1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/71d99e14ccd86e55e72b64b1fd87556d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kS3SmrFcAakWYnOx5zfKf-NPCntRrjUAItn1%7EzyvF4slN9isqceCbgo9kzdH74SPxbFJhowpIXn%7EOOthYJtTooSKVH4Wbkb0h1%7EKFNKgxgb%7EIOKBooTYpWWc4l%7EMuOBb6l1hzX9S-1w0k3kCSXbYVIphK451EBrrkxYGHhNVxaRFXfs5nG1EfRT28xvpWb2PhgGupqAVyVpeD0-Xd4wu2ErAgUIyR-Hfwcpj5-yo9OFBwkKIKqAqTpLmi9Z%7Exl3AyTUsojeLe%7E4c9052hEaPn5ByWETjBYft8rtZsP4glXjomvEDPL%7EN54SIeLy45iC93N7Dzb07hlgDoxHnuCIVMA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1d8be9722d1d26d4e8dcae52d7d4e901
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
A LIE IN FIVE CHAPTERS?
OB THE
REV. HUGH PRICE HUGHES’S
“CONVERTED ATHEIST.”
BY
G. W. FOOTE
(President of the National Secular Society').
Second Edition.
[completing
ten thousand.]
Price One Penny.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1892.
�PROLOGUE.
Stories of converted Atheists are part of the business stock
of theologians. I have disposed of some of them in my Infidel
Death-Beds. I now dispose of another in this pamphlet.
The Rev. Hugh Price Hughes is a smart young man. He
combines the revival preacher with the enterprising showman.
By means of unstinted cash, constituting a heavy drain on the
resources of Wesleyan Methodism, he has drawn together
large audiences in the West of London. But Christian ministers
complain that he has done this at the expense of their con
gregations. Neither “ infidels ” nor indifferentists are attracted.
All Mr. Hughes does is to draw away from sober churches and
chapels a number of Christians who prefer a more exciting
form of religious service.
Money, more money, was wanted for the West End Mission.
In this extremity, Mr. Hughes published a story of a converted
Atheist in the Methodist Times. It was written in the form
of a penny novel, and designed to catch pious flat-fish.^ Very
likely it has succeeded. At any rate, the story "now reprinted
in a little volume, at the modest price of eighteenpence.
My exposure is reprinted from the Freethinker, and published
at the price of one penny. My object is to get the exposure
widely circulated. I appeal to Freethinkers to distribute it
among their orthodox acquaintances. Mr. R. Forder, 28 Stone
cutter-street, London, E.C., is instructed to supply parcels of
fifty copies and upwards at trade price; that is, at the rate of
ninepence for thirteen copies.
I do not imagine that the exposure will greatly affect Mr.
Hughes or his clerical brethren. They know what pays, and
while orthodoxy has long ears they will find their profit in
tickling them. But I venture to think that the exposure will
affect a certain number of honest men and women, and open
their eyes to the arts by which a false system is supported.
�N233
A LIE IN FIVE CHAPTERS?
During August, 1889, the Methodist Times published
in five chapters the story of “ The Atheist Shoemaker ;
a Page in the History of the West London Mission.
By the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes.” Probably it was
reckoned good copy—something to tickle the ears of
Methodist readers, who are always strong on “ con
version ” ; and something to tickle the purses of the
wealthy subscribers to the new and costly experiment
of evangelising the West End. Anyhow, the author
had to undergo no very close editorial scrutiny; no
questions were asked as to the truth of the story, in
case anyone should make inquiries ; for, in fact, the
author and the editor were the same person—the
Rev. Hugh Price Alughes.
From the little we know of this gentleman we should
hot bebdisposed to accept his bare word on any matter
in which “ religion ” or “ morality ” is in question. We
had to report a meeting of the Christian Evidence
Society he attended in Exeter Hall, on May 20, 1887,
at which he told a monstrous false story about a Freethought? lecturess, and promulgated a most ridiculous
fable as to the proceedings of the Council of Nice.
*
More recently we had occasion to animadvert on his
appalling looseness of statement at a great “purity”
meeting in St. James’s Hall, where the reverend gentle
man, trusting to information he never took the trouble
to examine, perpetrated a gross libel on the Aquarium ;
a libel which he was subsequently obliged to eat every
word of, under a threat of prosecution. Mr. Hughes
may be honorable enough in private. As to that we
know nothing and care as little. But we believe his
mind is easily perverted by sentiment, and a pretty
extensive acquaintance with the history of his church
convinces us that the best of Christians have not been
* See Freethinker, May 29,1887.
�( 4 )
very particular about “ stretching” for the glory and
honor of God.
It is not our intention to assert anything worse of
Mr. Hughes’s story than that it looks a lie. This may
sound as good, or as bad, as calling it a lie straight out.
But a little reflection will show that we make a reser
vation. If Mr. Hughes furnishes us with proofs we
will confess our mistake, and apologise for throwing
a doubt upon his honor. But until then, we can only
judge upon the evidence before us, and we say
deliberately that we never met with a story which
bore more obvious marks of concoction.
To begin with, the interests of Methodism are kept
very carefully in view. When the Atheist shoemaker
goes with his pious young wife to an afternoon Con
ference, he finds himself sitting next to a parson. Now
the parson, of course, belonged to a rival church, and
it was a good stroke to make him jealous. The Atheist
remarks, “ It’s really wonderful to get such crowds as
these at the West End. This Mission is a great success.”
Whereupon the parson, “lifting his eyebrows and
sniffing in the air,” remarks that “ It costs a great deal
of money.” To which the Atheist rejoins, “ WhyTsir^
if I believed in God, I should not think all the money,
in the Bank of England too much to carry on a work
like this.” Capital! Mr. Hughes is anything but a
fool. It is a clever touch, well brought in. The
Mission does cost a good deal, the money had to be
raised by vigorous begging, and perhaps there were
subscribers who hardly thought the results commen
surate with the outlay. How judicious, then, to put
this financial reflection into the mouth of an Atheist—
a most impartial witness !—and in reply to a parson,
belonging to a church that spends a great deal more
mo ney than Methodists have the luck to lay their
hands on !
Curiously enough, again, when the sick Atheist shoe
maker, after finding Jesus by the aid of a Methodist
Sister, goes to a Convalescent Home, it turns out to be a
High Church establishment, and Sister Agatha nearly
undoes all the good work of Sister Beatrice. She asks
him to join her gospel-shop, tells him “There is only
�one Church in this country,” and says that “Dissenters
are going to heaven by the back stairs.” Could there
be a shrewder way of suggesting that Methodist Sisters
are better Christians, and better worth supporting, than
High Church Sisters ? Sectarian bitterness reigns in
the Convalescent Home. Sister Agatha gets at him,
the inmates get at him, and they get at each other ; so
that he has a two-hours’ agony and bloody sweat in
wrestling with the Devil, who asks him whether it is
worth his while to remain with this happy family of
Christians. He pulls through, however, by turning his
mind from the High Church Sister and thinking of the
Methodist Sister. More business, Mr. Hughes, more
business ! and very good business, too.
Here is another bit of business, rather more subtle
and delicate, thrown in with rarer skill, and apt to
escape a superficial reader. The Atheist’s young wife,
who goes first to the Sunday afternoon meetings, is of
Celtic origin, and “ by birth and early training a Roman
Catholic.” After hearing Mr. Hughes preach about
“the living Christ and present salvation,” she silently
absolves to “ trust that Christ more fully than she had
B.ver trusted him before.” This is one of Mr. Hughes’s
flraster-strokes. How soft and insinuating is the sug
gestion of the religious superiority of Methodism over
CatholicHfei ! It is these nice hints and flying touches
that reveal the artist.
Then again—and this is a bolder stroke of policy ; a
blow from a bludgeon, so to speak, rather than a thrust
of a fine rapier—Mr. Hughes guards himself at the very
outset against the embarrassment of prying sceptics.
The Atheist shoemaker, who is happily dispatched to
glory—not by “ the back stairs ”—in the fifth and last
chapter, willingly consented to the publication of all
the facts of his case, and indeed “ there is no reason
for concealment.” Here the unsuspecting reader would
imagine that he was going to get all the facts. But Mr.
Hughes is not so simple as that. There is a “ But ”—
not too much “ But,” but just “ But ” enough. “ Some
of those who must appear on the scene shrink from
publicity,” so fictitious names are given to all the cha
racters, including the converted Atheist, and all the
�( 6 )
clues are discreetly cut away with a single snip of the
artist’s scissors. It is the old, old story. Names, dates
and places are carefully withheld. Investigation is
baffled, and everything is left to faith.
Mr. Hughes has been pressed on this matter. Free
thinkers, we understand, have written to him. We
have seen his reply to Mr. Robert Forder, the secretary
of the National Secular Society. Mr. Hughes refers
him to the introductory paragraph, which explains why
he is unable to give information. Any other informa
tion as to the mission work is at Mr. Forder’s service,
but not this. Of course not!
Were there a substratum of truth in the story, clear
proof would remain of its having been cooked. “ One
dark night last winter,” as an opening sentence, is
enough to satisfy an intelligent reader. Conversations
are given, not in substance, but verbally, although they
took place in circumstances in which it was impossible
for them to be recorded. The Atheist’s tones, gestures,
and expression are described, although nearly every
thing happens in the writer’s absence. In short, we
have every characteristic of a pious invention.
We have now to qualify our praise of Mr. Hughes’s
cleverness by pointing out a very serious mistake. He
has fallen into the error of being too precise. This is
doubtless a merit in ordinary romances, to which it
imparts a life-like air ; but it is a glaring fault when
you are palming off lies as truth. Mr. Hughes should
have remembered that discretion is sometimes the
better part of valor. He would have been better advised
if he had made his converted Atheist older and less
notorious, and had given fewer details of his character
and personal appearance. As it is, he has drawn a
picture which, whatever are its merits, has the signal
disadvantage of being plainly apocryphal.
“ John Herbert ” was a shoemaker. He had a brother
at Northampton (Bradlaugh’s borough—how pat!),
who has become a convert to Christianity through
John’s edifying death. He was a young man, “ about
thirty years of age,” with a young wife, and apparently
no children. He was passionately fond of music. He
had “ delicate intellectual features, and deep, inquisi-
�(7)
tive, penetrating eyes.” He was a “ well-known London
Atheist.” He “ possessed a large collection of Atheist
literature. Everything ever written by Mr. Bradlaugh,
Mrs. Besant, and Colonel Ingersoll he had at his fingers’
ends.” He was an orator on Clerkenwell-green, and
seemingly at the Hall of Science. The breadth of his
fame may be seen from the following passage :—
Soon after the foregoing incidents had occurred, I asked a
journeyman shoemaker in Soho if he knew John Herbert.
“ Know him I” said he, turning round suddenly, quite aston
ished that I should ask so foolish a question. “Why everybody
knows Herbert.”
Then, striking an eccentric attitude and drawing up his tall
body to its full height, he said,
“ I tell you what it is, sir. Herbert is a far-larn’d man; he
will just suit a young gentleman like you. Why, when he used to
speak in Victoria-park there was such continuous cheering that
you could scarcely hear what he was saying. Again and again
have some of our chaps tried to get up a discussion between
him and Bradlaugh, but we could never manage it. They were
always on the same side. Ah! it would have been a fine game
if we could have made these two argue with one another.
Many of us thought that Herbert would get the best of it.
There is some extraordinary nonsense in this para
graph. “ Far-larn’d ” is a curious idiom for a Cockney
shoemaker, and the idea of Freethinkers getting up a
discussion between one of their own speakers and Mr.
Bradlaugh—chiefly, it would appear, for the fun of the
thing—is so ineffably preposterous that we fear our
readers will go into a convulsion of laughter. We want
them to do nothing of the kind, but to keep their atten
tion fixed upon John Herbert.
The Atheist shoemaker lived at Islington, occupying
a floor in an ordinary lodging-house. He was very
happy with his wife. His atheist companions said he
was under petticoat government. “ Whenever he and
his comrades arranged a day’s excursion, he stubbornly
refused to accompany them unless he was allowed to
take his devoted little wife with him.” This is one of
the richest follies in the whole of the story. Mr.
Hughes does not know that no distinction of sex is
recognised in Secular Societies, that excursions are of
rare occurrence, and that when they are “ arranged,”
�( 8 )
the male members are only too happy to have ladies in
the company.
John Herbert finally went down with his wife to
Devonshire, where it was hoped he would recover from
his illness. But he died there (of course !) and his exit
from this world to the better one promised by Metho
dists occurred some time in last spring.
Here, then, is a sufficiently detailed picture, yet w@
are unable to identify the original. We know some
thing of Freethought propagandists in London, but we
cannot call to mind a single person who answers in the
slightest degree to the description. Mr. Forder is
positive against the existence of such a person. Not
one Freethinker, among the scores who have spoken
to us on the subject, is able to recognise this wellknown London Atheist, this speaker on Clerkenwellgreen, this wonderful orator of Victoria-park, this
match for Bradlaugh.
Let us narrow the issue. When the Devil is carrying
on a long conversation with John Herbert, he remarks,
“ What you used to say in the Hall of Science and on
Clerkenwell-green is quite true.” Who could help
inferring that John Herbert was a speaker at the Hall
of Science ? But this is not all. While in Devonshire
he was prayed for—apparently with small success—by
the Methodists in London. “ It seemed to us,” Mr.
Hughes says, “ of such immense importance that he
should himself go to his old workshop, and to the Hall of
Science, and to Clerkenwell-green, and to all his former
haunts, and with his own lips tell the story of his con
version.” Again he says, “ We had thought of accom
panying him to Clerkenwell-green and the Hall of
Science, and wherever he was known, that all his old
friends might have an opportunity of sharing his im
mortal joy.” Now if this does not mean that he was a
speaker at the Hall of Science, articles and stories
might as well be composed by pulling out words at
hazard from a bag.
Who, then, are the lecturers at the Hall of Science ?
They can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand.
We know all the men and women who have lectured
there during the last ten years—not to go back farther
�(9)
—and we declare that the list does not include any
person like John Herbert, or any person resembling
him in the remotest degree. We will give Mr. Hughes
a complete list of all who have lectured there during
that period, and we defy him to name one among
them who was working as a shoemaker, or who was
“ about thirty years of age ” last winter, or who died
last spring.
Here is a clear challenge. What will Mr. Hughes
do ? Will he skulk behind his well-calculated opening
paragraph ? Will he sit silent and smile ? Will he
flatter himself that the Methodists will believe his
story though every Atheist in London should brand it
as a lie ? Or will he say that the Hall of Science
portion is a mistake, and that he was misled, or that he
wrote a little too much in the spirit of romance ? Let
him do what he will, we defy him to move without
damning himself.
We will put Mr. Hughes another poser. John
Herbert was an Atheist; he was popular ; he had many
Atheist comrades, with whom he took “ excursions.”
He was as fierce an Atheist as ever when Sister Beatrice
was brought to his bedside. Now how was it that
none of his Atheist comrades came to his sick room ?
Why did he not send to tell them of his plight ? What
will Mr. Hughes reply ? We have no hesitation in
expressing our belief that they did not come because
Mr. Hughes did not want them there. Their presence
would have thwarted his purpose. He wanted the
sick room clear for Sister Beatrice and her Methodist
spells.
Atheism is as much a terra incognita to Mr. Hughes
as equatorial Africa. His idea of Atheists is childish
in the extreme. His prevailing notion seems to be
that men become Atheists from watching the spectacle
of Christian disunion and inconsistency. Now these
phenomena are peculiar to Protestantism, which puts
an open Bible into people’s hands and foolishly expects
them all to deduce exactly the same doctrines from
such a conglomerate volume. Catholicism follows a
different plan. By means of the Church, which is the
living voice of God, it has an infallible interpreter of
�*
( 10 )
Scripture, and disunion and inconsistency are thus
reduced to a minimum. Rome boasts herself semper
eadem, and the boast is not a vain one. Still, there are
Atheists in Catholic countries ; and this single fact
explodes Mr. Hughes’s theory of Atheism.
Were Mr. Hughes to rely more on knowledge than
on imagination, he would soon discover that Atheism
is a rational and not a sentimental belief. Were every
Christian a good man—a most prodigious hypothesis 1
honest, truthful, generous, and compassionate ; were
there no serious differences of opinion amongst them ;
were they in the habit of consistently practising the
doctrines they profess ; the Atheist would probably
change the tone of his criticism, but the philosophy
of Atheism would remain unaltered.
The burden of John Herbert’s diatribes against
religion is that Christians hate and mistrust each other,
and that he and his fellow workmen are sweated by a
Christian employer. But he soon comes to think bettei’
of the Methodist circle of which Mr. Hughes is the
centre, for the simple and sufficient reason that Mr.
Hughes is the author of the story. “ I admit,” says
John Herbert, “that your kind of Christianity is quite
different. I know what you are doing for the poor.
If all Christians were like you----- .” Thus Mr.
Hughes lauds his own little ring at the expense of
other Christian bodies, and snuffles like a first-rate
Pharisee.
Sister Beatrice pays John Herbert a visit, talks the
most unmistakable Hugh-Price-Hughesese, and storms
all the Atheist’s positions in a single interview. The
orator of the Hall of Science, the match for Bradlaugh,
gives in to a Methodist young lady, who boasts not a
shred of argument, but asks him to “ accept Christ, the
Son of God,” before the sick man is persuaded that
there is a God to have a son or a daughter. After firing
off what reads like a long extract from one of Mr.
Hughes’s sermons, Sister Beatrice rises to leave ; and
the orator of the Hall of Science, the match for Brad
laugh, is so struck with the twaddle that he is on th©
point of yielding. “ If it were not such a cowardly
�(11)
business to do it on my death-bed,” he says, “I feel
almost inclined to give in.”
The next interview settles the business. John Her
bert is going to swallow the medicine, but the interest
of the story demands some reluctance. “ I can’t do
it,” he says ; “ I’ve been awful—I’ve been a ringleader.”
But Sister Beatrice holds out the spoon coaxingly. She
has a sweet voice and a fair hand ; it is ten to one she
will win. “ The agony of the spiritual struggle ”
reaches its climax, and great drops of perspiration
started out of his white forehead.” The Sister and the
wife prayed, and presently John took the medicine at
a gulf. Hallelujah 1 The two women were “ strangely
conscious ” that God was in the room. They knew
their prayer was answered, and felt no surprise when
converted John said, “It’s all right now. I’ve
given in.”
Such is Mr. Hughes’s idea of converting Atheists t
No wonder he has achieved such magnificent success
that he is obliged to conceal the identity of the only
bird he has caught.
John seemed to get better. The medicine appeared
to agree with him. He looked forward to his recanta
tion at the Hall of Science. But it never came off.
Oh dear no! Not for Hugh Price Hughes ! That meant
producing your bird, which couldn’t be done without
buying one at the poulterer’s, and the bird was out of
season. So the nameless converted Atheist, who lived
in an unspecified street in Islington, died in a name
less village in Devonshire, and was buried in an undiscoverable grave; while his dear little wife vanishes
into the infinite azure of the past, and the very memory
of this popular Atheist, who died only last spring, is
mysteriously blotted out from the minds of all the
Atheists who knew him so well. Truly, the age of
miracles is not past. Nor is it likely to be while
Methodist preachers are able to manufacture them for
a steady and profitable market.
Mr. Hughes says he called on John Herbert, some
weeks after his conversion, to give him a dose of the
body and blood of Christ ; the precious articles being
carried, to use the preacher’s own words, in “ the little
�( 12 )
Communion Service case which the ladies of Leeds
gave to my sainted father-in-law, Alfred Barrett, fortysix years ago.” Apparently the body and blood of
Christ disagreed with him. Perhaps the body was too
new, and the blood was only ten shillings a dozen.
Anyhow, we read that “John Herbert seldom sat up
after that day. He grew worse and worse.”
John took his large collection of Atheist literature
from the shelves and put it under the sofa. “He
inclined to burn them.” Oh, Hugh Price Hughes, is
your invention so barren? Could you think of
nothing but this ancient “ chesnut ” ? You might
have had them put in a glass case, marked “ Poison 1”
in one of your Sunday-schools. You might have
taken them home and read them yourself. They
would have given you a lesson in veracity ; at any
rate, they would have enabled you to write about
Atheism with a little knowledge instead of the most
contemptible ignorance.
What did become of the books we are not told. Mr.
Hughes leaves them under the sofa. Were they sold
after John’s seraphic death to a second-hand dealer,
and dispersed by him over the whole of Islington?
If so, they are likely to make more Atheists than
Mr. Hughes will ever convert.
Mr. Hughes went beyond himself in ignorance of
Atheists, and in ignorance of High Churchwomen too,
when he wrote the conversation between John Herbert
and Sister Agatha at the Convalescent Home. Sister
Agatha tries to show him the impossibility of approach
ing God except through a priest of the church, and in
doing so she plunges into “ ancient ecclesiastical
history ” and quotes “ a large number of Saints and
Fathers.” This is extraordinary on the part of a Sister
in a Convalescent Home, but John Herbert’s reply was
more extraordinary still. “ As I had been an Atheist,”
he says, “ I had not studied ancient church history.”
Mr. Hughes actually imagines that Atheists are, as
such, ignorant of ecclesiastical history; and that a
casual Sister in a charitable institution could quote “ a
large number of Saints and Fathers,” whose “ names
Herbert had never heard of before ”—this Herbert
�( 13 )
being a Hall of Science orator and a match for Brad
laugh !
Mr. Hughes is also rather loose in his arithmetic.
He introduces John Herbert as “about thirty years of
age,” and kills him off at “ the early age of twenty
eight.” Had the converted Atheist lived a little longer
he would have been a boy again. His death occurred
in the presence of his wife and “ the gardener’s wife.”
Mr. Hughes was not there, but he is able to tell us all
that happened, and every word that was said ; and of
course we are treated to “the last words of John
Herbert, the Atheist.”
Poor Mr. Hughes was very much disappointed at
losing the opportunity of assisting at his convert’s re
cantation at the Hall of Science, but he yields to the
will of the Lord, and hopes that “ this short and simple
biography ” will be made “ a blessing to Christian
Atheists and to Atheist Christians in all parts of the
world.” That the biography is “ simple” few intelligent
readers will dispute; but as to its being a blessing, there
are likely to be opposite opinions. No doubt it will
bamboozle the readers of the Methodist Times, wad bring
in subscriptions for the West End Mission. But if we
take a larger view, we shall hardly regard the deliberate
dissemination of lies as a blessing to mankind. In the
long run nothing serves us but Truth. But this is
a goddess whom the Christians seldom worship. From
the first century to the nineteenth, they have circulated
pious frauds without ablush. Amidst all its rancid
cant and maudlin sentiment, the story of Mr. Hughes’s
converted Atheist shows us that the good old trade of
lying for the Church still flourishes ; and we under
stand what Herder meant in saying that “ Christian
veracity ” deserved to rank with “ Punic faith.”
�Mb. Hughes was furnished with marked copies of the Free
thinker in which this exposure was first printed. In face of a
direct challenge from myself, as editor of that journal and
President of the London Secular Federation, he pursues a
cowardly policy of silence. Once more I defy him to prove
his story. I will pass over the details of incident and conver
sation, and challenge him again on the main point. Let him
establish the substantial truth of his narrative. Let him prove
the existence of an Atheist who lectured on Olerkenwell-green,
in Victoria-park, and at the Hall of Science; who was con
verted by Mr. Hughes or his Wesleyan Sisters; who was a
shoemaker, about thirty years of age; and who died l&st
spring. Here is a clear challenge. An honest man would
accept it. Should Mr. Hughes still decline it, I shall do more
than say his story looks a lie. I shall say it is a lie. And I
am sure every honest reader will endorse the brand.
�POSTSCRIPT TO SECOND EDITION.
(January, 189%.)
Five thousand copies of this pamphlet having been sold, and
the demand still continuing, another edition of five thousand
is now published.
Mr. Hughes has ignored my challenge. He has also ignored
the challenge of the late Charles Bradlaugh. It is time, there
fore, to fling aside all reserve, and I unhesitatingly call Mr.
Hughes’s story a lie from beginning to end. It does not
■contain even a mixture of truth; it is pure, unadulterated
falsehood.
Although the author of this fraud has maintained the
“ dignified silence ” which is customary in the prisoners’ dock,
he has in one instance exposed the hollowness of his plea that
the names of the personages of his story could not be given.
Writing to a Freethinker at Nelson, whom he took to be a
Methodist, Mr. Hughes said that the names would be given
presently. Eighteen months have elapsed, and “ presently ”
has not yet arrived.
Mr. Hughes’s concealment is even too much for Mr. Spurgeon,
who has advised him to make a clean breast of everything, and
«o disarm all critics and cavillers. But this advice is not taken,
and it never will be taken. Mr. Hughes sees the policy of not
answering questions that might tend to criminate himself. He
belongs to a very familiar species of Christians, and should
henceforth be knownas the Rev. Ananias Hughes.
�Works by G. W. Foote
2
2
2
O Q
bp
bj
b?
to
2
“THE FREETHINKER”
Edited by G. W. FOOTE.
The Only Penny Freethought Paper in England.
Enlarged to Sixteen Pages.
Circulates throughout the World.
Published every Thursday.
Printed and Published by G- W. Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street,
London, E.O.
05
0 Christianity and Progress 0
Reply to Mr. Gladstone.
Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy 0
A Candid Criticism.
Secularism & Theosophy 0
Rejoinder to Mrs. Besant.
The New Cagliostro ... 0
6
Open Letter to Madame
0
Blavatsky.
The Folly of Prayer ... 0
The Impossible Creed ... 0
0
Open Letter to Li>hop
0
Magee on the Sermon on
the Mount.
Salvation Syrup, or Light
on Darkest England ... 0
6
A Reply to General Booth
6; What Was Christ ?
... 0
0
A Reply to J. S. Mill.
The Shadow of the Sword 0
A Moral and Statistical
6
Essay on War.
8
3 Royal Paupers................0
0 The Dying Atheist ... 0
4 Was Jesus Insane ? ... 0
Is the Bible Inspired ?... 0
A Criticism of Luat Mundi.
Bible Romances (revised) 0
double numbers
... 0
2
4 Bible Heroes (1st series) 1
3 Bible Heroes (2nd series) 1
Both complete, in cloth 2
2
•
The Grand Old Book ... 1
A Reply to the Grand
Old Man. An Exhaustive Answer to the Right
Hon.W. E. Gladstone’s
Impregnable Rocli of Holy
Scripture.
Bound in cloth
... 1
Is Socialism Sound ? ... 1
Four Nights’ Public De
bate with Annie Besant.
Bound in cloth
... 2
Christianity& Secularism 1
Four nights’ Public De
bate with the Rev. Dr.
. Janies McCann.
Bound in cloth
... 1
Darwin on God ...
... 0
Bound in cloth
... 1
Reminiscences of Charles
Bradlaugh................0
Infidel Death-Beds
... 0
Bound in cloth
... I
Letters to the Clergy ... 1
Defence of Free Speech 0
Three Hours’ Address to
the Jury before Lord
Coleridge.
The Bible God................0
Letters to Jesus Christ... 0
Philosophy of Secularism 0
Atheism and Morality ... 0
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A lie in five chapters? or: Rev. Hugh Price Hughes's "Converted atheist"
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Response to The atheist shoemaker, by Hugh Price Hughes, published in the Methodist Times, August 1889. Works by G.W. Foote listed on back cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1892
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N253
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 (A lie in five chapters? or: Rev. Hugh Price Hughes's "Converted 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
Atheists
Conversion
Hugh Price Hughes
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/4e88ff4d4e364f07f976dbccb68c73ee.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sE2oUZgJ8JrSf1Od7zlSq-deZy6f4XEfBgPjvyxf4GjL586yVR-VL16ZaN%7EdrSmdmjKBjv9aEx9ImH3jfKTUzeFlD30CrCiYOWYd3h0O9MUPHSEx1tW80NjXtIW8PZ0Vz8CuRcT7q3Gm5p-EYvev7yxBu7oJSibMSf0XycfJ4BXFAAHJbEJHMbuqWHmsmya9Kr1myGoOx9o9MkGO4YJstv774vlBcfcNAHIEUwqDl0VGRW2NQL6VojUIPy3STzdaJaKzLRzExtKdAAOHIHFr6DZTvFuAFdrSGzifFUI0vdbtONdcw5Sqp9pPK1BFsPMJN0wToS453YbbjulVU1muQQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9db2f61f8ff05d532a98a682eb7001e5
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ATHEIST SHOEMAKER
AND THE
REV. HUGH PRICE HUGHES
OP.
A STUDY IN
LYING
WITH
*
!
A FULL AND COMPLETE EXPOSURE
BY
G. W. FOOTE
President of the National Secular Society
AND
I
Editor of the “ Freethinker
LONDON:
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.O.
Q
f
�his pamphlet is written gratuitously by Mr. Foote, and the expense
of printing one hundred thousand copies, for free distribution, has been
met by a public subscription raised in the Freethinker. This journal is
published every Thursday at the price of twopence. It is sold by many
newsagents in all parts of the country, and can also be obtained, post
free for twopence halfpenny, from the publishing office, 28 Stonecutter
street, London, E.C.]
�THE ATHEIST
SHOEMAKER
Introduction.
ONE of the leading religious agencies in the metropolis
is the West London Mission, and the leading spirit of
this mission is the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes. The
reverend gentleman is specially told off for this work
by the Wesleyan Methodist body ; he discourses on
Sundays in the great St. James’s Hall, Piccadilly ; and
the record of his labors is published in a journal which
he edits, and which belongs to him, called the Methodist
Times.
Five years ago the West London Mission was in
financial difficulties, and fervent appeals were made on
its behalf. Apparently by way of stimulating the
generosity of the Wesleyan Methodist public, Mr.
Hughes printed in his journal, in the months of July
and August, 1889, a long, circumstantial, and vivid
story, entitled “ The Atheist Shoemaker.” It was
afterwards published in book-form at the price of
eighteen-pence, with a Preface, setting forth that the
narrative was “ a true story, and not fiction,” being
indeed “ a literal illustration of the spirit and work of
the West London Mission.”
This “ true story ” was that of a young shoemaker,
who was “ brought to Christ ” by the said Mission. He
had been a famous advocate of Atheism, lecturing to
“ atheistic assemblies ” on Clerkenwell-green, in Vic
toria Park, and apparently at the Hall of Science.
During his last illness, which carried him off at the
age of twenty-eight, he was befriended by the Mission,
and, under the persuasive influence of Sister Beatrice,
he renounced his Atheism, and took the communion.
�( 4 )
which was administered to him by Mr. Hughes.
Finally, he died in Devonshire, making a most edify
ing end, so that “ the last year of his life was full of
instruction for every class of readers.”
Mr. Hughes stated that he had been “urged” to
publish this story. The convert himself had “ willingly
consented” to this being done, and there was “no
reason for concealment.” On the contrary, there were
“ many reasons for publicity.” But the story as pre
sented to the reader was tantalising. The “ publicity ”
was remarkably like “ concealment.” Mr. Hughes gave
his own name, but that could not be avoided. All the
other characters were given fictitious names, and no
clue was afforded to their addresses. Everything, in
short, seemed designed to baffle investigation.
This was strange enough to require as apology, or
at least an explanation. Accordingly it was stated
that “ some of those who must appear on the scene
shrink from publicity.” Now the only prominent
characters were Mr. Hughes himself, whose name i&
given ; the convert, who was dead, and had no feeling*
in the matter ; his widow, who must have furnished
many of the details ; and the “Sister” of the West
London Mission, who was instrumental in his “ con
version.” It was these two ladies, then, who shrank
from publicity; and that they had strong, if not good
reasons for “ shrinking ” wi.l be seen hereafter. Suffice
it to say, for the present, that the convert was called
“ John Herbert ” in the story, while the lady of the
paission was called “ Sister Beatrice.”
The Story Challenged.
Immediately on the first publication of “ The Atheist
Shoemaker ” in the Methodist Times it was criticised
in the columns of the Freethinker. The present
writer (who will henceforth speak in the first person)
saw at a glance that the story was very largely
fictitious. When a narrative begins with “ One dark
night last winter,” one feels it is not history, but the
work of a novelist. But the worst of it was, that no
person answering to the description of John Herbert
was known to the Freethinkers of London. In one
�( 5 )
respect the description was precise enough. John
Herbert died in the spring of 1889, at the age of
twenty-eight; he was by trade a shoemaker ; he had
“ delicate, intellectual features and deep, inquisitive,
penetrating eyes ” ; he was a person of great natural
eloquence ; he was “ a well-known London Atheist ” ;
he used to lecture on Clerkenwell-green and in
Victoria Park, where his voice was drowned by “ con
tinuous cheering”; one of Mr. Hughes’s informants
thought Herbert would get the best of it in a debate
with “ Bradlaugh,” and exclaimed, “Why, everybody
knows Herbert ” ; he was very happy at repartee, in
which “ his public discussions as an Atheist had made
him so expert ” ; and we are told of “ what he used to
say in the Hall of Science,” where Mr. Hughes hoped
to hear him tell the story of his conversion. All this
made a very recognisable portrait—if the original ever
existed, which it never did. I was myself in a position
to deny its existence. As President of the London
Secular Federation, and editor of the Freethinker, and
being intimately acquainted with the propaganda of
Freethought in London, I was prepared to challenge
the substantial truth of Mr. Hughes’s story, Still, I
did not act in a spirit of infallibility. I made inquiries
of others, including those who had carried on the
work of Secularism in the places mentioned by Mr.
Hughes ; and one and all were positive that no such
lecturer as John Herbert had ever been known there.
It must be recollected that they had only to tax their
memories for a year or two, and that no mistake could
arise from the mere lapse of time in this instance.
My own view was thus confirmed, and I felt justified
in severely criticising the story of John Herbert’s
conversion. I declared that it bore every appearance
of a lie ; yet I added that, if Mr. Hughes would give
the real name of his convert, and prove the substantial
truth of his story, I would not only confess my mis
take, but “ apologise for throwing a doubt upon his
honor.” Mr. Hughes took no notice of this appeal,
and when he published his narrative in a volume I
felt bound to publish my criticism as well in a separate
form. It was therefore issued as a penny pamphlet,
under the title of “ A Lie in Five Chapters.”
�( 6 )
Mr- H ughes Keeps Silence.
Several other persons tried to draw Mr. Hughes.
Amongst them was a friendly critic, the Rev. C. A.
(Spurgeon, who noticed Mr. Hughes’s volume in the
Sword and Trowel, and advised him to give the names
and addresses of his characters. The great Baptist
preacher, who was a straightforward man in his way,
could not understand all the mystery of “ The Atheist
Shoemaker.” He thought the “ feelings ” of the
persons concerned were as nothing to the gain to the
cause of Christ, if the conversion were established to
the satisfaction of believers and the confusion of
infidels.
Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, the leader of the English
Secularists, plainly told Mr. Hughes that his story was
clearly untrue in many respects, and invited him to
have an inquiry made into its evidences. The follow
ing paragraph appeared in the National Reformer for
February 2, 1890, soon after Mr. Bradlaugh’s return
from India :—
“ The Rev. Hugh Price Hughes publishes, as if true, a story
of a converted Atheist shoemaker. As Mr. Hughes repeatedly
mentions me by name, and as many of the incidents in his
volume are clearly untrue, I invite him in common decency
to give me the means of judging for myself how far he has
been misled. I hesitate to suppose that he can be the wilful
misleader.”
This was plain enough, and it was written by one
who had a right to intervene. Mr. Bradlaugh was
not only the natural but the official leader of Freethought. He was President of the National Secular
Society, whose headquarters are in London ; and he
was therefore in a position to know whether the
eloquent hero of Mr. Hughes’s story had any real
existence.
Mr. Hughes took no notice of Mr. Bradlaugh’s state
ment and invitation. The burning love of truth,
which he professes, did not lead him to see whether he
had been misled himself, and had consequently misled
others.
The reverend gentleman’s obstinate silence provoked
the publication of a correspondence between him and
�( 7 )
Mr. Robert Forder, secretary of the National Secular
Society, who has an exceptionally intimate acquaint
ance with the iiersonnel of the Freethought movement.
Mr. Forder wrote to Mr. Hughes on September 5,1889,
soon after the completion of “ The Atheist Shoemaker ”
in the Methodist Times, and the following is an
extract from his letter “ As I have been personally acquainted with all the Atheist
lecturers at the Hall of Science, Clerkenwell Green, and
Victoria Park during the last twenty-five years, and have
been secretary of the National Secular Society for the last
fifteen years, you will understand my curiosity to know
which one of my old friends and companions abandoned his
opinions prior to his death. I therefore take the liberty of
asking you the name of the Atheist lecturer, feeling sure you
will be glad to oblige one who must have known him for many
years.”
Mr. Hughes, being away on the continent, did not
reply until October 4. He referred Mr. Forder to the
Preface of “ The Atheist Shoemaker,” where it was
stated that some of the characters shrank from “ pub
licity,” and said in conclusion—
“ I am sorry that passage escaped your notice, for it would
have saved you the trouble of writing to me. Any informa
tion about our work that can be made public with due regard
to the wishes and feelings of others I shall always be happy
to give you.”
Mr. Hughes must have penned the last sentence with
his tongue in his cheek. He knew very well that all
Mr. Forder wanted to know about “ our work ” was the
name of the converted Atheist Shoemaker.
This correspondence appeared in the National
Reformer for February 16, with a note on the opposite
page by Mr. Bradlaugh :
“ In another column I insert a communication from Mr.
Forder as to the falsehood of the story of ‘ the converted
Atheist shoemaker.’ As the Rev. Mr. Hughes has not hesi
tated to increase the commercial value of his romance by
repeatedly using my name, I should have supposed thatcommon decency would have required him to give me the
means of testing his accuracy, especially as he knows I
challenge the main allegations in his story.”
Mr. Bradlaugh wrote another paragraph on February
23, remarking that the Daily Chronicle, the Pall Mall
�( 8 )
Gazette, and other papers, were giving publicity to the
fact that Mr. Hughes would not have his story investi
gated. “ The excuse,” said Mr. Bradlaugh, “ that
publicity might hurt the feelings of the dead shoe
maker’s surviving friends should have been considered
before Mr. Hughes published my name in his story.
Are my feelings and those of my friends of no account
to Mr. Hughes ?”
A final note from Mr. Bradlaugh’s pen was printed
in the National Reformer for March 2 :—
“ The story contains some statements which I know to be
untrue, and contains other statements which I believe to be
untrue. I leave to Mr. Hughes the responsibility of having
published these as parts of what he describes as ‘ a true story.’
Mr. Hughes, although he made his story more saleable by its
references to me, denies my right to inquire into the matter.
Mr. Hughes holds very curious notions of what a religious
man may do against an infidel.”
Now I ask the reader to consider this situation
Would any man of honor have kept silent in the face
of Mr. Bradlaugh’s appeals ? Mr. Bradlaugh was an
eminent man, enjoying at that time almost universal
respect, and he regarded himself in “ common decency ”
as entitled to satisfaction. He had also stated his
knowledge that much of Mr. Hughes’s story was untrue.
In these circumstances, Mr. Hughes ought surely to
have made inquiries, if only to satisfy himself. But
the sequel shows that he did nothing of the kind. He
wilfully closed his eyes to the evidence that would
have proved his inaccuracy.
A Little Speech.
Throughout this dispute Mr. Hughes has displayed
a certain consistency. His policy has been to ignore
all the leaders of Secularism, doubtless on the ground
that their appeals and challenges would not be seen or
heard by his own party. Whenever he has broken
silence, it has been in consequence of something that
his own party could see, in the columns of some
political organ of great influence and circulation.
Accordingly he was stung into saying something by
a leaderette in the Daily Chronicle, the “ motive and
animus ” of the writer of which he complained of.
�( 9 )
just as he has since complained of everyone who has
desired him to put his cards upon the table.
After scolding this writer, Mr. Hughes wrote as
follows in the Methodist Times for February 27, 1890 :
“We are at a loss to understand what right either Mr.
Bradlaugh or the Secretary of the National Secular Society
has to demand the name of ‘ The Atheist Shoemaker,’ which
is suppressed for the reason given in the preface of the
book. The narrative makes no attack whatever, either on
Mr, Bradlaugh or on the National Secular' Society. The
Secretary of that Society says no professional Atheist
lecturer in London has died during the last ten years in the
way de scribedin ‘The Atheist Shoemaker.’ Mr. Price Hughes
never said that ‘ The Atheist Shoemaker ’ was a professional
lecturer of the National Secular Society. He simply said
that he had spoken in advocacy of Atheism in public halls
and in the open air, and that he had spoken with great
eloquence and effect.”
This is no answer at all to Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Forder,
or myself. Mr. Hughes did not state that his “ John
Herbert ” was a lecturer for the National Secular
Society ; but, as a matter of fact, it has a monopoly of
the “ Atheist ” platforms in London, and the Atheist
Shoemaker could not have spoken from them “ with
great eloquence and effect,” yet be absolutely unknown
to the Society’s officials, and even to the rank and file
of its members. Mr. Hughes had been informed that
his convert was unknown ; his story, therefore, could
not be true as it stood ; yet he refused to lift a finger
in the way of correction. He continued to advertise
and sell the volume as though nothing had happened.
Goaded into Action.
My criticism of Mr. Hughes’s story, which I entitled
“ A Lie in Five Chapters,” was extensively circulated.
Freethinkers sent copies of it to Mr. Hughes anl his
friends and colleagues, to the chairmen of his meetings
in the provinces, and to various influential Wesleyan
Methodists. The pamphlet gave him a considerable
amount of trouble. He almits this in the Methodist
Times for January 18,1894 “ Christians of a feeble and
melancholy type ” could not realise the “ absurdity ”
of supposing that the “true story” was “ fiction.”
�( 10 )
“ Moreover, some ministers of religion, local preachers,
and private Christians, deficient in the ever-blessed
sense of humor,” urged Mr. Hughes to publish the
name of the Atheist Shoemaker. One letter “ touched ”
him. It was an appeal from “ the great Anglican
missioner,” the Rev. W. H. Aitken, who said that
“ young fellows who consulted him in the inquiry
room were troubled by fellow-workmen who showed
them Mr. Foote’s pamphlet.” Mr. Hughes was ready
to do anything in reason to “ satisfy the scruples of
the inexperienced, the prejudiced, and the melan
choly ”—of all, in short, who could not take his bare
word in the face of circumstantial contradictions. He
.was “ especially willing ” to give “ every information
in his power to Atheists and Agnostics who treated
their opponents with justice and courtesy”—although
he had refused this information to Mr. Bradlaugh, the
“ courtesy ” of whose appeal he has admitted to a
Morning interviewer (Feb. 10, 1894). Evidently the
time had come to do something. But what? The
proper method was to submit to a Court of Honor.
Mr. Hughes, however, preferred to appeal to one man,
and he cleverly chose a Secularist—Mr. George Jacob
Holyoake, on the pretended ground that he could
investigate “without prejudice and without passion.”
Mr. Holyoake says he applied to Mr. Hughes. Mr.
Hughes says he applied to Mr. Holyoake. It is un
certain, therefore, how the little scheme originated. At
any rate it was carried out with profound secrecy. Mr.
Holyoake was a personal friend of mine as well as a
personal friend of Mr. Hughes. He was also a VicePresident of the National Secular Society, of which I
am President. But he never gave me a hint of what
he was doing. The first intimation I had Of it was a
public announcement in the Daily Chronicle for
January 11,1894, that Mr. Holyoake’s report on the
Atheist Shoemaker case would appear simultaneously
in the next issues of the Methodist Times and the
Freethinker. Subsequently I saw a flaming advertise
ment of this fact in the Methodist Times. I had to
learn from foreign sources what was to appear in my
own paper.
Now I ask any candid reader what is the value of
�(11)
an “investigation” conducted in this manner ?
I
wrote a letter of complaint to Mr. Holyoake, but he
gave me no reply. The whole matter, indeed, compels
me to give my opinion of why Mr. Hughes sought the
aid of Mr. Holyoake.
Mr. Bradlaugh had too much iron in him, and could
not be imposed upon ; he had also a legal mind, and
knew how to take evidence ; besides, he was the leader
of organised Freethought in England, and conversant
with the practical details of its propaganda in London.
It would not do, therefore, to take him into confidence.
Mr. Holyoake, however, was more obliging and suscep
tible to Christian compliments ; he was almost eighty
years of age, and his eyesight was nearly gone, at any
rate for the purposes of investigation, in which so much
depends on the expression on the faces of witnesses ;
besides, he had lived for a long time at Brighton, and
was out of touch with the details of Freethought pro
paganda in London. Mr. Bradlaugh was in a position
to test the truth of Mr. Hughes’s story, Mr. Holyoake
was not, and there is the explanation.
Mr. Holyoake’s Report.
Mr. Holyoake’s report was printed in full in the
Freethinker. Most of it was beside the purpose.
Profuse compliments were paid to Mr. Hughes, who
was described as a gentleman “ entitled to be implicitly
believed on his word ”—a sentence which damns the
whole investigation. Nothing but a sham inquiry was
possible when the investigator started with that
assumption.
The substantial part of Mr. Holyoake’s report is as
follows :—
“ As soon as he knew that I was wishful to investigate the
facts, he placed at my disposal the means of doing so, and
volunteered the real name of Herbert. I have seen an d con
versed separately with ‘ Sister Beatrice ’ and ‘Sister iJthel,’
from whom Mr. Hughes derived many of his statements. I
was shown the private Diary of ‘ Sister Beatrice,’ giving con
temporary documentary evidence of the minute accuracy of
her statement. Their entire veracity seems to me unques
tionable. They had not only sincerity, but that cultivated
sincerity which is without exaggeration. They said Mr.
�( 12 )
Herbert had a vivid faculty of speech and a brightness of
conversation which compelled interest and attention. Of that
they must be good judges, for their own grace and precision
of speech showed that they understood those qualities.
Opportunity was given me of seeing Herbert’s widow, who
has since married again. She appeared an interesting person,
clear, frank, and decisive in her statements. She said she
had been with Mr. Herbert, her former husband, to the Haji
of Science, but had never heard him speak there ; in Victoria
Park she had often heard him. She had been with him there
six hours at a time, he speaking at intervals to groups o
persons all the while. He had sometimes been met on enter
ing the park by persons who would say, if he seemed to wish
to pass them, ‘ Come, give us a few words.’ She had seen
him kicked on the shins by policemen, whose object was to
cause resistance, that they might arrest him; and on one
occasion two gentlemen gave him their names and addresses,
saying if he brought an action against the police they would
give evidence on his behalf. He was very earnest in his
opinions, and had little meetings of persons in his house, to
whom he would produce books and facts in defence of the
opinions he then held. He was very ardent for what he then
thought to be the truth. His wife said he disbelieved in
Christianity because of the cant and, as he said, ‘ the humbug
of those who preached one thing and did another.’ It is
clear to me that Mr. Herbert was for truth and proof, and
was not only ready to offer it when asked, but made occasions
to present it. He was an enthusiast, entitled to the respect
of his former colleagues, since he shortened his life by ?eal
which exceeded his strength.”
Some of these statements arc ridiculous, especially the
one about the Atheist shoemaker’s “ former colleagues,”
who never knew him. But it is needless to expatiate
on this aspect of this report. What I wish to empha
sise is the fact that Mr. Holyoake simply interviewed
the concocters of the Atheist Shoemaker story and
asked them “Is it true?” They said “Yes,” and he
gave it his certificate. He made no attempt to see if
there was another side to the case
Mr. Hughes returned Mr. Holyoake’s compliments,
printed his portrait in the Methodist Times, and called
his report a “ vindication.” Mr. Holyoake had been
put in possession of the real name of the convert, he
had made a “careful” inquiry, and had declared his
belief in the “ substantial truth ” of the Atheist Shoe
maker story. Mr. Hugbes was in raptures. He hoped
�( 13 )
it would be “a lesson” to me. “ We trust,” he said,
“ that Mr. Foote will now, for his own sake, withdraw
his accusation.” Meanwhile the “ vindication ” was
scattered broadcast over the kingdom.
A Rea! Investigation.
Happily I was soon able to make a real investiga
tion. The relatives of “ John Herbert,” who live at
Northampton, put themselves in communication with
me. It may be asked why they never communicated
with Mr. Hughes. The answer is that they tried to.
“ Herbert’s ” father went to one of Mr. Hughes’s
meetings at Northampton a d said he wished to speak
with him on the subject. Mr. Hughes replied that he
was in a hurry. He gave the father his card, and said
“ Call on me.” I have seen that card, and the address
on it is in London. How could a shoemaker pay
“ calls ” like that ? And how much desire had Mr.
Hughes to be well-informed ?
I went down to Northampton and interviewed the
family—the father and two brothers of the Atheist
Shoemaker. They had important documents in their
possession, which they have since left in my custody.
They also gave me a mass of verbal information. The
father is a devout Christian, and has conducted a
Methodist mission at Northampton. He is a man of
simple, honest manners, and strong feelings. Having
just read Mr. Holyoake’s report and my pamphlet, he
deemed it wrong to let the world be longer abused.
“ Herbert’s ” brothers are also Christians, and have
never been otherwise. There was never a Freethinker,
in the family. They are satisfied that the dead son
and brother was never an advocate of Atheism. His
real name was CHARLES ALFRED GIBSON.
The Gibsons in London.
The Gibsons were so indignant at Mr. Hughes’s
conduct that they declared they would do anything I
thought advisable. On my invitation they came up to
tLondon on Sunday, February 4, and appeared on the
^platform at the Hall of Science before a very crowded
assembly. Several reporters were present, and reports
�of the meeting appeared in London papers the next
morning. Half way through my own speech I paused
to let Mr. Gibson senior give his own testimony.
He
said that he was there as a Christian man in the
interest of truth, and he branded the Atheist Shoe
maker story as “ a damnable lie.” Mr. Stephen Henry
Gibson, the “ Atheist brother ” of the story, said
to have been converted by the “ seraphic death ”
of Charles Alfred Gibson, also stood up at my request.
“ Were you ever an Atheist ? ” I asked him, and he
answered “Never.” “Have you ever been anything
but a professed Christian ? ” Again he answered
“Never.” “Have you ever had any communication
with che Rev. Hugh Price PIugh.es or the Sisters of the
West London Mission ? ” And once more he answered
“Never.”
“ Herbert’s ” Identity.
There is no necessity to reproduce the elaborate
proofs I gave in the Freethinker that “ John Herbert”
was really Charles Alfred Gibson. Mr. Holyoake has
admitted that “ Gibson ” was the name disclosed to
him. Mr. Hughes himself also, in reply to the
Morning interviewer (Feb. 10), said, “ Oh, yes, it was
Mr. Gibson’s son undoubtedly who was the subject of
my book.”
“Herbert’s” Career.
Charles Alfred Gibson was born on May 14, 1861.
The date is in the family Bible. He died on March 27,
1889, nearly twenty-eight years of age. His death
took place at Sidmouth—Mr. Hughes’s “ pleasant
home on the Devonshire coast”—and he was buried
there on March 31.
“ Bit by bit,” Mr. Hughes says, “we came to know
his history.” Well, the bits were mostly wrong.
“ Herbert ” is stated to have “ taught himself to read
by a strange device.” The names at the corners of the
streets were “ his reading book.” Then follows a
sample of the Bunyan vein which Mr. Holyoake so
admires in Mr. Hughes.
“ When quite a little lad he would run alongside a gentle
man and say in a casual tone, ‘ Excuse me, sir, but what’s the
�( 15 )
name of that street ?’ Then he would read it and spell it
over and over again for about ten minutes. On the next day
he would return to that street and see if he had learned the
name correctly. Board schools, happily, leave the children
of the poor no room for such pathetic ingenuity now.”
It is a pity to spoil this pretty little story, but there
is not a word of truth in it. It is unadulterated
romance. Charles Alfred Gibson was not a child of
destitution. His father was always able to support his
family as a sober, industrious working-man. His
“ privations,” therefore, are all imaginary. And the
same must be said of his street-corner schooling. He
was at school for five years altogether—when the
Gibsons were in America —at Philadelphia, at Toronto,
and in New Jersey He was also a Sunday-school
scholar at Grace Church, situated at the corner of
Twelfth-street and Race-street, Philadelphia. A faded
portrait of his Sunday-school teacher is still preserved
in Mr. Gibson’s album, and on one of his walls are
hung the three American prints that were presented to
his three boys over there as school prizes.
“As soon as he could read,” says Mr. Hughes,
“ he began to accumulate books.” This also is news to
Mr. Gibson, who describes his dead son as intelligent,
and fond of an argument, but not exactly bookish,
Mr. Gibson stoutly denies that his son could possibly
have uttered many of the things that Mr. Hughes puts
into his mouth. He says they were quite beyond him,
and that “ Tom Paine couldn’t ha^e written them
better.”
Mr. Hughes apparently does not know that Charles
Alfred Gibson served in the Fifth Lancers, in Ireland,
under the assumed name of Cartwright. It was there
that he made the acquaintance of the girl he after
wards married in England.
Another fact that Mr. Hughes seems to be ignorant
of is, that his “ convert ” was in the Salvation Army at
St. Albans. He and Julia both wore the “Army”
uniform. After that he was in the Salvation Army at
Camberwell. Mr. Gibson heard him speak once in the
Camberwell barracks, and was greatly surprised at
some of the things he said.
Julia, the good Christian, who helped to bring her
�( 16 )
husband to Christ—from whom his relatives were not
awa e that he had ever departed—caused an estrange
ment between Mr. Gibson and his son. I had better
be silent about the cause of this division. Suffice it
to say that Mr. Gibson never heard from his son for
two years and a half prior to his death. Even after the
alleged “ conversion ” by Mr. Hughes the son does not
appear to have written a line to his father. Julia did,
but not until her husband was dying in Devonshire.
Mr. Gibson reckons that his son was in London
about eighteen months altogether. During a part of
the time, at any rate, he worked at Ford’s, in the Gray’s
Inn-road. Mr. Gibson never heard of his lecturing,
even from Julia', until he read Mr. Hughes’s book. He
does not believe that his son could ever have *been an
orator, and certainly the space of eighteen months is
too short for his acquiring such distinction in that line
as Mr. Hughes alleges.
Mr. Hughes is good at pathetic stories—true or false.
He tells us that when “ Herbert ” went down to Devon
shire he was “ so ill that it was necessary for his wife
to accompany him.” Yet in a letter from Julia to Mr.
and Mrs. Gibson, written at Sidmouth, she says, “ he
was down here a month before I was sent for.” She
also says that she “ had to leave a good place ” to go,
and adds, “ I was then a cook.” This is very circum
stantial, and it is in absolute contradiction to Mr.
Hughes’s no less circumstantial story. Somebody must
be lying. If the liar is Julia, it shows what her word
is worth. It also shows her power of neat invention.
But if the liar is not Julia, the story shows another
person’s powers of neat invention, and what that
person’s word is worth.
Death of “ Herbert.”
Charles Alfred Gibson died at Sidmouth on March 27,
1889, and was buried in the Sidmouth cemetery on
March 31. Mr. Gibson senior has a letter from the
doctor who attended his son. There was bad disease
of the heart and lungs, and no hope of recovery.
Mr. Hughes devotes several pages to a regular
novelist’s account of “ Herbert’s ” death. The reverend
gentleman was not present at the scene. All the little
�fieath-chamber touches are therefore,imaginary. Julia
must have told him, if anyone did, that the dying
man’s last words were a “ touching tribute ” to Sister
Beatrice, who “ led him to Christ.” Julia stated at
Northampton, however, that his last words were “ Go
to Steve he will look after you”—“ Steve ” being his
brother Stephen Henry, who had also been a soldier.
This is how Mr. Hughes, in his fine, calm, restrained
style, describes the fall of the curtain.
“ He lay for a long time so still that the watchers began to
think they would never hear his voice again. But he was
yet to speak, and to speak a sentence which was destined to
be read in every land in which the English language is
spoken.
“ He was evidently gathering his ebbing strength together
for a great final effort.
“ His hand tightened. He opened his lips; and in startling
contrast with his previous whisper, in clear, ringing, exult
ing tones, he exclaimed :
“ ‘ Tell Sister Beatrice and the Sisters that now when I
have come to the end I fear no evil, for God is with me.’ ”
This is what Mr. Holyoake politely calls “ brilliant
coloring.” But it is not history. I put it to any doctor
whether a man dying of consumption and heart dis
ease, after many months of suffering and slow decay,
could possibly cry out in “ clear, ringing, exulting
tones ” with his very last breath. I have myself seen
cases of death from consumption, and all power of
motion and speech have gone for hours before the final
release. If medical men tell me I am wrong, I will
give in ; but until then I must take leave to regard
“ John Herbert’s ” dying oration as apocryphal.
Was He a Lecturer?
Mr. Hughes represents his convert as a young man
of extraordinary eloquence, and almost a match for
Mr. Bradlaugh. “ I’ve been a ringleader,” he is made
to exclaim to Sister Beatrice. “ I have even cheered
men when they were dying,” he continues, “ and en
couraged them not to give in.” He lectured as an
Atheist on Clerkenwell-green and in Victoria Park.
He was “a well-known London Atheist.” “Why,
everybody knows Herbert ! ” exclaims “a journeyman
�shoemaker in Soho”—where, by the way, this marvel
of eloquence could not have been specially famous.
The journeyman shoemaker is himself but one of Mr.
Hughes’s inventions. His tribute to “ Herbert’s ”
oratory is tremendous. “ When he used to speak in
Victoria Park,” says his Soho eulogist, “ there was such
continuous cheering that you could scarcely hear what
he was saying.”
In a long wrestle between the Devil and “ Herbert ”
after his conversion, the former reminds him of
“ What you used to say in the Hall of Science.” Not
at the Hall of Science, but in the Hall of Science. Of
course it was Mr. Hughes who invented all th®
dialetical points of that “wrestle,” for he never saw
“ Herbert ” after it. Still, words have a definite
meaning, and if Mr. Hughes did not wish to signify
that “ Herbert ” had spoken in the ‘Hall of Science,
what on earth was he driving at ? Nor is this all.
“ It seemed to us of such immense importance,”
Mr. Hughes writes, “ that he should himself go to his
old workshop, and to the Hall of Science, and to
Clerkenwell-green, and to all his former haunts, and
with his own lips tell the story of his conversion.”
Now if this does not mean that he was a speaker on
Atheism in the Hall of Science, the language of Mr.
Hughes is no better than thimble-rigging.
But this does not end the matter. Mr. Hughes
must be attacked in his last entrenchment. I there
fore ask the question, Was his convert ever a lecturer
at all ?
Personally, I never heard the name of Gibson in
connection with Freethought lecturing in London.
Mr. Holyoake said he never heard it, and the same
answer is given by every Freethinker I interrogate.
He could not, therefore, have been “ a well-known
Atheist.” The description is an absurdity. Certainly
he could not have lectured in Victoria Park amidst
thunderous applause. That Soho shoemaker who said
so was a thunderous liar, unless he is, as I conceive, a
mere invention of Mr. Hughes’s.
Charles Alfred Gibson was in London about eighteen
months altogether. He was not a lecturer when he
went there.
His father and brothers never heard of,
�his lecturing after wards—until they read Mr. Hughes’s
book. Not an Atheist in London that I can hear of
has the faintest recollection of this oratorical prodigy.
Mr. Hughes never heard him lecture. The Methodist
Sisters never heard him lecture. Who did then?
Why Julia. The whole fabric of ‘‘Herbert’s” fame
is based upon that one woman’s word.
Mr. Holyoake says he has seen “ Herbert’s ” widow,
who has since “ married again.” That is, Mr. Holyoake
was told so. She has not been seen or heard of by the
Gibsons for two years and a half. Would it not be
well to produce her again for a little cross-examina
tion ?
“ Herbert’s ” widow told Mr. Holyoake that she had
been with her husband in Victoria Park “six hours at
a time, he speaking at intervals to groups of persons
all the while.” Mr. Holyoake may believe it. I do
not. Nor do I believe that “Herbert” or any other
Preethought speaker in Victoria Park was “ kicked on .
the shins by policemen.” As far as I am aware, our
speakers have for a long time been on very good terms
with the police. But be that as it may, I wish to point
out that Mr. Holyoake, as well as Mr. Hughes and the
Sisters, obtained his information from the inevitable
Julia. However many links are put on the chain, they
all hang upon her ; and I venture to say she is not
Strong enough to bear them. We shall see more of her
presently. Meanwhile I have to say that the Gibsons
do not believe her statements on this head. They feel
sure that Charles Alfred Gibson was never a lecturer.
Their opinion is—and, after what they told and showed
me, it is my opinion too—that Julia deceived Mr.
Hughes and the Sisters, and kept up the deception
when introduced to Mr. Holyoake.
There is not the smallest scrap of real evidence that
Charles Alfred Gibson ever lectured at all as an Atheist,
and the negative evidence that he did not is simply
overwhelming. Yet this is the very pivot of Mr.
Hughes’s story. It was nothing to convert an obscure
young man from his atheistical opinions. Such a trivial ‘
incident would not afford substance enough for an
tighteenpenny book. It was necessary to magnify the
convert’s importance, and the thing was done. He was
�( 20 )
represented as noble, intellectual, eloquent and famous.
In other words, his status is the very essence of the
story. It is now demonstrated that he was not, and
could not have been, a notorious Freethinker, and Mr.
Hughes’s story is therefore a lie in its deliberate exag
gerations. To declare that “ Herbert ” was a real per
sonage is no answer to the charge of fraud. It is the
description of him that has to be vindicated, and Mr.
Hughes knows the task is impossible.
Was He an Atheist ?
Three weeks before leaving his father’s house at
Northampton, Charles Alfred Gibson knelt down
and prayed in the passage. He was not an Atheist
then. But did he become an Atheist during the
eighteen months he lived in London ?
In considering this question, it is requisite to bear
in mind the silence of Mr. Hughes as to “ Herbert’s ”
having been in the Salvation Army. If the fact was
known to Mr. Hughes, he acted dishonorably in keeping
it back, and making it appear that “ Herbert ” had never
“ known Christ.” If the fact was not known to Mr.
Hughes, nor even to Sister Beatrice, it must have been
kept back by “ Herbert ” himself, or by his wife ; and,
in that case, the witness of both of them lies under a
very grave suspicion. It would seem that they wished
to let it be thought that “ Herbert ” became a Christian
for the first time through the agency of the West
London Mission. I may be asked, What could be their
motive in this deception ? Well, a very simple one.
They were dependent upon the Mission for the com
forts, if not the necessaries of life.
There is another thing that should be borne in
mind ; namely, the statement of Mr. Hughes as to
“ the privations of his youth ” and his street-corner
schooling. Both are falsehoods, and the first is a cruel
reflection on Mr. Gibson senior, whose indignation at
it is shared by his sons. Now if Mr. Hughes did not
invent these falsehoods, they must have been invented
by “ Herbert ” or his wife; and in either case the
story of his being an Atheist at all is damned—unless
we have independent evidence of its truth. For, if
Mr. Hughes is the liar, how can we believe anything
�( 21 )
he says they told him ; and if they were the liars,
how can we believe what they did tell him ?
Bearing these points in mind, let us proceed with
our inquiry. We are told by Mr. Hughes that
“Herbert” had “old Atheistic comrades,” with whom
he and his wife sometimes took a day’s excursion.
How was it then that he never applied to the National
Secular Society for any assistance in his distress, before
his conversion ? Could none of them tell him of the
Society’s Benevolent Fund, if he was ignorant of its
existence himself ? I have had the books searched,
and his name does not appear in the list of persons
relieved, nor is it in the list of members.
As for the long conversations between “ Herbert ”
and Sister Beatrice, there can be little doubt that they
are literary performances. Sister Beatrice told Mr.
Hughes something, and Mr. Hughes worked it up into
telling dialogues. Still, it may be said, Sister Beatrice
could scarcely be mistaken as to the bare fact of his
Atheism. Well, I am not so sure of that. Her word,
apart from Julia’s, is all we have to go upon ; and we
shall now see how an emotional lady like Sister
Beatrice (or Miss Lily Dewhirst) can be guilty of the
wildest inaccuracy.
“Herbert’s” Converted Atheist Brother.
On the last page of his pious concoction, Mr. Hughes
regrets the loss of “ that eloquent tongue ” of “ Her
bert’s” to the cause of Christ, but believes that his
death (as dressed up by Mr. Hughes) may be “ more
potent even than his life would have been.” Then he
winds up the story with a final falsehood. It is told
in the form of a question—“ Has not his Atheist
brother at Northampton already turned to God under
the influence of his seraphic death ?” Northampton,
of course, was Bradlaugh’s borough ; and the question,
put in this way, would deepen the impression that
“ Herbert ” belonged to an Atheist family.
There is not a word of truth in the “ conversion ” of
that brother. Stephen Henry Gibson, who is the
person referred to, has always been a professed Chris
tian. He has said so himself, and the statement is
�( 22 )
corroborated by his brother Frank, as well as by Mr.
Gibson senior. Consequently there was no “ atheist
brother ” at Northampton to “ turn to God.”
Mr. Hughes, I believe, did not invent this yarn,
although I believe he did invent that Soho shoemaker.
What he did was to publish it as though he knew it for
a fact. He committed the same crime throughout the
story, giving his own authority to mere hearsay, with
out the slightest investigation. He did this as a public
man, in the interest of the West London Mission. It
is impossible, therefore, to exonerate him from respon
sibility. He did not care whether the story was true
or false so long as he could make it useful, and that
is the twin brother of lying. There are very few
persons who lie merely for the exercise of intellectual
ingenuity.
I believe this yarn of the converted Atheist brother
was retailed to Mr. Hughes by Sister Beatrice, and I
will give my reasons.
Stephen Henry Gibson has a letter from Sister
Beatrice, dated May 28, 1889. It is a very sentimental
composition, with ecstatic references to the dead
brother, and a fervid appeal to Stephen to come over
and help the cause of Christ. I asked him how he got
this letter. Was it sent to him through the post ? Did
he answer it ? And had he written to Sister Beatrice
previously ?
He replied that he had never written to Sister
Beatrice at all, and had never had any sort of commu
nication with her. The letter was handed to him by
Julia, who was then living in Northampton.
At the bottom of nearly everything we find Julia.
She was in communication with Sister Beatrice, from
whom, I am told, she sometimes obtained money. It
seems to me highly probable, as it seems to the Gibsons,
that she fooled the Sister with a yarn about Stephen’s
being an Atheist; that the sentimental Sister jumped
at the bait, and wrote that letter to the young man,
sending it through Julia as she did not know his
address ; that Julia informed the Sister that her letter
had brought about Stephen’s conversion; that the
Sister conveyed the glorious intelligence to Mr. Hughes;
and that the reverend gentleman took it without the
�(23)
least inquiry, and worked in this “ crowning mercy ”
as the climax of his narrative.
This is how I believe the story of the converted
“Atheist brother” was developed; and, supposing
Sister Beatrice to be honest, it shows how easily she
may be taken in. She utterly misled Mr. Hughes as
to Stephen Gibson, and she may have utterly misled
him as to Charles Alfred Gibson. At any rate, it is
impossible to take such a lady’s evidence without
cross-examination, and therefore the Atheism of
“ Herbert ” has yet to be established.
Mr. Hughes’s Little Trick.
I say that Sister Beatrice’s evidence on the point of
Charles Alfred Gibson’s Atheism is of no value without
a cross-examination. Now let the reader see what
pains were taken to save her from this ordeal. Her
name is just as imaginary as that of the converted
Atheist. It is now admitted that her real name is
Sister Lily. Had the name she is known by in the
West London Mission been given in the story, she
might have been troubled by inquisitive Methodists.
Mr. Hughes very kindly veiled her identity to guard
her even against her friends. Indeed, his whole
method was one of politic confusion. Feigned names
were substituted for real o^nes at every point where the
story was liable to investigation, and mystery was only
abandoned where there was no danger in openness
and precisiop.
Julia.
The Christian wife of the Atheist shoemaker in Mr.
Hughes’s story is “ a daughter of Erin.” So is Julia,
whom Charles Alfred Gibson married in England,
after forming her acquaintance in Ireland, while he’
was serving in the Fifth Lancers. Judging from the
story (it is an excellent word !) of her husband’s con
version, and the report of her made to me by the
Gibsons, I should say she had extracted the very
quintessential virtue of the Blarney Stone. And
whenever we probe to the bottom of this matter we
come to Julia. It is another case of Cherchez
la femme!
�( 24 )
It is evident that a great deal of Mr. Hughes’s story
must have been furnished by Julia, either directly or
through Sister Beatrice, particularly the account of his
exploits as a propagator of Atheism. We have seen
how she managed that little affair of the “ conversion ”
of Stephen Gibson, and it enables us to estimate the
value of her statements about his dead brother. She
knows the weakness of religionists on the look-out for
converts; and, whatever she may be now, she was
formerly by no means averse from using them to her
own advantage.
When the Gibsons asked how Mr. Hughes came to
tell such falsehoods about her husband, she gave them
the airy reply—“ Oh, they make it up as they like.”
Some of the information I possess was given to me
in confidence. Nevertheless I am free to say that if
Mr. Hughes will divest himself of his “ dignity,” and
condescend to make an investigation, he will learn
whether Julia Gibson was all that his fancy painted
her.
At the same time, I cannot find it in my heart to
blame Julia Gibson overmuch for romancing in order
to obtain assistance for her dying husband. I blame
the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes for working it up into a
“ true story ” without the least investigation.
“ Herbert’s” Old Shopmates.
Mr. Frank Trasler, a member of the National Secular
Society, introduced himself to me and the Gibsons
on Sunday evening, February 4. He had worked in
the same shop with Charles Alfred Gibson, and was
still working there. He remembered the young man
well, and advised us to call on his old shopmates.
On Monday morning, February 5, the Gibsons and
I entered Ford’s establishment. We went down
into the very room where Charles Alfred Gibson made
shoes in 1888. The men laughed when I read to
them what Mr. Hughes says about it in “ The Atheist
Shoemaker.” According to the reverend gentleman’s
account, his convert's health was ruined by working in
“ a sweating den,” and when the Factory Inspector
called, his “ Christian employer ” took the official up
stairs, and treated him to sherry, to keep him from
�( 25 )
“ putting Ills no3e ” in ths basement. “ Rubbish !” the
men said. The Factory Inspector would come when
ever they liked to call him, and as a matter of fact he
made his inspections without the employer. Charles
Alfred Gibson could not have said what Mr. Hughes
had put into his mouth. One of the men had worked
there fifteen years, and still looked sound. “ Herbert ”
was not “ killed by a Christian employer.” The truth
is, the young man inherited heart disease from his
mother, and it killed him as it killed her.
Charles Alfred Gibson’s old shopmates remembered
him well. He had worked with them about twelve
months. Before that he had worked at Lilley and
Skinner’s, Paddington-green, and while there he had
belonged to the Church Army. Within twelve
months, that is, of his conversion by Mr. Hughes 1
“Did you ever know my son to be a lecturer?”
asked Mr. Gibson. One and all answered “ No,” and
declared it an utter absurdity. “ Did you ever know
him to be an Atheist ?” One and all again answered
“No” A shopmate said that he was rather fond of
arguing, in which he shifted about, taking all sorts of
sides, in opposition to the person he argued with. But
he was never to their knowledge an unbeliever ; in
fact, he was always hostile to Atheism in his conversa
tion.
So much for the Atheism of “John Herbert” in the
minds of his old shopmates. I have seen them, and
Mr. Hughes has not. He preferred to spin his history,
spider-like, out of the bowels of his own imagination.
“John Herbert’s” Landlady.
While talking to these shoemakers, I learnt that
Charles Alfred Gibson had lived not far off, in the
Caledonian-road. One of them thought he could
remember the house, and after some tickling of his
recollection he brought out the number, though he was
not quite sure of it. I don’t wish to trouble the land
lady of the house, so I refrain, from disclosing the
number.
Mr. Hughes seems to have do e all he could to baffle
investigation. He represents his convert’s lodgings as
being in Islington. The real place is at the south end
�( 26 )
of the Caledonian-road, between King’s-cross and the
canal. The description of the landlady is equally
faulty. I do not wonder that the reverend gentleman
or the Sisters never sent her a copy of the story of
Charles Alfred Gibson’s conversion, as they promised
to do. The book would have opened her eyes very
considerably.
The landlady confirmed Julia Gibson’s statement
that she did not accompany her husband to Sidmouth,
where he died, but joined him there a month later,
when he was pining for her society. Mr. Hughes is
therefore wrong on a matter where it was so easy to be
right.
Charles Alfred Gibson had no large collection of
books, as Mr. Hughes again and again declares. He
was fond of reading, but his books were generally
borrowed. She spoke, however, in the highest terms
of his transparpnt character, which is a point of agree
ment between her and the Sisters. She also said that
the Sisters were extremely kind, which I can well
believe.
Charles Alfred and Julia Gibson lodged with her for
six months, from July 1888 to January 1889, as she
showed by the rent-book. They had a furnished
front room at the top of the house, which is the second
floor. Here again Mr. Hughes’s account is incorrect.
The room was carpeted, and the narrow stairs the
reverend gentleman “climbed” were like Jacob’s
ladder—imaginary.
The landlady remembered her lodger’s taking the
communion. It was administered by Mr. Hughes,
and this is one of his few accuracies. She joined in
it, though belonging to a different Church ; so it is
nonsense to talk about her narrow school of theology.
She stated that Charles Alfred Gibson was at first
greatly vexed with professed Christianity, because no
one had called on his wife when she was ill. “ But
was my son an Atheist ?” asked Mr. Gibson. “ Oh no,”
she replied, “ not an Atheist.” “ Did he disbelieve in
God ?” “ Oh no, he always believed in God,” she
answered, and added, “ It was the Christianity of the
day he was set against.” In fact she heard him say,
“ I’m not against Jesus Christ.”
�( 27 )
“ Did you ever hear of his lecturing ?” asked Mr.
Gibson. “ No,” she replied, “ he didn’t lecture.” And
she said it with a smile, which showed her sense of
the idea’s absurdity.
A good deal more came out in conversation, but it
will keep. It is enough to say that Charles Alfred
Gibson’s landlady denies his Atheism,^ and never
heard of his being a lecturer.
Mr. Hughes’s Shuffling.
The case against Mr. Hughes is complete and over
whelming. I have followed the track of Charles
Alfred Gibson, and the testimony of all the persons
who knew him—his father, his brothers, his shopmates,
and his landlady—is that he was not a lecturer, and
none of them believe that he was even an Atheist.
Mr. Hughes therefore looks around for some line of
retreat. First of all, he stops the circulation of his
book, which is no longer obtainable for love or money.
Secondly, he seeks to minimise his convert’s import
ance. Having formerly declared that “ Herbert ” was
not a lecturer for the National Secular Society, he now
declares that he did not describe him as a “ lecturer ”
at all. He said this to the Morning interviewer, and
added that I had destroyed a man of straw.
What wretched cavil is this! It is true that Mr.
Hughes did not use the particular word “ lecturer.”
But his Atheist Shoemaker spoke “ amidst continuous
cheering ” in Victoria Park; he had advocated
Atheism “ in public halls and in the open air, with
great eloquence and effect ” ; he was used to addressing
“Atheistic assemblies”; he had experienced “the
exulting glow of the orator who has conquered his
audience.”
The reverend gentleman's convert was not a
“ lecturer.” He was only an “ orator.” Such is the
sum and substance of the denial; and it shows the
shifts this man is reduced to in the effort to save his
blasted reputation.
A Court of Honor.
Partly to set myself right before the public, and
partly to drive Mr. Hughes into the last corner, I
�( 28 )
wrote the following letter, which appeared in the Daily
Chronicle for Friday, February 9 :
MR. G. W. FOOTE AND THE REV. HUGH PRICE
HUGHES.
TO THE EDITOR OE “ THE DAILY CHRONICLE.”
Sir,—As the reputation of public men is of some importance,
if only to the world’s common sense of self-respect, I venture
to make an offer through your columns for the termination
of this dispute between the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes and
myself—a dispute, unfortunately, in which a third public
man, Mr. G. J. Holyoake, has become to a certain extent
involved.
I am willing to let the whole dispute be adjudicated upon
by a Committee of Honor. Two persons might be nominated
by Mr. Hughes and two by myself, with a fifth person agreed
upon by both sides to act as chairman and umpire.
Should the Committee of Honor be constituted, I under
take to prove (1) that the “ John Herbert ” of Mr. Hughes’s
story was Charles Alfred Gibson; (2) that everything is
false which Mr. Hughes states about the young man’s early
training and privations; (3) that there are many similar
inaccuracies and exaggerations in the narrative; (4) that
Charles Alfred Gibson was never a lecturer on Atheism, or
even against Christianity; (5) that he was.never a lecturer
at all; (6) that he was never an Atheist or any kind of
Freethinker; (7) that he had been in the Salvation Army
and the Church Army; (8) that he had no “ Atheist brother ”
at Northampton to be converted to Christianity; and (9)
that the brother referred to, who has ai ways been a professed
Christian, never had any communication whatever with Mr
Hughes or any sister of the West London Mission.
When I say that I will prove these things, I mean that I
will produce documentary evidence and the testimony of
living witnesses, including the members of Charles Alfred
Gibson’s family and all sorts of persons who knew him
intimately while he was working and living in London—the
place which Mr. Hughes represents as the scene of his
exploits as a propagator of Atheism.
Mr. Hughes must be infatuated if he fancies he can find
refuge in the “ dignity of silence,” and if he declines my
present offer I may safely leave him to the judgment of
honest and sensible men and women.
G. W. Foote.
Mr. Hughes did not accept my offer. He preferre
to stand upon his “ dignity.” His reply appeared th
next morning
�( 29 )
REV. HUGH PRICE HUGHES AND MR. FOOTE.
TO THE EDITOR OP “ THE DAILY CHRONICLE.”
Sil,—For some years past Mr. Foote has been trying to
force me into a personal controversy with him. If he had
simply assumed that I was mistaken, or had been misled, he
might have had what he wished. But his carefully-guarded
letter to you is not a specimen of his usual style. He has
again and again insinuated or asserted that I am a deliberate
and systematic liar. With a disputant who assumes that
attitude neither I nor any other civilised man can discuss.
Even in the brutal prize-ring men are obliged to fight
according to the rules.
The time has come to insist that public men can have no
dealings with, those who violate the elementary laws of
courtesy. Quite recently Mr. Foote has grossly exaggerated
his offence by offering similar insults to a Christian lady,
whose integrity is attacked like my own.
Although it was impossible for me to have any discussion
with Mr. Foote, who, I may add, has never suffered the
slightest discourtesy at my hands during all these years of
insult, I was perfectly willing to invite the utmost criticism
of any public act or utterance of mine. It occurred to mo
that there was a well-known public man of Mr. Foote’s way
of thinking, a man of unblemished reputation and a gentle
man—Mr, G. J. Holyoake. Having a slight acquaintance
With Mr. Holyoake, I asked him to read the story of the
“Atheist Shoemaker,” and Mr. Foote’s attack upon it. I
gave him all the names, and offered no suggestion as to "the
method of inquiry. The matter was left absolutely and un
reservedly in his hands. From that day to this I have not
seen him. He has made what inquiries he liked, in his own
way.. The result has been published to l .ie world. Since his
verdict was given, nothing has seen the light which impugn a
the substantial accuracy of any statements for which the two
sisters and I are personally responsible.
But whatever may be said, no civilised man will expect me
to have any communication with Mr. Foote, or with anyone
who represents him, or with anyone else who approves of his
method of controversy. No one regrets more than I do that
Mr. Foote’s own gratuitous conduct has made it impossible
for me to take notice of him.—I am, etc.,
Hugh Price Hughes.
“ If. I am a liar,” Mr. Hughes seems to say, “ it is
very rude to call me one.” He complains of the
incivility of the constable who arrests him. Anything
is preferable to damnation by a Court of Honor.
The whimpering of this man is positively despicable.
�( 30 )
One moment he hides behind Mr. Holyoake, the next
he skulks behind a woman’s petticoats. What have I
to do with the “ Christian lady ” ? I have to deal
with Mr. Hughes. He is the person to be “attacked.”
He alone came before the public without a mask. He
is the author of “ The Atheist Shoemaker.” I there
fore attack him, and I shall continue to do so. Having
proved his story to be a mass of falsehoods, I leave
him to share the responsibility as he pleases with
whatever persons shared with him in the deception.
His “Dignity.”
The only course open to Mr. Hughes is to stand upon
his “ dignity.” Any other course would be fatal. It
was a clever move on his part to obtain Mr. Holyoake’s
“ vindication.” But it was a false move, and he
has paid the penalty. He simply brought upon him
self an avalanche of evidence. He is wiser now, and
knows that if he moves again he is lost.
But movement is possible on my part, and I proceed
to show what this man’s “ dignity ” is worth. I have
to remark that he has been found out before.
In October, 1889, he was taken to task by Captain
Molesworth, the Chairman of the Royal Aquarium
Company, for publicly stating at St. James’s Hall that
“ a young girl who had recently visited the Aquarium
with her father had placed in her hands a card
asking her to accept the escort of a gentleman on
leaving the place.” Being challenged to produce the
girl, her father, and the card, Mr. Hughes was
compelled to admit that the “incident” which had
occurred “recently” had really occurred “two years
ago,” while the “ young girl ” blossomed into a woman.
Captain Molesworth threatened legal proceedings,
whereupon Mr. Hughes replied, “ I .did not intend to
make any attack upon the Royal Aquarium or any
place in particular ”—and by this disclaimer he
avoided a law suit.
, But a far worse case happened in the very same
year, when Mr. Hughes got into trouble with his own
body, by publishing certain articles in the Methodist
Times against the Wesleyan missionaries in India. A
sub-committee was appointed to examine into the
�( 31 )
charges, and the results of the investigation were
published in a volume in 1890 under the title of the
“Missionary Controversy.”
The Rev. George Patterson, who opened the case on
behalf of the missionaries, said that “the mode of
elucidating the truth adopted by the Methodist Times
consisted chiefly in the deliberate suppression of every
thing on the other side.” The sub-committee, while
giving Mr. Hughes credit for “ sincerity in his
professions of confidence and love,” remarked that
he had to “ deal with a public more logical
than himself.” Their report was dead against
hip, and it was accepted by the General Com
mittee, which passed a resolution, for which every
member voted except one, expressing “ profound
regret that charges so grave and so unsustained ”
had been brought against the missionaries by a
Wesleyan minister.
“ In many of the statements
made,” said the Rev. Mr. Allen, “ he has exaggerated
to an enormous extent, and, if he will allow me to say
so, this is characteristic of the man.”
Here, then, we have the official declaration of the
Wesleyan Methodist body, preserved in a special
volume, that Mr. Hughes published in his journal
what he could not sustain under investigation ; and
this is precisely what he did when he published in
that same journal the story of the Atheist Shoemaker.
Here also we have the openly expressed opinion of a
brother minister that enormous exaggeration is “ cha
racteristic of the man.” Yet when he is charged with
having been guilty of “enormous exaggeration” in the
present case, he stands upon his “ dignity,” even in face
of the most overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
Captain Molesworth was able to make the reverend
gentleman climb down, for behind the Chairman of the
Aquarium Company there was the law with all its
terrors. The Wesleyan ; Methodist body was also able
to bring him to trial, because it had the power to
deprive him of his position for contumacy. But no
one can compel him to submit to the adjudication of a
Court of Honor in respect to his story of the Atheist
Shoemaker. All that can be done is to bring him, in
his own despite, before the bar of public opinion.
�FREETHOUGHT
PUBLICATIONS.
FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT. By G. W. Foote. Fiftyone selected Essays and Articles. 221pp., cloth. 2s. 6d.
THE GRAND OLD BOOK. A Reply to the Grand Old Man.
By G. W. Foote. An Exhaustive answer to the Right
Hon. W. E, Gladstone s “ Impregnable Rock of Holy
Scripture.” Is. ; bound in doth, Is. 6d.
CHRISTIANITY AND SECULARISM. Four Nights’ Public
Debate between G. W. Foote and the Rev. Dr. J.
McCann. Is. Superior edition, in cloth, Is. 6d.
DARWIN ON GOD. By G. W. Foote. 6d.; cloth, Is.
INFIDEL DEATH-BEDS. By G. W. Foote. 2nd edition,
enlarged, 8d.
Superior edition, cloth. Is. 3d.
LETTERS TO THE CLERGY. By G. W. Foote. 128pp., Is
COMIC SERMONS & OTHER FANTASIAS. By G. W.
Foote. Price, 8d.
BIBLE HEROES. By G. W. Foote. Cloth,'2s. 6d.
BIBLE HANDBOOK fos FREETHINKERS & INQUIRING.
CHRISTIANS. By G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball. Com
plete, paper covers, Is. 4d. Superior paper, cloth, 2s.
THE JEWISH LIFE OF CHRIST. By G. W. Foote and
J. M. Wheeler. With Historical Preface and Voluminous
Notes, 6d. Superior edition, cloth, Is.
CRIMES OF CHRISTIANITY. By G. W. Foote and J. M.
Wheeler. Vol. I., cloth gilt, 216pp.. 2s. 6d.
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS of
all Ages and Nations. By J. M. Wheeler. Bound, 7s. 6d.
BIBLE STUDIES. By J. M. Wheeler. Illustrated, 2s. 6d.
MISTAKES OF MOSES. By Col. Ingersoll. Is.; cloth, Is. 6d.
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. Is. Superior edition, cloth, 2s.
THE ESSENCE OF RELIGION. By Ludwig Feuerbach. Is.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CATECHISM EXAMINED.
By Jeremy Bentham. A trenchant analysis, in Bentham’s
best manner, showing how the Catechism is calculated
to make children hypocrites or fools, if not worse.
With a Biographical Preface by J. M. Wheeler. Is.
SATIRES & PROFANITIES. By James Thomson (B.V.)
Cloth Is.
B. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER-STREET, LONDON, E.C.
Printed by G W. Foots, 14 Clerkenwell-green, London. E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The atheist shoemaker and the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes : or, a study in lying, with a full and complete exposure
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: "The atheist shoemaker" is the title of a story by H.P. Hughes, published in the Methodist Times, August 1889. "This pamphlet it written gratuitously by Mr. Foote, and the expense of printing one hundred thousand copies, for free distribution...". [Inside front cover]. Publisher's advertisements on back page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1894]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N224
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 (The atheist shoemaker and the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes : or, a study in lying, with a full and complete exposure), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Atheism
Conversion
Hugh Price Hughes
NSS