" REX V. BILLING."
[To THE EDITOR. OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
Eni,—My amazement is deepened by Pr-ofessor Hazel's letter in your issue of July 27th. Bowman v. The Secular Society decided that a bequest to that Society was good though the Society's con- stitution was decidedly agnostic. The decision has nothing to do with conduct in Court. I am perfectly aware of the case in all its stages, and if Professor Hazel refers to it again he will see that what Best, J., decided was indecorum could now be upheld only on the ground of the way it was said, not of what was said. Personally, I venture to doubt if any. Judge would take notice of the most frankly atheistic statement if it were by any means Rear the issue being tried. Irrelevant remarks are not confined to parties or their advisers. A High Court Judge sitting in Vacation protested against making decrees nisi absolute on the ground that he was a Christian; but no one was any the worse, and his colleague and senior is reported to have said that by parity of reason an agnostic Judge—e.g., Stephen, J.—could have objected to Trinity Masters as Assessors if he presided in an Admiralty Court.
As to the Corpus Professorship, I am in error. I own it. I deplore it. I condemn it. Can I say more, except that I hope [We cannot continue this correspondence.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
