The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-01-06 00:00:00

CORRESPONDENCE.

We oriels it to be distinctly unekrstosi that by inserting
letters in this eolunsn,lee do not therehy idIII// oursehos
with the opinions of our Correspondent:.
To the Felitor of the ‘• &sores,"

SIR—In your last week's issue I saw five letters ; one
by " Wide Awake," with reference to mine of the previ-
ous week; one by '' A Townsmen," in reply to one iu
your contemporary the Advertiser; one by "Anti-Re-
publican," having • slight reference to mine previously
alluded to, but ehiefi) a detailed refutation of a letter by
"A. Republican" in the :lerertiser ; and Iwo others by
•• Enquirer " and "Anti Contagion," respectively. Be-
fore attempting to reply direct to any of these letters,
which I am rather indisposed to do on account of my
aptitude no sooner to make an attempt than to "miser-
ably " fail, perhaps I had better wake a few introductory
narks. My letter of the ltith inst was not prompted
by any propensity to engage myself in auy political or
religious eontroversy,controversies which demand the
esercise of the profoundest thought and keen sagacity—
but chiefly by a sense of the injustice of identifying
Unitarianism with Infidelity and Disloyalty; and the in-
justice of confounding Mr. Bradlaugh's political opinions
with those he holds in regard to the Supreme Being. I
did not purpose commenting upon any one of the four
longer letters (those of the 9th Mat), but simply to refer
to the two shorter ones of Enquirer" and - Anti-con-
tagion." The letter of the person bearing the latter nom
tic plane, I noticed as being a mean •• suggestlin," and
still meaner was his expression of " ne Republican
tilassmaker." I did not explain the distinction—the
wide distinction—that exists between Unitarianism and
Infidelity, became if any man with an unbiassed mind
will peruse any work on Unitarian principles, he will un-
doubtedly discover for himself that Infidelity is irrecon-
cileably distinct from Unitarianism. I certainly did say
that all of the letters were devoid of any rational argu-
; meat or logical reasoning; an assertion which I am still
forced to maintain. However some one has deemed it
St to reply to my letter, and such reply has elicited this
retsi from me.

The first one which I shall bring under consideration
is one by "Wide Awake," which has direct reference to
mine. He commences by saying I attacked six letters,
but I no sooner made the attempt than I utterly and
miserably fail. What I failed in lamat a loss to con-
ceive; but perhaps lam not so" wide awake" as be I
succeeded in attacking as far as was my intention, and I
was contented and satisfied; but your correspendent's
dissatisfaction appears to keep him "wide •wake." He
says I merely charge the writers "with freely abusing
Mr. Bradlaugh without rejecting his arguments." He
seems to me to be labouring under the influence of moral
darkness, as the "freely abusing Mr. Bradlaugh without
refuting his arguments " seems to hint as a trivial mat-
ter; and my accusation of such as a mere charge. He
then asks with regard to Mr. B's lecture, "What is there
to refute S" and says Mr. B.'s lecture" was simply a tirade
I of abuse against need men, and history and the statutes
! freely quoted." How absurd ! Why the title of the lec-
ture necessitated the exhumation of the slumbering
Georges, whose dastardly conduct has been, as every
lover of virtue, truth, and uncorrupt administration Well
knows, too lung shielded. History, the middle link in
the " tirade of abuse" with which Mr. Braillisugh soda-
cimsly tiered to interfere, is simply the index to the
eharacter, principle, and deeds of the much abused
"deed nice." The title page to the volume of their
lives, which if published for any other purpose than that
of exhibiting to the nation its incredulous " gullibilit,"
would have never had a second edition, nor realized much
by the first; in fact if it had been taken to any conscien.
ttous pablisher who had the morality and welfare of his
country at heart, it would never have been published at
all; thus depriving it of that corrupting influence which
the contagious works of the " disloyal" Thackeray are
so evidently disseminating. 'Statutes freely quoted,"
the last link in the "tirade of abuse," fully substantiate
the truthfulness of the whole chain of " abuse." Those
"statutes freely quoted' were the undeniable proofs upon
which every assertion Mr. B. made securely rested ; kin-
dred proof to that which Mr, B. described as lying for
public inspection in the secret recesses of the Lyttelton
Library. You say the speaker "Was not manly enough
to give his own opiniens." Near-sightedness I know to
be a disease, the effect of two causes, viz., an optical ,
near-sightedness arising in over.convelity, causing a su-
perfluous refraction of rays collected into a Jonas before
reaching the retina. This focus distributes ,the rays di.
vergingly, thus forming a confused image on the retina.
Second, a nearsightedness of the mind, which becomes
dimmed by prejudice and partiality; fatal moths, f o• by
their influence brightest objects are darkened. near ones
become distant. If suffering from the first how urtfortn-
nate you forgot your "specs." for by their aid you would
have discovered in Mr. 8., in the truthful flashes of his
eye, in his fiery eloquence, a manliness beneath whose
majestic influence every mean driveller, who shrewdly
stamped his reputation would have cowered in abject
terror, and crawled away in the lowest humiliation. If,
mind you, if, your disease is the second arouse yourself,
be a man; become an inventor, invent " specs " for a dis-
eased mind, and till you have, allow me to humbly advise
you to stay at home when patriotism giant-like ruthlessly 1
shakes quaking dead and living men's tyranny, inits iron
grasp. You sneer because he spoke "in a sarcastic
way." Further on eulogise "England that tolerate.
free and religious liberty." It is the absence, the want
of that free toleration of which you brag, that compels ,
such men as Mr. B. to ironically look up those shaming
truths which their eager fettered tongues dare not utter
without jespardising their liberty. You ask Why was
he not honest enough to give his own opinions, and
point out the benefits to be derived by this country be.
a Republican nation ?" Mr. B.'a sarcasm contains
the answer to the first part of your question, "it would
be treason ;" and the "tirade of abuse," in which Mr. B.
deservedly and truthfully displayed the wanton extrava.
fiance, the piteous imbecility, the shameful immorality,
sod utter uselessness of monarchical dispensation, so
ably represented by the "dead men," in its overwheln,
ing sufficiency, answers the last. "Religious liberty "is
incompatible with an establi.hed church ;" the first n
some weed the purifying hand of Republicanism would
pluck up, deeply-rooted though it be in the princely
salaries of grasping bishops, and fawning curates, with
an eye to vacancies. Alas, this is not the only evil fos•
tered beneath monarchy's sheltering wing, which Re-
publicanism alone can feather. and display its ;loathsome
brood. Their name is legion in the country of the open
arms, into which princes (especially German ones) are
leaping at au alarming rate. If this were all it would
not much matter, but unfortunately, every time a prince
leaps into hospitable England's wide and welcoming em-
brace, the people's burden increases. When we consider
the religious liberty of this fortunate country, in which
many of its starving poor die without the mellow mock-
eries of paid apostles to soothe it, ir departing souls, we
cannot bet marvel that the ejected popes do not coolly
ensconce themselves in religious liberty's open arm,
whose fingers would fail not to let fall a noble pension in
their lap fresh from the public purse Tonal), allowing
B. and Dilke to lecture speaks volumes for the reline
powers of England. Nail • the S./sr/ruling powers a nielt.
if they dated would remorselessly crush them, is at r••
butable the iectortes freedom, which Mr. B. and Sr
D. enjoy ; but to the dawning intellect of the isias•es,
their increasing intelligence; a weapon whose keenness
appals, and with which the "ruling powers" dare not
. meddle. -If the lectures of such men as Mr B. and Sir
, C. D. can but err r hasten the Republic's birth, it would
profit the nation to build a noble hall in every town, aye.
even in the meanest hamlet in England, and provide for
every hall its Bradlaugh and its Dilke. It would be, too,
the nation's gain to convert Cambridge and Oxford into
Bradlaugh and Dilke colleges, than using it for its pre-
sent purpose ; viz , to train up young shoots for " religi-
ous freedom" moneyed shade, the dew which drops from
an "established church " to moisten the parched but wel;
watered throats of a classic ministry. Perhaps your cor-
respondent, " Wide Awake," presumes that history and
the statutes are all falsehood. If so they are myth, and
. should in justice to the people and the crown be corn-
! mitted to the flames as containing slanderous falsehoods,
' and defamatory allegations, which may incite the people
to open rebellion. If he is labouring under this vain
presumption that history is a fallacy, I am sorry for him,
but I cannot imagine that he is, or be is strangely in.

congruous. _
If the corruptions and immorality of State cannot
conviace t` Wide Awake " that a Republic will reniedy it,
it can and has convinced thousands of the people. They
are becoming possessed of a more extended vision
Knowledge has revealed what ignorance concealed. They
are becoming aware that there is a true remedy for these
monarchical evils, remedy which must and will come.
People are becoming more fully aware of the inutility
and extravagance of royalty ; and they desire and will
expect a retrenchment in the royal household. They do
not deem Royal extravagance a pleasure, but look upon
it with hatred and disgust, and horror. They are begiu-
sing to ask the question wits more of vehemence, What
benefits does Royalty bestow on us? and are beginning
to perceive that there are none. They see that the su-
perfluities of Royalty may materially relieve their neces-
sities. They ask, does royalty partake in the legislatiou
of the country ? Does it tend to promote the intereets,
the rights; the liberties of the peope ? And when they
observe its utter inability to legislate, its unjustifiable
extravagance which robs them iif their corrafort, they can
but answer in the negative, and look upon royalty as an
enormity, a monstroeity ' • which must inevitably fall, ,f
the people are ever to realise their true position as the
legitimate rulers of the country. Royalty, by its con-
tinual and enormous strains upon the public exchequer
and by its inability to provide for the interests of the
masses, tends towards the enslavement and impoverish-
ment of the people; and those who wield their legisla-
tive power for its maintenance, are the greatest criminals
and the most infamous men. The people are becoming
cognizant that their will is not the law of th 3 land; that
their views, their wishes, their interests do not give cha-
racter to their legislation and their administration. Bat
your correspondent by his morbid partiality to Royal
personages does not see as the people see, very probably
because he does not feel as they feel. Perhaps his adhe-
sion to Royalty is actuated by those motives which are
very characteristic of. base, selfish disposition, and which
exclnde all higher considerations—the motives of lucre
and self-interest. He wishes to know the advantages to
be derived by this country becoming • Republican Na-
tion, bat he does not apprise us of the advantages we
have received, nor what advantages we may still enjoy by
the maintenance of no grand an institution as Royalty:
nor does he make any effort to point out the disadvan-
tages and deteriorating power of a Republic. Now, I
have never been abip to observe any of the advantages
which Royalty has favoured us with ; probably from the
fact that I am one of the people. Its advantages are only
known to the upper orders, and to those who happen ti
be engaged in a lucrative business under the crown; and
it is only characteristic of the selfishnees of human na-
ture that they should uphold an institution Dom which
they reap untold benefits. Bat the people have never yet
known its advantages ; but they have still a great cause
to know of its numerous disadvantages. It is they who
have to bear on their drooping shoulders the heavy bur-
den of Royal extravagance aud it is they who do, and
wili complain; and they will continue to do so, until the
burden is removed. They perceive an efficacious remedy
in the adoption of a Republic ; for it removes Royalty, it
scorns class legislation as. crime, and abolishes heredi-
tary legislation ax both a folly and a crime. With Roy-
alty it abolishes those utterly useless offices which are
incumbent upon it, and which were revealed to the people

;by Sir C. Dfike, in his memorable speech. ruder aRe
public the true interests of the people will be developed ;
and with the development of their true interests they sill
have a profounder interest in the national welfare. They
will study with greoter ardour political events, and will
be brought to the conception that political ascendavcy
will, in a great measure, be accomplished by a diffusion
j of knowledge, and advancement of virtue. Thus by hay-
ing their just rights and liberties they will become more
intellectual, enlightened and virtuous and thus will be
brought more materially and intimately to bear upon na-
tional progress. Now, when the will of the people is not
made to bear immediately on legislation, but is super.
Boded by that of • smaller class, their political freedom
is half-developed, they exist in a political gloom ; sad
they cannot from the nature of the case bring themselves
to bear, so closely as is their desire, on true national
; progress. Under a Republican Government they can, as
I / have before shown, by the stimulation of the posses.
lion of their just rights to improve themselves by becom-
ing more politically interested, and intellectually and
morally elevated. Bat before I shall proceed further, I
must ask "Wide Awake" to inform me of the advanta-
ges of Royalty to the people, In a onint of view, politi-
cally, intellectually, and morally, And also of the dis-
advantages of legislation and adminiatratioe under a Re-
public. Hoping he will make me more "wide awake "as
to the advantages of the one, and the disadvantages of
the other. and I will now leave this subject, and proceed
to consider the remaining portion of his letter.
He next refers toe sentence of mine identifying "tine
Republican Glassinaker "as Mr. Packwood; and says" if
the cap fits let him wear it." Now if the " cap does
fit, it is an honourable " cap " to wear; one which re-
flects no discredit on the w . He next says he be-
lieves Mr. Packwood was in his "glory" when acting as
chairman at the second lecture. When a man is in his
•' glory," I take it to be that he is heart and soul in the
work or duty he is performing. Now. when Mr. Pack-
wo id took the chair on the evening of the second lec-
ture, I do not believe he was in his " glory " from the
honourable distinction of chairman alone, for an act so
I base as to fill that office merely for distinction, I verily
believe he would scorn; but he was in his " glory" from
the faet that lie was called upon to preside at a lecture,
which would benefit the people by bringing them to a
closer conception of the true state of things; and the
medium of remedy. Let Mr. Packwood be called upon
to preside at a meeting to advocate the advantages of a
monarchical government, and see if he will consent.
The reason is obvious: he would not be in his " glory
in presiding over a meeting which advocated advantages
be is fully convinced do not exist. But if he were a mass
who accepted the office from motives of ostentatious di..
tinctirin, regardless of the subject matter, he would com-
p'y with the request to preside over the advocacy of these
advautages. If your correspondent believes Mr. P. ful-
Vied the office of chairmau from motives so base as more
love of showy distinction, and not from a deep profound
interest in the subject of the lecture, perhaps he is tuna-
staring other people's linen by his own yardstick. He
nut suppo6es (I wonder one so "wide awake" was not I
perfectly sure( that there was no gentleman in the dis-
trict, or tradesman, that could have filled no exalted a
position so efficiently BA Mr, Packwood. It speaks well
for the efficiency of •Mr. I'. if there was not. But per-
haps " Wide Awake " is sufficiently qualified ; only 1
"suppose" he would scorn to stoop so low as to act as
chairman of a lecture which was for the interests of the
people.
He says I next complain that he did not sign his name.
I did not complain that "Wide Awake "did not subscribe
his name, but that " Anti. Contagion " did not sign his:
which any one could have perceived who ITU sufficiently
"wide awake." As I forgot to sign my name as an ex.
ample, why did he not remind me by signing his' He
concludes by making a touching and sublime invocation
to his "Fellow-countrymen," in which is the following
magniloquent langnage: "deal be led away with the
clap-trap by men like 13raillarigh and Sir C. Dilke, whose
little game is X s. d., and who are trying to throw the
country into anarchy, and exalting themselves at the ex-
pense of others." Such language is enough to touch the
heart of a wheelbarrow ! Now he does not prove that
their little game is £n. d. To think that a man like Sir
C. Ditto with a large fortune, is lecturing merely for t
8. d, is simply madness. And if loyalists pursue that
coarse, it is no reason why Republicans should debase
themselves, by adopting the same course. And instead
of throwing the " e imitry into anarchy," time will prove
that they are only endeavouring to bring about that state
of things, which will secure the true legitimate rights of
the people : while such men as "Wide Awake " are stri-
ving to keep us back in re state of a half-developed civili-
zation. I will now leave him again to dream while yet
beg "wide awake."

I have little to say to " Townsman' because he says
nothing to me. But this much I have to say, that it
displays a meanness on his part, to select typographical
errors, as a medium of abuse. I dare say "Republi-
can " will reply to him himself.
The next letter is a lengthy one by " Anti• Republ-
ican," who says he has nothing to say in answer to me,
because "I took not the slightest notice" of his corn•
munication. Bat for the benefit of " Enquirer he re•
lates an incident, which he says occurred on the even-
ing of the second lecture. He says the chairman (Mr.
W. Packwood) said " He was disapointed in Mr. Brad.
laugh," and that "He was disappointed because he had
heard that Mr. B. could not speak upon any topic with-
out dragging religion into the matter ;" and goes on to
say that Mr. Bradlaugh has no religion, it was impos•
sible for him to introduce his religion into the NM atter :
and that the chairman must have been "disappointed "
because he had not interlarded his discourse with Infidel
doctrines. Sow the substance of what the chairman
said, is something to the following effect: He had heard
that Mr. B. could not refrain from introducing his re-
ligions principtes when lecturing on an avowed political
subject; but he did not believe it, and therefore expected
Mr. B. to lecture without intermixing his religious opin•
loan; and he had not been disappoidted " to judge
from the previous lecture. It is therefore unjust to say
that the ceairmart was " disappointed " becabse the lee
turer had not introduced his Infidel doctrines. He then
states the cause why he concluded that the chairman was
an Infidel, and his astonishment on finding he was a pro•
minent member of the Unitarian Community. He thinks
the fact 'that the chairman impugns the Divinity of
Christ. and dues not accept the whole of the Bible as true,
goes far to prove that Infidel doctrines are not so repug-
nant to Unitarian minds as I (Sine Odio) would have
them think. Bat I still and can maintain, that Infidel
doctrines are abhorred as a false and wicked by Unitar-
ians.

In 'answer to the following and latter portion of the
paragreph, I would say that no Unitarian would have
countenanced, by his presenee on the platform, the teach-
ings ef a man, wile, he expected, would, under the pre-
tence of enlightening his audience, on a political or nis-
toricel subject, try to inculcate the doctrines of Infidel-
ity. He did not introduce his Infidel doctrines ; nor dii
the chairman desire that he should : on the contrary, if
he had been positively informed that Mr. B. would inter-
mix those doctrines with his political discourse he would
undoubtedly have declined to act no chairman. The re-
maining portion of the letter is a reply to " Republi-
can's " letter in the Advertiser ; and that person a ili per-
Imps reply for himself. But the eight paragraph, with
reference to the Queen endearing boreelf to the heave
of the people, dre . prompts the expression that I do not
believe there has been the anxiety f the public mind, us
the press would have us believe. "It is ell a
cant. It woo no: anxiety. it was chiefly curioeity. AR to
the sympathy shown Charles Stagg, the groom, by thc
Queen. I ask, why should she nut? Poor Blegg's name
has remained almost in obscurity, during his illness.
But real greetness often ',limbers in obscurity, while
vice and immorality often rhine in outward distinction.
and revels under the iemopy of State.
" Enquirer " stil maker his enquiry as to what Conner-
tion exists between Unitarianism and Infidelity. and
Unitariauism and Disloyalty? and absurdly bases his en-
quiry on the fact that there were some Unitarians on
the platform; while other denominations were conspicu-
ous by their absence. Perhaps other denominations do
not like to hear two sides of a question; and because
Unitarians do, and some were present to hear Brad•
laugh's side, were deemed disloyal; and morbid minds
are trying to find a connection between Unitarianism
and Disloyalty. With respect to the connection between
Unitarianism and Infidelity, I have to my as I have pee-
vionsiy said, that there exists • wide distinction. If In-
fidels despise the guidance, the consolations, the hopes
of Christianity, Unitarians do not. If Infidels are con-
tent to remain in the darkness of unbelief, Unitarians
ara not : although in the face of a thousand denials. and
in spite of the self-contradicting absurdity of the
charge, it is said, and by many seems to be believed,
that the Unitarian creed consists of negatous ; that
they believe in almost nothing. Although so many re-
futations have been given, statements elucidating Uni•
Winn doctrines, seem still to be required. abe posi-
tion of the Unitarians as a 'religions body (and it seeme
politically) is one, entirely understood. Unitarians cto
believe, while Infidels do not, Many imagine that
Unitarians do not believe in the bible. They do be-
lieve in the bible ; but they distinguish between the
bible and fallible interpretations. They believe in a
Supreme Being, which Infidels do not. They believe
in God, the Father Almighty ; tne Infinite Creator : a
God that is a Paternal Being; that has an interest in his
creatures, such as is conveyed by the title Father; en
interest not rally In the glorious beings of other spheres.
the sons of light, the dwellers in heavenly worlds, but in
us, poor, ignorant, and unworthy as we are : who has
pity for the erring, pardon for the guilty, love for the
pare, kindoesc for the hamble, and promises of immor-
tal blessed life for those who tenet and obey him. They
believe in Jesus Christ. despite the many expressions,
either ignorantly or maliciously, set forth to the con-
trary, but they do met believe Christ to be (led end be-
cause they do not. they are by some deemed Infidels.
Heretics, or some other falsely applied term. And your
correspondent seems to think that this fact substan-
tiates a connection between Unitarianism and Infidelity !
"No man has seen God at any time the only begotten
Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he bath de-
clared him." These words express what Unitarians be-
lieve concerning the Deity. An instructed by Scripture.
they hold "No man bath seen God at any time :- that
" The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him.- Many men saw Christ:
he lived, and laboured, and suffered among them, until
by" Wicked hands he was crucified and slain ;" yet the
Gospel historian says "No man bath seen God," and
they believe him. As no man bath seen God, and many
men saw Christ, Unitarians maintain, that it is clear
Christ is not God. And this they are persuaded is
truth which unbiassed readers will find either plainly ex-
pressed or implied throughout the New Testament.
They believe that although created far, above all other
created intelligence, he was a being distinct from, in
tenor to, and dependent upon the Father Almighty.
They believed Christ to be the very embodiment of
goodness. They believe in the at:inement, aa a means
of reconciliation,—reconciliation, not of God to us, but
of us to God: that the blood of the sacrifice was atoo•
jag blood; that is, it woe blood on which whoever looks
rightly, is touched with gratitude, and humility, and
sorrow for his sins and is thus reconciled to God by the
death of his Son. They fervently believe in Christ ;and
it were well if all believed in him toe fervently and ten-
derly, to be engaged much in theoligical disputes and
denunciation. They pray to God through him. They
ask Gad to bless them for his sake for they feel that
Christ makes intercession for them, and has obtained
the privilege to be hearl, through his own meritorious
sufferings. They regard Christ's sacrifice as the grand-
est, most pow rlisl means of salvation that it was a
transcendent and most affecting example of meekness,
patience, and forgiveness of injuries that it was • most