Part 1 (2/2)
”Whereas certain laws now in force and intended for the promotion of religion are no longer suitable for that purpose and it is expedient to repeal them,
”Be it enacted as follows:
”1. After the pa.s.sing of this Act no criminal proceedings shall be inst.i.tuted in any Court whatever, against any person whatever, for Atheism, blasphemy at common law, blasphemous libel, heresy, or schism, except only criminal proceedings inst.i.tuted in Ecclesiastical Courts against clergymen of the Church of England.
”2. An Act pa.s.sed in the first year of his late Majesty King Edward VI., c. 1, int.i.tuled 'An Act against such as shall unreverently speak against the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, commonly called the sacrament of the altar, and for the receiving thereof in both kinds,' and an Act pa.s.sed in the 9th and 10th year of his late Majesty King William III., c. 35, int.i.tuled an Act for the more effectual suppressing of blasphemy and profaneness are hereby repealed.
”3. Provided that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect the provisions of an Act pa.s.sed in the nineteenth year of his late Majesty King George II., c. 21, int.i.tuled 'An Act more effectually to prevent profane cursing and swearing,' or any other provision of any other Act of Parliament not hereby expressly repealed.”
Until this Bill is carried no heterodox writer is safe. Sir James Stephen's view of the law may be shared by other judges, and if a bigot sat on the bench he might pa.s.s a heavy sentence on a distinguished ”blasphemer.” Let it not be said that their _manner_ is so different from mine that no jury would convict; for when I read extracts from Clifford, Swinburne, Maudsley, Matthew Arnold, James Thomson, Lord Amberley, Huxley, and other heretics whose works are circulated by Mudie, Lord Coleridge remarked ”I confess, as I heard them, I had, and have a difficulty in distinguis.h.i.+ng them from the alleged libels. They do appear to me to be open to the same charge, on the same grounds, as Mr. Foote's writings.”
Personally I understand the Blasphemy Laws well enough. They are the last relics of religious persecution. What Lord Coleridge read from Starkie as the law of blasphemous libel, I regard with Sir James Stephen as ”flabby verbiage.” Lord Coleridge is himself a master of style, and I suppose his admiration of Starkie's personal character has blinded his judgment. Starkie simply raises a cloud of words to hide the real nature of the Blasphemy Laws. He shows how Freethinkers may be punished without avowing the principle of persecution. Instead of frankly saying that Christianity must not be attacked, he imputes to aggressive heretics ”a malicious and mischievous intention,” and ”apathy and indifference to the interests of society;” and he justifies their being punished, not for their actions, but for their motives: a principle which, if it were introduced into our jurisprudence, would produce a chaos.
Could there be a more ridiculous a.s.sumption than that a man who braves obloquy, social ostracism, and imprisonment for his principles, is indifferent to the interest of society? Let Christianity strike Freethinkers if it will, but why add insult to injury? Why brand us as cowards when you martyr us? Why charge us with hypocrisy when we dare your hate?
Persecution, like superst.i.tion, dies hard, but it dies. What though I have suffered the heaviest punishment inflicted on a Freethinker for a hundred and twenty years? Is not the night always darkest and coldest before the dawn? Is not the tiger's dying spring most fierce and terrible?
My sufferings, therefore, are not without the balm of consolation. I see that the future is already brightening with a new hope. Without rising to the supreme height of Danton, who cried ”Let my name be blighted that France be free,” I feel a humbler pleasure in reflecting that I may have been instrumental in breaking the last fetter on the freedom of the press.
G. W. FOOTE.
_February 1st_, 1886.
CHAPTER I. THE STORM BREWING.
In the merry month of May, 1881, I started a paper called the _Freethinker_, with the avowed object of waging ”relentless war against Superst.i.tion in general and the Christian Superst.i.tion in particular.” I stated in the first paragraph of the first number that this new journal would have a new policy; that it would ”do its best to employ the resources of Science, Scholars.h.i.+p, Philosophy and Ethics against the claims of the Bible as a Divine Revelation,” and that it would ”not scruple to employ for the same purpose any weapons of ridicule or sarcasm that might be borrowed from the armoury of Common Sense.”
As the _Freethinker_ was published at the people's price of a penny, and was always edited in a lively style, with a few short articles and plenty of racy paragraphs, it succeeded from the first; and becoming well known, not through profuse advertis.e.m.e.nt, but through the recommendation of its readers, its circulation increased every week.
Within a year of its birth it had outdistanced all its predecessors. No Freethought journal ever progressed with such amazing rapidity.
True, this was largely due to the fact that the Freethought party had immensely increased in numbers; but much of it was also due to the policy of the paper, which supplied, as the advertising gentry say, ”a long-felt want.” Although the first clause of its original programme was never wholly forgotten, we gradually paid the greatest attention to the second, indulging more and more in Ridicule and Sarcasm, and more and more cultivating Common Sense. A dangerous policy, as I was sometimes warned; but for that very reason all the more necessary. The more Bigotry writhed and raged, the more I felt that our policy was telling.
Borrowing a metaphor from Carlyle's ”Frederick,” I likened Superst.i.tion to the boa, which defies all ponderous a.s.saults, and will not yield to the pounding of sledge-hammers, but sinks dead when some expert thrusts in a needle's point and punctures the spinal column.
I had a further incentive. Mr. Bradlaugh's infamous treatment by the bigots had revolutionised my ideas of Freethought policy. Although never timid, I was until then practically ignorant of the horrible spirit of persecution; and with the generous enthusiasm of youth I fondly imagined that the period of combat was ended, that the liberty of platform and press was finally won, that Supernaturalism was hopelessly scotched although obviously not slain, and that Freethinkers should now devote themselves to cultivating the fields they had won instead of raiding into the enemy's territory. Alas for the illusions of hope! They were rudely dispelled by a few ”scenes” in the House of Commons, and barred from all chance of re-gathering by the wild display of intolerance outside. I saw, in quite another sense than Garth Wilkinson's, the profound truth of his saying that--
”The Duke of Wellington's advice, Do not make a little war, is applicable to internal conflicts against evil in society. For little wars have no background of resources, they do not know the strength of the enemy, and the peace that follows them for the most part leaves the evil in dispute nearly its whole territory; perhaps is purchased by guaranteeing the evil by treaty; and leaves the case of offence more difficult of attack by reason of concession to wrong premises.”
(”Human Science and Divine Revelation,” Preface, p. vi.)
Yes, the war with Superst.i.tion must be fought _a outrance_. We must decline either treaty or truce. I hold that the one great work of our time is the destruction of theology, the immemorial enemy of mankind, which has wasted in the chase of chimeras very much of the world's best intellect, fatally perverted our moral sentiments, fomented discord and division, supported all the tyranny of privilege and sanctioned all debas.e.m.e.nt of the people. Far be it from me to argue this point with any dissident. I prefer to leave him to the logic of events, which has convinced me, and may some day convince him.
But to recur. Before the _Freethinker_ had reached its third number I began to reflect on the advisability of ill.u.s.trating it, and bringing in the artist's pencil to aid the writer's pen. I soon resolved to do this, and the third and fourth numbers contained a woodcut on the front page.
In the fifth number there appeared an exquisite little burlesque sketch of the Calling of Samuel, by a skilful artist whose name I cannot disclose. Although not ostensibly, it was actually, the first of those Comic Bible Sketches for which the _Freethinker_ afterwards became famous; and from that date, with the exception of occasional intervals due to difficulties there is no need to explain, my little paper was regularly ill.u.s.trated. During the whole twelve months of my imprisonment the ill.u.s.trations were discontinued by my express order. I was not averse to their appearing, but I knew the terrible obstacles and dangers my temporary successor would have to meet, and I left him a written prohibition of them, which he was free to publish, in order to s.h.i.+eld him against the possible charge of cowardice. Since my release from prison they have been resumed, and they will be continued until I go to prison again, unless I see some better reason than Christian menace for their cessation.
The same fifth number of the _Freethinker_ contained an account of the first part of ”La Bible Amusante,” issued by the Anti-Clerical publis.h.i.+ng house in the Rue des Ecoles. That notice was from my own pen, and I venture to reprint the opening paragraphs.
”Voltaire's method of attacking Christianity has always approved itself to French Freethinkers. They regard the statement that he treated religious questions in a spirit of levity as the weak defence of those who know that irony and sarcasm are the deadliest enemies of their faith. Superst.i.tion dislikes argument, but it hates laughter. Nimble and far-flas.h.i.+ng wit is more potent against error than the slow dull logic of the schools; and the great humorists and wits of the world have done far more to clear its head and sweeten its heart than all its sober philosophers from Aristotle to Kant.
<script>