On this page
- Departments (1)
-
Text (6)
-
Dbcbmbeb 11, 1852.] THE LEA D E R. 1189
-
KittxtAutt
-
rvitics are not the legislators, but the...
-
There has been not a little outcry raise...
-
In another part of our paper will he fou...
-
A new volume by Comte hus just appeared....
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Dbcbmbeb 11, 1852.] The Lea D E R. 1189
Dbcbmbeb 11 , 1852 . ] THE LEA D E R . 1189
Kittxtautt
KittxtAutt
Rvitics Are Not The Legislators, But The...
rvitics are not the legislators , but the judges and police of literature . They do not ipake laws—they interpret and try to enforce them . — Edinburgh Review .
There Has Been Not A Little Outcry Raise...
There has been not a little outcry raised against the concluding incident of the last number of Bleak House j the death of Krook by Spontaneous C ombustion is certainly not an agreeable incident , but it has a graver fault than that of " shocking" people with " sensitive nerves ; " it is a fault in Art , and a fault in Literature , overstepping the limits of Fiction , and giving currency to a vulgar error . We must be permitted a passing remark on both these faults . It is allowable to introduce the Supernatural in Art , but not the Improbable ; the reason is ,. that in the one case , Imagination and our mysterious sympathy with the Unknown are appealed to , without pretence of claiming more than imaginative credence ; in the other case , the Understanding is called upon to ratify as a truth what it rejects as falsehood . When Shakspeare introduces the Supernatural , it is enough for us that in those remote ages people believed in the existence of Ghosts and Fairies ; but when Balzac and Dumas introduce Clairvoyance as a part of their machinery , and make the events depend thereon , doing so as if Clairvoyance were an undoubted element in our human life , then the rebellious Understanding rejects as impertinent what it recognises as false . Dickens , therefore , in employing Spontaneous Combustion as a part of his machinery , has committed this fault of raising the incredulity of his readers ; because even supposing Clairvoyance and Spontaneous Combustion to be scientific truths , and , not the errors of imperfect science , still the simple fact that they belong to the extremely questionable opinions held by a very small minority , is enough to render their introduction into Fiction a mistake . Thev are questions to be argued , not to be treated as ascertained truths . In the second place , we assure Mr . Dickens that Spontaneous Combustion is not only a scientific error , which we doubt if he can find one organic chemist of any authority to countenance now , but is absolutely impossible , according to all known laws of combustion , and to the constitution of the human body . As a novelist he is not to be called to the bar of science ; he has doubtless picked up the idea among the curiosities of his reading from some credulous adherent to the old hypothesis , and has accepted it as not improbable . This is not the place to enter minutely into such a question , but we will endeavour to state a few fundamental objections in language sufficiently popular for general comprehension . The hypothesis is , that ardent drinkers so steep the tissues of their bodies in alcohol , or induce so morbid a constitution , that a highly combustible gas is formed within their bodies , which either spontaneously , or by the accidental approach of a flame , kindles , and burns away the whole body , as a candle burns away when once lighted . Now , if you consider this simple fact , that in the human body three-fourths of it are water , and that even gunpowder will not ignite if damp , you will understand one reason why the body is not easily combustible . You may char it as you may char damp wood , but you cannot produce flame from it as long as it retains its fluids . Suppose the body soaked in alcohol , and the alcohol to remain in the tissues as alcohol , even that will not make the tissues burn . This Christmas you will / at snapdragon , see the proof ; the raisins will be soaked in alcohol , the alcohol will burn , but not the raisins . It has been said , indeed , that in certain morbid conditions of the tissues , there is a gas formed which will ignite on contact with the air ; this gas , phosphurctted hydrogen , is unfortunately a gas that never has been detected in any living tissue , that could not exist there , and even if it could , would only consume itself , and not the incombustible moist tissues ; for to burn the body you must first completely dry it , and when you have dried it , it ; is no longer u living body . With inoistened fingers we snuff candles unhurt ; with moistened hands Houtiony tossed about molten iron as if it had been snow . Unless , therefore , it is maintained that the effect of continued drinking is altogether to change the conditions of vitality , to remove the liquids from the body , and substitute alcohol in their place , Spontaneous Combustion is an impossibility ; the body will not burn cx-< ' * 'pt by the continued application of intense heat furnished externally ; and cannot be made to flame . In one sense , Spontaneous Combustion is the incessant act of Life i <* elf ; the tissues are culled into activity through constant oxidation ; and Man is truly said to he ashes . H » t Spontaneous Combustion , as the denouement of the dramn . with blue ( ire from the side scenes , is only ailinissibK ) as a metaphor . Captain Mauiiyat , it maybe remembered , employed the same equivocal incident in Jacob Fuitli / uL One phrase deserves immortality for its <\ yniois . it ran somewhat thus : — " There was a putt" of smoke up the chimney , and that was all I huw of my mother . "
In Another Part Of Our Paper Will He Fou...
In another part of our paper will he found a report ; of u proceeding in the Insolvent Court , in vvhicli Mr . Chaumcs Piiim . m-h , not content with Il . o extremel y unenviable notoriety ho has already earned for himself , was "nwisii enough , us well us ungenerous cuou ^ li , to refuse to heur Mr . Moi a'oakk , hemuse Mr . IIoi . voakk does not consider the Hihle us eon-< mni ,, hia confession of faith , though he is willing to coiwulor the act ot
taking the oath as binding on his conscience . A former Commissioner , following the precedent established by Lord Brougham , had the wisdom to allow Mr . Holyoake the same exemption which he would allow to a Quaker , who , from religious scruples , would refuse to take the oath , and which Lord Brougham did allow to the Chinese . It is from religious scruples that Mr . Holyoake refuses . The Bible is not his Confession of Faith , and it would be hypocrisy in him to take oath upon it . The Commissioner appreciated . this , and allowed the oath to be taken in the only effective way it could be taken . Mr . Charles Phillips , with characteristic coarseness , refused .
To the public , the question involved in this refusal is a very important one . Are we , or are we ^ not , outlaws , if we hold religious opinions differing from those of the Established Church ? That is the plain question . The answer leads to terrible results . Is the Catholic , or the Dissenter , or the Jew , or the Spiritualist , or the Pantheist , or the Atheist , as such , a member of the social body , a citizen , or an outlaw ? Not to complicate this question , we will separate from it those members of tolerated religions , and include only the Spiritualist , the Pantheist , and the Atheist—and ask , are they citizens or outlaws ? If society says , " we will have no liberty of opinion ; we will admit into our state no man who does not believe the creed we have recognised as the state . creed ; all dissidents are outlaws : "
then a direct understanding will easily be arrived at . We will have a fight for Liberty of Thought , and if vanquished , seek some other home , as our Pilgrim Fathers did before us . If , on the contrary , Society says that Liberty of Opinion is granted , and that we are citizens in spite of our heterodoxy , then we say that the refusal to take our oaths in a court of Law is a direct violation of our citizenship . For observe : the Atheist is called upon to pay his taxes for the support of the " sacred institutions " of society ; he helps to support the Church which he disowns , and the Law which disowns him ; he helps to pay for the Army and Navy , the Ambassadors and Red Tapists , the Police and the Prisons , and the Poor Houses ; he is drawn for the Militia ; he is called upon in every way a
citizen can be called upon to support and defend that society of which he is a member . In return , Society undertakes to protect his life an'd property '; it takes justice out of his own hands , that it may more peaceably and equitably administer it for him . Its Courts of Law are for that purpose . Can , therefore , Society in the one case claim the help of the Atheist as-a citizen , and in another refuse him the very return for which he gave that help ? When the State pockets Mr . Holyoake ' s money , its conscience is not troubled by the fact of his being an Atheist ; but when he claims that protection for which he paid the money , then the sensitive conscience rises in alarm , and refuses ! To the tax-gatherer he is a citizen ; to Commissioner Phillips he is an outlaw ! Say at once the Atheist is an
outlaw , and shall be hunted down like a dog ; that we can understand ; but that you dare not say ! A man of the known piety and virtue of Professor Newman would have his oath refused , because he does not accept the Bible as the truth , and his evidence would not he taken ; while the evidence of the vilest scoundrel from the lock-up house would be accepted Passing from the general to the personal aspect of this question , let us note how strangely the objection comes from Mr . Charles Phillips , whose name will be remembered , as Jong as it is remembered , in connexion with Courvoisier ! Mr . IIolyoakk is a man of unsullied purity , of the most
distinguished sincerity in thought and speech . We differ very widely from him on some moral and religious points , but no difference can prevent our emphatic testimony to his integrity . There is no man ' s word we would sooner take than his . Mr . Charles Phillips probably knows nothing of this ; but Mr . Charles Phillips- —the author of Celasthm and St . Aaberl—the seorner of bigots and the panegyrist of Paine—the defender of Couhvolsier— standing as the representative of indignant orthodoxy , refusing to Mr . Holyoake his rights of citizenship , presents a spectacle a Mephistopheles would gloat over . Mr . Charles Phillips will say , perhaps , that he whs young when he wrote Cdcatine and St . Aubvrt ; hut this " error of his youth" might have taught him , at least , to credit the sincerity of disbelief , and the possibility of mi unbeliever not being an unworthy eiti / en ' When Mr . Holyoake defined his creed of Secularism as that of
one " who gives precedence to the duties of this life over considerations which pertain to another world , " Mr . Pmilliph exclaimed , " O ! you mean that you consider your duties to man superior to your duties to God . " Now , what . God does Mr . Phillips specially refer to ? The God of 1 * aine , the God of Mr . Holyoaki :, or the God to whom tin ; Jury were to be responsible if they found Coijrvoisier guilty of the crime which Mr . PniLLirte knew him to be guilty of ?
A New Volume By Comte Hus Just Appeared....
A new volume by Comte hus just appeared . It is called , ( atcclusme Positiviste , on sommuire Exposition do la livliy ' um Unin << rsclle , nnd contains , in the form of dialogues between a Priest and a Woman , a popular exposition of his religious views . In this , as in all his later writings we sec the deep and ineffaceable influence of one woman upon Iuh life « uh 1 syntein ; to her In ; owes , as he confesHCH , the development which enabled him to " found the universal Religion on sound Philosophy , after having elaborated the latter from Science , " or ( fix lie puts it , in language which will raise a smile ) to continue the career of Ahi . stotlic l > y that of Saint Paul . ] t will he strange if he docs not ; succeed in engaging the sympathies of women , who are the best propagandists ; for not only will they appreciate his lofty , and yot ju * t estimation of thoir nox , and the part it plays in life -,
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Dec. 11, 1852, page 17, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_11121852/page/17/
-