The

Ethical RecordVol. 84, No. 1

0 EDITORIAL

Out of this WorldAbout twenty years ago there wasa radio series called "Journey intoSpace", a science-fiction "will-they-survive-for-the-next-episode" feat-ure which if played back todaywould sound like a satire. But theidea of space travel then waspurely a matter of fantasy.

Since then, there have been sev-eral "giant leaps for mankind" inspace, but what of the traffic inthe other direction? Since man be-gan exploring space, reports of"unidentified flying objects" havestarted and grown into a pseudo-industry. Societies for UFO reportsand research have proliferated,with full-time staff and whole filingcabinets of fuzzy photographs.

But even top scientists in thespace field are now bending to theidea that spacecraft from otherplanets (though probably fromother planetary systems) could con-ceivably be visiting our planet tosee what we are up to, or to see

JANUARY 1979

what sort of creatures are sendingout the peculiar objects floatingabout in the great black yonder.

What is the significance to Hum-anists of the possibility that lifecapable of sending vehicles throughspace to planet Earth exists out-side our known universe? If theidea is rejected, we are where wealways were. But if some type ofpositive proof ever came to light,on the one hand it would makenonsense once and for all of the"creation" theory, but it wouldalso confound evolution.

One thing all the scientists areagreed upon is that, in order toovercome the immense technicaldifficulties of inter-galactic travel,any "beings" proved to exist out-side our universe but visiting usmust possess technology far sup-erior to our own. Not the leastinteresting exercise would be to seewhether that knowledge had beenput to as destructive a use as prac-tically every scientific discoverymade on earth.

CONTENTSLECTURE SUMMARIES:

Audrey Williamson 3W. H. Liddell 6

FOR THE RECORD . 10DISCUSSION 12VIEWPOINT 14SOUTH PLACE NEWS 15COMING AT CONWAY HALL 2

The views expressed in this journal are not necessarily those of the Society Microfilm and reprints available—details on request

PUBLISHED BY SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETYCONWAY HALL, RED LION SQUARE, LONDON WC1R 4RL

SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY

Appointed Lecturers:: H. J. Blackham, Richard Cements OBE, Lord Brockway, T. F. Evans, W. H. Liddell,

Harry Stopes-Roe, Nicolas Walter

General Secretary: Peter Cadogan Lettings SecretarylHall Manager: Robyn Miles

Hon. Registrar: John Brown Hon Treasurer: C. E. Barralet

Editor, "The Ethical Record": Eric Willoughby

COMING AT CONWAY HALL

Tuesday, January 2: 7.00—Discussion. Peter Cadogan: Command, Consult

or Blow the Whistle?

Sunday, January 7: 11.00—Meeting. T. F. EVANSon The End of Demo-

cracy? 6.00—Bridge. 6.30 Concert.

Tuesday, January, 9: 7.00—Discussion. Stan Chisman: Should We Have

a Freedom of Information Act?

Sunday, January 14: 11.00—Meeting. PETER REALESon Rousseau Revisited.

3.00 — Forum. DR. KIT PEDLER. Life in a Post- Industrial Society. 6.00—

Bridge. 6.30—Concert.

Tuesday, January 16: 7.00—Discussion. Jim Michael: Freedom of Inform-

ation in USA and Sweden.

Thursday, January 18: 6.30—Bridge Drive.

Saturday, January 20: 3.00—Country Dancing.

Sunday, January 21: 11.00—Meeting. VICTOR SEREBRIAICOFFon HaS Tech-

nological Invention Outstripped Social Invention? 3.00—Sunday Social.

6.00—Bridge. 6.30—Concert.

Tuesday, January 23: 7.09—Discussion. Duncan Campbell: Investigative

Journalism and the Law.

Sunday, January 28: 11.00—Meeting. ERIC MILLSTONEon Rationality and

Science—Rationality and Society. 3.00—Forum. COLIN SCHINDLER:The

Jewish National Problem in USSR. 6.00—Bridge. 6.30—Concert.

Tuesday, January, 30: 7.00—Discussion. Peter Horfield: Prisoners and the

Outside World.

Sunday, February 4: 11.00—Meeting. NICOLAS WALTERon Robert Inger-

soll, the Happy Man. 6.00—Bridge. 6.30—Concert.

2

Richard III: Lawgiver for the Common Weal

BY

AUDREY WILLIAMSON

IN DEALING with Richard III's legislation, highly praised by all historianswith knowledge of the law, such as Francis Bacon, it is necessary to notethat medieval law and governance in Britain had roots going right backto Roman law (we were ruled by the Romans for some 400 years) and theSaxon kings. If by no means full democracy, we have enjoyed by long trad-ition a certain respect for individual rights which has always set us slightlyapart from other European countries. "All our struggles for liberty smackof law", said Disraeli; and by law, as another put it, "the English meantan enforceable contract between themselves and their rulers". In the 17thcentury struggle for a Commonwealth it was a maxim that "the poorest hein England hath a life to live as the greatest he". "The King is under noman, but he is under God and the Law" was another way of putting it.

To some extent we owe this to our geography; although being an islanddid not prevent invasion by seafaring marauders, it did ensure that, unlikecontinental countries, we did not have to keep up continuous militarystrength on the frontiers. We could raise taxes for other things of moresocial benefit to the people. After the fall of Rome, Vikings frequentlyravaged our sea-coasts and towns, but some stayed on the land, farmed it,and became absorbed into a community with useful inter-change oftraditions.

The coming of Christianity, with a more merciful doctrine than that ofthe barbarians, had at first a civilising influence. These were the daysbefore the rise of Rome and the Papacy to dogma and universal power;the first Christian monks here not only revived scholarship, they translatedancient political writings and some of the New Testament into English.Monks even married, and our greatest king, Alfred the Great, not onlypublished a "collection of laws" and took an active part in administration,he also translated classical writings and some of the scriptures into English.

It was from the Danes that we absorbed "Danelaw", and the use of 12leading men in administration of towns which later became a different kindof Jury. The Normans, too, brought with them a tradition of law andrhetoric derived from their own Norse heritage, and even the most tyran-nical of their kings was never able totally to eliminate the rights of freespeech and election established in the Saxon Witenagemot, or Witan. WhenEdward the Confessor died without an heir, •the Witan elected HaroldGodwinson as King, and even the early Norman kings had no guaranteedright of inheriting the throne by birth—when Henry I died naming hisdaughter Matilda as his heir, the barons did not accept this and electedStephen, Henry's nephew, as King.

The laws may have applied only to "freemen", but they were there, andby no means unusable even by villeins or serfs—who were never quiteslaves in the Roman, Greek and continental sense.

The greatest of our Plantagenet kings in this respect was Henry II, knownas "The Lawyer King", who "listened patiently to every man's case". Heended the earlier feudal iniquities of trial by battle in ownership disputesand by fire and water in cases of felony—he became, it was said, the "trad-itional fount of national justice". He controlled what were called the shireand hundred courts, sending out officials to hear and try local pleas of thecrown, and to officiate at Assizes in trials for murder, theft and suchlike

3

matters. The Assize of Clarendon in 1166 established itinerant judges toenquire of 12 "lawful" men from every hundred and 4 from every town-ship, and these developed in time into the principle of a jury of 12 in allserious cases. What Henry did was to create gradually a body of trainedjudges, with officers chosen for their loyalty, impartiality, and knowledgeof law.

The first English legal classic (a Latin treatise on laws of England andthe procedure of the royal courts) was written either by Henry's chiefjudiciar, Hubert Walter, or his predecessor, Ranulf de Glanville.

The coronation oath already enshrined the principle that it was theKing's duty to see that justice was done, and every freeman had the rightto appeal to them. This went back far in our history. Henry's aim was torestore "the good old laws", and to suppress a right often exercised to en-force dispossession of lands. There were complaints of his "cunning" legalformulas—"mousetraps" they were called—but his justification was that"he spared the poor both labour and expense". Justice was for the punish-ment of evildoers and the maintenance of law and order for honest men.And for the first time the rule of public trial was established.

Becket and Canon Law

Another check on the power of the baron was Henry's encouragementof merchants and traders. His most favoured minister, Thomas a Becket,was a merchant's son. Henry's aim in creating him Archbishop of Canter-bury was to weaken what was known as the Canon Law. Any clerichowever minor, could only be tried in an ecclesiastic court. As the Churchcould not give penalty of death, and abuses of the canon law and corrup-tion were common, this meant that even murderers and felons escaped withminor penalties, or even altogether, if they had the slightest claim tocome under church rather than civil jurisdiction.

Unfortunately as we all know Henry's aim here misfired, and the delib-erate martyrdom of Becket was the greatest single factor in re-establishing.the canon law which Henry had hoped to weaken. But much was establishedthat remained and could not be eroded: even though much of it had to berestated, under duress, with Magna Carta in the reign of King John.

It was civil war that most endangered these freedoms and the Wars ofthe Roses in the 15th century again weakened the fabric of law. The war-ring feudal barons did much as they pleased; and Edward IV in his earlyreign helped the merchants much as Henry II and Hubert Walter had done,not only to bring wealth to the state but to counterbalance baronial power.He also tried to re-establish the control of law and in 1462 "sate in theking's bench three daies together, in open court, to understand how his lawswere executed".

When he died at the age of 42 and his brother Richard, Duke of Glou-cester, took the throne as King Richard III, it was to this tradition of theKing's involvement in the law and its exercise for "the Common Weal"—i.e. the welfare of the common people—that he turned. The laws of his oneParliament have been praised by legal authorities as the most enlightenedsince the days of Henry H, and indeed for many years into the future.

So did he seize the throne, murder his nephew, the young King EdwardV and his brother, and establish a tyranny, as Tudor historians and kingstried so successfully, by their propaganda, to suggest; or was he in fact agreatly wronged monarch who was attacked rather for his more libertarianideas than his so-called crimes?

In the first place, let us examine the legal basis of his assumption of thethrone. It has always been assumed that the story by which he displacedhis nephews was a legal quibble; but modern research has made clearthat so far from being far-fetched, the quibble was in fact a regular and

4

well-known basis for claims of inheritance, and disinheritance, in theMiddle Ages, and indeed into the early 17th century. What happened wasthat a Bishop Stillington, who had been Edward IV's Chancellor, cameforward and made a revelation that, if true, entirely altered the succession.It was that the young Edward IV, before he secretly married his QueenElizabeth Woodville, had already been legally contracted by Stillington, atanother secret ceremony, to a lady of high rank, Lady Eleanor Butler.

These pre-contracts were usual and absolutely binding in ecclesiastic law:Edward's subsequent marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was therefore biga-mous, and his sons and daughters by that marriage illegitimate. Enoughcases of the kind can be cited, and the children of the second 'marriage'disinherited by the courts, to establish that this revelation, if accepted,would certainly have had the result of illegitimizing the young princes; andindeed Richard's Parliament set out this matter of Titulus Regius in fulland endorsed his election.

It was very likely, in view of Edward IV's known reputation as a woman-iser; but whether true or not (and there is much to support Stillington'sintegrity) it would be seized on as a way out of the dreaded rule by a'minor', which always caused such havoc in the shape of power strugglesto control a child king. The Woodvilles had already, in fact, made a bid toretain power through the boy prince, and no one wanted a return to theWars of the Roses.

At any rate the matter was accepted, and Richard's coronation attendedby all the leading nobles both Lancastrian and Yorkist. This was obscuredin later history because Henry Tudor, on seizing the throne, caused allcopies of the Act to be destroyed. He was strengthening his negligible claimto the throne by marrying the princes' sister, and for this to work she hadto be a legitimate Yorkist heir. One copy of the Act escaped and was foundcenturies later, as was a contemporary chronicle recording the events.

Richard, at any rate, soon made his intentions clear. Immediately on hissuccession he went to Westminster Hall and, as a contemporary accountputs it, "there so sittying, called byfore hym all the Juges of the Temporalllawe, gyuyng theym straitely in Commaundement to execute his lawesJustly and indifferently to euerych sersone as well to powre as Riche". Hesat in the Court as his brother had done, and won golden opinions on hisroyal progress through the provinces by his acts of benevolence and carefulrightings of wrongs, both personal and civic. His itinerary included theuniversities and one of the most helpful of his acts was to enable strangersto bring printed books into England and sell them by retail.

The King and the LawHis Parliament in January, 1484, issued acts intended to promote foreign

trade, and he had already made clear that he considered that "it was thechiefest duty of a king to minister the laws". He encouraged personalappeals to him, issued an act against an unpopular system of taxation knownas "benevolences", and promoted many reforms including the remission offee-farms of certain cities such as Winchester, which had been impoverishedby taxation.

Trade with Iceland (already of great importance to the fishing industry)was fostered by licences, and by the appointment of a "fishing admiral".Italian merchants were rapped over the knuckles for storing up goods intheir warehouses "unto the tyme the prices thereof been greatly enhauncedfor their most lucre", and for employing only their own countrymen whenselling in English markets, and then departing out of the realm and spending"the same goodes often tymes among the King's adversaries". A land lawwas introduced; efforts were made to protect the people from soldiers whopillaged, burned or raped on their return to Yorkshire (Richard himself

5

rode north and summarily hanged a few of these as a warning, on receiv-ing the complaints of the people they harried); and it was made easier forthe poorer people to present petitions directly to him, when they were un-able to cope with the prevarications and cost of justice.

He introduced a law preventing the seizure of a person's goods while hewas in prison, before trial and verdict (there had been a notorious caseof a City alderman thus used in Edward IV's reign); and most significantlylaws were aimed to protect juries against intimidation, to give rights ofbail, and to check corruption. Perhaps most important of all, in its long-term effects, the statutes of Richard's Parliament were the first to be pub-lished in English. The literate public at last could read them, and knowtheir rights.

This was a return to some of the ideas of Alfred the Great, long falleninto disuse. It was a gesture towards the trend of the coming Reformation.The Bible had been translated in English by Wycliffe and a New Testamentin English was among Richard's own possessions. Soon the power of bothChurch and State, so long locked together to exclude the general people,would begin to be challenged, as what was really written in the New Testa-ment, and in the laws of state, began to be understood by others thanecclesiastics, statesmen, and the wealthier Latin-educated aristocracy andmerchants. The individual at last was beginning to interpret religion andpolitics for himself; it was the trend of the coming Protestantism, asBernard Shaw recognised in Saint Joan.

That was not the name yet given to the movement; but Richard's reignalready was touched by the new age, the age that left the Middle Agesbehind and swept in .the Renaissance.

(Summary of a lecture given on Sunday, October 15)

0 Audrey Williamson's new book is about to appear: "The Mystery of the Princes: An Investigation into a Supposed Murder". (Alan Sutton: £5.95).

Joan of ArcBY

W. H. LIDDELL

JOANOF ARC was one of the greatest women who ever lived. Yet in hershort life she achieved little of what she wanted to do and was burned asa heretic by her enemies without her friends stirring a finger to help her.In this century she became first Venerable, then Blessed and finally in 1920Canonised: as St Joan she gave Shaw the spur to produce a characterintegrating the practical and idealistic natures of previous heroines of his.But who was she and what did she do?

Joan was born at Domremy, a hamlet on the border with Lorraine onthe extreme eastern limit of the kingdom of France. She was born in 1412,only three years before the battle of Agincourt and those British successeswhich were to threaten to put the kings of England where they most wantedto be—on the throne of France. She grew up in a period when most of thesubjects of the king of France were under the control of Englishmen andseemed to have accepted it, if not preferred, the state—but then the Englishare so good at ruling foreigners. The king of England had married theFrench king, Charles VI's daughter and the throne of France was to cometo them and their heirs.

Their son Henry yI of England was properly crowned King of France.Charles VII was not. Joan grew up in wartime. In 1421 the English invaded

6

the area where she lived: after 1424 her district was left isolated and in-secure, a tiny island of France in I3urgundian territory. She was illiteratebut was no shepherdess. Her parents were well-to-do peasants and importantin their community; they saw that she was properly trained in womanlyduties and knew the elements of religion. It's quite clear from her behaviourthroughout her trial that she had plenty of common sense. About the ageof 13 she began to hear 'voices' which she later identified as those of StMichael, St Catherine and St Margaret.

At first they bid her go into the Paris region which was controlled by theEnglish but when she heard of the siege of Orleans her voices told her togo and rescue •the city. Joan naturally went to the military commander ofher district Robert de Baudricot, Captain of Vaucouleurs, and demandedshe should be sent with an armed escort to Charles VII whom she calledDauphin until his proper coronation at Rheims. She was 16, he a hardenedfighting man. By sheer persistence, and after exorcising by a local priest,she got her way. This is the first inexplicable part of her story. Wearingmen's clothes and armour (one of her many crimes against humanity) sheundertook a journey across occupied France to Chinon where she insistedon speaking to the king himself. She got her way. Who knows what CharlesVII saw in her or whether she gave him some sign which secured his atten-tion? How did she get in to see him in the first place? Nevertheless, Charleswould have nothing to do with her until she had undergone a long ecclesi-astical examination at Poitiers. Not for the last time Joan was able tomaintain her position against the best of her examiners and revealed herselfas a witty woman full of common sense. The Churchmen were thoroughlyimpressed.

Joan Joins UpGiven a household of her two brothers, a chaplain, a squire, two men-

at-arms, two heralds and two pages and a painted banner she was allowedto join the army at Blois for the relief of Orleans. Joan reached the citybefore the main body of the French army and was immediately popular andsuccessful. Four days after the arrival of the main army the English werein full retreat—France's will to resist and ability to recover had been proved.

After much argument and vacillation Joan convinced Charles of the im-portance of being properly crowned, at Rheims, then deep inside enemyterritory. With 12,000 troops they marched to the city without meetingserious resistance and Joan was proved right. Charles's crowning in dueform produced a tremendous reaction against the English in the area heldby them.

Joan certainly did not think she had accomplished her mission withCharles's coronation. She continued to press for an attack on Paris. Whetherthrough poverty or irresolution Charles wouldn't begin to act and the pos-sibility of a spectacular advance was allowed to pass. Early in 1430 Joanset off for Paris on her own but before she achieved anything against thecity she heard that the Burgundians had attacked Compiegne. She threwherself into its defence and on 23 May while leading a sortie and covering•the return of her company she was unhorsed, surrounded and taken pris-oner. The Burgundian commander, John of Luxembourg, eventually soldher to the English for 10,000 crowns. This is almost as inexplicable as therest of the story.

A young girl had come out of the furthest parts of the kingdom in Feb-ruary 1429, had fought successfully for a year and by May 1430 the Englishwere willing to pay one of their allies 10,000 crowns for her. One has seenhow the careers of pop-stars have been whipped up to fever pitch excitementin a short time. But without an agent to ensure her share of the proceeds,a PR man to get her on the media or even media to push her and drop herfor their own cynical ends, Joan had made herself feared throughout the

7

English army. It was not sufficient to defeat her in battle and yet what hadshe done but help raise a siege, win a battle and have a king crowned?She was no invincible warrior—that had been proved by her capture—yetshe had to be proved to be a witch.

Joan was brought to trial for sorcery and heresy at Rouen in 1431. Shewas tried by an ecclesiastical court under the presidency of Pierre Cauchon,Bishop of Beauvais. Cauchon was a dispossessed anglophile bishop, herother judges were all supporters of the English but there is no evidence ofa rushed and unprepared trial. Far from it. As Shaw said 'Joan got a farfairer trial from the Church and the Inquisition than any prisoner of hertype and in her situation gets nowadays in any official secular court.' Thatwas true in 1924 and is doubtless even truer today as the trials of humanrights dissidents in the Soviet Union show. She was interrogated from Feb-ruary 21 to March 17. She was found guilty—a decision quite clearlyaccording to the law. On May 24 she was taken for burning but recantedhysterically. Back in prison she recovered herself, abjured her recantationand on May 30 1431—just over •two years from the day she left her homeand before even reaching her 20th birthday, she was burned as a relapsedheretic in the market place at Rouen.

Woman of Vision

How can one explain this incident in the Hundred Years War? What doesthe story have for us as humanists? It does not worry me that she hadvisions or that she needed to support her ideas by claiming supernaturalorigins for them. Wherever she thought them to come from they were good.As a visionary and a mystic she was not alone in her time nor later. Hercompatriots were willing to suspend disbelief and even to accept salvationthrough miracles and one can see how once successful the French wouldtake her up. But how did she convince Robert de Baudricourt? How didshe convince a dubious court to let her meet Charles VII? She wasn'tbeautiful—no one would expect Charles to want her as mistress.

A court meets innumerable pests every day—why did this one get throughthe door? What effect did she have on Charles VII that the English had todiscredit him through her heresy? She had him crowned but she doesn'tseem to have been able to screw him •up to resolution and forceful oppo-sition to the English. It was left to a much more worldly woman to achievethat. On her military capacity there seems to be dispute: after she wassometimes successful and at least once a failure. The English advance washalted forever after Orleans but it is questionable whether this was notsimply because the English had run out of steam and were unable to supportthe conquest. True she made Charles the unquestioned and legitimate kingof France but this achievement was to be pretty meaningless till Charlesand the Duke of Burgundy patched up their quarrels and together threwthe English out of France.

It was many years after Joan's death before anyone could be sure she hadachieved much. As for the trial—it was evidently an unscrupulous politicalact designed to discredit Charles VII through his agent's guilt: but then sowas the reversal of its judgement in 1456 by a court which was equallyunscrupulous and political but designed to make the legitimacy of Charles'coronation obvious for all to see.

So far as the proceedings at the trial affect the argument they seem tohave been perfectly normal and properly conducted. No heretic had abetter trial. Charles VII seems to have been able to live without her andeven achieve his victories. He made no attempt to rescue her—but then shemay not have been worth the attempt, or he might not have been able toafford it. He did not follow up her victories swiftly but he probably had nomoney to do so anyway. And without her pushing him and spurring him

8

on he probably preferred to do the job of kicking the English out the longand careful and diplomatic way. Once Charles could break the Burgundian/English link he could rid his kingdom of the English anytime he wished.Joan could not have waited that long.

The greatest enigma in this story is Joan herself. She was cheerful in theface of dreadful terrors. Who would not have abjured once when faced withdeath by burning? How many of us could have then deliberately chosenthat death and remained steadfast? During her trial she remained calmand even cheerful while knowing herself to be doomed—she was evenquick-witted in those circumstances. Where did she get the common senseand wit to answer the question whether St Michael had long hair with thequery: 'Why should it have been cut off?'. Unschooled she may have beenhut she was match for the arguments of her inquisitors: probably, as Shawbelieved, she wouldn't have been their match if she'd had a modern educa-tion. There is no doubt she was one of the most remarkable heroines ofall time.

But what has this to say for us humanists? Can we see anything of valuein her story besides courage, cheerfulness and steadfastness? I think we can.

She rejected authority's right to decide for her. She wasn't going to letold fuddy-duddy clerics decide anything for her. Her inspiration she claimeddirectly from the saints—no worldly-wise diplomat encouraging caution and .inaction could fight against them. She told her inquisitors that her pronoun-cements had the authority of divine revelation. She did not deny thenecessity for a church; she was no anarchist—all she claimed was that theauthority of the church was insufficient to overcome the direct commandsof God to her. She did not deny that the church could not err but forherself she held herself answerable to God alone for her words and actions.It is because of this attitude that she has had such posthumous popularity.

As humanists we can applaud this attitude. Joan was certainly a saint ifwe define one as someone utterly subordinated to a particular task whichthey believe has been laid on them by divine command. Possibly it is diffi-cult for humanists to applaud such saints—certainly they mus• be unbear-able to live with: especially when they talk of visions and inspiration. Butdoes this matter? It is surely not difficult for rationalists to accept thateveryone of us has his own perception of his own inner drive. One couldeven think up an explanation for Joan's visions as merely methods wherebyan unlettered peasant girl encouraged herself to stand up to terrifyingauthority and the supercilious superbity of the learned. It makes argumentso much easier if one can appeal to a higher authority than one's opponent.This type of argument would I think be wrong. It demeans Joan to claimthat her visions were a conscious trick.

I do not believe there were visions but I do believe that that was howJoan of Arc needed her ideas to come to her. Given her upbringing nothingless would do. She was a good girl; her friends and neighbours of youthremembered her as hard-working, kind, simple and exceptionally pious. Theinner conviction that her way of sending the English back home where theybelonged was the right way could only come to that girl in the conventionalidiom of her time. If we claim for humanists, as Joan of Arc claimed forherself, the right to decide about the divine spark in man for ourselveswithout reference to authorities constituted and ordered by others butsimply through our own perception of ourselves in relation to the worldthen we cannot deny Joan of Arc the right to do that too.

It does not matter that the divine spark of her humanity had to be trans-mitted through visionary saints. There's nothing wrong with visions whichcome from inside us—it's believing in visions which others have, withoutexperiencing them ourselves which we ought to oppose.

(Summary of a lecture given on June 4)

9

For the RecordBY

THE GENERAL SECRETARY

WHEN our meetings come up with something new, or new to some of us atleast, it might be as well to pin-point the lessons in print in a more selectiveway than we usually do. Take the last few weeks for example . .

Jimoh Omo-Fadaka of The Ecologist produced a formula to solve theimpossible position that Africans get themselves into when they claim tobelieve both in existing Africa frontiers and the self-determination ofpeoples. You don't have to be an expert Africanist to see that these twocan often be flatly contradictory. He said African states should be confed-erations of self-determining peoples who work out their national structuresby consent. This puts the people (or the tribe) first and the nation-statesecond and is the opposite of what is happening at the moment (especiallyround centralised military power). This has a related bearing on the ethnicproblem in Britain and perhaps on the structure of Europe itself. One con-clusion I was less happy about was his rejection of integration on thegrounds that if decentralisation was thorough enough and local groups wereself-determining then conflicts would not arise. If only it was as simple asthat!

Dr Richard Prosser and Sir John Whitmore gave us good cause to think.I came to the strange conclusion that transcendental meditation was neithertranscendental nor was it meditation. In the first place the aim is toget back below thinking, to pre-verbal being, whereas the word 'transcend'suggests aboveness; in the second place meditation means thinking, meanswords, but the object of this TM exercise is to displace words by mantras,to exclude vision by closing the eyes and to descend into the deeply physical.I have been trying it out on myself and find there is a lot to it. A remarkablebroadcast, on the BBC, about reversion therapy i.e. going back into child-hood and even into the experience of the womb seemed to underwrite theTM argument rather well. The individual's internal experience of himselfor herself does not have to contradict external experience. It is the newfrontier. I can see we are going to argue about this for years!

I was just a little bit apprehensive about my Sunday morning swap withKeith Gilley the Unitarian Minister at Golders Green. It wasn't my fatethat worried me. I have been to Golders Green many times to speak andconduct wedding services and, having Blake as my subject, it would havebeen difficult to go wrong. Margaret Chisman took the chair for me andStan read "All Religions Are One"(1788) with just the right touch to getits vital message across. Back at the Hall Keith launched into a Unitarianservice and it went extremely well—so I was later told by many of the fortywho attended. Claire Cadogan played a solo and accompanied the hymns.That was the bit that worried me! But no—everyone seemed to enter intothe spirit of the thing. I hope we shall be able to publish Keith's addresssoon—that too made its mark. We may have established a valuableprecedent.

THE NEW YEAR OPENSOf the new names in January . . Eric Millstone comes from the Universityof Sussex. Dr Kit Pedler (Forum 14th) is welcome back after some yearsaway and he will conduct his Forum himself in the form of a seminar. Ishall have the rare pleasure of being in the body of the meeting! He is aman of extraordinary talents and vision. I remember being amazed at hisDoomwatch series on TV. Colin Shindler will be speaking on the subject

10

of his recent book. Duncan Campbell of ABC fame (Tuesday 23rd) may bejoined by the historian Edward Thompson. Peter Horfield (30th) comes tous from the Howard League for Penal Reform. Victor Serebriakoff is theInternational Chairman 6f MENSA (21st).

AROUND THE SOCIETY

We are now about to start the South Place counselling serv ce that Ihave written about before. It will be conducted by Claudine Clee (with thehelp of others) in the first place and will develop according to response.Claudine is a professional psycho-therapist who is a member of the Society.People who feel they might benefit in any way or would like to discussproblems in a professional/confidential context should write to ClaudineClee c/o Conway Hall or leave a message with me to be passed on. Theservice starts this month. Days and times by arrangement. There will be anominal charge. Initially the service will be one-to-one but there may besome group work later.

El One of our members, Mr Sam Beer, has a large quantity of old Covent Garden ballet programmes which he is willing to sell for the benefit of the Society—a generous and imaginative idea. His telephone number is 673.6234.

Those of you who heard, or follow the fortunes of :John Tyme thetribune of the anti-motorways lobby, might like to know that his bookMotorways v. Democracy has just appeared. It is published by Macmillanat £2.95. I mentioned Fred Kissin's book Farewell to Revolution — Marxist'Philosophy and the Modern World once before but omitted the publishingdetails. It comes from Weidenfeld and Nicolson at £6.50.

The Annual Dinner will be on Friday 16th February, 7.0 for 7.30 pm.Yvonne Awbery will be doing the catering so we shall have our customarysplendid feed in the most convivial circumstances. The name of the Guestof Honour is to follow in the next Record. The cost, including sherry andtable wines, at £2.50, is the best 'buy' of the year. This modest figure ispossible because all the work is done by volunteers and, by limiting theattendance to 36, we can provide all the equipment ourselves. The firstthirty -six get the tickets.

EA Our new Hall Secretary, Robert McGhie, has now taken over fromRobyn and is most welcome. At the time of writing we are still wrestlingwith the problem of finding an Assistant Caretaker for the Hall. Any ideaswill be followed up.

El Dr Henryk Skolimowski hopes to be back with us for a Sunday in June.The interesting news is that he is crossing the water (from Michigan) nextsummer to take up his new position as Philosopher in Residence at Darting-ton Hall. Is Europe putting the brain-drain into reverse?

Thought for the Month: "We who worship no material incarnation ofany qualities, no person, may worship the divine humanity, the idea ofhuman perfection and aspiration."

Swinburne, in a letter to E. C. Stedman, 1875.

Best wishes for 1979!PETER CADOGAN

11

• , DISCUSSION

Do We Need Elites?VICTOR SEREBRIAKOFF, International Chairman of Mensa, was suitablyprovocative.

Stone Age societies did not need an elite, but in more specialised assoc-iations, where people work in very specific ways through a highly organiseddivision of labour, the situation was very different. What otherwise mightbe very simple things like the production and distribution of bread, milkand clothes have beeome enormously complicated. We consume mass-pro-duced food, dwell in mass-produced houses and move in transport organisedon mass lines. None of this would be possible without an elite structure ofsome kind.

Until recently we have been familiar with traditional aristocratic elites.They began when predatory pastoralists conquered settled agricultural soc-ieties. As military overlords exploiting a peasant people they were the newaristocratic masters. But that was 10,000 years ago and after a while rela-tionships evolved into a more equitable system. Law, custom, language andculture tended to integrate. Nevertheless, recognisable aristocratic societieswith military foundations survived until the 19th century. This kind ofelite is now passing, but others have risen to take its place.

Do we have a ruling class? Mr Sebriakoff had searched for but neverfound one..He is himself a director of an industrial company and he founda new elite in industrial leadership, but the men concerned are acting incompetition with one another as much as in cooperation.

It was not like the elite of the Roman Catholic Church. The new elite arethose who have skills. We need doctors, architects, engineers and adminis-trators. We need a complex of elites who invent the future in their headsand then make it happen; society would be impossible without them. Spec-ialist knowledge and personal initiative are indispensable. He, himself, hadmade inventions, set up companies, established factories and taken on staff,all starting from a series of single ideas. Nothing would have happened hadhe and his colleagues not the will and feeling to lead. This did not makehim an autocrat. There had to be a driving force in society; there must bepeople who get things rolling. The French have a good name for the pace-maker. They call him the "animateur". Such people are not a unified class,but they do get satisfaction in this special way. We cannot do without themif we want sophisticated products.

Traditional societies, like those of the medieval knights, priests andfarmers, had a very fixed way of living. Pre-industrial peoples are markedlyconservative and "animateurs" had a hard time amongst them. In thosedays 'new' meant bad, whereas today 'new' means good. We have beenbred into accepting innovations and• identifying progress with the advanceof technology. • •

But a religious attachment to the new is highly dangerous because humansociety has a natural requirement for conservation. What has worked, willwork. Constant change makes for breakdown and leads to eventual self-destruction.

The passing of war in the West (temporarily or permanently) means thatmilitary and hereditary elites are expendable. In their place we needintelligent, educated and properly motivated people. In place of an eliteof privilege there follows an elite of service. A different system needs adifferent system of elites. In the Soviet Union today, even though they claimto have had a revolution, the elite system is indistinguishable from ours.Specialist talent will not proceed from good inten•ions. We cannot say toone another-"we are all brain surgeons today".

12

He gave an example of what he meant from his own experience. No-oneknew any effective way of testing the strength of wood. He, with friends,invented a computerised testing device and now it is possible to proceedwithout guesswork in the use of wood constructions. The result is that ajob of work now requires 20% less timber than previously. The inventioncost £100,000 but the consequences are without end. This would never havehappened on its own and no committee or meeting could have done it.There was no substitute for the inventive talent of himself and his col-leagues. An elite of talent has the effect of amplifying intelligence andexpertise. A complex of hierarchies is essential but not a single hierarchy.

He has made a special study of the brain. It consists of millions of cellsand works on a poly-hierarchical basis. For the eye to function a millioncells have to work together and their mode of doing so requires a poly-hierarchical structure of the greatest complexity.

It used to be thought that a network was the proper answer to hierarchy.But in practice there is no way of having every voice affecting decisions.We can pretend, we can be satisfied with appearances, but in practice, toget anything done we need hierarchies of decision-makers. A mono-hierarchical structure is lethal and does great damage as for example, to theCatholic Church. In the end such a thing is impossible as we can now see.

P.C.(Report of a Tuesday talk on May 23)

The AppealThe Appeal has got off to a good start in its first month Dona-tions have been received as follows:

Mrs H. M. Greig £100; Mr and Mrs George Hutchinson £100;Mr Denis Campbell and Mrs Faith Campbell £110; Mr and MrsS. Beer .£10; Mr E. A. Mornard £5; Mrs J. Gibson £1; Mrs M.Jennings White £5; Miss M. L. Delbende £50; Lt. Col. J. W.N. Landor £2; Dr Saul Crown £5; Mr S. W. Beer £10; Mr E.Walford £5; Mr and Mrs A. E. Taylor £5; Mrs ConstanceDowman £10; Mr B. 0. Warwick £100; Mr M. J. Morrison;Mr J. C. Rapley £10; Mrs G. Tuchner £5; Mr T. M. Chalmers£3; Mrs L. L. Booker £100.

Total to date: £676.

There have been twenty donations so far. We have 685 mem-bers altogether and we shall keep the Appeal going until ourlegal case is complete. We hope for a continuing response. Itmay be that some might like to give by Bankers Order over aspecified period. Others might have friends they can approachwho are known to be interested in the Society. One of thedonors above, Mr Morrison, gave £50 after hearing about oursituation from Mr Home, the Chairman of our General Com-mittee. Or there may be some fund-raising activity that com-mends itself to a member. With commitment and imaginationwe can make a very significant contribution to the Society'sneeds. We plan to launch the public appeal in February.

13

ViewpointMaterialism

Had it not mentioned me by name, I would never have guessed that theletter from Henryk Skolimowski (September Record) was an answer toanything I had written. In particular, it suggests that I am an advocate of"materialism" in the popular sense—the sense of technology and consumerproducts—whereas I am something of a fanatic on the "small is beautiful"side of that argument. The materialism I preach is philosophical mat-erialism—the philosophy that says everything in the universe, includingconsciousness, emanates from matter.

London 5E6 BARBARA SMOKER

Skolimowski and MaterialismContrary to the assertion of Henryk Skolimowski (letters, September E.R.)

that materialism is "bankrupt", a glance at current philosophical journalsreveals a lively debate on the merits of different varieties of materialism.Today, any realistic discussion on the philosophy of mind must start withthe fundamental proposition of any form of materialism, i.e. that themental does not exist without the physical—your stream of consciousnessdepends on what is happening in your brain.

However, this has never been the explicit philosophy of the majority, sothe "arid life styles" and "economic devastation" H. S. bemoans, are muchmore likely to be the results of the pressures of a commercial civilizationthan the consequences of a philosophical position.

Finally, I suspect that the 80 per cent of the world's population poorerthan H. S. would regard with scorn his contempt for "material progress"and would hope for more of the reality of it and less of the "myth".

London N12 N. BACRAC

The Value of the "Record"As usual, I am behindhand with my reading but I should like to congratu-

late you on your September editorial . . "and rumours of war". It iscertainly true that "if there is any hope for humanity it will come fromthose who can reason rationally and see the other person's point of view"—assuming that such people can do what is necessary from a practical pointof view. Also, it would certainly be "comforting to think internationalpolitics could be based not on the constant threat of war but on the basisof peace and friendship." But I suspect that it is fear that rules the world.

Sir John Lawrence's Religion and Communism was very enlightening—tome, at any rate. Religious believers may now outnumber Marxists in theSoviet Union but are there any social and ethical humanists on the Westernmodel?

The Christmas Truce of 1914 as reported by David Porter shines "likea good deed in a naughty world". Yes, those largely-forgotten soldiersreally were saintly. The incident happened before even 1 was born but itdoes make one feel that there is hope for mankind yet.

This seems to be negatived by the next piece on German Dimensions byT. F. Evans referring to the views of Thomas Mann and Bertolt Brechtand quoting from George Steiner: "We know now that a man can readGoethe or Rilke in the evening, that he can play Bach and Schubert, andgo to his day's work at Auschwitz in the morning . . In what way doesthis knowledge bear on literature and society, on the hope, grown almostaxiomatic from the time of Plato to that of Matthew Arnold, that cultureis a humanizing' force, that the energies of spirit are transferable to thoseof conduct?" This shows that culture is not enough, that "by their fruitsye shall know them".

14

Interesting also was the report of the forum on Ethiopia and Eritreaabout which I previously knew little; as was the discussion on Russell andWittgenstein in the October Record. How true when Wittgenstein asks:"What is the use of studying philosophy if all it does for you is to enableyou to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic,etc, and if it does not improve your thinking about the important questionsof everyday life . . ." But it isn't easy to strike the right balance betweeninsight and action. Peter Cadogan's piece on Non-Violence was the mostcongenial of his that I have read.

ENID M. GRAHAMAberdeen

South Place NewsNew members

We are pleased to welcome the following new members Mr A. Kerstein,Essex and Mr J. Ritzema Bos, Holland.

ObituaryWe regret to report the death of Mr J. Bentley, St Albans.

QuestionnaireThe Editor and officers of South Place would like to thank all those who

have kindly responded to the questionnaire in the last issue. Nearly 50replies were received, and the Committee's decision on the future of theEthical Record will be announced soon.

RambleThis month's ramble takes place on Saturday, January 13. It comprises

a visit to Sir John Soane's museum at Lincoln's Inn Fields. Meet at ConwayHall at 2.30.pm and return for tea in the Library after the visit.

Sunday SocialThis month's Social will be held on January 21, at 3 pm., when Betty

Beer will give a talk entitled "With the Esperantists in Morecambe". Tea(15p) at 4.30 pm.

Bridge DriveThe monthly Drive will take place on Thursday, January 18, at 6.30 pm.

Prizes will be competed for and refreshments servedBridge Practices will continue each Sunday evening from 6 pm.

Country DancingThis month's session (jointly with the Progressive League) will be on

Saturday, January 20 from 3 to 6 pm. Eda Collins will give basic tuitionfor the first half hour.

Kindred organisationsHumanist Holidays is organising an Easter event at a small private hotel

at Boscombe, near Bournemouth. The cost will be £7 a day includingbreakfast and dinner.

The summer holiday is being arranged at Lowestoft between August 11and 25. Parking space is also available for caravans. Full details: Mrs. M.Mepham, tel: (01) 642 8796.

The annual general meeting of Sutton Humanist Group is on Wednesday,January 10 at 8 pm. The meeting will be followed by a talk by KennethFurness.

15

South Place Ethical SocietyFOUNDED in 1793, the Society is a progressive movement which today advo-cates an ethical humanism, the study and dissemination of ethical principlesbased on humanism; and the cultivation of a rational religious sentimentfree from all theological dogma.

We invite to membership all those who reject supernatural creeds andfind themselves in sympathy with our views.

At Conway Hall there are opportunities for participation in many kinds ofcultural activities, including discussions, lectures, concerts, dances, ramblesand socials. A comprehensive reference and lending library is available, andall Members and Associates receive the Society's journal, The Ethical Record,

free. The Sunday Evening Chamber Music Concerts founded in 1887 haveachieved international renown.

Services available to members include Naming Ceremony of Welcome toChildren, Memorial and Funeral Services,

The Story of South Place, by S. K. Ratcliffe, is a history of the Societyand its interesting development within liberal thought.

Membership is by £1 enrolment fee and an annual Subscription.Minimum subscriptions are: Members, £1 p.a.; Life Members, £21 (Life

membership is available only to members of at least one year's standing). Itis of help to the Society's officers if members pay their subscriptions byBankers' Order, and it is of further financial benefit to the Society if Deedsof Covenant are entered into. Members are urged to pay more than theminimum subscription whenever possible, as the present amount is notsufficient to cover the cost of this journal.

A suitable form of bequest for those wishing to benefit the Society bytheir wills is to be found in the Annual Report.

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FORM

TO THE HON. REGISTRAR, SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY

CONWAY HALL HUMANIST CENTRE

RED LION SQUARE, LONDON WC1R 4RL

Being in sympathy with the aims of South Place Ethical Society, I desire tobecome a Member and I enclose £1 enrolment fee and, as my annual

subscription, the sum of £ (minimum £1) entitling me (accord-ing to the Rules of the Society) to membership for one year from thedate of enrolment.

NAME (BLOCK LETTERS PLEASE)

ADDRESS

OCCUPATION (disclosure optional)

HOW DID YOU HEAR OF THE SOCIETY?

DATE SIGNATURE

The Ethical Record is posted free to members. The annual charge to subscribers is H. Matter for publication should reach the Editor, Eric Willoughby, 46 Springfield Road, London E17 8DD, by the 5th of the preceding month.

David Nell & Company Dorking sUfley