1
10
16
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ba92ac61d491eb62b28486e13393feb6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gFEMKcEbnix5GEEt1%7ElMQiWFr760RxiE%7EwINqX-hpGTgGinfqfgx0qpweveXKpjMobpDG%7E05f7f9bkSYogK4bjQ6PUWwLf32VTkUBZf-yFvG302bJ793yKjrpYKc8QJDKcc4dvWX3qyT6epdvRk%7E7guyhC-W%7EV1VzqS6JHoun-NjuvHNBC1epwQQ4YXQM5j07PUiJhyCfiXv8L6rkO%7E4UolygggeKXeVFzLSf3%7EFPMyi%7EwAyG1LMjyOoO8jFs2%7EsVqIG57zxTVb515lO-jB7vAHpfa3M46YN%7E7UeZdCJvKgLwcwnQQaEHUw8SyPnV2RduahfcHwftkDD0IQSDxGApw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3f23529afa838e82eeb8b2eb3d2dce18
PDF Text
Text
B %V I
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
G. W. FOOTE.
ITonbott:
X PROGRESSIVE
/
Y
Vi*
cm
'
PUBLISHING
COMPANY, .
28 STONECUTTER STREET, KO.
��B 2>7 (
ON
DARWIN
GOD
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1889.
�4
LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. 57. EOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
--------- •----------
Only a few feet from the tomb of Sir Isaac Newton,
in Westminster Abbey, lie the bones of Charles
Darwin. The two men are worthy compeers in the
scientific roll of fame. Newton’s discovery and estab
lishment of the law of Gravitation marked an epoch
in the history of science, and the same may be said
of Darwin’s discovery and establishment of the law
of Natural Selection. The Vrincipia and the Origin
of Species rank together as two of the most memorablemonuments of scientific genius.
In a certain sense, however, Darwin’s achievements
are the more remarkable, because they profoundly
affect our notions of man’s position and destiny in theuniverse.
The great English naturalist was of a.
modest and retiring disposition. He shrank from all
kinds of controversy. He remarked, in one of his
letters to Professor Huxley, that he felt it impossible
to understand how any man could get up and make an
impromptu speech in the heat of a public discussion.
Nevertheless he was demolishing the popular super
stition far more effectually than the most sinewy and
�4
DARWIN ON GOD.
dexterous athletes of debate. He was quietly revolu
tionising the world of thought. He was infusing into
the human mind the leaven of a new truth. And the
new truth was tremendous in its implications. No
wonder the clergy reviled and cursed it.
They did
not understand it any more than the Inquisitors who
burnt Bruno and tortured Galileo understood the
Copernican astronomy; but they felt, with a true
professional instinct, with that cunning of self-preser
vation which nature bestows on every species, including
priests, that the Darwinian theory was fatal to tlieir
deepest dogmas, and therefore to their power, their
privileges, and their profits. They had a sure intuition
that Darwinism was the writing on the wall, announc
ing the doom of their empire ; and they recognised
that their authority could only be prolonged by hiding
the scripture of destiny from the attention of the
multitude.
The popular triumph of Darwinism must be the
death-blow to theology. The Copernican astronomy
destroyed the geocentric 'theory, which made the earth
the centre of the universe, and all the celestial bodies
its humble satellites. From that moment the false
astronomy of the Bible was doomed, and its exposure
was hound to throw discredit on “ the Word of God/’
From that moment, also, the notion was doomed that
the Deity of this inconceivable universe was chiefly
occupied with the fortunes of the human insects on
this little planet, which is but a speck in the infinitude
of space. Similarly the Darwinian biology is a sen
tence of doom on the natural history of the Bible.
Evolution and special creation are antagonistic ideas.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
5
And if man himself has descended, or ascended, from
lower forms of life; if he has been developed through
thousands of generations from a branch of the Simian
family ; it necessarily follows that the Garden of Eden
is a fairy tale, that Adam and Eve were not the
parents of the human race, that the Fall is an oriental
legend, that Original Sin is a theological libel on
humanity, that the Atonement is an unintelligible
dogma, and the Incarnation a relic of ancient
mythology.
Let it not be forgotten, however, that Darwinism
would have been impossible if geology had not pre
pared its way. Natural Selection wants plenty of
elbow-room; Evolution requires immeasurable time.
But this could not be obtained until geology had made
a laughing-stock of Biblical chronology. The record
of the rocks reveals a chronology, not of six thousand,
but of millions of years ; and during a vast portion of
that time life has existed, slowly ascending to higher
stages, and mounting from the monad to man. It was
fitting, therefore, that Darwin should dedicate his
first volume to Sir Charles Lyell.
Darwin was not a polemical writer; on the contrary,
his views w7ere advanced with extreme caution.
He was gifted with magnificent patience. When the
Origin of Species was published he knew that Man
was not exempted from the laws of evolution. He
satisfied his conscience by remarking that “ Much
light will be thrown on the origin of man and his
history,” and then waited twelve years before ex
pounding his final conclusions in the Descent of Man.
This has, indeed, been made a subject of reproach.
�6
DARWIN ON GOD.
But Darwin was surely the best judge as to how and
when his theories should be published. He did his
own great work in his own great way. There is no
question of concealment. He gave his views to the
world when they were fully ripened; and if, in a
scientific treatise, he forbore to discuss the bearing of
his views on the principles of current philosophy and
the dogmas of popular theology, he let fall many
remarks in his text and footnotes which were sufficient
to show the penetrating reader that he was far from
indifferent to such matters and had very definite
opinions of his own. What could be more striking,
what could better indicate his attitude of mind, than
the fact that in the Origin of Species he never men
tioned the book of Genesis, while in the Descent of
Man he never alluded to Adam and Eve
Such con
temptuous silence was more eloquent than the most
pointed attack.
DARWIN’S GRANDFATHER.
Before Darwin was born his patronymic had been
made illustrious. It is a curious fact that both Darwin
and Newton came of old Lincolnshire families. Newton
wras born in the county, but the Darwins had removed
in the seventeenth century to the neighboring county
of Nottingham. William Darwin (born 1655) married
the heiress of Robert Waring, of Wilsford. This
lady also inherited the manor of Elston, which has
remained ever since in the family. It went to the
younger son of William Darwin. This Robert Darwin
was the father of four sons, the youngest of whom,
�DARWIN ON GOD.
7
Erasmus Darwin, was born on December 12, 1731, at
Elston Hall.
The life of Erasmus Darwin has been charmingly
written by his illustrious grandson.1 Prefixed to the
Memoir is a photographic portrait from a picture by
Wright of Derby.
It shows a strong, kind face,
dominated by a pair of deep-set, commanding eyes,
surmounted by a firm, broad brow and finely modelled
head. The whole man looks one in a million. Gazing
at the portrait, it is easy to understand his scientific
eminence, his great reputation as a successful physician,
his rectitude, generosity, and powers of sympathy and
imagination.
Dr. Erasmus Darwin practised medicine at Derby?
but his fame was widespread. While driving to and
from his patients he wrote verses of remarkable polish,
embodying the novel ideas with which his head fer
mented. They were not true poetry, although they
were highly praised by Edgeworth and Hayley, and
even by Cowper; but Byron was guilty of “ the false
hood of extremes ” in stigmatising their author as “ a
mighty master of unmeaning rhyme.” The rhyme
was certainly not unmeaning : on the contrary, there
was plenty of meaning, and fresh meaning too, but it
should have been expressed in prose.
Erasmus
Darwin had a surprising insight into the methods of
nature; he threw out a multitude of pregnant hints in
biology, and once or twice he nearly stumbled on the
law of Natural Selection. He saw the “ struggle for
existence ” with remarkable clearness. “ The stronger
1 Erasmus Darwin. By Ernst Krause. With a Preliminary
Notice by Charles Darwin. London : Murray, 1879.
�8
DARWIN ON GOD.
locomotive animals/’ lie wrote, ii devour the weaker
ones without mercy. Such is the condition of organic
nature I whose first law might be expressed in the
words, ‘ Eat or be eaten/ and which would seem to be
one great slaughter-house, one universal scene of
rapacity and injustice.’’ Mr. G. H. Eewes credits him
with “ a profounder insight into psychology than any
of his contemporaries and the majority of his successors
exhibit,” and says that he <c deserves a place in history
for that one admirable conception of psychology as
subordinate to the laws of life.” Dr. Maudsley bears
testimony to his sagacity in regard to mental disorders ;
Dr. Lauder Brunton shows that he anticipated Rosen
thal’s theory of “ catching cold ” ; and a dozen other
illustrations might be given of his scientific prescience
in chemistry, anatomy, and medicine. He was also a
very advanced reformer. He believed in exercise and
fresh air, and taught his sons and daughters to swim.
He saw the vast importance of educating girls. He
studied sanitation, pointed out how towns should be
supplied with pure water, and urged that sewage
should be turned to use in agriculture instead of being
allowed to pollute our rivers.
He also sketched out a
variety of useful inventions, which he was too busy to
complete himself. Nor did he confine himself to
practical reforms.
He sympathised warmly with
Howard, who was reforming our prison system; and
he denounced slavery at the time when the Society for
the Propagation of the Gospel held slaves in the Barbadoes, and absolutely declined to give them Christian
instruction.2
2 Erasmus Darwin, p. 47.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
9
No one will be surprised to learn that Erasmus
Darwin was a sceptic. Indeed there seems to have
been a family tendency in that direction. His sister
Susannah, a young lady of eighteen, writing to him at
school in his boyhood, after some remarks on abstinence
during Lent, said “ As soon as we kill our hog I intend
to take a part thereof with the Family, for I’m in
formed by a learned Divine that Hog's Flesh is Fish,
and has been so ever since the Devil entered into them
and ran into the Sea.” Bright, witty Susannah 1 She
died unmarried, and became, as Darwin says, the
“ very pattern of an old lady, so nice looking, so gentle,
so kind, and passionately fond of flowers.”
Erasmus Darwin’s scepticism was of an early growth.
At the age of twenty-three, in a letter to Dr. Okes,
after announcing his father’s death he professes a firm
belief in “ a superior Ens EntiumJ’ but rejects the
notion of a special providence, and says that “ general
laws seem sufficient ” ; and while humbly hoping that
God will “re-create us ” after death, he plainly asserts
that “ the light of Nature affords us not a single argu
ment for a future state.” He has frequently been
called an Atheist, but this is a mistake ; he was a
Deist, believing in God, but rejecting Revelation.
Even Unitarianism was too orthodox for him, and he
wittily called it “ a feather-bed to catch a falling
Christian.”
His death occurred on April 10, 1802. He expired
in his arm-chair “ without pain or emotion of any
kind.” He had always hoped his end might be painless,
and it proved to be so. Otherwise he was not disturbed
by the thought of death. “ When I think of dying, ”
�10
PARWIN ON GOP.
lie wrote to liis friend Edgeworth, “ It is always without
pain or fear.”
Such a brief account of this extraordinary man
would be inadequate to any other purpose, but it
suffices to show that Darwin was himself a striking
illustration of the law of heredity. Scientific boldness
and religious scepticism ran in the blood of his race. ■
DABWIN’S FATHER.
Darwin’s father, Robert Waring Darwin, the third
son of Erasmus Darwin, settled down as a doctor at
Shrewsbury. He had a very large practice, and was a
very remarkable man. He stood six-feet two and
was broad in proportion. His shrewdness, rectitude
and benevolence gained him universal love and esteem.
He was reverenced by his great son, who always spoke
of him as “ the wisest man I ever knew.’’ His wife
was a daughter of Josiah Wedgwood, and her sweet,
gentle, sympathetic nature was inherited by her
famous son.
She died in 1817, thirty-two years
before her husband, who died on November 13, 1848.
There is little, if anything, to be gleaned from any
published documents as to the opinions of Darwin’s
father. Upon this point Mr. Francis Darwin has been
too zealously discreet. Happily I have been furnished
with a few particulars by the Rev. Edward Myers,
minister of the Unitarian chapel at Shrewsbury.
Mrs. Darwin was herself a Unitarian, and she
attended with her family the Unitarian chapel in High
Street, Shrewsbury, of which the Rev. George Case
was then minister. The daughters were all baptised
�DARWIN ON GOD.
11
by Mr. Case and their names entered in the chapel
register; but the sons were for some reason baptised
in the parish church of St. Chad. Charles Darwin
attended Mr. Case’s school, and was by him prepared
for the Shrewsbury Grammar School.
Up to 1825,
when he went to the University of Edinburgh, he,
with the Darwin family, regularly attended the Uni
tarian place of worship. But in 1832, after the erec
tion of St. George’s Church, Frankwell, they left the
chapel and went to church.
“ Dr. Darwin,” says Mr. Myers, who succeeded Mr.
Case, “was never a regular attendant at the Unitarian
chapel, but he went occasionally. Indeed, he never
regularly attended any place of worship, and his
extreme view’s on theological and religious matters
were so well known that he used to be commonly
spoken of as ‘Dr. Darwin the unbeliever,’ and ‘Dr
Darwin the infidel.’ ”
The question naturally arises, how could Dr. Darwin
have seriously intended his son to become a clergy
man'? Mr. Myers offers, as I think, a sufficient
explanation. The Church at that time was looked
upon as simply a professional avenue, like the law or
medicine; and, as Mr. Gladstone remarks in his
Chapter of Autobiography, “ the richer benefices were
very commonly regarded as a suitable provision for
such members of the higher families as were least fit
to push their way in any other profession requiring
thought and labor.” But, the reader will exclaim, how
was it possible to include Charles Darwin in this
category of incapables 1
The answer is simple.
Darwin was not brilliant in his youth. !Iis great
�12
DARWIN ON GOD.
faculties required time to ripen. He failed as a medical
student because lie had an unconquerable antipathy to
the sight of blood, and was so afflicted by witnessing a
bad operation on a child that he actually ran away.
He was always regarded as “ a very ordinary boy/’ to
use his own words; and his father once said to him,
“ You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat
catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and
your family.’’3 It was a singularly infelicitous pro
phecy, but it shows Dr. Darwin’s mean opinion of his
son’s intellect, and enables us to understand how “ Dr.
Darwin the infidel” devoted his unpromising cub to
the great refuge of incapacity.
DABWIN’S EARLY PIETY.
Either the Rev. George Case belonged to the
more orthodox wing of Unitarianism, or the teach
ing at the Shrewsbury Grammar School must have
effaced any sceptical impressions he made on the mind
of Charles Darwin, whose early piety is evident
both from his Autobiography and from several of his
letters. And this fact is of the highest importance,
since it follows that his disbelief in later years was the
result of independent thought and the gradual pressure
of scientific truth.
“ I well remember,” he says, “ in the early part of
my school life that I often had to run very quickly to
be in time, and from being a fleet runner was generally
successful; but when in doubt I prayed earnestly to
3Life and. Letters of Charles Darwin. Edited by his son, Francis
Darwin. Vol. I., p. 32.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
13
God to help me, and I well remember that I attributed
my success to the prayers and not to my quick running,
and marvelled how generally I was aided.
Speaking of himself at the age of twenty or twentyone, he says, “ I did not then doubt the strict and
literal truth of every word in the Bible?’0 When a
little later he went on board the “ Beagle/'’ to take that
famous voyage which he has narrated so charmingly,
and which determined his subsequent career, he was
still “ quite orthodox.’-’ “ I remember/’ he says,
“ being laughed at by several of the officers (though
themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality/’0
Darwin charitably supposes “ it was the novelty of the
argument which amused them/'’ But why was the
argument novel ? Simply because the Bible is a kind
of fetish, to be worshipped and sworn by, anything but
read and followed. As Mill remarked, it furnishes
texts to fling at the heads of unbelievers ; but when the
Christian is expected to act upon it, he is found to
conform to other standards, including his own con
venience. There can be little doubt that the laughter
of his shipmates produced a powerful and lasting effect
on Darwin’s mind. His character was translucent and
invincibly sincere ; and the laughter of orthodox
persons at their own doctrines was calculated to set
him thinking about their truth.
ALMOST A CLERGYMAN.
Being a f allure as a medical student, Darwin received
i Life and Letters, vol. i.. p. 31.
5 Vol. I., p. 45.
' 6 Vol. I., p. 308
�14
DARWIN ON GOD.
a proposal from his father to become a clergyman, and
1 he rather liked the idea of settling down as a country
parson. Fancy Darwin in a pulpit!
The finest
scientific head since Newton distilling bucolic sermons I
What a tragi-comedy it would have been I
Darwin carefully read “ Pearson on the Creed,”
and other books on divinity. £< I soon persuaded my
self,” he says, “ that our Creed must be accepted.”
He went up to Cambridge and studied hard.
“ In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was also necessary
to get up'Paley’s Evidences of Christianity and his Moral Philo'
sophy. This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced
that I could have written out the whole of the ‘ Evidences ’
with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language
of Paley. The logic of this book, and, as I may add, of his
Natural Theology, gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The
careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any
part by rote, was the only part of the academical course which,
as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me
in the education of my mind. I did not at that tirqe trouble
myself about Paley’s premises; and taking these on trust, I
was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation.”
Darwin probably owed most to the Natural Theology
of Paley. Writing to Sir John Lubbock nearly thirty
years later, he said: “ I do not think I hardly ever
admired a book more.” Perhaps it was less the logic
of the great Archdeacon than his limpid style and in
teresting treatment of physical science which charmed
the young mind of Darwin. He had a constitutional
love of clearness, and his genius was then turning
towards the studies which occupied his life.
Scruples gradually entered Darwin’s mind. He
began to find the creed not so credible. One of his
�DARWIN ON GOD.
15
friends gives an interesting reminiscence of this period.
“We had an earnest conversation,” says Mr. Herbert,
4< about going into Holy Orders; and I remember his
asking me, with reference to the question put by the
Bishop in the ordination service, 4 Do you trust that
you are inwardly moved by the Holy Spirit, etc./
whether I could answer in the affirmative, and on my
saying I could not, he said, 4 Neither can I, and there
fore I cannot take holy orders/ ” Still he did not
abandon the idea altogether; he drifted away from it
little by little until it fell out of sight. Fourteen or
fifteen years later, writing to Sir Charles Lyell, he had
gone so far as to speak of 44 that Corporate Animal,
the Clergy.”
Looking back over these experiences, only a few
years before his death, Darwin was able to regard them
with equanimity and amusement. There is a sly
twinkle of humor in the following passage.
“ Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the
orthodox, it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a
clergyman. Nor was this intention and my father’s wish ever
formally given up, but died a natural death when, on leaving
Cambridge, I joined the 4 Beagle ’ as naturalist. If the
phrenologists are to be trusted, I was well fitted in one respect
to be a clergyman. A few years ago the secretary of a German
psychological society asked me earnestly by letter for a photo
graph of myself; and some time afterwards I received the
proceedings of one of the meetings, in which it seemed that
the shape of my head had been the subject of a public discus
sion, and one of the speakers declared that I had the bump of
reverence,developed enough for ten priests.”7
The Rev. Joseph Cook, of Boston, accounts for
7 Vol. I., p. 45.
�16
DARWIN ON GOD.
Matthew Arnold's scepticism by the flatness of the
top of his head. Mr. Arnold lacked the bump which
points to God. But how does Mr. Cook account for
the scepticism of Darwin, whose head was piouslyadorned with such a prodigious bump of veneration ?
ON BOARD THE “ BEAGLE.”
While at Cambridge, studying for the Church,
Darwin made the acquaintance of Professor Henslow
and Dr. Whewell. He read Humboldt “ with care and
profound interest/’ and Herschel’s Introduction to the
Study of Natural Philosophy. These writers excited
in him “ a burning zeal to add even the most humble
contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science.5'
Humboldt’s description of the glories of Teneriffe
made him desire to visit that region. He even “ got
an introduction to a merchant in London to inquire
about ships." Soon afterwards he became acquainted
with Professor Sedgwick, and his attention was turned
to geology. On returning from a geological tour in
North Wales with Sedgwick he found a letter from
Henslow offering him a share of Captain Fitzroy’s
cabin on board the “ Beagle," if he cared to go without
pay as naturalist. The offer was accepted, Dr. Darwin
behaved handsomely, and the young man sailed away
with a first-rate equipment and a pecuniary provision
for his five years' voyage round the world. This
voyage, says Darwin, “ has been by far the most im
portant event in my life, and has determined my whole
career."
Readers of Darwin’s fascinating A Naturalist’s
�DARWIN ON GOD.
17
Voyage8 know that his great powers were matured on
board the “ Beagled’ “ That my mind became deve
loped through my pursuits during the voyage,” he
himself says, “ is rendered probable by a remark made
by my father, who was the most acute observer whom
I ever saw, of a sceptical disposition, and far from
being a believer in phrenology ; for on first seeing me
after the voyage, he turned round to my sisters and
exclaimed, ‘ Why, the shape of his head is quite
altered.’ ”
During the voyage Darwin was brought into close
and frequent contact with “ that scandal to Christian
nations—-Slavery.”9 This was a matter on which he
felt keenly. His just and compassionate nature was
stirred to the depths by the oppression and sufferings
of the American negroes. The infamous scenes he
witnessed haunted his imagination. Nearly thirty
years afterwards, writing to Dr. Asa Gray, he wished,
“though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North
would proclaim a crusade against slavery.” His im
pressions at the earlier date were recorded in his
book, and it is best to quote the passage in full:
“On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil.
I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To
this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful
vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco,
I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect
that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was
8 A Naturalist's Voyage. Journal of Researches into the Natural
History and Geology of the Countries visited during the
Voyage of H. M. S. "Beagle” round the World. By Charles
Darwin.
9 Life and Letters,veA, i., p. 237.
�18
DARWIN ON GOD.
as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that
these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that
this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I
lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the
fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a
young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten,
and persecuted, enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal.
I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice
with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head
for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw
his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye.
These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish
colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better
treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European
nations. I have seen at Rio Janeiro a powerful negro’ afraid
to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was
present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating
for ever the men, women, and little children of a large number
of families who had longed lived together. I will not even
allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authen
tically heard of ; —nor would I have mentioned the above
revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded
by the constitutional gaiety of the negro, as to speak of slavery
as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the
houses of the upper classes,where the domestic slaves are
usually well treated; and they have not, like myself, lived
.amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about
their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull
who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching
his master’s ears.
It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty;
■as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are
far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of
their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested
against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified, by
the ever illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to
palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our
�DARWIN ON GOD.
19
poorer countrymen; if the misery of our poor be caused
not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great
is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see ;
as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one
land, by showing that men in another land suffered from
some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave
owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put
themselves- into the position of the latter;—what a cheerless
prospect, with not even a hope of change 1 Picture to yourself
the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little
children—those objects which nature urges even the slave to
call his own—being torn from you and sold like beasts to the
first bidder I And these deeds are done and palliated by men
who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who be
lieve in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth I”1
The sting of this passage is in its tail. Darwin
must have felt that there was something hypocritical
and sinister in the pretensions of Christianity. He
must have asked himself what was the practical value
of a creed which permitted such horrors.
SETTLING AT DOWN.
Darwin married on January 29, 1839. His wife
was singularly helpful, making his home happy, and
subordinating herself to the great ends of his life.
Children grew up around them, and their home was
one of the brightest and best in the world. Here is a
pretty touch in Darwin’s letter to his friend Fox, dated
from Upper Gower Street, London, July 1840 : “He,
(i.e., the baby) is so charming that I cannot pretend to
any modesty. I defy anybody to flatter us on our
baby, for 1 defy anyone to say anything in its praise of*
Pp. 499—500.
�20
DARWIN ON GOD.
which we are not fully conscious ... I hacl not the
smallest conception there was so much in a five-month
baby.'-’ Cunning nature I twining baby fingers about
the big man’s heart. Still the proud father studied
the cherub as a scientist; he watched its mental growth
with the greatest assiduity, and thus began those
observations which he ultimately published in the
Expression of the Emotions.
In September 1842 he went to live at Down, where
he continued to reside until his death. He helped to
found a Friendly Club there, and served as its treasurer
for thirty years.
He was also treasurer of a Coal
Club.
The Rev. Brodie Innes says “ His conduct
towards me and my family was one of nnvarying kind
ness.’"’ Darwin was a liberal contributor to the local
charities, and “ he held that where there was really no
important objection, his assistance should be given to
the clergyman, who ought to know the circumstances
best, and was chiefly responsible.”
He did not, however, go through the mockeyy of
attending church. I was informed by the late head
constable of Devonport, who was himself an open
Atheist, that he had once been on duty for a consider
able time at Down. He had often seen Darwin escort
his family to church, and enjoyed many a conversation
with the great man, who used to enjoy a walkthrough
the country lanes while the devotions were in progress
DEATH AND BURIAL.
Darwin’s life henceforth was that of a country
gentleman and a secluded scientist. His great works,
�DARWIN ON GOD.
21
more revolutionary than all the political and social
turmoil of his age, were planned and written in the
quiet study of an old house in a Kentish village. He
suffered terribly from ill health, but he labored on
gallantly to the end, and died in harness. “ For nearly
forty years,"’ writes Mr. Francis Darwin, “ he never
knew one day of the health ot ordinary men, and thus
his life was one long struggle against the weariness and
strain of sickness.” But no whimperings escaped him,
or petulant reproaches on those around him. Always
gentle, loving and beloved, he looked on the universe
with unswerving serenity. A nobler mixture of sweet
ness and strength never adorned the earth.
In 1876 he wrote some Recollections for his children,
with no thought of publication. “I have attempted,”
he said, “ to write the following account of myself, as
if I were a dead man in another world looking back at
my own life. Nor have I found this difficult, for life
is nearly over with me.”
He was ready for Death, but they did not meet for
six years. During February and March, 1882, he wa?
obviously breaking. The rest must be told by his son,
‘■No especial change occurred during the beginning of April,
but on Saturday 15th he was seized with giddiness while
sitting at dinner in the evening, and fainted in an attempt to
reach his sofa. On the 17th he was again better, and in my
temporary absence recorded for me the progress of an experi
ment in which I was engaged. During the night of April 18th,
about a quarter to twelve, he had a severe attack and passed
into a faint, from which he was brought back to consciousness
with great difficulty. He seemed to recognise the approach
of death, and said, ‘ I am not the least afraid to die.’ All the
next morning he suffered from terrible nausea, and hardly
�22
DARWIN ON GOD.
rallied, before the end came. He died at about four o’clock on
Wednesday, April 19tb, 1882”2
Thus the great scientist and sceptic went to his
everlasting rest. He had no belief in God, no expec
tation of a future life. But he had done his duty; he had
filled the world with new truth ; he had lived a life of
heroism, compared with which the hectic courage of
battle-fields is vulgar and insignificant; and he died in
soft tranquillity, surrounded by the beings he loved.
His last conscious words were I am not the least afraid
to die. No one who knew him, or his life and work,
could for a moment suspect him capable of fear.
Nevertheless it is well to have the words on record
from the lips of those who saw him die. The carrion
priests who batten on the reputation of dead Free
thinkers will find no repast in this death-chamber.
One sentence frees him from the contamination of
their approach.
Darwin’s family desired that he should be buried at
Down. But the fashion of burying -great men in
Westminster Abbey, even though unbelievers, had
been set by Dean Stanley, whom Carlyle irreverently
called “ the body-snatcher.”
Stanley’s successor,
Dean Bradley, readily consented to the great heretic’s
interment in his House of God, where it is to be
presumed the Church of England burial service was
duly read over the “ remains.” Men like Professor
Huxley, Sir John Lubbock, ind Sir Joseph Hooker
should not have assisted at such a blasphemous farce.
It was enough to make Darwin groan in his coffin.
Well, the Church has Darwin’s corpse, but that is all
2 Li/e and Letters, vol. iii., p. 358.
�DAIDVIN ON GOD.
23
she can boast; and as she paid the heavy price of
telling lies at his funeral, it may not in the long run
prove a profitable transaction.
She has not buried
Darwin’s ideas. They are still at work, sapping and
undermining her very foundations.
PURPOSE OF THIS PAMPHLET.
My object is to show the general reader what were
Darwin’s views on religion, and, as far as possible, to
trace the growth of those views in his mind. I desire
to point out, in particular, how he thought the leading
ideas of theology were affected by the doctrine of
evolution. Further, I wish to prove that there is no
essential difference between his Agnosticism and what
has always been taught as Atheism. Finally, I mean
to give my own notions on evolution and theism. In
doing so, I shall be obliged to consider some points
raised by anti-materialists, especially by Dr. A. B.
Wallace in his recent volume on Darwinism.
SOME OBJECTIONS.
Let me first, however, answer certain objections. It
is contended by those who would minimise the impor
tance of Darwin’s scepticism that he was a scientist
and not a theologian. When it is replied that this
objection is based upon a negation of private judgment,
and logically involves the handing over of society to
the tender mercies of interested specialists, the
objectors fall back upon the mitigated statement that
�24
D ARAVIN ON GOD.
Darwin was too much occupied with science to give
adequate attention to the problems of religion. Now,
in the first place, this is not really true. He certainly
disclaimed any special fitness to give an opinion on such
matters, but that was owing to his exceptional modesty;
and to take advantage of it by accepting it as equiva
lent to a confession of unfitness, is simply indecent on
the part of those who never tire of holding up the
testimony of Newton, Herschel, and Faraday to the
truth of their creed. Darwin gave sufficient attention
to religion to satisfy himself. He began to abandon
Christianity at the age of thirty. Writing of the
period between October, 1836 and January, 1839, he
says “ During those two years I was led to think much
about religion.”3 That the subject occupied his mind
at other times is evident from his works and letters.
He had clearly weighed every argument in favor of
Theism and Immortality, and his brief, precise way of
stating the objections to them shows that they were
perfectly familiar.
True, he says “I have never
systematically thought much on religion in relation to
science,” but this was in ansAver to a request that he
should write something for publication. In the same
sentence he says that he had not systematically thought
much on “ morals in relation to society.” But he had
thought enough to write that wonderful fourth chapter
in the first part of the Descent of Man, which Avas
published in that very year. Darwin was so modest,
so cautious, and so thorough, that “ systematic
thought” meant with him an infinitely greater stress
3 Life and Letters, vol. i., p. 307.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
25
of mind than is devoted to religious problems by one
theologian in a million.
The next objection is more subtle, not to say fan
tastic. In his youth Darwin was fond of music. He
had no technical knowledge of it, nor even a good ear,
but it filled him with delight, and sometimes sent a
shiver down his backbone. He was also fond of
poetry, reading Shakespeare, Coleridge, Byron, and
Scott, and carrying about a pocket copy of Milton.
But in later life he lost all interest in such things, and
trying to read Shakespeare again after 18/0 he found
it “so intolerably dull” that it “nauseated” him.
His intense pre-occupation with science had led to a
partial atrophy of his aesthetic faculties. It was a loss
to him, but the world gained by the sacrifice.
Now upon this fact is based the objection I am
dealing with. In the days of Sir Isaac Newton or
Bishop Butler, when belief was supposed to rest on
evidence, the objection would have seemed pre
posterous; but it is gravely urged at present, when
religion is fast becoming a matter of candles, music,
and ornament, seasoned with cheap sentimentality.
Darwin’s absorption in intellectual pursuits, and the
consequent neglect of the artistic elements in his
nature, is actually held as a sufficient explanation of
his scepticism. His highly-developed and constantlysustained moral nature is regarded as having no
relation to the problem. Religion, it seems, is neither
morality nor logic; it is spirituality. And what is
spirituality ? Why, a yearning aftei' the vague, the
unutterable; a consciousness of the sinfulness of sin;
a perpetual study of one’s blessed self ; a debauch of
�26
DARWIN ON GOD.
egotistic emotion and chaotic fancy; in short, a highlyrefined development of the feelings of a cow in a
thunderstorm, and the practices of a savage before his
inscrutible fetish.
Spirituality is an emoti mal offshoot of religion ; but
religion itself grows out of belief; and belief, even
among the lowest savages, is grounded on evidence.
The Church has always had the sense to begin with
doctrines; it enjoins upon its children to say first of
all “ I believed’ Let the doctrines go, and the senti
ments will go also. It is only a question of time.
Darwin tested.the doctrines. Miracles, special provi
dence, the fall, the incarnation, the resurrection, the
existence of an all-wise and all-good God; all seemed
to him statements which should be proved. He there
fore put them into the crucible of reason, and they
turned out to be nothing but dross. According to the
“ spiritual ” critics this was a mistake, religion being a
matter of imagination. Quite so ; here Darwin is in
agreement with them; and thus again the proverb is
verified that “ extremes meet.”
The last objection is almost too peurile to notice. It
has been asserted that Darwin was an unconscious
believer, after all; and this astonishing remark is
supported by exclamations from his letters. He
frequently wrote “ God knows,” “would to God,” and
so forth. But he sometimes wrote “ By Jove,” from
which it follows that he believed in Jupiter 1 Ou one
occasion he informed Dr. Hooker that he had recovered
from an illness,and could “ eat like a hearty Christian/ ’
from which it follows that he believed in the connection
of Christianity and voracity 1
�DARWIN ON GOD.
27
Mr. F. W. FI. Myers is too subtle a critic to raise
this objection in its natural crudity. He affects to
regard Darwin’s tranquillity under the loss of religious
belief as a puzzle. He asks why Darwin kept free
from the pessimism which “ in one form or other has
paralysed or saddened so many of the best lives of our
time.”
What “ kept the melancholy infection at
bay?”
“ Here, surely, is the solution of the problem. The faculties
of observing and. reasoning were stimulated to the utmost;
the domestic affections were kept keen and strong; but the
atrophy of the religious instinct, of which we have already
spoken, extended yet farther—over the whole range of aesthetic
emotion, and mystic sentiment—over all in us which‘looks
before and after, and pines for what is not.’ ”4
This is pretty writing, but under the form of insi
nuation it begs the question at issue.
Keligious
instinct and mystic sentiment are fine phrases, but they
prove nothing; on the contrary, they are devices for
dispensing with that logical investigation which reli
gion ever shuns as the Devil is said to shun holy water.
DARWIN ABANDONS CHRISTIANITY.
Dr. Buchner, the German materialist, who was in
London in September, 1881, went to Down and spent
some hours with Darwin. Fie was accompanied by
Dr. E. B. Aveling, who has written an account of their
conversation in Darwin’s study.5 This pamphlet is
4 Charles Darwin and Agnosticism. By F. W. H. Myers, “Fort
nightly Review,” January, 1888, p. 106.
5 The Religious Views of Charles Darwin. By Dr. E. B. Aveling.
Freethought Publishing Co.
�28
DARWIN ON GOD.
referred to in a footnote by Mr. Francis Darwin, who
says that “ Dr. Aveling gives quite fairly his impres
sion cf my father’s views.” 6 He does not contradict
any of Dr. Aveling’s statements, and they may there
fore be regarded as substantially correct.
Darwin said to his guests, “ I never gave up Chris
tianity until I was forty years of age.” He had given
attention to the matter, and had investigated the
claims of Christianity. Being asked why he abandoned
it, he replied, “ It is not supported by evidence.”
This reminds one of a story about George Eliot. A
gentleman held forth to her at great length on the
beauty of Christianity. Like Mr. Myers, he was
great at “aesthetic emotion” and “mystic sentiment.”
The great woman listened to him with philosophic
patience, and at length she struck in herself. “Well,
you know,” she said, “ I have only one objection to
Christianity.” “And what is that?” her guest en
quired. “ Why,” she replied, “it isn’t true.”
Dr. Aveling’s statement is corroborated by a long
and interesting passage in Darwin’s chapter of Auto
biography, which the reader shall have in full.
“I had gradually come by this time, that is, 1836 to 1839, to
see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the
sacred books of the Hindoos. The question then continually
rose before my mind and would not be banished,—Is it credible
that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, he
would permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva,
etc., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament?
This appeared to me utterly incredible.
“ By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be
requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by
0 Vol. I., p. 317.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
29
which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know
of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles
become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous
to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—'that tho Gospels
cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the
events,—that they differ in many important details, far too
important, as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual in
accuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these,
which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as
they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Chris
tianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions
have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had
some weight with me.
“ But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure
of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day
dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and
manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which
confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in
the Gcspels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free
scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would
suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very
slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that
I felt no distress.”7
Three features should be noted in this striking
passage. First, the order in which the evidences of
Christianity were tried and found wanting; second, the
complete mastery of every important point; third, the
absence of all distress of mind in the process. Darwin’s
mind was, in fact, going through a new development,
and the old creed was got rid of as easily as an old
skin when a new one is taking its place.
For nearly forty years Darwin was a disbeliever in
Christianity. He rejected it utterly. It passed out of
his mind and heart. The fact was not proclaimed
7 Vol. I., pp. 308-309.
�30
DARWIN ON GOT).
from the house-tops, but it was patent to every intelli
gent reader of his works. He paid no attention to the
clerical dogs that barked at his heels, but wisely kept
his mind free from such distractions, and went on his
way, as Professor Tyndall says, with the steady and
irresistible movement of an avalanche.
Much capital has been made by Christians who are
thankful for small mercies out of the fact that Darwin
subscribed to the South American Missionary SocietyThe Archbishop of Canterbury, at the annual meeting
on April 21, 1885, said the Society “ drew the atten
tion of Charles Darwin, and made him, in his pursuit of
the wonders of the kingdom of nature, realise that
there was another kingdom just as wonderful and more
lasting.” Such language is simply fraudulent. The
fact is, Darwin thought the Fuegians a set of hopeless
savages, and he was so agreeably undeceived by the
reports of their improvement that he sent a subscription
of £5 through his old shipmate Admiral Sir James
Sullivan. This gentleman gives three or four extracts
from Darwin’s letters,8 from which it appears that he
was solely interested in the secular improvement of the
Fuegians, without the smallest concern for their pro
gress in religion.
Darwin subscribed to send missionaries to a people
he regarded as “ the very lowest of the human race.”
Surely this is not an extravagant compliment to
Christianity. He never subscribed towards its promo
tion in any civilised country. Those who parade his
“support*” invite the sarcasm that he'thought their
religion fit for savages.
s Vol. III., pp. 127-128.
�DARWIX OX GOD.
o1
Dl
DEISM.
Having abandoned Christianity, Darwin remained
for many years a Deist. The Naturalist’s Voyage was
first published in 1845, and the following passage
occurs in the final chapter :
“ Among the scenes which are deeply impressed on my
mind, none exceed in sublimity the primeval forests undefaced
by the hand of man; whether those of Brazil, where the
powers of Life are predominant, or those of Tierra del Fuego,
where Death and Decay prevail. Both are temples filled with
the varied products of the God of Nature :—no one can stand
in these solitudes unmoved, and not feel that there is more in
man than the mere breath of his body.”9
This is the language of emotion, and no one will be
surprised at Darwin's saying subsequently “ I did not
think much about the existence of a personal God until
a considerably later period of my life/71 How great a
change the thinking wrought is seen, from a reference
to this very incident in the Autobiography, written in
1876, a few years before his death.
“ At the present day the most usual argument for the
existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward
conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons.
Formerly I was led by such feelings as those just referred to
(although I do not think that the religious sentiment was ever
strongly developed in me), to the firm conviction of the exist
ence of God, and of the immortality of the soul. In my Journal
I wrote that whilst standing in the midst of the grandeur of a
Brazilian forest, ‘ it is not possible to give an adequate idea of
the higher feelings of wonder, admiration, and devotion, which
fill and elevate the mind.’ I well remember my conviction
that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body.
9 P. 508.
1 Life and Letters, vol. i., p. ,309.
�32
D ARAVIN ON GOD.
But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such con
viction and feelings to rise in my mind.” 2
!
Darwin's belief in a personal God had not per
ceptibly weakened in 1859, when he published the
Origin of Species. He could still speak of “the
Creator’' and use the ordinary language of Deism.
In a letter to Mr. C. Ridley, dated November 28,
1878, upon a sermon of Dr. Pusey’s, he said, “ When
I was collecting facts for the £ Origin ’ my belief in
what is called a personal God was as firm as that of
Dr. Pusey himself."3
It is therefore obvious that Darwin doubted Chris
tianity at the age of thirty, abandoned it before the
age of forty, and remained a Deist until the age of
fifty. The publication of the Origin of Species' may
be taken as marking the commencement of his third
and last mental epoch.
The philosophy of Evolution
took possession of his mind, and gradually expelled
both the belief in God and the belief in immortality.
His development was too gradual for any wrench.
People upon whom his biological theories came as
lightning-swift surprises often fancied that he must
be deeply distressed by such painful truths. Some
times, indeed, this suspicion was carried to a comical
extreme. “Lyell once told me,” says Professor Judd,
“ that he had frequently been asked if Darwin was
not one of the most unhappy of men, it being sug
gested that his outrage upon public opinion should
have filled him with remorse."4 How it would have
astonished these simple creatures to see Darwin in his
2 Vol. I., p. 811.
3 Vol. III., p. 236.
4 Vol. HI., p. 62.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
33
happy home, reclining on the sofa after a hard day’s
work, while his devoted wife or daughter read a novel
aloud or played some music ; or perhaps smoking an
occasional cigarette, one of his few concessions to the
weakness of the flesh.
CREATION.
Evolution and Creation are antagonistic ideas, nor
can they he reconciled by the cheap device of assum
ing their cooperation “ in the beginning.” When the
theologians spoke of Creation, in the pre-Darwinian
days, they meant exactly the same as ordinary people
who employed the term ; namely, that everything in
nature was brought into existence by an express fiat
of the will of God.
The epithet “ special ” only
hides the fate of Creation from the short-sighted. To
say that the Deity produced the raw material of the
universe, with all its properties, and then let it evolve
into what we see, is simply to abandon the real idea of
Creation and to take refuge in a metaphysical dogma.
Creation is only a pompous equivalent for “ God
did it.” Before the nebular hypothesis explained the
origin, growth, and decay of the celestial bodies, the
theologian used to inquire “ Who made the world ? ”
When that conundrum was solved he asked a fresh
question, “ Who made the plants and animals ? ”
When that conundrum was solved he asked another
question, “ Who made man? ” Now that conundrum
is solved he asks “ Who created life 1 ” And when
the Evolutionists reply “ Wait a little ; we shall see,”
he puts his final poser, “ Who made matter ? ”
�34
DARWIN ON GOD.
All along the line he has been saying “ God did it”
to everything not understood ; that is, he has turned
ignorance into a dogma. Every explanation compels
him to beat a retreat; nay more, it shows that
“ making ” is inapplicable.
Nature’s method is
growth. Making is a term of art, and when applied
to nature it is sheer anthropomorphism. The baby
who prattles to her doll, and the theologian who prates
of Creation, have a common philosophy.
When the Origin of Species was published, we have
seen that Darwin firmly believed in a personal God.
Unfortunately he allowed himself, in the last chapter,
to use language, not unnatural in a Deist, but still
equivocal and misleading. He spoke, for instance, of
“ the laws impressed on matter by the Creator.-” This
is perhaps excusable, but there was a more unhappy
sentence in which he spoke of life “having been
originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms
or into one.” A flavor of Genesis is in these words,
and the clergy, with their usual unscrupulousness,
have made the most of it; taking care not to read it,
or let their hearers read it, in the light of Darwin’s
later writings.
In a letter to Sir J. D. Hooker, dated March 13,
1863, Darwin writes, “ I had a most kind and delight
fully candid letter from Lyell, who says he spoke out
as far as he believes. I have no doubt his belief
failed him as he wrote, for I feel sure that at times he
no more believed in Creation than you or I.”5 Writing
again to Hooker, in the same month, he said: “ I have
5 Vol. III., p. 15.
The italics are mine.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
35
long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and
used the Pentatcuchal term of creation, by which I
really meant ‘ appeared ’ by some wholly unknown
process/’6
“ Truckling ” is a strong word. I fancy Darwin
was too severe in his self-reproach. I prefer to regard
the unhappy sentences about Creation as the slip-shod
expressions of a roan who was still a Deist, and who,
possessing little literary tact, failed to guard himself
against a misuse of popular language.
The greatest
misfortune was that the book was before the public,
and the expressions could hardly be withdrawn or
altered without a full explanation; from which I dare
say he shrank, as out of place in a scientific treatise.
ORIGIN OF LIFE.
“ Spontaneous generation is a paradoxical phrase,
and it has excited a great deal of unprofitable discus
sion. However the controversy rests between Bastian
and Tyndall, the problem of the origin of life isentirely unaffected.
Nor need we entertain Sir
William Thomson’s fanciful conjecture that life may
have been brought to this planet on a meteoric frag
ment, for this only puts the radical question upon the
shelf. We may likewise dismiss the theory of Dr.
Wallace, who holds that “ complexity of chemical
compounds ” could “ certainly not have produced
living protoplasm.” 7 “ Could not,” in the existing
state of knowledge, is simply dogmatism. Dr. Wallace
has a spiritual hypothesis to maintain, and like the
8 Vol. Ill, p. 18.
7 Darwinism, p. 474.
�36
DARWIN ON GOD.
crudest theologian, though in a superior style, he
introduces his little theory, with a polite bow, to
account for what is at present inexplicable.
The
thorough-going Evolutionist is perfectly satisfied to
wait for information. So much has been explained
already that it is folly to be impatient. The presump
tion, meanwhile, is in favor of continuity.
Argument without facts is a waste of time and
temper. “It is mere rubbish,” Darwin said, “thinking
at present of the origin of life; one might as well
think of the origin of matter.” 8 This was written in
1863, in a letter to Hooker. Darwin could not help
seeing, however, that the conditions favorable to the
origination of life might only exist once in the history
of a planet. A very suggestive passage is printed by
Mr. Francis Darwin as written by his father in 1871.
“ It is often said that all the conditions for the first produc
tion of a living organism are now present which could ever
have been present. But if (and oh ! what a big if!) we could
conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia
and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that
a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo
still more complex changes, at the present day such matter
would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not
have been the case before living creatures were formed.”9
Darwin appears to have felt that life
have
originated naturally. The interposition of an imagi
nary supernatural cause does not solve the problem.
It cuts the Gordian knot, perhaps, but does not untie
it. Nature is full of illustrations of the truth that
“ properties ” exist in complex compounds which do
8^Vol. III., p. 18.
9 Vol. III., p. 18, footnote.
�DABWIN ON GOD.
37
not appear in the separate ingredients.
Huxley
rightly inquires what justification there is for “ the
assumption of the existence in the living matter of a
something which has no representative, or correlative,
in the not living matter which gave rise to it.” 1
There is no more mystery in the origin of life than in
the formation of water by an electric spark which
traverses a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. Dr.
Wallace appears to see this, and consequently he
ascribes electricity, with gravitation, cohesion, and
chemical force, to the “ spiritual world ! ” 2
ORIGIN OF MAN.
Darwin’s masterpiece, in the opinion of scientists,
is the Origin of Species. But the Descent of Alan is
more important to the general public. As applied to
other forms of life, Evolution is a profoundly inte
resting theory; as applied to man, it revolutionises
philosophy, religion, and morals.
Tracing the development of animal organisms from
the ascidian, Darwin passes along the line of fish,
amphibians, reptiles, birds, marsupials, mammals, and
finally to the simians. “ The Simiadee then branched
off,” he says, “ into two great stems, the New World
and the Old World monkeys ; and from the latter, at
a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the
Universe, proceeded.”3
Notwithstanding that some specimens of the
“ wonder and glory of the universe ” cannot count
1 Lay Sermons, p. 137.
2 Darwinism, p. 476.
3 Descent of Man, p. 165.
�38
DARWIN ON GOD.
above the number of the fingers of one hand, while
some of them live in a shocking state of bestiality,
Darwin's deliverance on the origin of man was greeted
with a storm of execration. “Fancy/’ it was ex
claimed, “ fancy recognising the monkey as our first
cousin, and the lower animals as our distant rela
tions ! Pshaw 1 ” The protesters forgot that there
is no harm in “ coming from monkeys ” if you have
come far enough. Some of them, perhaps, had a shrewd
suspicion that they had not come far enough; and,
like parvenus, they were ashamed to own their poor
relations.
Anticipating the distastefulness of his conclusions,
Darwin pointed out that, at any rate, we were
descended from barbarians; and why, he inquired,
should we shrink from owning a still lower relation
ship ?
' '
“ He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel
much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some
more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I
would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey,
who braved his dreaded enemy to save the life of his keeper,
or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains,
carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of
astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his
enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practises infanticide with
out remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency,
and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.”4
Eighteen years have passed since then, and
Darwin’s views have triumphed. The clergy still
“hum’-’ and “ha'” and shake their heads, but the
scientific world has accepted Darwinism with practical
4 Descent of Man, p. 619.
�39
DARWIN ON GOD.
unanimity. Even Dr. Wallace, who at first hesitated,
is now convinced. “ I fully accept Mr. Darwin’s
conclusions,” he says, “ as to the essential identity of
man’s bodily structure with that of the higher mam
malia, and his descent from some ancestral form
common to man and the anthropoid apes. The evi
dence of such descent appears to me to be overwhelming
and conclusive.”5
Now if Darwin’s theory of the origin of man is
accepted we may bid good-bye to Christianity at once.
But that is not all. The continuity of development
implies a common nature, from the lowest form of life
to the highest. There is no break from the ascidian
to man, just as there is no break from the ovum to the
child; and neither in the history of the race nor in
the history of the individual is there any point at
which natural causes cease to be adequate, and super
natural causes are necessary to account for the pheno
mena. The tendency of Darwinism, says Dr. Wallace,
is to “ the conclusion that man’s entire nature and all
his faculties, whether moral, intellectual, or spiritual,
have been derived from their rudiments in the lower
animals, in the same manner and by the action of the
same general laws as his physical structure has been
derived.” G
Dr. Wallace sees that this is sheer materialism,
and casts about for something to support his
spiritualistic philosophy.
He assumes three stages
at which “ the spirit world ” intervened.
First,
when life appeared; second, when consciousness
began; third, when man became possessed of “ a
3 Darwinism, p. 461.
6 P. 461.
�40
DARWIN ON GOD.
number of his most characteristic and noblest facul
ties.” All this is very ingenious, but Dr. Wallace
forgets two things ; first, that the “ stages ” he refers
to are purely arbitrary, each point being approached
and receded from by insensible gradations; and
second, that his “ Spirit world ” is not a vera causa.
It is, indeed, a pure assumption ; unlike such a cause
as Natural Selection, which is seen to operate, and
which Darwin only extended over the whole range
of organic existence.
With respect to his third “ stage,” Dr. Wallace
contends that Natural Selection does not account for
the mathematical, musical, and artistic faculties.
Were this true, they might still be regarded, in Weismann’s phrase, as “a bye-product” of the human
mind, which is so highly developed in all directions.
But its truth is rather assumed than proved. Taking
the mathematical faculty, for instance, Dr. Wallace
makes the most of its recent developments, and the
least of its early manifestations ; which is a fallacy
of exaggeration or false emphasis. He also under
rates the mathematical faculty displayed even in the
rudest warfare.
There is a certain calculation of
number and space in every instance. It is smaller in
in the savage chief than in Napoleon, but the differ
ence is in degree and not in kind; and as the human
race has always lived in a more or less militant
state, the mathematical faculty would give its posses
sors an advantage in the struggle for existence; while,
in more modern times, and in a state of complex
civilisation, its possessors would profit by what may be
called Social Selection.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
41
Dr. Wallace lias discovered a mare’s nest. He may
rely upon it that the basis of beauty is utility; in the
mind of man as well as in architecture, or the plumage
of birds, or the coloration of flowers. And we may
well ask him these pertinent questions ; first, why did
“ the spirit world ” plant the mathematical, musical,
and artistic faculties in man so ineffectually that, even,
now, they are decidedly developed in less than one per
cent, of the population ; and, second, why are we to
suppose a divine origin for those faculties when the
moral faculties, which are quite as imperial, may be
found in many species of lower animals ?
ANIMISM.
Dr. Tylor is not a biologist, but he is one of the
greatest evolutionists of our age.
His work on
Primitive Culture7 is a monument of genius and re
search. Employing the Darwinian method, he has
traced the origin and development of the belief in the
existence of soul or spirit, from the mistaken interpre
tation of the phenomena of dreams among savages,
who afford us the nearest analogue of primitive man,
up to the most elaborate cultus of Brahmanism.
Buddhism, or Christianity. And as Animism is the
basis of all religion, two conclusions arc forced upon
us ; first, that the supernatural in being traced back to
its primal germ of error, is not only explained but
exploded ; and, second, that religion is a direct legacy
from our savage progenitors.
Religious progress
consists in mitigating the intellectual and moral erudi- «•
7 Primitive Culture. By Edward B. Tylor LL.D. 2 vols.
�42
DARWIN ON GOD.
ties of primitive Animism ; and religion itself, there
fore, is like a soap-bubble, ever becoming more and
more attenuated, until at length it disappears.
Darwin had written the Descent of Man before
reading the great work of Dr. Tylor, and his letter to
the author of the real Natural History of Religion is
worth extracting. It is dated September 24, 1871.
“ I hope you will allow me to have the pleasure of telling you
how greatly I have been interested by your Primitive Culture
now that I have finished it. It seems to me a most profound
work, which will be certain to have permanent value, and to
be referred to for years to come. It is wonderful how you
trace Animism from the lower races up to the religious belief
of the highest races. It will make me for the future look at
religion—a belief in the soul, etc—from anew point of view.’’8
“A new point of view” is a pregnant phrase in
regard to a subject of such importance. What can it
mean, except that Darwin saw at last that religion
began with the belief m soul, and that the belief in
soul originated in the blunder of primitive men as to
the “ duality ” of their nature ?
Darwin has a very interesting footnote on this
subject in his Descent of Man. After referring to
Tylor and Lubbock, he continues—
“ Mr. Herbert Spencer accounts for the earliest forms of
religious belief throughout the world by man being led through
dreams, shadows, and other causes, to look at himself as a
double essence, corporeal and spiritual. As the spiritual being
is supposed to exist after death, and to be powerful, it is
propitiated by various gifts and ceremonies, and its aid invoked.
He then further shows that names or nicknames given from
some animal or other object, to the early progenitors or founders
Life and Letters, vol. III., p.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
43
of a tribe, are supposed after a long interval to represent the
real progenitor of the tribe; and such animal or object is
then naturally believed still to exist as a spirit, is held sacred,
and worshipped as a god. Nevertheless I cannot but suspect
that there is a still earlier and ruder stage, when anything
which manifests power or movement is thought to be endowed
with some form cf life, and with mental faculties analogous
to our own.” 9
This is tracing religion to the primitive source
assigned to it by David Hume—“ the universal tendency
among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves,
and to transfer to every object those qualities with
which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which
they are intimately conscious.”* In other words,
1
Darwin begins a stage lower than Animism, in the con
fusion of subjective and objective such as we see in a
very young child ; although, of course, the worship of
gods could not have obtained in that stage, since man
is incapable of ascribing to nature any qualities but
those he is conscious of possessing, and it is therefore
impossible for him to people the external world with
spirits until he has formed the notion of a spirit within
himself.
Darwin was not attracted by that experiential
Animism which has such a fascination for Dr. Wallace.
In 1870 he attended a seance at the house of his brother
Erasmus in Chelsea, under the auspices of a well-known
medium. His account of the performance is not very
flattering to Spiritualism.
“ We had great fun one afternoon; for George hired a medium
who made the chairs, a flute, a bell, and candlestick, and fiery
Descent of Man, p. 94.
1 Hume, “ Natural History of Religion,” section III.
�44
DARWIN ON GOD.
points jump about in my brother’s dining-room, in a manner
that astounded every one, and took away all their breaths.
It was in the dark, but George and Hensleigh Wedgwood held
the medium’s hands and feet on both sides all the time. I
found it so hot and tiring that I went away before all these
astounding miracles, or jugglery took place. How the man
could possibly do what was done passes my understanding.” 2
The more Darwin thought over what he saw the
more convinced he was that it was “all imposture.”
“ The Lord have mercy on us all,” he exclaimed, “ if
we have to believe in such rubbish.”
Darwin has not left us any emphatic utterance as to
his own belief about soul. “ What Darwin thought.”
says Mr. Grant Allen, “ I only suspect; but if we make
the plain and obvious inference from all the facts and
tendencies of his theories we shall be constrained to
admit that modern biology lends little sanction to the
popular notion of a life after death.” 3
Writing briefly to an importunate German student,
in 1879, he said “ As for a future life, every man must
judge for himself between conflicting vague probabili
ties.”4 This reminds one of Hamlet’s “ shadow of a
shade.” First, you have no certainty, nor even a
probability, but several probabilities ; these are vague
to begin with, and alas! they conflict with each other.
Surely such language could only come from a practical
unbeliever.
Like other men who were nursed in the delusion of
personal immortality, Darwin had his occasional fits
Vol. Ill,, p. 187.
3 The GoKpd A wording to Darwin. By Grant Allen, “ Pall Mall
Gazette,” January, 1888.
4 Vol. I., p. 307.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
45
of dissatisfaction with the inevitable—witness the
following passage from his Autobiography.
“ With respect to immortality, nothing shows me so clearly
how strong and almost instinctive a belief it is, as the consid
eration of the view now held by most physicists, namely, thatthe sun with all the planets will in time grow too coldfoi life?
unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun and thus
gives it fresh life. Believing as I do that man in the distant
future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is
an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings
are doomed to complete annihilation after such long continued
slow progress. To those who fully admit the immoitality of
the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear
so dreadful.”5
Had Darwin been challenged on this passage, I
think he would have admitted its ineptitude, for he
was modest enough for anything. The thought that
every man must die is no more intolerable than the
thought that any man must die, nor is the thought
that there will be a universe 'without the human race
any more intolerable than the thought that there teas
a universe without the human race. On the other
hand, Darwin did not allow for the fact that immor
tality is not synonymous with everlasting felicity.
According to most theologies, indeed, the lot of the
majority in the next life is not one of happiness, but
one of misery; and, on any rational estimate, the
annihilation of all is better than the bliss of the few
and the torture of the many. Nor is it true that
everyone would cheerfully accept the gift of immor
tality, even without the prospect of future suffering.
Every Buddhist—that is, four hundred millions of the
5Vol. I,, p. 312.
�46
PAE WIN ON GOD.
human race—looks forward to “ Nirvana,” the extinc
tion of the individual life, which is thus released
from the evil of existence. Even a Western philo
sopher, like John Stuart Mill, understood this yearning
as appears from the following passage :
“ It appears to me not only possible but probable, that in
a higher, and, above all, a happier condition of human life,
not annihilation but immortality 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 to a conscious
existence which it cannot be insured that it will always
wish to preserve.”8
Mr. Winwood Reade, on the other hand, indulged in
the rapturous prophecy that man will some day grow
perfect, migrate into space, master nature, and invent
immortality.7 It is all a matter of taste and tempera
ment. Both wailings and rejoicings are outside the
scope of philosophy, and belong to the province of light
literature,
A PERSONAL GOD.
We have already seen that Darwin remained a Deist
after rejecting Christianity. Not only in the letter on
Dr. Pusey’s sermon, but in his Autobiography, Darwin
discloses the fact that his belief in a personal God
melted away after the publication of his masterpiece.
Speaking of “ a First Cause having an intelligent mind
in some degree analogous to that of man,” he says,
This conclusion was strong in my mind about the
* Three Euxayx on Reliyion By J. S. Mill, p. 122.
i Martrydom of Man. By Win wood Reade, pp, 51.4, 515.
�DAB WIN ON GOD.
47
time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin
of Species; and it is since that time that it has very
gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker/’'’
By the time he published the Descent of Man, in 1871,
the change was conspicuous. He was then able to treat
religion as a naturalist; that is, as one who stands out
side it and regards it with a feeling of scientific
curiosity. Not only did he trace religion back to the
lowest fetishism, he also analysed the sentiment of
worship in a manner which must have been highly
displeasing to the orthodox.
“ The feeling- of religious devotion is a highly complex one,
consisting of love, complete submission to an exalted and
mysterious superior, a strong sense of dependence, fear,
reverence, gratitude, hope for the future, and perhaps other
elements. No being coukl experience so complex an emotion
until advanced in his intellectual and moral faculties to at least
a moderately high level. Nevertheless, we see some distant
approach to this state of mind in the deep love of a dog for his
master, associated with complete submission, some fear, and
perhaps other feelings. The behavior of a dog when returning
to his master after an absence, and, as I may add, of a monkey
to his beloved keeper, is widely different from that towards
their fellows. In the latter case the transports of joy appear
to be somewhat less and the sense of equality is shewn in
every action. Professor Braub ich goes so far as to maintain
that a dog looks on his master as a god.”9
This is not very flattering, for the dog’s attach
ment to his master is quite independent of morality;
whether the dog belongs to Bill Sikes or John
Howard, he displays the same devotion.
Darwin quoted with approval the statement of Sir
John Lubbock that “it is not too much to say that
3 Vol. I., p. 313.
Descent of Man, pp. 95, 96.
�48
DARWIN ON GOD.
the horrible dread of unknown evil hangs like a thick
cloud over savage life, and embitters every pleasure.”1
He also referred to witchcraft, bloody sacrifices, and
the ordeals of poison and fire, cautiously observing
that “ it is well occasionally to reflect on these super
stitions, for they show us what an infinite debt of
gratitude we owe to the improvement of our reason
to science, and to our accumulated knowledge ”2—in
short, to the slow and painful civilisation of religion.
That the universal belief in God proves his exist
ence Darwin was unable to admit. “ There is ample
evidence, he says, ££ derived not from hasty travellers
but from men who have long resided with savages,
that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who
have no idea of one or more gods, and who have no
words in their language to express such an idea.”*
On the other hand, as he remarks in the same work—
“ I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has
been used by many persons as an argument for his existence.
But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled
to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits,
only a little more powerful than man ; for the belief in them
is far more general than in a beneficent Deity.’’4
Attention should here be called to a silent correction
in the second edition of the Descent of Man. Defer
ring to the question “ whether there exists a Creator
and Euler of the universe,” he said, ££ this has been
answered in the affirmative by'the highest intellects
that have ever existed.” This was altered into “some
1 Prehistoric Times. By Sir John Lubbock, p. 571.
2 Descent of Man, p. 96.
3 Ibid, p. 93.
4 Ibid, p. 612.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
49
o/the highest intellects.’'’ Darwin had discovered the
inaccuracy of his first statement, and learnt that some
of the highest intellects have been Atheists.
Two important passages must be extracted from hie
Autobiography. After remarking that the grandest
scenes had no longer the power to make him feel that
God exists, he answers the objection that he is “like a
man who has become color-blind/’ which is a favorite
one with conceited religionists.
“ This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races
had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God;
but we know that this is very far from being the case. There
fore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are
of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of
mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which
was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essenti
ally differ from that which is often called the sense of sub
limity ; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis
of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the
existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague
and similar feelings excited by music.’5
Further on in the same piece of writing he deals
with a second and very common argument of Theism.
“ Another source of conviction in the existence of God, con
nected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses
me as having much more weight. This follows from the
extreme difficulty, or rather utter impossibility of conceiving
this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his
capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the
result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I
feel compelled to look to a First Cause having, an intelligent
mind in some degree analogous to that of man. Tlii s conclusion
was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can
remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since
3 Vol I., p. 312.
�50
DARWIN ON GOD.
that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations,
become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of
man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind
as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted
when it draws such grand conclusions ? ” 6
This handling of the matter may be somewhat con
soling to Theists. One can hear them saying, “ Ah,
Darwin was not utterly lost.” But let them see how
he handles the matter in a letter to a Dutch student
(April 2, 1873).
“ I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this
grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose
through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the
existence of God ; but whether this is an argument of real
value I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we
admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it
came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from
the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am
also induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the
many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again
I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion
seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of
man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.’ ‘
“ Man can do his duty ”—a characteristic touch ! The
man who said this did his duty. His scientific achievments were precious, but they were matched by his
lofty and benevolent character.
DESIGN.
Darwinism has killed the Design argument, by
explaining adaptation as a result without assuming
design as a cause.
The argument, indeed, like all
Vol. I., pp. 312, 313.
- Vol. I., pp. 306, 307.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
51
“ proofs” of God’s existence, was based upon
ignorance. It was acutely remarked by Spinoza, in
his great majestic manner, that man knows that he
wills, but knows not the causes which determine his
will. Out of this ignorance the theologians manufac
tured their chaotic doctrine of free-will. Similarly,
out of our ignorance of the caus s of the obvious
adaptations in nature, they manufactured their plausible
Design argument. The “ fitness of things ” was indis
putable, and as it could not be explained scientifically,
the theologians trotted out their usual dogma of “ God
did it.”
Professor Huxley tells us that physical science has
created no fresh difficulties in theology. “Not a
solitary problem,” he says, “ presents itself to the
philosophical Theist, at the present day, which has not
existed from the time that philosophers began to think
out the logical grounds and theological consequenceof Theism.”8 While in one respect true, the states
ment is liable to mislead. Adaptation presents no new
problem—that is undeniable ; but the scientific expla
nation of it Cuts away the ground of. all teleology.
“ The teleology,” says Huxley, “ which supposes that
the'eye, such as we see it in man, or one of the higher
vertebrata, was made with the precise structure it
exhibits, for the purpose of enabling the animal which
possesses it to see, has undoubtedly received its deathbloAv.” Yet he bids us remember that “ there is a
wider teleology which is not touched by the doctrine of
Evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental
8Zf/e and Letter?, vol. II., p. 202.
�52
DARWIN ON GOD.
proposition of Evolution. This proposition is that the
whole world, living and not living, is the result of the
mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of the
powers possessed by the molecules of which the primi
tive nebulosity of the universe was composed.”0
Theologians in search of a life-buoy in the scientific
storm have grasped at this chimerical support, although
the wiser heads amongst them may doubt whether Pro
fessor Huxley is serious in tendering it. Surely if
eyes were not made to see with the Design argument
is dead. What is the use of saying that the materialist
is still “ at the mercy of the teleologist, who can always
defy him to disprove that the primordial molecular
arrangement was not intended to evolve the phenomena
of the universe?” The, very word “arrangement”
gives the teleologist all he requires, and the implied
assumption that we are “ at the mercy” of anyone who
makes an assertion which is incapable of proof, simply
because he “ defies ” us to disprove it, is a curious
ineptitude on the part of such a vigorous thinker.
When, in 1879, Darwin was consulted by a German
student, a member of his family replied for him as
follows :—“ He considers that tlie theory of Evolution
is quite compatible with belief in God; but that you
must remember that different persons have different
definitions of what they mean by God.”1 Precisely so.
You may believe in God if you define him so as not to
contradict facts ; in other words, you have a right to a
Deity if you choose to construct one. This is perfectly
harmless, but what connexion has it with the
»Vol. II., p. 201.
1 Vol. I., p. 307.
�DAPAVIN ON GOD.
53
“ philosophy ” of Theism ? There is no definition of
God which does not contradict facts. Why, indeed, is
theology full of mystery? Simply because it is full of
impasses, where dogma and experience are in hopeless
collision, and where we are exhorted to abnegate our
reason and accept the guidance of faith.
Darwin’s attitude towards the Design argument is
definite enough for such a cautious thinker. In one of
his less popular, but highly important works, the first
edition of which appeared in 1868, he went out of his
way to deal with it. After using the simile of an
architect, who should rear a noble and commodious
edifice, without the use of cut stone, by selecting stones
of various shape from the fragments at the base of a
precipice; he goes on to say that these “ fragments of
stone, though indispensable to the architect, bear to
the edifice built by him the same relation which the
fluctuating varieties of organic beings bear to the varied
and admirable structures ultimately acquired by their
modified descendants.” The shape of the stones is not
accidental, for it depends on geological causes, though
it may be said to be accidental with regard to the use
they are put to.
“ Here we are led to face a great difficulty, in alluding to
which I am aware that I am travelling beyond my proper
province. An omniscient Creator must have foreseen every
consequence which results from the laws imposed by Him.
But can itbe reasonably maintained that the Creator intentionally
ordered, if we use the words in any ordinary sense, that certain
fragments of rock should assume certain shapes so that the
builder might erect his edifice ? If the various laws which
have determined the shape of each fragment were not predeter
mined for the builder’s sake, can it be maintained with any
�54
DARWIN ON GOD.
greater probability that He specially ordained for the sake of
the breeder each of the innumerable variations in our domestic
animals and plants ;—many of these variations being of no
service to man, and not beneficial, far more often injurious, to
the creatures themselves ? Did He ordain that the crop and
tail-feathers of the pigeon should vary in order that the fancier
might make his grotesque pouter and fantail breeds ? Did
He cause the frame and mental qualities of the dog to vary in
order that a breed might be formed of indomitable ferocity,
with jaws fitted to pin down the bull for man’s brutal sport?
But if we give up the principle in one case,—if we do not
admit that the variations of the primeval dog were intentionally
guided in order that the greyhound, for instance, that perfect
image of symmetry and vigour, might be formed,—no shadow
of reason can be assigned for the belief that variations, alike
in nature and the result of the same general laws, which have
been the groundwork through natural selection of the formation
of the most perfectly adapted animals in the world, man in
cluded, were intentionally and specially guided. However
much we may wish it, we can hardly follow Professor Asa
Gray in his belief “that variation has been led along certain
beneficial lines,” like a stream “ along definite and useful lines
of irrigation.” If we assume that each particular variation
was from the beginning of all time preordained, then that
plasticity of organisation, which leads to many injurious
deviations of structure, as well as the redundant power of
reproduction which inevitably leads to a struggle for existence,
and, as a consequence, to the natural selection or survival of the
fittest, must appear to us superfluous laws of nature. On the
other hand, an omnipotent end omniscient Creator ordains
everything and foresees everything. Thus we are brought
face te face with a difficulty as insoluble as that of free will
and predestination.2
Darwin protested that this had met with no reply.
What reply, indeed, is possible ? Design covers every2 Farfniwn of Animals and Plants under Domestication.
Charles Darwin. Vol. II., pp. 427, 428.
By
�DARWIN ON GOD.
55
thing or nothing. If the bulldog was not designed,
what reason is there for supposing that man was designed ? If there is no design in an idiot, how can
there be design in a philosopher 1
The Life and Letters contains many passages less
elaborate but more pointed. Here is one.
“ The old argument from Design in nature, as given by
Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now
that'fhe law of natnral selection has been discovered. We can
no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a
bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being like
the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design
in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural
selection, than in the course which the wind blows.”3
The fit survive, the unfit perish; and the theologian is
eloquent on the successes, and silent on the failures.
He marks the hits and forgets the misses. Were
nature liable to human penalties she would have been
dished long ago; but she works with infinite time
and infinite resources, and therefore cannot become
bankrupt.
Here is a passage from a letter to Miss Julia
Wedgwood (July 11, 1861) on the occasion of her
article in Macmillan.
“ The mind refuses to look at this universe, being what it is
without having been designed; yet, where one would most
expect design, namely, in the structure of a sentient being, the
more I think the less I can see proof of design.”4
This reminds one of a pregnant utterance of another
master-mind. Cardinal Newman says he should be an
Atheist if it were not for the voice speaking in his
conscience, and exclaims—“ If I looked into a mirror,
3 Vol. I., p. 309.
4 Vol. I., pp. 313, 314.
�56
DARAVIN ON GOD.
and did not see my face, I should have the sort of
feeling which comes upon me when I look into this
living busy world, and see no reflexion of its
Creator.”5
Here is another passage from a letter (July, 1860)
to Dr. Asa Gray.
“ One word more on ‘ designed laws ’ and 1 undesigned
results.’ I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun and
kill it. I do this designedly. An innocent and good man stands
under a tree and is killed by a flash of lightning. Do you
believe (and I really should like to hear) that God designedly
killed this man ? Many or most persons do believe this; I
can’t and don’t. If yon believe so, do you believe when a
swallow snaps up a gnat that God designed that that particu
lar swallow should snap up that particular gnat at that
particular instant ? I believe that the man and the gnat are
in the same predicament. If the death of neither man nor
gnat is designed, I see no reason to believe that their first
birth or production should be necessarily designed.”0
Twenty years later, writing to Mr. W. Graham, the
author of the Creed of Science, Darwin says, “ There
are some points in your book which I cannot digest
The chief one is that the existence of so-called
natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this.” 7
During the last year of his life a very interesting
conversation took place between Darwin and the Duke
of Argyll. Here is the special part in the Duke’s own
words.
“ In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin,
with reference to some of his own remarkable words on ‘ Fer
tilisation of Orchids ’ and upon ‘ The Earthworms,’ and
5 Apologia Pro Vita Sua, p. 241.
6 Vol. I., pp. 314, 315.
7 Vol. I., p. 315.
�DARWIN ON GOD.
57
various other observations he made of the wonderful con
trivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impos
sible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect
and the expression of mind. He looked at me very hard and
said, ‘Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming
force; but at other times,’ and he shook his head vaguely,
adding, ‘ it seems to go away.’ ’'8
This is a remarkable story, and the point of it is in
the words “ it seems to go away.’; There is nothing
extraordinary in the fact that Darwin, who was a
Christian till thirty and a Theisttill fifty, should some
times feel a billow of superstition sweep over his mind.
The memorable thing is that at other times his free
intellect could not harbour the idea of a God of Nature.
The indications of mind in the constitution of the
universe were not obvious to the one man living who
had studied it most profoundly. Belief in the super
natural could not harmonis 2 in Darwin’s mind with the
facts and conclusions of science. The truth of Evolu
tion entered it and gradually took possession. Theo
logy was obliged to leave, and although it returned
occasionally, and roamed through its old dwelling, it
only came as a visitor, and was never more a resident.
DIVINE BENEFICENCE.
The problem of how the goodness of God can be
reconciled with the existence of evil is at least as old
as the Book of Job, and the essence of the problem
remains unchanged. Many different solutions have
been offered, but the very best is nothing but a
8 Vol. I., p. 816.
�58 '
DARWIN ON GOD.
plausible compromise. Even the Christian theory of
a personal Devil, practically almost as potent as the
Deity, ancl infinitely more active, is a miserable make
shift ; for, on inquiry, it turns out that the Devil is a
part of God’s handiwork, exercising only a delegated
or permitted power. The usual resort of the theo
logian when driven to bay is to invoke the aid of
“ mystery,’7 but this is useless as against the logician,
since “ mystery ” is only a contradiction between the
facts and the hypothesis, and the theologian can hardly
expect to be saved by what is virtually a plea of
“ Guilty.7’
Like every educated and thoughtful man, Darwin
was brought face to face with this problem, and he was
too honest to twist the facts, and too much a lover of
truth and clarity to submerge them in the mysterious.
He preferred to speak plainly as far as his intellect
carried him, and when it stopped to frankly confess his
ignorance.
Writing to Dr. Asa Gray (May 22, 1850), Darwin
puts a strong objection to Theism very pointedly.
“I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I
should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all
sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world.
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent
God would have designedly created the ichneumonidse with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies
of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not be
lieving this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was
expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be
contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the
nature of mar, and to conclude that everything is the result of
brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting
from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left
�DABWIN ON GOD.
59
to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that
this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the
whole subject is too profound for the human intellect.”9
The latter part of this extract about “ designed
laws ” is modified by a subsequent letter, already
quoted, to the same correspondent. The first part is
the one to be dwelt upon in the present connexion.
Dealing with the same subject sixteen years later in
his Autobiography, Darwin gives his opinion that
happiness, on the whole, predominates over misery,
although he admits that this ‘f would be very difficult
to prove.” He then faces the Theistic aspect of the
question.
“ That there is much suffering' in the world no one disputes.
Some have attempted to explain this with reference to man by
imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the
number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that
of all other sentient beings, and they often suffer greatly
without any moral improvement. • This very old argument
from the existence of suffering against the existence of an
intelligent First Cause seems to me a strong one.”1
Darwin is perfectly conscious that he is advancing
no new argument against Theism. An age of micro
scopical science was, indeed, necessary before the
internal parasites of caterpillars could be instanced;
not to mention the thirty species of parasites that
prey on the human organism. But such larger para
sites as fleas and lice have always been obvious, and
the theologians have been constantly asked why
Almighty Goodness prompted Almighty Wisdom to
provide humanity with such a sumptuous stock of
these nuisances. It may also be observed that while
9 Vol. II., p. 312.
1 Vol. I., p. 311.
�60
DARWIX OX GOD.
cholera, fever, and other germs, are modern discoveries,
such things as tumors, cancers, and leprosy, have
always attracted attention, and they are more telling
instances of malignant “ design ” than the ichneumonidae in caterpillars, as they immediately affect the
gentlemen who carry on the discussion.
Darwinism does, however, present the problem of
evil in a new light. It shows us that evil is not on the
surface of things, but is part of their very texture.
Those who complacently dwell on the survival of the
fittest, and the forward march to perfection, con
veniently forget that the survival of the fittest is the
result. Natural Selection is the process. And if we
look at this more closely we discover that natural selec
tion and the survival of the fittest are the same thing;
the real process being the elimination of the unfit.
Those who survive would have lived in any case ; what
has happened is that all the rest have been crushed out
of existence. Suppose, for instance (to take a case of
artificial selection), a farmer castrates nineteen bulls
and breeds from the twentieth; it makes a great
difference to the result, but clearly the whole of the
process is the elimination of the nineteen. Similarly,
in natural selection, all organic variations are alike
spawned forth by Nature ; the fit are produced and
perpetuated, while the unfit are produced and exter
minated. And hoic exterminated? Not by the swift
hand of a skilful executioner, but by countless varieties
of torture, some of which display an infernal ingenuity
that might abash the deftest Inquisitor. Every disease
known to us is simply one of Nature’s devices for
eliminating hei’ unsuitable offspring, and a cat’s playing
�DARWIN ON GOD.
61
with a mouse is nothing to the prolonged sport of
Nature in killing the victims of her own infinite lust
of procreation. Place a Deity behind this process,
and you create a greater and viler Devil than any
theology of the past was capable of inventing. Accept
it as the work of blind forces, and you may become a
Pessimist if you are disgusted with tlic entire business ;
or an Optimist if you are healthy, prosperous and
callous ; or a Meliorist if you think evolution tends to
progress, and that your own efforts may brighten the
lot of your fellows.
Darwin put the case too mildly in his first great work.
“ When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves
with the full belief, that no fear is felt, that death is generally
prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy
survive and multiply. ’2
Professor Huxley, in liis vigorous and uncompro
mising fashion, has put the case with greater foice and
accuracy
“From the point of view of the moralist the animal world is
;on about the same level as a gladiator’s show, the creatures
are fairly well treated, and set to figlit—whereby the strongest,
the swiftest and cunningest live to fight another day. The
spectator has no need to turn his thumbs down, as no quarte1'
is given. He must admit that the skill and training displayed
are wonderful. But he must shut his eyes if he would not see
that more or less enduring suffering is the meed of both vanguished and victor.’’3
Dr. Wallace, on the other hand, argues that the
“ torments ” and “ miseries ” of the lower animals are
imaginary, and that “ the amount of actual suffering
- Origin of Species, p, Gl.
3 The Struggle for Existence, “ Nineteenth Century,” February,
1888, p-163.
�62
DARWIN ON GOD.
caused by the struggle for existence among animals is
altogether insignificant?' They live merrily, have no
apprehensions, and die violent deaths which are “ pain
less and easy?’ Really the picture is idyllic I But
Dr. Wallace’s optimism is far from exhausted. Ide
tells us that “ their actual flight from an enemy ” is an
“ enjoyable exercise ” of their powers. This reminds
one of the old fox-hunter who, on being taxed with
enjoying a cruel sport, replied: “ Why the men like
it, the horses [like it, the dogs like it, and, demmc,
the fox likes it too.”
RELIGION AND MORALITY.
Darwin was, of course, a naturalist in ethics, holding
1 hat morality is founded on sympathy and the social
instincts.
There is no more solid and satisfactory
account of the genesis and development of conscience
than is to be found in the chapter on “ The Moral
Sense ” in the Descent of Man. I do not think-, how
ever, that he had given much attention to the relations
between morality and religion, but what he says is of
course entitled to respect.
“ With the more civilised races,” he declares, “ the
conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Deity has
had a potent influence on the advance of morality?’4
He speaks of “ the ennobling belief in the existence
of an Omnipotent God,”5 and again of “the grand
idea of a God hating sin and loving righteousness.”c
These are casual opinions, never in any case elaborated,
so that we cannot tell on what grounds Darwin held
1 Descent of Man, p. 612.
5 Ibid, p. 93.
« Ibid, p. 144.
�63
DARWIN ON GOD.
them. One would have liked to hear his opinion as to
how many people were habitually swat ed bt this
“ grand idea” of God.
AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM. '
My views are not at all necessarily atheistical,
wrote Darwin in 1860 to Dr. Asa Gray.7 In the same
strain he wrote to Mr. Fordyce in 1879 :
“ What my own views may he is a question of no conse
quence to anyone but myself. But, as you ask, I may state
that my judgment often fluctuates. ... In my most extreme
fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of
denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and
more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an
Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of
mind.” s
Similarly, he closes a lengthy passage of his Auto
biography—“The mystery of the beginning of all
things is insoluble by us ; and I for one must be con
tent to remain an Agnostic.”9
Let us here recur to the conversation between
Darwin and Dr. Biichner, reported by Dr. Aveling.
Darwin “ held the opinion that the Atheist was a denier
of God,” and this is borne out by the extract just
given from his letter to Mr. Fordyce. His two guests
explained to him that the Greek prefix a was privative
not negative, and that an Atheist was simply a person
without God. Darwin agreed with them on every
point, and said finally, “ I am with you in thought, but
I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word
Atheist.” They suggested that Agnostic was Atheist
“ writ respectable,” and Atheist was Agnostic “ writ
7 Vol. II., p. 312.
8 Vol. I., p. 305.
s Vol. I., p. 313.
�64
DARWIN ON GOD.
aggressive?’ At which he smiled, and asked, “ Whyshould you be so aggressive ? Is anything gained by
trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of man
kind t It is all very well for educated, cultured,
thoughtful people ; but are the masses yet ripe for it ?”1
Mr. Francis Darwin does not dispute this report.
“ My father’s replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems to regard the
absence of aggressiveness in my father’s views as distinguish
ing them in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my
judgment, it is precisely differences of this kind which dis
tinguish him so completely from the class of thinkers to which
Dr. Aveling belongs.” 2
This is amusing but not convincing ; indeed, it gives
up the whole point at issue. Mr. Francis Darwin
simply confirms all that Dr. Aveling said. The great
naturalist was not aggressive, so he preferred A gnostic
to Atheist; but as both mean exactly the same, essen
tially, the difference is not one of principle, but one of
policy and temperament.
Darwin prided himself
on having “ done some service in aiding to overthrow
the dogma of separate creations”® Had he gone more
into the world, and seen the evil effects of other dogmas,
he might have sympathised more with the aggressive
attitude of those who challenge Theology in toto as
the historic enemy of liberty and progress. This at
least is certain, that Charles Darwin, the supreme
biologist of his age, and the greatest scientific intellect
since Newton, was an Atheist in the only proper sense
of the word ; the sense supported by etymology, the
sense accepted by those who bear the name.
1 Dr. Aveling’s pamphlet, p. 5.
2 Life and Letters, vol. i., p. 817.
3 Descend of Man, p, 61.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Darwin on God
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: 64 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. 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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N236
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Evolution
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 (Darwin on God), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Darwin
Evolution-Religious Aspects-Christianity
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d13ed9db848b5b0ec35d62553bb6d36d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BaB6uRo1B7meaeVTVTeqMrwWSwek-A2mkL4AETxYM2Lwawpt2Y-PoeBoB5apsEDcBEDRHU%7ESLUNNhVHy-jq8ZcXEL7ejCe8ewpmkLxwthWzqZ0WhU0flNn02SEZZrhmF2c82-CFikxMYpm-I2PkhggtcxhEZSNgDckc8JTsN1rdqieZevSG5X-Oadqa%7EoJxiMHRXXC6skHyGFzj47DyHQfcEVj5KdaZndX3BpuY87YNnjXH3kHcw3lFExDkC8JjWygbFZpW3WLLwDxYrUXGcd3aXc2c-WV2cY2F4RVixe0r3U3Tna2-vkA%7E1cRYYhYIwlKmvpyydHJBKf5fI64lXSA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3b7c3d6237af69c47c551fe622895a15
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE NEW CAGLIOSTRO
AN OPEN LETTER
TO
MADAME BLAVATSKY
It is worth considering what element your Quack specially works in:
the element of Wonder ! The Genuine, be he artist or artisan, works
in the finitude of the Known; the Quack in the infinitude of the
Unknown.—Carlyle.
Price Twopence.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1889.
�THE NEW CAGrLIOSTRO.
AN OPEN LETTER TO MADAME BLAVATSKY.
Madam,—In addressing this open letter to you I am
writing for the public rather than for yourself. I have
no expectation, and certainly no desire, of influencing
you in the slightest degree. You are personally a
stranger to me, your orbit is far removed from mine,
and I should never have felt any interest in your move
ments or teachings had it not been for the conversion
to Theosophy of a lady for whose character I entertain
the highest respect. Mrs. Besant’s change of position
was a phenomenon to which I could not remain
indifferent.
I had occasion to criticise her new
opinions, and in doing so I was obliged to notice you.
Mrs. Besant eulogised your personal character in glow
ing language. With that, however, I did not concern
myself; I was unable to perceive its connexion with
the truth or falsity of theosophic principles. But you
were also credited, at least by implication, with the
possession of extraordinary powers, which ordinary
men and women would regard as miraculous. It was
more than hinted that you were the connecting
link between the humble devotees of Theosophy in
the benighted West and the Wise Men of the East who
deliver their supernal oracles in the unexplored regions
of Thibet. Such statements were open to criticism,
and I dealt with them in my reply to Mrs. Besant.
My remarks were brief and pointed ; the space I
devoted to you being simply proportionate to the part
you played in Mrs. Besant’s apology. What I had to
say was not very complimentary, and I am not sur
prised at your annoyance. But I am suprised at your
being stung into replying. It is more than I dared
�g *2*9 3
The New Gagliostro.
3
to hope. I was afraid you would follow your wise old
plan of letting the storm blow until it spent itself and
was forgotten ; but, instead of this, you have given me
an opportunity of writing at greater length on what is
now an interesting subject.
Your pamphlet betrays a dreadful ill temper. This
is a fact of which I do not complain. A cross dis
putant generally gives himself away, and his sarcasms
are apt to raise a smile of pity. It was not with anger
that I read your observation that “ The Freethinker
has shown its foot, and henceforth it cannot fail to be
recognised by its hoof.” This delicate badinage is a
revelation of the sweetness and light which prevail in
the upper circles of esoteric philosophy. It shows
what exquisite powers of wit are wielded by the Chelas
and adepts who have cultivated their spirits on the
heights of being, and breathed the pure air of theosophic perfection.
You tell your readers, madam, that I am a
“slanderer,” that I am guilty of “false and malicious
accusations as brutal as they are uncalled for,” that I
have “ abused and denounced you,” that I have “ flung
handfuls of mud ” at you, that I have circulated “ lies
which have never been proven, and on which no
evidence is adduced,” and that I have made free with
your “ private life and personality.”
I reply that I have done nothing of the kind. I have
made no accusations against you ; I have not said a
single word about your private life.
With regard to the latter charge, I defy you to pro
duce a single proof. What are the facts ? Mrs. Besarit
described you, in her Star article, as “ the most
remarkable woman of her time,” as one who had “ left,
home and country, social position and wealth, to spend
her life and marvellous abilities ” in spreading
Theosophy. Now this is a publie utterance, open to
public criticism ; and as one of the public, I ventured
to ask the simple and modest questions—“What is
Mde. Blavatsky’s home, what is her country, what was
her social position, and what is the extent of her
wealth ? ” Certainly I have no claim to have these
questions answered, but when your praise is sounded
�4
The New Gagliostro.
so lustily, I have a right to ask them. Instead of
replying, you fly into a passion, and cry “impertinent! ”
Would it not be wiser to restrain the enthusiasm of
your friends? If they drag your “ personality ” into
the discussion, you ought not to be surprised at its
being canvassed. Am I to understand that you are
willing to profit by their eulogies, but resentful at any
request for information ?
You decline to answer my “ impertinent question,”
and refer me with a regal air to the Indian Political
Department and the Russian Embassy. No doubt both
of them have a pretty full dossier on Mde. Blavatsky,
but I have no intention of consulting them. They are
not likely to entrust me with their secrets, which may
be important if you visit India again. I notice,
however, that you supply the public with information
through circuitous channels. You are too discreet to
write your own biography ; you assign that mission to
your friends. Accordingly I find a long account of
your family connections in the Birmingham Gazette,
from the pen of Mrs. Besant. It is a subject on which
that lady has no personal knowledge, having only
recently formed your acquaintance. Still, I have no
reason to doubt her statement. I learn that you are
the widow of a Russian Councillor of State, that you
belong to the “highly placed family” of the Von
Hahns, and that your “ means ” are your own, drawn
from your father. This is very interesting, but the
extent of your “ means ” is not indicated. Mde.
Coulomb says you told her, in 1880, that the whole of
your income was derived from a sum of money left to
you by your father, which did not yield you more
than a hundred rupees a month. Of course poverty is
no crime, as wealth is no virtue ; and intrinsically it is
indifferent whether you are an aristocrat or a plebeian,
or rich or poor. But while you are enlightening the
world, through the agency of your friends, you may as
well be precise ; and when they parade your sacrifices
it is absurd to quarrel with a natural curiosity.
This is the full extent of my inquisitiveness as to
your “ private life,” and how does it justify your
indignation ? I made no charges ; I did not even
�The New Cagliostro.
5
make a statement; I simply asked a question, which
was provoked by the zeal of your admirers. I never
concerned myself for a moment with your domestic
affairs, how you live, what you eat and drink, and
whose society you frequent. I have nothing to do
with such matters, and I am as little of a Paul Pry as
any man on this planet. I am known, more or less
intimately, by hundreds of people, who are the judges
of my taste in this direction.
If I know myself, too, I would not do any person an
injustice, not even the prophetess of Theosophy. I
hasten, therefore, to withdraw a word I used, and the
only one I see reason to regret. I said that twenty
years ago you were “ practising as a spiritist 1 mejum ’
in America.” Now practising is the wrong word ; it
conveys more than I intended. I should have written
operating, or some such word. I did not mean that
you were living by your mediumship, and I frankly
apologise for the inadvertency. My object was to show
that you were a Spiritualist, and a medium, long before
you were a Theosophist, and this you are unable to
deny. It is proved by your letter to Human Nature
in April 1872, it is proved by Colonel Olcott’s People
from the Other World, and corroborated by Mde.
Coulomb. This lady says the Cairo seances came to
grief because the devotees found the apparatus with
which they had been deluded, especially the “ long
glove stuffed with cotton,” which represented ‘‘the
materialised hand and arm of some spirit.”
I am defied to “ prove beyond doubt or cavil that
Mde. Blavatsky has ever asked for or received any
reward whatever, of a material nature, during her
fifteen years of voluntary labor.” As I have never
asserted anything of the kind, I do not feel called upon
to prove it. I am not in a position to say Aye or No.
Every reader of Mde. Coulomb’s pamphlet will be able
to judge for himself in some respects, especially if he
looks carefully at two interesting letters (pp. 81, 85)
by Colonel Olcott, and another on the very next page
by Mde. Blavatsky herself.
“ Reward ” does not
always take the shape of direct payment. Besides, it
seems to me that “ the lady doth protest too much.”
�6
The New Cagliostro.
There is really no harm in living by the cause to which
you devote your life. Mrs. Besant herself has done it,
and is still doing it so far as Freethought is concerned.
The indispensable condition is that it be done honestly
and above-board.
On the other hand,, too much
protestation is apt to breed suspicion.
Your cash transactions, madam, were not called in
question in my pamphlet. They did not so much as
form the subject of an allrfsion. Why then are you so
vehemently indignant on the matter ? And why is so
scrupulous a lady so very tzwscrupulous in her
quotations. You represent me as saying that “ denuncia
tion of landlords, capitalists, and all privileged persons,
is silly screaming against 1 eternal justice.’ ” I did
indeed write the words, but I did not father them. I
said they were true, in my opinion, if—mark the if—if
Mrs. Besant’s doctrine of Karma were sound, if each
man “reaps exactly as he has sown,” (/each Ego goes
into “ such physical and mental environment as. it
deserves.” I was asking Mrs. Besant to reconcile
Karma with Socialism. You know this, yet you place
me before your readers as a person who cites “ eternal
justice ”—in which I do not believe—as the friend of
landlordism and privilege.
Again, you tell your readers that I described my
friend Mr. Wheeler as a profound scholar whom
Mrs. Besant “ can never hope to emulate.” What I
said in my pamphlet was that “ it would take Mrs.
Besant many years of close study to rival ” his “ know
ledge of Brahminism and Buddhism, as well as of
general ‘ occult ’ literature.” I also said in the Free
thinker that he knew “more about Buddhism and
Oriental thought generally than Mrs. Besant is ever
likely to learn.” I am writing nearly three hundred
miles from home, and the file of my paper is not before
me, but I unhesitatingly deny having written that Mr.
Wheeler was a “ profound scholar ” whom Mrs. Besant
“ can never hope to emulate,” notwithstanding your
printing the words as a quotation.
Mrs. Besant
knows a great deal, but not in this particular direction,
whereas Mr. Wheeler has studied Oriental literature
for more than twenty years.
�The New Cagliostro.
7
Further, you say that I censure, ‘ ‘ Mde. Blavatsky’s
arrogance” for “assuming to know more of these
religions and occultism than does Mr. Mazzini
Wheeler.”
Sheer invention, madam ; the birth of
your own fertile brain ! I did refer to your “ arro
gance,” but only in connexion with your attitude
towards Darwin and Haeckel, whom you presumed to
instruct in evolution ; one of whom you described as
“ idiotic,” and both of whom you styled “ the intel
lectual and moral murderers of future generations.”
I am aware that you are extensively read in useless
literature. You have a prodigious knowledge of occult
authors. You have made a wonderful collection of the
maggots of the human brain. There is hardly a
superstition which is not wholly or partially sanctioned
in your four portly volumes. Your heap of rubbish
is colossal. Mr, Wheeler himself looks upon it with
amazement. But after all, to borrow a phrase from
Charles Lamb, you have only gathered the rotten part
of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
I will now consider what I did say of you in my
pamphlet. It is not true that I called you “ a thorough
paced adventuress.” I applied that phrase to the
writer of the letters to Mde. Coulomb, which I honestly
said you had “ repudiated as forgeries.” I as honestly
said, however, that Mde. Blavatsky “does not vin
dicate herself in the law courts, and the letters cer
tainly came from a more fertile brain than Mde.
Coulomb’s.”
What is your reply to this ? You scream at Mde,
Coulomb as a “Judas,” you protest against “insults
and slanders,” and you declare that they were “in
vented ” by the “ goldy Christian missionaries ” who
‘‘ bribed Mde. Coulomb ” and then “ cheated her out of
her well-earned blood-money.”
Admirable! madam. Your courage is superb. It
is worthy of Cagliostro himself when caught in the
toils. But, alas, your answer will not bear examina
tion. You have overdone your part. If Mde. Cou
lomb was bribed by the missionaries she might have
dishonestly put her name to forged documents in
India ; but, if she was cheated of her blood-money,
�8
The New Oagliostro.
why should she allow the pamphlet to be republished
in England ? If her motive was purely mercenary,
and she was without any other feeling, why should
she encourage the persons who have cheated her of
the price of her treachery ? Vengeance is sweet, and
the lower the nature the sweeter it is. The more,
therefore, you represent Mde. Coulomb as mean and
avaricious, the more incredible is her silence. If she
rounded on you, with no case, why, with a splendid
case, does she not round on the missionaries ? On the
other hand, is it conceivable that the missionaries
would invent the slanders, forge the correspondence,
and then, by withholding the “blood-money,” put
themselves at the mercy of a disappointed and
exasperated woman ?
There is one letter, ostensibly yours, madam, which
the missionaries could not have “ invented,” and from
which I take a striking extract. You are represented
as writing to Mde. Coulomb, from Poona, in October,
1883
“ Now, dear, let us change the subject. Whether something
succeeds or not, I must try. Jacob Sassoon, the happy pro
prietor of a crore of rupees, with whose family I dined last
night, is anxious to become a Theosophist. He is ready to
give 10,000 rupees, to buy and repair the headquarters, he said
to Colonel (Ezekiel, his cousin, arranged all this) if only he
saw a little phenomenon, got the assurance that the Mahatmas
could hear what was said, or gave him some other sign of their
existence (?!!). Well, this letter will reach you by the 26th
(Friday); will you go up to the shrine and ask K. H. (or
Christofolo) to send me a telegram that would reach me about
4 or 5 in the afternoon, same day, worded thus :
“Your conversation with Mr. Jacob Sassoon reached
Master just now. Were the latter even to satisfy him, still
the doubter would hardly find the moral courage to connect
himself with the society.
“ Ramalinga Deb.
“ If this reaches me on the 26th, even in the evening, it will
still produce a tremendous impression. Address, care of N.
Kandalawala, Judge, Poona. Je berai ee reste. . Oela
coutera quatre ou cinq roupies. Cela nc fait rien. [I will do
the rest. It will cost four or five rupees. That is of no con
sequence.]
“ Yours truly,
“ (Signed) H. P. B.” 1
i Some Accownt of my Intercourse with Aide. Blavatsky from 1S72 to
1884. By Madame Coulomb. London: Elliot Stock.
�The New Cagliostro.
9
Mde. Coulomb affirms that she sent the desired
telegram, as from Root Hoomi, a great Mahatma far
away in Thibet ; and I have been told that “ the fish
was landed.” You shelter yourself behind a general
repudiation. This is a plea of Not Guilty, but it is no
evidence for the defence. There is apparently a strong
corroboration of Mde. Coulomb’s story. Mr. Richard
Hodgson, who went out to investigate your occult
phenomena on the spot for the Society for Psychical
Research, reported as follows :—
“ The envelope which Madame Coulomb shows as belonging
to this letter bears the postmarks Poona, October 24th
Madras, October 26th; 2nd delivery, Adyar, October 26th; (as
to which Madame Blavatsky has written in the margin of my
copy of Madame Coulomb’s pamphlet: ‘ Cannot the cover have
contained another letter ? Funny evidence! ’). Madame
Coulomb also shows in connexion with this letter an official
receipt for a telegram sent in the name of Ramalinga Deb from
the St. Thome office, at Madras, to Madame Blavatsky at Poona,
on October 26th, which contained the same number of words
as the above.”2
I do not stand sponsor for the authenticity of your
reputed letters to Mde. Coulomb. I have my impres
sions, of course ; but, for all I know, you may have an
overwhelming defence. When yon offer it I will
listen with the deepest attention. Meanwhile I must
say that screaming “Judas 1” is not evidence. These
accusations of imposture are deliberate and circumstantial. If they were made against me, and I were
guilty, I would hold my tongue. If I were innocent, I
would refute them point by point, or vindicate my
character before a legal tribunal.
It is idle, madam, to ask me why I do not prosecute
the Christian Evidence agents for their “ shameful
accusations of gross profligacy launched against the
immaculate editor of the Freethinker.” Such accusa
tions are loose innuendoes, not open charges. They
are made against me in common with Mrs. Besant and
every other Freethought leader. And they are made
in the streets, in such circumstances that the law of
2 Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Eesearc/i, December, 1885,
�10
The New Cagliostro.
libel cannot reach them. I have heard for instance,
that I have run away with some one’s wife. Well, I
can afford to smile at such nonsense. All the same,
however, it may deceive the ignorant and unwary, and
T would prosecute the slanderers if they would only
put their libels in black on white. You urge that a
Christian jury would be prejudiced. Very likely.
But that has not prevented Mr. Bradlaugh from prose
cuting his libellers. In any case, one’s own friends,
and the impartial public, would have the facts before
them, and be able to form their own judgment.
You appear to forget an important point of your case.
My “ profligacy ” would not affect the truth of Freethought, but your “ imposture ” would seriously affect
the truth of Theosophy. The facts on which Freethought is based are quite independent of my
character; but what becomes of the wonderful
Mahatmas if the lady who is the authority for their
very existence is found concocting their messages ?
I now turn to the Report of the Society for Psychical
Research, with regard to which you write very in
accurately. You allege that in 1885 the Society accused
you of being a Russian spy. This is absolutely false.
The Society published Mr. Hodgson’s careful, elaborate,
and extremely able Report on your Indian wonders,
but did not endorse his speculations as to your moti ves.
It was Mr. Hodgson, and Mr. Hodgson only, who sug
gested a political motive for your Eastern adventures.
He found a rumor current in India that you were a
Russian spy, but he put it aside as “ unworthy.”
Subsequently, however, a singular piece of your hand
writing fell into his possession, breathing a strong
hatred of the British, looking forward to “ the approach
ing act of the Eastern drama ” which was to be “ the last
and the decisive one,” and declaring that those who
sat idle while the great preparations were going on
were traitors to their “ country and their Czar.” You
explained to Mr. Hodgson that it was probably a por
tion of a translation you had made from a Russian
work. “ Be this as it may,” Mr. Hodgson says, “ I
cannot profess myself, after my personal experiences
of Madame Blavatsky, to feel much doubt that her
�The New Gagliostro.
11
real object has been the furtherance of Russian
interests.”
Mr. Hodgson went out to India on behalf of the
Society to investigate your marvels on the spot. The
Society is on the hunt for occult phenomena, and
anxious to find them. Mr. Hodgson himself was far
from indisposed to discover something; whatever
prepossessions he had were “distinctly in favor of
occultism and Mde. Blavatsky.”
But after three
months’ close investigation he was obliged to conclude
that “ the phenomena connected with the Theosophical
Society were part of a huge fraudulent system worked
by Mde. Blavatsky with the assistance of the Coulombs
and several other confederates, and that not a Single
genuine phenomenon could be found among them all.”
The Psychical Society had for its president Professor
Balfour Stewart, Professor ’Sidgwick was among the
vice-presidents, Mr. F. W. H. Myers was a member of
the Committee with Professor Sidgwick, and among
the honorary members I see the names of Professor
Crookes, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. John Ruskin, Dr. A. R.
Wallace, and Lord Tennyson. When this is known,
madam, it will be futile on your part to ask English
men to regard the Society as a band of libellous
blackguards, whose Report would only be believed by
a “ fool.”
The Committee of the Psychical Society received
from Mr. Hodgson a selection of your reputed letters
to Mde. Coulomb, with some letters undoubtedly written
by you. These “ were submitted to the well-known
expert in handwriting, Mr. Netherclift, and also to Mr.
Sims, of the British Museum. These gentlemen came
independently to the conclusion that the letters were
written by Mde. Blavatsky.”
After carefully weighing all the evidence, the Com
mittee arrived at the following conclusions :—
(1) “ That of the letters put forward by Mde. Coulomb, all
those, at least, which the Committee have had the opportunity
of themselves examining, and of submitting to the judgment
of experts, are undoubtedly written by Mde. Blavatsky, and
suffice to prove that she has been engaged in a long-continued
combination with other persons to produce by ordinary means
�12
The New Cagliostro.
a series of apparent marvels for the support of the Theosophic
movement.
(2) “That, in particular, the Shrine at Adyar, through
which letters purporting to come from Mahatmas were re
ceived, was elaborately arranged with a view to the secret in
sertion of letters and other objects through a sliding panel at
the back, and regularly used for this purpose by Mde.
Blavatsky or her agents.
(3) “ That there is consequently a very strong general pre
sumption that all the marvellous narratives put forward as
evidence of the existence and occult power of the Mahatmas
are to be explained as due either (a) to deliberate deception
carried out by or at the instigation of Mde. Blavatsky, or (b) to
spontaneous illusion, or hallucination, or unconscious mis
representation oi' invention on the part of the witnesses.”
You cannot pretend, madam, that the Society has
been animated by prejudice or a desire to expose
you. . Its investigations were carried on quietly,
and its Report was published in the usual way
for its members.. Your injudicious friends are
responsible for this extended publicity. If you are
innocent, and all the evidences against you are
ridiculous fabrications, you have a splendid case
against the respectable firm of Triibner and Co, and the
wealthy members of the Society for Psychical Research.
Now for your Mahatmas. The great Root Hoomi’s
letters have been declared to be in your own
handwriting. Further, they betray your very tricks of
style. Mde. Blavatsky wrote “ Olcott says you speak
very well English,” and Root Hoomi wrote one who
understands tolerably well English.” Here is a small
list of their similarities of spelling
Mde. Blavatsky.
your’s, her’s3
expell
thiefs
deceaved, beseached
quarreling
cool.v (for “ coolly ”
lazzy, lazziness
consciensciously
defense
Koot Hoomi.
your’s
dispell, fulfill
thiefs
leasure
quarreling
alloted
in totto
circumstancial
defense.
Mde. Blavatsky makes the very same blunder “their’s” in the
pamphlet before me.
�The New Gagliostro.
13
Koot Hoomi also spelt “ skepticism,” an American
fashion of spelling, which yon might have acquired
in the land of the Stars and Stripes before your voyage
to India. Finally, Koot Hoomi spelt “ remarqued,” a
form of spelling easily fallen into by a Russian lady
with a good command of French and an imperfect
command of English.
It is also very singular, madam, that Koot Hoomi not
only repeated your curiosities of spelling, and your
very tricks of style, but actually repeated your crude
scientific blunders; writing of “ a bacteria,” and
confusing “ carbonic ” with “ carbolic ” acid. Still
more singular is it? if possible, that Koot Hoomi’s
hand-writing is remarkably like Mde. Blavatsky’s
disguised, and that the experts declare his letters to be
undoubtedly from your pen.
Considering that Koot Hoomi is a Wise Man of the
East, possessing supernormal wisdom and supernormal
powers, it is astonishing that he should write to Mr.
Sinnett from Thibet, in 1880, and give as his own a
long passage borrowed from a speech of Mr. H. Kiddle,
an American Spiritualist, which was reported in the
Banner of Light two months before the date of Koot
Hoomi’s letter.
Koot Hoomi’s explanation was
shuffling and preposterous; and, subsequently, Mr.
Kiddle was able to show that Koot Hoomi’s amended
letter still contained a number of unacknowledged
borrowings, in addition to the passages now marked
as quotations. Who can resist the conclusion of the
Psychical Society’s committee, that “The proof of a
deliberate plagiarism, aggravated by a fictitious defence,
is therefore irresistible ” ?
Koot Hoomi made another dreadful mistake in a
letter to Mr. Hume with reference to a young man in
his employment. After speaking of the young man’s
“inner soul-power and moral sense,” the Mahatma
continues :—
“ I have often watehed that silent yet steady progress, and
on that day when he was called to take note of the contents of
your letter to Mr. Sinnett, concerning our humble selves, and
the conditions you imposed upon us—I have myself learned a
�14
The New Oagliostro.
lesson. A soul is being breathed into him, a new Spirit let in,
and with every day he is advancing towards a state of higher
development. One fine morning the ‘ Soul ’ will find him ; but,
unlike your English mystics across the great Sea, it will be
under the guidance of the true living adept, not under the
spasmodic inspirations of his own untutored ‘ Buddhi,’ known
to you as the sixth principle in man.”
Mr. Hume appends a note that, at the very time this
was written, the good young man “ was systematically
cheating and swindling me by false contracts, besides
directly embezzling my money.” So much for the
“ learned spirit of human dealings ” of the great
Mahatma who is “ able to read the hidden thoughts of
others without first mesmerising them.”
As for Koot Hoomi’s poor tricks—such as disinte
grating and reintegrating letters, saucers, and cigarettes
—they would be looked upon with contempt by any
third-rate English conjuror ; while his “ astral appear
ance ” to the faithful at Madras is declared by the
Coulombs to have been operated by means of a dummy.
With respect to your own “ remarkable powers,”
they are probably as authentic as those of the Sheik
you tell of in Isis UnveiLed, who was absolutely bullet
proof, even at close quarters. We are informed that
you are very chary of exercising your “ remarkable
powers,” because they extend to the very life of other
people ; but most sensible persons, I fancy, will smile
at such extravagant pretensions. Nevertheless, I do
not undertake to deny your occult resources. I am
willing to believe you can “ eat a crocodile or drink up
Eisel ”—on production of proof.
You charge me, madam, with grossly misrepresent
ing Theosophy. I reply that all I have said of it is
based on the writings of yourself and Mrs. Besant. I
said that “ Spiritism is the logical issue of this fanciful
philosophy.” You answer that you are not a Spiritist.
I never said you were. I spoke of “ the logical issue ”
of your teaching. But why, in any case, will you
quarrel over straws ? You talk ofil astral appearances,”
and Mrs. Besant says the Ego can be separated from the
body during life and “ appear apart ” from it. Strictly
speaking, perhaps, this is not Spiritualism, as presented
�The New Oagliostro.
15
by the mediums ; but I venture to include it under the
general head of Spiritism.
You are good enough to remind me that my scepticsm
belongs only to “ a fraction ” of the human race. But
what does that signify ? Truth is not established by
appealing to numbers. I have no ambition to be on
the side of the majority. I desire to be on the side of
Truth.
With characteristic flippancy and inaccuracy, you
say that I urge the antiquity of the doctrine of re
incarnation as an objection to Theosophy.
I did
nothing of the kind. I gave a brief historical sketch of
the doctrine from the most obvious sources, in order to
give point to my wonder that Mrs. Besant should have
been “ struck with the charming novelty of very
ancient doctrines.” I need not deal, therefore, with
your demolition of your own man of straw.
You seek to turn the edge of my criticism of the
ethics of Theosophy by explaining away every
objectionable feature. Thus the “ destruction of self,”
and the “ killing out of personal desires,” are whittled
down to “ a control over one’s animal passions.” Really,
madam, one would think you were writing for children.
Do you imagine that grown-up people are to be cheated
into regarding “ control ” and “ destruction ” as
equivalent ?
You say I am fighting an imaginary windmill in
denouncing your doctrine of celibacy ; yet, in the very
same breath you show all the exquisite urbanity of
your refined nature, in asserting that my “ material
instincts ” are aroused against celibacy, which is
natural in one “ who is proud to claim kinship with
the gorilla.” I am not aware that I have ever pro
fessed pride in any kinship ; on the other hand, I do
not despise my lowly relatives ; and, on the whole, I
would sooner claim kinship with a gorilla than with a
Cagliostro.
Celibacy, you tell me, is “ not enforced ” in your
inner circle.
Very likely.
You are not able to
“ enforce ” anything. But is it not the rule ? With
respect to those who “ enter on the Path,” Mrs. Besant
states that “ if they mean to go any distance,
�16
The New Cagliostro.
they must lead a celibate life.” Observe the word,
madam—must!
You forget, also, what you have
written yourself on the subject. I take the following
passages from your own tract:—
“ Even the love for wife and family—the purest as the most
unselfish of human affections—is a barrier to real occultism . . .
The aspirant has to choose absolutely between the life of the
world and the life of Occultism. It is useless and vain to
endeavour to unite the two, for no one can serve two masters
and satisfy both. No one can serve his body and the higher
Soul, and do his family duty and his universal duty, without
depriving either the one or the other of its rights ; for he will
either lend his ears to the “ still small voice ” and fail to hear
the cries of his little ones, or he will listen but to the wants of
the latter and remain deaf to the voice of Humanity. It would
be a ceaseless, a maddening struggle for almost any married
man, who would pursue true practical Occultism instead of its
theoretical philosophy.4
You see, madam, I am not so “ absurdly ignorant ” of
your writings as you allege. When you write for
Theosophists you insist on celibacy ; when you write
for the outer world you pooh-pooh it, and instance “ a
member of the ‘ inner circle ’ who has just got married
to a second wife.”
You conclude by bidding the “ genii of Freethought”
to “ learn good manners first of all.” Thank you,
madam ; I have learnt many things from you. I have
learnt that Socrates died for the rotundity of the earth,
that men at one time had three eyes and four arms,
that Darwinism is moonshine, and that apes are the
offspring of human and animal parents. While you
impart such transcendent wisdom I shall always listen
with profound respect. It will cost me an effort to
believe it all, but I promise you, madam, that I will
believe as much as I can ; and after Mrs. Besant has
developed such unexpected credulity, there is surely
hope for the shrewdest Freethinker.
Yours doubtfully,
G. W. FOOTE.
4 “Theosophical Tracts,” No. vii., pp. 14, 15.
.Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The new Cagliostro : an open letter to Madame Blavatsky
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. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Madame Blavatsky co-founded the Theosophical Society and was a leader of the Theosophy religious movement. 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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N256
Subject
The topic of the resource
Theosophy
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 new Cagliostro : an open letter to Madame Blavatsky), 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
Annie Besant
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
NSS
Theosophy
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/850e7396c7a47975bc7ec9c53d270b83.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hPJ3jMpOkfXOA5qkVLzswhyJvh%7EpEE4A3vSQiJzDgpcI27QaI59N9uYzfSH1i9WfZ9WpmDQVUPtUJLcvils1o9ejr%7EtscpVADzVX05tUizrrelPw57oTiC8gwo6jjv93nUUVKhoERC5AtDyWUTpQ8qJantaNLGSDw1evK0UyravUQAbXhlQ8r-b1MvHQBxCW9GCI-3W0pTv5wv81gdotLjsCQzoFeoprA81xGp1P4gn7L48ORZsse9Uk3%7EXOZiJ88nQFmlgLHYti1HgzcVbIO3FLhGqqw6iOYw5xjN1%7Em16btss6bjnBc1UkdkjP5fyD5aTcKpSR%7EPG839VYlttS2w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bc3d0300cb453b8d9379653e83d2feed
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOC1™’
HOME RULE
AND
FEDERATION.
WITH EEMABKS ON
LAW AND GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY;
AND WITH A PEOPOSAL EOB THE
FEDERAL UNION OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND, '
AS THE MOST IMPOBTANT STEP TO
THE FEDERATION OF THE WORLD.
BY
A
DOCTOR
Author
of
OF
MEDICINE,
“The Elements of Social Scib.vce”.
LONDON:
E. TRUELOVE, 256 HIGH HOLBORN.
(REMOVED FROM TEMPLE BAR.)
1 8 8 9.
�“ The time may come when the aspirations and the wishes of some
among us may be realised, and we shall see all the possessions and
the colonies of England united in one great federation. When that
tiTHo. comes we may have a great federal authority which will be pre
pared to take the place, the supreme place, in the government of our
Empire which is now occupied by the Imperial Parliament.”—Lord
Hartington {Speech at Norwich, Feb. 27, 1889).
“ Some of us who look with hope to a possible federation of the
whole of the dominions now nominally or really subject to British
rule, recognise that we shall then have to face the huge difficulty of
constitution-making.”—Mr. Bradlaugh {National Reformer, Feb. 10,
1889).
�g 23 24-
THE QUESTION OF
IRISH HOME RULE.1
i.
As a warm friend of Ireland, though, an opponent of Home
Rule in the sense of an Irish Parliament Separate from that of
Great Britain, I may perhaps be permitted here to make a few
remarks on the great and complicated Irish question. I know
that on this subject I have the misfortune to differ in certain
respects from some whose opinion I value very highly and with
whom I am anxious to be agreed ; but I think that the differ
ences are partly owing to the ambiguity in the phrase “ Home
Rule” or “local self-government”, which is used in at least
three widely different senses, and that at bottom we have the
same earnest desire—that the supremacy of the Imperial Parlia
ment and the unity of the kingdom should be preserved, and
that Ireland should not be separated from Great Britain.
The Irish question has been divided into the three parts of
local self-government, or Home Rule, the land system, and
social order—including under the first terms not only an Irish
parliament, whether on the colonial or the federal model, but
also minor forms and degrees of local self-government, and
meaning by “social order” compliance with law and the re
pression of outrages and boycotting; and besides the above
there is a fourth question which should, I think, be attentively
considered, namely, the Irish Churches, Catholic and Protestant,
and their relation to the State. I need scarcely say here, more
over, what Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant have so nobly and
strenuously contended for, that the population question lies at
the very root of the social evils, in Ireland as in all other old
countries, and should be carefully taken into account.
The most serious objection to an Irish Parliament, I venture
to think, is this—that if such a parliament were “independent”,
or in other words if it were neither subject to the British
Government nor subject along with it to a higher common
government, it would make Ireland an independent, separate,
1 Reprinted from the National Reformer.
�2
DEMAND EOR LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE.
or foreign State like France or Holland; while if, on the other
hand, it were “dependent” on the British Government, it
would put Ireland in an inferior position to that which she now
occupies, and it would therefore not content Mr. Parnell and
his followers but would be used by them as an instrument for
effecting entire separation. Mr. Parnell claims for Ireland
“legislative independence” and “the full and complete right
to arrange our own affairs, to make our land a nation, and to
secure for her, free from outside control, the right to direct her
own course among the peoples of the world”. But an inde
pendent legislature free from outside control could not possi
bly, as it seems to me, exist in Ireland unless it were entirely
separated from Great Britain. The word “independent” some
times means distinct or detached, but its proper sense, and the
sense in which it is evidently here used by Mr. Parnell, is “ not
dependent” or “not subject to outside control”. An inde
pendent legislature or government is therefore equivalent to a
supreme or sovereign government, and means a government
which is not subordinate or subject to the commands of any
higher authority. Such a government can only exist in a
separate or independent State, for the very meaning of an
independent State is a political society consisting of a sovereign
government and its subjects, and there cannot be two sovereign
governments in the same State. “By ‘an independent political
society ’, or ‘ an independent and sovereign nation
says Mr.
John Austin in his lectures on jurisprudence, “we mean a
political society consisting of a sovereign and subjects, as
opposed to a political society which is merely subordinate”.
Mr. W A. Hunter, M.P., a high legal authority, says also in
his work on Boman Law, “ Since the time of Hobbes, the pro
position that sovereign power is one, that there cannot be two
sovereign powers in one State, has become a political common
place ”. There may be many distinct legislatures or govern
ments in the same political community, as we see for instance
in the United States and in the British Empire, but there can
be only one independent and sovereign government to which
all the rest are subject, for otherwise the community could not
form a single State.
The great majority of Englishmen who are in favor of a
separate Parliament for Ireland have, I believe, radically
different views and aims on the subject from Mr. Parnell.
They do not wish that the Irish Parliament should be inde
pendent and free from outside control, which would inevitably
have the effect of making Ireland a foreign country. Thus Mr,
Bradlaugh holds that there should be a federal union in these
islands, as in the United States, and that Ireland should be
fully and constantly represented in the Imperial Parliament.
He said at a Home Bule meeting in St. James’s Hall, in
�FEDERAL FORM OF HOME RELE.
3
explaining his views on the subject, “Let Ireland share in
Imperial legislation. It was asked ‘ How will you prevent the
Irish members from voting on English, Scotch, and Welsh
■questions?’ Let English, Scotch, and Welsh questions go to
English, Scotch and Welsh assemblies. Let the Parliament of
England be an Imperial Parliament.” “ I contend ”, he writes
in another place, “ that Ireland ought not in any event to be
deprived of its fair and constant representation in the Imperial
Parliament. As I have often said, my desire is that all local
affairs should be withdrawn from the Imperial Parliament and
dealt with under wide powers of local self-government.” A
political community like the United States is often called a
■composite State and is said to be under a supreme Federal
Government. Mr. Austin carefully examines the constitution
of the United States with the view of determining where the
sovereignity resides, and he shows that all the different legisla
tures, both State and Federal, form together the sovereign
government, to which each of these legislatures, taken singly,
is subject or subordinate; just as in our own constitution, and
in all other cases where the sovereign power is vested not in a
single person but in a body of persons, each member of the
body, taken singly, is subject to the whole body taken collec
tively. “In the case of a composite State or a supreme Federal
•Government”, says Mr. Austin, “ the several united governments
of the several united societies, together with a government
common to those several societies, are jointly sovereign in each
■of these several societies, and also in the larger society arising
from the Federal union. Or, since the political powers of the
common or general government were relinquished and conferred
upon it by those several united governments, the nature of a
composite State may be described more accurately thus: As
compacted by the common government which they have con
curred in creating, and to which they have severally delegated
portions of their several sovereignties, the several governments
of the several united societies are jointly sovereign in each and
all.” To this aggregate and sovereign body, he says, “ each of
its constituent members is properly in a state of subjection”.
Under a Federal system, therefore, though the Irish Parliament
would be a part of the sovereign body, it would not be inde
pendent, but would on the contrary, if taken singly, be in a
state of subjection to the whole body; and hence Mr. Parnell
has always, I believe, been opposed to the Federal scheme,
when regarded as an ultimate aim or policy for Ireland.
The other leading scheme of Home Pule which has been
proposed, and of which Mr. Parnell is (or was until lately) an
adherent, is that called the colonial, from its resemblance to the
form of government in many of the English colonies. Under
it the Irish members would be excluded from the House of
�4
COLONIAL FORM OF HOME RULE.
Commons, or would at most only take part in debates on.
Imperial questions, and Ireland would have her own legislature
for the management of Irish affairs, with an executive or ad
ministrative government responsible to it. This is evidently a
proposal of a widely different and far more separatist character,
repealing as it does the union of the British and Irish Parlia
ments, and I believe that comparatively very few English
Liberals or Radicals are in favor of it. They object to the
exclusion of the Irish members, or to their taking part only in
certain debates, even if the latter suggestion could be carried
out in practice. Mr. Bradlaugh, for instance, says of such a
suggestion, “ with this part we utterly disagree. We contend
that every member of the House of Commons should have equal
right, but that purely local questions should be relegated to
local assemblies.” It was keenly debated in the House of:
Commons whether the Imperial supremacy would be retained,
or whether the two countries would be separated, if the Irish
members were excluded, and the controversy evidently turns
upon the question whether or not the Irish Parliament would be
independent. If it were dependent on the British Government,
the supremacy of the latter would be retained and the countries
would remain united, but Ireland would he placed in the same
intolerable position of inferiority as she occupied prior to 1782;
if it were independent, on the other hand, then Ireland as
we have just seen would be a foreign country. In the
course of the debate, Sir Henry James defined supremacy as
“ the power of making laws for the whole dominions of the
Crown ”. He also defined sovereignty (which, he said, is
another phase of supremacy) as consisting in two things,
namely, that a Sovereign Parliament “ must be subject to the
control or decision of no man or body ”, and that “ it must be
able to alter and re-model its own constitution ” ; and he
maintained that if the Imperial Parliament, after the departure
of the Irish members, had no longer the power of legislating
for Ireland, its supremacy would be gone and the countries
would be entirely separated from one another. “I am con
tent ”, he said, “ to take my stand upon the dictum that if you
give up the abstract right—and I make no distinction between
abstract right and right—of legislation, the country over which
you give it up becomes an independent and foreign State ”, It
is true that the two countries would still be connected as regards
their foreign affairs which would be entirely under British
control, but Ireland would here be reduced to the humiliating
condition of an inferior having no voice in the management.
What tends to obscure this question is the peculiar position of
the British Colonies, which are nominally dependencies but
really independent States, connected with the mother-country
by a voluntary alliance and not by the legal or compulsory tie-
�AMBIGUITY OF WORDS
FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE
5
of subject and governor. The eminent judge, Sir James Stephen,
lately pointed out that the colonies might separate from this
country if they chose, without any attempt being made to
retain them by force; and that the superior power nominally
reserved, and indeed not unfrequently exercised, by the Im
perial Parliament of making laws to bind the colonies is at
bottom “ merely theory ”, since no laws would be imposed on
them against their will, and if any serious conflict arose the
English law would give way. “As to the great colonies ”
says Sir James Stephen, “it is plain that wherever, as in
Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, constitu
tional government has been granted, the grant has involved,
as indeed it was meant to involve, the consequence that from
that time forth the connexion between such a colony and the
British Islands should depend ultimately on the good will of
both parties, and that every idea of retaining it by force in
any event whatever, and in the last resort, should be definitively
renounced. That the Dominion of Canada could, if the Canadian
Parliament thought proper, separate from the United Kingdom
as effectually and completely as the United States, and that if
it determined to do so no civil war would take place, can be
denied by no reasonable man.” Where countries are connected
together but have the power of separating if any of them
please, it is evident that their connexion, in its essence, is not
a legal or compulsory union but only an alliance, and that
they really stand to each other in the relation of free and in
dependent States.
II.
But the words “ freedom and independence ” are used in
very different senses when applied to individuals and when
applied to States, and this ambiguity of language should be
carefully noticed, as it seems to me the source of endless con
fusion and of the most dangerous errors. As applied to indi
viduals, the words mean freedom and independence under law
and government, but as applied to States they mean freedom and
independence in the absence of law and government, or in what
jurists call “the state of nature” or of anarchy. The former
may be called legal or political, and the latter lawless or
anarchical freedom and independence. The wide difference
between them will be seen if we reflect that freedom and inde
pendence, when the words are used with reference to individuals
(as for instance in speaking of a freeborn person or an emanci
pated slave) are legal rights which are protected or secured, like
�6
ANARCHY BETWEEN INDEPENDENT NATIONS.
all other such rights, by means of corresponding duties imposed
by the law on other persons, forbidding them under penalties
to violate the rights in question. “ What, for example”, says
Mr. Hunter, “is the meaning of a ‘right to liberty’? It
means that all men are bound to abstain from interfering with
a man s freedom of action, except in the case where such
constraint is authorised by law.” “ In the civil law ”, he says
again, “duty and right are correlative terms. No duty is
imposed except in the interest of some specified person, who
thus has a right, and no right can exist except by imposing on
another some duty. The subject-matter of the civil law may
thus be described as rights and duties.”
The position of free and independent States, however, is very
different from this. As regards their international relations, or
their dealings with one another, independent nations live to
gether in the peculiar kind of anarchy called by Hobbes, Locke,
Bentham, and other writers “the state of nature”, or the
natural condition of society; that is to say, the anarchy
which does not consist in resistance to, but in the total absence
of, law and government. They have no common government, no
international laws, and no courts of justice for the settlement of
international disputes. In such a state of things, legal right
and legal duty do not exist, for there is no government to
protect the one or to impose the other. Each nation has to
protect itself as best it can by its own strength and resources;
and hence the so-called freedom and independence of nations’
being unprotected by law, are not legal rights, and are quite
spurious and illusory. “ As Mr. Locke has well observed,” says
Blackstone in his Commentaries, “where there is no law, there
is no freedom ”. And in the passage here quoted from his
essay on Government, Locke says: “ In all the states of created
beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no
freedom; for liberty is to be free from restraint and violence
from others; which cannot be where there is not law ”.
Law and government are by far the greatest and most
valuable of all institutions, while anarchy with its attendant
war is among the most terrible of evils. So great an evil is
the.anarchy or “ state of nature ” existing between independent
nations, that it has filled all past history with wars, and the
endeavor to put an end to it and to bring mankind under a
common government has been a main cause of foreign con
quests and the subjugation of vast territories by single5States,
especially by ancient Borne, and by Bussia and England in
modern times. But conquest, in addition to the bloodshed and
misery it occasions, is attended with the immense evil that it
reduces free States to the condition of dependencies under a
foreign rule; although their subjection is not unfrequently of
the greatest benefit to "'he conquered race if they are much
�UNION THE REMEDY EOR INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY.
7
inferior in civilisation to their conquerors, and the two peoples
may in time become united on terms of equality. All nations,
like all individuals, should be equal, and have equal political
rights, as soon as they are sufficiently civilised to use them with
advantage; and therefore the true and ultimate mode of putting
an end to the anarchy between nations is not by conquest and
the dependency of one State upon another, but by the legal
union of different States on equal terms. Now States cannot be
legally united together unless they are brought under the same
government, for all laws proceed from government, and a
government can only make laws for its own subjects. It
cannot establish legal relations between those who are not
under its authority and jurisdiction, and thus the unity of a
kingdom or empire depends on the unity of its government.
“ The real unity of a kingdom ”, says Sir Henry James in the
debate already referred to, “ must depend upon the unity of its
laws. I do not mean by that that there must be an identity of
laws. But what I mean is that there must be one power of
making laws for a kingdom supposed to be united. It is not
the identity of manufacture, it is the identity of the manu
facturer that makes the unity of a kingdom.” In order, there
fore, that two or more free and independent nations should be
legally united together, they must have the same government;
and to be united on equal terms, each of them must have a share
in the government, and a share in proportion to its population.
They cannot, as we have seen, be legally united at all unless
one of them has the power of making laws for the others ; and
they cannot be united on equal terms unless each of them has
this power and can make laws for the others as well as for
itself; that is to say, unless they have a common government
and are mutually subordinate to one another. Mutual legislation,
and mutual subordination or subjection, are the requisites for a
legal union between free and independent States under repre
sentative institutions.
These conditions are fulfilled by the two great and invaluable
methods of uniting nations, called the complete union and the
federal union; which agree in the cardinal point that they are
not mere alliances but real legal unions, since in each of them
a single State, consisting of one sovereign government and its
subjects, is formed by the junction of two or more separate
States. They differ, however, in this respect, that in the com
plete union the sovereign powers of the State thus formed are
vested in a single body of persons, while in the federal union
they are divided between several distinct assemblies, which
together make up the sovereign government, and each of which,
taken singly, is a subordinate or non-sovereign legislative body.
It is by means of a complete union, or in other words, by
incorporation under one central government (whether consisting
�8
COMPLETE UNION AND FEDERAL UNION.
of a sovereign assembly or of a single person or monarch), that
the grea 1 majority of modern States, such as France, Italy, and
the United Kingdom, have been gradually built up out of the
host of petty independent kingdoms, principalities, tribes, or
clans, perpetually at war with each other, which at early times
existed in every part of the world. As to the federal union,,
which is more complicated, it is of comparatively recent origin,
having been first planned and instituted by the eminent men
who founded the United States, and it has since been adopted
in several other countries, including Switzerland, Canada, and
Germany. Under both systems of government in advanced
countries, as, for instance, in the United States and the United
Kingdom, there is complete political equality between the
different states or nations taking part in the union. Thus
Ireland has exactly the same political rights and privileges as
England or Scotland; she is just as free and independent as
they are ; each country has a share in the government in pro
portion to its population, so that they mutually legislate for
and are mutually subject to one another; the colonies and
dependencies of the empire belong to Ireland no less than to
Great Britain, and the one has the same privileges and duties
as the other with respect to them; it is not the “British” or
the “English” Government and Empire (though often so called
for shortness), but the British-Irish Government, and the
British-Irish Empire which are common to all the three countries
alike, and in which each of them has an equal part and interest.
Many Irishmen, however, have sought to sever this connexion,
and hold that Ireland has in strict justice a right to separate
and be independent if she prefers separation to union. Mr.
Dicey, professor of law at Oxford, in his work on “ England’s
case against Home Rule ”, alludes to those “ Nationalists who
still occupy the position held in 1848 by Sir Charles Gavan
Duffy and his friends, and who either openly contend for the
right of Ireland to be an independent nation, or accept Home
Rule (as they may with perfect fairness) simply as a step
towards the independence of their country.” Mr. Parnell too,
in the passage already quoted, claims for Ireland legislative
independence, freedom from outside control, and the full and
complete right to manage her own affairs, which are just the
distinctive characteristics of a separate and independent State.
On the contrary, Mr. Bradlaugh and almost all Englishmen and
Scotchmen to whatever party they belong, strenuously deny
the right of separation. Some months ago Mr. Bradlaugh
said in the House of Commons that ‘ ‘ he had preached the
doctrine of Home Rule for twenty-five years. He preached it
in New York in 1873, when he was attacked by Irishmen in a
perfectly friendly spirit, because, though he supported Home
Rule, he declared that he would resist separation by force if
�ANARCHICAL LIBERTY AND INDEPENDENCE.
force were employed to bring it about.” The question as to the
true relations between England and Ireland is evidently only a
part of a far wider question which concerns every country in
the world; namely, is it a good thing for any nation, and has
any nation a right in morality and justice, to be independent
and separate from others, and to have a sovereign government
to itself apart ? I venture to think that no nation has such a
right, but that all nations ought to be legally united together;
and that the rights which Mr. Parnell claims for Ireland, of
legislative independence, freedom from outside control, and
exclusive management of her own affairs, are not a good or a
blessing either to Ireland or to any other country, but on the
contrary enormous evils to mankind.
The only kind of freedom or liberty which is really a blessing
is political or civil liberty—that is to say, the freedom which
exists under the reign of law and government, and whose nature
is thus described by Mr. Austin: “Political or civil liberty”,
he says, “is the liberty from legal obligation which is left or
granted by a sovereign government to any of its own subjects ”,
Moreover, before we can call liberty a blessing it must be such
liberty as is consistent with the welfare of society, or, in other
words, the acts permitted by government must not be of a mis
chievous character and hurtful to other people. “The liberty ”,
says Bentham, “ which the law ought to allow of and leave in
existence—leave uncoerced, unremoved—is the liberty which
concerns those acts only by which, if exercised, no damage
would be done to the community as a whole ”. Now, the
liberty of independent States in their dealings with one another
is not political or civil, but anarchical or lawless, liberty, that
is to say, the liberty which is unrestrained by government and
law; for independent nations, as already remarked, have no
common government, and therefore no international laws pro
perly so called, but live together in a state of nature or of
anarchy. Hence each nation is free to make war upon others,
to oppress them, to violate their rights, to defraud them, and
to do them any act, good or bad, which lies in its power, and
which it may think conducive to its own interests. Such liberty
as this is evidently not a blessing, but an incalculable evil to
mankind.
.Again, the truly desirable kind of independence and sove
reignty is not that which a nation possesses for itself apart, but
that which it shares with others, and which, moreover, is
coupled with dependence or subjection in such a man nor that
each sharer in the sovereignty is both independent and depen
dent, sovereign and subject. The states of the American Union,
and. the different parts of the United Kingdom, did not lose
their sovereignty or independence when they combined to
gether, but shared it with others by forming in each case one
�10
HAVE NATION'S A RIGHT OF SEPARATION ?
independent and sovereign State. Moreover, it is only in their
collective capacity that the supreme governments in England
and America are sovereign and independent, while each of
their constituent parts or members, taken singly, is dependent
or subject to the will of the whole. The countries which
really lose their independence by being united with others are
dependencies such as India, which have no share in the govern
ment, and this is an evil which we should seek earnestly though
cautiously to remedy till at last we can become united with
them on equal terms. But the sovereignty or independence
which is.shared with others is not an evil but a good, whereas
that which is held by a nation for itself apart is anarchical
independence and is attended by all the frightful evils and
dangers of anarchy ; for whenever there is more than one
supreme or sovereign government it is evident that the different
sovereign governments are in a state of nature or of anarchy
with respect to each other. It is independence in union, and
not in separation, that is a real blessing to mankind.
III.
As to the question whether a nation has a right, in morality
and justice, to be separate from others and to have the exclusive
management of its own affairs, it seems to me that in justice
nations should be legally united together and that each nation
should have a voice in the management of affairs which concern
them all. There is a wide difference, as Mr. Mill points out,
between those of a man’s acts which affect himself alone, and
those which affect other people ; the former are really his own
affairs, and he should be allowed to manage them for himself;
but the latter are just as much the affairs of others as of
himself, and they have an equal right with him to a share in
the management. The most important of the affairs which
concern all mankind and in which therefore all should have a
voice, are the rules of justice, whose essential character is that
they are the rules which forbid a man or a nation to hurt others
—to kill or enslave, to rob, cheat, or oppress them. ‘ ‘ The
moral rules”, says Mr. Mill, “which forbid mankind to hurt
one another (in which we must never forget to include wrongful
interference with each other’s freedom) are more vital to human
well-being than any maxims, however important, which only
point out the best mode of managing some department of
human affairs. Now it is these moralities primarily which
compose the obligations of justice.” Each nation, I venture
to think, should have a share in laying down and enforcing the
�FEDERATION OF MANKIND.
11
essential rules of justice not only between nation and nation,
but between man and man and between rulers and their
subjects, all over the world. The first rights of man, the
security of person and property and the fair and equal ■ treat
ment of individuals, concern everyone deeply, and should be
under the common protection of all. But law and government
are institutions whose main object is to lay down and enforce
the rules of justice among mankind. How then can it be just
for a nation, how can a nation have a right, to separate and
remain apart from others, when by so doing it puts an end to
law and government between itself and them, and thus saps
the very foundations of justice ?
Instead of seeking to make Ireland “free and independent ”
in the spurious and anarchical sense oi these terms, we ought
rather to seek that no country whatever should be independent
in this sense, but that all should have the true freedom and
independence which can only exist under the reign of govern
ment and law. It seems to me that one of the grandest aims
ever conceived—indeed, next to the removal of poverty and the
other population evils, the very greatest reform that could be
effected in human affairs—is to get rid gradually of the present
system of independent or sovereign States, which is attended
with complete international anarchy, and to substitute for it a
system of law and mutual subordination by bringing all
mankind under a common government; in such a way that
there should be only one supreme or sovereign federal govern
ment, of which the national governments in the different
countries, together with a general congress composed of re
presentatives from them all, would form parts or members,
and to which each of these governments, taken singly, would
be subject or subordinate. All States would thus be legally
united or confederated with one another, while the component
parts of each State would be joined together either by a com
plete or by a federal union ; and the condition of dependencies,
in which less civilised races are governed by others more
civilised, would gradually be done away with as the backward
populations grew in enlightenment, till at length all nations
were placed on a footing of political equality, and endowed
with equal rights and privileges. This, I believe, is the great
goal to which humanity should aspire and is actually tending,
as is warmly urged by many of the ablest and most prominent
members of the Freethought party, including Mrs. Besant,
“ D.”, Mr. J. M. Robertson, and Mr. W. P. Ball, in late
numbers of the National Reformer. Mrs. Besant said at the
Home Rule Meeting in St. James’s Hall: “They hoped that
this union with Ireland would be the forecast of a wider union
which, in days to come, should bind together every land in one
great commonwealth. What the Radicals hoped for was that
�12
FEDERATION OF MANKIND.
every nation might manage its local affairs in its own way, and
that over and above every nation there should be one vast
Parliament where all should make their voices heard—the
Parliament of that English commonwealth which spreads over
every part of the habitable globe.” “Can any clear-headed
Liberal”, “D.” writes, “doubt for one moment that the future
of Liberal politics lies with the development of the Federal
idea”? and he adds, quoting Tennyson, that “The hope of
the future lies with ‘ the Parliament of Man, the Federation of
the World’”. “True federation”, says Mr. Robertson, “is a
great ideal—an ideal only to be fully realised, indeed, when
nations hitherto armed against each other agree to bury their
jealousies ”, And in a letter on the subject of the Channel
Tunnel, Mr. Ball says, “ Possibly the Tunnel might be a good
thing in the long run by helping to bring about the United
States of Europe. But I should prefer that the United States
of Europe brought about the Tunnel by rendering it safe for
us.” Imperial federation of England and her colonies has
grown rapidly in public favor within the last few years, and
would be an immense step in advance, but the federation of
independent or foreign nations, between whom there is the
risk of war, such as the States of Europe, seems to me of even
greater importance. It is not merely for the sake of strengthen
ing the Empire that federation is to be desired, but above all,
in order to introduce law and government into the society of
nations and do away with the state of nature or of anarchy.
Until there is a common international government among
mankind, there can be no international law, in the proper sense
of the term, nor any legal rights and duties between nations,
but only moral rights and duties; there can be no legal limits
to the power of existing sovereign governments over their sub
jects, nor can the former have any legal rights and duties
towards the latter, but only moral rights and duties; in short,
the dealings of nations with one another, and of sovereign
governments with their subjects must be uncontrolled by law
and must remain as at present in a state of anarchy. There
can be no legal union between countries which are not under
the same government, but only a moral unions; and as regard
the latter, it seems to me impossible that nation s under different
supreme governments should really love and trust each other,
for they have no common superior to lay down and enforce
the rules of justice between them, to settle their disputes, and
redress their mutual wrongs ; and therefore, whenever they
cannot agree and will not yield to one another, so that a com
pulsory settlement is needed, their only resource is the terrible
expedient of war. How can there be real love and trust between
nations who have, as it is called, “ the right of making war”
on one another, that is to say, war between whom is not
�ESSENTIALS OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT.
13
solemnly declared to be a legal crime, and forbidden under
threat of punishment by a government able and willing to
execute the threat against offenders ? The huge standing
armies and navies, the wars and dread of war, the oppression of
weak States by strong ones, and the hatred, jealousy, and
distrust between nations, are really due to the want of a com
mon government and the consequent international anarchy now
prevailing over the world.
These considerations are so extremely important that, in
order to throw additional light upon the subject, I may perhaps
be permitted here to examine a little more closely the essential
nature of law and government together with the nature and
consequences of anarchy, and to quote, in support of the fore
going statements, a . few passages from the writings of the
great jurists Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, and also from
the celebrated treatises, the “Leviathan” and the essay on
“ Government ”, by Hobbes and Locke.
"What then are the essentials of law and government ? Law
may be defined as consisting in a set of commands issued by
governments to their subjects, conferring on them rights and
imposing on them duties ; obedience to these commands being
compelled by means of sanctions or threatened penalties which
are enforced by the power of the State. Thus Sir Henry
Maine in his work on “Ancient Law” observes that “Ben
tham in his ‘ Fragment on Government ’, and Austin in his
‘ Province of Jurisprudence determined ’, resolve every law into
a command of the law-giver, an obligation imposed thereby on
the citizen, and a sanction threatened in the event of disobedience;
and it is further predicated of the command which is the first
element in a law, that it must prescribe, not a single act, but a
series or number of acts of the same class or kind. The results
of this separation of ingredients tally exactly with the facts of
mature jurisprudence.” In like manner Mr. Hunter says :
“The subject matter of law is commands—general rules in
tended to govern men in their conduct towards each other.
‘ Law ’ may be defined sufficiently for the present purpose as a
command of the Sovereign to all persons in given circumstances
to do or not to do something, which persons will be visited
with some evil by the Sovereign if they disobey.” From this
definition it will be seen, in the first place, that laws are
commands addressed by governments to their subjects, and
hence that law is merely the creature or product of govern
ment, and where there is no government there can be no law,
in the legal or political sense of the word; secondly, that all
laws are compulsory, that is to say, they compel people to do
or not to do certain acts by the threat of punishments or
penalties in case of disobedience; and thirdly, that laws are
enforced by an enormous and irresistible power, namely, by
�14
DEFINITION AND DIFFERENT SENSES OF “ LAW ”,
the whole physical force of the community, which is placed, if
need be, at the disposal of the government or supreme authority
in order to execute its commands. Moreover, since government
represents the nation and is chosen under the representative
system by the great bulk of the people to make laws for th pm,
the commands of government may be said to be virtually the
commands of the nation or commonwealth, as is done by
Hobbes in his definition of civil laws. “Civil law”, he says,
is to every subject those rules which the commonwealth
hath commanded him, by word, writing, or other sufficient
sign of the will, to make use of for the distinction of right and
wrong . that is to say, of what is contrary or not contrary to
the rule ”.
The word “law”, as Mr, Austin points out, is used in four
widely different senses, which are often blended and confounded
with one another but should be carefully distinguished. There
are, in the first place, the laws, strictly and emphatically so
called, which are set or prescribed by governments to their
subjects ; secondly, the laws or rules of morality which are set
hy public opinion / these laws together with the foregoing con«,
stitute law or morality as it is, and may be either good or bad,
wisely or unwisely framed; thirdly, the moral law, or morality
as it ought to be, that is to say, .the standard of right to which
legal and moral rules ought to conform, and must conform if
they are to merit approbation; and, fourthly, the scientific
laws, which are only called laws in a metaphorical or figurative
sense, as they are not rules for conduct but uniformities or
invariable relations existing between natural phenomena. The
first and second classes of laws, which it is particularly important
here to distinguish, are called respectively by Mr. Austin positive
law and positive morality and are thus defined by him- “The
essential difference”, he says, “of a positive law (or the differ
ence which severs it from a law which is not a positive law)
may be stated generally in the following manner. Every
positive law, or every law simply and strictly so called, is set
by a sovereign person, or a sovereign body of persons, to a
member or members of the independent political society,
whereof that person or body is sovereign or supreme. Or
(changing the phrase) it is set by a monarch or sovereign
number to a person or persons in a state of subjection to its
author.” Of positive morality, or the laws imposed by opinion,
he. says: “No law belonging to the class is a direct or cir
cuitous command of a monarch or sovereign number in the
character of a political superior ” ; and he adds, “ The character
or essential difference of a law imposed by opinion is this :
that the law is not a command, expressly or tacitly, but is
merely an opinion or sentiment, relatively to conduct of a
kind, which is held or felt by an uncertain body, or by a
�BENTHAM ON GOVERNMENT.
15
determinate party ”, Positive law gives rise to legal rights
and duties, but positive morality only to moral rights and
duties, or in other words, to rights which are not protected
and duties which are not enforced by the State. Now the
rules which guide and influence sovereign governments in their
dealings both with foreign nations and with their own subjects
are not positive law but positive morality merely. “ For
example , says JMr. Austin, “ the so-called law of nations
consists of opinions or sentiments current among nations
generally. It therefore is not law properly so called.” The
same may be said of those parts of constitutional and adminis
trative law which concern the acts of the supreme govern m rm f
itself, and not of its political subordinates; in short, the con
duct of sovereigns, whether they be single persons or bodies
of persons, and whether in their foreign or their domestic
relations, is not under the control of law but only of morality
and public opinion.
IV.
The difference between political society, in which there exists a
government, and natural society, or society in the state of
nature, in which there is no government, is described as follows
by Bentham and Austin,. the latter of whom points out also the
distinction between an independent political society, such as
the United Kingdom, and a subordinate political society, or
dependency, such as India, in the former of which the govern
ment is sovereign and independent, while in the latter it is
control of another and higher government.
“When a number of persons (whom we may style subjects}
says Bentham in his “ Fragment on Government ”, “are sup
posed to be in the habit of paying obedience to a person, or an
assemblage of persons, of a known and certain description
(whom we may call governor or governors} such persons alto
gether (subjects and governors) are said to be in a state of
political society”. On the other hand, “When a number of
persons are supposed to be in the habit of conversing with each
other, at the same time that they are not in any such habit as
mentioned above, they are said to be in a state of natural society ”.
In criticising some remarks of Blackstone, Bentham says also :
ti ? S.tate °f na^ure’ a man means anything, it is the
state, 1 take it, men are in or supposed to be in before they are
under government, the state men quit when they enter into a
state of government, and in which, were it not for government
they world remain. ”. As examples of men living together in a
�16
BENTHAM ON GOVERNMENT.
state of nature or of anarchy, without any common government,
Bentham instances not only tribes of savages amongst them
selves, but also all independent nations and governments in
their foreign or international relations. Thus he speaks of
“the kings of France and Spain” as being “ in a perfect state
of nature with respect to each other ”, and observes that the
Spanish provinces of the Netherlands, having effected their
independence, “are now in a state of nature with regard to
Spain”. In fact, all men are in a state of nature in relation to
those who do not belong to the same political society with
themselves; to all who are under a different supreme govern
ment to their own, they are foreigners or aliens.
The following is the definition of sovereignty and independent
political society given by Mr. Austin. “ The superiority which
is styled sovereignty ”, he says, “ and the independent political
society which sovereignty implies, are distinguished from other
superiority and from other society by the following marks or
characters. 1. The bulk of the given society are in a habit of
obedience or submission to a determinate and common superior;
let that common superior be a certain individual person, or a
certain body or aggregate of individual persons. 2. That
certain individual, or that certain body of individuals, is not in
a habit of obedience to a determinate human superior. Or the
notions of sovereignty and independent political society ”, he
continues, “ may be expressed concisely thus: If a determinate
human superior, not in a habit of obedience to a like superior,
receive habitual,from the bulk of a given society, that
determinate superior is sovereign in that society, and the society
(including the superior) is a society political and independent.
To that determinate superior the other members of the society
are subject; or on that determinate superior the other members
of the society are dependent,” As to the distinction between
an independent and a subordinate political society, Mr. Austin
says: “ By ‘an independent political society’ or ‘an independent
and sovereign natiop’, we mean, a society consisting of a
sovereign and subjects, as opposed to a political society which
is merely subordinate^ that is to say, which is merely a limb
or member of another political society, and which therefore
consists entirely of persons in a state of subjection ”. And
with regard to a society in the state of naimre or anarchy, he
says: “A natural society, a society in a state of nature, or a
society independent but. natural, is composed pf a number of
persons who are connected bjhapiutual intercourse but are not
members, sovereign or subject, M-a; political society. None of
the persons who compose it live irr-the positive state which is
styled a state of subjection.” He shews that from the absence
of a common international government, "tefiependent nations
are really in a state of nature with regard to ohe another, and
�AUSTIN ON GOVERNMENT.
17
thus the so-called law of nations or international law is not
properly law at all. “Society formed by the intercourse of
independent political societies”, he says, “is the province of
international law or of the law obtaining between nations.
For (adopting a current expression) international law, or the
law obtaining between nations, is conversant about the conduct
■of independent political societies, considered as entire com
munities. Speaking with greater precision, international law,
or the law obtaining between nations, regards the conduct of
sovereigns, considered as related to one another. And hence
it inevitably follows that the law obtaining between nations is
not positive law; for every positive law is set, by a given
sovereign, to a person or persons in a state of subjection to its
author.” In a similar manner Sir James Stephen says: “ It is
because nations have no common superior that international
law commonly so called is not really law at all, but only a form
of morality ”, Mr. Austin divides the existing systems or
forms of society into the four classes described above, namely,
“societies political and independent, societies independent but
natural, society formed by the intercourse of independent
political societies, and societies political but subordinate ”,
The great object of those who aim at the federation of mankind,
is gradually to change the existing systems and to unite all
nations into one independent political society, consisting of a
sovereign federal government and its subjects, so that there
should be no longer any foreigners or aliens, and that a true
international law should put an end to war and secure peace
and justice throughout the world.
It should be remarked that by “the sovereign”, jurists
■commonly mean the sovereign government, whether it consists of
a. single person or a body of persons. In Europe the only
single persons who are sovereigns in this, the true sense of the
word, are the Emperor of Russia and the Sultan of Turkey,
while all the other royal and imperial persons, though members
of the sovereign bodies, and though their actual shares in the
sovereignty vary greatly in different countries, are, when con
sidered singly, not really sovereigns but subjects. The con
stitutional king or emperor in a so-called limited monarchy
does not differ in this cardinal point from the president of a
republic, and is really subject to the assembly which has the
power to limit him. “Unlike a monarch in the proper accep
tation of the term ”, says Mr. Austin, “that single individual
is not sovereign, but is one of the sovereign number. Con
sidered singly, he is subject to the sovereign body of which he
is a limb. Limited monarchy therefore is not monarchy,”
Each member of a sovereign assembly, taken singly, is subject
to the assembly itself, taken collectively, and can be bound by
laws enacted by the whole. He is thus at once a sharer in the
�18
AUSTIN ON GOVERNMENT.
sovereignty and a subject, a political superior and inferior;
and this constitutes a most important difference between govern
ments of one and of many persons. “ In the case of a monarchy
or government of one ”, says Mr. Austin, “ the sovereign portion
of the community is simply or purely sovereign. In the case
of an aristocracy or government of a number, that sovereign
portion is sovereign as viewed from one aspect, but is also
subject as viewed from another.” Under the representative
system of government, moreover, the whole body of electors
are virtually sharers in the sovereignty, and form, as it were,
an ulterior sovereign behind the immediate or legal sovereign,
Thus, in England, the legal sovereign is the assembly composed
of the Queen and the two Houses of Parliament; but the House
of Commons, by far the most powerful branch of the legisla
ture, is itself elected by the constituencies, who are thus the
ultimate controlling body in the State, and whose desires and
mandates are sure in the end to be obeyed. “ The electorate ”,
says Mr. Dicey, in his lectures on the Law of the Constitution,
“is, in fact, the sovereign of England”. One of the immense
benefits of the representative system is, that it does away with
any degradation connected with habitual obedience to the com
mands of a political superior. Political subjection is only
degrading when it is one-sided, as in the subjects of an abso
lute monarch or in a dependency ruled by another country;
but when the position of superior and inferior is reciprocal, and
when each person commands as well as obeys, and is at once a
sharer in the sovereignty and a subject, there is no degradation
to any one, nor anything repugnant to the great principle of
equality between all mankind. The nation itself is author of
the laws which every one is obliged to obey,
Every sovereign government, whether it consists of a single
person or a body of persons, is absolute and uncontrolled
by law, or, in other words, it is in a state of nature or of
anarchy with regard both to foreign nations and to its own
subjects. This is a necessary consequence of its being
supreme, and not subject to the commands of any higher
government. ‘ ‘ It follows from the essential difference of
a positive law, and from the nature of sovereignty and in
dependent political society”, says Mr. Austin, “that the
power of a monarch, properly so called, or the power of a
sovereign number in its collegiate and sovereign capacity, is
incapable of legal limitation. A monarch or sovereign number
bound by a legal duty, were subject to a higher or supreme
sovereign ; that is to say, a monarch or sovereign number bound
by a legal duty were sovereign and not sovereign. Supreme
power limited by positive law is a flat contradiction in terms.”
In like manner Blackstone says of sovereign governments that
tf there is and must be in all of them a supreme, irresistible,
�AUSTIN ON GOVERNMENT.
19
•absolute, uncontrolled authority ”, that is, an authority which
is not and cannot be limited by positive law. A. sovereign
government is controlled, not by law, but only by morality and
public opinion in its dealings with its subjects, and has no legal
rights and duties towards them, but only moral rights and
duties. “Independence of political duty”, says Mr. Austin,
“is one of the essentials of sovereignty”, and he observes
further that a supreme government ‘ ‘ has no legal rights (in
the proper acceptation of the term) against its own subjects.
To every legal right there are three several parties; namely, a
party bearing the right; a party burthened with the relative
duty; and a sovereign government setting the law through
which the right and duty are respectively conferred and im
posed”. It is powers, and not legal rights, that a sovereign
government possesses in respect of its subjects. On the other
hand, subjects have no legal rights but only moral rights,
together with legal and moral duties, towards the supreme
government. Thus Mr. Austin says, “As against the govern
ment itself you can have no legal right ”, and “ as against the
sovereign there can be no right”. Wherever subjects have
legal rights against their government, it is because the latter is
not sovereign but subordinate to another and higher govern
ment ; as is the case, for example, with the different legislatures
in the United States, each of which is subordinate or habitually
obedient to the Constitution enacted by them all, and with the
■executive or administrative government in this country (often
called emphatically “ the Government ”) which habitually obeys
the will of Parliament. “ The power of Parliament”, as Mr.
Bradlaugh lately remarked, “ is unlimited, but the powers of
"the executive are not unlimited”.
As to the supreme powers or the powers belonging to a
sovereign government, Mr. Austin observes that they are ininite in number and kind, and that the modes in which they
may be shared among the different members of the sovereign
body are also infinite; thus he describes them as “the political
powers infinite in number and kind, which, partly brought into
exercise, and partly lying dormant, belong to a sovereign or
■state ”. Some of these powers are exercised by the supreme
government itself while it delegates others to political subor
dinates, as for instance to the executive authorities and to the
judges. The branch of law which deals with the powers,
rights, and duties of the supreme government and its political
subordinates is commonly divided into constitutional law and
administrative law; the former of which determines the constitution or structure of the government, that is to say, it
determines who shall bear the sovereignty, and also, if the
government consists of a number of persons, how the supreme
powers shall be shared among them; while the latter deter-
�20
AUSTIN ON GOVERNMENT.
mines the ends to which, and the modes in which, the powers
shall be exercised, either by the government itself or by its
subordinates. Now it is evident from the foregoing remarks,
that the parts of constitutional and administrative law whicbe
concern the acts of the supreme government itself, though
included in legal treatises, are not properly law at all, but
merely rules set by morality and public opinion, like the socalled law of nations. “As against the monarch properly socalled, or as against the sovereign body in its collective and.
sovereign capacity ”, says Mr. Austin, “ the so-called laws
which determine the constitution of the State, or which deter
mine the ends or modes to and in which the sovereign powers
shall be exercised, are not properly positive laws, but are laws
set by general opinion, or merely ethical maxims which the
sovereign spontaneously adopts ”, “ Against the monarch
properly so called”, he says also, “or against the sovereign
number in its collegiate or sovereign capacity, cons’itutional
law and the law of nations are nearly in the same predicament.
Each is positive morality rather than positive law. The former
is guarded by sentiments current in the given community, as
the latter is guarded by sentiments current amongst nations
generally.” The individual members of a sovereign assembly
may indeed be bound by laws, but not the assembly itself.
“ Considered collectively, or considered in its corporate char
acter ”, continues Mr. Austin, “ a sovereign number is sovereign
and independent; but considered severally, the individuals and.
smaller aggregates composing that sovereign number are subject
to the supreme body of which they are component parts.
Consequently, though the body is inevitably independent of
legal or political duty, any of the individuals or aggregates
whereof the body is composed may be legally bound by laws
of which the body is the author.” The only possible way to
bring the existing sovereign governments, while preserving
their equality and real independence, under the control of law,
and to give them legal rights and legal duties towards their
subjects as well as towards foreign nations, is to make them
all members of, and subordinate to, one supreme federal
government : whereby the collective wisdom and justice of
the common central authority might remedy the defects of
local authorities, and the tyranny of national rulers over their
subjects, together with revolutions and civil wars, might beeffectually prevented in every country of the world.
�HOBBES AND LOCKE ON GOVERNMENT.
21
V;
The great and permanent cause of government—the cause
which has given rise to governments in the past, maintains
them at present, and will ultimately, it may be hoped, unite
all nations under a common federal government—is the per
ception of the enormous evils attendant on the state of nature
or anarchy, and a wish to escape from these evils. “ The only
general cause of the permanence of political governments, and
the only general cause of the origin of political governments ”,
says Mr. Austin, “ are exactly or nearly alike. Though every
government has arisen in part from specific or particular causes,
almost every government must have arisen in part from the
following general cause, namely, that the bulk of the natural
society from which the political was formed were desirous of
escaping to a state of government from a state of nature or
anarchy.” I may quote also the words of Thomas Hobbes, the
powerful thinker who has done more than almost any other to
throw light on the theory of government, and of whom Mr.
Austin says: “I know of no other writer (except our great
contemporary Jeremy Bentham) who has uttered so many
truths, at once new and important, concerning the necessary
structure of supreme political government, and the larger of
the necessary distinctions implied by positive law”. In his
“Leviathan ” (a figurative title by which he means a Common
wealth or State) Hobbes says: “The final cause, end, or design
of men, who naturally love liberty and the dominion over
others, in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves in
which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of
their own preservation and of a more contented life thereby;
that is to say, of getting themselves out of that miserable con
dition of war, which is necessarily consequent to the natural
passions of men, when there is no visible power to keep them
in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance
of their covenants and observance of the laws of nature ”. In
like manner the illustrious philosopher, John Locke, in his work
on Civil Government, observes that “the end of civil govern
ment ” is “to avoid and remedy these inconveniences of the
state of nature, which necessarily follow from every man being
judge in his own case ”. No one has explained more clearly
than Hobbes and Locke the evils of the state of nature or of
anarchy; the former of whom deals chiefly with the anarchy,
or absence of a common government, existing among savages
and between independent political societies, while the latter
draws attention also to the evils and dangers of the other kind
of anarchy, namely, that consisting in the absolute power, un
controlled and uncontrollable by law, which, as we have seen,
�22
HOBBES AND LOCKE ON GOVERNMENT.
is possessed by all sovereign governments over their own
subjects.
The chief evils of the state of nature arise from the want of
a provision, such as government essentially is, for securing
peace and justice among mankind. There is a want of a known
and settled law or rule of justice, and of a sufficient power to
compel obedience to it. Men’s judgments with regard to right
and wrong conduct differ widely, and are very often erroneous ;
and therefore, as in numberless cases they cannot agree on
what is just, the only way to settle disputes and to keep the
peace between them, is that an umpire or arbiter should be
appointed to lay down beforehand and apply to each particular
case the rules of justice, and that all parties should agree to
abide by his decisions. “As when there is a controversy in
an account ”, says Hobbes, “ the parties must by their own
accord set up, for right reason, the reason of some arbitrator
or judge, to whose sentence they will both stand, or their
controversy must either come to blows or be undecided for
want of a right reason constituted by nature ; so is it also in
all debates of what kind soever.” Moreover, since it is not
mere advice or exhortation, but the compulsory settlement of
disputes and redress of injuries, that are required from the
arbiter, he must have sufficient power to compel obedience to
his laws and sentences by the punishment of those who disobey
them: for as Blackstone observes, “nothing is compulsory but
punishment”. What is needed therefore, to secure peace and
justice in human society, is a supreme authority, or government,
which all are obliged to obey, and which can lay down, apply,
and enforce the rules of justice. Where no such authority
exists to restrain the passions of mankind, and where each
person is free to do to others whatever lies in his power, and
is himself judge in his own case of what is just, there can be
no real justice or real peace for anyone, but a perpetual war or
the dread of war. “ In the nature of man ”, says Hobbes,
“ we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition ;
secondly, diffidence” (that is, distrust or suspicion); “thirdly,
glory. The first maketh men invade for gain ; the second, for
safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence
». to make themselves masters of other men’s persons, wives,
children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third,
> for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other
sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons, or byreflexion
in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or
their name. Hereby it is manifest that during the time men
live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they
are in that condition which is called war: and such a war as
is of every man against every man. War consisteth not in
battle only. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a
�HOBBES AND LOCKE ON GOVERNMENT.
23
shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many
days together; so the nature of war consisteth not in actual
fighting, but in the known disposition thereto, during all the
time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is
Peace. Whatever therefore is consequent to a time of war,
where every man is enemy to every man; the same is conse
quent to the time, wherein men live without other security
than what their own strength and their own invention shall
furnish them withal.” It will be seen that in the above passage
Hobbes includes under the term “war ” not only actual fighting,
but also the dread of war and the constant danger of it, as the
characteristic evils of the state of nature or of anarchy.
A similar account of the evils arising from the want of a
government is given by Locke. Men, he says, are led to quit
the state of nature, and to “unite for the mutual preservation
of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general
name, property. The great and chief end therefore of men’s
uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves under
government is the preservation of their property. To which in
the state of nature there are many things wanting. First,
there wants an established, settled, known law, received and
allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and
wrong. . Secondly, in the state of nature, there wants a fair
and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differ
ences according to the established law.” Such an impartial
judge is evidently needed to prevent men from being judges in
their own cases, when they are so apt to be blinded by passion
or self-interest. “That ‘no man shall be judge in his own
cause ’ (that is, in any matter in which he is interested) ”, says
Mr. Samuel Warren in his Introduction to Law Studies, “is a
great fundamental principle in the administration of justice ”,
Locke continues : “ Thirdly, in the state of nature, there often
wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and
to give it due execution. They who by any injustice offend,
will seldom fail, where they are able by force, to make good
their injustice ; such resistance many times makes the punish
ment dangerous, and frequently destructive, to those who
attempt it. To avoid these inconveniences, which disorder
men’s properties in the state of nature, men unite into societies
that they may have the united strength of the whole society to
secure and defend their properties and may have standing rules
to bound it; by which every one may know what is his.” In
the state of nature no one knows clearly what is his and what
another s, what is mine and thine, for there is no government
either to define the rights of each individual or to protect
them.
We have seen that, according to Bentham and Austin, the
state of nature not only exists, or has at one time existed,
�24
HOBBES AND LOCKE ON GOVERNMENT.
among savage tribes, but prevails at present over the whole
world between independent political societies in their dealing»
with one another. Independent nations have no common
government, no international law properly so called, nor any
judges or courts of justice for the compulsory settlement of
international disputes and redress of wrongs ; but each nation
is itself judge in its own case as to what is just towards others,
and has absolute liberty to make war upon them and to do
them any other harm within its power, unrestrained by the fear
of legal punishment. Among nations the anarchy is between
commonwealth and commonwealth, just as among savages it
exists between man and man or between families. This i&
pointed out by Hobbes and Locke, who show that the effectsof such a state of things are essentially similar to those described
above, and that it necessarily leads to a want of real justice and
of real peace, as well as of mutual love and trust, between
nations, and to what may be called the condition of “ war ”, if
we understand by this term not only actual hostilities, but also
the dread and danger of war, and habitual preparations against
it. Thus Hobbes says, after referring to the anarchy among
savages : “ But though there had never been any time wherein
particular men were in a condition of war, one against another ;
yet in all times, kings and persons of sovereign authority, be
cause of their independency, are in continual jealousies, and in
the state and posture of gladiators; having their weapons
pointing and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their
forts, garrisons, and guns upon the frontiers of their kingdoms;
and continual spies upon their neighbors; which is a posture
of war”. “And as small families did then”, that is, among
barbarous communities, he says in another place, “ so now do
cities and kingdoms, which are but greater families, enlarge
their dominions upon all pretences of danger and fear of in
vasion or assistance that may be given to invaders, and endeavor
as much as they can to subdue or weaken their neighbors by
open force or secret arts.” And again, in speaking of the
liberty of independent states in their dealings with each other,
he says that this “ is not the liberty of particular men, but of
the commonwealth, which is the same as that which every
man then should have, if there were no civil laws nor common
wealth at all. And the effects of it also be the same. For as
amongst masterless men there is perpetual war of every man
against his neighbor, no inheritance to transmit to the son nor
to expect from the father, no propriety of goods and lands, no
security, but a full and absolute liberty in each particular man ;
so in states and commonwealths not dependent on one another,
every commonwealth, not every man, has an absolute liberty
to do what it shall judge, that is to say what that man or
assembly that representeth it shall judge most conducive to
�HOBBES AND LOCKE ON GOVERNMENT.
25-
their benefit. But withal, they live in the condition of aperpetual war and upon the confines of battle, with their
frontiers armed and cannon planted against their neighbors
round about.” The terrible truth of this may be seen from the
history of Europe, which has never ceased to suffer either from
actual war, or from the dread and danger of it, and where the
vast standing armies, far larger and provided with far deadlier
weapons now than at any former time, are calculated to amount
to about ten millions of men.
Locke points out in like manner the state of nature existing
between independent rulers, and draws attention to the onlv
effectual remedy for war and security for peace among mankind,
namely, a common government. “ Since all princes and rulersof independent governments, all through the world ”, he say-,
“are in a state of nature, it is plain the world never was, nor
ever will be, without numbers of men in that state”. With
regard to war and the means of preventing it, he says that
“ force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another,
where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for
relief, is the state of war. To avoid this state of war (wherein
there is no appeal but to heaven, and wherein every the least
difference is apt to end, where there is no authority to decide
between the contenders) is one great reason of men’s putting
themselves into society and quitting the state of nature; for
where there is an authority or power on earth from which
relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state
of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that?
power.” And as to peace, he observes that “civil society” is“ a state of peace, amongst those who are of it, from whom
the state of war is excluded by the umpirage which they have
provided in their legislative for the ending all differences that
may arise amongst any of them ”. In civil society, peace isfurther secured by forbidding under penalty all force or violenceexcept in self-defence; and then too, only while the wrong isbeing actually committed, and there is no time to appeal tothe law for assistance or redress. Men are not allowed forcibly
to redress their own wrongs, or what they conceive to be their
wrongs, and to exact any penalty they please, but must in all
cases appeal for redress to a court of justice. “When the
wrong is consummated, when the mischief is done ”, says Mr.
Hunter, “it is never lawful to resort to force; the peaceful
remedy of an action or criminal accusation can alone be em
ployed. . But if the invasion of my right, or the attack on my
person is not completed, as a general rule force may be used in
defence.” Beal peace, like real justice, real liberty, and rpal
independence, can only exist under the reign of government
and law.; whereas the so-called peace which alternates with
open strife in the state of nature or anarchy, and which is
�26
POLITICAL UNION.
accompanied by huge armaments and by hatred, jealousies,
and distrust between nations, is but a veiled form of war.
VI.
We now come to the great permanent remedy for war and
the other evils arising from the state of nature or anarchy,
namely, the formation of a common government. The anarchy
prevailing at the present day is not between individual men or
single families as among savage tribes, but between inde
pendent political societies in their dealings with one another;
.and what is needed to put an end to it is the political union of
different nations and of different sovereign governments, by
methods which have already been repeatedly employed with
success in building up the existing states and empires of the
world. Whether between individuals or between nations, a true
legal or political union is always essentially the same process,
and consists in submitting all wills, and entrusting the whole
strength of society, to the will and direction of one sovereign
government, composed either of a single person or of one or
more bodies of persons acting collectively, so as to avoid that
division of wills and of physical force which leads to war and
to the appalling evils characteristic of the state of nature or
anarchy.
Thus Hobbes says, in describing the generation of a Com
monwealth among a society living in the state of nature:
“ The only way to erect such a common power as may be
able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners and the
injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such
sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the
earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is, to
confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one
assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality
of voices, into one will; which is as much as to say, to appoint
■one man or assembly of men to bear their person; and every
one to own and acknowledge himself to be the author of what
soever he that so beareth their person shall act, or cause to be
acted, in those things which concern the common peace and
safety ; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will,
and their judgment to his judgment. This is more than consent
or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same
person, made by covenant of every man with every man; in
such a manner as if every man should say to every man, ‘I
authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this
man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou
�DANGER OF OPPRESSION BY SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
27
give up thy right to him and authorise all his actions in like
manner
This done, the multitude so united in one person is
called a Commonivealth.”
In a similar manner Blackstone observes that harmony of
wills ‘ ‘ can be no otherwise produced than by a political union;
by the consent of all persons to submit their own private wills
to the will of one man, or of one or more assemblies of men, to
whom the supreme authority is entrusted; and this will of that
one man, or assemblage of men, is, in different states, according
to their different constitutions, understood to be law”.
Locke says also in describing the formation of a Common
wealth : ‘ ‘ This is done whenever any number of men, in the state
of nature, enter into society to make one people or body politic,
under one supreme government; or else when one joins himself
to and incorporates with any government already made; for
hereby he authorises the society, or, which is all one, the
legislative thereof, to make laws for him as the public good of
the society shall require; to the execution whereof his own
assistance (as to his own decrees) is due. And this puts men
out of a state of nature into that of a Commonwealth, by setting
up a judge on earth with authority to determine all the con
troversies and redress the injuries that may happen to any
members of the Commonwealth; which judge is the legislative1
or magistrate appointed by it.” He adds that “ whosoever out
of a state of nature unite into a community, must be under
stood to give up all the power necessary for the ends for
which they unite into society to the majority of the community,,
unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than th©
majority”. The rule that if opinions differ among the members
of a sovereign body, the majority or some other fixed propor
tion must decide, is evidently needed to secure the unity of
will and action which is indispensable for the purposes of
government.
From the necessity of submitting all wills and entrusting all
power to one man or one assembly (or to any number of
assemblies, at any distance apart, provided they act together
by a majority of their body and arrive at joint decisions or
enactments) in order to avoid the division of wills and of the
forces of society; and from the fact, already noticed, that the
power of a monarch properly so called or of a sovereign
assembly cannot be limited by law, there arises the great in
herent evil and danger of government, which, like the opposite
evil of anarchy, has caused such countless miseries to mankind,
namely, the abuse of their immense powers by rulers to plunder
and oppress their subjects. This evil, though it has always to
be most carefully guarded against, is far more severely felt
under an absolute monarchy, which was the earliest form of
government as the simplest way of obtaining one supreme will,
�28
SUBJECTS CAN, SOVEREIGNS CANNOT, BE BOUND BY LAW.
and which, still prevails in most of the backward countries of
the world. Thus Locke says, in replying to the advocates of
monarchical rule: “I shall desire those who make this objec
tion to remember that absolute monarchs are but men; and if
government is to be the remedy for those evils which necessarily
follow from men’s being judges in their own cases, and the
state of nature is therefore not to be endured, I desire to know
what kind of government that is, and how much better it
is than the state of nature, where one man, commanding
a multitude, has the liberty to be judge in his own case,
.and may do to all his subjects whatever he pleases, without
the least liberty to anyone to question or control those who
•execute his pleasure ? and in whatsoever he doth, whether led
by reason, mistake, or passion, must be submitted to?” “If
it be asked”, he says again, “what security, what fence is there
in such a State against the violence and oppression of this
absolute ruler ? the very question can scarcely be borne. To
ask how you may be guarded from harm or injury on that side
'where the strongest hand is to do it, is presently the voice of
faction and rebellion; as if when men, quitting the state of
nature, entered into society, they agreed that all of them but
one should be under the constraint of laws, but that he should
still retain all the liberty of the state of nature, increased with
power and made licentious with impunity.” In a sovereign
assembly, though its power is as great as that of a monarch,
being absolute and unlimited by law, Locke points out that
there is this great safeguard against oppression, that each of
the members, taken singly, is a subject, and is himself amenable
to the laws which the assembly enacts. When the people, he
says, found that monarchs abused their power, they “ could
never be safe nor at rest, till the legislative was placed in
collective bodies of men, call them senate, parliament, or what
you please. By which means every single person became
subject, equally with other the meanest men, to those laws
which he himself, as part of the legislative, had established.”
An even greater security against oppression under the repre
sentative system is that the constituencies, who form the bulk
of the nation, are themselves virtually authors of the laws by
which they are to be governed. Mr. Mill shows that in the
representative system (though he points out grave defects in it
as now existing, especially the want of a fair proportional
representation of minorities and the denial of a share in the
suffrage to women) the sovereignty, or ultimate controlling
power, is really vested in the entire community, and that this
is far superior to any other form of government. “ There is no
difficulty in showing ”, he says, “that the ideally best form of
government is that in which the sovereignty, or supreme
controlling power in the last resort, is vested in the entire
�DIEEEliENCE BETWEEN UNION AND ALLIANCE.
2f
aggregate of the community; every citizen having not only a
voice in the exercise of that ultimate sovereignty, but being,
at least occasionally, called on to take an active part in the
government by the personal discharge of some public function,
local or general ”. From these improvements in government
and from the growing feelings of brotherhood and of common
interest between all mankind, aided powerfully by easier
means of communication, the obstacles to the political union of
nations have greatly diminished, while the beneficial effects of
such union on the relations of governments, not only to each
other but to their own subjects, cannot, I think, be exaggerated.
The oppression of subjects by their rulers is largely due to the
■absolute power, uncontrolled and uncontrollable by law, which
resides in every supreme government, whether it consist of a
single person or a body of persons ; and to reduce the evil as
far as possible, there should be only one supreme or sovereign
federal government, of which the existing legislatures in the
different countries would be members (or might, if it were
thought preferable, elect a part while the people elected the
other part, of the members), and to which each of them, taken
singly, would be subject or subordinate. In this way the
national governments would be no longer isolated from one
another, as at present, or sole judges in their own cases; but
the common judgment and authority of all would be brought
to bear on all, and oppression by local rulers, as well as rebellion
among subjects, might be legally controlled and prevented in
■every part of the world.
A legal or political union between two or more independent
states should be carefully distinguished from a mere alliance.
An alliance is an agreement between them, while remaining
-separate states, that is, while remaining under different sovereign
governments, to co-operate for certain purposes; all the acts
of each of them, including the continuance of the alliance or
its dissolution at any time, being determined by the will of its
own government. A political union, on the other hand, is an
agreement between them to unite together into one state, that
is, to have one and the same sovereign government, by whose
will all their acts, including the continuance of the union or its
repeal at any time, are to be determined. Though an alliance
is often very valuable for temporary purposes, it has no effect
in putting an end to the state of nature or anarchy existing
between independent communities. “It is not every compact
which puts an end to the state of nature between men ”, says
Locke, “but only this one of agreeing together mutually to
enter into one community and make one body politic; other
promises and compacts men may make one with another, and
yet still be in a state of nature.” In an alliance there are
•different supreme governments, or supreme wills, each claiming
�30
PERMANENT ALLIANCES DISTINGUISHED FROM UNIONS.
obedience from its own subjects among the allied nations, which
is the state of nature or anarchy; whereas in a political union
there is only one supreme government with claim to obedience
from the whole united people, and this submission of all willsto one is, as we have seen, the essence of government. Some
alliances, of a more complicated character than others and
intended to be more permanent, are particularly apt to beconfounded with true political unions, and among them Mr.
Austin instances the confederations of states existing in his
time in Switzerland and in Germany before the formation of
the present federal governments in these countries. Mr. Dicey
also describes as a “permanent alliance rather than a union”
the dual system of government in Austria-Hungary, which
resembles in its main features the bond now connecting to
gether the two kingdoms of Norway and Sweden. The distinction between a system of confederated states, like the
former Swiss and German confederations or the dual system
of Austria-Hungary, and a composite state or supreme
federal government such as that of the United States of
America, is thus pointed out by Mr. Austin. “A composite
state and a system of confederated states ”, he says, “ are
broadly distinguished by the following essential difference.
In the case of a composite state, the several united societies are
one independent society, or are severally subject to one sovereign
body; which through its minister the general government, and
through its members and ministers the several united govern
ments, is habitually and generally obeyed in each of the united
societies, and also in the larger society arising from the union
of all. In the case of a system of confederated states, the several
compacted societies are not one society, and are not subject to
a common sovereign; or (changing the phrase) each of the
several societies is an independent political society, and each of
their several governments is properly sovereign or supreme.”
The agreement to form the Confederation at the beginning,
and the subsequent resolutions passed by it, are not enforced
on the different governments or on their subjects by the
collective will of the whole, but are spontaneously adopted by
each government and enforced upon its own subjects. “In
short ”, continues Mr. Austin, “ a system of confederated states
does not essentially differ from a number of independent
governments connected by an ordinary alliance. If in the
case of the German or the Swiss Confederation, the body of
confederated governments enforces its own resolutions, those
confederated governments are one composite state, rather than
a system of confederated states. The body of confederated
governments is properly sovereign; and to that aggregate and
sovereign body, each of its constituent members is properly in
a state of subjection.” As to the dual government of Austria-
�TTNION ON NATIONS ALREADY FAR ADVANCED.
31
Hungary, Mr. Dicey says, after giving a detailed account of it:
“ The Austro-Hungarian system is therefore briefly this:
two separate states, each having a separate administration,
a separate parliament, and separate bodies of subjects or citizens,
are each ruled by one and the same monarch; the two portions
of the monarchy are linked together, mainly as regards their
relations to foreign powers, by an assembly of delegates from
each parliament, and by a ministry which is responsible to the
delegations alone, and which acts in regard to a limited number
of matters which are, of absolute necessity, the common con
cern of the monarchy.” He says also that “the Hungarian
Diet has, as such, no legislative authority in Austria, and the
Reichsrath has no legislative authority in Hungary.” The dual
system of Austria-Hungary is really an alliance or agreement
between two separate states, under different supreme govern
ments, to manage together their foreign affairs and all matters
relating to war and to finance; both countries having the same
emperor, who though not a monarch or a sovereign in the true
sense of the terms, but only a member of each of the two
sovereign bodies, has considerably more political power, accord
ing to Mr. Dicey, than royalty possesses in England.
VII.
A true political union, on equal terms, between two or more
independent states, can only be effected by uniting together into
one their different sovereign governments, in such a manner that
each state shall have a share, proportional to its population, in the
common government thus resulting. The union of nations
under a common supreme government, whether on a footing
of equality or on that of sovereign and subordinate states, and
whether by conquest or by mutual agreement, has already
been carried out to such an extent in the course of ages, that,
according to the Government Year Book for 1888, “the chief
independent countries of the world, arranged on the basis of
their nominal forms of government ”, are now only forty-four
in number, eight of them being absolute monarchies, while the
others have more or less fully developed representative institu
tions. “Theoretically”, says the writerafter giving a list of
them, “thirty-six out of the forty-four states just enumerated
are under various forms of popular government, having repre
sentative institutions, and executives based upon contracts
between the governing and the governed”. The most im
portant difficulties now standing in the way of the equal
political union of nations and its immense benefits, seem to me
�32
CHIEF DIFFICULTIES NOW OPPOSING UNION.
to be the very backward condition, of some populations, the
existence of absolute monarchies, the distances of nations from
one another, and difference of language. The last two of
these, however, may be surmounted by some adaptation of the
invaluable principle of federal government; as we see, for
instance, in the United States, which are nearly as large as the
whole of Europe, and where the local State legislatures, though far
distant from one another, make up together one sovereign body;
and in Canada, where a million and a half of French colonists
are united with three millions of English under the same federal
constitution and on terms of complete political equality. Abso
lute monarchies, on the other hand, though they may favor
the reduction by conquest of many nations under the dominion
of one supreme ruler as in Russia, are, I think, incompatible
with their union on equal terms, the only conditions on which
civilised states can be expected voluntarily to unite with one
another. This follows from the essential character of an abso
lute monarch as contrasted with a sovereign assembly. ‘ ‘ The
difference between monarchies or governments of one and
aristocracies or governments of a number”, says Mr. Austin,
“is of all the differences between governments the most precise
and definite, and in regard to the pregnant distinction between
positive law and morality incomparably the most important
An absolute monarch is purely sovereign, and cannot be bound
by law; whereas each member of a sovereign assembly, taken
singly, is a suZy'eci, and may be bound by laws enacted by the
whole. By uniting therefore on equal terms with another
government, a monarch ceases to be sovereign, becoming a
member of a sovereign body, and thus amenable to the control
of law. What is commonly called a “limited monarchy”, as
Mr. Austin points out, is not really monarchy at all, but is
“one or another of those infinite forms of aristocracy which
result from the infinite modes wherein the sovereign number
may share the sovereign powers”. A limited monarch, such
as the Emperor of Germany or the Queen of England, is not a
monarch or a sovereign in the true sense of these terms, but a
member of a sovereign assembly, and either is or may be made,
like the president of a republic, amenable to laws passed by
the whole body. Limited monarchy is therefore no barrier to
the equal political union of independent states, as is clearly
shown by the fact that four kings, together with reigning
princes, grand dukes, and others, are included in the great
federal union forming the German empire. Amenability to
law, it should be remarked, is a matter of the utmost import
ance, for one of the chief ends of civilisation is to bring man
kind universally under the dominion of law and government,
so that all acts whatever (except those of a supreme govern
ment in its collective capacity) should bp ’fither permitted, or
�GOVERNMENT THE ORGAN OE COMPULSION.
33
■enjoined, or forbidden by law. This end has been attained in
cur own and other countries with regard to subjects or citizens,
but not with regard to their rulers or to the mutual intercourse
of different nations. As observed by Montesquieu, the rela
tions of mankind in society may be divided into those existing
■either between subject and subject, or between subjects and
their government, or between one sovereign government and
another. Now it is only the relations of subject to subject,
and of a subject towards his government, that have been
brought under the dominion of law; whereas the relations of
the existing supreme governments towards their subjects, and
of one supreme government to another—as we have already
seen—are quite uncontrolled by law, or in other words, are in
a state of nature or anarchy. If all nations could be united
under a common federal government, as is urged by those who
aim at the federation of mankind, the reign of law, whether
Tietween individuals, between nations, or between national
rulers and their subjects, would be universal, and the only acts
which would, of necessity, remain exempt from legal control
would be those of the supreme federal government itself.
Government is the organ, and the only legitimate organ, by
which compulsion or force is employed in a community. It not
only lays down in its laws or commands the duties of each
individual, but compels him to perform them and to abstain
from mischievous acts, or acts which are hurtful to other
people. “The general object of all laws”, says Bentham, “is
to prevent mischief,”. Law does not exhort or entreat, but
always compels, and the manner in which it exercises its com
pulsion is by the threat of punishments or penalties to be inflicted
on those who disobey. Thus Mr. Mill observes that “penal
sanction is the essence of law”. In like manner Sir James
Stephen says : “ The distinctive and special characteristic of
all law and government is force—coercion in some one of its
shapes. It is this which draws the line between law and
advice, between government and speculative discussion.” He
points out also that no other compulsion than that authorised
by government (excepting of course the compulsion coming
from public opinion or from one’s own conscience) can right
fully, be exercised over any individual; and that “the first
principle of the supremacy of the law of the land is that it is
the only form of coercion .... which ought to be brought
upon all,.whether they like it or not”. It is true that the
great majority of people suffer no inconvenience from this legal
control, feeling it as little, to use Mr. Hunter’s striking simile,
as “the weight of the atmosphere”, because they are con
vinced in the main of the justice of the laws and have a voice
in making them; but the control or compulsion exists never
theless, and is absolutely indispensable to the happiness and
�34
j
GOVERNMENT THE ORGAN OE COMPTTLSION.
security of society. However willing or desirous men may beto abstain from mischievous acts, no free choice is given them
in the matter, for it is felt that society cannot be sufficiently
protected against such acts without the compulsion exercised'
on all persons alike, willing or unwilling, by the fear of legal
punishment if they offend. If a man has not a sufficient love
of justice and regard for the interests of his fellows to keep
him from crime, he must be deterred from it by the fear of
punishment; and, moreover, just laws are well known to have
a most powerful effect in making men just, and giving them a
genuine love of virtue for its own sake. These truths are well
understood with regard to a particular society, and are quite
as applicable to the great society of nations. Every national
government in its dealings with other nations and with its own
subjects ought, like every private individual, to be under the
control of law as well as of morality and public opinion. It
should be bound by compulsory rules, laid down and enforced
by a common authority, not to injure other nations or to
oppress its subjects. Now, a common authority, armed with
the irresistible power which is needed to enable it to lay down
and enforce the laws, is obtained in each community by the
political union of all the citizens—or, in other words, by the
submission of all wills and all physical force to the will and
direction of one sovereign government—and in like manner in
the general community of mankind such an authority can only
be obtained by the political union of all the nations. A mere
alliance between separate states is of no avail; what is needed
is a legal or compulsory union under one sovereign government •
for nations which are not under the same supreme government
can have no legal relations, but only moral relations, to each
other. The laws of one independent state have of themselves
no validity whatever in another, though they are often, from
motives of comity, allowed to take effect, or speaking more
accurately, are spontaneously adopted by the courts of justice
in trying cases between citizens of different states who are
under different systems of law. Thus the eminent American
judge, Story, in his work on “ The Conflict of Laws ”, says :
“ It is plain that the laws of one country can have no intrinsic
force, proprio vigore, except within the territorial limits and
jurisdiction of that country. Whatever extra-territorial force
they are to have is the result, not of any original power to
extend them abroad, but of that respect which from motives of
public policy other nations are disposed to yield them.” This
absence of any power to exercise legal compulsion over inde
pendent states, and of any code of international law prescribed
by a common authority, seems to me the essential cause of
wars and revolutions. Force or compulsion is so indispensably
needed for the settlement of disputes in which the parties can-
�MATIONS UNITED BY UNITING THEIB, REPRESENTATIVES.
35
■not agree, and for the prevention and redress of injuries, that
if it cannot be applied in a legal form it is sure to be resorted
to in another. War, conquest, and the oppression of weak
■states by strong ones, are the barbarous and arbitrary methods,
in the absence of a common superior, for effecting this compul
sion between nations; while political union, law, and a common
government where disputes can be settled by the voice of a
majority, are the peaceable and civilised means for compelling
■one nation to be just to another and national rulers in every
part of the world to abstain from tyranny over their subjects.
To form an equal political union and common government
between independent states, it is the real and not merely the
nominal rulers of each state who must be united together into
■one sovereign body. Now under the representative system, the
dorm of government which is rapidly tending to become univetsal among civilised communities, the real rulers are the
elected representatives of the nation. “ The meaning of repre
sentative government”, says Mr. Mill, “is that the whole
people, or some numerous portion of them, exercise through
■deputies periodically elected by themselves, the ultimate con
trolling power, which, in every constitution, must reside
somewhere ”, In England the real government is very different
from the nominal one, and is in fact representative: for al
though by constitutional law the Crown has the power of refus
ing assent to Bills which have passed both Houses of Parliament,
-and . also of appointing the members of the executive or
administrative government, yet by custom and constitutional
morality these powers have become practically obsolete, the
Crown’s veto not having been used since 1707, in the reign of
Queen Anne, and the executive government being really
appointed and removable by, or in common phrase being
■“responsible to”, the House of Commons. “The constitu
tional morality of the country”, says Mr. Mill, “ nullifies these
powers (of the Crown), preventing them from being ever used;
and, by requiring that the head of the administration should
always be virtually appointed by the House of Commons,
makes that body the real sovereign of the state.” In a similar
manner Mr. Dicey says : “The executive of England is in fact
placed in the hands of a committee called the Cabinet. If there
be any one person in whose single hand the power of the state
is placed, that one person is not the Queen, but the chairman
of the committee, known as the Prime Minister.” Moreover,
the House of Lords, though nominally possessed of equal legis
lative powers, acts rather as a checking or restraining body to
secure further discussion of disputed questions, and is really
¡subordinate to the House of Commons, to whose will it is
■obliged sooner or later to conform. “ The British government ”,
says Mr. Mill, “is thus a representative government in the
�36
NATIONS UNITED BY UNITING THEIR REPRESENTATIVES,
correct sense of the term : and the powers which it leaves in
hands not directly accountable to the people can only be
considered as precautions which the ruling power is willing
should be taken against its own errors.” Mr. Dicey observes
that the various rules and customs of constitutional morality,
or as he calls them “the conventions of the constitution”,
which have been established in this country by the growing
influence of the constituencies and have gradually changed thegovernment in reality though not in name, “ have all one
ultimate object. Their end is to secure that Parliament or the
Cabinet which is indirectly appointed by Parliament, shall in
the long run give effect to that power which in modern Eng
land is the true political sovereign of the State- -the majority of
the electors, or (to use the popular though not quite accurate
language) the nation.” “ The conventions of the constitution ”,
he says again, “now consist of customs which (whatever their
historical origin) are at the present day maintained for ensuring
the supremacy of the House of Commons, and ultimately,
through the elective House of Commons, of the nation.”
Since, therefore, the elected representatives of the people are
the real rulers in this and other countries having popular
forms of government, an equal political union of such countries
can only be effected by uniting their representatives into one
sovereign body; whether that body consist of a single assembly
as in the United Kingdom, or of several distinct assembliesacting collectively as in the United States. Nations, in fact,
are politically united under the representative system in exactly
the same way as the different parts of the same nation, namely,,
by bringing their representatives together into one supreme
governing body, so that all matters requiring a compulsory
settlement may be decided, not by war and violence or by
diplomatic pressure, but by fair and open discussion and the
vote of a majority. Thus the essential articles in the treaties
of Union between England and Scotland, and between Great
Britain and Ireland, are those which joined together their
Parliaments, declaring in the former case that “ The United
Kingdom shall be represented by one Parliament ”, and in the
latter, “ That there shall be one Parliament, styled the Parlia
ment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ”.
On the other hand, the demand which is, or was, put forward
by Mr. Parnell and the Nationalist Party for an Irish Parlia
ment, to be formed by the withdrawal of the Irish members
from the House of Commons, seems to me not really a demand
for Home Pule, but for the separation of the countries. Home
Rule properly so called means, I think, the rule of local legis
latures, of a subject or subordinate character and possessing a
delegated authority, in countries which are united with others
on equal terms under the same supreme government. Countries
�HOME BULE PROPERLY MEANS FEDERALISM.
37
which are under different supreme governments are separate
from one another; and a common supreme government, on
equal terms, between states with representative institutions,
can only be obtained by joining their representatives into one
sovereign body. If their representatives are separated, the
countries cannot be united on equal terms, but must either be
separate from each other or united on the footing of sovereign
and subordinate states, a form of union which would never
again be tolerated between Great Britain and Ireland, and is
fast becoming quite impracticable between any civilised nations.
The great English colonies such as Canada and Australia, which
have legislatures of their own, are only nominally subject to
the English rule, and are really and essentially, as we have
already seen, independent states which are connected with the
mother country by a voluntary alliance, and have the power of
separating from her if they please. To withdraw the Irish
members from the House of Commons seems to me, therefore,
really equivalent to the separation of Ireland from Great
Britain.
VIII.
Nations which are independent and separate from others are
not said to have “ Home Rule”, but only those nations which
are politically united with others under a constitution of a
peculiar kind. Every country which can properly -be said to
have Home Rule must, I think, like one of the states in the
American union or in the German empire, be under two
governments, namely, a common supreme government in which
it has a share together with other states by the union of their
representatives in one sovereign body, and a local subordinate
government, composed exclusively of its own representatives,
for the management of its domestic affairs. A dependency, if it
has a legislature of its own, is often said to have Home Rule,
but improperly, as it seems to me, or at least in a widely
different sense of the term, for the legislature in such a case is
subject to the government of the dominant country, in which
the dependency has no share. Mr. Austin observes that all the
laws made by a subordinate legislature require the consent or
approval of the supreme legislature, and ‘ ‘ derive their validity
from its express or tacit authority. For either directly or
remotely the sovereign or supreme legislator is the author of
all law”. But if the above definition is correct, and if in
dependent and separate nations, as well as dependencies,
though possessing parliaments of their own, cannot rightly be
said to have “ Home Rule ”, it follows that neither Ireland nor
�38
FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.
the British colonies have ever yet had Home Rule in the true
sense of the word; for Ireland up to the time of the Union was
either a dependency of England or an independent nation, and
the colonies, as we have seen, are nominally dependencies, but
really and virtually independent states. In speaking of laws
enacted by subordinate legislatures, Mr. Austin says : “ Such
were the laws made by the Irish Parliament before that Act of
the British Parliament which acknowledged the independence
of Ireland (1719-1782). In fact and practice, the Irish legis
lature (consisting of the King and the Irish Houses of Parlia
ment) was in a state of subjection to the supreme legislature of
Great Britain; that is to say, to the same King and the British
Houses of Parliament.” Neither Ireland nor the colonies could
properly be said to have Home Rule in their relations with this
country, unless they not only had local legislatures but were
fidly and fairly represented in the supreme imperial legislature,
or in other words, unless they were federated with Great
Britain.
Home Rule properly so called is thus identical with Federalism
or the federal system of government. As to the very different
system of government often called “the colonial form of Home
Bule ”, in which countries having parliaments of their own are
not represented along with others in a common supreme parlia
ment, it should not, I think, be spoken of as “Home Rule”
at all, since the countries in this case are necessarily either
dependencies or independent and separate states. The federal
form of Home Rule is the one advocated by Mr. Bradlaugh and
I believe by the great majority of Englishmen and Scotchmen,
as well as Americans, who are in favor of a separate Irish
parliament; and it is the only kind of Home Rule to be desired
among civilised nations, who should be united as equals, and
not on the footing of dependencies and sovereign states. In
equality is only justifiable in dealing with backward and
uncivilised populations, till they are sufficiently advanced to
have equal political rights. The federal system, which was
first introduced in the United States and has since been modified
in other countries, especially in Germany, seems to me one of
the greatest discoveries ever made, and of an importance to
human happiness which cannot possibly be exaggerated; for it
supplies the means of uniting independent nations under a
common government, so as to do away with the state of nature
or anarchy now existing between them, and to put an end to
war. It fulfils the three main conditions of a satisfactory
political union, for it unites nations legally and effectively by
bringing them under the same sovereign government; it unites
them on equal terms, by joining their representatives in
one supreme body, and thus giving each nation a share in the
government proportional to its population; and moreover it
�FEDERALISM IN UNITED STATES AND GERMANY.
39
secures to them the advantages of sei!/-government or govern
ment exclusively by their own representatives, wherever this is
thought desirable, by allowing them to retain their national
legislatures for the management of their domestic affairs.
Each nation is thus placed under a general supreme legislature
composed of its own representatives along with those of other
states, and a local subordinate legislature composed of its own
representatives exclusively. The advocates of Federation hold
that Home Rule in the above sense, or as meaning Federalism,
ought to be extended over the whole world; and that all
nations, besides having their national rulers, should be united
together under one supreme federal government. The federal
■system is so important and so different in some respects from
the government with which we are acquainted in this country
that it deserves an attentive consideration.
The form of federation existing in the United States seems
to me to differ in one very important point from that which
has been adopted in Germany; namely, that in the former
country the sovereign government consists, as already remarked,
•of all the State legislatures acting collectively, and that the
general legislature or Congress, composed of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, together with the President, is a
subordinate body; whereas in Germany the Diet or general
legislature, composed of the Bundesrath, the Reichstag, and
the Emperor, is itself the sovereign government. This will
appear, I think, if we consider the powers possessed by these
bodies, and also the distinction between supreme and subordi
nate political powers, and between a sovereign and a subordinate
government. Thus Mr. Austin observes with regard to political
powers: “Of all the larger divisions of political powers, the
division of these powers into supreme and subordinate is perhaps
the only precise one. The former are the political powers,
infinite in number and kind, which, partly brought into exercise
and partly lying dormant, belong to a sovereign or state. The
latter are the portions of the supreme powers which are dele
gated to political subordinates.” Mr. Dicey in pointing out
the signs or maiks which distinguish a sovereign government,
■such as the English Parliament, from a subordinate govern- '
ment, such as Congress or a state legislature in the United
'States, says: “ These then are the three parts of parliamentary
sovereignty as it exists in England; first, the power of the
legislature to alter any law, fundamental or otherwise, as freely
and in the same manner as other laws; secondly, the absence
of any legal distinction between constitutional and other laws;
thirdly, the non-existence of any judicial or other authority
having the right to nullify an Act of Parliament, or to treat it
as void, or unconstitutional”. As to “the marks or notes of
legislative subordination” he says: “These signs by which
�40
FEDERALISM IN UNITED STATES AND GERMANY.
you may recognise the subordination of a law-making body are,
first, the existence of laws affecting its constitution, which such
body must obey and cannot change; hence, secondly, the
formation of a marked distinction between ordinary laws and
fundamental laws ; and lastly, the existence of some person or
persons, judicial or otherwise, having authority to pronounce
upon the validity or constitutionality of laws passed by such
law-making body”. Sir Henry James also, in a passage
already quoted, reduces the distinctive marks of a sovereign
government to these two—that it “ must be subject to the
control or decision of no man or body”, and that it “must be
able to alter and remodel its own constitution ”, Judging by
these marks or tests, we can see at once that the American
Congress is a subordinate government, whereas the German
Diet appears to be a supreme or sovereign assembly. The
Constitution of the United States (a written document which
was agreed to as the fundame: tai law of their union by all the
States in 1787-1789, soon after they acquired their independ
ence of Great Britain) creates Congress and grants to it certain
legislative powers strictly defined and limited, and creates also
a supreme court of justice, with jurisdiction in all cases arising
under the constitution and with an authority, which has not
unfrequently been exercised, to declare void any law passed by
Congress in excess of its powers; and moreover, changes in the
constitution cannot be effected by Congress, but only by a
majority, of three - fourths of the state legislatures. Such
changes or amendments may be proposed either in Congress or
in a convention called by the States, and if approved of there,
must be sent for ratification to all the state legislatures, and
must be ratified by three-fourths of these bodies, before they
are adopted. Hence Mr. Dicey observes that “the legal
sovereignty of the United States resides in the majority of a
body constituted by the joint action of three-fourths of the
several States at any time belonging to the Union ”, On the
other hand, although Germany also has a written constitution,
adopted in 1871, which distributes the various powers and
departments of legislation between the Diet or federal govern
ment and the State governments, there is, I believe, no judicial
body corresponding to the Supreme Court in the United States
with authority to declare void any act of the Diet, but the
latter is itself judge in disputes between the States, and may
settle them, if need be, by federal legislation ; and the Diet,
moreover, has itself the power of changing or amending the
constitution. Thus the German Constitution (which is given
in full in the Government Year Book for 1888) says: “ Litiga
tions between several States, in so far as they do not concern
private rights and are not thereby within the competence of
ordinary tribunals, will be adjudged by the Bundesrath, on the
�MR. DICEY ON FEDERALISM.
41
demand of one of the parties. Disputes concerning the consti
tution, where there is no authority competent to decide such
disputes, must be amicably adjusted by the Bundesrath, on the
demand of one or other of the parties, and if this cannot be
effected, they must be determined by federal legislation. Changes
in the constitution are to be effected by Acts of the Assembly ;
but such modifications must receive in the Bundesrath the
support of a majority of two-thirds of the representative votes.”
It thus appears to me that the German Diet, like the English
Parliament, or like all the state legislatures in the United
States acting collectively, is a sovereign government, and, as
such, possesses powers which cannot be limited by law.
The leading characteristics of federalism are summed up as
follows by Mr. Dicey, who has given a most valuable exposition
of this system and other matters relating to government in his
“ Lectures on the Law of the Constitution ” and in “ England’s
case against Home Rule”. “A Federal Constitution”, he
says, “ must from its very nature be marked by the following
characteristics. It must, at any rate in modern days, be a
written constitution, for its very foundation is the ‘ Federal
pact ’ or contract ; the constitution must define with more or
less precision the respective powers of the central government
and the state governments, of the central legislature and of the
local legislatures ; it must provide some means (e.g., reference
to a popular vote) for bringing into play that ultimate sovereign
power which is able to modify or reform the constitution itself ;
it must provide some arbiter, be it Council, Court, or Crown,
with authority to decide whether the Federal pact has been
observed ; it must institute some means by which the principles
of the constitution may be upheld, and the decrees of the
arbiter or Court be enforced against the resistance (if need be)
of one or more of the separate states ”. He says also in
another place: “The essential characteristics of federalism—
the supremacy of the constitution—the distribution of powers
—the authority of the judiciary—reappear, though no doubt
with modifications, in every true federal state.” This descrip
tion, however clearly it explains the form of government
existing in the United. States or in Switzerland, is not, I venture
to think, equally applicable to the German Constitution, which,
by making the Diet a sovereign body, seems to me a most
important and valuable modification of the federal system.
The essence of federalism in my opinion is the existence of a
common supreme legislature, in which all the federated states
are duly represented, together with local subordinate legisla
tures, consisting solely of local representatives, in the different
states ; while the other remarkable feature in the American
Government, namely, that the sovereign power is vested in all
the state legislatures taken together, and that Congress is a
�42
ELECTORAL SOVEREIGNTY, PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY
subordinate body, unable to change its own constitution and
subject to the control of a legal tribunal, does not appear to mo
to be necessarily or essentially a part of federalism. Govern
ments which are not federal, such as the English Pari i am ent.,
might in like manner be made subordinate bodies and might
have their powers limited, if the constituencies who elect them
■chose to retain the legal sovereignty in their own hands. Mr,
Austin points out that although the trust held by the House
of Commons for the constituencies is at present enforced only
by moral sanctions, it might be enforced by legal sanctions;
and that for this purpose, a law or written constitution would
need to be passed by the constituencies themselves, who would
thus form an ulterior legislature. If such a constitution were
enforced by the courts of justice, the legal sovereignty of the
country would then reside in the constituencies or electors,
and not as at present in Parliament. “ In order that the
members of the Commons House might be bound legally and
completely to discharge their duties to the Commons”, says
Mr. Austin, “ the law must be made directly by the Commons
themselves ” with the assistance of the king and the lords, or,
in. a republic, by the Commons alone. In that case, “the
King and the lords with the electoral body of the Commons,
or the electoral body of the Commons as being exclusively
sovereign, would form an extraordinary and ulterior legisla
ture
This is exactly what has been done in the United
States and in Switzerland, where the body of the electors, or
of the State legislatures, have tied down the federal govern
ment by a constitution enforced by the law courts, and have
kept to themselves the ultimate sovereign power. But this
electoral sovereignty seems to me unessential to federalism,
and in many respects a less advantageous principle than par
liamentary sovereignty. It unduly limits or cripples the power
of the central legislature in a country, and makes the govern
ment more complicated; and also, as Mr. Dicey shows in a
striking passage, it vests the legal sovereignty in an inactive
and non-apparent body, and renders any change in the con
stitution a matter of much difficulty, especially in the United
States, where so large a majority as three-fourths is required
for. the. purpose. “From the necessity for placing ultimate
legislative authority in some body outside the Constitution ”,
says Mr. Dicey, “ a remarkable consequence ensues. Under
a federal as under a Unitarian system there exists a sovereign
power, but the sovereign is under a federal state a despot hard
to rouse. The sovereign of the United States has been roused
to serious action but once in the course of ninety years. But
a monarch who slumbers for years is like a monarch who does
not exist. A federal constitution is capable of change, but
for all that a federal constitution is apt to be unchangeable.”
�SHOULD IRELAND BE EEDEBATED WITH ENGLAND ?
43
If Congress were made supreme, these evils would be obviated ;
and I believe that the best means for securing the rights of
the people throughout the world is not by any plan of electoral
sovereignty, however valuable it may be in some respects, but
by uniting the r ations under one supreme federal government,
whose combined authority could protect the people of each,
country from tyranny or oppression by their national rulers.
One advantage of making Parliament supreme is that, as
Hobbes remarks, “there needs no writing”, or in other words,
a written constitution is not needed for a sovereign government,
because its powers are infinite and cannot be limited by law ;
and a constitution of this kind, which defines the delegated
powers and can be enforced by the law courts, would be required
only for subordinate bodies. Even where a written constitu
tion assigns to a supreme government, as well as to its subor
dinates, certain functions or makes other conditions, the supreme
government cannot be legally bound by these conditions, since
it can change the constitution. For all these reasons it appears
to me that parliamentary sovereignty is not only compatible
with federalism but is the principle which might best be
adopted in the federal union of different states.
IX.
If Parliamentary sovereignty were adopted as a part of
federalism, and if the central legislature were made supreme, a
federal government such as that of the United States would
resemble much more closely a unified government as in Eng
land, and they would differ chiefly in the extent of the powers
delegated to subordinate bodies. The question of Irish Home
Rule would then be narrowed to the inquiry as to what powers
should be delegated to a subordinate body or bodies in Ireland
by a supreme parliament in which that country was fairly
represented : for the so-called “ colonial form of Home Rule ”,
in which the Irish members would be excluded from the
Imperial Parliament, seems now to be very generally aban
doned. In a letter to Mr. Rhodes in last June, Mr. Parnell
says ; “I think you have correctly judged the exclusion of the
Irish members from Westminster to have been a defect in the
Home Rule measure of 1886”; and in the following July,
Sir George Trevelyan observed that ‘ ‘ two years ago the mass
of the people were not willing to exclude Irish members from
the English Parliament. Now the Liberal party were ready to
keep those members ”. All parties are agreed, moreover, that
the “ minor representative bodies ”, which according to Mr.
�44
FEDERALISM AND UNIFIED GOVERNMENT.
Mill “ ought to exist for purposes that regard only localities ”,
as, for example, Town Councils, and the newly created County
Councils, are of the greatest value, and that the latter should
be extended to Ireland also as soon as circumstances permit.
These minor bodies are the third kind of government by local
representatives to which the term “Home Rule” has been
applied, though it is usually reserved for the larger and more
important assemblies coming under the designation of parlia
ments or legislatures. The real question at issue, therefore, in
respect to Home Rule, is whether or not there should be a
separate Irish Parliament on the federal model; and it should
be borne in mind that while a state legislature in the United
States is independent of Congress, and is a member of the
ultimate sovereign government, the Irish parliament would be
purely subordinate or subject to the Imperial parliament, sup
posing the latter to continue as at present a sovereign body.
As regards the question of an Irish parliament, which lies at
the bottom of the recent controversies, I confess it appears to me
that the present system of unified government in these islands
is a preferable one. Unification seems to me better than federa
tion, except in cases where the countries to be united are very
distant from one another, or where their inhabitants speak
different languages, and it is chiefly, I think, by overcoming
these two great obstacles to political union that the federal
system is such an incalculable blessing to mankind. It also
renders invaluable service as a first step by uniting together
independent nations who, though near neighbors and having
the same language, would not, for various reasons, consent to
give up their national legislatures and to form at once a unified
government, but who may in course of time see cause to do so,
and to become thoroughly incorporated with one another. A
single parliament is a more complete union than a plurality of
parliaments, and in cases which admit of it, seems to me to
have several important advantages.
Mr. Dicey points out, as in his opinion two of the chief
drawbacks or dangers of federalism, the divided allegiance
of the citizens, who owe obedience both to the central govern
ment and to the government of their own state, and the want
of sufficient power in the central legislature to protect un
popular minorities in the different states. “ Federalism ”, he
says. “ has in its very essence, and even as it exists in America,
at least two special faults. It distracts the allegiance of citizens
and, what is even more to the present point, it does not provide
sufficient protection for the legal rights of unpopular minori
ties ”. To these causes, he considers, were greatly due the
terrible civil wars in the United States and in Switzerland, from
the history of which countries it will be seen that “ the two
most successful confederacies in the world have been keDt
�DRAWBACKS AND DANGERS OK FEDERALISM.
together only by the decisive triumph through force of arms of
the central power over real or alleged State rights.” A signal
instance of the want of sufficient protection for minorities and
oppressed classes, is that Congress had no power to abolish
slavery in the Southern States, and its total abolition could only
be effected at the close of the civil war by a special amendment
of the Constitution. It seems, indeed, to be the chief defect of
the federal system as compared with a unified government, that
the primary rules of justice, the rules for the security of person
and property, which concern every one, and which all should
have a voice in framing, are not discussed and settled by the
representatives of the whole people collectively, but only by the
representatives of each separate state; so that the common
will of all is not brought to bear on all, and laws passed by
particular states may be completely opposed to the feelings of
justice and morality in the great majority of the nation. This
defect, however, might to a great extent be remedied if the
•central government were made sovereign or supreme, and if it
were to lay down a set of conditions in the written constitution
granted to each subordinate legislature, to prevent the latter
from oppressing any class or any individual of its subjects.
Such a set of conditions, commonly called a “ bill of rights ”,
exists in the written constitution of every single state in the
American Union, though it is there inserted by the body of
local electors and not by the central government.
Another feature of federalism which seems open to objection
is its tendency unduly to multiply the number of parliaments
and of .legal systems, thus increasing the labor and cost of
legislation, and at the same time making law and government
more complicated. In the United States there were originally
thirteen and are now thirty-eight States, each of which has a
parliament of its own, consisting, like Congress, of a Senate
and a House of Representatives, together with a governor and
executive staff; and this seems a large proportion, even when
we consider the vast size of the country, which is nearly as
extensive as the whole of Europe. Moreover, each of the State
parliaments has substantially the same functions, namely, to
lay down and administer the great bulk of the civil and criminal
law, or in other words, to deal with all subjects of legislation
and administration except the comparatively small number—
including foreign affairs, the army and navy, national finance,
the currency, the post-office, the bankruptcy laws, and other
matters—which are delegated to Congress or to the President
by the constitution. ‘ ‘ The powers not surrendered to the
Government of the United States”, says Mr. Sterne, a barrister
of New York, in his “Constitutional History of the United
States”, “are much more extensive and much more immediately
related to the rights of the individual, and therefore affect him
�46
DRAWBACKS OF FEDERALISM.
more closely, than the delegated powers of the Federal Govern
ment. In all his functions as a citizen—in his amenability to
the deprivation of life and liberty by the criminal law, in the
assertion or denial of his rights through the civil administration
of justice—the State, with but few exceptions, has absolute
control over the life, liberty, and happiness of its subjects.”
Thus the work entrusted to the State legislatures is performed
thirty-eight times while that entrusted to Congress is only
performed once. In England all affairs, both foreign and
domestic, are managed by one parliament ; but if Ireland had
a legislature of her own on the federal model, there would need
to be at least three and not improbably five parliaments in the
United Kingdom; for the Irish members at Westminster could
no longer take part in the domestic legislation of England and
Scotland, and to confine them to debates on Imperial questions
has been shown to be impracticable. The only resource, there
fore, would be to have a parliament for the management of
domestic affairs in Great Britain also, or possibly in each of the
three countries, England, Scotland, and Wales, as well as in
Ireland, and to deal with Imperial questions in a separate
assembly, as is done in all federal countries. Besides the
difficulty of defining the spheres of the central and the local
legislatures, which gives rise to frequent litigation under a
federal constitution, another source of complexity is the
multitude of legal systems created by the different parliaments:
and the branch of jurisprudence called “ private international
law” or the “ law of domicil”, which is due to the difference
of legal systems and deals with the rights and duties of persons
living in other countries or states than their own—as, for
instance, of Scotchmen residing in France, and even in England,
since English law differs from Scotch law—is well known to be
a very important and intricate one. The American Chief
Justice Story, whose work on the “Conflict of Laws” is
devoted to this subject, says : “ The jurisprudence, then,
arising from the conflict of the laws of different nations, in
their actual application to modern commerce and intercourse,
is a most interesting and important branch of public law. To
no part of the world is it of more interest and importance than
to the United States, since the union of a national government
with already that of twenty-six (now thirty-eight) distinct
states, and in some respects independent states, necessarily
creates very complicated private relations and rights between
the citizens of these states, which call for the constant adminis
tration of extra-municipal principles ”. The above seem to m6
some of the chief objections to the adoption of federalism
between Great Britain and Ireland, but they do not apply
to its past history in the United States, where the federal
system has rendered the most immense services, and, consider
�FEDERATION OR MANKIND.
47
ing the size of the country and the international jealousies at
one time existing, is probably the only kind of common govern
ment which the states would have consented to enter into, or
which would have held them together.
X.
The large and increasing numbers, in different countries, who
advocate federation as the only true remedy for war, for huge
armaments, and for the other evils arising from the want of a
common international government, propose therefore that all
nations should be federally united together. In other words,
they hold that all nations should gradually be brought under
one supreme federal government, consisting of representatives
from each of them, who would legislate on the subjects affecting them all in common; and that they should also have
subordinate national governments, consisting exclusively of
nationaljrepresentatives, for the management of their internal
or domestic affairs. M. de Laveleye in his recent work on the
Balkan Peninsula, which has been translated into English,
describes the federal system as “ theoretically the best form of
government ”, and says of it: “ This form of government allows
the formation of an immense and even indefinitely extensible
State, by the union of forces, without sacrificing the special
originality, the individual life, the local spontaneity of the
provinces which compose the nation ”, Under a federal system,
if it were extended throughout the world, all the existing
sovereign governments would become subordinate or subject to
a common supreme government; while the number of subordi
nate legislatures or governments would depend on various
circumstances, and would in the long run, I venture to think,
be chiefly determined by the consideration already alluded to,
namely, that nations who are very distant from one another
or who speak different languages should have separate parlia
ments of their own, but that for near neighbors speaking the
same language it is in several important respects a great ad
vantage to have one unified parliament. The common inter
national government might be elected by the nations in the
same manner as the federal legislatures in the United States or
in Germany: that is to say, supposing it to consist of two
Chambers, one of them might be chosen by the national govern
ments and the other by the body of the people; each State
sending to both Chambers, as in Germany, a number of repre
sentatives approximately in proportion to its population. This
would apply, however, only to civilised or advanced communi
�48
COMPOSITION OP COMMON INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT.
ties, between whom there should always be completely equal
federation. Backward and semi-civilised populations, on the
other hand, could not have equal political rights, since their
vast numbers would enable them to outvote all others; but it
seems to me extremely desirable that no people whatever—much
less the great nations of Asia, some of whom are in many
respects highly polished, and are at the present day rapidly in
creasing in enlightenment under the influence of Western ideas
■—should be treated as a mere dependency of another State. All
nations should, I think, be federated together, that is, they
should all have a share both in the common supreme govern
ment and in the national government of their own country;
but with backward communities the federation could at first
only be on unequal terms, gradually changing to equality as the
inhabitants grew in civilisation. The difficulty now felt in
giving the great dependencies a share in the government arises
from the weakness and isolation of the dominant States, who
fear to lose their ascendancy ; but if the latter were themselves
federated with one another this difficulty would disappear, and
all nations could be represented both in the central and in the
local legislatures in such measure as justice and the real in
terests of each people might require.
The common supreme parliament, though containing repre
sentatives of all the nations, would not necessarily be larger
than other parliaments, even if it consisted only of a single
body, as its size would depend on the proportion of members
to the populations who elected them. It would doubtless
consist, however, not of a single assembly but of several as
semblies in different parts of the world, who would act col
lectively and legislate by a majority of their whole number,
like the State legislatures in the United States when they
exercise their sovereign powers ; an arrangement by which the
difficulty of uniting very distant countries might be overcome
and a fuller representation could be allowed to each people.
The other great difficulty, arising from difference of language,
might also be surmounted by this means ; and wherever different
nationalities were included in the same legislature each member
should be allowed to address the assembly in his own language,
as is the rule at present in several legislative bodies. In
Canada, for example, where a million and a half of French
inhabitants are federally united with three millions of English,
either language may be employed in the Dominion Parliament;
in the Cape Parliament, as mentioned in the Government Year
Book for 1888, Dutch may be spoken as well as English; in
the Hungarian Diet the deputies from Croatia may use their
native tongue; and in Switzerland, where about a fourth of
the people speak French, and nearly two-thirds German, both
languages can be employed in addressing the Federal Assembly.
�BALKAN CONFEDERATION.
49
In Austria, which, apart from Hungary, seems to be really a
federal State with a large share of the sovereignty vested in
the Emperor, the nationalities are more mixed than in any
other country of Europe, and there are seventeen local par
liaments, many of them transacting their business in distinct
languages, in addition to the common central parliament, or
Reichsrath, in which, I believe, only German can be employed.
Though there would doubtless be numerous difficulties in
government from these and other causes, the experience of
federal countries shows that they admit of being overcome by
a spirit of fairness and mutual concession, together with a
stedfast respect for law; and even at their greatest they do
not seem to me to bear comparison with the difficulties con
sequent on the “state of nature” or of anarchy now existing
between independent nations, and the perpetual risk of war.
At present, international questions are not treated by the
methods of law and government at all, but by secret diplomacy
and other methods characteristic of the state of anarchy ;
whereas if mankind were federated, secret diplomacy would
be done away with, and international affairs, like all others,
would be openly discussed by parliament and the press, and
settled in a legal and constitutional manner by the vote of
a majority.
It is evident that a change of such vast extent as the federal
-union of all nations could only be effected by successive steps,
and by the gradual federation of independent countries with
each other, and of sovereign states with their dependencies,
throughout the world ; but I cannot think its final accomplish
ment so distant and so extraordinarily or insuperably difficult
as is often supposed. If the dreadful calamity of another
European war be averted, there seem good reasons for believing
that great progress will be made before long in this direction.
The junction of the numerous separate states in Italy and in
Germany, in the one case by a complete and in the other by
a federal union (which are really the same at bottom, since
both consist in the fusion of two or more supreme governments
into one, and in the formation of a single independent and
sovereign state), has shown in the most striking manner the
enormous benefits of political union; and Mr. Freeman, the
distinguished historian, speaks of the change thus effected as
“the greatest event of our times
If the states in Italy and
in Germany have united together, and thereby greatly increased
their strength and national importance, their security from
attack, and the feelings of sympathy and brotherhood among
the people as fellow-countrymen, why may not other European
states unite with like results ? Many of our most eminent
politicians, both Liberal and Conservative, have declared them
selves in favor of a federation between Turkey, Greece, Bui
'S
�50
IMPERIAL FEDERATION.
garia, and other countries of the Balkan Peninsula ; which
shows that they regard as perfectly feasible the union of nations
who are separated by the widest differences in religion and in
language, and by the memory of ages of war and oppression.
M. de Laveleye warmly advocates a Balkan Confederation as
the.true solution of the Eastern question, and says that it is
desired by the people of the countries themselves as well as by
Austria-Hungary and by the English Liberals. “ This solution,
so just and natural ”, he says, “ has been for many years
advocated by the English Liberals. It is the only one which
is conformed to the right of the populations to govern them
selves, and which avoids giving a dangerous preponderance to
one of.the two large neighboring empires.” What hinders the
execution of this project is no want of feasibility, but the
opposition of Russia, whose aim for generations has been to
keep Turkey and the neighboring states weak and divided, so
that she may seize the magnificent city of Constantinople.
Other countries whose federation seems especially desirable
at. present, and comparatively easy to effect from their near
neighborhood and the identity or affinity of their languages,
are the three Scandinavian kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and
Denmark; the kingdoms occupying the third great peninsula
of southern Europe, Spain and Portugal ; and the numerous
independent Spanish republics in North and South America,
whose separation from one another, and the state of nature or
anarchy thus produced between them, have led to the most
frightful evils in the shape of constant wars and revolutions.
Political union is evidently most needed and most easily carried
out between contiguous nations and those having the same
language, from the frequency of their intercourse together;
and hence each people should strive above all to be united
with their nearest neighbors and with those akin to themselves
in race and language in other parts of the globe. It is also
much easier to effect a federation between a sovereign state and
its dependencies than between independent countries, for the
former are already united under the same government, and to
the dependencies federation is a manifest gain ; while it is not
less important to the interests of the dominant state, for in thepresent day, when the great ideas of national equality and the
equal rights of nations are spreading far and wide, no empire
can long be held together on the footing of a sovereign state
and dependencies, but if not federated will assuredly fall to
pieces. This tendency to promote federation shows the great
value to mankind at large, and not merely to the dominant
nations themselves, of vast empires such as those of Russia and
England. The policy which the truest friends and admirers of
Russia would wish to see her pursue is not to engage in aggres
sive wars which might end in her own overthrow, but legally
�FEDERAL UNION OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND.
51
-and peacefully, or without revolution, to change by degrees her
present absolute monarchy into a constitutional and representa
tive system of government, and to federate her immense domin
ions. In England the extraordinary importance of Imperial
Federation, or, in other words, the federation of the British
Isles with their colonies, and eventually with India and the other
great dependencies, is recognised by statesmen of all political
parties, and Lord Rosebery lately declared the hope of its
accomplishment to be “ the dominant passion of his public
life ”. The colonies themselves are desirous of being federally
united with the mother country; and meanwhile, as statfid in
the Government Year Book, “ the federation of colonial groups
into dominions has made good progress. The confederation of
British North America is all but complete. That of Australasia
■is, accomplished in part; and in all probability the South
African settlements will follow suit.” It is not for themselves
alone, but for mankind, that Russia and England would
■federate their empires, since other nations would doubtless
sooner or later be admitted, and urgently invited, to join the
federation.
But of all political unions, that which seems to me most
important at present, and most ardently to be desired, is the
federal union of France and England. The statesmen who
could bring it about would render an inestimable service to both
countries, and inaugurate a new era of peace and fraternity,
for in itself and by its probable consequences it would go far
^towards making the federation of mankind, instead of a remote
ideal, an actual and accomplished fact. The advantages to this
•country of such a union, and the weight of the reasons in its
favor, cannot, I think, be exaggerated. The French are our
nearest neighbors; they are one of the bravest and most power
ful, and at the same time most highly cultivated, quick-witted,
■and charming nations on the face of the earth; a nation whom
■any people might be delighted to have as fellow-countrymen.
From its proximity to England, France is the country with
■which we mu3t always have most frequent intercourse, and
with which therefore a union is most of all required; Paris and
London are nearer together than any other great capitals, and
indeed if the project of a Channel Tunnel were carried out, as
■could safely be done if the countries were united, the journey
from London to Paris might be performed, without the dis
comforts of a sea voyage, in about seven hours. Our language,
though of Teutonic origin, has become since the Norman
Conquest so intimately mixed with the French that the latter
is easier for an Englishman to acquire than German, and there
ure probably twenty persons among us who know French for
■one who is acquainted with any other continental language.
'.The strength and resources of the two countries if united
�52
!1
,
)
;
(
'
i's
|(
u
If
FEDERAL UNION OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND.
would be twice as great as of either of them singly; Franc®
would gain England, and England would gain France; and
what is particularly important for countries having distant
possessions of such enormous extent (since the colonies and
dependencies of each nation would then belong to both) their
combined navy would have nothing to fear from any foreign,
foe. Moreover, the paramount reason for every political union,
whether of individuals or of nations, is that it puts an end to
the state of nature or anarchy previously existing between
them, and substitutes for it the reign of government and law.
Mr. Dicey remarks that a separation from Ireland would entail
upon England three great evils, namely, a defeat and surrenderof her traditional policy, a loss of power, and “the incalculable
evil of the existence in the neighborhood of Great Britain of a
new, a foreign, and possibly a hostile state”. Is not theseparation of France and England exactly in the same way am
“incalculable evil ” to both countries ?
It appears to me that the union of France with the United
Kingdom would tend to settle the Irish question and to bring
about a thorough and permanent reconciliation with Ireland ;
that it would strengthen the foundations of the Empire, whosemaintenance is of such vast importance, and for whose complete
security against any hostile attack England urgently needs a
partner; that it would render feasible Imperial Federation or
federation with the colonies, and not improbably also a federalunion with our kinsmen and former fellow-countrymen in the
United States, both of which objects, however ardently to be
desired, are at present surrounded with difficulties that seem
to me insuperable; and that it would enable a share in the
government, in the form of an unequal federation, to be granted
without danger to India and the other great dependencies. It would do' more than almost anything else to convince the Irish.
Nationalists that separation from Great Britain is neither
practicable nor desirable, and that “ national independence ”,
in the sense of a separate supreme government, is only anothername for the state of nature or anarchy between nations, and
opposed to the most vital interests of all. Indeed, if we consider
the matter closely, it will appear, I think, that political unioni
and government are not at bottom founded on what can pro-perly be called a contract or consent, but on a moral duty, namely,
the duty of the minority, when opinions differ, to yield to the
majority (which does not mean that the less numerous nation
should yield to the more numerous, but that the minority of '
both nations taken together should yield to the majority) since
this is at once just in itself, and the only way to secure peaceamong mankind. Moreover, France has at different times beem
allied with Ireland, and was for centuries the ally of Scotland,
in their wars against England; and she is a Roman Catholic:
�FEDERAL UNION OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND.
52
country, and a country of peasant proprietors, which, circum
stances might be expected to aid in overcoming the hostility of
the Irish priesthood and the Irish peasantry, and in enabling
them to obtain the fullest satisfaction of all their legitimate
rights and demands. As regards the federation of England
with the colonies and with the United States, it seems to me that
an insurmountable obstacle to this at present is the unwilling
ness of the latter countries to incur the risk of being involved
in European wars, and obliged therefore, like the nations of
Europe, to maintain huge standing armies and navies. Mr.
Washburne, late Minister of the United States in France, ob
serves : “It had been the traditional policy of our Government
to keep out of all entangling alliances with foreign govern
ments”. Mr. Sterne also, a barrister of New York, from whose
work I have already quoted, says: “Unlike the nations of
Europe, the United States has no neighbor sufficiently powerful
to affect its policy or to modify its constitution. It requires no
standing army : and so long as England performs the police
duties of the seas, it requires but little of a navy.” Why
should the United States, whose standing army is only twenty
thousand strong, and why should the colonies, mix themselves
up with the politics of a continent groaning under the weight
of ten millions of armed men ? But if France and England
were united, the situation would be entirely changed. Their
union would be a guarantee for peace, insomuch that both the
colonies and the United States might safely federate with them,
thus adding immensely to the strength and security of the con
federation and promoting the spread of liberal ideas and re
presentative government throughout the world. One very
powerful motive for union arises from the peculiar circumstances
of Canada. The French are already federally united with the
English in Canada, and if they were similarly united in Europe
the colony would be attracted with double force to the two mother
countries; while the United States also has long been urgently
desirous of federating with Canada, and it is evident that the
only way to satisfy all these deeply-rooted desires is by the
federation of all the four countries together. This would secure
peace in Europe, not only by the union of so many powerful
and peace-loving nations, but by showing how much greater
results can be obtained by political union than by the terrible
weapons of war. If all wars and conquests are to end sooner
or later in federation, why not rather begin with federation and
spare these horrors and miseries to mankind ?
Whatever other nations may do, however, our own policy
in my humble opinion should be to seek a federal union with
France. It would lighten our difficulties, lead to peace and
concord, and tend most powerfully to promote federation and
to solve the problems of government in everv part of the world.
�54
FEDERAL UNION OF FRANCE AND FISTULA nd,
I would conclude with, the words of the great thinker, Thomas
Hobbes, who may be regarded as in many respects the founder
o<f the true theory of law and government, and who says that
‘ the condition of mere nature, that is to say, of absolute
liberty, such as is theirs that neither are sovereigns nor sub
jects, is anarchy and the condition of war ”, whereas “ all other
time is Peace ”,
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Home rule and federation : with remarks on law and government and international anarchy, and with a proposal for the federal union of France and England, as the most important step to the federation of the world
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Drysdale, George
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 54 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. By 'A doctor of medicine'. Author's name handwritten in pencil on title page.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
E. Truelove
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N194
Subject
The topic of the resource
Ireland
Anarchism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Home rule and federation : with remarks on law and government and international anarchy, and with a proposal for the federal union of France and England, as the most important step to the federation of the world), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Anarchism
Federalism
Great Britain-Foreign Relations-France
Home Rule-Ireland
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/fb77063e0e390c447b81c4ed591e325d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=s4gyVOdkH5jMP6p647osgXOOI-bCGpVCalvBsQRKKc1csUe-Ni6m6VKk857RNU5AnMeau6K1K4IBTPWS8bO1nqn7xbw43HRfyXUVHkA%7ECVRiT%7EmZAdqgc0urnycQX-t7HExhp-r-LB4c-AUN2OJWXlPelHGiRz0yfMTwaQE3LIN2MPxm74UNWBzsrBrwN7wJzZ8o%7ExlCxCrQON8khH4WAWoXq8E0309sYM7bx2asvSyG7jWnSg4zOFYi5PbHXOcZZ4B3N0PLdaKAt8HLo1-Zw2USaIoRZPrSdyapH-UfaDDGo1A1rfJjQu17TXsFQevWhIqTeVl7RXEBFgb8OlBNZw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
676f100191db0bb5bac60e7a3c722263
PDF Text
Text
THE
BY
“G.
“To
F. S.”
thine own self be true.”—Shakespeare.
LONDON :
A.
63
BONNER,
FLEET
STREET,
1889.
E.C.
�LONDON ;
PRINTED BY A. BONNER,
34 BOUVERIE ST., FLEET ST., E.C.
�^573
(Lljc inbifaitrnalitj of Woman.
------ <.-----The Norwegian dramatist Ibsen, in his powerful drama,
“A Doll’s House,” treats of a subject which cannot but
be of keen interest to woman, namely, her relations to
man in married life. The heroine, Nora Helmar, is a
melancholy example of the result of the subordination
of individuality. Although thirty years of age, the
womanly gifts and powers of the wife and mother are
all stultified by the dominant will and egotism of her
husband. She lives in and for him ; his pleasure is her
law ; and when suddenly placed by circumstances in a
responsible position, she is totally helpless. The play,
which in its course shows her awakened to a sense of
her humiliating and tragical position, we need follow no
further ; but we cannot help feeling that the writer has
dealt with one of woman’s greatest inherent dangers,
namely, a tendency to sink her own individuality in
that of the other sex. This is even considered right
and becoming by many persons. Mrs. Sandford, in
“Woman in her Social and Domestic Character”, says:
“ Nothing is so likely to conciliate the affections of the
other sex as a feeling that woman looks to them for
support and guidance. In proportion as men are them
selves superior, they are accessible to this appeal. On
the contrary, they never feel interested in one who
seems disposed to offer rather than to ask assistance.
There is indeed something unfeminine in independence.
In everything, therefore, that women attempt, they
should show their consciousness of dependence.” But
is this a rational position ? We are individuals. We
�4
THE INDIVIDUALITY OF WOMAN.
are responsible creatures, just as much as men. Are
we not “fed with the same food, hurt with the same
weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the
same means, warmed and cooled by the winter and
summer”? Yet how common it is for women, after
losing their names at the altar, to follow up that loss
by abandoning their individuality also, and becoming
the mere echoes of their husbands. As John Stuart
Mill says: “By dint of not following their own nature,
they have no nature to follow; their capacities are
withered and starved, and they are generally without
either opinions or feelings of home growth ”. Is the
world really enriched by this deduction from it of half
its energies ? Is the husband’s life really dignified by
such flattering echo of himself ? Is there not rather
something in it suggestive of the mocking-bird or the
parrot ? Surely there can be no true comradeship
where the woman takes the place of a courtier beside
her husband ? “I would rather have a thorn in my
side than an echo”, said Emerson. Many women shun
the duty and effort of individuality from the terror of
being dubbed “strong-minded females” or “men in
petticoats”; but this is evading the question. “Because
I like a little salt to my meat, there is no cause to
suppose I wish to be pickled in brine.”
There need be no fear of our losing our womanliness
through retaining our individuality. Our sisters across
the Atlantic are far more charming and winsome in
manners than we, and are introducing into our dull
conventional social life an esprit and brilliancy unknown
among us before. Matthew Arnold says: “ Almost
everyone acknowledges that there is a charm in
American women—a charm which you find in almost
all of them, wherever you go.” And this is simply
because they live their own fresh natural lives, instead
of tamely echoing those of others. The mind, freed
from mental swaddling-clothes, begins to grow and
become interested and interesting. There is one striking
point in which American women recognise their own
existence, with very happy results. American families
are, owing to womanly influence, limited ; with us they
appear to be unlimited ! There is no more astounding
�THE INDIVIDUALITY OF WOMAN.
5
experience than to hear a seemingly modest, fairly
intelligent woman speaking complacently of her seven
or eight children. Can she possibly be vain enough to
imagine she is able to understand and guide the minds
of so many differently constituted creatures, no two of
whom should be trained and treated alike ? One, for
example, suffering from constitutional diffidence, needs
almost to be flattered to develop his hidden capabilities;
another should be sternly ignored, in order. to repress
his abnormal self-confidence; and a third is quick in
brain but easily exhausted in body. Another, again, is
apparently dull and stupid, but only needs to be let
alone to grow at his own natural speed and in his own
natural manner, and who most probably may prove like
the tortoise in the race with the hare, the winner after
all. A child may be apparently sullen, but is in reality
only timid ; or he who is seemingly frank is, in fact,
only self-sufficient; and so on in infinite shades and
varieties of character. One would imagine that when a
woman had two or three such difficult studies to solve,
she would say: “Hold! I can no more; here is the limit
of my powers ”. But no, willingness and affection, they
think, will make up for the absence of all else; or
perhaps they don’t think at all, or dimly remember
something about fruitful vines, etc., and conclude that
because in a struggling young nation like the Jews each
male or fighter was of great value, therefore by adding
citizens, no matter of what quality, to our congested
over-peopled country they are fulfilling the British ma
tron's highest functions. In this question of families
the American woman bravely and gracefully becomes
the guide of her husband, while the English wife is
simply the echo of his wishes or egotism. Really one
wonders sometimes if women can think, so wholly do
they leave this part of their duty unpractised. Does it
ever cross their minds that perhaps it is “ cruel to
summon new beings, as sensitive as themselves, into a
world which to each fresh generation seems to loom
more awful in the obscurity of its meaning and its
end”?
.
.
The very quality of their chosen reading lulls their
brains to sleep. They avoid all literature which has
�6
THE INDIVIDUALITY OF WOMAN.
any strenuousness or wrestling in it. It is this indolence
of mothers which in religious questions so frequently
alienates their children’s mental lives from them as
they develop. Each generation must have some new
movement of thought. “The old order changeth, yield
ing place to new, lest one good custom should corrupt
the world.” But the woman who has kept her mind
in a paralyzed condition will not know or admit this.
AX hat she was taught as true fs true, and if her children
follow other teaching they must be wrong. Strangely
enough, while in all other subjects, literary, artistic, or
mildly political, she is but her husband’s echo, here, should
his religious views develop and become more liberal,
she makes a stand, and one might think by this attitude
of resistance that at last her individuality was asserting
itself. Alas ! no ; she is only leaning on another mental
prop—her clergyman or minister.
I have, said that the mental separation from her
children is often the result of the mother’s indolence
of mind, an indolence which is quite compatible with
any amount of bodily and social activity. But there is
sometimes another and a sadder effect, especially where
great affection exists, and innate mental activity in the
child is lacking. I remember putting into the hands of
a young friend of mine Cotter Morison’s “ Service of
Man”. After reading it she quietly remarked: “ It seems
a clever book, but of course I don’t agree with it ”. A
more naturally modest girl does not exist ; yet without
during her young life having made even a desultory
acquaintance with the varied shades of thought in
modern life, she conceives that because the thoughts
broached in the book are not in accordance with those
she has hitherto heard of they are necessarily false.
John .Stuart Mill analyses this condition of mind thus:
“ Their conclusion may be true^ but it might be false
for anything they knew ; they have never thrown them
selves into the mental position of those who think
differently from them, and considered what such person
may have to say, and consequently they do not in any
proper sense of the word know the doctrine which they
themselves profess.” At first sight it may seem as if
the mother had mental energy and individuality, since
�THE INDIVIDUALITY OF WOMAN.
7
her child so fixedly follows her belief; but it is not
really so. Had the mother’s mind been full of vitality,
she would have taught her child to search for herself,
and not have fixed her to a belief which after all was
only the echo of her own clergyman.
Speaking of the clergy reminds one of a new danger
which menaces us from the lack of independence of thought
in women. I have spoken of the married woman being
often but the echo of her husband’s mind, but the un
married woman taking her opinions from her clergyman
is a much more humiliating spectacle. If the suffrage
be extended to women, what does it mean but that the
votes of the clergy will be enormously augmented ! I
know, of course, there are clear-headed, original women,
but I speak here of the many ordinary women who are
under clerical influence, and are as dough in the hands
of their minister. A lively and, I fear, discerning writer
in one of our weekly journals says: “ It is the fashion to
laugh at clerical influence as a thing of the past, and
past it may be as far as men are concerned, but with us
women it was never more rampant. In small country
towns and villages—and these send members to Par
liament as well as our great intellectual centres—the
ordinary unmarried woman turns instinctively to her
rector or minister for guidance upon all occasions.
Probably he is the only man of education to whom she
can appeal; he listens to her patiently, and earns his
reward—her blind, unquestioning obedience. The net
result of the women’s franchise will be to quadruple,
nay, centuple, the political powers of the clergy in
England.
Now, the clergymen — though endowed
with many virtues, no doubt—are after all but human;
why then should they receive this sudden accession of
power ? If it were proposed to give it to the members
of the military, legal, or any other profession, what an
outcry there would be ! ” In all ages of the world,
when the influence of the clergy has not been sharply
restricted, danger and deterioration have followed to the
nations. This is almost too self-evident a fact to insist
on, but it is, alas! too true that many persons, especially
women, do not recognise it. Who but the clergy of all
sects, by their teachings that it is God who sends illness
�8
THE INDIVIDUALITY OF WOMAN.
and plagues, have hindered the spread and practice of
sanitary measures ? Is it not always the clergy who
are against any growth of knowledge, whether it be the
fact of the world moving—they having said it did not—
or that this same world was made in a different way
and time from their averred six days of twenty-four hours
each? Who but Saint Chrysostom taught the degrading
theory that “woman is a necessary evil, a natural
temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic peril, a
deadly fascination, and a painted ill ” ?
If woman with her duty-doing desires could once
realise the truth that “in proportion to the development
of her individuality each person becomes more valuable
to herself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable
to others
she would surely not feel herself justified
longer in stultifying her usefulness by mental languor
and acquiescence. How womanly one feels the rule
made and kept by Margaret Fuller’s sister, who, no
matter how much her children absorbed her, would
rescue one hour each day for reading, in order that her
mind should be kept fresh for them, and that she should
not simply be to them a mere source of physical nurture.
And, indeed, how, unless they keep themselves in con
stant vigorous mental action, can they guide the young
ones about them ? for of what value is a succession of
echoes ? What vigor there might be in the rising
generation if the mothers taught their girls (girls par
ticularly, for boys escape earlier from the torpor of
home) to think about the life they are called into,
instead of simply accepting, as for the most part is the
case, a conventional set of statements told them by half
educated men—for the ordinary clergyman can be but
half-educated, his business being to be sectional or one
sided ! The dulness and philistinism of our homes are
mainly owing to the sleepy accept-what-is-accepted
temper of the mother’s mind, instead of households
becoming by her influence centres of fresh and vital
atmosphere.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The individuality of woman
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. By "G.F.S." [title page].
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
A. Bonner
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N573
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
G. F. S.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Women
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 individuality of woman), 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
Women
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/fb3aecf685690786d860f89cc48eef15.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PnN%7EuoNkeDTifqlvOalO9KvRKZ2tKRpJjTQovJIyTecwVVyYT9YnYzbXV-0hcECQYuSy75EkoQkqEv%7E9bHHiZVzi8HbSz98EcjnGjJe1j6h7-XU7rOA1QsFrmqSsUm5zPqHlf%7EMGrlZZLQg2hPUGN5Og%7E-eRZhfj8PqAnQjzJuct93fQ7vByx7bpBcASdWgO42PnTVeU8ehTLSyWhiUWdcf5MuHZu28mOSBLmv3PWZxqPUub0x11HX-Yb014-Oa-uEX5sCnDCrVOinyP7%7EVSTzChX0cU20PXQQWP1s3d2VBn0BCaNqTN6wKvQ%7E%7ELObLJ4c%7EPjeecnRPmebWxZMplbA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
3e23999882c849314f3347b154d2e8e5
PDF Text
Text
AGAINST SOCIALISM.
BY
HUMANITA8.”
Author of “ Is God the First Cause? ”, “ Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed ”,
Thoughts on Heaven”, “Jacob the Wrestler”, “Mr. Bradlaugh and the Oaths
Question ”, “ How the British House of Commons treated Charles Bradlaugh, M.P.”,
“ Charles Bradlaugh and the Irish Nation ”, “ Socialism a Curse ”, “A Fish in Labor ;
or, Jonah and the Whale ”, “ God: Being also a Brief Statement of Arguments
Against Agnosticism”, etc.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT
PUBLISHING
63 FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 9.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
COMPANY,
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63
FLEET STREET, E.C.
r
�AGAINST SOCIALISM.
[The following remarks were originally written in the form of a
letter, which, however, I did not dispatch, coming to the conclusion
that it might be useful as a small pamphlet against Socialism. This
must be my plea for its brevity, and also for what may be deemed its
somewhat fragmentary character.]
Since writing my pamphlet against Socialism1 (now nearly
six years ago), which partook of the nature of a reply
to Dr. E. B. Aveling, my mind has, if anything, been
strengthened in the belief that State Socialism would
really be a curse rather than a blessing.
I think the larger half of those who adopt Socialism
do. so. without examining it, and also without carefully
weighing the theories put forward by leading Socialists.
I do not doubt for a moment that these theories are
sincerely and honorably held by their principal exponents.
I am confident such is the case in some instances. But I
do not think the subject is sufficiently weighed and understood by the majority of those who throw up their caps in
favor of it. The possibility of My Lord having, in some
dim and indescribable manner, to share his riches with
the ordinary hard-working — and often out-of-work —
journeyman, is doubtless a very taking bait to dangle
before the latter. I am here leaving out of the question
the very large leaven of those who are not hard-working,
but who hope to profit by any change, quite regardless as
to whether it be for the better of for the worse.
But if the ordinary working man, who is tickled by this
delusion, looks below the surface he will see that it would
not only not work, but that it is simply madness to dream
Cq1 <la®oc^a^sm a f-'urse-”
Price 3d.
Freethought Publishing
�4
AGAINST SOCIALISM.
of its ever coming about. He will find that his salvation
lies in the direction of Co-operation, rather than in that of
confiscation. For my own part, I believe that, although
the movement may do some harm—perhaps much harm—
its ultimate and complete adoption is simply an impossi
bility.
State Socialism means State serfdom, and State espionage
carried into every act and effort of one’s life. It means
the complete annihilation of each individual’s individuality ;
and, if enacted to-morrow, would by sheer necessity be
ignored the day after. I believe the advocates themselves
would, if successful, find the condition of affairs they had
brought about so intolerable as to compel them to be
amongst the first to undo their own work. Some of them,
at least, could not by their very nature sink themselves to
the necessary State level which would be demanded by
what they themselves had set up. Some few there might
be willing to sink themselves for what they thought to be
the general good; but it is expecting too much of human
nature to suppose that the bulk of the brightest, best, and
fittest would submerge themselves in the slough of medio
crity and inferiority at the bidding of a State (by which I
mean the executive for the time being) composed of those
who, despite the Socialistic government regulations, had,
by their individuality, come to the top.
Practically, I think Socialists hold, in common with
most of us, that it is the duty of the State to guarantee each
individual in the free and safe enjoyment of what he may,
by his superior industry, thrift, and intelligence, earn. This
at least is what they profess to desire; and it is possible
that the main difference between us consists in the method
adopted to attain that end. Whilst giving them credit for
sincerity, I hold that Socialism would not only not do this,
but would actually make its being done impossible. It
would squeeze, or try to squeeze, all down to a kind of
worse than State mediocrity, and thus rob each of his
individual merits. If it did not do this, but allowed each
to possess what he individually earned or produced, there
is an end of Socialism, because it would then be allowing
individual accumulation of capital, which it is its particular
mission to destroy.
It would seem to me that the very essence of Socialism
is that an individual (or even a voluntary company formed
of individuals) must not possess what he earns either by
�AGAINST SOCIALISM.
5
brain, sinew, or actual moral worth, because one man will,
by the greater exercise of these, earn ten-fold what another
will. And this always strikes me as being strangely at
variance with the great Socialistic complaint, that the
workman does not receive what he is justly entitled to do.
I am bound to admit that in many cases he does not; but
will Socialism give it to him ? Will robbing the intelli
gent, the industrious, and the better man, by levelling
him down to the standard of the worser, give it him?
And bear in mind that if you reduced the profits of the
employer to the level of the average wage of the workmen,
you would still have the question of extra merit, and con
sequent extra worth, of the men themselves to deal with ;
so that robbing the employer of the fruits of the position
to which he had possibly slaved and toiled would not settle
the injustice as between the workmen. The fact would
still remain that all men are not equal : they are not
equally wise, industrious, virtuous; nor are they equally
fit in any respect whatever. Equality before the law is
good, but it does not mean that all are equal in worth,
either intellectually, morally, or even commercially, and
no government stamp can make them so. Keeping this
in mind, I do not see how robbing one man to balance
another can be just or reasonable, whether that man be
a duke, capitalist, government official, working man, or
man in any other position.
If Socialism will not permit me to possess the fruits of
my brain, and enterprise; of my sobriety, and greater
application, where is the freedom—not to mention the
right ? [I would here remark that I am not forgetting
the duty of the individual to the State, and to the general
well-being.] But if, on the other hand, Socialism will
allow me such possession, which means the possession of
individual property—and you cannot logically draw the
line between a trinket and a mansion—what becomes of
it ? You are admitting the very principle that your
Socialism is set up to kill; and bear in mind that whether
you admit the principle or not, it will live; and rightly
live. Nature herself will not allow even a government to
command : Thus much shalt thou earn, produce, or possess,
and no more ; or if thou producest more, thou shalt give
it up, and go back to the level of the less active and
deserving mass thou hast left behind. If a government
could do this, and so deprive the more energetic and better
�6
AGAINST SOCIALISM.
man of the fruits of his greater energy—and with them
.the incentive to that energy—it would at the same time be
encouraging the mass to depend not upon their own efforts,
but upon the efforts of others ; thus inducing and helping
all—as per Socialistic law—to be indolent rather than
otherwise.
“ Open your mouth and shut your eyes, and see what the
State will send you ”, is not a wise doctrine to preach.
The large heap of money shared all round, with Jack’s
notion of sharing it over again as occasion may require, is
however, although the very backbone of Socialism, too
absurd for any practical purpose, or for serious considera
tion. Of course it is held that Socialism does not mean
anything of the sort: but when explained (?) this is found
to be what is really meant; because the moment you dis
card it, you are landed in individual accumulation.
I am aware that Socialism is held to be not yet thoroughly
defined: but 1 believe it to be undefinable ; and that the
more you endeavor to define it, the more unworkable you
find it. Imagine for instance the arts and sciences being
worked upon a kind of huge out-door relief system, the
products not belonging to the producers, but to the State I
Do you suppose you could by process of law—I am not
asking ought you to do so—but could you make the great
painter, inventor, sculptor, musician, engineer, physician,
etc., etc., satisfied with the same remuneration as you
would give to the railway porter, or the stable man ?
Indeed, the intrigue, the red-tapeism, the discontent and
rebellion which would be certain to form part of the ques
tion as to which should become the stable boy, and which
the engineer or philosopher, is something ludicrous to
picture. The phrenologist might possibly be brought into
requisition with some advantage; but not all the State
paid (?) phrenologists, nor Government Boards that ever
existed, or will exist, could make the great of brain, and
the great of power, (in every calling)—mostly begot of
perseverance and application—satisfied to be placed upon
a par with the mass. The thing is simply a joke. The
idea of finding sufficient reward—plus a “ leather medal ”
—in the knowledge of having served mankind, shorn of all
other and more substantial considerations, is nothing better
than twaddle, and practically all, even including Socialists
themselves, proclaim it to be so.
�AGAINST SOCIALISM.
7
But if you do propose to remunerate the great and
meritorious in something like proportion to their work, or
services rendered to the State; might they spend or put
such remuneration to further use, with an eye to immediate
comfort, or to — perchance — future interest 2 Or would
they be compelled to simply sit upon it, not even daring
to hatch it into 2^ per cents. ? Perhaps a method of
rewarding extra merit might be found in a system of
awarding dummy medals—or, if really valuable, accom
panied by criminal consequences in case of the recipient
converting them into money or other valuables.
For my own part I regard Socialism as the cry of the
poorer and less able—and, alas ! larger—half of humanity
—and I might go so far as to say : the worse half—
against its own poverty and wretchedness. And it is
this wretchedness, together with the hope of being able
to remedy it, which constitutes the strength of the Social
istic craze, and commands the sympathy and support of
many to whom the merits of the scheme, as a means to an
end, would certainly fail to appeal.
Let us by all means do what in us lies : let us legislate
with a view to reducing poverty and its consequent suffer
ings ; but let us not do it at the expense of the liberty and
the commonest rights of the people themselves.
What we want is reform, not serfdom. We want an
extension of individual liberty ; greater freedom of contract
in the matter of the sale and transfer of land ; fewer
restrictions upon trade, commerce, markets, etc.; the re
adjustment of financial matters, with a view to a more
equitable mode of taxation. These and many other changes
calculated to directly benefit the working man, we un
doubtedly require ; but we do not require a retrograde
movement into primitive (now called scientific) Socialism.
The science which shall thin some down and thicken
others up to some kind of State regulation standard,
making all good boys and girls, each being satisfied with
the government dole, and also satisfied with that station
and calling in life which it pleaseth—not God in this
instance, but the State—to place them, is yet to be dis
covered. The ism, whether Socialistic or other, would
have to be very scientific indeed to prevent the eagle from
soaring and the race-horse from outstripping the ass. And
it would be very mad to attempt to legislate in that
direction.
�8
AGAINST SOCIALISM.
But Socialism, whilst endeavoring to bring some down,
would also necessarily have to prevent others from rising.
It is in principle quite as adverse to a small capital as to a
large one. The ability to produce wealth would be of no
use; the main incentive to thrift and effort would be
removed. Under the Socialistic regime individual possession
of valuables of any kind whatever would be impossible.
This is denied, because the idea is too ridiculous on the
face it for standing-room; but the denial is simply a
repudiation of the thing in behalf of which it is made.
If Socialism should ever reign, our very language would
have to be reconstructed: I, mine, and me, with all that
belongs to them and is understood by then^ would have
to be erased from our grammars as well as from our
institutions; and every explanation offered by Socialists
against this view is, though not so intended, essentially
an argument against the feasibility of Socialism.
Perhaps one of the worst features of Socialism is, that
it would create a gigantic swarm of State officials, whose
duty it would be to “inspect”, i.e, pry into the private
business of every individual in the State, to such an extent
as would be insufferable to any people claiming, in the
smallest sense of the word, to be free. Nay, I doubt if
there could be, such a thing as private business ; it would
all have to be public, with a Government detective in
every shop, house, or factory. It would be State vassalage,
pure and simple.
It might, I think, be safely prophesied that should we
ever “ evolve ” into State Socialism, we should speedily
evolve out of it again. Therein lies some consolation.
And, as I have remarked, some of the leading Socialist
luminaries would be the first to attract and draw the
smaller fry into the outward course. These leaders are in
some notable instances, and for this they deserve honor,
the very personification of self-help, self-assertion, and
self-reliance. It is true their great individuality is in
direct opposition to the principle of Socialism, and is so
far inconsistent with their creed ; but should that creed
ever be generally and practically adopted, it would at
once either kill or convert them into anti-Socialists.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Against socialism, by "Humanitas"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ball, William Platt [1844-1917]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Shows signs of having been detached from bound volume. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N054
Subject
The topic of the resource
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Against socialism, by "Humanitas"), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c9655754bce799f131a9e4da03ba08a8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cS2La78pJvrfCI7ZRjqtft9TgVsN%7EmFvlW7IJ6Lui9O%7EEYivM%7Ep5nlJfEwl9mEyU3ubWwatYxC4QuNfU26sfYfgWFR3k9yapy8dJaCRxA7V-rcFvqmHfxHWIl8y0Xyu2P4fh9hI-WPyQNcVJVYsvY8Ep1kKRqJAm%7EnYh0LfZMheWi%7EpLEUSmLM%7EDThIESGOBGe3L5XdGROxDpc8I9gGJr%7ErR9n4OgBTGnUlejSySczj-UessvQ8-ExdhfRFXwubFplAaPzW5Sy8YIT8iTRL-oTGL82YWtp2rGf2V%7ECFtjGj8P4AzdtZNcxnMUnMcHNrhhw8TFdctwz5uz1bSX2xNRg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
aef73bd82281a0b371c058b31d269d01
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
SECULARISM
AND
THEOSOPHY
A Rejoinder to Mrs. B esani's pamphlet
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
bonbon :
PROGRESSIVE
PUBLISHING
COMPANY,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E,0.
1889.
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
A REJOINDER TO MRS. BES ANT’S PAMPHLET.
MRS. Besant has at length discovered that she owes a
duty to the Secular party, and to all the persons she
has for many years been helping to mislead. The
obligation does not seem to have occurred to her until
I pointedly urged it in my pamphlet on Mrs. Besant's
Theosophy. But better late than never. Her recanta
tion and her fresh programme, minus some discreet
omissions, are placed before her old friends and
followers, and I now submit them to a fuller •
examination.
I must first, however, clear away some personal
matters. Mrs. Besant apparently pleads that her delay
in addressing the Secular party was necessitated. “ I
had no paper,” she says, “ in which I could give my
reasons for becoming a Theosophist.” True, but not
the whole truth. I cannot believe Mr. Bradlaugh
would have denied her space in the National
Reformer; I am certain I would not have denied her
space in the Freethinker. Even if the Freethought
papers were closed to her, there was still the alternative
of a pamphlet, and that she has now adopted.
Mrs. Besant complains that she has been misrepre
sented. I do not admit it ; but who was at fault if it
be true ? I took what she had written, and I could
not know what she had not written. She has only
herself to blame for any misunderstanding.
Curiously enough, she has only detected one “ mis
representation ” in my pamphlet, and that is no misrepresentation at all, as I shall show presently. The
other “ misrepresentations ” are discovered in the Free
thinker. I am rebuked for quoting a portion of a
�13^505
SECULARISM . AND THEOSOPHY.
3
review of my pamphlet in the Medium and Daybreak,
The fact is, I had not seen the paper itself, which was
not forwarded, but only the extracts I used, which
were copied and sent me by a friend. Mrs. Besant
quotes “the context,” but she only quotes as much as
serves her purpose. She indulges in the withering
but hackneyed remark that “ comment is needless.” I
agree with her. The matter is of infinitesimal import
ance. It is a speck of dust in comparison with such a
mistake, for instance, as the one about Krishna and
Christ in her Roots of Christianity; a mistake which
has been pointed out to her again and again, but which
I am not aware that she has taken the slightest pains to
correct, although it is a serious damage to the Freethought cause in controversy with the agents of the
Christian Evidence Society.
Another point is not worth the space it occupies.
It was stated in the Freethinker, on the authority of a
Theosophist, that Mde. Blavatsky was going abroad for
a holiday, and would confide the presidency of the
Society to Mrs. Besant. Now Mde. Blavatsky is “the
centre ” of the movement in England, as Mrs. Besant
wrote in the Star, but she is not the “ president.’
Theosophically the distinction is immense. The
Freethinker clearly circulated false news.
I plead
guilty. I put on sackcloth. I humble myself in the dust.
I am oppressed by the enormity of my crime. But if
every editor as guilty joined me, what a company we
should be.
It is a pity Mrs. Besant is so lacking in humor.
She seems to think her old colleagues are in a conspiracy
to insult her.
She complains of “ rebuke,” of
“ reproach,” of “ bigotry.” She apostrophises Truth,
and declares she will follow her “ into the wilderness.”
She even writes an epitaph for her martyr’s tomb.. All
this shows she is very much in earnest, but is it
pertinent, is it sensible ? Does criticism become
persecution when Mrs. Besant is its object ? Is no one
to tell her that her new opinions are false ? Is no one
to point out their incompatibility with Secularism ?
Is she to be treated as the spoilt child of Freethought ?
Must we applaud her passionate appeals to Truth and
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
never let her hear a little ? I protest that when any
one gets into this frame of mind a douche of plain
speaking is the only proper remedy. Theosophy is not
above criticism, neither is Mrs. Besant. She is free to
change her views as often as she pleases. She may
turn Roman Catholic if she likes. Freethinkers will
respect her motives and admire her eloquence. But
they will retain their right to criticise her religion as
theyT would any other, and to define where and how it
clashes with Secularism.
When Mrs. Besant says that I write “ with exceeding
bitterness,” I can only reply that I am not conscious of
doing so. I spoke of her as “ a brave as well as a good
woman.” I said I “ admired Mrs. Besant’s eloquence
and abilities, and still more her generous and enthusi
astic character.” Is this “ exceeding bitterness ” ? My
criticism is called the “ recent attack on me.” There
is the secret. Mrs. Besant has been humored and
fluttered so long that criticism is an “attack.’’
Still more absurd is the complaint that I “ warn her
off the platform.” “ I will cherish a hope,” I said,
“ that a lady so gifted, so eloquent, so devoted, and so
brave, may some dayT see that Theosophy itself is Maya,
or illusion, and return to the sound and bracing philo
sophy that once guided and inspired her.” This is not
warning her off the platform, but hoping she will
return to the platform she has virtually left.
I certainly did complain of Mrs. Besant’s having
used the Freethought platform “ in an unjustifiable
manner ” to propagate Socialism. I also remarked—
but this is judiciously avoided—that “ she advocated
Socialism in Secular halls, but not Secularism in
Socialist meeting-places.” Hundreds of Freethinkers
said the same thing, but it did not reach Mrs. Besant’s
ears. Well, it should, and it has. I fear she will never
forgive me for telling her, but truth is higher than
politeness, and I risk the consequences.
Mrs. Besant says that “ in myT younger and broader
days ” I lectured from the Freethought platform on
various subjects. She is mistaken. Let us take the
Hall of Science in London. Sunday evening lectures
are delivered there by the leaders of our party. That
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY,
5
is the Freethought platform. I have always recognised
it and acted accordingly. There are also Sunday
morning lectures during a few of the winter months.
That is not the Freethought platform. It is merely an
adjunct. Besides, the character of those lectures was
decided by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant. All I had
to do was to acquiesce. At any rate, the Secular party
was not committed to any views expressed on those
occasions ; nor could it be, for one Sunday Mr. Brad
laugh was lecturing against Socialism, and the next
Mrs. Besant was lecturing for it. But Mrs. Besant was
not satisfied with that. She took to lecturing in the
evening, and used the Freethought platform for a
foreign purpose. I do not expect her to agree with me,
but I say it was wrong. Her being a Socialist did not
conflict with her being a Secularist, but there is a time
and a place for everything, and a party organised for
one object will split up if it deals with twenty. As a
Freethinker, belonging to a party which teaches the
supreme value of liberty, I might (I apprehend) speak
from the platform against compulsory vaccination. But
the separate question of the medical character of vac
cination is an open one. Freethinkers may and do
differ upon it, and what right have I, or what right
has anyone, to use a platform maintained by all for
the regular advocacy of sectional views ? I might use
my position and my popularity, such as they are, to
carry my own way, as far as the party would stand it;
but in doing so I should be a traitor to the cause, I
should be setting myself above its welfare and its
traditions.
Again and again I have declined, as a special lec
turer of the National Secular Society, to speak against
Socialism. Some of our members were Socialists, and
I was bound to refrain from attacking their opinions
on our common platform. I have tried to carry out
the same policy in the Freethinker. It is a just and
a wise policy, and Mrs. Besant was thinking more of
Socialism than of Secularism when she violated it so
flagrantly.
Mrs. Besant’s position is untenable. She claims the
right of “ using the platform for lecturing on any sub
�6
SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
ject that seems to me to be useful.” What, on any
subject ? Crinolines, tall hats, and French pastry ?
Clearly any is too sweeping. Suppose Mrs. Besant
turned a Roman Catholic, or a Lutheran, or a Wesleyan,
or a Salvationist, would she still claim the right of
airing her views on the Freethought platform ? Again
any is too sweeping. There are necessary limitations,
and Mrs. Besant has not troubled to ascertain them.
Let me tell her what I believe her right is on the
Freethought platform. It is not a right to lecture on
any subject she thinks useful, but a right to lecture on
any subject the party thinks useful- To this com
plexion she must come at last.
Meanwhile Mrs. Besant forces upon me an unplea
sant duty. She will have no compromise, and no
accommodation, until the Secular party is stung into
taking action on the matter. She is going round the
country preaching Theosophy from our platform.
Very well, I shall go round and oppose it. I will
spare it no more than any other superstition. And she
has no reason to complain. She will do her duty, and
I will do mine. When the party decides, I will
submit or retire. That it must decide I have no doubt.
Foreign matter will sometimes enter an organism, but
the organism tries to expel it, and if strong enough it
succeeds. I am sure Freethought is strong enough,
and I believe this controversy will help to accentuate
its principles and define its policy.
Let me also tell Mrs. Besant why I said she might
“lead Freethinkers astray.” She protests that Free
thinkers are “ competent to form their own judgment,
not mere sheep, to be led one way or the other.”
Borrowing her own expression, I call this clap-trap.
Judgments are formed by hearing both sides. That is
one reason for my interference. Then there are Free
thinkers and Freethinkers. The best of us are human,
and many excellent persons have followed a trusted
leader into new paths, out of sheer love and admira
tion. When Mrs. Besant was so annoyed with Mr.
Ball’s pamphlet on her Socialism, when she denounced
it in the National Reformer as insulting, declining to
answer it on the ground of its scurrility, and refusing
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
7
her old contributor a word of explanation—I met
with one Freethinker whom she did lead astray. He
said he was sorry to hear that Mr. Ball had grossly
insulted Mrs. Besant, and on being asked if he had
read the pamphlet, replied “ Certainly not, I shouldn’t
think of doing so.” Here and there, then, a Free
thinker is a sheep, in certain moods ; and it is well
to protect these weaker brethren against their own
frailties.
Now for the single “ misrepresentation ” in my
pamphlet. I spoke of Mrs. Besant’s belief in the
“ transmigration of souls.” Upon this she remarks :
“ I can but suppose that he is moved rather by a desire
to discredit me than by a desire for truth ”—and this
from a lady who is herself so sensitive to criticism!
Was there no alternative but a dishonorable motive on
my part ? Mrs. Besant had not fully explained herself ;
I took what she offered, and paid her the compliment
of supposing she was logical. She believed in re
incarnation, and I thought she accepted its conse
quences, like the Brahmins and Buddhists, like the
ancient Egyptians, and indeed like every other people
among whom the doctrine has prevailed. If there is
ascent, there is also descent; if those who purify them
selves are reincarnated in higher forms, those who
degrade themselves are reincarnated in lower forms.
Such is the philosophy of reincarnation in ancient and
modern faiths. But Mrs. Besant does not “ believe in
the transmigration of souls, or that the human Ego can
enter a lower animal.” I accept the correction. I was
ignorant of what Mrs. Besant had not informed me.
I had not—and I said I had not—made a minute study
of the expensive publications of the Theosophical
Society. I now learn that this mushroom school, this
plagiarist of the great oriental faiths, sacrifices logic to
agreeableness, and puts a Western brand on its stolen
property from the East.
Mrs. Besant goes a great deal too far, however, in
speaking of “ an absurd statement ” in the Freethinker
“ about the souls of ill-behaving Hindu wives passing
into various animals,” as she is guilty of gross mis
representation in calling it “ a caricature of Theosophy.”
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
Theosophy was not so much as mentioned.
is the whole paragraph.
Here
“ Mrs. Besant goes in for the transmigration of souls. But
this doctrine is as useful to priests as the doctrine of heaven
and hell. Bombay girls have been taught in the Government
school that in the next life a wife who is cross with her
husband will become a village dog; the woman who eats
sweetmeats without sharing them with her husband’s relatives
will become a musk-rat living in filth. On the whole we think
hell is slightly preferable.” *
Calling this “ absurd ” does not dispose of it. It is a
fact. Surely Mrs. Besant is not ignorant that this kind
of thing is taught in the Hindu scriptures. I will give
her chapter and verse if she disputes it.
We will now take Mrs. Besant’s reasons for leaving
Atheism and Materialism ; then we will hear what she
says about Theosophy ; and finally we will see if her
new teaching is compatible with Secularism.
Mrs. Besant says she was satisfied with Atheism on
the negative side, but not on the positive side, for it
did not explain Life and Mind. But is Atheism called
upon to do so ? The origin of life is a question for
biologists. Should it never be cleared up our ignorance
will not prove there is a God. Nor is an Atheist com
pelled to be a material Monist. The late Professor
Clifford inclined to believe in matter-stuff and mind
stuff (not spirit stuff, which was all stuff), and he was
a thorough-going Atheist. But. waiving this, I will
ask Mrs. Besant a question. Why did she keep her
dissatisfaction with Atheism, on the positive side, so
carefully to herself ? I have looked through some of
her pamphlets without finding a hint in that direction.
I have spoken to friends who have frequently heard
her lecture (a pleasure necessarily denied to me), and
not one of them suspected the dissatisfaction she now
proclaims. To say the least, it is very unfortunate.
Atheism is now left for Pantheism, which I need
not attempt to argue against, no defence of it being
made. Mrs. Besant plainly says that her new “ theory
of the Universe ” is taken “ on the authority of certain
Freethinker, July 28, 1889, p. 298.
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
9
individuals,” the said individuals being the Wise Men
of the East, or rather their intermediaries like Mde.
Blavatsky. “ God is all and all is God.” This is the
new shibboleth. But Mrs. Besant is anxious to break
it gently to Atheists, so she tells them she has “ no
personal God.” This is cheating us with phrases.
If our Ego is spirit, and comes from the uni
versal spirit-fount, what makes our personality
must also make the infinite personality. I know the
subtle answers to this, but they make no impression
on me. The broad fact remains that non-miraculous
men and women cannot talk of God without a concep
tion of personality. The pronoun is always he or she,
and never it. There are expressions to satisfy any
Theist in Mde. Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled. She speaks
of “the Universal Soul,” of “the one living God,”
and of “the Father Spirit.” So true it is that
God must necessarily be a magnified man.
With respect to Materialism, Mrs. Besant did more
than conceal her dissatisfaction. Only last year she
spoke of her individuality as a combination, and said
“ if the combination is destroyed I am destroyed.” She
ridiculed the notion that “ the forces of the soul, love,
memory, thought, could not perish with the bodily
dissolution, but must continue to exist somewhere.”
She laughed at Canon Liddon for talking of “ a dis
embodied spirit.”* If this is the language of doubt,
or even of suspense, I am very much deceived. It
seems to me the language of absolute conviction.
I have already, in my previous pamphlet, given my
opinion that the. “causal link” Mrs. Besant was
privately in search of is a mental figment. I deny that
Cause and Effect are external realities ; I assert that
they are subjective conceptions. There is no solution
of continuity in nature. We isolate phenomena in
thought for convenience, just as in the definition of a
line we isolate the idea of length. And as Cause and
Effect are subjective, the “ nexus ” is also subjective,
which is precisely what I have affirmed.
Whoever asks for the Why of nature is simply asking
* National Reformer, April 8, 1888.
�10
SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
for an anthropomorphic explanation.
The question
“ Why should it be so ? ” is answered by the question
“ Why should it not be so ? ” The solid fact remains
that it is so. We can learn the How of nature, and the
statement that there is anything else to learn is a sheer
assumption.
Oxygen and hydrogen exist together as free gases in
mechanical mixture. They are precipitated by elec
tricity into water. The two gases are now in chemical
combination, and we have a visible and palpable fluid.
A great change has taken place, but the process is ex
plained. Science is satisfied. But Mrs. Besant is not.
Besides the oxygen, hydrogen, and electricity, she
wants a fourth thing that made the other three
cooperate. That is, she is in the same position as the
metaphysicians who were satirised by Swift in his
“meat-roasting power of the meat-jack.”
Passing along the line of evolution we come to com
binations of increasing complexity, but all built up from
the same matter. No new substance is introduced.
The inorganic gradually becomes organic, differentia
tion follows differentiation, the law of continuity is
never broken, and finally we come to man. If we
study man separately he is unintelligible. He must be
studied in connexion with other living forms. His
nature is involved in his history, and his destiny in
his origin.
Man did not spring into existence as Minerva leapt
full-armed from the brain of Jove. He is the last of a
long line of ascending forms. All his faculties are
incipient, and some of them well developed, in lower
animals. Whatever difficulty there may be in explain
ing whij he thinks, must also be found in explaining
why animals think.
Mrs. Besant follows nerve vibrations till she comes
to a thought, and says “ Here is something fresh.” She
means, I presume, that there is a psychical and a physi
cal aspect of the complete process. What is objectively a
nerve vibration is subjectively a sensation or a thought.
That the two aspects are correlated is indisputable.
Now it is asserted that besides the body there is a
spirit. Mrs. Besant says that “ Body and Mind, how-
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
IT.
ever closely intermingled, are twain, not one.” But
she does not explain the absolute co-operation of two
dissimilar entities. If the body cannot think how can
the mind act? Why is it that mental and moral
phenomena appear so dependent on nervous activity ?
Leibniz was driven to the colossal joke of pre-estab
lished harmony. God arranged the bodily and spiritual
phenomena at the outset, so that they should always
go together without any real relation, like two different
clocks keeping exactly the same time!
Observe the extremities to which spiritualists are
reduced. Every theory must show a true cause : that
is, a cause which is not invented for the occasion, but
is capable of being demonstrated independently. Now
the spiritualist is asked to establish his cause. He says
it works through the body, and he is desired to show
that it exists and operates elsewhere.
The usual
answer is, “Wait till you are dead.” But a number of
level-headed people reply, “Well, if I must die before
I can learn, I won’t trouble myself about it till I am
dead.” Then another answer is made. The spiritists
say, “The spirit does manifest itself apart from the
body in this world.” Thus we have “ materialised
spirit forms ” in Spiritism, and “ astral appearances ”
in Theosophy. Mrs. Besant is driven by an inevitable
logic to declare that body and spirit “are not only
separable at death, but may be temporarily separated
during life, the intellectual part of man leaving the
body and its attached principles, and appearing apart
from them.” This belief was once almost universal,
but it dies away in the progress of civilisation. Up to
a certain point it is consistent with legal sanity
beyond that point it leads straight to the asylum.
Mrs. Besant presses hypnotism into her service, but
I confess I see nothing in it to support her theory.
Double consciousness and other abnormal processes
are being carefully studied, and sensible persons will
wait for the scientific explanation. It is simply idle
to base far-fetched theories on our temporary igno
rance.
I pass lightly over the calculating boy. He does
not upset my philosophy. As for the ignorant servant
�12
SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
girl who “ talks Hebrew in her sleep,” I suspect she is
the person I read of in Coleridge, who picked up
Hebrew sounds unconsciously in the service of a
learned parson. Shakespeare understood this well
enough, and made Ophelia sing a questionable song
in her madness, which she might have heard from the
lips of a loose-minded nurse.
Let me remind Mrs. Besant that Theosophy is not
Pantheism or Idealism. What she has to defend is its
speciality—the doctrines that differentiate it from other
systems. On these points, however, she condescends
to say very little.
She gives us the sevenfold division of man—Atma,
Buddhi, Manas, Kamarupa, Prana, Linga Sharira, and
Rupa. I was not conscious of all that cargo. I sus
pect I should laugh if it were not for the imposing
terminology. At any rate it is hardly worth discuss
ing. Nor, indeed, can it be discussed. No evidence
is offered ; the category is accepted from the Wise Men
of the East.
Only one proof is offered of re-incarnation. We are
told that Hofmann, the infant prodigy of music, acquired
his faculties and knowledge in a previous existence.
But why Hofmann ? Mozart was a far greater prodigy.
Both of them were the offspring of professional
musicians, and the law of heredity is a sufficient ex
planation. It would be more to the purpose if Hof
mann had been born among the Hottentots.
Mrs. Besant forgets her own principles, or she would
see that the Hofmann’s case is not explained by rein
carnation. Waiving the fact that faculty is not acquired
individually, I inquire of the Theosophists how long
a period of Devachan intervenes between successive
incarnations. Mr. Sinnett says it may be “ thousands
of years,”* while 1,500 years is the very lowest
estimate.f Mde. Blavatsky says “ many centuries.” Now
if Hofmann’s previous incarnation was only “ many
•centuries ” ago, how did he acquire a musical know
ledge which was then impossible ? Harmonic music
is little more than three centuries old.
* Theosophical Tracts. No. 4, p. 5.
f Esoteric Buddhism, p. 120.
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
15
Reincarnation is supported by no evidence, and is
therefore a superstition. Karma, being based upon it,
shares the same fate. Mrs. Besant asks me if I believe
in ethical causation. Of course I do—in this life.
Secularism has always taught that doctrine, and has
nothing to learn from Theosophy.
It appears to me that Mrs. Besant has dropped Secu
larism out of her mind altogether ; otherwise she
would scarcely ask us to concede that Theosophy isnot a “superstition” because it has been granted a
Charter of Incorporation at St. Louis, in America.
Christianity has a very big Charter of Incorporation in
England in the form of a State Church. On the other
hand, Secularism is outlawed, being incapable of hold
ing property or receiving bequests. Surely the Secu
larist will look grimly at this Theosophical passport of
respectability. I fancy, too, he will look no less grimly
at “ the broad platform ” offered him, which is to hold
“ Atheist and Theist, Christian and Hindu, Mohamme
dan and Secularist.” What a happy family ! The
only broad platform on which all men may stand is
the platform of humanity.
With respect to the Mahatmas, or Masters, or Wise
Men of the East, Mrs. Besant informs us that she
knows nothing of them personally. She “ believes in
the existence of these teachers on second-hand evi
dence.” These Great Souls do not appear to utter any
surprising wisdom. The specimens I have seen are
seldom worth the paper they are printed on. Their
“ abnormal powers ” are displayed in performances
that are common among Spiritualists and conjurors.
For my part, I am prejudiced against a Gospel which
is heralded by travelling cigarettes, broken-mended
saucers, and letters dropping from the ceiling. I pro
test that in comparison with the stories told of the
Adepts the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a respectable
superstition.
This leads me to Mde. Blavatsky and her credentials.
Mrs. Besant accuses me of cirulating “ malignant
libels ” on this wonderful woman, and I am asked
what I should think if Mrs. Besant “ soiled her pages
with a repetition of the stories told against me by the
�14
SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
lecturers of the Christian Evidence Society.” But I
fail to see the analogy. If I were a thief, it would not
prove that Jonah was swallowed by a whale ; it 1 were
an adulterer, it would not prove the Incarnation ; it 1
were a murderer, it would not prove the Resurrection.
But if Mde. Blavatsky’s authority is offered for in
credible occurrences, what is one to .do but see if the
lady’s bond fides will bear investigation ? I discovered
that Mde. Blavatsky had been openly accused of decep
tion ; I looked into the evidence; and I satisfied
myself that a very black prima facie case was made
out against her. The charges were printed by respon
sible persons after careful and minute investigation.
Besides the terrible exposure of the Coulomb otters,
the letters of Koot Hoomi, a great Mahatma m Thibet,
are declared by experts to be in Mde. Blavatsky s hand
writing, and it is shown that Koot Hoomi made, the
same mistakes in spelling as Mde. Blavatsky, fell into
her foreign idioms in writing English, and reproduced
her very tricks of style. To call this a “ malignant
libel” is no answer. I say it is preposterous to accept
extravagant statements on the bare authority ot a lady
who lies under such grave suspicion of imposture.
Mrs. Besant is discreetly silent about the grotesque
science of Mde. Blavatsky in her Secret Doctrine, and
her extravagant credulity in Isis Unveiled. It would
not do to press these absurdities on the attention ot
Freethinkers. Nor does Mrs. Besant notice the curious
mistakes of Koot Hoomi, some of which, with their
attempted explanations, are enough to wrinkle the face
of an omnibus horse with laughter.
I now come to the question of celibacy. Mrs.
Besant seeks to minimise the effect of this doctrine.
This is a policy I shall at once expose. Unfortunately
for Mrs. Besant, her Theosophical mistress has spoken
too plainly about “ the path.” It appears that a Lanoo
r
(disciple) must take care to “ separate his outer body
.
_ ..
• T 1 _ J * 1 —T
from all external influence,” and “ must avoid bodily
______
He must
contact with human as with ^animal being.
touuh'even'the hand of the nearest and dearest ”
nOt “ tuLlVXX
™
,,
,,12~_ -1 -__ 'd
Even the love for wife and taniily5 ” we are told,
41 the purest as the"most unselfish of human affections,
U---------
�SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
15
is a barrier to real occultism.” Mde. Blavatsky insists
that “no one can serve his body and the higher Soul,
and do his family duty and his universal duty, without
depriving either the one or the other of its rights.” She
adds that “ it would be a ceaseless, a maddening struggle
for almost any married man, who would pursue true
practical Occultism.” *
Does not this corroborate what I said in my
pamphlet ? Does it not show that Theosophy, like
every sincere form of spiritualism, inevitably leads to
a war between the honest claims of “ the flesh ” and
the autocratic claims of “ the spirit ” ?
How far has Mrs. Besant departed from her old
teaching on this subject! “ Asceticism,” she said in
her tract on Secular Morality, “ asceticism, in any
shape, is immoral; it decreases the amount of temporal
happiness ; and whether it please God or no, whether
it give a seat in heaven or no, whether it brin^
happiness in a future life or no, it is equally immoral
it is equally wrong ” It-requires very little sagacity
to see that Theosophy, on this side, is quite incompatible
with Secularism.
The only answer Mrs. Besant makes is that everyone
need not become celibate. But she cannot deny that
celibacy is necessary to the “ higher life.” It is idle to
instance music, and to urge that people who have no
vocation for it need not “ practise eight hours a day.”
If music were the essential path to our highest spiritual
•culture we should be bound to give it our fullest devo
tion. Besides, there are degrees in music, but none in
celibacy. You cannot be partially celibate.
Mrs. Besant confesses that ,£ celibacy is one of the
smallest of the sacrifices ” which the higher Theosophy
demands. I am thankful for the admission. It will
put Secularists on their guard. Forewarned is fore
armed. It is well to know that “ the path ” leads to
•endless macerations of “ the flesh.”
Let me appeal to Freethought mothers to see what
Theosophy would mean to them. The doctrine of re
incarnation, for instance, would play havoc at once in
* Theosophical Tracts, No. 77pp. 5, 6,14, 15.
'
�16
SECULARISM AND THEOSOPHY.
the domestic circle. When the mother is crooning to
her babe, and watching the reflexion of her smiles on
its face, she is under a delusion. The baby is an old
stager. It is not her child. It is no relation to her.
Their connexion is nothing but a fleshly accident.
Once admit this monstrous idea, and celibacy and all
the rest of it may be accepted without a shudder.
I will conclude with another passage from the tract
on Secular Morality. “ Our morality,” Mrs. Besant
said, “ is tested only—be it noted—by utility in this
life, and in this world ; with any other life, with any
other world, we have nothing whatever to do.” All
this is now unsaid, and I am obliged to hold that Mrs.
Besant has ceased to be a Secularist. For what is the
Secular position with regard to Theism and Immortality ?
Our position is Agnostic. W§ neither deny nor affirm.
We say there is no knowledge. We take our stand on
that. We confine our practical philosophy to this life,
and admit no motives, sanctions or consolations that
relate to another. Mrs. Besant is no longer in this
position. I am convinced of it, and I honestly say so.
It is not for me to say more—at present. Secularists are
not fond of ostracism, and it is unfair to throw un
necessary responsibilities upon us.
Mrs. Besant
has become a Theosophist, and it is for
to determine
whether her new ideas are consistent with her old
convictions ; it is for her to decide whether they are in
harmony with the accepted principles and traditional
policy of our party. #
Printed and Published by G. W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, .0.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Secularism and theosophy : a rejoinder to Mrs Besant's pamphlet
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. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed and published by G.W. Foote. 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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N263
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Theosophy
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 (Secularism and theosophy : a rejoinder to Mrs Besant's pamphlet), 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
Annie Besant
NSS
Secularism
Theosophy
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7d677a7b95d19ab0f5c98f04773d69a6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=GLvbr8b0SVxdm-XY1XzqplJ-GWN8A2WZmW2%7En5Sw8at8PlERnWGzJ8Xz1mZ5627XaTvZIVTNKfBvUeOOBiB1rPA1rgxyiFfXL3vF0uT%7ElO-wZM0ijYzFEFmq8pyWIcPAkkCv1Bh65kj4TiRgs9nKmos81ca3dZMUPN%7EbkXc4gJ%7EIWhXpFAHB2imA7Hl320JfUckMs0LJQnDS5n3Mv59s3GrX6JyNBt5R3fPdmZk-zZx4vmObYX08p90KToUYcZVA7CAbwr2zK6gdhDPmhIWAAgaTeR4NtD2GeDaMdsJbzSNxO-CBiDQnL4Rw%7EzB0RPtFp1Nr%7EU78xt2jNGIQmtO4Ng__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
52b3769024839cb7f639e2ed304bac4f
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
libit tasus C iliilisatinn:
AN APPEAL TO THE PIOUS.
BY
“G. F. S.”
“Rivers of
THY LAW.”—Ps.
waters
cxix.,
run
down
mine
eyes,
because
they
136.
LONDON:
A. BONNER,
63
FLEET
STREET,
1889.
E.C.
keep
not
��&
WibU tom 0 i bi Its atf ott.
In his time, old John Bunyan grieved that religion
went in silver slippers. What would he say now
were he alive? We no longer respect the God we
profess to worship, but have gone after the luxurious
idol of civilisation. Civilisation is replacing God in our
hearts and lives; we are casting out the Almighty from
among us, and following other lights than His. It is
time to rouse ourselves and begin to read the Bible,
which we pretend to reverence, though we neglect to
make ourselves acquainted with its sacred pages. If
we profess godliness, let us have the decency to follow
the precepts of our God. It is true that He has said
“ An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, and because
it suits our social arrangements the murderers among us
are made to suffer the just penalty of their evil doings.
But God has also said “ Thou shalt not suffer a witch
to live”, and if God had not known that witches existed
He would not have given such a terrible command. So
explicit is His will in this matter that not only is death
the prescribed punishment, but the precise manner of
it—a bleeding shuddering death by stoning—is com
manded. Yet we, glorying in our pretended enlighten
ment, decide we know better than our God, defy him,
and speak with horror of the near date of 1722, when
the last witch was burnt in Scotland by Captain Ross,
Sheriff-Depute of Sutherlandshire! Who are we that
we should change the decrees of Omnipotent Wisdom,
creatures of a day who cannot fathom his awful
designs? We cry Lord! Lord! and do not his com
�4
BIBLE V. CIVILISATION.
mands, but allow ourselves to be softened and beguiled
by our humanity into the ways of the Secularists. That
holy man John Wesley said that the giving up of witch
craft was in effect the giving up of the Bible. “ I can
not ”, said he, “give up to all the Deists in Great
Britain the existence of witchcraft till I give up the
credit of all history, sacred and profane.”
There is nothing in which we have more treacherously
forsaken our religion than in our way of treating heresy.
We even pride ourselves on our toleration, and look
back upon the past “ persecutions”, as we irreligiously
call them, with horror and disgust. Yet if we believe
our religion to be the only true one (as who among us
does not ?), what is our duty respecting the heretic, the
man or woman whom we believe to have forsaken the
only true God ? Does the Almighty whom we worship
command us to tolerate such, to live harmoniously with
such, bearing with them, praying with them, and
beseeching our God to turn their hearts unto Himself ?
Not so. God knows the spiritual leprosy which will
infect us if we live with heretics, and in His awful
wisdom he says the heretic shall be cut off from the
land of the living. “ If thy brother, the son of thy
mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy
bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice
thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other Gods .
. . . thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto
him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt
thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him : but thou
shalt surely kill him ; thine hand shall be first upon
him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all
the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones that
he die ” (Deuteronomy xiii, 6—io). ‘ We cannot do this
thing ’, we cry ; ‘ we cannot obey here ’ ; spare us, O Lord,
we say; or, worse, we try to explain away the com
mand, saying Christ’s mission has changed all that.
This is sheer self-indulgence. We either are to obey
the Unchangeable, or we are not. “ Thus saith the
Lord ! ” We cannot escape the fact that if we profess
godliness we must, at any cost or pain or distress, obey
the mandates of our God; and they are rigid. What
matter how flesh and heart shrink from casting out the
�BIBLE V. CIVILISATION.
5
wife of our bosom and seeking her death, if only our
conscience is at peace ? Do we not extol the great and
beautiful obedience of Abraham in his willingness to
slay his beloved son ? Do we say he ought to have
disobeyed his God ? And who are we that we shall
dare with impunity to disobey explicit commands ?
Friends, we try in vain to fit our modern ideas to our
God-given ancient religion. How are we better than
the Secularists ? They ignore the Bible ; we pretend
to worship its precepts, and blasphemously neglect its
severe demands. We pick and choose as we like, and
obey only such of the Almighty’s laws as fit our modern
civilisation, which boasts that it “has assisted,. if,
indeed, it may not claim the main share, in sweeping
away the dark superstitions, the degrading belief in
sorcery and witchcraft, and cruel intolerance ”. Alas,
is not our science sweeping away our ancient and
divinely-inspired religion ?
To take up a specially modern delusion, does a
reverent and earnest study of God’s dealings with the
ancient peoples show him to be such as our nineteenth
century sentiment imagines—a God of love, a heavenly
Father ? It is very charming to think of Him as such,
no doubt ; our duty, however, is not to find the charm
ing, but to search the true. Do we not read of very
frequent and terrible massacres of men, women, and
children by His direct commands ; though sometimes
virgins were spared as booty for God’s priests ? “ But
Sihon, king of Heshbon, would not let us pass by him;
for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made
his heart obstinate that he might deliver him into thy
hand .... and we took all his cities at that time,
and utterly destroyed the men and the women, and
the little ones, of every city ; we left none to remain”
(Deuteronomy ii, 30, 34). This is one of many similar
cases. And do we not see God’s anger — his great
majestic anger — raised against all flesh from time to
time, until we feel that punishment, not love, is the
garment of the Almighty ? From the unsinning cattle
which died of hailstones (Exodus ix, ig, 23, 25) to the
preachers, 450 in number, of a false religion, who had
to be slaughtered by God’s true clergy, the one penalty
�6
BIBLE V. CIVILISATION.
of exciting the divine wrath is—death. This thought
naturally does not please us; we do not care to enter
tain it ; we seek other writings to contradict it ; but
it remains. It is of the Lord ; His law is eternal ; let
Him do what seemeth Him good. Shall not He do
with His own as He will ? The God of Nature and
the God of our beloved Bible are not opposed. They
are one. We can, as that pious soul Cowper said so
truthfully, “Look from Nature up to Nature’s God”.
The law of destruction so noticeable in Nature is also
God’s law as expressed to us in his earliest written
revelation. . How little the Christ realised God’s spirit
is shown in the opposition of his teaching to His
Father’s. “ Do unto others as you would that they
should do unto you,” is Christ’s teaching. Something
very different was the treatment which the Almighty
commanded his Chosen Ones to exercise towards those
nations with whom they had dealings. “ So Joshua
smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and
of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings : he
left none remaining ; but utterly destroyed all that
breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded ”
(Joshua x, 40).
‘‘And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and
the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all
the souls that were therein ; he let none remain ”
(Joshua x, 28). The celebrated French divine Bossuet, one of God’s most eminent modern servants, shows
how deeply he has studied the method of the Eternal,
when he says, “ God has all hearts in His hand ;
sometimes He holds back the passions, sometimes He
gives them the rein. Does He wish to make legis
lators ? He sends them His wise spirit and foresight.
He warns them of the evils which threaten states, and
establishes public tranquillity. Knowing human wisdom
to be limited, He enlightens it, extends its powers, and
then abandons it to its ignorance. He blinds it, over
turns it, confounds it by itself. Its own subtleties
embarrass it, and its precautions are its snare. When
God wishes to destroy empires, He weakens counsel.
Egypt, once so wise, becomes drunken, stupid, and
tottering, because the Lord has spread the spirit of
�BIBLE V. CIVILISATION.
7
folly in its councils. But let not men deceive them
selves. God restores the lost faculties when it pleases
Him. It is thus that our God reigns righteously over
the peoples.” God and Nature are not in opposition ;
the severity of Nature is the expression of his Omni
potence—his Power. Are not “ the scorpion’s sting, the
cobra’s poison, the ferret’s teeth, the tiger’s claws, and
the eagle’s talons ” part of His divine design ? Is not
the law of the forest, is not the law of the ocean, rapine
and destruction ? Creation must be an expression of
the Creator—His thought. Let us who are believers
in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses not
try to escape, by the road of evolution, from the fact
that God is the maker of all created things, and that
He has Himself given the instincts to each creature,
whether it is the instinct of the cat to torture the mouse
ere killing it, or the instinct of the male rabbit to
devour its offspring, or that of “ the wasp bringing in
the caterpillar for its young, and stinging it enough to
paralyse, but not to kill ”. Is it not enough for us to
know that since God designed “ animals to prey upon
each other for food, and then pronounced the system
of almost universal carnage ‘very good’,” as a living
writer expresses it, it is the Father’s will ; and we
ought to forbear making comparisons between our petty
ideas of goodness and the divine conceptions. Let us
beware of mental pride in such matters, and bow our
spirits before the Inscrutable.
In the light of these conclusions as to the unity of
God and Nature, marriage, the central social institu
tion, can be better understood. Our modern European
notion of monogamy being the highest form of union
between man and woman, leads us to assume that it
is of divine institution. We resent any tampering with
it, as immoral and contrary to the will of God. But
were not God’s chosen friends polygamists, and of a
most pronounced type ? Had not Abraham his Sarah,
Hagar, Keturah, and concubines besides ?
Jacob
married two sisters and their two maids, and “ God
hearkened to Leah and Rachel and gave them sons”, as
indeed he also blessed their maids. David had his
Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, and “ four more wives and
�BIBLE V. CIVILISATION.
concubines out of Jerusalem ”, God blessing .six of the
seven with children. May we not therefore infer, since
Abraham and David were so close to God, and intimate
with His counsels, that polygamy is more in accordance
with His will than monogamy ? Indeed, do we not
altogether misunderstand the relative importance of
man and woman as demonstrated in the Holy Scrip
tures ? Surely even the Mohammedans read God’s
pleasure on this point better than we, His apostate
children who lightly preach the equality of the sexes ?
And our very notions of illegitimacy are completely
opposed to the cherished biographical facts of the
greatest of the Bible heroes. God, like Nature, mocks
at our little social ceremonies and upstart ways, and
bids us back to our noble Old Testament to see what
manner of men were “ after his heart ”.
One last word. Let us cast from us, O friends, the
silver slippers John Bunyan dreaded so much, and
which have beguiled our steps too long into the wide
sweet pastures of godless tolerance and civilised chari
ties. Beautiful to look at, luxurious to worship, as is
the idol of civilisation, which makes a virtue of for
bearance and a merit of Samaritanism, it is at our
soul’s peril we pay homage at that shrine. The
Eternal’s dealings with, and instruction to, His own
people, must be our guide; and may we bravely, and
at whatever cost or heart-break, fulfil His awful Will.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Bible versus civilisation : an appeal to the pious
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: By 'G.F.S.' [from title page]. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
A. Bonner
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N572
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
G.F.S.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Bible versus civilisation : an appeal to the pious), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/de731c03c6c45a1f68311e96bb83be7b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=bKn7CoGjt2JSLeNmPuTRR9cIdk0od8xRQlQINGFn5sSom1Optwt9rrckbZpqjgH5kE-I8KeePgGJoK8uR3Fy6n0v7lxokdzBT5OmkvM2y92Cs-dutlYS7acGFGo5o4d5K4inQ6Vv-DF0m6otMaZgHEPv8JL74wViOPahOUw8XIIMxCY-BjKzsBKTZV6nWr9hCr52wNDNW9lCustxIa1VCp9kSDQPY6BBsMZR%7Eipm1y1rPT6hb8zS1R205xsQ4djvPICELNi6JPSNUTDS9Jusu-YqdU1Gz6vkANQOY-Q4PT-GHUaBUBBbPOL9CIvv8Omm8iNOVZW-MNp7WgfgYVnVdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
37feacb69ba8bfdfa58d820541348d09
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
BY
“ HTJMANITAS.”
Author of “ Is God the First Caused ”, “ Follies of the Lord’s Prayer Exposed ”,
“Thoughts on Heaven’9, “Jacob the Wrestler99, “Mr. Eradlaugh and the Oaths
Question", “ How the British House of Commons treated Charles Bradlaugh, M.P,",
“ Charles Bradlaugh and the Irish Nation ",“ Socialism a Curse", “ A Fish in Labor;
or, Jonah and the Whale ", “ God: Being also a Brief Statement of Arguments
Against Agnosticism ", “ Against Socialism ", tc.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
63 FLEET STREET, E.C.
1 8 8 9 .
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
�LONDON
FEINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHAELES BBADLATOH,
63 FLEET STEEET, E.C.
�\T0S3
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
This pamphlet was originally written as a portion of my
larger one on “God ” ; but considering it to be complete in
itself—as against Agnosticism—I determined to publish
it, in a separate form, hoping thereby to reach many who
might not be inclined to buy the larger one.
The observations I have made, and the arguments I
have endeavored to advance, are made and advanced with
great respect and with much diffidence: respect for the
opinions of those who, from their longer and closer appli
cation to the question, and better means of studying it,
are more capable of forming a correct opinion than my
self : and diffidence, because I know the conclusion at
which I have arrived is at variance with that opinion.
Yet having arrived at it, I must needs express myself;
but I do so in the spirit of enquiry, and because what I
shall endeavor to put forward seems to me to be real
difficulties.
If I should appear to be dogmatic, or wanting in respect
for greater thinkers, it will be by reason of experiencing
a difficulty in finding a method of expressing the thoughts
I wish to convey.
In my pamphlet on God, of which this forms a part,
I have said that God is not, nor could not be. And it is
upon the wisdom or unwisdom of thus distinctly denying
the existence of God, that I wish to make a few observa
tions.
I believe it is held by all Atheists—no matter how it is
put—that God does not exist. And it is true that the
whole tone and meaning of this paper is a denial of his
existence. And so in reality are all Atheistic writings.
�4
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
But I think I see very marked signs of what may be
considered a decay of this robust and thorough Atheism.
Leading Freethinkers, it would appear do not now take
up this position, but what is considered the safer and more
moderate one of Agnosticism ; which would seem to mean
that man does not know God. I believe it is also taken to
mean that, constituted as man is, he cannot know him;
and that therefore he should neither affirm_ nor deny his
existence. I am only now putting that portion of Agnos
ticism which applies directly to God, as contrasted with
Atheism, which certainly does deny his existence.. Mr.
Laing, as I understand him, takes the above view of
Agnosticism; for, in his now famous “articles1 of th©
Agnostic creed and reasons for them ”, he holds that, if we
cannot prove an affirmative respecting the mystery of a
first, cause, and a personal God ; equally, we cannot prove
a negative; and adds: “There may be anything in the
Unknowable ”. But he qualifies this statement by further
saying: “ Any guess at it which is inconsistent with what
we really do know, stands, ipso facto, condemned ”. I
would here remark that the qualification—certainly for all
practical purposes—goes very near to, if not quite, annull
ing the statement. But he further holds that if the
existence of such places as heaven and hell (using them of
course to illustrate the idea he is expounding.) be asserted
in a general way, without attempt at definition, the pos
sibility of the correctness of the assertion should be
admitted. Well but, if anything and everything is possible
in the Unknowable, is it possible that there may exist
an uncaused cause of all things? If it, as well as the
existence of (I presume) a soul, of heaven, hell, etc., —
which be it remembered, those who believe in them, do so
on faith, not professing to prove them—is possible, is not
three parts of the Christian Theists’ position conceded ?
It would however appear to me, reasoning from Mr.
Laing’s position, that although anything may be possible
in the Unknowable, yet any statement concerning it which
is inconsistent with ascertained facts stands condemned,
the possibility of the existence of God stands condemned.
If anything which is inconsistent with what we really
1 Those which he drew up at the request of the Right Hon. W. E.
Gladstone.
�AGAINST AGNOSTISISM.
5
know stands, ipso facto, condemned; then the idea of a
beginning, the existence of an uncaused cause—£e., God
—stands so condemned. And it follows naturally, that a
term which embodies that meaning (viz., that what cannot
be is not) is more logical than one which either admits of
the possibility of the impossible, or evades the direct
issue.
The position created by Agnosticism, as put by Mr.
Laing—and it is the generally accepted one1—on the face
-of it, not only appears contradictory but unnecessary. One
would seem to have to accept the existence of God—or five
thousand Gods for the matter of that—as possible, till
tested by the only means we have of testing it, when it is,
as a mere matter of course, to be held impossible; the
non-possibility actually and practically, and also curiously,
forming a part of the Agnostic position. In theory it
grants the possibility of the existence of God, in practice
it denies it.
Again, if Agnosticism permits one to declare impossible
that which, if tested and found to be so by the ordinary
methods of reasoning aided by what we really know, then
it is, so far Atheism: because the Atheist does but say
what is possible or impossible, judged by what is cognis
able, by what is really known, he could do no other. Thus
Agnosticism would seem superfluous. At best it can but
be (as I think) a something to suit the extreme palate of
the—I would almost say—over-logical epicure; a kind of
luxury for the hair-splitter, the hypercritic who will not,
physically speaking, say that what cannot be, is not, but
who will, in order to escape the mere suspicion of illogical
ness, drop his physical condition to admit the possibility
of something about the Unknowable; although that admis
sion involves the possibility—the may-be of propositions
superbly ridiculous.
Agnosticism would seem to me to be Atheism, plus the
possibility of what both practically say is impossible?1
2
1 I notice that “D” (of the NationalReformer} takes exception to
the idea of Agnosticism being a creed, but I do not think that affects
the general view of Agnosticism as in reference to God.
2 R. Lewins, M.D., in a letter to the Agnostic Journaloi March 30th,
remarks: “I cannot see the difference—other than academical, over
which we might split hairs for ever—between Atheism and Agnostic
�6
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
It would appear to me that what is ■unknowable is not.
Hence the superfluity of Agnosticism. It is possible there
may be some points and niceties about it which pass my
comprehension, but of this I feel convinced, there are some
very serious difficulties in its way. If you hold that all
things are possible in what is termed the Unknowable, an
individual may—as indeed is done—assert the most extra
ordinary rubbish imaginable, and knock you down with
what I will call the Agnostic Closure : “ How can you
prove to the contrary ? ” Of course one could shake one’s
head, and venture a doubtful smile, and even go to the
extreme of saying the thing is very improbable ; but the
closure will come in again with quite as much force against
the improbable as it did against the impossible, when
used in reference to the Unknowable.
It is doubtless a wise and judicious proceeding to hold
a prisoner innocent till he is proven guilty. But surely
it ought not to be necessary to hold that anything, no
matter how completely idiotic, if only stated in a general
way, is possible and might be tiue, because it is outside
the possibility of being tested. Of course I comprehend
the difficulty : I may be asked how I know it is foolish or
idiotic since I cannot test it: my reply is that the thing
spoken of simply is not, and hence the folly of holding
that it may le this, that, or the other. The whole idea
seems to be over and above and beyond reality—entirely
wide of the mark. It would appear to me that, practically,
no theory nor statement can be made or set up which shall
be completely outside or free from considerations which
ism. An Agnostic who doubts of God is certainly Godless, and
Atheism is no more.”
Whilst holding that Atheism is more definite and goes further than
Agnosticism, and therefore disagreeing with Dr. Lewins, I am
startled to find the Editor of the Agnostic Journal stating, by way of
reply, that “ ‘God’ is just the one fact of which the Agnostic is
assured. ‘God’, with the Agnostic, is the ontological and cosmic
basis and fens et origo, just as the ego is with Dr. Lewins.”
With great respect, I would remark that it would perhaps be
difficult to find a better definition of what God is to the Theist; and
if it be a correct one, Agnostics are something very like Theists, God
being the basis, fountain, and origin of both cults.
If we go on at this rate, and it be true that Agnosticism is the
better and more correct form of Atheism, we shall soon have Atheists
who believe in God.
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
7
ar© in connexion with the universe, or which are not based
upon what we know or is knowable. (Therefore Agnos
ticism is out of court.) And in coining a word which
assumes that you can so speak or set up theories — or,
what is much the same thing, that assertions and theories
so set up may be true—you are but helping to obscure,
rather than to throw more light upon what is already
sufficiently difficult.
As far as I can comprehend Agnosticism, and its teach
ings and bearings, I do not and never did like it. This
may look presumptuous on my part, possibly it is pre
sumptuous ; but rightly or wrongly I cannot but regard it
as a kind of half-way house between Atheism and Theism.
I regard it as a reversion into the vicinity of the temples
we have deserted, and which (as I thought) we had got
to look upon as temples of myths and impossibilities. Of
course much depends upon the starting point. The Theist
becoming doubtful will possibly evolve into Agnosticism,
or the may-be stage; tiring of this, he will naturally evolve
further into Atheism, which says God is not. On the other
hand, if the starting point be Atheism, or that the Atheist
has evolved from something else into Atheism, which says
no, and evolves from it into Agnosticism, which says
perhaps ; he will in all probability continue the evolution
till he arrives at Theism, which says yes.
Agnosticism being, as I have said, a half-way house
between the two extremes, there will at all times probably
be a few—possibly many, who will find shelter in it. It
will possibly form an asylum for the doubtful of Theism,
and the timid or hypercritical of Atheism. It may become
a common ground upon which the weary and wavering of
faith and the weary and wavering of no faith will for a
time find rest. But it is only a transition stage, being
neither yes nor no; and will only satisfy those whose
minds are not made up either way. It may be regarded
as a kind of intellectual landing stage for passengers who
are either going forward or returning, as the case may be.
In the observations which follow I will endeavor to
further explain myself, and to point out why I think an
Atheist ought logically to be able to say there is no God.
I was recently much struck by the similarity of Mrs.
Besant’s definition of Secularism in her debate with the
Rev. W. T. Lee, and the definition of Agnosticism quoted
�8
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
from, the “New Oxford Dictionary of the English lan
guage ”, by the Rev. H. Wace, D.D., in his paper read at
the late Church Congress at Manchester. It would appear
to me that this adoption of Agnosticism, and discarding of
Atheism, coupled with the hesitation which naturally
follows, of saying point blank there is no God, is not only
B very weak position, but goes a long way towards justi
fying the boast made by many, that there is no living
person who really believes there is no God. Of course this
boast may be a very silly and unfounded one; but when
they see an actual avoidance of the direct denial by those
whose teachings and professions, if they mean anything,
mean that “ God” is not, they may, I think, be excused to
a very great extent in making it. If the case were reversed,
and if Christians and Theists generally, whilst holding and
teaching that God did exist, yet declined upon some kind
of logical (?) ground to plainly say so; we Atheists would,
I think, be much inclined to put our finger upon it as a
weak spot. We cannot, then, be surprised if they do a
similar thing. At the same time, I wish it to be borne in
mind that I would not relinquish a position, nor hesitate
in taking up a new one, simply because I thought it gave
the enemy a seeming advantage. I hold that a position
should be occupied by reason of its inherent strength and
logical soundness, altogether irrespective of side issues,
which may contain no principle.
The question then arises which is the most logical
position, that of declaring in direct fashion the ultimate
end and meaning of your teaching, or of halting at
the last gate by refraining from making such direct
declaration ?
At the outset I would ask—and I think the main part
of the question hinges upon the answer given—why may
not an Atheist logically and in set terms declare what his
name implies—nay, actually means, viz, one who disbelieves
in the existence of God ? The Theist asserts there is a God.
Shall not the Atheist controvert that assertion ? Must he
remain dumb ? And if he does controvert it how shall he
do so without denying it ? And if he denies the proposi• tion or assertion (which the Agnostic formula 1‘ we do not
and cannot know him”, really, though lamely, does) does
he not in reality say “there is no God ” ? If you venture
as far as denying the evidence of his existence, do you not
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
9
logically and actually deny that he exists, or do you mean
that, in spite of the evidence of his non-existence, perhaps
after all he does exist? Why is it rash—which the
hesitation denotes—to give an unequivocal verdict? It
appears to me that it is really a matter of evidence; and I
do not quite see why, because it is a question of God, the
common and consequent result of investigation should not
be put into the usual yes or no, the same as in any other
enquiry. If the result of the investigation be that we
cannot form a decided opinion either way, and that we
must therefore give an open verdict, by all means give an
open one; but in that case we should not call ourelves
Atheists. But is that really the true position of Atheists of
to-day ? Is Atheism dead or deserted, and are those who
professed it on their road back to Theism ? I hold that
neither to affirm nor deny the existence of God is, not
withstanding niceties of logic, virtually to admit the possi
bility of his existence; which, taken in conjunction with
the genuine Atheistic contention that there is no room for
him in nature, becomes, to say the least, most contra
dictory. If it be alleged that Agnosticism does not assume
the possibility of God’s existence in nature, but only in
supernature, i.e., the unknowable, I reply that you cannot
assume anything as to supernature. It is not; therefore
its God or Gods are not. If this position be not conceded
then the most far-fetched ravings as to supernature that
ever came from brain of madman must be held as possible.
If you venture one whit further in the shape of denial
than the agnostically orthodox perhaps or may be, the
extinguisher is clapped upon you, and you are simply put
out, to the great delight of those who have faith, and who
do not hesitate to give direct form to what they hold to be
true.
I have said that the existence or non-existence of God is
a matter of evidence, and ought to be treated as such. And
that a man ought not to be held to be rash or illogical for
giving direct form to his verdict, orresult of his investigation.
I presume a person who upon the evidence of his purse
declared it contained no money, would not be held to be
illogical or rash; but if he, adopting the Agnostic prin
ciple, doubtfully declared he saw no evidence that it con
tained money, but would not venture upon saying out
right that it did not—thereby inferring that perhaps it
�10
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
did, the evidence notwithstanding—he would go very near
being considered both rash and illogical.1 And bear in
mind that if this collateral inference is not to be drawn,
and if the statement is to be taken as shutting out all
possibility of it, I am entitled to ask in what consists the
wisdom of discarding the direct statement, and substi
tuting an equivocal, or less direct one ? Where the use
in dropping one term and picking up another, which,
whilst being less direct, finally means the same thing?
If it does not mean the same thing, then it can only mean
one other thing : the possibility of the existence of God,
which, as I understand it, is a direct contradiction and
denial of Atheism.
Some years ago, Dr. E. B. Aveling advocated — or I
think I should be more correct in saying, he stated with
approval—that Darwin, in a conversation which he had
with him, advocated Agnosticism in preference to Atheism,
as being the safer course or term. This struck me at the
time, and does so still, as pointing directly to the perhaps
to which I have drawn attention; or if not, why safer ?
But it is very like saying it is safer to hold the possibility
of what cannot be possible. If not, then it can but mean
that it is safer not to deny what may after all be a fact;
thus conceding almost the entire position claimed by the
Theist. The possibility of super-nature being once con
ceded, the road is laid open for a belief in Gods, devils,
ghosts, goblins, and all the rest of the unreal phantoms
with which the regions of supernature are peopled.
I regard Agnosticism as a going out of one’s way to
admit of a may-le, which the whole universe proclaims may
not be ; a leaving-behind of nature to worse than uselessly
say “it is safer to hold there may be something beyond
it”. I think those who deal in myth, especially those
calling themselves Christians, will have much to be
grateful for if this really becomes the Atheist’s position.
It is certainly more difficult to argue against a position
the possible correctness of which you have already
1 It is likely to be urged that nothing of the kind is asserted of a
purse, but only of what we can know nothing. But it seems to me
that the admission as to the Unknowable, i.e., supernature, is an
admission which, although most contradictory in its nature, is still
an admission that perhaps it (supernature) ; to the shutting out of
the more reasonable and direct teaching of Atheism.
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
11
conceded, than against one whose correctness you entirely
repudiate.
It would seem to me there is a tremendous contradiction
in what appears to be the principle of Agnosticism quitesavoring of the old belief in God, which I must repeat is
not compatible with the principles of Atheism—and, as I
thought, of Secularism. It is all very well to say that
Agnosticism is safer because it teils you neither to affirm,
nor deny in a matter of which you have no possible means
of judging. But Atheism, if I read it aright, tells you.
there can be no possibility of such a thing existing. If
that be so, to talk of withholding your judgment becomes
nonsense. If the universe says no, why should I say
perhaps yes? Do I then doubt, or half believe? What
logical nicety could carry me beyond the cognizable into
myth? What logical necessity could carry me beyond
Nature into supernature ? None. I cannot so much as
think it, and to admit it would be equal to the non
admission of the existence of nature. Supernature with
its Gods, or its millions of Gods, is not.
The “New Oxford Dictionary ”, to which I have alluded,
and as quoted by the Bev. Dr. AVace, states that “an
Agnostic is one who holds that the existence of anything
behind and beyond natural phenomena is unknown, and,
as far as can be judged, is unknowable, and especially
that a first cause .... are subjects of which we know
nothing”. This, taken alone, might be good.enough for
the Secularistic standpoint, and might be sufficient warrant
for neither affirming nor denying, except that it still allows
the possibility of a God, and therefore is not Atheism.
Of course if we are going to sink Atheism, well and good ;
although it would certainly place us in the disadvantageous
position of not being logically able to oppose the Theist in
a thorough manner. Dr. Wace further points out that the
name was claimed by Professor Huxley for those who dis
claimed Atheism, and believed with him in an unknowable
God or cause of all things.1 Quoting again from the late
1 Since writing the above I see by “ D’s.” articles in the National
Reformer that he entirely doubts the accuracy of this statement. The
correctness of this doubt would seem to be confirmed if the following
quotation, given in the .Agnostic Journal as Prof. Huxley’s definition
of the word, be correct: “As the inventor of the word, I am entitled,
to say authentically what is meant by it. Agnosticism is the essence
�12
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
"bishop of the diocese in which he was speaking, he said
that “the Agnostic neither affirmed nor denied God”.
He simply put him on one side. Of course a Secularist,
nor, indeed, an Agnostic or Atheist, is not bound to take
a bishop’s rendering of the term, although for my own
part I take it as being fairly correct. And it must, I
think, be admitted that the statements quoted are com
patible with the position now apparently assumed by
leading Secularists. I certainly think all these statements
taken together, whilst being contradictory in their ulti
mate meaning, go a very considerable distance in the
belief in the existence of a God. If there be wisdom and
safety in this, I am bound to think that neither dwells in
Atheism. But in my humble opinion such is not the case.
To neither deny nor affirm simply shirks the point; it is,
at best, withholding your opinion; it is to halt between
the two theories; and to my mind it certainly does not
demonstrate the folly of an Atheist saying “there is no
God”. It only demonstrates the folly of an Agnostic
doing so.
of science whether ancient or modem. It .-imply means that a man
shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific
grounds for professing to know or believe.” That, so far, certainly
is in direct opposition to what Dr. Wace would have us infer Huxley
to have meant by the word. If it means anything in reference to
God, it means that man has no scientific grounds for believing in the
existence of God, and that therefore he ought not to state such
belief. So far it is Atheistic.; but if it further means that man has
no scientific grounds for disbelieving in his existence, and ought not
therefore to state his disbelief, then it is rot Atheistic. And if
meaning both these things, it is equivocal and contradictory, If it
means that we have no evidence either way and should be silent, then
it drops Atheism and the evidence upon which it is built, and goes
half way in support of Theism. Professor Huxley’s definition as
here given, and taken alone, would seem to mean that a scientist
should not state that he knows what he cannot scientifically prove.
But Secularists and others seem to have placed upon it a wider mean
ing (which of course it is contended logically follows), and allege
that it also means that he should not deny what he cannot scientifi
cally prove non-existent; and that therefore he ought not to deny
the existence of God, but should refuse (conditionally) to discuss h m.
Whilst thinking Atheism teaches that the non-existence of God is
scientifically proved, I would point out that the other view is open to
the objection that if the existence of forty thousand Gods, with their
accompanying devils, were asserted we should not be in a position to
deny. The same being true of any other absurdity, say, for instance,
the Trinity.
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
13
It would appear to me that Agnosticism is at least
illogical, if not altogether untenable, inasmuch as that,
while it directly affirms that man can know nothing out
side natural phsenomena, nor of the first cause which is
the primary meaning of God—it yet admits that he may
exist. Thus, by its direct teaching, man ought to act as
though he is not; and by its indirect teaching, as though
he possibly is. In other words, you must (and this would
seem to be getting fashionable) profess Agnosticism and
act Atheism.
I am aware that it is held by authorities for whom we
are bound to have great respect, that the word God,
undefined, has no meaning; and that it would be the
work of a fool to reason against a term which conveys no
idea, or argue against a nonentity. To the latter, I will
remark that, if it were not a nonentity, there would be no
reason in arguing against its existence; and if it is a
nonentity, where the folly or danger in saying so ? But
is it quite true that the word God conveys no meaning ?
It is doubtless defined differently by different creeds. It
is said to mean the Creator, the Maker of heaven and
earth, the Supreme Being, the Sovereign Lord, the Begin
ning and the End, and many other things.. But the
cardinal meaning which pervades all definitions is the
supreme cause or maker of the universe. Surely there is
meaning in this. I do not quite see how an Atheist,
knowing what is broadly meant and held as. to God by
those who believe in his existence, can quite fairly say the
word has no meaning to him—or rather, that it conveys no
moaning to him. Does it not convey the meaning, or can
you not take it as conveying the meaning it is intended to
convey ?1 Of course I may be asked how a person can
' know the meaning intended to be conveyed, unless defined.
I recognise the difficulty; but reply: Would an Atheist
subscribe to a belief in God under any, or all the ordinary
—I think I might say—known definitions ? If he would
not, I think the difficulty is removed, and that there is no
1 I am not here contending against the necessity of having words
defined for the proper and expeditious discussion of the ideas, they
are intended to convey. I am simply contending that this particular
word does carry a sufficiently definite meaning—especially as put
forward by Christians in general—to justify a thinker in either
accepting or rejecting the theory of his existence.
�14
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
inconsistency in denying his existence when spoken of, or
asserted in general terms. Words generally have meaning
only in conjunction with the ideas they are intended to
convey. This word conveys the idea, or is intended to
convey the idea, of the existence of a supernatural intelli
gent and supreme being, whom those who assert his
existence believe to have been the creator or cause of the
universe. It appears to me that it is not a question as to
whether an Atheist could convey any thoughts or theories
of his own in the same language ; but is rather a question
of what the person who uses it intends to convey. As a
matter of fact, I, for my own part, do think the meaning
is sufficiently clear and understood as to enable an Atheist
to say yes or no to such general meaning.
If what I am endeavoring to explain—by which I mean
the import of the term God—had not been sufficiently
clear, we should not now have in our language, (and I
presume in every scientifically arranged language in the
world) the terms Theist, and Atheist, and their deri
vatives, nor would Atheists themselves have existed.
If then, the term does convey an idea, or conclusion
arrived at either rightly or wrongly by Christians and
Theists generally, that a maker or cause of all nature, and
therefore of all natural phsenomena, called God, does
exist; and thus distinctly—or even indistinctly if you will
—put it forward. May not the Atheist who (even allowing
room for variations of definition) holds that he does not
exist say as much without coming under the ban of folly ?
I venture to think that if he may not give direct form to
his words and state what he holds not to exist, is not, then
he is in a false position, and a false restraint is put upon
him. I presume in any other matter, an Atheist may
without doing violence to consistency declare that, what is
not, is not. Where then the crime or folly in this
particular case ? Is it so serious and awful a one that he
must not venture upon making the logical and consequent
avowal which his disbelief upon one hand, and his convic
tions upon the other, force upon him ? It would appear
upon the very face of it, to be the height of reason to
affirm the non-existence—or perhaps I had better say, to
deny the existence—of a nonentity, especially when its
existence is forced upon you with such lamentable results.
It appears to me that it is not only logical to do so, but that
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
15
it becomes an absolute duty, therefore a logical necessity.
I say that, if God is, it is right to say so, and if he is not,
it is equally right to say so. If a thinker has not formed
an opinion either way, or has come to the conclusion that
he cannot form an opinion, then I take it, he is not an
Atheist and some other term may be found to better inter
pret his position.
I could understand taking up the position that, because
we have not all-knowledge, therefore we cannot say what
might, or might not be, what is absolutely possible or impos
sible : and contenting ourselves with the words, probable
and improbable ; although I should be strongly tempted
to transgress therefrom. There are some things which I
should consider beyond the improbable and to be im
possible. But this circumscribing should apply all-round
and include all questions, and not be confined to that.of
the existence of a God, or Gods: I do not see the utility
or wisdom in drawing the line at him or them. To my
thinking it is illogical as well as giving color to a pretended
lurking fear, or belief put upon Atheists. The God con
cept is, I presume, like any other, a matter of evidence.
I think an Atheist should find no more difficulty in giving
expression to his conviction that God is not, that in giving
expression to his conviction that a moon made of green
cheese is not. An Atheist is one who is set down as being
“ one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or supreme
intelligent being ”. Atheism is, shortly, this stated dis
belief, and is put in opposition to Theism. It will thus
be observed that Atheism goes altogether beyond “ neither
affirming nor denying” : it is the embodiment of denial
and disbelief. Of course one may retreat from it into
another position; but in the meantime, I must again say
that it does seem unreasonable upon the very face of it
that an Atheist may not logically and in set terms declare
the non-existence of the thing in whose existence he dis
believes, such disbelief being signified by his very name,
and it must be borne in mind that, whether he so states it
or not, his life, if he be consistent, and his writings and
teachings practically proclaim it, and are, so far, in opposi
tion—at least to a great extent—to what I consider the
weak avowal he makes when he says ‘ ‘ the Atheist does not
say there is no God ”. The Atheistic school—if I may so
term it—is actually founded upon reasoned-out conclusions
�16
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
based upon facts affirmed and attested by science. It
stands upon a plan and theory which does not admit of
God ; there is no room for him in it; or, in other words,
he cannot be. If it were otherwise based, it would not
be Atheism. Yet strangely enough, Atheists now hesitate
to say he is not: and adopt a term which may with much
reason be regarded as a loop-hole.
But the curious point to me is, are we to continue to
thus practically preach and teach Atheism, proclaiming
in a hundred ways the non-existence of God, and yet
evade the open declaration ? If we are, and in future
are to be, careful to write and state merely that we do
not know God — and forgive me if I once more say—
thereby inferring that perchance he does exist; we ought,
I think, in the name of consistency, to abolish, or allow
to become obsolete by disuse, the term Atheist, and all
its derivatives ; and substitute such Agnostic or other
terms as shall better define our position. In that case
we ought no longer to call ourselves and our literature
Atheistic. If we do, it should at least be stated that the term
is not to be taken in the generally, and hitherto accepted
sense, but in that of the recently revived Agnostic one.
For my own part, rightly or wrongly, foolishly or
otherwise, I have no hesitation in asserting that, so far
as I can think, weigh and judge, there is no God. Other
wise, I could not be an Atheist.
Since writing the foregoing, I have read “ D.’s ” articles
in the National Reformer, “In Defence of Agnosticism”.
They are, as indeed are all his articles, ably and
profoundly written. I do not here profess to reply to them.
But I feel bound to state that, so far, they seem to have
confirmed me in some of my opinions and objections to
Agnosticism. In his concluding article he says that an
Atheist—and I now presume a Secularist—may not argue
the existence of God, nor anything relating to him when
considered as a supernatural being ; “ any such question ”
being “ mere vanity and vexation of spirit ”, But he
further says that some argument is admissible when he is
taken in conjunction with the world; or as he puts it:
“ Some assertions may be made respecting God, which it
is possible negatively to verify”, because, as he goes on
to explain, such assertions include statements with regard
to the order of nature ; as, for instance : “We may argue
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
17
•from the existence of evil, the impossibility of the existence
of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-beneficent God ”,
This is doubtless the result of very close reasoning, but
to my wind savors a little of hair-splitting, and appears to
leave the person awkwardly situated, who does. not believe
in the existence of God. All the while a Theist puts his
God forward as being supernatural only, and as having
nothing to do with nature, one must not reply, but be
dumb; or limit, one’s reply to a refusal to discuss; at
most, giving reasons for such refusal. But if it is put
forward in conjunction with our phenomenal universe (as
indeed when is he not ?), and that we are thereby enabled
to verify what he is not, we may, so far, discuss him.
But suppose it were possible in like manner to verify
what he is, or, as “D.” would put it : to verify affirma
tively, might it then be discussed ? And how shall we
know which way it can be verified, or whether it can be
verified either way without full discussion ? And why
should it be permissible to discuss one side and not the
other ? Are you to assume that God is not, and only
discuss such portion of the question as supports that view ?
And finally, is that Agnosticism ?
But apart from this, it appears to me to somewhat evade
the manner in which the God idea is usually put forward.
Bor my own part, I do not know that it is ever advanced
except in conjunction with nature and in the sense of
authorship, either supernaturally or otherwise. God is
generally held to be supernatural, and at the same time
the cause and author or creator of the universe and of
all things. That, to my thinking, is the position anyone
who does not hold it ought to be able to argue, and the
enabling position, above all others, I take to be that
of Atheism. If an Agnostic held to the first portion
of the statement only, discussion upon the question
of God would be well-nigh impossible for him; because
all Churches and most creeds hold him to be a super
natural being. But the qualification comes in as a
kind of saving clause, and permits the Agnostic to
discuss the question to a limited extent, thus showing at
once the weakness of Agnosticism, and admitting that
even by its aid the question cannot be entirely shut out of
the arena. God may be discussed in part, but only nega
tively. Taking the world as your witness, you may say,
�18
AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
“ a good and almighty God does not exist ”, but you must
not say, “ no God exists ”. You may only say you do not
know him. This, to my thinking, is a lame and unsatis
factory state of affairs, and is evasive, as indeed is Agnos
ticism generally. For instance, and having some of “D.’s”
further illustrations in my mind, I cannot but think, when
a Christian states that “three times one God are one
God” ; or “that God was three days and three nights in
the bowels of the earth between Friday night and the
following Sunday morning”, that it would be quite as
logical, and certainly more forcible, to say I deny the possi
bility, as to say “the subject matter is beyond the reach of
my faculties, and that the assertion itself conveys no distinct
meaning to my mind”. These seem to be quite distinct
statements, and to convey distinctly impossible ideas; and
I urge that it would be no more illogical to give direct
form to my verdict—in fact less so—than to weakly pro
fess not to understand what is intended to be conveyed.
I make these remarks with “ much fear and trembling ”,
but feel bound to say that I am surprised to be told that
an Agnostic, or indeed anyone professing to rely upon
common sense and science, “does not, or needs not,
deny” the statement that God, i.e., Christ, remained three
days and nights in the earth, between Friday evening and
the following Sunday morning. “ D.” himself admits that
if the doctrine of the trinity, viz, that three times one are
one, “were asserted of apples”, he would disbelieve it;
but being asserted of Gods he will neither believe nor
disbelieve; or, if he does do either, the result must be
hidden under the Agnostic formula of neither affirming
nor denying.
The ideas on Agnosticism to which I have endeavored
to give form have been in my mind for a considerable
period, and I have taken the present opportunity of putting
them together, although in rather a hurried and, perhaps,
in an insufficiently considered manner. But I put them
more in the spirit of inquiry than in any other.
The subject is a vast one, and has engaged the minds of
some of the greatest thinkers of all ages. In the small
space here at my command I have not been able to much
more than touch it. I have made no reference to learned
works, and but small reference to learned writers. I do
but profess to have given such thoughts and ideas as
�AGAINST AGNOSTICISM.
19
occurred to myself whilst thinking upon the subject. My
observations are possibly better calculated to induce the
ordinary individual to think, to ponder these matters, and
to look for larger and more complete investigations than
they are to do battle with the mighty of intellect and the
great of learning.
The universe, the raw material, lies before us all. We
can all but deal with it according to our capabilities and
our opportunities. I can only hope that my rough method
and manner, whilst being accepted only for what they are
worth, will yet do a small share in the work of regenerating
humanity, and building up a people who shall consider
their most sacred duty consists not only in free inquiry,
but free and open assertion of the fruits of such inquiry,
rather than blind and ignorant submission to churches
and creeds, whose interest it is to stifle thought.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Against agnosticism, by "Humanitas"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ball, William Platt [1844-1917]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 19 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N053
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Against agnosticism, by "Humanitas"), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Agnosticism
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dc94e4861475a38701984125c78daffc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=BTcHvjqPGvQ1s5L3MHY7CSvmoGfJIlE08gFfg1QTBhAkVkTAxPg0KeIUOUdcPSrc6ncH4xAKB-FVNcXGBexXoO%7EITE6u6qHo9FBJTT0eqvlF7t72NhrCCapddKgUxuEdI1zdv8grtMwV1PmwwfHGnhb8at6ciLa%7ElG56NhdTBpqxuWLvdU9eBAxA4h3osnrg4b09CXEIooLzrm2u3yKXvSbiTa3FKk2zq5pzgsW%7EJw1xQOu649dJ3NhocNLizP1eC8SoH2QRQFE4YI2TnqS0hUpgJ1qfiWgkacVs72NKFNmKVmg3JIHjV7Re4UBzQqOv5yE9Q9k-cssggkHLd6uZog__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
35cfcd1e262d7fd08a5847bc0a390fc6
PDF Text
Text
/S/%
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE
PHILOSOPHY
OF
SECULARISM
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
«
1889.
�The major portion of this pamphlet was
published under a slightly different title in
1879. I have revised, that portion carefully
and added some pages of new matter.
G-. W. Foote.
�£ >500
W2-5?
THE PHILOSOPHY OF SECULARISM.
----- *----The present age is one of theological tliaw.
The
Reformation is by some regarded as the most remark
able and important religious movement of modern
times; while others consider as still more portentous
that sceptical movement of last century, which culmi
nated in the lightnings and thunders of the Revolution,
and finally cleared the intellectual atmosphere of its
densest and most oppressive clouds of superstition.
Butprobably it will befound that this nineteenth century,
which is not, as some writers seem to imagine, rudely
severed from its predecessor, has continued less tumul
tuously, because amidst fewer impediments, the critical
work of the eighteenth, and is no less a period of reli
gious disintegration and reconstruction. Traditional
beliefs are being silently subverted by new agencies.
Science, instead of critically attacking supernatural
religion, has surely and irretrievably sapped its founda
tions. The educated intelligence of to-day is not
required to discuss minor points of doctrine and ritual,
or the internal discrepancies of revelation, but finds
itself confronted with the supreme all-subsuming
question of whether the very essentials of faith can be
maintained in presence of the indubitable truths of
science, and of the rigorous habit of mind it engenders.
Heretics, too, are less vigorously cursed fontheir wicked
�4
Philosophy of Secularism.
obstinacy, a sure sign of theological decadence. On
the contrary, when they happen to be eminent in
science or literature they are usually treated with
marked respect; and the apologetic tone, which heresy
has long discarded, is now assumed by those who have
hitherto claimed to speak with authority. Christian
Evidence Societies invite sceptics to fashionable West
end halls to hear celebrated religious doctors show that
the popular faith is after all not so very unreasonable,
yet sceptics can hardly be induced to attend; and
when these discourses are published sceptics can hardly
be induced to read them; the real secret of all this
being that such addresses are designed, not so much to
meet the objections of those outside the Churches, as
to soothe the doubts and allay the misgivings of those
inside them. Even in the days of Voltaire, Buffon
was obliged to recant what he knew to be true; and
doubtless the Patriarch of Ferney himself would have
paid a severe penalty for his scepticism, had he not
eluded the vigilant malice of his foes by acting on his
professed opinion that a philosopher, like a fox, should
have plenty of holes to run to when the priests are on
his track. But in our days no name commands greater
respect than that of Darwin, whose biological theories
reverse all time-honored notions of man’s origin and
history, as the Copernican astronomy reversed the geo
centric theory of the universe, so flattering to man’s
complacent egotism. Huxley, Tyndall and Clifford1 are
1 Professor Clifford’s death was a sad blow to the cause of
Freethought. We have to mourn the loss of a most valiant
soldier of progress, fallen prematurely before a tithe of his
work was done.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
5
becoming quite fashionable; Air. Swinburne, whom
the daintiest young ladies may read with parental
consent if they eschew certain proscribed pieces in
Poems and Ballads, publishes fiery lyrical impeach
ments of Christianity, which a century or two ago
would have commended him to a fiery death; and even
Mr. Carlyle, the noble prophet of our time, was allowed
without protest to write scornfully of Hebrew OldClothes. These are a few remarkable signs of our
religious state in England, and by general admission
the educated classes on the Continent are still more
“ irreligious ” than our own.
If the Reformation
broke the infallibility of the Pope, and secured liberty
and progress for Protestants ; if the Revolution drove
feudalism and mental tyranny from their strongholds
n France, and enlisted the bright quick French intel
lect once for all in the service of reason and freedom
it is no less true that the scientific movement of our
age, which is co-extensive with civilisation, is doing a
vaster though not more necessary work, and is slowly
but surely preparing for that great Future, whose
lineaments none of us can presume to trace, although
here and there an aspect flashes on some straining
vision.
The old faiths ruin and rend, and the air is vocal
with the clamour of new systems, each protesting itself
the Religion of the Future. Sweet sentimental Deism
claims first attention, because it retains what is thought
to be the essence of old beliefs after discarding their
reality. Next perhaps comes Positivism,2 far nobler
2 Positivism is exceedingly well represented in England. Al
though numerically the smallest of sects, it has four very able
�6
Philosophy of Secularism.
and more vital, which manages to make itself well
heard, having a few strong and skilful pleaders, who
never lose sight of their creed whatever subject they
happen to be treating. But Secularism, which in
England at least is numerically far more important
than Positivism, although gladly heard by thousands
of common people, is scarcely known at all in circles
of highest education where its principles are most
powerfully operant. Mr. Gladstone, indeed, in his
paper on “ The Courses of Religious Thought/’3 pub
lished many years ago, thought it worth serious notice ;
but with that exception I am not aware that Secu
larism has received attention in any first-class pub
lication. Yet the word secular is entering more
and more into our general vocabulary, and in especial
has become associated with that view of national edu
cation which denies the propriety of religious teaching
in Board Schools. This use of the word points to tile
principle on which Secularism is based. The interests
of this world and life are smtZar, and can be estimated
and furthered by our unaided intellects; the interests
of another life and world can be dealt with only by
appealing to Revelation. Secularism proposes to culti
vate the splendid provinces of Time, leaving the
advocates in Dr. Congreve, Professor Beesley, Dr. Brydges, and
Mr. Frederick Harrison. There are many points of resemblance
between Positivism and Secularism. Indeed the resemblance
would be almost complete if the Positivists in ignoring theology
did not make a god of Comte, and with amazing disregard of
that historic development they so emphasize, venerate all his
later aberrations, as though he or any man could justly assume
to prescribe the ways in which, through all succeeding genera
tions, a great idea shall realise itself in practice.
3 Contemporary Review, June, 1876.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
7
theologians to care for the realms of Eternity, and
meaning to interfere with them only while their
pursuit of salvation in another life hinders the attain
ment of real welfare in this.
Mr. Gladstone’s conception of Secularism, derived
of course from its literature, may here be cited. After
describing the Sceptic, the Atheist, and the Agnostic,
he proceeds :—
“ Then comes the Secularist. Him I understand to
stop short of the three former schools in that he does not
of necessity assert anything but the positive and exclusive
claims of the purposes, the enjoyments, and the needs pre
sented to us in the world of sight and experience. He
does not require in principle even the universal suspense of
Scepticism ; but, putting the two worlds into two scales of
value, he finds that the one weighs much, the ofher either
nothing, or nothing that can be appreciated. At the
utmost he is like a chemist who, in a testing analysis, after
putting into percentage all that he can measure, if he finds
something behind so minute as to refuse any quantitative
estimate, calls it by the name of ‘ trace.’ ”
This account of Secularism is on the whole very fair,
but evidently it requires much amplification before it
can be perfectly understood by those who have not,
pke Mr. Gladstone, read Secular literature for them
selves. As Mr. Gladstone quoted words of mine in
corroboration of his view of Secularism, I may with
out immodesty undertake to give a fuller explanation
of it; and this can best be done, not dogmatically, but
popularly, allowing principles as it were to unfold
themselves.
Were I obliged to give an approximate definition of
Secularism in one sentence I should say that it is
�8
1 hilosoplnj of Secularism.
naturalism in morals as distinguished from super
naturalism ; meaning by this that the criterion of
morality is derivable from reason and experience, and
that its ground and guarantee exist in human nature
independently of any theological belief. Mr. G. J.
Holyoake, whose name is inseparably associated with
Secularism, says: “ Secularism relates to the present
existence of man and to actions the issue of which can
be tested by the experience of this life.-” And again :
“ Secularism means the moral duty of man deduced
from considerations which pertain to this life alone.
Secularism purposes to regulate human affairs by con
siderations purely human.” The second of these
quotations is clearly more comprehensive than the first,
and is certainly a better expression of the view enter
tained by the vast majority of Secularists. It dismisses
theology from all control over the practical affairs of
this life, and banishes it to the region of speculation.
The commonest intelligence may see that this doctiine,
however innocent it looks on paper, is in essence and
practice revolutionary. It makes clean sweep of all
that theologians regard as most significant and precious,
'Dr. Newman, in his Grammar of Assent, writes: “By
Religion I mean the knowledge of God, of h:s will,
and of our duties towards him; ” and he adds that
the channels which Nature furnishes for our acquiring
this knowledge “ teach us the Being and Attributes of
God, our responsibility to him, our dependence on him,
our prospect of reward or punishment, to be somehow
brought about, according as we obey or disobey him.’
A better definition of what is generally deemed reli
gion could not be found, and such religion as this
�Philosophy of Secularism.
9
Secularism will have no concern with. From their
point of view orthodox teachers are justified in calling
it irreligious ; but those Secularists who agree with
Carlyle that whoever believes in the infinite nature of
Duty has a religion, repudiate the epithet irreligious
just as they repudiate the epithet infidel, for the popu
lar connotation of both includes something utterly
inapplicable to Secularism as they understand it.
Properly speaking, they assert, Secularism is not
irreligious, but untheological; yet, as it entirely
excludes from the sphere of human duty what most
people regard as religion, it must explain and justify
itself.
Secularism rejects theology as a guide and authority
in the affairs of this life because its pretensions are
not warranted by its evidence. Natural Theology, to
use a common but half-paradoxical phrase, never has
been nor can be aught but a body of speculation, admir
able enough in its way perhaps, but quite irreducible to
the level of experience. Indeed, one’s strongest impres
sion in reading treatises on that branch of metaphysics
is that they are not so much proofs as excuses of faith,
and would never have been written if the ideas sought to
be verified had not already been enounced in Revela
tion. As for Revealed Religion, it is based upon miracles,
and these to the scientific mind are altogether in
admissible, being trebly discredited. In the first place,
they are at variance with the general fact of order in
nature, the largest vessel or conception into which all
our experiences flow ; adverse to that law of Universal
Causation which underlies all scientific theories and
guides all scientific research. Next, the natural
�10
Philosophy of Secularism.
history of miracles show us how they arise, and makes
us view them as phenomena of superstition, manifest
ing a certain coherence and order because the human
Imagination which gave birth to them is subject to
laws however baffling and subtle. All miracles had
their origin from one and the same natural source.
The belief in their occurrence invariably characterises
certain stages of mental development, and gradually
fades away as these are left farther and farther behind.
They are not historical but psychological phenomena,
not actual but merely mental, not proofs but results of
faith.4 The miracles of Christianity are no exception
to this rule; they stand in the same category as all
others. As Mr. Arnold aptly observes : “ The time
has come when the minds of men no longer put as a
matter of course the Bible miracles in a class by them
selves. Now, from the moment this time commences,
from the moment that the comparative history of all
miracles is a conception entertained, and a study
admitted, the conclusion is certain, the reign of the
Bible miracles is doomed/’ Lastly, miracles are dis
credited for the reason insisted on by Mr. Greg—
namely, that if we admit them, they prove nothing but
the fact of their occurrence. If God is our author,
4 I do not say that miracles are impossible, an audacious and
quite unscientific assertion rightly stigmatised as such by Professor
Huxley in his admirable booklet on Hume. The region of “ may
be ’’ is infinite, and finite minds blessed with sanity leave it alone,
confining themselves to the certain and the probable. A miracle,
as Huxley says, is no more impossible than a centuar, but it is
just as improbable, and equally requires a tremendous array of
unimpeachable evidence to support it. Every scholar knows
that no such evidence is extant in the case of Christian or any
other miracles.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
11
he has endowed us with reason, and to the bar of that
reason the utterances of the most astounding miracle
workers must ultimately come; if condemned there,
the miracles will afford them no aid; if approved there?
the miracles will be to them useless. Miracles, then,
are fatally discredited in every way. Yet upon them
all Revelations are founded, and even Christianity, as
Dr. Newman urged against the orators of the Tamworth Reading-Room, “ is a history supernatural, and
almost scenic.” Thus if Natural Theology is merely
speculative and irreducible to the level of experience,
Revealed Religion, though more substantial, is erected
upon a basis which modern science and criticism have
hopeless undermined.
Now if we relinquish belief in miracles we cannot
letain belief in Special Providence and the Efficacy of
Prayer, for these are simply aspects of the miraculous.5
Good-natured Adolf Naumann, the young German
artist m Middlemarch, was not inaccurate though
facetious in assuring Will Ladislaw that through him,
as through a particular hook or claw, the universe was
straining towards a certain picture yet to be painted ;
for every present phenomenon, whether trivial or im
portant, occurs here and now, rather than elsewhere
and at some other time, by virtue of the whole universal
past. All the forces of nature have conspired to place
Y e often hear Prayer defended on emotional grounds not
as a practical request but as a spiritual aspiration. This however
merely proves the potency of habit. The “ Lord’s Prayer ” con
tains a distinct request for daily bread. The practice of prayer
originated when people believed that something could be got by
IXdoHMrWeX°W 'Vith “° SUOh belief " slaT“t0 the
�12
Philosophy of Secularism.
where it is the smallest grain of sancl on the sea-shore,
just as much as their interplay has strewn the aetherfloated constellations of illimitable space. The slightest
interference with natural sequence implies a disruption
of the whole economy of things. Who suspends one
law of nature suspends them all. The pious supplicator for just a little rain in time of drought really asks
for a world-wide revolution in meteorology. And the
dullest intellects, even of the clerical order, are begin
ning to see this. As a consequence prayers for
rain in fine weather, or for fine weather in time of
rain, have fallen almost entirely into disuse; and
the most orthodox can now enjoy that joke about the
clerk who asked his rector what was the good of pray
ing for rain with the wind in that quarter. Nay more,
so far has belief in the efficacy of prayer died out, that
misguided simpletons who persist in conforming to
apostolic injunction and practice, and in taking certain
very explicit passages in the Gospels to mean what the
words express, are regarded as Peculiar People, in the
fullest sense of the term; and if through their primi
tive pathology children should die under their hands,
they run a serious risk of imprisonment for man
slaughter, notwithstanding that the book which has
misled them is declared to be God’s word by the law
of the land. Occasionally, indeed, old habits assert
themselves, and the nation suffers a recrudescence of
superstition. When the life of the Prince of Wales
was threatened by a malignant fever, prayers for his
recovery were publicly offered up, and the wildest
religious excitement mingled -with the most loyal
anxiety. But the newspapers were largely responsible
�Philosophy of Secularism.
13
for this ; they fanned the excitement daily until many
people grew almost as feverish as the Prince himself,
and “ irreligious ’’ persons who preserved their sanity
intact smiled when they read in the most unblushingly
mendacious of those papers exclamations of piety and
saintly allusions to the great national wave of prayer
surging against the Throne of Grace. The Prince’s
life was spared, thanks to a good constitution and the
highest medical skill, and a national thanksgiving was
offered up in St. Paul’s. Yet the doctors were not
forgotten ; the chief of them was made a knight, and
the nation demanded a rectification of the drainage in
the Prince’s palace, probably thinking that although
prayer had been found efficacious there might be danger
in tempting Providence a second time.
Soon after that interesting event Mr. Spurgeon
modestly observed that the philosophers were ' noisy
enough in peaceful times, but shrank into their
holes like mice when imminent calamity threatened the
nation; which may be true without derogation to the
philosophers, who, like wise men, do not bawl against
popular madness, but reserve their admonitions until
the heated multitude is calm and repentant. Professor
Tyndall has invited the religious world to test the
alleged efficacy of prayer by a practical experiment,
such as allotting a ward in some hospital to be specially
prayed for, and inquiring whether more cures are re
corded in it than elsewhere. But this invitation has
not been and never will be accepted. Superstitions
always dislike contact with science and fact; they
prefer to float about in the vague of sentiment, where
pursuit is hopeless and no obstacles impede. If there
�14
Philosophy of Secularism.
is any efficacy in prayer, how can we account for the
disastrous and repeated failures of righteous causes and
the triumph of bad ? The voice of human supplication
has ascended heavenwards in all ages from all parts of
the earth, but when has a hand been extended from
behind the veil ? The thoughtful poor have besought
appeasement of their terrible hunger for some nobler
life than is possible while poverty deadens every fine
impulse and frustrates every unselfish thought, but
whenever did prayer bring them aid ? The miserable
have cried for comfort, sufferers for some mitigation of
their pain, captives for deliverance, the oppressed for
freedom, and those who have fought the great fight of
good against ill for some ray of hope to lighten despair.
but what answer has been vouchsafed •?
What hope, what light
Falls from the farthest starriest way
On you that pray ?
*
*
*
*
Can ye beat off one wave with prayer,
Can ye move mountains ? bid the flower
Take flight and turn to a bird in the air ?
Can ye hold fast for shine or shower
One wingless hour ?6
The dying words of Mr. Tennyson’s Arthur—“ More
things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams
of ”—are a weak solace to those who recognise its
futility, and find life too stern for optimistic dreamsSalvation, in this life at least, cometh not by prayer,
but by valiant effort under the guidance of wisdom and
the inspiration of love. Knowledge alone is power.
0 A. 0. Swinburne, Felise.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
la
Ignorant of Nature's laws, we are broken to pieces
and ground to dust; knowing them, we win an empire
of enduring civilisation within her borders. Recog
nising the universal reign of law and the vanity of
supplicating its reversal, and finding no special clause
in the statutes of the universe for man’s behoof, Secu
larism dismisses as merely superstitious the idea of an
arbitrary special providence, and affirms Science to be
the only available Providence of Man.
Thus theological conceptions obtruded upon the
sphere of secular interests are one by one expelled.
We now come to the last, and, as the majority of
people think, the most serious and important—namely,
the doctrine of a Future life and of Future Reward
and Punishment. Mr. Gladstone says that, putting
this world and the next into two scales of value, the
Secularist finds that the one weighs much, the other
either nothing, or nothing that can be appreciated.
This is very near the truth. Secularism, • as such,
neither affirms nor denies a future life; it simply pro
fesses no knowledge of such a state, no information re
specting it which might serve as a guide in the affairs
of this life. The first question to be asked concerning
the alleged life beyond the grave is, Do we fenowr aught
about it ? If there were indisputably a future life in
store for us all, and that life immortal, and if we could
obtain precise information of its actualities and require
ments, then indeed the transcendence of eternal over
temporal interests would impel us to live here with a
view to the great Hereafter. But have we any know
ledge of this future life ? Mere conjectures will not
suffice; they may be true, but more probably false, and
�16
Philosophy of Secularism.
we cannot sacrifice the certain to the uncertain, or
forego the smallest present happiness for the sake of
some imagined future compensation. Have we any
knowledge of a life beyond the grave 1 The Secularist
answers decisively No.
Whatever the progress of science or philosophy may
hereafter reveal, at present we know nothing of per
sonal immortality. The mystery of Death, if such
there be, is yet unveiled, and inviolate still are the
secrets of the grave. Science knows nothing of another
life than this. When we are dead she sees but decom
posing matter, and while we live she regards us but as
the highest order of animal life, differentiated from
other orders by clearly defined characteristics, but
separated from them by no infinite impassable chasm.
Neithei' can Philosophy enlighten us. She reveals to
us the laws of what we call mind, but cannot acquaint
us with any second entity called soul. Even if we
accept Schopenhauer’s7 theory of will, and regard man
as a conscious manifestation of the one supreme force,
we are no nearer to personal immortality; for, if our
soul emerged at birth from the unconscious infinite, it
will probably immerge therein at death, just as a wave
rises and flashes foam-crested in the sun, and plunges
back into the ocean for ever. Indeed, the doctrine of
man’s natural immortality is so incapable of proof that
7 Schopenhauer was one of the most powerful and original
thinkers of this century, and his intellectual honesty is surprising
in such a flaccid and insincere age. A physical fact worthy of
notice is that his brain was the largest on record, not even ex
cepting Kant’s. Those who cannot read his works in the German
may find a capital exposition of his main ideas in Ribot’s La
Philosophie de Schopenhauer.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
17
many eminent Christians even are abandoning it in
favor of the doctrine that everlasting life is a gift
specially conferred by God upon the faithful elect.
Their appeal is to Revelation, by which they mean the
New Testament, all other Scriptures being to them
gross impositions. But can Revelation satisfy the
critical modern spirit ? When we can interrogate her,
discord deafens us. Every religion—nay, every sect
of religion—draws from Revelation its own peculiar
answer, and accepts it as infallibly true, although
widely at variance with others derived from the same
source. These answers cannot all be true, and their
very discord discredits each. The voice of God should
give forth no such uncertain tidings. If he had indeed
spoken, the universe would surely be convinced, and
the same conviction fill every breast. Even, however,
if Revelation proclaimed but one message concerning
the future, and that message were similarly interpreted
by all religions, we could not admit it as quite trust
worthy, although we might regard it as a vague fore
shadowing of the truth. For Revelation, unless every
genius be considered an instrument through which
eternal music is conveyed, must ultimately rely on
miracles, and these the modern spirit has decisively
rejected. Thus, then, it appears that neither Science,
Philosophy, nor Revelation, affords us any knowledge
of a future life. Yet, in order to guide our present
life with a view to the future, such knowledge is indis
pensable. In the absence of it we must live in the
light of the present, basing our conduct on Secular
reason, and working for Secular ends. How far this
is compatible with elevated morality and noble idealism
�18
Philosophy of Secularism.
we shall presently inquire ancl decide. Intellectually,
Secularism is at one with the most advanced thought
of our age, and no immutable dogmas preclude it from
accepting and incorporating any new truth. Science
being the only providence it recognises, it is ever
desirous to see and to welcome fresh developments
thereof, assured that new knowledge must harmonise
with the old, and deepen and broaden the civilisation
of our race.
In morals Secularism is utilitarian. In this world
only two ethical methods are possible. Either we
must take some supposed revelation of God’s will as
the measure of our duties, or we must determine our
actions with a view to the general good. The former
course may be very pious, but is assuredly unphilosophical. As Feuerbach8 insists, to derive morality from
God “ is nothing more than to withdraw it from the
test of reason, to institute it as indubitable, unassail
able, sacred, without rendering an account why.”
Stout old Chapman’s9 protest against confound
8 Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity, from which I quote, was
translated form the German by Marian Evans (George Eliot).
This remarkable work deserves and will amply requite a careful
study. The thoroughness with which Feuerbach applied his
subtle psychological method to the dogmas of Christianity,
accounts for the hatred of him more than once expressed by
Mansel in his notes to the famous Bampton Lectures.
9 George Chapman was one of those lofty austere natures that
put to scorn the flabbiness which a sentimental Christianity does
so much to foster ; as it were, some fine old Pagan spirit rein
carnate in an Englishman of the great Elizabethan age. His
“ Byron’s Conspiracy” furnished Shelley with the magnificent
motto of The Revolt of Islam:—
There is no danger to a man that knows
What life and death is: there’s not any law
Exceeds his knowledge ; neither is it lawful
That he should stoop to any other law.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
ing the inherent nature of good is also memor
able :—
“ Should heaven turn hell
For deeds well done, I would do ever well.”
Secularism adopts the latter course. Were it necessary,
a defence of utilitarian morality against theological
abuse might here be made; but an ethical system
which can boast so many noble and illustrious adherents
may well be excused from vindicating its right to
recognition and respect. Nevertheless it may be
observed that, however fervid are theoretical objections
to utilitarianism, its criterion of morality is the only
one admitted in practice. Our jurisprudence is not
required to justify itself before any theological bar,
nor to show its conformity with the maxims uttered by
Jesus and his disciples; and he would be thought a
strange legislator who should insist on testing the value
of a Parliamentary Bill by appealing to the New
Testament. Secularism holds that whatever actions
conduce to the general good are right, and that what
ever have an opposite tendency are wrong. Manifold
objections are urged against this simple rule on the
ground of its impracticability; but as all of them apply
with equal force to every conceivable rule, they may
be peremptorily dismissed. The imperfections of
human nature must affect the practicability of any
moral law, however conceived or expressed. Chris
tians who wrote before Secularism had to be combated
never thought of maintaining that reason and expe
rience are inefficient guides, although they did some
times impugn the efficacy of natural motives to good.i
1 Darwin, Spencer, and nearly all the rest of our modernEvolu-
�Philosophy of Secularism.
So thoughtful ancl cautious a preacher as Barrow,
whom Mr. Arnold accounts the best moral divine of
our English Church, plainly says that “ wisdom is, in
effect, the genuine parent of all moral and political
virtue, justice, and honesty.”2 But some theologicallyminded persons, whose appearance betrays no remark
able signs of asceticism, wax eloquent in reprobation
of happiness as a sanction of morality at all. Duty,
say they, is what all should strive after. Good; but
the Secularist conceives it his duty to promote the
general welfare. Happiness is not a degrading thing,
but a source of elevation. We have all enjoyed that
wonderful catechism of Pig-Philosophy in Latter-Day
Pamphlets. What a scathing satire on the wretched
Jesuitism abounding within and without the Churches,
and bearing such malign and malodorous fruit! But
it is not the necessary antithesis to the Religion of
Sorrow. It is the mongrel makeshift of those “ whose
gospel is their maw,” whose swinish egotism makes
t’lem contemplate Nature as a universal Swine’sTrough, with plenty of pig’s wash for those who can
thrust their fellows aside and get their paw in it. The
Religion of Gladness is a different thing from this.
Let us hear its great prophet Spinoza, one of the
purest and noblest of modern minds : “Joy is the
passage from a less to a greater perfection; sorrow is
tionists, believe morality to have had a natural origin. Mr.
Wake, however, in his valuable work, The Evolution of Morality,
while admitting and powerfully illustrating its natural develop
ment, apparently holds that its origin was supernatural, the germs
of all the virtues having been divinely implanted in our primitive
ancestors! Evidently the old superstition about '‘the meat
roasting power of the meat-jack ” is not yet altogether extinct.
2 Sermon on “ The Pleasantness of Religion.’’
�Philosophy of Secularism.
21
the passage from a greater to a less perfection.” No ;
suffering only tries, it does not nourish us; it proves
our capacity, but does not produce it. What, after all,
is happiness ? It consists in the fullest healthy exer
cise of all our faculties, and is as various as they. Far
from ignoble, it implies the highest normal develop
ment of- our nature, the dream of Utopists from Plato
downwards. And therefore, in affirming happiness to
be the great purpose of social life, Secularism makes
its moral law coincident with the law of man’s progress
towards attainable perfection.
Motives to righteousness Secularism finds m human
nature.
Since the evolution of morality has been
traced by scientific thinkers the idea of our moral sense
having had a supernatural origin has vanished into the
limbo of superstitions. Our social sympathies are a
natural growth, and may be indefinitely developed in
the future by the same means which have developed
them in the past. Morality and theology are essentially
distinct. The ground and guarantee of morality are
independent of any theological belief. When we are
in earnest about the right we need no incitement from
above. Morality has its natural ground in experience
and reason, in the common nature and common wants
of mankind. Wherever sentient beings live together
in a social state, simple or complex, laws of morality
must arise, for they are simply the permanent condi
tions of social health ; and even if men entertained no
belief in any supernatural power, they would still
recognise and submit to the laws upon which societary
welfare depends. “ Even,” says Dr. Martineau,3
3 Nineteenth Century, April, 1877.
�22
Philosophy of Secularism.
“ though we came out of nothing, and returned to
nothing, we should be subject to the claim of righteous
ness so long as we are what we are: morals have their
own base, and are second to nothing.” Emerson, a
religious transcendentalist, also admits that “ Truth,
frankness, courage, love, humility, and all the virtues,
range themselves on the side of prudence, or the aid
of securing a present well-being.”4 The love professed
by piety to God is the same feeling, though differently
directed, which prompts the commonest generosities
and succors of daily life. All moral appeals must
ultimately be made to our human sympathies. Theo
logical appeals are essentially not moral, but immoral.
The hope of heaven and the fear of hell are motives
purely personal and selfish. Their tendency is rather
to make men worse than better. They may secure a
grudging compliance with prescribed rules, but they
must depress character instead of elevating it. They
tend to concentrate a man’s whole attention on himself,
and thus to develope and intensify his selfish propensi
ties. No man, as Dr. Martineau many years ago
observed, can faithfully follow his highest moral con
ceptions who is continually casting side glances at the
prospects of his own soul. Secularism appeals to no
lust after posthumous rewards or dread of posthumous
terrors, but to that fraternal feeling which is the vital
essence of all true religion and has prompted heroic
self-sacrifice in all ages and climes. It removes moral
causation from the next world to this. It teaches that
the harvest of our sowing will be reaped here, and to
4 Essay on Prudence.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
23
the last grain eaten, by ourselves or others. Every
act of our lives affects the whole subsequent history of
our race. Our mental and moral like our bodily lungs
have their appropriate atmospheres, of which every
thought, word, and act, becomes a constituent atom.5
Incessantly around us goes on the conflict of good and
evil, which a word, a gesture, a look of ours changes.
And we cannot tell how great may be the influence of
the least of these, for in nature all things hang together,
and the greatest effects may flow from causes seeminglv
slight and inconsiderable/’ When we thoroughly lay
this to heart, and reflect that no contrition or remorse
5 Wherever men are gathered, all the air
Is charged with human feeling, human thought;
Each shout and cry and laugh, each curse and prayer
Are into its vibrations surely wrought;
Unspoken passion, wordless meditation,
Are breathed into it with our respiration ;
It is with our life fraught and overfraught.
So that no man there breathes earth’s simple breath
As if alone on mountains or wide seas ;
But nourishes warm life or hastens death
With joys and sorrows, health and foul disease,
Wisdom and folly, good and evil labors
Incessant of his multitudinous neighbors ;
He in his turn affecting all of these.
James Thomson, City of Dreadful Night.
G The importance of individual action, even on the part of the
meanest, is well expressed by George Eliot in the concluding
sentence of Middlemarch :—
" The growing good of the wor’d is partly dependent on unhistoric acts ;
and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is
half owing to the numbers who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in
unvisited tombs.”
Even more memorable is the great saying attributed to Krishna,
—“ He who does nothing stays the progress of the world.”
�24
Philosophy of Secularism.
can undo the past or efface the slightest record from the
everlasting Book of Fate, we shall be more strongly re
strained from evil and impelled to good than we could
be by supernatural promises or threats. The promises
may be mistrusted, the threats nullified by a late
repentance; but the natural issues of conduct are in
evitable and must be faced. Whatever the future
may hold in store, Secularism bids us be true to our
selves and our opportunities now. It does not under
take to determine the vexed question of God’s exist
ence, which it leaves each to decide for himself
according to what light he has; nor does it dog
matically deny the possibility of a future life. But it
insists on utilising to the highest the possibilities that
lie before us, and realising as far as may be by prac
tical agencies that Earthly Paradise which would now
be less remote if one-tithe of the time, the energy, the
ability, the enthusiasm and the wealth devoted to
making men fit candidates for another life had been
devoted to making them fit citizens of this. If theie
be a future life, this must be the best preparation for
it; and if not, the consciousness of humane work
achieved and duty done, will tint with rainbow and
orient colors the mists of death more surely than
expected glories from the vague and mystic land of
dreams.
There are those who cannot believe in any effective
morality, much less any devotion to disinterested aims,
without the positive certainty of immortal life. Under
a pretence of piety they cloak the most grovelling
estimate of human nature, which, with all its faults
is infinitely better than their conception of it. Even
�Philosophy of Secularism.
25
their love and reverence of God would seem foolish
ness unless they were assured of living for ever.
Withdraw posthumous hopes and fears, say they, and
“ let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die ” would be
the sanest philosophy. In his grave way Spinoza
satirises this “ vulgar opinion,” which enjoins a regu
lation of life according to the passions by those who have
“ persuaded themselves that the souls perish with the
bodies, and that there is not a second life for the
miserable who have borne the crushing weight of piety ” ;
“ a conduct,” he adds, “ as absurd, in my opinion, as
that of a man who should fill his body with poisons
and deadly food, for the fine reason that he had no
hope to enjoy wholesome nourishment for all eternity,
or who, seeing that the soul is not eternal or immortal,
should renounce his reason, and wish to become insane ;
things so proposterous that they are scarcely worth
mention.”
Others, again, deny that a philosophy which ignores
the Infinite can have any grand ideal capable of lifting
us above the petty tumults and sordid passions of life.
But surely the idea of service to the great Humanity,
whose past and future are to us practically infinite, is
a conception vast enough for our finite minds. The
instincts of Love, Reverence, and Service may be fully
exercised and satisfied by devotion to a purely human
ideal, without resort to unverifiable dogmas and inscrutible mysteries; and Secularism, which bids us
think and act so that the great Human Family may
profit by our lives, which exhorts us to labor for human
progress and elevation here on earth, where effort may
be effective and sacrifices must be real, is more pro
�26
Philosophy of Secularism.
foundly noble than any supernatural creed, and holds
the promise of a wider and loftier beneficence.
Secularism is often said to be atheistic. It is, how
ever, neither atheistic nor theistic. It ignores the
problem of God’s existence, which seems insoluble to
finite intellects, and confines itself to the practical
world of experience, without commending or forbidding
speculation on matters that transcend it. Unquestion
ably many Secularists are Atheists, but others are
Theists, and this shows the compatibility of Secularism
with either a positive or a negative attitude towards
the hypothesis of a supreme universal intelligence.
There is no atheistic declaration in the principles of
any existing Secular society, although all are unanimous
in opposing theology, which is at best an elaborate
conjecture, and at the worst an elaborate and pernicious
imposture.
Educated humanity has now arrived at the positive
stage of culture. Imagination, it is true, will ever
holds its legitimate province; but it is the kindling and
not the guiding element in our nature. When exer
cising its proper influence it invests all things with “ a
light that never was on sea or land ” ; it transforms
lust into love, it creates the ideal, it nurtures enthu
siasm, it produces heroism, it suggests all the glories of
art, and even lends wings to the intellect of the
scientist. But when it is substituted for knowledge,
when it aims at becoming the leader instead of the
kindler, it is a Phaeton who drives to disaster and ruin.
It is degrading, or at any rate perilous, to be the dupe
of fancy, however beautiful or magnificent. Reason
should always hold sovereign sway in our minds, and
�Philosophy of Secularism.
reason tells us that we live in a universe of cause and
effect, where ends must be accomplished by means, and
where man himself is largely fashioned by circum
stances. Reason tells us that our faculties are limited
and that our knowledge is relative ; it enjoins us to
believe what is ascertained, to give assent to no pro
position of whose truth we are not assured, and to
walk in the light of facts. This may seem a humble
philosophy, but it is sound and not uncheerful, and it
stands the wear and tear of life when prouder philoso
phies are often reduced to rags and tatters. Nor is it
just to call this philosophy “ negative.” Every system,
indeed, is negative to every other system which it in
anywise contradicts ; but in what other sense can a
system be called negative, which leaves men all science
to study, all art to pursue and enjoy, and all humanity
to love and serve? It declines to traffic in supernatural
hopes and fears, but it preserves all the sacred things
of civilisation, and gives a deeper meaning to such
words as husband and wife, father and mother, brother
and sister, lover and friend.
Incidentally, however, Secularism has what some
will always persist in regarding as negative work. It
finds noxious superstitions impeding its path, and
must oppose them. It cannot ignore orthodoxy,
although it would be glad to do so, for the dogmas and
pretensions of the popular creed hinder its progress
and thwart Secular improvement at every step.
Favored and privileged and largely supported by the
Statj, they usurp a fictitious dignity over less popular
ideas. They thrust themselves into education, insist
on teaching supernaturalism with the multiplication
�28
Philosophy of Secularism.
table, dose the scholars with Jewish mythology as
though it were actual history, and assist their moral
development with pictures of Daniel in the lions’ den
and Jesus walking on the sea. They employ vast
wealth in preparing for another world, which might
be more profitably employed in bettering this. They
prevent us from spending our Sunday rationally,
refusing us any alternative but the church or the
public-house. They deprive honest sceptics as far as
possible of the common rights of citizenship.7 They
retard a host of reforms,8 and still do their utmost to
7 Nearly every leading Secularist lias suffered in this respect.
Mr. G. J. Holyoake was imprisoned for blasphemy ; Mr. Brad
laugh had to win the seat which Northampton gave him, by
means of almost superhuman energy and resource, in the face of
the most bigoted and brutal opposition ; Mrs. Besant was and is
robbed of her child by an order of the Court of Chancery ;
and in would be a false modesty not to add that I have
suffered twelve-months’ imprisonment as an ordinary criminal
for editing a Freethought journal.—Here is another fact which
must not be forgotten. Mr. Spencer, a Secularist of Manchester,
left £500 in his will to assist in building a Secular Hall in that
city ; but the will was contested by the Christian residuary
legatee, and the Court set aside the bequest. Money cannot,
therefore, be left to propagate Secularism, which is practically
outlawed. This incident occurred so late as 1886.
8 The Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill is steadily opposed as con
trary to Christian tradition.
Scarcely any but theological
arguments are used against it, and the Bishops fight it as though
they were defending the very citadel of their faith.—Down at
Middlesborough, quite recently, the County Council decided to
erect a crematorium in the interest of the public health, while
leaving the cemetery open as before for all who wished their
bodies to be disposed of in the orthodox fashion. But before
the project could be carried out the Vicar of All Saints called a
public meeting to protest against this “ outrage on the Christian
sentiment of the community.” Religious prejudice was pro
foundly excited by these tactics, the medical officer of health
was mobbed by infuriated females, the mayor received anonymous
warnings to prepare for his latter end, and finally the project had
to be abandoned.
�Philosophy of Secularism.
29
suppress or curtail freedom of thought and speech.
While all this continues, Secularism must actively
oppose the popular creed. Nor is it just on the part
of Christians to stigmatise this aggressive attitude.
They forget that their faith was vigorously and per
sistently aggressive against Paganism. Secularism
may surely imitate that example, although it neither
intends nor desires to demolish the temples of Chris
tianity as the early Christians, headed by their bishops,
destroyed the temples of Paganism and desecrated its
shrines.
Properly speaking, Secularism is doing a positive,
not a negative, work in destroying superstition. Every
error removed makes room for a truth; and if super
stition is a kind of mental disease, he who expels it is
a mental physician. His work is no more negative
than the doctor's who combats a bodily malady, drives
it out of the system, and leaves his patient in the full
possession of health.
Secular propaganda, by means of lectures, journals,
and pamphlets, conducted for so many years, has pro
duced a considerable effect on the public mind. A
great change has been wrought during the past gene
ration. Much of it has been accomplished by science,
but much also by the energetic labors of Secular advo
cates. Yet it must be admitted that Secular organisa
tion is relatively defective. The reason of this, how
ever, is by no means recondite. Secularism, as a
distinct system, came into existence with the decline
of the Socialist movement inaugurated by Robert Owen.
When Socialism began to alarm the upper classes fifty
years ago, the ministers of religion, conveniently for
�30
1 hilosophy of Secularism.
getting that the first Christians were communists,
declared war against it, and made its followers deter
mined foes to Christianity. When their movement
subsided, the Socialists who were still eager for work
accepted the new designation of Secularist, and these
poor malcontents became the moving spirits of the new
faith. Thus Secularism grew up, like every other
system the world has ever seen, amidst distressing
poverty; and as organisation is impossible in these davs
without money, the development of Secular organisa
tion is painfully slow.
Wealthy and “respectable” dissenters from the
popular creed generally keep their heresy to themselves.
They have given too many hostages to Mrs. Grundy,
and are nearly in the same position as the Church of
England clergyman who sympathised with Wesleyanlsm but did not join it, giving nine solid reasons against
doing so, namely, a wife and eight children. Some of
them, doubtless, would leave money for the promotion
of Secularism, but it has already been shown that this
is impossible in the existing state of English law. For
these reasons, and also because Secularism, like all new
systems, appeals to the dissatisfied rather than the con
tented, its staunchest adherents are found among the
elite of the working classes. Inquire closely into the
personnel of advanced movements, and you will find
Secularists there out of all proportion to their nume
rical strength. They are obliged to work in this indi
vidual manner, for the bigotry against Secularism is
still so strong that few dare to recognise its organi
sations. They have always assisted the cause of
National Education, and now it is carried they are
�Philosophy of Secularism.
31
getting their members on School Boards, and doing
their utmost to improve the quality of the instruction
given to children, as well as to preserve them from the
nefarious influence of priests. They promote Sunday
freedom, they are advocates of international peace,
they are sturdy friends of justice, they are firm sup
porters of the emancipation of women, they are lovers
of mental and personal liberty, and they are actively
on the side of every political and social reform. Their
votes can always be depended upon ; no one needs to
solicit them. Where Christians may be they are sure
to be; not because they necessarily have better hearts
than their orthodox neighbors, but because their prin
ciples impel them to fight for Liberty, Equality, and
Fraternity, irrespective of nationality, race, sex, or
creed; and prompt them to exclaim, in the sublime
language of Thomas Paine, “ the world is my country,
and to do good is my religion.”
Printed and Published by G-. W. Foors, at 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
�MR. FOOTE’S
BOOKS
and
PAMPHLETS.
2
6
... '...2
6
PRISONER, FOR BLASPHEMY. Cloth ...............
A Full History of his Three Trials and Twelve
Mouths’ Imprisonment.
Copies in paper covers,
soil d, 6d.
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. Vol. T.
In collaboration with J. M. Wheel r.
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?
..........................
...
Four Nights’ Public Debate with Annie Besaut.
Ditto in cloth, 2s.
1
o
CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM
..............
Four Nights’ Public Debate vith the Rev. Dr. James
McCann; in paper covers. Bound in cloth, is. 6d.
1
0
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS
.......................................... 0
Seco..d edition, enlarged.
Ditto in cloth..............................................................................
8
DARWIN ON GOD..................................................................
6
3
DEFENCE OF FREE SPEECH
.......................... 0 4
Tiuve Hours’ Address to the Jury before Lord Cole
ridge.
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST
THE BIBLE GOD
.............................. 0
4
.................................................................. 0 2
.......................................... 0
2
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.............................. 0
A Reply to Mr. Gladstone.
2
WHAT WAS CHRIST? ... '
A Reply to J. S. Mill.
0
2
WAS JESUS INSANE ?...................................................... 0
A searching inquiry into the mental condition of the
Prophet of Na areth.
1
THE SHADOW OF THE SWORD..........................
0
2
ROYAL PAUPERS ...
0
THE FOLLY OF PRAYER
......................................
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The philosophy of secularism
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. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. First published 1879 "under a slightly different title"--Note inside front cover. "Mr Foote's books and pamphlets" listed on back cover.
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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N258
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 (The philosophy of secularism), 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
Secularism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/beae9e13b142a64f2281a3ce30fddfb5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PQ4HM7nHM3NZcbMr8J-KIBtYlAcVvaA0uCF3lD8atqr63SSYhbtMr7deWUnVH4TTDOQEbfrAuIVdSEoQIZwYyxWtw6RkN9YPnGMDdCFBo6w42nXFOuJfvGfofr7FBjlJj1UurCCAoYL4sxnupDzz2n-m65VkRhGmYvGdDqM4FZmapYVOlqnR8dW6xwoQsMMh4QUNX1e8K%7EMupmRjqVQbhM8qVEbPjaAXEZf0mqyG2-3gAkBUirnw2xAJY%7E9l9TUciodwiGZy-fRSxdIj0cpX4SJc6dZIwRoFsE1TgrauE8jGJ9-TAg2ann0mBB2nhhfsEZx7zewTLle2tOvaNP5NmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1a0c132fe7880897ecb9589b1658d081
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
DEFENCE
BEING A
THREE HOURS’ ADDRESS TO THE JURY
IN THE
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH
BEFORE
LORD COLERIDGE
On APRIL gj, 1.883,
BY
W.
ZE1 O O T ZE
(Editor of the “ Freethinker.”')
New Edition
with
Intboduction
and
Footnotes.
5<rnbon:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING
COMPANY, )
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1889.
��DEFENCE
OF
FREE
SPEECH
BEING A
THREE HOURS’ ADDRESS TO THE JURY
IN THE
COURT OF QUEENS RENCIT
BEFOBE
LORD COLERIDGE
On APRIL S4, 1883,
BY
CG.
NET.
FOOTE
(Editor of the “ Freethinker.”j
New Edition
PROGRESSIVE
.
with
Introduction
and
gLinbnn:
PUBLISHING
Footnotes.
COMPANY
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1889.
�LONDON :
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�INTRODUCTION.
Me. Bradlaugh has introduced a Bill in the House of
Commons for the repeal of the Blasphemy Laws. That
Bill has been rejected by a majority of 141 to 46
votes. This is sufficiently decisive as to the immedi
ate prospects of such a measure. The speeches of
straightforward bigots like Colonel Sandys, and of
. canting bigots like Mr. Samuel Smith, reveal the sort
of opposition Mr. Bradlaugh’s bill will have to over
come before it passes into law.
In these circumstances I have thought it advisable
to reprint my defence before Lord Coleridge on the
occasion of my second trial for blasphemy in the Court
of the Queen’s Bench. My first trjal was at the Old
Bailey before Mr. Justice North. This judge played
the part of a prosecuting counsel; he treated me with
the grossest incivility, and the scandal of his conduct
elicited protests from the Liberal section of the public
Press. On Thursday, March 1, 1883, the case was first
heard. I addressed the jury in a speech of three hours*
duration, and the result was a disagreement. On
the following Monday, March 5, the case was heard
again. This time the jury, which had the appearance
of being carefully selected, returned a verdict of Guilty
without leaving the box ; and I was sentenced to
twelve months’ imprisonment as an ordinary criminal.
A previous indictment, which also included Mr.
Bradlaugh, as well as Mr. Ramsey, had been hanging
�Introduction.
over me for several months. It had been removed by
a writ of certiorari to the Court of Queen’s Bench,
where it- was placed in the Crown List and did not
come on for hearing until two months after my
sentence on the second indictment.
My defence was therefore prepared in a prison cell.
The conditions were in one sense unfavourable,
although I was supplied with books and papers for
the purpose, and certain relaxations were allowed me
in the matter of visits through the kindness of Lord
Coleridge, whose generosity will ever live in my
memory.
But the situation had its compensations.
The dreary monotony of prison life was broken, its
darkness was relieved by light from the great world
outside, my spirits were cheered by intellectual occu
pation, and I enjoyed the advantage of preparing my
defence without the distractions of ordinary daily life.
During the delivery of my speech to the jury Lord
Coleridge listened with rapt attention. When it closed
he adjourned the court until the next morning, and
“that,” he said to the jury, “will give you a full
opportunity of reflecting calmly on the very striking
and able speech you have just heard.”
Let me not be suspected of vanity. My object in
quoting his lordship’s words is not to air my own ac
complishments, of whose limitations no one is more
sensible than myself. I simply desire to remove an
impression which is less injurious to me than to the
cause I have the honor to advocate. Lord Coleridge’s
praise, of my speech is an exalted testimony to the
truth that “ blasphemers ” are not necessarily an abject
species, and that Christianity may be fiercely and
contemptuously assailed by men who are many degrees
removed from the condition of vulgar brawlers.
�Introduction.
*
v.
It would have given me pleasure to include his
lordship’s Judgment in this reprint, but as he has pub
lished it himself in the form of a pamphlet, I did not
feel at liberty to do so. I have, however, givefl some
extracts in the footnotes, the object of which is to
elucidate my speech without the reader’s having to
peruse other publications. Those who care to pursue
the subject will find a full account of my trials and
imprisonment in a volume entitled Prisoner for
Blasphemy.
The leading counsel for the prosecution at my trials
was Sir Hardinge Giffard, now Lord Halsbury. This
gentleman is a Tory, and a bigot of the first water. He
believes, or affects to believe, that there are no honest
men in the world but those of his own Church. He
conducted the long litigation against Mr. Bradlaugh
with signal unsuccess, and he succeeded in sending me
to prison. This is the extent of his services to the
Tory cause, and it must be admitted that he has reaped
a handsome reward. As Lord Chancellor he enjoys a
salary of £10,000 a year, with a retiring pension of
£5,000 as long as he lingers in this vale of tears.
It only remains to add that the jury, after being
locked up for three hours, found it impossible to agree
I have since ascertained that three jurymen held out
obstinately against a verdict of Guilty. This was more
than sufficient. While one juryman holds out, bigotry
has fingers to grasp with, but no thumb. Sir Hardinge
Giffaxd saw this, and the prosecution was abandoned.
May 25, lRl...
G. W. FOOTE.
�COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH.
April 24, 1883.
Lord Coleridge presiding.
MR. FOOTE'S SPEECH IN DEFENCE.
My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury,—
I am very happy, not to stand in this position, but to
learn what I had not learned before—how a criminal
trial should be conducted, notwithstanding that two
months ago I was tried in another court, and before
another judge. Fortunately, the learned counsel who
are Conducting this prosecution have not now a judge
who will allow them to walk out of court while he
argues their brief for them in their absence.1
Lord Coleridge : You must learn one more lesson,
Mr. Foote, and that is, that one judge cannot hear
another judge censured or even commended.
Mr. Foote : My lord, I thank you for the correction,
and I will simply, therefore, confine what observations
I might have made on that head to the emphatic state
ment that I have learnt to-day, for the first time—
although this is the second time I have had to answer
a criminal charge—how a criminal trial should be
conducted.
Notwithstanding the terrible natKe of jmy posi
tion, there is some consolation in being able,
1 Judge North, who presided at my trial at the Old Bailey,
practically held Sir Hardinge Giffard’s brief. After his opening
speech the counsel walked out of court and never returned,
knowing the case was in very good hands.
�Defence of Free Speech.
7
for the first time in two months, to talk to twelve
honest men. Two months ago I fell amongst fMeves,
and have had to remain in their society ever aajice, so
long as I have been in any society at all. Ifife not my
intention, it is not even my wish, to go over the ground
which was traversed by my co-defendent in his pathetic
account of the mental difficulties which attended
the preparation of his defence ; but I will add, that
although we have profited—I may say in especial by
the facilities which his lordship so kindly ordered for
us, and by the kind consideration of the governor of
Holloway Gaol—yet it has been altogether impossible,
in the midst of such depressing circumstances, for a
man to do any justice to such a case as I have to main
tain.
Prison diet, gentlemen, to begin with—a
material item—is not of the most invigorating character.
(Laughter.) My blood is to some extent impoverished,
my faculties are to a large extent weakened, and it is
only with considerable difficulty that I shall be able to
make them obey the mandate of my will.2 The mental
circumstances, how depressing have they been I In
looking over a law book I saw something about solitary
confinement as only being allowable for one month at a
time, and for not more than three months in one year.
What the nature of the confinement is I am unable to
ascertain, but it strikes me that twenty-three hours’
confinement out of twenty-four, in a small cell about
six feet wide, comes as close as possible to any reason
able definition of solitary confinement.3 Still it is no
2 I had been treated in prison like an ordinary criminal, wearing
prison clothes and eating prison food. The sudden and complete
change of diet disordered my stomach, and I suffered severely
from diarrhoea, Lord Coleridge was shocked on learning of my
treatment. “ I have,” he said in open court, “ just been informed,
and I hardly knewTt before, what such imprisonment as yours
means, and what in the form it has been inflicted upon you it
must meaa®MWHBj|that I do know of it, I will take care that
the proper amthori uW know of it also.”
3 1 had befen locked up in a brick cell twelve feet by six, with
no books to read. One hour in every twenty-four was allowed for
exercise^rBwmfeonsisted in walking round a ring with other pri
soners. After this abortive trial I was allowed two hours, one in
the morning and one in the afternoon. It was a most welcome
relief.
�8
Defence of Free Speech.
use wearying you with the difficulties that have
attended the preparation of my defence. This much,
however, must be said in connection with it>; that a
change has come over the method of treating those who
are found guilty and sentenced to punishment under
these laws. Gentlemen, as a matter of fact, an indis
putable matter of fact, I and my co-defendants are
undergoing essentially the severest punishment that
has been inflicted for any blasphemous libel for the
last 120 years. Since Peter Annett’s confinement in
Clerkenwell Gaol with twelve month’s hard labor, in
the year 1763, there has been no punishment meted out
to a, Freethought publisher or writer at all approxi
mating to what we have to undergo. The sentence,
even before the law practically fell into disuse, from
forty to fifty years ago, gradually dwindled to six,
four, and three months. My sentence, gentlemen, was
twelve months. Again, prisoners were nearly all
treated as first-class misdemeanants —as far as I can
ascertain, all were—they were not sentenced to twelve
months—not merely of intellectual death—but of
conscious intellectual death. They were not debarred
from access to their friends, and most of them even
carried on their literary work, and supported those
near and dear to them. We have to depend on the
charity of those who, notwithstanding the position in
which we stood two months ago, and stand now, do
not esteem us the less—who understand that there is a
great vital principle struck at through us, however
unworthy we may be to defend it, and who in lending
their aid to see that our interests do not suffer so much
as they otherwise would, are actuated by more than
friendship for us, by their love of that principle which
has been assailed by our conviction,^ sentence, and
committal to gaol, and is again assailed in ,the prose
cution which is being conducted here to-day.
A change, gentlemen, has come over the public
mind with respect to heresy and blasphefli^ which
every reader of history finds intelligibly Religious
bigotry is nevei’ more vicious than when it has a large
infusion of hypocrisy. While people feel that their
cause can be defended by argument they are ready to.
�Defence of Free Speech.
9
defend it by those means. While they feel that super
natural power is maintaining their creed they are to a
large extent content in trusting their cause to the deity
in whom they believe. But when they feel that the
ground, intellectually and morally, is slipping away
under their feet ; when they feel that the major portion
of the intellectual power of their day and generation
is arrayed against their creed, when it is not scornful
or indifferent to it ; when, in short, the creed is not
only losing its members’ brains, but its own wits ; then
it turns in wrath, not upon the high-class heretics who
are striking week after week the most deadly blow’s at
the creed in which these prosecutors profess to believe,
but at those who happen to be poor and comparatively
obscure. These poorer and more pronounced Free
thinkers are made the scapegoats for the more respect
able Agnosticism of the day, which is more cultured,
but infinitely more hypocritical. The martyrdom of
olden times had something of the heroic in it. A man
was led out to death. He could summon courage for
the minutes or hours during which he still had to face
his enemies. They placed faggots round his funeral
pyre. In a few minutes, at the outside, life ended ;
and a man might nerve himself to meet the worst
under such circumstances. Then also the persecutors
had the courage of the principles on which they pro
ceeded, and said, “ We do this to the heretic in the
name of God; we do it because he has outraged the
dignity of God, and because he has preached ideas that
are leading others. to eternal destruction with him.”
But now orthodoxy has a large infusion of hypocrisy ;
like Pilate, it washes its hands. But, gentlemen, all
its pretences will be discounted, I believe, by you.
When it is said, “ We don’t do this in the interests of
outraged Omnipotence, and we, the finite, are not
arrogantly championing the power, or even the dignity
of omnipotence when they say “We are only carrying
out a measure of social sanitation, and preventing men
from making indecent attacks on the feelings of
others
you will agree with me in believing that this
is hypocrisy and cowardice too. Looked at clearly, it
is utterly impossible that you can draw any line of
�10
Defence of Free Speech.
demarcation between the manner of controversy in
religion and that in politics, or any other department
of intellectual activity, unless you make a difference
as to the matter, unless you go the full length of the
principle which is implied, and logically say: “ We
do so because religion is not as these. There is matter
as well as manner, and we protect the feelings of men
with respect to these subjects, because there is invul
nerable truth somewhere imbedded in the'ir belief, and
we will not allow it to be assailed.”
I will now dismiss that, and will ask your attention,
before I proceed to deal with matters of more import
ance, and certainly more dignity, to some remarks that
fell from the lips of the junior counsel for the prose
cution in what he called the temporary absence of his
leader—a temporary absence which has turned out to
be considerably protracted. One remark he made use
of was that we had attempted to make a wicked and
nefarious profit out of the trade in these blasphemous
libels. That seemed to me to be very superfluous,
because if, as he held, the libels were wicked andnefarious, there was no need to say anything about the
nature of the profit. But he himself ought to know—
at any rate his leader would have known—that a pas
sage was read at our previous trial, and used as
evidence against me in particlar—a passage which
distinctly stated that notwithstanding the large sale—
and a large sale is always a comparative term, for what
may be a large sale for the Freethinker would not be
large for the Times—the proprietor was many pounds
out of pocket. The learned counsel for the prosecution,
I daresay, knew that, but then it suited his denuncia
tory style to talk about wicked and nefarious profit.
(Laughter.) I have no doubt he makes profit out of
the prosecution—it is his business. You can get any
quantity of that sort of thing by ordering it, provided
you at the same time give some guarantee that, after
ordering, it will be paid for. He spoke of a blustering
challenge which was thrown out in one of the alleged
libels, and he gave you a quotation from it in which
the word “ blasphemy ” was used. The report said
that a man at Tunbridge Wells was being prosecuted
i
�Defence of Dree Speech.
11
for blasphemy.4 The learned counsel omitted to tell
you what you will find by referring to the Indictment,,
that the word “ blasphemy ’’ is between inverted
commas, which shows it was employed there, not in
the sense of the writer, but as a vague word, to which
he might not attach the same meaning as those using
it. So much for that.
And now one word more as to his introduction
before I proceed. The word “licentiousness” was
introduced. The word “decency” was introduced.
I have to complain of all this. I propose to follow the'
method which was followed in Mr. Bradlaugh’s trial
some days ago in this court, and had the full approval
of his lordship. I don’t propose to do what the junior
counsel for the prosecution did, notwithstanding he
said he would not, and read to you any passages from
those alleged libels. Although I do that, I feel what
an immense disadvantage results to me because the
words “ indecency,” “ licentiousness,” are bandied
about outside before the great jury of public opinion';
and we may in this way be pronounced guilty and
sentenced for offences which people outside have never
had properly explained to them. Thus we are brought
in guilty of blasphemy, and people say we should have
been so sentenced and and punished because our.
attack was indecent. Now, the word “ indecency,” as
you know, has a twofold meaning. It may mean un
becoming or obscene.5 People will take which meaning
best suits their purpose, and so we are at this great
disadvantage when none of these libels are read out,
4 Mr. Seymour had been prosecuted for Blasphemy at Tunbridge
Wells, found guilty, and bound over to come up for judgment. I
had denounced the cowardice of attacking obscure Freethinkers
and leaving their leaders unmolested.
5 Lord Coleridge very handsomely assisted me on this point.
In his summing-up he said to the jury:—“Mr. Foote is anxious
to have it impressed on you that he is not a licentious writer, and
that this word does not fairly apply to his publications. You will
have the documents before you, and you must judge for your
selves. I should say that he is right. He may be blasphemous,
but he certainly is not licentious, in the ordinary sense of the
■word, and you do not find him pandering to the bad passions of
mankind.”
�12
Defence of Free Speech.
that we may be brought in guilty of one charge and sent
to prison on it, and people outside may think that we
are really guilty of another offence and actually
punished for that, the other being a cloak and pretence.
I leave the junior counsel for the prosecution.
My co-defendant has referred to the impolicy of
these prosecutions. I wish to say a word or two on
that head. They have one great disadvantage from the
point of view of the prosecution—they advertise and
disseminate widely the very opinions which they try
to suppress ; and it seems to me if our prosecutors
were honest and had the interests of their professed
principles at heart, they would shrink from taking any
such steps. Then again, history shows us that no work
that was ever prosecuted was successfully put down.
There was only one method of persecution that
succeeded, and that was persecution to the extent of
extermination. If you take the case of the massacre
of the Albigenses, or take the case of early Christian
llteresies—the very names of which read as the names
of some old fossil things that belonged to a different
era of the world’s history—you will find wherever a
sect has been crushed out it has been by extermination
—that is, by putting to death everybody suspected of
holding the objectionable opinion : but when books
and pamphlets have been prosecuted they have never
been put down. Unless you can seize and secure
everybody infected with heresy, naturally you arouse
theii* indignation and excite their fervor—you make
those who were before critics afterwards fanatics, and
consequently they fight all the harder for the cause
attacked. Paine’s Age of Reason was a prose'cuted
work. Richard Carlile was sent to gaol for nine
years for selling it ; his wife and sister were sent to
gaol; shopman after shopman went to gaol. You
would have thought that would have suppressed the
Age of Reason; yet, as a matter of fact, that work still
has a large circulation, and a Sale all the larger because
of the prosecutions instituted against it fifty or sixty
years ago. Take the case of a prosecuted work
belonging to another class of literature—a pamphlet
published by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant, the pro
�Defence of Free Speech.
13
sedition of which, was denounced by the then Lord
Chief Justice from the Bench. By that prosecution, a
work that had been circulated at the rsjte of one
hundred per year for forty years, was run up to a sale
of one hundred and seventy-five thousand. It is per
fectly clear, therefore, that in that case the prosecutors
had defeated their own object.
When a question as to the Freethinker was asked
in the House of Commons, so far back as February in
last year, Sir William Harcourt replied that it was the
opinion of all persons who had to do with these matters,
that it was not politic to proceed legally against such a
publication. That answer was made to Mr. Freshfield.
A few days afterwards he made a similar answer to
Mr. Redmond. But there is a class of people who
rush in “ where angels fear to tread,” and the prosecu
tion has unfortunately done that. It is a curious thing,
gentlemen, that all those who have been moving
against the persons who are alleged to be responsible
for the Freethinker, belong to one political party. The
junior counsel for the prosecution told you that no
doubt one of the two defendants would ask you to
believe this was a political move. Every person con
nected with it has been a Tory. Mr. Freshfield
represents the immaculate borough of Dover, and Mr.
Redmond is the representative of a small Irish con
stituency, the whole of whose voters could be conveyed
to Westminster in a very few omnibuses. (Laughter.)
Next, gentlemen, comes the Corporation of the City of
London that secured a verdict against myself and my
co-defendant two months ago. I need not tell you
what the politics of the Corporation of the City of
London are, nor will I undertake to prophesy what
they will be when brought into something like accord
with the spirit of the age by the new Bill which is to
be introduced. The prosecuting counsel, Sir Hardinge
Giffard, is also a Tory. I don’t mean to say that he is
the worse for that. Every man has a right to belong
to which political party he pleases. Tory, Whig, Con
servative and Liberal, are great historic names, and
men of genius and high character may be found on
both sides. But it is a curious thing that this prosecu-
�■K
14
Dejence of Free Speech.
tion should be conducted so entirely by men of one
political persuasion, while those struck at belong to
the extreme opposite political persuasion. These two
things should operate in your minds, and influence
your views as to the motives which animate those who
conceived this persecution, and find the funds to carry
it out. And last, though not least, we have sir Henry
Tyler, also a Tory of the deepest dye, who has been the
pronounced and bitter public enemy of Mr. Bradlaugh,»
one of my co-defendants who is released from his
position of danger by a verdict of acquittal. At my
previous trial the jury were told that the real prosecutor
was not the City Corporation but our lady the Queen.
I am very glad indeed to be able to rely on the
authority of his lord ship in saying that the nominal
prosecutor in this case is the Queen, and the actual
prosecutor who sets the Crown in motion is Sir Henry
Tyler. Now, gentlemen, what was the real reason for
Sir Henry Tyler’s moving in this case at all ? Sir
Henry Tyler was known to be engaged in the City in
financial pursuits. He was known to be a dexterous
financier and an experienced director of public com
panies. He was known to be not so much loved by
shareholders as by political friends, and you would
think if outraged deity wanted a champion, Sir Henry
Tyler would be one of the last persons who would
receive an application. (Laughter.) Sir Henry Tyler
had an enemy in Mr. Bradlaugh. Sir Henry Tyler had
been rebuked in the House of Commons by a minister
of the Crown for his mad antagonism to Mr. Bradlaugh.
It is he who has found all the funds for this prosecu
tion, and I ask you to believe that this prosecution was
initiated and carried on by Sir Henry Tyler and his
political friends for a purely political purpose; to
cripple, if possible, Mr. Bradlaugh, and so to win
through religious prejudice what could not be won by
open political warfare. As I said before, men of genius
and high character are to be found in the two great
political camps, but this is a miserable descent for a
great historic party, which once had its Peels and its
Pitts, and now has its Churchills, its Newdegates, its
Tylers and its Giffards. (Laughter.)
„ ’
't
�Defence of Free Speech.
15
Our offence is blasphemy. The word “blasphemy ”
has a theological meaning as well as a moral <and legal
one ; and directly you put the question theologically,
What is blasphemy ? you are stunned by a babel of
contradictory answers. In our own country the Chris
tian says Jesus Christ is God, and it is blasphemy to
say he is not. A Jew, also a citizen, and who may sit
in our national legislature, says Jesus Christ was not
God, and it is blasphemy to say he was. In short, one
might say, theologically, that blasphemy is entirely a
question of geography ; the answer to the question
will depend upon the country you are in and the time
you put the question. It is a matter of longitude and
latitude, and if we are to rely upon the very loose
view of the law I shall have to refer to, as given by
Starkie, it is a matter of very considerable latitude.
The Bible, which it is alleged we have assailed, does
not help us very much. The blasphemy referred to (n
the Old Testament is simply that of cursing God,
which I suppose no one would do, if even he had a e
monitress like Job’s wife, except his proper position
was not in Holloway Gaol but in Colney Hatch.
(Laughter.) The Jewish law is very unfortunate, and
it is unfortunate to refer to, because it culminated in
the judicial murder of Jesus Christ. And you have
the spirit of the blasphemy law brought out in the
prosecution of Jesus of Nazareth, and, as related in
the Acts of the Apostles, the proceedings for blasphemy
against St. Paul. With the Jews a man was soon
found guilty, and very often after they had stoned him
to death they settled at leisure the question ■whether
he was really guilty or not. It was Pontius Pilate,
who represented the majesty of the law, that stood
between the bigotry of the Jews and their victim.
And you will remember that it was the Roman power,
the secular power, which cared for none of these
things, that St. Paul appealed to and that saved his life
from his J ewish enemies, who would have put him to
death as a blasphemer.
Morally, blasphemy can only be committed by a
person who believes in the existence of the Deity
whom he blasphemes. Lord Brougham has left that
�16
Defence of Free Speech.
on record in his Life of Voltaire. He says that ridicule
or abuse of deities in -whom he doesn't believe is only
ridicule and abuse of ideas which have no meaning to
him, and he cannot be guilty of blasphemy unless he
believes in the being whom he blasphemes.
In
practice, blasphemy means, always did and always will,
a strong attack upon what we happen to believe. The
early Christain used to blaspheme before he gained a
victory over Paganism, and he was put to death. The
Protestant used to blaspheme before he triumphed in
England over the Catholic. The Dissenter blasphemed
before he won political rights as against a domineering
State Church, and he was put to death. The Unitarians
blasphemed and they were imprisoned ; but when they
became a powerful section of the community they
were tolerated, and more extreme Freethinkers became
blasphemers. It is particularly necessary you should
bear this in mind, because you must consider the very
unfair position in which a man stands who is brought
before a tribunal believing in the existence of the deity
and the attributes of the deity, who is said to be blasbhemed in a publication for which it is maintained
he is responsible; and when at the same time they have
to adjudicate, not only upon the matter of it, but the
manner of it. If they dislike the matter they are sure
to object to the manner; and so a man in my position
stands at a dreadful disadvantage.
Blasphemy means
a strong attack upon our belief, whatever it happens to
be—that is, our religous belief; and, curiously enough,
I have noticed many publications which urged that
the blasphemy laws should be amended, and it should
be made a crime to insult any form of religous belief.
I should not oppose any such amendment as that,
because it would very soon reduce the whole thing to
an absurdity; for every sect would be prosecuting
every other sect ; courts of justice would be filled with
disputes, and the whole blasphemy law would have
to be abolished, and every form of opinion would be
equal in the eye of the law, and I hold it should be.
Our indictment is at common law. The great danger
of this is, there is no statute to be appealed to accurately
defining the crime. Blasphemy is not like theft or
�Defence of Free Speech.
17
hiurder—it is more a matter of opinion and taste. And
it really comes to this—that no man can know
thoroughly what a blasphemous libel is ; and no man
can be sure whether he is penning a blasphemous libel
or not ; and the only way to find out what the offence
is, is to go to Holloway Gaol for twelve months, which
is a very unpleasant way of deciding a matter of this
kind. It means that a jury is summoned, and the
matter is put into their hands ; and if they don’t like
it, that is sufficient for a verdict of Guilty. It is a very
unfortunate thing that any man should be tried for
such an offence at common law. Recently, when I
was tried at the Old Bailey, Mr. Justice North, in bis
summing-up, told the jury that any denial of the exist
ence of deity was blasphemy. On the first occasion the
jury, would not bring in a verdict of Guilty, and had to
i)e discharged ; and I was kept in prison until the next
trial took place. Mr. Justice North told the jury on
the second trial nothing of the sort. He left out
altogether the words as to denying the existence
of deity. What made the change in three days ?
It is impossible for me to say. It may be he
thought a conviction easier with such an interpretation
of the law ; or it may be that he had read the comments
in the daily press, and that some alteration had been
made, perhaps for the better. The view which was
entertained by Mr. Justice North does not seem to be
the view entertained by the Lord Chief Justice, in
whose presence, fortunately, I now stand, if I may
judge by nis summing-up on the trial of one of my
co-defendants in this action last week. Then, again,
we. have Mr. Justice Stephen, who is practically at
variance, not only with Mr. Justice North, but with the
still higher authority of his lordship ; so that it would
largely depend, in being tried at common law, whether
one happened to have one’s trial presided over by this
judge or the other. In the particular case I cited, one
jury brought in a verdict of guilty ; but another jury
four days before-^—although the evidence was exactly
the same—declined to. So that you have a double
uncertainty—your fate depends upon the view of
the law entertained by the judge who presides at
�18
Defence of Free Speech.
the trial, and on the tastes and the convictions of the
jury. I submit, gentlemen, that is a very grave defect,
and puts at great disadvantage men who stand in my
position. If a man is to be sent to gaol for twelve
months, blasphemous libel should be defined by statute.
The 9th and 10th William III. is the only statute
dealing with blasphemy. It was held in the Court of
Queen’s Bench when Mr. Bradlaugh moved to quash
the indictment, on which I am now being tried, that
this statute was aimed at specific offenders, and only
laid down so much law as referred to them. No doubt
that is true enough ; but still, if the statute does not
fully define blasphemy, yet everything included within
the statute is clearly blasphemy. There is not a word
about ridicule, abuse or contumely. The statute says
anybody who has professed, the Christian religion
within these realms, shall, for denying the existence
of God, or saying there are more gods than one, or
denying the truth of Christianity, be subject to certain
penalties. The law was called “ferocious” by Mr.
Justice Stephen himself, and it admirably enlightens
us as to the nature of the age in which those Blas
phemy Laws originated.
So that even the statute
appears to contain a view of the law, which the Lord
Chief Justice so considerately said he should not feel
justified in being a party to, unless it were clearer than
it seemed to him.
Having said we were tried at common law, and
dwelt on its disadvantages, I ask what is common law ?
Common law is judge-made law and jury-made law.
Mr. Justice Stephen on this point has some very notable
remarks in the introduction to his Digest of the
Criminal Law:
“ It is not until a very late stage in its history that law is
regarded as a series of commands issued by the sovereign
power of the state. Indeed, even in our own time and
country that conception of it is gaining ground very slowly.
An earlier and, to some extent, a still prevailing view of it is,
that it is more like an art or science, the principles of which
are first enunciated vaguely, and are gradually reduced to
a precision by their application to particular circumstances.
Somehow, no one can say precisely how, though more or less
plausible and instructive conjectures upon the subject may
�Defence of Jbree Speech.
19
beSiade, certain principles came to be accepted as the law of
tn® land, The judges held themselves bound to decide the
eases which came before them according to those principles,
and as new combinations of circumstances threw light on the
way in which they operated, the principles were, in some
cases, more fully developed and qualified, and in others evaded
or practically set at nought and repealed.”
That is precisely what I ask you to do in this case.
I ask you to consider that this common law is merely
old common usage, altogether alien to the spirit of our
age ; and that it cannot be enforced without making
invidious, unfair, and infamous distinctions between
one form of heresy and another ; and I ask you to say
that it shall not be enforced at all if you have any
‘power to prevent it.
Why should you, as a special jury in this High Court
of Justice, not set a new precedent ? I propose briefly
to give a few reasons why you should. Blasphemy,
my co-defendant told you, was a manufactured crime.
I urge that it is altogether alien to the spirit of our
age. The junior counsel for the prosecution said blas
phemy was prosecuted very seldom ; it had not been
prosecuted in the City for fifty years ; and he urged
as a reason that blasphemy was not often committed.
“ For fifty years I” That is not true. From my slight
knowledge of literature, which is not, as one of the
journals gtlid, entirely confined to Tom Paine and the
writings of Mr. Bradlaugh, I could undertake to furnish
the junior counsel for the prosecution with some tons
of blasphemy published during that fifty years ;
although I probably could not find the prosecution
such a powerful motive as they have recently had for
for proceeding against these blasphemous libels. The
law against blasphemy is practically obsolete—the fact
that there have been no such prosecutions for fifty
years ought tn settle that point. Mr. Justice Stephen
himself, as to chapter 17 of his “ Digest,” which
includes the whole of the offences against religion,
says : “ The whole of this law is practically obsolete,
and might be repealed with advantage.” And he further
says it would be sufficient as to blasphemy if the power
of prosecution were confined to the Attorney-General.
In this case the Attorney-General has had nothing to
�Defence of Dree Speech.
do with the prosecution. The j ury were told in another
court that the Public Prosecutor had instituted it. As a
matter of fact, he simply allowed it. The Public Prose
cutor has undergone himself a good deal of ridicule,
and I submit that his allowance or disallowance is
scarcely equivalent to the allowance or disallowance
of the Attorney-General, and certainly not equivalent
to the institution cf proceedings by the AttorneyGeneral. Mr. Justice Stephen says : “My own opinion
is that blasphemy, except cursing and swearing, ought
not to be made the subject of temporal punishment at
all, though, if it tended to produce a breach of the
peace, it might be dealt with on those grounds.” I shall
have a few words to say about breach of the peace
shortly. Thus Mr. Justice Stephen says : “ This law is
practically obsolete,” and further that no temporal
punishment should be inflicted for it.
You. are made the entire judges of this question,
under the very clear language of the celebrated Libel
Act, called “ Fox’s Act,” passed in 1792, to regulate
libel trials. When issue was joined between the Crown
and one or more defendants, it was there laid down
that the jury were not bound to bring in a verdict of
guilty merely on the proof of the publication by such
defendants of a paper, and of the sense ascribed to the
same in the indictment. So that I hold yoti are the
complete judges ; there is no power on earth that can
go behind your judgment. You are not bound to give
a reason for your verdict ; you are simply called upon
to say guilty or not guilty ; and I submit you have a
perfect right to say guilty or not—especially not guilty
—on the broad issue of the question; and thus to
declare that this blasphemy law is utterly alien to the
spirit of our age.
It would be impossible for the old common law to be
enforced now. The old common law was never put in
force against persons who only ridiculed the Christian
religion. Our indictment charges us with bringing
the Christian religion into disbelief ; so that bringing
it into disbelief is blasphemy. That is logical—bring
ing it into disbelief is bringing it into gross contempt.
All the cases, from Nayler down to the latest cases of
�Defence of Free Speech.
21
forty years ago, and as far down as tlie year 1867, turn
upon the right of a man to question and oppose
publicly the truth of the Christian religion. Peter
Annett stated in the Free Inquirer his disbelief in the
inspiration of the Pentateuch, and was punished foi’ it ;
Bishop Colenso can prove the same thing in seven big
volumes, and not only remain a colonial Bishop of the
English Church, but men of culture, like Mr. Matthew
Arnold, rebuke him for disproving what no sensible
person believes. Woolston languished in Newgate
for years, and died there. For what? For saying
that the miracles of the New Testament should
not be taken literally but allegorically. Mr. Matthew
Arnold says that the Bible miracles are fairy
tales, and are all doomed, and that educated and
intelligent men treat them as portions of the world’s
superstition. Nobody now thinks of prosecuting Mr.
Matthew Arnold, yet he is guilty of the same offence as
Woolston. Bishop Colenso is guilty of the same offence
as Peter Annett, and yet no one thinks now-a-days of
punishing him. If, gentleman, the common law is
more humane now, it is only because the spirit of the
age is more humane. That you are bound to take into
consideration, and that should influence you in giving
a verdict of not guilty to me and to my co-defendant.
I may refer you to a case which occurred in the year
1867, which will show you that the common law has
always held that it is a crime to call in question the
truth of the Christian religion. In the year 1867 the
case of Cowan v. Milbourn was decided in the Court of
Exchequer ; it originally arose in Liverpool. The
secretary of the Liverpool Secular Society had engaged
the assembly room for the purpose of two lectures.
The lectrtrfes were entitled, “ The character and teaching
of Christ; the former defective, the latter misleading
and the second, “ The Bible shown to be no more
inspired than any other book.” There is not a word of
ridicule, sarcasm or contumely in this language ; yet
when the owner of the rooms, after the expense of
advertising had been incurred, refused the use of them
for the lectures, and declined to compensate the per
sons who had rented for those two nights, it was held
�22
Defence of Free Speech.
by the Court of Exchequer that it was au illegal act to
deliver such lectures with such titles, and that no
damages could be recovered, because the rooms had
been declined for the perpetration of an illegal
act.
Acting on this case, some solicitors at Southampton
last summer, after the expenses of advertising had been
incurred, refused the use of the Victoria Assembly
Room for a lecture by myself, on the ground that the
lecture would be an illegal act. The lady who owned
the room was pious, although she had not the honesty
to recompense my friends for damages they had in
curred on the strength of her own agent’s written con
tract. As far back then as 1867, it was held that any
impugning of the truth of Christianity was an illegal
act, and my contention therefore holds good, that
bringing Christianity into disbelief is as much a part of
blasphemy as bringing it into contempt.
It is said that Christianity is part and parcel of the
law of England, and, as such, it must not be attacked.
We have had, fortunately, a trenchant criticism of this
by his lordship. It was pointed out by his lordship, in
language so precise that I am sorry I cannot quote it,
that if Christianity were part and parcel of the law of
the land, in the sense in which the words are generally
used, then it would be impossible to bring about any
reform of law, because no law could be criticised, much
less ridiculed, on the same ground that Christianity,
which is part of the law, cannot be ridiculed or criti
cised. Something occurred to me which seems to go
even further than that; and that is, that if Christianity
were part and parcel of the law of the land, then the
prosecution for blasphemy would be an absurdity.
There is no crime in criticising any law, or j&iiculing
any law, in the pages of Punch. If Christianity were
part and parcel of the law of the land, there could be
no crime in criticising it. That view was taken by the
Royal Commissioners in 18-11. In their report they
went into it at great length. The Royal Commission
endorsed that view, and pointed out fully that if Chris
tianity were part of the law of the land, still the law
could be criticised and ridiculed, and, therefore, no
�Defence of Free Speech.
23
•blasphemy indictment could lie on any such grounds.
Sir Matthew Hale, a judge of the 17th century, first
said that Christianity was part and parcel of the law of
the country. He was a man of great intellectual ability,
and a most upright judge ; but if he lived in our age,
would he endorse such ridiculous language now ? He
was infected by the superstition of his age. This same
judge sentenced two women to be hung for witchcraft,
an offence which we now know never could exist,
notwithstanding the verse in Exodus, “ Thou shalt not
suffer a witch to live.” The time will come when it
it will be thought quite as absurd to prosecute people
for the crime of blasphemy as we think it now to hang
people for witchcraft. If blasphemy be a crime at all,
it is only a crime against God, who, if he be omni
scient, knows it all, and who, if omnipotent, is quite
capable of punishing it all.
Since Sir Matthew Hale’s time there have been great
alterations in the State and in Society, alterations which
will justify you in setting this old barbarous law aside.
To begin with, compulsory oaths have been abolished
in our courts of justice. Evidence can now be
given by Freethinkers on affirmation. Mr. Bradlaugh
last week was acquitted on the evidence of people,
every one of whom affirmed, and not one of
whom took the oath. Next, Jews are admitted to
Parliament. I don’t wish to enter into a religious dis
cussion, or to provoke a dying bigotry, but I do say,
that if with the views the Jews are known to entertain
of the founder of Christianity, and if with the acts of
their high priests and scribes, as recorded in the New
Testament, still unrepudiated by the Jewish people,
they canube admitted in our national legislature, and
help to make laws which are stupidly said to be pro
tective of Christianity, then it is absurd for Christians
to prosecute Freethinkers for carrying on honest
criticism of doctrines and tenets they don’t believe, and
which they think they are bound to oppose and attack.
Then again, the Christian oath of allegiance that used
to be taken in Parliament, has been abolished. Now
the House of Commons simply cling to a narrow theistic
ledge. I have heard not only counsel but a judge
�24
Drfence of Dree Speech.
speaking to a jury about Jesus Christ as our Lord and
savior, when they ought to have known—perhaps did
know, but didn’t remember in the heat of enthusiasm
—that the jury were not bound to be Christians ; that
there might be some among them who knew Chris
tianity and rejected it. That shows you, still further,
that the principles and opinions which lie at the base
of these proceedings are not universal as they once
were : and that it is time all invidious distinctions
were abolished, and all forms of opinion made to stand
on their own bottom ; and if they cannot stand on their
own bottom, then in the name of goodness let them
fall.
Now these alterations in the state of society are more
particularly shown in the writings of our principal
men. Mr. Leslie Stephen, for instance, in answering
the question, “ Are we Christians ?” says :
c,No. I should reply we are not Christians; a few try to
pass themselves off as Christians, because, whilst substantially
men of this age, they can cheat themselves into using the old
charms in the desperate attempt to conjure down alarming
social symptoms; a great number call themselves Christians,
because, in one way or another, the use of the old phrases and
the old forms is still enforced by the great sanction of
respectability ; and some for the higher reason, that they fear
to part with the grain along with the chaff; but such men
have ceased substantially, though only a few have ceased
avowedly, to be Christian in any intelligible sense of the
name.”
No one who has any knowledge of the kind of lan
guage held by intelligent men will doubt that such
sentiments are exceedingly common. You all know
the great and honored name of Darwin, who spent his
whole life in undermining the very foundations of
Christianity and all supernatural belief. I know when
the bigotry which opposed him, and under the prosti
tuted name of religion said, “ Thus far shalt thou go,
and no further,” saw it was evident he was victor, it
professed to honor him, and had him buried in West
minster Abbey ; but the world is beginning to know
if the Church has Darwin’s corpse, it is all of Darwin
that the Church has had or ever will have.
�’ 1
▼
Detence of Free Speech.
25
A g^at scientist who does not confine himself to mere
qcience^ as for the most part Darwin did, says :
“The myths of Paganism are as dead as Osiris and Zeus,
Shdthe man who should revive them would be justly laughed
to scorn; but the coeval imaginations current among the
rude inhabitants of Palestine, recorded by writers whose very
name and age are admitted by every scholar to be unknown,
have fortunately not yet shared their fate, but, even at this
day, are regarded by nine-tenths of the civilised world as the
authoritative standard of fact, and the criterion of the justice
of scientific conclusions in all that relates to the origin of
things, and among them, of species. In this nineteenth cen
tury, as at the dawn of science, the cosmogony of the sem'barbarous Hebrew is the incubus of the philosopher and the
opprobrium of the orthodox. Who shall number the patient
and earnest seekers after truth, from the days of Galileo until,
now, whose lives have been embittered and their good name
blasted by the mistaken zeal of Bibliolaters? Who shall
count the host of weaker men whose sense of truth has been
destroyed in the effort to harmonise impossibilities—whose
life has been wasted in the attempt to force the generous new
wine of science into the old bottles of Judaism, compelled by
the outcry of the same strong party? It is true that if
philosophers have suffered their cause has been amply avenged.
Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science
as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules, and history
records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly
opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists,
bleeding and crushed, if not annihilated, scotched if not slain.
But orthodoxy is the Bourbon of the world of thought. It
learns not, neither can it forget; and though, at present,
bewildered and afraid to move, it is as willing as ever to insist
that the first chapter of Genesis contains the beginning and
end of sound science, and to visit, with such petty thunder
bolts as its half-paralysed hands can hurl, those whorefuse to
degrade nature to the level of primitive Judaism.”
Professor Huxley writes that, but he doesn’t stand
here on the charge I have to answer. And why? One is
the language of a ten-and-sixpenny book, and the other
the language of a penny paper.
Now, gentlemen, take another case. Dr. Maudsley
says in his work on “ Responsibility in Mental Disease,”
that Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea, the prophets, were all
three mad. (Laughter.) He doesn’t stand here. Why ?
Because it would not be safe to attack a man like that.
�26
Defence of Free Speech.
He is part of a powerful corporation that wonltWp.lly
round any of its members attacked, and therefore he is
left unmolested.
Mr. Herbert Spencer, in his Study of Sociology,
speaks thus of the Christian Trinity :
“ Here we have theologians who believe that our national
welfare will be endangered, if there is not in all churches an
enforced repetition of the dogmas that Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, are each of them almighty; and yet there are not three
almighties but one almighty; that one of the almighties
suffered on the cross and descended into hell to pacify another
of them; and that whosoever does not believe this ‘without
doubt shall perish everlastingly.’ ”
That is language which is, perhaps, as scornful as any
a man like Mr. Herbert Spencer could use. There is
no essential difference between that and language of
the most militant Freethought.6
Mr. John Stuart Mill, who was a writer with a world
wide reputation, and occupied a seat in the House of
Commons, said that his father looked upon religion as
the greatest enemy of morality; first by setting up
“ flotations excellencies, belief in creeds’, devotional feel
ings and ceremonies not connected with the good of human
kind—and causing these to be accepted as substitutes
for genuine virtues; but, above all, by radically vitiating
the standard of morals, making it consist in doing the
will of a being, on whom it lavishes indeed all the
phrases of adulation, but whom in sober truth it depicts
as eminently hateful. I have a hundred times heard
him say, that all ages and nations have represented
their gods as wicked, in a constantly increasing progression,
that mankind have gone on adding trait after trait till they
reached the most perfect conception of wickedness which
the human mind can devise, and have called this god, and
prostrated themselves before it. This neplus ultra of wicked
* Lord Coleridge honestly confessed, with regard to many of
the heretical passages I read from leading writers, that he had
“ a difficulty in distinguishing them from the incriminated publi
cation.” “They do appear to me,” he added “to be open to
exactly the same charge and the same grounds of observation that
Mr. Foote's publications are.” Later on he said, “I admit as far
as I can judge some of them, that they are strong, shall I say
coarse, expressions of contempt and hatred for the recognised
truths of Christianity.”
�Defence of Free Speech.
27
ness he considered to be embodied in what is commonly pre
sented to mankind as the creed of Christianity.”
In one of those alleged libels, the only passage I
shall refer to, there is a statement to the effect—a state
ment not in my handwriting—(unfortunately I am in
the position of having not only to defend my own
right but the right of others to be heard) in one of
those libels, not written by me, it is said that the deity
of the Old Testament is as ferocious as a tiger. What
is the difference between a phrase like that and the
extract I have read from the writings of John Stuart
Mill ? It is even worse to say “ that the God of Chris
tianity is the perfection of conceivable wickedness.”
The difference is that one is the language of a nineshilling book, and the other the language of a penny
paper. Writers and publishers of nine-shilling books
should not be allowed to go scot free and the writers
of penny papers be made the scape-goat of the cultured
agnostics of the day.
John Stuart Mill’s great friend George Grote, the author
of the History of Greece is commonly admitted to be
the author of a little book, An Analysis of the In
fluence of Natural Religion, which he put together
from the notes of that great jurisprudist, Jeremy
Bentham, in which natural religion is described as one
historic craze, the foe of the human race, and its
doctrines and priesthood are denounced in the most
extreme language. I will ask your attention to another
writer. Lord Derby—who has given his support to a
movement for the abolition of the blasphemy laws—
some months ago, presiding at a meeting at Liverpool,
said Mr. Matthew Arnold was one of the few men who
had a rightful claim to be considered a thinker. He
is a writer of culture so fine that some people say he is
a writer of haughty-culture. (Laughter.) In hi's fine
and delicate way he ridicules the Christian Trinity.
He says :
“ In imagining a sort of infinitely magnified and improved
Lord Shaftesbury, with a race of vile offenders to deal with
whom his natural goodness would incline him to let off, only
his sense of justice will not allow it; then a younger Lord
Shaftesbury, on tho scale of his fathei’ and very dear to him,
�28
Defence oj Erec Speech.
who might live in grandeur and splendor if he liked, but who
prefers to leave his home, to go and live among the race of
offenders, and to be put to an ignominious death, on condition
that his merits shall be counted against their demerits, and
that his father’s goodness shall be restrained no longer from
taking effect, but any offender shall be admitted to the benefit
of it on simply pleading the satisfaction made by the son; and
then, finally, a third Lord Shaftesbury, still on the same
high scale, who keeps very much in the background, and
works in a very occult manner, but very efficaciously never
theless, and who is busy in applying everywhere the benefits
of the son's satisfaction and the father’s goodness.”
The same writer actually introduces, by way of
showing the absurdities into which Christians them
selves have run, a long and learned discussion which
took place at the University of Paris nearly three
centuries ago, as to whether Jesus at his ascension had
his clothes on, or appeared naked before his disciples ;
and if he did, what became of his clothes ? (Laughter.)
If such a thing had appeared in the Freethinker, the
junior counsel for the prosecution would have said
“ they are bringing our Savior’s name into contempt,
they are reproaching the Christian religion, and , we
bring them before you that they may be handed over
to the tender mercies of the law.” Mr. Matthew
Arnold is in no fear of prosecution ; it is only the
poorer and humbler Freethinkers who are to be
attacked.7
Mr. John Morley—who has thrown his great influence
in the scale against me—in his book on “Voltaire.”
says, “ That a religion which has shed more blood than
any other religion has no right to quarrel over a few
epigrams.” There are writings of Voltaire’s which, if
published in England now, would be made the subject
of a prosecution, if there was any honesty in conducting
these prosecutions. Mr. Morley now joins the chorus
of those who howl the false word “indecent” at me ;
but no living person, no sentence under this old law,
7 Mr. Matthew Arnold subsequently issued a new edition of
literature and, Dogma in which this passage was omitted. Curiously,
at abou: the same time, he became tlie recipient of a Government
pension of £250 a year. His blasphemy and mine met with very
different rewards.
�nee of Free Speech.
29
can rob me of the esteem of my friends or the approval
of my conscience ; and I say deliberately, I would
rather be sitting down in my cell, or meditatively
walking up and down with racking anxiety at my
breast, than walk into the House of Commons throwmy past behind me, and treating those whose views
are essentially identical with mine with all the rancor
of a renegade.s
Lord Amberley, who is not even a plebeian, writes as
follows of the Old Testament:
‘•Such a catalogue of crimes would be sufficient to destroy
the character of any Pagan divinity whatever. I fail to per
ceive any reason why the Jews alone should be privileged to
represent their god as guilty of such actions without suffer
ing the inference which in other cases would undoubtedly
be drawn—namely, that their conceptions of deity were not
of an exalted order, nor their principles of morals of a very
admirable kind There is, indeed, nothing extraordinary in
the fact that, living in a barbarous age, the ancient Hebrew
should have behaved barbarously. The reverse would rather
be suprising. But the remarkable fact is, that their savage
deeds, and the equally savage ones attributed to their god,
should have been accepted by Christendom as growing in the
one case from the commands, in the other, from the immedi
ate action of a just and beneficent being. When the Hindus
relate the story of Brahma’s incest with his daughter, they add
that the god was bowed down with shame on account of his
subjugation by ordinary passion. But while they thus betray
their feeling that even a divine being is not superior to all
the standards of morality, no such conciousness is ever appar
ent in the narrators of the passions of Jehovah. While far
worse offences are committed by him, there is no trace in his
character of the grace of shame ”
8 Mr. John Morley was then editing the Pall Mall Gazette, in
which I was furiously denounced and my sentence justified.
After my trial before Lord Coleridge, M ■. Morley found my sen
tence “monstrous.” Subsequently, when a me norial for my
release had been signed by suci men as Herbert Spencer, Professor
Tyndall, Professor Huxley, Frederic Harrison, and a large number
of eminent write's, scholars, scientists and artists, Mr. Morley
declared I was “ suffering from a scandalously excessive punish
ment.” But he did not put his own signature to the memorial.
He was approached early, and his fLst question wag “Who’s
signed ? ’ Mr. Morley, says one < f his constituents, has “ the theory
of courage.”
�30
Defence of Dree Speech.
If that had appeared in the Freethinker it would
have formed one of the counts of my indictment. But
no one has interfered with Lord Amberley.9 A ques
tion was asked by the junior counsel for the prosecution
of one witness, whether a certain illustration in one of
the numbers was meant to caricature Almighty God.
The question was stopped by his lordship. With Lord
Amberley’s words before us, it is easy to understand
that could not be meant to’represent Almighty God.
A man who after careful reflection, after weighing
evidence, after exercising his full intellectual and
moral faculties upon the question, has arrived at*the
conclusion that there is an infinite spirit of the uni
verse akin to ours, though greater—such a man would
never hear any ridicule or sarcasm from my lips, or
from the pen or lips of any Freethinker in the country,
because his belief is not amenable to such criticism or
attack. It is not Almighty God who could be ridiculed
in a picture like that- It is the Hebrew deity—the
deity of semi-barbarous people who lived 3,000 years
ago ; a deity reflecting their own barbarity, who told
them to go to lands they never tilled, and cities they
had never built, to take possession of them in his name,
and brutally murder every man, woman, and chiln
found in them. Can it be a crime to ridicule or even
to caricature a my liological personage like this ? It is
not Almighty God who is ridiculed, it is simply the
deity of those barbarous Hebrews who have become
decent and civilised now. The influences of culture
and humanity are at work, and although we utter the
same old shibboleths, we have different ideas, different
tastes, and I hope different aspirations.
The Duke of Somerset has openly impugned the
Christian religion. He gives up the deity of Jesus,
and criticises in a hostile manner the Holy Scripture.
If the law were put in force fairly, it would be put in
force there. Shelley has been referred to. Shelley
0 Lord Amberley’s will was set aside. ITe left his Little son t'>
be educated by a Freethinker named Spalding; but, as a Free
thinker has no rights bat those which ne enjovs on sufferance,
Lord Amberley’s father^ Earl Russell, had the child taken away
and brought up ns a Christian.
.
■
J
j
J
■
�Defence of Tree Speech.
31
wrote, among other poems, one called “ Queen Mab.”
He speaks of the deity of the Christians as a vengeful,
pitiless, and almighty fiend, whose mercy is a nick
name for the rage of tameless tigers, hungering for
blood. As Jjhe rest of this extract is couched in similar
language, I forbear, out of consideration for the feel
ings of those who may differ from me, from reading
further. But what I have read is sufficient to show
that Shelley’s writing is as blasphemous is anything
that is to be found in any of these alleged libels. And
in one of his maturer poems, that magnificent “ Ode to
Liberty,” he speaks of Christ as the “ Galilean ser
pent ”—
“The Galilean serpent forth did creep,
And made thy world an indistinguishable heap.”
Nobody thinks of prosecuting those who sell Shelley’s
works now,1 and even the leading counsel for the prose
cution could actually accept office under a Ministry, of
which the First Lord of the Admiralty, on whose book
stalls. Shelley’s works are exposed for sale, was a
member.
Of the poets of our day, it may be said, threefourths of them write quite as blasphemously, accord
ing to the language of the prosecution, as any one in
the Freethinker. Mr. Swinburne, one of our greatest,
if not our greatest poet—some say he is our greatest, I
don’t think so—uses in a poetical form the same
language that was used by Elijah to the priests of Baal.
You will remember the priests of Baal and Elijah had
a sort of competitive theological examination, and they
put the question to a practical test. They built altars
and they cried respectively on their gods. The priests
of Baal cut and gashed themselves and cried aloud, but
the fire would not come. What did Elijah do ? Did
he call them to a kind of theological discussion, and
say: “Now there is a mistake somewhere, and we
must thrash this out according to the well-known
canons of logic ?” No, he turned upon the priests with
1 Lord Coleridge pointed out that Shelley’s Qaeen Mab had been
prosecuted, and his children taken from him by Lord Eldon. I
was aware of it, and therefore I said that no one thinks of prose
cuting “those who sell Shelley’s works now.”
�32
Defence of Free Speech.
what Rabelais would call sanglante derision, and he
said, in the language of to-day : “ Where is your god,
what is he doing, why doesn’t he answer you, has he
gone on a journey, what is the matter with him ?”
That is the language of irony, and the deadliest sarcasm,
and it is a wonder to me the priests of Baal didn’t turn
round and kill the prophet on the spot. If they had
had one tithe of the religious bigotry of our prosecutors
they would have done so.
Mr. Swinburne, in his great “ Hymn to Man,” turns
the same kind of derision on the priests of Christendom.
He represents them as calling upon their deity, and
says, “ Cry aloud, for the people blaspheme.” Then
he says, by way of finish :—
“ Kingdom and will hath he none in him left him, n'or warmth
in his breath;
Till his corpse be cast out of the sun will ye know not the truth
of his death?
Surely, ye say, he is strong, though the times be against him
and men,
Yet a little, ye say, and how long, till he comes to show
judgment again?
Shall god then die as the beast die? whois it hath broken his
rod?
O god, lord god of thy priests, rise up now and show thyself
god.
They cry out, thine elect, thine aspirants to heavenward,
whose faith is as flame;
O thou the lord god of thy tyrants, they call thee, their god
by thy name.
By thy name that in hell-fire was written, and burned at the
point of thy sword.
Thou art smitten, thou god, thou art smitten; thy death is
upon thee, 0 lord.
And the love-song of earth as thou diest resounds through
the wind of her wings—
Glory to man in the highest! for man is the master of things.”
Iu his lines apostrophising Jesus on the Cross he
says :
“ 0 hidden face of man, wherover
The years have woven a viewless veil—
If thou wast verily man’s lover,
What did thy love or blood avail ?
Thy blood the priests make poison of,
And in gold shekels coin thy love.
�Defence of Free Speech.
33
So when our souls look back to thee
They sicken, seeing against thy side,
Too foul to speak of or to see,
The leprous likeness of a bride.
Whose kissing lips through his lips grown
Leave their god rotten to the bone.
When we would see thee man, and know
What heart thou liadst toward men indeed,
Lo, thy blood-blackened altars, lo
The lips of priests that pray and feed
While their own hell's worm curls and licks
The poison of the crucifix.
Thou bad’st let children come to thee;
What children now but curses come ?
What manhood in that god can be
Who sees their worship, and is dumb?
No soul ’that lived, loved, wrought, and died,
Is this their carrion crucified.
Nay, if their god and thou be one,
If thou and this thing be the same,
Though shouldst not look upon the sun;
The sun grows haggard at thy name.
Come down, be done with, cease, give o’er;
Hide thyself, strive not, be no more.”
Mr. Swinburne here draws a distinction which Free
thinkers would draw. Freethinkers may ridicule a
mythological deity ; they may ridicule miracles ; but
they will never ridicule the tragic and pathetic sub
limities of human life, which are sacred, whether
enacted in a palace or in a cottage. We know how to
draw the distinction which Mr. Swinburne draws here.
If the quotations I have read you had appeared in the
Freethinker they would have formed one of the counts
of the indictment. The only difference between them
is, that one is in a twelve-shilling book, and the other
in a penny paper.
One short extract from another poet, who is recognised
as possessing the highest excellence by the greatest
critics, whose writings have been praised in the
Athenceum and the Fortnightly Review. I am refering to Mr. James Thomson. He says :
�34
Defence of Free Speech.
11 If any human soul at all
Must die the second death, must fall
Into that gulph of quenchless flame
Which keeps its victims still the same,
Unpurified as unconsumed,
To everlasting torments doomed j.
Then I give God my scorn and hate
And turning back from Heaven’s gate
(Suppose me got there1) bow Adieu !
Almighty Devil damn me too.'”
If that language had appeared in the Freethinker, it
would have formed one of the counts of the indictment.
What is the difference ? Again, I say, the difference
is between a five-shilling book and a penny paper.
When those books were reviewed, did men point out
those passages and condemn them ? Not at all. They
simply praised the poet’s genius; blasphemy is not taken
into consideration by men who write for papers of such
standing.
George Eliot has written many a biting sarcasm,
aimed at the popular idols of the day. She translated
Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity and Strauss’ Life of
Jesus, both of which are indictable at common law,
though they have never been attacked. Renan, in his
Life of Jesus, supposes that the raising of Lazarus took
place at a time, when under the messianic delusion the
mind of Jesus had become perverted, and that he had
arranged the thing with Lazarus.
Anonymous books are pouring from the press.
Here is one published by Williams and Norgate. It is
called the Evolution of Christianity. Speaking of the
Hebrew scriptures, it says :
“ Truly, if the author of Exodus had been possessed of the
genius of Swift, and designed a malignant satire on the god.
of the Hebrews, he could have produced nothing more terribly
true to his malicious purpose than the grotesque parody of
divine intervention in human affairs, depicted in the revolting
details of the Ten Plagues ruthlessly inflicted on the Egyptian
nation.”
Only one other instance of ridicule. The same
writer, referring to the sudden and mysterious death
of Ananias and Sapphira, as narraced in the Acts of the
Apostles, says :
�Defence of Free Speech.
35
“Anafllas an^apphijB.his wife sold some property, and kept
back amortion of the price. Perhaps Aananias was a shrewd
practical man, distrustful of socialism and desirous of holding
«something in reserve for possible contingencies. Or Sapphira
may have hinted that, if anything should happen to her
busband before the advent of Jesus in the clouds, she would
not IHfe the position of a pauper scrambling among the other
’ widows for her daily rations. Whatever may have been the
jnotivefcA the doomed couple, if they had been arraigned
‘before Jesus, he would have assuredly condoned so trivial an
offence; but under the new regime of the Holy Ghost, this
^tahappy husband and wife were condemned to instant exe
cution.” 2
That is the language of satire, and if it had appeared
in the freethinker, it might have formed one of the
counts of our present indictment.
I have referred you to great living writers, to foreign
works pouring into the country ; I have referred you
to anonymous writings, and now I hold one in my
hand which is circulated over the country and bears
the imprint of popular publishers like Messrs. John
and Abel Heywood. It speaks in this way of Chris
tianity :
“ Buddhism is the only religion which has made its way by
sheer moral strength; it has become the vast religion that it
is, without the shedding of one drop of blood to propagate its
tenets. The edifice of Christianity is polluted with blood
from keystone to battlements; its tenets and dogmas are
redolent of the savage reek of gore, from the death of its lamb
to that fountain of blood. that its poets are never tired of
hymning.. Misery and tears still attend its idiotic dogma of
original sin, and its horrible threatenings of eternal fireBuddhism is to Christianity as is a palace of light to a foetid
dungeon.”
That is being circulated wholesale by respectable pub
lishers, and it again, I say, might have formed one of
the counts of our indictment if it had appeared in the
Freethinker. Yet we know these publishers will never
be molested, because they are not poor, and especially
because they don’t happen to be friendly with a poli. 2 Mr. A. G-ill was the author of this work. A new edition,
since published, bears his name on the title-page. Mr. Grill has
nlso written a pamphlet on the Blasphemy Laws with reference
to my prosecution.
' *
'
\
�36
Defence of Free Speech.
■ tician, whose enemies want to strike . him with a
religious dagger when they fail to kill him with the
political .sword.
I leave that and take the objection that will be raised,
that we have dealt too' freely in ridicule. What is it ?
You will remember the ending of some of the problems
of Euclid, which is what is called a reductio ad absurdwm, that is reducing a thing to an absurdity. That
is ridicule. Ridicule is a method of arguifrent. The
comic papers, in politics, are constantly using it. Why
may it not be used in religious matters also ? Refer!
ence was made to a caricature, in one of our political
journals, which shall be nameless here. Mr. Gladstone
is represented as “No. 1
and morally the Conclusion
is that he was the murderer of one of his dearest friends.
Nobody thinks of prosecuting that paper—the idea
would be laughed at. We may caricature living states
men, but not dead dogmas! Surely, you will not give
youi’ warrant to such an absurdity as that. Mr. Buckle
says that every man should have a right to treat opinion
as he thinks proper, to argue against it or to ridicule it,
however “ sacred ” it may be. A greater writer than
Buckle, John Stuart Mill, wrote an article in the
Westminster Tieview, on the Richard Carlile prosecu
tions, in the year 1824 ; and speaking of ridicule in
that article, he says : “ If the proposition that Chris
tianity is untrue can legally be conveyed to the mind,
what can be more absurd than to condemn it, when
conveyed in certain terms ?” I say that this weapon
of ridicule has been used by a very large proportion of
the great intellectual emancipators of mankind.
Socrates used it ; at the risk of offending some, I
may say that Jesus used it; Lucian used it; the early
Christian Fathers used it unsparingly against their
Pagan contemporaries ; and I might cull from their
works such a collection of vituperative phrases as
would throw into the shade anything that ever appeared
in the Freethinker. Luther used it, and used it well;
Erasmus used it ; the Lollards use it; and it was
freely used in the Catholic and Protestant controversy
that raged through and after the reign of Henry VIII.
It has been used ever since. Voltaire used it in France.
�Defence of Free Speech.
37
I know some may thitak that it is impolitic to introduce
the name*or Voltaire here ; but Lord Brougham says
that Vbltaire was the greatest spiritual emancipator
sincfe the dayscjtf Luther. The only difference between
such men as Voltaire, D’Alembert, and Diderot, was
his iHhnitable wit. He had wit and his enemies hated
him forut. Ridicule has been used in all times. To
take ridicule from our literature you would have to go
through such a winnowing and pruning process that
you would destroy it. Eliminate from Byron his
ridicule, eliminate from other great masters their
ridicule, and what a loss there would be 1 Ridicule is
a weapon which has been used by so many great
emancipators of mankind ; if we have used it, even in
a coarser manner than they, it is the same weapon;
and if the weapon is a legal one there can be no
illegality in the mere method of using it, and there has
been no such illegality shown. If ridicule is a legal
weapon, the mere style or manner cannot render it
illegal. I say that it is a dangerous thing to make men
amenable to criminal prosecution simply on a question
of opinion and taste. Really if you are to eliminate
ridicule from religious controversy, you hand it over
entirely to the dunces. The two gravest things living
are the owl and the ass. But we don't want to become
asinine or owl-like. (Laughter.) It seems to me, if I
may make a pun, that the gravest thing in the world is
the grave ; and if gentlemen want the world to be
utterly grave they will turn it into a graveyard, and
that is precisely what the bigots have been trying to do
for many thousands of years. I ask you not to abet
them by subjecting us to a daily unseen torture—which
means slow murder ; which cannot kill a strong man
in two or three months, but which may, in twelve
months, convert him into a physical and mental wreck,
a byword and a scorn ; another evidence forsooth of the
truth and mercy of their creed !
And now, gentlemen, I will ask your attention for a
minute or two to the argument about outraging people’s
feelings. You never hear it proposed that this should
be mutual; it is always a one-sided thing. As Mill
says in his great essay on “ Liberty
�38
Defence of Free Speech.
“ With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate
discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the
like, the denunciation of those weapons would deserve more
sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally
to both sides ; but it is only desired to restrain the employment
of them against the prevailing opinion; against the unprevail
ing they may not only be used without general diflrpproval,
but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise
of honest zeal and righteous indignation.”
I should regard this argument with more favor if it
were attempted to be made mutual. Suppose I were
to put into your hands a book like that of Father Pinamonti’s Hell Open to Christians, which is circulated by
the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It con
tains a picture of the torments of hell for*every day in
the week. That is repulsive to my mind. In my
opinion it would debauch the minds of children into
whose hands it fell, but I should not think of calling
in the law to stop it. Opinion and taste must correct
opinion and taste, and the proper jury to sit upon such
a question is the great outside jury of public opinion.
Indecent attacks on religion, it is said, must be put
down. I want you to cast out of your minds altogether
the absurd talk of indecency or licentiousness. If we
are to be brought in guilty, let it be of clean blasphemy
if you will ; and don’t by confusing the real nature of
our alleged offence, say that if we ought not to be
punished for blasphemy, we ought to be punished for
indecency, of which I say we are not guilty.
It is said we must not make ourselves a nuisance. I
have looked through the law of nuisance, and I don’t
think there is anything in it to which this libel can
approximate. If a man starts chemical works close to
you, and poisons the atmosphere you breathe, you have
no remedy but to go to law and stop it, or else remove
your business and residence. That is trenching on
your rights. But in a case of this sort every man has his
remedy. There is no act of Parliament to compel any
person to purchase a copy of the Freethinker. The
copies that will be placed in your hands were pur
chased, not to be read, but for the purposes of prosecu
tion. It was not a surreptitious thing ; it was not a
publication entitled the “ Christian Investigator,” with
�Defen<^ of Free Speech.
39
fraethought of the most insidious kind in every line.
It is called the Freethinker; the man who purchased it
must h$ve done so deliberately, and gone into the shop
to do it. As it was not a paper freely exposed in the
shop windows in London, a man must have meant,
before he went into the shop, to purchase that very
thing, and must have known the character of the con
tents before he purchased it. I submit that as a man
is not forced to purchase or read the paper, the least he
can do is to allow other people to exercise their rights.
It appears now that liberty is to be taken in the sense
of the rough Yankee, who defined it as the right to do
as he pleased and to make everybody else do so too.
Bigotry puts forward a claim, not only to be protected
from having unwelcome things forced on its attention,
but to prevent all men from seeing what it happens to
dislike!
Now, I will just draw your attention to what we
have been told is the proper view of this question.
Starkie on Libel has been quoted. I have not got
Starkie’s work, but I have got Folkard’s edition of the
Lazo of Libel and T must quote from that. The fact
that I have not been able to get a copy of Starkie shows
in itself the ridiculous nature of this prosecution.
That a man should be in peril of losing his liberty on
the dictum of “ the late Mr. Starkie ” is a most dreadful
thing. I hope that won’t continue. He says :
“ A malicious and mischievous intention, or what is equiva
lent to such an intention in law, as well as in morals—a state
of apathy and indifference to the interests of society—is the
broad boundary between right and wrong.”
I say it is not so, and that an overt act of crime is
the broad boundary between right and wrong. If it be
alleged that I am apathetic to the interests of society,
I give it the most emphatic denial. When “ nefarious
profit ” is talked about, I tell the learned gentlemen for
the prosecution that they get far more out of their
advocacy than I do out of mine. I tell them that a
man who throws in his lot with an unpopular cause
must not count on profit; he can only count on the
satisfaction of what to him is duty done. There is no
such thing as apathy here to the interests of society.
�40
Defence of Free Speech.
I have given of my time and means, for great political
and social causes, as much as these men. I am no more
apathetic to the interests of society than they are. All
these w >rds mean very little. The contention that has
been rai ted is unsubstantial, and rests merely upon the
use of aljectives. These are not questi >ns of fact, and
when the prosecution talk about “ maliciously insult
ing,” “ wickedly doing so and so,” they simply use a
string of adjectives which every man may interpret
differently from every other man, a string of adjectives
which I am quite sure would not allow any jury of
Freethinkers to bring in a verdict of Guilty against me
and my co-defendant. I am sorry if that is the kind
of law by which a man is to be tried. It seems to me
that Starkie’s law of blasphemous libel is simply a
noose put round the neck of every man who writes or
speaks on the subject of religion ; and if he happens to
be on the unpopular side somebody will pull the string,
and without being worse than those in the race before
him, he is tripped up, and it may be strangled. I hope
I am not to be tried under that law—if it must be so I
can only deplore it.
I am now, gentlemen, drawing nearly to a close. I
want to say that blasphemy is simply a relic of ecclesiasticism. Renan says he has seachedthe whole Roman
law before the time of Constantine, without finding a
single edict against any opinions. Professor Hunter
says practically the same thing. Blasphemy and heresy
were originally not tried by secular courts like these at
all—they were tried by ecclesiastical courts. Lord
Coke, of ancient but of great authority on the t-ubject
of law, said blasphemy belonged to the king’s ecclesi
astical law ; and when the writ de heretico comburendd’
was abolished in the reign of Charles II., there was
still special reservation made for ecclesiastical courts to
3 This was the writ for burning heretics aliv ■. It was only
abolish-d after the Res’oration, although it had fallen into
d suetude for half a century. Daring the Protectorate, hovever,
the Parliame it gravely discusse I whether poor Nayler—a much
maligned eccentric—should be burnt or not. and the Lord only
knows how far they wouli have carried out the “reign of the
saints if Cromwell had not sent them packing.”
�Defence of 'Free Speech.
41
try offences. But when the clergy began to lose their
power over the people, the judges brought in the very
heresy law tBat had been abolished; the same heresy with
another name and a cleaner face. Without the slightest
disrespect to the judges of to-day, one can maintain
that in bad old times, when judges depended so much
upon the favor of the Crown and the privileged classes,
and when the Church of England was held necessary
to the maintainance of the constitution, it was not
wonderful that they should deliver judgments on the
question of blasphemy, which really made it heresy
as against the State Church. I say that blasphemy
meant then, and always has meant, heresy against the
State Church. I am told we might have discussion on
controverted points of religion if decently conducted.
That was not the language of those great judges of the
past. They said we might discuss controverted points
of the Christian religion—those that were controverted
amongst learned Christians ; but that the great dogmas
that lay at the base of the articles of the Established
Church could not be called in question ; and I could
give judgment after judgment. But I will give you
one case that happened in this century. In the case of
the Queen against Gathercole, in which the defendant
libtlled the Scorton Nunnery, Baron Alderson laid it
down : “ That a person may, without being liable to
prosecution for it, attack Judaism or any religious sect
(save the established religion of the country), and the
only reasou why the latter is in a different situation
from the other is, because it is the form established by
law, and it is therefore a part of the constitution of the
country.” Russell on Crimes, volume 3, page 196,
gives the case a little more fully. He says :
“ When a defendant was charged with publishing a libel
upon a religious order, consisting of females, professing the
Roman Catholic faith called the Scorton Nunnery, Alderson,
B., observed a person may, without being liable to prosecu
tion for it, attack Judaism or Mahomedanism, or even any
sect of the Christian religion save the established religion of
the country; and the only reason why the latter is in a
different situation from the other is, because it is the form
established by law, and is therefore part of the constitution
of the country.”
�42
Fefence of Free Speech.
Now, gentlemen, that supports my contention that
heresy and blasphemy originally meant, and still ought
to mean, simply ridicule of the State Church or denial
of its doctrine ; that where religious sects differ from
the State Church, no matter what sect of Noncbnformity
it be, whether it be a section of the great Roman
Catholic Church itself, or a Jewish body or Mahomedan
believing in the existence of a deity, yet on those
grounds where they differ from the Established Church,
they have no protection against ridicule or sarcasm at
law. Gentlemen, will you yield that preposterous and
invidious right to the Established Church ? If any of
you are Dissenters, remember the murders, the robberies,
and the indignities, inflicted on your ancestors by the
State Chilrch. If any one of you are Quakers, remem
ber that the gaols of London were full of your ancestors
who literally rotted away in them. Gentlemen, remem
ber that, and don’t give this State Church any protection.
Is it to be protected against ridicule, sarcasm or
argument, or other forms of attack? It has its livings
worth ten or twelve millions a year ; it has its edifices
for worship in every parish of the country ; it has its
funds for the purposes of propaganda and defence
apart from its State connections. It has had until
very recently, practically all the educational appliances
in its own hands ; and is it, gentlemen, to be protected
against the onslaughts of a few comparatively poor
men ? If a Church with such advantages cannot hold
its own, in the name of truth let it go down. To pro
secute us in the interests of this Church, though
ostensibly in the name of God, is to prostitute whatever
is sacred in religion, and to degrade what should be a
great spiritual power, into a mere police agent, a
haunter of criminal courts, and an instructor of Old
Bailey special pleaders.
Every man has a right to three things—protection
for person, property, and character, and all that can be
legitimately derived from these. The ordinary law of
libel gives a man protection for his character, but it is
surely monstrous that he should claim protection for
his opinions and tastes. All that he can claim is that
his tastes shall not be violently outraged against his
�Defence of Free Speech.
43
will, I hope, gentlemen, you -will take that rational
view -of the question. We have libelled no man’s
character, we have invaded no man’s person or property.
This crime is a constructed crime, originally manu
factured by priests in the interests of their own order
to put down dissent and heresy. It now lingers
amongst us as a legacy utterly alien to the spirit of our
age, which unfortunately we have not had resolution
enough to cast among those absurdities which time
holds in his wallet of oblivion.
One word gentlemen, about breach of the peace. Mr.
Justice Stephen said well, that no temporal punishment
Should be inflicted for blasphemy unless it led to a
breach of the peace. I have no objection to that, pro
vided we are indicted for a breach of the peace. Very
little breach of the peace might make a good case of
blasphemy. A breach of the peace in a case like this
shall not be constructive ; it shall be actual. They
might have put somebody in the witness-box who
could have said that reading the Freethinker had
impaired his digestion and disturbed his sleep.
(Laughter.) They might have even found somebody
who said it was thrust upon him, and that he was
Induced to read it, not knowing its character. Gentle
men, they have not attempted to prove that any special
publicity was given to it outside the circle of the people
who approved it. They have not even been shown
there was an advertisement of it in any Christian or
religious paper. They have not even told you that any
extravagant display was made of it; and I undertake
to say that you might never have known of it if the
prosecution had not advertised it. How can all this
be construed as a breach of the peace ? Our indictment
says we have done all this, to the great displeasure of
almighty god, and to the danger of our Lady the Queen
her crown and dignity. You must bear that in mind.
The law books say again and again that a blasphemous
libel is punished, not because it throws obloquy on the
Deity—the protection of whom would be absurd—but
because it tends to a breach of the peace. It is prepos
terous to say such a thing tends to a breach of the peace.
If you want that you must go to the Salvation Army.
�44
efence of Free Speech.
They have a perfect right to their ideas—I have nothing
to say about them ; but their policy has led to actual
breaches of the peace ; and even in India, where,
according to the law, no prosecution could be started
against a paper like the Freethinker, many are sent to
gaol because they will insist upon processions in the
street. We have not caused tumult in the streets. We
have not sent out men with banners and bands in which
' each musician plays more or less his own tune. (Laughter)
We have not sent out men who make hideous discord
and commit a common nuisance. Nothing of the sort
is alleged. A paper like this had to be bought and oar
utterances had to be sought. We have not done any
thing against the peace. I give the indictment an absolute
denial. To talked of danger to the peace is only a mask
tn hide the hideous and repulsive features of intoler
ance and persecution. They don’t want to punish us
decause we have assailed religion, but because w*e have
endangered the peace. Take them at their word, gentle
men. Punish us if we have endangered the peace, and
uot if we have assailed religion ; and as you know we
have not endangered the peace, you will of course bring
in a verdict of Not Guilty. Gentlemen, I hope you will
by your verdict to-day champion that great law of
liberty which is challenged—the law of liberty which
implies the equal right of everyman, so long as he does
not trench upon the equal right of every other man, to
print what he pleases for people who choose to buy
and read it, so long as he does not libel men’s characters
■or incite people to the commission of crime.
Gentlemen, I have more than a personal interest in
the result of this trial. I am anxious for the rights
and liberties of thousands of my countrymen. Young
as I am, I have for many years fought for my principles,
taken soldier’s wages when there were any, and gone
cheerfully without when there were none, and fought
on all the same, as I mean to do to the end ; and I am
doomed to the torture of twelve months’ imprisonment
by the verdict and judgment of thirteen men, whose
sacrifices for conviction may not equal mine. The bit
terness of my fate can scarcely be enhanced by your
<yerdict. Yet this does not diminish my solicitude as to
�Defence of Free Speech.
45
its character. If, after the recent scandalous proceedings
in another court, you, as a special jury in this High
Court of Justice, bring in a verdict of Guilty against me
and my co-defendant, you will decisively inaugurate
a new era of persecution, in which no advantage can
accrue to truth or morality, but in which fierce passions
will be kindled, oppression and resistance matched
against each other, and the land perhaps disgraced
with violence and stained with blood. But if, as I hope,
you return a verdict of Not Guilty, you will check that
spirit of bigotry and fanaticism which is fully aroused
and eagerly awaiting the signal to begin its evil work ;
you will close a melancholy and discreditable chapter
of history ; you will proclaim that henceforth the press
shall be absolutely free, unless it libel men’s characters
or contain incitements to crime, and that all offences
against belief and taste shall be left to the great jury of
public opinion ; you will earn the gratitude of all who
value liberty as the jewel of their souls, and inde
pendence as the crown of their manhood ; you will
save your country from becoming ridiculous in the
eyes of nations that we are accustomed to consider as
less enlightened and free ; and you will earn for your
selves a proud place in the annals of its freedom, its
progress, and its glory.
��G. W. FOOTE & W. P. BALL.
Bible Contradictions ...
...
...
...
0 4
Part I. of the Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and Inquiring
Christians. The Contradiction's are printed inparallel columns.
Bible Absurdities
...
...
...
...
0 4
Part IL All the chief Absurdities from Genesis to Revelation,
conveniently and strikingly arranged, with appropriate headlines,
giving the point of each absurdity in a sentence.
Bible Atrocities
...
...
...
...
0 4
Part III. Containing all the godly wickedness from Genesis to
Revelation. Each infamy has a separate headline for easy
reference.
Bible Immoralities, Indecencies, Obscenities,
Broken Promises, and Unfulfilled Prophecies. Part IV.
of the Bible Handbook ...
...
...
...
BIBLE HANDBOOK(complete). Above 4 parts in 1 vol.
In paper covers...
...
...
...
...
Better edition, in cloth
...
...
...
...
DR. E. B. AVELING.
Darwin Made Easy. 144pp., cloth
...
...
0 4
1 4
2 0
1
0
Th® best popular exposition of Darwinism ever published.
NOW
ISSUING.
A BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS
OF ALL AGES AND NATIONS.
ZEW CT. XL. WHEELER.
Parts I, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, in Paper Covers, Sixpence each.
TO BE FOLLOWED BY A FRESH PART EVERY MONTH.
“The Die ionary has involved enormous labor, and the compiler
deserves the thanks of the Ereethought party. These sixpenny parts
Should be widely subscribed for.”—National Reformer.
‘ The work will be of the greatest val e.’—Freethouglit (San Franciseo).
“ At last we have the long wanted means of silencing those Christians
who are continually inquiring for our great men, and asserting that all
great men have been on the side of Christianity. . . . Freethinkers
would do well to get this woik part by part. ’—Truthseelcer (New York).
�CRIMES
of
CHRISTIANITY.
By G. W. FOOTE and J. M. WHEELER.
VOL. I. Chapters :—(1) Christ to Constantine ; (2) Constantins
to Hypatia; (3) Monkery ; (4) Pious Forgeries ; (5) Pioui
Frauds ; (6) Rise of the Papacy ; (7) Crimes of the Popes^g
(8) Persecution of the Jews ; (9) The Crusades.
Hundreds of references are given to standard authorities.
No pains
have been spared to make the work a complete, trustworthy, final, un
answerable Indictment of Christianity.
The Tree is judged by its Fruit.
224 pp., cloth hoards, gilt lettered, 2s. 6d.
“The book is very carefully compiled, the references are given with
exactitude, and the work is calculated to be of the greatest use to the oppjd
nents of Christianity.”—TVatzonaZ Reformer.
“ The book is worth reading. It is fair, and on the whole correct.”—
Weekly Times.
“ The book has a purpose, and is entitled to a fair hearing.”—Hudders
field Examiner.
“ The work should be scattered like autumn leaves.”—Ironclad Aye, U.S.A.
“ Two keen writers.”-—Truthseeker ("London).
“ Animated throughout by the bitterest hatred of Christianity^—Lz’Zeraz’tf
World.
“ Presented in a concise and impressive manner. . . so far as We hay®
been able to verify the quotations they are given accurately.”—Open
(Chicago).
“Elaborate, and we dare say accurate.”—-Weekly Dispatch.
“ Able, instructive. . . courteous and fair. . . . well got up.^ow pfj&fed,
and highly suggestive.”—Oldham Chronicle.
“ A work at once valuable and interesting.”—Truthseeker (New York).
“ Shows a wide research and a consummate knowledge of auMorlties.”—Western Figaro.
Vol. II. is in Preparation.
JEWISH LIFEEOF CHRIST
An Extraordinary Work. Edited by
G. W. FOOTE and J. M. WHEELER
Cheap Edition, 6d.
Superior Edition, printed on fine paper and bound in cloth, Is.
“ Messrs. G-. W. Foote and J. M. Wheeler have laid the Freethought party
under great obligation by the careful manner in which they have collected
and stated the information on a very doubtful and difficult subject. . . .
We have no hesitation in giving unqualified praise to the voluminous and
sometimes very erudite notes.”—National Reformer.
Progressive Publishing Co., 28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.
��MR, FOOTE’S
BOOKS
and
PAMPHLETS
PRISONER FOR BLASPHEMY. Cloth .............
2
A Full History of his Three Trials and Twelve
Months’ Imprisonment. Copies in paper covers,
soiled, 6d,
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. Vol. I.
...
„. 2
In collaboration witli J. M. Wheeler.
IS SOCIALISM SOUND ?................................................... 1
Four Nights’ Public Debate with Annie Besant.
Ditto in cloth, 2s.
CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM
..............
1
Four Nights’ Public Debate with the Bev. Dr, James
McCann; in paper covers. Bound in cloth, Is. 6d,
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS
......................................... 0
Second edition, enlarged.
Ditto in cloth..................................................................... 1
DARWIN ON GOD ............................................................... 0
DEFENCE OF FREE SPEECH
............................. 0
Three Hours’ Address to the Jury before Lord Colei idge.
PHILOSOPHY OF SECULARISM............................. 0
LETTERS TO JESUS GHRIST
......................... 0
THE BIBLE GOD ............................................................... 0
THE FOLLY OF PRAYER
........................................ 0
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS............................. 0
v
A Reply to Mr. Gladstone.
WHAT WAS CHRIST ?................................................... 0
A Reply to J. S. Mill.
WAS JESUS INSANE ?................................................... 0
A searching inquiry into the mental condition of the
Prophet of Nazareth.
THE SHADOW OF THE SWORD............................. 0
ROYAL PAUPERS ...
0
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Defence of free speech : being a three hours' address to the jury in the court of Queen's Bench before Lord Coleridge on April 24, 1883
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: New ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 45, [2] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: New edition, with author's introduction signed May 25,1889, and footnotes. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. 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
1889
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N237
Subject
The topic of the resource
Blasphemy
Freedom of speech
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 (Defence of free speech : being a three hours' address to the jury in the court of Queen's Bench before Lord Coleridge on April 24, 1883), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Blasphemy-Great Britain
Blasphemy-Law and Legislation-Great Britain
Freedom of Speech
NSS