On this page
-
Text (4)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
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.
Untitled Article
on the question , " Ought the Crystal Palace to be open on Sunday or not ? " These two meetings , though alike in appearance , were very different in character , and in their results . The first meeting , on Wednesday , the 16 th , was an attempt to palm a falsehood on the public . Ostensibly it was a public meeting of the young men of London ; in reality it was a meeting of the Young men ' s Christian associations . Admission could only be procured by ticket . A packed meeting , prejudiced chairman , speakers all on one side , was sure to produce the result intended . Their resolutions were carried , the chairman not even putting the second amendment to the meeting .
The meeting held on Wednesday , the 23 rd , was a very different affair . It was public . No tickets were required to gain admission . After the first ; resolution had been put and seconded , the chairman intimated that discussion was desirable , and called upon any one so desirous to move an amendment . This was done ; the meeting listening , amid considerable provocation , for a considerable time to the two gentlemen who addressed it . The resolution was carried by an immense majority . This course seems to me the just course , the bold course , and the honest course . The question was fairly tried , the opposition disposed of , and the meeting of the previous Wednesday completely sponged out .
The objections urged against the opening of the Crystal Palace on Sunday are of two kinds—one an objection on the ground of principle ; the other on the ground of expediency . An objector on the ground of principle must be consistent , carry his principle thoroughly out , for if it can be shown that on the grounds of expediency he permits his principle to be infringed in any direction , I submit that he is put out of court , and that he must give up his opposition on the ground of pr inciple . We are told that to open the Crystal Palace on Sunday is to break the command of God . They shout , Keep the commandment , but they forget to quote it . One reverend doctor says , it means a seventh of man ' s time consecrated to the service of God . If
this loose and unauthorized interpretation of the plain Bible text is to be permitted , what will become of the rest of the commandments ? What if some gentlemen , ready to live easy and make free , were to extend " Thou shalt not steal , " into Except when thou standest in need ? The fourth commandment is plain to those who have eyes to see— " The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ; in it thou shalt not do any work , thou nor thy son , nor thy daughter , thy manservant , nor thy maid-servant , nor thy cattle , nor the stranger that is within thy gate . " Can there be any doubt as to the meaning of this language ? The men
of principle opposed to the opening of the Crystal Palace are surely prepared to endorse the fourth commandment as it stands in their Bible . Are they , or are they not ? If they are , let them be consistent , and inaugurate a crusade against nineteenth-century innovations on the Sabbath day , or admit they have made a mistake , and withdraw their opposition on the ground of principle . There is a large and varied field for their exertions : railroads , steamboats , omnibuses , cabs , teagardens , public-houses , pleasure vans , bishops' carriages , cockney horaeinen , fishing boats , cattle drivers , pew openers , news vendors , soldiers on guard , policemen on
duty , and thieves in waiting . Let them shut off the gas in their churches , put down the lamp lights in the streets , and trust in Providence ; then their earnestness and consistency will not bo doubted . If they are not prepared to do this they are completely out of court , and not all the argument in the world will suffice to bring them back again . Will they dispute the interpretation of the fourth commandment ? Or will bishops and gentleman bo consistent and Rive up the assistance of their incntalu on Sunday ? I refer those who aro not clear about the fourth commandment to Exodus , chap . xxxi . v . 15 , " Six days may
work bo done ; but on the seventh is the Sabbath of rest , holy to the Lord ; whosoever clooth any work on the Hubbath day he shall surely be put to dhatit . " Will the glib talkers about principle and the word of tho Lord God endorse this ? Are they prepared to demand a penal code to coerce the consciences of those whose understandings they cannot persuade , that si law umdo for u peculiar people , and u barbarous time , may ho , enforced in a Protestant country in the nineteenth century ? The question becomes ridiculous when
carried to its legitimate issue . Their arguments are a logical felo-de-se . They prove too much . NuJKugliuhinan who sees the conclusions to which they inevitably lead will have anything to do with them . Is all Christendom wrong and tho Holf-uppointod ( mints right P Han not tho Church decreed that tho firHt dny- of the weekour Smuhiy Blmll tnko the place of the last day of tho woelc—the Juwish Sabbath that wo nmy bo jubilant on that day on which Christ row from the dead . Docs it not follow from this , tlmf . tho Sabbath question huH been Bottled for tho last eighteen hundred years ?
Englishmen are not prepared to return to the Jewish Sabbath with its penalties ; let them be consistent and give up the question . The objectors on the ground of expediency are not more fortunate in their arguments , nor hardly so dignified in their opposition . No one pretends that going to the Crystal Palace on Sunday would make any one immoral . The principal objection made is , that it will facilitate a further encroachment on the time of the working men . Why should the opening of the Crystal Palace do that more than the opening of our parks , zoological gardens , railroads , tea-gardens , and a
thousand other things already doing on the Sunday ? If reverend gentlemen do not know , working men-do know , th , at employers can now command their services on Sunday when the exigencies of trade demand it ; that it is often done in every trade ; that men cannot refuse , because refusal amounts to dismissal . What means the opposition ? Those whose conscience forbids them going to the Crystal Palace on Sunday will stay away . Surely it is not supposed that those who desire to go to Church would be tempted to go to Sydenham ? What right have those who do not desire to go to the Crystal Palace to interfere with those who do desire to
go ? The opposition may not think it , but their attempt to close the Crystal Palace on a Sunday is an offshoot of that bigotry that once attempted to dictate what a man should believe . Not all the eloquence of Doctors of divinity can conceal the cloven hoof . They would coerce those they cannot persuade . It cannot be they distrust the conscience of the elect ? Is the service of God more repugnant than the service of art ? Are the holy offices of religion less alluring than the offices of pleasure ? They who think that the Crystal Palace will compete with their Church ,
disparage their creed , and insult their religion . This question is simply a moral question . An immense proportion of the people do go out on Sunday seeking pleasure . Shall that recreation be instructive , or shall it not ? Shall it be refining or debasing , elevating and ennobling , or brutalising and sensual ? Shall the suburban publichouses and tea-gardens receive the pleasure-seeking multitude , or shall the Crystal Palace at Sydenham ? It is not a question between religion and pleasure , but a question between hig her and lower pleasures . For which will the saints record their votes ? To me it
seems there is no Protestant ground for making this a religious question , and that it will be greatly detrimental to religion and opposed to the Protestant right of individual judgment , if religion is placed in opposition to the opening of the Crystal Palace on Sunday . —Yours very truly , C . F . NlCHOM-S . 10 , Great WinehesterStreot , Old Broad-street , March 25 , 1853 .
Untitled Article
THE SPIRIT-RAPPING PHENOMENA . ( To the Editor of the Z , eader . ) Sib , —Permit ino , if yon conveniently can , the opportunity of affording Mr . Lewes a peg , on which to hang a few shreds of additipnal comments , in defence of his "hypothesis , " relative to the spirit-rapping " imposture . " Mr . Lewes considers that ho has proved his hypothesis ; but , if another explanation of tho facts recorded by him be possible , what becomes of the " proof" ho so confidently relics on ? Suppose , then , the spirits summoned to the seance , saw through Mr . Lewes's scheme , and felt disposed lo gratify him with his " proof ?"
Here ia another hypothesis , which many a « cautious critics m Mr . Lowes may be disposed to accept , quite as readily as his own . Ho does not hesitate to impure , by anticipation , imposture to others , nor , in the realization of his hypothesis , to " act" an imposture himself ; why should " the apjrita" be denied their revenge upon him ? Are there no wags out of tho body as well a * it ? Are we to dictate to tho wag alwvo how ho is to treat the wag below ?
Again , sinking the idea of wnggery : concede that there is quackery , ignoble imposture , in tho spirit-medium profession , ' —that tho bast ; and , unworthy ha « , in this , aa in most other relations , however sacred , become mixed up with the pure and true , —may not Mr . Lewes ' s crucial instance , and its results , have been aeei * to be needful , nu n caution and a guide to enquirers , and , on this ground , " acted" by " the spirits ?" Hut . further , Mr . Lewes ' s hypothesis does not cover
the whole facts of the phenomena . It does m no way explain the unexccptiouably « tt << nl ; ed cases , recorded in the American literature on the subject , and in the records of private investigation , into which thp vulgar notion of imposture , besides being excluded by the very nature of tho occurrences described , is , on other grounds , wholly inadmissible . How , for instance , does it apply to the following cuho V—A pair of aciasora is held , by the points , by a " medium , " over a sheet of writing-paper . One of the parsons present drops a
pencil into the thumb-hole of the scissors . Presently , the pencil stands apart from the steel , begins to move , and the hand of the medium is carried across tlie paper , and the signature of a person known to be dead appears ! The father , or other near relative of the person is present , and , from some peculiarity in it , disputes the genuineness of the signature . The recent letters of the person are appealed to , and there the very same peculiarity is found , and the exact correspondence of the two signatures demonstrated !
This case is reported in Horace Greeley ' s paper , the Tribune , and , if I mistake not , he vouches for the honour and capacity of his correspondent , who gives the original letter of the father , or relative of tho alleged spirit-writer . I mention it from memory , but am certain the main facts of the record are as stated . I have myself seen nothing of the " Rapping" experiments . I have , however , seen so much of other equally mysterious things , in cognate relations , that I hesitate to accept an explanation of the " rappings , " which hnplies eo much credulity on the one side , and so much depravity on the other . Having briefly thrown a new text before your accomplished collaborateiir , I await his ever genial , however trenchant criticism , and am , Sir , yours , truly , Liverpool , March 21 , 1853 . A *
Untitled Article
NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS . Next week wo shall publish the first of Two Letters to tho Right Hok . Thomas Milweb Gibson , M . P ., " On tho Government and the Working Man's Newspapers . " By O . J . Holyoake . G . Sunter . —We decline his letter for the reason that wo have declined others which had great personal claims on our notice . The elaas of opinion urged uppn our columns has ahundant voice in America and England ; were it a proscribed opinion , the header , aa over , would give it utterance at any cost . Obiott elahorately admits the very point he professes to refute . Those who have not faith in the peop le Bhould not contend for popular rights . j . J . Cowi-bt . —His letter has been handed to tho committee for carrying out tho object to which it relates . Okk wuo Thinks in Smcbht . —Tho excellent object ho has in vio \ y was contemplated l > y Mr . Thornton Hunt ' s Political Exchange . Wo reserve tho letter , as opportunity may accrue of putting it to a more practioal use than its present insertion could roach . H . XJttley . —The "Supplement" did not reach us . Will ho enclose the said letter ?
Untitled Article
A TEST FOR THE SPIRIT-RAPPERS . ( To the Editor of the Leader . ) Sie , —A very simple expedient would , I think , test the validity of the pretensions of the Rappists . Let tlie eyes , either of the " Medium" or the querist , or both , be carefully "bandaged , and the letters and numerals shuffled and disarranged , and I have little doubt that both Dr . Ashburner and your correspondent Phocion , if they would attend a seance conducted under this arrangement , would , at the close of it , concur with the bulk of your readers in opinion , that you have earned the warm thanks of the community by the exposure of an impious imposture , and one which might obviously be made subservient to most wicked and mischievous purposes .
I myself , in common with all persons with whom I have conversed on the subject , consider your experiments conclusive now and for ever ; but the Tesult of a further experiment , conducted under the conditions I have indicated , would , it is to be hoped , convince those whose incredulity , as in the case of Dr . Ashburner and Phocion , is only equalled by their credulity . I am , Sir , your obedient servant , J . C . 23 rd March , 1853 .
Untitled Article
Tuk Kino- ov tiie Countek . —He was a tall , thin man : rather round shouldered ; weak at tho knees , and trying to conceal tho weakness in tho breadth of hia trousers . He wore a white cravat , and an absurdly high shirt collar . His complexion was sallow ; his eyes were small , black , bright , and incessantly in motion— - indeed , ull hi » features were Hiiigularly mobile : they were affected by nervous contractions and spasms which were constantly drawing up and down in all directionK t |» o brow , tho mouth , and tho muscles of tho chepk . His hair had been bhick , but wan now turning to a sort of iron-grey ; it was very dry , wiry , and plentiful , and part of it projected almost horizontally over bin forehead . Ho hud a habit of stretching it in fibiH direction ,, by irritably combing it out , from tiuto to time , with Iuh fingers . 11 is lip . s won ; thin and colourless , tho linen about them being nuineroiiH and stronglymarked . Hud I hcoh him under ordinary drcum .-Htancoa , T should have not him down as a litilo-ininilnd man ; 11 small tyrant , in Iuh o \ fln way over Uioho dopondoni on him ; a pompous parasite to thoHu above him —» i great stickler for tho conventional nsupoctabilition of life , and a great believer in Iuh own infallibility . Iljit lie was Margaret ' H father ; and I wiw determined to bo pleased with him . —Colmj ^ s ' s Basil .
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), March 26, 1853, page 302, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1979/page/14/
-