he (the Secularist) will put his conscience and character, with a view so to discharge the duties of this life as to merit another if there be one. Just as a Christian seeks to serve God, a Secularist seeks to serve man. This it is to be a a Secularist." Further, he insists: "Nor is Secularism Atheism". It is now generally recognised by more enlightened Rationalists that many of the weapons which served so well in primitive warfare must be laid aside " as bruised monuments". This does not mean compromise and conciliation, but the exercise of methods more effective and better adapted to the spirit of the times. Atheism, for example, a soundly scientific term for a philosophic attitude in regard to the origin of the universe and of the gods of religions, has been used as a label of ignominy by the ignorant and the perverse; and one cannot but doubt whether many earnest Secularists have done well by insistence upon its inseparability from Secularism. The majority of sceptics calling themselves Rationalists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers are rejectors of all theological theories of the First Cause. They do not profess to believe that which there is no reasonable evidence for believing, and so long as they are consonant upon this fundamental principle of Freethought, the title by which they elect to describe themselves is of minor importance. Unqualified and absolute agreement as to the terminology seems to be impossible. Unanimity respecting main principles and tenets should suffice. Mr. Holyoake rightly enlarges upon the constructive policy of Secularism. There is still much to be accomplished by intellectual suasion; but the Gargantuan labors and high examples of Freethinkers in the present century have prepared the way. The chapters on "Rejected Tenets Replaced by Better" and "Morality Independent of Theology" are admirably constructive. Orthodox inquirers may be referred to Mr. Holyoake's temperate and earnest essays. G. M. THE SONG OF THE RESPECTABLES, AND OTHER VERSES. By HENRY S. SALT. (Manchester: Labor Press.) Mr. Salt's first set of rhymes, from which the pamphlet takes its title, is a brisk satire in a kind of music-hall metre, suggesting a lively anti-respectability breakdown at the end of each verse. Still, the measure seems suited to the theme: "Respectables are we, And we fain would have you see Why we confidently claim to be respected; And discharge our duties well Well dressed, well bred, well mannered, well connected." In "Feathertop ", the modern gentleman is thus portrayed : "His heart was a bagful of straw; His head was a shrivelled old pumpkin; His lordly demeanor struck awe To the breast of each lowly-born bumpkin." "The Modern Guy Fawkes" is the song of the discontented proletariat, and "The Blessings of Emigration" is written in a strong vein of irony. These stray verses are not remarkable in a literary sense, but they are decided satiric and readable. W. M. G. EXPERIENCE; A CHAPTER OF PROLEGOMENA. By the Rev. WILFRID RICHMOND. (London: Swan Sonnenschien and Co.) This is a thoughtful contribution to philosophic inquiry, tracing the Agnosticism of Huxley to the theory of Kant. The author holds that the task of philosophy is "to know the world in God" and in explaining this principle he leads us through several metaphysical labyrinths. His aim is to find reality within, and not beyond, the field of experience, and it must be said that he displays considerable ingenuity of argument. Mr. Richmond believes that "we can know the length and breadth and height of that which passes knowledge". Those who wish to learn how to accomplish this arduous matter will, no doubt, find that "experience teaches". A. HARNEY TESTIMONIAL FUND. CONTRIBUTIONS to the above Fund forwarded to the Treasurer, Mr. Stroud, 2, New Court, Lincoln's Inn, W.C., have been acknowledged in the Newcastle Weekly Chronicle. The following have been received by the Editor of the FREE REVIEW : Dr. R. de Villiers, £5 5s.; Thos. Shore, 5s.; W. Powell Breach, 3s.; M. M. Daniell, 5s.; Miss C. C. A., 7s. 6d. ; Sympathiser, 5s.; F. J. Snell, 5s.; Wm. P., 5s.; Mabel G., 2s. 6d.; E. H. O., £1; Mrs. Fred. Jones, 10S. NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS AND CORRESPONDENTS. All Communications should be addressed to GEORGE ASTOR Singer, M.A., Cumberland House, Wembley, London. Stamped and addressed envelopes should be sent with MSS. if the senders wish to have them returned in case of rejection. Printed by A. BONNER, 1 & 2 Took's Court, Cursitor Street, London, E.C. THE FREE REVIEW FEBRUARY 1, 1897 THE BLASPHEMY LAWS. I. Two principal difficulties beset the path of the reformer who endeavors to revive the agitation, vigorous enough ten or twelve years ago, for the repeal of the laws which fetter and punish the free expression of opinion on matters of religion. These difficulties arise from two mistakes-widely prevalent and absolutely unfoundedas to the present condition of the law itself. We are told, on the one hand, that the question is not worth troubling about, as there is no likelihood of the laws ever again being put into force; on the other, that, as a matter of fact, the English law does not punish the mere expression of heretical opinion, but only the expression of it in a violent, indecent, and offensive manner. The latter mistake can only be refuted by a detailed examination of the law. We leave it for the present, merely noting its importance in view of the fact that Sir William Harcourt, who ought to have known better, tried (in 1883) to persuade the House of Commons. that three men, who had been tried, sentenced, and imprisoned for "blasphemy", were rightly punished because the publication for which they were indicted was, in his opinion, undoubtedly "indecent". To the first objection, it should be sufficient to reply that the mere presence on the statute book of laws under which "it is an offence for any person brought up as a Christian to deny the truth of Christianity, however respectfully", is a national disgrace, quite apart from 1 2 Stephen, "History of the Criminal Law", 437. No. 5, VOL. 7. 2 G the question whether those laws are being put into force or not. To say that a loaded blunderbuss is of a very ancient pattern and has not been fired for thirteen years, affords no justification for leaving such a weapon within easy reach of any foolish or evil disposed person who may be tempted to find a use for it. As a matter of fact, although no direct prosecution for blasphemy has been attempted since Mr. Foote and his two colleagues were sent to prison in 1883, the Blasphemy Laws have indirectly, but none the less effectively, been brought into play on several occasions. Take, for instance, the case of The Attorney-General v. Bradlaugh.' At a grave constitutional crisis the judges in the Court of Appeal were called upon to consider whether Mr. Bradlaugh, who had administered to himself the Parliamentary Oath, was legally capable of taking any oath at all, or, in other words, whether the effect, if not also the intention, of the Parliamentary Oath was not to exclude Atheists from the right to sit in Parliament. It was openly avowed by Justice Lindley' that his decision was influenced by the continued existence of the Blasphemy Laws. "It is a mistake to suppose-and I think it is as well that the mistake should be known-that persons who do not believe in a Supreme Being are in the same position legally as those who do. There are old Acts of Parliament still unrepealed, under which such unbelievers can be cruelly persecuted. Having regard to the fact that these Acts of Parliament still remain unrepealed, I do not see my way to hold judicially that this oath was not kept alive by Parliament for the very purpose, amongst others, of keeping such unbelievers out of Parliament. The statutes to which Justice Lindley referred will be considered later. Meanwhile, it will be well to point out how judge-made law, as well as definite enactments, was used against Mr. Bradlaugh and his constituency in the same case. In the days of James the First (1608) the question was argued before all the judges, whether a subject of James VI of Scotland, born in Scotland after the union of the crowns, was also a native-born subject In 1885. See "Law Reports", 14 Q. B. D., 667. 2 Ibid., p. 719; National Reformer, February 7th, 1885, p. 142. of the same monarch-now become James I of England-in England.' In his judgment, Lord Coke dealt, at immense length, with the whole question of alienage; and in the course of it he delivered himself of the following extraordinary dictum :— "All infidels are in Law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies, for the Law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potentia (a remote possibility); for between them, as with the Divels, whose subjects they be, and the Christian, there is perpetual Hostility and can be no Peace." Of course the kind of "infidel" that Coke had in view was principally the heathen idolater and the Turk; but it is quite clear, from his own language, that Jews were intended as well. Coke's dictum, in spite of its prompt repudiation by Littleton, has frequently been quoted in the Courts, though most of the judges have treated it with scant courtesy; and its subsequent history is instructive. It was quoted with great confidence on both sides in The East India Company v. Sandys3 (1683-5). The plaintiff Company sought to restrain Sandys from trading to the East Indies in infringement of their monopoly; and the defendant raised the question whether the King could constitutionally grant such a monopoly at all. On the one side, it was argued that, "infidels" being "perpetual enemies", it was unlawful for Christians to trade with them at all; on the other, on precisely the same ground, that it could only be lawful to trade with them under special license from the King. But the trading interests in India were too strong for even Lord Coke's authority, and the monopolist Company won its case. But its very victory led to new complications. An English merchant, trading in Calcutta, returned to England without paying his debts. His native creditor ' Calvin's case [" The case of the Postnati"] (7 Coke's Reports -edition of 1696-17; 2 Cobbett's State Trials, 559). 2 He says it was "a common error founded on a groundless opinion of Justice Brooke" (1 Salkeld, 46). This appears to refer to a case about a dog (Year Book of 12 Hen. VIII, fol. iiii), in which Brooke's obiter dictum runs: "Home batera un home vtlage, ou traitour, ou pagane, ilz nauerēt accion pur ces q: ilz ne sont pas able de suer accion". The Great Case of Monopolies (10 Cobbett's State Trials, 371-554). |