« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
and from it the Secular party never recovered during the debate. But no one who knows Mr. Bradlaugh would. for one moment suppose that he would not brave the matter out, seeing that Lord Amberley could not ba brought upon the platform. He, therefore, replied"As to Lord Amberley's
letter, he said he was present when Lord Amberley made the statement he referred to. He did not say what he had written since. (Hear, hear.) The evidence that he was not wrong was that the speech was reported. There was a powerful corporation called the British Medical Corporation, which had a Journal called the British Medical Journal, and the speech was reported in this as he had stated, and had been reprinted in fifty or sixty papers. (“Question.") He was not there to bandy words with every indecent person who interrupted him. The file of the journal in question would show how the matter stood. If the speech were not there he would have told one more lie ; if it were, Lord Amberley must have changed his opinions, or forgotten what he had said. If he (Mr. Bradlaugh) had made an error, it was a strange one, and it was shared in by the British Medical Journal. Lord Amberley said it was one of the best books he had ever read, and ought to be in the hands of every working-man.”
Here then the charge was re-affirmeil-he heard Lord Amberley thus commend the book, and the eridence (proof positive) that he was not wrong is the fact, that the sprech was reported in the British Medical Journal, just
AS HE HAD STATED, and had been “reprinted in fifty or sixty papers. The audience called for dates but they were not given, and so the matter had to be left, so far as the debate was concerned. But, of course, that was not to be the end of it. But the bold re-iteration answered Mr. Bradlaugh's purpose—he got away without being groaned out of the hall, as he must have been had he not suspanded the judgment of the assembly by so bold re-affirmation. Subsequently he was required to produce, or to name, the number of the Journal containing the words of Lord Amberley,
as he had said.” In reply the following was received
“I am not at all sure that the British Medical Journal contains the whole speech, but the speech in which I heard Lord Amberley say wliat I refer to was made at the London Dialectical Society's Rooms, 32a, George Street, Hanover Square, some time either in the end of 1867 or early in 1868, on the occasion of a paper read by Mr. Laurie.
C. BRADLAUGH.” The British Medical Journals for the last three months of 1867 and the first three of 1868 were carefully examined, but no allusion to the subject. Mr. King again wrote to Lord Amberley and received the following
“SIR, -In reply to your letter of the 3rd instant, I have to say that the speech alluded to by Mr. Bradlaugh was made at the Dialectical Society on July 1, 1868. It was scarcely a speech properly so called, but some observations made in an informal manner at a meeting which I supposed to be private. Reporting is in fact forbidden by the Society's Rules, but by the indiscretion of some person present an abstract of what I said appeared in a medical paper.
With refcrence to Mr. Bradlaugh’s alleged quntation, I may observe that I do not believe I made any mention of the “ Elements of Social Science," and most certainly not in the terms stated by Mr. Bradlaugh. I am not at all surprised to learn that he
cannot give " the number of the British Medical Journal, since the report referred to by him contains not the most distant allusion to the work in question. This will be sufficient to show you with what extreme caution Mr. Bradlaugh's assertions must be received. In conclusion my present estimate of this book is not the result of a change of mind since 1868.-Yours faithfully,
AMBERLEY." The date thus supplied enabled the Journal to be procured, and there, certainly, in the number for August 1st, 1868, is the speech of Lord Amberley, but no mention of, nor allusion to, the book in question, nor reference to any book ; nor anything which can be supposed in any way to refer to it; nor anything incompatible with his lordship's strongly expressed repudiation of the book. Thus the matter might be left as clearly settled, but as Mr. Bradlaugh cannot be put down while the possibility remains
Observer, Jan. 1, 71,
of covering his defeat by assertions which, for want of witnesses, could not be proved untrue, and as he still insists that Lord Amberley did, in his presence, thus commend the book, it was deemed well to refer to the gentleman who read the Essay in connection with which Lord Amberley's speech was made. That gentlemen (Mr. Laurie) writes to his lordship thus
“I am convinced you said nothing about the book called “Elements of Social Science.” But the opinion quoted by Mr. Bradlaugh and attributed to you was delivered by himself after your lordship had left the meeting."
Thus Mr. Bradlaugh imposes his own worthless recommendation of a most filthy book upon the assembly and comes before the public boldly attributing his own words to Lord Amberley. But that the case may not admit of a loophole for escape, the following testimonial has been obtained from gentlemen who were present when the very Honourable President of the National Secular Society says he heard Lord Amberley say the words he himself uttered after his lordship had left the room.
"Whereas, at a meeting of the London Dialectical Society held in 1868. Lord Amberley has been reported to have pronounced a favourable opinion on a work entitled the ‘Elements of Social Science, etc., this is to certify that his lordship made no allusion whatever to the work in question.
We seize the present opportunity of further declaring, most emphatically, that his lordship’s remarks on the purely philosophic axiom of the Rev. Dr. Malthus were not of the character subsequently ascribed to them by some of the Medical and Conservative Journals. His lordship simply and fairly stated the proposition and calmly criticised its bearings on some practicable solution of the the social problems of the day, namelypoverty and crime, including the horrors of infanticide. We who were present heard nothing that could possibly offend the most sensitive ear of any reasoning creature ; but much that evinced an earnest consideration of the subject from a truly humane point of view.”
J. STUART LAURIE, formerly H.M. Inspector of Schools, &c.
JOHN STEELE, Medical Superintendent, Guy's Hospital.
occassion whatever, in public or private, expresed any approbation of the book entitled " Elements of Social Science.” Nor am I likely ever to have done so, inasmuch as I very strongly object to some the opinions expressed in it. You are, therefore, quite at liberty to say that I am not correctly represented by any one who asserts that I have commended the book.—Yours very faithfully,
J. S. MILL." We now consider this wretched case of falsification of testimony and boldly impudent imposition as complete. We give the clear, ample and unanswerable facts as clearly revealing as consummate a charlatan as ever itinerated for the purpose of lining his pockets with the pence of his dupes.
THE TRANSLATORS' PREFACE TO THE AUTHORIZED
VERSION ; BEING AN EXACT REPRINT OF THE ORIGINAL EDITION
OF 1611.-London, McIntosh. The Committee of one of the Bible Societies has published this pamphlet, deeming the time opportune and considering that there are
Observer, Jan. 1, '71.
even many preachers who are not acquainted with it. Time spent in reading it will not be wasted, and while it is really a cogent statement for the period which gave it birth many parts of it are not inapplicable to our own time. A specimen or so of its quaint argumentation may prove acceptable to the reader,
“ Now the Church of Rome would seeme at the length to beare a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue : but indeed it is a gift, not deseruing to be called a gift, an vnprofitable gift: they must first get a Licence in writing before they may vse them, and to get that, they must approue themselues to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet sowred with the leauen of their superstition. Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the 8. that there should be any Licence granted to haue them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he ouerruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the fourth. So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugæ Scripturarum, as Tertullian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set foorth by their owne sworne men, no uot with the Licence of their own Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so vnwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the peoples vnderstanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confesse, that wee forced them to translate it into English against their wills. This seemeth to argue a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit; neither is it the true man that shunneth the light, but the malefactour, lest his deedes should be reproued ; neither is it the plaine dealing Merchant that is vnwilling to haue the waights, or the meteyard brought in place, but he that yseth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and returne to translation."
Rome, of course, is the same now as then. The Scriptures are permitted where they cannot be forbidden. The Translators speak of their work thus :
“ If you aske what they had before them, truely it was the Hebrew text of the Olde Testament, the Greeke of the New. These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the oliue branches emptie themselues into the golde. Saint Augustine calleth_them precedent, or originall tongues ; Saint Hierome, fountains. The same Saint Hierome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Decree, That as the credit of the olde Bookes (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to bee tryed by the Hebrewe Volumes, so of the New by the Greeke tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greek. If trueth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them ? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures wee say in those tongues, wee set before vs to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speake to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles. Neither did we run ouer the worke with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in 72. dayes; neither were we barred or hindered from goin ouer it againe, having once done it, like S. Hierome, if that be true which himselfe reporteth, that he could no sooner write any thing, but presently it was caught from him, and published, and he could not haue leaue to mend it: neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helpes, as it is written of Origen, that hee was the first in a manner, that put his hand to write Commentaries vpon the Scriptures, and therefore no marueile if he ouershot himselfe many times. None of these things : the worke hath not bene hudled vp in 72. dayes, but hath cost the workemen, as light as it seemeth, the paines of twise seuen times seuentie two dayes and more: matters of such weight and consequence are to bee speeded with maturitie : for in a businesse of moment a man feareth not the blame of conuenient slacknesse. Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch ; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anuill that which we had hammered ; but hauing and vsing as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coueting praise for expedition, wee haue at the length, through the good hand of the Lord vpon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see.”
The concluding appeal is truly earnest, and may speak to men of this generation quite as well as those of that time.
" It remaineth, that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace, which is able to build further than we can asko or thinke. Hee remoueth the scales from our eyes, the vaile from our hearts, opening our wits that wee may vnderstand his word, enlarging our hearts, yea correcting our affections, that we may loue it aboue gold and
siluer, yea that we may loue it to the end. Ye are brought vnto fountaines of liuing water which yee digged not; doe not cast earth into them with the Philistines, neither preferre broken pits before them with the wicked Iewes. Others haue laboured, and you may enter into their labours ; O receiue not so great things in vaine, 0 despise not so great saluation! Be not like swine to treade vnder foote so precious things, neither yet like dogs to teare and abuse holy things Say not to our Sauiour with the Gergesites, Depart out of our coasts ; neither yet with Esau sell your birth-right for a messe of pottage. If light be come into the world, loue not darknesse more than light; if foode, if clothing be offered, goe not naked, starue not your selues. Remember the aduise of Nazianzene, It is a grievous thing (or dangerous) to neglect a great faire, and to seeke to make markets afterwards : also the encouragement of S. Chrysostome, It is altogether impossible, that he that is sober (and watchfull) should at any time be neglected : Lastly, the admonition and menacing of S. Augustine, They that despise Gods will inuiting them, shall feele Gods will tuking vengeance of them. It is a fearefull thing to fall into the hands of the living God; but a blessed thing it is, and will bring vs to euerlasting blessednes in the end, when God speaketh vnto vs, to hearken ; when he setteth his word before vs, to reade it ; when hee stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answere, Here am I ; here we are to doe thy will, o God. The Lord work a care and conscience in vs to knowe him and serue him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord lesus Christ, to whom with the holy Ghost, be all prayse and thankesgiuing. Amen.”
So let it be! Let us attend to the things spoken, lest at any time we let them slip.
BLIND AMOS AND HIS VELVET PRINCIPLES; A BOOK OF
PROVERBS AND PARABLES FOR Young FOLK, BY Paxton Hood.
London, Partridge & Co. An acceptable book of youth. Here and there a phrase we would rather exclude ; but, with that exception, replete with interesting lessons, given in most attractive style. One illustration must suffice.
“ I cannot tell you all the disagreeable stories about spiteful and hateful people which I have heard and known in my life ; but I will tell you three-they are about three kinds of spite. There is envious spite. You know that the New Testament speaks of • the spirit that lusteth in us to envy.' It is very hard to rejoice with them that do rejoice,' because it requires such an unenvious spirit I remember hearing of a little girl who went to her Sabbath School, and when she came home her mother asked her what she had done in school, and she, in the simplicity of her little soul, said, . O dear mother, I am afraid I have done nothing; for you know there was little Mary Curtis, whose baby-brother was buried this week, and she was so sorry, and she cried so that I cried with her, and I took her hands in mine and kissed her. But it quite took all the lessons out of my head, so that poor Sarah Miles, who is always behind with her lessons, had them this morning quite perfect; and she was so happy, that although she got more tickets thau I did, I was quite glad, and I told her so, and kissed her too.
• My dear,' said the happy mother, you have not said so many lessons, perhaps, but you have fulfilled the apostle's injunction, you have “wept with those that wept, and rejoiced with those who rejoiced." But that is not the story, boys, I was going to tell you. It is about the spite of envy. Whenever I see an envious map at work against his neighbour's prosperity, he always looks to me like a man who is pulling another's house down to mend his own with the broken bricks, forgetful that by destroying his neighboar's house he has, perhaps, loosened the foundation of his own; and that, at any rate, the bricks of the building he has pulled down are not of much use to him. Envy is rottenness to the bones.' (Prov. xiv. 30.). It is not what we have, but the way we use it, that makes us happy. I don't know how it happened, but so it was, that old Hooper, who kept the village chandler's shop, became envious of old Moses Owen and his family. Old Moses was a day-labourer, and old Hooper called himself a tradesman; but somehow poor old Hooper, who was, however, not much more than fifty, could never make the two ends of the thread of life meet. And old Moses seemed very quietly to make the ends meet without much trying. In the house of old Moses all was neat and nice as a new pin. In the house of old Hooper I recollect seeing the cat playing with a shawl and bonnet on a chair ; and the idea occurred to me directly that she it was who kept the house in order, for everthing looked in a most lively state of confusion. There were plenty of children in both families, but those of Hooper grew up in idleness ;
Observer, Jan. 1, "71.
those of Moses in order and diligence. Hooper and his family minded everybody's business but their own; Moses and his family minded nobody's business but their own; and in the long run, boys, this makes a great difference. Well, the two families became rather conspicuously noticed in the village; old Hooper fixed people's atten. tion, and gave them occasion to remark, by his constant spite against old Moses. I am sorry to say, old Hooper made a great profession of religion ; aud although he had a heart as black as a coal, he wore what he called a white neckerchief: he called it white-white it never had been since it left the draper's shop. At last he got it into his head that he would try to do two things. He thought, foolish man, that he would succeed better if he lived where Moses lived ; and he bade a higher rent for his cottage, and he worked very cleverly to get the old man dismissed, by a young master, from his employment. And now everybody thought old Moses would come to the work house, or break stones on the road. Well, what do you think? to the very house where old Hooper had lived old Moses went, helped by his children, whom he had not taught the way of industry and piety for nothing, He set up a little shop himself. Poor old Hooper got worse and worse – for envy slayeth the silly one' (Job. v. 2.) His children got worse and worse too. At last he left the village, and I don't know where he went; but I met him the day before he left; I never like to speak uukindly to men in their fallen fortures; but I could not help saving to him, Hooper, those bricks did not do !' He did not know what I meant, and said, "What bricks!' • The bricks of old Moses Owen's cottage !' said I. • You left your house to pull down his. and now you see you are out of house and home, and you cannot use the Tricks to build another !
“ Take care of the black thread of 'envious spite. There is an old proverb that says, Curses are like little chickens, they come home to roost! There is a boy here named Tom Battersby, who has a black eye, I am told, by a ball bounding back and striking him. Take care boys, every blow you strike another bounds back with just the same fury on yourself. In the long run God always does good to them tnat do yond. How it ought to hold back our hands from evil, to know that all evil doers shall be cut off'
“Now I will tell you another story. The second spite is the spite of revenge. Revenge is folly-it is madness. If anyone has done you uny harm it won't do you any good to do them harm in return. A young man once insulted Socrates, the great Grecian philosopher, and went so far as even to kick him ; but Socrates walked on and did not heed it--at which his friends were surprised. • What,' said he, would you have me to do? If an ass kicked me, would you have me kick him agaiu ' Which answer of Socrates was so much talked of, that always af erwards the young man was called the Kicker. But in this repls of the wise man there was a sort of revenge. It did not come up to Christ; who, when he was reviled, reviled lot again!'
“ And oh, my boys, thiuk how dreadful is that feeling of revenge. The man who has indulged in this evil passion may easily be known. Revenge is like a branding iron, and it burns in its fiery traces in the face of the passionate and wrathful man. thine enemy strike thee, strike him again,' that is what self says. “ If thine enemy hunger, feed him,' that is what Christ says. When you come to know life, you will see in the man who indulges in revenge, dark, bloodshot eyes, and cruel face. Such a man injures himself more than his foe. How much better it is to be sinned against than sinning !
• Never injure because you have been injured There is a fable, that a rat once did an injury to a lion, and when the lion walked majestically on without revenging the insult, the jackall, and the tiger, and the panther, all called the lion ccward. Whereupon the lion set up such a roar of laughter as made the desert to shake again, and all the beasts to tremble. No,' said he, .I am not a coward; but you might think so if I thought so much of the tooth of a rat as to revenge it by a blow from the paw of a lion.' Tho noblest natures never stoop to revenge."
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? REPORT OF A PUBLIC DEBATE IN
BURY, BETWEEN David KinG AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH. This pamphlet, now ready, consists of a full report of the first two of the six nights' debate. The subject is complete and, therefore, may be circulated either with or without the other two subjects, each of which is put up separately.
We shall not offer quotations, but, as the price is small, leave readers, who desire to follow the debatants, to procure a copy. The work