D

Vol. 53. No. 10 NOVEMIBER, 1948 Threepence

CONTENTS

PAGE. %

ETHICAL PRINCIyLES. By 'George E. O'Dell .. 2

WORLD CITIZENSHIP. By Archibald Robertson 3

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. By Mrs. Blanco White 5

LAMBETH AND AMSTERDAM. By S. K. Ratcliffe ..

RATIONALISM IN RETROSPECT .. 9

UNESCO FIGHTS FOR WORLD SANITY .. 10

SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION 11

CONWAY DISCUSSION CIRCLE .. 12

EDITORIAL NOTES" .. 13

BOOK NOTICES 14

CORRESPONDENCE .. 16

SOCIETY'S ACTIVITIES 18

:

I • • I •

The Society does not hold itself responsible for views expressed or reported herein.

ETHICAL PRENCIPLES •In the propaganda of an Ethical Society two ideas among others seem

especially appropriate to be set in the foreground. One may be called theprinciple of Ethical Equality, the other that of Ethical Inclusiveness.

' • --Discussion of-equality in human beings is peculiarly 'conftised -by thelack of agreed standards. Equality in what, or for what? We are bemusedby .commercial habits of thought. One man's labours produce large ,material results, those of certain others do not; or one man is highly expertas a physician, researcher, writer, what not, others are but mediocre journey-men at the best. And .we apply the test of scarcity. There are few Carusosor Marlene Dietrichs, and because they are wanted by crowds of admirerswe pay them high rewards. Or we fail properly to finance a Pierre Curie,but yet acclaim his services as of high importance, after he is dead; he toohad a scarcity value. We ignore the fact that abundance can also be astandard. The mass of merely home-keeping women, for instance, are ofsentimental rather than monetary importance—there are so many, thereforethey 'are esteemed, in market terms, as of minor worth; they are not" equal " vocationally to men!

As Ethical Society folk, who are used to assume some sort of equality,in that all human beings should be treated with respect and none bullied,exploited, or denied "equal " opportunities of development, have we anyreasoned underpinning for this democratic idea? Yes; when we haveallowed for all the inescapable inequalities in physical strength, good looks, • -intellectual power, earning capacity, there remains the equalitarian poten-

, tiality on which Immanuel Kant so fastened—and in belief in which, FelixAdler started the American Ethical moliement—the potentiality of the Good .Will. Of course there is genius in the moral sphere, but it is the genius ofsympathy, understanding, imagination, creative purpose and planning; it isnot the good will itself, which, whether associated with these splendid andenhancing overtones or not, is possible to everyone, even if more difficultfor some. For moral goodness is concerned mainly with the commonrelations—to be honest and truthloving, to be a decent husband or wife,parent, friend, worker, employer, citizen. Even the intellectually mediocreor less can will to be these, and to gain light on how; and sometimesseeming ndnentities have yet a goodness of intent and practice in life'sintimate relationships that might well put others of us to shame; yet weknew we could be like them by trying. Equality on the ethical plane ispossible for all. Hence the moral function of education and of all socialreforms.

So much, at the moment, for that. Turning now to the idea of inclusive-ness in ethics, what I would briefly plead for is the recognition that finalends, such as utility, happiness, social welfare, personal perfection, eventhe "Thus saith—"of some Sinaitic prescription, ends about which theethical philosophers so differ, are not mutually antagonistic; they are eachin part the expression of a particular mental temperament, and all have 'value, for different persons, or on different occasions, as helps to discerningduty, and in our Movement we have been right in refusing to set us someone test of moral rightness as 'alone valid—thereby excluding from sympathywith us those who have a different view. Psychological study (for instance,the work of Starbuck) reveals the fact that,. especially for earnest young

'minds, the way out of doubt and seepticism into recognition of a rightway of life is likely, according with individual character, to ,be in termsof promotjng others' good, or of some " imitation of Christ ", not necessarily.Jesus, or of believing that the moral commands of some church,' dr,2 •

decalogue, or philosophy cover one's needs and merit obedience. Butfurther, the really catholic mind thinks freely in terms.of all high purposes,as one or another seems best to apply in this or that situation. Moraleducation for life, therefore, should include an acquaintance with " thebest that•has been thought and said " relative to the ends which ethicaleffort can serve; and training in the habit of seeing any problem from manypoints of view. But not for the young only. So to act as to make forcommon gladness, promote one's own slow betterment and increase indisinterested wisdom, and help perpetuate and reinterpret the " high traditionof the race ". is, for everyone, to be ethical in the sense in which in oursocieties, we use the word.

GEORGE E. O'DELL

Archibald Robertson, MA., On World Citizenship •Readingi from: (I)" Don Juan," by Lord Byron;

(2) "Reminiscences of Marx," by Paul Lafargue.September 19, 1948

Hegel somewhere pregnantly says that tragedy consists not in theconflict of right and wrong, but in the conflict of right and right. Thisis much truer than the view propagated by the churches, according to whichall our troubles are due to selfishness. The worst acts in the present-dayworld are not done from selfishness. The airman who bombs a defencelesscity is not serving his private interest: he is obe'ying orders and risking hislife in doing so. Nor are those wh6 order him to do so' serving their privateinterests: they are serving what they believe to be the interests of theircountry. The mere difference of unselfishness, which the churches, say is theaim of Christianity, would not necessarily diminish the suffering in the worldby one iota, -It might even increase it by making us more ready to kill andbe killed for what we believed to be right.

The most important truth about man is not that he is selfish. Perfectlyselfish people make themselves insufferable and pay the natural penalty innot being suffered. The important truth is that we are social animals. Eachof us 'is licked into shape from infancy by the social group on which wedepend—the family, the school, the set, the class, the nation and so on.Our notions of right and wrong are derived from the social group. There-fore, when we offend the social group, we feel bad and unhappy; but whenwe serve it, we feel good and proud of ourselves, no matter how hatefulwe may be to other groups in conflict with our own. Hence men collectivelywill do things from which they would recoil as individuals. They will burnheretics and witches; they will persecute whole communities; they willexterminate men, women and children with high explosives and atomicbombs; and in all this they will feel that they have only done their duty.Only one thing will set a limit to their complacency. If some social groupother than that for which they commit these atrocities proves itself thestronger—or even if they believe that it will prove itself the stronger—theirfaith in their own group will be shaken, their consciences will begin towaver, and they may end by burning what they adored and adoring whatthey burned. In social animals the wish to 'be on the winning side is verystrond indeed. Even the martyr believes that his cause will in the endconquer.

It is important at this point to note that, though we instinctivelyneed some social group, what social 'group satisfies our need is a matter ofhistorical accident. Some people argue as if not merely social life as such,but the particular form of social life exemplified by the modern nation-State were a basic need of human nature. That is absurd. Babies are not

3

born with a congenital proclivity to fight for their king and country. Theyare born dependent .on their 'parents and grow up dependent on otherpeople—that is what being a social animal means. But the range of theirdependence and the modes of behaviour to which it gives rise are determinedby the historical situation. English villagers in the Middle Ages were taughtthat their bodies belonged to their feudal lord and their souls to HolyChurch. Later on they were taught that their honour and obedience weredue to the king and all who were in authority under him. • In modern timesthese loyalties have begun to be replaced by loyalty to one's workmates,one's union, one's class. The social tie continues, its point of attachmentvaries. In that lies the promise of world-citizenship.

Historical determinism apart, there is no reason why the point ofattachment should be a nation-State rather than a world-community. Theone is no more natural—no more deeply rooted in our instincts—than theother. Any loyalty wider than simple family and neighbourly ties isnecessarily artificial, in the sense that it does not grow of itself but has tobc drilled into us. A world-community is something rather big and remotefor the average person to envisage; but so is the British Empire, the U.S.A.or the U.S.S.R. The reason why millions of ordinary people respond tothe appeal of these latter, but not to the .appeal of a world-coMmunity, isnot that loyalty to a nation-State is more natural, but simply that as amatter of history the nation-State exists and the world-community doesnot. The nation-State exists and has at its command an educational andpropagandist apparatus, a_pageantry of flags, music and uniforms, whichthe world-community has not. Wherever we may finish, We all start loyalto our nation-State, just as our medieval ancestors all started loyal to theirlocal lord and their local Saint—the reason in both cases being that thatis what we were taught in our impressionable years. Once in being, a world-State would use the same means.

Nationalism, like religion, is a dogma accepted on authority. Hencethe criticism of both proceeds pah passu. This is not of course true of everyindividual: there are Rationalists in religion who are quite uncritical ofchauvinist assumptions; and there are pacifists who are traditionally religious.But by and large the two kinds of criticism go together. If some circum-stance—say the study of science, history or both together—makes us scepticalof one set of assumptions, it tends to make us sceptical of another. Thusloss of faith in religion, which we have accepted on authority, is likely toshake our faith in nationalism,which we have also accepted on authority.The discovery that history is a single process to which men of many nations,not only of our own, have made signal and worth-while contributionsengenders a sense of world-community. Blood is thicker than water, saythe nationalists. Yes, but brains are thicker than blood! The modernRationalist has more in common with the noble army of rebels—Bruno,Galileo, Milton, Voltaire, Paine, Blake, Burns, Byron, Shelley, Heine, Marx,Ibsen, Shaw—whatever their nationality, than with the textbook heroes of" deeds that won the Empire ". We are world-citizens at heart.

But when we have gone thus far, we find ourselves up against a snag.All that we have yet achieved is an intellectual attitude personal to our-selves. Most people do not read science or history, except in very limiteddoses for the purpose of passing an examination or getting a job. There isnothing in their intellectual intake to, make them critical of the assumptionsdrilled into them. If we wait for them to become Rationalists, we maywait for ever. And it is on them, not on us, that the future of civilisationdepends. If the mass of our fellows remain docile members of antagonisticpower-groups, they may blow up themselves and us with the latest engines

• of scientific slaughter; and in that case is anything worth while?That is the question which torments and paralyses so many today.

4

If I thought that there was no answer to it, I should not stand on platformsand talk about these matters. It is not worth while to propagate despair.It is ionly because I hold that there is an answer that I am here at all.Fortunately, I believe, in the long run (though it may be uncomfortable inthe short run), the modern conflict is not simply one of national power-politics. It is also a class conflict which cuts across national frontiers. Amodern nation has not the internal solidarity and stability of n. primitivetribe, nor can it ever achieve it until industrial society has, solved theeconomic problem of combining maximum production with a rising standardof living. Wherever that problem is unsolved, society is and will continueto he rent by class struggle, and however much official propaganda maytry to induce fanatical loyalty to the nation-State, economic conflict willalways upset the apple-cart. So we see today in France and even in theU.S.A.

But why, I shall be asked, do I think this fortunate? What good cancome of adding class conflict to national conflict? I answer thus. Theperil in which we stand today is that of an international war in which thelatest inventions of science—atomic bombs, bacterial warfare and what- .not—will be employed without scruple to the destruction of civilisation.Now these weapons can •be employed in national conflict, but not in classconflict, unless the user wishes to destroy his own country and his ownfriends. Therefore, whatever was the case in the pa4, class conflict is todayliterally the lesser evil. If there is one feature of this modern tangle onwhich we may congratulate ourselves, it is that countries torn by industrialconflict, whatever its cause, are thereby less able to engage in the nationalconflicts which are now the more mortal threat. To him who is a world-citizen at heart class struggles are triply important. They continue the greatbattles of the past for social justice, they liamstring the warmonger, andthey provide a political education which no book can rival.

(Contributed by Archibald Robertson)

Mrs. Bland() White, 0.B.E., dn Crime and PunishmentReadings from: (1) "The Book of Jeremiah";

(2) " The Psycho-Analytical Approach to Delinquency,"by Dr. Friedlander.

September 26, 1948' This is a distressing problem, because we are faced with a clash'between

important principles, and it does not seem possible to find an immediatepractical solution. -

These principles are:1: It is a duty of governments to protect their peoples against criminals.

Where this duty is not performed private persons take on the job, andthe result is savagery, injustice and corruption. See U.S.A.• Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.We have a duty towards even convicted criminals—both to reformthem if we can, and to protect them against -the ignorance andvindictiveness of the community.

We may add that punishment often harms those who suffer it, but inmany cases It does act as a deterrent.

The first necessity is to try to form some idea of who and .what crim-inals are. Next, to estimate what effects punishment will have on each type,and how far it will act as a deterrent. Lastly, to realise what are the irrationalforces that cloud our minds when we are dealing with them.

Criminals are those who are not held back from crime by the moralsanctions at present in force. They shade off into the general population,

5

who are held back. •In the same way groupings now suggested overlap.Moreover it may be hard to place a person in any group.

I. Insane and those who suffer from physical diseases such as braintumors and epilepsy. This gioup commit crimes because they are ill, andthere is no question of either deterrents or punishment.

. 2. The psychopathic. Here the conscience itself has not developednormally so that they have no real control over their anti-social impulses.Punishment hardens them. Deterrents act only if immediate, and have nolasting effects.

3. Compulsive criminals.. (Crimes often sexual.) In contrast Tto lastgroup, feel intense guilt and•often crave for punishment, so that act must becommitted where it will certainly be found out.

In both these last groups punishment is useless, but it is hard to con-vince the public that one burglar may go free while another gets 18 months.

There remains the 'great mass of offenders whom we may divide againinto two: •

Those who, drift into crime because they cannot cope with life.They are subnormal mentally and physically, and the victims of heredity.and environment. Punishment acts as a deterrent, and without it largenumbers of other weaklings would join this group.

Persons of normal health and capacitY, but more brutal, callous• and greedy than ordinary men. Calculating, and deterred only by fear

of punishment.In the public demand for severe punishment uncimscious factors play

a large part These are the chief:. 1. The criminal plays the part of a scape-goat. We project our sins

on to him and punish them in him.Such punishment forms an outlet for moralised aggression.Unpunished crime causes strong anxiety, ' especially to those with

similar temptations. They feel great relief when it is severely punished. Thecase then becomes a terrifying example which helps us all to control ourown impulses. Unconscious forces sometimes work for the criminal insteadof against him. • .

(a) Those who are so much afraid of their•own evil impulses thatthey dare not satisfy them even by proxy are deeply disturbed by anyharsh punishment.. (b) Those with very large quantities of unconscious narcissism—" God Complex "—feel that only they have the right to punish.Conclusion. We cannot at present afford to do away with punishment,

but it should be reformative. E.g., plenty of hard work but of an intirestingand creative kind. , . •

S. K. Ratcliffe on Lambeth and Amsterdam

Readings from: (1) " Report of the Lambeth Conference," and BertrandRussell; . . •

(2) J. Martineau on the Church of England.

October 3, 1948

No year can have been so crowded with conferences as 1948. Amongthem two were of special interest to an Ethical Society—the Anglican Bishopsat Lambeth and the World Couneil of Churches in Amsterdam. They madea contrast as regards Publicity. The Bishops,-329 in number, met in con-clave. They published results, but not proceedings. The delegates of theWorld. Council debated in public and had world-wide newspaper reports.

6

Their assembly comprised 148 church divisions, almost entirely Protestant.The Greeks were there, but not the Russians. Rome, needless to say, declinedto send even observers. The conference was described as the most impressiveever known in the Protestant world, and by far the most important. .Therewas great rejoicing over the general goodwill and readiness for co-operation.The papers supplied to the delegates, covering many subjects, were inenormous volume.

" Lambeth Conference, 1948," provided a timely theme, for it openswith .an encylical letter from the -Bishops, to be read on October 10 in allAnglican churches. This is a carefully written document, wide in range,moderate in tone, but emphatically out of accord, in all theological matters,with modernist opinion and sentiment. The full supernatural dogma isinsisted upon. Nothing is more evident than the Bishops' unqualifiedacceptance 'of old doctrines and traditional formularies. They cling toancient superstitions, seemingly without qualms. Thus the ApostolicSuccession is reaffirmed on the first Page, and with regard to social institutionsand ethics, the Bishops go to the extreme and declare that all nations andsocieties must " acknowledge the sovereignty of Jesus Christ ", for " societiesbuilt on other foundations are built on sand ". Yet among the 300, manycame from work under social systems, such as those of India andChina, which for ages have exhibited a stability unknown to the West.The Bishops, again,- express a confidence which has not been evident inEnglish church congresses for many years piast. They assert that Christianityhas won the victorV, " the tide of faith is beginning to come in ". ,Theyventure the amazing statement that " eVil is henceforth a broken army,fighting desperately a rear-guard action "!. And further, that " the resurrec-tion of Jesus Christ is the guarantee that the love of God is stronger thandeath or evil." We may well ask what possible meaning coUld be attachedto words such as these by congregations of plain people all round theworld, amid the actualities and fears of the present time. As regards thenew victory claimed for the Church, we have the cumulative evidences ofdecline. That admirable investigator, Mr. 'Seebohm Rowntree has publishedthe results of a recent inquiry into churchgoing.. These show a reductionof no less than 70 per cent, the most serious feature being the growingindifference of men and women in the vital ages between 17 and 40. Thereturning " tide of faith " cannot be estimated apart from church statistics,but these the Bishops, naturally enough, do'not refer to.

The Church's " doctrine of man " is a principal theme of the encyclicalletter. " The Christian doctrine-does not undervalue 'the material presuppo-sition of the good life." The Church is concerned with the duties ofcitizenship. It approves the advance of the Welfare State and the increasingactivity of governments in the care of their citizens. But " when a societytreats its members as means toward the securing of its own ends it becomesa destroyer of men's souls." This leads the Bishops; while demandingequal rights for all, to make a declaration against Communism so, emphaticthat, inevitably, it will be taken by many as,their governing conclusion. -

Their specific denunciation falls upon Marxian Communism and itsphilosophy of Dialectical Materialism. Against this form of Communismthe church must take its stand; it must condemn " the cruelties, injustice,and lying propaganda which are inherent in it ": Here there can be nocompromise. The Church's servants, they urge, should take pains to studyand understand the system. since it i " the most highly organised, anddestructive form 'of seculaiism, the one live alternative to the ChristianinterpretatiOn of man They add; •" No view of life can command .theassent of the rising generation unless it can come to 'grips With the dogmasof Dialectical Materialism ": And they make one surprising admission:" Marxiim is at s' ome points nearer to the ChriStian dcictrine Than any other

7

philosophy in the field, presenting something like a caricature • of theChristian hope, and above all of Christian eschatology ". Great. -numbersof people " see in Communism a protest against social injustice " and aconcern for the oppressed, and the Bishops confess that in this facrtherelies a judgment on the Church and on the society with which it is identified.

There is significance in the attitude of the Bishops towards science. Theysay that no barriers should be permitted against research. The ancientecclesiastical ban could not be more plainly repudiated, and yet, it willbe remarked, there is nothing in the letter or the resolutions about theapplication 'of scientific method to .the sacred texts. Biblical criticism ispassed by. Among the 300 there must be many who go a good long waywith the Bishop of Birmingham. They are not heard from.

Two other points are of decided interest. The first is That, whilerecognising the facts about divorce, the Bishops reaffirm the sacramentalprinciple of marriage as indissoluble. The second is their attittide to theever-vexed issue of Church unity. An internal question provided themwith a practical test. In southern India four dioceses have joined withthe Nonconformists in creating a United Church. Their bishops were notinvited to Lambeth.. (From the Dean of St. Paul's we get a comment witha semi-ironic sound: " This Lambeth conference has probably done moregood than harm.")

From Lambeth to Amsterdam is a long stride. The expansive talk ofunity in spirit and aim could not, of course, disguise 'the deep divisionsamong the•148 types of Church government and practice. There werecomplaints that too much time was spent in discussion of 'doctrine. Tooutside observers, perhaps, the Most curious fact was the rigidity of thetheological basis. The World Council of Churches does not extend awelcome to any societies and individuals coming under the heading ofreligious liberals: On the contrary, they are excluded by the basic formula,The Amsterdam meetings were largely dominated by a small number ofconspicuous men, among who were Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr of New York,and Dr. Hromalka of Prague. Both, are pessimistic in their religious andsocial philosophy. The Czech, in particular, administered a cold douche.He told the conference that the West was economically and morally bank-rupt and if another world conflict were to occui-, they could not assumethat the West would be victorious. Its supremacy was over. In theAmsterdam conference both war and Communism were to the fore. Therejection of Marxism was linked with an equal. judgment upon materialistcapitalism which, for many Americans cannot have been easy to accept.The conference, like the Bishops, declared that war Was utterly at variancewith the Christian faith. The Bishop of Chichester, and Mr. John FosterDulles, adviser on foreign affairs to Governor Dewey, led the delegates incalling for an unequivocal stand by the Church. But what could be plainerthan the unreality 'of such calls? The Roman Church does not condemnwar. The Protestant Churches are, of necessity, nationalist. They mustsupport and bless a war in which their people are engaged. There is, indeeed,no force comparable with war as a uniter of the churches.

From the two conferences we are considering, one conclusion upon aa great matter emerges. This is the assumption that there are nowonly two contestants for the human soul, that mankind has become thebattleground of•two Absolutes----Marxist materialism and supernaturalreligion. Between these two, say• the Bishops, the world must choose. Ifthat were so, then the outcome could not be doubted. The Church is deeplyand variously divided. It is based upon a system of abstract-dogma fromwhich the' modem mind has turned away, and from which also, as theChurch dignitaries continually admit, the British and European masses havealways'.been semoved. Such a Church could not conceivably stand against8

a militant doctrine which admits of no dissent, which is served by a disciplinedarmy of missioners and commands the allegiance of a myriad workers byhand and brain. But the manifest fact of our time is this, that mind andthe world of affairs do not make an arena of conflict to the death betweentwo absolutes as thus defined. The free spirit, the scientific method, andthe unfettered search for truth, which for us make the true climate of themind, prevent us from seeing the great battle in terms such as those.

(Contributed by S. K. Ratcliffe)

RATIONALISM IN RETROSPECT

The Editor of the New Statesman and Nation, reviewing in his issuefor September 11 last two recent additions to the Thinker's Library, discussesin characteristically breezy fashion the Rationalist and Ethical movementof last century and today. " In the nineteenth century," writes Mr. KingsleyMartin, " Rationalism was a fighting creed. It had its materialistic meta-physic, its tested faith in science as the key to truth, its belief in humannature and its assurance that, through reason, society was perfectible. Ithad its hagiography : had not its saints from Giordano Bruno to Tom Painebeen persecuted and their testimony justified? The enemy was the Church,and the devil was on the run. Superstition and priestcraft were doomed."

And what (as he sees it) is the position now? " One may still meet atConway Hall elderly gentlemen who have no doubts about this generouscreed. They are not worried about ' the principle of indeterminism 1. . . .Some of them still find John Stuart Mill completely satisfying or worshipat the shrine of Herbert Spencer." Others, he adds, reacting from formerpolitical individualism, " see in .Marxism a satisfying creed." •

From this lively opening he proceeds to discuss with deepening gravity,,apropos of Mr. Hector Hawton's Men Without Cods, the problem of find-ing an efficient substitute for the emotional appeal of the God-idea. Hecomments shrewdly: " One reason for the growth of Communism is that itis evolving a mythology to rival that of Christianity," adding that a tendencyis discernible " to canonise, if not to deify, Lenin."

These serious matters, however, are outside my present purpose, whichis simply to enter a mild protest against Mr. Kingsley Martin's suggestionthat Rationalism in general, and the Ethical movement in particular, havelost faith or vigour since the dawn of the present century. Personally, as aRationalist during an even longer period, " my withers are unwrung." Atthe recent general meeting of the Rationalist Press Association the Chair-man announced the highest membership list ever attained; and despite themany difficulties attending 'present-day publishing it has maintained anexcellent output of books. No figures are available to me as to the EthicalSocieties generally, here and in America; but one need not be depressed ifindividual centres show a falling-off in numbers. Generally, the position, Ibelieve, is but little changed. Ours is still a fighting faith, relying not onscience alone, but on human endeavour in a wider field, as the only roadto truth. And what senior member of our Society, looking back across theyears, can fail to discern the steady leavening of humanism in the Churches—save in the barred and shuttered house of Romanism? The " impregnablerock of Holy Scripture" is cracked and riven; truth is no longer a clericalmonopoly; the " laying-on of hands " bestows no real benediction; these arebut casual instances of that influx of " sweet reasonableness " for which wehave striven and Matthew Arnold had long pleaded.

Mr. Kingsley Martin's jests at nineteenth century Rationalism are clearlynot to be taken very seriously. Tom Paine and John-Stuart Mill stand firmlyin our regard as valiant and clear-sighted foes of Clericalism; Spencer'ssociology, like much other pioneer work, has lost some ground. They

9

claimed no •plenary inspiration. Human effort, however fine and sustained,remains human—excepting always those pronouncements on faith andmorals made ex cathedra by his Holiness, the Vicar-General of Christ onearth! Soberly and steadfastly the task of humanism is still pursued.Labouring to effect in a difficult world (since the gods are dead) the bestthat man can do.

We press still thorough,Nought that abides in itHaunting us, onward. ONLOOKER.

In presenting the following article, it may be of interest to readers toknow that Gordon Caulfeild, who lives in Toronto, writes 'often for the"Freethinker", a monthly paper published by the Freethinkers of America.In a recent issue of this paper, Mr. Caulfeild paid a good tribute to thewritings of Archibald Robertson, with a particular reference to Mr.Robertson's article in the" Rationalist Annual for 1947 "—"Can Man SaveHimself?"

UNESCO FIGHTS FOR WORLD SANITYby Gordon Caulfeild

All of us here are interested in seeing intelligence and reason and thehuman mind take over the guidance of human behaviour. We realise thatUnesco, as the supreme global intellectual organisation of our time, canbe a mighty power in this respect. And so it is a keen pleasure to learn ofThe Unisco Courier.

Here, monthly, in this fine new paper the editor, S. M. Koffler presentsreal evidence of Unesco's great world-wide fight to extend the reasoningpower of the mind over societal conduct. Unesco's co-ordination ofscientific groups and their vital knowledge services, illiteracy's challengeto film education in Africa .as seen by John Grierson, China's programmeof mass education and health and agriculture, how the compelling beautyof music becomes a weapon for world peace and international under-standing, society's neglect of low-priced books as a medium of popularcommunication of facts and ideas, the four emergency regions for funda-mental education in our world today, all this and so much more.

The type of high adventure that really matters is fascinatingly depicted;in illustrated accounts of a French expedition exploring the Upper Amazon,of an anthronological field surx?ey of the culture of the Marbial Valleypeoples of Haiti amidst all the lush tropic beauty of the West Indies, SouthAmerica's Iquitos Conference creating the International Institute of theHylean Amazon to explore and develop this strange and unknown region,and so on.

The pathetic appeal of the war orphans is particularised in the storyof the little children of Pestalozzi Village in Switzerland.

Of special interest to us is the article in the May issue calling for a" New Humanism " for our civilisation, by Dr. Pedro Bosch-Gimpera, thehead of Unesco's Philosophy and Humanities Section. And another on thenecessity for the popularisation of scientific knowledge.

Julian Huxley, as Director General of the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organisation, wisely observes of the whole dangerousworld situation in our time: " Man cannot exist half illiterate and halfliterate". How reminiscent of H. G. Wells's celebrated " race betweeneducation and catastrophe". Yes, Unesco is keenly awake to the socialurgency of our age.

A full year's subscription to The Unesco Courier, a paper of real interestto alert people everywhere, is Mit two shillings and sixpence, from: UnescoHouse, 19 Avenue Kleber, Paris, 16-e, France.10

SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, RELIGION

Lately there were three publications on this subject which require someremarks. The first comes from Kingsley Martin (New Statesman, p. 219)reviewing a book of A. Robertson. I hold no brief for Mr. Robertson,and I disagree with his sociological and economic conclusions. Mr. Martinstates: " In the nineteenth century Rationalism was a fighting creed. Ithad its materialist metaphysic (what is that, I ask?) . . . and its assurancethat through reason society was perfectible . . . (some ironicalreferences). . .. One may still meet elderly gentlemen at Conway Hall whohave no doubt about this generous creed. They are not worried aboutthe ' principle of indeterminism '. . . ." And so it goes on in the well-known specious journalistic highfalutin style which seems so highbrow,picking holes in poor Robertson and Hector Hawton. But what doesKingsley Martin suggest instead? Nothing. Small wonder. His philo-sophical adviser is Professor load, who, after abjuring " materialismkeeps on wobbling on the tight rope of some dualistic "metaphysic "(to use Mr. Martin's word) and, perhaps, some day will tumble down intothe security net of Roman Catholicism. I, myself, agree that Rationalismis obsolete, has not advanced with Psychology, and is a dilapidated half-way-house . . without finding •ts way to " Scientific Materialism ". Iagree with Martin in so far that I, too, regard it a mistake to connect" scientific materialism " with any sociological or economic conclusions.The harmful consequence is that sciolists believe that materialist needsmust be " Socialists "' " Communists ", " Marxists " or any other. " istsVery much to blame for it is the silly phrase of " dialectical materialism "which doesn't mean anything. Apart from all the other meanings under-laid to the word' materialism, " scientific materialism " Means that every-thing can be explained as a material phenomenon.

And so I come to the two other publications. Both records of addressesgiven at " conferencial " meetings, one by Professor Whitacker at Oxford,the other by Lord Samuel at the British Association. I 'cannot deal withthem in the short space here, but I want to mention that both, after longhistorical back-flashes, arrived at the same conclusions:. " modern " physicalmathematics (Whitacker) and science (Samuel) admit that " Materialism " isfalse. Whitacker, of course, like all proud mathematicians, includingWhitehead and Bertrand Russell, regards mathematics as the omniscient,as the exact science and, either do not or will-not know that mathematicsis an empirical science, that its so-called axioms are not " logically self-evident " but the result of experience, and that no mathematical resultis true unless examined and proved by experience and experiment. There-fore mathematics is useless for any philosophical conclusions, apart fromplaying with any "system of logics " with which Mr. Whitacker is sodelighted. -

Lord Samuel is quoting Einstein, Planck, Addison, etc.' that the " lawof causality " (i.e., the same circumstances must cause the same effects)be allegedly shaken by the " Quantum theory " and the obstinate behaviourof the neutron (the readir need no(trouble what these things are), arrivesat a defence of a " determined indetermined ' free ' will ". First of •all:neither the quantum theory nor the neutron prove anything 'else but thatour instruments have not yet •found out all circumstances under whichphenomena—of very small space and in greatest speed—occur. It is hardlypossible to " predict " capillary phenomena or earthquakes or eruptions ofvolcanoes. That we know very little does not shake the (incorrectly so-called) laws of prObabilities and causalities and does not-exclude the explana-tion of everything as a material phenomenon, nor doe's the (quoted) doubtwhether light is the result of " pelted' corpuscles, or waves; or both, shake

11

the necessary material causes, results and qualities of light. It is again to

regret that physicists, like mathematicians and astronomers, dabble so much

in " philosophy " eoncluding that their, in many respects existing ignorance

(well excusable considering the shortcomings of our instruments), must be

made the basis of any philosophical system. And so Lord Samuel

is speaking of " Will ", free, determined, not quite indetermined, of

" Emotions ", " Ethics " without trying to give a description of what " the

Will " psychologically is, or emotions are . . . with complete neglect that

things like mind, soul, will, etc., simply do not exist as non-material some-

thing-forces.And there comes Kingsley Martin, worried about the " principles of

indeterminism " and ridiculing the Conway Hall people. What can he

explain as the nature of Will, Emotion, Intuition, etc? But without any

" metaphysic " please.• DR. BERNARD STARK.

CONWAY DISCUSSION CIRCLE

The new season of the Conway Discussion Circle hegan on Tuesday,

October 5, with a very entertaining and lively discussion on Should Higher

Ability Receive Higher Pay? This was opened by Mr. George E. O'Dell,

who gave a vigorous, humorous, and earnest address.As this was an Ethical Society, Mr. O'Dell had no hesitation in intro-,

ducing abstract principles. Even if a loose agreement could be reached

regarding the ethical relationship between work and reward we might be

able to influence others.Mr. O'Dell contrasted the opinions of George Bernard Shaw and H. G.

Wells : the former, a radical advocating the same income for everyone but

with the viewpoint that all people would be inter-marriageable and that every-

one would be well edbcated.and clever and coming up to his level, whereas

the latter, more plebeian in outlook, favoured equality so that people would

have freedoms, but advocated Socialisin with clever people like philosophers,

etc., rising to the top. It was a great ethical question whether those born

with superior gifts should have advantages, and Mr. O'Dell came to the

conclusion one should not talk in terms of money or even of food. In

passing, he mentioned it was human nature not to do one's best if not

offered more, and there were practical considerations on one side and

ethical on the other, but he found he agreed with Wells, and not with Shaw,

that man was not entitled to material gain, but should have freedoms and

other more " spiritual " advantages.Even if an industrialist became a great benefactor by providing, jobs

for the community he was not entitled to surround himself with luxury, but

anyone showing creative gifts should be allowed to develop them and have

the chance and facility for travel and access to books and beauty if these

were necessary for the improvement of his work.Professor Felix Adler made a strong plea for the responsibility of

wealth, and for trusteeship. In his philosophy he allowed profit, and

wanted freedoms for people, but he feared the State would enslave men.

He advocated living modestly and devoting excess funds to improve the lot

of others, and he lived up to this principle. He disagreed with Tolstoy, who,

although landowner, worked as a labourer in his own fields, and disapproved

of the poverty of .Gandhi. With Dr. Adler work and pride in it came first,

and doing one's best; of secondary importance was the sort of life on'e was

able to lead owing to the proceeds of that work. As Mr. O'Dell said in

conclusion,' whatever the job, 'one should be proud of doing it and feel it

was necessary and of worth to the.community.During discussion it was suggested that of late years incomes had been

12

almost levelled; that doctors being of benefit to the community should bemore suitably rewarded; and that although incentive was important factor,vulgar incentives would not appeal to the best minds.. While it was admittedsome capitalists did much good with their money, it was pointed out becauseof their very business ability and success, philanthropy was not in the make-up of many. Mr. -O'Dell maintained that everyone should have enoughto develop the best in him; scarcity was not the test of worth; everyonehad a gift and should be eduCated in order to have the privilege of con-

• tributing to society.L.L.B.

EDITORIAL NOTESOn Thursday evening, September 16, Mrs. Westbrook spoke to an

interested audience on the seventeenth century Princess Zeb un Nissa andher poetry. The subject proved quite absorbing.

Having had early contact in London with Gandhi, Jinnah, and otherprominent Indians, also the benefit of six months' residence in India livingwith Indians, Mrs. Westbrook was able to talk with ease about India. Beinga vegetarian and a total abstainer, she was welcomed into Indian homes. Onhearing talk of Zeb un Nissa, she persuaded one of her Indian friends tocopy out several of her poeths, arid on her return to England compiled andpublished a book of them in the Wisdom of the East series.

Thursday, September 30, took the form of a musical evening, whenthe Whyteleaf Players—Mr. W. Faulkner (violin), Mr. V. Thurdin (clarinet),and Miss H. Hutton (piano)—entertained with a short programme of lightmusic in the Library. Their playing was much appreciated, and we lookforward to hearing them again. There were also songs by Miss W. L.George, Mr. W. T. Smith, and Mr. G. C. Dowman.

The following iteni was published in The Times of September 9. whichwe re-publish on account of its reference to an 'act of generosity 'on the partof the Rationalist Press Association.

DR. CHARLES BEARD•The Principal of Ruskin College writes :Your obituary notice of thc distinguished American historian, Dr. Charles

Beard, refers to his studies in Oxford, but does not mention a closer linkwith educational development in this country. While in Oxford Beardassisted in the foundation of Ruskin College, and was for three years anenergetic member of its staff. Last year a lectureship was founded here inhis honour, in the History of Science, through a generous endowment fromthe Rationalist Press Association. Dr. Beard continued to keep in touch withthe college, of which he was a co-founder, and we had hoped that he mighthave been present, or at least sent a message, on the occasion of our jubileenext year.

-It is interesting to know that ColM Barralet, the energetic Hon. Sec.

of the Dance Committee;and Jimmie Green, have taken over " Heverswoodthe well-known country restaurant and ballroom at Halstead on the mainBromley-Sevenoaks road, a few yards from Knockholt Station. Joan andJimmie Green will be in residence. .

A most successful re-union was held on September 19, when Mr.Archibald Robertson took the chair and Mr. and Mrs. O'Dell were theguests of the evening. An attractive programme of music had been arranged,and the playing of Miss Ella Ivimey, and Miss Lina Tanner (violin), andsinging of Miss Lucie Michael and Mr. G. C. Dowman were muchappreciated.

13

Both our guests gave interesting discourses on their stay in Americawhere, after vigorously taking part in the Ethical movement in this country,they played an active part there in the Ethical movement since 1914,Mrs. O'Dell, among other appointments, being Vice-Chairman of a club forwomen over fifty in New York, and Mr. O'Dell lecturing and becomingSecretary of the American Ethical Union and editing The Standard.

Mrs. O'Dell's subject was " Living in America " and she talked- withanimation in an entertaining manner giving her personal opinion of -Ameri-cans and expressing her admiration for the many qualities they possessed,including their vigour and energy, their essentially youthful spirit, flexibility,never wanting to give up, their inventiveness; their slight boastfulness, shefelt, was due to the enthusiasm of youth. They knew better than anyonehow to have a good time, but were also serious. They 'were the mosthospitable people in the wbrld.

The women had been a power from the beginning, being self-confldeni;energetic, and efficient. Their lives were interesting and practical. Therewere over 300 clubs in New York, and although every one.belonged to many,club-life did not take away their interest and pride in the home. Womenwith their organisations had managed to alter the hours of nurses, and inPhiladelphia had provided 'excellent playgrounds for small children.

Mrs. O'Dell ended with a tribute to Andre Maurois who loved America;he saluted the courage of the Americans, their audacity and zest, theirdiscipline, their desire, to " know ", enthusiasm for improvement, grandeurof spiritual ideals, and comradeship.

In speaking of " English influences on American Ethical Societies "Mr. O'Dell paid tribute to the many people who had done so much tofoster the progress and development of these societies; and pointed out thatsince 1876, of the nineteen leaders in the Ethical movement no less thanten had been of British origin. He mentioned Percival Chubb who didexperimental work in education, and Alfred W. Martin,. an ex-Unitarian •Minister who became Dr. Adler's assistant and attracted large audiences.Henry J. Golding, who had spoken at South Place on occasions, was wel-comed by Dr. Adler, and Ernest Jacques, a teacher in the Midlands whoworked behind the scenes and became private-secretary to Dr. Adler. JamesHart did great work in the First'World War orienting emigrants from-Europeinto American life. Mr. O'Dell ended' his interesting account of the workand progress of the• Ethical Societies by mentioning W. Edwin Collyer,Eustace Haydon, and J. Hutton Hynd, the leader of the St. Louis EthicalSociety who addressed us at Conway Hall on two occasions last year.

After an address by Mr. H.J. Blackham, who spoke on behalf of theEthical Union and the need for working closer together in the future,refreshments were -served -and the programme concluded pleasantly withmore musical items.

L.L.B.

BOOK NOTICES

DR. STANTON COIT ,

STANTON Corr, 1857-1944. Selections, Edited with a Prefatory Memoir, byH. J. Blackhant. Favil Press, Kensington.' -The unusual career of Stanton Coit, who died four years ago at -87,

could not be allowed to go without a brief record, and it comes appropriatelyfrom -his successof at the Ethical Church. He was- an American, born inOhio. He studied philosophy .in Berlin, came under the influence of FelixAdler, founder of- the American ethical societies, and in the late 1880s waschosen by South Place to succeed Dr. Moncure Conway. His disposition,however, was quite unsuited to• this . position, .and there was an amicableparting.

14

Coit then organised the West London Ethical Society, which met inPiccadilly and later in Kensington Town Hall. He believed fervently inritual, and.in 1909; when the Society acquired a chapel in Queen's Road,Bayswater, he was able to give shape to his idea. Here for more than.twentyyears he lectured and conducted serQices, with the aid of a good musicaldirector. His compilation, Social Worship, contained a wide selection ofpassage& from the world's literature. Coit was influential in founding theunion of ethical societies, and he edited the monthly Ethical World. Asa social worker in New York he had made a fruitful experiment known asthe Neighbourhood Guild, and in his early London days he tried a variantof the plan among the young people of Kentish Town. The Ethical Churchwas markedly successful in its first stage and until the end of the First WorldWar. Coit was an impressive speaker, with the advantage of a finelymodulated voice. During the years of his prime he had a full congregation,but in the 1920s it dwindled to a remnant of the faithful.

He was a lone figure in the Ethical movement. There were not many,here or in America, to sympathise with his liturgical theory and practice.The specimens of his- writing chosen by Mr. Blackham, particularly theexpositions of his " ethical idealism ", vague •in content and elaborate inform, suffice by themselves to make clear why the leader of the EthicalChurch remained the singular figure in English life that he undoubtedlywas. His wildest hope was to persuade the Church of England to abandonits supernatural basis and forms, and on this theme he wrote two books.Mr. Blackham says that he failed " to understand the psychology of Christianbelief and the nature of Church institutions ". That is to put it mildly, forin truth Coit there was moving in a vacuum. Perhaps his most valuable andattractive characteristic was an exceptional gift for selecting and encouragingyoung men of promise. Several ethical society leaders in America (HoraceBridges and Hutton Hynd among them) owed their start to him. The lateLord Snell was a devoted follower and friend. Mr. Blackham's memoir isthe tribute of a disciple. He says that Coit's temper was energetic, " histemperament nervous and extravert ". The last word, I should say, is wideof the mark.

S. K. R.

WRESTLING JACOB. By Marjorie Bowen. The Thinkers' Library. Watts & Co.,3s. 6d.In this biography of John Wesley, Miss Bowen writes of his faults and

virtues with strict impartiality and with the true biographer's gift ofimpersonality, although sentences creep in which reveal a critical valuation.For instance, ".Behind the ekperience that they termed their conversion, andthat Charles! celebrated with an outburst of sincere and noble song wassomething much higher than their narrow and repulsive creed."

John Wesley, as is not unusual with fanatics, was a great egotist, withthe admitted ambition of attaining eternal bliss; indeed, he wrote in hisjournal : " My chief motive is the hope of saving my soul." The means ofaccomplishing this did not always result in the happiness of others. He liveda life of great austerity and, where possible compelled others to do likewise.We can be forgiven a feeling of exasperation at the narrowness •of hisattitude, yet in these latter 1940s a little of John Wesley's self-discipline wouldnot come amiss. • Wesley reacted to the laxity of his time, and, maybe,another Wesley is now due—but without the emotionalism which, it is tobe hoped, has passed for ever, and will remain only as the memory. of acurious historical -phenomenon. An ethical revival is needed.• With the introduction of lay preachers, Wesley opened a new and fruitfulfield of activity for those young men of limited education who felt the urge to preach religion but who did not possess the means to become ordained.

15

The Bishop of Armagh told Charles Wesley, that the most amazing thing inthe conduct of the brothers was their employing laymen, but Charlescountered : " My Lord, that fault is yours, because you hold your peace,the stones cry out." The Bishop then objected that these preachers wereunlearned men. " Some are ", said Charles, " but the,dumb,ass rebukes theprophet." -

; This is a most readable book, revealing a great insight into the charactersof some of the Wesley family. We read of the rigid upbringing of thechildren by Susanna and Samuel, Wesley and can understand why John wasas he .was. Miss Bowen says rightly : " It is impossible to understand JohnWesley and what he did unless his background is known and understood,since even the greatest of men must be in some degree a product of his time."

PREGRESSIVE WORLD. September-October 1948 is called Convention Issue.American Freethought is becoming thoroughly organised. A Free-

thought Convention was held at Chicago in September and it is claimed thatmuch was accomplished. " For the first time in America, Freethought andHumanist societies met to combine for the purpose of exposing orthodoxreligious quackery, greed, and chicanery "--the Americans do not mincewords. " The foundation for a mighty organisation was laid. Upon it wemust build a structure from which we shall go forth to destroy ignoranceand superstition."

American Freethought has not quite the same problems as we have our-selves, yet we can but admire the vigour with which they are tackling them.

SMALL CALENDARS. By I. H. B. Peel. Arthur Barker Ltd., 8s. lid,A collection of essays on ,the countryside written with poetic insight into

the rural scenes they. describe. There are .seasonal essays, an essay on" Lambing ", on " The Inn ", " The Woods in May "; " Mowing ", " Rain " :" It was a delight 'to rustle the unready bluebells, and see the water, trickledown each reedy stem. It was a delight to watch the latchet of a gate, whoseunderpart stood draped by raindrops hanging there like sparrows strunginverted along a wire."

Containing many another picturesque essay, this book should make anacceptable present to any lover of the countryside.

CORRESPONDENCE

We publish Dr. C. A. Smith's reply to Mr. Camerman's letter, publishedin the September Monthly Record, and think that, he is entitled to space inour December issue to reply to Professor Linhart, when he has checkedauthorities on factual statements made in his lecture. This correspondencemust then close. Should anyone wish to continue the debate, they maychallenge Dr. Smith (or accept his challenge) to a public meeting.

The Editor,. Monthly Record.Sir,

Last month, Mr. Camerman made a second attempt to discredit myaddress on Czechoslovakia. He occupied two pages—i.e., as much spaceas was devoted to the lecture by an academician of European fame suchas Professor Keeton. From this I conclude that you:regard his letter asworthy of reply, and accordingly submit the following, retaining Mr.Camerman's own enumeration of his queries and comments.

I. " Was Dr. Smith's purpose to assist the Czechs to free themselvesfrom foreign dominati6n?" My purpose wax to give accurate informationabout recent events.. If this in any way assists a sorely tried people to regain

16

their political freedom and national independence, I shall naturally bepleased.

"Was he egged on by certain emigres from Czechoslovakia? " No,I was not, my contacts being with friends still in that country. But, asmentioned in my September letter, I was thanked by distinguished Czechdemocrats, previously unknown to me, who attended the Conway Halllecture. I value their testimony to• my accuracy as much as I deploreMr. Camerman's ungenerous attitude towards 'men, who left their countryrather than live under a totalitarian dictatorship. His assertion that they" foul and slander their own country " makes up in venom what it lacksin veracity. It is significant that Mr. Camerman, while protesting that heis not a Communist, nevertheless so resents exposure by Czech democratsof Communist election frauds that he describes this as slandering theircountry. According to him: therefore, the Communist minority is thecountry! •

" Dr. Smith sheds bitter tears at the fate of General Vlasov." Inmy speech, and in the Record report, my sole comment was : " The Russianshanged him." That terse statement contains not the slightest trace of aghost of a hint even of regret—mucE less of ".bitter tears ". These are thepure invention of Mr. Camerman.

Mr. Cameron hopes that I did something or other about the ZinovievLetter. Since I was a Parliamentary Labour Candidate in that 1924 RedLetter Election, I pretty certainly did considerably more about it than anycritic ever thought of doing.

His suggestion that the U.S.A. spoils system of State office isanalogous to Communist viptimisation of opponents in industry and theprojesiions is too absurd to need comment.

The Sokol display. Ignoring the fatuities about statistics, I merelypoint out that press accounts and my own eye-witness reports agree thatthe Sokol youth demonstrated overwhelmingly for Benes and againstGottwald. Mr. Camerman writes that he was " surprised " that the Com-munist Government took no " repressive counter-measures ". His surpriseis interesting but misplaced, for once again he is exquisitely wrong. TheGovernment did take repressive counter-measures, details of which weregiven in several of the more reputable papers, including the ManchesterGuardian.

In this paragraph, Mr. Camerman rejects the evidence of all mynon-Communist friends (mostly Socialists) dismissing them as " interestedparties ". Apparently only Communists are disinterested. But I confessmyself beaten by the peculiar. English of his assurance that " Dr. Smith hasno cause to answer ", for though tempted to agree with him I'm sure thatis not what he meant.

His remaining comments are irrelevant except for their support of theYalta Agreement—which was as shameful, and is proving as disastrousto freedom and to Britain, as was the earlier betrayal of Czechoslovakiaat Munich. Mr. Cameron, intent on defending the Communist " line ",recognises the first betrayal but not the • second. Those whose primaryconcern is for freedom and justice condemn both.

The other attack on my address, allegedly by Professor Linhart ofPrague, is in a different class from the laborious puerilitieS of my firstcritic. To its direct denial of' several of my major statements, I will (withyour permission, Mr. Editor) reply next month. The reason for the delayis simple. Czechoslovakia is no longer a free country, and any democratgiving information displeasing to the Government incurs grave danger.Certain of my communications to and from Czechoslovakia are consequently

17

less speedy than those of supporters of the dictatorship now installed there.

But in a few days I shall be in a position to deal with " Professor Linhart ".Yours truly,

C. A: Sithm.

WHITHER MANKIND

Arising out df the recent recantation of a former well-known Rationalist

. and his adherence to the Catholic Church, a contemporary literary journal

published some interesting comments.One correspondent rightly pointed out that this " conversion " emphasised

the experience of mankind that " man cannot live by bread alone "; that the

state of the world today doubly underlines the need for a religious enthusiasm

for the clarifying of .Ethical standards accompanied by a more sensititive

conscience and application of those principles in our personal lives.Science marches on; Science spells power and those powers are being

universally harnessed to the forces of evil and reaction, mankind being

apparently powerless to defend itself from the mechanical product of its own

brains.Hence the need for a high moral and Ethical sense aflame with a rational

religious fervour—able to control and direct, not simply those powers and

forces, but to instruct the hearts and consciences of us all. This is the core

of a real Religion of Humanity—a faith that could " move mountains ", if

the flame of a real love for our fellowmen were relit, and, seeking each

other's welfare, we thought less of our own individual rights. 'Among the many excellent hymns in the Society's hymn-book are some•

by our first minister, W. J. Fox, and in confirmation of our ideals and aims

would like to conclude with an extract from one :

" Make us a God ", said Man :Then Reason followed ArtAnd answered " Look within :God is in thine own heart—Within that temple is the holiest shrine :Silent revere and be thyself divine ".

R. H. VICKERS.

A misunderstanding occurred in the reading of Professor Linhart's letter

published in the October Monthly Record. Page 13, lines 19-20 should

have read: " The rumour that Jan Masaryk has been murdered by the

Communists is due to this lie propaganda, as has been also ascertained by

Kingsley Martin, the editor of the New Statesman, during his visit to Prague

in May of this year."From " as has been also ascertained " was' printed further down the page

in error.

SOCIETY'S -ACTIVITIESDances

Saturday, November 6, at 7.30 p.m., in aid of the South Place Table

Tennis Club.Saturday, December 4, at 7.30 p.m., in aid of the South Place String

Orchestra.Edna Cecil and her b;and will be with us again. Please book early.

Tickets 3s., including refreshments, are now available at Conway Hall, or

can be obtained from the Hon. Secretary, C. E. Barralet, Hill Cottage, Farn-

borough, Kent. Phone reservations, CHANcery 8032 or FARNborough

(Kent) 3867.Rambles

Sunday, November 14 : ".Autumn Glory in Epping Forest ". A

18

November walk under autumn conditions. Meet at 2.30 p.m., the "CrownLoughton. 38 bbs or electric railway. Tea at the " Bell ", Epping. Leader :Mr. B. 0. Warwick.

Sunday, November 28. Meet at Science Museum, South Kensington,2.30 p.m., for " A Survey of the Stars Through Space ". Leader : DouglasBioughton.

South Place String Orchestra—Conductor Eric SawyerPractices take place in the Library weekly, on Fridays, 7 to 9 p.m.

There are vacancies for competent amateurs. Particulars may be obtainedfrom the Hon. Secretary, E. J. Fairhall, Conway Hall, W.C.I.

At HomeSunday afternoon, November 21, at 3 p.m., in•the Library. Irene Frances

Evans and John William Vis, violin and song recital.

Social Evenings in the Library on Thursdays at 7 p.m.November 4.—Shakespeare Recital arranged by Mrs. Idiens, assisted

- by R. T. Smith. Shakespeare songs by G. C. Dowman.Pianoforte solos by Miss B. M. Channing.

11.Whist Drive.18.—E. J. Fairhall, " Holidays Abroad in 1948".25.—Miss I. Percival, " Bask Walton and the Lea Valley

Songs by.Miss D. Lester.

Table Tennis- Play is on Mondays, November 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29, at 6 p.m. Visitors

are invited. Rubber-soled shoes must be worn by players.

Conway Discussion CircleMeetings at 7 p.m. Admission free' with collection.November 2.—" Colour Problems in the West Indies ", by F. Norman.

9.—" The Retreat from Reason ", by Hector Hawton.16.—" What is Personalism ", by J. B. Coates.23.—" The Rights of Man", by John Murphy.30.—" Psychological Aspects of Delinquency ", by The Hon.

Mrs. S. Earl.

New Members.—Mr. John B. Bowmer, 40 Cranbrook Road, Ilford,Essex; Miss E. F. Noel, 37 Btrrnham Court, Moscow Road, W.2; Mr. R. J.Scammell, 35 Coolhurst Road, Crouch End, N.8; Mr. Frank Shaw, 38Aylmer Road, N.2.' New Associate Members.—Mr. David Dainow, 2 Montagu Place, DorsetStreet, W.1; Mr. H. L. Pierce (Staff), Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank,'HongKong; Mrs. Margaret E. Stiles, " Warrawee ", East Cowes, I.O.W.; Miss D.Chenning Smith, Minerva- Club, 28a Brunswick Square, W.C.I.

Changes' of Address of Members.—Miss Jean Croll, Red Gum Hills,Kojonup, Western Australia;• Mr. J. R. Evans, 36 Set Street, Stalybridge,Cheshire; Mr. H. Baillie Ritchie, 35 Hayter Road, S.W.2; Mr. R. A. Price;22b Melbury Road, Kensington High Street, W.I4.

Changes of Address of Associate MemberscMr. W. E. Gibbs, 24Graham Road, East London, South Africa.

19

South PleiceSunday Concerts. 58th Season

' 6.30 p.m. (Doors open 6 pin.) Admission Is.

November 7.--Amadeus String Quartet. Clarinet : Frederick Thurston.. Verdi in E minor; Beethoven in C, Op„59, No. 3, String

Quartets. Bliss Clarinet Quintet.

14.—Hirsch String Quartet. Haydn in D, Op. 50 No. 6;Wordsworth, No. 2, in B flat; Schubert in G, Op. 161.

21.— The London Singers directed by Normal Lilly. LondonPianoforte Trio. Brahms in D; Op. 8r; Shostakovitch,Op. 67 (1945).

- 28.— Sturdy String Quartet. Cello : James Whitehead.Mozart in D, K.575; Schubert, Op. 163, 2 Cello Quintet.Bach, Unaccompanied Suite, No. 1 in G.

SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETYSUNDAY MORNING MEETINGS AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK

November 7.—S. K. RATCLIFFE.—" The American Presidency." .

SOpran0 SOI0s, by JEAN BROADLET.

Hymns: Nos. 1 and 136

November 14.—PROF. C. W. KEETON, MA., LL.p.—" Law and Religion in ModernTimes."

Bass Solos by G. C. DOINNIAN : Whither? .. Schubert

England .. Party

Hymns: Nos. 5 and 22

November 21.—ARCHIBALD ROBERTSON, M.A.—" The Survival of Civilisation."

Violin Solo by HAROLD FAIRHURST: Sonata (Devil's Trill) Tartini

Hymns: Nos. 92 and 79

November 28.—DR. J. A. C. BROWN, M.B., Ch.B.—" What is wrong with Industry—the Psychological Approach."

Piano Solo by ELLA lvtrytev:: " Sonata No. 12 in F " Mozart

Hymns: Nos, 45 and 54

Pianist:' ELLA IVIMEY. Admission Free. Collection.

The Monthly Record is posted free to Members and Associates. Theannual charge to subscribers is 4s. Matter col' publication in the Decemberissue should reach the Editor, G. C. Dowman, 112 Torrington Park, N.I2,by November 12.

The Objects of the Society are the stady and dissemination of ethical principlesand the cultivation of a rational religious sentiment.

Any person in sympathy with these objects is cordially invited to become a Member

(minimum annual subscription 10s.), or Associate (minimum annual subscription 5s.),

Associates are not eligible to vote or hold office. Enquiries should be made of the

Registrar to whom subscriptions should be paid.

Han. Treasurer: E. J. FAIRHALL

,Flon. Registrar: Mrs. T. LINDSAY

Secretary:

Officers

Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, W.C.I.

Printed by Farleigh Press Ltd. (T.U.), Beechwood Rise, Watford, Herts. (5838)