1
10
10
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5a2122b15ce17a37506ae3cdc43c2769.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=S0afZbqMqa4OT1mCnMr%7EST4LgfPq4gCoqr9AZ-tIMVSMnHokfT0833l9GVEBi-WzSO0nVfVfjJSUhNbKY8pFFNw2yqe5Ac28DFlTXFjbz2YJTv8oNi4slM%7EukC3F5Aq9geXv%7E-iPwbs3crF7Hdwpczy0enP035oGfMBKrNKwcU5Y26Clz-TadmLDGLpFVlVm50wMOSOSavV%7EIERe6d1dK8BUIOO08RY6xTyj7gaIFT7p-ATrKK%7EB2YwH0ABM-FFmIulBeA-BLTwyJTBDkSVEjtavkh9ab4Y7kODn9uVrZ1Z4zDaqvyLFC%7Ep%7EhgfS52mxfbj81WInObJuEIKhLRdZGg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7580a57627d958ad71e09f53517e027a
PDF Text
Text
Enlarged (140th Thousand)
0^1 NATIONAL secular society
tty
Includes the Bradlaugh, Foote, and “ Freethinkt
Mr. Varley’s letter to the Electors of Nortl
Mr. BRADLAUGH Proved I
Unfit to Represent any English Cons
IND.
>NLY,
AN APPEAL
rime,
wing
TO THE
MEN OF ENGLAND
By HENRY VARLEY
Mr. Bradlaugh asks the sympathy of his fellow countrymen concerning
his rejection by the House of Commons. I remind him that he merits
their sternest reprobation and opposition. He thinks to trade upon their
lack of knowledge. He shall not da it. I challenged him three years
since to refute in a Court of Law the statements made in “ the Appeal."
He dare not attempt it. His recent threat of an action against me, was
simply intended to throw dust in the eyes of those who heard it. It is
monstrous that the daily press should lend itself to circulate his idle
bombast.
MAY, 1884.
LONDON:
Office of the CHRISTIAN COMMONWEALTH,
73, LUDGATE HILL, E.C.
Can be obtained of all Booksellers, or direct from the Author, by letter
addressed to 32, Clarendon Road, Notting Idlll, 17.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
SPECIAL
TERMS
FOR
LARGE
01’ A NT IT I F S.
�PREFACE.
know to how large an extent the Appeal to the
Li has check-mated Mr. Bradlaugh. I rejoice in this
latest is one in which issues of very grave character are
s question is not one of party politics, much less is it a
■the infringement of the rights of a constituency.” No one
■ than Mr. Bradlaugh does that the opposition which exists
■ rises from his own lawless conduct. For many years, on
Fplatforms in England, he has uttered the most revolting,
>d social blasphemies. Through the medium of the press
ulated these shocking statements by hundreds of thousands.
Lcen done to further his atheistic principles when, under the
'cd title of “Iconoclast,” he went through the Country using
inguage, samples of which are furnished in “This Appeal.”
this, he has circulated books which are loathsome and
II.rule.
These disgusting publications teach doctrines and
cs which are subversive of the Divine institutions of home,
ige, social purity, and national morality.
must not be forgotten that, for publishing and circulating “ The
ts of Philosophy,” Mr. Charles Bradlaugh and the abnormal
Bcsant were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to six months’
Fiiprisonment.
' Mr. Bradlaugh never tires of appealing to the sympathies of his
fellow countrymen on the ground of political liberty. In doing this, I
charge hi n with political dishonesty. Few men know better than he
does how to draw “a red herring” across the scent. Mr. Bradlaugh
represents that the opposition he receives arises from the fact that he is
a representative of working men. This is altogether untrue. Few men
in the House of Commons are more respected than Messrs. Broadhurst
and Burt, who are well-known representatives of the working classes.
The social mischief wrought by his abominable publications in
Northampton is simply deplorable. One of the leading Christian men
and Liberal politicans in the town told me that during the past twelve
years the growth of infidelity, lawlessness, sensual license, and
blasphemy amongst working men and young people has been appalling,
and that the outlook, socially,’was simply deplorable
Mr. Bradlaugh has recently threatened me with an action at law. I
am not in the least alarmed. I sent his solicitor’s letter to my lawyer,
who replied that we should defend any action taken. I am free to
admit that if my statements are not true, I had no right to publish them.
Further, if any man in England should charge me with making or
publishing such statements, and they were not true, I would certainly
give him all which the law should allow. Mrs. Besant has attempted to
reply to this Appeal. A more worthless, or scurrilous diatribe has
seldom been issued. Unable to answer the definite charges made, she
resorted to the old expedient of abusing the plaintiff.
With all the Editorial material in her hands she failed to answer the
charges. Mrs. Besant’s denial of the accuracy of quotation is entirely
false, as the columns of the National Reformer, the Pamphlets, and the
British Museum Library conclusively prove. The statement that 1 had
left out contexts which, if quoted, would have entirely altered the sense
of Mr. Bradlaugh’s words, is absurd and untrue. What context could
alter the blasphemous directness and evident meaning of the sentences
which I have qnoted ?
HENRY VARLEY
�iMAT’ONA’.SECUlARSOCIEn'
TO THE MEN OF ENGLAND.
FOR THEIR PRIVATE READING ONLY.
Gentlemen,—There are times when silence becomes a crime,
and though to me it is utterly repulsive to publish the following
statements, I dare not withhold them from your knowledge. It is
in the interests of right and truth, and on the behalf of home and
women and children that I earnestly appeal to you. This is no
personal quarrel or political party question, but a war in defence
of right and truth. I sound a clarion blast against Charles
Bradlaugh, by his own writings and speeches proved to be the
notorious advocate of social iniquity and lawlessness. If any other
man in England should dare to utter such revolting blasphemies,
or publish and circulate such horrible books and doctrines, I
promise him the same uncompromising opposition which I have
given Mr. Bradlaugh.
Having selected Northampton, Mr. Bradlaugh proceeded, years
since, to educate large numbers of working men into sympathy with
his extreme political views, and his'unclean and lawless social
publications. He industriously kept at this work of personal
propaganda for fifteen years, and gradually succeeded in
demoralising a large part of the constituency. This is how the
return of Mr. Bradlaugh came about. To affirm that the
constituency deal with this question on political grounds, that
they have nothing to do with Mr. Bradlaugh’s opinions or
doctrines, is to assert that politics have nothing to do with a
man’s morals, character, or conduct.
Such a statement is
altogether false.
The law already makes a number of exceptions, e.g., it is not
competent for the electors of Northampton to return an Irish peer,
a clergyman, a bankrupt, an imbecile, a felon, or a woman. Such
is the letter of the law. I hold that the spirit of the law together
with the moral conviction of the nation, forbids the acceptance,
if returned, of such a man as Mr. Bradlaugh.
The basis of English law is found in personal responsibility to
God. No man in England has the right to deny that responsi
bility, though he may have the power to do so. The Legislature
has no right to aid any man in denying that responsibility.
�4
Herein is seen the lawless character of the Affirmation Bill. Forthe first time in the history of England the Government attempted
to pass a measure which would have macle it competent and legal
for any man, if he chose, to deny his responsibility to God. A
more corrupt and false view of liberty, or a more unjust use of the
functions of the Legislature was never attempted.
He again asks the electors of Northampton to uphold him, and
expects that the representatives of the English constituencies will
ignore the law and permit him to enter the House of Commonsunchallenged. God forbid! Let that House stand firm against
the admission of this representative of social iniquity and atheism.
How dare the electors of Northampton speak of their constitu
tional liberties being infringed ? The question is, How they dare
insult the English nation by returning a man to make laws in
regard to national morality and righteousness, whose public
teachings and writings have for years past been disgusting,
lawless, and false, and who has been sentenced to six months’
imprisonment for publishing and circulating the same.
The nation expects the constituencies to send “ fit and proper
persons” to represent them. Such is the law ! How has North
ampton answered that requirement ? She sends the author of the
following blasphemous utterances.
In one of his public discussions Mr. Bradlaugh thus expresses
himself in relation to the Supreme Lawgiver, the Almighty God :—
“If you tell me that by God you mean ‘something’ which
created the universe, which before the act of creation was not:
‘ something ’ which has the power of destroying that universe ;
‘ something’ which rules and governs it, and which is, neverthe
less, entirely distinct and different in substance from the universe—then I am prepared to deny that any such existence can be.”
(Robertson Discussion, p. 12.) Again, he says:—“I hold that
the logical consequence of Secularism is the denial, the absolute
denial of a Providence.” (Holyoake Discussion, p. 29.) In the
same discussion, p. 16, he says:—“Although, at present, it may
be perfectly true that all men who are Secularists are not yet
Atheists, I put it to you, as also perfectly true, that, in my opinion,
the logical consequence of the acceptance of Secularism must be
that the man gets to Atheism, if he has brains enough to com
prehend.” In another place he observes :—“ I urged that Atheism
denied ffie existence of a God controlling the universe.” (New
castle Discussion, p. 74.) He blasphemously affirms that it is
utterly impossible to establish Secularism until not only Chris
tianity, but every form of Theism is completely destroyed. And
this is Charles Bradlaugh, the blasphemer, that Northampton
dares to send to the House of Commons ! There is no mistaking
his language, nor the object that he has in view. He exclaims : —
“ I find the preached ideas of God interfering with the children in
their cradles, with the children in their schools, with the grown-up
�5
children in their churches, and in their daily avocations of life, and
I am obliged to destroy Theism to make way for Secularism.”
Christianity he calls ‘‘a system theoretically unjust and practically
pernicious;” “rotten, intolerant, and false; derived from the
cruelty, the bigotry, the barbarism of a bygone age.” (Barker,
as above, pp. 85-104,) In the same discussion, p. 66, he calls
■Christianity a “cursed, inhuman religion,” while in that on
“What does Christian Theism Teach?” he pronounces it to be
“an accursed creed.” (P. 56 ) In his discussion with Matthias,
p. 179, he adopts the language of Shelley, and denounces Chris
tianity as a “bloody faith.” Again, he says:—“ Christianity is a
system which teaches submission to injury ; courting wrong, and
■volunteering yourself for oppression.” (Cooper Discussion, p. 42.)
Recently, he has said:—“Christianity has been a corroding,
an eating cancer, to empoison the whole life-blood of the world ;
the enemy of all progress ; the foe of all science. What is Chris
tianity ? I give it to you now in a word—it is blasphemy against
humanity, the mockery of humanity; it has crushed our efforts,
has ruined our lives, has poisoned our hearts, and has cursed our
hopes.” {National Reformer, Aug. 15, 1875, p. 108.)
Such is the horrible testimony of Charles Bradlaugh, whose
moderation has become so noticeable since he entered Parliament!
I ask, in all the interests of truth and right, Is this blasphemer a
fit and proper person to represent Northampton or any other
constituency ? It is no answer to affirm that “ They are the proper
judges in the matter, and that if the constituency of Northampton
is satisfied, there is nothing cither to be said or done.”
The character and work of our Lord Jesus Christ is thus spoken
of by Mr. Bradlaugh :—“ The plan of salvation by an atoning
sacrifice is repulsive in its details ;” “ immoral in its tendency;”
“ His mission was a sham ;” in His agony he proved Himself “ a
coward craven : ” when on the cross His language was that “ of
an enthusiast who had been himself deluded, or of a knave who
had deluded others.” “ as this the language (‘ My God, my
God, why hast I hou forsaken Me ?’) of a God, or of an enthusiast
who, in the agony of death, breaks down in despair ?” “ Your
atonement is a sham. Your atonement is a deception. Your
atonement is but a foul leprosy upon human intellect—a plaguespot of priest-craft—and I impeach it.” (Discussion with Barker,
as above, pp. 149, 155, 162, 172.)
Such is the public testimony of Charles Bradlaugh, whom the
electors of Northampton send to represent them in the Empire’s
House of Law. Does Mr. Bradlaugh imagine that such horrible
language as this is going to pass unchallenged ? I promise him
a censorship which he shall know exists. Only in June last at
Leeds Mr. Bradlaugh, speaking of a letter written by the Hon.
W. Fitzwilliam, MB., said that as a professed Liberal it stamped
him as “ a traitor and a coward.” Who is Mr. Bradlaugh that
�6
bis shameless tongue should be permitted to calumniate men who
dare to take their stand against his lawless blasphemies ?
The teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ are thus spoken of by
this blasphemer. Remember, reader, I quote his own words : —
“ I say, that if Jesus lived to day, neither his doctrine nor his life
would be the doctrine or the life of a great reformer.” (Barker,
as above, p. 152.) In his discussion with the Rev. T. D. Matthias,
at Halifax, he g ive utterance to the following sentiments :—“I
have further to say that the doctrine Jesus taught is not the
doctrine of a good man at all;” “never was a doctrine more
calculated to degrade mankind than this (the Sermon on the
Mount), which I place before you in all its monstrosity.” (Bp. 8298.) In the same discussion he argues that Christ was a perse
cutor, a teacher of immorality, and an ignorant man. (1’p. 6285, 124-125, 134-140.) Again, he says:—“ If he wants to tell me
that Christ has given us a moral system without reproach, I will
reply that under no system of morality which can pretend to be
without blemish, is so much vice permitted.” (Cooper Discussion,
p. 42.) Finding fault with Mr. Greg’s conception of the teaching
of Jesus, he says :—“ On the contrary, his (Christ’s) philosophy
is incoherent, his morality often imperfect, his conception of
human duty often unsound, his ideas as to the scope and range of
the human understanding utterly erroneous. The ascctcism some
times inculcated by Jesus was misleading, his injunction to submit
to wrong, absolutely immoral.” {National Reformer, July 31st,
1870.)
Such are the horrible and blasphemous utterances of Charles
Bradlaugh ; and yet, because the electors of Northampton have
returned him, he supposes that he is forthwith to be whitewashed,
and accepted as a legislator.
Hear, again, what Mr. Bradlaugh says of the Bible. Notice,
these are his own words
“ The whole of the book (the Bible) is
a reflex of the wanderings, a mythological representation, the out
growth of an ignorant and barbarous age;” “If you take the
Bible as a guide, immorality must necessarily result
“Immoral
book, I denounce it.” (Barker Discussion, pp. 28, 45, 64.) In the
National Reformer of February 20th, 1876, p. 123, he is repre
sented as saying:—“ So long as the Established Church exists to
teach the people the divinity of the Bible, and School Boards
pollute children’s minds with the same book, we must attack it
wherever and whenever we can, till we have rooted out and de
stroyed the upas-tree of superstition.” With reference to this
extract, Mr. Bradlaugh says, in the National Reformer of
March 12th, 1876, p. 169:—“We have had several letters from
Northampton as to the report of our speech on the Bible, quoted
by Mr. Peek at the School Board. We have been told that, unless,
we modify or explain our statement, we shall lose many votes. To
those whose political vote depends upon a theological statement,.
�7
we have nothing to modify, nothing to explain. To others—who
desire to know our real view on the matter—we answer that no
such sweeping statement could justly be made [quite truej
regarding a book containing so many varying moralities as does
the Bible ; some of it is good and useful, some of it bad and
harmful, reflecting, as it does, the changing civilizations among
which it was written. We emphatically hold that the Bible ought
not to be a school book, and that there are parts of it which must
have a terribly polluting influence on the minds of young children
taught to regard it as a message from an infallible Deity.”
Such are the views of this ‘‘fit and proper person ” who
has been sent by the electors of Northampton, and who profess
themselves to be indignant concerning what they have dared to
call “ the infringement of their constitutional rights.”
Dear, again, what Mr Bradlaugh teaches concerning social
questions. He has in two cases reprinted, and in either case
strongly commended, three books, whose titles I give, “ Elements
of Social Science,” the ‘‘Fruits of Philosophy,” and a recently
republished pamphlet entitled, ‘‘Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus.”
At page io Mr. Bradlaugh says, ‘‘This work 1 specially recom
mend. From its price the book is within the reach of most
working men, and it is from the pen of a man who is thoroughly
versed in the subject he deals with.”
This horrible book, the ‘‘Elements of Social Science,” under
mines the family bond, and is so disgusting that the author was
ashamed to put his name to it. The leading principles of this
book may be thus summarised : First, An exaltation of the animal
and sensual in man over the spiritual and mental. Second, A
condemnation of marriage in the strongest terms. Third, Apolo
gising for the birth of illegitimate offspring. Fourth, Condoning
with prostitution. Fifth, Excusing the evils and diseases resulting
from licentiousness. This is putting the matter in the mildest
form possible. The filthy author says, on p. 355 :—“ Marriage is
one of the chief instruments in the degradation of women.” On
page 366 he teaches :—“ Whether children have been born in
marriage or not, is a matter of comparatively very little import
ance.” On page 270 he declares that ‘‘prostitution should be
regarded as a valuable temporary substitute for a better state of
things,” and adds
‘‘Therefore the deep gratitude of mankind,
instead of scorn, is due, and will be given in future times, to those
unfortunate females who have suffered in the cause of our sexual
nature.”
In course of his discussion with David King, Mr. Bradlaugh
endeavoured to enlist the late Lord Amberley on his side in
defence of this book. He said :—“ I myself heard Lord Amberley
say that this book—the ‘ Elements of Social Science ’—is the best
book that has been written on the subject, and ought to be in the
hands of every working man ; he said that in my hearing, and in
�8
the presence of seventy or eighty of the most respectable physi
cians in the City of London.” (King Discussion, sixth night,
p. 33.) Mr. King wrote to this nobleman to know if Mr. Brad
laugh’s words were true, and received a reply in the negative,
which, when read to the meeting, was greeted with loud and
prolonged cheers. The letter is as follows :—
“ With the book you mention, the ‘Elements of Social Science,’ I am
indeed acquainted, but I regard it with the strongest disapproval. The
author's ideal of society appears to be a state of unlimited license, happi
ness being obtained by the indulgence of degrading passions. I contemplate
such teaching with the utmost aversion, and I consider the wide circulation
of the work which contains it the more to be regretted because its preten
sions to medical authority (to which I am convinced it has but little claim)
may easily mislead unwary or uninstructed readers.
“ Should anyone attribute to me in your presence any sort of agreement
with this pernicious work, I authorise you to contradict the statement in
the most emphatic manner.’’
Mr. Bradlaugh, still persisting in his statements (pp. 39-40),
Mr. King again wrote to Lord Amberley, and received the
following answer:—
“ Sir,—In reply to your letter of the 3rd instant, I have to say that the
speech alluded to by Mr. Bradlaugh was made at the Dialectical Society
on July 1st, 1868.................................. With reference to Mr. Bradlaugh’s
alleged quotation, I may observe that I do not believe I made any reference
to the ‘Elements of Social Science,’ and most certainly not in the terms
stated by Mr. Bradlaugh. I am not at all surprised to learn that he
‘ cannot give ’ the number of the British Medical Journal, since the report
referred to by him contains not the most distant allusion to the work in
question. This will be sufficient to show you with what extreme caution
Mr. Bradlaugh's assertions must be received. In conclusion, my present
estimate of this book is not the result of a change of mind since 1808.__
Yours faithfully,
“ Amberley.”
What, then, are we to think of Mr. Bradlaugh in this matter ?
Simply that he endeavoured to attribute his own words to Lord
Amberley. Having admitted that Mr. Laurie, Lord Amberley’s
tutor, read a paper (p. 39), it was deemed wise to write to him 'on
the subject.
That gentleman (Mr. Laurie) wrote to Lord
Amberley thus:—
“I am convinced you said nothing about the book called ‘Elements of
Social Science.’ But the opinion quoted by Mr. Bradlaugh, and attributed
to you, was delivered by himself after your lordship had left the meeting.”
Having settled the question in relation to Lord Amberley, Mr.
King wrote to the late John Stuart Mill, to ascertain if he had
been fairly represented by the frequent use of his name in con
nection with this abominable book.
That gentleman replied
thus:—
�9
“ Dear Sir,—I have most certainly never on any occas'on whatever, in
public or private, expressed any approbation of the book entitled ‘ Elements
of Social Science.’ Nor am I likely ever to have done so, inasmuch as I
very strongly object to some of the opinions expressed in it. You are
therefore quite at liberty to say that I am not correctly represented by any
one who asserts that I have commended the book.—Yours very faithfully,
“J. S. Mill.”
Well does Mr. King add :—“ Thus this wretched case of falsi
fication of testimony and boldly impudent imposition is completely
exposed.” My readers would do well to obtain this discussion for
themselves, and read carefully the last two nights’ proceedings,
where the above evidence is given in full, for a more thorough
exposure of Mr. Bradlaugh’s shallow pretentiousness, unfairness,
ignorance, and untruthfulness has never been made.
And you are ready to ask, What about the men who became
associated with this unclean blasphemer ? Hear the testimony of
a gentleman well known in Northampton :—‘‘I can well remember
the time when the late Joseph Barker and the present G. J. Holyoake were co-editors with Mr. Bradlaugh of the National
Reformer. Each of them withdrew in disgust from it on account
of Mr. Bradlaugh advocating the ‘Elements of Social Science.’”
The former (Mr. Barker) wrote a review of this book, in which he
says :—‘‘I regard the man who can recommend a book like the
miscalled ‘ Elements of Social Science ’ to unsuspecting boys and
girls, and who can form or patronise associations for the purpose
of stealthily spreading its most deadly poison through the com
munity, as a more dangerous man, as a greater criminal, as a
deadlier foe to virtue and humanity than the vilest murderer that
ever plotted or sinned against mankind. My duty to myself, my
duty to my wife and children, my duty to my readers and friends,
and my duty to the public, require me—and my own heart prompts
me—to separate from such men entirely and for ever, and to wage
an unceasing and unsparing war against their principles.”
Review, p. 26.)
And this is written concerning Charles Bradlaugh, with whose
character and opinions the electors of Northampton are so little
concerned that they count him a ‘‘fit and proper person” to
represent them in the House of Commons.
Another book commended by Mr. Bradlaugh is by one Richard
Harte. It was reviewed by Mr. Bradlaugh in the National
Reformer of August 28th, 1870. He says :—‘‘With Mr. Harte’s
view as to what ought to be essential in the inception, duration,
and termination of the marriage contract we cordially concur.”
Learning, then, what the author’s views on marriage are, we can
easily determine the belief of Mr. Bradlaugh on the subject. On
page 26 we read :—“ Love is a combination of three sympathies—
the moral, the intellectual, and the physical. And since it is
impossible to develope these sympathies, or even to be certain
�IO
that they actually exist without the experience of intimate associaation, it is imperative that marriage should be, to a certain extent,
a matter of experiment. Not only are human beings exceedingly
liable to judge wrongly in matters of love, but, moreover, they are
liable to develope in character unequally and in different direction;
therefore the dissolution of marriage should be as free and
honourable a transaction as its formation.” Mark the last two
lines of the extract. They mean that two persons may live together
for some time as man and wife, to know whether they suit each
other; they mean that any person is free to enter into the marriage
state to-day, and equally free to dissolve the contract to-morrow.
On page 66 we have free love [ ? lust] coming into vogue. It
says :—“ Finally, there can be little doubt that much of that
a priori contempt and hatred for free love which has hitherto been
a fruitful source of want of self-respect in the classes deemed dis
reputable, and consequently of their degradation, is disappearing
from the philosophy of our time.” On page 67 we have the
startling statement :—‘‘And we may conclude that, even if the
effect of the changes I have advocated be to cause all women to
become little better than prostitutes, that, at all events, they will
also have the effect of putting all women into a much tetter
position than wives.”
What can this mean, unless it is that now the position of
the wife is worse than the position of the prostitute ? Husbands
of England! what do you think of this fellow’s teaching ? Re
member that Mr. Bradlaugh endorses it, for he has said :—“ With
Air. Harte’s view as to what ought to be essential in the inception,
duration, and termination of the marriage contract, we cordially
concur.” Before I .give Mr. Bradlaugh’s own words on the
subject, one more quotation from Harte’s book must be recorded.
It is relating to. seduction. On page 84 the words are:—‘‘The
evil effect of seduction lies in the treatment that society accords
to the seduced woman. Were she no longer consigned to misery
and degradation, there would be little or no evil effect produced
by yielding to the promptings of love .... Where there is no.
punishment, there is no crime; neither seducer nor seduced
should be punished for the seduction.” This means, of course, if
punishment for crime be abolished, crime will be no longer crime ;
for, as Harte says, ‘‘Where there is no punishment, there is no
crime.”
Here, then, are two of Mr. Bradlaugh’s admired authors
recognising seduction as a virtue, Air. Harte and the author of
the “ Elements of Social Science,” for, as G. J. Holyoake says of
this last:—‘‘The medical moral of this book has appeared to
some (who are eminently entitled to deference) to be that
seduction is a physiological virtue. If this be so, a more danger
ous licence to vice has never been suggested.” Yet Air. Bradlaugh
says of these two books:—“Richard Harte’s book, or the
�II
‘Elements,’ are at any rate an improvement on these laws of
Christianity [he refers to the Mosaic laws], which are diabolical,
inhuman, and damnable, and, therefore, against which 1 plead.”
(King Discussion, sixth night, p. 36.)
Little need be said of the “Fruits of Philosophy,” by Dr.
Knoulton. My readers well know that for publishing and circu
lating this obscene book Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant have
been convicted, fined, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
The legal technicality which enabled these notorious blasphemers
to escape the actual punishment detracts nothing either from their
guilt or their desert. Notwithstanding their laboured defence of
it before the Lord Chief Justice anda special jury, 1 believe there are
few decent people but will agree with Aiderman biggins that “ it
is a pamphlet not published in the interests of science, but issued
as a popular production at a low price lor general reading, and
that it is a production against the public morals, because it is a
publication which directly points out, not only how the families of
married women may be limited, but how unmarried women may
gratify their passion without fear of the'natural consequences”
{National Reformer, April 29th, 1877, p. 263) ; that it is, to use
the words of the indictment, “ indecent, lewd, filthy, and obscene,
thereby contaminating, vitiating, and corrupting the morals of
youth, and bringing people to a state of wickedness, lewdness,
debauchery, and immorality.”
Mark the following:—Mr. Bradlaugh, in a debate with Mr.
Brown, at Leeds, on “ Miracles,” said of Mr. Muller’s Orphanage
at Bristol, that the sickness took place “ through their having
omitted to look to the drain-pipes,” which sickness the “ Sanitary
Inspector says may be avoided in future if they will pray less and
drain their place better.” {National Reformer, May 14th, 1876,
p. 310.) Mr. Muller’s agent writes about this as follows:—
“There was not the shadow of a foundation for Mr. Bradlaugh s
statement that we omitted to look to the drain-pipes : on the
contrary, the Inspector regarded the drainage as so perfect that
he had nothing to suggest.” What are we to think of such
proceedings as these? These illustrations might be greatly
increased, but sufficient has been adduced to warrant the assertion
that he practically believes in the principles of Voltaire:—“To
lie for a friend is the first duty of friendship. Lying is only a vice
when it does harm, but a very great virtue when it does good.”
{National Reformer, June ptffi 1870.)*______
* With virtuous indignation Mrs. Besant denounced the withdrawal of
the name and date of the National Reformer. in regard to the passage
quoted from Voltaire, as above, and given in the first edition of the
“Appeal.-’ No doubt Mrs. Besant was aware that the error was simply
one of date, and not of fact.
A gentleman, deeply interested in this controversy, sends me the missing
date, viz., National Reformer, June 5th, 1870, p. 355- Mrs. Besant can
hardly have been ignorant of this.
�12
Mr. Bradlaugh is called by his friends a great man ; well,
if to advocate that which is lawless, filthy, blaspheming,
immoral, and destitute of any regard for righteousness and
truth makes a man great, Charles Bradlaugh is a great man
indeed ! I should say the greatest, or more properly, the most
notorious, this century' has seen.
The foregoing extracts are from the pen of a gentlemen well
known in Northampton, who deserves the thanks of the men
of England for the bold and manly exposure that he has given of
this lawless blasphemer.
After these testimonies will any man dare to say that Mr. Brad
laugh is persecuted, or that opposition in his case means the in
fringement of the civil and religious liberty of the subject. Liberty
is a relative term, and comprehends a course of conduct which
is consistent with individual, social and national welfare. There
can be no liberty to do that which is injurious to the interests of
others. No householder is at liberty to store petroleum, dynamite
or gunpowder in his house. The risk to himself and others forbids.
No man is at liberty to keep an immoral house, to publish,
sell, or circulate obscene books, to keep a gambling house, or
to jeopardize the health of his neighbours. For these and similar
acts there is no liberty.
The men who do these things are
lawless. Judged from this standard, Mr. Bradlaugh’s conduct
has been lawless in the most offensive and criminal sense.
Northampton must learn that if her electors have no conscience
in the return of sugIi a man, the House of Commons, the law,
and the country have.
I scatter this broadcast among the men of England, in order that
they may know how it comes about that Mr. Bradlaugh meets and.
merits such unflinching opposition. The question of national
righteousness is at stake, and silence at such a juncture becomes
criminal, and would mean tacit complicity with lawlessness,
iniquity, and profligacy
Henry Varley.
WE COME NEXT TO THE BRADLAUGH,
FOOTE, AND CO. TRIALS FOR BLASPHEMY.
I proceed to ascertain and to make my readers acquainted with
the ground there was for the recent trial, also the relation which
Mr. Bradlaugh sustained to the Freethinker, and what the
character of the atrocious writings allowed to be published and
circulated from his office in Stonecutter Street.
I ask attention to th‘e horrible blasphemies which are appended.
They are quoted from the Freethinker, a periodical which was
commenced in May, 1881, and edited by Mr. G. W. Foote, one of
Mr. Bradlaugh’s prominent supporters at the Hall of Science, and
who has recently served a term of twelve months’ imprisonment
�for printing and circulating this loathsome and disgusting paper.
Mr. Bradlaugh has dared to say that he was not responsible for
what appeared in the Freethinker, but for nearly eighteen
months the Freethinker was published at Mr. Bradlaugh’s office.
Let any one compare the atrocious blasphemies which I have
taken from the Freethinker for December 18th, 1881, with the
quotations from the National Reformer, given in pages 5,6, 7
of this “Appeal,” and it will be seen how entirely they corn spond.
They are alike both in matter and spirit, and might have been
uttered by the same voice, or written by the same hand.
I ask your forbearance whilst I reproduce some of thg horrible
statements. I loathe the whole business, but it is no use to shut
our eyes to the facts. In the interests of righteousness and truth,
I respectfully ask you to hear how the leaders of this school of
blasphemy and atheism write and speak in 1881.
The following quotation, from the pen of Mr. G. W. Foote,
appears in the Freethinker for December 18th, 1881 :—
“Next to the brutality of God, and the barbarity of his chosen people,
the most shocking circumstance in connection with the Bible is the degra
dation and depravity of its women. Scarcely any of the gentler sex whose
shadows flit through the Biblical panorama possess the virtues that should
adorn them. They are cither concubines, like Hagar, artful dodgers, like
Rebecca, harlots and traitors, like Rahab, incestuous, like Lot’s daughters,
or infamously immoral, like Jezebel. Like Potiphar’s wife, they are more
solicitous of entrapping the unwary virtue of man than of guarding pure and
chaste their own. But their conduct is scarcely reprehensible if the pro
fligacy of God is to be piously winked at. For Jehovah, like all the gods
of old, was an unmitigated rake. In one case, thirty-two Midianitish
maidens were delivered over to his unbridled lust. In another, he scurvilv
debauched the fair betrothed of a Jewish carpenter. From the gusto with
which the Holv Ghost has diversified the dull narratives and insipid
twaddling of the Bible with spicily-told indecencies, one may well imagine
in how edifxing a manner God and his pious saints must spend their time
in the heavenly regions, and picture the unctuous debaucheries that while
awav the tedium of their eternal Tc Dciims. No decent woman, unless
possessing the accommodating virtue of a Sarah or a Jezebel, would care
to spend eternity in a heaven presided over by a lecherous-minded God,
and inhabited by pious rakes.
“ Strange it is, despite the infamy with which the Bible brands woman
kind, that the fair sex should be so fondly devoted to the verv emblem and
instrument of their shame and dishonour. Their attachment to Christianity
is an edifying example of self-mortification, prompted, we presume, by
Christ's sublimely absurd maxim:—-Bless them that curse you, and pray
for them that despitefully use you.’ (Luke vi. 28.) That the ladies have set
their affections on an unworthy God, and hallow an unholv Book, the
following facts, in addition to the foregoing, will abundantly prove : —1. In
punishment of Eve's disobedience God inflicts upon her, and all her future
daughters, the sorrow—above all physical sorrows—of the pains of partu
rition. Retribution more fiendish for crime so insignificant could not be
imagined. God, further, ordains man as the ruler, not the equal of woman,
�H
and thus sows the seed of the most widespread of all tyrannies_ the
tyranny of the home, besides laying the foundation of the so'cial and legal
inferiority, which, in all Christian lands, man has adjudged to woman.
“The amatory prowess of King David, the man after Gods own heart, is
notorious. It would require the poetic fervour of an Ovid to adequately
recount the famous exploit which gained for him the hand of Michal, the
daughter of King Saul. For our part, we will simply relate the pathetic
story in the plain prose of holy writ. The tale runs that Saul, whose lofty
mind abhorred ‘ filthy lucre,’ desired no dowry for the young damsel
(i Sam. xviii. 25). but simply ‘an hundred foreskins of the Philistines.’
Whereupon David, who was mighty both in love and war, ‘arose and went,
he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men ; and David
brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he
might be the king s son-in-law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter
to wife’ (v. 27). Will some German princelet take the hint, and bid in
like manner for the hand of Princess Beatrice ?
. “Then, again, the infamous treachery of David in respect to Uriah, and
his adultery with Bathsheba, was punished by the righteous judge ofheaven
—not by the death of the base culprit, but by the death of the child of his
sin. But it was at the dread hour of death that the piety of King David re
asserted itself. For is it not written that he surrendered his soul to God,
and his body to the embraces of a fair damsel, and thus died ‘ safe in the
arms of Jesus’ and Venus (1 Kings i.)
“Abraham—the father of the faithful—who was selected from all the
world's inhabitants to be the founder of Gods chosen nation, did only one
good deed in his whole life. Abraham was an incorrigible liar. He twice
passed his wife off as his sister—not to save her honour, but to save his own
skin ; and on each occasion God punished not the liar, but the persons who
were simple enough to believe him. He turned his own son and the lad s
mother out into the wide world to live or die, with no sustenance except a
little dry bread and cold water. He consented to offer up another son as a
burnt offering to God. True, he was arrested at the critical moment. But
in estimating character, intention is everything. These two occasions show
that he was a murderer at heart. Abraham was therefore a liar, a coward,
and a murderer.”
G. W. Foote.
I charge Mr. Bradlaugh that he allowed, without protest, the
foregoing horrible and utterly false statements to go forth. Let
it be remembered that this is ’but a sample of the writings to be
found, week by week, in the columns of the Freethinker. I charge
Mr. Bradlaugh with being an accessory in this disgusting business.
1 affirm that he knew perfectly well what was being done, and
permitted his offices to be used for spreading the filth of the
atrocious Freethinker amongst thousands of illiterate men and
women. I promise Mr. Bradlaugh that he shall not do such
things with impunity, nor make a catspaw of another Mr. Foo:e.
I will not shock my readers with any more of these revolting
extracts, but I will ask, Can any working man in England wonder
at the strong feeling which exists against Mr. Foote and Mr.
Bradlaugh, or be surprised that Sir Vernon Harcourt refused to
interfere with, or remit any part of, the sentence passed upon Mr.
�i5
Foote? Mr. Justice North deserves the heartiest thanks of the
entire community for the exemplary’ sentence which he passed
upon this blaspheming outlaw, and I believe every right-minded
man in England, when he knows the facts, will say so too. It is
a pity that such men as Dr. Fairbairn and Rev. Guinness Rogers
did not make themselves acquainted with the facts before they
hastened to the defence of these lawless blasphemers. Their
conduct in defending such men on political grounds is simply’
disgraceful
These quotations from the Freethinker show the fearful lengths
to which these blasphemers are prepared to go. They also prove
the exceeding value and importance of the existing law in its
ability to cope with and punish these social outlaws. Mr. B. W.
Newton says of the Christmas (1882) number of this atrocious
publication :—“ It contains a sheet on which are eighteen pictures
or illustrations, loathsome and disgusting, even if designed as
caricatures of the lowest and most debased wretch that can be
found on earth. But these caricatures are not directed against
men, they are avowedly directed against Christ. They are in
tended to ridicule, degrade, and vilify the King of kings and Lord of
lords—even our Lord Jesus Christ—the Saviour. I should not use
too strong words were I to say' that these caricatures are devilish. Of
all the insults that have ever been directed against God, there has
never, I believe, been any greater than this ; and yet the Govern
ment proposes so to alter the laws of England that persons who
might edit, or sustain such publications as the Freethinker would
become eligible for seats in the Legislature.”
Mr. Bradlaugh’s special pleading at the time of his trial for
blasphemy, bamboozled the jury.
Lef us see whether he can
bamboozle the men of England. I am greatly mistaken if he can.
They shall know the true character of the Freethinker, and Mr.
Bradlaugh’s connection therewith. They can here read forthem
selves some of Mr. Foote’s atrocious writings, and become competent to judge for themselves as to the justice or otherwise of the
sentences of imprisonment passed upon Messrs. Foote and Ramsey.
I venture to say' that the thought will fasten itself upon many minds
that the injustice of the position is that Mr. Bradlaugh was not
prosecuted and imprisoned long since. I honestly say that if, as a
publisher, I were to lend my office and influence to publish and
In a displayed advertisement of the National Reformer of the last week
in June, 1881, the following appears :—“ A special feature of No. 3 of the
Freethinker will be a comic sketch of Jonah and the whale, after the
prophet was vomited up. The whale looks the very picture of disgust,
while Jonah is radiant with triumph. A bland smile lights up his Hebrew
features, and he sings a joyous song, accompanying himself on the banjo
—a real side-splitter.” That this was with Mr. Bradlaugh’s knowledge
and consent there can be no doubt.
�16
circulate such a loathsome periodical as the Freethinker, I should
merit a criminal prosecution, the penalties of a lengthened term
of imprisonment, and the detestation of my fellow men.
I am persuaded that when my fellow-countrymen know what
Charles Bradlaugh has said and done, they in the vast majority
will recognise the justice and right of his rejection by the House
of Commons. British working men like fair play, but they are not
prepared to stand side by side with Mr. Bradlaugh’s coarse and
revolting blasphemies.
He has made great capital of their
sympathy by keeping back from their knowledge the real causes
of his rejection. I for one am determined that they shall not be
kept in ignorance any longer. 1 housands of working men ask the
question, “ Why is Mr. Bradlaugh opposed, and why is he refused
admission to the House of Commons?” I answer, Read this
“Appeal,” and you will understand how richly he merits the
strong opposition of his fellow-men. Mr. Bradlaugh talks about
“ his rights.” Will he dare to assert that he ever had the right
to say and to do what these pages prove him to have said and
done ? He had the power, but he never had the right. This
distinction needs to be clearly understood. Mr. Bradlaugh is
reaping the harvest of his own corrupt sowing, and if he thinks the
men of England arc going to endorse his horrible wickedness, he
never made a greater mistake in his life.
Of all the contemptible things which have been recently done,
the latest was Charles Bradlaugh’s subtle special pleading at the
time of his recent trial for blasphemy. To shuffle out of the
responsibility which belonged to him in sheltering and publishing
The Freethinker, merely to save his own skin, is so entirely like
him, that those who know him will not affect the least surprise.
Hear his reasoning, which I summarize: Had he not ceased to
publish The Freethinker ?
Had he not removed his office to
Fleet Street ? Was not the Christmas number of that vile pub
lication, for which Foote was sentenced to twelve months’ im
prisonment, published subsequently to the removal to Fleet Street?
Very clever, no doubt. Very, very convincing to those who knew
no better; but what about publishing, fostering, and circulating
J he Freethinker at the office of 7 tie National Reformer for seven
teen months prior to the removal to Fleet Street, during the whole
of which time such vile and blasphemous articles as those I quote
at pages 13 and 14 were practically endorsed by Mr. Bradlaugh ?
“ No responsibility.” What! This is scandalously false. Common
honesty should have led Mr. Charles Bradlaugh to share the punish
ment with his friend and coadjutor, Mr. Foote. The matter for
astonishment is that Lord Chief Justice Coleridge should have
ignored this damning fact.
It is abominable that these facts
should have been ignored, and the cause of justice subverted and
overthrown. Why did he not direct the case for the prosecution
.0 be so amended, as to shew Mr. Bradlaugh’s connection with
�i7
The Freethinker in Stonecutter Street ? nothing could have been
easier.
Repeal the’ blasphemy laws, indeed!
What! and
play into the hands of Messrs. Foote, Bradlaugh
Co. ? Rather
let us be profoundly thankful that in these days of disgusting
infidelity, law exists which is competent to deal with these un
scrupulous men.
MR. HENRY VARLEY’S LETTER
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
ON THE AFFIRMATION BILL, APRIL, 1882.
Lords
Gentlemen,
The grave mistake made by the Liberal leaders
at the time of the last General Election in endorsing the can
didature of Mr. Bradlaugh, has borne its bitter fruit of discord and
division. That a man who has spoken, written, and circulated
such scandalous and offensive words and such immoral books,
should have been elected for Northampton is bad enough, but that
the Liberal party should be expected to stand with such a man as
Mr. Bradlaugh, simply because he professes himself to be a
Liberal, is abominable, and must be resisted and broken through
at all costs. Many staunch Liberals have refused to follow the
Government in the past, and the unjust cry of “breaking faith
with party,’’ and the silly talk concerning the “ sacred rights of
constituencies,” must not hinder them if necessary from again
protesting against this unpardonable and disgraceful association.
I do not speak as a politician nor as a partisan. Had any other
political party endorsed the candidature of Mr. Bradlaugh, I
should have spoken out just as strongly. To identify the apostle
of Atheism and lawlessness with either political party, means
division, confusion, and trouble to all concerned.
•
It was a great mistake to suppose that the passing of the
Affirmation Bill would settle this question. One of the worst
features of this Bill was that it appeared in the form of an attempt
on the part of the Government to clear Mr. Bradlaugh from the
consequences of his scandalous conduct in the past, and sought
to make the Legislature an agent to open the lawfully closed doors
of the House, in order that the most lawless blasphemer of modern
times might enter. To attempt to separate the political elements
from the individual and moral features of this case, is both
impossible and undesirable.
The law in relation to Affirmation requires of all who make it,
the following testimony, “I, A, B, solemnly, truly, and sincerely
declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors according to
law.” How could these words be used by Mr. Bradlaugh! In
his offensive pamphlet, “ The Impeachment of the House of
Brunswick,” Mr. Bradlaugh says that “one object is to submit
reasons for the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and Union as far
and
�i8
as the succession to the throne is concerned after the abdication
or demise of the present Sovereign, and to procure the repeal of
the only title under which any Member of the House of Brunswick
could claim to succeed the present Sovereign on the throne, or to
procure a special enactment which shall for the future exclude the
Brunswick's.” That there may be no mistake, listen to Mr.
Bradlaugh’s own words: “ Do not yet challenge the old and
crumbling dynasty to die ; you cannot expect it to commit suicide,
and your weapons are not strong enough to fight it successfully”
{National Reformer, Jan. 26, 1868). Speaking of H.R.H. the
Prince of Wales, Mr. Bradlaugh has written: “ Wetrust that the
Prince of \\ ales may get fair play ; if he does, most certainly he
will never sit on the throne of England” (National Reformer,
Oct. 30, 1870). In the year 1871, H.R.H. the Prince of Wales
accepted the Presidency of “ The Asylum for Idiots.” Mr. Brad
laugh, in a specially printed leader in the National Reformer of
April 23, 1871, wrote these grossly insulting words: “We are
pleased to see H.R.H. in a station for which the habits of his life
and the traditions of his family so thoroughly qualify him.”
Now, in the face of these insulting statements, how could the
House of Commons become a party to admit Mr. Bradlaugh by
the proposed Affirmation Bill ? Had that measure been carried,
it would have been lawful for him solemnly, truly, and sincerely to
affirm at the door of the House that he would bear faithful alle
giance to Her Majesty the Queen, when he has distinctly stated
that he intends to act in direct opposition to the terms of the
Affirmation. The name of God was to disappear and a lie could
then have been solemnly affirmed without conscience, hindrance,
rebuke, or prevention. Surely this would not have been liberty,
byt corrupt, and shameful license.
In relation to the CL th, it was very properly stated that the
House of Commons could not become a party to its profanation.
1 he House of Commons was invited to lend itself to become a
party to the profanation of the Affirmation. Recognised as
wrong by the Legislature if the Oath was taken by Mr. Bradlaugh
in relation to God, could his affirmation be accepted and right if
made in relation to Her Majesty the Queen ? Given the passing
of this Bill, would the legislature quietly stand by and see Mr.
Bradlaugh solemnly, truly, and sincerely promise “that he would
be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty QueenVictoria,”
in the face of the following words which are found in Mr. Brad
laugh’s pamphlet ?
He says, “ I loathe these small, German,
breast-bestarred wanderers, whose only merit is their loving hatred
of one another.” How could the House of Commons legislate to
this end ? Surely legislation h id never been more foully prostituted.
The Rev. Brewin Grant ven- forcibly said, “ The Affirmation Bill
would have been an Act to legalize hypocrisy or moral perjury.”
Moreover, the Affirmation Bill had become so hopelessly en-
�!9
tangled in the meshes of Mr. Bradlaugh’s notoriety, that *t "as
everywhere known as the Bradlaugh Relief Bill! even Mr. Glad
stone’s great popularity could not prevent it taking this distinct
shape. In the minds ot hundreds of thousands this Act was regal vi
ed as an insult to the Supreme Lawgiver, and it aroused the
conscience of the nation to such an extent that the present Govern
ment, taking sides with Mr. Biadlaugh, was defeated. There
should have been real ground for this legislation. A strong case
could not be made out, not even by Mr. Gladstone, and tlie
measure was most wisely rejected. It is desirable that the fa< is
in regard to the existing law should be carefully considered.. T-he
law which makes the recognition of God, and the expression of
dependence upon and accountability to H im, necessary a.t the door
of the nation’s house of law is neither unjust or oppressive to the
conscience of any man. The Brahmin, the Mohammedan, the
follower of Confucius, has no real ground of complaint against
the existing law.
Even Buddhism, which began as an
Atheistic philosophy, has become an idolatry known as the
worship of Buddha.
Though the thoughts of God amongst
these people differ very much, they all recognise accountability
to God, and should any of these become English subjects
and be returned as parliamentary representatives, the existing
law would impose no injustice upon them.
lhe same is
true concerning the Jews, the Unitarians, and the Friends,
none of these deny Go'd, and all who, on the ground of conscience
toward God, object to take an oath are by law enabled to make
1 ‘ an affirmation. ” Even in the case of the Secularists, no injustice
or oppression exists. These do not deny the existence of God.
The platform of the Secularists in this respect is “ that the exist
ence of God has not been proved.” lhis was well put some time
since by Mr. Holyoake, who, replying to Mr. Bradlaugh’s vehe
ment declaration, “ that such a being as God does not and cannot
exist,” quietly and with keen sarcasm congratulated Mr. Bradlaugh
upon “ his amazing knowledge.” It is clear, therefore, that the
avowed Atheist is the only being in the world who can charge the
existing law with injustice; and the charge, if brought, has no
force in it if Mr. Bradlaugh is accepted as the exponent of Atheism,
for his conscience is so elastic that now he will either affirm, take
the oath, or let it alone, whichever is permitted or most convenient.
Mr. John Stuart Mill, and more recently, Mr. John Morley,
found it practicable and within the range of a good conscience to
take the Oath of Allegiance. Why should the Government turn
aside from the legitimate business of the country to waste time and
strength over this notorious leader of atheistic blasphemy and
social lawlessness ?
It is remarked by some that if what they have been pleased to
call the “ farce of Oath-taking ” could be seen at the commence
ment of the Session, when hundreds of Members hurry and struggle
�20
around the Speaker’s chair, the desirability of abolishing the Oath
altogether would press itself upon all observers. This I think is
mere sentiment. It does not follow that an act done hastily
either by or amongst a crowd, is necessarily irreverent. Were that
so, a crowd pressing into a church or to a religious service should
be decried and condemned. The perfunctory way in which oaths
are administered in our Courts of Justice, is no reflection upon the
ac't of oath-taking, but it is a great scandal to the Tud«es
and Magistrates who permit the officials in our Courts of Justice
t,lu? to tr>fle with the solemn act of invoking the witness and aid
ot the living God in regard to the testimony about to be given.
Another argument used is this. It is said that there are other
members of the House of Commons who are as atheistical as is
Mr. Bradlaugh; and if he is prevented taking the Oath or
Affirmation, so also they should be. Though this were true, such
reasoning is fallacious ; the law can only deal with transgressors
■ftho are found out, or with such as criminate themselves. Its
povver to operate, detect, and punish is in the sphere of discovered
action. Ihousands of dishonest men escape the law because
their actions remain unknown and undetected.
. Though this be true, we do not declaim against the law, or
insist upon its repeal, because many undiscovered and unavowed
criminals escape its detection and punishment. In the case of
the junior Member for Northampton, he has discovered himself,
his character and intentions, to the law, and unless the law
identified with our Parliamentary Constitution be openly violated
or ignored, it will never be competent for Mr. Bradlaugh to take
either the Oath or make an Affirmation in the House of
Commons, except upon the ground of his repentance, and the
complete withdrawal of his blasphemous and disloyal utterances.
Mr Bradlaugh ignores the Lawgiver. The Constitution and
Legislature of the United Kingdom, in harmony with the law,
reverently recognises the Lawgiver. Mr. Bradlaugh says that an
Oath is to him “a meaningless form.” Certainly, upon his own
showing, an Affirmation would be. Now, either the law must be
set aside to meet this condition, or Mr. Bradlaugh must. He is
disqualified for taking the Oath or making the Affirmation,
and the disqualification, be it remembered, is his own act.
It is desirable carefully to notice that it is in the nature of an
Oath absolutely essential to recognise three parties—e.g"., as
between subject, sovereign, and God ; or as between man
AND MAN, AND God. To attempt to shut out the greatest of the
three members nullifies the Oath. To comprehend or take the
Oath as between subject and sovereign only, or man and man
only, without any reference to, or, as in this case, on the grout d
of an absolute denial of God’s existence, destroys the Oa’h by
ignoring the Chief Factor in the Oath—the High Court of App« al
which gives an Oath its solemn character. This is equally true
�2I
in regard to the nature and constitution of an affirmation. No
man, according to the existing law, can claim to affirm on the
ground of his disbelief in the existence of God, or his responsi
bility to Him. There is no law upon the English Statute Book
which sanctions this, and though it. has been permitted by
magistrates and others, such permission involved in every case
a violation of existing law. All the measures which have been
enacted in regard to affirmation have been on the ground of “ a
tender conscience toward God.” In no single instance has the
voice of the legislature been heard giving the atheist, or the man
who denies personal responsibility to God, the right to take the
oath or to make an affirmation. In the nature of the case this
could not be. Such legislation would be in direct opposition to
the fundamental principle which underlies English law, viz., tnat
every man is responsible to God.
To repeal the law in relation to an act which involves recognition
of accountability to Almighty God, is in any case a tremendous
responsibility to assume. To do this in the case of this blas
phemer would be nothing less than a governmental insult to the
King of kings.
It is one thing for a man, as an individual in
the state or nation, to be an Atheist; it is quite another for the
Government of that nation to legislate so that the denial of
responsibility to God becomes an individual legal right, and a
part and parcel of the country’s law. This coquetting with
Atheism and lawlessness on the ground of political freedom and
liberty has done, and is doing, incalculable mischief. Persisted
in, it can only eventuate in the break-up of the party whose policy
is contrary to the traditions of sound Liberalism.
To make this question a political one only is in the highest
degree unwise and impolitic. Any Government insisting upon
legislation in order to secure Mr. Bradlaugh’s admission to
the House of Commons, will surely cut off at a stroke thousands
of staunch and friendly adherents. Large numbers of sincere
Liberals are Christians first and politicians afterwards. They
have no intention to ignore or deny the authority of the living
God, nor will they take sides with falsehood, blasphemy, and
Atheism.
Moreover, they cannot fail to see that such legis
lation is undertaken to faciliate the admission into the
House of a man who has used the most horrible and blasphemous
lang’ age concerning the Holy Son of God.
Mr. Bradlaugh has
trampled under foot the most sacred themes of the Christian faith.
If any other man should use such shocking and offensive language,
and pursue, as Mr. Bradlaugh has doue, a course which should
outrage the moral sense of the nation, the House of Commons
would have a perfect right to fall back upon its own prerogative,
and exclude him from its assembly.
Mr. Bright, speaking in favour of the abolition of oaths, says:
“ Probably there is nothing in the New Testament more especially
�22
condemned and forbidden than oaths.” But surely it should be
borne in mind that our Lord’s words were directed against taking
in vain the Holy Name of God in ordinary conversation, which was
common in H s day, aud alas ! equally so in ours. Moreover,
He was speaking to His disciples. If all men were subject to
His government, His law might be applied to all. But such
is not the case. Mr. Bright argues as though all men were
loyal to truth. The law exists to deter the lawless. Penal law
is excellent both for the righteous and lawless. There is
no element of oppression in just laws to the law-abiding and
upright. The reflex action of law is safeguard and protection
to the great maj rity.
If all men were Joyal to truth, we
could dispense with Oath or Affirmation, whether in Parlia
ment or in our courts of justice. But men are not all truthful.
Solemn tests which can be readily improvised, oaths which
take cognizance of God, and appeal to His knowledge, become
in a high degree important defences against false witness. There
are thousands of men whose characters are such that their
witness ought not to be accepted except upon oath solemnly taken
—taken, let me add, with the distinct understanding that if they
perjure themselves they will be visited with exemplary punishment.
This practice is not only warranted by Divine example, but is
designed to be a valuable safeguard against deception and false
witness. In Hebrews vi. 13-17, we read, “For when God made
promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, He
sware by Himself.
For men verily swear by the greater:
and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs
of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by
an oath.”
It is said that the oath is not deterrent,
but the hesitation, vacilliation, and withdrawal of state
ments repeatedly witnessed in our Courts of Justice prove
the contrary. When false witnesses have been confronted
with the fact that they were giving evidence on oath, and that
they were liable to be committed for perjury, in vast numbers of
cases it has proved an invaluable protection against false evidence
being given. It is conceded that the law does not deter in
every case; but that is true of the law of felony, and, indeed, of
every other law. Thousands of thieves escape the action and
penalty of the law. What then ? Is the law worthless, and
shall the cry be for repeal ? Surely not. Thousands have
been deterred, detected, and punished by the law; and in any
case, the law should stand against the transgressor, and on the
side of the right. By reason of man’s transgression, God added
the law. So long as men are transgressors, such is the wise
example for human legislators to follow. Wise and good laws
are not only a terror to evil-doers, but an essential defence in
order to the security and well-being of society.
�23
THE SUBSTANCE OF MR. HENRY VARLEY’S LAM
THE ELECTORS OF NORTHAMPTON, FEBRUARY
Gentlemen,
It has been my privilege in the past to help you in t
battle which is being fought in your town against infidelity, bias;!
corruption, and lawlesssness.
j
Large numbers in your midst properly feel that you are bond
Charles Bradlaugh, the atheistic demagogue, who for years has .
people of England by his coarse and blasphemous p'atform utteran
printing and circulating such filthv books as The Frui.s of Philoso/ii,
Elements of Social Science. His conection with the Press has been li
as it has been revolting. Certainly, if the law had not been perm:
outraged, Charles Bradlaugh would long since have been where his 1
Foote the Editor of the disgusting Fi ecthlnker is.
Let it be remembered that this is not a question of the rights of the C m
or party politics. It is no question of opposition to the working man s c.
Few men are more respected in the House of Commons to-day than
Broadhurst and Burt, who are well-known representatives of the working via-The opposition against this notorious blasphemer comes by reason of his atroco
utterances and publications. Mr. Bradlaueh alone is responsible for the stroisj
feeling which exists against him. To yield to such a man a place in the Legis«
lature in order to frame laws for the well-being of society is not only monstrous, v
but wickedness of the highest order. Mr. Bradlaugh denies responsibility to God.
Anv man who denies the Supreme Lawgiver, is necessarily unfitted to become a
law-maker. It is said, We do not ask whether a tailor, a bootmaker, or a baker is
an Atheist before we employ him. Certainly not; but. be it remembered, that
boot-making and law-making are two essentially different occupations which
involve immensely different issues. The man who puts bad material into his woik
we can refuse to employ. Corrupt laws, which have been framed and passed by
bad men, are not so easily dealt with or repealed.
Some of the most corrupt corporations on the face of the earth have come into
these conditions through allowing men to fill public positions for which their
base characters always disqualified them. To speak ot his ability, or the expressed will of the constituency as qualifying him for the post ot a Legislator is
not necessarily true. No doubt the devil is both subtle and clever. Is he fitted
to represent Northampton ? Lord Justice Lush, writing to me some time before
his death, and shortly after Mr. Bradlaugh’s contention in the Law Courts,
said, “ I am astounded, as often as I think of Christian men preferring an open
blasphemer and enemy of Christ to a follower of Him, because ot his political
affinity. If Satan himself had appeared in human form, they would have
selected him for the same reason. It is a terrible thought that politics are thus
put in the first place, and a sad feature of the times.”
I have never argued this question on political grounds or as a political partisan.
From the commencement of this important fight I felt certain that a
heritage of weakness and division must come from such a flagrant departure from
the true basis of sound political Liberalism.
.
.
A platform wide enough to take in the devil side by side with the living Hod,
a platform which is to recognise on equal terms light and darkness, truth and
error, law and lawlessness, could only be made by practically discarding any
recognition of, or responsibility to God. Such a platform could only mean
interminable confusion, quarrel, and separation. Truly it has already separated
very fr onds.
.
Let it be borne in mind that the mere voice of numbers gives no necessary
solution to this question. No man can give a satisfactory answer or a conclusive
reason why the majority should rule the minority. We have m principle
and practice consented to this arrangement, but it remains to be proved whether
�24
condemned and- 1 am not affirming which is right; nevertheless, it is true
borne in mind tJf existing institutions concedes the rule everywhere to the
in vain the Ho'V'i61^ ''ell-ordered family in Northampton either the minority
common in Idlddo- In every house of business it is not the employes which,
t‘ ™
em£l0yerS- In every sch001 and fact0IT the same truth holds
ne was speamj Go'ernment, even' army, et ery regiment, every ship the same
His governr.he minority rule. Even a builder who employs twenty or thirty
is not the Ca house must employ a foreman, or the work will not go on. Every
loyal to tru* riment? college, or school, every foreman, forewoman, and pupilis e\-cellerircS a P^lncUde <d government which is not the rule of the majority,
rm Ju™ J a mischievous elements in the social state of a country there are none
no eiemeied the blatant demagogucism of such men as Messrs. Bradlaugh Foote
upright.
Bradlaugh’s statement that he is fighting for “ the rights’of the
to the gr>” is simply dust thrown in the eves of his hearers. Mr.' Bradlaugh
could distec^y
that he has himself to thank for the opposition which exists
m.
Solemn1
which Mr. Bradlaugh edits, is still playing the game
ooieinn .on and shuffle which has characterised its policy for so lore a period
takmort time since it was heralded in bold letters as the champion of
in
find Malthusianism; now, in order to facilitate Mr. Bradlau«h’s
are llssl°n to the House of Commons, these headings are removed. This of course
wit' p 1 d?ne to hlde ’he true character of the National Reformer. Happily
_ ost of us know perfectly well what a chameleon is like.
Mr. Bradlaugh s return, at the last Election, weakened the Liberal party
more than the return of ten Conservative Membeis would have done and-has
produced a strong feeling throughout the country against Mr. Gladstone’s Govern
ment. Ibis is obvious to all thoughtful men. In proof of the feelino- which
exists against Mr. Bradlaugh and his corrupt doctrines, it needs but to recall the
tact that 5,000 petitions, comprehending nearly . five millions (5,000 000) of
signatures, were presented against the Affirmation Bill and Mr. Bradlau<4i’s
admission to the House of Commons in the last Session of Parliament.
°
The numbers in favour of the Bill were roundly stated at 1,000 petitions and
1,000,000 signatures. Thus in the proportion of five to one the public voice said
M e are not going to stand side by side with Atheism and Blasphemy, nor with
the corrupt Socialism advocated in 1'he Elements of Soeinl Science and The
Im its of Philosophy. Despite Mr. Bradlaugh, the people know how to distin
guish between persecution and righteous opposition.
Notting Hill, London.
Feb. 14, 1884.
Henry Varley.
Private, Important, and Invaluable.
LECTURE
TO
MEN
ONLY.
(Delivered to 3,000 Men in Exeter Hall).
On the Advantages and Obligations of Chastity, with special reference to certain
forms of temptation.
Containing invaluable information for Young Men, and those who are married
Post Free lor 5d., or Three Copies for Postal Order, Is.
_
____________________
Two Copies, post free, Is.
LECTURE
TO
YOUTHS
AND
In Stiff Covers' 7d.
YOUNG
MEN.
On Chastity, Strength, and Success in Life.
Containing Selections from Lecture to Men. Adapted for Youths and Yqung Men who
are unmarried.
________________ Price 3jd., post fr.ee, or Twelve Copies, 2s. 9d.
, . An.y °f these Publications can be obtained direct from the Author, by letter
addressed THOMAS E. VARLEY, 32, Clarendon Road, Notting Hill, London, W.
Orders should be prepaid, and, so far as possible, be made by Postal Orders.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
An appeal to the men of England
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Varley, Henry
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Cover pages torn. Includes the "Substance of Mr Henry Varley's last letter to the electors of Northampton, February 1884" (p. 23-24). Union catalogues (COPAC, KVK) list a similar pamphlet by Varley published in 1881 by John F. Shaw (16 p.). Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Office of the Christian Commonwealth
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N650
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (An appeal to the men of England), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Bradlaugh
Great Britain-Politics and Government-1837-1901
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8fc3f253463416ccbecba9d4154afa74.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kGQBd1hV4F6MZfHy4FRXaOJJ5huBhgdi0QDsqHu5%7EHvjEPHUHyWn7TIJR5V98uwrbobtU59k29wzI9HfTjTYumjt88UYd0lNKGCY9TxbPU8gRRRwmStzU3Ds1qu-iPPe0OR3xDolPaeQVjT5Q-QdemRM9W-VbyrX4XaNf7FGs1xK2RO%7ED23dOORfxdrzAN0%7ERRZ4VQ1MO9Wn6XT57bSgcuqK%7Edr3IhjSMzs3ZGa14QM7SItsblr3Sc4LvykydEi5aPKmLICqrCh8n2njoLoiLjy%7E9I6j-S08v-x5jdw5QgB0T%7EkKgU47ClmttORDqNMeFK0VMMrOxq4PWRijjc-85A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6863c04845c97c692c13f22565bdd346
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
CHARLES
BRADLAUGH
AN APPRECIATION
Notes of an Address given to the
Bradlaugh Fellowship by the
REV. STEWART D. HEADLAM
Warden of the Guild of St. Matthew
With an Introduction
George
[price
London
Standring, Finsbury Street, e.c.
one penny]
1907
�BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS BY THE
REV. STEWART D. HEADLAM, B.A.
‘The Meaning of the Mass’...
...
...
...
...
‘ The Socialist’s Church ’ ...
...
...
...
...
1 Priestcraft and Progress ’ ...
...
...
...
...
‘The Place of the Bible’ ...
...
...
...
...
‘ The Laws of Eternal Life ’...............................................
‘Christian Socialism’...
...
...
...
...
...
‘ Secular Work of Jesus Christ ’ ...
...
...
...
‘Municipal Puritanism’
...
...
...
...
...
‘ Secular Schools ’
...
...
...
...
...
...
London : Office of the Guild of St. Matthew,
376 Strand, W.C.
BiSHOPSGATE INSTITUTE
REFERENCE LIBRARY
oaife'.
-SEP.JflM—
Classification: ......N.5^—.—
i
2s.
is.
6d.
6d.
3d.
id.
id.
id.
id.
�INTRODUCTION.
HE pages that follow this prefatory note contain
some of the most interesting and valuable parts of
a lecture delivered to the Bradlaugh Fellowship by the
Rev. Stewart D. Headlam on 24th May, 1905. The
meeting took place in the hall of the Boro’ of Shore
ditch Liberal and Radical Club, New North Road—
within a stone’s throw of the ‘mean street’ in which
Charles Bradlaugh was born, and of the Shoreditch
Public Library, where a large marble bust of our lost
leader occupies a prominent place. Mrs. Hypatia Brad
laugh Bonner presided at the lecture ; and her son
Charles listened with eager attention to Mr. Headlam's
appreciation of his grandfather’s life and work.
What is the Bradlaugh Fellowship? And how came
it that a clergyman of the Church of England went as
a friend and brother to address such a gathering?
Charles Bradlaugh died on 30th January, 1891; and
already there are men, belonging to the class for which
he Jived and strove, who have never heard his name.
This, perhaps, is not matter for wonder : it was said of
old time, ‘ Quit the world and the world forgets you.’
But there are some amongst us, men and women who
worked with Charles Bradlaugh and knew the inestim
able value of his life-service to humanity, who deter
mined that so far as in us lay the memory of our great
leader should not be suffered to pass away. The
Bradlaugh Fellowship is but a small group of obscure
people, whose object is to unite those who served under
him, and to keep in public remembrance the work
that he did.
T
3
�This is the more necessary because, as Mr. Headlam
truly says, his energy was mainly ‘ terrible, destructive,
iconoclastic.’ The man who, with toil and pain, clears
the path and constructs the road, leaves no monument
to call the easy-stepping wayfarer’s attention to his
work: the level safe road is there, but the very name
of the maker is forgotten. The broken idol is thrown
into the lumber-room; the children play with the frag
ments, heedless of the fact that their forefathers were
persecuted even unto death if they refused to bow
before the trumpery thing.
If Charles Bradlaugh had chosen the primrose path
in life, if he had placed his eloquence, ability and over
whelming force of character at the service of smug con
formity, then his reward would certainly have been rich
and his place of the highest. But he was ever a man of
the people, the champion of the lowly and oppressed ;
he lived and died poor, worn out in a ceaseless struggle
for the advancement of the class to which he belonged.
Mr. Headlam’s connection with the Secularist move
ment is a story that dates back to the early seventies.
The letter to his intimate friend Sarson (page 8 it seq.}
bears witness by its earnestness and occasional inco
herence to the profound and abiding impression made
by Bradlaugh’s personality upon a young clergyman of
open mind and catholic sympathies. Those who read
that letter today may well find it impossible to realize
the moral atmosphere of the time when it was written.
It was the day of mean, pitiful persecution and narrow
ness, when no weapon of petty spite was too contemp
tible to be used against the atheist; when (to the pre*
sent writer’s knowledge) young men were turned from
their homes by pious parents on account of their freethinking views. ‘ Hatred, malice and all uncharitable
ness’ wrought its ignoble work for the greater glory of
God. Then and thenceforward ‘Stewart Headlam’ (as
we were wont affectionately to style him) became our
open and constant friend; while abating no jot of his
Christian creed, he was always our helpful comrade.
4
�The incident at which he hints on page 14 is a case
in point. In 1879 two science classes (under the con
trol of the Science and Art Department, South Ken
sington) were organized in connection with the Hall of
Science« The director was the late Dr. E. B. Aveling;
the National Secular Society (of which Mr. Bradlaugh
was president) provided prizes for students who passed
the class examinations; and the proportion of‘passes’
was far above the average. At the outset a difficulty
was experienced in complying with the Department’s
regulations. To obtain the Government grants it was
essential that a Justice of the Peace or a clergyman
should be on the committee. Now at that time no
J. P. would look at us, even through a telescope ; and
it was not our way to seek favours from the clergy.
In this perplexity the Rev. Stewart Headlam was our
deus ex machina: he became chairman of the com
mittee, and devoted much time and energy to the
work. In 1883 there were eleven classes, 239 students
receiving instruction, and 82 per cent, of these passed
their examinations at South Kensington. In that year
the Bishop of London, at the instigation of Lord Geo.
Hamilton, put personal pressure upon Mr. Headlam to
induce him to sever his connection with the classes.
Mr. Headlam, however, was not amenable to episcopal
coaxing or threats, and retained his position as chair
man to the end.
This business of the science classes was but one of
numberless instances of Mr. Headlam’s kindliness and
helpfulness in days when odium and persecution were
the Secularist’s daily lot. Throughout the long and
bitter struggle on the ‘Oath Question’ he stood up
manfully for recognition of Charles Bradlaugh’s rights
as the elected of Northampton. Mr. Headlam was one
of the vice-presidents of the League for the Defence of
Constitutional Rights, and on many occasions publicly
protested by voice and pen against the injustice with
which Mr. Bradlaugh and his constituents were treated,
in the name of religion, by a bigoted and reactionary
majority in the House of Commons. Mr. Headlam was
5
�also, a member of the committee of the National Asso
ciation for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws, a body
formed to combat the persecuting spirit which revived
certain evil old laws in the vain hope of suppressing a
vivacious criticism of Christian doctrine. It was a note
worthy example of moral courage, twenty-five years
ago, for a clergyman of the Church of England to
identify himself with a public protest against the laws
under which three men—Messrs. Foote, Ramsey and
Kemp—were convicted and cruelly punished.
Little wonder, then, that we honoured and loved
Stewart Headlam ; and that when in 1905 he came to
speak to us of Charles Bradlaugh, and later to preside
at the annual dinner of our Fellowship, he was greeted
by us all as a dear friend and comrade.
George Standring.
6
�CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
T AM honoured by the request to say a few
-*■ words in appreciation of Charles Brad
laugh ; and I am glad to know that I speak in
the presence of his daughter and grandson.
The impression which he has left upon me
is of a man of tremendous strength—mainly
destructive, terrible, iconoclastic. He is one
of those men who
‘ have towered in the van
Of all the congregated world to fan
And winnow from the coming step of time
All chaff of custom, wipe away all slime
Left by men slugs and human serpentry.’
Or, if you want words from the sacred He
brew scriptures to describe him, we will say
of him: ‘The idols shall he utterly abolish.’
He was one of those men who help us to
understand a little the meaning of those
words which were spoken of the typical
representative man: ‘Whose fan is in his
hand, and he shall throughly purge his floor,
and gather his wheat into the garner, and
burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.’
And I make bold to say, without any fear
of it now being considered a paradox, that
7
�the Church, looking back, must acknow
ledge that it owes a deep debt of gratitude
to Charles Bradlaugh for this destructive
work of his.
My knowledge of him takes me back to
the Christmas of 1873, when I went to Beth
nal Green and so got into touch with many
of Mr. Bradlaugh’s followers, and looked
forward each Thursday to the National Re
former as the expression of the most ad
vanced Radicalism of the time.
It so happens that letters of mine which
I used to write to my friend George Sarson
have come back into my hands. I will read
you one which I wrote on the Sunday night
after hearing Mr. Bradlaugh at the Hall of
Science in the evening. It was not my first
visit to Old Street. I had been a few weeks
before, and heard Mrs. Law denounce the
smooth-faced priests who would put out the
lamp of Reason. Here is the letter, given
just as I dashed it off to an intimate friend:
Sunday night,
April 4, 1875.
My dear Sarson,
I have had another evening at the Hall
of Science. Bradlaugh lectured on Slavery
in America: which, with the exception of
one bitter sentence against Christians, must
have done all his hearers real good. How
ever, all the great abolitionists whom he
8
�spoke of were Christians: though undoubt
edly they were opposed by the Christian
Societies in America. After the lecture a
member of the ‘ Bible Institute’—an old
hand here—tried to prove that the law of
Moses did not encourage slavery, and of
course failed. Bradlaugh called him a liar,
and I was rather in a funk when I called
out ‘ Mr. Chairman ’ and went up to speak:
there were calls of ‘Name!’, and though
Bradlaugh said, quite courteously, ‘ Never
mind the name,’ I gave them my name and
office, and fired away for my ten minutes:
thanked him cordially for his grand speech:
told them that the Bible religion which
Bradlaugh had said favoured slavery might
be made to favour anything: which brought
much applause, which increased when I said
that I did not believe in any infallible Book,
but in Christ; then said the applause en
couraged me to believe that true religion
would live again, and that it encouraged me
as much as the shout of ‘Bogey!’ at the
Shoreditch Town Hall when a man spoke
of a girl going to Hell for ever for going to
a museum on Sunday. I ended by saying
that in the National Reformer, which I often
read (terrific excitement!), a Mr. Maccall
had said that religion was a necessity for
man, and that it was an awfully important
thing that they all should support the best
religion they could find, support the true
9
�Christians against the false. Bradlaugh re
plied: thinking I was Hansard, and thanking
me for all I had done for East London, won
dered what the Bishop would say to me, and
how he was to treat me while I belonged
to a Church which published thousands of
tracts teaching the infallibility of the Bible,
and how he could find out what my Christ
ianity was; if I did not believe in the Old
Testament, which part of the New did I
believe in; did I believe in faith or works
(Paul, I suppose, or James). I replied that
I was not Hansard, but was glad they re
cognised his work, and that now they knew
there were at least two good Christians;
that they might send what 1 said to the
Bishop, and that I challenged them to do
so, and was certain that, though he might
not like it personally, he would not turn
me out of my curacy, which, I said, he
could do any day if he thought fit; I said
that if I am left safe it will be a proof that
my teaching, which you approve, is good
Church teaching. I then said that as a
Christian I did not believe in either Old
Testament or New, but in Christ, of whom
there was sufficient ordinary evidence that
he lived and died a self-sacrificing deliverer;
that I was a Christian because I obeyed
Christ’s spirit speaking into my heart, and
that Mr. Bradlaugh was a Christian too. I
then gave them very briefly the doctrine of
io
�the Logos; and, seeing Colenso’s book ad
vertised in their hall, spoke of his real work
as a Christian Bishop, and compared his
work for Langalibale with the anti-slavery
work; that they should judge of Christianity
by its best men, not by frothy dissenting
ministers, or Moody and Sankey (great ap
plause), and that I could not be responsible
for tracts put under people’s doors.
Bradlaugh said that he did not know what
to say; was very courteous; said I was very
liberal, but if he were a barrister and the
Bishop would give him a brief, he would
convict me of heresy; hoped I would not
spoil my splendid humanitarianism by join
ing it to a dead and rotting creed; knew
that I was a good ’un by the ring of my
voice (as far as I could make out); hoped I
would get married (he may have meant the
spiritual children); and asked me, if I liked,
he would think none the worse if I didn’t, as
he didn’t want to challenge me (as was his
wont with others):—but if I liked to prove
in the National Reformer that Christ was a
deliverer and a self-sacrificing one—he be
lieved there were no documents within 150
years of his reported death:—more praise—
we shake hands and part.
Altogether a most exciting evening: at
any rate the hall was full of people who
now know that a parson does not worship
the Bible, or believe that men will be kept
ii
�¿n punishment for ever, or objects to Mu
seums being open on Sunday: this of itself
must help to break down barriers or con
struct bridges ‘pontifically.’ (I also said
that the Bible was probably the best book,
but must be treated just like any other book.
And he spoke strongly and feelingly of the
treatment he had received from the parson
here at St. Peter’s (of the way he and others
had been libelled, which is too true)—Packer
by name—when he was a ‘doubter.’
I want you to tell me what you think about
my writing to the Reformer’ and whether it
,
would be well to write to the Bishop and say
that a lot of men in his diocese accused him
of believing in the infallibility of the Bible,
and therefore supporting slavery, and ask
ing leave to publish his answer in the Re
former.
. Next Sunday Bradlaugh lectures on Chris
tian Culture and is sure to say some nasty
things about Christians, and we deserve it;
how much nearer to the Kingdom of Heaven
are these men in the Hall of Science than
the followers of Moody and Sankey !
Ever yours,
Stewart D. Headlam.
This letter may perhaps serve as an in
teresting note of the kind of work done at
the Hall of Science. ‘Is the Bible True?’
12
�‘The New Life of Abraham,’ and all the rest
of that part of Mr. Bradlaugh’s work was
necessary in view of the crude Bible-wor
ship which was prevalent. Now of course
we recognise that to ask ‘ Is the Bible true?
would be as absurd as to ask ‘Is English
Literature true?’
But though mainly a destroyer, Mr. Brad
laugh was not only destructive. The form
ula of the National Secular Society, that this
world demands, and will repay, our utmost
care and attention, suggested construction
on what always seemed to me to be the dis
tinctly Christian lines of the Secular work
of Christ, involving a salutary attack upon
the otherworldliness of pietism. It was this
which inspired all the political work—the
unbending Radicalism—of Mr. Bradlaugh;
and which led, at a time when many of the
best men were hemmed in by the Malthusian
dilemma, to the Malthusian League, to the
Knowlton pamphlet, and to prosecutions for
teaching which was the natural outcome of
the current philosophy of the time. We
have now learned differently; but we must
remember that it was Bradlaugh’s zealous
fight against poverty which led him into
those regions: he, too, burned with indign
ation when he saw that the people were not
properly fed, clothed and housed; and set
about, to the best of his power, regardless
of hatred and insult, to find a remedy.
13
�But so bitter was the feeling against him
that the simple fact of my consenting to be
president of the science classes held at the
Hall of Science was made a matter of a
question in Parliament, and was one of the
many causes of the Bishop of London’s at
tacks upon me; but I was glad to find out,
only the other day, that it led to the young
men who attended those classes nicknaming
the Guild of St. Matthew as the 1 Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Atheists.’
On July 24th, 1880, I sent the following
telegram to Mr. Bradlaugh, addressed to
The Prison: The House of Commons’:—
‘Accept my warmest sympathy. I wish you
good luck in the name of Jesus Christ the
Emancipator, whom so many of your oppon
ents blaspheme.’ This sums up a lecture on
A Christian’s View of the Bradlaugh Case,’
which I gave throughout the country, and
which ended with the words that, accord
ing to Christ’s teaching, however much Mr.
Bradlaugh might say that he did not know
God, as he had taken infinite pains to bring
about the time when the people of England
should be properly clothed, fed and housed,
God knew him and claimed him as His.
Those of us who are Socialists, especially
those of us who have learnt from Henry
George, believe that there are other means
rather than those advocated by Mr. Brad
laugh, which will bring about the results he
14
�desired; but none of us, especially those of
us who are Socialists, can afford to ignore,
still less to detract from, his overmastering
personality. To listen to him, to be in his pre
sence, was a moral tonic. William Rogers
('hang theology, damn science, let’s begin!’
Rogers) said to me once, after some recep
tion : ‘1 found your friend Bradlaugh deadly
dull!’ Doubtless he was self-centred, and
doubtless he was a 'terrible man’; but what
a fight he fought, and what an example he
has left us!
If, as most of us believe, we know better
now how to tackle the evils against which
he fought; if, as some of us believe, there is
a divine inspiration urging us to the battle,
let us at any rate see that we are as strenu
ous and as devoted as an ‘individualistic
atheist.’
We have much to be grateful to Charles
Bradlaugh for on account of his destructive
work; but it is his towering personality that
we chiefly honour.
Stewart D. Headlam.
15
�»
�
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
Charles Bradlaugh : an appreciation
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Headlam, Stewart D. (Stewart Duckworth)
Standring, George
Bradlaugh Fellowship
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Notes of an address given to the Bradlaugh Fellowship on 24 May 1905. Stamp on title page and elsewhere: Bishopsgate Institute Reference Library. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
George Standring
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1907
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N304
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Charles Bradlaugh : an appreciation), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Bradlaugh
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c1f6ed4b1aae3fc75921b5d243ae23e9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=pakta7O5LPFqrqqNktJIf0XlbkbLy%7EP4EgHj8NbqMCcc3GR1WrM6N-u7iB%7EFRNGgDqmj5UIegLZ4oTHsNuWy5Junzay5iJnfGJ4gJKSPhccR0VOwEN9S6CFIM4zXMQK%7EU9nu0Ywg%7EWi3J16D-GX5BNmF8UsfpdW11gBgtECWZrx1B6wDgH65WCYNxEYa0pnS2%7EDV38GOF4Z6VtSuTvDKMtgFYy7uaUFnLpVWJGcTOhmYlfYOtl8TyFKdux%7EmntekcBD10I-K4%7EOnOqtXRKNMrDlKDv%7E%7ETwu8%7E-lj4lbogiAcUrnFmsfPAfscZyPx7tBJuAYnRu6VAaaFODypRI8gDA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a3a59a7193a068a5724eb14875a4ee7b
PDF Text
Text
����������������
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
Did Charles Bradlaugh die an atheist?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bonner, Hypatia Bradlaugh [1858-1935]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 12, [2] p. ; 20 p.
Notes: Works by and about Charles Bradlaugh, and chief works of Thomas Paine, with extracts from reviews, listed on unnumbered pages at the end. Printed by A. Bonner, Took's Court, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
A. & H.B. Bonner
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1898
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4346
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
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 (Did Charles Bradlaugh die an atheist?), 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
Atheism
Charles Bradlaugh
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ea3dc804984be8ef24dfe3b05abddbf8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gZNMOy-KS7b-Uq5wIgPY77goyaTg-S6Kdx8hG26t01V4dKRrSolj1gwDfN26Q9GIR3QGP2DIsOlAhqvBpE8iyRPDRFvcjh-x6FIMp9mTmRvc2Op2tNFV2k5aKC6cnaDZiZyCWcV%7EKoWwVbPdDfZ%7EFbuVEQQ7qGFdkEB5XLMALavfi72I0gav5h2fXaImwGHwPlRus-zJkCFtk-oL7Lgd7sbBKrv4xc-6vikSzu1bQmpqhwB59yaokfqD2KAZkTLcaTar%7EEabB9j%7EuzVr2beijK9l5bQaEKSugxgRBCsV9F6nhVSwioSNbjylv3azQQax0HEx3zaRMuEWCNRkiq298w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1538bff2d27a31eb40369dbc38e97371
PDF Text
Text
IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?
DY
ANNIE
BESANT.
BEING AN ENQUIRY WHETHER THE BIBLE COMES
WITHIN THE RULING OF THE LORD CHIEF
TUSTICE AS TO OBSCENE LITERATURE.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
PRICE
%
TWOPENCE.
�LONDON :
TRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?
AN enquiry whether the bible comes within
THE RULING OF THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
AS TO OBSCENE LITERATURE.
The ruling of Sir Alexander Cockburn in the late trial, the
'Queen against Bradlaugh and Besant, seems to involve
wider issues than the Lord Chief Justice intended, or than
the legal ally of Nature and Providence can desire. The
question of motive is entirely set on one side; the purest
motives are valueless if the information conveyed is such as
is capable of being turned to bad purposes by the evilminded and the corrupt. This view of the law would not
he enforced against expensive medical works ; provided that
the price set on a book be such as shall keep it out of reach
of the “ common people,” its teaching may be thoroughly
immoral but it is not obscene. Dr. Fleetwood Churchill,
for instance, is not committing an indictable offence by
;giving directions as to the simplest and easiest way of pro
curing abortion; he is not committing a misdemeanour,
although he points out means which any woman could
obtain and use for herself; he does not place himself within
Teach of the law, although he recommends the practice of
abortion in all cases where previous experience proves that
the birth of a living child is impossible. A check to popu
lation which„ destroys life is thus passed over as legal, per
haps because the destruction of life is the check so largely
employed by Nature and Providence, and would thus ensure
the approval of the Solicitor-General. But the real reason
why Dr. Churchill is left unmolested and Dr. Knowlton
is assailed, lies in the difference of the price at which
the two are severally published. If Dr. Knowlton was
�4
IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?
sold at ios. 6d. and Dr. Churchill at 6d., then
the vials of legal wrath would have descended on theadvocate of abortion and not on the teacher of prevention.
The obscenity lies, to a great extent, in the price of the book
sold. A vulgar little sixpence is obscene, a dainty halfsovereign is respectable. Poor people must be content toremain ignorant, or to buy the injurious quack treatises;
circulated in secret; wealthier people, who want knowledge
less, are to be protected by the law in their purchases of
medical works, but if poor people, in sore need, finding
“ an undoubted physician ” ready to aid them, venture to
ask for his work, written especially for them, the law strikes
down those who sell them health and happiness. They
must not complain; Nature and Providence have placed
them in a state of poverty, and have mercifully provided for
them effectual, if painful, checks to population. The same
element of price rules the decency or the indecency of
pictures. A picture painted in oils, life size, of the naked
human figure, such as Venus disrobed for the bath, or
Phryne before her judges, or Perseus and Andromeda,
exhibited to the upper classes, in a gallery, with a shilling
admission charge, is a perfectly decent and respectable work
of art. Photographs of those pictures, uncoloured, and
reduced in size, are obscene publications, and are seized as
such by thd police. Cheapness is, therefore, an essential
part of obscenity.
If a book be cheap, what constitutes it an obscene book ?
Lord Campbell, advocating in Parliament the Act against
obscene literature which bears his name, laid down very
clearly his view of what should, legally, be an obscene work.
It must be a work “written for the single purpose of
corrupting the morals of youth, and of a nature calculated
to shock the feelings of decency in any well-regulated
mind ” (Hansard, vol. 146, No. 2, p. 329). The law,,
according to him, was never to be levelled even against
works which might be considered immoral and indecent,,
such as some of those of Dryden, Congreve, or Rochester.
“The keeping, or the reading, or tve delighting in such
things must be left to taste, and was not a subject for legal
interference; ” the law was only to interpose where the motive
of the seller was bad; “ when there were people who
designedly and industriously manufactured books and prints
with the intention of corrupting the public morals, and when
they succeeded in their infamous purpose, he thought it was
�IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE ?
5
►necessary for the legislature to interpose ” (Hansard, vol.
146, No. 4, p. 865).
The ruling of the present Lord Chief Justice in the late
■trial is in direct opposition to the view taken by Lord
Campbell. The chief says : “ Knowlton goes into physio
logical details connected with the functions of the genera
tion and procreation of'children. The principles of this
.pamphlet, with its details, are to be found in greater
abundance and distinctness in numerous works to which
your attention has been directed, and, having these details
before you, you must judge for yourselves whether there is
-anything in them which is calculated to excite the passions
of man and debase the public morals. If so, every medical work
is open to the same imputation” (Trial, p. 261). The Lord Chief
Justice then refers to the very species of book against which
Lord Campbell said that he directed his Act. “ There are
books,” the chief says, “ which have for their purpose the
■exciting of libidinous thoughts, and are intended to give to
persons who take pleasure in that sort of thing the impure
gratification which the contemplation of such thoughts is
calculated to give.” If the book were of that character it
4‘ would be condemnable,” and so far all are agreed as to the
law. But Sir Alexander Cockburn goes further, and here is
the danger of his interpretation of the law: “ Though the
■intention is not unduly to convey this knowledge, and gratify
prurient and libidinous thoughts, still, if its effect is to excite
and create thoughts of so demoralising a character to the
mind of the reader, the work is open to the condemnation
asked for at your hands ” (Trial, p. 261).. Its effect on what
reader? Suppose a person of prurient mind buys Dr.
Carpenter’s “Human Physiology,’’and reads the long chapter,
containing over 100 pages, wholly devoted to a minute des
cription of generation; the effect of the reading will be “ to
excite and create thoughts of” the “demoralising character”
spoken of. According to the Lord Chief Justice’s ruling, Dr,
Carpenter’s would then become an obscene book. The evil
motive is transferred from the buyer to the seller, and then
the seller is punished for the buyer’s bad intent; vicarious
punishment seems to have passed from the church into the
law court. There can be no doubt that every medical book
-now comes under the head of “ obscene literature,” for they
may all be read by impure people, and will infallibly have
the affect of arousing prurient thoughts ; that they are written
for a good purpose, that they are written to cure disease, is
�6
IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?
no excuse; the motive of the writer must not be considered
the law has decided that books whose intention is to*
convey physiological knowledge, and that not unduly, areobscene, if the reader’s passions chance to be aroused by
them; “ we must not listen to arguments upon moral obli
gations arising out of any motive, or out of any desire tobenefit humanity, or to do good to your species ” (Trial,
p. 237). The only protection of these, otherwise obscene,
books lies in their price; they are generally highly-priced,
and they do thus lack one essential element of obscenity.
For the useful book that bad people make harmful must be
cheap in order to be practically.obscene ; it must be within
reach of the poor, and be “ capable of being sold at the
corners of the streets, and at bookstalls, to every one who
has sixpence to spare” (Trial, p. 261).
The new ruling touches all the dramatists and writers that
Lord Campbell had no idea of attacking ; no one can doubt
that many of Congreve’s dramas are calculated to arousesexual passion; these are sold at a very low price, and they
have not even the defence of conveying any useful informa
tion ; they come most distinctly within the ruling of theLord Chief Justice ; why are they to be permitted freecirculation ? Sterne, Fielding, Smollett, Swift, must all be
flung into the dusthole after Congreve, Wycherley, Jonson ;
Dryden, of course, follows these without delay, andSpencer, with his “ Faerie Queene,” is the next victim.
Shakespeare can have no quarter shown him ; not only aremost gross passages scattered through his works, but the
motive of some of them is directly calculated to arouse thepassions ; for how many youthful love fevers is not “ Romeo
and Juliet ” answerable; what of “Cymbeline,” “Pericles,”
or “ Titus Andronicus ” ? Can “ Venus and Adonis ” tend
to anything except to the rousing of passion ? is “ Lucrece”
not obscene? Yet Macmillan’s Globe Edition of Shakes
peare is regarded as one of the most admirable publishing
efforts made by that eminent firm to put English master
pieces in the hands of the poor. Coming to our time, what
is to be done with Byron ? “ Don J uan ” is surely calculated
to corrupt, not to speak of other poems, such as “ Parisina.”
What of Shelley, with his “ Cenci ?” Swinburne, must of
course, be burned at once. Every one of these great
names is now branded as obscene, and under the ruling of
the Lord Chief Justice every one of them must be con
demned. Suppose some one should follow Hetherington’s-
�IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?
7
example ? Suppose that we should become the prosecutors
instead of the prosecuted ? Suppose that we should drag
Others to share our prison, and should bring the most hon
oured names of authors into the same condemnation that
has struck us? Why should we show to others a con
sideration that has not been shown to us ? If it is said
that we should not strike, we answer; “ Then leave tis
alone, and calculate the consequences before you touch
us again.” The law has been declared by the Lord Chief
Justice of England; why is not that law as binding on Mac
millan as on us ? The law has been narrowed in order to
enmesh Freethought: its net will catch other fishes as well,
or else break under the strain and let all go free. The
Christians desire to make two laws, and show their hands
too plainly : one law is to be strict, and is to apply wholly
to Freethinkers; cheating Christians, who sell even Knowl-.
ton, are to be winked at by the authorities, and are to be let
off scot free; but this is not all. Ritualists circulate a book
beside which Knowlton is said to be purity itself, and the
law does not touch them ; no warrants are issued for their
apprehension; no prosecution is paid for by a hidden
enemy ; no law-officer of the Crown is briefed against them.
Why is this ? because to attack Christians is to draw atten
tion to the foundation of Christianity ; because to attack the
“ Priest in Absolution ” is to attack Moses. The Christian
walls are made out of Bible-glass, and they fear to throw
stones lest they should break their own house. Listen to
Mr. Ridsdale, a brother of the Holy Cross : “ I wonder,”
he says, “ why some one does not stand up in the House of
Lords and bring a charge against the Bible (especially Levi
ticus) as an immoral book.” The Church Times, the organ
of the Ritualists, has a letter which runs thus : “ Suppose a
patrician and a pontifex in old Rome had with care and
deliberation extracted sentences from Holy Writ, separated
them from their context, suppressed the general nature
and character of the book, and then accused the bishop
and his clergy of deliberately preparing an obscene
book to contaminate the young (how readily he might
have made such extracts !), what should we have said of
such ruffians?” This, then, is the shield of the clergy;
the Bible is itself so obscene that Christians fear to prosecute
priests who circulate obscenity.
Does the Bible come within the ruling of the Lord Chief
Justice as to obscene literature ? Most decidedly it does,
�8
IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?
and if prosecuted as an obscene book, it must necessarily be
condemned, if the law is justly administered.
Every
Christian ought therefore to range himself on our side, and
demand a reversal of the present rule, for under it his own
sacred book is branded as obscene, and may be prosecuted
as such by any unbeliever.
First, the book is widely circulated at a low price. If the
Bible were restricted in its circulation by being sold at
ios. 6d. or a guinea, it might escape being placed in the
category of obscene literature under the present ruling.
But no such defence can be pleaded for it. It is sold at
8d. a copy, printed on cheap paper, and strongly bound, for
use in schools ; it is given away by thousands among the
“ common people,” whose morals are now so carefully looked
after in the matter of books ; it is presented to little chil
dren of both sexes, and they are told to read it carefully.
To such an extent is this carried, that some thousands of
children assembled together were actually told by Lord
Sandon, the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on
Education, to read the Bible right through from beginning
to end, and were bidden not to pick'and choose. The ele
ment of price is clearly against the Bible if it be proved to
have in it anything which is of a nature calculated to sug
gest impure thoughts.
As to the motives of the writers, we need not trouble
about them. The law now says that intention is nothing,
and no desire to do good is any excuse for obscenity (Trial,
P- 257)There remains the vital question : is the effect of some of
its passages to excite and create demoralising thoughts?
(Trial, p. 261).
The difficulty of dealing with this question is that
many of the quotations necessary to prove that the Bible
■ comes under the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice are
of such an extremely coarse and disgusting character, that
it is really impossible to reproduce them without intensi
fying the evil which they are calculated to do. While I
see no indecency in a plain statement of physiological
facts, written for people’s instruction, I do see indecency
in coarse and indelicate stories, the reading of which can do
no good to any human being, and can have no effect save
that of corrupting the mind and suggesting unclean
ideas. I therefore refuse to soil my pages with quotations,
and content myself with giving the references, so that any
�IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?
9
one who desires to use the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice
to suppress the Bible may see what certainty of success
awaits him if justice be done. I shall not trouble about
simple coarseness, such as Gen. iv. i, 17, 25; Gen. vi. 4;
or Matt. i. 18-20, 25. If mere coarseness of expression
were to be noted, my task would be endless. But let the
intending prosecutor read the following passages. A little
boy of 8 or 10 would scarcely be improved by reading Gen.
ix. 20-25 1 the drunkenness, indecency, and swearing in
these six verses is surely calculated to corrupt the boy’s
mind. The teaching of Gen. xvi. 1-5 is scarcely elevating
for the “ common people,” seeing the example set by the
“friend of God.” Gen. xvii. 10-14 and 23-27 is very coarse.
Would Gen. xix. 4-9 improve a young maiden, or would it
not suggest the most impure thoughts, verse 5 dealing with
an idea that should surely never be put into a girl’s
mind ? The same chapter, 30-38, is revolting; and Deut.
ii. 9 and 19 implies God’s approval of the unnatural
crime. The ignorance of physiology which is thought best
■for girls would receive a shock, when in reading the Bible
straight through, the day’s portion comprised Gen. xxv., 2126. Gen. xxvi., 8 is not nice, nor is Gen. xxix., 21-35, and
Gen. xxx. The story of Dinah, Gen. xxxiv.; of Reuben,
Gen. xxxv., 22 ; ofOnan, Gen. xxxviii., 8-10 ; of Judah and
Tamar, xxxviii., 13-26 ; of the birth of Tamar’s children,
xxxviii., 27-30, are all revolting in their foulness of phrase
ology. Why the Bible should be allowed to tell the story of
Onan seems very strange, and the “ righteousness ” of Tamar
(v. 26) wins approval. Is this thought purifying teaching for
the “ common people ” ? The story of Joseph and Potiphar’s
wife, Gen. xxxix., 7-18, I have heard read in church to the
manifest discomfort of some of the congregation, and the
amusement of others, while Joseph flying from temptation
and leaving his garment with Potiphar’s wife is a picture
often seen in Sunday schools. Thus twelve out of the fifty
chapters of Genesis are undeniably obscene, and if there is
any justice in England, Genesis ought to be suppressed.
We pass, to Exodus. Ex. i., 15-19 is surely indecent. I am
not dealing with immoral teaching, or God’s blessing on the
falsehood of the midwives (20, 21) would need comment.
Ex. iv., 24-26, is very coarse; so also Ex. xxii., 16, 17, 19.
Leviticus is coarse throughout, but.is especially so in chaps,
v., 3; xii.; xv.; xviii., 6-23; xx., 10-21; xxii., 3-5. The
trial of jealousy is most revolting in Numb, v., 12-29.
�IO
IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?
Numb, xxv., 6-8 is hardly a nice story for a child, nor is that
of Numb, xxxi., 17,18. Deut. xxi., 10-14 is not pure teaching"
for soldiers. Deut. xxii,, 13-21 is extremely coarse; the re
mainder of the chapter comes also within the Chiefs ruling,
as do also chaps, xxiii., 1, 10, 11; xxv., 11, 12 ; xxvii., 20,.
22, 23 ; xxviii., 57. The fault of the book of Joshua lies
chiefly in its exceeding brutality and bloodthirstiness, but it,
also, does not quite escape the charge of obscenity, as may
be seen by referring to the following passage : chap, v., 2-8.
Judges is occasionally very foul, and is utterly unfit for
general reading, according to the late definition;
Ehud and Eglon, Judges, iii., 15-25, would not bear
reading aloud, and the story might have been
told equally well in decent language. Or take the
horribly disgusting tale of the Levite and his concubine
(Judges xix.), and then judge whether a book containing
such stories is fit for use in schools. Dr. Carpenter’s book
may do good there, because, with all its plain speaking, it
conveys useful information; but what good—mental,
physical, or moral—can be done to a young girl by reading
Judges xix. ? And the harm done is intensified by the fact
that the ignorance in which girls are kept surrounds such a
story with unwholesome interest, as giving a glimpse into
what is, to them, the great mystery of sex. The story of
Ruth iii. 3—14 is one which we should not like to see
repeated by our daughters; for the virtue of a woman who
should wait until a man was drunk, and then go alone at
night and lie down at his feet, would, in our days, be
regarded as problematical. 1 Sam. ii. 2 2, and v. 9 are both
obscene; so are 1 Sam. xviii. 25—-27 and xxi. 4, 5.
1 Sam. xxv. 22, 34 are disgustingly coarse, and there are
many similar coarse passages to be found in “ holy ” writ.
2 Sam. vi. 14, 16, 20, is a little over-suggestive, as is also
2 Sam. x. 4. The story of David dancing is told in
1 Chron. xv. 27—29 without anything offensive in its tone.
The story of David and Bathsheba is only too well known, and
as told in 2 Sam. xi. 2—13 is far more calculated to arouse
the passions than is anything in Knowlton. The prophecy
in 2 Sam. xii. 11, 12, fulfilled in xvi. 21, 22, is repulsive in
the extreme, more especially when we are told that the
shameful counsel was given by Ahithophel, whose counsel,
“ which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had
inquired at the oracle of God.” If God’s oracles give such
counsel, the less they are resorted to the better for the
�IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?
IE
welfare of the state. We are next given the odious story of
Amnon and Tamar (2 Sam. xiii. 1—22), instructive for Lord
Sandon’s boys and girls to read together, as they go through
the Bible from beginning to end. 1 Kings i. 1—4 conveys
an idea more worthy of George IV. than of the man after
God’s own heart. In 1 Kings xiv. 10, the coarseness is inex
cusable, and verse 24 is only too intelligible after Judges xix.
2 Kings ix. 8, xviii. 27, are thoroughly Biblical in their
delicacy. 1 Chron. xix. 4 repeats the unpleasant story of
2 Sam. x. 4; but both 1 and 2 Chronicles are, for the Bible,
remarkably free from coarseness, and are a great improve
ment on the books of Kings and Samuel. The same praiseis deserved by Ezra and Nehemiah., The tone of the story
of Esther is somewhat sensual throughout: the drunken
king commanding Vashti to come in and show her beauty,
Esther i. 11 ; the search for the young virgins, Esther ii.
2—4; the trial and choice, Esther ii. 12—17, these are
scarcely elevating reading ; Esther vii. 8 is also coarse.
To a girl whose safety is in her ignorance, Job iii. 11 is very
plain. Psalm xxxviii. 5—7 gives a description of a certain
class of disease in exact terms. Proverbs v. 17—20 is good
advice, but would be condemned by the Lord Chief Justice;
Proverbs vi. 24—32 is of the same character, as is also
Proverbs vii. 5—23. The allusion in Ecclesiastes xi. 5
would be objected to as improper by the Solicitor-General.
The Song of Solomon is a marriage-song of the sensual
and luxuriant character : put Knowlton side by side with it,
and then judge which is most calculated to arouse the
passions. It is almost impossible to select, where all is of
so extreme a character, but take i. 2, 13; ii. 4—6, 17;
iii. 1, 4 ; iv. 5, 6, 11; v. 2—4, 8, 14—16 ; vii. 2, 3, 6—10, 12;
viii. 1—3, 8—10. Could any language be more alluring,
more seductive, more passion-rousing, than the languid,
uxorious, “ linked sweetness long drawn out ” of this
Eastern marriage-ode ? It is not vulgarly coarse and offen
sive as is so much of the Bible, but it is, according to the
ruling of the Lord Chief Justice, a very obscene poem.
One may add that, in addition to the allusions and descrip
tions that lie on the surface, there is a multitude of sugges
tions not so apparent, but which are thoroughly open to all
who know anything of Eastern imagery.
After the Song of Solomon, it is a shock to come to the
prophets; it is like plunging into cold water after being in
a hothouse. Unfortunately, with the more bracing atmo
�12
IS THE BIBLE -INDICTABLE?
sphere, we find the old brutality coming again to repel us,
■and coarse denunciation shocks us, as in Isaiah iii. 17. How
would the Lord Chief Justice have dealt with Isaiah if he
had lived in his day, and acted as is recorded in Isaiah xx.,
2—4 ? He clearly would have put him in a lunatic asylum
(Trial, p. 168). If it were not that there are so many worse
passages, one might complain of the taste shown in the com
parison of Isaiah xxvi. 17, 18; the same may be said of
Isaiah xxxii. 11, 12. In Isaiah xxxvi. 12 we have a repe
tition of 2 Kings xviii. 27, which we could weli have spared.
In Isaiah lvii. 8, 9, we meet a favourite simile of the Jewish
prophets, wherein God is compared to a husband, and the
people to an unfaithful wife, and the relations between them
are described with a minuteness which can only be fitly
designated by the Solicitor-General’s favourite word. Isaiah
lxvi. 7—12 would be regarded as somewhat coarse in an
■ordinary book. The prophets get worse as they go on.
Jeremiah i. 5 is the first verse we meet in Jeremiah which the
Solicitor-General would take exception to. We next meet the
simile of marriage, in Jeremiah ii., 20,iii. 1—3,6—9, verse 9
being especially offensive. Jer. v. 7, 8, is coarse, as are also
Jer. xi. 15 andxiii. 26, 27. Ought the girl’s schools to read
Jer. xx. 17, 18? But, perhaps, as Ezekiel is coming, it is
hypercritical to object to Jeremiah. Lamentations i. 8, 9, is
revolting, and verse 17 of the same chapter uses an extremely
coarse simile. Ezekiel is the prophet who eat a little book
and found it disagree with him : it seems a pity that he did
■not eat a large part of his own, and so prevent it from
poisoning other people. What can be more disgusting than
Ez. iv. 12—15? the whole chapter is absurd, but these
verses are abominable. The prophet seems, like the drawers
of the indictment against us, to take pleasure in piling up
uncomfortable terms, as in Ez. vi. 9. We now come to
a chapter that is obscene from beginning to end, and may,
I think, almost claim the palm of foulness. Let any one
read through Ez. xvi., marking especially verses 4—9, 15—17,
25, 26, 33, 34, 37, 39, and then think of the absurdity of
prosecuting Knowlton for corrupting the morals of the
young, who have this book of Ezekiel put into their hand.
After this, Ez. xviii. 6, 11, and 15 seem quite chaste and
delicate; and no one could object to Ez. xxii. 9—n.
Ez. xxiii. is almost as bad as chapter xvi., especially verses
6—9, 14—21, 29, 41—44. Surely if any book be indict
able for obscenity, the Bible should be the first to be prose
�IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?
13
cuted. I know of no other book in which is to be found such
utterly unredeemed coarseness. The rest of Ezekiel is only
bloodthirsty and brutal, so may, fortunately, be passed over
without further comment. Daniel may be left unnoticed ;
and we now come to Hosea, a prophet whose morals were,
to speak gently, peculiar. The “ beginning of the word of
the Lord by Hosea/’ was the Lord’s command as to his
marriage, related in Hosea i. 2 ; we then hear of his children
by the said wife in the remainder of the chapter, and
in the next chapter we are told, Hosea ii. 2, that the
woman is not his wife, and from verse 2—13 we have an ex
tremely indecent speech of Hosea on the misdeeds of the
unfortunate creature he married, wherein, verse 4, he com
plains of the very fact that God commanded in chap. i. 2.
Hosea iii. 1—3 relates another indecent proceeding on
Hosea’s part, and his purchase of another mistress; whether
girls’ morals are improved by the contemplation of such
divine commands, is a question that might fairly be urged
on Lord Sandon before he next distributes Bibles to little
children of both sexes. The said girls must surely, as they
study Hosea iv. 10—18, wonder that God expresses his in
tention not to punish impurity in verse 14. It is impossible,
in reading Hosea, to escape from the prevailing tone of
obscenity; chaps, v. 3, 4, 7; vi. 9, 10; vii. 4; viii. 9;
ix. 1, 10, 11, 14, 16; xii. 3 ; xiii. 13, every one of these
has a thought in it that all must regard as coarse, and which
comes distinctly within the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice
as to obscenity; there is scarcely one chapter in Hosea that
does not, with offensive reiteration, dwell on the coarsest
form of wrongdoing of which women are capable. Joel iii.
3 is objectionable in a comparatively slight degree. Amos,
although occasionally coarse, keeps clear of the gross
obscenity of Hosea, as do also Obadiah and Jonah. Micah i.
7, 8, 11, would scarcely be passed by Sir Hardinge Giffard,
nor would he approve Micah iv. 9, 10. Nahum iii. 4—6
is almost Hoseatic, and Habakkuk ii. 5, 16 runs it close.
The remaining four prophets are sometimes coarse, but
have nothing in them approaching the abominations of the
others, and we close the Old Testament with a sigh of
relief.
The New Testament has in it nothing at all approaching
the obscenity of the Old, save two passages in Revelation.
The story of Mary and Joseph is somewhat coarse, espe
cially as told in Matt. i. 18—25. Rom. i. 24—27 is distinctly
�^4
IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?
obscene, and i Cor. v. i, vi. 9, 15, 16, 18, would all be
judged indelicate by Her Majesty’s Solicitor-General, who
objected to the warnings given by Knowlton against sexual
sin. The whole of 1 Cor. vii. might be thought calculated
to arouse the passions, but the rest of Paul’s Epistles may
pass, in spite of many coarse passages, such as 1 Thess. iv.
3—7. Heb. xiii. 4 and 2 Peter ii. 10—18 both come into
the same category, but it is useless to delay on simple
■coarseness. Revelation slips into the old prophetic inde
cency; Rev. ii. 20—22 and xvii. 1—4 are almost worthy
•of Ezekiel.
Can anyone go through all these passages and have any
•doubt that the Bible—supposing it to be unprotected by
statute—is indictable as an obscene book under the ruling
of the Lord Chief Justice? It is idle to plead that the
writers do not approve the evil deeds they chronicle, and
that it is only in two or three cases that God appears to en
dorse the sin ; no purity of motives on the writers’ parts can
be admitted in excuse (Trial, p. 257). These sensuous stories
■and obscene parables come directly under the censure of the
Lord Chief Justice, and I invite our police authorities to
show their sense of justice by prosecuting the people who
circulate this indictable book, thereby doing all that in them
lies to vitiate and corrupt the morals of the young. If they
will not do this, in common decency they ought to drop
the prosecution against us for selling the “ Fruits of
Philosophy.”
The right way would be to prosecute none of these
books. All that I have intended to do in drawing attention
to the “ obscene ” passages in the Bible, is to show that to
•deal with the sexual relations with a good object—as is
presumably that of the Bible—should not be an indictable
misdemeanour. I do not urge that the Bible should be
prosecuted : I do urge that it is indictable under the present
ruling; and I plead, further, that this very fact shows how
the present ruling is against the public weal. Nothing could
be more unfortunate than to have a large crop of prosecu
tions against the standard writers of old times and of the
present day, and yet this is what is likely to happen, unless
some stop is put to the stupid and malicious prosecution
against ourselves. With one voice, the press of the country
—omitting the Englishman—has condemned the “ foolish ”
verdict and the “ vindictive ” sentence. When that sentence
as carried out, the real battle will begin, and the blame of
�IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?
15
the loss and the trouble that will ensue must rest on those
who started this prosecution, and on those who shield the
hidden prosecutor. The Christians, at least, ought to join
with us in reversing the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice,
since their own sacred book is one of those most easily
assailable. The purity that depends on ignorance is a
fragile purity ; the chastity that depends on ignorance is a
fragile chastity; to buttress up ignorance with prison and
fine is a fatal policy; and I call on those who love freedom
and desire knowledge, to join with us in over-ruling by
statute the new judge-made law
��
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
Is the Bible indictable? Being an enquiry whether the Bible comes within the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice as to Obscene Literature
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood [1847-1933]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of Publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh,28, Stonecutter Street. Date of publication from KVK. Originally published as a series of articles in the National Reformer and later condensed into this pamphlet. Issued during the Besant/Bradlaugh obscenity trial presided over by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. They were tried for publishing Charles Knowlton's birth control pamphlet entitled 'Fruits of Philosophy'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1884]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT83
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 (Is the Bible indictable?),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
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Obscenity (Law)
Bible-Criticism and Interpretation
Charles Bradlaugh
Conway Tracts
Freedom of the Press
Obscenity
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cf232bde6f905c13d9bcf19dff3cb5ee.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=avQkUIUh54Ug21cUurZqF-9ZNMqw0cv8oPA2GtGPst5kXnV8CYuO3O24caarKJdZZbSW33UHbgQdSxvRezy075L0XVrdPFfYGwdYf8nyFGkZ89-O4mykJKS6xfQ-qOM2YoODo3Y7TyXMs-q7gXypbSYgy2ncKnvb3XfUdw%7E5QBA3OC1dU9OBXNyHkKYT3u2MLYOn0s670iv94YQHyhNL899Z7XhUsJulCq4NgrD82zFDSogDoeXBixiGKgeLZkomH47PCQtU2%7EoCwzYqQ8HO5iQnsKkM0%7Evo8q8FjBAMI0ZSCbaKTV0fvWEtqNgN%7EY%7EjIn7JPM6GbS9btL9yhhEoOg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9f37cacf4164b30b92fcf53d5c74d5d3
PDF Text
Text
I
REMINISCENCES
OF
CHARLES BRADLAUGH
BY
G. W. FOOTE
President of the National Secular Society
■V
AND
Editor of “ The Freethinker."
I
f
Price Sixpence.
Xtnibeu:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1891.
��NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
REMINISCENCES
OF
CHARLES BRADLAUGH
BY
G. W. FOOTE
President of the National Secular Society
AND
Editor of “ The Freethinker.”
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1891.
�LONDON I
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCJETY
INTRODUCTION.
THE following pages are reprinted, with some altera
tions and additions, from the columns of the
Freethinker.
They are neither methodical nor
exhaustive. I had the privilege of knowing Mr.
Bradlaugh more or less intimately for twenty years.
I have worked with him in the Freethought movement
and stood by his side on many political platforms. It
seemed to me, therefore, that if I jotted down, even in
a disjointed manner, some of my recollections of his
great personality, I should be easing my own mind and
conferring a pleasure on many readers. Beyond that
I was not ambitious. The time for writing Mr. Brad
laugh’s life is not yet, but when it arrives my jottings
may furnish a point or two to his biographer.
G. W. FOOTE,
March 30, 1891.
��Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
----------- ♦-----------
When I came to London, in January, 1868, I was
eighteen years of age. I had plenty of health and very
little religion. While in my native town of Plymouth
I had read and thought for myself, and had gradually
passed through various stages of scepticism, until I
was dissatisfied even with the advanced Unitarianism
of a preacher like the Rev. J. K. Applebee. But I
could not find any literature in advance of his position,
and there was no one of whom I could inquire.
Secularism and Atheism I had never heard of in any
definite wray, although I remember, when a little boy,
having an Atheist pointed out to me in the street.
Naturally I regarded him as a terrible monster. I did
not know what Atheism was except in a very vague
way; but I inferred from the tones, expressions, and
gestures of those who pointed him out to me, that an
Atheist was a devil in human form.
Soon after I came to London I found out an old
school-fellow, and went to lodge with his family.
They were tainted with Atheism, and my once pious
playmate was as corrupt as the rest of them. They
took me one Sunday evening to Cleveland Hall, where
I heard Mrs. Law knock the Bible about delight
fully. She was not what would be called a woman of
culture, but she had what some devotees of “ culchaw”
do not possess—a great deal of natural ability ; and she
appeared to know the “blessed book” from cover to
�6
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
cover. Her discourse was very different from the
Unitarian sermons I had heard at Plymouth. She
spoke in a plain, honest, straightforward manner, and
I resolved to visit Cleveland Hall again.
Three or four weeks afterwards I heard Mr. Brad
laugh for the first time. It was a very wet Sunday
evening, but as ’bus-riding was dearer then than it is
now, and my resources were slender, I walked about
three miles through the heavy rain, and sat on a back
less bench in Cleveland Hall, for which I think I paid
twopence. I was wet through, but I was young, and
my health was flawless. Nor did I mind the dis
comfort a bit when Mr. Bradlaugh began his lecture.
Fiery natural eloquence of that sort was a novelty in
my experience. I kept myself warm with applauding,
and at the finish I was pretty nearly as dry outside as
inside. From that time I went to hear Mr. Bradlaugh
whenever I had an opportunity. He became the
“ god ” of my young idolatry. I used to think of him
charging the hosts of superstition, and wish I could
be near him in the fight. But it was rather a dream
than any serious expectation of such an honor.
When the new Hall of Science was opened I became
a pretty regular attendant. I heard Mr. Charles Watts,
who was then as. now a capital debater; Mr. G. J.
Holyoake, Mr. C. C. Cattell, Mr. Austin Holyoake. and
perhaps one or two other lecturers whom I have for
gotten. Mr. Austin Holyoake frequently took the
chair, especially at Mr. Bradlaugh’s lectures, and a
capital chairman he was, giving out the notices in a
pleasant, graceful manner, and pleading for financial
support like a true man. He was working hard for the
success of the enterprise himself, and had a right to
beg help from others.
Mr. Bradlaugh, however, was the great attraction
in my case. Perhaps I was more impressionable at
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
1
that time, but I fancy he was then at his best as an
orator. In later life he grew more cautious under a
sense of responsibility ; he had to think what he should
not say as well as what he should. He cultivated the
art of persuasion, and he was right in doing so. But
at the earlier period I am writing of he gave a full
swing to his passionate eloquence. His perorations
were marvellously glowing and used to thrill me to the
very marrow.
Gradually I began to make acquaintances at the
Hall. I got to know Mr. Austin Holyoake and his
charming wife, Mr. and Mrs. Bayston, Mr. Herbert
Gilham, Mr. It. 0. Smith, and other workers. By and
bye I was introduced to Mr. Bradlaugh and shook
hands with him. It was the proudest moment of my
young life. I still remember his scrutinising look. It
was keen but kindly, and the final expression seemed
to say, “ We may see more of each other.”
In 1870 I wrote my first article in the National
Reformer. For a year or two I wrote occasionally,
and after that with tolerable frequency. I was also
engaged in various efforts at the Hall; helping to carry
on a Secular Sunday School, a Young Men’s Secular
Association, etc. Naturally I was drawn more and
more into Mr. Bradlaugh’s acquaintance, and when he
found himself unable to continue the Logic Class he
had started at the Hall he asked me to carry it on for
him. Of course I was proud of the invitation. But
the Class did not live long. It was not Logic, but Mr.
Bradlaugh, that had brought the members together.
Nor do I think they would have learnt much of the
art from Mr. Bradlaugh, except in an empirical way.
He had a very logical cast of mind, but as far as I
could see he had little acquaintance with formal
Logic as it is taught by Mill and Whately, whom I
select as typical masters of Induction and Deduction,
�8
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
without wishing to depreciate the host of other autho
rities. Mr. Bradlaugh really gave his class lessons in
Metaphysics; his talk was of substance, mode, and
attribute, rather than of premises and conclusions.
Mr. Bradlaugh and I were brought into closer
acquaintance by the Republican agitation in England
after the proclamation of the present French Republic.
I attended the Republican Conference at Birmingham
in 1871, when I first met my old friend Dr. Guest of
Manchester, Mr. R. A. Cooper of Norwich, Mr. Daniel
Baker, Mr. Ferguson the Glasgow Home Ruler, and
other veterans of reform. We held our Conference
on Sunday in the old meeting-place of the Secular
Society, which was approached by very abrupt steps,
and being situated over stables, was not devoid of
flavor. On Monday the Conference was continued in
one of the rooms under the Town Hall. A long poli
tical programme was concocted. I was elected Secre
tary, and had the honor of speaking at the public
meeting in the large hall. It was my first appearance
in such a perilous position. I was apprehensive, and
I said so. But Mr. Bradlaugh put his hand on my
shoulder and told me not to fear. His kind looks and
words were an excellent tonic. When I rose to speak
I thought next to nothing about the audience. I
thought “ Mr. Bradlaugh is listening, I must do my
best.” And now as I am writing, I recall his encou
raging glance as I looked at him, and the applause he
led when I made my first point. He was my leader,
and he helped me in an elder-brotherly way. Nothing
could exceed his considerate generosity. Other people
did not see it, but I remember it, and it was typical of
the man.
One incident at the Conference is worth noting. It
occurred in the afternoon, when Mr. R. A. Cooper (I
think) was in the chair. The question of Free Educa-
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
fJ
lion was being discussed. Mr. Bradlaugh did not
quite like it, nor did I. He asked me to go with him
into an ante-room and consider an amendment. What
it was I can hardly remember, although I recollect that
Mr. Cooper was very sarcastic about it. Since then my
own opinion has changed, as I dare say Mr. Bradlaugh’s
had changed; and the incident would not be worth
recalling if it did not throw a light upon Mr. Brad
laugh’s philosophy. He was always in favor of self
help and individual responsibility, and he was naturally
hostile to everything that might weaken those precious
elements of English life.
During the years immediately after the opening of
the Hall of Science, Mr. Bradlaugh was there a good
deal. Sometimes he attended the week-night enter
tainments and gave a reading from Shelley or
Whittier or some other poet. The audience applauded
as a matter of course. They always applauded Mr.
Bradlaugh. But he was no reader. He delivered his
lines with that straightforward sincerity which
characterised his speeches. He cultivated none of
the graces or dexterities of the elocutionist. Besides,
he was too original to be a successful echo of othei’
men. I think he only did justice to Shelley’s lines
“ To the Men of England.” But this is a piece of
simple and vigorous declamation ; very fine, no doubt,
but rather rhetoric than poetry.
Mr. Bradlaugh was anything but a cold man. I
should say he was electric. But his tastes, so far as I
could discover, did not lie in the direction of poetry.
Certainly I heard him once, in those old days, read a
great part, if not the whole of Shelley’s “ Sensitive
Plant.” He loved Shelley, however, as an Atheist
and a Republican, and I suppose he took Shelley’s
poetry on trust. But I do not think, though I speak
under correction, that he cared very much for poetry
�10
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
■cis such. I could never discover from his conversation
-or writings that he had read a line of Shakespeare—
the god of Colonel Ingersoll. His mind was of the
practical order, like Oliver Cromwell’s. He had a
.genius for public affairs. He was not only a born
orator, but a born ruler of men. Naturally he had, as
the French say, the defects of his qualities. And it
may be that the terrible stress of his life tended to
repress the poetical side of his nature, and less
•developed his subtlety than his strength. Yet his
feelings were deep, and his heart was easily touched.
When William O’Brien delivered that great speech
in the House of Commons after his imprisonment by
Mr. Balfour, with all its needless indignities, there
were two men who could not restrain their tears.
■One was an Irish member. The other was Charles
Bradlaugh. One who witnessed the scene told me it
was infinitely pathetic to see that gigantic man,
■deemed so hard by an ignorant world, wiping away
his tears at the tale of a brave man’s unmerited
suffering.
Mr. Bradlaugh used to attend the social parties
pretty often in those old days. He did not dance
and he stood about rather awkwardly. It must have
been a great affliction, but he bore it with exemplary
fortitude. Once or twice I saw Mrs. Bradlaugh there.
She had a full-blown matronly figure. Miss Alice and
Miss Hypatia came frequently. They were not then
living in the enervating air of London, and they
looked extremely robust. I also remember the boy
'Charles, of whom Mr. Bradlaugh seemed very proud.
He was a remarkably bright lad, and full of promise.
But he was carried off by a fever. Only a day or two
:after the lad’s death Mr. Bradlaugh had to lecture at
ithe Hall. I was away, and I wondered whether he
would fulfil the engagement. He did fulfil it. A
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
11
friend wrote to me that Mr. Bradlaugh walked through
the hall and mounted the platform with a face as
white and rigid as that of a statue. He made no
reference or allusion to his loss, but all could see he
carried a bleeding heart. His lecturing in such cir
cumstances was characteristic. Weaker men would
have indulged their grief ; he was made of sterner
stuff, and would not let it interfere with what he
deemed his duty.
Splendid as was his eloquence at that time, Mr.
Bradlaugh did not draw the large audiences that
flocked around him a few years later. The Hall of
Science was at first but half its present size, the
platform standing on the right as you entered, with
a small gallery on the opposite side. Its holding
capacity could not have been more than half what it
is at present, yet I have seen the place far from full.
But the audiences grew larger and larger, and
eventually the hall was increased to its present pro
portions, although for a long time there was not cash
enough to put on a proper roof, and the building was
defaced by a huge unsightly beam, on each side of
which there was an arch of corrugated iron.
Those were glorious times. Difficulties were great,
but there was a spirit at the Hall that laughed at
them. How the foremost men about the place did
work! Mr. R. 0. Smith and Mr. Trevilion, senior,
could a tale unfold. Whenever Freethinkers are at
all dejected they should have a chat with one of
those gentleman. Perhaps it would make them
ashamed of their dejection, and fill them with the
spirit of the heroic days.
Friends have told me with what energy Mr. Brad
laugh fought the battles of the old Reform League.
I know with what energy he threw himself into the
Republican agitation that followed the downfall of
�12
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
Napoleon III. He tried to get to Paris but failed. Jules
Favre and his friends did not want him. Favre
himself was an eloquent histrion, and no doubt he felt
afraid of a man like Mr. Bradlaugh. But if Mr. Brad
laugh could not get to "Paris he fought hard for France
in London. Meetings at the Hall of Science did not
suffice. There was money from French sources and
St. James’s Hall was taken for a big demonstration.
The Positivists shared in the proceedings. Their
chief man was Mr. Frederic Harrison. Mr. Bradlaugh
and he were a tremendous contrast. In fact a London
paper (I think the Echo) remarked that Mr. Brad
laugh spoke as well as Mr. Harrison wrote, and Mr.
Harrison spoke as badly as Mr. Bradlaugh wrote.
There was some truth in this, though like most
epigrams it was not all true. Mr. Bradlaugh was a
born orator, but not a born writer. Yet he often
wrote with a forthright power, nakdd and unadorned,
which could dispense with the aid of literary artifices.
During this English agitation on behalf of France,
held firmly under German feet, Mr. Bradlaugh came
into contact with a French countess, who, I believe,
either supplied or was the channel of supplying the
necessary funds. As the lady is mentioned in Mr
Headingley’s Life of Charles Bradlaugh, which was
published with Mr. Bradlaugh’s sanction, there is no
reason why I should not refer to her. She came
several times to the Hall of Science, and I was intro
duced to her. She had been a beauty, and although
time was beginning to tell on her, she retained a good
deal of charm and distinction, which, like a true
Frenchwoman, she heightened by the art of dressing.
Then as now, of course, foul tongues wagged in foolish
heads, and Mr. Bradlaugh’s enemies were not slow to
point to the French countess with prurient grimaces.
Unable to understand friendship between man and
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
13
woman, owing to their Puritan training or incurable
rankness, they invited the orthodox in religion and
politics to note this suspicious connection. Something
of this malicious folly must have reached Mr. Brad
laugh’s ears, but I imagine he was too proud and selfcontained to let it disturb him.
After the Birmingham meeting, and the founding
of the Republican League, of which Mr. Bradlaugh
became president, and I secretary, he visited Spain on
private business, taking with him a message from the
Conference to Senor Castelar, the leading spirit of the
short-lived Spanish Republic. I remember writing
out the message in a clear, bold hand, and addressing
the foolscap envelope in the same way. When Mr.
Bradlaugh fell among the Carlists he cursed my caligraphy. Happily, however, the officer who scrutinised
that envelope could not read at all, and Mr. Bradlaugh
escaped the consequences of being known to carry
about letters addressed to the devilish Castelar.
During Mr. Bradlaugh’s first visit to America I was a
frequent contributor to his journal, and I corresponded
with him privately. I went down to Northampton
and delivered a lecture at his request, under the auspices
of his electoral committee. The old theatre—a dirty,
ramshackle place as I recollect it—was crowded, and I
had my first taste of the popularity of Mr. Bradlaugh
in the borough. Every mention of his name excited
the wildest enthusiasm.
While Mr. Bradlaugh was lecturing in the States a
general election took place in England. It was
impossible for him to return in time, but his friends
looked after his interests. A committee was formed
at the Hall of Science to raise the necessary funds, and
Mr. Charles Watts and I went down to Northampton
to conduct the election. We addressed outdoor meet
ings in the day, and crowded indoor meetings at night.
�14
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
Again I saw what a hold Mr. Bradlaugh had on his
Northampton followers. They sang “Bradlaugh for
Northampton ” in the Circus with all the fervor of
Scotch Covenanters on their hillsides “rolling the
psalm to wintry skies.”
Mr. Watts and I did not win the seat for Mr. Brad
laugh, nor did he win it himself at the next election,
but we managed to increase his vote, and he expressed
his pleasure at the result.
Soon after the election Mr. Bradlaugh returned to
England. Mr. Watts and I went down with him to
Northampton. There was a crowded public meeting,
I believe in the Circus ; and I saw’Mr. Bradlaugh, for
the first time, in the presence of his future constituents.
They were simply intoxicated with excitement. The
shouts of “ Bradlaugh ” and “ Charley ” were deafen
ing. Hats and handkerchiefs were waved in the air.
The multitude rose to its feet and gave its hero a
splendid welcome, Then we settled down to speech
making, but all that followed was somewhat tame
and flat after that first glorious outburst of populai'
devotion.
The next election came quickly. It resulted in the
return of a Tory majority for Benjamin Disraeli, and
Mr. Gladstone went off to sulk in his tent. Two Tories
were returned for Radical Northampton. Mr. Brad
laugh let them in. He was determined to have one of
the Northampton seats. To get it he had to make
himself inevitable. He had to prove that if North
ampton wanted two Liberal members, one of them
must be Charles Bradlaugh. It took him thirteen
years to demonstrate this, but he succeeded, as he
succeeded in most things. At last, in 1880, he ran as
official Liberal candidate with Mr. Labouchere, and
both were returned.
I assisted Mr. Bradlaugh during his second (1874)
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
15-
election. It was then that I first saw Mrs. Besant. She
had not yet taken to the platform, but she was writing
for the National Reformer, and her pen was active*
during the contest. Mr. Watts was also there. Another
figure I remember was Mr. George Odger, who labored
among the Trade Unionists of Northampton in Mr..
Bradlaugh’s interest. George Odger was one of the
ablest of all the working-class leaders I have ever met.
He came from my own county, Devonshire, being born
at Horrabridge, on the road between Plymouth and1
Tavistock. He was honest to the heart’s core, as well
as very able, but he was incurably indolent. You
never could be sure of him at a public meeting. He
had to be looked up beforehand, or he might forget the
engagement and spend his time more agreeably. He
was passionately fond of the theatre, and could talk by
the hour on famous performances of old actors and
actresses. During the daytime at Northampton I had
long chats with him. He objected to fine hotels, and
he. objected to walking ; so I had to sit with him in
the garden of a semi-rural public-house, where our'
conversation was altogether out of proportion to our
liquor. Odger liked beer; not much of it, but just
enough ; it suited his palate and his purse ; and as I
drank next to nothing, the landlord must have thought
us unprofitable customers.
Mr. Bradlaugh had rooms at the George Hotel. It
was the Tory house, but he preferred it, and Mrs,
Besant, Mr. Watts, and the rest of us, fed and slept
there during the election. This gave rise to a good
deal of silly talk among Mr. Bradlaugh’s enemies.
One evening we were returning from a Town Hall
meeting, and the Tories had been holding a small
me eting at the “ George.” As we reached the foot of
the stairs, we encountered a knot of Tories. One of
them was Mr. Merewether, the Tory candidate. He
�16
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
was nearly of the same height as Mr. Bradlaugh, and
well built. His friends were holding him back, but
he broke from them, exclaiming, “ Hang it! I ivill
have a look at him.” He stood at the very foot of the
■staircase and looked hard at Mr. Bradlaugh ascending.
His expression was one of good-tempered insolence.
After a long look at Mr. Bradlaugh, he returned to his
friends, shouting, “ Well, I’m damned if he’s as badlooking as I thought.”
I left Northampton before the close of the poll.
Mr. Bradlaugh’was leaving the same night for America,
having barely time to catch the boat at Liverpool. I
drove round with him before leaving, on a visit to
■some of the polling stations. He had paid me a modest
sum for my services, but he found he had hardly
■enough to take him across the Atlantic, and he asked
me to lend him what money I had. I fished seven or
•nine pounds out of my pocket—I forget which—and
handed it to him. It was paid back to me by his order
a few weeks subsequently ; and the incident would
not be worth mentioning if it did not throw a light on
the libellous nonsense of Mr. Bradlaugh’s enemies that
he was rolling in wealth.
While at Northampton with Mr. Bradlaugh, and on
other occasions, I saw something of his personal tastes
and habits. He struck me as an abstemious man. He
was far from a great eater, and I never noticed him
■drink anything at dinner but claret, which is not an
intoxicating beverage. On the whole, I should say, it
is less injurious to the stomach and brain than tea or
Coffee. He was rather fond of a cup of tea seventeen
years ago, and latterly his fondness for it developed
into something like a passion. More than once I
found him at St. John’s Wood drinking a big cup of
pretty strong tea, and was seduced by his genial invita
tion into joining him in that reckless indulgence.
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
17
He used to smoke too in the old days, but he
cafterwards gave up the practice for several years.
About seven years ago, however, he resumed it. I
do not think he ever attained to the dignity of a pipe.
He smoked cigars. Some time in April, 1889, 1 spent
.an hour with him at the House of Commons. He got
the Speaker’s leave to take me into the lower smokeroom, and we “ discussed ” a cigar and some claret
while discussing some Freethought business. The
-claret he seemed indifferent to, but he puffed the cigar
with an air of enjoyment.
During the Northampton election times I used to
take a good stiff daily walk. All through my youth
I had plenty of exercise in the open air, and I still
.grow desperately fusty without a brisk tramp at least
once in the twenty-four hours. Mr. Bradlaugh genea’ally took a drive, and I remember telling him with
youthful audacity that he ought to walk for his
health’s sake. Of course it was difficult for him to
walk in the streets. His stature and bulk made him
itoo noticeable, and mobbing was very unpleasant.
But he might have driven out of town and trudged a
mile or two on the country roads. My opinion is that
his neglect of physical exercise helped to shorten his
life. Occasional bouts of fishing were very well in
their way, but daily ^exercise is the necessary thing.
I do not forget the tremendous labor, physical as well
as mental, of lecturing on burning questions to large
.audiences. All that, however, goes on in hot, crowded
rooms, full of vitiated air ; and it gives no proper
■exercise to the legs and loins or the lower vital organs.
After one of my remonstrances Mr. Bradlaugh
invited me to play a game of billiards. It was the
only time I ever played with him. His style with the
■cue was spacious and splendid. The balls went flying
.about the board, and I chaffed him on his flukes. He
B
�18
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
had not the temperament of a billiard-player. Still, I
have heard that he played a fair game at St. Stephen’s ?
but I can hardly believe it without first-hand testi
mony. I am willing to believe, however, that he was
a good chess-player. Certainly he had a head for it.But chess is a vile game for a brain-worker, whose
recreations should never involve a mental strain.
When I first knew Mr. Bradlaugh he was living at
Tottenham. I never visited him there, but I often
called on him at his later lodgings in Turner-street,
Commercial-road. He occupied the ground floor,
consisting of two rooms. The back was his bedroom,
and the front his library and workshop. It was what
the Americans call a one-horse affair. Shelves all
round the room were filled with books. Mr. Bradlaugh
sat at a desk with his back to the fireplace. On his
right was the door communicating with his bedroom,
facing him the door opening on the passage, and on
his right the street window. The room itself could
hardly have been more than twelve or thirteen feet
square. I once told him he was too near the fireplace,
and he said it was sometimes good to have the poker
handy. At that I stared, and he told me the following
story.
One day a gentleman called on him and was invited
to take a chair. He sat down facing Mr. Bradlaugh,
and explained that he wanted advice on a very par
ticular matter. God Almighty had told him to kill'
someone, and he had a difficulty in selecting a victim.
Mr. Bradlaugh put his hand behind him and quietly
grasped the poker. The inspired gentleman put the
problem as a knotty one, and begged the assistance of
the clever Iconoclast. “ Well,” said Mr. Bradlaugh,
keeping quite cool, “ what do you say to the Arch
bishop of Canterbury ? ” “ The very man 1 ” exclaimed
the inspired gentleman. He got Mr. Bradlaugh to
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
19
give him the Archbishop’s address, and said, “ Goodday,” with a profusion of thanks. Mr. Bradlaugh
went to the door to look for a policeman, but none was
visible, and the inspired gentleman was soon out of
sight.
“ So you see,” said Mr. Bradlaugh, “ It’s good to
have the poker handy. I never saw or heard of the
man again, and I knew he couldn’t get near the Arch
bishop. There are too many flunkeys in the way.”
Those were my struggling days, and Mr. Bradlaugh
was very kind to me. I remember the Sunday evening
when I told him I thought of taking to the Freethonght
platform. He pointed out the hard and thorny path I
should have to tread, but when he saw I was resolved
on the attempt, he put his hand on my shoulder and
said, “ There is no young man in the movement I
would sooner welcome.”
In the very same room, on another Sunday evening
a little later, I first saw James Thomson. He came
down to the Hall of Science with Mr. Bradlaugh, in
whose employment he then was, and I gave him the
article I had brought for the National Reformer. He
shook hands very cordially, and I was delighted to
meet one for whose poetry I had a profound admiration.
It was also at the Hall of Science, about the same •
time, that I met the eccentric Mr. Turberville, brother
to Mr. Blackmore, the novelist. He was a man of
parts with a bee in his bonnet. He claimed kinship
with Turberville, a minor poet of the sixteenth
century, and he loved to talk of poetry. His know
ledge of Shakespeare was profound and minute. He
admired Mr. Bradlaugh’s perorations immensely, as
well as his bold defence of Freethought. He made
out a will in Mr. Bradlaugh’s favor, but he subse
quently made another will, and died in circumstances
that necessitated an inquest. By agreement, however,
�20
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
Mr. Bradlaugh obtained £2,500 from the estate, and the
windfall came opportunely, for his Struggles and litiga
tions had involved him in considerable debt. I know
he often had to borrow money on heavy interest. One
day, at Turner-street, he told me that a creditor of this
species had coolly invited him to dinner. “ Hang it,”
he said, “ you can’t dine with a man who charges you
sixty per cent.”
Another recollection I have of Mr. Bradlaugh is in
connexion with the funeral of Mr. Austin Holyoake.
The death of this gentleman was a great loss to the
Freethought cause. He was highly respected by all
who knew him. The geniality of his disposition was
such that he had many friends and not a single
enemy. For some years he was Mr. Bradlaugh’s
printer and publisher, and a frequent contributor to
his journal. He was foremost in every good work,
but he was one of those modest men who never get
the credit of their labors. He died at 17 Johnson’scourt, Fleet-street, in an upstairs room above the
printing office, where his devoted wife had for many
weeks nursed his flickering life. The funeral was a
notable event. Those of us who could afford it rode
in the undertaker’s coaches, and the rest walked in
procession to Highgate Cemetery. I can still see
Mr. Bradlaugh in my mind’s eye, bustling about on
the ground floor, taking everything as usual on his
own shoulders. He sorted us in fours for the coaches,
my vis a vis being James Thomson. At the grave
side, after the reading of Austin Holyoake’s own
funeral service by Mr. Charles Watts, Mr. Bradlaugh
delivered a brief address which he had written for
the occasion. On the whole it was too much a com
position, but one sentence was true “ Bradlaugh,” and
it sounds in my ears still:—“ Twenty years of friend
ship lie buried in that grave.” -
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugli.
21
How such scenes are impressed on one’s memoryI
As I write I see the set face of Charles Bradlaugh. I
behold the sob-shaken back and bowed head of
Herbert Gilham just in front of me. I hear and feel
the cool, rustling wind, like a plaintive requiem over
the dead.
Once again, years afterwards, I saw Mr. Bradlaugh
in the same cemetery, supporting the helpless figure
of Mrs. Ernestine Rose as she left the open grave of
th® dear partner of her long life of labor for the cause
of human redemption.
Owing to circumstances, into which I need not enter,
I saw little of Mr. Bradlaugh between 1875 and 1880.
When he was returned for Northampton I rejoiced,
and when he was committed to the Clock Tower I saw
my duty sun-clear. It was to participate as I could,
and might, in the struggle. My contributions to Mr.
Bradlaugh’s journal were resumed, and I spoke at
meetings in his behalf. In May, 1881, I started the
Freethinker, my oldest living child. Mr. Bradlaugh
acted with his natural generosity. He advertised my
bantling gratuitously in his own journal, and gave it
every possible facility. This .was not known at the
time, but I ought to state it now.
Throughout that long, terrible struggle with the
House of Commons I was with Mr. Bradlaugh on every
point. If he made a single mistake I have yet to
see it indicated. My article in the first number of the
Freethinker was entitled “ Mr. Bradlaugh’s Advisers.”
Its object was to show the absurdity of the plentiful
advice offered him, and the absolute justice of the
course he was pursuing.
Three weeks afterwards the bigots convened a ticket
meeting at Exeter Hall. The chief promoters were
Earl Percy, Sir Bartie Frere, an I butcher Varley. Mr.
Bradlaugh was afraid the meeting would have a pre
�22
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
judicial effect on. public opinion in the provinces.
The fact of the tickets would be kept back, and the
report would go forth that a vote was unanimously
passed against him at a big London demonstration. It
was necessary, therefore, that the meeting should be
spoiled. And it ivas. Mr. Bradlaugh gave me the task
of moving an amendment. We had a chat in his
library at St. John’s Wood, and as we parted he said,
“ I rely on you, Foote.” He looked at me steadily,
holding my eyes as though to read the depths.
We got tickets somehow. But the Protestant Alli
ance smelt mischief, and Mr. Bradlaugh’s supporters
had to fight their way in. Two hundred and fifty
police were not enough to keep them all out. I
was naturally a marked man, and fighting had to be
supplemented by diplomacy. When the noble Smithson (Earl Percy), had drivelled for a few minutes
as chairman, and the resolution against Mr. Brad
laugh had been proposed and seconded by Sir John
Kennaway and Canon Taylor, I rose to move an
amendment. But the amendment was refused. The
resolution was put, and the Christians stood up and
voted, while the organ played “ God Save the Queen.”
Then, at a signal, our people jumped on the forms, and
rent the air with cheers for “ Bradlaugh.” At another
signal they all trooped out, went off to Trafalgar-square
with the big crowd outside, and passed resolutions in
Mr. Bradlaugh’s favor. The bigots’ meeting was com
pletely spoiled. They had to barricade the doors and
keep out their own people as well as the enemy ; the
hall was never half full, and their resolution was
passed after refusing an amendment, amidst loud
execrations. Such a lesson was taught the bigots that
they never made another attempt. Mr. Bradlaugh had
trusty lieutenants and stern supporters, and the bigots
knew he would spoil every private meeting that pro-
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
23
fessed to be public. He acted with wisdom and deter
mination, and the result showed he knew the stake he
was playing for when he said, “ I rely on you,” with
that steady Napoleonic look.
Mr. Brad laugh’s legal exploits, if properly recorded,
would fill a good-sized volume. When his life is
adequately written, as it will be some day, this depart
ment will have to be entrusted to a skilled lawyer,
No other person could do anything like justice to a
most important part of the career of one whom the
Tories used to call “ that litigious man,” when they
were trying to ruin him in the law courts and he was
only defending himself against their base attacks.
Those who had only known Mr. Bradlaugh as a
platform orator had some difficulty in recognising him
when they first met him in one of our “halls of justice.”
His whole manner was changed. He was polite,
insinuating, and deferential. His attitude towards the
judges was admirably calculated to conciliate their
favor. I do not mean that he calculated. He had
quite a superstitious veneration for judges. It was
perfectly sincere and it never wavered. . He would not
hear a word against them. When he pleaded before
them his personal sentiments ran in a line with his
best interests ; for although judges are above most
temptations, their vanity is often sensitive, and Mr.
Bradlaugh’s manner was intensely flattering.
Had he followed the legal profession, Mr. Bradlaugh
would have easily mounted to the top and earned a
tremendous income. I have heard some of the cleverest
counsel of our time, but I never heard one to be com
pared with him in grasp, subtlety and agility. He
could examine and cross-examine with consummate
dexterity. In arguing points of law he had the tenacity
of a bull-dog and the keenness of a sleuth-hound. He
�24
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
always fortified himself with a plethora of “ cases.’7
The table in front of him groaned with a weight of
law. Here as elsewhere he was “ thorough.” An
eminent jurisprudist once 'remarked to me, “ there islittle gleaning to be done after Bradlaugh.”
As a pleader before juries, however, I doubt whether
he would have achieved a great success. He was toomuch of a born orator. He began well, but he soon
forgot the limited audience of twelve, and spoke to a
wider circle. This is not the way to humor juries.
They like to feel their own importance, and he succeeds
best who plays upon their weakness. “ Remember,”
their looks say, “ you are talking to us; the other
gentlemen listen accidentally ; we make you or damn
you.”
My first recollection of Mr. Bradlaugh in the law
courts is twenty-two years old. How many survivorsare there of the friends who filled that dingy old court
at Westminster where he argued before a full bench of
judges in 1869 ? He was prosecuted for not giving
sureties in the sum of £400 against the appearance of
blasphemy or sedition in his paper. The law was
resuscitated in his single case to crush him ; but he
fought, as he said he would, to the bitter end, and the
Gladstone Government was glad to repeal the obsolete
enactments. The Crown retired from the suit with a
stet processus, and Mr. Bradlaugh was left with the
laurels—and his costs.
I obtained an hour or two’s leave from my employ
ment, and heard a portion of Mr. Bradlaugh’s argument
It gave me a new conception of his powers. That is
the only impression I retain. The details have dropped
out of my memory, but there remains as fresh as ever
the masterful figure of Charles Bradlaugh.
The best view I ever had of Mr. Bradlaugh in
litigation was in the old Court of Queen’s Bench on
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
25'
Tuesday and Wednesday, July 19 and 20, 1881, when
he cross-examined poor Mr. Newdegate. For a good
deal of the time I sat beside him, and could watch him
closely as well as the case. By raising the point
whether the writ against him for penalties had been
issued before or after he gave his vote in the House, he
was able to put all the parties to the prosecution into
the witness-box and make them give an account of
themselves. Mr. Newdegate was one of the victims,
and the poor man made confessions that furnished'
Mr. Bradlaugh with ground for a successful action
against him under the law of Maintenance.
‘ Mr. Newdegate was a hard-mouthed witness, but hewas saddled, bridled, and ridden to the winning-post.
His lips opened literally, making his mouth like the
slit of a pillar-box. Getting evidence from him was
like extracting a rotten cork from the neck of a bottle,
but it all came out bit by bit, and the poor man must
have left the witness-box feeling that he had delivered'
himself into the hands of that uncircumcised Philistine.
His cross-examination lasted three hours. It was likeflaying alive. Once or twice I felt qualms of pity for
the old man, he was such an abject figure in the handsof that terrible antagonist. Every card he held had to
be displayed. Finally he had to produce the bond of
indemnity he had given the common informer Clarke
against all the expenses he might incur in the suit.
When this came out Mr. Bradlaugh bent down to me
and said, “I have him.” And he did have him.
Despite the common notion that the old law of Main
tenance was obsolete, Mr. Bradlaugh pursued him
under it triumphantly, and instead of ruining “ Brad
laugh,” poor Newdegate was nearly ruined himself.
What a contrast to Mr. Newdegate was Mr. Bradlaugh'
He was the very picture of suppressed fire, of rampant
energies held in leash : the nerves of the face playing
�"26
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
like the ripple on water, the whole frame quivering,
and the eyes ablaze. It was wonderful how he
managed to keep his intellect alert and his judgment
steady. Six hours of such work as he had in court
that day were enough to tax the greatest strength.
Before it was over I saw bodeful blood-rims under his
eyes. It did not surprise me, on meeting him at the
Cobden Workmen’s Club the next evening, to learn
that he had been frightfully ill. “ Mr. Bradlaugh,” I
wrote at the time, “ is a wonderfully strong man, but
the Tories and the bigots are doing their best to kill
him, and if this sort of thing is to continue very much
longer they may succeed.” Alas, they did succeed*
That terrible struggle killed him. No man ever lived
who could have passed through it unbroken.
Mr. Bradlaugh was clearly right on the point raised,
but the jury went against him, apparently out of sheer
prejudice. When he went out into Westminster Hall
he was loudly cheered by a crowd of sympathisers,
who, as the Times sneered, “ applauded as lustily as
though their champion had won.” Precisely so. Their
applause would have greeted him in the worst defeat.
He was not a champion on whom they had “ put their
money.” He represented their principles, and the
Times forgot, if it ever knew, that men are devoted to
leaders in proportion to the depth of the interests they
•espouse. Conviction “ bears it out even to the edge of
doom.”
Now let me mention something that shows Mr.
Bradlaugh’s tact and consideration. My work on the
Freethinker brought me no return. I had just read
the proof of an article for Mr. Bradlaugh’s paper.
While we were waiting for the jury’s verdict he referred
to the article, and guessing my need he said, “ Shall I
give you the guinea now ?” My answer was an
■expressive shrug and a motion of the eye-brows.
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
27
Taking the two coins out of his pocket, he wrapt them
in a piece of paper under the table, and presently
slipped the packet into my hand. The whole proceed
ing touches me deeply as I recall it. He might well
have thought only of himself in that time of suspense ;
hut he thought of me too, and the precautions he took
against being seen to pay me money were expressive
•of his inbred delicacy. Reader do not say the incident
is trivial. These little things reveal the man.
Little did I dream, as I watched Mr. Bradlaugh
fighting bigotry in the law courts, that the time would
come when he and I would be included in a common
-indictment and stand in a criminal dock together. But
as the French say, it is always the unexpected that
happens. Early in July, 1882, I was served with a
summons from the Lord Mayor of London, ordering
me to appear at the Mansion House on the following
Tuesday and take my trial on a charge of Blasphemy.
Two other gentlemen were included in the summons,
and all three of us duly appeared. We were all
■members of the National Secular Society, and Mr.
Bradlaugh attended to render any possible assistance.
The case was adjourned to the following Monday, by
which time a summons had been served on Mr. Brad
laugh, who took his place beside us in the dock. After
.an animated day’s proceedings we were committed for
trial at the Old Bailey.
The object of this prosecution was, of course, to stab
Mr. Bradlaugh in the back. He had fought all the
bigots face to face, and held them all at bay ; so they
put a stiletto into Sir Hardinge Giffard’s hands, and
paid him his blood-money to attack the hero from
behind.
Mr. Bradlaugh had to play the fox again. He wanted
■to gain time, and he wanted to be tried, if at all, in the
Court of Queen’s Bench. He always told me that
�28
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
being tried at the Old Bailey was going like a lamb to
the slaughter, and that a verdict of guilty there would
certainly mean twelve months’ imprisonment. The
obvious resource, therefore, was to obtain a writ of
certiorari removing our indictment to the superior
court. Happily it was in the long vacation, and appli
cation had to be made to a judge in chambers. By
another piece of good luck, it was Mr. Justice Stephen
who sat behind the table on the fatal morning when
the writ had to be finally granted or refused. It wasobtained on July 29, 1882. Poor Mr. Maloney, who
represented the prosecution, was no match for Mr.
Bradlaugh, who treated him like a child, and only let
him say a word now and then as a special favor.
Roaming the law courts with Mr. Bradlaugh, I was
able to see his intimate knowledge of legal practice.
He threaded the labyrinth with consummate ease and.
dexterity. We went from office to office, where every
thing seemed designed to baffle suitors conducting
their own cases. Our case, too, was somewhat peculiar
obsolete technicalities, only half intelligible even toexperts, met us at every turn ; and when we got out
into the open air I felt that the thing was indeed done,
but that it would puzzle omniscience to do it in
exactly the same way again. Seven pounds was spent
on stamps, documents, and other items, and securitiesfor costs had to be given to the extent of six hundred
pounds. As I walked home I pondered the great truth,
that England is a free country. I had seen with my
own eyes that there is one law for rich and poor. But
I could not help reflecting that only the rich could,
afford it, and that the poor might as well have no law
at all.
Mr. Bradlaugh next moved to quash the indictment..
He argued that the public prosecutor’s fiat was bad, asit did not name the persons who were to be proceeded
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
29
against, and thus resembled a general warrant, which
in the famous Wilkes case the judges had held to be
invalid. On this point, however, two judges, one of
them being Sir James Stephen, gave judgment against
him. The case was argued on Mr. Bradlaugh’s part,
the judges said, with “great power and learning.” For
my part, I think he showed a greater knowledge of
cases ” than both the legal luminaries on the bench,
who laid their heads close together over many a knotty
point of th® argument.
Beaten on the main issue, Mr. Bradlaugh was
successful, however, on the subsidiary one. Two
counts were struck out of the indictment. The excision
mad® no difference to me, but a great deal of difference
to him. Two numbers of the Freethinker were thus
disposed of bearing the imprint of the Freethought
Publishing Company—under which name Mr. Bradiatlgh and Mrs. Beasant traded—and owing to the lapse
of time it was impossible to open a fresh indictment. Of
course I saw what Mr. Bradlaugh was driving at, and I
could not but admire the way in which he made light of
this point, arguing it baldly as a formal matter on which,
as their lordships would see at a glance, he was abso
lutely entitled to a judgment. They would see that
he was still open to all the other counts of the indict
ment, and therefore it might make very little difference,
but right was right and law was law. Under the spell
of his persuasive speech, it was amazing to see the
judges smoothing their wrinkled fronts. I fancy they
gave him his second point the more readily because
they were against him on the first; indeed, they
seemed to think it a pity, if not a shame, that all his
learning and ability should be displayed for nothing.
Qur indictment went into the list of Crown Cases
Reserved, and did not come on for trial till the following
April. Meanwhile I was prosecuted again, and failing
�30
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
to get a writ of certiorari, owing to the flagrant bigotry
of Baron Huddleston and Justice North, I was tried at
the Old Bailey, and sentenced to twelve months’’
inprisonment like a common thief—as Mr. Bradlaugb
had predicted.
During my trouble Mr. Bradlaugh lent me every
assistance, furnishing me with legal books and advice,,
and visiting me in Newgate between the first and
second trials, while Judge North’s underlings were
preparing a more pliant jury than the one which had
declined to return a verdict of guilty.
In Holloway Gaol I lost sight of Mr. Bradlaugh and
everyone else, except persons I had no desire to see.
But one morning, early in April, 1883, the Governor
informed me that Mr. Bradlaugh was going to pay me
a visit, having the Home Secretary’s order to see me on
urgent business. The same afternoon I was marched
from my cell into one of the Governor’s offices,
where Mr. Bradlaugh was waiting. Compared with
the pale prisoners I saw day by day, he looked
the very picture of health. Fresh, clean-shaven,
neatly dressed, he was a most refreshing sight to eyesaccustomed to rough faces and the brown convict’s
garb. And it was a friend too, and I could take his
hand and exchange human speech with him. How
vivid is my recollection of him at that moment! He
seemed in the prime of life, little the worse for his
terrible struggles, only the gray a trifle more decided
about the temples, but the eyes full of light, and the
mobile mouth full of vitality. And now he is dead 1
Dead! It is hard to realise. But I rang the muffled
bell as he lay fighting his last battle, and I followed
his corpse to the grave ; and I know that the worm is
busy about those leonine features, and the rain trickles
through with a scent of faded flowers. Yes, it is true ;
he is dead. Dead like the king and dead like the
�Reminiscences of Charles Rradlaugh.
31
clown ; yet living truly beyond the dust of death in
the lives of others, an inextinguishable light, a vivify
ing fire, a passionate hope, an ardent aspiration.
Till the Future dares
Forget the Past, his fate and fame shall be
An echo and a light unto eternity.
On the morning of April 10, 1883, I put on my own
clothes and was driven in a four-wheeler from Holloway
Gaol to the Law Courts, in company with Warder Smith,
who superintended the wing of the prison in which a
grateful country lodged and boarded me at its own
expense. It was lovely spring weather, and I felt like
a man new-born.
Inside the court where the great Blasphemy case was
to be tried I found Mr. Bradlaugh with his usual load
of law books. The court was crowded with friends of
the defendants and legal gentlemen anxious to witness
the performance.
Mr. Bradlaugh applied for a separate trial, on theground that as there was no charge of conspiracy it was
unjust to prejudice his case by evidence admitted
against his co-defendants ; and Lord Coleridge, who
obviously meant to see fair play, granted the application,
Mr. Bradlaugh’s position was, in one sense, the most
perilous he had ever stood in. Just as his long litiga
tion with respect to his seat in Parliament was drawing
to a close, and as he believed to a successful close, he
had to defend himself against a charge which, if he
were proved guilty, would entail upon him the penalty
of imprisonment. Of course it would not have been
such imprisonment as I was suffering, for Queen’s
Bench prisoners are generally sent to the civil side of
Holloway Gaol. But any imprisonment at such a
moment gravely imperilled his prospects of success in
the mighty struggle with wealth, bigotry, and political
�:32
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
prejudice. A sense of this fact weighed heavily upon
him, but it did not impair his energy or intellectual
alertness ; indeed, he was one of those rare men whose
faculties are sharpened by danger.
I need not dwell upon the evidence of the prosecu
tion. It was most unsatisfactory, and failed to connect
Mr. Bradlaugh with the Freethinker. Sir Hardinge
Giffard, therefore, almost entirely confined himself to
playing upon the prejudices of the jury.
Mr. Bradlaugh was perfection itself in examining
.and cross-examining, and was soon on the windward
side of the judge, but his address to the jury was too
boisterous. He felt too much. His adversary was not
under this disadvantage, and Sir Hardinge Giffard’s
address to the jury, considered merely as a tactical
display, was better than Mr. Bradlaugh’s.
On the second day of the trial (it lasted for three
-days) there occurred a curious episode. Just before
the adjournment for luncheon Mr. Bradlaugh intimated
that when the Court re-assembled he would call his
■co-defendants as witnesses. Lord Coleridge replied
in a low, suggestive tone. “ Do you think it neces
sary ? ” Mr. Bradlaugh rose and for the first time I
saw him tremble. “ My lord,” he said, “ you put upon
me a grave responsibility.” “ I put no responsibility
upon you,” said Lord Coleridge, “it is for you to
■decide.” And the stately judge glided away in his
robes of office.
If Mr. Bradlaugh put his co-defendants in the
witness-box, one of two things might happen. They
might decline to give evidence, as every answer would
tend to criminate themselves ; or they might exculpate
Mr. Bradlaugh and procure their own damnation.
I do not blame Lord Coleridge for looking at the
matter in this way. But I naturally looked at it in
a different light. Mr. Bradlaugh was my general, and
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
33
I was his lieutenant, and it was clearly my duty to
sacrifice myself. I could release him from danger
with half a dozen words, and why should I hesitate to
say them or he to exact them ? I was already in
prison, and another conviction could add little to my
misfortune, whereas he was still free, and his continued
freedom was just then absolutely indispensable to our
Common cause. For my part, I ’had not a moment’s
hesitation. But Lord Coleridge’s words sank into Mr.
Bradlaugh’s mind, and after luncheon he announced
that he would not call his co-defendants. His lordship
looked pleased, but how he frowned when Sir Hardinge
Giffard complained that he was deprived of an oppor
tunity 1 Lord Coleridge did not say, but he looked—
II Have you no sense of decency ? ” Sir Hardinge
Giffard, however, was thick-skinned. H6 relied on
Mr. Bradlaugh’s sense of honor, and made it the basis
of an artificial grievance. He even pretended that Mr.
Bradlaugh was afraid to call his co-defendants. But
he overreached himself by this hypocrisy, and obliged
Mr. Bradlaugh to put his co-defendants into the
witness-box. We were formally tendered as wit
nesses, Mr. Bradlaugh going no further, and leaving
Sir Hardinge Giffard to do as he would. Of course he
was obliged to interrogate us, or look foolish after his
braggadocio, and in doing so he ruined his own case
by giving us the opportunity ’■ of declaring that Mr.
Bradlaugh was never in any way connected with the
Freethinker.
Mr. Bradlaugh, of course, did not in any sense sacri
fice me. It would have been contemptible on my
part to let him bear any responsibility for my own
deliberate action, in which he was not at all implicated,
and if I had not been tendered as a witness I should
have tried to tender myself.
After half an hour’s deliberation the jury found Mr.
�34
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
Bradlaugh not guilty. Standing up for the verdict,
with pale set face, the grateful little “ not ” fell upon
his ear, and his rigidity relaxed. Tears started to
my eyes, and I saw the tears in his eyes as I squeezed
his hand in speechless congratulation.
My own trial followed Mr. Bradlaugh’s, and I was
not found guilty. Three members of the jury held
out against a verdict that would have disgraced a free
country ; and as the prosecution despaired of obtaining
a verdict while Lord Coleridge presided at the trial,
the Attorney-General was asked to allow the abandon
ment of proceedings. This he granted, the case was
struck off the list, and I returned to my prison cell at
Holloway.
Let me now go back to the crowning incident of
that long struggle between Charles Bradlaugh and the
House of Commons. On May 10, 1881, the House
passed a resolution authorising the Sergeant-at-Arms
to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from entering. On June 20,
the jury gave a verdict in Mr. Newdegate’s favor for
the £500 penalty and costs. A motion for a new trial
failed, and Mr. Bradlaugh appealed to the country.
Enthusiastic meetings were held in his behalf, and
he prepared a fresh coup. It had to be something
striking, and it was. On the morning of August 3
Palace Yard and Westminster Hall were thronged with
his supporters. Every one was armed with a petition,
which he had a legal right to take to the House of
Commons. Mr. Bradlaugh himself drove up in a
hansom cab, and entered the precincts of the House
by the private door. He made his way to the door of
the House itself and tried to enter by a sudden effort,
but he was seized by fourteen officials and stalwart
policemen, picked for the work, and thrust back
through the private passage into Palace Yard. Not
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
35
expecting such indignity, he contested every inch of
the ground. Inspector Denning said he never thought
that one man could have offered such resistance. The
small muscles of both his arms were ruptured, and a
subsequent attack of erysipelas put his life in jeopardy.
When he was finally thrust on to the pavement in
Palace Yard his coat was torn and the rest of his
garments were disarranged. His face was livid with
the intense exertion when I saw him a minute after
wards. There he stood, a great mass of panting,
valiant manhood, his features set like granite, and his
eyes fixed upon the doorway before him. He seemed
to see nothing but that doorway. I spoke to him, and
he seemed not to hear. I believe a mighty struggle
was going on within him, perhaps the greatest struggle
of his life. He had suffered a frightful indignity, he
must have been tempted to avenge it, and he had but
to hold up his hand to bring around and behind him
the myriads who stood outside the railings. The
action would have been impolitic, but what a tempta
tion he crushed down, and what an effort it necessitated I
Never was his heroic nature more sorely tried. He
justified his mastery of others by his mastery of him
self. How small in comparison seemed the mob of
his enemies ! I never admired him more than at that
moment. He was superb, sublime. They had wound
their meshes about him, and the lion had burst them.
One swift, daring stroke had frustrated all their plans.
He who was to be quietly suppressed by resolutions of
the House had cut the knot of their policy asunder,
made himself the hero of the hour, and fixed the
nation’s eyes on his splendid audacity.
Reaction set in after that terrible struggle, and he
accepted a chair that was brought him. Several
members passed as he sat there. One of them was the
coward, Frank Hugh O’Donnell. He« had a lady on
�36
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
his arm, and he passed with her between himself and
Mr. Bradlangh, so that her dress trailed over the hero’s
feet. It was a wretched display of insolence and
cowardice. But the lady must be exonerated. She
looked annoyed, her cheeks reddened, and her eyelids
fell. It is so hard for a woman to resist the attraction
of courage, and the coward by her side must have
suffered in her estimation.
There was a crowded meeting that evening at the
Hall of Science, at which I had the honor of speaking.
Mr. Bradlaugh’s greeting was tremendous. Two days
afterwards he was seriously ill.
During that great constitutional struggle I was
present at many “ Bradlaugh ” meetings, and I never
witnessed such enthusiasm as he excited. No man of
my time had such a devoted following.
The last “ Bradlaugh ” demonstration I attended
was on February 15, 1883, in Trafalgar-square.
Seventy or eighty thousand people were present.
There were four speakers, and three of them are dead,
Joseph Arch being the sole survivor. Mr. Adams,
of Northampton, lived to see his old friend take his
seat and do good work in the House of Commons,
became himself Mayor of Northampton, and died
universally respected by his fellow-townsmen ; Wil
liam Sharman, a brave, true man, is buried at Preston ;
and Charles Bradlaugh sleeps his long sleep at Woking.
For another twelve months I attended no public
meetings except the silent ones on the exercise ground
of Holloway Gaol. But I saw Mr. Bradlaugh at several
demonstrations on various subjects after my imprison
ment, and I could perceive no abatement of his
popularity. He had his enemies and detractors, but
the spontaneous outburst of feeling at his death proved
his hold on the popular heart.
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
37
I must now leap forward to that dreadful illness
which left him a broken man. Years before, in 1882,
when we were roaming the Law Courts together, he
tapped his chest as he coughed, and seeing my anxious
expression he told me that he brought up a good deal
of phlegm in the morning, and that strangers who
heard him clearing his chest would fancy he was very
ill. But he looked so well that I soon dismissed the
unpleasant fact, though it returned before his break
down when I saw he was obliged to cancel engage
ments. I heard in 1884, though not from himself,
that he had some heart trouble. But I was far from
prepared for the shattering illness that laid him low
in October, 1889.
When I called to see him after his partial recovery
I was shocked by his appearance. He looked twenty
years older, grey, and infirm. I sat down half-dazed.
Theoretically I knew he was mortal, but I did not
realise it as a fact until I saw him thin and pale from
the valley of the shadow of death. His mind was
clear enough, however; and although everything
about him was pathetic he was quite self-collected.
One thing he said to me I shall never forget. There
had been talk of his wavering in his Freethought,
and as he referred to this folly he spoke in grave
impressive tones. Pointing to the humble bed, he
said, “ When I lay there and all w’as black the thing
that troubled me least was the convictions of my life.”
Words and accents were alike solemn. The cold
shadow of death seemed to linger in the room. A
moment or two later he said with a broken voice,
“The Freethought party is a party that I love.”
The memory of that interview will always be a
precious possession. I treasure it with the sacred
things of my life. I had seen and touched the naked
sincerity of a great soul.
�38
.Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugli.
When Mr. Bradlaugh returned from India I called on
him, and found him greatly improved by his voyage.
I waited for him a few minutes in his library, as he
was at lunch, and the doctors attached great importance
to regularity in his meals. He came into the room
with a most genial smile. His air was fresh and
buoyant, and he walked over to me quickly, holding
out his hand all the way. I took it heartily, and had
a good look at him, which satisfied and yet dissatisfied
me. He was certainly better, but I could not help
feeling that his constitution was irrecoverably broken.
Never again could I hope to see the grand Bradlaugh
of the old fighting days. His mind was as brave and
■alert as ever, but the body was too obviously disabled.
He showed me some of his Indian presents, of
which he was justly proud, and then we sat down to
chat. He was full of his voyage and the kindness he
had experienced on every side. His reception in
India had exceeded his highest anticipations, and he
was looking forward to work in the House of Commons
on behalf of our great Dependency.
Speaking of his financial prospects, he told me he
had received offers of work from several magazine
editors. But he added, “ one doesn’t know how long
it will last; ’tis a precarious business.” His face
clouded for a moment, and I saw he was more troubled
than he cared to say.
One thing he told me which I had no right to repeat
while he lived, but I may repeat it without a breach of
confidence now that he is dead.
, During his brief stay in India he could have had
plenty of money if he had been less scrupulous. There
was nothing very dishonourable in accepting money
from rich Hindoos, for he was poor and broken in
health, and he was fighting for their best interests. But
he was too proud to take it, and when wealthy natives
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
39
were calling on him, he always took the precaution to
have an English friend in the room.
“ No,” he said to me, “ I cannot do that. I’ll live
like the old Bradlaugh, or I’ll go under.”
He lived like the old Bradlaugh, and he went under.
He took to the platform again to earn a livelihood, and
it killed him, as his doctors had foreseen. I implored
him at the time not to resume the lecturing. He was
going to fulfil an old-standing engagement at Man
chester in the vast St. James’s Hall, and I begged him
to cancel it. He replied that he could not afford to
forfeit twenty pounds. “ What is that to your life ? ”
I asked. He only smiled grimly. His mind was made
up, and he was not to be bent by advice.
On Sunday morning, February 16, 1890, Mr. Brad
laugh resigned his presidency of the National Secular
Society, which he had held for so many years. The
Hall of Science was packed with members, chiefly
from the London district, but many of them from the
provinces.
The scene was infinitely pathetic. One sentiment
reigned in every heart. The Old Guard was taking
leave of its General. Some of them had fought around
him for thirty years, and the farewell was a mutilation
of their very lives. Tears were streaming down
strong faces ; and they coursed down the strongest
face of all, the face of Charles Bradlaugh, and plashed
on the table before him. For a while he let them fall,
and then he controlled his grief and rose to speak.
But the words would not come. His frame shook
with a great sob, and he sat down again. A second
time he rose and failed. But the third time his strong
will prevailed, and he began to speak in low, trembling
tones.
- Never was I so struck with his oratorical powers as
on this occasion. Without once lifting his voice above
�40
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
the note of conversation, he swayed the meetingjfor a
full half-hour, as easily and universally as the wind
billows a cornfield.
In resigning the presidency he thought it his duty
to nominate a successor, and his choice was ratified by
the meeting. He handed me the president’s hammer
after a solemn, impressive apostrophe, in which he
expressed his hope that he might thank me, after
many years, for good, loyal work as leader ; and when
I had acknowledged the lofty honor he rose to vacate
the chair. Naturally I declined to let him do anything
of the kind, and for a moment the two Presidents
stood together in friendly altercation. But for once he
gave way, and Charles Bradlaugh filled the chair to
the last.
Resigning the Presidency did not mean retirement
from the National Secular Society. At his own sug
gestion Mr. Bradlaugh was elected a life-member. He
was thus a member of the Society up to the last
moment of his life. Nor was he an inactive one. I
frequently had occasion to consult him, and one of
his last bits of work was the drawing up of a long
document for the Society on Secular Burials.
Months rolled by, and the evening came for the great
debate on the Eight Hours Bill between Mr. Bradlaugh
and Mr. Hyndman. St. James’s Hall was packed to
suffocation. I sat on the platform near my old leader,
and I saw how the effort was telling on him. His
opponents in the meeting behaved with incredible bru
tality. Some of them laughed aloud when he said,
“ Believe me, this has tried me more than I had
thought.” But now the hero they laughed at is dead,
and they know that he spoke the truth.
The last time I saw Mr. Bradlaugh in public was on
Wednesday evening, December 10, 1890, when he lec
tured at the Hall of Science on behalf of the Forder
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
41
Testimonial Fund. I believe that was the last lecture
he delivered there, if not the last lecture he delivered
anywhere. He dealt with the Evidences of Chris
tianity, in reference to Archdeacon Watkins’ lectures
on the Fourth Gospel, and assuredly he was as firmly
sceptical as ever. At the close of the lecture he spoke
of his theological position, and declared that he could
not conceive of any such change of mind as glib
gossipers were asserting of him.
The weather was extremely foggy, and Mr. Brad
laugh was ill. He ought not to have been there at all.
After struggling painfully through the lecture, he sat
down and waited for discussion. A Christian opponent
rose, and Mr. Bradlaugh replied ; but, being in the
chair, I would not allow a second speech, and I was
glad to see him well wrapt-up, and once more in the
care of his devoted daughter.
Having concluded my reminiscences of Charles
Bradlaugh in relation to the [events of his life, I shall
wind up with a little personal talk of a more general
character.
I have already referred to Mr. Bradlaugh’s extra
ordinary knowledge of the law. This was strikingly
illustrated after the so-called Trafalgar-square riots.
The Tories made a wanton aggression on the right of
public meeting in London, and found a ready instru
ment of tyranny in Sir Charles Warren. No doubt
there is much to be said against promiscuous meetings
in Trafalgar-square at all hours of the day and night,
but it was a high-handed act of brutality to prohibit all
meetings directly it was known that the London
Radicals were convening a Sunday demonstration on
the Irish question. While the Radicals were chafing
under this insult they held several stormy meetings to
discuss their best policy, and at last a Committee was
�42
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
appointed to find out, if possible, the legal rights of
the people and the Crown. I was a member of that
committee, and I am able to state that although we
waited on several eminent lawyers, it was only from
Mr. Bradlaugh that we obtained any light. The others
talked vaguely about the right of public meeting, and
the primary and secondary uses of public thorough
fares, but Mr. Bradlaugh gave us the facts of the case.
Trafalgar-square was Crown property, its control was
vested in the Commissioner of Works, and at any
moment it could be absolutely closed to the British
public.
This had escaped the other lawyers, who did not
find it in the Statutes at Large, from which the Tra
falgar-square Act, probably as being a private one, had
been excluded. Nor was it known to the Government
when Sir Charles Warren issued his first proclamation.
As Chief Commissioner of Police he had no authority
over the Square, and until he obtained the order of its
proper guardians, which he did a week later, his
proclamation was only a piece of waste paper. Mr.
Bradlaugh saw this, though he said nothing, when the
demonstration committee called upon him a few days
before Bloody Sunday. He told them that he had an
engagement in the provinces on that day, but if they
would postpone the demonstration until the following
Sunday he would himself lead it to Trafalgar-square.
His offer was not accepted, however ; for the committee
resented the condition he stipulated, namely, that he
should have absolute control of the arrangements.
They thought he was taking too much upon himself.
They did not reflect that if he who takes power without
responsibility is a despot, he who takes responsibility
without power is a fool. It was their action, and not
his, that lost the battle.
Mr. Bradlaugh made no public parade of his brave
�JReminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
43
offer. It was not his way. But it is due to his
memory that it should be put on record, so that
posterity may know the extent of his generous courage.
There can be no doubt, I think, that Mr. Bradlaugh
was less popular with the working-classes in London
after he took peaceable possession of his seat in
•Parliament. The London masses love a fighter, and
while he was battling for his seat he was, in my
opinion, the most popular figure in the metropolis.
The Radical workmen never tired of his demonstrations.
He could bring fifty or a hundred thousand of them
together at a few days’ notice. And the other speakers
were, for the most part, only padding to fill up the
time. It was “ Bradlaugh ” the multitude came for.
They waited to hear him speak, they applauded him
to the skies, and when he had done they dispersed.
And on such occasions he was magnificent. No one
can conceive the power of the man who never saw
him at one of these demonstrations. He stood like a
Pharos, and the light of his face kindled the crests of
the living waves ar ound himBut he was out of sympathy with the Socialist move
ment, which began to spread just as he took his seat ;
and being assiduous in Parliament, he was drawn more
and more from “ the Clubs,” where his libellers and
detractors wagged their tongues to some purpose. His
strong individualism, as well as his practical good sense,
made him bitterly hostile to the mildest proposals for
putting the people’s industrial interests into the hands
of Government departments. And being a man of
most positive quality, it was natural that he should
excite the hatred of the more fanatical Socialists.; a
sentiment which, I cannot help thinking, he exaspe
rated by his apparent denial of the generosity of their
aims. There are men in the Socialist camp (and I say
it without being a Socialist) who are neither “ poets ”
�44
Reminiscences of Charles Bracllaugh,
nor “ fools ”—though it is no disgrace to be the former?
men who have studied with severity and sincerity,
who have made sacrifices for conviction, and who were
sometimes hurt by his antipathy. But, on the other
hand, he was bitterly goaded by Socialist adversaries,
who denied his honesty, and held him up to unde
served scorn as the hireling of “ the classes ”—a charge
which the more sensitive among them must now
repent, for his death has revealed his poverty.
Mr. Bradlaugh was naturally irritable, but the
irritability was only on the surface. The waves were
easily raised, but there was plenty of quiet sea beneath.
Though giants are often phlegmatic, his big frame
embedded highly-strung nerves. When he was put
out he could storm, and he was misunderstood by
those who took the mood for the man. Had they seen
him in the melting mood they would have learnt that
Charles Bradlaugh was a more composite personality
than they imagined.
During the last year or two of his life he underwent
a wonderful softening. A beautiful Indian-summer
light rested upon him. He was like a granite rock,
which the sweet grass has overgrown, and from whose
crevices peep lovely wild flowers.
As President of the National Secular Society he did
a great work. I do not think he had a pronounced
faculty for organisation. But he was a firm, sagacious
leader, with the personal magnetism to attract devotion.
That he was never overbearing I will not affirm. But
it is easy to organise sheep. One good dog will do it.
Mr. Bradlaugh had to hold together a different species,
with leaping legs, butting horns, and a less gregarious
tendency.
He was a splendid chairman to push through a mass
of business, but he shone less on ordinary occasions.
�Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
45
An ideal chairman, when not promoting his own
schemes, should be like a midwife ; he should aim at
a quick delivery and a safe birth. Mr. Bradlaugh did
not always observe this rule. But every man has the
defects of his qualities, and even the sun must be
taken with its spots.
Mr. Bradlaugh’s speeches at the annual Conferences
of the National Secular Society are better reading than
his political speeches. Being less in the world of
practice there, and more in the world of principle, he
gave play to his ideal nature, his words took color, and
metaphors flashed like jewels in the sword of his
orations. It was a signal proof of his power, that after
a whole day’s exhausting work, both to himself and
his audience, he never failed to rouse the wildest
enthusiasm.
Now that Mr. Bradlaugh is dead I do not hesitate to
repeat what I said during his lifetime, that his Freethought work was the most fecund and important.
Even his great battle against the House of Commons
was for religious freedom against bigotry, and his one
great legislative achievement was the Act dealing with
Oaths and Affirmation. His staunchest political sup
porters were his Freethought followers. His lectures,
his personal influence, and his reputation, leavened
the public mind more than his orthodox enemies
suspected, and he created a vast quantity of raw
material to be utilised by his successors in Secular
organisation.
In the foregoing pages I have attempted no complete
sketch of Charles Bradlaugh. I have written, not a
monograph, but a number of rough jottings. Yet I
hope I have conveyed an impression of the man, in
some degree faithful, to those who may have been
imperfectly acquainted with him ; and I trust the
�46
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh.
features I have presented, however baldly outlined,
will be recognised by those who knew and loved him.
When all is said and done, I think the final impres
sion one retains of Charles Bradlaugh is his heroism.
His was cast in a great mould of mind and character,
as well as body. Like every hero the world has ever
seen, he had his defects and failings, for it is given to
no man to be perfect. But positive excellence, with
all its drawbacks, is far above negative merit. “ Thou
shalt ” is loftier virtue than “ thou shalt not,” and the
hero is superior to the saint.
Charles Bradlaugh was a colossus of manhood. He
was one to design, and dare, and do. The beaten path
of mediocrity had no attraction for that potent spirit.
He belonged to the heroic type which seeks perilous
ways and fresh conquests. Like the hero of one of
Browning’s poems, he was “ ever a fighter.” In stormy
times he naturally rose to the top. He was one of the
select few, not of those who enrich the world with
great discoveries, or new principles, or subtle percep
tions of beauty—but those who appeal to the heroism
of man’s nature, without which he is at best but a
splendid beast, and who minister to that sense of
dignity which is the supreme necessity of our race.
The elements
So mixed in him, that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world, “ This was a man 1”
����FREETHOUGHT PUBLICATIONS.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CATECHISM EXAMINED
By Jeremy Bentham. With a Biographical Preface by
J. M. Wheeler -------FREE WILL AND NECESSITY. By Anthony Collins
Reprinted from 1715 ed., with Preface and Annotations by
G. W. Foote, and a Biographical Introduction by J. M.
Wheeler.
Superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION. By Ludwig Feuerbach
IS SOCIALISM SOUND? Four Nights’Public Debate between
Annie Besant and G. W. Foote
Superior edition, in cloth ------CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM. Four Nights’ Public
Debate between G. W. Foote and the Rev. Dr. J. McCann Superior edition, in cloth ------DARWIN ON GOD. By G. W. Foote
Superior edition, in cloth ------INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS. By G. W. Foote. Second edition.
Much enlarged ---Superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth
LETTERS TO THE CLERGY. By G. W. Foote. 128pp. BTRT.E HEROES. By G. W. Foote. First series, in elegant
wrapper
- ---BIBLE HEROES. Second series, in elegant wrapper
BIBLE HANDBOOK FOR FREETHINKERS and INQUIRING
CHRISTIANS. By G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball. Complete,
paper covers
-------Superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in cloth
THE JEWISH LIFE OF CHRIST. By G. W. Foote and J. M.
Wheeler. With Historical Preface and Voluminous Notes
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. By G. W. Foote and J. M.
Wheeler. V<1. I., cloth gilt, 216pp.
SATIRES AND PROFANITIES. By James Thomson (B.V.)
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS of all
Ages and Nations. By J. M. Wheeler. Handsomely bound
in cloth
--------DEFENCE OF FREE THOUGHT. A five hours’ speech at the
Trial of C. B.Reynolds for Blasphemy. By Col.R.G. Ingersoll
LIBERTY AND NECESSITY. By David Hume A REFUTATION OF DEISM. In a Dialogue. By Shelley.
With an Introduction by G. W. Foote Complete Catalogue post free on application.
R. FORDER, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 46 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: First published in The Freethinker. Publisher's list (R. Forder) on back cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1891
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N260
G4591
Subject
The topic of the resource
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Bradlaugh
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/057c9d6f759dfab5a3ba42e8aeea82c2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=A%7EsIZtlKycsFwAVYxeuT4kIwk6tXqAlA1ZnVXpLRQCMzq1M3H2NTvATHlzm4EtX4Lju5eixQDXR11IGJykxSIgQp83mRMoQZcv84BVF8zM28aGeRbMidBfGJ6rDT7lLQYm6vGxj3kkTh7fIRk3b3BzTXguxfgVqmWa5ugHsgBahSQk8RIZh8Xi36BhJqfJfpRD0%7EV8Z82gwe0GKn6Eqw2AyIfTwXW2OkGoJw9nAtrt0my9Rp%7EFjh7pCyhUrDNNKYfgtnYYKHr1IA8CS0nv%7EGqm8xw1ZKvwaoBeCdMGcXAlb9-G7NNd9NdZF3liQA0pfHf2NLvLwbZlpqQbBpD5t2Kw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
0a5409e92b38673546a588ec80dbf456
PDF Text
Text
e>2-rn
tJoZ|/
SEXUAL ECONOMY,
AS TAUGHT BY
CHARLES BRADLAUGH, M.P.
BY
PETER AGATE, M.D.
WITH ADDENDUM BY SALADIN.
London:
W. STEWART & Co., 41, FARRINGDON St., E.C.
��CONTENTS.
PAGE
Introduction ...
...
...
...
The Two B.’s and “ The Elements ”
...
Bradlaugh’s Quarrel with Joseph Barker ...
Sexual Religion
...
...
...
The Neo-Malthusian Doctrine of Marriage
Palaeo-Secular Views of Social Evils
...
Palseo-Secular Medicine...
...
...
The Palaeo-Secularist Malthusians
...
Palaeo-Secularist Society
...
...
Addendum, by Saladin...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
..
5
15
18
22
28
32
37
45
5;
53
��INTRODUCTION.
Saladin, chaste knight ot Secularism, Freethought, Agnos
ticism, says my essay, or compilation, illustrative of Bradlaughism, Cat-and-Ladleism, Knowltonism, and the moral
sewage question generally, needs an introduction. He knows
better than I; so probably it does. My instant and eager
reply was : Who so fit and proper to introduce an unknown
volunteer, meddling in a matter which does not in the least
concern him personally—who so competent as the illustrious
Saladin—poet, philosopher, moralist—whom I have never
seen, and only read a year or two, from week to week in his
Secular Review I
But why not give the letter as I wrote it ? Here it is,
verbatim et literatim. In a matter which future ages will
consider so important every scrap relating to the champion
of Freethought and purity of morals will have its interest
and value. I wrote :—
“My Dear Saladin!—You think I need to be intro
duced. Well, why not introduce me ? You know the whole
matter of this controversy so much better than I do. A
few lines from your vigorous pen will be better than any
thing I could write. I agree that they should be written ;
but, as you have the matter so much better in hand, and as
I really need to be introduced, why not prettily and grace
fully introduce me ?
“ I remember, many years ago, reading an English book
which defended—in fact, recommended—incest, Sodomy,
�6
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
and bestiality, and denounced the laws against them as
superstitious tyranny. It was a nasty, bad book; but I do
not believe it was a tenth-part so mischievous as this work of
Dr.--------- , which I hold to be false in science—which
is, of course, to be bad in morals. Man, as the highest, or
most developed, animal, should be better, more natural, than
the lower species. Why man goes wrong, and how he goeswrong, in these matters, I do not know, as I do not know
the ultimate why or how of anything; only that all vicesseem to me unnatural, and all unnatural practices vicious—
two words for the same thing.
“When I can get to it I mean to go into all these ques
tions as thoroughly as I can. In the meantime, or just
now, will you write the few needed lines of introduction, asyou so well can, or must I write them as well as I can under
the circumstances? You knowing so much better the
reasons why my small pamphlet should be written at all, and
occupying the leading position in this really important con.
troversy.
“ P.S.—It strikes me that the reason for these excessesof early Secularists was the disposition to defend and
recommend whatever had been denounced or forbidden
by religious teachers : the Bible denounced Sabbath-break
ing, so they made it a duty to break the Sabbath; the Bible
burnt up people with fire and brimstone for Sodomy, there
fore they defended Sodomy; and so on.
“Now, if I were to write the introduction or preface, it
would be something like this note. With this note will you
be so kind as to write the introduction ?
“I presume you will, at the proper time, also publicly
introduce, as you have announced, the pamphlet. And I
fancy that, just because it is a scrimmage, it will be read by
a great many who, perhaps, might hesitate to read the Secular
Reviews
That is what I wrote to Saladin. I leave it to the candid'
�INTRODUCTION.
7
veader to say, to himself, whether it is not a reasonable
letter. And here is Saladin’s reply, or, rather, part of it;
for he “ private ”-ly assures me that he has tried and failed,
■and then goes on in this way“ Although, at the date of the publication of the Knowl
ton pamphlet, I was hardly known in the party at all, I
managed to have my name placed on the list of speakers
in.the first meeting that met to protest that anti-Christian
thought was not necessarily associated with an adoption
■of the practices of Onan. The meeting was held at Cleve
land Hall, and was a crowded and excited one. Those
who could not accept Christ, but who seemed eager to
accept Onan, were largely in the ascendant. Mr. Bradlaugh
was evidently the hero of the hour, as he always is with the
rougher and less-cultured order of Freethinkers, who let
him do the thinking, after his fashion, in order to save them
the trouble of thinking at all.
“ Mr. Charles Watts was in the chair, and on the platform
were Mrs. Harriet Law, Mr. George Jacob Holyoake, Mr.
G. W. Foote, and myself. Mr. Holyoake was, as usual,
excessively prudent. He diagnosed the temper of the
meeting, and, instead of venturing to sail against the stream,
■delivered himself of a few colourless platitudes. His shilly
shallying prudence cast its spell over the other speakers
Mr. Watts, as I told him afterwards, made a timid and half
hearted speech, from which I gathered that he wished to
still keep the door open for reconciliation with 1 our chief.’
In fact, in spite of its fleshliness, he had published the
Knowlton pamplilet down to the point where publishing it
became dangerous, and there he had deserted it. Mrs. Law
looked ludicrously sagacious, and half stood to her guns
and half ran away from them. Confronted by that meeting
(probably packed), Mr. Foote alone, of all the prominent
speakers, did not allow his heart to sink down to his boots.
His platform experience was to him invaluable; he uttered
�8
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
some cutting and caustic things, but adroitly managed to
secure as many cheers as hisses. I followed, more in
earnest and more bitter than Mr. Foote, and sadly lacking
in his tact and platform experience. In reply to the hiss of
opposition, which I cared not to conciliate, even if I had
known how, I raised my voice to a shout of defiance. I
managed to make myself heard over the hiss and groan of
Onanic disapprobation, till I thundered forth the words,
‘Charles Bradlaugh has dragged the standard of Freethought through the mire of Holywell Street.’ Upon this
the storm which had been raging burst into a hurricane.
There were clenched fists, and an angry and ominous
surging towards the platform. I stood facing the mass,
mute and defiant. Mr. Holyoake seized my coat-tail, to
pull me back to my chair. Still facing the audience, I
lifted my arm, and, not over gently, dashed away his hand.
The audience noticed this incident, and, for a moment,
their cries and hisses of anger were mixed with a peal of
laughter. Close to my ear I heard, ‘ Draw it mild,’ from
the thin, tin-kettle voice of Mr. Holyoake. I still stood
facing the audience, erect and motionless ; and when, at
length, the storm of groans and hisses died away, I took
one step forward, and repeated, with firm, slow, and syllabic
deliberation : ‘ Charles Bradlaugh has dragged the standard
of Freethought through the mire of Holywell Street I’ ”
There—that is how a poet tells you he cannot write.
How he can write is shown in the Secular Review and, as
to the matter in hand, in “ Knowltonism,”* which he issued
four or five years ago, and which every one who can com
mand twopence-halfpenny may read. In its preface Mr.
Charles Watts recognised the “ unique ability ” of Saladin
in his attack upon “ the vulgar teachings of Knowltonism,”
and also expresses the opinion that this “ must be acknow
ledged as the great social question of the day.”
* “ Knowltonism,” by Saladin.
(London : Watts & Co.)
�INTRODUCTION.
9
In this essay, well worth reading for the powerful conden
sation of its style, Saladin distincts Malthus from Knowlton
with a cut of his sharp scimitar through the bone and marrow
of the Neo-Malthusian Trinity. He insists “ that the means
specified to prevent conception are inadequate to that end,”
as any physiologist can see with half a glance, and as many
a poor girl, no doubt, has experienced to her infinite sorrow
and shame. Saladin maintains that, “ even if Knowltonism
were practicable, per se, it would be unconformable with
physical, and an outrage upon ethical, law.” It is better,
he holds, that the struggles of life should go on, and bring
about their natural results in the “ survival of the fittest.”
He holds with nature all through, yet quotes the delicate
and forcible lines of the Marquis of Queensberry :—
“ Go, tell mankind, see that thy blood be pure,
And visit not thy sins upon thy race;
Curse not thy future age with poisoned blood,
For, cursing, it shall curse thee back again.
*
*
*
For there are they
Who, either from hereditary sin,
Or from the sin they have themselves entailed.
Possess no right to be progenitors. *
*
*
Alas ! that such a cruel wrong should be,
Of sins upon the children visited.
And shall these grow to be progenitors
Of other souls, more burdened than themselves
With feeble bodies of impurity ?
Ye gods, forbid it !”
Saladin eloquently—how could he say anything otherwise
than eloquently and poetically ?—defines the right of every
human being to'be born, and fight his way in this beautiful
world. “ The cardinal duty of humanity,” he holds, is “ to
discover the processes of cosmical law and obey them, not
try to reverse or modify them in the plenitude of spurious
science and the hauteur of unphilosophical arrogance.
Down amid the green algae and the gleaming shells of the
ever-swinging and thundering ocean it is joy to be a bright
�IO
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
and agile herring, even for an hour, before the jaws of the
shark snap rapaciously, and one egoism in the vasty deep
ceases to be. The Babe born on the straw of a hovel, or
amid the silk and down of a palace, inspires and respires
the glad air of being—for life is a boon, whether in cottage
or in castle—sucks from its mother’s breast the nectar of life
and love, stretches out its fingers and its toes, elate with the
rich wine of vital existence; and what is death at seven days
or seventy years ?—Only a forgetting of what has gone by
and an arrestment of what is to come ; only a returning to
where you were before the sun shone in the heavens, towhere you may be when the sun may be no more.
‘ ’Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.’
And it is better to have lived under some circumstances than
never to have lived at all. The trifling differences between
brown bread and water and roast beef and champagne,
between the ingle of the cottar and the saloon of the duke,
are insignificant when taken into consideration with the
cardinal luxury of life. The sky is as blue to the peasant
as to the peer; as sweet is the fragance of the hawthorn, as
magnificent is the vista of hope; as joyous is the action of
muscle and nerve; as sublime and holy the first ecstacies of
‘Love’s Young Dream.’ It is an unfounded assumption,
resulting from the wide social hiatus which separates class
from class, that postulates all the sweetness of life with
riches, and all the bitterness of existence with poverty. If
it be true that the poor man does not eat his dinner because
he has no dinner to eat, the rich man as frequently cannot
eat his on account of dyspepsia and want of appetite ; and
perhaps the latter evil is worse than the former. The worn
fustian, with its spots of grime, ministers as well to the
animal caloric as does the purple and the ermine, flashing
with gold lace and resplendent with jewels. I ask, with him
'
�INTRODUCTION.
11
of Galilee, ‘ Is not the life more than meat and the body
than raiment?’
f
“The Knowltonian, by implication, admits himself to be
a coward, who would shirk the cosmical conditions which
are successfully coped with by the frog and the thistle, and
■even by the ephemera, which at the utmost has only an hour
to live, and has to plunge into the Struggle for Existence
for the privilege of entering upon the part or the whole of
the brief span of its life. With its stifled hum as it buzzes
in the blue air, or expands its wings in the flash of the
summer sun, it recites a homily that the Knowltonian might
con with profit. It enjoys the few minutes it has to live,
provides that there shall be ephemerae when it is no more,
and hums itself into the eternal non-ego of which it knows
as much as the wisest man that ever lived or ever will. Is
man afraid he may succumb to conditions which are suc
cessfully coped with by the aphis ? Even if absolutely
isolated from the male, the female aphis, by the peculiar
method of reproduction known as parthenogenesis, will pro
duce female young, and female young only, at the rate of
fourteen or fifteen a day; and these, in their turn, and in a
very short time, give birth to a third generation, and so on;
and this will go on for years without any male aphis whatever
being for once admitted. And yet in the whole world there
is, perhaps, not a single aphis more than there was a thou
sand years ago. The rapacity of the lady-bird, the lace
wing fly, and other enemies which prey upon the aphidre,
keep them within their legitimate bounds; and so the lady
bird of disease and the lace-wing fly of famine will keep
homo sapiens in his proper bounds without troubling him to
tax his ingenuity to degrade himself off the face of the
earth;
“ With the Knowltonian the earth is analagous to a boat I
at sea crammed with fifty shipwrecked men, but with food
for fifteen only. Under such circumstances it is normal to f
cast lots, and the Jonahs are thrown overboard. But it is
�12
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
better to ultimately get thrown overboard than never to have
been born. A struggle for six minutes in the deep is not so
much more terrible than a six months’ wasting disease in
bed. The man upon whom the lot falls to be drowned may
strip his coat and dive resolutely to death with the conscious
ness that he has, at least, had a grim and wild extension of
fairplay. Thus Knowltonians had better, than exercise
their sexual ‘ checks,’ go to the denizens of Whitechapel and
the Seven Dials at regular intervals, and mark out, Valkeyrylike, the particular individuals they deem redundant in their
microcosm, causing each to take a dose of strychnine, so that
only the correct number of ‘genteel’ people may take the
place of the plethoric fauna of the slums. As I have
pointed out, it is incalculable what philosophers and poets
and statesmen the ‘ checks ’ may dam back in the stream
of human existence. If the Knowltonian must adjust the
supply of the hoi poloi to the demand, he had surely better
do so in the light than in the dark; he had better engage in
a game of discriminating skill than in one of indiscrimi
nating hazard. By his ‘ checks ’ you know not whom he is
keeping out of the world: but, by his gallows, you would
know whom he is sending out of it. If the Knowltonians
were to erect a gallows in Vincent Square and clear out the
Westminster slums by the simple and drastic resource of
good plain hanging, one could have some voucher that they
had not robbed the world of a Shakespeare or a Bacon or a
Gladstone. But by their empirical pottering with sexual
physiology and pathology, with a view to make woman less
of a mother than a sort of safety-valve to sensual passions,
we know not whether we have not lost a spermatozoonal
Milton or a foetal Cromwell.”
In another place he says : “ I ask any of my readers to
note for themselves whether a non-Knowltonian mother of
fifty, and who has borne six or seven children, is not
stronger and healthier and happier than the Knowltonian
mother of the same age, and who has borne only one or
�INTRODUCTION.
13
two. I ask any of my readers to further note whether
every boy and girl of the family of six or seven is not
stronger, healthier, and happier than any member of the
family of one or two. If a woman do succeed in evading
her natural functions of parturition and lactation, she can
do so only by incurring greater sacrifices than parturition
and lactation entail. It is not my purpose to enter here
into the nosology of women who attempt to shirk their
natural and incumbent duty of Motherhood; but the
diseases, ailments, and mental and moral affections incident
to such are many and complicated ; and I aver unhesitat
ingly that the careful and extensive observation of any of
my readers, directed to this subject, will corroborate my
allegation on this point. You can, of course, prevent the
apple-tree from bearing apples; you can bark it, or dig it
half out of the ground, or cut it half through with an axe.
It is just as natural for a woman to bear children as it is for
an apple-tree to bear apples ; and in neither case can you
prevent production without doing violence to the producer.”
The Spartans settled the question in their fashion long
ago. Ignorant of, or scornfully rejecting, preventive checks,
they weeded out all babies that could be better spared. ,
The weaklings went early to the wall. The survival of the
fittest was decided as soon as fitness or unfitness was
apparent. They took also nearly as much trouble in the
breeding of the best qualities of men and women as our
stock-breeders and dog-fanciers now do in producing the
finest specimens of our favourite quadrupeds. Sensible, (
practical people, those Spartans; but not quite what we 'j
should call moral.
My object, in preparing this pamphlet, scarcely needs ex
planation. It is simply to show what is the actual position
of Charles Bradlaugh, M.P., on important questions of morals
and society. I show where he has stood for twenty odd
years. I do not question his right to stand there, nor the
right of the burghers of Northampton to have him for their
�14
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
representative, nor his right to have a seat and vote for his
constituents, the worthy cordwainers, pig-drivers, and Catand-Ladleites. He may stand before Mr. Speaker and shout,
“ So help me God !” (or “ god ”) to his heart’s content.
When Charles Bradlaugh swears allegiance to Queen Victoria,
and asserts his belief in god or God, or publishes “ The
Fruits of Philosophy,” or Mrs. Besant’s improvement upon
Knowltonism, or patronises “ The Elements of Social
Science,” it is no affair of mine. I hold to free thought and
free discussion; but I hold also that a man who aspires to
an eminent and responsible position should be clear, open,
above-board, and responsible for his words and deeds.
I have referred to Bradlaughism or Cat-and-Ladleism asPalaeo-Secularism, and to Saladinism or Anti-Cat-and-Ladleism as Neo-Secularism.
P. A.
�SEXUAL ECONOMY,
AS TAUGHT BY CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
Chapter I.
THE TWO B.’s AND « THE ELEMENTS.”
For about thirty years Mr. Charles Bradlaugh has been a
speaker and writer in the cause of Freethought, Secular
ism, and Atheism. Ambitious of political distinction, he
obtained, a few years ago, an election to the House of
Commons from Northampton. He also managed, in con
nection with a lady who has for some years assisted him in
his labours as writer and public speaker, to get convicted
of the misdemeanour of publishing an immoral pamphlet,
and both were sentenced to a term of imprisonment by the
then Lord Chief Justice; but both managed to escape what
many considered a merited punishment by a technical
informality. Not that a man or woman is the worse for
being legally convicted and unjustly punished. Mr. Brad
laugh and his partner in this supposed iniquity are Malthusians, and the pamphlet for which they were condemned
was written to teach people how they could gratify their
animal propensities without increasing an already burthensome population. The law, as represented by Judge and;
Jury, considered this immoral and criminal. The “Fruits;
of Philosophy ” was suppressed, and the lady in the case
wrote another pamphlet, which she considered better and!
more effective than Knowlton’s.
When elected member of Parliament for Northampton
nothing stood between Mr. Bradlaugh and the object of
�i6
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
his ambition but the oath, which he declared was meaning
less to him, but which he was, nevertheless, quite ready to
take. That is, Charles Bradlaugh, an avowed Atheist, was
more than willing to declare his belief in a God, in the most
solemn and public manner, by an act of religious faith and
worship—by kissing the Bible and saying, “So help me God!”
He actually did this. He read the oath and kissed the
book, putting up a public prayer to God in the House of
Commons; but the House, by a considerable majority,
refused to accept the solemn sacrifice. The Atheist’s prayer
remains unanswered.
I am not condemning Mr. Bradlaugh for not believing in
a God; I am not justifying the House of Commons for
requiring a declaration of such belief from all its members.
Belief is not a voluntary act of the mind, though supposed
to be necessary for admission to heaven and—at least, its
pretence—for taking a seat in Parliament. Mr. Bradlaugh
has for years insisted upon his right to kiss the Bible he
publicly denounces, and to say, “ So help me God!”
Whether an avowed Atheist, a public teacher and defender
of Atheism, can consistently and publicly put up this prayer,
or make this act of faith, is a question of conscience.
Thought is necessarily free. The advocacy of Freethought is not needed. The question is only whether any
expression of the free thoughts of men should be restrained
or punished. When such expression is considered a libel
the law punishes it by fine and imprisonment; when it is
considered treason it may bring heavier penalties. Mr.
Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant were sentenced to imprisonment
for the publication of their free thoughts as to the policy
and the means of satisfying sexual desires without increas
ing population.
As editor, for a long period, of a Freethought and Secularist
newspaper, and while until recently President of a Secularist
organisation, Mr. Bradlaugh publicly promoted the sale of
a book, entitled “Elements of Social Science”—a work
infinitely more demoralising, according to the common
ideas of morality, than “ The Fruits of Philosophya
book which denounces as a sin and a crime in men and
women what the civilised world has for ages considered
virtue and morality. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity
of Mr. Bradlaugh and His amiable coadjutor, Mrs. Besant
�THE TWO B.’s AND “THE ELEMENTS.”
17
I am not questioning their right to think and feel as they
can or must on all matters of religion or morals. The
policy of electing persons who promulgate such opinions to
Parliament is quite another matter, which constituencies must
settle for themselves. My sole object in this pamphlet is
to show what Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, M.P., has avowed as
his belief, and what he has publicly taught and, if a con
sistent man, privately practised; but that, of course, is no
one’s business but his own and that of “ whom it may
• concern.” I have nothing to do with any portion of his life
but his public teachings. For many years he has been the
friend and associate of the author of “ The Elements of
Social Science.” He has defended, eulogised, and, to the
extent of his influence, promoted the circulation of that
book. What I do and all I do is to show what that book
is by extracts from its pages. I only review the book, as
might be done in any magazine or newspaper, with such
extracts as show its scope, intention, and character.
I have nothing to do with the motives of either the
anonymous author or the well-known promoter of “ The
Elements.” I think I shall do a public service by showing
the character of the book and its promoter, even if its sale
is thereby increased. It is better, in all such cases, that the
truth should be known. If, knowing the facts, people choose
to stand by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant, that is their
affair, not mine. I have no animosities to gratify. If a
majority of the electors of Northampton wish to be repre
sented by Mr. Bradlaugh, that is their business. If the
people of the United Kingdom wish to adopt the opinions
of Mr. Bradlaugh and his co-workers, it is no affair of
mine. If the palseo-Secularist sect or party wants him for its
leader, champion, and chief, their choice is free. They can
throw over Saladin, stand by the Neo-Malthusians, fatten
on “ The Fruits of Philosophy,” and revel in “ The Elements
~^f Social Science.”
�18
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
Chapter II.
BRADLAUGH’S QUARREL WITH JOSEPH
BARKER.
Strange as the fact may seem, it is quite true that the Secu
larist party in Great Britain has divided on the question of
social or sexual morality. The party of Bradlaugh and
Besant—the readers of the National Reformer, the NeoMalthusians and Knowltonites—have taken their stand
irrevocably on the doctrines of the Malthusian League and
“The Elements of Social Science.” This book was first
published about twenty years ago. It purports to be written
by “ A Graduate of Medicine,” whose name has never been
made public; but, as the articles on Political Economy and
Malthusianism, in the National Reformer in i860,.signed
“ G. R.,” are evidently by the same hand, and as “G. R.”
is the annotator of Mr. Bradlaugh’s and Mrs. Besant’s edition
of “ The Fruits of Philosophy,” we cannot be wrong in
attributing to “ G. R.” the authorship of “ The Elements of
Social Science.”
In the National Reformer of July 20th, 1861, Mr. Joseph
Barker, co-editor with Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, denounces, in
his half of the Secularist organ, people who are filling the
other half with “ follies, indecencies, immoralities, and
crimes.” “ The Elements of Social Science ” having been
commended by Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Barker declares that
“a work that exhibits, in ranker abundance or grosser
hideousness, all the bad qualities of the most revolting books
we never read;” and he denounces it as containing “ the
greatest amount of evil in the world,” and full of “ demo
ralising sentiments and odious vices ;” as containing “ popu
lation fallacies,” things “as foul as filth, the best of which a
man of sense and decency would sooner die than recom
mend
and yet this book, Mr. Barker complained most
bitterly, had been advertised and strongly and repeatedly
recommended in the other half (Mr. Bradlaugh’s half) of the
�BRADLAUGH’S QUARREL WITH JOSEPH BARKER.
19
National Reformer. He complained also that Mr. Bradlaugh
had sent a secret circular to the shareholders of the National
Reformer, and had formed a conspiracy with some of his
friends to get exclusive possession of it, “ and so exclude all
articles of a moral tendency, and devote it to the spread of
negative and purely demoralising forms of Secularism,” their
object being, he said, “ to destroy all sense of moral obliga
tion, and curse mankind with an unbounded sensual license.”
11 G. R.” came to the rescue and defended Mr. Bradlaugh.
Mr. Barker, August 3rd, admits that many public advo
cates of liberal views had been notoriously immoral, and
had published indecent and immoral works. Mr. Holyoake,
more scrupulous than many others, would not publish
Rousseau’s “ Confessions ” entire; but another Freethought
publisher did, and his edition was recommended in Mr.
Bradlaugh’s side of the National Reformer. Then Mr.
Barker goes on to denounce immoral Sceptics, and declares
that, if he cannot find moral ones, he will bury himself in
the wilds of America; as he did, poor man, some years later.
He says : “ Mr. Bradlaugh is terribly mistaken if he supposes
he can drag down Buckle and Mill into the filthy slough in
which he is wallowing, or raise himself from his horrible
position by an abuse of their honourable names.” To
“ G. R.” he says : “ I expect to shortly expose in a pamphlet
the revolting doctrines which you and Mr. Bradlaugh are
endeavouring to promoteand speaks of “ the atrocious
Elements of Social Science,’ which Mr. Bradlaugh has so
often and so loudly praised.”
Finally, in the last number of the National Reformer
which he was permitted to edit, he fills pages with extracts
from the book to prove what he had said of its horrible and
revolting character.
Later, in his own paper, Barker's Review, vol. i., p. 118,
he vigorously denounces the doctrines taught by Mr. Brad
laugh and the National Reformer, and points out that “ the
principle that the animal appetites should rule; that powerful
animal appetites are great virtues ; that there is no danger in
their free, unlimited indulgence, is represented by the author
of the loathsome publication in which this theory is taught
and defended, and by those who commend the work and aid
an its circulation.”
And in Barker s Review, vol. i., p. 170, he says: “Only
�20
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
one public man among the Secularists condemned the book
until we exposed it. It has been advertised, recommended,
and circulated by Secularist lecturers; its author almost
worshipped, and the moment a Secularist retracted his com
mendation of the work he was savagely assailed by the
editor of the National Reformer.”
It was in vain that Joseph Barker worked for the separa
tion of Freethought from immorality, and called his oppo
nents “ the unbounded license party.” The majority was
against him. Mr. Bradlaugh was consistent, and stands to
day where he did twenty years ago, with Mrs. Besant as hisfirst Vice-President of the National Secular Society, and the
eloquent defender of the doctrines denounced by Mr. Joseph
Barker, who had vainly tried to carry the morals of Methodism
into the advocacy of Secularism. From that day, up to a
recent period, during sixteen years, “ The Elements of Social
Science” was advertised in the then leading organ of
Secularism, and its principles advocated in its columns ; and;
in “The National Secular Society’s Almanack for 1878” I
find the following advertisement:—
LEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE; OR, Physical, Sexual,,
and Natural Religion. An Exposition of the True Cause
and Only Cure of the Three Primary Social Evils—Poverty, Prostitu
tion, and Celibacy. By a Doctor of Medicine. Sixteenth Edition.
Twenty-eighth Thousand.
E
Translations of this Work have been published in the following
languages:—
In French—Elements de Science Sociale.
In German—Die Grnndzilge der Gesellschafts-vissenschaft.
In Dutch—De Elementcn der Sociale Wetenschag.
In Italian—Elementi di Scienza Sociale.
In Portuguese—Elementos de Sciencia Social.
And among the “ Opinions of the Press ” we read :—
“ This is the only book, so far as we know, in which, at a cheap price
and with honest and pure intent and purpose, all the questions affecting
the sexes, and the influence of their relations on society, are plainly
dealt with. It has now been issued in French as well as in English,
and we bring the French edition to the notice of our friends of the In
ternational Working Men’s Association, and of our subscribers in France
and Belgium, as essentially a poor man’s book.”—National Reformer
edited by Mr. Charles Bradlaugh.
�BRADLAUGH’S QUARREL WITH JOSEPH BARKER.
21
The Medical Press and Circular says :—
“We are told that it has been largely read in London by medical
men.”
The Examiner, in one of its many phases, said :—■
“.This is’ we believe, the only book that has fully, honestly, and in
a scientific spirit, recognised all the elements of the problem, How are
mankind to triumph over poverty, with its train of attendant evils ? and
fearlessly endeavoured to find a practical solution.”
The Reasoner, edited by Mr. G. J. Holyoake, said:—
“ It is, in one sense, a book which it is a mercy to issue and courage
to publish.”
The Boston Investigator, the leading palaeo-Secularist paper
in America, says :—
“ We_ have never risen from the perusal of any work with greater
satisfaction.”
Italian and German Secularist writers even more emphati
cally commend it.
This book, “ The Elements of Social Science,” was thus
for years advertised, eulogised, and promoted by Mr. Brad
laugh. He has never, to my knowledge, withdrawn his
commendations or repudiated its teachings. It remains,
therefore, only necessary to show what are the doctrines of
the book, in order to show what are the social and moral,
beliefs of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, M.P., etc.
�22
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
Chapter III.
SEXUAL RELIGION.
The religion of Palaeo-Secularism, as accepted and promul
gated by Mr. Bradlaugh and his associates, consists in the love
of the world and the worship of matter, and especially of the
human body. Thus, in this “ Bible of Secularism,” we have
sections on “ Natural Religion ” and “ Physical Religion
but nearly the whole book is occupied with teaching the
most important principle, or doctrines, of “Sexual Reli
gion.”
According to this religion, the chief end of man is to
glorify his animal desires, and, this being his only world and
only life, to have in it all possible sensual enjoyment. This
great duty of humanity is enforced as a matter of natural
religion, sexual religion, science, and philanthropy. It is
urged for physiological and pathological reasons, and recom
mended as a means of preserving health and of curing
disease.
The union of the sexes in marriage has been supposed by
moralists to have for its principal end the production of
offspring and the continuation of the human race on the
earth. ThePalaeo-Secularist Bible teaches an entirely different
doctrine. The great object of such intercourse is pleasure;
and the production of offspring is, beyond a very narrow
limit, an evil which it is our duty to avoid. Chastity, it
■contends, is a violation of natural law; continence is a
•crime ; marriage, so far as it limits or hampers the enjoyment
of the senses, is a superstitious and tyrannical institution;
fidelity is an evil; prostitution, as far as it goes, is a remedy
for bad institutions; but it may be abolished by the universal
acceptance of Palaeo-Secularist doctrines and practice as re
commended in “ The Elements of Social Science,” a book
which is so warmly commended and widely circulated among
Palaeo-Secularists all over the world, and especially by Charles
�SEXUAL RELIGION.
23
Bradlaugh and Annie Besant, who say, in the Publishers’
Preface to “The Fruits of Philosophy,” last edition, 1877 :
“ Physiology has made great strides during the past forty
years, and, not considering it right to circulate erroneous
physiology, we submitted the pamphlet to a doctor in whose
accurate knowledge we have the fullest confidence, and who
is widely known in all parts of the world as the author of
‘ The Elements of Social Science.’ The notes signed
‘ G. R.’ are written by this gentleman.” Thus it appears
that “ G. R.,” the annotator of “ The Fruits of Philo
sophy,” is the author of the Bible of Secularism, “The
Elements of Social Sciencewhile Dr. Drysdale, also
a distinguished physician, is President of the Malthusian
League, whose offices are’ those of the publishers of the
National Reformer and “The Fruits of Philosophy;” and
Mrs. Besant, first Vice-President of the National Secular
Society, is Hon. Secretary of the Malthusian League and
the author of “The Law of Population,” a pamphlet written
to take the place of the legally-condemned and rather obso
lete one of Dr. Knowlton, and which is intended to aid
people in carrying out more thoroughly the most important
duties of “ sexual religion,” as laid down in “ The Elements
of Social Science.”
I have stated briefly what these duties are. It is evident
that they are the exact opposites of the duties taught and
practised more or less by what are called respectable people.
Christians are supposed to renounce “ the world, the flesh,
and the devil;” Secularists, of “ The Elements ” type, glorify
the world; they teach the duty of revelling in sensuality, and,
rejecting all ideas of spiritual existence, they do not, of
course, believe in angels, good or bad.
It remains for us to show, by extracts from the book,
which contains the most comprehensive and authoritative
statements we can find of Mr. Bradlaugh’s doctrines respect
ing sexual morals," or “ sexual religion ”—a book so
thoroughly endorsed in the National Reformer that we have
not mis-stated nor over-stated the purport of such doctrines
as he so warmly approves, and mean to do simple justice in
this matter by giving the doctrines as set forth in the words
of the writer of “ The Elements of Social Science,” as well
as the reasons he gives for maintaining them.
This book, so highly commended by Mr. Bradlaugh—
�24
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
written by one of his most active partisans, as well as his
teacher in morals—holds that all men and all women should,
not only as a right, but as a duty, and as a religious duty
appertaining to “ sexual religion,” live in the free, full, fre
quent exercise of their sexual propensities. It teaches
as duties what moralists condemn as lust, and fornication,
and adultery. It teaches that continence and chastity, com
mended by others as virtues, are unnatural vices and deadly
-sins. It teaches the necessity, and therefore the right, of
marital infidelity and the duty of seduction. It defends
and honours prostitution, while it regards universal license
and promiscuity as a more natural and desirable condition.
These are the doctrines which some of the chosen, or self
appointed, leaders of the Palaeo-Secularist party have for many
years accepted and defended, and which they have pro
pagated in their far-reaching organisation.
It is probable that many Palaeo-Secularists will be disposed
to deny, and angrily resent, this indictment. I can sympathise
with them ; but I am obliged to do what is much worse than
to make such charges—I am obliged to prove them. To do
ihis I must give a few extracts from “ The Elements of
Social Science,” as Joseph Barker did twenty-four years ago
in his portion of the National Reformer, before he ceased to
be one of its editors.
Here, then, are the doctrines and morals set forth in a
book highly commended by Mr. Bradlaugh, M.P., circulated
wherever the English language is read, and translated into
the most important languages of Western Europe.
In the section on “ Sexual Religion : Laws of the Sexual
‘Organs,” it is stated that:—
“One physiological law of supreme importance and
“ universal application in our constitution is, that every
“ several member must, in order to be vigorous and
“ healthy, have a due amount of exercise, and that of the
“ normal kind. Thus the eye must have light, the limbs
“ motion, the intellect reflection, and our appetites and
“ passions their normal gratification, else will they infallibly
“ become enfeebled and diseased. Either excessive or
“ deficient exercise is injurious ; and, in order to have a
“ well-balanced bodily constitution (just as much our
“ honour and our duty as a well-balanced mind), we must
�SEXUAL RELIGION.
2$
“ obey this law. The generative organs are subject to it
“ as well as every other; and hence we shall see the duty
“ and necessity of their having due exercise from the time
“ of their maturity, which takes place at puberty, till that
“ of their decline ” (page 78).
“ Hence we must acknowledge that every man who has
“ not a due amount of sexual exercise lives a life of natural
“ imperfection and sin ; and he can never be certain how
“ far Nature’s punishment for this will proceed in his
“ case ” (p. 83).
“ The commonly-received code of sexual morality is
“ most erroneous, and erected in ignorance of, and opposi“ tion to, natural truth; the real natural duties of every
“ human being (however social difficulties may interfere
“ with the discharge of them) towards his reproductive
“ organs, and the passions connected with them, consisting
“ in their due and normal exercise, for which the social
“ provision of marriage is quite inadequate. Nature lays
“ one command on us : ‘ Exercise all thy functions, else
“art thou an imperfect and sinful being” (page 153).
“ It is absolutely certain that Nature meant the sexual
“ organs in either sex to have a due amount of exercise,
“ from the time of their maturity till their decline; and
“ no one who knows anything of the bodily laws can
“ doubt that every departure from the course she points
“ out is a natural sin; and she shows this herself by the
“ punishments she inflicts. She forms no organ that she
“ does not intend to be exercised, rouses no desires merely
“ to torment by their self-denial. It is not by shutting
“ our eyes to these facts that we can hope to progress
“ either in knowledge or in virtue” (page 163).
“ Chastity is considered one of the greatest of all virtues
“ in woman, and in man too, though in his case it is
“ practically less regarded. We have no longer voluntary
“ nuns, but of involuntary ones there are myriads_ far
( more, in reality, than ever existed in any Roman
“ Catholic country. Millions of women pass a great part
“of their sexual lives, and immense numbers pass the
“ whole, in total sexual abstinence, without any of the
“ enjoyments of sexual pleasures or the happiness of a
“ mother’s affections. For all this incredible self-denial,
“ which causes more anguish and disease than any mind
�-2 5
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
“can conceive, they have for their reward the barren
“ praise of chastity ” (page 162).
“Chastity, or complete sexual abstinence, so.far from
“ being a virtue, is invariably a great natural sin. We are
“ short-sighted beings, full of errors and false theories;
“ but Nature is absolutely unerring, and it is only by con“ suiting her that we can gain a true knowledge of our
“ virtues and vices. If we attend to Nature, we shall find
“ that all our organs are subject to the same law of health;
“ the great law of normal and sufficient exercise. There
“ is no organ in our body, nor any faculty in our mind,
“ which, to be healthy (or, in other words, virtuous), does
“ not require its due share of appropriate exercise. The
“ sexual organs are subject to this law exactly as all others;
“ and, whatever theories we form about them, Nature in
variably rewards or punishes them, according as the
“.'conditions of their health are observed. She cares not
“ for our moral code ; marriage has nothing sacred in her
■“eyes; with or without marriage, she gives her seal of
“ approbation to the sexually virtuous man or woman in a
“ healthy and vigorous state of the sexual organs and
“appetites, while she punishes the erring by physical and
“moral sufferings ” (p. 162).
“The two natures [of man and woman] are built on
“ the same original model, and, in the main, they are alike
“ in their laws. The great law of exercise of every part
■“ applies equally to both sexes; and in woman, as in
“ man, physical strength is more virtuous than weakness;
■“ courage than timidity; nervous power than nervous
“debility; and it is a sign of an effeminate and un“ natural theory of life that these truths are not deeply
“ felt by all of us ” (p. 163).
“ We may do what we please in the way of other healthy
“ influences ; we may bestow every other care on the
“ nurture and education of our beloved ones; but it is
“ absolutely impossible to make women healthy or happy
“without a due amount of sexual enjoyment” (p. 175).
“ When the universal applicability of the great law of
“ exercise to all our organs is understood, every one will
“ perceive that he is morally bound to exercise duly his
“ sexual organs throughout the period of sexual life. Thus
“ the young man, on entering upon puberty, will feel that
�SEXUAL RELIGION.
27
“ Nature commands him to indulge, to a moderate extent,
“ his sexual desires; and, when once he is fully convinced
“ of the natural rectitude of this, he cannot fail to perceive“ the insufficiency and unnatural character of our moral
“ code ” (p. 176).
We need not extend these quotations, which cover the
whole ground of sexual morality as taught by the highest
Malthusian authority, and as accepted and taught by pro
minent Secularist leaders. The book from which they are
taken is to be found in most Secularist libraries, and it isread in six languages.
�28
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
Chapter IV.
THE NEO-MALTHUSIAN DOCTRINE OF
MARRIAGE.
Marriage, according to the principles laid down in the
preceding chapter, is an unnatural institution, a hateful
monopoly, a delusion and a snare. The one fact of a large
surplus female population is, with Palaeo-Secularistic Malthusians, sufficient to condemn monogamic marriage. Polygamy
would be a partial remedy for that evil; but in other
countries, and in all new colonies, there is a surplus male
population—sometimes a very large one—whose require
ments are to be provided for, which would introduce the oppo
site institution of Polyandry, said to exist in Thibet, where
one woman is married to several husbands. The only other
resources are prostitution, as it exists in nearly all com
munities, or general promiscuous intercourse, such as is
advocated by the author of “ The Elements.” He is too
scientific, in his way—too logical, and too honestly out
spoken, to leave us in any doubt on a matter of such im
portance. He sees clearly that “Sexual Religion,” as he
preaches it, cannot be practised with the existence of legal
marriage. This is a clear deduction from his “ Law of
Exercise;” but it is enforced, as we shall see in another
chapter, by reasons drawn from what he considers medical
science.
In “The Elements of Social Science” (department of
“ Sexual Religion ”) we read :—
“ Many of the sexual evils most widely spread among
“ us depend directly upon the errors of our code of sexual
“morality. According to this code, all love except
“married love is considered sinful. Marriage, it is held,
“ moreover, should bind people together for life, without
“ leaving them the power of indulging in any other sexual
“ intimacy, or of divorce from each other, unless either
�THE NEO-MALTHUSIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
29
“ the husband or wife commits adultery. If this, which
“ is the view of marriage generally entertained in this
“country, were to continue, there are very many fearful
“ sexual evils which could not be removed. In the first
“place, what is, or should be, the grand object of any
“social institution for uniting the sexes? It is, that each
“ individual in society, every man and woman, should have
“ a fair share of the blessings of love and of offspring, and
“ that the children should be duly provided for. But, if
“ marriage be the only honourable way of obtaining sexual
“and parental pleasures, very many must be excluded
“ from them; for, even supposing that there were room
“ for the exercise of all the reproductive powers, as in
“ America, or that, by preventive intercourse, the propor“ tion of children in each family were to be small, so as
“ to allow of a great many marriages, still there would be
“ a large number of women, and even of men, who, from
“ plainness and other unattractive qualities, would find no
“ one who would be willing to be rigidly bound to them
“for life” (p. 356).
“ The irrevocable nature of the marriage contract, and
“ the impossibility of procuring divorce, lead to the most
“fearful evils. Mr. Hill shows this in his work on
“ ‘ Crime,’ telling us that the great majority of murders
“ and brutal assaults now-a-days are committed by
“ husbands upon their wives, and showing that it is in the
* nature of all long and indissoluble contracts to cause
similar evils. All contracts binding two human beings
“ together in an indissoluble manner for long periods are
“the fruitful source of crimes and miseries............. The
“ custom, moreover, of selecting one sole object of love,
“steeling one’s heart, as far as sexual desires are con“ cerned, against all the rest of man or womankind, has a
“ very narrowing effect on our capacity for affection and
“ appreciation of what is good and amiable in the different
“ characters we see around us. Hence, in great measure,
has arisen that fastidiousness in love which is so marked
“ among us, and is the sign of a narrow and effeminate
“ culture ” (p. 358).
The great natural sexual duties of man and woman
“ do not, as is commonly imagined, consist in being a
“constant husband or wife, or in avoiding unmarried
�3°
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
“ intercourse, but are of a very different nature. It is of
“ the highest importance that the attention of all of us
“ should be steadfastly concentrated upon the real sexual
“ duties, and not dazzled by mere names. Marriage
"■diverts our attention from the real sexual duties, and
“ this is one of its worst effects ” (p. 363).
“ Every individual man or woman is bound to exercise
“duly his sexual organs, so that the integrity of his own
“ health shall not be impaired on the one hand, and so
“ that he shall not, on the other, interfere with the health
“and happiness of his neighbour.
Every individual
“ should make it his conscientious aim that he or she
“ should have a sufficiency of love to satisfy the sexual
“demands of his nature, and that others around him
“should have the same. It is impossible, as has been
“ shown before, that each individual should have this in
“ an old country, unless by the use of preventive means.
“ The use of these means, therefore, comes to be incum" bent upon all those who seek to enjoy the natural
“ pleasures of love themselves without depriving their
“neighbours of them ” (p. 366).
“ It is absolutely impossible to have a free, sincere, and
“dignified sexual morality in our society as long as
“marriage continues to be the only honourable provision
“ for the union of the sexes, and as long as the marriage
“ bond is so indissoluble as at present............ It is only by
“ relaxing the rigour of the marriage bond, and allowing
“greater sexual freedom, that it is possible to eradicate
“prostitution, and with it venereal disease” (p. 368).
“ Now, in reality, facility of divorce does away with
“ marriage ; it thoroughly alters the theory of the institu“ tion, and makes it in reality nothing more than an agree“ ment between two people to live together as man and
“ wife, so long as they love each other. And such is the
“ only true mode of sexual union; it is the one which
“ Nature points out to us; and we may be certain that
“ any institution which defies the natural laws of love, as
“ marriage does, will be found to be the cause of immense
“ evils; ever accumulating as the world rolls on, and man“kind become more free and more enlightened in the
“physical and moral laws of their being............. Let
“those who will marry; but those who do not wish
�THE NEO-MALTHUSIAN DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE.
31
“ to enter upon so indissoluble a contract, either on
“ account of their early age, or from a disapproval of the
“ whole ceremony, should deem it perfectly honourable
“and justifiable to form a temporary connection” (p. 371).
“ As I have already endeavoured to show, the present
“ system of prostitution and indissoluble marriage (which
“ are closely connected together), might be, or ought to
“ be, superseded by preventive intercourse, and by a re
laxation of the marriage code, when the diseases of
“ abstinence and abuse might not only be satisfactorily
“ treated, but effectually prevented ” (p. 504).
“ The noblest sexual conduct, in the present state of
“ society, appears to me to be that of those who, while
“ endeavouring to fulfil the real sexual duties, enumerated
“ in a former essay, live together openly and without dis“ guise, but refuse to enter into an indissoluble contract
“of which they conscientiously disapprove ” (p. 504.)
It is needless to multiply quotations on this point, for the
whole science and logic of the book are utterly irreconcil
able with the institution of marriage ; so that this book, so
highly commended by Mr. Bradlaugh, M P., in its chapters
on “ Sexual Religion,” is a protest and a conspiracy against
it; and, if the teachings of “ The Elements of Social
Science ” are carried into practice, marriage, as commonly
understood, becomes impossible.
�32
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
Chapter V.
PAL^O-SECULAR VIEWS OF SOCIAL EVILS.
Let it be understood that I do not impeach the motives of
the author of “The Elements of Social Science.” No
doubt he would abolish marriage and chastity, and what
men have for so many ages called purity and virtue, for what
he believes to be the best interests of humanity.
The author of “ The Elements ” is earnestly, and even
pathetically, philanthropic. In the last paragraph of the
book he says:—
“ It is not for myself that I ask consideration; it is for
“ the unfortunate sufferers to whom this work is devoted,
“and for whose benefit I would readily submit to any
“ amount of obloquy—even from those I wish to serve.
“ Alas ! when I see around me the poor perishing in their
“ squalid homes, the forsaken prostitutes wandering in our
“streets, the sexual victims pining in solitude and bitter“ ness; when I look down into the fearful abyss of our social
“ miseries and wrongs, and think, moreover, of the mutual
“ destruction by which all this suffering is attended, the
“reflection overpowers me—that it matters little what
“ becomes of myself. What am I better than they that
“ I should be happy when so many are miserable ? If I
“ can help my suffering fellow-men, it is the dearest wish
“of my heart—that for which I live—that for which
“I would willingly die; if not, I am indifferent to
“ my own fate. But I have a deep and abiding convic“ tion that these evils are not insuperable ; that the future
“ of our race will be brighter than the past; and that what
“ I have written has not been written in vain ” (p. 592).
In another place he says :—
“Morality, medicine, religion, law, politics are solemn
�PAL7E0-SECULAR VIEWS OF SOCIAL EVILS.
33
“ farces played before the eyes of men, whose imposing
“ pomps and dazzling ceremonies serve but to divert the
“ attention from the awful tragedies behind the scenes.
“ We may be absolutely certain of this, that, unless we can
“attain to some other solution of the social difficulties,
“our society must for ever continue, as it ever has been,
“a chaos of confusion, of wrongs, and of misery.”
The ground he takes in regard to our great social evil,
prostitution, proves his humanity, as the whole book does
his sincerity. He regrets its evils, he mourns over its
degradation, he pities its victims, but thinks “ the life of
voluntary celibacy led by these ladies ”—who try to reform
prostitutes—“ quite as sinful a one as that of the prostitutes
they endeavour to convert,” and asks :—
‘In what light, then, is prostitution to be regarded
“ when we take into consideration the great primary
“ necessity of sexual intercourse ? It should be regarded
“as a valuable temporary substitute for a better state of
“ things. It is greatly preferable to no sexual intercourse
“ at all, without which, as has been shown, every man and
“ woman must lead a most unnatural life. Therefore, the
“ deep gratitude of mankind, instead of their scorn, is
“ due, and will be given in future times, to those unfortu“ nate females who have suffered in the cause of our sexual
“nature. We shall find that, if we love and reverence
“these girls (at the same time that we endeavour totally
“ to remove from our society the fearful evil of prostitu“ tion), they will love and reverence us, and on no other
“consideration. If Society enfold them in her bosom,
“ they will soon learn gratefully to repay her love; but,
“if she continue to spurn them, her punishments and
“ sufferings will be no less than theirs. Her unnatural
“ treatment has made them so degraded, and from that
“ degradation only her repentant love and reverence will
“uplift them” (p. 270).
In the present social state, the only resource of a young
man, he says, is one of three necessary evils, of which mer
cenary love is the least. But—
“ Mercenary love, besides the fearful dangers of venereal
�34
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
“ disease, is exceedingly degrading; and the amount of
“ evil done to men, as well as to women, by this general
“ degradation of their first sexual experiences is little con“ceived. The young woman is in a much worse sexual
“ position than even the young man, for even mercenary
“love is far better than total sexual abstinence” (p. 239).
Here, as elsewhere, our author seems content to make
woman the victim of what he considers the necessities of
man ; but the social system he advocates would make men
and women equal, and there is, from his point of view, both
justice and good feeling in the following observations :—
“ Clandestine love fills the whole of society with deceit
“ and suspicion ; every one suspects his neighbour, and is
“in his turn the object of suspicion ; and even were there
“ no other obstacles to the elevation of the human cha
racter, this alone, as long as it continues to exist, must
“ be fatal to the hopes of the moralist.
“ But, if man be placed in so humiliating a position in
“ sexual matters, unfortunate woman is infinitely more so.
“ In the first place, we have the vast multitude of
'•'■prostitutes, on whose awful degradation one cannot think
“ but with dismay and anguish. That there should be
“among us a class of unfortunate women, who are
“ treated worse than dogs; who are hunted about by the
“ police, despised and abhorred by their own sex, and
“abused and neglected by man, to whose wants they
“minister, is a page of human shame too dark for tears.
“ It is the greatest disgrace of civilised society—a dis“ grace deeper even than negro slavery. And for what
“are these poor girls hunted down in this merciless
“ manner ? In truth, for acting exactly the same way as
“ all of us—as all young men, who go with them, enjoy
“ ourselves with them, and then desert them, and leave
“ them to their fate; for supplying a want in our society,
“ which man, by the necessities of his nature, cannot do
“ without, and which only they, who know little of human
“nature, imagine may be withheld without the most de“ structive consequences. Instead of contempt, these
“poor neglected girls deserve the warmest thanks of
“ society, for the heroic mode in which they have borne
�PAL7E0-SECULAR VIEWS OF SOCIAL EVILS.
35
“ the misery and the burden of our shame. Notwith“ standing the enormous evils which they aid in causing,
“ they have been in the main exceedingly serviceable to
“ mankind, by palliating in some degree the other alter“ native evils of the law of population—namely, sexual
“ abstinence or premature death; and thus, as already
“ mentioned, they should be regarded as sexual martyrs.
“ If youth is to be humiliated and disgraced for indul“ ging in sexual intercourse, at least let all of us bear our
“ share, and be ashamed to throw the whole burden on
“ poor helpless woman. While so glaring an injustice
“ exists, how can we talk of the nobility or dignity of
“ man ? In truth, no one member of the human family,
“ no prostitute nor criminal, can be degraded, without
“ dragging down all the rest. In the case of prostitution
“ the whole of society is concerned in it. Men, it may be
“ said, are as a general rule all prostitutes ; for there are
“ but an inconsiderable section of them who do not
“ indulge more or less at some period of life in mercenary
“ loves, and it matters little in such a case whether the
“ money be given or received. The general character of
“ woman also is exceedingly debased, and their dignity
“ and freedom lessened, by the existence of such a class
“among their sex” (p. 409.)
He feels deeply and he complains bitterly of this unnatural
state of things, and says :—
“ As long as the present sexual system lasts there is no
“ such thing as a dignified life for youth. Mercenary
“ love, in itself, is an abomination, utterly abhorrent to
“Nature, and full of degradation to all concerned in
“it........... In fact, in all sexual intercourse, except in
“ marriage, the young man has to act and feel like a pick“ pocket, shunning the light, and being for ever on his
“guard against discovery ; and it can readily be perceived
“ what an effect this must have in degrading his character”
(p. 407).
Condemning prostitution as abominable, utterly abhorrent
to nature, full of degradation, our philosopher can still look
upon prostitutes as heroic martyrs, who “deserve the
�36
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
warmest thanks of society.” But a scientific philanthropist
can look charitably even upon what are called unnatural
vices. He says:—
“All these vices have met with an opprobrium far
*
“ greater than they deserved ; for the public mind loses all
“ sense of justice when it comes to consider a sexual fault,
“and is always far too harsh in its judgments. I should
“ say that, of all acts, none are viewed with such unjust
“ severity as these unnatural vices........... As long as the
“present obstacles continue to the gratification of the
“ normal desires ; as long as all unmarried love is regarded
“ in a harsh and degrading light, so long will prostitution
“ and unnatural vices flourish, and it will be out of human
“ power to suppress them ” (p. 249).
The present obstacles to perfection are the institution of
marriage and the common ideas and feelings opposed to
universal license and promiscuity. The great evil—almost
the only evil in the world—is the repression of what Chris
tian moralists call licentiousness. The greatest good possible
for humanity would be the removal of all such prejudices
and restrictions, so that prostitution, shameful, unnatural,
abhorrent as it is, is to be preferred to civilised morality;
and our author says :—
“ As long, however, as prostitution continues to be, in
“ many cases, the only attainable intercourse, although I
“ deeply deplore its existence, it seems to me a far smaller
“ evil that a man should indulge in it than that he should
“ waste away under the miseries and evils of abstinence
“ or unnatural and diseasing abuses.”
In a word, the “ social evil ” is to be tolerated, and even
cherished, until women generally become so far Malthusianised—or, may I say, Bradlaughised ?—as to make it no longer
a necessary evil.
�PALAEO-SECULAR MEDICINE.
37
Chapter VI.
PAL^EO-SECULAR MEDICINE.
It could not be expected that a “ Graduate of Medicine ”
would write a book upon “ The Elements of Social Science
and Sexual Religion ” without treating largely of the diseases
which are caused by civilised morality, and are to be cured
by the opposite system, accepted, adopted, and recommended
by the partisans of the seatless M.P. What are called the
sexual diseases of men and women are, therefore, described
at length; but it is not necessary that we should enter into
these unpleasant professional details. It will be sufficient to
show that, according to this author, all these diseases have
their origin in the one evil of sexual restraint or chastity,
and their one cure is sexual license.
Writing of “Hysteria,” the author of the “Elements”
says :—
“ Chastity or sexual abstinence causes more real disease
‘‘and misery in one year, I believe, in this country than
‘‘sexual excesses in a century. We must not include
‘‘venereal disease among the evils of excess, as it has
“ nothing to do with it; it depends always on infection,
“not on over-use of the sexual organs ” (p. 186).
“Woman’s peculiar torments begin at puberty, and
“ from that time, in innumerable cases, till her marriage,
“ she is the constant prey of anxiety. Ungratified desires
“ distract her, endless temptations and excitements
“surround her, marriage is for her so critical a step, and
“ yet she has not the power of selection. The fatal ques
tion, Shall she be married at all? gradually dawns
“ upon her, and the clouds and whirlwinds of anxious
‘‘and conflicting passions darken her sky............ The only
“ one who can cure a hysterical young woman is a young
‘‘ man whom she loves, and with whom she may gratify
“ her natural feelings, and have a free and happy outlet
�38
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
“ for the emotions which have been so long disordering
“her” (p. 183).
“ I am convinced,” says this high medical authority, “ that,
if sexual intercourse were used early enough in these diseases
[mentioning some to which young girls are liable], very few
cases would exsist ” (p. 172).
Treating of “ Chlorosis,” a disease of girls, he says :—
“ The crippling idea of chastity and female decorum
“ binds her like an invisible chain, wherever she moves,
“ and prevents her from daring to think, feel, or act, freely
“and impulsively........... If we examine into the origin and
“ meaning of these singular ideas with regard to woman,
“we shall find that they are based upon no natural distinc
tion between the two sexes, but upon the erroneous
“ views of man, and especially upon the mistaken ideas as
“to the virtue of female chastity. It is to guard this
“ supposed virtue that all the restrictions on female liberty
“ and female development in body and mind have arisen.
“........... Society is itself to blame for all such errors as
“unnatural sexual indulgences in either sex. Until we
“ can supply to the violent sexual passions of youth a
“ proper and natural gratification, we may be absolutely
“certain that an unnatural one will be very frequently
“resorted to............ The only true and permanent remedy
“is a proper amount of sexual exercise” (pp. 167-171).
Of course, the same remedy is prescribed in diseases of a
similar character in men, and there is no doubt that this kind
of practice has spread to a considerable extent in the medical
profession, and that—
“It is now comparatively common among our most
“skilful medical men to recommend sexual intercourse to
“young men suffering from genital debility.”
With them there is little difficulty in carrying out such a
prescription; with women it is different. Our author says :—
“ But for suffering woman no one has yet raised his
“ voice, no one has applied to her case the only true and
“scientific remedy; that remedy which is the keystone of
�PALJEO-SECULAR MEDICINE.
39
“ female therapeutics, and without which all treatment or
“ prevention of female disease is a vanity and a delusion.
“ The great mass of female sexual diseases, even more than
“ those of men, arise from sexual enfeeblement, consequent
“ on the want of a healthy and sufficient exercise for this
“important part of the system. From the want of this,
“the green sickness, menstrual irregularities, hysterical
“ affections without number, proceed; and it is utter
“ vanity to expect to cure, and still more to prevent, these
“ miserable diseases, without going to the root of the
“ matter. It is a certain and indubitable fact that, unless
“ we can supply to the female organs their proper natural
“ stimulus, and a healthy and natural amount of exercise,
“ female disease will spring up on every side around us,
“ and all other medical appliances will be powerless against
“ the hydra ” (p. 163).
But, in addition to the slavery of one sex to prejudices
and superstitions about chastity, virtue, and morality, there
are still but comparatively few physicians who have the
science and the courage to make the proper prescription :—
“ How few English physicians are there who have the
“ courage, even if they have the knowledge, to prescribe—
“ nay, even to tell the patient of this one and only physio
logical remedy! No; overawed by the general erro“ neous moral views on these subjects, they shrink from
“ their duty of asserting the sacredness of the bodily laws
“ in opposition to all preconceptions ” (p. 81).
In some cases physicians advise marriage; but how seldom
can such advice be taken! What man or woman would
wish to be administered in that way as a remedy for disease ?
Our author sees and admits the difficulty. He says :—
“ Marriage deserts us at our greatest need; and, if it
“ should continue to be the only attainable sexual inter“ course, the cure of vast numbers of genital diseases
“ would be, as at present, impossible, and might be given
“ up in despair. But not only the cure, the prevention of
“ these diseases in any satisfactory degree would be
“ impossible; for, unless all young people were to marry
�40
,
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
“ about puberty, which would create the most fearful sub“ sequent repentances, an immense amount of genital
“ disease would be certain to arise, were no other honour“ able provision made for the gratification of the first and
“ most impetuous passions. It is very generally about and
“shortly after the age of puberty that masturbation
“ begins to be practised among both sexes; chlorosis is
“ most frequent in girls still in their teens ; in short, it is
“ an absolute impossibility to prevent the development of
“ an immense amount of genital disease and morbidity if
“ marriage be the only sexual provision for youth.”
The sole alternative, as we shall see more fully stated later
on, is to abolish marriage, and adopt universal promiscuous
intercourse.
Treating of “ Dysmenorrhoca,” our author, after prescrib
ing his panacea, says : —
“ To prevent this disease, we must endeavour to eradicate
“ throughout society the causes which lead to it. Of
“these by far the most important is sexual abstinence...
“....... And I believe that by far the most important class
“ of sexual diseases are those which arise from sexual
“abstinence or abuse, and which are characterised by
“ genital enfeeblement, giving rise to general debility and
“ mental irritation, discontent, and despondency. These
“are universally spread throughout our society in the
“present day, and spring naturally from the universal
“ difficulties opposing the healthy exercise of the sexual
“ organs” (p. 238).
Young men suffering from a very common form of nervous
exhaustion are advised to use “ the natural remedy ” very
moderately at first—once a week or so—gradually increasing
with the waxing powers (p. 105).
I regret the necessity of entering into these particulars,
but can see no other way of bringing this very important
subject to the attention of thoughtful men and women. It
is right that fathers and mothers should know what kind of
advice such a “ Graduate of Medicine,” and all who may
agree with him, may give their sons and daughters, and it is
right that society should know what kind of medical doc
�PAL2E0-SECULAR MEDICINE.
41
trines are approved and widely promulgated by those who
sympathise with the author of this book, and those who
have done most to aid its circulation. But for the fact that
this book, from which I have so liberally quoted, solely
because I do not wish to do any injustice to its distinguished
author, or his more distinguished or better known patrons
and supporters, has been and is a recognised text-book of a
great movement, or one branch of a growing organisation, I
might have hesitated to lay such doctrines or such opinions,
claiming to be scientific and medical, before the possible
readers of these pages. But since I have decided that it is
best that the real facts of life should be known—whether of
the slums investigated by Royal Commissions, or the moral
slums of false science and false philosophy, I think it right
to give the author’s defence of what most men, and, one
may hope, nearly all women, will consider horrible doctrines.
It is also but just to the unseated member for Northampton,
who has so long and steadfastly stood by the book and worked
with its author, who was, it will be remembered, the profes
sional endorser and friendly annotator of “ The Fruits of
Philosophy,” published by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant.
The author of the “ Elements ” says :—
“ Every act of every organ is essentially good. This
“ law applies exactly in the same way to all the intellectual
u and moral operations ; every thought and feeling of the
“ mind must, by the necessity of our being, tend to the
“ preservation, and not to the destruction, of the organism,
“ and therefore must be in like manner essentially
“good ” (p. 415).
“ In health and disease,” he says, “ this is alike true
so that it is impossible for a man to think a bad thought or
do a bad act.
All thought and all action is the result of material forces,
which can, of course, have no moral character. He says :—
“ Matter, when in the form of a muscle, can contract;
“ when in the form of living nervous substance, it can
■“ think. Thought is, in some mysterious manner, con“ nected with phosphorus, and must, in some way or other,
“ be an exaltation and refinement of properties naturally
�42
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
“ inherent in that substance and in the other elements of
“ the brain, but in what way is yet totally unknown. On
“ reflection, we perceive that, as there is a chemical action
“ attending every mental process, just as there is one
“ attending every act of life, every change in the mind
“ must be connected with an exactly corresponding change
“ in these chemical actions ” (p. 440).
Certainly no one would think of attributing free will,
responsibility, and morality, or immorality, to chemical com
binations ; and here is the whole philosophy of Materialism.
There is no longer any question of morality, since morality
cannot exist.
Mr. G. J. Holyoake, a less logical Materialist than the
“Graduate of Medicine,” admits accountability for the
operations of phosphorus, carbon, and oxygen, but limits
it. He says (“ Principles of Secularism ”): “ No man or
woman is accountable to others for any conduct by which
others are not injured or damaged.” As it must be difficult
to determine when or how much others are injured by our
acts, this rule is not easy of application; and it clearly
denies the right of interference with any act whose conse
quences may be supposed to be confined to the individual,
as suicide or murder; since it cannot be certainly proved,
according to palaeo-Secularist principles, that for a man to
hasten his own annihilation can be an evil to society ; while it
may be a decided benefit; and the “ painless extinction ” of
the lives of others might be, under conceivable circumstances,
a mercy to them and a favour to the community. In any
case, it would only interrupt unpleasant chemical action.
The action of phosphorus, according to the author of
“ The Elements,” has hitherto been very unfortunate. He
says :—
“When we look around us among our friends and
“ acquaintances we can scarcely find a single individual
“whose life we could call a happy one. For my part, I
“ do not think that I know in this country a single such
“ case, and I have heard the same opinion from others.
“ All of us are worn by anxiety, and depressed by the
“ atmosphere of misery that overspreads our society........
“ Hitherto all happiness has been built on the misery of
�PAOEO-SECULAR MEDICINE.
43
“ others. No man at present can be happy himself without
“inevitably causing his neighbour’s misery” (p. 335).
The remedy for this miserable condition of the chemicals
by whose reactions we think, feel, and suffer we have given
in abundant extracts from the palaeo-Secularist’s text-book and
Materialist’s vade mecum. It consists in unbounded freedom
of “ Sexual Religion,” and the artificial prevention of its
natural consequences—only a very slight interference with
the chemical operations of phosphorus, carbon, etc.; for
he says:—
“ An increase of sexual connections is, indeed, in itself,
“ one of the greatest blessings; but it is only a subject
“ for true and unqualified congratulation when it is not
“ followed by a corresponding increase of offspring ”
(p. 481).
Mrs. Besant, the present shining light of Bradlaughism,
though a devout believer in “The Elements,” whose
doctrines she has written a special pamphlet to promote,
attributes the miseries of human life to that peculiar result
of the operations of phosphorus and other chemicals called
Christianity. In No. 10 of the National Secular Society’s
tracts, “The Fruits of Christianity,” which are “black,
bitter, and poisonous,” she says: “How Christianity has
darkened the innocent brightness of the world is known to
■every student. Roman Catholic Christianity made a miser
able life a holy life, but was content to leave it to the
religious only: Protestant Christianity forced it on all
alike. The Swiss Calvinists set the example of austerity,
and the French Huguenots quickly followed. They forbade
theatres, private theatricals, dancing, gay dresses, conjuring,
puppet shows, etc., making gloom synonymous with piety.
In Scotland the Protestants made the Sunday a misery.”
And she quotes Buckle as saying of them : “ Men, in their
daily actions, and in their very looks, became troubled,
melancholy, and ascetic. Their countenance soured, and
was downcast. Not only their opinions, but their gait, their
demeanour, their voice, their general aspect, were influenced
by that deadly blight which nipped all that was genial and
warm........... Thus it was that the national character of the
�44
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
Scotch was, in the seventeenth century, dwarfed and muti
lated.” Astounding effects of chemical reactions, natural
selection, and the survival of the fittest! and only to be
remedied by joining the National Secular Society and the
Malthusian League, sending Mr. Bradlaugh to Parliament,
and making a diligent study of “ The Elements ” and Mrs
Besant’s “ Law of Population.”
�THE PAUEO-SECULARIST MALTHUSIANS.
45
Chapter VII.
THE PAL/EO-SECULARIST MALTHUSIANS.
Mr. Malthus was a respectable English clergyman, who
thought that there was a danger that the population of a
country might increase faster than its supply of food, and
he proposed that people should prevent the calamity of
having more children than they could take care of by avoid
ing early marriages.
As a matter of fact, the people of several European coun
tries do postpone marriage from prudential motives, and,
in England, while the lower classes in towns marry at twenty,
in the upper ranks the average age at marriage is about thirty.
The calculations and warnings of Malthus made some
excitement in his time, and his ideas were adopted by James
Mill, John Stuart Mill, and other political economists, and
also by Richard Carlile and some Socialist writers. Some of
these were not, however, content with the prudential checks
to population of late marriages, or of married people living
in continence, to limit the number of their children; and
they recommended the use of certain methods for preventing
pregnancy. Some went further and advocated infanticide, or
what was called the “ painless extinction” of every unwelcome
babe at the moment of its birth. There is no doubt that,
more or less in consequence of such teachings, a vast
number of children have been wilfully murdered; as a vast
number are also dying continually of unsanitary conditions
and parental neglect.
The Population Question, as it is called, has been taken
up by the leading Cat-and-Ladleites, and they have generally
advocated “ preventive intercourse ” in preference to late
marriages or married abstinence. Carlile in his “ Every
Woman’s Book,” Robert Dale Owen in his “ Moral Physio
logy, ” Dr. Knowlton in his “ Fruits of Philosophy,” the
�46
SEXUAL ECONOMY
“ Graduate of Medicine ” in his “ Elements of Social
Science,”' and Mrs. Besant in her “ Law of Population,”
have all taken the same ground—the dangers of too great
and rapid an increase of population, and the necessity of
finding some check; and they have adopted some mechani
cal or chemical method of preventing conception.
After Richard Carlile, Watson, a Secularist publisher, sold
“ The Fruits of Philosophy,” which was also sold by the
Holyoakes, and by Charles Watts until his prosecution,
when it was taken up by Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant.
But the great authority accepted by nearly all the Secu
larist leaders is the book from which I have made so many
extracts. The “ Graduate of Medicine ” is a thorough
Malthusian ; only he rejects Malthus’s remedy for over-popu
lation. He is not in favour of late marriages—he prefers
that people should not marry at all; but he is in favour of
perpetual and limitless licentiousness, and of preventing its
natural result. Here is the case as he puts it over and over
again, with all his force and eloquence:—
It is absolutely necessary to health and happiness that
every male and female should have frequent sexual inter
course, from the age of puberty as long as the propensity
exists.
It is absolutely necessary that the number of children
born should be limited to the supply of food.
Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to prevent the natural
result of sexual indulgence.
Granting the premises, it is impossible to arrive at any
other conclusion.
Let us give the concise statement in his own words :—
“ The Law of Exercise. The health of the reproduc“ tive organs and emotions depends on their having a suffi“ cient amount of normal exercise ; and the want of this
“ tends powerfully to produce misery and disease in both
“ man and woman.
“ The Law of Fecundity. Each woman tends to pro“ duce from ten to fifteen children or thereabouts.
“ The Lazo of Agricultural Industry, or Diminishing
“ Productiveness. The proportional returns to agriculture
“ tend to diminish. In other words, the produce of the
“soil tends to increase in a less proportion than the labour
“ bestowed on it.
�THE PAUEO-SECULARIST MALTHUSIANS.
47
“ From these three laws arise—
“ The Law of Population, or Malthusian Law. The
“ natural increase of population has always been, and
“ will always continue to be, most powerfully checked in
“ all old countries, and in new colonies also, as soon as
“ their cultivation has reached a certain extent, by Celibacy
“ (that is, Sexual Abstinence), Prostitution, Sterility, Pre
ventive Intercourse, or Premature Death, whose collec“ tive amount varies inversely in proportion to the rapidity
“ with which the population of the country is increasing,
“ and to the number of emigrants minus that of immi“ grants ; while the amount of each individually varies
“ inversely in proportion to the others.
“ From these laws arise two duties—
“ The Duty of Limited Procreation. In an old country
“ it is the duty of every individual, whatever be his or
“ her station in life, to bring into the world only a very
“ small number of children.
“ The Duty of Sexual Lntercourse. It is the duty of
“ every individual to exercise his or her sexual functions
“ during the period of sexual life, abstinence and excess
“ being alike avoided ” (p. 558).
This is, briefly stated, the doctrine of the book which has
been, and is, accepted by the Palaeo-Secularist leaders, and
we may fairly conclude is approved by the great body of their
followers; for this is the doctrine set forth in the speeches
of Mr. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant, with great ability and
eloquence, in our courts of justice and in their lectures to
crowded houses in the principal towns in Great Britain.
After giving an abstract of the essay of Malthus on
“ Population ” in “ The Elements,” the author says
“Thus finishes this wonderful essay, the most im
“portant contribution to human knowledge, it appears
“ to me, that ever was made. On rising from it, with a
“ mind overpowered by the vastness of the subject, and
“ the incomparable way in which it has been treated, I
“ cannot but consider its author to have been the greatest
“ benefactor of mankind, without any exception, that ever
“existed on this earth” (p. 315).
�4«
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
Describing the evils of poverty, he can find but one
remedy:—
“ Poverty is a sexual evil, depending on a sexual cause,
“ and admitting only of a sexual cure ” (p. 484).
“ If the proportion of the people to the food can be
“made a smaller one, poverty will be benefited [pre
sented?], but by no other conceivable means. The
“ only possible way to remove poverty is to have fewer
“children” (p. 341).
Admiring Malthus as he does, the author condemns his
advice in regard to marriage ; besides, there is a vast number
of women for whom marriage is impossible :—
“ In some parts of England, and in many counties in
“ Scotland, the proportion of spinsters is as high as forty“ one per cent, of the women, from the age of twenty
“upwards. There are 1,407,225 women between the
“ ages of twenty and forty who have never married, and
“359,969 old maids of the age of forty and upwards.
“ Those who are at all aware of the misery and disease of
“ sexual abstinence will be able to form a slight idea of
“ the suffering arising from this form of the preventive
“check” (p. 343).
“ The great error in Mr. Malthus’s reasoning was that
“ he, like most of the moralists of his and our own age,
“was unaware of the frightful evils and fearful natural sin
“ of sexual abstinence. The ignorance of the necessity of
“ sexual intercourse to the health and virtue of both man
“ and woman is the most fundamental error in medical
“ and moral philosophy ” (p. 345).
Here, as in every instance, the italics are those of the
author.
“ There is a way, and but one possible way, of sur“ mounting these evils and of securing for each individual
“ among us a fair share of food, love, and leisure, without
“ which human society is a chaotic scene of selfishness,
“injustice, and misery” (p. 347).
“ The means I speak of—the only means by which the
�THE PAL7E0-SECULARIST MALTHUSIANS.
49
“ virtue and the progress of mankind are rendered pos'“ sible—is Preventive Sexual Intercourse. By this
“ is meant sexual intercourse where precautions are used
“ to prevent impregnation. In this way love would be
obtained without entailing upon us the want of food and
“ leisure by overcrowding the population........... Women,
“ if they had not the fear of becoming pregnant before
“ their eyes, would indulge their sexual desires just as
“ men do. Hence the vehement prejudices in favour of
“ our present code of sexual morality, and of the institu“ tion of marriage, together with the determined hostility
“ to anything in the shape of unmarried intercourse—at
“ least, on the part of women—are the chief obstacles to
“the consideration of the most important of all subjects—
“ preventive sexual intercourse ” (p. 349).
“ Preventive sexual intercourse, then, is the mode, and
“ the only possible mode, of reconciling the opposing
“difficulties of the population problem, and is the only
“possible solution for the great social evils of this .and
“other old countries. I stake my life—I would stake a
“thousand lives—on the truth of this. There is no
“ subject on which I have thought so long and felt so
“ deeply as the sexual one. It has been ever present to
“ me for many years; and, long before I read the works
“of Mr. Malthus and Mr. Mill, my mind was absorbed
“ in the evils I saw and read of from sexual abstinence
“and other sexual difficulties and diseases ” (p. 352).
“ Therefore, any man or woman, it matters not what
“ be their station in life, whether their destiny be a palace
“or a hovel, who has more thari the small proportion of
“children which the circumstances of an old country
“ allow, as the fair average to each individual, is an irre“ ligious being, and disregards one of the most sacred of
“ all the moral duties, thus inevitably causing disease and
“misery to some of his fellow creatures” (p. 362).
This must end our quotations from a book which we
need not characterise; written, as the reader may be able
to judge from the examples we have given, with great
earnestness and with considerable ability. We have quoted
fairly, but could not properly go into medical and surgical
-details, and we refrain from publishing the methods suggested
�5°
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
for securing the end proposed. They are similar to thosegiven in “ The Fruits of Philosophy ” and in Mrs. Besant’s
“ Law of Population.”
Will it be pretended that these are merely the teachings
of one man, for whom the great body of Secularists are not
responsible? Mrs. Besant thinks otherwise. “What is
morality ?” she asks, in her “ Law of Population.” “ It is
the greatest good of the greatest number. It is immoral to
give life where you cannot support it. It is immoral to bring
children into the world when you cannot: clothe, feed, and
educate them.”
And she goes on to instruct women as to how they can
avoid the greatest evil of life, and justifies herself by
quotations from a long list of Secularist philosophers:
Francis Place, James Watson, Robert Dale Owen, the two
Mills, the two Holyoakes, and several others. But we have
already had abundant evidence that “ The Elements of
Social Science ” embodies the principles of Cat-and-Ladle
Secularism, and we should as soon expect to see the Koran
repudiated by Mohammedans, or the New Testament by
Christians, as “ The Elements ” by any palaeo-Secular orga
nisation.
�PAL7E0-SECULARIST SOCIETY.
51
Chapter VIII.
PAL^EO-SECULARIST SOCIETY.
It is time that we consider what is involved in these Palaeo
Secularist doctrines, and what would be the condition of
human society if they were universally adopted and carried
out in practice. Either boys and girls, as soon as they
arrived at the age of puberty, say from fifteen to seven
teen years, would marry, or would engage in sexual amours
without marriage. If the rule were marriage, it would
necessitate polygamy in old countries where there is a
surplus of women, and polyandry where there is a surplus
of men. Virginity in either sex is denounced as a state of
mortal sin, dangerous to health and life. For the married
some provision must be made for husbands during the
periods of maternal disablement, necessary absence, or the
illness of either wife or husband; and there could be per
mitted only very brief widowhood.
Palaeo-Secularists stipulate for free and easy divorce, and
that means simply a system of concubinage such as now
exists to some extent, and is not considered of sufficient
importance for legal registration. If the physiological
doctrines of “ The Elements ” are true, special arrange
ments should be made for the army, navy, and all sea-going
vessels. Women should be enlisted in all the services as
well as men. Prostitution, as we have seen, though de
grading, is honourable; but, if all women would adopt
these principles, there would be no need of a particular
class, because all women would be virtually prostitutes, and
The now necessary and useful profession would be abolished.
Seduction would be neither actionable nor immoral—in
fact, as soon as all women are converted to palaeo-Secularism
it would cease to exist. As common hospitality and common
humanity would forbid men and women to deny to others
any necessary of life, there could no longer be any jealousy,
�52
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
or miserably selfish suits in the Divorce Court about
adultery. With free divorce the court could be abolished,
and marriage itself, in its legal form, must quickly disappear.
All poems, novels, tragedies, and comedies, based upon past
or present ideas of virtue, chastity, fidelity, and what have
been considered manly and womanly virtues, would be obso
lete, and read only as antique curiosities. We should have
a practical palaeo-Secular world, satisfying its animal propen
sities and using artificial means to prevent having too many
children.
Men and women of England, this is the picture of the
society of the future set before you by the palaeo-Secularist
leaders and the author of “ The Elements of Social
Science.” These are the lessons taught to the young men
and young women in the halls of science, advocated in news
papers and pamphlets, and studied in Secular reading-rooms^
Look at these doctrines :—
Chastity is a crime.
Unbridled sensuality is virtue.
The Law of Nature commands the constant exercise of
the pro-creative function.
The Law of Population forbids that this act should be
allowed to produce its natural result in the production of
offspring.
There have been Atheists who worship Nature; but the
Secular Malthusians hold her in small reverence. They
mend her blunders with their superior wisdom. Nature
has united pleasure with the function which continues the
life of the race. They seek to enjoy the pleasure and
prevent the object for which the function was made. This
is the outcome of development by natural selection. There
must be, however, some old-fashioned people in the world
to whom these results of “science, falsely so-called,” are
what the Bible has characterised them, in three words:—
“ Earthly, Sensual, Devilish.”
�ADDENDUM.
55
ADDENDUM.
We have heard a good deal about the heroism involved
in the publishing of such works as “ The Elements ” and
the Knowlton pamphlet. There is no heroism in the thing
at all; but there is a good deal of cowardice, not without a.
dash of greed and avarice. A section of the public is
prurient, and the publication of “ nasty ” books like “ The
Elements’’and “The Fruits of Philosophy” is profitable.
It is a trait of a coward to insult when he deems he can do
so with impunity. The publishers and abettors of these
feculent works have insulted society, but they dare not
defy it. If a certain lady and gentleman be earnest and
consistent teachers, they surely ought to practise what
they preach re promiscuous coition and artifices to escape
*
maternity.
Dare they state in the press that they do so ?
Dare they mount the platform and illustrate before the audi
ence animal as they might do vegetable physiology, as re
gards fructification and reproduction ? They dare not do
this because of the police. They have the avarice and
truculence to insult society; but they have not the earnest
ness and heroism to defy it. They can put their names to
obscene works ouf of which they can make notoriety and
money, but beyond this they dare not go: decency they
have already set aside, but they are deterred by fear.
* It must be strictly understood that I deal with the two persons,
referred to as public teachers, and as public teachers only. As indi
viduals I have nothing whatever to do with them.
�54
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
While we execrate their indecency, let us be thankful for
their fear. Let us congratulate ourselves that, although by
their pruriency Freethought has been insulted, we owe it to
their cowardice that Freethought has not been outraged.
Talk of the Pagan Saturnalia and Eleusinian Mysteries ; talk
of the early Christian Agapse : what were these to the Brad
laugh and Besant theory carried out to public demonstra
tion “in the interests of the poor”? Split in the party!
Better a thousand splits than a moment’s acquiescence in
such inexpressible subter-beastliness ! Attacking fellowFreethinkers ! Fate forfend that I should acknowledge them
as fellow Freethinkers of mine. The cross is the symbol
of Christianity; and, if the syringe is to be the emblem of
Freethought, I must mourn without ceasing that, in virtue of
my mental and moral organisation, it is impossible for me to
'be a Christian and accept the creed whose symbol is the
•cross and not the syringe.
Do I state a far-fetched and false corollary when I allege
that the propagandists of Knowltonism should resort to
practical demonstration if they were consistent and had the
■courage of their convictions ? I submit that the corollary
is a pertinent, inexpugnable one. Knowltonism involves
practical physiology, practical chemistry, and practical
mechanics, and I contend that those branches of science
cannot be taught effectively without demonstration and ex
periment. In a little theoretical treatise at sixpence I
deny that they can be taught effectively “ in the interests of
the poor.” Why, in the name of courage and consistency,
is the demonstration lacking ?
Do I write on an indelicate subject ? The fault is not
mine. I am a Freethinker, and those describing themselves
by the same specific term have committed themselves to
abominations against which I, in the name of Freethought,
must protest. I must protest, too, that the only organised
•Society of “ Freethinkers ” in England perpetually elects as
President one who has done worse than blasphemed fifty
�ADDENDUM.
55
gods, has outraged the highest and purest instincts of human
nature. Do I write harshly ? It is because the language
of mortals lacks in bitterness that I do not write more
harshly still. The gentleman who could sit down with
another gentleman’s wife to edit in conjunction with her a
work on sexual commerce should be painted in pigments the
due manipulation of which is beyond my skill as a limner.
Is it well to place in the front of English Freethought
a gentleman who, in conjunction with another gentleman’s
wife, edited a work which dealt with making sexual inter
course abortive, and which work a jury of his countrymen
pronounced obscene ? I say it is not well. And, since on
the subject every other voice in the Freethought ranks is
dumb, I lift my voice in the name of the mothers and
daughters of England who, in renouncing Christ, did not
also renounce chastity; who, in disbelieving that their
bodies were temples of the Holy Ghost, did not necessarily
believe that they were mere organisms for the gratification
of carnal desire. In the name of the English wife and
mother I plead and I appeal. Against obscenity in office
and filth in high places in bur party I, a man in the ranks,
lift up my testimony, execrating all that would sully the
purity of woman and the sanctity of home.
I am willing to admit that our existing social arrangements
are not all that can be desired; that the social machine
works with considerable friction. This may be a reason
why the machine should be lubricated; but it is no reason
why it should be broken to pieces. That wives are not
always happy is no reason why all women should be un
married harlots. The besetting sin of mob-Freethought of
the Richard Carlile school is the prejudiced assumption
that everything that is is wrong, simply because it is.
“Down with all that’s up!” is practically the motto and
watchword of the unthinking outcasts and rebels who, for
the last seventy years, have made Freethought stink in the
nostrils of everybody whose adhesion would be valuable.
�56
SEXUAL ECONOMY.
Prima facie, because a thing is up it should be up, and
because a thing is down it should be down. The world was
not “created” yesterday; and, by the doctrine of Evolu
tion, about which mob leaders prate so loudly, and which
they understand so imperfectly, it has had considerable time
and opportunity to arrange itself according to evolutionary
law. Evolution must be permitted to work till we rise to
higher and purer social levels. In the home and the family
centre the most dearly-cherished love and the holiest
sentiment of the English race. This cannot and must
not be overthrown by cataclysm. We cannot and must
not substitute for the family only isolated children, whom
sulphate of zinc have spared, and who may know their
mother, but who cannot possibly know their father; while
•their mother’s ignorance on the subject would necessarily be
nearly as profound as their own. The bare idea is a crime,
because it is revolting to the holiest instincts of our nature.
Would man gain as much by the free exercise of sensuality
as he would lose by having no home—for a wife a supply of
harlots, and for sons and daughters promiscuously-begotten
and promiscuously-supported children, the results of sen
suality having failed in its devilish artifices ?
The Freethinkers, so-called, persistently place at their head
a man who, as I have said elsewhere, the gentlemen of the
British House of Commons will not permit to sit on the
same benches with them, even though, by keeping him out,
they break the law and outrage the Constitution. On
technical pretexts he is prevented from taking his seat; but
the true reason for the aversion to him is not heresy and
Radicalism—there are plenty of heretics and Radicals in
the House already—but men turn away, as from a toad or
a serpent, from a person who teaches that marriage is an
•evil and chastity a crime, that promiscuous coition is most
desirable, and that seduction is a virtue. Liberal and Con
servative alike bolt the door in the face of this Caliban who
■would, by his teachings, make every woman a prostitute, every
�ADDENDUM.
57
home a maison-de-joie, and licentiousness and the manufac
ture of syringes the staple industries of England. And this
person, not permitted to sit with the most abandoned rake
and reprobate the House can produce, the English “ Free
thinkers ” elect as their President, and then they wonder that
they do not succeed, that they have to meet in tenth-rate pub
lic-houses, and clank their applause with pewter-pots ; while
not even a solitary thinker of distinction has ever joined
them—not one scientist of reputation, not one poet or man of
letters, not one individual of the slightest social weight. The
Freethinkers proper—the Herbert Spencers, the Huxleys,
the Tyndalls, the Frederic Harrisons, the Matthew Arnolds,
and the Algernon Swinburnes—would never dream of
touching the mess of Secularistic pottage into which the
“ fighting President ” has dropped his syringe, in order that
no respectable person may put a spoon in it. Popular Freethought can never reach the Ai of success while Achan,
the son of Carmi, is in its ranks, treasuring “ the accursed
thing”—the shekels of silver and the goodly Babylonish
*
garment —in the shape of profits from the sales of works
that contend that man should be a sensualist and the world
a numero.
We have, more than once, been assured that “The
Elements ” and kindred works are issued with the best
intentions. Even if we take this apologetic allegation as
genuine, we cannot forget that a certain mythical locality is
paved with good intentions ; and surely this advocacy of
unbridled lust is the largest and most prominent paving
stone in all hell. I am free to admit that the author of
the book is evidently a man with more than average ability,
and there is a certain Machiavelian insidiousness in his
pages which greatly enhances their danger to the morals of
the young and inexperienced, and they make up a very large
component part of the public.
* See Joshua vii., passim.
�SEXUAL ECONOMY.
True, the Divorce Court and the existence of such social
hideousness as was only too distinctly indicated by the
Mary Jeffries exposure may afford a pretext for a desperate
*
measure to counteract a desperate malady; but surely, in
the name of common sanity, to abolish the Divorce Court
by abolishing marriage, and to suppress houses of evil fame
by making all women courtesans, is a measure drastic even
to madness. Monogamic marriage may set up a standard
which is too high to be generally attainable; but all social
standards should be high, and public teachers should ever
be urging on the public conscience to an attempt to reach
the highest moral level. This, with its thousand faults,
Christianity, through its ministers, has not failed to do; and
we must not censure it too harshly because it has not
always succeeded. As long as Christianity insists on sexual
purity and restraint, and debars the transgressor from her
sacraments, she does the world a service which goes some
way to compensate for many crimes and errors of which
she has been guilty. As long as Freethought gives counte
nance and encouragement to sensuality, she perpetrates
against society an error and a crime for which all the good
she has done the world can hardly compensate. As long as
the Christian teaching as to sexual morals obtains and has
Society’s endorsement, the most pronounced evil-liver is
constrained to be remorseful that he has fallen short of the
standard; and that very feeling of remorse acts as a restraint
to still further excesses. But he who adopts the teachings
of “ The Elements ” has no high ideal up to which he
tries to bring the measure of his conduct; with him
there need be no remorse and no regrets; there is no
standard of purity after which to struggle and to strive;
there is only the inexpressible Malebolg£ of unbounded
sensuality and shameless lust: no woman you love that it is
not proper for another to love to-morrow; no maid such as
See the Sentinel for June, 1885.
�ADDENDUM.
59
has heretofore blessed the bridegroom’s arms, but only a
shameless and deflowered harlot who has responded to the
desires of others as she responds to yours; a social con
venience, like a drinking fountain or a chalet; a creature
liable to be called into use anywhere, at any time, and by
anybody, and who constantly carries a syringe in her muff,
in the name of Bradlaugh and “Freethought!”
Saladin.
��
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
Sexual economy, as taught by Charles Bradlaugh, M.P. : with addendum by Saladin
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Agate, Peter
Ross, William Stewart
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 59 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Appears to have taken from a bound volume. Top edge gilded. Date of publication from KVK. Stamp on verso of t.p.: Bishopsgate Institute Reference Library. Part of another Bishopsgate stamp on p. 59. From the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
W. Stewart & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1885?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N041
Subject
The topic of the resource
Sexuality
Birth control
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Sexual economy, as taught by Charles Bradlaugh, M.P. : with addendum by Saladin), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Birth Control
Charles Bradlaugh
Contraception
Joseph Barker
NSS
Sexual Behaviour
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/50cf2cf40fb931e977a8c5e8a1170031.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=E-4YK7nO2A6y6pXh6tdOmDsRdQSf-e%7EfrOBTjLGcpLzk4EUwW6njyx8U1bNypi6MSr%7EGxzJACkHfiCyroxFN9E75vIcuVosrRbi5TfsKPCdSk25Igyo2VzYoZ6gmrqAHIQsSKSD7bEbWmPqDwlkzDAMs4jo8ndBDXZaZvcdCtYGCn3PvE0q-TAbTNha4nFQ6U8Wih7e-0C6-FtnyWdTCROnAV1pdetnOFZ22x6QZl8ImOpV2qkpv825qiTwduym00PqkC674I09f10MuES8qxei2chsLa0PP8I09lCxfrDZxeDC66uFodF37STcqfPe8o7Gx5tCDV8wmcrbaXqSdvg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
93d4f534a0457a89a0204bf8b32214d2
PDF Text
Text
*
AFFIRMATION
BILL
. REASONS WHY IT CANNOT BE
PERMITTED TO BECOME THE LAW OF THE LAND
CONSIDERED AND STATED.
IN A PUBLIC LETTER ADDRESSED
TO THE
Right
The Speaker of the House of Commons
Snti to all
T U L L I A N.
Justutn et tenacem propositi virum
Non civium ardor prava j ubentium,
Non vultus instantis tyranni,
Mente quatit solida ;
Hor. hi. Odes iii. I.
LONDON:
DAVID BOGUE, 3, ST. MARTINS PLACE,
TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
��NATIONAL secular society
THE
AFFIRMATION
BILL.
REASON’S WHY IT CANNOT BE
PERMITTED TO BECOME THE LAW OF THE LAND
CONSIDERED AND STATED.
IN A PUBLIC LETTER ADDRESSED
TO THE
Right Hon. The Speaker of the House of Commons,
Slntr in all its fKemtiers.
BY
TERTULLIAN.
Justum et tenacem propositi virum
Non civium ardor prava jubentium,
Non vultus instantis tyranni,
Mente quatit solids ;
Hoe. iii. Odes iii. I.
LONDON:
DAVID BOGUE, 3, ST. MARTIN’S PLACE,
TRAFALGAR SQUARE.
�4
SECTION
EAGE
whose one sole chief end of his being would seem to be to make
himself as widely known as possible as the man who denies the
existence of GOD, and the consequent possibility of any religion.
34
IX. A second brief word touching the horns of a comical dilemma of which
the supporters of Mr. Bradlaugh will be compelled to make the
best that they can................................................................................. 35
X. The near view of the precipice.. ................................................................ 35
A Word in Conclusion.
If every Member of the House of Commons has bound himself to the
duty of defending the Throne by his having sworn his Oath of
Allegiance, how will such Member be able to vote for the removal
of one of the principal safeguards and defences of the Throne in
any other way than by the perjury of his Oath ?
... 39
�THE AFFIRMATION BILL:
REASONS WHY IT CANNOT BE SUFFERED TO
BECOME THE LA W OF THE LAND.
Eight Honourable Sir,
There cannot be a better proof of the honour and
dignity which the Empire of Great Britain confers upon
those who inherit by birth and social standing the privilege
of being its citizens, than the liberty of speech which is their
birthright, and of which it must be their constant solicitude to
prove themselves worthy, by the care they are seen to take
not to overstep in their use of it, the limits of justice and
becoming respect for all its constituted authorities. It is,
then, this privilege of freedom of speech which is the
English citizen's highest honour, so long as he studies not
to abuse it to unworthy ends, that enables one who other
wise would be but a humble and retiring member of the
commonwealth, known only as a person engaged in the
usual pacific employment of his everyday life, to take up
his pen to address the Speaker of the most eminent and
powerful legislative assembly, which is known to the civi
lized nations of the world. How great this assembly is over
which you, sir, so worthily preside in the name of the
Majesty which sits on the time-honoured Throne of Eng
land, the laws emanating from it, whose jurisdiction com
prises a far wider expanse of the territory of the earth than
that which two thousand years ago was subject to the rule
�6
of the far-famed. Senate of Rome, bear their ample and
world-wide testimony.
When St. Paul had the privilege granted to him, by
way of a special favour, that he might have a public hearing
for his cause before the King Agrippa who happened at
that moment to be a distinguished visitor of the Roman
procurator Festus, whose prisoner Paul was, this was to
him a source of the most real rejoicing. Now he knew
that he should be at least able to plead his cause and give
an account of himself in the presence of one whose ears
would be open to listen to him as an obligation of public
justice. But he had even a still stronger reason for re
joicing than this. He knew that he was to plead before
one, who, by reason of his Jewish education and his know
ledge of, and respect for, the Sacred Scriptures, was both
able and willing to give, that which must ever be the
highest good to the public speaker, after that of having
a just and religious cause—the most appreciable boon of a
right-minded and intelligent hearing.
It is in a like
manner a source, to the present writer, of a similar unfeigned
satisfaction to know, that his Englishman’s birthright, his
freedom of speech and his right to raise his voice, in season
and out of season, in defence of the cause of God and of his
country—-procures for him the honour of pleading his cause
in the hearing of one, to whom, as Speaker of the House of
Commons, the true and lasting welfare his country will ever
be the supreme rule and guide of his judgment.
He may not, indeed, hope that it should be given to
him to emulate the eloquence of the Apostle, but he may
hope to be found not to fall too far below the inspired
model that is before him in point of courage and fidelity
to his cause. From the Apostle he may learn that it can be
the duty of a Christian to resist any adversary, even one,
the excess of whose confidence in his own powers stands.
�7
forward in a singularly marked contrast with the infamy
and abjection of the designs which he is pursuing.
The Tertullian whom he ventures to take as the especial
model and pattern of his undertaking, has put before man
kind the example,—that with a view the better to secure a
calm and dispassionate hearing for the many remonstrances
which belong to his cause and its pleading, there may be
circumstances when it will be the wisest course to trust
entirely to the efficacy of what he calls the “ occulta via
tacitarum literarum,” the retiring method of silently advo
cating his cause in writing. This is, then, his choice. His
cause is too grave and sacred for the counter recourse to
a rival antagonist, noisy clamour of street gatherings, and
to further poisoned vehemence of the partizan oratory
specially designed and prepared for them.
Elijah on the Mountain Horeb was witness to the strong
wind that passed over the mountain and its effect, but
“ the Lord was not in the wind’-’—then followed the earth
quake, but “ the Lord was not in the earthquake/-’—then
after the earthquake there came a fire, but “ the Lord was
not in the fire.” After all these had passed, there then came
the “still small voice,” and this was the voice of the Lord
(1 Kings xix. 12).
In the phenomena which have already manifested them
selves in Mr. Bradlaugh’s short career, a very little gift
of discernment is all that is needed to perceive, at least the
first beginnings of the same calamities about to be visited
upon the kingdom and people of England which are wellknown to have desolated the neighbouring land of Erance
for the whole of the present century. In the wind is
figured the storm of atheistic impure and revolutionary
doctrines, which have been desseminated with an evil energy
on purpose to carry away the masses of the population
from all the ancient hereditary landmarks and strongholds
�8
of the Christian religion, as well as to make war on the
boasted belief of the English people in the inspiration of the
Bible as the Word of God.
These atheistic impure and revolutionary doctrines are
planned to prepare the way for the “ earthquake/'’ which
will first manifest itself in the overthrow of the right of all
private property, the fruit of legitimate industry and labour,
and in the sinking of all in one level of indiscriminating
communism. To this will be added the abolition of the
sanctity of family life, and the establishment in its stead
of the brute beast state of promiscuous concubinage, falsely
honoured with the inviting but appallingly deceptive name
of socialism.
But as nothing can subsist any length of time that
presumes to place itself in an attitude of defiance to the
Law and the Will of the Divine Creator and Sovereign
Lord of His Creation, the state of things which will follow
the contemplated earthquake of communism and socialism
is aptly figured by the pregnant term “ fire.’"’ “ Eire^ is a
word that expresses far more if left to stand by itself than
would be gained by attempting a commentary. Nor will
it serve the cause of the profane and impious mockers of
sacred truth to say, that the day for believing in the Bible is
past; mankind has been held long enough in bondage to
its pious and totally vain terrors. Let these impious
scoffers account for the phenomenon of one of the most
distinguished poets of the present or indeed of any century,'
giving the form of his imperishable verse to his perfectly
similar provision of the kind of future which is in store for
the nations where the storm of revolutionary doctrines is
allowed to have its free course to work out their destructive
issues. I may now be allowed in the present state of our
knowledge of German to cite the lines in the original, to
which no translation can render adequate justice :
�9
Da werden Weiber zu Hyiinen
Und treiben mit Entsetzen Scherz;
Noch zuckend, mit des Panther’s Zahnen
Zerreisen sie des Feindes Herz.
Nichts heiliges ist mehr, es losen
Sich alle Bande frommer Scheu,
Der Gute raumt den Platz dem Bdsen
Und alle Laster walten frei.
Schiller’s Lay of the Bell.
Such is the future prospect for human society under the
ascendency of the career, the beginnings of which Mr.
Bradlaughhas,by the sheer strength of the rage which displays
so much power of moving forward to its evil ends, for the
reason which the Scripture gives, because it knows “ that its
time is short.”
The former, Tertullian, it may be easily perceived, had a
very different task before him from that which lies before
the writer who succeeds to his name. The Christian cause
then was comparatively weak in numbers, but it was strong in
mind, and was, in the main, lion-hearted in the presence of
its rival and persecutor—the great Imperial power of Rome.
This power is known to have elected to throw all the weight
of its administrative action to the propping up the falling
cause of the idolatrous popular religion. The present
moment, it must be confessed, appears to have witnessed a
strange phenomenon of a totally contrary kind—a temporary
paralysis of all the ancient Christian statesman-like courage
and discernment of the nation. We wonder what has become
of all the vigorous independent power of thought and
judgment which has, in all great emergencies, been known
as the chief honourable mark and sign of the true English
man. Numbers, whose ruling characteristics are to be
sought for in their feebleness, cowardice, and helplessness,
it must be borne in mind, cannot possibly be the strength
of any cause however good in itself. On the contrary, they
a 3
�IO
are the incurable weakness of their cause, whatever it may
be. Nothing can possibly lead cowards to victory.
We must be extremely careful, however, how we risk a fall
into a most serious error. We must not mistake for cow
ardice what it is incomparably more reasonable to suppose
can be in reality nothing more serious than a momentary
and passing fit of stupor. Such a stupor it is quite easy
to conceive might be for a time occasioned by the unex
pected and unparalleled effrontery of one single man,
destitute of any single qualification other than that of his
present unexampled boldness in daring to offer himself as
the leader of a public cause. It is too terrible a thought to
have to contemplate even the possibility of a cowardice which
renders a whole multitude, comprising the entire wealth,
property, and education of the nation, incapable of stirring
a hand or foot in the defence of all that they are bound to
hold to be dearer to them, even than life.
The moment for waking up must come ! The Roman
poet, indeed, has given utterance to a very undoubted
truth—
Qui sibi fidit,
Dux regit examen.
But Heaven save our country from the depth of its
fall over the precipice which is being prepared for it. It
must be absolutely impossible for it to be true that the
educated classes of Great Britain can have come into the
condition of consenting to be the mindless swarm, helplessly
led in obedience to his will, by the atheist, Bradlaugh.
The task, then, for the Tertullian of the present time is
the quiet, unpresuming labour of a patient remonstrance,
addressed to the higher intelligence of the nation, which
may be most truly said to find its honourable represen
tative in yourself, as the Vicegerent of the Throne, and the
Speaker or President of the chief really great Legislative
�11
assembly of the world at the present time. His work has to
offer itself as the “small still voice” of Divine truth, opposing
itself to the noisy clamour of the streets, and calling all who
love their country and who, as legislators, are responsible to
God and the throne, to seek its true prosperity in the only paths
in which it is to be found, the fear and honour of God. He has
the honourable task of asking them to weigh well and consider
the exceeding great issues about to be placed before them.
It is then with this weighty task resting upon him that the
Tertullian of the present hour ventures to crave your
attention for the truths which he now proceeds to submit
to consideration, in the order in which they are laid out to
view in the Table of Contents.
I. The inevitable degradation, in the eyes of the whole world, which
an Imperial Legislature must submit to incur, if it should be
seen to have legislation forced upon it by a mere mob outcry
confined to a simple handful of its own towns.
The Legislature of Great Britain, as it is almost out of
place in an ordinary citizen of the land to venture to sub
mit to those who are its legislators, is a “ city set on a hill
which cannot be hid.” 'Whatever its legislative acts are—
wise, just, and statesmanlike as every true citizen of the
empire will always desire that they may be ; or extorted
from its unworthy fears, by a noisy and godless clamour
outside—nothing can be more certain, than that such as
the acts of the Legislature of Great Britain may be, they are
passed under the destiny of being carried by the newspaper
press to the knowledge and judgment of all the civilized
nations of the world.
It has again often been said that the Imperial power
of Great Britain stands upright in the world not so
much by the force of its armaments, which are less
than those of other nations, as by the known solid
a 4
�12
character, both of its legislature and of its executive
government.
The virtues of truth, firmness, and justice
are honourably recognized in the world at large as placing
British power above the reach of being swayed by the voice
of faction, or of being misled by mean and unworthy
motives. In this respect the history of the present times
only repeats the lesson of former periods. In the ancient
military Rome, the empire of the city over the nations is
seen in her history to have been firm and stable so long as
the Senate of Rome was able to impress upon the nations
the universal sense of fear, and respect for the justice, capacity,
and inviolable fidelity of its senators. And in proportion
as the respect of the nations for the Senate of Rome, which
appears almost always to have been willingly given, was
rendered no longer possible in consequence of the too
manifestly feeble and unmanly character of the Senate itself
and its public action, the power of Rome over the nations
then began to dwindle away, until it at length died out.
What can be a more fatal sign of the danger of an irrup
tion of a similar spirit of disastrous degeneracy into the
Imperial Senate of the British Empire, than that it should
be universally seen to be willing to suffer itself, even for a
moment, to submit to the disgrace of allowing a mere mob
leader outside itself, to dictate to it what its legislation is to
be or what it is not to be ? How is this manifest proof of
-degeneracy to be possibly concealed from the rest of the
-world ? Will not the other nations at once take up their
parable against Great Britain, and say to her, “ Art thou
-also become weak as we ? Art thou become like to us ?
Thy pomp is brought down to the grave; the worm is
spread under thee; the worms cover thee.’7
Yet it is the boast of Great Britain, that as the Assyrians
■were the Romans of the early civilization of the world, so
’Great Britain is the Rome of the living world. And this
�13
resemblance of the English character to that of the ancient
Romans, the conquerors, legislators, and peacemakers of the
world, has been very remarkably recognized by an extremely
distinguished French writer, the Compte de Champagny.
In the first volume of his history of the Empire of Rome,
he says that John Bull has always appeared to him to
be the younger brother of Romulus. Accepting, then, a
testimony which is as honourable to the giver as it must be
gratifying to the receiver, allow me to pass from my first
point, by citing an example of the manner in which the spirit
of ancient Rome could reject with the sternest indignation
the very thought of accepting the least legislation in obedience
to an external dictation. The passage of history occurs
in the eighth book of Livy, § v. and runs as follows :—
“ A certain Annius, a native of the municipality of Setia
(now Sezza), on the confines of the Pontine marshes, came
to Rome in the year of the city 415, as the legate of the
Latin Confederacy, to demand that one of the consuls of
Rome should be chosen from Latium.” The Senate paid
the Latin envoy the mark of deference to hold a special
assembly for the purpose of hearing and considering his
demand, which it would appear that Annius made in an
extremely confident and peremptory manner. This attempt
to dictate to Rome what its legislation ought to be, so
stirred the Roman spirit of Titus Manlius, the consul, as
to cause him to rise up from his seat there and then, and
to exclaim aloud, “ that if any such madness could come
upon the conscript fathers that they could be ready to take
their laws from a man of Setia, he would come himself
into the Senate house, sword in hand, and with his own
arm slay any man of Latium whom he found in it?"’
The senators of your honourable assembly, Mr. Speaker,
will hardly fail here to perceive that the Lucius Annius
above mentioned as the representative of the entire Latin
�14
Confederacy^ contrasts more than favourably with the man
who has outraged the Christian religion of the entire
nation by his impious denial of the very existence of God.
And yet the Rome which at that time repelled Lucius Annius
was only a city in the Latin Confederacy; without the least
prestige of any sort or kind to maintain in the sight of the
wide world. Notwithstanding this; Rome; the simple isolated
city; standing by herself; is seen to have made it a point of
honour to herself to repudiate so much as the thought of
submitting to the least approach of dictation from without.
II. A great and fundamental change of the law is proposed to be
introduced, subversive of the entire religious constitution of
the empire. Is there one solitary spokesman representing the
property and education of the empire, who is known to have
directly called for this change ?
When Esther; the Persian Queen; fell down before
Ahasuerus; to intercede for the life of her people; the
King in amazement asked her, “ Who is the man, and what
is his power; that he durst presume in his heart to do this
thing
The whole of the education and property of the
entire empire asks itself the question in a perfectly similar
amazement; Who is the man, and what is the secret of
his power; who has been able to prevail so far; as to cause
a formal proposal to be entertained by your Honourable
Assembly; to take the initiative step to bring about this con
templated subversive change in the time honoured constitution
of the kingdom ?
Great legislative assemblies; it is undoubtedly true;
have been known to have been led into their legislative
acts by the voice of one man.
The life of the late
Mr. Wilberforce affords a remarkable example of this kind.
The counsels of the nation unquestionably suffered them
selves in the end to be moulded in conformity with the
�policy of which for some time he stood alone by himself as
the advocate. But between the case of Mr. Wilberforce and
that of Mr. Bradlaugh, where does the shadow of a parallel exist
that can be perceived ? In the one instance we have the man
of piety and religion, pleading the cause of the natural right
of an oppressed race to their liberty, and step by step, through
his assiduity, his patient eloquence and powers of persuasion,
winning over the thoughtful religious men of the nation to
befriend his cause, which indeed was that of suffering and
downtrodden humanity. In the other, we see the man of
impiety and irreligion, by his own avowal the profane dis
believer in God and the despiser of His laws, the advocate
of no known cause, except that of his own wild will to
break through the barrier which the existing immemoria
constitution of the kingdom places in the way of his
ambition. Is this the man to mould the counsels of an
empire ?
Bor the sake of this man, however, it is now proposed that
a sacred, ancient, and immemorial religious landmark of the
Christian religion is to be removed. Can it be shown that
this man has won over so much as a solitary representative of
the independent property and education of the country to
desire the proposed change for its own sake ? The extreme
suddenness, added to the intrinsic impiety and irreligion of
the proposed change, may doubtless have produced a momen
tary sense of stupor and paralysis, and for a time have kept
back the expression of the deep-seated horror that is enter
tained against it. But in the nature of things, the stupor
and paralysis will pass away, while the horror and the
detestation will remain.
�i6
III. The Prime Minister is seen to be reduced to the humiliating
position of the humble slave of Mr. Bradlaugh’s dictation. The
question to come before the Legislature will be, will it elect to
become a participator in the Prime Minister’s humiliation ?
No doubt that it would be perfectly possible fortlie Prime
Minister, if he were honestly to elect to come before the
empire of whose destinies he has been raised to be the chief
arbiter, as a convert of conviction to the denial of God—to
which alone his new protege owes the degree of unhappy
notoriety which he has gained—to make good by such an
avowal his claim to be Mr. Bradlaugh's free, noble, and
most enlightened patron. In this case, nothing could be
more unjust and unfounded than to attempt to breathe a
word about the Prime Minister being the slave of Mr.
Bradlaugh's dictation. He might then say to Mr. Bradlaugh,
Welcome brother in unbelief and in the contempt of God
and his law. Too late in life have I learned the folly and
emptiness of my former belief in the inspiration of the books
of the Bible. What might I not have spared myself if I
could have come earlier to share in your illumination. But
henceforth, at least, I shall be able to walk arm in arm with
you in the light of day, emancipated from all the vain
superstitions and empty dreams of my previous life.” If
Mr. Gladstone would only come before his country with a
full and open avowal of the errors and deceptions of his past
life as a religious man, and profess himself to have become
henceforward a free and enlightened follower of the
“ Fruits of Philosophy” of his new political associate, we
could then perfectly understand his position.
But nothing of this kind is suffered to appear. Mr.
Gladstone is known through the pages of the Graphic as
one who thinks himself honoured by being permitted to
wear a surplice, and to deliver before a lectern in his parish
church the lessons from the books of the Sacred Scripture,
�the reading of which in- the presence of the people is an
appointed part of the public offices of prayer in all the
national sanctuaries. It is, of course, simply intolerable to
associate the name of Mr. Gladstone in such acts as those
described, with the thought of any possible histrionic ritual
exhibition of himself, or any hypocritical performance gone
through for the purpose of acquiring a reputation for
religion. No ; the Prime Minister, like all the still sound
part of his countrymen, is a believer, ex animo, in the books
of the Sacred Scripture, as containing the Word of God
spoken to man for his guidance and direction, and for his
instruction as well in the lessons of wisdom that are good
for the present life, as in the wisdom which teaches and
smoothes the way to the promised heaven of the life that
is future.
But the merest tyro in the knowledge of the truth that
is contained in the books of the Bible knows as well as
possible that nothing in the world can be further removed
than Bible truth from observing the least thought of
neutrality towards the class of men of whom it is Mr.
Bradlaugh-’s boast, not merely that he is an advanced
specimen of their genus, but that he is a distinguished
and foremost champion of their speedy exaltation to political
power and pre-eminence. Mr. Bradlaugh may be a short
lived hero in the eyes of the mob-following which he has
gathered about himself, but before the judgment of the
Sacred Scripture, he is nothing more than “ the fool that
“ saith in his heart there is no God” (Ps. xiv. 1). He
belongs to the class of those of whom God says, “ I will
“ beat them as small as the dust before the wind ; I will cast
“them out as the clay of the streets” (Ps. xviii. 42). He is
but one of the men of whom the inspired word says, “ He
“ loved not blessing, therefore it shall be far from him; he
“ clothed himself with cursing as with a raiment, and it shall
A 3
�18
“ come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones”
(Ps. cix. 16). Of such men as he is, the word of God
in the Bible exclaims, (< O my soul, come not thou into
“ their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou
‘‘united” (Gen. xlix. 6).
With such sentiments as the above, which meet our eye
in almost every page of the inspired volume, and with a
Prime Minister who professes in public his belief in the Bible
as the Word of God, what bond of real friendship and mutual
confidence can, by any possibility, unite him and his Govern
ment to the cause of Mr. Bradlaugh ?
Plainly none! If the religious Prime Minister of Great
Britain has consented to espouse the cause of Mr. Bradlaugh,
there can be but one explanation : Mr. Bradlaugh has become
the master by the sheer force of his boldness and firm
tenacity of purpose; and the Prime Minister, fearing for
the security of his own hold of power, has consented to
become the servant. Mr. Bradlaugh holds the instruments of
torture, and says—
If ihou ncglcctest or dost unwillingly
What I command, I’ll rack thee with old cramps, &c.
And the Prime Minister of the greatest of existing empires
replies—
No pray thee,
I must obey; his art is of such power.
Tempest, Act i. sc. 2.
IIow far more noble would have been the Prime Ministeps
position—what an infinitely more lasting title to the grati
tude of his country he would have earned—had he taken the
following all but inspired lines of the Roman poet for his
rule of policy :—
Ac veluti magno in populo qtium ssepc cooi'ta cst
Seditio, sajvitque anirnis ignobile vulgus,
Jamquo faces et saxa volant, furor arma ministrat.
Turn pictatc gravem et meritis si forte virum quern
�19
Congpexere, silent, arrectisque auribus adstant.
Iste regit animos dictis et pectora mulcet.1
BEneid i. 148.
Alas, then, we have but to say, alas for the fall of a great
man—Would that charity could throw a veil over his fall !
But his fall is the danger of the constitution of the kingdom.
To minor political adversaries who may be disposed to mock
at his fall, it might justly be said, “ Howl, fir tree, for it
is the cedar that is fallen.”
But still, if the cedar is
fallen, it is a matter of the highest import that the tree
should lie where it has fallen, and that it should not be
allowed to draw others after it to be the partakers of its
fall.
IV. An atheist faction conspiring to undermine the ancient religious
constitution of the kingdom could not hope to succeed in open
warfare. To gain their ends, therefore, its leaders have been
compelled to take recourse to a juggle and fraud of words.
The atheist faction having to their great joy, in all
probability not a little mingled with surprise, gained over
an adherent in the Prime Minister, practically fallen from
his religious belief, has still to encounter an obstacle of no
ordinary magnitude, which by some means or other has to
be overcome before any benefit can possibly be derived from
their unlooked for conquest in the surrender of the Prime
Minister.
To awaken the dormant religious energies of the nation
3 “ As oft when micl’st the multitude has ris’n
Sedition, rage in heart the ignoble crowd ;
And now stones, torches fly—what fury finds—
If chance some venerated sage they view,
In sober sanctity severe, at once
Mute, motionless, they stand around,
He rules with salutary words their minds,
And mollifies their breasts.”
Beresford’s Version.
�20
and to call these into life by the faction letting their
scheme come to be discovered before its time, would be
totally to shipwreck their design.
There is even yet an
energy of religion in the land and a vigour of action sur
viving among the people who still retain their old traditional
veneration for the sacred volume, that it would be perilous
in the extreme for the faction to do anything whatever
calculated even to awaken suspicion, much less to rouse these
up into wakefulness and action.
For this end the leaders of the faction in question propose
to have recourse to a manifestly unscrupulous, if not, after
all, so very crafty a fraud and juggle of words. The fraud
is really not so surpassingly profound but that it may be
quite readily seen through and detected, even by any
ordinarily attentive observer. Nevertheless, its devisers
evidently rely upon its being accepted by what they
appear confidently to expect will be, the imperturbably
guileless and unsuspecting simplicity of the great multi
tude of the good and peace-loving people whom it is
their intention to deceive by it. That the Prime Minister
himself should be held to be a bona fide participator in this
guileless unsuspecting simplicity of the multitude, on which
the faction place so much reliance, this not even his most
deeply fascinated admirers, will find it a very easy task to
persuade themselves. But let this pass, and let us have
the intended juggle and the fraud of words, on which all
their hopes are to be embarked, placed before us in the light
of day.
This, then, consists in their purpose of attempting to
palm off the ordinary common affirmation of daily life (the
only affirmation which an atheist can possibly have the
power of making) for the “ solemn” affirmation which is in
its very nature an act of religion, and therefore not capable
of being performed by any man who does not profess his
�2I
belief in God; as St. Paul says, as “ existing and as being
the rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. xi. 6).
Their trick, then, is to dress up their jackdaw atheist
affirmation in the feathers of the jay, and to try to pacify
the religious people, always well disposed to ease and quiet,
by saving to them, What would you have more, you good
religious people ? Have we not given you, for your com
fort, a SOLEMN affirmation ?
Loes any one, however, in his senses, suppose for a single
moment that the Prime Minister is deceived by this jack
daw atheist affirmation ? Singular, it certainly is, that the
atheist faction should have ever proposed to dress up their
jackdaw in the feathers of the jay to try even to make
it pass off with the simple people ; just as if after being thus
dressed up, it could possibly in the nation of things be the
real solemn affirmation which is the exclusive act of the man
of religion ! Have they, then, really thought all the world
to be nothing but absolute simpletons ?
Or have they,
perchance, been so lifted up with the conceit of the towering
height of their own intelligence, that it has never occurred
to them that compliance with their fraud could be by
any possibility refused.
V. A reason briefly stated, why it can never be anything else than a
conscious act of the most deliberate, barefaced fraud to attempt
to palm off the affirmation of an atheist as even capable of hav
ing any thing in common with the SOLEMN affirmation of the
man of religion.
A gulph or chasm, it is nevertheless true, and this of an
impassable width, separates the affirmation of the atheist
(which nothing that he has at his command can by any pos
sibility cause to become solemn) from the affirmation of the
man of religion, which is made solemn by the fact of its
being an act of his religion.
�22
A very few words will suffice to make it clear in what
this impassable gulph consists. Let us take for our test
case the oath of allegiance. This is what is known in law
as the “ juramentum promissorium.” It is a sworn promise
of true allegiance to the person and prerogatives of the
monarch, confirmed by the formula, “So help ms God,”—
Or, as the same would be expressed more fully—So help me
God as I truly keep my promise, and so avenge Thyself
against me, God, as I may forswear my promise.
Between this oath and the true “ solemn affirmation”
there is virtually no difference whatever. The religious
man affirming solemnly has the form of words which he
scruples on grounds of religion to utter remitted; but the
understanding is nevertheless clear on both sides—viz., on
the side of the proponent of the affirmation and on that of
the person who makes it—that the person affirming appeals
to God to reward or to punish him according as he promises
or affirms truly or falsely. The “ solemn affirmation” is thus
perceived to be lifted up above the ordinary affirmation by
the appeal made in it to God, which differs only in the par
ticular form of words used from the similar appeal made to
God in the ordinary oath.
Now everyone must see there is nothing of this nature to
be found in the atheist’s affirmation to lift it up above the
level of the affirmation of ordinary life.
The atheist can
know of nothing in the whole of creation higher than him
self. The God of Heaven and the Creator of the Earth can
indeed swear by Himself, because He alone can know nothing
higher than Himself by which He can swear, as St. Paul
tells us (Heb. vi. 13). But if the forlorn and abject atheist,
in the judicial blindness of his pride, were to claim the
right to say, “ I also am able to make a solemn affirmation,”
all that he could possibly hope to gain thereby would be to
exhibit himself to the derision of every man of understanding.
�23
No man of sense could see in liim anything but a contemptible
caricature., trying as a perishable worm of the earth to put
himself on a level with the Eternal Sovereign of the Universe;
while hoping to be able to make himself the passing wonder
of the moment, for the few fools who for the time being
might be deceived into a little shortlived marvel at his daring.
But this is somewhat to anticipate.
A brief survey of
the practice of swearing the oath of religion in the past
history of mankind must now engage our best attention. It
is indispensable to the completeness of our subject, and not
impossibly it may bring to light some few details of antiquity
not commonly known, and not without their own claim to
prove of interest to their readers.
VI. A brief survey of the reasons which render the swearing of an
oath of religion indispensable to the well-being of all civilized
society, with a rapid glance at the history of its immemorial
practice at every known period of the world.
The reason why the practice of swearing the oath of reli
gion is indispensable to the well-being of civilized society,
as well in public or political as in private life, is very easily
given. It is seen at once to come under the rule of St.
Vincent of Lerins, “ Quod ubique/’“ quod semper/-’ “ quod
ab omnibus?'’ That which exists everywhere, which has
always been, and is received and accepted by all, is placed
thereby beyond the reach of controversy or doubt. The
oath of religion is no invention of yesterday, but is as
old as the civilization itself, which, from our earliest records,
is known as simply unable to exist in a condition of well
being without it.
The reason of this inability to dispense with the oath of
religion, which is understood and known all over the
world, is found in the necessity for truth as the basis of all
the human society which aspires to lift itself up to any
�^4
degree of civilization. The Word of God says : “ Who shall
dwell upon Thy holy hill?—even he that speaketh the truth
from his heart (Ps. xv. 2); and, as regards public life, the
same Word says, “ Open ye the gates that the righteous
nation that keepeth the truth may come in” (Isaiah xxvi. 2).
Precisely the same sound is that which is echoed back from
all the great voices of the Gentile world. Pythagoras being
asked, “ In what men in their actions can become like to the
gods,” answered “ If they speak the truth” (Stob. Fiori, xi.
25). Pindar says—
AX«0«a Svyarijp Awe.—(01. xi. 4.)
Truth the daughter of God.
Cicero says that the foundation of justice is good faith—•
that is, the firmness and truth of all that is said, and of every
thing that is matter of compact (Off. i. 7). Csecilius, the
jurisconsult, in his dispute on the subject of the laws of
the Twelve Tables with Favonius the philosopher, says:
“ The Roman people, by the sedulous practice of every kind of
virtue, rose from a very small beginning to their marvellous
extent of power; but above all their virtues they ever
studied, in the first place, to cultivate good faith, and
always held good faith to be most sacred and holy in both
public and private life” (A. Gell. xx. i. 39.) Quintilian
says : “ Fides supremum rerum humanarum vinculum est
good faith is the supreme bond of human business.
But this truth and good faith, thus pronounced to be so
supremely needed, exists now no longer by nature in
human society, since the footing which the devil, the father
of lies, has been permitted to gain for himself in our world.
David says: “ I said in my ecstasy, all men are liars”
(Ps. cxvi. 12), which St. Paul confirms in the words : “ Let
God be true, but every man a liar.” It is under this
supreme need of truth, beset as it is by the ever present
peril of falsehood, that the entire human family, from the
�25
earliest existing record up to the actually present hour, in
every known civilized nation under the sun, has discovered
no other recourse than the invocation of the Supreme God
of heaven—not, however, excluding the lesser celestial
powers—to which invocation we now give the name of an
OATH, known to the Greeks as op/coc, and to the Komans
as “ juramentum, or jusjurandum?'’1
The oath, then, consists in the solemn formal invocation of
God as witness of the truth and good faith of all that
is spoken, and as the avenger of any falsehood or breach of
faith that may subsequently be committed. The oath,
consequently, is at one and the same time both a prayer for a
blessing and the imprecation of a curse; it is a declaration of
the love of truth and of the hatred of a lie. It is a calling upon
God, who is believed to be present, to the effect that He
should deign to prosper the speaker in so far as he speaks the
truth, and to punish him in the same degree as he may speak
falsely. An oath, says Cicero, is “a religious affirmation
of which God is the witness” (Off iii., 19); a little
after adding, Nullum vinculum ad adstringendam fidem,
jurejurando majores arctius esse voluerunt; id indicant leges
in duodecim tabulis, indicant sacratse,” &c. (Off iii., 31).
Our ancesters have provided by law no power more binding to
secure good faith than an oath. This is shown in the laws of
the Twelve Tables, and in those known as sacratae, (i.e., to
the non-observance of which a ban was attached).1
To create the binding force, then, of the oath, it becomes easy
to perceive in what way two distinct motives have to concur.
1 The following are Greek testimonies to the necessity for the Oath as the
binding power of political society:—
To avvsxov -n}v Sr)p.oK.paTiav opKOQ sari. “That which holds the State
together is the oath?’ “ Lycurgus adv. Leocratem,” p. 79. povov in op leaped a
ffyvXaK-njpiov rov opicov Kai tt]v e7riKX7]ffiv riSv deZv.—We have provided for our
only protection the oath and the invocation of the Gods.—(Themistius Orat.
XXI.)
�26
And these, indeed, equally concur in the case of every human
virtue. There must be as the foundation—faith in the ex
istence of God and of His presence and power—to which
succeed, in due order (1) the wish to please Him and to
earn His promised reward by acting with loyal truthfulness;
and (2-) the desire to escape the penalty to be incurred from
His anger against deception and false swearing.
Without
these two grounds there can be no oath.1
If an objector should here attempt to argue that the
great facility, added to the incessant actual occurrence of
the perjuries which have been known in all ages, abun
dantly proves the futility of trusting to the protection of
any oath, nothing could be more absurd. Fidelity to the
obligation of an oath is the virtue to which perjury is
attached as its correlative vice.
But then, in the
same way, drunkenness and incontinency are the vices
attached to the virtues of sobriety and continence. Yet to
what man in his senses could it ever occur that the
practice of sobriety and continency were to be abandoned as
superfluous because of the existence of the vices opposed to
them.
The perfect love and fear of God would doubtless
suppress all perjury, and give increased value to the binding
power of an oath for the great improvement of human
life. But then it would do exactly the same for the
suppression of all the other vices, and give a wonderful
1 The accustomed form of the conclusion of the oath among the Greeks as
numerous inscriptions which have been found upon various public monuments,
was the following:
“ evopicovvTi p'tv pot ev eh], ttycopKouvri Se e£<i>Xeia Kai aiirip Kai ytvei
Tip
spoil.”
(May it be well with me if I am true to my oath, but if I forswear myself, may
utter ruin come upon me and all my race).
This is the formula of the oatn which Demosthenes swears in his Oration de
Corona.
�27
impulse to the contrary virtues. Only our world is without
the perfect love and fear of God, and yet we do not there
fore abandon all thought of the practise of virtue as an
impossible chimera.
The ordinary economy of the government of God in
dealing with both the virtues and the forfeits of those who
swear His oaths, may be easily seen to be conspicuous in
an eminent degree for its efficacy and considerate wisdom.
His rewards for the faithful observance of the obligations
contracted are neither so openly manifest as to assume the
character of a bargain, nor are the punishments for falsehood
so certain as to provoke impious and daring contumacy and
resistance. There is sufficient concealment of both the one
and the other to leave men on the one hand in full possession
of their liberty, and on the other to try and prove their
fidelity and attachment. It is clearly his perceiving the
above truth that has caused Solomon to say: “ Because
sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily,
therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them
to do evil; nevertheless, though a sinner do evil a hundred
times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it
shall be well with them that fear God, and which fear before
Him : but it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall
he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he
feareth not before God^ (Eccles, viii. 11).
With the above judgment of Solomon the voice of man
kind in general has never been otherwise than in the most
complete accord. It has ever borne witness that a marked
prosperity has, on the whole, been well-known to attach to
the faithful observance of an oath, while a contrary marked
career of mishap and misfortune has always, on the whole,
followed in the wake of false swearing and perjury. Pindar
says ;—
IloXXai 5’ oSol
Suv S'eotf evirpaliiag.
�28
The favour of the gods is the way to every sort of good
fortune; and in the extravagant caricature which Aristo
phanes appears to have been prompted to make of Socrates,
Strepsiades, in questioning him upon the subject of the
nature of thunder, expresses the universal sense of the
Athenian world that the perjured man was the certain object
of the anger of the gods :—
tovtov
yup Sr) <j>avep&£ 6 Zei>£ iija’ erri tovq STriopicovQ ("Nub.” 397.)
At least it is clear that Jupiter hurls this (thunder)
against those who forswear their oaths.1
Cicero again admits that the Greeks were possessed of ex
cellent doctrines as regards the obligation of an oath, but they
had to come to the Romans for examples of their doctrines
being carried out into practice
De Oratore,’-’ iii. 34), and
Quintilian says the same: “ Quantum Grseci praeceptis valent
tantum Romani, quod est magis, exemplis” (xii. 2, 30). And
the corresponding result is patent on the face of history. The
Greek cities soon lost their autonomy and independence,
while the Roman power, founded on its love for truth, came
to be so firm and stable that it advanced in the world at
large, without any effort at seeking this, to acquire from all
the nations the attribute and character of eternity.1
2
Herodotus, in his history, happens to relate an anecdote
of a certain Glaucus, which sums up in so singularly de
scriptive a manner the vivid sense that has pervaded the
whole human race, that perjury cannot possibly go un
punished, that I must ask leave to relate it in the words of
Herodotus’ own narrative. “ One Glaucus, a citizen of
1 Compare “Iliad IV.” 166 and “JEneid XII.” 894.
2 Cicero has the following testimony concerning the faithlessness of the Greeks
to their oaths :—Hoc dico de toto genere Graecorum; tribuo illis litteras, do
multarum artium disciplinam, non adimo sermonis leporem; ingeniorum acumen,
dicendi copiam, denique si qua sibi alia sumant non repugno ; testimoniorum
religionem et fidem nunquam ista natio coluit, totiusque hujusce rei quae sit vis
quae auctoritas, quodpondus, ignorat.—(Orat. pro. Flacco, iv. 9.)
�29
Sparta, had a great reputation for justice, which induced a
citizen of Miletus to deposit a large sum of money in his
care, to be given to whoever later on should present the
tokens agreed upon • Glaucus received the money on these
conditions. After a long time had elapsed the sons of the
man who had deposited the money came to Sparta, and
having addressed themselves to Glaucus, and having shown
the tokens, demanded back the money. Glaucus repulsed
them, answering as follows : I neither remember the cir
cumstance, nor does it occur to me that I know anything
of the matter you mention, but if I can recall it to my
mind I am willing to do everything that is just; and if,
indeed, I have received it, I wish to restore it correctly ;
but if I have not received it at all I shall have recourse to
the laws of the Greeks against you. I therefore defer
settling this matter with you for four months from this
present time. The Milesians, therefore, considering it a
great calamity, departed as being deprived of their money.
But Glaucus went to Delphi to consult the oracle; and
when he asked the oracle whether he should make a
booty of the money by an oath, the Pythian assailed
him with the following words : “ Glaucus, son of Epicydes,
thus to prevail by an oath and to make a booty of the
money will be a present gain; swear, then, for death awaits
even the man .who keeps his oath. But there is a name
less son of perjury, who has neither hands nor feet, but he
pursues swiftly, until, having seized, he destroys the whole
race, and all the house. But the race of a man who keeps
his oath is afterwards more blessed., The Pythian also said,
that to tempt God and to commit the crime was the same
thing.
“ Glaucus, therefore, having sent for the Milesian strangers,
returned them the money. With what design, O Athenians,
this story has been told you shall now be mentioned. There
�/
30
is at present not a single descendant of Glaucus, nor any
house which is supposed to have belonged to Glaucus, but
he is utterly extirpated from Sparta. Thus it is right
to have no other thought respecting a deposit than to
restore it when it is demanded (“ Erato” 86, Cary’s transla
tion).
The visitor to the quiet little market town of Devizes, in
Wiltshire, who takes his stroll into the market place, may
there have his attention drawn to a remarkable record engraved
on a metal plate stating the year and the day of the occur
rence. It relates the judgment of sudden death inflicted by
the hand of God, on a market woman, who falsely took God
to witness, something in the manner that Glaucus had only
turned over in his mind, that she had duly paid her share
of a joint purchase, when the money was found fraudulently
concealed in her hand.1
1 The subjoined extract gives the full details of this striking instance of the
divine punishment of a perjury :—
“ The Mayor and Corporation of Devizes avail themselves of the stability of
this building (the market cross) to transmit to future times the record of an
awful event which occurred in the market place in the year 1753, hoping that
such a record may serve as a salutary warning against the danger of impiously
invoking Divine vengeance, or of calling on the holy name of God to conceal
the devices of falsehood and fraud.
“ On Thursday, the 25th of January, 1753, Ruth Pierce, of Potterne, in this
county, agreed with three other women to buy a sack of wheat in the market,
each paying her due proportion towards the same. One of these women, in
collecting the several quotas of money, discovered a deficiency, and demanded of
Ruth Pierce the sum which was wanting to make good the amount. Ruth
Pierce protested that she had paid her share, and said, she wished she might
drop down dead if she had not. She rashly repeated the awful wish, when, to
the consternation and terror of the surrounding multitude, she instantly fell
down and expired, having the money concealed in her hand.
“ The narrative of this solemn event was, by order of the authorities, recorded
on a tablet and hung up in the market house (a row of sheds near the cross).
When the building was taken down, Mr. Halcombe, who kept the Bear Inn, in
order that the remembrance might not be lost, caused it to be inscribed on the
pediment of a couple of pillars which stood opposite liis inn, supporting the sign
of the Bear.
“ The sign was removed in 1801, and a few years after, Lord Sidmouth, having
presented to the town the new cross, which forms the central ornament of the
�31
Between the date of the judgment which brought total
extirpation upon Glaucus and his family and that which
brought the visitation of sudden death on the market woman
of Devizes, who shall say how many and how signal have
been the similar acts of the judgment of God falling on the
heads of the perjurers of their oaths ? Who, then, will very
easily dare to maintain that an oath which calls upon the
God of Heaven to be the witness to the truth with which
it is spoken is a thing devoid of sanction, notwithstanding
that the general rule of the Divine Government is well
known to be-one of long proved patience and forbearance,
under which the perjurer is permitted often for years, and
sometimes for the whole of the present life, to be seen to go
unpunished.
It is beyond doubt, then, that the interests of the truth
which human society needs as the basis of its well-being,
and for the securing of which the recourse to an oath has
remained the uninterrupted practice of nearly four thousand
years standing in every civilized nation of the earth, may,
as constant experience shows, be defeated and undone in
the particular case, by the sin and crime of perjury. Who
does not know this perfectly well ? Nevertheless, remove
the extremely real sanction and protection of truth, which
the most just fear of visitation from the anger of God and
of infamy in the sight of man necessarily strikes into the
soul of the intending perjurer, and you will have inflicted
a most deadly wound upon the welfare and happiness of
human life. Does not an apostle say to us, “ Men swear
by the greater, and in every dispute of theirs, the oath is
marketplace, the Mayor and Corporation ‘availed themselves,’ to use their own
language, ‘ of the stability of the new structure to transmit to future time a
record of the awful death of Ruth Pierce, in hope that it might serve as a
salutary warning against the practice of invoking the sacred name to conceal
the devices of falsehood and fraud.’ ”—“The Other World; or, Glimpses of the
Supernatural. By F. G. Lee. Pp. 289, 290. London. 1875.
�32
final for confirmation.” (Heb. vi. 16.) 'Wherever we turn,
to the pages of inspiration or to the histories of Gentile and
Christian writers, to the books of j urists and the homilies of
the Divine, we always hear one and the same concordant
testimony, bearing its witness to the indispensable need of
the maintenance of the oath of religion, in the full measure
of the religious honour and solemnity which is due to it.1
What, then, must be the inevitable conclusion from this
brief and rapid survey of the reasons of this immemorial
recourse to the oath of religion ? The first conclusion will
be that Mr. Bradlaugb/s impious denial of the existence of
God necessarily takes away the possibility of this indispen
sable recourse to the oath of religion “in radice/'’ in its
very root. Where no God is held to exist, what can be
more idle and absurd than to say that there can be any
appeal for the guarantee of truth to that which, according
to Mr. Bradlaugh s doctrine, is pure and simple vacuum,
mere negation of being, absolute nothing ?2
And, again, further, in the same degree in which the
preceding survey, brief and imperfect as it has been, has
succeeded in bringing to light the truth that the oath
of religion is an indispensable condition of the well-being of
civil society, and this equally in its public as in its private
life, the conclusion must be just as inevitable—that Mr.
Brad laugh, by his open denial of the existence of God, is to
be held by all reasonable men, to be not only a very bad enemv
1 The Roman Jurisconsults re-echo St.Paul’s testimony:—Maximum remedium
expediendar um litium .in usum venit juris jurandi religio, qua, vel ex pactione
ipsorum litigatorum, vel ex auctoritate judicis deciduntur controversial—Gaius,
fragm. (xii. 2).
a The following are the testimonies of Juvenal to the little credit to be
attached to the oath of an atheist, and still less to his affirmation:—
Sunt qui nullo credunt mundum rectore moveri
Atque ideo intrepide queecunque altaria tangunt.—Sat. XIII. 89.
Falsus erit testis vendens perjuria summit
Exigua, Cereris tangens aramque pedemque.—Sat. XIII. 218.
�of God; but likewise also in the same degree,, an equally bad
enemy of the social well-being of his fellow-men.
Are the above-mentioned truths, then, it is to be asked,
things that are wholly unknown to the Prime Minister?
Ask, rather, are they things that can by any possibility be
unknown to whoever possesses even the ordinary education
which is the necessary preparation to entering into any ODe
of the learned professions ? Certainly not! To what honest
ordinary man, indeed, can they be unknown, seeing that
they are the elementary traditions of the original primitive
revelation [made to man in the beginning of the world?
The Gospel has but gathered them together from the wreck
of the Old World, and rehabilitated them with new and still
stronger sanctions for the light and guidance of the Chris
tian people.
How is it, then, it is to be asked, that the Prime Minister
and his Government are found openly espousing the cause
of a man, whom on this showing it would be an insult to
their understanding, to suppose that they do not recognize
in him equally the enemy of God and the enemy of his
fellow-man ?
Singular fascination of the hope of being able to gain
a little political support which appears to have the power to
blind their eyes to the reality of what they are doing.
Experience, nevertheless, has shown that precarious political
support may at times be bought too dear even for the transi
tory ends for which the price for it has to be paid.
When the great Divine truths on which human society is
known to have been built from the beginning of the world
are to be made the price of a few paltry votes, the outcome
of the bargain may disappoint the calculation on which
it was made. The hoped-for gain may find itself simply
struck down to the ground with a sudden terror at the
very magnitude of the forfeit about to be consummated.
�34
VII. The designs of the atheist faction may, in the meanwhile, be
most effectually resisted, by the unsparing exposure of their
fraud, in attempting to palm off the common affirmation of the
atheist, for the solemn affirmation of the man of religion.
The legislator here who is determined to discharge the
duty of his conscience to God, and not to suffer himself to
be hoodwinked by mere words, may be asked to say to himself, Before I will vote I will insist upon an explicit formal
definition being embodied in the bill, “ sine dolo malo,” de
claring in express words, what it is to be—that is, to make
the affirmation of a man declaring himself to be an atheist
become a solemn affirmation. I will not be consciously a
party to any fraud or deceit on this point. I will resist to
the last and protest against any ambiguity or obscurity
on this head. Ambiguity or obscurity in this matter carries
with it—the guilt and shame of conscious fraud upon the
religious conscience of the nation. It also involves open
derision of the Majesty of God by the Legislature appearing
to be willing to try to palm off an affirmation in the face of
day as solemn, in which there cannot possibly be any act of
religion. The fraud is recommended under the false guise
of the equivocal use of the Name of “ solemn/"’ It
will be in effect the saying to God, we are going to deceive
you with the use of a name, that cannot have any meaning
whatsoever, which will be to your honour.
VIII. A brief word on the comic absurdity of the pretence which,
proposes to give the name of an act of religion to the act of a
man, whose one sole chief end of his being would seem to be to
make himself as widely known as possible as the man who
denies the existence of GOD, and the consequent possibility of
any religion.
The best generally received definition of the word “ reli
gion” derives it from the word religare, to reunite or to bind
together, and therein points to the rehabilitation of the
�35
union, of friendship between God and man, which it is the
mission of religion to restore. If so extremely serious a
subject could be allowed to have its comic side, this would
be certainly found in the singularly burlesque spectacle
which Mr. Gladstone and his Government now propose to
introduce on to the arena of public life, and to exhibit to
the astonished eyes of all the nations and people of the
world.
This new and unexpected spectacle, then, is Mr. Bradlaugh,
the Atheist, the profane scorner of God and the denier of
the mere possibility of such a thing as any religion, intro
duced into the British Parliament, as quite capable in the
judgment of Mr. Gladstone and his Ministry, making of the
solemn affirmation of the man of religion ! The nineteenth
century is certainly fruitful in wonders !
IX. A second brief word touching the horns of a comical dilemma of
which the supporters of Mr. Bradlaugh will be compelled to
make the best that they can.
The absolutely open and avowed atheist platform is not yet
a possible thing in Great Britain and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Bradlaugh, consequently, atheist as he avows him
self to be, and as he seeks to be universally known, cannot,
nevertheless, for the present hope to be able to enter the British
Parliament in any other way than as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Atheist, as he persists in calling himself, he has no chance
whatever of being admitted, except under the disguise of a
man of religion. He must be held to be capable of perform
ing the act of religion, known as a “ solemn affirmation.”
His supporters, in consequence, find themselves in the
following dilemma :—
This solemn affirmation, which Mr. Bradlaugh hopes by
their aid to be allowed to make, and so to enter to take his
seat, is compelled to be one or other of two things—
�36
(I.) Either it is the fraud already exposed, invented and
designed by malice prepense, to deceive religious people,
and to throw dust in their eyes; or
(II.) It is in itself a real, true, and genuine solemn
affirmation, “ sine ullo dolo malo,” without a shadow of
deception.
In the first case, the British Legislature will expose
itself to the whole world, as has been pointed out, as
lending itself to a proceeding of simple fraud. In the
second case, if the affirmation is to be maintained to be
“ solemn,” then there must needs be something special
which can be the root and cause of this solemnity. This
something will of necessity have to be sought for in the
person of Mr. Bradlaugh himself for the obvious reason that
it is not to be found anywhere else. On his own reiterated
averments he knows of nothing in creation greater than
himself. So that in order to make good the claim that his
affirmation is to be held to be solemn, the British Legisla
ture will have to exhibit him to the wide world as a little
pseudo divinity of their own making, as in short a very
small comic caricature of the God of Heaven, who swears
by Himself because He knows of nothing greater than
Himself by whom he could swear.
X. The near view of the precipice.
It is, of course, possible for a man to be found walking
close upon the very edge of a precipice, without his, for
the moment, adverting to the fact that the precipice is
there, and that to take only a single step more in the
direction of the precipice will be to fall over it and to be
afterwards taken up dead.
Let none of the members of your honourable House,
together with yourself, shut their eyes to the real facts of
�37
the case that will shortly come before them. Your Legis
lative Assembly is now actually brought to the edge of such
a precipice., the fall over which involves the being after
wards taken up dead. Of course dead,, in the sense of
having the seeds of future death deeply planted in its con
stitution. The Legislative Assemblies of great Imperial
Powers require a considerable time before they can actually
die, but unhappily for them they can plant the seeds of
future death in themselves in a very short time.
It is proposed, then, by the Affirmation Bill, to remove
the oath of religion, promising true allegiance to the throne
under the sanction of an appeal to God, from its being the
necessary legal condition of a legislator taking his seat and
exercising his functions as a maker of the laws and as
guardian of the public purse of the Empire. Henceforward
the law is to stand that it is to be a simple matter of per
sonal option, to swear this oath or not to swear it, the law
providing an open alternative in the form of a nominally
“ solemn affirmation/’
What this “ solemn affirmation” is to be and what is to
be the power generative of its solemnity, if any,—nothing
as yet appears to be known.
The solemnity of it, however, is, as has been said, hope
lessly discredited by the fact that, whereas the Oath of
Religion for which it is to be substituted is so solemn a
thing that Mr. Bradlaugh the atheist cannot by any possi
bility be permitted to profane it, the solemn affirmation will
be so unsolemn a thing that there will be no objection at
all, of any sort or kind whatsoever, to Mr. Bradlaugh the
atheist being permitted to profane it. Let this proposed
substitution of a nominal fictitious solemn thing, which any
atheist may profane at his own perfectly free will and
pleasure, without rendering himself liable to any sort of
penalty or ill consequence whatsoever, either from God or
�man, for the immemorial Oath of Religion be effected, and
then see what must inevitably follow.
It must inevitably follow, that if the Oath of allegiance
to the Throne is not necessary, and may be replaced at the
mere will or fancy of each individual by a purely nominal
and fictitious substitute as the sole guarantee to be demanded
from a legislator of the Empire, neither in this case, as has
been already said publicly, will the oath remain necessary,
but may be replaced by the same purely nominal and
fictitious substitute
for the monarch on the throne,
for the judges who administer the laws of the land,
for the witnesses who give testimony in courts of law,
for the soldiers serving in the army and their officers,
for the sailors serving in the navy and their officers.
The entire body politic of the empire will thus find itself
on the high road to be constituted in a condition of open
and avowed denial of God, and the contempt of His sove
reignty of the world of which He is the Creator.1
' The true safety of the Christian religion is not to he sought in proofs of the
existence of legal enactments in its favour, but in the solid and fervent attach
ment of the people to its altars and its doctrines. Nevertheless, in an appeal to
the legislature of the United Kingdom it will not be wholly out of place to lay
before them legal testimonies to the truth that Christianity is even yet the law
of the land.
“ A sound, solid, contention might be had that any enactment of Parliament,
in which Christianity were renounced and repudiated, was ipso facto null and
void”—p. 37. Life of the worthy and illustrious Thomas Holt, Knight,
Recorder of the borough of Abingdon, and one of the King’s Serjeants, &c.
Oxford: L. Litchfield. 1706.
“ No administration of the oath............ taken by common jurymen, or by
any other, either as witness or testifying, could be too reverent or too solemn ;
for such are bound to tell the whole truth who so call the Almighty God notably
to witness that it be the truth.”—“ State Trials,” in Seven Parts. Vol. III.
p. 140. London: G. Strahan. 1720.
“In Cowan v. Milbourne (L. R. Q. Ex. 230), Kelly, L.C.B., said that
Christianity was part of the law of the land. This case, tried in 1867, contains
the latest judicial utterance on the matter. In R. v. Williams (1797), a cele
brated case, where the man was tried for publishing Paine’s “Age of Reason,”
�39
Such is the precipice!
Let every member of your
assembly look at it, and study it well. Now, what can be
the claim of this single man, Bradlaugh the atheist, the
daring and profane denier of the existence of God, to push
the chief legislative assembly of the world over such a
precipice as this must be seen to be ?
A Word in Conclusion.
If every Member of the House of Commons has bonndhim
self to the duty of defending the Throne by his having
sworn his Oath of Allegiance, how will such Member be
able to vote for the removal of one of the principal safe
guards and defences of the Throne in any other way than
by the perjury of his Oath ?
No statesman or legislator of the kingdom will very easilv
dare to say that the Throne of the United Kingdom with
the person of the Monarch has not its just rights under the
constitution of the Empire, which as true statesmen they
are bound to maintain and defend. Again, no statesman
or legislator of the Empire will very easily dare to deny
that the oath of true allegiance to the throne, which every
one has sworn under the formula SO HELP ME GOD,
does not bind the legislator who has sworn it positively to
maintain and to uphold,—and that it does not likewise strictly
prohibit him from any act whatever calculated even to weaken,
let alone remove,—that which is acknowledged and confessed
to be the mainstay of the rights of the throne and the pre
rogatives of the person of the Monarch.
On this point there cannot be a doubt raised.
On the question that the oath of allegiance is and always
has been held to be the mainstay and bulwark of the rights
and to be found 26 St. Tr. 653, Lord Kenyon told the jury that “the Christian
religion is part of the law of the land.” Kelly’s exact words in Cowan v. Mil
bourne were “ There is abundant authority for saying that Christianity is part
and parcel of the law of the land.”
�of the throne, only open and avowed atheists can take the
side of negation. Every one who believes in the Person of
a Divine Creator and Sovereign Ruler of the world, and
who, sine dolo malo and bond fide has sworn his oath
promising true allegiance to the throne, by the very fact of
such belief stands on the side of the affirmative.
How, then, will those members of your honourable assem
bly, who confess this oath of allegiance to be under God the
mainstay of the rights of the throne, and who at the same
time confess that their oath of allegiance binds them to the
firm upholding of this same acknowleged indispensable main
stay be able to give their vote for its removal ? How can
they do this without directly forswearing the terms of the
oath by which they have bound themselves, and without
subjecting themselves to all the penalties attached to such
an act of perjury.
Public perjury under the laws of the twelve tables was
dealt with thus. “ Perjurii, poena divina exitium, humana
dedecus“The punishment with which God visits perjury
is destruction, man inflicts infamy/'’ Time and the belief
of the Christian world has added to, and has not taken any
thing away, from the force of the ancient Roman law.
I remain,
Right honourable Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
TERTULLIAN.
PRINTED AT THE BALLANTYNE PRESS, CHANDOS STREET, W.C,
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Affirmation Bill : reasons why it cannot be permitted to become the law of the land considered and stated, in a public letter addressed to the Right Hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons and to all its members by Tertullian
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Tertullian
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 40 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from British Library record. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
D. Bogue
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N636
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Affirmation Bill : reasons why it cannot be permitted to become the law of the land considered and stated, in a public letter addressed to the Right Hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons and to all its members by Tertullian), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Bradlaugh
Freedom of Speech-History
NSS
Oaths and Affirmations
William Ewert Gladstone
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c9e96a1eb03583237ff5af1c226679d3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MSj9VkHFrBzKX7QMXaVJOuCjxI7HB0SMrWcJPronW164qQxoi59FfRl83RcQsQM6JwMvyhuUZzM1l2Q7PL5%7EesRNiDWwjOPLgwHTINOz8Rf6%7Ek3RCmzFSDGGKRFhMm5hwEg8icFPbRWZ2Tx6HzQRhMq-v6dZd1GzObcLNx5Eb5in-jA7HNfGcblEJCLgMMwsPtAIojVn%7EUnmJzVilQyJTE48%7E-jc6NLyxI6uPePFwNmdcD1JA-XryIJ-I3FRaF1Bez7WyKvKoeqXOu-4zGNo72v54qyNWMLFtPVdpj1Vfo-gexaD6V8CFPKhBHGyTbB7VdNemrb85KHjSG58ZUUELQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
03d8b39f5765b7d253961a5fd8df73e1
PDF Text
Text
B'xrs’V
N^O
NATIONALSECULAR SOCIETY
THE LATEST
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUGGLE:
A REGISTER OF EVENTS
Which have occurred since April 2nd, 1880.
BY
W.
MAWER.
“ No, not an oath........... ..
Swear priests, and cowards, and men cautelous,rt--Ul‘I
Old feeble carrions and such suffering souls
That welcome wrongs; unto bad causes swear
Such creatures as men doubt; but do not stain
The even virtue of our enterprise,
Nor the insuppressive metal of our spirits,
To think that or our cause or our performance
Did need an oath.”—Julius Cxsar, Act II., Scene 1.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
1883.
PRICE
TWOPENCE.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY ANNIE BBSANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,
63, FLEET STREET, E.C.
�THE LATEST
CONSTITUTIONAL STRUGGLE.
——♦—
1 8 8 0.
April 2nd.—After twelve years’ fight and three repulses, Mr.
Charles Bradlaugh is elected member of Parliament for North
ampton. The polling was as follows:—
Labouchere (L.)
4,158
Bradlaugh (JR.)
3,827
Phipps (C.) ................................................ 3,152
Merewether (C.)
2,826
The Weekly Dispatch said: Mr. Bradlaugh’s achievement of the
position he has been aiming at so long and so zealously is a
notable sign of the times. Whatever his critics may think of
him, he will enter Parliament as the representative of a vastly
larger constituency than the whole electorate or the whole popu
lation of Northampton.
The Birmingham Daily Mail: Mr. Bradlaugh holds extreme
views on some subjects, but he will none the less be a useful
man in Parliament, his unflinching courage in the exposure of
abuses being unquestionable.
The Standard: Mr. Bradlaugh, now that he has got to the
House of Commons, is not likely to efface himself in speechless
obscurity.
The Southampton Times: The most signal and portentous
triumph is that which has been achieved by Mr. Bradlaugh. His
election shows what the unity of the Liberal party must have
been.
The Christian World: His contributions to the discussions of
the House may not be without value.
During the election Mr. Samuel Morley telegraphed to Mr.
Labouchere as follows: I strongly urge necessity of united effort
in all sections of Liberal party, and the sinking of minor and
personal questions, with many of which I deeply sympathise, in
�4
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
order to prevent the return, in so pronounced a constituency as
Northampton, of even one Conservative.
April 15th.—Mr. S. Morley, speaking at Bristol, said, respecting
his telegram to Northampton: He made no reference to candi
dates, nor did the friend who wrote the telegram go into detail,
but he advised union. Those who had known him all his life
would believe that he viewed with the intensest repugnance
the supposed opinions, both social and religious, of one of the
candidates. Afterwards, writing to the Record, Mr. Morley said
he deeply regretted his telegram.
The Weekly Dispatch, commenting on Mr. Morley’s conduct,
said: Let the bigots who have taken him to task for his temporary
aberration from the path of pharisaism make what they can of
his pitiful excuse. Other people can only regret that a man so
useful in many ways, both as a politician and a philanthropist,
should show himself so narrow-minded.
The Edinburgh Evening News: In their disappointment, the
defeated party have eagerly caught at the election of Mr. Brad
laugh as supplying the most pungent taunt that can be thrown
at their victorious opponents.
The Sheffield Telegraph: Bradlaugh is an M.P................. the
bellowing blasphemer of Northampton.
Mr. Bradlaugh announces that he considers he is legally en
titled to avail himself of the Freethinkers’ affirmation, and that
there is some reason to hope that other members will join him
in that course.
April 17th.—Sheffield Independent's “ London Correspondent ”
says : Tenets which constitute the religious faith of Mr. Brad
laugh are understood to constitute an insuperable difficulty in
the way of his being sworn a member of “the faithful Commons.”
April 29th.—Parliament opens.
May 3rd.—At the table of the House Mr. Bradlaugh handed
in a written paper to the Clerk of the House; on this were
written the words: “To the Right Honorable the Speaker of the
House of Commons. I, the undersigned Charles Bradlaugh, beg
respectfully to claim to be allowed to affirm, as a person for the
time beingbylawpermittedtomake a solemn affirmation ordeclaration, instead of taking an oath. Charles Bradlaugh.” Asked if he
desired to state anything to the House, Mr. Bradlaugh said : I
have to submit that the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, gives the
right to affirm to every person for the time being permitted by
law to make affirmation. I am such a person ; and under the
Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, and the Evidence Amendment
Act, 1870, I have repeatedly, for nine years past, affirmed in the
highest courts of jurisdiction in this realm. I am ready to make
the declaration or affirmation of allegiance.
At the request of the Speaker Mr. Bradlaugh then withdrew,
in order that the House might consider the claim, and Lord F.
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
5
Cavendish, urging that it would be manifestly inconvenient that
when any hon. member had applied to take his seat in the House,
any unnecessary delay should intervene, moved the appointment
•of a committee of inquiry which should lay before the House the
material on which the House itself should found its decision.
Sir Stafford Northcote seconded. Several other members spoke,
and Mr. Beresford Hope said that the grievance of one man was
very little compared with a great principle ; at present the House
of Commons was only a half-hatched chicken. The committee
was then agreed to.
May 11th.—Appointment of committee carried by 171 votes
against 74, after a two hours’ debate.
May 20th.—The committee report: “ that in the opinion of the
committee, persons entitled under the provisions of ‘the Evi
dence Amendment Act, 1869,’ and ‘ the Evidence Amendment
Act, 1870,’ to make a solemn declaration instead of an oath in
courts of justice, can not be admitted to make an affirmation or
declaration instead of an oath in the House of Commons, in persuance of the Acts 29 and 30 Viet., c. 19, and 31 and 32 Viet.,
•c. 72.”
The draft report, proposed by the Attorney-General, was to
the effect that “ persons so admitted,” etc , may be admitted, etc.
This was lost by the casting vote of the chairman (Mr. Walpole),
the other members of the committee voting as follows. Ayes:
Mr. Whitbread, Mr. John Bright, Mr. Massey, Mr. Sergeant
Simon, Sir Henry Jackson, Mr. Attorney- General, Mr. SolicitorGeneral, Mr. Watkin Williams. Noes : Sir John Holker, Lord
Henry Lennox, Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Pemberton,
Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Henry Chaplin.
Mr. Bradlaugh makes a public statement of his position with
regard to the oath. He considered he had a legal right to choose
between the alternatives of making an affirmation or taking the
oath, and he felt it clearly his moral duty, in that case, to make
an affirmation. The oath included words which, to him, were
meaningless, and it would have been an act of hypocrisy to
voluntarily take this form if any other had been open to him.
He should, taking the oath, regard himself as bound not by the
letter of its words, but by the spirit which the affirmation would
have conveyed, had he been allowed to make it, and as soon as
he might be able he should take steps to put an end to the pre
sent doubtful and unfortunate state of the law and practice on
oaths and affirmations.
May 21st.—Amid a tumult of cries from the Conservative
benches Mr. Bradlaugh goes to the table for the purpose of being
sworn. Sir H. D. Wolff objecting, the Speaker requested Mr.
Bradlaugh to withdraw. He (the Speaker) was bound to say he
knew of no instance in which a member who had offered to take
the oath in the usual form was not allowed by the House to do
�6
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
so. Sir H. D. Wolff then moved that Mr. Bradlaugh should not
be allowed to take the oath, alleging against Mr. Bradlaugh his
repute as an Atheist, and his authorship of “ The Impeachment
of the House of Brunswick.” Mr. Aiderman Fowler seconded
the motion, stating that he held in his hand a petition praying
the House not to alter the law and the custom of the realm for
the purpose of admitting an Atheist to Parliament. Mr. Glad
stone, in the course of replying, said : “ it was not in consequence
of any regulation enforced by the authority of this House—of a
single branch of the legislature, however complete that authority
may be over the members of this House, that the hon. member
for Northampton presents himself to take the oath at the table.
He presents himself in pursuance of a statutory obligation to
take the oath in order that he may fulfil the duty with which, as
we are given to understand, in a regular and formal manner his
constituents have entrusted him. That statutory obligation im
plied a statutory right.” He moved that it be referred to a
select committee to consider and report for the information of
the House whether the House has any right to prevent a dulyelected member, who is willing to take the oath, from doing so.
A long debate ensued, characterised by the fierceness with
which Mr. Bradlaugh’s admission to Parliament was opposed.
Mr. John Bright, however, asked if the House were entitled
thus to obstruct what he called the right of a member to take his
seat on account of his religious belief, because it happened that
his belief or no belief had been openly professed, what reason
was there that any member of the House should not be ques
tioned as to his beliefs, and if the answer were not satisfactory
that the House should not be at liberty to object to his taking his
seat ? After two or three adjournments of the debate the Pre
mier’s amendment was virtually withdrawn, and a motion by the
Attorney-General was carried to the effect that a committee
should be appointed to report whether it was competent to the
House to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh, by resolution, from taking the
oath.
May 28th.—Committee nominated—twenty-three members.
Mr. Labouchere gives notice to ask leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the law of Parliamentary Oaths, to provide that any
member may, if he desire, make a solemn affirmation in lieu of
taking the oath.
June 2nd.—Mr. Bradlaugh gives evidence before Select Com
mittee, in the course of which he said: “ I have never at any
time refused to take the oath of allegiance provided by statute
to be taken by members; all I did was, believing as I then did
that I had the right to affirm, to claim to affirm, and I was then
absolutely silent as to the oath ; that I did not refuse to take it,
nor have I then or since expressed any mental reservation, or
stated that the appointed oath of allegiance would not be binding
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
7
upon me; that, on the contrary, I say, and have said, that the
essential part of the oath is in the fullest and most complete
degree binding upon my honor and conscience, and that the
repeating of words of asseveration does not in the slightest degree
weaken the binding effect of the oath of allegiance upon me.”
[It had been persistently represented that Mr. Bradlaugh had
refused to take the oath.] “ Any form that I went through, any
oath that I took, I should regard as binding upon my conscience
in the fullest degree.”
June 16th.—The committee report that the compliance by Mr.
Bradlaugh with the form used when an oath is taken would
not be the taking of the oath within the true meaning of the
statutes ; that if a member make and subscribe the affirmation
in place of taking the oath it is possible by means of an action
in the High Court of Justice, to test his legal right to do so ;
and that the committee recommend that should Mr. Bradlaugh
again seek to make and subscribe the affirmation he be not
prevented from so doing. (Majority in favor of his being
allowed to affirm—four.)
June 21st.—Mr. Labouchere moved in the House of Commons
that Mr. Bradlaugh be admitted to make an affirmation instead
of taking the oath, seconded by Mr. M’Laren. Sir H.
Giffard moved a resolution seeking to debar Mr. Bradlaugh
from both oath and affirmation. Aiderman Fowler seconded,
a man who did not believe in a God was not likely to be a man
of high moral character. The majority of the people were
opposed to an Atheist being admitted to Parliament. Many
other members spoke. General Burnaby said the making of
the affirmation by Mr. Bradlaugh would pollute the oath. Mr.
Palmer said Mr. Bradlaugh had a legal right with which the
House had no power to interfere. The Attorney-General said
he had come to the conclusion that Mr. Bradlaugh could not
take the oath, chiefly on the consideration that he was a person
entitled to affirm. Mr. John Bright said it was certainly open
to any member to propose to take either oath or affirmation;
probably if Mr. Bradlaugh had had any suspicion that the
affirmation would have been refused him, he would have taken
the oath as other members take it—very much, he was afraid,
as a matter of form. Debate adjourned.
June 22nd.—Mr. Gladstone said that the House, by agreeing
to the amendment, would probably be entering on the commence
ment of a long, embarrassing, and a difficult controversy, not
perhaps so much within as beyond the limits of the House,
perhaps with the result of ultimate defeat of the House. The
more he looked at the case the stronger appeared the arguments
which went to prove that in the essence of the law and the
constitution the House had no jurisdiction. In interfering
between a member and what he considered his statutory duty,
�8
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
the House might find itself in conflict with either the courts of
law or the constituency of Northampton. No doubt an action
could not be brought against the House, but he was not so
clear that an action could not be brought against the servants
of the House. He was still less willing to face a conflict with
the constituency. The House had commonly been successful
in its controversies with the Crown or House of Lords, but
very different was the issue of its one lamentable conflict with
a constituency.—Sir Henry Tyler, with execrable taste, dragged
in the name of a lady with whom Mr. Bradlaugh is associated
in business. At last, by a majority of 45—the numbers voting
being 275 and 230—another triumph against liberty was scored.
The Christian World regretted that some Nonconformists helped
to swell the Tory majority.
The Jewish World held it as a reproach to Judaism, that mem
bers of their community should have gone over to the party
which once strove to detain them in bondage.
In 1851, Mr. Newdegate protested againBt the idea “that they
should have sitting in the House, an individual who regarded
our redeemer as an impostor,” and yet Baron de Worms voted
with Mr. Newdegate for the exclusion of a man with whose tenets
he disagreed.
The Whitehall Review headed an article “ God v. Bradlaugh,”
and said the majority had “ protected God from insult.”
June 23rd.—Mr. Bradlaugh again claimed at the table of the
House of Commons to take the oath, and the Speaker having in
formed him of the resolution passed the previous evening, re
quested his withdrawal. Mr. Bradlaugh thereupon asked to be
heard, and after some debate the demand was complied with.
Mr. Bradlaugh spoke from the bar of the House, asking no
favor, but claiming his right, and warning hon. members against
a conflict with public opinion.
Mr. Labouchere moved, and Mr. Macdonald seconded, the re
scindment of the resolution of the 22nd, which was lost on
division.
Mr. Bradlaugh was then recalled and requested to withdraw
from the House. Standing by the table, he said : “I respectfully
refuse to obey the order of the House, because the order is
against the law.” The raging of the bigots and Tories recom
menced. Mr. Gladstone declined to help them out of the pit
into which they had leapt: “ Those who were responsible for the
decision might carry it out as they chose.” After a sharp discus
sion Mr. Bradlaugh was, on the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote,
“ committed to the Clock Tower.” In the division the numbers
were 274 for and 7 against, the Radicals having left the House.
June 24th.—On the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr.
Bradlaugh is released from custody, “ not upon apology, or re
paration, or promise not to repeat his offence, but with the full
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
9
knowledge and clear recollection of his announcement that the
offence would be repeated toties quoties till his object was
effected.”
June 25th.—Mr. Labouchere gives notice of motion to rescind
the resolution of the 22nd, and Government agreed to give an
early day for the discussion of the same.
June 28th.—Baron de Ferrieres announced his intention to
move that the seat for Northampton be declared vacant, and that
a Bill be brought in providing for the substitution of an affirmation for the oath at the option of members. Mr. Wyndham
(Conservative) asked Mr. Gladstone whether the Government
would bring in a Bill to remove all doubts as to the legal right
of members to make a solemn affirmation. Mr. Gladstone said
the Government did not propose to do so, and gave notice for
Thursday (1st July) to move as a standing order that members
elect be allowed, subject to any liability by statute, to affirm at
their choice. Mr. Labouchere then said he would not proceed
with his motion. On another motion, however, by the same
member, leave was given to bring in a Bill for the amendment
of the Parliamentary Oaths and Affirmations, which was read a
first time.
July 1st.—After a futile attempt made by Mr. Gorst to show
that Mr. Gladstone’s resolution was a disorderly one, the Pre
mier, in moving it said, in the course of an extremely fair speech,
that the allegation of members that Mr. Bradlaugh had thrust
his opinions upon the House was untrue. His (Mr. Bradlaugh’s)
reference to the Acts under which he claimed to affirm had only
been named in answer to a question from the clerk of the House.
Sir Erskine May, in his evidence before the recent committee,
stated that Mr. Bradlaugh simply claimed to affirm.
Sir Stafford Northcote admitted that when Mr. Bradlaugh was
called upon to affirm he was not disrespectful, but firm. He
opposed the resolution as humiliating to the House. Several
members protested against any course for facilitating the admis
sion of Mr. Bradlaugh. General Burnaby stated that in order to
obtain “ authoritative ” opinions on the matter he had obtained
letters or telegrams from the Moravian body, the Bishop of
London, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ossory, the Bishop
of Ratho, the Archbishop ot Dublin, the Bishop of Galway, and
the Bishop of Argyle and the Isles, and the Secretary of the Pope
of Rome, all of whom expressed themselves in the strongest
terms against the admission of an Atheist into Parliament. Mr.
Spurgeon, who was unfortunately from home, had expressed his
opinion strongly adverse to it, and the Chief Rabbi—(loud
laughter)—although refusing to interfere with political questions,
felt very deeply on the subject. (Laughter, and cries of “the
Sultan,” and “Shah.”)
�10
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
When the House divided the numbers were 303 for, and 249
against.
July 2nd.—Mr. Bradlaugh takes the affirmation of allegiance,
and his seat.
During the struggle several hundreds of indignation meetings
were held in London and the provinces, and petitions, letters,
telegrams, etc., in immense numbers, poured in upon the Govern
ment and the House, in favor of Mr. Bradlaugh’s rights.
July 2nd.—Mr. Bradlaugh gives his first vote, and was there
upon served with a writ to recover against him a penalty of £500
for having voted and sat without having made and subscribed
the oath, the plaintiff being one Henry Lewis Clarke, who, as
subsequently appeared, was merely the tool of the actual common
informer, Charles Newdigate Newdegate, M.P. This writ was
ready so quickly that, if not issued actually before Mr. Bradlaugh
had taken his seat, it must have been prepared beforehand.
July 8th.—Mr. Norwood asks the first Lord of the Treasury
whether, considering the Government declined to introduce a
bill to amend the Oaths Act, it would instruct the law officers of
the Crown to defend the junior member for Northampton against
the suit of the common informer. Mr. Callan asked whether the
Government would remit the penalty. Mr. Gladstone said no
application had been received for remission of the penalties, and
that his reply to Mr. Norwood must be in the negative.
July 14th.—Read first time in the House of Commons, a bill
“ to incapacitate from sitting in Parliament any person who has
by deliberate public speaking, or by published writing, systemati
cally avowed his disbelief in the existence of a supreme being.”
It was prepared and introduced by Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr.
Aiderman Fowler and Mr. Hicks. Owing to an informality the
Bill could not come on for second reading.
The Rev. Canon Abney, of Derby, speaks of Mr. Bradlaugh as
“the apostle of filth, impurity, and blasphemy.”
July 16th.—Parliament indemnifies Lord Byron against an
action, he having sat and voted without being sworn.
July 20th.—Sir Eardley Wilmot gives notice of moving that it
is repugnant to the constitution for an Atheist to become a
member of “ this Honorable House.” He afterwards postponed
his motion.
At a meeting of the Dumfries Town Council, a member said :
“If the law courts should decide that it was legal for an Atheist
to sit in the House of Commons, he should feel it is duty to give
notice of petition to Parliament to have the law altered; he
would not allow Mr. Bradlaugh to go into a hundred acre field
beside cattle, let alone the House of Commons.”
The Rev. Chas. Voysey writes, that he feels disgraced by the
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
11
people of Northampton electing Mr. Bradlaugh, and declares
that “ most of the speeches in the Bradlaugh case in favor of his
exclusion, strike me as singularly good, wholesome and credit
able.” He repeats the myth of Mr. Bradlaugh forcing his objec
tions to the oath upon the House.
July 21st.—Sir John Hay, M.P., speaking about Mr. Bradlaugh
at New Galloway, made a most infamous, cowardly, and uncalled
for attack on Mrs. Besant. The Scotsman refused to print the
remarks, as “the language was so coarse that it could hardly
have dropped from a Yahoo.”
Aug. 1st.—The Nineteenth Century prints “An Englishman’s
Protest,” written by Cardinal Manning, personally directed
against Mr. Bradlaugh.
Aug. 24th.—Mr. Bradlaugh gives notice that early next session
he will call attention to perpetual pensions.
Sept. 7th.—Parliament prorogued. Hansard credits Mr. Brad
laugh with about twenty speeches during the Session. (Mr.
Newdegate told the Licensed Victuallers that Mr. Bradlaugh
“had made one speech, and proved himself a second or thirdrate speaker,”)
1881.
Jan. 6th.—Parliament reopens. Mr. Bradlaugh renews his
notice as to perpetual pensions. Great interest in the question
throughout the kingdom,
Jan. 24th.—Mr. Bradlaugh makes a speech in the House of
Commons against Coercion in Ireland.
Jan. 31st.—Mr. Newdegate, speaking in the House, described
Northampton as an “ oasis in the Midland Counties.”
Feb. 4th.—Mr. Bradlaugh makes a speech against the second
reading of the Coercion Bill, and concluded by moving that it
be read that day six months.
Feb. 15th.—Date of motion for inquiry into perpetual pen
sions fixed for March 15th. (When the day arrived Mr. Brad
laugh, on an appeal from Mr. Gladstone, allowed the motion to
be postponed, in order to allow supply to be taken. 848 petitions
had been presented to the House, with 251,332 signatures in
favor of the motion.)
Feb. 17th.—Mr. Dawson, M.P. for Carlow, said that Irish
members were much indebted to Mr. Bradlaugh for what he had
done on the Coercion Bill.
Feb. 25th.—Mr. Bradlaugh made final speech against third
reading of the Coercion Bill.
March 7th.—The case of Clarke v. Bradlaugh heard by Mr.
Justice Mathew.
�12
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
March 10th.—Mr. Bradlaugh brought before the House the
case of the imprisoned Maoris.
March 11th.—Judgment in the case given, which was for the
plaintiff, that he was entitled to recover the penalty, subject to
appeal. Mr. Bradlaugh gave notice of appeal.
Mr. Gorst gave notice to move that Mr. Speaker issue his
warrant for new writ for the borough of Nottingham [!].
March 14th.—Upon Mr. Bradlaugh rising to present petitions
against perpetual pensions, signed by over 7,000 persons, Mr.
Gorst rose to order, on the ground that the seat for Northamp
ton was vacant. After discnssion the Speaker called upon Mr.
Bradlaugh to proceed with the presentation of his petitions.
March 15th.—At request of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bradlaugh
postponed his motion for enquiry into perpetual pensions.
March 23rd.—Mr. Bradlaugh moved the Court of Appeal to
expedite the hearing of his appeal, and also to expedite the trial
of the issues in fact. The Court gave the appeal priority over
other cases.
March 28th.—Mr. Bradlaugh made his last speech in the House
against flogging in the Army.
March 30th.—Appeal heard.
March 31st.—Judgment given against the defendant. Plain
tiff not yet entitled to execution, but seat vacated, Mr. Bradlaugh
undertaking not to appeal so far as the affirmation was con
cerned.
Mr. Bradlaugh again seeks the suffrages of the electors of
Northampton.
April 6 th.—The Tories serve notice on the Mayor not to accept
Mr. Bradlaugh’s nomination, which the Mayor disregarded. Mr.
Edward Corbett nominates by Tories.
April 9th.—Mr. Bradlaugh re-elected by 3,437 votes to Corbett
3,305.
April 26th.—Mr. Bradlaugh, accompanied by Mr. Labouchere
and Mr. Burt, came to the table of the House, and, “ the book ”
having been handed to him, was about to take the oath when
Sir Stafford Northcote interposing, he was requested to with
draw, in order that the House might consider the new conditions
under which the oath was proposed to be taken. Mr. Bradlaugh
withdrew to the bar of the House, and Sir Stafford Northcote
moved that he be not allowed to go through the form of taking
the oath. Mr. Davey moved and Mr. Labouchere seconded an
amendment to the effect that where a person who had been duly
elected presented himself at the table to take the oath he ought
not to be prevented from doing so by anything extraneous to the
transaction. Other members spoke, and Mr. Bright regretted
“ the almost violent temper with which some hon. gentlemen
came to the consideration of the question.”
Mr. Bradlaugh, speaking at the bar, claimed that his return
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
13
was untainted, that it had not been brought about by the Liberal
party, but by the help of the people, by the pence of toilers in
mine and factory. He begged the House not to plunge into a
struggle with him, which he would shun. Strife was easy to
begin, but none knew where it would end. There was no legal
disqualification upon him, and they had no right to impose a
disqualification which was less than legal.
Mr. Gladstone made a lengthy and fine speech in favor of
Mr. Bradlaugh, the text of which was Mr. Bradlaugh’s own
words given above as to imposition of a new disqualification ; on
a division, however, the bigots again had it.
Mr. Bradlaugh again stepped to the table, and demanded the
administration of the oath, refusing to obey the Speaker’s order
to withdraw. Sir Stafford Northcote asked the Prime Minister
whether he proposed to offer the House any counsel. Mr. Glad,
stone said he should leave it to the majority to carry out the
effects of their vote. Eventually the Speaker called upon the
Sergeant-at-Arms to remove Mr. Bradlaugh, who during the
debate had been standing at the table. Mr. Bradlaugh with
drawing with the Sergeant three times to the bar, as often re
turned to the table. After further passages at arms between Mr.
Gladstone and Sir Stafford Northcote, the House adjourned.
April 27th.—Mr. Bradlaugh again found at the table of the
House claiming to be allowed to take the oath. At the bidding
of the Speaker the Sergeant-at-Arms again caused Mr. Brad
laugh to withdraw to the bar, where he remained during the dis
cussion which followed.
_ Mr. Labouchere asked the Prime Minister whether he would
give him reasonable facilities to introduce his Affirmation Bill, if
so Mr. Bradlaugh would not interfere with the resolution passed
last night.
Mr. Gladstone said the giving facility for that purpose, meant
the postponement of very serious and very urgent business, and
he had no assurance as to the disposition of the House. He
could not see his way to consent if it was to be an opposed
Bill. After further discussion, however, Mr. Gladstone said it
might be possible to test the feeling of the House by one or more
morning sittings.
April 29th.—Mr. Gladstone announces the intention of the
Government of bringing in a bill amending the Parliamentary
Oaths Act.
May 2nd.—The Attorney-General moved that the House re
solve itself into committee with a view of his asking leave to in
troduce the Bill. Debate on motion adjourned to the 5th with
the view of fixing the time on the 6th, when the discussion should
be resumed.
Mr. Maclver gave notice to ask the Prime Minister whether he
was prepared to reconsider his decision of last session, and will
�14
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
introduce “ a short measure ” for the partial disfranchisement of
Northampton. (The question was never put.)
May 6th.—Further obstruction of the Bigots.
May 10th.—After 1.15 a.m. the Government proposed a morn
ing sitting for that day (Tuesday), to discuss the introduction of
their Bill. Further obstruction, wrath, and bitterness, and the
Government abandoned the intention to hold a morning sitting.
At the afternoon sitting a resolution was arrived at, which
authorised the Sergeant-at-Arms to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from
entering the House.
Lord Selborne (Lord Chancellor) in reply to a letter relative
to Mr. Bradlaugh and the oath, says equal justice is due to
Christian and infidel; he saw no possibility of refusing to afford
by legislation to all who scruple to take the oath, the same option
in Parliament as they have in courts of law, to make an affirma
tion.
May 25th.—Mr. Newdegate formally blocked the Bill, of which
Mr. Labouchere gave notice, for indemnifying Mr. Bradlaugh
against penalties for having sat and voted on affirmation.
June 19th and 20th.—The common informer’s action tried at
Nisi prizes before Mr. Justice Grove. Verdict against Mr. Brad
laugh for penalty and costs.—Rule nisi for new trial afterwards,
granted by Justices Grove and Lindley; this rule was made
absolute by Justices Denman and Hawkins, but was set aside by
Lords Justices Brett, Cotton and Holker.
Mr. Bradlaugh appeals to the country. The country answers.
Aug. 3rd.—Mr. Bradlaugh, acting on his right to enter the
House of Commons, is seized at the door of the House by four
teen men, police and ushers (Inspector Denning said ten), and
roughly hustled out into Palace Yard, Mr. Bradlaugh protesting
against such treatment as illegal. “ In the passage leading out
to the yard Mr. Bradlaugh’s coat was torn down on the right
side ; his waistcoat was also pulled open, and otherwise his toilet
was much disarranged. The members flocked down the stairs
on the heels of the struggling party, but no pause was made
until Mr. Bradlaugh was placed outside the precincts and in
Palace Yard.”—Times. Aiderman Fowler was heard to call,
“ Kick him out.” This he afterwards denied, but there is evidence
that he did so. (Mr. Bradlaugh suffered the rupture of the
small muscles of both his arms, and erysipelas ensued).
Many thousands of people went up to the House with petitions,
urging the House to do justice to Northampton and Mr. Brad
laugh.
In the House Mr. Labouchere moved a resolution condemn
ing, as an interference with the privilege of members, the action
of the authorities in expelling Mr. Bradlaugh from the lobby.
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
15
This was rejected by 191 votes against 7, and a motion of Sir
Henry Holland, declaring the approval of the House of the
course taken by the Speaker, was agreed to without controversy.
At a crowded meeting at the Hall of Science the same evening
Mr. Bradlaugh stated that he had told Inspector Denning in
Palace Yard that he could come back with force enough to gain
admittance, but that he had no right to risk the lives and liberties
of his supporters.
Aug. 4th.—The Times declares, in an article favorable on the
whole to Mr. Bradlaugh’s claims, that the House of Commons
was yesterday the real sufferer in dignity, authority, and repute.
It says : “ the question contains within itself the baleful germ of
a grave constitutional contest between the House of Commons
and any constituency in the land ; ” and “ such a conflict can but
have one conclusion, as all history shows.”
The Daily News, in a similar article, concludes thus : “ Sooner
or later it will be generally acknowledged that Mr. Bradlaugh’s
exclusion was one of the most high-handed acts of which any
legislative body has ever been guilty.”
The following unique paragraph from The Rock is worth pre
serving in its original form : “The question now is whether the
Christian people of this realm will quietly allow clamorous
groups of infidels, Radicals, and seditionists, by organised
clamor, bluster, and menace, to overawe the legislature, and by
exhibitions of violence—not at all unlikely, if permitted ta
develop into outrage and riot—to cause an organic and vital
change to be made in our Constitution and laws, in order that
brazen-faced Atheism might display itself within the walls of the
British Parliament.”
Mr. E. D. Girdlestone writes: “If the present Cabinet does
not secure your admission to the House in some way or other, I
can only wish they may soon be turned out of office. I don’t
know what more I can do than say, ‘ Go on ! and go in ! ’ ”
Aug. 5th.—Mr. Bradlaugh’s application at Westminster Police
Court for summons against Inspector, for having assaulted him
at the House of Commons on the 3rd inst., refused.
Mr. Bradlaugh confined to the House with severe erysipelas in
both arms, resulting from the injuries inflicted. Attended by
Drs. Ramskill and Palfrey. The latter, on August 12th, ordered
his immediate removal from town, to prevent yet more dangerous
complications.
Aug. 13th.—Mr. Bradlaugh went to Worthing to recruit his
health. Outside the station there, weary and exhausted, both arms
in a sling, he was rudely stared at by a clergyman, who, having
satisfied himself as to Mr. Bradlaugh’s identity, walked away
saying loudly: “ There’s Bradlaugh ; I hope they’ll make it warm
for him yet.”
�16
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
The Northern Star (a Tory paper) suggested that Mr. Brad
laugh was malingering—“simply carrying on the showman
business.”
Aug. 24th.—Sir Henry Tyler, in the House of Commons,
attempts to discredit the South Kensington department for
allowing science and art classes at the Hall of Science. Mr.
Mundella gives those classes great credit.
Aug. 27th.—Parliament prorogued.
Further appeal to England.
1882.
Jan. 9th.—The Earl of Derby, in a speech at the Liverpool
Reform Club, says: “For my part I utterly disbelieve in the
value of political oaths. ... I should hope that if Mr. Brad
laugh again offers to take the oath, as he did last year, there will
be no further attempt to prevent him.”
Feb. 7th.—Reopening of Parliament. Mr. Bradlaugh again
attended at the table to take the oath, and Sir Erskine May, the
clerk of the House, was about to administer the same when Sir
Stafford Northcote, interposing, moved that Mr. Bradlaugh be
not allowed to go through the form. Sir W. Harcourt, in moving
the previous question, said the Government held the view that
the House had no right to interpose between a duly-elected
member and the oath.
Mr. Bradlaugh, addressing the House from the bar for the third
time, begged the House to deal with him with some semblance and
show of legality and fairness. He concluded: “I want to obey
the law, and I tell you how I might meet the House still further,
if the House will pardon me for seeming to advise it. Hon.
members had said that an Affirmation Bill would be a Brad
laugh Relief Bill. Bradlaugh is more proud than you are. Let
the Bill pass without applying to elections that have taken place
previously, and I will undertake not to claim my seat, and when
the Bill has passed I will apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. I
have no fear. If I am not fit for my constituents they shall
dismiss me, but you never shall. The grave alone shall make
me yield.”
When a division was taken there were for the previous ques
tion 228, against 286. Mr. Samuel Morley voted with the
majority against the Government. Sir Stafford Northcote’s
motion was then agreed to without a division.
Feb. 8th.—Mr. Labouchere, in committee of the whole House,
proposed for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Par
liamentary Oaths and Affirmations. The Bill was afterwards
formally blocked by Mr. Molloy.
�Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
17
Feb. 17th.—Mr. Labouchere asked the Attorney-General
whether the resolution of Feb. 7th had not vacated the seat.
Sir Henry James answered that it had not.
Feb. 18th.—Mr. Gladstone writes Mr. Bradlaugh that the
Government have no measure to propose with respect to his
seat.
Feb. 21st.—Mr. Bradlaugh of himself takes and subscribes the
oath, and takes his seat.
Feb. 22nd.—Mr Bradlaugh expelled the House of Commons.
Mar. 2nd.—Re-elected for Northampton. For Bradlaugh,
3,796 ; for Corbett, 3,688.
Mar. 6th.—On the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, the
House reaffirms its motion of the 7th Feb., Mr. Gladstone sup
porting an amendment moved by Mr. Marjoribanks, by which the
House would have declared the desirability of legislation, for the
purpose of giving members an option between oath and affirma
tion.
Mar. 7th.—Lord Redesdale introduces in the House of Lords
a Bill, requiring every peer and every member of the House of
Commons before taking the oath or making the affirmation, to
declare and affirm his belief in Almighty God. The Bill, intro
duced “from a sense of what was due to Almighty God,” was
afterwards withdrawn “ in deference to Lord Salisbury.”
To this date, 317 petitions with 62,168 signatures had been
presented against Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take his seat;
while in favor of the same 1,051, with 250,833 signatures, had
been presented.
Mr. Labouchere’s Affirmation Bill blocked by Earl Percy.
18 8 3
Jan. 11th.—Mr. Justice Field gave judgment that the privileges
of the House of Commons prevented Mr. Bradlaugh from
obtaining any redress for the assault upon him on August 3rd,
1881.
Feb. 15th.—Great demonstration in Trafalgar Square; from
eighty to one hundred thousand people present. (Evening Stan
dard says 30,000; Daily News, 50,000 an hour before the meeting.)
Mr. Adams, chairman; Rev. W. Sharman, Jos. Arch, and Mr.
Bradlaugh, speakers.
Opening of Parliament. (Mr. Gladstone at Cannes.) Govern
ment give notice for to-morrow for leave to introduce bill to
amend the Oaths Act, 1866. Sir R. Cross gives notice of opposi
tion on second reading of same. Mr. Bradlaugh consents, with
the approval of his constituents, expressed on the 13th inst., to
await the fate of the measure.
�18
Diary of the Northampton Struggle.
Feb. 16th.—Sharp succession of frantic speeches in the House
of Commons by Mr. Newdegate, Aiderman Fowler, Mr. Warton,
Mr. Henry Chaplin, Mr. Onslow, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Beresford
Hope, Lord H. Lennox, Lord C. Hamilton, Mr. A. Balfour, Mr.
Ashmead Bartlett, and Mr. A. O’Connor. Divisions : from two
to three to one for Government. The Marquis of Hartington
consents to adjourn the motion for Bill until Monday at twelve.
Feb. 18th.—The Observer says that when Conservatives ask
Liberals whether they really mean to alter the law for the purpose
of admitting Mr. Bradlaugh, it is fair for Liberals in turn to ask
Conservatives whether they really mean to maintain an admitted
abuse and injustice for the mere purpose of excluding Mr. Brad
laugh.
Feb. 19 th.—First reading of Bill carried on division by 184
votes to 53 ; second reading formally fixed for that night week.
Feb. 20 th.—Daily News says Bill will be carried by large
majorities, and will be regarded by the House and the country
as the appropriate settlement of an unfortunate controversy.
The Times says the leaders of the opposition will not
succeed in finally preventing the Bill from becoming law.
Its real concern is that Mr. Bradlaugh has been substantially in
the right; that he has been unjustly excluded from taking the
seat which belongs to him.
The .k orm'm? Advertiser thinks the Government may yet find it
difficult to persuade the House to adopt the Bill.
The Morning Post justifies the irregular opposition to the first
reading of the Bill, and thinks notice of the measure should have
been given in the Queen’s Speech. No measure had created
more excitement or raised more indignation in the country, which
desired to see it rejected by a decisive majority.
March 5th.—Appeal case Bradlaugh v. Clarke part heard before
the House of Lords.
March 6th.—Case concluded ; judgment deferred.
March 9th.—Action for maintenance—Bradlaugh v. Newdegate
—tried before Lord Coleridge and a special jury. Henry Lewis
Clarke, the common informer, swore that he had not the means
to pay the costs, and would not have brought the action if he
bad not been indemnified by Mr. Newdegate. Case adjourned
for argument of legal points.
March 17th. — Maintenance action argued; four counsel
appearing for Mr. Newdegate. Lord Coleridge reserved judg
ment.
March 20th.—The Solicitors to the Treasury compelled Mr.
Bradlaugh to pay the costs of the House of Commons in the
action against the deputy Sergeant-at-Arms.
��PRICE
SIXPENCE.
The True Story
OF
My Parliamentary Struggle.
BY
CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
Containing the whole of Mr. Bradlaugh’s evidence before the Select
Committee; his letter to the Times, May 20th, 1880; and his three
Speeches at the bar of the House of Commons.
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 63, Fleet Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The latest constitutional struggle : a register of events which have occurred since April 2nd, 1880
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mawer, W.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 18 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Concerns Bradlaugh's election to Parliament as MP for Northampton. Printed by Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1883
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N480
Subject
The topic of the resource
Parliament
Atheism
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The latest constitutional struggle : a register of events which have occurred since April 2nd, 1880), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Charles Bradlaugh
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cc8ab460d1f68ca7d6fc8bc2e3e76fbf.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=WUebgu3VRCGqDbana4akeHlzKhzzsrAujQVjeTt%7EzmyFIxgsOrt7d5WeOTwPeUBslAHnxaxOXtkKDaCP0J94D-pdH-TYAlE2L60v5QF-Fy%7EhriyZ5-VrejnOj5nMmS8QUzXR1yM-IKlOC7QVlM2Wm1cz94UYONPpfzIoxTslNiSNGE675v1MY7p0z7aVtFHO5%7E%7EXfmy5axy9UnEyRIjDpoGYRSRTFdFbqki3KFuKrXhStErVwoHlu7UKfhBHe60SUoigYl1vltloarOX6HYjD%7EyjBaHGGqm2aYbo%7EYL99-I3BceBa2IcJ9qoNQcD8p4lvae47DlW1Iu3cVu56M2bvw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
acc369f1f24576bb7e304380c560c38f
PDF Text
Text
B3S
NATIONAL secular
5
conex-
THERE IS A GOD.
’•
“ This Plea for Atheism,” writes Mr. Bradlaugh in
conclusion to the pamphlet bearing that tit le, “ is put
forth as a challenge to Theists to do battle for their cause.”
The challenge we step forward to accept, but wish
beforehand our intentions to be clearly understood, and
our mode of warfare as well aB our plan of battle, briefly
explained.
If we accept, it is not with even the remotest fear as
regards the strength of our cause, which is in no want of
a champion, and has stood for ages by its own unassailable
force. Nor do we dread that our adversary may succeed
in imbuing the minds of his numerous hearers and readers
with anything like the Atheism of which he professes to
be so profoundly convinced. In so momentous a question,
however, as that of the existence of God, were he to
succeed only to raise the shadow of a doubt in the minds
of his hearers, that shadow would, we feel certain, be
attended with the most fatal results. There are moments
when men, urged onwards by the torrent of their pas
sions, would not—even though sure of eternal torments
immediately following their act—hesitate to commit crime;
and much more numerous still are the occasions on
which they would act, if they could only imagine that
they doubted of the existence of a Supreme Avenger
of guilt. We do not here intend to affirm that Mr.
Bradlaugh upholds a system of direct immorality; we only
point out the reasons which make it worth our while to
oppose him. The apparent doubt* he may too often raise
• We employ purposely the words, apparent doubt, to mean a pretext
for acting as if there were a real doubt. Whether we admit or no that
there can be a real doubt as to the existence of God, will appear in our
answers to the objections.
�THERE IS A GOD.
fig
minds of uninstructed men removes a check to crime
®jB»<'heck which, however powerless it may be in the great
^^■xysms of passion, is most certainly of continual use in
rne ordinary circumstances of life. So, in endeavouring to
’confute Mr. Brad laugh, and prove the existence of God,
we are actuated by the hope of destroying the mists he
may have raised in some minds, of hindering them from
being raised in others, and thus, of contributing indirectly
to public morality and virtue, by defending the strongest
of all checks to immorality and vice.
In this essay we shall oppose Mr. Bradlaugh’s theories
in one way, and in one way only, i.e., by appealing to
common sense. We are convinced that the common sense
of a moderately intelligent and earnest man suffices amply
to solve the problem,—and for a good reason too. If
God’s existence could be proved only by abstruse meta
physical demonstrations, the immense majority of mankind
would never understand, and consequently would have a
right to doubt them. But one cannot at the same time
be a doubter and a believer; so iu that case the immense
majority of men would have a right to be practically
Atheists. That, of course, is what we must necessarily
deny ; and our denial supposes that the fact of God’s
existence can be made clear, even to the uninstructed, by
the only method of reasoning which they possess,—com
mon sense.
We therefore, keeping as closely as possible to this plan
of action all through,* except where the arguments of our
adversary oblige us to follow him on to metaphysical
ground, intend firstly to state the objections against
Theism, which have led Mr. Bradlaugh to reject that doc
trine, expounding his arguments, not of course at length
and in his own terms, but with their full force of argument,
and indeed trying rather to add strength to them than to
* We must make an exception for one of the proofs of God’s exist
ence, based upon the existence of eternal truth ; but this proof is so
beautiful and so conclusive to a reflecting- mind that we could not leave
it out. As for the others, if they are found too metaphysical, we can
only say that we have done our best to make them plain, clear, and
intelligible to all.
’
�THERE 13 A GOD.
5
lessen their power. We shall then set forth the con
clusions to which he has arrived, or, in other words, ex
pound the Atheistic system set up by him. All this part of
the discussion is required by the commonest sense of fair
play and impartiality ; and our side being the side of truth,
we feel free to give the opposite party the first innings.
We then, of course, proceed to point out the shortcomings
of his system, and then to demonstrate the truth of our
own.
After the demonstration, we might leave Mr. Bradlaugh’s
objections unanswered ; when the truth of a proposition is
proved, the arguments against it are evidently false. Still,
it would hardly be just or polite to refuse answering such
easily solvable objections; for we may inform Mr. Brad
laugh that there are other difficulties much more subtle,
and much less easy to be apswered, than those he brings
forward. When he finds them out we shall be willing to
try our hand at solving them as well as we can. In the
meanwhile we shall endeavour to conclude this essay by
answering satisfactorily to the objections which to our
adversary appear so weighty and so important.
It will first be necessary to state them, i.e., the principal
ones. Mr. Bradlaugh has published two pamphlets on the
question of Theism ; the first entitled, “Is there a God?”
and the second, “A Plea for Atheism.” In his debates he
generally either attacks Theism connected with some
peculiar religious system, or, when he brings out a direct
argument against the existence of God, he only repeats
what has already been written in the above-mentioned
essays; so it becomes unnecessary to quote anything of
his debates, except one or two seemingly new arguments
against Mr. Cooper.
First of all, let us take some selections from the essay,
“Is there a God?” Mr. Bradlaugh accepts Professor
Flint’s definition of God : A supreme, self existent, the one
infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, unchangeable,
righteous and benevolent, Personal Being, creator and pre
server of nature, maker of heaven and earth, who is distinct
from, and independent of what He has created, who is a
free, loving, supreme, moral intelligence, the governor of
�6
THERE IS A GOD.
nations, the heavenly father and judge of man. Thia defini
tion once set down, he proceeds to deny the existence of a
being corresponding to the definition.
1. * According to Professor Flint, God is the Supreme
Being. Now, (as Mr. Bradlaugh argues,) according to
reason He cannot be supreme. But what is at once su
preme and not supreme is absurd : therefore the idea of
God involves an absurdity. That God is supreme, ac
cording to Professor Flint, is undoubtedly true. That, ac
cording to reason, He cannot be supreme is also evident;
for the definition supposes Him to be infinite. Now, “su
preme" is a superlative, and includes the idea of a com
parison made between two or more individuals. But there
are not, there cannot be, two infinite beings to compare
together: therefore God cannot be called infinite by relation
to any other such being. Neither can He be said to be
supreme in relation to finite beings, for between the Infinite
and the finite there is no proportion, and consequently all
comparison is impossible. But even allowing comparison
to be possible, God would not always have been supreme;
for Professor Flint affirms Creation, and God would only
have been supreme over finite beings since then ; be
fore, there could be no comparison, as there was nothing
to compare ; now, the idea of God having become supreme,
after having been otherwise, gives us to conclude that His
very definition has been changed, whereas Professor Flint
says He is unchangeable.
2. Secondly, if God existed, He would be Creator and
not Creator at one and the same time; which being absurd,
it follows that God does not exist. Creator according to
the definition itself, not Creator because of the impossi
bility of creation. Creation is the making of existence ;
now, if existence were made, before it was made nothing
existed, for what could exist when existence itself had not
been made yet? Now, it is impossible to admit that at any
moment of the past there existed nothing at all; otherwise
whence would that which now exists come from ? So
existence must have always existed, and cannot have been
• The numbers refer to the answers, infra.
�THERE IS A GOD.
7
made; therefore creation is impossible, and God is at once
Creator and not Creator: which is absurd.
3. Thirdly, God would be at the same time infinitely
benevolent and not infinitely benevolent,—a self-contra
dictory proposition. All the difficulty, admitting that Pro
fessor Flint proves Him satisfactorily to be benevolent, will
now be to demonstrate that He is not so. As is generally
admitted by Theists, God might have created a sinless world
if such had been His will.* Why therefore has He not
done so? All will allow that He might at least have made
a less sinful one, if, for instance, He had given more grace
to man, or created him with more strength of mind to
rule his passions. “ But, argue the Theists, God is not
obliged to do that; the idea of duty is incompatible with
that of the supreme and independent Being.” No answer
could be more worthless. A benevolent man is not the
man who does his duty, but one who does more than his
duty. It follows therefore that a being infinitely benevo
lent should do infinitely more than his duty, and either
create a sinless world, if that be possible; or, if not,
create at least a world much less sinful than the one in
which we live.
4. Fourthly, God would be personal and impersonal,—a
doctrine which no one in his senses can admit. The idea of
God, as stated by Professor Flint, proves Him to be per
sonal, but the same idea will also prove His impersonality.
A personal being is something limited ; now, God is either
infinite, i.e., unlimited, or not God. Therefore, if He be
infinite, He cannot be personal; but He must be so, since
He is the intelligent Maker of heaven and earth. There
fore God is a personal impersonal being.
5. Fifthly, infinite and finite. Infinite, since there are
no bounds to His perfection; finite, since He possesses
one perfection which by itself supposes limitation,—intelli
gence. Intelligence is essentially clear, definite, precise,
* We here state the argument as brought to bear upon those whose
Convictions coincide with our own, for we do not admit, with Mr. Arm
strong, that the conception of a sinless world is self-contradictory.
Against those who share his opinions the argument can be framed
otherwise, and, we believe, unanswerably.
�8
THERE IS A GOD.
and consequently limited : therefore all things intelligent
are limited beings. But God is intelligent, therefore He
must be finite; and yet we have already seen that He
cannot be so.
The following objections are taken, in substance, from
the “ Plea for Atheism.”
6. Theism checks man’s efforts, it is therefore a doctrine
Dot to be admitted. It teaches that all things depend
absolutely upon the will of God. Such teaching is a check
upon the activity of man ; for in all things we may say : If
this be contrary to God’s will it will never take place, and
if it be according to God’s will it will take place, whether
we exert ourselves or no.
7. God cannot be intelligent. Intelligence comprises
perception, memory, and reasoning. Neither of these acts
are possible to God. Perception results in the obtaining a
new idea; God, being omniscient, has the same ideas
eternally, and therefore cannot perceive. Memory recalls
the past; for an unchangeable God there is no past, and
consequently no memory. Beason implies a succession of
acts; in God there is no succession, and so He is deprived
of reason by His very immutability. If God can neither
perceive, nor remember, nor reason, can He judge or think ?
To judge is to join two ideas together ; but whatever is
joined was not joined previously, and this is contrary to
immufability. To think is to separate that which is
thought from that which is not thought; that, too, implies
change, and besides contradicts omniscience. If God
knows everything unchangeably, He must ever be un
changeably thinking of everything. But if God can neither
perceive, remember, reason, judge, nor think, He can by
no means be said to be intelligent.
8. God is not all-wise. If He were so He would not
have created beings, or parts of beings, without any use
whatever. That such beings and parts of beings exist
plentitully in nature is a well-known teaching of embry
ology, and indeed of all natural history. If therefore God
be the author of nature, He must be said not to be all-wise.
9. God is not the Creator. For creation either added to
the sum of being already existing, or it did not. If it
�THERE IS A GOD.
9
added anything, then the sum is greater than the part, and
the universe with God better than God without the uni
verse. He is therefore not infinitely good if something can
be better than He. If it added nothing, then the universe
is identically the same as God, which is contrary to Theism.
If it took anything away from the sum of being already
existing, God was not all-wise in creating ; or, if He could
not help creating, He was not all-powerful. Creation
therefore neither adds anything to, nor adds nothing to,
nor takes anything from, the sum of being. Creation
therefore is absurd.
10. Some men are not convinced of God’s existence.
Now, if God existed, He could convince men of His exist
ence, so as to leave in their minds no doubt about the
matter. If He could not, it would be because He did not
know how to, or had not enough power. Therefore He
will not; but if so, He is not infinitely good, for by so
doing He could spare men a very great deal of misery.
These are the most important arguments put forth by
Mr. Bradlaugh in the two essays to which we have already
alluded. We have been obliged to choose, for in many
places there are as many as nine or ten arguments crowded
together, with rare conciseness, in one page ; nay, some
times one argument is so worded that it may be taken in
two very different senses. But we trust we have chosen
the most important objections; and as for shortening them,
our only excuse is that it is impossible to do otherwise
without writing a commentary upon each of these essays,
(which we should do with great pleasure,) pointing out
one by one all the fallacies employed by our opponent.
11. In the debate with. Mr. Cooper, there are also two
arguments that can be mentioned, although they are but
variantes of others already stated. The first runs pretty
nearly as follows. Theism supposes a motionless cause
which is the principle of the universe, i.e., which acts to
create the world. If so, they can explain how action with
out motion is possible. That, however, is inexplicable ;
therefore the hypothesis of Theism cannot be admitted.
12. Another is : Two beings cannot be in the same place
at the same time. But God is everywhere; therefore, to
�10
THERE IS A GOD.
make room for the universe He must retire from “ some
where,” and is no longer infinite; or else He must make
the universe out of “everywhere,” that is, nowhere. The
first alternative contradicts the idea of God ; the second is
self-contradicted by facts. It follows that God has not
created the world.
Such are the difficulties which have prevailed so far upou
Mr. Bradlaugh, that he thinks himself justified in taking a
position of defiance to nearly the whole human race, and
building a system of which the denial of God’s existence
forms the principal point. This system we now wish to
state as clearly as possible.
“ I exist.* My existence is either self-existent or created.
It is not created, consequently it is self-existent, and I am
self-existent too. If that existence were created, it would
have been so either by an existence the same as itself, or
else by another existence. Neither can be allowed, and so
it is not created. It cannot have been created by an
existence the same as itself; for then it would have been
only a continuation of the same existence. It cannot have
been created by any existence different from it, for an
existence different from it would have nothing in common
with it, since what has nothing in common with another
thing can have no relation with it. Now creation is really
a relation,—the relation of cause and effect. Creation
therefore being impossible, my existence is self-existent.
“But what has just been proved for my particular
existence can be proved in exactly the same manner for all
existence. And, as all things we see have mutual relations
one with another, it follows that what seems to be different
existences is only the same existence, differently condi
tioned, otherwise they would have nothing in common.
There is therefore but one existence ; the world, which
means the same as ‘ matter,’ or ‘ universe,’ is a great
uncaused being (debate with Dr. Baylee, p. 32), infinite
and eternal. I am but a phenomenon of existence, and
all that we hear, see, or feel, are only separate phenomena,
* Debate with Dr. Baylee, page 41; Plea tor Atheism, appendix;
Debate with Mr. Cooper, passim.
�THERE IS A GOD.
11
not separate beings ; different conditions of existence, and
not different existences.”
“ These phenomena, conditions, or modes of existence
are distinguished in thought by their qualities.” Whether
the modes are really distinct from each other, or only in
thought, is not determined ; whether the qualities which
form the distinction are really different qualities or no is
not stated. “Qualities are characteristics by which in
thought I distinguish that which I think,” says Mr. Bradlaugli, and he says no more. But what if the same ques
tion be again asked, viz., whether those characteristics are
really different from each other, or only rendered different
by the process of thinking? Let us give an example of
the two distinctions. We say that Mr. Bradlaugh is really
distinct from any other man, because it seems that, inde
pendently of our thought, and whether we think about
him or no, he is not the same as another man ; and we say
that their characteristics are really different. We say
that M r. Brad laugh the philosopher can be (in thought)
distinguished from Mr. Bradlaugh the orator, and that the
characteristics of both are only distinguished in thought.
Now the question is, whether Mr. Bradlaugh admits real
distinctions or no; whether all things are, according to
him, only distinguished in thought. To this question no
answer is given in any of the debates aud essays which we
have had the occasion to Bee.
It is only now that our work begins seriously, by re
futing Mr. Bradlaugh’s system. Until this moment we
have but stated his objections and theories, and though we
promised to stand by the logic of common sense, we evi
dently did not intend meaning that such logic should
extend to our opponent. As has already been seen, Mr.
Bradlaugh brings forward some deeply metaphysical ob
jections, and his system is built upon the most metaphysical
of all ideas,—existence. We have, of course, to follow
him wherever he goes, but even in the deepest and most
entangled metaphysical problems we shall ever try to keep
an eye upon common sense.
Waiving for the present a direct answer to the objec
tions accumulated by the adversary of Theism, we think
�12
TBERE IS A GOD.
proper first of all to examine his own system. Even if his
objections were unanswerable, it would Dot follow that
his system is certain. Of his objections, not a single one
is completely new ; some,—for instance, the one against
creation,—dates as far back as Aristotle, a philosopher
well known to be by no means an A theist.* These objec
tions therefore might, if unanswerable, prove the eternity
of matter, a dual principle, positive pantheism, transcen
dentalism, or even Atheism of some sort; but they would
not necessarily prove Mr. Bradlaugh’s Atheism.
Mr. Bradlaugh argues that his own pxistence is not
created; and, according to him, the same may be said of all
existence. But why ? Because creation is the action of
one existence upon another, different from it,—which is
absurd. If Mr. Bradlaugh sees very clearly the absurdity
of one thing acting upon another, different from it, so
much the better for him. For our part, we do believe,—
and shall continue so to do until further notice,—that the
hammer of the smith is different from the inass of red-hot
iron drawn out of the forge, and that the difference in
question does not hinder it from acting on the said mass of
metal. We believe that two prize-fighters are not identi
cally one and the same being, and yet they act upon one
another very forcibly. In our humble opinion, confirmed
by these facts and many others, two different beings can
act upon each other.
Let us, however, examine the axioms brought forward to
sustain the system. What has nothing in common with
another has no relation with it. If you mean by “ having
in common,” to be identically the same, we should think
that nothing has anything in common with another by the
very fact that it is something else. Two drops of dew,
two blades of grass, suppose them as like as you will ; or
take, if you like better, two atoms of exactly the same size,
form, and intensity and direction of movement. We have
said, the same size, and we can say so in one point of view,
* We will, however, give Mr. Bradlaugh credit for having found
these objections out “all by his own self.” Otherwise, how could he *
not be aware that they have all been answered a thousand times, from
the days of Tertulliuu to those of Leibnitz and of Clarke ?
�THERE 19 A GOD.
13
for in our mind the size is the same ; but the expression is
no longer exact if we apply it to the reality t hat exists.
Each has its own size ; that size happens exactly to resem
ble the size of the other; but the quality, though perfectly
alike, is not identically the same. If therelore you take
things in that light, your axiom proves far too much. No
two things have anything in common in that sense; conse
quently, according to you, no two things can act upon
each other, or have any relation with each other. Causes
are no more, effects exist no longer, and ail relations
vanish away.
If, on the contrary, you take the word, “to have in
common,” to mean the possession of something that, al
though not really and identically the same in both, is
exactly alike, owing to a fundamental similitude in both
natures, then indeed we must admit the axiom. The
hammer, were it not as solid as the iron, and more so,
would not be able to act upon it; its action therefore
depends on the mutual solidity of both, one, however,
being greater than the other. A lady could hardly act
upon a prize fighter in the boxing way, because they have
little in common to render a contest possible. If Mr.
Bradlaugh takes it in this manner we admit the axiom.
But now let us see how it works. Is it true that one
existence is either totally identical with another, or so
distinct, so different, as to have nothing alike,* having
either everything in common, or nothing in common,
without a medium ? In the first signification of the word
this might be true; one existence is completely and
totally different from another, for the very reason that it
is another. Every particular and individual thing exists in
a way that excludes participation with any other, whatever
it may be. If A is A, and B is B, then A is by no means
and in no wise B, and B is by no means and by no wise A.
This is not metaphysics ; it is mere common sense. Ask
the simplest-minded boor whether he be auy thing else but
* It is so in Mr. Bradlaugh’s system, for by existence he understands
whatever exists ; there can therefore be but one. But we are now
attacking the demonstration of his system, to defend which he has no
right to suppose the conclusion as already demonstrated.
�14
THERE IS A GOD.
himself: the answer would soon be made, and unhesi
tatingly. Yes, this is true ; but in this souse the axiom,
we have already seen, is false. Because I am not anybody
else, it does not follow that I have no relation with any
body else.
It is only true in the second sense: things which have
nothing in common, {i e., nothing alike in their nature,)
can have no relation with each other. Well, precisely iu
this sense it is monstrously untrue to say that two exist
ences have either everything in common or nothing iu
common. They can have, as everybody is aware, like
qualities, and even like essences. All men possess intelli
gence to a certain degree, and by means of this intelligence
they can act upon each other. Stones are not intelligent,
and precisely from this point of view men cannot act upon
stones, nor stones on men. But both have in common that
they are solid bodies, capable of movement; as such they
can and do act reciprocally. So we see that in the grand
argument by which Mr. Bradlaugh proves his own exist
ence to be uncaused and eternal, if we admit one part we
must deny the other, unless, as we pass from the former to
the latter, we change the sense of the words.
Now, by changing the sense of words we may prove a
great many things as we go along, to the entire satis
faction of weak-minded people and idiots. For instance—
Puss is a cat;
A cat is a whip ;
A whip is a member of parliament;
A member is a limb ;
A limb is a part of the body;
Therefore Puss is a part of the body.
But, it will be said, this is manifest nonsense that any
body can see through, and if Mr. Bradlaugh’s argument
resembled this one you would not want to write against it.
We should certainly not want to write against it if
everybody was as familiar with the two senses of the words
“ in common " as with the two senses of the words cat,
whip, member. Unfortunately it is not so. Words are
often employed without attention to their precise sense,
and if there are two different senses, of which the difference
�THERE 18 A GOD,
15
does not seem great, the difference is often overlooked.
This may be allowed in ordinary conversation, not in
philosophical debate. A few grains weight, more or less,
matters little at the grocer’s; at the druggist’s the same
difference in quantity may matter a good deal. And the
drugs furnished by the latter, though sufficiently pure for
medical purposes, may be rightly considered by the
analytical chemist as miserably impure. Between Mr.
Bradlaugh’s argument and the ridiculous string of non
sense quoted above, the difference is in the matter only,
not in the manner.
However, let us for the present say no more of the
reasoning in question, and scrutinize with a little closer
attention the system which it is intended to uphold. Ac
cording to Mr. Bradlaugh, the words “matter,” “uni
verse,” and “ existence,” are synonymous. The whole
universe is one great uncaused being. Of that being, each
phenomenon is but a separate condition. Every man, for
instance, exists, i.e., possesses existence, but existence is
identically the same in all. Possessing existence, he is a
being, and yet there is but one being,—the universe. To
explain matters yet more clearly, a stone, a tree, a dog,
and a man, are all the same being, but in a different way.
Here you have the being existing stonily, there arborescently, further on doggedly, and humanly at last. It
weighs in the stone, grows in the tree, barks in the dog,
and thinks in the man. Stone, tree, dog, and man are all
outward appearances, nothing more, somewhat in the same
way (we imagine) that a single drop of dew or prism of
crystal can be seen red, blue, yellow, or green at the same
time by different spectators. Whether the theory be
poetical or no we shall not attempt to decide; as our
opinion is decidedly that “ truth alone is beautiful,”
“Bien n’est beau que le vrai...... ”
we shall only examine whether it be true.
And firstly, let us remark the unpleasant fact that this
theory sets Mr. Bradlaugh by the ears with nearly all
mankind. We do not speak only of the more intelligent
part of men, deeply read in science and in philosophy.
�16
THERE TS A GOD.
We do not even allude to the class of ordinary intelli
gence ; we take the very lowest class of all, and appeal to
those whose uncultured stolidity brings them almost to
the verge of idiocy itself. To them we would say: “A
very intelligent gentleman is of opinion that whatever he,
you, anybody, or anything else may be, we are not several
beings, but only one ; that if you see any difference be
tween yourselves and the clods of earth which surround,
you, it is a mistake to think there is any difference in
reality, it only appears so. Whatever exists in you is
absolutely the same as what exists in the clods of earth ;
you seem to be different, and that is all.” What would
their answer be ? We need not anticipate it.
The system is not only contrary to the universal con
viction, but also to the senses, i.e., to those organs which
set us in communication with the external world. Mr.
Bradlaugh,'having brought forward his one existence, or
oDe being, must necessarily admit that nothing else exists
besides it. Well then, what are the phenomena which we
see going on before our eyes? Are they beings ? No, of
course. Are they one Being? My senses tell me they
are not. I see the balloon ascend and the stone fall. Can
one and the same being receive at the same time two con
trary movements?
Why, even a mathematical point
cannot be imagined thus, much less a real being. Will
you say that these phenomena, modes, conditions,—or
whatever you may call them,—are not really distinct
appearances of the Being, but only Actively so, only seemings of which all the difference proceeds from our own
thought, and has no foundation in the world that is? But
it is impossible for us, when we feel cold or heat, to think
that cold and heat have no foundation but in our thoughts.
If your doctrine of Atheism denies the real difference of
phenomena, we should, to follow it, have to make first of
all a blind act of faith, not in the veracity, but in the
absolute mendacity of our senses. All becomes a dream,
and you cannot expect any reasonable man to admit that.
If, on the contrary, you admit their real difference, your
theory is doomed ; for when I see the balloon and the
stone, and think that they are the same being possessed
�THERE IS A GOD.
17
with contrary movements, I think an absurdity. You
might have escaped this result, if you had anywhere said
that the phenomena in question, which we call substances,
are parts of the same great being. But you nowhere em
ploy that expression ; and rightly, from your point of view;
for to break up one existence into innumerable parts would
be the ruin of your doctrine.
If we turn to the faculty of self-consciousness, we find
other and perhaps greater difficulties still. “ Doubt as I
may,”* says Mr. Bradlaugh, “I cannot doubt of my own
existence.” But seif-consciousness, by the very same act
by which it reveals our existence to us, reveals it as some
thing limited, individual, clearly distinct from all that is
not ourself. In Mr. Bradlaugh’s system our existence is
not different from all existence, and is therefore infinite,
universal, mingling confusedly both us and all other
phenomena together in one great whole. Now the ques
tion is, whether conscience lies, in revealing our existence
to ourselves as it does. If it does not lie, Mr. Bradlaugh’s
system is overthrown ; for either conditioned existence is
the same as existence in itself, or it is not. If it is the
same, it cannot lose all the qualities of existence, merely
by being conditioned. If it is not the same, we may beg
to remark that all existence is conditioned, and that there
fore the one existence, infinite, eternal, indistinctly the
same in all and under all phenomena, is nothing else but
a myth, a creature of imagination. But let us suppose
that Mr. Bradlaugh prefers saying that self-consciousness
is wrong ; that existence is the same in all, but that it
seems—only seems—to self-consciousness to be distinct
from all. The reply comes immediately : “ As the very
same act gives you the knowledge of your existence, and
of the manner of your existence, you cannot separate the
one from the other; you cannot doubt of the manner iu
which you really exist, without doubting of your very exist
ence. You cannot impugn a document that tells against
you, without also attacking the favourable clauses it con
tains. You cannot take down the sail that carries you
where you do not wish to go, without being abandoned to
• Discussion with Dr. Baylee, p. 41,
2
�18
THERE IS A GOD.
the mercy of the waves.” Self-consciousness is the faculty
that tells us what we feel, and in what way we feel it. If
I deny that in doing so it expresses the truth, if I am not
as I feel that I ain, it might as well be that I am not,
although Ifeel that I am. Mr. Bradlaugh has, we believe,
no way of escape from these difficulties, unless indeed he
should affirm that his self-consciousness tells him his
existence is infinite, eternal, and universal; or, at least,
that it gives him no information whatever about it. This
would evidently close the discussion under that head.
Another fact at least as unpleasant is, that Mr. Brad
laugh’s system is the negation of all arithmetic. We
should have been less inclined to note this disagreement, if
our adversary did not continually point out and exaggerate
the contradictions he finds, (or thinks he finds,) between
arithmetic and the different sorts of Theism. He even
makes merry about them, and needs, though at the cost of
spoiling his mirth, to be reminded that those who live in
glass houses should be careful about throwing stones.
Addition is the foundation of all arithmetic, and Mr.
Bradlaugh’s system is contrary to addition. Every school
boy that knows how to read knows that one and one are
two, and one are three, etc. Let us take any object, A
for instance. A exists, or is, i.e., A is being (according to
logic). . But what being is A? Is it all being, or only
some being? It all being, then necessarily nothing can be
added to it. But we can say the same of B, C, D, or any
other object of thought of which being can be predicated
in the same way. Then all together, instead of making up
several beings, (though each is everything!) only make one,
and there is an end of addition. If A is one, (by which unit
we designate all being,) and B is one, then A added to B
ought to make two ; and they only make one. But let us
fancy that the other alternative is taken ; each is only some
being. Then again, if A is distinct from B, A is some
being, B is some other being, and both together, (each
separately being one,) form two beings. But no, that
cannot be ; A is distinct from B, but neither is distinct
from being; and as there is only one, the being A, added to
the being B, cannot form more than one. You can add
�THERE IS A GOD.
19
np phenomena as much as you like, you will never come to
more than an addition of phenomena. Jones exists, there
fore Jones is a being; Smith exists, therefore Smith is a
being ; Brown exists, therefore Brown is a being. But
are Smith, Brown, and Jones, taken together, three beings?
Not in the least ; they are only one being and three
phenomena. Not having had the opportunity of putting
these difficulties to Mr. Bradlaugh himself, we naturally
try to find the most reasonable reply he could make. He
might, it is true, avoid the difficulty to a certain extent, by
saying that one can exist without being ; that he can with
perfect truth say at the same time, “ I exist, and I am not
a being.” But this would only open the way to other and
greater objections ; besides, we should be sorry to load
with unnecessary absurdities a system so heavily laden
already.
By a process resembling that already followed, it might
easily be shown that the system contradicts the ruleB of
subtraction, multiplication, and division; but the proof is
the same, and repetition would be tedious. Should Mr.
Bradlaugh try to escape by saying that his system allows
the counting up of phenomena, and operating upon them
as if they were beings, the terrible question always returns,
Are these phenomena really distinct from each other and
among themselves, or are they but phantoms of the brain ?
If the distinction is real, then there is in them something
real on which the real distinction is founded, and that
something, distinct in each, exists separately from the one
existence mentioned, which is contrary to monism.* If
not, these phenomena are only a succession of seemings, all
false, and to which no reality belongs. Four are not really
* For if one thing exists separately from another, there must be a
sufficient reason for the separation ; and as there is nothing in the
“existing” which is not in “existence” (its intrinsic principle), we
must seek the sufficient reason in “existence” itself. If, therefore,
two phenomena are separate from each other, that quality, “ separate”
must be found in their existence also. Thus their existence is
separate in each. But what is separate is not one, but many, in so
far as it is separate; so, at least under one point of view, there
would be many existences. This is so far contrary to monism ; for
it would be absurd to suppose that many existences could at the same
time be only one, under the same point of view, i. e. as individuals.
�20
THERE IS A GOD.
more than two, but only appear so, like four quantities
added together, all equal to zero. If there is nothing
distinctly real in phenomena, a farthing and a million
sterling only seem to be different, but are not so. A
farthing is existence conditioned in a certain phenomenal
way. A million sterling is the very same existence con
ditioned in the very same way, which way (not which
existence) is repeated 960,000,000 times; but this way
is only an appearance, and so its repetition makes no
difference whatever on the total amount. We doubt, how
ever, whether capitalists, (solvable ones at least,) would be
willing to adopt this very original manner of considering
money.
Finally, all science is destroyed by the system in ques
tion. Either the one existence is distinct from the pheno
mena, or no. If distinct, the phenomena exist apart, and
there are more existences than one. If not, each pheno
menon is existence it self, only modified by the mind:
infinite in itself, rendered finite by our mind ; eternal in
its nature, but mentally circumscribed by time. All that
our mind tells us of these phenomena, eveu with indubit
able evidence, is false, totally false. All that we can learn
of the sun, the stars, the earth, is absolutely untrue.
History, geography, chemistry, physics, all give way, all
are useless pursuits of knowledge. All that is, we know
already ; why should we strive to ascertain that which
only seems ?
We should much regret any unintentional unfairness to
Mr. Bradlaugh as to the exact understanding of his sys
tem ; but even if we had misunderstood him, it would not
be our fault. Our opponent, in all his essays and debates,
keeps to offensive warfare for the most part, and is much
more occupied in at tacking other systems than in stating
his own. A few pages contain all that he says in its favour ;
he does not even appear to dream that anything can be
said against it, and supposes that, with all its consequences,
it will be taken for granted. That we feel some degree of
hesitation in taking it thus will perhaps be understood,
after the perusal of the defects we think we perceive
therein. But Mr. Bradlaugh is very clever, and may be
�THERE IS A GOD.
21
able still to show us that all is right; that existence and
phenomena are identical, though different; that the
addition of several beings to each other only forms one,
although they are many ; and that, while we cannot doubt
of our existence, because we are aware of it, we can still
doubt whether we exist in the manner of which we are
aware. And yet, even though Mr. Bradlaugh should
prove these wondrous things, we submit, that it is hardly
worth while to leave the mysteries of Theism for others
darker still, whether or no there be a direct demonstration
of the existence of a Deity.
Of such existence, however, there are demonstrations,
and in great ’number, some of which we now desire to
bring forward, after having made a few preliminary re
marks concerning one of Mr. Bradlaugh’s assertions.
He complains that the greatest difficulty in a discussion
is to know what is meant by the word “ God ;” because, if
we do not agree about the sense of the word, we shall not
even know what we are disputing about; and to prove
that different meanings are given to the word, he shows
that Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, Arians, Trinitarian Pro
testants, and Catholics, have different views of the attri
butes of God. To this it will be sufficient to reply that all
have the same definition of the u-ord, but a different one
of the Being that the word is intended to name. The
starting point is the same for all ; but, the directions taken,
being various, the goals at which they arrive are various
too. But what can it matter about the goal, if the starting
point is identical for all ? Wherever false systems or
gross ignorance have come to wrong conclusions about
anything, we have the same confusion as to consequent
reasonings upon primitive ideas. Would it not be ridicu
lously absurd for anybody to pretend that we do not
know what is meant by the word “Man”? And yet we
can say that Plato defines him to be “ a two-legged animal
without wings or feathers;” that Aristotle calls him, “a
reasonable animal;” that de Bonald says he is “an intelli
gence served by organs;” that the Christian philosophers
of the middle ages affirm him to be “ an immortal spirit,
substantially united to a mortal body;” that modern
�22
THERE IS A GOD.
naturalists give him the title of “a bimanous mammal-”
and that the negroes of the Gabon coast confound him
with the gorilla, whom they call “ the stupid old man."
Now, from all these expressions, representing widely
different ideas, we might, by the same process of reasoning
that Mr. Bradlaugh uses, gather that nobody really knows
what is meant by the word man.
We^ therefore start from a mere verbal definition of the
word “God,” and afterwards prove that a Being answering
to the sense of the definition really and positively exists.
1 hat is all we intend to do, and we wish it to be understood
at the very outset. Were we to go farther our essay
would become a theological treatise, which We do not wish
it to be. At the bare fact of God’s existence, once proved,
we stop short, admitting of course implicitly all those of
His attributes which may be by argument deduced from
that fact, but not attempting to prove them. Should Mr.
Bradlaugh therefore condescend to examine our demon
strations, let him take the definitions as we give them ;
for as we are to bring forward several demonstrations, so
several definitions shall also be given.
lhe apparent difference of definitions by no means
interferes with the sense of the word itself; only we shall
adnnt that from some it is not possible to draw the idea of
a God infinite in being; but that is of no consequence, if
we can deduce the idea from other definitions. We shall
therefore draw up two series: of adequate definitions and
of inadequate ones. Mr. Bradlaugh will of course not
mn to observe that such proofs as do not demonstrate a
God infinite in being do not demonstrate what is required.
We reply that they prove the existence of a being ausweryig to the definition ; if they do not demonstrate Him to
be infinite, others do; it suffices that they do not prove
Him to be finite. Should our adversary again take excep
tion to our defining the sense of one word in two different
wavs, we can refer him to a well-known example in
geometry. Euclid defines a line as “length without
breadth,^and Legendrecalls it, “the intersection of two
surfaces.
Both define the same word in the same sense
perfectly well, but from different points of view. Differ-
�THERE 13 A GOD.
23
ently worded definitions do not therefore argue different
significations, but different manners of expressing those
significations.
We must also allow that none of our demonstrations
prove immediately, and without the help of farther reason
ing, the unity of God. But they prove that there is
at least One. It is only afterwards that the impossibility
of several Gods appears. This remark applies to some of
Mr. Bradlaugh’s complaints. He would wish for an argu
ment that proved immediately the existence of one, infinite,
eternal, omniscient, immeasurable, all-good Creator. If
such a proof were possible, on its being brought forward
he would doubtless complain again, and insist that it be
given him in one single argument and were it to be thus
given, he would find it still too long. Let him carry this
system of cavilling into the domains of other sciences, and
ask, for instance, why chemical nomenclature and notation
throw no light upon the phenomena of the viscous fermen
tation, or why the Pons' Asinorum is unable to prove that
a sphere is equal to the two-thirds of the circumscribed
cylinder. The answer from both chemist and geometrician
would be, “ Have patience, my friend, we shall come to
that in good time.” Il time is allowed to the geometrician
and the chemist, should it be refused to the theologian ?
Adequate Definitions.—I. By the word “ God,” I
mean the principle of all existence. II. By that word I
mean the priuciple of all possibility. III. By that word I
mean a Being, (or beings, if there be more than one,) to
whom there is none superior. IV. By that word I mean
a Being answering to the idea we have of the Infinite, i.e.,
perfection without end.
Inadequate Definitions.—I. The principle of all
change and variation. II. The principle of all movement.
III. The author of all moral obligation.
First Proof.—All existence must have an existing
principle. Now, this priuciple I call God. (I. Det.)
Therefore God exists.
All existence must have an existing principle. By “ prin
ciple,” I mean a sufficient reason for its existence. Now,
�24
THERE IS A GOD.
evidently nothing can exist without there being a sufficient
reason for its existing.
Existing. If the principle were only ideal and imaginary,
it could not be a sufficient reason for that which exists.
In this proof we have not demonstrated that God is
separate from the universe; so, if this demonstration were
taken apart, Mr. Bradlaugh might say that his views
coincided w'ith our own, that lie admits existence to be its
own principle, that therefore existence is God, or that all
is God.
But we object to the demonstration being taken apart
from the refutation of Mr. Bradlaugh’s theorv ; having
amply shown that the theory of one existence only is ab
surd, we cannot admit that Mr. Bradlaugh quite agrees with
us. True, he might still plead that even if there be many
existences, each of them may be self-existent, or containing
in itself the principle of its being, and that there might
thus be as many gods as there are atoms. We reply,
firstly, that if that were the case, the strength of our
argument would be in no wise diminished. If it pleases
anybody to say that every atom is a God, he may do so
(until proved to be absurd); but he has not the right to
say there is none. We may also answer that the idea of
an atom having in itself the principle of its existence is
contrary to common sense. If it were self-existent, it
would be necessary; if necessary, the supposition that it
might not have existed is absurd ; and yet who would have
missed it? It is only a contingent, not a necessary part
of the universe. Besides, the principle that gives exist
ence, gives all perfection, since existence is the fountain
of perfection. If our atom possessed that fountain in
itself, it would be infinite in all things, for nothing could
bound it except itself, and nothing can limit itself. In
finite therefore in all things, in dimensions, in activity, in
beauty, and at the same time being only an atom, it would
be in all a most elementary and imperfect being. Now,
if anybody was to tell us that all the water of the ocean
was contained in a dew-drop, we should very naturally ask,
How is the dew-drop so little ? And if we see a poor man
who gets by his work only just enough to live, and no
�THERE IS A GOD.
$
,
25
more, and are told that he has an unlimited credit at the
banker’s, the question arises, Why is he not better off?
only in the latter case the answer might be, Because he
does not choose to be so ; whereas a being that is its own
principle can by no means change its nature, and choose
to be otherwise. A man cannot by a wish become a stone:
whatever is essential is necessary.
But this again is a digression. We do not mean to
attack Polytheism now ; we do not mean even to attack
Pantheism. We prefer, if agreeable to all parties, doing
one thing at a time: and, as Mr. Bradlaugh calls himself an
Atheist because he denies all definitions of God, we defy
him to deny this definition, or attack this demonstration.
Second Proof.—Whatever is possible must have an
existing and intelligent principle. Now, that principle I
call God. (II. Def.) Therefore God exists.
We must subjoin to this argument a few words of ex
planation. “Whatever is possible,” means only whatever
is not absurd, i.e., whatever is simply and absolutely true
without reference to time or place. Thus the multiplica
tion table, though invented by Pythagoras, contains a
series of truths which were only discovered by him, and
which were true as independently of him as they are of
the things to which they are applied. Were there not two
calculable beings in the world, still two and two would
make four. In the same manner they are independent of
human reason, that only perceives, but does not makei
them. Were all mankind to go mad, and no longer to
admit that two and two are four, it would be none the less
true for their denial. What is there in that truth ? A
simple possibility, a mere intelligibility, expressed by a
formula independent both of existence and of man.
Now we say that whatever is possible must have an
existing principle, and to prove it we return to the defini
tion of a principle, i.e., a sufficient reason. Would a pos
sible being be the sufficient reason of what is possible?
No ; for nothing would ever have been possible if nothing
had existed. Possibility therefore depends on a certain
existence ; not mine, nor yours, nor any existence which
we know to be subject to change and mutability. Now,
�26
THERE IS A GOD.
the something on which possibility depends is called its
principle, and we call that principle God.
Nextly, we affirm that the principle in question must be
intelligent; not as men are said to be intelligent, since we
have seen that the intelligibility and consequent truth
of things possible has nothing whatever to do with man,
and is completely independent of him. But, knowing
them to be intelligible since all eternity, we ask, Can
anything be eternally intelligible without there being
something eternally intelligent I Fancy for an instant
that intelligence disappears totally from the universe ;
nothing is intelligible any longer. The difference between
the absurd and the non-absurd,—-consisting only in the
contradiction of characteristics, which contradiction cannot
subsist without intelligence,—ceases at once. Now, if
Mr. Bradlaugh does not hesitate to affirm that there is no
difference between what is absurd aud what is not, we
shall not trouble him any longer with our affirmation of
an eternal intelligence; but until he shall make that
declaration we are free to maintain that all eternal,
immutable, and necessary truths depend (to be what they
are) on an eternal, immutable, necessary, and intelligent
existing principle; and this principle we call God.
As already stated, we do not by this argument intend to
prove the unity of God, since that is quite out of the
question for the present. Plato was, if we mistake not,
the first who employed this manner of reasoning, and he
argued thence the existence of ideal forms, unchangeable,
necessary, and eternal. If by “ideal forms” he meant
beings existing separately, these “forms” were so many
gods, and his philosophy ended in Polytheism. However,
though this conclusion might have been false, the argu
ment, as we have stated it, is true, and the number of
gods is, we repeat, only a secondary question. If Mr.
Bradlaugh is struck by its efficacy, he is by no means likely
to fall into the error of Plato ; not being very partial to
the idea of God, one God is probably the most he can
admit, and if he does, we shall ask him no more.
Third Proof.—There exists at least one Being to
�THERE IS A GOD.
,
27
whom none is superior. Now, that Being to whom none
is superior I call God. (Def. III.) Therefore God exists.
It is impossible for Mr. Bradlaugh to take exception,
even in his system, to such an argument; as he admits
only one being, no others can be superior to it, and there
fore his one being is God. But we have already proved
the absurdity of supposing that there is only one being in
the world. There being therefore several, we proceed to
prove our argument from this starting point.
We first of all take for granted, as a fact known by all
who are in their senses, that there is a difference in the
perfection of some beings. We think it not at all hard to
be obliged to admit that Hamlet is superior to Caliban,
that the elephant is something more than the oyster, and
the palm-tree than the blade of grass.
If this be granted, common sense will at once see that
in the series of all beings, some being above others, there
must be some, (or, still more probably, one.) that are
the highest of all, i.e., to whom none is superior : for the
number of existing beings cannot possibly be infinite, and
therefore must be terminated at both ends if we ran»e
them by order of perfection. Anybody can see that no
number can be infinite if he reflects that it would be the
greatest of all numbers possible. Let us suppose that
a hundred quintillions be called infinite; then what would
be a hundred quintillions plus one? And how can any
number be innumerable ?
To those who prefer a more mathematical demonstration
we can give one such. Let x represent the whole number
of beings, ranged by order of perfection, and let us take at
random any part of the more perfect beings: x* will
represent the more perfect part, x" the less perfect. But
among the beings represented by xi, are all equal in per
fection or no ? If all are equal, then we have already the
leing (or beings) to whom none is superior, and the problem
is solved. It not, then by a similar process we find x™
aud xlv; xM representing the more perfect part of the
beings represented by x*. Aud as the number each time
diminishes regularly by at least one unit, it is evident that
we must in time solve the problem, simply by repeating
�28
THERE IS A GOD.
our mode of reasoning often enough. And whether we
come at last to one being who is above all others, or
to several equal to each other, and to which no others are
equal, the question is henceforward, not between Atheism
and Theism, not between Pantheism and the doctrine
which it contradicts, but between Polytheism and Mono
theism. With a Polytheist we should now be willing to
open the debate ; but Mr. Bradlaugh could hardly be con
sidered as such, and so we avoid entering into useless
details.
Fourth Proof.—An absolutely Infinite Being, taken
as we conceive it in our minds, must be either absurd, or
merely possible, or really existing. Now, it is neither
absurd nor merely possible. Therefore it exists, and
therefore (acc. to Def. IV.) God exists,*
We take for granted, first of all, that we possess the
idea of an Infinite Being, i.e., whose perfection is ab
solutely without limit in every way. Secondly, that this
idea is a real idea, i.e., an intellectual representation of an
object. To these two postulata self-consciousness must
bear testimony.
This being settled, we proceed to notice that the Infinite
cannot be absurd if we have a real idea of it. Of a thing
absurd we cannot properly have an idea; as, of a round
square, we have two ideas, the idea of round, the idea of
square; and, if we see that it is absurd, we have, besides,
t he idea of conflict between the two thus brought together.
But not only we have not any idea of conflict when we
say: perfection without end, i e., perfection without imper
fection, or (what comes to the same) being without nonbeing; not only we do not seize the conflict, but the two
intelligible notes of the idea are blended together in one;
that is, we have of the Infinite a true idea. We think
that this fact will be evident to any one who takes the
trouble to examine his thoughts as they occur to him in
* Many, we know, justly criticize the argument a priori for God’s
existence, in which one proves a fact from simple possibilities, and
passes thus from the ideal to the real order of things. But our argu
ment is only exteriorly like the one we allude to. It argues from a fact
to a fact: from the fact of our having the idea of the Infinite, to the
existeuce which this idea implicity includes.
�THERE IS A GOD.
29
' the mind’s laboratory: and so, the Infinite cannot be
absurd.
Still less can the Infinite be a merely possible being.
Non-existence is a very great limitation, a very con
siderable non-entity, and, though not the strongest
possible, yet still a strong negation of being. “ A living
dog is better than a dead lion,” says the proverb ; and
there is no doubt that a merely possible man is incom
parably less perfect than an existing grain of sand. Now
we have already said that our idea of an Infinite Being,
not absurd, supposes Him to have all imaginable per
fections, absolutely without limit. Therefore, if the
Infinite Being were merely possible He would be ab
solutely perfect and at the same time very imperfect,
which is inadmissible. Therefore, in the idea we have of
the Infinite, we must comprise that of real existence,
much in the same way as in the word “I” we comprehend
the idea of our own existence.
Therefore, God exists.
One objection to all the preceding demonstrations has
been perhaps already made by the reader. Setting aside
the possibility of Polytheism, and supposing each demon
stration to prove the existence of a single being, it follows
that we have:
1st. The Being who is the principle of all existence.
2nd. The Being who is the principle of all possibility.
3rd. The Being to whom none is superior.
4ih. The Being whose perfection is infinite.
Assuming tor an instant that these are different beings,
* each very great in his way, but not one and the same,
which of them are we to call God ? And, as long as it is
not proved that they are one and the same, we have the
right, as we please, either to call each of them God, or to
withhold the name from all.
The answer is that, according to our definitions, we
cannot withhold the name, if the Being answering to the
name be proved to exist. We are consequently at liberty
either to consider God as one being, or as four, so long as
it is not proved that these four are one: that the principle
of all existence is also that of all possibility, has no
�30
THERE IS A GOD.
superior, and is infinite. But, once more, and for the last
time, the question of God’s existence is quite different
from that of the numerical unity of the Divine essence.
We must now rapidly set forth a few proofs which by
themselves would not demonstrate the existence of God,
according to all the plenitude of the idea, but which
nevertheless are useful, if employed together with the
proofs already given : what may be wanting to these in
depth will be supplied to them by the former; and on the
other hand, the latter will perhaps be more perspicuous to
certain minds. However, we only use these arguments as
secondary and auxiliary ones, knowing that against some
of them many objections may be raised; they are thus only
stated for the sake of fuller illustration of the subject,
and because we consider the existence of God as a fact
already settled by the four proofs just laid down.*
“ God,” has been previously defined as “the principle of
all change.” By “change,” we understand the passage
from one state to another, by which a beiȣ, having before
existed in one manner, exists afterwards differently. Now,
nothing can change itself alone, without any intervening
cause whatever. Cold water, for instance, is not warm,
and will never become warm of itself; if, therefore, we find
that it has become warm, we naturally conclude that
something external has acted upon it, whether as a pro
ductive or as an occasioning cause. In cold water there
is only the possibility of warmth, not actual warmth ; and
if this mere possibility were left to itself, the water would
doubtless remain eternally cold. In general, nothing can
give itself what it has not; unless, indeed, we admit that *
it is possible to draw money out of an empty purse.
Something external must act upon the water, in order
to change its state. This external agent is subject to the
question: In acting upon the water does it change? does
* Some will be surprised to find that neither in the preceding nor in
the following proofs, any mention is made of the well-known argument
drawn from the order of the universe, that denotes a supreme Intelli
gence. The reason is that the proof, though good, has been so much
impugned in the very principles on which it is based, by the modern
school of Positivists, that it would take too much space to establish
properly here.
�THERE IS A GOD.
31
it pass from the inactive to the active state? If it acts
without change then it is a principle, and as such comes
under the denomination of God. If it changes, then some
other external agent determines the change, which agent
is itself liable to the same enquiry. Now this question
may recur again and again ; but still we must come to an
end at last. An infinite Beries of agents is absurd,
because all such series must be so ■ and even were it not
absurd in itself, it could not be admissible here. If you
construct in imagination an infinite series of agents, you
destroy the very principle of change; for you put it
nowhere. Each particular agent is but the transmitter
(so to speak) or conductor, not the real principle of
change; and if you tell me that change has no beginning,
no origin, you may as well tell that you have received a
letter that had passed through an infinite series of postal
stations, without having been sent off by anybody. An agent
which only produces change by changing itself, is nothing
else but a medium of transmission, not a principle, and, as
all change supposes some degree of activity or actuation,
when I see that activity or actuation I have the right to
inquire whence it proceeds. If my researches lead me
higher and higher, farther and farther, to a First Prin
ciple of mutation, which must exist if mutation exists, I
call this principle God, and affirm its existence. If you
say that there is no first principle of mutation, you deny
that there is any principle, and according to you, that
most universal phenomenon has no sufficient reason for
being what it is.
Another definition describes God as the principle of all
movement. Inertia is the first mechanical law of matter.
And yet matter moves. You will say : It moves because
it is moved by other matter; one ball pushes another for
ward and is itself urged on by a third. Yes: but who
gave the impulsion to the third ? You reply : We do not
know how movement came into the world ; but in the
world it is, and the universe is so fortunately arranged
that no movement is ever lost, but passes on from one
body to another, and so on ; until at last it returns to the
�32
THERE TS A GOD.
place whence it came. By that means we can very well
do without the notion of a First Mover.
You can, can you ? Whether that may be true philo
sophically speaking we do not know; we prefer submitting
your hypothesis to the test—the terribly severe test—of
common sense.
Take an uneducated countryman, as ignorant, as likely
to be imposed upon as you can possibly imagine one.
Show him a circular railroad, of, say a mile, in circum
ference. The whole of this railroad is crowded with
carriages, which form, so to speak, a circular train. There
is no engine, no locomotive; and yet the train moves on ;
one carriage touches another, and communicates the move
ment which it has itself received. Then tell the man that
nobody has set all these in movement; that the carriages
move each other, and that thus the whole moves on ; that
t he idea of a first mover is a totally useless supposition, and
that, since every part moves each other, the whole can be
considered as self-moving. It is very much to be doubted
whether he would take you in earnest; and he would
certainly be right not to do so. And yet there are philo
sophers who claim to be in earnest, and wish us to believe
the great movement of the universe (of which almost every
material part—indeed every material part taken as such—
is quite as inert as any railway carriage) to proceed from
itself, and pass ou from one portion of matter to another,
without having to refer to any First Principle of Move
ment whatever.* Why should that which is absurd and
nonsensical on a small scale, become reasonable and
philosophical on a large one? For our own part, we see
in such a system nothing but magnified absurdity and
gigantic nonsense.
By a third definition, God is called the Author of moral
obligation. We do not, absolutely speaking, allow this
* Mr. Bradlaugh seeks to elude the difficulty by defining the uni
verse as “all that is necessary for the production of every pheno
menon.” He might as well define the train in question as “the
carriages in movement, and all that is necessary to set them in move
ment.” He would thus, by a confusion of terms, be able to say that
the train moves itself, since he therein comprises the mover. But thia
is mere shuffling.
�THERE IS A GOD.
33
proof to be a good one; for we can only deduce the idea
of moral obligation from that of the existence of God : it
would consequently be a vicious circle to prove the exis
tence of God by moral obligation. However, for those
who do admit the existence of moral obligation, the proof
is valid, and runs thus:
Certain acts we know to be wrong, and therefore for
bidden. Now, what is “to forbid?” Is it merely the
promulgation of a consequence: If you act thus, you will
suffer thus? Murder, for instance. “If you commit
murder and are caught, you will be hanged; and even if
you are not caught, you will have to suffer from fears of
the law, and sorrow for having destroyed a member of the
human race.” Is that all ? Then let us suppose that
from a murder committed no evil consequences should
arise in this world: that it is impossible for the action to
be detected, and equally impossible for any sorrow to arise,
the man killed having been the object of the most deadly
hatred on the part of the murderer. Well ; would murder
in this case still be forbidden? Of course it would, all
reply. But then, by whom could it be forbidden ? By
society? Society can go no further than impose a penalty ;
and, if this penalty be eluded, society’s prohibition is vain.
By the murderer’s own nature? But the murderer’s own
nature has prompted him to do deliberately what he has
done; he has not acted under the impulse of passion, but
with cold-blooded craft. How can nature forbid that
which she herself does? You will say that human nature
recoils from murder. So it does in general; but human
nature taken in general is but an abstraction, and an ab
straction cannot forbid a real concrete being. This human
nature at least, i.e.t the murderer’s, has not recoiled, since
it has acted. Now, if man be responsible to none but to
his own nature, his nature will absolve him in each par
ticular case of crime which it has not hindered him from
doing. And yet murder is forbidden? By whom? By
the Author of moral obligation, whom we call God.
Take another instance. Is suicide forbidden ? If we are
answered in the negative, we can only prove it to be so by
God’s eternal prohibition; but we have a great majority
�34
THERE JS A GOD.
of men who consider it; in no case to be allowed. To
those then, we say : Who can forbid it? A man is utterly
wretched in this world. Society cannot punish him for
suicide, by which he escapes all punishment; by destroying
his own human nature he does not punish himself; on the
contrary, he liberates himself from a state which he feels
to be unbearable. Besides, to diminish the sum of misery
in the world may appear a good and virtuous action. And
yet, is suicide forbidden? Yes. Who can forbid it?
Only One on whom human nature depends, and who, in
dependently of punishment, can say with truth: Man has
no right to do wrong. And indeed, all men would, if God
did not exist, have the right to do wrong and suffer the
consequences. According to the Atheist, if a man were
deliberately to choose that which is wrong, taking upon
himself all consequences, he would have not only the
physical power to act thus, but also the moral right.
Each human being has the moral right to do whatever he
chooses, if only he have no physical restraint upon him.
And if this doctrine be contradictory to any one’s idea of
right and wrong, he must confess that by that idea he
implicitly admits the existence of God.
Our work,—all but the part which refers to Mr. BradJaugli’s objections,-:—is now ended. Before we give our
answers to these objections, we wish to say a few words as
to the manner in which he came by them. Sages of all
times, from the first ages of the world’s existence up to
the present day, have by the preceding arguments been,
satisfied, even to the most absolute certainty, that there
exists a God. This great question once answered, they
take up a second as important as the first (if possible),
though entirely dependent upon it, viz.: What is God ?
What may be the nature of that existing and Infinite
Principle of all? By dint of deep thought and profound
meditative labour, they have succeeded in finding out
some of His attributes, which, on one hand, are as certain
as the facts which'prove His existence, since they are only
strict inferences drawn therefrom; and which, on the
other, involve many mysterious problems, so wonderfully
luminous that they almost seem self.contradictory : just as
�THERE IS A GOD.
35
the sun emits a blinding light. So Mr. Bradlaugh collects
all he can find in the way of mysteries, and having brought
them together, says: God must have these and those
attributes; now each of them contradicts the other, there
fore, the idea of God is absurd. He ought, however, to
remember that we only draw our different inferences as to
the attributes of God after having proved His existence;
so our opponent ought first of all to prove invincibly that
our demonstrations are of no value, and only then to
attack those attributes, which are all based upon the said
demonstrations. If God be an absurd being, there must
certainly be a flaw in the proof; why then not point it out
more clearly?* So long as Theists are able to defend
their demonstrations—and that will be very long indeed—
let him not trouble himself about anything else. So long
as any one proof remains standing, it will be an insur
mountable obstacle to Atheism. When we are reduced to
silence, and the existence of God, instead of being an in
dubitable truth, is evidently proved to be a mere hypo
thesis, why, then it will be time to examine whether or no
that hypothesis be absurd. What would become of
science, were a similar method to be pursued, and the
great truths it proclaims to be denied on account of the
minute difficulties which those truths involve? Such
objections are unfair, unless put with the intention, not to
overthrow the truth, but only to cast more light upon the
darker sides of the question. It is therefore in this sense
alone that we are willing to answer them, considering our
answers as only a development of that most fundamental
answer to all difficulties—the demonstration.
1. What strikes Mr. Bradlaugh first of all is, that if
God be Infinite, He cannot be called Supreme. If He
were only the most perfect of all finite beings, He might
receive that title; but, as soon as He is proved to be In
finite, it is impossible. He will not allow us to say that
the Infinite is greater or less than the Finite, or even
» Mr. Bradlangh does indeed assail the demonstrations of the
existence of God ; but, strange to say—or rather, nof at nil strange to
Bay,—he dismisses the most important of them with a few words and
accumulates all the strength of Iris arguments upon the least important.
�36
THERE IS A GOD.
equal to it, if lie follows up his principle, for we are not
permitted to institute any comparison between them ; the
reason is, we suppose, in the axiom : between the Infinite
and the Finite there is no proportion. But how did he
come by the axiom ? was it not by comparing them
with each other? It is, therefore, only in a limited
sense, and not absolutely (as Mr. Bradlaugh does) that we
can say, that there is no proportion. The very axiom
indeed, can be put under the form of a proportion, thus:
The Infinite is to the Finite, as 1 (or any number) is
to 0.
Now the want of proportion between 0 and 1, does not
hinder us from saying that 1 is greater than 0.
But, let us take a more direct view of the question.
That there is between the Infinite and the Finite, con
sidered as such, any other relation than that of inequality
must of course be denied; but that of inequality exists.
If so, the idea “greater than” can at once be applied to
the Infinite in relation with the Finite. But is the idea
“supreme” anything more? It only affirms besides, what
we already know, viz.: that there is nothing greater than
the Infinite.
Moreover, we can consider God independently of His
Infinite attribute, and simply as one of the immense series
of beings. We at once see that He occupies the first rank,
above all others; for it is absurd to suppose that a real
being cannot be classed with other real beings, if we
abscind from what sets him apart from them. Every day
we see naturalists place man at the head of the animal
kingdom, along with monkeys, butterflies, snails and star
fishes, merely because they abscind from the faculty of
reason that sets man apart from all other beings.* Seeing
then that God is First of all things existing and possible,
we can surely call Him supreme by relation to them.
Thus, as Infinite, God is above all finite beings; as a
Being, He is at the head of the whole series. In both
ways He is entitled to be called Supreme.
• And they are perfectly right so to do, reason not being a faculty
that belongs to natural history, which ought only to describe exterior
characteristics of the animated and inanimate world.
�THERE IS A GOD.
37
We shall now try the value of Mr. Bradlaugh’s objection,
by putting it in the same way to other subject-matter.
The Queen cannot be called the supreme ruler of the land,
for she would be supreme either in relation to another
queen, or to subjects. Another queen there is not; but,
“supreme ” means, “ the first of all in a series ;” now, it is
impossible for the Queen to be the first of all her subjects,
since she is no subject. It is, perhaps, a very pretty play
upon words,—we are no judges of such things; but it is
nothing better than that.
He adds to this difficulty a short remark in which he
says, that even if God were Supreme now, He would not
always have been so, the fact of Creation being admitted.
We shall only notice in reply, that the word “ supreme”
is a title referring to the existence of other beings, not to
the nature of God in itself; therefore, even if there were a
change in the idea, it would not be a substantial change in
God, as considered before and after Creation. If I stand
still, and a carriage passes from my left to my right, I may
be said to have been, first at the right of the carriage,
then at the left: and yet my position has not changed in
the least. Suppose the Queen of England, (to return to
our comparison) were one morning to find herself alone in
her kingdom, all her subjects having died suddenly, she
would, of course, be no longer queen ; but would that in
volve any change whatever in her? Titles which proceed
from an external relation are merely names which may be
applicable or no, according as the relation changes.
2. Our adversary fares no better with the next objection,
against the creation of the world. “Creation is the
making of existence.” Of all existence? We deny it
formally; never did we think that God made Himself,
although He is His own principle. Of some existence?
That we are willing to admit. Creation is the making of
a finite, contingent and temporal existence by an Infinite,
necessary, and eternal one. So, before that temporal
existence was, something existed already; and it is grossly
unfair to represent Theism as supposing nature commence
ment, in the sense which Atheists give to “nature,” i.e.}
all that is.
�38
THERE IS A GOD.
Let us try an adaptation of Mr. Bradlaugh’s argument
on creation, and prove that it is impossible to light a fire.
To light a fire is to produce heat: now heat cannot be
produced; for, before heat was produced it was nowhere,
and there was no such a thing as heat in the world. But
I cannot look back to a moment when there was no heat,
for I know that all bodies possess, and ever have possessed,
more or less of it. Consequently, to light a fire is an
impossible undertaking. Such an argument, applied to
the lighting of a fire, would have brought its author to a
cell in Bedlam; applied to the creation of the world, it has
raised him to a seat in the parliament of England.
3. The argument against God’s benevolence has the
merit of being rather more specious. “A benevolent man
is one who does more than his duty; a being infinitely
benevolent ought to do infinitely more. God, in not
creating a sinless world, has not done infinitely more :
consequently God is not infinitely benevolent.”
Indeed ! Pray, what is the duty of God ? He has none,
and owes us nothing. The Supreme Being can be by no
means bound by duty towards those who depend upon
Him in all. Owing us nothing, it follows that in whatever
world we live, and however little God may have done for
us, He will have done infinitely more than His duty, if it
be true that something is infinitely more than nothing, and
that any number is infinitely more than zero. Even the
most ardent Atheist will confess, we hope, that existence
is better than non-existence, that to have a chance of being
happy is better than to be utterly deprived of that chance.
Well, all of us have both existence and a chance of being
happy. God, by that gift, does infinitely more than He
ought, and shows thereby His infinite benevolence. Why
does God not do more still, since our world is not perfect?
That we do not know, and if Mr. Bradlaugh wanted only
to prove that man is not omniscient, he would easily gain
his point; but as a proof that God is not benevolent it fails
completely. We fancy that our opponent is led astray by
a false idea of infinite action, which in his mind would be,
“ to do as much as one possibly can.” Now the fact is,
that an act can be infinite in itself, and yet produce only
�THERE IS A GOD.
y
39
finite results, on account of the debility and imperfection
of the matter on which it works.
4. Another difficulty arises. God cannot be personal,
because He is either infinite or not God. Now, all ideas
of “personality” give us also the idea of limitation. We
beg leave simply to deny the latter proposition without
more ado. Personality we consider as the highest sub
stantial perfection of an intelligent being. If the being in
question involves in its essence limitation and imperfection,
personality will no doubt be limited and imperfect, not
because it is personality, but because it belongs to such
a being. Thus, God having been demonstrated to be in
finite, it follows that His personality is also infinite.
5. This brings us to the next question, whether an in
telligent being can at the same time be infinite. We have
not to ask whether in every known case intelligence is
limited, but whether the very idea of intelligence argues
limitation ; and we answer in the negative. Intelligence
is essentially clear: is the Infinite essentially dim? Intelligence is something definite and precise: is the Infinite
indefinite and vague? Let Mr. Bradlaugh have the kind
ness to go back to our definition of the Infinite Being,—one who possesses perfection without end. Therefore the
Infinite must be infinitely clear, infinitely definite, infinitely
precise, since precision, definitenesBj and clearness are
perfections. All those qualities are qualities of intelligence, and intelligence is itself a perfection ; consequently
God must be intelligent, because He is infinite.
6. “ Theism checks man’s efforts,” says Mr. Bradlaugh.
That depends. A certain Theism, infected by fatalism,
certainly does so. If we believe that whatever happens
happens necessarily according to God’s will alone; if we
annihilate the liberty of man, and suppose that all that is
to happen must take place antecedently to any display of
human activity, and without his choice having any effect
upon that which shall be, then we certainly check man’s
efforts in the most fatal way. But this is far from being
Theism itself, since a great many schools of Theistic doc
trine have declared in the most emphatic manner their
abhorrence of this error. The only effect which we can
�40
THERE IS A GOD.
discern in the ordinary doctrine of submission to the will
of God is that we learu
“ To mend what can,
And bear what can’t be mended
and not only to bear, but be glad of it, since we know that
it is the will of the All-good. A seeming evil menaces us;
our duty is to exert ourselves to the utmost in order to
ward off the peril. But if all our endeavours are useless,
if the seeming evil does really fall upon us, then we are
happy ; for we know that the evil is only a seeming one,
and in reality a great good, since it comes from the Allgood. A true Theist is the most happy of men ; if suc
cessful, he is happy for having done what he wished to do ;
if unsuccessful, he is still more happy for not having done
what was against the Divine will.
But a still more evident proof that Theism does not
check man’s efforts is, that Fatalism can exist independently
of any Theistic doctrine; for Fatalism springs merely from
the denial of human liberty, not from the affirmation of
the power of God. Substitute to “ God’s almighty will ”
the “ laws of nature,” and you have modern fatalism, of
which, if we are not much mistaken, Mr. Bradlaugh is
himself an adept, for he seems clearly to deny free-will iu
man.* Now if, instead of all things proceeding from the
eternal decree of an intelligent being, all proceeds from
the everlasting law of an unintelligent one, we are at a loss
to see how this sort of Atheism differs from that kind of
Theism ; both have the same maxim : What is ivas to he,
and could not be otherwise. Why then give ourselves any
trouble? is the natural consequence of both. We here
detect a second stone which Mr. Bradlaugh throws, un
mindful of the fragility of his own dwelling.
7. The argument we have next quoted, though directed
against God’s intelligence, only proves that the intelligence
of God is of a different nature from ours; which, seeing all
His other attributes, and the immeasurable distance be
tween His nature and ours, was certainly a very likely
conclusion. AV e perceive new ideas, remember old ones,
• “ What did Jesus teach ?” p. 7, “Heresy,” p. 49.
�THERE IS A GOD.
41
and attain by reasoning to higher knowledge. God is
omniscient, and therefore neither perceives, remembers,
nor reasons; consequently, (according to Mr. Bradlaugh,)
to know everything signifies to be without intelligence!
If so, why should not the highest degree of intelligence be
to know nothing? Cannot the gentleman see that if God
does not perceive, remember, or reason, it is because He
does not want those faculties, but has the grand faculty of
omniscience, which transcends and supersedes them all?
Why do we perceive? To fill up a defect in our intelli
gence, which is never in possession of all it is able to know.
Why remember? Because another defect renders our
intelligence unable to have everything present to its mental
vision at the same time. And we reason only to supply a
third defect, which is, that we cannot at once see all the
relations of all ideas one with another, and all the con
clusions that flow therefrom. Mr. Bradlaugh’s enumera
tion of the acts of intelligence is, in fact, only the enu
meration of the defects in our intelligence. Perfect in
telligence is that which knows everything at one glance,
with an implicit judgment contained in that glance. God
has but one idea; this idea represents everything that is,
that was, that will be, and contains in itself all true judg
ments, as the idea of existence affirmed, (z.e , of the identity
between the subject and the predicate,) is comprised in the
idea “I.” Such is the rapid and imperfect outline of God’s
intelligence, which we give for want of space to add more.
“Judgment,” says Mr. Bradlaugh, “implies the joining
of two ideas.” Explicit judgment may do so; implicit
judgment supposes the two ideas joined in one already.
And the one idea which God has, being infinite, being God
Himself, is equal to an infinite multitude of human ideas.
“To think is to separate what is thought from what is not
thought.” Yes, in man, since man’s mind is not able to
think of all things at once and without confusion. But
the Divine is not the human nature ; His thought embraces
all, abscinds from nothing, unites all things in one vast
affirmation, without concentration of mind on one par
ticular object to the detriment of the rest. God’s mind is
concentrated upon all things together. And thus Mr.
�42
THERE IS A GOD.
Bradlaugh’s objections prove only this,—that our intelli
gence is of a very bounded and feeble description, obliged
to aid its flickering gleam by numerous faculties, which,
while they help its action, declare openly its radical
infirmity; just as the numerous members and organs of
the lower animals at the same time supply a want and
reveal an imperfection.
8. “ But G-od is not all-wise, having created beings and
parts of beings that are of no use.”
Of no use? We cannot find words to treat such pre
sumptuous ignorance as it deserves: but here silence is
best, the silence of scorn : not for our opponent, but for his
objection. Besides, another has, long ago already, in
sublimer language than we can command, joined the highest
flight of poetry to the soundest accents of reason in con
demnation of such temerity. Our only answer will be
a quotation from the immortal author of the “ Seasons.”
“Let no presuming impious railer tax
Creative Wisdom, as if aught was made
In vain, or not for admirable ends.
Shall little haughty ignorance presume
His works unwise, of which the smallest part
Exceeds the narrow vision of her mind ?
As if upon a full-proportioned dome,
On swelling columns raised, the pride of art,
A critic fly, whose feeble ray scarce spreads
An inch around, with blind presumption bold,
Should dare to tax the structure of the whole ?
And lives the man, whose universal eye
Has swept at once the unbounded scheme of things,
Marked their dependence so,-and firm accord,
As with unfaltering accent to conclude
That this availeth nought ?”*
9. Creation is again brought forward. “ The sum of
existence,” say you, “ cannot change.” But we also, who
believe in the creation, admit that, and we are algebraically
right. Let us discuss the question algebraically, not that
we intend thereby to decide whether or no algebra can be
applied to philosophical reasoning, but merely as a manner
of stating rather more clearly the point in discussion.
Call what existed before the creation, 00, (i.e., the
* Thompson, “Seasons,” (Summer.)
�THERE IS A GOD.
43
Creator,) and what existed after, CO + a, («.<?., the Creator
and things created ;) we say,
y'
*
00 = 00 + a ;
and we defy any man who knows algebra to say that our
equation is a false one: for nothing finite, however great,
can add anything to that which is infinite already. The
existence or the non-existence of creatures adds nothing
whatever to the sum of existence, or, to speak with more
exactitude, it adds comparatively nothing. Now, the
infinite, to which you add something that is comparatively
nothing, is like a quantity to which you add another in
finitely small; it becomes no greater than it was before.
And yet a may be as real as you like, as great as you like,
as distinct as you like from the infinite, the result will be
always the same. But if things are so according to
algebra, the most precise of all sciences, what more will
you have? If exactitude itself fails to content you, how
can we hope to satisfy your objections?
10. “Some men are not convinced of God’s existence.”
Thereupon Mr. Bradlaugh builds an argument to prove
that the Deity is either not all-wise, or not all-powerful, or
not all-good. To reply, we begin by denying the basis.
There is no man who is not convinced of God’s existence.
Some may be so ignorant that they have never thought
about the matter. Some there are who perversely refrain
from thinking about it; others may strive to raise clouds
before a truth as bright as the sun, accumulate objections
without number, and pile up difficulties without end. But
the honest doubt of a man who wishes sincerely to see his
way to what is true, there certainly is not. And as neither
pride, nor passion, nor wilful ignorance can be laid to the
charge of God; as, moreover, ignorance, it not guilty, is
not punished, we are right in affirming that there are
practically no Atheists. “ The fool hath said in his heart,
There is no God.” Not in his mind, even though he is a
fool: conviction will not enter there. Where then? In
his heart. That is, “ I wish that there be no God. I have
settled that there ought not to be one. I am determined
to seek every reason to prove to myself that there is none.
�44
THERE IS A GOD.
But all that is useless, and the Atheist only succeeds in
being an Atheist in his heart, and remains a fool. Cer
tainly, the expression is strong; but should we use a softer
one for a man who by every possible effort of will strove
to elude the evident truth that two sides of a triangle are
greater than the third ? Now, the existence of God is not
one whit less evident. Of course we do not by these
remarks mean to say that Mr. Bradlaugh is anything but
a very clever man; we only regret he should waste such
abilities as his in so hopeless a cause.
11. He considers Theism as inadmissible, because it
cannot show “ how the first cause, which is motionless,
can have moved to make the world.” In this reasoning
there are two weak points. Firstly, Theism is not bound
to show how things are ; it suffices that it shows that they
are so : and that we have done already. Secondly, we
deny that the First Cause moves to make the world. It
acts without moving. How is that ? we cannot understand
it, but it is proved to be so. “ Action” is not synonymous
with “movement.”* In movement we find an imperfec
tion, a variation, a constant change, which may perhaps
be essential to the action of finite beings, but certainly
not to that of the Infinite One. An eternal immutable
Act, which in eternity is the principle of God’s own
existence, and in time that of all other beings,—such is
God. No movement, no mutation, but a calm, undying,
unchangeable Activity. How can that be ? No man
knows : but nothing is further from absurdity than this
act, the perfection of all acts, and from which every shade
of passivity and inertia is banished.
12. And now we come to the last recorded objection,
which argues either that God, being everywhere, made
the universe nowhere, or that, if the universe is nowhere,
* On the contrary, we find in Mechanics that with levers of the first
class, where the force is applied to the shorter arm, the less the acting
force moves, the greater is the movement it produces: for the shorter
the arm where the force is applied, the longer the other which is put
in motion. Here we have, therefore, a very strong action combined
with very little movement, which produces a very considerable move
ment of matter. Therefore, to act is to produce movement, but not
necessarily to be moved oneself, at least, not at all in proportion with
the intensity of the act.
�THERE IS A GOD.
45
God is not everywhere : and that, by the reason that two
existences cannot be together in the same place. Mr.
Bradlaugh is certainly very pardonable for bringing
forward this difficulty, as it coincides perfectly with his
views on the question. He says he is unable to conceive
anything else but matter, and that for him the words
“ matter” and “ existence” have the same sense. Now
matter is universally allowed to be impenetrable, so that
two different bodies cannot occupy the same place. If,
therefore, we imagine God as a body, the argument might
be very difficult, if not impossible to answer. But that
is precisely what we deny ; God, according to our point
of view, is purely spiritual. Now, though an immaterial
being may occupy space as well as a material one, it does
not occupy space in the same way. It is not extended
into quantitative parts by the proportionate parts of space
which it occupies : it is only present by its action in space,
and that is all. Besides, do we not every day see
examples—not of bodies, it is true,—but of phenomena
which compenetrate each other? A room is full of air; if
you speak in the room, it will be filled with sound. How
is it that sound and air exist at the same time in the same
place ? Because they do not exist in the same way. You
are in a railway carriage ; the train goes full speed, and
you walk across from one window to another. Your body
is in movement, but animated at the same time by two
different motions : one, interior, that proceeds from itself;
another, exterior, that comes from the train. How can
two different movements exist in the same body at the
same time ? Because they do not exist in the same way.
I know that these examples only prove co-existence for
phenomena, and not for substances ; but we say that if
phenomena have the power of co-existing thus, we can
suppose that a substance which is not a body can possess
like qualities. All we humbly beg and pray our adversary
to allow us, is that a spiritual substance can exist and
occupy space in a different way from a corporeal one; it
is very hard to refuse us so little. And yet he grounds
his argument upon the fact that it is absurd to suppose
a spirit that does not behave exactly like a bodily sub-
�46
THERE IS A GOD.
stance. If that is the starting-point, of all his philosophy,
and a self-evident proposition which cannot be proved,
and which it is ridiculous to deny, we are surely in a
very hard case: but then, why so much reasoning? If
spiritualistic philosophy denies your very first principle,
you had better leave it alone, and not seek to prove its
falsity by means of a principle which it denies. If
Tertullian, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes,
Leibnitz and Clarke, were all so mad as not to have
seen what is self-evident, why should you dispute against
their conclusions, which of course are still more foolish ?
Either agree that your axiom is not self-evident, and then
prove your axiom by something besides itself, or abandon
discussion altogether.
Let us, in conclusion, sum up the whole debate in few
words.
1st. It is certain that in the universe there are many
beings, since everybody admits, or ought to admit, that
there are many phenomena, each existing separately from
the other : for separate existence is all we require for the
notion of a being.
2ndly. Of all the beings which we see or know directly,
not one possesses in itself the principle of its existence.
There must therefore exist another Being, which is at once
its own and their principle of existence. That principle
we call God.
3rdly. All objections here stated against the existence
of that, Being, drawn from its demonstrated attributes,
although they take an obviously unfair advantage, may be
and have been successfully answered.
4th ly. Therefore, Mr. Bradlaugh’s difficulties are utterly
worthless, his doctrines ridiculously absurd, and his
attempts to shake the demonstration of God’s existence
hopelessly inefficient.
5t hly. All this does not in the slightest degree interfere
with hia being, privately and personally, a very remarkable
man.
PRINTED BY RICHARDSON AND SON, DERBY.
�
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
There is a god : a reply to Mr Bradlaugh's "Plea for atheism"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Winterton, Francis
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Derby
Collation: [3]-46 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Printed by Richardson and Son
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1883]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N699
Subject
The topic of the resource
Atheism
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 (There is a god : a reply to Mr Bradlaugh's "Plea for atheism"), 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
Atheism
Charles Bradlaugh
God
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3d772fe12215b949e1edf4f05e54d6ab.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=I5Vv1g6vHhlXgas55hpHjhCDS4X4x1tsv14RR%7EuFxc7J1Pt1Jbx6QK02TTa3GRtdNSHMisVyWsMrgN-SE7hzR5u9k7T-EPdyFJAhwiI9qUdKV%7EVvU%7E2qHby-rG4gOdsf%7ELjPU-oEp7NksZK9-I5-YvkCp2mtXoXPyFMExQ2OcRFGk0ZUki%7ErgNUxGfZGbBlr8c5LsKmm6LRHQdYViwsPTM8Wn%7EODcr3jR3kppYxMJdPa2FSg00LtFfRo10mZMI%7ElleSIhQO1q9NL-TZ7CaZ2GTcGxuIagL37KEWlYX652t4fRWoYk0yDVYFjYm-26sJqcDMkwdUrt-k%7EyDZXhMjXhQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ab0023e38c0026b3cd49a4cef7acb1c6
PDF Text
Text
WHAT IS AGNOSTICISM ?
WITH OBSERVATIONS ON
'
HUXLEY, BRADLAUGH, AND INGERSOLL
AND A REPLY TO
GEORGE JACOB HOLYOAKE
ALSO A
DEFENCE OF ATHEISM.
BY
G. W. FOOTE,
PRICE
THREEPENCE.
LONDON
THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LIMITED,.
2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, E.C.
igO2.
�PRINTED BY
THE FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY, LTD.,
2 NEWCASTLE-STREET, FARRINGDON-STREET, LONDON, E.C.
�ß 2SiO
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
AGNOSTIC PRETENSIONS.
\
I happened to say once that an Agnostic was an Atheist
with a tall hat on. Many a true word is spoken in jest,
and I believe this is a case in point. It may be my
■obtuseness, but I have never been able to discover any
real difference between the Atheist and the Agnostic,
■except that the latter is more in love with respectability ;
■or, if not exactly in love, is anxious to contract a
marriage of convenience. In the old Hall of Science
days, I noticed that sturdy Freethinkers used to come
and sit under Bradlaugh, and proudly call themselves
Atheists. That was while they were comparatively
poor, and free from domestic embarrassments. When
they became better off, and their children (especially
their daughters) grew taller, they gradually edged off
to South-place Chapel, sat under Mr. Conway, and
■called themselves Agnostics. They did not pretend
that their opinions had changed, and they were glad to
sneak into the old place (minus wife and family) on a
stirring occasion ; but they had drifted, and they knew
why, though they never liked to say so. Bradlaugh’s
strength lay amongst those who could, for one reason
or another, afford to defy conventions; such as the
skilled artisans and the lower-middle classes, with a
dash of professional society. Two hundred a year was
fatal to his front-seat people. When they reached that
income they emigrated (with their womenkind) to a
more 81 respectable ” establishment.
�4
I do not shrink from the consequences of the foregoing;
observations. Indeed, I will speak with the utmost
plainness. Charles Bradlaugh was an Atheist becausehe was a man of invincible courage, and did not care:
twopence for the frowns of the Church or the sneers of
Society. Professor Huxley was an Agnostic because he:
had» over a thousand a year, and moved in the “ upper
circles,” and filled certain “ honorable ” positions. He
was too honest to say that he believed what he dis
believed, but he could not afford to bear an odiousname. So he coined the word “ Agnostic,” which wasnewer, longer, and less intelligible than “ Atheist.” And
having got a label that suited him entirely, he devised
many subtle reasons why other Freethinkers should,
wear it too. A number of them jumped at the oppor
tunity. They were delighted to be at once heterodox;
and respectable. It was a new and unexpected sensa
tion. They were able to criticise orthodoxy with great,
freedom, providing they did not touch upon the twovital points of all supernatural faith — namely, the:
belief in God and the doctrine of a future life ; and.
they were also able to chide the Atheist for his vulgar
dogmatism in calling certain religious ideas false, when,
the true philosopher knew that it was impossible todemonstrate the negative of anything.
I used to think that Mr. Holyoake was an Atheist.
At any rate, he wrote a Trial of Theism, in which he
made that ancient faith look a frightful old impostorj
But I conclude that he now wishes this work to b<&
regarded as an academic exercise, a playful effort of
the theoretical intelligence. Many years ago—and still
for all I know—he offered the British public the story
of his prosecution and imprisonment for “blasphemy’'
under the title of The Last Trial for Atheism. He wasreally not tried for Atheism at all, and most of us took
the word as a defiant expression of his principles* Buhl
�5
we were mistaken. Mr. Holyoake explains in a recent
publication that he is not an Atheist now, what
ever he may have been when he was young, ignorant,
-and impulsive. He says that the Atheist is guilty of
■“ preposterous presumption ”—which I think I under
stand, although it is a very loose expression. He calls
Atheism a “ wild assumption.” He professes himself
an Agnostic ; which, as he explains it, is our old friend
Sceptic alive again from the pages of David Hume.
“Theism, Atheism, and Agnosticism denote attitudes
of thought in relation to the existence of a Supreme
Cause of Nature. The Theist declares, without mis
giving, that there is such an existence. The Atheist,
without misgiving, declares there is no such existence.
The Agnostic, more modest in pretension, simply says
that, having no information on the subject, he does not
know.”
Mr. Holyoake says, further on, that the Theist and the
Atheist alike have “ no doubt that they knew the solu
tion ” of the “ mighty problem of the cause of eternity.”
Well, I beg to tell him that I am acquainted with at
least one Atheist who does not affect to know this
“ solution.” This particular Atheist does not so much
asknow the meaning of “the cause of eternity.” To
him it is—as Hamlet says—words, words, words!
But this is not enough. I will go further, and
ask Mr. Holyoake to refer me to one Atheist who
denies the existence of God. Of course there are
many Atheists who deny the existence of this or that
God, because the definition of such alleged beings
involves a contradiction to obvious facts of universal
■experience. But what Atheist denies the existence of
■any God ; that is to say, of any superhuman or super
mundane power ? All the Atheists I know of take the
position that there is no evidence on which to form a
valid judgment, and that man’s finite intellect seems
�6
incapable of solving an infinite problem. And as I
understand Mr. Holyoake this is the very position taken
by the Agnostic.
Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an Atheist is.
one without God. That is all the “A” before “Theist”'
really means. Now I believe the Agnostic is without God
too.
Practically, at any rate, he is in the same boat
with the Atheist.
Atheism may be called a negative attitude. No doubt
it is so. But every negative involves something positive..
If the Atheist turns away from the “ mighty problem ”
as hopeless, he is likely to tackle more promising pro-«
blems with greater vigor annd effect. But it is admitted
by Mr. Holyoake that Agnosticism is a negative attitude
too. Wherein, then, lies the justification for all the super
fine airs of its advocates ?
When you look into the matter closely, you perceivfl
that Atheism and Agnosticism are both definite in the
same direction. Bradlaugh and Huxley were at one in
their hostile criticism of Christianity. Keeping the mind
free from superstition is an excellent work. It is weeding
the ground. But it is not sowing, and still less reaping.
It merely creates the possibility of sound and useful
growth. We have to fall back upon Secularism at the
finish. Nor is that a finality. Secularism is the affirma
tion of the claims of this life against the usurpations of
the next. But the affirmation would be unncessary if
the belief in a future life disappeared or radically changed..
Secularism itself—whatever Mr. Holyoake may say—is.
an attitude. The face that was turned from God is.
turned towards Man. What will follow is beyond the.
range of Atheism or Agnosticism.
Presently it is.
beyond the range of Secularism. It is not to be deter
mined by any system. It depends on positive knowledge
and the laws of evolution.
�7
AGNOSTICISM AND ORTHODOXY.
During the most vigorous part of his life Mr. Holyoakepassed as an Atheist, but in his old age he prefers to call
himself an Agnostic. Now this is a change that might
be allowed to pass unchallenged, if it were not made the
occasion of an attack on others who elect to remain
under the old flag. Old age is entitled to comforts, or
at least to shelter from hardships ; and if a veteran of
over eighty finds any advantage or convenience in adopt
ing a more tolerable designation, without any actual
renunciation of principle, it is only a curmudgeon that
would deny him the luxury. But when we are practi
cally asked to share it with him we have the right tomake an open refusal. When the fox, in the old story,
lost his tail, and then tried to persuade his brethren that
they would look much handsomer if they dispensed with
theirs, it was time to tell him that the appendages were
both ornamental and useful. If “ Atheist ” is in Mr..
Holyoake’s way, by all means let him get rid of it. Butwhen he advances a reason why others should follow his
example, it is permissible to tell him that his reason is
insufficient. Mr. Holyoake’s reason is this—in brief.
Theism says there is a God, Atheism says there is no
God, and Agnosticism says it does not know. Agnosti
cism, therefore, is modest and accurate; it does not
dogmatise, and it keeps within the limit of its informa
tion. Such is Mr. Holyoake’s argument, and his con
clusion would be sound enough if his premises were not
faulty. But they are faulty. Mr. Holyoake declared
that Atheists, like Theists, had “ no doubt that they
knew the solution ” of the “ mighty problem of the
cause of eternity.” “Well,” I said in reply, “ I beg to
tell him that I am acquainted with at least one Atheist
who does not affect to know this ‘ solution.’ To him it
�is—as Hamlet says—words, words, words ! I will go
further,” I added, “ and ask Mr. Holyoake to refer me
to one Atheist who denies the existence of God.**
He has not, however, deigned to reply to this perfectly
legitimate question.
Atheists may, just like Agnostics, deny the existence of
this or that God. It all depends on definitions. A
quarter of a century ago, in criticising a book by Pro
fessor Flint, I wrote as follows :—
“ There be Gods many and Lords many; which of the
long theological list is to be selected as the God ? A
God, like everything else from the heights to the depths,
■can be known only by his attributes; and what the
Atheist does is not to argue against the existence of any
God, which would be sheer lunacy, but to take the
attributes affirmed by Theism as composing its Deity,
and to inquire whether they are compatible with each
other and with the facts of life. Finding that they are
not, the Atheist simply sets Theism aside as not proven,
and goes on his way without further afflicting himself
with such abstruse questions.”
This is precisely the position I took in replying to
Mr. Holyoake recently, and it is the position of all
the Atheists I know or have ever known. Moreover, it
was, as far as I understood him, the position of Mr.
Holyoake himself while we all thought him an Atheist.
During his debate with Mr. Bradlaugh, some thirty
years ago, it was admitted that both were Atheists;
the question in dispute was whether Atheism was
involved in Secularism. I do not recollect that there
was so much as a suggestion that a difference existed
between them as to the meaning of Atheism. Their
difference was over the meaning of Secularism.
I am well aware that persons of a metaphysical turn
of mind, and a good knowledge of the dictionary, can
argue with each other on all sorts of subjects, and keep
�9
it up till death or the day of judgment. But the troublecomes when they have to meet the practical man, the
average man, the man in the street. He has his living •
to get, and lots of things to attend to ; so, instead of
beating about the bush, he goes straight to what seems,
to him to the kernel of the question—the real point at
issue. He may be mistaken, of course ; but that is his
method, and you will never wean him from it. All the
“ revelations ” in the world have been got up for him.
It was found that no impression was made upon him by
Platonic or other long-winded ratiocinations; so specu
lation was presented to him as fact, and fancy as history ;
and in that .way he was nobbled, because he did not
perceive the cheating—though he is beginning to see it
now. Well then, let an Atheist and an Agnostic stand
together before this gentleman; and what difference
will he discover between them ? “ Have you got a
God?” he asks in his blunt way. The Atheist plainly
answers “ No.” The Agnostic hums and ha’s. “ Come
now, straight,” says the questioner, “ have you got a
God?” The Agnostic says : “Well, I------.” “ Here^
that’ll do,” says the man in the street, “ I see you
haven’t got one. You’re just like the other fellow, only
he’s straighter.” And really that practical man, that
average man, that man in the street, is right. He has
' got hold of the substance. All else is shadow. You have
a God, or you have not. There is really no intermediate
position. If you have a God, you are a Theist; if you
have no God, you are an Atheist. Let your reasons be
few or many, plain or subtle, this is what it comes to at
the finish. “ I am the Lord thy God,” cries some Deity
or other through the mouth of a priest. “Not mine,”
says the Atheist. - “ Not precisely mine,” says the
Agnostic, “ at least at present; these things require a
great deal of consideration ; but I promise to keep an
open mind.” Now if the offended Deity were to box.
�IO
the ears of one of them, which do you thin it would
be ? I fancy it would be the Agnostic, for all his
ii reverence.”
Mr. Holyoake’s new attitude is likely to procure him
fresh friends in the fold of faith—which he will probably
not find annoying.
One announced himself in the
Church Gazette, and this is what he said :—
“ One is glad to see that Mr. Holyoake has renounced
the title of ‘Atheist’ in favor of that of ‘Agnostic.’
The Freethinker deprecates his doing so on the ground
that the two terms imply exactly the same thing. We
cannot admit that they do. An ‘ Atheist ’ properly means
a person who positively denies the existence of a God,
while an ‘ Agnostic ’ is simply one who does not know,
but who very often is strongly inclined to believe in a
Deity. Between these attitudes there lies a vast interval.
The first is as dogmatic as that of a Cardinal; the
second is philosophical, and of one who adopts it there is
always a good deal of hope.”
Without inquiring what right a Christian paper has
to define “ Atheism ” for Atheists, I may observe
how consoling it must be to Mr. Holyoake to be told by a
■Christian that he is “ philosophical,” that there is “ a
vast interval ” between himself and a wicked, dogmatic
Atheist, and that there is “ a good deal of hope ” for
him! My own criticism is nothing to this. This
orthodox editor greets Mr. Holyoake’s one leg over the
fence, and “ hopes ” for his whole body. Other orthodox
.editors in the course of time, either before his death or
.after, will perhaps argue that Mr. Holyoake really saw
the error of his ways and probably “ found salvation.”
�11
MR. HOLYOAKE’S VINDICATION.
Mr. Holyoake’s article on “ Agnosticism Higher than
Atheism ” in my own journal, the Freethinker, for
January 6 (1901) opened with a warm defence of his
■own consistency.
Personally, I may say that I do not care two pins, or
■even one, whether Mr. Holyoake has or has not made
or undergone a change in his opinion, his attitude, or
"whatever he or anyone else may please to call it. He
:seems to be quite passionate about it, but it is
really of no importance to anyone but himself.
The only important question is whether he is right in
what he says now. All men but the fossilised have
•changed intellectually, as they have changed physically.
““ In a higher world,” said Newman, “ it is otherwise,
but here below to live is to change, and to be perfect
is to' have changed often.” Emerson stated the same
truth with scornful relation to human vanity. “ A
foolish consistency,” he said, “is the hobgoblin of little
.minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and
•divines.” It may be telling in political debate, where
there is ever a hundred grains of nonsense to one grain
■of sense, to reply to an opponent out of his own mouth,
and show that what he says to-day is answered by what
he said several years ago. Vain politicians fall into this
trap, because they fancy their own consistency is somethingiof infinite moment; not their consistency of prin
ciple or intention, but their consistency of mental
■conclusion. But now and then a stronger politician
laughs at the trap which is laid for him. Some persons
thought it was mere cynicism on Beaconsfield’s part
when he declined to argue a question before parliament
in the light of certain “musty old speeches” of his,
which had been quoted against him in the debate. But
f-
�12
it was sanity and wisdom. It was a personal question1
whether he was right or wrong twenty years before; it
was a public question whether he was right or wrong at
that moment.
Mr. Holyoake, as I understand him, says he never wasan Atheist. He has always an Agnostic, but he lacked
the word to express his attitude. The term he did
suggest was Cosmism as a substitute for Atheism. In
connection with it he quotes the words—from ThomasCooper, I believe—“ I do not say there is no God, but.
this I say—I know not.” Perhaps it will surprisehim to learn—or to be reminded of it if he has forgotten
it—that Charles Bradlaugh, both in print and on theplatform, was fond of quoting those very words asindicating the essential attitude of Atheism. Are we
to conclude, then, that Bradlaugh, too, was an Agnostic
without knowing it ? Are we also to conclude that not
a single Atheist during the past forty years understood
Atheism, and that the only person who did understand it
was Mr. Holyoake, who was never an Atheist at all ?
“ Agnosticism,” Mr. Holyoake says, “ relates only toDeity.” Does it indeed ? Its meaning and application
were not thus restricted by Professor Huxley. This is
what he said in his essay on “ Agnosticism ” (Collected
Essays, vol. v., p. 245) :—
“ Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method»,
the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of M
single principle. That principle is of great antiquity;
it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said
‘ Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the
foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated
the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason
for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of
Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern
science. Positively the principle may be expressed : In
matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it
will take you, without regard to any other consideration-
�i3
And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not
pretend that conclusions are certain which are not
demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the
Agnostic faith.”
This is stated even more compendiously in a later essay
on “Agnosticism and Christianity” (vol. v., p. 310) :—
“ Agnosticism is not properly described as a ‘ negative ’
creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so
far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a
principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This
principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that
he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition
unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies
that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts ; and,
in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism.”
These are, I believe, the only two definitions of Agnos
ticism to be found in Huxley’s writings; and, so far
from restricting the application of the term to the
question of the existence of Deity, as Mr. Holyoake
:says it should be, its inventor does not so much as
allude to that question in either of these passages. He
presents Agnosticism as a general method or attitude in
relation to all propositions, and therefore to all subjects
whatsoever.
Mr. Holyoake goes on to say that Agnosticism—his
Agnosticism—“ leaves a man to reason, to con
science, to morality, to nature, to the laws of truth,
of honor, and the laws of the State.” Yes, and it also
leaves him, if he prefers, to the opposite of these—to
folly, vice, and crime, to the workhouse, the lunatic
asylum, and the prison. What Mr. Holyoake says of
Agnosticism is simply an echo of what Bacon said of
Atheism. “ Atheism,” that philosopher said, in the Essay
Of Superstition, “ leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to
natural piety, to laws, to reputation.”
�When Bacon wanted to dig the Atheist in the fifth
rib with a dirty dagger, he treated Atheism as a denial
of God. “None,” he said, “ deny there is a God but
those for whom it maketh that there were no God.’”
Which is equivalant to saying that no one denies God.
but a scoundrel. But when he talks like a candid philo*
sopher his language is very different. “It were better,’”
he declared, “ to have no opinion of God at all, than
such an opinion as is unworthy of him.” That was.
the real difference between Atheism and superstition.
“ No opinion of God at all.” Bacon regarded that
as philosophical Atheism. Mr. Holyoake regards it as
philosophical Agnosticism. Well, this is a free country,
at least to that extent, and I prefer to side with.
Bacon.
It seems to me that Mr. Holyoke’s philosophy of
“disbelief” and “ non-belief ” is a sad confusion, abound
ing *in arbitrary statements. Take the following passage»,
for instance :—
“‘Disbelief’ is the state of mind of one who hag;
evidence before him, but finds it so insufficient that ha
disbelieves the proposition to which the evidence:
relates. ‘ Non-belief’ expresses that state of mind whefft
all relevant evidence is absent, and he is therefore in ft.
state of non-belief or absolute unknowingness.”
Now the first sentence is but a pretty waste of wordsRepetition is not definition. It enlightens no one to say
that “disbelief” is the state of mind of a person who
“ disbelieves.” Nor is it true that one who disbelieveshas always evidence before him. He may have none at
all. I disbelieve in the existence of dragons and
centaurs, but I am not aware that there is a scrap of
positive evidence on the subject. On the other hand,
there may be “relevant evidence”—can there be any
irrelevant evidence ?—in the case of “ non-belief,” which
is precisely the same thing as unbelief. My own position
�i5
with regard to the “ microbe theory ” of disease is oneof “ non-belief,” but I should be very ignorant or foolish
to say that “ relevant evidence ” was totally “ absent.”'
And how on earth can “ absolute unknowingness ” haveany relation to belief at all? It is simply a blank.
Nothing is there, and no room exists for any form o£
opinion.
Mr. Holyoake’s “ non-belief ” seems to be a nonentity.
The remaining term is “ disbelief.” This he does not
really define, but he evidently means it to connote a.
state of mind following the recognition that the evidenceadvanced in favor of a proposition is “ insufficient.”
Now I venture to say that this is unbelief or disbelief
simply according to the balance of the evidence. Mr,
Holyoake speaks as though evidence were always for
and never against, whereas it is usually of both kinds.
If the evidence is unsatisfactory, we say we do not
believe the proposition. If the evidence is very unsatis
factory, we say we disbelieve it. The two words
express different degrees of the same general state of
mind.
This view has fbe countenance of common usage, asit certainly has the countenance of etymology. And a.
very remarkable fact may be cited in this connection.
The orthodox term for all sceptics, from the mild.
Unitarian to the terrible Atheist, is “ unbelievers.”
Mr. Holyoake goes to the length of saying that “ Todisbelieve is to deny.” I say it is not. Mr. Holyoakehimself disbelieves the theory of a future life, but he
does not deny it. Denial, in the strict sense of the word,
presupposes knowledge. It is not a mere question of
opinion—like belief, unbelief, or disbelief. < If you say I
have done a certain thing which I know I have not
done ; if you say I was at a certain place yesterday
when I know I was not there ; I deny your assertion.
But if you say that a friend of mine has done a certain
�i6
thing, or was at a certain place yesterday, when I was
not there myself, I cannot deny your assertion. Yet I
may not believe it from what I know of my friend’s
■character and movements, and I may disbelieve it when
I have heard the evidence on both sides.
It seems to me that Mr. Holyoake made this arbitrary
•affirmation about disbelief and denial because it served
the turn in his argument against Atheism. He proceeds
to say—and with plausibility if his theory of disbelief is
.accurate-—that if you “ take denial out of the word ”
Atheism you “ take the soul out of it.” “ Atheism,” he
repeats, “ which does not deny God is a corpse.” All
this, however, is repetition on repetition of what he is
asked to prove. The idea seems to be that saying a
thing over again, with fresh force and point, is a good
substitute for “ relevant evidence.”
Mr. Holyoake says there are “ brave spirits ” in the
Atheistic camp “ who believe that the existence of God
<an be disproved, and say so.” “ To them,” he adds,
“Atheism, in its old sense—of denial—is the only honest
word.” Of course it is. But who ave, these Atheists ?
AVhy does not Mr. Holyoake give us a little informa
tion ? What is the use of argument without facts ? I
■admit there are Atheists who believe that the reality of
some conceptions of God can be disproved. If reason
is to be trusted—and we have no other guide—it is
perfectly clear that a God of infinite power, infinite
wisdom, and infinite goodness, does not exist. John
Stuart Mill was as firm as a rock on this point, and he
was the author of a classical treatise on Logic. Mr.
Holyoake himself, I believe, would not deny that
Science has practically disproved the existence of the
God of Miracles.
It seems to me that Mr. Holyoake plays with the
word “ God.” He treats it is a definite word, with one
invariable meaning. But it means anything or nothing,
�.according to definitions. Without a definition, you
might as well pronounce it backwards. It may be true
that the Atheist “ denies the existence of God,” if you
■define God to mean Thor, Jupiter, Jehovah, or Christ.
But is it true that the Atheist denies the existence of
any possible God ? This is a point to which Mr.
Holyoake does not address himself. Nor is he likely to
■ do so while he uses the word “ God ” as loosely as any
^shuffling theologian.
Some conceptions of God are flatly contradicted by
the most familiar facts of experience. These are as
much to be denied as a round square or a bitter sweet.
Some conceptions of God are not contradicted by any
facts of experience. They may be true, and they may
Be false. In the absence of “ relevant evidence,” there
is no way of deciding. It is all a matter of conjecture.
And both information and. denial, in such cases, are
mere expressions of personal preference.
But behind all the metaphysics of this subject there
is a Science of which one could hardly surmise from his
writings that Mr. Holyoake had ever heard. I mean
the Science whith the great David Hume inaugurated
in his Natural History of Religion. Not to go beyond
•our own country, the researches of Spencer, Lubbock,
Tylor, Frazer, Harland, and other workers in this
fruitful field, have thrown a flood of light upon the
.genesis and development of religious belief. The facts
.are seen, and they tell their own tale. And when it is
•once perceived that the “highest” ideas of modern
theology have their roots in the lowest savage super
stitions, the old disputes about the existence of God
.seem almost fantastic.
This is a point, however, which it is not my object to
press. Some of my readers will understand ; others,
perhaps, will take the hint. I wish to conclude this
■criticism by showing that what Mr. Holyoake means by
�Agnosticism, is what Atheists have always meant by
Atheism.
The shortest way is the best. Let us take the most
conspicuous, the most hated, English Atheist of thenineteenth century ; one who was supposed — and
especially by those who knew least about him—to beas extravagant in his speech as he was shocking in his.
character. I refer to Charles Bradlaugh. He was am
Atheist of Atheists, and this is what he wrote:—
The Atheist does not say ‘there is no God,’ but hesays, ‘ I know not what you mean by God; I am with
out idea of God; the word “ God ” is, to me, a sound
conveying no clear or distinct affirmation.
I do not
deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I haves
no conception, and the conception of which, by its.
affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to
me.’ ”
Now let us hear the Agnostic.
Mr. Holyoake says
“ The Agnostic assertion of unknowingness is far
wider, far mo.e defiant and impregnable than the deniaL
of the Atheist who stands upon the defective evidence.
Agnosticism is a challenge. It says: ‘ I do not know J
do you ? Your assertions have no force. Evidence from
the field of facts is wanted’....... the very idea of an
originating Deity has no place in the understanding.’*
Mr. Bradlaugh’s language is that of clear thought..
Is Mr. Holyoake s so ? It is hard to see how an asser
tion of ignorance can be “ defiant,” though it may be
“ impregnable ” because there is nothing to attack. If
the Atheist stands upon the defective evidence, what
else is the A gnostic doing when he says that evidence iswanted ? And is not the last sentence on all-fours with.
Mr. Bradlaugh’s last sentence ? What difference there
is seems in favor of the Atheist. It is one of carefulnessand modesty. Mr. Bradlaugh speaks for himself. Mr.
Holyoake speaks for everybody.
�i9
What substantial difference, I ask, can anyone find,
between these two quotations? Mr. Bradlaugh was asmuch an Agnostic as Mr. Holyoake, and Mr. Holyoake
is as much an Atheist as Mr. Bradlaugh. It is therefore
evident, as far as this particular discussion goes, that
Agnosticism is a new name for the old Atheism.
After repeating that Agnosticism “asserts that theexistence of Gcd is a proposition of utter unknowing
ness,” Mr. Holyoake declares that it “leaves Theism,
stranded on the shores of speculation.” What more
has been asserted by any Atheist ? Does it not provethat the Agnostic is “ without God in the world ”? And.
does not this illuminating phrase of the great Apostle
show the real parting of the ways ?
INGERSOLL’S
AGNOSTICISM.
Mr.. Holyoake, I believe, has a great admiration for
the late Colonel Ingersoll. I have a great admiration
for him too. He was a splendid man, a magnificent
orator, and a deep thinker. This last fact is too little
recognised. Many take the clear for the shallow and.
the turbid for the profound. Others love decorum even
though it drops into dulness. Ingersoll’s brightness, noless than his lucidity, was detrimental to his reputation..
It is commonly thought that the witty man cannot be
wise. But a minority know how false this is. Shakes
peare was the wittiest as well as the wisest of men.
Be that as it may, the point is that Mr. Holyoake and.
I both admire Ingersoll. We may therefore appeal tohim on this question of Atheism and Agnosticism. Not
that he is to decide it for us, but it will be profitable tohear what he has to say.
Ingersoll published a lecture entitled Why Am I
An Agnostic ? This was during his mellow maturity,.
�when some hasty persons said he was growing too
■“ respectable.” He was perfectly frank, however, and
even aggressive, on the question of the existence of
Deity. Here is a passage from the very first page of
this lecture :—
“Most people, after arriving at the conclusion that
Jehovah is not God, that the Bible is not an inspired
book, and that the Christian religion, like other religions,
is the creation of man, usually say : ‘ There must be a
Supreme Being, but Jehovah is not his name, and the
Bible is not his word. There must be somewhere an
•over-ruling Providence or Power.’
“ This position is just as untenable as the other. He
who cannot harmonise the cruelties of the Bible with
the goodness of Jehovah, cannot harmonise the cruelties
of Nature with the goodness and wisdom of a supposed
Deity.”
After giving several illustrations of the Deist’s diffi
culty, Ingersoll proceeds as follows, introducing for the
first time the word Agnostic :—
“ It seems to me that the man who knows the limita
tions of the mind, who gives the proper value to human
testimony, is necessarily an Agnostic. He gives up the
hope of ascertaining first or final causes, of compre
hending the supernatural, or conceiving of an infinite
personality. From out the words Creator, Preserver,
and Providence, all meaning falls.”
Mr. Holyoake might reply that he endorses every word
of this paragraph ; but I should have to tell him that
there are much stronger things to come. My point for the
present is that Ingersoll in a lecture on Agnosticism makes
it look remarkably like Atheism. Certainly he dismisses
the only idea of God that a Theist would ever think of
•contending for.
Let us now turn to the last address that Ingersoll ever
■delivered, before the American Free Religious Associa
tion at Boston, on June 2, 1899, only a few weeks prior
�21
to his sudden death. This lecture is published under thetitle of What is Religion ? Curiously it sums up all that
he had ever taught on the subject. There is an autumn
ripeness about it, and its conclusion has the air of a
final deliverance in sight of the grave. Nor is this
astonishing ; for he knew the nature of his malady, and
was aware that death might overtake him at any
monent. It should be added that Ingersoll read this
address, which was printed from his manuscript.
Now this lecture on What is Religion? contains a care
ful and elaborate statement of the speaker’s Materialism.
It runs as follows :—
.
“ If we have a theory we must have facts for the
foundation. We must have corner-stones. We must
not build on guesses, fancies, analogies, or inferences.
The structure must have a basement. If we build, we
must begin at the bottom.
“ I have a theory, and I have four corner-stones.
«The first stone is that matter—substance—cannot
be destroyed, cannot be annihilated.
► The second stone is that force cannot be destroyed,
cannot be annihilated.
“ The third stone is that matter and force cannot
exist apart—no matter without force; no force without
matter,
“ The fourth stone is that that which cannot be destroyed
could not have been created; that the indestructible is
the uncreateable.
** If these corner-stones are facts, it follows as a
necessity that matter and force are from and to eternity ;
that they can neither be increased nor diminished.
“ It follows that nothing has been, or can be,
ereated; that there never has been, or can be, a
creator.
“ It follows that there could not have been any intel
ligence, any design, back of matter and force.
'¿/‘There is no intelligence without force. There is no
force without matter. Consequently there could not by
�22
-any possibility have been any intelligence, any force,
back of matter.
'
’
It therefore follows that the supernatural does not,
•and cannot, exist. If these four corner-stones are facts,
nature has no master. If matter and force are from
and to eternity, it follows as a necessity that no God
exists.”
Here is an argumentative denial of the existence of
'God, as the term is generally understood. It is true
that Ingersoll says, a little later on, that he does not
-pretend to know, but only states what he thinks. This
■qualification, however, while it is a sign of modesty, is
not necessary from a philosophical point of view, since
no man who is not inspired can possibly advance any
thing on this subject but his opinions. This is so from
the very nature of the case, for there is no certainty
• about the strongest argument in the world unless its
•conclusion can be submitted to the test of verification.
According to Mr. Holyoake’s criterion, therefore,
Ingersoll had no right to call himself an Agnostic. He
was not merely a doubter, but a denier, and should
have called himself an Atheist. Not that he denied
any possible God, for no Atheist does that. He denied
the God of Christianity and the God of ordinary Theism.
Now if Ingersoll s statement of the Agnostic position,
thus qualified and understood, is one which Agnostics
m general are ready to endorse, it is perfectly clear that
the only difference between Agnosticism and Atheism is
one of nomenclature.
There is evidence that this was Ingersoll’s own
•opinion. The complete “ Dresden ” edition of his
works contains an important “ Inverview ” headed M My
Belief” (vol. v., pp. 245-248). It is in the form of
•Question and Answer. We will take the following :—■
Question. Do you believe in the existence of a
Supreme Being ?
�23
Answer*—I do not believe in any Supreme personality
or in any Supreme Being who made the universe and
governs nature. I do not say there is no such Being—
all I say is that I do not believe that such a Being
exists.
This is precisely the position taken by all the Atheists
T ever knew. If this is Agnosticism, every Atheist is
Agnostic, and every Agnostic is an Atheist.
■Let it not be said that this is only my inference. It
was Ingersoll’s own view, as is shown by the following
extract:—
Question. Don’t you think that the belief of the
Agnostic is more satisfactory to the believer than that of
the Atheist ?
Answer. There is no difference. The Agnostic is an
Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic
says: “ I do not know, but I do not believe there is any
God.” The Atheist says the same. The orthodox
Christian says he knows there is a God ; but we know
that he does not know. He simply believes. He can
not know. The Atheist cannot know that God does not
exist.
I have given the whole of this Question and Answer
do avoid any possible misunderstanding. The pertinent
>nd decisive words are in the first half of the Answer.
Ingersoll is not with Mr. Holyoake, but against him.
'We have only to reverse the order of three short
sentences to feel the full force of his conclusion. The
^Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic is an Atheist. There
is W difference.
�24
WICKED OPINIONS.
Mr. Holyoake seems to be turning his back upon a prin
ciple which he has often expounded; a principle which
in the justification of Freethought, and without which
persecution is honest jurisprudence. He refers very
strangely to certain “ Atheists whose disbelief in born of
dissoluteness, and who conceal vice by theological outrage
of speech.” This is followed by a scornful reference to“ pot-house Atheism.”
I am not well acquainted with pot-houses, but I should'
imagine that Atheism is not prevalent in them. I have
seen the pot-house people at large on certain holidays,,
but I never noticed much Atheism in their conversation..
Vulgar, malignant Christians, of course, have often
suggested that Atheists hold their meetings in public
houses ; but I hope Mr. Holyoake does not wish tocountenance this calumny.
I should imagine, too, that if a man wanted to
“ conceal ” his “ vice ” he would be a very great fool toresort to “ theological outrage of speech.” It would
pay him better, or rather less badly, to be outrageous
in any other direction. This is precisely the way to
excite odium, to attract hostile regard, and make him
self an object of general suspicion. That a vicious man
should wear a mask of piety is sufficiently intelligible..
Myriads have done it, and many still do it, as we learn
every now and then by the police news. But for a.
vicious man to range himself on the side of an odiousand hated minority, to affront the prejudices of the very
people he wishes to impose upon, and thus to invite a
scrutiny where he desires to practice concealment, would
be an amazing display of imbecility.
But it is still worse to hear Mr. Holyoake stigmatising;
the “disbelief” of certain Atheists—not their affecta-
�25
lions or pretensions, but their disbelief—as “ born of
•dissoluteness.” If this has any meaning at all, it implies
that belief is amenable to volition. If it be so, you
•can change a man’s belief by punishing him ; that is, by
.•giving him a strong inducement to believe otherwise;
and, in that case, the Christians were quite right when
they fined, imprisoned, tortured, and burnt heretics as
.guilty of moral perversity. Such offenders could believe
the orthodox faith, but they would not, and force was
«employed to overcome their obstinacy. But the truth
is, that men do not think as they would, but as they can;
that is to say, as they must. The intellect may be
.affected by the emotions, but not directly. The wish is
:sometimes father to the thought, but it must necessarily
be a case of unconscious paternity. We may be
blinded by passion, but when the mist disperses the
mind’s eye sees the facts according to its capacity and the
laws of mental optics. I do not merely “ disbelieve,” I
deny ” that Atheism ever was, ever is, or ever could
be, born of dissoluteness. “ The fool,” according to the
Psalmist, “ hath said in his heart, there is no God.”
Mr. Holyoake substitutes sinner for fool, and thinks he is
philosophic. I think that he and the Psalmist are in the
.same boat.
Let us take an illustration. A burglar is going to
break into a jeweller’s shop, but he sees a policeman
looking at him from the opposite corner. He wishes to
•crack that crib, he came out to crack that crib, he is
there to crack that crib. Why should he not do it ?
There is a policeman over the way. What of that ?
-Can he not wish the policeman were not there ? Can
be not believe the policeman is not there ? We know he
■cannot. We know the shop is safe for the present.
Now the God that Mr. Holyoake refers to in this con
nection is the heavenly policeman. A vicious man wishes
this God were not looking on, then he believes this God
�26
is not looking on, and thus he becomes a full-blown
Atheist! Could there be a greater absurdity ?
It should be recognised that the human intellect acts
(or functions) according to necessary laws. Given
certain information, and a certain power of judgment,,
and a man s conclusion follows with mathematical pre
cision. His desires, and hopes, and fears have nothing“
to do with the matter. They do not govern his opinions.
His opinions govern them. Our ideas do not accom
modate themselves to our emotions: our emotions
accommodate themselves to our ideas. Love itself,
which is supposed to be absolutely blind, walks with,
some degiee of rationality in the light. Peasants do
not fall in love with a princess. Why ? Because they
know she is beyond their reach.
Actions may be wicked, and intentions may be wicked..
But there cannot be a wicked opinion. An opinion has
only one quality; it is true or false—or, to be still,
more strict, it is accurate or inaccurate. The quantity
of accuracy and inaccuracy may vary, but the quality
is unchangeable.
An opinion may always be reduced to a proposition..
Now if you apply the word “wicked ” to a proposition
you will immediately see its grotesqueness.
It is true that a man may neglect to inform himself
on a subject, either through indolence or wilfulness ; and
his opinion will suffer in consequence. He may even
be dishonest, if inquiry devolved upon him as a duty..
But his opinion cannot be dishonest. You might say it
was born of dishonesty, but that is a very forced
metaphor, and not the language of philosophy. An
opinion is always born of two parents ; a man’s natural,
faculty of judgment and the information on which it
operates.
If there cannot be a dishonest opinion, of course there
cannot be an honest opinion. It is nonsense to talk of
�27
a man’s “honest belief” unless you simply mean that
the belief he expresses is the belief he entertains.
Strictly speaking, the honesty is not in the belief, but in.
the man. He may believe what he says or he may
not; in either case his belief is his belief. He knows
it, if you do not.
Mr. Holyoake, if I recollect aright, has championed,
the cause of “honest disbelief” in his former writings..
The expression was unfortunate, because it was unphilosophical; but I always understood him to mean that
the sceptic had the same right to his thought as a.
believer, So far I agree with him. In any other senseof the words I profoundly differ. And I deeply regret
that Mr. Holyoake has given the sanction of his name
to a view of the formation of opinions which is calcu
lated to serve the cause of bigotry, if not of active per
secution. I fear that the sentence I have specially
criticised will be quoted against Atheists ad nauseam, and
will be a fresh stumbling-block in the path of Freethought advocacy.
BLANK ATHEISM.
Mor® than twenty years ago I was personally acquainted',
with the late Mathilde Blind. James Thomson (“ B.V.”),
the author of that sombre and powerful poem, The City
of Dreadful Night, was with me on more than one occa
sion in her rooms, which were then the centre of some
distinguished intellectual society. Swinburne used
to call there occasionally, though it was never my luck
to meet him. Professor Clifford was another visitor,,
and with him I came into fairly close contact. One
evening I had a little party, consisting of Miss Blind
and a few of her friends, at my own bachelor diggings,
where by request I read them Thomson’s masterpiece..
�28
It was not then published, in the ordinary sense of the
word. I had it as it appeared in the National Reformer—
•a presentation copy from Thomson himself, with the
■omitted stanza added in his own handwriting. It had
Teen a good deal talked about in select circles, and the
members of that little party were very glad to make its
'Complete acquaintance in that fashion. When the flood.gates of criticism were open, one young poet suggested
some rather fatuous improvements. All admired the
work very much, or said they did ; but I noticed that
they all regarded it as a literary curiosity, a striking
poetical /w de force, and not at all as the life-agony of a
man of genius minted into golden verse by his unsubduable art. That aspect of the case did not seem to strike
them a bit, and I felt considerably disappointed at their
■dilettante observations.
But why do I go back to that long-ago ? Why open
and deliberately shut doors of old memories ? Why let
the daylight of recollection into ancient disused chambers,
where the only footfalls are ghostly, and even these are
•deadened by the dust of many years ? Because I cannot
help it. Because a sentence in a book, casually meeting
my gaze, has done it in my despite.
“ What took this soul of mine on the verge of a blank
Atheism, of utter denial and despair; what took it and
led it out of itself to the calm and awful centre of
things ?”
"This was the sentence that arrested my attention in the
Memoir ” which Dr. Garnett contributes to the new
•edition of Mathilde Blind’s Poetical Works. The sentence
is hers. And having raised the question, she supplies
.the answer.
“ It was Buckle. I verily think I owe to him what I
owe to no other human being—an eternal debt of
gratitude for the work he has left. It was the right
book at the right time, the serene proclamation of law
�29
o he unrolled the history of humanity before me from.
, its earliest germs.”
Now I confess to a certain sense of confusion in reading
all this- In the first place, Buckle did not do what he
is alleged to have done. He did not unroll the history
of humanity from its earliest germs. His work was a
great one, but that is not a proper description of it. In
the next place, I can hardly conceive that Mathilde
Blind had not read Buckle when I knew her, and she
was certainly an Atheist then. Clifford was so far from
being ashamed of the designation that he gloried in. it,
and we all understood that Mathilde Blind’s attitude
was precisely similar. What on earth then could she
mean by saying that Buckle saved her from “blank
Atheism ” ? What, indeed, is there in Buckle incom
patible with Atheism ? Did not his orthodox critics call
him a teacher of the Atheistic philosophy? Not that
Le W® fin Atheist, but as far as his book went it was
not unnatural that they (at any rate) should think him
It does not appear that Mathilde Blind herself ever
became a positive Theist. I fancy she called herself to ■
the end fin Agnostic. Her own poetry is not the work
of a believer in God. What on earth then, I repeat,,
did she mean by the statement that she had been saved
from * blank Atheism” ? And what is the meaning of
the words that follow ? “ Utter denial ” of what ? And
44 despair ” of what ? The whole thing is like a Chinese
puzzle.
I cannot help thinking that Mathilde Blind,, writing
perhaps in after years, when Clifford was dead, and
when perhaps the great Bradlaugh struggle had
rendered ® Atheism ” more odious than ever to the great
mob of “ respectable ” people, used the word with that
looseness which is only too common, but of which she
ought »ot to have been guilty. It is curious how so.
many persons, and orthodox teachers especially, are loth
�30
to let “Atheism” stand by itself, and tell its own
story. They seem to feel the necessity of prejudicing
the reader (or hearer) against it at the very outset.
So they hasten to put a suggestive, or even a sinister,
adjective m front of it, as a kind of warning herald.
Sometimes it is “ downright ” Atheism, sometimes it is
utter ” Atheism, sometimes it is “ grovelling ” Atheism
.sometimes it is “ blatant ” Atheism. This, by the way,'
is the favorite adjective of gentlemen like the late Rev.
Mr. Price Hughes. But “ blank ” Atheism is perhaps the
most ingenious form of depreciation. The horrified
imagination of piety is free to fill in the “ blank ” accord
ing to the instant movement of the spirit. Then it has
at least a suggestion of swearing. It sounds like a
polite or fastidious form of “ damned Atheism,” or even
■one of those stronger expletives which are so common
in the streets of Christian cities. Yes, “ blank Atheism ”
is distinctly good, and may be recommended to the
average apologists of religion, who might blunder into
obvious bad language if left to their own resources.
When one comes to think of it, however, it is per
fectly clear that Atheism is only “ blank ” in the sense
that it is not Theism. Atheists dispense with what they
regard as fictions, but they retain what they (and every
body else, for that matter) regard as facts. They dismiss
dreams, but .they cling to realities. They roam the
■ earth, though they believe in no hell under it. They
admire the ever-shifting panorama of the sky, though
they believe in no heaven above it. They breathe the
universal air, though they do not believe it is peopled
with invisible spirits. All that anyone is sure of is
theirs. The “ blank ” in their minds and lives only
relates to the unknown, the incomprehensible, and perhaps
the impossible.
What is it that the Theist knows and the Atheist does
not know? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. To the
�greatest minds, as well as the smallest, God is at the
best an inference ; and the doctrine of a future life can
only be verified (if at all) by dying. In this world, there
fore, and on this side of death, the Atheist has, or may
have, as much information as any religionist. Nor has
he fewer sources of enjoyment, or fewer means of per
sonal development and elevation, or fewer opportunities
-of social usefulness. The “ blank ” only means that he
does not burden his mind with the contradictory fancies
of theology. He objects to wasting his time in trying
to find the value of the infinite X. And he has learnt
from history that the pursuit of such chimeras has pro
duced a very decided “ blank ”—as far as secular science
and civilisation are concerned—in the minds and lives of
many men of genius, and of whole societies of inferior
mortals.
�SOME PUBLICATIONS BY G. W. FOOTE.
Bible Romances.
Cloth.
160 pp.
2s.
Bible Heroes.
200 pp.
Cloth.
2S. 6d.
Bible Handbook
Paper Covers, is. 6d,
Cloth, 2s. 6d.
The Book of God
In the Light of the Higher Criticism.
Paper, is.
Cloth, 2s.
Flowers of Freethought.
FIRST AND SECOND SERIES.
Cloth, 2s, 6d. (each).
Scores of Essays and Articles on a vast variety of
Freethought Topics.
Crimes of Christianity.
Hundreds of References to Standard Authorities.
Cloth, 2S. 6d.
Theism or Atheism?
Public Debate with Rev. W. T. Lee.
Boards, is.
Christianity and Secularism.
Public Debate with Rev. Dr. McCann.
Paper Covers, is. Cloth, is. 6d.
Comic Sermons & other Fantasias
Paper Covers, 8d.
Darwin on God.
Paper Covers, 6d.
London : The Freethought Publishing Company, Ltd..
2 Newcastle-street, Farringdon-street, E.C.
** A
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
What is agnosticism? with observations on Huxley, Bradlaugh and Ingersoll, and a reply to George Jacob Holyoake; also a defence of atheism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 31 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Selective list of author's other works on back page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company Limited
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1902
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N268
Subject
The topic of the resource
Agnosticism
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 (What is agnosticism? with observations on Huxley, Bradlaugh and Ingersoll, and a reply to George Jacob Holyoake; also a defence of atheism), 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
Agnosticism
Charles Bradlaugh
George Jacob Holyoake
NSS
Robert Green Ingersoll
Thomas Henry Huxley