1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5a2122b15ce17a37506ae3cdc43c2769.pdf?Expires=1711584000&Signature=l9W9vFmg-dcjyRffTOZCH5jvjxXDCzkJ89PvU6F07U7X1yPbyEYFNfwfaELpww4qXumqSkViQzNKc1mUaeWv1zBPhBHkoaTsjynhL0xhsjs2WC9dMlgIicc3Pt6OvUt8keJ82CkQ%7EflI02nVumfqEZaC2ylHIgcmZ0QRGXd6KCwaylWasoartDjaopTG1CLC8C8-ywjyHoLPLHFEfoUK0VgQen-aOK55iXxQnnSu1RYXFfv71XUoHDLDJuoChXmugeAUIPcQDetCipVja5ST6A3Yu2XXaXT9FAv4jvfjaDMa9u-SEy7N049BjmCr6lzTBzF81Dpsy6-YnBPGrZpwbg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7580a57627d958ad71e09f53517e027a
PDF Text
Text
Enlarged (140th Thousand)
0^1 NATIONAL secular society
tty
Includes the Bradlaugh, Foote, and “ Freethinkt
Mr. Varley’s letter to the Electors of Nortl
Mr. BRADLAUGH Proved I
Unfit to Represent any English Cons
IND.
>NLY,
AN APPEAL
rime,
wing
TO THE
MEN OF ENGLAND
By HENRY VARLEY
Mr. Bradlaugh asks the sympathy of his fellow countrymen concerning
his rejection by the House of Commons. I remind him that he merits
their sternest reprobation and opposition. He thinks to trade upon their
lack of knowledge. He shall not da it. I challenged him three years
since to refute in a Court of Law the statements made in “ the Appeal."
He dare not attempt it. His recent threat of an action against me, was
simply intended to throw dust in the eyes of those who heard it. It is
monstrous that the daily press should lend itself to circulate his idle
bombast.
MAY, 1884.
LONDON:
Office of the CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH,
73, LUDGATE HILL, E.C.
Can be obtained of all Booksellers, or direct from the Author, by letter
addressed to 32, Clarendon Road, Notting Idlll, 17.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
SPECIAL
TERMS
FOR
LARGE
01’ A NT IT I F S.
�PREFACE.
know to how large an extent the Appeal to the
Li has check-mated Mr. Bradlaugh. I rejoice in this
latest is one in which issues of very grave character are
s question is not one of party politics, much less is it a
■the infringement of the rights of a constituency.” No one
■ than Mr. Bradlaugh does that the opposition which exists
■ rises from his own lawless conduct. For many years, on
Fplatforms in England, he has uttered the most revolting,
>d social blasphemies. Through the medium of the press
ulated these shocking statements by hundreds of thousands.
Lcen done to further his atheistic principles when, under the
'cd title of “Iconoclast,” he went through the Country using
inguage, samples of which are furnished in “This Appeal.”
this, he has circulated books which are loathsome and
II.rule.
These disgusting publications teach doctrines and
cs which are subversive of the Divine institutions of home,
ige, social purity, and national morality.
must not be forgotten that, for publishing and circulating “ The
ts of Philosophy,” Mr. Charles Bradlaugh and the abnormal
Bcsant were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to six months’
Fiiprisonment.
' Mr. Bradlaugh never tires of appealing to the sympathies of his
fellow countrymen on the ground of political liberty. In doing this, I
charge hi n with political dishonesty. Few men know better than he
does how to draw “a red herring” across the scent. Mr. Bradlaugh
represents that the opposition he receives arises from the fact that he is
a representative of working men. This is altogether untrue. Few men
in the House of Commons are more respected than Messrs. Broadhurst
and Burt, who are well-known representatives of the working classes.
The social mischief wrought by his abominable publications in
Northampton is simply deplorable. One of the leading Christian men
and Liberal politicans in the town told me that during the past twelve
years the growth of infidelity, lawlessness, sensual license, and
blasphemy amongst working men and young people has been appalling,
and that the outlook, socially,’was simply deplorable
Mr. Bradlaugh has recently threatened me with an action at law. I
am not in the least alarmed. I sent his solicitor’s letter to my lawyer,
who replied that we should defend any action taken. I am free to
admit that if my statements are not true, I had no right to publish them.
Further, if any man in England should charge me with making or
publishing such statements, and they were not true, I would certainly
give him all which the law should allow. Mrs. Besant has attempted to
reply to this Appeal. A more worthless, or scurrilous diatribe has
seldom been issued. Unable to answer the definite charges made, she
resorted to the old expedient of abusing the plaintiff.
With all the Editorial material in her hands she failed to answer the
charges. Mrs. Besant’s denial of the accuracy of quotation is entirely
false, as the columns of the National Reformer, the Pamphlets, and the
British Museum Library conclusively prove. The statement that 1 had
left out contexts which, if quoted, would have entirely altered the sense
of Mr. Bradlaugh’s words, is absurd and untrue. What context could
alter the blasphemous directness and evident meaning of the sentences
which I have qnoted ?
HENRY VARLEY
�iMAT’ONA’.SECUlARSOCIEn'
TO THE MEN OF ENGLAND.
FOR THEIR PRIVATE READING ONLY.
Gentlemen,—There are times when silence becomes a crime,
and though to me it is utterly repulsive to publish the following
statements, I dare not withhold them from your knowledge. It is
in the interests of right and truth, and on the behalf of home and
women and children that I earnestly appeal to you. This is no
personal quarrel or political party question, but a war in defence
of right and truth. I sound a clarion blast against Charles
Bradlaugh, by his own writings and speeches proved to be the
notorious advocate of social iniquity and lawlessness. If any other
man in England should dare to utter such revolting blasphemies,
or publish and circulate such horrible books and doctrines, I
promise him the same uncompromising opposition which I have
given Mr. Bradlaugh.
Having selected Northampton, Mr. Bradlaugh proceeded, years
since, to educate large numbers of working men into sympathy with
his extreme political views, and his'unclean and lawless social
publications. He industriously kept at this work of personal
propaganda for fifteen years, and gradually succeeded in
demoralising a large part of the constituency. This is how the
return of Mr. Bradlaugh came about. To affirm that the
constituency deal with this question on political grounds, that
they have nothing to do with Mr. Bradlaugh’s opinions or
doctrines, is to assert that politics have nothing to do with a
man’s morals, character, or conduct.
Such a statement is
altogether false.
The law already makes a number of exceptions, e.g., it is not
competent for the electors of Northampton to return an Irish peer,
a clergyman, a bankrupt, an imbecile, a felon, or a woman. Such
is the letter of the law. I hold that the spirit of the law together
with the moral conviction of the nation, forbids the acceptance,
if returned, of such a man as Mr. Bradlaugh.
The basis of English law is found in personal responsibility to
God. No man in England has the right to deny that responsi
bility, though he may have the power to do so. The Legislature
has no right to aid any man in denying that responsibility.
�4
Herein is seen the lawless character of the Affirmation Bill. Forthe first time in the history of England the Government attempted
to pass a measure which would have macle it competent and legal
for any man, if he chose, to deny his responsibility to God. A
more corrupt and false view of liberty, or a more unjust use of the
functions of the Legislature was never attempted.
He again asks the electors of Northampton to uphold him, and
expects that the representatives of the English constituencies will
ignore the law and permit him to enter the House of Commonsunchallenged. God forbid! Let that House stand firm against
the admission of this representative of social iniquity and atheism.
How dare the electors of Northampton speak of their constitu
tional liberties being infringed ? The question is, How they dare
insult the English nation by returning a man to make laws in
regard to national morality and righteousness, whose public
teachings and writings have for years past been disgusting,
lawless, and false, and who has been sentenced to six months’
imprisonment for publishing and circulating the same.
The nation expects the constituencies to send “ fit and proper
persons” to represent them. Such is the law ! How has North
ampton answered that requirement ? She sends the author of the
following blasphemous utterances.
In one of his public discussions Mr. Bradlaugh thus expresses
himself in relation to the Supreme Lawgiver, the Almighty God :—
“If you tell me that by God you mean ‘something’ which
created the universe, which before the act of creation was not:
‘ something ’ which has the power of destroying that universe ;
‘ something’ which rules and governs it, and which is, neverthe
less, entirely distinct and different in substance from the universe—then I am prepared to deny that any such existence can be.”
(Robertson Discussion, p. 12.) Again, he says:—“I hold that
the logical consequence of Secularism is the denial, the absolute
denial of a Providence.” (Holyoake Discussion, p. 29.) In the
same discussion, p. 16, he says:—“Although, at present, it may
be perfectly true that all men who are Secularists are not yet
Atheists, I put it to you, as also perfectly true, that, in my opinion,
the logical consequence of the acceptance of Secularism must be
that the man gets to Atheism, if he has brains enough to com
prehend.” In another place he observes :—“ I urged that Atheism
denied ffie existence of a God controlling the universe.” (New
castle Discussion, p. 74.) He blasphemously affirms that it is
utterly impossible to establish Secularism until not only Chris
tianity, but every form of Theism is completely destroyed. And
this is Charles Bradlaugh, the blasphemer, that Northampton
dares to send to the House of Commons ! There is no mistaking
his language, nor the object that he has in view. He exclaims : —
“ I find the preached ideas of God interfering with the children in
their cradles, with the children in their schools, with the grown-up
�5
children in their churches, and in their daily avocations of life, and
I am obliged to destroy Theism to make way for Secularism.”
Christianity he calls ‘‘a system theoretically unjust and practically
pernicious;” “rotten, intolerant, and false; derived from the
cruelty, the bigotry, the barbarism of a bygone age.” (Barker,
as above, pp. 85-104,) In the same discussion, p. 66, he calls
■Christianity a “cursed, inhuman religion,” while in that on
“What does Christian Theism Teach?” he pronounces it to be
“an accursed creed.” (P. 56 ) In his discussion with Matthias,
p. 179, he adopts the language of Shelley, and denounces Chris
tianity as a “bloody faith.” Again, he says:—“ Christianity is a
system which teaches submission to injury ; courting wrong, and
■volunteering yourself for oppression.” (Cooper Discussion, p. 42.)
Recently, he has said:—“Christianity has been a corroding,
an eating cancer, to empoison the whole life-blood of the world ;
the enemy of all progress ; the foe of all science. What is Chris
tianity ? I give it to you now in a word—it is blasphemy against
humanity, the mockery of humanity; it has crushed our efforts,
has ruined our lives, has poisoned our hearts, and has cursed our
hopes.” {National Reformer, Aug. 15, 1875, p. 108.)
Such is the horrible testimony of Charles Bradlaugh, whose
moderation has become so noticeable since he entered Parliament!
I ask, in all the interests of truth and right, Is this blasphemer a
fit and proper person to represent Northampton or any other
constituency ? It is no answer to affirm that “ They are the proper
judges in the matter, and that if the constituency of Northampton
is satisfied, there is nothing cither to be said or done.”
The character and work of our Lord Jesus Christ is thus spoken
of by Mr. Bradlaugh :—“ The plan of salvation by an atoning
sacrifice is repulsive in its details ;” “ immoral in its tendency;”
“ His mission was a sham ;” in His agony he proved Himself “ a
coward craven : ” when on the cross His language was that “ of
an enthusiast who had been himself deluded, or of a knave who
had deluded others.” “ as this the language (‘ My God, my
God, why hast I hou forsaken Me ?’) of a God, or of an enthusiast
who, in the agony of death, breaks down in despair ?” “ Your
atonement is a sham. Your atonement is a deception. Your
atonement is but a foul leprosy upon human intellect—a plaguespot of priest-craft—and I impeach it.” (Discussion with Barker,
as above, pp. 149, 155, 162, 172.)
Such is the public testimony of Charles Bradlaugh, whom the
electors of Northampton send to represent them in the Empire’s
House of Law. Does Mr. Bradlaugh imagine that such horrible
language as this is going to pass unchallenged ? I promise him
a censorship which he shall know exists. Only in June last at
Leeds Mr. Bradlaugh, speaking of a letter written by the Hon.
W. Fitzwilliam, MB., said that as a professed Liberal it stamped
him as “ a traitor and a coward.” Who is Mr. Bradlaugh that
�6
bis shameless tongue should be permitted to calumniate men who
dare to take their stand against his lawless blasphemies ?
The teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ are thus spoken of by
this blasphemer. Remember, reader, I quote his own words : —
“ I say, that if Jesus lived to day, neither his doctrine nor his life
would be the doctrine or the life of a great reformer.” (Barker,
as above, p. 152.) In his discussion with the Rev. T. D. Matthias,
at Halifax, he g ive utterance to the following sentiments :—“I
have further to say that the doctrine Jesus taught is not the
doctrine of a good man at all;” “never was a doctrine more
calculated to degrade mankind than this (the Sermon on the
Mount), which I place before you in all its monstrosity.” (Bp. 8298.) In the same discussion he argues that Christ was a perse
cutor, a teacher of immorality, and an ignorant man. (1’p. 6285, 124-125, 134-140.) Again, he says:—“ If he wants to tell me
that Christ has given us a moral system without reproach, I will
reply that under no system of morality which can pretend to be
without blemish, is so much vice permitted.” (Cooper Discussion,
p. 42.) Finding fault with Mr. Greg’s conception of the teaching
of Jesus, he says :—“ On the contrary, his (Christ’s) philosophy
is incoherent, his morality often imperfect, his conception of
human duty often unsound, his ideas as to the scope and range of
the human understanding utterly erroneous. The ascctcism some
times inculcated by Jesus was misleading, his injunction to submit
to wrong, absolutely immoral.” {National Reformer, July 31st,
1870.)
Such are the horrible and blasphemous utterances of Charles
Bradlaugh ; and yet, because the electors of Northampton have
returned him, he supposes that he is forthwith to be whitewashed,
and accepted as a legislator.
Hear, again, what Mr. Bradlaugh says of the Bible. Notice,
these are his own words
“ The whole of the book (the Bible) is
a reflex of the wanderings, a mythological representation, the out
growth of an ignorant and barbarous age;” “If you take the
Bible as a guide, immorality must necessarily result
“Immoral
book, I denounce it.” (Barker Discussion, pp. 28, 45, 64.) In the
National Reformer of February 20th, 1876, p. 123, he is repre
sented as saying:—“ So long as the Established Church exists to
teach the people the divinity of the Bible, and School Boards
pollute children’s minds with the same book, we must attack it
wherever and whenever we can, till we have rooted out and de
stroyed the upas-tree of superstition.” With reference to this
extract, Mr. Bradlaugh says, in the National Reformer of
March 12th, 1876, p. 169:—“We have had several letters from
Northampton as to the report of our speech on the Bible, quoted
by Mr. Peek at the School Board. We have been told that, unless,
we modify or explain our statement, we shall lose many votes. To
those whose political vote depends upon a theological statement,.
�7
we have nothing to modify, nothing to explain. To others—who
desire to know our real view on the matter—we answer that no
such sweeping statement could justly be made [quite truej
regarding a book containing so many varying moralities as does
the Bible ; some of it is good and useful, some of it bad and
harmful, reflecting, as it does, the changing civilizations among
which it was written. We emphatically hold that the Bible ought
not to be a school book, and that there are parts of it which must
have a terribly polluting influence on the minds of young children
taught to regard it as a message from an infallible Deity.”
Such are the views of this ‘‘fit and proper person ” who
has been sent by the electors of Northampton, and who profess
themselves to be indignant concerning what they have dared to
call “ the infringement of their constitutional rights.”
Dear, again, what Mr Bradlaugh teaches concerning social
questions. He has in two cases reprinted, and in either case
strongly commended, three books, whose titles I give, “ Elements
of Social Science,” the ‘‘Fruits of Philosophy,” and a recently
republished pamphlet entitled, ‘‘Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus.”
At page io Mr. Bradlaugh says, ‘‘This work 1 specially recom
mend. From its price the book is within the reach of most
working men, and it is from the pen of a man who is thoroughly
versed in the subject he deals with.”
This horrible book, the ‘‘Elements of Social Science,” under
mines the family bond, and is so disgusting that the author was
ashamed to put his name to it. The leading principles of this
book may be thus summarised : First, An exaltation of the animal
and sensual in man over the spiritual and mental. Second, A
condemnation of marriage in the strongest terms. Third, Apolo
gising for the birth of illegitimate offspring. Fourth, Condoning
with prostitution. Fifth, Excusing the evils and diseases resulting
from licentiousness. This is putting the matter in the mildest
form possible. The filthy author says, on p. 355 :—“ Marriage is
one of the chief instruments in the degradation of women.” On
page 366 he teaches :—“ Whether children have been born in
marriage or not, is a matter of comparatively very little import
ance.” On page 270 he declares that ‘‘prostitution should be
regarded as a valuable temporary substitute for a better state of
things,” and adds
‘‘Therefore the deep gratitude of mankind,
instead of scorn, is due, and will be given in future times, to those
unfortunate females who have suffered in the cause of our sexual
nature.”
In course of his discussion with David King, Mr. Bradlaugh
endeavoured to enlist the late Lord Amberley on his side in
defence of this book. He said :—“ I myself heard Lord Amberley
say that this book—the ‘ Elements of Social Science ’—is the best
book that has been written on the subject, and ought to be in the
hands of every working man ; he said that in my hearing, and in
�8
the presence of seventy or eighty of the most respectable physi
cians in the City of London.” (King Discussion, sixth night,
p. 33.) Mr. King wrote to this nobleman to know if Mr. Brad
laugh’s words were true, and received a reply in the negative,
which, when read to the meeting, was greeted with loud and
prolonged cheers. The letter is as follows :—
“ With the book you mention, the ‘Elements of Social Science,’ I am
indeed acquainted, but I regard it with the strongest disapproval. The
author's ideal of society appears to be a state of unlimited license, happi
ness being obtained by the indulgence of degrading passions. I contemplate
such teaching with the utmost aversion, and I consider the wide circulation
of the work which contains it the more to be regretted because its preten
sions to medical authority (to which I am convinced it has but little claim)
may easily mislead unwary or uninstructed readers.
“ Should anyone attribute to me in your presence any sort of agreement
with this pernicious work, I authorise you to contradict the statement in
the most emphatic manner.’’
Mr. Bradlaugh, still persisting in his statements (pp. 39-40),
Mr. King again wrote to Lord Amberley, and received the
following answer:—
“ Sir,—In reply to your letter of the 3rd instant, I have to say that the
speech alluded to by Mr. Bradlaugh was made at the Dialectical Society
on July 1st, 1868.................................. With reference to Mr. Bradlaugh’s
alleged quotation, I may observe that I do not believe I made any reference
to the ‘Elements of Social Science,’ and most certainly not in the terms
stated by Mr. Bradlaugh. I am not at all surprised to learn that he
‘ cannot give ’ the number of the British Medical Journal, since the report
referred to by him contains not the most distant allusion to the work in
question. This will be sufficient to show you with what extreme caution
Mr. Bradlaugh's assertions must be received. In conclusion, my present
estimate of this book is not the result of a change of mind since 1808.__
Yours faithfully,
“ Amberley.”
What, then, are we to think of Mr. Bradlaugh in this matter ?
Simply that he endeavoured to attribute his own words to Lord
Amberley. Having admitted that Mr. Laurie, Lord Amberley’s
tutor, read a paper (p. 39), it was deemed wise to write to him 'on
the subject.
That gentleman (Mr. Laurie) wrote to Lord
Amberley thus:—
“I am convinced you said nothing about the book called ‘Elements of
Social Science.’ But the opinion quoted by Mr. Bradlaugh, and attributed
to you, was delivered by himself after your lordship had left the meeting.”
Having settled the question in relation to Lord Amberley, Mr.
King wrote to the late John Stuart Mill, to ascertain if he had
been fairly represented by the frequent use of his name in con
nection with this abominable book.
That gentleman replied
thus:—
�9
“ Dear Sir,—I have most certainly never on any occas'on whatever, in
public or private, expressed any approbation of the book entitled ‘ Elements
of Social Science.’ Nor am I likely ever to have done so, inasmuch as I
very strongly object to some of the opinions expressed in it. You are
therefore quite at liberty to say that I am not correctly represented by any
one who asserts that I have commended the book.—Yours very faithfully,
“J. S. Mill.”
Well does Mr. King add :—“ Thus this wretched case of falsi
fication of testimony and boldly impudent imposition is completely
exposed.” My readers would do well to obtain this discussion for
themselves, and read carefully the last two nights’ proceedings,
where the above evidence is given in full, for a more thorough
exposure of Mr. Bradlaugh’s shallow pretentiousness, unfairness,
ignorance, and untruthfulness has never been made.
And you are ready to ask, What about the men who became
associated with this unclean blasphemer ? Hear the testimony of
a gentleman well known in Northampton :—‘‘I can well remember
the time when the late Joseph Barker and the present G. J. Holyoake were co-editors with Mr. Bradlaugh of the National
Reformer. Each of them withdrew in disgust from it on account
of Mr. Bradlaugh advocating the ‘Elements of Social Science.’”
The former (Mr. Barker) wrote a review of this book, in which he
says :—‘‘I regard the man who can recommend a book like the
miscalled ‘ Elements of Social Science ’ to unsuspecting boys and
girls, and who can form or patronise associations for the purpose
of stealthily spreading its most deadly poison through the com
munity, as a more dangerous man, as a greater criminal, as a
deadlier foe to virtue and humanity than the vilest murderer that
ever plotted or sinned against mankind. My duty to myself, my
duty to my wife and children, my duty to my readers and friends,
and my duty to the public, require me—and my own heart prompts
me—to separate from such men entirely and for ever, and to wage
an unceasing and unsparing war against their principles.”
Review, p. 26.)
And this is written concerning Charles Bradlaugh, with whose
character and opinions the electors of Northampton are so little
concerned that they count him a ‘‘fit and proper person” to
represent them in the House of Commons.
Another book commended by Mr. Bradlaugh is by one Richard
Harte. It was reviewed by Mr. Bradlaugh in the National
Reformer of August 28th, 1870. He says :—‘‘With Mr. Harte’s
view as to what ought to be essential in the inception, duration,
and termination of the marriage contract we cordially concur.”
Learning, then, what the author’s views on marriage are, we can
easily determine the belief of Mr. Bradlaugh on the subject. On
page 26 we read :—“ Love is a combination of three sympathies—
the moral, the intellectual, and the physical. And since it is
impossible to develope these sympathies, or even to be certain
�IO
that they actually exist without the experience of intimate associaation, it is imperative that marriage should be, to a certain extent,
a matter of experiment. Not only are human beings exceedingly
liable to judge wrongly in matters of love, but, moreover, they are
liable to develope in character unequally and in different direction;
therefore the dissolution of marriage should be as free and
honourable a transaction as its formation.” Mark the last two
lines of the extract. They mean that two persons may live together
for some time as man and wife, to know whether they suit each
other; they mean that any person is free to enter into the marriage
state to-day, and equally free to dissolve the contract to-morrow.
On page 66 we have free love [ ? lust] coming into vogue. It
says :—“ Finally, there can be little doubt that much of that
a priori contempt and hatred for free love which has hitherto been
a fruitful source of want of self-respect in the classes deemed dis
reputable, and consequently of their degradation, is disappearing
from the philosophy of our time.” On page 67 we have the
startling statement :—‘‘And we may conclude that, even if the
effect of the changes I have advocated be to cause all women to
become little better than prostitutes, that, at all events, they will
also have the effect of putting all women into a much tetter
position than wives.”
What can this mean, unless it is that now the position of
the wife is worse than the position of the prostitute ? Husbands
of England! what do you think of this fellow’s teaching ? Re
member that Mr. Bradlaugh endorses it, for he has said :—“ With
Air. Harte’s view as to what ought to be essential in the inception,
duration, and termination of the marriage contract, we cordially
concur.” Before I .give Mr. Bradlaugh’s own words on the
subject, one more quotation from Harte’s book must be recorded.
It is relating to. seduction. On page 84 the words are:—‘‘The
evil effect of seduction lies in the treatment that society accords
to the seduced woman. Were she no longer consigned to misery
and degradation, there would be little or no evil effect produced
by yielding to the promptings of love .... Where there is no.
punishment, there is no crime; neither seducer nor seduced
should be punished for the seduction.” This means, of course, if
punishment for crime be abolished, crime will be no longer crime ;
for, as Harte says, ‘‘Where there is no punishment, there is no
crime.”
Here, then, are two of Mr. Bradlaugh’s admired authors
recognising seduction as a virtue, Air. Harte and the author of
the “ Elements of Social Science,” for, as G. J. Holyoake says of
this last:—‘‘The medical moral of this book has appeared to
some (who are eminently entitled to deference) to be that
seduction is a physiological virtue. If this be so, a more danger
ous licence to vice has never been suggested.” Yet Air. Bradlaugh
says of these two books:—“Richard Harte’s book, or the
�II
‘Elements,’ are at any rate an improvement on these laws of
Christianity [he refers to the Mosaic laws], which are diabolical,
inhuman, and damnable, and, therefore, against which 1 plead.”
(King Discussion, sixth night, p. 36.)
Little need be said of the “Fruits of Philosophy,” by Dr.
Knoulton. My readers well know that for publishing and circu
lating this obscene book Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant have
been convicted, fined, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
The legal technicality which enabled these notorious blasphemers
to escape the actual punishment detracts nothing either from their
guilt or their desert. Notwithstanding their laboured defence of
it before the Lord Chief Justice anda special jury, 1 believe there are
few decent people but will agree with Aiderman biggins that “ it
is a pamphlet not published in the interests of science, but issued
as a popular production at a low price lor general reading, and
that it is a production against the public morals, because it is a
publication which directly points out, not only how the families of
married women may be limited, but how unmarried women may
gratify their passion without fear of the'natural consequences”
{National Reformer, April 29th, 1877, p. 263) ; that it is, to use
the words of the indictment, “ indecent, lewd, filthy, and obscene,
thereby contaminating, vitiating, and corrupting the morals of
youth, and bringing people to a state of wickedness, lewdness,
debauchery, and immorality.”
Mark the following:—Mr. Bradlaugh, in a debate with Mr.
Brown, at Leeds, on “ Miracles,” said of Mr. Muller’s Orphanage
at Bristol, that the sickness took place “ through their having
omitted to look to the drain-pipes,” which sickness the “ Sanitary
Inspector says may be avoided in future if they will pray less and
drain their place better.” {National Reformer, May 14th, 1876,
p. 310.) Mr. Muller’s agent writes about this as follows:—
“There was not the shadow of a foundation for Mr. Bradlaugh s
statement that we omitted to look to the drain-pipes : on the
contrary, the Inspector regarded the drainage as so perfect that
he had nothing to suggest.” What are we to think of such
proceedings as these? These illustrations might be greatly
increased, but sufficient has been adduced to warrant the assertion
that he practically believes in the principles of Voltaire:—“To
lie for a friend is the first duty of friendship. Lying is only a vice
when it does harm, but a very great virtue when it does good.”
{National Reformer, June ptffi 1870.)*______
* With virtuous indignation Mrs. Besant denounced the withdrawal of
the name and date of the National Reformer. in regard to the passage
quoted from Voltaire, as above, and given in the first edition of the
“Appeal.-’ No doubt Mrs. Besant was aware that the error was simply
one of date, and not of fact.
A gentleman, deeply interested in this controversy, sends me the missing
date, viz., National Reformer, June 5th, 1870, p. 355- Mrs. Besant can
hardly have been ignorant of this.
�12
Mr. Bradlaugh is called by his friends a great man ; well,
if to advocate that which is lawless, filthy, blaspheming,
immoral, and destitute of any regard for righteousness and
truth makes a man great, Charles Bradlaugh is a great man
indeed ! I should say the greatest, or more properly, the most
notorious, this century' has seen.
The foregoing extracts are from the pen of a gentlemen well
known in Northampton, who deserves the thanks of the men
of England for the bold and manly exposure that he has given of
this lawless blasphemer.
After these testimonies will any man dare to say that Mr. Brad
laugh is persecuted, or that opposition in his case means the in
fringement of the civil and religious liberty of the subject. Liberty
is a relative term, and comprehends a course of conduct which
is consistent with individual, social and national welfare. There
can be no liberty to do that which is injurious to the interests of
others. No householder is at liberty to store petroleum, dynamite
or gunpowder in his house. The risk to himself and others forbids.
No man is at liberty to keep an immoral house, to publish,
sell, or circulate obscene books, to keep a gambling house, or
to jeopardize the health of his neighbours. For these and similar
acts there is no liberty.
The men who do these things are
lawless. Judged from this standard, Mr. Bradlaugh’s conduct
has been lawless in the most offensive and criminal sense.
Northampton must learn that if her electors have no conscience
in the return of sugIi a man, the House of Commons, the law,
and the country have.
I scatter this broadcast among the men of England, in order that
they may know how it comes about that Mr. Bradlaugh meets and.
merits such unflinching opposition. The question of national
righteousness is at stake, and silence at such a juncture becomes
criminal, and would mean tacit complicity with lawlessness,
iniquity, and profligacy
Henry Varley.
WE COME NEXT TO THE BRADLAUGH,
FOOTE, AND CO. TRIALS FOR BLASPHEMY.
I proceed to ascertain and to make my readers acquainted with
the ground there was for the recent trial, also the relation which
Mr. Bradlaugh sustained to the Freethinker, and what the
character of the atrocious writings allowed to be published and
circulated from his office in Stonecutter Street.
I ask attention to th‘e horrible blasphemies which are appended.
They are quoted from the Freethinker, a periodical which was
commenced in May, 1881, and edited by Mr. G. W. Foote, one of
Mr. Bradlaugh’s prominent supporters at the Hall of Science, and
who has recently served a term of twelve months’ imprisonment
�for printing and circulating this loathsome and disgusting paper.
Mr. Bradlaugh has dared to say that he was not responsible for
what appeared in the Freethinker, but for nearly eighteen
months the Freethinker was published at Mr. Bradlaugh’s office.
Let any one compare the atrocious blasphemies which I have
taken from the Freethinker for December 18th, 1881, with the
quotations from the National Reformer, given in pages 5,6, 7
of this “Appeal,” and it will be seen how entirely they corn spond.
They are alike both in matter and spirit, and might have been
uttered by the same voice, or written by the same hand.
I ask your forbearance whilst I reproduce some of thg horrible
statements. I loathe the whole business, but it is no use to shut
our eyes to the facts. In the interests of righteousness and truth,
I respectfully ask you to hear how the leaders of this school of
blasphemy and atheism write and speak in 1881.
The following quotation, from the pen of Mr. G. W. Foote,
appears in the Freethinker for December 18th, 1881 :—
“Next to the brutality of God, and the barbarity of his chosen people,
the most shocking circumstance in connection with the Bible is the degra
dation and depravity of its women. Scarcely any of the gentler sex whose
shadows flit through the Biblical panorama possess the virtues that should
adorn them. They are cither concubines, like Hagar, artful dodgers, like
Rebecca, harlots and traitors, like Rahab, incestuous, like Lot’s daughters,
or infamously immoral, like Jezebel. Like Potiphar’s wife, they are more
solicitous of entrapping the unwary virtue of man than of guarding pure and
chaste their own. But their conduct is scarcely reprehensible if the pro
fligacy of God is to be piously winked at. For Jehovah, like all the gods
of old, was an unmitigated rake. In one case, thirty-two Midianitish
maidens were delivered over to his unbridled lust. In another, he scurvilv
debauched the fair betrothed of a Jewish carpenter. From the gusto with
which the Holv Ghost has diversified the dull narratives and insipid
twaddling of the Bible with spicily-told indecencies, one may well imagine
in how edifxing a manner God and his pious saints must spend their time
in the heavenly regions, and picture the unctuous debaucheries that while
awav the tedium of their eternal Tc Dciims. No decent woman, unless
possessing the accommodating virtue of a Sarah or a Jezebel, would care
to spend eternity in a heaven presided over by a lecherous-minded God,
and inhabited by pious rakes.
“ Strange it is, despite the infamy with which the Bible brands woman
kind, that the fair sex should be so fondly devoted to the verv emblem and
instrument of their shame and dishonour. Their attachment to Christianity
is an edifying example of self-mortification, prompted, we presume, by
Christ's sublimely absurd maxim:—-Bless them that curse you, and pray
for them that despitefully use you.’ (Luke vi. 28.) That the ladies have set
their affections on an unworthy God, and hallow an unholv Book, the
following facts, in addition to the foregoing, will abundantly prove : —1. In
punishment of Eve's disobedience God inflicts upon her, and all her future
daughters, the sorrow—above all physical sorrows—of the pains of partu
rition. Retribution more fiendish for crime so insignificant could not be
imagined. God, further, ordains man as the ruler, not the equal of woman,
�H
and thus sows the seed of the most widespread of all tyrannies_ the
tyranny of the home, besides laying the foundation of the so'cial and legal
inferiority, which, in all Christian lands, man has adjudged to woman.
“The amatory prowess of King David, the man after Gods own heart, is
notorious. It would require the poetic fervour of an Ovid to adequately
recount the famous exploit which gained for him the hand of Michal, the
daughter of King Saul. For our part, we will simply relate the pathetic
story in the plain prose of holy writ. The tale runs that Saul, whose lofty
mind abhorred ‘ filthy lucre,’ desired no dowry for the young damsel
(i Sam. xviii. 25). but simply ‘an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.’
Whereupon David, who was mighty both in love and war, ‘arose and went,
he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men ; and David
brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he
might be the king s son-in-law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter
to wife’ (v. 27). Will some German princelet take the hint, and bid in
like manner for the hand of Princess Beatrice ?
. “Then, again, the infamous treachery of David in respect to Uriah, and
his adultery with Bathsheba, was punished by the righteous judge ofheaven
—not by the death of the base culprit, but by the death of the child of his
sin. But it was at the dread hour of death that the piety of King David re
asserted itself. For is it not written that he surrendered his soul to God,
and his body to the embraces of a fair damsel, and thus died ‘ safe in the
arms of Jesus’ and Venus (1 Kings i.)
“Abraham—the father of the faithful—who was selected from all the
world's inhabitants to be the founder of Gods chosen nation, did only one
good deed in his whole life. Abraham was an incorrigible liar. He twice
passed his wife off as his sister—not to save her honour, but to save his own
skin ; and on each occasion God punished not the liar, but the persons who
were simple enough to believe him. He turned his own son and the lad s
mother out into the wide world to live or die, with no sustenance except a
little dry bread and cold water. He consented to offer up another son as a
burnt offering to God. True, he was arrested at the critical moment. But
in estimating character, intention is everything. These two occasions show
that he was a murderer at heart. Abraham was therefore a liar, a coward,
and a murderer.”
G. W. Foote.
I charge Mr. Bradlaugh that he allowed, without protest, the
foregoing horrible and utterly false statements to go forth. Let
it be remembered that this is ’but a sample of the writings to be
found, week by week, in the columns of the Freethinker. I charge
Mr. Bradlaugh with being an accessory in this disgusting business.
1 affirm that he knew perfectly well what was being done, and
permitted his offices to be used for spreading the filth of the
atrocious Freethinker amongst thousands of illiterate men and
women. I promise Mr. Bradlaugh that he shall not do such
things with impunity, nor make a catspaw of another Mr. Foo:e.
I will not shock my readers with any more of these revolting
extracts, but I will ask, Can any working man in England wonder
at the strong feeling which exists against Mr. Foote and Mr.
Bradlaugh, or be surprised that Sir Vernon Harcourt refused to
interfere with, or remit any part of, the sentence passed upon Mr.
�i5
Foote? Mr. Justice North deserves the heartiest thanks of the
entire community for the exemplary’ sentence which he passed
upon this blaspheming outlaw, and I believe every right-minded
man in England, when he knows the facts, will say so too. It is
a pity that such men as Dr. Fairbairn and Rev. Guinness Rogers
did not make themselves acquainted with the facts before they
hastened to the defence of these lawless blasphemers. Their
conduct in defending such men on political grounds is simply’
disgraceful
These quotations from the Freethinker show the fearful lengths
to which these blasphemers are prepared to go. They also prove
the exceeding value and importance of the existing law in its
ability to cope with and punish these social outlaws. Mr. B. W.
Newton says of the Christmas (1882) number of this atrocious
publication :—“ It contains a sheet on which are eighteen pictures
or illustrations, loathsome and disgusting, even if designed as
caricatures of the lowest and most debased wretch that can be
found on earth. But these caricatures are not directed against
men, they are avowedly directed against Christ. They are in
tended to ridicule, degrade, and vilify the King of kings and Lord of
lords—even our Lord Jesus Christ—the Saviour. I should not use
too strong words were I to say' that these caricatures are devilish. Of
all the insults that have ever been directed against God, there has
never, I believe, been any greater than this ; and yet the Govern
ment proposes so to alter the laws of England that persons who
might edit, or sustain such publications as the Freethinker would
become eligible for seats in the Legislature.”
Mr. Bradlaugh’s special pleading at the time of his trial for
blasphemy, bamboozled the jury.
Lef us see whether he can
bamboozle the men of England. I am greatly mistaken if he can.
They shall know the true character of the Freethinker, and Mr.
Bradlaugh’s connection therewith. They can here read forthem
selves some of Mr. Foote’s atrocious writings, and become competent to judge for themselves as to the justice or otherwise of the
sentences of imprisonment passed upon Messrs. Foote and Ramsey.
I venture to say' that the thought will fasten itself upon many minds
that the injustice of the position is that Mr. Bradlaugh was not
prosecuted and imprisoned long since. I honestly say that if, as a
publisher, I were to lend my office and influence to publish and
In a displayed advertisement of the National Reformer of the last week
in June, 1881, the following appears :—“ A special feature of No. 3 of the
Freethinker will be a comic sketch of Jonah and the whale, after the
prophet was vomited up. The whale looks the very picture of disgust,
while Jonah is radiant with triumph. A bland smile lights up his Hebrew
features, and he sings a joyous song, accompanying himself on the banjo
—a real side-splitter.” That this was with Mr. Bradlaugh’s knowledge
and consent there can be no doubt.
�16
circulate such a loathsome periodical as the Freethinker, I should
merit a criminal prosecution, the penalties of a lengthened term
of imprisonment, and the detestation of my fellow men.
I am persuaded that when my fellow-countrymen know what
Charles Bradlaugh has said and done, they in the vast majority
will recognise the justice and right of his rejection by the House
of Commons. British working men like fair play, but they are not
prepared to stand side by side with Mr. Bradlaugh’s coarse and
revolting blasphemies.
He has made great capital of their
sympathy by keeping back from their knowledge the real causes
of his rejection. I for one am determined that they shall not be
kept in ignorance any longer. 1 housands of working men ask the
question, “ Why is Mr. Bradlaugh opposed, and why is he refused
admission to the House of Commons?” I answer, Read this
“Appeal,” and you will understand how richly he merits the
strong opposition of his fellow-men. Mr. Bradlaugh talks about
“ his rights.” Will he dare to assert that he ever had the right
to say and to do what these pages prove him to have said and
done ? He had the power, but he never had the right. This
distinction needs to be clearly understood. Mr. Bradlaugh is
reaping the harvest of his own corrupt sowing, and if he thinks the
men of England arc going to endorse his horrible wickedness, he
never made a greater mistake in his life.
Of all the contemptible things which have been recently done,
the latest was Charles Bradlaugh’s subtle special pleading at the
time of his recent trial for blasphemy. To shuffle out of the
responsibility which belonged to him in sheltering and publishing
The Freethinker, merely to save his own skin, is so entirely like
him, that those who know him will not affect the least surprise.
Hear his reasoning, which I summarize: Had he not ceased to
publish The Freethinker ?
Had he not removed his office to
Fleet Street ? Was not the Christmas number of that vile pub
lication, for which Foote was sentenced to twelve months’ im
prisonment, published subsequently to the removal to Fleet Street?
Very clever, no doubt. Very, very convincing to those who knew
no better; but what about publishing, fostering, and circulating
J he Freethinker at the office of 7 tie National Reformer for seven
teen months prior to the removal to Fleet Street, during the whole
of which time such vile and blasphemous articles as those I quote
at pages 13 and 14 were practically endorsed by Mr. Bradlaugh ?
“ No responsibility.” What! This is scandalously false. Common
honesty should have led Mr. Charles Bradlaugh to share the punish
ment with his friend and coadjutor, Mr. Foote. The matter for
astonishment is that Lord Chief Justice Coleridge should have
ignored this damning fact.
It is abominable that these facts
should have been ignored, and the cause of justice subverted and
overthrown. Why did he not direct the case for the prosecution
.0 be so amended, as to shew Mr. Bradlaugh’s connection with
�i7
The Freethinker in Stonecutter Street ? nothing could have been
easier.
Repeal the’ blasphemy laws, indeed!
What! and
play into the hands of Messrs. Foote, Bradlaugh
Co. ? Rather
let us be profoundly thankful that in these days of disgusting
infidelity, law exists which is competent to deal with these un
scrupulous men.
MR. HENRY VARLEY’S LETTER
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
ON THE AFFIRMATION BILL, APRIL, 1882.
Lords
Gentlemen,
The grave mistake made by the Liberal leaders
at the time of the last General Election in endorsing the can
didature of Mr. Bradlaugh, has borne its bitter fruit of discord and
division. That a man who has spoken, written, and circulated
such scandalous and offensive words and such immoral books,
should have been elected for Northampton is bad enough, but that
the Liberal party should be expected to stand with such a man as
Mr. Bradlaugh, simply because he professes himself to be a
Liberal, is abominable, and must be resisted and broken through
at all costs. Many staunch Liberals have refused to follow the
Government in the past, and the unjust cry of “breaking faith
with party,’’ and the silly talk concerning the “ sacred rights of
constituencies,” must not hinder them if necessary from again
protesting against this unpardonable and disgraceful association.
I do not speak as a politician nor as a partisan. Had any other
political party endorsed the candidature of Mr. Bradlaugh, I
should have spoken out just as strongly. To identify the apostle
of Atheism and lawlessness with either political party, means
division, confusion, and trouble to all concerned.
•
It was a great mistake to suppose that the passing of the
Affirmation Bill would settle this question. One of the worst
features of this Bill was that it appeared in the form of an attempt
on the part of the Government to clear Mr. Bradlaugh from the
consequences of his scandalous conduct in the past, and sought
to make the Legislature an agent to open the lawfully closed doors
of the House, in order that the most lawless blasphemer of modern
times might enter. To attempt to separate the political elements
from the individual and moral features of this case, is both
impossible and undesirable.
The law in relation to Affirmation requires of all who make it,
the following testimony, “I, A, B, solemnly, truly, and sincerely
declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors according to
law.” How could these words be used by Mr. Bradlaugh! In
his offensive pamphlet, “ The Impeachment of the House of
Brunswick,” Mr. Bradlaugh says that “one object is to submit
reasons for the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Union as far
and
�i8
as the succession to the throne is concerned after the abdication
or demise of the present Sovereign, and to procure the repeal of
the only title under which any Member of the House of Brunswick
could claim to succeed the present Sovereign on the throne, or to
procure a special enactment which shall for the future exclude the
Brunswick's.” That there may be no mistake, listen to Mr.
Bradlaugh’s own words: “ Do not yet challenge the old and
crumbling dynasty to die ; you cannot expect it to commit suicide,
and your weapons are not strong enough to fight it successfully”
{National Reformer, Jan. 26, 1868). Speaking of H.R.H. the
Prince of Wales, Mr. Bradlaugh has written: “ Wetrust that the
Prince of \\ ales may get fair play ; if he does, most certainly he
will never sit on the throne of England” (National Reformer,
Oct. 30, 1870). In the year 1871, H.R.H. the Prince of Wales
accepted the Presidency of “ The Asylum for Idiots.” Mr. Brad
laugh, in a specially printed leader in the National Reformer of
April 23, 1871, wrote these grossly insulting words: “We are
pleased to see H.R.H. in a station for which the habits of his life
and the traditions of his family so thoroughly qualify him.”
Now, in the face of these insulting statements, how could the
House of Commons become a party to admit Mr. Bradlaugh by
the proposed Affirmation Bill ? Had that measure been carried,
it would have been lawful for him solemnly, truly, and sincerely to
affirm at the door of the House that he would bear faithful alle
giance to Her Majesty the Queen, when he has distinctly stated
that he intends to act in direct opposition to the terms of the
Affirmation. The name of God was to disappear and a lie could
then have been solemnly affirmed without conscience, hindrance,
rebuke, or prevention. Surely this would not have been liberty,
byt corrupt, and shameful license.
In relation to the CL th, it was very properly stated that the
House of Commons could not become a party to its profanation.
1 he House of Commons was invited to lend itself to become a
party to the profanation of the Affirmation. Recognised as
wrong by the Legislature if the Oath was taken by Mr. Bradlaugh
in relation to God, could his affirmation be accepted and right if
made in relation to Her Majesty the Queen ? Given the passing
of this Bill, would the legislature quietly stand by and see Mr.
Bradlaugh solemnly, truly, and sincerely promise “that he would
be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty QueenVictoria,”
in the face of the following words which are found in Mr. Brad
laugh’s pamphlet ?
He says, “ I loathe these small, German,
breast-bestarred wanderers, whose only merit is their loving hatred
of one another.” How could the House of Commons legislate to
this end ? Surely legislation h id never been more foully prostituted.
The Rev. Brewin Grant ven- forcibly said, “ The Affirmation Bill
would have been an Act to legalize hypocrisy or moral perjury.”
Moreover, the Affirmation Bill had become so hopelessly en-
�!9
tangled in the meshes of Mr. Bradlaugh’s notoriety, that *t "as
everywhere known as the Bradlaugh Relief Bill! even Mr. Glad
stone’s great popularity could not prevent it taking this distinct
shape. In the minds ot hundreds of thousands this Act was regal vi
ed as an insult to the Supreme Lawgiver, and it aroused the
conscience of the nation to such an extent that the present Govern
ment, taking sides with Mr. Biadlaugh, was defeated. There
should have been real ground for this legislation. A strong case
could not be made out, not even by Mr. Gladstone, and tlie
measure was most wisely rejected. It is desirable that the fa< is
in regard to the existing law should be carefully considered.. T-he
law which makes the recognition of God, and the expression of
dependence upon and accountability to H im, necessary a.t the door
of the nation’s house of law is neither unjust or oppressive to the
conscience of any man. The Brahmin, the Mohammedan, the
follower of Confucius, has no real ground of complaint against
the existing law.
Even Buddhism, which began as an
Atheistic philosophy, has become an idolatry known as the
worship of Buddha.
Though the thoughts of God amongst
these people differ very much, they all recognise accountability
to God, and should any of these become English subjects
and be returned as parliamentary representatives, the existing
law would impose no injustice upon them.
lhe same is
true concerning the Jews, the Unitarians, and the Friends,
none of these deny Go'd, and all who, on the ground of conscience
toward God, object to take an oath are by law enabled to make
1 ‘ an affirmation. ” Even in the case of the Secularists, no injustice
or oppression exists. These do not deny the existence of God.
The platform of the Secularists in this respect is “ that the exist
ence of God has not been proved.” lhis was well put some time
since by Mr. Holyoake, who, replying to Mr. Bradlaugh’s vehe
ment declaration, “ that such a being as God does not and cannot
exist,” quietly and with keen sarcasm congratulated Mr. Bradlaugh
upon “ his amazing knowledge.” It is clear, therefore, that the
avowed Atheist is the only being in the world who can charge the
existing law with injustice; and the charge, if brought, has no
force in it if Mr. Bradlaugh is accepted as the exponent of Atheism,
for his conscience is so elastic that now he will either affirm, take
the oath, or let it alone, whichever is permitted or most convenient.
Mr. John Stuart Mill, and more recently, Mr. John Morley,
found it practicable and within the range of a good conscience to
take the Oath of Allegiance. Why should the Government turn
aside from the legitimate business of the country to waste time and
strength over this notorious leader of atheistic blasphemy and
social lawlessness ?
It is remarked by some that if what they have been pleased to
call the “ farce of Oath-taking ” could be seen at the commence
ment of the Session, when hundreds of Members hurry and struggle
�20
around the Speaker’s chair, the desirability of abolishing the Oath
altogether would press itself upon all observers. This I think is
mere sentiment. It does not follow that an act done hastily
either by or amongst a crowd, is necessarily irreverent. Were that
so, a crowd pressing into a church or to a religious service should
be decried and condemned. The perfunctory way in which oaths
are administered in our Courts of Justice, is no reflection upon the
ac't of oath-taking, but it is a great scandal to the Tud«es
and Magistrates who permit the officials in our Courts of Justice
t,lu? to tr>fle with the solemn act of invoking the witness and aid
ot the living God in regard to the testimony about to be given.
Another argument used is this. It is said that there are other
members of the House of Commons who are as atheistical as is
Mr. Bradlaugh; and if he is prevented taking the Oath or
Affirmation, so also they should be. Though this were true, such
reasoning is fallacious ; the law can only deal with transgressors
■ftho are found out, or with such as criminate themselves. Its
povver to operate, detect, and punish is in the sphere of discovered
action. Ihousands of dishonest men escape the law because
their actions remain unknown and undetected.
. Though this be true, we do not declaim against the law, or
insist upon its repeal, because many undiscovered and unavowed
criminals escape its detection and punishment. In the case of
the junior Member for Northampton, he has discovered himself,
his character and intentions, to the law, and unless the law
identified with our Parliamentary Constitution be openly violated
or ignored, it will never be competent for Mr. Bradlaugh to take
either the Oath or make an Affirmation in the House of
Commons, except upon the ground of his repentance, and the
complete withdrawal of his blasphemous and disloyal utterances.
Mr Bradlaugh ignores the Lawgiver. The Constitution and
Legislature of the United Kingdom, in harmony with the law,
reverently recognises the Lawgiver. Mr. Bradlaugh says that an
Oath is to him “a meaningless form.” Certainly, upon his own
showing, an Affirmation would be. Now, either the law must be
set aside to meet this condition, or Mr. Bradlaugh must. He is
disqualified for taking the Oath or making the Affirmation,
and the disqualification, be it remembered, is his own act.
It is desirable carefully to notice that it is in the nature of an
Oath absolutely essential to recognise three parties—e.g"., as
between subject, sovereign, and God ; or as between man
AND MAN, AND God. To attempt to shut out the greatest of the
three members nullifies the Oath. To comprehend or take the
Oath as between subject and sovereign only, or man and man
only, without any reference to, or, as in this case, on the grout d
of an absolute denial of God’s existence, destroys the Oa’h by
ignoring the Chief Factor in the Oath—the High Court of App« al
which gives an Oath its solemn character. This is equally true
�2I
in regard to the nature and constitution of an affirmation. No
man, according to the existing law, can claim to affirm on the
ground of his disbelief in the existence of God, or his responsi
bility to Him. There is no law upon the English Statute Book
which sanctions this, and though it. has been permitted by
magistrates and others, such permission involved in every case
a violation of existing law. All the measures which have been
enacted in regard to affirmation have been on the ground of “ a
tender conscience toward God.” In no single instance has the
voice of the legislature been heard giving the atheist, or the man
who denies personal responsibility to God, the right to take the
oath or to make an affirmation. In the nature of the case this
could not be. Such legislation would be in direct opposition to
the fundamental principle which underlies English law, viz., tnat
every man is responsible to God.
To repeal the law in relation to an act which involves recognition
of accountability to Almighty God, is in any case a tremendous
responsibility to assume. To do this in the case of this blas
phemer would be nothing less than a governmental insult to the
King of kings.
It is one thing for a man, as an individual in
the state or nation, to be an Atheist; it is quite another for the
Government of that nation to legislate so that the denial of
responsibility to God becomes an individual legal right, and a
part and parcel of the country’s law. This coquetting with
Atheism and lawlessness on the ground of political freedom and
liberty has done, and is doing, incalculable mischief. Persisted
in, it can only eventuate in the break-up of the party whose policy
is contrary to the traditions of sound Liberalism.
To make this question a political one only is in the highest
degree unwise and impolitic. Any Government insisting upon
legislation in order to secure Mr. Bradlaugh’s admission to
the House of Commons, will surely cut off at a stroke thousands
of staunch and friendly adherents. Large numbers of sincere
Liberals are Christians first and politicians afterwards. They
have no intention to ignore or deny the authority of the living
God, nor will they take sides with falsehood, blasphemy, and
Atheism.
Moreover, they cannot fail to see that such legis
lation is undertaken to faciliate the admission into the
House of a man who has used the most horrible and blasphemous
lang’ age concerning the Holy Son of God.
Mr. Bradlaugh has
trampled under foot the most sacred themes of the Christian faith.
If any other man should use such shocking and offensive language,
and pursue, as Mr. Bradlaugh has doue, a course which should
outrage the moral sense of the nation, the House of Commons
would have a perfect right to fall back upon its own prerogative,
and exclude him from its assembly.
Mr. Bright, speaking in favour of the abolition of oaths, says:
“ Probably there is nothing in the New Testament more especially
�22
condemned and forbidden than oaths.” But surely it should be
borne in mind that our Lord’s words were directed against taking
in vain the Holy Name of God in ordinary conversation, which was
common in H s day, aud alas ! equally so in ours. Moreover,
He was speaking to His disciples. If all men were subject to
His government, His law might be applied to all. But such
is not the case. Mr. Bright argues as though all men were
loyal to truth. The law exists to deter the lawless. Penal law
is excellent both for the righteous and lawless. There is
no element of oppression in just laws to the law-abiding and
upright. The reflex action of law is safeguard and protection
to the great maj rity.
If all men were Joyal to truth, we
could dispense with Oath or Affirmation, whether in Parlia
ment or in our courts of justice. But men are not all truthful.
Solemn tests which can be readily improvised, oaths which
take cognizance of God, and appeal to His knowledge, become
in a high degree important defences against false witness. There
are thousands of men whose characters are such that their
witness ought not to be accepted except upon oath solemnly taken
—taken, let me add, with the distinct understanding that if they
perjure themselves they will be visited with exemplary punishment.
This practice is not only warranted by Divine example, but is
designed to be a valuable safeguard against deception and false
witness. In Hebrews vi. 13-17, we read, “For when God made
promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, He
sware by Himself.
For men verily swear by the greater:
and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs
of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by
an oath.”
It is said that the oath is not deterrent,
but the hesitation, vacilliation, and withdrawal of state
ments repeatedly witnessed in our Courts of Justice prove
the contrary. When false witnesses have been confronted
with the fact that they were giving evidence on oath, and that
they were liable to be committed for perjury, in vast numbers of
cases it has proved an invaluable protection against false evidence
being given. It is conceded that the law does not deter in
every case; but that is true of the law of felony, and, indeed, of
every other law. Thousands of thieves escape the action and
penalty of the law. What then ? Is the law worthless, and
shall the cry be for repeal ? Surely not. Thousands have
been deterred, detected, and punished by the law; and in any
case, the law should stand against the transgressor, and on the
side of the right. By reason of man’s transgression, God added
the law. So long as men are transgressors, such is the wise
example for human legislators to follow. Wise and good laws
are not only a terror to evil-doers, but an essential defence in
order to the security and well-being of society.
�23
THE SUBSTANCE OF MR. HENRY VARLEY’S LAM
THE ELECTORS OF NORTHAMPTON, FEBRUARY
Gentlemen,
It has been my privilege in the past to help you in t
battle which is being fought in your town against infidelity, bias;!
corruption, and lawlesssness.
j
Large numbers in your midst properly feel that you are bond
Charles Bradlaugh, the atheistic demagogue, who for years has .
people of England by his coarse and blasphemous p'atform utteran
printing and circulating such filthv books as The Frui.s of Philoso/ii,
Elements of Social Science. His conection with the Press has been li
as it has been revolting. Certainly, if the law had not been perm:
outraged, Charles Bradlaugh would long since have been where his 1
Foote the Editor of the disgusting Fi ecthlnker is.
Let it be remembered that this is not a question of the rights of the C m
or party politics. It is no question of opposition to the working man s c.
Few men are more respected in the House of Commons to-day than
Broadhurst and Burt, who are well-known representatives of the working via-The opposition against this notorious blasphemer comes by reason of his atroco
utterances and publications. Mr. Bradlaueh alone is responsible for the stroisj
feeling which exists against him. To yield to such a man a place in the Legis«
lature in order to frame laws for the well-being of society is not only monstrous, v
but wickedness of the highest order. Mr. Bradlaugh denies responsibility to God.
Anv man who denies the Supreme Lawgiver, is necessarily unfitted to become a
law-maker. It is said, We do not ask whether a tailor, a bootmaker, or a baker is
an Atheist before we employ him. Certainly not; but. be it remembered, that
boot-making and law-making are two essentially different occupations which
involve immensely different issues. The man who puts bad material into his woik
we can refuse to employ. Corrupt laws, which have been framed and passed by
bad men, are not so easily dealt with or repealed.
Some of the most corrupt corporations on the face of the earth have come into
these conditions through allowing men to fill public positions for which their
base characters always disqualified them. To speak ot his ability, or the expressed will of the constituency as qualifying him for the post ot a Legislator is
not necessarily true. No doubt the devil is both subtle and clever. Is he fitted
to represent Northampton ? Lord Justice Lush, writing to me some time before
his death, and shortly after Mr. Bradlaugh’s contention in the Law Courts,
said, “ I am astounded, as often as I think of Christian men preferring an open
blasphemer and enemy of Christ to a follower of Him, because ot his political
affinity. If Satan himself had appeared in human form, they would have
selected him for the same reason. It is a terrible thought that politics are thus
put in the first place, and a sad feature of the times.”
I have never argued this question on political grounds or as a political partisan.
From the commencement of this important fight I felt certain that a
heritage of weakness and division must come from such a flagrant departure from
the true basis of sound political Liberalism.
.
.
A platform wide enough to take in the devil side by side with the living Hod,
a platform which is to recognise on equal terms light and darkness, truth and
error, law and lawlessness, could only be made by practically discarding any
recognition of, or responsibility to God. Such a platform could only mean
interminable confusion, quarrel, and separation. Truly it has already separated
very fr onds.
.
Let it be borne in mind that the mere voice of numbers gives no necessary
solution to this question. No man can give a satisfactory answer or a conclusive
reason why the majority should rule the minority. We have m principle
and practice consented to this arrangement, but it remains to be proved whether
�24
condemned and- 1 am not affirming which is right; nevertheless, it is true
borne in mind tJf existing institutions concedes the rule everywhere to the
in vain the Ho'V'i61^ ''ell-ordered family in Northampton either the minority
common in Idlddo- In every house of business it is not the employes which,
t‘ ™
em£l0yerS- In every sch001 and fact0IT the same truth holds
ne was speamj Go'ernment, even' army, et ery regiment, every ship the same
His governr.he minority rule. Even a builder who employs twenty or thirty
is not the Ca house must employ a foreman, or the work will not go on. Every
loyal to tru* riment? college, or school, every foreman, forewoman, and pupilis e\-cellerircS a P^lncUde <d government which is not the rule of the majority,
rm Ju™ J a mischievous elements in the social state of a country there are none
no eiemeied the blatant demagogucism of such men as Messrs. Bradlaugh Foote
upright.
Bradlaugh’s statement that he is fighting for “ the rights’of the
to the gr>” is simply dust thrown in the eves of his hearers. Mr.' Bradlaugh
could distec^y
that he has himself to thank for the opposition which exists
m.
Solemn1
which Mr. Bradlaugh edits, is still playing the game
ooieinn .on and shuffle which has characterised its policy for so lore a period
takmort time since it was heralded in bold letters as the champion of
in
find Malthusianism; now, in order to facilitate Mr. Bradlau«h’s
are llssl°n to the House of Commons, these headings are removed. This of course
wit' p 1 d?ne to hlde ’he true character of the National Reformer. Happily
_ ost of us know perfectly well what a chameleon is like.
Mr. Bradlaugh s return, at the last Election, weakened the Liberal party
more than the return of ten Conservative Membeis would have done and-has
produced a strong feeling throughout the country against Mr. Gladstone’s Govern
ment. Ibis is obvious to all thoughtful men. In proof of the feelino- which
exists against Mr. Bradlaugh and his corrupt doctrines, it needs but to recall the
tact that 5,000 petitions, comprehending nearly . five millions (5,000 000) of
signatures, were presented against the Affirmation Bill and Mr. Bradlau<4i’s
admission to the House of Commons in the last Session of Parliament.
°
The numbers in favour of the Bill were roundly stated at 1,000 petitions and
1,000,000 signatures. Thus in the proportion of five to one the public voice said
M e are not going to stand side by side with Atheism and Blasphemy, nor with
the corrupt Socialism advocated in 1'he Elements of Soeinl Science and The
Im its of Philosophy. Despite Mr. Bradlaugh, the people know how to distin
guish between persecution and righteous opposition.
Notting Hill, London.
Feb. 14, 1884.
Henry Varley.
Private, Important, and Invaluable.
LECTURE
TO
MEN
ONLY.
(Delivered to 3,000 Men in Exeter Hall).
On the Advantages and Obligations of Chastity, with special reference to certain
forms of temptation.
Containing invaluable information for Young Men, and those who are married
Post Free lor 5d., or Three Copies for Postal Order, Is.
_
____________________
Two Copies, post free, Is.
LECTURE
TO
YOUTHS
AND
In Stiff Covers' 7d.
YOUNG
MEN.
On Chastity, Strength, and Success in Life.
Containing Selections from Lecture to Men. Adapted for Youths and Yqung Men who
are unmarried.
________________ Price 3jd., post fr.ee, or Twelve Copies, 2s. 9d.
, . An.y °f these Publications can be obtained direct from the Author, by letter
addressed THOMAS E. VARLEY, 32, Clarendon Road, Notting Hill, London, W.
Orders should be prepaid, and, so far as possible, be made by Postal Orders.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
An appeal to the men of England
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Varley, Henry
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Cover pages torn. Includes the "Substance of Mr Henry Varley's last letter to the electors of Northampton, February 1884" (p. 23-24). Union catalogues (COPAC, KVK) list a similar pamphlet by Varley published in 1881 by John F. Shaw (16 p.). Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Office of the Christian Commonwealth
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N650
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (An appeal to the men of England), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Bradlaugh
Great Britain-Politics and Government-1837-1901
NSS