR. By the same author. Post free, i^d. THE MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNISTS. By Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Crimson Cover. Post free, 2|d. INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING COMPANY. THE ANARCHIST, A Journal of Anti-political Socialism and advocate of the abolition of the State. EDITOR AND PUBLISHER: HENRY SEYMOUR. Price, One Penny. LONDON : 35, NEWINGTON GREEN ROAD, N. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Work and wealth: an essay on the economics of socialism Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingalls, J.K. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 12 p. ; 23 cm. Notes: Stamp on front flyleaf: South Place Chapel Finsbury, Lending Library. "This paper originally appeared in the American 'Radical Review'". Publisher's list on numbered page at the end. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available International Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4968 Subject The topic of the resource Economics 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 (Work and wealth: an essay on the economics of socialism), 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 Economics Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2540f2012bd97261bea683373b41ac85.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=qzyKp8p75qQ%7EE0A48XzI3Kg6lrz8DRTnsjRZNKVyejdqZjlCTf8OlXPkqBh1sA6j2Og7Lm5Sc6CwT-3xoF3mhpXWbjobD9IszR6cxl1ILlywWuKayILdEYvcPKImC4EV5RsiTwHZgX-c44AFNFAOT7-oOuFErTFfCa9DcYZ2JHWa%7Ep4APFMsN2eXMlj9e6NNy%7Eaz4YsXZY-NlBDr10-zGKKUmc0YyxzHvj1cggnb1vAuxO4d0nPxdc0l%7E1030G8jvjmrm2PPs-QZNDY-0fE%7EPZTcs9R2BzunyR8slTHwVgQqUnLbapwLWguxcGmScsrZK%7ELv0jKchkfU8cC4hheY0g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM de92f9cc9c2b4b3081f84c6f5676a73e PDF Text Text NatiONALSECULa THE Dope of Hu; ggntitrfr BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL “ SOCIALISM seems to be one of the worst possible forms of slavery. Nothing in my judgment would so utterly paralyse all the forces, all the splendid ambitions and aspirations that now tend to the civilisa­ tion of man. In ordinary systems of slavery there are some masters—a few are supposed to be free; but in a Socialistic state all would be slaves."—Page 14. PRICE ONE PENNY. LONDON: R. FOLDER, 28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. 1887 �I <i i I �NEW PARTY is struggling for recognition—a party with leaders who are not politicians, with followers who are not seekers after place. Some of those who1 suffer and some of those who sympathise have combined. Those who feel that they are oppressed are organised for the purpose of redressing their wrongs. The workers for wages, and the seekers for work, have uttered a protest. This party is an instrumentality for the accomplishment of certain things that are very near and very dear to the hearts of many millions. The object to be attained is a fairer division of profits'be­ tween employers and employed. There is a feeling that in some way the workers should not want—that the indus­ trious should not be the indigent. There is a hope that' men and women and children are not forever to be the victims of ignorance and want—that the tenement-house is not always to be the home of the poor, nor the gutter the nursery of their babes. As yet, the methods for the accomplishment of these .aims have not been agreed upon. Many theories have been ad­ vanced, and none has been adopted. The question is so vast, so complex, touching human interests in so many ways, that no one has yet been great enough to furnish a solution, or, if anyone has furnished a solution, no one else has been wise enough to understand it. The hope of the future is that this question will finally be understood. It must not be discussed in anger. If A broad and comprehensive view is to be taken, there is no place for hatred or for prejudice. Capital is not td blame. Labor is not to blame. Both have been caught in the net of circumstances. The rich are as generous' as the poor would be if they should change places. Men acquire through the noblest and the tenderest instincts. They work and save not only for themselves, but for1 their wives and for their children. There is but little' confidence in the charity of the world. The prudent man', in his youth makes preparation for his age. The loving father, having struggled himself, hopes to save his childrefi1 from drudgery and toil. �( 4 ) In every country there are classes—that is to say, the spirit of caste, and this spirit will exist until the world is truly civilised. Persons in most communities are judged not as individuals, but as members of a class. Nothing is more natural, and nothing more heartless. These lines that divide hearts on account of clothes or titles are grow­ ing more and more indistinct, and the philanthropists, the lovers of the human race, believe that the time is coming when they will be obliterated. We may do away with kings and peasants, and yet there may still be the rich and the poor, the intelligent and foolish, the beautiful and deformed, the industrious and idle, and, it may be, the honest and vicious. These classifications are in the nature of things. They are produced for the most part by forces that are now beyond the control of man—but the old rule, that men are disreputable in the proportion that they are useful, will certainly be reversed. The idle lord was always held to be the superior of the industrious peasant, the devourer better than the producer, and the waster superior to the worker. While in this country we have no titles of nobility, we have the rich and the poor—no princes, no peasants, but millionaires and mendicants. The individuals composing these classes are continually changing. The rich of to-day may be the poor of to-morrow, and the children of the poor may take their places. In this country the children of the poor are educated substantially in the same schools with those of the rich. All read the same papers, many of the same books, and all for many years hear the same questions discussed. They are continually being educated, not only at schools, but by the press, by political campaigns, by perpetual discussions on public questions, and the result is that those who are rich in gold are often poor in thought, and many who have not whereon to lay their heads have within those heads a part of the intellectual wealth of the world. Years ago the men of wealth were forced to contribute toward the education of the children of the poor. The support of schools by general taxation was defended on the ground that it was a means of providing for the public welfare, of perpetuating the institutions of a free country by making better men and women. This policy has been pursued until at last the school-house is larger than the church, and the common people through education have become uncommon. They now know how little is really �( 5 ) known by what are called the upper classes—how little after all is understood by kings, presidents, legislators, and men of culture. They are capable not only of understand­ ing a few questions, but they have acquired the art of discussing those that no one understands. With the facility of politicians they can hide behind phrases, make barricades of statistics, and chevaux-de-frise of inferences and asser­ tions. They understand the sophistries of those who have governed. In some respects these common people are the superiors of the so-called aristocracy. While the educated have been turning their attention to the classics, to the dead languages, and the dead ideas and mistakes that they contain—while they have been giving their attention to ceramics, artistic decorations, and compulsory prayers, the common people have been compelled to learn the practical things—to be­ come acquainted with facts—by doing the work of the world. The professor of a college is no longer a match for a master mechanic. The master mechanic not only under­ stands principles, but their application. He knows things as they are. He has come in contact with the actual, with realities. He knows something of the adaptation of means to ends, and this is the highest and most valuable form of education. The men who make locomotives, who construct the vast engines that propel ships, necessarily know more than those who have spent their lives in conjugating Greek verbs, looking for Hebrew roots, and discussing the origin and destiny of the universe. Intelligence increases wants. By education the necessities of the people become increased. The old wages will not supply the new wants. Man longs for a harmony between the thought within and the things without. When the soul lives in a palace, the body is not satisfied with rags and patches. The glaring inequalities among men, the differ­ ences in condition, the suffering and the poverty, have appealed to the good and great of every age, and there has been in the brain of the philanthropist a dream—a hope, a prophecy, of a better day. It was believed that tyranny was the foundation and cause of the differences between men—that the rich were all robbers and the poor all victims, and that if a society or government could be founded on equal rights and privi­ leges, the inequalities would disappear, that all would have food and clothes and reasonable work and reasonable leisure, and that content’wonld be found by every hearth. �( 6 ) There was a reliance on nature—an idea that men had interfered with the harmonious action of great principles v^hich, if left to themselves, would work out universal well­ being for the human race. Others imagined that the in­ equalities between men were necessary—that they were part of a divine plan, and that all would be adjusted in some other world—that the poor here would be the rich there, and the rich here might be in torture there. Heaven became the reward of the poor, of the slave, and hell theif revenge. When our government was established, it was declared that all men are endowed by their creator with certain in­ alienable rights, among which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was then believed that if all men had an equal opportunity, if they were allowed to make and execute their own laws, to levy their own taxes, the frightful inequalities seen in the despotisms and monarchies of the Old World would entirely disappear. This was the dream of 1776. The founders of the government knew how kings, and princes, and dukes, and lords, and barons had lived upon the labor of the peasants. They knew the history of those ages of want and crime, of luxury and suffering. But in spite of our Declaration, in spite of our Constitution, in spite of universal suffrage, the inequalities still exist. We have the kings and princes, the lords and peasants, in fact, if not in name. Monopolists, corporations, capitalists, workers for wages, have taken their places, and we are forced to admit that even universal suffrage cannot clothe and feed the world. For thousands of years men have been talking and writing about the great law of supply and demand—and insisting that in some way this mysterious law has governed and will continue to govern the activities of the human race. It is admitted that this law is merciless—that when the demand fails, the producer, the laborer, must suffer, must perish— that the law feels neither pity nor malice—it simply acts, regardless of consequences. Under this law, capital will employ the cheapest. The single man can work for less than the married. Wife and children are luxuries not to be enjoyed under this law. The ignorant have fewer wants than the educated, and for this reason can afford to work for less. The great law will give employment to the single and to the ignorant in preference to the married and in­ telligent. The great law has nothing to do with food or clothes, with filth or crime. It cares nothing for homes, �( 7 ) for penitentiaries or asylums. It simply acts—and some men triumph, some succeed, some fail, and some perish. Others insist that the curse of the world is monopoly.* And yet, as long as some men are stronger than others, a$' lofag as some are more intelligent than others, they must be, to the extent of such advantages, monopolists. Every matt Of genius is a monopolist. We are told that the great remedy against monopoly— that is to say, against extortion—is free and unrestricted competition. But, after all, the history of this world showia that the brutalities of competition are equalled only by those of monopoly. The successful competitor becomes a monopolist, and if competitors fail to destroy each other^ the instinct of self-preservation suggests a combination. In other words, competition is a struggle between two or more persons or corporations for the purpose of determining which shall have the uninterrupted privilege of extortion. In this country the people have had the greatest reliance on competition. If a railway company charged too much, a rival road was built. As a matter of fact, we are indebted, for half the railroads of the United States to the extortions of the other half, and the same may truthfully be said of telegraph lines. As a rule, while the exactions of monopoly constructed new roads and new lines, competition has either destroyed the weaker, or produced the pool which is a means of keeping both monopolies alive, or of producing a new monopoly with greater needs, supplied by methods more heartless than the old. When a rival road is built, the people support the rival because the fares and freights are somewhat less. Then the old and richer monopoly inaugu­ rates war, and the people, glorying in the benefits of com­ petition, are absurd enough to support the old. In a little while the new company, unable to maintain the contest, left by the people at the mercy of the stronger, goes to the wall, and the triumphant monopoly proceeds to make the intelligent people pay not Only the old price, but enough in addition to make up for the expenses of the contest. Is there any remedy for this? None, except With the people themselves. When the people become intelligent enough to support the rival at a reasonable price; when they know enough to allow both roads to live ; when they are intelligent enough to recognise a friend and to stand by that friend as against a known enemy, this question will be at least on the edge of solution. �( 8 ) So far as I know, this course has never been pursued except in one instance, and that is in the present war be­ tween the Gould and Mackey cables. The Gould system had been charging from sixty to eighty cents a word, and the Mackey system charged forty. Then the old monopoly tried to induce the rival to put the prices back to sixty. The rival refused, and thereupon the Gould combination dropped to twelve and a half, for the purpose of destroying the rival. The Mackey cable fixed the tariff at twenty-five cents, saying to its customers, “ You are intelligent enough to understand what this war means. If our cables are defeated, the Gould system will go back not only to the old price, but will add enough to reimburse itself for the cost of destroying us. If you really wish for competition, if you desire a reasonable service at a reasonable rate, you will support us.” Fortunately, an exceedingly intelligent class of people does business by the cables. They are merchants, bankers, and brokers, dealing with large amounts, with intricate, complicated, and international questions. Of necessity they are used to thinking for themselves. They are not dazzled into blindness by the glare of the present. They see the future. They are not duped by the sunshine of a moment or the promise of an hour. They see beyond the horizon of a penny saved. These people had intelli­ gence enough to say, “ The rival who stands between us and extortion is our friend, and our friend shall not be allowed to die.” Does not this tend to show that people must depend upon themselves, and that some questions can be settled by the intelligence of those who buy, of those who use, and that customers are not entirely helpless ? Another thing should not be forgotten, and that is this: there is the same war between monopolies that there is between individuals, and the monopolies for many years have been trying to destroy each other. They have uncon­ sciously been working for the extinction of monopolies. These monopolies differ as individuals do. You find among them the rich and the poor, the lucky and the unfortunate, millionaires and tramps. The great monopolies have been devouring the little ones. Only a few years ago the railways in this country were controlled by local directors and local managers. The people along the lines were interested in the stock. As a consequence, whenever any legislation was threatened hos­ tile to the interests of these railways, they had local friends �( 9 ) who used their influence with legislators, governors, and juries. During this time they were protected, but when the hard times came many of these companies were unable to pay their interest. They suddenly became Socialists. They cried out against their prosperous rivals. They felt like joining the Knights of Labor. They began to talk about rights and wrongs. But in spite of their cries, they have passed into the hands of the richer roads—they were seized by the great monopolies. Now the important rail­ ways are owned by persons living in large cities or in foreign countries. They have no local friends, and when the time comes, and it may come, for the general government to say how much these companies shall charge for passengers and freights, they will have no local friends. It may be that the great mass of the people will then be on the other side. So that after all the great corporations have been busy settling the question against themselves. Possibly a majority of the American people believe to-day that in some way all these questions between capital and labor can be settled by constitutions, laws, and judicial de­ cisions. Most people imagine that a statute is a sovereign specific for any evil. But while the theory has all been one way, the actual experience has been the other—just as the free-traders have all the arguments and the protectionists most of the facts. The truth is, as Mr. Buckle says, that for five hundred years all real advance in legislation has been made by re­ pealing laws. Of one thing we must be satisfied, and that is, that real monopolies have never been controlled by law, but the fact that such monopolies exist is a demonstration that the law has been controlled. In our country, legis­ lators are for the most part controlled by those who, by their wealth and influence, elect them. The few in reality cast the votes of the many, and the few influence the ones voted for by the many. Special interests, being active, se­ cure special legislation, and the object of special legislation is to create a kind of monopoly—that is to say, to get some advantage. Chiefs, barons, priests and kings ruled, robbed, destroyed and duped; and their places have been taken by corporations, monopolists and politicians. The large fish still live on the little ones, and the fine theories have as yet failed to change the condition of mankind. Law in this country is effective only when it is the re­ corded will of a majority. When the zealous few get con­ trol of the legislature, and the laws are passed to prevent �( 10 ) Sabbath-breaking or wine-drinking, they succeed only in putting their opinions and provincial prejudices in legal phrase. There was a time when men worked from fourteen to sixteen hours a day. These hours have not been les­ sened, they have not been shortened by law. The law has followed and recorded, but the law is not a leader and not a prophet. It appears to be impossible to fix wages—just as impossible as to fix the values of all manufactured things, including the works of art. The field is too great, the problem too complicated, for the human mind to grasp. To fix the value of labor is to fix all values—labor being the foundation of all values. The value of labor cannot be fixed unless we understand the relation that all things bear to each other and to man. If labor were a legal tender—if a judgment for so many dollars could be discharged by so many days of labor—and the law was that twelve hours of work should be reckoned as one day, then the law could change the hours to ten or eight, and the judgments could be paid in the shortened days. But it is easy to see that in all contracts made after the passage of such a law, the diff­ erence in hours would be taken into consideration. We must remember that law is not a creative force. It produces nothing. It raises neither corn nor wine. The legitimate object of law is to protect the weak, to prevent violence and fraud, and to enforce honest contracts, to the end that each person may be free to do as he desires, pro­ viding only that he does not interfere with the rights of others. Our fathers tried to make people religious by law. They failed. Thousands are now trying to make people temperate in the .same manner. Such efforts always have been, and probably always will be, failures. People who believe that an infinite God gave to the Hebrews a perfect code of laws, must admit that even this code failed to civil­ ise the inhabitants of Palestine. It seems impossible to make people just, or charitable, or industrious, or agreeable, or successful, by law, any more than you cam make them physically perfect or mentally sound. Of course, we admit that good people intend to make good laws, and that good laws, faithfully and honestly executed, tend to the preservation of human rights and to the elevation of the race ; but the enactment of a law not in accordance with a sentiment already existing in the minds and hearts of the people—the very people who are depended upon to enforce this law—is not a help, but a hindrance. A real law is but the expression in an authori- �(11) ttitive and accurate form of the judgment and desire of the majority. As we become intelligent and kind, this intelli­ gence and kindness find expression in law. But how is it possible to fix the wages of every man ? To fix wages is to fix prices, and a government, to do this in­ telligently, would necessarily require the wisdom generally attributed to an infinite being. It would have to supervise and fix the conditions of every exchange of commodities and the value of every conceivable thing. Many things can be accomplished by law. Employers may be held responsible for injuries to the employed. The mines can be ventilated. Children can be rescued from the deformities of toil, burdens taken from the backs of wives and mothers, houses made wholesome, food healthful—that is to say, the weak can be protected from the strong, the honest from the vicious, honest contracts can be enforced, and many rights protected. The men who have simply strength, muscle, endurance, compete not only with other men of strength, but with the inventions of genius. What would doctors say if physicians of iron could be invented with curious cogs and wheels, so that when a certain button was touched the proper pre­ scription would be written ? How would lawyers feel if a lawyer could be invented in such a way that questions of law, being put into a kind of hopper and a crank being turned, decisions of the highest court could be prophesied without failure ? And how would the ministers feel if some­ body should invent a clergyman of wood that would to all intents and purposes answer the purpose ? Invention has filled the world with the competitors not only of laborers, but of mechanics—mechanics of the highest skill. To-day the ordinary laborer is for the most part a cog in a wheel. He works for the tireless—he feeds the in­ satiable. When the monster stops, the man is out of em­ ployment, out of bread. He has not saved anything. The machine that he fed was not feeding him, was not working for him—the invention was not for his benefit. The other d'ay I heard a man say that it was almost impossible for thousands of good mechanics to get employment, and that in his judgment the government ought to furnish work for the people. A few minutes after, I heard another say that he was selling a patent for cutting out clothes, that one of his machines could do the work of twenty tailors, and that only the week before he had sold two to a great house in New York, and that over forty cutters had been discharged. �( 12 ) On every side men are being discharged and machines are being invented to take their places. When the great factory shuts down, the workers who inhabited it and gave it life, as thoughts do the brain, go away, and it stands there Eke an empty skull. A few workmen, by the force of habit, gather about the closed doors and broken windows, and talk about distress, the price of food, and the coming winter. They are convinced that they have not had their share of what their labor created. They feel certain that the machines inside were not their friends. They look at the mansion of the employer and think of the places where they live. They have saved nothing—nothing but them­ selves. The employer seems to have enough. Even when employers fail, when they become bankrupt, they are far better off than the laborers ever were. Their worst is better than the toilers’ best. The capitalist comes forward with his specific. He tells the working man that he must be economical—and yet, under the present system, economy would only lessen wages. Under the great law of supply and demand every saving, frugal, self-denying working man is unconsciously doing what little he can to reduce the compensation of himself and his fellows. The slaves who did not wish to run away helped fasten chains on those who did. So the saving mechanic is a certificate that wages are high enough. Does the great law demand that every worker live on the least possible amount of bread ? Is it his fate to work one day, that he may get enough food to be able to work another ? Is that to be his only hope—that and death ? Capital has always claimed and still claims the right to combine. Manufacturers meet and determine upon prices, even in spite of the great law of supply and demand. Have the laborers the same right to consult and combine ? The rich meet in the bank, the club-house, or parlor. Working men, when they combine, gather in the street. All the or­ ganised forces of society are against them. Capital has the army and the navy, the legislative, the judicial and the ex­ ecutive departments. When the rich combine, it is for the purpose of “ exchanging ideas.” When the poor combine, it is a “ conspiracy.” If they act in concert, if they really do something, it is a “ mob.” If they defend themselves, it is “ treason.” How is it that the rich control the depart­ ments of government ? In this country the political power is equally divided among the men. There are certainly more poor than there are rich. Why should the rich control ? �(13) Why should not the laborers combine for the purpose of controlling the executive, legislative and judicial depart­ ments ? Will they ever find how powerful they are? In every country there is a satisfied class—too satisfied to care. They are like the angels in heaven who are never disturbed by the miseries of earth. They are too happy to be generous. This satisfied class asks no questions, and answers none. They believe the world is as it should be. All reformers are simply disturbers of the peace. When they talk low they should not be listened to ; when they talk loud they should be suppressed. The truth is to-day what it always has been—what it al­ ways will be—those who feel are the only ones who think. A cry comes from the oppressed, from the hungry, from the down-trodden, from the unfortunate, from men who despair and from women who weep. There are times when mendi­ cants become revolutionists—when a rag becomes a banner, under which the noblest and bravest battle for the right. How are we to settle the unequal contest between men and machines ? Will the machine finally go into partner­ ship with the laborer? Can these forces of nature be controlled for the benefit of her suffering children ? Will extravagance keep pace with ingenuity ? Will the workers become intelligent enough and strong enough to be the owners of the machines ? Will these giants, these Titans, shorten or lengthen the hours of labor? Will they give leisure to the industrious, or will they make the rich richer, and the poor poorer ? Is man involved in the “ general scheme of things ” ? Is there no pity, no mercy? Can man become intelligent enough to be generous, to be just; or does the same law or fact control him that controls the animal and vegetable world ? The great oak steals the sunlight from the smaller trees. The strong animals devour the weak—everything eating something else—everything at the mercy of beak, and claw, and hoof, and tooth—of hand and club, of brain and greed—inequality, injustice everywhere. The poor horse standing in the street with his dray, over­ worked, over-whipped, and under-fed, when he sees other horses groomed to mirrors, glittering with gold and silver, scorning with proud feet the very earth, probably indulges in the usual Socialistic reflections; and this same horse, worn out and old, deserted by his master, turned into the dusty road, leans his head on the topmost rail, looks at donkeys in a field of clover, and feels like a Nihilist. �QU) In the days of savagery the strong devoured the weak— actually ate their flesh. In spite of all the laws that man has made, in spite of all advance in science, literature, and art, the strong, the cunning, the heartless still live on the weak, the unfortunate, and foolish. True, they do not eat their flesh, they do not drink their blood, but they live on their labor, on their self-denial, their weariness, and want. The poor man who deforms himself by toil, who labors for wife and child, through all his anxious, barren, wasted life —who goes to the grave without ever' having had one luxury —has been the food of others. He has been devoured by his fellow-men. The poor woman living in the bare and lonely room, cheerless and fireless, sewing night and day to keep starvation from a child, is slowly being eaten by her fellow-men. When I take into consideration the agony of civilised life—the number of failures, the poverty, the anxiety, the tears, the withered hopes, the bitter realities, the hunger, the crime, the humiliation, the shame—I am almost forced to say that cannibalism, after all, is the most merciful form in which man has ever lived upon his fellow­ man. Some of the best and purest of our race have advocated what is known as Socialism. They have not only taught, but, what is much more to the purpose, have believed, that a nation should be a family ; that the government should take care of all its children; that it should provide work, and food, and clothes, and education for all, and that it should divide the results of all labor equitably with all. Seeing the inequalities among men, knowing of the desti­ tution and crime, these men were willing to sacrifice, not only their own liberties, but the liberties of all. Socialism seems to be one of the worst possible forms of slavery. Nothing in my judgment would so utterly paralyse all the forces, all the splendid ambitions and aspirations that now tend to the civilisation of man. In ordinary systems of slavery there are some masters, a few are supposed to be free ; but in a Socialistic state all would be slaves. If the government is to provide work, it must decide for the worker what he must do. It must say who shall chisel statues, who shall paint pictures, who shall compose music, and who shall practise the professions. Is any government, or can any government be, capable of intelligently perform­ ing these countless duties? It must not only control work, it must not only decide what each shall do, but it must �( 15 ) |F control expenses, because expenses bear a direct relation to products. Therefore the government must decide what the worker shall eat and wherewithal he shall be clothed; the kind of house in which he shall live ; the manner in which it shall be furnished, and, if the government furnishes the work, it must decide on the days or the hours of leisure. More than this, it must fix values; it must decide -not only who shall sell, but who shall buy, and the price that must be paid--and it must fix this value not simply upon the labor, but on everything that can be produced, that can be exchanged or sold. Is it possible to conceive of a despotism beyond this? The present condition of the world is bad enough, with its poverty and ignorance, but it is far better than it could by any possibility be under any government like the one de­ scribed ./ There would be less hunger of the body, but not of the mind. Each man would simply be a citizen of a large penitentiary, and, as in every well-regulated prison, some­ body would decide what each should do. The inmates of a prison retire early ; they rise with the sun ; they have somer, thing to eat; they are not dissipated ; they have clothes ; they attend divine service : they have but little to say about their neighbors ; they do not suffer from cold ; their habits are excellent, and yet no one envies their condition. Socialism destroys the family. The children belong to the state. Cer­ tain officers take the places of parents. Individuality is lost. The human race cannot afford to exchange its liberty for any possible comfort. You remember the old fable of the fat dog that met the lean wolf in the forest. The wolf, astonished to see so prosperous an animal, inquired of the dog where he got his food, and the dog told him that there was a man who took care of him, gave him his breakfast, his dinner, and his supper with the utmost regularity, and that he had all that he could eat and very little to do. The wolf said, “ Do you think this man would treat me as he does you ? ” The dog replied, “ Yes ; come along with me.” So they jogged on together toward the dog’s home. On the way the wolf happened to notice that some hair was worn off the dog’s neck, and he said, “ How did the hair become worn ? ” “ That is,” said the dog, “ the mark of the collar—my master ties me at night.” “ Oh,” said the wolf, “are you chained? Are you deprived of vour liberty ? I believe I will go back. I prefer hunger. It is impossible for any man with a. good heart to be satisfied with this world as it now is. No one can truly enjoy even what he earns—what he knows to be his own— �16 knowing that millions of his fellow-men are in misery and want. When we think of the famished we feel that it is almost heartless to eat. To meet the ragged and shivering makes one almost ashamed to be well-dressed and warm— one feels as though his heart was as cold as their bodies. In a world filled with millions and millions of acres of land waiting to be tilled, where one man can raise the food for hundreds, millions are on the edge of famine. Who can comprehend the stupidity at the bottom of this truth ? Is there to be no change ? Are “ the law of supply and demand,” invention and science, monopoly and competition, capital and legislation, always to be the enemies of those who toil ? Will the workers always be ignorant enough and stupid enough to give their earnings for the useless ? Will they support millions of soldiers to kill the sons of other working-men? Will they always build temples for ghosts and phantoms, and live in huts and dens themselves ? Will they forever allow parasites with crowns, and vampires with mitres, to live upon their blood ? Will they remain the slaves of the beggars they support ? How long will they be con­ trolled by friends who seek favors, and by reformers who want office ? Will they always prefer famine in the city to a feast in the fields ? Will they ever feel and know that they have no right to bring children into the world that they cannot support ? Will they use their intelligence for themselves, or for others ? Will they become wise enough to know that they cannot obtain their own liberty by destroying that of others? Will they finally see that every man has a right to choose his trade, his profession, his employment, and has the right to work when, and for whom, and for what he will? Will they finally say that the man who has had equal pri­ vileges with all others has no right to complain, or will they follow the example that has been set by their oppressors ? Will they learn that force, to succeed, must have a thought behind it, and that anything done, in order that it may en­ dure, must rest upon the corner-stone of justice ? Will they, at the command of priests, forever extinguish the spark that sheds a little light in every brain ? Will they ever recognise the fact that labor, above all things, is honorable—that it is the foundation of virtue ? Will they understand that beggars cannot be generous, and that every healthy man must earn the right to live ? Will honest men stop taking off their hats to successful fraud ? Will industry, in the presence of crowned idleness, forever fall upon its knees, and will the lips unstained by lies forever kiss the robed impostor’s hand ? �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The hope of the future Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Not in Stein checklist. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available R. Forder Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N357 Subject The topic of the resource Socialism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The hope of the future), 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 Capitalism NSS Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/942bcdae16dcac69905eac62b6a49dd7.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=HjCjL0wkfTpD6eh-Yks1o0kJZcThGEDN8iuDiGusuSqmHEi2MPSgxW6kBfHF6pT9fhDrinWvJenDhU6UmoU96OcDq6FKvtICp2zk%7ECZUOfj2EZ0%7EjhuKEMwhE20TUmEdlLxNzr656kHU-NGYus7QRMBXmE8vYlXf9FgrmQtBC18BsSFOvvLRVL9RVuzrXSN0XTkQb9vsKcPpVDf%7EIEteKm2VZwZdMUoQXWywDgZIMPQoq9nUnqOWA0EdwQytjVvUNLAHeI%7ElTAJDXhf1YIR2vE3NasxX9CrvubbZauhHDk3GzNRlPPn9Kzkv4GbJzOtSM988WKfJ4fsu-5s9SwVTPg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c4c9abe3107a61cd27706315954dd420 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY AND FACT 4 A Letter to The Rev. Henry M. Field, D.D. BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL. REPRINTED FROM THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW (November 1887). Price Twopence, LONDON: PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING ¡COMPANY, 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C. 1887. : �LONDON : FEINTED AND FUFIISHED BY U. W. FOOTE, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.U. �N'34-4- FAITH AND FACT. My Dear Mr. Field,—I answer your letter because it is manly, candid and generous. It is not often that a minister of the gospel of universal benevolence speaks of an unbeliever except in terms of reproach, contempt and hatred. The meek are often malicious. The statement in your letter that some of your brethren look upon me as a monster on account of my unbelief, tends to show that those who love God are not always the friends of their fellow men. Is it not strange that people who admit that they ought to be' eternally damned, that they are by nature totally depraved, and that there is no soundness or health in them, can be so arro­ gantly egotistic as to look upon others as “ monsters ? ” And- yet “some of your brethren,” who regard unbelievers as infamous, rely for salvation entirely on the goodness of another, and expect to receives as alms an eternity of joy. The first question that arises between us, is as to the innocence of honest error—as to the right to express an honest thought. You must know that perfectly honest men differ on many im­ portant subjects. Some believe in free trade, others are the advocates of protection. There are honest Democrats and sincere Republicans. How do you account for these differences? Edu­ cated men, presidents of colleges, cannot agree upon questions capable of solution—questions that the mind can grasp, concerning which the evidence is open to all, and where the facts can be with accuracy ascertained. How do you explain this ? If such differences can exist consistently with the good faith of those who differ, can you not conceive of honest people entertaining different views on subjects about which nothing can be positively known ? You do not regard me as a monster. “ Some of your brethren ” do. How do you account for this difference? Of course, your brethren—their hearts having been softened by the Presbyterian God—are governed by charity and love. They do not regard me as a monster because I have committed an infamous crime, but simply for the reason that I have expressed my honest thoughts. What should I have done ? I have read the Bible with great �care, and the conclusion has forced itself upon my mind not only that it is not inspired, but that it is not true. Was it my duty to speak or act contrary to this conclusion ? Was it my duty to remain silent ? If I had been untrue to myself, if I had joined the majority—if I had declared the book to be the inspired word of God—would your brethren still have regarded me as a monster ? Has religion had control of the world so long that an honest man seems monstrous ? According to your creed—according to your Bible—the same being who made the mind of man, who fashioned every brain, and sowed within those wonderous fields the seeds of every thought and deed, inspired the Bible’s every word, and gave it as a guide to all the world. Surely the book should satisfy the brain. And yet there are millions who do not believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures. Some of the greatest and best have held the claim of inspiration in contempt. No Presbyterian ever stood higher in the realm of thought than Humboldt. He was familiar with nature from sands to stars, and gave his thoughts, his discoveries and conclusions, “ more precious than the tested gold,” to all mankind. Yet he not only rejected the religion of your brethren, but denied the existence of their God. Certainly Charles Darwin was one of the greatest and purest of men—as free from prejudice as the mariner’s compass—desiring only to find amid the mists and clouds of ignorance the star of truth. No man ever exerted a greater influence on the intellectual world. His discoveries, carried to their legitimate conclusion, destroy the creeds and sacred scriptures of mankind. In the light of Natural Selection, The Survival of the Fittest, and The Origin of Species, even the Christian religion becomes a gross and cruel superstition. Yet Darwin was an honest, thoughtful, brave, and generous man. Compare, I beg of you, these men, Humboldt and Darwin, with the founders of the Presbyterian Church. Read the life of Spinoza, the loving Pantheist, and then that of John Calvin, and tell me, candidly, which, in your opinion, was a “ monster.” Even your brethren do not claim that men are to be eternally punished for having been mistaken as to the truths of geology, astronomy, or mathematics. A man may deny the rotundity and rotation of the earth, laugh at the attraction of gravitation, scout the nebular hypothesis, and hold the multiplication table in abhorrence, and yet join at last the angelic choir. I insist upon the same freedom of thought in all departments of human knowledge. Reason is the supreme and final test. If God has made a revelation to man, it must have been ad­ �dressed to his reason. There is no other faculty that could even decipher the address. I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumbiers carried in the starless night —blown and flared by passion’s storm—and yet it is the only light. Extinguish that, and naught remains. You draw a distinction between what you are pleased to call “ superstition ” and religion. You are shocked at the Hindoo mother when she gives her child to death at the supposed com­ mand of her god. What do you think of Abraham, of Jephthah ? What is your opinion of Jehovah himself ? Is not the sacrifice of a child to a phantom as horrible in Palestine as in India ? Why should a god demand a sacrifice from man ? Wh y should the infinite ask anything from the finite ? Should the sun beg of the glow-worm, and should the momentary spark excite the envy of the source of light ? You must remember that the Hindoo mother believes that her child will be for ever blest—that it will become the special care of the god to whom it has been given. This is a sacrifice through a false belief on the part of the mother, She breaks her heart for love of her babe. But what do you think of the Christian mother who expects to be happy in heaven, with her child a convict in the eternal prison—a prison in which none die and from which none escape ? What do you say of those Christians who believe that they, in heaven, will be so filled with ecstasy that all the loved of earth will be forgotten—that all the sacred relations of life and all the passions of the heart will fade and die, so that they will look with stony, unreplying, happy eyes upon the miseries of the lost ? You have laid down a rule by which superstition can be distin­ guished from religion. It is this : “ It makes that a crime which is not a crime, and that a virtue which is not a virtue.” Let us test your religion by this rule. Is it a crime to investigate, to think, to reason, to observe ? Is it a crime to be governed by that which to you is evidence, and is it infamous to express your honest thought ? There is also another question : Is credulity a virtue ? Is the open mouth of ignorant wonder the only entrance to Paradise ? According to your creed, those who believe are to be saved, and those who do not believe are to be eternally lost. When you con­ demn men to everlasting pain for unbelief—that is to say, for acting in accordance with that which is evidence to them—do you not make that a crime which is not a crime ? And when you reward men with an eternity of joy for simply believing that which happens to be in accord with their minds, do you not make that a �( 6 ) virtue which is not a virtue ? In other words, do you not bring your own religion exactly within your own definition of superstition ? The truth is, that no one can justly be held responsible for his thoughts. The brain thinks without asking our consent. We believe, or we disbelieve, without an effort of the will. Belief is a result. It is the effect of evidence upon the mind. The scales turn in spite of him who watches. There is no opportunity of being honest or dishonest in the formation of an opinion. The conclusion is entirely independent of desire. We mnst. believe, or we must doubt, in spite of what we wish. That which must be, has the right to be. We think in spite of ourselves. The brain thinks as the heart beats, as the eyes see, as the blood pursues its course in the old accustomed ways. The question then is not, have we the right to think,—that being a necessity,—but have we the right to express our honest thoughts? You certainly have the right to express yours, and you. have exercised that right. Some of your brethren, who regard me as a monster, have expressed theirs. The question now is, have I the right to express mine ? In other words, have I the right to answer your letter ? To make that a crime in me which is a virtue in you, certainly comes within your definition of superstition. To exercise a right yourself which you deny to me is simply the act of a tyrant. Where did you get your right to express your honest thoughts ? When, and where, and how did I lose mine ? You would not burn, you would not even imprison me, because I differ with you mn a subject about which neither of us knows anything. To you the savagery of the Inquisition is only a proof of the depravity of man. You are far better than your creed. You believe that even the Christian world is outgrowing the fright­ ful feeling that fagot, and dungeon, and thumb-screw are legitimate arguments, calculated to convince those upon whom they are used, that the religion of those who use them was founded by a God of infinite compassion. You will admit that he who now persecutes for opinion s sake is infamous. And yet, the God you worship will, according to your creed, torture through all the endless years the man who entertains an honest doubt. A belief in such a God is the foundation and cause of ’ all religious persecution. You may reply that only the belief in a false God causes believers to be inhuman. But you must admit that the Jews believed in a true God, and you are forced to say that they were so malicious, so cruel, so savage, that they crucified the only Sinless Being who ever lived. This crime was committed, not in spite of their religion, but in �accordance with it. They simply obeyed the command of Jehovah. And the followers of this Sinless Being, who, for all these centuries, have denounced the cruelty of the Jews for crucifying a man on account of his opinion, have destroyed millions and millions of their fellow men for differing with them. And this same Sinless Being threatens to torture in eternal fire countless myriads for the same offence. Beyond this, inconsistency cannot go. At this point absurdity becomes infinite. Your creed transfers the Inquisition to another world, making it eternal. Your God becomes, or rather is, an infinite Torquemada, who denies to his countless victims even the mercy of death. And this you call a “consolation.” You insist that at the foundation of every religion is the idea of God. According to your creed, all ideas of God, except those entertained by those of your faith, are absolutely false. You are not called upon to defend the gods of the nations dead, nor the gods of heretics. It is your business to defend the God of the Bible—the God of the Presbyterian Church. When in the ranks doing battle for your creed, you must wear the uniform of your Church. You dare not say that it is sufficient to insure the salvation of a soul to believe in a god, or in some god. According to your creed a man must believe in your god, All the nations dead believed in gods, and all the worshippers of Zeus, and Jupiter, and Isis, and Osiris, and Brahma prayed and sacrificed in vain. Their petitions were not answered, and their souls were not saved. Surely you do not claim that it is sufficient to believe in any one of the heathen gods. What right have you to occupy the position of the Deists, and to put forth arguments that even Christians have answered ? The Deist denounced the God of the Bible because of his cruelty, and at the same time lauded the god of Nature. The Christian replied that the god of Nature was as cruel as the God of the Bible. This answer was complete. I feel that you are entitled to the admission that none have been, that none are, too ignorant, too degraded, to believe in the super­ natural ; and I freely give you the advantage of this admission. Only a few—and they among the wisest, noblest and purest of the human race—have regarded all gods as monstrous myths. Yet a belief of “ the true god ” does not seem to make men charitable or just. For most people, theism is the easiest solution of the universe. They are satisfied with saying that there must be a being who created and who governs the world. But the universality of a belief does not tend to establish its truth. The belief in the �( 8 ) existence of a malignant devil has been as universal as the be lief in a beneficent god, yet few intelligent men will say that the universality of this belief in an infinite demon even tends to prove his existence. In the world of thought majorities count for nothing. Truth has always dwelt with the few. Man has filled the world with impossible monsters, and he has been the sport and prey of these phantoms born of ignorance and hope and fear. To appease the wrath of these monsters man has sacrificed his fellow man. He has shed the blood of wife and child ; he has fasted and prayed ; he has suffered beyond the power of language to express, and yet he has received nothing from the gods —they have heard no supplication, they have answered no prayer. You may reply that your God “ sends his rain on the just and on the unjust,” and that this fact proves that he is merciful to all alike. I answer, that your God sends his pestilence on the just and on the unjust—that his earthquakes devour and his cyclones rend and wreck the loving and the vicious, the honest and the criminal. Do not these facts prove that your God is cruel to all alike ? In other words, do they not demonstrate the absolute im­ partiality of the divine negligence ? Do you not believe that any honest man of average intelligence, having absolute control of the rain, could do vastly better than is being done ? Certainly there would be no droughts' or floods ; the crops would not be permitted to wither and die, while rain was being wasted in the sea. Is it conceivable that a good man with power to control the winds would not prevent cyclones ? Would you not rather trust a wise and honest man with the lightning ? Why should an infinitely wise and powerful God destroy the good and preserve the vile ? Why should he treat all alike here, and in another world make an infinite difference ? Why should your God allow his worshippers, his adorers, to be destroyed by his enemies ? Why should he allow the honest, the loving, the noble, to perish at the stake ? Can you answer these questions ? Does it not seem to you that your God must have felt a touch of shame when the poor slave mother—one that had been robbed of her babe—knelt and with clasped hands, in a voice broken with sobs, commenced her prayer with the words “ Our Father ” ? It gave me pleasure to find that, notwithstanding your creed, you are philosophical enough to say that some men are incapaci­ tated, by reason of temperament, for believing in the existence of God. Now, ,if a belief in God is necessary to the salvation of the soul, why should God create a soul without this capacity ? Why should he create souls that he knew would be lost ? You seem to �think that it is necessary to be poetical, or dreamy, in order to be religious, and by inference, at least, you deny certain qualities to me that you deem necessary. Do you account for the Atheism of Shelley by saying that he was not poetic, and do you quote his lines to prove the existence of the very God whose being he so passionately denied ? Is it possible that Napoleon—one of the most infamous of men—had a nature so finely strung that he was sensitive to the divine influences ? Are you driven to the neces­ sity of proving the existence of one tyrant by the words of another? Personally, I have but little confidence in a religion that satisfied the heart of a man who, to gratify his ambition, filled half the world with widows and orphans. In regard to Agassiz, it is just to say that he furnished a vast amount of testimony in favor of the truth of the theories of Charles Darwin, and then denied the correctness of these theories—preferring the good opinion of Harvard for a few days to the lasting applause of the intellectual world. I agree with you that the world is a mystery, not only, but that everything in Nature is equally mysterious, and that there is no way of escape from the mystery of life and death. To me, the crystallization of the snow is as mysterious as the constellations. But when you endeavor to explain the mystery of the universe by the mystery of God, you do not even exchange mysteries—you simply make one more. Nothing can be mysterious enough to become an explanation. The mystery of man cannot be explained by the mystery of God. That mystery still asks for explanation. The mind is so that it cannot grasp the idea of an infinite personality. That is beyond the circumference. This being so, it is impossible that man can be convinced by any evidence of the existence of that which he can­ not in any measure comprehend. Such evidence would be equally incomprehensible with the incomprehensible fact sought to be es­ tablished by it, and the intellect of man can grasp neither the one nor the other. You admit that the God of Nature—that is to say, your God— is as inflexible as Nature itself. Why should man worship the in­ flexible ? Why should he kneel to the unchangeable ? You say that your God “ does not bend to human thought any more than to human will,” and that “ the more we study him, the more we find that he is not what we imagined him to be.” So that after all, the only thing you are really certain of in relation to your God is, that he is not what you think he is. Is it not almost, ab­ surd to insist that such a state of mind is necessary to salvation, �( 10 ) or that it is a moral restraint, or that it is the foundation of social order ? The most religious nations have been the most immoral, the I. cruellest, and the most unjust. Italy was far worse under the Popes than under the Caesars. Was there ever a barbarian nation more savage than the Spain of the sixteenth century ? Certainly you must know that what you call religion has produced a thousand civil wars, and has severed with the sword all the natural ties that produce “ the unity and married calm of States.” Theology is the fruitful mother of discord ; order is the child of reason. If you will candidly consider this question, if you will for a few moments forget your preconceived opinions, you will instantly see that the instinct of self-preservation holds society together. People, being ignorant, believed that the gods were jealous and revengeful. They peopled space with phantoms that demanded worship and delighted in sacrifice and ceremony, phantoms that could be flattered by praise and changed by prayer. These ignorant people wished to preserve themselves. They supposed that they could in this way avoid pestilence and famine, and postpone perhaps the day of death. Do you not see that self-preservation lies at the foundation of worship? Nations, like individuals, defend and protect themselves. Nations, like individuals, have fears, have ideals, and live for the accomplishment of certain ends. Men defend their property because it is of value. Industry is the enemy of theft. Men as a rule desire to live, and for that reason murder is a crime. Fraud is hateful to the victim. The majority of mankind work and produce the necessities, the comforts, and the luxuries of life. They wish to retain the fruits of their labor. Government is one of the instrumentalities for the preservation of what man deems of value. This is the foundation of social order, and this holds society together. Religion has been the enemy of social order because it directs the attention of man to another world. Religion teaches its votaries to sacrifice this world for the sake of that other. The effect is to weaken the ties that hold families and states together. Of What consequence is anything in this world compared with eternal joy ? You insist that man is not capable of self-government, and that God made the mistake of filling a world with failures—in other words, that man must be governed not by himself, but by your God, and that your God produces order, and establishes and preserves all the nations of the earth. This being so, your God is responsible for the government of this world. Does he preserve �(11) S> order in Russia ? Is he accountable for Siberia ? Did he establish the institution of slavery ? Was he the founder of the Inquisition ? You answer all these questions by calling my attention to “the retributions of history.” What are the retributions of history ? The honest were burned at the stake ; the patriotic, the generous and the noble were allowed to die in dungeons ; whole races were enslaved ; millions of mothers were robbed of their babes. What were the retributions of history ? They who committed these crimes wore crowns, and they who justified these infamies were adorned with the tiara. You are mistaken when you say that Lincoln at Gettysburg said: “Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty.” Something like this occurs in his last inaugural, in which he says__ speaking of his hope that the war might soon be ended—“ If it shall continue until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, still it must be said, ‘ The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’ ” But admitting that you are correct in the assertion, let me ask you one question : Could one standing over the body of Lincoln, the blood slowly oozing from the madman’s wound, have truthfully said : “Just and true are thy judgments, Lord God Almighty ” ? .Do you really believe that this world is governed by an infinitely wise and good God ? Have you convinced even yourself of this ? Why should God permit the triumph of injustice ? Why should the loving be tortured ? Why should the noblest be destroyed ? Why should the world be filled with misery, with ignorance and with want ? What reason have you for believing that your God will do better in another world than he has done and is doing in this ? Will he be wiser ? Will he have more power ? Will he be more merciful? When I say “your God,” of course I mean the God described in the Bible and the Presbyterian confession of faith. But again, I say, that, in the nature of things, there can be no evidence of the existence of an Infinite Being. An Infinite Being must be conditionless, and for that reason there is nothing that a finite being can do that can by any possibility affect the well-being of the conditionless. This being so, man can neither owe nor discharge any debt or duty to an Infinite Being. The infinite cannot want, and man can do nothing for a Being who wants nothing. A conditioned being can be made happy or miserable by changing conditions, but the conditionless is absolutely independent of cause and effect. I do not say that a God does not exist, neither do I say that a �( 12 ) God does exist; but I say that I do not know—that there can be no evidence to my mind of the existence of such a Being, and that my mind is so that it is incapable of even thinking of an infinite personality. I know that in your creed you describe God as “ without body, parts, or passions.” This, to my mind, is simply a description of an infinite vacuum. I have had no experience with gods. This world is the only one with which I am acquainted, and I was surprised to find in your lettter the expression that “ perhaps others are better acquainted with that of which I am so ignorant.” Did you, by this, intend to say that you know any­ thing of any other state of existence—that you have inhabited some other planet—that you lived before you were born, and that you recollect something of that other world, or of that other state ? Upon the question of immortality you have done me, unintention­ ally, a great injustice. With regard to that hope, I have never uttered a flippant or a trivial ” word. I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that the idea of immortality, that, like a sea, has ebbed and flowed in the human heart, with its countless waves of hope and fear beating against the shores and rocks of time and fate, was not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It was born of human affection, and it will continue to ebb and flow beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love kisses the lips of death. I have said a thousand times, and I say again, that we do not know, we cannot say, whether death is a wall or a door—the beginning or end of a day—the spreading of pinions to soar, or the folding forever of wings—the rise or set of a sun, or an endless life, that brings rapture and love to every one. The belief in immortality is far older than Christianity. Thou­ sands of years before Christ was born billions of people had lived and died in that hope. Upon countless graves had been laid in love and tears the emblems of another life. The heaven of the New Testament was to be in this world. The dead, aftei’ they were raised, were to live here. Not one satisfactory word was said to have been uttered by Christ—.-nothing philosophic, nothing clear, nothing that adorns, like a bow of promise, the cloud of doubt. According to the account in the New Testament, Christ was dead for a period of nearly three days. After his resurrection, why did not some one of his disciples ask him where he had been ? Why did he not tell them what world he had visited ? There was the opportu­ nity to “bring life and immortality to light.” And yet he was silent as the grave that he had left—speechless as the stone that angels had rolled away. �( 13 ) How do you account for this ? Was it not infinitely cruel to leave the world in darkness and in doubt when one word could have filled time with hope and light ? ’ The hope of immortality is the great oak round which have climbed the poisonous vines of superstition. The vines have not supported the oak—the oak has supported the vines. As long as men live, and love, and die, this hope will blossom in the human heart. All I have said upon this subject has been to express my hope and confess my lack of knowledge. Neither by word nor look have I expressed any other feeling than sympathy with those who hope to live again—Tor those who bend above their dream of life to come. But I have denounced tjbf, selfishness and heartlessness of those who.'expect for themselves an eternity of joy, and for the rest of mankind predict, 'Without a tear, a world of endless pain. Nothing can be more contemptible thair, such a hope—a hope that can give satisfaction only to the hyenas of the human race. When I say that>1 do not know^tfheh'dh.deny the existence of perdition, you-reply that “therefis something very cruel in this treatment of the,belief of my fellow creatures.” You have had the goodness to inyijte me to a grave over which a mother bends an^v^ps for only son.1 I accept your invitation. We will go togetlj^r. £ Do not, pray yon,'Ideal in splendid generali­ ties. Bh. explicit. Bemember fhat the son for whom the loving mother weeps was not a Christian, not a believer in the inspiration of the Bible nor in the divinity of Jesus Christ. The mother turns to you for consolation, for some star of hope in the midnight of •her grief. What must you say ? Do not desert the Presbyterian creed. Do not forget the threatenings of Jesus: Christ. What must you say ? Will you read a portion of the Presbyterian con­ fession of faith ? Will you read this ? “ Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and provi" deuce, do so far maniflfc the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave man inexcusably yet they are not sufficient to give that know­ ledge of God and of his will which is necessary to salvation.” Or, will you read this ? By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestined and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.” Suppose the mother, lifting her tear-stained face, should say: �( 14 ) “ My son was good, generous, loving and kind. He gave his life for me. Is there no hope for him ?” Would you then put this serpent in her breast ?— “ Men not professing the Christian religion cannot be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to conform their lives according to the light of nature. We cannot by our best works meA^ pardon of sin. There is no sin so small but that it deserves damnation’ Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of that they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to them­ selves and others, are sinful and cannot please God or make a man meet to receive Christ or God.” And suppose the mother should then sobbingly ask : “ What has become of my son ? Where is he now ?” Would you still read from your Confession of Faith, or from your Catechism, this ?— “The souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. At the last day the righteous shall come into everlasting life, but the wicked shall be cast into hell, to be punished with unspeakable torment, both of body and soul, with the Devil and his angels forever.” If the poor mother still wept, still refused to be comforted, would you thrust this dagger in her heart ?— “ At the Day of Judgment you, being caught up to Christ in the clouds, shall be seated at his right hand and there openly acknowledged and acquainted, and you shall join with him in the damnation of your son.” If this failed to still the beatings of her aching heart, would you repeat these words which you say came from the loving soul of Christ ?— “ They who believe and are baptised shall be saved, and they who believe not shall be damned; and these shall go away into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.” Would you not be compelled, according to your belief, to tell this mother that “ there is but one name given under heaven and among men whereby ” the souls of men can enter the gates of paradise ? Would you not be compelled to say : “Your son lived in a Christian land. The means of grace were within his reach. He died not having experienced a change of heart, and your son is for ever lost. You can meet your son again only by dying in your sins ; but if you will give your heart to God you can never clasp him to your breast again.” What could I say ? Let me tell you. “ My dear madam, this reverend gentleman knows nothing of another world. He cannot see beyond the tomb. He has simply �( 15 ) stated to you the superstitions of ignorance, of cruelty and fear. If there be in this universe a God, he certainly is as good as you are. Why should he have loved your son in life—loved him, according to this reverend gentleman, to that degree that he gave his life for him ; and why should that love be changed to hatred the moment your son was dead ? “My dear woman, there are no punishments, there are no rewards—there are consequences ; and of one thing you may rest assured, and that is, that every soul, no matter what sphere it may inhabit, will have the everlasting opportunity of doing right. “ If death ends all, and if this handful of dust over which you weep is all there is, you have this consolation: Your son is not within the power of this reverend gentleman’s God—that is some­ thing. Your son does not suffer. Next to a life of joy is the dreamless sleep of death.” Does it not seem to you infinitely absurd to call orthodox Chris­ tianity “ a consolation ” ? Here in this world, where every human being is enshrouded in cloud and mist—where all lives are filled with mistakes—where no one claims to be perfect, is it “ a conso­ lation ” to say that “ the smallest sin deserves eternal pain ” ? Is it possible for the ingenuity of man to extract from the doctrine of hell one drop, one ray, of “ consolation ” ? If that doctrine be true, is not your God an infinite criminal ? Why should he have created uncounted billions destined to suffer for ever ? Why did he not leave them unconscious dust ? Compared with this crime, any crime that any man can by any possibility commit is a virtue. Think for a moment of your God—the keeper of an infinite penitentiary filled with immortal convicts—your God an eternal turnkey, without the pardoning power. In the presence of this infinite horror, you complacently speak of the atonement—a scheme that has not yet gathered within its horizon a billionth part of the human race—an atonement with one-half the world remaining undiscovered for fifteen hundred years after it was made. If there could be no suffering, there could be no sin. To un­ justly cause suffering is the only possible crime. How can a God accept the suffering of the innocent in lieu of the punishment of the guilty ? According to your theory, this infinite being, by his mere will, makes right and wrong. This I do not admit. Right and wrong exist in the nature of things—in the relation they bear to man, and to sentient beings. You have already admitted that “ Nature is inflexible, and that a violated law calls for its consequences.” �( 16 ) I insist that no God can step between an act and its natural effects. If God exists, he has nothing to do with punishment, nothing to do with reward. From certain acts flow certain con­ sequences ; these consequences increase or decrease the happiness of man ; and the consequences must be borne. A man who has forfeited his life to the commonwealth may be pardoned, but a man who has violated a condition of his own well-being cannot be pardoned—there is no pardoning power. The laws of the State are made, and, being made, can be changed; but the facts of the universe cannot be changed. The relation of act to consequence cannot be altered. This is above all power, and consequently, there is no analogy between the laws of the State and the facts in Nature. An infinite God could not change the relation between the diameter and circumference of the circle. A man having committed a crime may be pardoned, but I deny the right of the State to punish an innocent man in the place of the pardoned—no matter how willing the innocent man may be to suffer the punishment. There is no law in Nature, no fact in Nature, by which the innocent can be justly punished to the end that the guilty may go free. Let it be understood once for all: Nature cannot pardon. You have recognised this truth. You have asked me what is to become of one who seduces and betrays, of the criminal with the blood of his victim upon his hands. Without the slightest hesitation I answer, whoever commits a crime against another must, to the utmost of his power in this world and in another, if there be one, make full and ample restitution, and in addition must bear the natural consequences of his offence. No man can be perfectly happy, either in this world or in any other, who has by his perfidy broken a loving and a confiding heart. No power can step between acts and consequences—no forgiveness, no atone­ ment. But, my dear friend, you have taught for many years, if you are a Presbyterian, or an evangelical Christian, that a man may seduce and betray, and that the poor victim, driven to insanity, leaping from some wharf at night where ships strain at their anchors in storm and darkness—you have taught that this poor girl may be tormented for ever by a God of infinite com­ passion. This is not all that you have taught. You have said to the seducer, to the betrayer, to the one who would not listen to her wailing cry—who would not even stretch forth his hand to catch her fluttering garments—you have said to him : “ Believe in the �( 17 J Lord Jesus Christ; and you shall be happy forever; you shall live iu the realms of infinite delight, from which you can, without a shadow falling upon your face, observe the poor girl, your victim, writhing in the agonies of hell.” You have taught this. For my part, I do not see how an angel in heaven meeting another angel whom he had robbed on the earth, could feel entirely blissful. I go further. Any decent angel, no matter if sitting at the right hand of God, should he see in hell one of his victims, would leave heaven itself for the purpose of wiping one tear from the cheek of the damned. You seem to have forgotten your statement in the commence­ ment of your letter, that your God is as inflexible as Nature—that he bends not to human thought nor to human will. You seem to have forgotten the line which you emphasised with italics : “ The effect of everything which is of the nature of a cause, is eternal.” In the light of this sentence, where do you find a place for your for­ giveness—for your atonement ? Where is a way to escape from the effect of a cause that is eternal? Do you not see that this sen­ tence is a cord with which I easily tie your hands ? The scientific part of your letter destroys the theological. You have put “ new wine into old bottles,” and the predicted result has followed. Will the angels in heaven, the redeemed of earth, lose their memory ? Will not all the redeemed rascals remember their rascality ? Will not all the redeemed assassins remember the faces of the dead ? Will not the seducers and betrayers remember her sighs, her tears, and the tones of her voice, and will not the conscience of the redeemed be as inexorable as the conscience of the damned ? If memory is to be for ever “ the warder of the brain,” and if the redeemed can never forget the sins they committed, the pain and anguish they caused, then they can never be perfectly happy ; and if the lost can never forget the good they did, the kind actions, the loving words, the heroic deeds ; and if the memory of good deeds gives the slightest pleasure, then the lost can never be per­ fectly miserable. Ought not the memory of a good action to live as long as the memory of a bad one ? So that the undying memory of the good, in heaven, brings undying pain, and the undying memory of those in hell brings undying pleasure. Do you not see that if men have done good and bad, the future can’ have neither a perfect heaven nor a perfect hell ? I believe in the manly doctrine that every human being must bear the consequence of his acts, and that no man can be justly saved or damned on account of the goodness or the wickedness of another. �( 18 ) If by atonement you mean the natural effect of self-sacrifice, the effects following a noble and disinterested action ; if you mean that the life and death of Christ are worth their effect upon the human race—which your letter seems to show—then there is no question between us. If you have thrown away the old and bar­ barous idea that a law had been broken, that God demanded a sacrifice, and that Christ, the innocent, was offered up for us, and that he bore the wrath of God and suffered in our place, then I congratulate you with all my heart. It seems to me impossible that life should be exceedingly joyous to anyone who is acquainted with its miseries, its burdens, and its tears. I know that as darkness follows light around the globe, so misery and misfortune follow the sons of men. According to your creed, the future state will be worse than this. Here, the vicious-may reform ; here, the wicked may repent; here, a few gleams of sunshine may fall upon the darkest life. But in your future state, for countless billions of the human race, there will be no reform, no opportunity of doing right, and no possible gleam of sunshine can ever touch their souls. Do you not see that your future state is infinitely worse than this ? You seem to mistake the glare of hell for the light of morning. Let us throw away the dogma of eternal retribution. Let us “ cling to all that can bring a ray of hope into the darkness of this life.” You have been kind enough to say that I find a subject for cari­ cature in the doctrine of regeneration. If, by regeneration, you mean reformation—if you mean that there comes a time in the life of a young man when he feels the touch of responsibility, and that he leaves his foolish or vicious ways, aud concludes to act like an honest man—if this is what you mean by regeneration, I am a believer. But that is not the definition of regeneration in your creed—that is not Christian regeneration. There is some mys­ terious, miraculous, supernatural, invisible agency, called, I believe, the Holy Ghost, that enters and changes the heart of man, and this mysterious agency is like the wind, under the con­ trol, apparently, of no one, coming and going when and whither it listeth. It is this illogical and absurd view of regeneration that I have attacked. You ask me how it came to pass that a Hebrew peasant, born among the hills of Galilee, had a wisdom above that of Socrates or Plato, of Confucius or Buddha, and you conclude by saying, “ This is the greatest of miracles—that such a being should live and die on the earth.” �( 19 ) I can hardly admit your conclusion, because I remember that Christ said nothing in favor of the family relation. As a matter of fact, his life tended to cast discredit upon marriage. He said nothing against the institution of slavery; nothing against the tyranny of government; nothing of our treatment of animals; nothing about education, about intellectual progress ; nothing of art, declared no scientific truth, and said nothing as to the rights and duties of nations. You may reply that all this is included in “ Do unto others as you would be done by,” and “ Resist not evil.” More than this is necessary to educate the human race. It is not enough to say to your child or to your pupil, “ Do right.” The great question still remains : What is right ? Neither is there any wisdom in the idea of non-resistance. Force without mercy is tyranny. Mercy without force is but a waste of tears. Take from virtue the right of self-defence, and vice becomes the master of the world. Let me ask you how it came to pass that an ignorant driver of camels, a man without family, without wealth, became master of hundreds of millions of human beings? How is it that he conquered and overran more than half of the Christian world? How is it that on a thousand fields' the banner of the cross went down in blood while that of the crescent floated in triumph ? How do you account for the fact that the flag of this impostor floats to-day above the sepulchre of Christ ? Was this a miracle ? Was Mohammed inspired ? How do you account for Confucius, whose name is known wherever the sky bends ? Was he inspired —this man who for many centuries has stood first, and who has been acknowledged the superior of all men by thousands of millions of his fellow-men ? How do you account for Buddha, in many respects the greatest religious teacher this world has ever known, the broadest, the most intellectual of them all; he who was great enough, hundreds of years before Christ was born, to declare the universal brotherhoood of man, great enough to say that intelligence is the only lever capable of raising mankind ? How do you account for him, who has had more followers than any other ? Are you willing to say that all success is divine ? How do you account for Shakespeare, born of parents who could neither read nor write, held in the lap of ignorance and love, nursed at the breast of poverty—how do you account for him, by far the greatest of the human race, the wings of whose imagination still fill the horizon of human thought; Shakespeare, who was perfectly ac­ quainted with the human heart, knew all depths of sorrow, all heights of joy, and in whose mind was the fruit of all thought, of �( 20 ) all experience, and a prophecy of all to be ; Shakespeare, the wisdom and beauty and depth of whose words increase with the intelligence and civilisation of mankind ? How do you account for this miracle ? Do you believe that any founder of any religion could have written “ Lear ” or “ Hamlet ” ? Did Greece pro­ duce a man who could by any possibility have been the author of “ Troilus and Cressida ” ? Was there among all the countless millions of almighty Rome an intellect that could have written the tragedy of “ Julius Caesar ” ? Is not the play of “ Antony and Cleopatra ” as Egyptian as the Nile ? How do you account for this man, within whose veins there seemed to be the blood of every race, and in whose brain there were the poetry and philo­ sophy of a world ? You ask me to tell my opinion of Christ. Let me say here, once for all, that for the man Christ—for the man who, in the darkness, cried out, “My God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ”—for that man I have the greatest possible respect. And let me say, once for all, that the place where man has died for man is holy ground. To that great and serene peasant of Palestine I gladly pay the tribute of my admiration and my tears. He was a reformer in his day—an infidel in his time. Back of the theological mask, and in spite of the interpolations of the New Testament, I see a great and genuine man. It is hard to see how you can consistently defend the course pursued by Christ himself. He attacked with great bitterness “ the religion of others.” It did not occur to him that “ there was something very cruel in his treatment of the belief of his fellow­ creatures.” He denounced the chosen people of God as a “ gene­ ration of vipers.” He compared them to “ whited sepulchres.” How can you sustain the conduct of missionaries ? They go to other lands and attack the sacred beliefs of others. They tell the people of India and of all heathen lands, not only that their religion is a lie, not only that their Gods are myths, but that the ancestors of these people, their fathers and mothers, who never heard of God, of the Bible, or of Christ, are all in perdition. Is not this a cruel treatment of the belief of a fellow-creature ? A religion that is not manly and robust enough to bear attack with smiling fortitude is unworthy of a place in the heart or brain. Aireligion that takes refuge in sentimentality, that cries out: “Do not, I pray you, tell me any truth calculated to hurt my feelings,” is fit only for asylums. You believe that Christ was God, that he was infinite in power. While in Jerusalem he cured the sick, raised a few from the �( 21 ) dead, and opened the eyes of the blind. Did he do these thingsbecause he loved mankind, or did he do these miracles simply to establish the fact that he was the very Christ ? If he was actuated by love, is he not as powerful now as he was then ? Why does he not open the eyes of the blind now ? Why does he not, with a touch, make the leper clean ? If you had the power to give sight to the blind, to cleanse the leper, and would not exercise it, what would be thought of you? What is the difference between one who can, and will not cure, and one who causes disease? Only the other day I saw a beautiful girl—a paralytic, and yet her brave and cheerful spirit shone over the wreck and ruin of her body like morning on the desert. What would I think of myself had I the power by a word to send the blood through all her withered limbs freighted again with life, should I refuse ? Most theologians seem to imagine that the virtues have beenproduced by and are really the children of religion. Religion has to do with the supernatural. It defines our duties and obligations to God. It prescribes a certain course of conduct by means of which happines s can be attained in another world. The result here is only an incident. The virtues are secular. They have nothing whatever to do with the supernatural, and are of no kindred to any religion. A man may be honest, courageous, charitable, industrious, hospitable, loving and pure without being religious—that is to say, without any belief in the supernatural; and a man may be the exact opposite and at the same time a sincere believer in the creed of any church—that is to say, in the existence of a personal God, the inspiration of the scriptures and the divinity of Jesus Christ. A man who believes in the Bible may or may not be kind to his family, and a m an who is kind and loving in his family may or may not believe in the Bible. In order that you may see t he effect of belief in the formation of character, it is only necessa ry to call your attention to the fact that your Bible shows that th e Devil himself is a believer in the existence of your God, in the inspiration of the scriptures and in the divinity of Jesus Christ. He not only believes these things, but he knows them, and yet, in spite of it all, he remains a devil still. Few religions have been bad enough to destroy all the natural goodness in the human heart. In the deepest midnight of super­ stition some natural virtues, like stars, have been visible in the heavens. Man has committed every crime in the name of Christi­ anity—or at least crimes th at involved the commission of all others. Those who paid for labor with the lash, and who made �"blows a legal tender, were Christians. Those who engaged in the slave trade were believers in a personal God. One slave ship was called “The Jehovah.” Those who pursued, with hounds, the fugitive led by the northern star, prayed fervently to Christ to crown their efforts with success, and the stealers of babes, just before falling asleep, commended their souls to the keeping of the Most High. As you have mentioned the Apostles, let me call your attention to an incident. You remember the story of Ananias and Sapphira. The Apostles, having nothing themselves, conceived the idea of having all things in common. Their followers, who had something, were to sell what little they had, and turn the proceeds over to these theological financiers. It seems that Ananias and Sapphira had a piece of land. They sold it, and after talking the matter over, not being entirely satisfied with the collaterals, concluded to keep a little—just enough to keep them from starvation if the good and pious bankers should abscond. When Ananias brought the money, he was asked whether he had kept back a part of the price. He said that he had not; where­ upon God, the compassionate, struck him dead. As soon as the corpse was removed, the apostles sent for his wife. They did not tell her that her husband had been killed. They deliberately set a trap for her life. Not one of them was good enough or noble enough to put her on her guard : they allowed her to believe that her husband had told his story, and that she was free to corroborate what he had said. She probably felt that they were giving more than they could afford, and, with the instinct of a woman, wanted to keep a little. She denied that any part of the price had been kept back. That moment the arrow of divine vengeance entered her heart. Will you be kind enough to tell me your opinion of the apostles in the light of this story ? Certainly murder is a greater crime than mendacity. You have been good enough, in a kind of fatherly way, to give me some advice. You say that I ought to soften my colors, and that my words would be more weighty if not so strong. Do you really desire that I should add weight to my words ? Do you really wish me to succeed ? If the commander of one army should send word to the general of the other that his men were firing too high, do you think the general would be misled ? Can you conceive of his changing his orders by reason of the message ? I deny that “ the Pilgrims crossed the sea to find freedom to �( 23 ) worship God in the forests of the new world.” They came not in the interest- of freedom. It never entered their minds that other men had the same right to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences, that the pilgrims had. The moment they had power they were ready to whip and brand, to imprison and burn. They did not believe in religious freedom. They had no more idea of religious liberty of conscience than Jehovah. I do not say that there is no place in the world for heroes and martyrs. On the contrary, I declare that the liberty we now have was won for us by heroes and by martyrs, and millions of these martyrs were burned, or flayed alive, or torn in pieces, or assassi­ nated by the Church of God. The heroism was shown in fighting the hordes of religious superstition. Giordano Bruno was a martyr. He was a hero. He believed in no God, in no heaven and in no hell, yet he perished by fire. He was offered liberty on condition that he would recant. There was no God to please, no heaven to preserve the unstained white­ ness of his soul. For hundreds of years every man who attacked the Church was a hero. The sword of Christianity has been wet for many cen­ turies with the blood of the noblest. Christianity has been ready with whip and chain and fire to banish freedom from the earth. Neither is it true that “ family life withers under the cold sneer —half pity half sneer—with which I look down on household worship.” Those who believe in the existence of God, and believe that they are indebted to this divine being for the few gleams of sunshine in this life, and who thank God for the little they have enjoyed, have my entire respect. Never have I said one word against the spirit of thankfulness. I understand the feeling of the man who gathers his family about him after the storm, or after the scourge, or after long sickness, and pours out his heart in thankfulness to the sup­ posed God who has protected his fireside. I understand the spirit of the savage who thanks his idol of stone, or his fetish of wood. It is not the wisdom of the one nor of the other that I respect, it is the goodness and thankfulness that prompt the prayer. I believe in the family. I believe in family life, and one of my objections to Christianity is that it divides the family. Upon this subject I have said hundreds of times, and I say again, that the roof-tree is sacred, from the smallest fibre that feels the soft, cool clasp of the earth, to the topmost flower that spreads its bosom to the sun, and like a spendthrift gives its. perfume to the air. The �( 24) home where virtue dwells with love is like a lily with a heart of fire, the fairest flower in all this world. What did Christianity in the early centuries do for the home ? What have nunneries and monasteries, and what has the glorifica­ tion of celibacy done for the family ? Do you not know that Christ himself offered rewards in this world and eternal happiness in another to those who would desert their wives and children and follow him ? What effect has that promise had upon family life ? As a matter of fact, the family is regarded as nothing. Christi­ anity teaches that there is but one family, the family of Christ, and that all other relations are as nothing compared with that. Christianity teaches the husband to desert the wife, the wife to desert the husband, children to desert their parents for the miserable and selfish purpose of saving their own little, shrivelled souls. It is far better for a man to love his fellow men than to love God. It is better to love wife and children than to love Christ. It is better to serve your neighbor than to serve your God —even if God exists. The reason is palpable. You can do nothing for God. You can do something for wife and children, you can add to the sunshine of life. You can paint flowers in the pathway of another. It is true that I am an enemy of the orthodox sabbath. It is true that I do not believe in giving one-seventh of our time to the service of superstition. The whole scheme of your religion can be understood by any intelligent man in one day. Why should he waste a seventh of his whole life in hearing the same thoughts repeated again and again ? Nothing is more gloomy than an orthodox Sabbath. The mechanic who has worked during the week in heat and dust, the laboring man who has barely succeeded in keeping his soul in his body, the poor woman who has been sewing for the rich, may go to the village church which you have described. They answer the chimes of the bell, and what do they hear in this village church ? Is it that God is the father of the human race ; is that all ? If that were all, you never would have heard an objection from my lips. That is not all. If all ministers said : Bear the evil of this life ; your Father in heaven counts your tears ; the time will come when pain and death and grief will be forgotten words—I should have listened with the rest. What else does the minister say to the poor people who have answered the chimes of your bell He says : “The smallest sin deserves eternal pain.” “ A vast majority of men are doomed to suffer the wrath of God for ever.’ He fills �( 25 ) the present with fear and the future with fire. He has heaven for the few, hell for the many. He describes a little grass-grown path that leads to heaven, where travellers are “ few and far between,” and a great highway worn with countless feet that leads to ever­ lasting death. Such Sabbaths are immoral. Such ministers are the real sav­ ages. Gladly would I abolish such a Sabbath. Gladly would I turn it into a holiday, a day of rest and peace, a day to get ac­ quainted with your wife and children, a day to exchange civilities with your neighbors ; and gladly would I see the church in which such sermons are preached changed to a place of entertainment. Gladly would I have the echoes of orthodox sermons—the owls and bats among the rafters, the snakes in crevices and corners— driven out by the glorious music of Wagner and Beethoven. Gladly would I see the Sunday-school, where the doctrine of eternal fire is taught, changed to a happy dance upon the village green. Music refines. The doctrine of eternal punishment degrades. Science civilises. Superstition looks longingly back to savagery. You do not believe that general morality can be upheld without the sanctions of religion. Christianity has sold, and continues to sell, crime on credit. It has taught, and still teaches, that there is forgiveness for all. Of course it teaches morality. It says : “ Do not steal, do not mur­ der but it adds : “ but if you do both, there is a way of escape ; believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” I in­ sist that such religion is no restraint. It is far better to teach that there is no forgiveness, and that every human being must bear the consequence of his acts. The first great step toward national reformation is the universal acceptance of the idea that there is no escape from the consequences of our acts. The young men who come from their country homes into a city filled with temptations, may be restrained by the thought of father and mother. This is a natural restraint. They may be restrained by their knowledge of the fact that a thing is evil on account of its consequences, and that to do wrong is always a mistake. I cannot conceive of such a man being more liable to temptation because he has heard one of my lectures in which I have told him that the only good is happiness—that the only way to attain that good is by doing what he believes to be right. I can­ not imagine that his moral character will be weakened by the statement that there is no escape from the consequences of his acts.' You seem to think that he will be instantly led astray — that he will go off under the flaring lamps to the riot of passion. �( 26 ) Do you think the Bible calculated to restrain him ? To prevent this would you recommend him to read the lives of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and the other holy polygamists of the Old Testament ? Should he read the life of David, and of Solomon ? Do you think this would enable him to withstand temptation? Would it not be far better to fill the young man’s mind with facts, so that he may know exactly the physical consequences of such acts ? Do you regard ignorance as the foundation of virtue ? Is fear the arch that supports the moral nature of man ? You seem to think that there is danger in knowledge, and that the best chemists are the most likely to poison themselves. You say that to sneer at religion is only a step from sneering at morality, and then only another step to that which is vicious and profligate. The Jews entertained the same opinion of the teachings of Christ. He sneered at their religion. The Christians have en­ tertained the same opinion of every philosopher. Let me say to you again—and let me say it once for all—that morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality does not depend upon the supernatural. Morality does not walk with the crutches of miracles Morality appeals to the experience of mankind. It cares nothing about faith, nothing about sacred books. Morality depends upon facts, something that can be seen, something known, the product of which can be estimated. It needs no priest, no ceremony, no mummery. It believes in the freedom of the human mind. It asks for investigation. It is founded upon truth. It is the enemy of all religion, because it has to do with this world, and with this world alone. My object is to drive fear out of the world. Fear is the gaoler of the mind. Christianity, superstition—that is to say, the super­ natural—makes every brain a prison and every soul a convict. Under the government of a personal deity, consequences partake of the nature of punishments and rewards. Under the government of Nature, what you call punishments and rewards are simply conse­ quences. Nature does not punish. Nature does not reward. Nature has no purpose. When the storm comes, I do not think : “ This is being done by a tyrant.” When the sun shines, I do not say : “ This is being done by a friend.” Liberty means freedom from personal dictation. It does not mean escape from the relations we sustain to other facts in Nature. I believe in the restraining influences of liberty. Temperance walks hand in hand with freedom. To remove a chain from the body puts an additional responsibility upon the soul. Liberty says to the man: You injure or benefit �yourself ; you increase or decrease your own well-being. It is a question of intelligence. You need not bow to a supposed tyrant, or to infinite goodness. You are responsible to yourself and to those you injure, and to none other. I rid myself of fear, believing as I do that there is no power above which can help me in any extremity, and believing as I do that there is no power above or below that can injure me in any extremity. I do not believe that I am the sport of accident, or that I may be dashed in pieces by the blind agency of Nature. There is no accident, and there is no agency. That which happens must happen. The present is the child of all the past, the mother of all the future. Does it relieve mankind from fear to believe that there is some God who will help them in extremity ? What evidence have they on which to found this belief ? When has any God listened to the prayer of any man ? The water drowns, the cold freezes, the flood destroys, the fire burns, the bolt of heaven falls—when and where has the prayer of man been answered ? Is the religious world to-day willing to test the efficacy of prayer ? Only a few years ago it was tested in the United States. The Christians of Christendom, with one accord, fell upon their knees and asked God to spare the life of one man. You know the result. You know just as well as I that the forces of Nature pro­ duce the good and bad alike. You know that the forces of Nature destroy the good and bad alike. You know that the lightning feels the same keen delight in striking to death the honest man that it does or would in striking the assassin with his knife lifted above the bosom of innocence. Did God hear the prayers of the slaves ? Did he hear the prayers of imprisoned philosophers and patriots ? Did he hear the prayers of martyrs, or did he allow fiends, calling themselves his followers, to pile the fagots round the forms of glorious men ? Did he allow the flames to devour the flesh of those whose hearts were his ? Why should any man depend on the goodness of a God who created countless millions, knowing that they would suffer eternal grief ? The faith that you call sacred—“ sacred as the most delicate or manly or womanly sentiment of love and honor ”—is the faith that nearly all of your fellow men are to be lost. Ought an honest man to be restrained from denouncing that faith because those who entertain it say that their feelings are hurt ? You say to me : “ There is a hell. A man advocating the opinions you advocate will go there when he dies.” I answer : “ There is no hell. The �( 28 ) And you say : “ How can Bible that teaches that is not true.” you hurt my feelings ? " You seem to think that one who attacks the religion of his parents is wanting in respect to his father and mother. Were the early Christians lacking in respect for their fathers and mothers? Were the Pagans who embraced Christianity heartless sons and daughters ? What have you to say of the Apostles ? Did they not heap contempt upon the religion of their fathers and mothers? Did they not join with him who denounced their people as a “ generation of vipers ” ? Did they not follow one who offered a reward to those who would desert father and mother ? Of course you have only to go back a few generations in your family to find a Field who was not a Presbyterian. After that you find a Presby­ terian. Was he base enough and infamous enough to heap con­ tempt upon the religion of his father and mother? All the Protestants in the time of Luther lacked in respect for the religion of their fathers and mothers. According to your ideas, progress is a prodigal son. If one is bound by the religion of his father and mother, and his father happens to be a Presbyterian and his mother a Catholic, what is he to do ? Do you not se.e that your doctrine gives intellectual freedom only to foundlings ? If by Christianity you mean the goodness, the spirit of forgive­ ness, the benevolence claimed by Christians to be a part, and the principal part, of that peculiar religion, then I do not agree with you when you say that <l Christ is Christianity and that it stands or falls with him.” You have narrowed unnecessarily the founda­ tion of your religion. If it should be established beyond doubt that Christ never existed all that is of value in Christianity would remain, and remain unimpaired. Suppose that we should find that Euclid was a myth, the science known as mathematics would not suffer. It makes no difference who painted or chiseled the greatest pictures and statues so long as we have the pictures and statues. When he who has given the world a truth passes from- the earth the truth is left. A truth dies only when forgotten by the human race. Justice, love, mercy, forgiveness, honor, all the virtues that ever blossomed in the human heart, were known and practised for uncounted ages before the birth of Christ. You insist that religion does not leave man in “ abject terror ’ — does not leave him “ in utter darkness as to his fate.” Is it possible to know who will be saved ? Can you read the names mentioned in the decrees of the infinite ? Is it possible to tell who is to be eternally lost ? Can the imagination conceive a worse fate than your religion predicts for a majority of the race ? �( 29 ) Why should not every human being be in “ abject terror ” who be­ lieves your doctrine ? How many loving and sincere women are in the asylums to-day fearing that they have committed “ the un­ pardonable sin”—a sin to which your God has attached the penalty of eternal torment, and yet has failed to describe the offence ? Can tyranny go beyond this—fixing the penalty of eternal pain for the violation of a law not written, not known, but kept in the secrecy of infinite darkness ? How much happier it is to know nothing about it, and to believe nothing about it! How much better to have no God. You discover a “ great intelligence ordering our little lives, so that even the trials that we bear, as they call out the finer elements of character, conduce to our future happiness.” This is an old explanation—probably as good as any. The idea is, that this world is a school in which man becomes educated through tri­ bulation—the muscles of character being developed by wrestling with misfortune. If it is necessary to live this life in order to develop character, in order to become worthy of a better world, how do you account for the fact that billions of the human race die in infancy, and are thus deprived of this necessary education and development ? What would you think of a schoolmaster who should kill a large proportion of his scholars during the first day, before they had even an opportunity to look at A ? You insist that “ there is a power behind nature making for righteousness.” If nature is infinite, how can there be a power outside of nature ? If you mean by a “ power making for righteousness ” that man, as he become civilised, as he become intelligent, not only takes ad­ vantage of the forces of nature for his own benefit, but perceives more and more clearly that if he be happy he must live in harmony with the conditions of his being, in harmony with the facts by which he is surrounded, in harmony with the relations he sustains to others and to things; if this is what you mean, then there is “ a power making for righteousness.” But if you mean that there is something supernatural at the back of nature directing events, then I insist that there can by no possibility be any evidence of the existence of such a power. The history of the human race shows that nations rise and fall. There is a limit to the life of a race ; so that it can be said of every nation dead, that there was a period when it laid the foundations of prosperity, when the combined intelligence and virtue of the people constituted a power working for righteousness, and that there came a time when this nation became a spendthrift, when it �( 30 ) ceased to accumulate, when it lived on the labors of its youth, and passed from strength and glory to the weakness of old age, and finally fell palsied to its tomb. The intelligence of man guided by a sense of duty is the only power that makes for righteousness. You tell me that I am waging “ a hopeless war,” and you give as a reason that the Christian religion began to be nearly two thou­ sand years before I was born, and that it will live two thousand years after I am dead. Is this an argument ? Does it tend to convince even yourself ? Could not Caiaphas, the high priest, have said substantially this to Christ ? Could he not have said : “ The religion of Jehovah began to be four thousand years before you were born, and it will live two thousand years after you are dead ?” Could not a follower of Buddha make the same illogical remark to a missionary from Andover with the glad tidings ? Could he not say: “You are waging a hopeless war. The religion of Buddha began to be twenty-five hundred years before vou were born, and hundreds of millions of people still worship at Great Buddha’s shrine ?” Do you insist that nothing except the right can live for two thousand years ? Why is it that the Catholic Church “ lives on and on, while nations and kingdoms perish ? ” Do you consider that the survival of the fittest ? Is it the same Christian religion now living that lived during the Middle Ages? Is it the same Christian religion that founded the Inquisition and invented the thumb-screw ? Do you see no differ­ ence between the religion of Calvin and Jonathan Edwards and the Christianity of to-day ? Do you really think that it is the same Christianity that has been living all these years ? Have you noticed any change in the last generation? Do you remember when scientists endeavored to prove a theory by a passage from the Bible, and do you now know that believers in the Bible are exceeding anxious to prove its trurn by some fact that science has demonstrated? Do you know that the standard has changed? Other things are not measured by the Bible, but the Bible has to submit to another test. It no longer owns the scales. It has to be weighed—it is being weighed—it is growing lighter and lighter every day. Do you know that only a few years a go “the glad tidings of great joy ” consisted mostly in a description of hell ? Do vou know that nearly every intelligent minister is now ashamed to preach about it, or to read about it, or to talk about it ? Is there any change ? Do you know that but few ministers now be­ lieve in “the plenary inspiration ” of the Bible, that from thou­ �( 31 ) sands of pulpits people are now told that the creation according to •Genesis is a mistake, that it never was as wet as the flood, and that the miracles of the Old Testament are considered simply as myths or mistakes ? How long will what you call Christianity endure, if it changes as rapidly during the next century as it has during the last ? What will there be left of the supernatural ? It does not seem possible that thoughtful people can, for many years, believe that a being of infinite wisdom is the author of the Old Testament, that a being of infinite purity and kindness upheld polygamy and slavery, that he ordered his chosen people to mas­ sacre their neighbors, and that he commanded husbands and fathers to persecute wives and daughters unto death for opinion’s sake. It does not seem within the prospect of belief that Jehovah, the cruel, the jealous, the ignorant, and the revengeful, is the creator and preserver of the universe. Does it seem possible that infinite goodness would create a world in which life feeds on life, in which everything devours and is ■devoured ? Can there be a sadder fact than this : Innocence is not a certain shield ? It is impossible for me to believe in the eternity of punishment. If that doctrine be true, Jehovah is insane. Day after day there are mournful processions of men and women, patriots and mothers, girls whose only crime is that the word Liberty burst into flower between their pure and loving lips, driven like beasts across the melancholy wastes of Siberian snow. These men, these women, these daughters go to exile and to slavery, to a land where hope is satisfied with death. Does it seem possible to you that an “ Infinite Father ” sees all this and sits as silent as a god of stone ? And yet, according to your Presbyterian creed, according to your inspired book, according to your Christ, there is another procession, in which are the noblest and the best, iu which you will find the wondrous spirits of this world, the lovers of the human race, the teachers of their fellow men, the greatest soldiers that ever battled for the right; and this procession of countless millions in which you will find the most generous and the most loving of the sons and daughters of men, is moving on the Siberia of God, the land of eternal exile, where agony becomes immortal. How can you, how can any man with brain or heart, believe this infinite lie ? Is there not room for a better, for a higher philosophy ? After all, is it not possible that we may find that everything has been �( 32 ) necessarily produced, that all religions and superstitions, all mis­ takes and all crimes were simply necessities ? Is it not possible that out of this perception may come not only love and pity for others, but absolute justification for the individual ? May we not find that every soul Jias; like Mazeppa, been lashed to the wild horse of passion, or like Prometheus, to the rocks of fate ? You ask me to take the “sober second thought.” I beg of you to take the first, and if you do you will throw-away the Presby­ terian creed ; you will instantly perceive that he who commits the. smallest sin ” no more deserves eternal pain than he who does; the smallest virtuous deed deserves eternal bliss you will becomj* convinced that an infinite God who creates billions of men knowing that they will suffer through all the countless years is ah infinite demon ; you will be satisfied that the Bible, with its philosophy and its folly, with its goodness and its cruelty, is but the work of man, and that the supernatural does not and cannot exist. For you personally I have the highest regard and the sincerest respect, and I beg of you not to pollute the soul of childhood, not« to furrow the cheeks of mothers, by preaching a ereed- that should be shrieked in a mad-house^ Do not make the cradle as terri-blbj as the coffin. Preach, I.pxay you, the gospel of intellectwj hospitality—the liberty of thought and speech. Take from loving^ hearts the awful fear. Have mercy on your fellow men. Do not drive to madness the mothers whose tears are falling on the pallid faces of those who died in unbelief. ‘ Pity tbp,erring, wayward", I suffering, weeping world. Do not proclaim as “ tidings of greatj joy ” that an Infinite Spider*is weaving webs to catch the souls of men. 1 I � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899] Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 32 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Reprinted from the North American Review, Nov. 1887. No. 22e in Stein checklist. Printed and published by G.W. Foote. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Progressive Publishing Company Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N344 Subject The topic of the resource Religion Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Faith and fact : a letter to the Rev. Henry M. Field), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource English NSS Religion https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/64948264688ba2b0d7e751f52e7d586c.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=VlFqvpwBbtc0sDCUoJJtnJvN5APUth27ANFrNWA2CjA6NiKacD8qO7KC7j5A-zogOB73K5L2gRhR4kiR-abXs5dD5-veWhM9K%7EWV2uNx506wlHRTkLAQtPc23lGnBZm5rK9rXO4uS6kzeiSp5KOqqj032N4gXYRpQXF3neSg13kO0P3-FHZ8LO2EPbWxPC9b527I7uz4HHY7y7DvIGtvfmnD24jcPRzFPwJgt68B67EDCbuvflQoEtWlln4-%7EvOJErO6CQQtG0SKtoNWLA3alamD2LjpXXCL6du-GcnexhYNnmm1IAjCjl7sq8oyMD1mfkzEL71PjCth37nR9X1KJw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM cd4896b96ce0d732ab4866d4d942ace4 PDF Text Text NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY SALADIN THE LITTLE AN EXPOSURE. BY T. EVAN JACOB, B.A. PBICE TWOPSKCE. / äkmbxrn : ROBERT FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER 1887. STREET, E. C. �LONDON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY R. EORDER, AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C. �6 303© ^57| SALADIN THE LITTLE. SALADIN’S MOTIVES EXPOSED. UNION concentrates force and thus becomes strength. As in physical matters so in social and political struggles, he who promotes union paves the way of victory. Down yonder mountain slope those dozen babbling rills skipped and danced for ages : they tripped their way to the sea with sweet music, but without much practical benefit to man. The great engineer perceives in them a source of power ; he unites them ; factories are built on the spot; families obtain food ; the strag­ gling village grows into a town. The music of the rills has lost none of its sweetness, because it is accom­ panied by the merry prattle of childhood ■ their inde­ pendence is gone, but on their grave bloom the lovliest of flowers, domestic peace, domestic plenty, domestic happiness. Union is useful in all things. All parties in Church and State recognise its value. To those who advocate unpopular opinions, who endeavor to expel error and restore truth, who struggle to disperse the mists of pre­ judice and the clouds of bigotry, union is the very breath of life. With it we may do something, without it we are like one of those independent rills, wasting on rocky ears “ the majesty of our prose and the thunder of our poetry,” as we tread our weary way to our long home. We worked hard, early and late ; and is this our reward? Ah! laurels wreathe the victor’s brow. There is no prize for unsuccessful merit. Wouldst thou be useful in thy day and generation ? Sink thy petty independence, fall in like a loyal soldier, and fight to the bitter end. �4 SALADIN THE LITTLE. A. great responsibility attaches to those who would, destroy any union that has been formed for good pur­ poses. They disable others without adding to their own strength ; they clog my carriage wheel, but increase not the velocity of their own waggon. Some there are in our day who think they can redress the grievances of their country by destroying the implements, and mutilating the cattle of their neighbors, as there are those. who endeavor to spread secular principles by pointing out to the enemy some imagined weakness in secular armor. The dastardly crime of the former is great, but insignificant as compared with the dastardly devilry of the latter, just as one weed less in the field of thought is more than ample compensation for a county run wild, and one flower more in the garden of truth outweighs a million times the decrease of exports and fall of revenue. Secularism is unpopular enough. Secularists are the Ishmaels of the age. Our hands are against all pre­ judices and all prejudices are against us. The force of prejudice is. strong; the hosts of prejudice are many. If our little band is to make any headway at all against the foe, it is our bounden duty to unite. The union is ready. It is the work of brave men and women who have devoted themselves to the cause. It is known by the title “ The National Secular Society.” Whatever this society may have left undone, it has, at least, erected a platform from which to attack bigotry, built halls dedicated to the cause of Freethought, and enlisted under its banner many gallant soldiers, who might otherwise be wasting their energies and exhaust­ ing their strength in hopeless struggle against over­ whelming odds. This society it is that has made active and public Freethought propaganda possible in England —a very gratifying and satisfactory result, mainly due, as no honorable man would deny, to the eloquence and, above all, to the indomitable energy of its Presi­ dent. All Secularists and Freethinkers ought to support this society, if only to show their Christian opponents that it is possible to unite in brotherly love without being hammered into shape by blind faith on the anvil of terror. �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 5 But this is not to be. The Freethought party must, it seems, go through the ordeal of schisms and heresies The heretic, in this instance, is one Mr. W. Stewart Ross, an enterprising publisher and bookseller of i arringdon Street, but better known, perhaps, as editor of the Secular Review under the nom de plume of i( Saladin." This gentleman has during the last two years written against this society. His opposition is not that of a philosopher combating error ; that oppo­ sition would have been welcome. There is malice in his every word, resentment and petty pique. Such, criticism can do no good, can be acceptable to none but the enemies of Secular progress. He who plays into, the hands of the enemy, but weakens the cause he pretends to champion. I am not objecting to criticism. As a Freethinker I freely grant to others what I claim for myself. Freedom to think presupposes freedom to speak : without the latter the former would be sheer mockery. Saladin has given himself, plenty of rem. I do not propose to copy his diction or imitate his style. There is no need in the nineteenth century to don the controversial armor of the dark ages. Vitriolic epithets, do not strengthen a proposition ; all they do is to act as a label to the intellectual contents of the individual who uses them. Between Saladin and me there will, be no occasion to use them, as the facts are emphatic ^■What then, are the motives of Saladin’s opposition to the National Secular Society? What the raison d'etre of the heresy which he is at so much pains to christen with his name? I must remind the reader that Saladin professes to be a Secularist, a Freethinker, an Agnostic, etc. His motives should be exceptionally pure In attacking us, a Christian would be allowed more latitude than an Agnostic. To the former every­ thing is fair, for we are his sworn enemies, lhe latter should kindly point out our errors and suggest correc­ tions for he is our friend. Enemies indulge in lies and slander, whereas it is a friend’s holy office to tell thNowJSaladin calls all the members of the National Secular Society Dirtites, Cat-and-ladleites, Know!- �6 SALADIN THE LITTLE. tonites, Malthusians, and other complimentary expres­ sions of similar odor, in the coining of which he enjoys an unenviable notoriety. Whenever I read abusive insulting expressions, I generally conclude that the writer has no case and no confidence. These puerile word-toys are unworthy of a grown-up man. Dirtites indeed ! It were idle to expect sober criticism from such an unbridled tongue. But to go on. The National Secular Society teaches Materialism, Socialism and Malthusianism. These doctrines Saladin hates and detests: they are worse than the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the Atonement. Nay, suppress these horrid opinions, and Saladin would consent to let the Cross stand add the fire of hell burn for ever. This is the odious trinity of his abomination—Materialism, Socialism and Malthusianism ; and the National Secular Society promulgates these vile doctrines—vile Society ! •Does it ? Let us see. In this Society’s Almanac for .lbo7, p. 34, I think that the Principles and Objects of the Society are : Secularism teaches that conduct should be based on reason and knowledge. It knows nothing of divine guidance or intei lei ence : it excludes supernatural hopes and fears; it regards happiness as man’s proper aim, and utility as his moral guide. “ Secularism affirms that Progress is only possible through Liberty, which is at once a right and a duty; and therefore seeks to remove every barrier to the fullest equal freedom of thought, action, and speech. Secularism declares that theology is condemned by reason as superstitious and by experience as mischievous, and assails it as the historic enemy of progress. “ Secularism accordingly seeks to dispel superstition; to spread education; to disestablish religion; to rationalise morality; to promote peace; to dignify labor; to extend material well-being; and to realise the self-government of the people.” Not a word do we find here about Malthusianism, Socialism, or Materialism, but rather a platform on which every honest Freethinker could stand, a flag under which all unselfish Secularists could fight. If Saladin has no reason more valid to offer for his oppo­ sition, he stands condemned out of his own month, �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 7 Saladin has other reasons. The President of the National Secular Society is a Malthusian ; but he is also editor of a Freethought paper, and in that capacity he reviewed a book entitled Elements of Social Science, and expressed his opinion that the book was honest and useful. It should also be stated that this review was written nearly thirty years ago. Why may not the President be a Malthusian, or anything else if he likes, so long as he is a loyal and sincere Secularist ? It is only as a Freethinker that his opinions must not clash with the published principles of the Society over which he presides. On other ques­ tions, more or less intimately connected with Secu­ larism, he, like every other member, has a right to use his private judgment. Indeed, I always thought that the right of private judgment, on all matters whatso­ ever, was the essence of Freethought—that it recognised the government of reason, and not the impostures of faith or the despotism of any individual. But another School of Freethought has arisen in our midst: the fundamental article of its creed has been stolen from the putrefying rags of the Galilean. “ Believe or be damned,” was the old watchword. “ You are free to think but, as I do,” is the badge of this heresy, the chief priest of which is Saladin, who discards the mantle of freedom, for the Nessus-robe of intolerance. Oh 1 Saladin, fie, fie, fie, for shame! A tiger loves his tribe and protects his kind ; but you, a Freethinker, strike your brother Freethinkers and, on the stage of life, for the sake of a little rascal gold, play a traitor’s part. Freethought has come to this. What a deplorable falling off! So with regard to the recommendation of the Ele­ ments of Social Science, the President has a perfect right to recommend the book, if he thinks it a book worthy of being read. Verily it is a memorable book. Its contents cannot be the rubbish that Saladin and his school pretend they are. It has already in England reached its twenty-fifth edition. It is translated into ten modern languages, practically all the languages of the Continent. The French translation has reached its third edition, the Italian its fourth edition, the �8 SALADIN THE LITTLE. German its sixth edition—a proof that this book finds most readers where education is most spread and cul­ ture most general. Scholarly Germany rises up in judgment against Saladin. Mr. G. J. Holyoake recom­ mended the book. It is called “ a blessing to the human race ” by Ernest Jones, a name that will, I ven­ ture to predict, be fondly remembered in England, even when that of Saladin is forgotten. Some of the most eminent organs of the medical profession, both in this country and abroad, are lavish in praise of the treatise. Surely in the face of this cloud of witnesses it behoves Saladin, I will not say, to reconsider his opinion, but to be more tolerant towards those who form a different estimate of that remarkable book to his own. I make this suggestion for Saladin’s good, not to purchase his vote and favor for the Elements. That book has found a place in the literature of Europe, whence Saladin’s sordid criticism and blatant incom­ petence will no more dislodge it, than will a barking cur snatch from the sky the pale autumn moon. An index expurgatorius drawn up by a Freethinker! Nettles on rose bushes ; poison from the grape ; the night of error from the sun of light. The Farringdon School of Freethought usurps the functions of the Holy Office. No Freethinker of that school must read a book that bears not the imprimatur of Saladin. Retro­ gression not progress is the order of the day. The legitimate corallary of suppressing books is to destroy men. When a man’s right to think, read, and write is taken away, the next step is the deprivation of his right to live. The next role for Saladin is that of Torquemada or Bonner. Luckily for him Smithfield is near. I blush for Freethought when I see it draped in the bloody robes of the Inquisition. I am seeking the motives of Saladin’s opposition to the organised Freethought of our day. I have examined those which he publishes with commendable regularity in his journal week after week. But they are pretences, shams—all gas. The views of the President of the National Secular Society on certain questions outside the platform of that society cannot be the cause of Saladin’s inextinguish­ able hatred. There are hundreds and thousands of �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 9 members of this society who are not Malthusians. I am a member of this society, but I am not a Malthusian, not yet, at all events. When, on the other hand, he calls, in sweeping condemnation, all the members of this society Dirtites, because they advocate socialistic and Malthusian principles, he knows that he is telling an untruth and playing the hypocrite. Even if they did, and if Malthusian principles were dirty, it does not lie with Saladin to call them by that name. Sala­ din knows that, none better, in his heart of hearts. I must refresh his memory, for he seems to be burdened with unaccountable forgetfulness. To call the National Secular Society Socialistic and Malthusian is an unpar­ donable misrepresentation, to put it in the mildest possible way. In the Secular Review for 1884, Saladin offers “ to proclaim himself a liar,” if certain charges were proved against him. I shall give him an oppor­ tunity of displaying his honor and love of truth before I have done with him. In an ancient historian, I find that individuals have two sets of motives—one for the public, which is a pre­ tence, the other for themselves, which is real and genuine. The publicly stated motives of Saladin’s opposition I have demonstrated to be untrue, and un­ worthy a Freethinker, even if they were true : these evidently, are the pretended set. Would a man who deals in pretences, who puts forward reasons, for his conduct, which he knows to be false, would that man be called truthful ? I must seek for Saladin’s motives elsewhere. In prosecuting my search, I shall have to lift many a veil which I would fain leave untouched. But Saladin’s cant, hypocrisy, and misrepresentation compel me to do my duty, and I will do it with care, but without malice ; with truth, but without vindic­ tiveness. In the year 1884, Saladin became sole proprietor of the Secular Reviezv, having bought it of Mr. Charles Watts, whom he previously assisted in editing that journal. Then he had an opportunity to examine the financial condition of his investment. That examina­ tion was not one to make him jubilant. The paper was running into debt. A large percentage of the sub­ �10 SALADIN THE LITTLE. scribers were bogus subscribers. This state of things was very distasteful to Saladin’s Scottish shrewdness. If it were possible for him to worship a god, that God would be money. An admirer of Saladin’s goes so far as to say that the editor of the Secular Review cares nothing for Freethought, except in so far as it brings grist to the mill. The written statement of this gen­ tleman is quoted in extenso in the Secular Revieiv without a shadow of an editorial note to repudiate such base, sordid motives. Weary and disheartening must those weeks and months of deficit have been to Saladin. There he was laboring like a giant without being able to earn literary salt. Week after week, he was turning out of his intellectual workshop, leaders and essays and rhyme that shook the great white throne, carried dis­ may throughout the length and breadth of heaven, and made the hierarchies of earth totter to their base, but the inhabitants of England, thankless crew, would not buy the Secular Revieiv, would not support and encourage the greatest writer of the nineteenth century. His efforts were Titanic, his remuneration considerably less than zero. Were it not for the honor of his name, and the glory of his dear Scotland, he would have washed his hands of English Freethinkers and locked up the Agnostic Restaurant in which he figured as caterer, carver, and customer, without a rival or companion. The game was not worth a rushlight and the Free­ thinkers of England were unworthy of him. If the Secular Revieiv was to pay, it must seek buyers outside English Freethought. Saladin’s shrewdness soon saw this. How to extend the market of the Secular Review became henceforth the subject which engrossed Sala­ din’s thoughts. An accident helped him, as unexpected as it was gratifying. Within a hundred miles of the Cotswolds lives (and long may he live !) a venerable and munificent gentleman, who is nothing . if. not original. He conceived the bold scheme of building a Secular school, and has had the courage to carry it out. Now, under the roof of this noble-minded man lives a noble-minded lady, whom to see is to esteem, who has devoted herself absolutely to the cause of Freethought. �SALADIN THE LITTLE, 11 This lady was commissioned by the daring reformer to put herself in communication with some of the leaders of the party, with a view to start the school, he him­ self not wishing to figure publicly or prominently in the administration of the institution, for he is a benefactor of the unobtrusive, unassuming kind, whose delight it is to do good, and who find their great reward in the happiness of others, not in the nauseous eulogy of flatterers. The lady obeyed. She had been for years a reader of the Secular Review. She entertained, and still entertains, a high opinion of Mr. Charles Watts, while she regards with special esteem that gentleman’s gifted wife. Mr. Watts’s connection with the Secular Review had, she was at the time aware, been severed, but she was loyal to the organ which she had been so long in the habit of reading. She went to hunt up the present editor of that journal. She paid him a visit. That visit changed the course of Saladin’s boat, and explains the otherwise unaccountable metamorphosis of the man. After the first intoxication of success was over, he reviewed his position and prospects in the light of the great honor he had received. The first Secular School in England had been made over to him by deed of gift. Was not that something to be proud of ? Who said that Saladin’s services to Freethought were not recognised ? Behold a proof to the contrary —a very tangible proof too in the shape of a substantial building and a respectable plot of ground, together with many other delights and enjoyments that the world wots not of. Modesty is not a foible of Saladin’s. The world ought to know how nobly he has been paid for his “ pencraft.” The world shall know it. A golden image is set up in Farringdon Street to com­ memorate the event, while Saladin and his/satellites in the Secular Revieiv crow the song of triumph, the strutting pæan of petty pride, cock-a-doodle-doo ! cocka-doodle-doo ! cock-a-doodle doo ! That visit did it for Saladin—fed his vanity. He could now claim recognition at the hands of English Freethinkers. Was it not he who was selected to be the proud trustee of this splendid bequest, an Agnostic school whence all gods were banished except �12 SaLADIN the little. Saladin ? But alas lie has never made it known that his co-trustee was a Christian. Did this trouble him ? Not in the least. And what has been the result to Freethought of the possession of this school ? How many boys has it educated into Agnosticism ? Has it ever been full ? Never, notwithstanding assertions to the contrary. In the current issue of the Secular Review is an advertisement “that there are a few vacancies for Young Gentlemen as boarders. And what has been the cost ? In the course of the. lunacy inquiry, the other day, on poor Mr. Bullock, it came out that he paid into the London and Westminster Bank, on June 28, 1884, the sum of £900 to the account of Saladin and his Christian co-trustee. This was for three years expenses ; but in September, 1885, another £300 was applied for and eventually obtained. For the manner in which Saladin obtained two other sums of ¿£600 each as loans, and two cheques for ¿£8,000 and and £5,000 as gifts, from Mr. Bullock, see Gloucester Chronicle of Dec. 11, 1886. It was time to assert this claim. The object of his fond dreams was within his reach. But there was a leader in the field whom the party did not at all desire to abandon. What of that? Would not Christian England rejoice at any attacks made on this man, whom she hated for his ability, and detested for his influence ? She would not too nicely examine the source of the attacks, or the motives of the aggressor, so but the attacks be violent. Saladin will oblige Christian England. He launches on the unnatural crusade against the veteran Freethinker, he a raw recruit of thirty-five weeks’ standing, against him a trained warrior, grey with the burden of thirtyfive years of meritorious service. Ye gods, what a spectacle for the world ! One Lilliput shooting needle arrows at Captain Gulliver! That visit spoiled Saladin —puffed him with presumption * And the Secular Review, can it not be made to pay now ? Is there no means of converting the deficit into * Even the alleged insult of the Building Society is now admitted to be deserved. There was some foundation for it after all, as is admitted, in self-righteous indignation, by Saladin in the ¡Secular Review foi Nov. 7, 188G. Why did not Saladin admit this before? �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 13 a surplus ? What is the good of prestige, of renown and unrivalled genius if, in this free England of the nineteenth century, all these advantages and gifts cannot make a paper pay ? Saladin will make a good bid for success by smashing gods, if smashing gods will yield a revenue ; if not, by smashing anything. God-breaking, after Saladin’s fashion, was not profit­ able : the people of England were too obtuse to grasp the meaning of this celestial genius, whose writings carried terror to Paradise but created no sensation on this planet. He will attack the National Secular Society, which has never wronged him ; he will throw as much mud as he can on thè President of that Society, in the fond hope that some of’ it may stick ? Not at all, that for his mud-throwing he may earn a penny and keep the mud-mill going. Of course, in attacking the Pre­ sident of the National Secular Society, Saladin is still attacking a god. In the National Reformer, Nov. 21, 1875, p. 327, Saladin writes thus : “ And Theists, if you’ll have a god, Hail one where Bradlaugh stands.” And “ Assail us as we rank around The hero of our choice.”* His success in attacking this god is measured by the good old golden standard, far more decisive than the thunder of his declamation and the light­ ning flashes of his wit, against the gods of Sinai and Calvary. The Secular Review is floated ; Christian purses contribute to repair its timbers and patch its storm-rent sails. The Christian Evidence Society is one of its largest purchasers, and its lecturers and emissaries take good care that it is well advertised. Without breaking entirely with his Agnosticism he must, however, humor and indulge this generous Society. The articles which they so freely circulate are vile personalities, contemptible slanders, blatant vitu* It is only fair to state that this Saladinesque rhodomontade was inserted in the National Reformer by Saladin’s then friend Mr. C Watts, during Mr. Bradlaugh’s absence in America. �14 SALADIN THE LITTLE. peration and splendid indignation. Just the field in n • Saladin has no rival, and long may the field be all his own ! So, in order to keep his customers, Saladin has to attend the literary market as a sandwichman, hawking his wares. He carries two boards ; on the front one is written : “ ‘ A Terrible Attack on the irtites . ‘The Death Agony of the National Secular Society ! All by Saladin. Price twopence. Only twopence for a work of art.” On the other board this legend is inscribed : “ ‘ Sarai’s Petticoat on Sale !’ ‘ A k °J-JeSU-n *n Vomit!’ Two withering satires by Saladin. Price twopence ; only twopence. Worth a guinea each.” He has to wear a reversible coat, the one side Calvary cloth, the other Agnostic tweed. A disgrace, this, that to an honorable man is worse than literary death ; but Saladin recks it not. Has he not increased the circulation of the Secular Review ? The journal, which two or three years ago was all but dead, now circulates “ from the rosy cradle of the dawn to the western chambers of the sun.” That visit wrecked Saladin : it made him a lover of filthy lucre. Such is the. Farringdon school of Freethought of which Saladin is the apostle and hierophant in chief. It was founded by Envy and Jealousy ; it is supported by Slander and Personalities ; it is administered by sordid meanness and unblushing Hypocrisy. Sham, Pretence, Humbug and Cant are the leading professors. The secretary is crass Ignorance. SALADIN’S QUALIFICATIONS TO LEAD EXAMINED. What are Saladin s qualifications to lead ? I have asked a most impious question. Who can be igno­ rant of Saladin’s claims ? Are they not much better known than Paul’s and more universally acknowledged than Churchill’s ? Are they not printed every week in the Secular Review, a journal that circulates “ from the rosy,cradle of the dawn to the western chambers of the sun ” ? Are they not vouched for by independent ad­ mirers, whose number is legion, and whose testimony �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 15 may be represented by X, or better still by 0 ? too, true, alas! Yet I would fain catalogue his titles for the sake of any stray ignoramus to whom the Secular Revieiv may be a sealed book. Saladin is a man of imposing birth, the greatest writer since the death of Homer, a profound metaphy­ sician, a stirring poet, a consummate scholar. Saladin is a gentleman sans peur et sans reproche; a man who lives for a cause, not self ; truthful and truth-loving as Epaminondas ; a man of spotless honor, the preacher of a lofty morality. Such is Saladin as painted by his friends and admirers. Beautiful picture ! I must ex­ amine it more closely. txt-j-k •+ Oh! fame is a soothing balm for all sores, with it for a blanket one could lie easy and contented on a bed of thorns. How happy must Saladin be with this com­ panion ! Biographies of him have issued from the press ; then came reviews of the life story, followed in turn by correspondence on the reviews, so that Prince Bismarck is not “in it” with him. No wonder, for the chancellor of “ blood and iron ” is only the son of a poor German nobleman, while Saladin, through the yielding virtue of two of his female ancestors, claims descent from the most royal of Scotland s kings and the most gifted of Scotland’s bards. I do not blame or * reproach these dear old souls. Their blacksliding is a proof that they were daughters of Eve. The tempta­ tion was terrible, but, (rest the turf lightly on their immortal breasts!) great was their reward, for out of their weakness sprung Saladin, in whom there is no guile, who knows not sin. Saladin wields a powerful pen. His prose is racy and vigorous, but with a tendency to be prolix. In some of his verses there is the verve and go of genuine poetry, though he writes too often in blood. His judg­ ment is sadly at fault, as his idea of literary art is very confused. Insult is not wit; farcical vulgarity is not humor ; vituperation is not satire ; personalities are not the essence of sarcasm. In Saladin’s writings these terms are considered synonymous. See Life of Saladin, by Hithersay and Ernest. �16 SALADIN THE LITTLE. He may be a great metaphysician, but I do not re­ member having read many of his writings in that line. Since I have been a reader of the Secular Review, Saladin has confined himself, for the most part, to theology and historical criticism. One thing, however, strikes me as being remarkable. Saladin professes to be an Agnostic. Agnostics maintain that there are certain questions to which the only legitimate answer man can give is, “I do not know.” The origin of the world is such a question, and yet Saladin affirms that * the base of the universe is psychic not somatic. This may be a profound ontological fact, but it is not Agnosticism. At all events, metaphysicians, dealing as they do with general propositions, are not dis­ tinguished for accuracy in details. Miniature is their abhorrence : hence they are, generally speaking, failures as scholars. This metaphysical turn of mind may ex­ plain the villainous state of Saladin’s scholarship. I am aware that to question his scholarship will, in some quarters, be deemed as absurd as to deny the rotundity of the earth, or as blasphemous as to rob Jesus of his divinity. What is scholarship ? Precision, elegance, accuracy. Saladin lacks these qualities and is accordingly, not entitled to the name of scholar. He is very strong on one point—spelling: so are the pupils in our Board Schools. An error in spelling he detects at once, and makes no allowance for slips of pen, hasty writing or anything whatever. Now to spell correctly is good, and desirable, but it is sheer memory. A bad speller might write excellent sentiments. Correct spelling is not, necessarily, a mark of scholarship. But even here Saladin fails. Even in Orthography he is at sea. In recent numbers of the Secular Review, under the head­ ings “At Random” and “Editorial Notes” I have seen these gross blunders—freizes for friezes ; Belgiae for Belgae ; Germanies for G-ermani; scaribaeus for scarabiBus, Sephor for Sepher ; Tishreden for Tischreden. But enough of this. It is below criticism, but as it is the height of Saladin’s scholarship, I am compelled to descend to his level and learn the art of sinking. See Secular Review, June 28, 1884. �SALADIN THE LITTLE. J7 The editor of the Secular Review professes to bevery strong on languages- Has he not had an Academic education ? French, German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, he has them on his finger’s ends. As specimens of his knowledge of French we have savans.. But unfortunately there is no such word in that language. Chacun a son gout, is a favorite quotation of Saladin’s ; a scholar would write gout. He speaks of the possibility of Jesus standing to Joseph in the re­ lation of filles héritières. I have read a little about Jesus, and have had him presented to me in different lights, but to Saladin belongs the credit of making him a girl. He wishes a correspondent to hold his tongue, he conveys the polite hint in French, tachez vous which means, “ to defile.” Saladin would be a guide in French of questionable value. In the limited portion of the Secular Review which I have examined for the purpose of this paper, Saladin has, as far as I am aware, only once shown his acquaint­ ance with German. He refers to Luther’s Table Talk? * under its German title of course, and calls it Tishreden for Tischreden. His first German coin is a counter­ feit. In Greek, his scholarship is likewise of the super­ ficial and slovenly kind, crude as a child’s first pic­ torial attempts. He writes mra gpofirj instead of -n-âcra ypa^g. Quoting the famous oracle in Herodotus, he makes it untranslateable by introducing the word Sia^as, which is not only nonsense but not Greek even.f His Latin quotations are more numerous and, natu­ rally, the crop of blunders is in this field more luxuriant.. * The reader will please observe that I have only read the itali­ cised quotations in the Secular Review. Had I made a more thorough investigation of it, I could fill a large pamphlet with the editor’s mis­ takes and blunders. In fact I have never read an article of Saladin’s without detecting in it gross errors, if he dares to push out, ever so little, from the shallows of declamation. Even Saladin is safe on that plank—the refuge of sciolism. f He talks in one number of his journal thus: “The positive ovTos of no law of nature is known.” What is orros ? This sen­ tence is philosophy, or rather was intended to be such, but ovtoç' knocked it into nonsense. �18 SALADIN THE LITTLE. He has discovered a new plural for Calebs, which he spells Coelebses instead of Coelebes. He quotes from Augustine this sentence: “ Quid est enim pejor, mors animae quam libertas erroris.” Now, elegant classical Latinity is not a strong point of this saint; but assuredly he knew the elementary laws of the Latin language—how, for instance, and to what extent the adjective agrees with the noun. He could not but be aware that words are used to convey to others his mean­ ing.. In the same quotation the great Augustine is made to violate the rules of accidence, syntax and sense. But Augustine could never write such arrant nonsense. It is to the pen of the scholarly Saladin that the world is indebted for this linguistic puzzle, and the world will estimate the Latinity of the editor of the Secular Review at its market value—considerably less than nothing. The man who palms such impostures on the people, and complacently regards them as the offspring of a ripe and mature scholarship, ought to sail to Anticyra. He, more than once, in his journal puts to the * discredit of Wetstein the following barbarism—“tota haec oratio ex formulis Habraeorum consinnata est.” In Latin is no word consinnata. Wetstein was a scholar, and it is a cause of pain to see his works thus defiled. Saladin more than once quotes from a certain “ Henricus Seynensis.” There is no such name in the catalogues of the British Museum. There is no word in the Atlases I have consulted from which could be formed the appellative Seynensis. There was a Hen­ ricus de Senesis, and he might be called SenensisA * See Secular Review, March 22, 1884, and Oct. 23, 1886. Saladin’s scholarship has not improved during this period. Apparently he does not cut new ground in his reading, the bulk of many “ At Randoms” which, as they issue in 1886, held Civilisation spell­ bound, having appeared a couple of years before. The Book of God, which threatens to exceed the Bible in length and depth, may be patched together from the Secular Review of 1884. Saladin moves like a planet in a certain orbit, save when he quotes foreign or dead languages: then he is most erratic. t Mrs. A. R. Wilkie “ shares,” we are told, “ with the editor of the Secular Review much of the perferidwm Scotorum.” Whatever is perferidum ? What does it mean ? What can be the meaning of this conundrum ? I should like to know what it is that Mrs, A. R. Wilkie shares with Saladin. Not scholarship, I hope. �SALADIN THE LITTLE. In Hebrew he commits wild vagaries. 19 Inspiration is said to be the work of ro . I don’t think there is in the Hebrew language a word HO- What Saladin intended to write was J . Q * I am able to correct his blunder here because he has been kind enough to state to his readers in intelligible English what he managed to conceal in his, but nobody else’s, Hebrew. In the same number of the journal he transcribes two speci­ mens of Semitic printing : one he calls Chaldean, the letters being curved and rounded ; the other is named real Hebrew, in which the characters are rectangular. He wants his readers “ to form some idea of the wide difference ” between the two specimens. * There is no real difference : the letters are the same, the manner of writing being different. He wants his readers to believe that the second specimen is later than the first. This is absurd. It requires more skill to make round and curved strokes than to make straight lines. The shape of the characters or the manner of writing, is the chief criterion in deciding the age of manuscripts. Saladin is ignorant of this fact, having spent too much of his time in spelling. At the foot of the same page he gives a word-for-word translation of Gen. i., 1, from the Hebrew. This translation shows that Saladin has no knowledge whatever of the language. The word eth he renders by them, as though it was a demonstra­ tive pronoun, qualifying gods. It is nothing of the kind. In itself eth has no meaning. It only shows that the word to which it is attached is not in the nominative case. Therefore the word here cannot be taken with gods, because gods is the nominative case. No scholar before Saladin took it in that way. This is the man that poses before the world as the scholar par excellence of English Freethought. I may be told that the knowledge of languages is not essential to a public teacher. I quite agree. I am of opinion that no good or useful purpose is served by lugging * Why did not Saladin print the same passage in the two styles ? Why select Deut. iv., 1,2, to represent Specimen No. 1, but Gen. i., 1, to represent No. 2? See Secular Review, March 6, 1886. �20 SALADIN THE LITTLE. quotations from foreign and dead languages into jour­ nals which are to be read by the people, of whom ninety-nine per cent, know nothing about those lan­ guages. If, however, they are made, then, for the honor of Freethought, let them be accurate. Saladin’s quotations do not reflect much credit on his readers or himself. The intelligence of the former must be very low to be satisfied with such rubbish, and Saladin must know this, otherwise he would never have dared to insult them with words that never were used, and sen­ tences without a meaning. Of the languages he so often quotes, Saladin knows nothing or next to nothing. He cannot translate easy passages from them into Eng­ lish, not even with the aid of a grammar and a dic­ tionary. As to .Hebrew he cannot read it. But he was taught these things at a celebrated university. Then he is no credit to his teachers. Education seems to have had on Saladin the same effect as inspiration had on the writers of Israel: it leads him from, not to, truth. Let us leave language and try other fields. He does not know the names of the two sects of Islam ; at least he calls, one of them Shites. I have already pointed out his ignorance on the evolution of writing. It was Saladin that wrote the following gem:—“ The two angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal to two right angles.” This language is very unscientific, as the geometry is outrageous. A boy in the sixth standard at a Board School would smart for this blunder. So it matters not into what fields of knowledge Saladin may go, one companion always follows, never deserts, his great patron—that faithful attendant of Saladin is ig­ * norance. .A ludicrous instance of Saladin’s literary knowledge and historical attainments, or want of them, is furnished by him in the A R. of Jan. 15, 1887. In answer to a correspondent and with a view to adver­ tise his patch-work book he speaks of only four copies of the Bordeaux New Testament being known to exist in England. After stating where three of these are he says “ the fourth is in the possession of the Duke of Sussex. It is to the latter copy that God and his Book is indebted.” Is it a fact then that Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, is still in the flesh, and is it a fiction that he was buried at Kensal Green in 1843 at the age of 70? Or is the matter explainable on the ground that �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 21 I admire the scholar and his impersonal existence, ■who hates error as he hates poison, to whom truth is the very bread of life, who carries his honors meekly ’ and unostentatiously, who entertains a special affection for two classes of men, those who excel.him m know­ ledge, and those who detect errors in his works. Oh. how I admire the scholar. But Saladin is not a scholar. He decks him in tawdry tinsel to catch the ears of the mob ; he has not the gold of scholarship, but the dross of pedantry ; he wears arms which he cannot use ; He never was in the temple of knowledge—what he.knows of the service he picked up from the conversations ot the wise. He dons the plumes of the bird of knowledge, but under them are the feathers of the crow. Let him return to his rookery. In the name of all that is sacred, let him prostitute no longer the scholar s holy name, no longer degrade the holy cause of breeSaladin lives for the cause not self. Does he ?. This would cover a multitude of sins. In my opinion, it would sponge away every blemish. He has been re­ solving plans of great pith, to be carried out m the West of England, when a certain auspicious event hap­ pened. There was a house to buy, lands to cultivate, and money to be made. Are commerce and convey­ ancing, Freethought? Is this the cause for . which Saladin lives ? He would have nothing to do with the Secular School unless he had absolute control of the money. If there was any objection on this point, at head-quarters, he would require a salary for doing secretarial work. If the salary offered were satisfactory, he would accept it, if not, he would sever his con­ nection with the institution. What about the cause for which he lives ? It is to be hoped that, he will re­ consider his decision, for if Saladin leaves, it, the school will soon die out, and this would be a serious blow to Freethought, the cause for which he lives. The generous founder of the School will, I have no doubt, humor Saladin’s seeming selfishness, and secure his ' Saladin stole the whole of the paragraph from a controversial journal of fifty years ago when the Radical Duke was living ? O Saladin, Saladin �22 SALADIN THE LITTLE. powerful aid, to carry on the school, by Hiving him absolute control of the endowment fund. Some of the money will, of course, be spent in buying- a mansion, close to the school which will be very will be° VvST Wiih c Seaside ^pensel will be avoided and Saladin rendered stronger and stronger to battle for the cause-stronger aid stronger m pocket. Some of the money will be required grapes t0 send t0 “arket Is this Freethought ? Perhaps not. But it will be the means of securing Saladin’s co-operation. Is this then the cause for which Saladin lives? Aye, and the only cause he has ever lived for. Does not living for thevX ,he/ois^ ? dt does- And heroes, are they not few and far between ? They are. But there are millions of heroes who live for their cause after S^Limanner KSaladin- This is the measure of ' He UVeS &r the °aU8e’ and Saladin zs a gentleman, a man of truth. He calls his opponents, some of whom are as good as he, irtites and Squirtites. All clergymen and mini­ sters, many of whom are men of culture and in­ tegrity, he names Beetles and Holy Wastrels The manners of a gentleman are not these. Saladin must ave picked up his ideas of a gentleman from a social Yahoo the head master of which was a Thug or a In his journal for July 3, 1886, Saladin says that Peter Agate is not a Christian, while in October 31, lobb, weare told that the same gentleman had found Jesus Which is true ? The founder of the Secular School handed it over to Saladin by a deed of gift because, it is written, he was an admirer of “At . andom. That is not true. A correspondent is informed that the school is full. At the time of writing that statement was not true, never has been . he fact is, the school will not fill—the cause of which is obvious ; and many are the dodges to which anS Zf1S P+lagrn?£«AAS written before the bubble burst on Dec. 7th, stand £13’°00 WaS °rdered t0 be Siven UP- Bnt I let it �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 23 Saladin resorts in order to have a large number of boys on the books—the motive for which is manifest. In various numbers of his journal he declares that he attacks a certain society because of its principles. In­ engaging a gentleman, once upon a time to fill a post of which he is the patron, Saladin informed that gentleman what salary was paid to his predecessor. But he didn’t tell the truth, committing that sin tor which Ananias suffered death. And yet Saladin is.a man of truth and he can permit himself to write of his own “ sterling sincerity and inviolable honesty. It is easy to write oneself a saint. . Saladin is a man of honor. One of his contributors thanks him for a suggestive word. Saladin accepts the compliment, though the credit, whatever it is, of com­ ing that word was not his. All that comes into Sala­ din’s net is fish. He wanted a translation of some Latin extracts that appeared in his journal. Unable to do it himself, he applied to a friend who had the trouble of doing the work, while Saladin pocketed the money, for he sold the translation for a guinea, nor offered a penny of it to the translator. Saladin falls fo.u o nearly every one whom he comes in contact with, if that person dare differ from the editor of the Secular Review. Mr. Charles Watts, Dr. Lewins, and Lara have all been scourged by him. Lara is, at one time, his second self, and highly honored. Lara deserved the honor, for he was, without doubt, by far the ablest writer on the journal. But in Oct. 1885 Saladin throws him overboard, and, coward-like, stabs him as. he falls. In a recent issue, Lara is again praised to the skies. Men of honor are consistent. But Saladin s honor is a very Proteus. Mr. Bradlaugh is generally regarded as a man of ability. Opponents recognise his intellectual power. The Lord Chief Justice of England—no mean judge— has paid many a tribute to his eloquence .and know­ ledge. Saladin himself some years ago hailed him as a hero and a God. But now he goes back on his formei convictions and, out of malice ■which, he has been long and tenderly nursing, he vilifies this gentleman in * * Saladin did not quarrel with Mr. Bradlaugh as he states, because the latter had insulted him. I have often heard Saladin declare that �24 SALADIN THE LITTLE. language that would have discredited a bargee and been considered improper in the purlieus of Seven Dials. And yet Saladin is an honorable man. It dishonor mteresting to know . Saladin’s definition of ?.es^ sPe°imen °f his honor is this. He attacks e National Secular Society week after week, in that beautiful language of elegant filth of which he is a b.e<^use that Society is Malthusian, Socialis­ tic and Materialistic ? I have proved that it is not so. Because the President of that Society is Mr. C. Brad­ laugh, his god and hero in 1875 ? That’s it. To remove refer t0 Aug. M, 1886, where you will find the real reason of Saladin s animosity and rancor stated by himself in a moment of impetuous forgetfulness. After stating that he fancied he had been insulted by Mr. Bradlaugh ; that if he were wrong he would be glad to have his error pointed out to him ; that he is a man of forgiving disposition; that he had been for a long time expecting an apology ; Saladin ruefully declares that no apologv was made, and then adds, sighing from the bottom of his wounded heart: “ Am I too insignificant a person to apologise to, however much my feelings may be wounded. That long-expected apology never came. Saladin was thought an insignificant person. Hine ' illce lacrimce. This man, the soul of honor, and essence of truth, attacks a certain Society, not because he has any quarrel with that Society, but because the President of the same considers him an insignificant person. He grossly slanders thousands of honest people who never wronged him, because the President of the National Secular Society answers his buffoonery with sueuce He calumniates a whole party to feed fat the grudge he bears to the leader of that party, because that leader holds him to be insignificant, who can “ with his pen and ever-increasing influence of his journal make the strongest man in Europe wince.” And Saladin is a man of honor, a gentleman sans peur et sans reproche. . , he had been long-watching for an opportunity to attack the “ god ” of his earlier years. Such people do not watch in vain. �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 25 Then, in that number of his journal from which I quoted above, he holds out a promise that if an apology (of course, Saladin calls it amende honorable) be made to him, he will sheathe his sword and help to build up the breaches in the ramparts of Freethought, breaches that are entirely due to his rancorous spleen and in­ ordinate vanity. Impudent cynicism never penned a more audacious proposal. Week after week, month by month, and year after year, Saladin has been most shamefully attacking a certain society which, on his own showing, never wronged him, and which, to my knowledge, is morally and intellectually his superior. Now he promises that, if the President of this Society will be kind enough to notice him, and gracious enough to remove the stigma of insignificance from him, he will bury the hatchet. Mr. Bradlaugh is perfectly at liberty, and is certain, to act as he thinks fit. But what amends does Saladin propose to make to the innocent Society he has so foully calumniated ? There are words and deeds which an apology cannot blot from the memory. For Saladin’s insults there is no amende. Take a plebiscite of the National Secular Society : the verdict would be—“ Leave Saladin alone in his insult­ ing insignificance. Let us have no commerce with the man. His insolence is colossal, exceeded only by his ignorance.” This is the code of honor which is •observed by Saladin, the apostle of a pure cult, the priest of a spotless Freethought. May English Freethought never adopt this horrid code, written by the pen of malice, with the ink of petulance, on the paper of dirty insignificance. Saladin is the preacher of lofty morality. Is he ? And does he act up to the height of his doctrine ? That is the test of moral excellence. It is possible to have three kinds of moral teachers. There are those who tell others to do what they themselves neither practise nor believe—the loaf-disciples and hypocrites and blood-sucking parasites of creeds and creedless societies ; their name is legion. Next we have those splendid souls, who by word and deed do all they can to lift humanity from the misery of its environment, without for a moment forgetting that they are frail; �26 SALADIN THE LITTLE. that they fall far short of the high standard they haveintroduced into the world ; that it is easier “ to show twenty what were good to be done than be one of the twenty to follow their own instruction that, in a word, they are men. In this class are to be placed the greatest reformers of the world, humanity’s very gods,, from Jean Jacques Rousseau to Sakya Muni. The pen of the former trembled, his heart rebelled, as he reflected on the vast distance between the ideal and the actual. Honor him for an honest man—a very rose-plant indeed. Buddha, “ the best friend of man,” requested his apostles, the “ army of beggars,” to per­ form one miracle and one only—to confess their sins before the people. A miracle ! aye, a million times more stupendous than the raising of the dead to life. To tell the truth is a trite advice, but oh ! how few take it and carry it out in life! The third class of moral teachers is made up of those who practise what they preach. This class had never a representativeuntil these latter days. Even now there is in it but one man—Saladin. Hail him, Freethinkers of the universe. He is purer than Francis of Assizi, holier than Gautama, more sinless than Jesus. There never has been such a champion of conjugal' purity as Saladin. To him marriage is an inviolable contract. The keeping of this contract often entails unhappiness, begets troubles and quarrels, sometimes ends in suicide or murder, or both. “ Never mind,” says Saladin, “ nothing can justify a breach of this con­ tract.” Admirable this. Glendower can call spirits from the vasty deep. Will they come ? is Hotspur’s pertinent query. Does Saladin honorably perform his part of this inviolable contract ? Does not his pen, like Rousseau’s, tremble when he preaches his ideal evangel ? Rebels not his heart now and then ? Rises not his memory against him, to point out the places and fix the dates of his backsliding ? Oh! Saladin, oh ! Saladin, you are shod with hypocrisy and mantled in catchpenny cant. It pains me to expose your faults —for you are a Freethinker. I waited long to see if you would descend from your lip morality, and appear as a man among your fellow men. In vain. You con­ �SALADIN THE LITTLE. 27 tinue to shoot your envenomed arrows from your castle of humbug. You spare nobody to gratify your spleen and rancor : in the interests of truth I must refresh you memory. I know how you propagate the cause of Freethought— by attacking your comrades. I should like to know how you observe the marriage contract. Have you the courage of Buddha, as you have more than his holi­ ness ? Dare you tell the world how you keep the inviolable contract ? I care not to enter more fully into this matter, nor would I now touch on it, but for your inexplicable hypocrisy. I am not given to pick out the faults and slips of any man or woman. Scandal-mongering is not in my line. I kpow that you are a man and must have your weaknesses. Pray remember this fact. Do not throw the mantle of dissimulation over your humanity. Do not say that you are above hawking your genius for filthy lucre while, at the same time, you write elegies over the death of your child and trade on a father’s sacred grief at a penny per copy. Confess that you are a man. If you cannot rise to this heroic level, at least cease to throw dirt on people who are as pure and sinful as yourself. Such is the real Saladin that aspires to lead the Free­ thinkers of England. He has immortalised himself as the founder of a heresy on original foundations. The heretics of the past revolted, from love of truth, he rebels from vanity. He proclaims the purity of his motives, because nobody else would or could. He claims to be a scholar, much in the same way as an inflated bladder claims to be full of matter. He parades his tastes and gentlemanly manners : if he speak true, there is only one gentleman in the world, and that makes one too many. He is a man of honor and calumniates a party from jealousy of the President of that party. He is a man of truth, and tells lies because people will persist in considering him small. He lives for a cause, and that cause is self. He is the one sinless progeny of eternity, but his holiness resides in his tongue and pen, not in his life and conduct. He prostitutes a great historic name. Saladin was a syno­ �28 SALADIN THE LITTLE. nym of heroic valor and loyal chivalry, until Mr. Stewart Ross assumed it. Whosoever will raise such a man to the place of leader, let him by all means. If there be anybody desirous of rallying round such an intellectual and moral composite, let him by all means. But English Freethinkers, ye who criticise principles and not per­ sons, shun him like poison. His teaching will spoil you. Ye who seek truth and are not ashamed of your humanity, avoid this man, before he contaminates your better nature and converts you into automatic com pounds of vanity and hypocrisy like unto himself. Any party, save English Freethought, is welcome to such a leader. �CATALOGUE of WORKS SOLD BY ROBERT FORDER, 28 Stonecutter Street, Farringdon Road, London, E.C. ALLBUTT, H. A., M.R.G.P.E., L.8.A. The Wife’s Handbook : How a Woman should order herself during Pregnancy, in the Lying-in Room, and after Delivery. With Hints on Important Matters necessary to be known by Married Women. In paper covers ... In cloth ... - 0 0 6 0 AVELING, E. B., D.Sc. Theoretical and Praotical General Biology. Cloth - - The Student’s Darwin. Cloth - - -20 -50 ANONYMOUS The Gospel History and Doctrinal Teachings Critically Examined. By the Author of “ Mankind, their Origin and Destiny.” Published at 10s. 6d. Reduced to-20 An invaluable work to the Freethinker, showing how, when and where the Canon of the Testament was formed. A Voice from the Ganges ; or the True Source of Christianity. Paper covers, Is. Cloth - 1 (> �‘ t ) BESANT, ANNIE Autobiographical Sketches, with Cabinet Photo­ . _ . 4 o A Vade Mecum for Liberationists. Cloth . _ -10 Marriage as it Was, as it Is, and as it Should Be. Cloth _ . _ -10 My Path to Atheism. Cloth .40 Boots of Christianity ; or, The Christian Religion Before Christ . „ -06 The Law of Population . *-06 God’s Views on Marriage ---02 Is the Bible Indictable ? _ 0 2 What is the Use of Prayer ? 0 1 The Myth of the Besurrection 0 1 Fruits of Christianity 0 2 Free Trade v. Fair Trade -06 graph. Cloth - . Disestablish the Church. BRADLAUGH, CHARLES Genesis : Its Authorship and Authenticity. Cloth - . . _ . -50 Impeachment of House of Brunswick Perpetual Pensions Jesus, Shelley and Malthus. An Essay on the - Population Question - 1 - 1 0 0 2 0 2 Plea for Atheism 0 3 Is There a God ? . 0 1 Who was Jesus Christ? 0 1 What did Jesus Teach? -01 A Few Words about the Devil ? o i. Were Adam and Eve our First Parents? 0 1 Lives of Jacob, Jonah, Moses and Abraham. - _ . _ _ - - - . . . . . . . 0 1 0 2 o 1 0 1 Mind Considered as a Bodily Function - 0 Each Life of David The Atonement Twelve Apostles - BRADLAUGH, MISS 1 �( 3 ) BUCHNER, PROFESSOR LUDWIG, M.D. TWind in Animals. Cloth - Translated by Annie Besant. -50 The Influence of Heredity on Free Will 0 2 - COOPER, ROBERT The Holy Scriptures Analysed - - -06 - - DRYSDALE, C. R., M.D. The Population Question - - 1 0 DEBATES Christianity or Secularism : Which is True ? Four Nights, between Mr. G. W. Foote and the Rev. Dr. McCann. Paper covers, Is. Cloth -16 The Jesus of the Gospels. Two Nights, between Mrs. A. Besant and the Rev. A. Hatchard 1 0 0. Bradlaugh and Rev. Dr. Baylee, Mr. Thomas Cooper and Rev. A. G. Harrison, 6d. each ; and with the Rev. W. M. Westerby, on “ Has Man a Soul ?” Is. FOOTE, G. W. Prisoner for Blasphemy. Being a Full History of the Author’s Prosecution, Trials and Imprisonment for Blasphemy. Cheap edition, Is. 6d. Cloth - Was Jesus Insane ? Bible Romances. Each Bible Heroes. Each Infidel Death-Beds - - - - - - - - 2 6 0 1 0 1 -01 0 6 - - - - Cloth -10 List of Freethinkers dealt with : Lords Amberley, Byron and Bolingbroke, Bruno, Buckle, Carlile, Clifford, Collins, Condorcet, Cooper, Danton, Diderot, “ George Eliot,” Frederick the Great, Gambetta, Gendre, Gibbon, Goethe, Hetherington, Hobbes, A. Holyoake, Hugo, Hume, Littré, Miss Martineau, Mill, Mirabeau, Owen, Paine, Shelley, Spinoza, Strauss, Toland, Vanini, Volney, Voltaire, Watson, Watts and Woolston. The Shadow of the Sword - - - 0 2 FOOTE, G. W., & W. P. BALL A Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and In­ quiring Christians. Part I., Bible Contradictions ; Part II., Bible Absurdities. Each - 0 4 �(4 ) FOOTE, G. W., & J. M. WHEELER The Jewish Life of Christ. Being the Sepher Toldoth .Teshu. Translated from the Hebrew. Edited with an Historical Preface and Voluminous Notes.’ Cloth - IQ FORDER, R. There was War in Heaven (Rev. xii., 7) - - o 1 Illustrated with 80 Wood Engravings. Translated by Dr. E. B. Aveling. Cloth 6 0 HAECKAL, PROF. ERNST The Pedigree of Man. HOLYOAKE, G. J. Logic of Death - . - . - 0 1 HOWELL, MISS CONSTANCE Biography of Jesus Christ; The After Life of the Apostles ; History of the Jews. Written for young Freethinkers. Each, Paper Covers, Is. Cloth 1 6 HUME, D. Essay on Miracles. By J. M. Wheeler - With Introduction and Notes . . - 0 3 INGERSOLL, COL. ROBERT Mistakes of Moses. Paper Covers 1 0 . . _ _ -16 Lectures. One Penny each Real Blasphemy, Myth and Miracle, Live Topics, Social Salvation, Take a Road of Your Own, Divine Vivisection or Hell, The Christian Religion, The Ghosts (Parts I. and II.), Thomas Paine, Is all Religion Inspired ? (Parts I. and II.), Mistakes of Moses, Saviors of the World, What Must I do to be Saved ? (Parts I. and n.), Spirit of the Age, Intellectual Development (Parts I. and II.), Which Way ? The Oath Question, The Great Mistake, and Do I Blaspheme ? Lectures. Twopence each .-—Hereafter, Religion of The Future, Breaking the Fetters, Farm Life in America, Difficulties of Belief, and Prose Poems. Cloth TAYLOR, REV. ROBERT, B.A. . - 3 6 For this latter work the author was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and a heavy fine for Blas­ phemy. 2 0 The Diegesis The Devil’s Pulpit. Two vols. - Printed and Published by R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter Street, London. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Saladin the little : an exposure Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Jacob, T. Evan Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 28, 4 p. ; 18 cm. Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Publisher's list (4 p.) at the end. Subtitle on p.[3]: 'Saladin's motives exposed'. William Stewart Ross was a Scottish writer and publisher. He was a noted secularist thinker, and used the pseudonym "Saladin". Between 1888 and 1906 he was the editor of the Agnostic Journal, successor to the Secular Review. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Robert Forder Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context N571 Subject The topic of the resource Secularism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Saladin the little : an exposure), 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 Free Thought NSS Secularism William Stewart Ross https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/83ddc69054006a0556b8c0fbfa8b31e4.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=sqrMcSW4OoOeODo-fy6ycst1xdiWS5ebgsM6%7ER1-hUJ8uHOLdNKr0vTg6zwi9mdumWJbTIZjO5tfrhTm9fmK3p0z6e3DmO4EkjMOql1RvzSE3FkalUsPO2BesKFjU-xB16IYY8mORexxeC6S4xIoQmadxx-6tK0Ofy3yLq1rGv0BhvNsG0fVCL4Ee4E0mUUIWQqvQKTD8fiAlmquAmC6MUbHaM2nIHXa2iA9MCP8rFcz1mExXXJixbGN6g3ZwjBbXAJP2mtgiy0jKYusHyoYLK6TqWTgZFCrU1sre5BaQUvkbeniLyi4XiEa%7EMkeA%7EAonITb2kk3w69%7EQHfD48QRaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM bfb48e6bd5a0e7542502f12d65a9d4bf PDF Text Text Price One Penny. THE J. THEODORE L’AUTON. w London : THE MODERN PRESS, 13, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. 1887. �;•I' �THE NATIONALISATION OF SOCIETY. POVERTY. HERE is in the nature of every man a desire tor happiness, enjoyment, and pleasure ; a horror of pain and oppression. The physical constitution of man has craving instincts ; the intellectual part of him has also its desires. These desires must be satisfied; they cannot be oppressed. All oppression of a man’s lawful instincts means misery and death for him. The instincts of human nature are like dormant volcanoes, ready to burst forth when the opportunity offers. The passions of human nature may lie calmly beneath the surface, but when they break forth, they break forth with rage: men have in the course of the world's history risen against their fellow men, and like savage hyaenas have made them their food. A man will slay his fellow man for the slightest angry word or look. The lowest and meanest man will strive to avenge an insult; but why should he bear so meekly the monster of Poverty ? Poverty is the crime which outrages all a man’s instincts and feelings. What is it which condemns you to live in hovels unfit for brutes ; to eat the food of swine ; to wear out your life, health, strength, and beauty in a desperate inhuman struggle for your existence ? Poverty. What is it which robs you of education, crushes your natural intelligence, and destroys the distinguishing mark of your superiority ? Poverty. What is it that changes a man from contentment tQ sedition ; from sobriety to debauchery, from humanity to brutality? Poverty. What is that it makes men criminals, society a barbarism, and hands down to posterity as an heirloom, deformed, stupid progenies ? Poverty. Poverty is the worst crime in the world. The greatest criminal is not shunned as the poor man. If you are poor, the rich man will not sit beside you, will not eat with you, will not speak with you; but will sneer at you. While you are delving for a mere crumb to eat, he is enjoying himself at your expense. While you are passed by as an insig­ nificant object he is honoured. Who is he, this rich man ? The man who has taken advantage of your stupidity and mean opinion of yourself. Are we rich enough ? Do you think there are no men poor except those who ask for a crumb of bread for God’s sake ? Poverty means the inability to satisfy your lawful instincts; if you cannot satisfy your lawful instincts with ^10,000 a-year, you are poor. But nothing can be more barbarous than our idea of civilisation. If you can by a self-denial that eats out your very heart; by the economy of a miser, appear well before the eyes of men, then those that cannot practise your self-denial or your economy will deem you rich and blessed. Are we free from Poverty, when by a struggle that wears out our lives we can barely manage to cover our bodies and keep our blood circulating? In the present social condition of the world, the majority will consider themselves happy if they can find these two necessaries. Must we then rest satisfied with these ? Is there no grander civilisation for us ; no more blessedness than a life and death struggle ? I for one do net believe it; I see in reality no cruel Destiny com­ manding it to be so. All things have a cause ; and there is a cause for Poverty. There is Poverty, universal, degrading, damnable Poverty; men have a life and death Straggle for existence ; but who is responsible for such a state of things ? Are we not �4 41 ourselves responsible? The remedy is before us ; we need only apply it. There is no Tyrant-God ruling over us. Is not the world ours ? The earth will grow us corn and cotton if we only sow ; will give us food, clothing, light, and heat. Where lies the fault ? Is it not ours ? The life of mankind is not a life of blessedness at present; we must make it a life of blessedness. Not the bare necessaries of existence should be the ultimatum of our desires ; but the abundance that will make life worth living. Let us try. If in the nature of things such an acquisition be impossible ; if it be decreed by the immutable laws of the universe that Poverty must exist, then I say with Carlyle, “ So scandalous a beggarly universe deserves nothing but annihilation,” WHY WE ARE POOR. 1 How can a man become rich ? What is it that will make a man rich ? You would say if a shoemaker was making 1,000 pairs of shoes in a day instead of two pairs, that he was on the road to wealth. Precisely so. If a shoemaker, who by making two pairs of shoes in a day struggled through life, then he certainly has a better chance of a more human existence when he can make 1,000 pairs in a day. So also a farmer who rears 1,000 head of cattle has a better chance of being richer than if he only reared ten head of cattle. For i,ooo pairs of shoes are worth more than two pairs; and i,ooo cows are worth more than ten cows. The first condition of wealth therefore is;—A man must have a large amount of saleable commodity of some kind. The greater the amount the richer he will be. But though that is the first condition, it is not sufficient. What would be the use of you making i,ooo pairs of shoes per day if competition with other shoemakers forced you to sell at a trifling profit; or if people were so poor that they could not buy your shoes. So then it is not enough that you have a great amount of saleable commodity ; another condition is necessary. Other persons must have commodities to give you in exchange for your shoes. What would be the use of you making i.ooo pairs of shoes per day if you could not exchange them for other commodities necessary for your daily wants ? Tobe wealthy, or in other words, to have all your wants satisfied, implies two conditions, viz., you must by your labour produce a great amount; secondly, others must also pro­ duce an equivalent amount. The most illiterate workman knows that these two condi­ tions are implied in a good day’s wages. If you are a shoemaker, you know that the more work you do in the day, and the greater the demand for shoes, the greater will be your wages for that day. So also with every other occupation. The more you produce, therefore the richer you will be; provided there be a demand for the produce of your labour. If a shoemaker can make two of pairs shoes in a day, he will be twice as rich if he can make 4 pairs in a day ; he will be fifty times as rich if he can make 100 pairs in the day; provided that the condition of demand is co-existing. The question, therefore, “ How can we become richer ? ” is reduced to this one, “ How can we increase the produce of labour, and at the same time maintain an equivalent demand for that produce? ” HOW INCREASE THE PRODUCE OF LABOUR. 'T .IP, Do you imagine that a shoemaker or tailor, who works before his fire plying his awl or his needle, will ever become richer by that means ? Never. He may by working late and early add a little to his income ; but that little would be totally insignificant. Take your ordinary shoemaker or tailor, and you will say that in order to live a life worthy of being called Life, they should be at least twenty times as rich as they are. They must consequently produce twenty times as much as they are producing inorder to be twenty times as rich. Men can never become richer till the produce of their labour increases. How then can the produce of labour be increased ? Evidently men cannot be left to themselves, to -work when and how they wish. The shoemaker cannot be left to ply his aw’l at his own leisure, “ far from the busy haunts of men.” The greatest result in labour is got from combination or co-operation. A man who by his own aid can make ten pins in a day, will in a factory make 1,000 in the same amount of time. It is the combination of all sorts of skill working in union that has enabled men to become millionaires. We say, therefore, that the only means of increasing the produce of man s labour is the combination of all the individual workers into factories adapted for their several employments. Machinery is the great increaser of the labour of man. Brain and muscle power is valued a thousandfold when applied to machinery. The shoe­ maker who expends his energy in finishing off a shoe, can finish 100 shoes with the same amount of energy when it directs the forces of Nature. The highest result of individual labour is obtained, therefore, by co-operation and scientific machinery. �5 HOW MAINTAIN A DEMAND FOR THE PRODUCE OF LABOUR. A shoemaker may make 1,000 pairs of shoes in the day by the aid of machinery : even the enormous produce of our factories may increase a hundred-fold ; but what advan­ tage would all that be if competition forced down the prices to an irreducible minimum; or if the poverty of would-be buyers was the cause of the goods lying on hand unsold ? In order that any advantage may arise from increased production, there must be a demand for that increase; that is, these two phenomena, Competition and Poverty, must cease to exist. Competition which forces a man to sell at the lowest possible rate, and Poverty which condemns the produce of a man’s labour to rot on shelves, are the two evils which would render an increase of produce on the part of a portion of the community of no appreciable utility. As we stated before, the only two conditions of wealth are: ist. increased produce on the part of workers; 2nd. a universal demand for that produce. To increase the produce of your labour, with a co-existing co­ ordinate demand means to increase your wealth; the same conditions carried to an indefinite degree means indefinite wealth. We have shown how the produce of labour can be increassd ; we have now to show how a demand for that produce can be main­ tained. The two evils which prevent a universal demand for the produce of labour are poverty and competition. Let us deal first with poverty. We mean that if a certain portion of a community work, and produce a certain amount of commodities, and the other portion, for whom part of these commodities are intended, do not work and produce, and consequently have nothing to give in exchange for their wants, these commodities so produced will have to lie unsold. The poverty therefore of those who do not work is a direct reason why there is no demand for commodities produced ; it nullifies the labour of those who have produced ; it leaves the producer in the same position as if he had not produced at all. It is evident, therefore, that all must work ; there must be no exceptions. There is no use in one-half of a population working and producing, and leaving the produce to rot because the other half who have not worked are not able to buy. Labour must be compulsory. The more labourers, the more wealth. If the poverty of a portion of a community be the direct cause of the poverty of the other portion, no matter how much the other portion may produce, then, the only remedy is to remove the poverty by compelling all to work. No other remedy is possible, Not only must all be compelled to work, all must be compelled to work in such a manner as to obtain the maximum result from their labour : the more work the more wealth. But though actual poverty may be removed by compelling all to work, and a demand in general created for saleable commodities, still the evil of competition would remain. Certain branches of industry would compete with other branches of the same industry ; and while such a condition would exist increased production would only have the effect of increasing the evil. Competition, therefore, must cease to exist. How. can com­ petition be made to cease ? There is only one way : there must be equilibrium ot occupations, that is, the various industries must be so balanced, that the amount pro­ duced in any one industry must not be a surplus of what there is a demand for. If the produce of any one industry were more abundant than there was a demand for, then there would be depression or stagnation in that industry. We do not mean, as some political economists mean who cry out that there is overproduction, that industries in general should be restricted ; we mean only that industries should not be allow to overgrow themselves. That does not mean that men should be kept half idle; if men are not wanted in one industry, there are plenty of other industries for them. Hence we conceive that with every man working so that he may have something to to give in exchange for his wants; with every man, aided by science, producing the greatest possible amount so that he may have the greatest possible amount to give in exchange for his unlimited wants ; with equilibrium of occupations, so that no particular industry would produce more than the population naturally demanded, we conceive that poverty would be unknown; that the present barbarism and savagery of our civilisation would disappear ; and society would have more of the elements of perfection. NO-CAUSES AND FALSE REMEDIES. I. Ov.er-Population.—Since the dawn of political economy as a science, " over­ population ” has been adduced as one among the causes of poverty. That " over-popu­ lation ” is essentially a source of poverty is self-evident, if we attach any meaning at all to the word. If the population of the British Isles were such that in town and country, �6 moorland and upland, a man could just rind elbow room, then indeed you would say we were over-populated ; and should try to find elbowroom in some other part of the globe But we have not arrived at such straitened circumstances as that yet; we are in fact a considerable distance from that. It is one thing to say over-population is an evil • it is another to say the British Isles are over-populated. What part of the habitable’globe was ever yet over-populated ? We maintain that “ over-population ” is not the cause of either of the two great evils which we have pointed out as the causes of poverty. We maintain there is no such phenomenon in the British Isles as " over-population.” That there are multitudes who can get no employment is no reason for saying there are too many people here. These multitudes could get employment if labour were properly organised. Evidently a large population does not diminish the productiveness of labour. Neither does the fact that there are multitudes without employment prove that there can be no work here for them ; and that they should go elsewhere to find employment. That would be the case if the work of a country were identical with the work of miners, who having a limited quantity of work to do, must necessarily have it finished at some time. When the mine is worked out, they must go to some other mine. But the work of a nation is not identical with that. The manufacturer will never be in want of materials for labour. He can dig down 4,000 miles without injuring his neighbour. To illustrate further Suppose a settlement of 1,000 persons had formed a society among themselves, and by judicious apportioning of occupations, had formed themselves into a miniature nation, in which each man found ample demand for the product of his labour, why could not 1,000, or 10,000 more settle down there too, provided they adopted and maintained the same internal.organisation as the first thousand. Where everyone found demand for the product of his labour, there would be no cry of ‘‘over-population.” But if that internal organisation were destroyed, and occupations lost their commercial equilibrium, then, necessarily there would be a loss of employment for some. Suppose a few thousand missionaries were to go to Africa to evangelise the Hottentots, there would probably be a cry from some after a time that there. was" over-population " in the Hottentot terri­ tory. But [let these few thousand missionaries betake themselves to the making of drums, wooden pipes, spears, or whatever may be in demand, and the “ over-popula­ tion ” would disappear. It is not “ over-population ” that causes want of employment; it is want of employment that causes “ over-population.” It is the want of equilibrium or organisation in the occupations of life that condemns men to walk about idle, when they earnestly desire to work. The existing poverty will not be alleviated by diminish­ ing the population. As long as'the various industries remain unorganised, as long as some are permitted to live in voluntary pauperism and beggary, as long as one industry is permitted to compete with another, to reduce the value of labour to its lowest value, so long, with ‘‘overpopulation,” or a sparse population, poverty will exist. II. Landlordism.—No greater despotism or diabolical wrong than our present system of landlordism could exist on the surface of the earth. It has been the cause of misery and death to millions through all the centuries of its existence. It has given a few a monopoly over the soil of this earth, which was made for the human race; and thereby has consigned the happiness and lives of the many to the caprice or selfish tyranny of the few. Men have been forced by landlordism to life-long slavery, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of others. Humane men, therefore, seeing the evils of the accursed system, have cried out for the destruction of landlordism. Such a cry cannot and will not be vain. Landlordism, or private property in land, is unjust, and must be swept away. But though landlordism has restricted the spirit of progress in man, and prevented the development of natural wealth; it . must be remembered that its abolition would be only half a remedy. Abolished it must be; but its abolition will not alone suffice as a foundation for national prosperity. There are many who believe that if private property in land were abolished, we would then be on the road to wealth and happiness. But land nationali­ sation would only be a means towards the first condition of wealth, viz., increased pro­ duction. It would not accomplish the second condition, viz., equilibrium of occupa­ tions. Were the land owned by the State, we would then have co-operation in labour, aided by scientific machinery, as the suitable means of getting the greatest produce from the land, We would then expect increased production from the land. But with­ out equilibrium of occupations there would be the same life and death struggle as now. Were the land possessed by the State there would be increased production ; but what would that avail if competition forced down the prices of that produce to a low degree. Land must be nationalised, as the first condition towards increased production ; it must be followed by equilibrium of occupations. If State ownership be not of itself the whole remedy, how much less the ownership �called “ Peasant Proprietary,’’ You will not abolish the evils of landlordism by creating an army of landlords. You will not destroy a great evil, says Henry George, by chopping it up into small pieces. To talk of “ peasant proprietary ” bringing any appre­ ciable happiness to the cultivators of the soil is to talk nonsense. It is said existing rents are too high. But suppose all the rent of the United Kingdom were abolished, what perceptible benefit would it be to any individual in the United Kingdom? The rental of the land of the “ United Kingdom ” is about ^67,000,000. Wererent abolished, it would be equivalent to a donation of less than £2 for every one of the population. “ Well, you say that itself would be something.” Yes, indeed; it would procure for each a suit of clothes, or some trifling playtoy. It may be said that present high rents are the cause of great poverty ; but you will not introduce an era of blessedness or tolerable prosperity by merely reducing them, or even abolishing them. In our present social condition a few pounds is a matter almost of Life or Death for many ; but if the life of'man is to be anything beyond the damnable inane anarchy of to-day, a few pounds will be a matter ®f indifference. The present cultivators of the soil may desire to have the land sub-divided and allotted to them, to take their stand on it, and call it their own ; but there are more people in the British Isles besides the cultivators of the soil. To-day the majority when they rise in the morning cannot point to any spot of earth, and say, “ Here can I rest unsubjected to the caprice of any one man to drive me forth a wanderer.” Were land allotted even in minute sub-divisions to individuals the same could not be said. The entire abolition of private property is necessary for the first condition of wealth. To sub-divide land would be a means of preventing co-operation, and far from introducing wealth, would probably be not a means towards a greater increase of production than we have at pre­ sent. But whether there would be increased or decreased production would not be a matter of much moment as long as our present anarchy of labour existed. The worst evils of humanity are associated with landlordism. These evils will not be abolished by instituting the system of landlordism on a small scale, or on any scale of it. The improvidence, recklessness, and poverty have been a necessary outcome of the system; and the effects will not be removed till the cause is removed. III. Overproduction.—-Many remarkable cries have been raised since the creation of the world, but this cry of “ Overproduction ” seems to be the most remarkable. I do not. see how any man of common intelligence would say there was such a thing as overproduction. “You have produced too much,” they say; “the supply is greater than the demand.” Well, I can only say with Carlyle “ That is a novelty in this in­ temperate earth, with its nine hundred millions of bare backs ! ” Good heavens ! what shall we say of the audacity of the man who stands up and declares too much has been produced. “ The supply is greater than the demand.” Indeed ! And will you tell me at what time since the creation of Adam was there a greater demand for all the com­ modities which this world can supply ? Millions of bare backs, shoeless feet, hatless heads, and empty stomachs ; and still the cry is “ there is too much produced.” We who are workers call God to witness that we cannot lay our hands upon one-twentieth of what we demand. A supply to satisfy us may be existing on the earth, but gods and demons forbid us to touch it. There are millions of commodities hanging up in the shops, and no one buys them. Very true. But if people came and bought as fast as you could take them down, you would not say then that there was “overproduction.” People say there is overpro­ duction when commodities cannot be sold. But why cannot they be sold ? Evidently because those who would buy them have no money. And now the ultimate question, why the would-be buyers have no money, is the very question.we are trying to solve, and certainly will not be solved by saying that overproduction is the cause of poverty and no demand; when the fact is that there was never in the world’s history a time when workers required more if they could only obtain it. There are millions of com­ modities, I say, hanging up in shops and we cannot obtain them. We have no means of obtaining them. Give us the means of obtaining them and then there will not be overproduction. Grant us the means of producing more, and then we will have more to give in exchange for all these commodities rotting on shelves. Increased production on the part of every one is the first condition of wealth ; what absurdity then to say there is overproduction. For such a ravenous, covetous animal as man there could never be such a thing as overproduction. And you would remedy what you call overproduction by compelling workers to cease their producing for some time until we all get naked and hungry, and then, you say there will be a universal demand for all kinds of commodities. But if I cannot obtain one-hundreth of what I want now, how will I obtain all what I want by ceasing to produce ? The evil lies not with overproduction ; it lies in the fact that there is not universal production—equilibrating production on each individual’s part. �8 . IV. 1. REE I rade.—What does Free Trade mean ? It means free and unrestricted importation of goods. Free Trade has been condemned as the cause of poverty and depression of trade. The various industries of the “ United Kingdom ’• have had to compete with foreign produce. Such competition has had the effect of decreasing prices here, and creating overflowing markets. On such grounds has Free Trade been condemned. But suppose we returned to either partial or complete prohibition, how would the two great evils of deficient production, and anarchy of occupations be remedied ? To institute protection or prohibition either partially or wholly would be useless unless the industries were organised. The two essential remedies of increased production on the part of all and equilibrium of occupations, must be instituted first; all other remedies will be merely subsidiary. Absolute Free Trade has its evils just as landlordism has its evils. But the abolition of ,fee Jrade or landlordism would be of themselves only half remedies. No one can ration­ ally deny that absolute Free Trade may ruin a country. Were the sole industry of the United Kingdom orange-growing, and had it to compete with Spain, it is evident our orange-growmg would be useless. The natural advantages of one country may render some of its industries capable of destroying similar industries in other less favoured countries. Absolute Free Trade has not the advantages claimed for it. Its advocates point to the extension of our industries as a result of Free Trade. They point also to cheapened prices and say it has brought luxuries within the reach o’f all. But if prices of commodities have been cheapened, labour has also been cheapened, and consequently its good effects have been counteracted. As to the extension of industries, they have been forced into existence by pressure of competition. Absolute Free Trade cannot continue. It would be antagonistic to the equilibrium of occupations. We will retain what is lawful of tree Trade; we will abolish what is detrimental. We must have free what we cannot produce; we must prohibit what we can produce in abundance. V. Non-Co-Operation.—There are some who say the poverty of the people can be remedied by co-operation among the people themselves. No one will deny that co­ operation is the only means of getting the highest production from labour ; but it must be remembered that there are two conditions for wealth and prosperity, viz :—-Increased production and equilibrium of occupations. With co-operation, increased production would come, but not equilibrium of occupations. Competition would still be in exist­ ence, and would be at a higher rate than now. The fact that there is not general co­ operation at present does not account for the universal poverty ; for with co-operation, the competition of the various trades would tend towards their destruction. . V?' Capitalism.—The Socialists of to-day cry out for the abolition of capitalists. Capitalists have tyrannised over the workers; have given them wages barely able to sustain life ; these have been the evils of capitalism. But capitalism is not universal; and yet poverty is universal. Were the existing system of capitalism swept away, and the operatives themselves formed into co-operative communities, by each one contri­ buting a share of capital, I say even that would be no safeguard against competition and consequent depression. Co-operative societies have flourished ; but that has been because of their limited number : if the whole British Isles were formed into co-opera­ tive communities there would still be competition. Co-operation truly means increased production, and consequently increase of wealth ; but it in nowise means just distribution of wealth. With co-operative communities alone men may work as long and laboriously as now, and still reap very little benefits of it. VII. Intemperance, Improvidence, Want of Education.—It is said the evils of intem­ perance and improvidence have kept portions of the masses in a condition bordering on absolute starvation. The amount we spend in intoxicating drinks yearly in the British Isles is /126,000,000. It is about ^3 per head of the population. Do you believe that by rooting out intemperance, and thereby saving to everyone that ^3, you will per­ ceptibly increase the welfare of the people ? Three pounds granted to each individual in the year is only a matter of a plain loaf or a sweet one occasionally. We claim for every individual a life embracing all the advantages which modem civilisation can bestow. Do we possess that now; or are we in any slight degree approaching it ? Intemperance must be destroyed as one cf the many evils of life ; but its destruction must be accompanied by intelligent scientific organisation of mankind. The one will not suffice without the other. The want of technical education among our industrial classes has been assigned as one of the causes of our chronic poverty. We are said to be far behind some of the Continental countries. Truly. Germany was the first European country to recognise the advantage of technical training ; and, as a consequence, she has made more progress than any other country in manufacturing. But at the same time there are two techni- �9 callj' trained men in Germany for every one that can find employment suited to his training. All these so-called remedies are useless without equilibrium of occupations. You may train workmen to the highest degree in their profession but unless the number trained in each profession be regulated by the demand for them you will have com­ petition among the members of these professions, and consequent low wages. Educa­ tion alone therefore is no remedy. HOW APPLY THE REMEDY. Who is to apply the remedy? Who is to compel the unwilling to work; locate isolated workers into co-operation; and determine the equilibrium of occupations ? Evidently such work is the work of a government. At first sight there may appear difficulties in the way of applying the remedy. But why should there be a difficulty in applying a remedy if that remedy be proved to be for the benefit of the people. The first duty of the government would be to divide the population into industrial communities, so that each community may be capable of being centres for factories. The next duty would be to determine approximately the amount of every saleable commodity for which there would be a demand in every com­ munity. Let us suppose one of these industrial divisions to consist of 10,000 persons. We can determine approximately the number of shoes for these 10,000 persons to be 50,000 pairs in the year ; the number of hats 40,000; the number of loaves of bread 30,000. per week. That being determined for such a community, we see that if one shoemaker could make 1,000 pairs of shoes in a year, then 50 shoemakers would be re­ quired for such a community. More shoemakers than 50 in that community would be an injury to each other. So if one hatter could make 1,000 hats in a year, then 40 hatters would be required for the same community. And if one baker could bake 3,000 loaves in a week, then 10 bakers would be required. But you say, " What would the remaining 9,900 persons be doing?” Have we not wants enough to keep these 9,900 employed, even supposing an occupation to be allotted to each man. There are about 12,000 different occupations in the British Isles ; every man needs a little of the service of each. Given the amount required to be produced ; and also the amount each person is capable of producing, it is only a problem of arith­ metic to find how many workers are required in each occupation, so as to create an equilibrium of supply and demand. The population of the British Isles is about 35,000,000 ; the amount of every commodity utilised in daily use by such a population can be determined. The number to be employed in each occupation can be determined. We look forward to the development of science, and the means of shortening human labour, or, at least, the means of getting the greatest possible produce from a man’s labour, as the principal means of increasing the welfare of man. You may object : In case machinery and science should be so developed, that comparatively few would be able by working all day to supply all the necessaries required by the population, multi­ tudes would have no occupation; for the very reason, you say, that machinery, and all means of high production, would tend, as it has tended in the past, to throw persons out of employment. Granting that such a high rate of production may arise, and that comparatively few could supply multitudes, it would not follow, that equilibrium of occupations would be destroyed. If comparatively few, working ten hours a day could supply ten times their own number, then by reducing the time of labour down to one hour a day, both suppliers and supplied would have their share of work. The approxi­ mate amount of commodities of every description required for the population being determined ; the numbers to be employed in each occupation, based on the resources of scientific research being determined ; the next duty of the State would be to organise the factories already existing, and to institute others in localities naturally adapted to such factories. In order that the State may institute and organise factories to the best advantage, it will be necessary for the State to be the owner of all lands and buildings. Land must therefore be nationalised. Society must be nationalised. Private individuals could not be left in possession of either buildings or land ; because the tenants would have to pay rent to the owners ; and the payment of rent or interest to any private indi­ vidual is another name for tyranny and robbery. The State must become the owner of all lands, railways, ships, buildings, and all means of distribution and exchange. Com­ pensation must be given for all these. How much compensation should be given ; or whether any should be given for land, are debatable questions; but those who are desirous that our present system of anarchy and poverty should cease, will not dispute about reasonable compensation. Following, however, computations already made, the land value of the United Kingdom has been estimated at £,2,000,000,000 ; the railways �JO anyuA aqy pun ‘iiupnpojd ut paXoyduia oje uopuyndod yynpE jno jo qyjnoj-auo ynoqv XyUQ qjOJtUOO UI OAty oy yyB ayqBUO pynOAX BUO-XyuOMy BAOqB UBXH XjOAB JOJ Xnp B qjOAX sjnoq oaxj uEqy ssay ‘paiyddn Xyjadojd ojoax Xjaurqaura jt ynqy payujysuomap uaaq suq yj ■yuBayiuSisuT ysouqB pajaptsuoa aq pyno.vx yunoitre jBqy ‘Xyaiaog pasTjEuopBjq jo uoijbs -iueHjo aqj japup ‘uoiyByndod aqj jo pBaq jad ogj you st jt ynq 'tuns aSusy e sjuaddr jj ooo'ooo'ooo'zy jb pajEunysa uaaq snq ,, mopSuyx pajiup ,, aqj jo strops puBy aqj jo snjBA sqx i uoajaqy SuiqyXjaAa pun 'saurpytnq ‘puBy aqj yyn assqajnd ajBjg aqj pynoa ‘qsB noX ‘.xxoq puy ’diqsjauAxo aqj sauinssB ajEjg aqj uaqAx pajBSuaduioa aq ajojajaqy jsntu yuasajd jb Xyjadojd ssassod oqA\ asoqj, •aSuEqaxa puB ‘uoijnqyjjsip 'uopanpojd jo stream aqj yyn ptre 'sdyqs ‘sXuAxyiBj 'sSuipyinq 'spirey yyn jo jouaxo aqj aq yynqs ajEjg aqj ynqj stream jnqj, •pasqEUOijBU aq jsnm Xjaiaog -pasiyEuopBU aq jsnui ptreq <; osjb ujbj duaqa b je jnoqny jnoX jo aanpojd aqj yyas oj noX syaduioa jnqj uoijtjadmoa you ji st ‘dnaqa sayaijjn asaqy ya8 noX jnqy jubjS uoAxy ‘Suiqjoyo pnq ptre pooj pnq pire ! sa^ i Suiqjoya ptre pooj deaqa sn joj ajnaojd uoijtyadmoa you ssoq <; Sutqj yutayauaq b uotjpadmoa yon st yng •uopanp -oid pasBOJOUT ujojj poAtjap aq yyiAt syyauaq ou sasnaa uoiyiyadmoa ypupy 'ojej jsoaxoj jtaqy je uauiqjOAx jo so^eax aqy ^utdaaq jo nyqudna st uoppaduiOQ -auiES aqy ureuraj SBAtjBjado jo sbSeax aqy pun ‘asuajaut yyps Xbui uotjanpojd jo bjej aqy ynq ! anjy Xja7\ I XrpyBOAX you are saApnjado aqy yyps pun ‘aanpojd oy uiaqy adoq jbao pynoa sax sb qanui sb aanpojd jo junoure snouijoua ub SuipyaiX are sotjojobj jno yuqy anjy you yi st ynq SNOLLoafao •pasqBOj aq pynoAx Suiaq-yyaAX yntaos pun qyyBOAx jo suoijtpuoa aqy ‘puBtuap ajEuipjo-oa b pun uotyanpojd pasEajatq qyjAt aauayq ‘uotyanpojd jo snydjns ajaqy ajaqAx Xyuo sysixa uoppadtuop •uoppadtuoa joj uiooj ou aq pynoAx ajaqj 'Supsixa Xjysnput jo qauujq Xue ut snydjns ou ‘joj ! ysixa you pynoAx uotypadtuoa suoiyud -noao jo mnijqqinba qyq\\ •pa^uBqaxa Xytpnaj aq you Xbui paonpo.rd sSutqy aqy qSnoqy ‘XjjaAod ou ‘Supyuads Xyyayjys 'aq ubo ajaqy ‘Sutanpojd auoXjaAa qjiAX. qjB joj qjyuaAX jo asBOJauT joj uopypuoa ysjy aqy st qatqAx ‘yyB Xq uopanpojd pasuajaur aq pynoAx ajaqjp •jBaddBsrp pynoAx XyjaAod aynnyadjad puuayBurSpo qaiqAX saauEjsmnajia aqy ! ystxa pynoAx qyjBaAt joj Xjnssaaau sjb qaiqAX suoptpuoa aqy ‘jnoquy jo uopESiUExtio ub qans qji/W ■sayapjB ayqBajBS aqy jo uoyyonpojd aqy uo papuadxa jnoqny jo anyn.x ayqEjinba aqy Xq pautmjajayx aq yyiAx saatjd ‘suopnd -noao jo tumjqyyTnba SutqsiyqBjsa uopyjadtuoa Xq pauyuijayap oje saapd ‘yuasajd yy auioq je sapryuunb yuaraqjns ui paanpojd aq trea qaiqAX sapipotutuoa jo uopEyjoduq aqy ysuyB§B uoyyiqTqojd aq osyB ysnut ajaqy ynq iXjyunca stqy ur aanpojd youuna sax qaiqAX saprpotutuoa asoqy ut apBJj, as-ij ayaydmoa aq ysnui ajaqq purod ysaAxoy syi oy jnoquy jo anyBA aqy jo UMop buiajoj b puu uoryiyadmoo aq XyrjEssaaau pynoAx ajaqy ‘ysixa pyno.vx apBjj, aajq; aynyosqu sb Suoy sb yng •ayqissoduii st yy oy ujnyaj oy pun ‘uoiyaayojg dn uoaiS aAtq oax : uoiyaayojj suuam yuqy ‘pres aq Xeui yy •payjodtui Suiaq tuojj payyqiqojd Xyyayjys aq pynoqs uiopSuiyy payiupy aqy joj sappuBnb aynnbapE ut paanpojd Suiaq jo ayqEdEO ayaiyjE Xuy -suopEdnaao jo umTjqyyinba paqsiyqBysa aqy qyiAX ajajjayui oy you sb os payuynSaj aq pynoqs syjodun aqj, ■qyynaAx jo uopipuoa ysjg aqy si tyaiqAx ‘uopanpojd jo yunoure yuajS ynqy aAuq you pynoAx sax Xjosynauioa you ojoax jnoqny ji ‘jaqyouB jo uopanpojd aqy uo spuadayx uopanpojd s.ubui auo joj punuiap aqy sb joj ! yyn uo Xjosyn'dtuoa aq pynoAx jnoqnp •aauaSiyyayui pajinboB ptre yujujuu sjunpiAipur yuqy oy SuipjoaaB aynyg aqy Xq pauiuijayap aq pynoAx jEnpiAtpuT qana oy payyoyyu uopudnaao aqjp ’ayByg aqy uiojj yuatuyuioddu stq aAiaaaj pynoAx {EnpiAiput XjaAvr -jnoquy jo jaXoydma puu ystyHyidEa aqy aq pynoAx aynyg aqg ■paqsqqEysa aauo jnoqny jo tunijqqrnba aqy qjnysip oy payytuijad aq pynoa sjoynynaads jo sjojnyuoApu ajBAijd oy<y ’jnoquy jo yojyuoa aroqAx aqy oAEty pynoqs ayBjg aqj, •uiaqy pred aq oy uopusuadtuoa joj ayyyiy e ytEAX pynoqs sjouaxo saAyasmaqy yyua oq.xx asoqy ysqy ysnf Xyuo st yt ‘paAJBys Xaqy ayiqAx paqjOAx OAnq oqA\ suoqyttu jo qjo.xx aqy uaaq SBq ruopbtity paytupy aqy ut Xyjadojd aqy sb ! payaayja aq paau uuoy oyq asEqajnd ,sjboX jo jaqmnu b Xq jouaxo aqy auiooaq pynoa ayuyg aqj, •yuBogiuSisut sb tuns aqy jo uoiyejapisuoa aqy ayEdiapuB j paynaoApu OABq J yuamujaAog yuioog aqy japun ynq ! yunoure bSjbj b sjuaddu ynqy saauEysmnajya yuasajd jno uj -uopuyndod aqy jo auoXjaAa joj obiy ynaqn aq pynoAx ajnqs s.auo qoua 'uoiyuynoyBO aAoqu aqy ^uiAioyyog • Xyjadojd uouiuioa aqy jo uoissassod spjEAxoy ajuqs yunba ue aynquyuoa pynoAx auo qanyq pi jo sjouaxo aqy atuoaaq oy ojb aydoad aqy ysqy suuam Xyjadojd siqy yyB jo jouaxo aqy atuoaaq oy st ayuyg aqy Xes oj; -ooo'ooo'oo&bj jo yuyoy e Suiqum ! ooo'ooo‘oz(>-1/ sXurpyinq aqy ! ooo‘ooo'or7 sdiqs aqy : ooo‘ooo‘oo67 b st or �sjiao puB auiua aqj pB jo asnua ajBUipjn aqj uaaq snq XjjaAod jBqj aas ubo uaui jbuoijbj pB uaqA\ jug [ paapuj 'auiija §upjiuiuioa uiojj ajdoad juaAajd uopBjnqijj pun Xjjbaoj istnrepxa apaasE snoidaqj, ‘XjjaAod jnq asp outqjou aAjasap ‘Xjasiui oj sSupq uBinnq uuiapuoa oj sb juejXj b qans si asjaAtug siqj jo jojebjq aqj jnqj OAatpq oqM asoqj I jsbj jnqj sb uopjassB snouiaqdsEjq b qans oj Xjdai on aqBui j -asjaAiug aqj jo jojnajp aqj Xq pautEyjo si ji jnqj pun ! uopnjiABJ^ jo axej aqj sb jsixa Xpjns -saaau sb jsniu XjjaAod jesjoaiuu Suijsixa aqj jBqj OAatpq oqAx suosjad oje ajaqj Mouq j aqj jo os quiqj oqAx suosjad ajn ajaqj Axouq j ; ppoAx aqj ui XjjaAod on aq pjnoa ajaqj jnqj ajqtssoduii si ji Xbs oj uBaui noX o<j i ajqissoduii si ji Xbs noX oq 'uiii] joj aauBqa ou si ajaqj pps jnq ! aounjouSt pun ‘XjaSpnjp ‘XjjaAod uiojj jpsunq UAopaj oj s§uoj ubui qang 'sjpqj oj joijbjui si’ ajp siq Xpunjan jnqj spaj jnq ‘sjeuiiue jbuoijejji aqj aAoqn st aq Xjijebj ui jnqj SA\ouq ! ajp jo apoui jajqou auios joj sSuoj XjaSpnjp Xynp siq jb Xeaxe Suippojd’ ueui qang -ajiijEU jo suopBJidsE jnjMBj aqj Suispnaj uiojj uiiq pajuaA -aid jnqj" uiajsXs jniaos aqj pasjna jou SBq ‘aq oj jqSno ajp UBiunq jnq-w jo Supaaj jseoj aqj ‘ssauajqou jo jauijsui jseoj aqj uiiq in SuiAEq ‘oqAx ubui b ajaqj sj ‘tuajsXs jnqj Xq spua asaqj Suiuibjje’ uiojj pajuaXaid si jaX pun ‘ajp UBtnnq ajoui b pnaj oj SuiSuoj pun ‘jajqou Jouiuioaaq jo snojisap si ubui b jBqj ‘joej aqj st ‘Xbs j ‘tuajsXs Xue jo uoijeu -uiapuoa jsojbbjS aqj, ‘pauiBjjBun pps uopiqtUE jnoX jo jaafqo aqj jnq Xjoixue qjiAX jno ujoax oabjS aqj oj oS pun ‘qjpaq JnoX ‘Xauoui jnoX ‘ajp apqM jnoX aayuans Xbui noX : pautBjjB aq oj pua auios 'ajp jo juauiaouauiuioa aqj ui noX ajojaq jnd Xbui noy ■uotjiquiB siq aspnajjouueo ‘juaiuaauEApE joj joSeo pun ‘qjOM oj snoixun puB SuipiM st oqkx ubui b jnqj jobj aqj st uopipuoa pepos juasajd jno jo sjiao jsajBajg aqj jo auo •aoijsnfui pun uopjojxa §uispoBjd jnoqjtM. oaij pjnoa Xaqj ajaqAx uop -rsod b ui saApsuiaqj'puy uaqj ppiOM ‘ujnjaj ui jnoqnj qanui SuiaiS jnoqjiAV pajjoddns ja8 oj oSbubiu oqAx sjojaop ‘sjoXaxej ‘sjuBqojaui jo sjsoq aqj ‘paqsyqsjsa Suraq suop -Bdnoao jo tunijqpinbg -asBaa jsnui uiajsXs b qang ‘sjaqjo jo jnoqB[ aqj Xq pajjo’d -dns saApsuiaqj jaS oj oSbubui juajopui aqj puB ! Xjsauoq jbao spBAajd Suiuuna ! ajasnui sjanbuoa uiEjg gjOM siq jo sjinjj aqj jo uiiq qoj oj jaqjouB jo jqSp aqj jou jnq •. qjoAx oj ubui Xja/a jo jq3p aqj aSpapxouqaE a,\\ (PjqnuiuBp jou ji si ‘sjaqjo jo aoun -uajuiBin aqj joj jjo.xx oj auios sutnapuoa qaiqAX uiajsXs jBqj puy gjOAx oj uEiu Xjoab jo Xjnp pun jqSiJ aqj aSpapxouipB oax ! ijjoaa jsnui uaui ppoAX aqj jo pua aqj pig •uopipuoa jBiaos juasajd jno ui ubui Xub joj ssau -iddeq ou si ajaqj pjOAx auo uj ’SupjaS jo aauBqa Xub aq Xbui ajaqj jaAajuqAx joj jaqjo qaua uaaMjaq ajquiBjas suouoabj b ‘bjejjeai b ajq puy ptA\ uaui asaqj—pjBAtuo uiaqj saSjn jnq 'sjjas sb soaij Jtaqj jno §Bjp oj uiaqj jiuuad jou jjiai ssajSojd joj sjoupsut asoqM asoqg -saajoj oiubSjo jo ssbui ojoui b jpsuiiq ubui .‘ XjaSpnjp jBaiujojnE ajaiu b ! Xjiubui ub ajojajaqj uiaqj oj st ajig 'ajy uiBjsns oj qSnoua uibS ubo Xaqj ji paysijBs ajB Xaqj ‘qjjBOAx oj SutJidsB uiojj jbj juqj ‘paqsnja os ojb sbssbui aqg ’ojejjeax b pun Xjiubui ub qjoqsi juasajd jb ajiq -SutXofua jo ajqBdBO si ubui saijnxnj jo saSejUBApu aqj pu sueoui qatqAA ! ajnstaj puB qjjBBM Suijq pjno.vv paqojaqs OABq oa\ qaiqAi uiajsXs aqg 'ACESJALSH HHX JO S3f)VJLNVAaV •uitms jo quts jaqjta jsnui aq uiiq uodn jnaq oj satuoa uopijadiuoa uaqAt jnq : uoijanpojd-japun jo uopanpojd-jaAO qjtM ‘Xuiouoaa ou jo Xuiouoaa qjiAi ‘Xjjsnpui ou jo Xjjsnpui qjtAX aauajstxa ub jno aqa Xbui ubui y Suojjs aqj Xq uodn pajduiBJj pun UAtop paqsnja aq oj qnaAx aqj pun ‘qjOAx uiojj jyauaq apjq dnaj oj ‘japjnq >[jom oj ‘jaSuoj qjOAx oj uaui sjaduioa jBqj uoppaduioa si ji aas jou saop oqM ‘ uopijaduioo jo Jia9 aqj sojouSi oqA\ ubui §uiquiqj Xub ajaqj sj 'Xuiouooa puB Xjjsnput jo sjaajja aqj SutXjipnu jo ajqBdBO st qatqAx ‘uoppaduioa jsuibSe suoioa jiaqj osibj oqA\ ojb ajaqj A\aj Axoq juq : qjjBOAx jo sjuauiaja bje asaqj jnqj Xpsnf SuiAaipq ‘Xuioucaa pun 'uopanpojd ‘Xjjsnpui joj jno Xja ajdoag ‘asp Surqjauios jo paau si ajaqj aas jou saop auoXjaAa jnq ! jBqj jo paau aqj saas auoXjaAg -sassnp SuiqjOM aqj Suouib Xtuouoaa pun Xjjsnpui jo sjiqnq ajouiojd pun asnajaui oj si XjjaAog joj jubax oax Xpauiaj Xjuo aqj jBqj pins si jj ■ssauisnq jo qauBjq ojbuSoo auios ojui pasiuB§jo aq pjnoa sjaqBuiqajBAx siydjns aqj pasnaja -ap puBUiap aqj ji ubasj -sjBq jo sotXjs axbu joj puEuiap snonupuoa b axou si ajaqj sb auiBs aqj jsnC saqajBAx ui suoijuoaui axbu jo ‘sajXjs axou joj puniuap jubjsuoo b aq Pjuoax ajaqj Xjiunuiuioa XqjpaAx e ui ‘auip a]qBjaptsuoa b sjsbj jBqj apijjB ub st qajBAx b qSnoqg ’uiaqj joj juauiXojduia Xub aq jou ppoAx aiaqj Xpuanbasuoa puB ‘sjayBtuqajBAx joj puBUiap jaqjjnj aq jou pjnoAx ajaqj ‘saqajBAx Xes ‘sapijjB uiBjjaa qjiAx patjddns auiooaq pjnoAx pE ajaqAx Xjiuntuinoa XqqBOAX Xjoa b ui JBqj osje panXin aq Xbui jj •XjautqoEui jadojd Suisn puB ‘paXojduia ajaAx qjOAx oj ajqB suosjad pB ji aq pjnoAx jnoqBj pnuuu aqj jo junouiu aqi jnajg A\oq : XjauiqaBui jouajui uiojj paAijap si auiooui jboj§ JBqj, ’jBaX-B ooo‘ooo‘oo£‘iy jb pajEptapa st jnoqEj jpqj ii ♦ �12 world, what then can be said in its favour ? Poverty has existed now for some hundreds and thousands of years ; but that is no proof that it is impossible to remove it. Poverty has existed for centuries, not because of any laws of the Creator, but because of the laws of men—because of Might against Right. The day has now come when the few shall not trample the many ; when Might and Right shall be on the same side. A nobler life than the present is possible for every man; I have shown it to be possible. No laws of God or the Devil prevent it being possible ; it is man himself that renders it impossible. The human race want organisation of labour, equilibrium of occupations. The era that introduces that, will be a blessed one. Then the time, money, and energy a man will expend will not be spent in vain ; he will gain some reward for his labour. If his ambition be reasonable he will have the satisfaction of seeing it gratified. The inhuman feline scramble for wealth will then cease. The evil deeds which men commit in order to attain ends they cannot attain by fair means will no longer be necessary. Men will not then be afraid to live; self-destruction will not be necessary to end the miseries which are the companions of poverty. Men too will become more human; more God-like; less brutal: less demon-like. Incessant drudgery, which deforms the body and leaves no opportunity for intellectual culture or enjoyment will vanish into the past. Society then will deserve the name. Each human being brought into this world will be deemed a blessing, not a curse. A bright era of intelligence will take the place of stupidity and ignorance. Men will realise that we cannot live without society ; that the more intelligent a man is, the better for his neighbour. “ It is as reala loss," says Emerson, “ that others should be low, as that we should be low; for we must have society." WHO IS TO APPLY THE REMEDY ? Here let us ask the question : How is it that although schemes for the welfare of mankind have been propounded, have been demonstrated to be for the good of the people, have been fought for, still they are unaccomplished ? The masses through all ages have wished to be emancipated from their slavery ; there have been brave men through all ages who have struggled for their redemption ; yet their redemption has not been realised. How comes it ? Well, the reasons are clear. The people of a country are compelled to be subject to the laws of the country. The laws for the masses of mankind have through centuries been made by the few who have made them in their own interest. From the dawn of history the few who have managed to get possession of the wealth and power have made laws to degrade others in order to elevate themselves. The laws were not made to benefit the people, because those who made the laws did not represent the people. But you say we have changed all that now; the lawmakers now represent the people— at least the people give them the opportunity of making laws. Perfectly true. But though the masses have the power of electing persons to represent them in national assemblies, of what use is that if the people who are to decide for or against Reform are so ignorant concerning social evils and social remedies that they are unable to knowtbe merits or demerits of the remedies proposed. One-half of the people of a country are generally opposed in their opinions on social questions to the other half. Not till the majority of the people are freed from hallucinations ; not till they come to understand thoroughly the real causes of human poverty, and the futility of the so-called remedies of to-day, can you expect any more blessed era than the one we live in. The people must be educated. Till that is accomplished, nothing is accomplished. It is folly to suppose that because people are taught to read, they will read, or will be capable of seeking out for themselves a solution t® the problem of human misery. It is true the masses are able to read: it is in nowise true that they are able to think. For the thousand men says Ruskin, who can read and speak, you will find one who can think. The masses are ignorant and indifferent. If there is to be a nobler life for them their ignorance and indifference must vanish. "Why are the masses," says Emerson, " from the dawn of history down, food for knives and powder "? The heirloom of the masses from the dawn of history down, has been poverty and misery ; and they have grown so accustomed to it that they take it for granted that poverty must exist in the world. They have no hope beyond the present. Their only desire is to obtain sufficient to keep them alive. We can account for such a low standard of human progress ; for anyone who looks around him, and sees the cruel wrongs and sufferings that men endure without uttering a word of complaint, will also see that poverty and misery are looked upon as a thing which must necessarily be, and for which there is no remedy. When the ignorance of the people will pass away, their indifference will pass away. They must be educated : in that lies the hope of better things. They must be taught �13 that there is a remedy for poverty, They must be made to know what that remedy is. Alas ! what a world of labour lies open there before all earnest men. One of the many reasons which have kept, and are still keeping nations in a state of slavery, has been the absence of organised union. They who fight for nobler aims must fight in unison. And not a union of sentiments alone will win the battle ; but steady, wise co-operation. Can you point to any nation where the people as a whole are acting in real unison for their common good ? No. The masses condemned to toil for mere subsistence, either in the dingy lanes of crowded cities, or on the lone wastes of mountain land, have no time or energy to think of remedies for social evils even if they would. Do I then expect from these downtrodden masses the commencement of a new era? No; but I look forward to those select few to whom the favour of Nature and Human Destiny have given souls capable of feeling for the degradation of their fellow­ men, and clear-sighted intelligence to see wherein lies the cause of our miseries. I look forward to those noble and courageous few who have endured the worst hardships of life, have triumphed over them, and are determined to lead a nobler existence or die. I look not to the things called “ Governments ” for the advancement of a nation, but to the nation itself. “What intellect,” says Carlyle, “can regulate the affairs of these millions of labouring men ? No one—great and greatest intellect can do it. What can ? Only these millions of ordinary intellects, once awakened into action ; these well presided over may do it.” By each individual getting a clear idea of what he is to do, and what must be done—only by that means can a nation prosper. But how can the people be educated ? Let us learn from the past. Men have laboured in the past, and have written books to point out to mankind a pathway from their slavery, but their efforts have been vain ; they have passed away unknown to the working millions. Even to-day movements are on foot for the regeneration of the human race ; but the nature of these movements are known only to those immediately connected with them. It is not sufficient to scatter noble opinions broadcast; there are barren soils for them to fall on. It is in the real contact of mind with mind that the dormant intelligence rouses itself into action. Men come together in the market place to buy and sell the scanty produce of each others' labour; but they must also come together in order to elevate human existence. Looking forward earnestly to the advent of a more human existence, and asking myself the grounds of my hope, I again appeal to those noble few in whom the spirit of Right and Justice must make itself known against oppression and injustice. Ye courageous Few! my hope rests upon you. Organize! organize! organize your fellow­ men. They are ignorant, and know not the way ; you must point it out to them. The poor two-footed slave far away on his mountain patch knows nothing of you or of your thoughts till you speak. Hide not, I say, the light that has been given you. Gather together your fellow-men in the thoroughfares and there teach them that a nobler life than a life of slavery is possible for every man. The doctrines which have caught men’s hearts, and which they have followed for centuries, were so preached. Teach them there is a remedy for all the miseries of our present existence ; that they themselves are to apply it. Is there a man who shall dare to say we are well enough ? For the base, worthless, indifferent you must have pity. You may have enemies, as all noble men have had since the creation of the world. But fear not; the spirit of a nobler existence is abroad, and the time of man’s redemption is at hand. The institutions of the past have failed to bring social happiness to mankind. They must change. There are some who cannot foresee the good a change may bring them ; but fear they may lose by it. These will be your enemies. But venture forward ; you shall have the many millions on your side. You may make sacrifices, but you should remember that there is but one life given you, and no chance for you for evermore after that. The tomb shall close over you, and your chance of leading a noble life and of causing others to lead it shall have passed away for ever. Is life worth living at present ? “ Life is an ecstasy” says Emerson; but alas how few there are who can say likewise. Is it worth living a life of monotonous drudgery ? There is no form of life worth living at the present moment if it be not in combatting with all the energy that is in you against the tyrannical wrongs, the insane bedlam delu­ sions of our age. No Demon-God is ruling over and condemning you to misery and scorn. If we are in misery it is because of our own unwisdom. Then why are we unwise ? If the life of man can be elevated why not attempt it ? This beautiful earth was made for us, and shall we be condemned to drag out our existence in some obscure corner without any chance of beholding the fairest portions of it? The wonders of creation and the knowledge and secrets gained by generations are unknown to the mass of men : they are born and they die as the lower animals. Let us then urge forward, fearing not for the cause that has Justice and the masses of men on its side, heeding not �M the opposition of those who foolishly fear a change, and be determined that we mus; have a better life, or die nobly struggling for it. Let us not fear: we shall not be alone the whole civilized world has risen against tyranny, oppression, and slavery. When all men shall know each others efforts, and shall be bound together in one common brother­ hood, to demand freedom it shall not be denied them. SUMMARY. Chap. I.—The feelings of man are easily aroused; he will rise up in resentment against an angry look er word. But why not arise with noble indignation and with earnest endeavour strive to throw off the yoke of poverty that outrages all the dearest instincts of man ? Chap. II.—Why are we poor ? We are poor because, first, we do not produce enough : second, the demand for the products of labour is not co-ordinate with production itself. Chap. III.—How, then, can we increase the produce of labour ? By co-operation ; bv the establishment of factories; by the highest adaptation of scientific machinery ; by compulsory labour. Chap. IV—How maintain a co-ordinate demand for the produce of labour? By establishing equilibrium of occupation ; by having as many workers in an occupation and no more than the wants of the community necessitate. Chap. V.—What are the false remedies for our universal poverty? Diminution of population, destruction of landlordism, restriction of production, protection, co-opera­ tion, abolition of capitalism, education, temperance, providence. To diminish population by emigration or other means, and still leave occupations disorganised, will not cause any decrease in the universal poverty. The United Kingdom seems to be over-populated because the workers are not organised. In a community either populous or otherwise, without equilibrium or organisation of occupa­ tions, the great monster of Competition will exist. So with the other false remedies, which are no remedies because such phenomena as over-population, over-production, intemperance, improvidence are the effects of poverty and the disorganisation of occupations ; while the abolition of landlordism, free trade, and capitalism would be only half-remedies. HOW APPLY THE REMEDY. Chap. VI.—The State would (ist) determine approximately the amount of every saleable commodity necessary for the population. (2nd) It should determine the number of workers to be employed in each industry, so as to produce the amount required, and no more. (3rd) The occupations so organised should be carried on co-operatively, totally under State supervision, compulsorily. The State must be the owner of all lands, conveyances, means of transit, of distribution and exchange. Everything tending to destroy equi­ librium of occupations should be prohibited. OBJECTIONS. Chap. VII.—Is not our production as high as we could expect ? Does not competition bring cheap articles within the reach of all ? How is it possible for the State to buy up such immense property as the land, railways, ships, buildings ? At the high rate of produc­ tion proposed, would not some industries in a short time produce so much that there would be no further use for them ? Would not increased habits of industry, thrift, and temperance remove poverty ? ADVANTAGES OF THE REMEDY. Chap. VIII.—Life would cease to be an inanity and a warfare. To become rich it would not be necessary for one to prey on another. A man’s ambition would be realised. Inhuman strife and dark deeds would be unknown. Man will become more god­ like, less demon-like. WHO IS TO APPLY THE REMEDY ? Chap, IX.—The people must apply the remedy, The people must be educated, must be made to understand there is a remedy for poverty ; that they themselves are to apply the remedy. They must be taught that poverty is the worst crime in the world ; that they are many, their oppressors few. They must know that henceforth their watchwords must be “ Union ! ” “ Organisation ' ” You whom nature has gifted with a love of. justice and nobleness, be you in the vanguard, and in social circle or public thorough­ fare, by word and action, proclaim the doctrine of man's social redemption ! �OBJECT. The Establishment of a Free Condition of Society based on the prin­ ciple of Political Equality, with Equal Social Rights for all and the complete Emancipation of Labour. PROGRAMME. 1. All Officers or Administrators to be elected by Equal Direct Adult Suffrage, and to be paid by the Community._ 2. Legislation by the People, in such wise that no project of Law shall become legally binding till accepted by the Majority of the People. 3. The Abolition of a Standing Army, and the Establishment of a National Citizen Force; the People to decide on Peace or War. 4. All Education, higher no less than elementary, to be Free, Com­ pulsory, Secular, and Industrial for all alike. 5. The Administration of Justice to be Free and Gratuitous for all Members of Society. 6. The Land with all the Mines, Railways and other Means of Tran­ sit, to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property. 7. Ireland and all other parts of the Empire to have Legislative Independence. 8. The Production of Wealth to be regulated by Society in the com­ mon interest of all its Members. 9. The Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange to be declared and treated as Collective or Common Property. As measures called for to palliate the evils of our existing society the Social-Democratic Federation urges for immediate adoption The Compulsory Construction of healthy artizan’s and agricultura labourers’ dwellings in proportion to the population, such dwellings to be let at rents to cover the cost of construction and maintenance alone. Free Compulsory Education for all classes, together with the provision of at least one wholesome meal a day in each school. Eight Hours or less to be the normal working day in all trades. Cumulative Taxation upon all incomes above a fixed minimum not exceeding ^300 a year. State Appropriation of Railways, with or without compensation. The establishment of National Banks, which shall absorb all private institutions that derive a profit from operations in money or credit. Rapid Extinction of the National Debt. Nationalisation of the Land, and organisation cf agricultural and industrial armies under State control on Co-operative principles. As means for the peaceable attainment of these objects the SocialDemocratic Federation advocates : Adult Suffrage. Annual Parliaments. Proportional Represen­ Payment of Members ; and Official Expenses of Election out of the Rates. Abolition of the House of Lords and all Hereditary Authorities. Disestablishment and Disendowment of all State Churches. tation. Membership of Branches of the Federation is open to all who agree with its objects, and subscribe One Penny per week. Those ready to form Branches should communicate with the Secretary, Social-Democratic Federation, Bridge House, Blackfriars, E.G. �Socialism and Soldiering ; with some comments on the Army Enlistment Fraud. By George Bateman (Late 23rd Regi­ ment), with Portrait. With an introduction by H. H. Champion (Late Royal Artillery). Price One Penny. The Working Man’s Programme (Arbeiter Pro- gramm). By Ferdinand Lassalle. Translated from the German by Edward Peters. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d. The Robbery of the Poor. Demy 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d. By W. H. P. Campbell. The Appeal to the Young. By Prince Peter Kropotkin. Translated from the French by H. M. Hyndman and reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny. The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever penned bv a scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years' imprisonment at the hands of the French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers Wage-Labour and Capital. From the German of Karl Marx translated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice. New and cheaper edition, Royal 8-vo., price id. By Edward Carpenter.—Social Progress and Indi­ The Man with the Red Flag: B eing John Burns’ vidual Effort ; Desirable Mansions ; and Co-operative Production. One penny each. I ’Ik 14 Speech at the Old Bailey, when tried for Seditious Conspiracy, on April gth, 1886. (From the Verbatim Notes of the official short­ hand reporter.) With Portrait. Price threepence. The Socialist Catechism. with additions from Justice. By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted Demy 8-vo., price id. 20th thousand. Socialism and Slavery. By H. M. Hyndman, (in reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on “ The Coming Slavery.”) New Edition, with portrait. 16 pp. Royal 8-vo., price one penny. The Emigration Fraud Exposed. By What an Eight Hours Bill Means. By T. Mann H. M. Hyndman. With a Portrait of the Author. Reprinted by per­ mission from the Nineteenth for February, 1885. Crown 8-vo., price one penny. (Amalgamated Engineers). New edition with portrait. Thousand. Price one penny. Socialism and the Worker. By F. A. Sixth Sorge. Price id. An explanation in the simplest language of tne main idea of Socialism. The Chicago Riots and the Class War in the United States. By H. M. Hyndman. Reprinted from Time, June, 1886. Price one penny. International Trade Union Congress, t August, 1886. Report by Adolphe Smith. Price Three-Halfpence. held at Paris, 24-pp., Royal 8-vo. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The nationalisation of society Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource L'Auton, J. Theodore Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 14, [2] p. ; 27 cm. Notes: Publisher's list and information on the Social-Democratic Programme on unnumbered pages at the end. 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 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context G4980 Subject The topic of the resource Socialism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The nationalisation of society), 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 Nationalisation Socialism https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/0b717936779277b929edb3fc01d7d242.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=ICm3OL1qtSK8hcFdgtbakx9ouyGA-kujq0pQUTnUZ8aiy9mbUXsacr5I-T7LGzngp943Jy34rP5oXOEG9to6Tp-tQxgPUe19uIzvtOICcTtvJV8BX-JwjvOAnfMbzllXq3w2kaxlkGfVKLyyAVTyMqWcYgAItujrrAGgxl4Zms%7EfbaX3IKsufduRvd8BXAtYdJTTHHGc0NygtuIUslN2ltohFevu40n9XXRnPhJpL9IC0oCfDsi%7EblNwdbAlgOYU1VdN02VpusQeVQuyiaFBzilfBOpHxoFe1t%7ESvN5pGo7hDFGh%7EO-UlQ3AWyeL96aVa99j69cSLbgXc3m-ha8-Pg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 46d261da6bc1eeeac9252622c15b274b PDF Text Text PRICE ONE PENNY. JL F L H .A FOR S O CIA LISM: BY J . L. MAHON. Delivered in the course AMONGST THE of a MINERS Socialist Campaign ON STRIKE IN Northumberland, 1877. “ AS LONG AS OUB CIVILIZATION IS BASED UPON PROPERTY OUR BICHES WILL LEAVE US SICK, THEBE WILL BE BITTERNESS IN OUB LAUGHTER AND OUB WINE WILL BURN IN OUB MOUTH. ONLY THAT GOOD PROFITS WHICH WE CAN TASTE WITH ALL DOORS OPEN AND WHICH SERVES ALL MEN.”— Emerson Published at the “ Commonweal” Office : 13, Farringdon Road, London, E.C J. Beall, Printer, Stationer, &c., St. Andrew’s Street. 1887. �“ I ask you to think with me that the worst which can happen to us is to endure tamely the evils which we see, that no trouble or turmoil is so bad as that; that the necessary destruction which reconstruction bears with it must be taken calmly ; that everywhere—in State, in Church, in the house­ hold—we must be resolute to endure no tyranny, accept no lie, quail before no fear, although they may come before us disguised as piety, duty, or affection, as useful opportunity and good nature, as prudence or kindness.”—William Morris. “ The ivorld in a commercial society belongs to the capitalists, the share of oiunership which each man pos­ sesses being his capital. In order that wealth may be produced .... toorkmen and horses must till the land; the sun must shine and the rain must fall upon the field, when the seed will sprout and grow; bees must per­ form the operation necessary to the fertilization of the flower, when the fruit will form and swell; birds must join in the work by destroying the noxious insects which would otherwise destroy the harvest; and so on. When all is done some of the agents claim a share of the product; the men and cattle must be fed; the birds make good their right to share the wealth which their labour, as much as that of the men and horses, has produced; and even the earth demands a part as seed for the next crop. After all the deductions are made, which the harshness of nature renders necessary, the balance belongs to the capitalist. To him it is a matter of indifference what natural agents are instrumental in the production of his wealth, and the labour of men does not, in his estimation, differ generically from that of birds or horses, and is more important only because the men are the phenomena over xohich he has most control........................... He groups together all the agents (including the workmen) that have co-operated in the pro­ duction of his wealth as elements of the efficiency of his capital, and measures the result of all their energies by the rate of profit he obtains.’'—Communal and Commercial Economy.—JOHN CARRUTHERS. �A PLEA FOR SOCIALISM Fellow- Workmen, I am sure that an appeal to you for a fair hearing is unnecessary. Socialism no longer meets with the jeers and abuse that assailed it, from workmen as well as others, only a few years ago. Discontent is just now so deep and general amongst the working-class, and the exponents of Socialism have worked so hard and enthusiastically in their cause that a respectful and sympathetic hearing is given them by people of all kinds all over the country. But, having cast off your prejudice see also that you put away all misunderstandings. Socialists are often accused of holding opinions which they are constantly preaching against, of wishing to bring about things which they are even now trying to abolish. It is said they wish to make an equal division of all wealth, bring all men to one dull level, put every man’s affairs at the mercy of State officials, make the sober support the drunken and the industrious work for the thriftless, stamp out individuality, abolish all incentive to invention, and to bring about these things by hanging every man with a decent coat on his back. Everything that malignity, jealousy, and sheer stupidity could string together has been said against the Socialists. Well, we don’t grumble. We know the way all great reform­ ers since the time of Christ have been received ; kicks and cuffs, and good chances of crucifiction or hanging in the end. But we take it all as a compliment to the goodness and usefulness of our principles. Ike need for Socialism. The chief cause of the great spread of Socialism of late is the dissatisfaction felt by all classes with things as they are and the evident uselessness of all other proposed remedies. England yearly grows richer, yet her working-men and women are practically as bad off as ever '' �A Plea for Socialism. they were. Our power of making goods gets greater every year, but we have not yet found a way of supplying the wants of those who make them. Food, clothes, houses and all the needs of life and happiness are here at our hand in abundance, at our hand also is the means of making ten times more than we have, and yet the workers who make these things are living in wretchedness, squalor, and semi-starvation. Many boast of the power, fame, and grandeur of the British Empire, but few notice that in the lowest depths of social life, in the shims and the back streets, is an ever growing mass of people with­ out hope in life, for life to them means a fierce scramble ever getting fiercer; a miserable subsistence ever getting more miserable. These people have no respect for Society, for Society has no respect for them. “ Law and order’' is to them only a fancy name for the power that keeps them in the mire. They hate the law and they hate society, and their hatred is just. They are too many to be ignored, too strong to be despised, too much wronged to bear good will to those in power. Their ranks are recruited from the working-class every year : and some prolonged depression of trade may see them powerful enough to put Law at defiance ; as indeed they were during the early months of 1886. Civilization ! Pro­ gress ! National Greatness !—mockery and humbug while those who make the wealth are ever in want and in fear of want, and those who neither toil nor spin live in luxury. People feel the evil of all this and they see nothing in the ordinary proposals to undo it. The Socialists have, as is generally admitted, brought forward the most consistent and satisfactory criticism of the present system of society, and from the same line of thought the real remedy must likewise come. Toryism, Liberalism, and Radicalism. Out of all our party fighting we don’t seem to get much benefit. The working­ class are gradually losing faith in the political parties of all shades. Toryism is a dead horse—not even worth a kiok. Tliberalism has always meant, and Liberals have always worked for, the interests of trade and commerce, under the idea, no doubt, that the welfare of the people could best be served in that way. But every day makes it plainer that the whole object of modern commerce is to enslave and cheat the people. That trade is carried on solely for the profit of the �Political Parties. 5 capitalists, whose chief aim is to increase profits by decreasing wages. The Liberals have posed as the friends of the people on questions of merely political importance. But on any question affecting the “ rights” of property—such as the factory acts, or adulteration acts—-some of the best Liberals were the workmen’s worst enemies. It is now plain to most workmen that there is nothing to choose between Liberals and Tories, but that the bitter opposition of both may be expected. Then what of the Radical party ? But where is it I Wander­ ing about after a dozen leaders, chasing fifty fads, but having no policy to give to the people which will excite their enthusiasm or better their condition. A more hazy, indefinite, muddled-up party never existed than the latter day Radicals. Their chief function has been to blacken the boots of the Whigs, and except that now and then we hear a little murmur­ ing, their function has been well fulfilled. The days of popularity for the Liberal party are now over. They are on the high road to perdition ; in going there they will kick the Tories in front of them, and drag most of the Radicals, as usual, at their coat tails. The Socialists spend a good deal of energy in trying to win over the Radical workmen, and this energy is well spent. In the Liberal agitations hither­ to the Whig Dukes and cotton Lords have given the money while the Radical workmen have furnished the enthusiasm. The Socialist cause will gain by detaching these enthusiasts from the false friends of the people and using their powers for a better purpose. The reason why I attack Liberalism and Radicalism more than Toryism is because many people believe in them, while no one believes in Toryism at all. The official Tories believe least of all in their own principles, for when in office they masquerade in Liberal garments— which shows at once their duplicity and their depraved taste. In my opinion both political parties are humbugs, and the only difference between the Liberals and the Tories is that the Liberals are the most ingenious humbugs of the two. Labour Representation. Great things were expected if we got workmen into Parliament but very little has been realized. There are plenty of rich men in the House of Commons who are far more outspoken and independent than the Labour members. We, as workmen, ought to be thoroughly ashamed of the way we are represented. A few limpid lisping weak- �6 A Plea for Socialism. lings, who always truckle to the party chiefs, who never yet distinguished themselves by standing out sturdily for the interests of labour—who indeed have either forgotten or never knew what the interests of labour mean. A poor spiritless lot are they ! The best of them seem to have mistaken their business. They are grubbing away at “ Employers’ Liability Acts” as if legislation of that kind would by itself achieve much for the workers. In the Parliament of 1886 we had twelve Labour M.P.’s Our twelve apostles ! At that time the unemployed were rioting, so keen and widespread was their distress, all over the country. But our apostles did not like to disturb the arrangements of the Liberal Government. Labour was in bad straits : but, for a whole session its apostles sat sucking their thumbs and said never a word. In Northumberland during the strike, which began in February, 1887, the suffering and distress was very keen. The men were trying to resist an attempt to reduce wages which were already at starvation point. Surely the Labour M.P.’s might have used their position as members of Parliament to draw attention to the state of their constituents : had Northumber­ land been a county in Ireland, the House of Commons would have been ringing with the tale of the miners’ wrongs. No better illustration of the miserable incompetency of the labour M.P.’s could be brought forward. Had they possessed the least spark of vigour and sturdiness, the country would not have been in darkness as to the condition of their con­ stituents. • ■ ' If Labourers are to be sent to Parliament why make them middle-class men by paying them from T6 to £10 per week ? A workman in Parliament ought to get the wages of a London artisan and be enabled to live in the same standard of comfort. He should go there to work and not be ashamed of the object of his mission. Instead of that his first move is to ape the costume and manners of the cultured drones amongst whom he sits. The whole spirit and object of mere “Labour representation” is mistaken. The no­ tion that having “ labourers” in Parliament will do much good is a very silly and artificial one. Working-men are no better than other men, and middle-class men are no worse. It is some definate principle or ideal that must be taken up by the working-class before it can achieve anything. The Labour Representation movement has nothing definate in it. It �The root of the difficulty. 7 simply wants to get workmen into Parliament—not to do any­ thing in particular, just to loaf about, and look dignified, and turn lick-spittles to the Liberal party when occasion demands. This vague, hazy, scatter-brained policy will never do any service or any credit to the working-class. Representatives of this kind will be only half supported by workmen and de­ spised by upper class politicians. Let us resolve on a definate purpose and push that forward. Use Parliament as a platform if you will, but educate the people tp a clear under­ standing of what your aim and their aim should be. When you have cleared away some of the ignorance of the people— and that is the real obstacle to their progress—then a strong fighting party can be organized and there will be every chance of winning : at present with no particular object and no en­ deavour to find one, with nothing but a muddled-up notion of doing something, sometime, somehow; failure and ignominy are certain. The root of the difficulty. Now, in my opinion the error of the various political parties I have referred to is that they skim over the surface of these great problems. They are afraid or unable to go to the root of the matter and point out the cause of poverty. It is a paltry superficial kind of reasoning which tells us that the industrious are well-to-do, and the idle and thriftless poverty-stricken. I have no wish to gloss over the failings of working people, or to excuse their sins on the plea that the rich sin also and more heavily. But I think there is something mean and hypocritical about those who continually denounce the faults of the poor while they leave the rich man’s crimes unassailed. Let us denounce intemperance, idleness, thriftlessness wherever we may find * it; but let us be unsparingly impartial: let neither fame nor rank save the wrong-doer from the reprobation of his fellows. The faults of the rich do not excuse the faults of the poor, but they are often the cause of them. It is luxury that makes penury necessary. It is waste on one hand that entails scrimping and starving on the other. It is the legalised lazi­ ness amongst the rich that sets the example of loafing and * It is strange to see how this term, thrift, is misused. Thrift means making the best use of what you have. It does not mean selfish grabbing of all you can get, nor a crazy hoarding of things you can never use. Still less does it mean (as some sentimental moralists would have us believe) cowardly contentment with less than you are entitled to. �8 A Plea for Socialism. flunkeyism to the poor. It is because the rich man shirks his share of the world’s work that the poor man is overworked. And what is the cause of nine-tenths of the vice and callous­ ness of the working-men ? The long, dreary, and depressing toil they have to endure when in employment; the feverish anxiety about to-morrow’s food, and the future of their child­ ren when in the ranks of the unemployed. To most workmen life is an uninteresting past, a joyless present, and a hopeless future. The root of the great social question is that modern society treats the workmen as machines and the capitalists as lords of civilization. In a civilized society the capitalist is master of the land and minerals which no man made ; of the machinery which includes within it the toil and skill of countless generations; of the vast stores of wealth which all (except the capitalists) have helped to accumu­ late ; in short all the resources of civilization—which, without exception, are the produce of work—belong to one class. The only thing the capitalist, as such, does is to keep a firm grip of these things and never spend five shillings without a reasonable certainty of getting ten, fifteen, or twenty in return. Civilization is a huge arrangement for heaping up profit, and whatsoever will not bring profit to the holder of capital is prohibited by the laws of trade and commerce ; it is stigmatized as a thing that “won’t pay” (no matter how much good it may do) and banished from the business of life, and the world is thought lucky if some philanthropist or faddiBt take it up instead. Are we Slaves ? The pet delusion of the British working­ man is that he is free. How he came by this delusion, and why he sticks to it, I don’t know. It is interesting to notice that the British workman’s “patriotism” and fondness for proclaiming his independence varies with the rate of his wages and the security of his employment. At £2 per week he is sure that he is not a slave, and “never, never” will be ; at £1 he is doubtful about the reality of his freedom ; at 12s. he curses the British Empire and says, wisely, though not elegantly, that his freedom is a fraud. Now, what is a slave ? One who is compelled to work for somebody else. In this, the real sense, the working-class of every civilised country are slaves. They work and all the result goes to the capitalist and upper class ; they get back a few �The old slavery and the new. 9 shillings to keep them alive, for that is all their wages amount to. They are forced to work for the upper class, while the upper class does nothing for them, and therefore they are slaves. If the miner produces coal for the money­ lord, and the money-lord does nothing for the miner, then surely the miner is a slave. Every man who lives without doing useful work is enslaving some other people. It is work that keeps society going. Every man who eats bread, lives in a house, or burns coal is using the fruits of labour. Unless he renders some useful service to the baker, the builder, or the miner he is stealing from them and making them his slaves. A civilised society includes two main classes:—Workers and idlers, producers and thieves, slaves and slave-owners. The workers do everything for themselves, and support the other class besides. The upper class do nothing for themselves, and nothing for any-body else, so they are thieves and slave drivers. Not that they are individually conscious of stealing or oppressing, or should be individually punished for it. But the harm done is the same whether they are conscious or not. Besides, every sensible man ought to think of where his dinner comes from, and to reflect that somebody must have earned it; and that if he did not earn it he must have stolen it. The old slavery and the new. It is true that one man cannot call another his property as he would a horse or a dog, but does this make any essential difference ? The reason why men were once owned like cattle was simply that their labour might be used for their master’s benefit. Well, if their labour is still taken from them, even without the institution of private property in human flesh and blood, the result is the same. The capitalist does not to-day own the workman, but he owns the means by which only the workman can live ; and he says to him, “ You cannot labour without using the land and the capital; these things are under my control, and I shall only allow you to use them on condition that you take a bare living out of the produce of your own labour, and that you hand over to me all the balance over and above that.” The capitalist manages to ■enforce these terms. Nine-tenths of the modern workmen are mere slaves, getting enough each pay-day to keep them in bread till the next. In one respect they are worse off �10 A Plea for Socialism. than the olden slaves. When the employer has no further need for their services, he turns them adrift in the streets to find a crust as best they can; in olden times the slave­ owner, out of self-interest, always took care to feed and clothe his human property. In spite of all our boasting of freedom the position of the civilised workman may be summed up thus : He is allowed to earn his own living only when his labour will also yield a profit to supply the middle and upper classes with a living for nothing ; he gets only a small part of what he earns ; he is dependent upon others for the chance of working at all; and when he cannot be made an instrument of profit-grinding he is cast amongst the unemployed, and from thence too often he drifts to the gaol, the workhouse, or the lunatic asylum. The Slave Market and the Labour Market. A closer examination of the old and the new slavery will show still stronger points of resemblance. In olden times there was a slave market, to which men were driven in gangs, goaded on by the lash of the slave driver. When they got there, they were sold at auction, like cattle, to the highest bidder. Now there is a labour market, at which human labour is bought and sold like other goods. The people have no alternative but to go and sell their labour, and they go obediently and docilely, and as long as the system lasts they must do so. Brute force is discarded, but the force of circumstances work to the capitalists’ interests instead. The slave driver’s whip is only to be found in the museum, but the whip of hunger does the same work, and it bites as cruelly. But what is the difference when they get to the market ? In olden times they were put up to auction and knocked down to the highest bidder ; now they are compelled to compete against each other and are knocked down to the lowest bidder. From this competition for employment a strange and horrid light is thrown on the working of the capitalist system. The master takes advantage of the men’s misfortunes, and uses the unemployed to force down the wages of those in work. In short, slavery is still the basis of our social organisation. Our chains ud to be ugly black iron ; we saw them and e * abhorred them. Now they are finely polished and painted, and we think them ornaments and hug them ; but they are as strong as ever, and when the times of distress come we �Conquer the cupboard. 11 feel them gnawing and chafing us. We cannot be free while able, useful, and willing workmen starve in a land made wealthy by their own labour. Our freedom is an elaborate and ingenious hypocrisy while thousands are denied the chance to earn their bread in their own country; and while the whole working-class is only allowed to labour on condition that it will hand over the largest part of the result to the idle, useless, and vicious upper class. Conquer the Cupboard. The powei’ lies in the hands of the moneyed class, because they have the land and the capital completely in their control. The workers dare not till the soil of their own country, although thousands of acres of it are lying waste, unless they can produce a heavy rent for the landlord as well as a living for themselves. The factories also are closed and the machinery stopped in many districts. Here comes the narrow selfishness of the present system. The men who own the land and capital do not wish to use it themselves, and indeed could not. They simply have the power to prevent others from using these things, and they use that power to extort enormous profits from the workers. Let us compare society to an ordinary household. Imagine a family in which the father and several sons were the bread-winners, and the mother and several daughters housekeepers. Suppose they have a cupboard in which the food and other means of life are stored. This cupboard should be under the care of the housewife. But let us imagine that a stranger, who has done nothing to help in the work of the household, forces his way in, fixes a patent lock to the cupboard, and says to the household, “ In future this part of the house shall be under my charge. I shall always be ready to open it when you have anything to put in, but when you want any supplies I shall dole out just as much as I think is good for you. While you are filling the cupboard you shall get enough to keep you, and enable you to go on working, but no more. When the cup­ board is full you must stop working, and eating too, and you will be known as ‘ tramps ’ and the ‘ unemployed.’ ” Now, this family might fancy itself free ; it might meet in the back-parlour and sing paeans in praise of the grand system it lived under; it might also pass Bills and give each of its members a vote, or a dozen votes ; but as long as the �12 A Plea fok Socialism. stranger held the key of that cupboard he would be master of the situation, and the inmates one and all would be mere slaves of his. This is a fair simile of what England and every other civilised land is to-day. The workmen are filling the cupboard of the country, but the key is held by men who do none of the labour. While filling it they get a subsistence wage—seldom more—and when it is filled to overflowing there is a glut (a trade depression), and the men who filled the cupboard must go hungry and homeless because it is too full. Yes, this is why we starve in the midst of abundance, and the first duty of the working-class is to make good its claim to the fruits of its labour : it must conquer the cup­ board. The Socialist proposal is to take the land and capital from the private individuals who now unrighteously own them, and put them under the control of the community, and use them for the benefit of the workers. Capital must be the handmaid of labour, not its master. The resources of civilization must be used to benefit the people, not to grind profit out of them, as now. The aim of society must be to so dispose of the labour and resources of the com­ munity as to secure a fair living to all who labour for it. Socialism is based on the principle that as all society is maintained by labour, all should do a fair share of it. The bread we eat, the houses we live in, and the coals we burn are all produced by labour. If we use these things, we ought to produce them, or do some useful service to those who do. If we use these things, and live in idleness, we are stealing them. All we eat and drink and wear is made by labour, and if we eat without labouring we are stealing from some one else who has laboured. We should all do our fair share of the world’s work ! No man is too good to toil for his living; no man is so bad that he should be cheated out of his living when he has toiled for it. The Defence of Property. Whenever this doctrine of Socialism is stated a certain class of people cry out “ Confis­ cation !” “ You want to take men’s savings from them !” “You want the drunken and thrtftless kept at the expense of the industrious and careful I” All these parrot cries totally ignore the fact that to-day the thriftless are living on the �Property and Co-operation. 18 industrious, and that the whole string of evils they charge us with trying to bring about are here already, and we are trying to abolish them. When we attack the capitalists our opponents never defend the proper culprit: they bring up the workman with £100 saved, and try to turn prejudice against us by alledging that this would be confiscated. But the difference between a large capitalist and a workman with a savings bank account is very great and quite clear. The workman has earned his small capital; the other has not. Of course the taking of interest is wrong, no matter to what extent it may be carried. It must, also, be borne in mind that in dispossessing the landlord and capitalist we are not taking from them anything that they wish to use. We simply deprive them of the power of making others work for them. It is curious to notice how strong the blind greed for property is in the minds of those who have only a little. It is not the Baring or the Rothschild who is most bitter against Socialism. The kind of man who is fiercest in defence of the rights of property is the small shopkeeper who, perhaps, is £100 in debt. The silly scramble of modern days has frightfully narrowed mens’ notions of the real aim and pleasures of life. If the rich were to-morrow deprived of all the property they wrongfully hold, and set to work under decent circumstances for their living, it would be the best thing that ever happened to them. The true nobility a man can attain is by making himself useful to his fellows, and this distinction would be placed within reach of everybody by Socialism. The Co-operative Movement. 'The easiest line of thought towards Socialism is by considering what the Co-operative movement has done. Had anyone suggested thirty years ago that this movement would accomplish the revolution that it has in such a space of time, and by such humble agents, he would have been laughed at as a fool, or jeered at as an Utopian—just as Socialists are laughed and jeered at now. But by steady patient work a great change has been brought about, the petty shopkeeping class has been greatly lessened, an enormous amount of labour saved, and the process of distribution greatly simplified. But still the biggest part of the work has been left untouched. Distributive co-operation shows the workman the best and wisest way to spend his wages—once he has got them. Important as this is, the �14 A Plea for Socialism. question of how to get a just wage, or any wage at all, is still more important ; but co-operation at present cannot touch this question. Here Socialism steps in to finish what Co­ operation began. Indeed Socialism is but the full and genuine development of co-operation. We have introdoced Co-operation to the shop and the store ; now we must extend it to the mine, the factory, and the farm. Is it practicable ? Great difficulties lie in the way of Socialism, and much hard earnest work will be needed to bring it about. These difficulties are not due to Socialism being very Utopian, or very incomprehensible. Socialism is merely the application of common sense and justice to social order, but justice and common sense are strange and un­ known in these days, when veiled fraud and oppression reign supreme. Socialism would be simpler and easier to work, so far as the mere industrial arrangements are concerned, than the present system. Indeed we should try to make society as simple in its mechanism and our own lives as unpretentious as may be. The greatest curse of the present system is its unnecessary complexity of organisation, and the conflicting interests which Economists pretend are in har­ mony. The first step towards Socialism is to make Socialists ; to get together a great organisation of all who accept the principle. Different schools of Socialists may suggest different ways of realising the new society, but their differing in that respect is a hopeful sign, as it shows diversity and even some originality of thought. All Socialists agree that the principles of competition and monopoly now holding sway should be done away with, and superseded by a general and thorough-going co-operation. In fact we want a nation in which there are neither masters nor servants, but where all are fellow-workers. A solid combination of the Socialist movement could bring a tremendous power to bear on the politics of this country. That power should be used, not so much in bringing to pass petty measures, as in forcing the hand of the upper class. The futility of compromise. There is a class of wellintentioned reformers who are puzzling themselves to find a way of benefiting the poor without interfering with the rich. It is self-evident that this is a fruitless endeavour. �The future of Socialism. 15 The robbery of the poor by the rich is the first aim of capitalist production.It may be wrong for the poor to rob the rich ; it maynearly be as wrong for the rich to rob each other; but for the rich to rob the poor is the most abominable of all systems. There can be no peace between the two classes. The poor must cast off the leeches which are draining the life’s blood from them. The rich are really parasites on the workers. The dis­ tinctions of class must be abolished, for they only mean the right of the rich to rob and the duty of the poor to submit. But, although no peace can be between them, a peaceable settlement might be effected. The rich should be told by the toilers, “ Now, you have lived a long time at our expense, and we find that it is bad for both of us—it wearies you with elegant and enforced idleness, and it burdens us with overwork. We don’t want to hurt you for your past misdeeds, because for the most part you were unconscious of the evil you were doing, but you must do different in future. Those of you who are entirely useless, and most of you are, so we fear, we will keep in moderate comfort. We will give work to those of you who are able and willing to do it (and that is more than you gave us') ; a training to those who are willing and not able ; and the gaol or the lunatic asylum to those who are able and not willing.” These are the only terms on which this antagonism can be settled. It is nearly 2,000 years since St. Paul said, “ He that will not work, neither shall he eatand surely it is time we put the principle into operation. The future of the Socialist party. Everything points to the rapid growth of the Socialist party in this country. It lays definite principles before the people, and though these, as they require some independent thought and enthusiasm, may take some time to win acceptance, they make a deep and lasting impression where they do take hold. As time goes on and the difficulty and hardships which the present system im­ poses on the workers are more keenly felt, they will find out how shallow and ineffective is the hand-to-mouth policy of the ordinary politician. Times are coming when plain honest words and upright action will be needed to save the country from the horrors of a revolt of miserable and desperate people. �16 A Plea for Socialism. That revolution will come upon us, there can be no doubt. Its shadow is already cast over us. Socialists do not wish to make or to carrse a revolution: they only wish to point out that revolution, bred of the misery and inherent injustice of the present system, is inevitable. If the people are left un­ organised and ignorant, revolution may well seem a terror to all men. But we look to the coming change. We are pre­ paring to. meet it with a combined and intelligent people, a people wise enough to know their rights, strong enough to enforce them, and disciplined enough to guard them. We are carrying a message of hope to the poor, of comfort to the outcast, of joy to the desolate. We bid them lay aside despair, to take courage, and gather strength, for the time is at hand when, with enlightenment and determination, they may end for ever the folly, and crime, and misery in which their lives are now spent, and realise a noble, fraternal, social life, with labour, leisure, and liberty for all; a life in which we shall have “ Man without a master, and earth without a strife, And every soul rejoicing in the sweet and bitter of life.” Single copies of this address on receipt sale or distribution 50 copies 3/-; one THE pamphlet will be sent to any of threehalf-pence. Parcels for at cheaper rates : ioo copies, 5/-; dozen copies post free 1/- “COMMONWEAL, ” Official Journal of the Socialist League. A thorough-going weekly labour paper : contains a re­ view of the labour struggle and Socialist movement throughout the world; criticism on current political events; revolutionary poetry; review of books on the labour question ; and articles on science, art, history, and political economy in their bearing on labour questions. ONE PENNY WEEKLY. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Victorian Blogging Description An account of the resource A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library &amp; Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Conway Hall Library & Archives Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2018 Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Conway Hall Ethical Society Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Pamphlet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A plea for socialism : delivered in the course of a socialist campaign amongst the miners on strike in Northumberland, 1877 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Mahon, J. L. Description An account of the resource Place of publication: London Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm. Notes: Advertisement for the "Commonweal", the Official Journal of the Socialist League, on end page. Printed by J. Beale, St. Andrew's Street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The "Commonweal" Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1887 Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context T467 Subject The topic of the resource Socialism Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A plea for socialism : delivered in the course of a socialist campaign amongst the miners on strike in Northumberland, 1877), 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 Addresses Miners Northumberland Socialism Speeches