1
10
9
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/fe3c948c036a20d84731950a31e99043.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=qBgR%7EBZcfEnC4I0%7EbFu690ZcMcYDbwzVjMqqYtOPyfxObE9iyfVKlGvIRD2HTlSDCYvo2RkUCHZUNof7OktYYNa9w%7ELuD5cqRmzpyxCvIeVxwVBlzH33sejRLHgmUBgxxURfUZGt3r9pT0gPAV-3hZdnV%7Eq-P5H4meDWvXlDERyFHWNzPtoHhudVq9JwfnS0Waifa1Jyflk33G4T7I42jliRgdmwv8vUrM54H2ZIqsxav3RLF83rRtpoo0LXGkd3%7EZugGIE1V2pi93ksKMj7XHePrf96Fzqo1-Hxz8aTIQnf5iBer0-ax7z%7E2TKChPz%7EK8ZU%7E5tRZ-1TQ6qXMt13AA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
aca8d898975b944d452c6a53311f4f21
PDF Text
Text
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, 8.E.
Price Fourpence.
�I I
�EUTHANASIA.
“ T HAVE already related to you with what care they
J. look after their sick, so that nothing is left
undone wfflich may contribute either to their health or
ease. And as for those who are afflicted with incurable
disorders, they use all possible means of cherishing
them, and of making their lives as comfortable as pos
sible ; they visit them often, and take great pains to
make their time pass easily. But if any have tortur
ing, lingering pain, without hope of recovery or ease,
the priests and magistrates repair to them and exhort
them, since they are unable to proceed with the busi
ness of life, are become a burden to themselves and all
about them, and have in reality outlived themselves,
they should no longer cherish a rooted disease, but
choose to die since they cannot but live in great misery;
being persuaded, if they thus deliver themselves from
torture, or allow others to do it, they shall be happy
after death. Since they forfeit none of the pleasures,
but only the troubles of life by this, they think they
not only act reasonably, but consistently with religion;
for they follow the advice of their priests, the expound
ers of God’s will. Those who are wrought upon by
these persuasions, either starve themselves or take
laudanum. But no one is compelled to end his life
thus ; and if they cannot be persuaded to it, the former
care and attendance on it is continued. And though
they esteem a voluntary death, when chosen on such
authority, to be very honourable, on the contrary, if
�4
Euthanasia.
any one commit suicide without the concurrence of the
priest and senate, they honour not the body with a
decent funeral, but throw it into a ditch.”*
Tn pleading for the morality of euthanasia, it seems
not unwise to show that so thoroughly religious a man
as Sir Thomas More deemed that practice so consonant
with a sound morality as to make it one of the customs
of his ideal state, and to place it under the sanction of
the priesthood. As a devout Roman Catholic, the
great Chancellor would naturally imagine that any
beneficial innovation would be sure to obtain the sup
port of the priesthood; and although we may differ
from him on this head, since our daily experience
teaches us that the priest may be counted upon as the
steady opponent of all reform, it is yet not uninstructive to note that the deep religious feeling which dis
tinguished this truly good man, did not shrink from
the idea of euthanasia as from a breach of morality, nor
did he apparently dream that any opposition would (or
could) be offered to it on religious grounds. The last
sentence of the extract is specially important; in dis
cussing the morality of euthanasia, we are not discus
sing the moral lawfulness or unlawfulness of suicide in
general; we may.protest against suicide, and yet uphold
euthanasia, and we may even protest against the one
and uphold the other, on exactly the same principle, as
we shall see further on. As the greater includes the
less, those who consider that a man has a right to
choose whether he will live or not, and who therefore
regard all suicide as lawful, will, of course, approve of
euthanasia; but it is by no means necessary to hold
this doctrine because we contend for the other. On the
general question of the morality of suicide, this paper
expresses no opinion whatever. This is not the point,
and we do not deal with it here. This essay is simply
* Memoirs. A translation of the Utopia, &c., of Sir Thomas
More, Lord High Chancellor of England. By A. Cayley the
Younger, pp. 102, 103. (Edition of 1808.)
�Euthanasia.
5
and solely directed to prove that there are circum
stances under which a human being has a moral right
to hasten the inevitable approach of death. The subject
is one which is surrounded by a thick fog of popular
prejudice, and the arguments in its favour are generally
dismissed unheard. I would therefore crave the reader s
generous patience, while laying before him the reasons
which dispose many religious and social reformers to
regard it as of importance that euthanasia should be
legalised.
In the fourth edition of an essay on Euthanasia, by
P. D. Williams, jun.,—an essay which powerfully sums
up what is to be said for and against the practice in
question, and which treats the whole subject exhaust
ively—we find the proposition, for which we contend,
laid down in the following explicit terms :
“ That in all cases of hopeless and painful illness, it
should be the recognised duty of the medical attendant,
whenever so desired by the patient, to administer
chloroform, or such other anaesthetic as may by-and-by
supersede chloroform, so as to destroy consciousness at
once, and to put the sufferer to a quick and painless
death ; all needful precautions being adopted to prevent
any abuse of such duty; and means being taken to
establish, beyond the possibility of doubt or question,
that the remedy was applied at the express wish of the
patient.”
It is very important, at the outset, to lay down
clearly the limitations of the proposed medical reform.
It is sometimes thoughtlessly stated that the supporters
of euthanasia propose to put to death all persons suf
fering from incurable disorders ; no assertion can be
more inaccurate or more calculated to mislead. We
propose only, that where an incurable disorder is accom
panied with extreme pain—pain, which nothing can
alleviate except death—pain, which only grows worse
as the inevitable doom approaches—pain, which drives
almost to madness, and which must end in the intensi
�6
Euthanasia.
fied torture of the death agony—that pain should be at
once soothed by the administration of an anesthetic,
which should not only produce unconsciousness, but
should be sufficiently powerful to end a life, in which
the renewal of consciousness can only be simultaneous
with the renewal of pain. So long as life has some
sweetness left in it, so long the offered mercy is not
needed; euthanasia is a relief from unendurable agony,
not an enforced extinguisher of a still desired existence.
Besides, no one proposes to make it obligatory on any
body ; it is only urged that where the patient asks for
the mercy of a speedy death, instead of a protracted one,
his prayer may be granted without any danger of the pen
alties of murder or manslaughter being inflicted on the
doctors and nurses in attendance.
I will lay before
the reader a case which is within my own knowledge,—
and which can probably be supplemented by the sad
experience of almost every individual,—in v’hich the
legality of euthanasia would have been a boon equally
to the sufferer and to her family. A widow lady was
suffering from cancer in the breast, and as the case was
too far advanced for the ordinary remedy of the knife,
and as the leading London surgeons refused to risk an
operation which might hasten, but could not retard,
death, she resolved, for the sake of her orphan children,
to allow a medical practitioner to perform a terrible
operation, whereby he hoped to prolong her life for
some years. Its details are too painful to enter into
unnecessarily; it will suffice to say that it was per
formed by means of quick-lime, and that the use of
chloroform was impossible. When the operation, which
extended over days, was but half over, the sufferer’s
strength gave way, and the doctor was compelled to
acknowledge that even a prolongation of life was im
possible, and that to complete the operation could only
hasten death. So the patient had to linger on in almost
unimaginable torture, knowing that the pain could only
end in death, seeing her relatives worn out by watching,
�Euthanasia.
7
•and agonised at the sight of her sufferings, and yet
compelled to live on from hour to hour, till at last the
anguish culminated in death. Is it possible for any
one to believe that it would have been wrong to have
hastened the inevitable end, and thus to have shortened
the agony of the sufferer herself, and to have also spared
Sier nurses months of subsequent ill-health. It is in
»uch cases as this that euthanasia would be useful. It
s, however, probable that all will agree that the benefit
conferred by the legalisation of euthanasia would, in
nany instances, be very great; but many feel that the
objections to it, on moral grounds, are so weighty, that
10 physical benefit could countervail the moral wrong.
These objections, so far as I can gather them, are as
bllows:—
Life is the gift of God, and is therefore sacred, and
nust only be taken back by the giver of life.
*
Euthanasia is an interference with the course of
•lature, and is therefore an act of rebellion against God.
Pain is a spiritual remedial agent inflicted by God,
.-jid should therefore be patiently endured.
Life is the gift of God, and is therefore sacred, and
.nust only be taken back by the Giver of life. This
objection is one of those high-sounding phrases which
mpose on the careless and thoughtless hearer, by catchng up a form of words which is generally accepted as
m unquestionable axiom, and by hanging thereupon
in unfair corollary. The ordinary man or woman, on
tearing this assertion, would probably answer—“ Life
tacred ? Yes, of course ; on the sacredness of life
lepends the safety of society ; anything which tampers
vith this principle must be both wrong and dangerous.”
Ind yet, such is the inconsistency of the thoughtless,
hat, five minutes afterwards, the same person will glow
.vith passionate admiration at some noble deed, in
* We of course here have no concern with theological questions
nuching the existence or non-existence of Deity, and express no
pinion about them.
�8
Euthanasia.
which the sacredness of life has been cast to the winds
at the call of honour or of humanity, or will utter words
of indignant contempt at the baseness which counted
life more sacred than duty or principle. That life is
sacred is an undeniable proposition; every natural gift
is sacred, i.e. is valuable, and is not to be lightly
destroyed ; life, as summing up all natural gifts, and
as containing within itself all possibilities of usefulness
and happiness, is the most sacred physical possession
which we own. But it is not the most sacred thing on
earth. Martyrs slain for the sake of principles which
they could not truthfully deny ; patriots who have
died for their country; heroes who have sacrificed
themselves for others’ good ;—the very flower and glory
of humanity rise up in a vast crowd to protest that
conscience, honour, love, self-devotion, are more precious
to the race than is the life of the individual. Life is
sacred, but it may be laid down in a noble cause ; life
is sacred, but it must bend before the holier sacredness
of principle ; life which, though sacred, can be de
stroyed, is as nothing before the indestructible ideals
which claim from every noble soul the sacrifice of per
sonal happiness, of personal greatness, yea, of personal
*
life
It will be conceded, then, on all hands, that the
proposition that life is sacred must be accepted with
many limitations : the proposition, in fact, amounts
only to this, that life must not be voluntarily laid
down without grave and sufficient cause. What we
have to consider, is, whether there are present, in any
proposed euthanasia, such conditions as overbear con
siderations for the acknowledged sanctity of life. W e
* The word “ life ” is here used in the sense of “ personal exist
ence in this world.” It is, of course, not intended to be asserted
that life is really destructible, but only that personal existence, or
identity, may be destroyed. And further, no opinion is given on
the possibility of life otherwhere than on this globe; nothing is
spoken of except life on earth, under the conditions of human
existence.
�Euthanasia.
9
contend that in the cases in which it is proposed that
death should be hastened, these conditions do exist.
"We will not touch here on the question of the
endurance of pain as a duty, for we will examine that
further on. But is it a matter of no importance, that
a sufferer should condemn his attendants to a prolonged
drain on their health and strength, in order to cling to
a life which is useless to others, and a burden to him
self ? The nurse who tends, perhaps for weeks, a bed
of agony, for which there is no cure but death whose
senses are strained by intense watchfulness whose
nerves are racked by witnessing torture which she is
powerless to alleviate—is, by her self-devotion, sowing
in her own constitution the seeds of ill-health that is
to say, she is deliberately shortening her own life. We
have seen that we have a right to shorten life in obedi
ence to a call of duty, and it will at once be said that
the nurse is obeying such a call. But has the nurse a
right to sacrifice her own life—and an injury to health
is a sacrifice of life—for an obviously unequivalent
advantage? We are apt to forget, because the injury
is partially veiled to us, that we touch the sacredness
of life whenever we touch health : every case of over
work, of over-strain, of over-exertion, is, so to speak, a
modified case of euthanasia. To poison the spring of
life is as real a tampering with the sacredness of life
as it is to check its course. The nurse is really com
mitting a slow euthanasia. Either the patient or the
nurse must commit an heroic suicide for the sake of
the other—which shall it be ? Shall the life be sacri
ficed, which is torture to its possessor, useless to
society, and whose bounds are already clearly marked ?
or shall a strong and healthy life, with all its future
possibilities, be undermined and sacrificed in addition
to that which is already doomed 1 But, granting that
the sublime generosity of the nurse stays not to balance
the gain with the loss, but counts herself as nothing in
the face of a human need, then surely it is time to urge
�IO
Euthanasia.
that to permit this self-sacrifice is an error, and that to
accept it is a crime. If it be granted that the throwing
away of life for a manifestly unequivalent gain is wrong,
then we ought not to blind ourselves to the fact, that
to sacrifice a healthy life in order to lengthen by a few
short weeks a doomed life, is a grave moral error, how
ever much it may be redeemed in the individual by the
glory of a noble self-devotion. Allowing to the full the
honour due to the heroism of the nurse, what are we
to say to the patient who accepts the sacrifice 1 What
are we to think of the morality of a human being, who,
in order to preserve the miserable remnant of life left
to him, allows another to shorten life 1 If we honour
the man who sacrifices himself to defend his family, or
risks his own life to save theirs, we must surely blame
him who, on the contrary, sacrifices those he ought to
value most, in order to prolong his own now useless
existence. The measure of our admiration for the one,
must be the measure of our pity for the weakness and
selfishness of the other. If it be true that the man who
dies for his dear ones on the battlefield is a hero, he
who voluntarily dies for them on his bed of sickness is
a hero no less brave. But it is urged that life is the
gift of God, and must only he taken hack hy the Giver
of life. I suppose that in any sense in which it can be
supposed true that life is the gift of God, it can only be
taken back by the giver—that is to say, that just as
life is produced in accordance with certain laws, so it
can only be destroyed in accordance with certain other
laws. Life is not the direct gift of a superior power :
it is the gift of man to man and animal to animal, pro
duced by the voluntary agent, and not by God, under
physical conditions, on the fulfilment of which alone
the production of life depends. The physical condi
tions must be observed if we desire to produce life, and
so must they be if we desire to destroy life. In both
cases man is the voluntary agent, in both law is the
means of his action. If life-giving is God’s doing, then
�Euthanasia.
11
life-destroying is his doing too. But this is not what
is intended by the proposers of this aphorism. If they
will pardon me for translating their somewhat vague
proposition into more precise language, they say that
they find themselves in possession of a certain thing
called life, which must have come from somewhereand
as in popular language the unknown is always the
divine, it must have come from God : therefore this life
must only be taken from them by a cause that also
proceeds from somewhere—i.e., from an unknown cause
—i.e., from the divine will. Chloroform comes from a
visible agent, from the doctor or nurse, or at least from
a bottle, wich can be taken up or left alone at our own
h
*
choice. If we swallow this, the cause of death is known,
and is evidently not divine ; but if we go into a house
where scarlet fever is raging, although we are in that
case voluntarily running the chance of taking poison
quite as truly as if we swallow a dose of chloroform,
yet if we die from the infection, we can imagine the
illness to be sent from God. Wherever we think the
element of chance comes in, there we are able to imagine
that God rules directly. We quite overlook the fact
that there is no such thing as chance. There is only
our ignorance of law, not a break in natural order. If
our constitution be susceptible of the particular poison
to which we expose it, we take the disease. If we
knew the laws of infection as accurately as we know
the laws affecting chloroform, we should be able to fore
see with like certainty the inevitable consequence ; and
our ignorance does not make the action of either set of
laws less unchangeable or more divine. But in the
“ happy-go-lucky ” style of thought peculiar to ignor
ance, the Christian disregards the fact that infection is
ruled by definite laws, and believes that health and
sickness are the direct expressions of the will of his
God, and not the invariable consequents of obscure but
probably discoverable antecedents ; so he boldly goes
into the back slums of London to nurse a family
�12
Euthanasia.
stricken down with fever, and knowingly and deliber
ately runs “ the chance ” of infection—i.e., knowingly
and deliberately runs the chance of taking poison, or
rather of having poison poured into his frame. This
he does, trusting that the nobility of his motive will
make the act right in God’s sight. Is it more noble
to relieve the sufferings of strangers, than to relieve the
sufferings of his family ? or is it more heroic to die of
voluntarily-contracted fever, than of voluntarily-taken
chloroform 1
, The argument that life must only be taken back by the
life-giver, would, if thoroughly carried out, entirely pre
vent all dangerous operations. In the treatment of
some diseases there are operations that will either kill
or cure: the disease must certainly be fatal if left alone;
while the proposed operation may save life, it may
equally destroy it, and thus may take life some time be
fore the giver of life wanted to take it back. Evidently,
then, such operations should not be performed, since
there is risked so grave an interference with the desires
of the life-giver.
Again, doctors act very wrongly
when they allow certain soothing medicines to be taken
when all hope is gone, which they refuse so long as a
chance of recovery remains : what right have they to
compel the life-giver to follow out his apparent inten
tions ? In some cases of painful disease, it is now
usual to produce partial or total unconsciousness by the
injection of morphia, or by the use of some other
anaesthetic. Thus, I have known a patient subjected
to this kind of treatment, when dying from a tumour
in the sesophagus; he was consequently, for some
weeks before his death, kept in a state of almost com
plete unconsciousness, for if he were allowed to become
conscious, his agony was so unendurable as to drive
him wild. He was thus, although breathing, practi
cally dead for weeks before his death. We cannot but
wonder, in view of such a case as his, what it is that
people mean when they talk of “ life.” Life includes,
�Euthanasia.
13
surely, not only the involuntary animal functions, such
as the movements of heart and lungs; but conscious
ness, thought, feeling, emotion. Of the various con
stituents of human life, surely those are not the most
“ sacred ” which we share with the brute, however
necessary these may be as the basis on which the rest
are built. It is thought, then, that we may rightfully
destroy all that constitutes the beauty and nobility of
human life, we may kill thought, slay consciousness,
deaden emotion, stop feeling, we may do all this, and
leave lying on the bed before us a breathing figure,
from which we have taken all the nobler possibilities
of life; but we may not touch the purely animal exist
ence ; we may rightly check the action of the nerves
and the brain, but we must not dare to outrage the
Deity by checking the action of the heart and the
lungs.
We ask, then, for the legalisation of euthanasia,
because it is in accordance with the highest morality
yet known, that which teaches the duty of self-sacrifice
for the greater good of others, because it is sanctioned
in principle by every service performed at personal
danger and injury, and because it is already partially
practised by modern improvements in medical science.
Euthanasia is an interference with the course of
nature, and is therefore an act of rebellion against
God. In considering this objection, we are placed in
difficulty by not being told what sense our opponents
attach to the word “ nature; ” and we are obliged once
more to ask pardon for forcing these vague and highflown arguments into a humiliating precision of mean
ing. Nature, in the widest sense of the word, includes
all natural laws; and in this sense it is of course
impossible to interfere with nature at all. We live,
and move, and have our being in nature ; and we can
no more get outside it, than we can get outside every
thing. With this nature we cannot interfere : we can
study its laws, and learn how to balance one law
�14
Euthanasia.
against another, so as to modify results; but this can
only be done by and through nature itself. The
“ interference with the course of nature ” which is in
tended in the above objection does not of course mean
this, impossible proceeding ; and it can then only mean
an interference with things which would proceed in
one course without human agency meddling with them,
but which are susceptible of being turned into another
course by human agency. If interference with nature’s
course be a rebellion against God, we are rebelling against
God every day of our lives. Every achievement of civili
sation is an interference with nature. Every artificial
comfort we enjoy is an improvement on nature.
“Everybody professes to approve and admire many
great triumphs of art over nature: the junction by
bridges of shores which nature had made separate, the
draining of nature’s marshes, the excavation of her
wells, the dragging to light of what she has buried at
immense depths in the earth, the turning away of her
thunderbolts by lightning-rods, of her inundations by
embankments, of her ocean by breakwaters. But to
commend these and similar feats, is to acknowledge
that the ways of nature are to be conquered, not
obeyed; that her powers are often towards man in
the position of enemies, from whom he must wrest, by
force and ingenuity, what little he can for his own use,
and deserves to be applauded when that little is rather
more than might be expected from his physical weak
ness in comparison to those gigantic powers. All
praise, of civilisation, or art, or contrivance, is so much
dispraise of nature; an admission of imperfection,
which it is man’s business, and merit, to be always
endeavouring to correct or mitigate.”* It is difficult
to understand how anyone, contemplating the course of
nature, can regard it as the expression of a divine will,
which man has no right to improve upon. Natural
law is essentially unreasoning and unmoral: gigantic
* “Essay on Nature,” by John Stuart Mill.
�Euthanasia.
*5
forces clash, around us on every side, unintelligent, and
unvarying in their action. With equal impassiveness
these blind forces produce vast benefits and work vast
catastrophes. The benefits are ours, if we are able to
grasp them; but nature troubles itself not whether we
take them or leave them alone. The catastrophes may
rightly be averted, if we can avert them; but nature
stays not its grinding wheel for our moans. Even
allowing that a Supreme Intelligence gave these forces
their being, it is manifest that he never intended man
to be their plaything, or to do them homage; for man
is dowered with reason to calculate, and with genius to
foresee; and into man’s hands is given the realm of
nature (in this world) to cultivate, td govern, to im
prove. So long as men believed that a god wielded
the thunderbolt, so long would a lightning-conductor
be an outrage on Jove; so long as a god guided each
force of nature, so long would it be impiety to resist,
or to endeavour to regulate, the divine volitions. Only
as experience gradually proved that no evil consequences
followed upon each amendment of nature, were natural
forces withdrawn, one by one, from the sphere of the
unknown and the divine. Now, even pain, that used
to be God’s scourge, is soothed by chloroform, and
death alone is left for nature to inflict, with what
lingering agony it may. But why should death, any
more than other ills, be left entirely to the clumsy,
unassisted processes of nature ?-—why, after struggling
against nature all our lives, should we let it reign
unopposed in death ? There are some natural evils
that we cannot avert. Pain and death are of these;
but we can dull pain by dulling feeling, and we can ease
death by shortening its pangs. Nature kills by slow
and protracted torture; we can defy it by choosing a
rapid and painless end. It is only the remains of the
old superstition that makes men think that to take life
is the special prerogative of the gods. With marvel
lous inconsistency, however, the opponents of euthan
�i6
Euthanasia.
asia do not scruple to “interfere with the course of
nature ” on the one hand, while they forbid us to inter
fere on the other. It is right to prolong pain by art,
although it is wrong to shorten it. When a person is
smitten down with some fearful and incurable disease,
they do not leave him to nature; on the contrary, they
check and thwart nature in every possible way; they
cherish the life that nature has blasted; they nourish
the strength that nature is undermining; they delay
each process of decay which nature sows in the dis
ordered frame; they contest every inch of ground with
nature to preserve life; and then, when life means
torture, and we ask permission to step in and quench
it, they cry out that we are interfering with nature.
If they would leave nature to itself, the disease would
generally kill with tolerable rapidity; but they will not
do this. They will only admit the force of their own
argument when it tells on the side of what they choose
to consider right. “Against nature ” is the cry with
which many a modern improvement has been howled
at; and it will continue to be raised, until it is gener
ally acknowledged that happiness, and not nature, is
the true guide to morality, and until man recognises
that nature is to be harnessed to his car of triumph,
and to bend its mighty forces to fulfil the human will.
Pam is a spiritual remedial agent, inflicted hy God,
and should therefore he patiently endured. Does any
one, except a self-torturing ascetic, endure any pain
which he can get rid of? This might be deemed a
sufficient answer to this objection, for common sense
always bids us avoid all possible pain, and daily expe
rience tells us that people invariably evade pain, when
ever such evasion is possible. The objection ought to
run : “ pain is a spiritual remedial agent, inflicted by
God, which is to be got rid of as soon as possible, but
ought to be patiently endured when unavoidable.”
Pain as pain has no recommendations, spiritual or
otherwise, nor is there the smallest merit in a voluntary
�Euthanasia.
J7
and needless submission to pain. As to its remedial
and educational advantages, it as often as not sours the
temper and hardens the heart; if a person endures
great physical or mental pain with unruffled patience,
and comes out of it with uninjured tenderness and
sweetness, we may rest assured that wre have come
across a rare and beautiful nature of exceptional strength.
As a general rule, pain, especially if it > be mental,
hardens and roughens the character. The use of anaes
thetics is utterly indefensible, if physical pain is to be
regarded as a special tool whereby God cultivates the
human soul. If God is directly acting on the sufferer s
body, and is educating his soul by racking his nerves,
by what right does the doctor step between with his
impious anaesthetic, and by reducing the patient to un
consciousness, deprive God of his pupil, and man of
his lesson ? If pain be a sacred ark, over which hovers
the divine glory, surely it must be a sinful act to touch
the holy thing. We may be inflicting incalculable
spiritual damage by frustrating the divine plan of edu
cation, which was corporeal agony as a spiritual agent.
Therefore, if this argument be good for anything at all,
we must from henceforth eschew all anaesthetics, we
must take no steps to alleviate human agony, we must
not venture to interfere with this beneficent agent, but
must leave nature to torture us as it will. But we
utterly deny that the unnecessary endurance of pain is
even a merit, much less a duty; on the contrary, we
believe that it is our duty to war against pain as much
as possible, to alleviate it wherever we cannot stop it
entirely ; and, where continuous and frightful agony
can only end in death, then to give to the sufferer the
relief he craves for, in the sleep which is mercy. “ It
is a mercy God has taken him,” is an expression often
heard when the racked frame at last lies quiet, and the
writhed features settle slowly into the peaceful smile of
the dead. That mercy we plead that man should be
allowed to give to man, when human skill and human
�18
Euthanasia.
tenderness have done their best, and when they have
left, within their reach, no greater boon than a speedy
and painless death.
We are not aware that any objection, which may not
be classed under one or other of these three heads, has
been levelled against the proposition that euthanasia
should be legalised. It has, indeed, been suggested
that to put into a doctor’s hands this “ power of life
and death,” would be to offer a dangerous temptation
to those who have any special object to gain by putting
a troublesome person quietly out of the way. But this
objection overlooks the fact that the patient himself must
ask for the draught, that stringent precautions can be taken
to render euthanasia impossible except at the patient’s
earnestly, or even repeatedly, expressed wish, that any
doctor or attendant, neglecting to take these precautions,
w’ould then, as now, be liable to all the penalties for
murder or for manslaughter; and that an ordinary
doctor would no more be ready to face these penalties
then, than he is now, although he undoubtedly has
now the power of putting the patient to death with
but little chance of discovery. Euthanasia would not
render murder less dangerous than it is at present, since
no one asks that a nurse may be empowered to give a
patient a dose which would ensure death, or that she
might be allowed to shield herself from punishment on
the plea that the patient desired it. If our opponents
would take the trouble to find out what we do ask,
before they condemn our propositions, it would greatly
simplify public discussion, not alone in this case, but
in many proposed reforms.
It may be well, also, to point out the wide line of
demarcation, which separated euthanasia from what is
ordinarily called suicide. Euthanasia, like suicide, is
a voluntarily chosen death, but there is a radical dif
ference between the motives which prompt the similar
act. Those who commit suicide thereby render them
�Euthanasia.
*9
selves useless to society for the future j they deprive
society of their services, and selfishly evade the duties
which ought to fall to their share ; therefore, the social
feelings rightly condemn suicide as a crime against
society. I do not say, that under no stress of circum
stances is suicide justifiable ; that is not the question ;
but I wish to point out that it is justly regarded as a
social offence. But the very motive which restrains
from suicide, prompts to euthanasia. The sufferer who
knows that he is lost to society, that he can never
again serve his fellow-men ; who knows, also, that he
is depriving society of the services of those who use
lessly exhaust themselves for him, and is further injur
ing it by undermining the health of its healthy mem
bers, feels urged by the very social instincts which
would prevent him from committing suicide while in
health, to yield a last service to society by relieving it
from a useless burden. Hence it is that Sir Ihomas
More, in the quotation with which we began this essay,
makes the social authorities of his ideal state urge
euthanasia as the duty of ,a faithful citizen, while they
yet, consistently reprobate ordinary suicide, as a Ibsemajeste, a crime against the State. The life of the
individual is, in a sense, the property of society. The
infant is nurtured, the child is educated, the man is
protected by others; and, in return for the life thus
given, developed, preserved, society has a right to
demand from its members a loyal, self-forgetting devo
tion to the common weal. To serve humanity, to raise
the race from which we spring, to dedicate every talent,
every power, every energy, to the improvement of, and
to the increase of happiness in, society, this is the duty
of each individual man and woman. And, when we
have given all we can, when strength is sinking, and life
is failing, when pain racks our bodies, and the worse
agony of seeing our dear ones suffer in our anguish,
tortures our enfeebled minds, when the only service
�20
Euthanasia.
we can render man is to relieve him of a useless and
injurious burden, then we ask that we may be per
mitted to die voluntarily and painlessly, and so to
crown a noble life with the laurel-wreath of a selfsacrificing death.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
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
Euthanasia
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Besant, Annie Wood
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Author not named on pamphlet but known to be Annie Besant. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Also published with the added subtitle: 'A pamphlet advocating the legalization of the administration of poison by a medical attendant to persons suffering from incurable and painful diseases'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1875]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5502
Subject
The topic of the resource
Euthenasia
Ethics
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 (Euthanasia), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Annie Besant
Conway Tracts
Death
Ethics
Euthanasia
Health
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b321981cec15d8d473d6096971c4a3e2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Asp%7EXDox-Qmk9mlO-%7EHlD1Z4Sgokz5WUiRxwbcixvD8DdAsQhr-r%7ExFwqV07b7drH4xX0Kr11SDoUtv5trFgsLTYGNwuQEIJmjOmtRxcADsRm-GNKb1kTx4Vhot11bMx0gExrrudX%7EGLfDELFB3bF7K85eFFFdFQfM8wixA28ip%7ELoXC-GpyVB9K6zmCNu6T3mqTyfPn-UTnK7VG4-tBA5GKufOAS%7E5rOGQtHHRUrcM597XhAJrqQCATC6xHuTwxk2YikeDwhzbD8YqHoSUzgaU04wkEed88%7E7OOsV3LZmEqEqwlF-z8VSkbO29gMWSp5-oqGmPYujMVDTpNghpTlw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e6473fe14090a97be9623c00c2851226
PDF Text
Text
�����������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Fire-burial among our German forefathers: a record of the poetry and history of Teutonic cremation
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Blind, Karl
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed in double columns. Printed by Spottiswoode and Co., New Street Square and Parliament Street, London. Includes bibliographical references.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Longmans, Green, and Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1875
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5170
CT39
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
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 (Fire-burial among our German forefathers: a record of the poetry and history of Teutonic cremation), 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
Burial
Conway Tracts
Cremation
Death
Germany
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/69200886f67b65a20103d6471089bb9a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=v0hNuvhLRaRALPb72pH6dJAd4QBBaMkwA1-iPKqh4ps%7EhCu2QdVVU%7EYVjU4VGir4hMI8nFKdc9%7EHW9D-4%7Esp2uTWrhaCJDBGhpE8tGFJgwAZyO0E-2WgNHaYtFF3Yz-8I0bgDz3E30wz27Zz8Z-NtpWCaBREmvgFitdSZ7r%7EIvBKzao4rpt3RbRzsIMHWlwTZDS%7ERwZ0GLSmMc3qtvCLOrXlk%7EqImfJvtw0U7ZVT%7E5ozA8Bq7Yzw-hDOuItmARqioNJNc38l8iO9PONDubc2-UEuK-C69Rl7krsq8hNTn0aoxMVbGj2wtAdQWrIeL0E0GLkwv1%7EoORXK5wNLVqpG0g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ea0471f22507dae191aaeaf5f40bb792
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
' CW-H*
11 •
THE FREETHINKER’S
BURIAL
Reprinted from The Examiner of February 22, 1873.
Sir,—A recent pamphlet, one of Mr. Thomas Scott’s
series, entitled ‘ The Book of Common Prayer Examined in
the Light of the Present Age,’ by Mr. William .Jevons, and
in which the varying views of St. Paul on a future life are
pointed out, has turned my thoughts to the position ’which
Freethinkers of the present and future generations are
likely to take with reference to the burial service of
the Church of England, and to the question of burials in
general.
It will be well known to many of your readers that both
in France and Italy Societies of Freethinkers have been
established for the express purpose of preventing the
clergy from obtruding themselves unsolicited into the
presence of dying members of the Society. In this
country Freethinkers at present need not much fear beinginterfered with on their death-beds against their will by
the clergy; but still kind or officious friends may try to
make the world believe that those who have in their mature
years rejected the creeds and fables taught them in their
childhood, did at the last hour see the error of their way,
give up their deliberate convictions, and accept the orthodox
belief that their only chance of a future life of happiness
depends upon the merits of a crucified man. Under these
circumstances, and even independently of them, many a
Freethinker may, if he turns his attention to the subject at
all, be desirous of putting on record, as solemnly as
possible, his opinions and his wishes, and to such as do so
it may occur that, following the fashion of our ancestors,
but in an opposite direction, they may, instead of
invoking the Holy Trinity and professing to commit
their bodies and souls to the keeping of the Almighty,
and declaring their belief in the certainty of their
resurrection to a future life, or in any other speculative
matter, make their will as far as regards their burial
somewhat in the following form :—-
�With respect to my burial, although ! have no objection to being
buried in what is commonly called consecrated ground, I should
prefer non-consecrated ground, being not only fully convinced that t he
act of no man, be he pope, bishop, or priest of any kind, can make
any portion of this earth more holy or sacred than another, but
also wishing to enter my protest against the superstitious reverence
generally paid to this act of consecration.
Not believing in the dogmas of original sin, the fall of man, the
atonement or redemption, and not believing that the man Jesus
of Nazareth was born of a virgin, nor in his resurrection after
death by crucifixion, nor that he descended into a place called hell,
nor that, he ascended into a place called- heaven, and then sat on
the right hand of God, and as I shall not die “in the Lord’
according to the views of those who style themselves Orthodox
Christians, I express my desire that neither the burial service of
the Church of England nor any other religious service shall be
performed on the occasion of my remains being consigned to the
earth, as it would, in my case, be merely a farce and mockery.
I desire that as little funeral ceremony shall be allowed as
possible—a plain coffin [single, and of perishable wood or wicker], a
hearse with not more than a pair of horses, no trappings of any
kind and no mourning coaches. I request those of my friends who
may be present on the occasion will go in their own clothes, and not
allow themselves to be dressed like mutes or undertakers’ men in
grotesque hatbands or scarves.”
The above will probably express the real views of a
great number among us, and even if surviving friends
and relatives differ from those views and would gladly
think matters were otherwise, they ought to bear in mind
that concealment is not honest, and that the allowing what
they will consider a very solemn service of the Church to
be performed on such an occasion would simply be acting
a lie, and ought to be far more abhorrent to them than
their acknowledgment of facts that cannot be altered.
I am. &c.,
W. H. D.
P.S. — The following extract from the Musee de&
Monumens Francais, by Alexandre Lenoir (Paris, 1806),
may interest your readers: “ The refusal of the Clergy
to bury Moliere caused a great scandal in Paris. The
king Louis XIV., being informed of this abuse of the
�3
ecclesiastical power, sent for the priest of St. ■ Eustache
(to which parish Moliere belonged), and ordered him
to bury the poet. This he declined to do, on account of
his being an actor, saying that such a man could not be
buried in consecrated ground. ‘ To what depth is the
ground consecrated?’ inquired the king of the narrow
minded priest. ‘To the depth of four feet, sire.’ Then
bury him six feet deep, and let there be an end of it,’
replied the king, turning his back on the priest of St.
Eustache.”
THE
FREETHINKER’S
MOURNING.
Reprinted from The Examiner of March 8, 1873.
Sir,—As you have kindly favoured me by inserting my
letter on “ The Freethinker’s Burial,” I now venture to
trouble you with one on possibly a more delicate subject
“ The Freethinker’s Mourning.”
In these days, when men and women allow and encourage
their stationers to go on increasing their depth of mourning
borders till space is scarcely left for any writing, a few
words on the exaggeration of mourning, internal as well as
external, may perhaps be permitted. That the Orthodox,
full of their “certain hope” that the departed has at once
been translated to realms of eternal bliss, where they
themselves will (after an interval of the briefest as
compared with eternity) in the due course of nature join
them, should give way to weeping and wailing—that
grown-up children, themselves old enough to be parents, or
even grandparents, should be completely unnerved at death
laying its hands on their parents, who simply appear to fall
asleep, their bodily frames having gradually given way and
decayed like the leaf on the tree that has performed its
allotted task and drops in its autumn season, is a
psychological phase in human nature singularly puzzling to
an outsider; but as the ways of the Orthodox are not my
ways, I pass them by. My letter is addressed to those who may
�4
be, like myself, Freethinkers; and to them I would say,
ought we not always to be prepared for death ourselves,
and therefore equally prepared for it in the case of our
friends and relatives ? Shocks are disagreeable to all; but
constant contemplation of what is happening around us
will, in every respect, prevent the shock otherwise caused
by sudden bereavement. As we learn to look upon our own
deaths as the result of laws partly hidden and partly known
but never varying, so exactly shall we learn to look upon
the deaths of those most dear to us. This uncertainty of
life, so far from being an evil, ought to be one of the
strongest inducements to all good work. To an earnest
Freethinker it should never be possible to grieve over lost
opportunities of making those around him better and
happier. As I have lived so shall 1 die. Let my daily '
thoughts be—This is possibly my last day here ; how ought
I to act for the best towards myself and others ?
So when even the young are cut off from us, let our true
regret be lightened by the feeling that, while in no way
wasting our time and energies in the study of dogmas on
subjects beyond human knowledge, or troubling ourselves
about creeds and articles of faith, we have to the very best
of our abilities made ourselves masters of the laws of nature,
have done all in our power by obedience to these laws to
preserve the life of that dear one. When life is cut short
by our self-willed ignorance of, or our carelessness about
these laws—then, indeed, is there true cause for mourning
over an untimely death.
I am, &c.,
|
j
’
W. H. D.
1
1
4
�
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 freethinker's burial [and, The freethinker's mourning]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domville, William Henry
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 4 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Reprinted from The Examiner of February 22, 1873 and March 8, 1873. Letters to the editor, signed W.H.D. Author's name handwritten in pencil on title page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N196
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
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 freethinker's burial [and, The freethinker's mourning]), 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
Death
Freethinkers
Mourning
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/09c233b79a06177a209bcc6ff6fa95be.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=SOuZ8xwD2eW%7EcfSYFtN-r0J4h2Y76EovECl7e6JHy4SnVWUzXmiOAF4lRs2HcQpk00wg0QypTUlbe7COCo2IODCuLw4tEk7e2p1jsIF9tnxqRmY22WDTdSd7TEytAXkhQZlaQa6Ud6X5cC6YuKfcdzwaAksJOFmXPfm2z8tMYf3Bo3SIpkWCgBo4%7E-RpDYsJaJaeUwvdQIoZJibW3%7EvFl55nySxYO0ADYfrDgLeleZUrWrk1M--geMeEYahwBszSKQmaeKTspQZsTGRjYGj1nJzG29liYPUgBREyjqTGy%7EePM3czkoLxEHDzdclvcQaQyNM0twZbcKWhTfuD6xjyiA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c0e1aa0aa3a569110d10b2e84fd7acad
PDF Text
Text
national secular society
Fnjv??
■
StL.
S’
. ,
'
80, PiCGAS'.LLY, HANLEi
/---------------------- -------- —,
’
DEATH'S TESTt^
OR
CHRISTIAN LIES ABOUT DYING INFIDELS.
“Those thetr idle tales of dying horrors.”— Carlyle.
There has recently been hawked about the streets of
London a penny pamphlet, called “ Death’s Test on
Christians and Infidels—Echoes from Seventy Death Beds.”
It is not an original performance, but has been “compiled
by R. May,” who appears to be a city missionary, and who
evidently possesses about as much intelligence and know
ledge of literature as usually belongs to that class of men.
Intrinsically, the pamphlet is beneath contempt, but it may
deceive many unsuspecting minds, and in response to
numerous invitations I have decided to honor it with a
reply. Reuben May is an insignificant person; yet like
other venomous little creatures he may cause annoyance to
his betters. I detest all vermin and would gladly shun
them. But sometimes they pester one beyond endurance,
and then one is obliged to sacrifice his dignity and to act
in the spirit of Swift’s maxim, “ If a flea bite me I’ll kill it
if I can.”
Before, however, I reply to Reuben May’s ridiculous com
pilation, let me deal briefly with the subject of
Death-Bed Repentance.
Carlyle, in his essay on Voltaire, has a memorable passageon this subject.
Reuben May, with other Christian
scribblers, is probably alike ignorant and careless of its
existence; but the great authority of Carlyle will have its
due weight in the minds of unprejudiced seekers for truth.
“ Surely the parting agonies of a fellow-mortal, when the
spirit of our brother, rapt in the whirlwinds and thick _ ghastly
vapours of death, clutches blindly for help, and no help is there,
are not the scenes where a wise faith would seek to exult, when
it can no longer hope to alleviate! For the rest, to touch
farther on those their idle tales of dying horrors, remorse, and the
�2
death’s test.
like ; to write of such, to believe them, or disbelieve them, or in
anywise discuss them, were but a continuation of the same
ineptitude. He who, after the imperturbable exit of so many
Cartouches and Thurtells, in every age of the world, can continue
to regard the manner of a man’s death as a test of his religious
orthodoxy, may boast himself impregnable to merely terrestrial
logic.”—“ Essays,” vol. ii., p. 161.
Reuben May and his silly coadjutors are no doubt “ im
pregnable to merely terrestrial logic.” It would probably
require a miracle to drive common sense into their heads.
But I trust there are other readers more accessible to reason,
and it is for them I write, even at the risk of being thought
guilty of “ the same ineptitude ” as those who manufacture
or believe the “ idle tales of dying horrors.”
Suppose an “ infidel” recants his heresy on his death-bed,
what does it prove ? Simply nothing. Infidels are com
paratively few, their relatives are often orthodox; and if,
when their minds are enfeebled by disease or the near
approach of death, they are surrounded by persons who
continually urge them to be reconciled with the religion they
have denied, it is not astonishing that they sometimes yield.
But such cases are exceedingly rare. Most men die as they
have lived.
Old men form the majority of these rare cases, and them
recantation is easily understood. Having usually been
brought up in the Christian religion, their earliest and
tenderest memories are probably connected with it; and
when they lie down to die they may naturally recur to it,
just as they may forget whole years of their maturity and
vividly remember the scenes of their childhood. Old age
yearns back to the cradle, and as Dante Rossetti says—
“Life all past
Is like the sky when the sun sets in it,
Clearest where furthest off.”
It is said that converted Jews always die Jews ; and mission
aries in India know well that converts to Christianity
frequently, if not generally, die in their native faith. The
reason is obvious. Only strong minds can really emanci
pate themselves from superstition, and it needs a lifetime of
settled conviction to undo the work of the pious misguiders
-of our youth.
Christians who attach importance to the “ death-bed
�DEATIl’S TEST.
3
Decantations of infidels ” pay their own religion a poor com
pliment. They imply that the infidel’s rejection of their
creed while his mind is clear and strong is nothing to his
acceptance of it when his mind is weak and confused. They
virtually declare that his testimony to the truth of their
creed is of most value when he is least capable of judging
it. At this rate Bedlam and Colney-Hatch should decide
our faith. There are some people who think it could not
be much more foolish if they did.
Cases of recantation are rarer now than ever. Sceptics
are numbered by thousands and they can nearly always
secure the presence at their bedsides of friends who share
their unbelief. Freethought journals almost every week
report the quiet end of sceptics who having lived without
hypocrisy have died without fear.
Christians know this. They therefore abandon the idea
of manufacturing fresh death-bed stories, and stick to the
old ones which have been refuted again and again. But
surely it is time we had some fresh ones. Voltaire and
Paine have been dead a long time, and many great Free
thinkers have died since. Why do we hear nothing about
them 2 Why have not the recantation-mongers concocted a
nice little story about the death of John Stuart Mill, of
Professor Clifford, of Strauss, of Feuerbach, or of Comte ?
Because they know the lie would be exposed at once. They
must wait until these great Freethinkers have, like Voltaire
and. Paine, been dead a century, before they can hope to
defame them with success. Our cry to such pious rascals is
“Hands off!” Refute the arguments of Freethinkers if
you can, but do not obtrude your disgusting presence in the
death chamber, or vent your malignity over their graves.
On the Continent, however, there have been a few recent
attempts in this line. One was in the case of
Isaac Gendre,
the
Swiss Freethinker.
The controversy over this gentleman’s death was sum
marised in the London Echo, of July 29th, 1881.
“A second case of death-bed conversion of an eminent
'Liberal to Roman Catholicism, suggested probably by that of
the great French philologist Littre, has passed the round of the
Swiss papers. A few days ago the veteran Leader of the Frei
burg Liberals, M. Isaac Gendre, died. The Ami du Peuple, the
�4
death’s test.
organ of the Freiburg Ultramontanes, immediately set afloat the
sensational news that when M. Gendre found that his last hour
was approaching he sent his brother to fetch a priest, in order
that the last sacraments might be administered to him, and the
evil which he had done during his life by his persistent Liberalism
might, he atoned by his repentance at the eleventh hour. This
brother, IV!. Alexandre Gendre, now writes to the paper stating
that there is not one word of truth in the story. What possible
benefit can any Church derive from the invention of such tales ?
Doubtless there is a credulous residuum which believes that
there must be ‘some truth ’ in anything which has once appeared
in print.”
It might be added that many people readily believe what
pleases them, and that a lie which has a good start is very
hard to run down.
Another case was that of
M. Littee,
the great French Positivist, who died a few months ago at
the ripe age of eighty-one. M. Littre was one of the fore
most writers in France. His monumental “ Dictionary of
the French Language ” is the greatest work of its kind in
the world. As a scholar and a philosopher his eminence
was universally recognised. His character was so pure and
sweet that a Catholic lady called him “ a saint who does not
believe in God.” Although not rich, his purse was ever
open to the claims of charity. He was one who “ did good
by stealth,” and his benefactions were conferred without
respect to creed. A Freethinker himself, he patronised the
Catholic orphanage near his residence, and took a keen
interest in the welfare of its inmates. He was an honor to
France, to the world, and to the Humanity which he loved
and served instead of God.
M. Littre’s wife was an ardent Catholic, yet she was
allowed to follow her own religious inclinations without the
least interference. The great Freethinker valued liberty of
conscience above all other rights, and what he claimed for
himself he conceded to others. He scorned to exercise
authority even in the domestic circle, where so much tyranny
is practised. His wife, however, was less scrupulous. After
enjoying for so many years the benefit of his steadfast tole
ration, she took advantage of her position to exclude his
friends from his death-bed, to have him baptised in his last
�DEATH S TEST.
O
moments, and to secure his burial in consecrated ground
with pious rites. Not satisfied with this, she even allowed
it to be understood that her husband had recanted his heresy
-and died in the bosom of the church. The Abbe Huvelin,
her confessor, who frequently visited M. Littre during his
last illness, assisted her in the fraud.
There was naturally a disturbance at M. Littre’s funeral.
As the Standard correspondent wrote, his friends and
-disciples were “ very angry at this recantation in extremis,
and claimed that dishonest priestcraft took advantage of the
■darkness cast over that clear intellect by the mist of
approaching death to perform the rites of the church over
his semi-inanimate body.” While the body was laid out in
Catholic fashion, with crucifixes, candles, and priests telling
their beads, Dr. Galopin advanced to the foot of the coffin,
•and spoke as follows :
“ Master, you used to call me your son, and you loved me. I
remain your disciple and your defender. I come, in the name of
Positive Philosophy, to claim the rights of universal Freemasonry.
A deception has been practised upon us, to try and steal you
from thinking humanity. But the future will judge your enemies
and ours. Master, we will revenge you by making our children
read your books.”
At the grave, M. Wyrouboff, editor of the Comtist review,
La Philosophic Positive, founded by M. Littre, delivered a
‘brief address to the Freethinkers who remained, which con
cluded thus:—
“ Littre proved by his example that it is possible for a man to
possess a noble and generous heart, and at the same time espouse
a doctrine which admits nothing beyond what is positively real,
and which prevents any recantation. And, gentlemen, in spite
of deceptive appearances, Littre died as he had lived, without contra
dictions or weakness. All those who knew that calm and serene
mind—and I was of the number of those who did—are well
aware that it was irrevocably closed to the ‘ unknowable,’ and
that it was thoroughly prepared to meet courageously the irre
sistible laws of nature. And now sleep in peace, proud and noble
thinker! You will not have the eternity of a world to come
which you never expected; but you leave behind you your
■country that you strove honestly to serve, the Republic which
you always loved, a generation of disciples who will remain
faithful to you, and last, but not least, you leave your thoughts
And your virtues to the whole world. Social immortality, the
�f
q
death’s test.
only beneficent and fecund immortality, commences for you
to-day.”
M. Wyrouboff has since amply proved his statements.
The English press creditably rejected the story of M.
Littre’s recantation. The Daily News sneered at it, the Times
described it as absurd, the Standard said it looked untrue.
But the Morning Advertiser was still more outspoken. It
said—
“ There can hardly be a doubt that M. Littre died a steadfast
adherent to the principles he so powerfully advocated during his
laborious and distinguished life. The Church may claim, as our
Paris correspondent in his interesting note on the subject tells us
she is already claiming, the death-bed conversion of the great un
believer, who for the iast thirty-five years was one of her most
active and formidable enemies. She has attempted to take the
same posthumous revenge on Voltaire, on Paine, and on many
others who are described by Roman Catholic writers as calling
in the last dreadful hour for the spiritual support they held up to
ridicule in the confidence of health and the presumption of their
intellect.”
In the Paris Gaulois there appeared a letter from the
Abbe Huvelin, written very ambiguously and obviously
intended to mislead. But one fact stands out clear. This
priest was only admitted to visit M. Littre as a friend, and
he was not allowed to baptise him.
The Archbishop of
Paris also, in his official organ, La Semaine lleligieuse,
admits that “ he received the sacrament of baptism on the
morning of the very day of his death, not from the hands of
the priest, who had not yet arrived, hut from those of Madame
LittreT The Archbishop, however, insists that he “ received
the ordinance in perfect consciousness and with his own
full consent.” Now as M. Littre was eighty-one years old,
as he had been for twelve months languishing with a feeble
hold on life, during which time he was often in a state of.
stupor, and as this was the very morning of his death, I
leave the reader to estimate the value of what the Arch
bishop calls “ perfect consciousness and full consent.” If
any consent was given by the dying Freethinker it was only
to gratify his wife and daughter, and at the last moment
when he had no will to resist; for if he had been more com
pliant they would certainly have baptised him before. Sub
mission in these circumstances counts for nothing ; and in
any case there is forceful truth in M. Littre’s words, written.
�death’s test.
in 1879 in his “Conservation, Revolution, et Positivisme ”
—“ a whole life passed without any observance of religious rites
must outweigh the single final act.”
Unfortunately for the clericals there exists a document
which may be considered M. Littre’s last confession. It is
an article written for the Comtist review a year before his
death, entitled “Pour la Derniere Fois”—For the Last
Time. While writing it he knew that his end was not far
off. “For many months,” he says, “my sufferings have
prostrated me with dreadful persistence. . . . Every evening,
when I have to be put to bed my pains are exasperated, and
often I have not the strength to stifle cries which are
grievous to me and grievous to those who tend me.” After
the article was completed his malady increased. Fearing
the worst he wrote to his friend, M. Caubet, as follows :—
“ Last Saturday I swooned away for a long time. It is for
that reason I send you, a little prematurely, my article for the
Review. If 1 live, I will correct the proofs as usual. If I die,
let it be printed and published in the Review as a posthumous
article. It will be a last trouble which I venture to give you.
The reader must do his best to follow the manuscript faithfully.”
If I live—If I die ! These are the words of one in the
shadow of Death.
Let us see what M. Littre’s last confession is. I trans
late two passages from the article. Referring to Charles
G-reville, he says :—
“I feel nothing of what he experienced. Like him, I find it
impossible to accept the theory of the world which Catholicism
*
prescribes to all true believers; but I do not regret being with
out such doctrines, and I cannot discover in myself any wish to
return to them.”
And he concludes the article with these words :—
“Positive Philosophy, which has so supported me since my
thirtieth year, and which, in giving me an ideal, a craving for
progress, the vision of history and care for humanity, has pre
served me from being a simple negationist, accompanies me
faithfully in these last trials. The questions it solves in its own
way, the rules it prescribes by virtue of its principle, the beliefs
it discountenances in the name of our ignorance of every thing
absolute ; of these I have, in the preceding pages made an ex* To a Frenchman Catholicism and Christianity mean one and the
same thing.
�8
death’s test.
amination, which I conclude with the supreme word of the com
mencement : for the last time.”
So much for the lying story of M. Littre’s recantation.
In the words of M. Wyrouboff, although his corpse was
accompanied to the grave by priests and believers, his name
will go down to future generations as that of one who was
to the end “ a servant of science and an enemy to super
stition.”
Having disposed of M. Littre’s case I return to Reuben
May’s trumpery pamphlet, dealing first with
His Pkefa.ce,
which is a wonderful piece of writing. His fitness to write
on any subject is shown by the following passage:
“I have avoided selecting cases which some would call ‘dying
fancies,’ ‘imagination,’ and ‘ visions.’ Such cases there are, both
on record and within the observation of many of those who have
widely attended the sick and dying; and although we refrain
from entering into the subject here, this is remarkable about
such cases, viz., that they are generally of two distinct classes—
(1) visions of angels, hearing beautiful music, seeing beautiful
places, etc.; (2) of those who have great fear, despondency, and
alarm; seeing fiends, smelling brimstone, feeling scorched by a
huge fire, etc. I believe invariably the first are those who have
professed religion in health, and the latter those who have
neglected it. Anyhow, my personal observation confirms this
opinion.”
If ever a Colney Hatch Gazette is started the proprietors
would do well to engage Reuben May as editor.
Another passage is very interesting:
“There is an intelligent man, close upon fourscore years of
age, now residing in the centre of London, and who I hope is a
Christian, who has for the greater part of his life—for reasons
not necessary to mention here—been conversant and mixed up
with, the followers of the leading infidel lecturers, past and
present, who says, that he has had an opportunity to watch very
many such to their closing earthly days, and that never has a
single instance come under his notice but that there was a
desire to turn from infidelity and in most to receive the con
solations of religion.”
Why is not this “ intelligent man’s ” name given ? Be•cause the lie might then be exposed. Why has he watched
so many infidel death-beds, and how did he obtain so many
opportunities ? Why does Mr. May only hope the man is a
�death’s test.
9
Christian ? If he does not know him well enough to be
sure, how can he have the audacity to publish such a
sweeping assertion on the man’s bare word ? Against this
anonymous and general testimony I put the specific fact that
our journals constantly publish cases of Freethinkers who
have died thoroughly convinced of the truth of their prin
ciples, and without the slightest misgiving ; cases in which
the names and addresses are given, not only of the deceased,
but also of the friends who were with him to the last. For
my own part, I have known many Freethinkers who were
steadfast unto death, but I have never known a single case of
recantation. Nor do I believe Reuben May has. If he has
let him give name, address, place and time, so that it may
be authenticated.
A word as to this pious scribbler’s method of compilation.
He says that “ the cases selected are from various published
and acknowledged authentic works.” What does the man
mean ? An authentic work is simply one written by the
author whose name it bears. Am I to suppose that Mr.
May believes everything he sees in print ? If not, I should
like to know what trouble he has taken to verify the stories
he has printed. My belief is that he has taken none. He
seems to have become possessed of a few antiquated works,
and to have spoiled a quantity of good paper in copying
from them what suited his purpose. What are
His Authorities?
Dr. Simpson’s “ Plea for Religion,” the Rev. Erskine
Neale’s “ Closing Scenes,” and a few more works of that
kind. They are all written by special pleaders ; not one of
them has any authority in the world of literature ; and at
the very best they are worth very little, since none of their
authors witnessed the scenes which are alleged to have taken
place at the death-beds of infidels. Mr. May should have
gone to original sources. No doubt his meagre acquaintance
with literature prevented him from doing so, and perhaps he
thought any stick was good enough to beat the infidel dog.
In exposing him, however, I shall go to original sources, and
the information I give may be useful to ignorant Reuben
May as well as to other readers.
.Erskine Neale’s “ Closing Scenes ” is first laid under con
tribution in the case of
�10
death’s test.
Thomas Paine
The author’s strong bias is apparent in almost' every line.
He describes “ Common Sense ” as a “ clever but malignant
pamphlet.” He states that Paine, when he returned to
America in 1802, was suffering from “intemperance and a
complication of disorders.” He does not cite any authority
in support of the charge of intemperance, nor does he inform
the reader that hard drinking was the custom in Paine’s
time. Fox, the great Whig statesman, was frequently
inebriated, and his great Tory rival, William Pitt, the
Premier of England, was often carried drunk to bed. Mr.
Neale also omits to mention the honorable circumstance
that Paine’s “ complication of disorders ” was brought on by
his long imprisonment in a dungeon of the Luxembourg, for
having, as a member of the National Assembly, spoken and
voted against the execution of Louis XVI.
Mr. Neale cites “an eyewitness” of Paine’s “closing
scene,” but this anonymous person does not pretend that
*
Paine recanted.
He dwells on the fact that the dying
infidel “ required some person to be with him at night, urging
as his reason that he was afraid he should die unattended.”
There is, however, nothing wonderful in this. Few men, I
presume, would like to be left alone on their death-bed.
He further states that Paine called out, in his paroxysms of
pain, “ O Lord, help me 1 God, help me I Jesus Christ,
help me I O Lord, help me ! ” But surely no man would
attach any importance to ejaculations like these. Hospital
attendants will tell you that patients utter all sorts of cries
in their agony, without meaning anything by them. Vanini,
who was burnt to death as an Atheist at Toulouse, in 1619,
is reported to have cried out on seeing the stake, “Ah, my
God 1 ” On which a bystander said, “ You believe in God,
then ; ” and he retorted, “ No, it’s a fashion of speaking.”
This anonymous eyewitness himself refutes the story of
Paine’s recantation, in the following passage:—
“ I took occasion, during the night of the 5th and 6th of June,
to test the strength of his opinions respecting revelation. I pur
posely made him a very late visit; it was a time which seemed
to suit my errand ; it was midnight. He was in great distress,
constantly exclaiming the words above-mentioned, when, after a
Probably Dr. Manley.
�death’s test.
11
considerable preface, I addressed him in the following manner,
the nurse being present:—
“ ‘Mr. Paine, your opinions, by a large portion of the com
munity, have been treated with deference ; you have never been
in the habit of mixing in your conversation words of coarse
meaning; you have never indulged in the practice of profane
swearing ; you must be sensible that we are acquainted with
your religious opinions, as they are given to the world. What
must we think of your present conduct? Why do you call
upon Jesus Christ to help you ? Do you believe that he can
help you? Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ?
Come, now, answer me honestly; I want an answer as from the
lips of a dying man, for I verily believe that you will not live
twenty-four hours.’ I paused some time at the end of every
question. He did not answer, but ceased to exclaim in the above
manner. Again I addressed him: ‘Mr. Paine, you have not
answered my questions : will you answer them ? Allow me to
ask again, do you believe, or—let me qualify the question—do
you wish to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?”
After a pause of some minutes he answered, ‘ I have NO WISH TO
believe on that subject.’ I then left him, and know not whether
he afterwards spoke to any person on any subject, though he
lived, as I before observed, a few hours longer—in fact, till the
morning of the Sth.”
Reuben May probably thought it impolitic to rest here.
He therefore made another extract from “ The Life and
Gospel Labours of Stephen Grellet.” This pious worthy
states that a young woman, named Mary Roscoe, frequently
took Paine some delicacies from a neighbor. To this young
woman, according to Stephen Grellet, he confided a secret
which he never revealed to his dearest friends. He told
her, With respect to his “Age of Reason,” that “ if ever the
devil ■ had • any agency in any work, he has had it in my
writing that book ; ” and she repeatedly heard him exclaim
“ Lord Jesus, have mercy on me ! ”
Now this young woman is no doubt Mary Hinsdale, the
servant of . Mr. Willett Hicks, a Quaker gentleman who
showed Paine great kindness during his last days. Her
story was published and widely circulated by the Religious
Tract Society in 1824. William Cobbett, who admired
Paine as a politician although he dissented strongly from his
religious views, published a conclusive reply.
While in
America he had investigated the affair. He had called on
Mary Hinsdale herself, at the instance of Charles Collins,
who wanted him to state in his contemplated Life of Paine
�12
death’s test.
that he had recanted. She shuffled, evaded, and equivo
cated ; she said it was a long time ago, and she could
not speak positively. Cobbett left in disgust, thinking the
woman a match for the Devil in cunning. He concludes his
exposure of the recantation story thus:
“ This is, I think, a pretty good instance of the lengths to
which hypocrisy will go. . _ . . . Mr. Paine declares in his last
will, that he retains all his publicly expressed opinions as to
religion. His executors, and many other gentlemen of un
doubted veracity, had the same declaration from his dying lips.
Mr. Willett Hicks visited him to nearly the last. This gentleman
says that there was no change of opinion intimated to him ; and
will any man believe that Paine would have withheld from Mr.
Hicks that which he was so forward to communicate to Mr.
Hicks’s servant girl ? ”
Cheetham, who libelled Paine in everything else, acknow
ledged that he died without any change in his opinions.
And this Mary Hinsdale, subsequently trying to play the
same trick on the reputation of an obnoxious young lady,
Mary Lockwood, as she had played on Paine’s, was proved
by the young lady’s friends to be a deliberate liar.
Perhaps the best answer to the lying story of Paine’s re
cantation, is to be found in the fact that he wrote the
second part of his “Age of Reason” in the Luxembourg, while
under apprehension of the guillotine. He states this in the
Preface. “ I had then,” he writes, “ little hope of surviving.
I know, therefore, by experience, the conscientious trial of
my principles.” Clio Kickman (p. 194) gives also the
testimony of Dr. Bond, an English surgeon in the suite of
General O’Hara, who said:
“Mr. Paine, while hourly expecting to die, read to me parts
of his “ Age of Reason and every night when I left him to be
separately locked up, and expected not to see him alive in the
morning, he always expressed his firm belief in the principles of
that book, and begged I would tell the world such were his
dying opinions.” .
The subject may be left here. I think I have disposed of
Reuben May’s authorities, and satisfactorily shown that
Thomas Paine died as he lived “ an enemy to the Christian
religion.”
Next comes the case of
V OLTAIRE.
This splendid Freethinker, whose name is a battle-flag in
�death’s test.
13
the hottest strife between Reason and Faith, has been the
•subject of more malignant slander than even Thomas Paine.
Superstition has reeled from the blows of his arguments and
writhed from the shafts of his wit, but it has partly avenged
itself by heaping upon his memory a mountain of lies.
Reuben May does not name the author of his section on
Voltaire. Most of it is a translation from the Abbe Barruel,
■who evidently wrote for pious readers ready to believe any
thing against “ infidels.” His diatribe bristles with false
hoods and absurdities.
Voltaire is charged with “ a want of sound learning and
.moral qualifications,” which will “ ever prevent him from
being ranked with the benefactors of mankind by the wise
■and good.” The writer meant by hypocrites and fools!
Voltaire’s reputation is too firmly established to be over
thrown by Christian scribblers. Our greatest living poet,
Robert Browning, salutes him thus—
Ay, sharpest shrewdest steel that ever stabbed
To death Imposture through the armor-joints! *
'Carlyle, who is very grudging in his admissions of Voltaire’s
worth, says “ He gave the death-stab to modern supersti
tion,” and adds “It was a most weighty service.”f Else
where Carlyle reluctantly admits his nobility of character:
“ At all events, it will be granted that, as a private man,
his existence was beneficial, not hurtful, to his fellow-men :
the Calases, the Sirvens, and so many orphans and outcasts
whom he cherished and protected, ought to cover a multi
tude of sins.”j:
Buckle, the historian of civilisation, writes:—
“No one could reason more closely than Voltaire, when
reasoning suited his purpose. But he had to deal with men im
pervious to argument; men whose inordinate reverence for
antiquity had only left them two ideas, namely, that everything
old is right, and that everything new is wrong. To argue against
these opinions would be idle indeed; the only other resource
was, to make them ridiculous, aud weaken their influence, by
holding up their authors to contempt. This was one of the
tasks Voltaire set himself to perform, and he did it well. He,
therefore, used ridicule, not as the test of truth, but as the
scourge of folly. And with such effect was the punishment
* “ The Two Poets of Croisie.”
t “Essays.” Vol. II., p. 181.
St. 107.
J Ibicl.
P. 154.
�14
DEATH S TEST.
administered, that not only did the pedants and theologians of
his own time wince under the lash, but even their successors feel
their ears tingle when they read his biting words; and they
revenge themselves by reviling the memory of that great writer,
whose works are as a thorn in their side, and whose very name
they hold in undisguised abhorrence........... His irony, his wit,
his pungent and telling sarcasms, produced more effect than the
gravest arguments could have done ; and there can be no doubt
that he was fully justified in using those great resources with
which nature had endowed him, since by their aid he advanced
the interests of truth, and relieved men from some of their most
inveterate prejudices.”—“ History of Civilisation,” Vol. II.,
p. 308-9.
Taking him as a whole, Buckle thinks he is probably the
greatest historian Europe has produced. Lamartine cha
racterises him as “ ce genie non le plus haut, metis le plus vaste
de la France ”—not the loftiest but the greatest genius of
France. And lastly, Brougham, in his “ Life of Voltaire,”
says—
“Nor can any one since the days of Luther be named, to
whom the spirit of free inquiry, nay, the emancipation of the
human mind from spiritual tyranny, owes a more lasting debt of
gratitude.”
What does Reuben May think now ? These great writers
regard Voltaire as a “ benefactor of mankind.” Surely they
are as “ wise ” as Reuben May’s anonymous author, and
probably as “ good.”
The Abbe Barruel’s first misstatement is glaring and
unpardonable. He writes of Voltaire as “ the dying
Atheist.” Now, Voltaire was a Theist, and he penned
arguments in favor of the existence of God such as few
theologians have equalled. He is 'credited with the saying
that “ If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent
him.” He described an Atheist as a monster created by
nature in a moment of madness. He quarreled with some
of the most eager spirits engaged on the great Encyclo
pedia for going too far in a negative direction. During his
last visit to Paris, only a few weeks before his death, when
Benjamin Franklin’s grandson was presented to him, he
said “ God and Liberty, that is the only benediction which
befits the grandson of Dr. Franklin.”* Yet the Abbe
Condorcet, Vie de Voltaire, p. 111.
�death’s test.
15
Barruel calls Voltaire an Atheist. A writer so grossly
inaccurate is scarcely worth notice.
He also says that Voltaire in his famous phrase Ecrasez
L’Infame (crush the Infamous) referred to Jesus Christ.
This is another gross mistake. Voltaire had great respect
and admiration for Jesus as a man. By the Infamous he
meant the Church with its dogmas, its priestcraft, its op
pressions, and its crimes.
He states that the Abbe Gauthier, with the curate of St.
Sulpice, was unable to gain admission to Voltaire’s apart
ment, in consequence of Diderot, D’Alembert, and other
“ conspirators ” surrounding him. This is another false
hood, as the sequel will show.
Now for the story of Voltaire’s “ recantation.” In those
days every Freethinker wrote with the halter round his
neck. Voltaire was always in peril, from which only his
wonderful adroitness saved him. He disliked martyrdom,
had no wish to be burnt to please the faithful, and thought
he could do Truth more service by living than by courting
death. Consequently, his whole life was more or less an
evasion of the enemy. Many of his most trenchant attacks
on Christianity were anonymous; and although everyone
knew that only one pen in France could have written them,
there was no legal proof of the fact. When Voltaire came
to die, he remembered his own bitter sorrow and indigna
tion, which he expressed in burning verse, at the ignominy
inflicted many years before on the remains of the poor
actress, Adrienne Lecouvreur, which were refused sepulture
because she died outside the pale of the Church. Fearing
similar treatment himself, he is said to have sent for the
Abbe Gauthier, who, according to Condorcet, “ confessed
Voltaire, and received from him a profession of faith, by
which he declared that he died in the Catholic religion
wherein he was born.” This story is generally credited,
but its truth is by no means indisputable ; for in the Abbe
Gauthier’s declaration to the Prior of the Abbey of Scellieres,
where Voltaire’s remains were interred, he says that “when
he visited M. de Voltaire he found him unfit to be confessed!
The Curate of St. Sulpice was annoyed at being fore
stalled by the Abbe Gauthier, and as Voltaire was his
parishioner, he demanded “ a detailed profession of faith
and a disavowal of all heretical doctrines.” He paid the
�16
death’s test.
dying Freethinker many unwelcome visits, in the vain hope
of obtaining a full recantation, which would be a fine
feather in his hat. The last of these visits is thus described
by Wagniere, one of Voltaire’s secretaries, and an eye
witness of the scene. I take Carlyle’s translation :—
Two days before that mournful death, M. l’Abbe Mignot, his
nephew, went to seek the Cure of Saint Sulpice and the Abbe
Gauthier, and brought them into his uncle’s sick-room ; who, on
being informed that the Abbe Gauthier was there, “Ah, well! ”
said he, “ give him my compliments and my thanks.” The
Abbe spoke some words to him, exhorting him to patience. The
Cure of Saint Sulpice then came forward, having announced
himself, and asked of M. de Voltaire, elevating his voice, if he
acknowledged the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ? The sick
man pushed one of his hands against the Cure’s calotte (coif),
shoving him back, and cried, turning abruptly to the other side,
“ Let me die in peace (Laissez-moi mourir en paix) !” The
Cure seemingly considered his person soiled, and his coif dis
honored, by the touch of a philospher. He made the sick-nurse
give him a little brushing, and then went out with the Abbe
Gauthier.
A further proof that Voltaire made no real recantation
lies in the fact that the Bishop of Troyes sent a peremptory
dispatch to the Prior of Scellieres, which lay in his diocese,
forbidding him to inter the heretic’s remains. The dispatch,
however, arrived too late, and Voltaire’s ashes remained
there until 1791, when they were removed to Paris, and
placed in the Pantheon, by order of the National Assembly.
Having disposed of the “ recantation,” I must refute
another lie. Reuben May’s pamphlet states that—
“In his last illness he sent for Dr. Tronchin. When the
Doctor came, he found Voltaire in the greatest agony, exclaiming
with the utmost horror—I am abandoned by God and man.’
He then said, “Doctor, I will give you half of what I am worth,
if you will give me six month’s life.’ The Doctor answered,
‘Sir, you cannot live six weeks.’ Voltaire replied, ‘Then I
shall go to hell, and you will go with me! ’ and soon after
expired.”
Was there ever a sillier story ? Who, except a lunatic or a
Christian, could believe it ? Why did Voltaire want exactly
six months’ life? He was then in his eighty-fifth year,
and had surely lived long enough. Why did he say he was
going to hell when he believed there was no such place ?
And why did he suppose the Doctor would go to hell too for
�death’s test.
17
being unable to prolong his existence ? The person who
invented this story was a fool, and Reuben May is a ninny
to print it.
The story is an evident lie. After this funny conversa
tion, Voltaire “ soon expired.” Now Wagniere has left
an account of Voltaire’s end which disproves this. Carlyle
translates it thus :—
“ He expired about quarter past eleven at night,
the most
perfect tranquillity, after having suffered the cruelest pains, in
consequence of those fatal drugs, which his own imprudence, and
especially that of the persons who should have looked to it,
made him swallow. Ten minutes before his last breath, he took
the hand of Morand, his valet-de-chambre, who was watching
him ; pressed it, and said, “ Adieu, mon cher Morand, je me meurs ”
Adieu, my dear Morand, I am gone.” These are the last words
uttered byM. de Voltaire.”
Wagniere’s narrative looks true, unlike the rubbish of Dr.
Tronchin, the Abbe Barruel, and Reuben May.
Further on in Reuben May’s pamphlet we read of a parson
who was told by another parson that a friend of his had
seen an old nurse who waited on Voltaire in his last illness,
and who declared that “ not for all the wealth of Europe
would she see another infidel die.” But as no one who
visited Voltaire mentions this woman, and as no nurse is
alluded to by friend or enemy, I unceremoniously dismiss
her as “ a mockery, a delusion and a snare.”
My readers must, I think, be fully satisfied that Voltaire
neither recanted nor died raving, but remained a sceptic to
the last, and passed away quietly to “ the undiscovered
country from whose bourne no traveller returns.”
I take next a foolish story about
Volney,
another great Frenchman, and author of the famous “ Ruins
of Empires ” :—
“ Volney in a Storm.—Volney, a French infidel, was on board
a vessel during a violent storm at sea, when the ship was in
imminent danger of being lost. He threw himself on the deck,
crying in agony, ‘ Oh, my God ! my God 1 ’ “ There is a God,
then, Monsieur Volney ?’said one of the passengers to him.
‘Oh, yes,’ exclaimed the terrified infidel, “there is! there is!
Lord, save me! ’ The ship, however, got safely into port. Volney
was extremely disconcerted when his confession was publicly re
�18
death’s test.
lated, but excused it by saying that he was so frightened by the
storm that he did not know what he said, and immediately
returned to his atheistical sentiments.”
Reuben May gives no authority for this story. He seems
to think that his readers, like himself, will believe anything
they see in print. I have traced it back to the “ Tract Maga
zine ” for July, 1832, where it appears very much amplified
and in many respects different. It appears, in a still dif
ferent form, in the eighth volume of the “ Evangelical
Magazine,” where it professes to be taken from Weld’s
“ Travels in America ” This date is a great many years
after Volney’s time. I cannot find any earlier trace of the
story, and I therefore ask the reader to reject it as false
and absurd.
The next case is that of “ the noble Altamont,” but as I
cannot discover who the noble Altamont was, and suspect
him to be the aristocratic hero of some eighteenth-century
romance, I pass on to the case of
Hobbes.
This great thinker, who knew Bacon, Selden, and Ben Jonson
in his youth, and Dryden in his old age, lived to be upwards
of ninety. Reuben May’s pamphlet states that, when dying,
he said “ he was about to take a leap in the dark.” Well,
that was only an emphatic way of expressing his doubt
whether there is a future life or not. We are also told that
he always had a candle burning in his bedroom, as he was
afraid of the dark. So are thousands of true believers. In
Hobbes’s case, this was partly due to an accident which
caused his premature birth, and partly to the fact that at
the time of the “ candle” story he was a very old man, and
in dread that some religious fanatic might carry out the
threats of assassination which were frequently made. He
knew that the Church of England wanted to burn him
alive, and that he was saved from martyrdom only by the
protection of eminent personages in the State.
Cooke, the Leicester Murderer
is the next case. He attributed his wickedness to “ infidel
associations.” But we have no statement from his own
hand, and his “ confession,” like that of Bailey, the
Gloucester murderer, was no doubt fabricated or improved
�death’s test.
19
by the chaplain. All the other murderers of this century
have been undoubted Christians.
David Hume
comes next. Reuben May gives an extract from one of his
essays, but says nothing about his end. I will supply the
omission. Dr. Adam Smith, author of the “Wealth of
Nations,” received the following letter from Dr. Black,
Hume’s physician, the day after his death:—
“Edinburgh, August 26th, 1776.—Dear Sir,—Yesterday,
about four o’clock, Mr. Hume expired. The near approach of
his death became evident in the night between Thursday and
Friday, when his disease became excessive, and soon weakened
him so much that he could not rise out of bed. He continued
to the last perfectly sensible, and free from much pain or feelings
of distress. He never dropped the smallest expression of im
patience, but, when he had occasion to speak to the people about
him, he always did it with affection and tenderness............. When
he became very weak it cost him a great effort to speak, and he
died in such a happy composure of mind that nothing could
exceed it.”
Adam Smith, in sending this letter to his friend William
Stratham, wrote:
“Upon the whole I have always considered him, both in his
life-time and since his death, as approaching as near to the ideal
■of the perfectly wise and virtuous man as perhaps the nature of
human frailty will admit.”
What a contrast to Doctor Johnson, his great contem
porary, the champion of piety as Hume was of scepticism,
who had such a morbid horror of death I While the pious
Johnson quailed at the very thought of death, the sceptical
Hume confronted it placidly, regarding it only as the ringing
down of the curtain after the great drama of life.
Let us take another sceptic, whom Reuben May does not
mention, the great historian,
Edward Gibbon.
Lord Shaftesbury, his confidential friend, wrote thus of
his death:
“ To the last he preserved his senses, and when he could no
longer speak, his servant having asked him a question, he made
a sign to him that he understood him. He was quiet, tranquil,
■and did not stir; his eyes half shut. About a quarter of an hour
before one he ceased to breathe. The valet-de-chambre observed.
�20
death’s test.
that he did not, at any time, evince the least sign of alarm or
apprehension of death.”
In his second pamphlet Reuben May gives a long extract
on the death of
Frederic the Great.
He admits that the old king remained a sceptic to the
last, and when a pious Christian wrote to him on his death
bed about the prospects of his soul, he only remarked, “ Let
this be answered civilly : the intention of the writer is
good.”
Reuben May fills up the rest of his stupid pamphlets with
cases of dying Christians. The first of these is unfortunate.
Addison, when nearing his end, sent for his noble son-inlaw to “See in what peace a Christian can die.” Now Joseph
Addison was a frightful brandy-drinker, and it has been
satirically hinted that in order to go through this pious and
edifying performance he braced himself up with half-a-pint
of his favorite liquor.
The rest I leave without comment. Christians, like other
people, doubtless die in the religion of their childhood.
The adherents of every other creed do the same. My
purpose is simply to show that Freethinkers neither recant
their heresy nor quail before inevitable death, and I think I
have succeeded.
When Mirabeau, the mighty master-spirit of the Revolu
tion, lay dying in Paris amid the breathless hush of a whole
nation, he was attended by the great Cabanis. After a
night of terrible suffering, he turned to his physician and
said, “My friend, I shall die to-day. When one has come
to such a juncture there remains only one thing to do, that
is to be perfumed, crowned with flowers, and surrounded
with music, in order to enter sweetly into that slumber from
which there is no awakening.” Then he had his couch
brought to the window, and there the Titan died, with his
last gaze on the bright sunshine and the fragrant flowers.
He was an Atheist. Why should the Atheist fear to die ?
From the womb of nature he sprang and he will take his last
sleep on her bosom.
PRICE
TWOPENCE, j
London: Freethought Publishing Company, 28, Stonecutter St., 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
Death's test, or: Christian lies about dying infidels
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: 20 p. ; 20 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Date of publication from British Library. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1882]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N189
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Free thought
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 (Death's test, or: Christian lies about dying infidels), 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
Death
Last Words
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3aaa58cd9e6980e8093a73428d7c1d28.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uhnhk6RJhnzyEcym1exvmjVyN27hnBiLJpp5lyWCgBtr3Qlq3xPspXXxq3THkDCdBKrja9w99oqiGtFbHMwO5O4bj9toxnGB4Vgqx61CKjNCRuyYhqg0LKo5ZViCB5wr31BQRchZB9Et54ELFAqVIvnDf73rI7PpiJqcZ67OFRj01YMAd%7ExJmnreJ4q-Dun4hHhbFIOrxGLvi4P1Md31fzh5cCxg8-6bLznttAdNyGpSndh%7EzKpVyqRswWxJVTJ8cgHfcyzkJHjtK6JlucCtr%7E1w6I24cQIjQ8%7ECv0AuV1ouDtxgWq4uscaniCzv%7E8bmDqtRacOpWHyMIHgpQ3qqxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
de7fb5c29702b05d959d422d53307d01
PDF Text
Text
THE
Logic of Death,
Qi, fclju sfyonlb i^re
fear to
?
By G. J. Holyoake.
“Even in the 'last dread scene of all’ personal conviction Is sufficient to produce
calmness and confidence. There was one, who for three months suffered agonies
unutterable, who evAla-imod in his anguish, ‘ So much torture, O God, to trill a
poor worm! Yet if by one word I could shorten this misery, I would not say it.
And at lasi^ folded his arms, and calmly said, ‘ Now I die!’ Yet this man was
an avowed infidel, and worse, an apostate priest.”—Spoken by Father Nbwmah
yn the Oratory of St. Philip Neri) of Blanco White.
[EIGHTIETH THOUSAND—
ENLARGED AND REVISED EDITION.]
LONDON:
AUSTIN & Co., JOHNSON’S COURT, E.C.
1870.
PRICE
ONE
PENNY.
�il
' I1'
Hi
I
J
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH
When the cholera prevailed in London in 1848, many were carried
away without opportunity or power to testify to the stability of
those conclusions which had been arrived at when life was calm, and
the understanding healthy. The slightest summary of opinions,
concientiously prepared, would have been sufficient to prevent mis
representation after death, provided the person who had drawn up
such statements had strength to revert to them, and to make some sign
that a conviction of their correctness remained. Mr. Hetherington
and myself drew up brief statements of tenets which appeared to us
to be true. He, as we know, sealed his in death. In several lectures
delivered, at the time when no man could calculate on life an hour,
I recited the grounds on which the Atheist might repose, and it has
since appeared that their publication would be useful. The book, of
which a second volume has since appeared, entitled 4 The Closing
Scene,’ by the Rev. Erskine Neale (in which the old legends about
infidel death-beds are revived), lauded by the Times, and patronised
by the upper classes, is proof that there are some priests going up and
down like roaring lions, seeking consciences which they may devour,
and proof of the necessity of some protest on this subject.
Since my trial before Mr. Justice Erskine, in 1842,1 have in some
measure been identified with sceptics of theology, and many ask the
opinions of such on death. If the world ask in respect, or curiosity,
or scorn, I answer for myself alike respectfully and distinctly. I love
the world in spite of its frowning moods. For years I have felt
neither anger nor hatred of any living being, and I will not advisedly
resuscitate those distorting passions through which we see the errors
of each other as crimes.
In my youth I was in such rude contact with the orern realities of life,
that the visions with which theology surrounded my childhood were
eventually dispelled, and now (so far as I can penetrate to it) I look
at destiny face to face. Cradled in suffering and dependence, I was
emboldened to think, and I took out of the hands of the churches,
where I was taught to repose them, the great problems of Life, Time,
and Death, and attempted the solution for myself. It was not long
hidden from me that if I followed the monitions of the pulpit, the
�4
THE EOGJC OF DEATH.
Those who must answer for themselves, have the right to think for themselves.
responsibility was all my own : that at the ‘ bar of God,’ before which
I was instructed all men must one day stand, no preacher would take
my place if, through bowing to his authority, I adopted error. As I,
therefore, must be reponsible for myself, I resolved to think for
myself—and since no man would answer for me, I resolved that no
man should dictate to me the opinion I should hold: for he is impo
tent indeed, and deserves his fate, who has not the courage to act
where he is destined to suffer. My resolution was therefore taken,
and I can say with Burke, ‘ my errors, if any, are my own: I have
[and will have] no man’s proxy.’
In the shade of society my lot was cast, and there I struggled
for more light for myself and brethren. For years I toiled, with
thousands of others, who were never remunerated by the means of
paltriest comfort, and whose lives were never enlivened by real
pleasure. In turning from this I had nothing to hope, nor fear, nor lose.
Since then my days have been chequered and uncertain, but they have
never been criminal, nor servile, nor sad: for the luxury of woe, and the
superfluous refinement of despair, may be indulged in, if by any, by
those only who live in drawing-rooms—sorrow is too expensive an
article to be consumed by the cottager or garreteer. The rightminded in the lowest station may be rich, accepting the wise advice
of Carlyle:—‘ Sweep away utterly all frothiness and falsehood from
your heart: struggle unweariedly to acquire what is possible for every
man—a free, open, humble soul; speak not at all, in any wise, till
you have somewhat to speak; care not for the reward of your
speaking : but simply, and with undivided mind, for the truth of your
speaking: then be placed in what section of Space and of Time soever,
do but open your eyes, and they shall actually see, and bring you
real knowledge, wondrous, worthy of belief.’ Thus have I en
deavoured to see life; and it is from this point of view that I explain
my conceptions of death.
The gates of heaven are considered open to those only who believe
as the priest believes. The theological world acts as if we did not come
here to use our understandings, as if all religious truth was ascertained
2000 years ago, and we are counselled to accept the conclusions of the
Church, on pain of forfeiting the fraternity of men, and the favour of
God. I know the risks I am said to run, but ‘ I am in that place,’ to use
the expression of brave old Knox, ‘ in which it is demanded of me to
speak the truth; and the truth I will speak, impugn it whoso lists.'
And after all, the world is not so bad as antagonism has painted it.
It will forgive a man for speaking plainly, providing he takes care to
speak justly. To give any one pain causes me regret; but, while I
respect the feelings of others, I, as conscience and duty admonish me,
respect the truth more—and by this course I may be society’s friend,
for he who will never shock men may often deceive them.
It becomes me therefore to say that I am not a Christian. If I
could find a consistent and distinctive code of morality emanating
from Jesus I should accept it, and in that sense consent to be called
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
fl
The four tenets of the popular theology.
•
Christian. Butl cannot do it. Nor am I a believer in the Inspiration
of the Bible. That which so often falls below the language of men,
I cannot, without disrespect, suppose to be the language of God.
Whatever I find in the Bible below morality (and I find much), I
reject; what I find above it, I suspect; what I find coincident with
morality (whether in the Old Testament or the New), I retain. 1
make morality a standard. I am therefore the student of Moralism
rather than Christianity. It seems to me that there is nothing in
Christianity which will bear the test of discussion or the face of day,
nothing whereby it can lay hold of the world and move it, which is
not coincident with morality. Therefore morality has all the strength
of Christianity, without the mystery and bigotry of the Bible.
But I am not a Sceptic, if that is understood to imply general doubt;
for though I doubt many church dogmas, I do not doubt honour, or
truth, or humanity. I am not an Unbeliever, if that implies the
rejection of Christian truth—since all I reject is Christian error.
There are four principal dogmas of accredited Christianity which I
do not hold:—
1. The fall of man in Eden. 2. Atonement by proxy. 3. The siy
of unbelief in Christ. 4. Future punishment.
A disbeliever in all these doctrines, why should I fear to die ? I
will state the logic of death, as I conceive it, in relation to these
propositions.
1. If man fell in the Garden of Eden, who placed him there ? It is
said, God! Who placed the temptation there ? It is said, God!
Who gave him an imperfect nature—a nature of which it was fore
known that it would fall? It is said, God! To what does this amount?
If a parent placed his poor child near a fire at which he knew it
would be burnt to death, or near a well into which he knew it would
fall and be drowned, would any deference to creeds prevent our giving
speech to the indignation we should feel ? And can we pretend to
believe God has so acted, and at the same time be able to trust him ?
If God has so acted, he may so act again. This creed can afford
no consolation in death. If he who disbelieves this dogma fears to
die, he who believes it should fear death more.
2. Salvation, it is said, is offered to the fallen. But man is not
fallen, unless the tragedy of Eden really took place. And before
man can be accepted by God he must, according to Christians, own
himself a degraded sinner. But man is not degraded by the misfortune
of Adam. No man can be degraded by the act of another. Dis
honour can come only by his own hands. Man, therefore, needs not
this salvation. And if he needed it, he could not accept it. Debarred
from purchasing it himself, he must accept it as an act of grace. But
can it be required of us to go even to heaven on sufferance? We
despise the poet who is a sycophant before a patron, we despise the
citizen who crawls before a throne, and shall God be said to have
less love of self-respect than man ? He who deserves to be saved thus
hath most need to fear that he shall perish, for he seems to deserve it.
�6
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
The offence of sin reaches not to Deity. Proof by Jonathan Edwards.
3. Then in what way can there be a sin of unbelief ? Is not the
understanding the subject of evidence ? A man, with evidence before
him, can no more help seeing it, or feeling its weight, than a man with
his eyes or ears open can help seeing the stars above him or trees
before him, or hearing the sounds made around him. If a man
disbelieve, it is because his conviction is true to his understanding.
If I.disbelieve a proposition, it is through lack of evidence; and the
act is as virtuous (so far as virtue can belong to that which is inevit
able) as the belief of it when the evidence is perfect. If it is meant
that a man is to believe, whether he see evidence or not, it means that
he is to believe certain things, whether true or false—in fine, that he
may qualify himself for heaven by intellectual deception. It is of no
use that the unbeliever is told that he will be damned if he does not
believe; what human frailty may do is another thing; but the judg
ment is clear, that a man ought not to believe, nor profess to believe,
what seems to him to be false, although he should be damned. The
believer who seeks.to propitiate Heaven by this deceit ought to fear
its wrath, not the unbeliever, who rather casts himself on its justice.
4. There is the vengeance of God. But is not the idea invalidated
as soon as you name it ? Can God have that which man ought not
to have—vengeance ? The jurisprudence of earth has reformed itself;
we no longer punish absolutely, we seek the reformation of the
offender. And shall we cherish in heaven an idea we have chased
from earth ? But what has to be punished ? Can the sins of man
disturb the peace of God? If so, as men exist in myriads, and action is
incessant, then is God, as Jonathan Edwards has shown, the most
miserable of beings and the victim of his meanest creatures. Surely
we must see, therefore, that sin against God is impossible. All sin is
finite and relative—all sin is sin against man. Will God punish
this which punishes itself ? If man errs, the bitter consequences are
ever with him. Why should he err ? Does he choose the ignorance,
incapacity, passion, and blindness through which he errs ? Why is
he precipitated, imperfectly natured, into a chaos of crime ? Is not
his destiny made for him ? and shall God punish eternally that sin
which is his misfortune rather than his fault ? Shall man be con
demned to misery in eternity because he has been made wretched,
and weak, and erring in time ? But if man has fallen at his
conscious peril—has thoughtlessly spurned salvation—has wilfully
offended God—will God therefore take vengeance ? Is God with
out magnanimity? If I do wrong to a man who does wrong to
me, I come down (has not the ancient sage warned me ?) to the
level of my enemy. Will God thus descend to the level of vindic
tive man? Who has not thrilled at the lofty question of Volumnia
to Coriolanus ?—
‘ Think’st thou it honourable for a noble man
Still to remember wrongs?’
Shall God be less honourable, and remember the wrong done against
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
|
Christ’s death the great testimony against eternal retribution.
him, not by his equals, but by his own frail creatures ? To be un
able to trust God is to degrade him. Those passages in the New
Testament which we feel to have most interest and dignity, are the
parables in which a servant is told to forgive a debt to one who had
forgiven him; in which a brother is to be forgiven until seventy
times seven (that is unlimitedly): and in the prayer of Christ,
where men claim forgiveness as they have themselves forgiven
others their trespasses.
What was this but erecting a high
moral argument against the relentlessness of future punishment of
erring man ? If, therefore, man is to forgive, shall God do less ?
Shall man be more just than God ? Is there anything so grand in
the life of Christ as his forgiving his enemies as he expired on the
cross ? Was it God the Sufferer behaving more nobly than will God
the Judge? Was this the magnificent teaching of fraternity to
vengeful man, or is it to be regarded as a sublime libel on the
hereafter judgments of heaven ? The infidel is infidel to falsehood, but
he believes in truth and humanity, and when he believes in God, he
will prefer to believe that which is noble of him. Holding by no
conscious error, doing no dishonour in thought, and offering his
homage to love and truth, why should the unbeliever fear to die ?
Seeing the matter in this light, of what can I recant ? The perspicuity
of truth may be dimned by the agonies of death, but no amount of
agony can alter the nature of moral evidence.
To say (which is all I do say) that theology has not sufficient
evidence to make known to us the existence of God, may startle those
who have not thought upon the matter, or who have thought through
others—but has not experience said the same thing to us all ? Where
the intellect fails to perceive the truth, it is said that the feelings
assure us of it by its relieving a sense of dependence natural to man.
How ? Man witnesses those near and dear to him perish before his
eyes, and despite his supplications. He walks through no rose-water
world, and no special Providence smoothes his path. Is not the sense
of dependence. outraged already ?
Man is weak, and a special
Providence gives him no strength—distracted, and no counsel—
ignorant, and no wisdom—in despair, and no consolation—in distress,
and no relief—in darkness, and no light. The existence of God,
therefore, whatever it may be in the hypotheses of philosophy,
seems not recognisable in daily life. It is in vain to say, ‘God
governs by general laws.’
General laws are inevitable fate.
General laws are atheistical. They say practically, ‘ We are without
God in the world—man, look to thyself: weak though thou mayest
be, Nature is thy hope.’ And even so it is. Would I escape the keen
wind’s blast, I seek shelter—from the yawning waves, I look up, not
to heaven, but to naval architecture. In the fire-damp, Davy is
more to me than the Deity of creeds. All nature cries with one voice,
‘ Science is the Providence of man.’ Help lies not in priests, nor in the
prayer : it lies in no theories, it is written in no book, it is contained
in no theological creed—it lies in science, art, courage, and industry.
�8
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
Atheism suspensive worship.
Some who regard all profession of opinion as a mere matter of
policy, and not of the understanding, will tell me that I can believe as
I please, and that I may call the Deity of theology what name I please:
forgetful that names are founded on distinctions, and that he who does
not penetrate to them is unqualified to decide this matter. It is in
vain to say believe as I please, or entitle things as I please—philoso
phical evidence and classification leave no choice in the matter.
The existence of God is a problem to which the mathematics of
human intelligence seem to me to furnish no solution. On the
threshold of the theme we stagger under a weight of words. We
tread amid a dark quagmire bestrewed with slippery terms. Now
the clearest miss their w.Q,y, w the cautions stumble, now the
strongest fall.
If there be a Deity to whom I am indebted, anxious for my grati
tude or my service, I am as ready to render it as any one existent, so
soon as I comprehend the nature of my duty. I therefore protest
against being Cviisidered, as Christians commonly consider the
unbeliever, as one who hates God, or is without a reverential spirit.
Hatred implies knowledge of the objectionable thing, and cannot
exist where nothing is understood. I am not unwilling to believe in
God, but I am unwilling to use language which conveys no adequate
idea to my own understanding.
Deem me not blind to the magnificence of nature or the beauties of
art, because T Zflerjc’et their language differently from others. I
thrill in the presence^of the dawn of day, and exult in the glories of
the setting sun. Whether the world wears her ebon and jewelled
crown of night, or the day walks wonderingly forth over the face of
nature, to me—
‘ Not the lightest leaf but trembling teems
With golden visions and romantic dreams.’
It is not in a low, but in an exalted estimate of nature that my rejec
tion of the popular theology arises. The wondrous manifestations of
nature indispose me to degrade it to a secondary rank. I am driven
to the conclusion that the great aggregate of matter which we call
Nature is eternal, because we are unable to conceive a state of things
when nothing was. There must always have been something, or
there could be nothing now. This the dullest feel. Hence we arrive
at the idea of the eternity of matter. .And in the eternity of matter
we are assured of the self-existence of matter, and self-existence is the
most majestic of attributes, and includes all others. That which has
the power to exist independently of a God, has doubtless the power to
act without the delegation of one. It therefore seems to me that
Nature and God are one—in other words, that the God whom we
seek is the Nature which we know.
I will not encumber, obscure, or conceal my meaning with a cloud
of words. I recognise in Nature but the aggregation of matter. The
term God seems to me inapplicable to Nature. In the mouth of the
�THE LOGIC OS’ DEATH.
The distinction between the Pantheist and the Atheist.
Theist, God signifies an entity, spiritual and percipient, distinct from
matter. With Pantheists the term God signifies the aggregate of
Nature—but nature as a Being, intelligent and conscious. It is my
inability to subscribe to either of these views which prevents me
being ranked with Theists. I can conceive of nothing beyond
Nature, distinct from it, and above it. The language invented
by Pope, to the effect that ‘we look through Nature up to
Nature’s God,’ has no significance for me, as I know nothing be
sides Nature and can conceive of nothing greater. The majesty of
the universe so transcends my faculties of penetration, that I pause
in awe and silence before it. It seems not to belong to man to com
prehend its attributes and extent, and to affirm what lies beyond it.
The Theist, therefore, I leave; but while I go with the Pantheist so
far as to accept the fact of Nature in the plenitude of its diverse,
illimitable, and transcendent manifestations, I cannot go farther and
predicate with the Pantheist the unity of its intelligence and
consciousness. This is the inability, rather than any design of my
own, which has exposed me to the unacceptable designation of
Atheist.
One has said, I know not whether in the spirit of scorn or suffering,
but I repeat it in the spirit of truth—‘ What went before and what
will follow me, I regard as two black impenetrable curtains, which
hang down at the two extremities of human life, and which no living
man has yet drawn aside. Many hundreds of generations have
already stood before them with their torches, guessing anxiously what
lies behind.. On the curtain of futurity many see their own shadows,
the forms of their passions enlarged and put in motion; they shrink
in terror at this image of themselves.. Poets, philosophers,, and
founders of states, have painted this curtain with their dreams, more
smiling or more dark as the sky above them was cheerful or gloomy;
and their pictures deceive the eye when viewed from a distance.
Many jugglers, too, make profit of this our universal curiosity: by
their strange mummeries they have set the outstretched fancy in
amazement. A deep silence reigns behind this curtain ; no one once
within will answer those he has left without; all you can hear is a
hollow echo of your question, as if you shouted into a chasm.’*
Theology boasts that it has obtained an answer. What is it ? The
world will stand still to hear it. Worshipper of Jesus, of Jehovah,
of Allah, of Bramah—in conventicle, cathedral, mosque, temple, or in
unbounded nature—what is the secret of the universe, and the destiny
of man ? What knowest thou more than thy fellows, and what dost
thou adore? He has no secret to tell. You have still the old
dual answer of centuries, given in petulance or contempt—‘ All the
world have heard it, and so has youor, ‘ None can understand the
Infinite, and you must submit.’ The solution of the problem must
therefore be sought independently.
Separate individual man from the traditions of theology, and what
is his history? A few years ago he sprang into existence like 9
�It,
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
The actuality of life apart from theology
*
bubble on the ocean, or a flower on the plain. He came from the
blank chaos of the past, where consciousness was never known, where
no gleam of the present ever pierces, no voice of the future is ever
heard. He exists—but in what age he appears, or among what people
or circumstances he is thrown, is to him a matter of accident; To him
no control, no choice is vouchsafed. His physical constitution, his
powers and susceptibilities, his proportion of health or disease, are
made for him: and fettered in nature and fixed in sphere, he goes
forth to struggle or to triumph, and encounter the war of elements
and strife of passion, and oppose himself to ignorance, error, and
interest, as best he may.
Three or four years pass away before sentient existence is lighted
with the spark of consciousness, which burns faintly, intensely, or
flickeringly till death. Gradually the phenomena of the universe
disclose themselves to man. The ocean in its majesty, or the earth in
its variety, engage him—spring is exhilarating, summer smiling,
autumn foreboding, winter stern. By day the sun, by night the moon
and stars, look down like the eyes of Time watching his movements.
Above him is inconceivable altitude—around him, unbounded dis
tance—below, unfathomable profundity; and he arrives at such idea
as man has of the infinite. What is, seems to exist of its own inherent
power. It always wvas, or it could not be. The idea of universal
non-entity is instinctively rejected. Utter annihilation never enters
into his most desultory conceptions. The sentiment of the Everlasting
seems the first fruit of meditation, as an impression of the Infinite was
the first lesson of comprehensive observation. Man stands connected
with the infinite by position, and is related to the eternal in his
origin, and an emotion of conscious dignity follows the first exercise
cf his reason—and his pride and his confidence are strengthened by
perceiving that this infinite is the infinite of phenomena, and the
eternal that of matter. He may be but the spray dashed carelessly
against the shore, or the meteor-flash that for a moment illumines a
speck of cloud—or a sand of the desert which the whirlwind sweeps
into a transient elevation with scarcely time for distinction: yet he is
sustained by conscious connection with the ever-existing,though ever
changing—his home is with the everlasting, and when he sinks, it is
into the bosom of nature, the magnificent womb and mausoleum of all
life.
As youth advances, and his experience increases, he finds his
knowledge amplified. With nothing intuitive but the aptitude to
learn, he feels that his wisdom is ever commensurate with his industry
or observation—and as even aptitude is but progressively manifested,
he perceives that to attempt the untried, is to develop his being more.
Prematurely wasted by sudden efforts to change the order of society
or influences of things, he sees that nature never hastens, and that in
measured continuity of action lies the rule of success. Neither the
* Thomas Garlyle.
�THE LOGIC Gif xmCATH.
11
The epitaph of a student of nature.
muscle of the gladiator, nor the brain of Newton, acquired at once
their volume or power—the leveling of the mountain or the raising
of the pyramid is not the result of a single hasty attempt, but of
repeated and patient efforts. Thus, while man learns that his degree
of intelligence depends upon his industry and observation, his con
quests depend on the strength of his perseverance—and he looks to
himself, to the exercise of his faculties, and the right direction of his
exertions, both for his knowledge and his power. His lot may be cast
in barbarian caves, where ignorance and wildness ever frown, or under
gilded pinnacle, where learning and refinement are lustrous : he may
have to tread the very rudimental steps of civilisation, or he may
have but to stretch forth his hand to appropriate its spoils—still what
he will be will depend on his aptitudes, and what he will acquire on
his discrimination, application, assiduity, and intrepidity.
As his improvement, so also his protection depends on his own pre
cautions. lie defends himself from the inclemency of the elements
by suitable clothing—for health he seeks the salubrious locality,
wholesome, nutritious food, exercise, recreation, and rest in due pro
portion, and observes temperance in all things. His security on land
is the well-built habitation—on the sea, the firmly-built vessel. His
relation to the external world, and the conditions of fraternity with
his fellows, are the physical and social problems he has to solve. He
sees the strength of passion and the educative force of circumstances,
and he studies them to control them. The affairs of men are a process
which he seeks to wisely regulate, not blindly and violently thwart.
The world has two ages—those of fear and love. The barbarian and
incipient past has been the epoch of fear. Even now its dark shadows
lower over us. Love has never yet emerged from poesy and passion,
has not yet put forth half its strength, nor kindness half its power.
These graceful forces of humanity, whose victory is that of peace,
have scarcely invaded the dominions of war—but Love will one day
step into the throne of Fear, the arts of peace become the business
of life, and fraternity the watch-word of joyous nations. Plainly, as
though written with the finger of Orion on the vault of night, does
man read this future in his heart. The impulse of affection that leaps
unbidden in his breast, though suppressed in competitive strife, or
withered by cankering cares, yet returns in the woodland walk and
the midnight musing, ever whispering of something better to be
realised than war, and dungeons, and isolated wealth have yet brought
us. The student of self and nature, thus impressed, goes forth in the
busy scene of life, to improve and to please. The attributes which
rationalism prescribes to man, are perennial discretion and kindness.
Thus I have believed. I accepted the order of things I found with
out complaint, and I attempted their improvement without despair—
and it might be written on my tomb,
‘ I was not troubled with the time which drova
O'er my content its strong necessities,
But let determined things to destiny
xlold unbewailed their way.’
�19
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
The physical fear of death as groundless as the theological.
And looking out from the bed of death, over the dim sea of the
future, on which no voyager’s bark is seen returning, I can place no
dependence on priestly dogmas, which all life has belied. The paltry
visions of gilt trumpets and angels’ wings seem like the visions of
irony or levity. The reality it is more heroic to contemplate. The
darkness and mystery of the future create a longing for unravelment.
The enigma of life makes the poetry of death, and. invests with a
sublime interest the last venture on untried existence.
Many honest and intelligent persons, who do not feat the future,
fear the transit to it. Novelists and dramatists, in illustrating a false
theory of crime, adopted from the Churches, have drawn exaggerated
pictures of the aspects of death, through which the popular idea of
dying has become melodramatic, and as far from truth and nature, as
is the extravagance of melodrama from the pure tone of simple and
noble tragedy.
A little reflection will show us that the physical fear some have of
death is as groundless as the moral. Eminent physicians have shown
that death being always preceded by the depression of the nervous
system, life must always terminate without feeling While appre
hension is vivid, while a scream of terror or pain can be uttered, death
is still remote. Organic disease, or a mortal blow, may end existence
with a sudden pang, but in the majority of cases men pass out of life as
unconsciously as they came into it. To the well-informed, death, in
its gradualness and harmlessness, is, what Homer called it—the half
brother of sleep: and the wise expect it undisturbed; and if they
have no reason to welcome it, bear it like any other calamity.
Were we not from childhood the victims of superstitions, we should
always regard death thus; but priests make death the rod whereby
they whip the understanding into submission to untenable dogmas.
For men know no independence, and are at the mercy of every strong
imposition, while they fear to die. That ancient spoke a noble truth
who said nothing could harm that man—tyranny had no terrors with
which it could subdue him who had conquered the fear of the grave.
How often progress has been arrested—how often good men have
faltered in their course—how often philosophy has concealed its light,
and science denied its own demonstrations, only because the priest
has pointed to his distorted image of death!
Among people of cultivated intelligence the idea of a punishing
God is morally repulsive. It is rejected as a fact because demoralising
as an example. The Unitarian principle, which trusts God and never
fears him, is the instinct of civilisation: it gains ground every day
and in every quarter. The parent coerces his child in order to cor
rect him, because the parent wants patience, or time, or wisdom, or
humanity. But as God is assumed to want none of these qualities, he
can attain any end of government he wishes by instruction, for in
moral discipline ‘it is not conduct but character which has to be
changed.’ In Francis William Newman’s portraiture of Christian
attributes, he enumerates ‘love, compassion, patience, disinterested-
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
The Golden Rule considered as a maxim of the Last Judgment.
aess,’ qualities incompatible with the sentiment of eternal punishment
—and as was before observed, God cannot be supposed as falling short
of the virtues of cultivated Christians. If we accept the hypothesis of
God, we must agree with Mr. Newman that ‘ all possible perfectness
of man’s spirit must be a mere faint shadow of the divine perfection.’
‘ The thought that any should have endless woe,
Would cast a shadow on the throne of God,
And darken heaven.’
The greatest aphorism ascribed to Christ, called his Golden Rule,
tells us that we should do unto others as we would others should do
unto us. It is not moral audacity, but a logical and legitimate
application of this maxim, to say that if men shall eventually stand
before the bar of God, God will not pronounce upon any that appalling
sentence, ‘ Cast them into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth;’ because this will not be doing to others as he, in
the same situation, would wish to be done unto himself. If frail man is
to ‘ do good to them that hate him,’ God, who is said to be also Love,
will surely not burn those who, in their misfortune and blindness,
have erred against him. He who is above us all in power, will be also
above us all in magnanimity.
Wonderful is the imbecility of the people! The rich man is con
ceded the holiest sepulchre in the Church, although his wealth be won
by extortion or chicane, or selfishly hoarded while thousands of his
brethren have perished, while children have grown up hideous for
want of food, while women have stooped consumptive over the needle,
and men have died prematurely of care and toil. The priest-soothed
conscience feels no terror on the pillow of plethoric affluence—then
why should the poor man be uneasy in death ? Kings and queens, who
cover their brows with diadems stained with human blood, and main
tain their regal splendour out of taxes extorted from struggling
industry, are, in their last hours, assured by the highest spiritual
authorities of their free admission to Heaven, and Poets-Laureat have
sung of their welcome there—then why should the obscure man be
tremulous as to acceptance at the hand of Him who is called the God
of the poor ? The aristocracy pass from time unmolested by death-bed
apprehensions, although they hold fast to privilege and splendour,
though their tenants expire on the fireless hearth, or on the friendless
mattrass of the Poor Law Union—then why should the people enter
tain dread ? While every tyrant who has fettered his country—and
every corrupt minister who has plotted for its oppression, or betrayed
its freedom to the ‘ Friends of Order ’—is committed to the grave ‘ in
the sure and certain hope of a glorious resurrection ’—why should the
indigent patriot fear to die ? While even the bishop, who federates
with the despots, and gives his vote almost uniformly against the people
—while the Priests, Catholic, Protestant, or Dissenting, work into the
hands of the government against the poor, and fulminate celestial
menaces against those whose free thoughts reject the fetters of
their creeds—while these can die in peace, what have the honest
�14
THE LOGIC OF DEATH.
It is only the slave soul that imagines a tyrant God.
and the independent to fear ?
If the insensate monarch, the
sordid millionaire, the rapacious noble, the false politician, and
the servile clergyman, meet death with assurance, surely humble
industry, patient merit, and enduring poverty, need not own a
tremor or heave a sigh ! If we choose to live as freemen, let us at
least have the dignity to die so, nor discredit the privilege of liberty
by an unmanly bearing. If we have the merit of integrity, we should
also have its peace—while we have the destiny of suffering we should
not have less than its courage !
The truth is, if we do not know how to die, it is because we do not
know how to live. If we know ourselves, we know that when we
can preserve the temper of love, and of service, by which love is
manifested, and of endurance, by which love is proved, we acquire
that healthy sense of duty done which casts out fear. They who
constantly mean well and do well, know not what it is to dread ill.
And the fearless are also the free, and the free have no foreboding.
‘It is only the slave soul which dreads a tyrant God.’* Therefore—
‘ So live, that when thy summons comes to join
The innumerable caravan, that moves
To that mysterious realm where each shall take
His chamber in the silent halls of death,
Thou go not, like the quarry slave at night
Scourged to his dungeon; but approach thy gravo
Like one who wraps the drapery of his couch
About him, and lies down to pleasant dreams.’f
�THE LOGIC OF DEATH*
13
The Queen’s Views.
Since this article was written in 1849, the religions doctrine o'
death in England has entirely changed. The highest minds in
the Church of England, the most cultivated preachers among the
Dissenters have, in some cases, since originated, and in others, now
accept views similar in spirit to those advocated in these pages.
Bishop Colenso found that when the honest and clear thinking
Kafir of Natal was told of the “dreadful judgment of God,” which
an ignorant orthodox Missionary carried to him, he replied with
great simplicity but with natural dignity and resolution—‘ If
that be so we would rather not hear about it;’ and the
Bishop has found the means of proving, even from St. Paul him
self, that the doctrine of eternal punishment is alien to the genius
of Christianity and must be given up. Professor Maurice, the
most influential name in the Church of England, now teaches
that the conception of punishment by physical pain is a gross idea,
and that the sense of having incurred God’s moral displeasure is the
deepest natural punishment to the spiritual man. Her Majesty
the Queen has authorised the publication, since the death of the
Prince, of ‘ Meditations on Death and Eternity, of which the
*
leading idea is that even ‘ sudden death is a sudden benefit ’ to
those who live well, and that those ‘ who endeavour to make
amends for every fault by noble actions’ ought no more ‘to
dread to appear before God ’ ‘ than a child ought to fear to ap
pear before its loving parent, even though it had not yet con
quered all its faults.’ This is nobler and more humane doctrine
than was ever taught by authority in this country before. But
incomparably the finest passage in the whole compass of litera
ture, which depicts the spirit in which all should conduct life so
as to meet death in a patient and noble way, is from the pen of
Mazzini. It occurred in a criticism upon George Sand, in an
article in the Monthly Chronicle in 1839. It contains the whole
of that philosophy which has given to Italy its heroes and its
freedom, .and taught the Italian patriots in so many forlorn
struggles how to die without sadness and without regret. The
sublime passage is this—‘ Schiller, the poet of grand thoughts,
Las said, I Those only love that love without hope.” There is in
these few words more than poetry ; they contain a whole religious
philosophy that we do not yet well understand, but that futurity
will. Life is a mission; its end is not the search after happiness,
but the knowledge andfulfilment of duty. Love is not enjoyment,
it is devotedness. If on the path of duty and devotedness God
sends us some beams of happiness, let us bless God, and bask our
limbs enfeebled by the fatigues of the journey ; but let us not
suspend it for long; let us not say—“We have found the secret
of existence, for the action of the law of our existence cannot be
concentrated in ourselves; its development must be pursued from
'Without. And if we meet only suffering, still march on ; suffer and
�THE LOGIC i'F DEATH.
Mazzini’s Views.
ad. God will measure our progress towards him not by what
we have suffered, but by how much we have desired to diminish the
sufferings of others, by how much our efforts have been directed to
the saving and the perfecting our brethren.''' Of those who believe
in God intelligently, this is the language they hold—and those
who are not Theists, this is the doctrine they trust. People who
say they could not be happy with the convictions of the Atheist,
the Sceptic, or the Heretic, speak merely for themselves; they do
not speak for us. With regard to us, they speak of that of which
they know nothing, and of that of which they have no experience.
With their views what they say may be true. But different views
and different principles bring with them their own consolations.
Conviction makes all the difference. It is not the formal creed
which gives mental support, but the consciousness of truth and
integrity and pure intent. Nothing can disturb the peace of mind
of those armed by a fortitude founded on love and justice, on rec
titude and reason.
�
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 logic of death, or, why should the atheist fear to die?
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: Enlarged and rev. ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Eightieth thousand edition. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway and part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holyoake, G.J.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Austin & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1870
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4958
CT14
N310
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
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 logic of death, or, why should the atheist fear to die?), 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
Conway Tracts
Death
Death-Religious aspects-Comparative studies
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/42facb6730faa37f0344e1f1045a7189.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=aDvWgRedNaQG7RpGB0z0NU0CJc9qSXXq7s-zehiAVVyIg2N-IUDTgNgs0O5WQfiN3td%7ES8Fgjo3%7EdpaaA-R8i7RVrdGOK5lFlMcmQnQBiemCm0tTWECEfzgAxxeO-J5zW3xFXIzCgICKRNhE1n5P%7Eu7r6KNq6sy-ttjRsSVO1YabnBrJt4Lmk68nxWHfbDCrwR9kR8eDurtFbpx4x2rd53gBk0OcNC31ZbBv4NK8XDuW2UEbz9aAB67nGIVHjxKWmfU95r3KRxGGy1MPyoYJ1aHS0z5DiHNW83jZxIPd4yaAr7Q0BESrff-Ouak34WPuwq9noMz9vwaNfQTl7zF0qQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
731b2d345e3f5fda1434de66473e2a9d
PDF Text
Text
83^3
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
'7 3/0$
LIFE, DEATH,
AND
IMMORTALITY
f
i
TWO ESSAYS
AN
EXTRACT
AND
A SONNET.
BY
PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY,
PRICE TWOPENCE.
LONDON:
B. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1892.
�( 4 )
What is life ? Thoughts and feelings arise, with or with
out our will, and we employ words to express them. We are
born, and our birth is unremembered, and our infancy
remembered but in fragments : we live on, and in living we
lose the apprehension of life. How vain is it to think that
words can penetrate the mystery of our being 1 Rightly used
they may make evident our ignorance to ourselves, and this
is much. For what are we ? Whence do we come ? and
whither do we go ? Is birth the commencement, is death
the conclusion of our being P What is birth and death?
The most refined abstractions of logic conduct to a view of
life, which, though startling to the apprehension, is, in fact,
that which the habitual sense of its repeated combinations
has extinguished in us. It strips, as it were, the painted
curtain from this scene of things. I confess that I am one of
those who am unable to refuse my assent to the conclusions
of those philosophers who assert that nothing exists but as
it is perceived.
It is a decision against which all our persuasions struggle,
and we must be long convicted before we can be convinced
that the solid universe of external things is “ such stuff as
dreams are made of.” The shocking absurdities of the
popular philosophy of mind and matter, its fatal conse
quences in morals, and their violent dogmatism concerning
the source of all things, had early conducted me to materi
alism. This materialism is a seducing system to young
and superficial minds. It allows its disciples to talk, and
dispenses them from thinking. But I was discontented with
such a view of things as it afforded; man is a being of
high aspirations, “looking both before and after,” whose
“ thoughts wander through eternity,” disclaiming alliance
with transience and decay; incapable of imagining to him
self annihilation; existing but in the future and the past;
being, not what he is, but what he has been' and shall be.
Whatever may be his true and final destination, there is a
spirit within him at enmity with nothingness and dissolution.
This is the character of all life and being. Each is at once
the centre and the circumference; the point to which all
things are referred, and the line in which all things are con
tained. Such contemplations as these, materialism and the
�( 5 )
popular philosophy of mind and matter alike forbid; they
are only consistent with the intellectual system.
It is absurd to enter into a long recapitulation of argu
ments sufficiently familiar to those inquiring minds, whom
alone a writer on abstruse subjects can be conceived to
address. Perhaps the most clear and vigorous statement of
the intellectual system is to be found in Sir William Drum
mond’s Academical Questions. After such an exposition, it
would be idle to translate into other words what could only
lose its energy and fitness by the change. Examined point
by point, and word by word, the most discriminating intel
lects have been able to discern no train of thoughts in the
process of reasoning, which does not conduct inevitably to
the conclusion which has been stated.
What follows from the admission p It establishes no new
truth, it gives us no additional insight into our hidden nature,
neither its action nor itself. Philosophy, impatient as it may
be to build, has much work yet remaining, as pioneer for the
overgrowth of ages. It makes one step towards this object;
it destroys error, and the roots of error. It leaves, what it
is too often the duty of the reformer in political iand ethical
questions to leave, a vacancy. It reduces the mind to that
freedom in which it would have acted, but for the misuse of
words and signs, the instruments of its own creation. By
signs, I would be understood in a wide sense, including what
is properly meant by that term, and what I peculiarly mean.
In this latter sense, almost all familiar objects are signs,
standing, not for themselves, but for others in their capacity
of suggesting one thought which shall lead to a train of
thoughts. Our whole life is thus an education of error.
Let us recollect our sensations as children. What a distinct
and intense apprehension had we of the world and of our
selves 1 Many of the circumstances of social life were then
important to us which are now no longer so. But that is not
the point of comparison on which I mean to insist. We less
habitually distinguished all that we saw and felt, from our
selves. They seemed as it were to constitute one mass.
There are some persons who, in this respect, are always chil
dren. Those who are subject to the state called reverie, feel
as if their nature were dissolved into the surrounding
�( 6 )
universe, or as if the surrounding universe were absorbed
into their being. They are conscious of no distinction. And
these are states which precede, or accompany, or follow an
unusually intense and vivid apprehension of life. As men
grow up this power commonly decays, and they become
mechanical and habitual agents. Thus feelings and then
reasonings are the combined result of a multitude of entangled
thoughts, and of a series of what are called impressions,
planted by reiteration.
The view of life presented by the most refined deductions
of the intellectual philosophy, is that of unity. Nothing
exists but as it is perceived. The difference is merely nominal
between those two classes of thought, which are vulgarly
distinguished by the names of ideas and of external objects.
Pursuing the same thread of reasoning, the existence of
distinct individual minds, similar to that which is employed
in now questioning its own nature, is likewise found to be a
delusion. The words I, you, they, are not signs of any actual
difference subsisting between the assemblage of thoughts
thus indicated, but are merely marks employed to denote the
different modifications of the one mind.
Let it not be supposed that this doctrine conducts to the
monstrous presumption that I, the person who now write and
think, am that one mind. I am but a portion of it. The
words I, and you, and they are grammatical devices invented
simply for arrangement, and totally devoid of the intense and
exclusive sense usually attached to them. It is difficult to
find terms adequate to express so subtle a conception as that
to which the Intellectual Philosophy has conducted us. We
are on that verge where words abandon us, and what wonder
if we grow dizzy to look down the dark abyss of how little
we know.
The relations of things remain unchanged, by whatever
system. By the word things is to be understood any object
of thought, that is any thought upon which any other thought
is employed, with an apprehension of distinction. The rela
tions of these remain unchanged; and such is the material
of our knowledge.
What is the cause of life ? that is, how was it produced, or
what agencies distinct from life have acted or act upon life P
�( 7 )
All recorded generations of mankind have wearily busied
themselves in inventing answers to this question ; and the
result has been—Religion. Yet, that the basis of all things
cannot be, as the popular philosophy alleges, mind, is suffi
ciently evident. Mind, as far as we have any experience of
its properties, and beyond that experience how vain is
argument! cannot create, it can only perceive. It is said
also to be the cause. But cause is only a word expressing a
certain state of the human mind with regard to the manner
in which two thoughts are apprehended to be related to each
other. If anyone desires to know how unsatisfactorily the
popular philosophy employs itself upon this great question,
they need only impartially reflect upon the manner in which
thoughts develop themselves in their minds. It is infinitely
improbable that the cause of mind, that is, of existence, is
similar to mind.
ON A FUTURE STATE.
It has been the persuasion of an immense majority of human
beings in all ages and nations that we continue to live after
death—that apparent termination of all the functions of
sensitive and intellectual existence. Nor has mankind been
contented with supposing that species of existence which
some philosophers have asserted; namely, the resolution of
the component parts of the mechanism of a living being into
its elements, and the impossibility of the minutest particle of
these sustaining the smallest diminution. They have clung
to the idea that sensibility and thought, which they have
distinguished from the objects of it, under the several names
of spirit and matter, is, in its own nature, less susceptible of
division and decay, and that, when the body is resolved into
its elements, the principle which animated it will remain
�( 8 )
perpetual and unchanged. Some philosophers—and those to
whom we are indebted for the most stupendous discoveries
in physical science, suppose, on the other hand, that intelli
gence is the mere result of certain combinations among the
particles of its objects; and those among them who believe
that we live after death, recur to the interposition of a super
natural power, which shall overcome the tendency inherent
in all material combinations to dissipate and be absorbed into
other forms.
Let us trace the reasonings which in one and the other
have conducted to these two opinions, and endeavor ta
discover what we ought to think on a question of such
momentous interest. Let us analyse the ideas and feelings
which constitute the contending beliefs, and watchfully
establish a discrimination between words and thoughts. Let
us bring the question to the test of experience and fact; and
ask ourselves, considering our nature in its entire extent,
what light we derive from a sustained and comprehensive
view of its component parts, which may enable us to assert,
with certainty, that we do or do not live after death.
The examination of this subject requires that it should be
stript of all those accessory topics which adhere to it in the
common opinion of men. The existence of a God, and a
future state of rewards and punishments, are totally foreign
to the subject. If it be proved that the world is ruled by a
Divine Power, no inference necessarily can be drawn from
that circumstance in favor of a future state. It has been
asserted, indeed, that as goodness and justice are to be num
bered among the attributes of the Deity, he will undoubtedly
compensate the virtuous who suffer during life, and that he
will make every sensitive being, who does not deserve
punishment, happy for ever. But this view of the subject,
which it would be tedious as well as superfluous to develop
and expose, satisfies no person, and cuts the knot which we
now seek to untie. Moreover, should it be proved, on the
other hand, that the mysterious principle which regulates
the proceedings of the universe, is neither intelligent nor
sensitive, yet it is not an inconsistency to suppose at the
same time, that the animating power survives the body which
it has animated, by laws as independent of any supernatural
�( 9 )
agent as those through which it first became united with it.
Nor, if a future state be clearly proved, does it follow that it
will be a state of punishment or reward.
By the word death, we express that condition in which
natures resembling ourselves apparently cease to be that
which they were. We no longer hear them speak, nor see
them move. If they have sensations and appreciations, we
no longer participate in them. We know no more than that
those external organs, and all that fine texture of material
frame, without which we have no experience that life or
thought can subsist, are dissolved and scattered abroad.
The body is placed under the earth, and after a certain period
there remains no vestige even of its form. This is that con
templation of inexhaustible melancholy, whose shadow
eclipses the brightness of the world. The common observer
is struck with dejection at the spectacle. He contends in
vain against the persuasion of the grave, that the dead indeed
cease to be. The corpse at his feet is prophetic of his own
destiny. Those who have preceded him, and whose voice
was delightful to his ear; whose touch met his like sweet
and subtle fire; whose aspect ’spread a visionary light upon
his path—these he cannot meet again. The organs of
sense are destroyed, and the intellectual operations dependent
on them have perished with their sources. How can a corpse
see or feel ? its eyes are eaten out, and its heart is black and
without motion. What intercourse can two heaps of putrid
clay and crumbling bones hold together? When you can
discover where the fresh colors of the faded flower abide, or
the music of the broken lyre, seek life among the dead. Such
are the anxious and fearful contemplations of the common
observer, though the popular religion often prevents him
from confessing them even to himself.
The natural philosopher, in addition to the sensations
common to all men inspired by the event of death, believes
that he sees with more certainty that it is attended with
the annihilation of sentiment and thought. He observes the
mental powers increase and fade with those of the body, and
even accommodate themselves to the most transitory changes
of our physical nature. Sleep suspends many of the faculties
of the vital and intellectual principle; drunkenness and
�( 10 )
disease will either temporarily or permanently derange them.
Madness or idiotcy may utterly extinguish the most excellent
and delicate of those powers. In old age the mind gradually
withers; and as it grew and was strengthened with the
body, so does it together with the body sink into decrepitude.
Assuredly these are convincing evidences that so soon as the
organs of the body are subjected to the laws of inanimate
matter, sensation, and perception, and apprehension, are at
an end. It is probable that what we call thought is not an
actual being, but no more than the relation between certain
parts of that infinitely varied mass, of which the rest of the
universe is composed, and which ceases to exist as soon as
those parts change their position with regard to each other.
Thus color, and sound, and taste, and odor exist only
relatively. But let thought be considered as some peculiar
substance, which permeates, and is the cause of, the animation
of living things. Why should that substance be assumed to
be something essentially distinct from all others, and exempt
from subjection to those laws from which no other substance
is exempt ? It differs, indeed, from all other substances, as
electricity, and light, and magnetism, and the constituent
parts of air and earth, severally differ from all others. Each
of these is subject to change and to decay and to conversion
into other forms. Yet the difference between light and earth
is scarcely greater than that which exists between life, or
thought, and fire. The difference between the two former
was never alleged as an argument for the eternal permanence
of either, in that form under which they first might offer
themselves to our notice. Why should the difference between
the two latter substances be an argument for the prolongation
of the existence of one and not the other, when the existence
of both has arrived at their apparent termination p To say
that fire exists without manifesting any of the properties of
fire, such as light, heat, etc., or that the principle of life
exists without consciousness, or memory, or desire, or motive,
is to resign, by an awkward distortion of language, the
affirmative of the dispute. To say that the principle of life
may exist in distribution among various forms, is to assert
what cannot be proved to be either true or false, but which,
were it true, annihilates all hope of existence after death, in
�(11)
any sense in which that event can belong to the hopes and
fears of men. Suppose, however, that the intellectual and
vital principle differs in the most marked and essential
manner from all other known substances; that they have all
some resemblance between themselves which it in no degree
participates. In what manner can this concession be made
an argument for its imperishability? All that we see or
know perishes and is changed. Life and thought differ
indeed from anything else. But that it survives that period,
beyond which we have no experience of its existence, such
•distinction and dissimilarity affords no shadow of proof, and
nothing but our own desires could have led us to conjecture
or imagine.
Have we existed before birth ? It is difficult to conceive
the possibility of this. There is, in the generative principle
of each animal and plant, a power which converts the sub
stances by which it is surrounded into a substance homo
geneous with itself. That is, the relations between certain
elementary particles of matter undergo a change, and submit
to new combinations. For when we use the words principle,
power, cause, etc., we mean to express no real being, but only
to class under those terms a certain series of co-existing
phenomena; but let it be supposed that this principle is a
certain substance which escapes the observation of the
chemist and anatomist. It certainly may be; though it is
sufficiently unphilosophical to allege the possibility of an
-opinion as a proof of its truth. Does it see, hear, feel, before
its combination with those organs on which sensation
depends ? Does it reason, imagine, apprehend, without those
ideas which sensation alone can communicate ? If we have
hot existed before birth; if, at the period when the parts of
our nature on which thought and life depend, seem to be
woven together, they are woven together; if there are no
■reasons to suppose that we have existed before that period at
which our existence apparently commences, then there are
no grounds for supposition that we shall continue to exist
after our existence has apparently ceased. So far as thought
and life is concerned, the same will take place with regard
to us, individually considered, after death, as had place before
our birth.
�( 12 )
It is said that it is possible that we should continue to
exist in some mode totally inconceivable to us at present.
This is a moEt unreasonable presumption. It casts on the
adherents of annihilation the burthen of proving the negative
of a question, the affirmative of which is not supported by a
single argument, and which, by its very nature, lies beyond
the experiences of the human understanding. It is sufficiently
easy, indeed, to form any proposition, concerning which we
are ignorant, just not so absurd as not to be contradictory in
itself, and defy refutation. The possibility of whatever
enters into the wildest imagination to conceive is thus
triumphantly vindicated. But it is enough that such asser
tions should be either contradictory to the known laws of
nature, or exceed the limits of our experience, that their
fallacy or irrelevancy to our consideration should be demon
strated. They persuade, indeed, only those who desire to be
persuaded.
This desire to be for ever as we are; the reluctance to a
violent and unexperienced change, which is common to all
the animated and inanimate combinations of the universe, is,
indeed, the secret persuasion which has given birth to the
opinions of a future state.
FUTURE REWARD AND PUNISHMENT.
The writer of a philosophical treatise may, I imagine, at this
advanced era of human intellect, be held excused from
entering into a controversy with those reasoners, if such there
are, who would claim an exemption from its decrees in favor
of any one among those diversified systems of obscure opinion
respecting morals, which, under the name of religions, have
in various ages and countries prevailed among mankind.
�( 13 )
Besides that if, as these reasoners have pretended, eternal
torture or happiness will ensue as the consequence of certain
actions, we should be no nearer the possession of a standard
to determine what actions were right and wrong, even if this
pretended revelation, which is by no means the case, had
furnished us with a complete catalogue of them. The
•character of actions as virtuous or vicious would by no means
be determined alone by the personal advantage or disad
vantage of each moral agent individually considered.
Indeed, an action is often virtuous in proportion to the
greatness of the personal calamity which the author willingly
draws upon himself by daring to perform it. It is because
an action produces an overbalance of pleasure or pain to the
greatest number of sentient beings, and not merely because
its consequences are beneficial or injurious to the author of
that action, that it is good or evil. Nay, this latter considera
tion has a tendency to pollute the purity of virtue, inasmuch
as it consists in the motive rather than in the consequences
of an action. A person who should labor for the happiness
of mankind lest he should be tormented eternally in hell,
would, with reference to that motive, possess as little claim
to the epithet of virtuous, as he who should torture, imprison,
and burn them alive, a more usual and natural consequenee
of such principles, for the sake of the enjoyments of
heaven.
My neighbor, presuming on his strength, may direct me
to perform or to refrain from a particular action; indicating
a certain arbitrary penalty in the event of disobedience
within his power to inflict. My action, if modified by his
menaces, can in no degree participate in virtue. He has
afforded me no criterion as to what is right or wrong. A
king, or an assembly of men, may publish a proclamation
affixing any penalty to any particular action, but that is not
immoral because such penalty is affixed. Nothing is more
■evident than that the epithet of virtue is inapplicable to the
refraining from that action on account of the evil arbitrarily
attached to it. If the action is in itself beneficial, virtue
would rather consist in not refraining from it, but in firmly
•defying the personal consequences attached to its per
formance.
�Some usurper of supernatural energy might subdue the
whole globe to his power; he might possess new and
unheard-of resources for enduing his punishments with the
most terrible attributes of pain. The torments of his victims
might be intense in their degree, and protracted to an
infinite duration. Still the “ will of the lawgiver ” would
afford no surer criterion as to what actions were right or
wrong. It would only increase the possible virtue of those
who refuse to become the instruments of his tyranny.
�( 15 )
SONNET.
Ye hasten to the dead ! What seek ye there,'
Ye restless thoughts and busy purposes
Of the idle brain, which the world’s livery wear ?
0 thou quick Heart, which pantest to possess
All that anticipation feigneth fair 1
Thou vainly curious Mind which wouldest guess
Whence thou didst come, and whither thou mayest go,
And that which never yet was known wouldst know—
Oh, whither hasten ye, that thus ye press
With such swift feet life’s green and pleasant path,
Seeking alike from happiness and woe
A refuge in the cavern of grey death ?
0 heart, and mind, and thoughts! What thing do you
Hope to inherit in the grave below ?
�FREETHOUGHT PUBLICATIONS.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CATECHISM EXAMINED
By Jeremy Bentham. With a Biographical Preface by
J Al. Wheeler. Is
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.
MISTAKES OF MOSES. By Col. Ingersoll. Is. ; cloth, Is. 6d.
THE RIGHTS OF MAN. By Thomas Paine. Price Is.
Superior edition, in cloth, 2s.
COMPLETE THEOLOGICAL WORKS. By Thomas Paine,
(including the “ Age of Reason”). Cloth 2s. 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. Price 6d. Superior
edition, in 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 SER40NS & OTHER FANTASIAS. By G. W.
Foote. Price, 8d.
BIBLE HEROES. By G. W. Foote. Cloth, 2s. 6d.
BIBLE HANDBOOK for FREETHINKERS & INQUIRING.
CHRISTIANS. By G. W. Foote and W. P. Ball. Com
plete, paper covers, Is. 4d. Superior edition, on superfine
paper, bound in 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.
SATIRES & PROFANITIES. By James Thomson (B.V.)
Price 18
BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY OF FREETHINKERS of
Ages and Nations. By J. M. Wheeler. Bound, 7s. 6d.
BIBLE STUDIES By J. M. Wheeler. Illustrated, 2s. 6d.
A. REFUTATION OF DEISM. In a Dialogue. By Shelley.
With an Introduction by G. W. Foote. 4d.
Complete Catalogue post free on application to
Robert Forder, 28 Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Life, death, and immortality : two essays, an extract and a sonnet
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Shelley, Percy Bysshe [1792-1822]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on back cover. Printed by G.W. Foote. 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
1892
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N612
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Immortality
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 (Life, death, and immortality : two essays, an extract and a sonnet), 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
Death
Immortality
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/df4508f5bad97194e3f9827c6d14c934.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=JF5jpbdQDzTpaXITiYNflBIRcY2TtjPVb4fZpUjirfLFshATl2DOGfIcvY6CUG1jeePx9cFd1-ZnvXU4M%7Ep3GfDGSYVTWwmFym48oaUkxeC3vvoIZbOzvjEWPTgFDKoJvRW5H2pyMj3QBzsW7GDv%7EEktU2uZI-t9IxMSE9GW4LWeBkYoXxws6voptgJ2QEynlKYvXGl0V7O5YrS5ERytLq3v-BTuE3UsaicGV2LBPbi7km2PdbnCpErRrQZ7orR4DhulpZ17hViFtxZO0CSK33pKdraiwh81zgV%7Eanu3rryNy5RwzQjenZjPvU6B4B8EmHwdjKsqn9zC2T9SgabHaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
52d88b744ccd6caa311de8f534d29c7a
PDF Text
Text
CREMATION
THE TREATMENT OF THE BODY AFTER DEATH
BY
SIR HENRY THOMPSON, F.R.C.S., M.B.Lond.
SURGEON EXTRAORDINARY TO H.M. THE KING OF THE BELGIANS
PROFESSOR OF SURGERY AND PATHOLOGY TO THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS
CONSULTING SURGEON TO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL
ETC.
THIRD EDITION
TOGETHER WITH A PAPER ENTITLED
‘CREMATION OB BURIAL’
By Sir T. Spencer Wells, Bart.
LATE PRESIDENT OF THE
ROYAL
COLLEGE
OF SURGEONS
AND THE
CHARGE OE SIB JAMES STEPHEN
RECENTLY DELIVERED AT CARDIFF
LONDON
SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 WATERLOO PLACE
1884
[All rights reserved]
��INTRODUCTION.
Early in the year 1874, I introduced the subject of Cremation
to the English public by an article in the ‘ Contemporary
Review.’
It attracted a good deal of favourable attention,
and also much adverse criticism; a notable example of the
latter being an elaborate reply from the Medical Inspector of
Burials for England and Wales, which was presented in the
following number of the Review.
And my rejoinder to this
appeared in the succeeding issue.
My two Papers were shortly afterwards published in the
form of a pamphlet, a large edition of which was soon
exhausted, but no further reprint took place.
The result of the interest thus excited was the formation
of the ‘Cremation Society of England’ in the year 1875.
This Society has quietly but unceasingly pursued its ob
jects ; viz., the dissemination of information on the subject of
Cremation; co-operation with similar Societies on the Conti
nent, and the purchase of a freehold site (at Woking), with the
construction of a crematorium there on the most approved
principles.
Ever since its foundation, the Council of the Society has
encountered serious opposition in certain official quarters, and
for some years felt it therefore desirable to maintain a cautious
attitude.
By this means they escaped hostile action on the
pqrt of their antagonists, who had threatened to take steps
to make the employment of cremation illegal, or at all events
extremely difficult.
�VI
INTRODUCTION.
Recent events, however, have greatly altered the situation.
Sir Janies Stephen’s late decision has dispelled all doubts as
to the legality of the Society’s aims, and created anew interest
in them throughout the country.
A reprint of the two Papers
referred to has been widely demanded.
The Council of the
Society, of which I have the honour to be President, have
decided to republish them, together with a very able paper
presented by Sir Spencer Wells to the British Medical Associ
ation at their meeting in Cambridge in 1880.
They think it
desirable also to publish the correspondence which took place
between themselves and Her Majesty’s Government in 187980, referred to in the preceding paragraph.
And last, but
not least, the elaborate judgment of Sir James Stephen is
appended, appropriately completing a collection of material,
which it is hoped may be useful to those who are seeking
information upon this important subject.
Henry Thompson.
April,
1884.
�CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. v
CREMATION. By Sir Henry Thompson................................................... 1
CREMATION OR BURIAL ? By Sir T. S. Wells, Bart.
CORRESPONDENCE
BETWEEN
THE
CREMATION
.
.
39
SOCIETY
AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.........................................50
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON THE LAW OF CREMATION
.
59
��CREMATION :
THE TREATMENT OF THE BODY AFTER DEATH.
By Sir Henry Thompson.
After Death ! The last faint breath had been noted, and
another watched for so long, but in vain. The body lies there,
pale and motionless, except only that the jaw sinks slowly but
perceptibly. The pallor visibly increases, becomes more leaden
in hue, and the profound tranquil sleep of Death reigns where
just now were life and movement. Here, then, begins the
eternal rest.
Rest! no, not for an instant. Never was there greater
activity than at this moment exists in that still corpse.
Activity, but of a different kind to that which was before.
Already a thousand changes have commenced. Forces in
numerable have attacked the dead.
The rapidity of the
vulture, with its keen scent for animal decay, is nothing to
that of Nature’s ceaseless agents now at full work before us.
That marvellously complex machine, but this moment the
theatre of phenomena too subtle and too recondite to be
comprehendeddenotable only by phraseology which stands
for the unknown and incomputable-—vital, because more than
physical, more than chemical—is now consigned to the action
of physical and chemical agencies alone.
And these all
operating in a direction the reverse of that which they held
before death. A synthesis, then, developing the animal being.
The stages of that synthesis, now, retraced, with another end,
still formative, in view. Stages of decomposition, of decay,
B
�2
CREMATION.
with its attendant putrescence; process abhorrent to the
living, who therefore desire its removal. ‘ Bury the dead out
of my sight,’ is the wholly natural sentiment of the survivor.
But Nature does nothing without ample meaning; nothing
without an object desirable in the interest of the body politic.
It may then be useful to inquire what must of necessity happen
if, instead of burying or attempting to preserve the dead,
Nature follows an unimpeded course, and the lifeless animal is
left to the action of laws in such case provided.
It is necessary first to state more exactly the conditions
supposed to exist. Thus, the body must be exposed to air ;
and must not be consumed as prey by some living animal.
If it is closely covered with earth or left in water, the same
result is attained as in the condition first named, although the
steps of the process may be dissimilar.
The problem which Nature sets herself to work in dispos
ing of dead animal matter is always one and the same. The
order of the universe requires its performance ; no other end
is possible. The problem may be slowly worked, or quickly
worked: the end is always one.
It may be thus stated : The animal must be resolved into—
a. Carbonic Acid [CO2], Water [HO,], and Ammonia
[NH3].
&. Mineral constituents, more or less oxidised, elements
of the earth’s structure: Lime, Phosphorus, Iron, Sulphur,
Magnesia, &c.
The first group, gaseous in form, go into the atmosphere.
The second group, ponderous and solid, remain where the
body lies, until dissolved and washed into the earth by rain.
Nature’s object remains still unstated: the constant result
of her work is before us; but wherefore are these changes ?
In her wonderful economy she must form and bountifully
nourish her vegetable progeny; twin-brother life, to her, with
that of animals. The perfect balance between plant exist
ences and animal existences must always be maintained,
while ‘ matter ’ courses through the eternal circle, becoming
each in turn.
To state this more intelligibly by illustration: If an
�3
CREMATION.
■animal be resolved into its ultimate constituents in a period,
according to the surrounding circumstances, say, of four
hours, of four months, of four years, or even of four thousand
years—for it is impossible to deny that there may be instances
of all these periods during which the process has continued—
those elements which assume the gaseous form mingle at once
with the atmosphere, and are taken up from it without delay
by the ever open mouths of vegetable life. By a thousand
pores in every leaf the carbonic acid which renders the
atmosphere unfit for animal life is absorbed, the carbon being
separated and assimilated to form the vegetable fibre, which,
as wood, makes and furnishes our houses and ships, is burned
for our warmth, or is stored up under pressure for coal. All
this carbon has played its part, ‘ and many parts,’ in its time,
as animal existences from monad up to man. Our mahogany
of to-day has been many negroes in its turn, and before the
African existed was integral portions of many a generation of
extinct species. And when the table which has borne so well
some twenty thousand dinners, shall be broken up from pure
debility and consigned to the fire, thence it will issue into the
atmosphere once more as carbonic acid, again to be devoured
by the nearest troop of hungry vegetables—green peas or
cabbages in a London market garden, say—to be daintily
served on the table which now stands in that other table’s
place, and where they will speedily go to the making of ‘ Lords
of the Creation.’ And so on, again and again, as long as the
world lasts.
Thus it is that an even balance is kept—demonstrable to
the very last grain if we could only collect the data—between
the total amounts of animal and of vegetable life existing to
gether at any instant on our globe. There must be an un
varying relation between the decay of animal life and the food
produced by that process for the elder twin, the vegetable
world. Vegetables first, consumed by animals either directly
or indirectly, as when they eat the flesh of animals who live
on vegetables. Secondly, these animals daily casting off effete
matters, and by decay after death providing the staple food
for vegetation of every description. One the necessary comB 2
�4
CREMATION.
plement of the other. The atmosphere, polluted by every
animal whose breath is poison to every other animal, being
every instant purified by plants, which, taking out the deadly
carbonic acid and assimilating carbon, restore to the air its
oxygen, first necessary of animal existence.
I suppose that these facts are known to most readers, but
I require a clear statement of them here as preliminary to my
next subject; and in any case it can do no harm to reproducea brief history of this marvellous and beautiful example of
intimate relation between the two kingdoms.
I return to consider man’s interference with the process in
question just hinted at in the quotation, ‘ Bury the dead out
of my sight.’
The process of decomposition affecting an animal body is
one that has a disagreeable, injurious, often fatal influence
on the living man if sufficiently exposed to it. Thousands of
human lives have been cut short by the poison of slowly de
caying, and often diseased animal matter. Even the putre
faction of some of the most insignificant animals has sufficed
to destroy the noblest. To give an illustration which comes
nearly home to some of us—the grave-yard pollution of air
and water alone has probably found a victim in some social
circle known to more than one who may chance to read this
paper. And I need hardly add that in times of pestilence
its continuance has been often due mainly to the poisonous
influence of the buried victims.
Man, then, throughout all historic periods, has got rid of
his dead kin after some fashion. He has either hidden the
body in a cave and closed the opening to protect its tenant
from wild beasts, for the instinct of affection follows most
naturally even the sadly changed remains of our dearest
relative; or, the same instinct has led him to embalm and
preserve as much as may be so preservable—a delay only of
Nature’s certain work;—-or, the body is buried beneath the
earth’s surface, in soil, in wood, in stone, or metal:—each
mode another contrivance to delay, but never to prevent, the
inevitable change. Or, the body is burned, and so restored
at once to its original elements, in which case Nature’s work
�CREMATION.
5
is hastened, her design anticipated, that is all. And after
burning, the ashes may be wholly or in part preserved in
some receptacle in obedience to the instinct of the survivor,
referred to above. All forms of sepulture come more or less
under one of these heads.1
One of the many social questions waiting to be solved, and
which must be solved at no very remote period, is, Which of
these various forms of treatment of the dead is the best for
survivors ?
This question may be regarded from two points of view,
both possessing importance, not equal in degree perhaps; but
neither can be ignored.
A. From the point of view of Utility : as to what is best
for the entire community.
B. From the point of view of Sentiment: the sentiment of
affectionate memory for the deceased, which is cherished by
the survivor.
I assume that there is no point of view to be regarded as
specially belonging to the deceased person, and that no one
believes that the dead has any interest in the matter. We
who live may anxiously hope—as I should hope at least—to
■do no evil to survivors after death, whatever we may have
■done of harm to others during life. But, being deceased, I
take it we can have no wishes or feelings touching this subject.
What is best to be done with the dead is then mainly a ques
tion for the living, and to them it is one of extreme import
ance. When the globe was thinly peopled, and when there
were no large bodies of men living in close neighbourhood,
the subject was an inconsiderable one and could afford to wait,
•and might indeed be left for its solution to sentiment of any
kind. But the rapid increase of population forces it into
notice, and especially man’s tendency to live in crowded cities.
There is no necessity to prove, as the fact is too patent, that
-our present mode of treating the dead, namely, that by burial
beneath the soil, is full of danger to the living. Hence intra
mural interment has been recently forbidden, first step in
1 ‘ Burial at Sea ’ is a form of exposure, the body being rapidly devoured by
marine animals.
�6
CREMATION.
a series of reforms which must follow. At present we whodwell in towns are able to escape much evil by selecting a
portion of ground distant—in this year of grace 1873—some
five or ten miles from any very populous neighbourhood, and
by sending our dead to be buried there:—laying by poison,
nevertheless, it is certain, for our children’s children, who will
find our remains polluting their water sources, when that now
distant plot is covered, as it will be, more or less closely by
human dwellings. For it can be a question of time only when
every now waste spot will be utilized for food-production or
for shelter, and when some other mode of disposing of the
dead than that of burial must be adopted. If, therefore,
burial in the soil be certainly injurious either now or in the
future, has not the time already come to discuss the possi
bility of replacing it by a better process ? We cannot too
soon cease to do evil and learn to do well. Is it not indeed a
social sin of no small magnitude to sow the seeds of disease
and death broadcast, caring only to be certain that they
cannot do much harm to our own generation ? It may be
granted, to anticipate objection, that it is quite possible that
the bodies now buried may have lost most, if not all, of their
faculty for doing mischief by the time that the particular soil
they inhabit is turned up again to the sun’s rays, although
this is by no means certain; but it is beyond dispute that the
margin of safety as to time grows narrower year by year, and
that pollution of wells and streams which supply the living
must ere long arise wherever we bury our dead in this country.
Well, then, since every buried dead body enters sooner or later
into the vegetable kingdom, why should we permit it, as it
does in many cases, to cause an infinity of mischief during
the long process ?
Let us at this point glance at the economic view of the
subject, for it is not so unimportant as, unconsidered, it may
appear. For it is an economic subject whether we will it or
not. No doubt a sentiment repugnant to any such view must
arise in many minds, a sentiment altogether to be held in
respect and.sympathy. Be it so, the question remains strictly
a question of prime necessity in the economic system of a
�CREMATION.
7
crowded country. Nature will have it so, whether we like it
or not. She destines the material elements of my body to
enter the vegetable world on purpose to supply another animal
organism which takes my place. She wants me, and I must
go. There is no help for it. When shall I follow—with quick
obedience, or unwillingly, truant-like, traitor-like, to her and
her grand design ? Her capital is intended to bear good
interest and to yield quick return : all her ways prove it—
‘ increase and multiply ’ is her first and constant law. Shall
her riches be hid in earth to corrupt and bear no present fruit;
or be utilised, without loss of time, value, and interest, for the
benefit of starving survivors ? Nature hides no talent in a
napkin; we, her unprofitable servants only, thwart her ways
and delay the consummation of her will.
Is a practical illustration required ? Nothing is easier.
London was computed, by the census of 1871, to contain
3,254,260 persons, of whom 80,430 died within the year.
I have come to the conclusion, after a very carefully made
estimate, that the amount of ashes and bone earth, such as is
derived by perfect combustion, belonging to and buried with
those persons, is by weight about 206,820 lbs. The pecuniary
value of this highly concentrated form of animal solids is very
considerable. For this bone-earth may be regarded as equi
valent to at least six or seven times its weight of dried but
unburned bones, as they ordinarily exist in commerce. The
amount of other solid matters resolvable by burning into the
gaseous food of plants, but rendered unavailable by burial for,
say, fifty or a hundred years or more, is about 5,584,000 lbs.,
the value of which is quite incalculable, but it is certainly
enormous as compared with the preceding.
This is for the population of the metropolis only : that of
the United Kingdom for the same year amounted to 31,483,700
persons, or nearly ten times the population of London. Taking
into consideration a somewhat lower death-rate for the imperial
average, it will at all events be quite within the limit of truthful
statement to multiply the above quantities by nine in order to
obtain the amount of valuable economic material annually
diverted in the United Kingdom for a long term of years
�8
CREMATION.
from its ultimate destiny by our present method of inter
ment.
The necessary complement of this ceaseless waste of com
modity most precious to organic life, and which must be
replaced, or the population could not exist, is the purchase by
this country of that same material from other countries less
populous than our own, and which can, therefore, at present
spare it. This we do to the amount of much more than half
a million pounds sterling per annum.1
Few persons, I believe, have any notion that these impor
tations of foreign bones are rendered absolutely necessary by
the hoarding of our own some six feet below the surface. The
former we acquire at a large cost for the original purchase and
for freight. The latter we place, not in the upper soil where
they would be utilised, but in the lower soil, where they are
not merely useless, but where they often mingle with and
pollute the streams which furnish our tables. And in order
to effect this absurd, if not wicked, result, we incur a lavish
expenditure ! I refer, of course, to the enormous sums which
are wasted in effecting burial according to our present custom,
a part of the question which can by no means be passed over.
For the funeral rites of the 80,000 in London last year, let
a mean cost of ten pounds per head be accepted as an estimate
which certainly does not err on the side of excess.2 Eight
1 Value of Bones imported into the United Kingdom, of which by far the
larger part is employed for manure, was, in—
1866 ............................................................£409,590
1869
600,029
1872
753,185
Statistical Abstract, 20th Number. Spottiswoode, 1873.
2 Items comprised in the calculation—
1. Cost of shroud, coffin, labour of digging a grave—essential now in all
burials.
2. Cost of funeral carriages, horses, trappings, and accoutrements.
Ornamental coffins in wood and metal.
Vaults and monumental art—more or less employed in all funerals
above the rank of pauper.
The cost of simple modes of transit are not included in the calculation,
because necessary in any case, whatever the destination of the body. The
above-named items are only necessary in the case of interment in a grave, and
not one would be required, for example, in the case of cremation or burning of
the body.
�CREMATION.
9
hundred thousand pounds must therefore be reckoned as
absolute loss, to the costs already incurred in the mainte
nance of the system. Thus we pay every way and doubly for
our folly.
What, then, is it proposed to substitute for this custom of
burial ? The answer is easy and simple. Do that which is
■done in all good work of every kind—follow Nature’s indica
tion, and do the work she does, but do it better and more
rapidly. For example, in the human body she sometimes
throws off a diseased portion in order to save life, by slow and
clumsy efforts, it is true, and productive of much suffering;
the surgeon performs the same task more rapidly and better,
follows her lead, and improves on it. Nature’s many agents,
laden with power, the over-action of which is harmful, we
■cannot stop, but we tame, guide, and make them our most
profitable servants. So here, also, let us follow her. The
naturally slow and disagreeable process of decomposition
which we have made by one mode of treatment infinitely
more slow and not less repulsive, we can by another mode of
treatment greatly shorten and accomplish without offence to
the living. What in this particular matter is naturally the
work of weeks or months, can be perfectly done in an hour or
two.
The Problem to be worked is : Given a dead body, to
resolve it into carbonic acid, water, and ammonia, and the
mineral elements, rapidly, safely, and not unpleasantly.
The answer may be practically supplied in a properly con
structed furnace. The gases can be driven off without offen
sive odour, the mineral constituents will remain in a crucible.
The gases will ere night be consumed by plants and trees.
The ashes or any portion of them may be preserved in a
funeral urn, or may be scattered on the fields, which latter is
their righteous destination. No scents or balsams are needed,
as on Greek and Roman piles, to overcome the noxious effluvia
of a corpse burned in open air. Modern science is equal to
the task of thus removing the dead of a great city without
instituting any form of nuisance; none such as those we
tolerate everywhere from many factories, both to air and
�10
CREMATION.
streams. Plans for the accomplishment of this have been
considered; but discussion of the subject alone is aimed at
here. To treat our dead after this fashion would return
millions of capital without delay to the bosom of mother earth,
who would give us back large returns at compound interest for
the deposit.
Who can doubt now that the question is one of vital
economy to the people of this country ? This is still no reason
why it should not be considered from the point of view of sen
timent. And what has sentiment to urge on behalf of the
present process ? Let us see what the process by burial is.
So far as I dare ! for could I paint in its true colours the
ghastly picture of that which happens to the mortal remains
of the dearest we have lost, the page would be too deeply
stained for publication. I forbear, therefore, to trace the steps
of the process which begins so soon and so painfully to mani
fest itself after that brief hour has passed, when ‘ she lay
beautiful in death.’ Such loveliness as that I agree it might
be treason to destroy, could its existence be perpetuated, and
did not Nature so ruthlessly and so rapidly blight her own
handy-work, in furtherance of her own grand purpose. The
sentiment of the survivor on behalf of preserving the beauty
of form and expression, were it possible to do so, would, I
confess, go far to neutralise the argument based on utility,
powerful as it is. But a glimpse of the reality which we
achieve by burial would annihilate in an instant every senti
ment for continuing that process. Nay, more ; it would arouse
a powerful repugnance to the horrible notion that we too must
some day become so vile and offensive, and, it may be, so
dangerous; a repugnance surmountable only through the firm
belief that after death the condition of the body is a matter of
utter indifference to its dead life-tenant. Surely if we, the
living, are to have sentiments, or to exercise any choice about
the condition of our bodies after death, those sentiments and
that choice must be in favour of a physical condition which
cannot be thought of either as repulsive in itself or as injurious
to others.
There is a source of very painful dread, as I have reason
�CREMATION.
11
to know, little talked of, it is true, but keenly felt by many
persons at some time or another, the horror of which to some
is inexpressible. It is the dread of a premature burial; the
fear lest some deep trance should be mistaken for death, and
that the awakening should take place too late. Happily such
occurrences must be exceedingly rare, especially in this country,
where the interval between death and burial is considerable,
and the fear is almost a groundless one. Still, the conviction
that such a fate is possible, which cannot be altogether denied
—will always be a source of severe trial to some. With
cremation no such catastrophe could ever occur ; and the com
pleteness of a properly conducted process would render death
instantaneous and painless if by any unhappy chance an in
dividual so circumstanced were submitted to it.
But the
guarantee against this danger would be doubled, since inspec
tion of the entire body must of necessity immediately precede
the act of cremation, no such inspection being possible under
the present system.
In order to meet a possible objection to the substitution
of cremation for burial, let me observe that the former is
equally susceptible with the latter of association with religious
funereal rites, if not more so. Never could the solemn and
touching words ‘ashes to ashes, dust to dust,’ be more appro
priately uttered than over a body about to be consigned to the
furnace; while, with a view to metaphor, the dissipation of
almost the whole body in the atmosphere in the ethereal form
of gaseous matter is far more suggestive as a type of another
and a brighter life, than the consignment of the body to the
abhorred prison of the tomb.
I do not propose to describe here the processes which have
been employed, or any improved system which might be
adopted for the purpose of ensuring rapid and perfect combus
tion of the body, although much might be said in reference to
these matters. There is no doubt that further experiments
and research are wanting for the practical improvement of the
process, especially if required to be conducted on a large scale.
Something has been already accomplished and with excellent
results. I refer to recent examples of the process as practised by
�12
CREMATION.
Dr. L. Brunetti, Professor of Pathological Anatomy in the
University of Padua. These were exhibited at the Exposition
of Vienna, where I had the opportunity of examining them
with care. Professor Brunetti exposed the residue from bodies
and parts of bodies on which he had practised cremation by
different methods, and the results of his latest experience may
be summarised as follows : The whole process of incineration
of a human adult body occupied three and a half hours. The
ashes and bone earth weighed 1*70 kilo., about three pounds
and three-quarters avoirdupois. They were of a delicate white,
and were contained in a glass box about twelve inches long,
by eight inches wide, and eight deep. The quantity of wood
used to effect absolute and complete incineration, may be
estimated from its weight, about 150 pounds. He adds that
‘ its cost was one florin and twenty kreuzers,’ about two
shillings and fourpence English. The box was that marked
No. IX. in the case, which was No. 4149 in the Catalogue :
Italian.1
In an adjacent case was an example of mummification by
the latest and most successful method. By a series of chemical
processes it has been attempted to preserve in the corpse the
appearance natural to life, as regards colour and form. Ad
mirable as the result appears to be in preserving anatomical
and pathological specimens of the body, it is, in my opinion,
very far from successful when applied to the face and hand.
At best a condition is produced which resembles a badlycoloured and not well-formed waxen image. And the conscious
ness that this imperfect achievement is the real person and
not a likeness, so far from being calculated to enhance its
value to the survivor, produces the very painful impression, as
it were, of a debased original; while, moreover, it is impos
sible not to be aware that the substitution of such an image
for the reality must in time replace the mental picture which
exists, of the once living face lighted by emotion and intelli
gence, of which the preserved face is wholly destitute.
To return to the process of cremation. There are still
numerous considerations in its favour which might be adduced,
1 Far better results have been since attained (1884).
�CREMATION.
13.
of which I shall name only one; namely, the opportunity it
offers of escape from the ghastly but costly ceremonial which
mostly awaits our remains after death. How often have the
slender shares of the widow and orphan been diminished in
order to testify, and so unnecessarily, their loving memory of
the deceased, by display of plumes and silken scarves about
the unconscious clay. And again, how prolific of mischief to
the living is the attendance at the burial ground, with un
covered head, and dampstruck feet, in pitiless weather, at the
chilling rite of sepulture. Not a few deaths have been clearly
traceable to the act of offering that ‘ last tribute of respect.’
Perhaps no great change can be expected at present in the
public opinions current, or rather in the conventional views
which obtain, on the subject of burial, so ancient is the prac
tice, and so closely associated is it with sentiments of affection
and reverence for the deceased. To many persons, any kind
of change in our treatment of the dead will be suggestive of
sacrilegious interference, however remote, either in fact or by
resemblance to it, such change may be. Millions still cherish
deep emotions connected both with the past and the future in
relation to the ‘ Campo Santo,’ and the annual ‘ Jour des
Morts.’ And many of these might be slow to learn that, if
the preservation of concrete remains and the ability to offer
the tribute of devotion at a shrine be desired, cremation equally,
if not better than burial, secures those ends. On the other
hand, I know how many there are, both in this country and
abroad, who only require the assurance that cremation is
practically attainable to declare their strong preference for it,,
and to substitute it for what they conceive to be the present
defective and repulsive procedure. A few such might, by com
bination for the purpose, easily examine the subject still further
by experiment, and would ultimately secure the power if they
desired to put it in practice for themselves. And the con
sideration of the subject which such examples would afford
could not fail to hasten the adoption of what I am fairly
entitled to call the Natural, in place of the present Artificial*
Treatment of the body after death.
�14
CREMATION.
[ The foregoing paper having appeared in the 1 Contemporary ’ of January, 1873,
a reply from Mr. Holland took place in February; the following paper,
defending his original statements, was published by Sir Henry Thompson
in the March number of that journal.]
CREMATION :
A REPLY TO CRITICS AND AN EXPOSITION OF THE PROCESS.
I confess that it is not without some surprise that I find my
proposal to substitute Cremation for Burial as a sanitary
reform formally opposed in the last number of the ‘ Contem
porary ’ by a member of the Medical Profession. From the
general public, on account of its natural and tender sympathy
with ancient customs, especially when hallowed by religious
rite, I had expected adverse criticism. From those who are
interested, or believe themselves to be so, in the celebration
of funereal pomps and ceremonials of all kinds, a protest was
also not unlikely to be heard.
In all this, however, I have been mistaken. So far from
encountering opposition, I have received encouragement and
support from all classes to an extent which would have been
to me almost incredible had I not witnessed it.
Clergymen are anxious to demonstrate how few are the
words requiring change in our Burial Service to render it
wholly applicable to Cremation. The public Press has all but
unanimously spoken favourably of the scheme, demanding
only to be assured on certain grounds of possible objection,
with which presently I shall have to deal. Persons in all ranks
and stations of life write me to say there is nothing they
would more gladly obtain than the assurance that their wish
to be burned after death could be realised without difficulty.
And, lastly, I am bound to say that the much—perhaps
too much—abused undertaker, with a knowledge of the world
and a breadth of view for which some might not have given
�CREMATION.
15
him credit, has said to me: ‘I only desire to supply the
public want: as long as the public demands funeral cars,
magnificent horses, display of feathers, and a host of atten
dants in black, I must furnish them ; but I am equally ready
to perform Cremation to-morrow if the public demand it, and
if you will tell me how to do it properly.’ And I find him an
ally at once, and not an enemy.
Surprised, then, as I am, equally at the number of my
friends, and at the quarter from whence my one opponent
arises, it is with no little satisfaction, since I am to have an
opponent, that I find him to be one so well qualified for the
task; the writer of the article in question being no less an
authority than the Medical Inspector of Burials for England
and Wales to the Home Department. I feel sure, then, that
all which can be said in defence of Burial and in opposition
to Cremation will be urged by so experienced and redoubtable
an antagonist: one who, according to his own showing, has
had a large share in controlling and directing the public money
for the establishment of Cemeteries during the last twenty
years. And, after all, I cannot wonder, seeing how extensive
is his acquaintance with the present state of these matters,
and how closely he himself is identified with them, that he
should intimate at the outset that in itself my paper ‘ is not
worth a reply,’ ‘ the theory on which its main conclusion is
based being so entirely without reasonable foundation.’
He, nevertheless, consents to discuss the subject, although
he fails to specify the theory thus stigmatised. As I intend
to examine the article carefully, the omission will probably
not be important. The following may be accepted as a fair
summary of the views expressed in it. Mr. Holland admits
the great evils of burial when it is adopted within the limits
of the town; but believes that ‘ amply large and well-situated
Cemeteries ’ having been established, for which ‘ a heavy
expense has been incurred ; ’ if, furthermore, they are not too
much crowded at first, and are not too soon disturbed after
wards, it is ‘ possible for burial to be continued without
danger, that is, without, not the possibility, but the proba
bility of injury.’ All these advantages granted, even then
*
�16
CREMATION.
Cemeteries ‘ may be mismanaged so as to become unsafe/
‘ for so long as men are men, mistakes, and worse than mis
takes, will occasionally occur; ’ and he states that ‘ the real
danger from a well-situated and well-managed Cemetery, large
in proportion to the number of its burials, is not larger than
that of a well-managed railway.’
We learn, then, from her Majesty’s Inspector that Burial
is by no means a certainly innocuous procedure : although,
provided all the conditions named above are present, which,
by the way, is by no means always the case in our very
popular suburban Cemeteries, much mischief may not occur.
In addition to this he combats at some length views which
he quite erroneously attributes to me; and also imputes in
accuracy in a statement of mine relative to chemical changes,
which imputation I shall prove to be wholly without foundation.
It is on these grounds that Mr. Holland advocates burial,
and he is bold enough to assert its superiority to Cremation,
although, it appears, he has had no experience whatever of
the latter process ! I doubt whether he ever witnessed an
experiment, much less has performed one himself; indeed, I
am compelled to infer from his remarks that he knows nothing
of it beyond the account which in my last paper I gave of the
experiments by Brunetti of Padua, the results of which, al
though excellent, are, as I intimated more than once, very
inferior to those which might easily be attained. He feels
bound to admit that, ‘ no doubt, if sufficient care be taken, no
actual nuisance need be caused ’ by Cremation, but qualifies
the admission by suggesting that the process ‘ is far more
liable to mishaps ’ than burial, ‘ such mishaps as must be
occasionally expected causing far more disgusting nuisance,
far more difficult of concealment.’
To all this I shall reply : first, that the evils of Burial are
far too lightly estimated by Mr. Holland, respecting which I
will adduce overwhelming testimony of a kind that he will not
question or deny.
Secondly, that the plan of Cremation I have myself
adopted and will now advise, is wholly free from objections of
the kind Mr. Holland has imagined to exist: that it is com
�CREMATION.
17
plete in its results, and is absolutely causeless of danger or
■offence to others.
The evils inflicted on the living by the burial of the dead,
I find myself compelled to demonstrate. In my original article
I assumed these to be well known and universally admitted, and
had no idea that evidence on this subject could be required.
This, however, was an error. Thus I have several times been
asked quite gravely by young men, well educated and intelli
gent, if it were an ascertained fact that decaying dead bodies
within a grave could really induce disease in the living: true,
they might give rise to horrible effluvia, and be very disagree
able, but were they positively harmful ? And one respectable
journal suggests, as worthy of consideration, whether solicitude
on these matters does not betray an undue care for the pre
servation of life, and regards an attempt to control this fertile
source of disease, as dictated by ‘ a constant and morbid fear
of death ’ ! For all this remarkable ignorance of the subject
I can only account by the fact, that a generation has risen up
since there was made that notable revelation of horrors in the
London churchyards which the older men of our time can
never forget, but which the younger men never knew.
Some five-and-twenty years have now elapsed since a
systematic examination of the churches and graveyards of the
Metropolis was made by the most eminent and trustworthy
men of the day, when details were brought to light which, at
that time, smote the public with horror.
The result was that Acts of Parliament were passed pro
hibiting intramural interment. The poisonous abominations
were removed, vaults were hermetically sealed, and the dead
were carried miles away; nevertheless the same detestable
process of putrefaction goes on, although it is, at present,
beyond the reach of our senses, and only now and then
obtrudes itself on our notice.
My task, however, becomes yet more necessary, since we
have before us to-day a Medical Inspector of Burials, who,
while admitting, with manifest reluctance, that some danger
still attaches to the process of interment, comes forward to
advise the public, with all the weight of his experience, to
c
�18
CREMATION.
continue that practice, instead of inquiring, which he has not
done, whether a mode of disposing of the body may not exist
which is absolutely harmless and devoid of all the evils named
above.
It is clear then that, for the sake of the general reader at
all events, it is necessary to refer, although briefly, to the in
dubitable evidence which exists relative to this subject.
For his information let me state that the 1 General Board
of Health ’ made, in 1849, a special investigation, commission
ing for the purpose Southwood Smith, Chadwick, Milroy,
Sutherland, Waller Lewis, and others, to conduct a searching
inquiry into the state of the burial-grounds of London and
large provincial towns : and to devise a scheme for extramural
sepulture. From their report,1 which abounds in information,
I shall make two or three extracts.
Happily, any minute description of the state of the grave
yards and their contents which resulted from ‘ the present
practice of interment in towns ’ need not be given. It will
suffice for our purpose to observe that the reporters say
‘ We shall be under the necessity of making statements of a
very painful nature, and sometimes of representing scenes
which we feel most reluctant publicly to exhibit; but we
should ill discharge the duty entrusted to us if we were to
shrink from the full disclosure of the truth; more especially
as a thorough knowledge of the evil is indispensable to an
appreciation of the only effectual remedy.’2
Passing over these details, I quote again as follows :—‘ We,’
say the reporters, ‘ may safely rest the sanitary part of the
1 Report on a General Scheme for Extramural Sepulture. (Clowes and
Sons, 1850.)
(Signed)
Carlisle.
Ashley.
Edwin Chadwick.
T. Southwood Smith.
The subject had been examined before by official authority; and at an earlyperiod by Walker, whose work on Graveyards is well known, and contains much
information. (Longmans, London, 1839.)
A Special Inquiry into the Practice of Interment in Toions; by Edwin
Chadwick (London, 1843), is replete with evidence, and should be read by those
who desire to pursue the inquiry further.
- Report on a General Scheme, &c., p. 5.
�CREMATION.
19
case on the single fact, that the placing of the dead body in a
grave and covering it with a few feet of earth does not prevent
the gases generated by decomposition, together with putrescent
matters which they hold in suspension, from permeating the
surrounding soil, and escaping into the air above and the
water beneath.’
After supporting this statement by illustrations of the
enormous force exercised by gases of decomposition, in burst
ing open leaden coffins whence they issue without restraint,
the reporters quote the evidence of Dr. Lyon Playfair (late
H.M. Postmaster-General) to the following effect:—
4 I have examined,’ he says, ‘ various churchyards and
burial-grounds for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
layer of earth above the bodies is sufficient to absorb the
putrid gases evolved. The slightest inspection shows that
they are not thoroughly absorbed by the soil lying over the
bodies. I know several churchyards from which most foetid
smells are evolved; and gases with similar odour are emitted
from the sides of sewers passing in the vicinity of churchyards,
although they may be more than thirty feet from them.’
.... He goes on to estimate the amount of gases which
issue from the graveyard, and estimates that for the 52,000
annual interments of the Metropolis 1 no less a quantity than
2,572,580 cubic feet of gases is emitted, ‘the whole of which,
beyond what is absorbed by the soil, must pass into the water
below or the atmosphere above.’
The foregoing is but one small item from the long list of
illustrative cases proving the fact that no dead body is ever
buried within the earth without polluting the soil, the water,
and the air around and above it: the extent of the offence
produced corresponding with the amount of decaying animal
matter subjected to the process.
But ‘ offence ’ only is proved : is the result not only dis
agreeable but injurious to the living ?
1 A number which has already reached 80,000, in 1873, so rapid is the
increase of population. The above was written in 1849.
It has been stated by some that the mere contact of the corpse with fresh
earth suffices for safe disinfection! Such a monstrous delusion is disposed of
by this evidence.
c 2
�20
CREMATION.
The Report referred to gives notable examples of the fatal
influence of such effluvia when encountered in a concentrated
form ; one being that of two gravediggers who, in 1841,
perished in descending into a grave in St. Botolph’s church
yard, Aidgate. Such are, however, extremely exceptional in
stances ; but our reporter goes on to say that there is abundant
evidence of the injurious action of these gases in a more
diluted state, and cites the well-demonstrated fact that ‘ cholera
was unusually prevalent in the immediate neighbourhood of
London graveyards.’ I cannot cite, on account of its length,
a paragraph by Dr. Sutherland attesting this fact: while the
many pages detailing Dr. Milroy’s inspection of numerous
graveyards are filled with evidence which is quite conclusive,
and describes scenes which must be read by those who desire
further acquaintance with the subject.1
Dr. Waller Lewis reports the mischievous results of breath
ing the pestiferous air of vaults and the kind of illness pro
duced by it.2 His long and elaborate report of the condition
of these excavations beneath the churches of the metropolis,
presents a marvellous view of the phenomena, which, ordi
narily hidden in the grave, could be examined here, illustrating
the many stages of decay; a condition which he describes as
a ‘ disgrace to any civilisation.’ But it may be said all this
is changed now ; intramural interment no longer exists : why
produce these shocking records of the past ?
Precisely because they enable us to know what it is which
we have only banished to our suburban cemeteries ; that we
may be reminded that the process has not changed, that all
this horrible decomposition removed from our doors—although
this will not long be the case, either at Kensal Green or
Norwood, to say nothing of some other cemeteries—goes on as
ever, and will one day be found in dangerous vicinity to our
homes. And here I must make an explanation which I think
can be necessary to very few who read my former article,
although Mr. Holland misunderstands me, and bases the
1 See independent examples on each of pages 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 26, 28,
43-46, and many others in the Report above quoted, p. 29.
2 See also Chadwick’s Special Inquiry, for numerous illustrations.
�CREMATION.
21
greater part of his paper upon the utter misrepresentation of
my meaning he is pleased to make. Because I said that in
burying the corpses of to-day in distant graves we were £ lay
ing by poison for our children’s children,’ he takes special
pains to inform me that probably these particular corpses
must at that future time be as innocuous as if they had been
burned. No doubt they will be so ; but as years pass on, the
close neighbourhood and ultimate contact of the putrefying
dead with our living descendants must arrive.
It is only a question of time. And it was expressly for the
purpose of guarding against the misapprehension I complain
of, and which has furnished my opponent with such large
opportunity of needless remark, that I added the following
passage, which it is only charitable to suppose he must have
overlooked (although it forms the immediate sequel to that
which he quoted) :—
£ It may be granted, to anticipate objection, that it is quite
possible that the bodies now buried may have lost most, if not
all, their power of doing mischief by the time that the par
ticular soil they inhabit is turned up again to the sun’s rays,
although this is by no means certain ; but it is beyond dispute
that the margin of safety as to time grows narrower and
narrower year by year, and that pollution of wells and streams
which supply the living must ere long arise wherever we bury
our dead in this country.’
Now there is no doubt that the passage which has been
thus unfairly separated from its context, and so made to
appear the exponent of views I do not hold, and have, indeed,
expressly disclaimed, is that in which he professes to find
ground for his statement that the £ theory on which my main
conclusion is based is entirely without reasonable foundation.’
What then becomes of this sweeping assertion ?
At this point let me call another witness on this important
subject.
Perhaps it would be difficult to name a higher
authority in this country on any question of public health,
than that of Dr. Edmund Parkes, Professor of Military
Hygiene of the Army Medical School at Netley. With the
particular part of his writings which I am about to quote, I
�22
CREMATION.
was unacquainted until the last few days, perhaps because they
appear in a work ‘ prepared especially for use in the medical
service of the army.’ That at all events must be my excuse
for not having them within reach before.1 In a short, but
suggestive, chapter ‘ on the disposal of the dead,’ he proposes
the following question :—
‘ What, then, is the best plan of disposing of the dead so
that the living may not suffer ? At present the question is not
an urgent one ; but if peace continue, and if the population of
Europe increase, it will become so in another century or two.
Already in this country we have seen, in our own time, a great
change; the objectionable practice of interment under and
around churches in towns has been given up, and the popula
tion is buried at a distance from their habitations. For the
present, that measure will probably suffice, but in a few years
the question will again inevitably present itself.
‘ Burying in the ground appears certainly the most in
sanitary plan of the three methods.2 The air over cemeteries is
constantly contaminated (see p. 76), and water (which maybe
used for drinking) is often highly impure. Hence in the
vicinity of graveyards two dangers to the population arise, and
in addition, from time to time, the disturbance of an old
graveyard has given rise to disease. It is a matter of noto
riety that the vicinity of graveyards is unhealthy.’
To return to our reporters: we have seen the condition of
graveyards in towns, but it will not be undesirable to glance
at the evidence relating to the condition of provincial church
yards, where, in the midst of a sparse population, the pure
country air circulates with natural freedom—numbers of such
spots are mentioned—let one single example be ‘ Cadoxton
Churchyard, near Neath.’
Respecting this, the reporter
writes :—‘ I do not know how otherwise to describe the state
of this churchyard than by saying that it is truly and
thoroughly abominable. The smell from it is revolting. I
could distinctly perceive it in every one of the neighbouring
houses which I visited, and in every one of these houses there
1 A Manual of Practical Hygiene. (London, Churchill, 1864.)
2 Burial in the Land, or at Sea, and Burning, p. 458.
�CREMATION.
23,
have been cases of cholera or severe diarrhoea.’ This is, not a
selected specimen, some are even worse ; for further examples
see below.1
I next complain that there is insufficient recognition in
Mr. Holland’s paper, of the unhealthy character of the ema
nations which result from the process of putrefaction when,
affecting the human body. He lays great stress on the fact
that at the encl of those long stages of decay which burial
renders necessary, the result is as harmless as at the end of
the process of Cremation, passing over as not worth notice the
fact that for long years the corpse is replete with influences,
which are mischievous to anything which may come within
them range; absolute isolation being the only condition of
safety. Conversely stated, this is precisely my own argument,
and demonstrates triumphantly the superiority of Cremation.
I affirm that, by burning, we arrive in one hour, without
offence or danger, at the very stage of harmless result which
burying requires years to produce. True, indeed, it is, 1 that
the ultimate result is the same,’ but an infinity of mischief
may happen by his process, and none can happen by mine.
And, after all, he can only on his own showing claim a perfect
result by burial ‘if no more dead be buried than the free oxy
gen contained in rain and dew carried through it, will decom
pose; and if such soil be left undisturbed, &c., and i/the use
of such ground for burial be discontinued,’ &c., &c. Again,
there is another instance of Mr. Holland’s insufficient recog
nition of the unhealthy character of cadaveric emanations
which I must particularly call attention to. I had stated that
in the resolution of an animal body the gaseous products
were carbonic acid, water, and ammonia. He impeaches my
correctness, saying that I am—
‘ Not, however, quite accurate in describing that result to
be the formation of water, of ammonia, and of carbonic acid,
as the chief products; for if the decomposition either with or
without fire be complete, no ammonia will be formed in the
soil; or, if formed, it will be converted before it need escape
1 Op. cit., p. 48. Report of Mr. Bowie, describing graveyards at Merthyr
Tydvil; Hawick, Roxburghshire ; Greenock, and other places.
�24
CREMATION.
either into the air, or be carried off by water, in the form either
of uncombined nitrogen, or changed into some compound of that
element with oxygen, such as nitric or nitrous acid, &c.’
I never said the ultimate result of the resolution in question
was ammonia, but I repeat that ammonia is an intermediate
formation in large quantity, by which nitrogen passes off be
fore it comes to be ‘the nitric or nitrous acid ’ he speaks of, the
latter being, by the way, no more an ultimate step in the process
than is ammonia. At what point shall we stop if we are to
trace to their last stages the volatile component elements of
the body ? Why, certainly not at ammonia, nor at nitric acid,
but at carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen. I chose to
rest at ammonia, because the evolution of ammonia is an im
portant fact, and I re-assert that it is largely produced. So
much for the a priori statement. Now what is the evidence
from observation in this matter ? Was I right or was I wrong,
as Mr. Holland says I am, in stating that the body is resolved
among other things into ammonia ? Any intelligent witness
will do for me, but we have Dr. Parkes still in the box: let us
interrogate him. That same short chapter almost commences
with the following passage:—
‘ After death the buried body returns to its elements, and
gradually, and often by the means of other forms of life which
prey on it, a large amount of it forms carbonic acid, ammonia,
sulphuretted and carburetted hydrogen, nitrous and nitrie
acid, and various more complex gaseous products, many of
which are very foetid, but which, however, are eventually all
oxygenised into the simpler combinations.’1
In another part of the volume, in speaking of the air of
churchyards, he writes :—
‘ The decomposition of bodies gives rise to a very large
amount, of carbonic acid..............Ammonia and an offensive
putrid vapour are also given off.’
‘ In vaults, the air contains much carbonic acid, carbonate
or sulphide of ammonium, nitrogen, hydrosulphuric acid, and
organic matter.’2
Parkes, p. 457.
2 Op. tit., p. 76.
�CREMATION.
25
My readers will agree with me, I think, that this matter is
disposed of.
I now arrive at the second part of my subject, in which I
have to show that the plan of Cremation I have myself adopted,
and will now advise, is wholly free from objections of the kind
Mr. Holland has imagined to exist; that it is complete in its
results, and is absolutely causeless of danger or of offence to
any.
Many persons have expressed to me the opinion that I ought
in my first paper to have described what I believed to be the
best mode of performing Cremation. May I say that this was
also desired by the Editor of this Journal. I felt, however,
although I was prepared to give the information in question,
that it was impossible to judge beforehand what might be the
reception by the public of my project, and that I might per
haps go too far and weight it too heavily if I actually sketched
the process by which each reader could realise for himself its
nature and mode of operation. I think the reticence was
prudent, although it might possibly have been unnecessary.
I think it is fair to myself to say that, before that first
article was published, a scheme for burning two thousand
bodies a week for London (the average present requirement
being about sixteen hundred) was quite completed, and that I
had satisfied myself that to accomplish this would not be a
difficult task, and that it would occasion no nuisance whatever.
Without entering on those details, I will give an example
of what I have done in the matter of resolving the body into
its ultimate elements by heat.
And first of all I must request the reader to dismiss from
his mind all the allegations against the practice of Cremation
which Mr. Holland has made, grounded on what he imagines
that process to be. He states that it ‘ would necessarily
require the active superintendence of a class of men whose
services for such an office it wTould be scarcely possible always
to obtain : while it is evident that imperfectly conducted
burning of the dead would be inexpressibly shocking, and apt
not rarely to occur.’ The point first named is a matter barely
worth contesting; but the last five words are absolutely with
�26
CREMATION.
out foundation, and I challenge him to show a tittle of evidence
to support the very grave allegation they contain.
A powerful reverberating furnace will reduce a body of
more than average size and weight, leaving only a few white
and fragile portions of earthy material, in less than one hour.
I have myself personally superintended the burning of two
entire bodies, one small and emaciated of 47 lbs. weight, and
one of 140 lbs. weight, not emaciated, and possess the pro
ducts—in the former case, weighing 1| lbs.; in the latter,
weighing about 4 lbs. The former was completed in twentyfive minutes, the latter in fifty. No trace of odour was per
ceived—indeed, such a thing is impossible,—and not the
slightest difficulty presented itself. The remains already de
scribed were not withdrawal till the process was complete, and
nothing can be more pure, tested by sight or smell, than they
are, and nothing less suggestive of decay or decomposition.
It is a refined sublimate, and not a portion of refuse, which I
have before me. The experiments took place in the presence
of several persons. Among the witnesses of the second ex
periment was Dr. George Buchanan, the well-known medical
officer of the Local Government Board, who can testify to the
completeness of the process.
I challenge my opponent to produce so fair a result from
all the costly and carefully-managed cemeteries in the king
dom, and I offer him twenty years in which to elaborate the
process.
In the proceedings above described, the gases which leave
the furnace chimney during the first three or four minutes
of combustion are noxious: after that time they cease to be
so, and no smoke would be seen. But those noxious gases
are not to be permitted to escape by any chimney, and will
pass through a flue into a second furnace, where they are
entirely consumed ; and the chimney of the latter is smokeless
—no organic products whatever can issue by it. A complete,
combustion is thus attained.
Not even a tall chimney is
necessary, which might be pointed at as that which marked
the site where Cremation is performed. A small jet of steam
quickening the draught of a low chimney is all that is requisite.
�CREMATION.
27
If the process is required on a large scale, the second furnace
could be utilised for Cremation also, and its products passed
through another, and so on without limit.
Subsequent experiments, however, by another method,
have resulted in a still greater success. By means of one of
the furnaces invented by Dr. Wm. Siemens, I have obtained
even a more rapid and more complete combustion than before.
The body employed was a severe test of its powers, for it
weighed no less than 227 lbs., and was not emaciated. It
was placed in a cylindrical vessel about seven feet long by
five or six in diameter, the interior of which was already heated
to about 2000° Bahr. The inner surface of the cylinder is
smooth, almost polished, and no solid matter but that of the
body is introduced into it.
The product, therefore, can be
nothing more than the ashes of the body. No foreign dust
can be introduced, no coal or other solid combustible being
near it: nothing but a heated hydrocarbon in a gaseous form
and heated air. Nothing is visible in the cylinder before using
it but a pure almost white interior, the lining having acquired
a temperature of white heat. In this case, the gases given
off from the body so abundantly at first, pass through a highly
heated chamber among thousands of interstices made by in
tersecting fire-bricks, laid throughout the entire chamber,
lattice-fashion, in order to minutely divide and delay the
current, and expose it to an immense area of heated surface.
By this means they were rapidly oxidised, and not a particle
of smoke issued by the chimney : no second furnace, therefore,
is necessary by this method to consume any noxious matters,
since none escape. The process was completed in fifty-five
minutes, and the ashes, which weighed about five pounds,
were removed with ease.
The foregoing is a very meagre
sketch of Dr. Siemens’ furnace, the principle of which is well
known to engineers, and to scientific men generally, and need
not be described in detail here.
I will now add—not that it affects the process in the
slightest degree as to results—that all my experiments
hitherto have been made with the lower animals.
As a rough and unfinished sketch of a system to be
�28
CREMATION.
followed when Cremation is generally adopted, I would suggest
the following :—
When death occurs and the necessary certificate has been
given (relative to which an important suggestion will be made
hereafter), the body is placed in a light wood shell, then in a
suitable outside receptacle preparatory to removal for religious
rites or otherwise. After a proper time has elapsed, it is
conveyed to the spot where Cremation is to be performed.
There, nothing need be seen by the last attendant or atten
dants than the placing of a shell within a small compartment,
and the closing of the door upon it. It slides down into the
heated chamber, and is left there an hour, till the necessary
changes have taken place. The ashes are then placed at the
disposal of the attendants.
I now come to a very serious matter, treated of by Mr.
Holland in a manner of which I am compelled to complain.
He is pleased to make merry himself, and to suggest that
I am joking—or, to use his own phraseology, ‘ poking fun ’—
when calling attention to my remarks relative to the ‘ econo
mical ’ view of Cremation.
In speaking of this, I stated that ‘ it is an economic sub
ject, whether we will it or not.’ Now I wish him and all my
readers to understand that I was never more serious, never
more earnest in my life than I was then and am at this
moment, and in consideration of this question of ‘ economy.’
Anything like ‘ fun ’ or a ‘joke,’ wherever else it may be
tolerated, is wholly out of place here. Seeing that the Great
Power which has ordained the marvellous and ceaseless
action which transmutes every animal body as quickly as
possible into vegetable matter and rice versa, and has
arranged that this harmonious cycle should be the absolute
and necessary law for all existence, I have space for no other
sentiments than those of submission, wonder, and admira
tion. If any say that it is in bad taste, or does violence to
some right feeling, to speak of the fate that inevitably awaits
every one of us, in that, on some future day, the elements of
our bodies must enter into that other life of the vegetable
world, whence once they came, let the complaint thereof be
�CREMATION.
29
carried to the Highest Court of the Universe, and let the
question be asked there, Whether ‘ the Judge of all the earth
doth right ’ ?
Meantime it suffices us to know that the very existence of
these cavillers is solely due to that Divine fecundity which
pervades all nature, and is regulated by economical principles,
the beneficent operation of which we may feebly postpone,
doing some notable harm thereby, but happily can never
resist in the end.
My charge against Mr. Holland, however, is not this, but
something much more serious. Alluding to the small modi
cum of remains in the form of ashes after Cremation, and
which I was content should be preserved in an urn, stating
only that the fields were their ‘ righteous ’ destination—as
they are—he speaks of the latter suggestion as a ‘ desecra
tion ’ and as ‘ outraging family affection ; ’ and actually
associates it in some fashion with savagery and cannibalism.
Yet, can we believe it, he, so tender of sentiment on this
subject of deceased remains, himself actually advocates and
practises the utilising of by far the greater part of those
remains for the production of grass and other vegetables for
the express purpose of keeping his cemeteries sweet and
wholesome!
The gaseous elements of these buried bodies,
which, as I particularly insisted upon when dealing with that
question of economy, are by far the greater part, being incal
culable in amount in relation to the ashes, which are by
comparison a mere trifle, and which alone he is pleased to
mention. That greater part, I say, he not only uses himself,
but he knows that this very utilisation of it is the only way
he has of preserving a cemetery in a tolerable condition. He
knows perfectly well that the presence of abundant plant
growth is essential in the cemetery to assimilate the noxious
gases arising from the buried bodies before alluded to, and
that those plants owe their life and structure to the very ele
ments of our ‘ friends and relatives,’ about whom he professes
to be so utterly shocked that I should conceive it possible to
utilise them for any economical purpose ! I charge my oppo
nent then, his professions notwithstanding, as in part the
�30
CREMATION.
manager of the cemeteries of this country during twenty
years, with having presided over perhaps the largest institution that ever existed for transmuting the human body into
vegetable growth of various kinds. My one objection to his
system is that it does it so slowly, so offensively, and so
dangerously.
Now, lest perchance someone not himself acquainted with
the facts alluded to may desire, for such a statement, other
authority than my own, let us listen once more, and for the
last time, to Dr. Parkes. In order to oxidise the foetid organic
exhalations of the burying-ground, he says : ‘ The only means
which present themselves, as applicable in all cases, are the
deep burial and the use of plants closely placed in the ceme
tery. There is no plan which is more efficacious for the
absorption of the organic substances, and perhaps of the
carbonic acid, than plants; but it would seem a mistake
to use only the dark, slow-growing evergreens ; the object
should be to get the most rapidly growing trees and shrubs,’
&C.1
But even this is not my opponent’s crowning inconsistency.
So determined is he not to accept Cremation, that he suggests
another mode, ‘ that of sinking the dead in the depths of the
ocean,’ as having ‘ far more to recommend it.’ No doubt
there is much to be said in its favour ; much more certainly
than for burial. Yet shocked as he is at the notion that his
father’s ashes should ever fertilise the field, he would consign
the body to a place whence, almost instantly, it would be
devoured by fish and crustaceans, whose numbers would be
multiplied correspondingly by their benefactor’s enormous
contribution of food, as the public markets soon would tes
tify. No animal multiplies more rapidly than fish, and the
‘ economic ’ question would be determined in a manner more
complete, and more direct, and with a more remunerative result
than any which I had ever dared, or still should dare, to
suggest!
This remarkable proposal appears actually on the same
page as that in which he affects to be outraged by my sugges1 P. 458. Dr. Sutherland also strongly! nsists on the same practice.
�CREMATION.
31
tion that burning the body would necessarily contribute to the
‘ food production ’ of the earth.
And here I shall take leave of Mr. Holland, to seek some
less formidable antagonist. Possibly in this light may be
regarded the writer of an article in the ‘ Spectator ’ newspaper,1
whose objection, supposing it to be seriously urged, is almost
the only one besides those already noticed which has appeared
within the range of our periodical literature.
By stretch of charity one might almost imagine it to be a
joke, seeing it is the writer’s only way of retreat from a wholly
untenable position. He urges that as the present generation
is doing its best to exhaust ‘ the rivers, the rainfall, the mines,
and the natural fertility of the earth,’ we ought to leave our
dead remains ‘ in bank for our descendants; ’ or, in other
words—for the generous sentiment is repeated—‘ it is well that
such a deposit as the dead of generations should be left to our
posterity ! ’ Waiving altogether the greatest objection to this
testamentary provision for our grandchildren—viz., the amount
of disease and death which is unquestionably produced by
burial in the soil—the writer ought to have known that the
‘ bank ’ in question, to use his own simile, pays no interest ■
and that it is perfectly certain that such capital rendered pro
ductive at once, according to nature’s design, must yield a far
greater profit, even for posterity, than his own notable one of
burying this one talent in a napkin as an offset against what
he is pleased to consider our present exhaustion of ‘ rivers and
rainfall,’ which he declares is taking place at ‘ railway speed ! ’
As if consumption of water in any form, were it a million-fold
what it is, could exhaust or diminish the common stock a
single drop ! No modern schoolboy could make such a blunder
as this; nevertheless, it is only a specimen of others existing
within the short limits of that article, and equally easy to ex
pose, if need be. I cannot pass over, however, one statement
that this writer has dared to make. He speaks of my figures
relative to the number buried in London in 1873, and esti
mating the amount of bone-earth and ashes belonging thereto
as ‘ very debateable,’ and, further, that they ‘ arc open to
1 Spectator, January 3, 1874.
�32
CREMATION.
question.’ After saying this, he declines ‘ to fight so eminent
a physicist on so small a point of detail.’ Is the point so
small ? I declare those figures to be below, and not above,
the truth, and am amply prepared to prove it. My veracity
is at stake, for I know no higher crime than to issue mislead
ing or exaggerated numerical statements in order to prove a
case, unless, indeed, it be to utter insinuations, without offer
ing a tittle of proof to support them, that an accurate
numerical statement is untrue.
I now desire to afford explanations which have been asked
relative to the following very important subject. It has been
said, and most naturally, what guarantee is there against
poisoning if the remains are burned, and it is no longer
possible, as after burial, to reproduce the body for the purpose
of examination ? It is to my mind a sufficient reply that, re
garding only ‘ the greatest good for the greatest number,’ the
amount of evil in the shape of disease and death, which results
from the present system of burial in earth, is infinitely larger
than the evil caused by secret poisoning is or could be, even
if the practice of the crime were very considerably to increase.
Further, the appointment of officers to examine and certify in
all cases of death would be an additional and very efficient
safeguard. But,—and here I touch on a very important
subject,—Is there reason to believe that our present precau
tions in the matter of death-certificate against the danger of
poisoning are what they ought to be ? I think that it must
be confessed that they are defective, for not only is our system
inadequate to the end proposed, but it is less efficient by
comparison than that adopted by foreign governments. Our
existing arrangements for ascertaining and registering the
cause of death are very lax, and give rise, as we shall see, to
serious errors. In order to attain an approach to certitude
in this important matter, I contend that it would be most
desirable to nominate in every district a properly qualified
inspector to certify in all cases to the fact that death has
taken place, to satisfy himself as far as possible that no foul
play has existed, and to give the certificate accordingly. This
would relieve the medical attendant of the deceased from any
�33
CREMATION.
disagreeable duty, relative to inquiry concerning suspicious
circumstances, if any have been observed. Such officers exist
throughout the large cities of France and Germany, and the
system is more or less pursued throughout the provinces. In
Paris, no burial can take place without the written permission
of the ‘ Medecin-Verificateur; ’ and whether we adopt Crema
tion or not, such an officer might, with advantage, be appointed
here.1
For perhaps it is not generally known, even, as it would
seem, by those who have emphasized so notably the objection
in question to Cremation, that many bodies are buried in this
country without any medical certificate at all; and that among
these any number of deaths by poison may have taken place
for anything that anybody knows. Is it in the provinces
chiefly that this lax practice exists ? No doubt, and more
1 The practice referred to is thus regulated :—
The following is the text of the French law. Code Napoleon, Article 77.
‘ Aucune inhumation ne sera faite sans une autorisation, sur papier libre et
sans frais, de l’officier de l’btat civil, qui ne pourra la delivrer qu’apres s’etre
transports aupres de la personne decedee pour s’assurer du decbs, et que 24
heures apres le decSs, hors les cas prevus par les rSglements de police.’
Thus the verification of the deceased must always be made by a civil officer
in person; viz., by the Mayor of the town, or by someone he shall appoint. The
law, however, is executed differently in Paris and in the provinces. In Paris,
the verification is made exclusively by medical men appointed for this purpose
in each ‘ quartier.’ Their functions are defined by an Act of the 31st of
December, 1821. As soon as a death is reported, the civil officer communicates
with the medical man of the ‘ quartier ’ in which the deceased resided, and
awaits the report to decide (in concert with the deceased’s friends) at what hour
burial should take place. The medical man attends at the residence indicated,
acquaints himself with all the circumstances of the illness, and reports in
writing relative to the following particulars:—1. The Christian and surname
of the deceased; 2. The sex; 3. If married or not; 4. The age ; 5. The pro
fession ; 6. The exact date and hour of the decease ; 7. The ‘ quartier,’ the
street, the number and story of the house in which it occurred ; 8. The nature
of the illness, and if there be any reason for making an autopsy ; 9. The
duration of the illness ; 10. The name of the persons who provided the medi
cines ; 11. The names of the doctors and others who attended the case.
Besides this verification made by the doctors belonging to each ‘ quartier ’ of
Paris, by an order of the Prefect of the Seine, April, 1839, a committee was
formed to watch over the service. The medical men who attest the facts
connected with death at Paris are called the ‘ Medecins-V6rificateurs des d£c£s.’
In Vienna, a similar document is always prepared, and perhaps with still
greater care and minuteness. The same may be said of Munich, Frankfort,
Geneva, and other Continental cities.
D
�34
CREMATION.
particularly in the principality of Wales. But it occurs also
in the heart of London. A good many certificates of death
are signed every year in London by some non-medical persons.
In one metropolitan parish, not long ago, which I can name,
but do not, above forty deaths were registered in a year on
the mere statement of neighbours of the deceased. No medical
certificate was procurable, and no inquest was held ; the bodies
were buried without inquiry. This practice is not illegal;
and, in my opinion, it goes far to make a case for the appoint
ment of a ‘ Medecin-Verificateur.’ During the existence of
pestilence especially, such a safeguard is necessary. Before I
quit this subject, let me make a brief extract from evidence
given by Mr. Simon before the Royal Sanitary Commission in
186.9, from which it appears that medical certification of death
is not the rule, but the exception, in some districts of Wales.
He says :—
‘ The returns of death made to the Registrar-General are
necessarily imperfect. . . . We had to make inquiry on one
occasion as to the supposed very large prevalence of phthisis
in some of the South Wales counties. ... It turned out
that this great appearance of phthisis in the death registers
depended upon the fact that the causes, of death were only
exceptionally certified by medical men. I remember that in
one case only 15 per cent, of the deaths had been medically
certified. The non-medical certifiers of death thought that
“ consumption ” was a good word to cover death generally,
so that any one who died somewhat slowly was put down as
dying of “consumption,” and this appeared in the RegistrarGeneral’s returns as phthisis.’
Dr. Sutherland long ago called attention to this matter.
I quote his remarks from the work above named. Referring
to Paris, Munich, and other cities, he says:—
‘ Where there are regularly appointed verificators ....
who are generally medical men in practice .... the districts
of the city are divided between them. . . . The instructions
under which these officers act are of a very stringent cha
racter, and the procedure is intended to obviate premature
interment, and to detect crime. The French and the German
�35
CREMATION.
method of verification is intended to
preventive. A number
of instances were mentioned to me in which crimes which
would otherwise have escaped notice were detected by the
keen and practised eye of the Verificator, and the general
opinion certainly was that much crime was prevented.’ 1
This is but an episode in treating of Cremation; a very
important one nevertheless. I have therefore thought it right
to take this opportunity of advocating a more stringent pro
vision than now exists for an official inspection and certificate
in all cases of death.
Lastly, it would be possible, at much less cost than is at
present incurred for burial, to preserve, in every case of death,
the stomach, and a portion of one of the viscera, say for fifteen
or twenty years or thereabouts, so that in the event of any
suspicion subsequently occurring, greater facility for examina
tion would exist than by the present method of exhumation.
Nothing could be more certain to check the designs of the
poisoner than the knowledge that the proofs of his crime, in
stead of being buried in the. earth (from whence, as a fact,
not one in a hundred thousand is ever disinterred for exami
nation) are safely preserved in a public office, and that they
can be produced against him at any moment. The universal
application of this plan, although easily practicable, is how
ever obviously unnecessary. It is quite certain that no pretext
for such conservation can exist in more than one instance in
every five hundred deaths. In the remainder, the fatal result
would be attributed without mistake to some natural cause—
as decay, fever, consumption, or other malady, the signs of
which are clear even to a tyro in the medical art. But in
any case in which the slightest doubt arises in the mind of
the medical attendant, or in which the precaution is desired
or suggested by a relative, or whenever the subject himself
may have desired it, nothing would be easier than to make
the requisite conservation. As before stated, the existence of
an official verificator would relieve the ordinary medical at
tendant of the case from active interference in the matter. If
then the public is earnest in its endeavour to render exceedOp. cit.
d
2
�36
CREMATION.
ingly difficult or impossible the crime of secret poisoning,—
and it ought to be so if the objection to Cremation on this
ground is a valid one, the sooner some measures are taken to
this end the better, whether burial in earth or Cremation be
the future method of treating our dead.
I must add one word in reply to a critic who rather hastily
objected that the estimate in my original paper of the mean
cost of burials in London as about 10Z. per head is too high.
I have re-examined my calculations and find it, if in error at
all, too low. Curiously enough, in going through Dr. Edwin
Chadwick’s work, already referred to, for other purposes, I
find that he also made a similar calculation thirty years ago,
and that his estimate is rather higher than mine. He puts it
at more than 600,000Z. for the metropolis, when the popula
tion was a little more than one-half what it is now; I reck
oned 800,000Z. for the year 1873. And he considers the cost
of funerals for England and Wales to be, at that time, nearly
five millions sterling. He includes cost of transit, which I
omit, as being necessary equally with Cremation and burial,
so that the difference between us is not considerable.
To sum up :—
For the purposes of Cremation nothing is required but an
apparatus of a suitable kind, the construction of which is well
understood and easy to accomplish. With such apparatus the
process is rapid and inoffensive, and the result is perfect.
The space necessary for the purpose is small, and but little
skilled labour is wanted.
Not only is its employment compatible with religious rites,
but it enables them to be conducted with greater ease and
with far greater safety to the attendants than at a cemetery.
For example, burial takes place in the open air, and necessi
tates exposure to all weathers, while Cremation is necessarily
conducted within a building, which may be constructed to
meet the requirements of mourners and attendants in relation
to comfort and taste.
Cremation destroys instantly all infectious quality in the
body submitted to the process, and effectually prevents the
possibility of other injury to the living from the remains at
�37
CREMATION.
any future time. All care to prevent such evil is obviously
unnecessary, and ceases from the moment the process com
mences. The aim of Cremation is to prevent the process of
putrefaction.
On the other hand, Burial cannot be conducted without
serious risks to the living, and great care is required to ren
der them inconsiderable with our present population. Costly
cemeteries also are necessary with ample space for all possible
demands upon it, and complete isolation from the vicinity of
the living, to ensure, as far as possible, the absence of danger
io them.
It is a process designed essentially to prolong decay and
putrefaction with all its attendant mischief; and the best that
can be affirmed of it is, that in the course of many years it
arrives, by a process which is antagonistic to the health of
survivors, at results similar to, but less complete, than Cre
mation produces in an hour without injury to any.
Henry Thompson.
��CBEMATION OB BUBIAL P
BY
SIR T. SPENCER WELLS, Bart.,
Late President of the Royal College of Surgeons, Surgeon to the Queen's
Household, <&c.
A Paper
read at the Meeting of the British Medical
Association in Cambridge, August 1880.
There are, no doubt, many members of the British Medical
Association who have not thought very much about the evils
of the present mode of burying the dead in this and many
other parts of the world. There are many more who have not
heard at all, or have thought very little, of recent proposals to
reform the present system, or to substitute for it one which
can be proved to be far better. It is scarcely forty years since
the causes of the high rate of mortality, and the means of pre
venting disease, attracted much attention in our profession ;
and the necessity for sanitary regulations was impressed upon
public opinion. The influence of light and air, of a supply of
pure water, of good drainage, ventilation, and cleanliness, as
means of preventing disease and prolonging life in large towns,
populous districts, and the country generally ; the influence of
employments upon health; the habits of different classes of the
people; the condition of their dwellings ; the injurious effects
of many nuisances, and the inadequacy of power for prevent
ing them, are all subjects of recent study, and do not yet form
a sufficiently defined part of medical education.
It is quite unnecessary here to remind you of the beneficial
influence upon the public health and the longevity of the nation
exercised by our profession during the last forty years; but
it does appear to me to be necessary to call for the earnest
�40
. CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
attention of the Association to one source of danger which is
increasing every year—the burial of the dead. It is about
forty years since a member of our body, Mr. Walker, wrote
the remarkable work on graveyards which led to the special
inquiry into the practice of interment in towns, and the
admirable report of Mr. Edwin Chadwick, which was presented
to Parliament in 1843. The evidence he adduced as to the
propagation of disease from decaying or putrefying human
bodies was amply sufficient to prove the dangerous tendency
of all interments in churches or in towns, and led to the
removal of many burial-places from towns or crowded districts
into suburban cemeteries.
The effects have been salutary.
But, with a rapid increase of population, we are now beginning
to suffer from the evils which Mr. Chadwick foretold, namely,
‘ shifting the evil from the centre of the populous districts to
the suburbs, and deteriorating them ’ ... ‘ increasing the
duration and sum of the existing evils.’ Many of our sub
urban cemeteries are now very much in the condition of town
graveyards forty years ago; and the attention of thoughtful
men outside the bounds of our profession has already been
directed to a growing evil. Only last year, at the opening of
the Social Science Congress at Manchester, the respected and
beloved bishop of the diocese, in opening the congress, thus
referred to the recent consecration of anew cemetery. ‘ Here,’
he said, ‘ is another hundred acres of land withdrawn from
the food-producing area of the country for ever.’ And he
added, ‘ I feel convinced that, before long, we shall have to
face this problem, How to bury our dead out of our sight,
more practically and more seriously than we have hitherto
done. In the same sense in which the “ Sabbath was made for
man, and not man for the Sabbath,” I hold that the earth was
made, not for the dead, but for the living. No intelligent faith
can suppose that any Christian doctrine is affected by the
manner in which, or the time in which, this mortal body of
ours crumbles into dust and sees corruption.’ And he con
cludes : ‘ This is a subject that will have to be seriously con
sidered before long. Cemeteries are becoming not only a diffi
culty, an expense, and an inconvenience, but an actual danger.’
�CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
41
In the debate on the Burials Bill in the House of Lords on
June 24th, the Earl of Beaconsfield said that what is called
‘ God’s acre ’ is ‘ really not adapted to the country which we
inhabit, the times in which we live, and the spirit of the age.
What I should like to see would be a settlement of this ques
tion by the shutting up of all God’s acres throughout the
country. I think the churchyard of the ordained minister, and
the graveyard of the dissenting minister, alike, are institutions
which are very prejudicial to. the health of the people of this
country ; and their health ought to be, if not the first, at any
rate, one of the first considerations of a statesman. Now we
have been moving gradually in the direction of these views,
and there has been for some years a notion, soon about to
amount, I believe, to a conviction, that the institution of
churchyards is one which is highly prejudicial to the public
health. I think it would be a much wiser step if we were to
say that the time has arrived, seeing the vast increase of
population in this country and the increase which we may
contemplate, when we should close all these churchyards, and
when we should take steps for furnishing every community
with a capacious and ample cemetery, placed in a situation in
which, while it would meet all the requirements of the society
for which it was intended, would exercise no prejudicial in
fluence on the public health.’ And he concluded his speech
in these terms :—‘ I think the direction in which we ought to
have moved would have been to shut all these churchyards
and graveyards, and to have assisted the Government in some
adequate proposal which would have furnished the country
with cemeteries in which none of these painful controversies
could have occurred, and which would have conduced to the
preservation of the health and welfare of the country.’
The impressive exhortation of the Bishop of Manchester,
from which I have just quoted, was the result, as he tells us,
of the perusal of two very able papers written by one of the
most distinguished members of our own body, Sir H. Thomp
son, and published in the ‘ Contemporary Review ’ in 1874.
The first paper, on the ‘ Treatment of the Body after Death,,
led to a reply from Mr. Holland, then Medical Inspector of
�42
CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
Burials in England, which contains a summary of all that can
be said in defence of cemeteries. But the rejoinder of Sir H.
Thompson is a masterly exposition of the evils of our present
mode of interment, with an answer to many of the objections
to cremation as a substitute for burial, and some account of
modern improved apparatus for burning dead bodies at a
moderate expense, without any nuisance, and with due regard
to the sentiments of surviving relatives. I trust that Sir
Henry may be induced to reprint his papers in a form easily
accessible to the people. One of the first effects of the perusal
of Sir H. Thompson’s papers was the association together of
a small number of men, and the formation of the Cremation
Society of England, numbering, among members of this
Association, notably Mr. Ernest Hart and Mr. Lord. I have
here the first part of the Transactions of this Society. It
forms a pamphlet of only sixty-six pages, but it contains a
great deal of information as to cremation at home and abroad,
up to the date of the sixth anniversary of the Society last
January. It may surprise many to learn that cremation is
already legalised in parts of Germany and in Italy ; that cre
matoria have been erected and used in Gotha and in Milan
and Lodi, and that a society has been established in Rome.
A phrase in the sanitary laws of Switzerland which forbade
cremation has been removed, and a piece of ground in the new
cemetery at Zurich has been set apart for the erection of a
crematorium.
On June 16tli last, Professor Polli (whose researches on the
antiseptic action of the sulphites and hyposulphites I brought
before the Association in this town sixteen years ago, in an
address on the causes of excessive mortality after surgical
operations) who, in late years, had been one of the most
ardent supporters of cremation, who had himself proposed a
method which was the first tried in Italy, had his body, by his
own express desire, cremated, and his ashes were consigned
to their resting-place, with all due solemnity, in the presence
of mourning relatives. This cremation was the sixty-eighth
which has taken place in Milan since January 1876.
Several large cremation societies have been formed in
�CREMATION OR BURIAL?
43
Switzerland. One large society in Holland has several branches.
In France, the Paris Municipality has called for designs for
the best form of furnace. In Belgium, one society in Brussels
has more than four hundred members, and M. Creteur has
been thanked by the Government for the successful cremation
of the bodies of soldiers killed near Sedan. In America, cre
mation has already been practised at Washington, and several
societies have been formed; and the Brazilian Government is
about to erect a crematorium at Bio de Janeiro.
While all this has been going on in the European continent
and in America, the Cremation Society of England has been
working on quietly but earnestly, has purchased an acre of
freehold land near Woking, has erected a Crematorium on the
model of the Gorini furnace, which is the most approved in
Italy, and has experimentally proved that the body of an
animal may be reduced to a clean innocuous ash, weighing
about a twentieth of the unburnt body, at a very small cost,
and without any appreciable odour or visible smoke.
The Society has obtained the very highest legal authority,
and the admission of the late Home Secretary, that cremation
is not illegal, provided it be practised without nuisance, or
leading to a breach of the peace. But Sir B. Cross obtained
from the Council a promise that, before burning a human
body, they would endeavour to carry a short Bill through
Parliament, or to obtain the insertion of a clause in some
Burial Bill, affirming that cremation might be legally prac
tised, and under proper regulations. Hitherto, the Council
have been unable to obtain this parliamentary sanction, and
it remains to be seen how far Sir William Harcourt will con
sider the Council bound to the present Government by their
promise to his predecessor in the Home Office. After any
discussion which may follow this paper, I trust many of you
will sign an address to him, which I will read after I have
asked you whether the time has not arrived when cremation
should be supported by the British Medical Association, col
lectively, and by each of its branches. The sanitary advan
tages over burial in coffins, or in wicker baskets, are undeniable
and very great. Most of them are so well known to you all,
�44
CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
that I may pass them by without further mention ; but I
must allude to one most remarkable argument in favour of
cremation which has just been advanced by Pasteur, after his
examination of the soil of fields where cattle had been buried,
whose death had been caused by that fatal disease known as
‘ charbon,’ or splenic fever. The observations of our own Dar
win ‘on the formation of mould,’ made more than forty years
ago, when he was a young man, are curiously confirmatory of
the recent conclusions of Pasteur. In Darwin’s paper, read
at the Geological Society of London, in 1837, he proved that,
in old pasture-land, every particle of the superficial layer of
earth, overlying different kinds of subsoil, has passed through
the intestines of earth-worms. The wTorms swallow earthy
matter, and, after separating the digestible or serviceable por
tion, they eject the remainder in little coils or heaps at the
mouth of their burrows. In dry weather the worm descends
to a considerable depth, and brings up to the surface the
particles which it ejects. This agency of earth-worms is not
so trivial as it might appear. By observation in different
fields, Mr. Darwin proved, in one case, that a depth of more
than three inches of this worm-mould had been accumulated
in fifteen years; and, in another, that the earth-worms had
covered a bed of marl with their mould in eighty years to an
average depth of thirteen inches.
Pasteur’s recent researches on the etiology of ‘ charbon ’
show that this earth-mould positively contains the specific
germs which propagate the disease ; and that the same specific
germs are found within the intestines of the worms. The
parasitic organism, or bacteridium, which, inoculated from a
diseased to a healthy animal, propagates the specific disease,
may be destroyed by putrefaction after burial. But, before
this process has been completed, germs or spores may have
been formed which will resist the putrefactive process for
many years, and lie in a condition of latent life, like a grain
of corn, or any flower-seed, ready to germinate, and commu
nicate the specific disease. In a field in the Jura, where a
diseased cow had been buried two years before, at a depth of
nearly seven feet, the surface-earth not having been disturbed
�CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
45
in the interval, Pasteur found that the mould contained germs
which, introduced by inoculation into a guinea-pig, produced
charbon and death. And, further, if a worm be taken from
an infected spot, the earth in the alimentary canal of the worm
contains these spores or germs of charbon, which, inoculated,
propagate the disease. And the mould deposited on the sur
face by the worms, when dried into dust, is blown over the
grass and plants on which the cattle feed, and may thus spread
the disease. After various farming operations of tilling and
harvest, Pasteur has found the germs just over the graves of
the diseased cattle, but not to any great distance. After rains,
or morning dews, the germs of charbon, with a quantity of
other germs, were found about the neighbouring plants : and
Pasteur suggests that, in cemeteries, it is very possible that
germs capable of propagating specific diseases of different
kin da, quite harmless to the earth-worm, may be carried to
the surface of the soil ready to cause disease in the proper
animals. The practical inferences in favour of cremation are
so strong that, in Pasteur’s words, they ‘ need not be enforced.’
And now a word as to the sentimental objections to cre
mation. The Bishop of Manchester, in the address to which I
before alluded, admits that his sentiments are ‘ somewhat
revolted by the idea of cremation; ’ but he adds, ‘ they are,
perhaps, illogical and unreasonable sentiments.’ We all know
how difficult it is to convince illogical and unreasonable people ,*
they must be left to the influence of time and example. But
it is of importance to show to all that reason, and true senti
ment, and good feeling of reverence for the dead, of affection
ate regard for their memory, are more logically and reason
ably associated with a purifying fire than with decay, putre
faction, and danger to the living; and on this important part
of the subject I am glad to bring before you the book of my
friend Mr. Robinson, who has done so much of late years to
improve our gardens, parks, and open spaces, and who is one of
the Council of the Cremation Society. He calls this book ‘ God’s
Acre Beautiful, or the Cemeteries of the Future.’ He argues
that the resting-places of the dead should be ‘ permanent, un
polluted, inviolate ; ’ that permanent beautiful cemeteries could
�46
CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
be easily maintained if urn-burial were practised; that existing
graveyards and cemeteries can only be of temporary use; that
their monuments and memorial stones soon decay or crumble
away; and that urn-burial might lead in the future, as it has
done in the past, to more noble and enduring monuments.
Let me read to you a page from Mr. Robinson’s book.
‘ By the adoption of urn-burial, all that relates to the
artistic embellishment of a cemetery would be at once placed
on a very different footing. One of the larger burial-grounds
now closed, perforce, in a less time than that of an ordinary
life, would accommodate a like number of burials on an im
proved system for many ages. The neglect and desecration
of the resting-places of the dead, inherent to the present
system, would give place to unremitting and loving care, for
the simple, reason that each living generation would be as much
interested in the preservation of the cemetery as those that
had gone before were at any previous time in its history. We
should at once have what is so much to be desired from artistic
and other points of view—a permanent resting-place for our
dead. With this would come the certainty that any memorials
erected to their memory would be carefully preserved in the
coming years, and free from the sacrilege and neglect so often
seen. Hence an incentive to art which might be not unworthy
of such places. The knowledge that our cemeteries would be
sacred—would be sacred to all, and jealously preserved by
all, through the coming generations—would effect much in
this new field for artistic effort. In days when careful attention
is bestowed upon the designs of trifling details of our houses,
it is to be hoped that we shall soon be ashamed of the present
state of what should be the beautiful and unpolluted rest
garden of all that remains of those whom we have known, or
loved, or honoured in life, or heard of in death as having lived
not unworthy of their kind. Such a revolution in our burial
arrangements will not come suddenly ; but perhaps a little
reflection may serve to convince those who have feelings of
repulsion to urn-burial that, as a matter of fact, less dis
honour is done to the remains of those whom one loves in
subjecting them to a fire which reduces them to ashes which
�CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
47
can be carefully preserved, than in allowing them to become
the subjects of the loathsome process of corruption first, and
then subjecting them to the chance of being ultimately carted
away to make room for some metropolitan or local improve
ment.’
The preservation of inscriptions and memorials,
whether in or around churches and public buildings, the
erection of beautiful tombs with urns as family burying-places,
would be worthy objects for the best efforts of artistic design.
As to the ceremony of burial and performance of any
religious service, distinguished members of the clergy of the
Church of England have shown that scarcely any alteration
would be called for in our burial-service ; and it is felt that,
as urn-burial might be practised to any extent and for any
length of time in or around churches and public buildings, in
towns as well as in distant cemeteries, and without the ex
pensive transport and ugly expensive forms of our present
system of burial, men might again, as of old, rest in death
near the scene of their work in life ; and the restoration of
the family tomb to the chapel or crypt would renew and add
to the tie between the family and the church. Our places of
worship and the spaces which surround them, if urn-burial
became general, would be amply sufficient for the preservation
of the remains of our dead for generations to come, and would
enable us to convert existing cemeteries, which are rapidly
becoming sources of danger to the public health, into perma
nently beautiful gardens. Instead of filling up large spaces
with decaying dead bodies, we should have natural gardens,
open lawns, pure air, fine trees, lovely flowers, and receptacles
for vases, which, as well as the cinerary urns and chests
themselves, might be made important helps in the culture of
art. In country houses, urn-burial would lead to family
burial places within the grounds, and encourage monumental
work of high artistic merit; and, in the country church, the
ashes of the people might repose in the place where they
worshipped, instead of polluting the earth of the surrounding
churchyard and the water drunk by the surviving population,
or being carried to a distant cemetery, which overcrowding
must in time make only a very temporary resting-place.
�48
CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
The ‘ earth to earth ’ system, as it is called, so ably advo
cated by my friend Mr. Haden—the burial in porous wicker
baskets, instead of wooden or leaden coffins—has some advan
tages. It is somewhat cheaper, and decay is more rapid; but
the ground is for a long time occupied by what pollutes earth,
air, and water. Mr. Haden’s argument that, as a body, after
coffinless burial, decays away in about six years, we may
‘ bury again in the same ground with no other effect than to
increase its substance and to raise its surface,’ surely strikes
at the root of all sentiment of reverence or affection for the
dead—and, with what hazard to the living, the recent re
searches of Pasteur are amply sufficient to prove. In addition
to the dangers from simple putrefaction polluting earth, air,
and water, we have to consider the dissemination of the germs
of specific contagious diseases. Liquid animal matter oozing
from putrefying corpses in a churchyard may possibly be so
purified by the oxidising power of a few feet of earth as to be
bright, clear, and inoffensive to any of our senses ; but water
which is neither cloudy nor stinking, but rather enticing and
popular, like the water of the Broad Street pump in 1874,
has carried cholera to those who drank it.
How often
typhoid fever has been caused in the same manner, who
can tell ?
But I must not detain you longer. Here is the Address
to the Home Secretary, and I hope it may be signed by many
who are convinced that the present custom of burying the
dead is associated with evils which ought to be remedied.
‘ We, the undersigned members of the British Medical
Association assembled at Cambridge, disapprove the present
custom of burying the dead, and desire to substitute some
mode which shall rapidly resolve the body into its component
elements by a process which cannot offend the living, and
may render the remains absolutely innocuous. Until some
better mode is devised, we desire to promote that usually
known as cremation. As this process can now be carried out
without anything approaching to nuisance, and as it is not
illegal, we trust the Government will not oppose the practice
when convinced that proper regulations are observed, and
�CREMATION OR BURIAL ?
49
that ampler guarantees of death having occurred from natural
causes are obtained than are now required for burial.’
In conclusion, let me ask you to think on the following
propositions :—
Decomposing human remains so pollute earth, air, and
water, as to diminish the general health and average duration
of the life of our people.
Existing churchyards and cemeteries are not well fitted as
safe, secure, permanent, innocuous places of repose for the
remains of our dead.
The expense of funerals and interment in graves presses
unduly upon the means of the middle and labouring classes.
The present system of registration of death is so imperfect,
that common causes of preventible disease are not detected ;
and life is also rendered insecure by the omission of efficient
arrangements for the due verification of the fact and causes
of death.
These evils might be mitigated or prevented—(1) if
national cemeteries were provided and maintained, under the
direction of duly qualified officers of public health, and not
left, as now, to be sources of private gain to commercial
companies; (2) if no interment were allowed without a cer
tificate of the fact and the cause of death by an officer of
public health.
All this should be urged by those who are content to im
prove on our present mode of burial. Those who will go
further, who will assist in the attempt to arrest the evils in
separable from even the very best mode of burial, who would
add to our reverence for the remains of the dead, ensure an
impressive religious service, and at a reduced expenditure
provide for permanent monuments in beautiful open public
spaces, may at the same time prove the influence which our
Association can exert, and ought to exert, upon the health
and morals of the Nation.
�50
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CREMATION SOCIETY
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CREMATION
SOCIETY OF ENGLAND AND HER MAJESTY’S
GOVERNMENT. 1879-80.
A considerable amount of correspondence has taken place
between the Cremation Society of England and the two
Secretaries of State for the Home Department, Sir Richard
A. Cross and Sir William V. Harcourt; and the Council of
the Cremation Society has published the following corre
spondence. The whole will doubtless be read with consider
able interest, seeing that this sanitary reform has been
already practised in Italy and in Germany.
The Cremation Society was founded in January 1874 by
a number of gentlemen eminent in science and art, and has
since been more or less actively occupied in prosecuting the
objects for which it was instituted. These have on one occa
sion only been brought before Parliament—viz. in March,
1879, when the action of the Society was made the subject of
a question in the House of Lords, followed, however, by no
practical result.
The following is a copy of the correspondence referred to,
which began immediately after the reception by Sir R. Cross
of a deputation from Woking and the neighbourhood, protest
ing against the building of a crematorium, which was then
in course of erection near that place.
The Secretary of the Cremation Society to the Right Hon. R. A.
Cross, Secretary of State for the Home Department.
11 Argyll Street, London : Feb. 3, 1879.
Sir,—Referring to the published report of the proceedings on
the occasion of a deputation which waited upon you relative to the
establishment of a crematory at Woking, I am instructed by the
�51
AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.
executive body of the council of the Cremation Society, for -which I
act, a list of which council is herewith attached, to lay before you
the following facts :—
The Cremation Society of England was founded in 1874, with
purely public objects, and not for gain, by a number of scientific
and other gentlemen, on the basis of the following declaration, which
has been very numerously signed. Cremation Society.—Crema
tion having now been performed with perfect success, a society has
been constituted on the basis of the following declaration, which
has been influentially signed :—‘ We disapprove the present custom
of burying the dead, and desire to substitute some mode which shall
rapidly resolve the body into its component elements by a process
which cannot offend the living, and shall render the remains abso
lutely innocuous. Until some better method is devised we desire
to adopt that usually known as cremation.’ A great number of
adhesions to this were afterwards sent in, and subscriptions were
received. The earliest duty of the council was to ascertain whether
cremation could be legally performed in this country, and a case
was drawn up and submitted to eminent counsel. A copy of
opinion is enclosed herewith, and being in favour of the proposed
reform the council decided to go on. A still more decidedly favour
able opinion was given in writing, although unofficially, by Lord
Selborne to one of the council. In 1875 it was proposed to erect a
building for the performance of the rite, and a large sum of money
was subscribed for the purpose. A piece of ground was offered to
the society in the Great Northern Cemetery of London, and a
building would have been at once erected had the bishop of the
diocese not objected to its establishment in consecrated ground.
The history of the society at this stage will be seen in the report
sent herewith. Soon after this it appeared that in several parts of
Europe and in America cremation was becoming permissive, and
several cremations took place in Milan, Dresden, and other places.
Still later on, cremation was permitted in Gotha. A paper, de
scriptive of the systems in use in Europe and America, also accom
panies this communication. This paper also furnishes a list of the
modern cremations up to that date. The last cremation at Gotha
was attended by a great many of the clergy. A short translation
from a journal describing this ceremony is enclosed. After much
seeking for a secluded yet accessible spot, a piece of ground not far
from the cemetery at Woking was obtained, and the council of the
society thought this a suitable site for a crematory pyre, as being
near the Necropolis, and having a service of trains suitable for the
conveyance of the dead. It may here be repeated that the society
E 2
�52
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CREMATION SOCIETY
is not in any way a trading society, but simply a scientific society.
In order that the scope and aim of the society may be fully under
stood, I enclose a copy of No. 1 of the Transactions of the society,,
in which are set forth its rules and regulations. I am further in
structed to say that some of the members of council will be happy towait upon you, if agreeable to your wish, with further information, or
for the purpose of learning your views in the matter of their further
procedure, at any time you may appoint. The society have through
out aimed at carrying on what they believe to be hygienic reform,
with thoughtful consideration of the sentiments and interests of
other persons concerned, and they are anxious at this stage, as at
all others, to proceed in the same spirit.—I am, &c.,
W. Eassie, C.E.,
Engineer and Secretary to the Society.
The Under-Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Cremation
Society.
Whitehall: Feb. 7, 1879.
Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of State 'to acknowledge1
the receipt of your letter of the 3rd inst., and enclosures explaining
the objects of the society calling itself the Cremation Society, and
giving the names of the principal members constituting the council
of the society; and with reference to the wish conveyed in your
letter of the council of the society to see the Secretary of State on
the subject of the objections in the way of carrying out the design
of the society, I am to inform you that the Secretary of State will
shortly make an appointment for the purpose of receiving such a
deputation.—I am, &c.,
A. F. 0. Liddell.
W. Eassie, Esq., C.E., 11 Argyll Street, W.
The Assistant Under-Secretary of State to the Secretary of the
Cremation Society.
Whitehall: Feb. 21, 1879.
Sir,—With reference to your letter and enclosures of the 3rd
inst., I am directed by Mr. Secretary Cross to request that you will
bring before the gentlemen, forming the council of the association
calling itself the Cremation Society, the following observations on
the subject of the introduction into this country of the practice of
burning the remains of the dead, now generally known as the prac
tice of cremation, which it appears that the above society has been
organised to promote. Mr. Cross does not propose to enter intothe question whether or not the system of cremation is in accord-
�AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.
53
aneo with the feelings of the public, or with respect due by law to
-dead bodies ; it is sufficient for him to point out that it is a system
which, in this country, is entirely novel, and that, whether or not
the law forbids it altogether, the public interest requires that it
should not be adopted until many matters of great social import
have been duly considered and provided for. Burial can be followed
by exhumation, but the process of cremation is final; the result of
the practice therefore would be, that it would tend, in cases where
death has been occasioned by violence or poison, to defeat the
-ends of justice ; there will no longer be an opportunity for that ex
amination, which, in so many cases, has led to the detection and
punishment of crime. The practice of ordinary burial has become
interwoven with the legislative arrangements of the country, and is
■closely connected with various safeguards respecting death, with
the statistics of death, and with the evidence of death. The
minister buries a corpse on the production of a certificate of death
and its cause ; the burial ensures the certificate, the certificate
ensures the certainty of death, and is a check against foul practices.
Again, the form in which the certificate is produced to the minister
is that given by the Registrar, who issues the certificate in exchange
for that of the medical attendant, and thus the statistical object is
secured. Further, the certificate of burial is, in all legal proceed
ings, the proper and most economical form of the evidence of death.
All these objects would be frustrated by the practice of cremation,
unless that practice were in its turn surrounded by legislative pro
visions analogous to those which surround burial. I am, therefore,
to acquaint you, for the information of the promoters of the Crema
tion Society, that Mr. Cross cannot acquiesce in the continuance of
the undertaking of the society to carry out the practice of cremation,
either at their works now in progress at Woking or elsewhere in
this country, until Parliament has authorised such a practice by
either a special or general Act, and that if the undertaking is
persisted in it will be his duty either to test its legality in a court
of law or to apply to Parliament for an Act to prohibit it until
Parliament has had an opportunity of considering the whole subject.
-—I am, &c.,
Godfrey Lushington.
The Secretary of the Cremation Society,
11 Argyll Street, London, W.
�54
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CREMATION SOCIETY
The Secretary of the Cremation Society to the Right ITon. R. A.
Cross, Her Majesty1 s Secretary of State, Home Department.
11 Argyll Street, London : Feb. 28, 1879.
Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter referring to the practice of cremation, and beg to state that I
will, as soon as possible, call a meeting of the council of the
Cremation Society, and lay it before them, after which I will take
the first opportunity of communicating to you the results of that
meeting.—I am, &c.,
W. Eassie.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Secretary
of the Cremation Society. •
March 18, 1879.
Sir,—I am desired by the Secretary of State to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 17th inst., and to acquaint you, in
reply, that he will be glad to receive a deputation from the pro
moters of inquiry into the value of cremation at 12.30 o’clock on
Tuesday, the 20th inst.
I am to add that the Secretary of State particularly requests
that the deputation may be as few in number as possible.—I am,
&c.,
A. F. 0. Liddell.
A deputation, consisting of the President, Sir Henry
Thompson, T. Spencer Wells, Esq., Ernest Hart, Esq.,
W. Robinson, Esq., and other members of Council, with the
Hon. Sec., Mr. W. Eassie, C.E., waited upon the Secretary
of State, and explained to him their views upon the subject
of cremation, and several members of the deputation briefly
addressed him.
Some portions of the bones of a horse
burned in the society’s crematory near Woking, on March 17$
a few days previously, were also exhibited to Mr. Secretary
Cross, in order to show the perfection of the process.
Mr. Cross, in reply, suggested that a bill might be brought
into the House of Lords so as to determine the matter upon
a legal basis, and remove any doubt as to the wisdom of
permitting cremation, as well as with a view of establishing
a proper system of registration.
On the receipt of a note from the President of the Cre
�AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.
55
mation Society, stating that the society wished to act in
conformity with the Government, in their procedure in the
matter, the next following letter was addressed to the Presi
dent of the society :—-
The Secretary of State for the Home Department to Sir Henry
Thompson.
Whitehall: March 24, 1879.
Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 20th inst., stating that it is the
intention of yourself and friends to act in strict conformity with the
wishes and directions of the Government in regard to the practice
of cremation.—I am, Sir,
A. F. 0. Liddell.
A change of Government having taken place, and the
council wishing to ascertain the views of the present Govern
ment, the Secretary wrote as follows :—
The Right Hon. Sir W. Harcourt, Secretary of State to the Home
Department.
11 Argyll Street, London, W.: Dec. 11,1880.
Sir,—I am instructed by the council of the Cremation Society
of England to write and ask you when it will be convenient for you
to receive a small deputation from the council, who desire to hand
you a memorial in favour of cremation, signed by members of the
British Association and others.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your
most obedient servant,
W. Eassie, Hon. Sec.
The Assistant Under-Secretary of State to the Secretary of the
Cremation Society.
Whitehall: Dec. 16,1880.
Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of State to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter of the 11th inst., requesting him to receive
a deputation from the council of the Cremation Society who desire
to present a memorial on the subject of cremation, and I am to
acquaint you that the Secretary of State is unable to receive the
proposed deputation, and to suggest that the council will submit
their views in writing.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Godfrey Lushington.
�56
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CREMATION SOCIETY
The Secretary of the Cremation Society to the Hight Hon. Sir
William Harcourt, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the
Home Department.
11 Argyll Street, London, W.: Dec. 24, 1880.
Sir,—In a letter of the 16th inst. you desire that, instead of
receiving a deputation from the Cremation Society, the council
should submit to you their views in writing. I am desired by the
council of the society to forward for your consideration an address
which was agreed to at a meeting, held last August in Cambridge,
of the Public Health section of the British Medical Association, and
which has been signed by one hundred and forty-three gentlemen,
whose names are appended to the address.
I also forward copies of a paper which was read at Cambridge
by Mr. T. Spencer Wells, one of the council of the Cremation
Society, and also a copy of the first part of the Transactions of the
society. Passages are marked both in the paper and in the Trans
actions, which set forth the result of a correspondence and of an
nterview with the late Secretary for the Home Department.
The present object of the council is to support the concluding
request of the Cambridge address, and to express the hope that we
may receive from you an assurance that the Government will not
oppose the practice of cremation in their crematorium, on the widertaking by the council that nothing like a nuisance can be caused
there, and that more ample guarantees of death having occurred
from natural causes will be insisted upon than are now required for
burial in churchyards or cemeteries.
The council desire at the same time to inform you that they
have found so much difficulty in acting upon the suggestion of Sir
Bichard Cross, as to obtaining a discussion in either House of Par
liament, that they do not consider the promise made to him as any
longer binding upon them, and they express the confident hope that
you will not consider Sir Richard Cross’s alternative of introducing
a prohibitory Act into Parliament as binding upon you.—I have the
honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant,
W. Eassie, Hon. Sec.
The address agreed to at Cambridge, mentioned above,
was as follows :—
4 We, the undersigned members of the British Medical Association
assembled at Cambridge, disapprove the present custom of burying
the dead, and desire to substitute some mode which shall rapidly
resolve the body into its component elements by a process which
�AND HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT.
57
cannot offend the living, and may render the remains abso
lutely innocuous. Until some better mode is devised, we desire to
promote that usually known as cremation. As this process can
now be carried out without anything approaching to nuisance,
and as it is not illegal, we trust the Government will not oppose
the practice when convinced that proper regulations are observed,
and that ampler guarantees of death having occurred from natural
causes are obtained than are now required for burial.’
The Secretary of State for the Some Department to the Secretary
of the Cremation Society.
Whitehall: Dec. 31, 1880.
Sir,—I am directed by Secretary Sir William Harcourt to
acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 24th inst., forwarding
a memorial signed by members of the British Medical Association
assembled at Cambridge (and other papers), praying that Her
Majesty’s Government may think fit not to interfere in the event
of the practice of cremation of bodies of the dead being adopted in
this country.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
A. F. 0. Liddell.
W. Eassie, Esq., 11 Argyll Street, London, W.
To the Hon. A. F. 0. Liddell, Home Office, Whitehall.
11 Argyll Street, London, W.: Jan. 28, 1882.
Sir,—Referring to my letter of December 24, 1880, as Secre
tary of the Cremation Society, and your letter of December 81
acknowledging its receipt, the council not having received any
further reply to the questions submitted to the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, Sir William Harcourt, begs leave now
to.submit the following question addressed to them by one of the
trustees of the society, Mr. Higford Burr :—‘ Supposing I were to
die now, directing my executors to have my body burnt in our
crematory at Woking, would my executors be liable to prosecution ? ’
They have also been asked to cremate the bodies of the mother
and wife of Captain Hanham, R.N., who have been buried under the
usual certificates, but who had expressed an earnest desire that
their bodies should be cremated. As the council are extremely
unwilling to proceed with any cremation without the knowledge
of the Home Secretary, and under conditions which shall ensure
the legality of the proceedings, I am desired to ask you to favour
the council with his decision as to the legality of cremation as
proposed by them. I am also instructed to ask if you will allow
�58
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT,
the council to submit to you for approval regulations in the practice
of cremation intended to prevent the destruction of evidence of
poisoning.—I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
W. Eassie,- Hon. Sec.
Whitehall: Feb. 14, 1882.
Sir,—I am directed by Secretary Sir William Vernon Harcourt
to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, in
quiring in behalf of the Cremation Society as to the legality of
their proposed method of disposing of the remains of the dead by
process of burning. And I am to acquaint you, for the information
of the gentlemen forming the above society, that Sir William Har
court can give no opinion in matters which belong to the jurisdiction
and decisions of courts of law. He can only refer the society to
the letters addressed to you from this department on February 21,
1879.
In Sir William Harcourt’s opinion the practice of cremation
ought not to be sanctioned except under the authority and regula
tion of an Act of Parliament.
It is the duty of those who desire to pursue such a practice to
obtain such an authority, and, until it is granted, Sir William Har
court must adhere to the view expressed by his predecessor in
office, as stated hi the letter above referred to.—I am, Sir, your
obedient servant,
Godfrey Lushington.
The correspondence up to the present time here closes.
�MB. JUSTICE STEPHEN
ON
THE LAW OF CREMATION.
Charge
to the
Grand Jury, at
in
the
Crown Court, Cardiff,
February 1884.
Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—There are a considerable
number of cases on the calendar, but, with one exception, they
are of the most ordinary kind, and the circumstances attending
them are of such a usual character that I shall not weary you
with dwelling upon them at all. One of the cases to be brought
before you is so singular in its character, and involves a legal
question of so much novelty and of such general interest, that
I propose to state at some length what I believe to be the law
upon the matter. I have given this subject all the considera
tion I could, and I am permitted to say that, although I alone
am responsible for what I am about to read to you, Lord
Justice Fry takes the same view of the subject as I do, and
for the same reasons. William Price is charged with a mis
demeanour under the following circumstances. He had in his
house a child five months old, of which he is said to be the
father. The child died. Mr. Price did not register its death.
The coroner accordingly gave him notice on a Saturday that
unless he sent a medical certificate of the cause of death, he
(the coroner) would hold an inquest on the body on the
following Monday. Mr. Price on the Sunday afternoon took
the body of the child to an open space, put it into a ten gallon
cask of petroleum, and set the petroleum on fire. A crowd
collected; the body of the child, which was burning, was
covered with earth and the flames extinguished, and Mr. Price
�60
MB. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON
was brought before the magistrates and committed for trial.
He will be indicted before you on a charge which in different
forms imputes to him as criminal two parts of what he is said
to have done—first, in having prevented the holding of an
inquest on the body; and secondly, in his having attempted to
burn the child’s body. With respect to the prevention of the
inquest, the law is that it is a misdemeanour to prevent the
holding of an inquest, which ought to be held, by disposing of
the body. It is essential to this offence that the inquest which
it is proposed to hold is one which ought to be held. The
coroner has not an absolute right to hold inquests in every
case in which he chooses to do so. It would be intolerable
if he had power to intrude without adequate cause upon
the privacy of a family in distress, and to interfere in their
arrangements for a funeral. Nothing can justify such an
interference, except a reasonable suspicion that there may
have been something peculiar in the death, and that it may
have been due to other causes than common illness. In such
cases the coroner not only may, but ought, to hold an inquest,
and to prevent him from doing so by disposing of the body in
any way—for an inquest must be held on the view of the
body—is a misdemeanour.
The depositions in the present
case do not very clearly show why the coroner considered an
inquest necessary. If you think that the conduct of Dr. Price
was such as to give him fair grounds for holding one, you
ought to find a true bill, for beyond all question he did as
much as in him lay to dispose of the body in such a manner
as to make an inquest impossible. The other part charged as
criminal is the attempt made by Dr. Price to burn his child’s
body, and this raises, in a form which makes it my duty to
direct you upon it, a question which has been several times
discussed, and which has attracted some public attention,
though, so far as I know, no legal decision upon it has
ever been given—the question, namely, whether it is a
misdemeanour at common law to burn a dead body
instead of burying it.
As there is no direct authority
upon the question, I have found it necessary in order to
form an opinion to examine several branches of the law
�THE LAW OF CREMATION.
61
which bear upon it more or less remotely, in order to
ascertain the principles on which it depends. The practice of
burning dead bodies prevailed to a considerable extent under
the Romans, as it does to this day among the Hindoos, though
it is said that the practice of burial is both older and more
general. It appears to have been discontinued in this country
and in other parts of Europe when Christianity was fully
established, as the destruction of the body by fire was con
sidered, for reasons to which I need not refer here, to be
opposed to Christian sentiment; but this change took place
so long ago, and the substitution of burial for burning was so
complete, that the burning of the dead has never been for
mally forbidden, or even mentioned or referred to, so far as I
know, in any part of our law. The subject of burial was
formerly and for many centuries a branch of the ecclesiastical
or canon law. Among the English writers on this subject little
is to be found relating to burial. The subject was much more
elaborately and systematically studied in Roman Catholic
countries than in England, because the law itself prevailed
much more extensively in those countries. In the ‘ Jus Ecclesiasticum’ of Van Espen, a great authority on the subject,
there is an elaborate discourse, filling twenty-two folio pages
in double column, on the subject of burial, in which every
branch of the subject is systematically arranged and discussed,
with references to numerous authorities. The only import
ance of it is that it shares the view of the Canonists on thesubject, which view had great influence on our own eccle
siastical lawyers, though only a small part of the canon law
itself was ever introduced into this country. Without giving
specific reference, I may say that the whole of the title in Van
Espen regards the participation in funeral rites as a privilege
to which, subject to certain conditions, all the members of the
Church were entitled, and the deprivation of which was a kind
of posthumous punishment analogous to the excommunication
of the living. The great question with which the writer
occupies himself is—In what cases ought burial to-be denied?
The general principle is that those who are not worthy of
Church privileges in life are also to be excluded from them in
�62
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON
death. As to the manner in which the dead bodies of persons
deprived of burial were to be disposed of, Van Espen says only
that although in some instances the civil power may have
entirely forbidden burial, whereby bodies may remain un
buried or exposed to the sight of all, to be devoured by beasts
or destroyed by the weather (he considers the dissection of
criminals as a case of this kind), the Church has never made
such a provision, and has never prohibited the covering of
dead corpses with the earth. This way of looking at the sub
ject seems to explain how the law came to be silent on ex
ceptional ways of disposing of dead bodies. The question was
in what cases burial must be refused. As for the way of dis
posing of bodies to which it was refused, the matter escaped
attention, being probably regarded as a matter which affected
those only who were so unfortunate as to have charge
of such corpses.
The famous judgment of Lord Stowell
in the case of iron coffins (Gilbert v. Buzzard, 2 Haggard,
Consistory Reports 333) which constitutes an elaborate trea
tise on burial, proceeds upon the same principles.
The
law presumes that every one will wish that the bodies
of those in whom he was interested in their lifetime should
have Christian burial. The probability of a man enter
taining and acting upon a different view is not considered.
These considerations explain the reason why the law is silent
as to the practice of burning the dead. Before I come to con-,
sider its legality directly, it will be well to examine some analo
gous topics which throw light upon it. There is one practice
which has an analogy to funereal burning, inasmuch as it
constitutes an exceptional method of dealing with dead bodies.
I refer to anatomy. Anatomy was practised in England as
far back as the very beginning of the seventeenth century. It
continued to be practised, so far as I know, without any inter
ference on the part of the legislature, down to the year 1832,
in which year was passed the Act for regulating the Schools of
Anatomy. This Act recites * the importance of anatomy, and
that the legal supply of human bodies for such anatomical
study is insufficient fully to provide the means of such know
ledge.’ It then makes provision for the supply of such bodies
�THE LAW OF CREMATION.
63
by enabling any executor or other party having lawful posses
sion of the body of any deceased person to permit the body to
be dissected except in certain cases. The effect of this has
been that the bodies of persons dying in various public in
stitutions, whose relatives were unknown, were so dissected.
The Act establishes other requisitions not material to the
present question, and enacts that after examination the bodies
shall be decently interred. This Act appears to me to prove
clearly that Parliament regarded anatomy as a legal practice;
and, further, that it considered that there was such a thing
as a ‘ legal supply of human bodies,’ though that supply was
insufficient for the purpose. This is inconsistent with the
opinion that it is an absolute duty on the part of persons in
charge of dead bodies to bury them, and this conclusion is
rather strengthened than otherwise by the provision in Sec. 13
of the Act, ‘ the party removing the body shall provide for its
decent burial after examination.’ This seems to imply that
apart from the Act the obligation to bury would not exist,
and it is remarkable that the words are not as in the earlier
section, ‘ executor or other party,’ which seems to point to the
inference that the executor stood in a different position as to
burial from the party having ‘ lawful possession,’ and has a
wider discretion on the matter. I come now to a series of
cases more clearly connected with the present case. As is
well known, the great demand for bodies for anatomical
purposes not only led in some cases to murders the object
of which was to sell the bodies of the murdered persons, but
also to robberies of churchyards by what were commonly
called ‘resurrection men.’ This practice prevailed for a con
siderable length of time, as appears from the case of E. v.
Lynn (2 T. E. 738) decided in 1788, forty-four years before
the Anatomy Act. In that case it was held to be a misde
meanour to disinter a body for the purpose of dissection,
the court saying that common decency required that the
practice should be put a stop" to, that the offence was cog
nizable in a criminal court as being highly indecent and contra
bonos mores, at the bare idea alone of which nature revolted.
Many also said that ‘ it had been the regular practice of the
�64
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON
Old Bailey in modern times to try charges of this nature.’
It is to be observed in reference to this case that the act
done would have been a peculiarly indecent theft if it had not
been for the technical reason that a dead body is not the
subject of property. A case, however, has been carried a step
further in modern times. It was held in Reg. v. Sharp (1 Dew
and Bell, 160) to be a misdemeanour to disinter a body at
all without lawful authority, even when the motive of the
offender was pious and laudable, the case being one in
which the son disinterred his mother in order to bury her
in his father’s grave, but he got access to her grave and
opened it by false pretence. The law to be extracted from
these authorities seems to me to be this : the practice of ana
tomy is lawful and useful, though it may involve an un
usual means of disposing of dead bodies; but to open a
grave and disinter a dead body without authority is a mis
demeanour even if it is done for a laudable purpose. These
cases, for the reasons I have given, have some analogy to the
case of burning a dead body, but they are remote from it.
They certainly do not in themselves warrant the proposition
that to burn a dead body is in itself a misdemeanour. There
are two other cases which come rather nearer to the point.
They are R. v. Van, 2 Den. 325, and R. v. Stewart, 12 A. and
E. 773-779. Each of these cases lays down in unqualified
terms that it is the duty of certain specified persons to bury
in particular cases. The case of R. v. Stewart lays down the
following principles:—‘ Every person dying in this country,
and not within certain exclusions laid down by the ecclesiastical
law, has a right to Christian burial, and that implies the right
to be carried from the place where his body lies to the parish
cemetery.’ It adds, ‘ the individual under whose roof a poor
person dies, is bound (i.e. if no one else is so bound, as appears
from the rest of the case) to carry the body, decently covered,
to the place of burial. He cannot keep him unburied, nor do
anything which prevents Christian burial. He cannot, there
fore, cast him out, so as to expose the body to violation, or to
offend the feelings or endanger the health of the living; for
those reasons he cannot carry him uncovered to the grave?
�THE LAW OF CREMATION.
65
In the case of R. v. Van, the court held 1 that a man is bound
to give Christian burial to his deceased child if he has the
means of doing so; but he is not liable to be indicted for a
nuisance if he has not the means of providing burial for it.’
These cases are the nearest approach which I have been able
to find to an authority directly upon the present point; for if
there is an absolute duty upon a man having the means to
bury his child, and if it is a duty to give every corpse Christian
burial, the duty must be violated by burning it. I do not
think, however, that the cases really mean to lay down any
such rule. The question of burning was not before the court
in either case. In R. v. Stewart the question was whether
the duty of burial lay upon the parish officers or on some
other person. In R. v. Van the question was whether a man
who has not the means to bury his child was bound to incur
a debt in order to do so. In neither case can the court have
intended to express themselves with complete verbal accuracy,
for in the case of R. v. Stewart the court speaks of the ‘ right ’
of a dead body, which is obviously a popular form of expression,
a corpse not being capable of rights, and in both cases the
expression Christian burial is used, which is obviously inapplic
able to persons who are not Christians—Jews, for instance, Mahommedans, or Hindoos. To this I may add that the attention
of neither court was called to the subject of anatomy already
referred to. Skeletons and anatomical preparations could not
be innocently obtained if the language of the cases referred to
was construed, as it was intended to be, severely, and literally
accurate. There is only one other case to be mentioned.
This is the case of Williams v. Williams, which was decided
two years ago by Mr. Justice Kay in the Chancery Division of
the High Court, and is reported in the L.R. 20 Ch. Div. 659.
In this case one H. Crockenden directed his friend, Eliza
Williams, to burn his body, and directed his executors to pay
her expenses. The executors buried the body. Miss Williams
got leave from the Secretary of State to disinter it, in order,
as she said, to be buried elsewhere. Having obtained posses
sion of it by misrepresentation, she burnt it, and sued the
executors for her expenses. I need not trace out all the
�66
mb;’ justice stephen on
points in the case, as it avowedly leaves the question now
before us undecided. The purpose was, says Mr. Justice
Kay, ‘ confessedly to have the body buried, and thereupon
arises a very considerable question whether that is or is not a
lawful purpose according to the law of this country. That is
a question which I am not going to decide.’ He held that in
the particular case the removal of the body and its burning
were both illegal, according to the decision of R. v. Sharp,
already referred to. ‘ Giving the lady credit,’ he said, 1 for
the best of motives, there can be no kind of doubt that the
act of removing the body by that licence and then burning it
was as distinct a fraud on that licence as anything could
possibly be.’ This was enough for the particular case, and
the learned judge accordingly expressed no opinion- on- the
question on' which it now becomes my duty to direct you.
It arises in the present case' in a perfectly clear and simple
form, unembarrassed by any consideration as applied to the
other cases to which I have referred. There is no question
here of the gross illegality which marked the conduct of those
described as resurrection men, of the artifices, not indeed
criminal, but certainly disingenuous, by which the possession
of the body was obtained in the cases of R. v. Sharpe, and
Williams v. Williams. Dr. Price had lawful possession of the
child’s body, and it was certainly not only his right but his
duty to dispose of it by burying, or in any other manner not
in itself illegal. Here I must consider the question whether
to burn a dead body instead of burying it is in itself an illegal
act. After full consideration, I am of opinion that a person
who burns instead of burying a dead body does mot commit a
criminal act unless he does it in such a manner as to amount
to a public nuisance at common law. The reason for this
opinion is, that upon the fullest examination of the authorities,
I have, as the present review of them shows, been unable
to discover any authority for the proposition that it is a
misdemeanour to burn a dead body, and in the absence of
such authority I feel that I have no right to declare it to
be one.
There are some instances, no doubt, in which
courts of justice have declared acts to be misdemeanours
�THE LAW OF CREMATION.
67
which had never previously been decided to be so ; but
I think it would be found that in every such case the act
involved great public mischief or moral scandal. It is not
my place to offer any opinion of the comparative methods
of burning and burying corpses, but before I could hold that
it must be a misdemeanour to burn a dead body I must be
satisfied not only that some people, or even many people,
object to the practice, but that it is on plain, undeniable
grounds highly mischievous, or grossly scandalous ; even then
I should pause long before I held it to be a misdemeanour,
but I cannot even take the first step. Sir Thomas Browne
finishes his famous essay on Urn Burial with a quotation from
Lucan, which in eight Latin words translated by eight English
words seems to sum up the matter, ‘ Tabesne cadavera solvat
an rogus haud refert.’ ‘ Whether decay or fire destroys
corpses matters not.’ The difference between the two pro
cesses is, the one is quick, the other slow. Each is so horrible
that every earthly imagination would turn away from its
details, but one or the other is inevitable, and each may be
concealed from observation by proper precautions. There
are, no doubt, religious considerations and feelings connected
with the subject which every one would wish to treat with
respect and tenderness, and I suppose there is no doubt that
as a matter of historical fact the disuse of burning bodies was
due to the force of religious sentiments. I do not think, how
ever, that it can be said that every practice which startles and
jars upon the religious sentiments of the majority of the
population is for that reason a misdemeanour at common law.
The statement of such a proposition is a sufficient refutation
of it, but nothing short of this will support the conclusion
that to burn a dead body must be a misdemeanour. As for
the public interest in the matter, burning, on the one hand,
effectively prevents the bodies of the dead from poisoning the
living; on the other hand, it might, no doubt, destroy the
evidences of crime. These, however, are matters for the legis
lature and not for me. The great leading rule of criminal
law is that nothing is a crime unless it is plainly forbidden by
law. This rule is, no doubt, subject to exceptions, but they
�68
MR. JUSTICE STEPHEN ON THE LAW OF CREMATION.
are rare, narrow, and to be administered with the greatest
reluctance, and only upon the strongest reasons. This brings
me to the last observation I have to make. Though I think
that to burn a body decently and inoffensively is lawful, or at
the very least not criminal, it is obvious that if it is done in
such a manner as to be offensive to others, it is a nuisance,
and one of an aggravated kind. A common nuisance is an
act which obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the
public in the exercise of right common to all her Majesty’s
subjects. To burn a dead body in such a place, or in such a
manner, as to annoy persons passing along public roads, or
other places where they have a right to go, is beyond all doubt
a nuisance, as nothing more offensive, both to sight and
smell, can be imagined. The depositions in this case do not
state very distinctly the nature of the place where the act was
done; but if you think, upon inquiry, that there is evidence of
its having been done in such a situation and manner as to be
offensive to any considerable number of persons, you should
find a true bill. This must depend upon details on which it
would be improper, and, indeed, impossible to address you.
I must conclude with a few words explanatory of the reasons
which have led me to address you at so much length. The
novelty of the matter, and the interest which many persons
take in it, are a reason for going into it fully. The difficulty
which a petty jury would find is avoided by my addressing
myself to you rather than to them. The fact also that if I
am wrong my error is in favour of the defendant, is another
reason for staring my views fully to you, for if he should be
acquitted upon my direction there would be no means of car
rying the case to the Court for Crown Cases Reserved.
�CREMATION.
69
The Cremation Society, in consequence of the foregoing
decision, issued at once the following paper, embodying their
views and intentions :—
‘ The Cremation Society of England.
‘ The Council of the Cremation Society of England purchased,
in the year 1878, a freehold site at St. John’s, Woking, in
Surrey, especially adapted by position for the purpose, and
erected thereon a building, with an apparatus of the most
approved kind for effecting cremation of the dead.
‘ They next tested it by experiment, and found that
it accomplished the purpose required without occasioning
nuisance of any kind.
‘ Since that time the place has been maintained in perfect
order, but has not been used, owing to a doubt raised, soon
after the date referred to, as to the legality of adopting the
process at present in this country.
‘ A recent decision, however, of Mr. Justice Stephen declares
that the cremation of a dead body, if effected without nuisance
to others, is a legal proceeding.
‘ Under these circumstances the Cremation Society feel it
a duty to indicate, without delay, those safeguards which they
deem it essential to associate with the proceeding in order to
prevent the destruction of a body which may have met death,
by unfair means. They are aware that the chief practical
objection which can be urged against the employment of cre
mation consists in the opportunity which it offers, apart from
such precautions, for removing the traces of poison or other
injury which are retained by an undestroyed body.
‘ The following, therefore, are the conditions on which the
employment of the Crematorium will alone be permitted by
the Council:—
‘ I. An application in writing must be made by the friends
or executors of the deceased—unless it has been made by the
�70
CREMATION.
deceased person himself. during life—stating that it was the
wish of the deceased to be cremated after death.
‘ II. A certificate must be sent in by one qualified medical
man at least, who attended the deceased until the time of death,
unhesitatingly stating that the cause of death was natural, and
what that cause was.
‘ III. If no medical man attended during the illness, an
autopsy must be made by a medical officer appointed by the
Society, or no cremation can take place.
‘ These conditions being complied with, the Council of the
Society reserve the right in all cases of refusing permission
for the performance of the cremation, and, in the event of
permitting it, will offer every facility for its accomplishment
in the best manner.
‘ Signed on behalf of the Executive Council,
‘Wm. Eassie, C.E.,
‘ Hon. Secretary.
‘ To whom communications may be addressed, as well as sub
scriptions and donations to the funds of the Society; which, in
present circumstances, are much icanted.
111 Argyll Street, Regent Street, W.:
March, 1884.’
LONDON : PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODB AND CO., NEW-STREET 6QUARB
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
�SMITH, ELDER, & CO.’S PUBLICATIONS.
Crown 8vo. With Illustrations.
CREMATION
OF
85. 6d.
THE DEAD.
By WILLIAM EASSIE, C.E.
With Illustrations. Demy 8vo. Is.
TRANSACTIONS of the CREMATION SOCIETY of ENGLAND.
Containing a Short History of the Subject of Cremation at Home and Abroad
up to the date of the Eighth Anniversary of the Society, January 13, 1880.
Edited by W. EASSIE, C.E.,
Engineer and Eon. Secretary of the Society,
AND PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE COUNCIL.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
HANDBOOK of RURAL SANITARY SCIENCE. Illustrating the
best means of securing Health and preventing Disease. Edited by Lory
Marsh, M.D., Member of the Royal College of Physicians, London; Member
of the Royal College of Surgeons, England.
‘ The essays- are all of a high order of merit,
and are full of suggestions and hints invaluable
alike to landlords, tenants, and sanitary boards.’
'' Standard.
‘ Such facts should quicken the general desire
for the inauguration of a policy of drainage.
The essays are of a practical kind, and are full
of suggestive hints, not only to the medical pro
fession, but to all who study the law of health
and the prevention of illness.’—Globe.
Demy 8vo. 6s.
PURIFICATION of WATER-CARRIED SEWAGE. Data for the
Guidance of Corporations, Local Boards of Health, and Sanitary Authorities.
By Henry Robinson, M.Inst. C.E., and John Charles Melliss, A.Inst. C.E.
8vo. 10s. 6<Z.
LECTURES on STATE MEDICINE. Delivered before the Society
of Apothecaries, at their Hall in Blackfriars, in May and June 1875. By
F. S. B. Francois de Chaumont, M.D., F.R.C.S., &c. &c.
8 vo. 12s.
ESSAYS and PAPERS on SOME FALLACIES of STATISTICS
CONCERNING LIFE and DEATH, HEALTH and DISEASE, with Sug
gestions towards an Improved System of Registration. By Henry W. Rumsey,
M.D., F.R.S., Author of ‘ Essays on State Medicine,’ ‘ Sanitary Legislation,’ &c.
Eleventh Edition, with numerous Illustrations. Demy 8vo. 12s. 6d.
HOUSEHOLD MEDICINE : containing a Familiar Description of
Diseases, their Nature, Causes, and Symptoms, the most approved Methods
of Treatment-, the Properties and Uses of Remedies, &c., and Rules for the
Management of the Sick Room. Expressly adapted for Family Use. By
John Gardner, M.D.
Second Edition.. Crown 8vo. 10s. Qd.
A MANUAL of DIET in HEALTH and DISEASE. By Thomas King
Chamrkrs, M.D. Oxon., F.R.C.P. Lond.; Honorary Physician to H.R.H. the
Prince of Wales: Consulting Physician to St. Mary’s and the Lock Hospitals;
Lecturer on Medicine at St. Mary’s School; Corresponding Fellow of the
Academy of Medicine, New York, &c.
London : SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 Waterloo Place.
�THE
SANITARY
RECORD:
A MONTHLY JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
EDITED BY ERNEST HART.
The SANITARY RECORD is a Monthly Journal of the progress of the Hygiene of
Cities, Towns, Rural Districts, Mines, Factories, and Habitations; the Food, Water,
Gas Supply, and Drainage of Towns, and Rural Districts; the Vital Statistics of
Population ; the Influence on Health of Trades and Occupations and the Operation of
Acts bearing upon Public Health.
Annual Subscription, 10s. per annum, paid in advance.
London: SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 Waterloo Place.
nitrnatianHl
SOUTII
KEJSTSIISTGrTOISr,
1884.
The Proprietors of the Sanitary Record have much pleasure in intimating
that they have decided to publish a Weekly Supplement, to be termed the
‘SANITARY RECORD EXHIBITION SUPPLEMENT,’
commencing simultaneously with the opening of the Exhibition. The Supplement
will be devoted exclusively to a description of the various Exhibits, Illustrations will
be used where practicable, and the publication will be continued until a full report
of the Exhibition has been given, when it will be withdrawn.
This Supplement will not in any way interfere with the Sanitary Record proper,
which will be published as usual on the 15th of each month; but the contents of
the Supplement will afterwards appear in the Sanitary Record and London
Medical Record, so that a full report of the Exhibition, as it will affect the readers
of both of these Journals, will be provided to the Subscribers.
The Supplement will be sold in the Building at 2<Z. per copy.
London: SMITH, ELDER, & CO., 15 Waterloo Place.
WHERE TO TAKE A HOLIDAY.
Under this Title will be published, on June lsif next, Price One Shilling, the Second
Annual Issue
OF THE
HOLIDAY
NUMBER
OF the
LONDON MEDICAL RECORD.
The leading features of this issue will he an account of the principal Watering-Places and Health
Resorts of the United Kingdom and the Continent, as regards their salubrity, sanitary condition,
climatic and meteorological influences, Hotel and Lodging-House accommodation, &c.
There will be a large circulation of the Number, which will be distributed in every wateringplace mentioned in it, as well as amongst the profession and a selected portion of the public.
London: SMITH, ELDER," & CO., 15 Waterloo Place.
�
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
Modern cremation: the treatment of the body after death
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 3rd
Place of publication: London
Collation: vi, 70, [2] p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Together with a paper entitled 'Cremation or Burial' by Sir. T. Spencer Wells and the Charge of Sir James Stephen recently delivered at Cardiff. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher's selection of titles of related interest on unnumbered pages at the end. Contains 'Mr Justice Stephen on the Law of Cremation' given to the Grand Jury, at the Crown Court, Cardiff in February 1884.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Thompson, Henry [1820-1904]
Wells, T. Spencer Wells [Sir]
Stephen, James Fitzjames
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Smith, Elder & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1884
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5216
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
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 (Cremation: the treatment of the body after death), 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
Burial
Conway Tracts
Cremation
Death
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b42412427fcf9b3e0f95be8c782cfbe6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Ql2Qt3uV6yqACnZTkfYWV7edicMVtqR45ei5S2GkYloH7YyLRTof1iFhPax2zaJEvRUrMjX2Oi-PJNpb%7EF98N%7ElWPwnC8Sr3OZsC2IrNtVLE8Fw0uAo%7Ed3YtUUUx8ZH7aOyjvIC1UIg7YZHQZgwTFVRfr1z6pgV77WjQEbrwFjKL66zjAbq0DBE-fFU3osBC%7Ec8lBhQo6XzWkgAUC98a6CEtJqC9VphgsYa7zBDT7stiTcijFYpKn9JOts3aGks1b523B8Nd7HLvAlXLujC2OZ3GQFaNrv1IuXM7TZHrbeFg9i2o4ke3NC%7EWM1Nvrnybikkf%7E-TiPa4boS74kBnmSw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b0733a8bb7653276a5d4ee3a1f6c4b78
PDF Text
Text
erne
/
THE CUSTOM OF WEARING
“ MOURNING.”
TO THE EDITOR OF “ THE INDEX.”
Sir,
I will follow up my last letter on Funeral Rites by a few
remarks on the custom of wearing black as a sign of mourning
for the dead.
The most obvious objections to it are—that it adds unneces
sarily to the gloom and dejection already caused by bereave
ment, where grief really exists ; that where there is no real
grief, the putting on of signs of grief is a contemptible sham;
that the custom of wearing “mourning” tends greatly to per
petuate unhappy—and, as I conceive, false—views of death;
and it is also objectionable in being compulsory upon many
families who are too poor to bear the expense. I will say
something upon each of these objections.
1. That it adds needlessly to the gloom and dejection of really
afflicted relatives must be apparent to all who have ever taken
part in these miserable rites. The houses are generally closed
until the burial is over, and this of itself is a glaring instance of
self-inflicted torture. When the physical frame is already
weakened by long watchings, want of sleep, and floods of tears,
common sense would direct the sufferers to seek the refreshing
stimulants of air and sunshine ; to throw open doors and win
dows and let in God’s heavenly messengers of “sweetness and
light;” to endeavour to turn the thoughts as much as possible
away from the troubled past, and to relieve the dull pain at the
�2
heart by objects and occupations of cheerfulness; to avoid a
darkened chamber, or a black dress, as one would avoid the
devil—if there were any such “ enemy of mankind.” But no
sooner is the breath gone from the body of one of the household,
than all the blinds are drawn down and the shutters closed, and
a fearful race against time is begun with the horrid prepara
tions for “mourning.” Dressmakers are in demand, the anxieties
of economical shopping are multiplied, often at the very time
when every penny is needed for coming wants or for past
doctor’s bills. And all is black—crape—jet ; everything
hideously black, the blackness only deepened by the white cap
or white edging in which it is set. A poor widow, for instance,
must shudder afresh over all the realities of her woe, the first
time she looks in the mirror after having put on the hateful
garb. Her sorrow was surely enough without her being com
pelled to bear about on her own body its ghastly tokens.
At the funeral, this is made worse still by “mourning coaches,”
and that most repulsive thing that moves on earth—the hearse
—with its plumes of black stuck all over it, waving and nodding
like so many fiends mocking at your grief as they are carrying off
their prey. Long and costly hatbands of crape and silk, dozens
of costly black gloves which seldom fit, cloaks of the same
eternal, infernal black—all contrived to make you feel as
miserable and wretched as possible, while the woe at your heart
is almost unendurable! Why should we be reminded for months
afterwards, by outward tokens, of our sad loss ? Every time we
brush the little ring of hat left us by the undertaker, we are
carried back to that terrible day on which the crape or cloth was
first put on, and the very things we ought to try to forget are
forced upon our notice at every turn in our lives.
2. But when, as is often the case, there is no real grief, but
perhaps a good deal of real rejoicing over the death, the putting
on of “mourning” is a piece of hypocrisy and falsehood which
nothing can justify. No one will contend that “ mourning ’ is
anything but a sign of grief; therefore if the sign be assumed
when there is no grief, it is an acted lie, and helps to corrupt
�3
society and make it love shams and pretences and varnished
deceit. I greatly honour those really broken-hearted widows
who keep their “ mourning” on all their days, for it is with
them a true token, an outward and visible sign of an inward
and heartfelt grief which must abide with them through all
their weary pilgrimage ; but I utterly despise the custom of
putting on 11 mourning” because it is the fashion, and because
“ people would talk so, you know,” if the “ mourning” were to
be omitted. As a sign of grief, ‘ ‘ mourning ” would often be
much more suitable before the death than after it, inasmuch as
the grief of watching a beloved one pass through weeks and
weeks of physical torture, with the certainty of no recovery, far
exceeds the grief of bereavement. It is only a truism to say
that death is often the greatest possible relief to the poor sufferer
himself, and to the sorrowing relatives. The number of cases
in which the grief before far exceeds the grief after death, is
much larger than is generally supposed.
3. I come now to the last and perhaps most important objec
tion of all. “ Mourning” tends to perpetuate unhappy and
1
false views of death. To those who have no belief in immor
tality and re-union with our dear ones after death, it might
f
seem only natural to give oneself up to despair and to all its
fl E horrible outward signs.
But to those who profess to believe,
Efci
and who really do believe, that the dead are still living in a
I'M happier world, free from earthly pain and sorrow, it ought to
be quite natural to rejoice and give thanks “ that it hath pleased
A
Almighty God to take unto himself the soul of the departed,
a» and to deliver him from the miseries of a sinful world,”—to
quote from the Christian Burial Service. Death ought to
ed be looked upon as at least as much of a heavenly boon to the be
fol loved one, as a source of bitter pain to ourselves. But that pain
raff! itself would be greatly diminished if we were trained to think
■aol of death as we are trained to talk about it; if we were brought
nJ
up to feel that it is a manifest and real benefit, and however
£Ij1 distressing to survivors, is not to be regarded from its dark
side. By refusing to darken our homes and to gird ourselves in
�4
black raiment, we would make our protest against the melan
choly—the unmitigated melancholy—of the popular views of
death. We would shake off as much as we could that morbid
weeping and sighing which are so destructive to health and
enfeebling to the mind. We would let the world know that how
ever great our loss, however irreparable it might be on earth,
we still trusted in the loving kindness of God, and unselfishly
resigned into His hands the soul of our nearest and dearest,
believing that He can and will, as a faithful Creator, give us a
happy meeting in a brighter home above.
I have myself resolved never to put on “ mourning ” again—
not even for my children or my wife ; and I will do my best to
persuade others to get rid of this most cruel and oppressive
burden. (In the case of a public “mourning,” I would make
an exception ; but this would be altogether on different grounds,
and would be worn for the sake of strangers who know not my
private opinions.) One thing seems very clear; it is our
bounden duty to'mitigate and remove all the grief we possibly
can. We have no right to add to our natural distress by
artificial means, nor to bemoan any loss longer than we can
possibly help. If we believed in God and in His fidelity more,
we should be the better assured of our meeting again beyond
the tomb.
I am, Sir,
Yours very sincerely,
Charles Voysey.
Dulwich, S.E., March 31s^, 1873.
Wertheimer, Lea & Co,, Printers, Circus Place, Finsbury.
�
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 custom of wearing "mourning"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Voysey, Charles [1828-1912]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 4 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: A letter to the Editor of "The Index". From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Wertheimer, Lea & Co,., London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT116
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 custom of wearing "mourning"), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
Mourning
Conway Tracts
Death
Funeral Rites and Ceremonies
Mourning
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1765e0dad8abc68f59ef9dc12e7c30ed.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cKHh78amMfrNnse2WO6%7ElaHc3qildLxfv%7EJrS92VhK64cjuzxoBTH4gDdZWcODEO05ZcbcNg9s9wS2RJniOqyb74LP7XOqIGB%7EoCFa8uZZjo93aZnIEniP0sE9PenhFlM41QjOa4Jofpis9Dxa8l98-c9lRKPBJjfntIFihV3yDjJfDqFSPrfNBErgBBa4hO-3HZ0Mt-nHmrJHgDPfRI8g1lRAXOxqEEW9iS6vdjPt0vxommrzNLXY5bhOw3AiDUmmOmLvs73qINcqk63w%7E--eqxYOvP1IgQqrD3TiFQWBsjdmbH-iFmOTnFPbUtvrN5lS%7EquIEfMUxB1H6TtWulHA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a0d0b294115746983cd069719d6cf28a
PDF Text
Text
THOUGHTS ON DEATH.
By “ ROSEMARY.”
The idea of death being a consequence of man’s
succumbing to evil seems untenable. The remains
of pre-Adamite animals show that death reigned
triumphant over them before man is said by his deed
to have involved all the brute creation in his own
doom. The passage from this to any other world
must have been made denuded of the flesh (no matter
what man’s moral state), for how can we banish
gravitation? It is supposed by some that the act of
dying in itself is not necessarily painful,—allow this
to be the rule ; do away with bodily suffering, which
may probably with truth be considered the conse
quence of sin, let man choose the moment when he
will quit this world for another, and we should pro
bably see as many voluntary travellers to other worlds,
by the conveyance called Death, as at present to other
countries by any known means of transit. The
endless diversity of earth’s flowers suggests the idea
that each of the countless worlds around us, which
have been aptly termed the “ flowers of the sky,”
�2
may possess a beauty all its own and distinct from
the rest. What exquisite colouring must the planet
Jupiter possess with four moons of various hues!
How revelling in light must Saturn be with his
luminous bands, and what may not be the wondrous
glories of Neptune with
i attendant satellites !
If it be our high privilege to visit each, and find in
each fresh cause to reverence our Maker’s wisdom
and reciprocate His love, the undying Soul could
bear unharmed the heights and depths of adoration
never before called forth; but these poor bodies, for
which even Earth’s emotions often prove too strong,
would not the fate of the surcharged Leyden jar be
theirs?—shivered by excess of what it-was meant to
contain ? If so, where would be the use of carrying
them with us ?—supposing it were possible they could
traverse Space without the subversion of every known
law of nature. How insupportable would be the
idea of Eternity were it not for the counterbalancing
one of Space! Unlimited Time may well be em
ployed in learning the glories of unlimited Space.
If we are destined to see the works of the Creator
in various worlds, it follows as a matter of course
that Death is an “ Institution ” whereby the Soul lays
aside a covering, which its further requirements
render useless, to take another more in accordance
with them and with the specific gravity of whatever
world is its next destination ; and, on quitting that
world, Death must probably again be the Soul’s
�3
mode of transit, and we need seek no further for the
reason of Death than in the universal law, whereby
everything no longer suited to its first purpose is put
to another; hence, when by manifestations of Divine
Wisdom and Love hitherto unimagined the Soul will
be exalted by adoration never before called forth, a
body suited to its higher requirements will doubtless
be provided by the Creator; while thriftly mother
Nature, after various revivifying processes; re-adapts
these worn out frames to the requirements of her
younger children.
We all know that great dread—even though cause
less—is intense agony. Those who have witnessed
two children of different temperaments, led by their
father, approach a frightful shadow thrown by the
magic lantern, can realise this. Neither child could
really be hurt by the ugly shadow; but how fearful is
the suffering of the timid one, compared to that of him
who feels perfect security, because it is his father*s
hand which leads him. “ The Valley of the Shadow
of Death” is a suggestive expression!* Perhaps
we should derive more courage from it than we do;
at any rate, if Death, once passed, should prove but
a terrific Shadow, can it ever again excite fear; or will
it not, perhaps, be hailed as the invigorator of the
Soul, as Sleep is now of the Body ? or granted even
that there may be aught of peril to the Soul in Death,
* See “ Exposition of Twenty-third Psalm,” by Rev. John
Stevenson.—Jackson ; London, 1847.
�4
which is a proposition the Writer cannot for a moment
entertain, still, if we have once passed in safety through
it under shelter of the “ Everlasting Arms,” shall we
ever again distrust their power?
Therefore, though
Life and Death may alternate through all Eternity, as
Day and Night do through all Time, there is no
reason why Death’s recurrence should ever again
inspire dread. It is rare, however great a man’s
troubles may have been, to hear him declare he
would rather never have lived; then may we not trust
the same Providence which ordered our lot in this
world (so that at least it is bearable) without mis
giving for the future ?
WERTHEIMER, LEA AND CO., PRINTERS, FINSBURY CIRCUS.
�
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
Thoughts on death
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Yeates Crashaw, Rose Mary
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 4 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: "Rosemary" is the pseudonym of Rose Mary Yeates Crashaw. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Date of publication from KVK. Printed by Wertheimer, Lea and Co., Finsbury Circus, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1869]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5266
Subject
The topic of the resource
Death
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 (Thoughts on death), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Death