The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1882-11-28 00:00:00

MR. B. F0.98E-fr LOCK AND MR. BRADLAUGH.

yll

; 1,

In a lecture In London on "England and gape"
Mr. B. Foesett Lock, barrister. appears:to have fallen
fool of the great Atheist, Mr. Brarilaugb, who repl:es
In his newspaper, the Nato:mai Brformo, in refutation
of certain charges which he presumes Mr. Lock to
have made. Mr. Lock's reply may be interesting to
his Dorchester friends :—I trust that you will allow
me to reply to some strictures of yours upon my
address at South Place upon "England and Egypt."
You confine your attention to one point in it—namely,
my allusion to the clam of politicans whom I called
"the Darwinians—of whom we may take Mr. Brad.
laugh se • type." You proceed to vindicate Mr.
Bradlaugh from a supposed charge of supporting.
triirraces against weak races dof advocating the
an
. Egypt, and you declare that I have "grossly
and either ignorantly or wantonly misrepresented his
whole life." But you have quite misunderstood me.
I never said that Mr. Bradlaughdid anything of the
sort, and I do not need your long list of Mr. Brad.
laugh's efforts on behalf of liberty to admit to the
fullest extent all that you say. It would be
easy, in the same way, to exonerate from •
similar charge Mr. Huxley, of whom, as well
as of Mr. Bradlaugh, I spoke al • type of
the Darwinians. I only referred t , Mr. Huxley and
Mr. Bradlaugh as among the most prominent and able
types of the 'school of thought I was attempting to
describe, just as I might have instanced Mr. Richard
as • typical Nonconformist—without implying that be
supported the war in Egypt—when I said that the
Nonconformists did. Men who are commanding types
of • particular school are usually much stronger
characters than the mass of those who follow them' •
but when we wish to account for the actions of the
mem we must try to estimate the general tendency of
the teaching as far am it is intelligible to and under-
stood by mamas of ordinary men. Why were the
Positivists and Mr. Herbert Spencer and Mr.
Richard and Mr. Bradlaugh and many others
linable to carry the country with them in their oppo-
sition to the war in Egypt! That is the question
I endeavoured to &newer in my pamphlet, and you do
ozi;:oriolain it by repeating that Mr. Bradlaugh
o the war. I was quite aware of that. You
note me, too, when you say " he affirms that the
relativist:6 alone, bravely aided by Herbert Spencer
and Sir Wilfrid Lawson, have set themselves against
the Government." I analysed the Liberal party, as I
thought, into four group' or schools of thought (Whig,
Nonoonfosalist, Darwinian, and Positivist), and I said
that the only ono of these groups which set its fame
against the war—collectively—was the Positivists;
and this I maintain. There is, as far as I know, no
Positivist who has not opposed the Government. Can
It be said that there is no Radical or Secularist! Is
it not the fact that there are Radicals and Secularists
who in this matter of international policy are, wooed-
ins to my definition, Darwinians, and others, who,
like Mr. Bradlaugh, are, according to my definition,
Positivists? Has Mr. Bradlaugh been able to excite
me much feeling, or to forward as many petitions to
Parliament aggm* the war as he did in the case of the
tary oath, or even of perpetual pension.?
parliamentary
and If so, may it not be that Mr. Brad-
langh has faded to convince • large number of hie
usual supporters that his own chivalrous advocacy at
weaker room follows from, or is in neomeary, correla-
tion with his Malthosian, or Atheist, or (as I call the
more modern development) Darwinian principles? I
may of wares be wrong in my inferences, as any man
may; but at any rate I am not guilty of gross, or
ignorant, or wanton miarepressantation. You have, in
lad, unwittingly and needlessly fallen foal of • guile-
loss friend. But, after all, these are 'mall matters.
My analysi• of the Liberal petty; my opinion of Mr.
Beadisigh ; Mr. Bradlaugh's opinion of me; nay,
sae the very aistenos of Mt. Bradlaugh or myseU is
billatmanal imperious', when compared with the
digestiva• action of our common country in Egypt.
In opposition to the war I understand that we agree;
but that is not enough. It is so eery to be negative
and oppose; it is so difficult to be positive and non-
and. I endeavoured in my oddreas to do my duty
se a cultism, by formulating the outlines of • cameras
give palsy which might unite the supporter* of Egypt
lee the Egyptians, ad bring as much good as is yet
pasible out of the now irretrievably accomplished evil.
Let me barely enumerate the main points upon which
I there insisted. in the reorgauleation of Egypt. They
were

1.--Pereiy Igypiten army.
L—The fres pardon of Arabi sad hie comrades.
purely EgypUan admialetratieu (potentially if not
tlou of the Control. sad the limitation of
foreign loterferoom to the ouperrioloo of the specially
egelgued meatus
6.—. The reduction of tie debt to the amount actually
received; and
4.*Paynteut of war minnow by England alone.
lab ma, then, entreat Mr. Etradlangh to waste no '
more time in mistaken attacks upon unknown f riends ;
bet to state his *Mon upon his policy, and to give
effect to his opinion. Is it right in principle, and
hisdble in practice If not, what is better? But if
Lb is, an be bring to bear upon the Government in
support of it all the praetors that he brought from
all corners of the land in favour of abolition of the
oath, and will he do so t It must be done now or
never. It is far more pressing than the abolition of
the oath or of perpetual pensions. It will be small
comfort to the annexed Egyptians to know that Mr.
Brad opposed the war. It will be not only a
comiriimitre them, but an honour to him, if be can help
to prevent the annazatka. Lot him tackle the present,
the most difficult, stage of a most difficult problem In
a rionstroctive and strassumn•like manner. That
far challenge to • Mambas of Parliament. In the
muse of • few weeks the chance may be gone for
WIG B. Fosserr Loon.
In the same number Mr., Besant takes up the
raidgek on behalf of her coliakerategr. In one of her
Massis this notorious writer says :
If Ur. Lock be a friend, he must be one of thoeeae
to whom the Psalmist prayed: " Let not thigh* precious
balms break my head."
Ocethiabig—Of course all personal matters are of
small Importance pommeled with national, and so,
looking at the ryption question wv might say that
It dose not much matter to the universe whether Egypt
Is tree en enslaved. It is not of infinitesimal impor•
taws hatst public man who has the courage to protest
against the policy of his party, and who lies itiourred
enaskiorabho odium in so doing, should be rewarded by
bin bold up as type of a crag policy be abhors.
Nor vs we any moon to suppose that those who are
careless of morality in their dealings with individuals
will be safe cro-worlnge in question of national morality.
Mr. Look's appeal would be more likely to gain
attention if he had not prefaced it by a wanton at
took on a man and on a party whom co-operation he
WM invitee
Anna Bream

THE UNITED SUNDAY SCHOOLS UNION.

The limited &boob ObWren's Smirk, was held
Mt tier Osegregatiomal Chapel, Southetreetaw:.
Sunday_ et etrie p.m. 'rho teeithers sad
el the Wesleyan aad &Olt Schools 'parched In pro-
cession from their reicestiv:.toon of worship to too
ahapeL edifies wee filled. The Rev. W.
w Nualdar, gave oat the weil.knome
hymn 'J.O h la Glory, hr.," eller which the Rev.
War from Fuddislowl, reed the :v. Bt. Lake%
mig prayer followed by Bev. W. Allen. The
Bo%till WNW his tat from IL Jeemelab Mit mew

1111111EMPOOrnillasilii