[Previous page]
CHAPTER XXIX.
LECTURING IN IRELAND AND SCOTLAND:
FUNERAL OF "THE GREAT DUKE."
THE opening of the " Great Exhibition Year," 1851, found me at what had
now become my settled employ on Sunday evenings—the lectures at John
Street and City Road. During the year, I delivered ten lectures on the History of Greece, and
seventeen lectures on the History of Rome. But my London lecturing, be it
observed, was interrupted
for six months of this year. Living so close to Hyde Park, I saw them dig
the fountains and mark the ground for the "Great Exhibition," and I saw
the Queen go, in
procession, to open it. Our house, we soon found, had lost all its
pleasantness. On Sundays, especially, we seemed to live in the midst of a
fair. They were crying "Oranges, fine oranges" in our ears, all the daylight hours after ten in
the morning; and the grass of the beautiful park disappeared beneath the
feet of the thousands that
frequented it. The hurly-burly and noise were insufferable. So we began to
wish to get away. I had often received invitations to lecture in Scotland,
and now came one to
lecture in Ireland. So I let the house for the summer—my dear wife went
to her sister's, at Lincoln—and I went down into the Staffordshire
Potteries to commence my six months' lecturing tour.
After a stay of nearly three weeks in the Potteries, I spent a fortnight
in Manchester; then took the packet at Fleetwood, and went over to
Belfast. I delivered eight lectures
(Shakspeare, Milton, Burns, Byron, Shelley, French Revolution,
Civilisation, Cromwell) and remained fourteen days in Belfast. I liked the
town, and I liked the neighbourhood;
and I experienced the most perfect kindness from the friends who invited
me. But I did not feel "at home" in Ireland. I felt as I lectured that I
never got hold of the Irish mind or
heart. It is true, I went over to the Green Isle at an unfavourable time. The names of "John Mitchell" and "Smith O'Brien" were in the ascendant
then in the affections of Irish
working men; and I was no friend of either of those great professors of
patriotism.
The last lecture I gave at Belfast was on the Poet Shelley; and such
commendation as I gave his beautiful poetry seemed to excite ten times the
applause I received when I
had eulogized our glorious Shakspeare, or Milton. I took the opportunity
to tell them that I was glad to awaken their sense of approval, for I had
really been disappointed with
my reception in Ireland. It had ever been the lesson taught in England, I
assured them, that Irish nature
was warm, generous, and easily excited to sympathy; but I had felt my
audience cold, critical, and unsympathising, compared with an English
audience. I said I could not
account for this. There seemed to be no natural separation between English
and Irish, to my humble perception. Our features were pretty much
alike—their country seemed
like ours, for I had found the daisies and buttercups of my childhood in
their fields—and I hoped we were very much alike in our love of freedom.
"We don't want to be like the English," shouted a young Mitchellite, with
all his power of lungs.
"Then, what do you want?" I asked.
"Nationality!" was the thundering reply, followed by clapping of hands
and thundering of feet on the floor, from nearly all the younger members
of the audience.
"Nationality!" I resumed, so soon as silence was restored; "and if you
had what you call 'Nationality'—that is, entire separation from
England—today, what would you have
to-morrow? I will tell you. Intestine war and bloodshed—fierce war
between Protestant and Catholic—and finally, domination by some foreign
power, whether French or
American; and while the new conquerors used you to mortify Old England,
you would be no happier yourselves, and would soon desire to unite with us
again."
The elder part of my audience cried "Hear, hear,"
vociferously; but the younger cried "No, no!" and I speedily brought the
meeting to an end. I may briefly say that I have never felt any
uncontrollable desire to re-visit Ireland.
From Belfast I sailed, by steamer, to Ardrossan, and thus first set foot
on the shore of Scotland. I lectured six times in Glasgow, four times at
Paisley, twice at Hamilton,
once at Kilbarchan, once at Barrhead, four times at Aberdeen, thrice at
Dundee, twice at Dunfermline, six times at Edinburgh, twice at Dalkeith,
once at Lasswade, twice at
Galashiels, and twice at Hawick; and re-entered England, as I always do,
gladly—but with a very different feeling from that with which I left
Ireland. I was "at home" from the
first moment while addressing a Scottish audience; and I freely declare
that I would choose to address some such audiences as I have addressed in
Scotland, sooner than
any English audience I could name. I know no people so keenly appreciative
of the value of thought as the people of Edinburgh; and I would sooner
lecture to an Edinburgh
audience than any other audience in the world.
While I was at Edinburgh, two of its literary people—(Dr. Black, and Mrs.
Crowe, the authoress of " Susan Hopley ") attended one of my lectures, and
kindly stayed to speak
to me at the close. They learned that I had to lecture at Lasswade, and
urged me to go and see Thomas De Quincey, who, they said, lived by the
river Esk, about a mile
beyond Lasswade.
And I did go to see him, presented him with a copy of my Prison Rhyme, and
was very kindly received by him.
One of the daughters of the man of genius—(there were two of them at the
table)—manifested bad behaviour, as I thought. Her father showed true
courtesy in speaking to me
on political subjects—although we were on different sides. This did not
suit the elder daughter—a really fine-looking young woman; and so she
proudly chid De Quincey for not
"maintaining his sentiments with dignity."
He remonstrated with her, very gently; but the proud girl only denounced
my Chartism the more.
"My dear," said her father, whose small slender frame shook with feeling,
"do not talk so, I beseech you—you will insult Mr. Cooper."
"But I am not insulted," said I.
The daughter caught my glance, bit her lip, and was silent. Her father
kindly walked along the Esk with me, back to Lasswade, and conversed most
delight fully. I left
him with regret, and found my audience had been waiting for me full half
an hour, to hear my lecture on Robert Burns. It was the only time in my
life I ever neglected
to meet an audience at the right time; and I found my Scottish hearers
forgave me when they learned I had been with Thomas De Quincey.
Before returning to London for the winter, I lectured in Alnwick, North
Shields, Newcastle-on-Tyne,
Hexham, Carlisle, Blackburn, Padiham, Oldham, St. Helen's, Staleybridge,
Wigan, Colne, Wakefield, Huddersfield, Halifax, Bradford, Leeds, York,
Hull, Sheffield, Keighley,
Batley, Birstal, and some smaller towns in Yorkshire. I was so disabled,
bodily, by the time I got into Yorkshire, that my good and kind friend—my
right honourable friend, as I
will call him, henceforth—when I reached his house at Rawdon, insisted on
putting me under the care of Dr. Macleod, of the Hydropathic
Establishment,
Ben Rhydding, and paying all the expenses. I remained at that most
delightful place three weeks, and gratefully left it with a degree of
health and strength that I had not
felt for some years.
I lectured at Leamington, on my way to London, and went over, with a few
friends, to see sweet Stratford-on-Avon, and to worship, intellectually,
at Shakspeare's shrine.
Before the close of 1851, I also lectured at Norwich, Leicester,
Hastings, Portsmouth, Southampton, Winchester, and Salisbury, and had the
indescribable pleasure of
seeing mysterious Stonehenge—a sight I had longed to see for many years.
After giving but four lectures on Sunday evenings, at John Street, at the
beginning of 1852, I thought it better to leave that Institution for a
time. So I lectured at the Hall of
Science only, on Sunday evenings, for the rest of that year. I went out of
town, however, sometimes, on the other days of the week, to lecture; and
thus visited Devonport,
Bristol,
Cambridge, Peterborough, Coventry, Lincoln, Louth, Keighley, Barnsley, and
Todmorden; my subjects being "Shakspeare," "Milton," "Burns," "Byron,"
"Cromwell," "Civilisation," "Washington," etc., etc. At the Hall of
Science, during the year 1852, I delivered a series of eleven lectures
on the French Revolution, five
on the British Poets, six on the life of Wellington, besides miscellaneous
lectures.
This was the death-year of the Great Duke—the " Iron Duke," as we so
often called him. Living in Knightsbridge, about a quarter of a mile
beyond Apsley House, I had to pass
by his dwelling every time that I went into the heart of London; and saw
him, sometimes, every day for weeks together. What a fascination, what an
irresistible
attraction there was about that grand old man! How all the memorable
doings of our century seemed to gather around him, as you looked at his
rigid, stern figure! I often
walked close by his horse, for half a mile out of my way, marking his
bearing, and noting the uniform "military tip," of his forefinger towards
his forehead, that he gave to all
those, great or little, who took off their hats to him; and there were
usually scores who did this.
I remembered how Radicals employed the rough side of their tongue—to
quote an old Lincolnshire phrase—when they described "the man who helped Castlereagh to carry up
the Green Bag to the House of Lords," for the prosecution of poor Queen
Caroline—I remembered the laughter of old Rads when they described the fierce,
exultant hurrah that they gave at the door of Westminster Abbey when the
body of
"carotid-artery-cutting Castlereagh " was taken out of the hearse, and the
Duke held up his hand, and said, "Hush!"—I remembered his opposition to
Reform, in the later time,
and the caricatures of him as a hook-nosed coachman on the box, and King
William the Fourth inside, with the inscription beneath: "The Man wot
drives the Sovereign "—I
could not forget the barricades to his house put up during the Reform
struggle, for I saw them every day; they were never taken down till after
his death. But all this had
passed away; and Wellington had become not only the great pillar of State
and most valued counsellor of his Queen; but, next to her, the most
deeply respected and most
heartily honoured person in the realm.
Everybody liked to see "the Duke"; and no one would hear a word against
him.
Soldiers—old soldiers—they idolized him. They regarded him as the very
personification of English valour and English sagacity. Politicians—they
all had a glance towards him
when they contemplated new measures. He was an institution in himself. We
all felt as if we lived, now he was dead, in a different England. The very
elements were held to sympathize with the national loss. It began to
rain on the day that the Duke died, and it continued to rain—rain—rain!
Some may be still in the habit of crossing Hyde Park from the Marble Arch
to the Albert Gate, and may remember a tall old man who kept the spring at
the head of the
Serpentine, and who used to hand a glass of water, as a morning draught
before breakfast, to his customers, who remembered him with a sixpence now
and then. I often
tarried to talk with him, and learned that he had undergone the Peninsular
campaign with Wellington; and that he had at the time been both soldier
and servant to General
Lygon, who had secured him the little post at the spring in Hyde Park, in
addition to his small pension.
"Still very rainy, my friend," I said to him one morning, about three
weeks after the Duke's death.
"Yes, sir:—there will be no more fair weather till the Duke is buried,"
said he, very solemnly.
I stared at the old man—who kept solemn silence.
"Not till the Duke is buried!" I said. "What makes you think so, my
friend? It will be three more weeks before the Duke is buried."
"I don't care for that, sir," said the old man ; "I tell you there will
be no more fair weather till he is buried."
And he drew himself up very statelily, and turned to wait on the next
comer to the spring. I walked on—thinking about the word "superstition,"
which any fool can employ as
readily as the wisest man; and thinking also of history's multitudinous
records, of
the storm all round the English coast on the night of Cromwell's death—of
the storm that seemed to threaten to tear St. Helena from its foundations
in the Atlantic, on the
night of Napoleon's death—on the natural convulsions at the death of
Julius Cæsar, and others—and saying to myself, "What do I know
about it? If there be a
Future State, what strange
discoveries it may unfold to us! What do we know about the sympathies of
nature? How largely they may exist without our knowing it in our present
state!"
The funeral of the Great Duke was the most impressively grand spectacle I
ever beheld. The morning was fair—the first fair morning for six weeks! The bright sun seemed
something new: the luminary seemed to have come out to grace the splendid
show; and to do honour to him in death whom the nation had honoured in
life. I witnessed the
passing of the entire funeral procession, and the greater part of it
twice. First, I got a place on the south side of the Green Park, near the
Duke of Sutherland's, and saw
the procession come up the Mall, from the Horse Guards. Then I crossed the
Park, and got a standing-place opposite the Duke of Cambridge's—the house
in which Lord
Palmerston afterwards lived—and saw the slow march along Piccadilly. The
pomp of the "Dead March in Saul" was varied by some of the regimental
bands playing "Sicilian Mariners," and others Handel's "Old Hundred-and-Fourth." The
varied costume of the English regiments mingled with the kilted
Highlanders, and Lancers and Life Guards with the Scotch Greys, rendered
the vision picturesque as well as
stately.
But it was upon the huge funeral car, and the led charger in front of it,
that all eyes gazed most wistfully:—above all, it was upon the
crimson-velvet covered coffin, upon the
vast pall—not covered by it, borne aloft, on the car, with the
white-plumed cocked hat, and the sword and marshal's baton lying upon the
coffin, that all gazed most intently. I
watched it—I stretched my neck to get the last sight of the car as it
passed along Piccadilly, till it was out of sight; and then I thought the
great connecting link of our national
life was broken: the great actor in the scenes of the Peninsula and
Waterloo—the conqueror of Napoleon—and the chief name in our home
political life for many years,—had
disappeared. I seemed to myself to belong now to another generation of men; for my childhood was passed amid the noise about Wellington's battles,
and his name and
existence seemed stamped on every year of our time.
CHAPTER XXX.
LITERARY AND LECTURING LIFE CONTINUED:
W. J. FOX AND TALFOURD;
1852-1854.
I SAT up the whole night preceding the day of the
Great Duke's funeral to finish the writing of what was intended to be a
three-volume novel. I remember well tying it up, getting my coffee,
and then hurrying off to the Green Park to see the funeral spectacle, with
the intent to take the manuscript to a publisher when the sight was over.
I had been trying my hand at novel-writing, by intervals, for more than a
year. After the appearance and popular reception of Charles
Kingsley's "Alton Locke," I had a conversation with Mr. Edward Chapman, of
the firm of Chapman and Hall, when he said to me,—
"Why, I should think you could write a Chartist novel, and a successful
one. You see Kingsley has succeeded; and you ought to know a deal more
about Chartism than he
can possibly know."
"Would you publish a Chartist novel if I were to write one?" I asked; for
I remembered well how my poor Prison Rhyme had been rejected by this very
house, because they
were advised "to have nothing to do with the Chartism in it."
"If the novel suits us, we will publish it," replied Mr. Chapman. "Of
course we never publish anything unless we think it worth publishing. But
I should think you could hardly
fail to write a good Chartist novel."
"You mean, then, that you will take such a novel of me, if I can write
one?"
"Yes," was the reply; and I said, "Then I'll try."
And try I did; and took my manuscript to Mr. Edward Chapman, and left it
in his hands. This was in the latter part of 1851, or in the very early
part of 1852. I very soon had
a reply. The house could not publish my novel, because their literary
adviser—who was, of course, Mr. John Forster of the Examiner—advised
them not, declaring that "evidently, prose fiction was not Mr. Cooper's
forte." The reader will be
sure that I was not surprised at this—coming from the eternal
extinguisher of all my literary
hopes, Mr. John Forster of the Examiner.
But neither was I discouraged. I had made up my mind to write a novel, or
more, that some publisher would take. So I threw aside the rejected
manuscript, and commenced
an entirely new story, which I finished on the morning of the Great Duke's
funeral, and entitled "Alderman Ralph." I took this manuscript to Mr.
Edward Chapman, and asked
him whether he would look it over and tell me whether he would publish it. He consented to receive it for c-o-n-s-i-d-e-r-a-t-i-o-n. It was rejected,
of course. I
quite expected that; but was determined that Mr. John Forster should
exercise all the power he could to extinguish me. I regarded him as a
bitter personification of Whiggery
that was natively instinct with hatred of everything like Chartism, living
or dead.
My novel was put into the hands of Messrs. Routledge, and they received
it, and published it, in 1853. Their reception of "Alderman Ralph" made me
resolve to compose
another novel; and in this new novel I embodied some part of the story of
my former Chartist novel, but burnt the Chartist part of it. I suppose
about a third of the new novel
was composed
of my older one. I gave my new novel into the hands of Messrs. Routledge,
having first entitled it "Cain Colton; or, the History of the Great
Family Feud of the Uphams
and the Downhams." But when they made up their minds to publish it, they
determined to style it simply "The Family Feud." They brought out this
novel at the
beginning of 1855; and gave me £100 for "Alderman Ralph," and the like
sum for "The Family Feud."
Not long after the publication of "The Family Feud," I commenced another
novel, which I purposed calling "The Wharfedale Beauty." But events put a
stop to my novel-writing;
and I have never resumed it, and never shall.
I forgot to chronicle one notable event at the beginning of 1852. A person
who called himself "Edward Youl" obtained introduction as a literary
contributor to William Howitt's journal, and other periodicals, and wound
himself into the position of a visitor at Mr. Howitt's, and also at my
humble home. At the close of the
year 1851, he intimated that he was leaving London; and we saw him no
more. But within a few days, first came a letter from Lord Brougham to
William Howitt, expressing a
hope that himself and Mary Howitt were better, and regretting that he was
only able to send them so small a sum on, their late application for
money! Mr. Howitt wrote to
Lord Brougham to learn the meaning of the strange letter; and soon
discovered that Youl had pried into the affairs of his family that he
might write a counterfeit letter in
William Howitt's name, and so obtain money from Lord Brougham.
My friend W. J. Fox having called on his friend Serjeant Talfourd about
this very time, was informed by the Serjeant that his (W. J. Fox's) friend
Thomas Cooper had applied
for help in his affliction, and he (the Serjeant) was happy in having been
able to send Mr. Cooper twenty pounds!
"Affliction!" exclaimed Fox—"what affliction? The man is in jolly
good health, I assure you. He called on me only yesterday; and I never saw
him look better.
There must be some mistake."
"Well: here is his letter, however," said Talfourd; "read it for
yourself."
"I don't think this is his writing," said Fox, "though it looks like an
imitation. But the tone of the letter
is so unlike him. Will you lend me this letter for a
day or two? I suppose you have heard of the villainous trick played by a
man called Youl"—and he then related what he knew of the counterfeit
letter to Lord Brougham.
Serjeant Talfourd consented that Mr. Fox should take the letter, and Mr.
Fox soon summoned me to his house in Charlotte Street, Bedford Square. He
acted cautiously.
"You were ill when you called on me the other day," said he; "why did you
not tell me?"
"No," said I, "I was not ill. What makes you think I was ill?"
"But you have been very ill of late?"
"Nonsense!" said I, and I burst into laughter.
"Have you not been ill, and written to Serjeant Talfourd for money, and
received twenty pounds from him?"
"Good God!" I exclaimed, "what do you mean?"—for my laughter had changed
to alarm, seeing my good friend's serious look.
"Look at that letter! Is it not your own handwriting?"
"My handwriting? No," I cried, after I had run over a part of the letter
with a sense of choking; "why this is another trick of that insidious
fiend Youl, that you were talking
about the other day!"
"Then you must inform Talfourd instantly; and then see Howitt, and try if
you cannot find out where
the foul thief has hidden himself, and have him brought to justice."
By the assistance of the police we found that the fellow had quitted
London for Liverpool, the police having had their eye upon him for some
time,—we little suspecting that we
were harbouring a well known and practised thief, who wore different
dresses, could put on a wig, wear false eyebrows, and even change his
voice, so as to pass for several
different persons. Mr. Howitt went off to Liverpool; but the police had
there lost sight of him. Lord Brougham thought it would be a waste of
money to employ a skilful search
for him; and so pursuit was given up.
I went to Serjeant Talfourd's house in Russell Square, to assure him that
I had never written a line to him; and to inform him that several
expressions in the letter to which my
name was appended by a false signature, made me feel sure the letter a&
dressed to him was written by the villain who had made himself known to
Mr. Howitt and myself as
"Edward Youl." Serjeant Talfourd received me with the most solicitous
kindness. He cared nothing about the loss of the £20, he said, if I would
only accept £20 from
him. He feared I was not getting rich by authorship: and he pressed me so
hard to take the money, that I consented; and he immediately wrote out a
cheque on Coutts'
bank, which I found was for £25.
I called again at Mr. Fox's, and showed him the cheque. He threw himself
back in his chair and burst into laughter all over—for every part of his
body seemed always to
partake in his laughter—and exclaimed,—
"Ho—ho—ho! He has done it to ease his conscience! He wanted to ease his
conscience in the same substantial way, I have no doubt, when I asked you
to call upon
him, and you wouldn't."
My friend Mr. Fox was alluding to a confession he had drawn from Serjeant
Talfourd. During the discussion in the House of Commons, on the 20th of
June, 1848, upon Mr.
Hume's motion for the enlargement of the franchise, Mr. Fox pleaded, in
behalf of the working classes, that there were men of intelligence among
those who had suffered
imprisonment for their Chartism—witness, William Lovett, who had written
his book on "Chartism" in the gaol, and Thomas Cooper, whose noble poem,
"The Purgatory of
Suicides," was brought before the reading public chiefly through the
recommendation of the honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli). This
drew Talfourd to his feet to
plead against Mr. Hume's motion, in order to support the Whig ministry. His friend Mr. Fox had spoken of Thomas Cooper, the Serjeant said; and he
did not yield to his
friend or to the honourable gentleman opposite in their intelligent
admiration of that magnificent poem "The Purgatory of Suicides;" but who
was Thomas Cooper? He
(the Serjeant) had been one of the counsel for the prosecution of Thomas
Cooper, and he felt compelled to state the truth, that Thomas Cooper had
delivered harangue upon
harangue to the people in the Potteries, and the speeches of Thomas Cooper
were followed by deeds of violence.
My friend Fox was indignant at this; and, as he could not speak a second
time in the debate, he requested Richard Cobden to get up and reply to
Talfourd in my behalf. And
illustrious Richard Cobden did reply. He felt surprised, he said, that the
learned Serjeant should have spoken of Mr. Cooper in the way that he did;
for everyone who knew
Mr. Cooper believed he had never advised or counselled violence, and no
one regretted the occurrence of the violence alluded to more than did Mr.
Cooper himself.
A few days after this scene in the House of Commons, Fox was present at a
soiree in Serjeant Talfourd's house in Russell Square. The Serjeant, he
thought, seemed to
lack the hilarity with which he usually received guests; and during a
part of the evening when everybody seemed to be busily engaged in
conversation, he observed the
Serjeant slily beckon him to a vacant sofa. Fox took his seat by Talfourd's side.
"My friend," said Talfourd, in a low tone, and, as Fox declared, with a
most lugubrious face, "I feel so uneasy about the words I uttered in the
House of Commons about your
friend Cooper. I don't believe
he advised the violence committed; I have told you so before, and I wonder
that I uttered the words I did. It was a moral obliquity I cannot account
for."
"Moral obliquity!" said Fox, bursting into laughter—"I say moral
obliquity too. You spoke not for conscience, but for the Ministers. You
meant a judgship!" ended Fox,
sticking his elbow into Talfourd's chest.
"Don't—my friend—don't!" cried Talfourd; "but I deserve it all. Only,
now I want you, if you please, to give my best and heartiest regards to
Mr. Cooper, and tell him that I wish
to see him here, as soon as ever he can make it convenient to come. I want
to see him particularly."
"I'll tell him," said Fox; and indeed he told me all about it from first
to last, and urged me to comply with Talfourd's request. But I refused,
and did not enter his house till I had
to defend myself against Youl's mischief. Talfourd always shook hands with
me if he met me in the street, and at different times gave me other sums,
which amounted
altogether to nearly one hundred pounds. This was very noble conduct on
the part of one who had been the leading barrister against me at my long
second trial. But
Talfourd's unlimited kindness to poor Pemberton ("Pel Verjuice") and
others, is so well known, that those who are acquainted with his life will
not be surprised at what I have
related.
My good friend Charles Kingsley also assures me that my last judge, the
Hon. Thomas Erskine, always spoke of me with the utmost kindness, and
immediately sent out to
buy a book of mine, when he learned that I had written another. I said, a
good many chapters ago, that I could never make money. Well, but, thank
God! I can make friends.
And when sometimes I fall into the vein of musing on the rough usage I
have met with now and then, in the course of my pilgrimage,—turning to
the better side, I think of the
many noble hearts who have shown me sympathy and friendship, and feel that
I am as rich as Rothschild.
CHAPTER XXXI.
LITERARY AND LECTURING LIFE CONTINUED:
RELIGIOUS CHANGE:
1852—1856.
IN November, 1852, I commenced a series of Sunday
evening lectures on the "History of England," and continued them till the
end of May, 1853; then resumed them in October, 1853, and continued them
to the beginning of May, 1854; I recommenced them in October, 1854, and
concluded them in the middle of April, 1855—making fifty-one lectures;
the longest series of lectures I ever ventured on in my life. I had
crowds at my audiences, almost to the end of the time. In the
intervals of the series I delivered other lectures at the Hall of Science,
and, among them, seven on Schools of Painters—Italian, Dutch, Flemish,
Spanish, French, and English—pointing out to working men, who listened,
the chief features of excellence in our National Gallery, the Bridgewater
Gallery, the Dulwich Gallery, the Galleries at Hampton Court, etc.—for I
had spent unnumbered hours in each of these Galleries, and my passion for
pictures, at one time, was almost as great as my passion for music.
At the John Street Institution I began again to lecture on
Sunday evenings at the beginning of May, 1853; and, thenceforward,
lectured alternately at that Institution, and at the Hall of Science, to
the end of 1853, through the whole year 1854, and to the middle of April,
1855. The lectures on the Schools of Painters were also given at
John Street, together with eight lectures on the Life of Napoleon, four on
the Life of Wellington, two on the Life of Nelson, and six on Russian
History.
Besides the lectures I have mentioned in different chapters,
I delivered also, during these years of Sunday evening lecturing at the
John Street Institution, the Hall of Science, and the National Hall,
Holborn, discourses on the following subjects: the Lives of Luther,
Mahommed, Cobbett, Paine, Kosciusko, Raleigh, William Tell, Rienzi,
Howard, Oberlin, Neff, Bernard Gilpin, Latimer, Washington, Sir William
Jones, Dr. Johnson, Major Cartwright, William Godwin, Louis Philippe,
George Fox, Rousseau, Voltaire, John Knox, Handel, Haydn, Mozart,
Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Defoe, William Pitt, Columbus, Sir Isaac Newton,
Cortez, Pizarro, Thomas à-Becket, Sir
Robert Peel, Sir Charles J. Napier, Wickliffe, Calvin, Sir Thomas More,
Wesley, Swedenborg, Pythagoras, and Beau Brummell,—Negro Slavery, Church
Establishments, Taxation and the National Debt, Mental Cultivation, the
Age of Chivalry, the Middle Ages, Wrongs of Poland, the Gypsies, Athens
under Pericles, Conquests of Alexander the Great, Ancient Egypt, Histories
of Italy, Switzerland, Hungary, etc., Pio Nono and the Italians, Genius of
Pope, Dryden, Scott, Cowper, etc., the Peterloo Massacre and Henry Hunt,
Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy, Early English Freethinkers, Philosophy
of Lord Bacon, Philosophy of Locke, Gulliver's Travels, Astronomy,
Geology, Natural History, the Vegetable Kingdom, the Baltic Nations, and
many other subjects. The reading which was necessary in order to
enable me to deal with such a variety of themes, and to render my lectures
attractive to crowds of intelligent hearers, was, of course, very great.
At John Street, especially, I was surrounded by scores of the really elite
of the working classes: the pianoforte makers of Marylebone, and others.
The Library of the British Museum was my great resort for solid reading;
while in Westerton's Circulating Library, which was near me, I had ready
access to the periodicals and new publications of the day. Except in
those devoted days of my youth, I never read so many books as I read in
the few years I lived at Knightsbridge.
In September, 1854, I left my beautiful house in Park Row,
Knightsbridge, and went to live in the Green Lanes, Stoke Newington.
I had not above half the money to pay for rent at my new house, and I had
a garden. But I had no longer the grand outlook on Hyde Park; and
there were so many associations connected with my seven years' residence
in Knightsbridge that I left it with regret. It had been the scene
of frequent visits by my kind friends John Elliotson and John Ashburner—two
very noble medical men who honoured me with their friendship, often stayed
a long hour with me for converse, and insisted on the gratuitous
performance of medical attendance either on myself or my dear wife.
And there I often gathered round me, in evening hours, young eager
aspirants for literary distinction, W. Moy Thomas, and George Hooper, and
Neville Burnard the sculptor—who is a true poet as well,—and some who
have passed away.
One night—and only one night—I persuaded my old playmate
Thomas Miller to come; and then secured Willie Thom to meet him. We had a
merry meeting, for there were a round dozen of us; and as Willie Thom
mellowed he began to pour out his wondrous words of thought till
Miller grew silent, kept the pipe in his mouth (we were all smoking that
could smoke)—and fixed his eyes on Thom in amazement, till he broke our
with,—"Why the d— don't you write such talk? It would bring you
gold!" "I dinna think it's e'en worth siller," said Willie, very
innocently.
Before I pass on to a new step in my changeful life, let me say that my
novel of "The Family Feud" drew a handsome critique in the Examiner from
Mr. John Forster—for a
wonder! I may as well tell how
it came about. I went to 5, Cheyne Row, Chelsea,
one evening, with the intent of spending a couple of hours with my
illustrious friend Thomas Carlyle. But I had not been with him more than
half an hour when Mr. John Forster
was announced. I met him, as the reader may suppose, without any high
degree of pleasure. And although there was no treat on earth I could have
desired more than to
listen to the interchange of thought between two such intellects as those
of Carlyle and John Forster,—I felt inclined, with the remembrance of the
past, to "cut my stick!"
And I certainly should have decamped hastily, had it not been for an
incident worth mentioning. A loaded truck stopped at the
street-door—there was a loud knock—and the
maid-servant ran upstairs, breathless, to say that a huge parcel had been
brought. Mr. Carlyle seemed all wonder, and muttered, "A huge parcel!
what huge parcel?—but I'll
come down and see." And, somehow or other, we all went down to see—for
there was a large wooden case, evidently containing a picture. A hammer
and a chisel were soon
brought, and I offered to take them, and open the case—but, no! my
illustrious friend would open it himself.
"It's doubtless the picture from that old Landor," said he; and he worked
away vigorously with his implements till there was revealed a very noble
picture indeed, with its fine
gilded frame. It was a portrait of David Hume, in full dress—the dress he
is said always to have worn when he sat down to write: so
strangely were his polished style and his full-dress associated!
"Only think of that old Landor sending me this!"
broke out Carlyle again and again, as we all stood gazing on the portrait
with admiration.
This incident served to "break the ice" so far that I
joined a little in the conversation that followed; and when Mr. Carlyle
quitted the room to fetch a book he wanted to show his friend, Mr. John
Forster said to me, in a marked tone,—
"You have just had a novel published by Routledge—do you happen to know
whether a copy has been sent to the Examiner?"
I replied that I did not know; but I would inquire.
"Take care that it is addressed to me, will you?" said Mr. Forster;
you understand what I mean? Take care that it is addressed to me,
personally and he nodded, and
smiled.
"Thank you, sir," said I; "I will address a copy to you, myself "—for
I thought I did understand what he meant.
I rose to go soon after, and my illustrious friend, with the perfect
kindness he has always shown me, would go with me to the street door to
say "good night." So I whispered
to him, in the passage, and requested him to strengthen the good intent
there seemed to lie in John Forster's mind towards me. Carlyle gave me one
of his humorous smiles,
and squeezed my hand, as an assurance that I might
depend upon him. And so the favourable critique on my "Family Feud"
appeared in the Examiner.
The reader will observe that, in the beginning of this chapter, I said
that my lecturing on Sunday evenings was continued both at the Hall of
Science and John Street to the
middle of April, 1855. But there it terminated. I had remained in London
two whole years—taking no summer lecturing tour, as usual—on purpose to
write novels;
but I was so little satisfied with my success, although it was not
despicable, that I determined on getting into the country once more. There
was another stimulant to my
wish
for change. I felt myself to be in the wrong place at the John Street
Institution; the managers of it seemed to have lost their approval of my
teaching; and I wished to
break off my connection with them. I dare say the wish was mutual; and so
no offence was taken when I told them I should leave them.
Before I could make any arrangements for revisiting old friends in the
country, my course was utterly changed by an unexpected occurrence. My
friend W. J. Fox said to me
one day, when I called to borrow a book,
"I had a conversation with Mr. Wyld, of the 'Great Globe,' in the House of
Commons the other day about yourself; and he wishes you to call upon
him."
I found that the proprietor of the "Great Globe," who was at that time
advertising his "Model of the Crimea and Sebastopol," for exhibition, was
getting
casts of it made, with the purpose of sending them into some of the great
towns. The reader will remember that 1855 was the most exciting year of
the Crimean War. Mr. Fox
said that Mr. Wyld was disposed to remunerate me well, if I would take
charge of one of the models and lecture upon it.
I called on Mr. Wyld, and agreed to take charge of a model, to be
exhibited first at Birmingham. We did not stay many weeks, however, there. Mr. Wyld next directed me
to remove to Manchester; and there I remained many weeks, lecturing thrice
and sometimes four times in the day, with the model before me, on the
Crimean War. I threw my
whole nature into my work, as usual—fought the dashing Light Cavalry
charge and the Battle of Inkerman, till the crowds who listened to me
almost thought they were in the
fight themselves; and, as the war progressed, described the attack on the Redan and the winning of the Malakhoff, with fiery reality—often feeling
myself so completely
exhausted, after the last evening effort, that I could scarcely crawl to
the Clarendon to get my mutton-chop.
In consequence of an offer of £70 being made by a party in Burnley for the
exhibition of the model in that town for a fortnight, we left Manchester
too soon. The fall of
Sebastopol occurred when we reached Burnley; and thus the crowning success
we should have had in Manchester was lost. I was wearied with the Model,
and so gave up
my engagement with Mr. Wyld, and he had it taken back to London.
I was invited, however, to lecture on the Crimean War, in several towns,
with the aid of pictures on large canvas, sketched by my talented young
assistant, Mr. Charles Dyall,
now of the Liverpool Walker Institute. After visiting Preston, Haslingden,
Wigan, Duckinfield, Staleybridge, Leigh, Bury, Rochdale, Blackburn,
Manchester, Tamworth,
Congleton, and Burton-on-Trent, I returned to London.
I had left it in the beginning of May, and I returned to it in November,
1855. But the six months' absence had wrought a signal change in me. I
felt as if all my old work
were done, and yet I knew not how to begin
a new work. My heart and mind were deeply uneasy, and I could hardly
define the uneasiness. I felt sure my life for years had been wrong. I had
taught morals,
and taught them strictly; but the questioning within, that would arise,
day by day, and hour by hour, made my heart ache. "Why should man be moral? Why cannot he
quench the sense of accountability? and why have you not taught your
fellowmen that they are answerable to the Divine Moral Governor, and must
appear before Him in a
future state, and receive their reward or punishment?"
It was not a conviction of the truth of Christianity, of the reality of
the Miracles and Resurrection, or of the Divinity of Christ, that had
worked the change in me. I was
overwhelmed with a sense of guilt in having omitted to teach the right
foundation of morals. I had taught morals as a means of securing and in
creasing men's happiness here—but had left them without Divine sanctions
for a moral life. I had ignored religion in my teaching.
I commenced the year 1856 at the Hall of Science, with the aid of a large
map of Europe, and signified that I should occupy the Sunday evenings by
lecturing on the various
countries, their productions, people, habits and customs. I delivered the
first lecture on the 6th of January, "Russia and the Russians;" but on
the 13th, when I should
have descanted, according to the printed programme, on "Sweden and the
Swedes," I could not utter one word. The people told me afterwards that I
looked as pale as a
ghost, and they wondered what was the matter with me. I could hardly tell
myself; but, at length, the heart got vent by words, and I told them I
could not lecture on Sweden,
but must relieve conscience—for I could suppress conviction no longer. I
told them my great feeling of error was that while I had perpetually been
insisting on the
observance of a moral life, in all my public teachings for some years, I
had neglected to teach the right foundation of morals—the existence of
the Divine Moral Governor, and
the fact that we should have to give up our account to Him, and receive
His sentence, in a future state.
I used many more words in telling the people this; and they sat, at first,
in breathless silence, listening to me with all their eyes and ears. A few
reckless spirits, by degrees,
began to whisper to each other,
and then to laugh and sneer; and one got up and declared I was insane. A
storm followed,—some defending me, and insisting that I should be heard;
and others insisting on
speaking themselves, and denouncing me as a "renegade," a "turncoat," an
"apostate," a "traitor," and I know not what. But as I happened to have
fought and won more
battles than any or all of these tiny combatants put together, I stood
till I won perfect silence and order once more; and then I told them, as
some of them deemed me
insane, we would try that issue. I then gave them one month for
preparation, and challenged them to meet me in that hall on the 10th and
17th of February—with all the
sceptics they could muster in the metropolis—to discuss, first, the
Argument for the Being of God; secondly, the Argument for a Future State.
The time came, and they had got Robert Cooper, the Atheist, and a band of
eager sceptics to do battle with me. Amidst the dense crowd and the almost
frantic excitement
of some, I maintained my ground. And when it was demanded that I should
maintain my challenge also for two Sunday evenings at the John Street
Institution, I assured them
I was very willing so to do. So on the 2nd and 9th of March the combat
came off again, with Mr. Robert Cooper as chief champion on the Atheist
side. He challenged
me, in conclusion, to a separate discussion with himself. I intimated that
I had no confidence in his
ability, and declined to meet him. So he announced that he should expose
my errors in two or three lectures at John Street. He published these
"exposures;" and it will
be a sufficient proof of his super-eminent ignorance to record that they
contain this idiotic declaration: "Mr. Cooper says that Man has a Moral
Nature, and that proves the
existence of God as the Moral Governor; and I say that Man has also an
Immoral Nature, and that proves the existence of God as an Immoral
Governor!"
They had no wish to hear any more from me at John Street; and Mr. Bendall,
who rented the Hall of Science, City Road, wished to close the place
entirely, until the next
autumn, for thorough repair and re-decoration. So I had an enforced
silence of six months before me, unless I chose to travel, as I had been
wont to do, in the finer part of the
year.
But I could not travel. I felt it was the silence that I wanted. Yet how
to get bread was the question. Before I went out of London with Mr. Wyld's model, I had
asked the publishers of my "Family Feud" and "Alderman Ralph" if they
would advance me a little money while I set on to write my purposed
"Wharfedale Beauty." But they declared they never
did anything of the kind. So if I had tried to go on with the novels, I
had no prospect of help. But neither could I have written the novel if I
had tried. My mind and heart
were too ill at ease.
CHAPTER XXXII.
LECTURING LIFE CONTINUED:
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE "REASONER."
1848—1853.
I AM often, I must confess, extremely mortified by some descriptions of
myself given by religious friends. They tell the people, in words spoken,
or in print, that I am the "Converted Infidel Lecturer;" that, "after
having once done all in my power to oppose and overthrow the faith of
Christ, I am now," etc. etc. Now
I have no taste for being exhibited as a recovered reprobate. It affords
me no pleasure, but much sorrow, to remember my scepticism; and there is
really a deal of untruth in
these announcements. I was never an "Infidel Lecturer," in the common
sense of the term. The eight lectures on the "Leben Jesu" of Strauss,
delivered at the John
Street Institution, and repeated at the Hall of Science, City road, formed
the only deliberate and systematic attack I ever made on orthodox
Christianity. And even in those
lectures I again and again insisted on the perfect and worshipful moral
beauty of Christ.
My unbelief, even when I was most completely fascinated with the "Mythical Theory" of Strauss,
never made me happy; and so I felt no peculiar pleasure in spreading it. And I never went about the country as an "Infidel Lecturer." With the one
exception of
Newcastle-on-Tyne, there was not a place out of London where I openly
broached sceptical opinions. My subjects were the Poets, History,
Politics, and Morals. I saw
no good, nor should have felt "at home," in peregrinating the country as
an "Infidel Lecturer."
I do not make this statement with the wish to back out of really truthful
charges that may be brought against me for past errors. I think I have
displayed sufficient moral
courage in life to warrant me in saying that I have never shrunk from
uttering my conscientious convictions, nor from paying the penalty for
uttering them. But I see no
reason why a man should suffer real aspersions to be made upon his
character, and be silent, when his silence can do no good. God knows, I
have sins enough to
answer for; but I do not feel covetous of suffering for sins I have not
committed.
I have strong reason for believing that charges of "atheism" were made
against me by some parties in mistake. It was Robert Cooper these parties
had heard, and not my
humble self. His teaching was avowedly atheistic and materialistic, and
unchangeably so. I was guilty, at times, of enunciating sceptical
thoughts, incidentally, while
lecturing on historical themes at John Street and in the Hall of Science,
City Road. But often I did not utter any such thoughts during a whole
lecture; and, I repeat, the lectures on Strauss (which were delivered at
John Street and repeated at the
Hall of Science, and—with the exception of the eighth lecture, which was
on the character of Christ—were printed in Cooper's Journal) formed the
only studied and determined
attack I ever made on orthodox Christianity.
I often wrote out from memory a sketch of part or parts of the
miscellaneous lectures I delivered in London, and gave them to my friend
George Jacob Holyoake, as helps to
increase the sale of the Reasoner. I call him my friend, for he is my
friend still. I never break friendship with sincerity, uprightness, and
real nobleness; and these qualities
are personified in my friend. If I were to do so in order to please even
the religious friends that I love most deeply, I should feel myself to be
a contemptible sneak. I gave
the sketches I have mentioned to my friend, and he inserted them in the
well-known periodical with which he was so long identified. The following
passage from one of
these sketches has often been quoted against me in a malicious
way—although, in one of the lectures I have been in the habit of
delivering for these last dozen years and
more, I have shown that I was mistaken in both my facts and inferences as
to the amount of pain and suffering endured by the animals:—
"The Universe is so beautiful, says the philosophic thinker:
it is, in a large degree, so wondrously adapted for happiness, and its
main provisions show so triumphantly that the Designer, if there be one,
could have filled it with happy
beings only,—that the very fact of there being adaptations in it for pain
and misery makes me doubt that it had any Designer at all. Wisdom raises
admiration, until the fruition
of its supposed contrivances is perceived to be, in great part, pain and
destruction. Then, it is that reason revolts, and exclaims, 'This is not
worshipful, for goodness is
not supremely united with it.' We are not here to-night to solve these
doubts: we only announce them, and proclaim that the priests of no
religion have ever yet solved them;
nor can they so long as the hawk and the eagle and the vulture remain the
slaughterous sovereigns of the feathered tribes; so long as the lion
remains the king of the forest,
and makes the stag and antelope quake by the thunder of his roar, even
when miles distant; so long as the pike pursues the gliding eel through
the inland waters, and the
shark is the tyrant of the ocean; so long as the spider weaves its web,
and drains the blood of the captive fly. It is a universe—with all its
glories of resplendent suns and
mighty systems of millions of stars—with all its grandeur of mountains
and verdure of vallies—with all its luxuries of fruits, and hues and
perfume of flowers—it is a universe of
pain and death, of murder and devastation. Man is in awful keeping with
the scenery of the picture in which he is the chief figure: he becomes
the hawk and the vulture,
the lion and the wolf, to his own species." (Reasoner, No. 117.) |
I add a passage from another lecture—for I wish it to be understood what
I really did say, occasionally and incidentally, in my historical and
miscellaneous lectures.
"Why is the term 'First Cause' ever employed? If no cause could produce
the universe from nothing,—if the universe has ever been in this 'Cause,'
or He in it,—then, to speak of the 'Eternal cause' may be consistent; but the term
'First Cause' is
a misnomer, for there was no first cause. Since matter in its
organized forms has consciousness, from the worm (for it shrinks when
touched) to Man, I may not take upon me to deny that the infinite universe
has One All-pervading
Consciousness. I may not deny that; but I do not know it. I may not deny
it, for I behold adaptations—I use not the word 'contrivance,' because
nothing in nature really
resembles Man's inventions, since Man never contrives anything that can
produce its like—I behold adaptations, on every side, wherever I look on
nature; and I am impressed
with the presence of Power and Wisdom while contemplating them, and often
with the presence of Beneficence. But, is it always thus?
Watch the beautiful spider which, just at this season, is so common in
your gardens, the Epeira
diadema, a beautifully marked and diademed insect, that weaves its
wheel-formed webs from bough to branch with wondrous nimbleness—for it
will renew its web ten times a
day if you destroy its work—and with consummate art. What manifest
adaptation! But,
for what? That web will have a fly entangled in it soon. Hark at its cry
of pain, for the diademed fly-butcher runs to drain its blood.
"Glance from an insect to a lion, with its massive bones and powerful
sinews, its formidable teeth, and prickles leaning backwards on the tongue
with which it can lick off the
flesh from a limb, and its gastric juice that will digest flesh and
bruised bone, but not grain or grass. Look through all nature, and see
murder, pain, destruction, in the midst
of life, pleasure, renewal of existence.
"What says the priest, while we take the survey? That he cannot explain
why there is pain in the universe, except by the fable of Man's fall from
primeval innocence;
and that the continuance of pain is now a part of God's government, and we
must bow and adore where we cannot understand. Nay, priest, but I will
not. How can my heart
worship Power, or even Wisdom, if it be not conjoined with Goodness?
I tell him, as in my humble prison-song,—
'I cannot worship what I cannot love.'
Nay, more : if even thy Deity exists, I cannot conceive that He
would do otherwise than reject my worship, were I to tender it to Him
without love. He could not look for an acknowledgment from any of His
intelligent creatures that the
production of pain, by however wondrous a display of skill, was
worshipful. Pay Him worship for beneficence, if thou wilt, priest, and
that wherever it is found; but do not
expect me to offer it wherever I discern adaptations in nature for the
production of pain." (Reasoner, vol. iii., page 523.) |
The erroneous thinking in these extracts will be discerned even by
sceptics who are acquainted with Combe's "Constitution of Man." There are
no "adaptations in nature for
the production of pain" for the sake of pain—to speak plain English. Beneficence is traceable in all such adaptations: they are means for
preserving happy life, and often for
preserving life itself. Better acquaintance with the facts of zoology
convince me that there is a widely-prevailing mistake in people's minds as
to the amount of pain
and suffering experienced by the lower animals. Even men of considerable
reading do not come at the real truth on these subjects; but suffer their
judgments to be misled by
their mere sensibilities, as I did for a long time.
"But what did you call yourself during the twelve years you were sceptical?" some may ask: "you evidently object to being classed as an atheist." Yes: because I never
dared to say "There is no God," nor could I ever reach such a conclusive
thought. Indeed, I never remained long in any one state of belief or
unbelief on the subject of the
Divine existence
during my sceptical time. Perhaps I was near Pantheism, sometimes; while
at other times I was a Theist. I feel now that I was indeed "without hope
and without
God in the world," for I had ceased to seek communion with Him, and to
love Him; but I did not sink into blank atheism and glory in it, as some
did who taught at John Street
and the Hall of Science. The great error was in mixing myself up with such
teaching. I ought to have known better; but, like others, I feel, the
older I grow, what a blunderer
I have been. I never could learn to "take care of my reputation," like
some people; and I doubt if I could learn to do so, even if I could enter
on life anew.
I have said that I never ceased to worship the moral beauty of Christ; and
this was a frequent theme with me, in my sceptical time—yet, as I became
more and more imbued
with the spirit of Strauss, the more I strove to make it out that there
was nothing above humanity in Christ's excellence. The following extract
will make my meaning more
plain:
"Do you ask me whether this elevated teaching does not prove the
supernatural mission of Christ? I answer, No. It is but the natural
revelation of the human heart drawn from
its deepest fountains. Christ needed no inspiration, in the priestly sense
of that word. If he were inspired, so was Confucius, who taught the
great precept—'Do
unto others as ye would they should do unto you,' 500 years before Christ.
But neither was
that an inspired discovery of the Chinese sage. The heart had uttered it,
and, doubtless, thousands of tongues had proclaimed
it, ages before Confucius lived. If Christ were inspired, so was Socrates; so was Homer and Eschylus and Sophocles; so was Shakspeare and Milton;
and all who
have astonished and elevated the human mind by the great products of
poetry. If Christ were inspired, so was Phidias and Canova, so was Raphael
and Michael
Angelo, so was Handel and Mozart, so was Copernicus and Galileo and
Newton, so was Bacon and Locke, so was Davy and Watt, so were all who have
revealed to
humankind the wonders of art and music, of philosophy and science. Nature
produces her own great children, in her own time; and she endows them for
their
mission, and impels them to its fulfilment, whatever may be their apparent
disadvantages of circumstance.
"Was it more wonderful that that young man of Nazareth, that despised
carpenter's son, should be born with an organisation to discern moral
beauty, and be girt up to
proclaim love, and pity, and mercy, and goodness, even to the death—than
that Shakspeare, with all his capacity for fathoming and depicting the
human heart, and for
universal creation, should be born in a woolstapler's shop? Perish the
false, idolatrous, and enslaving forms in which Priesteraft clothes that
glorious Galilean Peasant! Let
him stand forth in his simple moral beauty; and he is more worshipful
than in all his mythical and fabulous garniture! Stripped of the
tinselled rags of miracle and imaginary
godship, the heart cleaves to him, loves him with intensity, as the
noblest of human brothers, as the One who has shown most loftily what it
is that Man may become in
moral perfectibility, and how he may learn to love goodness, and triumph
over the passions of hatred and revenge, until he can expire breathing out
forgiveness, even for his
murderers!" (Reasoner, vol. iii., page 507.) |
I give another extract from one of my John Street lectures, of the same
tendency:—
"The doctrine of Equal Rights was often enunciated by Christ; but he could
not show that knowledge would lead to their acquirement. His 'Heavenly
Father' had
commissioned
him to introduce the 'Kingdom of Heaven.' He, the 'Son of Man' would
'come
in the clouds of heaven, clothed with glory and surrounded with his holy
angels, to bring
it. His glorious worship of goodness led him to wish that the 'kingdom of
heaven' should be established on earth; his highly religious mind could
not disrobe itself of
the national belief entirely, and he personified the goodness he
worshipped as the 'Jehovah,' though with widely different attributes to
the ancient Jehovah; and taught that
the Universal Father, as He became under Christ's teaching, would
institute the Universal Brotherhood.
"Christ taught no sciences. How, where, when, was he to
learn them? Christ inculcated no education, in any such sense
of the word as we accept it. He never recommended the cultivation of the
powers of the mind, either to his disciples, or to the multitude. How was
it possible?
Education, in his country and time, consisted in a knowledge of the Mosaic
law, the precepts of the Rabbis, and the foolish traditions and silly
ceremonies of the Doctors.
His grand nature soared above the ridiculous teachings of the latter, it
shrank from the fierceness and cruelty of the first; and it distinguished
and selected what was excellent
in either the Rabbinical precepts, or those of the older scriptures.
"Christ saw the world was wrong. He thought to right it at once—believing
his own glorious enthusiasm. But the experience of eighteen hundred years
has
proved to us that his goodness was more truthful than his enthusiasm.
Dethrone Christ?
Dost thou say, priest, that I am seeking to dethrone him? I
tell thee, my worship of him is as ardent as thine. I tell thee that thou
hast crucified him afresh—thou and thy dark tribe—these seventeen
hundred years; but that
science will prepare his throne; that his 'kingdom of heaven' was no
dream, save in the mode of its realisation; but that universal knowledge
will bring it. Not as
Millenarian fanatics tell: not as orthodox teachers prophesy. I speak of
no 'coming in the flesh,' or 'coming in the clouds, but of the universal
recognition of the great law of
goodness and brotherhood—of the reverence and love of the name of that
lowly young man of Nazareth as the
highest of moral teachers—and, above all, as the grandest example of the
triumph of our moral nature, the common nature of man." (Reasoner, vol.
iii., pp. 547—549.) |
While thus intent on convincing myself and others that there was nothing
above humanity in the moral perfection of Christ, and that science and
mental progress would
eventually bring in the reign of such moral perfection, I did not
perfectly succeed in convincing myself. Every fresh glance at the pure
spirituality of the New Testament
teaching threw me back; and so I had to fence with these difficulties
again and again, by endeavouring to show that the Pauline teaching was super-induced on Christ's
teaching, and was impracticable. How hardly I battled to establish this
point will be seen in the following extract from another John Street
Lecture—though I believe the
thoughts were first uttered in my friend Fox's pulpit, during the time he
was absent from London securing his election for Oldham:—
"How the simple teaching of Jesus of Nazareth—this yearning of a large
and grand and beautiful nature—became mixed up, almost at the onset, with
superstitious
imaginings—the natural consequence of its reception amidst ignorance, old
creeds, oriental tendencies—I need not repeat. The creed was most simple,
and but very few
outward observances were inculcated in the outset. The first Christians
were chiefly remarkable for their refusal to be soldiers, for their
contempt of wealth and show, and for
the firmness with which they underwent martyrdom for their faith, whereby
the admiration of the polytheists was deeply excited, and, not seldom,
their conversion was
secured, The idea which Pliny himself, in the letter to Trajan, gives us
of Christianity at the end of the first century, is borne out by the
language of the Epistles in the New Testament. Being not conformed to this
world—praying without ceasing—counting the present life nothing, but the
future, on which they might enter at any unlooked-for moment, everything,—that is the true
Apostolic Christianity: the Christianity
of the Epistles. In late times, such deeply sincere, enthusiastic, and
self-sacrificing men as Wesley and Whitfield, Brainerd and Swartz and
Eliot, Fletcher and Bramwell,
have been exemplars of this Apostolic Christianity.
"This religion of Paul, however, is more ascetic and mortifying, and less
rational, than the religion inculcated by Jesus himself, so far as my
humble investigation of the
subject enables me to form a conclusion. Christ frequently rebukes the
narrow spirit of asceticism; and the ever-fertile burthen of his teaching
is goodness and mercy, love
and brotherhood. Yet his own views of a 'kingdom of heaven,' here, argue
great unacquaintance with the laws of nature. Had Jesus understood those
laws, he would
not have looked for the immediate institution of that 'kingdom of heaven'
upon earth (for such were his views in the beginning of his ministry)
nor, had Paul and the Apostles
understood those laws, would they have inculcated the ascetic precepts
which abound in the Epistles.
"Where would civilisation have been, if all had become Christians after
the model of these precepts? Where painting, music, poetry, statuary,
architecture? Where
the invention of
arts, where the discoveries of science and adventure? Where commerce,
manufactures, machinery, and the convenience of food and clothing? What,
if
Shakspeare had 'prayed without ceasing,' should we have had his Macbeth
and Lear and Othello? What, if Michael Angelo and Wren had thought of
nothing but of being 'not
conformed to this world,' and of being 'transformed by the renewing of
their minds,' would the magnificent domes of St. Peter's and St. Paul's
ever have attracted the
wonder-stricken gaze of men, in Rome or London?
'Nothing is worth a thought beneath,
But how I may escape the death
That never, never dies.' |
is a modern embodiment of Apostolic religious thought. Where would have
been the discoveries of Cook, or the inventions of Watt and Arkwright, if
they had been ascetics
after this model? To what a state the world would have been reduced by an
entire devotion to such a religion, may be seen in the examples of Simeon Stylites and many of
the early Christian eremites, while the melancholy diaries of. Halyburton,
and other modern pietists, confirm the truth that ascetic religion would
cover the world with a funeral
pall, and shut up the human mind in the gloom of the sepulchre."
(Reasoner, vol. v., pp. 262-3:) |
Thus I thought and spoke and wrote; but not all the thinking and speaking
and writing could destroy the latent wish that rapt communion with God
were again mine. I might
call it "asceticism," and give it other hard names; but the remembrance
of it would return, in spite of all the corruption of the heart and the
wandering of the mind to which I
had yielded.
I have again mentioned the name of my friend W. J. Fox, and will now say
my last words about him. He was as kind and tender to me as a father; and
I loved him. I saw but
little of him in his closing years, being so much out of London after
1857. He died in June, 1864, while I was lecturing in Staffordshire. I
should have left my work to attend his
funeral, if I had been able to do so; but I was not. The difference in our
religious views had become very great; but I should have paid the tribute
of heartfelt regard to his
memory, had it been in my power.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
ENTRANCE ON THE RIGHT LIFE: THE LIFE OF DUTY.
1856—1872.
IMMEDIATELY after I had obeyed conscience, and told
the people I had been in the habit of teaching that I had been wrong, I
determined to open my mind fully to my large-hearted friend Charles
Kingsley. He showed the fervent sympathy of a brother. We began a
correspondence which extended over many months: in fact, over more than a
year. I told him every doubt and described every hope I had; and he
counselled, instructed, and strengthened me to the end.
But, as I said before, bread was to be earned, and where was it to come
from? I had many friends ready to help, and they did help nobly; but a
man cannot live honourably
in idleness, and I asked on all sides for some employment. So my friend
the Rev. F. D. Maurice, and three barrister friends, Mr. Hughes, Mr.
Ludlow, and Mr. Furnivall, after
conferring with my now Right Honourable friend W. E. Forster, besought Mr.
W. F. Cowper, M.P., President of the Board of Health, to find me some
employment under that
Governmental Department.
Mr. Cowper (now Lord Mount-Temple) named a time for me to wait on him, and
I went. He said he wished much that he could offer me anything better but
the only thing he
could offer me was that I became a copyist of letters, etc., at a low
remuneration: he thought it was seventy words for a penny. I told him I
would take the employ, if it were
seventy words
for a halfpenny. So I went down into the cellar of the Board of
Health—for that is the truest name for the room; and there I was almost
a daily worker, every week for
ninety-seven weeks—not finally quitting my post till the end of May,
1858.
This humble post brought me the hearty and valuable friendship of another
man of genius,—Mr. Tom Taylor, who was Secretary of the Board—which is
now become the "Local
Government Board." It brought me, too, the kind and friendly attention of
the Under Secretary, Mr. Campbell, cousin of the Duke of Argyll, and son of
Campbell of Islay.
I am glad, too, that I served in that cellar of the Board of Health,
because I had there to copy out the letters of several hundred eminent
medical men, and otherwise humbly
assist Mr. Simon, the highly intelligent Physician to the Privy Council,
in the completion of his masterly "Report on Vaccination." The letters
were from the most eminent
foreign as well as British physicians and surgeons. The reading of them,
as well as of all other papers I could reach on the subject, left in my
mind a most ineffaceable conviction that Jenner's discovery was a real
blessing to mankind; and that the scourge by which I suffered so much when
a child, and by which hundreds are now suffering, might be swept out of
existence, if all children were duly and efficiently vaccinated.
My enforced silence of six months, and all its inner
experiences, found me a still more completely changed man when September
came, and I applied to Mr. Bendall to know if he would let me recommence
my Sunday evening lectures at the Hall of Science, and teach what I
pleased. He granted me leave to occupy his room as I chose. So
I re-commenced, and simply taught Theism—for I had not advanced farther
yet in positive conviction.
I confess I am very incredulous respecting sudden conversions
from the habitual scepticism of years. I had been twelve years a
sceptic; and it was not until fully two years had been devoted to hard
reading and thinking that I could conscientiously and truly say, "I am
again a Christian"—even nominally. The deep conviction which first
arose within me, that I had been very guilty, as a public teacher, in not
courageously and faithfully presenting the great truth of God's existence
as the Moral Governor before men, gradually merged into the deeper and
more distressful conviction of my own personal life of sin: the
remembrance that I—I myself—had been living without God, and without
teaching men the worship of the God that I had loved in my early manhood,
and Who had then given me to feel His love, day by day, and hour by hour.
My conviction of personal sin deepened to such a degree, in
the hours of reflection during the silent six months, that I dared not
pray; and my wife said I never smiled for those six months. I told
my dear friend Dr. Jobson, who was ever trying to strengthen and help me,
that I believed God would shut me up in judicial darkness; that He would
never suffer me to live in the "light of His countenance" again, as a
penalty for my great sin in deserting Him because I thought men ill-used
me.
"No, no!" said my dear friend; "I don't believe it. God
will bring you to the light yet, and fill your soul with it!"
I told my friend Charles Kingsley, in our correspondence [Ed.—some
of Kingsley's replies to Cooper, but not necessarily relating to the
correspondence Cooper refers to here, are listed],
that while I diligently read "Bridgewater Treatises," and all the other
books with which he furnished me, as a means of beginning to teach
sceptics the truth from the very foundation, that the foundations
themselves seemed to glide from under my feet; I had to struggle against
my own new and tormenting doubts about God's existence, and feared I
should be at last overwhelmed with darkness and confusion of mind.
"No, no!" said my faithful and intelligent friend, you will
get out of all doubt in time. When you feel you are in the deepest
and gloomiest doubt, pray the prayer of desperation; cry out,—'Lord, if
Thou
dost exist, let me know that Thou dost exist! Guide my mind, by a way
that I know not, into Thy truth!' and God will deliver you."
But I dared not pray, as I said before. This bondage of dumbness of spirit
was suddenly broken, one morning, as I awoke, by the words running through
my mind that had
been familiar to me when I was a Bluecoat boy, and stood in the aisle of
Gainsborough church,—"Almighty and most merciful Father, I have erred
and strayed from Thy ways
like a lost sheep; I have followed too much the devices and desires of my
own heart; I have offended against Thy holy laws,"—and it went on to the
end.
"The words running through my mind," did I say? Oh, was it not the Holy
Spirit Himself, in ineffable condescension and love, leading my mind by a
way that I knew not? The
words came again, as I awoke, morning after morning, till at last I felt I
could pray in my own words. I had no more awful gloom of mind; but I was
far yet from getting
back to Christ, and receiving Him as my Saviour.
I have said that, at the end of my six months' silence, I began to teach
Theism to sceptics in the Hall of Science. My subjects were,—"The Design
Argument substantiated
from the Sciences," and I occupied an hour each Sunday night, for many
weeks, with this theme, illustrating it from Natural History, (Man—the Mammalia,—the Birds,—the
Fishes, etc.,) from Chemistry, Geology, Light, etc. After my
hour's lecture, the discussion began; each speaker being allowed ten
minutes, and I ten minutes in reply, if necessary. The absurd wrangling
and ignorance of some
disputants were very wearisome, and the fierceness and intolerance of
others were still more distressing. I sometimes went home at eleven
o'clock at night from these
discussions, so completely worn down and enfevered that I thought I would
give up my task. But I no sooner got on my knees than I
felt I dared not. I was bound to go on, and atone for my errors, if it
were possible; and I should be a guilty coward to desert that championship
for the truth I had taken
upon myself from a sense of bounden duty.
I advanced to treat the Moral Government of God more exhaustively, my
subjects being "Man's Moral Nature," "Pain, Prey, and Physical
Suffering," "Moral Evil," "The Soul
and Future State," "Materialism and the Spiritual Nature of Man," "Evidence and Responsibility"—and, at last, I ventured on "Prayer a
Duty." In the very next lecture I
announced a series of discourses on the "Evidences of Christianity." I
felt much hesitation in doing this. My mind was not fully clear—my reason
and understanding were not
fully settled on the order of the "Evidences;" but my heart wanted Christ,
and I felt, if I did my work imperfectly, still I was bound to do it.
For months I placed the Christian Evidences [Ed.—see Cooper's later
The Bridge of History over the Gulf of Time] before my audiences in every
possible form—I mean the external evidence from history, miracles,
etc.,—and
then I advanced to doctrines, the Atonement, Faith, Repentance, etc. The
opposition became most bitter when I had advanced so far; and it seemed
that a considerable
number of sceptics entered into a new scheme: they made every effort to
dissuade people from coming to hear me, so that I often lectured to a
comparative few. But I
persevered, and defeated their scheme. At their demand I also took up
Paine's "Age of Reason," and in five lectures showed them its errors,
while they as stoutly
defended it. Next I took up Robert Taylor's "Diegesis," and dealt with it
in like manner.
At the beginning of September, 1857, I formed another newspaper
engagement. It was to furnish a series of articles—similar to those I had
written for Douglas Jerrold's
newspaper on the "Condition of the People"—to a weekly paper called
The People, the property of a well-known Christian philanthropist, John
Henderson, Esq., of Park. My
engagement lasted only nine months; and the paper itself did not continue
long, though it was said Mr. Henderson spent several thousands in trying
to establish it.
With the beginning of 1858, I began to receive very urgent requests from
old friends, in the country, that I would come out of London and talk to
them on my new subjects. So
I went and lectured at Sheffield, and York, and Norwich; and soon found I
should be compelled to go to other places—nay, the duty of giving up my
entire life and time to the
work of
lecturing on the "Evidences," and in every part of the kingdom, began to
dawn upon me. This conviction was deepened into a resolution by an act of
most gracious
Providence that I must describe.
I had engaged to deliver six lectures on the Evidences, in St. George's
Hall, Bradford Yorkshire; and was to be the guest, for the week, of my
beloved friend Dr. Jobson, who
was then stationed at Bradford, but had come over to London on a preaching
visit. On Saturday, the 8th of May, my friend called on me and
said,—
"I have to be at Brixton to-morrow; and I fear I shall be in danger of
being late on Monday morning. So be sure to get to the Euston Square
Station in good time yourself, and
take your place in a carriage, and beckon me as I come up, that we may
travel together."
So on Monday morning, the 10th May, 1858,—a day I trust I shall remember,
and shall thank God for His especial mercy as long as I live and the 10th
of May returns,—I got
early to the Euston Square Station and took my ticket. I opened a door in
the second carriage behind the engine and tender; and was about to step
into it, when a porter,
who was an utter stranger to me, took hold of my portmanteau, and said,
"Don't go in there, sir! go a little lower down."
I yielded to the man, but felt a little surprised at his motion. I had
just put my portmanteau under
the seat of the carriage, lower down, and was looking out for my friend
Dr. Jobson, when I saw him about to get into the very carriage I had left. I shouted to him and
beckoned him, and he came and got into the same carriage with me, but
expressed his surprise when I told him how the porter had particularly led
me to enter it.
It was a first-class carriage, and soon four persons, whom we easily
discovered to be barristers going to the Liverpool Assizes, joined us in
it. But before we started, a
barrister (who was killed between two and three hours after) came and
called one of our companions out—as it proved afterwards, to have his leg
broken. It was a short
express train, and we went on rapidly but steadily till we came within
about a mile of Nuneaton. There was now a bend in the line, and a bridge
over the bend, so that neither
engine-driver or guard could see any danger till they passed from under
the bridge.
A cow had had her calf taken from her, and, becoming unruly, got upon the
line and was driven off several times. But now she could not be driven
off. A man, who had been
trying to drive her off, stood in a field close to the railway line and
waved a red flag. The guard put on the drag, which was afterwards said to
be an error, for that the
express train unchecked would have crushed the cow to death and passed on
without the human passengers suffering any harm. And the cow was crushed
to death;
but
the shock and check put upon our motion broke the coupling chain whereby
the carriages were fastened to the engine and tender. The engine and
tender went on—but the
carriages rebounded back; and first one went off the line and rolled over
the ten feet of descent, then a second, a third, and a fourth. Next, the
coupling chain of ours, the fifth
carriage, was broken, and the whole carriage of three compartments was
removed from one line of rails to the other, as if supernatural beings had
lifted it up, and placed it down again!
Both the lines of rails were so much broken that for some hours the trains
that came up, either way, had to disgorge their passengers, reload, and
return the way they came.
Very soon there were hundreds of persons on the spot; they seemed to come
across the country almost flying, in gigs, on horseback, and on foot.
The glass was broken in our carriage, but not a hair of the head of any
person in it was injured. In the other carriages there was not a passenger
without injury of some kind,
and three were killed. The whole action had been so sudden, and seemed so
stupefying, that I did not feel all the awful sense of deliverance I ought
to have felt, till I observed
a circle of persons gathered in a field, and was told the dead were in
their midst. I went to gaze, and as I saw the three figures in their
clothes and boots, lying side by side, with a cloth covering their faces,
I said to myself,—
"I and my friend might have been two of these three; but Thou, Lord God,
hast preserved us! Oh, take my life which Thou hast graciously kept, and
let it be devoted to Thee. I
have again entered Thy service; let me never more leave it, but live only
to spread Thy truth!"
It was, indeed, a vow to consecrate my future life to God's service and
God's work; to have no more fervours or passions diverting me from it;
but to perform His work only.
I have kept my vow feebly; but, thank God, I have kept it! I told my dear
friend, before I left Bradford, that I should leave my employ at the Board
of Health, should return to
the pulpit and preach every Sunday, and should peregrinate the whole land
to lecture on the Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion.
At the end of May, resigning my situation at the Board of Health, and
bidding farewell to the Hall of Science, I left London, my dear wife
remaining behind. I did not return
home till the end of August, and then only for one week; I then went out
again, and did not return till January, 1859; and immediately went out
again, and did not return till
November, 1859. My dear wife felt it like widowhood to be thus deserted;
but she did not begin to travel with me till January, 1861. From that time
to the present she has
been often my winter companion, and has always been with me in summer. And
through deep love of the pursuit, as well as to preserve health, we have
taken advantage of our wide wanderings over England, Scotland, and Wales,
to gather the darling wild-flowers everywhere. My dear wife has preserved
a fine collection of
flowers; and I have kept a register of our gatherings that occupies
several volumes.
I have said that I vowed to have no more fervours or passions diverting me
from what I considered to be God's work. And if our study of Botany had
tended to divert me from
my great life-duty I would not have pursued it. I gave up the thought of
advancing in the knowledge of languages, when I entered on my present work; and except that I
make my Greek Testament, as much as possible, my daily companion, I have
seldom read a page in any other language than my own since that 10th of
May, 1858. And my
reading, even of English, has been very much restricted. Of course I read
every book I can get hold of that proclaims the new tendencies of
scepticism—its Darwinism, and
dream about "Evolution," and other dreams—for I strive to show the error
of these new tendencies; but I have now little time, indeed, for general
reading.
I was much beset by solicitations to join religious societies when I began
again to preach, which I did on the first Sunday in June, 1858, at
Sheffield. But
I could not easily make up my mind. I felt my old love for Methodism
return; but I could not bring my mind to return to the old body of
Methodists. I might have joined the
United Free Methodists, for
I had many good friends among them; but I knew it would lastingly grieve
my dear and faithful friend Dr. Jobson, and I could not be guilty of such
ingratitude towards him as to
grieve him.
If I could conscientiously have connected myself with the Established
Church, I should at once have accepted the kind and generous offer of a
venerable clergyman—Dr.
Hook, now Dean of Chichester, but at that time Vicar of Leeds. I had been
describing to him the real good which had been done in Sheffield by my
friend Dr. Sale, the vicar,
through the agency of a band of Scripture-readers—some of them Methodist
local preachers—which Dr. Sale had organised.
"Will you come and live at Leeds?" said Dr. Hook to me; "will you come and
select me just such a band of Scripture-readers, and be yourself their
captain? I will
make it worth your acceptance if you will fill such a post. And I also
promise you that you shall be free to go out, often, on the great errand
that you believe to be your duty.
Do not say 'No,'—consider of it."
The nobleness of the work, and the noble tray in which the offer was made,
moved me much; but I felt compelled to decide against it.
One day a few sensible questions were put to me, at a tea-table in
Barnsley, by the very intelligent wife of a Baptist minister. I could not
answer them; and reflection soon
made me a Baptist in conviction, and on Whit Sunday, 1859, my old and dear
friend Joseph
Foulkes Winks immersed me in baptism in Friar Lane Chapel, Leicester. Dr.
Price, the well-known Baptist minister of Aberdare, was present at the
performance of the rite,
and assisted in the celebration of the Lord's Supper in the evening. I
forthwith joined the General Baptists; not with the intent to confine
myself to preaching and lecturing in
the chapels of any one particular body of Evangelical Christians, or of
being directed by any, as to how, and when, and where I should do my work
of duty; but to make the
full, outward sign which I think every true Christian man is bound to
make, that he belongs to Christ's Church.
One esteemed Christian friend thought a committee had better be formed to
direct my motions, and secure me support, when I commenced my present
itinerant work in
1858; but I begged of him to give up the thought. I felt it was far
better for me to have nothing to do with committees, but to go forth with
God only as my director, and with
the belief that I was simply performing the duty to which. He had summoned
me. I could not doubt that He would provide for me.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
RENEWED PREACHER-LIFE;
AND LIFE AS A LECTURER ON RELIGIOUS EVIDENCE.
1858—1866.
FROM June, 1858, to the month of November, 1866, I kept on, without
stoppage, at my new work, preaching usually thrice on Sundays, and
lecturing on the Evidences of
Natural and Revealed Religion, usually every night of the week. In
addition to the lectures I delivered in 1858 at Sheffield, Norwich, York,
Bradford, Leeds, Sunderland,
North and South Shields, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Hexham, Stockton-on-Tees, the
Hartlepools, Nottingham, the Staffordshire Potteries, Barnsley, Halifax,
Keighley, Darlington,
Leicester, Bilston, Cardiff, Devonport, and Exeter, I entered Cornwall for
the first time, and preached and lectured at Falmouth, Penryn, Penzance,
Redruth, and Truro.
During the year 1858, I also held public discussions with
George Jacob
Holyoake: four nights at Norwich, five nights at York, and one at
Nottingham. My friend was gentle
and temperate, conscientious and straightforward. I could not convince
him, and he could not convince me; nor did the discussions
disturb our friendship and mutual regard. I had discussions in after-years
with big and little champions of Atheism; but their proceedings seemed to
me crooked and
unprincipled, and I shall therefore pass them by without recording even
their names. My clear conviction is, that public discussions on the
Evidences of Christianity never do
any good, but often do great harm. The sceptical champion, and his friends
too, generally come up to the encounter to win, by fair means or foul:
they are in too great a heat
to hear the truth; it cannot get any fair entrance into their minds. On
the other hand, young fresh minds, unused to these inquiries, are often
caught by the new and
startling words they hear, and become doubters; perhaps, eventually,
confirmed unbelievers.
For the first few years, I was also in the habit, at the end of almost
every lecture, of inviting sceptical hearers, if any were present, to ask
questions, or make observations in
the way of objection, if they had any. But I gave up this habit, as well
as the practice of public discussion; for I found that the persons who
rose to ask questions were often
so much disposed to turn the meeting into a scene of disturbance and bad
feeling, that they destroyed the good I had been endeavouring to effect.
One week of excitement, at the end of January, 1859, often comes to my
memory. I spent it at Northampton, where I had lectured in the old
Chartist times; and where the
swarms of shoemakers were
known to be sceptical, and were eager for the fray. I preached there on
the Sunday, and they came in crowds far too great for the chapel to hold
them. I lectured on the six
nights following, and they rose up and disputed; but, with very slight
exceptions, they manifested so much good-humour and regard for their old
democratic champion, that I
felt something like regret because I could not stay longer among them. In
this year, 1859, I revisited Manchester, Birmingham, and Coventry; was
largely employed in
Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Staffordshire; and lectured and preached in
various town of Essex, Norfolk, Huntingdon, Cambridge, Lincoln, Derby,
Cheshire, Durham, and
Northumberland.
I ventured into Scotland in 1860, as a preacher and lecturer on the
"Evidences;" and was so well received by ministers and people at
Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen,
Dundee, Paisley, Stirling, and many smaller towns, that I very heartily
promised to renew my visit. In this year, 1860, I revisited Bristol,
Cheltenham, Leamington, Worcester,
Chatham, Sheerness, Macclesfield, and Carlisle,—preached and lectured for
the first time at Kendal,—was extensively employed again in Lancashire,
Yorkshire, and
Devonshire,—and performed my work of duty in numerous towns of
Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, and Norfolk.
In the earlier part of the year 1861, I revisited Northampton and Bristol,
and had a week of lecturing in Liverpool, and afterwards revisited towns, and performed my work in
towns I had not before visited, in the counties of Warwick, Worcester,
Bedford, Stafford, Derby,
Leicester, Nottingham, Lancaster, York, Durham, and Northumberland. In the
middle of August, 1861, I again entered Scotland, and remained in it till
the 7th of January,
1863—a period of one year and nearly five months. During this period, I
preached and lectured in nearly every town in Scotland which has a
population of over two or three
thousand. I was twice through the whole length of the country, from the
Border to Inverness; and revisited some of the principal towns several
times over. Almost
everywhere, ministers of every denomination received me with welcome, and
many with great kindness, while the people came readily to hear, and
listened with eagerness.
The hearty welcome I received rendered me willing to prolong my stay among
the grandeur of its mountains, the music of its rivers, and the
association of its great names;
and I am glad that the time is near when, if spared by the providence of
God, I am to return to dear auld Scotland.
Re-entering dear old England in January, 1863, I lectured during that
year at Lancaster, Preston, Manchester, arid Shrewsbury; revisited some
towns in Worcestershire and
Staffordshire; and was afterwards busily employed in Durham,
Northumberland, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Bedfordshire,
and Hertfordshire. The months of November and December, 1863, together
with January and parts of February and March, 1864, I devoted to preaching
and lecturing in
London.
In the year 1864, I lectured and preached in several parts of Kent,
Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire,
Leicestershire, and Staffordshire, and again
devoted a week to the important town of Birmingham. July and half of
August were devoted to the principal towns of South Wales. I saw beautiful Tintern on leaving the
principality, and after lecturing at Gloucester and ancient Tewkesbury,
made my way across the kingdom, and spent September in Essex and Suffolk.
The months of
October, November, and December, 1864, I devoted entirely to London, with
the exception of one week, which I spent most delightfully in preaching,
lecturing, and seeing the
sights in classic Oxford.
The months of January, February, and March, 1865, were devoted almost
entirely to London; and during these months I delivered a series of eight
Lectures on the Evidences
of Christianity to the students of Mr. Spurgeon's College. I never enjoyed
my work more in my life; and I believe the enjoyment of the students was
as great as my own. I wish
I could more often be employed in a similar way. Telling the "Evidences"
to a crowd of young men who will have to preach Christ to thousands, seems
like doing several
years' work in an hour.
Quitting London in April, I went on to Brighton, and preached and lectured
in the chapel of my beloved friend Paxton Hood. The remainder of this year
was spent, very
delightfully, in itinerating through all the beautiful south of England,
and in preaching and lecturing in nearly all the towns of any importance
in Kent, Sussex, Hampshire and
the Isle of Wight, Dorsetshire, Devonshire, and Cornwall.
I commenced the year 1866 in the charming region of Devonshire; and
afterwards preached and lectured in Salisbury and many of the Wiltshire
towns; revisited Portsmouth,
Southampton, and the Isle of Wight, and had a week's work in ancient
Winchester; spent many weeks in making a thorough working tour through the
pleasant county of
Somerset, seeing ancient Glastonbury, Wells, and the Cheddar rocks; went
over to the Channel Islands, and had eighteen days' preaching and
lecturing in Jersey and
Guernsey; spent one week at Bath, another at Windsor, and ten days at
Woolwich, and then went on into Kent, with the intent to finish my year's
work in that county—though I had had symptoms of illness, now and then,
for several weeks.
At last, I broke down seriously. And, perhaps, none will wonder that I
broke down so soon, but rather that I did not break down sooner, when it
is considered that, within
these eight years and a half, I had preached 1,169 times and lectured
2,204
times—in other words, I had delivered 3,373 discourses; had visited
every county of England, and many counties of Scotland and Wales, and also
the Channel Islands, for
the fulfilment of what I felt to be my work of duty; had preached or
lectured in every considerable town in Great Britain, and in some of them
many times; had travelled
unreckonable hundreds—I may say, thousands—of miles; and had kept up a
voluminous correspondence with an ever increasing number of friends and
acquaintances.
In November, 1866, my dear wife, who travelled with me constantly for
nearly six years, feeling that she could no longer sustain exposure to the
weather in winter, left me to
take refuge with her sister in Sheffield—for we had entirely broken up
our home in 1861, and have never had one since. So when I fell seriously
ill at Ramsgate, at the end of
the month just mentioned, I was alone. Nor could I remove till Christmas,
when I crept on to the house of an old favourite scholar at Croydon; but
could not join my wife at
Sheffield till February, 1867.
I made several attempts to preach, but it was only to expose myself to
renewed suffering; and it was seven months from the time of my falling ill
at Ramsgate before I could
get back to my work again. The brain would not let me sleep, and the heart
threatened to stop; and frequently, for hours together, I expected life
would cease the next
moment. Providentially, I
had the kind and gratuitous help of an excellent physician, Mr. Walford of
Ramsgate, when I had the first seizure, or I might never have recovered at
all. The nervous horrors of
my nights were more torturous than any mere bodily pain I ever knew in my
life. The ever-recurring thought was, "I shall go mad—I must go mad
sooner or later—for I can get
no sleep!" How glad I was always to see the light of the morning, and how
often I dreaded the act of lying down in bed at night!
The frightful nervous horrors of those months have served to warn me
against all attempts to work at more than human speed. I have never dared
to preach more than twice
on Sundays,—and have limited myself to three or four lectures in each
week, since my recovery. And now I am on the way to sixty-seven years of
age, I must never think of
trying to return to the old passionate speed of working. But I hope to
keep in harness to the end; and never give up my Work of Duty, save with
my life.
Let me most gratefully record the fact, that, all unexpectedly to myself,
my friends made my illness the occasion for raising me help for life, in
the shape of a little annuity. My
Right Hon. friend first suggested the proposition; my beloved friend Dr.
Jobson assented to it; and he and Mr. James Harvey of London,—so well
known, among Baptists, for
his ready and munificent help in every scheme for good,—forthwith met
Samuel Morley, M.P., a name identified with Christian philanthropy, and laid their purpose before him,
when he at once put down his influential name for £100. My Right Hon.
friend, and my old friend Charles
Seely, M.P., with Mr, James Harvey, followed, each with £50, and my dear
friend, Dr. Jobson, with £20, and then the proposition was placed before
the public. Among the
principal contributors were Mr. Bass, M.P, for Derby, Mr. Colman, now M.P.
for Norwich, Mr. Mitchell, Provost of Montrose, my kind and good friends,
Mr. Crosby of
Stockton-on-Tees, and Mr. Abram Bass of Burton-on-Trent; and, above all,
let me not forget my illustrious friend Thomas Carlyle, who sent his £10.
Mr. Harvey, with a kindness I know not how to describe, took upon himself
all the drudgery of receiving subscriptions; and, eventually, £1,300 was
raised, and an annuity of
£100 was purchased at the National Debt Office, for myself and my dear
wife, and for the survivor, whichever it may be. Of course, they deduct
Income Tax half-yearly, when I
receive my payment; but, even with that deduction, which an old Radical
does not relish very sweetly, I feel grateful for what kind and numerous
friends have thus secured for
me for the term of my own life, and also for my dear wife, should she be
the survivor.
CHAPTER XXXV.
MY LIFE AND WORK FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS:
CONCLUSION.
1867—1872.
I RECOMMENCED my work with June, 1867, and have continued to perform
it,—although in May, 1868, I was reported to be dead—dead and
buried!—and columns of
somewhat spurious biography were published in the Midland newspapers. The
death, at Manchester, of Robert Cooper, the Atheist lecturer, gave rise to
this imagination, no
doubt. During the year 1867, I lectured and preached in various towns of
Bucks, Beds, and Berks; Hants, Surrey, Leicestershire, Derbyshire,
Lincolnshire, Yorkshire, and
Nottinghamshire. The pleasantest visit of the year was to delightful
Stratford-on-Avon-a town in which I should certainly go to reside for
life, if I were a man of fortune, and
had "nothing to do." In 1868, I performed my work again in towns where I
preached and lectured in 1867, and also visited towns in Cheshire,
Staffordshire,
Lancashire, Oxfordshire, Herefordshire, Shropshire, and Worcester: I also
spoke in Newtown and Wrexham (North Wales) for the first time.
The first four months of 1869 I devoted entirely to Lancashire—lecturing
and preaching in Oldham, Heywood, Staleybridge, Rochdale, Manchester,
Bolton, Liverpool, Wigan,
Chorley, Lancaster, Preston, Blackburn, Clitheroe, Over Darwen, Padiham,
Accrington, and Burnley. When I passed, very hastily, through Lancashire
in 1863, the "Cotton
Famine" was raging. I thought I would return now prosperity had returned,
and see what improvement the people had made. I found the towns vieing
with each
other in the erection of new town-halls, and in their superior style of
erecting houses of business; and I also found working men had bettered
their physical condition
considerably. But I confess, with pain, that I saw they had gone back,
intellectually and morally.
After revisiting several Yorkshire towns, I made my way, in July, to the
north-western sea-coast corner of England, and preached and lectured, for
the first time, in
Whitehaven, Workington, Maryport, and Ulverstone. I spent a few rapturous
days at sweet Keswick and in the neighbourhood, and then went on to work
again at Kendal; and
took my way into other parts of Lancashire—determined to re-examine my
painful problem. So I preached and lectured at Blackpool, Haslingden,
Ramsbottom, Bacup, Bury,
Farnworth, Hindley, and Warrington; and, passing into Cheshire, talked at
Crewe, Hyde, and Stockport, and thus finished the year.
With 1870 1 returned to my inquiry, and devoted January, February, March,
and April again to Lancashire—renewing my work chiefly in the towns I had
visited a year before,
and entering a few new places. My sorrowful impressions were confirmed. In
our old Chartist time, it is true, Lancashire working men were in rags by
thousands; and many
of them often lacked food. But their intelligence was demonstrated
wherever you went. You would see them in groups discussing the great
doctrine of political justice—that
every grown-up, sane man ought to have a vote in the election of the men
who were to make the laws by which he was to be governed; or they were in
earnest dispute
respecting the teachings of Socialism. Now, you will see no such groups in
Lancashire. But you will hear well-dressed working men talking, as they
walk with their hands in
their pockets, of "Co-ops" (Co-operative Stores), and their shares in
them, or in building societies. And you will see others, like idiots,
leading small greyhound dogs,
covered with cloth, in a string! They are about to race, and they are
betting money as they go! And yonder comes another clamorous dozen of
men, cursing and swearing
and betting upon a few pigeons they are about to let fly! As for their
betting on horses—like their masters!—it is a perfect madness.
Except in Manchester and Liverpool—where, of course, intelligence is to
be found, if it be found anywhere in England,—I gathered no large
audiences in Lancashire.
Working men had ceased to think, and
wanted to hear no thoughtful talk; at least, it was so with the greater
number of them. To one who has striven hard, the greater part of his life,
to instruct and elevate them,
and who has suffered and borne imprisonment for them, all this was more
painful than I care to tell.
From Lancashire I passed into Yorkshire, revisiting some old scenes, and
then into Westmoreland, and so on to the new rising port of
Barrow-in-Furness, where they are
shipping the hœmatite iron. Again to Whitehaven and the sea-coast towns
of Cumberland, and Carlisle; and then crossed the country, and began to
lecture and preach
among the Northumberland colliers. They heard me eagerly. I always like
to talk to the poor colliers; and wish they were better cared for. After
renewing my work in
Newcastle, Sunderland, and other large towns, I turned to the eastern
sea-coast, and lectured and preached at Whitby, Pickering, Scarborough,
Bridlington, Driffield, and
Beverley, and so ended the year.
The last year (1871) I commenced with the East Riding of Yorkshire, and
then passed into the West. With the exception of one fortnight devoted to
Manchester, I worked in
the West Riding to the end of April, and then passed into the North
Riding. The whole month of June I passed in romantic Westmoreland; and
commenced this
autobiography. In July, after revisiting Barrow-in-Furness, I re-entered
Yorkshire, and in August resumed my work in the busy
counties of Durham and Northumberland, once more among the poor colliers. In November I re-entered the West Riding, and remained in it till near the
close of the year; and
I am looking over the last proofs and revises from the printer of this
autobiography, at Leeds, the capital of the West Riding, in the month of
February, 1872.
"And now you have chronicled your labours so fully," some reader may say,
"tell us whether you have reason to think that they have been of any value
to the audiences you
have addressed." I am not in the habit of publishing the results of my
labour. I have no taste for it. God knows best, and most unerringly, what
degree of good I may have
effected. I would rather tell into the ear of some good Christian man how
scores have come to me, or written to me, during these last dozen years
and more, and told me
how they have been recovered from sceptical wandering, by hearing my
lectures, and have found their way to Christ as their personal Saviour. If
I were to take upon me to
pronounce in what direction I judge that I have been the most instrumental
of good, I should say it has been in the checking of incipient scepticism
in the minds of young
men, members of religious families, and regular attendants on public
worship. I invite the hearing of such young men wherever I go; and direct
my teaching most earnestly to
them. If such young men can be preserved from sceptical error, and be
persuaded to
become active members of Christian churches, it will be productive of
great blessings to the next generation.
I do not, however, as I have already said, labour as intensely as I did at
first. I cannot do it; and, finding my force decay, I have yielded to the
desire so often expressed by
hearers of my lectures, and have begun to write them down, and publish
them. If the little volume brought out for me, by the publishers of the
present volume, a short
time ago—entitled "The Bridge of History over the Gulf of Time,"
embodying in a popular form the Historical Evidence for the Truth of
Christianity—be successful, I hope to have
life and strength remaining to issue my other discourses on the Evidences
in a printed form.
Ten years ago, I hoped to produce a large volume instead of a small one,
on the Historical Evidences: I meant to have the picture of a bridge for
the frontispiece, and to fill the
arches with inscriptions of contemporary names; and I purposed to have
the volume stored with engravings of every kind that would illustrate the
subject,—the chair of
Venerable Bede, and the coffin of St. Cuthbert, and the coins of
Constantine, and the arch of Titus, with the figure of the golden
candlestick, etc. etc. I imagined I might get a
month, now and then, to sit in the British Museum Library, and work at
such a book; but I must leave it now to be accomplished by some other
humble and earnest worker
whom God may raise up.
It is the very volume on the Historical Evidences that is wanted; but it
could not be done in a hurry. It should form a cyclopædia of Christian
literature and history; and
would take one man's whole strength—and a strong man's, too—to
accomplish it worthily.
One feat I hope to be able to accomplish, though I cannot accomplish this. I promised myself, when my "Purgatory of Suicides" was issued twenty-six
years ago, that I
would write another poem, of about the same length, and in the same
stanza, to be entitled
"The Paradise of Martyrs." I have written three books of it, and hope, if
I have health and strength, to get it finished.
In the present year, 1872, I have, as I said, to revisit Scotland, in
which I spent the whole year 1862. But I keep in mind that our purposes
are not always accordant with the
purposes of our Maker, even when they are founded on convictions of duty. So I do not make myself sure that what I purpose will be fulfilled. I only
ask that if God should
call me from earth ere these purposes are fulfilled, I may be with Him in
heaven, for Christ's sake!
I have no doubt, while I write this, that I shall be with my Saviour in
heaven. I never harbour the fear, for a moment, that I shall not be with
Him. I love Christ. I never lost my
love for His moral beauty, and never ceased to worship that, even when
Straussian errors had the strongest possession of me.
But my love for Christ now springs from other grounds. I have accepted Him
as my Saviour; and through faith in Him and His atonement for sin, and in
the everlasting love of
the Father, I feel God has accepted me. Living or dying, I am His; and
trust to have this confidence until He shall call me home.
My work is, indeed, a happy work. Sunday is now
a day of heaven to me. I feel that to preach "the unsearchable riches of
Christ" is the most exalted and ennobling work in which a human creature
can be engaged.
And believing that I am performing the work of duty, that I am right, my
employment of lecturing on the Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion,
from week to week, fills
me with the consoling reflection that my life is not being spent in vain,
much less spent in evil. I often regret that scores of men, who might
easily fit themselves for this work,
are not employing themselves in maintaining and defending the evidences
for the truth of Christianity. I cannot help thinking that the Christian
world will awake to the
necessity of sending out champions for the truth, ere long. If the next
generation are to be saved from the deluge of unbelief, this championship
should be entered
upon. I wish one hundred intelligent, studious, pious, and courageous
young Christian men would resolve to enter upon it. May God, in His
wisdom, select the
instruments, and call them to their work, for the glory of His Holy Name!
If the summons to such work have already reached the heart and conscience
of some whose eyes may light on these pages, one word in their ear. Do not
enter upon your
work as a mere genteel profession. Do not stipulate for so many guineas
fee before you open your choice lips, and pour out your precious treasures
of instruction. Let
others live that kind of sugar-candied life that choose it. Doubtless they
will have their reward.
But go you forth as the servant of your Divine Master, asking nothing but
alms in your poverty. Places for the delivery of your discourses you will
find, after a time, without
great difficulty, if people feel you are in earnest. Let all come in to
hear you, free. Sell no tickets, take no monies for admission, have no
practices that may leave a
hair-breadth's room for Christ's enemies to charge you with selfishness. Have a collection at the end of your discourse, on the ground that you
cannot live on the air,
and pay expenses of lodging, and travelling, and printing, from an empty
pocket. Make this simple appeal to your countrymen, and they will not fail
to respond to it,
generally.
You must not expect to "make money," and have thousands in the bank. But
you cannot starve, if you have industry, and brains, and honesty of
purpose. As to saving,
unless you have children to come after you, you had better not be bothered
with the thought of it. Saving money seems to make many people
miserable. Don't be troubled with it. You had better, if you have any
money to spare, give it away to relieve the wretched; they abound on every
hand. Give yourself up to your
work, and live for that only. Go and sell all you have and follow your
Master, and you shall have treasure in heaven.
POSTSCRIPT: April, 1873.—I take the opportunity afforded by the issue of
the "People's Edition" of this book, to say that I did revisit Scotland
last year; and was received
both by preachers and people, with unspeakable kindness. Since the present
year commenced, I have been at my preaching and lecturing work in the West
Riding, in the
Staffordshire Potteries, and in the "Black Country." In literature I
have been so far active that, last September, my publishers issued my
"Plain Pulpit Talk," a volume
containing seven of the sermons that I have often preached; and while I
write this Postscript, they are publishing the first half of my
long-purposed poem, "The Paradise of
Martyrs."
T. C.
THE END. |