1
10
4
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1740ec4eae2c00820f4b10590a73b823.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=U0g3MEa7tRUzYBqZYJd-CWC79FmTSKlQzKBuV3AwCbDwg7zrBef3CBka00v6MtAKdKZDJLG%7E8XZeJjV9LmgdLzyAg4ATGku9MX-X%7E088xRFBy%7EmZuzi7h69XRu1Q9m3JbiGVP3nKYUtgtWmmnt0D2HcTuZHYKssL4UYySUB65imSU4CUTLdLeFNxz3oWn5UoYMbGL5gYRBrQw7OJATfHIHEVc--7IeGuVW%7EDt3NL%7E6vnS-22iutKds35y22I91PKScQcnmrfUr3PnWLb-2slEf1wmcxRDe3KGfvzUTGFvhhaTy%7EXIGjNUW%7EeBj5wbDtaRCb%7E8jVNIoXtbNgp2YWwdg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d2e1090cf20a507c7bc1e10df86a0727
PDF Text
Text
^ssnttattun uf liberal Rinkers.
'' w
Constitution, as adopted June 14, 1878.
1. This organisation shall be called the Association of
Liberal Thinkers.
2. Its objects shall be:—The scientific study of reli- ’
gious phenomena; the collection and diffusion of information concerning religious developments throughout the
world; the Emancipation of mankind from the spirit of
superstition; fellowship among liberal thinkers of all
classes; the promotion of the culture, progress, and moral
welfare of mankind; and of whatever in any form of
religion tnay tend towards that end.
3. Membership in tills Association shall leave each
individual responsible for his own opinion alone, and in
no degree affect his relations with other Associations.
MM
W<
tsgx
•^roinsumal (Canunittee.
•
.
■■
k X3
•',>■ '-V*W
REV. RICHARD ARMSTRONG (Nottingham).
REV. GOODWYN BARMBY (Wakefield).
REV. WILLIAM BINNS (Birkenhead).
MISS JULIE BRAUN (Manchester).
PROFESSOR J. ESTLIN CARPENTER (London).
MONCURE D. CONWAY, Hon. Sec. (London).
MISS HELENA DOWNING (London).
V. K. DHAIRYABAN (Bombay and London).
REV. ROBERT DRUMMOND (Edinburgh).
A. J. ELLIS, F.R.S. (London).
EDWIN ELLIS (Guildford).
H. GARROD (London).
J. S. STUART GLENNIE (London).
MRS. HARRIET LAW (London).
GEORGE L. LYON (London).
MISS SARAH MARSHALL (London).
K. N. MITRA (Calcutta and London).
ALFRED PRESTON (London).
H. W. SMITH (Edinburgh).
REV. J. HIRST SMYTH (London).
REV. J. C. STREET (Belfast).
REV. FRANK WALTERS (Glasgow).
GEORGE J. WILD, LL.D. (London).
��n
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & 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
Constitution as adopted June 14 1878
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Association of Liberal Thinkers
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 1 sheet. 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Lists members of the Provisional Committee. Moncure Conway is Hon. Sec.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Association of Liberal Thinkers]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
{1878?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5586
Subject
The topic of the resource
Liberalism
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 (Constitution as adopted June 14 1878), 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
Association of Liberal Thinkers
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9854d2068209be0a60cb9064c42c7e53.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LFIhW4CME5at8uP4GwR5w4WX4OXcGF%7EziAy1jmWxWAKgDSs2SPTHOroGT%7EtuHA0tYmRGHAPlcDcO1r-KbKuW9R9c4rCauswEAA7msSm7OE9zw2xlVwsNxIwchr5KvF2SlRBqeech9yG8BWleqDosB-Ur%7Ei%7En3q5JNuNac8sp1XPfTcYPreef1Ob2k8q34Hs3tyNtLZLaP46Vfac-ycAG2fsxewc94D%7Ez5cso0B-SejNA2ge1eeszM%7EXSpL5IYvY%7EWiUayFFXs-fFtYkiXa0Js3XplQfOGH6IOYDHTktteW2I8VU6lwtYeyUp6g%7EjYsMJcLRRaWMT%7EHFfDe3htY6nlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f2c924bf06453277420e3e065dc0adb1
PDF Text
Text
REPORT
BP
OF A
^GENERAL CONFERENCE
OF
M■
LIBERAL THINKERS,
NR
-JM
E
FOB THE
■ “DISCUSSION OF MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE
RELIGIOUS NEEDS OF OUR TIME, AND THE METHODS
OF MEETING THEM.”
<
HELD JUNE 13TH AND 14TH, 1878,
AT
SOUTH PLACE CHAPEL,
FINSBURY, LONDON.
PUBLISHED BY
TEUBNER & CO., 57
<fc 59, LUDGATE HILL, E.C.
1878.
PRICE ONE SHILLING.
�LONDON:
WATEBLOW AND SONS LIMITED, PBINTEB
LONDON WALL.
�THE CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
At the Annual Meeting of the Members of South Place Chapel, on January
27, 1878, it was suggested that further use might be made of the Society and
its organization, by inviting to a General Conference all those liberal thinkers
in this country who could unite for unsectarian work, and assist in the promotion of truth wherever it might be found.
f The following Resolution, proposed by Mr. Moncure D. Conway, and
seconded by Mr. Alexander J. Ellis, was carried unanimously :—
y *£ That the Minister and Committee of the Society be authorised (if on consultation
they find it expedient) to hold a Conference of advanced Thinkers,, at any time and place
thought convenient.”
In the month of April the following circular of invitation was issued :
“ South Place Chapel,
“11, South Place, Finsbury,
“London, E.C.
“The Minister and Committee of the Religious Society meeting at South Place solicit
your attendance at a General Conference of Liberal Thinkers, to be held here on June 13th
and 14th, 1878, from 12 to 5 p.m., each day, for the discussion of matters pertaining to the
religious needs of our time, and the method of meeting them.
“In assuming the initiative in thia matter, our Society has no disposition to commit any
one who may accept this invitation to any opinions held by its minister or members. It
is actuated by a desire to promote the unsectarian and liberal religion of the age, now too
xauch impeded by isolation and by misunderstandings among those really devoted to com
mon aims, and to utilise its building and organisation for that purpose.
“ At the proposed Conference it is hoped that persons may be gathered who, though
working in connection with particular organisations, yet, acknowledge no authority above
Tr0h, and are interested in the tendency to that universal religion which would break
down all partition-walls raised by Dogma and Superstition between race and race, man
and man.
“ It is believed that light and strength may be gained for each and all by earnest and
frank consultation concerning such subjects as the relation of liberal thinkers to the sectarian divisions of the world ; their duties of negation and affirmation; and the practical
methods of advancing their principles.
“ The proposed meeting will be informal in its constitution, no regular representation
being at present in view, the assembly being thus left free to adopt any practical course for
the future that shall appear desirable.
“ A careful report of the proceedings will be printed.
“Your reply, which it is hoped will be favourable, together with the names and addresses
of such persons as you believe would be interested in the proposed Conference, may be
sent to Mr. Moncure D. Conway, Hamlet House, Hammersmith, London, W.”
F. The response to this circular was on the whole satisfactory, and about
dOOjpgrsons attended the sessions, many different parts of the kingdom being
�4
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
represented. The Conference met on Thursday, June 13, at welve o’clock,
and the following is the official report of what took place :—
Mr. Moncure D. Conway : On behalf of our Committee, I have great
pleasure in welcoming you all to this meeting ; we trust that you will con
sider yourselves quite at home here, and we hope that you will forget entirely
that this building is for the present other than any building in your own
town, or belonging to your own society. We meet for frank and kindly con
sultation as to the great cause of liberal thought and progress in the world 1
and on our part, as our circular says, we have simply utilised our machinery^
and our building for what we hope will bring about a better understanding
and a larger co-operation among liberal elements. We bid you all, therefore,
cordial welcome, and if any of you have not received a formal invitation,
and it has almost been impossible to know just where to send them, there are
some on hand, and we shall be glad to distribute them. For the facilitation
of our work, we have requested certain gentlemen to act as chairmen. I
have no doubt the cordial assent and satisfaction of those who are here will
go with our Committee in having secured the kind services of Dr. George
J. Wyld for this morning. I will therefore request Dr. Wyld, without any
further ceremony or formality, to take the chair.
The Chairman : Ladies and Gentlemen—I am very gratified at the
honour you have done me in electing me to the chair, and I can only wish
that some person of more social importance had been chosen to fill this
position. I am always very glad to do all I can in aid of any cause of this
description, and I most heartily congratulate Mr. Conway and the Committee
of South Place Chapel having inaugurated such a movement as this.
When they come to look back upon it in future years it may be that then
will be the first step in a movement from which great things may grow, and
they will then have cause to be very proud of what they have done. In any
case, I am sure we all of us have cause to be very grateful indeed to them
for having started such a movement as this. As you know, speakers, without
a very great degree of practice, are apt to be diffuse, and therefore I have
prepared a few notes, which, if you will excuse me, I will now read.
I have long felt that the great want among liberal religionists at the
present time is unity and visible combination. More markedly among them
than among any other body of thinkers, everyone has hitherto seemed to be
playing for his own bat, to be beating his own drum, and intent onl^uon
calling attention to his own favourite point of view.
It is not at all surprising that it should be so when we consider how
recent is their development, and from what widely divergent sources sympa
thisers with free thought have originated—from various Nonconformist
churches, from the Established Church, from the ancient Jewish religion, and
even, to a larger extent than is sometimes thought, from the carefully-fenced
Boman fold.
It certainly, however, seems to me that this state of disintegration has
lasted long enough, and that it is time this very loose order should be someM’hat consolidated. And all, I think, must at any rate so far agree, that it is*
at least desirable that the various bodies of freethinkers, and individual free
thinkers, should be brought more within hailing distance of each other, and
should have some common means of communication, so as to be able easibato
combine in case either individual or general interests are threatened.
Upon the general benefits of combination it would be trite to remark.
But more and more at the present day everything shows that co-operation
�keTort—13tiT june, 187’&
5
and organisation are the secrets of success, and that through these the weakest
and wemfegpy1 most unlikely causes often gain their ends. As a recent
remarkable trial shows, even the veriest, and one would think most trans
parent, Swindle, if really well organised, will hardly fail to succeed, and may
keep going for years.
But on the other hand the best causes, through the want of organisation,
have often never got beyond their first start, or after a little success have
to nothing.
In our own special case, the amount of discouragement caused by this
want among nascent freethinkers is very large. I have good grounds from
personal knowledge for saying that it is very considerable. Many personsl
whose sympathies have been awakened in the direction of rational religion, are
chilled and driven back. And sometimes those, who thus go back, become
more zealous on the side of the traditionalists than ever before. For they
think, however mistakenly, that they have found by experience, that outside
the old order of things there is nothing but a dreary waste, without shelter, or
sympathy, or a warm hearth to take refuge by, where no friendly hands join
in hearty grasp, where is nothing to be heard but hollow echoes of uncertain
sound, and nothing to be seen but melancholy ghosts, each wandering his
own way with only too much speculation in those eyes that he doth glare
with.
If free religion is ever to attain any great development, and do any per
manent good in the world, it must be by attracting and holding the younger
generation: I do not mean mere children, but those who are entering active
life. Now the mere aspect of energetic organisation is very attractive to
most minds at this age, and the want of it awakens hesitation and distrust.
Indeed nearly all have a bias to what looks like a winning side, and has
some spirit and life in it. Few can take a stand quite alone, and study the
abstract merit of things in a dry light: they must have some party to take
sides with, some sympathetic comradeship to cheer them along. We should
not, I think, leave it to the traditional churches to reap all the advantage of
this natural esprit de corps. It would be foolish to count among our depend
able recruits that large number of young persons who are merely indifferent
about serious matters. So long as thoughtlessness and ease last, such may be
classed and may even class themselves as freethinkers; but they are not free
in any true sense of the term, they have never thought out their own emanci
pation. What seriousness there is left in them, is still connected with the old
order of things; the power of superstition has not been broken in them,—and
When at last, through misfortune or other cause, their grave time comes,
Hgay revert at once to the old delusions which soothed their mothers and
grandmothers. A better organisation among rational religionists might, I
think, surround some of this floating class with strengthening associations,
and attach them permanently to the body. And really everything nowa
days depends so much upon the popular vote, or may have to fear so
much from an ugly popular rush, that it is all important that freethinkers
should increase their dependable members as well as their means of con
solidation.
For it is not at all impossible, if we do not increase our force, before the
next generation, that a great season of reaction may set in. Many signs seem
to me to point this way. All the lovers of traditional faiths, those who
tremble for the security of property and rank, and all those who are for quiet
at any price, have to a great extent learnt to tolerate one another, and under
the influence of mutual fright are ready to combine for the purpose of—if
�6
GENERAL »W®'ERENCE OF ETEERAL THINKERS.
pot absolutely crushing—yet very inconveniently compressing their common
foe; as they foolishly imagine their best friend, the rational thinker, to be.
Their emissaries and wire-pullers have been working very quietlythese few
past years, and not without effect either in the political or religious world.
They have immense organizations ready to their hand, and they have begun
to learn more how to use them and keep up their vitality.
It is important to recollect too, that all the apparent advances tmft are
made towards freethought in the old churches, are not real advances, or
made from true sympathy or with a view to conciliation; but are simply
temporary shifts to better their logical position, to throw dust in the wor&’s
eyes, and enable them better to bring weak freethinkers within their net.
There are many points in the orthodox creeds which their professional
defenders would be glad to slip out of or explain away, could they do so
while preserving any character for consistency.
There is nothing I would venture to caution our younger associates more
against than being put off by that loose make-shift rationalism in which some
of the qua si-orthodox are beginning largely to deal, and with which they
think as the comm on phrase is, to take the wind out of the genuine free
thinker’s sails. For these gentlemen the most appalling difficulties that can
be proposed are perfectly easy of explanation, by the aid of some of the
modern ingenious methods of accommodation ; either the case has been mis
conceived through a mistranslation, or it is an allegory, or there has been a mis
take or transposition of transcribers, or there is a figurative or spiritual meaning,
or it is an instance of the aTgumcntum ad hoYtiincni. or an oriental idiom, or some
other ingenious solution is resorted to, till at last the mystified hearers can
hardly make . out whether these expounders really believe the supernatural
origin of their religion jn the main, or whether they are simply anxious to
show that notwithstanding they have subscribed creeds and formularies they
are men of learning and acuteness. They remind one of nothing so much
as the accommodating spirit of the excellent peep-show proprietor, ii Well
ington or Blucher, whichever you please, my dears;” so long as you only
enter the show and pay the showman. By the really honest enquirer this
method of trying to put new wine into old bottles will assuredly in the long
run be found illusory, and satisfy neither the mind nor the heart.
Some people, however, who have abandoned fixed beliefs, say that there is
no ground for combination among. those who have no specified system of
doctrine. They conceive, and practically assert, that when you deny a super
natural revelation, and reject the authority of churches, that there is
nothing which can be properly called religion to be maintained or observed.
I believe this notion to be altogether mistaken ; though I can quite under
stand the feeling, out of which it often arises.
■^-5 myself, am one of those who believe that science is the only revelation
understanding by this not only physical science, but the study of man’s past
history, his social development, and the growth of the human mind. Men of
the ancient world found in these things some ground-work of religion “ The
heavens declare the glory of God,” said the Psalmist. And whether we of
modern times call that invisible and mysterious something which is behind!
phenomena, “God,” or “ Force,” or “ Spirit,” or “the Power without us,”
or by what other name you will, it is a mere matter of fact that we can detect
the workmg of a system, and an irreversible law, which it is our highest
interest reverently to learn and implicitly to obey.
t uS?6-*1?
y°U k?ve amPk scope for a life of reverent observation and
faithful obedience; what more do you want on which to base a religion ?
�REPORT---- 13t’H JUNE, 1878.
7
-And it may be a religion whffih will not oi)!J| furnish Ri field for the
r reverent exerciseMof the intellect,' but supply nourishment to the heart,
being fruitful of motives calculated to quicken our highest aspirations and
emotions.
W
• For when we consider that this mysterious law, within which we are
3 I all bound, not only regulates the stars in their courses, and makes to spring
l blossom and fruit for all creatures’ sustenance, but also that it binds man to
man with the chords of sympathy—it is the source of that fire which makes
our hearts glow at the sight of noble and unselfish deeds, it animates the
.lover’s sigh, the mother’s kiss, the poet’s longing, the scholar’s brain-toil,
as well as the hard-handed work of craftsmen and labourers, “ For all these
fel;
worketh one and the self-same spirit; ” when we consider the manifold relations which are thus only shadowed, who shall say that in tracing their
wlj
connections and development there are no lessons to be found to kindled
hope, to inspire the struggle for good, to purify the affections ?
Hi;
B I cannot allow, then, that there is no room for a very high and real
m;
religion, after we have rejected all supernatural revelation and the authority
of all churches. &
But surely this very rejection of supernaturalism and authority is of itself
a;
a very good argument for co-operation among the different classes of liberal
I thinkers.
For we have rejected them not lightly, but for solid reasons and
through weary study, and many of us, by painful experience, have become
5
convinced of their baselessness and their evil effects. We know that in the
't
past, and by means of the sacerdotalism which has been, and is still, built
i
upon them, they have been the great obstacles to human improvement, the
standing bulwarks and excuse of every kind of tyranny and unfair privilege,
and the fruitful parents of superstition, ignorance and misery.
We are not only anxious, therefore, as much as in us lies, to shorten their
remaining reign, and weaken their still predominant influence,—but the
necessity of combination is forced upon us, in order to prevent their return in
full power, to hinder the fresh development of those ruinous principles
which have hitherto been only slightly checked.
And here we think we have a fair ground of appeal to those who consider
themselves pure scientists, and who dislike to concern themselves with anything
having any connection with religion. I said above that I could very well
understand that feeling. I can readily sympathise with their impatience of j
theology as a pseudo-science, which after years of study discloses nothing except
its own nullity—and their repugnance to that delusive religion which has filled
the world with strife and folly, and fully deserved the well-known objurga;tion of the poet Lucretius. It is a mistake to confound religion founded on
the laws of the universe and man’s life with the superstitions and theologies
which usurp its name. It is rather to preserve and extend this emancipated
'•truth that the efforts of wise men should be directed. I quite agree with Professor Muller and others that the mass of men must have some religion, and
therefore it is the interest of all to make it as good as possible : since corrupt
’religion involves the continual hazard of the recrudescence of superstition, find
the return of arbitrary government or anarchy. Corrupt religion puts power
into the hands of those the least fit to use it. This power is secret in its action,
and it is difficult to trace its extent. It may be mining the ground under our feet
when we least expect it, and suddenly bring the wheels of State to a deadlock
when all looks smiling. It is the tendency of all the religious bodies of the pre^effj; day Who cleave to the old supernaturalism, to become more and more
�8
~ENER^ CONFERENCE OF LIBER AL aBBMKERS
subject to ecclesiastical ideas, and more imbued with the priestly spirit. And
as long as priests of any sort remain in the world they will never cease to
strive for power, and aid directly or indirectly the cause of retf^on th^B
theory pledges them to endeavour to subject men to a false standan^of appeal,
and an unwarrantable species of authority, thereby as far as possible mysti
fying men’s intellects, stopping the progress of sound education, and. filling,
the world with bugbears.
I cannot but think, therefore, that it is the duty of every enlightened man
to aid, as far as he can, those organisations which aim at counteracting their
widespread influence. There is scope for combined action in many directions I
but I would especially indicate vigilance as to the insidious moves of the cleri
cal party at school boards. Of middle class education, too, a great deal might
be said, and I hope some speakers may touch upon the subject. But, above
all, I think enlightened men should aid organisations which strive to propagate
purer views of religion, for nothing will ever exorcise the false religions of the
world, but the genuine article. And as long as false religions retain such
immense preponderance, it is certain that neither science, nor philosophy, nor
free government are absolutely secure.
Calm philosophers in the cool suburbs of the Metropolis or in rural shades
may persuade themselves that they will for ever pursue their lucubrations
unmolested out of the reach of general warrants or howling mobs; and it,may seem
a long time since crowds paraded the streets and smashed windows to the cry
of “ High Church and Dr. Sacheverell for ever! ”—or when a band of piously
disposed roughs gutted the house of Dr. Priestley—but what has happened
before may happen again, and supine indifference on the part of thinking
men is the way to court attack and defeat.
There must be yet for a long time a residuum of rowdyism and stupidity
in every nation, and political and ecclesiastical gentlemen of reactionary
tendencies are showing that they know how to manipulate them for their own
ends. Ten thousand men were marshalled by priests in Hyde Park on
Monday last, though then I confess for a good object; but it is an ominous
sign of the power they might come to wield. In short, all the signs of the
times point to the necessity of watchfulness and combination, and a disposition^
to sink minor differences among liberal thinkers of all sorts, and I can only
sincerely trust that the organisation, the inauguration of which is now desired
by Mr. Conway and his friends, may effectually contribute thereto.
Mr. Conway said ; I have received a considerable number of letters from
distinguished persons who, for various reasons, cannot be with us, most of
them, however, sympathising with the objects which have brought us to
gether. Some have indeed, though in a kindly way, expressed misgiving^
as to the utility of a Conference of this kind. Dr. James Martineau, who
regrets that he is prevented from being with us by absence in Scotland, adds,
however, his belief that “ Negation supplies no bond. It has its work to do—
a legitimate work, which I am far from depreciating—but, in my opinion,
this work must be individually done; and, beyond it, a good deal must happen
before religious combination becomes possible.” Mr. Matthew Arnold says,
“ I am strongly of opinion that the errors of popular religion in this country!
are to be dispersed by the spread of a better and wider culture, far more than
by direct antagonism and religious counter-movements.” The Duke of
Somerset and Lord Houghton 'write somewhat in the same tone. I must
remark, however, that these misgivings or hesitancies have been very few..
About 200 letters have been received, representing a great variety of minds.
l^flbam. Rossetti, who, from the first, has taken great interest in this meet-
�REPORT—13th JUNE, 1878.
9
ing, iBpeves the time has come for protest of literary men against being sup
posed to have any sympathy with orthodox dogmas. [Mr, Rossetti was present
a^
^on^er®rice,J Professor Max Muller, who took an interest in it, writes
that he finds. himself with so little strength since his Hibbert Lectures, that Ills
attendance is doubtful. From Oxford, also, I have letters indicating in
terest in our movement, from Professors Sayce, Rolleston, Pater, &c.
The
Rev. Silas Farrington, of Manchester, writes : <c Perhaps nothing concerM
me more ^han the loosening of the bonds of human sympathy and co-operation
which, it has seemed to me, has attended the vanishing of the old creeds out
our bberal congregations,” and he welcomes this Conference as a sign that
the Liberal particles are not to remain for ever in solution. John Cunnington
sends us a message, which he calls that of a “dying man,” in which he says,
.Let everything be done in a spirit of love ! ” I can, of course, at present
give but a sentence or two from these letters. There are some absences which
84/1 unexPecte(L Professor Andrew Wilson, of Edinburgh, who was to have
addressed.us, has, at the last moment, been prevented by an alteration in the
time of his college examinations; the Rev. Frank Walters, who meant to
help us, has been unable to leave Glasgow j and Mr. J. Allanson Picton cannot give us the address we hoped for, having left London by doctor’s orders.
He writes . “ I wish you would say how much I wished to be present, and
how much disappointed I am to be out of the way.” Several cordial letters
come from liberal clergymen, among others, one from the Rev. J. Shortt,
. Hoghton. Vicarage, Preston, Lancashire, who says : ee I cordially sympathise
with the objects of the Conference, and heartily wish it every success. No
one can be more interested than I am in the cause of freedom of thought.”
No doubt we might have hoped for a larger number of Unitarian ministers,
been tor an unfortunate collision, in our day of assembling, with
one of the anniversaries of the Unitarian Association—a collision which, on
our part, we took pains to avoid.
From The Knoll, ’ Ambleside, Mr. AV. "W. Hills writes —
.
heaitily sympathise with any movement which is likely to draw men of liberal
°n re^1S^on.’
closer union and more active co-operation in promoting the welfare
of the race. . It is the latter object, I think, which can alone find men in permanent
religious union—mere agreement in opinion, whether ignorant or enlightened, being
almost no bond at all, and tending to divide men into narrow and ever-narrowing
BcCbS.
Mr. Karl Blind regrets that be is prevented by his engagements from
being with us.
AS r°
-0Wn v^ews>” he says, “ philosophically speaking, I am so much imbued with
a seyse ot phe impenetrability of what will for ever remain the unknowable, that I must
neecLs refrain from taking part in any organization. At the same time I fully appreciate
the desire of thinking men to draw together for the discussion of such subjects; and I am
convinced that, as regards general emancipation, your conference will do a right good
If, unfortunately, we should not have Professor Huxley among us, it will
beca?se
any -lack of interest or sympathy on his part, but because
■Hf~e Per^stent and dangerous illness by which his family has just been
a icted. Compelled to leave his attendance an open question, he has been
careful to write me on the subject, and says this “ Conference is sure to be
3WiBDg’ and 1 think is likel‘v to be usefu1-” Not the least grateful to
myself for one, and no doubt to many among you it will prove the same, has
w_arni word of encouragement and sympathy from the veteran general
of liberal thought Thomas Scott. It is much to feel that he is with us in
�ttO
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERATjjjHI'NKERS?
spirit. His best co-worker, Mrs. Scott, writes thatb^ reason of loss of power
in both hands his response must come through her, and. that we may rest
assured of his and her “ hearty sympathy with our efforts in endeavouring
to free man and womankind from the unhealthy superstitions with which
they are at present surrounded, and which tend, to bar enlightenment and
progress.”
Some of the letters express, the hope that this Conference may lead to some
practical result, perhaps to the formation of something like the Free Religious
Association in America, one of whose founders we are fortunate enough to
have with us. Whether as the eloquent defender of Theodore Parked in
Boston, or the gallant defender of the liberties of the negro race on the field
of battle, Colonel Wentworth Higginson will meet with honour wherevejthea
principles of physical, intellectual, and religious freedom are honoured. Ona
letter I must read in full, a wise word from a wise man, the venerable* and
learned Jewish scholar and author, Dr. M. Kalisch. He writes
i
“ The state of my health will unfortunately not allow me to attend the proposed Con
ference of Liberal Thinkers, but I will not omit assuring you that I shall follow its proceed-!
ings with the keenest interest, and express my earnest wishes for its success. It ought!
not to be impossible to find a common ground on which the various liberal societies may
meet, in order, on the one hand, to counteract with united force the persevering eflforts of
traditionalists, and, on the other hand, to call into life the many latent germs of religious
liberalism, which are scattered everywhere beneath a surface of perplexity or hesitation!
It ought to be possible to establish such a centre without the least approach to any fixed^
formula which might imperil absolute freedom of thought, or bearing the remotest re-J
semblance to, or involving the slightest tendency towards an unalterable dogma. Trusting
that the timely step you have taken will prove fruitful of the best results,
“ I am, dear Sir, yours faithfully,
“ M. Kalisch.”
With which cheering note, whose significance coming from such a quarter/
will not, I am sure, be lost on this audience, I close a summary from whichj
time compels me to leave out many interesting and satisfactory messages,
which are carefully filed and will be remembered.
The Rev. C. Voysey : The promoters of this Conference may be well
congratulated on the selection of the subject to which our attention is now
invited. Every thoughtful person must be aware how intimately this ques-4
tion of religion is bound up, not only with each man’s individual happiness
and well-being, but with the safety of society and the welfare of the comJ
munity at large. Religion is scarcely less of social importance than of
individual interest. In speaking of “ Religious needs,” it is implied that in
matters of religion we are in a state more or less unsatisfactory : that some
thing is wanted which we have not got; that what we already have is
deficient, if not pernicious. And nothing can be more true ; and they have
done wisely who have made a practical effort to bring these “ Religious needs”
into open discussion. In venturing to bring before the Conference my owm
views as to those needs and how to meet them, I disavow entirely the
dogmatic spirit, or any unwillingness to have my views corrected and im-i
proved by others. But inasmuch as this Conference will depend for its use
fulness almost entirely on the clearness, reasonableness, and absolute sincerity!
of the various readers and speakers, I will do my best to say exactly what I
mean, however much or little it may be approved.
The religious needs of our time are extremely various; all attempts at;
generalization must be qualified by a mental reservation that there are
varieties of condition which cannot be included in our categories, and cannot
be met by our suggestions of treatment.
�repor^T3iTiTtVn^’1878.
11
These needs may be roughly divided into the intellectual, the emotional^
and^the rabstteticf Time was when so long as the emotional and aesthetic
needs were satisfiedjthe intellectual needs of religion—so far from being sup
plied—did ribt even exist. Men and women were content with their faith
■ and |heir*worship, without any demand on the part of their reason for a share
MMhe control of religious thought. Now, to a large extent, all this gs
changed. Vast numbers of really religious souls either demand some rational
foundation on which to rest their faith, or at least demand that the terms
.©i their Creed, and the forms of their worship shall not do outrage to their
intellectual convictions. Theology to exist at all must be of the nature of
science, based on induction and ruled by logic. Religion, as distinct from
Theology, must be in harmony with already known facts, or it will rapidly
cea®e Ito occupy the hearts of people of common sense. All this, you will
say, is mere truism; and to most of us here it may be so. It is, however,
still to be widely learnt out of doors by the religious world at large. The
growing demand is for a reasonable creed, and because it is not generally
forthcoming, because that which is glaringly unreasonable, if not also incredible and revolting, is still insisted on by orthodox churches and sects,
still stands on our statute books as the only creed recognised by Crown and
Parhament, thousands have become secretly atheistical, and tens of thousands
arc. utterly unsettled in their religious convictions. It is to be borne in
mind that this is not purely a State Church question, but one which
goes down into the roots of our common humanity. The Church, it is true,
has for the present its Act of Uniformity and its stereotyped Prayer Book
andlLiturgies; and these contain the obnoxious dogmas against which the
religious instinct and religious intellect of modern thinkers revolt. But we
also find the very same dogmas maintained with an equally obstinate
pertinacity among the Free Nonconformist Churches and sects outside the
pale of the Establishment. Wesleyans, Congregationalists and Baptists, with
a hundred sects behind them, are not one whit better, or more enlightened, or
’more^free from irrational dogmas, for being emancipated from State control.
I allude to this in order to show that the separation of Church and State
would not be of the slightest value in meeting the intellectual religious needs
ofBour time. In all probability it would aggravate present dogmatism
and put off the day of enlightenment further than ever. What
is really wanted is the disestablishment of the Creeds and Articles,
and the repeal of the Act of Uniformity, so as to leave all clergymen
free to speak their honest minds; and a similar freedom must be given to
the Nonconformist ministers. This, indeed, seems to me the great need of
the hour—to give free speech to those who have something really reasonable
to say about religion. There is an abject dread of new truth abroad, not
from any native dislike to it so much as from a terror of social or pecuniary
pains and penalties, which, indeed, more closely threaten the Nonconformist
minister than the clergyman of the Established Church. The laity, who, as
a rule, look up to and confide in their religious teachers, would, with few
excewions, heartily greet the endowment of the pulpit with absolute liberty.
Sfirply the right-minded amongst them would infinitely prefer that their
preacher should proclaim his real conviction rather than that he should lie, as
he now lies, under suspicion of dissimulation and insincerity. In brief, intellectual religion can only come by calm and perfectly independent thought;
independent, i.e., from all interference by dictation, by threats, by fear of
consequences, or by dread of the conclusions to which it may lead. The chief
religigps need of our time is intellectual correction, the getting rid of what is
�12
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
unreasonable, and the getting hold oFwhat is reasonable : and thiW^maintain
can only be met by endowing the professed teachers of
freedom and independence, that they may give free play to their own thoughts
and free speech to their tongues. Till we secure this liberty, the hftigry
souls will be sent empty away, only stones will they have given RMm
bread, and the insincerity and moral cowardice of their teachers wil|pMIIJi
upon the people, and wrap them in hypocrisy and dishonesty. I wonder
they do not see this. I wonder that it is not perceived that the decay in
morals, the lowering of the standard of truth and equity in common dealings,
the abject lack of moral courage and public spirit which the Juvenals of this
age deplore, are not entirely and distinctly traceable to dishonesty in vdraonB
If a man can dissemble before God, he will not scruple much to disseMjM
before his fellow-men. If a man can go and solemnly pretend to believe
things which his whole soul denies—at the hour and in the place of «what*
men have by common consent called Divine worship, the integrity of his
whole life is thereby undermined, and he may thank the grace of mramM
stances, and not his own virtue, if he do not become, in the ordinary affairs of
life, a liar and a rogue.
Turning from this, the greatest and most widespread of our religious
needs, we come to that class who are dissatisfied with the creed and worships
in which they have been brought up, and whose minds are nearly a tabuta
rasa, ready for the inscription of any faith or conviction which the reason
will admit. Very many, having given up orthodoxy as quite effete, are never
theless still uncertain as to what to believe or what to put in the place of the
religion they have cast away. With them the intellectual is not forgo wen,
but somewhat in abeyance; it is the emotional part of their religious natuJP
which needs satisfaction.
And here I know I am treading on delicate ground, inasmuch as there are
at least two great divisions of that large body which has escaped from ortho
doxy—one believing in God, and holding on even more vividly than ever to
convictions of His relations with mankind which they had always more or
less cherished, the other not believing in God, not feeling any emotions of I
trust towards Him, or able to understand the religious emotions of those who
practise prayer and praise. Now whether a religion with prayer, or a religion
without prayer is destined to be the religion of the future, I will not be so I
arrogant as to predict; my sole object in alluding to these divisions of the
unorthodox world is, that I may fulfil my promise, and tell you my honest
opinion about the religious needs of our time.
It is my conviction that in the present break-up of ancient creeds, there 1
lies the gravest danger of a total loss of all religious belief, of conscious trust
in the living God, as a source of strength, purity, consolation, and hope. The
old husks of falsehood have been swept away, and along with them the grains
of pure and life-giving truth on which the faithful in all times have nurtured^
and enriched their souls. Some minds are so hasty that they impatiently re
nounce every idea once seen to be tainted with error, and will have nothing
to do with emotions once proved to be capable of perversion. Thus it comes
to pass that No God takes the place of the False God, that silence reigns
where foolish or impious prayers were once offered, that an ungrateful negHM
takes the place of selfish and childish praises. It is better, they say, to have
no God than a false one ; better, not to pray at all than to have the old
notions of prayer; better never to sing a psalm of praise than seem to en
courage the false ideas of God on which popular worship too often rests. I
do not altogether condemn this feeling, but to me it seems somewhat extreme
�REPORT---- 13t1I JUNE,
1878.
13
rand mowidMyefcMrrefflSL^^eat
"omeHoon is poisonous, and to
| drink
to excess.
Tbe l°ss
wbat I must call, for want of a better term, personal conscious
relations to God, is a dire loss deeply to be deplored. No intellectual accuracy
—even
were any more possible to the unbeliever than to the believer—
I could compensate for the shutting out of that Light from above which illumines
the souls of all who trust in God.
Lord Amberley touchingly describes the barrenness, the emptiness of soul
which often follows the relinquishment of orthodox creeds; by all earnest,
life an(3, *evout persons this loss is deeply felt, and if it be not somehow
supplied before the feelings are fatally numbed, the mental and spiritual
injury becomes life-long, often deteriorating to both the character and the
* e^.duct. If the revolt in religious minds against orthodoxy arose out of a
I higher .and intenser religious feeling, out of more exalted conceptions of the
EBwersal love, of God, out of more natural trust in His good purposes, surely
the only religion that can satisfy them must be one that will bring them into
, nearer and closer relations with God, and not leave or drive them further off
than before. It must be a religion of prayer and praise, of more prayer and
not. less; of more praise, and not less than before. If the old childish
QEfrwl
prayer have been wisely put away, it is only that a more
rational and manly conception of prayer should take its place, not that
the soul should be dumb before God, and all communion with the
Father of our spirits given up as senseless and impossible. Progress in re
ligion, as in other things, surely means going forward not going backwards ;
it may indeed involve casting off burdens which impeded our march, and the
removal
obstacles out of cur path, but all the more that we may advance
and come nearer to God, and not that we should turn round and deliberately
retrace our steps, turning our back on the Light which, however overclouded,
has been, luring on the millions and myriads of our race since the birth of
the religious instinct.
.The religious emotions, as they have hitherto generally existed, have been
*-|elt as a thirsting of the soul after G od, a longing to see Him, so to speak,
and to be assured of His entire friendliness. In spite of modern scepticism,
we see n0 ^race as yefc
any decline of this longing after God. If some
men are weary of a fruitless search in wrong directions or by ineffective means
and for a time feel numbed and paralysed by their discouragements, sooner
the appetite revives, and the heart yearns after the Living God more
fervently than ever. The mass of people, however, whose faith is unsettled,
who are no longer satisfied with orthodoxy, still retain their religious emotions,
| and look and long for a cultus in which they can find for these emotions a
reasonable satisfaction. Mere metaphysics will not do, philosophy fails to
warm their hearts, and the more they pursue intellectual enquiries as to the
nature and being of God, the less and less satisfaction they get for their
religious feelings and aspirations. .
Hence.it seems to me that one of the chief duties devolving on religious
is to combine with their intellectual strictures on the popular
mythology, the best expressions they can find for their own religious faith
and hope.. What is wanted is to show men what we believe, and why we
believe; in language better still, Whom we trust, and why we trust Him,
We must, bring the warmth of pure religious emotion into our worship and
our teaching, if we can ever hope to attract or to benefit those thousands of
religious souls now outcasts from their old churches and creeds. Without
this, we may be able, perhaps, to enlighten their, understanding, to quicken
�14
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS?
within them the sceptical, even the scornful, faculty; we may even
do some good in rousing their dormant interest in social questions,
and kindling within them a noble philanthropy; but when we have
done our best we shall not have helped them by one straw to become
religious, or to preserve from extinction the dying spark of religious
faith. I will not here excite needless controversy on the use of the term
“ religion.” I will grant there may be a prayerless religion, as well as a
religion of prayer—and by prayer of course I mean communion with God.i
But I will say, with the utmost emphasis, that these two things are diame
trically opposed, and therefore neither has the right to bear the name of the
other.
If I am told that there is no sense in prayer and praise because there is
no one in Heaven or earth, or in the solitude of our souls, who can hear or
heed our signs and songs ; I admit the logic, but I deny the assumption. If there
be no one to hear, or to heed, or to answer by spiritual grace, I will not be such
a fool as to let my soul wear itself out in vain aspirations to Nothing. But
if there be a God, called by whatever name, who is the correlative to the
human soul, and who knows and loves us, surely then the instincts of reli
gious emotion are explained, and actual communion between me and Him is
not only possible, but indispensable to my soul’s life. We have then to preach
a God who will draw all hearts unto Himself, and not repel them or terrify
them as the God of Christendom.
Far be it from me arrogantly to declare that I must be right, and those
who differ from me must be wrong ; far be it from me to desire to silence those
who cannot speak of God as I do, even were I able to silence them 4 I con
demn no one, so long as each and all are sincere, and speaking from their
hearts what they believe to be true. All I have had in view is to make clear
and unmistakable the difference between these two ways of regarding God
and religion—to show that whichever of them may be right, they cannot both
be right; they are mutually contradictory, and that to attempt to ignore this
contrast would only add fresh difficulty to our perplexities, and effectually
bar the approach towards liberty of thought, of those who are falling out of
the orthodox ranks.
I have only time to say a few words on the aesthetic side of religion. The
movement called Ritualism, which has had its dim reflection among Noncon
formists, and even in the stern Puritan worship of the Scots, owes its success,
not to the vile sacerdotalism which was its origin, but to the innate love of
artistic beauty which Ritualism gratifies. The old repulsive services of our
youth were so wearisome, that we cannot recall them without a sigh of relief.The Ritualists, wiser in their generation, soon saw that if they were ever to
get congregations at all, or to attract the young, the services must be made
more or less beautiful and interesting. We all know how this feelinggran
into excesses, and how even beauty has been sacrificed to superstitious
punctilios. Yet, on the whole, the embellishments are artistic and greatly
appreciated. It is possible to go to church now without weariness and
without disgust.
If we, in our turn, hope to gain the ear of the free-thinking religious
people, we must have an engaging service. The music must be of the best,
and the forms as free from dulness as we can possibly invent. This matter,
though trifling when compared with the intellectual and emotional questions,
is still worthy of due recognition in treating of the subject which has brought
us together.
I conclude by thanking the promoters of this Conference for inviting
�■REPORT—131H JUNE, 1878.
15
discussion on these topics of supreme intent f!and will only throw out one
more hint for your consideration: If the subjects I have broached lead, as
they possibly may, to the expression of widely divergent opinion, let it be
borne in mind that the sole cause of any differences in opinion is, that on one
side or on the other, or on both, the full truth is not yet known; that all our
ideas ef religion, and how it should be fostered, are rooted in the far deeper
question—-What do we mean by God? And as no one, surely, in this
thoughtfill assembly would venture to say more than that his own view is
at best but an approximation to the actual truth, it will not give pain or
offence to each other to listen to opinions however adverse to our own. If
we have found any truth, and surely all have found some, we owe its discovery
to the clashing of thought with thought, and to the centuries of intellectual
strife which have cleared the ground on which we stand.
The Chairman then invited discussion on the paper, observing that they
did not expect to involve every one in a long speech, but it was perhaps just
as well that the paper just read should be dissected and digested by discussion
and comment, and therefore they would be very glad to hear anything calcu
lated to illustrate what had been said by Mr. Voysey, and to listen to
l^ections to the arguments he had brought.
Mr, Joachim Kaspar y said he had taken a very great interest during the
last twelve years in the freethought movement, and he heartily hoped that
Mr. Conway, of whom he was a very great admirer, might succeed in forming
an organisation of liberal thinkers, whether atheists or deists. For himself, he
presumed not only to believe in the existence of a God, but he was also able
to know and to prove it. He heartily agreed with most of the sentiments of
the paper, but he would like to know whether Mr. Voysey by prayer meant
begging prayer or religious prayer.
What freethinkers wanted was a
basis for their freethought. All superstition arose because men had not
hitherto had a basis for their ideas; supernatural religions were merely
Religions built by men upon their own opinions. He thought religion ouo-ht
to be built upon an infallible criterion, upon a criterion now which knowledge
was derived. All men differed, and who should decide between them, if there
were no infallible invariable criterion by which they could be judged as to
right and to wrong. There was but one infallible criterion by which they
•could judge of opinions and thought, and that, if he might use an expression
was what all knew to be the natural laws. According to these laws matter was
changed; and, according to thought, sentient beings were either rewarded
or (degraded whether they knew it or not, or whether they liked it or not. In
the universe there was nothing unchangeable except the mode by which
changes took place, and therefore he thought religion ought to be built upon
Nature’s laws. These natural laws he called the laws of God. Within the
last twelve years he had made great discoveries which he wanted to publish,
.hut that he had not the time or the means to do so, by which he could prove
>hepce men came and where they would go. Although they might smile he
hoped every one would see what he would be able to prove. He would not
further, except to say that he wished it great success.
Miss Downing said she had listened with great interest to the paper.
Mr« Voysey remarked that thousands were becoming atheists, and tens of
thousands were without religious affections altogether. It struck her as accu-J
rate, and very true. What she wanted to ask was, Could anyone there at
that meeting. give them, some certainty and show them some path to follow ?
bhe was not in the position of those who doubt all religous doctrines, and took
W a negative position. Indeed she was brought up in the strictest of all
�11
GENERJSlOJONFEREN’CE^MI liberal thinkers.
churches of orthodox CathoHc religion. ' MrJV’o^^^hTm^W had formerly
belonged to the Established Church, and probably other gentlemen there had
come out from their sects. It had always been a puzzle to her to understand
how people could give up their convictions, their thoughts, their beliefs, their
truths, if she might call them so, and accept others without any doubly*dill
ference. She had gone to hear nearly every Liberal speaker upon fflffiffilon.
She had come constantly to that place, where she always heard M-SElmiwCT
with the greatest delight, and she was still as unconvinced as ever of the pathito
follow or how she was to choose. It seemed to her that they must either give
up all belief in supernatural religion, the belief in a God, of any agent, just as
much as the Trinity, the Incarnation, Transubstantiation, and Confession I or
they must, if logical, become members of the Roman Catholic Church. She
spoke with some difficulty, for she was extremely nervous, and besides, a state
of doubt was not a pleasant condition to be in. She would be glad if anyone
there would point out how it was possible to hold by one belief any more than
another. She often came to South Place. She heard Mr. Conway’s admir
able lecture, she enjoyed the anthems and the hymns, and she always went
back with her mind elevated, and with a feeling that she would like to do
something, not for God, but something more for humanity. With regard to
religion, the belief in God brought them at once to a stand, and she did noil
see how they were to agree upon that point at all; they could not define the
meaning of the term. If Mr. Voysey had contented himself with den ling with
the Almighty as an emotional thing, or as an ecstatic thing, she could underJ
stand it; but when he went further, and asked for some intellectual belief, the
question arose, was there a bit more intellectual truth in the belief in the
Divinity than there was in the belief in any creed or dogma of the Church
whatever? John Henry Newman was an instance of one great thinks who
had felt these difficulties, and had ended them by going to the one church
which did claim to be divinely founded, and to have infallible truth. His
deductions carried him to that church, and she could not understand how any
ladies and gentlemen who held one single belief in the Divinity at all, did not
go there at once also. It was not one whit more difficult, as an intellectual
problem, to swallow the whole camel than to swallow one portion of it. She
was speaking on this subject to one of the ablest men in Oxford, and she said
what good had he done by his long life ? “ You have upset the old land
marks, you have given us nothing in their place.” He replied that, after
sixty years’ experience of human life, the knowledge he had gained taught
him to believe what he saw, to believe what came home to his own reason, and
not to go one step beyond that. He added “Nobody knows anything about it
you cannot say that it is or it is not; you cannot take the absolute denial of
the atheist or the theory of the Deist. You must simply make the best you
can of this life, and take the chance of living ; all the rest is insoluble as it
was left to us all before.”
Captain Price said he was a great admirer of Mr. Voysey and of his
teachings, and as Miss Downing seemed anxious to know his opinions as
to a personal Deity he was bound to say a word on the subject. He
would not be standing there at all if he for one instant believed or thought
that any of them imagined he had the slightest feeling or wish for the
continuance of the old orthodox religion. He was a pure Deist, and believed
that there was one Supreme Being; how he was constituted he knew not,
and nobody had been able to describe in the smallest way. The constitution
of the world alone would almost convince him that there must be some
Supreme Being, call him what they would, who governed and ruled the
�REPORT—13tH JUNE, 1878.
17
universe, and who brought the world out of what they knew not what,
f He believed that there was this supreme nature in everything, rnlyrig
< everything. As to prayer he looked with wonder and astonishment on
those who Begged for favours from Him, and he did not for a moment
believe that praytrs or praises could in any way detract from or add to his
grandeur or importance. More than that he did not believe, and Mr. Voysey
■ did not believe.
«
• fl ThepHairman next called upon Mr. S. Teetgen, whose card had been
I handed to him, and had some difficulty in pronouncing the •name.
Mr. S. Teetgen : Mine is a very peculiar name, I cannot pronounce it
properly myself unless I make a very ugly face. (A laugh.) Our German
friend would give it to you very nicely. I do not happen to be a German,
| but I am of German descent. I came here through seeing an announcement
in a public paper that there was to be such a meeting as this, and I thought
I wopad like to come. I think of free thought, religious free thought; and
since I have been sitting here I have seen the outcome of free thought. One
does not know one thing, another does not know another (a laugh) ; how
you will be able to make a combination you don’t know, and the difficulties
will be so great that there will be no coming together. You want to know
how io come together, but there is the difficulty: I have seen that all along,
had to do with free thought in all directions. When I take the
B jK never allow anyone to dictate to me, but I take it as an authoritv
frmGod for my guidance and instruction; what is the outcome of it? I
look back on the past and see this England of ours, this noble country, in a
st|te of wretchedness, misery, and pollution, but there are no religious
^at have done it any good. Your presence, your congregations, have
re^ wrong, so I have been told this morning; one reader made some
remarks about letting all be done in love, and when I listened to
■®Chairman’s address, 1 thought, now, there is want of love there. He con
demns everybody, and all the ministers and congregations are condemned
together. Of course, John Wesley was amongst those condemned. He spent
>M1000 among the people, and only allowed himself £28 per year for
■W)ing< him. He thought he was selfish and intended to do wrong; and
also he has been condemned very wrongly. I take Whitfield, a man going
out with his life in his hand, as it were, who might be stabbed
at any moment among the thousands of roughs that he goes amongst,
and what is he doing ? Seeking to help those men and women,
to bring them from drunkenness, from dissipation, to bring them from
their ^tendency to murder, to bring those poor and degraded ones upon
a purer level with himself, if they will only seek to reach it,—but he
was wrong (a cry of “ Question ”). I thought the Chairman dwelt upon the
point, and if I am dwelling upon what the Chairman said, I cannot do wrong ;
if h^says I am wrong I will accept it. These men, whatever they were"
men wbo ba<l the well-being of their species at heart—(hear, hear)_ and
prepared to give up life, if necessary, that they might bring them up
from their low condition and raise them to a higher platform. I am not going
to ^ell you that all their views are correct, but I tell you that they were seeking
the interests of their fellow men, and when you tell me that these ministers
thus borpd together, and working together, have for their object only the
wrong, and that it was selfishness, I say you are wrong. (Cries of
n0t say so~y°u are wrong.”) I am waiting for- the chairman to put
mjmynd when he says he sba11 put me down 1 wil1 obey- Of course he
is a free thinker—I am a free thinker; he says he has a right—I say, I have
2
�18
GE NEKAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
to say—(a voice : “ We are not bound to listen ”)—not at all; then walk chit.
I have come to occupy the platform—you are not bounajto listen, and it is not
for me to direct you. [The speaker, while taking a glass of Eafef, remarked
that his throat sometimes required water.]
The Chairman : One remark—I think it is necessary that all speakers
should confine themselves to the argument; I think a great deaWou I have
said was not strictly to the argument.
Mr. Teetgen: Very well, I shall be guided by you, but not by the
meeting. I maintain that the preachers of the Gospel have gone forth
struggled against all kinds of difficulties, have gone to the lowest dregsH
society, have brought them out from their positions, and have changed them.
Does that deserve respect ? (Hear, hear.) Then you ought to speak of them
in a respectful manner, especially when you remember that the free thinkers
were not the men to do it. They sat by their firesides and enjoyed themselves
on their sofas, and left these men to struggle with these difficulties without
coming to their help, but now they find fault with them, and say that it is
simple selfishness. That is a very great wrong done to them. I think free
thought to be altogether misnamed, I think and will think for myselfUjJ
shall cling to the old books.
Mr. Moncure Conway rose to order, and asked the Chairman whether
the speaker was not wasting the time of the meeting. He had told them
details about his name, and the state of his throat, and other things entirely
irrelevant and uninteresting to them, and was trying to occupy their time and
to interfere with the purpose for which they were gathered; he thereicmM
moved that the meeting should not hear this gentleman farther. The speaker
evidently came there simply to insult the meeting, and had no thought oil
concern with the serious subject which occupied them. If this were a serious
speech and meant anything genuine whatever, he would be the last to inter
fere, but it was unfortunately not so, and they could not allow any man to
defeat the purpose for which they were gathered.
A Gentleman in the body of the meeting said he was not a member of
South Place, but he fully sympathised with the remarks of Mr. Conway, and
he heartily seconded the resolution.
The Chairman put the question and it was carried unanimously.
As Mr. Teetgen was leaving the platform an Indian gentleman in the body
of the hall rose and said he was an atheist and a freethinker, but he pro
tested against the way in which the speaker had been treated. If he had not
been interrupted he would have gone on, probably, and he felt an injustice had
been done him. He had no sympathy with his views, but he thought he
should be properly treated and allowed free scope.
The Kev. William Binns (Birkenhead) : I hardly expected I should
be able to attend, and I had no intention of speaking but I heard a portion
of the able address of Miss Downing, and I could not help feeling that some
thing should be said from another standpoint. Looking over the circular, by
which the meeting was convened, I see you will include in the deliberations
anyone who may choose to come, for you dwell on the fact that your desire is
to promote an unsectarian liberal religion. And you propose to consider
affirmations and negations which men may make. Miss Downing seemed to
imply that there was no medium between the absolute authority of the Boman
Catholic Church on the one hand and what she understood from an Oxford
Professor to be a belief only in what was revealed to us directly through our
senses. She herself, therefore, was not able on purely rational grounds to
agree to the moderate affirmations made by Mr. Voysey, or to the still more' -
�REPORT—13th JUNE, 1878.
19
moderate affirmation made by Mr. Conway. For my own part, I feel at liberty
to^iake all the affirmations that Mr. Voysey makes, and a few moretoo.Kd
5 consequently all file affirmations that Mr. Conway makes, and rathe® more.
I must therefore try to meet the difficulty which Miss Downing experiences, for
I cannot accept either of her alternatives. I would put in a negative towards
these various conceptions of religion which militate against the development
°f the higher nature of man and tell against the desire we have for illimit
able progress. I should not feel at all inclined to put any negation on those
Wfh^pvhfch it is not possible for us clearly to explain and adequately to define,
because I know by experience, and suppose that most of the people here know,
IW h> many °f our highest religious ideas and emotions cannot be accurately and
adequately defined. I have preached from this platform when the platform was a*
I pulpit, and have said something of that kind, and W. J. Fox for whom this place
was built, and who exercised such a healthy and, I may say, such a divine
influence in the development of religious life in London, would often say
much in ,^e same spirit. First of all, as to the affirmations which we are
justified
making m religious matters. Are we justified in venturing on
the affirmations, I will not say of God, because in one way or another, except
the atheistic gentleman who just rose, and two or three more, all would be
inclined to admit Gfod in some general and undefined way. It is when the
definition comes. that the difficulty crops up. Are we justified in making
an affirmation of God as a personal being ? I call to mind what a very clever
and argumentative and liberal man, Mr. Matthew Arnold, has written upon
this subject, and how he has tried to make out that the whole thing is nnintelligible and undeclarable. And I remember too how I have often heard my
!
Holyoake say that these ideas of Grod are beyond our power of
sight and knowledge. But I say we can venture to affirm the personality of
| god. What, however, do we mean by that ? I will give a definition which
is rather a leaning towards the truth than an exact statement of the truth.
I would say we mean that the personal power in ourselves is after all
J but a very small portion of the boundless intellectual and moral energy to
which creation testifies. We mean that the moral sense that there is in
■Hjgives falls very much below the moral force that there is at work in the
universe, and which moral force we find and feel as an imperfect echo in our own
conscience. Conscience is the deputy of Grod dwelling in man. We feel, too,
as Descartes points out, the idea of perfection that inhabits every man’s soul;
how it gets there we do not know, and it differs in different men. It differs
in Mr, Holyoake s mind in the form which it takes from the form which it
own. And yet there is one characteristic which always belongs
to this idea of perfection that we have j it is an idea of something higher
than ourselves, and that will continue to be higher and better than ourselves
*
everlastingly, however high we ourselves may ascend. In the presence
of this idea of perfection
r
“ The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes.
Hills peep o’er hills and Alps on Alps arise; ”
And so far as the personality of God is concerned, I affirm that it follows as
^ne^gsary explanation of the facts of consciousness. It alone explains this
auth°rity, ^bis universal feeling of dependence and aspiration
and this idea of a perfection ever more before us, which we all possess’
f be personality of God is the infinitude of intelligence and will; all ideas are 1
centred in HimJ the unity is there, we say there are there multi! •
tangus majgfe|ations, more indeed- than we can describe or we can
�20
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
know. I don’t think that I could venture to define the j^nsonalit^l of
God more closely. When we say God is a personal being, we meaa that God
knows what he is doing. If there be any whom this does not satisfy, if
people say they want to have the personality of God put into some more,
definite form, then I should be inclined not exactly to say no, but simply in
clined to say, well, I personally must stop there, so far as I am concerned.
If Mr. Voysey or Mr. Conway ventures on a more or less detailed defffifiB
than that which I have given, why, you are at liberty to accept it. I re
member I was discussing the subject with some Scotch Presbyterian^ good
friends of mine, sometime ago, and one of them said, we “ must believe in
the personality of God.” I said,(i How ?” He said, “ God is a person in the same
way in which I am a person.” “ Well,” but I said, “ I see the way in which you
are a person; you are a middle-aged Scotchman, 5 feet 6 inches high, with
grey hair and a sandy complexion, and you wear spectacles. Do you mean
God is a person in that way ?” Of course, that would not do, and thus a very
definite definition could not be given. Still endeavouring to meet Miss
Downing’s difficulties, I venture to say also that we may affirm immortality!
Immortality, some of you think, is beyond experience, and that it is not and
cannot be verified. I would not say that it is beyond experience, but only
present experience has not attained to it. I certainly would not say that
because it is not yet verified, it never can be verified. For the fact is, when
you come to examine what your knowledge really amounts to, you find that
it is very limited. If you study John Stuart Mill, and people of that kind,
you would not venture to be dogmatic on any subject. You would be sceptical
about yourselves sitting there, and my speaking here. The whole external
universe on grounds of pure reason is doubtful, and matter is moonshine.
Let us look at the subject then in another wav.
I say that im
mortality is the affirmation of a legitimate belief and a natural and justifiable
faith. But we only really know and are sure and certain of the present
moment, and the facts that are present to our immediate consciousness. What
I know and I feel here and now that I am certain of. It is part of my present
experience. Beyond what I know and feel here and now as contents of my
present consciousness, all belongs to the region of speculation and inference!
So far as the past is concerned, that is all a matter of memory, and memory
is belief and inference and speculation. Very few people’s memories can be
trusted, and when you go back historically for hundreds of years, great un
certainties creep in. So far as the future is concerned, how are we situated ?
Why, to-morrow is a speculation ; we believe in it, we take it for granted, and
confidently expect that it will come, but experience has not attained to it, it is not
verified as yet, it is possible that it never may be verified. However, one hopes for
it and thinks it will come. Then we affirm immortality on the strength of this
natural tendency of reason to believe that conscious personal life continues in
definitely. We all believe in to-morrow, and we who affirm immortality, believe
still further in the prolongation of to-morrow, and of to-morrow’s to-morrow.
If one to-morrow comes, or two, or three, I see no reason in the world, either
of sense or thought, why. constantly fresh to-morrows should not come. Of
course I do not know even about the very next to-morrow, but I like tlial|
sentiment Mrs. Barbauld expresses in the words—
“ Life, we’ve been long together,
Through pleasant and through stormy weather ;
’Tis hard to part when friends are dear,
Perhaps 'twill cost a sigh, a tear.
�report—T^^|junO1878.
21
Choose thine own time,
Say not 1 Good night,’ but in some brighter clime
ipffBsa ine4 Good morning.’ ”
I like that everlasting good morning which has to he given us. I may be
told this is simply agnosticism in another form, but I think it is belief, and
rational belief also. I would say further, that the way in which ideas of this
kind prove their truth is not so much that we can satisfactorily demonstrate
them to the intellect and adequately define them, but when they are
uttered out of the depths of trust and love in the mind and heart, somehow
they exercise an enormous power in quickening our own intellectual and
lOrar nature, and the intellectual and moral nature of all who are able to any
extent to sympathise with them. If they be true, and I maintain they prove
their truth by the influence they exercise, we have a boundless horizon, a
horizon so wide that we cannot fix its limits, a limitless horizon of the boundless love and infinite perfection of God working on the side of our own finite
intellects and aspirations. We have also the looking out towards an eternal
future, conscious that there is something in us that will go on growing and
flourishing and working for ever, and the more it grows and flourishes and
works the richer will be the joy it gives to us and the more powerful it will
make us as efficient agents in the amelioration of the social condition of our
fellow men. Passing through Fleet Street yesterday morning, and smoking
a cigar after breakfast—just before preaching the annual sermon to the
British and Foreign Association in Essex Street, Strand,—I passed a window
where the Secular Review was exhibited for sale, and I noticed in an article
on the first page a quotation from Tennyson’s In Memoriam, that seems
to me to fairly and substantially represent the affirmations that we may venture
EoE&uke. It was this—
“ Thou wilt not leave us in the dust;
Thou madest man; he knows not why,
He thinks he was not made to die;
And Thou hast made him. Thou art just.”
^ellj sustained by the logic of the moral sentiment, I make these affirmations.,
I [At this point the Congress adjourned for refreshments.]
On resuming—
Rev. J. C, Street (of Belfast) said: I regret very much that the debate
of this morning was not kept within the limits of the very interesting question
raised by Mr. Voysey. We are summoned here to consider whether it is
possible to establish a union of liberal thinkers in which every kind of
thought shall have expression and shall have a respectful hearing and conside ration. Now I live in one of the most bigoted places in Christendom,
an(l I am surrounded by the most dense orthodoxy that the world has ever
seen. . I have to fight a very uphill battle for the cause of what I consider
liberalism in religion, and I am impressed with the feeling that there is great
®I|Sjficance in the words that fell from our Chairman, when he said that
though we know that to-day the liberal thinker need not be afraid to utter
yet that we cannot tell how soon the day may come when freethought may be placed under such a ban as he has described. I am painfully
conscious of that fact, and I want to see if it is possible to organize some
movement by which there shall be an aggregation of these scattered elements
^reeth°ught, a consolidation of the atoms, of men who are working
t*or the maintenance of it. Our platform this morning has been
�22
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
most comprehensive, and with one single exception we have heard with
respectful attention all who have spoken ; I should have been prepared under
other circumstances to give careful attention even to that speaker, but, as
he seemed to be playing with us, there was not time for him. The question
is, is it possible so to form an organization, that here and throughout tBie
country there shall be a body of men who will stand by the liberal thinker
when he is trying to utter himself in the most remote part of the empire a
Most interesting questions have been raised by Mr. Voysey in his paper as to
what are the religious needs of the age. Passing from the question as to
whether it is the disestablishment of the Church we want, he said we wanted
the disestablishment of the creeds of the Church. Then he came to the direct
questions which we have to consider. He said that there were thrown off from
the orthodoxy of the churches a large body of freethinkers, divided into two
sections—those who are represented by the ladies. and gentlemen, who, by
their very presence here, raised a protest this morning against the dominant
orthodoxy, but who cling to tbe essence of religion while yet they do not
recognize the personality of God or the need of prayer; and the otheri
section, also thrown off orthodoxy, who recognize the personality of God and
the necessity of prayer. Mr. Voysey raised the question as to whether it is
possible to have a free religious association which will include those various
sections of the great heterodox party. I think it is possible, and it is our
business to reduce it to actuality to-day. I would much rather then have
heard speakers rising to tell us how to do it than that they should have
wandered into the abstruse metaphysical questions that have been raised. I
think it is quite clear the basis of the association must be utterly undogmatic,
must recognize the largest liberty to every man amongst us—must take care
that atheism as well as theism shall have a standpoint; it is necessary also
that we should not only have a platform on which these two can stand, but
there must be a clear understanding that this undogmatic basis shall recognize
not merely the right of the atheist or the deist to speak here, but shall en
force upon him the duty of utterance. We want to get at the thought of the
atheist, the thought of the deist, in order that it may be fully and fearlessly
expressed, in order that it may be canvassed, and not merely canvassed
but dealt with, amongst those problems of nature and of men which
we should constantly have under consideration.
I would respectfully
urge upon this meeting that the problem suggested by Mr. Voysey’s paper
is—Can we have such an organization ? Remember, there are a number of
men, some here, some in other and various parts of the world, who are bearing
the burden of a great weight put upon them by the orthodox churches.
There are some men who still stand within the limits of the church, who are
fighting for liberal Christianity: there are some of us who are fighting for
liberal religion, whether within or outside of Christianity, but we are very few,
scattered and almost isolated, and it would cheer us immensely if we could
find gathered here in the metropolis of the world an organization which would
throw its great shield of strength over the isolated workers, and make them
feel they were not working alone, but that brave, earnest, true men were
banded together ready to sustain and afford these isolated fighters their help.
I hope to have the pleasure of being present at the meeting to-morrow, and
I hope if to-day there is not submitted a basis of some organization, that at |
least to-morrow we shall have such a basis laid down, that we may not go back
feeling that we have been here in vain. I heartily wish success to the move
ment, and express my own personal thanks to Mr. Conway and his congregation
for having summoned us from all parts of the country to attend this meeting.
�REPORT—13TH JUNE, 1878.
23l
Mr. Holyoake : I had no ambitioJnoflHtennon whatever*of taking part
in a conference of this description, and had I not been seduced by the blandish
ments of my mend Mr. vonway to come, I certainly should not have been
here. I understand that what you want is some brief, explicit statement of
opiEiW*bn the part of as many persons as care, I suppose, for unity of action.
—I care nothing for unity of action. There were two phrases in the circular
which seem to me hopeful—one was that which deplored the isolation of
which Mr. Street has just been speaking, and another expressing a hope that
wefee was some universal state of things that it was possible to realise. Now,
I suppose that a few facts will be of as much relevance as many theoretical
arguments. I can say that all my own experience shows that men are arriving
at greater unity of action than I ever expected to see attained in my lifetime.
This is so marked that this seems like a new world to me. I can testify that
for the past twenty-five years it has not been possible to get upon any platform
in England any responsible minister of religion who would discuss any of the.
■questions which before that time they would discuss without ceasing. It is
because the old orthodox questions, which agitated me when I was a youth
and acted on my compeers of that time, are now dead in men’s minds, dead
as the cities of the Zuyder Zee. Nobody cares to revive them, nor is it
possible to have a discussion upon them. We used to agitate about eternity,
perdition, and about the advisability of their being such a place: everybody is
now agreed about this—that the eternity of the perdition shall be quite
dropped out. Most persons remain still of the opinion that there is some
use^or this place, with this mitigation, that there are a great many
people who certainly ought to be there. I never cared much about it
my|elf, but the personality of the devil was often discussed about me, and we
were told what an active agent he was; but everybody now sees that there is no
business so badly managed as the devil’s, for we know the people who ought
to have been in his hands long ago—It is apparent to everybody, so that one
might imagine there is some satanic trade union in existence, and that the per
sons whom he employs have struck, and don’t do their work. I used to debate
with my friend Thomas Cooper about the doctrine of the resurrection; but now
there are a few persons who are so foolish or so insensible to the privileges they
now enjoy, which were purchased for them by the sacrifices of their forefathers,
and which they don’t care to question, that when they die, if they were to be
raised again, it would bring resurrection itself into discredit. Upon all these
points the opinion of the public has so widely changed that there are cer
tainly greater grounds than ever for hope that some day there may be
practical unanimity of opinion about theology. I suppose it is no use
going about the world looking for what you want; it is much better to
open your eyes and see what you find there. Therefore it seems to me
that a conference which seeks to reconcile opinion is perfectly delusive.
What you want is a congress which shall seek to recognize opinion
It is much too soon to attempt to reconcile it. Why, you have not got half
the contrary opinions you will have in a few years in this country. What is
the good of beginning to reconcile when you have not got all the projects
before you? We may expect almost infinite diversity of opinion. Well, I
am in favour of that. At a meeting of the Congregational clergy the other
day* I said I was a friend to sects and to diffusion of opinion. I heard my
friend, Mr. Voysey, speak very eloquently about his conception of Theism,
and I listened to him with great interest. I find many people speak earnestly
on behalf of their own particular opinions, and instead of effacing individuality
of thought Ewould rather it were increased. The effacement will come by
�24
EggN^RAL ■CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS?!
time and by argument; it will nev"r come by logical reconcilement of
innate differences. Therefore, I like this controversy, this individuality of
religious opinion. Why, is not the world full of people of the most divers
kind of opinion ? As to these opinions that I have called secular, I never
pretended that I was an apostle of them, only a propagandist of them,
addressing myself to hundreds of people whom I knew, who were to be
impelled in right paths by secular inspiration, and could be impelled by no
other way. All the world is full of this diversity of opinion, and you want
every form of opinion to impel men into the right path. With respect to
theology, the question was often referred to this morning. There arejltwo
kinds of minds in men, the emotional and the intellectual. There are people
who wish to believe, who believe what they wish, and who wish to believe
what they like. There are also people who simply want to know what they
ought to believe, and these people are perfectly different. You never can
connect them or reconcile them, and the best thing you can do is to give each
fair play, and endeavour to see whether it is not possible there should be
some small connection between them on which they could agree. Tiiwle.tually they will never agree. There are people whose minds are like
water. They refract, and if you put the plainest statement of logic and']
mathematics into such minds they would immediately seem bent. There are
people whose minds are inverted, and the millenium will never come to these]
people until the world is turned topsy-turvy, and then things will seem
straight to them. This diversity of mind you cannot extinguish. These
people never vary : you cannot alter them, and all you can do is to recognize
them, and to give the freest play to their individuality of conscience and
views. I have no doubt the nursery rhymes are quite true which say,
slightly altered,
“ For all disunion under the sun
There is an agreement, or there is none.
If there be one, you will easily find it.
But if there be not—why never mind it.”
There is another unity which is possible, and that is the unity of action.
I am sure that in all the schools of free thought I know, and of practical
thought with which I have become acquainted, the moral aims of their mem
bers are very nearly the same. You might propound objects of attainment 1
of a moral nature, objects such as the advancement and the recognition of indi
viduality of thought, and of religious thought. I do not myself believe in
the multiplication of atheists to which some speakers have referred. The
atheist is a creature of very slow growth, and requires as much discipline and
understanding as science itself. These persons are very few, and do not increase
so fast as you imagine. It is one of the easy and absolute opinions of theology
to imagine that people are created continually of the most advanced type. I
am sure of this, that there are very few who are atheistical from necessity,
but the name covers the most extreme forms of opinion. There is a community
of moral aims and endeavours, and the only possible ground of unity which we
can have for the present is a conference of persons recognizing differences—
not asking people to come to explain them and reconcile them—but recognizing
them and seeing how much common work they can do, how far they will
act together, and how far they can contribute to the perfection of each other,
and to the maintenance of the right of conscience and free thought, upon
which all progress depends. What Mr. Street spoke of is exactly the thing
that is possible. It is possible, I am sure, to have a conference and to get
unity of action for objects of a moral nature upon which we are all
�repor^iSth june,
1878.
25
agreed, leaving out entirely the religious opinions—leaving persons to
have their own way about that and to accept them if possible, That I would do
all my life. Ever since I was what the world calls a heretic I never refused
to subgcl’ibe to a Methodist or a Catholic chapel if I found my neighbdufa
'wished to worship God in that way, and had no other way of expressing their
convictions. I would just as readily assist them as persons of my opinion,
because I know that this world is a great well, and truth is very low down in
it, and I do not believe in any one sect drawing it all up. It wants the com
bination of good will of the whole. I have no doubt that that is where the
line of unity lies. I am sorry I have spoken at such length, but I thought
it wftuld be unfair to accept the invitation and not tell you my opinions oil
this subject. Your line of unity will not lie in endeavouring to recon
cile opinion. That will reconcile itself if you will encourage this individuality
of action and give free play and fair play to all, irrespective of their views.
If you summon a congress in which all opinion every where shall be recognized
you will find that when the members come to act together, they will lessen
their differences by contact, and by knowing one another they will discover
with surprise how people they thought the most diverse in opinion from them
have really all along meant the same thing. I know that unity will come
oneway. It will not come by giving up your opinion, but by advising and
forming a corporation shall recognize all, and shall give strength to all who
care for the truth and who desire to act together for the common ends of
humanity about which wre are all agreed.
Mr. Mark H. Judge : I should not have ventured to send up my name
but for the fact that before the adjournment the Conference appeared to me
to be taking a direction which was not really desirable. The Conference was
not called together, as it seems to me, to take up particular religious questions,
to discuss abstruse problems as to the personality of God, or matters of that
kind; but we are here to endeavour to meet the religious needs of our time
which are felt by liberal thinkers. It seems to me that, for this purpose, we
have nothing to do with the particular opinions which may be held by us
as thinkers. The discussion before the adjournment was what we might
have expected at a meeting of perplexed thinkers, rather than at a meeting
called for the definite purpose of strengthening our position in the country.
What we want to aim at, I think, is not to attempt to define true religion,
but to get free religion. If we attempt to define true religion, we ought to
stand by our definition, and then we become sectarian at once. If I under
stand the meaning of the Committee who issued the circular convening this
(Conference, they wish to found some such body as the Free Religious Association in America, and I do hope some such organization will result from
this Conference. What we want is an association not an agreement. We
need not be agreed upon particular problems. For instance, I think the
Chairman was somewhat illiberal in his opening address—unintentionally so,
I am sure ; for while we might agree with the views he expressed, the address
seemed to me to be more sectarian than it should hive been under the circum*J
Rances. I may have misunderstood him but I thought he assumed that this
was a meeting opposed to revealed religion, and that he would not include in
the community of freethinkers those who believed in the Bible or in the
orthodox theology. Now, the Free Religious Association is not so constituted.
I, ipyself, do not believe in the Bible in the sense in which the gentleman
dotes who unfortunately failed to obtain a hearing; but I think that, if this
Conference is to be of any utility in creating a broader feeling on religious
subjects, it should not be limited to such a basis. What we want to do is to
�26
GENERAL CONFERENCE1 OF KIBERAL THINKERS.
get together a number of men prepared to listen to each other, whatever their
diversity of opinion; and to me it is very illiberal as well as unwise to refuse
to receive those orthodox people who are prepared to come and asso
ciate and exchange opinions with us. Recently I have had an opportunity
of seeing a practical application of this principle in a club in a provincial
town formed of both political parties. It was organised by the liberal agent,
but he refused to limit it to party purposes. It seems to me that spirit ought
to animate us—that we should have freedom of thought, whatever it may be.
I don’t at all share the view of the Chairman that the time may perhaps
co.me when we shall be in the position we were some ages back. I have more
faith in my principles, and believe that they have a stronger hold on the
public mind, and that they only want a free platform to make greater pro
gress. If orthodox people do come into an association of this kind we need
not fear that our principles will be overruled, we should rather expecSfco
leaven those who come amongst us.
Mrs. Rose . Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to be with
you to-day. When Mr. Conway kindly sent me the invitation, I was very glad
to see that a conference was to be held in which an interchange of opinion or
discussion would take place, for free discussion is like the air we breathe, if we
have it not we die. Particularly so is this true of a discussion on the subjects
made known in that circular. In thanking Mr. Conway and the Commit,fp.e
tor sending me the circular I informed them precisely of my opinion—namely,
that I belong to no religious sect; I profess no religion; and I have long
ago discarded even the name. It is too indefinite and misleading, and is only
calculated to divide the human, family instead of uniting it. Well may we
exclaim “ Ok' re^S^on what crimes have been perpetrated in thy name.’M
We have been told, by some of the speakers that Grod cannot be defined. Nor
can the term religion be defined. The orthodox church gives it one meaning,
the heterodox church, if I may call it so, another. The liberal church gives
it another, entirely different. Now, if you want to form a society for
practice, you must give it apractical name. (Hear, hear.) I would take the
liberty of suggesting a practical name. I know we have a society in the
United States under the title of “ Free Religion.” Free is all right. But
what is Religion ? That term is indefinite and undefinable. If you mean by
it morality, say morality. If justice, say justice. If wisdom, say wisdom.
But if you want to have a term that shall unite all, no matter of what sect
or to what branch he belongs, then adopt a name that shall be definite
and strong. Do you want unity, not upon speculative matters, but where
all could be practically interested in working for the benefit of human
race then take the name of the “ Friends of Progress.” You ask to
what would it lead? Io everything that is grand and noble in society—
progress in the arts, progress in the sciences, progress in social reform,
progress in the social sciences. That would elevate man from the lowest
to the highest as far as human nature is capable of being elevated. Any
individual might belong to this association, and yet have anv opinion he
iked with regard to all speculative notions of God. I am a free thinker
to the very fullest extent.. I . have never yet heard a definition of God
that comes up to my conscientious conviction. In none of the gods that
have been proclaimed can I conscientiously believe. If there are any
others I will . examine them and see whether they come up to my
highest conviction, and then say whether I can assent to or dissent from
them. C)ur beliefs and disbeliefs don’t depend upon our will, but upon
our convictions, and even if we wish it we cannot believe that of which
�REPORT—13TH JUNE, 1878.
27
we are not TOnvuomi}* ButWe could all believe in progress, in progress of
thought and of action. But we can have no progress without liberty of
thought, and liberty of th ought is not enough. The liberty to think exists
Rome, for the Pope cannot prevent any one from thinking, but we want
fmore g^GpRome gives, we want liberty not only to think, but a libertwto
Bexp^^s our thoughts. That is a part of progress irrespective of opinions.
Let us then unite in a Society of Friends of Progress, aiming not onlylti
jmfflkjjut jco express our thoughts. The Christian, the Mahometan, the Jew,
the Deist, and the Atheist—for the Atheist has the same right to his opinion
that the Methodist has to his—all have an equal right to their opiniorB.
There, my friends, you see a wide field open for union—a union to
reform the laws so as to have perfect freedom of conscience, the right to think
and fco express our thoughts on all subjects.
Progress opens as wide a field as
the human race—it endeavours to remove the obstacles that prevent our
growth. We have remained as pigmies in our thoughts, because we have not
|fed the right to express them, even if we had any thoughts, and we must work
for the right to teach what we believe to be true, the right to work for and
to allow a more rational, consistent, liberal and more glorious state of society
||han. we now have. In all these things we could join hands. The Rev. Mr.
E^^ey and the Rev. Mr. anybody else, unless they are too fixed in their
bigotry, or too much impeded in their religious views, as well as the more
rational and liberal Christians, could all unite with us to form a union which
should give us strength, strength not to injure any one, not even to prevent
Kmtedfrational views that some of the religionists have of their god, but a
strength to take care that as long as they have them they should have a perfect right to express them:—a strength that shall enable us to assist each
other to improve the world, to obtain rational and consistent laws, laws that
will not deprive a mother of her child—(loud and continued applause)—as
has been done to Mrs. Besant, simply because she thinks differently from the
judge; laws that will not incarcerate an innocent, respectable man, simply
because he sold something that he conscientiously thought beneficial to society.
We should work to get rid of irrational laws based upon sectarian opinions,
and to replace them by laws standing upon rational knowledge. We ask
only the right to investigate everything, to throw it free and open, and to see
if after examination we can arrive at something we can say we know. Now,
[Christians acknowledge they don’t know what God is, except that everybody
ought to believe as they do. I say every person has a perfect right to believe
as he or she is forced to; and among the laws that ought to be altered, and
altered by rational and consistent means, are the laws that are based upon
sex instead of upon right, In my heresy, if I liked, I might call it my religion,
all I want is that woman should have the same rights as a human being.
I may be wrong, but I have a conviction and really believe that worn mJ
is ja human being. If I am in error, Mr. Chairman, please to correct
me. As a human being, I want her to have precisely the same rights as a
Iman. Now, when a judge says that if this woman had been the father
instead of the mother, the child might have been left with her; I
think that is one of the laws which should be altered. In all practical views,
then, I think we can agree, and it is not astonishing that while we can agree
upon: practical subjects we cannot agree at all on theories based upon specula
tive opinions about some man in the moon.
Colonel Higginson : I have sat with profound interest during this
session. Of corpse, having a good deal of human nature, I have felt the same
great desire to come upon this platform and put my little questions, that so
�28
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
many others have felt to come up and propound theirs, but I have been
restrained up to this time by a sense of that becoming humility whTch is so
L especially characteristic of an American. Perhaps I should not have alluded
to that beautiful trait, but that my dear old friend Mrs. Pose, whom we used
to be proud for so many years to claim as an American, while her sonorous
eloquence filled our halls, and whom you, I suppose, now try to claim as an
J^nglishwoman, though she is not^ has spoken. AVhen she came forward I felt
the result was that the Atlantic was, so to speak, crossed, and that the other
side might venture to put in a claim to be heard. I suppose we have felt that
somehow or other, from the moment of the adjournment, whether it was from
the interval of meditation, or the remarkably good flavour of the sand'Wches
with which our benevolent friends here have supplied us, that the whole dis-’
cussion has taken a new impulse and concentrated itself upon more definite
purposes, and that in short, the real work of the meeting has begun. This
morning s discussion was of the greatest value, for it was unavoidable. I
speak from a good deal of experience of just such efforts, for, as my friend
said this morning, I have been long connected with the Free Religious
Association of the United States. I have found you always have to begin in
that way, always to blow off a certain amount of steam, always to listen to
a certain amount of persons who come here thrilling with something they
want to say,, or some question they want to ask, or some objection to make
or some objection that somebody else has made, to answer. There musfl
be that, and that has to pass off before the real serious work begins. X
don’t know whether any native-born Briton felt impelled, in addition to the
sandwiches, to imbibe a glass of the national fluid with his luncheon—it
is a practice I deprecate, and I introduce it here only for the purpose of
scientific illustration. If he did, he unquestionably watched with pleased
interest the incipient foam which marked the rising of the beer; but it was
not for the sake of the foam that he ordered the drink—he drank the
beer of whose excellence and strength the foam was the symbol. In any
liberal movement, even in a movement for union, there must be in the early
stages the foam. It is only after the foam has disappeared that you
come to the actual flavour, and if the actual flavour of the beverage—the
liberalism—seems bitter, why it is the bitter of the beer that is considered
by Englishmen wholesome after all. We have come now, this afternoon, to
the solid stage of the proceedings, and if I rise to speak it is partly
that 1 know there are those here now who will not be here to-morrow. The
Free Religious Society of America, whatever its faults and shortcomings,
did at last come together in precisely such meetings as this, it met
just the same variety of opinion, had to withstand just such ob
stacles, and even down to the last eloquent appeal of Mrs. Rose
0I" a
scope than the founders of the movement aimed at or
succeeded in establishing, the exact counterpart of the earlier stages of
e movement. I think it altogether likely, in view of the different circum
stances, the different elements, the different prejudices, the different ways of
±roIB those t
Preva^ amongst us, that your movement may-take some
different form. I must say I think that, in some respects, and in some details,
a c ange might be desirable amongst us, but I do think we can claim this
one thing—that a great many of the doubts expressed to-day we have solved
by actual practice, and a good deal that is here stated in the form of a vague
yearning, stands with us in the form of a definite association, which, if it has
done nothing else, has at least lived eight years, and is certainly no weaker
than when it began. I should say, in reference to the demand put forth by a
�REPORT—13tH JUNE,
1878.
29
gentleman this morning, that the most important thing was to have a place
where persons of different opinions could stand, that so far he has stated some
thing perfectly reasonable and perfectly practical. It is one thing, however,
to find a platform where persons of a dozen different opinions can stand, and quite
another to find one large enough for all to walk upon, especially if it is to
include the doing of everything that ought to be done. If our experience
has proved anything, it has been this, that when you come to put a thing in
wbmng order, it is absolutely necessary to limit your aims a little, and not fo
expect to do everything at once, and with one organization. It is on this
point, and almost on this point alone, that I should dissent from the position
taken by my old friend Mrs. Rose; and not only should I dissent from it, but
I am absolutely sure that if, under the influence of her noble aim and generous
■Maryyou planned your organization upon the vast basis she recognised, that
if in five years your organisation lived to bring you together, it would be to
Efpent that you were not content with a smaller and therefore more definite
Kfeu In saying this, I am not impeaching her object, but accepting it. I am
only raising a mere question of how you are to do a certain thing. In the old
novel of “ Ten Thousand a-Year,” which used to be very much read when I was
young,
first great English Reform Bill was always spoken of as “the great
bill fpr giving everybody everything.” Now I am not saying that her views were
as wide as that, though her heart is wide enough for it; but I do say this, howoV®r, that if, after forming an organisation in which persons of different religious
opinions may meet and compare notes—about that there is considerable
difficulty—you are also to attempt an organisation which shall carry out in
all the details of practical action all those sublime purposes which all
these different persons aim at, you will have an effort with, which Englishare not able, any more than Americans, or Europeans, or men and
women anywhere, to cope.
You will be endeavouring to embrace in
one organization all the work of reforming all the evils, changing all the
laws, and obtaining all the wise improvements that dozens of societies in
London are separately trying to produce. When I first came to London, I
went on successive days to the Sunday Closing Society, the Prison Reform
Society, and Woman’s Suffrage Society, and they began to accumulate so
fast, that I finally leceived a letter urging me to attend a meeting of a society
which it was said was, to many people, carrying on as great a moyement as
the great anti-slavery movement. It turned out to be a society to oppose
compulsory vaccination. Now, if these societies which merely represent
Em infinitesimal portion of the immense philanthropic work of London
have all to be embraced in one organization, well you will have an
organization in one body, and in one limited hall, and consisting of
merely a few. remarkable and able minds, which undertakes to accomplish
wh§it all the judges and all the lawyers, and all the bench of bishops, and
the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and Lord Beaconsfield’ and
all the army of Indian troops he has brought to Malta together, would not be
able to decide, and would not be able to settle. Friends and fellow-citizens__
I will not say, my lords and gentlemen, which I have noticed in public meetings to fie the way here—whatever we undertake in this organization let it
be very calmly planned and very fully slated in our own minds, so that if we
err we shall at least err on the side of undertaking rather too little, for other
wise we s^a^
an(^ the thing will have to be done over again by those of more
paoderglii^expectations. This is what I have been impelled to say, and if my
old friend has heard it with reluctance, as I know she has, and her smile of
dissent only convinces me to the contrary, she must thank for that her own
�30
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
eloquence which has displayed the defects of the plan and made me try to
guard the meeting against a programme so magnificent as the sublime—
but I think, impracticable—aim which she laid before us. Now just briefly to
say what has actually been done in America, and what I think might be done,
and better done, here. We had to meet at the outset this question of the
word religion and the objection to it. I am glad to say we found amongst the
atheists of America no such reluctance to the actual word religion as might
have been feared, and none such as I think has existed here. The organiza
tion had from the very outset the hearty co-operation and very early help of
Mr. Seaver, the editor of the Investigator, who should be well known to all old
radicals as one of the most faithful and heroic of men, who never compromises,
however acceptable the compromise. He came to the early meetings and has
taken part in it since. We had the actual co-operation of Mr. Underwood,
who is one of the most eloquent as he is one of the most able materialists of the
United States. Both these men, and men and women like them, have
accepted the organization in America,' although it called itself religious,
partly because a great deal of attention had been directed to the definition
of religion given by a prominent member of the movement at a very early
period, a little before we began—Mr. Francis E. Abbot, of The Boston In Jell
At the very beginning, in his fifty affirmations, which were in a mannenlthe
groundwork of his faith, he defined religion as simply meaning the effort
of man to perfect himself. Whether the definition holds water or not, it
unquestionably furnished a basis on which any atheist as well as any Deist
might stand. With this meaning given in the beginning to the word
religion it was easy to see that the word religion produced no great
antagonism as part of the title of the proposed society. On the other
hand the word Theism which was persistently put forward by our rational]
friend Chunder Sen, and which was the basis of his great movement,
was always definitely objected to. We always took the ground that it
might do for them; it was not the thing for us. It was found that
the Anglo-Saxon mind tends to the practical, and that the word re
ligion furnished a platform wide enough to satisfy all we had to deal
with, and no narrower word would have come in. I think, therefore,
we saved ourselves by the use of the word. Then when we came
to the question of organization, it was plain enough that the secret of our
success there must be to attempt very little, not to attempt any wide
action, any very systematic propagandism, and to bring about those by way
of a modification of what our Jew friend said to-day so well, by which you
can furnish a platform on which persons of very widely different views can
meet. It is essential to your success that the platform should contain but
very few planks, and you should use it for but very few things. You can
have annual meetings and speeches—brave, heroic speeches;—you can, within
certain limits, issue publications, but these should urge rather the necessity of
union and religious freedom than anything more definite. When it comes to
action in other forms you cannot make such a society the medium of a very great
deal of definite action, for the reason that when we come to the actual we come
to the difficulties which Mr. Voysey described. When you come to the differ- i
ence between those who on the one hand believe and think they have ground
for belief in God and a personal immortality, and those who disbelieve, or thinkthey do, between those two you not only cannot form a creed, but they cannot
co-operate with one another—cannot sustain one another beyond the very
moderate and definite point of getting freedom of action, and getting reforms
in the laws so far as religious liberty is concerned. For all that concerns the
�REEORT—IBtH
JUNE, 1878.
31
principle "ifeoertyi'yo^^ffleorm such, an assodi^lbn, but when you go further
and grafflKke any system of religious propagandism, when you take Mr.
E^mev as one of your active members, and help to circulate his views,
and when you take Mr. Conway, Mrs. Rose, and others—when you come to
the details, then you come upon difficulties, and then you find that the aims of
an association like this must be limited. In short it all comes back to this!
With a very plain illustration of what I mean I will close what I
have to' say, it comes back very much to this.
Reformers have
Jh^j^trength and heroism and self devotion to witness to the truth of
their extreme views.
Organization on the other hand belongs to the
conservative side, belongs to the region where men suppress themselves
End. become, as they are in the Jesuitical organization, each man perinde
like a corpse. You never get such an organization as that out of
radicals. What is the strength of radicals ? The individuality, the enthusiasm,
EheBoftb, the ardour, the willingness for self-sacrifice, that throws itself upon
the bayonets, the prosecution of a belief with a strength compared to which
the mere negative martyrdom of the Roman Catholic seems only as a childish
thing. (Applause.) That is the enthusiasm that is got from the radicals.
To get that you must drive a radical with a very loose rein and leave him
much untied. The simple illustration that conveys it is drawn from our
northern regions and the way in which the Esquimaux harnesses his dogs.
EjWimaux dogs are sagacious. Each dog has its place and has a fair chance
for action, but experiments have told us that if too closely harnessed they!
will turn against each other and eat each other up. Twenty-five dogs are
nttachcdsledge, each by a separate thong, and there is no more trouble,!
So with radicalism, it is not like the Roman Catholic Church, it has its own
organization and its own strength, and so in no way in exerting its own
strength ought it to be disturbed, but it should pull by a long pull, a strong
pull, and a pull altogether.
Mrs. Ernestine Rose : I am not a Radical dog in the least, but it is just
as well to know, in the cause of freedom and expression of opinion, that “ we
may$iim at the sun and at least hit the moon.”
Col, Higginson : That was quite what I was afraid of.
Mr. Leslie Stephen apologised for not reading a paper which he had
prepared. He thought that it was calculated to promote discussions upon
abstract questions, upon which there had already been enough, instead of
K^fllng to any practical result. He wished to know more distinctly what was
contemplated by the proposed association, and what interests it was intended
to protect, Debates upon general principles only distracted the attention of
the meeting from this important question. It had been suggested that the
|Bg>q|miion was needed to protect freedom of discussion. For his own part, he
had not the least desire to be protected by anybody ; he had always said what
and
published the most heterodox opinions without incurring
the gjnallest inconvenience. He therefore wanted no association for his own
protection. If other persons were less fortunately situated, it was most desirable
case should be known, and any measures adopted which might
secure freedom of discussion. Let the dangers be distinctly pointed out, and
the nature of the proposed remedy set forth. He would have been glad to
have. a fuller account from Colonel Higginson -of the association already
mthe United States. He might supply useful hints for action in this
country. Hoping that the attention of the meeting might be directed to such
practical ends, he would not distract it by reading a paper upon different
topics.
�32
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL- THINKERS.
Mr. Conway : I move that a committee be appointed which could lay
before this meeting something like a practical suggestion as to whether they
think it possible or feasible that any kind of result may come, or an association
be formed, from our deliberations. We are all desirous to seek the truth,
and we are anxious to know what the truth really is. There is nothing in
this world more worthy of being cherished, cultivated, and fostered, than
knowledge of what is true and what it is right to do. We do not want
a cut-and-dried scheme ; and if the Society is to grow it cannot be
maintained by one or two people ; there are many interesting features
and aspects in it, and there must be, if possible, a general help. It is my
desire that a committee should be appointed, and you may nominate it as you
please.
Mr. Stuart Glennie seconded the motion; which having been
unanimously carried, the following gentlemen were appointed by the
Conference : Messrs. Conway, Higginson, Ellis, Stuait Glennie, Russell,
J. C. Street, Wyld, and Miss Downing.
Professor Garrison (of Chicago) : I must thank you kindly for the
opportunity afforded me of expressing my sentiments. I come from the!
United States, from the exemplary City of Chicago, a city that never .does
anything by halves, and I have formed my opinions very largely from the
general spirit that pervades that metropolis. Within the past thirty years
there has been a wonderful change of opinion in the part of the United States
with which I am familiar—namely, the Western States. Up to a time I did
not know a single “ infidel ” there. I call you all“ infidels,” because you do
not believe the whole of the Bible; I think that everyone who picks out! a
passage here and part there, and says, “ I cannot believe that,” is an “ infidel,”
and so nearly the entire church are infidels. In my early boyhood I did not'
know a boy who did not swallow that pill; and it would hardly have been
safe for him to declare himself an “ infidel.” They believed what they were
taught, that God could punish sinners eternally, and perhaps if onet
of them could have heard Mr. Conway preach, if they could have
got a good chance at him they would burn him eternally. If that
were the case he should bo scorched a little bit here. A little >
while ago the negroes killed a man on account of his infidelity; they
thought he was not fit to live. But now a change has come over the
American people, and I scarcely know an intelligent person who professes to
believe all the Bible. Some of them in a certain sense make the profession by
going to church and supporting the church, but they do not understand
anything about belief. I think it is worth while to enquire what has brought
about the great change which we recognise in America, and which yflju.
recognize here. In the first place we have a free press, perhaps the most
wonderful development in the world. In Chicago alone we have half-a-dozen
morning dailies of sixteen pages each, as large as your London Times, and I
have seen articles in our very best papers worse than Thomas Paine ever
wrote. Another thing, we have now free schools and good ones. In the
days of our forefathers, only reading, writing and arithmetic were taught in the
common schools, and in the colleges little else besides the classics. Now,
you have branches of education that will make a philosopher of a boy; you
include chemistry, philosophy, geography, and geology. You make philo
sophers. The pupils begin to think for themselves at once, and as soon as
they begin to think they become “infidels,” especially when they study
astronomy. These sciences are now taught in every part of the United
States, and any preacher would do well not to tackle such students without
�REPORT—13lH JUNE, 1878.
33
due consideration. But there have been some drawbacks to the spirit of free
though tOKlneThe fear of hell has been one of the main,
props of the church. If I was afraid that after death I should go to
hell unless I did certain things before death, I would be quite certain
^^u*thiQlmings, if it were possible. But as soon as you take that fear away
from me I become very lazy and very indifferent, as folks generally do;, and
that is one reason why Unitarian and Secularist churches have not succeeded!
Our Bftrotestant churches have got “ hell ” very nearly knocked out of them now!
decided to discountenance hell, and his utterances have very much
Succeeded in tempering theology throughout the world. We have a great
many others that are very prominent, such as David Swing, Robert Collier,
Euqrl)r. Thomas. All these men preach religion without hell in it, and yet
LDrrZxhomas is a Methodist of high standing. Methodism is gradually
falling away from the idea of hell, whilst free thought, liberalism, and infidelity
gaining ground. Hell is too hot a place for us to swallow, and slowly
^fflPsurely we go on until we become fully liberal. There is a vast amount
of superstition called religion. Some people believe that the world was
peopled after the flood from descendants of Noah, but when America was dis«Ma|ged and later on Australia, Noah had not sons enough to go round. You
have in South Kensington Museum a map, drawn some centuries ago; Jerusalem
is represented as the centre and apex of the world, and it has Damascus and
other model cities located around it. God Almighty is seated a little above
the world, just as this organ here is placed above the church, and he is lassooing
t sinners and taking them down to hell. Now let me remind you that the map
I refer to was purchased thirteen hundred years after Christ! When the telescope was invented we began to see how insignificant we are, and how a little
drop of dew is to our globe something like what we know ourselves to be to the
universe. Chemistry has shown us that we have not the compositions stated by
the Bible. We are not made of dust; our bodies contain a great many things
not found in dust. It shows us also that the resurrection of the body is an utter
impossibility. Chemistry has shown us that this world cannot come to an end;
that the earth is a cinder. Science has'shown us the impossibility of a flood.
There is no place in the atmosphere for such an amount of water to come
from; and, on the other hand, there is no place for it to go to. “ Providence ”
has been a hobby of man, and it has been a great friend of the doctors ; it
helps them out of many a scrape. A great many people still believe you
may try to avert the wrath of God here, and may perhaps succeed, but
depend upon it you will catch it in the next world. Divine Providence is
simply the working of natural laws. The prayer test has never been brought
to a trial, and it never will. Before man was dissected, it was believed he
had one less rib than a woman, and millions have gone into their graves
|klli|||ng that. The world must be infinitely older than anybody supposes it
to be—at least six hundred millions of years; and the deposition of strata is
very different from what possibly can be inferred from revelation. The
science of evolution is beginning to be studied more generally, and, to my
mind, it will annihilate modern Christianity. “ What will you. give us for
the faith which you destroy V’ That is considered to be the poser. “We
will give you the truth, as far as we know it, in the place of a lie.” Suppose
|flBWi*vere to begin to dig through your Silurian rocks for coal, spending all
his money and time, and bothering his family, and a geologist should come
^yng^and say, “ You need not dig there; there is no coal below those rocks.”
That is precisely the position Christians are in ; and we are under no obligation to giffpjthem anything but the truth. Let everybody go on digging for
3
�31
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
coal where there is none, if they enjoy the pursuit" but I only ask that they
shall not compel me to dig for it whore there is none* *
The Congress then adjourned for the day.
FRIDAY, 14th JUNE, 1878.
(Mr. ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, F.R.S., in the Chair.)
The Chairman, after observing that the Committee of the Chapel had
considered it advisable that one of the elder seat-holders should preside at
this day’s meeting, and had requested him to undertake the duties, proceeded
to read the following remarks :—
It has often been thrown in the teeth of rationalism that it is many, whereas
truth is one. In certain attempts at religious conversion, this very remark
has often been made the basis on which the most effective arguments have
been raised. But it is entirely delusive. So long as we have not got to the
bottom of things ; so long, therefore, as we only see in part, and from that
part, as is inevitable, speculate on. the whole, there must be diversities of
opinion, there must be words which are misunderstood, because they un*
consciously cover different areas within different minds; there must be
arguments, good in themselves, but actually fallacious from the want of some
unanticipated, and hence unallowed, but important factor, and nothing seems
more likely to supply the want so well as discussion. A word, nay a tone of
voice, may often lead us to reconsider a whole line of argument, and very
considerably modify our former opinions. We thus advance towards a goal
which we are ever dimly forefeeling, though we are unable to shape it
distinctly to our intellect. To disallow this, to erect one form of words into
an obligatory expression of opinion and call that uniformity, agreement!
oneness, is the most melancholy farce which can be enacted. It is, indeed
“ To make a solitude and call it peace.”
We hope and trust, then, in such meetings as the present, and the experience
of yesterday confirmed such a hope, to hear conscientious diversities of
opinion from conscientious thinkers, who feel themselves indeed, like
Horace, to be
“ Not bound to swear in any master’s word,”
but at the same time know themselves to be
“ Bees of one hive, bound to one common weal.”
We meet here to-day in the full belief that the laws of England condemn
ing heresy, and rendering penal any expression of thought which is contrary
to that of not only the Established Church, but even of Christianity or any
acknowledged religion, will not be put in force. We consider them as actually
dead. But are they so ? Are they not rather merely asleep, capable of being
awakened to sting by some Suppression of Heresy Society, such as the Church
of England itself must be considered ? Let me take an instance alluded to
yesterday by Mrs. Rose, but so striking that it will bear further consideration.
We have seen quite recently a judge, himself the member of a religious
�HEPOKT---- 14th JUNE, .1878.
35
society which but a few years ago was most unjustly excluded, from all parti
cipation in government^ deblare that it was not only reprehensible but
detestable ^ior a mother who professed to have no religion, to endeavour to
bring up her own daughter without any teachings commonly called religious,
until the child had sense to comprehend the nature of such instruction, and
the same judge judicially alleged that this was in itself sufficient reason to
cause him to make out an order to remove that child from her mother’s care.
He alleged indeed a second sufficient reason, with which we have no special
relM^n at this moment, except in so far as it was based upon the publication
of a book in which practices were advocated that in the writer’s opinion were
calculated greatly to promote the happiness and morality of mankind, but
that clashed with the judge’s own limited views of the great question of
social morality. With the particular opinions advocated we have nothing to
do now. though we may admire the moral courage which led to their publica
tion, but with the principle of silencing the expression of opinions on matters
which are vital to social existence, merely because they are opposed to the
adews of any one section of society, we have much to do. Our own Milton
wrote once on the liberty of “ unlicensed ” printing. We still want his pen,
as recent trials and present imprisonment shew. We cannot advance
morally and religiously, while the conscientious expression of opinion on
moral and religious subjects can be forbidden or rendered penal, while a
judge can shut up an elderly orderly bookseller with common criminals for
selling a book written with the strictest moral intent by an American Senator,
and more than thirty years before the world, or legally tear a child from its
mother, because she avows atheistical opinions. There was a third ground
alleged by the judge which is still more pertinent to ourselves. He deemed it
to the worldly interest of the child to give her to her father, a clergyman of
the Church of England, and take her from her mother, to whom the father
bad assigned her by legal deed. He founded his opinion on the supposition
[that the mother would be sent to Coventry for her opinions, would be a leper
in society, avoided by all those of good repute, and that the child would
share in that exclusion. Now this, on which it so happened in this case that
the judge’s sole legal authority was founded, forms the tyranny of society
upon opinion. When I was young it was enormous, and even now we see that it
is enough to influence a judge. More than this, in Ireland and England it has
quite recently led to the excommunication of the French Freemasons from
the British Lodges, owing to the withdrawal of a clause recognising the
existence of God and the immortality of the soul from the constitution of
the Grand Orient of France. To the isolated thinker this tyranny might
prove crushing. To the thinker who is aware of large numbers that also think
freely, and are banded together into an association, where liberal thinking is
the principle, this tyranny would cease to have any moral power. It might,
however, still tell greatly in respect to their worldly interests, as in election and
appointments, where speculative opinions, instead of moral and active efficiency,
too often guide the electors and appointers. To this all here are still liable,
and from this the sole hope of escape is in enlightened education. Never
theless we are present to-day, as we were yesterday, for the free expression of
thought on religious and connected social subjects. As the established forms
of religion throughout the world, with wonderful minuteness of detail, enter
iq.to all social subjects and especially into marriages, births, and deaths, it is
difficult to say what part of social economy is not religious, while not an in
considerable section of thinkers claim that there is no religion apart from
sociology, But with the view of dividing up a great subject we generally
�36
GENERAL CONFERENCE’ OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
agree to defer the consideration, of particular social subjects to
especial bodies, at the Social Science Association, and fsuch was
yesterday unmistakably the view of this Conference. Some subjects are,
however, so intimately connected with views of religion that they should be
ventilated freely, more especially that one on which I have already quoted
Sir George Jessel’s most subversive opinion. It is a problem which must
have occurred to every one who entertains liberal views and has a family,
how far children can or should be educated without any instruction or educa
tion which can be called religious in the usual acceptation of the term. God
less and irreligious are terms readily used, and, like all dyslogisms^hey are
apt to stagger and frighten. It was something, however, that last month
within the walls of Westminster Abbey a voice was raisedin glorification of
Atheism. “ In the opinion of the Brahmins, Buddha was an atheist. In
the opinion of the Pharisees, Paul was an atheist. In the opinion of the
Athenians, Socrates was an atheist. Atheism is the denial of the gods that
be, in obedience to nobler aspirations.” Such was the upshot of the conclu
sion of one of Prof. Max Muller’s most striking Hibbert lectures. In the last
of these lectures he showed a curious state of society in India, where three
generations may be living under one roof, the lad still learning the sacred
books of the Vedas by heart, his father carrying out the Brahmin system of
sacrifices to the most minute detail, and the grandfather released from all the
trammels that bind the other two, aware that their gods are but names, and
given over to philosophic contemplation. This is a solution of the problem
we can none of us desire. Why should a man up to my age live through a
state which a man who is past my age knows to be transitional, and doomed
to disappear? Are we to be merely insects in thought, passing a long
apprenticeship of creeping caterpillar and sleeping grub, before our wings of
freedom grow ? And are we finally to use our wings of freedom merely to
roam idly over the fields of philosophy like any other “ painted butterfly ” ?
A thousand times, no I Prom first to last we must bear our part in the great
drama of life. We must learn to be, to do, and to suffer. That is, we must
be taught from the first those social relations of each to all, which my revered
namesake, William Ellis, so successfully shewed could be impressed upon the
youngest school children, and which, let us hope, in time to come mothers
will learn to impress upon their offspring in the little world of the nursery.
The society of brothers and sisters is the first practical lesson in the laws of
social existence; the society of schoolmates the second; the society of fellow
workers the last. There is here nothing dry and abstruse, and nothing
frightful, if the horrors which common religion conjures up be left out of
consideration. Children can be taught morality in relation to fellow-children
of all ages without impressing on them that there is a constant spy on
their conduct in heaven—a veritable evil eye, such as used to be drawn in old
prints—belonging to a God, who would have sent them to everlasting fire—a
fire always burning but never consuming—if the blood of a lamb had not been
shed, and who will nevertheless send them there, if they are not very sorry for all
the bad and wicked thoughts which they are told are rising up in their minds,
although the little innocents cannot make out what they are. To teach this
—not to omit it—might much more reasonably be termed “ not merely
reprehensible, but detestable,” and has certainly the worst effects upon
children’s minds,whether they accept such fearful doctrines,and with infantine
simplicity act up to them according to their lights, or simply pass them by as
a lesson to be learned and neglected. To realise or to neglect such things,
when solemnly told, is equally pernicious.
�REPORT—14TH JUNE, 1878.
37
Beyond moral education of” children without direct reference to MT
religious notions, we have to consider intellectual, and especially physical
education. , The latter forms a large part of many religious systems. Cer
tainly it ought to form a part of all liberal religion. We should learn how
much neglect of physical life partakes of the nature of moral delinquency.
We, as members of the body common, should do our uttermost to be ready]
when called upon, and the call always comes at the most unexpected times. I
merely hint at these things. Time would fail me if I attempted to enlarge
upon them, but I hint at them with a view to giving a partial answer to the
question with which Professor Max Muller opened his lectures, and which
was often asked in this room yesterday :—“ What is religion ?” Or, to put it
hnOTe definitely as respects ourselves, “What is liberal religion?” I reply :
“ A profound sense of duty; that is, a profound sense of the relations of
ourselves to every part of the universe which comes within our. ken, animate
or inanimate, mundane or extramundane, and of every part of the universe
to ourselves, together with an invincible determination consciously to act in
harmony with these relations so far as we are able to perceive them.” To
carry cut to its full extent such a religion requires numerous theories, some
of which I have endeavoured to indicate in several printed discourses de
livered in this room, and in some pieces bearing my name in the hymn book
of this Chapel, which it would be waste of time to recapitulate. But such a
religion does not need the preservation of the old imperfect and exploded
theories—exploded by philosophers at any rate, though more or less living
among priests of all nations. Such a religion in its highest form is the acme
of thought reached by the greatest minds after the greatest struggles through
many generations. But in its simplest form it can be accepted and felt and
acted on by the child that begins to move consciously, even before it can
speak intelligibly. It may be objected, that such a religion is no religion at
all, as it contains no mention of God, personal or impersonal, of the efficacy
ofprayer, or immortality. But in so far as these are known to exist, or known
to be unknowable, they are certainly included within those parts of the uni
verse, mundane or extramundane, and our relations to them, which enter into
the above definition of liberal religion. In so far as they are mere conjecturo they can enter into nothing but dreams, with which mankind in general
is too busy to. have any concern, or are at best but those subjective theories
which lead thought to subsequent objective results. Among the latter I
would class the “ affirmations ” made yesterday by our distinguished visitors,
Mr. Voysey and Mr. William Binns, “affirmations” for which, as they
Admitted, there is no proof. On the contrary, another speaker conceived that
ffie had a means of proof, which, if examined, might probably be found to rest
ultimately on another affirmation, for in all argument we are led to some
ultimate principle which must be simply affirmed, and can be at most
“ verified ” by contrasting conclusions with observations. To this class, how
ever, the “affirmations” alluded to were admitted by the two speakers whom.
I have mentioned, not to belong.
Towards such a liberal religion as I have indicated, which is essentially
^growing and progressive, all can and should contribute by word and deed.
And to this end we must all think, and express what we think, and not be
afraid of doubt. The man who is certain is generally ignorant. He sees but
he. very surface of his subject, and is unaware of all the difficulties which
grubbing below the surface would reveal. We doubt in order to know.
And we trace out our doubts in words, in order to render precise what would
otherwise be vague. And we discuss these matters with our fellows in
�B8
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF
LIBERATIthTnkERS.
orderRo gather hints beyond the circle of our own experience We are
satisfied if we help on the train, of thought ever so little.
‘1 Thought unexpressed is thought but half thought out;
The first step made towards certainty is doubt.”
A working engineer told me lately that while driving a tube for a so-called
Abyssinian well, into hard concreted gravel, in the neighbourhood of Hackney J
three hundred blows with a monkey of eighty pounds weight, only sufficed
to make it penetrate a quarter of an inch. But he persevered; and after?
passing through six feet of such unpromising material he came to the water
stratum, into which the tube descended freely, and whence gallons on gallons
of water were readily pumped up. We are a long way from the living
waters yet, and many blows are still required to drive our intellectual tube
through the unpromising soil of actual life around us. But we have no
reason to despair. If not ourselves, at least, through us, our successors may
quaff the glorious stream, and certainly will quaff it, if every liberal thinker
does his duty by liberal thought. And one way of doing that duty will be to
form part of that Association of Liberal Thinkers which I hope that the
Committee appointed yesterday will enable us to organise to-day.
Mr. Conway introduced the following communications : Professor Clifford,
who from the first took a warm interest in this Conference, writes to me from
the steamship “ Morocco,” en route from Fiume to Malta, May 23rd, that he
had hoped, since the failure of his health prevented his taking part personally
with us, that he would find strength and opportunity to write a paper for us.
But a relapse at Venice, from which he is just recovering, prevented that
also. He sends me the notes he had made of the points on which he meant
to write, and no doubt these will be interesting as indicating the view which
that vigorous and learned thinker takes of the subjects we have met to
consider. I therefore quote them.
Catholics^ha-says* are fond of saying that an age of atheism is approaching^ .in
which we shall throw over all moral obligations, and society will go to ruin. Then we shall
see what is the true effect of all our liberal and scientific teaching. As a matter of fact,
however, even themselves admit that the public conscience is growing in strength and
straightness, while the catholic dogmas and organisation are more and more repudiated.
We may see reason to believe that the former of those facts is the cause of the latter.
Part of modern unbelief is no doubt due to the wider knowledge of criticism of the socalled “ evidence of Christianity,” but in all ages sensible men have seen through that flimsy
structure. Intellectual scepticism is not really more rife than it has been in many past
periods. The main ground of hope for the masses is the moral basis of scepticism,—1, its
revolt against mythology; 2, its revolt against the priestly organisation of churches.
As to the mythology, the dogma of eternal damnation is being quietly dropped, as not
in the Jewish part of the New Testament; but it has been practically taught by the
Christian organisation for sixteen centuries. Therefore the Christian organisation ought
to be thrown over with it, for it is not “ an opinion like another,” but a wicked thing to
believe.
As to the priestly organisation, Pi^essor—Clifford meant to contend —that-*the
practical effect of the Christian organisation, “ the church,” has always been adverse to
morality, and is now. The clergy is everywhere making more pronounced its revolt from
the great principles which underlie the modern social structure. There is a strong
antagonism between the Christian organisation and the Jewish ethical literature, which
our moral sense approves. And, in conclusion, Professor Clifford believes that so far as
the Christian organisation is concerned, the time has come for heeding again the ancient
warning—“ Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye
receive not of her plagues.”
Although no attempt was made to give our Conference an International
character, some invitations were sent to the Continent and cordial responses
were received from M. Litre, Prof. Hugenholtz (of Holland) and others. From
�REPORT—14th JUNE, 1878.
39
M. Fix (who has come from Belgfflm io be presen" with us) I have received
the following paper with reference to a liberal movement in France and
Belgium and its new review, “ La Religion Laique ” :—
We have neither founded a church nor invented a religion: we have created
a review (La Religion Laique) of which the object is :—1. To open the eyes of
those whose vision is obscured by ignorance or superstition; 2. To encourage hearts
that really love humanity, and minds convinced that the progress of civilisation lies
in the moral improvement of individuals ; 3. To unite men of good-will who, in this
world of struggle, are seeking after their sister-souls, who, though distributed in different
nations, continents, or degrees of existence, are yet in the bosom of the same humanity.
1. We believe in an only God: truth, goodness, justice. We believe in immortality of
the soul. This soul, born imperfect but free, must, as a duty, always improve itself; so it
is necessary it should live, that it may approach without ceasing nearer God : Perfection.
Happiness we must all hope is there—in that perfection—not elsewhere. Di'd all men
consider as certain that which we believe, humanity would adore one God. The children of
this father would really have for their first duty, chief advantage, and greatest happiness :
to love him and love each other. One religion should exist. The grand aim of religion is
not only to bind us to ourself, to our family, mother-country, and to humanity, but also to
attach our own being to terrestrial nature, to the universal life; to all beings known and
unknown, visible or invisible; to all which is, was, or shall be. The historic world
opens with war. The testimony of history is that religions have invariably divided
^mankind. They have sundered families, classes and states. The reason is that men,
families, classes and nations, have always been aroused and agitated, not by the
tolerant religion which unites, but by the intolerant religions which divide. The
first religious duty is brotherly love to our neighbour. If I see a man about to be
downed, shall I save him, or inquire from him what his faith is ? Why then those fratricidal wars provoked by fanaticism ? Why those human sacrifices ordered by rough priests ?
Why such miracles praised by miserable speculators ? Is God greedy of blood, domina
tion and money ? Let us not confound these words—Belief and Religion. A belief may
be a faith particular to a people; religion includes the belief common to all men and all
nations. A belief may kindle the faggots of inquisition; religion proclaims all men
brothers. -A belief leads to the triumph of an idea, of a man or of a party; religion wishes
only the triumph of truth. A belief raises a caste to rule over a country.; religion requires
free consciences and men equal by their right. A belief tries to establish some kind of
hierarchy over humanity ; religion dreams only of the universal fraternity. A belief lasts
only by egotism; religion means universal solidarity. Such are the reasons why our review
is called La Religion Laique ; though our religion is nothing else but the universal reli
gion. Such is its true name, till it is called Religion, one word for one thing. In calling
“our review La Religion Laique, we mean the religion which is for the people (Xaos),
whose basis is the people, and whose plane is above the interests and passions of sects. In
the past, religious revolutions have been marked by numerous and terrible sacrifices of
men; we hope that the religious renovation which we who gather here contemplate, will
.be and can be only peaceful. It will be peaceful, because it relies on the goodwill of free
meEp Good-will prepares for those future ages of which Goethe used to call himself a
citizen, the universal religion of which each of us is meditating. Sacerdotal intolerance
has built between individuals and nations separating walls. Human reason will cause
these divisions to cease, will make brothers of enemies, will prevent international injustices,
will end religious persecutions, will kill war. Such is the religion we recommend—a
religion we must all love, hope for, encourage, fraternally working for its triumph.
II. What is to be done ? 1.—Conceive and practice religion without miracles, without
sacerdotal body, without confession of faith. 2.—Govern ourselves and walk on towards
perfection, while helping others to get all we have acquired : comfort, instruction, and
morality. Those principles involve instruction, education, liberty, responsibility, moral
improvement, tolerance, duty, fraternity, reciprocity, helpfulness, self-help, solidarity, and
that intimate and deep conviction on which lies human dignity. Religion, as we under
stand it, is a general bond which unites all, excludes none. It is therefore necessary that
the religion of each man shall depend on his conscience entirely, allowing him to have his
own aspirations, opinions, and belief; progress made in each of us will cause our union
to last. Admitting a confession of faith to be imposed on the members of the same asso
ciation or religious congregation, we would stay intolerant, and deserving not the advantages
of union. We must then place the Religious bond in the will; not in the law as under
the regime of the Old Testament, nor in faith, as during the reign of the evangelical
system according to St. Paul’s dream. It becomes useless to demand of religious men —
�40
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF* LIBERAL THINKERS.
united by worship, teaching, or charity—if they believe such and such dogma ; but we
may ask if they are willing to work together for their own and'for human improvement.
Among free and thinking men there no longer exists any question about orthodoxy or
heterodoxy, and so there can be no exclusiveness or intolerance. Our detractors say a
religion of that sort is but a dream or a negative. Nothing, on the contrary, is more posi
tive and of an easier realisation : good-will only is necessary. We declare, as a principle,
religious doctrines to be matters of learning as much as the theories of science and
philosophy. In religion, as in any other branch of the human inquiry, there will
always be things we know, things we believe, and things we know not; but after
having put aside miracle, and all idea of a supernatural revelation, we learn and
teach facts, ideas, theories belonging to the religious kingdom, as we learn and
teach phenomena, laws and theories of other branches of knowledge. At the summit
of science, God is. Going to God through science, is going there when knowing what we
are doing. Is not the scientific revelation as good as the one they praise in their temples,
and before which our spirits cannot but doubt—the so-called revelation that makes fanatics,
religious parties, which has invented this monstrosity—the God who revenges, the God.
of armies ? We judge ourselves according to our actions, the good accomplished; our
degradation or our improvement resulting from our efforts and struggles. Our free will
imposes that duty on us, in an existence where human pride as well as injustice
and personal interest are no more. There God’s justice reigns according to the
eternal law of continuity. Prayer leads us nearer to God; it obliges us to conform our
thoughts, aspirations, moral needs and the discipline of our existence, to that law of con
tinuity which is the same for all. Otherwise, what would God’s justice be ? We cannot
admit he uses two kinds of weightsand measures. We then may say, like Jesus, we do
not wish to destroy the law, but to confirm it by working for its triumph. The kingdom
of our dearest aspirations is not of this world, for life has not for object any paradise
where the satisfactions of this world are to be continued. Sensuous religions have inven
ted those fables, in which absurdity joins materialism. We do not aim at a place of rest,
for we know the soul always progresses. We do not look for looming splendours. Happi-I
ness, according to us, is in the midst of the divine light, plenitude of existence—that is to
say, in entire knowledge of goodness and the conscience to deserve it. Why should identity,
so dear to us during our life, be lost ? God is goodness, God is justice. He cannot deprive
us of the benefits acquired by our merits, perseverance in virtue. We trust that, beyond
the grave, we do not abstract ourselves in contemplation, according to the Buddhist faith;
we think we are not absorbed in the supreme unity, according to the Christian .mysticism.
Our conviction is, that the aim of life is to multiply more and more our relations with the
universe, without losing anything of our identity. Our God has neither created the tor?
ments of purgatory, nor kindled the furnaces of hell; no more has he invented the pleasures
of the Moslem or the Catholic paradise. He causes suffering to lie in imperfection, and
happiness in moral perfection. To suppose something else would be to lower God; for a
pure spirit cannot find eternal felicity in an ideal which ceases to be the ideal even of
human beings in the proportion of their culture. I sum up by quoting a few lines of our
director and friend, Ch. Fauvety :—‘ It is in the family that the human “ I ” finds the first
degree of its religious faculty. In fact, family appears to us, in history, as the cradle, and,
in some way, the first step of religion. Mother-country, humanity, universality only come
after. Thus, living with one’s family in a sweet communion of interest, thought and
feeling, is already being religious. We become more religious if we identify our interests
with those of our native country, loving her, serving her, alwajs ready to die for her. A
man becomes religious in a yet higher degree when he feels himself living within
humanity; so that he suffers in its pains, vices, barbarisms, ignorance, miseries, and works
constantly at its delivery from them : when he neither desires nor seeks for himself any
good, any progress, any enlargement of his being, without wishing to make others profit by
them. At last, we elevate our religious ideal to excellency, when conceiving it adequate to
universalism; when hoping for plenitude of existence, endeavouring to live for all that
exists, and setting as the aim of our life the supreme perfection, we impose on our“ I ” the
obligation of realising that aim.’ This general conference will stay as a very important
fact in'the history of religion. At the outset, it shows what priceless liberty enjoys that
beautiful and grand country, England. At the same time, it points out the good we are
deprived of, in France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Germany, Russia and Turkey. Nowhere
on the continent do they value the power of that liberty which is the safe-guard cf
peoples, that liberty which is the precious promise of future times.”
Professor Th.. Bost, of Verviers, writes :—
“ Many of our old ways of thinking, many of our ancient forms of worship, are gone
�re"ortS-14Th’j‘une
•r87'8.
41
for ever; left’WEfiid by the onward march of mankind. To attempt to revive them is
a
and seems to me to go against the clearest indications of the
Spiri't^flGod. Why should we distrust His guidance ? Is He not as living and poweSjul
in our da^s feS He was in the days of St. Paul, or Luther, or Wesley ? Have we not been
tffiu^LtHha^the Spirit of Truth shall guide us into all truth ? It is our intimate trust that
our apprehension of the fallacies of ancient creeds is due to His influence. These creeds
are
monuments of dogmatic nonsense and of human credulity. To put them
aside is an act of faith in the God of truth—I would almost say an act of filial respect,
of loyalty—to Christianity, for people who think, as we do, that the religion of Christ has
nothing in common with the prodigious aberrations of our theologians, or the servile
credulity of so many believers.
“But if we are accomplishing in a spirit of faith the work of destruction which needs!
■gfbe carried on, we cannot say that we have found as yet the means of raising with its
■|®Sn and’beauty the religious life in the souls of our contemporaries.
“ Truly, that work does not depend on us. ‘ The wind bloweth where it listeth.* God’s
power is not at an end, so that it might not raise out of our actual world great fiery souls
to shine like beacons in the darkness of our night. Only it seems that if we were*to see
any movement like that of the sixteenth century, those who would take the lead in it must
be much larger-minded than were or could be any of the great reformers of past ages.
They must be men of unlimited freedom in their minds, of broad sympathies, ready to
accept as the very thought of God, as a revelation, any truth which has been proved by
scientific researches, were it ever so much in (real or apparent) opposition to the Bible,
is true, is true, is of God, whether it is found written in the Bible or in the least
ecclesiastical of our modern authors.
“ To conciliate in our minds these truths which may seem contradictory to one
another, is no very easy task, but is the very task which the providence of God lays
before our hands. Let us hope that our generation will not shrink from it.
“Your purpose, if I understand you rightly, is to promote those researches, to
investigate with your friends the best conditions to be fulfilled in order to make possible
a religious reform congenial to the want of our time. May you be blessed in your
enterprise. May the Spirit of the first days of Christianity inspire all your assembly,
so that, living in more advanced times, we may come to do greater things than even
the jostles. The same Spirit which formed then a St. Paul—one of the most mar
vellous men that ever existed, a conqueror of souls as very few have been—will form in
our days men able to present to the actual world the unfathomable riches of God in
Christ, of God in our souls, of God in the moral and spiritual world.
“May we only be faithful to our task!
“Accept, dear Sir, this expression of my wish for the success of your Meeting, and
transmit it, if you think fit, to your friends, from an unknown friend and brother.”
M, Emile de Harven. writes from Antwerp :—
“Sir,—
“ By convoking to an International Congress all earnest-minded men caring for the
moral wants of humanity, you take too laudable an initiative for your appeal not to be
heard. Therefore, however feeble the light which I may be able to shed upon the interesting questions which occupy us, I do not wish it to be lost, and I deem it my duty to
contribute my grain of sand towards the religious edifice which the future will erect upon
the ruins of established churches. I beg leave therefore to announce my views upon this
important subject.
“ In order efficaciously to break down the absurd dogmas which divide men, it is need
ful, above all, to replace them by something better. The French Revolution, on proclaiming
fh^ Religion of Beason, failed in the attempt, through not having taken this principle into
account. All religions, and especially the Roman Church, have blind faith as a funda
mental basis. More matured in the present day, thanks to the immense progress of science,
reason ^egins to claim its rights and rebels against those who would despise it.
“ In our days the struggle is no longer upon dogmatical grounds; it is only carried on
between the torch of truth and the clerical extinguisher; it is circumscribed between
thinkers, on the one hand, and on the other the clergy, dragging in their train the crowd
of simple and timid minds, with those who are, or think they are, interested in the maintenance of the sacerdotal power.
“Between these two elements floats the great mass of idle or indifferent minds. The
indifferent ones are only so because their intelligence rejects dogmas, and no rationalist
notion has happened to enlighten them. The idle ones fall in with ready-made doctrines
and deem that<everything is for the best in this world. In politics as in religion, they
�42
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
are Conservatives. It is this category of men, who are becoming more and more numerous,
especially in Catholic countries, that we ought to strive to interest in our work.
’
“That the study of the exact sciences,the utility of which is only»felt by a few
should not move the masses, is easily conceivable ; but it will not be so if we succeed in
making them understand that the search after psychological truths concerns the happiness
of each one individually, and only requires common sense, with which often the simplest
men are amply provided.
“ It is easy, by the help of sensible arguments, supported by examples drawn from the
concordance of material facts, to prove that the phenomena of the soul are explained in
the same manner as the former, that is to say by deduction, and thus to establish
hypotheses as logical as that of undulations uniting together the laws of optics.
“ Hitherto all those who have taken an active interest in these questions have remained
in the higher spheres of philosophy, consequently only addressing themselves to converts,
or to detractors of talent.
’
“ Now, we know by experience what it costs to deny one’s whole past studies, and after
many labours to acknowledge that we are mistaken.- Hence it is that proselytes are rare.
Let us then strive to demonstrate that we base our faith on reason. Is it not the criterion
which distinguishes from animality ? Those who impose upon us dogmas which reason
reproves are impostors seeking to perpetuate their domination by ignorance.
“ Whom should I believe ? The one who, in the name of an imaginary authority, pre
tends to impose a blind submission on my reason, or this same reason with which nature
has endowed me assuredly that I may make use of it 1 We might as well affirm that our
arms have not been given to us for working, our feet and legs for carrying us, our stomach
for digesting, and that there is merit before God in remaining in a state of inaction and in
allowing ourselves to die of hunger.
“ Let us found schools, free from all dogmatical teaching ; let us teach in them the
philosophy of history, and let us shew to our children and to those who may listen to us,
that in fighting against superannuated creeds we respond to the divine will, which is that
every thing should progress. Let us say that religious faith and its manifold forms have
always followed the development of the aggregate intellect of humanity. Our forefathers,
were idolators, and so are still the uncivilised peoples of the globe. The Mosaic law did
not proclaim the immortality of the soul. ‘ Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy
days may be long in the land,’ It left aside charity and did not mention the forgiveness
of offences: eye for eye; tooth for tooth.
“ Buddhism, and afterwards Christianism have answered the aspirations of their time.
But man emancipates himself as he advances, the old doctrines no longer suffice for him 1
science has dethroned the absurd, and reveals God to us in the magnificence of his works’
“ At the present day, when we know the immensity to be peopled with innumerable and
gigantic worlds, of which our ancestors were unaware, we may proclaim the solidarity of
worlds with each other, as logically as that which unites the countries and continents of our
sphere. The immense space which separates the stars is perhaps not, relatively, more
considerable than that which separates the molecules of the body. Teaching men to make
use of their reason, such is the first object to be attained. He who sets about thinking,
very quickly perceives that the first efforts of his intelligence are followed by the desire to
know, and, finding before him a field to be explored, the limits of which extend in direct
proportion to his efforts, he is all the more ardent in extending the circle of his knowledge
as he recognises that it is ever extending.
°
“ The sentiment of free examination makes rapid progress ; it is afresh want that is in
the air and which is manifested on all points of the globe at once. Let us avail ourselves
of it; let us spread light in profusion and, above all, let us strive to make ourselves under
stood, by using language within the reach of every one.
“ Let each of us bring forward his ideas 1 Along with inevitable errors, will be found a
particle of truth. These scattered rays gathered by the most learned, will give rise to
sound and consoling theories and will furnish a luminous centre destined to shine on
every side.”
The Chairman said they would now take a debate upon the subjects
which had been opened, which would last until luncheon time. In the after
noon opinions as to the proposed association would be brought forward.
Their time was now rather short, and there was much to discuss, so that he
would ask the speakers to limit themselves to ten minutes.
Mr. Johnston Russell (Limerick), then read the following paper:—
In the ten minutes allowed to each speaker to-day, it is impossible to even
�Report—14th
june,
1878.
43
briefly revilvfthe whole of yesterday’s discussion. The speakers to-dayJcan
only deal with the remarks which principally attracted their attention. I
have therefore selected three observations made yesterday regarding which
I wouldJike'to say a few words.
One Kt1 the speakers (a lady) said :—“ I want proof of the existence of
I Goa.” No subsequent speaker, although I believe there were a good many
clergymen present, gave her the reply that she required, and I would not
presume now to touch so great a subject, only that I feel that an answer
should be given by somebody to what was certainly a demand, if not a
L challenge. I assume that our enquiring friend does not demand direct ocular de| monstration of the existence of God, because she knows that it is not in our
rH»@Bj«to give her any such proof, and if any proof short of that would do,
f she ought to have stated what kind and what amount of evidence would be
| ^sufficient to convince her. If she had thought the matter out—if she had
"1 worked it out in her own mind—and saw distinctly what she wanted, and
!1 put.it simply and clearly in writing, it would, I think, have been much
. easier to give her a satisfactory answer than it is to deal with the question
[ put in so vague a manner.
It is obvious that we cannot have for ourselves, nor give to others, direct
I ocular demonstration of the existence of God. That kind of proof is with4 held from us for apparently the very purpose of inducing us to search for
GW, and no one who searches earnestly will ever be disappointed. The
4 desire to see God is largely gratified, and in the way that is really the best
for us. To the exact extent that we qualify ourselves to see God, to that
extent we do see him.
We who desire to see God, just as eagerly as our enquiring friend does,
and who reverently say as Moses said, “ I beseech thee, shew me thy glory,”
receive the same answer as Moses : “ I will make all my goodness pass before
thee; but my face thou canst not see.” We are not permitted to see the face
of God, but his goodness—the rays of his glory—we are permitted to see.
’t In answer to the question, “ How and when and where can we see God ?”
|| we are told, “In his goodness you can see God.” We can read the rocks
| and question the stars—we can enquire of the seasons and talk with the
I [flowers. They all tell us about God. Let our gifted friend look again at the
I order and beauty and goodness around her, and if that is not enough, let her
' look in her own heart at the noble qualities which are folded up there for
endless development, and if all these do not give her the proof that she
| requires of the existence of God, then, indeed, it must be hard to convince
I her.
^Another speaker (Mrs. Rose), denounced religion, and would not even
i retain the name.
The lady was very eloquent, but very illogical. She condemns the service
s^e advocates the service of humanity. She seems not to perceive
I that serving humanity, as she proposes, is the truest and grandest way of
^serving God. Every exercise of pity, and charity, and mercy,—of love, and
‘ courage, and self devotion, are exercises of goodness, and goodness is the
glory of God. What Mrs. Rose calls the service of humanity, and what
others call the service of God are identical. The names are different, but the
goodness is the same.
As to having no religion at all, as some of you advocate, we must have a
system of belief and morals, and if all that is included in the word religion
—-even an inferior religion is better than the unbelief which is spreading so
widely now. Who have been the benefactors of the world ? Were they the
S
E
F
'
�44
GENETtAlJoconference] of liberal thinker^
men who taught that there is no God, and no hereafter, and no retribution,
so that men may do evil with impunity? No. The benefactors of manland
were the men who preached goodness, who said, “Be good and do good,”
who taught that there is a holy God, and a life hereafter, and a sure retribu-,
tion, where every man will receive according to his works.
We are told that science is opposed to religion, but that cannot be, for
true science is the handmaid of religion. There are false religions. Against
these let science do its worst. Science means knowledge. The man of science
is the man who knows. What does he know ? What does the wisest know I
Ask him, and he will say, “ I know nothing absolutely. I only stand picking
up a few pebbles and shells on the shore of the great ocean of truth, which
stretches away into the infinite.”
A good deal was said here yesterday about religious differences, and one
of the objects of this Conference is to try to harmonize them ; but, constituted
as men are, differences are inevitable, and they are not altogether disadvan
tages, for they have their good as well as their evil uses. We may make the
differences fewer and less marked, but we can never get rid of them entirely.
Men’s minds are different. Some men, like creeping things, creep upon the
earth, still looking downwards ; while others mount up to the heaven of heavens
and breathe imperial air. Religious differences mean liberty—liberty of
thought and liberty of speech—and as we must preserve liberty, we must have
differences.
Although countries are separated by rivers and seas and oceans, yet the
separation is only on the surface of the earth. Beneath the flowing river, and
the dark blue sea, and even the deep ocean, we find the adamantine rock
which joins all countries together and binds them into one. Religions are
like countries. Their differences are only superficial. If we go deep enough
we shall find that essence of religion which underlies all religions and which
at some not distant time will bind them altogether into one. Why should
men disagree so much about religion when religion is so simple a matter ?
If there is only one Supreme Being, why should there be more than one
religion ? There is indeed only one true religion, viz.: “ The Religion of
Goodness.” It is the goodness in it which gives every religion whatever
vitality it has. Why should not all religions adopt the essence of religion as
their bond of union, and agree to differ about the small matters—about creeds
and rituals, and the mere husks of religion ? Here is a platform on which
all religions can unite, but especially the three great religions which are so
closely related to each other, viz. : Judaism, Christianity, and Mohamedanism.
Men have followed two much after Moses and Jesus and Mohamed, and too
little after God. If Moses, Jesus, and Mohamed were here now, would each
of them say, “ I am the messenger of God, follow only me, and be ye called
only by my name ? ” No! Each would exclaim, “ Perish me,—Let God be
all in all.” In this way the religions of Moses, Jesus, and Mohamed could
be reconciled and be amalgamated into one universal religion—the religion
of God.
Can nothing be done to bring about so desirable a state of things ? Can
we not give some help ? That question brings me to the third of the
observations made yesterday, to which I wish to reply. The speaker
(Miss Downing) said, “ I want a path to follow; I want something to
do for humanity.” In those few words the speaker touched one of the
great religious needs of the time. There is an abundance of goodness and
intellect in the world, but the people have no purpose and consequently their
powers are wasted. The sects and societies of religious reformers have
�REPORT—14tiFjlne, 1878.
45
neither union; nor plan, noir purpose? They will neither lead mor follow J
but each ’goes its own way, and as there is no earnestness in them they can.
produce but ^very little effect. Somebody has said, “ I would to God that
the men who have the truth were as firm and resolute in spreading it as are
the men who spread the error.” People need a path to follow, and something
that they themselves can do for humanity. The religion that will provide
all its professors with good work to do, will attract to itself all the earnest
and most valuable people in all the sects and all the churches. I expected
that something great would come out of this Conference, and perhaps it may
come hereafter, but nothing will come of itself. There is work to be done
and every one should help.
The religion of goodness, which is both the service of humanity and the
senice of God, is just the thing that we all want. It is a religion that all
men can believe, and that most men do already believe. There is nothing
higher than it for man, and nothing holier for God. It is a religion that
will refine men like gold and raise them nearer and nearer to God. In
the religion of goodness three words shine like the stars. They are—God,
immortality, retribution. These are the three essentials of belief. This is
the Faith that the world needs.
In their prayers to God many millions of people daily pray, “thy
kingdom come.” But what are they themselves doing to cause this
^kingdom to come ? Do they mean what they pray ? Do they expect to be
introduced into a kingdom of God, ready made for them, while they are to
sit still and wait until it comes ? If they do they have quite mistaken the
matter. God has long ago done his part; men have to do theirs. The
kingdom of God is here already. The kingdom of God is within you, but
it has to be brought out. It is an idea—the dream of every noble mind—
but it is not always to remain an idea. It has to be realised—to become
visible and tangible. The kingdom of God, when it comes, will elevate
mankind materially as well as morally, and deliver men from the bondages
under which they groan. But when shall this kingdom come ? If -we
might give the answer, what would our answer be? "Would we say noiv ?
And why not now ?
We need a new Reformation—:religious, political and social. Nothing
less will cure the great evils of the time. What if this religion of
goodness, which each of you is invited to take up and spread, is to be
the means by which these great reconstructions are to be effected ? What
if this is to be the grandest work of any age ? These may seem to
be only the words of an enthusiast — a dreamer. Perhaps so; but
everything great is only the dream of a dreamer at first. Who can tell
what may happen ? These are eventful days. Around us are portentous
signs of coming changes. Already the fateful writing is on the wall. It
says, “The time has come.”
Mr. Henley said he should not have addressed that meeting if he had not
delivered a lecture in London some time ago, in which he suggested the for
mation of an association of this kind, and requested co-operation to assist him
in forwarding a copy to the ministers of the various religions in London and
its neighbourhood, in order that afterwards a meeting might be arranged to
discuss this question, and to see if it were not possible to form some associa
tion of this kind. At that time he proposed a short creed, which he suggested
for the adoption of that meeting. Amid some interruption, he went on to say,
that he was going to make a statement which nine-tenths of the meeting
would think him a fool for making, but he would make it on the authority of
�46
general! conference of liberaiBthini^ers.
Mr. Crookes and Professor Varley, and others. It was in Spiritualism that
they would have these questions thoroughly explained. It was Spiritualism
that brought before them the matter, as a truth that could be proved, of the
existence of life beyond the grave. He had studied that for seven years, and
he knew what he was talking about. Spiritualism proved to the Christian
the orthodox Christian, that what he had been teaching Sunday after Sunday
he was now able to prove. What nobler thing could there be than that
which proved the truth of immortality ? He would not say more than except
that if he had time he would be bound to convince every man there o£r the
truth of what he was stating.
Mrs. Law : Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, and ladies—We have met
here yesterday and to-day for a specific purpose, that of discovering, if pos
sible, if we can make a platform sufficiently broad to hold on it speakers
and thinkers of various denominations. We heard yesterday a number of
opinions expressed which were truly valuable in themselves, but few of them
of real practical importance for the object we have in view. This morning,
we have heard some excellent papers which have not, in my opinion, had
those necessary elements that we require in order to come to some definite
conclusion. Yesterday we had a number of what I should call cardinal
ideas offered by different speakers, which I think seemed as though they
could not possibly be woven into one piece. I want to show there is some
thing we can do. Mr. Voysey started yesterday by affirming what I know
to be the lamentable fact, that there are thousands of men in the church Who
are theological atheists, and yet profess to be other than they are. That is a
terrible state and condition of affairs. He said if you place men in positions
where you oblige them to dissemble before Grod they will ere long dissemble,
before men. He believed this, and he believed that the hypocrisy of the churches
is sapping the morals of the people at large. Mr. Street very clearly ex
pressed what he knew to be necessary to be expressed, and which ought to
be, I was going to say, spoken by the tongue of an angel, if there is an angel
and he has a tongue. It is a fact that there are great thinkers who stand
in a position of isolation. We want the people to assist them, and we want
public opinion to assist them in the great work they are attempting to
carry on. Mr. Holyoake gave us one practical direction, when he said that it
is perfectly useless for us to attempt to form a platform where we can hope
to reconcile the opinion of speakers or that of thinkers. What we want to
do, and this is one thing we can do, is to recognize these differences of opinion.
I would just add one sentence to that. We want not only to recognize these
differences, but we want to see. if we can form a platform upon which we can
tolerate these differences. It is the result of many years’ experience, I dare
not say how many years’ experience on the subject, that if you commence
by giving definitions you will have definitions upon definitions, and that will
not result in anything practical. We don’t want to know whether Atheism
or Theism is true, but we want to recognize the fact that that there are
Theists and Atheists in existence, and Christians, Mahomedans, and Jews in I
existence, and that the great thing to determine is, is there any possibility
of bringing these people together and bringing them to do some effective
work? Is this conference then Utopian? I say emphatically, No! I look
upon Mr. Conway as having done a great work in this respect, only in bring
ing us together. A gentleman whispered in my ear just now that it would be
rather a broad platform whereon the last speaker and myself could stand.
But it is something, sir, to bring us under one roof. I believe this Confer
ence is not merely practical in its efforts but that it is thoroughly opportune
�REPORT—14thjune, 1878]
47
in its convenement. 'T look upon Mr. Conway as a central figure holding out
the right hand of fellowship to Christians and the left hand to the ex treble
infidels, trying to bring them altogether in unity. Mr. Holyoake said wisely
that whaBJwe want to do is to put these various thinkers on to the platform
and make them more acquainted with each other, and then their differ^
K ences of opinion would be modified. Undoubtedly they will, but by what
■ meffis, what practical means are we to do this ? Mr. Conway has done something in bringing us together. What are we prepared to do in the matter
I ourselves ? It is a practical settlement if we can recognize differences of opinion
■ where they exist, and at the same time can start some scheme and lay down
I some principle by which we can bring thinkers of various kinds together in
order that they may compare notes, discuss subjects, and tell each other
j the different opinions they are holding. Our friend who just sat down,
the spiritualist, said he could convert every man in the hall if he had the
| opportunity of speaking to him. I am not here to contradict that, and I may
' think, indeed, that if I had the same opportunity I might do the same. We
are not anxious to convert you all to spiritualism or to atheism. What we
want to know is this, can we so affect you by any means as to make you
tolerant enough to hear every man and every woman express their own
opinions ? How far can this be effected? We have the elements present to
a a great extent already. We were told yesterday that this liberal movement
is not confined to England, but that it stretches throughout Europe and
America, and affects all kinds and conditions of men, that it pervades
I all thought. Secondly, it seems to me that there must be something in the
times in which we live, in the way in which men are looking at things : so
I peculiar are the views people are taking : that is introducing this subject to
I public attention. What we want to do is to listen to each other without
I haste,'* without heat—yes, even not to suspect each other of having some bad
I motive—not to be afraid of sitting down with each other, and to have no
man feel “ I am more holy than thou.” Mr. Conway has done a great work
in having invited us together to be more cordial and more tolerant; and a
> greater work for us to do is to utilise his work and his connection with this
place. Recollect I am speaking as an outsider, having nothing to do with this
place. I am simply speaking my impressions as I received them yesterday.
I say this is what might be done, and I think it is a practical step. This
building from time to time might be utilised by persons representing difI ferent phases of thought so that we might each have a chance of meeting as
many friends as possible, and modifying each other’s opinions, of proving that
persons of the widest diversity of thought have a sufficient amount of
humanity, of common sense—some will call it Christianity, and I don’t
object if you like it—to enable them to look upon all as brothers and sisters.
There seems to me to be this difficulty in the matter, that we have to deal
with human beings not only as thinkers, but as creatures who feel as well as
think. Mr. Voysey said we want a religion intellectual in its character. Now,
^directly Mr. Voysey attempted to make any portion of religion intellectual,
; or to make the existence of a God logical, a lady got up, and as I consider
-very logically said, to accept the being of a God, unless his existence was
proved to you, was just as much a piece of superstition as to accept any other
dogma of the Church, We cannot satisfy people’s feelings, but this much
we can do, We can show them that they must admit that persons may accept
the being of a God, although they cannot prove his existence. It is with them
a matter of feeling. If any lady or gentleman says to me,“ I feel that a Gcd
d°es
good to know that that is so,” I am glad of it; but their
■
Jt
r
B
�48
[GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LtBERAtr THINKERS.
feeling his existence does not prove it to my intellect. I only'ds'15’that you |
go on believing that he does exist, and allow me the privilege of thinking that I
he does not. The practical step that we might take would be to try and bring |
the different thinkers nearer together. Then, of course, we liaVe a difficulty |
that Mr. Conway must have felt; that whilst the most radical heterodox, like |
myself, are always willing to unite with the orthodox, the orthodox,are not |
always willing to unite with the heterodox. The position is a most difficult 1
one. I am quite sure Mr. Conway can get Atheists, Theists, and Socialists |
upon this platform, but Low is he to make the Extreme Right meet with them ?
I don’t know how it would work, but I would suggest that among the repre- 1
sentative persons who are here to-day, as many as think it desirable, 1
should propose to hire this building for a certain number of evenings during |
the year, to explain their opinions. I would make one, and would undertake I
to hire it two or three times a year to explain my own peculiar views. That I
would establish a free platform. It would bring together various elements, I
and out of those elements we might form a society comprised of a number of 1
men and women, perhaps of literary, scientific, and artistic repute, who would- I
prove to the world that it was possible to found and to form a bond of union
independent and separate from the belief in any church or any divine revela- |
tion whatever. My time has passed. It is an affliction natural to woman,
that she forgets time. Of course you will excuse the weakness of my sex on. i
account of the importance of my subject. I thank you for hearing me, and I 1
would urge that after luncheon we should throw ourselves into practical work,
and that we do not discuss anybody’s God or anybody’s religion, or any
body’s heaven or hell, but that we should accept those phrases and see how |
we can work together to form an association.
The Rev. J. D. Hirst Smyth said : I don’t think I should be tempted to i
trespass on the limits of time, as my principal object in coming upon the 1
platform is to express the great sympathy I have with the movement inau- j
gurated here yesterday. I am glad to hear there has been no attempt to 1
form or found a basis of belief, however wide, upon which people might come 1
together, but that it has been recognised clearly that there are already 3
particular organisations, each doing its own particular work in this way. I
Because such people belong to these individual organisations, that is no reason *
that they should be kept apart in the discussion of the most important subjects, I
but rathei’ a reason that they should be brought more frequently together.
Of course I am very glad to escape the necessity of making any reference to g|
any person’s idea of God or of immortality. After all I do not know that the h
distinction between Atheism and Theism is not a vanishing one. It is like a
the line which used to be drawn so clearly between animal and vegetable,
and which is drawn still between organised and unorganised matter, when j
really, if we had instruments that were fine enough to detect it, we should J
probably discover there were no lines at all. It is a very difficult thing to i
assert a negative; and when a man says he is an atheist he does it because ; a
something higher than himself binds him to say it. In that then he repre- sents all the elements of religion. Let me say a word here for Christianity.
I am an historic Christian, and I should like to say a word for it. Professor I
Clifford says as it has so long taught not only an erroneous thing but a
wicked thing, that he believes it ought to be cast overboard with the
wicked thing. I am sorry to say there is a good deal of truth in that. I J
believe those who represent what he has written, so far as that it has taught a
a wicked thing, or that those who represent it have done so. I once heard i
Mr. Bradlaugh discussing Science and Faith, and I burned with shame as 1
�REPORT—IhmSB 1878.
49
he repeated the horrors done in the name of Christianity. All I could say
was, it was not CfiAstianity that did it, it was theology. And what we have
got to do here is to get that put on one side and to get some basis of religion
to go back upon. Even as to those things that were done in the name of
^h^f^^ty, it was not men who perpetrated these wickednesses, it was
churchmen. As a fact now, the curse of us all has been the men who
hold the church above everything, who think it necessary to take care of
the church first of all, forgetting that the interests of one living man are better
than the interests of all the recognised churches that ever were. That is what
we have to do—to find out what will best help man to grow towards all perfection in every way you like, whether in reference to wisdom or to meekness
or to love—what you will, but to grow towards all perfection, disregarding
what may come to the churches. That, indeed, will be the best thing for the
churches.
After the usual interval for luncheon, the meeting was called to order
by the Chairman who said:—The most important part of the Congress is
now about to commence. We have had a great deal of theoretical discussion.
EEhat must now give place to a practical debate, from which we shall hope to
get at some result. First, Mr. Conway will bring up the report of the Com
mittee, and speak to it generally. Then another member of the Committee
will move its adoption, and will explain the different points in it; and another
member of the Committee will second it. Of course, the minister of this place
is the proper person to bring it forward. It was felt it should be brought
forward by someone in connection with the chapel, who should take the
TOitMtiw J but while he thus takes the initiative which belongs to him, it is
also proper that the report should be explained and enforced by members of
the Committee.
Mr. Moncure Conway : What I have to say in reference to the simple
import which our Committee has prepared will be very brief. We have had
a very long and earnest consultation since we last met together yesterday
evening, and as the result of our labours I am authorised to lay before you the
following report:—
1. This organisation shall be called the Association of Liberal Thinkers.
Its objects shall be (1) the scientific study of religious phenomena ; (2)
the collection and diffusion of information concerning world-wide religious
developments; (3) the emancipation of mankind from superstition; (4)
fellowship among liberal thinkers of all races; (5) promotion of the pure
and universal religion—the culture, progress, and moral welfare of man.
2. Membership in this association shall leave each individual responsible
for his own opinions alone, and in no degree affect his relations with other
associations.
In bringing forward these resolutions, it is difficult indeed for me to express my feelings about them. Those feelings are very strong. I have
laboured for many years in this place, well supported by a sympathetic con■ffiSRtiw*and on pleasant relations with a great many people in London who
are not members of this society at all. During my labours I have seen how much
strength, how much character, how much religious and Christian fervour are
scattered about London; and have come to know in part how largely the same
are also distributed and dispersed throughout the nation. I have sometimes
4
�50
General
conference of liberal thinkers.
hacl a happy vision of all these scattered and distributed rays broughvinto some
great focus which should burn up all the remnants of priestSaft, and set
the heart and brain of this noble nation free for some great human task—
free to labour and to serve in removing the superstitions and wrongs which
afflict and degrade the people, especially the ignorant and the poor. At last
I felt there were so many people who believed with me that there was a
strength of this kind abroad not thoroughly utilised, that, with a certain
timidity and misgiving, yet with a certain assurance that there was such
unity possible among liberal people and independent thinkers,—among all
who are emancipated from mere authority and tradition,—I determined that]
some move must be made. I said so to friends not only in this society
but outside it; I met with almost one voice and feeling,—that such a step
ought to be taken—that we had no right, feeling the responsibility and the duty
■cast upon us by our thought and our freedom not to try in some way better to
fulfil our duties to these people and to all people. 1 do not for a moment
agree with all the talk that goes abroad about the necessity of pulling down
nothing and denying nothing until you have got something ready built to
put in its place. I believe the great movements in the world have been the
times of magnificent negation. I believe the great working eras of thought,
religion and power have been not when Constantine was building up, but
when Christ was pulling down; not when people were defining in ecclesias
tical councils the exact clauses of creeds and saying precisely what a man must
believe, but when John the Baptist and Mohammed and men like them
were laying their axe at the root of some evil tree, cutting it down
and clearing the path for the universal religion which always is and
always will be, and will sow itself wherever the field is cleared from the errors
that would kill and the briars that would choke it. If we take Luther and his
great comrades at the time when they were destroying the ancient wrongs of the
world, cutting down all the evil growths that lay between the people and the
light, when their movement was a great negation, a great pulling down of
wrongs and oppressions, we find these men—Luther, Melancthon, and
Erasmus, and the rest2—all joined together in one great unity, with one heart,
to accomplish one great work. It was when they began to build their theories
—to be constructive—that they flew apart into fragments. I believe that true
religion consists in the order of the Universe,—in man, out of man, and
around him,—that nobody has got to build it up, but that it is already built
and created; that just as I deny that two and two make five, because it already
exists that they make four, so I cannot pull down any dogma except because
something already exists in its place. Where the truth is, there denial of its
opposite is. It is a statement of something already built up in the mind and
heart, in the world and universe It is a sentimental fallacy that you must
never deny a thing until you have something to put in its place, for every
clear negation is the other side of an affirmation. There is a positive affirma
tive work in the intellectual and moral emancipation of man, a work in which
Mrs. Law and Mr. Voysey are alike engaged.
I am sorry to say that I have
a sad letter from Mr. Voysey this morning, in which he complains of some
speeches ho heard yesterday, and regrets he will not be able to co-opewfe
with us any more. There is still a platform to be made by clearing away
things that this one and that one know perfectly well to be false, oppressiveJ
superstitious, and wrong. Whatever may be true, these are false, and they lie
in the way. It is a very positive thing, too, this superstition. A supersti
tion which ctn bring an old seven-day theory of creation from an ancient
Persian^ cycle to Shut up every museum and art gallery in London; and
�REPORT-—14th JUNE, 1878.
51
^pra^T^ally deprive the people of enjoying the arts andobtaining culture,
all because of an ancient zodiac, is a very powerful thing. These “ survivals ”
are terribly practical; and to emancipate man from superstition, to open the
windows and unbar the doorways, and bring culture and refinement to the
people, is one @f the most positive and affirmative tasks a man can work at in
thifworid.
I have spoken of only one of these paragraphs—emancipation of man
kind fem religious superstition; but I believe also the fellowship we wish
to promote are quite possible between persons of different religious views—
as I would call them—or moral views as others would say. Whatever th®
name the fact is the same : self-denial, devotion to truth, willingness to
believe and stand by that truth firmly at whatever cost,—to devote unto it
one’s labour, to think and endure for it in order that it may be furthered, to
forget self-interest in serving it,—that is the only religion I, for one, care
anything about. Is there anything more holy in this world than earnestly
thinking and studying with one’s whole heart to find the true and right,
carrying out what a man believes to be true, fostering what he feels to be
right ? There are many men who would not say “ I believe in God ” at all;
and who yet are living for the highest truth they see; they are burning the
midnight oil that they may discover some nobler star of truth either in the
outward or the inward world, and bring out some purer ray to enlighten
mankind. They are giving up the joys of sense and animalism for that pure
devotion to truth and humanity, which I believe will shine far brighter in the
eyes of God himself—assuming him to exist—than any mere assertion of his
existence. There is more real religion in such faithfulness than in the servile
I following of either orthodoxy or heterodoxy—following with the crowd and
getting into the fashion by using the watchwords of .Christianity, now become
mere titles of party and self-interest. What we want is the true heart, the
earnest religion, the warm and hearty devotion to the right and true. That
I call religion. If anybody chooses to call it by any other name it will smell
just as sweet.
We seek this true heart, this self-devotion, earnestly seeking after truth,
and utterly disregarding what is merely fashionable and popular. It has
become so easy now, my brothers, to be a Christian! A poor negro
one® learnt this in Liberia. He was asked what religion he belonged to,
and an independent Sceptic there said to him, “ If you want to be a good man
you had better be a Mahommedan in this neighbourhood; if you want to
make .money be a Christian.” It has come to be almost a disability of
Christianity that it cannot meet the highest wants of our time. It has come
to be a fashionable and a wealthy thing; to believe in it and promote its
success requires no self-denial, but is even a good investment. It is the
watchword of all those timid thinkers who wish to avoid an honest expres-1
sion of their opinions. It is a phrase by which a person may deceive everybody as to what he does really think. The Christian name is also, as I think,
one that will always be impossible to a large number of earnest and thinking
men, because, to a certain extent, it turns our eyes backward instead of for
ward. I* gives an impression which we know to be false, that in someway
orgther religion culminated in its largest knowledge 1878 years ago; that
the world then got nearer to the supreme light, and higher and closer to
heaven than we are ever to expect again. Hence, according to Christianity,
we are never to look for any greater man than Christ to appear on earth, nor
to the attainment of any higher degree of religious knowledge than he
possessed. In ait, in literature, and science, the world looks ever forward
�52
'GENERALKEONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
expecting the coming of men who shall lead on the truer generalisations, the
finer developments and grander achievements. In so-called religions only is the
world is made to look backward and find in crude antiquity its highest point.
There are many other reasons why Christianity can be no longer the
watchword of a great and united progress. Men have been sundered and
weakened by such sectarian divisions throughout history; and we have come
to a loftier conception, that of fellowship among all earnest people,*whether
they see fit to name their highest interpretations and anticipations
“ Christian” or “ Mohammedan,” “ Brahman” or “Buddhist,” howevel
they may be named. Whether they call themselves by this or that title, or
by none at all, really does not matter, if their hearts are joined with all who
are trying to seek truth, rectitude, the advancement and welfare of humanity,
the union of all hearts on earth and of all honest minds for the same grand
purpose. The apotheosis of man, the exaltation of thought, the elevation of
virtue as the true principle of humanity and fraternity,—these are the great
aims which rise together as an Ideal above our sects, our selfishness, and our
passions. In its all-inclusive light men are brothers, and nothing shall'
separate us the one from the other.
Mr. Stuart Glennie : Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have much
pleasure in moving the adoption of this report. I suggested at our meeting
yesterday, that one of the chief objects of our Association should be the col
lection and diffusion of information on the extraordinary contemporary deve
lopment of religious movements' throughout the world. The suggestion was
approved, and you did me the honour of appointing me a member of the
Committee charged with drawing up the report now before you. My sugges
tion of yesterday stands second on the list of objects which your Committee
submit for your seal and sanction. And I now move the adoption of this
report on these three grounds : First, because it recognises facts hitherto quite
inadequately recognised, and yet facts of which the importance cannot, I think,
be exaggerated; secondly, because of the general interest and practical
character of such an aim as the collection and diffusion of information on
religious developments throughout the world ; and thirdly, because of the con
sequences that cannot but follow from the accomplishment of this aim, con
sequences in which all the ether objects we propose to ourselves will assuredly be
realised.
First, as to the facts we recognise. We should have, I think, to go back
to the sixth century before Christ to find a movement at all comparable in its
universal and revolutionary character, to that indicated by the new religious
developments of this nineteenth century after Christ. In that sixth century
before Christ, the break-up of the old heathen religions and civilizations began
in the preaching of new moral religions, of which Buddhism may be named as
the chief and representative. This great moral revolution was continued by
Christianity, which originated five hundred years after Buddhism, and by
Islamism, which arose half a millennium after Christianity. The contemporary
religious developments are revolts against the dogmas in which the new moral
religions, new moral transformations of the old heathen religions, have become
rigidified. The chief cause of these religious revolts is everywhere the same—
the now knowledge brought by the intercommunications of commerce, and the
discoveries of science. Another characteristic these religious revolts have
everywhere in common. Everywhere they are connected with, and are indeed
the soul and inspiration of movements of national reform, and national inde
pendence. And yet a third characteristic everywhere distinguishes these
universal religious revolts. There are two parties in every one of these move-
�REPORT—14th JUNE, T.878.
o3
merits, one completely rationalistic, the other only partially so, and endea
vouring somewhere to trans f(fem rather than to destroy the old faith, whether
Buddhism or Brahminism, Islamism, or Christianism. To prove or illustrate
thusOTfflEirmations were here out of place. Not out of place, however, is it to
"malm them. For not the studies only of years, but extensive travels, in
which the state of religious development has ever been the chief subject of
my inquiries, give me, I think, some right to make these affirmations. And
it is the facts which I thus affirm, our imperfect knowledge, and inadequate
recognition of them, that give, I think, justification, nay, urgency, to the
foundation of such an association as is this day inaugurated. The new re■gous development about which we propose to collect and diffuse information,
have not only such common characteristics as I have just stated, but extend
over the whole zone of civilization, from the Eastern Island, Empire of Japan
to mis Western Island, Empire of Great Britain; and beyond both the Western
and the Southern oceans they are continued in the new worlds of America
and Australasia.
The second ground on which I move the adoption of this report,
is the general interest and practical character of such an aim as the
collection and diffusion of information on contemporary religious developments throughout the world. Of the general interest that such an aim is
^OpqLated to excite I have already had several proofs. The circular convening this Conference was necessarily vague, and necessarily therefore
aroused but languid interest in many of those who received it. But when
informed that we proposed such a practical object as this, I have found the
whole bearing of men change towards our association, the strongest interest
and approval expressed, and support cordially promised. Nor will this interest
bs by any means confined to those only who wish well to these new religions
developments. Knowledge of the state of the army to which oneself belongs
is interesting ; but of even greater interest is knowledge of the state of the
enemies’ forces. And to illustrate the practical character of the information
we propose to give, let me point out that liberal writers would thus know
where, besides in England, their works were likely to sell. We would show
j^hem that the public they address is immensely larger than they imagine.
What keeps up the old theology are its endowments. You may get anything preached if you give it a comfortable parsonage. But by such an
extension of the area of sale as would be the consequence of the information
we should give, the liberal writers would not be so heavily handicapped as
they are at present in the great race of which the prize is the direction of
opinion and the government of conscience.
Finally, I move the adoption of this report, because by the accom
plishment of such a practical object as that which stands second on the
list submitted to you, not only will the other objects named be realised,
^encouragement given to all in the great work of progress. The collecting and diffusing of information on contemporary religious -developments
throughout the world will stimulate that general study of religious phenomena, which is the first of the objects we propose to ourselves. Nor could, I
thtpk, any better means be suggested of realising our third-stated object—
combating the spirit of superstition, than the collection and diffusion
information about movements, which, in all their vast extent and variety,
have this common characteristic, opposition to the spirit of superstition.
MlV h°w more hopefully realise our fourth-stated object than by giving
that knowledge of which sympathy and fellowship is the fruit. And lastly,
I know noWhat better means can be suggested of giving a practical character
�54
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THiNKERS.
to our fifth-stated object, than the collection and diffusion of information on
universal religious movements. But further by the knowledge thus obtained of
the universality of the movement in which we are engaged, we shall all gain both
enthusiasm of impulse, and catholicity of aim. In our parishes we are small and
inconsiderable minorities. Too many are overpoweringly tempted to sophistical
dishonesty, and lose their souls through falsehood. Let us, however, but lift
up our eyes, and behold the battlefield in all its vast length and breadth.
England itself is then seen to be relatively but a parish, relatively but a
corner of the battlefield. And if the call of a dozen Sepoy regiments to
Malta gave Europe a new notion of the military force of the British Empire,
with infinitely greater reason may the recognition of Asiatic, as well as of
European and American movements similar to our own, give us anew notion
of our conquering force and triumphant future.
To give, in conclusion, but one or two illustrations of the practical
political importance of such knowledge as your Committee recommends
it should be one of the chief aims of our association to collect and
diffuse. How few in this country know that “Nihilist” is but a nick
name first attached to the Liberal party in Russia by a character in one
of Tourgueneff’s novels, and that the text books of Russian Nihilism
are the works of our own Darwin, Spencer, and Buckle. Again, in
the discussion of this Eastern question, one hears constant talk of the opposi
tion of Christians, Jews, and Muslims. But what a new light is thrown on
the subject when one finds, as I have in fact found, that the educated Jews
and Muslims, and. a very large proportion of the educated Christians of the
East are all Rationalists, and all of one creed, so far at least, as that all
equally acknowledge the prophetic character of Moses, of Jesus, and of
Mohammed. How instructive also it is for our political views, when we find
that theological dogma is, in Eastern Europe, and in the East generally, but
a badge of nationality, and a badge which could nationally otherwise be
asserted, would be dispensed with. Let it be unnecessary for the Pole and
the Armenian to assert his nationality against the Russian by his national
theology, and both will be again the leaders of a new and greater reformation.
Let it be unnecessary for the Greek to assert his nationality against the Turk
by his Orthodox Christianity, and both will—no longer oppressors and op
pressed, but independent nationalities—both will find themselves of one
creed, and brothers. The Eastern Question, very far indeed as yet from a
settlement, will, I venture to predict, more and more be found to be, not
merely a political, but a religious and social question. Our undertaking to
collect and diffuse information on contemporary religious developments, will
therefore, be found to be an undertaking to collect and diffuse information on
the most important features of the Eastern Question. Knowledge leads to
sympathy, and sympathy to assistance. And thus, though we begin with but
the humble task of collectors and diffusers of information, we may end with
nothing less than a world-wide religious revolution, and social reorganization.
I beg to move the adoption of the report of your Committee.
Colonel Higginson : I will at any rate take the precaution to stop here on
the-floor, because I have always observed that even when a man gets upon what
I may call a raseed pulpit, a platform that was once a pulpit, he still retains
enough of the sort of ownership that clergymen think they have over their
congregations to feel that he may talk for half an hour and that they
have no right to complain. My own hope is that every body who speaks
will have self-control enough to contain himself within ten minutes, and
your excellent Chairman set a good example to all speakers in that
�F
REPORT—1 4th JUNE, 1878.
51
respect. I rise to second the motion foi* the adoption of thiif platform.
I regard it with a little paternal interest as I had something to do with
originating that document. I cannot say of it as Talleyrand said of one of
I the innumerable French constitutions, that it meant nothing and could
mean nothing, for he made it himself on purpose. I can say, on the
| contrary^ it was the result of a very interesting comparison of notes by six
| persons who seemed to have quite different ends in view, and ended by dis
covering that they could hit on a formula which tolerably represented the case
oflOach and every one. In view of this self-control which they manifested I
hope the audience upon whom its adoption will finally rest will practice some
of the same well-bred restraint, particularly as it is no easy thing to suit every
(body in the matter of words. Unless then it is a matter of principle, I hope
there will be a willingness to acquiesce in the statement which after all cannot
precisely suit everybody. It cannot be improper to hint—as I suppose
there are few persons here who are on the side of religious bigotry—that
there may be another form of narrowness and bigotry which we sometimes
' have to guard ourselves against. I am always a little in favour of lecturing an
I audience I see before me, and I have a belief in practical preaching. Coleridge once said if I were preaching to this congregation, where I suppose there
is no smuggler in the whole body, I should not say anything about smuggling,
but if I were stationed on a coast where every man and woman did it I should
preach against smuggling fifty-two Sundays in the year. I do not suppose
there are ten persons in this audience positively suffering from that form of
I mental asphyxia known as Christian bigotry; but when it comes to the other
side, friends, of doing that justice to religious men which we ask then to give
L i us when it comes to dealing with a Christian as fairly as if he were a heathen
• | perhaps the case is different. I remember in the old times—of the Brook
Farm movement, when young men and women had new lights given to
them—I remember that in some of the more prominent places, espe| ©tally in Concord, which was the headquarters of the movement, that
we got some very singular perversions of the ordinary standards of
right and wrong. I remember on one occasion a young man had been
I away fop sometime, and he came back to his parents in the town, where
the good people were pretty thoroughly converted to the new faith; and
11 when they had studied him and his ways a little they said, “ Why John
I is quite changed ? He went away a good Radical and a promising young
man, and now he smokes, and drinks wine, and swears, and goes to church,
and he is just like all the other men.” I think it is rather that state of mental
prejudice than the other which we need to guard against this afternoon, and
I hope that in considering this little form we shall remember that after all
I we are all very much what our temperament and immediate antecedents have
made us. Most of the men I know think in a certain way because their
fathers and mothers thought so; or else think diametrically opposite, for no
better reason. In each one of us there is a certain temperament, a sort of
packing case into which all opinions go, and they take the form of the case.
I Whatever their form when they went in, they bear these particular creases
when they come out. I am reminded here of two little cousins of mine, in
New England who were going out to pick berries, and they met a man who
was or pretended to be a thief, and who alarmed them very seriously by telling
them they must give him their money. The elder boy said : “ But I have not
gotiany money in my pocket,” and the would-be thief was, I suppose, a little
damped by that. But that was nothing to the response of the younger boy, for
when the thief made the same demand on him, the little fellow looked up with his
I
�E6
genEk’AUnjdLNjWhhc® of liberal thinkers.
bright eyes and cheerful voice, and said? “ But I have"not got any pickets.”
There was a perfectly hopeless case. A boy with no money tfrclly might be
an infantine millionaire to-morrow, but a boy without pockets was as hopeless
next week as to-day. I am like him. When I am dealing with people who
bring to bear upon me the five points of Calvinism, and all the nicetf^o^
their scheme of salvation, I cannot give them an answer. I cannot di.JIM
with them because I do not know the language. I do not know how to begin
to refute the extraordinary attitudes they take. All I can say is : “ My dear
sir, I have not got any pockets for the argument.” But you must allow
me, my dear friends, with equal frankness to say that when a man comes
round from the other direction and says to me: “ You cannot prove to our
intellects the existence of a God; therefore you are a fool if you believe in
one yourself; you cannot give us any irrefragable evidence of a future lifp,
therefore you shall not have even the dream that you shall ever see again
your dead brother or your darling sister.” I can only say to him also : “ My
dear sir, I have just as few pockets for that point of view as I have for the
other. So, I say, we all have our individuality of opinion.
I do not
suppose there is in London at this moment a body of people of the same
size so bristling with individuality as this meeting is. I have no doubt
each of us would be willing to make for himself the benevolent offer which
one or two have made to you, that “if you will only give us the chance We
will demonstrate the truth of our views to every one of you.” We cannot all
do that, nor can we find anything to suit us all. We have before us,
drawn up with some effort by tolerably honest men, differing considerably in
opinion, a tolerable basis for this association to go upon. It is not a creed,, it
carefully avoids it. It is simply a basis on which creedless people, or people^
collectively creedless, can act together, and we need that joint action. Above all
others there are two classesof people who need it, and both were represented among
the speakers yesterday. One of these classes consists of those who live at a
distance from London, or any intellectual centre—who do not know
men of thought—who are not able to get into contact with others who feel
like themselves, who are among ignorant or bigoted people, as our Irish
friend said, and who will be glad to hear and know that somewhere at least
on earth there is a set of people who are trying to think independently, and
do not stop to consider whether their teaching is pleasing or not. ThaMs
one class of persons. The other class is of those who, living in the midst of
all opportunities of contact, are excluded from it, not from necessity or tyranny,
but from over-sensitiveness of temperament, and from too great predominance
of the literary tone in their minds ; people who while knowing that they are
independent and feeling that they are useful, feel also that they do not need
contact with others, when really they need it more than anybody else.
There is nothing that strikes me more in England than the social and even
intellectual stratification which exists, the different sects and atmospheres and
circles in which people live, and the amount of benefit they lose by such
isolation. You take a man who has his own library to read in, his own
independent feeling making him careless of w’hat the world thinks, his recluse
habits rendering him indifferent to the frowns of his friends; that man may
go on his work—it may be a magnificent work—for years in quiet and retire
ment. But I tell you there is nothing in the world which that man so needs
to put blood in his veins and to give a larger horizon to his mind as to
come here right into a conference of radicals, to meet face to face people whose
names he has learned to dread, and whose very statement of their opinions
might shock his tastes. Words cannot express how great the need is of that
�REPORT—1'4th1tu" 1878,
57
mutual contact between different minds. One of your own writers, Sir Arthuil
Helps, sa’d
admirably in the best sentence he ever wrote. He advised
a person who writes anything always to read it before some friends. “ You
miustH5ffve«j|Ii’ said, “ the contact of another mind; you must have the
criticism of somebody else.” “But,” said his friend, and here is the felicitous
expression, w suppose the criticisms you get are very poor; suppose they have
not even common sense.” “ That is no matter,” he replied, “ their criticisms
will give you the common nonsense upon what you have written, and that is just
as important.” It is just as important to any one of you who have thought
Anything do bring it here, and have it tested, as if the criticism were the best
possible. You need to take each other’s hands; each need the help of others.
There is that difference between my country and the way in which you are work
ing here, that the lines are less closely marked in America, and a man cannot
keep himself away from the society of those who, if not his peers in intellect and
culture, are at least his peers in the habit of independent thought, and the
frankness which speaks its mind. I believe that these two classes of persons
especially, and all of us in a subordinate degree, will find the value of what
this association will do for us; and I hope when we come to debate the
platform laid down by the Committee, it will be at least with as little modifi
cation and as little mere hair-splitting as the weakness of human nature will
fpprmit.
The Chairman : We are all very much indebted, indeed, to Mr. Conway
and Colonel Higginson for their speeches, and we feel how good has been the
judgment of the Committee in drawing up the platform, to use the American
Expression, or the statement, .to use the English one, which is likely to unite
thinkers of different classes who are liberal not only in discarding the old
formula, but in admitting divers opinions to be expressed. There is one word
which I should like to have omitted from this statement. It is the word
“ the,” and it probably was accidentally left in when a little alteration was
made. The words are “ promotion of the pure and universal religion,” I
think it should read “ promotion of pure and universal religion.”
Mr. Conway said it was, as the Chairman had supposed, an accidental
slip. ,and the alteration might be made.
TheWHAiRMAN : We may take that word out with the consent of the
Committee.
A gentleman in the body of the hall said the second paragraph spoke of
membership in no degree affecting relationship with other associations. Now
BMs|pned to him that a man’s membership could in no degree be affected.
The Chairman said that they would probably have to take a debate upon
that point as upon each of the clauses, but that would come afterwards.
Rev. J. C. Street: In the few hasty words'yesterday, which I spoke
before I had to leave, I ventured to plead for the formation of an organization jpithin which the scattered liberal thinkers might be collected, for I was
afraid lest in the diversified views which were being expressed during the
earlier part of the proceedings we should be—while listening to what was of
very great interest to all of us—wasting the golden opportunity then at our
command, of finding some basis of union and some bond by which to unite
scattered liberals all over the world. I find that after I left the meeting a
committee was appointed to consider a basis for union, and that my name was
putapon the committee. Unfortunately I did not know of it until after the
time the committee met, so that I was not able to contribute anything except
a suggestion or two later on. But I may here say that after looking very
carefully, during our luncheon, over the suggestions that had been thrown
�58
GENERAL CONFERENCE OE LIBERAL THINKERS.
out, I find myself in all but absolute agreemennwith the proposals now before
us. The only objections I have are of the very slightest matter of detail^
and are on the point raised by the gentleman at the back of the hall. The
whole question for me will refer to this last part. I think there is some mis
understanding of the paragraph which refers to membership. Of course we
do not desire in any degree to interfere with the relations of a member of
this association to any other association; but joining this association may
cause other associations to feel they are somewhat affected with regard to us,
and therefore I think it is better that these words should be left out. The
first part of the second resolution is complete in itself. “ Membership of this
association shall leave each individual responsible for his own opinions alone.”
Let him then take tbe consequences of it. If it does affect his relationship
with other associations we cannot help it. We do not want to affect such
relationship, and nothing we propose to do will actually affect it.
Colonel Higginson : May I state what was in the minds of the Com
mittee—the more readily that this was taken hastily from the Constitution of the
American Free Religious Association. The whole object of that paragraph
was to cut off all possibility that any member of the Association might say
to some other member—to the present speaker, for instance, who is, I think,
a Unitarian Clergyman, “ You are a Unitarian clergyman, what business have
you here ? You ought to resign your position in that body if you come into
this.” If you are to give this the character of a comprehensive body, there
must be many considerable differences, and we do not want that any member
should say to any other member, that he should resign his membership in any
other body in order to come into this. If our friend, for instance, had become
a Methodist, he would simply be transferred himself from one sect to another.
Our object was not to place this Association on the platform of a new sect
with a creed, but. especially to guard against this being regarded as a new
sect, and to make it a wider association which persons of any sect might join
on their own responsibility, nobody having the right to say “ You are incon
sistent in not leaving your sect when you come here.”
Mr. Street : I quite agree with the thought which lies behind the
explanation.
Colonel Higginson : I do not know that the phrase is at all
necessary.
Mr. Street : I do not know that it is. I think the first part or first
clause involves all the rest.
Mr. Hirst Smyth : The rest will be useful.
The Chairman : May I consider you move that these words be
omitted ?
Mr. Street : Oh, I have not got so far as that, Sir. We shall see if the
Committee will accept my suggestion. With regard, Sir, to the general
matter before us, I find myself in harmony with all these five points. You
call yourselves according to this organisation, an association of liberal
thinkers. You do not presume to define in what a liberal thinker consists ?
You do not presume to define his relation towards any form of thought,
religion, political or social. You simply recognise the fact that all men who
feel themselves to be free thinkers, and desire to be liberal thinkers, may
have association with you. Therefore, at the outset, we have a basis so com
prehensive that Jew and Gentile, Greek and Mussulman, that men who Hire
theists, and men who call themselves atheists, may, if they choose, associate
together upon this platform, and be co-workers for certain specific purposes.
These purposes are defined to be the “ scientific study of religious phenomena.”
�report—TItiT june,
1878T
59
People mayJ&ay thEyyolo not care for religion at all, and may tell us tha® they
think it all to be simple superstition. Well, then, they will be able to work
for the “emancipation of mankind from superstition.” There may be,
according to their idea, some little tautology here. But they can bear this.
We must ^cognise the fact that religious phenomena are the most numerous
and the most important in the world’s history. No one can shut his eyes to
that remarkable fact—that everywhere, among all races, at all periods, manKi^.,has developed religious ideas; and it is a matter for scientific inquiry of
some importance, to ascertain what man has been thinking as regards these
matters. So far, then, as these are concerned, without committing ourselves
to any of them, we simply want to gather together the facts and to groupl
them into scientific order. Then when we have gathered our facts, and put
them into scientific shape and formed our conclusions from them, even those
who do not care for religious phenomena will acknowledge their value and will
not reject the scientific results we deduce from them. Then, Sir, comes the
second plank, “ The collection and diffusion of information concerning world
wide religious development.” I think this is a matter of the greatest im
portance, I think even it should be more comprehensive than it is, for there
are Some forms of religious development which have never been world-wide
and which never will be, and yet are peculiarly interesting and of great
fascination, while they have a distinct relationship to the wider forms of
thought—to those of more general acceptation. It would have been better,
I think, not to confine the objects of the association, and I suppose it is not
really intended to confine them to the great world-wide religion. There are
forms of religion, different developments of it, in odd out-of-the-way places,
oflsingular interest to the thinker, and a man would be sadly wanting in the
means of forming a comprehensive judgment on the whole phenomena, if he
did not take into consideration these little manifestations, these apparent
excrescences which have grown round the original developments of religion.
IJpon the third platform, I think we shall all be united, and I hope we shall
concur upon it, “ The emancipation of the world from superstition.” We have
a pretty well-defined idea what we mean by superstition, a superstructure
which has no real basis. It is pretty clear what we mean by that. We are
all.anxious to clear the world of that great sham. Therefore, I think that
Mrs. Law, as well as those most anxious to promote religion, can co-operate to
do everything possible to get rid of the superstition that has been, and is the
curse of the world. As to the “fellowship among liberal thinkers of all
races,” that defines clearly enough that what we want in this Association is
not merely English scattered thinkers, nor European scattered thinkers, but
that we wish to include that humanity which takes many forms of develop*
ment, and that religion which takes many forms of development also. We
want to have upon this platform men from all parts of the world, represensentatives of all types of thought, who are groping after the light in their
peculiar ways—to gather them upon the only platform, where men can meet
brothers, and confer upon these great and sublime questions. Now, I
come to what seems to me the most important plank of your platform, and
thes ene which will call forth most discussion. It is “ The promotion of pure
and universal Religion,” which you carefully avoid defining, most wisely, as
I think, but which, whatever else it may be, and here every man is left to
choose for himself as an individual thinker, to find out what it is, yet does
-include “ the culture, progress, and moral welfare of man.” Now, surely,
Whatever our differences may be with regard to the term religion; whatever
otif conception as to whether there is or is not a universal religion, and
�60
tjeneWl confrrene^of liberal tthinkers.
rhoweVSTwe define it, we shall all agree that the something covered in the word
religion must include these three, and that the whole previous part of the
platform must mean a union of those who desire the world’s progress. The
world is looking forward and not backwards, except in order to learn lessons
from the past to help forward men to prepare for the future. Religion must
unclude the progressive movement of mankind, marching on towards light
and towards that improvement which involves the moral welfare of us all.
With this programme I find myself in hearty agreement, and so far as it is
here developed I feel you have answered the plea I put before -ArpB
yesterday. I said then there were many scattered thinkers left almost alone
in their battle for liberty, and I asked for an Association—perhaps ms
cautiously—to throw some shield over them. I did not mean to sayHhey
were cowed and afraid to take their part in the fight, and to meet the
difficulties of their position. I did not mean that. But what I did mean
was that they should feel that they in distant places, far away from the
cheering voice of sympathising brothers, would be able to turn to some body
like this, composed of men who would put out their hands and bid them goodl
fellowship, that they should feel that all over the world there were scattered
men like themselves who were fighting the same battle, and that so we should
create a thrill of communion and of helpful association through our work, and
stimulating each individual thinker to renewed efforts. Such an Association,
while giving strength to each individual thinker, would give us also a plat
form so broad, so great and so helpful, that we should go away from this
meeting tenfold stronger than we are now to do our work. I, therefore, with
the greatest possible pleasure adopt this programme here submitted. I concur
with that part of the second regulation which proposes the “ membership of
this Association should leave each individual responsible for his own opinions
alone,” and I should like it to stop there. Else I think the whole of it would
be misunderstood. You do not want to be exclusive. You do not want any
one to think that, because a man joins you he must terminate his connection
elsewhere, but yet you cannot interfere with what other associations might do.
You may say that membership should not interfere, but they may say it
should, and I think, therefore, it would be better left out, and that the
paragraph would stand clearer and stronger if it read “ Membership in this
Association should leave each individual responsible for his own opinions
alone.” On that ground, I think we shall find that every man of us, every
woman of us, will go back to the field of labour or thought with which he
or she is identified, will be stronger than before, will feel there is a brotherhood
and sisterhood of spiritual fellowship—if I may use such a word in such
an assembly—that there is a spiritual fellowship which binds us together, that
though scattered we are still united, and that though distributed over the
surface of the world, we are yet moving together to the accomplishment of
the grandest purpose that the world has yet seen.
The Chairman : I am delighted to find that the gentleman who was
absent from the Committee Meeting, so heartily agrees with the work that
has been done, but I should like, before continuing the discussion, to know
whether the Members of the Committee concur in withdrawing the last words
of the second clause. It seems that they may be misunderstoood, and one or
two persons have already misunderstood them. Besides, the clause is
complete in itself.
Mr. Conway : If we could gain the thing we are trying for, the language
would be a matter of indifference, but it is better that we should secure what
we aim at. It is not intended to offer any interference with anybody’s rela
�REPORT— 14TH JUNE, 187 8.
61
tion to any other association, but what we wish to try and avoid is that at
any future time one member should try to expel another member from this
assoWEtWn because he belongs to some other. It should not be a ground of
ajjmck, and nobody should be able to use it against a member, or to expel him
on the ground that he was a Methodist or a Baptist. Therefore I would!
suggest that words might be modified so as to read “ and is not intended in
any degree to effect his relations with other associations.”
Mr. Smith : If you alter the whole paragraph from the active to the
passive it will carry out what you want.
The Chairman : As it stands will you accept it, Mr. Street ?
Mr. Street : I certainly should not press an amendment.
The Chairman : Then this clause, as amended by Mr. Conway, is to be
regarded as one of the proposals of the Committee.
Mr. Eylott : I should have preferred that the matter had stood with the
second part of the sentence, because if you fear any one member will turn out
another because he belongs to some association you immediately make this
pfcociation responsible for that opinion, whereas, in point of fact, you declare
that each should be responsible for his own opinions alone, so it seems to me
to get into a contradiction. If it is canied out, you give a member of the
association the right to question me where I am coming from and where I am
going.
Mr. Hirst Smyth : As I understand it, the paragraph is not a protection
so much against the future action of this association as it is a protection
against the action of some other associations. People who join this associa
tion and belong to others, and are objected to, can reply, “ You have no
business to object to me, because the association itself says it does not wish
Enembership to affect anyone’s relations with other associations.”
Mr. Conway : There was the double advantage of the paragraph, but it
\ was ,41 rst of all meant to suggest that nobody should charge with inconsistency
whatever any person might see fit to do; while next it was meant that the
paragraph should be something with which a man could stop any discussion,
anAjcould say, “ You see the people among whom I am say on their platform
that each individual is only responsible for his own opinions. If Mr. Voysey
hears opinions which shock him or his friends, that is something for which
the speakers alone are responsible, and the association particularly declines
to have either others or itself compromised. I do not care enough about it,
however, to stand by it.
Several of the Committee : “ Nor I.”
Mr. Conway : If we ever find in any emergency that any amendment of
that kind requires to be passed, it is perfectly competent to us to do it then.
Therefore I do not think we need take up any time now with the discussion.
Mr. Walters : I can give one additional reason why the second part
should remain. There is another organisation which answers to some extent
the ends promoted by this; which was founded a year ago and is known as
the Leicester Conference. In that movement there are, at any rate, two
members of the Committee who will be heartily in sympathy with this—Mr.
Allanson Picton and myself. Now, I am very anxious that this should not
be considered a rival to that movement. The intention of that was to form a
religjous communion, independent of agreement in theoretical dogma; and
^ur^or an<^ advocate free and open enquiry on the part of all those
ESQ desire to know the spirit of truth in religious matters, and to discuss
matters connected with religion. I am very anxious then that the impression
should not go forth that this Conference is intended in any way to step in, or
�62
GENERAL CONFERENCE1 OF
LIBERAiWtHINKERS.
have anything to do with that. I should therefore think that the second
part of this paragraph might be allowed to stand.
The Chairman : I think we will take the debate upon the general subject
first, so that the whole platform may be discussed; but I should fbiommend
speakers to confine themselves to particular parts of it. I think it would be
advisable to close this discussion at four o’clock, because we must separate at
five. When that is done I should put each part of this platform separately
to the meeting, so as to take a separate vote on each, and not force the meeting
to agree or disagree in the lump, which is often inconvenient.
Mr. Freckleton suggested that the platform should be read again,
making the third time, as many gentlemen had come in within the last halfi '
hour or so.
The Chairman then read the platform, and next called on
Mrs. Rose, who said : I need hardly tell you that I am glad to see so good
a meeting come together for the noble purpose described in the paper before i
you. But although I fully and heartily agree with all parts that have a I
tendency to diffuse knowledge and benefit the human family, I am placed in
a peculiar position, for there are some parts that I entirely differ from, and I
fear that when it comes to a vote on such parts that I shall be in a minority
of one, and if it should be so, it would not be the first time, and I would much
rather be in a minority even of one, for the right, than in a large majority for
wrong and oppression. Forty-five years ago it was infinitely more difficult
to speak on religion unless you agreed with it. Now it is not so, and yet I had
the—whatever you may call it—the moral courage or the audacity to question
all religions, as far as I had known them; and I endeavoured to help
forward, as far as I could, that object which is expressed in one part of the
platform, the emancipation of the human mind from superstition. Super
stition indeed is terrible. Like a heavy night-mare it all but crushes human J
individuality, human mind, and human progress. It has only been by such
audacity or moral courage of single individuals here and there in times past, 1
that the way has been prepared for the present congress, or conference, and j
without that, this meeting could never have existed. I fully agree with that 1
part of your programme which speaks of emancipation of the human mind
from superstition, but I am compelled to dissent from that part of it which
mentions religion, for in my conviction, in my conscience, I call all religions
superstitions, and consider them merely as superstitions. I cannot vote for
what appears to me the great curse of the human mind, the great stumbling
block in the way of human progress. The religion of the past is the super- J
stition of to-day. The religion of to-day will be the superstition of the future. I
We.have heard a good deal about the different definitions of religion, and of I
the individuality of what is termed Grod, and we can draw from it that in all I
ages, past as well as present, in accordance with the state of society, whether I
progressive or backward, intellectual or ignorant, moral or immoral, so have I
varied the definitions of religion and of Grod. What does that prove? That I
man makes his religion and his Grod from his own image. As he feels, and is,
so he makes him. As he wants him more or less human, more or less i
refined, more or less civilised, more or less progressive, so he makes him. In J
past ages and ruder times they have made him hard, cruel, and savage. At the I
present time, even those who come to the same book as their ancestors, I
endeavour to clothe him in a little better and finer and more human attri
butes. .The future will go back upon our present definition and shew its i
fallacy, its ignorance, its corruption, its superstition. Therefore, I for one, 1
�report—1 4th june,
1878.
63
though I should. Stand KIunHcannoFsuusWwe to~ this part of the platform. My
friend, Colonel Higginson, had no pocket for the old definition of religion. 1
My pcre^^MW^fullbf humanity alone, that I have no pocket for anything
else. I go for man., We were told a great deal yesterday about the refined]
the aesthetic, and the emotional, in religion. All the emotion we can possibly
possess, all the feeling which human nature is capable, all belongs to man.
If there be one Grod, or ten thousand gods, they do not need it, but man
does and woman does, and to me it is stealing from man what belongs to
man Ito give to a god, and to render to him things that cannot benefit him.
Humanity, morality, justice to man and woman, the non-interference with
each- person’s private opinions—for these ends we must work. We belong
to the same human family, and we must work for it. Our life is short, and
we cannot spare an hour from the human race, even for all the gods in
creation. Any platform that has religion in it contains a creed. If not it
will soon lead to one. You know what a creed is. It is a chain round the
neck of human progress, a strait jacket on the mind of man, and I will not
have that strait jacket upon me. But although I differ in one or two of these
expressions, if your society will allow me to aid and assist, and help them
with all my poor powers, and poor they are, for if they ever were powerful to
feny extent they have been nearly worn out in the service to the same cause.
If you will allow me with all my heart to aid and assist you, I can say,—1
wanted to say, “ Grod speed ! ” All I can say is, “ Gro on, friends ; do all
you can; remembering this that it is a positive theft from the human race to
trouble yourselves about beings, whoever they are, above and beyond man,
for they do not need us.” I believe my time is out, and still more so my
strength is very nearly exhausted, but I am very grateful to the meeting for
having listened to such a heretic as I am, who cannot recognise anything
here beyond the humanity to which we belong.
The Chairman : The difference between Mrs. Rose and us is one merely
of words, and the society we hope to form will only be too happy to have her
name on its lists.
Miss Marshall : This is a society of liberal thinkers. At first I thought
it bad© fair to be a society of liberal talkers. If I waste one minute now, it
is to save you many hours in future meetings. Therefore I shall pay no com
pliments, make no long apologies, but just “ go ahead.” This society is not
gathered together to be a sort of large united Father Confessor to listen to
our particular little creeds and crotchets. Therefore it does not signify
whether I think the moon is made of green cheese or not. But we come here
to compare notes, to say what we have found or felt in our separate circles,
what we have seen reflected each in our own mirror, of the growth and stature
of all thought with which we have come face to face. To give the diagnosis
of our patient— or impatient—and ter see if we can help each other to utter
aloud what hitherto we have ventured only to whisper. I show I am a social
heretic by taking up no time in unnecessary preambles and needless words.
We meet here to feel the pulse of the religious or thinking community, and
State each our experience as to what we think of the spread of intelligence
round us, to see what point we reach from time to time. Have you not been
Struck by the irrelevant remarks that have been made here as to the question
at issue ? The time is come when we arc not afraid to speak out our
opinions in a community like this. It matters little, apparently, about any
body’s opinions. That does not prevent, however, the necessity of our being'
throughly reaT—vital in these opinions. On every'side we find vast super
�64
'GENERAL conference of liberal thinkers,
stations existing which, some of you would, at a stroke, sweep away.
our duty is to
But
<l Watch what main currents draw the years
Cut prejudice against the grain;
But gentle words are always gain,
Regard the weakness of thy peers.”
I have often asked what we call goody people what they would do could it
be proved by any means that there was no God, no future life. They
answer,—“ Oh what shall we do if you take away the foundation ? ” What
ever they mean by this, I know not. Mere reward and punishment foj good
and bad deeds ? Now I do know that we must not forget initiation; that is
what I mean by watching what main currents draw the years, and yet to
remember the weakness of those to whom you proclaim your high doctrines.
You dare not go to Whitechapel and cry out, “ There is no God, no future
life, no punishment.” The answer would be, “All right; then here we will
pick your pockets and murder you, and then there’s an end o’t.” You must
remember that our superstitions of yesterday are the religions of thousands
to-day. “ Milk for babes.” If you force your forms of thought on others,
you may but produce a sort of moral indigestion, by making too sudden a
change. . I stand here and claim gentle mercy for superstition. I am not
superstitious, but how much of this may be owing to my life, circumstances,
and strong physique, and my not knowing what indigestion means ? Scrooge
says to the ghost of Marley, “How do I know you are not a crumb—a
piece of indigested cheese? ” And Leigh Hunt says, “Many a young lady’s
fit of romantic melancholy is simply pork.” A railway accident might change
me from a moderately clear thinker into a drivelling superstitious fool. I
have a servant who calls the word stupid-stition, and says, “ I have
none, mum.” But there are stupid people, and they will have their
scupidstitions.^ Be merciful to them. Remember that while a little leaven
leavens the wnole lump, it is no use making it all leaven, as my mother once
did. Taunted in fun by her husband, when both were very young, that she
could, not make a loaf, she said she would try. She had a vague notion as to
how it should be done, and took no counsel. She went in for unlimited veast
and leaven, and very limited flour.
The baker asked, “What is this?”
“ A loaf.” “ Oh! ” . And when he brought it back it was a little brown film at
the bottom of the dish. “ Tell your mistress,” said he to the servant, “ that
her loaf was so very light, and rose so very high, that it took six men to sit
upon it to keep it down.”
Now let us take care that we do not rise
to such a possible height, or we too shall burst and come down a little brown
over-baked crusty film at the bottom of the dish. We want to meet here for
sympathy, to compare each other’s conditions of mind, to just say, “How do
you do ?
And little more than this we did not dare to do twenty vears ago.
Then we should have been tabooed. That is a capital word. It means being
no more invited into j oily society; it means being dismissed with a sneer;
and to endure a social sneer is very terrible to us ladies. You use the word
Liberal in your programme; it does not mean much; it merely means pro
gress. Remember free religion itself may be superstition. Superstition and
sectarianism enters into everything. Science has its superstition, as you would
know had you lived much in purely scientific circles, where you will find more than
in a±l the rest of the world put together. I believe I have known people— L
I am not sure I would not have done it myself—who would have sold
their souls for a dot upon a diatom ! To make this society of any value, it
must quit this present condition which is in that of water, which requires,
�REPORT—14th
SHjNE,
1878.
65
under certain circumstances, to be shaken before if will’crysTaEaze. We must
quietly hold hands, and not make a fuss about it. All true growth is silent—
makes little or ifTndse. The ultimate burst of an explosion is but the
final expression of foregone, silent work. You will now and then have
you| little volcanic outburst, a sign of what has been going on beneath,
and E™ Continues till a little hillock on a muddy plain rises gradually into
Etna, Vesuvius, and greater fire mountains of the world. Avoid offences.
They must needs come, but woe unto him by whom they come, because
he is an unnecessary man. I have, perchance, my superstition, and other
people theirs, and if you want to destroy them, you must insert the thin
end of the wedge. See our modern quarry men how they reduce a marble
mountain into a heap of debris, impatiently blasting the rock into fragments for one single huge block. Not so the old Greeks. They did far
better, and if you wander among their quarries of Pentelicus, and other
jnwBtains, you see the rocks look as if they had been cut like a piece of
cheese. Their work was comparatively noiseless. First they made a Utile
in the stone they desired to cut. This conference is such a groove.1
Then they put in a wedge of wood (your conscience), and they poured
water on it till it swelled, and they pressed it, worked it down, and so
smooth and white, came forth from the quarry the hewn temples. And
we want now new temples of human thought, grand, massive, beautiful.
Whefe there is noise and discord in your work, you are doing wrong,
blasting the rock, not making perfect pillars, and plinth, and pure moulded
^hns. Remember this gradual groove of the Greeks, and this society
will be then giving true sympathy and encouragement to us all. We shall
not be obliged to say to you, in a whisper, “We have been there,”
and we shall not see people drawing up their skirts in disdain as we pass as in
fear of contamination. Only ladies can do this well; you gentlemen cannot
make yourselves so disagreeable, simply because you have not the histrionic
talent for it. This is all I have to say, save to wish all prosperity to this
Society of Liberal Thinkers.
Mr* Binns : -The discussion in connection with this conference has now
reached a practical shape, and it seems to me to be drawing towards a tolerably
mOmctory conclusion. Pretty nearly all varieties of opinion have been
expressed. We have had talk from the atheistic standpoint, the humanitarian
^gndpoint. from what I suppose I must call the free religious standpoint,
the Unitarian standpoint, and the undogmatic Christian standpoint, ana it
is hot Necessary to put any other standpoint before you. For my own part,
to a certain extent, I dare say I should stand more or less on all of them except
the first. What then are the practical conclusions towards which we are now
drawing. It would seem that the adoption of the report, as presented by the
y^Lfflittee, so far as I can understand it, it is entirely satisfactory from
beginning to end. I should not feel at all inclined in a mixed multitude like
the present to raise a discussion on alterations of words here and there.
When you say an “ Association of liberal thinkers ” you really have included
all these standpoints to begin with; and when you have said you are going
to adopt the scientific study of religious phenomena you have included all
varieties of religious ideas. Mr. Street’s idea for dropping out “world
wiMe^ seems to me unnecessary, for “ religious phenomena ” includes world
wide religious ideas, and the merest bit of hole and corner religious development
that you can discover. But the point to which I feel I attach great importance,
is that which you have stated in the second part. It seems to me very
desirable you should insist upon keeping in your constitution this statement
�66
GENERAL CONFERENCE OFLIBERAL THINKERS?
that not only does membership in this association
each individual
responsible for his own opinions alone, but that it is not intended in any degree
to affect his relationship with other associations.' Of course, all that is
included in the first statement, but if you do not go a little bit into detail you
do not know where you are. The fact is, everything is included in Everything
else, but you have got to point out a little bit here and there as toyMpr^^a
way in which one thing is included in another. All things, Mrs. Rose Would!
say, are included in humanity, but then she must set to work to explain humal
nity a little. All things, I should say, are included in Grod, as a Christian
apostle said before me, when he mentioned that out of him, and through him,
and to him, are all things. But it is necessary in order to set things H a
tolerably intelligible phase to go into detail. I do not suppose any association
would dream of interfering with me on account of my position, although I did
preach the annual sermon at the Unitarian Association on Wednesday. • They
would not think of interfering with me at all on account of that. I see here a
gentleman who introduced the religious service on that occasion, and I see
here twenty Unitarian ministers. We all feel perfectly easy ourselves, (but
then all people are not exactly like us. There may be weaker brethren
scattered here and there, and weaker sisters too —I think more weaker sistal
in spite of the strong-minded sisters who have addressed us from this platform,
than weaker brethren. I fear then that there are weaker sisters and weaker
brethren who would be inclined to draw themselves up in that histrionic Way
which has been so graphically described by the last speaker; and one does
want them to have the opportunity. Nobody should be able to inter
fere with anybody else on account of their belonging to this association, and
if anybody attempts to do so we can only refer them to this clear statement.
You may say “ But we need not take people of that kind into consideration J
let them take the consequences of their action?’ We shall all have to do
that, my brethren, in spite of all our talk, and no sort of qualification will
enable us to get rid of the consequences. That divine law of retributhp is
what, if Mrs. Rose will allow me, I term a godsend to humanity! But
let us consider these weak people, and not only bear our own burdens but
help them to bear theirs. That doctrine of sympathy which was laid down wjS
Miss Marshall is beautifully expressive of what we ought to be aiming
at. I do not anticipate there will be many future meetings like the
present. It would not be desirable they should all be like the present.
Here we are to a large extent talking at random, beginning sentences
when we do not see the end of them, beginning speeches of a certain line
of thought, not knowing where we should get by the time we have got
to the termination of our ten minutes. If this association is to do any real,
lasting work, there must be downright hard, scientific work in connec
tion with it. We must study religion scientifically, not only the various
world-wide forms of religion, but the force and nature of religious thought!
and life here in England. The secularism that widely prevails among the
working classes is religious; for in my opinion it derives all its significance
from its relationship to religion ; and we must study that. Then we have to
study to emancipate mankind from superstition. “ But,” says Mrs. Rose, “the
religion of one age is the superstition of another; the superstition that
exists now is what people called religion not many years ago.” Butthat
applies to every thing. It applies to science. The science of one age is
the nonsense and absurdity of another. In proof of which I refer Mrs.
Rose or any one else to astronomy before Newton, Copernicus, and
Kepler, to geological science before Lyall, to biological science and anthro
�REPORT—14th JUNE, 1878.
67
pological science before E. B. Tyler and Darwin threw such Tight on
these speculative topics. I do not object to a name because it is some
times misused, and personally I may say I should not object to “ religion ”
or to Christianity in the way in which Mr. Conway and Colonel Higginson
seem inclined to object to it. But these, after all, are personal opinions.
They take Christianity as they like it, and they let me take it as I like it. The
Association is not tied to my views or to their views; but we are an “ Associafl
ijgof Liberal Thinkers,” and we go in for science and philosophy andl
■progress and the constant growth of man towards the unity of the ideal
■perfection.
Rev. H. W. Perris (Norwich) I should feel much greater timidity in
speaking last on such an occasion as this, if I did not feel that that
last word, brief as it is, would be a word of real sympathy. After
all, we have come together more upon a basis of common feeling than
a common knowledge. Indeed, we have had abundant manifestation
of it. If I hud been able to judge, in any measure accurately of the
diversity of views expressed, we had abundant proof to-day of the
present impossibility, to say the least, of our arriving at anything like a
formal agreement in matters of religious thought. We have shown, I tbink,
as indeed we often do in social and domestic circles, by our sharp antagonism
as well as by our incidental agreements, how very much we have in common.
I stand here, I will not say at the opposite pole from Mrs. Rose, but very far
indeed from her point of view. I am very far from being orthodox, and I allow
myself to be called a Unitarian Christian. I do not glory in these appella
tions. They do not describe me; they only label me with an approximation
to correctness. But I can no more rid myself of them than I can rid myself of
my parentage and my scholastic training, or of various things which cleave
to me, and will cleave to me, like the colour of my eyes or my hair, to the
day of my death. Yet, curiously enough—and it will strike Mrs. Rose as
extremely curious—I avow myself in substantial agreement with her. The
things which she was discussing and condemning under the names of super
stition and Christianity and what not, are things which I as a Christian am
continually denouncing in my pulpit, opposing in the press, and counteracting
by various means of instruction and education, in a tolerably large community
in the farthest eastern county of this land—a congregation that was founded
long ago and has had a continuously evolving religious history. Mrs. Rose is
denouncing a thing which she calls by a certain name, and I am denouncing
things which I call by certain other names. But this last word of mine
should simply be one of hope and sympathy, and real joy that we have been able
to come together in this way, finding aims substantially in common; that we
should have been able to express such diverse views on side issues, to exemplify
the diversity of our temperament and the difference of our training or want
of training, and to prove that we only belong to different climes in this
strangely varied and wonderful world, some breathing a very ratified atmo
sphere and others requiring an exceedingly thick and heavy one, and yet be
longing to one race. Having common wants and common yearnings which
bring us together. If we did not feel that there were wrongs to be righted,
mischief to be corrected, knowledge to be disseminated, truth to be fought
for,Shved for and died for, we should not be here to-day. Therefore, whether
Atheists or Theists, believers in some ideas about God and man and religion, or
doubtless about these things, we are all agreeing to seek on this simple basis
of liberal .thinkers real, earnest—shall I not venture to say a spiritual
fellowship—a fellowship of heart and heart, of hand and hand, which will
�GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL TEMBKERS.
stand to us for the outline of a great liberal church, as representing that at
which all churches are dimly aiming. In this movement there will be the
peginning of better things. The Laureate expresses our common conviction
from whatever point we regard it:—
“ Self-reverence, Self-knowledge, Self-control,
These three alone lead life to sovereign power.
Yet not for power (power of herself
Would come, uncalled for,) but to live by law,
Acting the law we live by, without fear;
And, because Right is Right, to follow Right
Were wisdom in the scorn of consequence.”
. .
Let us trust that we who are here to-day may carry away with us a sympathetB
feeling towards each other; and let us resolve that in our various circles we
will try to understand each other better, and never again speak hastily as
Ho motives until we get to know how fine is the bond that is put around us
and how strongly the currents mingle in this wonderful world. We are
drifting often closely together in the great revival of intellectual and moral
life that is breaking out around us. May it be vaster and deeper than any
reformation of the days that are past.
The Chairman : I think I must now close the discussion of the report of
the Committee, in order that we may take it into consideration, clause by clause,
and vote upon it for the purpose of giving it practical life. I should have liked
to have said many words myself, but I refrain as there is very much busi
ness to get through.
The Chairman then read the first paragraph, “ This organisation shall be
called £ The Association of Liberal Thinkers.’ ”
This was carried unanimously.
The Chairman : Its objects shall be: “ (1) The scientific study of religious
phenomena.”
This was put and carried unanimously.
The Chairman : “ (2) The collection and diffusion of information con
cerning world-wide religious developments.”
Mr. Street : I will move the omission of the word (i world-wide.”
Col. Higginson : May I suggest that instead we add the words at the
end “ throughout the world.”
Mr. Street : I will gladly adopt the suggestion.
The Chairman : “ The collection and diffusion of information concerning
religious developments throughout the world.”
This was put and carried unanimously.
The Chairman : “ (3) The emancipation of mankind from superstition.”
Professor Carpenter : I beg to move that this clause be omitted; and
in doing so I may just say, very briefly, that it appears to me that the word
superstitions is essentially an unscientific word. The previous clauses have
defined the objects of the Association to be the scientific collection and study
of the various phenomena of religion as they present themselves. Now it
will necessarily be that among this great number of religious phenomena there
will be some that will present themselves to us individually as superstitions J
We also know that the term “ Superstitions ” may well be applied to numerous
beliefs that many here present would cherish very deeply. It seems to me
that the further definition “ the promotion of pure and universal religion—
the culture, progress, and moral welfare of mankind ” will necessarily carry
with it “the emancipation of human kind from superstitions,” and that there-«|
fore it is not necessary for us to involve ourselves in labelling any beligfsj
�report—14th june,
1878^ ’
69
by^ offensive name*as we should by this clause. If I may be permitted
one Reminiscence, I heard a sermon from the minister of this congregation
some years ago, and that sermon left a very deep impression upon my
minul pLffiit a thought was dwelt upon which I will endeavour to repro
duce, though I cannot repeat the eloquence which first adorned it. The
sermon was a plea for destructive preaching, and the preacher vindicated
the right of destructive preaching. He urged that no error is abolished]
until a new truth is ready to be set in its place, and that therefore destruc
tive teaching is essentially constructive. I venture to turn the thought the
other way round. Pure and universal religion, for instance, will include
P within it essentially the culture and progress of mankind, and by the promo
tion of pure and universal religion we shall emancipate the human race from
superstitions. In view of this fifth article I move that the fourth be not put.
it Rev. R. A. Armstrong : I second this, not only for the reason put before
us, but because I am anxious that the Association should be of a thoroughly
practical nature, and because I am also anxious that persons representing a
wide variety of views as possible, should be attracted to become members of
it: and I can conceive a case that one person might feel a something as a
superstition which another person whom we should be glad to welcome here
might regard not as a superstition, but as the heart and soul of his religion.
Mr. Binns, for instance, might try to prove that Mrs, Rose has a superstition.
Comte has spoken of the atheistic superstition. So long as this has been
I done accidentally, all well and good, but I do not think either Mr. Binns or
Mrs, I^ose could fail to go away and to feel separated, the one from the other,
if it became an essential and leading object of the society to pursue superstitions. We should all be taking different views, and that would produce a
general contention.
Mr. Conway: Although I fear the reasons I gave for not calling myself
a Christian, may not have been understood, yet I have the greatest desire,
while preserving individuality of view in this Association, not to involve
others; and, indeed, I would make very great sacrifices to secure anything
like a scientific and general discussion and investigation, in a harmonious and
fair spirit, on the subject of religion and its phenomena. I observe that Mr.
Armstrong and Professor Carpenter—lam sure it is an unintentional mistake
Bnise in their remarks, the word “ superstitions ” in the plural, whereas, in
the programme, it is “ superstition ” in the singular. Our idea in that was not
to encourage .members to attack definite superstitions which might be Mrs.
Rose s, or .mine, or somebody else’s, but the principle of superstition everywhere, which I take to be a clinging to a belief for which there is no evidence
and no grounds, and I think we should all agree in feeling that a meeting of
this sort ought to work to emancipate people from clinging to anything resting on mere authority, tradition, or hearsay, which would not bear investiga
tion, and had no grounds to support it. That is superstition. We do not
mean that we would necessarily fix on this view or that view, and call it a
superstition. So long as a man can believe a thing and give a reason for
the faith that is in him, he is not superstitious, although he worships a fetish.
If a man believes, on the best evidence he can get, he cannot be called a be J
lieWr i11 wsuPersfhion, until I have given him such a reason for throwing it
over, _as will show that he is believing without reason or fact. It was that
principle that was in my mind, and which led me to propose that this clause
should be inserted. I cannot see, therefore, if we aim at the liberation of
mankind fr0111 superstition, if we try to get rid of a thing based on mere
authority or tradition, the bad habit of mentally accepting a thing merely
�6
7b
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
® because it is traditional, that we should be doing anything else than justly
j. assailing a bad habit. I do not wish, however, to press the discussion if the
L feeling of the meeting is different from mine. In this particular I am per
fectly willing to leave the point to the good sense and opinion of the majority.
I do not wish in any way to dictate, but merely .wish to show—not that the
Association should hold up any particular opinion or superstition, but merely
that we should attack the mental principle of holding anything withonffl
sufficient fact or evidence for belief.
Colonel Higginson : I will move to amend the amendment, by substitut
ing the original clause, the words “ the spirit of superstition.” I do not wish
] to take up time, but I think this amendment would guard us against the
j possible misrepresentations which have very properly been suggested, and
I would also retain the original object sought. It must be observed that
|i throughout this constitution we have been obliged, as people always are, to
I indicate things in general terms, for you never can go into detail. There isj
( for instance, the encouragement of the principle of morality. We should
] greatly err if we attempted to define it, though everybody would say it is a
g good thing. If there is one thing on which everybody would unite, it is in
agreeing that the spirit of superstition is a bad thing. If there is a Roman
Catholic at this meeting, he would agree to that. He may differ from us a
good deal in what we regard as superstition, of course. I am just as desirous
as the gentleman who moved the amendment, to avoid anything like any
particular invasion of private rights, and if I remember right, Herbert Spencer
lays down several things as superstitions which are as dear to me as life itself.
I think, however, the amendment will not run any danger of trenching on
individual claims, and if we can afford to do anything, we can surely afford
to brand the spirit of superstition.
The Chairman asked whether that amendment would be accepted ?
Professor Carpenter : I would willingly accept that alteration, for I am
very anxious not to disturb the harmonious feeling of the meeting, if it is
generally accepted.
The clause was then put and unanimously adopted as follows : i( The
emancipation of mankind from the spirit of superstition.”
The Fourth Clause—“Fellowship among liberal thinkers of all efesses,”
was carried unanimously.
A
The Fifth Clause—“ The promotion of pure and universal religion, which
includes the culture, progress, and moral welfare of mankind,” was then con
sidered, the words “ which includes ” being added at the suggestion of the
Chairman.
A Gentleman at the back of the Hall, said : What meaning are we to
attach to the word “universal”? Poes the Committee mean that there is a
universal religion which is to be discovered first and propagated afterwards.
The Chairman : The term “ promotion ” rather implies “ not yet arrived
at.” We anticipate the existence or thing. It is that after which we are
striving and which we desire to make universal, as I gather. We state at
the end some of the objects which the pure and universal religion is supposed
to include. Perhaps Mr. Conway will explain this.
t Mr. Conway : I think it was in our minds to represent that in all
religious developments, certainly in all important ones, and perhaps in all, I
there was some element which, if divested of ritual and all particular investi
tures or additions of localities would be found to furnish some common sub
stratum. We thought it would be found that the corruptions of all churches
would be mere superstitions and that there would be found some common
�REPORT—14TH JUNE, 1878.
73
foundation for all the religions in the world, that there was in them all a
substantial something which was universal if we could only get at it? We
thought there was some common stand-point, something human and pure}
something free from mere priestly perversions and mere temporary develop
ments, and that that was the universal purified part of religion, that probably
these words pure and universal had the same meaning, and that if you
divested religion of everything artificial or sham you would leave a reality
that was alike in all; that it would include sympathy, charity, and a good
many other things which, like the Golden Rule for instance, would be found in
all religions.
_ Mr. Levy : Is not that a dogma in itself—that the part common to all
religions is the pure part, and the part that is not common is the impure
That appears almost as dangerous a dogma as anything I have heard
outside the Society. I do not know that there is anything common to all
religions, and if there is I do not know if I could distil it down that I should
find It much better than the principles that are not so common. My own
opinion is that pure religion is very far from being universal at the present
time. Can we not amend the clause by saying, “ Promotion of pure and
universal religion is the culture, progress, and moral welfare of mankind.”
.The Chairman : That is just what we want to avoid. We want to avoid
limiting it. We state certain things which are included in it, and we leave
the rest, believing that there is a great deal more.
Mr. Street : I think in the main this expresses my own views. I am
more concerned about the reality than the language, but I would propose for
your consideration, in order to catch the feeling of the audience before I pro'
rea<^ fhe clause thus, <( The promotion of the culture, progress and
moral welfare of mankind.” If you say that is religion, you have a reality,
and if some people say it is not religion, still they are getting at a reality too.
We are an association of liberal thinkers studying religious phenomena, working within the field of what we call religion. Is there any necessity to divide
us, even in thought, upon the word ? We want to work for the culture, pro
gress, and moral welfare of mankind. Would it not be as well to rest there
,and not go further ? If you get a reality, cannot you be content with that ?
Mr. Hirst Smyth seconded the motion, and it was also seconded in
several other parts of the hall.
Mr. Rapp : I remember hearing Mr. Bradlaugh lecture upon this point
shortly after his return from America, and he then mentioned his objection
to the retention of the word “ religion ” by the Free Religion Association.
If you get the word “ religion ” you will be sure to get hostility from
secularists, and by this amendment you will do away with that.
Mr. Binns : I think it is undesirable on the whole to debate this. We
^propose the scientific study of religious phenomena, and we go on to say we
propose to examine all widely spread developments of religion; then we
propose to emancipate the human mind from the spirit of superstition, and I
think after that we are fairly justified in asking that our resolution should go
on further to declare that just as we are against the spirit of superstition, we
are Ki ^avour °f wbat we may call the spirit of pure and universal religion.
As to the sense in which the word universal is to be interpreted, it may be
taken in various ways. The Chairman interprets it in one way and the
Chairman of the Committee in another. We can take it either way. The
Chairman of the Committee looks upon it as a thing really existing in all
religions; the Chairman of the Conference as a thing to be discovered.
Although it is quife possible that by retaining the word religion we might
�72
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS.
prevent certain members of secularist varieties from joining us, I should feel
pretty certain also, that by dropping the word religion we should prevent a
great many people from joining us. It would not affect me persomajlE but
my impression is that it would affect many people who would readily agree to
the scientific study of religion, or the examination of widely spread religious
phenomena. With all due deference to the secularists, they do not care
For the scientific study of religion and its investigation as we ourselves do.
Therefore it is really more important that we should endeavour to include this
and attach some sort of importance to the undefined religion—more impor
tance than those who consider it does not amount to anything much.
not however the secularist who objects to it. When a man is a hearty sincere
believer in religion I think it is unnecessarily throwing away one who might
be a valuable ally to carry this amendment.
Dr. Burdoe : If we get rid of the word religion we shall get confused.
I would extend the right hand of fellowship to the honest reverent atheist, be
he whom he may, but I would not like to connect myself to any society of
irreverent persons. We can study any religion in the world, if it be done in
a reverent manner, but I should be sorry to connect myself to this Society if
by getting rid of the word you would open the door to irreverence.
Dr. Drummond : I would suggest an amendment which I think will go
some way towards what we want. “Culture” is far too wide. Our object is not
to promote culture in all ways and in all directions, but the promotion of a
certain sort of culture. If we say then the promotion of religious culture, we
shall not appear to give any definition of religion, and we shall at the same
time limit the word culture to the principal direction in which we wish it
to go.
Mr. Judge : I have very much pleasure in seconding the proposition. It
appears to me this association is to be essentially a religious association. If
there are certain individuals who will not be attracted to a religious association J
well they are not required. (Cries of No I No !) That may seem illiberal,
but if you wish to form a commercial association you would not wish to havel
as members persons who take no interest in commerce, and I think we ought
to seek to attract those persons who are interested in the study of religion!
The definition given to the objects of this association is especially religious,
and even if we altered this, no person who does not take that interest in religion
which we assume members would take, would be interested in this association.
I certainly think the statement of Mr. Binns is correct, who openly said that,
this does not concern persons who take no interest in religious questions, and
I say we are not illiberal in making it definitely understood that this is to be
a religious body.
Mr. Freckleton : I think we may see our way out of this difficulty, and
to be unanimous on this point as on the others, by a slight alteration in the
framework of the sentence which would take away some of the objections
made, if it were made to read “ whatever may be found to be included in pure
and universal religion.”
The Chairman : Nobody has seconded that.
. Mr. Levy : I have no objection to the word religion personally, but my
objection is to the assertion that there is such a thing as pure and universal
religion, somehow to be distilled out of the various systems of religion in the
world. It seems to me that we are suggesting that by a sufficient abstraction
of all the religious systems of the world you could get down to something
that is pure and universal. I think that is a statement of dogma that is out
side the objects of this association.
�repoi£t—14th ^&ne^1878.
73
Mr. Rowell : I will second Mr. Fre Stolon’s amendment.
The
seems rather vague.
MiW|®®Setoh : Whatever is included in that, is what I mean.
Mrs. Rose : Why not say “ whatever can be found good and useful in
universal religion.’*
. Mr. Rylott: Will you take another amendment* Sir, I should like to
i*moVe that we omit the words altogether.
Mr. Lieber : Pne remark, Mr. Chairman. I think it is a pity that a
h|y|gciety like this should state as one of its objects the promotion of that
whicmnobody can define. It seems to me that the amendment suggested on
the left there the motion leaving the latter end of the sentence and taking
out the introductory words—is a practical one that everybody would under-'
stand, tmd would make an end of the difficulty.
Mr. Levy : Could not we get it by saying “ the diffusion and the promotion of religion ? ” (Cries of No! No!)
Mr. Rylott : My amendment is altogether the best, Sir—to leave out
the clause altogether. It is necessarily involved in what has gone before, and
therefore it seems to me you will be throwing out what may prove to be an
apple of discord, when you gain nothing by leaving the words in. The “pro*
Ignojggn of pure and universal religion ” which is supposed to include “ the
culture, progress, and moral welfare of mankind,” is certainly included in
mai)kind from the spirit of superstition. And the collection and
diffusion of information relating to the religious developments of the world,
must certainly involve the scientific collection and classification of them,
KhEBi these remarks I would move that it be omitted altogether.
Mr. Buhler : I would second that.
. ^■r®*
Before putting any other resolution I should like to have a
distinct answer to this question. Mr. Judge has said this association is strictly
a religious association. Now the name of the association I understood to be
The Association of Liberal Thinkers/’ If this is to be a religious associa
tion that fact ought to be notified.
Colonel Higginson : It seems to me that two persons, who have moved
previous resolutions, have suggested together a mode of putting the thing in
the shape we want, and it is a very astonishing circumstance that these two
should be a gentleman who claims to be a Christian minister and a lady who
EpH
he complimented by any such imputation. If we take the statement made by Mr. Street and add to it substantially the clause suggested
by Mrs. Rose we have something I think which would satisfy ninety-nine out
of & hundred of those here. Suppose the clause stands in this form :—“that
the objiects should be the promotion of the culture, progress and moral welfare
of mankind,” thus far Mr. Street; “ and whatever in any religion may tend
towards that end,” which is Mrs. Rose.
I)r. Burdoe : I will second this.
Mr. Street : I am quite willing to accept that. I did not move the
amendment without thought. I feel anxious about the reality; I am not
concerned about the name. I did not feel I was dropping the name, nor was
E;aB concerned about dropping any of those who might become members.
Mr. Judge seems to think we have a society which by its definitions will
^xc^de Others, but I do not want to exclude any man. Therefore I used
have suggested. It seemed to me that in the four preparagraphs religion had been spoken of clearly and definitely; but
I think Mrs. Rose has made a very good amendment, and Col. Higginson,
with that wonderful tact which he has shown throughout the whole of fhjE
�74
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF LIBERAL THINKERS!
debate, and which is so remarkable that I wish we could get him to go
down and arbitrate on the strike now paralysing industry in Lancashire, has
exactly suggested what we mean, to “promote the culture, progress, and moraM
welfare of mankind and whatever in any religion may tend towards that end.”
By the first words you imply that you take everything in religion that is
good, and you add several words which, so far as I can see, are of no particular
value, but I will accept them.
The Chairman : It is like the difference between proximate and ultimate
elements in chemistry. The first three may be considered proximate
elements.
Mr. Street: It will bo better still if you reverse the words “the
promotion of whatever in any religion may tend towards the culture, progress,
and moral welfare of mankind.”
Mr. Levi : I do not think that that is as well, because there may be
means outside the different systems of religion.
Mr. Conway : Yes ; I quite think so.
The Chairman : Then you do not wish to limit it, Mr. Street ?
Mr. Street : No; I do not in any way.
The Chairman : Then I may consider the other amendment withdrawn
in favour of Colonel Higginson’s ?
Mr. Freckleton : As it now stands the amendment expresses all I want
to say.
Mr. Harrison : Would it not be better to say, “ any form of religion ” ?
Colonel Higginson : I would just as lief have these words. It is not
worth discussing.
The Chairman : Perhaps it is better it should stand as proposed.
Mrs. Bose: Would it not be better to say “all the good that can be
found in any religion ”—“ all the good and useful that can be found in any
religion ” ?
Colonel Higginson : My amendment was, “ or whatever may tend
towards that end.”
The Chairman : Colonel Higginson’s motion is, “ the promotion of the
culture, progress, and moral welfare of mankind, and of whatever in any
religion may tend towards that end.”
Mr. Haynes : I think it is better as it went before. I will move that the
second part of this be left out.
Mr. Levy : I should wish to move an amendment in another part of it.
I should wish to substitute a word in order to make it more logical.
Mr. Armstrong : I would second that amendment that the latter half of
the clause be left out. My grounds are that we have been told that this
Association is to be as broad as possible, and Colonel Higginson just now
ventured to hope that his amendment would include ninety-nine out of every
one hundred here. Now, I want to include the other one, and though I
have a great detestation of anybody discussing questions, whether religious
or sectarian, irreverently, yet I think the tone of our discussion will be
sufficient to shut the door against any irreverent persons coming a second
time, and I should not like to shut every door against their coming the first
time. Therefore I will second the amendment that all reference to religion
be left out, and that the clause read, “ the promotion of the culture, progress,
and welfare of mankind.”
Mrs. Rose : I will accept that.
The Chairman : Do you accept it, Col. Higginson ?
Col. Higginson : I am quite willing. All I want is peace.
�f ;
report—14th june, 1878.
75
I- Mr; Russell: One question. The principal object of the association
has been stated to be the investigation of religious phenomena. To what end
■artfi tOP religious investigations to be directed ?
Mr. Street : The culture, progress and moral welfare of mankind.
The Chairman & That is not quite a fair question to ask. We have all a
different feeling as to what it should be. We have now reached the time for
■cMMMwKid I must ask the meeting whether we shall go on till halfI This was agreed to unanimously.
Dr. Drummond : I have not withdrawn my amendment, though I do not
f^ghbo press it if it is not acceptable to the meeting, but my seconder is very
unwilling to withdraw it, and it is very important that the special direction in
which culture is to be recognised should be mentioned. I am not altogether
s^sSied with any of the other amendments proposed, and I therefore will
venture to ask you, sir, to put my amendment.
The Chairman then put the question that the clause should stand, “ The
promotion of the culture, progress and moral welfare of mankind.”
This was carried.
The Chairman then put the amendment that the word religious should
l^mmMaed before the word culture.
This was lost by a very large majority, about eight persons voting for it.
* Mr. Freckleton asked if Colonel Higginson’s amendment fell to the
' ground.
Mr. Binns : It comes from the Committee, and of course must be voted on.
The Chairman : It is now a substantial motion that the clause should
Sm<wbxis :—“ The promotion of the culture, progress, and moral welfare of
mankind,” and then it is moved that these words be added, “ And of whatever in any form of religion may tend towards that end.”
This addition was also carried.
The whole clause as amended was then put as a substantial motion, and also
J
almost unanimously.
The second paragraph, “ Membership in this Association shall leave each
iffi^Hual responsible for his own opinion alone, and in no degree affect his
relations with other associations,” was also unanimously agreed to ; and the
Jvn^efplatform was then read over, and carried unanimously.
Mr. Conway : It is necessary now that we should name persons to form
m Committee, in order to complete the formal organisation of the association.
' It will take very few minutes, but you see we have left ourselves without any
machinery by which a meeting may be called at some future time. We must
, also have some means of settling terms of membership and what the subscription should be. All these things will have to be digested by a
l Committee representing all sides, and it is - necessary we should appoint
the members of that Committee, and decide what should be a quorum. It
their duty to frame and submit to the meeting, rules for its action, to
propose terms of membership, and the manner of corresponding with members
tin various countries, with reference to carrying out the objects of the associa’ tion. This will probably be a peripatetic association, and the committee will
i have to arrange a good deal in the way of work. Of course we must crawl
i before we can walk; and we must have somebody to begin and see how many
l mpnmftbility are ready to come and join us. I would propose that a comI mittee of twenty-one be formed, with power to add to their number. Of
| co.ur& considerable number of the Committee must be in London, but we
i shoWljak^Le have persons in the country also. I should think a quorum of
I five would be sufficient.
�76
’GENERWI7 'CONEEREN (Je"wJ»PBERAL THINKERS.
Mr. Street: Why not make it a committee of all who are willing to
serve, with power to add to their number.
Mr. Conway suggested the following names: Rev. Richard Armstrong
(Nottingham), Rev. Goodwyn Barmby (Wakefield), Rev. William Binns
(Birkenhead), Miss Julie Braun (Manchester), Prof. J. Estlin Carpenter)
(London), Moncure D. Conway (London), Miss Helena Downing (London^’
Rev. Robert Drummond (Edinburgh), V. K. Dhairyaban (Bombay and
London), A. J. Ellis (London), Edwin Ellis (Guildford), H. Garrod (London),
J. S. Stuart Glennie (London), Mrs. Harriet Law (London), George L. Lyon
(London), K. N. Mitra (Calcutta and London), Miss Sarah Marshall (London), I
Alfred Preston (London), H. W. Smith (Edinburgh), Rev. J. Hirst Smyth ;
(London), Leslie Stephen (London), Rev. J. C. Street (Belfast), Rev. Frank
Walters (Glasgow), George J. Wyld.
Mrs. Rose’s name was mentioned, bat she replied that she could not serve.
The Chairman : The resolution is that these be the committee, with power j
to add to their number, that five of their number be a quorum, that they be
appointed to fix on a time and place for the next meeting, frame rules and 1
terms of membership of the Association, and for conducting corresponder^^j
with persons in foreign countries in reference to the particular objects of the
Association.
This was carried unanimously.
Mr. Street : I should beg to move that Mr. Conway be requested to act
as secretary for the present.
The Chairman : Of course the whole of the Committee is at present pro
visional. As the business of this meeting is now terminated I think I may <
fairly congratulate you on the success of our experiment.
Mr. Street : Before you leave the Chair, Sir, there is one question to I
ask and one duty to discharge. The question I have to ask is this. Some- >
body must have been involved in very considerable expenditure, mid we
would like to know if there is any possibility of our being allowed to contribute
something towards that. The duty we have, if indeed it can be called^qutw:
is to say—I am sure I have felt as every member of the Conference has felt
—that we ought to express our deep indebtedness, not merely to the gentle
men who have so admirably presided over our deliberations, but to Mr. Con- :
way and the Committee who summoned us here together. Perhaps my j
question might be answered first that we may deal with that.
Mr. Conway : Mr. Street, you must rest assured that when we make up I
our bill we will send it round. Until then you may rest perfectly quietland
I can assure you that we shall feel entirely repaid any debt or costs we may
have incurred by finding there has been such a spirit of liberality displayed
on all sides, and so much magnanimity, in these discussions. I, for one, feel
extremely gratified and deeply thankful—more thankful than I can express
—for the most successful meeting that we have had.
Mr. Street: I suppose I must accept that answer, but at any rate we
must be allowed to discharge the duty I have just indicated. I am sure the
congregation and its interpreter here cannot but have felt immensely grati
fied by the way in which liberal thinkers throughout the kingdom have
responded to the invitation. They cannot but further be gratified by seeing
one of the most remarkable facts that I have ever observed, that men and
women of the most diverse opinions, representing almost every shade ofultra
thought, have gathered here together, and have spoken with the utmost free
dom, have been heard with the utmost consideration, and yet without any
sort of feeling whatever. I think this of itself will be almost sqfficienM;
�I
I
REPORT—lTTIWTUNE, 1878,
77
3 reward to the"ommitW for their kindness in calling us together. Yet that
I loes not free us from the responsible duty of expressing by our united action
jur warm and ^^cy thanks to Mr. Conway and his congregation for sumJ
noning us here to-day, and to the two gentlemen who, with so much dignity,
liscretion, and ability, have conducted the proceedings of these two days.
jKMraJ. gentlemen rose in the meeting at the same time, but they gave
way to Mrs. Rose, who said she wished to second the motion with a great deal
fef pleasure.
Rev. Carey Walters : May I be allowed to support this resolution as
•one who stands at the very opposite pole of thought to many of the gentlemen who have spoken this evening and yesterday. I expect I should be confeidered in my theological opinions exceedingly superstitious and antiquated
■by ifiany* gentlemen present. But still I feel most thankful for having been
herejand for the hours I have spent in this place; and the discussion gives
tod great hope that before long the points which separate a number of earnest
thinkers will be broken down and we shall be able to shake hands with frankaess, and to feel there is one cause in which we can work together with heart
md soul—the regeneration of humanity—the raising it to a higher plat
form.
The resolution was carried by loud acclamation.
| The Chairman : Our chief thanks are due to Mr. Conway, who has shown
the greatest interest and care throughout the whole of this discussion, and to
whom the convocation and success of this meeting are mainly due.
The Conference then terminated.
Waterlow & Sons Limited, Printers, London Wall, London.
�i-
�Ig-
!
h■
��
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
Report of a general conference of liberal thinkers for the "discussion of matters pertaining to the religious needs of our time, and the methods of meeting them" held June 13th and 14th, 1878 at South Place Chapel, Finsbury, London
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
General Conference of Liberal Thinkers
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 77 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr. Moncure Conway. Printed by Waterlow & Sons Limited, London. Welcoming remarks by Moncure Conway; additional remarks p. 8-10, 49-52, 69-70. P. 68 notes the carrying of the proposal "this organisation shall be called "The Association of Liberal Thinkers". Chaired by Dr Wylde.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Trubner & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1878
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5589
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
Liberalism
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 (Report of a general conference of liberal thinkers for the "discussion of matters pertaining to the religious needs of our time, and the methods of meeting them" held June 13th and 14th, 1878 at South Place Chapel, Finsbury, London), 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
Association of Liberal Thinkers
Conway Tracts
Free Thought
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/737b389fcaaa368dae059353225f13ed.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=WiKKOUdqeBotfcyGhpJKVIdgOZHaAECYkck7OvIrndVrHjZ1HH%7ES%7E8U51YzdSWM8G5vK1RbCUXrgAxtMC-asskci1-ifcit8Z7bs5t4Bs8eW4K20VPKiegDQ0xC9R1f0%7E0TR%7E8tVy3SMmeUyOP0KpyuMmmAv%7EMScgxu9hug7m3vhA-CAzVyJFSkKztoftL9OFsvbh8XAediW0tMtQl%7EJQPo-B3QNTpUvmQqtTV1Z3qIq1U1i57kzj5Ggnq0iBxzg1rygQA48aDTW6GbKxLdOlNqZ9hRdahKJRLZpf39u408ZxPdWU2DG2OJBgpcVNp%7EUeS7sVZdcrzqjWwyFQIDBDw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7b507b9896ba175845e7568554056c5b
PDF Text
Text
THE
Liberal Situation:
NECESSITY FOR
A Qualified Franchise
A LETTER TO JOSEPH COWEN, Jun.
By G. J. Holyoake.
No MEASURE [OF REFORM] CAN BE CONSIDERED WORTHY OF ACCEPTANCE,
UNLESS IT AFFORDS A REASONABLE PROSPECT OF AFFECTING A
SETTLEMENT
OF THE •QUESTION.
Parliamentary Government, by Earl Grey.
[REPRINTED FROM THE “NEWCASTLE WEEKLY CHRONICLE.”]
�■
V
Hf*
■
I'
> i
�"The Liberal Situation.
-------- 0-------TO JOSEPH COWEN, Jun., STELLA HOUSE,
BLAYDON-ON-TYNE.
My Dear Sir,—I address this letter to you, because
since the days of Thomas Attwood (if you will permit me
to say so) no English gentleman (great as have been the
services of many) has taken the same personal, practical,
and persevering interest in the Political elevation of the
people at home and abroad, as yourself. Representatives
of the Northern Reform Union, under your Presidency,
visited the towns, villages, and hamlets in the two
counties of Northumberland and Durham, and explained to
the people the duty devolving upon them, of claiming, and
never ceasing to claim, “universal” suffrage; and incul
cating the sound doctrine of Major Cartwright—“that to
be free is to be governed by laws to which we have our
selves assented, either in person or by representatives for
whose election we have actually voted; that all not having
a right of suffrage are slaves, and that a vast majority of
the people of Great Britain are slaves.” This is the true doc
trine of the franchise question, and there will be no further
reform until the working classes feel this and act upon
it. If the working class are slaves through ignorance, let
it be corrected—if slaves through coercion, let it be resented
—if slaves through apathy, let it be terminated by those
who know better, and who should inspire the people
with self-respect. Indifference to political rights is
indifference to public duty, and is an infamy equally in
those who betray this indifference and in those who
connive at it. The reform question is again being re
opened. Manchester is trying to do something and Brad
ford more. But the agitation has neither the compass nor
as yet the courage in it necessary for great success. No
Parliamentary party brings up the people to the front. Re
formers act as though they were scared, and the claims of
a twelfth part of the unenfranchised are all that any leader
�4
The Liberal Situation.
has ventured to press upon the notice of Parliament Thia
^
*
shows a dangerous timidity. An honorary member of the
Northern Reform Union, I have also had the satisfaction
to represent it at several Conferences, may I therefore call
attention to the desirability and possibility of realising our
old Cartwright doctrine which gave to this Union all its
value ?
Recently, in the columns of the Times, Mr. Buxton, M.P.,
stated the “Liberal Dilemma.” There is a “dilemma,”
and the way out of it is to look the Liberal situation
plainly in the face.
Soon after the Reform Bill of 1832 was passed, there appear
ed on the walls of Birmingham a placard, put out by Cobbett,
the purport of which was that the Reform Bill merely gave
power to those who could help themselves, and still ex
cluded the mass who could not. He told us that the word
REFORM meant no more to the people than any other
six letters. The Bill would give them some new masters,
but any actual power had still to be won. I remember
well the consternation and disgust with which the working
class members of the Birmingham Political Union, of which
I was one, read Cobbett’s placard. We hated him as the
poor Brahmins did the European philosopher when he
handed them a microscope, with which to see the insects in
their food; but every year since the working class have
seen, with the clearness of dismay, the truth of what Cob
bett said.
Earl Russell and Mr. Bright are the best regarded authors
of Reform Bills. Neither has proposed other than to
tread in the political footsteps of Thomas Attwood. I
say nothing against Mr. Bright’s Bill—I rather serve it
by describing it as giving us 200,000 new masters—a
democratic advantage, yet affording protection only to
those who have some means, and leaving politically defence
less those who have none. The speakers at the late Brad
ford meeting —Mr. Stansfeld, Sir F. Crossley, Mr. Baines,
and Mr. Forster—pleaded for no more (Mr. Stansfeld alone
gave advice which would secure more) than the partial en
franchisement plan—a policy which palters with the
popular hope—which fears to look the right in the face—
which offers the least measure that can be called an im
provement—settles nothing, and perpetuates the old dis
appointment. Reformers on principle, who hold that the
whole people are entitled to a share of control over what
ever affects the national interest or English renown, would
acquiesce even in a partial measure, though it should add
but a single voter in a century. But about these partial
�The Liberal Situation.
5
plans, which contemplate to admit the few and exclude
the many, there need be no alarm on the part of Tories or
Whigs, and there will never be any enthusiasm on the part
of the people.
The character of the working class has changed since
this Reform question was agitated in 1830. The demand
for the suffrage now is not alone a question of grievance, it
is also one of degradation. The character of English
statesmanship, the magnitude of our commerce, the wealth
of our manufactures, the renown of our arms, are matters
'understood now by the common people, The Press carries
information into every hut and workshop in the land;
and the labourer and the artisan find themselves well used
instruments without political recognition—they are no
longer to be imposed upon by specious representations;
they find themselves virtually a slave class with a longer
chain than is commonly permitted, but the end made fast
and kept secure nevertheless. They are patted with praise
by noble lords and condescending gentlemen at Mechanics’
Institution soirees, and elsewhere, but they are never—
trusted. When driven abroad to seek for bread, the
English working man finds himself lowered in the eyes of
the two nations—France and America—before whom he
inherits the wish to stand with pride. It is nothing to tell
him that in both these nations the franchise is abused®-were
that true. He is a slave who has no privilege to abuse. The
man who like the French elector has had freedom and voted
it away, has a higher place than he who never even had that
chance. The English workman is contumeliously kept in
political inferiority as being something less in the eyes of
Parliament than a Frenchman or an American. No
English pride is taught to him, no sentiment of nationality
is appealed to, no instinct of his race is trusted. He stands
degraded abroad who is allowed no responsibility at home.
There may be no howling at this exclusion, no riots, no
sedition, but there ought to be an incurable resentment
diffuse itself, like that which appeared for the first time
when Lord Palmerston lately visited Bradford. As the
Indian proverb says—even in that submissive land of the
sun—“the dart of contempt will pierce even through the
shell of the tortoise. ”
I adhere to Major Cartwright’s dictum, a non-elector is a
slave, and I hate to see a slave beside me. If he is a slave
by political exclusion and does not resent it— if he is a
slave by consent and does not feel degraded I equally de
spise him. And, as intelligence spreads, this feeling will
spread, and the non-elector will be an object of pity or
�6
The Liberal Situation.
contempt—of pity if he does not know his duty—of con
tempt if he does know it, and does not wish to discharge it.
The author of a warning pamphlet entitled “Look be
fore you Leap,” and who is a master in the art of stating
Conservative principles, reminds the working classes ‘ ‘ that
their very numbers secure them respect and attention from
the conscience as well as the benevolence of the classes
above them.” This is the new fraternal doctrine which
the Tories have taught, the Whigs have caught, and the
Radicals are learning. It treats the non-electors like chil
dren, who, so long as they stand on their good behaviour,
may expect to have something done for them. The middle
class would be despised if they were to submit to political
inferiority and trust to the “conscience and benevolence” of
the aristocracy fortheir welfare, and the non-electors will de
serve to be despised if they continue to submit to it. These
new Political Paternalists say to the people—“ You are wellfed, you have comfortable homes, you have plenty of work,
you have sufficient wages, you could not do better for
yourselves.” Why, if this were all true, it is no more than
the farmer might say to his pig, or the gentleman to his
horse, or the planter to his slave. Our new Paternalists,
whose self-complacency is limitless, assure the non-electors
that they are very well represented by the present very
nice, liberal, considerate, good-natured, studious, patient,
condescending gentlemen, lawyers, bankers, colonels,
country ’squires, and noble lords who bestow upon the
country the inestimable benefit of sitting in Parliament.
There is one short, not to say contemptuous answer to all
this. Every one knows that the middle class who cla
moured for the Reform Bill in 1832 until they got it, were
just as well represented by the Boroughmongers of that
day as the working classes are by the Parliament of this
day. Why were not the middle classes satisfied then ?
They had quite as good “ indirect.' representation as middle
class members afford the unenfranchised people now,
besides that valuable hold which they had upon the
“ conscience and benevolence of the classes above them.”
What were the middle class of 1832 better than the work
ing class of 1865 ? Instead of being better, they were
inferior. They were more ignorant, more vulgar, more
noisy, and ten times more seditious. But they had one
virtue, now growing scarce in England—for which they are
to be honoured; and that was, they were too manly and
too proud to be represented on sufferance. They had too
much sense to be imposed upon, and too much spirit to
submit to the irritating and humiliating device of indirect
�The Liberal Situation.
7
representation. Their cry was “we are as much men as
any other class and. we claim and intend to be treated as
Equals. "We are not going to be protected as an act of
political condescension. We can, and will do that busi
ness for ourselves. We want no patronage. We, as well
as others, pay for the State, we do our share of fighting
for the State, and we will have our share in controlling it.”
This was the right thing to say, and the right tone to take
—and it told. These middle class men got what they
wanted, they have had their turn served, and they have
served themselves well. They have got power, wealth,
and university education for their sons, who are turning
out promising students of literary and Parliamentary con.
temptuousness. They turn now upon the people, and
treat the unenfranchised with the same impertinent
patronage which their fathers, a generation ago, so
scornfully and so honourably rejected when they were
subjected to it. There needs now no seditious sug
gestion, no revolutionary action ; it only needs that the
people be taught to imitate their new “ superiors.” Let
the working class show as much pluck, as much sense, and
as much resolution as the middle have done, and they may
become as influential and as much respected by those who
rule, as the middle class now are.
It is strange to have to own that the chief politician who
has seriously proposed to obviate the difficulty and dis
credit of partial representation, is an Earh Earl Grey’s
plan, so far as relates to the establishment of Guilds, enabling
the working classes to elect a certain number of their own
representatives, would undoubtedly meet a defined want.
The people seek no absolute transfer of power to them
selves ; they merely ask for such share as shall enable
them to send to the House of Commons some representa
tives of their own feelings, interests, and ideas. There are
now many gentlemen in Parliament who really sympathise
with the people, and are perhaps wiser, abler representa
tives of the working classes than they would be able to elect
for themselves. But this does not meet the case. These
members are not the servants of the people. There is not
a single member in the House who owes his seat to work
ing class electors, and his vote and influence are—whatever
he may wish—at the command of those who sent him there.
A gentleman who, instead of engaging servants, should con
descend, or be under the necessity of accepting volunteers,
could give them no orders, exact no obedience, and must
put up with their absence when he most needed them.
Such is the nature of that “indirect” representation which
�8
The Liberal Situation.
the working class seek to supersede now, as the middle class
superseded it in 1832.
Let any one watch what takes place when the
sitting member grants a political interview. When
an M.P. receives a deputation of electors they meet
as equals. The electors comport themselves as men
having a right to an audience. When non-electors go up
they are received as an act of condescension, or if received
with frank respect, they retire with demonstrations of
gratitude which mark the measure of their political in
feriority. Should Earl Grey’s plan prevail, there would be
an end of this humiliation, and his plan of election would
disturb no balance of interests in any borough nor would
its results monopolise any power nor swamp the educated
classes of the nation.
Mr. Buxton, M.P., brings forward a plan in accordance
with Mr. Mill’s suggestion of enfranchising the working
class, and guarding against their preponderance by giving a
plurality of votes to other classes. * There is no valid ob
jection to this plan. It already works well in every com
bination in which property is at stake. It is perhaps less
easy of adoption than Lord Grey’s plan, but has the equal
merit of covering the entire ground of political disability.
Its sole difficulty lies in the adjustment of votes. At pre
sent the polling result in any borough is pretty nearly a
known quantity. Every elector is ticketed and docketed ;
his quality and price are known to the local parliamentary
agents. Mr. Buxton’s plan might disturb these hopeful
calculations. These electoral astrologers who make up our
Parliamentary almanac will make frantic resistance to
having their stars displaced, and their political nativities
complicated.
Self respect can never be a national characteristic with
out national enfranchisement. Viewed in this light the
plans of Lord Grey and Mr. Buxton are not without merit
compared with the “ partial enfranchisement” advocated
at the Bradford meeting. No partial enfranchisement can
produce direct political improvement unless large enough
to effect a substantial transfer of power, and this the ex
perience of the last thirty years shows cannot be effected
without menacing a revolution. There is no political com
bination among the people able to do this, and politicians
know this very well, yet treat with derision both Lord
Grey’s and Mr. Buxton’s plans. Lord Grey’s does not suit
* Vide Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform.
Mill.
By John Stuart
�1 he Liberal Situation.
g
them ; it would create a class distinction, although we have
notoriously nothing but class distinctions in the country.
We have more castes in England than in India, and more
sharply and inexorably defined. The politicians who raise
the new cry against class distinction are they who acquiesce
in enfranchising only a limited portion of the people, thus
perpetuating, indefinitely, the bitterest, hatefulest, and
most degrading of all class distinctions—that of a small
class with votes and a vast class without. It is only your
practical politician who shudders at a nominal distinction
and keeps up a real one. Nor does Mr. Buxton’s plan suit
them. Against this they revive a very old objection, viz.^
that it is better to have no vote than a proportional one—
which all the thinking Chartists have long had the good
sense to abandon. Every sensible mechanic knows that it
is better to have one-third or one-fifth of the voting power
of your neighbour than to have none at alL Let us hope
that the Reform Company (Limited) who advocate partial
enfranchisement and object to a proportional vote, will find
that the working classes are no longer in love with the in
sane dignity of utter impotence, or do not know the nature
of that affected unity which awards the greater part of
them entire and contemptuous seclusion.
It is not an insult to offer a man a portion of power when
the offer of it comes from members of a class who with#'
hold all. But if the offer of a part be an insult, it is amuch greater insult to offer none: and those who advise
the working man to reject as an insult the offer of a part,
should tell him, and encourage him, support him, and de
fend him, in treating as an insult his entire exclusion. If
they will do this, I could admire both their policy and
their consistency. But the advisers who say reject a part
of a vote actually go to Parliament to ask only for a par
tial admission of the people to power, and profess them
selves willing to accept a mere instalment of the entire
claim, which will postpone again for 30 years longer (for
that is the English duration of a political makeshift) the
consideration of a settlement.
Is not the obj ection to graduatedvotes made in ignorance of
the principles of Democracy? “The power which the
suffrage gives,” as Mr. Mill observes, “is W over the
elector himself alone ; it is power over others also. Now it
can in no sort be admitted that all persons have an equal
claim to power over others. There is no such thing in
morals as a right to power over others, and the electoral
suffrage is that power.” This power, therefore, when
given to all must be graduated. He is not a democrat, but
�IO
The Liberal Situation.
an anarchist, who insists that the vote of the most ignorant
shall count for as much as that of the most highly educa
ted class in the community.
Mr. Mill’s plan of graduated votes would be regulated by
a principle of plain reason and political fairness, and those
who object to the plan evidently forget that we have al
ways had it in operation in a state of pernicious inequality.
An elector of Thetford has thirty-two times the power of
voting of an elector in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and is equal
to 64 electors in Birmingham. An elector of Portarlington
has 289 votes more than an elector of the Tower Hamlets. *
Earl Russell, therefore, who regards a plurality of votes as an
insult, must own that we have the “ insult” already in its
offensive form, and have always had it as a u constitutional”
thing. It is surely not an act of legislatorial wisdom to
condemn as an alien proposal a plan for rationalising an
ancient arrangement.
Taken as a rider to a Reform Bill, which amended the
distribution of seats (a point never to be lost sight of) and
increased the number of electors, one of Earl Grey’s pro
posals furnishes another solution of the Reform question.
It is feasible to create an Electoral Guild, and register all
the unenfranchised having a fixed residence and permit
them to elect a limited number of members. The Spectator,
in 1861, said that “forty members such as the working
class would elect, would be a great deal less obnoxious than
forty members nominated by Archbishop Cullen.”*
)
Why could not a Guild of Supplementary Electors
be an addition to the next Reform Bill ? Suppose the
suffrage to be fixed at £6; it might be provided that
whenever a guild elector shall become an occupier of a £6
house, that he be forthwith withdrawn and included in the
National Constituency, and so on with each until in course
of years the Supplementary constituency be extinguished.
Suoh a plan would avoid the discredit of leaving five mil
lions of the working classes entirely unrepresented; it
* Vide the Imperial Poll Book 1832-1864, by Jas. Acland.
t Indeed the “Spectator” of Nov. 23, 1861, remarked in the
same article that “ It has been said that it is impossible to secure
a suffrage which would give the numerical majority their fair
share of power while leaving theirs to the cultivated minority,
but if the working men accepted the compromise, it might be
secured to-morrow.” I know not on what authority the “ Spec
tator” made the statement I had, however, already, at the re
quest of an eminent practical politician, personally ascertained of
the principal political leaders of working men of England and
Scotland that their acquiescence could be counted upon, the only
doubt expressed being whether Parliament could be relied upon
for anything. I communioated this result to the “Spectator”
in 1861, subsequent to its statement appearing.
�The Liberal Situation,
II
would in the meantime provide for the direct representation
of Industry; it would enable Labour to be heard in its
own name in the House of Commons, and avoid what the
governing classes fear and nobody desires—a transfer of
power from the intelligent minority to the numerical many.
Democracy is, we know, in the eyes of the governing
class, a Frankenstein kind of product. They think it a
possible monster, wilful, irresistible, with a ravaging in
tellect, and devoid of all sense of moral or political respon
sibility, and they fear to breathe into it the breath of life.
It is no answer to them to say they are wrong, that their
fears are futile, that they ignore the established habits,
good sense, and almost perilous docility of the English
people. These fears are strong upon the governing classes.
Like cattle who smell blood on the threshhold of the
slaughter-house, those who have the upper hand have
morbid noses, and smell “ Sheffield outrages” and ^Ameri
can Democracy” in every Reform Bill, and you cannot
force them under the axe of the Franchise. This is how
they regard it, and it is folly to ignore the fact and not to
act on its reality. It is of n6 use to tell them that “ on
one side of the Alps Democracy consecrates Despotism, on
the other it inaugurates Liberty,” and that in England it
would, with the working class as it has done with the
middle class—consolidate order. They do not believe it,
and the expense of an agitation which shall make them
believe it, is so costly and uncertain that every practical
politician has an interest in giving heed to plans that
might meet the difficulty, without disappointing the
people, and enable Time, ever a better converter than
force, to change their opinion.
In justice to the governing class, who to their honour
manifest a far fairer disposition now than in former years,
it must be owned that “ nearly the whole educated class is
united in uncompromising hostility to a purely democratic
suffrage—not so much because it would make the most
numerous class, the strongest power; that many of the
educated classes would think only just. It is because it
would make them the sole power : because in every consti
tuency the votes of that class would swamp, and politically
annihilate all other members of the community taken
*
together. ” The real “Dilemma,” indeed, is that all
Radical orators reason in favour of universal suffrage, with
out arming themselves with any plan which meets this forMr. Mills’Review of Mr. Hare’s plan. “Fraser’s Magazine.’
�12
The Liberal Situation.
midable objection. After Mr. Gladstone’s late intrepid and
conscientious speech, one would think that he might find one.
Were it agreeable to the will, it is quite possible to the
wisdom of Parliament to devise and annex to any Bill of
Reform a plan which will enfranchise all honest men with
out thus swamping the votes or influence of gentlemen ;
which no Englishman wishes to neutralise or diminish.
Whoever of political influence may advocate a plan of this
description may count upon the enthusiasm of the nation ;
Bince no workman could, without baseness, rejoice in a par
tial enfranchisement which included himself, while it left
his less fortunate brethren to renew the old struggle, brand
ed by the old exclusion. This would be to manifest that
spirit of politics without conscience which the Orleanisis of
France displayed when they had placed Louis Phillippe on
the throne, and the middle classes of England since they
won the Reform Bill There may be no reason to refuse
even a partial enfranchisement, but it would be as indecent
in the working classes to exult in it as it would be in ten
men who were taken from a wreck by choice of the captain,
and who should throw up their caps in the face of all those
left to their fate.
If it can appear that the greatest mass of reformers can
he united in favour of the partial plan, and no other, it
will be the duty of all to support that with such energy as
can be commanded. The political experience of the last
thirty years has shown that reformers should persist in
saying what they want—maintain what is right—and unite
for what they can get. For myself, I do not write as an
obstructionist: while I plead for what I believe to be pos
sible and know to be necessary, I would work for whatever
may diminish the discredit of our present representation.
I belong to that class of Reformers who hold it to be dis
creditable to exist without rights, and infamous to rest
under their refusal. It can never be too often repeated
that nob to seek enfranchisement is not to deserve it.
I never look without contempt on any who submit
to political exclusion; I never see without resent
ment those who advise or excuse, or connive or countenance
it. The franchise is more than a right—it is the means of
discharging a public duty. And those who stand in the
way of discharging that duty degrade me, and I resent the
act, however veiled or explained—justified it never can be.
Many generous politicians represented at the Bradford
platform, desire the enfranchisement of the whole people.
I know that the limited measure they deem practicably is
forced upon them by the enemies of Reform. Let, how
�The Liberal Situation.
13
ever, the people who shall accept such measure, do so with
their eyes open—and let it be seen that their eyes are open.
Let those who accept it, do so as a pledge to use their power
on behalf of their countrymen excluded ; and then their
acquiescence in the measure will have consistency, if not
honour, in it.
The opponents of Reform exult in the apathy of the people.
The exultation is as indecent as the existence of the apathy
is a reproach. There are six millions of adult men swarming
our streets and workshops, lanes and alleys, towns and
villages, peopling our mines and lining our shores—hard
working, patient, and honest, whose toil goes to swell our
wealth, and who are content to have no voice in expending
the taxes they raise, or in controlling those wars in which
their blood is spilt; who are satisfied to be counted as the
“swinish multitude,” whose interest no member of Parlia
ment is elected to consult, whose opinions no statesman
regards, whose voices at a public meeting no one counts,
whose expression of opinion is sneered at as so much im
potent, popular, ignorant clamour; a people whom, the
governing class
“Holds when its pride has spent its haughty force
As something better than- its dog, a little dearer than its
horse.”
It is a national humiliation when there exists thus a vast
out-lying population without active unrest under this state
of things. The unenfranchised classes owe to Mr. Bright an
infinite debt of gratitude, whose single voice, when all
others were silent, has been heard in the ignominious years
that have passed, urging their rights and recalling them to
self-respect. If Mr. Bright counsels that on the whole the
best thing now is to unite in favour of the partial enfran
chisement programme, his decision ought to be accepted as
final, for he alone has earned the right to determine the
policy of the Reform party.
It shows in a very striking manner the ascendancy of
aristocratic and conservative influence in England, that the
governing classes have contrived not only to beat back, but
to break down the reform spirit—that after the lapse of 30
years, Reformers come up asking for a meaner and shabbier
bill than they were able to carry 30 years ago, for none of
the Bills of late years introduced will produce anything
like the change which the old Reform Bill effected, ineffi
cient as it was. Indeed the value of the proposed reform
bill of Mr. Baines is so small that no one can feel more
than a theoretical enthusiasm about it. Every measure of
�14
The Liberal Situation.
reform introduced or contemplated takes the poor-rate as
a basis for the franchise. Lord John’s bill did this—Mr.
Baines’ does it. The Newcastle Chronicle has shown that
the number of houses compounded for by landlords of the
annual value of £6, £7, £8, £9, and £10 respectively,
amount altogether to 8,000 houses in the four
boroughs of Gateshead, South Shields, Sunderland,
and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Mr. Baines’ Franchise Bill
would not give a vote to any one of them. The compound
ing system has probably disfranchised more people than
any Reform Bill, at present talked of, proposes to add to
the electoral constituency. From a note to the returns
published by Government it appears that in Birmingham
alone there are upwards of 7,000 male occupiers of £10
houses who compound with their landlords for their rates,
and who prefer losing their votes to becoming personally
liable to such rates.
One is compelled to admit, with the Economist, that the
question of Reform is treated generally in a commonplace
spirit, which excites surprise and bodes no good. Every
scheme, it appears, is to be derided except those that run
in old ruts. This was the old Chartist error, and cost us
dearly. Reformers, if this policy continues, will be the
prey of infinite delays and disappointments. It is quite
time that political questions in England were adjusted by
political reason, rather than by the exigence of neces
sity and party strife. If no such supplementary plan
of Reform as that of Earl Grey’s guilds, or Mr. Buxton’s
proportional Voting, should be adopted, why could there
not be added to Mr. Baines’ Bill an Intelligence Franchise,
as an addition to the utmost extension of the suffrage
he can obtain ? Then one satisfactory termination of the
question would be made. Politicians of all parties admit
that the franchise may be trusted to the intelligent. Let
them decide what knowledge a man ought to have to enable
him to vote, and if he does not acquire it his exclusion will
be his discredit and not the State’s. Practical mastery of
some sound popular book on Political Economy and one on
Constitutional History would secure the requisite intelli
gence. Government school examiners might attend at me
chanics’ institutions (which would'then have some vitality,
interest, and use in them), and give certificates of electoral
fitness, the holders of which should be entitled io be placed
on the list of electors.
*
* A sketch of the machinery existing, and probable results
of a plan of this description, appeared in letters addressed to
�The Liberal Situation.
15
This species of franchise would have dignity in it, it would
make education a political necessity, and in another genera
tion would enfranchise a large proportion of the people, and
ultimately transmute the English working class into the
noblest electoral constituency in the world. Such a plan,
not as a substitute for any contemplated present extension
of the suffrage, but as an addition to it—providing for a
continual increase of the electoral body in proportion to
the ascertained intelligence of the unenfranchised—would
satisfy the best friends of the people. *
In pleading for an Intelligence Franchise, I do it for the
sake of the progress it ensures. I am well aware, and so
are those who exclaim against the want of Intelligence
in the people, that Ignorance never has been in this
country a political disqualification. England has always
been largely governed by privilege and ignorance. If an
Intelligence Franchise were to be universally enforced in
England, we should disfranchise more than half our pre
sent electors, and many magistrates: and perhaps some
members of Parliament would fall under the rule. No one
can deny the suffrage on the ground that an elector
might make a fool of himself. > The right of making a
fool of himself is a sacred thing in this country—and a
privilege of which many avail themselves. Indeed, if
such a right was disputed, it would be defended by a
greater number of persons interested than any other right
that could be threatened.
Lord John Russell and the “Daily News,” reprinted under the
title of the “ Workman and the Suffrage,” 1858. The Council of
the Northern Reform Union afterwards adopted a memorial to
Lord Stanley, as one of those statesmen reputed to treat politics
as the science of public justice, praying his attention to this
subject.
* Nothing could be more remarkable or conclusive than the fol
lowing remarks from a pamphlet which, though not published
until 1859, was written, in greater part, at an earlier date;—“ No
Conservative needs object to making the franchise accessible to
those [the working] classes at the price of a moderate degree of
useful and honourable exertion. To make a participation in poli
tical rights the reward of mental improvement, would have many
inestimable effects besides the obvious one. It would do more
than merely admit the best and exclude the worst of the working
classes ; it would do more than make an honourable distinction
in favour of the educated, and create an additional motive for
seeking education It would cause the electoral suffrage to be in
time regarded in a totally different light. It would make it to be
thought of, not as now, in the light of a possession to be used by
the voter for his own interest or pleasure, but as a trust for the
public good. It would stamp the exercise of the suffrage as a
matter of judgment, not of inclination; as a public function, the
right to which is conferred by fitness for the intelligent per
formance of it.”-J. S. Mill. “Thoughts on Parliamentary Re
form.”—pp 30-31.
�i6
The Liberal Situation.
For reasons which had better be confessed, the people
are not in a condition to carry Reform themselves. Their
political education has been so much and so long neglected,
that they are now generally uninclined or incapable of self
organisation —without which they are powerless. In the
ire-action which will surely come they may amend this de
ficiency. Besides the working class of England prefer to
be led by gentlemen, and there are not as yet a sufficient
number of gentlemen who care for Reform sufficiently, to
incur the time, labour, cost, and obloquy of leading them.
The sympathy of our Liberals is not, as a class, with the
people, so much as with the aristocracy. I know many
who would give £30,000 for an estate not worth £10,000,
if by its possession they could live near a duke—while they
would not give five shillings to enfranchise their countrymen.
The Radicals have let a whole generation slip out of their
hands. They began with the treacherous dogma that
“ Truth is great and will prevail”—not knowing that it is
the very worst thing to fight with, and is always beaten
unless stoutly and expensively supported. Thus for twenty
years there has been scarcely a single political union in the
country, with funds to secure it three months’ existence.
The result is that the children of the Radicals of the last
generation are not Reformers now. In the best towns in
the kingdom you can find but scant successors to the men
who once made popular politics wholesome. Reason in the
multitude is a very small quantity, and needs persistent
cultivation to keep it influential. All the machinery for
doing this has been suffered to die out. For years after
the last Reform Bill there were hundreds of electors in
every constituency whose votes could be relied upon. No
one needed to canvas them; they were not to be diverted,
bribed, or intimidated. This class of electors has nearly
disappeared. The other week I looked through the poll
books of the best instructed constituency in the kingdom.
There was a nominal majority of 500 Liberals, but no Par
liamentary agent could predict how they would vote. The
landmarks of principle are no longer discernible. It is said
that “when a Tory government succeeds to this we shall
see what the opposition will do ?” There will be opposition
to act unless the deterioration of politicians is stopped.
Both parties have behaved so much alike of late years that
the people do not know which is which, and have been so
demoralized by the exhibition, that as far as the franchise
is concerned, it does not matter to them which party
rules.
The fact is we have a middle-class Parliament and not a
�7"he Liberal Situation.
V
Parliament of the people at all. The tone, the talk, and
the interests consulted in the House of Commons, are es
sentially middle class, tempered by a deferential regard for
the views and comforts of the “ upper ten thousand.” The
voice of the people, the busy struggling life of the nation,
is practically ignored in that “Rich Man’s Club.” Now
and then some piece of legislation is executed for the bene
fit of the people, but it is the act of patrons and not of dele
gates. The people have the humiliation of knowing that
they have no power to exact it, and in consideration of
having some attention paid them, they are expected not to
make themselves troublesome, or to endeavour to meddle
with governing, which they are told is no business of theirs.
A member of Parliament is a gentleman who enjoys the
joint dignity and luxury of spending 70 millions a year,
and the diminishing handful of licensed persons called
electors, have the exclusive privilege of authorising these
members to assess and collect from the great body of the
nation, who have no voice in the matter, this enormous
sum. This is the scale in which gentlemen spend money
who find themselves in a condition to command it. A Par
liament of the people would have an interest in altering
this. * It is nothing to the purpose to say that the money is
judiciously expended. Those who furnish the money should
have the right of an opinion upon its expenditure ; and a
power of checking it, without which the opinion is of very
little value. If a servant should seize his master’s cheque
book, and proceed to administer his master’s affairs, it is
just possible that he might prove a better administrator,
and more economical manager, than the original owner of
the funds, but no consideration of this kind would induce
the master class to submit to this arrangement. This is
precisely what the governing classes say to the people.
“ We govern you very well, we allow you a good deal of
liberty, quite as much as is good for you, and we put your
means to good account. You are very ill advised not to
leave well alone.” The working class one day will wonder
at the effrontery which addressed this language to them,
and be ashamed for that want of self respect which has led
them so long to submit to it.
Sometimes it is alleged that the working classes are dis
qualified for electoral power because they are capable of
* The Financial Reform Association has shown, as did James
White, M.P., lately in a conclusive speech in Parliament, that the
Incidence of Taxation requires further adjustment in favour of the
people. Vide also Letters on Taxation by S. C. Kell, Esq., of
Bradford.
�i8
The Liberal Situation.
corruption. The Northern Reform. Union made the cost
liest experiment ever made in this country to put down
bribery at elections. They found that all that was wanted to
suppress it in Parliamentary or Municipal elections, was
that bribery should be made a misdemeanour punishable
by summary conviction before a magistrate, and that the
briber should be given in charge like a pickpocket. Bribery
would soon disappear under this treatment, but we had all
soon reason to see that there was no intention or wish to
interfere with it either by judges or Parliament. Men of
*
great fortunes are increasing in England. Parliamentary
honours are important to them. Engaged solely in the ac
cumulation of wealth, they have rendered no public service
entitling them to that distinction, but they can buy their
way to it. They can afford the cost, and bribery is their
sole means of attaining distinction. It is an instrument
which enables the rich to over-ride any claim of personal
merit on the part of less wealthy candidates. Bribery is
a rich man’s convenience, and is valued in England every
year more and more, and will never be put down by a rich
man’s Parliament.
Sometimes this paternal management of the governing
classes is sought to be justified by telling the people that
. they are not taxed disproportionately. If they were not
taxed at all the humiliation put upon them would be as
great. It is every man’s duty to contribute his quota to
the support of the state, and those who affect to relieve
him of the honourable burden mean him ill. They degrade
him. He is intended to pay dearly for the exemption, the
price to be exacted is that of his independence.
Mr. Stansfeld, M.P.. in the well-calculated speech he
delivered at Bradford a few weeks ago, warned the outside
public “ that Reform was only to be dealt with now by
the force of a persistent and overwhelming national will.”
But to create this the re-education of the people has to be
entered on afresh, which will take time. The machinery
of agitation has to be replaced, which will require
means. The dying Parliament will do nothing for Reform.
The next Parliament will do nothing until its days are
nearly numbered, so that we shall have no Reform for
years. The Pall Mall Gazette, with apparently fair in
tentions, gives new currency to the latest political error
that “ Reform must come in time.” Those who believe this
* These results were stated, on the part of the Union, at the Con
ference at York, (convened by the Social Science Association) at
which Lord Brougham presided, when Sir Fitzroy Kelly made his
statement, September, 1864.
�The Liberal Situation.
19
will never see it. The only people worth listening to now
are those who mean to make Reform come. Wearied and in' censed with Radicals playing the game of Whigs, and
Whigs that of Tories, an immoral indifference towards the
return of the Tories to power has taken possession of every
body. The probability that Tories may be better, and the
belief that they cannot be worse, will give us at the
next election a strong Tory Government. The people will
find out the difference then. The right thing is to vote for
Reformers only who can be relied upon, and take measures
to secure the choice of those likely to keep their word.
The difference between a Whig and a Tory is very clear :—
The Tory will rob you of a pound and give you a shilling,
back, in a patronising way—the Whig will rob you equally
and won’t give you even a shilling back, but he will give
you the means of earning two for yourself. The Whig,
stingy as he is, is greatly to be preferred. He promotes
self-help and self-respect. The Tory represents the com
fortable principle of authority and the graciousness of pa
tronage—the Whig troublesomeness of reason and the
harshness of self-exertion—the Tory sufferance and sub
mission—the Whig independence and progress.
The deplorable impotence of the people was never so con
spicuous as now. Mr. Gladstone has made a speech in
favour of Reform which ought to entitle him to the active
gratitude of every non-elector in the kingdom. Before
this time every town and village in the empire ought to
have sent him an address. How powerless, how spiritless,
how wanting in political penetration, how incapable of
taking advantage of this merciful political circumstance,
are the people now. Mr. Gladstone is the first minister in
England who might, to use Mr. Thornton Hunt’s remaafk,
“ become the Premier of the working classes”—who are yet
unable to see or use the rare and priceless opportunity.
On the other hand, how humiliating is the attitude of
Parliament! There are at least 300 gentlemen in the
House of Commons who profess to represent the people of
England, and they turn towards Mr. Gladstone with an
infantine gaze. It is a proud and honourable thing for
him. In them it is something contemptible. Mr. Bright
is by genius and service the natural leader of the people’s
party in Parliament, and he, and about a dozen other mem
bers, are all who seem capable of national imitation or of
standing alone, or show proof of possessing an active con
science in their work. Mr. Stansfeld, in the speech pre
viously referred to, most usefully said “ that constituen
cies should invite no pledge nor accept any from a membe
�20
The Liberal Situation.
unless they were prepared to support him in fulfilling it,
and warned by the past he trusted that no candidate would
enter into a pledge of Reform unless he is determined that
as far as in him lies his party shall redeem it.” There
would be no apathy among the people if members did their
duty in this spirit.
As to apathy there exists no more of it than is natural
under the circumstances which have been allowed to
operate upon the people. Mr. Mill, in those brief but
compendious sentences quoted by Mr. Taylor, M.P., at
Leicester, says :—“ Wherever the sphere of action of hu
man beings is artificially circumscribed, their sentiments
are narrowed and dwarfed in the same proportion. . . .
Let a person have nothing to do for his country and he will
not care for its It is a great discouragement to an indivi
dual, and a still greater one to a class, to be left out of the
Constitution—to be reduced to plead from outside the.
door to the arbiters of their destiny, not taken into con
sultation within.”
Of causes which have contributed to produce political
apathy in the minds of the people I should name :—
L—When they found themselves left out of the Re
form Bill of 1832, having merely obtained a new set
of masters, and that they were not masters of themselves
notwithstanding that their new rulers were more consi
derate than the old ones—disappointments and discourage
ment set in.
2. —Those who were not worn out by the old struggle,
became indignant and disgusted. Indignation, some years
later, led to the disastrous policy of breaking up the meet
ings of the middle class engaged in the Anti-Corn Law
struggle, which robbed the Reform cause of funds and
friends, among those best able to make it efficient by pecu
niary support.
3. —The disgusted portion also set their faces against all
petitions to Parliament, in which they had lost confidence.
This policy diminished political action, kept Parliament
ignorant of popular feeling, and diffused a fatal conviction
that it was of no use doing anything.
4. —-Judicious enemies of the people, denounced as “de
magogues” or “hired orators” every advocate who made
it his business to endeavour to instruct and plead the cause
■of the people. This treacherous daintiness, though it pro
ceeded from topgues and pens venally retained to support
things <as they wene, was actually listened to, until the
ipeople were entirely disarmed of all who, in their rough
••and inecessaiy wayjCoajJdkeepup public spirit among those,
�‘The Liberal Situation,
21
in whom it must die, unless sustained by wholesome agi
tation.
5. —Then came the influence of the well-meaning but
mis-calculating Communists and Co-operators recruited!
from the ranks of the disappointed and disgusted politi
cians. These preached material comfort as a substitute^
for political rights ; forgetful that a fat material prosperity,
purchased at the expense of political duty is more despic
able and morally disastrous than the leanest discontent,
united with self-respect and public spirit.
6. —Afterwards set in the reign of dangerous philosophers
who, like Thomas Carlyle^ diverted the intellect of the
young men of the nation from political pursuits, by cover
ing Parliament with pungent ridicule and mocking at the
ambition of possessing the six millionth degree of partici
pation in the “national palaver.” Other philosophers
more serious, as Professor Newman, sincere friends of the
people, but representing the unfortunate indifference of
gentlemen and scholars to a political privilege, such as the
franchise, which their high position and great personal
influence enable them to do without, but which is the sole
protection of the multitude against absolute oppression or
abjectacquiescence in patronage. These influential publicists
have taught that the personal, commercial and other liber
ties are more precious than the mere right of voting, nob
feeling that every liberty is in peril or is held on suf
ferance by those who have no control ever public affairs.
7. —The American war has had a disastrous influence on
the enfranchisement question. Sir John Ramsden’s inde
cent exultation in the House of Commons, when he an
nounced that “the Republican bubble had burst,” pro
claimed how fatal to the liberty of the people everywhere
is the expected triumph of tyrants anywhere. If the South
could set up a slave empire, the working class in England
would be told to be thankful that they are allowed theliberty they have instead of seeking, for more. It was the
-success of the French Revolution in 1831 that precipitated:
the Reform Bill in England, and the eowp-d’etat of LouisNapoleon in 1851 has thrown back every question of pro
gress in England since. It was this conviction alone that
helped to justify in many eyes the famous attempt of
Orsini. Liberty is never safe in this country with a des
potism flourishing in sight of our shores, appealing to-the
sympathies of our aristocratic classes, always unfriendly topopular liberty. Agricola well understood this principle,
for Gibbon relates that his reason for determining the con
quest of Ireland was “that the ancient Britons would, wean-
�22
The Liberal Situation.
their chains with less reluctance if the prospect and exam
ple of freedom were on every side removed from before
their eyes.” Deep is the interest of the working classes of
England that tyranny should be overthrown in every state
near them, and in every country with which England has
near political relations.
8.—The apathy, and what is worse, the impotence of the
people has been much brought about of late years by the
false promises of Cabinets and Parliaments. Reformers
have been told that they had the word of gentlemen (and
that gentlemen never lie) that Reform would take place.
The people believed this. When gentlemen in high politi
cal position make a public promise nobody doubts its ful
filment. It is naturally supposed that they mean what they
say, and that they will take trouble to redeem their word,
within a fair and reasonable period. These promises put
an end to agitation. It became unnecessary if these gen
tlemen were to be trusted—an impertinence if their word
was to be believed. Reformers were told the time was come
when legislators would do an act of justice because it was
reasonable, and the vulgar methods of out-of-door coercion
might be safely and honourably laid aside. This fatal
counsel prevailed. Nobody foresaw that year after year no
earnest effort would be made to fulfil the promises given,
and that ministers of the crown would plead that though
they promised the fact of Reform, they did not promise the
time, and that Mr. Milner Gibson would have on their part,
reluctantly to confess, by way of excusing them, “ that no
Government having once laid a bill upon the table of the
House would have dared to recede from their position if
the great body of the electors of England had shown that
they were determined to keep them to their promises”—
which was in effect saying that the Cabinet coming forward
to fulfil their promise and finding they were not watched,
took advantage of the circumstance and “skedaddled.” Mr.
Milner Gibson forgot to confess that the promise was made
to non-electors, who were powerless “ to keep the Govern
ment to their promise,” with whom it was therefore doubly
disgraceful to break their word. Mr. Mill has observed
“ there are but few points in which the English as a people
are entitled to the moral pre-eminence with which they are
accustomed to compliment themselves at the expense ef other
nations ; but of these points, perhaps, the one of the great
est importance is that the higher classes do not lie, and the
lower, though mostly habitually liars, are ashamed of
lying ” It is difficult to think that some future political
historian will not have to admit that on the question of
�The Liberal Situation.
23
Reform the “higher classes” have lied and are not
*
r ashamed” of it.
From these combined causes the political education of
the people during the past twenty years has been disas
trously neglected and affected, and they have gone back in
political knowledge and in public spirit. Notwithstanding
this unquestionable deterioration the people are not wanting
in appreciation when a public man, whom they can trust, goes
among them. When Mr. Gladstone (whose merciful interven
tion has since given the people the Annuities Bill) visited the
North, you well remember how when word passed from the
newspaper to the workmen that it circulated through mines
and mills, factories and workshops, and they came out to
greet the only English minister who ever gave the people a
right because it was just they should have it; and gave it
them when there was no power to force it from him.
Without him a Free Press in England was impossible. The
organisation seeking it was the smallest that ever won a great
measure; its funds were limited, its clients were poor, its
friends in Parliament were a hopeless minority. Had it not
been for Mr. Gladstone there would have been no cheap
newspapers in England for years to come. He made him
self the advocate of the unfriended ; he put into the hands
of the poor man the means of political knowledge. Sir
George Cornewall Lewis, the only minister from whom we
had a right to expect it, would have given a hundred con
clusive Whig reasons why it could not be done. If not the
only Chancellor of the Exchequer who ever had a con
science, Mr. Gladstone was the first who was ever known to
have one, and when he went down the Tyne, all the country
heard how twenty miles of banks were lined with people
who came to greet him. Men stood in the blaze of chim
neys ; the roofs of factories were crowded ; colliers came
up from the mines ; women held up their children on the
banks that it might be said in after life that they had seen
the Chancellor of the People go by. The river was covered
like the land. Every man who could ply an oar pulled up
to give Mr. Gladstone a cheer. When Lord Palmerston
went to Bradford the streets were still, and the working
men imposed silence upon themselves. When Mr. Glad
stone appeared on the Tyne, he heard cheers which no
other English minister ever heard. He had done great
things for commerce, and the commercial people were proud
to tell him so ; but the people were grateful to him, and
rough pitmen who never approached a public man before,
pressed round his carriage by thousands. All the distinc
tions of rank were obliterated in their gratitude, and a
�2+
7he Liberal Situation.
thousand arms were stretched out at once, to shake hands
with Mr. Gladstone as one of themselves. If there is a
political apathy in England the gentlemen who hold
the destinies of the country in their hands are themselves
the cause of it, and have themselves to thank for it.
The English people are not constitutionally prone to “ rest
and be thankful”—they never did it yet ; and Lord John
Bussell, who said it, never meant it. He never rested
himself, it is not in his nature, and his son, Lord Amber
ley, bids fair to yet farther illustrate the serviceable unrest
of his race. True he has eaten his words on the platform
at Leeds, but had he been a member of Parliament he would
have preferred eating his pledge in the House.
If proper trouble is taken to revive, or rather re-create
the interests of the people in political rights, it may be
■done with less trouble than formerly and more effectually
than ever. Formerly the people were politicians from im
pulse, next they will become so from conviction, and such
men never go back. The working class have no longer the
prejudices which formerly rendered them impracticable.
They may manifest the possession of special views—they
may desire a complete and generous measure—they
may maintain their preferences for what they con
sider honest and just; but they will offer no opposition
to, and are generally disposed to help all who go in the
direction of the enfranchisement they seek ; and if to the
Political Unions of Bradford, Manchester, and the Northern
Beform Union of Newcastle, are added Unions in Birming
ham and other great towns, and a sufficient Metropolitan
Union in London, the B.form Members might be called
upon to hold meetings among their own constituents, and
take their places as the natural leaders of the people ; but
agitation must be revived professedly and avowedly, and
kept up as an independent department of popular govern
ment. The expectations that a Reform Parliament will
carry the work of political progress forward and lead opinion,
is a delusion. They show no disposition of organisation
among themselves—no more capacity for forming a people’s
party than workmen themselves would show—nor so much.
Bepresentatives manifestly require to be looked after like
any other servants. It’is very discreditable, but it is true.
It shows how little thought has been bestowed on the
actual nature of the Liberal situation, that one may con
stantly hear Members of Parliament lament, as something
unexpected and unfortunate, the indifference of the people
as to Beform. What else is possible, what else is to be
expected ? Is it likely that six millions of persons can
�The Liberal Situation.
25
maintain a perennial attitude of indignation for 30 years ?
Every two or three years they are called out, as it serves
the purpose of one party or other in the state, are promised
Reform, and when interest or hope is re-awakened and
the purpose is served of those who evoked it, they are dis
missed with—nothing. Why, the shepherds in JEsop grew
tired at last of rushing forward at the cry of wolf. No
men will continue to pursue an object unless they can fight
for it, or agitate for it, or buy it, or reason their way to it.
The people have been counselled to lay aside all ideas of
physical force, the only ideas which ever permanently in
terest the great body of Englishmen—agitation has been
discountenanced, and even the right of meeting in the open
air has been interfered with, restricted, and made so ex
pensive as to be impossible to working men. Agitation has
become so costly that only rich men can employ it—and
since workmen have not wealth to buy attention, and rea
son has long failed to win it—what is to be looked for but
that men will turn away in apathy and quiet hate, which
answers no summons and which only accident and oppor
tunity may stimulate into resentful action ?
Even Members of Parliament excuse themselves for doing
so little, saying the the people do not care for Reform.
No people ever do care for liberty unless stimulated to do
so. Liberty is like knowledge—the ignorant do not care
for it, while those who have it will never part with it.
Russian serfs, negroes, and French peasants do not care
for liberty. The desire of liberty is the result of educa
tion in using it; and those who wish to see the many
manifest this noble desire, must put them in a condition
to exercise freedom. It is not from the neglected and un
taught many—not from the ignorant, the selfish, or supine,
from whom the apostolate of enfranchisement should be
expected, but from the educated few—from the informed
politician, from the gentleman and member of Parhament.
Mr. John Stuart Mill, the one great exception among Eng
lish philosophers, who has ever lent the weight of his name
to the cause of the people, has given reasons to thinkers,
and the governing classes, which, were conscience allied to
politics, would infuse enthusiasm into the advocacy of those
who now ignobly wait on others.
“ It is important,” says this writer, “that every one of
the governed should have a voice in the government, be
cause it can hardly be expected that those who have no
voice will not be unjustly postponed to those who have.
It is still more important as one of the means of national
education. A person who is excluded from all participa
�26
The Liberal Situation.
tion in political business is not a citizen. He has not the
feelings of a citizen. To take an active interest in politics
is, in modern times, the first thing which elevates the mind
to large interests and contemplations ; the first step out of
the narrow bounds of individual and family selfishness, the
first opening in the contracted round of daily occupation.
The person who in any free country takes no interest in
politics, unless from having been taught not to do so, must
be too ill-informed, too stupid or too selfish, to be interested
in them; and we may rely on it that he cares as little for
anything else, which does not directly concern himself or
his personal connexions. Whoever is capable of feeling
any common interest with his kind, or with his country, or
with his city, is interested in politics; and to be interested
in them, and not to wish for a voice in them is an impossi
bility. The possession and the exercise of political, and
among others of electoral rights, is one of the chief instru
ments both of moraland of intellectual training for the
popular mind ; and all governments must be regarded as
extremely imperfect, until every one who is required to
obey the laws, has a voice, or the prospect of a voice, in their
enactment and administration.”
One who is as keen to see as feeling to describe, * asks of
the British labourer, whose days are worn out in mine or
factory—
What end doth he fulfil ?
He seems without a will,
Stupid, unhelpful, helpless, age-worn man.
And this forsooth is all!
A plant or animal
Hath a more positive work to do than he:
Along his daily beat
Delighting in the heat
He crawls in sunshine which he dees not see.
What doth God get from him ?
His very mind is. dim,
Too weak to love, and too obtuse to fear
Is there glory in his strife ?
Is there meaning in his life ?
Can God hold such a thing-like person dear ?
:
"
He hath so long been old
His heart is close and 'Sold ;
He has no love to take no love to give:
Men almost wish him dead
’Twfflp best for him they said
'Twere such a weary sight to see him live.
The Rev. Dr. Faber.
■
�Situation.
27
He walks with painful stoop
As if life made him droap
And care had fastened fetters round his feet;
He sees no bright blue sky,
Except what meets his eye
Reflected in the rain pools in the street.
To whom is he of good ?
He sleeps and takes his food.
He uses the earth and air and kindles fire:
He bears to take relief
Less as a right than grief;
To what might such a soul as his aspire ?
Because the working class try to save, the harassing un
certainty of their efforts is overlooked and under estimated.
In a letter—if I may be permitted to quote it—which was
addressed to Mr. Gladstone, when his Annuities Bill was be
foreParliament, it was testified “thatthe English mechanics
are, as a rule, prudent where they have hopes. They will
save at any cost. I go into the houses of thousands where
the wan cheek of the wife, and the early asthma of the
husband, tell that it is an immoral thing to save,—they
ought to eat every halfpenny they can earn.” It is impos
sible to get public spirit out of this condition of things. A
yet worse condition remains.
During a quarter of a century that I have been accus
tomed to address public meetings, and to witness them ad
dressed by others, I declare that I never once heard an
audience of working men, applaud or personally respond to
any appeal to the glory of their country, or manifest any
feeling of pride in it or about it,—while there is not a back
woodsman, a pedlar, or a workman of the lowest degree,
who comes to Europe from America, who is not a proud
man when he speaks of his country. He has a personal in
terest in it. Its power and renown are part of his life.
The Englishman driven from his country, to better
his condition, has never felt a proud man on his own
shores. Pride in his country as being a part of its renown,
as being an agent in it, actually influencing its home go
*
vernment and foreign policy—is a dead sentiment in an
English working man. He may toil, he may fight, he may
shed his blood in his country’s battles in every part of the
world—he may defend its power with his life, but he
knows that his father at home will not be allowed a politi
cal vote.
In Guildhall, London, I have witnessed a middle class
orator turn to the statues there, and heard him invoke re
gard for that national renown which these warriors and
statesmen built up. Naturally the merchants and electors
responded to the appeal—they were a conscious part of
�28
The Liberal Situation.
that renown. In a meeting in which working men and
others (of the middle class) are present, slmiliar appeals
may be, or appear to be responded to by contagion of cheer
ing—but among working men, or by them, these appeals
are never introduced. Nobody thinks of them. No one
feels pride in that of which he has had no part, and from
the glory of which he has been designedly and contumeliously excluded. An American is a part of his Republic.
He owns some of its soil. He is one of its recognised citi
zens. He has something to say as to who shall be Gover
nor of his state or its Senator, and even President of his
nation ! The American boasts of his country with a per
sonal pride—he brags of it—but his very “ brag” has some
thing wholesome in it. In England a workman is nobody.
The utmost political privilege accorded to him is that of
hooting at a hustings while some one is elected who shall
tax his earnings in spite of him, and dispose of them with
out his consent. He is not within the pale of the constitu
tion. Six millions are thrust outside of it and kept out
side of it. If workmen assume as much manliness as to
clamour about it, the governing class say, “Oh, let them
clamour—they are only non-electors— they can’t do any
thing,” and with a political contempt, that is neither dis
guised nor concealed, they turn away from them. The
country, its government, its wealth, its power, its noble
constitution, its historic renown, its aristocracy, its middle
class, are thingsapart from the people—who exist by a sore
of sufferance —who are free by permission only—having no
recognition and no power. They receive at the utmost
the praise of useful cattle—their industry sometimes wins
them such commendation as might be bestowed on clever
monkeys, or they obtain the paternal approval given to po
litical children. If any one thinks this an overdrawn pic
ture let him remember that all praise of the people has
this sting in it—it is given to those who are never trusted
and never meant to be trusted.
We are accustomed in this country to allude to the con
dition of the slave, who, when he sets foot on English soil,
becomes free. 'In the same way and yet more honourably,
the Americans, the Canadians, and our Australian brethren
boast that the English labourer so soon as he becomes a re
sident in those lands, becomes enfranchised—
“ If his lungs breathe their air, that moment he is free,
He touches their country, and his shackles fall.”
He is admissable for the first time to the duties and dignity
of citizenship.
As to the effect of the Franchise in England, if extended
�’The Liberal Situation.
29
universally without conditions, there is not the slightest
ground for fear except on the part of those who seek to
extend it. The Englishman is Conservative down to
the Costermonger. The very populace are Tory in heart.
The first effect of universal suffrage in England would he
that we should have more gentlemen and Lords returned
to the House of Commons than ever. Colonels and per
sons of wealth and title would at once go up in the Elec
toral scale. For a time constitutional prejudice and bi
gotry would prevail. The clergyman and the squire would
reign, and liberty would very likely go back in England—
but it would be for the last time. National education
would become a political necessity, experience in freedom
would be acquired, and liberty would one day rest on
broader and surer foundations than in any country in the
world. There would arise an aristocracy of merit whom
all would honour, and wealth instead of looking like a frau
dulent exception would be regarded as a sign of the common
triumph of competence. The moment an Englishman is
endowed with power he becomes a new creature. Pipe
clay a country boor and pronounce over him the magic
shibboleth of “duty”—catch a wild mechanic or a turbu
lent prize-fighter, and buckle a policeman’s strap round
him, and henceforth he personates devotion to the death
and becomes possessed of a ludicrous and inconvenient
passion for propriety and order. The English nature which
yields only thistles on the exposed common of exclusion,
is no sooner admitted to cultivation, in some authorised
enclosure, than it is fruitful in flowers of' established
tints. The riotous Radicals enfranchised in 18B2, have
for years set up a more dismal and protracted shriek
against Reform, than ever the Boroughmongers set up
against them. He who scratches a Radical in power will
find a Whig under his skin. Half of them are screaming
out against a transfer of power. The thing is perfectly
impossible in England. Universal suffrage would neither
disturb nor desire to disturb the influence of family, wealth
and learning. And when it attains to intelligent action
(if it should ever be permitted to exist) the multitudinous
collision of its interests and opinions will effectually prevent
the people acting as a class. But it is idle for the people
*
thus to argue their right to enfranchisement. You may
find in the invaluable writings of Toulmin Smith historical
arguments irrefutable, to prove that we ask merely for the
* See a letter on this point by Mr. S. C. Kell, of Bradford.—
“ Daily News,” Feb., 1865.
�3°
T'he Liberal Situation.
restoration of ancient rights. Those who now garrison
the constitution care nothing for what was. They don’t
like Democracy and don’t intend to pass any measure in
favour of it—and there’s an end of it. After 30 years of
failure in reasoning with successive Parliaments he must
be logic-mad who thinks to win Reform by it. A woman’s
reason “I will have it, because I will" is, if accompanied
by a woman’s resolution, worth all other arguments now,
And if intelligence proceeds among women, they are likely
to insist with more zeal than men, upon being included
in the franchise to which they have undoubtely an equal
right. An aristocracy of sex is quite as offensive and more
injurious than an aristocracy of rank.
Professor Newman, whose sympathies and position na
turally connect him with the higher and cultured classes,
has witnessed of late years such complicity of sympathy
on the part of the aristocracy and governing class of Eng
land with the despots of Europe, and those who seek to
ally Republicanism permanently with slavery in America,
that he has borne the important testimony that the best
interests of liberty, morality, and progress, are most likely
to be promoted by the Democracy, and may be advantage
ously and safely entrusted to them. *
It will be well when constituencies set their faces against
mere rich men or men of title as such, but who have never
done anything. The only ground on which any one ought to
be permitted to enter Parliament is that he shall have done
some service or acquired some distinction showing interest
in and capacity for national affairs. Now a man who has
a title or great wealth, but who never did anything for the
people, who does not know how to do it and does not wish to
know, is preferred by constituences to those who by thought,
or toil, or sacrifice, have regarded the public welfare as
higher than their own. Until the people set their faces
against these showy, worthless, and base candidates, and
personally and publicly despise every elector who votes for
them, there will be no Reform in this country.
So long as the tread of a foreign master presses the soil
of Italy, no Italian, thinks himself free. The Unity of his
country is his first thought. His trade interests as a
workman are subordinate to his efforts after national inde
pendence. So in England the first thought of all work
men should be enfrachisement. Until a man is one of the
nation—has a voice in its affairs—is one of those whose
- * Vide—The Permissive Bill more urgent than Parliamentary
Enfranchisement, by F. W. Newman.
�The Liberal Situation.
31
views must be counted—who is taken into the national con
sultation—he is enslaved.
Earl Bussell has just told us in his Essay on the English
Constitution, that he differs from those who hold that “ the
right of voting is a personal privilege possessed by every
man of sound mind and years of discretion as an inherent
inalienable right.” He holds that “the purpose to be at
tained is good government, the freedom within the State
and their security from without,” and he would stop the
suffrage at the point which promised this. This is the
pure paternal theory, very benevolent, and very offensive.
There requires no enlargement of the suffrage to accom
plish this —for good government here may mean merely
that sort of government which those who govern deem
good: anyhow, should those who are governed differ in
opinion as to what is good for them, they will have no
power to help themselves under the operation of this
theory. There is no popular party now who'rest its claims
on Whig words of “personal privilege,” or talk'of “in
alienable rights.” The people having given up banding
the terms of political metaphysics. They look at the mat
ter of enfranchisement in a far more practical way. They
do not ask for the vote as a “ personal privilege'” they seek
it as a means of discharging a public duty. Every person
in a state is responsible for what goes on in the state,
whether good or evil is done it comes home to him and to
his children, and it is his interest and duty to see that what
is done is what it should be. There is bilt one right, that
of doing one’s duty. Whether the right of voting is “ in
alienable” or not is of no consequence? The right of go
verning is not “ inalienable” in any Whig, nor in the mid
dle class who have all acquired it. Let the people acquire
the same thing and no one will raise the “inalienable”
question.
No politicians, with few exceptions, now cafe for anybody
but th emselves. Their whole skill consists in giving reasons
why they should hold the privileges dr places they have,
and why no one else could be safely entrusted with them.
That member of government is deemed most valuable who
finds out the most plausible reason for doing nothing, or
who can best delay the fulfilment, or best defend the breach
of a promise, and this is the whole art of English states
manship which we are called upon to reverence as good
government.
It is quite true we have a great edifice of liberty in
this country—we have a certain amount of good govern
ment, and I can sympathise with and respect those who
�32
The Liberal Situation.
are reluctant to risk it. The whole force of these reasoners
would, be given on the side of enfranchisement were it ac-.
companied by protective conditions. “ Good government”
would not and need not be risked.
The National Reform Union of Manchester does propose
an extension of the suffrage “to every householder or
lodger rated or liable to be rated for the relief of the poor.”
A bill which included all this, would do, and would end
the agitation. But there is no such bill drawn. There is
no member who would introduce it. Nor is there any pro
bability of carrying it. The union gives no sign of prepa
ration or persistency for carrying it. It would require a
revolution to carry it. The union does not mean this. It
does not even confront, nor even discuss the grounds of
opposition to such a bill.
Its programme runs
in the old, tiresome, tame, wearying, struggling,
discouraging, Radical rut.
It proposes a suffrage
without guarantees for its qualified action. It gives to the
working class the numerical majority. I am not one who
believe that the working class would ever vote down the
men of property and education. But they might do so.
No absolute guarantee can be given that they never would
do so, and the men of property and intelligence would
have, if this bill passed, to trust to this event not occur
ring. They would hold their liberty and interests on suf
ferance. They would be in the same position in which the
unenfranchised now are. Objecting myself to hold my
liberty on sufferance, I should be most reluctant to put
this risk on the educated and wealthy class. No class
ought to be putin this position. No class ought to submit
to it. Now this is the real dilemma which exists. This
dilemma the National Reform Union neither recognizes
nor provides for. This formidable difficulty no Radical
orator meets. This is why the Reform question stagnates
and remains where it is. Everybody at times feels this
difficulty, yet no one on the side of Radical Reform dares
look it in the face, ox has the courage to state it, or attempt
to meet it. How can it be met except by adopting Mr.
Mill’s proposal of giving the wealthy and educated classes
the protection of cumulative votes ? or by acting on Earl
Grey’s suggestion of giving to the unenfranchised classes
a special number of members who should share in the re
presentation without swamping it ? Liberal M. P. ’s and the
Liberal press appear to have set their faces against such
indispensable plans, caricaturing them as “ fancy franchises”
as though a vast and Protective Suffrage, which obviated
an overwhelming difficulty, could be so described? It has
�The Liberal Situation.
33
been assumed that the opinion of the people is against any
such plan, whereas the opinion of the people has never yet
been taken upon it. No meeting of the people, no Reform
Union has ever yet discussed anything of the kind, except
ing some dozen meetings which the present writer has ad
dressed, when very favourable attention has been uniformly
given to the subject. I know towns where ardent Re
formers are themselves afraid of an Unqualified Suffrage.
Good Radicals, the most thorough of their class, have said to
me, “ There is a mob in our town [there is in every town],
ignorant, selfish, venal, and reckless of principle : had they
all votes, our present Liberal members would be unseated
at the next election. They would vote against those who
seek to raise them.” This is a general feeling in Liberal
boroughs. Now there is no plan of £6 suffrage which
selects the worthy and excludes the base. ■ All £6 suffrage
is blind ; and hence we have Radicals arguing feebly and
fearing much the results of the very measure they plead
for. Surely this is political imbecility. This is the real
dilemma which ought to be put an< end to by adopting a
plan of protective suffrage, of which the only opponents are
Radicals whose policy has long undergone petrifaction.
Our Liberal members, to use the wholesome/ language of
the Daily News, “have done their best to emasculate
politics and make it the hollow unprincipled thing it now
is; a miserable game from which men are feeling, that they
must retire out of sheer disgust.” At the request of a
Liberal M.P. I went recently to the best-informed and most
reliable working-class leaders of the old school to ascertain
whether they would move Reform-wards. Their decisive
answer was, “ Let those who think something ought to be
done do it. We have no more belief in Members, of Par
liament. If our vote could unseat a Liberal at the next
election it would constitute our only interest in giving it.”
Mr. Bright, Mr. P. A. Taylor, and other leaders who can
be trusted, have consistently acquiesced in a demand for
“ manhood” suffrage. It is quite necessary that the people
form their own opinions as to the kind of Reform Bill to
be demanded, and ask for no blind or wild measure, but
for a universal and Qualified Suffrage, and then the vexa
tion, not to say outrage, of “ partial” enfranchisement will
sink into the category of “fancy” futilities. Taking care
that they are practical, and sure that they are reasonable,
the people may take courage and be resolute.
Mr. Baines, M.P., has injudiciously cut up the Reform
Bill into pieces, with a view to introduce the “ thin end of
the wedge” into the House. There is no assembly in the
�34
The Liberal Situation.
world with a sharper eye for thin ends of wedges than the
House of Commons. You can’t “ dodge” Parliament, and
it makes the people look foolish when they are represented
as trying it. Bad as the House is, there is more to hope
from its treatment of a bold and open demand, than from
its acquiescence in small dexterity.
Mr. Todd, of Gateshead, has shown in the Newcastle
Chronicle, from a practical knowledge of the working of
the suffrage, that Mr. Baines’ Bill based on rate-paying
would be as fraudulent as Lord Russell’s was. As Mr. R.
B. Reed expresses it, an £8 suffrage without a rate-paying
clause would be of more value than a £6 suffrage with it.
Mr Cobden has serviceably approved Mr. Todd’s proposal
of basing the suffrage on moderate house-tax, which would
put an end to all evasion and deception, and also to those
modern nuisances—Revising Barristers’ Courts.
Earl Grey is good enough to say in his volume, already
referred to, that “Reform cannot be much longer delayed.”
It is quite a gratuitous remark. Reform can be delayed.
It can be refused with more safety now than at any time
since 1832. The people are disarmed, demoralised, and
impotent. Gentlemen do not care for Reform. Members of
Parliament have coute to an understanding to frustrate it.
The Cabinet intend to evade it. It can be safely disre
garded, and the governing classes know it.
After the tone in which Earl Grey’s work has been
spoken of by the liberal press, I was surprised to find it
well written, very instructive, and fair in spirit. Whoever
breaks the fatal and demoralising silence on the Reform
question is to be regarded. We have no apostolate of poli
tical freedom in England now. There is more honest and
honourable thought for the black slave in America than
for the white workman in England. The negroes will be
come part of the “ territorial democracy” before a sixth
part of our countrymen will be deemed eligible for a £6
franchise.
Both Earl Grey and Earl Russell hold to one principle,
that the franchise is to be treated merely as a means of
“good government”—a principle which renders any fran
chise needless, provided the governing class condescend
to behave well. The Emperor of the French governs
without any franchise now—for that he substitutes ma
terial comfort. The French people are treated in theory as
political swine. Their styes are repaired—they are given
clean straw, their troughs are filled with paternal wash, and
they are provided with a History of Julius Caesar to read:
what more can they want—what more could the franchise
�The Liberal Situation.
35
do for them ? This is the actual consideration urged by
the Times and the opponents of the franchise upon the
people of England; and despicable as it is, it is the argu
ment of the greatest force, of the most constant recurrence
and popularity among us.
There was dignity in sedition, conspiracy itself was a
proof of manliness compared with this base temper and in
action inculcated upon the people of England. The voices
of O‘Connor and Ernest Jones were far nobler and wholesomer than this. Had we had of late years men who knew
how to die for freedom as they have had in Italy, we should
now be in a different position. It is better to be feared
than despised.
Nothing remains now but for the people to take their
own affairs into their own hands, with singleness of purpose
and fixed resolution to carry their own ends themselves.
All hope in Parliament has long been over. Trust in
members or the promises of Cabinets is a delusion and a
snare. There must be advocacy and organisation. If it
could be shown that violence can carry their objects it would
be perfectly right to employ it. Those who are refused
political recognition in a state, owe no allegiance to it. It
may be imprudent, it may be disastrous to think of vio
lence, but that is a mere question of policy. The necessity
of resorting to some form of force, moral or physical, is
unquestionable. There is an end of political responsibility
where the right of political existence is denied. The tone
of Parliament towards the unenfranchised, admits of no
mistake as to its resolute defiance. If the people are found
to be ignorant they are said to be unfit—if intelligent they
are declared to be dangerous—if they clamour they are to
be resisted—if silent to be disregarded—if feeble and with
out organisation to be despised— if strong they are to be
put down by force. What can it matter what they do
while they are thus treated. To make themselves judi
ciously disagreeable is their only chance of redress. After
fifty years of boasted progress, the maxim of Bentham still
remains true, that “ there is no Reform possible in Eng
land until you make the ruling powers uneasy.” Without
enfranchisement not of a few merely, but of the whole who
are honest and industrious, there is no political life; with
out the franchise there is no political existence ; belief in
it should be the one faith, and the pursuit of it the one
objeot of the working class. No trade interest should be
regarded but as secondary; any form of social liberty
should be held as subordinate; mere material comfort
should be despised in comparison with this. No one should
�36
The Liberal Situation.
be listened to who stands in the ^ay of enfranchisement,
no workman should cease to recent as an act of personal
outrage every attempt to delay the attainment of it. It
should never be forgotten that no one is regarded in poli
tics except those who possess themselves of the means, and
show the intention of enforcing their own claims.
I subscribe myself a Member of the Northern Reform
Union, which has never departed from the sound doctrine
that it is the people of England who require enfranchise
ment, and that the people axe not a class.
G. J. HOLYOAKE.
282, Strand, London, W.C.,
Maroh 24,1865.
w-< ■. <0
PAMPHLETS
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
The Workman and the Suffrage—Letters on
An Intelligence Franchise (1858) .
•
The Public Lesson
of
The Hangman
.
.
4th
id.
NEWCASTLE OH-TTSS I PRINTED AT THE " DAILY CHRONICLE" OTFICE.
�
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 liberal situation necessity for a qualified franchise, a letter to Joseph Cowen, Jun.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, G. J.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 36 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Includes bibliographical references.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
London Bookstore
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1865]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5218
Subject
The topic of the resource
Liberalism
Suffrage
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 liberal situation necessity for a qualified franchise, a letter to Joseph Cowen, Jun.), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Joseph Cowen
Liberal Party (Great Britain)
Liberalism
Suffrage
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cd4f89d5a9eb142348ce83cbdb3e571b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=j-JvIxc3vRdWgUPTPdz%7E09ykQX2JR4e%7EqiH%7EkmHxQ6l00ppNe5IPp0umtrpWRp0Ld9dQj86hVCnOcql8DymIE7mrCZVvQZc%7EgNZ62fQDWz9VoLqxE2-cxZo8um00W9mhu1hEwrZKowZriu2cmEdTvU2w9OkoGtOr%7EYx3plbUAFfUz7b8-hxFUr5ZD4ekD9YxQ4-3yoj3ZdTllrL54g3L7tuT82C8DaGJ6y3xM5Fn91JkvpuYSnlsrz-SzLUnD6lmtaH4n2yQshFUToJcfFooB1ymikfMd%7EyBr1SGOQ4YDlRF-r03aZLB0UwPOxAna1kphzcbKB1HGjAmIZyhYyukMA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
34b0379aee51fcf95b2df4e35fbe578e
PDF Text
Text
THE THREE
PHILANTHROPISTS
BY
ROBERT G. INGERSOLL
Price Twopence,
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.O.
1892.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
28
STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�The Three Philanthropists
By Robert Gr. Ingersoll.
I.
“ Well, while I am a beggar, I will rail,
And say there is no sin but to be rich.”
Mr. A. lived in the kingdom of------ -.
He was a
sincere professional philanthropist. He was absolutely
certain that he loved his fellow men, and that his
views were humane and scientific. He concluded to
turn his attention to taking care of people less fortunate
than himself.
With this object in view he investigated the common
people that lived about him, and he found that they
were extremely ignorant, that many of them seemed
to take no particular interest in life or in business,
that few of them had any theories of their own, and
that, while many had muscle, there was only now and
then one who had any mind worth speaking of. Nearly
all of them were destitute of ambition. They were
satisfied if they got something to eat, a place to sleep,
and could now and then indulge in some form of
dissipation. They seemed to have great confidence in
to-morrow—trusted to luck, and took no thought for
the future. Many of them were extravagant, most of
them dissipated, and a good many dishonest.
Mr. A. found that many of the husbands not only
failed to support their families, but that some of them
lived on the labor of their wives; that many of the
wives were careless of their obligations, knew nothing
�4
The Three Philanthropists.
about the art of cooking, nothing of keeping house 1
and that parents, as a general thing, neglected their
children or treated them with cruelty. He also founj
that many of the people were so shiftless that they died
of want and exposure.
After having obtained this information, Mr. A. made
up his mind to do what little he could to better theif
condition. He petitioned the king to assist him, and
asked that he be allowed to take control of five hundred
people in consideration that he would pay a certain
amount into the treasury of the kingdom. The king,
being satisfied that Mr. A. could take care of these
people better than they were taking care of themselves,
granted the petition.
Mr. A., with the assistance of a few soldiers, took
these people from their old homes and haunts to a
plantation of his own. He divided them into groups,
and over each group placed a superintendent. He
made certain rules and regulations for their conduct.
They were only compelled to work from twelve to
fourteen hours a day, leaving ten hours for sleep and
recreation. Good and substantial food was provided.
Their houses were confortable and their clothing
sufficient. Their work was laid out from day to day
and from month to month, so that they knew exactly
what they were to do in each hour of every day.
These rules were made for the good of the people, to
the end that they might not interfere with each other,
that they might attend to their duties, and enjoy
themselves in a reasonable way. They were not
allowed to waste their time, or to use stimulants or
profane language. They were told to be respectful to
the superintendents, and especially to Mr. A.; to be
obedient, and, above all, to accept the position in which
Providence had placed them, without complaining, and
to cheerfully perform their tasks.
Mr. A. had found out all that the five hundred
persons had earned the year before they were taken
control of by him—just how much they had added to
�The Three Philanthropists.
5
the wealth of the world. He had statistics taken for
the year before with great care showing the number of
deaths, the cases of sickness and of destitution, the
number who had committed suicide, how many had
been convicted of crimes and misdemeanors, how many
days they had been idle, and how much time and money
they had spent in drink and for worthless amusements.
During the first year of their enslavement he kept
like statistics. He found that they had earned several
times as much ; that there had been no cases of desti
tution, no drunkenness; that no crimes had been
committed; that there had been but little sickness,
owing to the regular course of their lives; that few
bad been guilty of misdemeanors, owing to the certainty
of punishment; and that they had been so watched
and superintended that for the most part they had
travelled the highway of virtue and industry.
Mr. A. was delighted, and with a vast deal of pride
showed these statistics to his friends. He not only
demonstrated that the five hundred people were better
off than they had been before, but that his own income
was very largely increased. He congratulated himself
that he had added to the well-being of these people
not only, but had laid the foundation of a great fortune
for himself. On these facts and these figures he
claimed not only to be a philanthropist, but a philo
sopher ; and all the people who had a mind to go into
the same business agreed with him.
Some denounced the entire proceeding as unwar
ranted, as contrary to reason and justice. These
insisted that the five hundred people had a right to live
in their own way, provided they did not interfere with
others; that they had the right to go through the
world with little food and with poor clothes, and to
live in huts, if such was their choice. But Mr. A. had
no trouble in answering these objectors. He insisted
that well-being is the only good, and that every human
being is under obligation, not only to take care of him
self, but to do what little he can towards taking care of
�6
The Three Philanthropists.
others; that where five hundred people neglect to take
care of themselves, it is the duty of somebody else,
who has more intelligence and more means, to take care
of them; that the man who takes five hundred people
and improves their condition, gives them on the average
better food, better clothes, and keeps them out of
mischief, is a benefactor.
“These people,” said Mr. A., “were tried. They
were found incapable of taking care of themselves.
They lacked intelligence, or will, or honesty, or industry,
or ambition, or something, so that in the struggle for
existence they fell behind, became stragglers, dropped
by the wayside, died in gutters; while many were
destined to end their days eithei’ in dungeons or on
scaffolds. Besides all this, they were a nuisance to
their prosperous fellow citizens, a perpetual menace to
the peace of society. They increased the burden of
taxation; they filled the ranks of the criminal classes,
they made it necessary to build more jails, to employ
more policemen and judges ; so that I, by enslaving
them, not only assisted them, not only protected them
against themselves, not only bettered theii’ condition,
not only added to the well-being of society at large,
but greatly increased my own fortune.”
Mr. A. also took the ground that Providence, by
giving him superior intelligence, the genius of command,
the aptitude of taking charge of others, had made it
his duty to exercise these faculties for the well-being
of the people and for the glory of God. Mr. A. fre
quently declared that he was God’s steward. He often
said he thanked God that he was not governed by a
sickly sentiment, but that he was a man of sense, of
judgment, of force of character, and that the means
employed by him were in accordance with the logic of
facts.
Some of the people thus enslaved objected, saying
that they had the same right to control themselves that
Mr. A. had to control himself. But it only required a
little discipline to satisfy them that they were wrong.
�The Three Philanthropists.
1
Some of the people were quite happy, and declared
that nothing gave them such perfect contentment as
the absence of all responsibility. Mr. A. insisted that
all men had not been endowed with the same capacity ;
that the weak ought to be cared for by the strong;
that such was evidently the design of the Creator, and
that he intended to do what little he could to carry
that design into effect.
Mr. A. was very successful. In a few. years he had
several thousands of men, women, and children working
for him. He amassed a large fortune. He felt that
he had been intrusted with this money by Providence.
He therefore built several churches, and once in a
while gave large sums to societies for the spread of
civilisation. He passed away regretted by a great
many people—not including those who had lived under
his immediate administration. He was buried with
great pomp, the king being one of the pall-bearers,
and on his tomb was this:
HE WAS THE PROVIDENCE OF THE POOR.
�8
The Three Philanthropists.
II.
“ And, being rich, my virtue then ehall be
To say there is no vice but beggary.”
Mr. B. did not believe in slavery.. He despised the
institution with every drop of his blood, and was an
advocate of universal freedom. He held all of the
ideas of Mr. A. in supreme contempt, and frequently
spent whole evenings in denouncing the inhumanity and
injustice of the whole business. He even went so far
as to contend that many of A.’s slaves had more intel
ligence than A. himself, and that, whether they had
intelligence or not, they had the right to be free. He
insisted that Mr. A.’s philanthropy was a sham ; that
he never bought a human being for the purpose of
bettering that being’s condition ; that he went into
the business simply to make money for himself; and
that his talk about his slaves committing less crime
than when they were free was simply to justify the
crime committed by himself in enslaving his fellow-men.
Mr. B. was a manufacturer, and he employed some
five or six thousand men. He used to say that these
men were not forced to work for him; that they were
at perfect liberty to accept or reject the terms ; that,
so far as he was concerned, he would just as soon
commit larceny or robbery as to force a man to work
for him. “ Every laborer under my roof,” he used to
say, “ is as free to choose as I am.”
Mr. B. believed in absolutely free trade; thought it
an outrage to interfere with the free interplay of
forces; said that every man should buy, or at least
have the privilege of buying, where he could buy
cheapest, and should have the privilege of selling where
he could get the most. He insisted that a man who
has labor to sell has the right to sell it to the best ad
vantage, and that the purchaser has the right to buy
it at the lowest price. He did not enslave men—he
hired them. Some said that he took advantage of their
necessities, but he answered that he created no neces-
�The Three Philanthropists.
9
sities, that he was not responsible for their condition-,
that he did not make them poor, that he found them
poor and gave them work, and gave them the same
wages that he could employ others for. He insisted
that he was absolutely just to all; he did not give one
man more than another, and he never refused to employ
a man on account of the man’s religion or politics; all
that he did was simply to employ that man if the man
wished to be employed, and give him the wages, no
more and no less, that some other man of like capacity
was willing to work for.
Mr. B. also said that the price of the article manu
factured by him fixed the wages of the persons em
ployed, and that he, Mr. B., was not responsible for the
price of the article he manufactured; consequently he
was not responsible for the wages of the workmen.
He agreed to pay them a certain price, he taking the
risk of selling his articles, and he paid them regularly
just on the day he agreed to pay them, and if they
were not satisfied with the wages, they were at perfect
liberty to leave. One of his private sayings was, “ The
pool’ ye have always with you.” And from this he
argued that some men were made poor so that others
could be generous. “ Take poverty and suffering from
the world,” he said, “ and you destroy sympathy and
generosity.”
Mr. B. made a large amount of money. Many of
his workmen complained that their wages did not allow
them to live in comfort. Many had large families, and
therefore but little to eat. Some of them lived in
crowded rooms. Many of the children were carried off
by disease; but Mr. B. took the ground that all these
people had the right to go, that he did not force them
to remain, that if they were not healthy it was not his
fault, and that whenever it pleased Providence to
remove a child, or one of Lhe parents, he, Mr. B., was
not responsible.
Mr. B. insisted that many of his workmen were
extravagant; that they bought things that they did not
�10
The Three Philanthropists.
Qeecl; that they wasted in beer and tobacco money
that they should save for funerals; that many of them
visited places of amusement when they should have
been thinking about death, and that others bought
toys to please the children when they hardly had bread
enough to eat. He felt that he was in no way account
able for this extravagance, nor for the fact that their
wages did not give them the necessaries of life, because
he not only gave them the same wages that other
manufacturers gave, but the same wages that other
workmen were willing to work for.
Mr. B. said—and he always said this as though it
ended the argument—and he generally stood up to say
it: “ The great law of supply and demand is of divine
origin; it is the only law that will work in all possible
or conceivable cases ; and this law fixes the price of all
labor, and from it there is no appeal. If people are
not satisfied with the operation of this law, then let
them make a new world for themselves.”
Some of Mr. B/s friends reported that on several
occasions, forgetting what he had said on others, he did
declare that his confidence was somewhat weakened in
the law of supply and demand; but this was only
when there seemed to be an over-production of the
things he was engaged in manufacturing, and at such
times he seemed to doubt the absolute equity of the
great law.
Mr. B. made even a larger fortune than Mr. A.,
because when his workmen got old he did not have to
care for them, when they were sick he paid no doctors,
and when their children died he bought no coffins. In
this way he was relieved of a large part of the expenses
that had to be borne by Mr. A. When his workmen
became too old, they were sent to the poor-house;
when they were sick, they were assisted by charitable
societies ; and when they died, they were buried by
pity.
In a few years Mr. B. was the owner of many
millions. He also considered himself as one of God's
�The Three Philanthropists.
H
stewards; felt that Providence had given him the
intelligence to combine interests, to carry out great
schemes, and that he was specially raised up to give
employment to many thousands of people. He often
regretted that he could do no more for his laborers
without lessening his own profits, or, rather, without
lessening his fund for the blessing of mankind the
blessing to begin immediately after his death. He was
so anxious to be the providence of posterity that he was
sometimes almost heartless in his dealings with contem
poraries. He felt that it was necessary for him to be
economical, to save every dollar that he could, because
in this way he could increase the fund that was finally
to bless mankind. He also felt that in this way he could
lay the foundations of a permanent fame—that he could
build, through his executors, an asylum to be called
the “ B. Asylum,” that he could fill a building with
books to be called the “ B. Library,” and that .he could
also build and endow an institution of learning to be
called the “ B. College,” and that, in addition, a large
amount of money could be given for the purpose of
civilising the citizens of less fortunate countries, to the
end that they might become imbued with that spirit of
combination and manufacture that results in putting
large fortunes in the hands of those who have been
selected by Providence, on account of their talents, to
make a better distribution of wealth than those who
earned it could have done.
Mr. B. spent many thousands of dollars to procure
such legislation as would protect him from foreign com
petition. He did not believe the law of supply and
demand would work when interfered with by manufac
turers living in othei’ countries.
Mr. B., like Mr. A., was a man of judgment. He
had what is called a level head, was not easily turned
aside from his purpose, and felt that he was in accord
with the general sentiment of his time. By his own
exertions he rose from poverty to wealth. He was
born in a hut and died in a palace. He was a patron
�12
The Three Philanthropists.
of art and enriched his walls with the works of the
masters.. He insisted that others could and should
follow his example. For those who failed or refused he
had no sympathy. He accounted for their poverty and
wretchedness by saying: “These paupers have only
themselves to blame.” He died without ever having
lost a dollar. His funeral was magnificent, and clergy
men vied with each other in laudations of the dead,
over his dust rises a monument of marble with the
words:
HE LIVED FOR OTHERS.
III.
“ But there are men who steal, and vainly try
To gild the crime with pompous charity.”
There was another man, Mr. C., who also had the
genius for combination. He understood the value of
capital, the value of labor; knew exactly how much
could.be done with machinery ; understood the economy
of things ; knew how to do everything in the easiest
and shortest way. And he, too, was a manufacturer
and had in his employ many thousands of men, women,
and children. He was what is called a visionary, a
sentimentalist, rather weak in his will, not very
obstinate, had but little egotism ; and it never occurred
to him that he had been selected by Providence, or any
supernatural power, to divide the property of others.
It did not seem to him that he had any right to take
�The Three Philanthropists.
13
from other men their labor without giving them a full
equivalent. He felt that if he had more intelligence
than his fellow men he ought to use that intelligence
not only for his own good but for theirs ; that he cer
tainly ought not to use it for the purpose of gaining an
advantage over those who were his intellectual inferiors.
He used to say that a man strong intellectually had no
more right to take advantage of a man weak intellec
tually than the physically strong had to rob the physi
cally weak.
He also insisted that we should not take advantage
of each other’s necessities; that you should not ask a
drowning man a greater price for lumber than you
would if he stood on the shore; that if you took into
consideration the necessities of your fellow man, it
should be only to lessen the price of that which you
would sell to him, not to increase it. He insisted that
honest men do not take advantage of their fellows.
He was so weak that he had not perfect confidence in
the great law of supply and demand as applied to flesh
and blood. He took into consideration another law of
supply and demand: he knew that the working man
had to be supplied with food, and that his nature
demanded something to eat, a house to live in, clothes
to wear.
Mr. C. used to think about this law of supply and
demand as applicable to individuals. He found that
men would work for exceedingly small wages when
pressed for the necessaries of life; that under some
circumstances they would give theii’ labor for half of
what it was worth to the employer, because they were
in a position where they must do something for wife
or child. He concluded that he had no right to take
advantage of the necessities of others, and that he
should in the first place honestly find what the work
was worth to him, and then give to the man who did
the work that amount.
Other manufacturers regarded Mr. C. as substan
tially insane, whilst most of his workmen looked upon
�14
The Three Philanthropists.
him as an exceedingly good-natured man, without any
particular genius for business. Mr. C., however, cared
little about the opinions of others, so long as he main
tained his respect for himself.
At the end of the first year he found that he had
made a large profit, and thereupon he divided this
profit with the people who had earned it. Some
of his friends said to him that he ought to endow
some public institution; that there should be a college
in his native town ; but Mr. C. was of such a peculiar
turn of mind that he thought justice ought to go before
charity, and a little in front of egotism and a desire to
immortalise one’s self. He said that it seemed to him
that of all persons in the world entitled to this profit
were the men who had earned it, and the men who had
made it by their labor, by days of actual toil. He
insisted that, as they had earned it, it was really theirs,
and if it was theirs, they should have it and should
spend it in their own way.
Mr. C. was told that he would make the workmen in
other factories dissatisfied, that other manufacturers
would become his enemies, and that his course would
scandalise some of the greatest men who had done so
much for the civilisation of the world and for the
spread of intelligence. Mr. C. became extremely un
popular with men of talent, with those who had a
genius for business. He, however, pursued his way,
and carried on his business with the idea that the men
who did the work were entitled to a fair share of the
profits ; that, after all, money was not as sacred as
men, and that the law of supply and demand, as under
stood, did not apply to flesh and blood.
Mi*. C. said : “ I cannot be happy if those who work
for me are defrauded. If I feel I am taking what
belongs to them, then my life becomes miserable. To
feel that I have done justice is one of the necessities
of my nature. I do not wish to establish colleges. I
wish to establish no public institution. My desire is
to enable those who work for me to establish a few
�The Three Philanthropists.
15
thousand homes for themselves. My ambition is to
enable them to buy the books they ready want to read.
I do not wish to establish a hospital, but I want
to make it possible for my workmen to have
the services of the best physicians physicians
of their own choice. It is not for me to take
their money and use it for the good of others or for
my own glory. It is for me to give what they have
earned to them. After I have given them the money
that belongs to them, I can give them. my advice—I
can tell them how I hope they will use it; and after I
have advised them, they will use it as they please. You
cannot make great men and great women by suppres
sion. Slavery is not the school in which genius is born.
Every human being must make his own mistakes for
himself, must learn for himself, must have his own ex
perience ; and if the world improves, it must be from
choice, not from force; and every man who does justice,
who sets the example of fair dealing, hastens the coming
of universal honesty, of universal civilisation.”
Mr. C. carried his doctrine out to the fullest extent,
honestly and faithfully. When he died, there .were at
the funeral those who had worked for him, their wives
and their children. Their tears fell upon his grave.
They planted flowers and paid to him the tribute of
their love. Above his silent dust they erected a monu
ment with this inscription :
HE ALLOWED OTHERS TO LIVE FOR THEMSELVES.
�WORKS BY COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
... 1 o
Superior edition, in cloth ...
...
... 1 g
Only Complete Edition published in England.
DEFENCE OF FREETHOUGHT
...
... 0 6
Five Hours’ Speech at the Trial of 0. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE. With a Biography by
J. M. Wheeler ...
...
...
.. 0 4
ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning 0 4
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
........................ 0 3
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN ............... 0 3
FAITH AND FACT. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field
... 0 2
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field
... 0 2
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
...
... 0 2
LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi 0 2
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION
...
... 0 2
A Discussion with Hon. F. D. Coudert and
Gov. S. L. Woodford
THE DYING CREED
.
o 2
DO I BLASPHEME ?
...
....................0 2
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE
... 0 2
SOCIAL SALVATION
...
...
... 0 2
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ...
...
0 2
GOD AND THE STATE
...
...
... 0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ?
...
... 0 2
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II.
... 0 2
ART AND MORALITY
...
...
... 0 2
CREEDS AND SPIRITUALITY
...
0 1
CHRIST AND MIRACLES . .
...
... 0 1
THE GREAT MISTAKE
...
...
... 0 1
LIVE TOPICS
.
0 1
MYTH AND MIRACLE
. .
...
0 1
REAL BLASPHEMY
...
...
... 0 1
REPAIRING THE IDOLS ...
...
... 0 1
“ THE FREETHINKER,” the only penny Freethought
paper in England; sixteen pages; edited by G. W. Footk.
Published every Thursday. Should be read by all reformers
and lovers of progress.
R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, London, E.O.
�
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 three philanthropists
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Works by Colonel R.G. Ingersoll listed on back cover. Reprinted from North American Review Vol. 153. December 1891. No. 79a in Stein checklist.
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
1892
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N403
Subject
The topic of the resource
Liberalism
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 three philanthropists), 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
Liberalism
NSS
Press