(TO CANADIAN FREETHINKERS.)
As this Pamphlet will be widely circulated throughout Canada (especially
Ontario), it will come into the hands of most Canadian Freethinkers, and
I have therefore thought this an opportune time to bring this question,
in which we are all so deeply interested, before the Freethinkers of
Canada, and urge upon them the necessity of agitation for reform. The
time has come, I think, for action in petitioning Parliament to remove
the serious and most unjust disabilities under which we, as a class, are
now placed, and thus have equal rights extended to all citizens. As the
law now stands we are deprived of our rights in the courts, and the ends
of justice are often defeated, not only to our detriment but that of
Christians themselves. If the presiding judge choose to adhere to the
strict letter of the law the testimony of Atheists is refused. It is
very easy to see how the gravest injustice could be inflicted upon
Freethinkers and Christians alike under this unjust law. A Freethinker
may be the only witness to a case involving the interests of a
Christian, or he may be the only witness for himself as against a
Christian; and by his not being eligible as a witness the ends of
justice are defeated. Or an unscrupulous believer may claim that he is
a Freethinker to get rid of giving evidence altogether. It is true there
seems to rest with the Judges a large amount of discretionary power as
to whom they will or will not accept to give evidence; and the majority,
perhaps, of our Canadian Judges exhibit a commendable spirit of
liberality in the matter of accepting the testimony of Freethinkers. But
occasionally one is to be met with, too full of religion and bigotry to
recognize our rights or extend any discretion in our favor. In the
city of Toronto, a few months ago, the testimony of two respectable
and intelligent witnesses was refused because they did not believe
the dogmas of the popular religion.* As an offset to this, however, an
Ottawa-Judge recently showed his fairness and liberality by allowing
a Juryman Freethinker, who declined to take the oath, to make an
affirmation. The Grand Juror referred to, Mr. John Law, of Ottawa, is
described as-a gentleman of "unimpeachable honor and probity," and
hence his simple affirmation being, as he stated, fully binding on his
conscience, would, or certainly ought to, have more weight than the
oaths of many witnesses (believers) who are taken into the witness box.
The presiding Judge, doubtless, so regarded the matter, and therefore,
in his discretion, magnanimously allowed Mr. Law to affirm.
In England, under "The Evidence Amendment Act" of 1869,32* and 33 Vic,
c. 68, s. 4, Atheists can make the following affirmation instead of
taking the Christian oath, and the Court must allow all Freethinkers to
do so who demand it:
"I solemnly promise and declare that the evidence given by me to the
Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
We want a similar Act in Canada, and then Counsel will not be able as
now to badger witnesses about "infidel belief," and turn the court into
an inquisition; nor will a bigoted judge have it in his discretion to
order Atheists down from the witness-box as not fit to give evidence.
At almost every sitting of our courts it is demonstrated beyond a doubt.
that believers in the Bible, who take the oath on that Book, do not
all tell the truth under oath. Every judge and lawyer in the land knows
this, and all know it who have much to do in courts of law. The simple
word or affirmation of an honest man, whether Christian or Infidel, is
better than a thousand oaths of many believers in the Bible, who are
without hesitation taken into the witness-box. Moreover, the Atheist in
making the above affirmation under the Act referred to, is subject to
the same penalties for perjury as the Christian is in taking, the usual
oath. There is, therefore, no good reason why we should! not have
a similar Act here, and it behooves us to begin to move towards its
consummation. Freethinkers are getting numerous in Canada, and they are,
to say the least, as exemplary citizens, socially and morally, as their
Christian neighbors? Why then should they be longer denied equal rights
with their Christian neighbors?
* Since writing this I have been informed by one of the
witnesses alluded to, that no blame can be fairly imputed to
the presiding Judge in this case, as he felt compelled,
against his sympathies, to carry out the unjust law.
In England they still have a State Religion, yet the rights of
Rationalists in this respect are conceded to them. Here we have no
state religion, and yet we suffer under religious disabilities which are
utterly out of keeping with the spirit of the age, and which are fast
being swept away in every civilized country. The Bradlaugh imbroglio
recently in the English House of Commons has had the effect of opening
some people's eyes, especially those conservative Christians who
are still afflicted with lingerings of that bigoted, intolerant, and
persecuting spirit which formerly lighted the fires of Smithfleld,
hung quakers, imprisoned so-called "blasphemers," and violated civil
contracts in the name of God. In the last election in England, a few
months ago, Charles Bradlaugh, the eminent Atheist and Republican, was
elected to the English House of Commons for the borough of Northampton,
and in entering the House he claimed his right, instead of taking the
Parliamentary oath, to affirm under the Act referred to above. The
House at first refused, vacillated, appointed Committees, and vigorously
debated the matter; while the bigoted members at once proceeded to
unbudget themselves in true Christian style against the "vermin"
Atheist. Meanwhile the levelheaded Atheist knew what he was about, and,
as the sequel showed, proved himself more than a match for the English
House of Commons. Meanwhile also, the people of England--the working
classes--were-watching the whole business, and finally when Bradlaugh
was refused both oath and affirmation, and the intention to keep the
Atheist out of Parliament became manifest, they (the people) promptly
came to the front. Just then it began to dawn on "the powers that be"
that _vox populi, vox Dei_ had more truth than poetry in it. The people
of England--the producers--(called "lower classes" by the "upper"
_non_-producers) assembled in scores of thousands in indignation
mass-meetings all over England, demanding the admission of Charles
Bradlaugh (their best friend) to his rightful seat in the English House
of Commons. The aforesaid "powers that be" took the alarm. Seeing that
the "voice of the people" was even more potent than the "voice of God,"
they prudently bowed to its mandate. They perceived that no Clock Tower,
or other tower in England would hold the workingman's friend even for
the space of seven days. Bradlaugh must be released or the House of
Brunswick might peradventure soon be in mourning--not, probably, for
spilled blood, but for a crown, aye, a crown! No wonder the English
Government feared to see Charles Bradlaugh enter the House of
Commons. He had impeached the House of Brunswick. And it was no "soft
impeachment." No, but a terribly hard indictment! Was it ever answered?
No, it was too true to answer. The only answer was from Lord Randolph
Churchill in the House of Commons, and it was characteristic. This rabid
monarchist, with much more Christian zeal than knowledge or discretion,
took Bradlaugh's "Impeachment of the House of Brunswick" and cast it
viciously under his feet on the floor of the House of Commons. That was
the way the "Impeachment" was answered! Well, as Shakspeare says, "let
the galled jades wince!" But the Atheist had his revenge! They had put
him in the Tower, but they very soon let him out. He had been somewhat
accustomed to fighting the English Government, having beaten them twice,
and he feared not. He was imprisoned one day, but released the next.
An Act was speedily passed giving more even than Bradlaugh at first
demanded--giving every member who wishes in future, the right to affirm
instead of taking the Christian Oath. Bradlaugh has accordingly made
his affirmation as he at first demanded, and has taken his seat in the
English House of Commons as M. P. for Northampton,* And now let every
Freethinker throughout the civilized world rejoice, for this is a great
victory for our cause! The eloquent champion of our dearest rights
has achieved a glorious victory on the very threshold of the English
Parliament before he enters it! Let us take courage! The indomitable and
invincible Iconoclast has now attained a position where his voice will
be heard in behalf of liberty and the rights of man the world over! He
is called "coarse" by some over-cultured people, but his coarseness is
of the kind the world needs, and therefore _we_ do not object to it. The
superstitions, and errors, and wrongs, and oppressions still weighing
down our fellow-men need bare-handed ("coarse") handling, without
gloves, and Bradlaugh wears none of these, but fearlessly throws down
the gauntlet to falsehood and oppression whenever and wherever found.
But I fear I am getting a little off the Oath Question here in my
enthusiasm for Charles Bradlaugh, Member of Parliament for Northampton.
* The press of Canada, with very few exceptions, have done
Mr. Bradlaugh a great injustice in connection with the oath
question, as they have (perhaps unintentionally) utterly
misrepresented him. They have charged that he "flaunted his
Atheism before the House of Commons," that he at first
_refused_ to take the oath on conscientious grounds and
subsequently "swallowed his scruples" and offered to take
the oath; and that, therefore, the Atheist is without
conscience and without principle, sacrificing all for place.
Now, this is all utterly untrue. He did not flaunt his
Atheism before the House. He did not _refuse_ to take the
oath, but simply claimed to be allowed to affirm. The
Speaker having intimated to Mr. Bradlaugh that if he desired
to address the House in explanation of his claim he would be
permitted to do so, Mr. Bradlaugh said, "I have repeatedly,
for nine years past, made an affirmation in the highest
courts of jurisdiction in this realm: I am ready to make
such a declaration or affirmation." And subsequently when
Mr. Bradlaugh offered to take the oath, it was after he had
made an explanation that although a portion of it to him was
a meaningless form, yet that the oath as a whole, if he took
it would be binding on his conscience substantially the same
as an affirmation. These are the facts, all taken from
authentic official sources, and not from what bigoted and
prejudiced correspondents have sent us across the ocean. My
authority is the record of the proceedings of the
Parliamentary Committees on the Bradlaugh case, where the
facts I have stated were distinctly brought out in evidence,
to which source I beg to refer the newspapers of this
country and call upon them to make the _amende honorable_ by
setting this matter right before their readers.
In conclusion, I beg to again urge upon my fellow Freethinkers
throughout Canada the necessity of taking such action as will secure
for us our legal rights in the Courts of this country. I trust that the
petitions to Parliament for an Evidence Amendment Act, which we design
ere long to put in circulation, may be numerously signed and diligently
circulated by the liberal friends in the various places to which they
will be sent.