1
10
3
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c5d0d3e0056c4680a16583a872f05327.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=tNjl5NJh0jcYmmBdzo4txEndZZlMp7aj3-pMCRKVnCs8ymyrPqCLWOUf77AA5fJNQHFnyKZNFTKYD5pFKRooLU6KLERhpMh93KfPoP3gilazG8mm484ZAWnLIP9u1OS6eEGGLilDalDw2KBI5qcKPOPrbB0O2w4n51nq1%7EkFg2efBJjkDkeCxdMquwnWRG4bUL96oskonyTpbHALUqtqXbcJPYwN0Xlnzgxc2BM5btKazICAJpHceC7fzFljL3FHnTSy9pL4mUpffHmqnhQLWVl4MzcrtTbClaYFVO1I0EbQRc8IP2BhnKBririUnt2uPmsC0FUCiASbAgKhlb87dg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
29c1e821c233ee65078c4847d52f4b14
PDF Text
Text
V E R B A TI Al R E 1'0 RT
OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF A
DEPUTATIOA
THE RIGHT HON. AV. E. GLADSTONE, ALP.,
(First Lord of the Treasury,)
THE RIGHT HON. EARL DE GREY AND RIPON,
(Lord President of the Council,) (hid
THE RIGHT HON. AV. E. FORSTER, ALP.,
(Vice-President of the Council,)
ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 1870.
BIRMINGHAM.
PRINTED FOR THE NATIONAL EDUCATION LEAGUE.
Offices:—No. 47, Ann Street.
�4
resolutions to Mr. Gladstone, with a view of impressing upon the
Government the objections entertained by the League to the Bill.
In accordance with this resolution, a request was addressed to
Mr. Gladstone, asking him to receive a Deputation. The right
bon. gentleman consented to do so, and appointed Tuesday, the
Dtli of March, to receive the Deputation, at his official residence in
Downing Street.
Arrangements were consequently made for the representation of
the 'Branches of the League on the Deputation, and on the day
above named the following Members of Parliament, the Executive
Committee, the Officers of the League, and the undermentioned
Delegates from the Branches, met at the Westminster Palace
Hotel, and proceeded thence to the Prime Minister’s official residence
in Downing Street, where they were received by Mr. Gladstone,
who was accompained by Lord de Grey and Mr. Forster:—
Anstnrther, Sir IL, M.P.
Armitstead, G., M.P.
Carter, R. N., M.P.
Cowen, J., M.P.
Beaumont, II. F., M.P.
Brogden, A., M.P.
Bright, Jacob, M.P.
Dalrymple, Donald, M.P.
Dilke, Sir C. 3V., Bart., M.P.
Dixon, George, M.P.
Eykyn, Roger, M.P.
Fawcett, Henry, M.P.
Forster, C'has., M.P.
Harcourt, Vernon, 31. .
Herbert, Hon. A., M.P.
Hoare, Sir H. A., M.P.
Howard, James, M.P.
Illingworth, Alfred, M.P.
Johnson, Andren, M.P.
Kirk, William, M.P.
Lawson, Sir Wilfred, M.P.
Leatliam, E. A., M.P.
Lewis, J. D., M.P.
Lush, J. A., M.P.
Melly, George, M.P.
Miall, E., M.P.
Parry, Love Jones, M. P.
Philips, R. N., M.P.
Potter, E., M.P.
Rylands, Peter, M.P.
Samuelson, B., M.P.
Samuelson, H., M.P.
Simon, 31 r. Serjeant, M.P.
Shaw, IL, M.P.
Sartoris, E. J., M.P.
Sherriff, A. C., M.P.
Stepney, Colonel, M.P.
Stevenson, J. C., 31. P.
Sykes, Colonel, 31. P.
Taylor, P. A., 31.P.
Villiers, Right Hon. C. P., M.P.
AVedderburn, David, 31. P.
AVlialley, 31r., M.P.
White, James, 31. P.
AVhitworth, Thos., 31. P.
Weguelin, T. 31., M.T.
�5
DELEGATES FROM THE BRANCHES.
Ashton-under-Lyne—
Green, Thomas, M.A.
BathDalrymple, D., M.P.
Edwards, R. P.
Maenaught/Rev. J., M.A.
Mureh, Aiderman Jerom, J.P.
Banbury—
Tin* Worshipful the Mayor
Brookes, R. H.
Carter, Rev. L. G.
Griftin, Dr., J.P.
Turner, Rev. J.
BedfordHill, Rowland
Ransom, Edwin
Belper—
\
Cox, J. Charles, J.P.
Birkenhead—
Billson, Alfred
Cooke, Bancroft
Cowie, Alfred
Stitt, Samuel
Birmingham—
The Worshipful the Mayor
(Thomas Prime, Esq.)
Dixon, George, M.P.
Bunce, J. Thackray, E.S.S.
Brown, Rev. J. J.
Chamberlain, Councillor Joseph
Collings, Councillor Jesse
Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.R.L.S.
Dawson, George, M.A.
Field, Alfred
Hadley, Felix
Harris, Councillor William
Hayes, E. J.
Jaffray, John, J.P.
Lloyd, Councillor G. B.
Martineau, R. F.
Middlemore, Win. J.P.
Osler, Follett, F.R.S.
Philli] is, Aiderman, J.P.
Timmins, Samuel, F.R.S.L.
Vince, Rev. Charles
Wright, J. S.
All Saints’ Ward—
Pay ton, Henry
Rolason, Councillor
B 3
Birmingham (Continued)—
Deritend Ward—
Eliaway, H. H.
Griffiths, Thomas
Hawkes, W. C.
Dviideston Ward—Ingall, George
Hampton Ward—■
Barratt, Dr. A.
Biddle, J.
Mills, W.
St. Martin’s Ward—
Bennett, W. P.
Gosling, Wm.
St. Pavi/s Ward—
Edwards, Mr. Councillor C. H.
Manton, Mr. Alderman
St. Peter’s Ward—
Adams, Francis
Deykin, Councillor
Gosling, Alfred
Whitlock, H. J.
Sr. Thomas’ Ward—
•
Baker, George
Mann, Robert
Brown, Charles
Bai.sall Heath—
Holland, Aiderman
Flint Glass Makers’ Associa
tion (T. J. Wilkinson, &'.'.)
Bolton
Lee, Henry
Winkworth, Stephen
BradfordHolden, (’ouneillor Angus
Illingworth, Alfred, M.P.
Brighton—
Burrows, J. C., J.P.
Creak, A., M.A.
Clark, A., B.A.
Davey, Councillor
Mackenzie, W.
Pettitt, W.
Tapper, Rev. Dr.
Wood, Councillor
White, James, M.P.
�c
Bristol—
Darwen-
Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M.A.
Gotch, Rev. F. W., LL.I>.
James, Rev. W.
Pease, Tlios.
Thomas, Herbert, J.P.
Baron, Joshua, J.P.
Dunmock, James
McDougall, Rev. James
DenbighWright, Robert
Bromsgrove—
Derby—
Macdonald, A.
Seroxton, Mr.
Beswick, G.
Brown, William
Renals, Aiderman J.
Burslem—
Devonport
Woodall, Wm.
The Worshipful the Mayor
(J. Rolston, Esq.,'M. DA
Lewis, Mr., M.P.
Bawling, S. B.
BuryPhilips, R. N., M.P.
Canterbury—
Dewsbury—
The Worshipful the Mayor
(Henry Hart, Esq.)
Brent, Aiderman
• ’ooper, John R.
Cromwell, Rev. Dr.
Hamilton, R.
Joyce, James
Peirce, J. H.
Clarke, John
Kilner, William
Dukinfleld Bucklev, N.
Marshall, William
Dudley—
Cochrane, Aiderman, J.P.
Robinson, Rev. Wade
CarlislePotter, E. Esq., M,P.
Howard, Hon. George
Sutton, William
Edgbaston—
Kenrick, Timothy, J.P.
Carmarthen
Exeter—
Sartoris, E. J., M.P.
Stepney, Colonel, M.P.
Bowring, Sir John
Norrington ('ouncillor
Carnarvon—
Falmouth—
Evans, Rev. E.
Fox, Howard. J.P.
M illmore, Arthur
Cheltenham—
Halifax
Onley, Samuel
Bubb, J.
Hutchinson, Alderman, J. D., J.P.
Shaw, Aiderman, J.P.
Scarbrough, T. S.
Chesham—
Carr, Rev. John
Cave, James
Hawkes, C.
Plato, C.
Rose, D.
Rose, G.
ChesterBeckett, Joseph
Parish, W.. ex-Sheriff
CoventryBray, Charles
Cash, Councillor John
Handsworth—
Ann, Rev. Robert
Harborne—
Newey, C. J.
! Hastings—
I
Banks, John
Hinckley Atkins, John
Atkins, Thomas
Burrows, Rev. Mr.
Davis, Samuel
Perkins, Rev. Mr.
�Huddersfield—
The Worshipful the Mayor
Dodds, John
.Mellor, Wright, J.P.
Skilliek, R.
Huntingdon—
Millard, Rev. J. IL, B.A.
Hyde—
Adamson, Daniel
Dowson, Rev. H. E., B.A.
Hibbert, Edward
Hibbert, John
Robinson, Rev. T., B.A.
Herefordspem-er, Philip Russell
IpSWichJones, Rev. E.
Maude, Rev. F. H.
Notcutt, S. A., jun.
Rees, Ml’.
Zincke, Rev. F. Barham, M.A.
Kendal—
Busher, Edward
Russell, Rev. John
Swinglehurst, Henry
Thompson, William
Leeds—
The. Worshipful the Mayor
(W. G. Joy, Esq.)
Barran, Aiderman
Clarke, F. R.
Crowther, William, J.P.
Lupton, Joseph
LeicesterTim Worshipful the Mayor
(G. Stevenson, Esq.)
Coe, Rev. C. C.
Harley, Rev. Robert, F.R.S.
Hodges, T. W., J.P.
Paget, T. T., High Sheriff
Walker, William Henry
LondonAllan, William
Alder, T. P.
Applegarth, R.,
Atkinson, Rowland
Beales, Edmond, M.A.,
Bennett, W. C., LL.D.
Botlv, William
Bovill, W. J.
Brenehley, Julius
B 4
London (continued )—
Buekmaster, T. C.
Chunrock, E. J., M.A.
Church, R. H.
Clayden, Rev. P. W.
Courtenay, J. 1.
Cremer, W. R.
Crompton, Henry
Cunnington, John
Dilke, Sir C. W.. Bart., M.P.
Dodds, George Will.,
Edwards, J. P.
Emerson, F. R.
Evans, Howard
Fooks, W. C., jun., LL.B.
Fry, Herbert
Goodwin, Rev. Dr.
Galpin, T. 1).
Guile, Daniel
Hill, A. H.
Hoare, Sir H. A., Bart., M.P.
Hole, James
Holyoake, G. J.
Hoppus, John, LL.D., F.R.S.
Howell, George
Herbert, Hon. A., M,P.
Hodgson, Dr.
Hansard Rev. S.
Hales, John
lerson, Rev. IL, B.A.
Jones, Lloyd
Levi, Professor, Leone
Lushington, G.
Mackay, C., LL.D.
Middlemore, J. T.
Miall, E., M.P.
McClelland, Janies
Moore, S. P., LL.B.
Motterslmad, T.
Nasmith, I)., LL.B.
Odger, George
Pare, William, F.S.S.
Parry, L. J., M.P.
Payne, J.
Pennington, Frederick
Price, Richard
Rawlinson, Sir Christopher, C.B.
Robson, John, B.A.
Robertson, Professor C.
Russell, R.
Sliaen, William
Shortt, John, LL.B.
Slack, H. J.
Stanesby, H. J.
Somes, George
Taylor, P. A., M.P.
Varley, C.
�8
London (eoìithiucd)—
Webster, Thomas, Q.C.
Williams, Robert
Worley, A. E.
Bloomsbury—
Johnson, E.
Miller, Rev. AV.
Young, Sir George, Bart.
Camden—
Bottomley, J. F.
Shoveller, John
Chelsea—
Armstrong, IT. Stephen
Beales, Edmond, M.A.
Boyd, John
Davis, .Mr.
Finch, AV. Newton
Jet! lies, John
Jones, P.
Liggett, Mr.
Pite, H. G.
Sellis, Win.
Symes, Chas.
Deptford—
Smiles, R.
Matthews, A.
Greenwich—
Bell, John, M.A.
Bennett, AV. C., LL.D.
Goodwin, Rev. Thomas, LL.D.
Hackney—
Aspland, Dr.
< Tennell, Air.
Fretwell, J., jun.
Green, C. E.
Aliali, Rev. William
Hiding, B. S.
Pieton, Rev. J. A., ALA.
Kensington—
Gladstone, Dr. J. IL, F.R.S.
Heywood, James, ALA., F.R.S.
Lobley, J. Logan, F.G.S.
AleClelland, Jas., J.P., F.R.A.S.
Osborne, John
Reade, Rev. C. Darby
Lambeth—
Alder, T. P.
Emblin, R.
Greenstreet, T.
Gibbons, G.
Hearson, Rev. G.
Mottershead, T.
Sayer, AV.
I London (continued}—
Stainsby, D.
Silvester, H. R.
Taylor, S. S.
Wèrley, A. E. T.
Marylebone—
Guedalla, J.
Pratt, Alagee
North London—
Bartram, Richard
Clarke, T. C.
Geikie, Rev. C.
Glover, R. R.
Hooper, AV. B.,
Hickson, G.
Lueraft, B.
Freedy, A.
Preston, J. T.
Sinclair, R.
Spicer, Henry, jun., B.A.
Tit ford, A.
AVade, J. M.
AVright, G. W.
AVilson, George
Peckham—
Yeats, Dr.
Westminster—
Beal, James
Carr, J. T.
Courtney, G. J.
Ely, Air.
McDonald, C.F.
Alilligan, Air. '
Noble, John
Tufnell, Air.
West Ham—
Johnson, A., ALP.
Godlee, L.
Woolwich, Plumstead, and
Charlton—
Noble, John
Pike, Rev. J. B.
Richards, Rev. J.
Wates, Joseph
AVliite, George
Lichfield—
< hawner, R. C.
< ïosskey, Rowland, ex-Mayor
Al<• Lean, J. C.
Liverpool—
Frange, Councillor F. G.
Sinclair, Air.
Thomas, John
�9
Manchester—Bazley, C. H. J.P.
Alathews, Rev. E., M.A.
Rumney, Alderman
Steinthal, Rev. S. A.
Middlesborough—
Jones, John
Williams, E.
(Rover, R. R.
N ewcastle-on-Tyne—
( 'owen, J., M.P.
Cowen, J., jun.
Hengel], Win. M.
Rutherford, Dr.
Street, Rev. J. C.
Newport—(Isle of Wight)
< 'olman, Alfred
Pierce, John
Norwich-
Cooper, R. A.
NorthamptonHarris, Henry
North ShieldsHudson, Thomas
N ottingham—
Cox, Sami.
Ellis, Edward John
Eelkin, William, F.L.S.
Felkin, Fredk.
Clipper, Edward
Hollins, Mr.
Paget, Charles, J.P.
Rothera, G. B.
Oldbury—
Jubb, Rev. W. W.
Stableford, W.
Wheeler, John
OxfordHarcourt, Vernon, M.P.
Peterboro’
Taylor, Benjamin
Plymouth—
Anthonv, Rev. F. E., M.A.
Collier, W. F.
Reading—
'Elie Worshipful the Mayor
(T. Spokes, Esq.)
Culpin, Thos.
Stevenson, Rev. F.
Rochester—
The Worshipful the Mayor
Aveling, Thos., ex-Mayor
Aveling, Dr.
Belsev, J.
Belsey, F. F.
Boon, James
Bullbrook, Councillor
Coles, Aiderman
Edwards, Mr.
Fond, J. R.
Hanhain, C. F.
Jellie, Rev. W. H.
Knighton, Dr.
Naylor, Aiderman
Steele, Dr.
Warne, T. S.
Wyles, Thomas
SalisburyJones, Rev. W.
Short. Geo., B.A.
Williams, Charles
Sheffield—
Allott, Councillor
Beal, Councillor
Bragge, William, F.R.G.S.
Drontield, Mr.
Griliitlis, Dr.
Knox, G. Walter, B.Se.
Short, Rev. J. Lettis
Shrewsbury—
Stephens, R.
Southampton—
Maxse, Captain, R.N.
South ShieldsCowen, .Josh., jun.
Edgar, John
Stafford—
The Worshipful the Mayor
Stockport—
The Worshipful the Mayor
Black, Rev. James, M.A.
Coppock, Major
Howard, Alderman
The Town Clerk
Walthew, Aiderman
Stourbridge—
Maginnis, Rev. D.
StroudCooper, Wm.
�10
Tipton—
Blackburn, Rev. F. <'.
Tynemouth
Hudson, T.
Walsall—
The Worshipful the Mayor
(AV. B. Duignan, Esq.)
Cotterell, G.
Holden, E. T.
Warrington—
'file Worshipful the Mayor
(C. J. Holmes, Esq.)
Long, William, jun.
Milner, Edward
Rylands, Peter, M.P.
West Bromwich
Jukes, .1. G.
Kerni< k, J. Arthur, J.P.
West Kent—
Bird, G.
Bedell, Mr.
Coombs, Rev. J. Wilson, B.A.
Howard, James, M.P.
Miall, Edward, M.P.
Offor, George
< )utram, G. E.
Thomjison, C. W.
Todd, AV.
Whitehead, James
Winchfield Kingsley, Rev. Canon
Wolverhampton—
The Worshipful the Mayor
(Thomas Bantock, Esq.
Eelkin, Robert
Glittery, Rev. Thomas
Horton, Rev. Tlios. G.
Hatton, William
Loveridge, H.
Mander, S. S.
’Walton, Frederick
Wiguelin, T. W., M.P.
Worcester—
Airev, J. F.
MacLean, Councillor
Sherritf, A.
M.P.
Woodward, Francis
Williamson, Count illor
WindsorBrowning, Oscar, M.A.
Chamberlain, T., ex-Mavor
Grove, H. J.
Harris, AV. H., B.A., F.G.S.
Platt, J.
The Deputation was introduced by Mr. Dixon", M.P., Chairman
of the Council of the League, who spoke as follows :—Mr.
Cladstone, my Lord de Grey, and Mr. Forster,—The Deputa
tion which I have now the honour of introducing to you
consists of about four hundred gentlemen collected from about
seventy different localities, and including thirty Members of Par
liament and twelve Mayors. These, sir, are the representatives
present here to-day of the National education League, a body
which has been in existence only a very few months ; but. during
that time it has grown into an organisation of unusual magnitude
and power, such as will be described to you by the Chairman of
the Executive Committee, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain.. It is about
twelve months since this organisation was projected by a few
gentlemen in Birmingham, unknown beyond their immediate
locality, and who were mainly distinguished by their earnest
perseverance and by their strong conviction of the importance of
the principles that they entertain. (Applause.) Those principles
�were, that it was the duty of the State to see to the education of
every child in the country, and that that was to be effected by a
combination of rates and taxes administered by local management,
with central executive inspection, and strong control. (Applause.)
It was believed that this could best be carried out by making the
schools both free and unsectarian—(hear, hear, and applause)—and
requiring that attendance at these schools should l)e made com
pulsory on the children. (Cheers.) 1 may mention, sir, that the
.Executive Committee of the League, upon its formation, was over
whelmed by applications from all parts of the country to attend
meetings, and explain more particularly the objects of the League.
I myself attended upwards of twenty of such meeting's in the most
important localities in the country, and it will be interesting to
you, sir, to know that, although it is true that at those meetings
I did not find myself surrounded by many Conservatives—they are
generally adverse to great changes—(laughter)—though I. did not
find myself accompanied on to the platform by many members of
those Churches whose vested interests seemed to be attacked, yet 1
did find that those meetings were thronged by three important
classes. The Nonconformists were always there in great force—
(applause) those leaders of the great Liberal party, who on all
great occasions make themselves prominent, were never found
wanting ; and behind those bodies we found the working classes
assembled in constantly increasing numbers. All this led me to
the conclusion that, if this agitation were to he continued for
another twelve, months—(cheers)—it would be more than probable
that in all the Liberal boroughs of the empire we should find that
the majority of the voters would be associated with this great
organisation, in carrying out what they conceived to be, not merely
the question of the day, but the greatest one that has ever occupied
the attention of the people. I ought perhaps to say that upon one
point—that of free schools—the Leaguers are not quite unanimous;
but the people everywhere Lave endorsed the opinion of the
League; and also, 1 would say in addition, that with reference, to
the religious question, there is only a section of the League that
has any difference of“ opinion, and this section takes up a still more,
advanced opinion than the great body of the Leaguers. (Applause.)
I have now the pleasure to call upon Air. Joseph ('hamberlain, the
Chairman of the Executive; Committee of the League, who will
address you upon the general question.
�12
Mr. Chamberlain : Mr. Gladstone, my Lord de Grey, and Mr.
F,,rster,—It is part ot‘ my business to make myself acquainted
with the general work of the League, to estimate its real strength,
and to study opinion throughout the country, as far as I can
correctly gather it from the reports of our branches. Now, of
those branches we have already established 114, and I believe
there is not a single important town in the kingdom which is not
in this way represented.
In connection with almost everyone of
those branches we have held large public meetings ; and, as I
have seen it said that a public meeting may be held on either side
of a great question, I should like to point out that our meetings
have been almost entirely open meetings, at many of which
amendments have been moved ; and 1 may also remark that many
of them have been town’s meetings. For instance, of this nature
was the large meeting which was held in the great Hall in
Birmingham, on Monday night, at which a resolution was almost
unanimously carried in favour of the points which I am about
to urge, and the Mayor of the town was requested to attend and
form part of this Deputation. There are two considerations to
which I should like to call your attention, as showing the strength
of this movement. In the first place, there is that point to which
Mr. Dixon has made allusion—namely, that this agitation is of
very recent and rapid growth. I should say that the League has
been officially constituted only live months, although the question
was first agitated in Birmingham twelve months ago ; but T am
quite sure that, if the Government entertain any doubt as to the
opinion of the country, and will give us a little time, longer—(loud
applause)—we will make that opinion sufficiently manifest. The
second point is, that this agitation is almost entirely voluntary. 1
say that, because I do not believe there is a man connected with
the League who has made one penny by his services in connection
with it. Almost the whole of the work—the work of speaking,
and an immense deal of secretarial work—has been done by
volunteers, and oidy for some of the clerical work have we paid,
and in the case of poor persons only have we made some compen
sation for the services which they have rendered ; but never more
1 believe, and in many cases much less, than they would have
earned in any other sphere of work. Now, we have received in
the course of our agitation the co-operation of the great trades
unions, and of almost all the leaders of the great trade societies in
�13
the kingdom ; and 1 believe I may say that there has never been
a meeting of working men called to consider this question at
which resolutions have not been passed in favour of the scheme
which we urge upon you. Also, we may fairly claim to represent
the great bodies of Nonconformists in this country ; but inasmuch
as they have established a separate organisation, I feel some
delicacy in speaking for them. Now, I will state very briefly the
points upon which we are agreed in dissenting from the principles
of the Government measure. The day after the Bill was intro
duced, the Officers issued a circular to all our branches, asking for
their opinions upon the subject, and the replies disclosed an
almost unanimous concurrence upon certain points. The earnestness
of this concurrence is manifested by the fact that not seventy, as
Nir. Dixon stated, but ninety-six branches are represented in the
present Deputation. They have come from as far north as Newcastle,
as far south as the Isle Of Wight, as far west as Falmouth, and as far
east as Ipswich. (Applause.) In the first place, we object to the
year’s delay. We think this would be merely to give twelve,
months to the Denominations to run a race of wasteful expenditure,
and to increase sectarian bitterness of feeling. Our remaining
objections may be almost summarised in a sentence. Wé object,
sir, to the permissive recognition of great principles; we ask that
the Government should decide those principles for the country ;
we ask that they should not leave them as controversies of annual
recurrence, and subject to varying, and sometimes contradictory,
conclusions. (Applause.) We object to the retention of school
fees ; we think that a free school is a necessary corollary to the
compulsory attendance of children ; we believe that it is impolitic
to ticket one class on account of their poverty—(applause)—and
we believe that it will be absolutely impracticable to define the
limit at which payment should properly be made. (Applause.)
But the strongest objections which we entertain are on the subject
of the permissive compulsion, and what I must be permitted to
call the permissive sectarianism of the Bill. ()n these points there
is an absolute unanimity of opinion. We object to permissive
compulsion, because we say that the measure would only be
efficient in large towns, and that in other places it would not be
enforced—not because there is any sort of opposition to the
principle, but on account of a fear which many persons entertain
of any measure which in the slightest degree may increase the
�14
burden of the rates. Sir, we say that such Acts as Denison’s Act,
which lias been an utter failure, and the Free Libraries Act, which
has only been applied partially, are illustrations of the results of
such legislation. (A Voice : The Baths and Wash-houses also.)
Then, with reference to this permissive sectarianism, the Town
Councils object to it, and regret the importation of a new element,
causing their election to turn upon religious opinion, and not upon
personal fitness; and, when they are elected, dividing them into
two hostile camps. The Dissenters object to this measure, which
they conceive will hand over the education of this country to the
Church of England entirely in many parts of the kingdom,
especially in agricultural districts; and they think that it must
necessarily be followed by a measure which will hand over the
education of the people in 1 reland to the Church of Borne—(loud
applause)—and that in this way the influence, social and political,
of those two Churches will be unfairly increased. (Hear, hear.)
Further, we consider (that this Conscience Clause which is con
tained in the proposed Bill, or any Conscience Clause, will be
absolutely unsatisfactory. (Applause.) Where it is not needed,
there, Sir, it will be absolutely nugatory, because the parents will
not dare to make use of it; they will be afraid of placing
themselves, by signing such a document, under the ban of the
Squire and the Parson. (Cheers.) Besides, sir, we say that a
Conscience Clause of any kind does not touch the hardship of
which Dissenters complain—that the minority will in many
districts be taxed to pay for the support of schools which arc1 part
of the machinery for perpetuating doctrines to which they have a
conscientious objection. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, in conclusion,
1 have been instructed tn express a very earnest hope that the
Government, which secured the cordial and unwavering support of
the great majority of Liberal ('hurehmen, and of all the leading
Dissenting bodies in this country, in their effort to carry out the
principles of religious freedom and religious equality in Ireland
— (applause)—will not reject our petition for the application of
those principles to England and Wales, and that they will consent
to remove from what we all think otherwise a noble measure,
those, clauses which we conscientiously believe will inflict an
intolerable hardship and oppression upon a large class of the
community. (Loud applause.)
Sir Charles W. Dilke : Air. Gladstone, my Lord de Grey,
�15
and Mr. Forster,—The point which has been entrusted to me to
bring before you to-day is that of permissive compulsion—of
the conflict between the principles of permissive and of direct
general compulsion. Now, the fact of Mr. Chamberlain having
so fully stated the views of the League upon that point, and also
the fact that you have thought it right, and the Cabinet have
thought it right, to insert a principle of direct compulsion in
some shape in the Bill, clear my task is so considerably that I
think it will be necessary that I should speak only upon the per
missive character of the compulsion which is proposed. It will not
be necessary that I should say anything with regard to the neces
sity, or with regard to the justifiableness, of compulsion in general,
because those, are admitted by the insertion of the principe in the
Bill. But what I would wish, on behalf of the Deputation, and on
behalf particularly of the London Branch, in whose name I speak,
to call your attention to is, not that we feel, or are able to say, that
it might not have been right in the Government to insert some con
dition with regard to compulsion—we feel it might be proper, in
the state of public feeling on compulsion, that some condition
should have been inserted by way of a test which should be prece
dent to compulsion being required ; but we feel (and 1 think 1
speak the opinion of the whole Deputation on this point) that the
condition which is made precedent to the application of compulsion
is a condition which is wholly a bad one. Compulsion is a
matter which concerns attendance and attendance only, and the
conditition by which, under tlie Bill, compulsion is to be applied
is one which concerns not attendance, but school accommodation.
You make, in this Bill, one condition hinge upon another; you
say that where there is a deficiency of school accommodation, and
there only, you will have permissive compulsion. Well, even in
that case, the compulsion is permissive—and permissive with
whom ? It is permissive in the country with Boards which will
be chiefly composed of farmers. (Hear, hear.) That is to say,
Boards composed of persons who have a direct interest in seeing
that the compulsion is not applied. In the towns those Boards
will be Boards which, whatever their merits or demerits may be,
are bodies which very naturally have a strong opinion against any
temporary increase of the rates, and thus you give permissive
powers to Boards who will consider less the ultimate decrease of
the rates than the immediate increase which will result upon the
�1G
principle of compulsion being applied. Well, but we go much
farther than this, and we object altogether to the permissive
legislation of which this Bill is full. As Mr. Chamberlain has
pointed out, the Deputation, and the League generally, object
not merely to permissive compulsion, they object to permissive
free schools and to permissive religion—(applause)—as well as
permissive compulsion. We feel that either compulsion is right
or wrong. By putting it in the Bill you have acknowledged it is
right. If it is right, then, it should be declared to be right by
the Imperial Legislature, and if it is wrong it should not be
placed in a Government Bill. What we ask is, that compulsion
should not be left to Local Boards of any kind or however con
stituted, but that if you are to have compulsion at all, it should
not depend upon local bias, but it should l>e imposed upon the
people by the act of the Imperial Legislature. (Loud applause.)
Mr. Mundella (M.P. for Sheffield): Mr. Gladstone, my Lord
de Grey, and Mr. Forster.—The few remarks which I shall detain
you with will have reference to the effect of compulsion as an
educational power. In the first place, I believe that it is the
experience of all those who have seen the influence of education
abroad, that without compulsion nothing like a good education is
secured. However much you may cover the land with schools,
however ample, the provision may be that you may make for those
schools, as in Ame rica, as in France, indeed, and as in Holland,
the results will be altogether inadequate to your efforts unless you
make it the absolute duty of the parent that the child’shall be in
attendance, regularly and consecutively, for a certain number of
years. My attention was first drawn to this by reason of the fact
that I am an employer of labour abroad, that I have seen the
working of this system in Switzerland and Germany ; and I have
seen its contrast, too, in Holland and in France. I am conscious,
also, of what is going on in America, and I am bouud to say that
although America has made the most ample provision of any
country in the world for schools, yet American education, instead
of progressing, is on the decline. I received only a few days ago
a report from the State of Massachusetts. Compulsion may be
practically said to be, in America, permissive, as it would be under
this Bill. In the city of Lowell, the compulsory powers aie carried
out as effectually as they can be : 90 per cent, of the children are
in school. Tn the city of Fall Biver. on the other hand, in the
�17
same State, tlie compulsory powers have been altogether neglected,
as the School Boards confess, and the result is that 50 per cent, of
the children are out of school. (Cheers.) Now, I am sure it
must have been said to you often, and you must have often read
it, that we exaggerate the educational destitution of this country.
Sir, I believe it is impossible to describe it, much less to exag
gerate it; and I believe those reports which we are all anxiously
looking for from the Privy Council, on the state of education in
the four largest cities in the M idland Counties and the North, will
more than corroborate what 1 say, and that when the} arc pio
duced they will be the most black and appalling page in the
history of our country. So far from education progressing in this
country, I believe it is not progressing in the same ratio as the
population, and that we are raising around us a mass of ignorance,
pauperism, and crime which is a disgrace to us as a Christian
people. (Loud applause.) I am glad to say that this is not
exclusively a Liberal question—(hear, hear)—or a Dissenters
question, for 1 have in my possession at this moment some dozen
letters from clergymen of the Church of England, managers of the
largest schools in England—one of whom has a school of 1,-00
children—and they all, with one exception, say to me: “Me
agree with you: we must have compulsion, or we shall have
nothing effectual ; and we are quite prepared for a separation of
the religious teaching.” (Loud applause.) Now, if we can only
introduce that sort of kindly spirit into this controversy, that ve
are all willing not to urge the teaching of those things on which
we differ, but those on which we agree—(applause)—and to insist
upon the attendance of children; if you, sir, will only make it
absolute that it is the right and the appanage of every child in this
country to receive the highest education that can lie gii en
(applause)—because, Sir, we must set up a high ideal ; we mud
not compare ourselves with ourselves, but we must compare ouiselves with those great nations that for thirty or forty years hare
adopted compulsory education, and have thereby produced the
most marvellous and extraordinary results. We must not, as
Englishmen, be content with anything short of wliat they have
attained.
Mr. Gladstone : Which nations, Mr. Mundella ?
Mr. Mundella : Prussia, Saxony, Wurtemburg, Switzerland.
Baden Baden.
�18
A Voice: Holland.
Mr. Mlndella : No ; Holland is not' compulsory. But I will
speak of the great North German Confederation as affording the
model-tlie high ideal-of what we must and ought to attain to in
education
Sir 1 have wandered from one end of Saxony to.
another, I have been through Prussia and in many of its latest
departments, and I could not find an ignorant child, go where I
might (Loud applause.) It is not only that they are not ignorant,
or that, hke our own children, they have attained to the readin" of
a signboard or the scrawling of a name-that is not education—
that is not the education which they have enjoyed; but it is an
education that is useful to them in its culture and in its assistance to
them m acquiring knowledge in every relation of life. (Loud
applause.) Sir, I say if you confer that blessing upon English
children great as have been all the works that you have done
before-(loud and prolonged applause)-great as is the promise
and the hope of what you will do-(cheers)-vour name will be
associated with a still greater work-with the greatest blessinwhich can descend from generation to generation upon the people
of this country. (Loud and prolonged applause).
Mr. Robert Applegarth : My only desire for troubling you
with any remarks on this occasion is on account of the great de
termination there is on the part of the working classes to speak for
emselves on these great questions. (Hear, hear). They feel that
hitherto the upper and the middle classes have spoken on their
»‘half, perhaps too much, and that they have said too little for
enise ves. Me hold that on the education question we have
been grossly misrepresented. Lord Robert Montagu has spoken
m the name of the working classes, the Archbishop of York has
spoken, Lord Marlborough has spoken, and many such gentle
men—(laughter and applause)—whose good intentions 1 do not
questson, but whose knowledge of our wants and requirements I
do question very much. (Hear, hear). They have said we wanted
what we do not want, and they have said we are satisfied with
what we are very discontented with. (Laughter and applause),
he Kev. Canon Beechey says—speaking of the miners of this
country-that they would strike against compulsion. Now, against
that statement I protest as a falsehood. (Laughter, and cries of
) \\ ell, that is a strong word to use., I admit ; but it is un
true, and the truth should be spoken. (Laughter and applause).
�19
The miners of this country have met in conference by their dele
gates, and they have declared—not that they wanted more wages,
not that they wanted shorter working hours, or any special remedy
of that sort ; but the lirst and most important tiling they have de
clared is, that they must have compulsory education for their chil
dren. (Loud applause.) Sir, the working classes throughout the
country have long declared in favour of compulsory education, and
I should be sorry to be regarded as speaking in the name of those
that I know little about; but my claim in speaking for the work
ing classes is that 1 have worked with them and tor them all the
days of my life, and I would not for one moment say on their be
half what 1 did not conscientiously believe they would desire me
to say. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps Mr. burster will tell me, as he
has told me before, that there is a large class in whose name the
representatives of our class generally cannot speak. M ell, I can
only say that, having worked for and with the better part of my
class all my life, I am in at least as good a position as Lord 1\obert
Montagu, or the Duke of Marlborough, or the Archbishop of < can
terbury, to speak on behalf of that class ; and I say that from the
miners up to the most skilled artisans of the country, they have all
declared in favour of compulsory education. As an instance, I may
mention that, last Thursday, I was in Glasgow ; there were 1,000
men crowded into a large room, and they were drawn together
under circumstances of a most unfortunate kind, because they were
engaged in discussing the whys and wherefores of a strike not the
best circumstances under which to take into consideration the ques
tion of education. Hut having been invited to speak to them, and
having said what I had to sayr with reference to their dispute, I asked
permission to turn that strike meeting into an education meeting.
(Loud applause.) It was unanimously' accorded, and, after having
spoken to them, I asked them if they' would embody their opinions
in the form of a resolution, and the following is the resolution that
was passed :—“ That this meeting of operative carpenters and
joiners, of Glasgow, expresses its cordial sympathy with the work
men of England and Wales in their efforts to obtain the establish
ment of a compulsory, secular, and free system of National
Education, and we hereby pledge ourselves to use our influence to
assist them in their endeavours.” Well, now, that is the way’ in
which the working classes have spoken, to my certain knowledge,
for the last fourteen years. It is now some fourteen years ago that
�20
1 first ventured to speak to a body of workmen on the question of
education ; and, I care not whether it has been in connection with
strikes or with any other business, I have always endeavoured to
put in the thin edge of the education wedge, and I have been con
tinually driving it home ever since. (Laughter and applause). But
the one question upon which they have been unambiguous is this
question of compulsion. (Applause). It is no answer to our ap
plication, to our appeal, to tell us that the Union, on the other
hand, has made a counter demand; I submit that such a list of
names as the. Union musters in their sheets, is not an answer to the
demand on the part of the working classes of this country. It
may be well for the Archbishop of York, or the Duke of Marl
borough, or Lord Robert Montagu to say we do not want compul
sion ; but what do we say for ourselves ? We say we want it, and
what is more, I mean to say, with all respect, that in the end we
will have it. (Laughter and applause). We intend to agitate until
we do get it, and, further, we think we have a lair claim upon the
present Government. (Loud applause). During the last election
we lent our best exertions to move the public and to get that noble
majority from which we hope so much in the present and in the
future—(applause)—and we hope to get in return the best assist
ance from the Liberal party to obtain for us that which we require.
On these grounds, I say, we have a claim that the present Govern
ment shall do something in the way of granting what we ask for.
In conclusion, I would simply say again what I have already stated
before, that hitherto our names have been used by those who
know too little about us to be able to state what our wants are;
and in that view we have made up our minds, upon this and every
other great question, to speak for ourselves. (Loud applause).
Rev. S. A. Steixtiial (of Manchester) : I represent the branch
of the League in Manchester and the neighbourhood, embracing
nearly the whole of the manufacturing district of South Lancashire,
and including a considerable portion of Cheshire and other districts
in that neighbourhood ; and I have to speak, sir, upon one point
on which Mr. Dixon has told you there exists some difference of
opinion amongst the leaders of the League. I happen not to be
amongst those, but I represent those who follow, and amongst
them there is no difference of opinion on the subject of the
freedom of schools. 1 have had an opportunity, as Secretary of
our Manchester District Branch, to address a large number of
�21
meetings, comprised, generally speaking, ol‘ the working claesss of
our district, and everywhere there has been the strongest feeling
that the plan suggested by the Government is a dangerous method
of meeting the difficulty with regard to the payment of fees. It
has been felt that, by the plan proposed in the Government Bill,
there would be the greatest danger of introducing a pauper spirit
where it does not yet exist—(applause)—while if the schools were
opened free to all classes of tin1 community, and all were placed
upon an equal footing, there would be no danger of sapping the
independence of the community. But, on the other hand, if you
do make it compulsory upon those whose circumstances are poor to
come before a Board and show their poverty, and prove it, in order
to escape the payment of as small a sum as sixpence per week, you
have certainly done that which will undermine their sense of
independence, and teach them to apply to Boards for help in
matters connected with their personal expenditure. (Applause).
And, sir, as we believe that independence of the population
will be best preserved by putting the maintenance of the schools
upon the local rates and upon the Government taxes, and as we
find the people nowhere averse to an increase of the rates in this
direction—for they are well aware of the economy that it ■will be
in so many others—we claim that, as these schools should be
entirely supported by public money, the public should be entitled
to their free use at all times. (Applause.)
Mr. Illingworth (of Bradford, M.P. for Knaresborough, : Air.
Gladstone, my Lord de Grey, and Air. Forster,—I have been
deputed to speak to the mode in which it is proposed to deal with
the religious difficulty in this Bill, and I believe I am giving
utterance to the convictions of the great Nonconformist bodies in
this country, and not of them only, but of all that worthy section
of Episcopalian and other Churches who join with us in all
Liberal movements, when I express a strong feeling of regret that
there, is not a clear enunciation of sound principle in the Bill upon
ecclesiastical and religious matters, when the groundwork which
was laid down in the last session of Parliament seems to have
been forgotten both in its inception and in its results ; and that,
further, between the two parts of the Bill—one part having refer
ence to existing schools, and the other to the schools to be created
by public money, and to be directly under public control—there
ought to have been a greater distinction drawn than that which
�oo
prevails in tlie Government Bill. Dissenters will be disposed to
recognise rights in existing schools on the part of a class which it
would be impossible they could consider for one moment in ratecreated and publicly-managed schools ; but, so far as the existing
schools are concerned, the universal feeling is that nothing of the
character of a Conscience Clause, according to its present or almost
any possible, acceptation, will be of the slightest use. (Hear, hear.)
I wish to draw attention to this fact, that there is in existence
what is called a national system of education in Ireland, governed
by national conscience, and that in that system the religious rights
of the minority have been protected. And why ! Because the
minority of Ireland happen to be connected with the governing
body in England, and therefore it is that their rights have been
thought of and effectually guarded. Now, we ask a reference on
the part of the Government to the working of that measure, and
to the particular provisions of the Irish system; and we say surely,
after having done, as Nonconformists, what we did last session
towards the bringing about of that happy condition in Ireland in
which the State minds its own business and leaves the religious
bodies to manage theirs—(applause)—we ask that in England equal
rights may be conceded, and that not suing in forma pauperis—
(heai1, hear)—nor any longer accepting the crumbs that fall from
the table—(applause)—but as sitting ourselves at the table, we
claim equal rights. (Loud applause.) 1 have the honour of being
one of tin* constituents of my right honourable friend Mr. Forster,
and no one can have a higher regard for him than I have, and,
indeed, for all the members of the Cabinet. I believe they are
about the best men that ever a party was asked to follow. (Loud
applause.) But, at the. same time, that does not exclude us from
stating with great respect, but with great candour, our demands
upon this question, and we say it is impossible for any satisfaction
to ensue from the carrying of this measure, because it does not
provide for that separation of religious teaching which I have
before pointed out. With that the demands of the Dissenters will
cease. They will ask equal rights with all other religious bodies,
and they look forward to a time when a. controlling national
system of education shall educate all the children of the land.
(Loud applause.)
The Rev. F. Barham Zincke (Chaplain to the Queen) : Mr.
Gladstone, my Lord de Grey, and Air. Forster,—Mr. Mundella
�23
says that this is not a Nonconformist question. I rise as a member
of the Established Church, and as the Chairman of the Ipswich
Committee, upon which two other clergymen of the Established
Church sit, to state that it is our opinion that the time lias now
come when the question of religious teaching should be settled in
a different manner from that by which it is proposed to be settled
in this Bill. We think that that time has come, because to
whatever part of the country we look we see indications in favour
of our opinions. (Applause.) 1 need not enter into particulars.
We know that it is so in Wales, we know that it is so in Scotland,
we know that we must do nothing in this country which will
endanger the national system in Ireland—(applause)—we know
that large bodies of the inhabitants of this country, such as
Nonconformists and the artisan class, whom we have represented
here to-day, are in favour of dealing with the religious question in
a manner different from that in which it is dealt with by this Bill.
We know that if it is dealt with in the manner proposed, a
variety of great evils will immediately follow ; we know that it will
produce an enormous amount of animosity—(hear, hear)— and of ill
blood in every borough and in every rural district in the country.
We know, too, when we look at what is passing in our great
English Universities, and what we have lately heard coming from
Trinity College, Dublin, that people’s minds are changing upon
this subject; and with reference to my own mind, speaking as a
member of the Established Church, I should feel no fear for the
cau^e of religion or for the cause of the Established Church, not
merely if we went as far as it is proposed to go, but even if we
went further—as far as appears to be required by the principality
of Wales. (Applause.) I think that the strength of the Church
does not consist in arrangements which were made centuries ago,
and have come down to us from a time when the political situation
was very different from that of the present day, and when all the
conditions of the question were very different. But it must
depend upon the estimate in which the Church is held by the
people; and if religious teaching is separated from secular, then
the country will feel that there is a great work to be done by the
clergy, and I believe that in the present temper of the clergy they
would do it heartily. What would be the result ? Why, then
the people would feel more respect and more gratitude and more
affection for the clergy than they do at the present. That would
�form a secure basis on which to rest the Establishment, ami that
is the only basis upon which, 1 think, in these days it can stand.
(Loud applause.)
The Rev. Charles Vince (Nonconformist .Minister) : Mr. Glad
stone, Mr. Forster, and Lord de Grey,—I should like to say that
the treatment of the religious difficulty has been put as the last
point to be spoken upon to-day, not because we consider it the
least important, but because we consider it the most important.
Many of us feel that the proposed treatment of the religious
difficulty is so unsatisfactory', that even it the other matters we
object to were adjusted to meet our wishes, we should still be
constrained to deprecate the passing of the Bill. (Applause.) I
should like, further, to say that our position of antagonism to Her
Majesty s Government is one that we did not anticipate, and now
we are forced into it we deeply lament it. Nothing, indeed, but
the strength and depth of our convictions as to the mischievous
results which will follow if this Bill becomes law in its present
form, would have induced us to come here in opposition to a
Ministry' whose advent to power was with some* of us the greatest
political joy' of our life. (Applause.) I would respectfully urge
that the religious difficulty is not met in the Bill, but is practically
ignored. The Imperial Parliament is asked not to decide the
matter, but to pass it on to a number of local Parliaments, in
which probably it will be perpetually discussed, but never finally
settled. (Applause.) AVe cannot see that there is the slightest
restriction put upon the power of the ►School Boards. They are at
liberty7, in establishing schools, to make them of what theological
colour and complexion they please, provided there is a Conscience
(Clause ; and, having determined to establish schools of such a
sectarian character as they deem fit, they have power to rate all
the inhabitants of the district for the maintenance of the schools.
The School Board in each district will be a Convocation—not
with the semblance of power, but with the reality of power.
(Applause.) It will be an ecclesiastical council, with authority to
determine what particular creed shall be exalted and endowed as
the creed of the State school in that particular district. I would
submit that no municipal or parochial body' was ever before
entrusted with such powers. A body invested with these preroga
tives by’ the Imperial Parliament cannot be annually elected
without strife and bitterness. It has been said that this will be
�the Church-rate contest over again. It will be so, with a very
important addition. The vestries in the Church-rate, contests had
to decide nothing about the services to be performed or the
doctrines to be taught; they had only to decide whether the
parish should be rated for the maintenance and repair of the
fabrics of the Episcopal Church. The School Board will have to
decide what doctrines shall be taught, and, therefore, it is the
Church-rate contest over again, with more important issues to be
determined, and, consequently, with greater danger of party strife
and bitterness. (Hear, hear.) We feel, sir, that our fears cannot
be denounced as chimerical. It cannot be said that we are going
simply upon conjecture, because there is the history of the past to
guide us. It has been well said that “ History is the Statesman's
book of prophecy.” With the history of the Church-rate contest
in our hands, one needs far less than a Statesman’s sagacity to
foresee what must be the issue of these contests for the election
of a body invested with the extraordinary functions which T think
I have fairly described. (Applause.) We feel, sir, that the
Conscience Clause does not meet the difficulty. There is one most
important class for whom no Conscience Clause is proposed.
There are two parties to be affected by these schools—the children
who will go to them, and ihe ratepayers who will have to support
them. Now, there is no Conscience Clause provided for the
protection of the ratepayers; and if, as is extremely probable
in certain districts, the rate-supported school should be a
sectarian school, then, as Mr. (’hamberlain has said, the
minority will be taxed to support the teaching of the religion
of the majority.
It is very certain that, if that state of
things is brought about by an Act of Parliament, we shall have
■distraints for school rates as we used to have distraints for (Ihurcli
rates. I fear there are many who would feel bound to take that
determined stand, because it is generally considered that the time
is passed by for ever for any man in England to be directly taxed
for the teaching of another man’s religion. (Applause.) I would,
moreover, respectfully submit that it is not merely contests between
Nonconformists and Episcopalians that are to be dreaded. I need
not say that the differences of opinion which have always been
more or less latent in the Episcopal Church are now developed
into great prominence, and are held and maintained with great
•earnestness. It is quite likely that, in certain districts, in the
�26
election of a Hoard there will he contests between different parties
in the Episcopalian Church, as well as contests between Noncon
formists and Episcopalians. (Laughter and applause.) English
(Christendom dees not increase in uniformity of opinion. (Laughter.)
I believe it does increase in unity of spirit. It seems to us that
the- proposal of Her Majesty’s Government for the treatment of
the religious difficulty will aggravate the evils incident to diversi
ties of opinion, and will aim a deadly blow at that charity of
spirit which increasingly prevails amongst all religious parties in
this country. (Loud applause.)
The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone: Mr. Dixon and gentlemen,
—On behalf of my colleagues, Lord de Grey and Mr. Forster,
and on my own behalf, I wish to say that I have had great
pleasure in receiving, from so many sources, gentlemen of so
much weight and ability, and so various (if I may so say) in
colour upon many matters, and hearing from them the expression
of their views. You are much too well aware of the gravity of
the question at issue, and of the necessity of weighing with very
great care every resolution of the Government upon them, to
complain, I am quite sure, if I say that I think our business on
this occasion is to take the expression of your views for careful
scrutiny and consideration. (Applause.) But I should wish to
he quite sure that, as far at least as you are disposed to carry the
matter, 1 understand the nature of them; and I admit that
nothing can be clearer than that you take great objection to
several of the provisions that are contained in the Government
Bill. (Laughter.) But at the same time, I listened with great
comfort and satisfaction, not only to the general expressions of
good-will which you gave us—I am sure beyond our deserts—
(cries of “No”)—hut likewise to the declaration of Mr.
Chamberlain, who I may consider as in some sense being your
chairman—the representative of you all—who did not hesitate to
state that he thought in other matters, outside the limit of your
objections, the Bill may fairly he regarded as “ a noble measure.”
That admission on the one side—or rather that avowal, for I
won't call it an admission—together with the frank statement of
your difficulties upon the other, affords, I think a basis upon which
we cannot but hope that by our united efforts, and by a spirit at
once of firmness and conciliation in all quarters, we shall be able
to work out a result of which I won’t anticipate the precise con
�27
dition and details at present, because you know very well that we
have other matters in hand—(laughter)—which for the moment,
and for a few weeks to come, perhaps, will afford us plenty of care
and occupation. But now, with regard to your particular views
upon the points that have been raised, there are two upon which
I should, for the satisfaction of my own mind (I don’t know
whether Lord de Grey and Mr. Forster would like to put any
other question), like to be clear as to what your views are. I have
not quite distinctly gathered the manner in which you would
propose to deal with existing schools. You have stated, I think,
very distinctly, through the mouths of several speakers, that you
do not approve of the Conscience Clause inserted in the Bill;
not so much on account of the particular form of that clause, but
because you mistrust altogether, and are inclined, I think, almost
to repudiate—(applause and laughter)—anything in the nature of
a Conscience Clause. (Applause.) Now, if that be so, do I
understand that you, Mr. Dixon, or Mr. Chamberlain, as far as
you can venture to speak, wish me to understand that in dealing
with existing schools all through the country, your term of dealing
with them would be that they should receive no aid from rates—
(a voice, “ Or taxes ”)—or from the Privy ('ounc.il—(cries of “ No,
no ”)—that they should receive no aid from rates excepting upon
the terms of conforming to your basis ; so that the basis of all
schools aided by rates should be one and uniform throughout the
country I (Hear, hear.) Do I understand that to be the opinion
of the meeting generally?
Mr. Dixon : 1, perhaps, had better tell Mr. Gladstone what, so
far as I know, is the prevailing sentiment with reference to the
existing schools. It is, that there should be separate religious
teaching, as a condition of the further grants which it is proposed
under this Bill to make to them; and that with reference to th«
new schools which may be provided out of the rates, those schools
shall be entirely unsectarian. (Applause.)
Mr. Gladstone : Then the existing schools might differ from
the new schools, in respect of their having separate religious
teaching ?
Mr. Dixon : ()f their own denomination.
Mr. Mvndella : At separate hours.
Mr. Gladstone : I understand that: but that teaching must be
confined to particular hours. (Applause.) Then, with regard to the
�28
power of the Local Boards as to religion : certainly, I think if any
one objection has been taken more strongly and broadly than
another, it has been both to the amount and the kind of that
power. That has been made perfectly clear to my mind. But 1
have not gathered with equal clearness what it is that you would
substitute for it. The principles are, as 1 understand, that educa
tion is to be free, or. for the sake of avoiding ambiguity of words,
gratuitous. (Applause.) I understand from Mr. Dixon there is
some difference of opinion, but that the bulk of you are united
upon that subject. (Applause.) But with reference to the com
pulsory principle, T have not understood from ATr. Dixon or any
speaker, that then* was a difference of opinion among you. (Cries
of ‘‘None.’’) With respect to the question of the power of Local
Boards as to religion, what am 1 to understand would be your
basis I Where would you draw the line between the school that is
secular and the school to which you would object on the ground of
its being what is now termed sectarian ? Would anything what
ever in the nature of religion he permissible in your schools, or
would it not ! The reason 1 put the question is that I think it
one of very great importance, because it has been stated that the
view of the League (I do not pretend to be accurately informed,
and 1 only ask for information) is that the Holy Scriptures might
be read in the schools provided they were not explained. Now,
only for the sake of greater clearness, I will put it according to the.
old story of the three courses. Here are Holy Scriptures read and
explained; Holy Scriptures read and not explained; and simple
secular instruction, without any reading of the Scriptures at all.
(“ The last ! the last ! ’’ and loud cheers). I do not know whether
Mr. Dixon or Mr. Chamberlain is authorised to speak upon this
point in the name of the League; but, if they were, I think it
would be of advantage to us to know. In stating those three
courses I have not at all wished to preclude him or any other gen
tlemen from stating any other. 1 only state those as being what
have prominently occurred to myself. With regard to what might
be, called theological or religious instruction, I have begged the
question so far—I have assumed that you would include that; but
with regard to any of those particular methods which it may be
(or by some may be thought to) fall short of denominational in
struction, it would be an advantage to us to know whether the
League have an article of its creed if I may so call it, upon that
�29
subject; and, if so, which of those three courses it is disposed to
follow.
Mr. Chamberlain' : Sir, in the draft of a Hill which was
prepared on behalf of the League, in order to put in the clearest
form their views before the country, and which was passed by the
Executive Committee, subject, however, to further revision, there
occurs this clause, which, to a certain extent, answers your ques
tion :—“ That in the national rate schools no creed, catechism, or
tenet peculiar to any sect shall be taught in any national rate
school, but the School Board shall have power to grant the use
of the school rooms out of school hours for the giving of
religious instruction, provided that no undue preference be
given to one or more sects to the exclusion of others.
But the rooms shall not be granted for the purposes of
religious worship. The School Board shall have power to permit
the reading of the Scriptures in the schools, provided that no child
shall be present at such reading if his parents or guardians dis
approve. That the time for giving such reading be before or after
the ordinary school business, and that it be so fixed as that no
child be thereby in effect excluded directly or indirectly from the
other advantages which the school affords.” I may point out that
that clause does not say anything about the explanation of the
Scriptures. It was thought that was sufficiently provided for in
the first part of the clause, which says that “no tenet peculiar to
any sect shall be taught; ” and it was considered, therefore, that if
the reading were allowed in the schools, it must be of a perfectly
unsectarian character. It is, however, only fair that I should say,
before I .sit down, that although that was the clause as adopted
provisionally by the Executive Committee, yet there is a Aery
strong feeling amongst the members of the League that for that
clause should be substituted one requiring that secular instruction
alone should be given in the schools which are aided by the rates.
(Applause.)
Mr. Gladstone : It would seem to me to follow that if that
clause were acted upon, something in the nature of a Conscience
Clause is introduced into flic basis of your own Bill.
Mr. Chamberlain : What is called the “time-table Conscience
Clause ” would have to be introduced with regard to the Bible
reading, to meet the difficulty of the Iloman Catholics, who use a
different version of the Scriptures, as in Ireland.
�30
Air. Gladstone: Then with reference to the power (one cannot
mistake the object of it) of the Board to permit the use of the
room for denominational instruction out of school hours, have you
no tear at all that that would introduce into the vestries the same
element of religious contention which has been so vividly described
by Mr. Vince ?
Air. Chamberlain : The clause only permits the use of the
school rooms for such purposes “provided that no undue preference
be given to one or more sects.”
Air. Gladstone : I have not, as I have said, the least doubt
about the object—it is that perfect impartiality should be observed;
but with regard to the administration of the matter under the
clause, it occurs to me that the very conditions of time and light
available, in a district where there might be a variety of sects claim
ing the room, would make a considerable amount of practical diffi
culty ; and I only ask whether you apprehend that with reference
to the administration of that portion of the clause, if it were
carried, you might not be open to a portion of the very same evils
as those that have been foreshadowed by Air. ATnce.
Air. Chamberlain : That was apprehended by many members of
the League.
Air. Gladstone : Then 1 do not think there is anything more
that I need troAle you upon. Gentlemen, I am much obliged to
you.
Mr. Dixon : On behalf of the Deputation, Air. Gladstone, I
tender you our most gratefid thanks for the patience with which
you have received us.
The Deputation then withdrew.
I
�NATIONAL EDUCATION L E A G U E.
O EJECT.
The establishment of a system which shall secure the Education
of every Child in the Country.
J/AIA A’S.
1. —Local Authorities shall be compelled by law to see that
sufficient School Accommodation is provided for every
Child in their district.
2. —The cost of founding and maintaining such Schools as may
be required shall be provided out of Local Rates, sup
plemented by Government Grants.
3. —All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be under the
management of Local Authorities, and subject to Govern
ment Inspection.
4. —All Schools aided by Local Rates shall be Unsectarian.
5. —To all Schools aided by Local Rates admission shall be free.
6. —School"Accommodatian being provided, the State or the Local
Authorities shall have power to compel the attendance of
children of suitable age not otherwise receiving education.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE LEAGUE.
George Dixon, M.P., Chairman of Council.
Joseph Chamberlain, Chairman of Executive Committee.
John Jaffray, J.P., Treasurer.
Jesse Collings, Honorary Secretary.
Applegarth, Robert, London.
Bazley, C. IL, J.P., Manchester.
Booth, Charles, Liverpool.
Bragg, William, Sheffield.
Brown, Rev. J. Jenkyn, Birmingham.
Bunce, J. Thackray, F.S.S., Birmingham.
Caldicott, Rev. J. W., M.A., Bristol.
Chamberlain, J. H., F.R.I.B.A., Birmingham.
Chamberlain, Joseph, Birmingham.
Cheetham, William, Manchester.
Clarke, Rev. Charles, F.L.S., Birmingham.
Collier, W. F., Plymouth.
�Cowen, J., jun., Newcastle-on-Tyne.
Crosskey, Rev. H. W., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Dale, R. W., M.A., Birmingham.
Dawson. George, M.A., F.G.S., Birmingham.
Dilke, Sir 0. W., Bart., M.P., London.
Fawcett, Professor, M.P., Cambridge.
Fawcett, Mrs.
Ferguson, Major, Carlisle.
Field, Alfred, Birmingham.
Fry, Herbert, London.
Harris, William, Birmingham.
Herbert, the Hon. Auberon, M.P., London.
Hodgson, W. B., LL.D., London.
Holden, Angus, Bradford.
Holland, Henry, ex-Mayor of'Birmingham.
Howell, George, London.
Huth, Edward, Huddersfield.
Kenriek, William, Birmingham.
Kingsley, Rev. Canon, Eversley.
Kitson, James, jun., Leeds.
Lloyd, G. B. Birmingham.
Macfie, Rev. M., F. R.G.S., Birmingham.
Mander, S. S., Wolverhampton.
Martineau, R. F., Birmingham.
Mathews, 0. E., Birmingham.
Maxfield, M., Leicester.
Maxse, Captain, R.N., Southampton.
Middlemore, William, Birmingham.
Osborne, E.
Birmingham.
Osler, A. Follett, F.R.S., Birmingham.
Prange, F. G., Liverpool.
Rothera, G. B., Nottingham.
Rumney, Alderman, Manchester.
Ryland, Arthur, Birmingham.
Steinthal, Rev. S. A., Manchester.
Timmins, Samuel, F.R.S.L., Birmingham.
Vinci1, Rev. < ’hartes, Birmingham.
Webster, Thomas, Q.C., Loudon.
Winkworth, Stephen, Bolton.
Wright, J. S., Birmingham.
Zineke, Rev. F. B., M.A., Ipswich.
FINANCE COMMITTEE—Chairman, William Harris.
PUBLISHING COMMITTEE—Chairman, J. Thaikray Bunce.
BRANCHES COMMITTEE—Chairman, R. F. Martineau.
Francis Adams, Secretary.
Central Offices, 47, Ann Street,
Birmingham.
THE “JOURNAL” PRINTING OFFICES, NEW STREET, BIRMINGHAM.
�
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
Verbatim report of the proceedings of a deputation of the Right Hon. W.E. Gladstone, M.P., the Right Hon. Earl de Grey and Ripon, the Right Hon. W.E. Forster, M.P. on Wednesday, March 9, 1870
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
National Education League
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Birmingham
Collation: 30, [2] p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Aims and objectives of the League and committee members listed on unnumbered pages at the end. Includes list of delegates from the branches.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
National Education League
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
G5207
Subject
The topic of the resource
Education
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 (Verbatim report of the proceedings of a deputation of the Right Hon. W.E. Gladstone, M.P., the Right Hon. Earl de Grey and Ripon, the Right Hon. W.E. Forster, M.P. on Wednesday, March 9, 1870), 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
Earl de Grey and Ripon
George Forster
Religious Education
State Education
W.E. (William Ewart) Gladstone
William Edward Robinson
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/68b9d255ce7368c8c38bdaa64547d9eb.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gtBhujEjdphfW2dKSZbLh7Ka0N%7EMUOVNt9OotT2gOUC27H7-ZoI3PgiTyHkFi-vJQX53Jrupmk-Baq0bqFVmTKPZGcbTJuSXYutlLm5QnCBcLA-7mb-6Wqmgda9y3ING7aOAUapA-QC0mm5OunOKWABq%7EE-gq9bGvfDZzE%7Eyld6SgWMfhURtoxp4YoYMcBXpBIfG06KzEKKnzBewKQUncLR-rG1FXjMND1Y5X099I5882Wso9IGKuZbE5ZRINIhZ2oF0eOhHKHYS-NBi982hOBiglhkZ2Ud08tjDMAOsETKfDrrBFFeKHZnoi-sZxVMGijbqT5Qnqw8LnaVDvahn4w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
65ac64dd15bed90122ccc3756d489077
PDF Text
Text
B 'ZA_5 B
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
. _
Mr. Gladstone may not be a grand old man, but he is
certainly a wonderful old man. Here he is, at the close of
a long and arduous life, working off his exuberant energy
in all sorts of magazine articles, to say nothing of his
letters to correspondents and his speeches in parliament.
Nor does there appear any particular falling off in the
quality of his writing. He never was, in the proper sense
of the word, a thinker, though he has a very active mind ;
and his literary style always smacked of the platform
rhetorician rather than the scholar. But such as his thought
and style were, they seem unimpaired; his last article in
the Nineteenth Century being as good as anything he ever
published.
The article in question is a review of Mrs. Humphrey
Ward’s Robert Elsmere, one of those novels with a purpose
with which our age is so familiar. Mrs. Ward’s novel
is intended to preach a new gospel, namely that of
Christ without Christianity. All miracles, dogmas and
rituals are to be abolished, and the personality of Christ
is to be the sole object of adoration. This impossible
religion is considerably kicked and cuffed by Mr.
Gladstone. He rightly says that the Redemption, which
involves the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Resur
rection, is the very essence of Christianity; and if you
discard it, it is idle to call yourself a Christian.
Mr. Gladstone’s pounding of Mrs. Ward will be enter
taining to the orthodox. Our concern is rather with his
own utterances on Christianity. Mr. Gladstone seems, in
his old age, desirous to be the defender of the faith. Not
only does he defend Genesis against Huxley, and Chris
tianity against Mrs. Ward ; he is even bent on defending
religion in general against Ingersoll.
Mr. Gladstone’s first Words on the miraculous show that
he is hopelessly behind the age and out of the fight. “ The
impossibility of miracle,” he writes, “is a doctrine which
appears to claim for its basis the results of physical inquiry. ’ ’
But who talks about the impossibility of miracle ? Not
�2
Christianity and Progress.
Hume, not Mill, not Huxley. Every all eg?d miracle stands
or falls on its own evidence. Mr. Gladstone should have
written “the improbability of miracle.” When these terms'
are confused the writer has no real grasp of the question
at issue.
Similarly, Mr. Gladstone fails to grasp the situation
when he says that “the miracle of the Resurrection to-day
gives serious trouble to fastidious intellects.” There is
nothing fastidious in demanding proof. A rational man
is prepared to believe anything on production of the proper
evidence. Freethinkers do not deny the possibility of the
Resurrection ; they merely assert that it rests on evidence
which is so inadequate, that it would be laughed at in any
court of law, if adduced to suppport the most probable
statement.
Christianity’s triumph over Paganism is considered by
Mr. Gladstone as itself a miracle. He cannot otherwise
understand “the victory of the world’s babes and striplings
over its philosophers and scholars, and the serried array of
emperors, aristocracies, and statesmen.” ’ Well, look at
Mormonism, look at the Salvation Army. These systems
have grown faster than Christianity did. But they have
arisen in a period of vital and progressive civilisation, and
consequently their spread is limited. Christianity spread
while the Roman empire was decaying, and the ancient
civilisation was slowly breaking up for reconstruction.
Paganism itself had broken up also. The old national
religions had perished, because the Empire had annihilated
the national barriers. But the instinct and the material
of superstition were still left. There was a splendid
opportunity for a new universal religion. Christianity
arose and occupied the field, and had it not done so another
system would have taken its place. It was victorious by
adjustment. Its ecclesiastics altered and improved it
judiciously, adding here and lopping there, until it fitted
the superstition of every race in the Empire. Christianity
incorporated from all preceding creeds, and its triumph is
a striking illustration of the Darwinian law of natural
selection.
We do not, however, allow the truth of Mr. Gladstone’s
statement without reservation. Christianity did not triumph
over “ emperors”; it triumphed at last by emperors. Con
stantine made it the state religion, while its adherents
�Christianity and Progress.
3
only numbered one in twenty of his subjects; and though
it took three centuries to convert that fraction, the residue
were brought over in less than a century by the persuasive
eloquence of fine, imprisonment, torture and death.
Mr. Gladstone denies that there was a general precon
ception in favor of miracles in the Pagan world when
Christianity arose; though he afterwards argues that the
Roman religion was systematically miraculous. “ In
Philosophy,” he says, uthe Epicurean school was atheistic,
the Stoic school was ambiguously theistic, and doubt
nestled in the Academy.” True, but the philosophic
schools had no direct influence on the masses, who were
left to the priests of the popular religion. Printing was
required to make knowledge and reflection democratic.
No doubt great names exerted an indirect influence over
the people, but all the great names had vanished before
Christianity was victorious. Science, art, philosophy, and
literature died out with the Empire, and Christianity arose
in almost universal darkness.1 This is another proof of
Schopenhauer’s accuracy in saying that “Religions are
like glow-worms ; they require darkness to shine in.”
That Christianity “reconstituted in life and vigor a
society found in decadence ” is one of the wildest assertions.
What renovation took place after the age of Justinian,
when Christianity had everything at its feet? The de
cadence continued as before. Not until the Northern
barbarians carved out fresh kingdoms from the old ruins,
and poured new life into the veins of Europe, was there
any sign of improvement. It was not religion that wrought
the change, but the savage strength of virgin races. From
the German forests and the Scandinavian ice-fields poured
down the living tide that fertilised the barren fields of a
decrepit civilisation. Christianity had reviled nature, and,
nature avenged the insult. She flung her barbaric brood
upon the effeminate religionists; the healthy blood' and
brawn triumphed, and Europe was reborn.
Mr. Gladstone’s historical eulogy of Christianity is but
an echo of the stale platitudes of its professional apolo
gists.
“ It both produced a type of character wholly new to the Roman
See a fine statement of the case in J. C. Morison's The Service of
J
Man, pp. 171-17/,
�4
Christianity and Progress.
world, and it fundamentally altered the laws and institutions, the
tone, temper, and tradition of that world. For example, it changed
profoundly the relation of the poor to the rich, and the almost for
gotten obligations of the rich to the poor. It abolished slavery,
abolished human sacrifice, abolished gladiatorial shows, and a multi
tude of other horrors. It restored the position of woman in society.
It proscribed polygamy; and put down divorce, absolutely in the
West, though not absolutely in the East. It made peace, instead of
war, the normal and presumed relation between human societies.
It exhibited life as a discipline everywhere and in all its parts, and
changed essentially the place and function of suffering in human
experience. Accepting the ancient morality as far as it went, it
not only enlarged but transfigured its teaching, by the laws of
humility and forgiveness, and by a law of purity perhaps even more
new and strange than these.”
_ There is the Christian side of the picture. But the other
side must also be painted for the sake of contrast, and Mr.
Gladstone paints it hideously in the darkest colors. He
does the trick dexterously, but it is more worthy of a party
orator than an historical student.
“ What civilisation could do without Christianity for the greatest
races of mankind, we know already. Philosophy and art, creative
genius and practical energy, had their turn before the Advent ; and
we can register the results. I do not say that the great Greek and
Roman ages lost—perhaps even they improved—the ethics of meum
and tuum, in the interests of the leisured and favored classes of
society, as compared with what those ethics had been in archaic
times. But they lost the hold which some earlier races within their
sphere had had of the future life. They degraded, and that
immeasurably, the position of woman. They effaced from the
world the law of purity. They even carried indulgence to a worse
than bestial type: and they glorified in the achievement.”
Anything cruder, more one-sided or distorted, is hard to
conceive. Mr. Gladstone, with little regard to truth, says
the best he can of Christianity; with as little regard to
truth, he sa'ys the worst he can of Paganism; and he
fancies it a fair comparison.
Let us examine Mr. Gladstone’s two pictures. His
Pagan picture is simply ludicrous. Philosophy and art
are treated as mere trifles, and not a word is said about
the ancient science which modern Europe could not parallel
before the days of Galileo. Nor is there an allusion to the
daily life of the people ; the people who loved, married,
reared children, and were buried in tombs, on which we
•may still read touching inscriptions. Mr. Gladstone rushes
to Rome in its worst days, when a luxuriant aristocracy,
fed on the spoils of a hundred provinces, committed the
�Christianity and Progress.
5
worst excesses. But even there he sees no light and shade.
The indignant satire of Juvenal is regarded as true of all
Roman society. What if an historian should take the
satire of Dryden as true of all English society ? Would it
not be the grossest blunder ? Charles the Second, and his.
Rochesters and Nell Gwynnes, were as bad as any Roman
profligates; but there was still a good deal of sound
morality in the nation, as there doubtless was in the worst
days of Nero or Caligula.
Mr. Gladstone treads on dangerous ground when hetalks of the profligacy and bestiality of Greeks and Romans.
Can he name a vice that has not been amply illustrated by
Christian practitioners ? Can he name a crime in which
Christians have not equalled Fagans ? Was not Rome,
under some of the Popes, worse than Rome under any of
the Emperors? Was there not more general debauchery
in the Middle Ages than at any other period in history ?
Did not the rapid spread of syphilis in Christendom, as
soon as it was imported, testify to the promiscuous license
of the believers in Jesus ? Are the Christian chapters in
the history of prostitution less foul than the Pagan ? Can
not Christendom show a hundred filthy books for everyone
that Greece and Rome have bequeathed us ? Do not
portions of our Christian capitals reek with as much moral
pestilence as ever befouled Athens or Rome ? And was
not the state of things far worse a century or two ago ?
How long is it since the most stupid debauchee in England
was called the first gentleman in Europe ? Mr. Gladstone
is a man of blameless life, but he must know there is
bitter truth in Thackeray’s remark that our mouths may
be Meaner than our ancestors’ without our lives being
purer.
That Pagan civilisation degraded woman “ immeasur
ably ” is the reverse of truth. Does Mr. Gladstone mean
that socially or politically, woman occupied a superior
position in some remote era, when piety and justice
were supreme ? No, he cannot mean this, for it;
is simply absurd. What then does he mean ? His,
words would imply that as Greek and Roman civilisa
tion advanced woman sank lower and lower. But
nothing could be falser than this. With regard to Rome,
in especial, it is a singular fact that the corrupt period of
the Empire was precisely the time when the legal rights of
�6
Christianity and Progress.
women were firmly established. “ That very immorality,”
says Thulie,2 “that gangrened civilisation, served to
ameliorate her social condition.” Every step taken in our
own day to emancipate woman from political and social
bondage is a return to the laws passed under Roman
emperors, before Christianity had made any sensible pro
gress. The property of married women was secured, and
its misappropriation by the husband was punishable as
theft. Divorce was granted to both on the same condi
tions,3 and in every respect the legal equality of the sexes
was admitted. The Justinian code, compiled in the sixth
•century, made marriage a Christian sacrament; but the
Bible was not appealed to for its social regulations. “ The
emperor,” as Gibbon remarks, “ consulted the unbelieving
civilians of antiquity.”
Mr. Gladstone may be reluctant to accept the authority
of an infidel like Gibbon, but he cannot repudiate the
authority of Sir Henry Maine. This profound and accom
plished writer deals with the history of woman’s condition,
from a legal point of view, in the fifth chapter of his
Ancient Law. After referring to the expedients which the
later Roman lawyers devised for enabling women to defeat
the slavery of the ancient rules, and the gradual falling
into disuse of the three ancient forms of marriage, which
rendered the wife completely subject to her husband, and
even to his will after his death, this eminent jurisprudist
goes on to say:
“ The consequence was that the situation of the Roman female’
whether married, or unmarried, became one of great personal and
proprietary independence, for the tendency of the later law, as I
have already hinted, was to reduce the power of the guardian to
nullity, while the form of marriage in fashion conferred on the
husband no compensating superiority. But Christianity tended some
what from the first to narrow this remarkable liberty. Led at first by
justifiable disrelish for the loose practices of the decaying heathen
world, but afterwards hurried on by a passion of asceticism, the pro
fessors of the new faith looked with disfavor on a marital tie which
was in fact the latest the Western world has seen. The latest
Roman law, so far as it is touched by the Constitutions of the Chris
tian Emperors, bears some marks of a reaction against the liberal
doctrines of the great Antonine jurisconsults. And the prevalent
state of religious sentiment may explain why it is that modern
jurisprudence, forged in the furnace of barbarian. conquest, and
formed by the fusion of Roman jurisprudence with patriarchal
2 La Femme, p. 45.
3 Gibbon, chap. xliv.
�Christianity and Progress.
. 7
usage, has absorbed, among its rudiments, much more than usual
of these rules concerning the position of women which belong
peculiarly to an imperfect civilisation.”4
Roman jurisprudence, in the modern law of Southern
and Western Europe, was the influence which gave com
parative freedom to spinsters and widows; while the
Canon Law, which chiefly controlled the marriage relations,
was the influence which imposed disabilities on married
women. ‘‘This was in part inevitable,” says Sir Henry
Maine, “since no society which preserves any tincture of
Christian institution is likely to restore to married women
the personal liberty conferred on them by the middle
Roman law.”0
When Mr. Gladstone says that the Pagan civilisations
“ effaced from the world the law of purity,” it is difficult
to regard him as serious. That gross immorality existed
among the idle and wealthy, and often, though certainly
not always, at the imperial court, we frankly allow. But
may not the same be alleged of every age and every
country ? Catherine de Medici was extremely pious, but
this did not prevent her giving a banquet to her royal son,
at which her handsomest maids of honor officiated naked
to the waist. Brantome utters pious ej aculations amid his
incredible filth. The court he paints was horrified at the
thought of heresy, and rejoiced at the burning of Free
thinkers ; yet, as Mr. Morison says, “ one fails to see how
it differed, except for the worse, from the court of Caligula
or Commodus.”6 Centuries earlier, before the Renaissance,
when the Church was supreme and Christianity unques
tioned, Europe sent army after army to wrest the Holy
Land from the Mohammedans. Those enterprises were
religious. The Christian warriors were soldiers of the
Cross. They carried the “sacred emblem” on their
shoulders. Yet history attests that they were the vilest
savages that ever disgraced the earth. They were canni
bals, and their bestiality is beyond description. Might
not a Mohammedan have said that “Christianity had
effaced from the world the law of purity ” ?
Mr. Gladstone would reply that the law of purity was
not effaced; it was taught though not practised. But this
4 Sir Henry Maine, Ancient Law. p. 156. The italics are ours.
5 P. 158.
G The ¡Service of Man, p. 152.
, .
�8
Christianity and Progress.
argument can be used against himself. Purity wasequally
taught (and practised) by Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and
Epictetus, to say nothing of minor moralists. The wise
emperor wrote : “ Such as are thy habitual thoughts, such
also will be the character of thy mind; for the soul is
dyed by the thoughts.” 7 Does not this carry the law of
purity into the very citadel of man’s nature ? Epictetus
said : “For since the Gods by their nature are pure and
free from corruption, so far as men approach them by
reason, so far do they cling to purity and to a love of
purity.” 8 Seneca wrote : “If sensuality were happiness,
beasts were happier than men; but human felicity is lodged
in the soul, not in the flesh.” 9 Such was the effacement
of the law of purity in the Pagan world!
Mr. Gladstone’s panegyric on Christianity is as false as
his censure on Paganism. Some parts of it are too vague
to be answered, but where he is definite an answer is easy.
First, he says Christianity abolished slavery. It did
nothing of the kind. Before Christianity influenced the
Roman empire, the evils of slavery were mitigated, and
the institution wa3 thus tending to extinction. Slaves
were protected by the laws, and if they were ill-treated
they obtained their freedom or a less cruel master. Manu
mission became so frequent that the law had to impose
some restraint, lest the free citizens should be over
whelmed by the multitude of new comers.1 Learned and
artistic slaves sat at their masters’ tables and educated
their children. Slavery was, in fact, a caste and not a
traffic, though slaves were bought and sold. They were
the offspring of captives of war, and not kidnapped like
negroes. It was reserved for Christianity to steal men
from distant countries for the express purpose of making
them slaves. No such infamy as the African slave-trade,
carried on by Christians under the protection of Christian
laws, ever disgraced the nations of antiquity.
Constantine was the first Christian emperor. Did he
abolish slavery ? No. He liberated the slaves owned by
Jews, if they embraced Christianity, but the slaves of
Christian masters enjoyed no such advantage. According
7 Thoughts of M. Aurelius Antoninus. Translated by G. Long. P. 112.
8 Discourses of Epictetus. G. Long. P. 366.
9 The Morals of Seneca. Edited by Walter Olode. P. 68.
1 Gibbon, chap. ii.
�Christianity and Progress.
9
to the old law, a free-woman who had intercourse with a
slave was reduced to servitude ; but Constantine humanely
decreed that the free-woman should be executed and the
slave burnt to death.
Stoicism branded slavery as immoral, but where does
the New Testament say a word against that institution?
Jesus never once whispered it was wrong. He could
vigorously denounce what he disapproved. His objurga
tion of the Scribes and Pharisees is almost without a
parallel. Those who rejected his teaching and opposed
his claims were overwhelmed with vituperation, but
never did he censure those who held millions in cruel
bondage.
Saint Paul also never said a word against slavery, but
many words that lent it a sanction. He tells slaves
(servants in our Authorised Version) to count their owners
worthy of all honor (1 Tim. vi., 1); to be obedient unto
them, with fear and trembling, as unto Christ (Ephesians
vi., 5); and to please them in all things. Mr. Gladstone
is a Greek scholar, and is aware that the word which Paul
uses signifies slave, and not servant. The great Apostle
was thus brought face to face with slavery, yet he uttered no
word of condemnation. There is a certain pathetic tender
ness in his letter to Philemon, if we suppose he took the
institution of slavery for granted, but it vanishes if we
suppose he felt the institution to be unjust. Professor
Newman justly remarks that “ Onesimus, in the very act
of taking to flight, showed that he had been submitting
to servitude against his will.” Nor is there any escape
from this writer’s conclusion that, although Paul besought
Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother, “this very
recommendation, full of affection as it is, virtually recog
nises the moral rights of Philemon to the services of his
slave.” “Paul and Peter,” he adds, “ deliver excellent
charges to masters in regard to the treatment of slaves,
but without any hint to them that there is an injustice in
claiming them as slaves at all. That slavery, as a system,
is essentially immoral, no Christian of those days seems to
have suspected.”2
Century followed century, and the Church never once
raised its voice against slavery as an institution. It ex« Prof. F. W. Newman, Phases of Faith, p. 105.
�10
Christianity and Progress.
communicated heretics, but not slaveholders. Christian
divines invariably justified slavery from Scripture. Igna
tius (who is said to have seen Jesus), Saint Cyprian, Saint
Basil, Tertullian, Saint Augustine, Gregory the Great,
Saint Isidore, Saint Bernard, Saint Thomas Aquinas, and
Bossuet, all taught that slavery is a divine institution.
Christian jurisprudists, even in the eighteenth century,
defended negro slavery, which it was reserved for the
sceptical Montesquieu and the arch-heretic Voltaire to
condemn.
Church Councils rivetted the slave’s fetters. The Council
of Laodicea actually interdicted slaves from Church com
munion without the consent of their masters. The Council
of Orleans (541) ordered that the descendants of slave
parents might be captured and replaced in the servile con
dition of their ancestors. The Council of Toledo (633)
forbade bishops to liberate slaves belonging to the Church.
Jews having made fortunes by slave-dealing, the Councils
of Rheims and Toledo both prohibited the selling of
Christian slaves except to Christians. Slavery laws were
also passed by the Council of Pavia (1082) and the Lateran
Council (1179). During all those ages, priests, abbots
and bishops held slaves. The Abbey of St. Germain de
Prés owned 80,000 slaves, the Abbey of St. Martin de
Tours 20,000.3
Negro slavery was likewise defended by the pulpit and
the divinity chair in America. Mrs. Beecher Stowe said
the Church was so familiarly quoted as being on the side
■of slavery,'that “ Statesmen on both sides of the question
have laid that down as a settled fact.”4 Theodore Parker
said that if the whole American Church had “dropped
through the continent and disappeared altogether, the
anti-Slavery cause would have been further on.” 5 He
pointed out that no Church ever issued a single tract
among all its thousands, against property in human flesh
and blood ; and that 80,000 slaves were owned by Pres
byterians, 225,000 by Baptists, and 250,000 by Methodists.
Wilberforce himself declared that the American Episcopal
Church ‘ 1 raises no voice against the predominant evil ;
3 See Tourmagne’s Histoire de ¡’Esclavage Ancien et Moderne.
4 Key to “ Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” p. 533.
5 Theo. Parker, Works, vol. vi., p. 233.
�Christianity and Progress.
11
she palliates it in theory, and in practice she shares in it.
The mildest and most conscientious of the bishops of the
South are slaveholders themselves.” 6 The Harmony Pres
bytery of South Carolina deliberately resolved that slavery
■was justified by Holy Writ. The college church of the
Union Theological Seminary, Prince Edward County, was
endowed with slaves, who were hired out to the highest
bidder for the pastor’s salary. Lastly, Professor Moses
Stuart, of Andover, who is accounted the greatest American
theologian since Jonathan Edwards, declared that “The
precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor
of slaves and their masters beyond all question recognise
the existence of slavery.”
The Northern States were even more bigoted to slavery
than the Southern States. Boston, the classic home of
American orthodoxy, closed all its churches and chapels to
William Lloyd Garrison, who delivered his first anti
slavery lecture in that city in Julian Hall, which was
offered him by Abner Kneeland, an infidel who had been
prosecuted for blasphemy.
American slavery was not terminated by the vote of the
Churches ; it was abolished by Lincoln as a strategic act
in the midst of a civil war. England abolished slavery in
the West Indies, and honorably or quixotically paid for
it; but she was not the first nation to move in this matter.
Professor Newman rightly observes that “ the first public
act against slavery came from republican France, in the
madness of atheistic enthusiasm.” But it is a memorable
fact that Bonaparte, who set up the Catholic Church again,
gave a fresh lease of life to slavery.
Foreign slavery is an artificial thing, and may be
abolished by the stroke of a pen. But domestic slavery,
which was the basis of ancient civilisations as well as the
barbarism of the Middle Ages, had to die a natural death.
The progress of education and refinement, and the growth
of the sentiment of justice, helped to extinguish it; but
behind this there was an economical law no less potent.
Slave labor is only consistent with a low industrial life;
and thus, as civilisation expanded, slavery faded into
serfdom, and serfdom into wage-service, as naturally as
6 Wilberforce, History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America,
p. 421.
�12
Christianity and Progress.
the darkness of night melts into the morning twilight,,
and the twilight into day.
To assert that Christianity abolished slavery is therefore
Obviously false. Mr. Gladstone makes the statement, but
furnishes no proof, nor can he do so until history is re
written. The Bible never condemns or censures slavery ;
Christianity tolerated it without reproach for a period as
long as the whole history of ancient Rome; Church
Councils regulated it, and Church dignitaries reckoned
slaves among their possessions. When slavery died a
natural death in Europe, Christian nations continued it in
America, with no hereditary excuse, but animated by the
most brutal spirit of avarice ; nor were divines wanting to
prove that negroes might be fitly oppressed, as they were
not included in the descendants of Adam. Mr. Gladstone
can himself remember when slavery was legal in our West
Indian colonies. Men under thirty may remember its
abolition in the United States. This very week it has
been abolished in Brazil. To declare these things the
tardy results of a religion which was established by a
divine personage nearly two thousand years ago, is to
invite ridicule and laughter.
Mr. Gladstone’s next assertion is that Christianity
“ abolished human sacrifice.’’ When and where? Does
he suppose that human sacrifice was tolerated in the
Roman empire ? Or does he imagine that the stories of
Abraham and Jephthah had any special tendency to dis
credit "human sacrifice ?
The “multitude of other horrors ” abolished by Chris
tianity are too vague for refutation. Reply is impossible
until Mr. Gladstone condescends to be explicit. But it
must be allowed, as an historical fact, that the gladiatorial
shows were suppressed by Honorius.' Let Christianity
receive the credit of that, if you will; but set against it
the frightful severity which Christianity imported into
the laws. Burning alive was first inserted into the Roman
penal code by Constantine. “He appointed this punish
ment,” says Jortin, “ for various offences. To burn men*
7 The “ fact,” however, seems somewhat doubtful. We allow it on
the authority of Gibbon ; but Dr. Smith, in a footnote to his edition
of the Decline and Fall (vol. iv., p. 41), asserts that “ the gladiatorial
shows continued even at a later period,”
�Christianity and Progress.
"S 3
alive became thenceforward a very common punishment,
to the disgrace of Christianity.” 8
Christianity does not appear to have extinguished
cruelty with the gladiatorial shows. Fourteen centuries
have rolled by since then, but cock-fighting has only just
died out, and bull-fights are still popular in. Spain. What
moral difference is there between such a sport and the old
Roman shows ? The lust of cruelty is gratified in both;
the arena is reddened with blood; and what matter
whether it flows from animal or human veins ?
Mr. Gladstone may also recollect that prize-fighting is
scarcely extinct. An American bruiser—a coarse, low,
vulgar animal—was recently the idol of English society.
Crowds flocked to see and acclaim him, who would not
have crossed the street to see a Darwin or a Tennyson.
Even the Prince of Wales sought the honor of an interview
with this gladiator. Such is human nature after eighteen
centuries of Christian regeneration.
But all this is trivial in comparison with the positive
-cruelty which Christianity inflicted in the name of God.
The bloodshed of the gladiatorial shows sinks into insig
nificance beside the bloodshed of Christian persecution.
When Rome was Pagan thought was free. Gladiatorial
shows satisfied the bestial craving in vulgar breasts, but
the philosophers and the poets were unfettered, and the
intellect of the few was gradually achieving the redemp
tion of the many. When Rome was Christian she intro
duced a new slavery. Thought was chained and scourged,
while the cruel instincts of the multitude were gratified
with exhibitions of suffering, compared with which the
bloodiest arena was tame and insipid. No longer gladia
tors, but heretics, were ‘1 butchered to make a Roman
holiday.” What hypocrisy, to denounce the bloody sports
of Paganism, and call the mob to see men burnt aliveI
Eleven centuries after Honorius, John Calvin was burning
Servetus with green wood to prolong his torment.9 Alva
was perpetrating atrocities which Tacitus would have
deemed incredible. Here is a Christian picture from
Lisbon, so late as 1706, beheld by Bishop Wilcox. A
woman and a man were burnt for heresy.
8 Archdeacon Jortin, Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii.
p. 137.
9 R. Willis, Servetus and Calvin, p. 487.
�14
Christianity and Progress.
“ The woman was alive in the flames half an hour, and the man
above an hour...Though the favor he begged was only a few more
faggots, yet he was not able to obtain it. The wind being a little
fresh, the man’s hinder parts were perfectly wasted; and as he
turned himself his ribs opened.”1
Amongst the “multitude of horrors” which Chris
tianity “ abolished,” was there one to equal this? Phy
sician heal thyselfI Cease denouncing others while your
own hand is red enough to incarnadine the multitudinous
seas.
Christianity “ restored the position of women in society.”
We have already seen what was the position of woman
under the best Roman law. In what respect did Christianity
improve it ? As a matter of fact, Christianity degraded
woman by two methods; first, by adopting the Jewish
. story of the Pall; secondly, by preaching up virginity.
Paul’s view of woman’s position is contemptible ; she is as
inferior to man as man is to God. Saint Jerome called her
“the demon’s door, the road of iniquity, the scorpion’s
sting.” Saint Chrysostom called her “a sovereign pest.”
“ When you see a woman.” said Saint Anthony, “ be sure
you have before you not a human being, not even a wild
beast, but the Devil in person.” Saint Augustine’s insults
were nearly as extravagant. Saint John of Damascus styled
her “ a child of lying, the advanced sentinel of the Devil,”
and “a malignant she-ass.” Gregory the Great denied
her “any moral sense.”2 That is how Christianity “re
stored the position of woman in society.”
Christianity sought to destroy the family. “No reli
gion,” says Thulia, “has combated marriage with such
ardor as Christianity.” The Christian doctors despised it.
Saint Jerome cried “Let us take the axe, and cut up by
the roots the sterile tree of marriage. God permitted
marriage at the beginning of the world, but Jesus Christ
and Mary have consecrated virginity.” Saint Chrysostom
railed at woman for having brought about the Fall, and
the propagation of mankind by sexual intercourse, which
he called a pollution. Tertullian told her she should wear
mourning or rags, for she was the cause of the death of.
Christ. The triumph of Christianity meant the degrada
1 Chandler, History of Persecution, p. 287.
2 Thulie, pp. ¿01— 206.
�Christianity and Progress.
15
tion of motherhood, and the subjection of the wife as a
tolerated concession to the weakness of man’s flesh. Mar
riage sank into gratified lust, and women fell back into
the abject position they occupied in barbarous ages.
Polygamy was not proscribed by Christianity, because
it did not exist in the Pagan civilisation which Christianity
supplanted. Monogamy was legal in Greece and Rome,
and had been so for centuries. When Christianity opposed
polygamy among the barbarians it simply carried forward
the morality of Pagan civilisation. The Bible itself never
censures polygamy or enjoins monogamy.
That Christianity “ put down divorce ” is undoubtedly
true, but the result was of questionable value. The
Church still brands divorce with its anathema, but the
secular law, even in the most Catholic countries, has been
constrained to permit it under certain conditions.
Christianity certainly did not put down war, nor did it
make “peace, instead of war, the normal relation between
human societies.” The Pax Romamis was a reality, which
Christendom has never equalled. At no time did the
Roman armies number four hundred thousand men ; yet
now, after eighteen centuries of the gospel of peace,
Europe is armed to the teeth, six million soldiers are
grasping arms, and every Christian nation is anxiously
discussing its defences. During the last thirty years,
seven Christian wars have cost nearly three thousand million
pounds. Europe spends nearly two hundred millions every
year on armies and navies, and another two hundred
millions are required to pay the interest on debts incurred
over past wars. New rifles, new artillery, new explosives,
crowd upon us every few years. Surely, in face of these
facts, Mr. Gladstone’s eulogy of his creed is the idlest
verbiage.
Mr. Gladstone is right, however, in saying that Chris
tianity “changed essentially the place and function of
suffering.” Suffering was always regarded as an evil
before Christianity preached it as a blessing. Fortunately
the modern world is returning to the old opinion, and the
party of progress is everywhere warring against the evils
of this life, without waiting for the rectifications of another
world.
Charity itself has been narrowed by Christianity into
mere almsgiving. Paul’s great panegyric on this virtue
�16
Christianity and Progress.
is perhaps the finest thing in the New Testament, but the
very word he uses (caritas) was borrowed from Pagan
moralists. Cicero anticipated him before the birth of
Christ in his caritas generis humani.
“Humility and forgiveness” are fine phrases, but they
are seldom more. Generally they are little else than
eheap devices for popular oppression. “Blessed are the
meek, for they shall inherit the earth,” is a sweet text; but,
as a matter of fact, the soil of England is chiefly owned by
the House of Lords. The clergy, also, have taught humi
lity by enjoining the “ lower orders ” to remain contented
in that state of life to which Providence has called them, and
to order themselves lowly and reverently to all their betters.
As for “forgiveness,” we have simply to point out that,
until recently, the criminal jurisprudence of Christendom
was a ghastly scandal. Even in England, in the early
part of the present century, men and women were hung
in batches for small felonies ; and when Bomilly tried to
terminate this infamy, he was vigorously opposed by the
bench of Bishops.
Mr. Gladstone denies that “the improvements which
we witness are the offspring of civilisation.” But is he
able to show that they spring from any other cause?
Why was there so little civilisation in Europe when Chris
tianity was supreme ? Why did Europe wait so long for
the advent of what we call “progress ” ? Why was every
new idea baptised in blood? Why was every reform
opposed by the Church of Christ ? Why have scepticism
and civilisation moved forward with an equal pace ? Why
does Christianity fade as men become wiser and happier ?
Why is this age of progress the age of unbelief ?
Let Mr. Gladstone pluck out the heart of this mystery ;
a mystery indeed on his principles, though sun-clear to
the Freethinker, who sees in the history of Christianity
and civilisation the perpetual strife of irreconcilable
opposites.
Printed and Published by
Ct.
W. Foote, at 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
Christianity and progress : a reply to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone
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: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from British Library. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Printed and published by G.W. Foote. Donated by Mr Garley. Contains bibliographical references.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1888]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N229
G5086
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Christianity and progress : a reply to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
NSS
W.E. (William Ewart) Gladstone
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cbb067b32eac4bd3e52d5d97a7608d83.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=HDh6ab2lCY-nC32EnduaMsSwCeY7Bi2RRlFO4QQNUm0gkLkppF8MNss-4vRs0vOhDkC8H-GANQyN1lJyKJbXkEinl%7Eh30XXptuWnE-2R3Nqgo8cg0SZTrqnso-%7Ew-6%7E%7EWXacK6N3JFjuglAufrDBfjaRFLgIa5inwhD%7EBWO43%7EMAVPALEuQHgEuQn45t8ZpxlqVMj6ccDskGYGkkmQ9KSenpFrGtzS--CioyumX5DfOXAwekq5fHojrjvr-1aMfldS%7E7B%7Ebz1BMLBbkn2reV5UX09i%7ECZ6AXsVfnqza5NDmijmy7gVm0u13hsGVLicKoQ-zIfm-eRzKjsA16Cym4DA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1ed51c6acd283bc41c56a60722c7b3af
PDF Text
Text
r
?•
5?
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
01^7
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
i.
Christianity’s triumph over Paganism is considered
by Christians as itself a miracle. They cannot other
wise understand “ the victory of the world’s babes and
striplings over its philosophers and scholars, and the
serried array of emperors, aristocracies, and statesmen.”
But look at Mormonism, look at the Salvation Army.
These systems have grown faster than Christianity did.
True, they have arisen in a period of vital and progres
sive civilization, and, consequently, their spread is
limited. Christianity spread while the Roman Empire
was .decaying, and the ancient civilization was slowly
breaking up for reconstruction. Paganism itself had
broken up also. The old national religions had perished,
because the Empire had annihilated the national barriers.
But the instinct and the material of superstition were
still left. There was a splendid opportunity for a new,
universal religion. Christianity arose and occupied the
field, and had it not done so another system would have
taken its place. It was victorious by adjustment. Its
ecclesiastics altered and improvecTit judiciously, adding
I here and lopping there, until it fitted the superstition of
every race in’ the' Empire. Christianity incorporated
from all preceding creeds, and its triumph' Ts a striking
illustration of the Darwinian law of Natural Selection.
Against the wave of Eastern superstition which swept
over the Roman Empire, allied as it was with that of
the native population, Roman culture was ultimately
impotent. The philosophic schools had no direct in
fluence on the masses who were left to the priests of
r
Q
i
11
Vf
A
fi 1
Pi
i
�o
2
V/r > *
** i
4 '
CHRISTIANITY
the popular religion. Printing was required to make
knowledge and reflection democratic. No doubt great
names exerted an indirect influence over the people,
but all the great names had vanished before Christianity
was victorious. Science, art, philosophy, and literature
died out with the^Empire,^ and Christianity arose in
T
almost universal darkness.1 This is another proof of
Schopenhauer s accuracy in saying that “ Religions are
like glow-worms ; they require darkness to shine in.”
There is no basis in fact for the popular religious
teaching that Christianity brought a new life and a
healthier vigour to Pagan society. It served rather as J
one of the most important factors in its decadence and
decline. What_renovation took jflace after the ageof fill
| Justinian, when Christianity had everything at its feet ? |
I The decadence continued as before. Not until the
Northern barbarians carved out fresh kingdoms from*
the old ruins, and poured new life into the veins of
Europe, was there any sign of improvement. It was
not religion that wrought the change, but the savage
strength of virgin races. From the German forests and
the Scandinavian ice-fields poured down the living tide
that fertilized the barren fields of a decrepit civilization.
Christianity had reviled nature, and nature avenged» the J
insult. She flung her barbaric brood upon the effemi
nate religionists; the healthy blood and brawn triumphed, |
. and Europe was reborn.
II.
Many readers of this pamphlet may recollect a once I;
famous article by the late Mr. W. E. Gladstone on Mrs. |
Humphrey Ward’s novel, Robert Elsmere. In that essay I
Mr. Gladstone drew a picture of society before and after I
the introduction of Christianity, which is recalled here
1 See a fine statement of the case in J. C. Morison’s T/ia
Service of Man, pp. 174-177
0
�AND PROGRESS.
3
because it contains, in a small compass, all, or nearly
all, that Christian apologists are constantly saying. Of
the influence of Christianity on Roman civilization, he
says :—It both produced a type of character wholly new to
thé Roman world, and it fundamentally altered the laws
and institutions, the tone, temper, and tradition of that ?
world. For example, it changed profoundly the relation
of the poor to the rich, and the almost forgotten obliga
tions of the rich to the poor. It abolished slavery,
abolished human sacrifice, abolished gladiatorial shows,
and a multitude of other horrors. It restored the
position of woman in society. It proscribed polygamy ;
and put down divorce, absolutely in the West, though
not absolutely in the East. It made peace, instead of
war, the normal and presumed relation between human
societies. It exhibited life as a discipline everywhere
and in all its parts, and changed essentially the place
and function of suffering in human experience. Accept
ing the ancient morality as far as it went, it not only
enlarged but transfigured its teaching, by the laws of
humility and forgiveness, and by a law of purity perhaps
even more new and strange, than these.
This is the Christian side of the picture. But the
other side must also be painted for the sake of contrast,
and Mr. Gladstone painted it hideously in the darkest
colours. He did the trick dexterously, but it was more
worthy of a party orator than an historical student :—
What civilization could do without Christianity for
the greatest races of mankind, we know already. Philo
sophy and art, creative genius and practical energy, had
their turn before the Advent ; and we can register the
results. I do not say that the great Greek and Roman
ages lost—perhaps even they improved—thè ethics of
mmm and tuum, in the interests of the leisured and
favoured classes of society, as compared with what those
ethics had been in archaic times. But they lost the
hold which some earlier races within their sphere had
�4
CHRISTIANITY
had of the future life. They degraded, and that im
measurably, the position of woman. They effaced from
the world the law of purity. They even carried indulgence to a worse than bestial type, and they glorified in
the achievement.
Anything cruder, more one-sided or distorted, is hard
to conceive. Mr. Gladstone, with little regard to truth,
says the best he can of Christianity; with as little
regard to truth, he says the worst he can of Paganism;
and he fancies it a fair comparison.
Let us examine these two pictures. The Pagan
picture is simply ludicrous. Philosophy and art are
treated as mere trifles, and not a word is said about
the ancient science which modern Europe could not
parallel before the days of Galileo. Nor is there an
allusion to the daily life of the people; the people who
loved, married, reared children, and were buried in
tombs, on which we may still read touching inscriptions.
The apologist rushes to Rome in its worst days, when a
luxuriant aristocracy, fed on the spoils of a hundred
provinces, committed the worst excesses. But even
there he sees no light and shade. The indignant satire
of Juvenal is regarded as true of all Roman society, 1
What if an historian should take the satire of Dryden i
as true of all English society ? Would it not be the
grossest blunder ? Charles the Second, and his Roch
ester and Nell GWynnes, were as bad as any Roman
profligates; but there was still a good deal of sound
morality in the nation, as there doubtless was in the
worst days of Nero or Caligula.
A Christian treads on dangerous ground when he
talks of the profligacy and bestiality of Greeks and U
Romans. Can he name a vice that has not been amply
illustrated by Christian practitioners ? Can he name a m
crime in which Christians have not equalled Pagans ? T
Was not Rome, under some of the Popes, worse than
�5
AND PROGRESS.
Rome under any of the Emperors ? Was there not
more general debauchery in the Middle Ages than at
I any other period in history ? Did not the rapid spread
of syphilis in Christendom, as soon as it was imported,
testify to the promiscuous license of the believers in
Jesus? Are the Christian chapters in the history of
prostitution less foul than the Pagan ? Cannot Chris
tendom show a hundred filthy books for every one that
Greece and Rome have bequeathed us ? Do not
portions of our Christian capitals reek with as much
moral pestilence as ever befouled Athens or Rome ?
And was not the state of things far worse a century
or two ago ? How long is it since the most stupid
debauchee in England was called the first gentleman in
Europe ? There is bitter truth in Thackeray’s remark
that our mouths may be cleaner than our ancestors’
without our lives being purer.
That Pagan civilization degraded woman “ immeasur
ably ” is the reverse of truth. Does it mean that
socially or politically, woman occupied a superior posi
tion is some remote era, when piety and justice were
supreme ? No, it cannot mean this, for it is simply
absurd. What, then, does it mean ? The statement^
• would imply that as Greek and Roman civilization;
advanced, woman sank lower and lower. But nothing
could be falser than this. With regard to Rome, in
especial, it is a singular fact that the corrupt period of
| the Empire was precisely the time when the legal rights
| of' women were firmly established. “ That very im1 morality,” says Thulie,1 “that gangrened civilization,
served to ameliorate her social condition.” Every step
taken in our own day to emancipate woman from
political and social bondage is a return to the laws’
passed under Roman emperors, before Christianity had
1 La Femme, p. 45.
�6
CHRISTIANITY
made any sensible progress. The property of married
»I women was secured, and its misappropriation by the
11 husband was punishable as theft. Divorce was granted
|: to both on the same conditions,1 and in every respect
I i the legal equality of the sexes was admitted. The
■ Justinian code, compiled in the sixth century, made
marriage.a Christian'sacrament; but the Bible was not
appealed to for its social regulations. “ The emperor,”
as Gibbon remarks, “ consulted the unbelieving civilians
of antiquity.”
Christians may be reluctant to accept the authority
of an infidel like Gibbon, but they cannot repudiate
the authority of Sir Henry Maine. This profound
and accomplished writer deals with the history of
woman’s condition, from a legal point of view, in the
fifth chapter of his Ancient Law. After referring to the
expedients which the later Roman lawyers devised for
enabling women to defeat the slavery of the ancient
rules, and the gradual falling into disuse of the three
ancient forms of marriage, which rendered the wife
completely subject to her husband, and even to his will
after his death, this eminent jurisprudist goes on to
say
The consequence was that the situation of the
Roman female, whether married or unmarried, became'
one of great personal and proprietary independence, for
the tendency of the later law, as I have already hinted,
was to reduce the power of the guardian to nullity,
while the form of marriage in fashion conferred on the
husband no compensating superiority. But Christianity
tended somewhat from the first to naiyrow this remT/rkable
liberty. Led at first by justifiable disrelish for the loose
practices of the decaying heathen world, but afterwards
hurried on by a passion of ascetism, the professors
of the new faith looked with disfavour on a marital tie
1 Gibbon, chap. xliv.
�AND PROGRESS.
7
which was in fact the laxest the Western world has seen.
¡The latest Roman law, so far as it.is touched .by the
Constitutions of the Christian Emperors, bears some
maries* oT a reaction against the liberal doctrines of the
great Antonine jurisconsults. Ànd the prevalent state
oFreiTgious sentiment’ may explain why it is that modern
jurisprudence, forged in the furnace of barbarian
conquest, and formed by the fusion of Roman juris
prudence with patriarchal usage, has absorbed, among
its rudiments, much more than usual of these rules
concerning the position of women which belong
peculiarly to an imperfect civilization.1
Roman jurisprudence, in the modern law of Southern
and Western Europe, was the influence which gave
comparative freedom to spinsters and widows ; while
the Canon Law, which chiefly controlled the marriage
relations, was the influence which imposed disabilities
on married women. “ This was in part inevitable,”
says Sir Henry Maine, “since no society which ^preserves
any tincture of Christian institution is likely to restore
[to married women the personal liberty conferredjpn
»them by the middle Roman law.”2
When we are told that the Pagan civilizations “ effaced
from the world the law of purity,” it is difficult to regard
the statement as serious. That gross immorality exis
ted among the idle and wealthy, and often, though
certainly not always, at the imperial court, we frankly
allow. But may not the same be alleged of every age
and every country ? Catherine de Medici was extremely
pious, but this did not prevent her giving a banquet to
her royal son, at which her handsomest maids of honour
officiated naked to the waist. Brantôme utters pious
ejaculations amid his incredible filth. The court he
paints was horrified at the thought of heresy, and
1 Sir Henry Maine. Ancient Law, p. 156. The italics are ours.
2 P. 158.-
�CHRISTIANITY
rejoiced at the burning of Freethinkers ; yet, as Mr.
Morisbn says, “ one fails to see how it differed, except
for the worse, from the court of Caligula or Commodus.” 1 Centuries earlier, before the Renaissance,
when the Church was supreme and Christianity un
questioned, Europe sent army after army t» wrest the
Holy Land from the Mohammedans. Those enterprises
were religious. The Christian warriors were soldiers of
the Cross. They carried the “ sacred emblem ” on
their shoulders. Yet history attests that they were the
vilest savages that ever disgraced the earth. They
were cannibals, and their bestiality is beyond description.
Might not a Mohammedan have said that “ Christianity
had effaced from the world the law of purity”?
Christians may reply that the law of purity was
not effaced; it was taught though not practised. But
this argument can be used against both ways. Purity »
was equally taught (and practised) by Seneca, Marcus .
Aurelius, and Epictetus, to say nothing of minor
moralists. The wise Emperor wrote : “ Such as are thy
habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of thy
mind; for the soul is dyed by the thoughts.”2 Does
not this carry the law of purity into the very citadel of
man’s nature? Epictetus said: “For since the Gods
by their nature are pure and free from corruption, so
far as men approach them by reason, so far do they
cling to purity and to a love of purity.”3 Seneca wrote:
“ If sensuality were happiness, beasts were happier than
men ; but human felicity is lodged in the soul, not in the
flesh.”4 Such was the effacement of the law of purity i
in the Pagan world !
1 The Service of Man, p. 152.
2 Thoughts of M. Aurelius Antoninus. Translated by G.
Long. P. 112.
3 Discourses of Epictetus. G. Long. P. 366.
z
4 The Morals of Seneca. Edited by Walter Clode. P. 68.
�9
AND PROGRESS.
The above cited panegyric on Christianity is as false
as its censure on Paganism. Some parts of it are too
vague to be answered, but where it is definite an
answer is easy. Christianity, it declares, abolished
slavery. It did nothing of the kind. Before Christianity influenced the Roman Empire, the evils of slavery
were mitigated, and the institution was thus tending to
extinction. Slaves were protected by the laws, and if
they were ill-treated they obtained their freedom or a
less cruel master. Manumission became so frequent
that the law had to impose some restraint, lest the free
citizens should be overwhelmed by the multitude of
new comers.1 Learned and artistic slaves sat at their
masters’ tables* and educated their children. Slavery
was, in fact, a caste and not a traffic, though slaves
were bought and sold. They were the offsprings of
captives of war, and not kidnapped like negroes. Ib
was reserved for Christianity to steal men from distant
countries for the express purpose of making them
slaves. No such infamy as the African slave-trade,
carried on by Christians under the protection oE
Christian laws, ever disgraced the nations of antiquity.
Constantine was the first Christian emperor. Did he
abolish slavery ? No. He liberated the slaves owned
by Jews, if they embraced Christianity, but the slaves
of Christian masters enjoyed no such advantage. Ac
cording to the old law, a free woman who had inter
course with a slave was reduced to servitude; but
Constantine humanely decreed that the free woman
should be executed and the slave burnt to death.
Stoicism branded slavery as immoral, but where does s
the New Testament say a word against that institution?
Jesus never once whispered it was wrong. He could
vigorously denounce what he disapproved. His objur
1 Gibbon, chap. ii.
�10
CHRISTIANITY
gation of the Scribes and Pharisees is almost without a
parallel. Those who rejected his teaching and opposed
his claims were overwhelmed with vituperation, but
never did he censure those who held millions in cruel
bondage.
Saint Paul,also never said a word against slavery,
btut many words that lent it a sanction. He_tells slaves
(servants, in our Authorised Version) to count their
owners worthy of all honour (i Tim. vi. i) ; to be obedi
ent unto them, with fear and trembling, as unto Christ
(Ephesians vi. j); and to please them in all things.
All Greek scholars clearly understand that the word
which Paul uses signifies slave, and not servant. The
great Apostle was brought face to face with slavery,
yet he uttered no word of condemnation. There is a
certain pathetic tenderness in his letter to Philemon, if
we suppose he took the institution of slavery for granted,
but it vanishes if we suppose he felt the institution to be
unjust. Professor Newman justly remarks that “ Onesimus, in the very act of taking to flight, showed that
Jie had been submitting to servitude against his will.”
Nor is there any escape from this writer’s conclusion
that, although Paul besought Philemon to treat Onesimus as a brother, “ this very recommendation, full of
affection as it is, virtually recognizes the moral rights of
Philemon to the services of his slave.” “ Paul and
Peter,” he adds, “ deliver excellent charges to masters
in regard to the treatment of slaves, but without any
hint to them that there is an injustice in claiming them
as slaves at all. That slavery, as a system, is essentially
immoral, no Christian of those days seems to have
suspected.”1
Century followed century, and the Church never once
raised its voice against slavery as an institution. It
1 Professor F, W. Newman, Phases of Faith, p. 105.
�AND PROGRESS.
11
excommunicated heretics, but not slaveholders. Chris
tian divines invariably justified slavery from Scripture.
Ignatius (who is said to have seen Jesus), Saint Cyprian,
Saint Basil, Tertullian, Saint Augustine, Gregory the
Great, Saint Isidore, Saint Bernard, Saint Thomas
Aquinas, and Bossuet, all taught that slavery is a
divine institution. Christian jurisprudists, even in the
eighteenth century, defended negro slavery, which it
was reserved for the sceptical Montesquieu and the
arch-heretic Voltaire to condemn.
Church Councils rivetted the slave’s fetters. The.
'Council of TEabdicea~actually interdicted slaves from
Cfiurcfi communion without the consent of tfieirmasters.
I The Council of^Orleans (541) ordered that the descen. idants of slave parents migHl be captured andGepIaceH
in the servile condition of their ancestors. The Council
ofroledo (633J Torbade bishops to liberate "slaves
I belonging to thq. Church. Jews having made fortunes
/by slave-dealing, the Councils of Rheims and Toledo
V both prohibited the selling of Christian slaves except to
Christians. Slavery laws were also passed by the
Council of Pavia (1082) and the Lateran Council (1179).
During all those ages, priests, abbots, and bishops held '
, slaves. The Abbey of St. Germain de Prés owned
I 80,000 slaves, the Abbey of St. Martin de Tours
120,000?
Negro slavery was likewise defended by the pulpit
and the divinity chair in America, ^krs. Beecher
, Stowe said the Church was so familarly quoted as
I being on the side of slavery, that “ Statesmen on both
\ sides of the question have laid that down as a settled
\fact.”2 Theodore Parker said that if the whole
American Church had “ dropped through the continent
1 See Tourmagne’s Historic de I'Esclavage
Moderne.
2 Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin, p. 533.
Ancien
et
I
�12
CHRISTIANITY
and disappeared altogether, the Anti-Slavery cause
would have been further on.”1 He pointed out that no
Church ever issued a single tract among all its
thousands, against property in human flesh and blood ;
and that 80,000 slaves were owned by Presbyterians,
225,000 by Baptists, and 250,000 by Methodists.
(Wilberforce himself declared that the,. American Epis
copal Church “ raises no voice against the predominant
evil; she palliates it in theory^ and Tn practice she
shares in it. The mildest and most conscientious of
thebishops of the South are slaveholders themselves.”2
The Harmony Presbytery of South Carolina deliber
ately resolved that slavery was justified by Holy Writ.
The college church of the Union Theological Seminary,
Prince Edward County, was endowed with slaves, who
were hired out to the highest bidder for the pastor’s
salary. Lastly, Professor Moses Stuart, of Andover,
who is accounted the greatest American theologian since
Jonathan Edwards, declared that “ the precepts of the
New Testament respecting the demeanour of slaves and
their masters beyond all question recognize the existence
of slavery.”
The Northern States were even more bigoted to
slavery than the Southern States. Boston, the classic
home of American orthodoxy, closed all its churches
and chapels to William Lloyd Garrison, who delivered
his first Anti-Slavery lecture in that city in Julian Hall,
which was offered him by Abner Kneeland, an infidel
who had been prosecuted for blasphemy.
American slavery was not terminated by the vote of
the Churches; it was abolished by Lincoln as a strategic
act in the midst of a civil war. England abolished
• slavery in the West Indies, and honourably or quixotically
1 Theo. Parker, Works, vol. vi., p. 233.
2 Wilberforce, History of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in America, p. 42T.
�AND PROGRESS.
ll
I
3
1
13
paid for it; but she was not the first nation to move in
this matter. Professor Newman rightly observes that
“ the first public act against slavery came from repub
lican France, in the madness of atheistic enthusiasm.”
But it is a memorable fact that Bonaparte, who set up
the Catholic Church again, gave a fresh lease of life to
slavery.
To assert that Christianity abolished slavery is,
therefore obviously false. The statement is made but
no proof is furnished, nor can it be, until history is
rewritten. The Bjble_never condemns_nor censures^
slavery ; CJi r is tianit y_ tolerated it' without reproachy
for a period^ as long _ as the whole ___ history pf I
ancient Rome; Church Councils regulated it, and R
Church dignitaries reckoned slaves among their posses- 11
sions. When slavery died a natural death in Europe, 1*
Christian nations continued it in America, with no
hereditary excuse, but animated by the most brutal
spirit of avarice ; nor were divines wanting to prove that
negroes might be fitly oppressed, as they were not
included in the descendants of Adam. It is not so |
long ago to remember when slavery was legal in our *
West Indian colonies. Men under thirty may remember
its abolition in the United States. It has only recently
been abolished in Brazil. To declare these things
the tardy results of a religion which was established by
a divine personage nearly two thousand years ago, is to
invite ridicule and laughter.
The next assertion is that Christianity “ abolished
human sacrifice.” When and where? Does anyone.
suppose that human sacrifice was tolerated in the
Roman Empire? Or is it believed^that the ^stories_of
Abraham and Jephthah had any special tendency to
discredit human sacrifice ?
The “ multitude ■ of other horrors ” abolished by
Christianity are too vague for refutation. Reply is
I
�14
CHRISTIANITY
impossible until these apologists condescend to be
explicit. But it must be allowed, as an historical .
$ fact, that the gladiatorial shows were suppressed by
•4 Honorius.1 Let Christianity receive the credit of that,
if you will; but set against it the frightful severity
which Christianity imported into the laws, burning ;
L alive was first inserted into the Roman penal code by it
Constantine. “ He appointed this punishment,” says **
Jortin, “ for various offences. To burn men alive
became thenceforward a very common punishment, to
the disgrace of Christianity.”2
J, Christianity does not appear to have extinguished
| cruelty with the gladiatorial shows. Fourteen centuries
ihave rolled by since then, but cock-fighting has only
just died out, and bull-fights are still popular in Spain.
What moral difference is there between such a sport
and the old Roman shows ? The lust of cruelty is
gratified in both ; the arena is reddened with blood ;
and what matter whether it flows from animal or human
veins ?
But all this is trivial in comparison with the positive
* cruelty which Christianity inflicted in the name of God.
The bloodshed of the gladiatorial shows sinks into
insignificance beside the bloodshed of Christian perse
cution. When Rome was Pagan thought was free.
Gladiatorial shows satisfied the bestial craving in vulgar
breasts, but the philosophers and the poets were
unfettered, and the intellect of the few was gradually
, 1 achieving the redemption of the many. When Rome
i was Christian she introduced a new slavery. Thought
I
The “fact,” however, seems somewhat doubtful. We allow
it on the authority of Gibbon; but Dr. Smith, in a footnote to his
edition of the Decline and Fall (vol. iv., p. 41), asserts that “ the
gladiatorial shows continued even.a»t-a later period.”
2 Archdeacon Jortin, Remarks on Ecclesiastical History,
vol. ii.,p. 137.
�AND PROGRESS.
15
was chained and scourged, while the cruel instincts of
the multitude were gratified with exhibitions of suffering,
compared with which the bloodiest arena was tame and
insipid. No longer gladiators, but heretics, were
“ butchered to make a Roman holiday.” What hypo
crisy, to denounce the bloody sports of Paganism, and
call the mob to see men burnt alive ! Eleven centuries
after Honorius, John Calvin was burning Servetus
with green wood to prolong his torment.1 Alva was
perpetrating atrocities which Tacitus would have deemed
incredible. Here is a Christian picture from Lisbon, so
late as 1706, beheld by Bishop Wilcox. A woman and
a man were burnt for heresy.
The woman was alive in the flames half an hour,
and the man above an hour...... Though the favour he
begged was only a few more faggots, yet he was not able
to obtain it. The wind being a little fresh, the man’s
hinder parts were perfectly wasted ; and as he turned
himself his ribs opened.2
Amongst the “multitude of horrors” which Chris
tianity “abolished,” was there one to equal this?
Physician heal thyself! Cease denouncing others while
your own hand is red enough to incarnadine the
multitudinous seas.
Christianity “ restored the position of women in
society.” We have already seen what was the position
of woman under the best Roman law. In what respect '
did Christianity improve it ? As a matter of fact,
^Christianity degraded woman by tyyo methods ; nrst, Ey
K a"3opting the Jewish story of' tfe "FaTl; secondly, by
H preaching up virginity. Paul’s ' view of woman™
position is contemptible ; she is as inferior to man as
man is to God. Saint Jerome called her “the demon’s
door, the road of iniquity, the scorpion’s sting.” Saint
1 R. Willis, Servetus and Calvin, p. 487.
2 Chandler, History of Persecution, p. 827.
�16
CHRISTIANITY
Chrysostom called her “ a sovereign pest.” “ When
you see a woman,” said Saint Anthony, “ be sure you
have before you not a human being, not even a wild
beast, but the Devil in person.” Saint Augustine’s
insults were nearly as extravagant. Saint John of
Damascus styled her “ a child of lying, the advanced
sentinel of the Devil,” and “ a malignant she-ass.”
Gregory the Great denied her “any moral sense.”1
That is how Christianity “ restored the position of
woman in society.”
Christianity sought to destroy the family. “No
religion,” says Thulie, “ has combated marriage with
such ardour as Christianity.” The Christian doctors
despised it. Saint Jerome cried “ Det us take the axe,
and cut up by the roots the sterile tree of marriage.
God permitted marriage at the beginning of the world,
but Jesus Christ and Mary have consecrated virginity.”
Saint Chrysostom railed at woman for having brought
about the Fall and the propagation of mankind by
sexual intercourse, which he called a pollution. Tertullian
told her. she should wear mourning or rags, for she was
the cause of the death of Christ. The triumph of
Christianity meant the degradation of motherhood, and
the subjection of the wife as a tolerated concession to
the weakness of man’s flesh. Marriage sank into
gratified lust, and women fell back into the abject
position they occupied in barbarous ages.
Polygamy was not proscribed by Christianity, because
it did not exist in the Pagan civilization which Christi
anity supplanted. Monogamy was legal in Greece and |
Rome, and had been so for centuries. When Christi-4
anity opposed polygamy among the barbarians it simply
carried forward the morality of Pagan civilization. The
Bible itself^ never censures polygamy or enjoins
monogamy^
’ .........
1 Thuli£, pp. 201-206.
�AND PROGRESS.
17
That Christianity “put down divorce” is undoubtedly
true, but the result was of questionable value. The
Church still brands divorce with its anathema, but the
secular law, even in the most Catholic countries, has
been constrained to permit it under certain con
ditions.
Christianity certainly did not put down war, nor did
it make “ peace, instead of war, the normal relation
between human societies.” The Pax Romanus was a
reality, which Christendom has never equalled. At no
time did the Roman armies number four hundred thous
and men; yet now, after eighteen centuries of the gospel
of peace, Europe is armed to the teeth, millions of
soldiers are grasping arms, and every Christian nation
anxiously increases its defences. On a peace, footing,
Europe spends nearly two hundred millions every
year on armies and navies, and another two hun
dred millions are required to pay the interest on
debts incurred over past wars.
New rifles, new
artillery, new explosives, crowd upon us every few
. years. Surely, in the face of these facts, the Christian’s
eulogy of his creed is the idlest verbiage.
Christians are right, however, in saying that Christi
anity “ changed essentially the place and function of
suffering.” Suffering was always regarded as an evil
before Christianity preached it as a blessing. For
tunately, the modern world is returning to the old
opinion, and the party of progress is everywhere warring
against the evils of this life, without waiting for the
rectifications of another world.
Charity itself has been narrowed by Christianity into
mere almsgiving. Paul’s great panegyric on this virtue
is perhaps the finest thing in the New Testament, but
' ■ the very word he uses (cavitas) was borrowed from „
Pagan moralists. Cicero anticipated him before the W
birth of Christ in his caritas generis humani.
�18
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
11 Humility and forgiveness” are fine phrases, but
they are seldom more. Generally, they are little else
than cheap devices for popular oppression. “ Blessed
are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth,” is a
sweet text; but, as a matter of fact, the soil of England
is chiefly owned by the House of Lords. The clergy,
also, have taught humility by enjoining the “lower
orders ” to remain contented in that state of life to
which Providence, has called them, and to order them
selves lowly and reverently to all their betters. As for *
“ forgiveness,” we have simply to point out that, until ||;
recently, the criminal jurisprudence of Christendom was j!
a ghastly scandal. Even in England, in the early part 1
of the present century, men and women were hung in g
batches for small felonies ; and when Romilly tried to g
terminate this infamy, he was vigorously opposed by the |
bench of Bishops.
Improvements jnjife are the offspring of civilization} 1
not of religion. Why was there so little civilization jn 1
Europe^'when Christianity "was supreme ? Why did I
Europe wait so longTor the advent of what we call I
4“ progress ” ? Why was every new idea baptized_in^|
■ blood ? Why was every reform opposed by the Chinch. I
oFChrist? WhyEave scepticism and civilization, moved I
forward with an equal pace”? WFy^does Christianity |
fade^ as *men become wiser andhappier ? Whyjs this.«
age of progress the agejof unbelief ?
~LetfiCHfistians pluck out the heart of this mystery ; a
mystery indeed on his principles, though sun-clear to
the Freethinker, who sees in the history of Christianity
and civilization the perpetual strife of irreconcilable
opposites.
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.*
i.
'
Now that the “Eastern Question” is once more
burning, and all sorts of charges are made against
the Turk—not only as a Turk, but also as a Moham
medan—it will be as well, at least for Freethinkers,
to get a clear view of the facts of the case; since it
is only the fizcAs that are of any importance what
ever to men of judgment who think for themselves.
The Christians in the south-east of Europe are
represented as ethnologically and morally superior to
the Mohammedans. They are thus represented, that
is, by their partisans in the pulpit and the press.
But they are not thus represented by travellers. It .
is almost the universal testimony of those who have
visited that part of the world that the Moham
medans are, on the whole, superior to the Christians
in chastity, temperance, self-control, veracity, and
sincerity; in all the virtues that build up a strong,
wholesome, and dignified manhood.
The superiority of the Mohammedans in the
fundamental virtues of human life is a very old story.
The testimony of the chroniclers of the Crusades on
this point is very striking. It was a commonplace
amongst Protestant preachers on salvation by faith,
who were fond of declaring that if good works could
save a man, Turks would go to heaven before Christians.
John Wesley said the same thing in slightly altered .
words. Half a century later, Byron seized on this very
* Written October, 1903.
�20
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
point in that splendid battle scene iu the eighth canto of
Don Juan, where the old Turk, whose five sons have all
fallen around him, still wields his blade, and refuses to
surrender, in spite of the entreaties of the rough
Russians who were touched by the only thing that
could touch them-his serene bravery. Was the poet
describing the son of Priam, or Peleus, or Jove ?
Neither—but a good, plain, old temperate man.
Byron saw with his own eyes and knew what he was
talking about. A recent traveller has observed that the
honest business men in Salonica are mostly Turks:
Byron noticed the same characteristic nearly a hundred
years ago. In a note to the second canto of Childe
Harold he said : —
In all money transactions with the Moslems, I ever
found the strictest honour, the highest disinterestedness.
In transacting business with them, there are none of
those dirty peculations, under the name of interest,
difference of exchange, commission, etc., etc., uniformly
found in applying to a Greek consul to cash bills, even
on the first houses in Pera.
The same sincerity was apparent in their religious
devotions. Renan was so impressed whenever he
stood within a mosque that he could hardly help
wishing himself a Mussulman. Byron wrote thus of
the Mohammedans he had often beheld at their
prayers :—
On me the simple and entire sincerity of these men,
and the spirit which appeared to be within and upon
them, made a far greater impression than any general
rite which was ever performed in places of worship, of
which I have seen those of almost every persuasion
under the sun.
Speaking, of the Turks in general, Byron said with
great energy:—
It is difficult to pronounce what they are, we can
at least say what they are not : they are not treacherous,
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.
21
they are not cowardly, they do not burn heretics, they
are woi assassins, nor has an enemy advanced to their
capital. They are faithful to their sultan till he becomes
unfit to govern, and devout to their God without an inqui
sition. Were they driven from St. Sophia (Constan
tinople) to-morrow, and the French or Russians en
throned in their stead, it would become ■ a question
whether Europe would gain by the exchange. England
would certainly be the loser.
Byron praises the toleration of the Turks in this
passage. Strange as it may sound to orthodox
Christian ears, Mohammedanism is not a persecuting
religion ; and, as a matter of fact, there is far more
religious freedom in Turkey than in Russia—more,
indeed, than has obtained until quite recently in pro
gressive countries in England and France. Carry
the comparison back a hundred, or even fifty years
ago, and you will find that Turkey was in this
respect the most enlightened and liberal country in
Europe.
Some plain truth on this matter was lately expressed
by Professor Syed All Bilgrami, lecturer in the
Marathi language at the University of Cambridge.
This gentleman was interviewed by a representative
of the Daily News; and one passage in the interviewer’s
report is well worth quoting :—
Then you claim that Islam is tolerant ?
It is the most tolerant faith of all. There has
never been such absolute toleration under any other
religion. In Turkey, if a subject pays his taxes and dis
charges his civil obligations, he is absolutely free as to
'
faith. Missionaries of all religions are tolerated. Why,
if I preached Islam here in Norwood you know I should
j be mobbed.
With regard to one important point—however much
it may be considered as by the way—Professor
Bilgrami made a statement which cannot be too often
�22‘
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
repeated. “ I think,” he said, “ the Mohammedans
suffer even more than the Christians for want of firm
and equitable government.” A number of testimonies
to this effect are quoted by Professor T. W. Arnold
in his able, and, in some respects, noble, book, The
Preaching of Islam (pp. 132, 133). Finlay, the great
historian of Greece, remarked that “ The central
government of the Sultan has generally treated its
Mussulman subjects with as much cruelty and injustice
as the conquered Christians.” Forsyth, writing as late
as 1876, said that Turkish misgovernment falls with
a heavy hand on all alike. “In some parts of the
kingdom,” he added, “ the poverty of the Mussulmans
may be actually worse than the poverty of the
Christians, and it is their condition which most excites
the pity of the traveller.” Bryce, writing still later of
the north of Asia Minor, said, “ All this oppression and
misery falls upon the Mohammedan population equally
with the Christian.” The real truth is that the con
dition of the Christians in Turkey is not primarily
a religious question at all, but a purely political one.
Had this truth been steadily borne in mind, and firmly
represented to the public opinion of the Western world,
the “ Eastern Question ” might long ago have ceased to
exist—that is, if the Western Powers had also been
sincere in their expressions of desire for a reformation
in the state of affairs in Turkey, instead of aiming at its
dismemberment and spoliation.
It is that “ The propagation of his faith by the sword
is part of the religion of the Turk.” This is devoutly
believed by the vast majority of Christians. But, like
a good many other things they devoutly believe, it rests .
upon a very flimsy foundation. Professor Bilgrami
denied it most emphatically:—
Propagation of religion by the sword ? That is entirely
an exploded view. No Mohammedan ever thinks that
religion is to be propagated by the sword.
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.
23
Professor Bilgrami took the opportunity to add«
something that will astonish the Christians who'
read it. They have been taught that Mohammedans
call them “infidels”—which, by the way, is their
own favourite term for those who differ from them.
But this, Professor Bilgrami said, is wholly in
correct :—
The “ infidels ” referred to in the Koran were the
cruel, idolatrous pagans of Arabia. The Christians are
called “ the people of the Book,” and we believe in the
sinless life and prophetic mission of Christ, though not
in his Divinity,
The statement that it is a part of the Turk’s
religion to propagate his faith by the sword is a very
old calumny. Its justification has always been that
it served the turn. That it was a lie was a matter of
little importance. When our English Pocock visited
the great Christian apologist Grotius, in the seventeenth
century, and asked him his authority for the story
that Mohammed kept a tame pigeon to pick peas out of
his ear, and pretended that it whispered him messages
from God, Grotius admitted that he had no authority
for it at all. Yet the lie lived on for another two
hundred years.
If we go back to Lord Bacon we shall find him
giving classic expression to this old charge against
the Turk of conquest in the name of religion. In the
Essay “ Of Kingdoms and Estates ” his lordship
says: “ The Turk hath at hand, for cause of war, the
propagation of his law or sect, a quarrel that he may
always command.” In the Essay “ Of Unity in Re
ligion ” he amplifies this statement:—
There be two swords amongst Christians, the spiritual
and the temporal; and both have their due office in the
maintenance of religion. But we may not take up the
third sword, which is Mahomet’s sword, or like unto it •
�24
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
that is, to propagate religion by wars, or by sanguinary
persecutions to force consciences ; except it be in cases
of overt scandal, blasphemy, or intermixture of practice
against the State.
It is common for the advocates of Christianity against
other religions to display craftiness, and Lord Bacon
was no exception to the rule. Courage, indeed, as well
as cunning, was necessary to write such a passage
as this while Christendom was being torn to pieces
with religious wars. There is even a positively
atrocious subtlety in the idea that, while it is wrong
to declare war against another country for the purpose
of propagating your own religion, it is quite right to
carry on a war, for the same object, against your fellow
citizens.
Lord Bacon deals with this subject again, from a
political point of view, in his tractate on “ War with
Spain ” :—
In deliberation of war against the Turk it hath
been often, with great judgment, maintained that
Christian princes and States have always a sufficient
ground of invasive war against the enemy; not for
cause of religion, but upon a just fear ; forasmuch as it
is a fundamental law in the Turkish Empire that they
may, without any further provocation, make war upon
Christendom for the propagation of their law ; so that
there lieth upon Christians a perpetual fear of war,
hanging over their heads, from them; and therefore
they may at all times, as they think good, be upon the
preventive.
What a detestable doctrine—built upon what a foun
dation of falsehood ! Whenever you feel disposed to
cut the Turk’s throat, however long he may have been
living at peace with you, all you have to do is recollect
that if he were logical he would be trying to cut your
throat, and then you may logically proceed to cut his in
self-defence.
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.
25
Dr. Johnson was just the man to repeat this
doctrine, although the lapse of a hundred and fifty
years compelled him to be more cautious in his ex
pressions. In a note on Shakespeare’s Henry IV., he
says :—
If it be -a part of the religion of the Mohammedans
to extirpate by the sword all other religions, it is, by
the laws of self-defence, lawful for men of every other
religion, and for Christians among others, to make war
upon Mohammedans, simply as Mohammedans as men
obliged by their own principles to make war upon
Christians, and only lying in wait till opportunity shall
promise them success.
The “if” in this passage destroys the force of all
that follows. But a truer knowledge of Mohamme
danism was beginning to prevail, and Johnson had to be
more circumspect than his great predecessor.
II.
Long before Johnson, and soon after Bacon, the
wise and witty, and generally humane, Thomas Fuller
dealt with this point in his History of the Holy War
—that is, of the Crusades. Fuller gives the arguments
for and against the “ lawfulness of the Holy War ”
without positively committing himself to either side.
Amongst* the affirmative arguments, he perhaps im
plies, but he does not assert, that the Mohammedans
were bound to propagate their religion by the sword.
“ A preventive war,” he says, “grounded on a just fear
of invasion is lawful; but such was this holy war.”
The only “ fear ” he actually alleges, however, is based
upon the Saracenic conquests, which had driven
Christianity out of Africa and Asia, and were threat
ening it in Europe. This might have justified the
Christian nations in joining together to keep the
Saracens out of Europe: but, as a matter of fact,
�26
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
they did not join together for that object; their aim
was simply to wrest Palestine—and with it Jerusalem
and the Sepulchre of Christ—from the hands of the
“ unbelievers,” who had been peaceably settled there
for four hundred and sixty years !
Fuller, although a doctor of divinity, was so little
of a bigot that he not only slurred over the popular
Christian belief so openly adopted by Bacon, but
often put in a good word for the Mohammedans. The
following admission, touching the state of the Christians
in Palestine, is quite remarkable :—
Now the condition of the Christians under these
Saracens was as uncertain as April weather. Some
times they enjoyed the liberty and public exercise of
their religion ; and to give the Mohammedans their due,
they are generally good fellows on this point, and Chris
tians amongst them may keep their consciences free, if
their tongues be fettered not to oppose the doctrine of
Mahomet.
We do not believe that such an honest sentence
concerning Mohammedanism can be found in the
pages of any contemporary writer. Fuller probably
felt in his heart that Christianity was the more
intolerant religion of the two.
Historically, it is quite true that the Mohamme
dans have always allowed Christians to live amongst
them in peace—at least to a far greater extent than
Christians have tolerated Mohammedans. Mohammed
himself never oppressed the Christians who would live
at peace with him. Gibbon justly observes that he
“ readily granted the security of their persons, the
freedom of their trade, the property of their goods, and
the toleration of their worship.” Christian churches'
were permitted in Mohammedan States, although no ■
Christian State would have tolerated a Mohammedan
mosque. The Mohammedan conquerors of India
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.
27
showed religious toleration to the inhabitants ; and the
first empire in modern times in which perfect religious
freedom was universal, was that of Akbar, whose mag
nanimity has been sung by Tennyson. The Arabian
caliphs gave freedom to all the oriental sects, employed
Christians as secretaries and physicians, appointed
them collectors of the revenue, and sometimes raised
them to the command of cities and provinces. Saladin,
on recapturing Jerusalem from the Crusaders, treated
the Latin Christians as foreigners, and therefore as cap
tives of war ; but he regarded the Greek and Oriental
Christians as inhabitants of the locality, and there
fore permitted them to remain as his subjects, and
to worship their gods in their own fashion. Nor has
this tolerant tradition ever been violated. Many a
fugitive from Christian bigotry has found shelter in
Turkey. Jews and Christians enjoy equal liberty of
conscience throughout the Turkish Empire. Latin
and Greek Christians are both allowed to worship in I •
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. Yet| *
their hatred of each other is still so great that a line ||
of Turkish soldiers stand between them to prevent i;
their flying at each other’s throats. What a spectaele ! And how the Turk, who worships one God, ||
without a rival or a partner, must look down with *|
contempt on these quarrelsome superstitionists !
III.
With regard to the Turks in particular, it is a
common Christian notion that they were always
brutal conquerors, who upheld and extended their
religion simply by the sword. This is a very mis
taken notion. When the Turkish power was flourish
ing, before it began to decay under the attacks and
diplomacy of Russia, and the general pressure of the
�28
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
European governments, it was renowned for its
liberality.
Let us pause here to tell a story—a true one.
During the bitter persecution of the inoffensive
Quakers in England in the seventeenth century, many
women were stripped and flogged on their naked
backs in public places. This suffering and indignity
was inflicted upon them by their fellow Christians ;
not tumultuously, but deliberately, in the name of the
law, and by the order of the authorities. One simple
young woman was flogged from town to town, and
frequently imprisoned under shocking conditions.
Being an invincible enthusiast, she took it into her
head to go off to the East and speak to the Sultan
of Turkey. She succeeded in making her way there,
and found the Sultan encamped before Adrianople.
She was brought before him, and he listened
courteously to her “ message from God.” When she
had finished he told her that what she had said was
very good, and thanked her for her trouble, although
he could not quite believe all that she did. He then
asked her how she came so far alone. She replied
that she trusted in God. Whereupon he smiled, and
said he hardly thought this protection enough for a
lonely maid. He saw that her wants were supplied,
and appointed a guard to conduct her safely through
his own dominions.
What a fine gentleman ! If men must have kings,
this is the sort they should have. We could do With
a few like him in modern Europe. And just think of
the two different experiences of that Quaker maiden.
Brutally ill-treated in her own country by her fellowChristians, and treated with the noblest courtesy by
a Mohammedan ruler in a foreign land !
The spirit displayed by that Sultan was far from
singular in the great days of the Turkish Empire.
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.
29
There was, indeed, a tradition of magnanimity in the
Mohammedan world. It was remembered how finely
the Caliph Omar had acted after his capture of
Jerusalem ; how the lives, liberties, possessions, and
churches of the Christians were respected. It was
remembered how the Crusaders, hundreds of years
afterwards, recaptured Jerusalem, and turned it into
a slaughter-house. It was remembered how, in spite
of this terrible provocation, Saladin listened to the
voice of humanity when he won Jerusalem back from
the Christians ; how he shed no unnecessary drop of
blood, and showed the tenderest compassion to his
captives. Never had the great Mohammedan rulers
dealt with the Christians after the method so often
employed in Europe. They could have swept Chris
tianity out of their dominions as easily as Ferdinand
and Islam drove Islam out of Spain, or as Louis XIV.
drove Protestantism out of France. But they did
nothing of the kind. If they had, there would have
been no Christian Churches, or Christian provinces,
left to give rise to the present-day troubles in the
Turkish Empire.
When the Turks took Constantinople, in 1453, the
first thing Mohammed did, after re-establishing order
in the city, was to issue a decree of toleration to the
Christians, who were practically allowed to regulate
their own affairs. Indeed, the majority of them found
the change a welcome relief, after their experience of
Christian misrule.
Mohammedanism spread in South-east Europe sub
sequently without compulsion. The fact is that free
dom and toleration were only to be found under the
Sultan’s government. Jews fled to it from persecution ;
persecuted Protestants looked towards it with longing
eyes. Even the Russians praised it when the Catholic
Poles, in the seventeenth century, inflicted frightful
�30
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
atrocities on the members of the orthodox Eastern
Church. It was in reference to these horrors that
Macarius, the Patriarch of Antioch, exclaimed “ God
perpetuate the empire of the Turks for ever! For
they,” he added, “ take their impost and enter into no
account of religion, be their subjects Christians or
Nazarenes, Jews or Samaritans.”
It may be objected that the Turks carved out an i
empire with the sword, and that this is tantamount
to the spread of Mohammedanism by the same means.
But is not this objection nonsensical ? With what,
pray, did the British carve out an empire in India ? ,
And is that empire, won as it was, a proof that Chris- /
tianity is spread by the sword ?
IV.
Now, if Mohammedanism has, as a matter of fact,
been far more tolerant than Christianity, there must
be something wrong somewhere when Christians
stand up and address Mohammedans as persecutors,
represent them as being under a fatal necessity of
propagating their religion by the sword, and accuse
them of being a perpetual menace to all their
neighbours.
Mohammed distinctly says in the Koran, “ Let there
be no compulsion in religion.” “Wilt thou,” he asks, _
“compel men To become believers? No soul can j
believe liut by the permission of God.” The Prophet
of Islam never said anything really contrary to this.
All the texts that are cited about war with unbelievers
were, as we shall see presently, of local and special
application.
That the Mussulman faith never forced consciences
was emphasized by one of the Spanish Mohammedans
who was driven out of Spain in the last expulsion of the
Moriscoes in 1610, at the instigation of the bloody
�MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE SWORD.
31
Inquisition. Here are some of his words :—
Did our victorious ancestors ever once attempt to
extirpate Christianity out of Spain, when it was in
their power ? Did they not suffer your forefathers to
enjoy the free use of their rites at the same time that
they wore their chains ? Is not the absolute injunction
of our Prophet, that whatever nation is conquered by
Mussulman steel, should, upon payment of a moderate
annual tribute, be permitted to persevere in their own
pristine persuasion, how absurd soever, or to embrace
what other belief they themselves best approved of ?
If there may have been some examples of forced con
versions, they are so rare as scarce to deserve mention
ing, and only attempted by men who had not the fear of
God, and the Prophet, before their eyes, and who, in so
doing, have acted directly and diametrically contrary to
the holy precepts and ordinances of Islam, which cannot
without sacrilege, be violated by any who would be held
worthy of the honourable epithet of Mussulman...... You
can never produce, among us, any bloodthirsty, formal
tribunal, on account of different persuasions in points of
faith, that anywise approaches your execrable lnquisition.
•Our arms, it is true, are ever open to receive all who are
disposed to embrace our religion; but weji-are [not
allowed by our sacred Kuran to tyrannise over con
sciences.”
This very toleration was urged against them as
one of their principle crimes by the Archbishop of
Valencia, who presented Philip III., in 1602, with an
account of the “ Apostacies and Treasons, of the
Moriscoes,” with a view to their expulsion from the
Christian soil of Spain. One article against them was:
“ That they commended nothing so much as liberty
of conscience, in all matters of religion, which the Turks,
and all other Mohammedans, suffer their subjects to
enjoy.”
- In spite of all this it is urged that the Jihad, or Holy
War, is taught in the Koran, and is a part of the law
�32
CHRISTIANITY AND PROGRESS.
and faith of Islam.
Professor Arnold, who devotes a chapter to this
subject, shows conclusively that the meaning of the I
verb jahada is really to “ strive, labour, toil, exert one- 1
self, take pains, be diligent.” “ Primarily,” he says,
the word bears no reference to war or fighting, much y
less to fighting against unbelievers or forcible conversion of them, but derives its particular application
from the context only.” This he proves by citing
all the passages in the Koran in which the word occurs.
There is no higher English authority than Lane, and 11
fei his verdict is clear and decisive. “No precept,” he
j| says, “is to be found in the Koran which, taken with
' the context, can justify unprovoked war.”
Professor Arnold’s summary of the whole matter
is as follows:—
1“
Hi
It is due to the Muhammedan legists and commen
tators that jihad came to be interpreted as a religious
war against unbelievers, who might be attacked even
though they were not the aggressors ; but such a doctrine
is wholly unauthorised by the Qur’an, and can only be
extracted therefrom by quoting isolated portions of
different verses, considered apart from the context and
the special circumstances under which they were
delivered and to which alone they were held to refer,
being in no way intended as positive injunctions for
future observance or religious precepts for coming genera
tions. But though some Muhammedan legists have
maintained the rightfulness of unprovoked war against
unbelievers, none (as far as I am aware) have ventured
to justify compulsory conversion, but have always vindi
cated for the conquered the right of retaining their own
faith on paymeut of jizyah.
The only point to be added is that “ some legists ”
are not all legists. As far as we can. ascertain, the
majority of Mohammedan legists have been against
unprovoked war on unbelievers.
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
Christianity and progress
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: [s.n.]
Collation: 32 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Extensively marked in pencil. Includes bibliographical references. Inscription on front leaf: "B.G. Ralph-Brown, Houlle, France, Oct. 1918."
Contents: Christianity and progress (p.1-16) -- Mohammedanism and the sword (p.[17]-32).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.pub.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N230
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Christianity and progress), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
NSS
W.E. (William Ewart) Gladstone