A DOZEN DEBATES, 1870-1873.
In 1870 Mr Bradlaugh held five oral debates: one with Mr G. J.
Holyoake, in London, in the month of March; the next with Alexander
Robertson of Dundonnochie, at Edinburgh, in June; the third and fifth
with the Rev. A. J. Harrison, at Newcastle, in September, and at
Bristol, in December; while the fourth debate was held with David
King,[153] at Bury, in December. Besides these there was a written
debate upon Exodus xxi. 7-11, with Mr B. H. Cowper.
[Footnote 153: No accurate report of this debate exists.]
The discussion with Mr George Jacob Holyoake occupied two successive
nights, the 10th and 11th of March, and was by far the most important
of the five. It represents different schools of Freethought, and was
for many years--is, perhaps, at the present day--copiously quoted,
especially by persons opposed to every view of Freethought, who would
confound representatives of one school by quoting opinions taken from
the other. The full wording of the subjects discussed was: for the
first night "The Principles of Secularism do not include Atheism;" for
the second "Secular Criticism does not involve Scepticism." Mr Holyoake
maintained the affirmative of these propositions, and each disputant
occupied two half-hours on each evening. Mr Austin Holyoake took the
chair on both occasions. The difference between Mr Bradlaugh and Mr
Holyoake was not so much a difference of opinion as a difference of the
methods of advocacy of their opinion. Both were Freethinkers of the
most convinced kind; but while Mr Bradlaugh called himself an Atheist,
Mr Holyoake chose rather to describe himself as a Secularist, and the
whole difference between them is indicated in these two names. The
word "Atheist" had been--and is still, to some extent--used as a term
of opprobrium; it has been perverted from its natural meaning to imply
everything that is vile; Mr Bradlaugh wore the name defiantly, and
held to it the closer for the sake of the slandered Atheists of the
past. He was an Atheist, _i.e._ "without God," in the simple meaning
of the word; if others chose to attach to it an odious significance,
the discredit lay in the narrowness of their minds and not in the
Atheist, compelled to endure the baseless calumnies heaped upon him.
Mr Bradlaugh was no "Infidel:" he least of any could be branded as
unfaithful; but since Atheist and Infidel were often used as synonymous
terms, he did not even flinch from sharing the name of "Infidel" with
those brave workers for religious and political liberty, such as Paine
or Richard Carlile. Nevertheless, Infidel he was not, although Atheist
he was.
Now, Mr Holyoake was equally an Atheist, but he did not see that
there was anything to be gained by the use of a name which had so
undeservedly become a term of reproach; he preferred to find a new name
and make a fresh start under new colours. In a debate held seventeen
years before with the Rev. Brewin Grant, Mr Holyoake had said that
opprobrium was associated with the word "Atheist," and that this
would be got rid of by the use of the word "Secularist," which would
also bring before the mind the moral objects in view. Moved probably
by the idea of making the path easy to the faint-hearted who were
frightened by the bogey conjured up by the word "Atheist," Mr Holyoake
was anxious to disassociate his new name altogether from Atheism,
and went so far as to say that Secularism did not involve Atheism or
Scepticism. Thus the new Secularism looked askance at the old Atheism,
and seemed anxious to have it known, that the two had "no connection."
Mr Holyoake regarded the "imputation" that Secularism involved Atheism
and Scepticism as "the greatest impediment in the way of" national
Secular education. He claimed for his Secularism that it was a "new
form of Freethought," perfectly independent of Atheism or Theism.
Secularism proposed "to set up principles of nature in the place of
principles of theology, and found, if possible, a kingdom of reason
for those who found the kingdom of faith inadequate or unreliable."
Secularism, Mr Holyoake contended, should assert its own principles,
but not assail others, neither needing to assail nor condescending
to assail theological systems. These ideas will doubtless commend
themselves to many, especially to those who do not look under the
surface of the words; but we know that before we can put nature "in
the place of" theology, we must depose theology, and we also know that
when geology points out the secular truth of the numberless ages it
has taken to form the earth's crust, by the mere assertion of such a
truth it assails the theological dogma of the creation of the world
in seven days. Mr Bradlaugh in his speech put it in this way: "The
Secularist finds the kingdom of faith impossible, he finds belief in
God impossible, he finds belief in religion impossible. What is the
difference between finding belief in God impossible and an Atheist?" He
said further: "Although at present it may be perfectly true that all
men who are Secularists are not Atheists, I put it that in my opinion
the logical consequence of the acceptance of Secularism must be that
the man gets to Atheism if he has brains enough to comprehend." Mr
Holyoake spoke of various bodies all over the kingdom occupied with
a negative form of Freethought; he met with many orators who were
mere negationists. The stock-in-trade of a negationist, he said, is
the simplest possible; he has only to deny what some one else holds,
and he is set up in the art of warfare. But these societies and these
orators were entirely unknown to Mr Bradlaugh; those he had worked
with for ten years or more had done positive work, and of this he
gave many instances. This attack and reply are of importance because
the terms "negationist" and "destructive freethought" have grown into
cant phrases, used as terms of reproach by persons who do not trouble
to consider either exactly what they mean, or whether there is anyone
to whom they are really applicable. Mr Holyoake asserted that Atheism
does not embody a system of morals, while Mr Bradlaugh replied that
"You cannot have a scheme of morality without Atheism. The Utilitarian
scheme is an Atheistical scheme. The Utilitarian scheme is a defiance
of the doctrine of Providence, and a protest against God." Referring to
Mr Holyoake's objection to the words "Infidelity" and "Atheism" because
of the opprobrium which has gathered round them, Mr Bradlaugh said:--
"I maintain that the opprobrium cast upon the word Atheism is a lie.
I believe Atheists as a body to be men deserving respect--I know the
leading men among them who have made themselves prominent, and I do
not care what kind of character religious men may put round the word
Atheist, I would fight until men respect it. I do not quarrel with
the word 'Secular' if it is taken to include this body of men, but I
do object to it if we are told Atheism has nothing to do with it. I
object when we are told that Atheism is not its province, because I say
that the moment you tell me that you have to deal with the affairs of
this life, to the exclusion of the rest, you must in effect deny the
rest. If you do not deny the rest, you leave your Secularism in doubt,
you partially paralyse the efforts on your own side. If you tell our
people, 'You must not impugn the sincerity of your opponents, that you
must not impute bad motives to them,' when they read the foul lies
heaped on the graves of the great dead, and hear the base calumnies
used against the hard-working living, I say you are teaching to them
that which I do not consider their duty. You should never lightly
impute, never rashly urge against any opponent motives, you should
never do it without full proof to justify your imputation."
The proposition for the second night's debate, as worded by Mr
Holyoake, was, "Secular Criticism does not involve Scepticism." Mr
Bradlaugh opened in a very careful speech. Dealing first with the word
Scepticism, he went on to say, "Criticism is, I presume, the art of
judging upon the merits of any given proposition; and I put it, that
you cannot have criticism at all without doubt. Doubt is, in fact, the
beginning of knowledge, and I put it expressly, that it is utterly
impossible to have Secular Criticism without having scepticism; as
to the dogmas of Theology in general, and scepticism as to the Bible
and Christianity in particular." He then proceeded to state in detail
and at considerable length the points of Scepticism involved by
Secular Criticism. Mr Holyoake, so far from traversing this position,
really endorsed it when he said (in his first speech on the second
night): "The secular method is to criticise the Scriptures so as to
adopt that which is useful, leaving alone that which is mischievous
or disagreeable." A criticism of the Scriptures, undertaken with
the view of accepting some points as worthy and rejecting others as
unworthy, cannot by any possibility exclude scepticism. We examine
a set of precepts, we judge them, we distinguish between the false
and the true, the beauties and the blemishes. To do this, we must
begin by doubting their truth and beauty as a whole, and before we
can leave any alone, we must be sceptical whether a belief in them
is necessary to our salvation and a disbelief in them a sure road to
eternal damnation. Mr Holyoake also spoke favourably of ignoring
Christianity, apparently failing to see that in a country, Christian by
law, with a State-supported Christian religion and Christianity taught
in our schools, to ignore is impossible. Much of Mr Holyoake's speech
had no bearing upon the subject under discussion, but was simply an
attack upon persons and the more transitory aspects of the Atheistic
position. To this Mr Bradlaugh replied, and of course his reply was as
irrelevant as the attack, but putting this aside, he asked in his last
speech: "Has Mr Holyoake shown that Secular Criticism does not involve
Scepticism? Not at all. What secular principles has he advanced which
are inconsistent with the position I take? None." I think with this
everyone who carefully reads the debate will agree. Mr Holyoake in his
final speech, which also wound up the debate, indulged in considerable
sarcasm at his opponent's expense, and made his memorable and
oft-quoted sneer at the Hall of Science; speaking of it as "this kind
of place in which we now meet, opposite a lunatic asylum, where people,
so the enemy says, naturally expect to find us." Before sitting down,
Mr Holyoake quoted statements he had made elsewhere as to Secularism,
from one of which I will take a few lines, in order to put his position
fairly in his own words:--
"Secularism," he said, "is not an argument against Christianity, it
is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of
Christianity, it advances others. Secularism does not say there is
no light and guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light
and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist
independently, act independently, and act for ever. Secular knowledge
is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life,
which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of
this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this
life."
Mr Austin Holyoake, who, as I have said, occupied the chair on both
evenings, was specially invited by his brother to express his opinion.
This he objected to do at the debate, but he afterwards wrote a short
criticism, in the course of which he asked the pertinent question: "How
can any one _not_ an Atheist be a Secularist?" and the answer to this
would, I think, be hard to find.
On the 22nd and 23rd of June Mr Bradlaugh met Alexander Robertson,
Esq., of Dundonnochie, to discuss with him the Existence of Deity.
The meetings were held in the New Waverley Hall, Edinburgh, and
there was a large attendance on each evening. Mr Robertson, however,
proved utterly incompetent; and the affair, regarded as a debate, was
a complete fiasco.[154] On the second evening, indeed, a number of
Christians left the room as a protest against Mr Robertson's method
of advocacy. All that I need note here is that Mr Bradlaugh once more
stated his position as an Atheist. I repeat it, as he himself put it
at different times in his life, because even to this day his views are
often misapprehended.
[Footnote 154: The _Fife News_ spoke of it as a meeting between "the
Atheist and the ignoramus," and the _Christian News_ said: "The second
night's debate was no debate. So completely did the Theist fail,
in more senses than one, that he need never appear in the city of
Edinburgh again as a defender of religion."]
In his opening speech Mr Robertson had conjured up several absurd
theories of Atheism (amongst which the inevitable "chance"--made world
figured), and had triumphantly disposed of them. Mr Bradlaugh in his
reply said:--
"I am an Atheist, but I do not say there is no God; and until you
tell me what you mean by God I am not mad enough to say anything of
the kind. So long as the word 'God' represents nothing to me, so
long as it is a word that is not the correlative and expression of
something clear and distinct, I am not going to tilt against what
may be nothing-nowhere. Why should I? If you tell me that by God you
mean 'something' which created the universe, which before the act
of creation was not; 'something' which has the power of destroying
that universe; 'something' which rules and governs it, and which
nevertheless is entirely distinct and different in substance from the
universe--then I am prepared to deny that any such existence can be."
On the next evening he referred to this, and enlarged upon it thus:--
"I said last night that the Atheist does not say there is no God,
so long as the word simply represents an indefinite quantity or
quality--of you don't know what, you don't know where; but I object
to the God of Christianity, and absolutely deny it. In all ages men
have fashioned their Gods according to their want of knowledge--the
more ignorant the people, the more numerous their deities, because
the Gods represented their personifications of force. Men beheld
phenomena beyond, and independent of, human ability, and they ascribed
these phenomena to deities, the 'God' in each case representing their
ignorance."
The first debate with the Rev. A.J. Harrison was held for two
nights in September, at the Newcastle Town Hall; and 3000 persons,
at least, were present on each night. For each speaker there was a
partisan chairman, and over these an impartial umpire--an arrangement
particularly disliked by Mr Bradlaugh, who thought one chairman
quite sufficient, and who was always willing that that one should be
unconnected with the Freethought party. The umpire--that is to say,
the real chairman--was on this occasion Lieut.-Col. Perkins, and he
won golden opinions for his tact, unfailing good humour, and courtesy,
qualities which the uproarious spirit of the audience rendered very
necessary. Mr Harrison has a certain reputation, so that I can hardly
pass this first debate with my father without some notice, as I might
otherwise have been tempted to do; for, in truth, I do not think there
is very much to be learned from it. Mr Harrison worded the subjects
to be discussed, and Mr Bradlaugh accepted every condition which was
proposed. The propositions which the reverend gentleman chose to affirm
were: (1.) That Secularism, distinctively considered, is not a system
of truth, and therefore cannot justify its existence to the reason;
and (2.) That Secularism, distinctively considered, is not a system of
morality, and is therefore unworthy of trust as a guide. Mr Harrison
opened the debate by examining the proposition he himself had worded,
declaring at the outset that Secularism could not be a system of truth,
"_first_, because it has no truth to offer; and _second_, because it
is not a system at all." Mr Bradlaugh, in reply, thought it was hardly
necessary to discuss "what is needed to constitute a system, or whether
Secularism is a system or not, because," he said, "I think I have
made it clear enough all my life through that the great merit of the
thought of which I am permitted to be the advocate is that it does not
pretend that any one man, or any dozen of men, have a right to lay down
a number of propositions, and say, 'These make a system which shall
bind the world.'" Mr Harrison contended that there were three kinds of
Atheism--the Atheism of doubt, the Atheism of ignorance, and a compound
of doubt and ignorance, which last, said the reverend disputant
politely, was "Mr Bradlaugh's own Atheism."
This version of his views my father repudiated as "monstrously unfair
as well as utterly untrue," and then went on to deal with such other
allegations as:
"That the Atheist could commit murder, or steal, without fear of the
consequences. To try the actual value of the argument," he said, "it
is not unfair to ask, Did a Theist ever steal? If so, then a belief
in God and his power to punish have been insufficient to prevent him
from committing the crime. The fact is, that those who overlook such
arguments overlook the great truth that all men seek happiness, though
in diverse fashions. The Atheists hold that by teaching men the real
road to human happiness, it is possible to keep them from the by-ways
of criminality and error. The Atheist would teach men to be moral
now, not because God offered as an inducement some reward by-and-by,
but because in the virtuous act itself immediate good was ensured to
the doer, and to the world surrounding him. The Atheist would prevent
men from lying, stealing, murdering, not from fear of the eternal
consequences after death, but because crime made this life itself a
course of misery. On the other hand, Theism, by asserting that God was
the creator and governor of the universe, hindered and checked man's
efforts by declaring God's will to be the sole and controlling power.
Atheists, by declaring all events to be in accordance with natural
laws--that is, happening in certain ascertained sequences--stimulated
men to discover the best conditions of life, and offered the most
powerful inducements to morality."
In spite of this statement, directly bearing on the affirmative truths
taught by Atheism, Mr Harrison continued to urge that Mr Bradlaugh had
not proved that there was anything positive in Atheism. "All that Mr
Bradlaugh said was positive with regard to Atheism belonged to Science
and not to Atheism" he said, apparently failing to see that Science
itself is really Atheistic in the true and literal acceptation of the
word, although its teachers and professors may be Theists. Science
teaches the origin and nature of phenomena without reference to God,
and sometimes even in direct contradiction to theological dogmas.
On the following evening Mr Harrison sought to prove that Secularism
was not a trustworthy moral guide, and to this end he contended that
Atheism was without the moral help that came from (1) a belief in God,
(2) a belief in immortality, and (3) a study of human nature. This last
contention showed utter ignorance or misapprehension of the Atheistic
position. Mr Bradlaugh, in reply, dealt very trenchantly with the kind
of moral help to be obtained from the God of the Old and New Testament,
but he was stopped in his argument, as it was ruled that he must not
deal with any particular phase of Theism, only with Theism generally.
Before he was stopped, however, he stated that--
"The position of the Atheist was that he did not affirm a universe,
and outside it a God; but he said, 'By your knowledge of the
conditions of existence, so you may shape, and so will be shaped, your
thought and your conduct, and that thought and that conduct which tend
to the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and to the least
injury of any--that thought and that conduct are moral, whatever your
religious profession may be.' But that guide to morality was not got
out of any system of Theism; it was purely Atheistic--that was, it was
found outside God, without God."
During this debate my father was suffering very much from a relaxed
throat, and on both nights he had to speak, amidst considerable uproar,
the audience being exceedingly noisy. In his final speech, on the
second evening, he became so exhausted by the continual interruption
and outcries that he begged his audience "in mercy" and "humanity" to
allow him to finish his argument in quiet, but this was an appeal which
fell upon deaf ears.[155]
[Footnote 155: "The last speech of Mr Bradlaugh's was a piece of almost
unparalleled eloquence, which might have been very effective had he
received fair play, but this, we are sorry to say, was undoubtedly
denied him, and he proceeded amidst a storm of interruptions, hissings,
and howlings, renewed again and again."--_Blyth Weekly News._
"Mr Bradlaugh was stormed down, and really refused a hearing. This kind
of conduct was bad on the face of it. If his arguments were ridiculous,
they would be the easier answered. If they were beyond or beside the
point at issue, they were unworthy a reply."--_Sunderland Evening
Chronicle._
The Newcastle papers gave lengthy reports of the proceedings, and the
_Weekly Chronicle_ remarked that, in consequence of his suffering from
an affection of the throat, the effect of a severe cold, Mr Bradlaugh
"sustained the debate with considerable pain and difficulty."]
The restrictions placed upon Mr Bradlaugh by the conditions of the
Newcastle debate were such as to cause great irritation and discontent
amongst Freethinkers;[156] and in consequence, a second debate was
fixed to take place at Bristol on the 13th and 14th December. The
subject chosen for argument was "Theism _v._ Atheism." Professor
Newman was in the chair, and on each evening there was a very large
attendance. In the course of his introductory remarks Professor
Newman mentioned an interesting discussion society then in existence
in London--"a society," he said, "called a Metaphysical Club. It was
commenced by the poet, Mr Alfred Tennyson, and, I believe, by Mr
Browning also. They associated with them certain eminent gentlemen in
London, and they induced Archbishop Manning to enter it. Professor
Huxley and others are also members of it, and it was made a condition
that in their discussions every member should be free to deny the
existence of God, and Archbishop Manning entirely concurs in this. Mr
James Martineau, my friend, a very eminent and intellectual gentleman,
belonged to it, and he regarded it to be essential that persons must
speak out from the bottom of their hearts, otherwise they did not get
the fulness of the argument."
[Footnote 156: "I had said, in the course of my remarks against
Secularism, that Secularism was Atheism, and Atheism was a negation. Mr
Bradlaugh claimed the right to say what Atheism negated. According to
the conditions of the debate, I objected to that subject being entered
into" (the Rev. A. J. Harrison, December 1870). These words show how
peculiarly one-sided the conditions were.]
Mr Harrison opened with a speech much more subtle than any of those
delivered at Newcastle, and was throughout more courteous, though even
now there were phrases which would have been better left unsaid, and,
while extremely careful to keep his opponent within the limits imposed
by the conditions of the debate, he was not always so scrupulous about
his own words.[157] Mr Bradlaugh's arguments were clear and forcible
to a degree; he was evidently in much better form than on the previous
occasion, but it is not easy to detach passages, although there is much
that is valuable as giving different aspects of his opinions.[158] In
the following May the Rev. A. J. Harrison and Mr Bradlaugh engaged
in a third contest. This was conducted in Socratic form: no speeches
were made, the discussion being limited to question and answer. Mr
Harrison undertook to prove that "there is an Intelligent Being
superior to man," and Mr Bradlaugh that "there is not and cannot be
an Infinite, Omnipotent, Immutable Being distinct from the Universe."
This discussion was held at Birmingham, and lasted three nights. But
even this did not satisfy the disputants and exhaust their energy,
for in 1872 they had yet another debate, which was this time held in
London, at the Hall of Science. The subject discussed at this, their
fourth public controversy, was the teaching of Christian Theism[159] as
represented on a certain page in Mr Bradlaugh's pamphlet, "A Plea for
Atheism."
[Footnote 157: "If Mr Bradlangh had objected to some things said by Mr
Harrison last night, I should have said they were out of order" (Prof.
Newman on the second evening).]
[Footnote 158: Those who wish to read the whole argument will find a
verbatim report in the _National Reformer_ for 25th Dec. 1870 and 1st
Jan. 1871.]
[Footnote 159: This debate is published in pamphlet form, under the
title, "What does Christian Theism teach?"]
* * * * *
In the summer of 1872 Father Ignatius wrote to Mr Bradlaugh, asking
that an opportunity might be given him to address an audience of London
Freethinkers. This request was readily acceded to, but in consequence
of other work and ill-health Father Ignatius was obliged to delay
the delivery of this address until the end of November. The Hall of
Science, which was put at his disposal, was crowded right out to the
street, and it was estimated that at least two thousand persons were
unable to gain admittance. Mr Austin Holyoake presided over what was
really an informal debate. Father Ignatius elected to speak on "Jesus
Christ, the central point of human history," and when he had finished
Mr Bradlaugh spoke for an equal time in reply. The audience, densely
crowded as it was, listened intently and earnestly, and the perfect
stillness maintained during both speeches was broken only by applause.
Not a sound of dissent was heard; each speaker was listened to with
respect and attention. At the conclusion Father Ignatius was thanked
by the Freethinkers for the fearlessness and the courtesy with which
he had spoken, and the audience were thanked by the Rev. Father for
the fairness with which they had listened to him. He said "he would be
happy if his Protestant fellow-Christians would receive him with equal
fairness."
As he desired to reply to Mr Bradlaugh's speech, Father Ignatius fixed
to go again to the Hall of Science on the 12th of December, but when
the day arrived there was some doubt whether he could get there, as he
had been subp[oe]naed to Worcester as a witness. In consequence of this
the attendance was not quite so overwhelming as before. When Father
Ignatius entered the Hall he was welcomed with much cheering, which
was cordially renewed when he rose to speak. Before entering upon his
subject, he said that he had received permission from Mr Bradlaugh and
the Chairman (Mr Austin Holyoake) to ask God to aid him that night;
but even with that permission, he would not do so, for he had no wish
to hurt anyone's susceptibilities, unless the meeting also gave its
sanction. Those present having signified their assent by a show of
hands, Father Ignatius "in an impassioned prayer sought the assistance
of God to render his address effectual." Then proceeding to the
business of the evening, he deftly--if not very convincingly--explained
away the objections which had been urged by Mr Bradlaugh to certain
Biblical passages. As before, he was followed by Mr Bradlaugh, and both
apparently spoke with great force. In the spring of 1873 there was held
a third of these informal controversies. On every occasion a charge was
made for admission, and the proceeds given, by Father Ignatius' desire,
to the Hall of Science building fund. His frankness, fearlessness, and
courtesy made an indelible impression upon the minds of the frequenters
of the Hall. To Mr Bradlaugh he always wrote in terms of the greatest
cordiality, and although the differences between them were of the
widest possible kind, I am quite sure that my father was sensible of
this kindly feeling and reciprocated it.
* * * * *
In addition to the pleasant interchange of opinion on theological
matters with Father Ignatius, Mr Bradlaugh held, in the December of
1872, a set discussion upon Spiritualism with Mr Burns, editor of
_Human Nature_ and _The Medium and Daybreak_. Spiritualism was a
subject to which he had given considerable attention for nearly twenty
years prior to this debate. He had devoted a large amount of time to
the reading of spiritualistic literature and the investigation of
spiritualistic phenomena. He had taken part in many _séances_, and had
seen different mediums, but except in one or two cases the sittings had
led to nothing. With Mrs Marshall he witnessed some "clumsy trickery";
with the Davenport brothers he saw some "clever sleight-of-hand." When
he went to "the conjuring performance of the Davenport Brothers"--as
he somewhere styles it--he was asked to take off his coat and lay
it on the table. He was told, "You must sit in the dark; you must
hold Mrs Fay's hands on one side and Mrs Ira Davenport the other." He
asked, "But why?" They said, "The spirits might hurt you"; to which
he replied, "I will take the risk of that." He was then told, "If you
do not submit to the conditions, there can be no manifestation." Under
these circumstances he concluded to accept the conditions.[160] The
lights were extinguished, and after about a minute and a half they
were re-lit, and Mr Fay, who was tied in a chair, was found wearing
the coat. The lights were again extinguished and the coat thrown upon
Mr Bradlaugh. All tests and opportunities for investigation were
absolutely refused, but my father had no doubt that Mr Fay was untied
and retied in the dark. He afterwards saw Maskelyne do every one of
the tricks done by the Davenport Brothers, and more besides, though
Maskelyne did not pretend that anything other than the clever art of
conjuring lay at the bottom of the performance.
[Footnote 160: _National Reformer_, Jan. 19, 1873.]
When the Dialectical Society made their inquiry into the phenomena
attributed to Spiritualism, my father was one of the Committee. He was
at every sub-committee meeting[161] at which D. D. Home, the well-known
medium, was present, and at half a dozen of the general meetings at
least. However, none of the boasted manifestations occurred, and the
sittings were almost, if not quite, "void of result." Mr Bradlaugh, in
giving his impression of Mr Home and the results obtained with him as
medium, said:--
"I am bound to say that Mr Home met me in the frankest manner possible.
He told me I was one of the few people he wanted very much to see, and
probably, as my address was not known, and I am not a very public man
in England, that was the reason he had not discovered me until I was
placed upon that Committee. But I met him in the same frank spirit;
and as he offered every opportunity for investigation, we took it. And
the first evening we changed every shred of clothing he had on for
some other. Perhaps that might have destroyed the proper combinations,
for we had not the slightest scintilla of anything. I sat with Mr Home
night after night till Mr Home was tired."[162] And the only result,
such as it was, of all this investigation may be summed up in a few
words. There was a tinkling of glass, a slight wave of the table, and a
few raps. The raps were such as could be easily produced by mechanical
means, and were so produced by my father afterwards--not that he
charged Mr Home with causing the raps in that particular way; but as he
pointed out, it was impossible for any one, under the circumstances,
to fix upon the precise spot whence such raps came; it was impossible
that the unguided ear could exactly relegate the sound. The tinkling
of glass was such as he had often heard in a room where there was gas
burning; the wave of the table--which did not move more than half an
inch--was afterwards repeatedly produced by Dr Edmunds and himself.
Beyond these trifles there was no other "semblance of manifestation,"
and yet some Spiritualists boldly asserted that the result of the
Dialectical Society's inquiry was to convert the investigators to
Spiritualism.[163]
[Footnote 161: Held at 4 Fitzroy Square.]
[Footnote 162: _National Reformer_, Jan. 12, 1873.]
[Footnote 163: _Human Nature_, Jan. 1871.]
Mr Bradlaugh opened the debate with Mr Burns, and as always, when he
made the opening speech, he used the most careful language in trying
to make his position clear. Beyond that speech, and for what he told
during the two nights of his personal experiences and inquiries into
Spiritualism, the debate is really of little importance. Mr Burns
afterwards apologised for his treatment of the subject on the ground of
ill-health.[164]
[Footnote 164: _The Medium and Daybreak_, Dec. 20, 1872.]