Page 3

N ovember 15, 1890.]

WATTS’S LITERARY GUIDE.

regret, he merely shifts his ground, and makes what he calls “ an amended statement,” which many will-think is even more absurd than the first one, if it is not quite so untrue. There are not many students of G. H. Lewes’s works who will believe that his attitude as editor of the Fortnightly could legitimately be designated as “ shilly-shallying,” or that he could be over-deferential to Mrs. Grundy; while most sensible people will consider that, in excluding discussion upon “ a prevalent and central dogma ” of Christianity in the Fortnightly, he was acting wisely, not only in the “ interest of the new venture,” but also in the interest of advanced thought in England.

Mr. McCrie objects that it would be vain “ to search a file of the Fortnightly for an excerpt from the Athanasian Creed.” I would point out to Mr. McCrie that my question was, “ Are we to understand that the writers (whose names I gave) had been called upon to comply with the alleged condition ?” To this query he makes no reply at a l l ; but, in professedly amending his statement, makes another charge. I f a “ condition ” was not imposed, the “ cue was given,” it appears, to contributors that they were “ not to question a prevalent and central dogma,” from which Mr. McCrie infers that contributors were expected to “ practically acquiesce and assist in its promulgation.” I do not believe Mr. McCrie will find many readers to confirm the accuracy (or admit the wisdom) of his “ amended statement.”

That Dr. Lewins should himself step so chivalrously into the breach in defence of Mr. McCrie is eminently characteristic o f that gentleman, though I do not believe he has mended the matter very much. The attack on Mr. Lewes and the Fortnightly was, it appears, really aimed at “ all the successful periodicals in Great Britain.” “ Mr. Lewes was no better or worse than any other prudent and judicious editor.” But this leaves us all the more in doubt why he should have been singled out for attack. I f he was guilty of “ shilly-shallying,” “ Dr. Huxley has been accused of silence and ambiguity,” while Anthony Trollope was, it seems, guilty o f something even worse. All this stirring in “ muddy water” is extremely unpleasant, and ill accords with the assertion that “ no serious reflection was intended on Mr. Lewes or George Eliot.” Whatever may have been intended, serious reflections have been made, nor do I think they have been removed by the amended statement of Mr. McCrie or the explanations of Dr. Lewins.

I am quite certain that Miss Naden’s reputation as a thinker and writer needed no such contrast, and I am equally certain she would have regretted intensely any such allusions. The charge o f “ deference to Mrs. Grundy” is singularly inapplicable, and it is equally repugnant to good sense and good taste to launch such a charge against George Henry Lewes and George Eliot.

J. Harrison Ellis.

C H R I S T I A N I T Y A N D C R IM E .

Norwich, October 3rd, 1890.

May I, through your columns, call attention to some figures I have come across in Mr. Havelock Ellis’s most interesting work, “ The Criminal ” ? In his chapter on “ The Religion of the Criminal ” he states that “ it seems extremely rare to find intelligently irreligious men in prison.” He quotes the Rev. J. W. Horsley, who found that, out of 28,351 admissions to three large metropolitan prisons, only 57 described themselves as Atheists, and that when these cases came to be critically examined the majority of them appeared to be persons who, had described themselves as Infidels merely because they did not attend any place of worship, or for some equally inconclusive reason. In very few was there profession of Infidelity in any legitimate sense of the word. It seems to me that this fact may be use1* with effect against those who argue that Christianity and morality stand or fall together, and that, if you overthrow the one, you undermine the other. I would recommend the book as a whole to your readers ; but the chapter from which I have quoted appears of especial interest to Agnostics.

C. E.

J O T T I N G S .

— : o : —

T he Liberty of Bequest Committee has been hard at work during the past month. A Bill has been drawn up for introduction into Parliament during the coming session. It is believed that the measure will be backed by several Christian members of the House of Commons.

* *

Through reaching us late, we are unable to, in our present issue, formally notice the first number of the new quarterly magazine, the In terna tio nal J o u r n a l o f E th ic s . A hasty glance at the various papers gives a highly favourable impression. Dr. Stanton Coit is on the Editorial Committee.

* * *

Mr. Charles Watts seems to have acquired additional enthusiasm and energy since his visit to England. His journal, Secular Thought, is rapidly advancing in popularity. Mr. S. Laing, we understand, will, in an early issue, contribute a paper on “ Bible Absurdities and Impossibilities.”

* * *

Mr. G. J. Holyoake has forwarded 500 copies of his pamphlet, “ New Ideas of the Day,” to Mr. Charles Watts, for distribution at outdoor meetings.

* * *

The Freethinker has a kindly word for the last issue o f “ The Agnostic Annual,” which it acknowledges to be “ certainly a good sixpennyworth.”

* *

We have been favoured with specimen copies of the Arena, published monthly at Boston, U.S.A. The contributors include Colonel Ingersoll, O. B. Frothingham, Hugh O. Pentecost, and other leading controversialists. The tone and policy of the magazine are highly creditable. It can be ordered through our publishers : the price is halfa-crown. * *

Mr. F. J. Gould has been contributing to Saladin’s journal a heterodox novel, entitled “ The Agnostic Island.” Our contributor’s facile pen has rarely been seen to greater advantage: every chapter is pregnant with living interest and cultured thought. We should like to see the novel published in book form. * *

Bigotry still survives even among certain professed Freethinkers. In a recent issue we published a review of “ The Perfect Way,” and our “ vulgar imbecility ” has brought us ( this choice epistle :—

Sir ,— Don’t dare to send me any more of your damned Spiritualistic vapourings, or by “ God ” I ’ll do my level best to send you to gaol for twelve months. The author of this note is one “ Rex Reges,” an occasional contributor to the Agnostic Journal. This amiable evangelist, a year or two back, pestered us with violently bitter attacks on Mr. G. J. Holyoake, though it is only fair to say that he subsequently apologised for his reckless charges.