Freethought Review.

Freethought Review, Volume I, Issue 11, 1 August 1884, Page 1

Freethought Review.

VOL. I.—No. ii.

WANGANUI, N.Z.: AUGUST i, 1884.

The Wilmot controversy, a portion of which is given in our present issue, ends in a curious defence of his conduct by the Wesleyan Minister who narrated the story of the death-bed repentance. The fact transpires that the Rev. Mr. Garlick conveyed the impression in his account of the affair in the New Zealand Wes-

leyan,’ that he had received the dying person’s recantation from her own lips. It now turns out that the Minister w r as guilty of deception. It is true he never distinctly said he was not present when Mrs. Wilmot died. But he did what amounted to the same thing—he worded his account to read as if he had been present. Nor does it appear as if Mr. Garlick acted even in the spirit of the Good Samaritan. He declined to assist to furnish private apartments because some persons expressed the opinion that the dying woman should be sent to the hospital. Then, why was not this stated in his narrative of the circumstances in the ‘ Wesleyan?’ It was surely very essential to truth, when a charge was made against Freethinkers that they had not come to her assistance. His accident prevented him attending his “regular duties;” but a destitute and dying person imposed an extraordinary duty! It will be seen that the Rev. Mr. Garlick’s reply to Mr. Jardine is evasive and shuffling. His rejoinder about the “ drunken cobbler ” and his “hovel” illustrate at the same time his intelligence and his veracity.

Mr. Garlick has made a still more curious explanation. His M.S. (he uses the plural, with what purpose we know not) contained, he the words —Up to “ the time of her death she was visited by me, the “ Presbyterian Minister, and other friends. In the “article it reads ‘and other friends’—an important “ difference.” We do not know what he means. Flis accident interfered with his visits after April 10th, but up to the time of her death “ she was visited by me ”! All this equivocation tends to discredit the reverend gentleman’s veracity. Has the Rev. Mr. Rogers anything to say in the matter ? It would appear that Mr. Garlick acted towards the woman with a harshness which does not convey a flattering impression of his conduct as a man, yet this is the person who throws a stone at Freethinkers !

In the debate between the representative of organised Socialism in England and Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, the former, Mr. H. M. Hyndman, gave the following definition : “Socialism is an endeavour to substitute for

“the anarchical struggle or fight for existence an “ organised co-operation for existence.” This definition by itself does not mean much. Individualism might say, with at least equal truth, the same thing. No Individualist believes that anarchy is an essential condition of competition. Nor is co-operation Socialism. Mr. Bradlaugh in his reply urged that in a Socialistic State there would be “no inducement to

SCIENCE. RELIGION. PHILOSOPHY.

Price: 6d. r6s per annum; or, post id ] -TKlCfc, . DU. I to any part of N.sf, 6s 6d. J

“ thrift, no individual savings, no accumulation, no “ check upon waste.” This is virtually a counter definition. If the State regulated every economical movement on the basis of equality, and allowed no superiority of ability its rewards, the inducement to all exertion would undoubtedly be wanting. But might not the State agree by common consent to award prizes of merit ? Then Mr. Bradlaugh would of course contend that this would not be Socialism, since it admitted the element of individual exertion with its appropriate reward. This is the pivot on which the dialectical victory turned, and it is not difficult to see that, pressing with all the skill of a practised and accomplished dehater, Mr. Bradlaugh must have driven his opponent from the field.

The Socialist took up most of his time describing the evils of modern society. These however might have been postulated in a few words, and then the labor of the debate would have been expended on the efficacy of the remedy—Socialism. Mr. Bradlaugh’s marked triumph consisted, apart from his greater power as a debater, in establishing the fact that rapid progress in the condition of society had taken place without the assistance of Governments—he might have shown, in spite of them. We do not exactly understand Mr. Bradlaugh’s apparent opposition to the principle of land nationalization. For land nationalization is not in the direction of socialism so long as the tenants are secured their improvements. The essence of Individualism is to secure to the individual the reward of his own industry. If Mr. Bradlaugh means that he is opposed to Mr. Henry George’s scheme of appropriation, without compensation, of what has always been recognised as property —a proposal which ought to be termed robbery —his position is clear; and is worthy of him. Mr. Bradlaugh’s part in the debate is calculated to destroy the popularity of socialistic fallacies.

One of the issues raised at the election just concluded is the costliness of education, and it is wonderful the variety of statements which have been made regarding matters of fact about which there ought to be official data. The exaggeration respecting the cost of education seems to have been due to the absence of any debate in which the figures and the facts could have been brought to light by one of the friends of the present system. It is not surprising that the sum total of votes, loans, and proceeds of endowments should appear so large. The charge on the consolidated revenue last year for primary education was about and the proceeds of endowments for the same purpose amounted to The interest on the money borrowed for buildings since 1878 (say ,£500,000) at five per cent, would be £25,000 a —giving a total charge of about £323,000 a year. Whether this is an extravagant expenditure for education depends on comparisons.

The revenue from endowments is increasing, and this year will amount to thus relieving the pressure due to the annual increase in the average attendance. The cost of education is less than it was before the introduction of the present Act. In 1877 the cost per head on the average attendance was £\ 15s, and in 1883 it had fallen to £\ 3s 6d. But the friends of the system, while defending it against the ignorance and malignity of its opponents, must not take up the false position of saying that reductions cannot be made. True economy and the best defence equally demand that every item in the expenditure shall be sharply criticised. The statutory capitation allowance is £■s 15s, and this is supplemented by 5s in the annual appropriations. Here perhaps economy will require that we should stand by the Act —effecting a saving of 7ji 8,000 a year. The extra votes for scholarships, inspection, normal schools, etc., might be considerably cut down, with the view of ultimately making the sum of £3 15s cover the whole cost of primary education. When this result has been achieved the friends of our free secular and compulsory system will at least be in a position to vindicate it from the economical side against all the assaults of its enemies. The question of higher education must be dealt with separately.

The “ modified denominationalists” have not achieved any decided success during the elections, it being open to doubt if they are as numerous in the present as they were in the last Parliament.—The evidence given last session before the select committee shows a hopeless conflict of opinion among the denominationalists. They have not yet agreed upon any plan which would impart religious instruction in the schools in the rural districts. Nor have they given any reason for the distinction to have “conscience” recognised in towns while it is left in the charge of the State in the country. It could hardty be maintained seriously that the urban is more sensitive than the rural conscience. The best thing to be done is to complete the enquiry which was begun last session, allowing the friends of the present system to place on record their opinions. When the enquiry is complete the Legislative will be in a position, with some hope of arriving at a final conclusion, to discuss the bills and resolutions that aim at modification.

There are in the United States of America, according to the last census, over one thousand Japanese. The majority of these are either merchants or clerks in mercantile houses. It is moreover stated, that in no instance as yet has a criminial charge been laid against one of these Japanese foreigners. Some few years ago, the Japanese Government sent a commission to Europe, charged with instructions to observe the conduct of the Christian nations, with a view of deciding whether it would be beneficial to adopt, us a state religion, the Christian faith. The commissioners unanimously reported that the Christian nations were brutal, dissipated, and more criminal than their own people ! Would it not be as well for some Christian nation, (say England) to send a commission to Japan to report on the moral fruits of the Japanese religion ?

History repeats itself.” A religious delusion has broken out amongst the negroes of some of the counties of Georgia, U. S. One of their own people has proclaimed himself as the Son of God, sent to judge the

world, as the end of all things is at hand. Crowds of disciples have gathered around him, fully believing in his divine mission. But for the growing disbelief in the miraculous, the result of centuries of scientific enquiry and Freethought, this ignorant or designing negro might become the founder of a seed; as numerous and powerful as the Mahomedan or the Christian. As it is, he will probably remain the prophet of a few deluded negroes as ignorant and numerous as the followers of Jesus were before the Christian faith, by a peculiar combination of circumstances, was adopted, and protected by the civil power of Rome,

The nineteenth century has produced another disturbing element in the churches in the peculiar craze known as the Salvation Army. On the one hand, we have the clergy denouncing the movement as being blasphemous and ribald ; and, on the other hand, we have them countenancing and taking part in the services. A Church of England clergyman, at a recent barrack meeting, claimed St. Paul as one of the Army. We have always held that both Jesus and St. Paul were Salvationists — for we fail to see the distinction between the street preachings and riots of St. Paul, the shouting processions and disturbances of Jesus, and the pranks and absurdities of the Salvation Army. That the Army has obtained a hold on numbers of English-speaking people cannot be denied, and that many are sincere in their belief is evinced by the readiness with which they subscribe to defray the expenses of the campaign. How many of the clergy of the older churches must have read with envy of the recent collection of Tji 2,600 made in one day at General Booth’s barracks !

However, we believe that in many cases, more especially amongst the more educated and intellectual of the Army, that this form of religious hysteria will be short-lived, and that in the reaction of calmer moments they will feel ashamed of their former participation in the extravagant language and behaviour of the Salvation Army; and in the mental revolution, which will certainly be the result of this reaction, reason will compel faith to resign her usurpation, and the ranks of Freethought will be recruited. So we anticipate that the ulterior result will be an accession to the numbers and the strength of the Freethought Associations. That the Salvation Army should still retain its hold on the grosser and more brutal natures is perhaps desirable— men and women who are only deterred from leading vicious lives by the vivid presentiment of the burning fires of hell !