I.
References are continually made in the Press to certain events recorded
in this chapter founded upon statements made by myself, but lacking
details and without the official substantiating documents. The original
summonses and other legal instruments were preserved, and copies of
them are given herein. Reports only would be incredible to the new
generation, and it is necessary to publish them to give authenticity to
the narrative of what really took place.
It seems better to say "Trouble with Her Majesty" than Trouble with
the Queen, "Majesty" being more official than personal. The three
indictments to be recorded in this narrative all took place in the
Victorian reign. It seems a disadvantage of the monarchical system that
the name of the head of the reigning House should be attached to all
proceedings, great or petty, noble or mean, honourable or infamous. It
assumes the personal cognisance and interference in everything by the
occupant of the Throne. It is the same in the theological system, where
the Deity is assumed to personally cause or permit whatever takes place
in this inexplicable universe. If the glory of the mountain be his, the
devastation of the inhabitants of the valley by a volcano is also his
act. The Church is beginning, not too soon, to discourage this theory.
The curate rescued from a wreck who reported to Archbishop Whately that
he had been "providentially" saved, was asked by the logical prelate,
"Do you intend to say that the lost have been 'providentially' drowned?"
Thus blasphemy is made one of the wings of religion--just as sedition
becomes a wing of loyalty, when discreditable incidents are represented
as the personal acts of the Crown. Lawyers know that the King or
Queen is not directly answerable, but by acute legal fiction, odious
responsibility is transferred to others. But the people always think
that he or she, in whose name a thing is done, is answerable for it,
and theologians all teach that everything, even rascality, occurs by the
will of God.
References to my indebtedness to the Exchequer of L600,000 of fines
incurred by publishing unstamped newspapers, seem to readers of to-day a
factless tradition. This is not so, as will appear from the warrants and
notices of prosecution which follow, copied from the original documents
in my possession, which have never until now been published.
Early in 1855, I received the following message from Her Majesty, in the
18th year of her reign:--
"Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, to George Jacob Holyoake,
greeting. We command and strictly injoin you that (all excuses apart)
you appear before the Barons of our Exchequer at Westminster, on the
thirty-first day of January instant, To answer us concerning certain
Articles then and there on our behalf to be objected against you. And
this in no wise omit under the penalty of One Hundred Pounds, which we
shall cause to be levied to our use upon your Goods and Chattels, Lands
and Tenements, if you neglect this our present command. Witness, Sir
Frederick Pollock, Knight, at Westminster, the eleventh day of January,
in the eighteenth Year of our Reign.
"By the Barons.
"H. W. Vincent, Q.R."
Mr. George Jacob Holyoake,--You are served with this Process to the
intent that you may by your Attorney, according to the practice of the
Court, appear in Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer, at the return thereof
in order to your defence in this prosecution.
"Mr. George Jacob Holyoake.
"At the suit of Her Majesty's Attorney-General,
"By Information.
"Folio 9--1855.
"Joseph Timm," Solicitor of the Inland Revenue,
"Somerset House, London.
"Folio 9--55-
"Inland Revenue, Somerset House.
"Solicitors' Department.
"The Attorney-General against George Jacob Holyoake.
"The penalties sought to be recovered by this prosecution are several of
L20 each, which the defendant has incurred by publishing certain
newspapers called _War Chronicle_ and _The War Fly Sheet_ on unstamped
paper."
As I had published 30,000 copies, the penalties incurred were L600,000.
These alarming documents were accompanied by intimation as to the
question at issue, and the penalties to be recovered. My solicitors,
Messrs. Ashurst, Waller and Morris, No. 6, Old Jewry, put in an
appearance for me, but on the repeal of the duty shortly after,
a hearing was never entered upon, and the penalties have not been
collected. How they came to be incurred in respect of the _War
Chronicles_ the reader may see in "Sixty Years," vol. i. p. 287.
No intimation was ever given to me--there is no courtesy, I believe, in
law--that these intimidating summonses were withdrawn. I had no defence
against the charge. I could not deny, nor did I intend to deny, that I
had knowingly and wilfully published the said papers. In justification
I could only allege that I had acted, as I believed, in the public
interest, which, I was told, was no legal answer. The law, which ought
to be clear and plain, was, I knew, full of quirks and surprises; and,
for all I knew, or know to this day, the payment of the fines incurred
might be demanded of me. It was communicated to the then Chancellor of
the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) that in case of the full demand being made
upon me, I should be under the necessity of asking him to take it in
weekly instalments, as I had not the whole amount by me.
The position of an "unstamped" debtor was not, in those days, a light
one. My house in Fleet Street could be entered by officers of the Inland
Revenue; every person in it, printers, assistants in the shop, and any
one found upon the premises could be arrested. The stock of books could
be seized, and blacksmiths set to break up all presses and destroy all
type, as was done to Henry Hetherington; and for many weeks I made
daily preparations for arrest.
The _St. James's Gazette_ (April 13, 1901) referred to the fines of
L600,000 incurred by me. What I really owed was a much larger sum,
had the Government been exacting. Previously to the _War Chronicle_
liability, I had published the _Reasoner_ twelve years, of which the
average number issued may have exceeded 2,000 weekly, or 104,000 a
year--every copy of which, containing news and being unstamped, rendered
me liable to a fine of L20 each copy. Now 104,000 x 12 x L20 exceeded
more millions of indebtedness than I like to set down. Any arithmetical
reader can ascertain the amount for himself. A friend in the Inland
Revenue Office first made the calculation for me, which astonished me
very much, as it did him. Had the whole sum been recoverable it might
have saved the Budget of a Chancellor of the Exchequer struggling with a
deficit.
The Government were frequently asked to prosecute me. It was not from
any tenderness to me that they did not. It was their reluctance to give
publicity to the _Reasoner_ that caused them to refrain. It was the
advocacy of unusual opinion which gave me this immunity.
The _St. James's Gazette_ asked me: "Is it justifiable for a good
citizen to break a law because he believes it to be wrong?" I answered
"No! unless the public good seems to require it, and that he who breaks
the law is prepared to take the consequences." I never evaded the
consequences, nor complained of them when they came.
If every one who breaks a law first satisfies himself that public
interest justifies it, and he is ready to meet the penalty, only bad
laws would be broken. It is also the duty of a citizen to find out
whether there is any practical way open for procuring the repeal of
a bad law before breaking it. Respect for law, under representative
government, in which the law-breaker has a share, is a cardinal duty of
a citizen.
On my violation of the law in the matter of the _War Chronicles_ Mr.
Gladstone (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said to a deputation, that
he knew "my object was not to break the law, but to try the law."
The impulsive and the ambitious of repute may overlook this
consideration, but as I sought neither distinction nor martyrdom, I
acted as I did because no other course was open, and no other person
would take this.
II.
In the year following the prosecution in the Court of Exchequer, Her
Majesty gave me further trouble in discharge of the odious duty imposed
upon her as collector of debts for the Church. As few know to-day how
hateful this impost was, it will be informing to see how the clerical
case was officially stated to me. It began as follows:--
"Mr. George Jacob Holyoake,--Take Notice that in and by certain Rates or
Assessments made by virtue of and for the purposes mentioned in the Act
of Parliament passed in the 4th Year of the Reign of her late Majesty
Queen Ann, Cap. 27, intituled, 'An Act for settling the Impropriate
Tythes of the Parish of Saint Bridgett, alias Bride's, London,' You are
assessed in respect of the Houses, Shops, Warehouses, Cellars, Stables,
Tofts, Grounds, or other Tenements or Hereditaments, within the said
Parish occupied by you, in four several Sums amounting to One pound four
shillings and eightpence for four several Quarters of a Year commencing
at the Feast of The Birth of our Lord Christ, 1854, and ending at the
same Feast in the Year 1855, and that such assessments are made on a
Rental of L74. Dated this 22nd day of May, 1856.
"John William Thomas,
"Collector of the said Rates."
These ecclesiastical cormorants took a hungry survey of every place
containing property on which they could lay hands. After the Rathcormac
massacre, where two sons of the widow Ryan were shot by the soldiers,
employed by the Church in collecting its rates--how appropriate and
consoling it must be to a bereaved mother to read that the rates
commenced to be due at "The Feast of the Birth of our Lord Christ!" Yet
there are people who go about promoting prosecutions for blasphemy, and
with a holy partiality leave untouched outrages like these. The summons
sent to me speaks of the "late Queen Ann," who had been dead 140 years.
Her name being spelt "Ann" shows that she had been dead long enough to
lose the final "e" of her name. The rent of the Fleet Street house was
L74, L400 having been paid for the lease. Each time there came on
the scene the local agent of the Church, who delivered an interesting
intimation as follows:--
"Mr. George Jacob Holyoake,--I do hereby demand payment of One pound
four shillings and eightpence, due from you for Rates made in pursuance
of the Act of Parliament passed in the 4th Year of the Reign of her
late Majesty Queen Ann, Cap. 17, intituled, 'An Act for settling the
Impropriate Tythes of the Parish of Saint Bridgett, alias Brides,
London.' And take notice that unless the same be paid to me within Four
Days next after the demand thereof hereby made, I shall Distrain your
Goods and Chattels, and sell and dispose thereof, and out of the Monies
arising thereby pay the said Sum of Money, and the Costs allowed by the
Acts of Parliament in that case made and provided.
"Dated this 22nd day of May, 1856.
"John William Thomas,
"Collector of the said Rates."
The predatory Vicar of St. Bride's, for whose advantage the contemplated
seizure was being made, remained in the background, praying for my soul
while he picked my pocket, as I regarded his action.
After two or three seizures of property, I sent to the vicar payment
"in kind"--the form in which the payment of tithe was originally
contributed. The chief produce of my farm in Fleet Street consisted
in volumes of the _Reasoner_. I sent the vicar three volumes, which
exceeded in value his demand. He troubled me no more.
The last citation relates to a trial in which Lord Chief Justice
Coleridge was concerned, and Henry Thomas Buckle made a splendid defence
of a poor well-sinker who was afraid of killing the world.
III.
In a Cornish village in 1857 small patch advertisements broke out like
small-pox, of which the following is a copy:--
"BLASPHEMY.
"Any person who has seen a man writing Blasphemous sentences
on Gates or other places in the neighbourhood of Liskeard, is requested
to communicate immediately with Messrs. Pedler and Grylls, Liskeard, or
with the Rev. R. Hobhouse, St. Ive Rectory."
Whether the perturbed Rector of St Ive found out anything, or whether
ashamed, as he might well be, at being mixed up in so miserable a
business, he retired from it, and the Rev. Paul Bush appeared in his
place as a spiritual detective on the pounce, and a poor, eccentric
well-sinker, one Thomas Pooley, was accused of writing in chalk
incoherent words in a hand only intelligible to the all-construing eyes
of the policeman of the Church, who caused to be issued the following
ponderous summons in her Majesty's name:--
"To Thomas Pooley, of the Borough of Liskeard in the County of Cornwall,
Labourer.
"Cornwall to wit, Whereas Information and Complaint (a) hath this day
been laid before the undersigned, one of Her Majesty's Justices of the
Peace in and (b) for the said County of Cornwall by The Reverend Paul
Bush of the Parish of Duloe, in the said County, for that you the said
Thomas Pooley on the twenty-second of May last at the Parish of Duloe,
in the said County, did unlawfully and wilfully compose, write and
publish a certain scandalous, impious, blasphemous and profane Libel of
and concerning the Holy Scriptures and the Christian Religion, and for
having blasphemously spoken against God and profanely scoffed at the
Holy Scripture, and exposed it to contempt and ridicule, and also for
having spoken against Christianity and the established religion.
"These are therefore to command you in Her Majesty's name, to be
and appear on Wednesday the 1st day of July next at 10 o'clock in the
Forenoon, at Treean Gate in the Parish of Lanewath in the said County,
before such said Justices of the Peace for the County as may then
be there, to answer to the said Information and Complaint, and to be
further dealt with according to Law.
"Given under my hand and Seal this 27th day of June, in the year of
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, at Liskeard in the
County aforesaid.
"James Glencross."
Notes on the summons were:--"(a) If upon Oath insert 'On Oath.' (b)
Erase the words in italic when summons is issued by Justice acting out
of jurisdiction in which he resides."
There is more untruth and holy malevolence in this summons than Pooley
was ever known to be guilty of in all his life. Mr. Bush charges Mr.
Pooley with "wilfully composing" the words complained of. Everybody
in the parish knew that he had not the mental coherence to "compose"
anything. He had neither spoken against God--for he was a believer in
Him--nor was he a preacher either in pulpit or on street corner. Nor
did he "speak" about God, except when he was being stripped in gaol. His
"scoffing against the Holy Scriptures" merely meant that he was incensed
against priests. The charge that he had published a "scandalous,
impious, blasphemous, and profane libel" was simply the reckless,
false, professional language of the clergyman and lawyer who drew up
the summons, which would be counted unscrupulous and venomous in other
persons. In this summons we have the same profanation of the Queen's
name as we have already seen. How can a monarch expect his office or
character to be held in esteem who permits his or her name to be cited
for the purposes of any bigot who has spite in his heart and falsehood
on his lips? People cease to respect a monarch who has no respect for
himself.
There was more of the evil spirit of untruth in the charges in the
summons than in all Mr. Pooley's vague and honest anger. I went down to
Duloe to see Mr. Bush, and found him residing in a spacious house, with
a pleasant outlook of roads and fields before it, while poor Pooley
lived in wells. Why should one so well-placed as the Rev. Paul Bush
conspire to procure twenty-one months' imprisonment for this friendless,
half-demented parishioner? Very likely Mr. Bush was by nature a
kind-hearted clergyman in whom theology generated--
"Words, Which turned the milk of kindness into curds."
At the trial Pooley, who was entirely undefended received a sentence
of twenty-one months' imprisonment. The son of the judge, Sir John Duke
Coleridge, who prosecuted, said, "It was not the prosecution of
opinion in any sense, but society was to be protected from outrage and
indecency." If so, six weeks' imprisonment was more than sufficient in a
case in which there was no wantonness and only half-insane conviction in
it Mr. Thomas Henry Buckle, the famous historian of Civilisation, wrote
in _Fraser_ an indignant and generous denunciation of the sentence, and
those concerned in it. It was the last great letter of a philosopher in
defence of the mental liberty of a poor man, and no equal to it appeared
in the century. I published an account of Pooley's case, which Buckle
saw. Sir John Duke (who afterwards became Lord Chief Justice Coleridge)
had behaved, as prosecuting counsel, better than I knew, as I
admitted when I did know it. Still, the sentence (twenty-one months'
imprisonment) will always stand on record as atrocious, apart from the
irresponsible condition of the offender. The words said to be "spoken,"
and which were made a count in his indictment, were mere exclamations,
provoked by the irritation of gaolers, which the prisoner had neither
means nor intent of publishing. A barrister in court was struck by the
signs of insanity in Pooley, unnoticed by the preoccupied eyes of the
judge and his son.
Pooley, as we have said, was a well-sinker, a tall, strongly-built man
of honest aspect and of good courage and fidelity, who had descended
into a deep well and rescued his master from death. Though not a
philosopher, Pooley, like some who were, was a wild sort of Pantheist.
He thought this world to be an organism, and believed it to be alive;
and such was the tenderness and reverence of his devotion that nothing
could persuade him to dig a well beyond a certain depth, lest he should
wound the heart of the world.
Some years later Lord Coleridge informed me that he did not press the
case against Pooley, and that he had no idea he was of uncertain mind,
nor did his father suspect it. I thought it was impossible they could be
unaware of it, as it was well known to all Liskeard. In justice to Lord
Coleridge's father, I ought to say, that when he subsequently became
aware of Pooley's condition of mind, he at once consented to his
liberation, and Pooley was taken home, after four months' imprisonment,
in the carriage of the governor of the gaol, who had sympathy for him.
Sir William Molesworth and Sir Erskine Perry were, after Mr. Buckle,
the chief instruments of his liberation. The facts I have related of the
Coleridges were not known to me when I first saw Mr. Buckle, who wrote
upon the information I gave him. Pooley was a resolute man, who had
self-respect and would not wear the prison dress. When it was put upon
him he tore it to shreds, and he was left naked in the dark cell in
which he was confined. He would have been made quite mad had he not been
released when he was.
IV.
The last case in which I supply documentary evidence is that concerning
the limelight placed on the Clock Tower at Westminster. No member of
Parliament had thought of it, nor should I, had I not needed it for my
own convenience. I was then secretary to Mr. (afterwards Sir) Joseph
Cowen. When he wished to take part in a division he would ask me to
ascertain whether the House was sitting. In those days there were two
lamp-posts in Palace Yard with three lights each, which were kept in
while the "House was sitting," but when the "House was up" two of the
lights were extinguished. There was no other sign, and I had often
to ride from Redcliffe Square, Brompton, to Palace Yard before the
signal-light could be seen. The limelight had just been perfected, and
it occurred to me that if an effective light was placed on the
Clock Tower it would be conspicuous for miles around, and members of
Parliament, dining in the suburbs, could learn by that sign when the
House was sitting and its absence would indicate that the House was
up. I wrote to Lord John Manners, giving reasons of Parliamentary
convenience for the institution of such a light Lord John was then First
Commissioner of Works. The following is a copy of the letter directed to
be sent to me:--
"Office of Works, 12, Whitehall Place, S.W." It is requested that any
answer to this letter may be directed to The Private Secretary to the
First Commissioner of H.M. Works.
"8--1--68.
"Sir,--I am desired by Lord John Manners to acknowledge with
thanks the receipt of your letter, and suggestions.
"Your faithful servant,
"H. Stuart Wortlev.
"G. J. Holyoake, Esq."
Nothing was done during Lord John Manners' reign as Commissioner of
Works, but when Mr. A. S. Ayrton became Commissioner of the Board,
he found the letter in the archives of the office, and had the light
erected.