MR. FOOTE AND THE BLASPHEMY LAWS.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—Considerable attention has been drawn to the present operation of the Blasphemy Laws by the Press, in connection with the case "The Queen v. Foote, Ramsay, &c.," and by public meetings held for the purpose of invoking the preroga- tive of the Crown in their favour. I cannot but think that the arguments employed have been founded on a total misapprehen- sion of the facts. Will you, therefore, allow me to place the true state of the case before your readers ? Before doing so, how- .ever, let me observe that it is not my wish to defend the Blasphemy Laws in their present form. They unquestionably require modification, to be adapted to our present social requirements; yet I maintain that the principle involved in them is sound. I am one of the last to wish to maintain the belief either in Christianity or Theism by the aid of the civil power. In dealing with such questions, appeals to reason and the moral sense are the only legitimate weapons. If Christianity cannot vindicate its own claims to stand without the aid of civil penalties, then "it is a work of man, and will come to naught." Let us have the utmost free- dom of discussion. But this is a very different thing from allowing the Author of Christianity, to whom the most eminent onbelievers have assigned the highest place in their Pantheon of great men, to be made the subject of a most indecent and utterly misleading caricature, which is publicly exhibited in shop windows, and that, too, in one of the chief thoroughfares in London. I doubt whether one in a thousand of those who are endeavouring to invoke the prerogative of the Crown in favour of Messrs. Foote and Ramsay have ever seen the caricature in question, or even have the smallest idea of its real nature. It appeared in the Christmas number of the Freethinker, and, is called "A New Life of Christ." It contains neither reasoning nor argument, but is neither more nor less than an indecent parody of our blessed Lord, not in words only, but aided by illustrations. So great was its indecency, that the Court very properly took measures to prevent its publication in the newspapers. This, however, has afforded the opportunity for an immense amount of misrepresentation, as though it were a violation of the liberty of the Press, instead of an attempt to suppress a public nuisance. I submit that caricatures of the vilest kind are neither reasoning nor argument, but an appeal to the basest passions of mankind. Yet in January last, on passing through Fleet Street, I saw this very publication stuck up in a shop window, with so large a number of people, chiefly young people, gazing at it, that I could not get near enough distinctly to read the printed matter. Minor Canon Shuttleworth says, and says truly, " Christians will never exorcise the spirit of atheism and blasphemy by appealing to the demons of intolerance and injustice." With this statement I cordially agree ; but when he applies this great truth to the Foote case, I am forced to conclude that he has never seen the parody in question. The object of the prosecution was not "to exorcise the spirit of atheism and blasphemy," but to prevent a wanton insult from being offered to the great mass of the people of this country. I submit that this is no attempt to uphold Christ- ianity by the aid of the civil power ; but to prevent an outrage which, if it had been allowed to continue, would have endan- gered a breach of the peace. The adherents of the various religions in India, bad as most of them are, are justly protected by law from outrages of this description. Are Christians in England alone to be exposed to them, and are such caricatures to be exhibited in our streets to crowds of young people? I feel sure that if the case were submitted to a jury of eminent unbelievers, and the Christmas number of the Freethinker were put into their hands, that their verdict would have pronounced it a public nuisance. I am not acquainted with the writings of any unbeliever which have given me as much pain in reading them as those of the late Professor Clifford (I am alluding to educated unbelievers), so strong were his denunciations of Christianity. But these differ toto caelo from the parody of the Freethinker, which I think that even he would have pro- nounced indecent. I am aware that it has been urged in Mr. Foote's favour that it is a question between good and bad- taste ; that no certain line of demarcation can be laid down between the one and the other, and that it is taken for granted that Mr. Foote is a man of bad-taste. All these positions I dispute ; but with respect to the latter, I am confident that Mr. Foote is not a man who is ignorant of the distinction be- tween good and bad-taste. Many years ago—eight, at the least —I was in the habit of meeting Mr. Foote in the Hall of Science, and hearing him discuss religious questions. He was then a, young man, in whom I felt a deep interest. I considered him the clearest and calmest reasoner in that hall; and I must do him the justice to say that his mode of discussing the questions at issue was uniformly in good-taste, free from anything offensive, in which he stood in striking contrast to Mr. Bradlaugh. But between the Mr. Foote of 1874 and the Mr. Foote of the Free- thinker, the fall is incredibly great. These facts dispose of the question that his offence is a venial one, owing to want of taste. I can only attribute the authorship of the parody in question to a deliberate purpose to insult, grieve, and appeal not to reasons but to obloquy, abuse, and the lowest passions.
Let me now definitely state my position. I do not contend that Christianity should be protected by the civil power, but I urge that it is unendurable that its numerous pro- fessors in this country should be insulted by parodies of him whom they consider to be the Holy One of God, the subject of their highest love, reverence, and regard, being publicly exhibited in the streets; and that the civil power is bound to prevent it, in its capacity of conservator of the peace. I make this last observation, because I feel assured that if such exhibitions are allowed, zealous Christians, with more zeal, per- haps, than discretion, would be tempted to violate the peace, by entering the shops where they are exhibited, and demolishing them. Let me further add that the case of the Freethinker wholly differs from that of the controversy between Mr. Brad- laugh and the House of Commons. When Mr. Bradlangh com- mits a similar outrage to that perpetrated in the Freethinker, by all means let the civil power interfere. But in my own opinion, nothing has been more unadvised in the interest of Christianity
than manufacturing Mr. Bradlaugh into a political martyr. It has trebled his influence among working-men as an opponent alike of Theism and Christianity, and greatly increased the sale of his pernicious publications. The admission of ten Bradlaughs into the House of Commons would not have done an equal amount of mischief. Would that those who oppose Mr. Brad. laugh's admission on conscientious grounds would think the matter over, and retrace their steps. I say this without political bias, simply in the interests of that Christianity to the defence of which I have devoted the best days of my life ; and in the in- terest of that Christianity let this controversy be speedily made to cease.—I am, Sir, &c., C. A. Row, Prebendary of St. Paul's.
[We agree with Canon Row's main position, but we are persuaded that the sentence inflicted on Mr. Foote and his associates was, in the interest of public decency itself, excessively harsh, and that it has therefore had some of the bad effects of making a martyr of a very vulgar and unscrupulous assailant of religion.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
