{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_45131/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_45131","id":"gutenberg_45131","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45131","summary":null,"tags":["Bradlaugh, Charles, 1833-1891","Category: Biographies","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Note: Project Gutenberg has the other volume of this work.\n Volume I: see https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45130\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\n Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: CHARLES BRADLAUGH Born Sept. 26, 1833 Died Jan. 30,\n1891]\n\n\nCHARLES BRADLAUGH\n\nA Record of His Life and Work by His Daughter.\n\nHYPATIA BRADLAUGH BONNER.\n\nWith an Account of his Parliamentary Struggle\nPolitics and Teachings by\n\nJOHN M. ROBERTSON, M.P.\n\nSeventh Edition\n\nWith Portraits and Appendices\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nT. Fisher Unwin\nLondon Leipsic\nAdelphi Terrace Inselstrasse 20\n1908\n\nAll Rights Reserved\n\n\n\n\nVOL. II.\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN 1\n\n The _Parthia_--Mr J. Walter, M.P.--Sumner's opinion\n of Mr Bradlaugh's lecture--The Delaware Clionian Society--Milwaukee\n --Chicago--Intense cold--Mrs Lucretia Mott--A third\n lecturing tour--Dr Otis--The currency question--Religious\n animus--Death of Henry Wilson--In St Luke's Hospital, New\n York, with typhoid fever--Moncure D. Conway--Return.\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n MRS BESANT 12\n\n A friend lost--A friend gained--Mrs Besant and Mr Bradlaugh--\"Ajax\"--The\n Knowlton pamphlet--Advantages and disadvantages\n of a dual defence.\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n THE PROSECUTION OF MR BRADLAUGH AND MRS BESANT 20\n\n Appointment to sell the pamphlet--Arrested on a warrant--At\n the Guildhall--Application for a writ of _certiorari_--The Lord\n Chief Justice--Who was the prosecutor?--The trial at Westminster--The\n witnesses--The jury--The verdict--The judgment--Execution\n of sentence stayed--The Court of Appeal quashes\n indictment--Expenses of defence paid by subscription--The City--Other\n proceedings--Mr Truelove's trial and sentence--Effect of\n the prosecutions.\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n AN UNIMPORTANT CHAPTER 30\n\n Side lights--\"Man, whence and how?\"--The Turberville legacy--From\n Turner Street to Circus Road--Selling the Knowlton\n pamphlet--The day of arrest--At Westminster--Mr G. J. Holyoake--The\n hearing of the sentence--A riding accident.\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n MORE DEBATES 39\n\n Rev. Brewin Grant--Rev. A. Mursell--Mr Walter R. Browne--Mr\n Robert Roberts, a Christadelphian--Mr William Simpson--Mr\n Gordon--Rev. John Lightfoot--Rev. R. A. Armstrong--Rev.\n W. M. Westerby.\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n\n SOME LATER LECTURES 52\n\n At Oxford--The Suez Canal--Carrying \"consolation\"--At\n Congleton--At Newman Street, London--Edinburgh--Professor\n Flint--Scarborough.\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n\n LUNATICS 59\n\n Letters--\"A mission from God\"--John Sladen and the Queen.\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n\n THE \"WATCH\" STORY 63\n\n The defiance of Deity an ancient idea--_The British Monarchy_--Abner\n Kneeland--Emma Martin--G. J. Holyoake--Charles\n Capper, M. P.--The _Razor_--Rev. P. R. Jones, M. A., Dr Harrison,\n and other clergymen--The _Christian_ and other journals--The\n Rev. Basil Wilberforce--Dr Parker--The _British Empire_--_Prosecution_\n of Edgecumbe--Reckless swearing--A bad plea,\n \"embarrassing and unfair\"--Edgecumbe missing--The reward\n of Mr Bradlaugh's forbearance.\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n\n OTHER FABLES 76\n\n The \"cob of coal\"--The \"old woman\"--Story narrated by\n the Rev. H. W. Webb-Peploe--Personal slanders--The _World_--Action\n against Mr Laker--Poisoning the Prince of Wales--A\n \"bagman\"--A common accusation.\n\n CHAPTER X.\n\n PEACE DEMONSTRATIONS, 1878 82\n\n The \"Jingo\" fever--Meetings in favour of peace--Auberon\n Herbert and C. Bradlaugh in Hyde Park--Preparing for difficulties--The\n war party--The fight--Second Hyde Park meeting--Mr\n Bradlaugh injured--Ill and depressed.\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n\n THE NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY 86\n\n The first general association of Freethinkers--Objects of the\n Society--Its President--First secular almanac--The work of the\n Society--Mr Bradlaugh's resignation.\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n\n THE LAST CHAPTER 91\n\n Six years of fighting--A record of injustice--Some who help to\n find the money to defend the right--Mr Bradlaugh's habits and\n surroundings--His commercial pursuits--Money difficulties--Death\n of Alice Bradlaugh--Mr Bradlaugh's illness--Plans for the\n future--India--Last illness--Memorials.\n\n\n Part II.\n\n BY JOHN M. ROBERTSON.\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n PHILOSOPHY AND SECULAR PROPAGANDA.\n\n \u00a71. Meaning of \"Atheism\" 115\n\n \u00a72. Bradlaugh's statement of Atheism 122\n\n \u00a73. \"Materialism\" and its critics 127\n\n \u00a74. Bradlaugh's popular propaganda 139\n\n \u00a75. Secularist ethics 154\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n POLITICAL DOCTRINE AND WORK.\n\n \u00a71. The Republican movement 165\n\n \u00a72. The Neo-Malthusian movement 169\n\n \u00a73. Bradlaugh and the land laws 179\n\n \u00a74. Bradlaugh and Socialism 185\n\n \u00a75. The Irish question 191\n\n \u00a76. Bradlaugh and India 198\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n THE PARLIAMENTARY STRUGGLE.\n\n _Chronological Summary_ 203\n\n \u00a71. Northampton election of 1880 208\n\n \u00a72. The raising of the oath question 211\n\n \u00a73. Bradlaugh's request to be let affirm; opposition of select\n committee 216\n\n \u00a74. His first attempt to take the oath; opposition of select\n committee 224\n\n \u00a75. The affirmation question again; opposition of the House 234\n\n \u00a76. Bradlaugh insists on taking the oath; arrested and released; at\n length sits on affirmation 240\n\n \u00a77. His action in the House; enmity outside 248\n\n \u00a78. The lawsuit of Clarke and Newdegate--Bradlaugh unseated and\n re-elected (1881) 259\n\n \u00a79. Renewed conflict in Parliament 265\n\n \u00a710. Agitation and discussion in the country 274\n\n \u00a711. Bradlaugh's return litigation against Newdegate 277\n\n \u00a712. Insisting on entering the House, is ejected by physical force\n (Aug. 1881) 281\n\n \u00a713. Further litigation and discussion 289\n\n \u00a714. Bradlaugh again at the table of the House--takes the oath--the\n seat again vacated (February 1882) 293\n\n \u00a715. The new election--fresh agitation 301\n\n \u00a716. Fresh litigation 305\n\n \u00a717. Outside discussion--Bradlaugh and Manning 307\n\n \u00a718. The _Freethinker_ blasphemy prosecution 316\n\n \u00a719. Renewal of the constitutional struggle--fresh debating in the\n House 334\n\n \u00a720. Bradlaugh again takes the oath--again unseated, and again\n elected (1884) 343\n\n \u00a721. Continued litigation--end of the struggle 351\n\n \u00a722. The effect of the struggle on parties 362\n\n \u00a723. Its constitutional importance 365\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n CLOSING YEARS.\n\n 1886 368\n\n 1887 374\n\n 1888 384\n\n 1889 404\n\n 1890-1891 410\n\n Conclusion--Bradlaugh's personality 421\n\n\n INDEX 445\n\n\n\n\nCHARLES BRADLAUGH.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN.\n\n\nMr. Bradlaugh had agreed to make a second lecturing tour through the\nStates in the autumn of 1874, and he started on it under the most\ninauspicious circumstances. We have just seen how he was obliged to\ndelay his journey--just as earlier in the year he had been obliged to\nhasten his return--to contest the election at Northampton, where he\nwas once more defeated for the third and last time. He had originally\ntaken his passage by the White Star Line, in the _Republic_, leaving on\nSeptember 24th. At his request the owners obligingly transferred him\nto the _Baltic_, leaving October 1st. Unable to get away by this boat,\nhe forfeited his passage, and leaving Northampton on the night of the\npoll, he just caught the Cunard ship the _Parthia_ at Queenstown on the\n7th. He started on his voyage despondent, utterly wearied, and with\n\"a tightish sensation about the heart,\" for he had hoped and believed\nuntil the last half-hour that he was going to win the election. He\nthought, too, that before he had left the town he had succeeded in\npacifying his disappointed and angry supporters in Northampton, but the\nreceipt of a telegram at Holyhead, telling him of the rioting there and\nthe calling out of the military, depressed him more than ever.\n\nWhen he got on board the _Parthia_ a curious little incident happened.\nAs he was \"standing gloomily, watching the last package carried on\nboard,\" he wrote, \"I was approached by a man, a steerage passenger,\nwho, reverently touching his billycock hat, said, 'Father, do you go\nwith us to the other side?' For a moment I was puzzled; but seeing\nthat the man was serious, I answered, 'You are mistaken; I am not a\nFather.' The man looked dubious, nervously scratched the deck with a\nblackthorn held loosely in his left hand, and rejoined, 'No offence\nmeant; I ask your reverence's pardon, but anyhow, it will be a blessing\nto have you with us on board, Father.' That I looked clerical I had\nbeen told by the _Gaulois_, which described me in 1871, when attending\nthe Paris Courts Martial, as dressed like a bishop; but this man's\nevidently earnest disbelief in my repudiation of priestly honours,\ncoupled with his quiet acquiescence, made me doubt whether I was really\nthe man who had been placarded a few hours before in Northampton as\n'Bradlaugh the Blasphemer.'\"\n\nThe journey began badly, and continued so until New Jersey was sighted.\nThe sea was rough, the _Parthia_ rolled, and the captain proved a\nchurl. The embarkation of the steerage passengers was managed with an\n\"uncouth harshness\" which was painful to witness; to threaten \"to put\na man 'in irons' for coming back to give a last wave of his hand to a\nweeping sweetheart,\" commented my father, \"was just a little too hard.\"\nOn the 17th the passengers on board the _Parthia_ had the mortification\nof seeing the _Adriatic_ (White Star Line), which had left Liverpool\ntwo days after them, pass them, and forge ahead with a speed which soon\nleft the _Parthia_ behind. Everything seemed combined to render his\njourney unpleasant and vexatious.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: In reference to Mr Bradlaugh's voyage in the _Parthia_ I\nappend an extract from the _New York Herald_ for 7th September 1881,\nwhich purports to be an account of an interview between the reporter of\nthat journal and Mr J. Walter, M.P., of the _Times_:--\n\n\"THE BRADLAUGH INCIDENT.\n\n\"'Don't you think Bradlaugh was harshly treated?' 'Oh dear, no,' was\nMr. Walter's eager response. 'That's all nonsense about his having\ncrysipelas, and having been so brutally treated. He's a perfect\nruffian. A fellow-passenger on the _Bothnia_ told me of Bradlaugh and\nsome of his comrades violently disturbing some religious services\nheld on board the _Parthia_, so that Captain Watson was compelled to\nthreaten him with putting him in irons before he would stop.'\"\n\nMy father, of course, wrote to the _New York Herald_ and to Mr Walter,\ncontradicting this, saying that the statement was \"monstrously untrue.\"\nHe made only the one voyage on the _Parthia_; he said: \"No attempt\nof any kind was made by any one to disturb religious services during\nthat voyage. There was a disagreement between Captain Watson and\nthe passengers as to the singing after dinner in the smoking-room,\nbut it had not the smallest connection with religious services. The\nparticulars were given in a letter signed by the passengers, and which\nwas published at the time in several of the American papers. I never\nsang in my life, and was most certainly not even one of the singers.\"]\n\nMy father arrived in New York unfortunately too late for many of his\nengagements. He was due to speak in Dartmouth College (New Hampshire)\non the 20th, and he had barely time to get there. On the way he\nwas delighted to meet Henry Wilson in the train. They chatted long\ntogether, enjoying each other's company, and talking much of Charles\nSumner, a man reverenced and honoured by both, who had died since\nMr Bradlaugh's last visit to America. As it happened, too, Sumner's\nopinion of my father's first lecture in Boston had only lately been\npublished in the Boston papers. It was given in a letter written\nby Wendell Phillips in reply to some inquiries made of him by the\nSecretary of a lecture committee at Winchester, Mass. The letter ran:--\n\n \"DEAR SIR,--In reply to your note of October 1st would say: I\n heard Mr Bradlaugh the first time he spoke in Boston. What Mr Sumner,\n who sat near me, said of that lecture, will deservedly have more\n influence and weight than any opinion of mine. While Bradlaugh was\n speaking, Sumner looked to me and said, 'This is very fine.' At the\n close of the lecture he remarked, 'This is, I think, the most eloquent\n speech I have heard for some years.'\n\n WENDELL PHILLIPS.\"\n\n \"BOSTON, _October 2, 1874_.\"\n\nAt Dartmouth Mr Bradlaugh lectured to the students in their church, and\nthe Rev. Dr Smith, President of the College, presided at his lecture.\nTwo days later he was speaking at Cambridge, having this time a fine\naudience of over a thousand persons, including most of the Cambridge\nprofessors and a strong force from Harvard College. At Philadelphia\non the 25th he won the sympathies of a crowded meeting, although here\nhe had been publicly preached against, and people had been warned not\nto go to his lecture. At Charlestown (Mass.) he spoke in the Trinity\nMethodist Episcopal Church, with the pastor, the Rev. Mark Trafton, as\npresident. In Boston he spoke in the Rev. James Freeman Clarke's Church\nof Disciples, and at Winchester in the Unitarian Church--\"and yet,\" he\nsaid, \"miracles are not believed in!\" On the journey from Bangor to\nDexter my father, at the invitation of the engine-driver, rode part\nway on the engine, and he relates how he found himself \"perched on a\nnice soft seat in a corner, with my toes near enough to the furnace to\nmake me forget that a sharp frosty wind was whistling; engine-driver\nChase turned out to be quite a philosopher, and I had a pleasant time.\"\nPresently they had to slacken speed; \"there are cattle on the track,\nthree oxen and three full-grown calves. They run on in front, sometimes\ncrossing the line; we ring the bell, whistle furiously, and puff-puff\nvociferously, till at last engine-driver Chase gets angry and says, 'It\nis no use, those cattle are as stupid as your House of Lords.' 'Yes,' I\nanswered, 'and will get run down like the Lords, if they do not get off\nthe track.'\"\n\nSenor Castelar stated after Mr Bradlaugh's death that he was shunned\nby the ladies; but Senor Castelar's English was a little at fault.\nWhen my father was at Delaware he was taken by the students to the\nFemale College, \"where,\" he said, \"the president introduced me to the\nsenior ladies' class, who sang to me the American national hymn. I was\nasked to make them a speech, and am afraid I made myself supremely\nridiculous. It is no joke to be suddenly called on to say something to\ntwoscore of extremely good-looking young ladies.... They all looked\nhappy, and gave me a very pleasant greeting, one which made me think of\nmy own girls at home.\" The girls on their side were evidently equally\npleased with their visitor, for just before my father commenced his\nlecture that evening he received the following note:--\n\n \"The members of the Clionian Society, having made Mr Bradlaugh an\n honorary member of the same, desire, if he has no serious objection,\n to see him wear their badge this evening.\n\n ANNA C. LONG.\"\n\nHe did wear the badge in his button-hole, \"and very pretty it looked,\nand very pretty the donors looked too as they sat in the opera-house in\nfront of me,\" he said.\n\nIn continuing his journey west he lectured at Chicago, and this time\nhe was fortunately able to spend some hours with Hypatia Carlile and\nher husband. At Milwaukee his visit created extraordinary enthusiasm.\n\"Nearly all the prominent lawyers, divines, newspaper men, merchants,\nthinkers, and writers of the city, with their wives, heard his first\nlecture; and they applauded at shorter intervals than any lecturer ever\nwas applauded here before. It is rare indeed that such an aggregate\nof intellect is seen gathered together at one time in this city as\nwas the case on Thursday, and that one man receives such approval.\"[2]\nThe Milwaukee people urgently begged for a second lecture, which a\nfortunately vacant date in the following week enabled him to give them.\n\n[Footnote 2: _Chicago Tribune._]\n\nIowa was the furthest point west he reached on this visit, the whole\njourney covering a distance of more than 4500 miles. When he went west\nagain in the following February he met with a terrific snowstorm,\ngenerally described as the worst seen for many years. At Milwaukee\nthe cold was so severe that at his lecture the audience sat enveloped\nin furs and rugs, although the janitor protested that he had used\nthree tons of coal in his endeavour to warm the Music Hall. \"The next\ntime,\" commented my father, \"I hope he will use thirty tons.\" The\ncold grew more and more intense, until at Fond du Lac (Wisconsin)\nwhich he reached on 10th February, the spirit thermometers registered\nforty degrees below zero. On leaving Fond du Lac there was a wait of\nten hours at the station before any train came by which he could get\nto Oshkosh, where he was due that evening; at which place--reached\nonly just in time--he found a fine audience awaiting him in spite of\nthe weather, if \"weather\" can be looked upon as an adequate term for\natmospheric conditions where one thermometer registers forty-five\ndegrees below zero and the others are congealed. The following day\nhe was due at Madison, but as traffic was suspended he remained for\na short time snow-bound at Oshkosh. Towards the end of February his\nfarewell lecture was given at Chicago to the largest audience he had\nhad that winter. \"Every seat was filled, the stage was filled, the\naisles were filled, and even the staircases were alive with people.\"[3]\nOn this journey west he did a tremendous amount of travelling; in one\nstretch of eight days he was only two nights in bed.\n\n[Footnote 3: He spoke in M'Cormick's Hall to an audience of 3600\npersons, of whom 3500 had paid for admission; the hall had never been\nso full before, and the audience was as enthusiastic as it was large.]\n\nIn the Eastern States he had lectured at Salem (Mass.), with Dr Loring\nonce more for his host and chairman, and an audience who gave him a\nglorious reception, although, apart from the warmth of their greeting,\nnearly everything was in \"a state of unmitigated freeziness.\" At Bangor\n(Maine), where the snow was six feet deep in drifts, and was nowhere\nless than two feet save on the most travelled roads, the intense cold\n(twenty-three degrees) kept away the audience; but amongst those who\ndid \"brave the elements\" was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of\nMaine, who warmly congratulated Mr Bradlaugh at the end of his lecture.\nAt Lynn (Mass.), where he gave one of his last lectures in New England,\nin going from the railway station to the hall, he humorously relates:\n\"I sat down twice to reflect on the uncertainty of human progress. To\nsit down in snow two or three feet deep is not dangerous, but is cold,\nand most certainly is ridiculous, especially when the sitter is tall\nand heavy. The second time I sat down I broke one of my ribs--that\nis, one of my umbrella ribs, and I filled my gloves with snow. I was\nreconciled to my fate when I learned that the gentleman sent out to\nescort me, and whom I had missed, had sat down three times.\"\n\nAt Philadelphia he spoke before the Pennsylvania Peace Society, and was\ndelighted to find amongst his auditors Mrs Lucretia Mott. After the\nlecture Mrs Mott, on the invitation of the chairman, stood up to speak,\nand, said my father, \"I felt reverence for the white-haired dame, which\nwas mingled with astonishment when, her voice losing the tremor of\nage noticeable in the first few sentences, she spoke as clearly and\ndistinctly as though at least thirty years had been taken from the\ncount of her full-spent life. I valued highly the praise she gave me.\"\n\nAt Boston and at New York he was welcomed as heartily as ever. After\nhis first lecture this time at Boston it had been noted that \"for once\"\nthe great audience, who, it was said, seemed completely under his\ncontrol, remained to hear the last word; after the last it was agreed\nthat his lectures had been the greatest success of the season. His\nheadquarters had been this time in Boston, and whenever he returned\nthere from his lecturing journeys receptions were given to him, and\nevery one seemed eager to show him some kindness or courtesy. Not the\nleast valued mementoes of this visit were a complete and finely bound\nedition of Sumner's works, a handsome memorial volume printed in honour\nof Sumner, and three fine photographs of the dead statesman. All these\nwere brought him at different times by the Hon. Joshua B. Smith, who\nidolised the great Abolitionist. He brought these tokens of Sumner to\nmy father because, as he once said, \"Mr Bradlaugh was the friend of one\nI loved.\"\n\nAlthough he was comparatively little at New York, still while he was\nthere he met amongst others James Paxton, E. C. Stedman, the poet, and\nAnna E. Dickinson, who greatly charmed him by her apparent sincerity,\nher eloquence, and her clearness of thought.\n\nMy father returned at the end of February, with the satisfaction of\nknowing that, despite its ominous commencement, his winter's work had\nbeen a success in every way. The liabilities incurred by his sudden\ndeparture from the United States the year before, and his delayed\narrival this year, had been met, and his indebtedness at home had been\ncleared to the extent of \u00a31000.\n\nHe came home by the _City of Brooklyn_, and met with a very stormy\npassage. There was a furious gale, the waves sweeping the decks and\nbursting the doors. The wheel became unmanageable; the wheelmen were\nflung right and left. \"For five hours and twenty minutes,\" wrote my\nfather a week later, \"our engines were stopped; the sea played with\nour helpless vessel as with a toy, and the whole of those on board\nstood near death's gates. Captain J. S. Murray behaved in this terrible\nemergency with a courage and self-possession for which no praise can be\ntoo high. The _City of Brooklyn_, too, proved to be a good sea boat,\nand the morning light saw us out of danger; but in that twenty-four\nhours we only made ninety-one miles, and the log recorded a 'violent\nhurricane with mountainous seas.'\"\n\nMy father's departure for the United States for his third lecturing\ntour, in the autumn of 1875, was very different from that of the year\nbefore, or even that of 1873. Now, at last, Fortune seemed to smile\nupon him, and everything was propitious. He set out in gay spirits\nand high hopes; his successes of the last two winters had assured him\na welcome when he reached the States, and there was every prospect\nthat by the time he came home again he would be able to lighten that\nterrible incubus of debt even more substantially than before.\n\nHe sailed in the _City of Berlin_, then one of the largest and most\nperfectly fitted Atlantic Liners afloat. He felt quite at home in her,\nfor there were several familiar faces amongst the officers, and the\ncaptain was so courteous that the passengers voted him a special vote\nof thanks. It is rather curious that this resolution should have been\nsigned on behalf of their fellow-passengers by Dr Fessenden, N. Otis,\nand Mr Bradlaugh, because a little later Dr Otis proved a friend in\nneed to my father. On the voyage all went well, the weather was good,\nand the _Berlin_ made a record passage of seven days eighteen hours.\n\nAfter two or three days spent in New York my father went on to Boston,\nto find that city in the throes of an election for the office of\nGovernor of Massachusetts. He attended a \"Republican rally\" at the\nold Faneuil Hall, and as he sat listening to the speeches of Henry\nWilson and others, the influence of the room seemed to grow upon him;\nhe remembered that it was there \"that Otis pleaded against Lord North\nand George III.; it was there that the Boston men gathered that very\nDecember day on which the tea was thrown overboard in Boston harbour;\nit was there that groans accompanied the reading of the Boston Ports\nBill.\" The meeting had the still further interest to him that it was\npresided over by R. H. Dana, the man who had been counsel for Anthony\nBurns.\n\nAnother question was also agitating, not merely Boston, but the whole\ncountry, and dividing parties into hostile camps, and that was the\nCurrency question; and as upon this subject my father and Wendell\nPhillips took opposite views, their relations were by no means so\nfriendly as heretofore.\n\nThe religious feeling which had been raised against Mr Bradlaugh every\ntime was renewed with special bitterness this winter, and created\nquite a panic amongst the managers of lecture courses. It is much to\ntheir credit that the Rev. Dr Miner and the Rev. Dr Lorrimer had the\ncourage to disregard the outcry, and invited him to lecture to their\ncongregations as before.\n\nAt the end of October he was feeling very unwell, but persisted in\ncontinuing his work, and for a week or two seemed rather better. Since\nthe friendship which sprang up between them on board the _City of\nBerlin_, Dr Otis and my father had not lost sight of one another, and\nwhen he became worse again he consulted Dr Otis, who strongly advised\nchange of scene and climate, as preparation for the hard work and the\ncold which would have to be faced on his Western tour. Hence, in the\nmiddle of November, finding himself part way there, he went on to\nWashington. At Washington he found that almost his only friend in the\ncity, Henry Wilson, the Vice-President of the United States, was lying\nsick unto death in the Capitol. He called upon him, but finding him so\nill, simply left his card. Mr Wilson, on hearing of his visit, sent his\nsecretary with a note--the last, I believe, that he ever wrote--asking\nhim to come on the following morning, but my father never saw him\nagain. He returned to the Fifth Avenue Hotel, New York, sad and ill. Dr\nOtis saw him professionally and in the report he sent to England early\nin December he said he had been suffering from \"much work and little\nrest\" for several days; later he found him suffering from pleurisy and\nsome threatenings of typhoid. As the fever rapidly developed, Dr Otis\nsuggested that he should go to St Luke's Hospital, where he could have\nthe best care--professional and general--and on my father agreeing,\nhe took him there in his own carriage on 30th November. At St Luke's\nHospital Mr Bradlaugh felt that he owed his life \"to the great skill\nand generous kindness of Dr Leaming, to the unremitting attentions of\nDr Abbe, and to the patient and never-ceasing care of my nurse, William\nShaw.\" Even before he was allowed to leave his bed it was decided he\ncould do no more lecturing that season, and within four days from\nleaving his sick-bed he was on board the _City of Richmond_ on his way\nhome. Friends said he was rash--that the journey would kill him. He was\nso weak that he could scarcely stand, and he shed tears almost directly\na kind word was said to him; but if his body was weak, his will was\nstrong; he would go, and he was sure that he would grow stronger more\nquickly moving on board ship than inactive in New York. A copy of\n\"Alice in Wonderland\" had been accidentally left in his cabin; he was\nso weak that it took him nearly the whole voyage to read this little\nbook; he laughed over it and delighted in it like a child. Afterwards,\nhe always remembered it with a certain enjoyment, and was ever ready to\nquote from it such touching verses as \"You are old, Father William,\"\n\"'Tis the voice of the sluggard,\" or \"Will you walk a little faster?\"\n\nSpeaking of his sudden return a week or two later, Mr Bradlaugh said:\n\"I came back to England because I was advised that it would have been\nsuicide in my weak state to face the Western winter. I come back to\nEurope reluctantly, for I went to the United States to earn enough\nmoney to pay my debts, and I am compelled to return poorer than I\nleft. Indeed, I owe it to Mr Moncure D. Conway's assistance that I was\nenabled, at the moment, to discharge the obligations my illness had\ncreated in New York.\"\n\nMr Conway has since told me that when he went to see my father\nwhile he lay ill in the St Luke's Hospital, my father begged him\nto make inquiries of nurse and doctors whether he had said or done\nanything during the time of his illness which could be construed into\nan alteration of his opinions upon religious subjects. He wished\nMr Conway, in the event of his death, to bear testimony that his\nconvictions had remained unchanged. Mr Conway, whose own opinions were\nby no means so heretical as Mr Bradlaugh's, was nevertheless anxious\nto carry out the wishes of the sick man with the utmost exactitude,\nand therefore made the most scrupulous inquiries. But he only learned\nthat Mr Bradlaugh had been a most docile, uncomplaining, and grateful\npatient, and that he had not uttered a single word which could afford\nthe slightest justification for a suggestion of recantation. That my\nfather's dread of the usual \"infidel deathbed\" myth was well founded\nwe know by what has happened since 1891. Even as it was, although he\nrecovered from his illness in New York, and was alive to contradict\nsuch fables, it was actually said that he had sent for a minister to\npray with him, and one clergyman was even reported to have specified\nthe \"minister\" as a Baptist! It was long before my father entirely\nrecovered from this illness, and although formerly a smoker, after this\nhe lost all desire for a cigar. It was not until a few years before his\ndeath that he renewed the habit, and even then only in a very modest\nway--a cigar in going to the House of Commons, a cigar in coming back\nhe enjoyed; at other times he smoked little.\n\nIt is worth noting that while Mr Bradlaugh was in the States,\nwhenever he had an evening to spare, wherever he might happen to be,\nhe generally devoted it to going to hear some lecture or sermon, or\nattending some meeting. In this way he heard, amongst others, Parker\nPilsbury, Newman Hall, O. B. Frothingham, M. D. Conway, Horace Seaver,\nand Dr Miner. He two or three times attended and spoke at Women's\nSuffrage meetings, and was invited on at least two occasions to take\npart in Masonic festivals.\n\nEverywhere he went he made careful inquiries into the labour conditions\nof the locality, and where possible, he visited mill and factory, and\ntalked with both workers and employers. He also specially studied the\nworkings of the liquor laws in the States where they obtained, and the\neffect of his observations was to decide him against them. On each\nvisit he wrote home weekly letters for the _National Reformer_, which\nwere interesting for what they told about his own doings and about\npersons, and invaluable to intending emigrants for the information\nthey gave concerning labour in the different States which he visited.\nHe afterwards published the result of his investigation into labour\nquestions in America as a little booklet entitled \"Hints to Emigrants.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nMRS BESANT.\n\n\nIn 1874 Mr Bradlaugh lost a friend and gained one. Between himself and\nthe friend he lost the tie had endured through nearly five-and-twenty\nyears, of which the final fourteen had been passed in the closest\nfriendship and communion, tarnished neither by quarrel nor mistrust.\nBy the death of Austin Holyoake my father lost a trusty counsellor\nand loyal co-worker, and the Freethought movement lost one who for\nfully twenty years had served it with that earnest fidelity, high\nmoral courage, and unimpeachable integrity which were amongst his\nmost striking characteristics. In health and in sickness he toiled\nincessantly to promote the interests of the cause he had at heart, and\nat no time of his life did he shrink from duty or responsibility.\n\nAustin Holyoake died in the spring of 1874, and was buried in Highgate\nCemetery in the presence of a great crowd of sorrowing friends. Just\nbefore his death he dictated his \"Sickroom Thoughts\" to his wife,\nuttering the last broken paragraph only a few hours before he died. For\nthree years he had known that death was near, and this final statement\nof his opinions on death and immortality was purposely deferred until\nthe last moment he deemed it prudent, so that he might leave a record\nof his last deliberate opinions, and as such these \"Thoughts\" provoked\nvery considerable comment.[4]\n\n[Footnote 4: \"My mind being free from any doubts on these bewildering\nmatters of speculation,\" he said, \"I have experienced for twenty years\nthe most perfect mental repose; and now I find that the near approach\nof death, the 'grim King of Terrors,' gives me not the slightest alarm.\nI have suffered, and am suffering, most intensely both by night and\nday; but this has not produced the least symptom of change of opinion.\nNo amount of bodily torture can alter a mental conviction.\"]\n\nAustin Holyoake, like his friend, lived and died a poor man, and my\nfather pledged himself to him on his deathbed to raise a sum of \u00a3650 to\npurchase the printing and publishing business hitherto conducted by Mr\nHolyoake in the interests of Freethought literature. The money raised\nwas to benefit the widow and the two children, and the business was to\nbe handed over to Mr Charles Watts. A subscription which was started\nrealised rather less than \u00a3550, and the National Secular Society\ndetermined to make up the balance out of a legacy left to the President\nby a Dr Berwick. Unfortunately, however, Dr Berwick's trustee absconded\nwith the money, and consequently, as Mr Bradlaugh had promised his dead\nfriend that the sum of \u00a3650 should be raised, he paid the deficiency\nout of his own pocket, by weekly instalments.\n\nAustin Holyoake, the friend Mr Bradlaugh lost, was steadfast, loyal,\nunassuming, and unswerving in his opinions; Mrs Annie Besant, the\nfriend he gained, was even more remarkable, though in a very different\nway.\n\n * * * * *\n\nHaving enrolled herself a member of the National Secular Society in\nAugust 1874, Mrs Besant sought Mr Bradlaugh's acquaintance. They were\nmutually attracted; and a friendship sprang up between them of so close\na nature that had both been free it would undoubtedly have ended in\nmarriage. In their common labours, in the risks and responsibilities\njointly undertaken, their friendship grew and strengthened, and the\ninsult and calumny heaped upon them only served to cement the bond.\n\nThis lasted for many years until Mrs Besant's ceaseless activity\ncarried her into paths widely divergent from those so long trodden by\nher colleague, paths which brought her into close association with\npersons strongly inimical to Mr Bradlaugh and the aims to which he was\ndevoting his life. For some time before he died, he had, as Mrs Besant\nherself has written in her recently published _Autobiography_,[5] lost\nall confidence in her judgment; she had disappointed him, and it would\nbe unworthy of both not to recognise that the disappointment was very\nbitter, though his desire to serve her and shield her always remained\nunchanged. For thirteen years she had stood upon the same platform\nwith him; and when she one day said that for ten years she had been\ndissatisfied with her own teaching, he felt it very keenly, but he\nneither uttered a word of blame himself, nor would he allow any one\nelse to blame her in his hearing.\n\n[Footnote 5: See page 322.]\n\nEvery movement, every cause, has its ebbs and flows; there seems to be\nonly a certain amount of activity possible to men in the mass, and now\nit flows in one direction, now in another. The Freethought movement,\nwhen Mrs Besant came into it, had for some years been slowly but surely\nincreasing in activity and prosperity. The National Secular Society,\nalthough not so complete an organisation as it was soon to become,\nwas nevertheless to be found in all the great centres of population.\nThe _National Reformer_, the representative organ of Freethought, in\nthe five years which lay between 1867 and 1872 had nearly doubled its\ncirculation, and was read in almost all parts of the world. It was\nsent to the three presidencies of India, the United States and Canada,\nNew Zealand, Australia, the Cape of Good Hope, the West Indies, Egypt,\nFrance, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Germany. On its staff there were\nseveral very able writers, and if it was not exactly a profitable\nproperty, it at least paid its way.\n\nPeople have sometimes deliberately asserted that Mrs Besant's desertion\nand Mr Bradlaugh's death inflicted an irremediable injury on the cause\nof Freethought, but this is merely an assertion, and one which will not\nbear a moment's investigation. Happily for the human race, the growth\nof public opinion does not depend upon any single man or woman, however\nable, however energetic, he or she may be. The loss of a leader amongst\nmen may for a moment check the onward movement, and it may be there is\neven a temporary reaction--a swing back--but never in the history of\nthe world has the loss of one of its pioneers proved an \"irremediable\ninjury\" to the cause of progress.\n\nIf indeed it should be thought, and it is a proposition that I am\nnot in a position to deny, that this is a moment of ebb in the tide\nof Freethought, the fact would only be in harmony with the general\ntendency of the times, and would prove nothing against the ultimate\nacceptance of the truths of Materialism. The growth of population\nin our great cities has caused the evils of poverty to press more\nclosely upon general attention, and the public energy is directed\ntowards seeking a solution for these immediately important problems,\nrather than for those more abstract theorems arising out of religious\nspeculation.\n\nMrs Besant was herself obeying this tendency when, in 1886 she thought\nshe had found in the optimistic dreams of Socialism a remedy for this\nmost bitter of human ills. This was the point upon which she first\ndiverged from Mr Bradlaugh, and once having separated her thought from\nhis, the breach swiftly widened. Socialism was, as it were, the fork\nin the Y of their lives. Nothing, I think, will show how far these two\nhad drifted asunder more than that Mr Bradlaugh should first learn of\nMrs Besant's adhesion to the Theosophical Society through an article\nwritten by her in a weekly paper, and not from her own lips.\n\nMrs Besant's first contribution to the _National Reformer_ appeared\nin its issue for 30th August 1874, and with that she entered in good\nearnest upon the work which was to engross her for many years to come.\nOver the signature of \"Ajax\" she commenced a series of notes, entitled\n\"Daybreak,\" which were to mark \"the rising of the sun of liberty ...\nwhen men should dare to think for themselves in theology, and act for\nthemselves in politics,\" and these notes were continued weekly for\nseveral years. From August 1874 to April 1891 Mrs Besant remained\nconnected with the _National Reformer_, first as contributor, and then\nas sub-editor, becoming shortly afterwards co-editor and co-proprietor.\nThe co-editorship was resigned in October 1887 for reasons set forth\nby Mrs Besant in her _Autobiography_,[6] and the co-proprietorship\nceased with the dissolution of the partnership between herself and Mr\nBradlaugh, in December 1890.\n\n[Footnote 6: See p. 320.]\n\nWhen my father heard Mrs Besant's first lecture in August 1874, in the\nCo-operative Society's Hall, Castle Street, upon the \"Political Status\nof Women,\" it impressed him as \"probably the best speech by a woman\"\nhe had ever listened to. It was not until the following year, however,\nthat Mrs Besant started definitely as a lecturer upon the Freethought\nplatform, but from that time forward she was indefatigable. She was\nvery fluent, with a great command of language, and her voice carried\nwell; her throat, weak at first, rapidly gained in strength, until she\nbecame a most forcible speaker. Tireless as a worker, she could both\nwrite and study longer without rest and respite than any other person\nI have known; and such was her power of concentration, that she could\nwork under circumstances which would have confounded almost every other\nperson. Though not an original thinker, she had a really wonderful\npower of absorbing the thoughts of others, of blending them, and of\ntransmuting them into glowing language. Her industry her enthusiasm,\nand her eloquence made of her a very powerful ally to whatever cause\nshe espoused.\n\nMrs Besant had been connected with the Freethought party for about two\nand a half years when an incident occurred which was destined to have\nconsiderable and lasting results. In the winter of 1876 a man, alleged\nto have an unpleasant reputation as a seller of indecent literature,\nwas convicted at Bristol for selling a pamphlet, written by an American\nphysician of repute, Dr Charles Knowlton. This pamphlet, entitled\n\"Fruits of Philosophy: An Essay on the Population Question,\" had been\non sale in England for forty years, and this was the first time it had\nbeen prosecuted. It had been openly sold by James Watson, a publisher\nof the highest repute, who had been dead only a short time; by Mr G.\nJ. Holyoake; by Austin Holyoake up to the time of his death; and by\nothers both in England and America. Mr Charles Watts had bought the\nplates of this and other works from the widow of James Watson, and,\nacting upon Mr Bradlaugh's advice, Mr Watts went to Bristol, and\ndeclared himself the responsible publisher of the book. He was himself\narrested on 8th January 1877, and on 12th January was committed for\ntrial at the Central Criminal Court. The trial was to be heard on 5th\nFebruary, but before that day arrived Mr Watts came to the conclusion\nthat the pamphlet was indefensible, and decided to withdraw his plea\nof \"not guilty,\" and to plead \"guilty\" instead. Upon learning this, Mr\nBradlaugh felt exceedingly angry. \"If the pamphlet now prosecuted,\" he\nsaid, \"had been brought to me for publication, I should probably have\ndeclined to publish it, not because of the subject-matter, but because\nI do not like its style.[7] If I had once published it, I should have\ndefended it until the very last.\" He was strongly of opinion that the\nmatter ought to be fought right through; and differing so widely on a\nmatter of principle with Mr Watts, he determined to sever all business\nconnection with him. He gave his reasons for this course as follows:--\n\n[Footnote 7: The late Mr Grote, however, thought sufficiently of this\npamphlet to preserve it in his own library. He, moreover, presented a\ncopy to the library of the London University, where it was at the time\nof this prosecution.]\n\n\"The Knowlton pamphlet is either decent or indecent. If decent,\nit ought to be defended; if indecent, it should never have been\npublished. To judge it indecent, is to condemn, with the most severe\ncondemnation, James Watson, whom I respected, and Austin Holyoake,\nwith whom I worked. I hold the work to be defensible, and I deny the\nright of any one to interfere with the full and free discussion of\nsocial questions affecting the happiness of the nation. The struggle\nfor a free press has been one of the marks of the Freethought party\nthroughout its history, and as long as the Party permits me to hold\nits flag, I will never voluntarily lower it. I have no right and no\npower to dictate to Mr Watts the course he should pursue, but I have\nthe right and the duty to refuse to associate my name with a submission\nwhich is utterly repugnant to my nature and inconsistent with my whole\ncareer.\"\n\nWhen Mr Watts' case came on for trial he pleaded \"guilty,\" and was\nreleased, on his own recognisances of \u00a3500, to come up for judgment\nwhen called upon. It was contended at the trial that it was unlawful to\npublish such physiological details as were to be found in Dr Knowlton's\npamphlet, even for a good purpose. Mr Bradlaugh and Mrs Besant (who\nhad now entered into a formal partnership under the style of \"The\nFreethought Publishing Company\") determined to republish the pamphlet\nto test the right of publication.\n\nA great deal was said at the time by way of blaming Mr Bradlaugh for\nallowing Mrs Besant to associate herself with him in this struggle,\nand of lauding Mrs Besant for her great courage in this defence. Many\nwere the unworthy taunts cast at Mr Bradlaugh for \"sheltering\" himself\n\"behind a woman,\" though not one of those who sneered stayed to reflect\nthat even if this association had some advantages it also had distinct\ndisadvantages. The gain was both to the principles involved, and to my\nfather personally. To see a woman brave enough to stand by the side\nof a man in defence of the free publication of unpopular doctrines,\nwas an incentive to the public to investigate those doctrines with\na view to forming an independent judgment upon them; it was also an\ninspiration and a constant spur to the man--had he been the one to need\nspur or inspiration in such a cause. Mrs Besant's unwearying industry\nin working up the extra-legal side of the case, in hunting up in other\nworks statements of physiological fact exactly similar to or stronger\nthan those found in the prosecuted pamphlet, was invaluable. In the\nweek which intervened between the verdict and the sentence on their\nown case, Mr Bradlaugh took the opportunity to express his appreciation\nof Mrs Besant's work, and this despite the fact that her decision to\njoin in the defence was contrary to his wish and advice. He wrote:--\n\n\"I have often faced hard toil, but I have never had to encounter\npersistent, wearying, anxious labour greater than that of the last\nthree months. And here--while my hand is yet free to pen these\nlines--let me record my deep sense of gratitude to the woman who\nhas shared my fight, aided me by her help, encouraged me by her\nsteadfastness, and strengthened me by her counsel. It is not alone\nthe brilliant eloquence, patient endurance, and sustained effort\nmanifested for so many hours in the Court--qualities displayed by Mrs\nBesant, which, coupled with her great tact, won repeated praise from\nthe Lord Chief Justice, and congratulations from almost the whole of\nthe barristers who crowded the Court--so much of Mrs Besant's work has\nbeen recorded by most of the press in terms of the highest laudation.\nThe personal acknowledgment from myself is more due for the weeks of\nunrecognised but most wearying and continued drudgery in analysing a\nmass of scientific works, searching out authorities, and generally\npreparing the huge body of materials required for use on the trial. Few\ncan appreciate the enormous labour involved in the careful analysis of\nmedical works, and their comparison, line by line, with the Knowlton\nPamphlet. Yet, without this labour, the defence would have been\nimpossible.\"\n\nThe disadvantages of the dual defence were considerable, but they were\nknown to very few, and were moreover purely personal. Upon Mr Bradlaugh\nlay the whole responsibility of the defence; his was the mind that\nplanned it, and he had to conduct the fight, not merely for himself,\nbut for the woman beside him; he had to consider two briefs instead\nof one, and as Mrs Besant was at that time totally unfamiliar with\nthe procedure of the Law Courts, he had to instruct her, not only in\nthe things it was desirable she should say, but also in those which\nwere better left unsaid. He was but too well aware that Mrs Besant\nrisked not alone imprisonment, but also the loss of her child; and in\nthe event of failure, and the imprisonment of both himself and his\ncolleague, the problem naturally presented itself, Who was to edit the\n_National Reformer_, and to look after the new business? Mr Watts'\nplea of \"guilty,\" followed by Mr Bradlaugh's indignation, had for the\nmoment produced considerable division amongst former friends, and\nthere had been hardly time to reckon which were friends and which were\nfoes. Nothing could better mark the extent of my father's difficulty\nthan the fact that he had to hand over these onerous duties to us, his\ndaughters, two girls fresh from a dreary country life, and hardly out\nof our teens. Hence, although he was justly proud that a woman whom he\nheld in such esteem should stand by him publicly at such a moment, it\nincreased his anxieties and his responsibilities enormously that Mrs\nBesant's risks were so heavy, and there was thus no trusty colleague\nfree to undertake the burden of a weekly journal, and the drudgery of\nthe management of the new publishing business.\n\nSome at least of these difficulties were pointed out to Mrs Besant;\nfriends besought her by every argument they could think of not to risk\nthe loss of her child; but she had chosen her course, and she adhered\nto it in spite of all entreaties. And such is the irony of fate that\nshe lost the society of her daughter for ten years, and was subjected\nto the grossest insult from Sir George Jessel, as Master of the Rolls,\nfor defending doctrines she now repudiates.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nPROSECUTION OF MR BRADLAUGH AND MRS BESANT.\n\n\nOn Friday, 23rd March, Mr Bradlaugh and Mrs Besant went together to\nthe Guildhall, to deliver the earliest copy of the new edition of the\nKnowlton pamphlet to Mr Martin, the Chief Clerk, with a notice that\nthey would personally attend, at a certain hour on the following day,\nto sell the pamphlet. Similar notices were left at the chief office\nof the Detective Department, and at the office of the City Solicitor.\nOn Saturday afternoon Stonecutter Street was thronged with a crowd of\npersons anxious to purchase copies of the pamphlet from Mr Bradlaugh\nor Mrs Besant, and amongst these purchasers detectives were easily\nidentified by Mr Bradlaugh's quick eye. A few days later the partners\nwere arrested on a warrant--not served with a summons--and marched off\nto Bridewell, after a fruitless search for compromising literature had\nbeen made on the Stonecutter Street premises. From the Police Court,\nwhere Mrs Besant had to endure the indignity of being personally\nsearched, they were conveyed to the Guildhall. Mr Alderman Figgins\nheard the charge, and remanded the case until the 17th of April.\n\nA defence committee was formed, which soon included the names of many\nwell-known men and women, both in England and abroad, and a fund\nwas started to meet the expenses of the defence. The long lists of\nsubscribers which appeared week by week in the columns of the _National\nReformer_ give unmistakable proof of the widespread sympathy.\n\nWhen the further hearing of the case came on at the Guildhall,\nthe prosecution was conducted by Mr Douglas Straight and Mr Mead,\ninstructed by Mr Nelson, the City Solicitor. Mr Figgins was again\nthe presiding magistrate, and there were several other aldermen\non the Bench. At this hearing--which lasted a couple of days--Mr\nStraight offered to proceed against Mr Bradlaugh alone, letting the\ncharge against Mrs Besant drop but to this the latter would on no\naccount agree. At the conclusion they were liberated on their own\nrecognisances, to appear at the Central Criminal Court on 7th May.\nThe prospect of standing in the dock of the Old Bailey was not very\nalluring to my father, so he went to the Court of Queen's Bench and\nmade an application to the Lord Chief Justice (Sir Alexander Cockburn)\nand Mr Justice Mellor for a writ of _certiorari_ for the removal of\nthe case to that Court, to be heard before a judge and a special jury.\nAfter some argument the Lord Chief Justice said:--\n\n \"If, upon looking at it [the pamphlet], we think its object is the\n legitimate one of promoting knowledge in a matter of human interest,\n then lest there should be any miscarriage resulting from any undue\n prejudice, we might think it is a case for trial by a judge and a\n special jury. I do not say it is so, mark, but only put it so; that\n if, on the other hand, science and philosophy are merely made the\n pretence of publishing a book which is calculated to arouse the\n passions of those who peruse it, then it follows we must not allow\n the pretence to prevail, and treat the case otherwise than as one\n which may come before anybody to try. If we really think it is a\n fair question as to whether it is a scientific work or not, and its\n object is a just one, then we should be disposed to accede to your\n application, and allow it to be tried by a judge and special jury, and\n for that purpose allow the proceedings to be removed to this Court.\n But before we decide that, we must look into the book, and form our\n own judgment as to the real object of the work.\"\n\nTheir Lordships took the book to consider on its own merits, and\nrefused to read the evidence given at the Police Court. A few days\nlater the writ was granted in the following words:--\n\n \"We,\" said the Lord Chief Justice, \"have looked at the book which is\n the subject-matter of this indictment, and we think it really raises\n a fair question as to whether it is a scientific production for\n legitimate purposes, or whether it is what the indictment alleged it\n to be, an obscene publication. We think that is a question which will\n require to be decided by a judge, and, we think, by a special jury,\n and therefore there will be a writ of _certiorari_ granted.\"\n\nMr Bradlaugh's recognisances for \u00a3400 for the costs of the prosecution\nwere accepted. He regarded this granting of the writ by the judges,\ngoing hand in hand, as it were, with the very plain language of the\nLord Chief Justice, as a most favourable sign; and on the matter of\nthe recognisances Mrs Besant wrote: \"They become as we go on small by\ndegrees and beautifully less. We began by arrest on a warrant; from\na warrant we passed to liberation on bail, four sureties and our own\nrecognisances being required; from this we proceeded to liberation on\nour own recognisances only, and now we are free on Mr Bradlaugh's sole\nrecognisance.\"\n\nThe name of the prosecutor had not yet transpired, though at the\noutset it was assumed that the city authorities were responsible for\nthe proceedings, since at the first hearing before Mr Figgins the\nname of the City Solicitor had been mentioned, while at the second\ncounsel appeared instructed by him. In May, however, the identity of\nthe prosecutor had sunk into still greater obscurity, for on the 4th\nof that month Mr Nelson (the City Solicitor) declared in writing that\n\"the Corporation of London has nothing and never has had anything to\ndo with the prosecution.\" He further stated \"in general terms\" that\nthe prosecution was instituted by the Police. When, however, Colonel\nJames Fraser, the Commissioner of Police, was applied to, he evaded\nany direct answer by referring my father to the sworn \"information,\"\nwhich of course only gave the name of the detective, Wm. Simmonds,\nwho, as informer, had bought the pamphlet. Simmonds was formally asked\nif he were the responsible prosecutor, but he merely acknowledged the\nreceipt of Mr Bradlaugh's letter. My father, on 11th May, applied to Mr\nJustice Lush, at Chambers, for the name of the responsible prosecutor,\nbut while the judge expressed his opinion that he ought to know, he\nregretted that he had no power to help him.\n\nAt this time the public excitement was further increased by the action\nof the Government, which commenced to make seizures in the Post-Office\nof literature sent out from the Freethought Publishing Company's\noffice. Not only were open book packets seized, but in some cases even\nsealed parcels were suspected of being tampered with.\n\nNot merely was Knowlton's \"Fruits of Philosophy\" confiscated, but\nalso copies of the \"Freethinker's Text-book,\" and a pamphlet written\nby Mr Bradlaugh entitled \"Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus,\" as well as a\nconsiderable number of copies of the _National Reformer_. Concurrently\nwith this a raid was made upon the shop of that brave old man, Mr\nEdward Truelove, in High Holborn, and a large quantity of Robert Dale\nOwen's \"Moral Physiology,\" as well as another pamphlet \"Individual,\nFamily, and National Poverty,\" were seized by persons representing\nthe Society for the Suppression of Vice, who immediately commenced a\nprosecution against Mr Truelove.\n\nIn the last days of the month Mr Bradlaugh made an application to the\nCourt to take the case at an early day; it was fixed for the 18th June,\nand shortly afterwards it became known that the Solicitor-General,\nSir Hardinge Giffard, Q.C., M.P. (now Lord Halsbury) was chosen the\nleading counsel for the prosecutors--whoever they might be. Up to this\npoint--the eve of one of those great forensic contests which marked\nvarious periods in Mr Bradlaugh's life--he felt that the press as a\nwhole had not been unfair, although indeed there had been some journals\ncoarse and foul in attack, usually on the ground of Mrs Besant's\nassociation with himself. As regards the issue of the struggle, he\nwrote that to predict the verdict would be worse than folly, though,\n\"should the deliverance be against us,\" he urgently begged his friends\nto aid his daughters in keeping his journal afloat until he should\nbe free to edit it again. Mrs Besant's descriptive accounts of the\nvarious preliminary legal proceedings are all written in a light, often\njesting, vein; indeed, I am inclined to think that she hardly realised\nall the gravity of her situation; a true sense of the possibilities\ninvolved was perhaps somewhat obscured by the atmosphere of excitement\nand admiration in which she was living.\n\nOn the trial it was Mr Bradlaugh's object to show that the doctrine\nof the limitation of the family was to be found in many other works\nin general circulation dealing with economical questions; and that in\nmedical works, many published at popular prices, and some specially\nintended for the use of young people, there were physiological\ndescriptions set forth in identical or even stronger language. Amongst\nother witnesses Mr Bradlaugh subpoenaed Professor and Mrs Fawcett (to\nformally prove certain statements in Prof. Fawcett's book), Charles\nDarwin, the Rev. J. W. Horsley (Chaplain of the Clerkenwell House of\nDetention), and the Rev. S. D. Headlam--the two latter to give evidence\nas to overcrowding. Prof. Fawcett refused to take his subpoena, and\ndeclared he would send Mrs Fawcett out of the country rather than that\nshe should appear as a witness in the case. A second attempt was made\nto induce him to take the subpoena in a friendly way, but he again\nrefused, putting his hands behind his back so that the paper should\nnot be surreptitiously put into them--of which he need have had no\nfear. Charles Darwin wrote his thanks for the courtesy of the notice,\nsaying:--\n\n \"I have been for many years much out of health, and have been\n forced to give up all society or public meetings; and it would be\n great suffering to me to be a witness in Court. It is, indeed, not\n improbable that I may be unable to attend. Therefore, I hope that, if\n in your power, you will excuse my attendance.... If it is not asking\n too great a favour, I should be greatly obliged if you would inform me\n what you decide, as apprehension of the coming exertion would prevent\n the rest which I require doing me much good.\"\n\nAs Mr Darwin was going away from home, he gave addresses where he\nmight be found if he was wanted. But of course it was decided to\nmanage without his evidence. Mr Horsley and Mr Headlam were both\nmost courteous, and there was one volunteer witness whose help was\ninvaluable--Mr H. G. Bohn, the founder of the well-known Bohn's\nLibrary. Dr Drysdale and Dr Alice Vickery also gave their assistance\nwith the utmost cheerfulness. The trial was heard before the Lord\nChief Justice, and extended over four days. The ability of the defence\nexcited universal comment, and the masterly summing-up of the Judge was\nspoken of in the papers as being strongly in favour of Mr Bradlaugh and\nMrs Besant. But in spite of defence and summing-up the jury, after an\nabsence of an hour and a half, brought in the following verdict: \"We\nare unanimously of opinion that the book in question is calculated to\ndeprave public morals, but at the same time we entirely exonerate the\ndefendants from any corrupt motives in publishing it.\"\n\nThe Lord Chief Justice instructed the jury that this was a verdict of\nguilty. The foreman bowed acquiescence. The Clerk asked if they found\nthe defendants guilty upon the indictment. The foreman again bowed,\nand a verdict of guilty was recorded. Sentence was not pronounced\nimmediately; it was postponed for a week. The jury, however, were by\nno means so decided at heart and so unanimous as the prompt bow of the\nforeman led one to believe. One of these twelve \"wise men and true\"\napplied to the Associate for \u00a34, 4s. as payment for his attendance; two\nothers returned each their guinea fee to be put down to the defence;\none wrote that he did not agree with the verdict, subsequently stating\nthat six of the jury did not intend to assent to a verdict of guilty,\nand that it had been arranged that if the Lord Chief Justice would\nnot accept their special verdict they should again retire and consult.\nDuring the time they were locked in they discussed so loudly that they\nwere heard outside, and their discussion was found to be by no means\nconfined to the offence which they were supposed to be considering, as\nit included amongst other things the heretical views of the defendants.\n\nOn the 28th June Mr Bradlaugh and Mrs Besant attended the Court of\nQueen's Bench to receive judgment from the Lord Chief Justice and\nMr Justice Mellor. My father had thought it likely that there might\nbe a heavy fine, but unlikely that there would be any sentence of\nimprisonment. He drew \u00a3250 from the bank, and showed me the notes as\nhe put them in his pocket-book, bidding me, in the event of a sentence\nof imprisonment, take the notes from him and pay them into the bank\nagain; and my sister and I accompanied him and Mrs Besant into Court.\nThe Solicitor-General opened by moving the Court for judgment; some\ndiscussion arose on the absence of the _postea_, and then Mr Bradlaugh\nsubmitted three propositions to the Court: (1) A motion to quash the\nindictment; (2) a motion for arrest of judgment; and (3) a motion for\na new trial. But the Lord Chief Justice would neither consent to a new\ntrial nor to a rule for an arrest of judgment; he left the decision\nas to quashing the indictment to the Court of Error, declining,\nhowever, to stay execution until error was determined. The arguments\nover these points took up the whole morning, and after luncheon the\nSolicitor-General, in order to influence the Judge in his sentence,\nbrought forward two affidavits, one asserting that Mr Bradlaugh and\nMrs Besant had continued to sell the pamphlet since the verdict, and\nthe other stating that Mrs Besant, in a speech at the Hall of Science\non the previous Sunday, had represented the Lord Chief Justice as\nbeing favourable to them, and the verdict as against his summing-up.\nSir Alexander Cockburn was greatly incensed at the alleged reference\nto himself, and regarded the continued sale in the light of \"a grave\nand aggravated offence.\" My father offered that if the Lord Chief\nJustice would stay proceedings until the writ of error was argued, he\nwould pledge himself that no sort of advantage would be taken of the\nindulgence of the Court to continue the sale of the condemned book;\nbut as yet the Judge was obdurate. \"I think we must pass sentence,\" he\nsaid. \"Have you anything to say in mitigation?\"\n\n\"I respectfully submit myself to the sentence of the Court,\" my father\nreplied in his gravest tones. \"I have nothing to say in mitigation of\npunishment,\" added Mrs Besant.\n\nThe Judge then proceeded to sentence them to imprisonment for six\ncalendar months, to a fine of \u00a3200 each, and to enter into their own\nrecognisances for \u00a3500 each for two years.\n\nThe judgment was delivered towards the end of a long day of hard and\nwearisome fighting, and my father, who, with Mrs Besant, had of course\nreceived the sentence standing, was very white; his voice, however, was\nquite firm when, the Lord Chief Justice having concluded, he quietly\nand respectfully asked, \"Would your lordship entertain an application\nto stay execution of the sentence?\"\n\n\"Certainly not,\" was the answer. Mr Bradlaugh bowed; the officer of\nthe Court moved forward to take him and Mrs Besant into custody; my\nfather gave me his pocket-book, and bade us follow him as far as we\nwere allowed. We had nearly reached the door when the Lord Chief\nJustice spoke again. In milder tones he said: \"On consideration, if you\nwill pledge yourselves unreservedly that there shall be no repetition\nof the publication of the book, at all events until the Court of\nAppeal shall have decided contrary to the verdict of the jury and our\njudgment; if we can have that positive pledge, and you will enter into\nyour recognisances that you will not avail yourselves of the liberty\nwe extend to continue the publication of this book, which it is our\nbounden duty to suppress, or do our utmost to suppress, we may stay\nexecution, but we can show no indulgence without such a pledge.\"\n\nMr Bradlaugh replied: \"My lord, I meant to offer that pledge in the\nfullest and most unreserved sense, because, although I have my own view\nas to what is right, I also recognise that the law having pronounced\nsentence, that is quite another matter so far as I, as a citizen, am\nconcerned. I do not wish to ask your lordship a favour without yielding\nto the Court during the time that I take advantage of its indulgence.\"\nMy father added that he wished it to be quite clear that he only\npledged himself to stop the circulation of the book until the decision\nof the Court of Error. The Judge was satisfied with this assurance,\nalthough the Solicitor-General was not, and Mr Bradlaugh and Mrs Besant\nwere liberated on their own recognisances of \u00a3100 each.\n\nThis \"on consideration\" of the Lord Chief Justice entirely changed the\ncourse of events. In the following February (1878) the case was argued\nin the Court of Appeal before the Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett, and\nCotton, who in a very elaborate judgment gave their decision in favour\nof Mr Bradlaugh and Mrs Besant; and the indictment was quashed on the\nground that the words relied upon by the prosecution as proving their\ncase ought to have been expressly set out. Two American cases brought\nforward by the Solicitor-General before the Lord Chief Justice as\nagainst Mr Bradlaugh's argument were regarded by the Lord Justices\nof Appeal as of no weight; while any value they might have had was\nabsolutely in favour of the defendants.\n\nThe total amount disbursed in this defence and provided by public\nsubscriptions was \u00a31065. The expenses of the prosecution must have\nbeen enormous; but to the end the name of the prosecutor was refused.\nIn March 1878 Mr Bradlaugh wrote: \"It is not the Government, we are\nassured on the highest authority; it is not the Vice Society; and it\nis positively stated that it is not the city authorities, and yet the\nCity Solicitor instructed counsel, and the proceedings are conducted\nfrom the law offices of the Corporation.\" However, in spite of the\npositive statement of the City Solicitor, the official report of the\nCommon Council mentioned that the prosecution was ordered by Alderman\nEllis; and later, at a meeting of the Common Council, presided over\nby the Lord Mayor, the Solicitor, in answer to a question, said\nthe prosecution was instituted by the city police and carried on\nby him under the direction of Alderman Ellis. The actual costs of\nthe prosecution would be, he thought, \"about \u00a3700.\" As Mr Bradlaugh\ncommented: \"This becomes embarrassing; on 4th May 1877 Mr T. J.\nNelson wrote that 'the Corporation of London has nothing and never\nhas had anything to do with the prosecution.' If so, why do the city\nauthorities pay even \u00a3700 towards the costs? And who pays the rest?\nFor with three counsel to fee all through, \u00a3700 will most certainly\nnot cover the bill.... Why, unless the Solicitor-General, as a labour\nof love, worked half-price, his fees alone would spoil the \u00a3700.\"\nAnd, as my father further asked, \"Why did Alderman Ellis direct the\nprosecution?\" for he was not even the sitting magistrate.\n\nIn addition to the main proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench and\nthe Court of Error there were a number of side issues which were heard\nbefore other Courts; points were argued in _banco_; an application was\nmade to Mr Vaughan for the 650 copies of the Knowlton pamphlet seized\nby the Vice Society at Mr Truelove's. An appeal was lodged at the\nGeneral Sessions against Mr Vaughan's order for their destruction, a\nsuccessful application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench to quash\nMr Vaughan's order, and a summons heard against Inspector Wood for\nunlawfully detaining the pamphlets. Not a few were the comments in the\npress when twice within six months Mr Bradlaugh succeeded in getting\nquashed decisions given against himself (first, the indictment, and\nwith it the sentence of imprisonment and fine, and next the magisterial\norder). One journal even suggested that \"much loss of time might be\navoided\" if Mr Bradlaugh were appointed \"to consult with our legal\nluminaries and revise their decisions.\"\n\nIn the meantime Mr Edward Truelove had been twice tried. At the first\ntrial the jury did not agree; but at the second, which took place in\nMay 1878, he was sentenced to four months' imprisonment and a \u00a350 fine.\nScores of purses were eagerly opened to furnish the fine, but no one,\nalas! could relieve this brave heart from the hardships of a prison.\nMr Truelove, suffering for his opinion's sake, was obliged to wear the\ngarb of common felons and to associate with them, and although nearly\nseventy years of age, he was compelled to pick oakum and to sleep upon\na plank bed.\n\nThe immediate effect of these prosecutions was to draw public attention\nto the teaching of Malthus and his disciples. Works upon the population\nquestion were eagerly bought and read; and as the subsequent gradual\nlowering of the birth-rate in England testifies, the idea of the\nlimitation of the family to the means has certainly, if slowly, made\nsome way. The Malthusian League, first started by Mr Bradlaugh in\nthe early sixties, was, in 1877, revived on a much larger scale; its\nbranches and its literature soon spread to all parts of the kingdom,\nand enormous meetings were held everywhere. In November Mrs Besant\nbrought out a pamphlet to supersede the Knowlton essay, entitled \"The\nLaw of Population: its Consequence and its Bearing upon Human Conduct\nand Morals.\" It was dedicated to the poor, and was eagerly welcomed\nby them. Mrs Besant in 1891 withdrew her pamphlet from circulation,\na step which matters the less as, since 1877, there have been other\nbooks written by medical men dealing with the same subject and issued\nat popular prices. But although there was this distinct gain to the\npublic, not only in the stand made for the free discussion of such a\nquestion of vital economical importance, and in the sweeping away of\ngeneral indictments, the cost to the principals in the drama was heavy\nindeed. Mr Truelove, a man of unimpeachable integrity, was, as I have\njust said, cut off from his family, and made the associate of felons.\nIn April 1878 Mr Besant appealed to the law to give him the custody\nof his daughter.[8] The litigation arising out of this lasted many\nmonths; Mrs Besant lost her child, was grossly insulted by Sir George\nJessel, and at length, the strain proving too much even for her strong\nconstitution, her health gave way, and she was thrown upon a bed of\nsickness.\n\n[Footnote 8: One of the reasons given for withdrawing Mabel Besant from\nher mother's charge was that while with her she was liable to come in\ncontact with Charles Bradlaugh.]\n\nNor was the position much less trying for Mr Bradlaugh. It must not\nbe lost sight of that the ultimate responsibility for the defence, in\nevery detail of these different law proceedings continuing over several\nyears, remained with him: his hand was in it all. He made a great\nfight, but his days and often the greater part of his nights were spent\nin constant work and anxiety.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nAN UNIMPORTANT CHAPTER.\n\n\nIn the foregoing account of the prosecution of my father and Mrs Besant\nI have thought it best not to burden the narrative with any side issues\nnot immediately important. As, however, it is my object in this book\nto picture my father and his surroundings as clearly as possible, so\nthat from the picture a just judgment of his character may be derived,\nI will now devote a few pages to passing details more or less directly\nconnected with this prosecution or arising out of it.\n\nAs soon as Mr Watts decided to plead \"guilty,\" under the circumstances\nwhich have already been mentioned, and it became known that Mr\nBradlaugh and Mrs Besant had determined to publish the prosecuted\npamphlet, it was found that there were would-be prosecutors eager for\nthe fray, and ready to commence on anything else, whilst awaiting the\nnew issue of Knowlton's essay.\n\nOne morning I was seated on the floor (chairs were a scarce commodity\nat Turner Street) in my father's study sorting some pamphlets when a\nknock was heard at the street door; the landlady opened it, and then\ncame to say that a man had called who particularly wished to see Mr\nBradlaugh. \"Ask him in,\" said my father, and I began hurriedly to rise\nfrom my lowly position, but a \"Stay where you are\" nailed me to the\nfloor. \"What can I do for you?\" asked Mr Bradlaugh pleasantly, as a\nthick-set man of middle age, with a reddish beard, entered the room.\nThe man replied that he wished to buy a copy of a book written by my\nfather and entitled, \"Man, whence and how.\" Rather to my surprise,\nbecause as a rule he refused to sell any literature from his Turner\nStreet lodgings, and indeed kept none there for sale, my father hunted\nup a copy of the Freethinker's Text-Book, Part I., entitled \"Man,\nwhence and how? or Revealed and Real Science in Conflict,\" carefully\ndusted it, and handed it to the man, asking suavely, \"Is there\nanything more I can do for you?\" The man replied that that was all,\nput the book in his pocket, paid for it, and went away. He was hardly\noutside the door when my father began to laugh. \"Did you see his boots,\nHypatia?\" he asked. \"His boots!\" I repeated vaguely, wondering rather\nwhat the joke was. \"Yes; he actually came in the regulation boots,\" he\nsaid. \"That was a detective, and those who instructed him evidently\nthink that 'Man, whence and how?' is some book upon the population\nquestion.\" Undoubtedly it is a book upon the population question, but\nnot exactly from the Malthusian point of view; and if it was bought\nin that idea, the purchasers must have felt rather foolish when they\nread the first lines referring to the Hebrew chronology and the alleged\ncreation of Adam and Eve!\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn 1876 my father was relieved from the pressure of those debts which\nhad been burdening him for so long. First of all a Liverpool friend\ndied, bequeathing to Mr Bradlaugh \u00a3100, less legacy duty. This is a\n\"new experience,\" said my father on receiving the money, adding, \"I\nowe \u00a390 less than I owed last week.\" Then in August he received \u00a32500\nthrough a compromised will suit. Mr Henry Turberville, brother of Mr\nR. D. Blackmore, had a very great admiration for my father; so much\nso that the year before his death, when my father was about to go to\nthe United States, he felt so anxious not to lose sight of him that\nhe offered to pay the whole of his debts if only he would not go.\nHe made a will leaving the bulk of his property, valued at \u00a315,000,\nto Mr Bradlaugh, and to simplify matters he also made him his sole\nexecutor. Not long after this Mr Turberville, while staying at Yeovil,\ndied suddenly, having a few hours before made his will in favour of\na daughter of a chemist of the neighbourhood. Mr Blackmore asked the\nCourt to pronounce for an intestacy, and he joined with Mr Bradlaugh\nas against the propounders of the new will. At last a compromise was\nagreed upon, by which Mr Bradlaugh received \u00a32500 in addition to his\ncosts. Like the \u00a390 legacy, the \u00a32500 was immediately applied by my\nfather to the discharge of his liabilities. I was in Court with him\nwhen the suits were compromised, and we went straight from the Court\nto the office of his chief creditor. \"That was only just in time, my\ndaughter,\" he said, as we turned towards home.\n\nAs one or other of us girls was now almost continuously with my father,\nand his books were bursting all available bounds at Turner Street,\nin February 1877 he decided to seek some more wholesome and more\ncommodious lodging. Turner Street left much to be desired from the\nsanitary point of view. I remember one hot summer's evening a kindly,\nenthusiastic gentleman, who lived in the west of London, came eastwards\nto speak at one of the working-men's clubs. My father was to take\nthe chair for him, and he came to Turner Street before going to the\nclub. We all walked down together, and this gentleman, turning with\nenthusiasm to my sister and me, said, \"I think your father living here\nis just the right man in the right place!\" My sister and I looked at\none another; it had been so hot that day, yet we had not been able to\nopen our windows to let in the air because of the abundance of smells\nwhich came in with it. If Turner Street was the \"right\" place, we, at\nleast, did not appreciate it.\n\nAt the end of February we removed to 10 Portland Place (as it was then\ncalled), Circus Road, St John's Wood. It was a queerly-arranged house;\nwe had the top floor and the basement, with a bath-room on the first\nfloor, the ground floor and the rest of the first floor being occupied\nby a firm of music-sellers. In the basement was a very large and dark\nroom, which we used for meals, and in which at first our tiny table and\nfour chairs looked very desolate. On the top floor was one large room\ngiven over to my father's study, the other rooms being quite small. The\nlibrary again outgrowing its bounds, in 1880 it descended to the still\nlarger room on the first floor, whence the books were sold after the\ndeath of their owner in 1891.\n\nAt Circus Road my sister and I started housekeeping for my father, with\none little servant much given to fainting. I was appointed head cook\nto the establishment, and my father and sister uncomplainingly devoted\nthemselves to the task of swallowing my experiments in the culinary\nart. Never once, either while I cooked for him myself, or later when we\nordered his dinners for him, do I remember my father grumbling at the\nfood we set before him. His meals had to be punctual to the moment, or,\nif asked for at an unaccustomed hour, they had to be promptly served;\nif that was done, he was content with whatever was given him.\n\nWe had been only a few weeks at Circus Road when the new edition of\nthe Knowlton pamphlet was printed. Mr Bradlaugh was away in Scotland,\nand as Mrs Besant's mind was filled with the idea of the possibility\nof a police raid and seizure of the stock, we hid parcels of the\npamphlet in every conceivable place. We buried some by night in her\ngarden, concealed some under the floor, and others behind the cistern.\nWhen my father was informed of this cleverness he was by no means\npleased, and sent word immediately that there should be no more hiding;\nand as soon as he came home again the process began of finding as\nquickly as possible these well-hidden treasures--some indeed so well\nhidden that they were not found till some time afterwards. He also\nknew that a search was possible, but he had no wish to look supremely\nridiculous--to put it no more seriously--by parcels being found in all\nthese eccentric places.\n\nWhen the Saturday came on which Mr Bradlaugh and Mrs Besant attended at\nStonecutter Street to sell the new edition of the Knowlton pamphlet,\nmy sister and I went with them: not to sell the book--that my father\nwould not allow--but to help in the mechanical work of counting out\ndozens or in giving change; for although there had been no other\nadvertisement than the one announcement in the _National Reformer_, the\ncrush of buyers in the little shop was enormous, and in the course of\ntwenty minutes over 500 copies changed hands, in single copies or in\nsmall numbers. Several days elapsed between this formal sale and the\narrest, but my father had told me that in the event of such an arrest\nI was immediately to go home and fetch his volumes of Russell \"On\nCrime and Misdemeanours,\" while my sister was to remain with them to\ntake any instructions at the moment. Mr Bradlaugh notified the police\nheadquarters that he and Mrs Besant would attend at 28 Stonecutter\nStreet from 10 to 11 A.M. for the convenience of the arrest.\nThe police accordingly made their appearance promptly at ten o'clock\none morning; I flew off to St John's Wood, collected the great books,\nand caught the next train to the city. It was a warm morning, I was\nhot with running, and anxious, for I rather think that I had some sort\nof notion that \"Russell\" was a sort of golden key to unlock all legal\ndifficulties. City men in the train, going to their ordinary business,\nlooked at me rather curiously as I sat in the carriage closely hugging\nthose three bulky red volumes (which would slip about on one another,\nfor I had not stayed to tie them together) on criminal procedure, of\nall things for a girl of nineteen to be carrying about with her on a\nsunny April morning.\n\nBut my sister and I felt very, very lonely and very cold at heart as we\nsat in the dreary Police Court at the Guildhall--I hardly know how we\ngot there--listening to cases of drunkenness or assault, and waiting,\nwith a shudder of horror and disgust at the thought, for our father\nand Mrs Besant to come and take their places in that dock which we had\nseen occupied by some of the lowest specimens of London low life. The\ntime came for people to snatch what lunch they could get; and a kindly\ngentleman with a slightly foreign accent came to us and wanted to take\nus to lunch. He knew us, for he was my father's very good friend, Mr\nJoannes Swaagman, though we did not know him. However, he talked to\nus of our father, and found the way to persuade us, so we went with\nhim; and I shall never forget the feeling of gratitude towards him,\nand the sensation of comfort we felt in seeing his friendly face\nand hearing his friendly voice. We attended the first day's hearing\nat the Guildhall, but at our father's wish we were not afterwards\npresent during the trying of the case, either at the Guildhall or at\nWestminster. After they were committed for trial Mr Bradlaugh proceeded\nto make his arrangements for the conduct of his paper, and of his new\nbusiness in case of a hostile verdict. The course he then took proves,\nas I have said, in a startling way how utterly alone he felt at that\nmoment--old ties were broken, new ones were not yet tested; to whom\ncould he turn to help him in this emergency? There was no one but his\ndaughters--girls with no experience, and in many ways young for their\nyears. But we might be ignorant, we might be stupid; still we loved him\nso well that we could not help being absolutely faithful to any trust\nhe might confide to us. I was apt to be more forward than my sister;\nshe was nearly two years my elder, but she was needlessly distrustful\nof herself, and so I was the one whom my father selected to instruct in\nthe possible editorial duties. I sat with him, note-book in hand, with\nfainting heart at the frightful prospect, and meekly took note of all\nhis wishes. I was then taken into the bank, introduced to the manager,\nand recorded my signature, for I was to be the financial agent also!\n\nDuring the long hours of the four days' trial at Westminster, my sister\nand I used to walk up and down the great hall, watching for any one\nto come out with any news of how the case was going on. Melancholy\nfigures we must have looked, nearly always alone, dressed in black\ngowns--for our mother had died suddenly in the midst of all this--and\nvery frightened at heart at what might happen. There was one person\nwho used invariably to step out of his way to speak to us as he passed\nup the great hall to his place in the House of Commons, and that was\nJoseph Biggar, the Member for Cavan. A little kindness at an hour such\nas this makes an impression on the mind that nothing can efface, and my\nsister and I never afterwards heard Mr Biggar's name mentioned without\nrecalling how he thus kindly went out of his way to say a pleasant word\nto a couple of girls miserably walking up and down outside those Law\nCourts at Westminster. On the fourth day we were summoned inside the\nCourt. The jury had retired, and every one was so sure of a verdict\nfor the defence, that my father thought we should like to hear it--for\nin spite of all his worries and anxieties, he could yet think of us at\nsuch a moment. When the verdict came it was a shock, the more so that\nuntil a few minutes before, when an idea of the truth somehow reached\nthe Court, a favourable one had been anticipated.\n\nOn the first day (Monday) of the trial, in giving the history of the\nKnowlton pamphlet, Mrs Besant, as a matter of course, mentioned that\nit had been sold by Messrs Holyoake & Co., saying, \"One of the firm is\nMr George Jacob Holyoake, whose name is probably well known to you.\nThe other is Austin Holyoake,\" and further, \"from Mr Holyoake the book\nwent into the hands of a Mr C. Watts.\" On Wednesday, the third day,\na communication from Mr G. J. Holyoake appeared in the _Times_, in\nwhich he attempted to explain away his connection with the pamphlet,\nadding, moreover, that after the Bristol trial he advised Mr Watts to\ndiscontinue its publication. As the only effect of this letter could\nbe to injure the defendants, it may be imagined that my father did not\ntake it as a very kindly act.[9] Indeed, Mrs Besant put it that the\nletter was one \"carefully calculated to prejudice the jury against\nus, and sent to the very paper with which one of our jurymen[10] was\nconnected.\" As Mr Holyoake had been silent so long, \"silent while he\nsold it, silent while he profited by the sale, would it have been too\ngreat an exercise of self-control,\" she asked, \"if he had maintained\nhis silence for two days longer?\"\n\n[Footnote 9: From the time when Mr Holyoake refused to continue to\npublish \"The Bible: what it is,\" there were several instances of a want\nof friendliness on his part towards Mr Bradlaugh, and sometimes--as\nat this trial and in the Parliamentary struggle--these occurred at a\nmost critical moment in my father's career. Mr Bradlaugh, of course,\ngenerally retaliated; but when his first vexation and anger had passed,\nhe always showed himself willing to forget and forgive. One of the very\nfirst things he did on his return from America in 1875 was to join in\nan effort to buy an annuity for Mr Holyoake, who had been so prostrated\nby illness that at that time it was thought that he would not be\ncapable of continuous work again. Notwithstanding old differences, some\nof which had been extremely and bitterly personal, my father joined in\nthe appeal with the utmost heartiness, and expressed his vexation that\nthe readers of the _National Reformer_ had not been permitted to be\namongst the earliest subscribers to the fund.]\n\n[Footnote 10: Mr Arthur Walter, son of the principal proprietor of the\n_Times_, was on the jury.]\n\nThe next week my sister and I were with my father and Mrs Besant all\nday in Court when sentence was pronounced; but in spite of all our\nvague fears, I do not think we altogether realised what imprisonment\ncould mean until the Judge pronounced the awful words. The whole Court\nseemed to fade away as I listened, and it needed the knowledge that my\nfather relied upon me to do something for him to bring me to myself.\nI took his pocket-book from him as he had bidden me, and was with my\nsister mechanically following him from the Court when we were stopped\nby the Lord Chief Justice, his mild tones forming a contrast to the\nlast sharply uttered words. It seemed, indeed, as though ages of agony\nhad been lived through in those few minutes.\n\nApparently Sir Alexander Cockburn had been told of our waiting outside,\nand had noticed us in the Court, as afterwards some very kindly words\nwhich he had said of Mr Bradlaugh and ourselves were repeated to my\nfather.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWhen, later on, Mrs Besant was directed by order of Sir George Jessel\nto give up her daughter, my father knew that Mr Besant's advisers would\nnot lose a moment in claiming her. By his instructions we drove at once\nto Mrs Besant's house and carried off Mabel to Circus Road. We then\ntook her by road to Willesden Junction Station, and there gave her\ninto Mrs Besant's keeping as she was passing through, on her way to\nfulfil a lecturing engagement at Manchester. Thus the poor mother was\nable to take her farewell of her child in peace, instead of having her\ntorn from her arms at a moment's notice. Then when Mrs Besant's health\ngave way we nursed her through her illness, and went with her to North\nWales, where she rapidly regained her strength.\n\nUp to the time of Mrs Besant's illness she used to ride with us\nregularly when time permitted, but after that she gave it up for a\nwhile. I was never very strong, and one day the doctor had said to me,\n\"If you were a rich young lady, I should order you horse exercise,\" to\nwhich my father, who was with me, replied, \"She is not a rich young\nlady, doctor, but we will see what can be done.\" And my riding, which\nwas purely the outcome of fatherly love and a desire for his daughter's\nhealth, has been turned by some people into a sort of crime against Mr\nBradlaugh!\n\nMy sister cared very little about riding, so after Mrs Besant gave it\nup I used to go out alone, riding a little mare, Kathleen, which Mrs\nBesant then kept at livery stables. As Kathleen had several little\npeculiarities of temper, and I was accustomed to ride quite alone, I\nused to ride her in Regent's Park in the quiet of the morning. One\nsnowy morning in March she bolted with me, and after a considerable\nrun we fell together just within the Clarence Gate. I was carried\ninsensible to the nearest doctor, and my sister was summoned by a\npasser-by who recognised me. Mr Bradlaugh had been lecturing in\nScotland, and was travelling all night so that he might reach London\nin time to be in the Appeal Court at half-past ten, where Mrs Besant\nwas appealing against the decision of the Master of the Rolls. When he\nwas near home some one stopped my father's cab, and he came on at once,\nto find me lying unconscious on the floor of the doctor's parlour.\nNothing had been done for me; the doctor could not even say whether\nany bones were broken; his wife had indeed brought me a cup of tea,\nbut of that I knew nothing. To make up for any lack of attentions to\nmy poor body, they turned their thoughts to my sister's soul, and in\nthe afternoon the doctor's wife wrote to my sister that she would pray\nto her \"Heavenly Father\" that \"in this great affliction you may be led\nto know Him as your Saviour and Comforter.\" If a Freethinker wrote to\na Christian who was sick or in trouble that hell was a delusion and\nheaven a myth, it would justly be considered an outrage, but the zealot\nhas two codes of morality--one for those who differ from him, and\nanother for himself.\n\nIt must have been very hard for my father that day in Court; three\nlectures the day before, travelling all night, and at home a daughter\nwho, for aught he had been able before leaving to learn to the\ncontrary, might be dying or permanently injured.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nMORE DEBATES.\n\n\nIn April 1874 the preliminaries for a six nights' discussion between\nMr Bradlaugh and the Rev. Brewin Grant, B.A., were arranged. It was\nto be held in the Bow and Bromley Institute, and to commence on the\n20th of May. It will be remembered that Mr Grant was no novice in\ndebate, and had in fact several times previously met Mr Bradlaugh on\nthe platform. These encounters had been so unpleasant that my father\nquite shrank from any renewal of them, and the present debate was\nbrought about mainly through the mediation of the Rev. A. J. Harrison,\nM.A. On the first three nights Mr Grant was to attack Secularism,\nand Mr Bradlaugh to defend, and then Mr Bradlaugh was to assail\nChristianity, and Mr Grant defend. On the first evening the chair\nwas taken by the Rev. Arthur Mursell, and Mr Grant as the opener had\nthe opportunity to set the course of the debate, but so little did\nhe realise his responsibilities that in his opening speech, almost\nindeed in his opening words, he fell back upon his old tactics of\nvulgar personalities, and this, of course, provoked some reply from Mr\nBradlaugh. On the second night the Rev. Brewin Grant was perhaps not\nquite so bad, and my father for his part had resolved to try and endure\nthe taunts levelled against himself, and against those with whom he\nworked. With the fourth night, when the chair was taken by the Rev. Mr\nDriffield, Rector of Bow, came Mr Bradlaugh's opportunity, and he made\nthe most of it; this time he was the first speaker, and he opened the\ndebate in a careful and closely reasoned speech, but unfortunately Mr\nGrant was not content to follow him. The _Eastern Post_, in an article\non the first four nights, remarked that if the Rev. Brewin Grant was\nselected by the churchmen of the district, the choice did \"no credit\nto their judgment.\" The writer went on to point out that although\nMr Grant had the advantage of being able to prepare his speech for\nthe first three nights, he did not show himself capable of speaking\nwith any sequence or coherence, but instead he flung all sorts of\nopprobrious charges at Mr Bradlaugh, and introduced the most trivial\npersonalities, which had not the remotest bearing upon the subject.\n\"Mr Bradlaugh in his first speech gave his definition of Secularism,\nwhich ought to have furnished excellent material for criticism and\ndebate; but his reverend opponent adhered to the system of personal\ndisparagement, and at last Mr Bradlaugh retaliated.... Things improved\nsomewhat on the fourth night, but this was perhaps due to the fact that\nthe exponent of Secularism led the debate.\"[11] This, from the pen of\nan outsider, will serve to show the impression produced upon those who\nlistened to the speeches. The chairman of the committee of the Bow and\nBromley Institute waited upon Mr Bradlaugh after the first night, and\ntold him in the presence of the Rev. Mr Schnadhorst (one of Mr Grant's\ncommittee) that in consequence of Mr Grant's conduct they had received\na requisition, in which clergymen had joined, asking them to put an end\nto the debate.\n\n[Footnote 11: _Eastern Post._]\n\nOn the fifth night the North London Railway Company, to whom the\nInstitute belonged, stepped in and closed the hall just as the people\nwere assembling to go in. As there was no proper legal agreement for\nthe hire of the hall, there was no redress. There had been no notice\nof the closing of the hall, hence Mr Bradlaugh and Mr Grant, the\nchairman and the committees, were all in attendance at the Bow and\nBromley Institute, as well as the audience who had paid their money to\nhear the debate. It was decided, on taking a vote of those present, to\nadjourn to the nearest available place and finish the debate there.\nThe Clay Hall grounds were suggested, and there is an amusing account\nof Mr Bradlaugh proceeding to this place followed by the audience,\nwho were considerably added to from the general public _en route_.\nThe proprietor was at first rather alarmed at the advent of such a\nbesieging party, but a reassurance from Mr Bradlaugh and a payment in\nadvance soon calmed his fears. Mr Grant, however, for reasons best\nknown to himself, did not come to Clay Hall, although the Revs. A.\nMursell, W. Schnadhorst, S. Bardsley, and W. Loveridge came, as well\nas other friends of Mr Grant. Mr M. D. Conway, who was to have taken\nthe chair, also followed the party to the Clay Hall grounds, where\nhe presided at the informal meeting then held. The whole matter was\ndiscussed, and the kindly words on both sides cleared away much of the\nill feeling which had grown up during the debate; and at the conclusion\nof the meeting, in replying to the vote of thanks, Mr Conway said:--\n\n \"GENTLEMEN,--I must say that I came to-night with a good\n deal of pain and apprehension. Though I accepted the invitation to\n preside at this discussion, I did so in the interests of truth, and\n from my desire to promote anything like honest discussion. When I\n read the debate as reported in the _National Reformer_ for the first\n time, I thought that Mr Bradlaugh seemed to resemble St Paul--that is,\n that he was fighting with beasts; and I came down with a great deal\n of apprehension that there might be scenes that were not decorous.\n I quite felicitate you and myself that instead of that, and instead\n of such recriminations, we happen to be in the presence of gentlemen\n on both sides who have indicated so much fairness and so much fine\n spirit. I will say for Christians, that if what has been levelled at\n Mr Bradlaugh, as it seems to me, has conveyed any impression against\n the Christian religion, as perhaps it has to some minds, the extremely\n gentlemanly discourse of some of the Christians we have had here\n to-night is calculated to recall that.\"\n\nMr Mursell spoke to Mr Bradlaugh as to fresh arrangements, but Mr\nBradlaugh had never wanted to meet Mr Grant, and now would only do so\nif a dozen clergymen put him forward as their representative; \"then,\nand then only,\" he said, he would meet him, \"not as Mr Grant, but as\nthe representative of those dozen clergymen.\" For his part, he would\nbe no party to doing anything voluntarily towards renewing such scenes\nas they had just had. Strange as it must seem to any one who has read\nthe pages of these debates, Mr Grant found fifteen clergymen willing\nto vouch for him as a fit and proper person to represent their views\non Christianity, and another (and happily, final) debate was arranged\nfor the following year. My father, in order to show that he did not\nmeasure all clergymen by Mr Grant's inches, selected Mr Mursell to\nrepresent him in the preliminary arrangements, just as on the previous\noccasion he had consented to abide by the decision of the Rev. A. J.\nHarrison. The debate was to be held on one night in each week for six\nweeks,[12] and by securing South Place Chapel as the building in which\nit should be held the Committee were ensured against the possibility\nof intolerant proprietors closing the doors of the hall upon them in\nthe midst of the discussion. The subject to be argued as chosen by\nthe Committee was, \"Is Atheism, or is Christianity, the true Secular\nGospel, as tending to the improvement and happiness of mankind in this\nlife, by human efforts, and material means?\" Mr Grant was to lead on\nthe first three nights, with objections to show that Atheism was not\nthe true Secular Gospel. Mr Bradlaugh on the remaining three nights was\nto show that Christianity was not the true Secular Gospel. As might\nhave been expected, this debate was only a modified repetition of\nwhat took place on the previous occasion; Mr Grant was certainly less\nfree of speech, but with all that he could not keep clear of personal\naccusations and epithets which at times provoked much unseemly uproar\nand confusion.\n\n[Footnote 12: June and July 1875.]\n\nMuch has been said at one time or another about Mr Bradlaugh's\nadoption of the views of Spinoza, and to leave his position perfectly\nclear on that head I will quote the words he himself used in answer\nto his opponent on the third night of this debate. \"It is perfectly\ntrue,\" he said, \"that the argument as to one existence was adopted\nfrom Spinoza.... The precise distinction between the views of Spinoza\nand myself is this: Spinoza contended for the infinite attributes\nof extension and intelligence. I cannot conceive the possibility of\nattributes, except as the characteristics of the thing conditioned,\nthe mode thought, and, therefore, cannot conceive infinite attributes\nat all. Spinoza held one existence, which, to him having infinite\nintelligence, made him a Pantheist; and I, not able to conceive that,\nstand to Spinoza in the relation of Atheist, and that is just the\ndistinction between my thought and that of Spinoza.\"\n\nOn the fourth night the Rev. A. Mursell took the chair, and made kindly\nacknowledgment of the uniform courtesy he had all through received\nfrom Mr Bradlaugh. On this, and for the remaining nights, my father,\naccording to the arrangements, had the debate. On each occasion his\nopening speech was carefully prepared, and was listened to with the\nmost profound attention; but although a man may \"lead\" a debate, he\ncannot compel his antagonist to follow, and on the fifth night the Rev.\nBrewin Grant actually brought a manuscript prepared beforehand, which,\nunless by the merest coincidence, could obviously be no kind of reply\nto the arguments Mr Bradlaugh was advancing. This MS. he read very\nquickly, and often almost inaudibly, and again his conduct resulted in\nuproar and confusion. At the conclusion of Mr Bradlaugh's final speech,\nalthough there was still one to come from the Rev. Brewin Grant, the\naudience had become so incensed with that gentleman that the majority\ndetermined to leave. Mr Grant thereupon bent down to his own reporter,\nand read to him from his MS. quickly and in a low tone of voice. As it\nwas impossible to argue upon propositions which he could not hear, Mr\nBradlaugh also rose and left the building. On the sixth and last night\nMr M. D. Conway occupied the chair. At the very outset considerable\nconfusion was caused by Mr Grant's demand that some rules should be\nread from a book which Mr Bradlaugh objected to as incorrect and\nunauthorised. At length the chairman settled the matter by saying to Mr\nGrant, \"If you can give me the Divine Authority for the infallibility\nof this little volume, I will read it all.\" When Mr Bradlaugh sat\ndown after his last speech, he had so moved the audience that they\ncalled for three cheers for him; but he begged them, if they thought\nhe deserved praise, to show it by remaining perfectly quiet during the\nfifteen minutes that Mr Grant had still to address them. His hearers\nresponded to his appeal, and listened mutely to the end.\n\nA few words from a speech delivered by the Rev. Arthur Mursell, in the\nFree Trade Hall, Manchester, in the spring of the following year,[13]\ngive some insight into the impression Mr Bradlaugh's eloquence\nproduced, even under such difficult circumstances as those of a debate\nwith Mr Grant. Said Mr Mursell:--\n\n[Footnote 13: April 23rd, 1876.]\n\n \"I am indebted to one whom the world calls an Atheist, and who accepts\n the designation, but whom, in social intimacy, I would rather call my\n friend than thousands of the Christians whom I know; a man who, while\n casting doubt upon Him I call my Master, has shown more of His spirit\n in the practical intercourse of life, as far as I know it, than many a\n champion of orthodoxy; a man of honest, though religiously benighted\n creed, and eloquent tongue; to such a man I am indebted for a stimulus\n to fervour in the cause of what I deem the vital truth, which prompts\n me to attempt to press it home with emphasis upon you now. In public\n debate upon the principles of Christianity which he opposed, he closed\n a speech, smarting under what he deemed the too flippant satire of his\n antagonist, in words something like these:--'If I believed in a God,\n which I do not; if I believed in a hell to be escaped, which I do not;\n if I believed in a heaven to be won, which I do not; do you imagine I\n could allow myself to rack my brain in coining the paltry jests of a\n buffoon, and tickling the groundlings' ears with quips and quirks? No!\n I would exhaust the logic of my brain, and the passion of my heart, in\n seeking to convince and persuade mankind that they might shun the one\n and gain the other, and try to seal a testimony which should be worthy\n of my conscience and my creed.' I felt condemned at my own apathy, as\n the eloquent sceptic lifted before me the standard of fidelity.\"\n\nThe debate held ten months later with Mr Walter R. Browne, M.A.,\nFellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, is both pleasant and instructive\nreading. The question discussed was, \"Can miracles be proved possible?\"\nand the debate arose out of some lectures upon the subject of Miracles,\ndelivered a little while before by Mr Browne in Leeds. The discussion\nwas held in the Albert Hall, Leeds, on two evenings in April 1876. The\nMayor (Alderman Croft) presided at the request of the Vicar of Leeds,\nand on both evenings there was a large audience of earnest and orderly\npeople, who gave the closest attention to the whole proceedings. The\nreport is pleasant reading, because one sees the undoubted intention\non the part of each disputant to make his position clear to the other\nand to the audience; that he was influenced by no mere desire to catch\nthe other tripping for the sake of a moment's applause. The moods of\ndisputants and auditors seemed in complete harmony, and throughout\nthere was not the slightest sign of disturbance or disorder. Mr Browne\nat the outset expressed his small confidence in the utility of public\ndebates as a means of arriving at truth, and thought they were of\nlittle advantage either to the debaters or to the audience; but Mr\nBradlaugh met this by remarking that he thought \"that every objection\nwhich applies to a debate in public between two persons, applies with\nequal, if not greater, force to an _ex parte_ statement made by one\nperson in public, and that the mere delivery of controversial lectures\nupon such a subject necessitates that the person delivering the\ncontroversial lecture should be prepared to recognise at least as much\nutility in the clashing of his thought publicly with another man's,\ndisagreeing with him, as in the mere utterance of his own thought where\nthere is no one to check it at the moment.\"\n\nThe instructive character of the debate does not lie in any definite\nconclusion which might be arrived at by a reader in doubt as to the\npossibility or impossibility of miracles, but rather in a realisation\nof the difficulty two capable men with different points of view may\nhave in settling upon a common meaning for certain words. In Mr\nBrowne's first speech he defined a miracle to be \"a supernatural marvel\nwrought by God,\" but this was a definition upon which they could not\nagree, because Mr Browne would not accept Mr Bradlaugh's meaning for\n\"nature,\" as \"the totality of all phenomena,\" and as equivalent to the\nword \"existence,\" or the word \"universe,\" nor would he himself define\n\"God,\" for that, he said, was \"beyond definition.\" The meaning of the\nwords \"force\" and \"creation,\" the idea of \"perception,\" the doctrine\nof \"free-will,\" and the existence of evil, all proved stumbling blocks\nto the smooth course of the debate; but as Mr Browne truly said in his\nconcluding speech on the first evening, while it was true that they\nhad not at that time advanced very far in the argument, it was better\nto make the ground sure as they went along than to attempt too much\nbefore their conceptions were clear. Some of Mr Browne's arguments\nwere, for a trained speaker and debater, amazingly feeble. For example,\nhis objection to Mr Bradlaugh's definition of the word \"nature\" was\nfounded upon \"the simple reason that such words as 'supernatural,'\n'preternatural,' and 'unnatural,' are certainly used amongst us,\"\nand it did not seem to have occurred to him that these might be\nmerely instances of a popular misuse of words. He also thought that\nthe American War, which resulted in the abolition of slavery, showed\n\"conclusively that there was a God who governs the world;\" in this\ncase his mind seemed to dwell only on the one fact of the abolition of\nslavery, and to ignore the waste of human life and the horrors of the\nwar as well as the prior fact of the slavery itself.\n\nMr Bradlaugh has often been accused of talking about the \"unknowable,\"\nbut a passage from this debate will show in what sense he used the\nword--if, indeed, he ever did use it. Referring to the allegation of\ncreation, he said: \"To me creation is a word without meaning; I only\nknow creation in relation to change. I do not mean by it origination of\nsubstance; I only mean change of condition. I do not mean the bringing\ninto being that which was not; I only mean the conditioning existence\nby characteristics by which I had not hitherto conditioned it. I cannot\nconceive the possibility of a period when existence was less than it\nis now. I do not mean that because I cannot conceive it, therefore\nit is not true. But I do mean that, as I cannot conceive it, you who\nsay you can are bound to give me your conception of it. Understand me\nclearly, I do not put any such monstrous proposition in this debate\nas that the inconceivable is therefore the untrue, or that because a\nposition is inconceivable to me, therefore I have a right to call on\nall other men to reject it. But I do put it, that you have no right\nto call upon me to accept any position which is inconceivable to me;\nthat you are bound to tell me how you conceive it before you have a\nright to ask me to accept that it is possible.\" I do not remember to\nhave heard Mr Bradlaugh speak of the \"unknowable;\" and that he should\nuse such a term is quite contrary to the whole of my experience of his\ncareful methods of speech. In any case the above will serve to show\nthat he would not be likely to put \"any such monstrous proposition,\" as\nthat the to him \"unknowable\" was therefore unknowable to men with wider\nmeans of knowledge.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn June of the same year Mr Bradlaugh held a debate with Mr Robert\nRoberts, a leader of a sect called the Christadelphians. He had\nchallenged Mr Bradlaugh to the discussion, and the subject selected\nwas, \"Are the Scriptures the Authentic and Reliable Records of Divine\nRevelation?\" The question was to be argued for six nights, two at\nLeicester and four at Birmingham. After the two nights at Leicester\nMr Bradlaugh avowed his disappointment; he had hoped that at any\nrate the discussion would bring out some new thought, but after\ntwo evenings' experience, he doubted whether that result would be\nattained. \"He may be a good preacher,\" said my father; \"he is most\ncertainly not a good disputant.\" At Leicester the audience were small;\nat Birmingham they were larger, but the debate does not seem to have\nbeen any more enlightening. Mr Roberts was described by one of the\nBirmingham auditors as \"a man of considerable fluency of speech, and\noverflowing with religious enthusiasm,\" and also \"in all respects a\ncourteous gentleman,\" but unfortunately those qualities did not make\nhim a debater. On each evening a quarter of an hour was occupied by\neach disputant in questioning his antagonist according to the Socratic\nmethod, and this feature of the proceedings seemed specially to attract\nthe audience, although indeed it must require considerable practice\nand skill before it can be successfully carried out. Mr Roberts\nchallenged Mr Bradlaugh to further debate, but this the latter felt\nobliged to respectfully decline on the ground of the challenger's\n\"utter incompetency.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nA few days later Mr Bradlaugh was at Liverpool discussing the necessity\nfor disestablishing and disendowing the State Church. His antagonist\nwas Mr William Simpson, the working men's candidate at Liverpool at the\ngeneral election of 1874. The Concert Hall, Lord Nelson Street, was\ndensely packed, and it was said that there were thousands unable to\nobtain admission. The arguments were closely followed by those present,\nand although there was no sort of disturbance, the audience were\nsufficiently excited to give audible expression to their appreciation\nor disapproval, and such interruptions were generally met by a sharp\nrepartee from the speaker of the moment.\n\nMr Simpson, while praised for his fluency, courage, and resource, was\nnot thought equal to his task,[14] and in reading the verbatim report\nof the debate, one is drawn to the conclusion that he scored his\ngreatest successes when making his greatest jokes.\n\n[Footnote 14: _Liverpool Post._]\n\n * * * * *\n\nMy father had an unusual number of debates this year, and a little\nlater in the summer was at Darlington discussing with a Mr J. H. Gordon\non the question of \"Atheism, is it rational?\" The proceeds, after\npaying expenses, were given to the Darlington Hospital. There was\nno shorthand report, but in an article very hostile to Mr Bradlaugh\nwhich appeared in a local paper, there is a description of him well\nworth reproducing. The writer professed to think that my father's\nAtheism--which he said, with that calm assurance born of ignorance,\npaid him well \"in money and gratified vanity\"--was not a matter of\nconviction, but merely the result of a desire to be in opposition\nto the majority. He further ventured to prophesy that in Parliament\nhe would be a failure.[15] The following portrait of Mr Bradlaugh\nsketched by a pen so unfriendly, is a singular testimony to his power:--\n\n[Footnote 15: \"At the Bar he would be a bully, in the pulpit a passing\nsensation, on the stage a passion-tearing Othello, in the Press a\ncompetent American editor, in Parliament a failure.\"]\n\n \"Mr Bradlaugh is a tall, muscular man, who stands firm on his legs,\n with broad shoulders, between which is a massive, square, powerful\n head. He dresses in plain black, relieved only by an ordinary\n display of linen, and a slender watch chain. He is closely shaven\n as a Roman priest. His features are large and open, his eyes are\n of a grayish hue, and his hair, which is fast turning gray, falls\n back from a brow on which intelligence, perception, and power are\n strongly marked. He has a face which can be very pleasing and very\n stern, but which conceals the emotion at will. As he sits listening\n to the denunciations of his opponent the smile of incredulity, the\n look of astonishment, the cloud of anger, pass quickly over his\n countenance. Rising from his seat, and resting one hand upon the\n table, he commences very quietly in a voice which, until the ear is\n accustomed to it, sounds unpleasant and harsh, but which, when it\n becomes stronger, loses much of its twang, and sounds almost musical.\n His enunciation is singularly distinct, not one word being lost by the\n audience. He addresses himself to all parts of the house--gallery as\n well as body. When warmed by his subject, he advances to the centre\n of the platform, and looking his audience full in the face, and with\n right hand emphasizing every important sentence, he expresses himself\n in tones so commanding and words so distinct that his hearers may\n be hostile or friendly, but cannot be indifferent. One may retire\n horrified at his sentiments, even disgusted at his irreverence and\n audacity--from a Christian's standpoint--but no one would go to sleep\n under him. He can be complimentary and humorous, but is more at home\n in sarcasm and denunciation. He is never ponderous; nevertheless, the\n grave suits him better than the gay. Cheering does not seem to affect\n him, though he is by no means indifferent to it; but he is quick to\n perceive disapproval, and is most powerful when most loudly hissed.\n With head erect, face coloured with a flush which has in it a little\n of defiance as well as earnestness, now emphasising with his right\n hand, now with folded arms, now joining the tips of his fingers as\n if to indicate the closeness of his reasoning, as he would have the\n audience believe it, he stands defying opposition, even going out of\n his way to increase it, and revelling in his Ishmaelism.\"\n\nThen, comparing him with his opponent:--\n\n \"Mr Bradlaugh has not much action, but what he has is dignified, which\n Mr Gordon's never is. He can be severe, even harsh, but never petulant\n and peevish, which Mr Gordon frequently is. Mr Bradlaugh may abuse\n his opponent, but it is boldly, not like a bad-tempered school-girl.\n He can be pleasant, but never assumes the grimaces and gestures of\n a Merry Andrew. His features are expressive, but he never pulls\n faces. He is essentially a strong man, strong in his language and his\n oratory, self-sustained, bold in the way he meets and even avoids the\n topic of dispute.\"[16]\n\n[Footnote 16: From the _Darlington and Stockton Times_.]\n\nThere are, of course, some phrases in this description which I should\ncontravene, but apart from these, it is a most vivid and lifelike\npicture of my father as a speaker. It is, however, a mistake to\nsuppose that Mr Bradlaugh wantonly went out of his way to increase\nopposition, or revelled in his \"Ishmaelism;\" what is quite true is,\nthat if in pursuing the path he had marked out for himself he increased\nopposition, he went on just the same, and did not turn away by so\nmuch as a hair's-breadth to avoid it. At heart he might be bitterly\nwounded, but that did not make him falter. To take, for example, one\nof the latest cases: when his attitude on the Employers' Liability\nBill provoked such a storm of opposition from the very men for whom he\nworked, he wrote pathetically to a friend: \"It is a little saddening to\nme to find that in the close of my life I am to be regarded as doing\ndisservice to the men whom I desire to serve.\" But although he felt\nthe men's distrust thus keenly, he did not hesitate nor turn from his\ncourse.\n\nNor did he revel in his \"Ishmaelism;\" he had no pride in being an\noutcast, neither had he any shame in it; the shame of his position was\nnot his, it was theirs who thrust him into it. It shows a complete lack\nof appreciation of the facts to suggest that a man like Mr Bradlaugh\ncould delight in being regarded as a sort of moral leper by his\nfellow-men, who indeed neglected no means to exclude him and his from\nsociety.\n\nI have noticed these two points because it has been a common error\nto assume that because my father did not quail before opposition,\ntherefore he courted it, and that because he was not ashamed when\nthe law said, \"You are an Atheist, and as such you are outside our\nprotection,\" therefore he rejoiced in being so distinguished. Both\nassumptions are equally and entirely without foundation.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the same year also Mr Bradlaugh held a written discussion with\nthe Rev. John Lightfoot, of Wolverhampton, on the subject of\nEternal Torment. This controversy consisted of four letters from\neach disputant, and was printed in the _National Reformer_; it was\nafterwards issued in pamphlet form, and is still obtainable.\n\nIn 1877 he had too much work to allow him to indulge in public\ndiscussions on theological subjects, but in 1878 he held a debate\nwith the Rev. R. A. Armstrong, a Unitarian minister much respected in\nNottingham. This encounter was the result of a lecture given by Mr\nBradlaugh in Nottingham in defence of Atheism, and as a reply to some\nlectures delivered by Professor Max M\u00fcller under the Hibbert Trust.\nMr Armstrong offered some opposition at the close of Mr Bradlaugh's\naddress, and a debate was suggested. Nothing further was said at the\ntime, but the local Secular Society took the matter up, and pressed\nMr Armstrong in such \"courteous and earnest terms,\" that after\nconsultation with his friends, he agreed to accept the challenge. The\nsubject selected for discussion was, \"Is it reasonable to worship\nGod?\" and the time appointed was the 5th and 6th of September. The\ndebate was a great success, not indeed as furnishing the audience\nwith a cut-and-dried answer \"Yes\" or \"No\" to the question argued by\nthe disputants--a result rarely, if ever, attained--but both sides\nof the question were put forward with a calm and serious earnestness\nwhich must have been very pleasant to listen to. Mr G. B. Rothera\nmade an admirably impartial chairman, and the audience, which crowded\nevery corner of the Co-operative Hall long before the hour fixed for\ncommencement, listened throughout with close and appreciative attention.\n\nOn the morning of the 5th Mr Bradlaugh had gone early to Coldbath\nFields Prison to attend the release of Edward Truelove from his six\nmonths' imprisonment in defence of a free press. It had been a dull,\nclose morning, damp with the rain which had not long ceased falling;\ninside the gaol the chaplain, not seeing my father and Mr Truelove's\nson, had sneered at the crowd of Freethinkers waiting in the damp\nand gloomy street without; had sneered, too, at the Freethinker, the\nprisoner, within, whose age might have been his protection. This was\na sorry preparation for debate, but when the evening was over my\nfather said, \"I left London in no mood for debating. Coldbath Fields\natmosphere hung about me all day, but the debate, as far as the first\nnight has gone, is the most pleasant one in which I have ever taken\npart.\"\n\nThe discussion was afterwards republished as a pamphlet, to which Mr\nArmstrong added, by invitation, a few prefatory words giving his\nreasons for taking part in it, and suggesting books for study to those\nwho wished to learn more of the positive argument for Theism and\nWorship.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe last debate in which Mr Bradlaugh took part prior to 1880 was\none in the early part of March 1879, with the Rev. W. M. Westerby, a\nCongregational minister of Burnley. The subject agreed upon, and worded\nby Mr Westerby, was, \"Has, or is, man a soul?\" The chair was taken on\neach of the two evenings by the Rev. R. Littlehales, Baptist minister,\nand the audiences were large and orderly. \"The Rev. R. Littlehales\nwas thoroughly impartial\" said Mr Bradlaugh, \"quite doing his duty,\nbut scarcely saying a word that was not absolutely necessary.\" Of his\nopponent Mr Westerby, he spoke as \"an able speaker, with considerable\ntact and judgment, and showing the utmost courtesy.\" The proceeds were\ngiven to the Blackburn and East Lancashire Infirmary, without any\ndeduction for the expenses of the disputants. That was all very well\nas far as Mr Westerby was concerned, for the discussion took place in\nhis own town; but Mr Bradlaugh had to journey from London to Burnley at\nhis own cost, and pay his own hotel expenses. This heavy tax he rightly\nregarded as unreasonable, and such as should not have been demanded of\nhim, nevertheless he thought the result was worth the sacrifice, and\nwas glad he had made it. Indeed, this debate is regarded by many as\none of the best in which Mr Bradlaugh ever took part. Amongst them,\nthe Burnley and Preston papers gave about thirty-five columns of\nreport; leading articles were written and sermons were preached upon\nthe subject, and in that part of Lancashire, at least, the arguments\nwere pretty thoroughly discussed. A verbatim report was published,[17]\nand in that and in a little pamphlet[18] issued many years before this\ndiscussion, Mr Bradlaugh's position on the question of the \"soul\" is\nfully set out.\n\n[Footnote 17: \"Has, or is, Man a Soul?\" Two nights' debate with Rev. W.\nM. Westerby.]\n\n[Footnote 18: \"Has Man a Soul?\" Theological Essays by C. Bradlaugh,\nvol. i.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nSOME LATER LECTURES.\n\n\nMr Bradlaugh addressed an audience in Oxford for the first time early\nin May 1875, when he spoke upon the subject of \"Land and Labour.\"\nSome difficulty had been made as to the use of the Town Hall, and a\nsmaller hall, known as the Holywell Music Room, was engaged. A number\nof undergraduates put in an appearance, but as Mr A. R. Cluer, who was\nalso present, observed, it was evident that they had come \"more with\nthe intention of attempting to interrupt than to listen quietly. But\nafter the first few sallies of undergraduate wit had been effectively\nmet and replied to by Mr Bradlaugh, in which encounters the laugh\nalways remained on his side, the audience was tolerably peaceful.\" The\nOxford papers gave their different versions of the lecture, but they\nall joined in the announcement that the chairman was a sweep by trade,\nwhereat my father immediately wrote, \"If Mr Hines is not ashamed to\nagain preside for me, I shall be glad to ask him to take the chair at\nmy next meeting.\" The \"next meeting\" followed close on the heels of the\nfirst, for on the 26th Mr Bradlaugh was again in Oxford, speaking in a\nroom crowded to excess, upon the subject of \"One Hundred Years of Tory\nRule.\" The majority of the audience was composed of undergraduates,\nand the interruption kept up by these gentlemen in embryo was so\ncontinuous that \"a complete sentence was almost impossible.\" Appeals\nto the good sense and decency of the audience were in vain; cigars and\npipes were lit and smoked; shouts, yells, hisses, and insulting remarks\nwere continued throughout the lecture. One of the most prominent of\nthe disturbers was said to be Lord Lymington, son of the Earl of\nPortsmouth, who not only himself misbehaved, but also encouraged others\nto do likewise. In January 1877 my father was once more in Oxford,\nlecturing this time in the Town Hall. Again the undergraduates mustered\nfor a disturbance, and at one time, when a townsman was knocked down\nby a gownsman, it seemed as though a general _mel\u00e9e_ was imminent.[19]\nThis time, however, firmness and good temper brought all things right,\nand the lecture was allowed to come to a peaceful termination. It was\nsucceeded by a sharp fire of questions, enjoyed no less by the person\nquestioned than by the questioners.\n\n[Footnote 19: Although the lecture was purely political, the subject\nbeing \"National Taxation,\" the _Oxford Times_ attempted to justify this\nrowdyism by saying, \"A man who identifies himself with a creed which\ndenies the doctrine of reward and punishment in the future life cannot\nreasonably expect toleration here.\"]\n\n * * * * *\n\nA subject which Mr Bradlaugh lectured upon very much in 1876,\nespecially during the early part of the year, was the Suez Canal.\nHe had only just returned from America when he learned privately of\nthe purchase by the English Government of the Viceroy of Egypt's\nshares in the Suez Canal. Ill as he was--he was just convalescent\nfrom typhoid fever--he at once gave a lecture protesting against the\npurchase, a protest in which for some time he stood quite alone. He\nwrote a stirring article asking, \"Why should the people of England\npay \u00a34,000,000 to the Viceroy of Egypt?\" and he lectured against the\npurchase week after week. About four or five weeks later others also\nbegan to protest. Sir Geo. Campbell, M.P., in the _Fortnightly Review_,\nwas one of the first to take ground against the Government. Inspired\nby Mr Bradlaugh, resolutions of protest were passed in different parts\nof the country, and so thoroughly did public opinion change that by\nthe end of March the _Standard_ itself was corroborating statements my\nfather had made early in January.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAn amusing circumstance happened at Darwen when Mr Bradlaugh was\nlecturing there in the summer of 1876. A foolish Christian challenged\nhim to pay a visit of consolation to an old bed-ridden woman named\nPeggy Jepson, and offered him a sovereign if he would go. Amidst much\nlaughter and cheering, he took the sovereign, and carried it straight\nto the old woman, who was of course surprised and delighted beyond\nmeasure with the unexpected gift; this was a form of \"consolation\"\nwhich met with her decided approval. Not so with the Christian\nchallenger, however. He was so irritated that he threatened Mr\nBradlaugh with County Court proceedings for the return of his pound.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAt the end of September in this year my father and Mrs Besant had been\ninvited to lecture at Congleton on two successive evenings, and to\nbe the guests of Mr and Mrs Wolstenholme Elmy, at Buglawton, during\ntheir stay. The Town Hall having been refused for their lectures, the\nSalford Mill, an old silk mill, was engaged. Mr Bradlaugh spoke the\nfirst evening on \"The right to speak and the right to think,\" but a\ncertain section of the inhabitants of Congleton thought so little of\nthese rights that they kept up a perpetual din outside the mill, and\nsmashed the windows by throwing stones. While the attention of those\non the platform was distracted by the removal of a little child out of\nreach of the falling glass, some coward threw something at Mrs Besant,\nstriking her a severe blow on the back of her head. After the lecture\nthe little party had a mile and a half to walk to Buglawton, which they\ndid accompanied by a noisy crowd, which alternately used language of\nopprobrium and sang \"Safe in the arms of Jesus.\" When the escort got\ntoo demonstrative Mr Bradlaugh and Mr Elmy turned about and faced them,\nand then, like sheep, the crowd turned about too. A woman was struck\nfull in the face by a Methodist shoemaker, whom she had detected in the\nact of throwing mud and had reproved. At the house the crowd remained\nyelling outside until midnight. But if Monday (the first night) was\nbad, Tuesday was worse, because the rioting was more organised. For\ntwo hours before the lecture a crowd assembled in front of Mr Elmy's\ngate, hooting impartially every one seen entering or leaving the house.\nA cab had been engaged to drive to the mill where Mrs Besant was to\nlecture, although she was still suffering from the hurt of the evening\nbefore, and as they got into the vehicle a volley of stones was thrown,\nbut fortunately no one was hurt. During the lecture eight persons came\nin together, and it was soon evident that a thorough disturbance was\nplanned. One of the new-comers shouted, \"Put her out,\" and as this\nseemed the signal for a fight, my father said sternly that the next\none who interrupted should be put out. A man named Burbery, a local\ntradesman and well-known wrestler who boasted his prize cups, invited\nMr Bradlaugh to make the attempt upon him. My father saw that if the\nlecture was to go on something must be done, and that quickly, so he\ndescended from the platform, and laying hands upon the champion, after\na short struggle ejected him, and handed him over to the charge of\nthe police outside. The audience inside cheered and hooted; the crowd\noutside yelled and threw stones--one of which, striking Mrs Elmy, cut\nher severely over the right eye. The excitement subsided in a few\nminutes, however, and the lecture concluded, and discussion was held\nin perfect quiet and order. An attempt was made at Mr Elmy's house to\nrepeat the scene of the night before, but my father and his host went\nout, and at length succeeded in frightening the disturbers away.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI was myself present on one occasion when Mr Bradlaugh had himself\nto put some rufflers out of a hall in Newman Street, London. In June\n1877 a meeting on the Population question was held at Cambridge Hall,\nand was attended by a number of medical students from, I believe, the\nMiddlesex Hospital. There was a crowded meeting, and there were, in\naddition to my father, several speakers, both men and women. Several\nof the medical students got up to move amendments, and in the midst of\na very coarse speech by one of them, some of his friends at the side\ncommenced to flourish thick sticks, and emphasize their opinions by\nbringing these same sticks into contact with the heads of the peaceful\nmembers of the audience. A general fight seemed imminent, when Mr\nBradlaugh in commanding tones requested every one to keep his seat,\nand himself going up to the ringleaders, seized three of them by their\ncollars--two in one hand and one in the other--and partly carrying,\npartly pushing them down the hall, cast them out of the door amidst\ncheers of delight from the audience.[20] The students who remained\nventured on no more disturbance, and the meeting proceeded in peace and\norder.\n\n[Footnote 20: Dr Nichols had an amusing article on this meeting in\nthe _Living Age_. \"The juvenile sawbones,\" he said, \"climbed upon the\nplatform and moved their amendments with admirable audacity. They had\nnot much to say, and they did not know how to say what they had thought\nof saying; but they mounted the breach bravely enough for all that. And\nthe Malthusian majority behaved very well--much better than English\naudiences usually do when there is opposition. In the sudden charge\nthat swept the forlorn hope out of the fortress, it looked for a few\nmoments as if there might be a case for the coroner, but Mr Bradlaugh's\ndisciples were mindful of his teachings.\"]\n\nIn the autumns of 1877 and 1878 Mr Bradlaugh took my sister and me with\nhim on a lecturing tour he was making in Scotland with Mrs Besant.\nThese tours were a sort of combination of work and holiday, in which\nthe work was to pay for the holiday, and they were both greatly enjoyed\nby us all. We went as far north as Aberdeen, and came south as far\nas Hawick. In several of the towns we visited--notably at Perth and\nEdinburgh--we found kind and hearty friends equally eager to make the\nholiday part of our visit as great a success as the work itself.\n\nThe arrangements were all well made, and it was not until the second\nvisit that any serious hitch arose, and that came unexpectedly at\nEdinburgh. In 1877 Professor Flint had delivered a series of lectures\non \"Theism,\" under the auspices of the Baird Trustees. My father wrote\nsome replies to them, and on sending the first to Professor Flint he\nreceived this kindly letter in acknowledgment:--\n\n \"Johnstone Lodge, Craigmillar Park,\n \"Edinburgh, December 25th, 1877.\n\n \"SIR,--I thank you kindly for sending me a copy of the\n _National Reformer_ for December 23rd. I shall read with interest any\n criticisms you may be pleased to make on my book on 'Theism,' and I\n shall endeavour to answer them in a note or notes to the volume on\n 'Anti-theistic Theories,' a copy of which will be forwarded to you. I\n regret that my time will not allow me to do more than this.--Thanking\n you sincerely for your personal courtesy towards me, from whose\n views you so thoroughly dissent, I am, Sir, yours very truly, R.\n FLINT.\n\n \"C. BRADLAUGH.\"\n\nIn the autumn of 1878 Mr Bradlaugh determined to take one of Professor\nFlint's lectures, \"Is belief in God reasonable?\" and make some reply\nto it from an Edinburgh platform. The Music Hall was duly engaged,\nthe lectures were advertised for the 26th and 27th of September, and\neverything promised successful meetings both for himself and for Mrs\nBesant. On the 23rd, however, the directors of the hall cancelled the\nhiring. As Mrs Besant's subject was \"Christianity: Immoral in Theory\nand Demoralising in Practice,\" it was thought at the outset that the\nrefusal was on her account, but a special mention of the subject of Mr\nBradlaugh's lecture in the letter written by the directors contradicted\nthis impression. The Edinburgh Freethinkers were indignant; they\nsought legal advice, but found they had no redress, Professor Flint's\nlectures had been largely attended and fully reported in the Scotch\npapers, but of course he had argued in the affirmative. The Committee\nwho had arranged the lectures for Mr Bradlaugh and Mrs Besant then went\nto the Artillery Hall, and explained all the circumstances; the hall\nwas then hired and paid for, but on the same afternoon the hall-keeper\nreturned the money, saying that the proprietors would not let it for\nthe purposes required, and further, that he was instructed to have the\nplace \"guarded by police\" on the Thursday and Friday evenings. Many\nfruitless attempts were made to obtain a hall. On Thursday Mrs Besant's\nlecture had to be abandoned, and we went to the theatre instead,\nwhilst a large number of persons, who had not seen the notices of\npostponement, assembled at the Artillery Hall. The Society of Arts Hall\nwas obtained for Friday, and when this was known, much pressure was put\nupon the proprietors to rescind their contract; they held out until the\nafternoon, then they also gave way and refused the hall, and when the\naudience came in the evening they found the doors locked and the place\nunder police protection. At last Mr Bradlaugh wrote to Professor Flint,\nshortly stating the case, and appealing to his sense of fair play to\naid him in procuring a platform in Edinburgh where he might reply to\nhis arguments. To this letter he received the following reply:--\n\n \"Edinburgh, September 30, 1878.\n\n \"SIR,--It appears to me that you have very good reason to\n complain of the injustice of the persons who, after granting you the\n use of their halls, cancelled their contracts. I sincerely regret the\n treatment you have met with in Edinburgh in this respect. I have no\n influence, however, with the directors of public halls in this city,\n and therefore cannot do more than assure you that I cordially wish\n you the fullest liberty you can desire to discuss and criticise my\n lectures on Theism. The more freely the grounds of religious belief\n are examined from all points of view the better.--I am, etc. R.\n FLINT.\"\n\nOne immediate outcome of this exhibition of intolerance was an offer,\npublicly made and advertised in the _Scotsman_, of a sum of \u00a3500\ntowards the building of a hall in which free discussion might be held.\n\nMr Bradlaugh lectured many times in Edinburgh both before and after\nthis date, but, as far as I am aware, this is the only time on which he\nhad any difficulty about obtaining a hall to speak in.\n\nMany Scarborough people will recall the fuss made over Mr Bradlaugh's\nlecture there in the Old Town Hall on \"Eternal Hope and Eternal\nTorment\" in April 1879. A protest, signed by nearly every clergyman\nin the borough, was sent to the Corporation. That Mr Bradlaugh should\nlecture in a public building belonging to the town was, said these\nintolerant clerics, \"a public scandal,\" and \"a most serious outrage\nupon the convictions of the rate-payers.\" The Mayor moved that this\nprotest be entered upon the Minutes, but there were only five votes in\nfavour of his motion, and it was therefore rejected. My father lectured\nin Scarborough in 1882 on \"Perpetual Pensions,\" and was to have\nlectured there again in 1889, but this engagement had to be cancelled\nin consequence of his serious illness.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nLUNATICS.\n\n\nI suppose that all public men are more or less troubled with lunatic\ncorrespondents and lunatic visitors, so that in this respect Mr\nBradlaugh was in no way singular; but perhaps they gave him more\ntrouble than most men because he was so easy of access. Any one who\nwished to see him had only to knock at the door, to ask, and to be\nadmitted if my father were at home.\n\nLetters from insane persons were of constant occurrence, but they were\nsoon disposed of--the wastepaper basket was large and was always at\nhand. There was one man, however, who wrote my father daily for years;\nindeed, sometimes he would write twice in a day. His letters were\nwithout coherence, written on scraps of paper of all shapes and sizes,\nand I do not remember that he ever gave either his name or his address.\n\nBut if there was the ever-hospitable wastepaper basket ready to receive\na lunatic's letters, a lunatic visitor needed to be treated more\ndiscreetly. This was especially the case at Turner Street, where the\nroom was small, and there was not much space in which to move about.\nWhen a visitor called he was usually requested to be seated at the side\nof the writing-table opposite my father. The chairs were few, and if\nthe visitors were many, some had to sit on piles of books or pamphlets.\n\nOne day a man called at Turner Street, and was asked to sit down in the\ncustomary way. My father inquired his business, and without going much\ninto detail the visitor explained, with a queer, uncertain look in his\neyes, that he had \"a mission from God\" to kill him; and thereupon he\ndrew out a formidable-looking knife. Mr Bradlaugh examined the man's\nface, and saw that it was no foolish hoax being played upon him. There\nwas a quiet determination about his would-be murderer that was anything\nbut reassuring.\n\nThe chair in which my father always sat was an old-fashioned,\nhigh-backed oaken chair, with arms, and from the back at the right\nhand hung, suspended by a strap, his heavy Colt's revolver; between\nhimself and the lunatic was the small writing-table, 27 inches wide. My\nfather carefully felt behind him until he felt the revolver under his\nfingers, and then he quietly asked the man if he was quite sure that\nGod had given him this mission. Yes, the man said; he was \"quite sure.\"\n\"Have you consulted any one about it?\" \"No,\" was the reply. \"Don't you\nthink it would be better to do so?\" gently insinuated Mr Bradlaugh; \"I\nshould be inclined to talk it over with some one--with the Archbishop\nof Canterbury, for instance--were I in your place. You see it might\nbe rather awkward afterwards if there should happen to be any mistake\nabout the matter.\"\n\nThis apparently was a view of the case which had not previously\noccurred to the lunatic, but he promptly accepted it, and announced\nhis determination to go to Lambeth Palace forthwith; and it was with\na perceptible feeling of relief that my father heard the street door\nclose upon his visitor. He knew that there was no danger to the\nArchbishop, as there was no probability of such a man being allowed to\nsee him.\n\nMr Bradlaugh had had a case a little before this of which the\ncircumstances were rather peculiar. A man named John Sladen came\nup from his home in Cheshire on Thursday, March 31st, 1870, and in\nthe evening he went to the New Hall of Science in Old Street, where\na social gathering was about to be held to commemorate the tenth\nanniversary of the publication of the _National Reformer_. Before\nthe proceedings commenced, John Sladen made himself known to Mr\nAustin Holyoake, to whom he was previously an entire stranger, and\nasked him if he could speak with Mr Bradlaugh for a few minutes. Mr\nHolyoake introduced him to Mr Bradlaugh, who took him into a private\nroom. In the course of conversation Sladen informed my father that he\nhad determined to kill the Queen, giving as his chief reason (if my\nmemory serves me) that she wanted to marry him. Mr Bradlaugh returned\nto Mr Holyoake, and explained the state of affairs to him, and they\nboth agreed that the police ought to be informed, so my father went\nto the police station and saw the inspector, who sent an officer in\nplain clothes to the Hall. In order to avoid any disturbance amongst\nthe people present, Sladen was allowed to remain until ten o'clock,\nwhen, as Mr Holyoake said, the police officer \"very adroitly got him\naway.\" Sladen was so sensible on most matters that at first the police\nwere disinclined to believe in his madness, but before the night was\nout they had more than sufficient proof. On the following morning Mr\nBradlaugh telegraphed to Sladen's friends, and went himself to the\npolice station to see that he was properly cared for. Eventually he\nwas sent to Hanwell Asylum, and on the earliest opportunity he wrote\nreproaching my father. Of course he did not think he was mad, and he\ntold Mr Bradlaugh that as he had been the means of putting him in the\nAsylum, it was his duty to get him out, or at any rate to send him\npapers to read. Later on my father communicated with Dr Bayley, the\nphysician to the Asylum, who assured him that Sladen was not fit to\nbe released, and that any political reading would be calculated to\nexcite him and retard his cure. But a few years later I believe he was\nallowed to have the _National Reformer_. My father never lost sight of\nhim; he used to send to the Asylum to make enquiries, and Sladen also\nwrote to him occasionally; he always felt Sladen's to be a sad case,\nand was oppressed by a feeling of responsibility in the matter just\nbecause he was the one to hand him over to the police. Of course there\nwas a small public sensation about the matter, which the newspapers did\ntheir best to fan into a big one at Mr Bradlaugh's expense. The east\nend of London was posted with large placards announcing \"A Threat to\nmurder the Queen at the New Hall of Science.\"[21] An evening paper[22]\ngiving a report of the proceedings, told how Sladen \"heard Mr Bradlaugh\nlecture\" at the Hall of Science, and _after the lecture_ told Mr\nBradlaugh of his determination to kill the Queen. The next morning\nthis report was repeated, but with additional embellishments. Now it\nwas said that Sladen \"went to hear a lecture by Mr Bradlaugh, and soon\nafterwards burst into threats of such violence towards Her Majesty that\nhe was taken into custody as a dangerous lunatic.\"[23] That there was\nno lecture at the Hall that evening, that there was no bursting out\ninto threats of violence, that Sladen spoke to Mr Bradlaugh _before_,\nand not _after_, the commencement of the evening's proceedings, were\nof course matters of mere detail, without value when compared with the\nopportunity of raising a prejudice against Mr Bradlaugh. Similarly,\nwhen the lad O'Connor tried to frighten the Queen with an empty pistol,\nit was said that probably a large \"share of the mischief was caused\nby the lad's attendance on the lectures of a notorious Infidel and\nRepublican lecturer, whose inflammatory discourses, falling on a weak,\nexcitable, untrained mind, produced the natural effect and goaded him\non to mischief.\"[24] That there was no evidence that the lad had ever\nattended any such lectures was apparently of small importance.\n\n[Footnote 21: This was done by the _Eastern Post_.]\n\n[Footnote 22: The _Pall Mall Gazette_. Mr Austin Holyoake wrote a short\nletter contradicting this report, and giving the simple facts of the\ncase, but his letter was not inserted.]\n\n[Footnote 23: _Daily News._]\n\n[Footnote 24: _City Press._]\n\n * * * * *\n\nAt Circus Road I can recall several mad visitors: one in shirt sleeves\nand leather apron, who offered to reveal a secret to Mr Bradlaugh\nwhereby he might become possessed of millions; another, a little\nold lady, who told with a mysterious air how she was \"the Secret\nHistory;\" another, who was so noisy that he had to be put out, and who\nthen remained in the street below shouting out that Mr Bradlaugh had\nill-used him, till he brought out all the neighbours to their doors,\nand the commotion he raised threatened to hinder the traffic. Then\nthere were some who claimed to be descendants of one or other of the\nBrunswicks, and as such entitled to the Crown; but provided they were\nquietly listened to, these gave little trouble save in the time they\nwasted.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE \"WATCH\" STORY.\n\n\nThere have been some fictions so pertinaciously circulated about Mr\nBradlaugh that any story of his life would be incomplete without some\nreference to them. Lies are so proverbially hard to kill, however,\nthat I dare not feel confident that even an exposure of them here will\naltogether discredit these old favourites, but at least I hope that it\nmay have some little effect.\n\nI think the most popular of all these is what has come to be known as\n\"the watch story,\" and for this reason I have taken the trouble to\ntrace back its history, not exactly to its origin, but for the last\nhundred years or so. The defiance of Deity, which is really only the\nconverse of the prayer, is a very ancient idea, and the old stories\nmostly ended in the punishment or death of the person who so rashly\ndefied the Omnipotent. The so-called Atheist who, in the time of the\nFrench Revolution, defied God to prevent him drinking his cup of wine,\nwas struck dead to the ground, and the cup was dashed untasted from his\nlips. Even during this century, as late as 1849 or 1850, the story was\ntold of a wicked soldier who rode out of the ranks, and turning his\nhorse's head, faced his companions, exclaiming, \"If there be a God, let\nHim now prove it by striking me dead before you.\" In a few minutes this\nrash young man was a corpse--a victim to the wrath of an outraged Deity\nand a solemn warning to his comrades.\n\nWhen this fable is related, not of vague personalities such as the\n\"Atheist\" or the \"wicked soldier,\" but of actual living persons, the\ntermination has to be amended,[25] and the moral loses something of\nits point. The first time that it was told of Mr Bradlaugh was, as far\nas I can trace, in the year 1867. There was at that time a certain\nConservative journal called the _British Monarchy_, the editor of\nwhich, desiring to damage the Reform League, expressed his opinion in\nchoice and elegant language that the meetings of the League gave\n\n \"An opportunity to the roughs of the Metropolis to sack the shops,\n ... goaded on by the fool who says in his heart there is 'no God,'\n which reminds us,\" he went on, \"of a fact related of a resigned\n leading member of the Reform League, and the supposed projector of\n the 'Good Friday meeting'[26] of this year. This would-be lawgiver\n and law-maker, travelling on the Great Eastern Railway, was as usual\n endeavouring to propagate his hateful opinions. He had the presumption\n to offer, it is said, as a proof of his assertion that 'there is no\n God,' the fact that if, on taking out his watch from his pocket, he\n held it in his hand for some minutes and was not struck dead, it would\n be conclusive evidence of the truth of his opinions. He was not struck\n dead because of God's long-suffering mercy. He reminds us of Pharaoh;\n may he escape his fate!\"\n\n[Footnote 25: As late as January 1884, however, Mr Bradlaugh noted\na case reported in several newspapers of a private in the Hampshire\nRegiment, who cried, \"God strike me blind!\" and who thereupon \"felt\ndrowsy, and stretched himself on his bed, but when he attempted to\nopen his eyes, he found he could not do so, and he has since been\nwholly deprived of the use of his eyes. He was conveyed to the Haslar\nMilitary Hospital, where he remains.\" As this was tolerably definite,\ninquiries were made at the Hospital. In answer to these, the principal\nwrote: \"There is no truth whatever in the statement, and the lad who is\nsupposed to have sworn never swore at all. He has a weak right eye; it\nwas slightly inflamed--the result of a cold--but he is now quite well.\nHe is very indignant and hurt at the statement, and, if he did swear,\nhe is not blind.\"]\n\n[Footnote 26: Mr Bradlaugh was neither the projector nor the advocate\nof the Good Friday promenade.]\n\nMr Bradlaugh never by any chance sought to propagate his opinions in a\nrailway carriage, nor was he ever guilty of \"such ridiculous folly,\" as\nhe contemptuously termed it, as that attributed to him by the _British\nMonarchy_. Long before this story was attached to Mr Bradlaugh name it\nwas told of Abner Kneeland, the Pantheist and abolitionist in America;\nindeed, the defiance of Deity in this particular manner is said to have\noriginated in a story told by an American of Abner Kneeland.[27] It was\nascribed to Mrs Emma Martin,[28] a Freethought speaker in England, who\nwas eulogised by Mr G. J. Holyoake as \"beautiful in expression, quick\nin wit, strong in will, eloquent in speech, coherent in connection, and\nof a stainless character, she was incomparable among public women.\" It\nwas related again and again of Mr G. J. Holyoake, who wrote a denial of\nit as early as January 1854. Many times also was the challenge ascribed\nto Mrs Harriet Law, a lecturer on the Freethought platform thirty years\nago; and later, when Mrs Besant came into the movement, she was made\nto play the part of heroine in this affecting drama, although, as she\nherself pointed out, \"there is one very queer thing about the story;\nit never appears in any report given at the time of any lecture, and\nno one speaks of having heard the challenge the day, week, or month,\nor year after it was done. The pious Christian always heard it about\ntwenty years ago, and has kept it locked in his bosom ever since.\"[29]\n\n[Footnote 27: Kneeland died in 1844. The tale was repeatedly\ncontradicted.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Emma Martin died in 1857. In her case also it was\ncontradicted.]\n\n[Footnote 29: _National Reformer_, June 6th, 1880.]\n\nFrom 1867, when the _British Monarchy_ first associated this story\nwith Mr Bradlaugh's name, down to 1880, when my father commenced a\nprosecution against a man named Edgcumbe, not a single year passed\nwithout some repetition of it. Since this prosecution, although it\nstill occasionally shows signs of life, it is not nearly so vigorous.\nThe story was circulated, not merely by vulgar and irresponsible\npurveyors of slander, but even by persons whose position gave an air of\nunimpeachable veracity to anything they might choose to say.\n\nThe first person to relate the \"watch\" story orally of Mr Bradlaugh was\nMr Charles Capper, M.P., who, as it may be remembered, told it with\nsome detail at a public meeting at Sandwich during the general election\nof 1868, giving the name of Mr Charles Gilpin as his authority.[30] My\nfather at once wrote to Mr Capper that he had read his speech \"with\nindignation, but without surprise, for no inventions on the part of\nmy enemies would now surprise me.\" He had, he said, \"seen Mr Charles\nGilpin, and so far as he is concerned, I have his distinct authority to\nentirely deny that he ever told you anything of the kind, and I have\ntherefore to apply to you for an immediate retraction of and apology\nfor your cowardly falsehood, which has been industriously circulated in\nNorthampton, and which could only have been uttered with the view of\ndoing me injury in my candidature in that borough. Permit me to add,\nthat I never in my life (either in Northampton or any other place)\nhave uttered any phrase affording a colour of justification for the\nmonstrous words you put in my mouth.\"\n\n[Footnote 30: _Deal and Sandwich Mercury_, Sept. 26.]\n\nBut Mr Charles Capper would not retract, and would not apologise, so Mr\nBradlaugh, who felt all the more incensed about this, because of the\ndragging in of Mr Gilpin's name as authority for the slander, brought\nan action against him. Before it could be brought into Court, however,\nMr Capper died.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the December of the same year, during the hearing of the proceedings\nin the _Razor_ libel case, the counsel for the defendant Brooks asked\nMr Bradlaugh, in cross-examination, \"Did you not once at a public\nlecture take out your watch and defy the Deity, if he had an existence,\nto strike you dead in a certain number of minutes?\" \"Never. Such a\nsuggestion is utterly unjustifiable,\" was my father's indignant answer.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the winter of 1869, the Rev. P. R. Jones, M.A., of Trinity Church,\nHuddersfield, added the weight of his authority to the slander.\nThe municipal elections were about to take place, and the cry of\n\"infidel\" had been raised against one of the candidates for the West\nWard. Hence, on the Sunday immediately before the election, Mr Jones\npreached a sermon against \"infidels\" and \"infidelity,\" and, as an\n\"apt illustration of his subject,\" he charged Mr Bradlaugh with the\nwatch episode. When this came to the ears of the Huddersfield Secular\nSociety, they lost no time in writing to ask Mr Jones whether he had\nindeed made such a statement concerning Mr Bradlaugh. This, said the\n_Huddersfield Examiner_, the reverend gentleman had not \"the manliness\nto admit ... nor even the courtesy to acknowledge the receipt of the\nsecretary's letter.\" The Committee of the local Secular Society waited\nfor seven days, and then appointed a deputation to wait upon the Rev.\nMr Jones. The editor of the _Examiner_ observed that the explanation\nthen given by that gentleman was \"not very satisfactory, and I do\nnot wonder he was so tardy about making it. He had heard the absurd\nstory some years ago, but the person who told it to him had left\nHuddersfield; and on such slender authority as this he brought a charge\nof using senseless and blasphemous words against Mr Bradlaugh.\" The\nRev. P. R. Jones, M.A., in the course of his duties must have preached\nobedience to the ninth commandment, but he evidently did not always\nenforce his teachings by a personal example.\n\n * * * * *\n\nJust about the same time another clergyman, the Rev. Dr Harrison of St\nJames's Church, Latchford, in a sermon preached upon that favourite but\nnot very polite text, \"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no\nGod,\" was reported[31] to have told the story, with a slight variation,\nof some unnamed person.\n\n[Footnote 31: _Crewe Guardian._]\n\n \"What did they think of a man at Manchester,\" he asked, \"standing up\n at a public assembly and opening the Bible in the presence of the\n people, and saying if the Bible was true he hoped God would strike him\n dead? That was in the newspapers not long ago. A creature, a worm, a\n being dependent upon the Almighty, raising his puny arm against the\n Deity, asking God to strike him dead if the Bible were true. It would\n not have been a wonder if God had struck him dead; the wonder was that\n God should be so merciful as to let him live.\"\n\nWhen the Rev. Dr Harrison was challenged as to the name of the man,\nthe time, and place of the occurrence, and the names of the newspapers\nwhich reported it, he could of course give no satisfactory authority\nfor his statements.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the summer of 1870 the _Christian_, in a tirade against infidelity,\nstated that \"the well-known Atheist Bradlaugh, at a public meeting in\nLondon, is reported to have taken out his watch, with these words, 'If\nthere be a God in heaven, I give Him five minutes to strike me dead.'\"\nUpon this being brought under his notice, my father said that he was\n\"really weary with contradicting this monstrous lie.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe _Liverpool Porcupine_ in the same year gave a startling variation\non the ordinary version. A certain unnamed person--by implication,\nMr Bradlaugh--\"called on the Almighty, if he had any existence, to\nstrike dead _some relative_, and thus prove his power.\" The _Porcupine_\nforgot that it is the Christian creed which teaches the doctrine of\nthe scapegoat, and even the sacrifice of a relative. It forms no part\nwhatever of Atheistic teachings.\n\nThe Rev. R. S. Cathcart, agent to the Religious Tract Society, in\naddressing a meeting in the Corn Exchange, Gloucester, in the autumn\nof 1871, lamented the spread of infidelity in the north of England,\nwhere, he said, it was encouraged by a \"blatant orator, Bradlaugh,\nfrom London.\" He added that there was even \"one poor benighted woman\"\nwho \"had actually produced her watch and challenged God, if, she said,\nthere be one, to appear before them on the platform at a given time.\"\nMr Cathcart, on being asked as to the when, and where, and the woman,\nfailed to make reply.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe next carrier of the slander was an important one. The _Financial\nReformer_ for the December of the same year (1871) described Mr\nBradlaugh as \"the superenlightened gentleman who pulled out his watch\nat an open-air meeting and challenged Almighty God to strike him\ndead within five minutes, if God there were.\" My father was becoming\nsomewhat accustomed to having this accusation made by persons who\nwished to make out a case against the \"infidel,\" but to find it in\nthe _Financial Reformer_ was an unexpected blow. He wrote a courteous\nletter to the editor, but the editor made no reply; he wrote to Mr\nRobertson Gladstone, the president of the council publishing the\npaper, but Mr Robertson Gladstone left the letter without notice. At\nlength, thoroughly angry, he wrote to the printers, threatening legal\nproceedings. A proof of an \"apology\" already in type was sent him, but\nit was not such as he felt he could accept, and he wrote to the printer\nto that effect. The apology was then somewhat amended, and with the\ncopy of the _Financial Reformer_ containing it the editor sent a letter\nto Mr Bradlaugh, conveying a frank and full expression of his regret.\nUpon receiving this my father forgave not only the offence, but the\ntardiness of the acknowledgment, and, moreover, expressed his sense of\nindebtedness to the editor for his apology.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe _Stourbridge Observer_ of about the same date also repeated the\nwatch story of \"Bradlaugh,\" and, with incredible coarseness, added\nthat \"he has been known on another occasion to stop a lame man in the\nstreets, and tell him that he would spit upon such a God as his that\nwould allow him to remain in that deplorable condition.\" Mr Bradlaugh,\nat the request of his Stourbridge friends, specifically contradicted\nboth these stories; but, he added, it was too much to expect him to\ncontinually contradict every scandalous calumny to which the press gave\nready circulation against him.\n\n * * * * *\n\nOne of the next places in which the story appeared was Dudley, where,\nin the winter of 1873, during my father's absence in America, it was\nrelated by the Rev. B. M. Kitson, who apparently introduced it into\na speech for the benefit of the Additional Curates' Aid Society. He\nlocated the episode at the Hall of Science in Old Street, City Road.\nAs soon as Mr Bradlaugh could obtain the reverend gentleman's address\nafter his return to England, he wrote requesting Mr Kitson to retract,\nor to furnish him with the name of his solicitor. Mr Kitson retracted\nthe statement, and expressed his regret for having made it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the spring of 1874, the Rev. Mr Herring related the tale to some\nschool children at a school near Goswell Road, and in the following\nAugust the Rev. Edgar N. Thwaites, of the Church Pastoral Aid Society,\ncarried it to Salisbury.\n\n * * * * *\n\nA month later, the _Weekly News_, in referring to the Northampton\nelection, remarked that Northampton was specially prominent, \"because\nMr Bradlaugh, the Radical orator who challenged the Almighty to\nstrike him dead, has appeared in person.\" Anything is fair in war or\nelections, some people seem to think.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the following year the Rev. Mr Cripps, of the Primitive Methodist\nChapel, Thetford, started a new variation on the old theme. At the\nend of one of Mr Bradlaugh's lectures, a smith \"fresh from work,\"\ninduced him to go down on one knee (the narrator was extremely precise\nin unimportant details) and proposed that they should pray to God to\n\"strike him dead in five minutes.\" This proposal seems to have somewhat\ndisturbed Mr Bradlaugh, for according to Mr Cripps, he \"jumped up,\npicked up his hat, and rushed out of the building.\" The Rev. Mr Cripps,\non being challenged by Mr Bradlaugh, referred him to another minister\nas his authority--the Rev. M. Normandale, of Downham Market, Norfolk;\nand, moreover, refusing to accept Mr Bradlaugh's \"unsupported denial,\"\nadhered to his statement.\n\nThe next person to repeat the watch story--but without naming the\n\"infidel\"--was, I deeply regret to say, the Rev. Basil Wilberforce,\nat Southampton. The local Freethinkers were justly indignant, and Mr\nJ. F. Rayner, the Secretary of the Southampton Secular Society, at\nonce flatly contradicted the tale. The only reparation Mr Wilberforce\nthought it necessary to make was to say that he was \"glad to hear\nit was not true,\" and this offhand mode of disposing of the matter\ndid not do much to soothe the irritated feeling of the Southampton\nFreethinkers. The liberality and kindly-heartedness of the late Rev.\nC. E. Steward, Vicar of St Peter's, in great measure disarmed their\nanger; and later on Canon Wilberforce himself learned to hold the\nFreethinkers of the district, as well as Mr Bradlaugh, in respect, and\nin consequence taught them in turn to respect him.\n\n * * * * *\n\nA man at Longton in 1876, whose name I do not know, brought the story\nto a finer point. Hitherto it had always been told on the authority of\nsome second person, but this man appears to have deliberately stated\nthat he _saw_ Mr Bradlaugh pull out his watch, and _heard_ him defy God\nto strike him dead. This manner of telling the tale in the first person\nsoon found favour, for only a few months later a phrenologist, calling\nhimself Professor Pasquil, was reported to have said that he was\npresent at Huddersfield when Mr Bradlaugh went through the performance\nbefore several hundred persons. He must have \"the bump of falsehood\nsplendidly developed,\" commented Mr Bradlaugh. \"No such event, or\nanything to justify it, ever took place anywhere; it is a deliberate\nuntruth.\" The myth was repeated in the same year at Haughley by a Mr\nScarff, and in the following year at Bristol, where there seemed to be\nsome confusion as to whether it was Mr Bradlaugh or Mrs Besant who was\nthe chief actor; Mrs Besant's name being now introduced for the first\ntime. \"This story is a deliberate lie,\" wrote my father in a state of\nexasperation, \"and has been formally contradicted at least one hundred\ntimes.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nAt length, in the spring of 1877, the Rev. Dr Parker, of the City\nTemple, took the matter into his fostering charge. It left his lips,\nif the report[32] of his sermon is to be believed, in a form the\ncoarseness of which quite equalled, if it did not transcend, all that\nhad gone before. Said he--\n\n \"There is a woman going up and down the country lecturing, and may be\n in London city at this moment, and she proudly cries out that there\n is no God, and she takes out her watch and says, 'Now, if there be a\n God, I give him five minutes to strike me dead,' and she coolly stands\n watching the hand of her watch dial, and because she is not struck\n dead by the time she stipulates, she cries out that there is no God;\n and working men run after this woman, and pay for listening to this\n ginger-beer blasphemy, and the ravings of a half-drunken woman.\"\n\n[Footnote 32: _Northern Ensign_, May 17.]\n\nMr Bradlaugh offered Dr Parker the use of the columns of the _National\nReformer_ in which to verify his statement, but, needless to say, Dr\nParker did not avail himself of this offer.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn 1878 the fable was told by \"H. Clewarth, Esq.,\" at the Mile End\nAssembly Hall, of Mrs Besant, and by a revivalist preacher named E. B.\nTelford of Mrs Harriet Law. Mr Telford also indulged in the effective\nfirst person, even mentioning the detail that the watch was a gold\none.[33]\n\n[Footnote 33: This person was still telling this story in December\n1883.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nNow we come to a still further development. In June 1879, Mr Bradlaugh\nwas lecturing in Huddersfield. He spoke three times on the Sunday, and\nat the conclusion of his afternoon discourse a man got up, and with the\nutmost assurance pretended to my father's face that he had heard him\ndefy God to strike him dead in the Philosophical Hall of Huddersfield\nitself. A Christian gentleman, understood to be the editor of the local\n_Examiner_, rose and warmly repudiated any complicity in this audacious\nfalsehood. Almost at the same time the story, with variations, was\nrepeated by a preacher of Aberdeen named Marr. He gave as his authority\na certain unknown person, John Kinch, who, it was asserted, had been\nactually present when Mr Bradlaugh thus defied God.\n\nI have been able to note here only recorded instances of the telling\nof this story, but they will serve to show the astounding vitality of\na slander, even when it is one so monstrously absurd as this. It will\nbe seen how people of all kinds lent themselves to its circulation, and\nhow reluctant they were to apologise when convicted of error. I am far\nfrom asserting that they all uttered the calumny knowing it to be a\ncalumny; that, in the case of such a man as the Rev. Basil Wilberforce,\nwould be unthinkable; but I do say that they did not take reasonable\npains to satisfy themselves of the truth of a story which, on the face\nof it, was in the highest degree improbable and absurd.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWhen Mr Bradlaugh was elected to Parliament in 1880 the wildest tales\nwere told about him, and, of course, amongst others the old \"watch\"\nstory came up. A Leicester paper which published it retracted and\napologised; but another, the _British Empire_, was less ready; my\nfather, provoked beyond endurance, went to Bow Street and asked for a\nsummons against S. C. Lister, a director, and J. Edgcumbe (or Edgcome),\nsecretary to the _British Empire Company_. Edgcumbe was also the writer\nof the paragraph in which the episode was dramatically described.\nMr Bradlaugh would have proceeded against the author only, but the\nlibel was repeated in the paper on a later date, and therefore he\nfelt that he could not excuse the directors. The summons was granted,\nand when the case came before the magistrate, after Mr Bradlaugh had\nmade his opening statement, he went into the witness-box to declare\nthere was not a word of truth in the paragraph. In the course of the\ncross-examination a rather amusing theological discussion arose between\nmagistrate, counsel, and witness, in which the two former seemed quite\nunable to follow Mr Bradlaugh's reasoning. \"One existence,\" Mr Vaughan\nthought, must mean \"supreme existence;\" failing that, counsel asked\nwas it \"mere actual physical existence\"? My father was examined as\nto a number of places where the \"watch\" episode was alleged to have\noccurred, and about a man, John Field, then in court, who, induced by\nMr Bradlaugh, was supposed to have prayed on his knees to God to strike\nhim (Mr Bradlaugh) dead, whilst my father timed him, watch in hand.\nWhen, however, John Field, who called himself a Baptist minister, was\nin the witness-box, his replies were such that the magistrate said\nthat he had better be withdrawn, as he could not possibly receive his\nevidence. A witness (Bridge) swore to having heard my father defy\nGod in the manner alleged at Tavistock in 1853; but at the adjourned\nhearing, when he was wanted for cross-examination, he was not to be\nfound. Amongst the witnesses were three from Northampton, who all\nswore they had heard my father make the challenge at various times\nand places in Northampton. Two had travelled to London together,\nhaving their tickets taken for them by a local missionary; but at\nfirst they swore they knew nothing of each other, and the facts only\ncame out gradually under cross-examination. At the end of the second\nday's hearing the defendants were committed for trial.[34] Mr Vaughan\nsuggested that the charge should be withdrawn against Lister, as he\nwas only a director. Mr Bradlaugh said, if Mr Lister would give his\nassurance that he knew nothing of the first or subsequent publications\nof the libel, he would be content to drop the charge against him. Mr\nLister protested that he knew nothing of the matter, and Mr Bradlaugh\nwas about to withdraw the charge when the defendants' counsel coolly\nasked that it should be dismissed with costs. I imagine, however,\nthat at a later stage my father consented to withdraw the case\nagainst Lister, for the name of Edgcumbe only figures in the further\nproceedings.\n\n[Footnote 34: The editor of the _Huddersfield Examiner_, commenting\non the evidence, said: \"We do not believe it, as we do not think Mr\nBradlaugh such a fool as to make such a silly exhibition of himself;\nand because we know that similar things have been affirmed of him in\nHuddersfield. For instance, a person called at our office last week,\nstating that he had heard Mr Bradlaugh utter such a challenge, and saw\nhim pull out his watch in the manner stated in the course of the debate\nwith the Rev. Mr M'Cann in Huddersfield. To our certain knowledge no\nsuch occurrence ever took place, and yet the man making the statement\nappeared to be fully convinced that he had heard and seen what he\ndescribed as having taken place, and he was prepared to give evidence\non the subject if called upon to do so.... Imagination and feeling play\na much larger part than reason in the mental operations of not a few\nwell-meaning persons and allowance must be made for this when we hear\nsuch charges as that now made against Mr Bradlaugh. Strong dislike\nis felt by many against both the man and his opinions on religious\nsubjects, and this exposes him to misrepresentation and injustice.\"]\n\nThe trial, which was removed by the defendants by _certiorari_ to the\nCourt of Queen's Bench, was expected to take place at the end of June,\nand, since prosecutors in Crown cases cannot personally address the\njury or argue points of law, my father had to employ solicitors (Messrs\nLewis) and counsel (Mr Charles Russell, Q.C., M.P., and Mr Moloney);\nSir Hardinge Giffard was briefed to appear for Edgcumbe. After some\ndelays, Edgcumbe was ordered to deliver his pleas within a certain\ntime, so that the trial might come on in November. In these pleadings\nthe episode was alleged to have taken place at The Philosophical Hall,\nHuddersfield, about 1860 or 1861; The Theatre, Northampton, 1860, 1862,\n1863, 1865, or 1866; The Woolpack Inn, Northampton, 1859; The Corn\nExchange, Northampton, 1865 or 1866; The Hall of Science, London, 1879\nor 1880; The Cleveland Hall, London, 1865 or 1866; The Nelson Street\nLecture Hall, Newcastle, 1875; Tavistock, 1853, 1854, or 1860; St\nGeorge's Hall, Southwark, 1862 or 1863; St James' Hall, Plymouth, 1870;\nDuke of York Public House, Cardiff, 1868.\n\nAs the vagueness of these dates made it almost impossible to get\nrebutting evidence, Mr Bradlaugh demurred to the plea on this ground,\nand in March 1881 his demurrer was heard by Mr Justice Grove and Mr\nJustice Lindley. Mr Moloney argued for Mr Bradlaugh that the plea\nwas not sufficiently particular: it was only necessary to prove one\noccasion to justify the libel, hence evidence had to be brought to\nnegative every case, and Mr Justice Grove, intervening, said, \"If this\nplea is good, what is to prevent a party from pleading a volume of\ninstances all possibly untrue, and at all events putting it upon the\nprosecutor to discover the particular instance really intended to be\nrelied upon?\" Sir H. Giffard argued that the plea was sufficient, but\nthe Court did not agree with him. It held that the plea was bad, and Mr\nJustice Lindley further said it was embarrassing and unfair. After some\ndiscussion the Court gave the defendant leave to amend within three\nweeks on payment of costs; otherwise judgment would be given for the\nCrown.\n\nEdgcumbe now gave a series of more or less specific dates on which he\nalleged that Mr Bradlaugh had defied God. He also abandoned five of his\nformer cases and introduced new ones at Bristol, Keighley, Leeds, and\nStourbridge. He further stated that on two occasions, at the theatre at\nNorthampton, Mr Bradlaugh had cast a Bible upon the ground and stamped\nupon it. My father was put to tremendous trouble in procuring witnesses\nfrom the different places, but he received help which he greatly\nappreciated from unexpected quarters--from Christians who had been\npresent on some of the alleged occasions.\n\nWhen, however, the time came, the defendant did not proceed to trial,\nas he was bound to under his recognisances. My father might have taken\nproceedings to estreat the recognisances; but as the _British Empire_\nhad ceased to exist, and the editor had already been heavily fined by\nhaving to pay the costs of the demurrer, he was advised to let the\nmatter rest. This course he was perhaps the more inclined to, as he was\nhimself so terribly harassed by the litigation and trouble arising out\nof the Parliamentary struggle.\n\nHe was rewarded for his forbearance by having the \"watch\" story again\nrepeated of him--notably by Mr Grantham, Q.C., M.P.,[35]--with the\naddition that he had \"not dared to go on with his action.\"\n\n[Footnote 35: At Selhurst, in June 1885.]\n\n [_Note._--Where exact references are not given in this chapter, the\n _National Reformer_ is cited.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nOTHER FABLES.\n\n\nThere are other fables told about my father which have enjoyed a\npopularity almost equal to that of the famous watch episode. There\nis the allegation--referred to elsewhere--that he compared God with\na monkey with three tails. This was started by the _Saturday Review_\nin 1867, and was for years continually reappearing in all sorts of\nunexpected quarters. Indeed, it was repeated as late as 1893 in a book\npublished by Messrs Macmillan.[36] Perhaps next in order should come\ntwo, which have seen considerable service as arguments in favour of\nChristianity. One, which I will call the \"cob of coal\" story, appeared\nfor the first time, as far as I am aware, in a Leeds paper in 1870 in\nthe following form:--\n\n \"Some time ago I heard an amusing story about Mr Bradlaugh and one\n of his audience at Wigan. After concluding his lecture, Mr Bradlaugh\n called upon any of them to reply to any of his arguments. Lancashire\n produces a rare crop of shrewd, intelligent working men, and one\n of these, a collier, rose and spoke somewhat as follows: 'Maister\n Bradlaugh, me and my mate Jim were both Methodys till one of these\n infidel chaps cam' this way. Jim turned infidel, and used to badger me\n about attending class-meetings and prayer-meetings, but one day in the\n pit a large cob of coal came down on Jim's 'yead.' Jim thought he was\n killed, and ah! man, but he did holler.' Then turning to Mr Bradlaugh,\n with a very whimsical, knowing look, he said, 'Young man, there's\n nowt like cobs of coal for knocking infidelity out of a man.' We need\n hardly say that the collier carried the audience with him.\"\n\n[Footnote 36: \"National Life and Character,\" by C. H. Pearson.]\n\nThis was copied into some London papers, and in the course of a couple\nof years found its way to Belfast; but the scene of action had now\nbecome changed from Wigan to Manchester. Two years later still it\nappeared at Hereford, under the auspices of the Rev. J. W. Bardsley.\nThe \"some time ago\" of 1870 had contracted to \"recently\" by 1874, and\nthere were other small alterations of detail. By 1882, my father said\nhe had contradicted this anecdote fifty times at least. It never had\nthe slightest foundation in fact; it is unadulterated fiction from\nbeginning to end; it is absurdly improbable; and yet there are people\nso credulous that it has been repeated year after year, and even since\nmy father's death. Indeed, the more childish this class of story, the\nbetter it has seemed to satisfy those to whom it was addressed--at\nleast, if we may judge of its success by the number of its repetitions.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe next is the \"old woman\" anecdote, which I find first in the\n_Christian Age_ for November 1871, put in this way:--\n\n \"The other day Mr Bradlaugh was lecturing in a village in the north of\n England, and at the close he challenged discussion. Who should accept\n the challenge but an old, bent woman, in most antiquated attire, who\n went up to the lecturer and said, 'Sir, I have a question to put to\n you.' 'Well, my good woman, what is it?' 'Ten years ago,' she said,\n 'I was left a widow with eight children utterly unprovided for, and\n nothing to call my own but this Bible. By its direction, and looking\n to God for strength, I have been enabled to feed myself and family.\n I am now tottering to the grave; but I am perfectly happy, because I\n look forward to a life of immortality with Jesus in heaven. That's\n what my religion has done for me: what has your way of thinking done\n for you?' 'Well, my good lady,' rejoined the lecturer, 'I don't\n want to disturb your comfort, but--' 'Oh! that's not the question,'\n interrupted the woman, 'keep to the point, sir; what has your way of\n thinking done for you?'\n\n \"The infidel endeavoured to shirk the matter again; the feeling of the\n meeting gave vent to uproarious applause, and Mr Bradlaugh had to go\n away discomfited by an old woman.\"\n\nThis pious fiction is said to have originated with the Rev. Mr\nBradbury, of Openshaw, in the early part of 1871; but then it was Mr\nCharles Watts who was the \"discomfited infidel,\" and not Mr Bradlaugh.\nFrom the _Christian Age_ the story was passed on, evidently without the\nslightest examination or care for its accuracy. In 1872 it was repeated\nin large type by the _Methodist Visitor_, word for word, \"the other\nday\" included. Mr Bradlaugh contradicted this idiotic story again and\nagain; no such incident ever occurred at any of his lectures. In spite\nof all contradiction, however, the \"old woman\" remained as lively as\never, and my father was confronted with her year after year, until\nI almost wonder he had patience left to write a civil denial of her\nexistence.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAn anecdote, reported[37] to have been told by the Rev. H. W.\nWebb-Peploe at a meeting of the Bible Society at Stroud in 1875, has at\nleast the merit of being amusing, and certainly came as news to no one\nmore than to the persons chiefly concerned. It was said that Spurgeon\n\"went to Bradlaugh's Hall to reply to the Infidel,\" and to that end\n\"read two or three texts from the Scriptures.... This seems to have\nastonished Bradlaugh, for he arose, and as he went out of the room, he\nsaid, 'What the devil is to be done with that man? he is in earnest.'\"\nIf the Rev. Charles Spurgeon ever, by any chance, _did_ go to\n\"Bradlaugh's Hall,\" he carefully concealed his visit from \"Bradlaugh.\"\n\n[Footnote 37: _Stroud News_, May 28.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nFictions concerning my father's treatment of various members of his\nfamily have been very common. By a painful coincidence, my little\nbrother had only been a few days in his grave when my father was asked\nto contradict a statement that he had \"about twelve months ago deserted\nhis wife and children.\" Six months after, the story ran that he had\n\"caused his mother to die of a broken heart,\" had been \"drummed out of\nthe army,\" and was \"a man whose morality is of no higher stamp than\nto suffer himself to be the father of an illegitimate child.\" It is\nan interesting point in the study of the evolution of slanders, that\nthis most persistent one of Mr Bradlaugh having caused his mother to\ndie of a broken heart should have been started during his mother's\nlifetime.[38] The allegation of deserting his children, and throwing\nthem upon the parish, was published by Mr Edmund Yates in the _World_\nin 1875. A little later Mr Yates announced that Mr Bradlaugh had\nwritten him contradicting this, and suggesting that if on inquiry Mr\nYates found his allegation untrue, he should contribute \u00a35 to the\nMasonic Boys' School. The editor of the _World_ formally expressed\nhis regret, \"unreservedly\" withdrew his accusation, and contributed\nthe \u00a35. The suggestion was really the result of the intervention of a\nmutual friend, as Mr Yates himself acknowledged in 1891, at the same\ntime admitting that the paragraph complained of would have afforded Mr\nBradlaugh \"ample grounds for appealing to the law, with the likelihood\nof recovering a large amount in damages.\"\n\n[Footnote 38: Mrs Bradlaugh died in April 1871.]\n\nBut the slander thus floated by the _World_ could not be effaced from\nthe public mind, even by Mr Yates' \"unreserved withdrawal,\" and later\nin the same year it turned up in full vigour at Oxford. A Mr Bendall\nwent to the shop of a grocer and town councillor named Laker to make\nsome purchases, and in the course of conversation he mentioned that\nhe was going to London. Mr Laker asked if he was going to hear Moody\nand Sankey, but Mr Bendall said that he was not; he was going to hear\nMr Bradlaugh. The man Laker then said, \"Bradlaugh! he was had up for\nneglecting his family, and leaving them chargeable to the Union. I read\nit in the _Daily Telegraph_.\" Mr Bendall denied this, and bet Laker \u00a350\nto 5s. that it was not true. Laker took the bet, and Mr Bendall then\nwrote out the statement, which they both signed. The paper was sent to\nMr Bradlaugh, who eventually brought an action against Mr Laker.[39]\n\n[Footnote 39: Tried 25th April 1876 at Nisi Prius, before Mr Justice\nField and a special jury.]\n\nThe defendant pleaded \"Not guilty,\" but did not attempt to justify his\nstatement or to offer any apology, although Mr Bradlaugh said that, if\nduring the course of the trial an apology had been offered, he should\nhave been quite content.\n\nMr Grantham, the counsel for the defence, was very coarse in his\nremarks. He scouted the idea that \"Bradlaugh\" could be injured by\nany slander, and told the jury that, if they did give him a verdict,\na farthing damages would be \"far too much\" at which to estimate the\ndamage \"Bradlaugh\" had sustained. As usual, an endeavour was made to\nplay upon the religious feelings of the jury, and when Mr Bendall was\nin the witness-box he was questioned as to his belief in Christianity,\nthe Bible, and Jesus Christ, until Mr Justice Field, who heard the\ncase, interfered and reproved the counsel for importing these questions\ninto the case. Mr Grantham suggested the whole thing was a \"plant,\"\nbut this accusation, the judge later on pointed out, might rightfully\nincrease the damages awarded.\n\nMr Justice Field, in summing up, complimented Mr Bradlaugh on the\ntemperate manner in which he had stated his case, and warned the jury\nnot to allow their judgments to be warped by topics of prejudice which\nhad been introduced into the defendant's case. The jury returned a\nverdict for Mr Bradlaugh, with \u00a340 damages, which my father at once\nhanded over to a charity.\n\nBut even this did not quite kill the slander, and a few years later it\nbegan again to show signs of life.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThere was no limit of any kind to the fictions circulated about my\nfather, nothing was too vile, nothing too absurd, and nothing too\nwildly impossible to say about him. As an example of the last, I think\nit would be difficult to find anything to compare with one written by\nthe London correspondent of the _New York Herald_, during the illness\nof the Prince of Wales from typhoid fever. I discovered an allusion to\nthis story in looking over a file of the _Newcastle Weekly Chronicle_\nfor 1872; reference was made to the _Pall Mall Gazette_, from which\nI learned that the London correspondent of the _New York Herald_\nprofessed that he had been informed by a mysterious person \"well\nposted\" as to the doing of the different European Secret Societies,\nthat \"a certain leader of the English Revolutionists whom he designated\n'The English Delescluze,' has over and over again declared from public\nplatforms that the Prince should never sit on the throne, and that\nlately, when Queen Victoria was seriously ill, the same man had said\nin an interview with the reporter for a London paper, that although\nthe event of the Sovereign's death occurring just then would without\nany doubt find the Society not quite prepared to act, yet that they\ncould never lose such an opportunity to advance their cause.\" \"This,\"\ncommented the _Pall Mall Gazette_, \"is, of course, an atrocious libel\non Mr Bradlaugh.\" \"The poison,\" continued the informant to his gaping\nlistener, the _Herald's_ London correspondent, \"was a new and most\nsubtle one. How the Prince was actually dosed he did not pretend to\nknow. The emissary of the International charged with the execution of\nthe sentence of death was left to himself, and was simply bidden to\ntake as few innocent lives in carrying it out as possible; but it was\nsuggested to him to mix the poison with the contents of the Prince's\npocket flask, and this it was probable he had succeeded in doing.\"\nThis marvellous story was received in England with the condemnation\nand ridicule it deserved, and I only give it here now to show to what\nlengths prejudice and a disordered imagination will lead a man.\n\nI suppose it is only in the natural course of things that an Irish\npaper[40] should have the funniest story, and one too that seems really\noriginal. This journal discovered that in the summer, when Republican\nagitation was slack, Mr Bradlaugh took up \"the more useful--if less\nprofitable--occupation of a bagman.\" Presumably this was intended to be\nseverely sarcastic; it was only ridiculous and untrue.\n\n[Footnote 40: _Belfast Times_, April 8, 1872.]\n\nAt intervals throughout my father's career he has, of course, been\nconstantly accused of being in the pay of some one or other. This\nkind of accusation is common to most public men, so it was not likely\nthat he would escape. In 1872, when it was asserted that \"Bradlaugh\nand Odger\" were sold to \"Gladstone and Morley,\" the _Saturday Review_\nthought it no shame to suggest that \"perhaps after all there is some\ntruth in the story.\"[41] A few months before, said my father, it was\n\"Bradlaugh was sold to the Tories, now it is the Whigs who have made\nthe purchase;\" and he mockingly regretted \"that neither party have\neven paid a deposit.\" At other times he was charged with being in the\npay of the Prince Napoleon, of the Commune, of Sir Charles Dilke, of\nthe Carlists, and, last of all, in that of the Maharajah of Cashmere.\nThis was so much believed in, that a gentleman belonging to a prominent\nLiberal Club actually told me that it was a good thing my father died\npoor and in debt, as it, at least, discredited that rumour.\n\n[Footnote 41: _Saturday Review_, September 14, 1872.]\n\nI do not profess to have by any means exhausted the list of fables\nassociated with Mr Bradlaugh's name. I have merely taken a few of the\nmore persistent or more remarkable as examples of the whole.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTo expose the misstatements and the travesties of Mr Bradlaugh's\nopinions would require a whole volume. What he thought and what he\ntaught on theological, political, and social questions will be found\nin his own writings, and his own words must necessarily be the most\neffective contradiction or confirmation of the \"hearsays\" of prejudice.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nPEACE DEMONSTRATIONS, 1878.\n\n\nDuring the Russo-Turkish War great anxiety was shown by the Tories to\ndrag England into the struggle; war songs were sung in the music halls;\nthe old hatred of Russia was fanned into a blaze, and the new love of\nTurkey nourished into some sort of enthusiasm. The \"Jingo\" fever ran\nhigh, and the more peacefully-disposed seemed quite overwhelmed by the\nnoise and clamour of the war party. Some of the working men of London,\nhowever, determined to make a public protest in favour of peace, and\nagainst those who were seeking to increase the burdens of the nation\nat a time when there were people dying of starvation in Wales, in\nSheffield, and in the Forest of Dean. A meeting was consequently held\non the afternoon of February 24th, in Hyde Park, in response to a\ngeneral appeal made by the Hon. Auberon Herbert, Mr Ackrill, and Mr\nBradlaugh on behalf of the working men's committee to the working men\nof the metropolis to resist the effort then being made to drag the\ncountry into an Eastern war.\n\nThere had been so much rowdyism at former meetings on this subject,\nthat it was resolved to enrol a special force to prevent this one from\nbeing broken up by ruffianism. Mr Bradlaugh's special contingent was to\nconsist of fifty marshals and five hundred deputy marshals, who wore\nhis Northampton colours, and were furnished with \"wands of office.\" It\nwas not thought right to ask unarmed men to confront the brutality of\nthe war-at-any-price men, who came armed with all manner of weapons;\nyet it was not desired to provoke an attack by any show of force, so\nafter some deliberation it was decided that the marshals should be\narmed with short staves similar to the constables' truncheon. These\nthe men were instructed to keep concealed, unless they were required\nfor purposes of defence. Mr Herbert's special adherents were similarly\narmed, and wore a green favour.\n\nFearing a fight, my father would not allow us to go with him to the\nmeeting, and would not be happy about our going at all, until we had\npromised not to get into the crowd. So we went to the Park early to\nwatch the great masses of men gathering quietly together, with neither\nbands, banners, nor procession, unless the clubs coming up in bodies\ncould be called coming in procession. The mauve, white, and green\nrosettes--which we with a committee of ladies had so lately made--were\nsoon conspicuous by their number; above them were smiling holiday\nfaces, while below lay the formidable staves which we had helped to\nserve out that very morning, but of which not a sign could be seen,\nalthough we, who knew they were there, looked attentively for them.\nThe platform was set up, surrounded by a ring of men with locked arms\nthree or four deep. By and by groups of young men passed us armed with\nsticks, long and thick; these joined together in gangs, and amused\nthemselves by making a series of brutal rushes, after the stupid\naimless fashion of the \"roughs\" on Lord Mayor's Day. But these medical\nstudents--for the hospitals had been whipped up to turn out in aid of\nthe Tory and the Turk--unlike their honoured exemplars, deliberately\nintended to injure.\n\nThe meeting was tremendous, orderly and quiet at first, and the\napplause which greeted Mr Herbert when he rose to preside showed that\nthe majority were favourable to peace. Every facility had been given\nto the war-party to move an amendment; every courtesy had been shown\nthem, and everything possible done to avoid a pretext for disturbance.\nBut no pretext was necessary. Mr Herbert had barely begun to speak when\nan attack was made simultaneously on three sides of the ring; sticks\nflashed in the air, and staff replied to stick with such energy that\nthe attack on two sides was repelled; that at the back, however, was\nsuccessful, the ring was broken through, and the platform destroyed. In\nspite of all this, Mr Bradlaugh succeeded in putting the resolution,\nand all those within hearing voted for it; but the tumult was so great\nthat it was impossible to guess how much was heard or understood.\n\nMy sister and I stood by the water breathlessly watching a dense mass\nof men with sticks in air struggling slowly towards the gate, feeling\nsure that Mr Bradlaugh must be the centre of a great a display of\nenmity; and people even cried to us, \"Your father is there. He will be\nkilled! he will be killed!\" And while we were watching, we ourselves\nnearly became involved in a rush of the war-party from another\ndirection. Frantic cries of \"Duck him! The water! Duck him!\" made us\nglance round, and we found we had only just time to escape. When we\nhad reached a place of safety, and were able to look round again, the\nfighting mass was broken up; and learning from some one, whom my father\nhad told to seek us, that he was unhurt and had gone home, we also\nhastened to make the best of our way back. We learned that none of our\nown friends were seriously hurt; and the hearty and repeated bursts of\ncheering at my father's appearance where he lectured that night marked\nthe relief felt at seeing him safe and unhurt.\n\nMr Bradlaugh had held many meetings in Hyde Park, but he had never had\none broken up. He had had a magnificent gathering in 1875 to protest\nagainst the grant of \u00a3142,000 to the Prince of Wales for his journey to\nIndia, but all had been quiet and orderly. Now, neither he nor those\nwith whom he was acting liked the idea of their demonstration for peace\nending in this way, so it was determined to make another attempt. The\nwar party, however, who stood at nothing, determined to break up this\nmeeting also. An assault upon the leaders of the Peace movement was\ndeliberately planned, and Mr Bradlaugh afterwards obtained the names\nof certain Tories who had paid and instigated the assailants. On this\noccasion--Sunday, the 10th of March--no attempt was made to set up a\nproper platform, but there were human volunteers for a living one--no\nlight matter when it came to bearing a man of Mr Bradlaugh's inches.\nMr Herbert briefly stated the object of the meeting, and called upon\nmy father to move the resolution, and from the shoulders of his living\nplatform he moved \"that the meeting declares in favour of peace,\"\nand the resolution was forthwith seconded, formally put, and voted\nupon with but few dissentients. So far all was well, and the meeting\nwas dissolved. Upon this, however, there immediately began a series\nof regularly-organised attacks by paid roughs, militia-men, medical\nstudents, and \"gentlemen.\" Armed with sticks, pieces of twisted\ngas-piping, sharpened iron, loaded bludgeons, and other weapons,\nthey were a truly gallant company. Some of the defending staves were\nominously cut and dug into by the sharp and pointed instruments used\nby the attacking party. For a few minutes the fighting was severe; my\nfather for an instant was taken off his feet in the struggle, and his\nupraised arm caught the murderous rain of blows intended for his head.\nUp again almost at once, and having the fight thus forced upon him, he\nstruck five blows in reply, which were said to have sent as many men\nto St George's Hospital. Those were the only blows he struck that day,\nthe rest of the time he merely warded off any aimed at himself. One man\nattacked his head with some sharp iron instrument fastened to a long\nstick, which cut his silk hat through from crown to rim. A brave little\nparty of \"swells\" attacked him at the back, but these were attended to\nby his working-men friends. This assault by the war party was as wanton\nas it was vicious, because the meeting was over, and had already began\nto quietly disperse.\n\nA few weeks later stories were current that Mr Bradlaugh's staff was\ntaken from him by a young man \"half his size;\" and a couple of Scotch\npapers seriously reported that he had had to pay \u00a372, 11s. for breaking\nthe head of another young man. He never heard of any one who had\npersuaded a court to value his broken head even at the odd 11s.; and\nas for the staff, Mr Bradlaugh gave it to us after the meetings, and\nI have it now, together with a number of torn Jingo flags and broken\nJingo sticks that were brought to us as trophies of the fight.\n\nThe blows showered down upon Mr Bradlaugh's arm had injured it very\nseverely; a dangerous attack of erysipelas set in; he was very ill, and\nfor sixteen days he was confined to the house. Even then he went to the\nOld Bailey in Mr Truelove's case before he ought to have gone out. He\nwas ill and depressed; the nation seemed so eager for war; the wanton\nferocity exhibited and encouraged in Hyde Park in the cause of war made\nhim for the moment almost hopeless. He looked on \"in sadness while the\npeople suffer a Tory Government to create the possibilities of debt,\ndishonour, and disgraceful defeat, or still more disgraceful victory;\"\nand once more he raised his personal protest in favour of peace.\nAlthough, as matters fell out, we did not go to war, we nevertheless\ndecided upon having the pleasure of paying for it. As it was aptly put,\nthe game as determined upon by Lord Beaconsfield was \"Pay first; fight\nnext; afterwards, if you have time, you can fix upon the object to be\nattained.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHE NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY.\n\n\nI am now closely approaching the end of my task, and as yet I have\nonly mentioned the National Secular Society incidentally. To leave it\nwithout further notice would be doing scant justice both to my father\nand to the association with which he worked so actively, and with which\nhis name must ever remain connected, whatever its future history may be.\n\nThe National Secular Society has sometimes been confounded with the\nLondon Secular Society, of which Mr George Jacob Holyoake and Mr\nBradlaugh were successively presidents; but that was merely a London\nSociety, and not a general association. Indeed, I believe there had\nnever been any general association of the Freethinkers of Great Britain\nuntil 1866, when it was felt that some endeavour should be made to\norganise them. There were local secular Societies all over the kingdom,\nthere were isolated Freethinkers to be found everywhere, but hitherto\nthere had been no attempt to unite them into one general federation.\nWithout organisation much propagandist work had been done: in a single\nyear, for instance, 250,000 tracts were distributed; with organisation\nit was believed that much more might be accomplished. But propaganda\nwas by no means the only object to be gained by uniting Freethinkers\nin one general society. In September a provisional programme for the\nproposed National Secular Society was put forward. Mr Bradlaugh by\nconsent assumed the office of President of the Society until the first\nConference. In the programme it was stated that the objects of the\nSociety would be:--\n\n To form an Association for mutual help for all the Freethinkers of\n Great Britain.\n\n To conduct in the United Kingdom a more vigorous Freethought\n propaganda, especially in districts where Freethinkers are few, and\n Freethought lectures rare.\n\n To establish a fund for the assistance of aged or distressed\n Freethinkers.\n\n To promote Parliamentary and other action in order to remove all\n disabilities on account of religious opinions.\n\n To establish secular schools and adult instruction classes in\n connection with every local society having members enough to support\n such schools or classes.\n\nThe idea of a National Society was well taken up, and members were\nenrolled in all directions. It was intended to hold a Conference early\nin the following year, but this was postponed, partly on account of\nMr Bradlaugh's ill-health, and did not actually take place until the\nend of November, when it was found that the Society had made a very\nsuccessful start in life--a success which was fully confirmed by\nthe time the Conference met again a year later. A special Lecturing\nFund was established in 1867, and by the aid of this the accredited\nlecturers of the Society went into places where the Freethinkers\nwere too poor and too few to themselves bear the whole expenses of\na meeting; and in this way towns and villages were visited by a\nFreethought lecturer where before Freethought was almost unheard of.\nThe provisional statement of the principles and objects of the Society\nwas very soon amended in some minor details, and ten or twelve years\nlater a Revision Committee was appointed and the rules newly stated.\n\nIn 1869 the Society brought out the first Secular almanack ever\npublished. It was edited by \"Charles Bradlaugh and Austin Holyoake,\"\nand met with an immediate and complete success, transcending even the\nhopes of its promoters, the first edition being sold out in one day.\nThis almanack has been continued without intermission until the present\ntime. At Mr Austin Holyoake's death, Mr Charles Watts became co-editor\nwith Mr Bradlaugh, and in 1878 he was superseded by Mrs Annie Besant.\nWhen Mr Bradlaugh resigned his office as President of the National\nSecular Society--in 1890, after his serious illness of the previous\nwinter--the new President, Mr G. W. Foote, became editor of the\nalmanack in conjunction with Mr J. M. Wheeler.\n\nWith the exception of the year 1872, when Mr Arthur Trevelyan, J.P.,\nwas elected President, Mr Bradlaugh held the chief office of the\nSociety from the time of its foundation until his resignation, and\nit was always a source of immense pride to him that he was chosen\nrepresentative of the Freethinkers of Great Britain and Ireland. He\nlaboured untiringly for the Society; not merely for the organisation as\na whole, but for the separate branches and for the individuals which\ncomprised it. \"During thirty years,\" he said on the day he resigned,\n\"I think I may say I have never refused any help to any branch that I\nthought was justified in asking for help.\"\n\nHe never held any paid office, but on the contrary often paid money out\nof his own pocket for the purposes of the Association. He estimated\nthat the sum he had earned and given in actual cash to the Society\nand its branches during the time he was connected with it amounted to\n\u00a33000. The Society, on its side, released him and Mrs Besant from a\npayment of \u00a3420[42] due to it at the time of his resignation.\n\n[Footnote 42: At his death in 1879 Mr William Thomson of Montrose left\n\u00a31000 to Mr Bradlaugh as President of the National Secular Society,\nwhich sum he was at liberty to invest in the Freethought Publishing\nCompany, on condition that he paid the Society \u00a35 a month while it\nlasted. This he did regularly from 1879 until February 1890, when the\nSociety generously released him from the remainder.]\n\nHis yearly Conference reports, although they make no pretence at\nbeing detailed records, are yet landmarks, as it were, of the work\naccomplished by the Society; his yearly Conference speeches[43]\noften give the most vivid glimpses of himself, of his pride in work\naccomplished, and his aspirations for work yet undone. Often, too,\ntheir terse and moving language reveals the truest, most unstudied\neloquence.\n\n[Footnote 43: See Speeches by Charles Bradlaugh.]\n\nThe National Secular Society proved itself an organisation of the\nutmost value, not merely as a propagandist association, but in all\ncases in any degree connected with the Freethought movement where\ncombined action was required. When Mrs Besant was deprived of her\nchild; at the time of Mr Bradlaugh's Parliamentary struggle, with\nits countless phases; during the prosecutions for blasphemy, and on\nmany other occasions, meetings were held or petitions were got up\nsimultaneously all over the country. The members of the Society were\nand are nearly all poor men and women; but what they have lacked in\nriches they have made up in energy; what they could not contribute in\nmoney, they have given eagerly and cheerfully in work.\n\nMany people misconstrued Mr Bradlaugh's reason for resigning his office\nas President of the National Secular Society. Some said he made a\nchoice between his Freethought and his Parliamentary work, and selected\nthe latter; others said he had long been gradually subordinating his\nanti-theological work to his political work, with a view to dropping\nthe former; others, that his action was entirely due to a modification\nin his heretical opinions; and others again said that he was not in\nharmony with the members of the Society. The truth was so obvious\nand so simple that all seemed loth to accept it, and searched for\ncomplicated motives under the plain facts. At the special Conference\nsummoned to receive his resignation, Mr Bradlaugh gave his reasons in\na voice which was low and faltering, as much from the feelings which\novercame him as from his recent illness.\n\n\"With very slight break,\" he said, \"I have led in this movement for\nover thirty years--a fairly long period in any life. I have been\nPresident of the Society, with the same slight break, since the Society\nbegan, and I am very sorry, very sorry, to resign office this morning.\nUnfortunately, while the work was never easy, it has become much harder\nsince 1880, with the Parliamentary struggle and the litigation in\nwhich the struggle involved me. I have felt for the past three or four\nyears--and I think I have conveyed that feeling to you in my annual\nspeeches--that the pressure must sooner or later bring a breakdown.\nLast October that breakdown came, and the wonder is that I am here to\ntender you my resignation at all. I was then brought face to face with\nthe difficulty that I could no longer do all the work I had done....\nNo resource is then open to me but to resign. Some kind friends have\nsuggested that I might hold the office nominally.... But I could not do\nthat; I must be a real President or none. My fault has been that I have\nsometimes been too real a one, but it is no easy matter to lead such a\nvoluntary movement as ours.... I don't want to leave you. I could not\ntake any other office in the Society after having been so long your\nPresident; but if you thought it right to elect me a member for life, I\nshould be grateful to you for doing it.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn this statement from Mr Bradlaugh's own lips is contained the whole\nand sole reason for his resignation. To be a \"real\" President of the\nNational Secular Society involved the performance of a vast amount of\nlabour, the greater part of which was unrecognised and unseen. This he\nfelt had become beyond his powers; it was not in him to bear the name\nand let others do the work; in giving up the duties of his position\nhe must also give up its honours. Only those who knew the pride he\nhad always felt in holding this office of President of the associated\nFreethinkers of the nation knew the pain it cost him to lay that office\ndown.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTHE LAST CHAPTER.\n\n\nThe year 1880 saw the last of the long struggle in Northampton and the\nbeginning of that in the House of Commons. For twelve years my father\nfought prejudice and misrepresentation in Northampton, for six years\nlonger he had to fight prejudice and misrepresentation in the House of\nCommons. But the shorter fight was the harder one; it was carried on\nincessantly, without the slightest intermission. It was a terrible six\nyears. The litigation alone is something appalling; in that time eight\nsuits were begun and ended.\n\nFirst there was the libel suit against Edgcumbe, which dragged on for\nmore than a year, and ended in nothing.\n\nSecond came Clarke _v._ Bradlaugh. This was an action for penalties\nagainst Mr Bradlaugh for having sat and voted without taking the oath.\nCommenced in July 1880, it came before the judges six times, and was\nultimately decided in favour of Mr Bradlaugh in April 1883.\n\nThird--Bradlaugh _v._ Newdegate. An action for maintenance brought by\nMr Bradlaugh against Mr Newdegate, and decided in favour of the former\nin April 1883.\n\nFourth--The Queen (Sir Henry Tyler) _v._ Bradlaugh, Foote, and Ramsey.\nAn action for blasphemy, decided in Mr Bradlaugh's favour in April\n1883.[44]\n\n[Footnote 44: In the case against Foote and Ramsey the jury disagreed.\nThe prosecution then entered a _nolle prosequi_.]\n\nFifth--Bradlaugh _v._ Erskine. An action against the\nDeputy-Sergeant-at-Arms for assault, in removing Mr Bradlaugh from the\nlobby of the House of Commons on August 3, 1881.[45] Commenced in\nApril 1882, this suit was decided against Mr Bradlaugh in January 1883.\nIn March the Government enforced their claim for costs against him.\n\n[Footnote 45: Mr Bradlaugh applied for a summons against Inspector\nDenning, but this application was refused.]\n\nSixth--Gurney _v._ Bradlaugh. A suit entered upon by Mr Gurney of\nNorthampton, to try the validity of the conduct of the majority of the\nHouse in preventing Mr Bradlaugh from taking the oath and his seat in\nthe House. Mr Justice Mathew discharged the jury, refusing to hear the\ncase on the ground that it was a collusive action.\n\nSeventh--Bradlaugh _v._ Gossett. In July 1883 Mr Bradlaugh applied for\nan injunction to restrain the Sergeant-at-Arms from using physical\nforce to prevent him from entering the House. Decided against Mr\nBradlaugh in the February of the following year.\n\nEighth--Attorney-General _v._ Bradlaugh. An action for penalties\nagainst Mr Bradlaugh for having sat and voted without having subscribed\nthe oath. This case was heard at bar, and judgment given for the\nAttorney-General. This was appealed against, and the matter settled in\nOctober 1880; Mr Bradlaugh paid his own costs, but nothing further.[46]\n\n[Footnote 46: These proceedings--except the libel case, which has been\nalready noticed--will be found fully dealt with by Mr J. M. Robertson\nin Part II., in his account of Mr Bradlaugh's Parliamentary struggle.]\n\nAll these lawsuits, each involving the discussion of points of the\ngreatest intricacy, and in which my father's brain was pitted against\nthose of some of the greatest lawyers in England, would have been\nenough to tax the powers of any ordinary man, even if he had had\nno other struggles. But in these six years there were many other\nstruggles; there were six elections, most of which were carried on\nunder extremely harassing conditions. It was one constant battle within\nthe walls of the House and without, and in the blind fury of their rage\nhis antagonists spared neither my father nor any one whose name was\nassociated with his. Sir Henry Tyler proceeded against Mr Foote and Mr\nRamsay for blasphemy, only because along with them he hoped to be able\nto drag Mr Bradlaugh down. Sir Henry Tyler tried to deprive my sister\nand myself, as well as Mrs Besant and Dr Aveling, of our right to teach\nunder the Science and Art Department, only because he hoped to wound\nMr Bradlaugh by an attack upon his daughters[47] and his friends. The\nSomerville Club (at the instigation of Miss Eliza Orme) refused to\naccept the daughters of Charles Bradlaugh as members.[48] University\nCollege would not permit my sister Alice--a woman of stainless honour\nand of the highest character--and Mrs Besant to study botany within\nits walls;[49] the National Liberal Club, having actually invited Mr\nBradlaugh to become a member, insulted him by refusing to elect him.[50]\n\n[Footnote 47: This attack upon Mr Bradlaugh through his daughters,\ninsignificant and inoffensive though we were, was no new idea. In 1877\nan attempt was made to introduce female students into the classes of\nthe City of London College. At my father's suggestion my sister and\nI, who at that time took little interest in the matter, joined Mr\nLevy's Class on Political Economy. I went up for the examination at\nthe end of the term, and, to my surprise and my father's delight, I\ntook a second-class certificate. But the City of London College were\ndivided upon the subject of the admission of female students, and,\nafter much acrimonious discussion, Mr Armytage Bakewell, a member of\nthe Council, carried his intolerance so far as to turn the dispute upon\nthe admission of my sister and myself. He wrote to the _City Press_\nthat \"though the ostensible subject of controversy has been whether\nfemales should attend the young men's classes or not, there was well\nknown to be a wider divergence,\" and that was \"best indicated by the\nfact that Mr Bradlaugh's daughters attended Mr Levy's classes.\" It is\nonly just to the City of London College to add that the Council, while\nrepudiating any responsibility for Mr Bakewell's conduct, expressed\n\"their regret that any allusion had been made to Mr Bradlaugh's\ndaughters\" in the letter alluded to. The City of London College decided\nagainst the further admission of women, and within a few days of their\ndecision had to listen to Lord Houghton's congratulations upon their\nliberality in admitting women when he presented me with my certificate!\nHe had not been informed that the College had just come to the contrary\nresolution.]\n\n[Footnote 48: March 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 49: May 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 50: 1884. Five years later the National Liberal Club\nspontaneously elected Mr Bradlaugh, without his knowledge, a member\npaying his first year's subscription.]\n\nThe country was flooded with literature making the most infamous\ncharges against him, and in the name of religion men went from town\nto town to preach against him. Even Cardinal Manning, a prince of the\ngreatest Church in Christendom, was not too exalted to stoop to cast\nhis stone at the despised Atheist. Within the precincts of the great\nCommons House itself he had to sit in silence, with no right of reply,\nwhilst he heard his character assailed, and those who worked with him\nbasely slandered. Within those same historic walls he was set upon and\nterribly ill-used by officials, ordered to their work by gentlemen\nclaiming to represent the nation. I was at Westminster on the day which\nwitnessed this strange example of the boasted \"English love of fair\nplay.\" I tremble as I recall it.\n\nWe went to Westminster by train, my sister and I, with Mrs Besant and\nsome friends of hers. The sight which met our eyes as we came out of\nthe station was one not to be readily forgotten; immense masses of\norderly men and women kept easily within certain limits by a thin\nline of police. There was a quick recognition of us as we passed\nalong by friends from all parts of the country, who gave us grave and\nserious greeting. At the gates of Palace Yard we were challenged by\nthe police, but allowed to pass on presenting our petition, and going\non to Westminster Hall we found it occupied by little groups of men\nfrom all corners of England.[51] These groups grew and grew, until the\ngreat hall seemed full, and voices were heard on all sides crying,\n\"Petition,\" \"Petition.\" At the head of the steps near the door leading\nto the lobby we took up our position. By-and-by an agonising rumour\nflew through the Hall, \"They are killing him; they are killing him!\"\nand swift on the heels of this came the angry cry, again and again\nrepeated, \"To the House!\" and with this, the surging forward of the\ncrowd. So few police had been spared to guard this entrance that they\nwould have been absolutely powerless to resist these men--not London\n\"roughs,\" but the pick of the London clubs, and, more formidable still,\nmen from many a Midland town, and from many a North country pit and\nfactory, whose hearts were bound up in my father, and who had come to\nLondon that day to petition for justice. The police command, \"Keep\nback!\" fell upon deaf ears. My sister and I involuntarily put ourselves\nin front of the doors, facing the crowd. Mrs Besant sprang forward,\nand in a few impassioned words she begged them to consider what Mr\nBradlaugh's wishes would be. The effect was instantaneous. The foremost\nfell back, and kept others back till all were self-controlled once\nmore; but the white, set faces told of the struggle in their hearts.\n\"But we _can't_ stay here and know he is being murdered, and do nothing\nto help him,\" said one in a choking voice. Some terrible minutes\npassed, but there was no further attempt to pass through the doors.\nBy-and-by a message reached us from my father that he was gone to\nStonecutter Street, and that we were to join him there. At Stonecutter\nStreet we found him quite calm and self-possessed, but his coat hanging\nin rents, his ashen face and still quivering flesh telling the tale of\nthe struggle he had just passed through.\n\n[Footnote 51: Seven persons were allowed to enter with each petition.]\n\nIn a few days he fell very ill. The small muscles of both arms were\nruptured; erysipelas supervened, and the left arm was very bad indeed,\nneeding constant attention by day and night. All day long from early\nmorning to the small hours of the next day there were people calling,\nsome friendly and some very much otherwise, besides press men and\npersons on business. My father had no rest, and one day the physician\nsaid, \"You will never get well, Mr Bradlaugh, if you don't get out of\nthis room.\"\n\n\"You wish me to go away?\" asked my father.\n\n\"Yes.\"\n\n\"When?\"\n\n\"At once.\"\n\n\"I will go to-day,\" was the characteristic reply.\n\nI packed up the necessary baggage, a fly was ordered to take us to\nthe station, and at Mrs Besant's suggestion it was decided to go to\nEastbourne. I was nursing my father, so I went with him, while for a\nday or so my sister remained behind to attend to things at home. Mrs\nBesant accompanied us. On the way to the station my father, who was\nfeeling very ill and very depressed, said he did not care to go to\nEastbourne--it was too fashionable; so I took the map from the railway\nguide and called over the names of places on the South Coast until he\nstopped me at Worthing, and then we turned about to go to there instead\nof to Eastbourne. My father had both arms in slings, and at the station\nMrs Besant and I had to walk one each side of him to protect them from\nthe impertinent and the unfeeling who crowded round to stare at him.\nArrived at Worthing, we got into a cab, asking the driver if he could\nrecommend us to a quiet hotel; he looked compassionately at the only\ntoo evidently sick man, and said he thought West Worthing would suit\nus best. Whilst he was getting the luggage, a clergyman whom we had\nseen inside the station came out, and walking up to the open cab stared\nrudely at my father, and as he turned away said loudly, for us to hear,\n\"That's Bradlaugh; I hope they'll make it warm for him yet.\"\n\nWest Worthing did suit us, as the cabman surmised; my father's health\ndaily improved, and indeed there is little doubt that his timely\nremoval to this quiet spot saved his life for the time. After a few\ndays my sister joined us, and we all felt the better for the change, as\nmuch from the momentary respite as from the fresh air and sea breeze.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe expenses of the litigation and the various elections were enormous,\nboth directly and indirectly. Although eventually Mr Newdegate had to\nbear the whole of the costs in the suit which he brought against Mr\nBradlaugh, yet the latter had to find several hundred pounds--about\n\u00a3725 in all--to pay into court at different times. These sums were\nultimately repaid to him, but liabilities had to be incurred to\nproduce them at the required moments. The shorthand notes in the three\ndays' appeal from the trial at bar alone cost him \u00a350. In the case of\nBradlaugh _v._ Erskine, in which the House of Commons defended its\nofficer, the Government made Mr Bradlaugh pay the costs, under the\ncircumstances a very harsh and unusual proceeding. Very little time\nwas allowed to elapse before the claim was insisted upon, and to find\nthe money my father had to choose between more borrowing and selling\nhis library. Yet if the motion carried unanimously and \"amid cheers\"\non the 27th January 1891 means anything, it is an acknowledgment that\nthe House was in the wrong when it instructed its officer to prevent Mr\nBradlaugh by force from obeying the law. It was not merely the direct\ncost, however; there were the indirect penalties also. For instance, in\nFebruary 1885, after the appeal from the trial at bar (which, with its\nsubsequent proceedings alone covered thirteen days), my father spoke\nof the worry and uncertainty which had \"for months arrested nearly\nall my means of earning money.\" People were always subscribing in an\nendeavour to pay for him the expenses they knew of, and many were the\nsacrifices some of them made in their eager desire to help. One old\nYorkshire miner, who had been sorely troubled that times were so hard\nwith him that he could spare nothing, one day came triumphantly to his\nfriend saying, \"I have made it all right; I will go without the half\npint for a week, and send it to the lad.\"[52] Many cut down their usual\nallowance of tobacco, and some went altogether without. One poor man\nsent his silver watch, the only thing of value which he possessed;\nsome people in London, touched at hearing of this sacrifice, offered\nto join together to buy him a gold one in acknowledgment of it, but\nhe would not hear of it. Several times I have known a cabman refuse\nto take his fare.[53] Many poor people sent their small subscriptions\nweekly or monthly. But my father always worried about these funds;\nhe could not bear the thought of his poor friends denying themselves\ntheir little luxuries, or even perhaps their necessaries, and he\nalways promptly closed a fund when it had been open some fixed time or\ndirectly the specific sum was reached.\n\n[Footnote 52: _National Reformer_, April 27, 1884.]\n\n[Footnote 53: I have lately heard a touching story of a cabman who\ndrove Mr Bradlaugh several times. He greatly admired my father, but\nwas too shy to speak to him. Every time he took a fare from him he\ngave it away to some charitable object. He said he could not spend Mr\nBradlaugh's money on himself, he felt that \"he must do some good with\nit.\"]\n\n * * * * *\n\nA constant accusation brought against Mr Bradlaugh was that of living\nin aristocratic style,[54] and of having a most enormous income.[55]\nAs a matter of fact, he had no income other than what he earned from\nday to day, and his habits and mode of life at Circus Road were of the\nsimplest possible kind. His bedroom was very small, about 10 feet by 9\nfeet, with just room for his bedstead, chest of drawers, wash-stand,\nand a couple of chairs. His library, on the first floor after 1880,\nwas a very large room with five windows to it; but spacious as it was,\nit was by no means too large for his books. The room was shelved all\nround to the very edges of the windows, except just over the fireplace;\nand there were also three sets of movable shelves on the floor of the\nroom. The furniture was quite simple--just a desk, writing-tables,\ncane-seated chairs, my father's two old oaken arm-chairs from\nTottenham, and an easy chair, which was bought specially for him one\ntime when he was not well. There was no other \"easy\" chair in the\nhouse, and only one small sofa--really a bedroom lounge--which my\nsister bought for me one morning when I was ailing. I doubt whether\nthe whole of my father's furniture would have fetched five-and-twenty\npounds at a sale. Our meals we had downstairs in a very dark basement\nroom under our landlord's music shop, and here the blue books were also\nstored.\n\n[Footnote 54: The _Plymouth and Exeter Gazette_ (April 1878) reproved\nMr Bradlaugh for the glaring inconsistency of his practice with his\ndemocratic principles, \"by living in the most aristocratic style.\"]\n\n[Footnote 55: The _Leeds Daily News_ (July 1883) said his income was\n\u00a312,000 a year.]\n\nMy father's habits were as simple as his surroundings. He was an early\nriser, and at whatever time he got home at night he was in his study\nsoon after seven in the morning, Even when he was not home from the\nHouse of Commons till four o'clock in the morning, it was seldom he lay\nin bed after eight. He had a cup of tea as soon as he was down, and\nhe worked at his desk until breakfast-time, which he liked punctually\nat eight. If he was more than usually busy or worried, he asked for\nhis breakfast to be brought to his study, and he would take it as he\nworked; but my sister and I always affected to be vexed if he did\nthis, because we liked to get him away from his work and into another\nroom for his meals. About the middle of 1877 his ever-increasing\ncorrespondence obliged him to have regular clerical assistance, and his\nsecretary came at nine. He was in to callers until ten or half-past.\nThis was the time he saw people who wanted to consult him on legal or\nprivate matters: he listened patiently to their troubles, and often\ngave them most helpful advice how to get out of them. All sorts of\ndifficulties were confided to him--family troubles, dissensions between\nhusband and wife, between employer and employed; great troubles and\nsmall were brought to him, and those who brought them were sure of a\nsympathetic and patient listener, and a confidant to whom they could\nunreservedly open their hearts.\n\nIf Mr Bradlaugh did not have to attend a Committee of the House he\nwould have his dinner (or \"lunch,\" as it was indifferently called)\nat half-past twelve, and this was followed by a cup of tea in his\nlibrary; if he were in all day, he had his afternoon tea (just a cup\nof tea and a crust of bread and butter) at four, and his supper about\nseven or half-past seven. At his dinner and supper he drank hock or\nburgundy.[56] Often after supper there would be a little pleasant chat,\nsometimes a game of chess, and, more rarely, whist with a dummy. If\nmy father was too tired or too worried for any of these, he would go\nto bed as early as half-past eight or nine, lie and read for a while,\nand then sleep soundly until morning. Of course it was not often he\ncould do this, for his evenings were usually spent in lecturing or at\nthe House of Commons.[57] The only time during the session which he\ncould rely upon for seeing callers, answering letters,[58] and earning\nhis living, was from seven A.M. until the time he left for\nthe House. Saturday evening and Sundays were generally employed in\nlecturing. Until 1884 his holidays were of the rarest and the shortest.\nIn that year he first went fishing at Loch Long. At the suggestion\nof some Scotch friends, a cottage was taken for a month that summer\nat Portincaple, a lovely and secluded spot just opposite Loch Goil.\nMy sister and I and a Scotch lady, Miss Lees, stayed the whole time;\ndifferent friends came and went, and my father spent a week fishing.\nThe cottage belonged to Finlay M'Nab, fisherman and ferryman, and had\nbelonged to his father and grandfather before him. On nearly all Mr\nBradlaugh's fishing expeditions Finlay M'Nab was his boatman. They\nwould go off just after breakfast, or sometimes even earlier, get\ndinner at Carrick Castle or Ardentinny, and come home at sunset with\na big bag of fish. After 1884 we went to Portincaple several summers\nin succession, and then Mr Bradlaugh took to going there in the Easter\nand Whitsun recess, and for a few days after Parliament rose. On these\noccasions he went alone, but Mrs M'Nab attended to all his comforts\nindoors as though he were at home, and outdoors her husband looked\nafter the bait and the boat--except on Sundays; then, my father had to\ncontent himself with the dangerous amusement of fishing from the rocks,\nwhilst Finlay looked wistfully on.\n\n[Footnote 56: He was frequently charged with drinking expensive wines,\nbut the hock he had straight from Bensheim at a cost of 1s. 3d. per\nbottle (including carriage and duty); the burgundy came direct from\nBeaune, and cost a trifle more.]\n\n[Footnote 57: During the time he was not allowed to take his seat he\nattended the House constantly, sitting under the gallery in a seat\ntechnically outside the House.]\n\n[Footnote 58: One year he calculated that he had written 1200 letters\nof advice in the twelvemonth--this, of course, in addition to general\ncorrespondence.]\n\nMr Bradlaugh was a very even-tempered man, and those who waited on him\nusually served him eagerly. He never found fault unnecessarily, and\nprovided an attempt was well meant, it mattered little, as far as his\nbehaviour went, if the result was not equal to the intention. He was\nmost generous and tender-hearted, except to those who had wantonly\ntaken advantage of the confidence he reposed in them to deceive him.\nSuch persons called him hard and unrelenting, for even if he forgave\nthem they never again held quite the same place in his esteem. Some\ncritics have said he was a man of unrestrained passions; others have\nsaid he was absolutely passionless. Neither is right. He was a man of\nvery strong feelings, but he had an iron will. At a critical moment in\nhis life, when he was greatly tempted to follow a certain course, a\nfriend urged upon him that if he did he would injure the work he had\nat heart. My father replied by stretching out his arm, and closing\nhis fingers over an imagined object. \"I have not a passion,\" he said,\n\"that I could not crush as easily as an egg within my hand if it were\nnecessary for the good of the cause I love.\" And he was true to his\nword.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn 1877 when Mr Bradlaugh severed his business connection with Mr C.\nWatts, he started, as I have said, a publishing business in connection\nwith Mrs Annie Besant, under the style of the Freethought Publishing\nCompany. The business premises were at Stonecutter Street, E.C., and\nhere, with small premises, a small staff, and a small rent, the Company\ndid fairly well. In 1882, however, my father was induced against his\nbetter judgment to lease a shop at the corner of Fleet Street and\nBouverie Street (now occupied by the Black and White Company). Here\nthe premises were large and the rent heavy. To make matters worse,\nabout a couple of years later, owing to the financial difficulties of\nhis landlord, he was reluctantly obliged to take up the remainder of\nthe lease of the whole building, and thus he became saddled with the\nrent and taxes--amounting to more than seven hundred per annum--and\nthe responsibility of a great house in the city. In order to raise the\ncapital required to meet these expenses, Mr Bradlaugh with Mrs Besant\nissued debenture stock to the amount of four or five thousand pounds,\nthe interest on which was paid with unfailing regularity until my\nfather's death.\n\nBut as he had feared, the business at Fleet Street did not thrive\nsufficiently to support so large an establishment; the greater part of\nit had always been, and was then, a postal business, hence it could\nbe carried on as well in a little shop in a side street as in a large\ncorner shop in such a thoroughfare. The details of the managership of\nthe publishing department were in the hands of Mrs Besant and my sister\nAlice, but as both were without the least experience in business, my\nfather was the final referee on all matters, and it was he of course\nwho had to provide for quarter-day with its heavy rent, taxes, and\ndebenture interest.\n\nIn 1884, unable to let the upper portion of the building, Mr Bradlaugh\ndecided to utilise it himself by setting up a printing-office, and\ndoing his own printing. This department was put under the control of\nMr Bonner, to whom I was then engaged to be married. As my husband\nwas already familiar with the management of a printing-office, Mr\nBradlaugh's only trouble with this branch of his business was in\nfinding the money, and this was not a great anxiety, as it paid for\nitself from the very first. It is true the profits were never great,\nfor the prejudice against giving work to any establishment connected\nwith the name of Bradlaugh at first limited the work almost to the\nprinting of his own publications. My father was very glad to be saved\nresponsibility, even in this small matter for, as he often said, he\nhad never intended to become a publisher, and he had never intended\nto become a printer; he had so many things on his hands that he had\ntime neither for one nor the other; he had, in fact, no inclination\nfor commercial pursuits: they had always been forced upon him by\ncircumstances.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWhen it was known that I was going to attempt some story of my father's\nlife, there were many things I was told that I must not fail to\nmention. Amongst others, one friend said: \"You must not fail to notice\nthat Mr Bradlaugh was an essentially grateful man; he never forgot the\nsmallest favour or the smallest kindness that was shown him.\" That\nis absolutely true; he could forget most injuries, \"his heart was as\ngreat as the world,\" but it was not large enough \"to hold the memory\nof a wrong;\" a kindness he never forgot.[59] When John Bright pledged\nhimself in the House of Commons for my father, the latter was greatly\naffected, and speaking to us in private about it was quite overcome.\nHe had disagreed often with John Bright, and had sometimes spoken his\ndisagreement with the utmost frankness; later on they were opposed upon\nthe subject of Home Rule, but after the day when that lion-hearted\nold man so unexpectedly and so courageously spoke on his behalf,\nMr Bradlaugh never mentioned his name save with the most profound\nrespect and gratitude. And yet this trait of gratitude, so strong in\nhimself, he never seemed to expect in others; or at least he seldom\nshowed surprise at its absence. He once helped to Baltimore a Russian\nprisoner, escaped from Siberia, who had come to him with letters from\nContinental friends. The months rolled by, and nothing further was\nheard of the man. A great deal had been done for him, and one day I\nexpressed myself very strongly on his ingratitude. My father stopped me\nby quietly saying that I must learn to do a right thing just because\nit was right, and not because I expected gratitude or any other reward\nfor what I did. I felt the rebuke keenly, but I had nothing to say, for\nI instantly realised that he preached to me no more than he himself\npractised.\n\n[Footnote 59: The following extracts, taken at hazard from New Year's\naddresses to his friends in the _National Reformer_, will show how\ngrateful he was to them for their help and what support he found in\ntheir love and trust:--\n\n\"Women and men, I have great need of your strength to make me strong,\nof your courage to make me brave. I am in a breach where I must fall\nfighting or go through. I will not turn, but I could not win if I had\nto fight alone\" (1st January 1882).\n\n\"1883 has freed me from some troubles and cleared me of some peril,\nbut it leaves me in 1884 a legacy of unfinished fighting. I thank the\nfriends of the dead year, without whose help I, too, must have been\nnearly as dead as the old year itself.... I have had more kindnesses\nshown me than my deservings warrant, more love than I have yet earned,\nand I open the gate of 1884 most hopefully because I know how many\nhundred kindly hearts there are to cheer me if my uphill road should\nprove even harder to climb than in the years of yesterday\" (6th January\n1884).\n\n\"The present greeting is first to our old friends; some poor folk who\nearly in 1860 took No. 1 [of the _National Reformer_], and have through\ngood and ill report kept steadily with us through the more than a\nquarter of a century struggle for existence\" (3rd January 1886).]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is remarkable how quickly Mr Bradlaugh made his personality felt\nwhen once he was allowed to sit quietly in Parliament. Some persons had\nsneeringly said that he would \"soon find his level,\" or that he would\n\"soon sink into obscurity,\" but he rapidly proved that he at least did\nnot regard the House of Commons merely as \"the best club in England.\"\nHis patience in mastering details, his perseverance and persistence in\nwhat he undertook, and the work he accomplished, were all so notable\nthat he had sat in the House barely one year when the possibility of a\nseat for him in the next Radical ministry began to be discussed.[60]\nHis constant attendance at the House and at Committees--and he was\nrarely absent--interfered greatly with his lecturing in the provinces\nduring the session, although almost every available evening was\nutilised for London and suburban lectures, many of which were given\naway.[61] In consequence of this he was driven more and more to rely\nupon his pen as a means of earning money. It was always easier to\nhim to speak than to write upon a subject. His style was terse and\ndirect; his thoughts and his words came so fast that a verbatim report\nof an hour's speech filled several newspaper columns. His gestures,\nhis expression, the modulation of his voice, pointed and explained\nhis spoken words. But it nearly always irked him to write long upon\na subject; his letters were for the most part models of brevity, and\nhe tended to make his articles brief also. If a magazine editor asked\nhim to write an article of six thousand words, and he had said all he\nwanted to say at that moment in four or five thousand, he hated to add\nto it, and often, indeed, he would not.\n\n[Footnote 60: _Bognor Observer_, February 1887.]\n\n[Footnote 61: One at the Shoreditch Town Hall in May 1884, on behalf of\nthe Hackney United Radical Club, realised as much as \u00a340. The hall was\npacked in every corner, and hundreds were unable to gain admittance.]\n\nBy incessant labour my father earned a fair income, but he could not\nkeep pace with his heavy expenses, and the burden of his debts each\nyear weighed upon him more and more heavily. He would sigh regretfully\nthat he was not so young as he used to be, and these things troubled\nhim more than formerly. At the end of August 1888, writing his \"Rough\nNotes\" in the _National Reformer_, he said: \"Many folks write me as\nthough now Parliament stood adjourned, I could be easily taking holiday\nand rest. I wish this were possible, but in truth I have to work very\nhard to reduce my debts and live. I shall, I hope, have four and a half\ndays' fishing in Loch Long from mid-day on Monday, September 3rd, to\nthe morning of Saturday the 8th, but this short holiday is more than\ncounterbalanced by the heavy lecturing work of the recess. This week,\nfor example, I address seven meetings; next week eight. Many write to\nme to give lectures in aid of branches, clubs, and associations, and I\ndo help very often, but surely it is not necessary for me to constantly\nrepeat that my only means are those I earn from day to day by tongue\nand pen. My great trouble now is lest I should be unable to earn enough\nto meet my many heavy obligations, in which case I should be most\nreluctantly obliged to relinquish my Parliamentary career.\"\n\nThis \"Note\" had a most unexpected result; it was reproduced with\ngenerous comments in the press, and a committee was formed to raise a\nfund to clear off the balance of \u00a31500 of debt still remaining from the\nsix years' Parliamentary struggle. This fund was only open one month,\nuntil October 1st;[62] and in that short time \u00a32490 was subscribed\nin sums varying from 1d. to \u00a3200. Now at last my father seemed to be\ngetting into smooth waters; the only financial burdens left upon him\nwere in connection with his business, and these he hoped to gradually\nlighten. But within a few weeks he had to face a new trouble. On the\n16th November my sister Alice was taken very ill with typhoid fever at\nCircus Road; for the sake of greater quiet, we moved her to my rooms at\n19 Avenue Road, where, meningitis having supervened, she died on 2nd\nDecember. She expressly asked that in the case of her death she should\nbe cremated, and we were most anxious to carry out her wishes, but the\nWoking Crematorium was then undergoing structural alterations, and it\nwas not possible to do so. This short and unexpected illness, with\nits fatal termination, was a great shock to Mr Bradlaugh, and I went\nto him at Circus Road the next morning as soon as I could get away. I\nfound him terribly depressed, working in his room in a bad atmosphere,\nwith the gas alight and all the blinds down. Knowing how he ordinarily\nshrank from any outward display of his feelings, and especially how\nmuch he disliked mere form, I said, \"Why, how is this? Why have you\npulled all the blinds down?\" He said brokenly, \"They [the servants]\ndid it; I thought it might be your wish.\" I put out the gas, drew up\nthe blinds, and opened a window for a few moments to let in a little\nfresh air. He was himself out of health, and I did not like to see him\nsitting there in that close and heated atmosphere. I asked if he was\ngoing to the House? No; he did not think he should, he replied. I urged\nhim to go, believing it was the best thing he could do. He did go, but\nhe could not stay long; somehow an announcement of my sister's death\nhad got into the papers, and Members sympathised with him in his sorrow\nin such kindly fashion that he was obliged to come away lest he should\nbreak down. A night or two later he made his speech in reply to Mr\nBroadhurst on the Employers' Liability Bill, and if his words had in\nthem somewhat more of acerbity than usual, I often think that it was in\na measure due to the biting pain of his own grief.\n\n[Footnote 62: Mr Bradlaugh asked for it to be closed on 26th September.]\n\nOn the 5th my sister was buried at the Brookwood Necropolis, where\nalready some members of our family lay. Many who had known her, and\nwhose lives had been helped by hers, begged that there might be a\npublic funeral; but my father shrank from exposing his sorrow even to\nthe most sympathetic of friends, and we quietly and silently laid her\nin her last resting-place, where, alas! she was so soon to be joined\nby her stricken father. Her death was not allowed to pass without the\nChristian commonplaces as to \"the miserable barrenness of the sceptic's\ntheories\" in the presence of domestic calamities; and Mr Bradlaugh\nasked what would be thought of him if at a similar hour he should\nobtrude upon some Christian some mocking word upon the horrors of the\ntheory that \"many are called and few are chosen\"?\n\nMy husband and I now went to live at Circus Road, and as my father was\nsuddenly without a secretary, I filled the post while he was seeking a\nfresh one. I had given up the class teaching, in which I had been for\nmany years associated with my sister, having thus a certain amount of\nleisure, and finding I could manage all that was wanted, I begged him\nto let me continue his work. I liked to feel I was helping him, if only\nin the mechanical way of writing at his dictation.\n\nDuring the later years of his life, Mr Bradlaugh was often out of\nhealth and suffered a great deal, especially in the arm so badly\ninjured on the 3rd August 1881. The strain--mental as well as\nphysical--of the six years 1880-85 had been tremendous.[63] But a week\nat Loch Long with Finlay M'Nab and his rod and line seemed to restore\nhim to health again; we never thought of anything serious, he appeared\nso big and strong. In October 1889, however, he fell ill--so ill that\nfor some time it seemed doubtful whether he would recover, but thanks\nto the skill of his old physician Dr Ramskill, and the assiduous care\nof his friend and colleague on the Vaccination Commission, Dr W. J.\nCollins, he gradually struggled back to life once more. It was thought\nthat his health would be greatly benefited by a voyage to India, and\ntherefore he decided to attend the Fifth National Congress in Bombay.\nMr M'Ewan, M.P., who was then enjoying a holiday abroad, sent Mr\nBradlaugh a cheque for \u00a3200 so that money difficulties should not\nhinder him from following the doctor's advice; and with the cheque, Mr\nM'Ewan sent a most delicately worded letter, which touched the sick man\nto the heart.\n\n[Footnote 63: This I think has been recognised by most people. In\nDecember 1884 the _Weekly Dispatch_ spoke of the \"great strain\" put\nupon Mr Bradlaugh, \"under which a man less vigorous in mind and body\nwould long ere this have broken down.\"]\n\nThe shadows of death lay very close to him, and he had a hard fight\nback to the light again, but he longed ardently to live. There was so\nmuch that he had put his hand to, which the position he had now won\nin the House would enable him to do with comparative ease. As he lay\nin his bed in his study[64] he turned over and over in his mind plans\nby which he might economise his strength in the future. It was quite\nclear that he must do less lecturing, and must depend more and more\non his pen. He resolved to try and sell the remainder of the Fleet\nStreet lease, and to give up his publishing business; he also planned\nto gradually pay off the debenture-holders, and when it was free from\nall money entanglements, to hand over the printing plant to my husband\nto carry on the business in his own name and on his own responsibility.\nOne thing he felt he could do immediately. After he had been lying very\nquiet for some time, he startled me one day by suddenly saying that\nhe had determined to resign the Presidency of the National Secular\nSociety, and he bade me get pen and paper, and take his instructions\nfor a letter to the Secretary. I tried to argue the matter with him and\nbegged him to reflect upon it, to do nothing hastily, and reminded him\nthat people would say if he resigned then, in his illness, that he had\nrecanted. His face, which all along had been set and stern, darkened\nas I said this. People must think what they choose, he said, he could\nno longer do everything; something must go; the Presidency entailed a\ngreat deal of work, and he must give it up. I tried to say something\nmore, but he stopped me, saying sharply that he had made up his mind.\nI was disconcerted by the tone and manner, so unusual from him to me,\nand left the room a moment to recover my equanimity. I was back almost\nimmediately, and went to the desk to get the note-book to take down the\nletter to Mr Forder (the Secretary). I heard my name spoken gently,\nand turning, saw my father holding out his hand to me. I went to the\nbedside. \"Now, my daughter,\" he said affectionately, \"I want you to\ntell me what you were going to say just now.\" He listened patiently\nwhilst I urged upon him that, although he was strong enough to\ndespise the misrepresentation that would surely follow the abrupt and\nunexplained announcement of his resignation, it was hardly fair to his\nfriends who would have to bear taunt and sneer, and would be unable to\nquote a word out of his mouth in reply. He replied that the reason for\nhis immediate resignation was that he could not be a President in name\nonly, and, without himself taking part in the work, be held responsible\nfor the sayings and doings of others--with whom he might or might\nnot agree--on behalf of the Society. He thought, however, he might\nleave his formal resignation until his return from India, although he\nwould at once intimate his intention. He added with a tender smile,\n\"I promise you that I will make a statement which shall not leave any\none in doubt as to my opinions.\" The religious question troubled him\nso little that he had not even thought about it until I spoke of the\npossibility of misconstruction. The severity and sternness of his\ndemeanour in making the announcement of his resolve was due solely to\nthe pain it had cost him to give up an office he valued so highly, and\nwhich he had hoped to retain until the laws relating to Blasphemy were\nerased from the Statute Book.\n\n[Footnote 64: The doctors would not allow Mr Bradlaugh to remain\nin his bedroom; one of them told him indignantly--albeit with some\nexaggeration--that he would have better accommodation in the workhouse!]\n\nIt was generously offered to pay my passage to Brindisi so that I might\ncare for my father during the first days of his journey, but my own\nhealth did not permit me to accept so delightful an offer. He seemed\nreally too ill to go alone, and the memory of his face, so haggard and\nso grey, as I last saw it at the vessel's side, was an abiding pain. He\nsent back a pencilled note by the pilot, and a letter from every port,\nto tell how he was gaining strength each day. On board the steamer\nevery one was kind to him. At Bombay every one was more than kind;\nall seemed to vie with each other in showing him attentions--Indians\nand English residents alike. A house and attendants were put at the\ndisposal of himself and Sir William Wedderburn, President of the\nCongress, and the latter made things easy for the invalid by many a\ncourteous act. Although it had been announced that Mr Bradlaugh could\nnot stay long enough in Bombay to receive addresses, yet a large number\nwere presented to him, of which about twenty were in caskets or cases\nof worked silver, carved sandal wood, inlaid ivory, and other beautiful\nspecimens of native work. The duty alone on these amounted to about\n\u00a319, and was paid by the Congress Committee.\n\nMr Bradlaugh's interest in Indian affairs, and his comprehension of\nthe needs of the people, were recognised both at home and in India.\nIn India he was joyfully called the \"Member for India,\" and at home\nhis views on Indian matters were listened to with growing respect.\nLord Dufferin sought an interview, and afterwards had considerable\ncorrespondence with him, and before Lord Harris set out for Bombay\nhe also made a point of seeing the acknowledged representative in\nParliament of the Indian people.\n\nMr Bradlaugh returned from Bombay at the end of January (1890), much\nbetter in health than we had dared to hope, and we now quite believed\nthat with care he would become thoroughly strong again. The birth of\nmy little son in the April of this year prevented me from attending\nto my father's correspondence, and at my request, my place was filled\nby a friend of mine and of my sister's, Mrs Mary Reed. My father soon\ngrew very fond of my little boy, and would now and then put aside his\nwriting and take him on his knee, protesting that he had never before\nleft his work to nurse a baby, and sometimes wondering whether, when\nthe boy grew up, he would go fishing with him.\n\nThe advent of the baby and all his paraphernalia made us feel more\ncrowded for space than ever, and as the music publishers had a room on\nthe first floor which they used as a stock-room, my husband arranged\nto rent this, and we furnished it as a sitting-room. We made it\nlook as pretty as we could, and it was ready for us at the end of\nSeptember. On my father's birthday (the 26th) I persuaded him to take\nus to the theatre, and we went to the Lyceum to see _Ravenswood_. On\ncoming home we had supper in the bright new room instead of the dark\nplace underground, and many were my father's jokes about the unwonted\nsplendour of his surroundings. Alas! it seemed that that room was\nfurnished only for him to die in three months later.\n\nThe winter of 1890 set in early and severely. In November it began to\nsnow, and snow and fog continued well into the new year. With the cold\nweather my father began to feel ill again. He thought of going to Paris\nto spend the New Year, but he could not afford it. I was sorry he could\nnot go, for he always came back the better for a few days in Paris. He\nwas a welcome visitor to the French capital; he had never been made\nto feel himself an outcast from society there. Coming home with him\none fearfully foggy night in December[65] from a lecture he had been\ndelivering at the Hall of Science on behalf of a testimonial to Mr\nForder, the Secretary of the National Secular Society, the conversation\nturned upon the value of his books, and he mentioned two or three which\nhe thought--erroneously, as it turned out--very valuable. I asked him\nif he would not sell them; if he could get a holiday and health with\nthe money they would fetch, they would be well worth the exchange. \"Ah,\nmy daughter, when I sell my books----\" he began, and his unfinished\nanswer told all the sadness of his thought. Twice he would have had to\nsell them if friends had not come to his aid--once, as I have said, to\npay the Government costs in Bradlaugh _v._ Erskine, and next in the\nPeters and Kelly case. He loved his books; to part with them seemed\nlike parting with his heart's blood.\n\n[Footnote 65: Wednesday, 10th December. This was the last lecture\nMr Bradlaugh ever delivered. The subject was \"The Evidence for the\nGospels,\" in criticism of Dr Watkin's Bampton lectures.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nOn the 10th January my father went out in the afternoon; it was densely\nfoggy and bitterly cold. When he returned a few hours later I ran down\nto him as usual, and was horrified to see his face--it was the same\nface that I had seen in the worst of his sickness of the previous\nwinter. This was the first attack of the spasms of the heart, although\nwe did not then know it; it was comparatively slight,[66] and after\na little my father seemed himself again. The improvement, however,\nwas more apparent than real; in less than a week from that day he\nwas compelled to keep his bed, and in less than a month he lay in his\ngrave. He died on the 30th January, firm in the convictions in which he\nhad lived, and was buried on the 3rd of February, next my sister in the\nBrookwood Necropolis. The funeral was a silent one, without speeches\nand without display,[67] but people attended it from all parts of\nEngland--one miner even came from Scotland. People of all sorts and all\nconditions travelled to this remote spot to show their respect for the\nman who had given his life in the service of his fellows.\n\n[Footnote 66: A person writing in the _Swansea Journal_ for 7th\nFebruary 1891 said that some time previously Mr Bradlaugh _had told\nhim_ of his sufferings from _angina pectoris_. This is utterly untrue;\nmy father never suffered from this complaint, nor until his fatal\nillness was he ever conscious that he had anything wrong with his\nheart. In a private letter to a friend written on the 14th--almost\nthe last written with his own hand--he says distinctly, \"I have never\nsuffered from heart or lungs before.\" The mania for invention is\nextraordinary.]\n\n[Footnote 67: This was exactly in accordance with Mr Bradlaugh's\nwishes. In a will dated 1884 he said: \"I direct that my body shall be\nburied as cheaply as possible, and that no speeches be permitted at my\nfuneral.\" His last will, which consisted of a few lines only, contained\nno directions on this matter.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nAt Mr Bradlaugh's death his assets were not nearly sufficient to\nmeet his liabilities, but amongst these liabilities there was not a\nsingle personal item; they were every one in connection with the Fleet\nStreet business. Most of the creditors cheerfully agreed to accept a\ncomposition of ten shillings in the pound; of this \u00a31700 was raised\nby public subscription, and the remainder was furnished by the sale\nof the library,[68] Indian presents,[69] and the lease of 63 Fleet\nStreet. It was a wonderful testimony to the regard in which my father\nwas held that people should join together to help in paying his debts\nafter his death. Four other memorials to him have been projected, of\nwhich three are now complete. The first to be finished was the monument\nat Brookwood. It consists of a bronze bust of Mr Bradlaugh, by Mr F.\nVerheyden, on a red granite pedestal. It was erected at a cost of\n\u00a3225; and the money was subscribed absolutely spontaneously, without\na single appeal or one word of request. Then came the statue of Mr\nBradlaugh erected by his constituents in Abington Square, Northampton,\nand unveiled on the 25th of June 1894, in the presence of the greatest\ncrowd ever assembled in that town. Lastly, there is the memorial which\nwas organised in the House of Commons, and energetically promoted by\nthe daughters of Richard Cobden, one of our country's noblest men. This\ntook the form of making some provision for myself, and to that end a\nhouse has been bought with the money subscribed.\n\n[Footnote 68: The library included some 7000 volumes, in addition to\nabout 3000 Blue Books, and a large number of unbound pamphlets. The\nbooks were sold by post from the catalogue, and went to all parts of\nthe world. They realised \u00a3550 after all expenses were paid, and about\n1000 volumes remained unsold.]\n\n[Footnote 69: Through the generosity of \"Edna Lyall,\" I was able to buy\nthese for myself.]\n\nThere is one other memorial which from its nature is not likely to be\ncompleted for some years. It is a project to build a hall, to be called\nthe \"Bradlaugh Memorial Hall,\" to be used for the purposes of promoting\nthe great causes with which Mr Bradlaugh was identified. It took close\nupon a hundred years to build a Memorial Hall to Thomas Paine; it\nremains to be seen how long it will take to erect one to the memory of\nCharles Bradlaugh.\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\nBY\n\nJOHN M. ROBERTSON.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nPHILOSOPHY AND SECULARIST PROPAGANDA.\n\n\nIt may here be well to give a general view of Bradlaugh's teaching on\nthe great open questions of opinion and action, taking separately the\nold provinces of religion and politics. When he came most prominently\nbefore his countrymen he had a very definite repute on both heads,\nhaving spoken on them in nearly every town of any size in the country;\nbut neither then nor later could it be said that anything like the\nmajority of the public had a just or accurate idea of his position. The\nobstacle was and is partly prejudice, partly incapacity.\n\n\n\u00a71\n\nTo begin with, even the distinct title of \"Atheist\" may mean any\nnumber of things for any number of persons. Ill-informed and even\nsome well-informed people commonly describe an Atheist as one who\nsays \"There is no God,\" and that \"Things happen by chance.\" To say to\nsuch persons--as has been said a thousand times--that for an Atheist\nboth phrases are meaningless, seems to give no help: we must begin at\nthe beginning, and show how the dispute arose. And it is useful to\nkeep in view that Bradlaugh's Atheism, in the evolution of English\nFreethought, is only a generation removed from the Deism of Thomas\nPaine, which is much the same as the Deism of Voltaire. Deism or\nTheism is to-day reckoned a quite \"religious\" frame of mind; but it\nwas the frame of mind of men who in their day were hated and vilified\nby Christians as much as Bradlaugh in his. Explicit Atheism is only\nin our own day become at all a common opinion. The men so described\nin former ages, so far as we know (if we set aside the remarkable\ndevelopments of the Italian Renaissance), have nearly always been\nDeists or Pantheists, of whom the latter of course tend logically to\ncoalesce with Atheism, but who have in their own names alike professed\nto repudiate Atheism. Thus Hobbes and Spinoza, who last century\nwere constantly called Atheists by Christians, always professed to\nhave a God-idea; and the Freethinkers who showed head in England in\nthe first half of the eighteenth century were all professing Deists.\nSystematic Atheism began to arise among the more penetrating or more\ntrained thinkers of the latter half of the century. Thus Hume, after\nprofessing Deism throughout his life, left for posthumous publication\nhis \"Dialogues concerning Natural Religion,\" which amount to the\nsurrender of all forms of Theism. Of Voltaire in his latter years,\nwhen he strongly attacked the Atheism of Holbach, it was said by the\nmore high-flying talkers of the Paris drawing-rooms: \"Why, he is a\nbigot; he is a Deist.\" But even Voltaire, as Mr Morley has shown, was\nsomewhat less of a Deist after the earthquake of Lisbon; and \"Candide\"\nis not a good Theistic tract.[70] Diderot, again, reached explicit\nAtheism; and his friend Holbach wrote, in the \"Syst\u00e8me de la Nature,\"\nthe first systematic and straightforward Atheistic treatise of modern\ntimes.[71] In England the movement was less rapid. Bolingbroke went\npretty far towards a Lucretian or Agnostic Theism; and the upper-class\nDeism which on his lines held out against the opportunist orthodoxy\nof Butler, necessarily tended to make its Deity a very remote and\ninaccessible Power. But Freethought, to get any hold on the general\nmind in the thickening populations of the latter half of last century\nand the first half of this, had to begin again, and more effectively,\non the lines of the first Deists. The incredibility of the sacred\nbooks had to be made clear before more abstract issues could be\nsettled. In this task Voltaire, the pupil of the English Deists, was\nthe great performer for all Europe. It was Paine however who first, in\nthe turmoil of the Revolution, brought home to thousands of English\nartizans and other plain men the incredibility of what had so long\npassed as divinely-revealed truth. He could do this the better because\nof the power and fame of his work in politics, and because of his\nconstant profession of a devout belief in a beneficent God, on whom\nhe declared the Bible narratives to be a libel. It probably needed\nthis element of popular religion to keep up any continuous current of\npopular Free-thinking in England throughout the great reaction which\nfollowed on the French Revolution. But the argument of Butler held good\nagainst Paine as against the earlier Deists. If the Bible stories were\nirreconcilable with the idea of a \"good,\" omnipotent God, equally so\nare the operations of Nature. And though there are many people who can\nbe led by that argument to believe or make-believe in the Bible (though\nit makes no more for the Bible than for the Koran), there were others\nwho felt bound to take the logical alternative, and decide that the\n\"good God\" of popular half-faith is a dream.\n\n[Footnote 70: This is all that can be pleaded in favour of the\ndeliberate representation of Voltaire as an Atheist by the late\nArchbishop Thomson, at the Church Congress of 1881. But the ignorance\nof the upper English clergy in general on such matters is amazing. In\nJanuary 1881, Archdeacon (then Canon) Farrar, preaching in Westminster\nAbbey, represented Robespierre's Reign of Terror as a \"reign of avowed\nAtheism;\" identified the Deistic cult of the \"Supreme Being\" with that\nof the \"goddess of Reason;\" and accounted for the fall of Robespierre\nby the statement that, \"God _awoke once more_, and with one thunderclap\nsmote the sanhedrim of the insurrection, prostrated the apostate race.\"\nThis orator once expressed horror at the thought that Disestablishment\nmight enable Bradlaugh to speak in St Paul's. Bradlaugh might have\nremarked on what the Establishment permitted at Westminster Abbey.]\n\n[Footnote 71: The English translation, in the original issue, is in\nparts completely perverted to the language of Theism, whether out\nof fear or of Deistic prejudice on the part of the translator. Even\nthe edition prefaced by Bradlaugh--who did not think of checking the\ntext--preserves the perversions of the first translator.]\n\nSuch progress is a question of time. Atheism in a psychological sense\nbegan with the beginning of physical science. Pure Theism, in its\nearly form of polytheism, saw in all natural movements and forces the\nexpression of a personal power or powers, analogous to man; and its\ngods were and are simply magnified projections of humanity. Thus the\nsun, moon, and planets, the winds, the thunder, the lightning, the\nrivers, the fountains, the seas, were all figured as ruled and moved\nby personal deities. As soon, however, as astronomy made certain\nthe perfectly regular movements of the sun and stars, Theism was to\nthat extent logically limited, and Atheism to that extent logically\npossible. Astronomy was strictly godless in so far as it showed the\nuniverse to move by undeviating law. Of course this perception is but\na small part of human consciousness and daily life; and the habit of\ntheising, so to speak, easily overrode the habit of atheising. But\nevery advance in exact knowledge of Nature, and in the capacity for\nexact thought, tended to encourage the atheistic view, and to discredit\nthe theistic. Hence the spread of Atheism and Agnosticism among the\nGreeks in their progressive and scientific period. It needed the\nconstant reform and modification of theistic doctrine, and later the\ncomplete arrest of all scientific thought, to keep the theistic view of\nthings in power and place. And there had to be a revival of science and\nexact thinking before there could again be talk of Atheism.\n\nIt follows, however, that all early Atheism, so-called, was only the\nrejection of theistic ideas from some part of the business of life.\nThe Christians were \"Atheists\" for the Pagan multitude, because they\nrejected the only God-ideas which the Pagan multitude harboured. In the\nsame way the Christians who later scouted the worship of images of God\n(as Persians and Jews had done long before) were Atheists for those\nChristians who could only conceive of an imaged God. Prejudice has its\nown logic. When again medical men rested more and more on inductive\nmethod and rational (even if mistaken) procedure, and less and less on\nsorcery and invocation, they were naturally called Atheists, because\nthey excluded \"God\" from an important and perilous province of action.\nLogically, the more a man is a Theist, the more of \"God's\" intervention\nhe sees in life. No man is a Theist in all things; but in the ages of\nignorance men were theistic in most matters. The kingdom of God, in\na practical sense, is a sphere in which man is confessedly ignorant\nor impotent. \"God's will\" is the name for the forces which man cannot\ncontrol, and does not understand. It covers a storm, a pestilence, a\ngood or bad harvest, a stroke of luck, but not an indigestion, or the\nbreaking of coal when struck by a hammer. Thus it is that every new\nadvance of science, every new explanation of a body of facts in terms\nof law and innate tendency, is at first denounced as Atheistic. After\nthe physicians came the physicists. The great Kepler, in keeping with\nhis idealistic method, was so steeped in Theism as to fancy that the\nplanets were kept up to time by guiding angels. Newton, however, was\nflatly accused of Atheism for explaining the universe in terms of\nthe law of gravitation. He had driven God out of the world, it was\nsaid; and so far as his physics went, it was true. Yet he himself\nwas an ardent Theist; and he even sought to make good his Theism by\nthe theory that \"matter\" was first without gravitation, and that God\nadded the attribute. With or without this safeguard, however, Newton's\ngeneralisation was sufficiently abstract to leave popular religion\nintact; and practical Theism even assimilated and gained by his\nscience. It was not till geologists began to explain the formation of\nthe earth in terms of law and tendency that the great shock came. God\nhad hitherto been generally conceived as shaping the earth, were it\nonly because there was no other explanation at hand; and, above all,\ngeology clashed with Genesis. Hence a much more serious resistance,\nand a much more general imputation of Atheism; though the first\ngeologists were mostly Deists, and believers in the special creation\nof animal life. The next and the most serious shock was that given by\nDarwinism, which removed \"the divine idea\" from biology. Over this came\nthe loudest outcry of all; and the odium would have been overwhelming\nwere it not for the number of naturalists who took up the new doctrine\nas a matter of special science. \"God\" is now for scientific people\npractically removed from the sphere of all the \"natural\" sciences; and\nthe results attained in this connection by educated people are slowly\nbeing attained by the ill-educated; the mass of the clergy having\ngradually assimilated the conclusions of biology as their predecessors\ndid those of geology and physics.\n\nThe inevitable next step is the reduction to scientific order of the\nlore of human affairs. This step was taken in a large part by Buckle,\nsomewhat out of the due order of time, just before Darwin issued the\n\"Origin of Species;\" and Buckle has had on the whole more of religious\nenmity than even Darwin, though, significantly enough, he expressly\ninsisted on Theism while Darwin kept it vaguely in the background.\nBuckle's Theism so plainly leaves his Deity nothing to do in human\naffairs that his belief, however fervid, could avail nothing to\npropitiate the class whose function is to explain history in terms of\ndivine interference. Buckle, a professed Theist, is for all practical\npurposes in the position of an Atheist, save in respect of his personal\nand emotional belief in a future state. A God who in no way comes in\ncontact with men, for good or for ill, is too thin a conception to\ncount for much.\n\nAtheism, then, is only a development of a process of thought that began\nages ago under Polytheism. It has been reached in the past by isolated\nthinkers; there seem to have been Atheists at the time of composition\nof parts of the Vedas; and each one of the great steps of scientific\ngeneralisation has been anticipated by men who were not able to bring\nthe idea home to their own age. It is the giving the step its name\nthat creates the greatest shock. And when a reformer does not even\nwait to have his position named for him, does not merely undermine\nTheism by a new scientific treatment of a province of fact, but goes\nto the logical root of the matter and declares that the latest Theism\nis at bottom no more true than the oldest, though stripped of certain\ncrudities--then it is that the maximum of odium is evoked. The Atheist,\nin reality, does but carry negation a step further than does the Theist\nhimself. As Bradlaugh used to point out, the modern Theist denies the\nexistence of any type of \"God\" save his own. Whatever he may see fit\nto argue about the folly of denying the possibilities of the unknown,\nhe is quite confident that there is in the universe no Being even\nremotely resembling the fabled Zeus, or Moloch, or Osiris, or Venus, or\nHuitzlipochtli. He is sure that these are only imaginary existences.\nSimilarly, he begins in these days to be sure that the conception of\nJahweh is as purely a dream as that of Bacchus--the mere projection of\nman's own image (however magnified or even idealised) on the background\nof nescience. Nay, the latter-day Theist begins to repudiate the\nconceptions of the \"Deists\" of last century: he will have no \"Great\nArtificer,\" no \"Overruling Providence.\" The latest treatises expressly\nreject the arguments of the earlier for proving the \"existence of God.\"\nThus the Theist himself \"denies the existence\" of a thousand Gods.[72]\nThe Atheist, as Mr Bradlaugh put it, merely denies a thousand and\none.[73] He argues that the most advanced Theism (as distinguished\nfrom mere Pantheism) is only a modified form of the oldest; merely a\ncivilised fancy instead of an uncivilised; it is always a male person\nin the image of man, with passions, emotions, limitations, qualities;\nloving, hating, planning, punishing, rewarding; always the \"magnified\nnon-natural man\" of the primeval worshipper: a conception flatly and\nabsurdly opposed to the first philosophic requirements of the very\ndoctrine which embodies it. The God of Theism must always be the\nanalogue of the Theist. Hume, passing out of Theism, concluded that the\n\"Power\" of the universe could only have a faint and remote analogy to\nhuman personality. Further reasoning forces the conclusion that it can\nhave no conceivable analogy.\n\n[Footnote 72: This fact is entirely ignored by Professor Flint in his\ndefence of the old plea of Foster and Chalmers against Mr Holyoake in\n\"Anti-Theistic Theories,\" App. ii.]\n\n[Footnote 73: John Mill, after stating that his father held that\n\"concerning the origin of things nothing whatever can be known,\"\nremarks that \"Dogmatic Atheism he looked upon as absurd; as most\nof those whom the world has considered Atheists have always done\"\n(\"Autobiography,\" p. 39). It is difficult to guess what is here meant\nby \"dogmatic Atheism;\" but certainly no statement made above is more\n\"dogmatic\" than the proposition cited from Mill, senior. It clearly\ninvolves rejection of all Theism.]\n\nThis very conclusion has actually been reached by many professed\nTheists and professed Christians. Professor Max M\u00fcller has collected\ninstances in his lectures on \"Anthropological Religion.\" But those\nthinkers, like Dr M\u00fcller himself, have always in practice relapsed\ninto the personal conception which they philosophically affect to\nrepudiate. As Dr M\u00fcller puts it, the abstract Theism which allows to\nDeity no human attributes whatever is too \"cold\" for popularity; and Dr\nM\u00fcller is not ashamed, after smoothing the way with a trivial fallacy,\nto recur to the doctrine and terminology of the multitude, giving the\nDeity male sex because \"we\" cannot think of \"Him\" otherwise than as\nmale. The Atheist simply stands honestly to the conclusions which such\nTheists have avowedly come to and then feebly let go.\n\nThis is so obvious to steady-minded people that in all philosophic ages\nthere have been some who, shunning the name rather than the reality of\nAtheism, have formulated the doctrine and name of Pantheism. Between\n_logical_ Pantheism and Atheism, however, it cannot be too strongly\naffirmed, there is no difference save in name. An Atheist believes\nin a \"going\" and infinite universe, the totality of which he cannot\npretend to understand; and which he flatly refuses to pretend to\nexplain by the primitive hypothesis of a personal \"Spirit.\" He calls\nthe universe \"infinite\" by way of avowing that he cannot conceive of\nits coming to an end, in extension or in duration. This recognition of\nendlessness represents for him the limit of thought: and he declines\nto proceed to give further attributes to that, the very naming of\nwhich leads him to the verge of the capacities of rational speech. He\ndeclines to give to the going universe the name of \"God,\" because that\nname has always been associated by nearly all men with the primitive\nconception of a Personal Being, and it is a mere verbal stratagem to\nmake it identical with Universe. So irresistible is the effect of the\nimmemorial association of the name that it serves to carry nearly every\nprofessing Pantheist back chronically into mere Theism and Deism, even\nif he so formulates his Pantheism to begin with as to make it answer\nto the name. A logically consistent Pantheist, using the name, would\nbe hard to find. Hence the necessity, on all grounds, of repudiating\nPantheism as distinctly as Theism. The only consistent course is to use\nthe privative \"_a_,\" and stand to the term which means \"without Theos,\nwithout God-idea.\"\n\n\n\u00a72.\n\nThis preamble, it is to be hoped, may make it easier to appreciate\nthe technicalities of Bradlaugh's doctrine. He was not the untrained\nAtheist of the theistic imagination, who may be confounded with a\nquotation from Kant by one of the personages of Mrs Ward's religious\nvaudevilles. He knew that Kant, reduced to plain language, gives the\nwhole answer to Kant. Beginning as a boy to defend his Theism in\ndebate, he saw it demolished by one of those born debaters who are\nfound every now and then among the working class, men far superior in\nnative power and intellectual sincerity to those cultured acceptors\nof other men obscurities who look down on them.[74] But he did\nnot trust to \"mother-wit,\" his own or another's. He read all the\nphilosophic literature he could lay hands on; in particular he became\na close student of Spinoza. A clergyman of my acquaintance maintains\nthat to the end he was a Spinozist. It would be less misleading to\nsay that he employed much of the method of Spinoza to establish the\nAtheism to which Spinoza's doctrine practically leads,[75] while\nalways scrupulously recognising that Spinoza formulated Pantheism and\nprofessed only to modify the God-idea. Here are Bradlaugh's own words:--\n\n[Footnote 74: One of the most capable metaphysicians I have personally\nknown was an inferior stone-mason.]\n\n[Footnote 75: It was not merely the orthodoxy of past ages that saw\nvirtual Atheism in the position of Spinoza. Jacobi expressly and\nconstantly maintained that Spinozism and Atheism came to the same\nthing. A God who is not outside the world, he argued, is as good as no\nGod. At the same time, he admitted that the understanding had no escape\nfrom the logical demonstration of the impossibility of a personal God;\nand that the Theist must throw himself \"overhead into the depths of\nfaith.\" See P\u00fcnjer's \"History of the Christian Philosophy of Religion,\"\nEng. tr., p. 632.]\n\n \"The logic of Spinoza was directed to the demonstration of one\n substance with infinite attributes, for which one substance with\n infinite attributes he had as equivalent the name of 'God.' Some who\n have since followed Spinoza, have agreed in his one substance, but\n have denied the possibility of infinite attributes. Attributes or\n qualities, they urge, are attributes of the finite or conditioned,\n and you cannot have attributes of substance except as attributes of\n its modes. You have in this distinction the division line between\n Spinozism and Atheism. Spinoza recognises infinite intelligence; but\n Atheism cannot conceive intelligence except in relation, as quality\n of the conditioned, and not as the essence of the absolute. Spinoza,\n however, denied the doctrine of freewill, as with him all phenomena\n are of God; so he rejects the ordinary notions of good and evil.\"[76]\n\n[Footnote 76: Pamphlet on \"Heresy: its Utility and Morality. A Plea and\na Justification,\" 3rd. ed. p. 35.]\n\nThe position here taken up is frequently met by an outcry against\nthe \"denial of intelligence\" to the highest power in the universe.\nThe protest is pure irrelevance. Atheism \"denies intelligence\" to an\ninfinite existence simply as it denies it whiskers and dyspepsia.\nThe point is that intelligence cannot be conceived save as a finite\nattribute; every process of intelligence implying limitation and\nignorance.[77] Infinitude must transcend the state of \"intelligence.\"\nThe \"intelligence\" of \"omniscience\" is a chim\u00e6ra. And when the Atheist\nis accused of making himself the highest thing in the universe, the\nplain answer is that it is precisely the Theist, and nobody else, who\ndoes so. That is to say, the Theist makes his own mind and personality\nthe type and analogue of an Infinite and Eternal Power. The Atheist\nadmits that he can form no conception whatever of Infinite and Eternal\nPower. The Theist rushes in where the Atheist declines to tread. And\nnothing is more remarkable in the modern history of religion than the\nretreat of all theistic argument to some form of the sub-rational\nposition so laboriously formulated by Kant--that the God-idea is\nestablished, not by any form of reasonable inference from knowledge,\nbut by the moral needs and constitution of human nature. That doctrine\nis not only the formal bankruptcy of all philosophy, logical and\npsychological, but is the stultification of every religious system\nwhich adopts it, inasmuch as it is equally valid for each against\nall the rest, besides being finally annihilated by the simple fact\nof persistent scientific Atheism, which proves that human nature\ndoes _not_ need the sustenance of a God-idea, whether in ethics, in\npolitics, or in natural science. The only resource of neo-Kantism\nagainst the Atheist is the _argumentum ad hominem_ of imputing to him\n\"atrophy\" of the \"spiritual\" sense; an argument which--not to employ\na simple _tu quoque_--may be sufficiently met either by the answer\nthat the \"spiritual sense\" which maintains Theism is merely the carnal\nand self-excited appetite for mental opium, and that the Hindu and\nthe devout Catholic have it in a much higher degree than the mere\nTheist; or by the reminder that even if there were special intellectual\ndefect behind Atheism, it is, on the Theistic hypothesis, a defect\nforeordained by Theos, and is as much part of human nature as the\ndocility of the Theist.\n\n[Footnote 77: It is unnecessary here to put the further argument that\nif we infer intelligence behind the universe by human analogy, we\nare bound in consistency to infer organism for the intelligence. Dr\nMartineau in his \"Modern Materialism,\" takes refuge from this argument\nin declamation, treating the demand for consistency as if it had been a\nsubstantive plea.]\n\nAll the psychological line of argument, as put by Kant and his\nadaptors, is fully and patiently met by Bradlaugh in his section of the\n\"Freethinker's Text-Book,\" which deals in turn with all the main pleas\nof orthodoxy. At the close of the examination of Kant he writes, with\ngreat caution and moderation:--\n\n \"We do not feel sure that we have either fairly stated Kant's position\n or efficiently replied to as much as we have stated. In condensing\n within the limits of this Text-Book the views of a writer so involved\n in his expressions as is Immanuel Kant, we may have failed both in\n exposition and answer, but have the consolation that we at any rate\n place before our readers the sources of completer knowledge.\"\n\nBut the modest deprecation was unnecessary, the main theses of Kant\nhaving really been sufficiently stated and met; and the Text-Book goes\non to cite and answer the arguments of an able neo-Kantian Theist, who\nhad confessedly found Kant unsatisfying, but who offered in his turn\nonly the vague emotional plea as against Kant's moral plea, backing\nit up with the old paralogism of the \"spiritual sense.\" That is the\nbest that modern Theism can say for itself; and the argument will\nnever convince anybody who had needed convincing.[78] It is further\nrepudiated by the orthodox Theism which claims to stand on revelation,\nand which in turn is dismissed as ill-founded by more philosophic\nTheism.\n\n[Footnote 78: See an examination of the positions of Knight, Davidson,\nand Kaftan, in the _Free Review_, August, 1894.]\n\nThe orthodox Theism is in this country represented by Professor\nFlint, who when challenged by Bradlaugh to defend his position\nphilosophically, took the line of answering that, \"for a person\npossessed of a typically English intellect, Mr Bradlaugh shows,\nin dealing with Theism, a curious predilection for metaphysical\nconundrums,\"[79] and proceeded to meet the said \"conundrums\" in the\nspirit of a joker dealing with a joke. The argument, \"Unless it be\nnonsense to affirm infinity and Mr Bradlaugh added to it, why should\nit be nonsense to affirm infinity and the universe added to it?\" is a\nsample of the reasoning with which Dr Flint satisfies the pious, in\nanswer to the Atheistic doctrine that human beings are only forms of\nthe infinite existence. Another of the Professor's expedients is to say\nthat God has reason but does not reason. \"No intelligent man thinks or\nspeaks of God as reasoning;\" which is a severe attack, from a Scotch\nProfessor of Divinity, on the author of Isaiah i. 18. But more than\npassing notice is here due to one of the Professor's remarks[80]:--\n\n \"There is an impression in some quarters that Atheism is advocated\n in a weak and unskilful manner by the chiefs of Secularism. It is an\n impression which I do not share. Most of the writers who are striving\n to diffuse Atheism in literary circles are not to be compared in\n intellectual strength with either Mr Holyoake or Mr Bradlaugh.\"\n\n[Footnote 79: \"Anti-Theistic Theories,\" 4th ed. p. 517.]\n\n[Footnote 80: _Id._, pp. 518, 519.]\n\nSuch a testimony, from such a source, counts for rather more than the\narguments emanating thence.\n\nAs to the assertion, again, that Atheists say \"there is no God\"--an\nassertion made with surprising frequency by professed Agnostics--it\nwas constantly met by Bradlaugh with the answer that the phrase has no\nmeaning.\n\n \"The initial difficulty is in defining the word 'God.' It is equally\n impossible to intelligently affirm or deny any proposition unless\n there is at least an understanding, on the part of the affirmer or\n denier, of the meaning of every word used in the proposition. To me\n the word 'God' standing alone is a word without meaning.\"[81]\n\n[Footnote 81: Pamphlet, \"Is there a God?\" p. 1.]\n\nIt would have been more exact to say that it has too many meanings to\nstand for any one in particular. Once defined, the alleged existence\ncan be rationally denied, as may the existence of a race of centaurs,\nhalf men half horses, or of dragons who breathe fire, or of a being\nanswering to the description of Neptune, driving a chariot on the sea,\nor of Apollo, driving the sun. All definitions of God which affirm\npersonality or human attributes are open to immediate stultification\nby argument. \"I have never yet heard,\" wrote Bradlaugh, \"a definition\nof God from any living man, nor have I read a definition by dead or\nliving man, that was not self-contradictory.... But the moment you tell\nme you mean the God of the Bible, or the God of the Koran, or the God\nof any particular Church, I am prepared to tell you that I deny that\nGod.\"[82] The person who says we have no right to deny the existence\nof his imagined God until we have been all through the universe, has\non his own showing no right to deny the existence of such Gods as\nare described in the stories of Saturn and Thor. The most paralytic\nAgnosticism, however, like the most devout Theism, seems content to be\nas sure that these are imaginary existences, as that Julius C\u00e6esar was\nnever in America.\n\n[Footnote 82: Second reply to Bishop Magee, p. 35.]\n\nThe relation of Atheism to Agnosticism is thus wholly misconceived by\nmost people who differentiate them. That is to say, the logical form\nof Agnosticism--by which is not meant the self-styled Agnosticism\nwhich resorts to the use of the name \"God\"--comes to the same thing as\nAtheism, since it argues that the current God-idea is a mere reflex\nof humanity, like those which preceded it. Bradlaugh sometimes grew\nimpatient (and small wonder) with people who wrote to him to point\nout that Atheism was wrong, and Agnosticism right. They never took\nthe trouble to try to understand what he meant by Atheism; and it\nmust with regret be said that more competent Agnostics often make\nthe same omission. The simple-minded Agnostic who candidly remarks,\n\"I do not say there is no God, but I haven't seen any evidence for\none,\" is kept in countenance by the more learned Agnosticism which\nexcludes from its learning the literature of modern Atheism. Bradlaugh\nhad seen the new name readily adopted by men who not only shunned the\nold but helped to heap on it an ignorant odium. He had seen Atheism\nstrangely misrepresented by Mr Spencer in \"First Principles;\"[83]\nhe pointed out that a mere avowal of ignorance is not worth making,\nand that Agnosticism is not a philosophy at all, unless it says, not\nmerely, \"I do not know of the thing you assert,\" but \"you do not know\neither\"--which are just the statements of Atheism. He might have\nadded that while \"Atheist,\" though a term much abused by Theists, is\na good word, and a real doctrine-name, \"Agnostic\" is a bad word, and\nin itself no doctrine-name at all, since it says \"Don't know,\" without\nhinting what it is that is not known. The present writer has heard a\nChristian Evidence lecturer, a Master of Arts, delight a Christian\naudience by saying that the nearest English equivalent to \"Agnostic\" is\n\"Ignoramus.\" His strategy was characteristic of his cause, but he was\ndialectically within his rights.\n\n[Footnote 83: Mr Spencer (p. 31) represents the \"Atheistic theory\" as\nprofessing to \"conceive\" an infinite and eternal universe, and thereby\nto \"explain\" it, when the very essence of Atheism is to insist (as does\nMr Spencer) that infinity is only the negation of conceptions, and that\nan infinite universe cannot be \"explained.\"]\n\nThe best argument for the use of the name Agnostic is simply that the\nword Atheist has been so long covered with all manner of ignorant\ncalumny that it is expedient to use a new term which, though in some\nrespects faulty, has a fair start, and will in time have a recognised\nmeaning. The case, so stated, is reasonable; but there is the _per\ncontra_ that, whatever the motive with which the name is used, it is\nnow tacked to half a dozen conflicting forms of doctrine, varying\nloosely between Theism and Pantheism. The name of Atheist escapes\nthat drawback. Its unpopularity has saved it from half-hearted and\nhalf-minded patronage.\n\n\n\u00a73.\n\nAnother obstinate misunderstanding arises over the word \"Materialism.\"\nBradlaugh did not willingly or often resort to that name. He seems\nto have preferred the more philosophic term \"Monist,\" or the useful\nword \"Naturist,\" which latter, however, he did not seek to force into\ncommon use.[84] But he was of course a \"Materialist\" in the sense\nin which alone the word is used by those who so name themselves--a\nsense sufficiently different from those put upon it by most of the\nwriters who assail them, rationalists and supernaturalists alike. The\nformer assailants, of course, do the more harm. Philosophy has in\nEngland suffered peculiarly from the tendency of professed thinkers\nto dissociate themselves anxiously from certain doctrine-names that\nare ill spoken of, and to join in the vulgar outcry against them,\nrather than try judicially to estimate their significance and value.\nOf such bourgeois prudence we have examples in some of our leading\nmodern philosophers. And there is the other trouble that some men with\ngreat powers of a certain sort lack the capacity to see or grasp all\nthe parts of a broad problem at once or in relation, and must needs\ncramply lift and handle only one at a time. Rationalists of this kind\ndo immense harm to the cause of rationalism, as pietists of the same\nstamp do to the cause of their creed, by elevating a small or verbal\ndifference into a sectarian issue, and representing other rationalists\nas opposed to them when there is no fundamental difference in the\ncase. When this want of sense of proportion in an able man goes with\nintellectual vacillation or discontinuity, it works the maximum of\nfrustration. We have a prominent instance in Professor Huxley, who\nhas given countenance to contradictory conclusions on half-a-dozen\nmain questions. He has gratuitously encouraged the enforced use of the\nBible in public schools, and he has wearied Freethinkers by tediously\nstrategic combats on worn-out topics with those who hold the very\nbeliefs that the Bible sets up in minds which reverence it. On the\nquestion of Materialism he has reinforced reaction by contemptuous\nlanguage towards men whose teaching is identical with his own so\nfar as that is sound; and on the other hand he has obstructed the\nspread of logical Materialism by stating crudely and without verbal\ncircumspection a strictly materialistic doctrine.[85] What is worse,\nhe has written on Materialism as did Lewes--without treating the term\nhistorically; and he has at times condemned Materialists in general\nwithout specifying any one man's teaching in detail. Another writer\nin the same category, of whom better things might be expected, is\nProfessor Karl Pearson. That gentleman, after the fashion of Professor\nHuxley, has at one time pooh-poohed the criticism of theology as an\nattack on a ruin, and at another has furiously cannonaded the bones\nof a dead theologian. And recently he has gone out of his way, in his\n\"Grammar of Science\" so-called, to asperse Materialism, while teaching\npractically nothing else of a positive nature. Mr Pearson's account\nof the Materialism of B\u00fcchner and Bradlaugh, superciliously given in\na footnote, is in the circumstances the worst misrepresentation of\nthe matter now before the public. He speaks of \"the Materialist\" and\n\"modern Materialists\" as substituting force for the will or spirit\nof the Spiritists as a \"cause\" of motion, and goes on to confuse the\nalready much-confused question of \"necessity\" by playing the bull in\nthat philosophic china-shop.\n\n[Footnote 84: \"Naturalist\" seems first to have been used in this sense\nby Holbach.]\n\n[Footnote 85: \"What we call the operations of the mind are functions of\nthe brain and the _materials of consciousness_ are products of cerebral\nactivity\" (\"Hume,\" p. 80). Mr Huxley goes on, \"It is hardly necessary\nto point out that the doctrine just laid down is what is commonly\ncalled Materialism.\"]\n\n \"The idea of enforcement,\" he writes, \"of some necessity in the order\n of a sequence, remains deeply rooted in men's minds, as a fossil from\n the spiritualistic explanation of will as the cause of motion. This\n idea is preserved in association with the scientific description\n of motion; and in the Materialist's notion of force as that which\n _necessitates_ certain changes or sequences of motion, we have the\n ghost of the old Spiritualism. The force of the Materialist is the\n will of the old Spiritualist separated from consciousness. Both carry\n us into the region beyond our sense-impressions; both are therefore\n _metaphysical_; but perhaps the inference of the old Spiritualist was,\n if illegitimate, less absurdly so than that of the modern Materialist,\n _for the Spiritualist did not infer will to exist beyond the sphere of\n consciousness with which he had always found will associated_.\"\n\nThis passage, fallacious from its first clause--being but an\nempirical attack on empiricism--becomes in the last, with its \"for,\"\na mere misstatement. The Spiritualist did most emphatically infer\nwill outside the sphere of consciousness with which he had always\nfound will associated, since he expressly assumed a consciousness\nwithout organisation--a thing he never met with. It is further quite\nunjustifiable to assert that \"modern Materialists\" carry outside the\nsphere of consciousness ideas either of \"will\" or of \"enforcement,\"\nwhich they have always found associated with consciousness. Professor\nPearson is confused by words, which are apt to be even for wise men at\ntimes what Hobbes said they were for fools. The task of philosophy is\na perpetual struggle with the mazes of language; and it is worse than\nidle to discuss such problems as Mr Pearson here gratuitously raises,\nwithout analysing the terms which commonly contain them. He uses the\nword \"necessitates\" as if there were no ambiguity or obscurity about\nits sense; just as he constantly speaks of our not knowing the \"why\"\nof things, without making a single philosophical attempt to analyse\nthe psychological force of that profoundly important syllable. What\ndo we mean by \"why,\" apart from matters of volition? It is the old\nstory of regarding the leaf as \"a flat green object which we know all\nabout already.\" Professor Pearson goes about to analyse the leaves of\nphysics, but too often takes for granted the leaves of language. He\nhas needlessly approached his task in such a fashion that it becomes\nmuch more a matter of psychology and logic than of physical science;\nyet his psychology is little better than a hand-to-mouth criticism,\nthe mere business psychology of a physicist. His distinction between\nphilosophical and physicist doctrine (pp. 93, 94), to the effect that\none appeals to temperament but the other not, is a sample of amateur\npsychology grievous to consider. And while discrediting certain\ndoctrines in physics, real or imaginary, on the bare ground that they\nare metaphysical, he yet rounds the whole of his own doctrine to an\nexpressly metaphysical account of the nature of scientific knowledge.\nThere is, of course, no real dividing-line between metaphysics and\nsense-knowledge; what the physicists rightly protest against is just\nbad metaphysic, spiritist metaphysic. But when a physicist himself\nplunges at every page of his book into more or less gratuitous\nmetaphysic, and yet assumes to dispose of other men's doctrine\n(falsified at that) by calling it metaphysical, he goes beyond fallacy\ninto what has been considerately described, in a factious politician,\nas \"moral paradox.\"\n\nAs to the charge against the Materialists--whom Mr Pearson in another\npassage typifies by B\u00fcchner and Bradlaugh--it is practically untrue\non one head, that of force being the \"cause\" of motion; and quite\ninconclusive on another, that of \"enforcement\" and \"necessity.\" Mr\nPearson is uncandid enough to cite no passage on either head, and I\nknow not whether the latter is not as inaccurate as the other. Even\nif, however, a Materialist should talk of motion as a \"necessity\" of\nmatter, it would amount to nothing to impugn him without showing what\nhe conceives \"necessity\" to be. The word is a plexus of connotations;\nand to identify it out-of-hand with the conceptions of spiritists is\na course more worthy of a theologian than of a man of science. Mr\nPearson's way of talking of \"enforcement,\" as if the word conveyed any\nfixed scientific sense whatever, is a commission of the very offence\nhe unjustly charges on the school of B\u00fcchner. But as to the statement\nthat B\u00fcchner and Bradlaugh are wont to speak of force as the \"cause\"\nof motion, it is really not true. B\u00fcchner in his typical work, \"Force\nand Matter,\" does in one passage write somewhat unguardedly of the\n\"force inherent in matter\"--_i.e._ in the \"something\" empirically\nknown \"which we call matter\"--as being the cause (_Ursache_) of the\nactivities which are the phenomena of the said matter;[86] but this\nmomentary verbal laxity is not at all the burden of his treatise. It\nis in any case much more pardonable than the gross contradictions\nwhich Mr Pearson quotes from the writings of Professors Thomson and\nTait, collaborators in special physics; it is paralleled by phrases\nwhich he cites from Huxley, N\u00e4geli, Spencer, and Weismann; and it is\nmuch less serious than the inconsistencies and fallacies into which Mr\nPearson himself repeatedly falls. Even while repudiating the notion\nabove cited as to \"cause\" (which he does without reference to the\nwell-known discussions, from Hume onward, as to the force of the term),\nhe writes (p. 352): \"... We still shall not find in 'force,' _as_\neither the cause of motion, or the cause of change in motion, _anything\nmore_ than that routine of perceptions which ... is the scientific\ndefinition of causation.\" With this account of causation B\u00fcchner and\nBradlaugh, and everybody else who has appreciated the effect of Hume's\nreasoning, would agree, save in so far as the phrasing falls into the\nvery crudities of expression which mar Hume's pioneer argument. Mr\nPearson writes that we \"sadly need separate terms for the routine of\nsense-impressions,\" yet he never hesitates either to use a general term\nloosely or to disparage an unpopular man for doing the same thing. He\nsays of material particles (p. 327): \"All we can scientifically say\nis, that the _cause_ of their motion is their relative position; but\nthis is no explanation of why they move in that position.\" This use\nof \"cause\" is really looser than B\u00fcchner's, and is not \"scientific\"\nat all. The use of \"why\"--as if we had a clear conception of physical\n\"why\" as distinct from that of \"cause\"--is mere verbal bungling.\n\n[Footnote 86: Section on \"The Value of Matter\" (_Werth des Stoffs_),\nEng. tr., p. 68.]\n\nAgain, in finally formulating the first general law of motion, Mr\nPearson writes (p. 342): \"Every corpuscle, whether of ether or gross\n'matter,' _influences the motion_ of the adjacent ether corpuscles.\"\nHere the word \"influences\" raises (as he elsewhere admits by\nimplication) the same problem as the word \"causes,\" so that his own\nmost deliberate phraseology incurs the objection he makes to another\nman's incidental expression.\n\nAs to essentials, Mr Pearson says what B\u00fcchner does. He ostensibly\nregards matter as \"_that which moves_,\" confusing the definition,\nhowever, by saying that we can conceive \"forms of motion\" as _also_\nmoving. This is really going far to set up a dualistic notion analogous\nto that which he imputes to Materialists; and he will probably see on\nreflection that his idea needs careful re-statement. The essential\nthing is that the scientific conception of matter excludes the idea\nof a primary dissociation between force (or life) and matter, and\ntheir union at a point of time by a \"spiritual\" Creator's volition.\nThe old dualistic doctrine of _inertia_, which is so re-stated by Mr\nPearson (p. 344) as to entirely alter its meaning, is still commonly\ncited as establishing the dualistic or spiritualistic position. The\ndualistic doctrine as to matter is put and maintained by the Rev. Mr\nWesterby in his debate with Bradlaugh (p. 27) thus: \"_Force is always\nexternal to the matter that is moved._\" The effect of Mr Pearson's\naccount of Materialism is to assert that that is virtually the teaching\nof Materialists so-called. But it certainly is not. The slipperiness\nand elasticity of language are such that a single word may set up\na fallacious implication; and the word \"cause\" is as slippery and\nelastic as any. But the obvious and avowed purpose of B\u00fcchner's book\nis to repudiate and overthrow the dualistic notion of the universe. He\nexpressly and repeatedly affirms that matter and motion, matter and\nforce, are inseparable in thought. \"The conception of dead matter,\"\nhe writes, \"is a mere abstraction.\" \"The investigation of motion\nis the peculiar task of modern science, and her province embraces\neverything that can be traced back to motion. Matter in motion or\ncapable of motion is or must be her first and last word.\"[87] Further,\nB\u00fcchner neither prefers to call himself a Materialist nor represents\nscience as propagandist. \"Science,\" he writes, \"is not idealistic, nor\nspiritualistic, nor materialistic, but simply natural.\"[88] As to the\nterm \"Materialist,\" he remarks that \"since the first publication of\nthis book, the term has become to some extent current, and at every\nfitting and unfitting opportunity the designation has been dragged in\nneck and heels, _unsuited though it is to the defenders of a philosophy\nwhich regards matter, force, and mind, not as separate entities, but\nonly as different sides or various phenomenal modes of the same primal\nor basic principle_.\"[89] Similarly Bradlaugh invariably spoke of \"one\nexistence, of which all phenomena are modes,\" expressly declaring that\nwe can only know phenomena; which was his way of saying that we can\nnever \"know why\" in the sense in which theologians claim to do so. At\nno time did he speak of \"force\" as a separate entity \"causing motion.\"\n\n[Footnote 87: Section on \"Motion,\" _end_.]\n\n[Footnote 88: Section on the \"Value of Matter\" (_Werth des Stoffs_),\n_end_.]\n\n[Footnote 89: Section on the \"Value of Matter\" (_Werth des Stoffs_),\n_end_.]\n\nAfter speaking of Materialists as habitually calling force the \"cause\nof motion,\" Mr Pearson loosely represents B\u00fcchner and the followers\nof Bradlaugh as finding \"mechanical _laws_ inherent in the things\nthemselves;\" and he declares that this materialism \"collapses under\nthe slightest pressure of logical criticism.\" He has in reality passed\nupon it no logical criticism whatever, his frequent lack of lucidity\nbecoming at this place sheer darkness. What he has said on the point\nhas been wholly metaphysical; but his metaphysic, ill done as it is,\nperfectly justifies the doctrine he finally and irrelevantly contemns.\n\"In the necessarily limited verifiable correspondence of our perceptual\nexperience with our conceptual model,\" he writes (p. 353), \"lies the\nbasis of our mechanical description of the universe.\" \"A shorthand\n_r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of our conceptual experience\" is repeatedly specified by him\nas the gist or purpose of science; but when he wants to discredit\nanybody else's doctrine, it suffices him to call it just such a\nshorthand _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ or dismiss it as metaphysical. And the arbitrariness\nof his verdicts becomes apparent once for all when he writes: \"It is\nperhaps needless to add that the gifted lady who speaks of secularists\nas holding the 'creed of Clifford and Charles Bradlaugh' has failed to\nsee the irreconcilable divergence between the inventor of 'mind-stuff'\nand the follower of B\u00fcchner.\" That is to say, Mr Pearson applauds or\ndistinguishes Clifford for perhaps the loosest formula ever put forward\nin the name of Materialism, but still a formula not contradictory\nof B\u00fcchner's and Bradlaugh's monism, while disparaging B\u00fcchner and\nBradlaugh for their Materialism. It will be clear to a logical reader\nthat the conception of \"mind-stuff\" (\"shorthand\" with a vengeance!)\nis only a random materialistic suggestion--not an infrequent thing\nwith Clifford--but still a suggestion quite reconcilable with\nmaterialistic monism. B\u00fcchner writes that \"all yet future forms,\nincluding reasoning beings, potentially or in capacity, must have been\ncontained in that primal world-mist out of which our solar system was\ngradually evolved.\"[90] Bradlaugh always defined his \"one existence\" as\nincluding \"all that is necessary for the happening of all phenomena.\"\nMr Huxley--whom Mr Pearson does not asperse as a \"Materialist\"--has\nexpressed himself in terms almost identical with B\u00fcchner's.[91] To\nspeak of \"mind-stuff\" as being part of the \"primal world-mist\" is\nmerely to suggest a hopeless \"conceptual mode\" of thought over and\nabove the most exact \"shorthand\" to which words can well reduce the\ninferences of science as to cosmic history. That Clifford would have\napproved of either the tone or the judgment of his successor in the\nmatter one may take leave to doubt. His \"temperament\" was different\nfrom that of Mr Pearson, who supplies in his own person the disproof of\nhis own primitive doctrine that scientific opinions have nothing to do\nwith temperament.\n\n[Footnote 90: Section on the \"Value of Matter\" (_Werth des Stoffs_),\n_end_.]\n\n[Footnote 91: See his \"Critiques and Addresses,\" p. 306.]\n\nThe unpleasing fact is that personal interest and prejudice have\nbeen the main factors in establishing the ill-repute of the term\n\"Materialist.\" It arose very much as the term \"Freethinker\" arose,\nby way of broadly marking off a new tendency in active thought. The\nFreethinkers, so-called, simply claimed to follow their reason freely,\nwhere religious people were tied down to their traditional creed. The\nMaterialists simply emphasized the new and spreading conception--at\nonce Pantheistic and Atheistic--that the laws of things were to be\nlooked for in the constitution of things, and not in any \"spiritual\"\nvolition of a superior being or beings. They opposed the notion of\na primal distinction between matter and the energies and activities\nthereof. Spiritism was for them the sum-total of all the guesses\nand hallucinations of ignorance; and their contrasted Materialism\nwas imputed to them as a vileness by the types of mind which found\nelevation in the doctrine of blood sacrifice and ritual theophagy.\nScientific disinterestedness was bracketed with grossness of life,\nand this often by pietists as gross in life as in thought. Every\nSpiritist who went a certain way in Materialism was libelled in turn;\nbut the semi-Materialist could always indemnify himself by libelling\nthose who went further.[92] Newton's theistic theory of matter is as\nabsurd a one as any man of science ever framed; but he has earned by\nit the tenderness of later theists, while his fame secures the lenity\nof later physicists. Thus some guarded rationalists who pounce like\nweasels on every slip, real or fancied, of professed Freethinkers,\nhoney their voices to speak of halfway thinkers whose slips are gross,\nopen, palpable. They have their social reward. Bradlaugh and B\u00fcchner\nhave taken a different course. Finding the term \"Materialism\" in itself\nunphilosophic, they have still looked to the essential point of its\nbroad historic significance. It marks on the side of physical science,\nfrom La Mettrie onwards, the repudiation of theological methods; and\nthough they would not have coined the name for themselves, they have\nnot repudiated it, but have instead sought to free the doctrine behind\nit from the laxities and crudities which belong to all new departures\nof thought, and which abound in the writings alike of Idealists and\nof some critical pragmatists in a greater degree than in those of the\npioneers they attack. B\u00fcchner and Bradlaugh knew that by accepting an\nunpopular name they incurred the hostility alike of blockheads, of\nzealots, and of the scientists who look anxiously to their status;\nbut they took their risks. Bradlaugh had constantly to explain that\nby \"matter\"--if he used the term at all, which he preferred not to\ndo--he meant simply total existence: all that is necessary for the\nhappening of all phenomena. Yet men still speak of him as saying that\n\"dead matter\" gives rise to life and mind. It will become clear to a\nthoughtful reader, after a little reflection, that under Bradlaugh's\ndefinition there is no assertion of the cosmic priority of any one\nmode of existence. He merely insisted that there should be an end\nof the fantasy of \"mind\" or \"spirit\" or \"will\", calling a tangible\nuniverse into existence--a fantasy into which anti-Materialists are\nalways relapsing. Philosophically speaking, out-and-out Spiritism[93]\nand strict Materialism come to exactly the same thing, since each\npredicates a going, infinite universe, with one pervading infinite\nenergy; an energy which one side chooses to call by the primitive\nname of spirit. As B\u00fcchner writes: \"The whole struggle yet proceeding\nbetween Materialism and Spiritualism, still more that between\nMaterialism and Idealism, must appear futile and groundless to him\nwho has once attained to the knowledge of the untenability of the\n_dualistic_ theory which always underlies it.\" In the same way, as we\nhave seen, strict Pantheism--which is the inevitable end of rational\nTheism--comes logically to the same thing as strict Atheism, the only\ndifference being the verbal one set up by the Pantheist's adherence to\nthe primitive name of Theos.\n\n[Footnote 92: A refinement on the old simplicity is reached when we\nfind Mr Huxley sneering at Materialists whose teaching is really\nmore circumspect than his own, and Mr Harrison in turn execrating in\nthe name of \"religion\" the medical materialism of Mr Huxley, where\nthe latter is simply putting forward as an original speculation a\nwell-established pathological fact.]\n\n[Footnote 93: This is, of course, a widely different doctrine from what\nis commonly known as Spiritualism: the belief in the perpetuity of\nhuman personalities, in a bodily form, without other bodily qualities.]\n\nIn this connection it is difficult to deal with the position taken\nup by Mrs Besant, the valued friend of Bradlaugh and of the present\nwriter. Mrs Besant has greatly perplexed her old friends by professing\nto repudiate the Materialism she formerly taught, on the score that\nit gives \"dead matter\" as the source of life and mind. They can\nonly conclude that she has undergone a psychological change which\naffects her knowledge of her former positions. We have seen that\nBradlaugh's and B\u00fcchner's teaching was fundamentally different from\nwhat she represents materialism to be; and there is no other school\nof Materialism in question. The strange thing is that Mrs Besant\nherself translated from the German, carefully and well, B\u00fcchner's\n\"Force and Matter\" (as also his \"Mind in Animals\"), in which the\ndoctrine is flatly contrary to her present account of it. B\u00fcchner even\nuses unguarded language--as it is very difficult to avoid doing--in\ninsisting on the perpetual activity of matter. \"Matter,\" he writes, \"is\nnot dead, inanimate, or lifeless, but is in motion everywhere, and is\nfull of most active life.\" Bradlaugh more warily pointed to the danger\nof giving ambiguity to the term \"life,\" which is properly the name\nfor the broad classes of the phenomena of plants and animals. But he\nnever taught or fancied that certain of the mere forms of existence in\nthemselves originated other forms of existence. By \"matter\" he did not\nmean to specialise rocks any more than protoplasm or ether.\n\nA more defensible argument has been used by Mrs Besant and others\nagainst Materialism: the argument, namely, that it is impossible\nto think of a transition from physical action to the phenomenon of\nthought. A number of physicists--among them Tyndall--can be quoted\nas declaring that there is a \"great gulf fixed\" between molecular\nmotion and the state of consciousness. Tyndall once laid it down\nthat the demand for \"logical continuity between molecular forces and\nthe phenomena of consciousness\" is \"a rock on which Materialism must\ninevitably split whenever it pretends to be a complete philosophy\nof the human mind.\" But this loud-sounding affirmation on analysis\nresolves itself into the popular rhetoric to which Tyndall was too\nmuch given. What is meant by a \"complete philosophy of the human\nmind\"? If Materialism asserts that certain constant correlations\nremain nevertheless \"mysterious,\" it does not thereby cease to be\na complete philosophy of the human mind. The statement that our\nwhole knowledge of causation is just a knowledge of correlation is\n_part_ of the complete philosophy of the human mind--that is, of the\nsystematic and exact statement of our tested knowledge. To say that\nhuman faculty is strictly limited is not an avowal of incompleteness\nin the philosophy which says it. And as a matter of fact, the\nstatement as to the \"discontinuity\" between \"molecular forces\" and\nthe \"phenomena of consciousness\" is a statement which, so far as\nit has any meaning, stands to be made of all other correlations of\nphenomena. When I strike a match on the box, I evoke the phenomena of\nlight and heat. In scientific terms, I set up by friction a chemical\naction quite \"discontinuous\" with motion in mass, and this in turn\nsets up a wave-motion in the hypothetical ether (of which I can form\nno conception) representing light. Materialism no more \"splits\" on the\none \"rock\" than on the other.[94] The one special difficulty as to\nconsciousness is a difficulty that affects all philosophies alike: the\ndifficulty that it is consciousness that must analyse consciousness.\nNeither by predicating \"mind-stuff\" nor by alleging \"soul\" is that\ndifficulty evaded. There still remains the admitted correlation\nbetween brain-and-nerve action and thought; and that correlation is on\nall-fours with those of physics so-called. As the case is put by Dr\nJohn Drysdale (after reasonings to an apparently different effect),\n\"It may be held proved in physiology that for every feeling, every\nthought, every volition, a correlative change takes place in the nerve\nmatter;\" and it is scientific to say with him that the phenomena of\nmind as a function \"require no further explanation\" than the conditions\nof those changes. When Dr Ferrier writes that \"no purely physiological\nexplanation can _explain_ the phenomena of consciousness,\" unless\nhe simply means that there a psychological or logical element (not\nSpiritism) must enter into the explanation, he is merely stumbling\nin the old way over the word \"explain.\" What is \"explanation\"? As\nProfessor Pearson laboriously shows, and as Hume showed long ago,\nall that takes place in our explanations of physical phenomena is\nrecognition of a routine of sense experience. The theological habit\nhas given men a pseudo-conception of \"explanation;\" and though they\nhave learned to dispense with that process in physics, they still\nconfusedly demand it in biology and psychology. But the very men who\nat one time talk of \"mystery\" and \"gulf\" between matter and mind, at\nother times recognise that the mystery is no more and no less in one\ncorrelation than in another. Thus Tyndall, who elsewhere verbalises\nagainst \"Materialism,\" after describing the development of the human\norganism from the egg, writes: \"Matter I define as that mysterious\nthing by which all that is accomplished.\" Well, that is \"modern\nMaterialism\" or nothing; the Materialism of B\u00fcchner and of Bradlaugh.\nThe mere doctrinal or pragmatic expressions of single physicists\ncount for nothing. As Bradlaugh put it in his debate with the Rev. Mr\nWesterby, it is the cases of Ferrier that count, not his opinions. The\nbest observer is not the best formulator or thinker; and the art or\nscience of logical speech is not gratuitously thrown in with either\nmathematical or artistic faculty. To turn the data of science into\nphilosophy is a specialist's work.\n\n[Footnote 94: Tyndall answered to this argument that the flash of light\nfrom the union of oxygen and hydrogen \"is an affair of consciousness,\nthe objective counterpart of which is a vibration. It is a flash only\nby our interpretation.\" But that is no answer at all. Tyndall never\nwent into the psychological problem fully.]\n\nAny one who desires to obtain in a short time by dint of close\nattention a notion of the difficulty and complexity of the argument as\nbetween monism and dualism cannot do better than read the report of\nthe debate between Bradlaugh and the Rev. Mr Westerby on the notion\nof Soul. Mr Westerby, though he wrote some of his papers in advance\ninstead of meeting his opponent's case, was decidedly the ablest of\nthe clerics with whom Bradlaugh debated; and in his hands the orthodox\ncause suffered as little as might be. The reader may or may not in the\nend decide to stand with Bradlaugh, but he will certainly have learned\nto see the folly of the cheap journalistic dismissal of an undefined\n\"Materialism\" as \"exploded,\" and the error of the notion that Bradlaugh\nwas unqualified to handle philosophic and scientific issues, or that he\nwas a mere public speaker, unskilled in dialectic.\n\nFinally, as to the meaningless expression that \"things happen by\nchance,\" he of course never used it. Of any person who puts this phrase\nin the mouths of Atheists, it may be said at once that he is unfit\nto discuss a philosophical question. He either does not understand\nwhat he discusses, or is wilfully untruthful. The phrase \"happens by\nchance\"--as was long ago recognised by Hume, after he had himself\nfallen into the ordinary meaningless use of the term--only means either\n\"happens without our intending it,\" or \"happens without our being able\nto trace the cause.\" It is significant only for everyday purposes, and\nin philosophy can only serve to set up a chimera. All events must be\nconceived as having a \"cause,\" in the ordinary sense of the term. The\nAtheist certainly avows that he can only trace causation a small way\nin the universe; but he does not for a moment suppose that he would be\ngiving an explanation of any event if he referred it to \"Chance.\" His\ndoctrine is that the universe and its total energy must be conceived\nas infinite and eternal; that in physics the question \"Why?\" resolves\nitself into the question \"How?\" and that the business of science is\njust to give the answer as fully as may be.\n\n\n\u00a74.\n\nWhile Bradlaugh was thus an exact thinker and reasoner, he\ndistinguished himself above all the rationalists of his time by the\nenergy and persistence with which he sought to bring his philosophy\nhome to the popular mind. He was fundamentally a reformer, and he\ncould not consent, as so many do, to keep silence on errors of creed,\nso called, and resist merely errors of action. For him, creed was\naction, and action creed. He was so thoroughly a man of action that he\nmust needs act on his conviction in matters of opinion, so called, as\nin anything else.\n\nIt was no doubt the record and the result of the French Revolution\nthat moved the majority of political reformers for two generations to\nkeep their own counsel on religious matters. Paine has been expressly\ncharged with hindering the cause of democratic politics by identifying\nhimself also with the cause of Freethinking. To a man like Bradlaugh\nsuch an objection counted for nothing. It was not merely that he saw\nhow profoundly religion reacts on life, how creed shapes conduct, and\nhow the current religion must always tend to support old political\ndoctrine as against new. He took his course instinctively as well\nas reasoningly. That a doctrine is false was to him a reason for\nexposing it as such; and though as a utilitarian he held that truth\nis the best policy, he did not wait for the demonstration before\nchoosing his course. He had in fact that love of truth for its own\nsake which is the inspiration of all scientific progress; but he had\nit without restriction, or at least with as little restriction as\ncan well be. No man can be equally interested in all inquiries; and\nnone can help thinking some unprofitable; but Bradlaugh was limited\nonly by his tastes, never by the common opinion that the spread of\ntruth is inexpedient. He would give facilities for all conscientious\ntruth-seeking whatever, barring only random disclosures of sensational\nfacts with no better motive than sensation, or with no likelihood of\nedification to balance the likelihood of the reverse. As to the great\nthemes of belief and discussion in all ages, he simply could not think\nthat human welfare is promoted by maintaining beliefs known to be\nfalse. He was a democrat in religion as in politics. If truth was good\nfor him, it must be equally good for the multitude, so far as it was\npossible to enlighten them. They must needs be enlightened by language\nwithin reach of their capacity; but while he would make matters plain\nfor them, he would in no wise consent to garble and conceal what he\nheld to be the truth. With the many people who either care nothing\nwhether current beliefs are false or true, or think it desirable that\nthey should be false, he had no sympathy. It seemed to him that if\nanything was worth investigating, the most serious beliefs of the mass\nof the human race must be; and the idea that the mass could be helped\nor raised by keeping them deluded was to him morally repugnant and\nsociologically false. \"My object,\" he writes in his pamphlet on Heresy,\n\"is to show that the civilisation of the mass is in proportion to the\nspread of heresy amongst them; that its effect is seen in an exhibition\nof manly dignity and self-reliant effort which is utterly unattainable\namongst a superstitious people.\" And all acts of prayer and religious\npropitiation were to him survivals of superstition.\n\n \"My plea is,\" he went on, \"that modern heresy, from Spinoza to\n Mill, has given brain-strength and dignity to every one it has\n permeated--that the popular propagandists of this heresy, from\n Bruno to Carlile, have been the true redeemers and saviours, the\n true educators of the people. The redemption is yet only at its\n commencement, the education only lately begun, but the change is\n traceable already; as witness the power to speak and write, and the\n ability to listen and read, which have grown amongst the masses during\n the last hundred years.\"\n\nAgainst the popular thesis that \"Christianity\" has achieved these\nthings, he brought to bear in debate and journalism not only his\nknowledge of Christian and Church history in general, but his constant\nexperience of the influence of orthodoxy in checking betterment in\nEngland. The State Church has been an invaluable object-lesson for\nFreethinkers. As regards the claim for Christian Nonconformity, the\nanswer might run: If a mainly ecclesiastical or sectarian Dissent\nhas had so much good political result, what political, social, and\nintellectual results might not come of a thoroughgoing rationalist\nDissent? It would take too long to set forth even the gist of\nBradlaugh's polemic against the Christian claim that the Christian\ncreed has been a force for progress; but those who care to know his\nmethod and his case may find it tersely set forth in the latter\nsections of his \"Notes on Christian Evidences\" in criticism of \"The\nOxford House Papers,\" his pamphlet on \"Humanity's Gain from Unbelief,\"\nand his debate with the Rev. Marsden Gibson on that thesis. These are\nlate statements of the case he put forward during the whole of his\npublic life; and it was on the strength of such arguments, and of his\ntheoretic Atheism, that he was able to create in England an energetic\nand intelligent party, the active adherents of which were and are\nmostly working-men.\n\n\"Secularism\" is the not inappropriate name, for general purposes,\nof the general doctrine of Bradlaugh and his adherents. That name,\nhowever, is attended by the drawback that the man who first employed\nit, Mr George Jacob Holyoake, is wont so to define it as to deprive\nit of specific meaning for the propagandists of Freethought, while\nshowing no reason why it should be adopted by anybody else. Mr\nHolyoake--himself an Atheist--argues, in effect, that Secularism\nproperly consists in simply attending to secular things; and that it\nis not committed to any hostile attitude towards theology. On that\nview, every political club is a secular organisation and an exponent\nof Secular_ism_. Bradlaugh always argued, and nearly all Secularists\nhave always held with him, that this use of the term reduces it to\nnullity, since it makes every Christian a Secularist in so far as\nhe attends to secular affairs on \"business principles.\" There is,\nof course, an important truth implied in this way of speaking; but\nit is a truth irrelevant to the issue. If we are merely to discuss\nsecular things, there is no need for any \"Secular_ist_\" organisation.\nSecularists commonly act freely--or as freely as they are allowed\nto--with their religious neighbours in political and other public\nmatters. But if a distinct doctrine of the uselessness of \"sacred\"\nmachinery and theory is to be maintained; if it is to be shown that\nsecular action is properly co-extensive with human affairs, then these\nviews must be upheld by showing that all theology is delusive. A man\nwho believes in the existence of a personal and governing God, broadly\nspeaking, cannot be induced to keep theological procedure out of his\nlife. There may be many Indifferentists who act as Secularists without\ncaring at all to discuss the religious question; and there may even\nbe a few of the \"Lucretian Theists\" assumed by Mr Holyoake; but none\nof the Indifferentists and not many of the Lucretian Theists will be\ninduced to join in a Secularist propaganda, even on Mr Holyoake's\nlines. Bradlaugh fully recognised that the formulated principles\nof Secularism do not directly commit the subscriber to Atheism. \"I\nthink,\" he avowed, \"that the consequence of Secularism is Atheism, and\nI have always said so\"; but he added that \"clearly all Secularists\nare not Atheists.\"[95] The tendency has inevitably been, however,\nto identify Secularism with Atheism. And as Mr Holyoake has himself\nall along lectured on anti-theological lines, his definition has\ncommonly seemed to Secularists to be wholly in the air, though his\npersonal merits and practical services to Freethought are felt to\noutweigh minor infirmities of reasoning and judgment. Whether the\nname, thus capriciously defined by its framer, will continue to be\nemployed by those who repudiate that definition, remains to be seen.\nIt is not unlikely that new Freethought organisations, finding the\nword \"Secularism\" defined in cyclop\u00e6dias on the authority and in the\nlanguage of Mr Holyoake, will seek some other label. But the label in\nitself was a good one; and the propaganda of Bradlaugh recommended it\nto many thousands of his countrymen.\n\n[Footnote 95: Debate with Dr M'Cann, p. 17.]\n\nThat his open adherents were chiefly working-men, was a result of\nthe economic situation, which determines so many of the phases of\nculture-history. It is notorious that among the upper and middle\nclasses there is a great amount of disbelief in the current religion;\nbut among the upper and middle classes there is almost no organised\neffort to discredit the creed of the Churches. The small societies\nwhich muster under the banner of \"Ethical Culture,\" little as they are\ngiven to speaking out on matters of creed, receive little support.\nIt is often said, with idle malice, that Bradlaugh's adherents were\nmostly working-men because he was not qualified to appeal to educated\npeople; but even if that were true, it would not explain how it\ncomes about that other and better-educated rationalists have not\nset up an organisation of middle-class and upper-class people. The\nexplanation is mainly economic. As a matter of fact, Bradlaugh had\nhundreds of \"educated\" admirers among the middle and even some among\nthe upper classes; and in France and elsewhere he was popular among\nthe \"classes,\" as at home among the masses. But the open avowal of\n\"unbelief\" in Great Britain has always meant, and will long mean, for\none thing, a certainty of pecuniary loss, and a certain measure of\nostracism to professional men and men of business. Let a merchant,\nor doctor, or shopkeeper, declare himself an active Atheist, and he\nwill find it appreciably harder to get customers or clients. A man of\nestablished position and personal popularity may fairly hold his own\nwhile avowing scepticism in general intercourse; but even he will incur\ncalumny and loss if he takes trouble to spread his opinions. Men in\na small way of business are almost sure to suffer heavily; and it is\nstill no uncommon thing for clerks and others to lose their situations\non the simple ground of so-called \"infidelity.\" In the more bigoted\ndistricts the risk is overwhelming. A shopkeeper in Belfast told the\npresent writer that when he joined the Secularists there, his business,\nformerly brisk, fell off so rapidly and so ruinously that in a short\ntime he had to give it up. Nothing, apparently, can make the majority\nof Christians, who claim that theirs is a \"religion of love,\" realise\nthat to seek to injure an Atheist for his opinions is an unworthy\ncourse. Mere Nonconformity has incurred, and still incurs, a certain\nmeasure of penalty. But Nonconformists seem none the less ready to\ninflict it in turn on others. Obviously, the number of middle-class\npeople who can defy these risks is small. It is only among workmen,\nemployed in large numbers by capitalists who do not take the trouble to\ninquire about their opinions, that the avowal of Secularism is safe.\nEven workmen, of course, are sometimes made to suffer in pocket, and\noften from slander in their own class; but they suffer less than the\ntrading and professional classes. Hence it is that straightforwardness\nand sincerity abound more among them. It is not that \"the poor\" have\nfrom birth any occult virtues denied to the rich, but that the economic\nconditions make for sincerity and openness among wage-earners more than\namong earners of fees and profits. It is difficult to guess what John\nMill meant when he said that the workers in this country, though they\nesteemed truthfulness, are not as a body truthful. If he meant that\nthey are capable of garbling facts in their own interest in matters of\nindustry, he was only charging them with what may be charged equally\nagainst shopkeepers, stockbrokers, commission agents, traders, doctors,\nlawyers, politicians, and clergymen. It belongs to the nature of the\ncase that in the important matter of loyalty to conviction, the workers\nare by reason of circumstances superior to the other classes. The upper\nclasses, though, like each of the others, they include candid and\nsincere men and women, are as much coerced by social as are the middle\nclasses by commercial considerations. The fear of being charged with\n\"bad form,\" and of being cold-shouldered, does among the rich what fear\nof money loss and calumny does elsewhere. Idle men and women, whose\nmain occupation is an artificial social intercourse, are little likely\nto battle for heretical opinions, even if they have been thoughtful\nenough to form any. Dissimulation and conformity are too much in the\nway of their daily life.\n\nThe business of systematic Freethought propaganda has thus been mainly\nleft to the class with least leisure and least money; and the newspaper\npress naturally reflects the balance of property and status. Newspapers\nare produced in the way of business, and only \"paying\" doctrine is put\nforward by them. It is notorious that the majority of journalists are\nunbelievers; but capital buys pens as it buys hands and goods; and many\npressmen have disparaged Bradlaugh's opinions as \"peculiar,\" or worse,\nwho themselves held these opinions, and privately regarded the current\northodoxy as folly. Secularism in general has thus been boycotted, and\na common repute of vulgarity and illiteracy has been cast upon it,\noften by people who ostentatiously applaud the Salvation Army, with its\nincredible buffooneries and its reliance on the most abject ignorance.\n\nBradlaugh's artisan followers, as a matter of fact, have for the most\npart been the pick of their class for intelligence and energy. That\ntheir culture was not equal to their zeal and their sincerity was no\nreproach to them. They did their honest best; and from Bradlaugh they\nalways had his. Himself a careful student of all the questions involved\nin the general issue between rationalism and orthodoxy, he constantly\nurged on his followers the necessity of keeping their minds open and\ntheir judgment active. Mrs Besant has told in her \"Autobiography\"\nhow earnestly he impressed on her the need of the most thoroughgoing\nand ever-renewed preparation for the great work of instructing the\npeople. But inasmuch as the people in the mass can only begin with the\nmain or fundamental questions of religion--those of \"revelation\" and\n\"inspiration,\" \"God,\" \"Providence,\" \"prayer,\" \"miracles,\" \"morality,\"\n\"atonement,\" and \"immortality\"--his platform work as a Freethinker\ndealt mainly with these topics. And inasmuch as the mass of the people\nare at once more sincere and more logical in their relation of opinion\nto conduct than most of the specialists who occupy themselves with\nthe literary analysis of the Old and New Testaments, Bradlaugh's work\nstruck at the roots of orthodoxy wherever he went. He argued that if\nthe Old Testament be demonstrably false in its history and barbarous\nin its morals, the idea of \"inspiration\" in the theological sense\ndisappears, and the Hebrew books become mere ancient literature, forged\nor otherwise, and wholly disentitled to be made a textbook for mankind.\nThough a good Hebrew scholar, he did not profess to rest his case on\nthe textual analysis of the \"higher criticism.\" For him the \"sacred\nbook\" was discredited as such by its own contents, however composed;\nand he made it his business to attack them as an imposition on human\nignorance and credulity. His standpoint was thus put by himself:--\n\n \"There is no great honour or pleasure, although there is much\n wearisome toil, in gathering the materials for proving that Genesis\n nearly always blunders in its attempts at statements of fact; that\n it is repeatedly chronologically incorrect, and in the chronologies\n of its principal versions utterly irreconcilable; that copyists,\n through ignorance, carelessness, or design, have in many places\n incorrectly transcribed the text; that the translators, according to\n their respective creeds, vary in their interpretations of different\n momentous passages; that the Hebrew language itself has been altered\n by the addition of vowel points, by means of which a sense is often\n given entirely different from the original intention; and that the\n majority of the ancient versions contain different and contradictory\n readings of various important verses. But it is absolutely necessary\n to do all this in a form accessible to the general reader so long as\n the Church persists, under statutory sanction and indorsement, in its\n teaching to the people from their early childhood, that this Bible\n is God's Word, free from blemish. Genesis is forced upon the child's\n brain as God's Word by nurse and pedagogue, and the mode of thinking\n of the scholar is in consequence utterly warped in favour of the\n divinity of the book before his reason has opportunity to mature for\n its examination. If the book only had claimed for it that which may\n be claimed for all books--namely, in part or whole to represent the\n genius, education, and manners of the people and the times from whom\n and which it issued, then it might fairly be objected by supporters\n of the Bible that the tone of criticism here adopted is not of the\n highest order, and that the petty cavillings about misplaced names,\n misspelled words, incorrect dates and numbers, and geographical\n errors, etc., are hardly worthy the attention of a serious student.\n But as the Bible is declared to be the revelation and representative\n of perfect intelligence to the whole human family; as it is placed by\n the whole of its preachers immeasurably above all other books, with a\n claim to dominate, and if necessary to overturn, the teachings of all\n other books; as it is alleged that the Bible is free from the errors\n of thought and fact more or less found in every other book; and as\n it is by Act of Parliament declared to be a criminal offence in this\n country for any person to deny this book to be God's Holy Word, it is\n not only a right, but it becomes an unavoidable duty on the part of a\n Freethinking critic to present as plainly as possible to the notice of\n the people every weakness of the text, however trivial, that may serve\n to show that the Bible, or any portion of it, is fallible, that it is\n imperfect, that so far from being above all books, it is often below\n them as a mere literary production.\"[96]\n\n[Footnote 96: Preface to \"The Bible: What it is,\" 1865.]\n\nTo such a declaration as this all protests against \"Bible-smashing\"\nare irrelevant, by whomsoever made. Made by literary humanists, they\nignore the practical situation. It is one thing to recognise that\nthe Bible is a profoundly interesting body of ancient literature,\nillustrating for all time the manner of growth of a cult; it is another\nthing to deal with the pretensions of that cult to retain to-day the\nstatus secured for it by all manner of sinister means in bygone ages.\nComing from clergymen, the protest is worse than irrelevant. The most\nadvanced of them are still, from the rationalist point of view, in the\nposition of using the Bible as a fetish; and men who as public teachers\nregularly resort to a primitive priestly literature for sanctions and\ncues to current conduct have no right whatever to protest against\nthose who show the people what the sacrosanct literature really is.\nBible-smashing is the necessary checkmate to Bible-worship. When the\nliterary humanists get the clergy to stop cultivating and trading on\nBibliolatry, it will be time for them to object to the exposure of the\nBible. But by that time there will be no occasion for the objection.\nBradlaugh did not go about lecturing against witch-burning or the\nKoran. He attacked an aggressive and endowed superstition; and to\nasperse him as being himself aggressive is about as idle as to charge\nMr Gladstone with aggressiveness against Beaconsfield's foreign policy,\nor to denounce Home Rulers for being aggressive against the Union.\nIt speaks volumes for the state of average English opinion that the\nadjective \"aggressive\" is still held to be a damaging epithet against\nFreethought; as if zeal were a good and great thing on one side of a\ndispute, but wrong and vulgar on the other. Churchmen whose bells set\nup pandemonium every Sunday count it an aggression to other people\nto meet by summons of a handbill to discuss whether church-going is\nreasonable. And they are kept in countenance, unluckily, by the mass\nof easy-going or timid unbelievers, who, not caring or daring to act\non their own convictions, keep up their self-esteem by speaking ill of\nthose who do so.\n\nIn the mouths of some people, of course, \"aggressive\" means \"rude\" or\n\"offensive;\" and it is still common to say that Bradlaugh was a coarse\nassailant of other men's convictions. The charge was early brought\nagainst him. Lecturing on Malthusianism in 1862, after alluding to the\nabuse levelled at him in that connection by the Unitarian organ, he\nsaid:--\n\n \"I did not consider it necessary to make much justification when I\n was attacked some months ago by a person who is rather famous for the\n vehemence of his criticism than for the soundness of his logic; but\n ... it may be perhaps not out of place to notice the way in which that\n sort of criticism has been circulated throughout the country. I have\n taken up Irish journals; I have taken up Scotch journals; and I have\n found myself represented as the only advocate of this great party ...\n who uses in his oratory, who writes for his readers, disregarding all\n morality, coarse, brutal, and degrading phrases. Now I appeal to you\n who are here this morning, and there are some who have listened to me\n from my boyhood, whether in my attack on the theologies of the world\n I have permitted my tongue to utter any coarse phraseology, whether\n in attacking or destroying them? (Applause) ... I admit that I have\n been rough and rude in my attacks on what I consider to be wrong and\n injurious, but I have been always reverent and kindly to every one who\n has seemed to me to be striving for the benefit of humankind.\"\n\nHow true is this claim can be easily learned by reading his pamphlets,\nor his book on \"Genesis.\" That volume may be objected to as a dry\ndigest of much learning and discussion, but it certainly cannot be\naccused either of violence or of flippancy. Its history is worth noting\nhere. In 1856 he issued a Freethinking commentary entitled, \"The\nBible, What it is,\" which went as far as Isaiah. This being sold out\n(it is now so scarce that the present writer has not been able to get\na copy),[97] he issued in 1865 a rewritten edition, covering only the\nPentateuch, but larger than the first; and this in turn was sold out.\nIn 1881-82, while fighting his great battle against Parliament, he set\nhimself the drudgery and discipline of beginning again with Genesis,\nenlarging his commentary from his later reading to such an extent that\nthis, the largest volume of the three, only covers the first eleven\nchapters of the first book of the Pentateuch. Some of his followers\nhumorously speculated as to what amount of ground would be covered by\na fourth revision, should he undertake it. Whatever may be thought\nof the method, it is very evidently not that of a man aiming at a\npopular success of ridicule or rhetoric. Compiled at a time when he was\nthe target for all the bigotry of the nation, the book is eminently\ndispassionate and judicial. Where most men would have grown more\nvehement, he grew more calm.\n\n[Footnote 97: There is some reason to suspect that there has happened\nin this country what Bibliophile Jacob, in his preface to his addition\nof Cyrano de Bergerac, declares to have happened on a large scale\nin France--a zealous destruction of Freethinking works by pious\npurchasers. But it lies with these to supply the main evidence.]\n\nAs a lecturer, of course, he was vigorous to the highest degree. Many\nof those who have heard him at the height of his powers will agree\nto the verdict that he was by far the most powerful English orator\nof his time. There was something overwhelming in his force of speech\nwhen impassioned; it lifted an audience from its feet like a storm,\nand raised their intellectual conviction to a white heat of enthusiasm\nfor the truth it conveyed. Other speakers of his day may have been\nas thrillingly impressive at their best moments; but he had great\npassages in nearly every speech, and rarely faced an audience without\nelectrifying it. The Rev. Mr Westerby, at the close of his debate\nwith Bradlaugh, testified with some chagrin to the extraordinary\neffectiveness of his opponent's speaking, and this in a debate full of\nclose and difficult argument, as the verbatim report shows. \"I only\nwish,\" said the reverend gentleman, \"that I, in power of speech, were\nas powerful as he. Then I might have done honour to my cause.... Only\nby the power of his speech, and by the marvellous energy with which\nhe can endow it, can I understand the impression he has produced upon\nyou.\" But the reader of the debate can understand it without hearing\nthe delivery. At its highest stress the energy is controlled and\nintelligized; never is the argument confused or let slip; never does\nvigour lapse to coarseness. He was certainly not an abusive or even a\nharsh controversialist; he dealt much less in invective and imputation\nthan most men in his place would have felt justified in doing. One of\nthe strongest of his censures of antagonists in matters of argument\nis passed on the late Bishop of Peterborough, Dr Magee, who was a\nsufficiently reckless polemist. The passage occurs in the second of the\nthree (unwritten) lectures he delivered in Norwich, in reply to three\nsermons by the Bishop:--\n\n \"I have now to complain of something still worse than that the Bishop\n should have forgotten his Bible, entirely ignored the Thirty-Nine\n Articles, and occasionally in the hurry of rapid speech contradicted\n his previous sentences. All these are matters at which, in even an\n extraordinary man burdened with a bishop's dignity, we need not wonder\n at all; but when we find him blundering in metaphysics, when we find\n him making mistakes which a man versed in the merest rudiments of Mill\n or the Scotch and German metaphysicians would not make--when we find\n the Bishop so blundering, either wilfully or ignorantly, it puts me in\n a position of extreme difficulty.\"\n\nThis on Butler is also, for Bradlaugh, exceptionally severe:--\n\n \"Bishop Butler's argument on the doctrine of necessity is that which\n one might expect from a hired _nisi prius_ advocate, but which is\n read with regret coming from a gentleman who ought to be striving to\n convince his erring brethren by the words of truth alone.\"[98]\n\n[Footnote 98: Pamphlet on Heresy, p. 48.]\n\nA writer, in whose anti-religious polemic such perfectly justifiable\nseverities are exceptional, is certainly not to be charged with\nviolence of speech on such matters. To his courtesy in debate there\nare many testimonies. In his controversy, _e.g._, with the authors of\nthe \"Oxford House Papers,\" one of them, Dr Paget, writes:--\"I trust\nthat you will let me first acknowledge with gratitude and respect the\ntemperate and courteous character of your criticism. Believe me, I\nsincerely appreciate it.\" It may not be out of place to remark that the\n\"Oxford House Papers\" were in the opinion of some readers inexpressibly\npoor stuff, respectful comment on which, in a busy world, was an\nexcess of consideration. And this careful courtesy was not at all, as\nsome have supposed, a late development in him. It is a complete error\nto suppose that he began by being violent, and only acquired suavity\nafter much experience. It has been suggested on this head that he was\nsoftened by the generosity with which some Christians, such as Bright,\nlatterly stood by him against the attacks of the bigots. But while\nit is quite true that he greatly appreciated this, and while it is\nfurther true that he found some of his very basest enemies in professed\nFreethinkers of the \"Agnostic\" variety, it is not the fact that he\nhad required these experiences to make him a temperate and courteous\ncontroversialist. That he was at all times; and he had early cause to\nknow that a Christian may be a gentleman and a Freethinker otherwise,\nas well as _vice versa_.\n\nEven when of set purpose ridiculing Scripture narratives in his lighter\nlectures, Bradlaugh never descends from humour to coarseness; and his\njests--in such tracts as the New Lives of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David,\nand Jonah--are as perfectly within the limits of rational good taste as\nthose of Mr Spencer, Mr Arnold, and Mr Huxley on more august themes;\nnot to cite Voltaire. An old slander has lately been very carelessly\nrevived by the late Mr C. H. Pearson, who in his book on \"National\nCharacter\" speaks of Bradlaugh as having likened the Trinity to a\nmonkey with three tails. Bradlaugh never did any such thing. A more\nelaborated figure of that sort appeared in a condensed account once\ncontributed to his journal of an old lecture by a deceased Freethinker,\nwho had satirised human anthropomorphism by making a monkey theologise\nfor monkeys, as Heine makes the bear do in \"Atta Troll.\" In the context\nthe figure was fitting enough; but in any case it was not Bradlaugh's.\nAnd in reply to those persons who affect to see vulgarity, or worse,\nin every jest at Christian beliefs, it may be said once for all that\nChristians have from the first century onwards put themselves out of\ncourt on this head by jealously ridiculing the beliefs of all other\nbelievers, as well as of rationalists; that they have not stopped\nat ridicule, but have in all ages freely resorted to gross calumny;\nand that they in turn are not very badly used when their beliefs are\nmerely subjected to the satire to which they are confessedly open.\nEven sheer coarseness is just as reprehensible, no more and no less,\nwhen directed against living persons, as when directed against dead or\nimaginary beings, or particular beliefs concerning them; but those who\nare readiest to impute the latter offence seem to make small account\nof the other, when the object of attack is an unbeliever. Bradlaugh\nwas never coarse; yet he was abused with unspeakable scurrility\nby thousands of Christian people. And if coarseness ever arose in\nhis movement, as it so easily may in a popular movement involving\ncontroversy, that movement was in any case a hundred times more sinned\nagainst than sinning. Mrs Humphrey Ward has been at pains in two of\nher novels to represent \"crews\" of Secularists as either resorting to\nphysical violence against revivalists, or showing a disposition to\nresent angrily the appearance of a well-behaved clergyman at their\nmeetings. Such slanders would call for very strong comment were they\nnot so nakedly absurd. In no town in England would avowed Secularists\ndare as such to molest avowed pietists even if they were inclined to\ndo so; and it has always been their express aim to encourage clerical\nopposition and debate in their meeting-places. This is a rule without\nexception. And Bradlaugh, in particular, at all times urged upon his\nfollowers--not to abstain from gratuitous violence towards revivalists\nor clergymen: he never needed to say anything on that head--but to\nbe very careful to give opponents no reasonable pretext for making a\ndisturbance against them.[99] He counselled not only orderliness but\ntact; and he sharply rebuked any of his followers who would not listen\npatiently to even a stupid opponent's speech. Mrs Ward's account of\nSecularist organisations is an unfortunate proof that the spirit of\nreligiosity does not change with mere modifications of dogma. Even if\nit were really found that plain, unlettered men, facing a religion\nthey feel to be absurd, spoke out their feeling without due courtesy\nor refinement, an instructed observer would see in their reaction the\nmeasure and correlative of the crudity of the doctrines assailed.\nBut people of Mrs Ward's way of thinking look tenderly on the worst\nbuffooneries of popular faith, and on the most brutal propaganda\nof hell and blood-redemption, while recoiling sentimentally from\nthe perfectly sincere derision of these things by men on whom they\nare blatantly thrust. The right spirit, surely, is that which would\nenlighten the deluded as individuals, neither patronising them nor\nabusing them. That was the attitude of Bradlaugh as a publicist and\nas a man. He never talked, in public or in private, with malice, and\nseldom even with disgust, of fanatics as such. He explained them, and\nrespected their honesty. Of certain employees of the Christian Evidence\nSociety he would on occasion speak publicly in the strongest terms,\nas \"vile things who, in fields and open spaces, where we are not to\nanswer for ourselves, stab our reputation and our children's.\" But\ntowards honest bigots, however imbecile, he was incapable of feeling\nthe virulent animosity which Mrs Ward seems to feel for the Secularists\nof her imagination. To speak of him, as some journalists have done, as\naccounting for all religion by \"priestcraft\" in the early eighteenth\ncentury manner, is to exhibit the ignorance the statement imputes. He\ncarefully studied the anthropological origins of religion, lectured\nspecially on anthropology, and always related his teaching to the\nanthropological view. Towards priests, as such, he felt no malevolence.\nIn fine, from first to last, the essential manliness and geniality of\nhis nature gave his followers a lead to humanity and chivalry in their\nwarfare with bigotry. If any of them, seeing the kind of reward he\nreceived for his self-restraint, have taken satisfaction in barbing\ntheir arrows, and in humiliating as well as defeating the enemy, they\ncannot cite his example.\n\n[Footnote 99: Thus, when in July or August 1882 an open-air Freethought\nmeeting was attacked by riotous Salvationists, Bradlaugh strongly urged\navoidance of provocation, and that, \"above all, Freethinkers must avoid\nbeing drawn into physical conflict with Salvationists\" (_National\nReformer_, August 13, 1882).]\n\nOnce in a long while a gross circumstantial lie would move him to\nstrike with the handle of the dog-whip, so to speak. A case of the\nkind is set forth in his tract entitled \"Lying for the Glory of God:\na Letter to the Rev. Canon Fergie, B.D., Vicar of Ince, near Wigan.\"\nThis dealt with one of the idiotic anecdotes by which the truth of\nChristianity and the wickedness of Atheism are proved for so many\npeople--anecdotes of which the absurdity and the untruth seem equally\napparent, but which find instant credence with thousands of pious\npersons. Such an anecdote is the \"watch story\" in its complete form,\nin which the blasphemer is struck dead, a detail which has to be\nregretfully withheld from the narrative when it is applied to living\nsceptics. Such are the endless \"infidel deathbed\" stories, which still\ndo duty in religious tracts, among them being statements concerning\nthe deaths of Voltaire and Paine, which have been a hundred times\ncircumstantially refuted. Such is the venerable anecdote of the nurse\nwho would never again attend an infidel's deathbed--a story which is\ntold with religious impartiality of Rousseau, Voltaire, Paine, and\nHume, and will doubtless be told in due course of Bradlaugh. In recent\nChristian propaganda, the growing humanity of the age is seen in a\ndisposition to convert the atheist rather than to send him to hell\nshrieking. But all these anecdotes alike have one quality in common;\nthey are rigorously untrue, though they are never told in the same way\nby two Christians running. One sample story of seventeen (more or less)\n\"leading Secularists,\" of whom fourteen came to bad ends, after signing\na blasphemous covenant with blood for ink, does not on investigation\nyield even a grain of fact. In another narrative, sixteen \"leaders\" are\nrepresented as having all re-embraced Christianity. Of the sixteen,\nover a dozen are unknown to Secularism, and one known convert had been\nreconverted to Freethought. It was partly the lawyer in Bradlaugh that\nmade him treat these anecdotes with seriousness and severity, finding\nthe lie circumstantial some degrees worse than the lie conventional\nor sophistical. He specially detested downright fabrication of facts.\nBut he also had a chivalrous loathing of the tactic which stabbed a\ndoctrine in the back instead of meeting it in face; and for his own\npart he never used the means he might to assail religion through\nthe scandals of its daily record. He would not stoop to collect the\nstories of frightful \"fidel\" deathbeds, which surpass the contrary\nsort as much in force as in truth; and he never would collect in his\njournal the frequent stories of clerical misconduct which appear in the\nordinary press, though all his life he was being libelled by clerics.\nHe was indeed a dangerous enemy when provoked, but he had little\nvindictiveness. His interests were too broad, his relation to life too\ngenial, to permit of his being satisfied with the triumphs of feud. He\nclaimed for himself with perfect truth: \"I have attacked the Bible, but\nnever the letter alone; the Church, but never have I confined myself\nto a mere assault on its practices. I have deemed that I attacked\ntheology best in asserting most the fulness of humanity. I have\nregarded iconoclasticism as a means, not as an end. The work is weary,\nbut the end is well.\" And this may serve as a compendious answer to\nthe kind of criticism which disposes of Atheism by calling it \"cold.\"\nIt would be much nearer to the truth to say that many Atheists have\nrecoiled from religion because of its very heartlessness and gloom; and\nbecause the \"warmth\" of those who find joy in the evangelical doctrine\nof salvation strikes a healthy mind as hardly less repulsive than\nthe \"warmth\" of alcoholism. The assumption that a man who puts aside\nthe doctrine of a future life is cold-hearted, was never more absurd\nthan when applied to the case of Bradlaugh. But its full absurdity is\nperhaps made most clear by comparing the doctrine of Lessing and Kant\nas to the nullity of Judaism as a religion, in respect of its lack of\nan authoritative doctrine of heaven, with the common run of rhetoric\nabout the strength of the Semitic religious feeling.\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\nIt ought not to be necessary at this time of day to offer a\njustification for Bradlaugh's doctrine on the ethical side, his\nposition being simply that of modern science. But just as the avowal\nof Atheism and Materialism gives rise to endless misrepresentation\nof those statements of opinion, so the avowal of Atheism and\nUtilitarianism in morals gives rise to all sorts of moral imputations.\nOn the one hand there is the reasonable criticism which falls to be\npassed on imperfect or exaggerated expression of the utilitarian\nprinciple; on the other hand there are the imputations which ignorant,\nconfused, and other persons cast on any statement of Utilitarianism\nwhatever. Many orthodox people have in this matter the indestructible\nadvantage of being unable to understand the rationalist argument--as\nmay be very clearly seen in the debate between Mr Bradlaugh and\nthe Rev. Dr M'Cann on the morality and philosophy of Secularism.\nSuch opponents go on fervently affirming their consciousness of\nthe obligation to do what they feel to be \"right,\" \"irrespective\nof consequences,\" and insisting that this is the negation of\nutilitarianism. It is of course no such thing. The real ground of\nstrife between religious and rational morality lies, or lay, in the old\ndoctrine that the _standard_ of right is divinely \"revealed,\" and that\nwe do right in virtue of divine command. That doctrine once abandoned,\nsupernaturalism in morals is a mere matter of words. To admit that we\nhave no certain light or unvarying strength of feeling as to what is\nright in a given case, and merely to affirm that we have a \"divine\ncall\" from conscience to do what we think right when our minds are\nmade up, is to surrender the heart of the religious position. This is\nwhat was done by Dr M'Cann and the Rev. Mr Armstrong in their debates\nwith Bradlaugh; both clergymen nevertheless supposing themselves to be\nrebutting utilitarianism. The utilitarian position is of course (1)\nthat the instinct to do \"what we feel to be right\" is merely organic,\nand often goes with conduct that is on rational grounds demonstrably\nwrong; (2) that the business of ethics is to settle what conduct is\nreasonably to be held right or wrong; and (3) that though the sense of\nutility is not the primary or conscious motive of all actions, it is\nthe test by which disputed action is to be controlled. Of course it\nwill at times be fallaciously applied, as regarded from the point of\nview of developed sympathy; but it can never be misapplied as grossly\nas the religious standard has been, and it remains the final standard\nof ethical appeal. Even the religionists who argue that utilitarianism\nis a \"pernicious\" doctrine virtually admit this in their very choice\nof epithet. The good of society is even for them the final criterion.\nThey never hesitate, further, to seek to influence the minds of the\nyoung by the primitively utilitarian warning, \"Be sure your sin will\nfind you out.\" Yet they constantly denounce the Secularist doctrine as\nencouraging men to make primary self-interest the beginning and end of\nmoral principle, when on the face of the case it subjects self-interest\nto public interest by its working formula of \"the greatest good of the\ngreatest number.\" The religious argument against that formula always\nends in putting the fancy case of the starving man with a starving\nfamily, who steals a loaf of bread from somebody who does not miss it.\nThe religious implication is that the whole family had better starve\nthan commit such a theft--a doctrine which may be left to the decision\nof common-sense. It is only to be wished that Christian politics even\nremotely approached the scrupulosity paraded in this controversy.\n\nAs for the point of disinterestedness, the history of Freethought in\ngeneral, and the life of Bradlaugh in particular, will serve to show\nwhether or not the recognition of utility as the final test of the\nright or wrong of actions has led men to put the low utility above the\nhigh, the near above the far. To do the former would be to abandon the\nvery avowal of the principle, since it always brings odium and injury\non the avowers. The very persistence of an unpopular movement is the\ndecisive proof that its promoters have sought higher ends than money\ngain. What the utilitarian principle has done for Bradlaugh and those\nlike-minded is not to give them the primary impulse to fight for truth\nand right as they see them, but to give them an enduring support in the\nbattle. The first impulse springs from veracity of character _plus_\nknowledge; but it is sure to be opposed by bitter criticism, imputing\nto the straightforward course all manner of evil results. When the\nreformer is convinced that not only truth and justice but the highest\nutility itself is on his side, he is thrice armed. And if with some\nunbelievers the rejection of transcendental moral principles has meant\nthe return to a timid or a base conformity, they are at least no worse\nguided than before, and the blame of their dissimulation must lie with\nthe religious system which not only counsels but enforces it, not with\nthe doctrine which classes social dissimulation as a vice. Certain it\nis that under the auspices of the Christian creed England has lived\nmainly for low and narrow utilities, and not for the high and broad;\nthe transcendental creed availing only to worsen matters by adding to\nthe forces of evil the element of persecuting bigotry. Rationalism\nonce for all excludes the last factor; and if it ever lends itself to\na popular disregard of the great utilities and a pursuit of the small,\nwhich are the undoing of the great, it will assuredly not be in virtue\nof following such a lead as Bradlaugh's.\n\nOf his influence on his followers those can best speak who have\nmixed with them. Personal and magnetic as it was, it depended for\nits continuance on the unvarying nobility of his appeal to the best\ninstincts--to courage, honour, justice, and the love of truth. Hundreds\nof men--men to whom the generality of pulpit sermons are either inane\ncommonplaces or maudlin nonsense--can testify to the fashion in which\nhe stirred them to high sympathies and generous determinations, making\nlife for all of them, however narrow their sphere, a vista of worthy\nactivities and abiding consolations.\n\nIt is part of the condemnation of modern orthodoxy that its warfare\nwith Atheism has run mainly to libel--not merely libel on individual\nAtheists, but sweeping aspersion of the whole movement. The records\nare embarrassing in the sheer multitude of the samples; and one\nutterance may serve for a thousand. In the early part of Bradlaugh's\nParliamentary struggle an orthodox periodical named _Social Notes_, of\nwhich the Marquis of Townshend was editorial director, made the typical\nassertion:--\n\n \"It is a well-known fact that there is no criminal so fearless in\n doing evil, so hopelessly bad and beyond chance of recovery, as the\n Atheist criminal is. Atheism and ignorance commonly create the first\n step to crime. As Atheism grows in the minds of the lower classes, so\n crime increases.\"\n\nThe statement can only have come from a writer of a partially criminal\ntype, since it states not merely a gross untruth, but one for which the\nwriter cannot possibly have believed he had any evidence. So far from\nthe fact being as he says, it is perfectly well established that there\nare almost no Atheist criminals. Readers can satisfy themselves on this\nhead by reading the chapter on \"Atheism in Prison\" in the \"Jottings\nfrom Jail\" of the Rev. J. W. Horsley,[100] a writer not at all disposed\nto say any good of Atheism. But the folly of the statement cited will\nprobably be recognised by most people on simply reflecting that crime\nwas most abundant in the ages when Atheism was practically unknown;\nthat it is common now in countries where there is no anti-religious\npropaganda whatever among the common people; that the professional\nbrigands of Greece and Italy are faithful children of the Church; and\nthat nearly every murderer executed in this country avows beforehand a\nconfident assurance of being welcomed in Paradise. Only one Secularist,\nso far as the present writer is aware, has ever been convicted of\nmurder; and he was no typical criminal, but a man congenitally liable\nto delirious fits of passion. When he knew of their approach he warned\nthe people about him not to thwart him; and only in one of these fits,\non intense provocation from a man who had wronged him, did he strike a\ndeadly blow with a chance weapon. He expressly forbade petitions for\ncommutation of his sentence, deliberately preferring to end a marred\nand maimed life.\n\n[Footnote 100: Fisher Unwin.]\n\nThose who really suppose Atheism tends to promote crime know as\nlittle of the nature of criminals as of the logic of Atheism. The\nimmense majority of criminals are unintelligent, and as such are\nimmeasurably more likely to be superstitious than to be atheistic.\nA man of bad character may indeed be an Atheist in virtue of his\nreasoning powers; but the same powers will tend to withhold him from\nbreach of the criminal law. The recent insinuations of the present\nBishop of Manchester as to the effects of secular education in the\ncolony of Victoria will impress no one who is conversant with criminal\nstatistics;[101] and are repudiated by those qualified to speak in the\ncolony itself. Of similar weight are the clerical assertions that the\nAnarchist mania in France is a result of the \"godless\" teaching of the\npublic schools. It has been shown on the contrary that some of the most\nprominent Anarchist miscreants have had a careful clerical training;\nwhile the Anarchists themselves have never produced a criminal to\ncompare with the priest Bruneau. The organised _Libres-Penseurs_ of\nFrance have made a speciality of ethics, publishing more matter on that\nhead than on any other.\n\n[Footnote 101: The matter was dealt with at some length in the\n_National Reformer_ of January 15, 1893.]\n\nIt is not necessary to answer again, but it is edifying to cite, one\nof the many utterances in which Atheism has been held up to horror\nas tending to universal bloodshed. Such an utterance was this of\nBishop Magee, delivered in his cathedral of Peterborough in June 1880,\nand thus specially made to bear on the claim of Bradlaugh to sit in\nParliament:--\n\n \"A nation of Atheists must be a nation of revolutionists; their\n history must be a history of revolution marked by intervals of\n grinding, cruel, pitiless, and unreproved slaughter, because for\n weakness there would be no appeal to the supreme power against present\n tyranny.\"\n\nIn the rhetoric of religion, folly and frenzy are thus sometimes so\nmingled that together they make censure shade into derision, and\nderision into melancholy. Neither reason nor experience can hinder\nsome men from putting the wildest figments in place of the plainest\nteachings of history. Dr Magee had before him the history of his own\nfaith, which began in bitter and sanguinary schism, and within a few\nhundred years had raised deadly civil war throughout the civilised\nworld; which has made more pretexts for war throughout its era than\ncould possibly have arisen without it; and which in our own country\nwas the inspiration of some of the worst strifes in our annals. He\nhad before him the judgment of Bacon, unwillingly following on an\nunreasoned criticism, that \"Atheism did never perturb states ...; but\nsuperstition hath been the confusion of many states.\" And the Bishop's\nrant, despicable in itself, was used to excite new Christian malice\nagainst a man who had again and again met the verbal violence of\npro-revolutionaries with the strongest protests against revolutionary\nmethods; who loved peace and hated war; and who had time and again\nresisted and denounced the unjust English wars to which the Bishop's\nChurch had given its blessing. Thus is Atheism impugned by piety. At\nthe very time when Dr Magee's rhetoric was being used to keep Bradlaugh\nout of Parliament, the National Secular Society was on his prompting\npetitioning strongly against the war waged by the English Government on\nthe Boers in South Africa.[102]\n\n[Footnote 102: In October (?) 1882, the Quaker _Friend_ testified to\nthe \"melancholy\" fact that \"with, of course, honourable exceptions,\nthe most inveterate opponents of militarism are to be found among\nsecularists and socialists.\" Soon afterwards Bishop Ellicott\nregretfully avowed that unbelief had acquired new and dangerous\ncharacteristics, in that it \"now was very often found co-existent\nwith what they were bound to speak of as a moral and in many cases a\nphilanthropic life.\"]\n\nThe only form of the orthodox imputation which is even decently\nplausible is the suggestion that the loss of religious belief may\nleave some men more ready than before to venture on vice that is not\nlegally punishable. This is no doubt theoretically possible; and in\ncases where boys have had such a religiously bad education that they\nknow of no rational veto on misconduct, harm may sometimes arise on\ntheir finding that the religion taught them is incredible. But young\nmen who reason so far are likely to reason further; and in any case a\nfew plain considerations will serve to convince any candid mind that\nthere is no causal connection between scepticism and vice; though it\nstands to reason that the habit of scepticism will promote the critical\ndiscussion on the institution of marriage. On the one hand, the sexual\ninstinct has in all ages gone to the worst excess under the auspices\nof religions which expressly glorified asceticism; and the facts of\nthe life of the ages of faith in Europe make it clear that, even on\nthe orthodox definition of vice, there cannot possibly be more of it\nin the future than there has been in the past. On the other hand, the\nutilitarian arguments against vice, properly so called, are much better\nfitted to impress than the religious; and they leave no such loophole\nas the others inevitably do in respect of the Christian doctrine of\npardon for sin, to say nothing of the iniquity of the Christian ethic\nwhich holds one and the same act ruinous in a woman and venial in a\nman. Of course, if the celibate life, and marriage without possibility\nof divorce, be made the standard of virtue, rationalism is likely to\ngive piety plenty of occasion for outcry in matters of morals, as in\nmatters of opinion.\n\nHowever that may be, it has to be noted that Bradlaugh was not at all\n\"advanced,\" as things go, on the subject of the marriage institution.\nConstantly accused of endorsing \"Free Love\" doctrines, he as constantly\nrepudiated the charge. In 1881 we find him indignantly protesting that\nnot only bad men, but men of whose honesty in other things he was sure,\n\"constantly repeated, as though they were his, views on Socialism which\nhe did not hold, views on marriage which never had an equivalent in\nhis feelings, and declarations on prostitution which were abhorrent\nto his thought.\"[103] The \"Free Love\" charge was commonly founded on\nhis alleged acceptance of the whole doctrine of the work entitled\n\"The Elements of Social Science.\" No such acceptance ever occurred.\nHe was the last man to vilify a benevolent and temperate writer for\ndoctrines with which he could not agree; but in the reprint of his\npamphlet on \"Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus,\"[104] he explicitly wrote of\nthe author in question: \"His work well deserves careful study; there\nare in it many matters of physiology on which I am incompetent to\nexpress an opinion, and some points of ethics from which I expressly\nand strongly dissent.\" Not only did he thus reject the \"advanced\"\ndoctrine of sexual freedom: he never committed himself to any such\nproposition as that of Mill, that the institution of the family needs\n\"more fundamental alterations than remain to be made in any other great\nsocial institution,\" or that of James Mill, cited without disapproval\nby his son, as to the probable development of freedom in the sexual\nrelation.[105]\n\n[Footnote 103: Address at the National Secular Society's Conference.]\n\n[Footnote 104: Published in 1861. Reprinted 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 105: J. S. Mill's Autobiography, pp. 107, 167. A still\nmore striking illustration of the way in which one rationalist may\n\"steal the horse\" while another may not \"look over the hedge,\" is the\nfollowing passage in Mill's book:--\"On these grounds I was not only as\nardent as ever for democratic institutions, but earnestly hoped that\nOwenite, St. Simonian, and all other anti-property doctrines might\nspread widely among the poorer classes; _not that I thought these\ndoctrines true_, or desired that they should be acted on, but in order\nthat the higher classes _might be made to see that they had far more to\nfear_ from the poor when uneducated than when educated.\"]\n\nIt was thus grossly unjust to cast upon the Secularist movement, as\ndid Bishop Fraser of Manchester in the worst stress of Bradlaugh's\nparliamentary struggle, the imputation of promoting positive cruelty on\nthe part of men towards women. That episode was for many a melancholy\nproof of the perverting power of bigotry in a naturally conscientious\nman. The Bishop publicly put it as a natural deduction from Secularist\nteaching that a man might put away his wife when she grew old and ugly,\nor \"sick, or otherwise disagreeable to him,\" simply because she thus\nceased to please him; and when a Secularist wrote him to point out the\ninjustice of this assertion, and the nature of the ordinary rationalist\nview of marriage, his Grace disingenuously quoted the statement that\nSecularists repudiated the \"sacredness\" of marriage, without adding the\nexplanation which his correspondent had given as to the proper force of\nthat term. The whole outburst was an angry and unscrupulous attempt to\nput upon Secularist teaching the vice which admittedly flourished in\nthe Bishop's diocese among non-Secularists. All the while, the doctrine\nhe had put upon Secularism lay in his own Bible, and nowhere else:--\n\n \"When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then shall it be, if she\n find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing\n in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in\n her hand, and send her out of his house\" (Deut. xxiv. 1).\n\nThese and other doctrines had been made by Bradlaugh part of his\nindictment of Bible morality. He saw that while women are dependent,\npower of self-divorce cannot justly be allowed to husbands. He was\ncertainly in favour of greater facilities for divorce; but he took no\npart in the discussion as to whether marriage is a failure; and he\nalways argued for a legal contract, in the interests of the woman and\nchildren, as against informal unions; though, of course, he passed no\nmoral censure on women in a state of economic independence who chose\nthe latter. His own sad experience never made him decry marriage; and\nhe never would have subscribed to the doctrine of Professor Pearson,\nthat \"love should have the privilege of his wings,\" save in so far\nas he would give freedom of legal divorce. In short, he did not\nrealise the fancy picture of \"modern Materialism\" painted by religious\nsentiment, any more than the fancy picture of the pragmatist. He was\nnot even a lover of \"realism\" in fiction. Like B\u00fcchner (whose favourite\nauthor is Shakespeare), he could not enjoy Zola; and on Hugo's death\nhe eulogised that poet in express contrast to the new school which had\nbegun to write him down.\n\nBut he did not set up to be a literary critic, or an \u00e6sthetic person in\nany sense. His own art was oratory, and of that he was master by dint\nnot of conscious study, but of sincerity, energy, and endless activity.\nHe spoke to persuade, to convince, to crush; and he never spoke save on\na conviction. It thus lay in his nature that he should be a politician\nas earnestly as he was a Freethinker. His Atheism, his logic, his\nutilitarianism, all combined to make him a strenuous reformer in the\nfield of government, and a full half of his whole activity--more than\nhalf in the latter years--was turned to making life better and saner\nthan it had been under the regimen of religion. The absurd pretence\nthat Atheism makes men pessimistic and supine becomes peculiarly absurd\nwhen tested by his career. He was no optimist: he had no delusions\nabout the speedy perfectibility of men, singly or in mass; but no man\nwas less inclined to the new pessimism, which turns its philosophy to\nthe account of commonplace conservatism all round. A clerical opponent,\ndebating with him, protested that Atheists ought to be in a state of\nblack despair at the evil of the world, which the reverend gentleman\non his part viewed with serenity, holding that the God who wrought\nit must intend to put matters right hereafter. A lay study of the\nproblem, however, reveals the fact that hopeful and despairing frames\nof mind are not as a rule determined by theoretic beliefs one way\nor the other. Bradlaugh had the good fortune to combine the keenest\ninterest in ideas and the clearest insight into human character with\na boundless enthusiasm for action; and he perfectly recognised that a\nsimilar temperament in the latter respect might go with what he held\nto be delusion in philosophy. It is the fashion of conformists without\nbeliefs to speak of propagandist rationalism as \"intolerant\"--a use of\nthe term which, though it may be at times permissible in common talk,\nis a complete perversion of its essential purport. Applied to action,\nthe word has no proper force save as implying the wish or attempt to\ncurtail freedom and inflict positive injury on the score of opinion.\nNo such charge can justly be made against Freethinkers in general,\nor Bradlaugh in particular. The practice of boycotting for opinion's\nsake he detested and denounced, and never in any way resorted to. He\neven carried the spirit of \"tolerance\" to an extreme degree in his own\naffairs, being careful, as his daughter testifies, to avoid giving\nhis children anything like specific anti-theological teaching, on the\nground that the opinions of the young ought not to be stereotyped for\nthem on points which they ought to reconsider for themselves when they\ngrow up. In intercourse with those about him he was equally scrupulous;\nand all the contributors to his journal can tell how complete was the\nfreedom he gave them to express in its pages opinions from which he\ndissented. In this he was far superior to many who have aspersed him\nas overbearing. It was a point of honour with him to give a hearing\nin his columns to all manner of opposition to his own views; and no\nman was ever less apt to let his philosophical convictions bias him\nin his practical or political relations with people of another way of\nthinking. Hence he was able not only to follow, but to follow with\na chivalrous devotion, such a political leader as Mr Gladstone, of\nwhose latter writings on religious matters he found it difficult to\nspeak without a sense of humorous humiliation.[106] But his political\nteaching must be separately considered.\n\n[Footnote 106: His comment on Mr Gladstone's reply to Colonel Ingersoll\nis, however, a model of respectful exposure of a very bad case.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nPOLITICAL DOCTRINE AND WORK.\n\n\n\u00a7 1.\n\nIn combining the propaganda of Freethought with that of Republican\nRadicalism, Bradlaugh was carrying on the work begun in England by\nPaine, and continued by Richard Carlile, men whose memory he honoured\nfor those qualities of courage, sincerity, and constancy which were the\npith of his own character. The bringing of reason to bear at once on\nthe things of Church and of State, of creed and of conduct, was for him\na matter of course, as it has been for the great majority of Atheists,\nfrom Holbach onwards, and he held firmly to the old conviction that for\nfree and rational men the only right form of Government is a Republic.\nHe had all Paine's energetic disdain of the monarchic principle in\ntheory and in practice, and, coming to his work in the latter half of\nthe century, he could stand up for Republicanism without incurring the\nextreme penalties which fell so heavily on the devoted head of Carlile\nthat his hold of his rationalist doctrine gave way under the strain of\nhis struggle, the mind seeking lethargic rest before the body found the\nfinal repose. Still the great reaction against the French Revolution,\nwhich had made the name of Paine a byword, and the life of Carlile a\nseries of imprisonments, was still far too strong in the fifties and\nsixties to permit of an avowed Republican and Atheist being regarded\nwithout horror by the middle and upper classes. The more famous\nCarlyle, with all his loud esteem for sincerity and louder repudiation\nof cant, never dreamt of saying a plain word against the monarchy\nany more than against the current religion, though his political\ntheories were at all times as far asunder from current monarchism as\nfrom democracy. He even went out of his way to speak smoothly of a\nroyalty which did nothing. For a generation to which Carlyle figured\nas outspoken and veridical, therefore, anything so practical as\nRepublicanism was wildly revolutionary, and so Bradlaugh figured from\nthe first to the average imagination as a violent politician.\n\nStrictly speaking, he was in a sense more violent in his politics than\nin his anti-theology, because political strife is necessarily more a\nmatter of attack on living persons than is the doctrinal strife between\nAtheism and Theism. As a republican he could not avoid discussing the\npersonalities of the Hanoverian dynasty, inasmuch as the practical\nstrength of royalism lies in the hereditary self-abasement of men\nbefore the hereditary royal person as such, not in any common hold\non a monarchic theory of Government. To people who gloried in living\nunder the Guelphs, an exposure of the Guelphs was the only relevant\nor intelligible answer. We may indeed say generally of monarchy what\nStrauss said of dogma, that the true criticism of it is its history.\nBut the practical sanity which in Bradlaugh balanced the fieriest zeal,\nshowed him from the first that Republicanism could only advance by way\nof culture and reason, never by way of violence. He \"spoke\" bullets\nand bayonets, but he never for an instant countenanced their use in\nEnglish politics; and he had always a mixture of wrath and contempt\nfor those who blustered of carrying by force, or threats of force, any\nreform in the Constitution. Even while he was delivering in lectures\nhis \"Impeachment of the House of Brunswick,\" he constantly declared\nthat the mass of the people were not yet qualified to constitute a\nrepublican state; and he declared as much when, in 1873, he spoke at\nthe banquet given by the then Republican leaders at Madrid in his\nhonour as delegate from the Republican Conference which had just been\nheld at Birmingham.\n\nThe almost entire subsidence of Republican agitation in England within\nthe last twenty years, after the considerable show of Republican\nfeeling which followed on the fall of the Empire in France, is an\ninteresting and instructive fact, worth a little explanation here.\nIt does not mean that the nation is less ready for a Republic; the\nfact is quite the other way. Recent tests have shown that in the\naverage working-class Liberal and Radical Club, when the question\nis plainly raised, there is virtually no feeling in favour of the\nretention of Monarchy. The old devotion to the monarch as such has\nalmost completely passed away among the more intelligent workers, and\nnow subsists only among their weaker brethren, and in the middle and\nupper classes. Political movements, however, are made and marred not\nby pure reasoning but by special stresses of feeling, and there has\nbeen little or nothing in the annals of the past twenty years to set\nup a new stress of feeling against the monarchy in England, while\nthere has been much that has tended to put the republican ideal in the\nbackground. It is hardly to the credit of the nation that it lays less\nstore by a great principle or ideal than by concrete points of lower\nimportance; but such is and must long be the fact. The movement which\nled to the Republican Conference in 1873, to begin with, suffered from\nthe still vivid recollection of the horrors of the Commune. Next it was\nfound that among its adherents were many who were less concerned to set\nup a British Republic than to further by that means the independence\nof Ireland. Thus the movement was in itself weakened by want of unity\nof motive and purpose, and could make little headway against the vast\nforces of habit and prejudice which buttress the Throne. Even what\nheadway it did make was due largely to the then very common feeling\nof personal hostility to the Prince of Wales, whose reputed character\noffended many who would not of their own accord have been likely to\nraise the question of Monarchy _versus_ Republic. Another ground for\nhostility to the Crown was and is the sufficiently solid one of its\ncost; but here again the spectacle of the financial corruption in\nleading Republics has tended to damp down anti-monarchic feeling. It\nis pretty clear that, barring any new and special cause for outcry\nagainst the Throne, its abolition in this country will only result from\nthe slow accumulation of indifference and of educated aversion to the\nsnobbery which cherishes and is cherished by it. This certainly cannot\ntake place during the lifetime of the reigning sovereign, whose age and\npopularity alike go to silence serious agitation. It may or may not\ncome about during the next generation.\n\nBradlaugh used to be quoted as saying that he intended that the heir\napparent should never come to the Throne. He never said anything so\nidle, though in his youth he thought it possible that the Republic\nmight be attained in his lifetime. As years went on, his insight\ninto human nature led him to feel that agitation for an ideal form\nof Government was less directly fruitful than agitation against the\nabuses of class privilege; and in the last dozen years of his life,\nhis political work went mainly to reforms within the lines of the\nConstitution. Apart from this partial change of tactic, his position\nunderwent no change from first to last. His political doctrine may be\nbroadly described as a demand for the fullest admission of the people\nto the rights of self-government, and further, the application of the\npowers thus acquired to the removal or reform of all laws framed in\nthe interest of the upper few. This was the ideal he had formed for\nhimself in his youth, and he declined to substitute for it the ideal\nof Socialism, which had begun to be vaguely popular towards the end of\nhis life. The refusal rested on his experience, and on his character.\nIn his youth he had seen a great impression made by the teaching and\nthe achievement of Robert Owen, whose propaganda came so closely in\nrelation with that of Secularism that in several towns the old halls\nof the Owenites have been till recent years, or are still, carried\non by the surviving followers of Owen, as Secularist meeting-places.\nFor Owen, whom he had met in youth, Bradlaugh had much esteem. \"No\nSocialist myself,\" he wrote in later life, \"I yet cannot but concede\nthat [Owen's] movement had enormous value, if only as a protest\nagainst that terrible and inhuman competitive struggle, in which the\nstrong were rewarded for their strength, and no mercy was shown to the\nweakest.\"[107] But he was profoundly impressed by the extravagance of\nOwen's estimate of the present possibilities of human nature; and the\nlater Socialism, like the earlier, represented for him the optimism\nof unpractical men, with the difference that the later agitators had\nat once much less gift for social organisation than Owen, and a far\nmore difficult programme to realise. Thus, where Owen set himself to\ncreate a State within the State, Bradlaugh addressed himself to making\nthe political State truly democratic--a course the wisdom of which is\nadmitted by the action of the Socialists, who now adopt it. He was in\na general sense the successor of the Chartists; and in that connection\nit is impossible not to feel that if such a one as he had been in\nthe place of Fergus O'Connor, the political advance of the past half\ncentury would have been considerably quickened. As it was, his labours\nhave probably counted more than those of any other single man in his\nday to rouse the workers in the towns to vigorous political action.\nBefore they had the vote, he not only helped to lead the agitation\nfor their enfranchisement, but appealed to them directly on the\nissues which he wanted their suffrage to settle. It is the fashion of\nthe new Socialism to represent that the old Radicalism wrought for\npolitical enfranchisement without any notion of what use the vote\nwas to be turned to. Common sense and common candour will put that\naccount of things aside without much trouble. Bradlaugh for one had\nvery definite notions of what he wanted the vote to do. His programme\nwas both positive and negative. He strongly supported the Radical\ndemand for retrenchment of an expenditure which was always tending\nto benefit, not the many, but the few; and he detested the policy of\n\"safe\" foreign aggression which, after being long associated with the\nname of Palmerston, came to be identified with that of Beaconsfield.\nThe fact that this policy had the support of some who later figured as\nSocialists, did not increase his esteem for their after-course. His\nsympathy with the small and weak nationalities whom England selected\nfor attack was rooted in the intense sense of justice which inspired\nhis whole life. After working for struggling Italy and Poland, he\nrefused to stand by in silence while his own country unscrupulously\nmade war on Afghans, on Zulus, and on Egyptians, on pretexts which all\nEnglishmen would have execrated had they been put forward by Russians.\nAnd as he never made popularity his guiding principle, he as instantly\nand resolutely opposed the aggressions of Mr Gladstone's Government as\nthose of the Tories. In none of the sins of modern Liberalism, whether\nin Africa or in Ireland, was he implicated. But he had a constructive\nas well as a limitary ideal, a home policy as well as a foreign; and\nwhereas his course on the latter head will now be endorsed by most\nLiberals, his social doctrine is still in need of exposition and\njustification.\n\n[Footnote 107: \"Five Dead Men whom I knew,\" p. 6.]\n\n\n\u00a7 2.\n\nA notable fact in the history of popular Freethought in England has\nbeen its association with the social teaching of Malthus, which\nfirst came before the world only a few years after Paine's attack on\northodoxy. There is nothing to show that Paine ever realised what\na blow was struck at his optimistic Theism, by the essay which his\nfellow-Theist Malthus wrote to rebut the optimist assumptions on\nthe \"Political Justice\" of Godwin, a Freethinker who held by the\nrevolutionary optimism in the sphere of politics, while tending away\nfrom Deistic optimism in philosophy. Paine, who was certainly as much\nbent on construction as on destruction, sketched a socio-political\nsystem which will be found by many readers as impressive to-day as\nit was found by Pitt. He proposed on the one hand a progressive\nincome-tax, which should yield new revenue and break up large estates,\nand on the other hand a system of stipends to poor families; annuities\nto decayed tradesmen and others over fifty, increasing after sixty;\nprovision for the education of the children of the poor; donations for\nbirths, marriages, and some funerals; and \"employment at all times\nfor the casual poor in the cities of London and Westminster.\" Save as\nregards the old age pensions, which represent a great improvement on\npauper relief, and the education scheme, all of this plan comes under\nthe destructive criticism of Malthus, inasmuch as it does not recognise\nthe fatal tendency of an untaught population to multiply in excess of\nthe economic possibilities of maintenance. The plan of allowancing\npoor families at so much per head would have quickened immensely the\nprogress towards national bankruptcy which was carried so far under the\nold Poor Law. It would have bred paupers by the thousand.\n\nThe demonstration of Malthus naturally was not relished by the\nRadicals, to whom it was first addressed; and Godwin in particular met\nit with indecent acrimony, as did Coleridge, the Conservative. But\nthe next generation of Freethinkers assimilated the argument, and a\ncertain propaganda for the restriction of families was carried on by\nRichard Carlile. It is a remarkable fact that two Christian priests\nhave laid two corner-stones of the structure of Atheistic polity for\nmodern England. Butler in confuting the Deists wrought as much for\nAtheism as for orthodoxy; Malthus, in meeting the remaining Deists\non the ground of sociology, confuted their optimism on the practical\nside. Freethought finally accepted both services, rectifying Malthus\nas it rectified Butler; and under Bradlaugh it made for science all\nround. Malthusianism in its original form certainly lent itself to\nToryism; and no amount of benevolence on the part of Malthus could\nmake his doctrine acceptable to democracy so long as it was tied down\nto his Christian ethic. The step which reconciled the knowledge of\nthe law of population with energetic Radicalism in politics was taken\nwhen rationalists laid it down that the prudential check need not mean\nprolonged celibacy. Teaching as he did the all-importance of checking\nthe birth-rate, and knowing as he did the possibility of bringing\nabout the restraint, Bradlaugh had no further cause for misgiving as\nto political progress than his recognition of the general capacity of\nhuman nature to blunder.\n\nHe took up the neo-Malthusian position emphatically in his early\npamphlet on \"Jesus, Shelley, and Malthus,\" published in 1861, a\nsomewhat youthfully rhetorical, but still a very notable presentment\nof the three main influences successively brought to bear on the\nproblem of poverty--the spirit of religious submission, the spirit of\nhumanitarian revolt, and the spirit of science. He pleaded for the\nlast. \"An acquaintance with political economy,\" he there declares,\n\"is as necessary to the working man as is a knowledge of navigation\nto the master of a ship. It is the science of social life, the social\nscience.\" And he was able in those days of the \"orthodox\" economics to\ncite in support of his definition, from the high priest of orthodoxy,\na deliverance which may surprise readers whose knowledge of the old\neconomics is not commensurate with their censure of it.\n\n \"The object of political economy,\" says Mr M'Culloch, \"is to point\n out the means by which the industry of man may be rendered most\n productive of those necessaries, comforts, and enjoyments which\n constitute wealth; to ascertain the circumstances most favourable for\n its accumulation, the proportion in which it is divided among the\n different classes of the community, and the mode in which it may be\n most advantageously consumed.\"\n\nAnd in another early pamphlet on \"Poverty and its Effect on the\nPolitical Condition of the People,\" first published in 1863, he put as\none of his mottoes, after a more guarded sentence from John Mill, this\nfrom Sir James Steuart:--\n\n \"The object of political economy is to secure the means of subsistence\n to all the inhabitants, to obviate every circumstance which might\n render this precarious, to provide everything necessary for supplying\n the wants of society, and to employ the inhabitants so as to make\n their several interests accord with their supplying each other's\n wants.\"\n\nBut his application of the principle was democratic and Neo-Malthusian,\nnot Collectivist. \"Unless,\" he wrote, \"the _necessity_ of the\npreventative or positive checks to population be perceived; unless it\nbe clearly seen that they must operate in one form if not in another,\nand that, _though individuals may escape them, the race cannot_, human\nsociety is a hopeless and insoluble riddle.\" And for years before this\nhe had persistently pressed the point in his lectures, steadily defying\nthe odium which his action brought upon him. As early as 1862 we find\nhim temperately replying to denunciation on this head in a lecture on\n\"Malthusianism and its connection with Civil and Religious Liberty,\"\nof which a partial report happened to be taken in shorthand. \"It may\nalmost seem unwise,\" he remarked, \"to be continually putting this\nsubject before you; but really I find myself so misrepresented, and so\nliable to be misunderstood, in quarters where one would expect better\nthings, that you must not wonder if I seek to make it clear to you why\nI persist in this advocacy.\" He here pressed the law of population as a\nfundamental datum of political science.\n\n \"I shall urge upon you this morning that there can be no permanent\n civil and religious liberty, no permanent and enduring freedom for\n humankind, no permanent and enduring equality amongst men and women,\n no permanent and enduring fraternity, until the subject which Malthus\n wrote upon is thoroughly examined, and until the working men make that\n of which Malthus was so able an exponent the science of their everyday\n life; until, in fact, they grapple with it, and understand that the\n poverty which they now have to contend against must always produce the\n present evils which oppress them.\"\n\nAgain:--\n\n \"Poverty, so long as it exists, is in fact the impassable barrier\n between man and civil and religious liberty. You can never have true\n liberty so long as men are steeped in poverty. So long as men do not\n comprehend what liberty, what freedom really is, they will be ignorant\n how to attain it. Ignorance is the necessary sequence of their\n poverty. Are the people poor? For the poor there are no museums, no\n pictures, no elevating spheres of life, no grand music, no ennobling\n poetry. All these phases are closed to them; and why? Because their\n life is a constant struggle to live.... What is the use of preaching\n to the masses if the masses do not understand the language in which\n you talk to them? What is the use of your phrases to them when their\n education compels them not to comprehend the words you say, nay, makes\n them misunderstand you--for unfortunately _poverty has its education_,\n and is in this case worse than mere ignorance. There is a miseducation\n in poverty, which distorts the human mind, destroys self-reliant\n energy, and is a most effectual barrier in the way of religious\n liberty. Liberty, equality, fraternity, are words used very often\n about the Republican institutions of the world; but you can never have\n liberty, equality, and fraternity as long as there is poverty dividing\n one class from another.\"\n\nThese words have been echoed since by Socialists and others who\nrepresent Bradlaugh as a \"Manchester\" politician; and who either evade\nthe question of the birth-rate, or deny that it is of any account.\nTheir argument takes two main forms: (1) That to urge prudence on\nthe poor is useless, since they will not listen; while the better\nworkers who do listen are \"sterilised;\" (2) that there would be\nno over-population if only wealth were properly distributed. Both\narguments are fallacious; the first proceeding upon ignorance of the\nfacts, and the desire to shirk a troublesome question; the second\nupon non-comprehension of the law of population. In the first case,\nthe objector first implies that it _might_ be good to limit families\nif only people could be got to do so, and then proceeds to say that\nthe limiting of families is harmful when practised. Both of these\nconflicting views are erroneous in fact. It is _not_ difficult to make\nthe majority of poor men and women listen to reason on the subject;\nwith those who say it is, the wish is father to the thought, in that\nthey do not want to try to give the requisite knowledge. Thousands of\npoor women ignorantly use the most disastrous means to limit their\nfecundity; and extreme poverty often hampers them even where they\nhave the knowledge. A little money spent by the charitable in helping\nthe very poor in this way would obviate the need for endless alms to\nrelieve the misery which ignorant instinct multiplies. Nor is there\nthe least need to fear the \"sterilising\" of the more prudent, as the\nlimitation of the family has been unwarrantably termed. Small families\ndo not necessarily mean lessened total population. A man who has only\nthree children and rears them all healthfully, maintains the species\nmore efficiently than a man who has eight, loses six, and perforce\nrears the two survivors badly, because what might have nourished two\nor three well was for years spent in merely keeping more alive. The\nextreme case of France, over which there has been so much superficial\ntalk in France and elsewhere, is no such portent as it is made out,\nbut is in part explicable by the stress of the influenza plague, which\nheavily affected even the English birth-rate, and is in part a useful\nreminder to French statesmen that they are pressing too heavily on\ntheir country's resources, and need to mend their methods. Withal, the\nmisery in France is far less grinding and pervasive than the misery in\nEngland.\n\nAs to the argument that it is not over-breeding, but bad distribution\nthat causes poverty, the answer is that both causes operate, but\nthat over-breeding can work misery under any system of distribution\nwhatever, and is a main support to bad distribution at present.\nSome Malthusians have supposed that with a proper proportionment of\npopulation to the resources of the time being, poverty would wholly\ndisappear. This is over-sanguine; but the case of the United States in\nthe first half of the century, when resources were still far ahead of\nlabour supply, gives abundant support to a more moderate claim. On the\nother hand, unless the lesson of prudential restraint be learned, the\nmost thorough socialistic system of distribution will simply incur the\nmost complete ruin. People reason that if only the resources of the\nworld were properly utilised, all could be fed and housed comfortably.\nThat is quite true; but they forget that if there be no restraint, the\npopulation of the world, being better placed than ever, will double at\nleast every twenty-five years, and will thus soon upset any possible\nsystem of housing and feeding, and reduce the general condition to\ntoil and poverty all round. This is so obvious when put, that the\noptimists are fain to fall back on a theory that population slackens\nspontaneously under conditions of comfort. Mr George moves nimbly\nbetween this theory and one which absolutely negates it. But all such\npleas resolve themselves into either an admission that the race _must\nand will learn to practise prudential restraint_, which is a surrender\nto Malthusianism, or an assumption of a pre-ordained beneficent harmony\nin Nature, the old optimism in a new dress, or rather an old dress\n\"turned.\"\n\nWe come back to the common plea of all the antagonists of\nNeo-Malthusianism--that there is no need to check over-breeding _at\npresent_--a position so crudely unreasonable, so irreconcilable with\nany knowledge of the great facts of the case, that it is a mystery\nhow it can be taken up by candid and well-informed men. No amount of\ndemonstration that the world _might_ feed all its inhabitants can do\naway with the dreadful fact that myriads of babes _are_ actually born\ninto the world every year only to die of the troubles made by poverty;\nthat these babes had much better not have been born; that their birth\nmight have been prevented; and that the survivors suffered from their\nbirth. That men can shut their eyes to these overwhelming facts, and\ngo on arguing, on an \"if,\" that there is no need to restrain the\nbirth-rate \"in the meantime,\" is one of the darkest anomalies of\npolitical science.\n\nBetween the obstinacy of the opposing fallacy and the brutality of the\nresistance of prejudice, many men who recognise the truth have yet\nbeen wearied into holding their peace, in a pessimistic conviction\nthat mankind in the mass cannot be enlightened on the matter. Of that\nattitude Bradlaugh was to the last incapable, though he had more cause\nthan most men to know how tremendous were the odds in the struggle.\nLater generations will find it hard to credit the facts. A policy which\non the face of the case could only be motived by public spirit and zeal\nfor the truth was met by the vilest aspersions, the most malignant\nimputation of the most preposterously bad intentions. Personal vice was\nfreely charged in explanation of an action which no vicious man would\nhave had the self-denial to undertake. It is the bare truth to say\nthat for many years a main part of the work of the Christian Evidence\nSociety in England has been to employ hirelings to charge Secularism\nwith the promotion of sexual vice--this on the strength partly of\nBradlaugh's work for Neo-Malthusianism, and partly of the vogue of the\nanonymous work entitled \"The Elements of Social Science,\" in which\nthe arguments for family limitation are combined with a perfectly\nwell-intentioned argument for sexual freedom as against celibacy and\nprostitution, the evils of which are not only exposed, but provided\nagainst in the book by careful medical instruction. Of this book, as we\nhave seen, while honouring the moral courage and absolute benevolence\nof the anonymous writer, Bradlaugh expressly disclaimed the more\nadvanced doctrines; but he has been saddled with them all the same, as\nif his burden of unpopularity were not already heavy enough.\n\nHe had fit though few compensations. He lived to see the rightness of\nhis course more and more widely and openly admitted; and to see some\nFreethinkers and others who had unworthily attacked him for it come\nround and follow in his steps. And at his trial with Mrs Besant for\nselling the Knowlton pamphlet in 1877 he was able to tell the jury of\nhigher sanctions than these. Mill in his \"Autobiography,\" telling how\nhe was attacked for subscribing to Bradlaugh's election fund in 1868,\nsays of him:--\n\n \"He had the support of the working-classes; having heard him speak, I\n knew him to be a man of ability, and he had proved that he was the\n reverse of a demagogue, by placing himself in strong opposition to\n the prevailing opinion of the democratic party on two such important\n subjects as Malthusianism and Personal Representation. Men of this\n sort, who, while sharing the democratic feelings of the working\n classes, judged political questions for themselves, and had courage to\n assert their individual convictions against popular opposition, were\n needed, as it seemed to me, in Parliament.\"\n\nIt may here be added that Grote, who was a regular reader of the\n_National Reformer_ and a Neo-Malthusian also, approved even more\nstrongly. The further fact, now established, that Mill was in his youth\nactually prosecuted for distributing Neo-Malthusian literature, should\nserve to check the malice of those persons, clerical and other, who\nstill divide Freethinkers into two classes--one of \"irreproachable\nmorals,\" following Mill, the other of \"loose and dissolute character,\"\nfollowing Bradlaugh.\n\nSome Neo-Malthusians have been charged, despite their rejection of\nthe _non-possumus_ of Malthus, with excluding all other reforms in\ntheir advocacy of family limitation. If this charge was even valid,\nit certainly was not against Bradlaugh. He might much more reasonably\nbe criticised for not keeping the population question to the front\nin every discussion of main reforms than for unduly obtruding it, or\nusing it to discourage reforms made in disregard of it. After he had\nthoroughly forced it on the public attention, he trusted more to the\nquiet dissemination of educative literature on the subject, and the\nenlistment of individual self-interest in the reform, than to the\npolitical handling of it on the platform, where the insistence on it\nseems still to arouse the resentment of many Socialists and others,\nwho can see no need for any reform save those they themselves propose,\nand are particularly wroth at the suggestion that working men can\nbe in any degree accountable for their own troubles. The defence of\nthe Knowlton pamphlet, as has been shown in the foregoing pages, was\nforced on Bradlaugh; and it was the more trying for him in that he was\nalways personally averse to the detailed discussion of sexual topics.\nAt the same time, it was impossible for him to submit to the stupid\nsuppression by the authorities of the only cheap literature that\ngave to the poor the necessary knowledge for the limitation of their\nfamilies. He was bound to resist that by every principle he professed;\nby his doctrine of freedom for the press and his doctrine of prudence\nin the family. So resisting, he identified himself once for all with\nthe Neo-Malthusian doctrine in politics, though the resulting special\nnotoriety of the topic was thus the work of the prosecutors themselves,\nwho probably did more by their hostile act for the spread of popular\nknowledge than Bradlaugh had before been able to do by his years of\nadvocacy.\n\nHow important was his introduction of the principle into politics can\nonly be realised by those who know how much the principle means; and\nit is still in the stage of being vilified by the pious and contemned\nby the superficial, in which latter class may be included a good many\nSocialists. The former heap upon avowed Neo-Malthusians an abuse which\nthey withhold from eminent politicians who confess opinions that\nimply Neo-Malthusianism or nothing. Mr John Morley, for instance,\nhas expressed his regret that \"we,\"--that is, the Liberal party in\ngeneral--shirk the population question so much; and Mr Leonard Courtney\nhas laid it down that we may as well build a house in disregard of\nthe law of gravitation as hope to make a community prosper without\nregard to the law of population. The late Lord Derby spoke to similar\neffect. Either, then, such politicians mean to urge, with Malthus,\nthat working-men shall postpone marriage until they have saved a good\ndeal of money--that is, till middle or late life--or they approve of\nearly marriage with conjugal prudence. That is the whole matter; for\nthe nature of the prudence is a quite subsidiary question, on which no\nwise man or doctor will narrowly dogmatise. But nobody, not even the\n_Times_, denounces or insults Mr Courtney or Mr Morley or the late Lord\nDerby for saying what each of them has said. As usual, the man who says\nexplicitly what other men say implicitly is singled out for attack, not\non the score of taste, but on the score of the plain doctrine, however\nput.\n\nOn the whole, however, the tone of the discussion improves from year\nto year. In the \"Knowlton\" trial, the then Solicitor-General, Sir\nHardinge Giffard (now Lord Halsbury), after hearing abundant evidence\nto show that the details made known in the pamphlet were just such as\nwere made known in a number of other current works never prosecuted,\nthough freely circulated by prominent booksellers; and after himself\nexpressly avowing that \"the book, I think it may be said, is carefully\nguarded from any vulgarity of expression\"--nevertheless persisted\nin coarsely describing it as \"dirty and filthy.\" Yet he himself\nwas so gratuitously indecent in his own language that in a number\nof passages it had to be paraphrased or expunged in the report. And\nthough the puzzle-headed jury \"entirely exonerated the defendants\nfrom any corrupt motives in publishing,\" they were \"unanimously of\nopinion that the book in question is calculated to deprave public\nmorals,\" and allowed their foreman to present a verdict of guilty\nunder the indictment. Probably no metropolitan jury would now come\n\"unanimously\" to the degrading conclusion that to spread specific\nphysiological knowledge is to deprave public morals, even if the\nmembers were the \"average sensual men\" who habitually circulate and\ngloat upon lewd anecdotes, to say nothing of their acts. It is true\nthat the abominable imputations packed into the indictment of Bradlaugh\nand Mrs Besant were repeated in the miserable prosecution[108] which\ntook place at Newcastle in 1892; and that the Recorder who tried\nthat case, Judge Digby Seymour, displayed gross prejudice at every\nstage of the trial, finally vilifying such a perfectly well-meant and\nwell-done treatise as Dr Allbutt's \"Wife's Handbook,\" and the old\n\"Fruits of Philosophy,\" as \"two of the filthiest works that could be\ncirculated to debauch and demoralise the minds of the people.\" Odious\naspersions of this kind represent merely the fanaticism of ignorant\ncustom, and take no heed of the enormous harm which physiological\nignorance breeds. The Solicitor-General in the Knowlton trial flatly\nrefused to deal with any such considerations; and Judge Seymour\nsimilarly would listen to no rational argument. But a decisive current\nof public opinion now begins to set the other way. Even a number of\nclergymen now admit the frightful evils of over-breeding, and are thus\nat least in part disentitled to cry out against rational prudence.\nThe Newcastle prosecution, moreover, was strongly condemned in the\nlocal press; the accused was liberated; and at a public indignation\nmeeting one speaker declared, with applause, that \"the verdict of\nJudge Digby Seymour was an insult and a libel upon their English\nmanners.\" And though a Neo-Malthusian student was heavily fined[109]\nin London in the previous year for circulating information in a\nslightly irregular manner, the language of the counsel for the\nCrown, who declared that \"_the only check against immorality in this\ncountry is the fear of pregnancy_,\" excited general indignation, as\ndid the conduct of the magistrate in ruling that decent language was\n\"obscene.\" This prosecution, too, was repented of; and the most direct\njournalistic challenge afterwards failed to bring on any prosecution of\nNeo-Malthusian doctrine as such.\n\n[Footnote 108: Of Henry Loader, a professed Christian.]\n\n[Footnote 109: He was fined \u00a340, while two brothel-keepers were fined\nonly \u00a35 each in the same week.]\n\nEven the comparatively reasonable attitude of Sir Alexander Cockburn\nin the \"Knowlton\" trial would not now recommend itself at all points\nto educated people. In the hearing of the evidence he thought fit\nto suggest that only \"strong-minded ladies\" could acquire medical\nknowledge without becoming \"less pure-minded.\" Nor would any thoughtful\npeople now agree with him and the Solicitor-General that \"no better\ntribunal can be found in the world to judge of such a question as this\nthan the average sound sense and enlightened judgment which is to be\nfound in English society.\" These flights of declamation on the Bench\nare part of the general cant of English society, which can decorously\nendorse the moral reflections of a judge whose own life is the subject\nof chronic and much-relished scandal. But Cockburn at least put a\nnew obstacle in the way of legal molestation of honest propaganda\nby expressing his agreement with the Malthusian doctrine as to\nover-population; and the later judgment of Judge Windeyer in Victoria,\nvindicating Mrs Besant's \"Law of Population\" when it was prosecuted\nthere, marks the turn of the legal tide.\n\n\n\u00a73.\n\nThe constructive policy which Bradlaugh joined with his Neo-Malthusian\ndoctrine had for its main item the radical reform of the land laws.\nHe was thus in practical harmony with those individualists who except\nthe land from the operation of the individualist principle, though he\ndid not declare like them for land nationalisation. Nationalisation he\nconsidered too vast and difficult a transaction in the present state\nof political evolution; but progressive interference with the land\nmonopoly he held to be as practicable as it is necessary. Property in\nland, he held with Mill, \"is only valid in so far as the proprietor\nof the land is its improver; when private property in land is not\nexpedient it is unjust.\" And the control of the land, in his opinion,\nmust become the subject of a great and decisive struggle between the\npeople and the landowning class, who may or may not be aided by the\nrest of the capitalist class. On this subject he felt no less strongly,\nthough he always spoke with more restraint, than do Socialists with\nregard to capitalism pure and simple.\n\n \"It is for the use of air, moisture, and heat,\" he puts it, \"for the\n varied natural forces, that the cultivator pays; and the receiver\n talks of the rights of property. We shall have for the future to\n talk in this country of the rights of life--rights which must be\n recognised, even if the recognition involves the utter abolition of\n the present landed aristocracy.\"[110]\n\n[Footnote 110: Pamphlet on \"The Land, the People, and the Coming\nStruggle,\" fourth ed., p. 8.]\n\nAnd he could say of the landed class, what can hardly be said of the\nlabour-employing class in the main, that they had stood in the way of\nevery reform:\n\n \"The great rent-takers have been the opponents of progress; they\n have hindered reform; they kept the taxes on knowledge; they passed\n combination laws; they enacted long Parliaments; they made the\n machinery of Parliamentary election costly and complicated, so as\n to bar out the people. They have prevented education, and then have\n sneered at the masses for their ignorance. All progress in the\n producing power of labour has added to the value of land; and yet the\n landowner, who has often stood worse than idly by while the land has\n increased in value, now talks of the labourer as of the lower herd\n which must be checked and restrained.\"\n\nTo carry out in legislation the principle of the common interest in\nthe land was accordingly one of his main aims; and at the time when\nhis illegal exclusion from Parliament forced him to concentrate all\nhis energies in the struggle for bare political life, he had gone\nfar to give effect to it. Early in 1880 he took the leading part in\nestablishing the Land Law Reform League, of which the formulated\nobjects were:--\n\n \"1. In case of intestacies, the same law to govern the distribution of\n real and personal property. This would destroy primogeniture, but to\n be useful would need to be followed by some limitation of the power of\n devise, say as in France.\n\n \"2. Abolition of the right to settle or entail for non-existing lives.\n It would be far better to abolish, all life estates ...\n\n \"3. Transfer of land to be made as cheap and easy as the transfer\n of a ship. Security to be ensured by compulsory registration of all\n dealings with land ...\n\n \"4. Abolition of all preferential rights of landlords over other\n creditors....\n\n \"5. Abolition of the Game Laws.\n\n \"6. Compulsory cultivation of all lands now uncultivated, and not\n devoted to public purposes, which are cultivable with profit. That is,\n make it a misdemeanour to hold cultivable lands in an uncultivated\n state. The penalty on conviction to be dispossession, but with payment\n to dispossessed landowners of say twenty years' purchase of the\n average annual value of the land for the seven years prior to the\n prosecution. The payment to be by bonds of the State bearing the same\n interest as the Consolidated Debt, and payable to bearer. The land to\n be State property, and to be let to actual tenant cultivators on terms\n of tenancy ... longer or shorter according to the improvement made in\n the estate. The amount paid as rent to the State to be applied to the\n payment of the interest and to form a sinking fund for the liquidation\n of the principal.\n\n \"7. Security to the tenant-cultivator for improvements.\n\n \"8. Re-valuation of lands for the more equitable imposition of the\n land-tax.\n\n \"9. Land-tax to be levied on a scale so graduated as to press most\n heavily on excessively large holdings.\n\n \"10. One and the same land law for Great Britain and Ireland.\"\n\nWithin a few months this League, numbering among its Vice-Presidents\nfour clergymen, two of them belonging to the State Church, had\nestablished a number of strong branches, enrolled members, and\naffiliated societies representing many thousands more, thus attracting\nan amount of notice in the press which promised important results. An\nillustration of the effect produced may be seen in a letter which Mr\nRuskin thought worthy of insertion in _Fors Clavigera_:--\n\n \"May I take an advantage of this note, and call your attention to a\n fact of much importance to Englishmen? and it is this. On reference\n to some Freethought papers--notably the _National Reformer_--I find\n a movement on foot amongst the Atheists, vigorous and full of life,\n for the alteration of the Land Laws in our much-loved country. It is\n a movement of much moment, and likely to lead to great results. The\n first great move on the part of Charles Bradlaugh, the premier in the\n matter, is the calling of a conference to discuss the whole question.\n The meeting is to be attended by all the National Secular Society's\n branches throughout the empire; representatives of nearly every\n Reform Association in England, Scotland, and Ireland; deputations\n from banded bodies of workmen, colliers, etc.--such as the important\n band of Durham miners--Trade Unionists, and, in fact, a most mighty\n representative conference will be gathered together. I am, for many\n reasons, grieved and shocked to find the cry for Reform coming with\n _such a heading_ to the front. Where are our statesmen--_our clergy_?\n The terrible crying evils of our land system are coming to the front\n in our politics without the help of the so-called upper classes; nay,\n with a deadly hatred of any disturbance in that direction, our very\n clergy are taking up arms against the popular cry.\n\n \"Only a week ago I was spending a few days with a farmer near Chester,\n and learned to my sorrow and dismay that the Dean and Chapter of\n that city, who own most of the farms, etc., in the district where\n my friend resides, refuse now--and only _now_--to accept other than\n _yearly_ tenants for these farms; have raised all the rents to an\n exorbitant pitch, and only allow the land to be sown with wheat, oats,\n or whatever else in seed, etc., on a personal inspection by their\n agent. The consequences of all this is that poverty is prevailing to\n an alarming extent; the workers all the bitter, hard toil; the clergy,\n one may say, _all_ the profits. It is terrible, heart-breaking; I\n never longed so much for heart-searching, vivid eloquence, so that I\n might move men with an irresistible tongue to do the right.\"\n\nIt is vain now to guess what the movement might have done if Bradlaugh,\nwho was its main force, had been left free to carry it on continuously.\nBut, on the one hand, his overwhelming contest with the House of\nCommons forced him to put aside an undertaking which depended so much\non a seat in that House; and on the other hand, to say nothing of the\nprecedence inevitably given to the Irish land question in Parliament,\nit cannot be questioned that the fall in agricultural land values\ntook much of the wind out of the sails of English land reformers. The\nphenomenon of land going out of cultivation put a new face on the\ndispute. When Bradlaugh at length got his seat, he at once showed his\ncontinued grasp of the problem by introducing a Bill for the Compulsory\nCultivation of Waste Land, the principle of which was, that wherever\nland of more than one hundred acres lay uncultivated, and not used for\npublic pleasure,[111] while cultivable with profit by a cultivator\npaying no rent, or a smaller rent than the landlord held necessary\nto make it worth his while to lease, the Commissioners of Woods and\nForests should be empowered to take possession of such land and offer\nit for tenancy. The keeping of the land uncultivated was to be a\nmisdemeanour; but the dispossessed owner was to receive in compensation\nan annual payment for twenty-five years of a sum representing the\naverage annual value of the land during the fourteen years prior\nto his dispossession, whatever that might be. The justification\ngiven by Bradlaugh for making it a misdemeanour to hold land idle\nwas that already it was a misdemeanour for a labourer to live as an\nidle vagrant, and that the law insisted on his utilising his labour\npower. If labour, then _a fortiori_ land. In introducing this measure\nBradlaugh emphatically maintained that if the land would not yield\nthe \"three profits\" of Lord Beaconsfield's formula, it ought not to\nbe allowed to be kept idle and useless by the landlord. So long as a\ncultivator could make _his_ profit, the State was bound to give him\nthe opportunity. Needless to say, the Bill was violently denounced by\nthe Conservative press. The _Times_ talked of \"downright plunder.\"\nThe _Spectator_ was especially indignant on the score that \"great\nproperties in the home counties, _kept waste in the hope that London\nwill build on them_, would be confiscated\"; and that and other journals\nheld it a sufficient objection that in cases where land had been worth\nnothing the landlord would get nothing. Many Liberal members further\nobjected that a Bill of such importance ought not to be introduced\nby a private member; and generally there was more hostility than\nhelp. On its discussion in the House (April 1886) Bradlaugh agreed to\nwithdraw the Bill on the ground that its machinery was insufficient,\nhe having come to the opinion that provision should be made for the\nlending of money to moneyless men to enable them to cultivate on\ntheir own behalf. In 1887, still seeing no hope of carrying a Bill,\nhe took the course of moving a resolution on the motion for going\ninto Committee of Supply, reaffirming the principle that \"the right\nof ownership carries with it the duty of cultivation,\" and proposing\nto empower the \"local authorities\" to act as in the Bill of 1886 he\nhad proposed to make the Commissioners of Woods and Forests act. This\ntime he had considerable support, his resolution getting 101 votes, to\n175 against. Not one of the front bench Liberals voted; but the Irish\nHome Rulers did so in considerable force, making some amends for\nold hostility.[112] Again, in 1888, he moved a modified resolution,\nproposing to empower local authorities to purchase compulsorily waste\nlands at the \"capital agricultural value.\" This time, some hours having\nbeen lost by a Scotch motion for the adjournment of the House on a\npoint affecting crofters, the discussion came to nothing, the House\nbeing counted out while it was in process. Those who were behind the\nscenes may be able to give the explanation of the apathy of the Liberal\nand Radical members generally. The passing of an Allotments Act by the\nConservative Government may have had something to do with it. Be that\nas it may, Bradlaugh again in March 1889 gave notice of a resolution\non the subject, this time proposing to give local authorities power to\nlevy a \"waste and vacant land rate,\" or in the alternative, to acquire\nthe land by payment either \"for a limited term of an annual sum not\nexceeding the then average net annual actual produce,\" or of a sum\nrepresenting the capital agricultural value. This resolution, however,\nnever came to discussion. He again put it down in 1890, immediately\nafter his return from India, but again it failed to reach discussion.\nIn 1891 his work was over.\n\n[Footnote 111: This stipulation was often ignored, and he was accused\nof wanting to parcel out Hyde Park in allotments.]\n\n[Footnote 112: For the details of the case in favour of compulsory\ncultivation of land, see Bradlaugh's pamphlet on the subject, published\n1887.]\n\nIt will be seen that his land policy was more advanced than any that\nhas yet been put in force by the Liberal party, though the legislation\nof 1894 has advanced considerably towards the adoption of his principle\nof compulsion. To that principle later legislators must inevitably\ncome; and as regards land not utilised it has irresistible force. The\nproper answer to the demands of landlords for protection against the\nimport of cheap corn from land paying no rent in America, is that when\nland goes out of cultivation here owing to such competition making\nit fail to yield its old rent, or three profits, the opportunity of\ncultivating it should pass to the State, which may fitly try the\nexperiment of placing on such land the labourers who are driven to\nswell the crowd of unemployed in the towns. But this answer has never\nyet been effectively made in politics.[113] The doctrine of the\nnation's ownership of its land needs apparently to be asserted to-day\nmore emphatically than ever.\n\n[Footnote 113: It has lately been advanced by a \"Unionist\" politician,\nMr T. W. Russell, in the _New Review_.]\n\nAsserting it as he did, Bradlaugh represented a midway position between\nout-and-out Socialism and out-and-out Individualism. Time will show\nwhether it was on the line to be taken by progressive reform. What\nis clear is that if energetically adopted it may soon lead to the\ncomplete overthrow of that land system which is the foundation of the\nreactionary party politics of this country. In his pamphlet on \"The\nLand, the People, and the Coming Struggle,\" Bradlaugh put very clearly\nthe social ideal he had in view. \"The enormous estates of the few\nlanded proprietors,\" he declared, \"must not only be prevented from\ngrowing larger, they must be broken up. At their own instance, and\ngradually, if they will meet us with even a semblance of fairness, for\nthe poor and hungry cannot well afford to fight; but at our instance,\nand rapidly, if they obstinately refuse all legislation.\" To this\nend he proposed, as we have seen, re-valuation of all lands, and a\ngraduated land-tax, to press most heavily on the largest holdings. The\nBudget of 1894, although stopping short of graduation of the annual\ntaxes, has made the first step towards them by graduating the death\nduties; and the further steps are probably not far off. The broad\npolitical problem of the future is the control of wealth distribution,\nto the end of making the rendering of services a condition of the\nenjoyment of services for all able-bodied persons; and it seems fairly\nclear that the easiest of the various possible main steps towards\nthat consummation are the restriction of private property in land and\nthe indirect or direct absorption of \"economic rent\" by the State,\nsuch adaptations being to the socialisation of other means of wealth\nproduction as the simple to the complex. And while Bradlaugh, as has\nbeen said, stipulated for gradual action even in the regulation of the\nland, he never refused to contemplate the nationalisation of its rent\nas an ultimate ideal.\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\nIt may now be easily inferred how Bradlaugh came to feel for the\npopular Socialism of the day a mixture of distrust and aversion. It\nwas for him a flying off at a tangent from the right spiral line of\nprogress. He had counted on seeing the slowly-won political power of\nthe mass of the people turned to the enforcement of fundamental reforms\nin taxation and land-tenure, so as to better the life-conditions of\nthe people in the mass; and he had trusted to a gradual learning of\nthe lesson of family prudence, with the result of an immense saving\nof friction, waste, and misery. When he had got to the front of the\npolitical struggle, the needed reforms were still nearly all to\nmake; and the great lesson of conjugal prudence was only beginning\nto be learned on a large scale. What was wanted, to his mind, was\na combination of energy with patience. He had no belief in the\npossibility of raising the lot of vast masses of people to a high level\nsuddenly by violent legislation for the direct transfer of all property\nfrom the \"haves\" to the \"have-nots\": he knew how enormously difficult\nit was to effect even the modifying measures for which he was working.\nBut he believed that with persistent toil and good sense it might so be\ncarried out that the life of the people should in the next generation\nbe greatly improved, and the stress of their life materially lessened.\nJust at this stage, however, he saw the struggling people suddenly and\nvociferously appealed to by teachers who taught the uselessness of all\ngradual action; the futility of all preceding parliamentary effort;\nthe impossibility of any improvement so long as private property\nin any of the means of production subsisted; the limitation of the\nalternatives to the whole loaf or no bread; the necessity of subjecting\nall industrial action whatever to collective control at one sweep; in a\nword, the absolute necessity of effecting at a stroke, by violence if\nneed be, such a social and moral revolution as the world had never yet\nseen. Already the folly of all this is recognised by many even of those\nwho resent Bradlaugh's popular exposure of it. Within ten years there\nhas been developed in England a progressive Socialism which repudiates\nviolence, substitutes evolution for revolution, proposes to utilise\nall the existing political machinery, is glad of gradual advance, is\ncontent to urge forward Radicalism, and modifies mathematical politics\nby biological conceptions. But Bradlaugh had to bear the brunt of the\nanger not only of the heated crowd who had shouted for the impossible,\nbut of the new sentimental journalists who had patronised them.\n\nFirst he had been constantly and violently abused, in the early days\nof his Parliamentary struggle, as being himself a Socialist, by\npeople who knew nothing whatever about his life and doctrine; and his\nalleged Socialism was one of the pretexts on which some opposed his\nentry into the House of Commons. The nobleman who then represented the\nhistoric name of Percy took that line. A fair sample of the current\ntone on the subject among the ignorant rich is supplied by their\nvotes _vates sanctissima_, the lady novelist \"Ouida,\" in a letter\nto the _Fortnightly Review_,[114] in which she discussed the class\npolitics of Italy. \"It is the towns,\" she explained, \"which are the\ncentres of eagerness for unconsidered war, and the foolish credulity\nof bombastic Radicalism;\" and she went on in her best-informed manner\nto particularise \"the 'educated' cad of the Turin or Florence streets,\nwho has heard just enough of Fourier and Bradlaugh to think that\nsociety ought to maintain at ease his ugly idleness.\" The idleness\nwhich felt sure of its beauty was naturally resentful. All the while,\nBradlaugh was at sharp strife with the Socialists of the moment; and\nhe soon came to be applauded for his course in this matter by the\nsame precious upper-class opinion which had just imputed to him the\nviews he assailed, while new assailants vituperated him as a traitor\nto principles he had never accepted. It is largely to his destructive\ncriticism that the undefined fashionable Socialism of the present hour\nowes its comparative rationality;[115] but there is small thought of\nacknowledging the service.\n\n[Footnote 114: November 1881, p. 842.]\n\n[Footnote 115: His longer criticisms of Socialism make a fair volume.\nThey are: (1) Socialism; For and Against: written debate with Mrs\nBesant, 1887; (2) Will Socialism benefit the English People? debate\nwith Mr Hyndman, 1883; (3) Written debate with Mr Belfort Bax, under\nsame title; (4) \"Socialism; its Fallacies and Dangers,\" article in\n_North American Review_, January 1887, reprinted as a pamphlet;\nPamphlet, \"Some objections to Socialism,\" 1884. See also his articles\nand debate on the \"Eight Hours Question,\" and his lecture on \"Capital\nand Labour.\"]\n\nCertainly he had struck hard, and this not merely because he was\niniquitously and ferociously attacked by Socialists generally.[116]\nHe saw the new doctrine appealing to and applauded by, not the\nclear-headed and self-controlled workers, but the neurotic, the noisy,\nthe passionate, the riotous. Instead of meetings of men at once\nearnest and orderly, such as he had gathered and addressed for so many\nyears, meetings at which debate could go on without disorder, he saw\ngatherings of wildly excited men, who could not listen to opposition,\nwho could not sit still in their seats when their view were countered,\nand who turned a public debate into a public disturbance. Significantly\nenough, the one town in which the Socialist party, even when pretty\nnumerous, can be trusted to give an opponent a fair hearing, is\nNorthampton, where for so many years he disciplined the workers to\norderly activity, and to self-control under extreme provocation. No\ncause ever needed such discipline more than that of Socialism. It is\nquite reasonable to plead for consideration for men whose life is hard,\nand who see idlers at their ease; but extenuating circumstances do\nnot affect the stream of tendency; and no amount of sympathy with the\nluckless can make up for want of judgment in those who undertake to\nlead them. And to talk, as so many of the Socialist talkers did a dozen\nor less years ago, of resorting to physical force, to revolutionise\nsociety, was only to expose the luckless to new disaster.\n\n[Footnote 116: I happened to be standing by when, at a Freethought\nConference, the late Dr C\u00e6sar de P\u00e6pe, a leading Belgian Socialist and\nFreethinker, personally and fraternally remonstrated with Bradlaugh on\nhis opposition to Socialism. He vehemently answered that he had found\nthe English Socialists among the most unscrupulous of his enemies, they\nhaving not only lied about him freely, but put in his mouth all sorts\nof things he had never said or thought.]\n\nWhether all Bradlaugh's argumentation against Socialist theory will\nhold good is another question. It is probable that the extreme\nstatements of Socialist doctrine with which he had to deal led him\nlatterly to define his Individualism at times more sharply than before.\nNot many years before his death he declined to dub himself either\nIndividualist or Socialist. He sought to legislate for an evolving\nsociety, conditioned by all sorts of anomalous survivals; and he must\nprescribe for each juncture or trouble in view of all the facts of the\ncase. As he put it in his pamphlet on \"Parliament and the Poor\":--\n\n \"All progressive legislation in this country is necessarily\n compromise. It is not possible to legislate on hard and fast lines of\n principle alone. A state of things has grown up through generations\n which can only be gradually changed. The expedient has to be\n considered in all lawmaking. Legal interpretations of right have\n received judicial sanction, which have become so much part of our\n general political and social system that sudden reversal would be\n attended often with the gravest mischief. Temporary concessions have\n usually to be made on the one side, to win consent from the other, to\n a sure step in advance; but no compromise is final.\"\n\nBut the affirmation by Socialists of principles which seemed to make\nan end of self-reliance and self-determination led him to offer\ndefinitions of the sphere of Government; and while his concrete\ndecisions--as in the case of the Eight Hours movement--will probably\nbe found to be in all cases sagacious, it may be that political science\nwill yet endorse action which he declined to contemplate. His practical\njustification is that his Socialist adversaries always argued the\ncase _in vacuo_, and demanded the nationalisation of all the means\nof production, and, by consequence, the State determination of all\ndestinies, at a time when not only is the public in the terms of the\ncase still largely predatory and anti-social in instinct, but the\nSocialists themselves are divided by incurable animosities. Mr Hyndman\nchose to debate with him on the issue, \"Will Socialism benefit the\nEnglish People?\"--\"if resorted to here and now\" being implied. Only\nwhen it is asked, \"Can we evolve up to Socialism?\" will Bradlaugh's\nrebuttal be got rid of.\n\nWhat may perhaps be urged against him, as against land nationalisers\nfrom Mill onwards, is that the theory which makes land the main matter\nis partly undermined by the economic evolution in which agricultural\nland values in this country have receded, the food supply being more\nand more derived from abroad, in return for exported goods. On this\nhead, however, it may here suffice to answer that that is in all\nlikelihood a temporary phase; that in any case, English industry rests\non the coal supply, which is a matter of land in the economic sense;\nand that a Socialism which thinks to maintain a forever increasing\npopulation, on the basis of a mere national workshop system, is much\nmore short-sighted than the doctrine which makes the land the fulcrum\nof all industrial movement.\n\nThere is just one criticism of Bradlaugh's politics which the present\nwriter will not undertake to meet, since it raises a point on which he\nwas driven to differ from him. It is the objection to the optimistic\nassumption that the mass of the people can surmount the trouble of\nchronic trade-depression by means of thrift. This was perhaps the one\ntouch of uncritical optimism in Bradlaugh's political system. He argued\nthat the workers could acquire all necessary capital for themselves\nby simple saving. \"You can earn it,\" he tells them, at the close of\nhis lecture on \"Capital and Labour,\"--\"the Rothschilds' wealth, the\nOverstones' wealth, the Barings' wealth--you, the millions, if you\nare only loyal to yourselves and to one another, may put all this\ninto your own Savings Banks, and your own friendly societies, and\nyour own trades unions, within a dozen years. You accumulate it for\nothers: you can do it for yourselves.\" The answer to this is that the\ncapital in question depends for its continuance on the continuance of\nindustrial production, and of the demand for the product; whereas, if\nthe workers were to stint their consumption to the extent of saving\ngreat masses of capital from wages, they would to that extent check\ntheir total production, unless, that is, the other classes increase\ntheir consumption to a balancing extent; which, however, they could not\nconceivably do. Even if the birth-rate be so checked as to lessen the\nnett population, the increasing power of machinery would so far balance\nthe lessened supply of labour that the tactic of parsimony on a large\nscale would defeat itself. At present the successful savers are so in\nvirtue of the ill-luck of other investors and the non-saving of the\nmass. Saving all round would neutralise itself, since the saving could\nonly be profitably invested in production to meet increasing demand,\nwhereas in the terms of the case there would be decreasing demand. It\nis spending that keeps the machine going, not saving.\n\nBut supposing this criticism to be valid--and there are still but\nfew who will endorse it--the final estimate of Bradlaugh, as of any\npolitician, must be in terms of comparison; and if he has erred on the\ntheory of thrift, so have all the statesmen of his time; while on other\ngreat issues on which they were backward, he was alert and enlightened.\nEven the Socialists who oppose him, and throw at him the ancient\nepithet of \"Manchester,\" have in many cases committed themselves to the\nManchester school's doctrine of saving, deriding those who contravene\nit. And on the concrete issues on which they were opposed to him, it\nis not difficult to show that Manchesterism had the right end of the\nstick. On the Eight Hours' question, in particular, the Socialist\nattack on him is not only subversive of other Socialist doctrine, but\nis a _reductio ad absurdum_. He is accused of inconsistency, because he\nwrought for State interference with the relations of labour and capital\nin his Truck Act, but opposed State regulation of working hours. But,\non the one hand, the two cases are fundamentally different, since\nworking hours depend on the whole economic situation, while Truck is\nan arbitrary arrangement of the masters, only possible in peculiar\nlocal circumstances; and on the other hand, if the Truck Act logically\ncommits us to interference with working time, then a time law will\nlogically commit us to a wages law, which even the Socialist critic\nadmits to be folly.\n\nThat Bradlaugh was no pedantic individualist is shown, not only by his\nTruck Act, but by his agitation for a Labour Bureau, which was the\norigin of that institution, though the official Liberal press usually\ngives all the credit to Mr Mundella, who merely acted on Bradlaugh's\nurging. And while the latter held that the action of the trade unions\nwas in some cases mistaken, he never ceased to urge their attention to\npolitical affairs all round.\n\n \"Many of the great trades organisations and friendly societies,\"\n he wrote in 1889, \"have until recently prided themselves on being\n non-political. Some of the trades societies and nearly all the\n friendly societies still so pride themselves. This has been a serious\n blunder, especially in a country where much legislation has been\n the work of a very limited class for the conservation of their own\n privileges.\"[117]\n\n[Footnote 117: \"Parliament and the Poor.\"]\n\nHis limitary principle was one of sound common-sense, whether or not\nhe recognised the full force of the economic indictment of competitive\nindividualism.\n\n \"A good working doctrine for legislatures should be to mould conduct\n rather by the development of sound public opinion than by the\n operation of penal laws. Especially should the legislature be careful\n not to profess to do that for the worker, which it is reasonably\n possible for him to do for himself without the aid of the law. A duty\n enforced by others is seldom so well performed as a duty affirmed by\n the doer.\"\n\nAnd these principles, which perhaps serve even some professed Liberals\nmainly as a ground for doing nothing, were with him a ground for\ninsisting on an act of justice and expediency which such Liberals have\nbeen very loth to accede to. Bradlaugh's action in the great test case\nof recent English politics is a decisive proof of his foresight.\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\nAs the story of his life has shown, Bradlaugh had had special\nopportunities of studying the Irish question from the inside; and\nfrom the day when his young blood boiled at the murderous cruelty of\nan Irish eviction, he steadfastly supported the cause of the misruled\nIrish people. He never ceased to love England with that touch of pride\nand faith which is the whole stock-in-trade of the average patriot;\nbut, combining it as he did with an intense sense of justice, he could\nnever let that devotion blind him to the wrongs of other peoples at\nEngland's hands. And in the first years of his political activity, when\nhe was pleading for rebel Poles and rebel Italians, he seems to have\nso far recognised the right of Irishmen to use force against the force\nof England, that he assisted the Fenian conspirators of 1867 to draw\nup their Republican proclamation, so revising it as to exclude every\nexpression of race hatred and every appeal to religious feeling; \"the\ncomplete separation of Church and State\" being one of its stipulations.\nThe full details of that connection will probably never now be known;\nbut what is quite clear is that Bradlaugh was not only then opposed to\nthe idea of an Irish Republic, but soon ceased to have the least faith\nin the possibility of a successful or even a well-planned Irish rising;\nwhile his invariable opposition to useless violence was emphatic in the\ncase of the Clerkenwell and other outrages. All the more earnestly did\nhe continue his propaganda for Irish reform. Holding as he did that\nthe land question was fundamental in English politics, he could not\nbut see that it was the very heart of the Irish trouble; and to the\nagitation for Irish land law reform he gave energetic support. But he\nwas always far ahead of the slow movement of average English opinion;\nand while English Liberals were hoping that the concessions carried\nout by Gladstone would make Ireland a contented partner in the Union,\nBradlaugh had already given his assent to the claim for Home Rule;\nalways, however, flatly opposing the doctrine of separation. On this\nhe was explicit when, speaking in New York in 1873, he found otherwise\nfriendly Irish auditors disposed to be satisfied with nothing short\nof absolute severance from England. Home Rule, however, he all along\nconsidered to be not only just but inevitable. While those of us who\nhoped for a real Union (with Irishmen admitted to perfect equality in\nthe Executive system) were urging that as a solution which escaped the\nproved dangers of Federalism, he had made up his mind that Englishmen\ncould not and would not ever deal with Ireland as an integral part of\nthe State; and he had declared himself a Home Ruler long before Mr\nGladstone, who had frustrated the hope for a true Union by consistently\nkeeping Irishmen out of his cabinets. That, helping as he thus did\nthe Home Rule movement, he should yet have been treated with bigoted\nhostility and injustice by the bulk of the Irish Nationalists in his\nParliamentary struggle, was so remarkable that explanations were\ndemanded; and the Nationalists offered several, to the effect that\nBradlaugh had turned against them. It is necessary to go into some\ndetail to show that this is untrue.\n\nAt the outset of his Parliamentary struggle Bradlaugh was not only not\nregarded as an opponent by the Nationalists as a political party, but\nwas even defended by Parnell, although against the wish of most of that\nleader's Catholic followers; and despite the quickly shown ill-will of\nthese, Bradlaugh continued to support their cause in the House during\nthe nine months of his conditional tenure of his seat, 1880-81. But as\nhe never hesitated to counter what he held to be wrong policy among\nEnglish democrats, so he condemned, albeit reluctantly, what he held to\nbe unjustifiable courses on the part of the Parnellites. This appears\nin his \"Parliamentary Jottings\" in his journal under date 5th September\n1880, where he says he \"much regretted, during the long conflict of\nThursday-Friday, to find himself brought into collision with the Irish\nmembers.\" Nineteen Irish members had spoken, with his entire sympathy,\nagainst the Constabulary Vote; and after midnight they sought to\npostpone the discussion, on the ground that \"more Irish members wished\nto speak,\" though not a penny of the estimates had been voted. There\nwere only twelve more Home Rulers present, and they could all have\nspoken had they wished. They, however, appealed to the Radicals to help\nthem to delay business, on the score that the Constabulary Vote was\na \"life and death question.\" As obstruction could only delay and not\nstop the vote, Bradlaugh objected, and made a speech to that effect,\nwhich was warmly cheered by the Liberals, and as warmly condemned by\nHome Rulers; though, when it came to voting, only 27 of the 61 Home\nRulers went into the lobby. Obstruction he always condemned. This was\na pretext for Irish hostility, though there had been abundance of that\nalready. Some weeks later he writes:--\n\n \"My personal position as to Ireland is by no means an easy one. I find\n English Radicals in general, and myself in particular the subject of\n constant abuse in Irish journals. I read words attributed to Irish\n members of the House of Commons full of the most intense hostility to\n everything English, and find speakers in their presence declaring\n that the land movement is only the cover for the disruption of the two\n countries.\"\n\nAnd after quoting some of the frenzied sayings of Irish Americans, he\nappeals to \"Mr Parnell and his co-traversers,\" and other responsible\nNationalists, \"not to check our desire to co-operate with them by\ntheir open declarations of hostility to our race;\" and \"in the name\nof humanity ... to check the tendency of the people whom they lead to\nwaste their energies in worse than useless force.\" At the same time,\nhe protested against the prosecution of Mr Parnell and his colleagues\nby the Liberal Government, supported the fund for their defence, and\nincurred new hostility in England in consequence. Correspondents wrote\nhim on both sides, and he answered:[118]--\n\n[Footnote 118: _National Reformer_, Nov. 20, 1888.]\n\n \"We must ask both sides to be a little patient. The agrarian crimes\n cannot be justified, nor does our contributing to the Parnell Defence\n justify these. We subscribe in order that he and others may have fair\n play: it is never easy to be defendant in a State trial.... Some\n remind us that three-fourths of the Irish M.P.'s voted against us,\n and nearly every Irish paper attacks us. That is so, but it does not\n alter our duty. Our duty is to work honestly for redress of Irish\n grievances, although even every Irishman should be personally unjust\n to us.\"\n\nOne form of the injustice is seen in an editorial sentence from the\nDublin _Freeman_ about the same time, _\u00e0propos_ of the argument of the\nTory _St James's Gazette_[119] to the effect that over-population was\nthe cause of Irish distress. \"Does the _St James's_ propose,\" asked\nthe _Freeman_, \"the introduction of Bradlaughism into Ireland, when it\nsays that the 'rapid growth of population, which is checked in some\ncountries,' must be fatal to the prosperity of cotter families across\nthe Channel?\" The Tory argument was really a sample of the method of\nutilising the principle of population solely as a reason for not doing\njustice, while vilifying those who not only see the trouble but point\nout the remedy. Not a word of support did Bradlaugh ever get from a\nTory organ in his attempt to avert the evil of over-population. But as\nregards Ireland, he not only recognised that over-population there was\npositively fostered by the unjust land system, but he again and again\nin the House denied that even wholesale emigration, if practicable,\nwould cure the evil while that system endured. In July 1880 he writes:--\n\n[Footnote 119: Then edited by Mr Frederick Greenwood.]\n\n \"I had to listen to the Hon. B. Fitzpatrick, sent by 118 votes for\n the borough of Portarlington, who, in the course of a wild display of\n imbecility, had the audacity to declare that wholesale emigration of\n the natives of Ireland was the 'only remedy' for Irish distress; and\n this was said by an Irishman.\"\n\nOn the 15th of the same month, in the debate on the second reading\nof the Irish Tenants' Compensation Bill, he protested against the\nirrelevance of the Tory opposition to the Bill.\n\n \"There had been renewed the argument that Ireland was over-populated,\n and that the tenants who were distressed ought to find in some other\n country the relief they could not find in Ireland. Now, there was\n no colony in England, and there was no part of the United States of\n America, to which any poor man without means could go, hoping to\n benefit himself at the present time. Therefore, those who recommended\n emigration had either never taken the trouble to investigate the\n matter, or were simply talking against time to delay the measure going\n into committee.\"\n\nAgain, though in January 1881 he found himself \"driven into the lobby,\nfor the first time this Session, against the Irish members, only to\nvote that the business of the House was not to be absolutely stopped\nby an utterly irregular discussion,\" he took a most active part in\nopposing the Government's coercive measures. In the debate on the\naddress he \"made one of eight English Radicals who alone had been\nfound to record their votes in favour of Mr Parnell's amendment,\"\nthough feeling that the Irish methods of hindering business had kept\nmany English members out of the Nationalist lobby; and when Mr Forster\nmade his appeal for special powers, Bradlaugh made a strong speech\nin support of one of the Irish amendments.[120] Yet again he felt\nbound to vote for the suspension of Mr Biggar, doing it \"with very\nheavy heart,\" and grieving \"that Irish members should so play into\nthe hands of their enemies, and so totally damage the cause of their\ncountry.\" Of the later suspensions of Mr Dillon and the O'Gorman Mahon,\nhe wrote with much regret; but for others who had, outside, \"boasted\nthat they wished to degrade Parliament,\" he confessed he had \"little\npity.\" None the less, he moved the rejection of the Coercion Bill on\nthe second reading, in the never-explained absence of Mr Parnell, who\nhad suddenly gone to Paris. The Irish Anti-Coercion Committee, who\nhad just denounced him in one of their leaflets for his votes against\nobstruction, felt constrained about this stage to send him a vote of\nthanks. All the while, his journal had published numerous articles\nsharply attacking the Government's coercion policy.\n\n[Footnote 120: Those were \"the days of all-night sittings,\" forced by\nthe policy of the Nationalists; and Bradlaugh missed voting on the\nmotion for leave to bring in the Coercion Bill, by reason of having\ngone home to rest after having sat for twenty-six hours out of thirty,\nthe vote being suddenly taken in his absence on the decision of the\nSpeaker.]\n\nA vote on the Arms Bill was the last act by which Bradlaugh ministered\nto the wish of the Nationalists to have a case against him. He had\nrepeatedly protested against the advice given by Mr Dillon and others\nto Irish peasants to buy rifles; and he held that the case of Ireland\nwas bad enough without adding to wrong and misery the freedom to seek\namends in murder. His vote on this point, like his votes against\nobstruction, were held by the Parnellites to outweigh all his protests\nagainst coercion and all his appeals for land law reform; his exclusion\nfrom Parliament after the decision in the Law Courts in the spring\nof 1881 was hailed by most of them with delight; and during his long\nbattle outside, they were among his worst enemies, the Irish press\nand people fully abetting them. Still he never relaxed his advocacy\nof the cause of the Irish peasantry, pleading for a merciful and\nconciliatory treatment of them when they were hooting his name; and\nwhen he at length obtained his seat in 1886 he gave his unhesitating\nsupport to the Home Rule policy of Mr Gladstone. It was in that year\nthat a leading Irish Nationalist went up to him in the House with\nthe greeting, \"Mr Bradlaugh, you have been the best Christian of us\nall.\" Considering that only the influence of the Catholic priesthood\ncould account for the course taken by the Parnellite party, the\nacknowledgment--in spirit if not in form--was suggestive of some moral\nprogress on the Christian side.\n\nIt may be questioned whether many Liberals could have thus borne the\ntest undergone by Bradlaugh on the Irish question. It is certain that\nBright, with all his chivalry and rectitude, was somewhat influenced in\nhis latter attitude on that question by the evil return which Irishmen\nhad made to him for all his efforts on their behalf. Bradlaugh\nsuffered far worse treatment at their hands, but was in no way turned\nby it from his conviction of what was just. He was content to recognise\nthat the people were swayed by the priests, and that in any case it\nis vain to look for the moral fruits of equality from a people to\nwhom equality has been for ages denied. He had been treated by Irish\nNationalists as he had been by English Conservatives; and though he\nfelt the ingratitude of the former, he would not admit that they had\nshown any grosser unscrupulousness than the latter, who had denied\njustice to an Englishman on motives of party strategy, reinforced by\nreligious malice. If there was any difference, it was that the Irishmen\nhad been more moved by religious malice and less by party strategy; and\nit is usual to rate the latter motive the lower of the two.\n\nBradlaugh himself would never have claimed that he had shown any\nspecial magnanimity in the case; but those who know how much personal\ninterest or pique counts for in political action will recognise the\nsingularity of his course. It belonged to his character, equally with\nhis avowal and advocacy of unpopular opinions. Later, when the question\nof Woman Suffrage was being pressed on his constituency, he was told by\nMr Labouchere, as he had been told by others before, that if the women\nof Northampton had a vote he would not be returned. His public answer\nwas:--\n\n \"If I knew this to be true, it would not hinder me from casting my\n vote in favour of woman suffrage, even if my vote alone should be\n required to pass the Bill. I deeply value the representation of\n Northampton, but the grant of the right of woman to the suffrage\n cannot be determined by the fact that, if legalised, her exercise of\n that right according to her conscience would be personally hostile to\n myself.\"\n\nIt may be doubted whether Mr Labouchere gauged the situation aright.\nWhen Bradlaugh stood for Northampton in 1868 and was beaten, the wives\nand women-folk of his supporters subscribed their scanty pence, and\nbought him a gold pencil-case. If after hearing the utterance above\ncited the Northampton women of to-day were capable of voting in the\nmass against a man so declaring himself, they would indeed give Mr\nLabouchere a better case against their enfranchisement than he has yet\nbeen able to make out. But would they?\n\n\n\u00a7 6.\n\nIn virtue of the qualities which made him a warm friend of Ireland,\nBradlaugh was all his life, and in his latter years still more warmly,\nthe friend of India. All his instincts of justice and sympathy\nwere moved by the spectacle of that vast congeries of immemorially\nimmature races, ruled by a bureaucracy of Englishmen, none of whom\nwould for a moment be trusted to exercise similar power over their\nfellow-countrymen, but all of whom collectively are assumed by their\ncountrymen to need next to no supervision when ruling a \"lower\" race.\nAgain and again Bradlaugh protested, as other Englishmen had protested\nbefore him, against the inveterate apathy with which the House of\nCommons regards Indian questions, as shown by the scanty handful of\nmembers who attend to hear them discussed once a year. The death of\nProfessor Fawcett, \"the member for India,\" left Indian interests ill\ncared for indeed, and immediately on gaining his seat Bradlaugh stepped\ninto the vacant place, although it was by itself work enough for one\nman, and he had three men's work on hand besides.\n\nHis speech on India in 1883 to his constituents shows the broad and\nsystematic way in which he approached the problem. He studied it with\nthe minute care he bestowed on every subject he handled; and in a few\nyears he acquired by his work an amount of popularity among natives\nsuch as had never before been earned by an Englishman outside India,\nand by few Anglo-Indians. As this work was mostly done after his\nParliamentary struggle was over, the record of it belongs to the story\nof his closing years; but it was only the consistent sequel to his\nprevious political life. He took up the cause of India as he had done\nthose of Italy, Poland, Ireland, of Boers, Zulus, and Egyptians, with\nno thought or prospect of personal gain, out of sheer zeal for justice\nand hatred of oppression. And inasmuch as Anglo-Indians of the school\nof Mr Rudyard Kipling have consistently derided and denounced his\nIndian policy, it may be fitting to note at this point the advantage\nthat policy has over such opposition in respect of its relation\nto universal political principles. The doctrine of Mr Kipling's\nschool--who may be defined as barbaric sentimentalists--is that Asia in\ngeneral, and India in particular, are absolute exceptions to all the\nprinciples of European politics. The East, they say, is unprogressive,\nunchangeable, unimprovable. The most direct confutation of that\ndoctrine is supplied by the simple fact of the persistence of the\nCongress movement, which at its outset the sentimentalists scouted as a\nchimera. Whatever may be its outcome, they are for ever discredited, in\nthat they declared the thing itself, when broached, to be impossible.\nAnd those whose sociology goes deeper and wider than a rule-of-thumb\nacquaintance with part of the actual life of a race or a region are\naware that India can no more than any other land resist the laws of\nsocial transmutation, given the transmuting forces and conditions.\nIt is extremely unfortunate that many Englishmen are ready to accept\nas final the sweeping sociological dicta of Mr Kipling, on the score\nmerely of his first-hand knowledge of Indian life and his literary\ngenius. Foolish generalisations on social possibilities have been made\nin every country in every age by men with first-hand knowledge of their\ntheme; and it must be regretfully said that foolish men of genius are\namong the most eminent darkeners of counsel on such matters. When Mr\nKipling gives a particular account of a particular phase of Indian\nlife, Englishmen who in the terms of the case have no knowledge of\nthat life accept the account as a \"revelation,\" when obviously their\nestimate of it in that light has no critical value whatever. Strong\nin the suffrages of such judges, Mr Kipling has been pleased to speak\nof Bradlaugh as being prepared by defective education to take that\nmistaken view of Indian life which Mr Kipling inexpensively imputes\nto all inquiring Englishmen at home. The sufficient answer to that\ncriticism is that there are many kinds of defective education, and\nthat nobody can well be further wrong about India than Mr Kipling,\ninasmuch as he has himself contradicted every one of his own numerous\ngeneralisations by others. He first came forward with pictures of the\nIndian Civil and Military Services, in which they appeared nearly as\ncorrupt as those of Russia are said to be: husbands getting promotion\non the score of their wives' adultery, and so forth. Later he saw fit\nto represent the Indian Civil Service as embodying every virtue a\nCivil Service can have. As a rule, he pictures the English in India\nas the \"Dominant Race,\" with impressive capitals, and the natives as\nbeing universally cowards. When, however, a native officer can \"play\nlike a lambent flame\" on the polo-field, and can transgress every\nlaw of hospitality by thrasonically declaring defiance to Russia in\nthe person of a Russian officer at a British mess-table, that native\nbecomes even as an Englishman in Mr Kipling's eyes. The simple canon of\nMr Kipling is the feeling that any race which thwarts his own must be\nbase. Thus every indiscreet Russian officer must needs be a blackguard,\nand every disaffected Irishman a ruffian and a sneak; the evil\nprinciple being so deep rooted that the Asiatic children of an Irishman\nspontaneously take to cutting off cows' tails; though at the same time\nthe Irish soldier is a hero of heroes, if only he is duly devoted to\n\"the Queen, God bless her.\" It will be a bad business for English rule\nin India when minds which sociologise in this fashion come to be the\nguides of the British people in their political relations with their\ndependency.\n\nBradlaugh, it may suffice to say, was under no delusions as to the\npresent political capacity of the Indian races. He perfectly recognised\ntheir bias to rhetoric and their immaturity of character, as well as\nthe enormous difficulties in the way of their political amalgamation.\nHence his programme for them was an extremely gradual introduction\nof the principle of self-rule. Nothing could be more judicious and\nrestrained than his brief address to the Congress on his brief visit\nto India after his dangerous illness of 1889, within about a year of\nhis death. And the chances are that before a generation is over his\nview of the case will be the accepted commonplace of Liberal politics;\nwhile the notion of a perpetual domination of Englishmen in a country\nwhere they cannot rear healthy children will be regarded as a crowning\nflight of unscientific political sentiment. In any case, it implies no\ngreat rashness to predict that an England which ignores the affairs of\nits subjects as much as possible in Parliament will not long be able to\nmaintain a despotic rule over a people accessible to Western ideas. The\nHome Rule principle, which was for Bradlaugh a principle of universal\nvirtue, however different the degree of its application to a given case\nat a given moment, must in time be wrought out in India as elsewhere,\nif only it goes forward in the West, and the West keeps up its growing\nintercourse with the East. And it was one of his many political merits\nto have been one of the first to see this not only abstractly but in\nthe concrete.\n\n * * * * *\n\nEnough has now been said to convey a broad idea of the manner and\nmatter of Bradlaugh's philosophy of life, cosmical and political, as\nit was developed and acted on by him at the time of his most memorable\nappearance on the arena of British public life. At that time much\nwork, though not many years of life, remained to him, so that some who\nthen opposed him claimed afterwards that they could not have known his\ncapacities for good, as exhibited in his extraordinary Parliamentary\nlabours. But the foregoing account of his teaching and action will\nprobably suffice to show that his political career was all of a piece,\nand that at the time of his ostracism he had given proof of all the\npowers and opinions which were later admitted to do him honour.\nNeither, as we shall see, did he in later life surrender any one of the\nteachings of his earlier years. He laid more stress on some and less on\nothers; but he unsaid nothing, and for the most part he did but carry\non his youthful programme. Before 1880 he had been the ardent and yet\nsagacious friend of oppressed nationalities, the advocate of Radical\nland law reform, the defender of liberty of conscience, the exponent\nof the claims of the poor against the rich, the preacher of unpopular\nbut all-important doctrines on personal conduct. In the brief period\nof his first tenure of his seat he wrought vigorously against the\nabuse of Perpetual Pensions, which he was later the means of removing,\nthough not in a fashion fully satisfying to himself. In the same\nperiod he exhibited a constant concern for the remedying of all manner\nof grievances. As early as 1863, too, he had taken what Mill rightly\ncalls the extremely undemagoguelike line of publishing a pamphlet in\nfavour of Proportional Representation, on the lines of Hare's scheme--a\n\"counsel of perfection\" still too high for most democrats.\n\nAs for his general tone of feeling on the questions which turn in an\nequal degree on feeling and judgment, it is well illustrated by the\nlast non-personal speech he made in the House in the period of his\nconditional tenure of his seat. It was delivered on 28th March, and was\non the subject of flogging in the army:--\n\n\"Mr Bradlaugh said he wished to say a few words on this matter from\na different point of view than other members who had spoken. He had\nbeen a private in the army during the time that flogging was permitted\nfor offences now described as trivial, and he heard the same argument\nused, that it would cause a relaxation of discipline if flogging were\nabolished. If hon. members opposite knew the feeling of the soldiers at\nthat time it would have much modified some of the speeches delivered\nto-day (hear, hear); and the hon. member for Sunderland (Sir H.\nHavelock-Allan) would be surprised to hear the number of letters\nhe had received from private soldiers, asking him to speak on this\nsubject to-day. There was a feeling of utter detestation against the\npunishment, not simply on the part of the men who were likely to suffer\nfrom it, but on the part of every one else. Private soldiers in England\noccupied a position which no other private soldier in the whole of\nEurope occupied, and he did not know any other country in the whole\nworld where it was a disgrace to wear the uniform of your country. He\nremembered upon one occasion he went into an hotel in a great city\nand ordered a cup of coffee, and was told that he could not be served\nbecause he wore the uniform of his country. All punishments which\nmade soldiers seem less reputable than their fellow-citizens ought to\nbe abolished. He asked the Government to allow nothing whatever to\ninfluence them in favour of this most degrading punishment. The men\nwho once felt the lash were not loyal to any command, and they felt a\nbitterness and an abhorrence of every one connected with the ordering\nof the punishment. If they flogged a man engaged on active service, he\nwas either a good man or a bad man, a man of some spirit or none at\nall. If he were a man of any spirit, there were weapons in his hands,\nand he might use them for purposes of revenge. The hon. and gallant\nmember for Wigton Burghs talked of men who preferred the lash. The army\nwould be far better without such men. (Mr Childers: Hear, hear.) He had\nseen the lash applied, the man tied up, and stripped in the sight of\nhis comrades; he had seen the body blacken and the skin break; he had\nheard the dull thud of the lash as it fell on the blood-soddened flesh,\nand he was glad of having the opportunity of making his voice heard\nagainst it to-day, and trusted that nothing would induce the Government\nto retain under any conditions such a brutal punishment. (Cheers.)\"\n\nAnd it was with these matters in their knowledge that a majority of the\nHouse of Commons subjected him for five years to an extremity of wanton\ninjustice of which it is still difficult to think without burning\nanger. The story of that injustice must now be separately told.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE PARLIAMENTARY STRUGGLE.\n\n\n_Chronological Summary._\n\n 1880 April 2. Bradlaugh elected (with Mr Labouchere) for Northampton.\n May 3. Asked to be allowed to make affirmation of allegiance. A\n Select Committee agreed to be appointed to consider his\n claim.\n 12. Committee of 17 appointed.\n 20. Committee reported, by casting vote of Chairman, against\n the claim to affirm.\n Bradlaugh announces his intention to take the oath.\n 21. Presented himself at the table of the House to do so.\n Motion made that he be not permitted. Amendment moved by\n Mr Gladstone, that the claim to take the oath be\n referred to a Select Committee, carried by 289 votes\n to 214.\n 28. Committee of 23 appointed.\n June 2. Bradlaugh examined by Committee.\n 16. Committee reported that Bradlaugh could not properly take\n the oath, and recommended that he be allowed to affirm\n at his legal peril.\n 21. Motion made by Mr Labouchere that he be allowed to affirm.\n 22. Motion defeated by 275 votes to 230.\n 23. Bradlaugh again presented himself, claiming to be sworn.\n Made his _First Speech at the Bar_. Refusing to withdraw,\n was finally taken into custody on motion of Sir Stafford\n Northcote.\n 24. Bradlaugh unconditionally released from custody.\n July 1. Mr Gladstone moved as a Standing Order that members-elect\n be allowed at their choice to affirm, at their legal\n peril. Motion carried by 303 votes to 249.\n 2. Bradlaugh made affirmation of allegiance and took his seat.\n On giving his first vote, was served with a writ suing\n for penalty.\n 14. Tory Bill introduced to incapacitate all Atheists for\n membership (fell through).\n 1881 Mar. 11. Judgment given against Bradlaugh in suit for penalty, he\n being thus pronounced unqualified to make affirmation of\n allegiance. Bradlaugh gave notice of appeal.\n 31. Judgment given against him on appeal. Seat thus vacated.\n 1881 April 9. Bradlaugh re-elected for Northampton, by 3437 votes to\n 3305.\n 26. Presented himself to be sworn. Made his _Second Speech at\n the Bar_. Motion made that he be not allowed to take the\n oath, carried by 208 votes to 175, many Liberals and\n Home Rulers abstaining. Bradlaugh again presented himself\n to be sworn, and refused to withdraw. House\n adjourned.\n 27. Bradlaugh presented himself as before, and refused to\n withdraw. After debate, withdrew on informal\n understanding that Government should attempt to introduce\n an Affirmation Bill.\n 29. Government announced this intention.\n May 2. Attorney-General in Commons moved for leave to introduce\n Bill. Debate adjourned.\n Lords Justices of Appeal decided against Bradlaugh on the\n separate issue of his affirmation being a sufficient\n answer to the claim that he was liable in a penalty for\n voting without being sworn.\n 6. Debate in Commons again adjourned owing to Tory\n obstruction.\n 10. Government, owing to continued obstruction, postponed the\n Bill. Resolution carried, on motion of Tory leader, that\n Bradlaugh be prevented entering House.\n 16-17. Clarke's counsel moved before Lord Coleridge and Mr\n Bowen for judgment. Bradlaugh moved to be heard\n afresh on the point of the validity of the writ, the\n issue of which he contended had been too soon for\n legality.\n 25. Bill of indemnity to Bradlaugh, introduced by Mr\n Labouchere, blocked by Mr Newdegate, who had been\n the private maintainer of the action for penalties.\n June 20-21. Plaintiff having amended statement as to date of\n voting, and Bradlaugh demurring that writ was void as\n being dated on the day of the voting sued upon, Justices\n Denman and Watkin Williams decided against him on the\n legal point. Bradlaugh appealed.\n July 19, 20, 22. The question of fact as to the actual hour of issue\n of the writ came before Justice Grove and a special jury.\n The jury, after declaring themselves unlikely to agree,\n gave a majority verdict in favour of Clarke.\n 27. Police summonses obtained on Bradlaugh's behalf against\n Mr Newdegate and his solicitor for the criminal offence\n of maintenance.\n 28, and Aug. 1. Bradlaugh moved before Justices Grove and\n Lindley for a new trial on the point of time of issue of\n Clarke's writ, and argued the point. Decision delayed.\n 1881 Aug. 3. Bradlaugh, on trying to enter the House, was seized by\n officials; and he resisting, was forcibly ejected after a\n struggle by four messengers and ten policemen. Immediately\n afterwards he was formally resisted in a formal\n attempt by Inspector Denning.\n 5. Application by Bradlaugh for a summons against Inspector\n Denning refused by Mr D'Eyncourt, police magistrate.\n 8. Rule _nisi_ for a new trial granted by Justices Grove and\n Lindley.\n Sept. 20. The summonses against Newdegate and his solicitor dismissed\n by Mr Vaughan, magistrate.\n Nov. 12 and 14. Bradlaugh's appeal from the decision of Justices\n Denman and Watkin Williams (as to validity of writ dated\n on day of ground of action) heard by Lord Coleridge and\n Lord Justices Baggallay and Brett. Decision again against\n Bradlaugh.\n Dec. 2 and 3. Pleadings heard on the rule _nisi_ for a new trial on\n the question of fact as to the hour of issue of the writ.\n Rule made absolute in Bradlaugh's favour.\n 1882 Feb. 7. On the reassembling of Parliament, Bradlaugh again presented\n himself, the excluding order having expired with the\n Session in which it was passed. Northcote moved that he\n be not allowed to swear. Government moved the previous\n question. Bradlaugh _heard at Bar for the Third Time_.\n Northcote's motion carried by 286 votes to 228. Bradlaugh\n again presented himself, but being ordered to withdraw\n below the bar, did so.\n 10. Mr Labouchere moved for a new writ for Northampton.\n This refused by 307 votes to 18. Bradlaugh then advanced\n to the table, administered the oath to himself, withdrew\n below the bar on the Speaker's order, but returned and\n took his seat. Churchill moved that the seat be declared\n vacant. Debate adjourned.\n 21. Northcote moved an amendment to exclude Bradlaugh from\n the precincts of the House. On its being noticed that\n Bradlaugh had again seated himself within the House (he\n proposing to speak), the Speaker ordered him to withdraw,\n and Northcote moved his complete expulsion. This\n carried by 297 votes to 80, and a new writ was agreed to.\n 21. Judgment given against Bradlaugh in Clarke's appeal against\n rule for a new trial.\n Mar. 2. Bradlaugh once more elected for Northampton by 3796 votes\n to 3688.\n 6. Northcote again moved that Bradlaugh be not allowed to\n take the oath should he again present himself. Mr\n Marjoribanks moved amendment that it was desirable to\n amend the law, making affirmation optional. Northcote's\n motion carried by 259 votes to 244.\n 1882 Mar. 29. \"Judgment\" given against Bradlaugh for \u00a3500 penalty.\n Costs reserved.\n April. Action brought by Bradlaugh against Mr Erskine, Deputy\n Sergeant-at-Arms, for assault of 3rd August 1881.\n May 9. Bradlaugh moved before Lord Justices Brett and Cotton for\n leave to appeal in Clarke case on point of costs. Appeal\n dismissed: matter left to the House of Lords with the\n main appeal.\n 15. Justices Manisty and Watkin Williams declined to hear\n friendly action by Gurney against Bradlaugh for not\n taking his seat. Pleadings to be readjusted.\n July. Affirmation Bill, introduced by Duke of Argyll in House of\n Lords, defeated.\n 11. Prosecution begun against Bradlaugh, Foote, and Ramsey\n by Sir Henry Tyler, before Lord Mayor, for \"publication\n of blasphemous libels\" in the _Freethinker_.\n 21. Bradlaugh \"committed for trial.\" Bail accepted.\n Nov. 10. Justice Mathew declined to hear Gurney's action on\n readjusted pleadings, and discharged jury.\n Dec. 18. Bradlaugh's action against Mr Erskine dismissed by Justice\n Field.\n 1883 Feb. 2. Second _Freethinker_ prosecution begun, Bradlaugh not being\n included.\n 20. Government moved for leave to introduce an Affirmation Bill:\n motion carried by 184 votes to 53.\n Mar. 5 and 6. Bradlaugh's appeal in the Clarke suit heard by the\n House of Lords, he pleading in person.\n 6. Foote, Ramsey, and Kemp sentenced to terms of imprisonment\n in _Freethinker_ prosecution.\n 9 and 17. Bradlaugh's action against Newdegate for\n \"maintenance\" heard by Lord Coleridge, Bradlaugh appearing\n by counsel.\n April 9. House of Lords gave judgment for Bradlaugh in his appeal,\n with costs.\n 10. Bradlaugh separately tried on the first _Freethinker_\n indictment before Lord Coleridge and a jury. Verdict of\n acquittal.\n 23. Lord Coleridge gave judgment for Bradlaugh against\n Newdegate, with costs.\n April 24 and 25. Foote and Ramsey (now prisoners on conviction in\n second prosecution) tried before Lord Coleridge and a\n jury on the original indictment. After the judge's\n summing up, the jury disagreeing, the Crown decided\n to abandon this prosecution (prisoners already very\n heavily sentenced).\n 23-May 3. Debate on second reading of Affirmation Bill.\n Bill rejected by a majority of 3--292 against and 289 for.\n May 4. Bradlaugh again presented himself to be sworn. Northcote\n moved that he be not allowed to take the oath. Being\n allowed to speak, Bradlaugh made his _Fourth Speech at\n the Bar_. Mr Labouchere moved the \"previous question,\"\n and was defeated by 271 votes to 165.\n 1883 July 9. Bradlaugh having notified his intention again to present\n himself (by way of raising a testing action at law)\n Northcote moved his exclusion. Carried by 232 votes to\n 65.\n 19. Bradlaugh began test action against the Sergeant-at-Arms\n for resisting his entrance to the House.\n Dec. 7. Bradlaugh _v._ Gossett heard before Lord Coleridge and\n Justices Stephen and Mathew.\n 1884 Feb. 9. Judgment given against Bradlaugh.\n 11. Bradlaugh once more presented himself at the table of\n the House, and administered the oath to himself. Motion\n by Northcote that he had not really sworn, and that he\n be not allowed to swear, carried by 258 votes to 161.\n Motion by Northcote of complete exclusion, carried by\n 228 to 120.\n 12. New writ allowed for Northampton after Tory resistance.\n 19. Bradlaugh re-elected for Northampton by 4032 votes, to\n 3664 for Richards.\n 21. Though Bradlaugh undertook not to present himself till\n the decision were given in the action to be brought\n against him by the Government for his last oath-taking,\n Northcote moved afresh his complete exclusion from the\n precincts of the House. Carried by 226 to 173.\n June 13-18. Government's action against Bradlaugh for illegally\n taking the oath, heard before Lord Coleridge, Mr Baron\n Huddleston, and Mr Justice Grove, \"sitting at bar,\" and a\n jury, five counsel acting for the Crown, Bradlaugh\n pleading his own cause.\n 30. Lord Coleridge summed up. Jury gave answers for the\n Crown. Bradlaugh asked for a stay to move for a new\n trial.\n Dec. 6. Motion for new trial heard by the same judges sitting \"_in\n banc_\". Rule refused. Bradlaugh appealed.\n 15. Appeal heard by Lords Justices Brett, Cotton, and Lindley.\n 18. Judges of appeal gave rule _nisi_ on points of law only,\n the appeal in arrest of judgment to be argued at the\n same time.\n 1885 Jan. 26. Arguments heard on whole case.\n 26. Judgment given against Bradlaugh as incapable of taking\n an oath in law. Notice of appeal given.\n July 6. On the new (Conservative) ministry taking office, Bradlaugh\n again presented himself to be sworn. Motion of exclusion\n by Sir M. Hicks-Beach. Amendment moved by Mr\n Hopwood (who had introduced an Affirmation Bill)\n declaring that legislation was necessary, lost by 219\n votes to 263.\n 1885 Nov. 25. Bradlaugh again carried for Northampton at the general\n election, the figures being--Labouchere 4845; Bradlaugh\n 4315; Richards 3890.\n 1886 Jan. 13. The new Speaker (Mr Peel) permitted Bradlaugh to take the\n oath, refusing to allow any interference.\n Affirmation Bill introduced by Mr Sergeant Simon, but never\n brought to a second reading.\n 1888 Aug. 9. Bradlaugh carried a general Affirmation Bill, which passed\n the House of Lords and became law.\n 1891 Jan. 27. While Bradlaugh lay dying, the House of Commons passed\n a resolution, moved by Mr W. A. Hunter, expunging\n from the Journals of the House the resolutions excluding\n him in former years.\n\n\n\u00a7 1.\n\nIn the general election of 1880 Bradlaugh was at length elected member\nfor Northampton. He had fought the constituency for twelve years,\nand had been defeated at three elections, at one of which he was\nnot present. As has been made plain from the story of his life thus\nfar, it was his way to carry out to the end any undertaking on which\nhe entered, unless he found it to be wholly impracticable; and he\nwas very slow to feel that an aim was impracticable because it took\nlong-continued effort to realise it. He seems first to have thought\nof standing for Northampton about 1866. At that time Northampton was\nalready reckoned a likely Radical constituency, not so much on account\nof its Parliamentary record as on the strength of the Radical element\nin its population. The trouble was that for long the bulk of the\nworkers were not electors. His eloquence could win him a splendid show\nof hands in the market-place, but the polls told a different tale. The\nWhiggish middle classes were in the main intensely hostile to him, on\npolitical as well as on religious grounds; and the influence of pastors\nand masters alike was zealously used against him. After the passing of\nthe Household Suffrage Act of 1868, however, the constituency became\nevery year more democratic. The Freehold Land Society, some of whose\nfounders and leading members were among his most devoted and capable\nfollowers, created year after year scores of freeholds, the property of\nworkers, in a fashion that has finally made Northampton almost unique\namong our manufacturing towns. The electorate, which in 1874 had stood\nat 6829, had in 1880 risen to 8189; and of these it was estimated that\n2,500 had never before voted. Of the new voters, the majority were\npretty sure to be Radicals, and as Bradlaugh's hold on the constituency\nhad grown stronger with every struggle, it began to be apparent to many\nof the \"moderate Liberals\" that a union between their party and his\nmust be accepted if the two seats were not to remain in Tory hands.\nIn the early spring, however, the confusion of candidatures seemed\nhopeless. Mr (now Sir) Thomas Wright of Leicester stood as a Liberal\ncandidate at the request of a large body of the electors, and though\nnot combining with Bradlaugh, deprecated the running of a second and\nhostile Liberal candidate. Other Liberals, however, brought forward\nin succession three candidates, of whom the once well-known Mr Ayrton\nwas the most important. He, however, failed to gain ground, partly\nby reason of the qualities which had made him a disastrous colleague\nto Mr Gladstone's ministry, partly by reason of coming to grief in a\ncontroversy with Bradlaugh as to the facts of the agitation for a free\npress, and free right of meeting in Hyde Park, in regard to which Mr\nAyrton claimed official credit. His candidature finally fell through\nwhen he met with an accident. A Mr Hughes was brought forward, only to\nbe removed from the contest by an attack of illness. Mr Jabez Spencer\nBalfour, of recent notoriety, made a very favourable impression, but\ncould not persuade \"moderates\" enough that the Liberals ought to unite\nwith the Radicals. A little later Mr Labouchere was introduced, and\ngiving his voice at once for union, found so much support that Mr\nWright, with great generosity and public spirit, shortly withdrew,\ngiving his support to the joint candidature of Bradlaugh and\nLabouchere, who stood pretty much alike in their Radicalism, though the\nlatter was described in the local Liberal press as the \"nominee of the\nmoderate Liberals.\" As he explained in his own journal, a man who was a\nmoderate Liberal in Northampton would rank as a Radical anywhere else.\nThe joint candidature once agreed upon, victory was secure.\n\nThe Tory candidates were the former sitting members, Mr Phipps, the\nleading local brewer, and Mr Merewether, a lawyer. Their platform\nopposition was not formidable, and the greatest play on their\nside was made by the clergy and the press, who sought to make the\ncontest turn as far as possible on Bradlaugh's atheism and on his\nNeo-Malthusianism. Nearly all the Established Church clergy, and some\nof the Nonconformists preached fervently against the \"infidel.\" On\nthe Sunday before the election the vicar of St Giles' intimated that\n\"to those noble men who loved Christ more than party, Jesus would\nsay, 'Well done!'\" and on the day before the poll many thousands of\ntheological circulars were showered upon the constituency. On the other\nhand, the deep resentment of Lord Beaconsfield's foreign policy felt by\na great part of the nation led to unheard-of concessions on the part\nof the Nonconformists. The late Mr Samuel Morley, a representative\nDissenter, wealthy and pious, being appealed to for an expression\nof opinion on the Northampton situation, sent to Mr Labouchere a\ntelegram--soon repented of--\"strongly urging necessity of united effort\nin all sections of the Liberal party, and the sinking of minor and\npersonal questions, with many of which I deeply sympathise, in order to\nprevent the return, in so pronounced a constituency as Northampton, of\neven one Conservative.\" At the same time Mr Spurgeon was without the\nslightest foundation described in the Tory press as having said, with\nregard to the fight at Northampton, that \"if the devil himself were a\nLiberal candidate, he would vote for him;\" and it was supposed that the\nanecdote affected some votes.\n\nBut before any of these episodes had occurred, Bradlaugh was tolerably\nwell assured of victory. His organisation, then controlled by his\nstaunch supporter Councillor Thomas Adams, who lived to be Mayor of\nNorthampton, was perfect; and he knew his strength as nearly as a\ncandidate ever can who has not already been elected. The combination\nof his forces with those of Mr Labouchere of course strengthened him;\nyet such was still the strength of religious animosity that though the\njoint candidature stood on the footing of a strict division of votes,\nevery elector having two, for the two seats, the Liberal press still\nencouraged \"plumping,\" and many then, as later, voted for Mr Labouchere\nwho would not vote for Bradlaugh, thus provoking a smaller number of\nthe latter's supporters to \"plump\" for their man in turn. The result\nwas that the election figures stood:--Labouchere (L.) 4518; Bradlaugh\n(R.) 3827; Phipps (C.) 3152; Merewether (C.) 2826.\n\nNo sooner were the results known throughout the country than the\nNorthampton election became a theme of special comment, and of course\nof special outcry from the defeated party. One journal, the _Sheffield\nTelegraph_, which about the same time described the Scriptural\nphrase about the dog and his vomit as a \"popular, though somewhat\ncoarse saying,\" designated Bradlaugh as \"the bellowing blasphemer of\nNorthampton.\" Mr Samuel Morley was hotly assailed, and promptly wrote\nto the _Record_ a pitiful letter of recantation, which ended:--\n\n \"No feeling of pride prevents my saying that I deeply regret the step\n I took, which was really the work of a moment; and I feel assured that\n no one who knows me will doubt that I view with intense repugnance\n the opinions which are held by Mr Bradlaugh on religious and social\n questions.\"\n\nTo which Mr Bradlaugh in his own journal replied that he had had no\npart whatever in the appeal to Mr Samuel Morley, and that he would have\nbeen elected all the same if Mr Morley had done nothing, adding the\nfollowing:--\n\n \"We have no knowledge of the opinions of Mr Morley except that he\n is reputedly very rich, and therefore exceedingly good; but we must\n express in turn our intense repugnance to the conduct of Mr Morley,\n who having accidentally been betrayed into an act of kindness to a\n fellow-creature, regrets the act when pressure is brought to bear upon\n him by a pack of cowardly and anonymous bigots, and couples the public\n expression of his regret with a voluntary insult to one for whom Mr\n Morley publicly expressed great respect on the only occasion on which\n the two have yet come publicly in contact.\"\n\nMr Spurgeon, who had been quite falsely accused of avowing readiness to\nwelcome the devil as a Liberal candidate, had the manliness to declare,\nwhile indignantly repudiating that latitudinarian doctrine, that Mr\nBradlaugh's claims to be returned to Parliament were not to be measured\nby his piety or orthodoxy.\n\n\n\u00a7 2.\n\nBut the question was soon carried into a greater arena. The elections\nwere over in April; on 3rd May Parliament assembled, and Bradlaugh's\nfirst problem was to choose his course in the matter of the oath of\nallegiance, the taking of which by members of Parliament is still\nmade a condition of their taking their seats. It has long been felt\nby the thoughtful few, even including Theists, that oath-taking, a\nbarbaric and primevally superstitious act under all circumstances,\nis gratuitously absurd in the case of admission to Parliament, where\nit serves to bring about the maximum of religious indecorum without\nin any way affecting the action of anybody. Originally set up in the\nreign of Elizabeth, the Parliamentary oath was maintained in the\ninterest of disputed dynasties, though it was notoriously taken by\nhundreds of men who were perfectly ready to overthrow, if they could,\nthe dynasty to which they swore allegiance. Now that there is no\nlonger any question of rival dynasties, and that no instructed person\ndisputes the power of Parliament to abolish the Monarchy, the oath of\nallegiance is maintained by the stolid unreason which supports the\nmonarchic tradition all round. State after State has abandoned the\npractice as absurd; but Britain clings to it with hardly even a demur,\nsave from men of the chair. France since 1870 has had neither oath nor\naffirmation, though, if oaths could be supposed to count for anything,\nthe Republic might fitly have exacted them. Since 1868 affirmation has\nbeen substituted for the Parliamentary oath in Austria; and congressmen\nand senators in the United States have their choice between swearing\nand affirming. Neither oath nor affirmation is exacted in the German\nReichstag, though the members of the Prussian Diet, like those of the\nStates General of Holland, still swear. In Italy, the performance is\nattenuated to the utterance of the one word \"Giuro,\" \"I swear.\" In\nSpain, where it has never deterred rebellion, the oath, as might be\nexpected, remains medi\u00e6vally elaborate.\n\nBefore Bradlaugh's time the oath in England had been adapted to\nthe requirements of Catholics, Quakers, and Jews successively, the\nresistance increasing considerably in the last case. O'Connell's\nrefusal to take the Protestant oath of supremacy in 1829, when there\nwere three separate oaths--one of allegiance, one of supremacy, and one\nof adjuration--led to the passing of an Act permitting Catholic members\nto take the Catholic oath, already provided under the Catholic Relief\nAct for use in Ireland. Protestant public opinion avowedly regarded\nall Irish Catholics with distrust as being disaffected, but the Tory\nleaders being committed to Catholic Emancipation, the resistance was\noverpowered. The next extension took place under Whig auspices.\n\nIn 1833 the Quakers, who in the case of Archdale in 1699 had been held\nincapable of sitting in Parliament by reason of their refusal to swear,\nwere allowed to affirm, first by resolution of the House, later by Act.\nThis was done at the instance of a Quaker member, Sir Joseph Pease, who\nbesides being rich enjoyed personally the respect latterly accorded to\nhis sect by those which formerly persecuted it.\n\nThen came the case of the Jews, first raised in the person of\nBaron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, in 1850. There was now a triple\nProtestant oath, and an alternative Catholic oath, the theoretically\ndangerous church being allowed to swear in its own way; but for the\nsmall community of Jews there was no formula, and the Jewish banker\nhad to choose between exclusion and swearing \"on the true faith of a\nChristian.\" He omitted these words from his oath, and was accordingly\ndeclared disentitled to sit, the House at the same time formally\nresolving to take Jewish disabilities into its consideration at the\nearliest opportunity in the next Session. In 1851, another Jew, David\nSalomons, returned for Greenwich, refused to take the oath in the\nChristian form, formally resisted the Speaker's ruling against him, was\nformally removed, and was excluded from his seat. Not till 1858 was the\nrelief given. In that year a single (Christian) oath was substituted\nfor the triple asseveration of the past, and on the re-elected Baron\nLionel again refusing it, he was allowed, by resolution of the House,\nto swear without the Christian formula. In 1859 he, with Baron Mayer\nAmschel de Rothschild and Salomons, was again sworn theistically.\nFinally, in 1866, by the Parliamentary Oaths Act, the oath was made\nsimply theistic for all, the familiar expletive \"So help me God\"\nbeing held sufficient to associate the First Cause ethically with the\nproceeding in hand.\n\nThis movement was doubtless due to a certain semi-rational perception\nof the futility of oaths in general, as being a vain formality to\nhonest men, and a vain barrier to others. Sir William Hamilton,\na thinker so fervent in his instinctive Theism that he undid his\nphilosophy to accommodate it, had in his day created a strong\nimpression by his essays (1834-5), on the right of Dissenters to be\nadmitted into the English universities, in which he emphatically\nreiterated the declaration of Bishop Berkeley--made when the oath\ntest was in fullest use--that there is \"no nation under the sun where\nsolemn perjury is so common as in England.\" \"If the perjury of England\nstand pre-eminent in the world,\" said Hamilton, \"the perjury of the\nEnglish Universities, and of Oxford in particular, stands pre-eminent\nin England.\" Doctrine like this had made for an abolition of oaths\nwhich could easily be classified as \"unnecessary,\" and for the\nsimplification of those retained; but though the very step of reducing\nthe act of imprecation to a curt conventional form meant, if anything,\nthe belittling of the act of imprecation as such, the Parliamentary\nformula had for half a generation remained unchallenged. John Mill\nhad in 1865 sworn \"on the true faith of a Christian,\" and a good many\nAgnostics and Positivists have since unmurmuringly invoked the unknown\nGod. It was left for Bradlaugh to attempt a departure from the course\nof dissembling conformity. When he stood for Northampton in 1868 (as he\nstated in answer to Mr Bright on the second select committee of 1880),\nhe had gravely considered the question of oath-taking, there being then\nno possibility of affirmation. Believing now that he had the right to\naffirm under the Act which permitted affirmation to witnesses, he felt\nbound to exercise it.\n\nAs every step in his action has been and still is a subject of\nobstinate misconception and wilful falsehood, the story must be here\ntold with some minuteness. The usual statement is that he \"refused\"\nto take the oath of allegiance. He did no such thing. A professed\nAtheist, he had been the means of bringing about the legal reform\nwhich enabled unbelievers to give evidence on affirmation, albeit the\nform of enactment was, to say the least, invidious. A great difficulty\nis felt by many Christians in regard to the abolition of the oath,\nin that they fear to open the way for false testimony by witnesses\nwho would fear to swear to a lie, but do not scruple to lie on mere\naffirmation. It is for Christians to take the onus of asserting that\nthere are such people among their co-religionists; and they have\nalways asserted it in the House of Commons when there is any question\nof dispensing with oaths. And it was on this plea that the first Act\nframed to allow unbelievers to give evidence on affirmation was made\nto provide that the judge should in each case satisfy himself that a\nwitness claiming to affirm was not a person on whom an oath would have\na binding effect. That is to say, he was to make sure that the witness\nwas not a knavish religionist trying to dodge the oath, in order to\nlie with an easy mind. It was the duplicity of certain believers, and\nnot the duplicity of unbelievers, that was to be guarded against,\nthough, of course, the only security against the lying of believers\nin answer to the judge was that a known conformist would be afraid\npublicly to pretend that he had scruples against the oath. But the\nmain effect of the clause, framed to guard against pious knavery,\nwas to stigmatise unbelievers as persons on whom an oath would have\n\"no binding effect.\" An ill-conditioned judge was thus free to insult\nFreethinking witnesses, and even a just judge was free to embarrass\nthem by an invidious question, since the bare wording of the Act\nenabled and even encouraged the judge to ask them--not, as he ought to\nhave done, whether the oath was to them unmeaning in respect of the\nwords of adjuration, but--whether the oath as a whole would be \"binding\non their conscience.\"[121] While recognising the invidiousness of such\na question, Bradlaugh always claimed to affirm in courts of law, though\nto him, as to most professed rationalists, the repetition of an idle\nexpletive was only a vexation, and in no way an act of deception, when\nmade the inevitable preliminary to the fulfilment of any civic duty.\nHe had openly avowed his opinions, and if the oath was still exacted,\nthe responsibility lay with those who insisted on it. On his return\nto Parliament he felt that not only would it be inconsistent for him\nto take the oath if he could avoid it, but it would be gratuitously\nindecorous, from the point of view of the believing Christian majority.\nSitting in the house before the \"swearing-in,\" he remarked to Mr\nLabouchere that he felt it would be unseemly for him to go through\nthat form when he believed he was legally entitled to affirm. And in\nthis belief, it must always be remembered, he had the support of the\nformer Liberal law officers of the Crown, who had privately given it as\ntheir opinion[122] that he was empowered to affirm his allegiance under\nthe law relating to the affirmation of unbelievers. With that opinion\nbehind him, he was in the fullest degree entitled--nay, he was morally\nbound as a conscientious rationalist--to take the course he did. Other\nrationalists, real or reputed, were returned to the same Parliament.\nProfessor Bryce, as candidate for the Tower Hamlets, had been assailed\nas an Atheist, and was yet returned at the head of the poll. Mr Firth\nhad been similarly attacked, but was nevertheless carried in Chelsea.\nNeither of these gentlemen, however, made any public avowal, direct or\nindirect, of heresy. Mr John Morley, who was justifiably regarded as a\nPositivist or Agnostic on the strength of his writings, when elected\nlater made no demur to the oath; and Mr Ashton Dilke, who afterwards\navowed his heterodoxy in the House of Commons,[123] also took it\nwithout comment. It was left to Bradlaugh to fight the battle of common\nsense--I might say of common honesty, were it not that long usage has\nin these matters wholly vitiated the moral standards of the community,\nand honourable men are free to do, and do habitually, things which,\nabstractly considered, are acts of dissimulation.\n\n[Footnote 121: In the action of Richards _v._ Hough and Co., however,\nin May 1882, Mr Justice Grove expressly remarked that some judges did\nnot think it necessary to enquire at all as to the belief of a witness\nclaiming to affirm. In the prosecution of Bradlaugh, Foote, and Ramsay\nin 1883 for blasphemy, on the other hand, Lord Coleridge, a very\nconsiderate judge, expressly asked Mr Foote, before letting him affirm,\nwhether the oath \"would be binding on his conscience,\" though Mr Foote,\ndeclaring himself an atheist, rightly objected to such a query. His\nlordship after discussion agreed to modify the question, making it\napply only to the words of invocation; and he put the question with\nstill more modification to Mrs Besant, who, warned by what had been\ndone to her partner, declared in so many words that any promise she\nmade would be binding on her, whatever the form.]\n\n[Footnote 122: Sir Henry James later avowed that they adhered to that\nopinion all along.]\n\n[Footnote 123: In the discussion on the Burials Bill, 1881.]\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\nBradlaugh's first formal step after obtaining the opinion of the last\nLiberal law officers and privately consulting the officials of the\nHouse, was to hand to the Clerk of the House of Commons, Sir Thomas\nErskine May, on May 3rd, a written paper in the following terms:--\n\n \"_To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons._\n\n \"I, the undersigned Charles Bradlaugh, beg respectfully to claim to be\n allowed to affirm as a person for the time being by law permitted to\n make a solemn affirmation or declaration, instead of taking an oath.\"\n\nHe had already explained, in answer to the questions of the Clerk,\nthat he made his claim in virtue of the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866,\nthe Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, and the Evidence Amendment Act,\n1870, which \"explains and amends\" the Act of 1869. The Clerk formally\ncommunicated these matters to the Speaker (Sir Henry Brand), who then\ninvited Bradlaugh to make a statement to the House with regard to his\nclaim. Bradlaugh replied:\n\n \"Mr Speaker,--I have only now to submit that the Parliamentary Oaths\n Act, 1866, gives the right to affirm to every person for the time\n being permitted by law to make affirmation. I am such a person; and\n under the Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, and the Evidence Amendment\n Act 1870, I have repeatedly for nine years past affirmed in the\n highest Courts of Jurisdiction in this realm. I am ready to make the\n declaration or affirmation of allegiance.\"\n\nThe Speaker thereupon requested him to withdraw, and formally restated\nthe claim to the House, remarking that he had \"grave doubts\" on the\nmatter, and desired to refer it to the House's judgment. On behalf of\nthe Treasury bench, Lord Frederick Cavendish, remarking that the advice\nof the new law officers of the Crown was not yet available, moved that\nthe point be referred to a Select Committee. Sir Stafford Northcote,\nthe Tory leader in the Commons, was at this stage not actively hostile.\nA man of well-meaning and temperate though meagre quality, made up of\nsmall doses of virtues and capacities, well fitted to be a country\ngentleman, but of too thin stuff and too narrow calibre to be either\na very good or a very bad statesman, he was a Conservative by force\nof tradition and mental limitation, and a partisan leader in respect\nof his pliability to his associates. As his biographer puts it, he\nwas \"not recalcitrant to compromise\" in matters of party strategy and\nleadership. Being personally willing to substitute affirmation for\noath,[124] he seconded the Liberal motion without any show of animus,\nand only some of his minor followers, as Earl Percy and Mr Daniel\nOnslow, sought to effect the adjournment of the debate. This attempt,\nhowever, was not pressed to a division, and the Select Committee was\nagreed to.\n\n[Footnote 124: He wrote in his diary at the time: \"It seems strange\nto require an oath from a Christian, and _to dispense with it from an\nAtheist_. Would it not be better to do away with the member's oath\naltogether, and make the affirmation general?\" (Mr Lang's \"Life of\nNorthcote,\" ii. 154.)]\n\nOnly a few of the speeches in the House thus far had indicated a\ndesire among the Tory party to make Bradlaugh the victim of their feud\nwith the Liberals. But outside the House, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff,\nmember for Portsmouth, speaking at Christchurch, had already publicly\ndeclared his intention to oppose Bradlaugh's entry: the broaching of\nthe oath question in legal and other journals before the assembling of\nParliament having given to such politicians their cue. Over and above\nthe purely factious motive of such men, and of the mass of the Tories,\nthere was the motive of genuine religious malice; and the two instincts\nin combination wrought memorable results.\n\nOn 10th May Lord Richard Grosvenor, the Liberal Whip, announced to\nthe House the names of the proposed members of the Select Committee\nwhose appointment he should move next day:--Mr Whitbread, Sir J.\nHolker, Mr John Bright, Lord Henry Lennox, Mr W. N. Massey, Mr Staveley\nHill, Sir Henry Jackson, the Attorney-General (Sir Henry James), the\nSolicitor-General (Mr Farrer Herschell), Sir G. Goldney, Mr Grantham,\nMr Pemberton, Mr Watkin Williams, Mr Spencer H. Walpole, Mr Hopwood,\nMr Beresford Hope, Major Nolan, Mr Chaplin, and Mr Serjeant Simon.\nAlthough the motion was not to come on till next day, Sir Henry\nDrummond Wolff sought, in despite of the Speaker's opposition, to\nraise at once a debate on the legitimacy of the Committee; and on the\nfollowing day he was able to do so. He moved \"the previous question,\"\nand pronounced the course taken \"inconvenient, unprecedented, and\nirregular,\" although it had been agreed to by his nominal leader;\nthus beginning the tactic of independent action which served to mark\nhim off with three colleagues,[125] as constituting a \"fourth party\"\nin the House, the other three being the main bodies of Liberals and\nTories, and the Irish Home Rulers. The debate, once begun, was carried\non with great violence and recklessness, Mr Stanley Leighton alleging\nthat Bradlaugh had been pressed on the Northampton constituency by\nthe Liberal \"whip,\" prompted by Mr Gladstone; and Sir R. Knightley\naffirming that the election had been determined by the interference\nof Mr Samuel Morley. A member known as F. H. O'Donnel, but originally\nnamed Macdonald, an Irish Catholic, asserted that Bradlaugh had\n\"explained religion as a disease of the brain, and conscience as a\nnervous contraction of the diaphragm.\" After more random discussion the\nHouse divided, when there voted for the appointment of the Committee\n171, against it, 74, giving a majority of 97 to the Government. Most of\nthe Conservative leaders walked out of the House before the division,\nthus already showing a disposition to surrender to the irresponsibles\non their side.[126]\n\n[Footnote 125: These were Mr Gorst, Lord Randolph Churchill, and Mr A.\nJ. Balfour. The latter took little oral part in the Bradlaugh struggle,\nbut always voted with his party.]\n\n[Footnote 126: Northcote's diary, so far as published, naturally\noffers no confession or explanation as to the change in his attitude.\nUnder date May 24, he simply records that \"we agreed to stand firm for\nWolff's motion\" (Mr Lang's \"Life,\" ii. 159).]\n\nAlready, too, there began to be apparent what can now no longer be\ndisputed--the mismanagement of the Speaker. Only bad judgment or\npartiality could account for his permission of such gross irrelevance\nas filled the speeches of Mr Leighton and Mr F. H. O'Donnel, _alias_\nMacdonald. On the language of the latter now forgotten personage Mr\nBradlaugh thus commented in the _National Reformer_:--\n\n \"I remember, fourteen or fifteen years ago, when the countrymen of\n that member's constituents came to me for help and counsel. The\n honourable member professes to now represent those Irishmen who then\n sought and had my aid; and on Tuesday he in effect told the House that\n it ought to exclude from it one who did not believe in God, and had no\n standard of morality. But I see from the division list that the 'third\n party,' of which he pretended to be the spokesman at the election of\n the Speaker, went into the lobby opposed to that into which their\n leader went, so that the really Irish members did not forget old ties.\"\n\nUnfortunately the latter tribute was not long to be deserved.\n\nOn 20th May the Select Committee presented its report. There had been\neight members in favour of the view that Bradlaugh was legally entitled\nto affirm, and eight against; and the casting vote of the chairman, Mr\nSpencer H. Walpole, was given for the Noes. It was said, and it was\nbelieved by Mr Bradlaugh, that Sir John Holker had avowed a belief\nthat his claim was valid, but Sir John Holker on the Committee voted\nwith his party. Save for the fact that the Noes included Mr Hopwood,\nthe vote would stand as a purely party one, the rest of the Noes being\nConservatives, while the rest of the Liberals took the affirmative\nside. And so general was the attitude of reckless prejudice that we\nstill find the Chairman's son giving a flatly misleading account of the\nsituation. Mr Spencer Walpole, in his work on \"The Electorate and the\nLegislature\"[127] published in 1881, and re-issued in 1892, has made\n(p. 75) this statement (italics ours):--\n\n[Footnote 127: Macmillan & Co., \"The English Citizen\" series.]\n\n \"In 1880 ... the legislature was suddenly confronted with a new\n dilemma. The borough of Northampton sent a representative to\n Parliament who _refused to take an oath_--not because he had any\n conscientious objection to be sworn, but because an appeal to a\n God--in whom he had no belief--seemed to him an idle formula which was\n not binding on his conscience.\"\n\nSince Mr Walpole has chosen to print and reprint this maliciously\nuntrue statement, and takes no notice whatever of published protests\nagainst it, I am obliged to say in so many words that he, a professed\nhistorian, is here grossly perverting history. Much might indeed be\nset down to his carelessness. Issuing in 1892 the second edition of\nwhat should be an authoritative treatise, Mr Walpole inserts (p. 77)\na passage as to Parliamentary affirmation which is completely quashed\nby the passing of Mr Bradlaugh's Affirmation Act of 1888. Of this Act,\nin 1892, Mr Walpole does not seem to have any knowledge; but however\nhe may contrive to overlook such a fact as this, he cannot have been\nunaware in 1880 that Mr Bradlaugh did _not_ refuse to take the oath,\nand that he repudiated the expression that the oath would not be\nbinding on his conscience,[128] repeatedly declaring that any promise\nhe made would as such be binding on his conscience, whether or not an\nidle formula should be appended to it. Bradlaugh's position on this\npoint was always explicit; for him a promise, however embellished,\nwas a promise which as an honourable man he was bound to keep. By\nthe majority of the British House of Commons it is still implicitly\nruled that a certain promise would not necessarily be binding on the\nconsciences of Christian members unless accompanied by the popular\nimprecation \"So help me God.\"\n\n[Footnote 128: A technical assent to this ambiguous question was, as we\nhave seen, the condition attached to affirmation in the law courts. But\ncommon decency usually gave the formula there a purely technical and\nnon-natural force.]\n\nThe decision of the first Select Committee, on the casting vote of\nthe chairman, at once carried the question to a new phase. Bradlaugh\nimmediately published a statement[129] of his position as to the oath,\nthe taking of which he now held to be forced upon him by the refusal of\nthe right to affirm.\n\n[Footnote 129: Printed in _National Reformer_ of 30th May 1889, p. 338,\nand in several London newspapers.]\n\nIt ran:--\n\n \"When elected as one of the Burgesses to represent Northampton in\n the House of Commons, I believed that I had the legal right to make\n affirmation of allegiance in lieu of taking the oath, as provided by\n sec. 4 of the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866. While I considered that\n I had this legal right, it was then clearly my moral duty to make the\n affirmation. The oath, although to me including words of idle and\n meaningless character, was and is regarded by a large number of my\n fellow-countrymen as an appeal to Deity to take cognizance of their\n swearing. It would have been an act of hypocrisy to voluntarily take\n this form if any other had been open to me, or to take it without\n protest, as though it meant in my mouth any such appeal. I therefore\n quietly and privately notified the Clerk of the House of my desire to\n affirm. His view of the law and practice differing from my own, and\n no similar case having theretofore arisen, it became necessary that I\n should tender myself to affirm in a more formal manner, and this I did\n at a season deemed convenient by those in charge of the business of\n the House. In tendering my affirmation I was careful, when called on\n by the Speaker to state my objection, to do nothing more than put, in\n the fewest possible words, my contention that the Parliamentary Oaths\n Act, 1866, gave the right to affirm in Parliament to every person for\n the time being by law permitted to make an affirmation in lieu of\n taking an oath, and that I was such a person, and therefore claimed to\n affirm. The Speaker, neither refusing nor accepting my affirmation,\n referred the matter to the House, which appointed a Select Committee\n to report whether persons entitled to affirm under the Evidence\n Amendment Acts, 1869 and 1870, were under sec. 4 of the Parliamentary\n Oaths Act, 1866, also entitled to affirm as Members of Parliament.\n This Committee, by the casting vote of its Chairman, has decided\n that I am not entitled to affirm. Two courses are open to me--one,\n of appeal to the House against the decision of the Committee; the\n other, of present compliance with the ceremony, while doing my best\n to prevent the further maintenance of a form which many other members\n of the House think as objectionable as I do, but which habit and the\n fear of exciting prejudice has induced them to submit to. To appeal to\n the House against the decision of the Committee would be ungracious,\n and would certainly involve great delay of public business. I was\n present at the deliberations of the Committee, and while, naturally, I\n cannot be expected to bow submissively to the statements and arguments\n of my opponents, I am bound to say that they were calmly and fairly\n urged. I think them unreasonable, but the fact that they included a\n legal argument from an earnest Liberal deprives them even of a purely\n party character. If I appealed to the House against the Committee,\n I, of course, might rely on the fact that the Attorney-General, the\n Solicitor-General, Sir Henry Jackson, Q.C., Mr Watkin Williams,\n Q.C., and Mr Sergeant Simon, are reported in the _Times_ to have\n interpreted the law as I do; and I might add that the Right Honourable\n John Bright and Mr Whitbread are in the same journal arrayed in favour\n of allowing me to affirm. But even then the decision of the House may\n endorse that of the Committee, and should it be in my favour, it could\n only--judging from what has already taken place--be after a bitter\n party debate, in which the Government specially, and the Liberals\n generally, would be sought to be burdened with my anti-theological\n views, and with promoting my return to Parliament. As a matter of\n fact, the Liberals of England have never in any way promoted my return\n to Parliament. The much-attacked action of Mr Adam had relation only\n to the second seat, and in no way related to the one for which I was\n fighting. In 1868 the only action of Mr Gladstone and of Mr Bright\n was to write letters in favour of my competitors, and since 1868 I do\n not believe that either of these gentlemen has directly or indirectly\n interfered in any way in connection with my parliamentary candidature.\n The majority of the electors of Northampton had determined to return\n me before the recent union in that borough, and while pleased to aid\n their fellow-Liberals in winning the two seats, my constituents would\n have at any rate returned me had no union taken place. My duty to my\n constituents is to fulfil the mandate they have given me, and if to do\n this I have to submit to a form less solemn to me than the affirmation\n I would have reverently made, so much the worse for those who force me\n to repeat words which I have scores of times declared are to me sounds\n conveying no clear and definite meaning. I am sorry for the earnest\n believers who see words sacred to them used as a meaningless addendum\n to a promise, but I cannot permit their less sincere co-religionists\n to use an idle form, in order to prevent me from doing my duty to\n those who have chosen me to speak for them in Parliament. I shall,\n taking the oath, regard myself as bound not by the letter of its\n words, but by the spirit which the affirmation would have conveyed had\n I been permitted to use it. So soon as I am able I shall take such\n steps as may be consistent with parliamentary business to put an end\n to the present doubtful and unfortunate state of the law and practice\n on oaths and affirmations. Only four cases have arisen of refusal to\n take the oath, except, of course, those cases purely political in\n their character. Two of those cases are those of the Quakers John\n Archdale and Joseph Pease. The religion of these men forbade them to\n swear at all, and they nobly refused. The sect to which they belonged\n was outlawed, insulted, and imprisoned. They were firm, and one of\n that sect sat on the very Committee, a member of Her Majesty's Privy\n Council and a member of the actual Cabinet. I thank him gratefully\n that, valuing right so highly, he cast his vote so nobly for one for\n whom I am afraid he has but scant sympathy. No such religious scruple\n prevents me from taking the oath as prevented John Archdale and Joseph\n Pease. In the cases of the Baron Rothschild and Alderman Salomons the\n words 'upon the true faith of Christian' were the obstacle. To-day\n the oath contains no such words. The Committee report that I may not\n affirm, and, protesting against a decision which seems to me alike\n against the letter of the law and the spirit of modern legislation, I\n comply with the forms of the House.\"\n\nAs might have been expected, this decision to take the oath evoked\nfresh outcry, and this time some Freethinkers joined. The most\ninjurious attack of this kind came from Mr George Jacob Holyoake, who\nhad long been on strained terms with Bradlaugh, and avowedly regarded\nhim with disfavour as a too militant Atheist. Before the assembling\nof Parliament Mr Holyoake, in answer to a correspondent who asked him\nwhether Mr Bradlaugh would take the oath, had written to the effect\nthat Mr Bradlaugh had taken the oath scores of times before, and would\ndoubtless do so now. This remark had reference to a long-standing\ndispute as to the propriety of oath-taking by a Freethinker under any\ncircumstances. Before the reform of the law which permitted unbelievers\nto affirm, Mr Bradlaugh had without hesitation taken the oath in\ncourts of law, holding the forced formality a much smaller matter than\nthe evil of a miscarriage of justice. Mr Holyoake condemned all such\noath-taking; but it was pointed out that while he was in business\npartnership with his brother Austin, the latter, a highly esteemed\nFreethinker, had taken the oath wherever it was necessary for the\npurposes of the business. This, of course, would not altogether set\naside Mr G. J. Holyoake's argument, if put forward only as a statement\nof his own position; but he was not content with that. After avowing\nhis expectation that Bradlaugh would take the oath, he expressed\nsurprise and reprobation when Bradlaugh proposed to do so. Needless to\nsay, such a deliverance was eagerly welcomed by Bradlaugh's enemies,\nand zealously used against him; as it was when repeated by Mr Holyoake\nin the following year, with expressions about Freethinkers being made\nto hang their heads for shame by the action of their nominal leader.\nWere there not reason to presume that Mr Holyoake would not now repeat\nor defend his former language, it might be fitting to endorse here some\nof the very emphatic comments made on it at the time by Mrs Besant and\nothers. It may suffice to say, however, that Mr Holyoake had never\nbefore taken such an attitude against Freethinkers who took the oath;\nthat he had once himself expressed readiness to take it in court if it\nwere regarded as a civil act, and not as a confession of faith (exactly\nBradlaugh's case); and that he later seemed to other Freethinkers\nto quash once for all his own case by justifying quite gratuitous\nacts of conformity and co-operation with churches whose teaching he\nheld to be false. The common sense of nine hundred and ninety-nine\nout of every thousand Freethinkers, including attached friends of Mr\nHolyoake, decided that such an act of enforced ceremonial as official\noath-taking by an avowed Atheist surrenders no jot of principle or\nself-respect, particularly when the Atheist is openly striving for the\nabolition of all such compulsions. Of all Freethinkers who have taken\noaths in England, Bradlaugh was the very least open to the charge of\ntemporising; and the expressions used by Mr Holyoake at different times\nin this connection as to \"apostolic\" conduct have been, to say the\nleast, unfortunate as coming from a professed Freethinker, not usually\nacquiescent in orthodox phraseology.\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\nThe document above quoted, announcing Bradlaugh's intentions, was dated\n20th May, the date of the Committee's report. On the following day\nBradlaugh went to the House to take the oath and his seat. Immediately\non his presenting himself, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff rose and objected\nto the oath being administered, whereupon Mr Dillwyn protested\nagainst the interruption. The Speaker now made the fatal mistake of\nallowing the interruption to be carried out. It is established by the\nhighest possible authority--that of the present Speaker--that the\nholder of the Chair as such had and has no right to permit any such\nintervention between an elected member and the statutory oath. Sir\nHenry Brand, intimidated by the action of men like Wolff, weakly stated\nthat he \"was bound to say he knew of no instance\" in which such an\nintervention had taken place; but \"at the same time\" he would allow\nWolff so to intervene. That personage then made a speech, resting on\nthe two arguments that Atheists who had made affirmation in the law\ncourts thereby admitted that an oath \"would not be binding on their\nconscience,\" and that Bradlaugh had further, in his \"Impeachment of the\nHouse of Brunswick,\" affirmed that Parliament \"has the undoubted right\nto withhold the Crown from Albert Edward Prince of Wales.\" The hon.\nbaronet \"could not see how a gentleman professing the views set forth\nin that work could take the oath of allegiance.\" It was in the course\nof this speech that the hon. baronet was understood by all his auditors\nto say, of the sects permitted by law to affirm, that they \"had a\ncommon standard of morality, a conscience, and a general belief in some\ndivinity or other.\"[130]\n\n[Footnote 130: Some years afterwards he stated in the House that what\nhe had really said was \"one Deity or the other,\" meaning either the\nUnitarian or the Trinitarian God. The explanation did not seem to be\ncredited.]\n\nThe Tory case against Bradlaugh's admission to Parliament was thus\nat the outset a combination of a moral subterfuge and a notorious\npolitical fallacy. All concerned knew perfectly well that the oath was\nhabitually taken by men to whom the adjuration was an idle form, and\nthat their consciences could only be \"bound\" by the simple promise.\nIt had further been ruled by the highest judicial authority, in the\ncases of Miller _v._ Salomons, and the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway\nCompany _v._ Heaton, that the essence of the oath consisted in the\npromise, and not in the words of imprecation. Yet further, Wolff had\nbefore him, and in his speech quoted from, the statement above cited,\nin which Bradlaugh expressly declared that he held himself bound, in\ntaking the oath, \"not by the letter of its words, but by the spirit\nwhich the affirmation would have conveyed had I been permitted to use\nit.\" These words he suppressed. On the other hand, as regards the\npoint of allegiance, he was negating the whole established doctrine of\nthe British constitution. It is a commonplace of that doctrine that\nParliament can repeal, as Parliament passed, the Act of Settlement. The\ncontrary is now maintained by nobody, and was not really maintained\neven by Burke, in his furious feint of disputing the constitutional\nprinciple in his \"Reflections.\" As the law stands, any member of\nParliament is entitled to move constitutionally for the abolition of\nthe Monarchy. The oath, framed though it be for the dynasty, and not\nfor the State, promises allegiance to the sovereign as by the law\nestablished. If the law in future quashes sovereignty, there will be no\nsovereign to whom to bear legal allegiance.[131]\n\n[Footnote 131: It is worth noting that Mr Keir Hardie, a professed\nChristian Socialist, when recently (28th June) protesting against\nthe foolish ceremony of congratulating the Queen on the birth of a\ngreat-grandchild in the direct line, went the length of declaring, \"I\nowe no allegiance to any hereditary ruler\"--this after he had sworn\nallegiance to the Queen. Bradlaugh never stultified himself in this\nfashion.]\n\nBut such protests as those of Wolff were perfectly fitted to serve the\nturn of the Tory party in a campaign of faction. The cue of shocked\npiety and the cue of \"loyalty\" came alike easily to the representatives\nof the feudal and the capitalistic interests; and the \"bag-baron\" and\nthe \"crag-baron\" vied with each other in the display of sham godliness\nand sincere zeal for the Throne. Never was there such a reek of cant in\nSt. Stephen's before. All the English gift for hypocrisy, unrivalled\nin Europe, was brought to bear on the task. Alderman Fowler, a fitting\nexponent of the cult of Mammon in His sacred city, followed up Wolff\nwith a petition emanating from bankers and merchants, all praying with\none consent that an unbeliever in their gods should not be allowed to\nsit at Westminster. The honour of God was avowedly the one concern of\nthe Alderman and of the men, so many of them gross with fortuitous\ngain, who made him their mouthpiece. And those strategists who knew the\nimperfect efficacy of bogus religion as a means of keeping an Atheist\nmember out of his seat, took care to supply the additional weapons\nneeded.\n\nMr Gladstone met Sir Henry Wolff's motion with a counter motion for\nthe appointment of a fresh select committee to consider Bradlaugh's\ncompetence to take the oath--a sufficiently unwise course, in view of\nthe action of the previous committee. At once, however, the official\nTories gave their full support to Wolff's motion, declaring that\nthe matter should not even go to a committee. Mr Gibson, formerly\nAttorney-General for Ireland, argued that Bradlaugh had deserved all\nthat befell him for raising the question. \"The hon. member might\nhave taken his seat without opposition, but he had chosen to obtrude\nhimself on the House and the country. He must therefore accept the\ngrave responsibility of thus thrusting his opinions on the House.\"\nObserve the situation. Bradlaugh had acted not only as a scrupulous\nman in his place was bound to do, but as a man careful of other\nmen's susceptibilities would do. Had he simply taken the oath, he\nwould certainly have been yelled at as a hypocrite, and further as\na blasphemer. The point had been publicly discussed in the press\nbeforehand, and his enemies were prepared. Trying to avoid at once\ninconsistency and scandal, he quietly and circumspectly sought to make\naffirmation. The right to affirm was denied him in committee by the\nchampions of the oath, joined by one conscientious Liberal. When he\nthen came to take the compelled oath, these men and their fellows\nassailed him as one who \"obtruded his opinions\"; and Mr Gibson, their\nspokesman, proceeded to allege in so many words that the member for\nNorthampton had \"walked up the floor of the House with that oath and\nBook before him and declined to take the oath.\" It was a falsehood; and\nMr Gibson himself had just before, in the same speech, admitted that\nBradlaugh had \"claimed for himself, in careful and guarded language,\nthe right to make an affirmation.\"\n\nThere are many points in the story of this struggle at which it is\nhardly possible to abstain from imputing wilful falsehood to some of\nthe actors. But on this point it seems right to conclude that one or\nother form of prejudice or passion made men all round incapable of\nrealising when and how they grossly perverted a simple fact. It was not\nmerely the factious Tories who repeated the mis-statement, though they\nnaturally used it most industriously. Mr Chaplin, M.P., was reported\nin two newspapers as having asserted that at a public meeting on 1st\nJune \"Mr Bradlaugh announced his intention of refusing the oath,\nand asked that he might affirm instead.\" Mr Chaplin, at the time of\nspeaking, was a member of the second select committee appointed to\nsit on the oath question, and Bradlaugh indignantly protested to the\nChairman, who was again Mr Spencer Walpole. Mr Chaplin, after some\nfencing, declared that the report was inaccurate. Baron Henry de Worms,\nanother of the champions of Omnipotence, publicly averred[132] that\n\"he was in the House when Mr Bradlaugh came to the Speaker and said he\ncould not and would not take an oath which in no way bound him, as he\ndid not acknowledge any God.\" Challenged as to this statement, Baron\nHenry de Worms avowed that the words from \"which\" onwards were his\nown comment, but could not see anything unwarrantable in the previous\nstatement as to the facts. Such were the notions of truth and honour\namong English--and other--oath-taking gentlemen and noblemen with which\nBradlaugh had to contend. And he was only in part supported by the\nremarks of Mr John Morley in the _Fortnightly Review_ for July 1880:--\n\n[Footnote 132: Report in _Standard_ of 11th June 1880.]\n\n \"There is no precedent for Mr Bradlaugh's case, for the simple reason\n that there is no precedent for the frank courage with which he has\n considered it desirable to publish his views as to the nature of an\n oath. That the oath is just as meaningless, so far as its divine\n appeal is concerned, to many past and present members of the House of\n Commons as Mr Bradlaugh protested it would be to him, no one doubts.\n Whether and how far he was justified in asking to be sworn, _after\n he had declined to be sworn_, is a different question. Whatever the\n answer to that may be, it cannot at least be said that the course\n adopted by Mr Bradlaugh involved the surrender of any principle.\"\n\nThe last clause is so candid that it is a pity Mr Morley should have\n\"considered it desirable\" to fortify his own position by penning that\nabove italicised. He had previously spoken of Bradlaugh's \"pertinacity\"\nin \"parading\" his views--a statement which obtrudes its inspiration.\nWhen a leading Liberal publicist wrote so, the godly multitude\nnaturally asserted in chorus that Bradlaugh had first ostentatiously\nrefused to take the oath, and then insisted on taking it. Dean Boyd,\nof Exeter, capped the record by asserting that when Bradlaugh first\n\"advanced to the table of the House,\" he \"openly, boldly, and defiantly\naffirmed that he believed there was no such being as a Deity.\"\n\nIn the frame of mind represented by a variety of such utterances as\nthese, the House of Commons deliberated on Mr Gladstone's motion that\nthe question of Bradlaugh's competence to swear should be referred\nto a second special committee. On the second day of the debate, Sir\nStafford Northcote, the nominal leader of the Conservative party in\nthe House, accepted the position into which he had been ignominiously\nforced by irresponsible and even semi-defiant adherents, and opposed\nthe appointment of the Committee. He is reported as saying:--\n\n \"Without raising any question as to whether there is anything\n irreverent in the course which the hon. member proposes to take, it\n seems to me that we, in allowing him to take it, should be incurring a\n responsibility from which our better judgment ought to make us shrink\"\n\n--a fair sample of the hon. baronet's forcible-feeble oratory. Some\nTory speakers, as Earl Percy, admitted that \"the hon. member, to do him\njustice, had sought to avoid taking an oath to which he attached no\nsacred character\"; but these ingenuous combatants were concerned only\nto prevent the House from \"incurring the guilt of an act of hypocrisy,\"\nand had no anxiety about avoiding an act of iniquity. When John Bright\nmet the subterfuges of the Opposition with the retaliatory criticism\nof which he was a master, the temperature naturally rose. If, he\nasked, they set up the principle of a creed test, where were they going\nto end? Would they next question members known to be unbelievers,\nthough not publicly professed ones? As certain Conservative members\nwere actually known by their comrades to be Gallios in these matters,\nBright's challenge created the appropriate resentment, as did his\nemphatic avowal, \"One thing I believe most profoundly, that there is\nnothing amongst mankind that has done more to destroy truthfulness than\nthe forcing of men to take an oath.\" But the memorable part of his\nspeech was this:--\n\n \"I have no right to speak of the member for Northampton. I think\n it never happened to me more than once to address to him a single\n sentence, or to hear any expression from him. I never saw him to\n my knowledge but once, before he appeared in this House; but he is\n returned here by a large constituency, to whom his religious opinions\n were as well known as they are now to us.... Now, I have no doubt\n whatever, though I have no authority to say so, that the oath as it\n stands is binding on the conscience of the member for Northampton, in\n the sense that an affirmation would be binding on his conscience--that\n the words of the oath, so far as they are a promise, are words which\n would be binding upon him, but that their binding character is not\n increased by the reference to the Supreme Being, of whose existence,\n unhappily as we all think--such is the constitution of his mind, and\n such has been the constitution of many eminent minds of whom we have\n all heard--he is not able to form that distinct opinion and belief\n which we, who I think are more happy, have been able to do. Therefore\n if he were to come to the table and to take the oath as it is, and as\n he proposes to take it, I have no doubt that it would be binding on\n his conscience as my simple affirmation is binding on mine; because in\n my affirmation there is no reference to the Deity. I make a promise.\n My word is as good, and is taken to be as good, as your oath. (Loud\n Ministerial cheers.) And that is declared by an irrevocable Act of\n Parliament. And if Mr Bradlaugh takes this oath, as he proposes to\n take it, I have no doubt that, though the last words of the oath\n have no binding effect upon him, yet his sense of honour and his\n conscience--(Opposition laughter, and cries of 'Hear, hear' from some\n Ministerialists)--his sense of honour and his conscience would make\n that declaration as binding on him as my affirmation is on me, and as\n your oath is on you.\"\n\nAmong those who joined in the brutal laughter of the gentlemen of\nthe Conservative party at these passages were men who had committed\nbribery, unscrupulous stock-jobbers and company promoters, men about\ntown, topers, libellers, and liars. But some who thought it fitting to\nlaugh with these would be normally classed as chivalrous and well-bred\ngentlemen.\n\nThe debate remained picturesque to the close. Lord Randolph Churchill,\nwho has within the present year proved afresh his capacity to create\na Parliamentary sensation, protested that \"if the words 'so help me\nGod' were held to be a mere superstitious invocation, the idea or the\nfaith which had for centuries animated the House of Commons that its\nproceedings were under the guidance of Providence would lose its force,\nand would very soon have to be abandoned altogether.\" The better to\nexemplify the energy of the divine supervision, the noble lord, after\nquoting a somewhat strong passage from Bradlaugh's \"Impeachment of\nthe House of Brunswick,\" threw the pamphlet violently on the floor of\nthe House, in parody of Burke's performance with the daggers. Baron\nde Worms hazarded the proposition that \"this was an irreligious, not\na religious question.\" The late Mr Thorold Rogers, an economist whose\nincapacity for logical thought led to his not unsuccessful cultivation\nof the department of historical detail, made a foolish and offensive\nspeech on the Liberal side, setting out with a statement of his sense\nof intellectual superiority to Bradlaugh. \"In his opinion, a person who\nrecognised no law beyond that of his own mind, and such scanty rules as\nhe thought fit to lay for his own guidance, very much weakened his own\ncharacter and lessened the value of his own life and acts.\" Further,\nMr Rogers had over and over again found \"in the course of the study of\nhistory\" that Atheists were Conservatives; and he cited in proof the\nnames of Hobbes, a Theist; Hume, who till the latter part of his life\nwas an emphatic Deist; and Gibbon, who was one till his death. \"He knew\nsomething of the political views of educated sceptics; and when this\nunhappy gentleman became a little better educated it would undoubtedly\nbe found that he was migrating towards the opposite benches.\" After\nother remarks to similar effect, Mr Rogers provoked even the protest\nof the much-tolerating Speaker by charging the Tories with being\nindisposed to \"act as generously as they did in their sports, and to\ngive a little law even to vermin.\" For this felicitous figure Mr Rogers\nmade a stumbling apology. On this being privately repeated, Bradlaugh,\nwith his usual magnanimity, later forgave the speech as a whole.\n\nWhere a professed Radical could be thus insolent, on the score of his\nsense of superiority to opinions which he was incapable of discussing,\nthe language of the customary Tory may readily be imagined. The\nrevelations of ardent piety made by some eminent capitalists and\ncompany-promoters were unexpectedly gratifying to the religious\nfeelings of the nation; and the unrelieved malignity of the personal\nallusions of these and other Christians to a man precluded from turning\nunto them there and then the other cheek, proved the injustice of the\ncharge that this is an age of lukewarm religious convictions.\n\nAfter two days of largely irrelevant debate, Wolff's motion was\nrejected by 289 votes to 214--a result not ungratifying to the Tories,\nas showing that already certain Liberals had taken their side. A select\ncommittee of twenty-three was duly appointed, the Tories being defeated\nin an attempt to strengthen their representation on it. The members\nwere:--The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, Messrs Bright,\nChaplin, Childers, Sir Richard Cross, Mr Gibson, Sir Gabriel Goldney,\nMr Grantham, Mr Staveley Hill, Sir John Holker, Mr Beresford Hope, Mr\nHopwood, Sir Henry Jackson, Lord Henry Lennox, Mr Massey, Major Nolan,\nMessrs Pemberton, Simon, Trevelyan, Walpole, Whitbread, and Watkin\nWilliams. The Committee began by examining Sir Thomas Erskine May as\nto precedents; and Mr Bradlaugh was allowed to put questions to him\nlikewise, bringing forward precedents Sir Thomas had not noted, among\nthem the important case of Sir Francis Bacon, who, as Attorney-General,\nwas challenged for breaking the law in making oath that he was duly\nqualified to sit, when, as a practising barrister, he was legally\ndisqualified under an Act of Edward III. (It was in this case that the\nHouse ruled: \"Their oath their own consciences to look unto, not we to\nexamine it.\") After Sir Thomas May, Bradlaugh was himself examined, and\nconducted his case with the lawyer-like exactitude and the more than\nlawyer-like concision and cogency which even his enemies admitted to\nbelong to all his legal pleadings.[133] He pointed out that if it were\ncompetent to the House to interfere between a member and the oath, the\nfirst forty members sworn in a Parliament might prevent the sitting\nof any of the rest; and that if he were held legally incompetent to\nmake affirmation of allegiance, he stood legally bound, as an elected\nmember, to take the oath, no matter what his opinions were. He formally\nstated--\n\n[Footnote 133: See the report of the Committee's proceedings, reprinted\nin his \"True Story of my Parliamentary Struggle.\"]\n\n \"That there is nothing in what I did when asking to affirm which in\n any way disqualifies me from taking the oath.\n\n \"That all I did was--believing, as I then did, that I had the right to\n affirm--to claim to affirm, and that I was then absolutely silent as\n to the oath.\n\n \"That I did not refuse to take it; nor have then or since expressed\n any mental reservation or stated that the appointed oath of allegiance\n would not be binding upon me.\n\n \"That, on the contrary, I say and have said that the essential part\n of the oath is in the fullest and most complete degree binding\n upon my honour and conscience, and that the repeating the words of\n asseveration does not in the slightest degree weaken the binding\n effect of the oath of allegiance upon me.\"\n\nThese explicit statements he repeated again and again in answer to\nquestions, saying once:--\n\n \"Any form that I went through, any oath that I took, I should regard\n as binding upon my conscience in the fullest degree. I would go\n through no form, I would take no oath, unless I meant it to be so\n binding.\"\n\nThis emphatic explanation was given in reply to a question on what is,\nto my mind, the only obscure point in his examination. Asked: \"Do you\ndraw any distinction between the binding effect upon your conscience\nof the assertory oath, as it is called, and the promissory oath?\" he\nanswered--\n\n \"Most certainly I do. The testimony oath is not binding upon my\n conscience, because there is another form which the law has provided\n which I may take, which is more consonant with my feelings. The\n promissory oath is and will be binding upon my conscience if I take\n it, because the law, as interpreted by your Committee, says that it is\n the form which I am to take, and the statute requires me to take it.\"\n\nThere is here, I think, a momentary confusion among the terms\n\"assertory,\" \"promissory,\" and \"testimony\"; and the phrase \"not binding\non my conscience\" is also used in a sense probably not intended by the\nquestioner, and not that intended by Bradlaugh in his next answer,\nabove quoted. The \"because\" is inconsequent. What he meant to convey\nwas simply that he expressly rejected the testimony oath because in\ngiving evidence he was free to affirm; whereas he was compelled to\ntake the oath of allegiance, there being no legal alternative in the\nopinion of a Committee of the House. He had been forced to submit in\nthe law courts to the invidious formula that the oath was not binding\non his conscience, because it had been expressly ruled in law[134]\nthat if a witness simply said \"I am an Atheist,\" the judge was bound\nto infer that an oath did not \"bind\" him. But Bradlaugh's answers to\nthe Select Committee, taken together, made it superfluously clear\nthat in the natural sense of the words he held any formula of promise\nhe took to be binding on him, whether with or without an imprecatory\ntag. And inasmuch as members of the Committee nevertheless thought fit\nafterwards to allege that he had all along declared the contrary with\nregard to the oath, we are driven to one of two conclusions. Either\n(_a_) these gentlemen hold that a formal public promise is not fully\nbinding on _their_ consciences unless they add \"so help me God,\" or\nsomething of the sort, and that an Atheist cannot be more conscientious\nthan they; or (_b_) they deliberately chose to bear false witness for\nparty purposes. And it finally matters little which conclusion we draw;\nfor the acceptance of the first leaves open the chance of the second\nbeing true also.\n\n[Footnote 134: In a case not legally reported, however--that of _ex\nparte_ Lennard _vs_ Woolrych, in the Court of Queen's Bench, in April\n1875.]\n\nThe Committee, after a variety of votes, finally reported to the\neffect that Bradlaugh, by simply stating [though in answer to official\nquestion] that he had repeatedly affirmed under certain Acts in\ncourts of law, had brought it to the notice of the House that he was\na person as to whom judges had satisfied themselves that an oath was\n\"not binding on his conscience\"; that, under the circumstances, an\noath taken by him would not be an oath \"within the true meaning of the\nstatutes\"; and that the House therefore could and ought to prevent him\nfrom going through the form. They further suggested that he should be\nallowed to affirm with a view to his right to do so being tested by\nlegal action, pointing to the nearly equal balance of votes in the\nformer committee as a reason for desiring a decisive legal solution.\n\nFor this report of course only those members are responsible who voted\nfor its main clauses. Under this reservation it falls to be said\nthat the use made of the mean technicality of an oath being held not\n\"binding on the conscience\" of an Atheist was in itself profoundly\nunconscientious. That formality was, to begin with, expressly intended\nto prevent the evasion of the oath by religious knaves, and not at\nall to imply that an Atheist who took the oath could not be believed.\nWhat was more, Bradlaugh had only specified the Evidence Amendment\nActs in reply to the express challenge of the Clerk of the House of\nCommons. To turn an accidental ambiguity to the account of an iniquity,\nto decide that a man was untrustworthy under the pretext of a legal\nsubterfuge, was merely to show that the oath is less than no security\nfor right action, and that under its cover men can far outgo the\nlengths of injustice that they are likely to venture on in the name of\nsimple law. In the words of Bright, who opposed the conclusion come\nto as \"absolutely untenable,\" \"the course taken was one involving a\nmean advantage over Mr Bradlaugh.\" What the proceeding proved against\nBradlaugh was simply this: that he had done wrong in ever accepting,\neven as a technical phrase, the juridical formula that an oath as a\nwhole is not \"binding on the conscience\" of one to whom an imprecation\nis an idle barbarism. He ought in the law courts to have repudiated\neven the technical shadow of an implication that a rationalist's\nword is worth less than a religionist's oath. Nothing but persistent\nresistance will ever make tyrannous religion give way to justice;\nand he, who was habitually accused of gratuitously defying religion,\nhad simply not defied it enough. And the lesson taught to other\nrationalists by his struggle is this, that oath-taking must in future\nbe stigmatised and warred against as implying not a higher but a lower\nmoral standard than that of rational ethics. Men who must swear to be\nbelieved are not to be believed.\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\nOn 21st June, a few days after the presentation of the Committee's\nreport to the House, Mr Labouchere moved a resolution to the effect\nthat Bradlaugh be allowed to make affirmation instead of taking the\noath--the course the Committee had recommended. He had previously given\nnotice of a general Affirmation Bill, but had postponed the discussion\nof it, pending the report. He now moved his resolution, after\npresenting a petition in support of Bradlaugh from some thousands of\nthe people of Northampton, on the heels of a large Tory petition, also\nfrom Northampton, praying that Bradlaugh \"might not be permitted to\ntake the holy name of God in vain.\" Mr Labouchere in an extremely able\nand persuasive speech dwelt on the prime fact that the Parliamentary\nOaths Act of 1866 gave to all persons legally qualified to affirm in\ncourts of law the right to affirm in Parliament, and that by later Acts\nBradlaugh was entitled to affirm in courts of law. [The opposition\nview presumably was that the Act of 1866 could only refer to persons\n_then_ entitled to affirm; but no argument to that effect appears on\nthe reports consulted by the present writer.] He further warned the\nenemy that if they carried their hostility to the point of unseating\nBradlaugh, he would simply be re-elected--a statement which evoked\nconfident \"No's\" from members whose faith in Deity was more deep than\nphilosophical; and remarked what was perfectly true--that there were\n\"exceedingly few persons in Northampton of Mr Bradlaugh's views\" on\nreligious matters. Sir Hardinge Giffard (now Lord Halsbury) rang the\nchanges on the argument about obtrusion of views; and pietists like\nAlderman Fowler and Mr Warton expressed afresh their corpulent horror\nof Atheism. One Irish member, Mr Arthur O'Connor, took occasion to\nprotest--in a debate on a proposal to permit an affirmation--against\nletting Bradlaugh take the oath; and the Speaker seems to have made\nno objection. On the other side, Mr Hopwood, whose vote in the first\ncommittee had possibly permitted all the trouble, made a powerful\nspeech against the \"obtrusion\" argument, which, as he justly said,\namounted to telling Bradlaugh, \"If you had come to the table with a\nlie on your lips, we would have allowed you to be sworn.\" But again\nthe great speech in the debate was Bright's. The remark, \"There are\nmany members of this House who take the oath and greatly dislike it,\"\nwas his first home-thrust; and soon, after a temperate and weighty\nargument, he nobly repeated his declaration of belief in the honour\nof the Atheist, whose opinions were probably as repugnant to Bright\nas to any other man in the House. \"I pretend,\" he said--and his voice\nrose with his theme,--\"I pretend to have no conscience and honour\nsuperior to the conscience of Mr Bradlaugh. (Ironical cheers from the\nOpposition.) It is no business of mine to set myself up--perhaps it\nis no business of yours to set yourselves up--(cheers)--as having\nconscience and honour superior to that which actuates Mr Bradlaugh.\"\nHe went on to protest that the course taken by the majority of the\ncommittee was \"one involving a mean advantage over Mr Bradlaugh.\"\nThe speech, however, mainly ran to perfectly judicial argument; and\nit was the obvious determination of the Tories to give no ear to\nargument that evoked the flashes of feeling which lit it up. Bright\nhaving said that the oath was now made a theistic test, where before\nit had been a Protestant and a Christian test, a \"No,\" came from\nMr Spencer Walpole, the Chairman of the Committee. \"Why,\" retorted\nBright, \"the right hon. gentleman must have forgotten everything in\nthe committee; he cannot have been conscious of his own opinions. Why,\nsurely the object of this motion is to establish the test of theism.\"\nThere were again \"No's\" from the party which denies; and Bright,\nafter establishing his point, thrust afresh. \"The theistic test,\" he\nrepeated, \"is proposed by the member for Portsmouth--the front bench\nopposite appears to have abdicated entirely--there is now only an\nabject, a remarkable submission to gentlemen who sit in the lower\npart of the House.\" A plain statement of the obvious fact that Wolff\nwas establishing a precedent for intervention elicited more blatant\n\"No's,\" and Bright began to warm up to his peroration. He reminded the\nHouse that a Positivist or Comtist who had been concerned in the issue\nof an anti-theistic pamphlet might quite as plausibly be challenged\nas Mr Bradlaugh; going on to speak of certain Positivists as \"some\nmen for whom I have the utmost respect in regard to everything but\ntheir opinions on the question of religion, which I deplore, and in\nconnection with which I can only commiserate them. But,\" he went on,\ncorrecting the touch of superciliousness,--\n\n \"I know that many people have much greater power of belief than others\n have; and I am not one of those--having myself passed through many\n doubts--to condemn, without sympathy at any rate, those who are not\n able to adopt the views which I myself hold. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir,\n only one word more. There are members of this House of different\n Churches, but generally all, I trust, of one religion--of the religion\n which inculcates charity, and forbearance, and justice, and even\n generosity. There are those who belong to the Roman Catholic Church.\n I need not remind them of what they and their ancestors have gone\n through in Ireland--(hear)--for the last 200 or 300 years or more,\n or of how long a time they were kept out of this House, and by the\n very same class of arguments which the honourable and learned member\n for Surrey used. (Cheers.) He tells us that for a very long time past\n there has been a gradual relaxation. Yes, no doubt. Did he ever sit\n among those who have promoted those relaxations? I have been here\n for thirty-seven years, and I have heard these questions discussed\n over and over again; but I never found that the time had come when\n the party opposite, represented by gentlemen who now sit there, were\n willing to make these relaxations. They submitted not to argument,\n not to sentiments of generosity or of justice; they submitted only to\n a majority which sat on this side of the House. (Cheers.) Then there\n are the Nonconformists. I am told that there are some Nonconformists\n even--but I think it is rather in the nature of a mistake or a\n slander--who have great doubts as to how they should vote on this\n occasion. It is occasions like this that try men and try principles.\n (Hear, hear.) Do you suppose that in times past the Founder of\n Christianity has required an oath in this House to defend the religion\n which He founded? Or do you suppose now that the supreme Ruler of the\n world can be interested in the fact that one man comes to this table\n and takes His name--it may be often in vain--(murmurs)--and another is\n permitted to make an affirmation, reverently and honestly, in which\n His name is not included? But one thing is essential for us, the House\n of Commons representing the English people, which is, to maintain as\n far as we can the great principles of freedom--freedom of political\n action and freedom of conscience.\"\n\nAn allusion to the remark of Mr Labouchere that the Northampton\nconstituency in the mass had no sympathy with Bradlaugh's theological\nopinions evoked another Conservative laugh, and Bright continued:--\n\n \"Well, hon. gentlemen who know nothing about it laugh at that. I think\n it very possible that, finding that Mr Bradlaugh in his political\n opinions was in sympathy with them, those electors so little liked the\n political opinions of hon. gentlemen opposite that they preferred Mr\n Bradlaugh, with his political opinions, to some opposing candidates\n who have represented them, and whose religious views might have\n been entirely orthodox. (Hear, hear.) ... _To a large extent the\n working people of this country do not care any more for the dogmas\n of Christianity than the upper classes care for the practice of that\n religion._ (Cheers, and loud cries of 'Oh,' and 'Withdraw.') I wish\n from my heart that it were otherwise. (Cheers, and renewed cries of\n 'Withdraw.')\"\n\nDespite the Tory wrath, there was no withdrawal.\n\nThis great speech was followed, after the adjournment, by one from\nGladstone, less powerful because less fired with moral feeling, but\neloquent, cogent, and unanswerable, save for the slip of the statement\nthat Bolingbroke, the Theist, was \"without any religious belief at\nall.\"[135] Yet the end of the debate--after a series of speeches,\nincluding one by Sir Henry Tyler in which he brutally dragged the\nname of Mrs Besant into his attack on Bradlaugh--was that only 230\nvoted for Mr Labouchere's motion, and 275 against. This was on 22nd\nJune. What Bright had thought could not be had taken place, though\nthe Nonconformists were not the bulk of the Liberals who enabled\nthe Tories to trample underfoot the first principles of Liberalism.\nThirty-six Liberals and thirty-one Home Rulers voted in the majority,\nand doubtless joined in its exultant cheers.\n\n[Footnote 135: On the other hand, Tory journalists went much further\nastray in asserting that Bolingbroke believed in future rewards and\npunishments.]\n\nA number of Liberals, further, were absent without pairs. There were\nfound among the allies of tyranny representatives of nearly all of\nthe sects which had themselves suffered persecution, Catholics,\nWesleyans, Presbyterians, Jews, as well as members of the Established\nChurch. When, therefore, Mr John Tenniel in _Punch_ caused his weekly\ncontribution to the gaiety of his nation to take the shape of a cartoon\njoyfully representing Bradlaugh as \"kicked out,\" with a crumpled paper\nin his hand bearing the legend \"Atheism,\" he was more than usually in\ntouch with the social sentiment of which he is the leading artistic\nexponent. Our \"English love of fair play\" was never more neatly\nillustrated, even by that \"primitive pencil.\"[136]\n\n[Footnote 136: It should be noted that the \"kicked-out\" idea is a\nfavourite one with the cartoonist. He used it lately in the case of the\nIrish Evicted Tenants Bill.]\n\nThe action of the Home Rulers is perhaps specially notable. Some of\nthem later pretended that their hostility to Mr Bradlaugh was due to\na single vote he gave on the Arms Bill. It will be seen that they\nopposed him in great force before he had ever had a chance to vote\nat all, and this on a simple claim that he should be allowed to make\naffirmation. Mr Justin M'Carthy, in keeping with his general attitude\non religious questions, sought from the first to exclude the Atheist\nfrom Parliament. The only other plea open to the majority was that\nBradlaugh had \"forced his Atheism on the House.\" This was the line\ntaken, for instance, not only by Sir Hardinge Giffard, but by Sir\nWalter Barttelot, a typical Tory squire and \"English gentleman,\" who\njust before Bradlaugh's death in 1891 won for himself some credit\nby a frank tribute to his honesty of character. Were it not for the\ncountenance given by Mr John Morley at the time to a patently unjust\naccount of Bradlaugh's action--an account which Gladstone as well as\nBright then explicitly contradicted--one would be disposed to point to\nthe general repetition of the untruth by the Tory press and party as\nproving how worthless a thing the \"honour and conscience\" of English\ngentlemen is in matters of public action. It is a matter of simple\nfact that Bradlaugh all along anxiously sought to keep his Atheism\nout of cognisance of the susceptibilities of the House;[137] and it\nis perfectly certain that had he come forward to take the oath at\nthe outset, he would not only have been afterwards vilified by the\nOpposition as a blasphemous hypocrite, but would have been challenged\nall the same by Wolff and the rest. The matter had been openly\ndiscussed beforehand. There is thus no conclusion open save that the\nmajority in the vote on the affirmation motion did a gross injustice;\nand though the really religious men in the House, as Gladstone and\nBright, were mostly on the other side, and the religiosity of the\naggressors was in many cases a nauseous farce, it must be assumed\nthat religion counted for much[138] in the matter. Parnell in the\nnext stage of the question avowed that he had been on Bradlaugh's\nside from the first, but had found himself opposed on the point by\n\"the great majority of the Irish members.\" There would seem to be no\ndoubt that the Catholic priesthood--actively represented by Cardinal\nManning--determined the action of Parnell's followers, and later his\nown. It is perhaps not unprofitable to reflect that most of the\n\"Liberal\" wrongdoers have since paid some penalties. Some dozen lost\ntheir seats at next election on the Bradlaugh issue. The Home Rulers\nhave felt to the full the power of fanaticism against themselves; and\nParnell, who later yielded to the bigotry of his party, lived to know\nall the bitterness of religious injustice. A minor Scotch Liberal then\non the wrong side, Mr Maclagan, has lately been unseated by clerical\neffort; and doubtless others could testify that they who draw the sword\nof bigotry tend to perish by it. It would doubtless be giving an undue\nair of moral regularity to the business to lay any stress on the final\npolitical fate of Northcote, who in the Bradlaugh struggle made himself\nthe catspaw of the worst section of his followers. He certainly had his\ndue reward.\n\n[Footnote 137: The Select Committee persistently examined him to get\navowals which he had not made, and had no wish to volunteer.]\n\n[Footnote 138: The _Echo_ of 25th May 1880 has the passage: \"Say what\nwe like, occupants of the Tory benches are penetrated with deep and\nundying religious convictions. The very reference to an unbeliever,\nunless it is in fierce denunciation of him, reddens their faces....\nBut strange to say, the very men who apparently were so jealous of\nreligious or semi-religious forms last evening will this evening\nvote that Parliament shall not sit to-morrow because it will be the\nDerby day. Now if there be one place on this wide earth which may be\ndenominated a pandemonium it is the Epsom Downs on a Derby day.\"]\n\n\n\u00a7 6.\n\nBeing thus expressly denied the right to affirm by a vote of the whole\nHouse, Bradlaugh promptly reverted to his position that if he could\nnot affirm, he was legally bound to take the oath and his seat. A\ncommittee had declared by a casting vote that he could not affirm, and\nleft him to swear. The House referred the point of his swearing to a\nlarger committee, which decided by a majority that he could not swear,\nbut recommended that after all he be allowed to affirm. The House\nstood by the finding of both committees in so far as it was hostile,\nand overruled that of the second in so far as it was favourable. It\nremained to fight the whole House on the point of the oath.\n\nOn 23rd June, after the \"prayers,\" which remain one of the institutions\nof the House, Bradlaugh walked to the table amid some cries of \"Order,\"\nand spoke to the Clerk. The Speaker then formally intimated to him the\ndecision of the House, and called upon him to withdraw. Amid roars of\n\"Withdraw\" from the furious mob of Tory members, Bradlaugh contrived\nto let the Speaker understand that he claimed to be heard. He had to\nwithdraw while the question was discussed, and when Mr Labouchere\nsought to move that he be heard, the Speaker had to rise to secure\norder. On grounds not easily inferred, the House, suddenly changing\nits temper, with very little dissent agreed to let Bradlaugh be heard\nat the \"Bar,\" which was at once drawn across the bottom of the House,\nand at which he proceeded to speak, as represented in the admirable\nportrait done after his death by Mr Walter Sickert. This, his first\nspeech at the Bar of the House,[139] I have heard described as perfect\nby some Liberals who thought less highly of the three others it was\nhis lot to make from the same place. It is perhaps the most vividly\nimpressive, but only, I think, because it was the first. Certainly it\nis the most memorable address of challenge ever made to the House,\nthough it has all the straightforward, terse simplicity of Bradlaugh's\ngeneral speaking, which was never rehearsed. It was measured and\ncontrolled throughout. The mean insult of a \"Hear, hear\" when he asked,\n\"Do you tell me I am unfit to sit amongst you?\" did not discompose him.\n\"The more reason, then,\" he went on, \"that this House should show the\ngenerosity which judges show to a criminal, and allow every word he has\nto say to be heard.\" Even in rebuking the most dastardly attack made\nupon him in the House he was gravely dignified.\n\n[Footnote 139: See the verbatim report reprinted in the volume of his\nSpeeches.]\n\n \"I have to ask indulgence lest the memory of some hard words which\n have been spoken in my absence should seem to give to what I say a\n tone of defiance, which it is far from my wish should be there at all;\n and I am the more eased because although there were words spoken which\n I had always been taught English gentlemen never said in the absence\n of an antagonist without notice to him, yet there were also generous\n and brave words said for one who is at present, I am afraid, a source\n of trouble and discomfort and hindrance to business. I measure the\n generous words against the others, and I will only make one appeal\n through you, sir, which is, that if the reports be correct that the\n introduction of other names came with mine in the heat of passion\n and the warmth of debate, the gentleman[140] who used those words,\n if such there were, will remember that he was wanting in chivalry,\n because, while I can answer for myself, and am able to answer for\n myself, nothing justified the introduction of any other name beside my\n own to make a prejudice against me. (Cheers, 'Question,' and cries of\n 'Order.')\"\n\n[Footnote 140: The reference was to the ever-offensive Sir Henry Tyler,\nwho had made a cowardly allusion to Mrs Besant.]\n\nHe went on to deal with the common objection to his action:--\n\n \"It is said, 'You might have taken the oath as other members did.' I\n could not help, when I read that, sir, trying to put myself in the\n place of each member who said it. I imagined a member of some form of\n faith who found in the oath words which seemed to him to clash with\n his faith, but still words which he thought he might utter, but which\n he would prefer not to utter if there were any other form which the\n law provided him; and I asked myself whether each of those members\n would not then have taken the form which was most consonant with his\n honour and conscience. If I have not misread, some hon. members seem\n to think that I have neither honour nor conscience. Is there not some\n proof to the contrary in the fact that I did not go through the form,\n believing that there was another right open to me? ('Hear, hear' and\n 'Order.') Is that not some proof that I have honour and conscience?\"\n\nThe most searching thrusts were delivered with entire amenity.\n\n \"It is said that you may deal with me because I am isolated. I could\n not help hearing the ring of that word in the lobby as I sat outside\n last night. But is that a reason--that because I stand alone, the\n House are to do against me what they would not do if I had 100,000\n men at my back? That is a bad argument, which provokes a reply\n inconsistent with the dignity of this House, and which I should be\n sorry to give.\"\n\nAnd no less measured was the warning that the struggle would not end\nwith his exclusion:--\n\n \"Do you mean that I am to go back to Northampton as to a court,\n to appeal against you? that I am to ask the constituency to array\n themselves against this House? I hope not. If it is to be, it must be.\n If this House arrays itself against an isolated man--its huge power\n against one citizen--if it must be, then the battle must be too. But\n it is not with the constituency of Northampton alone....\"\n\nThe peroration was as austere as the rest of the speech:--\n\n \"I beg your pardon, sir, and that of the House too, if in this warmth\n there seems to lack respect for its dignity; and as I shall have, if\n your decision be against me, to come to that table when your decision\n is given, I beg you, before the step is taken in which we may both\n lose our dignity--mine is not much, but yours is that of the Commons\n of England--I beg you before the gauntlet is fatally thrown down--I\n beg you, not in any sort of menace, not in any sort of boast, but as\n one man against six hundred, to give me that justice which on the\n other side of this wall the judges would give me were I pleading\n before them.\"\n\nThen ensued a fresh debate. Northcote at some length expressed himself\nto the effect that there was nothing to be said. Gladstone at similar\nlength agreed. The Speaker asked whether Bradlaugh should be called\nin, and after some confused discussion Mr Labouchere was allowed\nto move that yesterday's resolution be rescinded. Mr Gorst moved\nthe adjournment of the debate; but on an appeal from Gladstone, Mr\nLabouchere withdrew his motion. The Speaker then recalled Bradlaugh\nto the table, and informed him that the House had nothing to say\nbeyond calling upon him once more to withdraw. Bradlaugh replied: \"I\nbeg respectfully to insist upon my right as a duly elected member for\nNorthampton. I ask you to have the oath administered to me, in order\nthat I may take my seat, and I respectfully refuse to withdraw.\" The\nhelpless Speaker \"thought it right to point out to the hon. gentleman\"\nwhat he had pointed out before. Again Bradlaugh replied: \"With respect,\nI do refuse to obey the orders of the House, which are against the\nlaw;\" and the Speaker had to appeal to the House \"to give authority\nto the Chair to compel execution of its orders.\" Gladstone remained\nsilent, despite calls for him, and Northcote in his flabbiest manner\nproceeded to move, \"though I am not quite sure what the terms of\nthe motion should be, that Mr Speaker do take the necessary steps\nfor requiring and enforcing the withdrawal of the hon. member for\nNorthampton.\" The Speaker confusedly explained, to the perplexity of\nthe House, that according to \"former precedents\" the motion should\nsimply be \"that the hon. member do now withdraw\"--precisely what he\nhad already declared to be the resolution and order of the House. The\nmotion being challenged, there voted for it 326, and only 38 against,\nthe Government having chosen to give effect to the vote of the majority\nof the day before. The scene now became still more exciting. On the\nSpeaker's again calling on Bradlaugh to withdraw, he answered: \"With\nsubmission to you, sir, the order of the House is against the law,\nand I respectfully refuse to obey it.\" The Speaker then called on the\nSergeant-at-Arms to remove him, and that officer, coming up, touched\nhim on the shoulder and requested him to withdraw. He said, \"I shall\nsubmit to the Sergeant-at-Arms removing me below the bar, but I shall\nimmediately return to the table,\" and he did so, saying on his way back\ntowards the table, \"I claim my right as a member of the House.\" Again\nled back to the bar by the officer, he again walked up the floor of\nthe now tempestuous House, saying \"in a voice rising high above the\ndin\" (says a contemporary report), \"I claim my right as a member of\nthis House. I admit the right of the House to imprison me, but I admit\nno right on the part of the House to exclude me, and I refuse to be\nexcluded.\" Again led to the bar by the Sergeant-at-Arms, he awaited the\naction of the House.\n\nHis action had been taken with a forethought. He was determined to\nforce the House to further steps, and to make its path a _cul de sac_.\nThe Speaker again appealed to the House for orders, and Northcote,\nmaking an effort to get up a state of vigorous purpose in himself,\nconscious the while that the moral right was all on the other side,\nonce more took action. He somewhat disappointed the followers who had\nled him by remarking: \"I am quite sure that none of us are disposed\nto make any personal complaint of the conduct of the hon. member. We\nknow that he is in a position which calls for our consideration, and\nthat we must make all proper allowance for the course which he may\nthink it right to take.\" Complaining that the duty ought to have been\ntaken up by the leader of the House, Northcote proceeded to move that\nBradlaugh, having defied the House, be taken into the custody of the\nSergeant-at-Arms. Gladstone once more explained that he thought those\nwho had got the House into the trouble should get it out, and wordily\nwent on to indicate that he thought the Opposition were taking a\nconsistent course. But again a discussion arose. Mr Labouchere began\nby remarking on the position of a citizen sent to prison for doing\nwhat some high legal authorities thought he had a perfect right to do.\nMr Courtney suggested that the arrest be formally carried through to\npermit of the legality of the House's course being tested on a writ of\nhabeas corpus. The appearance of a shorthand writer at the bar taking\nnotes led to a question of order; and the Speaker explained that he was\nthere by authority, reporting the proceedings, \"not the debate, which\nwould clearly be out of order.\" A friendly motion for the adjournment\nof the debate was made, discussed, and withdrawn. Another was made by\nMr Finigan, a friendly Irish member, and seconded by Mr Biggar; but\nonly five voted for it and 342 against. Mr Parnell then made the very\ncreditable speech in which he avowed his dissent from the majority of\nthe Home Rulers; and some of these in turn expressed their dissent from\nhim. At length Northcote's motion was carried by 274 votes to 7. The\nresult was received \"without any manifestation of feeling,\" and members\nlaughed when the Speaker announced the resumption of \"the private\nbusiness.\" Already the majority had begun to feel that its triumph was\na fiasco. In an hour the Sergeant-at-Arms, called upon by the Speaker\nto report, announced to the House that \"in pursuance of their order\nand Mr Speaker's warrant, I have taken Mr Bradlaugh, the member for\nNorthampton, into custody.\"\n\nHe was in the \"Clock Tower\"--in a room, that is, on the second story of\nthat part of the House--whither he had gone with the slight requisite\nshow of formal resistance, passing first a short time in the Sergeant's\nprivate room. There he was visited by Parnell, Mr O'Kelly, Mr O'Connor\nPower, Mr Finigan, and Dr Commins, all of whom expressed their cordial\nsympathy. The imprisonment was a farcical form. A constant stream\nof friends visited him; and he went about the business of fighting\nhis battle in the country as he would do in his own rooms. On the\nvery evening of his arrest a Committee was formed to secure his\nliberation, and an appeal drawn up in its name by Mrs Besant. This was\ndistributed by thousands next day; and a fresh petition for signature\nwas likewise framed and sent out broadcast at once. But the democracy\ndid not wait for petitions. The moment the news of the House's action\nreached the public, a cry of indignation arose, loud enough to alarm\nBeaconsfield,[141] on whose urgent advice (so it was said at the\ntime) Northcote on the next day moved for Bradlaugh's unconditional\nrelease, which was hurriedly agreed to. The stultification of the\nmajority was now complete; and the course taken by Northcote thus far\nmay stand as a fair sample of modern Conservative statesmanship--the\npolicy of irrational resistance, on no better principle than that\nof partisan habit, ending in ignominious collapse. Still the cry of\nprotest swelled in volume. In less than a week two hundred meetings\nwere held throughout the country to pass resolutions in Bradlaugh's\nfavour; Radical and Liberal clubs and societies of all kinds sent\ntheir messages of protest and appeal; and Liberal members who had\nvoted on the Tory side were sharply called to account. Even before\nmatters had come to a crisis, abundant proof was given that a large and\nearnest minority were dead against the policy of intolerance. In May\nMr Labouchere had given notice of a Bill to permit affirmation by any\nmember in place of the oath of allegiance; and by 6th July there had\nbeen presented 462 petitions in favour of that measure, with 40,434\nsignatures, largely obtained through the organisation of the National\nSecular Society. The effect of these and other displays of popular\nfeeling began to be seen in the House. Liberal members who had voted\non the Tory side out of fear of the bigots in their constituencies\nbegan to hesitate. On 28th June leave was given to Mr Labouchere to\nintroduce his Affirmation Bill, which was read a first time. The\nGovernment, however, took the view that Bradlaugh's rights ought to\nbe legally determined in respect of the state of the law at the time\nof his election; and instead of supporting or giving facilities for\nMr Labouchere's Bill, they proposed the compromise of moving that the\nexcluded member be allowed to affirm pending the legal settlement of\nhis position. This was accepted; and, on 1st July, Mr Gladstone moved\nas a standing order that members-elect be allowed, subject to any\nliability by statute, to affirm at their choice.\n\n[Footnote 141: This perhaps understates Beaconsfield's protest.\nBradlaugh heard that he condemned the whole proceedings, and called his\nfollowers \"fools\" for their pains.]\n\nThis was of course the signal for a fresh storm. On Mr Gladstone's\npreliminary motion that the Orders of the Day be postponed, Mr Gorst\npronounced the motion disorderly, and opposed the proposal in advance\nas being to the effect that \"the House should break the law, in order\nto smuggle Mr Bradlaugh into the House.\" Gladstone, in moving his\norder, was studiously moderate, giving as a reason for the Government's\nnot introducing a Bill the impossibility of having the question calmly\ndiscussed in the then state of feeling, while urging the necessity of\npreserving the dignity and decency of the House as a reason for doing\nsomething. He went on to defend Bradlaugh fully and forcibly against\nthe charge of having \"obtruded his Atheism\" on the House, and wound up\nwith a calm contention that it was the duty of the House to further\nthe claim of any member to take his seat under a given law, leaving it\nto be settled in the law courts whether his claim was valid. Northcote\nopposed, arguing that there was no fear of a repetition of the scene of\nlast week, since the Speaker could give instructions that Mr Bradlaugh\nbe not allowed to enter the precincts. To accept the motion \"would be\nto some extent humiliating to the House.\"[142] No question of justice\nor righteousness was raised by the Tory leader. One of his followers,\nLord Henry Scott, advanced the pious proposition that \"the mere\naffirmation of a person who did not believe in a Supreme Being could\nnot be regarded as a binding engagement upon him.\" Another ignoramus\nnamed Smyth explained that the \"test of Theism\" \"pervaded the whole\nbody of the Constitution, of which, like the soul of man, it was the\nanimating principle.\" \"Let Atheists be admitted within its walls, and\nthere would be Atheistical legislation.... Such teaching it was that\nled to the outbreak of the French Revolution.\" Thus were old lies made\nto support new. An Irish Catholic named Corbet spoke of \"Mr Bradlaugh's\nByzantine doctrines of morality,\" either forgetting that Byzantium\nwas the typical Christian State for a thousand years, or desiring to\nasperse the Christian Church which had all along been the great rival\nof his own. Mr A. M. Sullivan, another Catholic, made a rabid speech,\nsupporting the cause of religion with the plea, \"Where was the class\nthat was oppressed now? It was nothing but an individual.\" He went on\nto avow that he sought to keep Mr Bradlaugh out of Parliament on the\nscore that his Malthusianism, \"taken in conjunction with his Atheistic\nopinions, struck fatally at the foundation of civil society.\" The\nChurch of the confessional is naturally zealous for the sacredness of\nthe family; and the Church of the Inquisition for the \"foundations\nof civil society.\" Men who regard the hamstringing of cattle as at\nmost a pity are naturally warm on the subject of rational control\nof human procreation. On the other hand, Parnell \"wished, as an\nIrish Protestant, with the utmost diffidence, to say a few words in\nexplanation of the vote he would give to-night.\" Already he seemed\nshaken by the resistance of his followers; and he was at pains to say\n\"he regarded the religious tenets of Mr Bradlaugh and his doctrines\nwith reference to over-population as abominable\"--a deliverance which\nreads dramatically in connection with the close of his own career,\nwhen an only less insensate and irrational ethic than his own gave the\nsanction for similar vilification of himself. There was finally a ring\nof anxious bravado in his avowal that \"it was personally an odious\ntask for him to take the course he should on this occasion\"--(this\nafter he had voluntarily gone to shake hands with Bradlaugh after the\narrest)--\"but if he had to walk through the lobby alone, he should deem\nhimself a coward if he did not act up to his conviction.\"\n\n[Footnote 142: Again he was surrendering his own convictions to the\npartisanism of his colleagues. He had been personally willing to\nsupport legislation for the settlement of the difficulty, but was\noverruled as usual by his associates. See Mr Lang's \"Life,\" ii. 172.]\n\nLess self-regarding, and much more helpful, was the speech of Mr\nRichard, the most impressive in the debate. Mr Richard was one of\nthe extremely few Christians who keep one set of gospel passages\nso constantly in view as never to be led into imitating the rest.\nHe never echoed their words of execration. His very rebukes to his\nfellow-Christians for their pious scurrility were gentle; and he must\nhave caused some searchings of heart when he observed that \"no man who\nwatched what went on, on the first day of the present Parliament, when\nhon. members were squeezing round the table, and scrambling for the New\nTestaments amid laughter--('No, no,' and Ministerial cheers)--no man\ncould have watched that scene, and believed that the act had any of\nthe solemnity of a religious act about it.\" When the otherwise pious\nWolff followed, the altered balance of feeling was shown by impatient\ninterruption of his remarks. An exceptionally offensive Catholic, named\nM'Coan, was called to order by the Speaker for the remark that \"a more\noffensive representative of Atheism never was seen\" than Bradlaugh.\nFinally, after General Burnaby had mentioned that \"the Chief Rabbi,\nalthough refusing to interfere with political questions, felt very\ndeeply on this subject,\" the vote was taken, and by 303 votes to 249\nGladstone's motion was carried.\n\nBradlaugh was now free to make affirmation, and did so next day. Almost\nimmediately on taking his seat he had occasion to vote, and immediately\nthereafter he was served with a writ to recover a penalty of \u00a3500 for\nillegal voting. The writ had apparently been prepared beforehand. The\nsuitor was one Henry Lewis Clarke, the tool of Mr Newdegate, M.P.,--the\nlatter, a man of the most restricted understanding, notorious as an old\nopponent of the admission of Jews to Parliament and a rabid assailant\nof Catholicism, but now eager to combine with Jews and Catholics\nagainst the Atheist. A few days afterwards a similar writ was served\nat the instance of one Cecil Barbour, of Nightingale Lane, Clapham;\nand yet a third was given notice of; but the work was left to Mr\nNewdegate's employee.[143] A new stage in the struggle had now been\nreached.\n\n[Footnote 143: A friendly action by Mr Swaagman, for all the remaining\npenalties that might arise, served to forestall other speculative\nsuits.]\n\n\n\u00a7 7.\n\nFor nine months--that is, while Parliament sat in the period\nJuly-March 1880-81[144]--Bradlaugh now sat in the House, doing his work\nwith intense and continuous application, though all the while there\nhung over him the shadow of a ruinous litigation. He had taken the\nrisk. On 8th July the Government were asked by Mr Norwood, a hostile\nLiberal, whether they would instruct the law officers of the Crown to\nundertake his defence in any suit brought against him; but the answer\nwas, of course, in the negative; and Bradlaugh rose to explain that he\nhad had no communication with either Mr Norwood or the Government on\nthe subject. A fortnight later a Bill was zealously forced through both\nthe Houses to indemnify Lord Byron, who had sat and voted without being\nsworn, against any action for penalties. Bradlaugh had the experience\nof helping to safeguard the peer from the prosecution laid against\nhimself.\n\n[Footnote 144: Mr Lang, in the page of random jottings in which he\n\"sketches\" the Bradlaugh story, makes the misleading statement that\nhe only sat \"for a few weeks under statutory liability\" (\"Life of\nNorthcote,\" ii. 137).]\n\nHis Parliamentary activity was many-sided, including as it did the\ncharge of the interests of endless correspondents in all parts of the\nworld who had grievances to redress and claims to put. But above all\nhe devoted himself to the interests of Ireland and of India, the one\nstill suffering from an imperfect realisation of her needs by English\nLiberals; the other from the general neglect of Liberals and Tories\nalike. The gratitude of the people of India has been freely given for\nhis service; that of the majority of the Irish members was naturally\nnot prompt. They had wronged him, and so could hardly forgive.\n\nSuch a frenzy of malevolence, further, as had been aroused among\nbigots of all Churches by Bradlaugh's entrance into the House, was\nslow to decline. Whether outside the House or inside, he was furiously\naspersed. A Bill to exclude Atheists was early introduced by Sir J.\nEardley Wilmot,[145] and petitions in support of this were largely\nsigned, though wholesale subscription by the children of Sunday Schools\nwas in many cases found to be necessary to fill the sheets. But\npetitions for his exclusion were a small part of the storm of malice\nthat assailed him. It would fill a volume to recite or even cite the\nhundreds of denunciations--often vile and grossly libellous, and nearly\nall implying a religious motive--which were poured forth against him\nweek by week. Clergymen naturally formed the bulk of the assailants;\nand of these the State Church furnished the largest contingent, all\ngrades of the hierarchy being represented; but the President of the\nWesleyan Conference, on behalf of the Conference Committee, presented\na hostile petition to Parliament; and the secretary to the same\nConference issued a circular calling upon the various Wesleyan bodies\nto join in the general movement against the Atheist. Protestants vied\nwith Catholics in the foulness of their abuse, the ferocity of their\nenmity.\n\n[Footnote 145: The same member tried to raise the question on a vote in\nsupply.]\n\nOn the other hand, it must be put on record that in every church, in\nvarying numbers, there seem to have been lovers of freedom as well\nas persecutors. Some of the most forcible and earnest letters sent\nto the newspapers on Bradlaugh's behalf were written by clergymen of\nthe Church of England; and many Nonconformist clergymen spoke out\non his side ably and warmly. At a Church Conference, more than one\npriest of the Establishment defended him bravely and well. Even from\nwithin the pale of the Church of Rome there came voices of protest\nagainst the intolerance of the majority. On 27th June 1880 the \"Home\nGovernment Association\" of Glasgow sent to Bradlaugh a resolution of\nthe majority of its members to the effect \"that this meeting of Irish\nRoman Catholics ... most emphatically condemns the spirit of domination\nand intolerance arrayed against you, and views with astonishment and\nindignation the cowardly acquiescence, and in a few instances active\nsupport, on the part of a large majority of the Irish Home Rule members\nto the policy of oppression exercised against you.\" Bradlaugh was\npeculiarly quick to appreciate such messages of sympathy and fairness\nfrom religious opponents. The words of Bright on his behalf in the\nHouse brought tears to his eyes; and he never forgot to be grateful for\nthem. In his own journal, immediately after his entrance to the House\non tentative affirmation, he printed the following appeal:--\n\n \"Now that the fierce struggle is over, and that I am really in full\n enjoyment of the right and privilege which the people of Northampton\n gave me on the day of the poll, I beg my friends not to mar this\n triumph by any undue words of exultation or ungenerous boast. If\n bitter bigotry and Tory malice have been active against me personally,\n there has been also honest, earnest piety, in despite of the foulest\n and most persistent misrepresentations, enlisted in the grand array\n on behalf of right. If some clergymen have been cruel and unjust in\n language and conduct, there have also been preachers who have been\n most generous and kindly. Do not let our Freethinking friends remember\n so much what we as a party have done towards the result, as what has\n been done for us by religious men, notwithstanding the cry of heresy.\n If the heart of the great Nonconformist party had not been brave and\n just, the fight, instead of being so far over, would yet have to be\n fought. The speeches of religious men like William Ewart Gladstone,\n John Bright, Henry Richard, and Charles Stewart Parnell--each\n representing a varying shade of Christian belief, and each a most\n earnestly religious man--must more than outweigh, and cause our\n friends to pass by, the rabid, raving, fanatical outpourings and\n deliberate misrepresentations which have disfigured the Parliamentary\n discussions on this subject. When the reader remembers that the very\n vilest mis-statements and coarsest caricatures of my language and\n conduct have been circulated to every member of Parliament, ... it\n makes worthy of the strongest praise the high-minded conduct of those\n Nonconformists in the House of Commons who have declared for justice\n despite all.\"\n\nBut no good-feeling on his part or on that of the tolerant religious\nminority could stay the torrent of libel and vituperation; and a\nparagraph penned a month later shows how the majority bore themselves:--\n\n \"Many of my good friends have--during the progress of the\n bye-elections which have taken place at Oxford, Scarborough, Berwick,\n Wigton, and other boroughs--written indignantly as to the exceedingly\n wanton and coarse personal slanders which, chiefly for electioneering\n purposes, have been circulated against me by the Conservatives in\n order to induce votes against supporters of the Government. It is\n a little difficult to know how properly to deal with these most\n indefensible and cowardly attacks. By the law as it stands no action\n can be maintained for any spoken words unless an indictable offence\n is charged in the slander, or unless actual special pecuniary damage\n can be shown to have resulted, which latter is of course not in\n question.... Thus, Sir John D. Hay--who in the Wigton election has\n descended to a lower depth of coarseness and falsehood than any other\n Parliamentary candidate[146]--could not be sued for damages.... The\n journals may of course be sued; but even if this is a wise course, the\n case is not easy. I am now proceeding against the _Yorkshire Post_\n for one very gross libel, and in the proceedings, which will be very\n costly, am actually required to answer voluminous interrogatories, not\n only as to all the doctrines I have taught and works I have published\n or written during the whole of my life, but also to works I happen\n to have referred to.... In the indictment against the editor of the\n _British Empire_[147] I shall probably have to bring a large number\n of witnesses from various parts of England to speak as to what has\n happened at lectures as far back as 1860. The fearful cost in this\n case (in which, being a criminal procedure, counsel must be employed)\n can only be fairly estimated by professional men.... I refrain from\n commenting on the infamous, most cowardly, and utterly uncalled-for\n attacks made on Mrs Besant by Sir John Hay and the _Glasgow News_, as\n these will in all probability be submitted to another tribunal.\"\n\n[Footnote 146: \"Language fit for a Yahoo,\" was the description given of\nHay's scurrility by the _Scotsman_.]\n\n[Footnote 147: For publishing the \"watch\" libel.]\n\nSome of these proceedings had to be abandoned, so enormous was the\nburden.\n\nA leading part had been early taken in the outcry against the Atheist\nby the leading representative in England of the Church of Rome,\nCardinal Manning. In a highly declamatory and malevolent article\ncontributed to the _Nineteenth Century_, that ecclesiastic took the\nline of appealing to the spirit of traditional national religiosity,\ngrounding his case not on any tolerable form of Christian doctrine,\nbut on the ignorant instinct that he knew to underlie the orthodoxy of\nthe Protestant Churches, as of his own. He lauded the English people,\nregardless of its attitude to his own Church:--\n\n \"It knows nothing,\" he declared, \"of a race of sophists who,\n professing to know nothing about God, and law, and right and wrong,\n and conscience, and judgment to come, are incapable of giving to\n Christian or to reasonable men the pledges which bind their moral\n nature with the obligations necessary for the command of fleets and\n armies, and legislatures and commonwealths.\"\n\nOf the historic fact that the English people had once brutally\npersecuted the Quakers, but had latterly allowed them to dispense\nwith oath-taking, he disposed by saying that they were allowed to\naffirm because they were known to be deeply religious, and therefore\ntrustworthy:--\n\n \"But let no man tell me that this respectful confidence is to be\n claimed by our Agnostics; much less by those, if such there be, who,\n sinking by the inevitable law of the human mind below the shallowness\n and timidity of Agnosticism, plunge into the great deep of human\n pride, where the light of reason goes out, and the outer darkness\n hides God, His perfection, and His laws....\n\n \"There still stands on our Statute book a law which says that to\n undermine the principles of moral obligation is punishable by\n forfeiture of all places of trust (9 and 10 Will. c. 32, Kerr's\n _Blackstone_, iv. 34, 35, note), but there is no law which says that\n a man who publicly denies the existence of God is a fit and proper\n person to sit in Parliament, or a man who denies the first laws of\n morals is eligible to make laws for the homes and domestic life of\n England, Scotland, and Ireland.\"\n\nThe whole article was in this strain, as far removed from political\nscience as from the charity which is conventionally associated with\nthe Christian name. And though all the while it was notorious that\nthe ignorant and superstitious of the Cardinal's own Church are\nthe least to be believed, whether on oath or without oath, of all\n_quasi_-civilised men, the rancorous rhetoric of the Romish priest\ncounted for something with the class of Protestant bigots who, hating\nRome, hate reason so much more as to be ready to work with even Rome\nagainst it. And yet Manning, in his work on \"The Present Crisis of\nthe Holy See,\" had declared that \"England has the melancholy and bad\npre-eminence of being the most anti-Catholic, _and therefore the most\nanti-Christian_, power of the world.\" Thus can fanatics manoeuvre.\n\nAmong other libels, the ancient fable of the watch, the story of\nwhich has been told in an earlier chapter, was at this time made to\ndo special duty, the flight of Edgcumbe being insufficient to set\nup hesitation on the subject among the mass of the orthodox. Some\nassailants, however, showed much discretion when challenged. Thus one\nJ. F. Duncan, a Wesleyan minister of Nottingham, who in his pulpit\ndescribed \"that man from Northampton\" as a \"blot on the British\nescutcheon,\" and as a \"wretch\" who gave his Maker five minutes to\nstrike him dead, was told that unless he apologised at once, criminal\nproceedings would be taken against him. He instantly replied: \"I am\nthis morning honoured with your communication, and have to say in reply\nthat I know nothing of newspaper reports of my sermons, but if any\nremarks of mine have been offensive to you, you have my retractation\nand apology _at once_.\" A line in the _Reformer_ tells how \"J. H.\nMartin Hastings, a professedly religious person, having grossly\nlibelled Mr Bradlaugh, now, under threat of criminal proceedings, sends\nus his retractation and sincere apology.\"\n\nSome persons, offered an opportunity for a much-needed apology, did not\navail themselves of it, the risk of criminal proceedings being absent.\nThe following correspondence sets forth one such case:--\n\n \"To the Lord Norton, June 25th, 1880.\n\n \"MY LORD,--In the lobby of the House of Commons this\n afternoon your lordship said in my hearing, 'Mr Bradlaugh ought to be\n flogged in Trafalgar Square,' to which I at once replied to you that\n it was ungentlemanly and impertinent to offer me an insult at a moment\n when I could not return it.\n\n \"I now beg to ask your lordship for some explanation, at the same time\n informing you that several members of the House of Commons whom I have\n consulted on the subject advise me that your lordship's carefulness\n in being ill-mannered and insulting three feet outside the House of\n Commons precludes me from submitting the matter to the Speaker, and\n I can therefore only place this letter before the public with such\n answer as your lordship may be pleased to send me.--I have the honour\n to be your lordship's obedient servant,\n\n CHARLES BRADLAUGH.\"\n\n \"35 Eaton Place, June 26th, 1880.\n\n \"SIR,--In reference to your letter just received, the facts\n are these:\n\n \"I was yesterday in a crowd at the door of the House of Commons,\n waiting to get into the gallery for the Irish Compensation debate.\n You came out and passed into the lobby. Some one pointed you out to\n me. The observation was made, how much trouble one man's desire for\n notoriety could give. I added that a desire for notoriety might be\n gratified by a public flogging in Trafalgar Square. You seem to have\n imperfectly overheard the last words on returning to the House, and\n connected your name with them. I certainly had no idea of suggesting\n a mode and place of treatment for any particular case. You came up to\n me and said, 'You should not insult a man in his presence.' I replied\n that I had said nothing to you.--Obediently,\n\n \"NORTON.\"\n\nBradlaugh's fingers must have itched to apply to Lord Norton's person\nthe chastisement which his lordship had prescribed for him. Less\nwell-bred people than his lordship expressed their sentiments to\nBradlaugh by letter, being denied the opportunity of insulting him in\nhis hearing. In the _Reformer_ of 12th September he writes:--\n\n \"I was sorry that Mr Dillon thought it necessary to call the attention\n of the House to the threatening letters which had been sent to\n him. When I was fighting for my seat in the House, I received at\n least threescore letters threatening my life. I put them all in the\n waste-paper basket, although one or two of the communications were\n works of art, and decorated with skulls, cross-bones, bleeding hearts,\n and daggers. There is always a fair proportion of lunatics who in\n times of excitement write strange letters to public men.\"\n\nHis laugh over these things was entirely genial. At no period of his\nstruggle, and on no provocation, did he ever show a touch of that\ngeneral embitterment which so many men feel towards society on the\nstrength of an ill-usage either imaginary or trifling in comparison\nwith what he underwent. But the wrongers, as always, could not forgive.\nThere was no slackening in the output of Conservative defamation, the\ndevice of saddling Bradlaugh's Atheism on the Gladstone Government\nbeing too congenial to be abandoned. As Lord Henry Lennox had put\nit in an inspired but unguarded moment, it was felt to be good Tory\npolicy to \"put that damned Bradlaugh on them.\" Sir Hardinge Giffard\n(now Lord Halsbury) publicly and falsely asserted in November that\nbefore the election the Liberal whip, Mr Adam, had written to the\nNorthampton electors, asking them to return Bradlaugh; going on to\nadd that this step \"had never been disavowed or disapproved by the\nLiberal leaders\"--an extremity of false witness memorable as coming\nfrom a man who was soon to be made Lord Chancellor. Such a lead was of\ncourse zealously followed. And the average upper-class Liberal, while\nreluctantly voting with the Government in the matter, indemnified\nhimself by insolence to the man over whom the trouble had arisen.\nThere are always in the Liberal party men loyal to it as a faction,\nwhile caring little for its principles in themselves, and bearing\nsmall goodwill to those more advanced adherents who give pause to the\nweaker brethren. This state of mind may account for the gratuitous\noffensiveness, though hardly for the inaccuracy, of one utterance by Mr\nMarjoribanks (now Lord Tweedmouth) in an address to his constituents at\nDuns in November 1880:--\n\n \"It was in his opinion a great pity that the electors of Northampton\n should have elected a man to be their representative whose views,\n moral, religious, and social, were such as were Mr Bradlaugh's\n specialty, and not only his specialty, but his means of subsisting.\n (Applause.) It was a pity, too, that when Mr Bradlaugh had been\n elected he had not followed the example of far greater men, such as\n Mill and Hume, who were to some extent sharers in his beliefs, or\n rather his disbeliefs, but who had quietly gone to the table and\n taken the oath, and said no more about it. Then, again, it was a pity\n that when Mr Bradlaugh claimed to affirm, he was not at once allowed\n to do so at his own risk. Of one thing, however, he was perfectly\n sure, and that was, that the House of Commons was perfectly right in\n the distinct and peremptory refusal which Mr Bradlaugh's demand to\n take the oath met when it was ultimately made.\"\n\nIt is not necessary here to go into Mr Marjoribanks' estimate of the\nrelative greatness of Bradlaugh and Joseph Hume, or of the merits of\nBradlaugh's views. It is not such judgments as his that determine a\nman's standing with his generation, or with posterity. The remark\nas to \"means of subsisting,\" also, may be left to supply its own\ncommentary. More recently the same speaker has emphasized his objection\nto some action of some journalists by remarking that it was done for a\nlivelihood; a judgment which strikes at the whole mass of the Christian\nclergy, and which would seem to imply that a rich man is to be pardoned\nfor saying a false or a base thing where a hireling is to be doubly\ndenounced. A man who has never had occasion to do anything for a\nlivelihood presumably sees such things in a different light from those\nwho lack his pecuniary advantages; and though a professing Christian\nis supposed to hold that the labourer is worthy of his hire, Lord\nTweedmouth doubtless remains satisfied with the ethics of his youth. Mr\nChamberlain has indicated similar views. Suffice it here to point to\nBradlaugh's whole career for the proof of the utter sincerity of his\npropaganda. But to praise Mill and Joseph Hume for taking an oath \"on\nthe true faith of a Christian,\" and to blame Bradlaugh for choosing\nrather to affirm when he believed an affirmation was open to him, is\nto set up an ethic which one would hardly expect any professed Liberal\nto avow. As for the \"distinct and peremptory refusal,\" no such thing\nhad taken place. What the House had distinctly refused was to allow the\naffirmation; and in the division on that point Mr Marjoribanks _had\nnot voted for Mr Labouchere's motion_; whereas he had voted for Mr\nGladstone's motion referring the oath question to a select committee.\nWhen a politician can thus deal with simple historical facts, his\nopinion on weightier issues is apt to lose even the significance it\nwould normally have. Other Liberals added their quota. Lord Sherbrooke,\nwriting in the _Nineteenth Century_, spoke of the oath which Mr\nBradlaugh \"at first refused and afterwards was ready to take.\" His\nLordship had once spoken of Disraeli as possessing a \"slatternly and\ninaccurate mind.\" No milder epithets could well be applied to himself\nin the present case. But for all these endless insults and wanton\nslanders Bradlaugh had seldom anything save a restrained and dignified\nrebuke. When Mr Grantham, Q.C., M.P. (now Mr Justice Grantham), spoke\nof him as gaining his livelihood \"by the circulation of obscene\nliterature,\" he remarked in his journal that there was one homely Saxon\nword that would meet the case. He might reasonably have said that there\nwere several, of varying length.\n\nIt was noticeable that all of these insults were uttered in Bradlaugh's\nabsence, or in periodicals where he was allowed no reply. From the\nfirst he had been refused the right of reply in the _Nineteenth\nCentury_. Men did not now venture to attack him in the House; but\nthey were bold when among their constituents, especially in the rural\ndistricts. On his own part he was scrupulous to give no just cause\nfor offence. One journalist recklessly represented him as having once\nobtruded himself on the ceremony of prayers in the House, when in point\nof fact he had been accidentally shut in, and had remained motionless\nwhere he stood. We have seen how he besought all of his freethinking\nfollowers to beware of seeming to presume on the vote in his favour.\nDuring the autumn of 1880 there was much discussion of the question of\nthe Burials Bill, a test which served to show the amount of good-will\nsubsisting between bodies of citizens professing belief in the same\nGod and the same sacred books. Dissenters were fit to swear and sit\nin the House of Commons, but from the Church point of view were not\nfit to be buried \"on their own recognisances,\" so to speak, in the\npublic churchyard. The Tories in their traditional fashion opposed\nall concession, arguing that if dissenters were allowed to hold their\nown services, Atheists and heathens would follow. One Conservative\nmember, named St Aubyn, pictured Atheists holding \"indecent orgies\nover the bodies of the dead.\" Considering that drunkenness at funerals\nhad been a reproach to Christendom for centuries; that it was common\nin Presbyterian Scotland within the century; and that Irish wakes are\nstill customary, the suggestion may serve to measure the \"honour\nand conscience\" of the speaker, who further signalised himself by\nadmitting, as a lawyer, that Bradlaugh had a legal right to sit in\nthe House, while he confessedly opposed his taking his seat. In view\nof the general state of the Christian mind, Bradlaugh abstained from\nspeaking on the subject in the House, and the National Secular Society\ndecided to present no petitions in support of the Bill, lest they\nshould thereby injure its chances. They had their thanks in a speech\nfrom Mr Osborne Morgan, who asked in Wales whether it was \"reasonable\nto keep four millions of Nonconformists knocking at the churchyard gate\nfor years because a handful of Secularists wanted to enter with them?\"\nAny suggestion, however indirect and unobtrusive, that Secularists were\nentitled to the rights of other citizens, was sure in those days to\nelicit some display of animosity from the majority of those who call\ntheir creed a religion of love. Upright and scrupulous Nonconformists\nthere were in the House, such men as Richards and Illingworth, who were\nfaithful to the principle of equal liberty, and sought to carry it out;\nbut the feeling that Secularists were as much of a nuisance dead as\nalive was the prevailing one.\n\nAmong the Irish members, finally, the full power of the Catholic\npriesthood was exerted to the utmost. Bradlaugh did the Home Rulers\ncareful and continuous service in the House, besides publishing in\nhis journal many articles and paragraphs in support of the Parnell\nmovement. When the Chief-Justice of Ireland made a scandalous\nexhibition of judicial prejudice in regard to the Parnell trial\nbefore the case was heard, Bradlaugh denounced it as an \"impudent\nmanifesto.\" At the same time, nothing would induce him to cater for\nIrish or any other support at the expense of truth and fair play,\nand he protested against Irish wrongdoing no less promptly, though\nmore gently, than against the wronging of Ireland. Any such display\nof impartiality served the majority of the Catholic Home Rulers as a\npolitical pretext for an antagonism motived either by religion or fear\nof priestly influence; and when Bradlaugh protested against the Irish\ntactics of obstruction and scurrility--tactics which he always refused\nto employ--they deliberately represented him as supporting coercion,\nthough he not only spoke repeatedly against the Coercion Bill and\npublished in his journal a number of articles emphatically condemning\nit,[148] but actually moved the rejection of the Bill on the second\nreading, when Parnell had taken flight to avoid arrest. By this time\nParnell had given way to the pressure put upon him by his followers, by\nthe priests, and by the Irish press, and had joined them in aspersing\nBradlaugh as the enemy of Ireland. None the less did he continue his\nParliamentary labours in the Irish as in other causes. A reference to\nHansard shows that in the months July-March 1880-1 (in only five of\nwhich, however, did Parliament sit) he was one of the most usefully\nindustrious members in the House; and so much was abundantly admitted\nby his fellow-members, including even some opponents. Running over\nthe scanty reports of his work, we find him pleading for Maories and\nHindus, urging reform of the Criminal Code, asking the House to reject\nthe Lords' amendments on the Ground Game Bill, moving for a select\ncommittee on perpetual pensions, challenging Indian finance, resisting\nthe prohibition of Sunday funerals, calling for returns of national\nrevenue and expenditure, working hard on the Employers' Liability Bill\nof 1880, protesting against the plank bed for prisoners, protesting\nagainst the flogging of soldiers,[149] besides putting questions on\nbehalf of aggrieved correspondents everywhere.\n\n[Footnote 148: The _National Reformer_ of 16th January 1881 contains,\nbesides Bradlaugh's own protest, articles by two leading contributors\nstrongly condemning the measure and criticising its defenders,\nincluding Bright.]\n\n[Footnote 149: See above, p. 201.]\n\nIt was within this period that he came before the public in a new\nlight, through having been challenged to fight a duel by a wild French\n_d\u00e9put\u00e9_, M. Laisant, who declared in the Chamber, 27th December 1880,\nthat he had precise information proving Bradlaugh to be a Prussian spy.\nDeclining to go through the ceremony of the duel, Bradlaugh invited\nM. Laisant to lay the matter before a jury of honour of six--three\nto be English M.P.'s of whom M. Laisant should name one, and three\nFrench Deputies of whom Bradlaugh should name one. The matter, like the\nregulation French duel, came to nothing. But Bradlaugh had a very real\nfight before him at home.\n\n\n\u00a78.\n\nMeanwhile the litigation forced upon Bradlaugh by the policy of the\nGovernment was proceeding, heaping up debt and preparing disaster.\nAfter some distant skirmishing on points of form, the action of Clarke\ncame on in the Court of Queen's Bench on 7th March 1881, before Mr\nJustice Mathew (a Roman Catholic) who, being newly appointed, was only\nthat morning \"sworn in.\" When the case was called, the junior counsel\nfor the prosecution applied for an adjournment on the score that his\nleader, Sir Hardinge Giffard, was absent, and he, the junior, did not\nfeel able to argue the case. Bradlaugh curtly explained that \"Sir\nHardinge Giffard has on more than one occasion refused to consult my\nconvenience,\" and declined to agree to the adjournment. Giffard then\nappeared. Stripped of minuti\u00e6 as to demurrers and cross-demurrers, the\narguments were:--\n\nFor the plaintiff: That the defendant was not in law entitled to make\naffirmation of allegiance as he had done, the laws permitting such\naffirmation having been \"intended\" to cover only persons holding\nreligious beliefs--_i.e._ beliefs as to a Deity and a future state.\n\nFor the defendant: That the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 expressly\nprovided that every person \"for the time being by law permitted to make\na solemn affirmation or declaration instead of taking an oath,\" should\nbe entitled to make affirmation in Parliamentary matters; that the\nEvidence Amendment Act of 1869 enabled any unbeliever to give evidence\nin any court of justice on the presiding judge being satisfied that an\noath would not be binding on his conscience; that the further amending\nAct of 1870 defined the term \"judge\" as covering any persons legally\nauthorised to administer oaths for the taking of evidence; and that the\nSpeaker was so authorised. Therefore defendant was entitled to affirm\nallegiance. \"I contend,\" said Bradlaugh, \"that all enabling clauses in\nstatutes must be interpreted liberally, not restrictively, in favour of\nthe person claiming the benefit, and not harshly against him.\"\n\nThe one technical weakness of the case was that nowhere had the\nlegislature explicitly said that persons with no religious belief\nshould be free to make affirmation of allegiance; though to found on\nthis omission would be to assume that the legislature, while thinking\nthe oath could advantageously (for that was avowed in the preambles)\nbe dispensed with in the taking of evidence, thought it could not be\ndispensed with in the formality preceding entrance into Parliament.\n\nOn that point, however, Mr Justice Mathew founded his judgement,\nwhich was delivered on 11th March. The Evidence Acts, he decided,\nwere clearly \"intended to remove restrictions upon the admissibility\nof witnesses with a view of promoting the discovery of the truth,\"\nand \"had no other object.\" The Acts of 1866 and 1869-70 must not\nbe read together, because the legislature could not be supposed to\nhave \"intended\" them to be so read. To this argument--one of the two\nmutually exclusive methods of interpretation of law which judges employ\nat their choice--Mr Justice Mathew added a pointed comment on one\nof the defendant's arguments. Bradlaugh, he said, had \"attempted to\nshow that the privilege of sitting in either House of Parliament was\nanalogous to the 'privilege' of giving evidence in a court of justice.\"\nOn which his lordship absurdly remarked that \"no one who was free to\nchoose his words and had a preference for accuracy of expression would\nspeak of the discharge of the all-important and anxious duty of a\nwitness as a privilege.\" It plainly follows on this, either that the\nwork of a member of Parliament is _not_ an \"all-important and anxious\nduty,\" or that it is not a privilege. The first alternative is absurd;\nthe other quashes the judge's argument. Further, it is the historical\nfact that Bradlaugh and other Freethinkers _had_ regarded the power of\ngiving evidence in court as a privilege, and had so described it. It\nmay suffice to give these grounds, for the view of many of us is that\nthe decision was unjust. But neither at this nor at any other time was\nBradlaugh known even in private to question a judge's fairness. His\nloyalty to the established system of \"justice\" was absolute.\n\nJudgment being given for Clarke, Bradlaugh applied for a stay of\nexecution (as to the costs), with a view to an appeal; and the judge\nassented. On 14th March, when Bradlaugh was rising in the House to\npresent a petition, Mr Gorst interposed with the objection that his\nseat was now vacant, and took occasion to assert that to his knowledge\nno notice of appeal had been given in the case. A discussion ensued,\nin which Mr Labouchere read a letter from Mr Bradlaugh to him, telling\nthat he had instructed his solicitor to give the formal notice of\nappeal, and would prosecute it without delay, and offering to vacate\nhis seat, if thought fit, to save time. Lord Randolph Churchill\nsuggested that they had \"no security\" that the appeal would be made\ntill nearly the end of the statutory twelve months. The point being\ndropped, Bradlaugh on 23rd March moved the Court of Appeal to expedite\nthe hearing. As the appeal was \"from an interlocutory order, and not\nfrom a final decision,\"[150] it could be taken promptly, and on 30th\nMarch it was heard before Lords Justices Bramwell, Baggallay, and Lush.\nBradlaugh began by arguing that Clarke was not legally entitled to sue,\nthe Act founded on by him having been repealed by another which did\nnot re-enact permission to anybody to sue. Going over the other ground\nafresh, he argued that the Act of 1866 made no exclusion of any class\nof persons whatever; and that the legislature ought therefore to be\nheld as having desired to enable every class of citizens--an argument\nmuch more cogent, to the lay sense, than the contrary inference drawn\nby Justice Mathew. The arguments were long and intricate on both sides;\nand one of Bradlaugh's remarks in his closing address shows to what\nlength of speculativeness they sometimes went: \"The learned counsel\nsaid the word 'solemnly' could not mean 'sincerely,' because there was\nalready the word 'sincerely' in the declaration. By the same process\nof reasoning the word 'sincerely' cannot be construed to mean 'truly'\nbecause there is also the word 'truly' in the affirmation. I think it\nis better to confine ourselves to law, and not go into philology.\"\nTowards the close, on a question as to whether their lordships'\njudgment was to be judicial or extra-judicial on both points raised,\nBradlaugh remarked, \"The House of Commons has been very generous in\nits treatment of me, and I am anxious to reciprocate that generosity,\"\nadding a hope that their lordships would not think he was pressing\nhis point unduly. \"If you will allow me to say so,\" replied Lord\nJustice Lush, \"you have argued the case with great propriety as well\nas great force.\" But the judgment (delivered on 31st March) was again\nhostile, being to the effect that Clarke was entitled to sue, and that\nBradlaugh was not entitled to make the Parliamentary affirmation.\nThe reason given by Lord Bramwell, the presiding judge, was that the\nParliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 would only permit affirmation to\npersons _already entitled_, like the Quakers, to make affirmation\n\"not on particular occasions but on _all_ occasions when they would\notherwise have to take an oath.\" Unbelievers not being thus already\nentitled (having only the right to affirm as witnesses), Bradlaugh was\nnot entitled to affirm by the Act of 1866, read in connection with\nothers which did not give a complete qualification. That is to say, as\nI understand him, Lord Bramwell argued that the Act of 1866 was meant\nto give the right of affirmation in a particular case to persons who\nalready had it in all possible cases. It sounds sufficiently absurd,\nand I may have failed to follow the reasoning; but I can arrive at\nno other interpretation of his words as published. Lords Justices\nBaggallay and Lush concurred. The latter put it that the \"every other\nperson\" in the Act of 1866 \"must mean every other person in a like\nposition with Quakers,\" that is, persons having \"a perfect immunity\nfrom taking the oath in all places and on all occasions.\" \"Therefore\nI feel no doubt whatever that the true construction of this sentence\nis that Parliament never intended to allow every person whomsoever\nwhen elected to appear before the House of Commons, and on stating\nthat he had a conscientious objection to the oath, being permitted to\nmake affirmation.\" Nobody, as it happened, had ever said so. But Lord\nJustice Lush's confident conclusion as to the intentions of Parliament\ninvolves this: That Parliament, knowing there were Atheist members,\n_deliberately chose to have them take the oath, rather than let them\nmake affirmation_. To this outrageous conclusion all these judges are\nshut up; for there is not a word in any of the Acts about excluding\nAtheists; and if the \"intentions\" of the legislature are to be looked\nfor--thus argued Sir Hardinge Giffard in this very case--\"the language\nmust be clear and unequivocal.\" So say we all. But the judges expressly\ninferred exclusive intentions from the mere absence of special detail\nin the inclusive language. They would not infer friendly intention\nfrom friendly language; but they would infer hostile intention from no\nlanguage at all.\n\n[Footnote 150: Bradlaugh put the technicalities thus to the Lord\nChancellor in the Court of Appeal on 27th March:--\"There are issues of\nfact untouched by the demurrer, and there is the first paragraph of the\nstatement of defence, on which I may possibly defeat the plaintiff even\nshould the allowance of the demurrer be maintained.\"]\n\nBradlaugh's seat was now vacant in law; and he at once stood for\nre-election. All along the great majority of his constituents had\nstood by him cordially and courageously. A series of crowded public\nmeetings, some addressed by himself and Mr Labouchere, some by leading\nlocal politicians, protested against the injustice done to member and\nconstituency at each new stage of the process of exclusion, and now\nthat the constituency was called upon to express its feeling at the\npolls it effectively responded. A certain number, of course, were\ndetached from Bradlaugh by the storm of obloquy which beat upon\nhim, and this the more readily because they had accepted the joint\ncandidature with reluctance; but the great majority stood staunch,\ndespite desperate efforts to turn them. As Bradlaugh told at the time,\nthe constituency was flooded with pamphlets containing\n\n \"not only what I have said and what I have written, taken out of its\n context and distorted, but containing things I have never said and\n have never written, and never dreamt of saying or writing. Books that\n I have neither written nor published, but which were supposed to be\n obnoxious, have had extracts taken out from their medical parts and\n circulated, and the physiological part of the Knowlton pamphlet, for\n which I was indicted, was taken separately and sent by post to each of\n the electors. The vilest things have been said. Some of my foes have\n been more foul than even I had thought possible.\"\n\nThe dirty work was largely done by a person named Varley, known as\n\"a tradesman of Notting Hill.\" Further, a notice was served on the\nelectors assuring them that Bradlaugh had vacated his seat \"as if he\nwere dead\"; and on the comedy side of the contest the Conservative\ncandidate, whose name figured on his bills in the alliteration \"Corbett\nand Christianity,\" fortified his position in his electoral address by\nthe appeal: \"I am intimately connected with a family in your own county\n(that of Sir Charles Isham), which is well known to you, and members\nof which have at former periods had the honour of representing their\nnative county in Parliament.\"\n\nOn the other side, a considerable amount of goodwill to Bradlaugh\nwas shown in the Liberal press. The _Christian Globe_, declaring\n\"unhesitatingly that the member for Northampton should be allowed to\naffirm, if he desires it,\" remarked that \"Mr Bradlaugh has his faults,\nbut he is a man of cleanly, decent, orderly life--a man of brains\nand ability, and of sterling courage as well.\" The _Daily Chronicle_\ntestified that he had \"made a decided and creditable mark in the House\nof Commons by his ability, his moderation, and his general deportment.\"\nEven the _Times_ bore witness:--\"Mr Bradlaugh has his compensations.\nIt is something to have displayed forensic ability so conspicuous. It\nis only fair to him to allow that many, whom the choice of Northampton\nnaturally did not content, have been conciliated by Mr Bradlaugh's\nmanly and moderate attitude.\" The more Radical _Weekly Dispatch_\ndeclared that \"no other new member of this new House of Commons has\nso much distinguished himself for political integrity and shrewdness,\nor given such evidence of statesmanlike qualities.\" Even in the House\nitself, Sir John Holker had observed that Bradlaugh had shown himself\n\"a skillful debater, an eloquent man,\" whose \"voice and tongue had an\ninfluence on the debates.\" More solid than these testimonies were the\nthousands of subscriptions, mostly small, but ranging from twopence to\n\u00a35, sent in to meet the election expenses. This help from the workers\nwas the kind of sympathy that always touched Bradlaugh to the quick.\n\nThe upshot of the fight (9th April 1881) was that Bradlaugh received\n3437 votes, being 390 less than at the general election, while the\nConservative candidate got 3305, being 153 more than the former Tory\nvote. Some 150 electors had turned round, while some 240 nominal\nLiberals had abstained--not a very bad result under the circumstances.\nThe narrow majority of 132, however, gave sufficient encouragement\nto the Tories in the House to stick to their policy of exclusion;\nand anger at defeat did the rest. One journal, whose name it will be\ncharitable to suppress, deplored that the reluctance to fight a seat\nagainst \"a Yahoo like Bradlaugh,\" with whom even that \"association\"\nwould be \"pollution,\" had prevented the advent of a better Tory\ncandidate than Mr Corbett.\n\n\n\u00a7 9.\n\nParliament being in recess, it was only on 26th April that Bradlaugh\nwas able to present himself once more on the field of battle. Sir\nStafford Northcote, courteously enough, as Bradlaugh acknowledged,\nwrote him beforehand, intimating that he felt himself bound to object\nas before to the oath-taking. This he did as Bradlaugh was about to be\nsworn. The Speaker confessed that \"undoubtedly a proceeding so regular\nand formal\" as the oath-taking \"ought under ordinary circumstances\nto be continued without interruption,\" but in view of the former\nresolution of the House he felt bound to allow the intervention.\nBradlaugh interposed a request that he should be heard before the House\ncame to a decision; but it needed the special interposition of the\nSpeaker to get him a hearing for the bare request from the shouting\nTories. Northcote spoke on the customary lines. Bradlaugh had been\nlegally declared unentitled to affirm; but on the other hand, it\nwould be \"profanation\" for him to take the oath--albeit everybody knew\nit had been taken by dozens of Atheists. And the old dishonourable\nequivoque once more did duty: \"it had been clearly shown that Mr\nBradlaugh did not regard the oath as having any binding effect on his\nconscience.\" The mover of the amendment in Bradlaugh's favour, Mr\nDavey, was much interrupted, as was Bright when he proceeded to support\nit. Interrupting Bright was never profitable. His first allusion\nto religious disability evoked the customary imbecile correction,\n\"irreligious disability.\" The answer was prompt:--\n\n \"Hon. members say 'irreligious disability.' Well, you have objected\n before to the admission of the Roman Catholics. ('Hear, hear.') You\n objected to them because of their religion, which you deemed to be\n false--(loud cries of 'No' and 'Yes')--and the religion you deemed to\n be false you would now seem to consider much better than no religion\n at all. On the same ground you refused for many years the claims\n of the Jews to be admitted to this House, and you have now raised\n exactly the same question--('No' and 'Hear')--but in a more offensive\n form--('Oh' and cheers)--because you aim your shafts at a particular\n individual, who cannot be said to represent a class.\"\n\nOnce more Bright defended Bradlaugh from the impudent charge that\nhe had \"obtruded his opinions on the House.\" His declaration that\nBradlaugh's ground for proposing to affirm \"was a ground honourable\nto himself--it was in point of fact a tenderness of conscience, as I\nshould call it,\" drew \"loud laughter\" from the conscientious gentlemen\nof the Opposition. Bright pressed his point all the harder:\n\n \"I think it a gross unfairness--it was then and is now--to bring\n forward the fact that he himself preferred to affirm rather than take\n the oath, and then upon that to assume that the oath would not be\n binding upon his conscience.... He states in the most distinct manner\n that the words of the oath are binding upon his conscience--binding\n upon his honour and conscience. If that be so, you have no right to\n assume that the oath is not binding upon his conscience. You might as\n well tell me that the oath is not binding upon my conscience.\"\n\nLater in the speech came a shrewd thrust:--\n\n \"If it be permitted to make these assumptions with regard to the hon.\n member for Northampton, why is it not equally right to make them with\n regard to other persons--I will mention no names--in this House or\n outside this House, who either publicly or privately have expressed\n the same opinions as are assumed to be held by Mr Bradlaugh? But\n nobody proposes to put any questions to them. (Cries of 'Name.') It\n is admitted now that if Mr Bradlaugh had come to the table and said\n nothing about the affirmation--I do not hesitate to say that it is to\n his credit that he did not take that course--and had offered to take\n the oath, no question would have been asked, but he would have been\n allowed to take the oath just as other members of the House.\"\n\nAnother reference to Bradlaugh's conscience brought out the cry, \"What\nis its value?\" from a Conservative member, and Bright commented mildly\nenough:--\n\n \"I must express my regret at what I must call the almost violent\n temper with which some hon. gentlemen come to the consideration of\n this question. I can feel the greatest charity for a member of this\n House who in my opinion holds views on religious matters which appear\n to me so extraordinary and so unfortunate.... There has been no member\n of this House who has conducted himself with greater propriety and\n decorum--(cheers)--and he has brought to our discussions at least an\n average--perhaps more than an average--ability; and there is not a\n single word he has uttered, not a single act he has committed, which\n in the slightest degree ought to bar him from taking his place in this\n assembly of gentlemen. (Cheers.) I would ask hon. members to think\n for a moment whether it is in accordance with that Christianity which\n they presume so much to defend that they should now at this time,\n after many years, almost centuries, of discussion of questions of\n this nature, determine to raise up another barrier against the civil\n freedom which our constituencies believe they enjoy.\"\n\nThe use of the quotation:\n\n \"Bigotry may swell\n The sail he sets for Heaven with blasts from Hell\"\n\nwas perhaps the most resented item in the speech; and Mr Gorst, who\nfollowed, thought it judicious to assert that on his side of the House\n\"there was no disposition to treat this question in the spirit of\nintolerance and bigotry which the right hon. gentleman had done his\nvery best to stir up.... It ought to be treated purely as a question\nof legality.\" But in a few minutes Mr Gorst arrived at the further\nconclusion that \"to say that this was a question for the courts of law\nwas absurd.\"\n\nBradlaugh then made his \"Second Speech at the Bar.\" He first reminded\nMr Gorst, who had argued from his old answer to the Committee on\nthe point of the oath, that that answer was given unwillingly and\nafter objection to its being put. In another preliminary paragraph\nhe remarked: \"My return is untainted. There is no charge of bribery,\nno charge of corruption, nor of inducing men to come drunken to the\npolling-booth.\" (\"Hon.\" members who had done these things had had\nno scruple about taking the oath, nor had the House ever shown much\nresentment at contact with them.) Mr (now Sir) Edward Clarke had during\nthe debate spoken of Bradlaugh's \"making an avowal of opinions to the\nHouse\" on a former occasion, and had contended that the dignity of the\nHouse was now involved.\n\n \"I have never,\" said Bradlaugh, \"directly or indirectly, said one\n word about my opinions, and this House has no right to inquire what\n opinions I may hold outside its walls. The only right is that which\n the statute gives you; my opinions there is no right to inquire into.\n I shelter myself under the laws of my country. This is a political\n assembly, met to decide on the policy of the nation, and not on the\n religious opinions of the citizens.\"\n\nHe was accordingly meeting the Conservatives, as represented by Mr\nGorst, on their own ground. On the question of dignity, raised by Mr\nClarke, he asked:\n\n \"Do you mean that I can injure the dignity of this House? this\n House which has stood unrivalled for centuries? this House, supreme\n among the assemblies of the world? this House, which represents the\n traditions of liberty? I should not have so libelled you.\"\n\nThe most direct thrust in the speech is perhaps the following:--\n\n \"What will you inquire into? The right hon. baronet would inquire\n into my opinions. Will you inquire into my conduct, or is it only\n my opinions you will try here? The hon. member for Plymouth [Mr E.\n Clarke] frankly puts it--opinions. If opinions, why not conduct? Why\n not examine into members' conduct when they come to the table, and see\n if there be no members in whose way you can put a barrier? ('Hear,\n hear.') Are members, whose conduct may be obnoxious, to vote my\n exclusion because to them my opinions are obnoxious?\"\n\nHere again the tone is not deprecatory:--\n\n \"The right hon. baronet has said there has been no word of\n recantation. You have no right to ask me for any recantation. Since\n the 9th April you have no right to ask me for anything. If you have\n a legal disqualification, petition, lay it before the judges. When\n you ask me to make a statement, you are guilty of impertinence to me,\n of treason to the traditions of this House, and of impeachment of the\n liberties of the people.\"\n\nAnd the close--it cannot be called a peroration--makes no abatement of\nemphasis:--\n\n \"I ask you now, do not plunge me into a struggle I would shun. The law\n gives me no remedy if the House decides against me. Do not mock at the\n constituencies. If you place yourselves above the law, you leave me\n no course save lawless agitation, instead of reasonable pleading. It\n is easy to begin such a strife, but none knows how it would end....\n You think I am an obnoxious man, and that I have no one on my side.\n If that be so, then the more reason that this House, grand in the\n strength of its centuries of liberty, should have now that generosity\n in dealing with one who to-morrow may be forced into a struggle for\n public opinion against it.\"\n\nMr Gladstone followed with a carefully subdued speech, in which,\nhowever, he remarked: \"Mr Bradlaugh is upon his trial before the House;\nbut the House also, permit me to say it with great respect, is upon its\ntrial,\" and he proceeded to cite against the opposition the authority of\n\n \"Sir George Grey, who was an ornament of the House for fully forty\n years, and who has not ceased to take a lively interest in its\n proceedings. I hold in my hand his written opinion, expressed in\n the most decisive terms, and he has the fullest conviction that the\n opposition to the taking of the oath by Mr Bradlaugh ought not to be\n permitted by the Chair.\"\n\nHe further bore laudatory witness to Bradlaugh's behaviour in the\nHouse:--\n\n \"Every man must in common fairness admit that Mr Bradlaugh is to be\n credited with the best and highest motives. He is under a _prim\u00e2\n facie_ and presumptive obligation and duty, having been elected by\n a constituency to present himself at the table as the only means of\n fulfilling his duty to them. On the other hand, I need not animadvert\n upon his conduct. It is generally admitted that his conduct while\n he sat on those benches was the conduct of a man of great ability,\n integrity, and honour.\"\n\nIncidentally, the Premier mentioned that the authority of Sir John\nHolker was with those who held that the House had no right to\ninterfere; and he put to the Opposition, at some length, the plain\nlogical outcome of their action, namely, that they were bound, in\nevery case in which a member's opinions were known from any source\nto be irreligious, to refuse that member the oath. The argument was\nunanswerable; but it was not argument that was to be met. After a\nlong debate the House divided, when 208 members voted for Northcote's\nmotion, and only 175 against.\n\nThen came another \"scene.\" Bradlaugh came to the table and made his\nold protest: \"The resolution of the House is against the law, and\nI respectfully refuse to withdraw.\" The Speaker, as before, asked\nfor \"instructions.\" Northcote asked Gladstone to propose something.\nGladstone \"left it to the majority to carry out their own vote.\"\nNorthcote, after lecturing the Premier for dereliction of duty, moved\n\"that Mr Bradlaugh be ordered to withdraw.\" Gladstone warmly demanded\nto know on what grounds he was lectured. Mr Labouchere interposed with\na warning, and proposed to divide, but at the request of Mr Bright\nwithdrew the motion. The Speaker again asked Bradlaugh to withdraw,\nand Bradlaugh again refused. The Sergeant-at-Arms was then called on\nto remove him, and did so in the former fashion, Bradlaugh returning\nfrom the bar to the table as before, protesting against physical\nforce, and asking the House \"not to put me to the indignity of a\nphysical struggle.\" Again the Speaker \"threw himself upon the House for\ninstructions,\" and the House called for \"Northcote\" and \"Gladstone\";\nbut neither leader responded. A member asked whether Mr Bradlaugh had\nnot already been ordered out. The Speaker helplessly explained that\nthe order \"only extended to the bar of the House and no further,\" on\nwhich Bradlaugh moved back to the bar and stood there. Northcote rose\nand feebly protested that he \"was only prevented from moving that Mr\nBradlaugh should be committed by the feeling that Mr Bradlaugh was\nencouraged by the Government in his resistance.\" Gladstone \"entirely\nrepudiated and repelled the statement,\" considered the accusation\ngroundless and wanton, and called upon his right hon. antagonist to\n\"point to the facts on which he has made so grave a charge to the\nHouse.\" Northcote suitably replied, and Gladstone again repudiated,\nintimating that he \"should not take any steps in this matter until the\ntime came when it appeared to him he could do it with advantage to the\nHouse.\" Thereupon Mr Cowen moved the adjournment of the House, which\nwas eagerly agreed to. Only in that fashion was the House able for the\ntime to get out of the ignoble dilemma in which it had been landed by a\ncowardly cabal of bigots and faction-fighters. Northcote did not dare\nagain to move Bradlaugh's committal, but did not dare to confess it;\nand there was nothing to do but run away.\n\nNext day, however, the trouble began afresh. Bradlaugh again presented\nhimself, and was once more removed to the bar, where he stood as\nbefore. Mr Labouchere now asked whether the Government would give\nfacilities for the Affirmation Bill he had introduced last session; and\nGladstone in his lengthiest manner evolved the answer that it would\ndepend on whether the Bill was to be opposed. Mr Labouchere and others\npassed on the appeal to Northcote as directly as the forms of the\nHouse permitted; and Northcote, as lengthily as Gladstone, made answer\nto the effect that \"a measure of the kind\" would have his \"careful\nconsideration,\" but he could agree to nothing \"in the nature of a\nbargain.\" The truth was, of course, that Northcote could not answer\nfor his more unscrupulous followers, but dared not admit as much; so\nthe debate went on in the diffusest House-of-Commons manner. After\na long speech from Bright, Mr Hubbard, losing patience, and having\nno judgment to lose, asked \"What use were the police, or officers of\nthe House, if they could not protect the House from the intrusion of\npeople who had no business there?\" No answer being vouchsafed from the\ndeaf heavens, Mr Walter pompously explained that in his opinion Mr\nBradlaugh ought to be allowed to affirm, but that no unbeliever ought\never to be allowed to take the oath. \"It was idle to say the House had\nnot official cognisance of the fact that the hon. gentleman belonged\nto a sect which did not believe in the existence of God.\" Another\nlong speech from Gladstone left the situation unchanged. Mr Newdegate\nintimated that if neither leader moved the arrest of Mr Bradlaugh, he\nwould, if necessary, do it himself. Still the debate rolled on. Mr\nChaplin admitted that Bradlaugh while in the House \"had acted with\ngreat ability and great moderation,\" but then he had \"openly avowed,\"\netc., so they could not stand by, etc. They commenced their proceedings\nwith prayer, and invoked the aid of the Supreme Being to guide them in\ntheir labours. On the obvious efficacy of the appeal, Mr Chaplin did\nnot dwell. A dozen more speakers followed, some of them--as Alderman\nFowler and Mr Warton--declaring that they would oppose any bill; while\none Maciver intimated that he \"intended on Thursday to ask the Prime\nMinister whether he would introduce a short measure for the partial\ndisfranchisement of Northampton.\" At length, on no assurance from\nNorthcote, but simply on a favourable expression of feeling from Sir\nWalter Barttelot, Mr Labouchere's motion for the adjournment of the\nHouse, under cover of which the whole long-drawn discussion had taken\nplace, was by leave withdrawn; and Bradlaugh withdrew to await the\naction of the Government.\n\nOn the 29th April Gladstone did announce the intention of the Ministry\nto introduce an Affirmation Bill, whereupon Lord Randolph Churchill\nannounced his intention to oppose it; and the early stages of the\nmeasure were systematically hampered. Bradlaugh published in his\njournal an \"Appeal to the People,\" in which he asked them to \"speak\nout clearly, distinctly, thoroughly, and at once on this issue;\" and\nhe again held a great town's meeting at Northampton. After a long and\nbrilliant speech, ending with the words, \"In this struggle some one\nmust recede, some one must bend, some one must break. This I do pledge\nmyself, that if health do keep, and life do hold, I will never give\nway,\" there was a loud tempest of applause, at the close of which he\nrose again and asked the audience, \"Have you still confidence in me?\"\nand \"Will you stand by me in this fight?\" Every hand went up to both\nquestions with fresh storms of cheering, and Bradlaugh answered \"Then\non my honour, if I live, we will win.\"\n\nThe House, however, did not mend its ways. On 2nd May Gladstone moved\nthat the other Orders of the Day be postponed for the Oaths Bill, and\nChurchill opened the debate with a vulgar and violent harangue, which\nended with a hope that the Tories would \"give no facilities for placing\nin that House brazen Atheism and rampant disloyalty.\" Several followed\nsuit; and Northcote, seeing his followers leading him as usual, made\none of his flabby speeches in deprecation of anything like speedy\naction in the matter. The measure must be discussed \"upon its own\nmerits, and not with reference to the circumstances and position of any\ngiven individual;\" and there must be no \"semblance of hurry for the\npurpose of avoiding a scandalous scene.\" In fine, there should be no\nalacrity. Gladstone extensively assented, agreeing to allow an interval\nafter the introduction of the Bill; but a number of Tories threw over\ntheir leader, and one Lewis moved the adjournment of the debate. This\nfailing, the Home Rulers raised a dispute on procedure, whereafter the\nAttorney-General, Sir Henry James, introduced the Bill. In the course\nof his speech Sir Henry cited the admission of Northcote to the effect\nthat he did not object to Bradlaugh sitting in the House, but to his\ntaking the oath. The unhappy Northcote, pressed on all sides, made the\npitiful explanation that when he said so he only wanted to raise the\npoint of the oath; but he did not now wish to be understood as having\nno objection to Bradlaugh's presence in the House.\n\nAdjourned till Friday the 6th May, the debate was then proposed to be\npostponed till the 10th, whereupon Mr A. J. Balfour--who now for the\nfirst time interposed in the controversy within the House--objected\nto the Government's course as being taken \"not to give relief to any\nlarge class of Her Majesty's subjects, but to deal with an individual.\"\nSir Richard Cross, who was reminded that he had admitted there was no\nway out of the difficulty save by legislation, granted that he was of\nthat opinion, but avowed that he would all the same oppose any attempt\nto give facilities for Bradlaugh's admission. On a division on the\namendment the Government had only a majority of 6 votes--128 to 122.\nOn their motion being put substantively, a new discussion arose, the\nTories moving the adjournment of the debate. Bright made an impressive\nspeech, in which he \"ventured to say that if the Bill were passed\nthere were scores of members who would prefer to make an affirmation,\"\nbut obstructive speaking went on, Mr T. P. O'Connor, among others,\nridiculing Bright's speech, and charging him with having \"insulted the\nreligious feeling of the Irish people\" earlier in the evening. After\nhours of time had been spent, the Government, at three o'clock in\nthe morning, agreed to the adjournment; but on Tuesday morning, when\nthe question was raised after one A.M., the obstruction was\ncontinued on precisely the same lines, and the ministry gave up their\nplan of a \"morning\" (_i.e._ afternoon) sitting. Lord Henry Lennox's\nprinciple of \"putting that damned Bradlaugh on them\" was now felt by\nhis party to be an inspiration worthy of the common cause. Bradlaugh's\nadmission stood indefinitely adjourned, so far as the Government were\nconcerned. But they had still to reckon with Bradlaugh himself.\n\nGiving due notice, he presented himself at the House next day, and the\nnow customary scene was enacted. The Speaker made his usual appeal, and\nSir Stafford Northcote moved \"that the Sergeant-at-Arms do remove Mr\nBradlaugh from the House until he shall engage not to further disturb\nthe proceedings of the House.\" On challenge, he explained that by this\nhe meant that Bradlaugh should \"not come within the door kept by the\ndoorkeepers.\" To this motion Gladstone agreed, asking his followers to\ndo likewise. It \"relieved the Government,\" as the journals noted at the\ntime, \"of the necessity for pushing on the Parliamentary Oaths Bill.\"\n\nBradlaugh for his part decided not to renew his attempt until the\nIrish Land Bill had got through the House. So much consideration he\nthought the Government were entitled to, and no amount of injustice\nfrom Irishmen could induce him to put in jeopardy a measure of justice\nto Ireland. On this decision he promised the Sergeant-at-Arms not to\nattempt any forcible entry of the House without giving him full notice.\n\n\n\u00a7 10.\n\nMeanwhile the battle of opinion went on outside the House. It was\nnoticed at the time, as a significant fact, that in the newspaper war\non the subject nearly every attack on Bradlaugh was anonymous, or\nsigned with initials, while nearly every defence of him was signed.\nHis friends fought for him with his own spirit. A \"League for the\nDefence of Constitutional Rights\" was founded in his support; and an\n\"anti-Atheistic Committee\" was formed on the other side, with an office\nin the Strand, and with the name of Sir Bartle Frere figuring in its\npropaganda. On this Bradlaugh struck out as he seldom did. \"At least\nvery shame,\" he said, \"should have made Sir Bartle Frere hesitate\nbefore he paraded his blood-and-shame-stained name in a crusade against\nme.\" The \"anti\" Committee held a ticket meeting in Exeter Hall, at\nwhich a Secularist who had a platform ticket learned from a member of\nthe Committee, a magistrate, that the Committee had engaged for the\nevening six prize-fighters, with instructions to \"stop the mouths of Mr\nBradlaugh's friends with their fists.\" The meeting was presided over\nby Earl Percy, and among the speakers was the Varley before mentioned.\n\"Bradlaugh's friends\" filled the street outside and carried counter\nresolutions. Indoors the promoters had the services of the police in\ntearing up the tickets of any comers who were pointed out to them\nas Freethinkers, and in ejecting the presenters; while disorder was\ncreated by the further ejection from the platform of a number of\nFreethinkers who had gone thither with proper tickets.[151] No less\nthan two hundred policemen had been supplied by the Home Office. After\nthis naturally there was some disturbance. According to Canon Taylor,\none of the speakers, \"for an hour and a half it was scarcely possible\nfor the different speakers to get a hearing, except a few sentences\nat a time; and when 'God save the Queen' was sung the Atheists in\nevery possible way showed their disloyalty.\" The resolution of the\npromoters was declared carried; but the Rev. Canon \"was alarmed to\nsee such a large minority, extending from beneath the platform to the\nother end of that large hall, composed of men and, he was grieved to\nsay, women.\" (The boys present, it may be inferred, belonged to the\nYoung Men's Christian Association.) And this alarmingly large minority,\nwhen the \"contrary\" vote was taken, \"rose with the greatest possible\nmanifestations of dissent, and with the waving of handkerchiefs.\" Quite\na number of similar meetings in the provinces failed more or less\nbadly. On the other hand, Bradlaugh in person held crowded meetings,\nfree to all, in many towns, getting an ovation everywhere, in addition\nto which scores of resolutions and petitions in his favour were\nsent to the House by Liberal and Radical clubs. A mass meeting held\nat St James's Hall under the auspices of the Constitutional Rights\nLeague, finally, was packed to the door. Among the speakers were three\nclergymen, one belonging to the Church of England, Admiral Maxse, and\nMr Labouchere; and no dissentient vote was given on the resolutions\nin Bradlaugh's favour. One of the Nonconformist ministers who spoke,\nthe Rev. Mr Sharman, told how Plymouth Liberals had sent to Northcote\nthe telegram: \"We protest against your effort to deprive Northampton\nof one-half of its representation as being revolution in the name of\nConservatism and robbery in the name of religion.\" The Rev. Stewart\nHeadlam said of Bradlaugh:--\n\n[Footnote 151: In the House of Commons on 7th February 1882 Earl Percy\nasserted that Bradlaugh's friends had fabricated tickets for the\nmeeting. The statement was absolutely false.]\n\n \"I know the great work he has done in the east of London for the moral\n condition of the people. I know how he has got hold of hundreds of\n people whom we clergy have been utterly unable to reach; and ... I am\n certain that the work he has done in the east of London has been of\n the greatest moral use for the elevation of the people.\"\n\nBradlaugh, on his own part, paid one of his many tributes to Gladstone.\n\nOf this meeting no report appeared in the leading Liberal paper, the\n_Daily News_, then understood to be mainly owned by Mr Samuel Morley,\nbefore mentioned. This was unhappily not the only instance of a\nLiberal journal perverted by private motives to the side of bigotry\nin Bradlaugh's case. Mr Joseph Cowen, M.P., owner of the _Newcastle\nDaily Chronicle_, who had long been on friendly terms with him, and who\nhad volunteered the expression of approval of Bradlaugh's action when\nhe was imprisoned in the Clock Tower, now took the line of charging\nhim with inconsistency in proposing to take the oath, though it was\nfor trying to take the oath in the previous session that he had been\nimprisoned. And Mr John Morley, then editing the _Pall Mall Gazette_,\nnot only gave prominence in that journal to utterances hostile to\nBradlaugh, such as that of Mr Holyoake, but suppressed letters in his\nfavour, even when sent by a literary man of good standing like Mr\nMoncure Conway. Mr Morley, while of course condemning the Tory tactics,\nnow blamed Bradlaugh for proposing to take the oath at all, though he\nhad before spoken of him as \"parading his views,\" and though, when he\npreviously accused him of first \"declining\" the oath and then asking to\ntake it, he had _not_ condemned oath-taking by an unbeliever. Bradlaugh\npointed out that voluntary abstention from taking the oath would have\nmade his seat void in law, to which the _Gazette_ editorially answered\nby expressing its confidence that if Bradlangh had simply refused to\ntake the oath, the House would not have dreamt of unseating him on\nthat score. On the strength of that conviction the _Gazette_ editor\nwrote:[152]--\n\n[Footnote 152: April 27, 1881.]\n\n \"We have not concealed our opinion that Mr Bradlaugh would have\n consulted his own dignity by refusing to take the oath, and fighting\n out an issue which could only have one end.\" And again:[153] \"The\n national belief in the existence of a Deity will not be lessened by\n the fact that Mr Bradlaugh and men like him are no longer called upon\n to use a form which in their lips is an indecent piece of mockery.\"\n\n[Footnote 153: May 6, 1881.]\n\nWhen later elected himself, Mr Morley made no attempt to act on the\nrule he had thus laid down or caused to be laid down for another man.\n\nIt is a curious and a melancholy illustration of the instability of\nhuman character that while Mr Morley was partly playing into the hands\nof the spirit of injustice, Mr Goldwin Smith, who now wears its livery,\nwas emphatic on the other side. He thus wrote in his Toronto journal,\nthe _Bystander_, in April 1881:--\n\n \"To the shame of British civilisation and religion, the attack upon Mr\n Bradlaugh and upon the civil rights of his constituents goes on, and\n has been technically successful in a court of law. _The ringleaders\n are scamps_, putting forward religion as a pretext for political\n persecution. It is Sandwich over again denouncing Wilkes for impiety.\n Set a coronet on Mr Bradlaugh's head, give him a large fortune, make\n him a Tory in politics, and though he were the most offensive of\n Atheists, and the most profligate of debauchees to boot, he would have\n these crusaders at his feet.... If Parliament allows a fine to be\n levied on Mr Bradlaugh for taking the seat to which he had been duly\n elected it will undergo a far greater disgrace than any that can be\n inflicted upon it by obstruction.\"\n\nDoubtless Mr Goldwin Smith, writing in Canada, did not feel the burden\nwhich weighed on Liberal respectability at home, the more so as he had\nnever professed himself a rationalist.\n\n\n\u00a7 11.\n\nThe lawsuit raised by Clarke on behalf of Mr Newdegate still went on\nits difficult way, Bradlaugh fighting it inch by inch and point by\npoint. On 2nd May 1881 he argued before the Lords Justices of Appeal a\npoint on which he had previously been stopped, and on which no judgment\nhad been given. This was as to the validity of the \"replication,\" in\nwhich Bradlaugh argued that, as he had actually made affirmation, he\ncould not properly be sued (as he had been) for sitting and voting\nwithout taking the oath. The judges ruled that as he was not in their\nopinion entitled to affirm, the fact of his affirming was not a valid\nanswer. Defeated here, Bradlaugh decided next to endeavour to overthrow\nthe action on what he described as a pure technicality, the argument\nthat, as the writ was dated 2nd July 1880, and the vote sued on had\nbeen given on that day, the action had been brought too early, \"for\nthat the writ must be held to have been tested at the earliest possible\nmoment of the 2nd of July, and therefore prior to the sitting and\nvoting for which the penalty is claimed.\" This point was raised on\n16th and 17th May before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr Bowen,\non Clarke's counsel moving for judgment, and Bradlaugh advanced a\nlong and learned argument on the point. Judgment was delayed, and the\nlegal point was tried on 20th and 21st June, before Justice Denman\nand Watkin Williams, on the plaintiff's amended statement, Bradlaugh\ndemurring. His demurrer was overruled, Justice Denman admitting\nthat the point raised was \"true as a general rule of law,\" but not\napplicable to this case; and his lordship gave this singular reason:\n\"For a legal fiction is for the purpose of doing justice, not for\ndefeating it.\" It was not suggested that justice was being done in the\ncase in hand; but if Bradlaugh's argument were to hold good, it might\nbe defeated in somebody else's case. \"No rule of law,\" said Justice\nWatkin Williams concurring, \"compels us so to violate common sense\nand plain understanding,\" another decision worth remembering in the\npresent connection. Bradlaugh drily wrote in his journal: \"I think the\ndecision of Justices Denman and Watkin Williams is in accordance with\ncommon sense, but I do not think it is consonant with common law.\" He\nadded: \"I shall, of course, appeal against the decision. The next step\nwill probably be the trial at _Nisi Prius_\"--that was, the trial of\nthe matter of fact as to the exact hour of issuing the writ, which had\nstill to be proved by oral evidence before a jury.\n\nThat trial took place before Mr Justice Grove and a special jury, in\nthe Queen's Bench Division, on 19th, 20th, and 22nd July; and the\ncross-examination of witnesses by Bradlaugh elicited, for one thing,\nthat Newdegate was the financial backer of Clarke's action, and, for\nthe rest, that the evidence of Newdegate and his principal witnesses\non the question of the time of issue of the writ was rather worse than\nworthless. Newdegate had a very bad time of it in the witness-box, and\nthe verbatim report of his cross-examination[154] may be recommended\nto legal students as illustrating the value of the testimony of an\nEnglish gentleman and magistrate who believes devoutly in God, and\nholds that no unbeliever can be believed. A worse appearance has seldom\nbeen made in the witness-box by a man of standing; and in the case in\nquestion it was only surpassed in importance by the exhibition made\nby Newdegate's principal legal witness--a gentleman who was proved\nto have expressed his surprise that another legal gentleman should\nconsent to give evidence for \"a man like Bradlaugh.\" The whole report\nis a singularly dramatic comment on the proposition that oaths secure\ntruthful evidence. Probably no competent and unbiassed person who now\nreads it will have any difficulty in concluding that the writ had\nactually been taken out at least an hour before Bradlaugh had given the\nvote on which it proceeded, and that at least three witnesses swore to\nfalsehoods. Bradlaugh categorically asserted in Court that Newdegate\nhad lied; and Newdegate's evidence was hardly the worst.\n\n[Footnote 154: Given in a special number of the _National Reformer_.]\n\nThe facts of the case may now be historically stated with tolerable\nconfidence. Newdegate had been afraid that a friendly action would\nbe brought against Bradlaugh, in which case Bradlaugh would not have\nto meet the \u00a3500 penalty. Newdegate desired that Bradlaugh should be\nmulcted; and he had actually been indecent enough to block the Bill\nof Indemnity introduced on Bradlaugh's behalf by Mr Labouchere. Nay\nmore, in opposing the motion that Bradlaugh be permitted to sit on\naffirmation, he had argued that it was beneath the dignity of the House\nto lay a trap for a man and leave him to be caught in it by any one who\ncared to prosecute. Yet after saying this, he gave a bond of indemnity\nto Clarke, the common informer, for suing Bradlaugh; and he had\napparently selected Clarke--a nondescript person, sometimes called a\nsurveyor, sometimes an accountant, but professionally neither--because,\nhaving little or no means, he could not be made to pay costs in case of\nBradlaugh winning the action.[155] Such a litigant would not stick at\ntrifles. In concert with his legal advisers, Newdegate, to forestall\nthe friendly action, had the writ ready for serving before Bradlaugh\nhad voted. This, at least, seems to be pretty clearly revealed by the\nextraordinary prevarications of Newdegate and his witnesses.\n\n[Footnote 155: Formally, Newdegate was bound to pay Bradlaugh's costs\nif Bradlaugh won, but had the fact of the maintenance never come out,\nit would have been an easy matter for Clarke to become bankrupt,\nand leave Bradlaugh no redress, while he himself could be privately\nreimbursed by Newdegate.]\n\nThe case ended oddly. The jury, after being locked up for nearly an\nhour, intimated that they were not likely to agree; and the judge\nasked whether a majority verdict would be accepted. Bradlaugh offered\nto do so, but Newdegate's counsel declined. After nearly an hour\nmore, however, the jury agreed on their verdict; and it was for the\nplaintiff, Clarke. It was understood that they had agreed to give their\nverdict by majority. Bradlaugh tersely remarked in his journal: \"The\nultimate verdict a little disappointed me: I had thought that I had\nwon.\" Certainly the judge's summing-up had seemed to be in his favour.\n\nAs usual, he appealed. Like Ben Bolt in the novel, he was \"bad to\nbeat.\" He appealed for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was\n\"against the weight of the evidence.\" But that was not all. Newdegate,\nhaving confessed giving a bond of indemnity to Clarke, had laid\nhimself open to a return action, under a form of law, for the offence\nof \"maintenance;\" so on 27th July Bradlaugh accompanied Mr (now Sir)\nGeorge Lewis, the famous solicitor, to Bow Street Police Court, where\nMr Lewis moved for a summons against Newdegate, and another against his\nsolicitor as accessory. The magistrate, Mr Flowers, was somewhat taken\naback. \"Is it not rather----\" he began. \"Yes,\" said Mr Lewis promptly;\n\"and so is the action against Mr Bradlaugh. Mr Newdegate asks for\nstrict law against Mr Bradlaugh, who now asks in return that strict law\nmay also be enforced against Mr Newdegate.\" The summonses were granted.\n\nNext day, 28th July, and on 1st August, Bradlaugh argued before\nJustices Grove and Lindley his motion for a new trial on the question\nof time in the Clarke case. Finally (8th August), after a request from\nthe Court for affidavits had been followed by an extremely improper\nstep on the part of Newdegate's solicitor, who actually sent some\naffidavits privately to Mr Justice Grove's house, the Judges gave a\nrule _nisi_ for a new trial on the ground urged. This rule could not be\nargued till November, and if it were then made absolute the new trial\ncould not take place till after Christmas, so that Newdegate was once\nmore intercepted. The criminal summonses, on the other hand, did not\ncome on till 20th September, for reasons which will appear in the next\nsection, and when heard were dismissed by the magistrate, Mr Vaughan.\n\n \"He was of opinion that complainant had not shown that the maintenance\n of which he complained came within the meaning of the statute. Though\n the statutes of Richard II. and Henry VIII. did undoubtedly refer to\n crimes and imprisonment for maintenance, still it was most singular\n that no indictment could be found for violation of these statutes.\n It seemed to him that the proceeding was an obsolete one, and that\n the criminal law ought not to have been invoked for a purpose of this\n description, when it was open to Mr Bradlaugh ... to apply to the\n common law courts.... Old statutes had been searched out in order\n that proceedings--which he could not help thinking had been taken to\n gratify a very unfriendly feeling on Mr Bradlaugh's part--might be\n instituted in the hope that Mr Newdegate would be committed for trial.\"\n\nThe licence of general criticism taken by our magistrates has seldom\nbeen more strikingly exemplified; and no one but a prejudiced\nmagistrate, probably, would have had the assurance to condemn a\nlitigant for \"unfriendly feeling\" towards a declared enemy who had\nwantonly and zealously sought to ruin him.[156] The deliberate setting\naside of the statutes as obsolete, too, while a civil action was\nadmitted to lie, was an act of lenity to Mr Newdegate, contrasting\nfavourably with the attitude of other judges towards Bradlaugh. But the\nfact that a civil action remained open was sufficient for Bradlaugh's\npurposes; and already Newdegate had begun to repent somewhat of his\nzeal. His costs were accumulating, and still the hoped-for prey was\nout of his reach. A circular was accordingly issued on his behalf by\nCaptain Bedford Pim, who felt \"strongly that Mr Newdegate, M.P., should\nnot be allowed to suffer for his spirited and patriotic action against\nAtheism, and that some steps should be taken to bear him harmless in\nthe struggle upon which he has so nobly entered.\"\n\n[Footnote 156: Mr Vaughan had twice previously given decisions against\nBradlaugh, and both had been upset on appeal.]\n\n\n\u00a7 12\n\nIn the interval between the issuing and the hearing of the summonses\nfor maintenance, something more serious had occurred. When the\nGovernment had in May decided to postpone their Oaths Bill, Bradlaugh,\nwhile acquiescing perforce in the delay, had renewed his platform\nagitation with redoubled energy, preparatory to forcing a fresh\ncontest on the House if need were. The situation grew worse instead\nof better. Between 20th June and 4th July he had had a formal\ncorrespondence with Mr Gladstone on the subject. \"You are aware,\"\nwrote Mr Gladstone, declining the request for an interview, \"to how\nconsiderable an extent Liberal and public interests have been brought\ninto prejudice by untrue suppositions as to communication between you\nand the Government.\" Bradlaugh answered by a detailed statement of\nhis action, which had been guided by a desire to avoid embarrassing\nthe Ministry; and Gladstone in reply acknowledged this; but later\n(28th June) intimated that they proposed to try to close the Session\nearly in August, and they could not hope to carry any strongly\ncontroversial measure after the Land Bill. This intimation was made\ndefinite in a letter of 2nd July, and Bradlaugh was once more left to\nhis own devices. He chose his course at once. First he addressed to\nthe Speaker, under date 4th July, a formal letter, setting forth his\ncontention as to the illegality of the House's action on 10th May. He\nwas advised, among other things, that the excluding order of that date\ndid not authorise the Sergeant-at-Arms to use force, and that the use\nof force to prevent his re-entry would be illegal.\n\n \"I beg therefore, sir,\" he went on, \"most respectfully to give notice\n that I claim to disregard the order of the House, ... and to treat\n the same as not requiring obedience from me, on the ground that such\n order is absolutely illegal.... In the name of the law, sir, and of\n my constituents, I also most respectfully give notice that I shall,\n in the manner and at the time provided by the standing orders of the\n House, again present myself at the table of the House, to complete the\n fulfilment of the duty imposed on me by law.\"\n\nOn this declaration he set about acting. He had had no encouragement\nwhatever to hope for justice save under pressure. Northcote, who had\nno moral motive for his action, was open to no moral appeal. To him\nBradlaugh addressed a public letter (1st July 1881), which to-day needs\nneither adding to nor taking from. After a recital of the facts, it\nran:--\n\n \"At first, though I disagreed with you, I thought you honest, for you\n had the repute of an honourable man, and you said that it was not\n from any desire to prevent my taking my seat, but from a desire to\n prevent the profanation of the oath, that you were prompted to act\n as you did. You had been present in the House when John Stuart Mill\n took the oath, and you raised no objection. You have been present\n in the House when other members, whose heresy is matter of common\n repute, took the oath, and you have rested silent. Yet I counted you\n a fair English gentleman, and I believed your word in any case. But\n now, from your speeches outside the House, I find that you claim\n to hinder me from sitting in Parliament, whether by complying with\n the law as it now stands, or by means of any change which may be\n proposed to meet your objection. At Manchester you justified your\n action on the ground that there was a general feeling in the country\n against me personally[157]--a dangerous argument, even if it were\n well vouched. But how is this feeling to be tested? Nearly all the\n meetings called against me have been lamentable failures, despite the\n most ridiculous precautions. Almost every meeting called in my favour,\n and this whether or not I have been personally present, has been an\n enthusiastic success.\n\n [Footnote 157: The essential unveracity of Northcote's political\n character is shown by the fact that after thus using the \"numbers\"\n argument against Bradlaugh, he himself solemnly denounced the\n principle. Speaking at Edinburgh in 1884 (see Mr Lang's \"Life,\" ii.\n 218) he said: \"I am afraid that the Government will take far too much\n to the numerical principle, and if you take to the principle of mere\n numbers, depend upon it you will be introducing the most dangerous\n change into the Constitution.\" Exactly what Bradlaugh had said to him.]\n\n \"And yet the very vilest means have been resorted to to damage me\n in the public mind. In your presence at Manchester, and without one\n word of rebuke from you, one distinguished and noble member of your\n party repeated against me some of the utter falsehoods of the Varley\n pamphlet, although I had given you in writing my distinct assurance of\n the untruthfulness of much of that pamphlet.... To make a show against\n me, petitions have been sent round the country to hundreds of Sunday\n Schools, and little children by the score have been compelled to affix\n their signatures. Two petitions presented by yourself from Glasgow and\n York contain hundreds of signatures of lads and girls under twelve\n years of age. Orange Lodges, Roman Catholic organisations, and the\n machinery of the English Church Associations have been utilised to\n procure signatures.\"\n\nNorthcote replied:--\n\n \"I cannot admit that there is any foundation for the charge of\n illegality which you make against the House of Commons. But I must\n decline to enter into controversy with you upon the general subject of\n your case. I can only say that I have acted from a sense of public\n duty, and from no personal motives; and that I see no reason for\n doubting the propriety of the course which I have pursued.\"\n\nBut even those Liberal members who had voted on his side were for\nthe most part quietly acquiescent in the injustice done, regarding\na wrong to one \"unpopular\" man as a small matter. The only member\nwho persistently protested was Mr Labouchere, for whose courage and\nconstancy throughout the whole struggle no words of praise could be\ntoo high. In the circumstances there was nothing for it but to rouse\nthe country, and this Bradlaugh did as only he could. It is difficult\nnow to realise the enormous amount of energy he had to spend. While\nhis cases were pending in the higher courts, he was doing three men's\nwork outside. Thus in the week 18th to 24th July we find him spending\nthree days fighting his case in the hot and crowded Court; holding\nthree night meetings in London; attending a Freethinker's funeral\n(where the sight of the grief of the widow and children made him quite\nbreak down); speaking at a great demonstration of miners in the north;\ngiving three lectures in South Shields; and holding a huge gathering\nin the Free Trade Hall in Manchester. He knew he was drawing terribly\non a constitution which, though of a giant's strength, had for many\nyears been doing giant's work; but he never flinched in a battle while\nhe had any strength left. His plan was to evoke a clear expression of\nfeeling on behalf of his claim in all the large towns, to hold a mass\nmeeting in Trafalgar Square, and then again to present himself at the\nHouse; and if the House had been capable of looking at the issue half\nas reasonably as the constituencies did, it would have been promptly\nsettled. Wherever Bradlaugh went, he got unanimous votes in his favour.\nAt one stage he reckoned that out of a series of audiences amounting\nin numbers to 75,000, only two hands had been held up against his\nclaim. It was wonderful to see how he swayed audiences against their\nown prejudices. He must have been listened to by thousands of men\nwho disliked him and his opinions equally; but they simply could not\nresist the appeal for a just judgment. I well remember how, when he\nspoke in Edinburgh in 1881, he extorted a vote from a general audience\nthere. The body of the hall was filled with middle-class citizens, few\nof whom had any sympathy with his propaganda, and many of whom must\nhave strongly resented his \"notoriety;\" in the gallery were a number\nof Tory students, with the manners of their kind; and post-cards had\nbeen freely circulated with a view to an organised opposition. At the\noutset the students did their best, but Bradlaugh's voice rose easily\nabove their din; a quick repartee or two to their interruptions turned\nthe laugh against them, and soon he was quietly listened to.[158] At\nthe close he made the usual call for a show of hands on his claim.\nAs one of the promoters of the meeting, I was interested in watching\nthe manner of the response; and I can still see the respectable\nchurch-going shopkeepers slowly and as it were compulsorily raising\ntheir right hands at the call of the Atheist and Republican. Only some\ndozen, as far as I remember, voted \"on the contrary.\" This was in an\naudience mainly unsympathetic. At Trafalgar Square, of course, he was\nin a dense army of enthusiastic supporters, including many delegates\nfrom provincial towns. The Dublin _Freeman_ then, owned by Mr E. D.\nGray, and the organ of Mr Parnell's party, intimated beforehand that\n\"no large assembly can take place within a mile of Westminster Palace\nand the police will very summarily dispose of Mr Bradlaugh's ragged\nfollowers.\" The police made no such attempt; and it was well they did\nnot, for the followers were neither ragged nor timorous, and their\nblood was not just then very cool.\n\n[Footnote 158: In this particular speech he used the phrase \"that grand\nold man\" of Gladstone. It was probably he who set the fashion.]\n\nThis was on 2nd August; it was on the next day that Bradlaugh again\npresented himself at the House; and then occurred the crowning episode\nin the struggle--crowning alike in point of the dastardliness of the\ntactic employed against him and the desperation to which it momentarily\nmoved him.\n\nHis unanswerable contention was that the House was bound to do\nsomething to settle the case. It ought either to declare his seat\nvacant or take some course to permit of his sitting. To keep an elected\nmember out of his seat without disputing the validity of his election\nwas a course which only a majority of professed lawbreakers could\nconsistently take; and the resolution excluding him from the House was\nmerely a puerile evasion by the majority of the legislative problem\nthey had raised. When, however, Bradlaugh presented himself afresh,\nthat puerile policy was adhered to, only in a fashion that developed\npuerility into brutality. The Liberal Government acquiescing in the\nvote of the majority, the matter was left to the police, who treated\nit as a police question, some of them behaving with that exuberance of\ninsolence and ruffianism which they so often and so naturally bring\nto their task. Their way of seizing him angered him in a way in which\nhe had never been angered before. A few extracts from the newspaper\naccounts of the time will suffice to tell what happened:--\n\n \"Mr Bradlaugh, after having waited till the Speaker had taken the\n chair, claimed admission to the House. He was in the first place\n opposed by the regular officials. 'I am here,' he said, 'in accordance\n with the orders of my constituents, the electors of Northampton; and\n any person who lays hands on me will do so at his peril!'\" Attempting\n to enter the House, he was seized by the messengers, but their\n resistance being insufficient to overcome the force they roused him to\n use, the police were called upon. \"It was said by Inspector Denning\n that four ordinary men certainly could not have expelled Mr Bradlaugh,\n and that the ten constables, all remarkable for strength and activity,\n who were engaged in forcing him down the lobby stairs, found their\n task far more arduous than they had expected.\" They had him by the\n throat, arms, and collar, and he had some of them in the same hold.\n \"The strong, broad, heavy, powerful frame was hard to move, with its\n every nerve and muscle strained to resist.... The sight, little of\n it as was seen from the outside, soon became sickening.... An almost\n deathlike pallor had spread over Mr Bradlaugh's sternly-set features;\n he was gasping for breath, his body was bent, and he was in a state\n of exhaustion painful to see. His black frockcoat was much torn, his\n collar and shirt disarranged, and he himself in a condition of intense\n mental excitement and bodily prostration.... The Trafalgar Square\n phrase that this man might be broken but not bent occurred to minds\n apprehensive at the present appearance of him.... His face was deathly\n white, and there was about the mouth an expression of determination,\n which those who witnessed it cannot readily forget. Overborne by the\n desperate struggle, he fainted, but soon recovered when water was\n brought to him.\"\n\nWhen Bradlaugh appeared at the door in the grasp of the police there\nwas a cry of wrath from the assembled crowd, which told of a source of\n\"force\" that might conceivably be tapped. At another door Mrs Besant\nstood, at the head of a mass of followers, who, hearing vaguely of\nwhat was happening, were urgent in their demand to be let take the law\nin their own hands. A word from her, a word from him, would have sent\nthe multitude headlong into the House. They were not a chance London\nmob: they included thousands of staunch working men from all parts\nof the country, who had attended the demonstration the day before.\nThey were wroth with the callous iniquity that had been and was being\nworked by the majority inside. And Bradlaugh, standing bruised and\nshaken and insulted on the steps, hardly able to breathe, but with the\nfury of physical struggle still upon him, had a supreme temptation. In\nhis first anger, alluding to the brute force used against him, he had\nsaid to Inspector Denning, \"I shall come again with force enough to\novercome it;\" but he did not carry out his threat, though he might have\ndone it on the instant. Had he but lifted his hand to beckon, the ten\npolicemen would have been tossed aside like chaff by the host of his\ninfuriated friends; the House could have been stormed, and his enemies\ncould have been kicked wholesale into the river. With a supreme effort,\nhe controlled himself, and forbade all outbreak; proceeding further\nto go through the form of trying again to enter the House, so that\nInspector Denning should have to make a form of resistance, on which\nhe might found an action. It was well. But it is believed that there\nare still some who, perfectly recognising the superiority of the course\nactually taken, can never wholly stifle, on retrospect, an obscure and\nunreasoned but haunting wish that the multitude had taken its own way,\nsacked the House, and thrown, if not the Speaker and his wig, at least\nLord Randolph Churchill, and Sir Stafford Northcote, and Sir Henry\nWolff, comrades three, into the Thames, that ancient river and unclean.\n\nThe picture as it stands is memorable enough. I have been told that\nJames Thomson the poet, the estranged friend of Bradlaugh's youth,\nwas among those at the gates; that he turned pale at the sight of the\nstruggling group; and that his companions could hardly withhold him by\nforce from rushing to his old comrade's help.\n\nEnglish gentlemen in general, of course, did not feel about the matter\nin that way. Bradlaugh told:--\n\n \"On Wednesday last I saw more than 150 members of the House of Commons\n gathered to witness, for the first time in English history, the\n cowardly and shameful use of overwhelming brute force in order to\n prevent a duly-elected member of that House from complying with the\n law. Most of these members seemed to enjoy the scene; one, Montague\n Scott, climbed to the top of a pillar, so that he might have a good\n (and safe) view; another, Alderman Fowler, actually followed to the\n very bottom of the stairs, encouraging with voice and gesture those\n who were using force against law. A few, a very few members, protested\n against this conduct towards one of their fellow-members.\"\n\nFowler had shouted \"Kick him out.\" He afterwards denied doing so.\nBradlaugh on this wrote:--\n\n \"I see that Alderman Fowler in his place in the House of Commons\n denies my statement. I can only say that it is quite impossible I can\n be mistaken, for I saw Alderman Fowler stand, occasionally making\n jeering gestures, for nearly ten minutes after this, within four or\n five feet from me while I was recovering from the exhausting effects\n of the struggle.\"\n\nOthers saw the same. Concerning Fowler it is not necessary to\ninvestigate: his denial may stand for what it is worth; but it is quite\ncertain that scores of members had looked on gleefully. Such creatures\ncan our \"English gentlemen\" become, under the inspiration of their\nreligion and their politics.\n\nInside the House the matter was at once raised by Mr Labouchere,\nwho moved as a matter of privilege that the resolution of 10th May\nonly excluded Bradlaugh from the outer doors of the Chamber, and not\nfrom the lobbies, and that the officers of the House, in excluding\nhim completely, had acted without authority. The Speaker stated that\nthe officers had acted under his directions. Mr Gladstone lengthily\nargued that there were \"three distinct grounds\" on which it was to\nhim \"quite plain that the motion could not be sustained.\" Northcote\nnaturally approved altogether of the Speaker's action. Sir Wilfred\nLawson contrived, despite interruptions, to make a good fighting\nspeech on the main question, under cover of a proposed amendment,\nwhich turned out to be a motion for the rescinding of the resolutions\nof 26th April and 10th May. Mr Cowen invited the Government to say\nwhether they would reintroduce their Oaths Bill next session, but no\nresponse was given; and the discussion drifted on in the usual wasteful\nway. Mr Biggar observed that on personal grounds he was indisposed\nto vote on Bradlaugh's side in the matter, because Bradlaugh had\nvoted for the expulsion of Irish members earlier in the year, but he\nwould vote against it as a bad precedent. The level of the debate was\nraised by a dignified speech from Bright, who irregularly appealed\nto the Opposition to think of what they were doing; whereupon Lord\nJohn Manners' made the pragmatic reply that might have been expected\nfrom that feudal personage. On the moving of an amendment approving\nwhat had been done, Gladstone diffusely intimated that it would be\nout of order for him to answer Mr Cowen's appeal. After much talk a\nvote was taken, when 7 voted for Mr Labouchere's motion and 191 for\nthe amendment, a number of Radicals walking out to avoid voting. To\nthe amendment, put as a substantive resolution, Mr Ashton Dilke moved\na fresh amendment asserting the need for legislation, but this was\ndisallowed as irrelevant. Sir Wilfred Lawson tried another, which\nfared no better. Mr Callan rose to explain that whereas Mr Bright had\ndescribed Bradlaugh as being reduced to a fainting condition, he had\nput one of the officers in a far worse condition by his grip of that\nofficer's throat--a statement which, despite its source, was not wholly\nuntrue. Finally the resolution approving the course taken was allowed\nto pass, whereupon Mr Labouchere gave notice that he would again raise\nthe main question on going into Committee of Supply.\n\n\n\u00a7 13.\n\nThus once more was the day of reckoning put off, the more decisively\nbecause an early result of the scuffle for Bradlaugh was a dangerous\nattack of erysipelas in the arm--the same arm which had suffered from\nthe Tory bludgeons in 1878. He was able, indeed, though sorely shaken,\nto speak at the Hall of Science in the evening, when he appealed to\nhis followers to avoid all violence. He was able to attend the law\ncourts at Westminster on the 5th, when a House of Commons policeman,\nseeing him, fled indoors to give warning. On the same day Bradlaugh\nattended at the Westminster Police Court to apply to the magistrate,\nMr D'Eyncourt, for a summons against Inspector Denning for the assault\nof the 3rd--not the ejection by the police, but the later formal\nresistance to Bradlaugh's entrance. This was a purely formal action,\nBradlaugh having testified in his speech at the Hall of Science that Mr\nDenning personally had managed his unpleasant task with all possible\nconsideration. The magistrate, laying significant stress on the action\nof the Speaker and of the House, declined even to grant the summons.\nOne of his explanations was that \"society has a right to protect itself\nagainst intrusion,\" and his tone throughout showed sufficient animus.\n\nHaving thus done what he could, Bradlaugh had to own himself disabled,\nand go to the seaside under medical treatment. On his arrival at\nWorthing, when he had wearily taken his place in the fly, a clergyman\nwalked up, stared hard at him, and then said in a loud voice: \"There's\nBradlaugh; I hope they'll make it warm for him yet.\" The enemy in\ngeneral behaved with their accustomed generosity. The _Irish Times_ led\nthe way with an intimation that he was malingering, stating further\nthat the Irish members had opposed him because he \"supported the\nCoercion Bill.\" The _North Star_ repeated the charge of malingering\nwith exuberant brutality. The _St James's Gazette_ spoke of Bradlaugh\nas having behaved \"like a drunken rough,\" further repeating the lie\nthat he had \"originally refused\" to take the oath. Others rated him for\nhis constant appearances in the law courts. The _Standard_, on being\ncourteously asked to insert a letter correcting a misrepresentation,\nsuppressed it. Liberals, professing to deprecate the course taken, yet\npalliated it; and Professor Thorold Rogers, among others, declared that\nnothing the House of Commons could do was illegal. The ministerial\njournals, of course, condemned him, telling him he had \"lost friends\"\nby his attempt. He was to sit still and wait till the Ministry should\nhave the courage to make an Affirmation Bill a Cabinet question--a\ncourse which they refused from first to last to take, though it\nwould at once have compelled their deserters to return to their\nallegiance. On this it may here suffice to say, once for all, that the\njustification given for Gladstone's course in the matter simply serves\nto show how low are the standards of our \"Christian\" statesmanship\ndown to the present day. The justification is that Gladstone was bound\nto refrain from \"compromising\" his party by making the admission of\nthe Atheist a Cabinet question. The good of the party must override\nthe claims of justice. Mr Gladstone's memory is welcome to all the\ncredit which such an argument will gain him from a posterity probably\ndevoid of his sense of religious enlightenment. It will be a doubtful\ncertificate of the foundations he claims for his morality, that while\nconscious of \"bloodguiltiness\" in the matter of the Transvaal, he\ndeclined to incur for conscience' sake the trivial and transient odium\nof having made justice to an Atheist a decisive demand as between\nhim and certain of his followers. I am not here putting the opinion\nof Bradlaugh--whose chivalrous respect for Gladstone prevented him\nfrom passing any such criticism, whatever he may have thought in his\nheart--but laying down what seems to me the only doctrine worthy of\nconscientious democrats.\n\nIt is satisfactory to be able to record that whilst the worst of the\nTory and clerical party exulted in Bradlaugh's physical ejection, many\nreligious men were moved by it to new sympathy with him. One esteemed\nChurchman wrote as follows:--\n\n \"After reading of the violence unjustly perpetrated on you yesterday\n by the order (or, at least, with the sanction) of a so-called Liberal\n majority, I desire, though an entire stranger to you, to offer you\n my sympathy. I never read anything which warmed me more than this\n account. If the present Cabinet does not secure your admission to\n the House in some way or other, I can only wish they may be turned\n out of office. The name of 'Christian' and the religion of 'Christ,'\n which _I_ venerate, they make odious. As if Christianity could ever be\n _less_ than common justice! I don't know what more I can do than say,\n 'Go on!' and 'Go in!' And if others feel as I do, you will be pushed\n into your place by a whole nation, with a much more irresistible force\n than has been used by a contemptible clique to keep you out.--I am,\n very respectfully and heartily, your well-wisher,\n\n \"E. D. GIRDLESTONE.\"\n\nNeedless to say, a number of Liberal journals, though less\nemphatically, protested likewise. All along, indeed, there were more\nvoices for justice in the Liberal press than in the House, despite the\ncommon sense of a need to disclaim sympathy with the wronged man's\n\"opinions.\" On the other hand, a number of pious persons, none giving\ntheir names, but all stating that they were Christians, wrote to assure\nthe disabled man that he was going to hell. One promised to help him\nthither by shooting him if he again tried to take his seat. Two wrote\nthat they prayed he might not recover, and many imbeciles sent tracts\nand religious books.\n\nOf another order was the enmity of Sir Henry Tyler, who, feeling now\nsafe in Bradlaugh's enforced absence, made an attack in the House of\nCommons on the Hall of Science science-classes and their teachers--an\nattack which he might have made while Bradlaugh sat, but did not.\nThe argument was that science classes taught by atheists should be\nexcluded from the South Kensington system. Of the teachers, three were\nwomen, viz. Mrs Besant and the Misses Bradlaugh; and as even the pious\nmajority did not care to back up such an outrageous attack, it came\nto nothing. Mr Mundella, the Minister concerned, even went out of his\nway to vindicate the classes; and the press mostly supported him. As a\nmatter of course, the classes had been taught on strictly scientific\nlines.\n\nIn a few weeks from the date of his injury Bradlaugh was about again,\nlecturing, and speaking at demonstrations. His doctor advised him to go\nabroad, but he had his law cases before him, and felt he must buckle\nto work. At the beginning of September he published a fresh appeal\n\"to the people,\" and on the 5th of that month he spoke at a potters'\ndemonstration at Hanley, despite continued suffering in the arms. In\nhis own journal, too, he once more took up the cause of Ireland--which\nindeed had all along been advocated in its columns--disregarding\nentirely the treatment he had had at the Irish members' hands. But\nstiffer work was before him, in the trial of his appeal against the\ndecision of Justices Denman and Watkin Williams, on the legal or\ntechnical point, as to the validity of a writ dated on the day of\nthe ground of action. This appeal was argued before Lord Coleridge\nand Lords Justices Baggallay and Brett, on 12th and 14th November,\npartly on different lines from those gone upon in the first instance.\nBradlaugh was complimented by the judges on his \"able and ingenious\nargument;\" and the discussion between him and them is indeed a very\npretty piece of high-class legal fencing. Sir Hardinge Giffard, who\nthroughout these cases makes no great show as a pleader, did not\nattempt to deal with the most difficult point at all, and his junior\ndid still worse; but their lordships dealt with it fully and carefully;\nand Bradlaugh handsomely acknowledged their rectitude, though they\ndecided against him. His first care was to make sure that the plaintiff\nshould not be allowed to tax his costs until final judgment on the\nother appeals to the House of Lords; and this was granted. The wolves\nwere thus still kept at bay.\n\nNext came on the pleading on the rule _nisi_ for a new trial on the\npoint of fact as to whether Clarke's writ (which specified no act\nof voting) had not been issued before the act of voting on which\nit was afterwards formally founded. This was heard on 2nd and 3rd\nDecember by Justices Denman and Hawkins, who went into the details\nwith minute circumspection. Bradlaugh explained that his argument\ninvolved a charge of wilful perjury against James Stuart, the clerk\nemployed by Newdegate's solicitor, who had been a principal witness\nin the previous trial. He further pointed out that Newdegate's\nsecretary, Hobley, had given a hopeless set of contradictions in\ncross-examination; and after the notes of that evidence had been read,\nMr Justice Denman observed: \"I am bound to say that after the searching\ncross-examination, which no counsel could have conducted more ably, it\nis hardly wonderful that Mr Hobley was very confused.\" It required no\nmore than the reading of the rest of the evidence to satisfy the judges\nthat the case for a new trial was fully made out; and they stopped\nBradlaugh in his argument to say so. In regard to the special point\nof the time of the division in which he voted, the actual evidence of\nreporters was against Bradlaugh, making it earlier than he did; but\nwhen the judges checked his calculations they could find nothing wrong\nwith them; and the evidence discrediting that of Stuart was too strong\nto be dismissed. After a good deal of vacillation, Clarke and Newdegate\ndecided to appeal against the decision allowing a new trial, Newdegate\nin particular having reason to avoid one if possible.\n\n\n\u00a7 14.\n\nNorthcote's excluding resolution of 10th May being only valid for\nthe session in which it was passed, Bradlaugh was free to enter the\nHouse as before, on the first day of the new session. He announced his\nintention to do so; and on the day of reassembling he kept his word.\nIn the interim an incessant discussion on the case had been going on\nin the press and on the platform. Tory speakers, as a rule, alluded\nto him with insult, sometimes of the basest description. One, Lord\nEbrington, described him as a person who, but for a legal quibble,\n\"would be in jail at this moment for publishing an obscene, indecent\nbook.\" Another, Mr Orr-Ewing, spoke of Bradlaugh as circulating \"filthy\nbooks, calculated to ... drag hundreds down as low as the brute beasts\nthat perish.\" Most of the Tory speakers dwelt either on his having\n\"first refused to take the oath\" or \"obtruded his views on the House,\"\nor \"declared the oath would not bind his conscience;\" and scarcely one\nomitted to add untruth to insult. The \"profanation of the oath\" was\nnever alluded to without a shudder. On the Liberal side some members\naltruistically urged upon Bradlaugh to stand aside \"for a few years\"\nto let opinion ripen; and of the many who spoke in favour of his\nadmission nearly all thought it necessary to disclaim with \"pity\" or\n\"abhorrence\" all sympathy with his opinions. Of all these disclamatory\ngentlemen, there was not one whose name had then, or has now, the\nslightest philosophic authority; but though one or two admitted that\nthey did not know the nature of the opinions which they all the same\ndisclaimed, none seems to have been moved to avow that the subject was\nbeyond his capacity.\n\nThroughout the country, as all along, Liberal opinion was in advance\nof the action of the majority in the House; but the _Times_ carefully\nsuppressed the reports of meetings held in Bradlaugh's favour, and even\nof friendly allusions in members' speeches, and the _Daily News_ at\ntimes exhibited equivalent traces of the ownership of Mr Samuel Morley.\nOn the other hand, the cause of justice had some unexpected adherents.\nLord Derby, speaking at the Liverpool Reform Club, frankly avowed that\nhe \"utterly disbelieved in the value of political oaths,\" and expressed\na hope that no further attempt would be made to prevent Bradlaugh from\ntaking the oath if he wanted to. Some groups of dissenting clergy,\ntoo--in particular the Unitarians--petitioned for the abolition of the\noath or the permission of affirmation. But as against the possible gain\nfrom such declarations there was to be set the systematic and energetic\nhostile action of the Church of England. One Diocesan Conference\npassed a resolution calling on Churchmen in both Houses of Parliament\nto resist any measure which would admit \"professed infidels\" into\nParliament. There was no objection to the admission of infidels who\nwere not \"professed.\" Another interesting exhibition of Conservative\nethics came from Mr Gorst, Q.C., who, at a banquet at Chichester, in\npresence of the Dean, avowed that \"he was not a person who pretended to\nhave any great horror of the offence of bribery.\" Bradlaugh, who took a\ndifferent view, had earlier taken occasion to speak of another of his\nassailants as a political scoundrel, in respect of being a convicted\nbriber.\n\nOn the 7th of February 1882, when Bradlaugh as before presented himself\nat the table of the House, he was as before interrupted by Sir Stafford\nNorthcote, who made his customary motion. This time, however, it was\nrested on the ground that Bradlaugh had admitted himself to be a person\nof a class on whom the law declared an oath had \"no binding effect.\"\nThus the Opposition stood explicitly on the nefarious application of\nan ambiguous legal formula, which, as has been above shown, was not\nat all framed to carry the meaning thus put upon it. On this occasion\nnothing seems to have been said by the Tory leader in his opening\nspeech about \"profanation.\"\n\nBradlaugh withdrew to the bar pending the discussion, and Sir William\nHarcourt, in Gladstone's absence, briefly moved the previous question.\nNewdegate followed with an imbecile speech, which supplied a useful\nmeasure of the minds of those who had supported him throughout the\ncountry. He pointed to the history of France, protested against the\nproposed Channel Tunnel, and argued that to admit Bradlaugh would be\n\"to destroy the distinctions between the basis of government in the two\ncountries.\" Further,\n\n \"let them compare the condition of the two countries. While the wealth\n and the population of France were stationary, and the prestige of her\n arms was gone, England's wealth had increased and her kingdom expanded\n into empire. The fundamental difference between the two countries\n was this--that in the coronation oath taken by the Sovereign, and in\n the oath taken by members of both Houses of Parliament, a Deity was\n recognised, and the people venerated the obligation. There was but one\n other country in the world besides England that had not been conquered\n or had not suffered from revolution, and that was Russia.... Both\n countries based the claim of their Government to the respect of their\n subjects upon the Word of God. The United States had not adopted that\n system, and they had seen a civil war and two Presidents murdered\n there.\"\n\nBradlaugh was then allowed to make his Third Speech at the Bar. He\nstruck briefly but sufficiently at the speech of Newdegate; and once\nmore nailed down the eternal misrepresentation as to his having\n\"paraded his opinions.\" When he reminded the House that his letter\nof 20th May was outside the House, and that he had objected to the\nCommittee taking cognisance of it, the Opposition laughed. He reminded\nthem that judges give a silent hearing to a man pleading his case. \"If\nyou are unfit to be judges, then do not judge.\" Again he put the plain\ndilemma: \"If what I did entitles the House not to receive me, why has\nnot the House had the courage of its opinions and vacated the seat?\"\nThen came a graver challenge:--\n\n \"I have read within the last few days words spoken, not by members\n of no consequence, but by members occupying high positions in this\n House, which made me wonder if this is the House of Commons to which\n I aspired so much. I have read that one right hon. member, the member\n for Whitehaven[159]--(laughter from the Ministerial side)--was\n prompted to say to his constituents that I was kicked downstairs last\n session, and that he hoped I should be again. If it were true that I\n was kicked downstairs, I would ask the members of the House of Commons\n on whom the shame, on whom the disgrace, on whom the stigma? I dare\n not apply this, but history will when I have mouldered, and you too,\n and our passions are quite gone. But it is not quite true that I was\n kicked downstairs, and it is a dangerous thing to say that I was, for\n it means that hon. members who should rely on law rely on force. It\n is a dangerous provocation to conflict to throw to the people. If I\n had been as wicked in my thought as some members are reported to have\n been in their speech, this quarrel, not of my provoking, would assume\n a future to make us all ashamed.\"\n\n[Footnote 159: Mr Cavendish Bentinck.]\n\nAs the speech went on, he came into more and more sharp conflict with\nhis antagonists.\n\n \"Does the House,\" he asked, \"mean that it is a party to each oath\n taken? ('Hear.') There was a time when most clearly it was not so\n a party. There was a time when the oath was not even taken in the\n presence of members at all. But does the House mean it is a party\n now? Was it a party the session before last? Was it a party when\n Mr Hall[160] walked up to that table, cheered by members on the\n other side who knew his seat was won by deliberate bribery?--(loud\n Opposition cries of 'Order')--bribery sought to be concealed by the\n most corrupt perjury. Did the House join in it? (Renewed cries of\n 'Order.') If the House did not join in it, why did you cheer so that\n the words of the oath were drowned? Was the House a party when John\n Stuart Mill sat in this House?\"\n\n[Footnote 160: Elected for Oxford.]\n\nAfter repeating his former explicit declaration that the words of\nadjuration would in no way weaken the binding effect of the promise on\nhis honour and conscience, he was met by jeers, and he began: \"Members\nof the House who are ignorant of what is honour and conscience,\"\nmeaning to add \"in the case of a non-religionist\" or words to that\neffect. He was again interrupted by loud cries of \"Order\" and\n\"Withdraw\" from the men who had just been insulting him _en masse_. He\nasked to be allowed to finish his sentence, but was still interrupted\nby the mob of hon. gentlemen on the Opposition benches. \"These,\" he\ncried, pointing at the rowdies, \"these are my judges.\" There was a\nsilence, and he went on. His blood was up, and he spoke at greater\nlength than before, dwelling among other things on the scene of August,\nand indignantly rebuking those who had exulted in it. In conclusion,\nhe offered to stand aside for four or five weeks if the House would\nin that time discuss an Affirmation Bill. Nay, if they feared to make\nit a Bradlaugh Relief Bill, he would resign his seat and stand for\nre-election. The Liberals cheered at this, and he ended: \"I have no\nfear. If I am not fit for my constituents, they shall dismiss me, but\nyou never shall. The grave alone shall make me yield.\"\n\nMr Labouchere, speaking next, stated that he had had sent him over\n750 fresh petitions, signed by about 170,000, in favour of Bradlaugh\nbeing allowed to take his seat, and that other Liberal members had\nreceived petitions signed by about 100,000 more. He proceeded to\nchallenge Northcote to abide by his own declaration of the previous\nyear, that the question should be legislated on by the Government;\nand Northcote rose to make a second speech. He too, he averred, had\nreceived many petitions, and among others one from Northampton, \"signed\nby 10,300 persons, giving their occupations and addresses\"--a manifest\nprevarication, inasmuch as many of the 10,000 must have been the wives\nand children of the Tory electors.[161] On the Government amendment he\nobjected to \"profanation of the oath;\" and as to the obstruction of\nthe Oaths Bill last session, he reminded the Government that though\nthey had certainly been somewhat obstructed, they might at any later\ntime have put the Bill first on a Government night. As before, however,\nthe Tory leader declined to make any \"bargain.\" Gladstone replied,\npointing out that it had been quite impossible for the Ministry to\npush the Oaths Bill as suggested, and declining to promise that the\nGovernment would give precedence to an Oaths Bill. They should let\nBradlaugh swear, and take his chances in the law courts as before. On\nthis theme he rang the changes, without much energy. After a number\nof minor speeches the House divided, when there voted for Northcote's\nresolution 286, and for the previous question only 228. Such a vote\nserved to dispose of the view which had been advanced by some Liberals,\nthat the minority of 26th April 1881 was due to the absence of many of\ntheir party who were prolonging their holiday, while all the Tories\nwere in town for Beaconsfield's funeral. Some seventy \"Liberals\" had\nnow deliberately stayed away (among them being Mr Goschen, Sir John\nLubbock, Sir E. Reed, and Sir A. Gordon), while the whole Parnellite\nmembers present voted with the Tories. Five Scotch, eight Irish, and\nfifteen English Liberals did the same, among the latter being Mr Samuel\nMorley and Sir Edward Watkin.\n\n[Footnote 161: Bradlaugh noted later in his journal that the petition\nwas \"alleged to be signed by 10,300 freemen of Northampton.\" This,\nhe remarked, \"cannot possibly be true, as the freemen do not amount\nto that number.\" They really numbered about 300! It turned out that\nthousands of the signatures were those of school-children.]\n\nImmediately on the vote being announced, and the question being put,\nBradlaugh presented himself afresh, refusing as formerly to obey the\nresolution. The usual appeal from the Speaker elicited the usual\nmotion from Northcote, which being carried, Bradlaugh said: \"It would\nbe undignified in me to indulge in any other kind of contest on the\nfloor. I respectfully obey the House, and withdraw below the bar.\" The\nstruggle was now apparently reduced to something like a recognised set\nof moves, all of which had been made and might be in due course made\nagain; and Bradlaugh for the present was left to attend every meeting\nof the House, sitting beyond the bar, but without the power of voting\nor speaking.\n\nBradlaugh at once appealed to his constituents to choose whether or\nnot he should resign; and they promptly decided that he should not;\nwhile some thirty indignation meetings were held throughout the country\nwithin a week, all condemning the action of the House of Commons. The\nlaw advisers of the Crown further formally declared on challenge that\nthe seat was not vacant; and Bradlaugh wrote Gladstone, formally asking\nwhether he was prepared to do anything. Gladstone on 18th February\nformally replied that he was not. Bradlaugh then took a new step,\nforcing the question on the House more determinedly than ever.\n\nOn Monday, 20th February, Mr Labouchere formally moved in the House\nthat a new writ be issued for Northampton, seeing that Bradlaugh had\nbeen prevented from taking the oath and his seat. Churchill moved\nto amend the motion by substituting a description of Bradlaugh as\n\"disqualified.\" The Attorney-General formally opposed, and the\nperplexed Northcote did likewise, being guided by the sole fact that\nthe motion was proposed by Bradlaugh's friendly colleague. After a\ndebate, in which Northcote was dishonest enough to assert once more\nthat Bradlaugh had \"claimed\" to be \"a person on whose conscience\nthe oath was not binding,\" the amendment was negatived, as was the\nproposition that the words proposed to be left out should be left in.\nThe resolution was thus left at a stand at the word \"who;\" and on the\nunfinished sentence the House proceeded to divide. When it seemed as\nif the \"Noes\" would \"have it\" without a division, Bradlaugh moved from\nhis seat and stood at the bar; but on Mr Labouchere's challenging a\ndivision he returned. On the vote being taken there were 307 \"Noes\" to\n18 \"Ayes.\" The House thus explicitly refused to decide that the seat\nshould be vacated, though they were all the while preventing it from\nbeing taken.\n\nBradlaugh was once more at the bar when the tellers announced the\nfigures. Immediately he walked up the floor to the table, members\nlooking on without excitement, counting on a repetition of the old\nscene. But this time \"the scene was changed.\" While members waited\nfor the usual action of the Speaker, it suddenly dawned on them\nthat Bradlaugh had a book in his hand--it was the regulation \"New\nTestament\"--and was taking the oath of his own accord! He had gone\nthrough the whole mummery before the excited House could collect its\nfaculties, and he duly finished by subscribing a written oath on a\nsheet of paper with a pocket pen. The Speaker was on his feet; the\nClerk had come half-way to meet Bradlaugh; and Northcote had risen to\nspeak, and sat down again, speechless. The Speaker mechanically called\non Bradlaugh, as usual, to withdraw below the bar. He did so, but in\ndoing it announced that he should return and take his seat, which he\ndid, seating himself on a back bench. The Speaker solemnly charged him\nwith disobedience, to which Bradlaugh blandly responded that he had\nobeyed them, and had taken his seat in addition, having first taken the\noath. On the Speaker insisting, however, he once more withdrew beyond\nthe bar, sitting under the gallery as before. Churchill, collecting\nhimself more promptly than his leader, argued that Bradlaugh, having\ntaken his seat \"without taking the oath,\" \"was as dead,\" and moved\nthat the seat be declared vacant. The Attorney-General professionally\npointed out that to vacate the seat under the statute the offending\nmember must vote or sit during a debate. He suggested that the House\nhad better adjourn the discussion, which it did after much further\nspeech-making, in the course of which Churchill declared that Bradlaugh\nhad \"deliberately insulted the House,\" not for the first time; other\nmembers of similar dignity speaking to similar effect.\n\nNext day the debate was resumed. Gladstone made a long and scrupulously\nbland speech, in the course of which he endured much contradiction\nof those who thought him insufficiently zealous for the honour of\nOmnipotence, concluding by saying that he left it to the majority to\nact for themselves. Northcote was laboriously indignant, and lengthily\nled up to a motion \"that the Sergeant-at-Arms be instructed to prevent\nBradlaugh from entering the precincts of the House,\" which motion,\non the correction of the Speaker, he converted into an amendment to\nthat of Churchill. A dispute arose on behalf of Dr Lyons, who had on\nthe previous night given notice of a more drastic motion, but had\nnot \"caught the Speaker's eye\" when he rose before Northcote. Then\nthe debate drifted on; some members drivelling, some ranting, some\nplatitudinising. At length Churchill's motion was negatived, whereupon\nDr Lyons proposed his declaring Bradlaugh incapable of sitting, as\nan amendment to Northcote's. The pious Lyons was of opinion that\n\"behind the particular issue there lay a great moral question,\"\nwhich, however, he did not specify. Again the debate rolled on. At\nlength it was noticed that Bradlaugh had once more taken his seat\nwithin the House. The Speaker challenged him, and Bradlaugh began to\nexplain that he proposed to \"ask the indulgence of the House,\" when\nhis voice was drowned in yells of \"Order.\" The Speaker then solemnly\ncharged him afresh with disobedience, and called \"the attention of\nthe House to that circumstance.\" Gladstone rose in response to calls;\nbut the Speaker hastily interposed to call upon Bradlaugh to withdraw\nbeyond the bar, which he did, formally protesting. Gladstone blandly\nobserved that there was now no disobedience to deal with, and that it\nwas not incumbent on him to do anything. Northcote arose in a state\nof ostensible but flabby indignation, and declared that \"he must say\nthere was a limit\" to his \"very moderate line.\" He now proposed to\nwithdraw his amendment and substitute a motion of expulsion. Gladstone\nsuavely intimated that he should not object to the withdrawal of the\namendment, and Dr Lyons was induced to withdraw his likewise. The\nmotion for expulsion, on the ground that Bradlaugh had, \"in contempt of\nthe authority of the House, irregularly and contumaciously pretended to\ntake the oath,\" was then put, and Gladstone intimated in a period that\nhe would not oppose. Mr Labouchere dropped the very apt remark that \"he\nhad always found that when the House was exercising judicial functions\nit got into an unjudicial frame of mind,\" and pointed out that\nBradlaugh's action had been taken to obtain a case for legal judgment,\nand could not reasonably be termed \"insulting.\" On a division, 291\nvoted for the amendment proposing expulsion and 83 against; some\nLiberals salving their consciences with the formula that \"the House\nmust maintain the authority of the chair.\"\n\nA new point was raised by the intimation of one of the tellers that\nBradlaugh had voted in the division. He had thereby completed the\nlegal circumstances for a test case. The Speaker again asked for\ninstructions, but Northcote, rather than begin a fresh debate, let the\nmatter pass. Then arose the question, energetically put by Mr Storey,\nwhether Bradlaugh should not be heard afresh in his defence; but this\ntoo had to be dropped. On the substantive motion being put, 297 voted\nwith Northcote, and 80 against; and a motion for a new writ was at once\nagreed to by Mr Labouchere.\n\n\n\u00a7 15.\n\nNot only his constituents, but the people generally, gave Bradlaugh\ntheir instant and warm support. At a great Sunday meeting at\nManchester, to which hundreds of men had trudged many miles through\nthe rain in the early morning, over hills and moors, from the country\nround, some of them only to find the hall full to the door, he had a\nreception which brought tears to his eyes. At Northampton, of course,\nthe struggle was desperate. Mr Samuel Morley, bent on making reparation\nto his Deity for his one act of rational tolerance, followed up his\nmany Tory votes by a letter to the Northampton Nonconformists, asking\nthem to vote for the Tory candidate as an \"act of allegiance to God;\"\nbut, on the other hand, the Radical Association of Bristol (the town\nfor which he sat), who had by this time, after twice hearing Bradlaugh,\ndetermined to unseat their member, sent 3000 copies of an address\nbegging the Northampton electors to return Bradlaugh by an overwhelming\nmajority of votes. A meeting of delegates from some scores of workmen's\nclubs in London sent down 10,000 copies of a similar appeal. When\nBradlaugh went down, thousands of people lined the streets to see him\npass to say a few words in the Market Square. Radicals came from other\ntowns to help in the canvassing, and Mr Labouchere gave his powerful\naid. The Tories, on their part, did their utmost, using, if possible,\nviler weapons than before; and meantime they had been adding every\npossible vote to the register. The insolence of the Tory candidate\nto the workers was such that several of his meetings were broken up.\nThe outcome of desperate efforts was that Corbett, the Tory, received\nrather more of the new votes than Bradlaugh, the figures being 3796 to\n3688, a majority for Bradlaugh of 108 (2nd March 1882). In the fury\nof despair, the Tories had demanded a re-count of the votes, but this\nhad only altered the majority by three. The betting fraternity, who\nhad mostly laid their money on the side of \"religion,\" were naturally\nenraged; and Corbett was reported to say on leaving, \"I shan't come\nback to your dirty town any more.\" When the news spread, the fury did.\nOne academic ruffian wrote in the _Saturday Review_:--\n\n \"The average Northampton elector and the rascal who shot at the Queen,\n while the average Northampton elector was voting for Mr Bradlaugh,\n probably acted from motives not dissimilar in kind, though the acts to\n which those motives led differed in degree of heinousness.\"\n\nJournals which had predicted that Bradlaugh would be defeated, now\npropagated the lie that he had been carried by terrorism--their own\nterrorism having failed. By the workers in general the news was\nreceived with delight; in most towns it was waited for on the evening\nof the election with intense excitement, and acclaimed with unbounded\nenthusiasm. The House of Commons, however, was not to be turned from\nits evil courses.\n\nOn 4th March Northcote notified Bradlaugh of his intention to take the\nsame course as formerly if he presented himself, and to make a motion\non the writ if he did not. Bradlaugh replied, saying he presumed the\nmotion would be one to promote the legislation which Northcote had\noften said ought to take place. \"I congratulate you,\" he concluded,\n\"on the return of at least yourself to some respect for the law, and\nbeg to assure you that I shall in such case do my best to help you\nto avoid further embittering a conflict of which I am sure you must\nfeel heartily ashamed.\" On Monday, 6th March, Northcote asked the\nSpeaker whether the resolution of 7th February was still in force,\nand was answered in the negative. He was proceeding to say he would\nmake a motion, when successive protests against the interruption were\nmade by Mr Labouchere and Mr Dillwyn. The Speaker overruled both, and\nNorthcote moved that Bradlaugh, should he present himself, be not\nallowed to take the oath. On the Liberal side, Mr E. Marjoribanks\n(now Lord Tweedmouth) moved as an amendment a resolution that it was\ndesirable so to alter the law as to permit any elected member to take\nthe oath or make affirmation, at his choice. With the worst of bad\ntaste, Mr Marjoribanks, who had before declared his preference for\ndecorous hypocrisy, went on to explain that he was \"one of the very\nlarge section of that House who regarded Mr Bradlaugh's conduct both\nwithin and without that House with something very like disgust and\nindignation,\" and to describe the recent oath-taking as an \"unworthy\nmanoeuvre\"--a display of class hatred which may serve to suggest the\nnature of the feeling on the Tory side. Mr Labouchere, after defending\nhis colleague, undertook for him that if the amendment were carried\nhe would not present himself until a decision was come to. Gladstone\nformally approved of the amendment; but after a long debate of the\nusual kind, it received only 244 votes against 259, to the wild delight\nof the Opposition. Twelve Liberals, including Mr S. Morley, Mr Torrens,\nand Mr Walter; and twenty-six Home Rulers, including Mr McCarthy and Mr\nSexton, had voted with Northcote.\n\nThe Liberal press was now nearly unanimous for legislation and even\nthe _Pall Mall Gazette_ went so far as to say: \"All that is wanted is\nthat the Government should pluck up a little more moral courage, and\nrecognise that even in practice honesty is the best policy.\" In the\nforeign press, the general judgment was that the House of Commons was\nsystematically disgracing itself. The Government, however, proposed\nnothing, leaving the Oaths Bill in the hands of the \"disgusted\" Mr\nMarjoribanks; while in the Upper House Lord Redesdale had on 7th March\nintroduced a Bill providing that a declaration of Theism should be\ncompulsory on all members of Parliament and peers. This measure, he\nexplained, he introduced \"from a deep sense of what was due to Almighty\nGod.\" A little later, on its discussion, his lordship withdrew it \"in\ndeference to Lord Salisbury.\"\n\nBradlaugh, on his part, after consultation with his committee in\nNorthampton, and after publishing a telling \"Address to the Majority\"\nfor general circulation, decided that his future course must be one of\nsystematic agitation in the constituencies. The Constitutional Rights\nLeague was reconstituted; an election fund was begun for the purpose\nof contesting certain seats held by renegade Liberals; and in these\nconstituencies the Radicals quietly went about the work of making\nthem untenable. Already a Liberal candidate had been defeated on the\nscore of the insolence of his language towards Bradlaugh's supporters,\nMr Samuel Morley had been called upon by the Bristol Radical\nAssociation to resign; other members had been sharply censured in their\nconstituencies; and it was plain that it only needed time to ensure the\nunseating of most of the renegades. For the present nothing was to be\nhoped for from the Government; and a fresh notice by Mr Labouchere of a\nmotion for leave to introduce an Affirmation Bill was blocked by Earl\nPercy. Thus the men who shrieked against \"profanation\" resisted all the\nwhile every attempt to make oath-taking by unbelievers unnecessary.\nFinally, a petition by the Northampton electors to be heard at the bar\nof the House was dismissed by the Speaker as unentitled to a hearing;\nand a notice of motion on the subject by Mr Firth never got to a\nhearing. There was clearly nothing for it but to carry war into the\nrenegades' country. On the subject of the Speaker's action generally,\nBradlaugh contented himself with penning a very temperate but very\nweighty paragraph:[162]--\n\n[Footnote 162: _National Reformer_, April 2, 1882.]\n\n \"I am just a little troubled how to decide one or two points. The\n Speaker of the House of Commons is the first commoner in England,\n and his judgment on the various points from time to time submitted\n to him is practically without appeal. It is impossible to suspect\n him of intentional unfairness; he is a clear-sighted and courteous\n gentleman. Yet some of his decisions seem so conflicting that I\n fail in understanding how he reconciles them to himself. On the\n 21st February he held that Mr Labouchere was entitled, under the\n then circumstances, as of privilege, to move for a new writ for\n Northampton. On the 24th March, under precisely similar circumstances,\n Mr Speaker ruled that such a motion could not be made as one of\n privilege. On the 6th March, without any reason given whatever,\n except that I might come some time or other, the Speaker allowed Sir\n S. Northcote to raise the question of my right to my seat as one of\n privilege; but the Speaker now refuses to allow Mr Labouchere to raise\n as one of privilege the fact that one of the seats for Northampton is\n now in fact unfilled. On the 15th February the Speaker held that the\n resolution of the 7th February, which is directly in the teeth of the\n Standing Order of 30th April 1866, does not conflict with that order.\n On the 9th day of March he held that the resolution of the 6th March,\n which does not say one word about my coming to the table to take\n my seat, does so prevent my coming to the table, and that the same\n resolution, which does not mention my introducers or in any way forbid\n them introducing me, does in point of fact so act as a prohibition\n that he will hold any attempt to introduce me as disorderly and\n irregular. When my constituents wrote him, the Speaker answered that\n they must approach the House by petition. When they do approach by\n petition, he rules that their application has no privilege.\"\n\nThe dilemma, as between imputing to Sir Henry Brand unfairness, and\npronouncing him to have failed in his duty, must be left here as\nBradlaugh left it.\n\n\n\u00a7 16.\n\nAll the while the manifold litigation set up by the action of the House\nwas moving on its slow way. The appeal of Clarke against the judgment\nof Justices Denman and Hawkins allowing a new trial had been heard on\n21st February by Lords Justices Brett, Cotton, and Holker (the latter\nnewly appointed), and these judges ruled that no new trial could take\nplace, thus reversing the decision appealed against.\n\nAn independent comment on this judgment, which appeared in the _Pall\nMall Gazette_ at the time, may be here cited:--\n\n \"The Court of Appeal holds that they [the Judges of the Queen's\n Bench Division] ought to have closed their eyes to everything but\n the partial evidence given at the trial, some of which at all events\n both the Court of Appeal and the Court below pronounced to be\n unsatisfactory. Nor does it seem perfectly fair to make so much as\n Lord Justice Brett does of the imputation of perjury to one of Mr\n Newdegate's witnesses. The Lord Justice himself admits that there were\n blemishes in his testimony, and that he 'somewhat prevaricated and\n coloured his evidence, etc.' We fail to see 'the enormous difference'\n between evidence of this character and perjury, at least for the\n purpose of such an action. If a man is to be condemned in a penal\n action he has a right to insist that it shall be on perfectly honest\n and straightforward evidence only.\"\n\nThe curious reader who cares to form his own opinion on the subject of\nthe evidence referred to will do well to turn to the verbatim report\npreserved in the _National Reformer_.\n\nThe Clarke-Newdegate combination seemed now to see their way partly\nclear to their great end of making Bradlaugh bankrupt. On 29th March\nthey moved before Justice Grove and Baron Huddleston for judgment--that\nis, for power to compel Bradlaugh to pay the penalty sued for and the\ncosts. Bradlaugh admitted that at that stage he could not resist a\njudgment for the penalty, but resisted the motion so far as it claimed\ncosts. To this the judges agreed; and on 30th March they gave judgment\nfor the penalty, but reserved the costs pending the appeal to the House\nof Lords. Bradlaugh had thus to pay \u00a3500 into Court within fourteen\ndays. Already, too, he had had to give securities for \u00a3500 on the\nappeal to the House of Lords, in addition to the \u00a3200 he had paid down\naccording to rule. For these heavy payments he had to go into debt, his\nnormal means of earning his livelihood being in part suspended by the\nvery lawsuits themselves.\n\nIn course of the arguments on the plaintiff's appeal it was noticeable\nthat Justice Grove pointed to the possibility of an action against\nNewdegate for maintenance, and, on Bradlaugh mentioning that the\nmagistrate had dismissed the summonses against Newdegate and his\nsolicitor on the ground that the law was obsolete, observed, \"But it is\nby no means obsolete. I set aside an agreement for maintenance only a\nlittle while ago.\"\n\nAnother item was added to the imbroglio of litigation by the friendly\naction of Alderman Gurney of Northampton, on behalf of the Liberal\nand Radical Union there, against Bradlaugh for not taking his seat--a\nstep taken by way of getting a legal deliverance. Bradlaugh formally\ndemurred that he had been illegally hindered by the House of Commons.\nWhen the case came on before Justices Manisty and Watkin Williams on\n15th May 1882, the judges warily declined to give any judgment, on the\nscore that the action was friendly, that the pleadings had been drawn\nso as to compel a decision in Bradlaugh's favour, and did not disclose\nall the facts of the case. Yet they excluded no material fact; and a\nfriendly action for a precisely similar penalty had been heard and\ndecided before in the historic case of Miller _v._ Salomons, while, as\na solicitor wrote to Bradlaugh, \"it is a matter of everyday occurrence\nin the Chancery Division for friendly actions to be brought to get a\njudicial decision on questions arising out of settlements, etc.\" In\nthe present case it seemed pretty clear that the judges were simply\nvery much concerned not to come in conflict with the legislature. The\npleadings were however readjusted, and the case stood for re-hearing\nbefore a jury.\n\nStill another complication was perforce set up by an action brought\nby Bradlaugh in April against Mr Erskine, the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms\nof the House of Commons, for the assault of 3rd August--a step made\nnecessary by the police magistrate's refusal of a summons against\nInspector Denning for his formal assault; and by the risk, which was\nsoon realised, that the Gurney action would be denied a hearing.\nThe matter being brought before the House on 8th and 9th May, the\nAttorney-General was directed to defend Mr Erskine, Sir Hardinge\nGiffard suggesting that those who assisted in bringing such an action\nshould be prosecuted according to old precedents for breach of\nprivilege. Such a prosecution, if laid, would have struck at Messrs\nLewis & Lewis, Bradlaugh's solicitors in the matter, and at the\ncommittee of the Constitutional Rights League, who had also instructed\nthem.\n\nAnd yet one more step in this bewildering litigation was taken on 9th\nMay, when Bradlaugh moved before Lords Justices Brett and Cotton for\nleave to appeal against so much of the three orders of the Court of\nAppeal, dated 31st March 1881, 14th November 1881, and 23rd February\n1882, as awarded costs. The application was of a highly technical\ncharacter, and was dismissed, everything being now left to the House of\nLords when it should hear the appeal.\n\n\n\u00a717.\n\nThe agitation in the constituencies was carried on throughout the\nspring and summer with an energy worthy of the cause. In addition to\nthe crowded meetings which he held in dozens of the larger provincial\ntowns, the Constitutional Rights League arranged for three more great\ndemonstrations in London--two on 10th May, and one on Sunday, 14th\nMay. On the 10th was held, first, an immense mass meeting in Trafalgar\nSquare, attended by delegates from over a hundred towns, and addressed\nby, among other speakers, the Rev. Mr Freeston of Stalybridge, Mr\nAshton Dilke, Mr Labouchere, and Mr Broadhurst; and in the evening a\nsecond audience packed St James's Hall to the doors. On the Sunday an\nenormous mass meeting took place in Hyde Park, the attendance being\nestimated at 70,000 or 80,000. At all of these meetings Bradlaugh's\nclaim was affirmed with the greatest enthusiasm. The attitude of the\nTory press may be gathered from a reference in the _Evening Standard_ to\n\n \"that section of the people which holds Mr Bradlaugh's coat-tails in\n veneration. They would get to Westminster, see the fun, shout out\n encouragement, and possibly pick up something to pay the expenses of\n the expedition.\"\n\nAn earlier demonstration, held in the Shoreditch Town Hall on 8th\nMay, presided over by Mr Broadhurst and addressed by Bradlaugh and\nLabouchere, received no notice in the leading morning papers, though\nthe crowd which sought admittance would have sufficed to fill the hall\nthrice over. It was necessary for such journals to ignore such matters\nas much as possible, since the main plea on the Tory side had now come\nto be that the public feeling was \"universally\" against Bradlaugh. To\nsuppress the facts, and then to deny that the facts existed, was a\nnatural tactic.\n\nNaturally the Tories on their own part were not idle, either in\nthe House or out of it. In the House they were safe from answer\nby Bradlaugh; and accordingly Sir Henry Tyler, who had already\ndistinguished himself by a dastardly attack on the ladies of\n\"the Bradlaugh family\" and Mrs Besant as being unfit teachers of\nScience,[163] was foolish enough to call upon the Home Secretary,\nduring May, to prosecute the _National Reformer_ for blasphemy, on the\nscore, not of any editorial utterances, but of certain articles by an\noutside contributor, controverting, as too favourable, an estimate\nof the Gospel Jesus by a member of the staff. Sir Henry was no less\nzealous for Jesus than he had been for \"God;\" and he was backed by\nMr Healy, who asked whether the paper could not be seized. The Home\nSecretary deprecated the attempt in the name of the interests of\northodoxy, as he had previously done an attempt to secure a prosecution\nof the _Freethinker_. But Tyler and those of his kidney, baffled here,\nonly looked about for another means of gaining their point.\n\n[Footnote 163: A question put to Mr Mundella on 18th June in the\nHouse elicited the fact that the Hall of Science classes had been\nestablished, and received grants, under the late Tory administration.\nOn this Lord George Hamilton was petty enough to put the blame on his\nsubordinates. Mr Mundella answered that for his part he was responsible\nfor anything done by his subordinates.]\n\nAmong the most prominent of the attacks made on Bradlaugh about this\ntime were the (second and third) articles contributed by Cardinal\nManning to the _Nineteenth Century_, one under the title \"An\nEnglishman's Protest.\" The second was in time for the election in\nMarch, and much was hoped from it. Later, after illegally visiting\nNorthampton in prelatic state, to turn the Irish voters against\nthe Atheist, he contributed yet a third article to the _Nineteenth\nCentury_ of September 1882; and still the editor denied Bradlaugh all\nright of reply. It is probable that at no time in the long strife\nwere Freethinkers more roused to wrath, more moved to smite arrogant\ninsolence upon its blatant mouth, than by this manifesto from a prince\nof the Church of Rome, the murderous organism which had eaten out the\nmind of Spain and barely missed destroying Italy. Certain it is that\nfrom these malevolent outbreaks of the unsleeping Romish spirit of\npersecution may be dated a new birth of enmity towards Rome on the\npart of English rationalists, who had before been disposed to class\nthe bloody-mindedness of Catholicism with the kindred rancours of\nProtestantism. It was left to Manning to put his Church in the worst\nlight of all; to show once for all that the fundamental mission of\npriestly Rome is not _parcere subjectis et debellare superbos_, but to\nfight the ignoble battle of the million against one. And it is to his\naction that his co-religionists owe most of the measure of acceptation\nfound among Freethinkers by the fierce verse in which Mr Swinburne\nhas named the Church of Rome \"Grey spouse of Satan, church of name\nabhorred,\" and taunted the \"withered harlot\" with the shame of her\ndefeat on the Field of Flowers.\n\nBut Bradlaugh met the priest's attack with a prose that suffered no\nweakening from hysteria. In his journal it met a detailed and judicial\ncriticism: he himself, roused as he had never been roused before,\npublished his tract, \"A Cardinal's Broken Oath,\" one of the hardest\nblows ever struck in written controversy.\n\n \"Three times,\" it begins, \"your Eminence has--through the pages\n of the _Nineteenth Century_--personally and publicly interfered\n and used the weight of your ecclesiastical position against me in\n the Parliamentary struggle in which I am engaged, although you are\n neither voter in the borough for which I am returned to sit, nor even\n co-citizen in the State to which I belong. Your personal position\n is that of a law-breaker, one who has deserted his sworn allegiance\n and thus forfeited his citizenship, one who is tolerated by English\n forbearance, but is liable to indictment for misdemeanour as 'member\n of a society of the Church of Rome.' More than once when the question\n of my admission to the House of Commons has been under discussion in\n that House, have I seen you busy in the lobby, closely attended by\n the devout and sober Philip Callan, or some other equally appropriate\n Parliamentary henchman.\"\n\nAfter telling the Cardinal how he had \"blundered alike in his law\nand his history,\" making absurd mis-statements concerning the French\nRevolution and the case of Horne Tooke, the pamphlet takes up the point\nof persecution, in regard to Manning's advice that Bradlaugh should be\nindicted for blasphemy:--\n\n \"When I was in Paris some time since, and was challenged to express an\n opinion as to the enforcement of the law against the religious orders\n of France, I, not to the pleasure of many of my friends, spoke out\n very freely that in matters of religion I would use the law against\n none; but your persecuting spirit may provoke intemperate men even\n farther than you dream. In this country, by the 10th George IV., cap.\n 7, secs. 28 and 29, 31, 32, and 34, you are criminally indictable,\n Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. You only reside here without\n police challenge by the merciful forbearance of the community. And yet\n you parade in political contest your illegal position as 'a member of\n a religious order of the Church of Rome,' and have the audacity to\n invoke outlawry and legal penalty against me.\"\n\nAnd then came a hail of blows at the Cardinal Archbishop's own\npersonality, so rashly put in the way of retaliation:--\n\n \"In the current number of the _Nineteenth Century_ you fire your\n last shot, and are coarse in Latin as well as in the vulgar tongue.\n Perhaps the frequenting Philip Callan has spoiled your manners. It\n also seems impossible that one who was once a cultured scholar and a\n refined gentleman could confuse with legitimate argument the abuse\n of his opponents as 'cattle.' But who are you, Henry Edward Manning,\n that you should throw stones at me, and should so parade your desire\n to protect the House of Commons from contamination? At least, first\n take out of it the drunkard and the dissolute of your own Church. You\n know them well enough. Is it the oath alone which stirs you? Your\n tenderness on swearing comes very late in life. When you took orders\n as a deacon of the English Church, in presence of your bishop, you\n swore 'so help me God,' that you did from your 'heart abhor, detest,\n and abjure,' and with your hand on the 'Holy Gospels' you declared\n 'that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath,\n or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence,\n or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.' You\n may now well write of men 'whom no oath can bind.' The oath you took\n you have broken; and yet it was because you had, in the very church\n itself, taken this oath, that you for many years held more than one\n profitable preferment in the Established Church of England. You\n indulge in innuendoes against my character in order to do me mischief,\n and viciously insinuate as though my life had in it justification\n for good men's abhorrence. In this you are very cowardly as well as\n very false. Then, to move the timid, you suggest 'the fear of eternal\n punishment' as associated with a broken oath. Have you any such fear?\n or have you been personally conveniently absolved from the 'eternal'\n consequences of your perjury? Have you since sworn another oath before\n another bishop of another church, or made some solemn vow to Rome, in\n lieu of, and in contradiction to, the one you so took in presence of\n your bishop, when, 'in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,'\n that bishop of the Church by law established in this country accepted\n your oath, and gave you authority as a deacon in the Church you have\n since forsaken. I do not blame you so much that you are forsworn;\n there are, as you truly say, 'some men whom no oath can bind;' and\n it has often been the habit of the cardinals of your Church to take\n an oath and break it when profit came with the breach; but your\n remembrance of your own perjury might at least keep you reticent in\n very shame. Instead of this, you thrust yourself impudently into a\n purely political contest, and shout as if the oath were to you the\n most sacred institution possible. You say 'there are happily some\n men who believe in God and fear Him.' Do you do either? You, who\n declared, 'so help me God,' that no foreign 'prelate ... ought to\n have any jurisdiction or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within\n this realm'? And you who, in spite of your declaration on oath,\n have courted and won, intrigued for and obtained, the archbishop's\n authority and the cardinal's hat from the Pope of Rome--you rebuke\n Lord Sherbrooke for using the words 'sin and shame' in connection with\n oath-taking: do you hold now that there was no sin and no shame in\n your broken oath? None in the rash taking or the wilful breaking? Have\n you no personal shame that you have broken your oath? Or do the pride\n and pomp of your ecclesiastical position outbribe your conscience? You\n talk of the people understanding the words 'so help me God.' How do\n you understand them of your broken oath? Do they mean to you: 'May God\n desert and forsake me as I deserted and forsook the Queen's supremacy,\n to which I so solemnly swore allegiance'? You speak of men being kept\n to their allegiance by the oath 'which binds them to their sovereign.'\n You say such men may be tempted by ambition or covetousness unless\n they are bound by 'the higher and more sacred responsibility' involved\n in the 'recognition of the law-giver in the oath.' Was the Rector of\n Lavington and Graffham covetous of an archbishopric that he broke his\n oath? Was the Archdeacon of Chichester ambitious of the Cardinal's hat\n that he became so readily forsworn?\"\n\nThe eight small but pregnant pages of this concentrated diatribe were\ncarefully translated into Italian by or for a certain Monsignor, once\nresident in England, who was understood to owe no goodwill to Manning;\nthe translation was no less carefully circulated among the higher Roman\nclergy; and if anything had been needed to thwart Manning's ambition\nof becoming Pope, this little tractate, it was believed, would have\nserved not a little to that end. At all events, Manning never again\nventured to attack Bradlaugh publicly. He had had enough. And not only\nhad he failed to destroy Bradlaugh, he had evoked furious Protestant\nprotests against his action at Northampton, and this even from journals\nlike the _Rock_, which hated Bradlaugh as much as he did. His alliance\nwas rejected with insult. And even in his own Church the far more\nhighly esteemed Newman, answering a correspondent on the subject of the\nAffirmation Bill of 1883, expressly declared that he thought \"nothing\nwould be lost to religion by its passing and nothing gained by its\nbeing rejected.\"[164]\n\n[Footnote 164: Letter of 8th May 1883.]\n\nIt would be superfluous to load this already over-burdened narrative\nwith any detailed account of the stream of insults, imbecilities,\nbrutalities, and falsehoods which was cast forth continuously at this\nperiod against Bradlaugh in the press and on the platform. From the\nfatuity of Viscount Folkestone--who argued that an Atheist, being\nguilty of treason to God, who gave the Queen her power, should be\ntreated like one guilty of treason to the Queen--to the brutish\nlicence of the Tory journals who likened Bradlaugh's sympathisers to\nthieves and assassins, there was, as Mr Moncure Conway wrote at the\ntime, \"no circumstance of heartlessness, injustice, hypocrisy, and\nfalsehood[165] wanting to this last carnival of theological[166] hatred\nand ferocity.\" It was not, of course, theological hate alone. Bradlaugh\nhad just been leading a popular movement for land law reform; and he\nhad set in motion a second movement for the abolition of perpetual\npensions, which went on wheels, and the petitions in support of which\nwere signed by the hundred thousand.[167] There are few resentments\nmore bitter than that of a menaced interest. But malice once aroused\nin men of a low type stops at nothing; and as we have seen, everybody\nassociated with Bradlaugh was included in the hatred bestowed on him.\nOne Tory journal, the _Manchester Courier_, went the length of saying\nthat Bradlaugh's success in Northampton was due to an exceptionally bad\nstate of education there; the pretext being that one Northamptonshire\nvillage was in such a state. The Government inspector testified that\nas regarded the town he had often paid tribute to the heartiness of\nthe people of Northampton, and especially of the working-classes, in\ncarrying out the Education Act, and that it would be hard to find\nanywhere a more active School Board, a higher average of regular\nattendance, or a higher general standard of proficiency.\n\n[Footnote 165: If further samples are needed of the general\nuntruthfulness, they can be given by the dozen. Even men of good\nstanding spoke with a disregard of scruple which put them outside\ncourteous correction. Bradlaugh was driven to characterise Sir Edward\nWatkin as \"an exceedingly and wantonly untruthful person.\" In November\n1882 he represented to his Folkestone constituents that he would not\nhave stood in the way of Bradlaugh either swearing or affirming, but\nthat he resisted when Bradlaugh \"distinctly outraged all that they held\nsacred.\" This presumably referred to the self-administered oath of\n1882. But Sir E. Watkin had voted against Bradlaugh being allowed to\nswear on 27th April 1881. The Hon. Mr Stansfeld, speaking at Halifax\nin October 1882, actually represented that the oath was \"on the true\nfaith of a Christian;\" and repeated the untruth that Bradlaugh had\n\"said that the oath had no binding effect on his conscience.\" The Rev.\nCanon Gascoigne Weldon, of Rothesay, asserted in writing that Bradlaugh\n\"boasted publicly that he sought entrance into the House of Commons to\ninsult its members and all its past glorious history, and level it, if\npossible, with its sister House, to the ground.\"]\n\n[Footnote 166: Mr Samuel Morley, speaking at Bristol in November 1882,\nadmitted to his constituents that \"while Mr Bradlaugh was in the House\nof Commons, nothing could exceed the propriety of his conduct;\" but\ndeclared he would oppose his re-entrance because Bradlaugh continued\n\"his system of violent, offensive, and disgusting attacks on the faith\nwhich he (Mr Morley) in common with the great bulk of the English\npeople, held.\" To men like Mr Morley, all rationalist propaganda was\n\"violent, offensive, and disgusting;\" but they had no scruples about\nviolent, offensive, and disgusting attacks on rationalists. Soon\nafterwards Mr Morley grossly misrepresented Bradlaugh's action, and on\nbeing challenged admitted the fact and made a correction. Soon again,\nhowever, Mr Morley spoke of Bradlaugh as writing in the _Freethinker_,\nand on being challenged, made neither admission nor correction. The\nchampions of the oath, generally speaking, exhibited a constitutional\nincapacity for accuracy.]\n\n[Footnote 167: In the summer of 1882 the total of petitions had mounted\nto over 100, and the signatures numbered over 250,000.]\n\nOf course such a testimony did little to check the scurrility of Tory\ntongues. At a meeting of the Bible Society at Exeter Hall, in May 1882,\nwith Mr Samuel Morley in the chair, a Herefordshire vicar, the Rev.\nH. W. Webb Peploe, alleged that to his knowledge \"the first condition\nimposed upon one whom he knew when he had joined an association under\nthe leadership of a notorious infidel was that he should burn his\nBible;\" and that he had further \"been told that two nights ago, at\na meeting of a notorious infidel, the things said were so grossly\nimmodest that a member of the press had said that they did not dare\nto report what had been spoken, however, in the presence of young\nwomen.\" On being challenged, the rev. gentleman declined to attempt\nany substantiation of his statements, only pleading that he had not\nmeant to specify Bradlaugh. Of these cretinous calumnies, there were\nhundreds afloat for years on end. It is a comfort to be able to say\nthat some score or more of single clergymen in different places, of\ndifferent sects, spoke out bravely and generously from time to time in\nrepudiation of the whole policy of persecution and slander. But a few\nvoices, of course, could not avail to hinder that for thoughtful men\nthe effect of the persecution was to identify religion with injustice.\nFreethinkers reasoned that the Christians who stood for justice\nand tolerance did but do what Freethinkers themselves did, without\naccepting the Christian creed; while the army of bigots did their\nevil deeds in virtue of a religious motive. And the effect of it all\nwas to multiply Freethought as it had never been multiplied before. A\nbarrister, who had no personal sympathy with Bradlaugh, wrote that \"One\nconsequence has been that the cause of Freethought has made surprising\nprogress.... I do not think that at any time Freethought literature has\nbeen so widely read, and the Freethought propaganda so actively and\nintelligently carried on.\" Active members of the Secular Society were\nenrolled by hundreds; and the sale of Bradlaugh's journal rose to its\nhighest figure. Men who had before been unquestioningly orthodox became\nnewly critical. One wrote to an editor:--\n\n \"That 'Mr Bradlaugh had brought his troubles on himself' I fully\n admit. So did Jesus Christ. In the latter case the ultimate result was\n a judicial execution as a blasphemer. But I am not aware that he is\n any the worse thought of by his followers on that account.\"\n\nEven among Conservatives there were searchings of heart. One wrote\na pamphlet in his favour. Another sent an open letter of merciless\ncriticism to Sir Stafford Northcote, saying, \"I am a Conservative, and\nmy father before me. But there is something I put before party. That is\nself-respect.\" The letter concluded:--\n\n \"If you wish an outlet for your zeal against 'profanation,' why do\n you ignore in the Church the presence of numerous Broad Churchmen,\n including the father-in-law of your own son, Canon Farrar, who\n swear loyalty to the Thirty-Nine Articles, and follow the late Dean\n Stanley in rejecting many of them? Why should you have reserved your\n fervent indignation against apparent insincerity in sacred things to\n be expended upon a man whose admission to the House as silently as\n possible, so as not to promote his notoriety, justice and expediency\n would alike have suggested: the whole stupidity, duplicity, and\n inhumanity of Conservative tactics in this matter are patent to all\n straightforward minds. You are responsible for giving Mr Bradlaugh a\n name and a place in the history of this country which will survive\n long after those of the present Conservative leaders are consigned to\n oblivion.\"\n\nThe harvest was not immediate; but the seed was abundantly sown, and\ninevitably bore its due fruit. That this was not unrecognised in high\nplaces was sufficiently proved by the introduction of an Affirmation\nBill in the House of Lords by the Duke of Argyll, then already sundered\nfrom official Liberalism. The Duke, on moving the second reading\nof his Bill, took occasion to scold Bradlaugh after his manner for\n\"violence and scurrility,\" denying by implication that the violence\nand scurrility were on the other side. But this prudent tactic did not\navail. The Earl of Carnarvon told the usual untruth about the \"binding\neffect\" of the oath on Bradlaugh, by way of showing that he deserved\nno relief; and the Archbishop of Canterbury opposed the Bill in the\nname not only of the English Church, but of the Romish, the Wesleyan,\nand the Scotch Presbyterian. It was accordingly rejected (July) by 138\nvotes to 62.\n\n\n\u00a7 18.\n\nOn 11th July 1882 a new Tory battery was opened. The _Freethinker_, a\npenny weekly journal of a more popular character than the _National\nReformer_, edited by Mr G. W. Foote and then owned by Mr W. J.\nRamsey, was sold at the shop of the Freethought Publishing Company,\n28 Stonecutter Street, of which Mr Bradlaugh and Mrs Besant, the\npartners of the Company, were the lessees. For a short time after\nits first issue it had been published by them, but soon they decided\nnot to take that responsibility; and thenceforward it had been sold\nindependently by Mr Ramsey, their manager, who, in the terms of his\nengagement with them, was free to do other trading on his own account.\nSir Henry Tyler, supposing Bradlaugh to be the publisher all along,\nhad bethought himself of prosecuting the _Freethinker_ for blasphemy,\nand so striking a possibly decisive political blow at Bradlaugh--a\ncourse which he was enabled to take by a readily granted \"fiat\" from\nthe Director of Public Prosecutions. It had been made clear by his\nreferences to the _National Reformer_ in the House of Commons that\nhe had hoped to convict Bradlaugh of blasphemy on something he had\neither written or published; but that hope he had had to abandon. There\nremained the hope of connecting Bradlaugh with the _Freethinker_;\nand Tyler's solicitors coolly wrote Bradlaugh on 8th July, asking\nwhether he would personally sell the paper, so as to prevent the\nprosecution either of a subordinate of his, or of the editor and\nprinter. He replied by sending the printed catalogue of all the things\nhe published, and offering personally to sell any of these. As it did\nnot include the _Freethinker_, the prosecution was begun against Messrs\nFoote and Ramsey and their printer, Mr Whittle, on 11th July, before\nthe Lord Mayor (Sir John Whittaker Ellis), at the Mansion House; and\nafter evidence had been led, the prosecutor's counsel applied to have\nBradlaugh's name added as a defendant. The case was then adjourned, the\nLord Mayor stating that he would hear the application against Bradlaugh\nin private--a proceeding for which the reasons will afterwards appear.\nIt having appeared that the selling of the _Free-thinker_ in the\nFreethought Publishing Company's shop tended to implicate the partners\nof that company, Mr Ramsey at once decided to suspend its sale for\nsome weeks till he could arrange for its publication in a distinct\noffice, thus partly safeguarding Bradlaugh from the attempt to identify\nhim with it. The danger was serious; for if Bradlaugh were convicted\nof blasphemy under the statute, he would become legally incapable\nof further defending himself in Clarke's or any other suit for\nParliamentary penalties. This was fully recognised on the Tory side,\nand the _Whitehall Review_, in an indecent article, pressed the point.\nTyler's move was, in fact, a new attempt to cause the ruin aimed at by\nNewdegate, and hitherto warded off; and Newdegate's junior counsel (and\nprivate friend) duly attended the prosecution at the Mansion House. At\nthe same time, Bradlaugh was defending a Freethinker prosecuted for\nblasphemy at the Maidstone Assizes, and after attending the adjourned\nhearing before the Lord Mayor on Monday, 17th July, he had to travel to\nMaidstone on the following day.\n\nBefore the Lord Mayor Bradlaugh led the prosecutor's counsel a\ngrievous dance. He appealed to have the cases taken separately, and\ncounsel was confused enough to say that this was \"a most unusual\nand unheard-of application,\" which drew from Bradlaugh the comment,\n\"There are several decided cases upon it, although it may be unheard\nof and unusual in your experience, Mr Moloney.\" Then ensued hours of\nfencing as to whether the case was or should be under common law or\nstatute, and what the Lord Mayor ought to do. His lordship was at times\nsomewhat rashly dogmatic on points of law and procedure, and had to be\ncorrected. He finally decided to refuse to ask the prosecutor to choose\nwhether he would proceed under common law or statute; and Bradlaugh\nthen demanded that the case should begin _de novo_, putting every\npossible technical obstacle in the way of his cowardly enemies. Their\nevil way, he determined, should be made hard for them; and it was.\nAs the proceedings went on, and the prosecution, who had previously\nsucceeded in obtaining from the Lord Mayor a warrant to inspect\nBradlaugh's banking account, took the dishonourable course of producing\non subpoena the manager of the bank used by Bradlaugh, and his very\npassbook, his indignation mounted. What was intended was evidently a\nfishing investigation into his financial affairs, for the production\nof cheques at that stage was wholly irrelevant to the points proposed\nto be made out in evidence, and needing to be so proved. Fighting the\ncase with all his force and acuteness, point by point, and with no\nmincing of matters, Bradlaugh commented on Tyler's tactics in language\nof which the libel law prevented the republication. Tyler's counsel\nprotested that he \"did not quite see what these observations were\nintended for.\" \"They are intended,\" replied Bradlaugh, \"to do the same\nmischief to your client that he is trying to do to me;\" and counsel\nsaid no more on that head, though he tried unsuccessfully to retaliate\non others.\n\nThe case was adjourned to the 21st; and though the passbook was left\nin the Lord Mayor's hands for inspection, the prosecuting counsel so\nmismanaged matters that he closed his case without having applied to\nsee it. Bradlaugh's account, however, had been personally ransacked\non Tyler's behalf, in gross abuse of the order of the Court. The Lord\nMayor finally committed Bradlaugh for trial on the singularly scanty\nevidence offered as to his connection with the prosecuted paper, the\nincriminated numbers of which were all dated after the time when\nBradlaugh ceased to be concerned in publishing it; and in committing\nMessrs Foote and Ramsey (the charge against the printer had been\nwithdrawn), his lordship refused to allow Mr Foote to make a statement\nin his defence, though the law clearly gave the defendant that right.\nHis lordship repeatedly gave the extraordinary ruling that \"the charge\"\nagainst Mr Foote was \"that he was the editor of the _Freethinker_\"--as\nif that could possibly be a \"charge\"--and on this pretext declined\nto hear anything on the actual charge, which was one of \"blasphemous\nlibel.\" He similarly tried to prevent Bradlaugh from reading a formal\nstatement, but after disallowing it he gave way on consultation with\nthe Clerk of Court. The statement was a terse and telling account of\nTyler's tactics from the time of Bradlaugh's election.\n\nIn the press the prosecution was sharply condemned, even the _Times_\ncensuring it; and one journal took occasion to point out that Tyler\nrepresented \"one of the smallest and most corrupt constituencies in\nEngland.\"[168] Bradlaugh, being \"committed\" for blasphemy, at once\nput himself in the hands of his constituents, who unanimously voted\ntheir unabated confidence in him. He immediately (27th July) applied\nto a judge (Justice Stephen) in chambers for leave to issue a summons\ncalling on Tyler to show cause why a writ of _certiorari_ should not\nissue to remove the proceedings to the Queen's Bench division; and on\nthe 29th the _certiorari_ itself was directed to issue by the judge.\nTyler's counsel at this stage insisted on Bradlaugh's giving two\nsureties for \u00a3300 in addition to his own recognisances of \u00a3300 ordered\nby the Lord Mayor. They also asked for an order to expedite the trial,\nbut the judge curtly refused. Another typical detail was the charging\nof the grand jury on the point of \"returning a true bill\" on the\nindictment. The Recorder for the City, Sir Thomas Chambers, was one of\nBradlaugh's bitterest enemies in Parliament, and he gave his direction\nto the grand jury to return a true bill, not only without putting it to\nthem to decide whether they were satisfied with the evidence against\nBradlaugh, but with expressions of gross prejudice, appealing to their\nfeelings as \"Christian men.\"\n\n[Footnote 168: He sat for Harwich.]\n\nNot content with his prosecution of Bradlaugh, Tyler in the House of\nCommons (10th August) at length brought forward an express motion which\nhe had had on the paper for twelve months, to the effect that the\nHall of Science was not a proper place, and the teachers not proper\npersons, to teach science in connection with the Science and Art\nDepartment. The argument was that persons who had expressed themselves\nin print to the effect that science undermined religion should be held\nto have taught the same thing in their science classes. Mr Mundella\nin reply pointed out that no fewer than thirty-five clergymen of all\ndenominations were science teachers under the department; and that the\nreports on the teaching given in the Hall of Science classes, even by a\nreligious visitor who made surprise visits, were highly satisfactory.\nHe concluded by sharply censuring Tyler, as Mr Labouchere had already\ndone, for his malice; and, the Tory members having all left the House,\nthe matter was ignominiously dropped. Even the editor of the _St\nJames's Gazette_ snubbed Tyler, while himself proceeding to repeat\nTyler's contention in a gratuitously insulting statement as to the\nteaching of the Misses Bradlaugh. In the outside public one immediate\neffect of Tyler's malicious action was to set on foot a movement and an\nassociation for the repeal of the blasphemy laws, the lead being ably\ntaken by the Rev. Mr Sharman (Unitarian) of Plymouth, who had already\ndone admirable service in the constitutional struggle.\n\nThe blasphemy prosecution not being \"expedited,\" went on slowly\nenough. Intermediate technical proceedings arose, partly out of\nirregularities on the part of the prosecution; and in one of\nBradlaugh's visits to the Courts with his sureties, the driver of\na four-wheeler who conveyed the party declined to accept any fare,\ndeclaring that it should be his contribution towards fighting Tyler.\nAt length, on 6th November, Bradlaugh made an _ex parte_ motion before\nJustices Field and Stephen, to have the indictment against him quashed,\nmainly on the score that he ought to have been definitely sued under\nthe statute 9 and 10 William III., and that the provisions of that\nstatute had not been observed in the indictment. The pleadings were\nextremely interesting as a matter of pure law, the judges debating the\npoints courteously but closely all along, and both commenting finally\non the \"candour\" and \"propriety\" with which he had argued his case.\nTheir decision was for the most part hostile; and this was one of his\nvery few cases in which there can be little difficulty in taking the\njudge's view against him. The main point decided was that the statute\nhad not abrogated the common law in the case in hand. They gave him\na rule _nisi_ on only two counts in the indictment, on the ground\nof irregular procedure on the part of the prosecution; but Justice\nStephen's judgment supplied a very useful conspectus of the history\nof the blasphemy laws, and incidentally declared that the statutory\npenalties could not be inflicted under a verdict on the indictment laid.\n\nVery different must be the comments passed on the treatment of the\nfriendly action, Gurney _v._ Bradlaugh, which came on afresh before\nMr Justice Mathew and a common jury on 10th November. Everything\nhad been done that could be done to meet the criticisms formerly\npassed by Justices Manisty and Watkin Williams; and indeed the whole\npleadings had from the first been drawn from the journals of the House\nof Commons, which were put in evidence. But Justice Mathew summarily\ndecided not to hear the case, and discharged the jury, on the old\nground that the action was collusive. Now Bradlaugh, in swearing\nhimself in, had in law done exactly what Alderman Salomons did in 1851;\nand the action of Miller _v._ Salomons was notoriously collusive, yet\nit was fully heard and carefully decided. We can only do now what\nBradlaugh did then--leave the judge's action to the judgment of the\ninstructed public. The _Law Times_ of that time (November 1882) took\nthe unusual step of declaring:--\n\n \"It is plain that it should be possible to try a friendly action to\n establish a constitutional right; and we regard the action of the\n judge as very questionable on constitutional grounds, and as being an\n arbitrary interference with a suitor's right to the verdict of a jury.\"\n\nWhat a law journal thus describes, plain men may well call by a plainer\nname.\n\nOne of Bradlaugh's five contemporary lawsuits was thus quashed, but the\nremaining four kept his hands sufficiently full. The civil suit against\nNewdegate for maintenance came on before Justice Field on 2nd December,\non a preliminary \"demurrer,\" when, on the advice of the judge, both\naides agreed to let the demurrer stand over till after the trial. A day\nor two afterwards Newdegate, speaking at the London Sheriffs' banquet,\nat which six judges were guests, had the indecency to comment before\nthem on the maintenance case, and to denounce Bradlaugh. On the 5th the\naction against Mr Erskine, the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, came on before\nJustice Field. It was a long pleading on both sides; the case was\nadjourned till the 18th; and after the Attorney-General had spoken two\nhours and a half, and Bradlaugh had replied for an hour and a quarter,\nthe judge reserved his decision. He finally gave it (15th January)\nagainst Bradlaugh, on the general ground that the House of Commons was\nthe judge as to how it might exercise its privileges, of which the\npower to expel a member was one. On the point of legality he ruled that\n\"it is not to be presumed that any Court, whether it be the High Court\nof Judicature or this Court, will do that which in itself is flagrantly\nwrong.\" The decision was one which might very reasonably have been\nappealed against. As the _Legal Advertiser Supplement_ remarked at the\ntime, Justice Field's ruling would cover a case in which the House\nof Commons might, say, confiscate the goods and chattels of a member\nexpelled or suspended for obstruction. Bradlaugh, however, decided not\nto appeal. He had only commenced the action reluctantly because of the\nlikelihood that the Gurney suit would be denied a hearing; and the\njudge had in this case at least listened to his arguments. He contented\nhimself with a letter to the _Times_, pointing out the constitutional\neffect of the decision.\n\nThus far he had endured defeat after defeat in the law courts as\nin Parliament; and it may be that discouragement and debt counted\nfor something in his surrender of the suit against the Deputy\nSergeant-at-Arms. But he was now within a short distance of three\nsignal successes which more than counterbalanced all his previous\nlegal defeats. On 9th and 17th March his action against Newdegate for\nmaintenance was argued for him before Lord Coleridge [169] by Mr Crump\nand Mr W. A. Hunter, he himself giving evidence on his own behalf. The\nbroad ground of action was that Newdegate had maliciously \"maintained\"\nClarke, having himself no interest in the ground of action, which\nwas the penalty sued for, and being desirous only to make Bradlaugh\nbankrupt. There was no question of principle, as Bradlaugh was already\nunseated, and was held disentitled to sit either on oath or on\naffirmation. Bradlaugh incidentally gave testimony that already he had\nhad to spend on the action two legacies, and in addition \u00a31100 he had\nborrowed; while Clarke testified that the total costs on his side were\nestimated at about \u00a32000.\n\n[Footnote 169: A jury had been sworn in, but it was agreed all round\nthat there was no question of fact for them, and they were discharged\non the 9th, Lord Coleridge trying the case as one of law.]\n\nLord Coleridge reserved his decision; and before he gave it, the\nappeal by Bradlaugh against Clarke's action had been heard and decided\nin the House of Lords. It was argued on 5th and 6th March, before\nthe Lord Chancellor (Selborne), and Lords Blackburn, Watson, and\nFitzgerald--Bradlaugh, as usual, pleading his own cause. His main\nargument was, as before, that only the Crown could recover penalties\nagainst him when the statute did not specify that some or any one else\ncould; and the discussion turned on this point, on which Lord Justice\nBramwell, the senior judge in the Court of Appeal, had expressed some\ndoubt. Bradlaugh, however, cited on the disputed point as to the\nCrown's prerogative two fresh cases--the King _v._ Hymen[170] and the\nKing _v._ Clarke; and a good deal of argument turned on the point as\nto whether a common informer could ever have costs allowed him. As for\nthe case of the respondent, Bradlaugh pointed out that Sir Hardinge\nGiffard's argument was now directed against the very reasons on which\nthe intermediate court had based its judgment in his favour, thus\nasking their lordships to support the judgment of the Court of Appeal\nfor new and contrary reasons.\n\n[Footnote 170: This had been cited in the Court of Appeal for another\npurpose.]\n\nOn 9th April their lordships delivered judgment. The Lord Chancellor\nin an elaborate and lucid judgment showed that the penalty really\nwas suable for by action of the Crown in any of the superior courts,\nand that, as no permission had been given by the statute to the\ncommon informer to sue, he was not entitled to do so. Lord Blackburn\ndissented, but not strongly, arguing very judicially that there were\ngood and mutually neutralising arguments on both sides, and pronouncing\nhimself only \"on the whole\" in favour of the view that the common\ninformer could sue under the statute. Lords Watson and Fitzgerald,\nhowever, agreed with the Lord Chancellor. The eccentric Lord Denman,\nwho was not a law lord, chose to take part in the proceedings (the\nfirst time a lay peer had done so, it is said, since the decision of\nthe writ of error in Daniel O'Connoll's case), and declared himself in\nagreement with Lord Blackburn. Even if he were counted, however, the\nmajority was for the appellant, who accordingly won the appeal with\ncosts.\n\nThis judgment, of course, would have affected the suit for maintenance,\nhad that been brought later. Giving judgment on 23rd April, Lord\nColeridge remarked that as the House of Lords had decided that Clarke\nhad no right to sue, it \"seemed to follow\" that Newdegate had no right\nto do so either. But he went on to decide in the appellant's favour on\nthe merits of the case, giving a long and interesting judgment. Unless\nmaintenance were to be struck out of the law-books, said the Lord\nChief Justice, Newdegate's procedure must be called maintenance; and\nif maintenance were to be struck out of the books, he added, \"it must\nbe done by some higher authority, and I have not the power to do it,\nnor, if I had the power, have I the wish to abolish an action which may\nin some cases be the only remedy for a very cruel wrong.\" Delivering\nhimself later on the moral or political merits of the case, he said:--\n\n \"It may be my ill fortune to have to support such an action in a case\n in which the defendant is a man whose character is entitled to every\n respect, and the plaintiff is a man with whose views, openly avowed, I\n have no sort of sympathy. But I will not call it my 'ill fortune,' for\n many of the most precious judgments given by the Courts in Westminster\n Hall were given in favour of men who, if English justice could ever be\n warped by personal feeling, would certainly have failed. It is indeed\n an ill fortune of the case that in the minds of many the cause of\n religion should seem to be connected with the success or failure of a\n particular person, whose defeat or success is really to the cause of\n religion a matter of supreme indifference, but as to whom (speaking\n only of what has been proved before me), a course has been taken\n and proceedings have been pressed which, in the case of any other,\n would be strongly and universally condemned, and by which certainly\n the cause of religion has not been advanced. But my duty is simply\n to decide the cause according to the best opinion I can form of the\n law--a duty which the rules of Christian teaching make quite clear.\"\n\nAs to costs, Lord Coleridge remarked that the decision of the House of\nLords, though giving costs on the appeal, left Bradlaugh mulcted in\na considerable sum of costs which were not recoverable from Clarke.\nFor the recoverable costs he assumed Newdegate would now hold himself\nresponsible; but further,\n\n \"for the residue of the costs and the expenses which Mr Bradlaugh has\n been put to as between attorney and client, and the various expenses\n he has had to bear--for all these Mr Newdegate is responsible in\n damages. I think that Mr Bradlaugh is entitled to an indemnity for\n every loss which Mr Newdegate's maintenance has caused him, and\n if this cannot be agreed on between the parties it must go to the\n official referee to ascertain the amount, and when he has reported to\n me I will give judgment for the amount he finds to be due, applying\n the principles I have thus laid down.\"\n\nNewdegate's counsel gave notice of an appeal, but after six months'\ndelay abandoned it. Thus by two concurrent successes Bradlaugh\ninflicted a crushing and final defeat on one of the men who had\nsought to ruin his political career out of hate for his opinions. He\ncould not have, in addition to the solace of triumph, the \"stern joy\nwhich warriors feel in foemen worthy of their steel;\" but he had the\nsatisfaction, such as it was, of knowing that his victory was a source\nof intense chagrin to thousands of bigots who had reckoned on, betted\non, and generally predicted his defeat and bankruptcy.\n\nAnd his victory on the points of civil law was effectually secured by\nhis acquittal in the action for blasphemy. A new excitement had been\nadded to that issue by the commencement, on 2nd February, of a new\nprosecution of Mr Foote (now owner as well as editor) and Mr Ramsey\n(now publisher only), with Ramsey's shopman, Henry Arthur Kemp, for\nthe publication of a special \"Christmas number\" of the _Freethinker_,\nin which there occurred certain woodcuts, ridiculing the Hebrew Deity\nand the Jesus of the Gospels. In this case there could be no pretence\nof implicating Bradlaugh, as the incriminated number had not even been\nsold on the Freethought Publishing Company's premises. Whether Tyler\nsaw the necessity of putting a better colour of religious zeal on his\nill-conditioned action against Bradlaugh, or whether the recent strife\nhad stirred up smouldering bigotry independently of personal animus\nagainst Bradlaugh, this prosecution was undertaken by \"the City of\nLondon.\" The new trial, which took place at the Central Criminal Court\non 1st March 1883, before Mr Justice North and a jury, is likely to be\nlong remembered in respect of the extraordinary display of medi\u00e6val\nprejudice by the judge. He repeatedly and angrily interrupted Mr Foote\nin his defence, declining to allow him to quote current printed matter\nwhich would show at once how much \"permitted blasphemy\" went on among\nSalvationists, and how perfectly in keeping was his freethinking\nblasphemy with the popular religion which it attacked. The jury, after\ntwo hours' discussion, could not agree, and the judge discharged them,\narranging for a fresh trial on the 6th with a fresh jury, and refusing\nin the harshest and most peremptory manner to let the prisoners out on\nbail, though in law they were perfectly entitled to it. Applications\nmade next day to other judges fell through on the score, not of being\nwrong in law, but of \"want of jurisdiction\" on the part of the judges\napplied to. The second trial was even more disgraceful to the judge\nthan the first. At the outset, Mr Foote objected to one of the jurors\nas having expressed animus, and the judge, in suggesting the juryman's\nwithdrawal, declared that \"he should be sorry to have a gentleman upon\nthe jury who had expressed himself as prejudiced.\" His own summing-up\nto the jury, however, was again scandalously prejudiced; and when the\njury promptly returned a verdict of guilty, he addressed Mr Foote as\nfollows:--\n\n \"You have been found guilty by the jury of publishing these\n blasphemous libels. This trial has been to me a very painful one, as I\n regard it as extremely sad to find that a person to whom God has given\n such evident intelligence and ability should have chosen to prostitute\n his talents to the work of the devil in the way it has been done\n (_sic_) under your auspices.\"\n\nThe sentence was a year's imprisonment. The announcement called forth\na display of indignation among the audience such as has perhaps never\nbeen seen in modern times; and the judge had to sit for some minutes in\na storm of hisses and outcries, the epithets \"Jeffries\" and \"Scroggs\"\nexpressing the prevailing sentiment. Mr Foote's words: \"My lord, I\nthank you: it is worthy of your creed,\" were followed by a renewal of\nthe tumult, and it was with difficulty that the Court was cleared.\nThen the judge sentenced Ramsey and Kemp to nine and three months'\nimprisonment respectively. The same judge, it is recorded, had let off\nwith three months' imprisonment a ruffian who had killed a coffee-stall\nkeeper with a kick on the face when he was refused a second cup of\ncoffee till the first had been paid for.\n\nThe impression made among thoughtful people by the judge's action\nwas one of general displeasure. Canon Shuttleworth pronounced the\nsentence \"a calamity.\" Mr Foote's methods had been widely and strongly\ndisapproved of among cultured Freethinkers, including Bradlaugh; and Mr\nJohn Morley, in the _Pall Mall Gazette_, had gone to the indefensible\nlength of justifying the prosecution, on the very inadequate ground\nthat the _Freethinker_ had been \"thrust on\" the public, it having been\nexhibited in the publisher's window in a side street. But the infamous\nsentence at once turned feeling the other way, though protests like\nCanon Shuttleworth's were needed to teach Mr Morley and other Liberal\njournalists that renunciation of Liberal principles is not really\nnecessary, even in cases of persecution, to propitiate the public.\nBradlaugh, on his part, took the--for him--unprecedented course of\naddressing a public letter to the judge, reprobating his conduct. \"My\nlord,\" he wrote,\n\n \"I pen this public letter with considerable regret and much pain.\n I have always in my public utterances tried to teach respect for\n the judicial bench. I have never, I hope, allowed hostile decisions\n against myself personally to tempt me to undue language when\n exercising my journalistic right to criticise judgments delivered.\n My own experience of the judges of our land has, with slight\n exception, been that they always listened with great patience, and\n when disagreeing, have expressed their disagreement in a dignified\n manner. When I read the report of the first trial of Messrs Foote,\n Ramsey, and Kemp, I was inexpressibly shocked. The character of some\n of the evidence you admitted alarmed me, and your refusal to reserve\n the objection taken to the admissibility of such evidence for the\n consideration of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved seemed to me so\n extraordinary that I even now hardly dare trust myself to characterise\n it.... But the point that most afflicts me is the fashion in which you\n over and over again interrupted the defendant Foote in his defence....\n There are plenty of precedents showing that prisoners have been\n permitted in defence the indulgence so peremptorily denied by your\n lordship to Mr Foote.... That you should have held the defendants in\n custody after the jury had disagreed, and when you had determined to\n again try them four days later, was mischievously and wantonly cruel.\n They had duly surrendered to their bail, which had been small in\n amount. There was no suggestion or supposition that they would try to\n avoid justice, nor did the prosecution ask for their detention. I am\n afraid, my lord, that you sent them to Newgate because they had been\n over-bold in their defence.... If you had meant the three defendants\n to have no chance of escape, if you had been prosecutor instead of\n impartial judge, you could hardly have done more to embarrass their\n defence than by sending them to this sudden and unexpected close\n confinement.\"\n\nThe letter concluded:\n\n \"When you sat as judge in these blasphemy trials your lordship was\n practically omnipotent. There is yet no court of criminal appeal....\n The very knowledge of your uncontrollable authority in the conduct of\n the trial ... should have prompted your lordship to hold the judicial\n balance with a steady hand, its inclining, if at all, being to the\n side of mercy. But your lordship, in the spirit of the old inquisitor,\n threw into the scale your own prejudices against the heresy for which\n the defendants were reputed, your own dislike of the manner in which\n they had made their heresies known.... I ask your lordship what would\n be the outcry through the civilised world if, either in Switzerland\n or in Hindostan, those Salvation Army propagandists who thrust their\n blasphemies furiously in all men's faces were so hardly dealt with as\n you have dealt with George William Foote, William James Ramsey, and\n Henry Kemp?\"\n\nPresumably the scandal caused by Justice North tended to procure\na fairer hearing for the original action, still unheard, in which\nBradlaugh was indicted. It came on before the Lord Chief Justice\nand a jury on 10th April--Bradlaugh, as usual, defending himself,\nwhile Messrs Foote and Ramsey were represented by counsel. Bradlaugh\nwas permitted by Lord Coleridge, in spite of the opposition of the\nprosecuting counsel (Giffard), to have the charge against him tried\nseparately from that of his co-defendants, whose testimony might be\nimportant to him; and he was thus enabled to put his defence solely on\nthe question of his responsibility, saying nothing as to the papers\nprosecuted being blasphemous or otherwise. His case was a clear and\ndetailed proof, made good at every point, that he had ceased to be in\nany way concerned even in the selling of the _Freethinker_ before the\nissue of any of the incriminated numbers, he and Mrs Besant having\ndecided to drop the publication on account of a change early made in\nthe character of the paper;[171] and that this abandonment of the\npublication--which was the only sort of connection he had ever had with\nthe paper at all--was made independently of any outside pressure or\nthreat. For the rest, the malevolent tactics of Sir Henry Tyler were\nonce more made the subject of a stinging invective; and the procedure\nof the prosecution in regard to the bank account came in for very\nsevere handling. This was one of the most striking details in the\ntrial. It came out, to the amazement of the legal part of the audience,\nthat not only had Bradlaugh's banking account been ransacked and his\ncheques gone over to see if any had been dishonoured, but the junior\ncounsel for Tyler, Mr Moloney, had actually attended the inquisition\nin person. Bradlaugh naturally did not spare him, declaring that he\nhad \"done work generally left to some private detective or inquiry\nagent, and never done by any one having the dignity of the bar to\nguard.\" And all the while, the search had been made in a bank branch\nin St John's Wood, N.W., in the county of Middlesex, on a warrant\nfrom the Lord Mayor, whose jurisdiction was limited to the City. On\nthis head the Lord Chief Justice indicated a very strong feeling that\nthe Lord Mayor's warrant for such a purpose ought not to be valid\nanywhere. \"Vile in its inception and dishonourable in its conduct,\" was\nBradlaugh's account of the prosecution generally, and he even had a\nsuspicion, based on an awkward statement by one of the legal witnesses,\nthat the examination of the bank account had been made some days before\nthe summons against him was issued.\n\n[Footnote 171: The introduction as a regular feature of \"Comic Bible\nSketches,\" of a kind which Mr Bradlaugh and Mrs Besant were not\nprepared to defend.]\n\nSir Hardinge Giffard, now prosecuting for the Crown, fought the case\nas he might have done it for Tyler, declaring in his opening speech\nthat he would call witnesses to prove certain things, and afterwards\ncarefully omitting to call them, seeing that that course would help\nBradlaugh to clear himself. In replying, he did not attempt to rebut\nthe criticisms passed on his client and on his conduct of the case,\nprofessing to take the attitude of dignified disregard. His main line\nof argument was that one or two isolated woodcuts had been published\nin the _Freethinker_ during the few months in which the Freethought\nCompany published it, that Bradlaugh was an original promoter, and\nthat the change made in the registration was only a stratagem,\nBradlaugh remaining the real publisher. As regarded the blasphemy\ncharged, Sir Hardinge did not take the customary line of distinguishing\nbetween vulgar and refined blasphemy, describing the contents of the\n_Freethinker_ as deadly \"poison to men's soul\"--an expression which\ncould not be supposed to apply to the mere element of vulgarity. He\nspoke with horror of a cartoon which exhibited Ignorance, Money, and\nFear as \"the true Trinity,\" and would doubtless have spoken similarly\nof the account of the Trinity as \"three Lord Shaftesburys,\" given by\nLord Coleridge's esteemed personal friend, Mr Matthew Arnold. The\nblasphemous matter on which the learned counsel expressed himself\nmost strongly in detail, however, was a vulgar travesty of the\nextremely silly and artistically worthless religious picture known as\n\"The Calling of Samuel.\" \"You have that picture,\" he told the jury,\n\"represented as a startled child, roused from his slumber by two cats\non the tiles. And this is the sort of thing which is to be scattered\nbroadcast over the land--!\"\n\nLord Coleridge, on his part, summed up with great literary skill and\ndignity, carefully guarding against theological prejudice on the part\nof the jury by the avowal that he himself, despite his years and\ncomparative detachment from the world, found it difficult to clear\nhis mind of it. Incidentally he remarked that it was to Bradlaugh's\ncredit that he did not disavow a general sympathy with the opinions\nof his co-defendants, while clearing himself of all complicity in the\npublications indicted. But on the point of the blasphemy charge he also\nincidentally expressed an opinion, which is worth citing as showing how\nlittle even an exceptionally considerate judge with strong religious\nfeelings can get rid of the vulgar notion that irreverence to his--the\npopular--religious opinions is immeasurably more reprehensible than\nirreverence towards other less popular opinions, or vilification of\nunpopular men's characters. His objection to blasphemy prosecutions was\nmainly that they injured the cause of religion:--\n\n \"I say not how far the institution of a prosecution of this kind\n wounds the most sacred feelings and does injury to the holiest\n convictions. Some persons may think that this is not so; some may\n think that by such prosecutions the most sacred truths are pierced\n through the sides of those who are their enemies. With all that we\n have nothing to do. We may dislike, we may--I do not hesitate to\n say, we may loathe--the expressions made use of in these libels. We\n may think the persons who can speak in this way of things which they\n themselves may disapprove of and disbelieve, which they themselves\n may possibly think superstitious and mischievous, but which they must\n know have been the life and the soul of the virtue, the morality, the\n self-denial, the civilisation of hundreds, and thousands, and millions\n of people in all ages, are persons who forget--I will not say what\n is due to God, for they do not believe in Him, but to man, for they\n are men--what is due to themselves, and to the community of which\n they form a part, and for whom they ought to have some consideration.\n All that may be perfectly true, but it has nothing to do with the\n question.\"\n\nHere the judge assumes that there is no dispute whatever as to the\nclaim that the Christian religion is the essence of morality and\nmodern civilisation, and proceeds to express disgust for a line of\npolemic which was zealously followed by the early Christians for\ncenturies, which is invariably followed in the Old Testament when\nthere is any question of alien religions, which is endorsed by Paul,\nwhich is commonly followed by Christian missionaries and by Protestant\nassailants of Catholicism, and which was even then being followed by\nthe Christian multitude in the very case of Bradlaugh. The Christian\nposition is that it is right to ridicule and asperse Freethinkers,\nmaterialists, and polytheists; and the Protestant position is that\nit is right to deride the Catholic worship of saints, images, and\nrelics; but Christians in the mass hold it abominable for unbelievers\nand \"heathen\" in turn to deride _their_ opinions, these being \"holy\"\nand \"dear.\" And all the while, in the case under notice, the people\nwho thus felt the most intense animal resentment towards a handful\nof men for speaking irreverently of a supposed Infinite, which by no\npossibility could human folly or contumely disturb or hurt, were as\noften as not zealous accomplices in casting the vilest personal insults\nagainst a representative Atheist who confessedly could not be shown\nto have attacked their opinions in such a way as to lay him open to\na successful prosecution for blasphemy. The Christian plea is that\nunbelievers should not be free to cause Christians pain. Yet the whole\nof Bradlaugh's life was and is in evidence to show that the first\ninstinct of the average Christian is to cause not merely endless mental\npain but material ruin to every man who ventures, however decorously,\nto pronounce the Christian creed untrue. Perhaps the profoundest\nimpeachment of the religious instinct in general is this very fact\nthat the express conviction of the absolute supremacy of a personal\npower over all things human never by any chance enables the believer to\nregard with serenity and compassion the human denials which that power\nin the terms of the case is alleged to permit.\n\nSome approach to the recognition of all this must have taken place\nin connection with the trial of Bradlaugh on the score of the\n_Freethinker_, although of course it was on the point of non-complicity\nthat the jury gave their verdict of acquittal. They deliberated for\nan hour and ten minutes, calling for several of the documents in the\ncase. The foreman's pronouncement of \"Not Guilty\" was received with\nloud cheers, which the judge indignantly rebuked, with the customary\nremark that \"this is not a place of entertainment;\" but a Conservative\njournal, endowed with the regulation horror of Atheism, commented that\nthe cheer expressed a sentiment not at all confined to Atheists. In\ngeneral, the press rejoiced with the acquitted man, who had now won\nin rapid succession three decisive successes in his long battle. It\nwas noted, too, that he had won them against one leading counsel, Sir\nHardinge Giffard. Asked later how it was that he had so often and so\nsignally defeated this counsel, Bradlaugh remarked that he believed\nit was because Giffard despised him as an antagonist, and neglected\nprecautions against him, while he, Bradlaugh, was careful at all times\nto do his utmost, and never to undervalue the enemy's strength. The\nmoral is an old one.\n\nIn addition to the discredit put upon the prosecution in Court,\nit happened that Sir Henry Tyler about this time figured rather\ndubiously before the public in his capacity of company-promoter.\nHis treatment of the financial affairs of the Anglo-American Brush\nElectric Light Corporation, in which he was deeply concerned, gave such\ndissatisfaction to most of the shareholders that they took the unusual\ncourse of presenting a memorial insisting on his resignation, after\nhe had been hissed and hooted at a shareholders meeting.[172] It may\nhave been a sense of the unfitness of such a personage to represent the\ncause of religion that led to the foundation of a \"Society for the\nSuppression of Blasphemous Literature,\" the secretary of which wrote to\nthe newspapers[173] as follows:--\n\n[Footnote 172: 23rd January 1883.]\n\n[Footnote 173: March 1883.]\n\n \"We propose to get up cases, as our funds will allow, against\n Professor Huxley, Dr Tyndall, Herbert Spencer, Swinburne, the author\n of 'Supernatural Religion,' the publishers of Mill's works, the\n publishers of Strauss's works, Leslie Stephen, John Morley, the editor\n of the _Jewish World_, Dr Martineau, and others, who by their writings\n have sown widespread unbelief, and in some cases rank Atheism, in\n cultivated families.\"\n\nThat goodly project, however, came to nothing, though in the view of\nJustice Stephen most if not all of the writers and publishers named\nwere certainly open to conviction for blasphemy under the existing law.\nIt would appear that the spiritual interests of \"cultivated families\"\narouse less solicitude than do those of the poor, in matters religious\nas well as Malthusian. Above all, none of the writers threatened, save\nMr John Morley, was likely to give the Tory party any chance of turning\nhis heresy to political advantage, and Mr Morley was already safe in\nhis seat, having taken the oath without demur and without opposition,\nafter editorially criticising Mr Bradlaugh for his willingness to take\nit. Mr Morley had perhaps put himself right with the religious party by\napplauding the prosecution of Foote and Ramsey--he who had expressly\njustified the polemic of Voltaire.[174] A clergyman of the Church of\nEngland, the Rev. Stewart Headlam, whose championship of the principle\nof religious equality has all along been above all praise, wrote to Mr\nMorley in his editorial capacity, protesting \"as a Christian priest\"\nagainst a policy which made it \"almost impossible for Christians to\nmeet Atheists on equal terms.\" \"It seems,\" Mr Headlam began, \"as\nthough you were one of those who say, 'There is no God, but it's a\nfamily secret.'\" The letter was suppressed. It is bare justice to cite\nit here[175] as being perhaps the most telling protest made against\nthe blasphemy prosecutions, albeit written by a sincerely orthodox\nclergyman.\n\n[Footnote 174: To do Mr Morley justice, it should be acknowledged that\nhe unsaid his vindication in the same book.]\n\n[Footnote 175: It was printed in the _National Reformer_ of 1st April\n1883.]\n\nThe original case against Bradlaugh's co-defendants, Messrs Foote and\nRamsey, who had been already sentenced to imprisonment on the second\nprosecution by Mr Justice North, came on before Lord Coleridge and\na special jury on 24th April. The judge treated the prisoners with\nsignal consideration and courtesy; and when the prosecuting counsel,\nMr Moloney, persisted in putting a question to which Lord Coleridge\nhad objected, his lordship indignantly asked, \"Why cannot this case\nbe conducted like any other case? It seems all of a piece with the\nlearned counsel inspecting a man's bank-book.\" The accused defended\nthemselves, Mr Foote making a particularly able speech, on which the\njudge, in his summing-up, repeatedly complimented him. That summing-up\n(delivered on the 25th) was in its way a masterly performance, marking\nthe judge as the most admirably persuasive of pleaders. Deeply averse\nto all punishment of opinion, he showed the jury that the blasphemy\nlaw, as interpreted by past judges, was not nearly so outrageous as had\nbeen supposed; and the definition of \"the late Mr Starkie,\" of which\na scanty quotation had been given by the prosecution, he showed to be\nmuch less illiberal than it had been understood to be, though nothing\ncould make it out to be a precise or practical formulation of law. As\nin the previous trial, he demolished the absurd plea that \"Christianity\nis part of the law of the land,\" by the _reductio ad absurdum_ that\nthe marriage law and the monarchy are part of the law of the land, but\nare yet open to being argued against--at least in all modern opinion.\nAs, however, no interpretation could do away with the hard facts of\nthe blasphemy laws, and the accused had unfortunately put their heresy\nat times with extreme pictorial crudeness, his lordship could not\ndefinitely charge the jury that no blasphemy had been committed in law.\nHe admitted that the objection against their practice on the score of\nviolence would apply to some passages read by Mr Foote from prominent\nmodern writers, which were new to him; but while the law stood as it\nwas, that was no defence for Mr Foote, as the writers in question\nwould be equally open to indictment. The jury, thus unavoidably left\nin doubt, disagreed. The prosecution, acting judiciously for the first\ntime, took the course of entering a _nolle prosequi_, and the case\ndropped, but not without the Lord Chief Justice having to point out\nthat the petition grossly misrepresented him as having pronounced the\nprosecution \"unadvisable,\" which he had carefully abstained from doing.\nUnluckily, the dropping of this case did not affect the sentence\npassed by Justice North, and the then Home Secretary, Sir William\nHarcourt, declined to mitigate the punishment, on the score of the\noffensiveness of one of the incriminated woodcuts, which he called \"an\nobscene libel,\" though the charge was one of blasphemy. Some Liberal\njournals indignantly protested; but the Liberal leaders felt they\nmust show no consideration to blasphemy, though even the _Spectator_\ncensured them for their timidity.\n\n\n\u00a719.\n\nWhile the decisive trials were yet in the future, Bradlaugh had\nnever slackened his energetic action on the political side of the\nfight. The last move in the House had been taken on 18th July 1882,\nwhen Mr Labouchere moved that Bradlaugh be appointed a member of the\nCommittee to consider the Agricultural Tenants' Compensation Bills.\nThe right of a member in Bradlaugh's position to serve on committees\nhad been established by the precedents of Alderman Salomons and Baron\nRothschild. The point was a curious one, and could not be got over\nargumentatively, but of course the House could outvote the motion,\nwhich it did by 120 to 35. Not till the next year was the campaign\nindoors reopened.\n\nOn 15th February 1883, the day of the reassembling of Parliament,\na great demonstration was held in Trafalgar Square in support of\nBradlaugh's and Northampton's claim, about a thousand delegates\nattending from some four hundred Radical associations of provincial\ntowns. At first some of the railway companies were understood to be\nwilling to run cheap excursion trains, but that concession was of\ncourse violently opposed, and at a meeting of representatives of\nthe companies held in the Railway Clearing House on 29th January\na resolution was carried by a majority of votes, binding all the\ncompanies to give no special facilities whatever. An attempt to get the\nuse of the Floral Hall, Covent Garden, for the meeting was defeated\nby the veto of the Duke of Bedford's agent, though the Directors\nwere willing to grant it; and no other sufficiently large hall was\navailable for the date. The meeting, which would have been several\ntimes larger had the railway companies given the desired special\ntrains, was nevertheless a great success, the square being densely\npacked, despite bad weather; and despite some attempts at rioting by\nhired roughs, there was almost perfect order throughout. The _Pall\nMall Gazette_ had deprecated the meeting as held in an illegal place,\nthough for a perfectly legal purpose. This was a misconstruction of\nthe Act 57th Geo. III. cap. 19, sec. 23, which prohibited meetings\nwithin a mile of Parliament House for the purpose of petitioning the\nCrown or Parliament \"for alteration of matters in Church or State.\" As\nthere was no petition under consideration, the meeting was perfectly\nlegal. Other papers went further, the _Daily Telegraph_ applauding\nthe railway companies for refusing to \"start trains in order to bring\nup country roughs;\" and generally it must be recorded that some of\nthe leading Liberal journals discouraged the whole procedure. The\n_Daily News_ and _Daily Chronicle_ even suppressed resolutions sent\nthem in support of Bradlaugh's claim from provincial clubs before the\ndemonstration--such resolutions being part of the manifold machinery\nof preparation for a great public demonstration; and the Tory papers\nas a rule suppressed all reports tending to show the support given\nto Bradlaugh in the country. Other forms of boycotting were freely\nemployed. In the cathedral town of Peterborough a debating society set\nup by the local Young Men's Christian Association was deprived of the\nuse of the Association's rooms because it carried a motion in favour\nof Bradlaugh's right to sit and vote. This episode typified hundreds.\nThe most skilful device employed, perhaps, was the issue of a forged\ncircular, purporting to come from Bradlaugh, calling on \"all Atheists,\nas well as Socialists,\" to \"assemble in their thousands round the House\nof Commons,\" and show that \"the Atheists of this country have a right\nto be represented\" in Parliament.[176] Newspapers which had no space\nfor genuine news about Bradlaugh gave prominence to this.\n\n[Footnote 176: Cited in _National Reformer_, 18th February, p. 101.]\n\n\nAs the meeting of Parliament drew near, expectation naturally rose high\non both sides. The sentiment of many Tories may be presumed to have\nbeen expressed by Lord Newark, son of Earl Manvers, when at the annual\ndinner of the Nottinghamshire Agricultural Society he was ruffianly\nenough to say:\n\n \"He supposed that Mr Bradlaugh meant to make himself objectionable as\n usual. He heard from an honourable member who sat near him[177] that\n he thought of going with a big stick, and he (Lord Newark) hoped that\n if he came within reach of Mr Bradlaugh he would make use of it.\"\n\n[Footnote 177: The hon. members were: Lord Galway, Messrs Foljambe and\nNicholson, and Colonel Seely.]\n\nThe stick, however, was not on exhibition at the House of Commons.\nBradlaugh's course was to send to the Speaker a letter stating the\nthen position of matters, in view of the action of the law courts; and\nstating that he proposed to present himself as before. This letter\nwas read to the House before any other business was taken. On Mr\nLabouchere asking the Government what course they meant to take, Lord\nHartington at once answered that on the following night they would move\nfor leave to bring in an Affirmation Bill. Sir Richard Cross, on the\nConservative side, at once announced that he would oppose the Bill, and\nhis statement was loudly cheered. At this stage Inspector Denning asked\nBradlaugh to leave the House and reassure the multitude outside, who\nwere beginning to fancy they might be \"ill-using him inside.\"\n\nOn 20th February the motion for leave was made, when Sir Henry Drummond\nWolff was understood to express himself with ironical approbation,\nwhile Mr Chaplin opposed, and Northcote explained that he should vote\nagainst the second reading. The motion was carried by 184 votes to 53,\nmost of the Irish party voting in the minority. Not till 23d April did\nthe Bill reach its second reading; and in the meantime a desperate\neffort was made by the entire Tory party to arouse feeling against the\nBill. In the previous session the petitions in Bradlaugh's favour had\nbeen signed by 275,000 persons, and those against him by only 65,000,\nmany of these being children. The leeway was now made up. The machinery\nof the Anglican and Catholic Churches was worked to the utmost to beat\nup petitions; schools were swept wholesale for signatures, not only\nin England but abroad;[178] and large employers of labour were got to\nprocure the signatures of employees _en masse_, reluctant workers being\nnot obscurely threatened with the consequences of refusal. By these\nmeans half a million signatures were got up by the 23rd of April, the\ngreat majority being those of school-children and coerced employees.\n_Tantum religio_----. The Tory press likewise put its best foot\nforemost. In the _St James's Gazette_ of 22nd February, Mr Greenwood\nmade an abominable attack on Bradlaugh, the foulest of many foul\nblows, describing him as \"a preacher of certain theories of the sexual\nrelation which, in the opinion of the great majority of Englishmen, are\nnot only immoral but filthy,\" going on to speak of him as having long\nbeen known as the publisher of an obscene tract, and representing him\nas an advocate of \"Free Love, and sundry other doctrines and practices\nwhich benefit greatly by the impossibility of referring to them\ndistinctly among decent people.\" The pamphlet formerly put together by\nVarley, largely consisting of matter Bradlaugh never wrote, falsified\neven at that, and partly of passages from him, wrested from their\ncontext and falsified in application, was circulated more widely than\never. Many members of Parliament repeated the palpable falsehood that\nBradlaugh had been \"declared by the House of Commons and the courts of\nlaw incapable of sitting in Parliament;\" and Mr H. S. Northcote, son of\nSir Stafford, in addition to making this statement to his constituents\nat Exeter, told them that \"when Mr Bradlaugh led a mob of unwashed\nruffians down to Parliament Yard\" the Government introduced their Bill.\n\n[Footnote 178: A barrister wrote to Bradlaugh enclosing a letter from\nhis daughter, aged fifteen, at school at Frankfort, telling how the\nEnglish chaplain there called and asked all the English girls at the\nschool to sign a petition against the Affirmation Bill (_National\nReformer_, 15th April 1883).]\n\nOn the second reading, Sir Richard Cross opened the opposition, and\nbegan by making the statement that \"it was a former Government whip,\nMr Adam, who first invited Mr Bradlaugh to go to Northampton\"--the\ngrossest form ever given to that particular untruth. He was seconded\nby Mr M'Cullagh Torrens, a nominal Liberal, who in his work on\n\"Empire in Asia\" had affected a high esteem for the principle of\nreligious toleration--in other countries. The Bill, he said, tended\n\"to begin the abjuring of all responsibilities to heaven.\" Mr W.\nE. Baxter, following, declared that \"not only had Atheists been\nmembers of Parliament, but they had sat on the Treasury Bench\"--and a\nmember called out \"And sit!\" Giffard, seeking his revenge at once on\nBradlaugh and Lord Coleridge, \"repeated without the smallest fear of\ncontradiction that Christianity was a part of the common law of the\nkingdom.\" Mr Illingworth happening to speak of \"recreant members of the\nJewish community,\" Baron de Worms rose to order, and the Speaker ruled\nthe term \"out of order.\" None of the epithets directed at the Atheist\nhad struck him in that light.\n\nThe debate was thrice adjourned. On 26th April Sir H. D. Wolff took\nit upon him to accuse Lord Chancellor Selborne of using his position\nto help his political party; and Lord R. Churchill, in a later speech,\nsaid the same thing of Lord Coleridge. On the Liberal side, Gladstone\nmade the greatest speech delivered by him during the whole controversy.\nAt first he was elaborate and deprecatory, but gradually he rose to\nwarmth and cogency. \"Do you suppose,\" he asked--\n\n \"Do you suppose that we are ignorant that in every contested election\n which has happened since the case of Mr Bradlaugh came up you have\n gained votes and we have lost them? (Opposition cheers and counter\n cheers.) _You_ are perfectly aware of it. We are not less aware of\n it. But if you are perfectly aware of it, is not some credit to be\n given to us--we giving you the same under circumstances rather more\n difficult--for presumptive integrity and purity of motive?\"\n\nIt was a na\u00efve and a vain appeal, but the speech was none the less\nfine. The most powerful part of its argument was the demonstration that\nthose who consented to drop the Christian element from the oath and\nheld by the Theistic were treating Christianity, as such, as a thing\nthat could be dispensed with.\n\n \"I am not willing, sir, that Christianity--if the appeal is to be made\n to us as a Christian legislature--shall stand in any rank lower than\n that which is indispensable.\" He would not accept bare Theism as the\n main thing. \"The adoption of such a proposition as that--and it is at\n the very root of your contention--seems to me in the highest degree\n disparaging to the Christian faith.\"\n\nAnd then, contending that a bare belief in a remote and abstract Deity\ncould exist with a complete disbelief in that Deity's having any\nrelation with men, he rolled out \"the noble and majestic lines, for\nsuch they are, of the Latin poet:\"--\n\n \"Omnis enim per se divom natura necesse'st\n Immortali aevo summa cum pace fruatur\n Semota ab nostris rebus sejunctaque longe;\n Nam privata dolore omni, private periclis,\n Ipsa suis pollens opibus, nil indiga nostri\n Nec bene promeritis capitur neque tangitur ira.\"[179]\n\n[Footnote 179: Lucretius, ii. 646-651. It was thought notable that\nthe orator did not allude to the kindred passage in his beloved Homer\n(_Odyssey_, vi. 41), splendidly rendered by Lucretius (iii. 18-22),\nand choicely paraphrased by Tennyson in his poem \"Lucretius.\" The\nbest expression in English verse of the idea in the passage quoted by\nGladstone is again Tennyson's--the great passage a the close of the\n\"Lotos Eaters.\"]\n\nThere was no one to follow him up with a citation of the lines which\nfollow on these where they used to stand misplaced in the first book of\nLucretius' poem:--\n\n \"Humana ante oculos foede cum vita jaceret\n In terris oppressa gravi sub religione;\"\n\nbut some listeners there must have been who bethought them how\nperfectly this long controversy had answered to the Roman's picture\nof \"life crushed to the earth under the weight of religion;\" and they\nmay fitly have murmured \"primum Graius homo\" of the man whose long\nbattle was even then visibly tending to relieve them one day of the old\nhypocrisy of adjuring the unknown God.\n\nTouching his mother earth of classic verse, Gladstone drew new strength\nof eloquence.\n\n \"The Deity exists, as those I must say magnificent words set forth,\n in the remote, inaccessible recesses of which we know nothing,\n but with us it has no dealing, with us it has no relation. I have\n purposely gone back to ancient times, but I do not hesitate to say\n that the specific evil or specific form of irreligion with which\n in the educated society of this country you have to contend, and\n with respect to which you ought to be on your guard, is not blank\n Atheism. That is a rare opinion that is seldom met with; but what is\n frequently met with are those forms of opinion which say that whatever\n is beyond the visible scene, whatever there be beyond this short span\n of life, you know, and can know, nothing of it. It is a visionary and\n bootless undertaking to try to fathom it. That, sir, is the specific\n mischief of the age; but that mischief of the age you do not attempt\n to touch.... Whom do you seek to admit? You seek to admit Voltaire.\n You would admit Voltaire, and that is a specimen of your liberality.\n Voltaire was no taciturn unbeliever. He was the author of that phrase\n which goes to the heart of every Christian, and of many a professor of\n religion who is not a Christian--'_Ecrasez l'Inf\u00e2me._' Voltaire would\n not have had the slightest difficulty in taking your oath; and yet\n that is the state of the law for which you are working up the country\n to madness.\" (Loud ministerial cheers.)\n\nSpeeches followed varying between imbecility and commonplace; and\non the debate being again adjourned, it was re-opened (1st May) by\nChurchill in a speech of characteristic scurrility.\n\n \"The personal supporters of the representative of Atheism,\" said\n the noble Lord, \"were the residuum, and the rabble, and the scum of\n the population. The bulk of them were men to whom all restraint,\n religious, moral, or legal, was odious and intolerable.\"\n\nAn effective reply to other parts of the speech was made by Mr\nLabouchere, who incidentally made the startling revelation that to his\nknowledge there were several members who had never taken the oath at\nall, having signed the roll, but missed swearing in the scramble for\nthe Testaments. At length, on a third adjournment, the question came to\nthe vote. Northcote made an ignominious speech, in which he defended\nhimself on the point of having formerly urged that special legislation\nwas the right course for the Government to take. He admitted that\nhe had said so, but contended that saying so did not commit him to\nvoting for that course when taken. The positive part of the argument\nwas worthy of the negative. But bad as the pleading on the Tory side\nwas, it had with it a majority of votes. On the division there voted\nonly 289 for the second reading, and 292 against. Irish and renegade\nLiberal votes had just turned the scale; and it was noted that in\nthe majority there voted several members too drunk to walk straight\nwithout support.[180] The result was received with a positive frenzy of\ndelight by the Tories and their Home Rule allies, all alike shouting\nthat they had \"beaten Bradlaugh.\" \"The Irish have beaten Bradlaugh,\"\nwas the cry of Mr Sexton. The Liberals who voted with the majority were\nthe three Hon. Fitzwilliams of Yorkshire, Sir Edward Watkin,[181] Dr\nLyons, Messrs Guest, Nicholson, and Torrens, and Mr Jerningham, a Roman\nCatholic, who had owed his recent election for Berwick mainly to his\nhaving promised to support Bradlaugh's claim to sit, and who all along\nbroke his word in the House.[182]\n\n[Footnote 180: Bradlaugh later publicly specified Newdegate as having\nbeen tipsy, \"not for the first time;\" and Newdegate, though denying the\ncharge, did not bring an action for libel.]\n\n[Footnote 181: It should be said that Sir Edward Watkin is understood\nto regret his action.]\n\n[Footnote 182: Mr Jerningham defended himself by asserting that\nBradlaugh had written a \"Comic History of Christ,\" which was one lie\nmore. On being corrected, he told another, saying that Bradlaugh\nadmitted having written the Introduction.]\n\nBradlaugh without hesitation took his usual course, with a difference.\nHe sent a letter to the Speaker, asking to be called to the table in\nthe usual way to take the oath, and, in the case of that course being\ndeclined, to be heard at the bar. On 4th May he duly re-presented\nhimself at the bar, and the letter was read by the Speaker. Northcote\nmoved as usual that Bradlaugh be not allowed to swear; and Mr\nLabouchere moved that he be heard at the bar, which being allowed, he\nmade his Fourth Speech at the Bar. It was comparatively brief, tersely\nrepeating the old pleas, and the old protest--\n\n \"I submit that any hindrance which is not prescribed by law is an act\n which in itself is flagrantly wrong, whoever may commit it, and that\n the mere fact that a majority of voices in one Chamber may prevent a\n citizen from appealing to the law in no sense lessens the iniquity of\n the illegal act, and that history will so judge it, whatever to-day\n you may think it your right and your duty to do.\"\n\nAfter disposing of the old falsehood that the late Liberal whip had\nrecommended him to the Northampton electors, he remarked:--\n\n \"I have always regarded the Liberal party as standing in the way of my\n election, rather than as in any way helping my return. This, however,\n I submit, was matter unworthy of this House. No such consideration has\n ever entered at any time into the discussion of any other candidature.\n I submit that a great House, which claims the powers of one of the\n highest courts of these realms, should try to be judicial.\"\n\nAgain he exposed the persistent lie that he had \"paraded his views,\"\npointing out that even when, at official request, he named the statutes\nunder which he claimed to affirm, he did not in law profess Atheism,\nsince a Theist was legally incompetent to swear if he did not believe\nin future rewards and punishments, and such Theists were only entitled\nto affirm under the Acts under which he claimed. Again he protested\nthat he had never uttered his opinions in the House.\n\n \"Under great temptation I have refrained from saying a word which\n could wound the feelings of the most religious, although I have heard\n within these walls, within but a few hours, language used by one who\n had declared his religion which I should have felt ashamed to use in\n any decent assembly.\"\n\nThis referred to an exhibition by Callan, the Catholic henchman of\nCardinal Manning, who had repeatedly appeared in the House drunk, and\nwho, in the division of the 3rd, had used such \"filthy and blasphemous\"\nlanguage towards another Irish member who proposed to vote for\nBradlaugh, that he had to make a formal apology to prevent the matter\nbeing raised. On 30th April, in the adjourned debate, another Irish\nmember, M'Coan, had read some of the false quotations compiled by\nVarley, and, on being challenged, impudently asserted that Bradlaugh\nhad never repudiated them. A third Irish member, Mr O'Brien, had\nobserved that he \"did not believe that any greater number of persons\nfavoured Mr Bradlaugh than would be content to go naked through the\nstreets.\" Yet another religious member, an English Tory, Mr Ritchie,\nhad declared that the Affirmation Bill would be \"the triumph of Atheism\nand Socialism,\" and further quoted to the House, as words used by\nBradlaugh, words which he had never used, and which were described in\nthe very document quoted as taken from a report for which he was not\nresponsible. The \"filthy book,\" too, had been mentioned; and on this\nBradlaugh read the words of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, hereinbefore\nprinted, with the exculpatory words of the jury. \"But all these\nthings,\" he added, \"although they were as true as they are false, give\nyou no right to stand between me and my seat.\" His peroration was\nperfect:--\n\n \"I heard a strange phrase from a noble lord, that both sides had gone\n too far to recede. The House honours me too much in putting me on\n one side and itself on the other. The House, being strong, should be\n generous. The strong can recede, the generous can give way; but the\n constituents have a right to more than generosity--they have a right\n to justice. (Cheers.) The law gives me my seat. In the name of the law\n I ask for it. I regret that my personality overshadows the principles\n involved in this great struggle; but I would ask those who have\n touched my life, not knowing it, who have found for me vices which I\n do not remember in the memory of my life, I would ask them whether all\n can afford to cast the first stone--(cheers)--or whether, condemning\n me for my unworthiness, they will as just judges vacate their own\n seats, having deprived my constituents of their right here to mine.\"\n (Loud cheers.)\n\nIt remained to discuss the closing step, as usual. Mr Labouchere moved\nthe previous question in a speech which pointedly raised the issue of\nthe actual presence of other Atheists in the House.\n\n \"Since Mr Bradlaugh has been re-elected--since you refused to allow\n him to take the oath--it is well known by every member of this House\n that a gentleman has been elected who is of great position in the\n literary world; and every man who knows anything of English literature\n knows perfectly well that that gentleman has avowed himself to be an\n unbeliever in a superintending Providence as clearly as Professor\n Huxley himself. ('Hear, hear.') I ask, is it not monstrous hypocrisy\n to allow that hon. member to take the oath, and prevent Mr Bradlaugh\n from taking it, because you assert that three years ago he had stated\n within the precincts of this House that he was an Atheist?\"\n\nThe member referred to was Mr John Morley, who, destined to be Mr\nGladstone's most trusted lieutenant, had listened to the Premier's\naccount of \"the mischief of the age,\" but had taken no part in the\ndebate. His Atheism, or non-Theism, was as notorious as Bradlaugh's.\nIt had been zealously used against him by the Tories in his recent\nelection at Newcastle. The fact that he had \"spelt 'God' with a small\n'g'\" through a whole book was known to the whole newspaper-reading\npublic; and the Tories would certainly have been glad enough to exclude\nhim if they could. But they knew all along that there were Atheists\non their own side; and Mr Morley's case could not be raised without\nraising these. So the \"profanation of the oath\" was permitted without a\nmurmur by the party which had declared itself incapable of tolerating\nsuch a thing; and the flagitious persecution of the avowed Atheist was\nrecommenced all the same.\n\nTo Mr Labouchere's charge of \"monstrous hypocrisy\" no answer was\nattempted. Gladstone and Northcote with one consent ignored it. On a\ndivision, though Gladstone supported Mr Labouchere's motion (which if\ncarried would have enabled Bradlaugh to take the oath), only 165 voted\nfor it, and 271 against.\n\n\n\u00a7 20.\n\nThree years had now passed since Bradlaugh first sought to take the\nseat to which he was alike morally and legally entitled--three years\nof manifold exhausting and sorely burdensome strife, of iniquitous and\nvile calumny, of lawless and shameful persecution, in part brutally\nfanatical, in part dishonest and hypocritical in the lowest degree.\nIt had been made to embrace all who were closely connected with him.\nFirst Mrs Besant was insultingly refused leave to use the garden of\nthe Royal Botanic Society for her studies, on the score that the\ndaughters of the Curator used it. Later (1883) the Misses Bradlaugh\nwere denied membership of the \"Somerville\" (Women's) Club on the score\nthat their names were sufficient objection. Yet later (2nd May 1883)\nMrs Besant and Miss Bradlaugh were refused admittance to the practical\nBotany Class at University College, London. On applying by letter,\nthey were requested to present themselves, and then they were told in\nperson by the secretary and the \"lady superintendent\" that they could\nnot be admitted, because there was \"some prejudice\" against them. It\nseemed as if nothing short of the personal insult would suffice the\nofficials concerned; but the Council[183] endorsed their action at its\nmeeting of 7th May, though the very purpose for which the College had\nbeen founded was to dispense with religious qualifications. A memorial\nrequesting the Council to summon an extraordinary general meeting to\nconsider this action was signed by, among others, Professors Huxley,\nBain, and Frankland, and Dr E. B. Tylor; but on the meeting being held,\nthe medical graduates came in large numbers to support the action of\nthe Council, greatly outvoting the others. Only nine voted against. The\nUniversity College was thus committed to a course of ethical rivalry\nwith the House of Commons, outdoing that body, however, in declining\nto assign any reason for its action. At the meeting Mr Justice Denman\ntook an active part in justifying the action of the Council, and it\nwent from him to the country that the excluded ladies had \"refused\nto comply with the rules of the College.\" This was pure fiction. Mrs\nBesant described it at the time as a \"cruel and malignant falsehood,\nfor we complied with every condition laid down to us.\" Informed of his\nmis-statement, Mr Justice Denman made no correction. Later in the year\nan attempt was made to deprive of his chair a Professor of Mathematics\nin the South Wales University, Mr Lloyd Tanner, who was a member of the\nNational Secular Society, and had helped the movement in support of\nBradlaugh's claim. It was, however, defeated by a majority of votes.\n\n[Footnote 183: The President was Lord Kimberley; the Treasurer Sir\nJulian Goldsmid; and the Council included Lord Belper, Sir B. N. Ellis,\nSir A. Hobhouse, Lord Reay, and Sir George Young. I cannot ascertain\nwho were present, save that Sir A. Hobhouse was one.]\n\nThese endless acts of persecution, parodied as they were in a thousand\nacts of less publicity, only roused the persecuted party to more\nenergetic action. The Freethought propaganda was carried further\nthan ever, and naturally did not grow more gentle. On the political\nside, Bradlaugh set himself afresh to rouse the constituencies,\nbating no jot of heart or hope. To his own constituents he offered\nhis resignation if they wished it, and once more they emphatically\nrefused. He accordingly issued one more \"Appeal to the People,\"\norganised a series of addresses and demonstrations in the large towns,\nand in particular took fresh steps for overthrowing the Liberals who\nhad helped to throw out the Affirmation Bill. Previous menaces had\nreduced the number of these renegades in the last trial of strength;\nand Torrens in particular now received hundreds of letters warning\nhim that he need not again stand for Finsbury. In the course of a\nfew months, Bradlaugh had addressed audiences numbering in all over\n300,000, and nearly all were unanimously in his favour, while at none\ndid the malcontents number above two per cent. In some towns, as at\nHalifax and Leeds, he had enormous open-air demonstrations, the numbers\ncoming to some fifty thousand. A densely packed meeting took place in\nSt James's Hall in July; and another Trafalgar Square demonstration\nwas held in August, attended by some thirty thousand men, of whom\nhundreds came as delegates from the provinces; and concurrently with\nthese \"constitutional\" gatherings there was carried on the work of the\nAssociation for the Repeal of the Blasphemy Laws, largely conducted\nby advanced Unitarian clergymen, who worked with a disinterested zeal\nworthy of the very highest praise, considering how little of personal\nsympathy they could have had with the imprisoned Freethinkers.\n\nIn the way of more direct action, Bradlaugh on 5th July notified\nGladstone that he proposed again to present himself to take the oath,\nand on the 9th Northcote interrogated the Premier on the subject. Left\nto do as he would, Northcote once more moved that Bradlaugh be excluded\nfrom the House until he should engage not to disturb its proceedings;\nand on a division 232 voted for the motion and only 65 against,\nGladstone deprecating any division at all. On the next day, on receipt\nof the order of exclusion, Bradlaugh notified Captain Gossett, the\nSergeant-at-Arms, that if Captain Gossett would say he interpreted the\norder to involve the use of physical force to resist Bradlaugh's entry,\nhe would take legal proceedings to obtain a restraining injunction from\nthe High Court of Justice against such resistance. In this way the\nlegal question might be raised and settled without a fresh scuffle. In\nthe House the Speaker declined to let this letter be made ground of\ndiscussion as a matter of \"privilege,\" though he allowed the letter\nto Gladstone to be so treated. The Sergeant-at-Arms, however, made\nthe requisite answer, and the action was duly begun (19th July). The\nTreasury defended, and on Bradlaugh's appeal the case was tried by\na \"full Court.\" It came on before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, Mr\nJustice Stephen, and Mr Justice Mathew, on 7th December, the defence\narguing by Demurrer to the Statement of Claim. Bradlaugh's pleading was\none long argument with the judges, who followed him with great care;\nand on 9th February 1884 they gave their judgment, not unexpectedly,\nagainst him. The view taken was, broadly, that \"if injustice has been\ndone, it is an injustice for which the courts of law afford no remedy,\"\nwhich had been the contention of the Attorney-General. Mr Justice\nStephen, while concurring with Lord Coleridge to the above effect,\ndelivered a separate and very careful judgment. They could not, he said\nin effect, assume that the House intentionally defied the law. It must\nhave supposed it was within the law. Then the Court could not pronounce\nits action illegal without hearing its reasons. But the House could\nnot without loss of dignity give the Court its reasons, or allow the\nCourt to overrule them. Therefore the plaintiff, right or wrong, had no\nlegal redress. If wronged, he must go to the constituencies. In fine,\nthe breaking of any law by the House in its own procedure would not be\nillegal, or, if it were, the illegality could not be redressed by the\nlaw courts. The House of Commons might be restrained in the case of an\nillegal order against a stranger, but not in the case of an illegal\norder against one of its own members. If it erred or did injustice, it\nwas in the position of an erring or unjust judge, from whose decision\nthere was no appeal. The rights of the constituency of Northampton and\ntheir member were strictly legal rights; but it lay with the House to\noverride them if it would.\n\nExpecting this decision, Bradlaugh had already laid the new situation\nbefore his constituents, in order to have their assent to his action on\nthe re-opening of Parliament, and once more they declared their entire\nconfidence in him. He had also arranged with the Tories, through his\ncolleague, to take no action in the House before 11th February, if\nthey would take none. His course now was to go to the House on 11th\nFebruary, go up to the table with Mr Labouchere and Mr Burt as his\nintroducers, and once more administer the oath to himself.\n\nThe Speaker gave the customary order to withdraw, and Northcote,\nafter stating that Bradlaugh had not taken the oath according to the\nstatute, absurdly moved that he \"be not allowed to go through the form\nof repeating the words of the oath prescribed by the statutes.\" Then\nensued the customary miscellaneous debate. Gladstone at much length\nsuggested that there should be no division. Mr Labouchere offered to\nagree if Northcote would limit his motion to the time within which\nit would be possible to obtain a legal decision on the legality of\nBradlaugh's latest act of self-swearing; but Northcote would not agree,\nand Mr Labouchere proceeded forcibly to argue the point, not only\ndeclaring the act to be in his opinion legal, but adding:--\n\n \"I confess that, for my part, I do regard these words of the oath\n [which Bradlaugh had called an unmeaning form] as an utterly unmeaning\n form--(Opposition cries of 'Oh, oh')--utterly and absolutely\n an unmeaning form. To me they are just the same superstitious\n incantation--('Hear, hear,' laughter, 'Oh, oh,' and 'Order')--as the\n trash of any Mumbo-Jumbo among African savages. (Renewed laughter,\n cries of 'Oh, oh,' and 'Order.') Why do hon. gentlemen say 'Oh, oh'?\n Are they aware that there are many in this House who regard these\n words as a blasphemous form? ('Hear, hear.') I say I regard them as an\n unmeaning form.\"\n\nFrom this point at least, if not before, the proceedings against\nBradlaugh in the House may without fear of contradiction be described\nas an indecent farce. His colleague had in the most aggressive\nfashion, and within the House, declared the oath to be in his opinion\na superstitious, barbarous, and senseless incantation. Mr John Morley,\nas Positivist, had taken the oath without contradiction. And before\neither of these episodes Mr Ashton Dilke, whose vacated seat for\nNewcastle Mr Morley obtained, had declared in the House, in course of\ndebate, that he was without belief in the reigning religion. Bradlaugh,\nwho heard the avowal, remarked on the stilled surprise with which it\nwas received. But no one ever sought to challenge the right of Mr\nDilke, Mr Morley, or Mr Labouchere to sit in virtue of having taken an\nunbelieving oath. The Tory talk in the House of \"profanation\" is thus\nstamped once for all as a tissue of the worst hypocrisy; and the Tory\nleader and all his men stand convicted of a course of dissimulation\nas cowardly as it was shameless. They would attack the \"unpopular\"\nman; they would not obstruct Mr Morley, since that would bring up the\nquestion of Tory Atheism; they would not proceed against Mr Labouchere,\nsince he was likely to publish in his journal the names of some of the\nTory Atheists.\n\nGross as it had become, the farce went on. Forster, who now spoke on\nthe subject for the first time, gave a touch of dignity to the debate\nby protesting against Mr Labouchere's remarks on the oath (though\nwithout proposing to have him proceeded against), and saying, as\nGladstone and others had said before, that the opposition to Bradlaugh\nwas one of the greatest blows against the cause of religion that had\nbeen struck for many years. Northcote, making no comment whatever on Mr\nLabouchere's hardy avowal, briefly explained the force of his motion;\nand after this irregularity the debate grew more and more confused. It\nwas known that Bradlaugh meant as before to vote in the division; and\nthe Speaker was repeatedly appealed to to prevent it. He declared he\nhad not the power; and Mr Healy--in one of a series of grossly insolent\nspeeches, in which he spoke of \"the Government, Bradlaugh & Co.\"--moved\nimmediately after the division, before the numbers were announced, that\nthe vote be expunged. After much squabbling, the House divided on this\npoint, when there voted 258 Ayes and 161 Noes. Bradlaugh's vote with\nthe Noes was thus \"disallowed;\" but after the voting on the original\nmotion had been stated--280 Ayes and 167 Noes--Mr Labouchere announced\nthat Bradlaugh had voted with the Noes on the motion to expunge his\nprevious vote. The farce was thus pretty complete.\n\nNorthcote then made his usual motion to exclude Bradlaugh \"from the\nprecincts of the House until he shall engage not further to disturb the\nproceedings of the House.\" Again the debate broke out. Mr Labouchere\noffered to undertake that if the motion was withdrawn Bradlaugh should\nnot disturb the proceedings until he had obtained a legal decision\non this last oath-taking; and Gladstone and Bright pointed out the\nhardship and indignity of excluding Bradlaugh from the very library\nand lobbies of the House; but Northcote, swayed as usual by the worst\nof his followers, pressed his motion, disregarding Mr Burt's final\nrepetition of the undertaking that Bradlaugh should not disturb the\nproceedings till his law case was settled. On a division, 228 voted\nfor the final indignity, and only 120 against. The farce had become\nas ignoble as meanness could make it; and Northcote was admitted by\nmost people to have fully realised the character in which he was more\nthan once presented by the caricaturists--of pantaloon to Churchill's\nclown in the Tory pantomime. Churchill took the lead on the following\nevening when, Bradlaugh having \"applied for the Chiltern Hundreds,\"\nMr Labouchere moved that a new writ be issued for Northampton.[184]\nThe hereditarily noble lord saw that if Bradlaugh were re-elected\nthey would be no further forward; and his object was to exclude him\npermanently. He had lately given notice of a motion that Bradlaugh be\ndeclared incapable in perpetuity of sitting, but had dropped it as\nhopeless. He now \"moved the adjournment of the debate.\" A straggling\nand noisy debate ensued, in which Mr Healy was pronounced disorderly by\nthe Speaker for his interruptions of Northcote, whose ally he had been.\nOn a division, only 145 voted for the adjournment, and 203 against.\nThen more discussion as to whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had\nthe right to grant the Chiltern Hundreds, the motion for the new writ\nbeing finally agreed to.\n\n[Footnote 184: In this case the Government arranged to sue Bradlaugh\nin the Courts for the penalties that would be incurred if his last\noath-taking and voting were pronounced illegal by the Courts. It was\naccordingly left to Bradlaugh to vacate his seat by his own act.]\n\nUnseated for the third time since his perfectly valid return in 1880,\nBradlaugh appealed to his constituents to elect him for the fourth\ntime, and was received by them with if possible greater enthusiasm than\never. A new Tory candidate, Mr H. C. Richards, had been for some time\nin the field, and the seat was fought in the old fashion; but whether\nowing to the feebleness of the candidate, whom Bradlaugh generally\ntreated with humorous contempt, or a sense of shame among some of\nthe local Tories, the opposition vote now fell away. The forces of\nbigotry had squeezed the last possible vote out of the borough, and\nafter a short and strenuous struggle the poll (19th February 1884)\nran: Bradlaugh, 4032; Richards, 3664. Bradlaugh had clearly \"touched\nbottom,\" and begun to rise again. At the general election he had polled\n3827, and been 695 above the highest Tory; in 1881 he had only polled\n3437, a majority of only 132; in 1882, polling 3796, he was only\n108 above his opponent with 3688; now he had reached a higher figure\nthan ever, polling 368 more than the Tory, who was 24 below the last\nTory vote. The Tory game was now hopeless so far as Northampton was\nconcerned.\n\nThe badgered Northcote, goaded by his lawless following, now proposed\nto take the step of preventing Bradlaugh from entering the House on\nhis new return. Learning this, Bradlaugh on the 20th wrote a letter of\nprotest to the Speaker and the Premier, and the anticipatory course was\nprevented. But when on the 21st the Speaker read to the House a second\nletter in which Bradlaugh formally undertook (as his introducers had\nundertaken for him before) not to present himself at the table until\njudgment should be given in the test action to be laid against him by\nthe Government. All the same, Northcote moved, amid cries of \"Shame,\"\nhis old resolution of exclusion \"from the precincts.\" The Tory army had\nto be solaced somehow for Bradlaugh's decisive victory at the poll.\nGladstone opposed, and yet again there was a miscellaneous debate,\nin the course of which Churchill made the worthy suggestion that the\nGovernment meant that Mr Bradlaugh was to be allowed once more to\nappeal to the mob, in order that not only the House of Commons might\nbe prejudiced, but that even the courts of law might be biased by the\ndemonstration in his favour. On a division, 226 voted for Northcote's\nmotion and only 173 against. Bradlaugh was now denied the use of the\nHouse's library for the lawsuit pending against him on the House's\nbehalf. He addressed to Northcote, and printed in his journal, an open\nletter touched with indignant contempt.\n\nThe critical part of the letter, and perhaps the special sting of some\nof the phrases--as, \"You wear knightly orders. You should be above\na knave's spitefulness\"--moved Northcote to send a long defensive\nreply, repeating the \"profanation\" formula, and concluding: \"The\ninconveniences of which you complain are inconveniences which you\nmight, if you chose, put an end to to-morrow\"--which meant that\nBradlaugh might have the use of the House if only he would undertake\nnever again under any circumstances to try to take his seat. To\nthis \"knightly\" suggestion[185] Bradlaugh replied with perhaps too\nscrupulous courtesy of form, but with sufficient emphasis, and turned\nhimself once more to the struggle outside.\n\n[Footnote 185: The harping on the \"chivalry\" of Northcote by Mr Lang\nand others is an interesting light on the nature of their ideals.\nNorthcote was certainly more of a gentleman than were his accomplices\nin the Bradlaugh struggle, but barring his comparative moderation,\nthere was not a gleam of \"chivalry\" in his whole conduct of the\nbusiness. As for the mass of his followers, they had, as Sir George\nTrevelyan has said of the Tories who ostracised Wilkes, \"as much\nchivalry in them as a pack of prairie wolves round a wounded buffalo.\"\nMr Lang (\"Life,\" ii. 136) writes that \"an acute and well-informed\ncritic has singled out Sir Stafford Northcote's treatment of the\nquestions raised by Mr Bradlaugh as the best example of Sir Stafford\nNorthcote's tact and adroitness.\" The \"adroitness\" need not be\ndisputed. But Mr Lang, on his own part, holds that \"it would throw no\nlight on Sir Stafford Northcote's leadership to follow the details of\nthis tedious and protracted struggle.\" For \"light\" and \"leadership,\"\nread \"credit\" and \"character,\" and the proposition would be quite\nvalid.]\n\n\n\u00a7 21.\n\nFrom this point forward it is difficult to record the course of the\nParliamentary struggle with the serious patience hitherto spent on\nthe narrative. On the side of the House it had become a revolting\nhypocrisy, since Bradlaugh was being ostracised for what other men\nwere allowed to do freely; and the form of legality put on in the\nresort to the law courts was only a new simulation. The law courts had\ndeclared that they could have no possible jurisdiction over the House\nin such matters however it might break the law, and still the House was\nformally proceeding to obtain from the law courts penalties against\nBradlaugh for trying to fulfil the law when the House hindered him.\nThe House knew quite well that if it had even declared him entitled to\naffirm under the existing law, no court would have decided otherwise.\nThe hostile decision was here a foregone conclusion; for _a fortiori_\nthe courts, after their last emphatic decision, would not prevent the\nHouse from interpreting the law as to swearing in its own way. Only the\nstrenuous energy of Bradlaugh, joined with his chivalrous belief in the\nideal rectitude and jurisdiction of the judges, could have set any man\nin his position on a fresh legal adventure.\n\nBegun in March 1884, the lawsuit at the instance of the Government\ncame on before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, Mr Justice Grove, Mr\nBaron Huddleston, \"sitting at bar,\" and a special jury, on 13th,\n15th, 17th, and 18th June. Against Bradlaugh were arrayed five\ncounsel,--the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Sir Hardinge\nGiffard, Mr Danckwertz, and Mr R. S. Wright, and the case was argued at\nenormous length on a multitude of minuti\u00e6 as to Bradlaugh's original\nevidence before the first Select Committee, the practice of the House,\nthe position of the Speaker on 11th February, the law as to what\nconstituted the oath, the force of an oath taken by an atheist, and\nso on. After two delays, caused by the illness of Lord Coleridge, his\nsumming-up, which was proportionately long and elaborate, was given\non 30th June. It advised the jury that the weight of evidence was to\nshow that Bradlaugh was all along an unbeliever in a Supreme Being--a\npoint which Bradlaugh argued should not have been raised--that in law a\nperson on whose conscience an oath would have \"no binding effect\" was\na person who could not legally take a oath; and that Bradlaugh had not\ntaken the oath in accordance with the practice of Parliament. The other\njudges concurred; but Lord Coleridge having spoken of inquisitorial\nquestions on belief in general (not those in the Bradlaugh case in\nparticular) as \"hateful\" and \"disgusting,\" Mr Baron Huddleston desired\nto express dissent on that head, while Mr Justice Grove said he\nwould call them, \"to use a mild term, extremely objectionable.\" The\nLord Chief Justice, remarking that he felt strongly on the matter,\ngracefully agreed that his words should be \"discounted\" on that score.\n\nFormally, there went to the jury eight questions, to this effect: (1)\nWas the Speaker sitting when Bradlaugh took the oath on 11th February?\n(2) Was he sitting to prepare notes for use in addressing Bradlaugh?\n(3) Had he resumed his seat to let Bradlaugh swear? (4) Was Bradlaugh\nthen without belief in a Supreme Being? (5) Was he a person on whose\nconscience an oath, _as an oath_, had no binding force? (6) Had the\nHouse full cognisance of these matters through Bradlaugh's avowal?\n(7) Did he take the oath according to Parliamentary practice? (8)\nGenerally, did he take and subscribe the oath?\n\nThe jury's answers were, in brief:--(1) Sitting; (2) Sitting to prepare\nnotes as stated; (3) No; (4) He had no such belief; (5) Yes; (6) Yes;\n(7) Not according to the \"full\" practice; (8) Not as an oath.\n\nBradlaugh at once asked for a stay of judgment in order to enable him\n\"to move for a new trial to move to enter judgment for the defendant\n_non-obstante veredicto_, and to move for arrest of judgment.\"\nOutsiders had supposed that the jury trial ended the matter, but it was\nnot so. Bradlaugh wrote in his journal undauntedly: \"If my constituents\nstill give me their confidence, nothing can defeat me;\" and when\nfriends wrote that they could see no hope of good from the \"wearisome\nand disappointing litigation,\" he characteristically answered:--\n\n \"There are only two weapons to defend the right with: Law and Force.\n As yet I try the law; and so long as I believe, as I do believe,\n the law to be on my side, it is to the law and to public opinion I\n ought to appeal. My opponents rely on force and trick. If the law was\n actually against me they would take away my seat by law. This they do\n not even try to do. They hope to weary my constituents, and to tire\n and ruin me in this contest. Hampden, resisting ship-money, fought\n more than three years in the law courts; but his wearisome litigation\n was not quite in vain. Wilkes, backed by Earl Temple with purse and\n power, struggled with the Commons through several weary years, and at\n last Middlesex gave him victory.\"\n\nThe appeal was, on the face of it, a better case than Bradlaugh had\nhad in defending the action of the Crown. It came on, on 6th December,\nbefore the same judges, sitting \"_in banc_,\" who had tried the action\n\"at bar,\" Bradlaugh turning out to be right in his theory of the\nproper procedure, whereas the judges had all been avowedly in doubt.\nBut the greater apparent force of the case as now put did not avail.\nBradlaugh cogently argued that no Act of Parliament gave the least\ncountenance to the notion that Atheists were to be disabled from\nswearing. The Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866, cap. xix., enjoins on\nmembers of Parliament, with the exception only of those qualified to\naffirm, the taking of an oath of allegiance of uniform phrasing, thus\nadmitting of no disability, and making an end of any disability which\nmay be supposed to have previously existed. Yet again, an Act of 1867\nexpressly provided that any subject of Her Majesty, _without reference\nto his religious belief_, should take the oath of allegiance on taking\noffice. But Lord Coleridge had in the previous trial fully made up his\nmind that \"oath\" must mean \"adjuration made by one believing in the\nDeity adjured,\" and he early indicated that this conviction overthrew\nall arguments from the mere wording of statutes. On the Act of 1867\nhe remarked (with a discourtesy which for him was unusual, and which\ndisappears in the report) that \"a little common sense and a little\nknowledge of history\" would have made the appellant aware that that\nAct was passed on behalf of a Roman Catholic judge. Bradlaugh knew\nthe facts well enough, and capped the Lord Chief Justice's history\nwith some more, all going to show that the wish of the legislature\nhad then been to sweep away all religious disabilities whatever. It\nwas all to no purpose. Lord Coleridge was rather a man of strong\nsentiments than a strong lawyer. He hated all persecution on behalf of\nreligion; and on behalf of Messrs Foote and Ramsey he stated the law\nof blasphemy in the mildest possible way--a way to which Mr Justice\nStephen, albeit a rationalist, declared he could not subscribe. But\nLord Coleridge was also an emotional Christian; and though his admired\nfriend Arnold would readily have taken the oath without any belief in\nthe Deity adjured, his Lordship was strongly averse to having it taken\nby an \"aggressive\" Atheist; and though he must have known perfectly\nwell that in Parliament there had for generations been known holders\nof atheistic views, and that nobody proposed their exclusion, he yet\nchose to assume that all laws as to oath-taking were meant to exclude\noath-taking by Atheists. One or two notable passages took place between\nhim and the appellant. Lord Coleridge, in his nervous irritation at\nbeing persistently argued against, once so far forgot himself as to say\nBradlaugh was wasting time. The charge was too bad: Bradlaugh was one\nof the closest and concisest of pleaders, as many judges had admitted;\nand at a later stage in this trial the Lord Chief Justice took back his\nwords. At another point he somewhat impatiently deprecated a particular\nline of argument, and Bradlaugh quietly answered, \"My Lord, I must\nfight with what weapons I can.\" Once or twice more his lordship was\nrather idly petulant,[186] but this was transient; and he was very\ngenial when, on his remarking, \"It may be, of course, that you are\nright and we are all wrong,\" the appellant answered, \"With the utmost\nrespect, my lord, that is practically what I am going to contend.\"\n\n[Footnote 186: I was present at this trial, and took notes for an\narticle.]\n\nJustice Grove, an amiable and fair though unsubtle judge, argued very\ncourteously (while incidentally avowing that his sympathies were on the\nside of minimising oaths) that the legislature could not be held to\nhave enacted an oath in the tolerant expectation that it would be taken\nby some men for whom the adjuration had no meaning. That was no doubt a\nperfectly reasonable point for a judge to put; but, on the other hand,\nnothing is more common than the plea of judges--it was made by Justice\nGrove himself--that they have only to do with the law as it stands;\nand if in this case they were to look into the probable state of mind\nof the legislature, it was plainly their business to take into account\nall the well-known facts of the case, including the notorious fact that\nmembers known to their fellow-members to be Atheists or \"Lucretian\"\nTheists had repeatedly sat in the House.\n\nTheir lordships, of course, repeated their former decision--Lord\nColeridge giving the very inaccurate reason that no \"new point\" or \"new\nargument\" had been raised--and the rule for a new trial was refused.\nImmediately Bradlaugh appealed; and the case was heard (on the motion\nfor a new trial, and, secondarily for seven days' time to move for\narrest of judgment after the first motion should have been adjudged\nupon) in the Court of Appeal on 15th December by Lords Justices Brett\n(Master of the Rolls), Cotton, and Lindley. These judges heard the\nappeal with great patience, and on the 18th gave judgment to the effect\nthat they could not grant a rule for a new trial on the ground that\nthe verdict was against the evidence. But on \"many other questions\nin the case which it is not improbable might all be raised upon the\nappeal by way of arrest of judgment,\" they thought it right to grant\n\"a rule _nisi_ to show cause upon all the other points taken by the\ndefendant, upon condition that the appeal in arrest of judgment is\nbrought on at the same time.\" The argument on this rule was taken on\n26th January 1885, when the Attorney-General and Sir Hardinge Giffard\nargued (a point which had been left open before) that no appeal lay,\nthe case being technically a criminal one. This plea, after voluminous\nargument, was overruled--the point being settled by Bradlaugh's\nreferences to portions of the Crown Suits Act which the other side had\nnot dealt with. Then came the argument on the main issue. To a lay\nlistener Lord Justice Brett seemed to give a more strictly judicial\nattention to the problem than did any of the judges who had dealt with\nit hitherto, and never was the subject more fully illuminated. In a\nprevious trial Justice Grove had noticed the anomaly that whereas an\noath or affirmation was set up as a means of securing true answers,\nthe judge had to satisfy himself beforehand on a witness's bare word as\nto the nominally all-important point whether an oath would be \"binding\non his conscience.\" Bradlaugh now brought out another no less precious\nanomaly, namely, that the Speaker, at the opening of Parliament, must\nof necessity administer the oath to himself; and that the first forty\nmembers _must positively break the law_, seeing that they swear while\nthere is not a \"full House\" sitting. Another curious issue was raised\nby the Court. An unbeliever could certainly be punished for perjury;\nhow, then, could his oath be \"no oath,\" when perjury expressly meant\nfalse testimony given on oath? Sir Hardinge Giffard's answer was that\nno man may \"take profit from his own wrong.\" It might have been more\ndramatically put that the Christian law says to the Atheist, \"Heads, we\nwin; tails, you lose.\"\n\nDespite the fairness of the hearing given, it soon became apparent that\nthe Master of the Rolls held that \"religious test\" could only mean\ntest as between different forms of religion, and that to exclude an\nAtheist from civic rights is not to impose a religious test. Now, the\nEnglish tests of last century were as between sects, not as between\nreligions; that is, they were denominational; that is, political.\nStill, they were always known as religious tests. It would surely\nfollow that \"religious test\" meant any test connected with religious\nmatters. In that case Lord Justice Brett's distinction was completely\narbitrary and fallacious. But on grounds such as these, among others,\nthe judgment was given (28th January) against the appellant. It was\ncertainly an able judgment--as able as it was lengthy. It raised,\namong other things, the exquisitely complicated anomaly that Bradlaugh\ncould satisfy a judge on his bare statement that he was an Atheist,\nand yet, after affirming on that ground, could be solemnly examined\nas to whether he was an Atheist. And the judge very explicitly laid\nit down that if a non-believer in a falsehood-punishing Deity were to\ntake the oath unopposed, with all the customary formalities, he could\non proof be sued for the penalty of \u00a3500 for every vote he had given.\nThis meant, if anything, that the Atheists or Agnostics then sitting in\nParliament were all so liable.\n\nLord Justice Cotton, with much simplicity, laid it down that the law of\nEngland \"undoubtedly\" was that if a person in the \"unhappy position\" of\nnot believing in a lie-avenging Deity took the oath, it was not a real\noath. And Lord Justice Lindley, with a certain cynical candour, dealt\nwith Bradlaugh's main argument, that it was absurd to hold that a man\nis by law incapable of doing that which the law requires him to do. \"I\nagree in the absurdity,\" said his lordship, \"but not in the argument\nadduced from it.\" He held that the only solution would be that the\ndefendant \"could not be properly elected.\"\n\n \"It is a mistake to suppose,\" said Lord Justice Lindley further,\n \"and I think it is as well the mistake should be known, that persons\n who do not believe in a Supreme Being are in the state in which it\n is now supposed they are. There are old Acts of Parliament still\n unrepealed by which such people can be cruelly persecuted. Whether\n that is a state of law which ought to remain or not is not for me to\n express an opinion upon; but having regard to the fact that these\n Acts of Parliament still remain unrepealed, I do not see my way to\n hold judicially that this oath was not kept alive by Parliament _for\n the very purpose, amongst others, of keeping such people out of\n Parliament_.\"\n\nThis last deliverance is memorable on several grounds--memorable as\nshowing the need, from the point of view of one more judge, for a\nrepeal of the brutal laws of the past against heresy; and further\nmemorable as showing once more how ready are judges to rest alternately\non mutually exclusive principles of interpretation. On the point as to\nwhether the case was one in which an appeal lay, Lord Justice Lindley\ngrounded his opinion on the fact that there was not to be found in\nthe Judicature Act \"the slightest indication of any intention on\nthe part of the legislature\" to prevent appeals in cases which were\n\"previously made civil proceedings for the purposes of appeals.\" On\nthe same principle, he ought to have looked whether there were the\n\"slightest indication of any intention on the part of the legislature\"\nin modern acts to exclude all Atheists from oath-taking. There is no\nsuch indication. Not a word is said of excluding unbelievers. On the\ncontrary, it was only with difficulty that the legislature could be\ngot to meet the fact that there _were_ many Atheists who at times had\nto give testimony in courts of law. Had the legislature really desired\nto exclude all Atheists from oath-taking it would surely have said so,\nknowing as it must have done how common unbelieving oath-taking had\nbeen. And all the judges, as individuals, must have known perfectly\nwell that privately known Atheists had sat in every Parliament for\ngenerations. Such are the conditions of legal judgment on questions of\nlegal principle.\n\nBradlaugh at once gave notice of appeal to the House of Lords; and,\nall things considered, he had as good chances of success as ever he\nhad. But this litigation had now reached its climax, and the appeal\ndid not come off. The struggle had gone far towards completing\nits fifth year, and relief was almost within sight. It was not to\ncome from legislation. Mr Hopwood had undertaken to introduce an\naffirmation Bill grappling with the whole position, which was not\nmerely an affair of the admission of Atheists, but of providing\nalso for certain religionists who, not being Quakers, Moravians, or\nSeparatists, were not entitled to affirm, though strongly objecting\nto the oath. And there were yet further matters to be dealt with, as\nthe position of freethinking jurors. But the saving credit of passing\nsuch a measure was not in store for the \"Liberal\" Parliament. At the\nLiberal Conference on Reform in 1884, presided over by Mr John Morley,\na resolution had been unanimously carried in favour of Northampton's\nright; and at the Conference of the National Liberal Federation in\n1885, Mr Hopwood's Bill was unanimously approved of; but though this\naction was backed up by countless resolutions of Liberal and Radical\nClubs, and hundreds of petitions,[187]\n\n[Footnote 187: By August, 655 petitions had been presented, with 77,639\nsignatures.]\n\nthe Anglican and Roman Churches set to work as zealously as ever\nto oppose, the Liberal Government would make no attempt to grant\nfacilities in the House, the Bill was blocked, and nothing was done\nwhile that Government remained in office. But when, on their being\ndefeated at their own wish on the Budget, a Conservative Ministry took\noffice, Bradlaugh at once presented himself (6th July) to be sworn. He\nmight have presented himself before the re-elected Tory ministers, in\nwhich case they could not have taken part in the proceedings against\nhim, but he treated them with the chivalry they never showed to him,\nand allowed the ministers first to be sworn in. The new Chancellor\nof the Exchequer, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, took up the matter on the\nlines of Northcote, who was now made a peer, and moved that Bradlaugh\nbe as before excluded from the precincts. Mr Parnell and Mr Healy went\nfurther, appealing to the Speaker to have Bradlaugh (who was standing\nbelow the bar) wholly excluded from the House at once, before the\nmotion was debated. To this stretch of malice the Speaker could not\naccede, and the debate proceeded in the usual way. Mr Hopwood moved an\namendment declaring legislation to be necessary \"on wider grounds than\nthe interests of a constituency.\" Gladstone, though deprecating any\ngeneral legislation on the subject, supported the amendment. Only 219\nvoted for it, however, and 263 against, the majority again including\nmany Home Rulers and a number of Liberals, while many more Liberals\nhad absented themselves. Against most of these, vigorous measures were\ntaken in the constituencies, which now had before them the imminent\nprospect of a fresh general election. In this election it had been\narranged that Bradlaugh should stand for the new borough of East\nFinsbury, London, as well as for Northampton, on the understanding that\nif elected for both he should sit for Northampton. This was a generous\nattempt on the part of the Finsbury Radicals to strengthen his case;\nbut other Radical candidates being less generous, he finally withdrew\nfrom the Finsbury candidature to avoid a split in the Radical camp.\nIn Northampton the fight had little excitement in it, the conclusion\nbeing foregone. Mr Richards at one of his meetings claimed credit\nfor avoiding personalities, and mentioned that he had in his pockets\nletters from several persons offering to flood Northampton with\nslanderous tracts. He did not add that that device had been played out,\nand had become just a little unsafe besides. Towards the election day\nvirulent placards were resorted to, from force of habit. Bradlaugh did\nnot post a single bill. The poll (25th November) stood:--Labouchere,\n4845; Bradlaugh, 4315; Richards, 3890; Bradlaugh thus standing higher\nthan ever before. The difference between him and his colleague was\nrepresented by 366 plumpers for Mr Labouchere, and 300 votes split with\nthe Tory, less 126 plumpers for Bradlaugh, and 10 split for him and the\nTory. The news was received everywhere with special enthusiasm. But\nstill more significant was the havoc wrought among those pseudo-Liberal\nmembers who had turned the scale against Bradlaugh in the House. Mr\nSamuel Morley had been forced to retire from Bristol, Mr M'Cullagh\nTorrens from Finsbury, the Hon. H. W. Fitzwilliam from Dewsbury, Mr\nJerningham from Berwick, and then later from Blackpool, the selection\nbeing cancelled before the election; Mr George Courtauld, Unitarian,\nfrom Maldon, Sir Alexander Gordon from Aberdeenshire, Sir Thomas\nChambers from Marylebone, and Baron de Ferri\u00e8res from Cheltenham.\nThese were all opposed by former supporters on the express ground of\ntheir votes in the Northampton question. Others who went to the poll,\nagain, were defeated on the same score. Mr Norwood at Hull was defeated\nby the running of a special Radical candidate in protest against\nhis anti-Bradlaugh action in the House. Mr A. P. Vivian, a frequent\nabsentee on the question, was defeated in North-west Cornwall, and Sir\nW. Charley at Ipswich. Mr B. Whitworth, formerly of Drogheda, chosen\nand then dismissed at Hackney, was defeated at Lewisham. Prominent\nTory and other enemies suffered in a hardly less degree. Newdegate,\nafter beginning his candidature, withdrew rather than meet certain\ndefeat; Sir Henry Drummond Wolff was defeated, so was Earl Percy, so\nwas Sir J. E. Wilmot, so was Mr Warton, so was \"O'Donnell.\" Dr Lyons\ncollapsed at nomination in Dublin. M'Coan was thrown out at Lancaster,\nMr Nicholson at Petersfield, and Mr Denzil Onslow at Poplar. Of new\nTory candidates who had been specially offensive in their hostility,\nMr Hammond was beaten at Newcastle, Mr Bruce Wentworth at Barnsley,\nMr Holloway at Stroud, and Mr Edwardes-Moss at Southport. There was\nno mistaking the \"Bradlaugh element\" in these cases; and though some\nRadicals who had stood by him were also defeated, as Mr Hopwood and Mr\nHugh Mason, that was solely owing to the hostility of the Irish vote,\nthen being manoeuvred by Parnell to weaken the Liberals. Much of the\nwork of destroying the renegade Liberals had been done by Bradlaugh in\nperson in his lecturing tours. \"I think I have settled a round dozen of\nthem,\" he remarked some time before the election. One former Liberal\nmember, who had been his persistent enemy in the House, finding defeat\nstaring him in the face through Bradlaugh's action, came to him in his\nhotel when he was lecturing in the constituency concerned, and humbled\nhimself to ask for mercy. Bradlaugh gravely refused. \"You are very\nhard,\" whined the petitioner, who had thought fit to work iniquity with\nthe majority for five long years, with as little thought of justice as\nof generosity.\n\nThe tables thus turned, it is probable that in the first Parliament\nwhich assembled in 1886, an Affirmation Bill could have been carried\nin the teeth of the Tory minority, seeing that even some Tory members\nhad had to pledge themselves to support such a Bill; and Mr Serjeant\nSimon had arranged to re-introduce Mr Hopwood's. But the settlement\nwas precipitated in an unexpected way. Bradlaugh wrote Sir Michael\nBeach asking how the Government would treat the Bill if introduced,\nand received a non-committal answer. Soon afterwards it was announced\nthat communications had passed on the subject between Sir Michael and\nthe new Speaker-elect, Mr Peel; and Bradlaugh wrote to ask Sir Michael\nwhat they were, but was refused the information, whereupon he strongly\nprotested. The mystery was only cleared up when the new Parliament\nassembled on 13th January 1886.[188] The new Speaker had determined\nto reverse the policy of his predecessor in the Bradlaugh case, and\nthe Tory Cabinet in vain sought to dissuade him. On the opening day,\nbefore any members were sworn, he informed the House that he had had\ntwo communications--one from Sir Michael Hicks Beach, and one from two\nother members, Mr Raikes and Sir John Kennaway, appealing to him not\nto let Bradlaugh take the oath. To these requests he flatly declined\nto accede. In the former Parliament, he pointed out, the Speaker had\ntaken no independent authority on himself, but had always acted on the\ninstructions of the House. \"We are assembled,\" he went on,\n\n[Footnote 188: This Parliament is alluded to as \"of 1885\" by Mr\nWalpole, Mr Lang, and others. It was elected in 1885, but did not\nassemble till 1886.]\n\n \"in a new Parliament. I know nothing of the resolutions of the past.\n (Cheers.) They have lapsed; they are void; they are of no effect\n in reference to this case. (Renewed cheers.) It is the right, the\n legal, statutable obligation of members, when returned to this\n House, to come to the table and take the oath prescribed by statute.\n ('Hear, hear.') I have no authority, I have no right, original or\n delegated, to stand between an hon. member and his taking of the oath.\n ('Hear, hear.') I have been further asked whether, when the House\n is completed, and after a quorum has been constituted, it would be\n competent for a motion to be made intervening between the hon. member\n for Northampton and his taking of the oath. I have come clearly and\n without hesitation to the conclusion that it would neither be my duty\n to prohibit the hon. gentleman from coming, nor to permit a motion to\n be made standing between him and his taking of the oath. (Opposition\n cheers.) The hon. member takes that oath under whatever risks may\n attach to him in a court of law. ('Hear, hear.') But it is not for\n me--I respectfully say it is not for the House--to enter into any\n inquisition--(cheers)--as to what may be the opinions of a member when\n he comes to the table to take the oath. I am bound, and the House is\n bound, by the forms of this House, and by the legal obligations and\n rights of members. If a member comes to this table and offers to take\n the oath, I know of no right whatever to intervene between him and the\n form, of legal and statutable obligation. (Cheers.)\"\n\nThe Chancellor of the Exchequer in vain sought to make a declaration:\nhe was called to order. Bradlaugh was duly sworn, with a Tory Ministry\nin nominal command of the House. The protesters against \"profanation\"\nhad to stand by and see what they had defined as profanation\n\"solemnly\"--as the law courts defined solemnity--authorised by the\nsupreme authority of the House. They had refused to permit affirmation;\ntheir oath was now, on their own declaration, outraged and trampled\nupon. At the same time, the whole past procedure of the House, the\nwhole course of the last Speaker, was overruled and impeached as\nunwarrantable. The House had drunk its cup to the dregs.\n\n\n\u00a7 22.\n\nThe Tory press naturally solaced itself by repeating the well-tried\nfalsehood that Bradlaugh had originally refused to take the oath,\nand declaring that he had now eaten his words. On 26th January,\ndissatisfied with that unsubstantial comfort, Mr Raikes asked the\nGovernment if they would prevent Bradlaugh from sitting and voting\nuntil he had proved his capacity to take the oath, or until the\njudgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed by a higher tribunal.\nSir M. Hicks Beach formally replied that he was not prepared to take\naction, and no action of the kind was ever taken. Soon the Tories,\nbeing in the minority in the House, were turned out and the Liberals\ninstalled in their places. Appealed to to enter a _stet processus_ in\nthe action in which Bradlaugh had appealed, they timorously declined,\ndreading Tory comment. But when the Tories later in the year were\nreturned to power by the election following on Mr Gladstone's defeat on\nhis first Home Rule Bill, and Lord Randolph Churchill became leader of\nthe House of Commons, that versatile personage, desirous of placating\nif possible so formidable and so avowed an enemy as Bradlaugh, gave\nthe relief which the Liberals had refused. Bradlaugh was thus finally\nsecured in his seat by the capitulation of one of the most unscrupulous\nand offensive of his old enemies. Churchill's allusion in the House\nto Bradlaugh's supporters as the \"scum and dregs of the nation\" had\nelicited from Bradlaugh, in connection with his agitation against\nperpetual pensions, a short tractate on the manner of the founding of\nthe Churchill family, which struck his lordship in a fashion he had not\nbeen used to at the hands of Gladstone, or even of Mr Chamberlain; and\nhe desired to make peace. He did not obtain it.\n\nBut not only did the Tory party, as represented by its new leader in\nthe Commons, thus give up all it had contended for: it was finally to\nmake personal submission to the man it had wronged. The Affirmation\nBill introduced by Mr Serjeant Simon never reached a debate; and it was\nleft to Bradlaugh to carry one on his own initiative in 1888, by the\nvotes of the men, Tory and Parnellite, who had defeated former Bills.\nLast of all, it was in the same Tory House of Commons, while Bradlaugh\nlay dying, that there was carried the resolution he had repeatedly put\ndown, expunging from the journals of the House the old votes for his\nexclusion, even as the resolutions against Wilkes had been expunged.\nIf the act was one of repentance, it the more certainly implied an\ninfamous wrong done.\n\nThere were certainly many reasons why the Tory party should repent.\nThey had \"struck for themselves an evil blow,\" though the sudden\nrising of the Home Rule issue served to obscure the consequences of\ntheir course in the Northampton struggle. It was impossible that as a\nparty they could have gained in credit by it either among the masses\nor among thoughtful and earnest men. Nothing was more notorious than\nthat nine-tenths of the leading Bradlaugh-baiters were the least worthy\nmen in the House. Wolff, described by Bradlaugh as a noted retailer of\n_choses grivoises_; Churchill, the noisy and reckless charlatan of the\nnew Toryism, \"the Demosthenes of bad taste and vulgar vehemence;\"[189]\nTyler, the company-promoter, hooted by the shareholders he had\nimpoverished; \"O'Donnell,\" the turncoat; Callan, the drunken;\nNewdegate, besotted with more fumes than those of fanaticism; Fowler\nand Warton, the gross and blatant; Healy, the ever-rowdy--these could\nnot gain good repute from alliance with types like Mr Samuel Morley,\nand could not be made respectable by the leadership of Northcote, whom\nthey hustled and humiliated. It is not possible to say with entire\ncertainty what had been the general view of Beaconsfield on the case\nwhile he lived; but it is difficult to believe that he could have\ntaken any satisfaction in seeing the most prominent function of the\nnew Toryism made out to be the rowdy resistance to the sitting of a\nfreethinking member, and the insolent refusal of a constituency's\nrights.\n\n[Footnote 189: Byron's description of a better man.]\n\nThere can be no doubt, I think, that one effect of the whole episode\nwas to create a new and widespread intensity of antagonism to the\nprevailing religion and to the Conservative cause. Men who had before\nregarded Christianity with indifference or disfavour or contempt, as a\ndelusion, began to detest it as a living fountain of injustice; and men\nwho had seen in recent Conservatism a policy of diverting the people's\nattention from home needs by foreign adventure, now saw in it a great\nmachinery for working iniquity within the State. The party which had\nbeen seen making gun-wadding of the decalogue in its wars of aggression\nhad now made a crass Semitic Theism the pretext for a dastardly effort\nto crush one man, partly by way of embarrassing the opposite side; and\nthe party which denounced \"disloyalty\" took sides with the disloyalists\nto the same end. Of course, the heat of the immediate struggle did\nnot last on one side any more than on the other; above all, it did\nnot last with Bradlaugh himself; but it is certain that thousands of\nFreethinkers date their conversion from the time of Bradlaugh's fight\nwith the bigots; and I fancy there are still many who preserve the\nimpression they then gained of what Voltaire meant by \"the infamous,\"\nand the purpose they then formed to make war on it throughout their\nlives. As regards Toryism, too, though \"each day brings its petty\ndust, our soon-choked souls to fill,\" the adherents of that cause may\nrely on it that for many a citizen, for many a day to come, their\ndeclarations of concern for justice and right, in any case whatever,\nare made derisory by memories of their five-year-long course of gleeful\ninjustice to the Atheist. Time brings its revenges. If Liberals in\nmass have deserved ten years of frustration, in an effort to do right,\nby their former treatment of Ireland, Tories in turn have wrought for\nthe cup of defeat they have tasted, and are yet to drain to the dregs.\nAnd the Irishmen who, claiming freedom for themselves, shamelessly\nwithheld from another even the rights they already enjoyed--they, too,\nhave paid and are paying for their misdeeds, despite their avowed\nrepentance.\n\nAs for the Conservative party, despite its practical recantation, it\nwould be too much to say that there is any real concern among the\nmass of its members for the five years' carnival of injustice over\nBradlaugh. I have gone through Mr Lang's \"Life of Northcote\" without\nfinding one word of regret for the whole shameful business, though\nhe quotes a passage in which Northcote expressed in his diary a mild\ndeprecation of the ruffianism of some of his followers in the matter.\nBut, indeed, the capacity to do the thing as it was done excludes the\ncapacity to be ashamed of it. Toryism is transmuted, but does not\nrepent. At best, new Tories may at times deprecate the action of their\npredecessors.\n\n\n\u00a7 23.\n\nWhatever be the sympathies with which the matter is looked at, there\nis no gainsaying the historical fact that Bradlaugh's struggle is a\ndecisive episode in constitutional history. It will always rank in\nEnglish annals with the partially parallel case of Wilkes, dating a\nhundred and twenty years earlier; and it will be a very bold or a\nvery blind majority which ever again attempts to exclude from the\nHouse of Commons a duly-elected member against whom no legal objection\nlies. Of Wilkes, Mr Gladstone has declared that whether we choose it\nor not, his name must be enrolled among those of the great champions\nof English freedom. If that be so, Bradlaugh's name must stand still\nhigher, in that it represents not only the principle of the rights of\nconstituencies, but the principle of freedom of conscience in the last\nand most serious issue. And in every moral respect, Bradlaugh's case\nstands above that of Wilkes. The point in which they best compare is\ntheir courage; but even the undoubted courage with which Wilkes faced\nan unpopular king and unpopular ministers was a less rare thing than\nthe fortitude which faced the hate and the slander of half of the more\narticulate part of the nation. For the rest, though he had the merit\nof geniality, Wilkes was a poor creature enough in many ways--a rascal\ntowards his wife, a leader of ribald orgies, a prurient poetaster,\na briber of constituencies, while professing to be uncorrupting and\nincorruptible. He was a blasphemer in the strict and really bad sense\nof a man deriding a Deity in whom he did not profess to disbelieve;\nhe wrote and privately printed indecent verse for the indecency's\nsake. And if he is to be remembered for courage in that he resisted an\nunpopular Ministry with a great and aristocratic party to support and\nsalary him, much more so is Bradlaugh, who was scouted and insulted by\nmany even of the Liberals that felt constrained at times to vote on his\nbehalf, and who had little save poor men's help in his long and costly\nfight. It is significant of the worth of common opinion that Wilkes\nwas much more readily forgiven for real and ill-meant and undisputed\nobscenity than was Bradlaugh for the earnest and scrupulous defence of\ntrue doctrines infamously miscalled obscene. On the point of politics,\nWilkes is hardly more justly notable than on the point of character.\nHe had no higher mission than to attack an autocratic and unpopular\nminister; his very animus was partly the evil and vulgar spirit of\nracial animosity; he had no high purpose of political reform. After\nunwilling drudgery in a public office of dignity, he found his chosen\nreward in a semi-sinecure. Bradlaugh stood for great causes in the\nworld of thought as well as in the world of action: he was a thinker\nand a high-minded reformer where Wilkes was at best a high-spirited\nadventurer.\n\nAnd as Wilkes was the worse man, so he had the worse case. When elected\nin 1768, he was legally an outlaw--albeit under an unjust sentence;\nand his supporters signalised his success by a riot, breaking windows\nwholesale, mobbing and insulting leading opponents. Afterwards he was\nelected while a prisoner. Certainly Parliament, in his case, took a\nmore courageously illegal course than it did in Bradlaugh's, not only\nrefusing to admit him, but declaring him disqualified, voiding his\nseat, and declaring Luttrell member when elected by the minority. The\njugglers of 1880-85 kept a member out of his seat without daring to\ndeclare the seat therefore vacant, though the law courts hinted not\nobscurely that an Atheist was _hors la loi_ in respect of the chief\ncivic rights. Certainly in the case of Wilkes the King was known to\nbe the main mover in the breaking of the law, and so was more openly\nputting the liberties of the whole people in jeopardy. But the fact\nthat in Bradlaugh's case the tyrants were bigots and partisans,\nrepresenting masses of electors, and the wronged man a heretic,\nonly made the danger the more profound. The final triumph of the\nlaw-breakers would in his case have been a worse blow to freedom than\nit could have been in that of Wilkes, just because so many hundreds\nof thousands of bigots would have rejoiced in it. It would have been\nmore dangerous to democracy, because undermining democracy from\nwithin, whereas the ostracism of Wilkes was an ostentatious blow from\nwithout. The \"many-headed tyranny of an unscrupulous senate\" is a more\nsinister thing when it rests on the fanaticism of thousands than when\nit is the mere subservience of time-servers to the sovereign; for if\nthe principle were to be practically established that a man may be\npolitically ostracised for theological heresy, the axe would be laid\nto the root of a greater thing than political privilege. What the\nInquisition did for Spain, brainless bigotry might have begun to do for\nEngland. It had become clear that the law courts would not give any\ndecision which struck at the freedom of the House of Commons to act as\nit pleased, our constitution being thus seen to lack the safeguard set\nup in the Supreme Court of the United States; though the House went\nthrough the form of arguing its case before the judges. The value of\ntheir decisions was seen when, after Bradlaugh took the oath before\nMr Speaker Peel, he was allowed to sit in peace though he had been\ndeclared legally incapable of taking an oath. Evidently the principle\nof legality had little remaining validity. It may be, nevertheless,\nthat the time is not yet come for the majority of Englishmen to realise\nfully how much was saved to their heritage by Bradlaugh's long stand\nagainst nefarious faith. The language of sincere conviction still\nblends with the language of cant in calling his opinions \"peculiar\" or\nworse; and half of those who stood beside him on the political issue\nwere anxious in avowing their repudiation of his doctrines and his\npersonality. But even in the few years between his struggle and his\ndeath there was a change; and to say that he has not yet had his full\nshare of honour is only to say that his fame will be at its clearest in\nthe larger air of a more enlightened day.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nCLOSING YEABS.\n\n1886.\n\n\nAdmitted at last to the seat for which he had fought so long and so\nhard, Bradlaugh set himself strenuously to work to make up for lost\ntime. With nearly every quality that goes to make a good legislator,\nand with the most abundant political experience from his youth up,\nhe had reached his fifty-third year before he sat in his place\nin Parliament by secure tenure. He had fought for that place, in\nall, eighteen years--chronically during twelve of them, against\nconstitutional opposition; continuously through six of them, against\ngross injustice. And in these last six years, unhappily, his life went\nvery much quicker than the years. Those who had lived by him through it\nall recognised that it had made him an old man. A certain aging effect\nseems to have come from the terrible attack of typhoid fever in New\nYork in 1875; but still in 1880 his portraits show him in his prime,\nthe face mature without being furrowed. In 1886 he looked far more than\nten years older. The long battle had left its dire marks.\n\nNo private member in his prime, however, went to work in the\nParliaments of 1886 with such energy. Before January was out he had\nobtained leave to bring in his Land Cultivation Bill,[190] which was\nbacked by Mr Joseph Arch, Mr Thomas Burt, and Mr Labouchere; and he\nwas extorting from the officials exact details as to the Perpetual\nPensions, against which he had already for years agitated outside. In\nMarch he obtained from the new Liberal Ministry the appointment of\na Select Committee on the subject. The debate on Mr Jesse Collings'\namendment to the Address, calling for labourers' allotments--the\namendment on which the Tory Ministry were thrown out--gave him his\nfirst opportunity of striking a blow at the party which for him was\nidentified as much with tyranny in general as with tyranny towards\nhimself. In February he gave the first notice of his intention to raise\na question which he later pushed far--that of market rights and tolls;\nhis first move being to call for a return giving minute particulars\nas to the state of the case in each municipal borough in England and\nWales. And in the same month he was vigorously pressing his proposal\nfor a Labour Bureau on the lines of that of Massachusetts--a proposal\nto which the Government promptly acceded. In March he took a step\nabundantly justifiable on public grounds, in moving the reduction\nof the monstrous vote of \u00a312,000 to Sir H. D. Wolff for six months'\nunprofitable service abroad, and \u00a33000 more for telegrams in connection\nwith his mission. And he was further able to connect another enemy,\nSir Henry Tyler, with systematic breaches of the Truck Act on the part\nof the Rhymney Iron Company, of which he was a director. Bradlaugh\ncharacterised the action of the Company as part of \"an infamous system\nby which poor men are defrauded of part of their earnings.\" The\nresult was a Government prosecution and the infliction of the fullest\nstatutory penalty. In the way of direct service to labour, he was\nin the same month appointed a member of the Select Committee on the\nEmployers' Liability Bill, on which he worked hard and carefully. In\nApril came the epoch-marking Home Rule Bill, in the debate on which he\nmade a powerful speech in support, loudly cheered by the Home Rulers\nwho had so long helped to exclude him. He was emphatic against the\nexclusion of the Irish members, but urged that such points should be\nleft for discussion in committee; and he did his best outside for the\nsecond reading by organising a great mass meeting in St James's Hall,\npresided over by Mr Labouchere, which was in its way a great success, a\nmultitude coming sufficient to fill the hall twice over. His own Land\nCultivation Bill came to its second reading; and his speech upon it was\nwell received, though he saw fit not to try to press it to a division.\nAgain in June, shortly before the decisive division, he delivered a\nsecond and longer speech in support of the Home Rule Bill, to listen\nto which to the end Mr Gladstone delayed his dinner; and on the\ndissolution he issued an \"Appeal to the Electors: Mr Gladstone or Lord\nSalisbury: Which?\" He had done more than justice by the people whose\nrepresentatives had most zealously done him injustice. Readers of his\njournal had written to urge this on him as one reason for opposing Home\nRule. He answered: \"If I cannot try to do justice to my political and\nreligious enemies, I am unfit to be a legislator.\" On the merits of the\nreform he tersely observed: \"Home Rule is no four-leaved shamrock, but\nit is the beginning of justice.\"\n\n[Footnote 190: Described in a previous chapter, p. 182.]\n\nIn the new General Election, a new excitement was given to the contest\nin Northampton by the candidature of a Liberal Unionist, Mr Turner,\na leading local manufacturer, in coalition with a Conservative. His\nsupporters were extremely confident; but when the vote was counted the\nfigures stood: Labouchere, 4570; Bradlaugh, 4353; Turner, 3850; Lees,\n3456. On the declaration of the poll, Mr Turner, being shouted down\nby the crowd, addressed to the reporters the intimation that he \"came\nforward for the first time to wrest the representation of the town from\nthe greatest and most mischievous demagogue of the present century.\"\nBut by this time the old obloquy had considerably quieted down. At\nthe beginning of the year the Bishop of Peterborough, Dr Magee, had\npublished a review article in which, while making hostile allusion to\nBradlaugh--doubtless in recollection of old criticisms--as an Atheist\n\"whose name certainly neither softens nor sweetens any controversy with\nwhich it is connected,\" he declared forcibly against the Parliamentary\nOath altogether. As he truly observed,\n\n \"Whatever else our present Parliamentary Oath was designed to\n effect, it was never designed to keep Atheists out of Parliament. It\n was, and is, strictly a political test, and for a purpose happily\n quite remote from modern English politics. It is dynastic.... It\n does not even ... exclude Republicans; for, should the Parliament\n which imposes it decide at any time upon the ultimate abolition of\n monarchy, there would then be no 'successors according to law' to\n whom to be faithful.... As a political test, it is practically all\n but obsolete.... It does not even incidentally and indirectly act as\n a religious test, for no Atheist that we know of has ever refused to\n take it.\"\n\nOddly enough, while arguing for the abolition of the Parliamentary\nOath, the Bishop proposed to \"retain\" the oath in courts of justice,\nbeing apparently unaware that there it was already to some extent\noptional. His opinion on the other point, however, counted for\nsomething; and though an appeal was made to the Liberal ministry,\nas it had been made to their predecessors, to prosecute Bradlaugh\nafresh for sitting and voting, the ministry refused, and the matter\ndropped once for all. There was also, of course, a cessation of the\nattacks on him by Conservative members. One, a Mr E. H. Llewellyn, at\na Primrose League meeting early in the year, scurrilously spoke of him\nas having \"seemed more as if he spat upon than kissed\" the Testament\nin taking the oath; but for this congenial indulgence Mr Llewellyn\nhad to make a public apology to Bradlaugh and to the House of Commons\nalike. Bradlaugh was an excessively inconvenient enemy to have at close\nquarters.\n\nNo one knew this better than Lord Randolph Churchill, who was now\npromoted to the leadership of the House of Commons over the head of\nSir Michael Hicks Beach. \"The most bitter enemy of the Tory party,\"\nwrote Bradlaugh, \"could hardly have planned for it greater degradation\nthan this leadership.\" One Tory journalist attributed to him, quite\nfalsely, a proposal to hiss Churchill on his first rising to address\nthe House. That was not his way of fighting. The \"new leader,\" on his\npart, was extraordinarily conciliatory. When the new Parliament met in\nAugust, Churchill made not even a sign of wish to stand again between\nBradlaugh and the oath; and when Bradlaugh made his important motion\nthat the House do not assent to the usual Sessional Order prohibiting\nthe interference of peers in elections, his lordship actually offered\nhim a committee for the following year to frame another Order instead,\nadmitting that the existing one was habitually ignored. Bradlaugh,\nhowever, pressed the matter to a division, when 126 members supported\nhim, the Liberal leaders voting with the Tory majority against him.\nHis object had been, as the vigilant Newdegate noted, to take the\n\"first step to getting rid of the House of Lords.\" By allowing peers\nto interfere freely in elections, he proposed to strike at their\nhereditary privilege. But the time for such a measure was not yet.\n\nIt was understood to be on Churchill's urging, again, that two months\nafterwards the Tory Attorney-General entered a _stet processus_ in\nthe still outstanding appeal to the House of Lords, thus ending an\naction which the Gladstone Ministry had declined to end at Bradlaugh's\nrequest. But Bradlaugh in no way slackened his hostility on this score.\nOn 19th September, in a discussion on the committal of Father Fahy\nfor using threatening language towards magistrates, he reminded the\nHouse how its leader had once declared in the House that the Crown\ncould procure the decisions it wanted from certain judges. Churchill,\nentering the House later, and learning what had been stated, assured\nBradlaugh that he had been entirely mistaken, and gave the statement\nan unqualified denial. On Bradlaugh saying he thought he was right,\nChurchill made the curious answer: \"I am sure he cannot find anywhere\na record of my having said such a thing.\" Bradlaugh immediately went\nto consult Hansard, and not finding the passage he had expected, came\nback and frankly confessed the fact to the House. But on turning\nback he found that he had made an equivalent statement in his letter\nto Northcote on 1st March 1884, and that Northcote, while disputing\nin his reply certain of Bradlaugh's assertions, lest he should be\ntaken to admit them, did not dispute this. A more leisurely search\nin the newspaper files cleared up part of the mystery. Churchill\nhad repeatedly said in effect what Bradlaugh had attributed to him.\nIn at least three speeches (30th April 1883; 21st February 1884;\n12th June 1884) he had directly and indirectly insinuated that the\nGovernment could get the decisions they wanted in a collusive action\nagainst Bradlaugh by bringing it before judges who had been Liberal\nAttorneys-General. What had apparently happened was that the noble\nlord had struck at least one passage out of the Hansard report when,\naccording to custom, the proofs of his speeches were sent to him as\nto other members for correction afterwards. Having done this, he felt\nsafe in saying that Bradlaugh \"could not find anywhere a record\" of\nsuch a statement on his part. It was a mistaken confidence; and besides\npublishing the newspaper extracts at the time, Bradlaugh later found an\nopportunity to pay off his score with interest.\n\nIn the October of 1886, meantime, he addressed to the noble lord\nan open letter of scathing comment on his policy, his tactics, his\nspeeches, and his character. It contained the sentence--referring to\n\"old English gentlemen\"--\"These belong to a class to which I, as well\nas yourself, am a stranger--I from birth, and you from habit;\" and in\nreference to his lordship's language (outside) towards Mr Gladstone,\nit had the passage: \"He has often been generous to you--the great can\nbe generous. You might, in taking a leader's place, at least have for\nthe moment aped a leader's dignity. _Noblesse oblige_; but no such\nobligation weighs on you; _o\u00f9 il n'y a rien le roi perd ses droits_.\"\nYet even after this Churchill sought to make his personal acquaintance\nand disarm his resentment making repeated attempts to be introduced,\nand on one occasion actually intervening with a broad compliment in a\nconversation between Bradlaugh and another member in the smoking-room.\nBradlaugh bowed with the old-fashioned ceremony which he adhered to in\nsuch cases, but would not further accept the obtruded friendship. He\nhad, however, passed beyond his former disposition to square accounts\nwith the lordling who had called his supporters the \"mob, scum, and\ndregs.\" I once heard him remark that it was pitiful to see Churchill,\nwith his fidgety, lawyer's-clerk manner and tactics, trying to rise to\nthe dignity of the leadership of the House, trying not to twist his\nmoustache all the time, and to listen to opponents like a statesman.\nAnd some story he heard of an act of generosity on Churchill's part\nhelped further to disarm his never very vindictive hostility.\n\nNothing, indeed, could well surpass the magnanimity with which he put\naway from him all rancour for the endless insults he had received. New\nTory members, expecting perhaps to see in him a truculent demagogue,\nwere disarmed on finding a genial gentleman and comrade, who bore\nno malice, was excellent company, and played chess as sociably as\nskilfully. As the years went on, there actually arose a sort of\nenthusiasm for him among the younger Tories, more than one of whom\nassured him that they deplored the treatment he had met with at\nthe hands of their party. Of course they did not suffer from the\nembarrassment of the Liberals at the prospect that the irrepressible\nAtheist, with his extraordinary gift for legislation, would possibly\nhave to be included in the next Liberal administration.\n\nThis feeling began to arise very rapidly among the Radicals outside.\nHis prompt success in securing the Labour Bureau, and in checking\nthe practice of truck in Scotland and England, brought him immediate\nvotes of thanks from labour organizations, though the press at this\nstage practised against him such a boycott that at a time when he was\nconstantly speaking on the estimates, correspondents wrote deploring\nhis silence in the House. The old tactic of ostracism was not easily\nunlearned; and the official Liberal journals, as the _Daily News_, for\nyears on end sought to suppress the fact that it was he who had brought\nabout the Labour Bureau. So anxious were such journals to keep him out\nof sight, that when the important return moved for by him as to market\nrights and tolls was issued, and had to be discussed, the _News_ dealt\nwith it elaborately without mentioning that it was Bradlaugh who had\nobtained it.\n\nNo conspiracy, however, could suppress general knowledge of such a mass\nof work as he got through, outside the House as well as inside. When it\nwas not sitting, he was on lecturing tours, and I find that in the last\nthree months of 1886, Parliament being in recess, he addressed nearly\nsixty political meetings in all parts of the country, in addition to\nhis Secularist lecturing, which he never abandoned, though he devoted\na larger proportion of his lectures to politics than formerly. In the\nHouse, besides working specially at his questions of truck and land\ncultivation and perpetual pensions, and serving on the committee to\nconsider the effects of the Employers' Liability Act, he was one of\nthe most generally industrious of legislators. All this strain was not\nfor nothing, and at the end of the year we find him suffering from\nerysipelas and neuritis.\n\n\n1887.\n\nIn the session of 1887, however, he went to work with unslackened\nenergy. In a long speech delivered to a full house in the debate on\nthe address, he attacked the Government on their permission of illegal\ntruck practices, on their Egyptian policy, on their Burmese policy, and\non their Irish policy. On the resignation of Lord Randolph Churchill,\nthe new Commons leader, Mr W. H. Smith, continued the Tory policy of\nconcession to the former victim of the party; and he was granted a\nSelect Committee on Perpetual Pensions, himself being a member. The\npoint raised by him last year as to peers' interference in elections\nwas made the subject of investigation for another committee (of seven),\nmoved for by the Government, and on this too he sat. The majority\nof the committee, of course, soon reported in favour of leaving the\nSessional Order unaltered, Bradlaugh and Mr Whitbread dissenting.\nMeanwhile, he was continuing his attacks on the practice of truck, and\ngot down for discussion a Truck Act Amendment Bill in addition to the\nAffirmation Bill which he had introduced when Sir John (formerly Mr\nSergeant) Simon's came to nothing. In March, too, he took an active\npart with Mr Howell and Mr Labouchere in the attack on certain members\nof the Corporation of London, including, and specially, his own old\nenemy, Alderman Sir R. N. Fowler, for corrupt expenditure. In Fowler's\npresence Bradlaugh on his part \"undertook to specifically connect\nthe hon. baronet with the issue of City funds under conditions which\ncompelled the knowledge on his part that they were corruptly used for\nthe purpose of influencing the decisions of that House. He would prove\nthat up to the hilt.\" And again he renewed his energetic action against\nthe huge expenditure on Sir H. D. Wolff's mission to Cairo, a mission\nwhich, he declared, amid Radical cheers, to be a gross Conservative\n\"job;\" and he had the support of 146 members to his motion to quash the\nvote.\n\nThe charges against the Corporation were formally heard before a Select\nCommittee of the House of Commons, Bradlaugh acting as prosecutor.\nFowler, without really denying the charges in the House, had described\nthem as \"anonymous tittle-tattle;\" and on the insufficiency of\nthis disclaimer being pointed out, one of the ministers, Lord G.\nHamilton, formally denied the charges on Fowler's behalf. Before\nthe Committee--consisting of Lord Hartington, Sir Joseph Bailey, Mr\nDillwyn, Mr Houldsworth, and Mr Stevenson--the statements made as to\nexpenditure were proved,[191] as Bradlaugh had promised, \"up to the\nhilt.\" Fourteen witnesses were examined by him; the City accounts for\nfive years and other documents were closely gone into; and when the\nalleged payments could no longer be disputed, the defence (conducted\nby Mr J. Compton Lawrence, Q.C.) took the line of arguing that the\nchallenged payments were within the right of the Corporation. They had\nbeen made during a number of years by way of resisting the popular\nmovement for the reform of the municipal government of London. In the\nwords of Bradlaugh:--\n\n[Footnote 191: See the Blue-Book, \"Report London Corporation (Charges\nof Malversation),\" together with the Proceedings of the Committee,\nMinutes of Evidence, and Appendix, Parliamentary Paper, 161, 1887. A\nbrief account of the matter was written by Bradlaugh for _Our Corner_,\nJuly and August 1887, under the title, \"How the City Fathers Fight.\"]\n\n \"\u00a319,550, 10s. 10d. was proved to have been expended in financing\n Associations such as the Metropolitan Ratepayers' Association,\n Metropolitan Local Self-Government Association, Anti-One-Municipality\n League, and South London Municipal Association, described by Mr\n Howell as 'bogus' Associations, which were mostly started by paid\n agents employed by City officials, under the direction of, and with\n the knowledge of, the Special Committee; and which Associations were\n used as a means of creating a fraudulent, unfair, and collusive\n opposition to the proposed legislation for London municipal reform.\n Improper use and malversation of funds were also shown in promoting\n and carrying on collusive and fictitious charter movements in Lambeth,\n Woolwich, Greenwich, and other places in the metropolis, with the\n view of representing these to Parliament and to the Privy Council as\n spontaneous and _bona-fide_ movements, when they were really only\n intended as opposition to the Government Bill. (The fictitious nature\n of the charter movement is especially illustrated by Mr Stoneham's\n answer: 'When the London Government Bill was dropped, the charter\n movements were let fall through by the City to a great extent.')\n Improper use was further shown in paying men to attend in very large\n numbers for the purpose of opposing, sometimes with violence, the\n meetings in favour of the reform of the Corporation; in paying for\n sham deputations, sham meetings in favour of the City, and for unfair\n reports which were published in the press; in procuring signatures to\n petitions,\" etc.\n\nThe most extraordinary thing of all was the fact that in the case of\none municipal reform meeting in 1883, at least 2000 forged tickets\nhad been issued, and their distribution was not obscurely traced to\nCorporation officials. In regard to this matter, Fowler was shown\nto have helped to evade inquiry when it was challenged at the time;\nand in regard to the improper expenditure, he was shown to have\nbeen officially cognisant; and though the Committee let off their\nfellow-member as lightly as they could, he had a very bad quarter\nof an hour under Bradlaugh's examination. One by one, the champions\nof the religiosity of the legislature against the Atheist had been\nshown to do their cause small credit in their persons. About the same\ntime Bradlaugh took a leading part in exposing in the House a gross\nand systematic fraud in the preparation of a certain petition from\nHaggerston, signatures having been forged and invented wholesale, to\nthe extent even of putting names of infant children and racehorses;\nand this again was done for payment made by City officials. But on\nBradlaugh's side there was no subordination of the public to his\nprivate interest; and when, in April 1887, Newdegate died in the odour\nof sanctity, he displayed no vindictiveness in his comments on the\nlocal obituary biography, which of course dealt freely with his own\nname. \"I am credibly informed,\" he wrote, \"that, apart from his bigotry\nagainst Catholics and heretics, Mr Newdegate was a kindly country\ngentleman, well liked by those who knew him. I regret to learn from\nhis biographer that he treated the six years' harassing anxiety and\ncost to myself, which he did so much to continue, as a subject for\nmerriment.\"\n\nIn respect of his legislative work he was as successful as he was\nindustrious. By the end of April he had got his Truck Bill into the\nCommittee stage; and he secured from the Government, without a blow,\nthe Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls for which he moved\nin a speech of an hour's length.[192] The manner of this success was\nsingular. In the words of one Tory journal: \"It was no secret that\nthe Government intended at first to oppose Mr Bradlaugh's motion,\nbut it gave way on receiving an intimation from a large number of\nConservative members sitting below the gangway that, if a division\ntook place, they would be compelled to vote with the junior member for\nNorthampton.\" So oddly had the tables been turned. Yet he had in no\nway slackened his opposition to Tory policy. On the Coercion Bill he\nhad made three forcible speeches, and he was always pursuing ministers\nwith awkward questions. His success with the enemy was due simply to\nthe irresistible impression he created of honesty and industry and\nsingle-mindedness. And when in May he made a merciless exposure of\nChurchill on the point above alluded to, of his old imputations on\nthe integrity of Liberal judges, it did not appear that Conservatives\nfailed to enjoy the proceedings. It was in the course of the privilege\ndebate on the _Times'_ articles on \"Parnellism and Crime.\" Bradlaugh\nfirst elicited from Churchill a repudiation of one of his former\nutterances, and then proceeded to quote in full the passage from\nHansard, with the now verified reference. Another challenge elicited\nanother denial, and yet another quotation, with the reference. They\nwere all ready for this occasion. \"I am not responsible for Hansard,\"\ncried the noble lord, in much agitation; whereupon Bradlaugh added new\nand sharper punishment, going on to quote yet more of the damnatory\npassages from Hansard. \"The noble lord,\" he went on, \"was of opinion\nin 1884 that the courts of law were not fair tribunals,\" whereupon\nChurchill again indicated dissent. \"It was perhaps,\" admitted\nBradlaugh, \"not quite correct to say that the noble lord was of that\nopinion--he only said it.\" And still the castigation went on, the\nHouse punctuating it with laughter, till Churchill rose and protested\nthat in regard to his recent speeches on the _Times_ question he had\nbeen utterly misrepresented. Whereupon \"Mr Bradlaugh said he was not\ndealing with the noble lord's views--he did not know what they were.\n(Opposition cheers and laughter.) He was only giving the noble lord's\nwords.\" At the close of the speech, which as a whole was unanswerable,\nChurchill rose to offer a \"personal explanation\" on the Hansard\nbusiness. Delivered with anxious prolixity, it was primarily to the\neffect that in 1884 his speeches were \"greatly compressed\" in Hansard,\n\"as is invariably the case with ordinary members,\" and that the\ncompressed reports could not be taken as true and faithful. This gave\nBradlaugh his final opportunity.\n\n[Footnote 192: Circulated as a pamphlet in immense numbers by the\nCobden Club, and reprinted among his speeches.]\n\n \"I accept the explanation of the noble lord [on the bearing of his\n words on the _Times_ case], and I can corroborate his statements as to\n the compression of his speeches, because I used at one time to hear\n from him expressions which, having unguardedly repeated them without\n verification, I could not find in Hansard when I went to look for\n them. (Loud laughter and cheers.) The only mental difficulty I have is\n to imagine how any process of compression could put words on record\n which were never spoken. (Loud laughter and cheers.)\"\n\nIt was as sufficient and artistic a piece of punishment as the House\nhad witnessed for a long time; and Bradlaugh thenceforth considered\nhis accounts with his former vilifier reasonably squared. Besides, in\nhis anxiety to propitiate his powerful opponent, Churchill immediately\nafterwards declared in a letter to the _Times_ that he did not see\nhow Bradlaugh's Oaths Bill could with propriety be opposed by the\nConservative party, whose duty it was, by supporting and passing it, to\n\"secure that the Parliamentary oath in future will in all probability\nonly be taken by those who believe in and revere its effective\nsolemnity.\" This was written in anticipation of the action of a few\nConservatives who, rebelling against their own leaders, obstructed\nthe measure when it came on for discussion after other matters about\nfive o'clock in the morning. Sir Edward Clarke, who had zealously\nresisted all previous bills of the kind, gave his support to this.\nTwice over, in a House of 300, Bradlaugh had large majorities--of 91\nand 104--against adjournment, but still the motions went on. At length,\nhaving sat in the House for eleven hours, he gave way, an act for which\nsome outsiders thought fit to blame him. Some journals, however, took\nthe opportunity to speak of him, on the merits of the question, with\na civility they had never before seen occasion to show him. Others\nmade use of the occasion to point out how fully it proved the utter\ndishonesty of most of the previous Tory opposition to Bradlaugh. Some\nof the details in the debate gave dramatic corroboration to this view.\nColonel Hughes had stood forward as one of the representatives of\nreligion; on which Mr Healy--himself once in that galley--observed that\n\"it was to be hoped Christianity would not be defended by a gentleman\nwho had been scheduled for bribery.\"\n\nWhile the Oaths Bill was thus delayed, Bradlaugh contrived by\nincessant vigilance to get the Truck Bill through Committee in July.\nHe confessed that if he had known beforehand the enormous labour such\na Bill involved--\"the receiving deputations, the large explanatory\ncorrespondence, the huge mass of suggested amendments, the objections\nfrom various interests to each amendment, and the utter impossibility\nof conciliating or satisfying the various sections, some friendly, some\nhostile, some well-meaning but impracticable\"--he might have shrunk\nfrom the task. For twenty-seven nights he had watched till the morning\nhours on the chance of his Bill being reached, and when all was done\nit seemed for a time as if the Upper House, in its customary manner,\nwould wreck everything. Their lordships' first \"amendments\" were\ninsufferable, and were sent back to them, the House of Commons backing\nup Bradlaugh with vigour. Finally their lordships agreed to limit their\namendments to a few which, while of course doing harm, did not affect\nthe main work of the Bill, and though some Irish and other members\ndesired to reject it on the score of these, the measure was at length\npassed.\n\nHe had thus in one session carried an important Act, made considerable\nprogress with another, and obtained a Select Committee on Perpetual\nPensions and a Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls, apart from\nthe Committee appointed by the Government on his former initiative to\ndiscuss the action of peers in elections. In the Committee on Pensions\nhis report was unanimously adopted, barring the clauses which dealt\nwith certain payments to the Duchy of Cornwall--in other words, to\nthe Prince of Wales. He had further prosecuted the Corporation of\nLondon before yet another Select Committee of the House, effectively\ndamaging one of his enemies in the process, as he had in the previous\nyear secured the prosecution of another for breach of the law in\nhis capacity of a company director. He had seen yet another enemy,\nChurchill, deposed from his place of pride, and had incidentally\noverthrown him in debate. All the while he was doing hard work on the\nEmployers' Liability Committee besides speaking often on the Estimates\nand on the Coercion Bill, putting an ever-increasing number of solid\nquestions to ministers on grievances submitted to him, many of which\nwere redressed, and in particular pertinaciously pursuing the Indian\nOffice as to certain underhand dealings in the matter of the ruby mines\nof Burmah. No other member's work could compare with it all; and the\npress decided that \"Bradlaugh's Session\" was the proper summary of the\nParliamentary season. But, of course, such success evoked jealousy\nno less than tribute. In the carrying of the Truck Act he had not a\nlittle experience of the jealousy of labour leaders and others; and\nwhile the official Liberal press still partly boycotted him, the\nSocialist press made a point of belittling or perverting everything\nhe did. Despite his continuous attacks on Tory policy, his Truck Bill\nwas declared to owe its success to Government adoption. The Socialist\n_Reynolds_ declared that he did little or nothing in Parliament; while\nthe Tory _England_ protested that he spoke far too often. As a matter\nof fact, he had made some sixty-five speeches up to Whitsuntide,\nthirteen of them against Coercion. But the circumstance which made\nhis Parliamentary industry absolutely unique was that it was carried\non alongside of a continuous course of Sunday lecturing, with special\nattendances at week-day demonstrations thrown in. When the Sunday\nlectures were in London the strain was comparatively light, as only\ntwo were given in the day at the Hall of Science; but in the provinces\nit is the Secularist practice to have three discourses on the Sunday\nwhen a London lecturer comes, and the physical strain of this, it need\nnot be said, is heavy. Thus for Bradlaugh the two days of the week\nwhich other members of Parliament could give to rest and recreation\nwere oftenest simply days of travelling and extra speaking. Now and\nthen he could get a Saturday's pike-fishing on the Lea or on a Thames\nbackwater; once or twice in the year he could even run down to Loch\nLong for two or three days of the very much more bracing fishing there.\nEven the holiday became a source of fresh work, for he took up with\nhis usual energy the case of the pollution of Loch Long by Glasgow\nsewage; and it was due to his persistent pressure that the nuisance\nwas at length stopped. He thus made a rich return for the measure of\nrest and strength gained from his days of fishing--a gain which was at\ntimes wonderful. But though his powers of recuperation were great, the\nrest-days were far too few; the balance was always heavily on the side\nof overwork; and so his intimates now saw him year after year showing\never heavier traces of the overwhelming strain of his life. Whether he\ngot to bed early or in the late morning hours, he was always up and at\nwork before eight, attacking his great pile of correspondence, which\nalone would have seemed to many men to supply a good day's work. Every\nday's post brought him on an average a round dozen of grievances to\nbe submitted to Parliament, and in every case which he thought worth\nattention he made careful investigation, always declining to trouble\nMinisters without good grounds. Then there were the continual letters\nfrom poor men of all denominations asking for legal advice gratis--a\nkind of request he never refused. Yet with it all he found time to\nwrite for his journal; and his articles and speeches at this time are\nas pregnant and efficient as any he ever penned or spoke. Among other\nthings he wrote a weighty little pamphlet: \"The Channel Tunnel: Ought\nthe Democracy to Oppose or Support it?\" which was widely circulated\nas the strongest possible popular plea for the undertaking. When next\nthe public is effectively challenged for a vote on that question, it\nwill probably be found that there has been a great transformation of\nopinion; and not a little of the credit will be due to his pleading.\nOf the extent of his influence in this and other ways the average\nmetropolitan reader never had any accurate idea, between the grossly\nunjust attacks of Socialists on the one hand, and the boycotting of the\nLiberal press on the other. Thus we find him delivering in Birmingham,\nin October 1887, a great fighting speech on the party situation, of\nwhich no report whatever appears in the London papers. It dealt with\nthe question raised by Mr Chamberlain, \"Is a National Party possible?\"\nand the answer it gave was a determined and uncompromising attack\non the Unionist coalition, this at a time when Liberals and some\nRadicals were insinuating that he was ingratiating himself in the Tory\ncounsels. This was a type of dozens of provincial addresses delivered\nby him every year, some of them at immense open-air demonstrations of\nminers, who always invited him to their great gatherings. Of all this\nactivity the London press revealed hardly a trace, any more than of\nhis hundreds of Sunday lectures every year, of which one or two out of\nevery three were devoted to politics. It is safe to say that no other\nEnglish politician of his time spoke publicly to such numbers of his\nfellow-countrymen in the course of each year.\n\nA striking illustration of the new animus against him among \"advanced\"\npropagandists came up on the occasion of the deplorable Trafalgar\nSquare episode of 13th November 1887. The Socialist press and some\nRadical journals sedulously circulated the intimation that \"somehow or\nother Mr Bradlaugh was very conspicuous by his absence,\" while pointing\nto his old proceedings in similar crises. He was actually lecturing at\nthe time at West Hartlepool, in fulfilment of an engagement made months\nbefore; and next day he was at Hull. On his return he contributed to\nthe _Pall Mall Gazette_ a careful statement of the law on the point of\nthe use of Trafalgar Square, criticising and condemning the action of\nthe authorities, and he followed this up with further protests, while\nadvising the Radical M.P.'s concerned to fight out the case at law,\nand begging those who trusted him to await such legal settlement. Yet\nseveral times since his death it has been stated in the press that he\nexhumed a forgotten law which entitled the Home Secretary to prevent\nmeetings in the Square. The laws he cited were all to the contrary\neffect, and were well enough known to those officially concerned;\nthe point having been raised, as above mentioned, over one of his\nown Trafalgar Square demonstrations a few years before. And when Mr\nCunninghame Graham and Mr Burns were prosecuted, he gave evidence on\ntheir behalf, making a hasty and difficult journey across the country\nfrom Leek to London on a telegraphic summons to arrive in time when\nthey were tried at the Old Bailey.\n\nA paragraph which he published in his journal in this connection\nwill serve to mark the degree of political severance which, with no\ndiminution of mutual regard, had arisen between him and his long-tried\ncolleague and partner, Mrs Besant. It ran:--\n\n \"As I have on most serious matters of principle recently differed\n very widely from my brave and loyal co-worker, and as that difference\n has been regrettably emphasized by her resignation of her editorial\n functions on this journal, it is the more necessary that I should\n say how thoroughly I approve, and how grateful I am to her for, her\n conduct in not only obtaining bail and providing legal assistance for\n the helpless unfortunates in the hands of the police, but also for her\n daily personal attendance and wise conduct at the police-stations and\n police-courts, where she has done so much to abate harsh treatment\n on the one hand and rash folly on the other. While I should not have\n marked this out as fitting woman's work, especially in the recent very\n inclement weather, I desire to record my view that it has been bravely\n done, well done, and most usefully done; and I wish to mark this the\n more emphatically as my views and those of Mrs Besant seem more wide\n apart than I could have deemed possible on many of the points of\n principle underlying what is every day growing into a more serious\n struggle.\"\n\nThe severance spoken of had arisen over Mrs Besant's adoption of\nSocialist principles, a change of attitude on her part which began\nabout 1885, and soon went the length of a somewhat extreme propaganda,\nafterwards modified in common with the general tone of the Fabian\nSociety, of which she had speedily become the most active member. The\njoint editorship had now become a practical difficulty as well as a\nsource of complaint among readers; and in October 1887 it was amicably\nended, Mrs Besant continuing to act as sub-editor and contributor. She\nhad fought beside Bradlaugh and for him loyally and well, and though\nthe suddenness and vehemence of her new departure had startled and\ntroubled him, his friendship, as the above paragraph shows, had in no\nway weakened. He was not the man to break a tie for even a serious\ndifference in opinion; though he was also the last man to do what\nsome Socialists contemptibly accused him of doing--arrange that his\ncolleague should take one line and he another in order to promote the\ncirculation of his journal. He did for Socialists what he did for\neverybody who got into legal trouble on political grounds, and he\ngave Mrs Besant ample assistance in fighting the case of those who\nwere arrested by the police for open-air propaganda. The most serious\nchange of position on Mrs Besant's part, her conversion to Madame\nBlavatsky's \"Theosophy,\" was soon to come. Even when that came, in\nthe following year, he neither withdrew his friendship nor asked her\nto cease contributing to the _Reformer_; but, coming after political\ndifferences, the new and deep division of opinion undoubtedly pained\nand depressed him. He was to find, as so many have found, that when\nsuccess comes something is sure to go which leaves success a different\nthing from what was dreamt of.\n\n\n1888.\n\nThe first important task of Bradlaugh on the re-assembling of\nParliament was to fight this cause of the right of public meeting\nin Trafalgar Square. It had been badly enough managed by others. In\nJanuary he wrote:--\n\n \"The conviction of Messrs Cunninghame Graham and Burns for unlawful\n assembly is, I fear, in great part due to the foolishly boastful\n evidence of Mr Hyndman and Mr Tims. If the first had been a Crown\n witness, his evidence on cross-examination could not have been more\n mischievous to the accused, on the count on which a verdict was found\n against them; and the incautious replies of Mr Tims to the counsel for\n the Crown were almost as fatal.\"\n\nThe Government on their part had carried adroitness to the point of\ncowardice, refusing to arrest Mrs Besant when she sought to have a\nlegal trial on the merits of the right of meeting. The effect of it all\nwas that not only the Liberal leaders, but such journals as the _Daily\nChronicle_ and the _Daily News_, took the line of deprecating any\nfurther public meetings in the Square. Bradlaugh, standing firmly to\nthe claim of right, commented gravely on the promoters of the meeting\nfor \"bringing together a huge mass of people whom nobody was prepared\nto lead or to control;\" and he expressed his regret that Mr Saunders, a\nprosecution against whom was laid and then departed from, should have\nlet the legal question drop. Before the assembling of the House certain\nmetropolitan members, learning that Bradlaugh was determined to raise\nthe question by an amendment on the Address, took the unworthy line of\nprotesting that, as a metropolitan matter, it was no business of his.\nHe offered to leave it to Sir Charles Russell, as the most capable of\ndealing with it. Sir Charles promptly replied that no one could handle\nit better than Bradlaugh, but undertook the moving of the leading\namendment. In addition to such difficulties Bradlaugh had the trouble\nof opposing the action of Mrs Besant on the newly-founded Law and\nLiberty League, promoted by herself and Mr Stead, with its \"Ironside\nCircles,\" and other risky arrangements for meeting force with force.\n\nWhen the House met, Bradlaugh took occasion, before the debates began,\nto make a personal statement on a matter that had of late frequently\ncome before the public. In February of 1886 he had offered in the\nHouse to show that large sums of money, excessive for such a purpose,\nhad been supplied by leading Conservatives of both Houses of Parliament\nfor the promotion of a Trafalgar Square demonstration for \"Fair Trade,\"\norganised by a Tory agitator named Peters, which had culminated in a\nriot. Peters had at the time blusterously denied this, but had declined\nBradlaugh's challenge to a formal investigation before an arbitrator\nas at _nisi prius_. In the recent prosecution of Messrs Burns and\nCunninghame Graham at Bow Street, Bradlaugh had been pressed by the\nCrown Counsel on this point, had reaffirmed his statement, and had\nadded that one of the cheques, which he had seen and was prepared to\ntrace, was from Lord Salisbury. This statement was first denied by\nLord Salisbury in a letter to the _Times_ (2nd December), and was\nafterwards characterised as wilful perjury in a published letter from\nhis secretary to one Kelly, a colleague of Peters. On the first denial\nBradlaugh promptly offered to have the matter investigated before a\nCommittee of the House of Commons. This offer Lord Salisbury neither\naccepted nor declined. Bradlaugh now asked the Government to agree to\na Select Committee of Investigation, pointing out that he lay under\nan imputation of perjury from the Prime Minister on a statement which\nhe had made in Parliament. An action for libel, however, had been\nalready begun against Bradlaugh by Peters; and the Ministry, after\nwaiting a few days, answered that the matter was not a proper one\nfor a Select Committee, especially as a lawsuit on it was pending.\nBradlaugh, however, pointed out that the action in question could\nnot raise the real issue, and offered to raise it if Lord Salisbury\nwould acknowledge the publication of the letter to Kelly, signed by\nhis secretary. This acknowledgment he sought to obtain by letter, but\nafter delay the noble lord took the singular course of declining to\naccept legal responsibility for the publication of the letter, as he\nhad not consented to it. When, however, Bradlaugh read this letter\nof disclaimer in the House, Lord Salisbury sent him a secretarial\nletter (22nd February) referring to the original letter to the _Times_\nover his lordship's own signature (in which the truth of Bradlaugh's\nstatement had been denied without charging perjury), and admitting his\nlordship's legal responsibility for that. That letter, however, was\nnot actionable, and Bradlaugh had replied to it at the time, as he now\npointed out. Lord Salisbury then wrote (25th February), repeating that\nhe could accept no responsibility for his letter to Kelly, concerning\nwhom he made the curious statement that he, too, was affected by\nBradlaugh's false and injurious charges, though Bradlaugh had never\nmentioned Kelly's name in the matter. His lordship, however, professed\nhis readiness to facilitate a legal investigation of Bradlaugh's\nstatements, which his lordship inaccurately professed to reproduce.\nBradlaugh, protesting against his lordship's tolerating the publication\nof the charge of perjury, and never once apologising for it, answered\nthat he preferred to have the charge stated in the words in which he\nmade it, and in none other. No reply was offered, and the matter was\nleft to be settled by Peters' action for libel.\n\nThe debate on the Trafalgar Square question did not come on for a week\nor two, and in the meantime one notable episode occurred over a remark\nmade by Bradlaugh in the discussion on an amendment to the Address\nconcerning the Scotch Crofters. The report runs:--\n\n \"Mr Bradlaugh said he understood the Chief Secretary to say that\n the cause of the evil they had to deal with in the Highlands was\n over-population, and that the sole remedy for this difficulty was\n emigration. He also understood the right hon. gentleman to denounce\n the reckless increase of population in that district during the last\n forty or fifty years. He felt some astonishment that the right hon.\n gentleman should put forward such an argument, when he remembered\n that the right hon. gentleman, and those who sat around him, tried\n before all England to make him appear as one of the most immoral men\n alive, because he had tried to teach the people for the last quarter\n of a century these very evils of over-population, and these very\n difficulties of their condition connected with reckless increase. It\n was astounding to hear from the other side such a doctrine put forward\n to be supported, because, when urged by him in olden times, it had\n made him the mark for some of the most wicked language that one man\n could use against another.\n\n \"Mr A. J. Balfour: I never in my life used any such language against\n the hon. gentleman; never, never. (Cheers.)\n\n \"Mr Bradlaugh said that, at any rate, the important party of which the\n right hon. gentleman was then a prominent member, flooded the country\n with literature containing such attacks, without then one word of\n repudiation from the right hon. gentleman. But he would not discuss\n the personal position of the matter further. The sole remedy for the\n existing distress, according to hon. members opposite, was emigration.\n But how were they going to apply it? Was the State to undertake the\n emigration? Were the people to be sent away by force, and to what\n lands were they to go? In every case they would have to struggle for\n existence against hostile life-conditions, extremes of heat and cold,\n hard for starving men to hear. Everywhere they would be confronted\n with the labour struggle, for we were no longer the sole, or even the\n principal, colonising people; masses of Germans and other thrifty\n colonising races were now found in every distant land. Of course,\n emigration resulted in a few successes, and of these much was heard;\n but nothing was said about the many miserable failures. Medical men in\n America and Canada could tell many heart-rending stories of madness\n supervening on the home-sickness that embittered the emigrant's life.\n There was no country where pauper emigration would be welcomed. State\n emigration, if at all, must include on a large scale other distressed\n subjects. This was impracticable. Emigration of charity was mockery\n save to the veriest few. No; emigration ought not to be thought of as\n a remedy until other means had been tried, until the unjust conditions\n which hampered the poor, and which had been artificially created by\n the class to which the hon. gentlemen opposite belonged, had been\n swept away. ('Hear. hear.')\"\n\nThus again did Bradlaugh prove that his Neo-Malthusianism was anything\nbut an argument against the political improvement of the lot of the\npeople. The emphatic declaration of Mr Balfour may be held to class him\nwith Mr John Morley, Mr Leonard Courtney, and the late Lord Derby, as a\nbeliever in the importance of restriction of population; but it is not\non record that he, any more than they, has sought to communicate his\nbelief to the public or his party; and it is certain that, as Bradlaugh\nremarked, he never said a word in deprecation of the attacks of his\nfellow-Tories on Bradlaugh as a Neo-Malthusian at a time when such\nattacks were a main means of keeping him out of his seat.\n\nWhen at length the Trafalgar Square question was reached (1st March),\nbeing raised in a masterly speech by Sir Charles Russell, Bradlaugh\nfollowed with one perhaps not less effective, which, lasting till\nmidnight, had to be continued on the following evening. It included a\nsharp indictment of the conduct of the police, and a broad suggestion\nthat the authorities seemed to have made use of _agents provocateurs_;\nand it made short work of the official pretence that the Square was\nCrown property, as having been constituted out of the King's Mews--a\nstatement on a par with Mr Burdett Coutts' citation of the old Act\nagainst certain meetings near Parliament without the all-essential\nclause specifying the kind of meetings forbidden. The King's Mews,\nBradlaugh pointed out, had formed only a very small part of the ground,\nwhile the rest had been bought and paid for with public money. He\nchallenged an investigation of the conduct of the police, and wound\nup with an earnest appeal to \"those who were elected as Liberals\" to\nresist the tyrannous policy of the Government. The Home Secretary\nwas stung into promising an investigation of the charges against\nthe police; but it is matter of history that the Liberal leaders\nhomologated the action of the Tory Ministry.\n\nA few weeks afterwards (21st March) came the decisive struggle on\nBradlaugh's Affirmation Bill (otherwise \"Oaths Bill\"), which he had\nfailed to force through in the previous session. He moved the second\nreading in a tersely argued and conciliatory speech; and though some\nConservatives, as Mr Stanley Leighton and Mr De Lisle (Catholic), made\nfoolish speeches against it, the great majority of the House was with\nhim. One member, Mr Gedge, made a success of absurdity by arguing\nthat the promoters of the Bill had defined an Atheist as one \"_on\nwhom conscience had no binding effect_,\" and this nonsensical phrase\nhe repeated again and again without recognising its nature, entirely\nfailing at the same time to see the point that the \"definition\" he\nmeant to quote was that given by a court of law, and not by the\npromoters of the Bill at all. At length, the second reading was carried\nover the amendment (which proposed a Royal Commission) by 247 votes\nto 137. On the substantive motion being put that the Bill be read a\nsecond time, obstruction was attempted, which Bradlaugh met by moving\nthe closure. On this he had 334 votes to 50; and the second reading was\nthen formally carried by 250 votes to 100, a majority which surpassed\nhis most sanguine expectations.\n\nTo secure the passage of the measure, however, he had to meet the old\nChristian plea that the permission to affirm--which his Bill gave alike\nto witnesses, jurors, officials, and members of Parliament, in Scotland\nand Ireland as well as England--should not be given to believing\nChristians who, having no conscientious objections to swearing, might\nseek to evade it because they felt freer to lie on affirmation than on\noath. This was urged on the Conservative side as a concession essential\nto acceptance of the Bill, and Bradlaugh consented to make the\nprovision in Committee. No Liberal opposed; but trouble was to arise\nlater in the matter.\n\nMonths after Bradlaugh's undertaking had been given, and after he had\nput down the promised amendment, some leading Liberal members, who\nhad not before made any protest, raised a strong objection to the\nconcession made, inasmuch as it placed upon every one desiring to\naffirm the necessity of avowing whether he objected to the oath on\nreligious grounds, or as having no religious opinion. There ought,\nthese members argued, to be no questioning whatever as to reasons.\nThis was a perfectly reasonable objection to make on principle; but\nit ignored the fact that only by making concessions to the Christian\nside, to meet the case of superstitious and dishonest Christians, could\nany relieving measure be carried at all; and it was brought forward\nsurprisingly late in the day. It is not clear, further, that the\nobjectors realised what the amendment actually did, for they protested\nthat while it was all right for Freethinkers, it put a stigma on those\nwho were not prepared to say they had no religious beliefs. The plain\nanswer to this was that such persons, if they objected to an oath, had\nonly to say it was inconsistent with their religious belief. Although\nthe objectors included such able heads as Mr E. Robertson and Dr W.\nA. Hunter, it must be said that their opposition was not justified by\ntheir arguments. It was less difficult to follow the complaint of Mr\nJ. A. Picton, who said he would have no relief from the Bill, inasmuch\nas he was not without religious belief, but \"regarded oath-taking as\na humiliating and barbarous custom.\" In that case, however, Mr Picton\nmight with perfect propriety say that oath-taking was inconsistent with\nhis religious belief. Further, though it is quite fair for Agnostics,\nTheists, and others to protest that they ought not to be asked for\nany account of their opinions in a court of justice, it was less than\nfair for them to propose to leave without any relief whatever the\nFreethinking jurors who were liable to much worse odium and annoyance\nthan is involved in saying that the oath is inconsistent with one's\nreligious belief; the witnesses who in Scotland could not affirm on\nany condition whatever, and in England could only affirm on answering\na grossly invidious question; and the members of Parliament who had to\ntake the oath while very much disliking it. With the single exception\nof Dr Hunter, none of the Liberal objectors to the added clause had\nmade any fight against oaths; the whole brunt of the battle had been\nleft to the Freethinkers. Yet some of those objectors, who had not\nspecially moved a finger for any reform whatever, were now prepared to\nthrow over the measure. Mr John Morley, who had voted for the second\nreading after hearing Bradlaugh's undertaking to insert the qualifying\nclause, now made some heated remarks against it, which Bradlaugh dryly\ncharacterised as \"not very philosophic.\" They certainly came ill from\nthe editor who had deprecated Bradlaugh's willingness to take any oath.\nBy dint of more forcible remonstrances with other members in the lobby,\nBradlaugh secured a majority of 87 votes for the third reading, the\nfigures being 147 to 60. Many of the Liberal objectors, recognising\nthat to vote with the Noes, who were mostly bigots, would be to put\nthemselves in a false position, abstained from voting; and of the 147\nin the majority, 92 were Liberals.\n\nThe trouble, however, was not yet over. The \"Liberal and Radical Union\"\nof Northampton passed by a majority a resolution complaining that the\nvalue of the Bill was taken away by the amendment; and some Liberal\njournals accused Bradlaugh of giving away the principle of religious\nequality by agreeing to the imposition of \"a new test.\" He met these\ncriticisms in a very temperate letter \"To Liberal Editors in general,\nand the Editor of the _South Wales Daily News_ in particular,\" the\nlatter journal having been one of those which had been most just to\nhim throughout his struggle. The editor replied, acknowledging the\ncourtesy of the criticism, and making his own less extravagant, but\nmaking the extraordinary blunder of alleging that even then any member\nof Parliament could affirm on the ground that oath-taking was contrary\nto his religious belief--this while avowing that he only dealt with the\nmeasure as regarded the Parliamentary oath. His main argument was that\nthere were many people who detested the oath, but could not say it was\ncondemned by their religious belief; and on the score of his measure\nnot relieving such persons, Bradlaugh was pronounced \"ungenerous.\" The\ntruth was that he had done his best to make affirmation absolutely\nunconditional, but could only carry his Bill at all by making it\nconditional on the giving of a reason. He had done all he could for\nall classes of objectors, and he rightly thought it better to relieve\nthose who suffered most than to secure no relief at all. The further\nrelief claimed by believers should be demanded by them from their\nfellow-believers. The rational course, clearly, is to abolish oaths\naltogether, and this Bradlaugh would gladly have done; but it is\nneither rational nor candid to talk as if this or even a somewhat\nless measure of reform could possibly be secured by him within two\nyears of his admission to Parliament after a desperate struggle with a\nmajority who stood for the grossest irrationality and injustice. Those\nwho condemned him ought in consistency and decency to have begun an\nagitation either for making affirmation unconditional--a course which\nwould still leave some people open to annoyance--or for the entire\nabolition of oaths. Yet, after six years have elapsed, there is still\nno word of any such movement. It is the old story of the half-way\npeople leaving all the stress of the fighting to the more advanced.\nThese may be permitted to say that it is a little too much to put\non avowed Freethinkers, fighting for bare rights under all sorts of\ncalumny and ostracism, the burden of securing an effortless immunity\nfor those who all along stood at best in the rear-guard, if they did\nanything in the matter at all.\n\nClose on the heels of the second reading of the Affirmation Bill\n(March) came the debate on the report of the Perpetual Pensions\nCommittee, on which he moved a resolution that steps should be taken\nby the Government to give effect to the Committee's recommendations.\nHe had a Tory seconder, Mr Louis Jennings; and the debate included a\nfriendly speech, with an acceptable amendment, from Mr W. H. Smith,\nand a very interesting speech from Gladstone; whereafter the amendment\n(amended) was incorporated, and the Government stood pledged to\n\"determine\" all hereditary pensions with due regard to justice and\neconomy, and to revise the pension system in general. In May, Bradlaugh\nagain (as told in the chapter above, on his \"Political Doctrine and\nWork\") pressed his resolution as to the expediency of Compulsory\nCultivation of Waste Lands, only to see the House counted out after\nhis seconder (Mr Munro Ferguson) and the mover of an amendment had\nspoken. He was not to succeed alike in everything. Later in May he\nhad an unpleasant experience in respect of the Government's breach of\nfaith over his motion of a new Rule, to the effect that on a new member\npresenting himself in due form, the Speaker should forthwith call him\nto the table. Mr Smith agreed to accept the motion as an \"amendment\nto going into Supply,\" on its being amended by the clause \"unless the\nHouse otherwise resolve,\" which Bradlaugh was advised was a harmless\nprovision; but when, on the pressure of Sir Henry James (who in the\nCourts had argued for the House's right to \"resolve\" to an extent to\nwhich Bradlaugh's clause would not allow) and others, he withdrew the\nclause, the Government threw over the whole motion, though nobody\nobjected to the withdrawal, and the Unionists who had urged the\nwithdrawal of the clause left the House without voting on the motion.\nIt was accordingly rejected by 180 votes to 152.\n\nHis main undertaking for 1888, however, succeeded finally, to a marvel.\nIn the House of Lords, the Affirmation Bill might have been held to\nrun considerable risk; but singularly enough, though amendments were\ntalked of, none were pushed, and the Bill passed its third reading\n(December 1888) absolutely unchanged. In the absence of Lord Herschell,\nit was taken charge of by Earl Spencer and Lord Coleridge; but what\nwas no less important, it was endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury\nas a desirable measure. As usual, the Church took credit for lending\nitself to a reform which it had violently resisted. Outsiders were\nleft asking which policy had been the more insincere--the old outcry\nagainst all Affirmation Bills or the new pretence of welcoming one. The\nLord Chancellor, who, as Sir Hardinge Giffard, had so often opposed\nBradlaugh and all his works, was more true to his antecedents, and\nconfessed his jealousy and dislike of the measure, while grudgingly\nabstaining from trying to defeat it. To Lord Esher, who as a judge had\nalways administered the law as to oaths dead against him, but who now\nhelped the Affirmation Bill through the Upper House, Bradlaugh tendered\ngrave and chivalrous thanks in his journal, adding that none were\nnecessary in the case of the Lord Chancellor.\n\nWhile the Affirmation Bill was on its way the libel action by Peters\nwas heard and decided. Before it came on, the editor of the _St\nStephen's Review_ (Mr Allison), who had made a libellous attack on\nBradlaugh in respect of the case, was on Bradlaugh's suit tried before\nJustices Manisty and Hawkins, and submitting himself apologetically to\nthe Court (March 22nd), was let off with a fine of \u00a320 and full costs\nfor his contempt of Court, Mr Justice Hawkins observing that he \"very\nmuch doubted whether such a fine was an adequate punishment for so\ngross a contempt. He did not think he had ever seen a worse attempt to\naffect the administration of justice.\" The judge added some no less\nforcible remarks on Mr Allison's explanation that he had made his\nattack \"to advance the interests of the Conservative cause.\" But that\nprinciple was destined to have a still more remarkable illustration\nwithin the law courts themselves, when the libel suit was tried\n(April 18th) before Mr Baron Huddleston and a special jury. If the\naction of Peters for libel, in inception and upshot, be not the most\nextraordinary libel case of modern times, it is only because the judge\nwho tried it gave a no less extraordinary turn to another libel case\nwhich came before him eighteen months later. Peters' contention was,\nin brief, that Bradlaugh had libelled him by stating that he got money\nfrom leading Conservatives, including Lord Salisbury, for the promotion\nof a \"Fair Trade\" demonstration in Trafalgar Square. His counsel, Mr\nLockwood, argued that \"if Mr Peters was doing what Mr Bradlaugh accused\nhim of, then Mr Peters was doing a very corrupt thing\"--a plea only\nintelligible as resting on the fact that Peters was the secretary of\nthe \"Workmen's National Association for the Abolition of Foreign Sugar\nBounties,\" and as implying that it would be corruption on the part\nof such a Society to take money from a lord. The evidence led was to\nthe effect that Lord Salisbury had given money, not to Peters, but to\nKelly, who was the _fidus Achates_ of Peters, but was also secretary to\nthe \"Riverside Labourers' Association.\" Both had for years been known\nto Lord Salisbury in connection with the sugar protection movement.\nKelly had gone down to Hatfield and seen Mr Gunton, the secretary, and\nin consequence of that interview had sent a letter to Lord Salisbury\nexplaining that money was wanted to give a piece of beef each to 120\nof \"our best men at Christmas.\" The said best men were \"all fathers\nof families,\" and \"had never been in receipt of parochial relief.\"\nLord Salisbury, who gave evidence, remembered getting this letter\nand sending Kelly a cheque for \u00a325; but had no recollection of any\ntalk with Mr Gunton as to Kelly's previous visit to Hatfield, in\nconsequence of which the letter was sent. He thought it unlikely that\nKelly would have seen Mr Gunton in that way, but confessed his error\nwhen shown that Kelly's letter to him actually mentioned the interview.\nThe landlord of a temperance hotel, which was the headquarters of\nPeters' and Kelly's activities, testified to having spent this money\non provisions, which he distributed to \"needy working men,\" all save\na small balance, which was otherwise distributed. He kept no books.\nPeters was on the committee of distribution.\n\nNow, granting that the money had been honestly spent in the way\nalleged, there was clearly no libel on Peters in saying that the money\nhad been sent him to promote the Trafalgar Square demonstration.\nThere would be no wrongdoing in getting money from any one for such\na purpose. He declared in his evidence that Lord Salisbury had never\ngiven him anything--\"nothing, only his friendship.\" The buffoonery\nof the plaintiff's evidence, which kept the audience in chronic\nlaughter, was not more remarkable than the bluster of his statements\nas to his accounts. Never was a demonstration apparently got up with\na more enthusiastic zeal by working-men promoters, or with a more\nsimple-minded financial reliance on Providence. Only \u00a34 had been spent\non the demonstration--\"to obtain bands and banners.\" What the placards\nhad cost witness could not say; he could not even say whether they had\nbeen paid for. The evidence of his colleague, Kelly, was hardly less\nedifying. He had been one of those who had received Corporation money\nto get up meetings against municipal reform.\n\nBradlaugh's defence was that even on the evidence there was no libel.\nWhen Baron Huddleston interrupted him to suggest that he should\napologise, he answered that he was ready to do so as regarded Lord\nSalisbury, but he could not deal with the rest of the case on those\nlines. On the evidence led he was bound to admit that he had been\ninaccurate as regarded Lord Salisbury's cheque; but his statement had\nbeen wider than that, and neither in general nor in particular had it\nbeen of the nature of a libel. Further, he had spoken in good faith\nand on distinct evidence. Peters had on pressure admitted receiving\nsubscriptions from persons outside his Association; and Peters had\nrefused the investigation originally invited in 1886, when the other\nfacts could have been better traced. And Bradlaugh had led evidence as\nto the receipt by Peters of such cheques, two of which had been shown\nto him.\n\nIn pleading his case, Bradlaugh perhaps made the mistake of being too\nconcise in putting to the jury the point that on any view of the facts\nno libel had been committed. Baron Huddleston was more circumspect.\nHe turned affably to the jury, and in the most intimate manner laid\nbefore them his view that Bradlaugh had directly or indirectly accused\nPeters of getting up \"bogus\" meetings--a statement which Bradlaugh had\ndistinctly repudiated, and which was entirely wide of the facts and\nthe evidence. The whole drift of Bradlaugh's charge, as he stated, was\n\"that the Conservative party were playing with edged tools in assisting\nany such meetings.\" As the summing-up went on, indeed, it became clear\nthat Baron Huddleston felt this also, and that in his view there had\nbeen a \"libellous\" statement against Lord Salisbury, who, however,\nwas not the suitor in the action. On the point of law he made no\nintelligible attempt to rebut Bradlaugh's plea that the statement sued\non was in no sense a libel; but he thoughtfully suggested to the jury,\nwith regard to the evidence of a witness called by Bradlaugh, that\nthey could consider what value should be put on the evidence of a man\nwho objected to take the oath. He further took much pains to impress\non the jury that \"a man could never be allowed to say things against a\nman, and then, when he found that they were false, to say he was very\nsorry, but he honestly believed them true. Such a thing would never\ndo.\" On this instruction the jury found a verdict for Peters, with \u00a3300\ndamages. And yet in the following year (November 1889), when Mrs Besant\nsued the Rev. Mr Hoskyns for libelling her, during her School Board\ncandidature, in a circular which had the statement: \"A Freethinker thus\ndescribes the practical outcome of her teaching: 'Chastity is a crime;\nunbridled sensuality is a virtue,'\" the same judge hardily instructed\nthe jury that \"the question was not whether Mrs Besant's books were\nobscene,\" but as to \"the defendant's honesty of belief at the time he\nhad published the handbills.\" He himself became conscious as he went on\nof the iniquity of this instruction, and proceeded to cite and vilify\npassages from Mrs Besant's works, thus doing everything in his power to\nprejudice the jury on the real issue. But in the end, while professing\nto put to them the separate issues of publication, libel, and truth\nin fact, he added the issue: \"If untrue, _then did the defendant when\nhe published it honestly and reasonably believe it to be true_, and\nthat it was his duty to publish it, and did he do so without malice?\"\nAnd yet again he urged that even if the libel were found untrue, \"they\nwould have to say whether the defendant had been guilty of _mala fides_\nin the sense he had explained.\" His own obtruded opinion was that a\npriest might justifiably issue such a circular to his parishioners.\nThus he laid down for the trial of Mrs Besant's action against a\npriest the exactly opposite principle to that which he laid down in\nPeters' action against Bradlaugh. The priest was now adjudged free\nto do what the judge had said \"would never do.\" The priest confessed\nin the witness-box that he had not read any of Mrs Besant's books\nwhen he issued his circular. He had availed himself of the libel of\na pseudonymous scoundrel, making no attempt to ascertain its truth\nBradlaugh in his statement as to the Fair Trade demonstration had\nspoken on the actual evidence of cheques which he saw, and on his\nknowledge of the habitual co-operation of Peters and Kelly. But the\nConservative judge contrived to find the priest right and Bradlaugh\nwrong. And it is on the strength of a verdict thus procured that\nBradlaugh has since been spoken of as \"a convicted libeller.\"\n\nThe view taken of the case by Bradlaugh's fellow-members of Parliament\nwas shown by their instantly getting up a subscription to pay the\ndamages and costs in which he had been mulcted; and the view taken by\nthe legal profession may be gathered from the following verses, which\nappeared in the _Star_:--\n\n\n\n \"HALVES.\n\n (AN HISTORICAL POEM.)\n\n DECEMBER, 1885.\n\n Take this cheque, my gentle Kelly,\n Fill our starving London's belly:\n Hie thee down with dearest Peters\n To the lowly primrose eaters;\n Tell the unemployed refiners\n Cecil sends them of his shiners;\n Let each toilworn Tory striver\n Batten on this twenty-fiver.\n Spread my bounty\n Through the county;\n But my right hand must not know\n What my left hand doth; and so,\n If thou value my attention,\n Full details must thou not mention.\n\n FEBRUARY, 1886.\n\n Riots! whew! too bad of Kelly.\n I must ask him what the---- Well, he\n Can't at least pretend that I\n Had any finger in this pie.\n\n APRIL, 1888.\n\n Halves, Peters, halves! Honour 'mongst _us_, my sonny;\n Had I but tipt the wink a year ago,\n _You_ might have gone and whistled for your money,\n And _my_ straightforwardness been spared a blow.\n\n I was ashamed of giving you the cash:\n You were ashamed of getting it from me\n Three hundred is the value of that splash\n On our fair fame, unspotted previouslee.\n\n Remember, sonny, when your freethought flesher\n Showed Charles your name and mine upon that cheque,\n Had I owned up, I think you must confess your\n Foot would not now have been on Charles's neck.\n\n So halves, my Peters:--nay, I crave not coin:\n To touch the brass would not befit my station:\n I only ask that Kelly you'll rejoin,\n And pay your debt in Tory agitation.\"\n\nThis, unfortunately, was not the only libel suit forced upon Bradlaugh\nduring the year. He had himself to raise another, against a gang of\nenemies who had laid their heads together to produce a so-called\n\"Life\" of him, which was but a tissue of the most malignant libel from\nbeginning to end. It attacked his daughters as well as himself, and was\nso flagrantly malicious that no legal defence was possible. The nominal\nauthor was one Charles R. Mackay, and the nominal publisher was one\nGunn--a name which was afterwards admitted by Mackay to be fictitious.\nBelieving that the real author or promoter of the work was Mr Stewart\nRoss, editor of the _Agnostic Journal_ (then the _Secular Review_), one\nof his most persistent and scurrilous assailants, Bradlaugh set about\nbringing him to account, and soon procured adequate evidence of his\ncomplicity. A friend had accidentally discovered for him that the book\nwas printed by the Edinburgh house of Colston & Co.; and on proceeding\nagainst that firm in the Court of Session, he obtained from them an\napology, costs, and payment of \u00a325 to his usual beneficiary, the\nMasonic Boys' School. But the most effective assistance was supplied\nby those concerned in issuing the book, who were soon flying at each\nother's throats. In August 1888 Mr Stewart Ross prosecuted Mackay, with\na solicitor named Harvey and his clerk named Major, for conspiracy \"to\nobtain from him \u00a3225 with intent to defraud.\" Mackay had previously\nbrought two actions against Ross, one for slander, and one to recover\n\u00a3500, which actions were settled on the basis that Mackay withdrew \"all\nclaim against the defendant for writing the 'Life of Charles Bradlaugh,\nM.P.,'\" the plaintiff admitting the claim to be \"based on an erroneous\nconception,\" while Mr Ross was to pay Mackay \"in respect of the other\nclaims\" the sum of \u00a3225, besides writing Mackay a letter \"denying\nthe slanders alleged,\" and opening his columns for subscriptions\nto a Defence Fund on Mackay's behalf. Mr Ross now alleged, in his\nprosecution for \"conspiracy,\" that Major (whose employer was Mackay's\nsolicitor) had called on him and alleged that he had seen some pages\nin Ross's handwriting in the MS. of the Mackay \"Life,\" and \"that he\n(Ross) who had denied all share in the authorship of that work, would\nbe prosecuted for perjury unless he recovered possession of those\npages.\" Ross admittedly agreed to pay \u00a3250 (afterwards reduced to\n\u00a3225) to recover the pages. In Court he would not admit that he had\nwritten any part of the \"Life,\" but explained that he thought some\nunpublished MS. of his might have been got hold of for it. The promised\nMS., he stated, was not returned, and he stopped the cheques he had\ngiven towards the promised payment. In cross-examination he confessed\nto having supplied Mackay with books and \"materials\" to help him in\nwriting the \"Life,\" and had seen the proofs of it. Another of Ross's\ncoadjutors fiercely quarrelled with him, and handed over to Bradlaugh's\nsolicitor further evidence of his concern in the publication. Mackay,\nwho became bankrupt, did likewise, expressing to Bradlaugh his regret\nfor having been led into the publication by Ross. Bradlaugh was\nadvised, however, that he had evidence enough without their testimony;\nand at length, after various delays, Mr Ross, through his solicitor,\nbegged Bradlaugh's solicitors to intercede with their client to let\nhim make a voluntary settlement. This being acceded to by Bradlaugh,\nMr Ross agreed in Court (15th February 1889, before the Hon. Robert\nButler, Master in Chambers) to account for and destroy within four days\nall copies of the book which had \"come into his possession or control,\"\nto pay \u00a350 to the Masonic Boys' School, and to pay all Bradlaugh's\ncosts as between solicitor and client. Soon afterwards Mr Ross wrote\nto the _Star:_ \"I am not and never was the publisher of the 'Life,'\nand I cannot 'destroy all the copies of the work' for the reason that\nI never possessed more than one copy.\" Bradlaugh commented that he was\nstill willing to have the case tried in court; and that he had evidence\nof Ross's sending out a large number of copies of the book for review,\nand once having close on 200 bound copies on his premises. Mr Ross is\nunderstood since to protest that he had been victimized in the matter,\nand at Bradlaugh's death he penned a remorseful and eulogistic article.\nCopies of the book are still believed to be on sale in underhand ways;\nand Mrs Bonner has recently had to take legal proceedings against one\nLondon bookseller who announced it in his catalogue, knowing it to be a\nlibel, and not legally saleable.\n\nIn connection with the same matter Bradlaugh in 1888-89 brought an\naction against the _Warrington Observer_ for a libellous article\nfounded on the \"Life;\" and the proprietors, after undertaking to\njustify, finally withdrew the plea, apologised, and paid the costs\nand a sum of \u00a325 to the Masonic Boys' School. A Scotch journal, the\n_Dumfries Standard_, had previously apologised with promptitude,\npaying costs and \u00a310 to the Masonic Boys' School, which institution\nthus netted \u00a3110 in all from the proceedings in this one matter.\nYet further, Bradlaugh sued the _Warrington Observer_ for another\nlibel, consisting in the publication of a malicious report of a silly\nproceeding in which a man who had been subpoenaed by him in the Peters'\ncase applied to a London police magistrate to know whether he could\nrecover \"costs\" for a day's attendance at the court. The man had\nactually been paid 10s., and Bradlaugh had refused to pay more. This\ncase was tried (April 1889) before Justice Manisty and a special jury,\nwho awarded Bradlaugh \u00a325 damages--another windfall for the Masonic\nBoys' School.\n\nAs against the manifold annoyance of libels, Bradlaugh had in 1888 one\ngreat and solacing relief from a strain which had sorely tried him. His\nvarious lawsuits over the Oath question, despite the success of those\nagainst Newdegate, and the saving of outlay through his pleading his\nown cases, had left him saddled with a special debt of between \u00a32000\nand \u00a33000, on which interest was always running. And, even as the\nlawsuits themselves helped to cripple his power of earning while they\nwere going on, his intense application to his Parliamentary work had\nlimited his earnings in the years following on his admission. His whole\nsources of income were his lectures, his journal, and his publishing\nbusiness. But he could no longer give proper personal attention to\nthe pushing of the business; the lecturing was curtailed; and the\njournal fell off in circulation just when it might have helped him\nmost. Thousands of miners had been among its subscribers, despite its\nnon-democratic price of twopence; but prolonged distress among the\nminers caused many of these subscribers to emigrate, while many more\ncould no longer buy it. In villages where forty or fifty copies had\nbeen bought, one or two had to do duty for all the remaining readers.\nAll the while the borrowed capital on which the Freethought Publishing\nCompany had opened business in Fleet Street had to bear interest,\nwhereas, in the ordinary course of things, it had been hoped that the\nprincipal would have been repaid in the years that, as the event came\nabout, had to be devoted to a desperate struggle against political\ninjustice. Freethinking friends, who knew how he was worried by the\nfresh debts incurred in the struggle, started a fund in 1886 to meet\nthe more pressing burden of \u00a3750, which then had to be repaid, and\nover \u00a3500 was then collected. But in August of 1888 his embarrassments\nbecame so serious that, answering correspondents who urged a holiday\non him, he wrote: \"My great trouble now is lest I should be unable\nto earn enough to meet my many heavy obligations, in which case I\nshould be most reluctantly obliged to relinquish my Parliamentary\ncareer.\" He was then addressing seven and eight meetings a week, while\nother members were recruiting on the moors and on the Continent. The\navowal, through no action of his, got into the newspapers, and was the\nmeans of setting agoing a general public subscription, the credit for\nstarting which is due to Mr W. T. Stead, then the editor of the _Pall\nMall Gazette_, whose action in the matter was chivalrous and generous\nin the highest degree. Another fund was opened in the columns of the\n_Star_, another at Northampton, another in the _Halifax Courier_,\nand the upshot was that in a month's time there had been subscribed\nclose upon \u00a32500. There were over 6000 separate donations, and the\nsubscribers' names indicated a remarkable range of recognition. In\naddition to Freethinkers and Northampton friends who had helped nobly\nbefore and now helped again, there were remittances from sympathisers\nwhose goodwill had not before been known to the subject. Sir T. H.\nFarrer, Lady Ripon, Mr D. F. Schloss, Lord Hobhouse (in \"acknowledgment\nof gallant service done for mankind\"), Mr Stansfeld, Mr T. B. Potter,\nMr M'Ewan, M.P., Admiral Maxse, W. M. Rossetti, Auberon Herbert, Mrs\nErnestine Rose, Mr Labouchere, Lord Rosebery, Mr Newnes, Lord J.\nHervey, Mr Munro Ferguson, are a few of the best-known names that catch\nthe eye in the long lists, which include thousands of signatures. A\nnumber of Churchmen and Conservatives subscribed as such, some of them\nlargely; \u00a3200 was given by one Freethinker over an initial, and \u00a3100\n\"from Melbourne;\" groups of workers and clerks made up sums among them;\nclubs collected goodly totals; widows gave their mites; and hundreds of\nscattered toilers gave yet again of their scanty pence to the man they\nbelieved in. At his wish, the funds were closed, as far as possible, on\nhis birthday, 26th September, when he counted fifty-six years, _bien\nsonn\u00e9s_. Had he allowed the subscription to continue, the amount would\nprobably have been doubled. As it was, he paid off all his outstanding\nlaw debts, and had a clear \u00a31000 to put towards the others; and he\nturned with new cheerfulness and courage to his tasks, his holiday,\nas usual, being of the shortest. But hard upon the great relief came\na great blow, of the kind that turns good fortune to ashes. On 2nd\nDecember his daughter Alice died of typhoid fever, after sixteen days'\nillness, aged thirty-two. She was her father's daughter in her high\nspirit, in her generosity, in her energy, and in the thoroughness of\nher work as a student and teacher of biology, though for all her years\nof ungrudging service in the latter capacity there is only left to\nshow, apart from the gain and the gratitude of those she taught, her\nlittle tract on \"Mind considered as a Bodily Function.\" It had been\nher wish that her body should be cremated; but the crematorium just\nthen chanced to be out of order, and she had to be buried. Briefly\nacknowledging condolences, and replying to the request of many friends\nto be permitted to attend the funeral, her father wrote, to appear\nafter it was over, the lines: \"Any public funeral would have been\npainful to me; and I trust I offend none in not acceding. The funeral,\nprivate and silent, will have taken place at Woking Cemetery. The\nfuneral wreaths and flowers sent are reverently laid on the grave.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe year thus grievously closed had been for Bradlaugh as full as\nthe preceding ones of political work, which involved strife over and\nabove that of the lawsuits, and over the Oaths Bill. On two issues he\ncame in conflict with sections of the democracy. The first was Sir\nJohn Lubbock's Early Closing Bill, one of those measures in which\nlegislatures go about to remove, as it were, tumours and swellings by\napplying a vice to them. Declaring himself strongly in favour of the\nshortening of hours by voluntary effort, Bradlaugh vigorously attacked\nthe Bill as an arbitrary and capricious application of force on wrong\nprinciples, pointing out that it would close shops irrespectively of\nthe length of the shifts worked in them by the assistants, and that it\nleft untouched public-houses and tobacco-shops, which were kept open\nlatest. It had the further demerit of renewing the old Sunday Trading\nAct of Charles II. and increasing the penalties. On a vote (May) it\nwas rejected by 278 to 95. This was one of several points at which\nBradlaugh came in conflict with the policy of empirical regulation\nin which some Socialists go hand in hand with some Conservatives. He\nwas blamed, as before mentioned, for rejecting State interference in\nsome cases, while urging it in others, as that of truck. The criticism\nfailed to note that he opposed truck as a form of fraud, not at all\nnecessarily arising out of the economic situation, whereas hours of\nlabour are determined by the whole economic situation. While offending\nsome Radicals as well as Socialists by opposing time-laws, he offended\nthe extreme Individualists by supporting Public Libraries, which he\njustified as he had justified State education, and as being a rather\nmore defensible form of public expenditure than much of the outlay on\narmaments, to which so few individualists strongly demur, on principle\nor in practice.\n\nBut his sharpest conflict with men usually on his own side was over\nthe Employers' Liability Bill, to which he had given constant and\nlaborious attention as a member of the Committee appointed to consider\nthe subject in 1886. He had then and afterwards taken every possible\npains to get at the views of the workers, had spoken on the subject\nbefore many thousands of them, and had done all he could to make the\nBill as strong a measure as could be carried. He did not like it in\nevery respect; he objected to the retention in any form of the doctrine\nof common employment, and of the principle of contracting-out, both\nof which he had sought to restrict by his action as far as possible;\nbut the measure was in several respects an improvement on the Trade\nUnions Bill of 1886, then introduced by Mr Broadhurst, Mr Burt, and\nothers, to amend the Liberal Act of 1880. That Bill had been referred\nto a Select Committee under the Gladstone Government, which Committee\nduly reported. The Bill now (1888) under discussion was, save for one\nor two points, either the re-enactment of the Act of 1880, or the\nformulation of the suggestions of the Select Committee of 1886. It\nwas, however, strongly opposed by the labour leaders, especially by Mr\nBroadhurst, who denounced it as \"a sham, misleading, mischievous--the\nworst Bill ever introduced to the House,\" and moved its rejection\non the second reading (December), after it had been amended by the\nStanding Committee on Law. On this, Bradlaugh had a sharp brush with\nhim, pointing out that with two exceptions all the complaints urged\nagainst the 1888 Bill struck equally at Mr Broadhurst's own Bill of\n1886. The hon. gentleman denounced the new Bill as protecting the\nLondon and North Western Railway Company, whereas it did exactly, in\nthat regard, what his own Bill had done; and an amendment which he had\nmoved, as expressing his latest wishes, would equally have legalised\nthat Company's arrangement with its employees. Bradlaugh's criticism\nwas perhaps the sharper, inasmuch as he believed that the Liberal\nlabour leaders were mainly concerned to throw out the Bill because it\nwas introduced by a Conservative Government, who would in due course\nhave claimed the credit if it had passed. Bradlaugh knew well enough\nthat the Conservative party systematically facilitated certain popular\nmeasures which the same party would have strongly resisted when\nintroduced by Liberals; but that was for him no reason for refusing to\npass the measures so facilitated. He took all he could get, and fought\nfor the return of a Liberal Government all the same. Mr Broadhurst, it\nis believed, afterwards regretted in some respects the attitude he took\nup, as did Sir William Harcourt, who hastily supported Mr Broadhurst\nby accusing Bradlaugh of attacking the trade unions in general--a\ncharge which Bradlaugh instantly and warmly repudiated. However that\nmay be, Bradlaugh's case may be read by those who care in his letter to\nhis friend, Thomas Burt, M.P., published as a pamphlet. Mr Burt sent\na reply, to which Bradlaugh gave prominence in his journal, in which\none of his phrases, as to \"setting the employed against the employer,\"\nwas objected to; and on this point Bradlaugh explained the precise\nlimit within which he applied it. He always opposed those workers who\nsought to make it illegal for masters to insure themselves against loss\nthrough accidents to their men; and on that point Mr Burt fully agreed\nwith him.\n\nA less prominent but important part of his dealings with labour\nproblems was his service on the Committee which investigated the\nsubject of the immigration of destitute aliens, and on that which\ninvestigated the working of Friendly Societies and Industrial Assurance\nSocieties. As to the destitute immigrants, he was satisfied that they\nwere not then numerous enough to justify any legislative action.\n\nWhile to some extent in conflict, as we have seen, with some of his\nfellow Radicals, he was able to co-operate actively with the Irish\nparty. On the Bill for the Commission to investigate the charges\nagainst the Irish members, he made what he confessed he believed to\nhave been one of his best parliamentary speeches, but found it either\nignored or \"cut down to nothing\" in the press. Recognition was forced,\non the other hand, by his ever-increasing work on behalf of India,\nwhich in the course of the remaining two years of his life was to\nmake his name known to every Indian interested in the affairs of the\ndependency.\n\n\n1889.\n\nThough already showing sad signs of failing health, Bradlaugh seemed\nto begin the session of 1889 with even extra energy. He laid down\nfor himself at once a resolution dissenting from the Government's\nrate of commutation for perpetual pensions; a motion to expunge from\nthe journals of the House the old resolutions excluding him; a fresh\nresolution on the utilisation of waste lands; a repetition of his\nmotion for a new Rule as to the calling of members to the table; and a\nmotion for a Royal Commission to consider the grievances of the native\npopulation of India; and he further introduced his Bill for the repeal\nof the Blasphemy Laws, and a Bill for abolishing political pensions.\nOn the first paragraph of the address he made a strong speech in\nopposition, criticising the foreign, Indian, and colonial policy of the\nGovernment; and in regard to Ireland he made another of still greater\nvigour, setting out and ending with a telling attack on Mr Chamberlain,\nand vehemently impeaching the whole drift of Mr Balfour's policy in\nIreland. Yet, again, he spoke on the Trafalgar Square question.\n\nThe first reached of his motions was that for the expunging of the\nresolutions excluding him in 1880, on which (8th March) he made an\nextremely temperate speech, assuring the House, however, that on behalf\nof his constituents he would certainly go on making his motion until\nit should be carried. The Government strongly opposed, through Sir\nMichael Hicks Beach and Sir Edward Clarke, who were however answered by\nSir Henry James and Sir William Harcourt, and Bradlaugh had 79 votes\nto 122. He certainly did little about this time to propitiate the\nGovernment, making repeated attacks on their Irish policy and their\ncolonial administration, besides keeping up such a fire of questions\non grievances of every description, submitted to him from all parts of\nthe world--miscarriages of justice, official misdeeds and tyrannies,\nbreaches of the Truck Act, jobs domestic and foreign, misdirection and\nruin of emigrants, fleecing of workers in Government employ, waste of\nmoney on royal palaces, Irish oppression, and a score of things which\ncannot even be catalogued. Probably no non-official member had such a\nbudget of daily business; and certainly none was more in earnest. At\nthe beginning of April we find him writing:--\n\n \"I confess that I left the House about 1 A.M. on Tuesday,\n after a long sitting, in a very bad temper. All our front bench voted\n in favour of the Government resolution to spend \u00a321,500,000 on the\n Navy, and to raise \u00a310,000,000 of this by increasing the National\n Debt.\"\n\nOf State finance he was the most vigilant of critics; and he caused\nmuch Tory resentment by habitually impugning the claim that the old\npurchase of Suez Canal shares had been a good investment. At least ten\nmillions, he pointed out, had been spent in Egypt in pursuit of the\npolicy of looking after the shares in question.\n\nThere was thus small sign of Conservative complaisance towards his Bill\nfor the Abolition of the Blasphemy Laws. As always on such measures,\nhe spoke with extreme concision and moderation, packing his argument\nwith authoritative deliverances, and making only a quiet and simple\nappeal to good feeling. Similar bills had been introduced by Professor\nCourtney Kenny and other Nonconformists in the two preceding years,\nbut had come to nothing. At first the promoters had inserted what\nis known as the \"Indian clause,\" an extraordinary form of enactment\nwhich provides that any use of language \"likely\" to hurt religious\nfeelings and cause disturbance, with the \"intention\" of so hurting\nfeelings, should remain punishable. This clause had been unanimously\nrejected by Freethinkers as making fully a worse law than the old, the\nvague expressions as to \"intention\" and \"feeling\" being capable of a\nconstruction such as bigots had not ventured to put on the blasphemy\nlaws, and the principle being plainly destructive of that of free\ndiscussion. Even one or two religious bodies petitioned against the\nBill on the latter score. The dissatisfaction with the clause was so\ngreat that it was dropped, but even then it was not till Bradlaugh\ntook up the Bill that it reached a second reading (12th April). It\nwas now opposed not only by Tories, but by pious Liberals, Mr Samuel\nSmith and Mr Waddy in particular taking pains to get up a panic about\nthe possibility of having impious caricatures distributed at the\ndoors of churches and Sunday schools, and children's minds blasted by\nblasphemous placards. Finally there voted only 46 for and 141 against\nthe second reading. Most of the Liberal leaders were conspicuous by\ntheir absence.\n\nHe was better supported in the following month in his motion to dissent\nfrom the Government's system of commuting perpetual pensions. It was\nseconded by Mr Hanbury; and after a debate, in which Mr Gladstone\nspoke at some length in support of the resolution, the closure was\ncarried on Bradlaugh's motion by 359 votes to 96, and the resolution\nwas only rejected by 264 votes to 205. The moving of the closure in\nthe midst of a speech by Dr Clark--a step which Bradlaugh declared to\nbe fully justified by all the circumstances--gave some offence among\nLiberals; and just before, Bradlaugh had been made the subject of a\nfurious newspaper attack by Mr John Burns, who pronounced him \"the\ngreatest enemy of labour in the House of Commons,\" and an opponent\nof \"Employers' Liability Bills and other measures affecting the real\ninterests of the people;\" described him as shirking the Trafalgar\nSquare question; and attacked him for having resisted a motion\nto reduce the Lord Chancellor's salary. The last step would have\nstruck most people as one of peculiar chivalry, seeing that the Lord\nChancellor had been one of Bradlaugh's most persistent and embittered\npersonal enemies; but as the other items show, Mr Burns was not much\nconcerned as to the validity of his charges. He even chose to speak of\nBradlaugh as having sought an interview with him, when the fact was\nthat Mrs Besant had introduced him to Bradlaugh to get the benefit of\nhis legal advice. A more offensive attack was made on Bradlaugh shortly\nafterwards by Mr F. C. Philips in a serial in the magazine _Time_. The\nnovelist made one of his characters allude to \"a ruffian in the United\nStates--a colonel, I believe--who is a kind of Yankee Bradlaugh, only\nthat he has the courage of his convictions, which Bradlaugh has not.\"\nThis was by far the least offensive part of the passage; and Bradlaugh,\nafter expressing his surprise that any editor or publisher should\npermit such a wanton attack, added:--\n\n \"F. C. Philips is right in saying, at any rate so far as he is\n concerned, that I have not the courage of my opinions, for my opinion\n is that I ought to horsewhip him. As I will not do that, I reprint his\n words.\"\n\nThe publishers promptly and cordially apologised for the outrage, which\nhad taken place entirely without their knowledge, and which was really\na piece of gratuitous literary ruffianism, not easily to be matched in\nmodern times.\n\nMuch more troublous than any scurrilities or injustices from without\nwas the shock which now came upon him from Mrs Besant's definite avowal\nof her conversion to the so-called \"Theosophy\" of Madame Blavatsky. No\npersistence of personal regard could countervail the complete sense\nof intellectual sundering from the friend and colleague of so many\nyears which this involved for him; and the change was the more felt\nby him for that his physique was now fast giving way. But he held on\nhis course with unchanging fortitude, adding fresh Freethought work\nto the ever-growing bulk of his work for India, and adding to his\nearnings as he could by articles for the reviews which were now open\nto him. An article on \"Humanity's Gain from Unbelief,\" contributed in\nthe spring to the _North American Review_, elicited an invitation to\ndebate the point with the Rev. Mr Marsden Gibson, M.A., a Newcastle\nclergyman. This was accepted, and the debate took place at Newcastle in\nSeptember, before densely packed audiences, on two successive nights.\nIt was conducted with good feeling on both sides, the nearest approach\nto personalities being in respect of Mr Gibson's using the argument\nthat Bradlaugh \"stood alone,\" since \"at least eleven apostles of the\nSecularist party\" had left it within twenty years, Mrs Besant's being\nthe only name given. Bradlaugh drily replied that he doubted whether\nthe assertion was material to the question, but that if it were he\ncould remind Mr Gibson \"that eleven apostles deserted _his_ founder\nin the sorest hour of his need.\" One bystander, not a Secularist,\nsummed up the debate as a matter of Bradlaugh launching cannon-balls\nwhile his opponent spun cobwebs, a criticism partly justified by the\nrev. gentleman's defining \"unbelief\" as a state of mental indecision,\nwhereas Bradlaugh, of course, used the term to signify the critical\nand challenging spirit. But the open-minded reader can judge for\nhimself on the published verbatim report. It elicited a number of\nsermons, some decent and courteous, others otherwise.\n\nIf Bradlaugh could have spent his autumns on Loch Long (where at\nlast he had secured for the dwellers and health-seekers an almost\ncomplete stoppage of the pollution of the waters by the discharge of\nClyde dredgings and other horrors) instead of in the usual round of\nlecturing, he might still have been among us. But he could never have\nthe rest needed to build up his strength after the session's long drain\non it; his vascular system was fast running down, and in October 1889\nhe was at length prostrated by a dangerous illness, a manifestation\nof the Bright's disease which was soon afterwards to destroy him. A\nsurprising and touching proof of the change in public feeling towards\nhim was given in the offering up of prayers in many churches for his\nrecovery--a display of goodwill not undone by shoals of religious\ntracts, or even by the already started legend that he was \"altering\nhis opinions.\" One clergyman, the Rev. F. E. Millson of Halifax,\ngenerously gave a lecture specially to make a collection to help the\nsick man financially, which realised \u00a310; and Mr M'Ewan, M.P., with\ncharacteristic munificence, sent him a cheque for \u00a3200 to enable him\nto take a health voyage to Bombay, as advised by the doctors. After\nweeks of extreme danger, he began slowly to regain ground. The great\nframe was not to be overthrown by one attack. But the seizure had been\na terrible one: he had looked as close on death, he told us, as a\nman could look and live; and it was with heavy hearts that those who\nloved him saw him set sail in cold November for India. Before going,\nhe penned a few notes, calmly contradicting the absurd story of his\nchange of opinions, and other legends. \"It would be ill-becoming to\nboast,\" he wrote, \"but I may say that my convictions and teachings\nhave not been with me subjects of doubt or uncertainty.\" One of the\nlegends, circulated by the _British Weekly_, was to the effect that \"on\none occasion he said that he had almost been persuaded by a sermon of\nthe Rev. Arthur Mursell.\" On this he remarked that the story was pure\nfiction; that though he had had friendly services from him, he had only\nheard Mr Mursell preach once in his life; and that all he remembered\nof it was the concluding intimation: \"My subject next Sunday will be\n'Beware of the Dog.'\" The reverend editor of the _British Weekly_ had\nthought fit to add to his tale the judgment: \"He (Mr Bradlaugh) has\nthe earthliest of minds, is without a touch of poetry, imagination, or\nyearning\"--a Christian characterisation which the patient treated with\nthe charity it so eminently lacked.\n\nThere was a pathetic fitness in the advice which sent the sorely shaken\nman to India to recover, if it might be, health wherewith to work. It\nwas just after delivering a lecture on India that he felt the first\ngrasp of his illness. What strength he had had, he had indeed freely\nspent for India. In 1888 he had handled more Indian matters than in any\nprevious year; and in particular had made (27th August) an important\nspeech (reprinted under the title: \"The Story of a Famine Insurance\nFund and what was done with it\") by way of protest, in the discussion\non the Indian Budget, against the mismanagement of Indian affairs.\nEarly in the session he had obtained a first place for his notice of\nmotion on Indian grievances, but the Government took away the time; and\nhe now made his criticism none the less forcible. None of his preserved\nspeeches will better show the peculiar energy of his grasp of Indian\nquestions, and of his pressure on the Indian Government; few indeed\nwill better show one of the great characteristics of his speaking--the\nintense and constant pressure of his argument, the continuance of the\nhighest stress of thought and feeling without a moment's lapse into\nincoherence or verbiage. It was in particular a crushing indictment of\nthe action of Lord Lytton--the most destructive ever brought against\nhim, Anglo-Indians say; and the ultimate effect of it was that the\nmisapplied famine insurance fund was at length restored to its proper\nand solemnly pledged purpose.\n\nIt was a very different pulse and note that marked the short and grave\naddress delivered by the stricken orator to the Indian Congress of\nDecember 1889. On board the _Ballarat_, jotting down a voyager's \"log\"\nfor the friendly readers of his journal, he declared on the third day:\n\"My health is coming back very fast; my hopes are rising even more\nrapidly;\" but a man does not come back in a week or two to health from\nthe door of death; the recovery slackened; and when he reached Bombay\non the 23rd he was still far from convalescence. His reception would\nhave electrified him into strength again if enthusiasm could. In the\nCongress Building, for the occasion of his coming, there were added\nto the 2000 delegates 3000 spectators, and the whole multitude rose\nto their feet in mass to cheer him as he appeared on the platform.\nHundreds of addresses for presentation had been sent to him from all\nparts of India, some of them in rich cases, or accompanied by beautiful\ngifts in gold and silver and ivory and sandalwood. The address prepared\nby the Congress itself was read in lieu of all by the chairman, Sir\nWilliam Wedderburn, and then the guest made his speech, a grave\noration, touched with the tremour of recent suffering and restrained\nby the sense of broken strength, but full of greatness and dignity--a\nspeech worthy of the man and of the occasion, weighty and wise in its\ncounsels, urging patience, and disclaiming praise. It is impossible to\nread it without catching the vibration of its deep emotion, and as it\nwere the breath of the listening host. The sight of the living mass,\nand the hearing of the actual proceedings at the Congress, gave him a\nnew and illuminating knowledge of the great forces he had been dealing\nwith; but he had nothing to unsay or unthink. Of the vitality of the\nCongress movement he was well assured, and he could gather for himself\nhow much of sympathy among English civil servants had as yet to be\nconcealed.\n\nHe had no time to give to seeing the regions and the peoples which\nthe Congress represented; and in any case it was the voyage that was\nto restore him if anything would. So on 3rd January he set sail from\nBombay for home, receiving a tremendous ovation at the Apollo Bunder,\nwhere the carriage could scarcely get through the crowds that rained\nflowers on him and Sir William Wedderburn. The end of January found him\nonce more at his library table and at his work, \"marvellously better,\"\nindeed, but not restored. There was to be no restoration.\n\n\n1890-1891.\n\nBefore sailing for India Bradlaugh had issued a summons to an\nextraordinary and special general meeting of the members of the\nNational Secular Society, to be held after his return on 16th February,\nto receive from him a special statement, and his resignation of the\nPresidentship, and to elect a successor. This last was a step he had\nhoped to postpone until he had carried a Bill repealing the blasphemy\nlaws. Freethought and Freethinkers would in that event stand free\nand equal before the law; and, with endless tasks before him as a\nlegislator, he felt he might fitly withdraw from the more militant\nand organising work of Secularism, of which he had done so much. But\nlooking to his defeat on his Bill in 1889, and to the desperate illness\nhe had just gone through, he felt he must needs lighten his burdens\nforthwith as best he could.\n\nThe scene of his resignation was a touching one. From all parts of\nEngland came men who had fought with and for him, some of them for a\ngood thirty years listening to his teaching and spreading it around,\ncriticising him at times, but always admiring him, standing by him\nin battle and rejoicing with him in victory; and when he rose to lay\ndown his leadership, and the cheers of welcome on his recovery rang\nwarmer and warmer, it was some time before he could command himself\nto speak. A few moving periods told of the necessity he lay under of\ngiving up a task which he was no longer fulfilling as he held it ought\nto be fulfilled. The party would have rejoiced to have him hold the\noffice nominally, letting another do the work. But he \"must be a real\nPresident or none. My fault,\" he went on, \"has sometimes been that I\nhave been too real a one (laughter), but it is no easy matter to lead\nsuch a voluntary movement as ours. I think I am entitled to say that\nthe movement is stronger when I am giving up this badge of office\n(holding up Richard Carlile's chairman's hammer) than when I first took\nthe presidential chair.\" And a thunderous cheer endorsed the claim.\n\nThe office had no emoluments whatever. The little wooden hammer and its\nmemories had been the prize for a generation of work involving much\nspending. He calculated that during thirty years he had given to the\nSociety and its branches, as proceeds of benefit lectures, some \u00a33000;\nand the members on their part gladly relieved him of certain money\nobligations of considerably less amount. He ended:--\n\n \"I do not say, 'We part friends,' because this is not parting. The\n movement is still as much to me as ever, as much as it has been during\n my life. For more than forty years I have been a speaker among you.\n Now I lay down the wand of office, and the right to give command, but\n I hope always to remain with you a trusted counsellor. And to you, I\n hope unstained--to you, I hope untarnished, I give back the trust you\n gave.\"\n\nWhen the cheering and the addresses and resolutions had been got\nthrough, he proposed as his successor in the Presidentship Mr G. W.\nFoote, the able editor of the _Freethinker_ and the leading lecturer in\nthe movement; and on Mr Foote's being unanimously elected, he handed\nover to the new President the hammer of office, with the words: \"I give\nit to you, George William Foote; and I trust that when it becomes your\npainful duty to resign, as I do now, the progress that has been made in\nthe cause while you have held it will be such as to compensate for the\npain.\"\n\nIn dismissing the meeting he gave it some grave words of counsel:--\n\n \"The battle of Freethought in this country is not over. There are\n signs, not far off, of possible strife, and there will be needed\n wise heads, cool heads, and firm hearts. There is a tendency to\n renew the anti-Jewish cry; and you may easily, in connection with\n the lower phases of the Salvation Army, get excitement and tension\n that need a greater self-command than is always shown among us, if\n personal conflict is to be avoided. The forthcoming report on sweating\n may bring about an attempt to raise the anti-Jewish cry; and it is\n impossible to have strife between religions without the possibility of\n the various religions turning on the one party that is outside all.\n One element of danger in Europe is the approach of the Roman Catholic\n Church towards meddling in political life.... Beware when that great\n Church, whose power none can deny, the capacity of whose leading men\n is marked, tries to use the democracy as its weapon. There is danger\n to freedom of thought, to freedom of speech, to freedom of action. The\n great struggle in this country will not be between Freethought and the\n Church of England, nor between Freethought and Dissent, but--as I have\n long taught, and now repeat--between Freethought and Rome.\"\n\nTo his political work he turned with all the strength he could\ncommand. At Northampton his constituents welcomed him back with joyful\nenthusiasm, and an address from the Liberal and Radical Association\nformally expressed their felicitations. When he addressed them, he had\nto stand for several minutes on end before the cheering and singing\nwould subside. The speech had some pregnant passages:--\n\n \"I, personally, am not so hopeful as my colleague of a democratic\n Parliament in England. And why? Because a democratic Parliament in\n England can only come when you pay each servant there for the work\n and the service he renders you--(cheers)--and when the worry and the\n wear-and-tear of earning a livelihood beside his work do not\"--he\n ended the sentence shortly--\"sometimes break the man down.\"\n\nOn points of policy he went on to express himself firmly and\nuncompromisingly as to the Eight Hours' movement, against which he had\nalready written and spoken as being utterly fallacious on the side of\npractice and pernicious in point of principle; and taking the demand\nfor a time-law as the prelude to a demand for a wage-law, he assailed\nthe entire movement as illustrating the practical application of\nSocialist theory to practice, both democratic and despotic:--\n\n \"As you all know well, I have always been in favour of Trade Unions;\n as you know also, I have spoken for them, and I have worked with them.\n (Cheers.) But I say here, I am utterly against--and though it should\n cost me my seat in Parliament to-morrow, I would be against--the\n doctrine and opinion that Parliament could thus add one farthing to a\n man's wage, or one jot to a man's comfort. (Cheers.) What Parliament\n can do is, remove restrictions; what Parliament can do is, reduce\n expenditure; and what the Emperor of Germany had better do, instead\n of summoning a conference of the nations of the world, is to disarm\n twenty regiments (great cheering), and send back to the plough and\n to the machine a huge number of men who now live upon the labour of\n others, and lessen the wage of others, by being soldiers instead of\n working men. (Loud cheers.) I speak most strongly on this, because\n I feel most strongly on it ('Hear hear.') I am not one of those,\n as you will know, who have ever yet, and I have passed too close\n to the end of my life to have any thought at anyrate to become one\n now--I am not one of those who have ever flattered the people, or\n striven to win their favour by telling them that from the Crown or\n from the Parliament that could be got which could not be got from\n themselves, by themselves. (Cheers.) I would impress upon you this.\n What the State gives to you, the State takes from you first; it\n further charges you with the cost of collection, and with the cost of\n distribution. ('Hear, hear.') Better by far for you that you should\n save for yourselves and spend for yourselves, than put into the purse\n of the State your earnings, of which only part can at best come back.\n (Cheers).\"\n\nJust after the Northampton meeting came the death of the man who had\nbeen his right hand in all his struggles there from the first--Thomas\nAdams, now ex-Mayor. Mr Adams had been a valued friend as well as a\ntrusted agent, and his death came as another of the thickening blows\nof fate upon the rapidly aging man. In Parliament, all the same, he\nstuck sternly to his tasks. At the opening he had set down for himself\nimportant amendments to the Indian Councils Amendment Bill and to the\nCriminal Law Practice Amendment Bill; a repetition of his motions as\nto waste lands and the expunging of the old resolutions excluding him;\nand a motion on behalf of the financial Reform Association, calling for\nthe abolition of the gold and silver duties and compulsory hallmarking;\nand he introduced besides an India Bill of his preparation. He at once\nresumed work, too, on the Royal Commission on Vaccination, on which he\nhad done careful work in the previous year, charging himself as he did\nto watch over the case for the anti-vaccinators, though not committing\nhimself definitely to their view of the facts. He had been left out of\nthe previous Royal Commission (moved for by himself) on Market Rights\nand Tolls--partly, it was thought, because Her Majesty could hardly\nbe asked to include the Republican and Atheist in a list of \"trusty\nand well-beloved\" counsellors; but in the Vaccination Commission the\ndifficulty was somehow overridden.\n\nIn the House, his first long speech was in opposition to the motion of\nMr Cunninghame Graham on the Address with regard to the restriction of\nadult hours of labour by international legislation, and the sending\nof a delegate to the \"Berlin Conference\" to support such proposals\nthere. The speech was a very vigorous one, and besides exposing some\nbad blunders in Mr Graham's figures, argued strongly against the policy\nof a time-law as a crude and superficial treatment of a far-reaching\neconomic problem. During the course of the year he developed this\ncriticism in various review articles and otherwise; and a systematic\ntreatment of it was to have made a large part of the book on \"Labour\nand Law\" on which he was engaged at his death. Among his other\nParliamentary discussions he fought his colleague's battle on the\noccasion on which Mr Labouchere was suspended for persisting in the\ndeclaration: \"I do not believe Lord Salisbury\"--in connection with the\nescape of Lord Arthur Somerset from a criminal prosecution.\n\nHe continued to incur a fair share of the personal abuse of which he\nhad had such ample experience. The _Observer_ told him that he was\nan object of \"loathing\" to Hindoos on account of his religious and\nMalthusian views; Mr Hyndman described him and Mr Burt as \"friends of\nthe plundering classes;\" Mr William Morris's _Commonweal_ dubbed him\na \"renegade;\" and Mr Cunninghame Graham, by way of retaliation for\npunishment, declared his work to have consisted mainly in fighting\nabout the oath and the existence of a Deity. The _Lady's Pictorial\nJournal_ more subtly described him as \"no longer the rough, rugged,\ncarelessly-dressed man of the people, who once vainly sought admission\nto the popular Chamber, but a grave, dignified, and well-groomed\nsenator;\" and this legend of his \"transformation\" did duty with many\nas an exculpation of their own past brutalities. It almost seems\nheartless, as against such self-absolved penitents, to record the fact\nthat in his costume he had always been the most conservative of men,\nand that he dressed in 1890 exactly as he had dressed in 1880 and 1870.\nThe clerical stories of \"awful examples\" of ruined infidels, tacked\non somehow to his name, and the more obviously knavish stories of his\nhaving been \"shown up\" or \"confounded\" on the platform, continued\nto have their customary circulation; and during his illness and his\nabsence the libellous \"Life,\" of which the surplus copies had _not_\nbeen destroyed, was more actively circulated.\n\nAccustomed as he was to the steadfast repetition of religious fictions\nagainst him after all manner of refutation and contradiction, he\nwas somewhat astonished at the length to which some of the labour\nleaders had contrived to mislead their followers as to his action in\nthe House. At a Labour Electoral Congress at Hanley, in April, one\nspeaker, who declared himself otherwise friendly, actually moved a\nresolution \"That this Congress regrets the determined opposition of\nMr Charles Bradlaugh to the Employers' Liability Bill, as the working\nmen of this country desire it to be passed, and refuses to recognise\nhim as a labour representative.\" As has been above told, he had been\nthe strongest supporter of the Bill, whereas its rejection had been\nmoved by Mr Broadhurst. The mover may have been under a hallucination\nin which the roles of Mr Broadhurst and Bradlaugh were reversed; but\nthe extent to which working men can go astray under such hallucinations\nwas shown by the fact that the resolution was actually carried. The\nirrational hostility thus shown was of course not lessened when, in\nthe debate on Mr Bartley's motion for an inquiry into profit-sharing,\nBradlaugh administered another unsparing correction to Mr Cuninghame\nGraham, who in his excitement became so \"interruptious\" as nearly to\nget himself suspended. \"The hon. member,\" said Bradlaugh among other\nthings, \"charged Liberals and Nationalists with having done nothing to\nprevent the starvation of one man whose terrible death he had brought\nbefore the House; but what did he do himself except promote a strike\nin the district, one result of which was that many men were now without\nemployment who had theretofore at least been kept from starving?\" Mr\nGraham, with his youth and health, was no match for Bradlaugh, out of\nhealth.\n\nWhile politics were thus growing increasingly contentious for him, he\nparadoxically found calm in new resorts to the theological controversy.\nA series of serenely trenchant papers on the question \"Are the\nHebrew Scriptures Impregnable?\" in criticism of the treatise of Mr\nGladstone--a criticism to which the right hon. gentleman offered no\nreply--were among his writings during the session. He had increasing\nsatisfaction, too, in his work for India; and on the occasion of a\nreception at Northampton to the delegates of the Indian Congress, he\ndelivered a most eloquent speech, full of his old fire, though towards\nthe end he was fain to express the wish that he had the force and fire\nof the old years. In the House, in the course of the session, besides\nconstantly pressing Indian needs on the Secretary of State, he made\nan important speech on the case of the Maharaja of Kashmir, whose\nhigh-handed deposition by the Indian Government, on the scantiest\njustification, had seemed to him as worthy of reprobation as wrongs\nto common folk. Republican as he was, he would never admit that an\nImperial Government, which itself professed to rest on hereditary\nmonarchy, had the right to tread underfoot at pleasure the titles of\nIndian princes; and he saw at once what the Imperialists are so slow to\nsee, that a brutal disregard of the established titles of such princes\nis the surest way to breed disaffection to British rule, which has\nthe least satisfactory title of all. The official Liberal press, of\ncourse, lectured him for his failure to see that the official course\nwas the right one, and charged him with championing a corrupt native\ndespot. The sufficient answer to such deliverances was and is that\nwithin three years the Maharaja of Kashmir was restored, just as the\nfamine fund was restored on Bradlaugh's previous pressure. From such\neloquent facts we may infer what he might have done for the reform of\nIndian administration had he lived, and what a loss to the cause was\nhis death, just as his most important plans were coming within sight of\neffective discussion. In his last enfeebled years he did for India what\nsome men might have reckoned good work for a lifetime.\n\nWeakened as he was, he entered on one undertaking during the summer,\nwhich, in the state of his health, was anything but prudent. Mr John\nBurns, in a public speech, spoke vaguely of challenging him to a\ndebate in some very large hall on the Eight Hours question; but on\nbeing asked to come to business, declared that nothing would meet his\nwishes short of an open-air debate which could be \"heard\" by 200,000\npersons, who were to vote on the issue--a farcical proposition which\nmade an end of the matter so far as Mr Burns was concerned. Mr Hyndman,\nhowever, who from endorsing Mr Burns' denunciations of Mr Bradlaugh\nhad in due course passed to denouncing Mr Burns, wrote to Bradlaugh\nchallenging him in Mr Burns' place. \"I observe,\" he put it, \"that John\nBurns imposes such terms in relation to his debate with you, that\nhe obviously does not wish it to come off.\" After some contentious\npreliminaries, a debate on the Eight Hours question came off between\nMr Hyndman and Bradlaugh in St James's Hall on the evening of 23rd\nJuly. It was, like most of the debates on Socialism held in London, a\nnoisy scene, many of the Socialists present being disorderly in the\nextreme; and it was grievous to some of us to think that Bradlaugh,\nwith his failing health and slackening nerves, should have the strain\nof such a meeting for such a grossly inconsiderate audience as made up\nthe following of his opponent. The published report will serve to show\nwhether the advocacy on the other side made the debate worth holding.\n\nTwice in this year did Bradlaugh seek fresh strength on his fishing\nground of Loch Long, far from the madding crowd. Failing still to\nbuild himself up to anything like his old standard of health, he\ngrew more and more anxious about his money matters, the successful\nmanagement of which depended so much on his keeping up his personal\nearnings. Physically unable to lecture so much as formerly, he sought\nby writing review articles to keep up a sufficient income to meet all\nhis obligations. But on the other hand, he found himself at length\nobliged to close the Freethought Publishing Company's shop in Fleet\nStreet, which meant too burdensome a cost for a bookselling business,\neven were that business not one-half boycotted by \"the trade,\" and\ncatering for only a section of the reading public. Appealing to that\nsection to help him in the way of clearance sales, he wrote: \"There are\nsome folk who repeatedly say that I am rich. I should be a very happy\nman if to-morrow I could assign all my assets, except my library,\nwhich I should not like to lose, to any one who would discharge my\nliabilities.\" The closing of the shop was made the occasion of another\npainful step--the dissolution (December 1890) of the partnership which\nhad for so many years subsisted between him and Mrs Besant. They had\ndiverged too far in thought to permit of the old community of interest,\nthough to the last Mrs Besant continued to write for the _National\nReformer_, and there was no cessation of friendly intercourse.\n\nHardly was the dissolution accomplished when once more the overwrought\nman was struck down by the malady which had barely let him go a year\nbefore, and which this time was not to be fought off. On the 10th of\nJanuary 1891 he came home very ill indeed, hypertrophy of the heart\nhaving followed on the old Bright's disease. After the first seizure\nwas over, he went to see his physician, who diagnosed the trouble.\nStill he did not take to bed, and about midnight on the 13th an attack\nof spasm of the heart, as he wrote in the last notes he penned or\ndictated, \"nearly finished my chequered life.\" It was soon to end\nindeed. He rose to work as usual the next morning, and was unwilling\neven to have the doctor called in again; but on the day after he was\npersuaded to take to bed, though he went reluctantly, not dreaming\nat first that the end was so near. He had the best of doctoring and\nnursing; being attended by his old friend, Dr Ramskill, and by his near\nneighbour, Dr Bell; while he had in his daughter a nurse for whom the\ndoctors had nothing but praise; but the case was past cure. He faced\nthe end, as he had done twice before, with perfect tranquillity, sorry\nto close his work, but calm with the calmness of a perfectly brave and\nsane man. Coming from Scotland to see him a little before the end, I\nfound him in the perfect possession of his judgment, occupying himself\namong other things by auditing the peculiar accounts of the Salvation\nArmy, which he had mastered much more thoroughly than their framers\nliked; and at that time, though they had no hope, the doctors thought\nhis illness would be a long one. He himself, I saw, was prepared for\nthe worst. The one regret he expressed was that he probably should not\nbe able to move once more the motion he had put down yet again at the\nbeginning of the winter session, for the expunging from the journals of\nthe House of the old resolutions excluding him. He had set his heart\non carrying that motion, even as a similar one had been carried after\nthe lapse of years in the case of Wilkes. And, happily, across the very\nshades of death there came for him a light of comfort on this his last\ndesire. Dr W. A. Hunter, M.P., on being appealed to without the dying\nman's knowledge, instantly and kindly consented to move the resolution\non his behalf on 27th January, when its turn came; and Bradlaugh, when\ntold of what had been arranged, declared that that was the very choice\nhe should have made, and turned contentedly to his rest, though he did\nnot suppose the motion would even now be carried.\n\nDr Hunter's success, however, was complete. The motion was opposed at\ngreat length by the Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Clarke; but after\nGladstone had delivered a conciliatory speech, the front bench agreed\nto accept the motion on condition that the words characterising the\nresolutions to be expunged \"as subversive of the rights of the whole\nbody of electors of the kingdom\" should be dropped. These words had\nbeen copied from the motion in the Wilkes case, so as to follow\nprecedent; but of course the essential thing was the consent to the\nexpunging of the resolutions, which very sufficiently implied all\nthat was said in the withdrawn words. So, after Sir Edward Clarke\nhad protested against a deletion, which he admitted to be \"a mark of\nignominy,\" Mr W. H. Smith agreed to the motion; and although Mr De\nLisle made a foolish speech in opposition, even he expressed his \"deep\nregret at the illness of Mr Bradlaugh,\" while Sir Walter Barttelot not\nonly deplored that there should be any lack of unanimity, but expressed\nhis admiration of the straightforwardness Mr Bradlaugh had shown in the\ndischarge of his duties as a member. \"God grant that the junior member\nfor Northampton might recover; but whatever happened, hon. members\nwould feel that, by accepting this motion, they had done a generous\nact towards a man who had endeavoured to do his duty.\" So the motion\nwas finally carried without dissent, amid cheers, and the wrongful\nresolutions were formally expunged.\n\nAlas, when the news of the triumph was telegraphed by Dr Hunter, it was\ntoo late to tell the dying man. Day by day he had grown weaker, albeit\ncheerful and even sanguine when he drowsily talked of himself; and\nnow he had sunk so low that his daughter dared not rouse him with so\nexciting a message. He never fully regained consciousness; and those\nabout him learned how bitter a thing it could be\n\n \"To hear the world applaud the hollow ghost\n Which blamed the living man.\"\n\nThe end came on the morning of 30th January 1891. He was fifty-seven\nyears and four months old.\n\nAs in his previous illness, prayers had been offered up for him in many\nchurches; and many were the tributes of those who had been opposed\nto him in religion and in politics; still more, of course, of those\nmore in agreement with him. But his daughter had been driven to take\nthe precaution of procuring signed testimony, from those who had been\nattending him, that during his illness he was never heard to utter\none word \"either directly or indirectly bearing upon religion or any\nreligious subject.\" The eternal pretence of a \"recantation\" was already\ncurrent afresh, as it had been after he resigned his presidentship of\nthe National Secular Society, even while he was writing his arguments\nagainst Mr Gladstone's book, and re-stating his Atheism as explicitly\nas ever in his \"Doubts in Dialogue.\" One of the last non-political\nlectures he had given, in November, had been a manifesto on \"My Heresy\nnow and Thirty-six Years ago;\" and in December he had discoursed on\n\"Life, Death, and Immortality\" with no faltering in his doctrine.\n\nThe funeral was on 3rd February, at Brookwood Cemetery. He had never\ntroubled himself as to how his body should be dealt with, so his\ndaughter chose that it should be in the \"earth to earth\" fashion.\nAt his express wish, written in a will dated some years before, the\nburial was perfectly silent--an arrangement which caused some regret\namong friends, and some characteristic phrases about \"being buried\nlike a dog\" from others, who could not feel the pathos and solemnity\nof the silent sepulture, amid the uncovered multitude who had come to\npay their last tribute at the grave of the man they had honoured and\nloved. As he had always disliked the shows of mourning and the badges\nof grief, those who knew his tastes wore none. But the grief of the\nthousands who filled the trains from London to the burial-place was\nsuch as needed no other attestation. They were of both sexes and all\nclasses, from costermongers to right honourables; they came from all\nparts of England; and soldiers' red coats and the bronzed faces of\nhundreds of Hindus gave a wide significance of aspect to the throng.\nHundreds, many of them from Northampton, had brought the little\ntri-coloured rosettes they used to wear in the old fighting days; and\nmany threw these in the grave, some saying as they did so that their\nwork too was done, now that he was gone.\n\nOver an hour after the coffin had been laid in the earth, when it was\nthought that the multitude had passed away, the immediate friends and\nmourners of the dead went back to take a last look, and they found that\na lingering band of devoted men had got the shovels from the workmen,\nand were one by one obtaining the last sad privilege of casting their\nhandful of earth into the grave.\n\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\nIf the foregoing volumes have not shown what manner of man Bradlaugh\nwas, as well as what he did, they have been written in vain. But it\nmay be fitting to attempt, in a closing page or two, some general\nestimate of his personality. The present writer is, indeed, conscious\nof unfitness for the task, were it only because of a personal affection\nwhich must somewhat bias criticism. But when a man has had so much evil\nsaid of him as Bradlaugh had throughout his life, the inclining of\nthe balance a little way towards love and admiration may be forgiven.\nIndeed, most men would find it hard to write of him with perfect\nimpartiality. He inspired, as a rule, either aversion or admiration,\nand the furious enmities of which these pages bear record were in a way\nthe correlative of the intense devotion given to him by thousands.\n\nSuch a description would in some cases suggest an intensely passionate\nand ill-balanced nature, at once winning and grievously faulty; hardly\na man of keenly analytic intellect, remarkable self-control, and\nextreme sagacity. Yet these latter qualities he certainly had. He was\nin truth a singular combination of chivalrous heroism and practical\nwisdom--a combination such as I cannot find a parallel for in memory.\nHe had the quixotic ardour of a young enthusiast, an ardour which never\nleft him to the end; and he combined it with a political foresight\nand judgment such as few modern English statesmen have exhibited.\nIt was the ardour for justice and truth, the forthright sincerity\nand disregard of convenient conformities, that won him the love and\nallegiance of men who possessed and valued courage; and it was his\nkeen sagacity that kept their adherence. In modern England he stands\nout singularly as a powerful and prominent man who chose to set his\nface openly and systematically against what he held to be shams and\ndelusions, though the impeaching of them brought him the bitterest\nhostility, the foulest calumny, and a perpetual struggle, where a mere\ntacit conformity would have meant manifold success, wealth, and ease.\nThere is no country in which straightforwardness and single-mindedness\nare more belauded than in England, and perhaps none in which they are\nscarcer. The praise of them forms part of the \"cant that does not know\nit is cant,\" which Carlyle denounced, and exemplified. Men declare\ntheir esteem for courage and sincerity; and when they meet a shining\nexample of these virtues they cast their mud with the unthinking\nvulgar. No amount of reiteration of phrases about prophets who have\nbeen stoned by the Scribes and Pharisees can withhold the average\nmoralist from joining the Scribes and Pharisees when the next prophet\nshows face. To panegyrise old prophets in platitudes is such a very\ndifferent thing from recognising a new one in the market-place and\ntaking him by the hand.\n\nOf course, while men do unquestionably dislike an innovator and fighter\nfor being more honest and plain-spoken than themselves, they do not\nopenly put their enmity on those grounds. They must find sins and\nfaults for him: what faults he has they will magnify and multiply. And\nas, of course, all of us who practise any self-criticism at all can\nrealise that the hostilities we set up, however unjust we hold them to\nbe, have a certain basis in our shortcomings, it is only reasonable\nto look for part of the pretext of Bradlaugh's enemies in his. What\nthen were his faults? We have seen and heard enough of those falsely\nimputed: what was his real share of human infirmity? I have heard him\naccused, by people who were not rabidly hostile, of egoism, vanity,\nlove of flattery, and a tendency to be overbearing. For perhaps all of\nthese charges he would himself have more readily admitted a foundation\nthan would his sympathetic friends. He used to make humorous allusion,\nin his speeches at Freethought gatherings, to his despotism in the\nchair. He ruled conferences with a rod, not of iron but of ivory--the\nrod of absolute technical law. He was the most swift and unyielding\nof chairmen; and men unwittingly out of order called him not only\nhard but unjust. But some who had resented his way in these matters\nhave been known spontaneously to wish for his ruling hand when it was\nstill. In all matters where authority and command belonged to the\nsituation, and he was in authority, he ruled with a military firmness\nand quickness; and as no man can miss making mistakes, he must have\nmade some, though they would be hard to prove. Nay, he himself avowed\na certain stress of nervous energy which, on bustling occasions,\nmade him abrupt and impatient of meddling and dilatoriness. This\noverplus of energy came out quaintly in his inveterate habit of being\nmuch too early for a train. He had, in fact, the relative defect of\nthe Napoleonic quality of swift decision and intense determination.\nThus, as one Freethinker once told him, his manner was not always\n\"economical;\" and the hostilities he aroused were apt to be as intense\nas the admirations, and to be hindrances to his career. Most of his\nenemies were themselves certainly faulty men, and not a few were very\nbad men indeed; but he would not have denied that he might at times\nhave made an honest man his unfriend. Such an abnormal will-power as\nhis[193] cannot miss making some of the manifestations of excess of\ndriving power in the human machine. But nothing could be more mistaken,\nor more unjust, than to make out that this stress of will-power made\nhim an unjust or an inconsiderate man. On the contrary, tried by the\ndecisive tests of his family life and his relation to his colleagues,\nhe was the fairest and most tolerant of men. Of his family virtues\nhis daughter has told: of his considerateness as an editor all who\nworked with him can speak. I never knew or heard of one who even came\nnear him in his regard for the independence of his contributors, and\nin his concern to give the fullest hearing to opponents. In all the\nessentials of just-mindedness he was singularly well endowed; it was\nonly in respect of physiological over-emphasis that he could ever be\nimpeached. And even on that score, as has been above abundantly shown,\nit is utterly false that he was ever brutal in speech, or arrogant or\ndiscourteous in intercourse or controversy. He was even criticised\nat times for a certain old-world courtliness, more continental than\nEnglish, and this long before he had won general recognition. A\nthousand printed reports and testimonies go to dispose of vague and\nunsupported aspersions. I am told that in the last year or two of his\nlife, when his nervous and vascular system was breaking up, he was\nat times sharply impatient of incompetent opposition on the secular\nplatform, but that is a small matter against the self-control of a\nlifetime. Tried by, or in comparison with, his peers, he needs no\nvindication.\n\n[Footnote 193: His head gave a remarkable corroboration to the\nclassification of the old phrenology, now being revindicated by the\nposthumous work of Mr Mattieu Williams. It had a highly intellectual\ncast at the brow, but the whole head sloped up to the organ of will,\nwhich dominated everything in his skull outline as in his character.]\n\nOn the points of \"egoism\" and \"vanity\" I have heard him forestall\ncriticism. He confessed that he sought power, and shaped his life to\nattain his ambitions--these being what they were. He had simply the\negoism of an extremely powerful man with an end in view. But it was\nnever the egoism of a Napoleon, stooping to meanness as readily as it\nhazarded battles. He was an honourable gentleman to the end. Those\nwho deprecated his legal way of fighting legal battles simply failed\nto appreciate the lawyer's method. That he was a born as well as a\ntrained lawyer many lawyers have admitted; and he fought technically,\nand thwarted his enemies by technicalities, because law was to him\na technique. Nobody but a man with a genuine belief in it as a\ntechnical system would have gone to law as often as he did, even to\nresist gross injustice. On the point of \"vanity,\" again, he frankly\nanticipated criticism. \"Oh, don't say that: _I_ am very vain,\" I once\nheard him say to Madame Venturi when she was protesting that a certain\nstatesman's vanity was insufferable. Of course such a confession could\nnot come from a really vain man. He once spoke of \"the Irish part of\nmy character\" as something that his friends must allow for. A man who\ncan thus detect foibles in himself is not badly swayed by them. As\nfor the charge that he was susceptible to flattery--a variant on the\ntrite and stupid charge of \"love of notoriety\"--it came latterly, I\nthink, only from Liberals in the House who grudged his popularity among\nthe Tories, they themselves seeing in him a stumblingblock to that\nspecies of success which both parties are so apt to set above pursuit\nof principle. The later Tories, having nothing to suffer in the esteem\nof the pious from friendship with him, showed him some consideration;\nwhile the official Liberals uneasily anticipated the demand from\ntheir supporters outside that Bradlaugh should be in the next Liberal\nCabinet. It is painful to have to say that to such Liberals his death\nwas a relief. And it is intelligible that they should prefer to see in\nhis geniality and courtesy a fishing for Tory flattery rather than a\nmanly merit. If after years of desperate strife, conscious of failing\nhealth, the aging fighter had been sedulous to win goodwill, it would\nhave been small harm; but he was genial out of the very warmth of\nheart that had made him a fighter. Of his unwavering fidelity to the\nRadical principles of his life it would be vain to say anything here\nif the preceding pages have not made it clear. The respect which he\nwon from political opponents in the House was no result of compromise\non his part, or of his resistance to certain Socialist doctrines. He\nwas in sharp collision with them on other issues to the last. A good\ntestimony to the genuineness of their respect is that which comes from\nthe late Mr W. H. Smith, in his biography by Sir Herbert Maxwell. It is\nthere told that once in 1886 Mr Smith's private secretary, travelling\nin the same railway carriage with Bradlaugh, happened to mention the\nstation at which he was going to stop. \"Ah, you are going to stay\nwith Mr Smith,\" said Bradlaugh. \"Well, I don't suppose there is a\nman in the House of Commons or in England with whom I am more widely\nat variance on many subjects, yet there is none for whom I have more\nsincere respect.\" In the evening the secretary told his host that he\nhad travelled down with Bradlaugh. \"Indeed,\" said Smith. \"Well, it's\na strange thing; I don't believe there is a man whose opinions I hold\nin greater abhorrence than Bradlaugh's; but I cannot help feeling\nthat there is not an honester man in Parliament.\" And I have myself\nheard Bradlaugh speak in private of the genuineness and simplicity of\nSmith's character--in respect of such a matter as private donations\nto churches--even at a time when he had penned humorous paragraphs on\nSmith's head-butler manner of leading the legislature. Both men were\nhonest, and that was a ground of sympathy. And though the professor of\nthe \"religion of love\" had to express \"abhorrence\" of the opinions he\nrejected, he called to make friendly inquiry when Bradlaugh lay on his\ndeathbed--an attention paid by none of the Liberal leaders.\n\nBut this honesty, which won him the regard of antagonists when they\ncame close enough to see it, was simply the manifestation in political\nlife of the fundamental and propulsive love of truth and reason which\nmade him an Atheist propagandist. He happened to care for truth and\njustice all round, where other men were satisfied with a measure of\nhomage to one or two principles they cared to recognise, or prejudices\nthey cared to gratify. He had leapt forward, from his youth up, at the\nsound of the trumpet in every good cause, where they had mostly been\ncareful to count the cost.\n\n \"No fetter but galled his wrist;\n No wrong that was not his own.\"\n\nAnd to his last days, he never learned the sordid lessons of prudent\nconformity even where they might have meant a serious lightening of\nhis burdens. Once in the last year of his life, I commented jestingly,\nas laying down the code of commercial journalism, or his devotion of\ncolumns of his journal to dry details of the Indian grievances he\ntook up, when he might have raised the circulation by lampooning his\nfellow-members. He felt so strongly on the subject of English disregard\nof Indian claims that even the jest disturbed him, and he met it with\nan _Et tu, Brute_. No man was saner in the adjustment of a necessary\ncompromise in legislation; but no man was ever more innocent of the\nspirit of Nothingarianism. \"Good God, Bradlaugh,\" said a friendly\nConservative member to him one day, reproaching him for his quixotry,\n\"what does it matter whether there is a God or not?\" The amiable\nindifferentists who subscribe to that philosophy, though they may\nhave been able to appreciate him as a companion, will never be able\nto understand the enthusiasm which Bradlaugh aroused in thousands of\nthose who followed him, and even in some whose way of thought diverged\nfar from his. I have heard of one eminent professional man who long\nwore Bradlaugh's portrait next his breast, and long hesitated between\nfollowing him and turning Catholic. Men who never had any leanings that\nway could the more heartily give their devotion. Certain it is that\nBradlaugh evoked a passion of love and loyalty from thousands, such as\nno other public man of his day called forth. His followers followed him\nas Nelson's men did Nelson. Mr Gladstone has the enthusiastic reverence\nof myriads; but men who would go through fire and water for their\nleader, and give up their tobacco to send him a weekly sixpence, were\nto be looked for rather in Bradlaugh's following than his.\n\nMen turned instinctively to Bradlaugh as to a born leader. Had any\ngreat social convulsion arisen in his time, such as some foretell for\nthe near future, he would infallibly have come to the front as none\nof his political contemporaries were fitted to do--as Cromwell did\nand as Danton did. In him the faculty of action was not limited to the\nsphere of the forum and the bureau. It has been told[194] how, when in\nSpain, he offered to the Republican leaders to go with fifty horsemen\nand shoot the traitorous general in the north; and we may safely hold\nwith the narrator of this episode that \"he would have done it\" had\nthe offer been accepted. Among the many adventures of his younger\ndays, the details of which will probably never now be put together,\nwas a singular attempt in which he took part to secure the election\nof a Liberal Pope. He carried letters to and fro in Europe on behalf\nof Italian and other democrats who had conceived the scheme. All I\nlearned from him was the fact of his positively taking part in the\nenterprise, which, of course, failed. In these and other journeys he\nran many risks; and he told a funny story of how, travelling one night\nin a German train with a good deal of money in his possession, and\nbeing awakened from his sleep, with the train at full speed, by the\nconductor's lamp presented to his face, after the continental fashion,\nwhere on his lying down there had been no one else in the compartment,\nhe in an instant had that startling and startled functionary by the\nthroat in the opposite corner of the carriage. His army training and\nhis later experiences had developed in him a remarkable turn for\ndealing promptly with physical emergencies; and persons who sought,\nin the old days, to block the \"Reform\" processions for the leading\nof which he was responsible, came to swift and serious confusion.\nTo the last he had in him something of Cromwell's Berserker temper,\nthough at his blood's hottest he could never have been guilty of the\nPuritan's ferocity. It came out in him in such acts as his personal\nseizure and expulsion of rowdies from his meetings. I saw him effect\nthis dramatically enough at one of the great St James's Hall meetings\nhe organised about 1886. Tories had come with forged tickets, but\nwere detected and ejected; and these, or others, determined to give\ndue trouble, took the course of keeping up a loud and distracting\ntapping on the glass door at the off end of one of the balconies. The\ndisturbers being in great force outside, the doorkeepers were helpless;\nthe loud click-click was disconcerting the speaker then on his feet;\nand the audience were growing more and more irritated and restless.\nBradlaugh left the chair, passed down and then up to the balcony,\nmade his way along to the door, opened it sharply and disappeared,\nbut in a moment re-entered, holding a man by the collar. This was the\nringleader with the stick. Startled at the apparition of Bradlaugh, he\nhad involuntarily raised that weapon; but in a flash it was out of his\nhands and broken across Bradlaugh's knee. The pale disturber was then\ntaken by his captor--still by the collar--along the crowded balcony to\nthe platform end, where he was ejected by the other doorway. He did not\nreturn: his followers broke up; and the meeting proceeded in peace,\nafter a spontaneous expression of its satisfaction at the manner of the\nrelief. That there was nobody like Bradlaugh for an awkward emergency,\nwas the fresh verdict of his followers.\n\n[Footnote 194: _National Reformer_, February 8, 1891.]\n\nAnd these things, and his shaping of his life, were all of a piece with\nthe extraordinary effectiveness of his oratory. In tempestuous power\nand intensity of feeling it surpassed any that it has ever been my lot\nto listen to: it roused men to great thrills of sympathy apart from\nany of that foregone approbation which swells the cheering for so many\npolitical leaders. He could make enthusiastic followers at one hearing,\nand keep them for a generation. Oratory was with him not an art, but\nan inspiration; he even misused his wonderfully powerful voice; but\nhe sounded easily all the notes of eloquence, giving at times the\nwhole gamut of effect, jest, pathos, gravity, reasoning, epigram, and\nthunderous vehemence, in a quarter of an hour's speech. The platform\nwas pre-eminently his place; and no one who merely reads his articles\nwritten for reading, tersely strong as his style generally is, can\nknow the extent of his power over language. It did not lie in any\nspecial sonority of vocabulary or choice of cadence, but in a volcanic\nsincerity and spontaneous fire of speech which yet never passed beyond\nthe control of logic and judgment--something equally removed from\nthe measured passion and forceful dignity of Bright, and the copious\nmellifluence of Gladstone. It was the oratory of unswerving conviction,\ngrave or impassioned or satirical in turn, but always felt and never\nfactitious. He spoke as he lived and fought, going straight for his\nmark, and staking all on the issue.\n\nTo those whom his career leaves cold and whom his character cannot\nattract, it is enough to say that those who applaud the career and\nhonour the character recognise in them, in their special kind, that\ninvincible and unforgettable something which marks men for remembrance\nlong after their immediate influence has passed away--the something\nwhich in artists and poets and warriors we call genius. What Mr John\nMorley has called the d\u00e6monic elements of character, but may perhaps\nbetter be called the dynamic elements, were present in Bradlaugh in\na degree which gives a personality a lasting interest. Beside the\ncautious and merely judicious or clever men, he stands out as one of\nlarger mould and greater fibre, a battling and conquering Titan, sure\nof the sympathetic retrospect of happier days. It is not merely that\nas a statesman he impressed friends and foes alike with his insight\nand his sagacity; and that he combined the fire of the orator with\nthe exactitude of the scholar and the rigorous thinking of the born\nreasoner; but that in him sagacity never ceased to be heroic, and that\nhis commanding powers rested on a character more commanding still.\nWhen, in September 1892, twenty months after his death, a gathering\nwas held in his memory on the occasion of the completion of the bust\nfor his grave, the enthusiasm was as strong, the throng as dense, the\ntributes as warm, the sympathy as keen, as on the day he was struck\ndown. His name is verily not written in water. And the bronze bust\non his tomb, recalling as it does the high front and the unflinching\neye which his friends loved to associate with him, and seeming as it\ndoes to face fate with an immovable strength and firmness, will for\nmany a year say to passers-by what has been sought to be told in these\npages--\"This was a man.\"\n\n THE END.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDICES.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I.\n\nMR. BRADLAUGH'S BIRTHPLACE.\n\n\nOn p. 3 it is stated that Mr. Bradlaugh was born at No. 5, Bacchus\nWalk, Hoxton, but this appears to be an error, of which I only became\naware in 1905. In that year the London County Council had under\nconsideration the question of placing a tablet on the house in which\nmy father was born, and they wrote me for the purpose of obtaining\ndocumentary or other evidence as to the identity of the house. As a\nresult of careful inquiries I found that the birthplace of my father\nwas No. 31, and not No. 5, as I had previously believed. As it was\npossible that the street had been renumbered, the London County Council\nundertook to try to find out, and Mr. Gomme, Clerk to the Council,\nsubsequently wrote me that although this point could not be determined\nwith exactitude:\n\n \"The probabilities are that the street had not been renumbered since\n the date of Bradlaugh's birth. If such is the case the house in which\n he was born has disappeared, for about 1883, No. 31 Bacchus Walk was\n with a block of other houses in the street demolished to provide a\n site for the present St. John's Road School, Hoxton. On my reporting\n these facts, the Committee of the Council dealing with the matter\n regretfully decided that under the circumstances they could take no\n further action with regard to this house.\n\n \"It will interest you to know that the Committee have also taken\n steps with a view to the erection of a tablet on No. 20, Circus Road,\n S. John's Wood, where your father died, after having resided there\n for a considerable period. The owner of the house, however, refused\n to consent to the erection of a tablet, and the Committee were thus\n compelled to abandon the idea of indicating this house.\"\n\n H. B. B.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX II.\n\nLORD DUFFERIN AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH.\n\n\nThe following significant correspondence between Lord Dufferin and Mr.\nBradlaugh is now (1908) included for the first time in this biography.\n\nLord Dufferin's letters are written throughout in his own handwriting,\nand the draft of my father's letter is written by his own hand. I am\nthe more fortunate in having this, because it was very rare indeed for\nhim either to make a draft of his letters or to write at such length.\nThe occasion was, however, one of more than usual importance. Lord\nDufferin sent with his letter a copy of the speech he delivered at the\nSt. Andrew's dinner, Calcutta, on November 30, 1888, ten days before he\nceased to be Viceroy of India. It makes a booklet of 21 quarto pages,\nand it is to this that reference is made in the letters.\n\n H. B. B.\n\n \"Lord Dufferin presents his compliments to Mr. Bradlaugh, and, well\n knowing that even his bitterest opponents are ready to recognise\n not only Mr. Bradlaugh's ability, but also his perfect sincerity,\n uprightness and honesty of purpose, he takes the liberty of addressing\n him in reference to a lecture which Mr. Bradlaugh delivered in the\n Tyne Theatre at Newcastle on the subject of our Indian Empire. In\n that lecture, though Mr. Bradlaugh did not refer to Lord Dufferin\n in unduly harsh or unfriendly terms, he did certainly misrepresent\n both the words and the tenor of his Calcutta speech. This probably\n arose from the fact of the _Times_ correspondent having only\n telegraphed those parts of the speech with which he himself especially\n sympathised. Under these circumstances, Lord Dufferin has taken the\n liberty of sending Mr. Bradlaugh a full copy of the speech as it was\n delivered. The statements in Mr. Bradlaugh's lecture to which Lord\n Dufferin particularly objects are:--First, that Lord Dufferin has\n misrepresented the avowed views of the Congress and its supporters.\n He can assure him that he has not done so. Mr. Bradlaugh may be quite\n certain that, before saying what he did, Lord Dufferin took every\n precaution to verify his references, and that the proceedings of the\n Congress and of the Committees whose conclusions the Congress adopted,\n were precisely what he described. It is true, at the last meeting,\n thanks to the friendly warnings which Lord Dufferin had given, the\n attitude and suggestions of the Congress were much more reasonable and\n moderate.\n\n \"The second statement in Mr. Bradlaugh's address to which Lord\n Dufferin objects, is where he says that Lord Dufferin asserted that\n these Congresses were seditious. Again he begs to assure Mr. Bradlaugh\n that he never, either directly or by implication, gave utterance to\n such an opinion. He has always referred to the Congress in terms of\n sympathy and respect, and treated the members with great personal\n civility. What he criticised was the distribution, amongst an ignorant\n population, under the auspices of some ill-advised persons who were\n not even natives, but with the authority of the Congress, of pamphlets\n which were calculated to excite the hatred of the people against her\n Majesty's Government in India.\n\n \"Mr. Bradlaugh also seems to imply that Lord Dufferin has opposed\n himself to the native demands for a reform in the Civil Service. So\n far from this being the case, before the Congress even put forward any\n such suggestions, Lord Dufferin had appointed a Commission, with Sir\n Charles Aitchison (one of the most liberal-minded men that have ever\n been in India) as chairman, and some leading natives as members, to\n propound a scheme for the larger admission of natives into the higher\n ranks of the Civil Service. This Commission has recommended that over\n 120 offices now closed to natives should be thrown open to them.\n\n \"However, if Mr. Bradlaugh will only read Lord Dufferin's speech,\n Lord Dufferin thinks he will see that it is conceived in a totally\n different tone and spirit from that which Mr. Bradlaugh has himself\n imagined, and he may tell Mr. Bradlaugh in confidence--though, of\n course, he would desire that it should remain unknown to anyone\n else--that he himself has been doing his very best to forward such a\n reform of the Provincial Councils in India as Mr. Bradlaugh appears\n to advocate. In further illustration of his position, Lord Dufferin\n may mention that Mr. Yule, the gentleman who acted as chairman of the\n last Congress at Allahabad, was present on the occasion on which Lord\n Dufferin delivered the speech which Mr. Bradlaugh has criticised, and,\n at its conclusion, went out of his way to thank him for it as being\n calculated to do the very greatest good.\n\n \"Mr. Bradlaugh has also fallen into an error in considering that Lord\n Dufferin's speech is likely to cause embarrassment to Lord Lansdowne.\n It was intended, on the contrary, to produce the very opposite effect,\n and to smooth Lord Lansdowne's way for him; and it is in this light\n that both Lord Lansdowne himself and his friends regard it; for it is\n obvious that Lord Dufferin having undertaken the disagreeable task\n of pointing out the extravagances into which the Congress was being\n insensibly led, there will remain to Lord Lansdowne the agreeable duty\n of inaugurating whatever concessions it may be possible to make.\n\n \"In conclusion, Lord Dufferin hopes Mr. Bradlaugh will understand\n what perhaps is not readily appreciated by those who have not lived\n in India; namely, that the Government of India is perpetually\n fighting, on behalf of the great masses of the population, against the\n encroachments and usurpations of what may be called the specialised\n interests; for, unlike almost all other Governments, it is unconnected\n by ties of prejudice or self-interest with any particular class or\n section of the community it governs.\n\n \"Lord Dufferin is quite satisfied that Mr. Bradlaugh will forgive him\n for troubling him with this short letter of explanation.\n\n \"British Embassy, Rome.\n\n \"_7th February, 1889._\"\n\n * * * * *\n\n(_Draft Letter._)\n\n \"Mr. Bradlaugh, in acknowledging Lord Dufferin's 'private and\n confidential' letter of February 7th, desires to specially recognise\n the frank and more than kindly tone of that letter, and trusts that\n in the observations which Mr. Bradlaugh feels called upon to submit\n to Lord Dufferin's consideration, he may be pardoned if he ventures\n sometimes to wholly differ, even on statements of fact, from one so\n eminent, and one whose recent Vice-regal position entitles him to\n special respect and attention in matters concerning India. It is true\n that at the time of the Newcastle speech and until the receipt of\n the letter of February 7th, Mr. Bradlaugh had only seen the Calcutta\n speech as given in the _Times_, and he is exceedingly obliged to\n Lord Dufferin for the more accurate and complete report enclosed in\n his Lordship's letter. Perhaps Mr. Bradlaugh may be permitted to add\n that although the report of his own Newcastle speech as given in\n the _Newcastle Daily Leader_ is very full and, on the whole, fairly\n accurate, it is necessarily not verbatim, and has appeared without any\n correction. The report in the _Newcastle Daily Chronicle_ was less\n full, and though fair, has, in abbreviating, occasionally varied the\n meaning. This observation is only offered because of the importance\n the speech acquires by Lord Dufferin's notice of its purport. Mr.\n Bradlaugh, in charging Lord Dufferin with misrepresenting the avowed\n views of the Congress, was careful to express his opinion that Lord\n Dufferin had been misled by inaccurate information, and if now Mr.\n Bradlaugh had alone the Calcutta speech to guide him, he would still\n incline to that view; for the words on p. 9, line 26, 'the ideal\n authoritatively suggested, as I understand' seem to imply that Lord\n Dufferin spoke rather on information received than on his personal\n knowledge, but in view of Lord Dufferin's declaration that 'he took\n every precaution to verify his references, and that the proceedings\n of the Congress and of the Committees whose conclusions the Congress\n adopted were precisely what he described,' Mr. Bradlaugh trusts that\n he may be permitted to justify and maintain his criticism of Lord\n Dufferin's words as follows (Calcutta speech, p. 9, line 20, to p. 10,\n line 1):--\n\n \"'Some intelligent, loyal, patriotic, and well-meaning men are\n desirous of taking, I will not say a further step in advance, but\n a very big jump into the unknown--by the application to India of\n democratic methods of government and the adoption of a Parliamentary\n system, which England herself has only reached by slow degrees and\n through the discipline of many centuries of preparation. The ideal\n authoritatively suggested, as I understand, is the creation of a\n representative body or bodies in which the official element shall be\n in the minority who shall have the power of the purse, and who through\n this instrumentality shall be able to bring the British Executive into\n subjection to their will.'\n\n \"On this Mr. Bradlaugh ventures to refer Lord Dufferin to the only\n authoritative suggestion of which he is aware, _i.e._, the actual\n resolutions of the Congresses defining their 'tentative suggestions'\n of reform and which seem to him to so essentially contradict the\n understanding arrived at by Lord Dufferin that Mr. Bradlaugh requotes\n their tenor from Resolution 4, with its sub-sections, as printed in\n the report of the Calcutta Congress, which, he respectfully submits,\n completely justify his Newcastle speech; he believes that these\n resolutions were precisely re-affirmed at Madras and Allahabad:--\n\n \"'(1.)--The number of persons composing the Legislative Councils, both\n Provincial and of the Governor-General, to be materially increased.\n Not less than one-half the Members of such enlarged Councils to be\n elected. Not more than one-fourth to be officials, having seats\n _ex-officio_ in such Councils, and not more than one-fourth to be\n Members, official or non-official, nominated by Government.\n\n \"'(2.) The right to elect members to the Provincial Councils to be\n conferred only on those classes and members of the community, _prim\u00e2\n facie_, capable of exercising it wisely and independently.'\n\nAnd, after suggesting possible elective bodies, it concludes:--\n\n \"'But whatever system be adopted (and the details must be worked out\n separately for each province) care must be taken that all sections of\n the community and all great interests are adequately represented.'\n\nIn sub-section 6 providing that:--\n\n \"'All legislative measures and all financial questions, including all\n Budgets, whether these involve new or enhanced taxation or not, to be\n necessarily submitted to, and dealt with by, these Councils.'\n\nAnd giving right of interpellation, it is\n\n 'provided that if the subject in regard to which the inquiry is\n made involves matters of foreign policy, military dispositions or\n strategy, or is otherwise of such a nature that, in the opinion of the\n Executive, the public interest would be materially imperilled by the\n communication of the information asked for, it shall be competent for\n them to instruct the _ex-officio_ Members, or one of them, to reply\n accordingly and decline to furnish the information asked for.'\n\nAnd by sub-section 7 it is expressly declared that:--\n\n \"'The Executive Government shall possess the power of overruling the\n decision arrived at by the majority of the Council in every case\n in which, in its opinion, the public interests would suffer by the\n acceptance of such decision.'\n\n \"As it was on the faith of his reading of these resolutions, which\n he had in his hand when speaking at Newcastle, that Mr. Bradlaugh\n made the statement to which Lord Dufferin objects, he ventures to\n submit that such resolutions show clearly (1) that there is no\n attempt whatever at 'the application to India of democratic methods\n of government'; or (2) at 'the adoption of a Parliamentary system\n which England herself has only reached by slow degrees'; (3) there\n is no creation of a representative body or bodies, there is simply\n the proposal that an existing body shall be enlarged and half of it\n made representative under special limitations of electorate; (4)\n the Executive is only mentioned to preserve it as paramount and\n with overruling power over the Legislative Councils which alone are\n meant or referred to; (5) though it is true that it is proposed\n that the purely 'official element' shall be a minority, as sitting\n _ex-officio_, it is also stated that a moiety of the Legislative\n Council shall be non-elected Government nominees, such nominees being\n either official or non-official as the Executive may decide.\n\n \"Mr. Bradlaugh notes that Lord Dufferin considers that 'the attitude\n and suggestions of the Allahabad Congress were much more reasonable\n and moderate,' and as Mr. Bradlaugh has not yet received any\n authorised report of that Congress he differs from Lord Dufferin with\n great hesitation; but so far as he is able to judge from the newspaper\n reports, and from the comparison of these with the official reports\n of the three previous Congresses, the attitude in each case was\n that of moderate statement of grievances with explicit declaration\n of loyalty to the British Empire. Mr. Bradlaugh feels that on this\n point Lord Dufferin, who tendered hospitality to the Congress of\n 1886, speaks with more perfect knowledge than himself, but, judging\n as an outsider, from the official reports and guided by the extremely\n amicable relations between Lord Dufferin as Viceroy and the Congress\n of 1886, Mr. Bradlaugh, whilst gladly recognising the justice of Lord\n Dufferin's judgment that the attitude and suggestions of the Congress\n just held were reasonable and moderate, can find no ground for\n supposing that there was any difference in these respects at Allahabad\n from the former Congresses at Bombay, Calcutta, or Madras.\n\n \"Mr. Bradlaugh is in the highest degree grateful to Lord Dufferin for\n his repudiation and contradiction of the view urged by Mr. Bradlaugh\n at Newcastle, that Lord Dufferin had described the Congresses as\n seditious. Mr. Bradlaugh trusts that he may be permitted to point out\n that in a question put on the notice paper of the House of Commons by\n Mr. J. M. Maclean, M.P., immediately on the publication in the _Times_\n of the telegraphic summary of Lord Dufferin's Calcutta speech, Mr.\n Maclean claimed, under cover of that speech, to describe the Congress\n as one which 'aims at destroying the security of English Rule in\n India.' On this point Mr. Bradlaugh, in speaking in the future, will\n take care that it shall be clearly understood that Lord Dufferin 'has\n always referred to the Congress in terms of sympathy and respect,'\n and Mr. Bradlaugh tenders to Lord Dufferin his sincere apology\n that, misled by the _Times_ version and by Mr. Maclean's gloss, he\n attributed to Lord Dufferin any views hostile to the Congress. With\n reference to the publications to which Lord Dufferin refers, but which\n he does not specifically quote, it would ill become Mr. Bradlaugh,\n without more complete information, to do more than submit that he\n is unaware of any pamphlets issued by the authority of the Congress\n 'calculated to excite the hatred of the people against her Majesty's\n Government in India.' If Lord Dufferin refers to 'the Catechism,' Mr.\n Bradlaugh observes that the author appeals to the people 'to lay aside\n their petty jealousies and race antipathies and learn their duties as\n loyal citizens of the British Empire.'\n\n \"Mr. Bradlaugh does not think that, either at Newcastle or elsewhere,\n he has ever implied that Lord Dufferin was opposed to Indian Civil\n Service Reform, and he is glad to know that the natives of India may\n count on Lord Dufferin's powerful help. Mr. Bradlaugh has not yet had\n the opportunity of fully considering the report, and may possibly\n underrate its favourable character to the natives. The recommendations\n to open some 108 offices to natives must be considered with reference\n to the contention that, under the statutory service rules, at least\n 150 offices should be so open. Mr. Bradlaugh pleads guilty to a little\n confusion as to dates, probably the result of insufficient knowledge.\n Lord Dufferin speaks of the Commission (appointed October 4th, 1886)\n as 'before the Congress ever put forward any such suggestions.' Mr.\n Bradlaugh ventures to think that Lord Dufferin has overlooked the\n resolution on this subject of the Bombay Congress, December, 1885.\n\n \"As desired by Lord Dufferin, Mr. Bradlaugh has most carefully\n read the authorised report of his Lordship's Calcutta speech, and\n especially thanks Lord Dufferin for the confidential intimation\n 'that he himself has been doing his very best to forward such a\n reform of the Provincial Councils in India as Mr. Bradlaugh appears\n to advocate'; this Mr. Bradlaugh assumes is intended by the parts\n underlined by Lord Dufferin on p. 18; but it is respectfully\n submitted that the words on p. 17 might, without Lord Dufferin's\n kindly confidential assurance, not unreasonably have been held\n to imply that his Lordship charged the Congress with seeking to\n effectuate constitutional changes by a stroke of the pen and without\n deliberation, when, in fact, the very first resolution of the first\n Congress asked for enquiry by Royal Commission, and it is for such an\n enquiry that Mr. Bradlaugh has already placed a notice on the order\n book of the House of Commons.\n\n \"Mr. Bradlaugh is pleased to learn that he has fallen into error\n in considering that Lord Dufferin's speech was likely to cause\n embarrassment to Lord Lansdowne, and he entirely accepts Lord\n Dufferin's assurance that it was intended to produce the opposite\n effect; but, in justice to himself, he thinks it right to submit that\n confidential information from India leads him to the belief that same\n embarrassment has actually already arisen.\n\n \"Mr. Bradlaugh fears that, although he has left many points untouched,\n he will already have exhausted Lord Dufferin's patience, but he trusts\n that the generous disposition and courteous frankness which prompted\n Lord Dufferin's letter of the 7th will serve as excuse for any\n _brusquerie_ in Mr. Bradlaugh's present letter.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\n \"5, Upper Berkeley Street, W.\n \"22nd Feb., 1889.\n\n \"My dear Mr. Bradlaugh,--\n\n \"I hope you will forgive me for taking the liberty of addressing you\n in the above direct manner; but I am so sensible of the friendly tone\n of your letter of the 19th, and so shocked at having given so much\n trouble to a busy man like yourself, that I presume to slip into the\n more familiar way of writing.\n\n \"With regard to the points you raise in your letter:--one thing has\n evidently escaped your observation, namely, that my remarks in the\n main were not addressed specially to the Congress, but to 'some of\n our friends, who, etc., etc.,' and in this category I embraced all\n those, whether speakers, writers, or other persons, who (for the sake\n of briefness) I may denominate the advanced party in India. Again,\n where I said 'the idea authoritatively suggested as I understand,' I\n referred to a speech, or rather, I think, a letter of Mr. Hume's. Mr.\n Hume is the Chief Secretary of the Congress, and certainly speaks with\n authority, if not in the name of the Congress itself, at all events in\n that of the Congress party. I also had in my mind the speeches of the\n two previous Presidents of the Congress, as well as the manifestoes\n put forth by the Congress Press. The only respect in which I\n criticised the conduct of the Congress itself was in regard to its\n official sanction to the distribution of the pamphlets, and I do not\n think anybody can say that the terms I used were very severe. However,\n I am most unwilling to give you any further trouble in writing, but I\n should esteem it a great pleasure if I might be allowed to make your\n acquaintance, and to have an opportunity of talking over some of these\n matters with you. I make this suggestion because I believe I could\n not be doing a greater service both to India and to the public than\n by placing myself at your disposal in regard to any information you\n may desire to have about India. I shall be in town till next Thursday,\n when I return to Rome; but I shall be happy to wait upon you at any\n day or hour you may name, or to receive you here, if that should be\n more convenient to you. On Sunday I shall be engaged; but every other\n day up to the date of my departure I shall be free.\n\n \"Believe me, my dear Mr. Bradlaugh,\n \"Yours sincerely,\n \"DUFFERIN AND AVA.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\n \"5 Upper Berkeley Street, W.\n \"Feb. 24, 1889.\n\n \"My dear Mr. Bradlaugh,--\n\n \"Many thanks for your kind little note of to-day. It will give me the\n greatest pleasure to receive you here at 1.15 to-morrow, Monday.\n\n \"Yours sincerely,\n \"DUFFERIN AND AVA.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\n \"British Embassy, Rome,\n \"2nd April, 1889.\n\n \"My dear Mr. Bradlaugh,--\n\n \"I am very much obliged to you for your kindness in sending me\n the notice of your motion. There are already indications of the\n willingness, both of the present Viceroy and of the Government at\n home, to modify the existing r\u00e9gime in India, and I have no doubt\n that you will obtain some satisfactory assurances in regard to, at\n all events a portion of your suggestions. I am strongly of opinion,\n however, that for the present it would be wiser to apply whatever\n reforms may be found desirable to the Provincial Councils, and to\n leave the Governor-General's Council untouched, except so far as\n allowing the Budget to be discussed, and giving to the members the\n right of asking questions under certain specified conditions. The\n Supreme Council of the Governor-General is almost always engaged in\n the consideration of large Imperial questions, in regard to which it\n would not be likely to receive any great assistance from the native\n members who might be added to it; and, even if this were not the case,\n it would be well to watch how the proposed changes in the Provincial\n Councils had worked. Moreover, I think our efforts should be applied\n rather to the decentralisation of our Indian Administration than to\n its greater unification, and I made considerable efforts in India\n to promote and expand this principle. In any event, I am sure the\n discussion which you will have provoked will prove very useful; and\n I am very glad that the conduct of it should be in the hands of a\n prudent, wise, and responsible person like yourself, instead of having\n been laid hold of by some adventurous _franc-tireur_, whose only\n object might possibly have been to let off a few fireworks for his own\n glorification.\n\n \"Yours sincerely,\n \"DUFFERIN AND AVA.\"\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX III.\n\nA NOTE ON THE MOTION TO EXPUNGE THE RESOLUTIONS OF EXCLUSION FROM THE\nJOURNALS OF THE HOUSE.\n\n\nWhen, with the kind help of his ever-devoted friend, Mr. John M.\nRobertson, I was writing this record of my father's life and work,\nthere was one matter upon which neither of us felt able to enter very\nfully. I refer to the carrying of the motion to expunge from the\njournals of the House the resolution to exclude him passed on the 22nd\nof June, 1880.\n\nI believe that the time has now come when I may, without unfairness\nto anyone, and without the slightest violation of confidence, state\nexactly what took place in regard to the moving of that resolution.\n\nIt may be remembered that Mr. Bradlaugh fell ill on January 10th, 1891,\nand that some five days later he had to take to that bed from which he\nnever rose again. Mr. John M. Robertson was at the time in Edinburgh,\non the staff of the _Scottish Leader_, and on the evening of Friday,\nthe 16th, a mutual friend told me that Mr. Robertson had desired to\nknow if Mr. Bradlaugh became worse, and that if he could be of any\nservice he would come to London at a moment's notice. \"Send for him\nnow, then,\" I said, \"for my father is dying.\"\n\nMr. Robertson came by the night mail on Saturday. He asked what he\ncould do, and I put my difficulty before him. Mr. Bradlaugh had secured\nthe first place on January 27th to move the resolution rescinding the\nresolution of 1880; he now knew that he would not be able to go to the\nHouse on that day, and he was troubling very much about it. He had\nhad small hope of carrying the resolution, but he expected to get a\nsubstantial vote, and that would have satisfied him for the present.\nMy ideas of the standing orders and rules of the House were not very\ndefinite, and I consulted Mr. Robertson whether we could not get\nsomeone to move the resolution in his place. I suggested that if it\nwere thought wise, I would go to Mr. Gladstone--for I knew well that\na small man would not do--and urge him to do it. I, at least, could\nnot take an impartial view of the \"Bradlaugh incident,\" and, rightly\nor wrongly, thought that Mr. Gladstone owed my father some amends for\ncertain expressions he had used, and also for not having taken a bolder\nand stronger position from the very first. Mr. Robertson, however,\nwas doubtful about Gladstone; other names were mentioned, and amongst\nthem, that of Dr. Hunter. However, we were still ignorant of whether\nit would be possible to substitute anyone's name for my father's, and\nthis we had to find out. I then returned to my father's bedside, and\nmentioning that Mr. Robertson had come on a flying visit to London,\nasked if he would like to see him for a few minutes. This my father\nwas very pleased to do, and Mr. Robertson went to have a little chat\nwith him. The subject of the resolution soon came up, and my father\ntold Mr. Robertson how deep his vexation was that he would be unable\nto be in his place in the House, and, in answer to careful inquiries,\nsaid no other name could be substituted for his; but it happened that\nthe impression was so general that he would take the whole time of the\nHouse that no one had thought it worth while to put his name down for\nthe second place. Mr. Robertson left him without, of course, giving any\nhint of what was in our minds; it was so likely that we should fail\nthat we did not wish to disturb him about it. If we should succeed that\nwould be ample time to tell him; if we should fail, he would never know.\n\nAt the earliest possible moment on Monday morning Mr. Robertson went\nto see Dr. Hunter, and explained the whole matter to him. But before\nMr. Robertson had actually reached the point of asking him to move the\nresolution, Dr. Hunter offered to do so if the second place was still\nopen. Then I told my father of Dr. Hunter's offer, without, of course,\nsaying anything of our share in inviting it. We had our reward in his\ndelighted surprise. \"Hunter will do it, you say?... The very man I\nwould have chosen.\" I was more than pleased, for I had aimed high in my\nthoughts, and was doubtful whether Dr. Hunter was big enough! A little\nlater, in thinking it all over, he asked, \"You think I can quite rely\nupon Hunter doing it?\" On my answering in the affirmative, he dictated\nletters to Dr. Hunter and two or three other members of Parliament.\nWhen a day or two after it was rumoured that Gladstone was to speak,\nhe was quite pleased, although, as he said, \"If Gladstone speaks that\nsettles it; the Government will be bound to take it up; and, of course,\nthey hold the majority; but I shan't mind that.\"\n\nOn the morning of Friday, the 23rd, he was shockingly ill, and waited\nin restless anxiety until the messenger should bring the \"Order Paper.\"\nWhen he found that Dr. Hunter had been able to secure the place for\nhis motion, and that his name was actually down on the Paper for that\npurpose, he was satisfied, and after dictating a couple of letters he\ngave himself up to rest.\n\nOn Friday night came the hemiplegia and unconsciousness; my father's\nwork was done. Letters came from friends in different parts of the\ncountry, telling how they were urging their members to be present\nin their places on the 27th; letters came from Members themselves,\npromising their support; but they came to a man who could no longer\nread them. At last came the morning of January 27th, and with the\nfirst post the following letter from Dr. Hunter:--\n\n \"2, Brick Court, Temple,\n \"26/1/91.\n\n \"Dear Mrs. Bonner,--Mr. W. H. Smith has sent for me and speaking\n in the kindest manner of your father and of his appreciation of\n his valuable services in the House of Commons said that it would\n be extremely painful to him to discuss the motion, in the present\n state of your father's health. He is, therefore, prepared to give a\n day during the present Session so as to put the motion in as good a\n position as it is to-morrow, if I do not proceed to-morrow. I stated\n that, subject to Mr. Bradlaugh's own opinion, I considered it a fair\n offer, and personally would have no hesitation in leaving the motion\n to be taken up at a more convenient time by your father himself. You\n will exercise, of course, your discretion in consulting him on the\n subject, and I stated to the First Lord that I should let him know\n before business begins to-morrow what course I should follow. If you\n approve, or your father is well enough to enter upon the question\n and approves, kindly send me a telegram to 2, Brick Court, Temple,\n to-morrow morning.\n\n \"I am, yours very truly,\n \"W. A. HUNTER.\"\n\nI was in despair. Here was my father lying absolutely unconscious\nand dying. I knew that if that resolution was not moved that day it\nnever would be moved. I had assured him positively that Dr. Hunter\nwould do it; he had trusted me, and now I felt like a traitor. I sat\ndown and wrote to Dr. Hunter, telling him that it was impossible for\nme to consult my father, since he was lying unconscious, that he had\nsunk into unconsciousness believing that this resolution would be\nmoved, and, when he recovered, how was I to tell him that he had been\ndeceived? I thanked Mr. Smith for his kindness, but I was firmly of\nopinion that the resolution should be moved whether it were carried\nor not; it was due to the treatment he had received from the Members\nof the House that Mr. Bradlaugh lay where he was, and they owed it to\nhim to at least consider a resolution which should wipe out from the\nrecords of the House the resolution expelling him. I hardly knew what\nI wrote; I was so agitated. I hardly know now, except that it was to\nthe effect as I have written, and through all my agitation I preserved\ntwo dominant ideas: first, to say all I could to induce Dr. Hunter\nto move the resolution; and, next, while picturing the very serious\ncondition in which my father lay, not to let it be known that he was\nthen actually dying.\n\nThe letter was despatched by special messenger, but after it was gone\nI felt I had not said half enough. My husband then went to find Dr.\nHunter, and see him personally, but was unable to see him until about\nmid-day at the House. Dr. Hunter then said he had shown my letter to\nseveral members; they agreed, in consequence, that the resolution ought\nto be moved; and that he had decided to do so. Some of the members\nthought that the letter ought to be read to the House, but in any\ncase he wished to know if I had any objection to its being shown to\nMr. Smith. Dr. Hunter then saw Mr. Smith, who not only withdrew all\nopposition to the moving of the resolution, but also agreed to withdraw\nthe Government opposition to the resolution itself. This decision\nwas arrived at so late that it was (so it was said) unknown to the\nSolicitor-General when he got up to oppose the resolution.\n\nWhen the telegrams of congratulation--the first, if I recollect\nrightly, was from Sir John Mowbray--began to pour in, and he to whom\nthey were addressed lay there unconscious of all, the tragedy of it\nseemed almost more than one could bear.\n\nOn the same evening Dr. Hunter considerately wrote me this further\nletter, acquainting me with what had taken place:--\n\n \"National Liberal Club,\n \"Whitehall Place, S.W.,\n \"27/1/91.\n\n \"Dear Mrs. Bonner,--I cannot say how glad I am that the House has\n unanimously accepted your father's Resolution. I trust that he will\n have improved sufficiently to be made acquainted with the news.\n\n \"After seeing your husband I had no scruple in showing your letter\n to Mr. Smith, and, without assuming any violent assumption, I think\n it had something to do with the result. On taking his place this\n afternoon, he nodded to me significantly, as much as to say he\n recognised the necessity of my proceeding with the Resolution. The\n soundness of your opinion has been shown by the result.\n\n \"Many members spoke to me, all expressing their deepest sympathy, and\n on both sides there was a general feeling of relief that an agreement\n was come to.\n\n \"The reports in the papers will, when you have time, fully inform you\n of the course of the debate; but I may add that Mr. Gladstone was\n extremely gratified, on many grounds, and turning round offered me his\n warmest congratulations.\n\n \"There is but one universal feeling among members of all sections of\n opinion--an earnest desire and hope that your father may be spared to\n continue his services to the State.\n\n \"Yours very truly,\n \"W. A. HUNTER.\"\n\nThose who have followed the story of my father's life will be\ninterested in learning how narrowly this resolution failed to be moved\nand carried. That it turned out as it did was owing, in the first\nplace, to Mr. Robertson, who found the man to move it, in the next, to\nDr. Hunter who carried it through, and, finally, to the real goodness\nof heart of Mr. W. H. Smith.\n\n HYPATIA BRADLAUGH BONNER.\n\n April, 1906.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n Adam, The Hon. Mr, ii. 255, 337.\n\n Adams, Thomas, i. 398; ii. 210, 413.\n\n Adams, W. E. (\"Caractacus\"), i. 64, 68, 80, 109, 123, 125, 142.\n\n Affirm, Allowed to, ii. 246.\n\n Affirmation Bills (_see also Oaths Bill and Evidence Amendment_), i. 169;\n ii. 234, 246, 272, 281, 304, 312, 315, 336, 358, 361, 374.\n\n Agnosticism, ii. 117.\n\n Agricultural Hall, i. 226, 231.\n\n Agricultural Labourers' Movement, i. 374, 378.\n\n Aliens, Destitute, ii. 404\n\n Allsop, Thomas, i. 64, 68, 273.\n\n America, Visits to, i. 380; ii. 1.\n\n Amusements, Boyish, i. 5.\n\n Andrews, S. Pearl, i. 384.\n\n Arago, Emanuel, i. 318, 320.\n\n Arch, Joseph, i. 374, 392; ii. 368.\n\n Arms Bill, ii. 196.\n\n Army, Flogging in, ii. 201, 259.\n\n Army life, i. 25, 35.\n\n Arnold, Matthew, i. 230; ii. 151, 329.\n\n Arnold, Rev. T., i. 279.\n\n Atheism and Secularism, i. 332.\n\n Atheistic position stated, i. 87, 210, 337, 340; ii. 115.\n\n Atheistic morality, i. 334, 339; ii. 157.\n\n Ayrton, Hon. A. S., i. 142, 149; ii. 209.\n\n\n \"B. V.\" (_See Thomson._)\n\n Ball, John, i. 374, 378.\n\n Ballincollig, An Eviction at, i. 31.\n\n Baptism, i. 4.\n\n Bar, Speeches at the, 1st, ii. 241;\n 2nd. ii. 267;\n 3rd, ii. 295;\n 4th, ii. 341.\n\n Barker, J., i. 121.\n\n Barker, Rev. W., i. 207.\n\n Barttelot, Sir W., ii. 239, 272.\n\n Beaconsfield, Lord. (_See Disraeli._)\n\n Beales, Edmund, i. 220.\n\n Beesly, Prof., i. 314, 319.\n\n Bendall, S., i. 189; ii. 79.\n\n Bernard, S., i. 64, 79, 99, 204.\n\n Besant, Annie, i. 400; ii. 12, 33, 65, 70, 87, 92, 136, 175, 223,\n 286, 291, 308, 343, 382, 395, 406, 418.\n\n Biggar, J., ii. 35, 195.\n\n Birth, i. 3.\n\n Bismarck, i. 312, 316.\n\n Bizoin, A. G., i. 317.\n\n Blanc, L., i. 65, 321.\n\n Blasphemy Laws, i. 129; ii. 319, 405.\n\n Blasphemy prosecutions, ii. 316, 324.\n\n Bohn, H. G., ii. 24.\n\n Bolingbroke, ii. 116.\n\n Bonner's Fields, i. 8, 20, 23, 25.\n\n Bradlaugh, Alice, i. 49, 116; ii. 93, 104, 291, 343, 401.\n\n Bradlaugh, Charles (jun.), i. 95, 117, 300.\n\n Bradlaugh, Charles (sen.), i. 2, 3, 13, 27.\n\n Bradlaugh, Elizabeth (Mrs Norman), i. 13, 15, 20, 27, 35, 37, 349.\n\n Bradlaugh, Harriet, i. 114.\n\n Bradlaugh, James, i. 2.\n\n Bradlaugh, Mrs (sen.), i. 3, 4, 36, 41, 49.\n\n Bradlaugh, Mrs S. L., i. 49, 173, 181, 276, 300.\n\n Bradlaugh, W. R., i. 114, 348.\n\n \"Bradlaugh for Northampton,\" i. 276.\n\n Bright, John, i. 270; ii. 101, 214, 228, 234, 266, 271, 288, 348.\n\n Brimont, Mde. de, i. 314, 347.\n\n Brindley, Dr, i. 160.\n\n _British Banner_, i. 20.\n\n Broadhurst, H., ii. 105, 308, 402, 414.\n\n Bryce, Prof., ii. 216.\n\n B\u00fcchner, Dr L., i. 381; ii. 129.\n\n Buckle, H., ii. 119.\n\n Burns, J., ii. 382, 406, 417.\n\n Burt, T., i. 249, 376, 392; ii. 347, 348, 368, 402, 414.\n\n Business life:\n office boy, i. 7;\n wharf clerk, i. 7;\n \"coal merchant,\" i. 17;\n selling braces, i. 19;\n soldier, i. 26;\n errand boy, i. 41;\n solicitor's clerk, i. 48, 90, 99;\n city merchant, i. 100, 299;\n financier, i. 101;\n publisher, ii. 17, 100, 417;\n and printer, ii. 101.\n\n Butler, Bishop, ii. 116, 150.\n\n\n Campbell, Alexander, i. 88.\n\n Capper, C., i. 274; ii. 65.\n\n \"Caractacus.\" (_See W. E. Adams._)\n\n Cardinal's Broken Oath, A, ii. 309.\n\n Carlile, R., i. 9, 159, 333; ii. 165.\n\n Carlile, Mrs Sharples, i. 9, 19, 20, 24, 41.\n\n Carlile, Mrs Sharples, The Daughters of, i. 9, 11, 19, 388; ii. 4.\n\n Carlist country, Through the, i. 355.\n\n Carlyle, T., ii. 165, 422.\n\n Castelar, Emilio, i. 154, 353, 359, 364; ii. 4.\n\n Cavendish, Lord F., ii. 217.\n\n Chancellor's salary, The Lord, ii. 406.\n\n Channel Tunnel, The, ii. 381.\n\n Chaplin, H., ii. 227, 231, 271, 336.\n\n Character, Alleged change of, i. 211, 279; ii. 415.\n\n Characteristics, i. 279; ii. 49, 99, 101, 152, 423.\n\n Childhood, i. 4.\n\n _Christian, The_, ii. 67.\n\n _Christian Globe, The_, ii. 264.\n\n _Christian Times, The_, i. 210.\n\n _Chronicle, The Daily_, ii. 264.\n\n Churchill, Lord R., i. 14; ii. 230, 261, 272, 298, 338, 349, 363, 371,\n 374, 377, 380.\n\n City Solicitor, The, ii. 21, 27.\n\n Clarke, Sir E., ii. 268, 378, 405, 419.\n\n Clergy, Letters to the, i. 128.\n\n Clerical libeller, A, i. 99.\n\n Clerical feeling on the Oath question, ii. 250, 275, 291, 314, 319.\n\n Clerkenwell explosion, The, i. 257.\n\n Clifford, Prof., ii. 133.\n\n Clock Tower, Imprisoned in the, ii. 245.\n\n Closing years, ii. 102, 368.\n\n Cluseret, General, i. 115, 253, 262.\n\n \"Cob of Coal\" story, ii. 76.\n\n Coercion Bill, The, ii. 196, 258, 290, 377.\n\n Collet, C. D., i. 139, 142.\n\n Commune, The, i. 322.\n\n Compulsory Education, i. 265.\n\n Congreve, Dr, i. 314.\n\n Conway, Moncure D., ii. 9, 41, 43, 276, 312.\n\n Cooper, Robert, i. 78.\n\n Cooper, R. A., i. 267, 364.\n\n Cooper, Thomas, i. 84, 209.\n\n Corbett, ----, ii. 264, 302.\n\n Corporation, The London (Malversation Charges), ii. 374.\n\n Counsel in the various lawsuits--\n Chitty, T., i. 297.\n Coleridge, Sir J. D. (Sol.-Gen.), i. 144.\n Collier, Sir R. (Att.-Gen.), i. 144, 182.\n Crump, F. O., ii. 322.\n Danckwertz, W. O., ii. 352.\n Giffard, Sir H. (_see also Giffard_), ii. 23, 73, 177, 260, 292, 322,\n 327, 355.\n Grantham W. (_see also Grantham_), ii. 75, 79.\n Hunter, Dr W. A. (_see also Hunter_), ii. 322.\n Hutton, Crompton, i. 145.\n James, Sir H. (Att.-Gen.) (_see also James_), ii. 355.\n Karslake, Sir J. (Att.-Gen.), i. 141.\n Keane, D., i. 284.\n Moloney, M., ii. 73, 317, 328.\n O'Malley, i. 90.\n Russell, Sir C. ii. 73.\n Seymour, Digby (_see also Seymour_), i. 290.\n Straight, Douglas, ii. 20.\n Smith, Lumley, i. 284.\n Smith, Montague (_see also Judges_), i. 140, 184.\n Solicitors-Gen., i. 142, 144; ii. 355.\n Wood, i. 285.\n Wright, R. S., ii. 352.\n\n Courtney, L. H., ii. 177.\n\n Courtship, i. 44.\n\n Cowen, Joseph, i. 83, 376; ii. 270, 276, 288.\n\n Crawford, J. G., i. 130, 139, 143.\n\n Cremer, W. R., i. 220.\n\n Cr\u00e9mieux, A., i. 317.\n\n Cross, Sir R. A., ii. 336.\n\n\n Darwin, C., ii. 23, 119.\n\n Davey, Sir H., ii. 266.\n\n Death, The fear of, i. 198.\n\n Death and funeral, ii. 110, 420.\n\n Debates:--\n Armstrong, ii. 50;\n Barker, i. 207;\n Baylee, i. 161;\n Bowes, i. 87;\n Brindley, i. 159;\n Browne, ii. 44;\n Burns, i. 343;\n Cooper, i. 209;\n Court, i. 88;\n Douglas, i. 63;\n Marsden Gibson, ii. 407;\n Gordon, ii. 47;\n Grant, i. 84, 158; ii, 38;\n Harrison, i. 338, 341, 342;\n Holyoake,\n i .322;\n Hutchings, i. 167;\n Hyndman, ii. 189, 417;\n Father Ignatius, i. 342;\n King, i. 332;\n Lawson, i. 170;\n Lightfoot, ii. 49;\n Mackie, i. 170;\n Mahalm, i. 170;\n Matthias, i. 87;\n M'Cann, i. 244; ii. 142;\n Mensor, i. 87;\n Porteous, i. 212;\n Roberts, ii. 46;\n Robertson, i. 336;\n Rutherford, i. 170;\n Simpson, ii. 47;\n Smart, i. 89;\n Westerby, i. 51; ii. 132, 138;\n Woodville Woodman, i. 170, 212.\n\n Denning, Inspector, ii. 287, 289, 336.\n\n Derby, Lord, ii. 177, 294.\n\n Devonport case, The, i. 175.\n\n Dickson, Col., i. 220, 315.\n\n Dilke, Ashton, ii. 216, 289, 308, 347.\n\n Dillwyn, L. L., ii. 224, 303, 375.\n\n Disestablishment, i. 265.\n\n _Dispatch, Weekly_, i. 186, 233; ii. 265.\n\n Disraeli, B., i. 222, 309; ii. 85, 245.\n\n Donnybrook Fair, At, i. 32.\n\n Drysdale, Dr C., ii. 24.\n\n Drysdale, Dr J., ii. 138.\n\n Dublin, In, i. 261.\n\n Duel, Challenged to a, ii. 259.\n\n\n Early closing legislation, ii. 401.\n\n _Echo_, i. 319; ii. 239.\n\n Education, i. 4;\n of his children, i. 116, 347.\n\n Eight hours' question, The, ii. 189, 413, 417.\n\n Election addresses, i. 264, 393.\n\n Election colours, i. 267.\n\n Election funds, i. 263, 267, 278, 396, 400; ii. 265.\n\n Election work, gratuitous, i. 266.\n\n Emerson, R. W., i. 388.\n\n Employer and employed. (_See Master and Servant._)\n\n Employers' Liability Bill, i. 269; ii. 49, 259, 369, 374, 380, 402,\n 406, 415.\n\n Enfield, Viscount, i. 147.\n\n Enlisting, i. 26.\n\n Esquiros, A., i. 114.\n\n Evidence Amendment Act (_see also Affirmation and Oath_), i. 129, 169,\n 284, 288; ii. 216.\n\n _Examiner_, i. 353, 400.\n\n Expunge the resolutions of exclusion, Motion to, ii. 404, 419.\n\n\n Fanatical Monkeys, The, i. 133, 233, 291; ii. 76, 151.\n\n Farrar, Archdeacon, ii. 116.\n\n Favre, Jules, i. 314, 320, 322.\n\n Fawcett, Prof. H., ii. 23.\n\n Fencing, i. 39.\n\n Fenian Brotherhood, The, i. 253.\n\n Ferrier, Dr, ii. 138.\n\n _Financial Reformer, The_, ii. 68.\n\n First pamphlet, i. 23.\n\n Firth, J. F. B., ii. 216.\n\n Fishing, i. 6, 116; ii. 99, 103, 380, 417.\n\n Flint, Professor, ii. 56, 120, 125.\n\n Flourens, G., i. 322.\n\n Foote, G.W., i. 359, 394; ii. 87, 92, 316, 324, 412.\n\n Forcibly ejected from the House of Commons, ii. 286.\n\n Forster, W. E., ii. 195.\n\n Fournichon, L., i. 317.\n\n Fowler, Sir R., ii. 226, 271, 287, 374.\n\n Fowler, W., i. 397.\n\n France, i. 154, 312.\n\n Fraser, Bishop, ii. 161.\n\n _Freeman, The_, ii. 285.\n\n Freemasonry, i. 203.\n\n _Freethinker, The_, ii. 316, 324.\n\n French elections, Nominated at the, i. 321.\n\n Friendly Societies, ii. 404.\n\n\n \"G. R.\" i. 123.\n\n Gambetta, L., i. 317, 321.\n\n Garibaldi, i. 67, 114, 150, 170, 203, 214.\n\n Garrison, W. L., i. 384, 386.\n\n Gibson, Rev. Marsden, ii. 141, 407.\n\n Gibson, Milner, i. 142.\n\n Gibson. J. G. (Att.-Gen. for Ireland), ii. 226.\n\n Giffard, Sir H. (Lord Halsbury), i. 274, 311; ii. 235, 239, 255, 337.\n (_See also Counsel._)\n\n Gilpin, C., i. 265, 268, 394; ii. 65.\n\n Girardin, E. de, i. 330.\n\n Gladstone, W. E., i. 144, 148, 222, 251, 258, 262, 267, 272, 310, 390;\n ii. 164, 192, 209, 226, 239, 242, 269, 282, 297, 338, 345, 365, 369,\n 391, 416, 419, 426.\n\n Goldsmith's Row, Working Men's Hall in, i. 47.\n\n Gorst, Sir J., ii. 243, 261, 267, 294.\n\n Gospels, Early Criticism of the, i. 16, 22, 63, 84; ii. 148.\n\n Gospels and the Thirty-nine Articles, The, i. 8.\n\n Grahame, Cuninghame, ii. 382, 384, 414.\n\n Grand Orient of France, i. 204.\n\n Grant, Rev. B., i. 19, 73, 84, 158, 160, 166; ii. 39.\n\n Grantham, W., ii. 75, 257.\n (_See also Counsel._)\n\n Granville, Lord, i. 314.\n\n Grote, G., ii. 16, 176.\n\n Guernsey methods, i. 189.\n\n Gurney, J., i. 153, 264, 276, 394, 398.\n\n Guyot, Yves, i. 331.\n\n\n Habits and surroundings, ii. 97.\n\n Hall of Science, City Road, i. 219.\n\n Hall of Science, Old Street, i. 248, 336, 343.\n\n Hamilton, Lord G., ii. 308, 375.\n\n Hamilton, Sir W., ii. 213.\n\n Harcourt, Sir W. V., ii. 295, 334, 405.\n\n Harrison, Rev. A. J., i. 338, 341, 342, 354; ii. 39.\n\n Harrison, Frederic, i. 319.\n\n Hartington, Lord, ii. 336.\n\n Harvey, T., i. 94.\n\n Headlam, Rev. S., ii. 23, 275.\n\n Henley, Lord, i. 265, 268, 294.\n\n Herbert, Auberon, ii. 82.\n\n Herzen, A., i. 115, 204.\n\n Hicks-Beach, Sir M., ii. 358, 361, 362, 371, 405.\n\n Hobbes, T., ii. 115, 129.\n\n Holbach, ii. 116.\n\n Holker, Sir J., ii. 219, 265, 269.\n\n Holyoake, Austin, i. 21, 132, 139, 142, 144, 218, 267, 285, 332,\n 390, 394; ii. 12, 16.\n\n Holyoake, G. J., i. 21, 64, 69, 78, 128, 175, 332; ii. 16, 35, 65,\n 142, 223, 277.\n\n Home life, i. 111.\n\n Home Rule, i. 258; ii. 192, 200, 363, 369.\n\n Home sold up, The, i. 301.\n\n Homeless, i. 117.\n\n Hooper, A., i. 25, 42, 276.\n\n Hopps, Rev. J. Page, i. 143.\n\n Hopwood, C. H., ii. 219, 358.\n\n Horsley, Rev. J. W., ii. 23.\n\n Howell, G., i. 220, 319.\n\n Hubbard, J. G., ii. 271.\n\n Huddersfield, Difficulties at, i. 240.\n\n _Huddersfield Examiner_, The, ii. 66, 73.\n\n Hugo, V., i. 65; ii. 162\n\n \"Humanity's Gain from Unbelief,\" ii. 141, 407.\n\n Hunger, i. 25.\n\n Hunter, Dr W. A., ii. 389, 419.\n (_See also Counsel._)\n\n Hutchings, W., i. 166.\n\n Huxley, Prof., i. 341; ii. 128, 151.\n\n Hyde Park Meetings:--\n Sunday Trading Bill, i. 52;\n Government Reform Bill, i. 81;\n Garibaldi, i. 214;\n Reform League, i. 224, 234;\n Parks Regulation Bill, i. 372;\n Peace Demonstrations, ii. 82;\n Grant to Prince of Wales, ii. 84;\n Constitutional Rights, ii. 308.\n\n Hyndman, H. M., ii. 414, 417.\n\n\n \"I Believe,\" i. 168\n\n \"Iconoclast,\" Use of the name, i. 42, 144.\n\n Illingworth, A., ii. 258, 337.\n\n \"Impeachment of the House of Brunswick,\" i. 306; ii. 225, 230.\n\n India, ii. 108, 198, 409, 416, 426.\n\n India, Visit to, ii. 106, 409.\n\n Inniscarra, Right of way at, i. 33.\n\n _Investigator_, i. 64, 79, 87, 95, 97, 111, 119.\n\n Italy, The cause of liberty in, i. 151, 214; ii. 192, 198.\n\n Ireland, i. 29, 252; ii. 192.\n\n \"Ireland Society,\" The, i. 259.\n\n Irish Question, Essay on the, i. 257.\n\n Irish Land Bill, The, ii. 274.\n\n\n James, Sir H., ii. 215, 273, 391, 405.\n (_See also Counsel._)\n\n Jessel, Sir George, ii. 19, 29.\n\n Jingoism, ii. 82.\n\n John Street Institution, The, i. 21.\n\n Jones, B. B., i. 17, 62, 218.\n\n Jones, Ernest, i. 82, 232, 268, 378.\n\n Jones, Lloyd, i. 319.\n\n Judges before whom Mr Bradlaugh appeared--\n Baggallay, L. J., ii. 262, 292.\n Blackburn, Lord, i. 288, 290; ii. 322\n Bovill, L. C. J., i. 287.\n Bramwell, L. J., i. 139, 144; ii. 27, 262, 322.\n Brett, L. J., i. 286; ii. 27, 292, 305, 307, 355.\n Byles, J., i. 187.\n Channell, Baron, i. 187, 287.\n Cleasby, Baron, i. 147, 287.\n Cockburn, L.C.J., i. 287, 293; ii. 21, 23, 36, 179.\n Coleridge, L.C.J., ii. 215, 278, 292, 322, 327, 346.\n Cotton, L.J., ii. 27, 305, 307, 355.\n Denman, J., ii. 278, 292, 305.\n Erle, L.C.J., i. 187.\n Field, J., ii. 79, 320, 321.\n Fitzgerald, Lord, ii. 322.\n Grove, J., ii. 74, 278, 280, 306, 351.\n Hawkins, J., ii. 292, 305, 392.\n Holker, L.J., ii. 305.\n Huddleston, Baron, ii. 306, 351, 393.\n Keating, J., i. 187, 287.\n Kelly, L.C., Baron, i. 147, 287, 288.\n Lindley, J., ii. 74, 280, 355.\n Lush, J., ii. 22, 262.\n Manisty, J., ii. 306, 320, 392.\n Martin, Baron, i. 141.\n Mathew, J., ii. 260, 320, 346.\n Mellor, J., i. 288, 294, 295; ii. 21, 25.\n Prentice, S., Q.C. (arbitrator), i. 285.\n Selborne, Lord Chancellor, ii. 322.\n Smith, Montague, J., i. 284, 287.\n (_See also Counsel._)\n Stephen, J., ii. 318, 320, 346, 354.\n Watkin Williams, J., 278, 292, 306, 320.\n Watson, Lord, ii. 322.\n Willes, J., i. 141, 297.\n Williams, J., i. 187.\n Wood, Vice-Chancellor, i. 282.\n\n\n Kant, ii. 122.\n\n Kelly, Col., i. 115, 253, 256.\n\n Kenealy, Dr, i. 377.\n\n Kipling, Rudyard, i. 213; ii. 198.\n\n Knowlton Pamphlet, prosecution of, ii. 16, 20, 33, 175.\n\n\n Labouchere, H., i. 400; ii. 197, 209, 215, 234, 240, 261, 271,\n 275, 279, 284, 297, 303, 308, 319, 334, 341, 347, 359, 368, 374, 414.\n\n Labour Bureau, ii. 191, 369.\n\n Lancashire relief, i. 206, 216.\n\n Land laws, Reform of the, i. 129, 264, 375; ii. 179, 182, 368.\n\n Lansdowne, Marquis of, i. 149.\n\n Law, Harriet, i. 129, 249; ii. 65.\n\n _Law Times, The_, ii. 321.\n\n Lawson, Rev. T., i. 170.\n\n Lawsuits:--\n Att. Gen. (trial at bar), ii. 91, 351.\n Bolton, i. 77.\n Clarke, ii. 91, 260.\n De Rin, i. 284.\n Devonport, i. 182.\n Edgcumbe, ii. 73.\n English Joint Stock Bank, i. 282.\n Erskine, ii. 91, 96, 109, 307, 321.\n Gossett, ii. 91, 346.\n Gurney, ii. 91, 306, 320.\n Huddersfield, i. 243.\n Knowlton pamphlet, ii. 16, 20, 33.\n Laker, ii. 79.\n Mackay's libellous \"Life\" (various suits), ii. 397.\n Mirfield, i. 297.\n _National Reformer_, i. 137.\n Newdegate, ii. 91, 322.\n Peters, ii. 109, 393.\n Queen (Sir H. Tyler), ii. 91, 316, 327.\n _Razor_, i. 290.\n _St Stephen's Review_, ii. 392.\n Wigan, i. 168.\n Wyatt, i. 48.\n\n Layard, Sir A.H., i. 280, 369.\n\n \"Leaves,\" i. 30.\n\n Lectures at--\n Accrington, i. 77;\n Altrincham, i. 194;\n Ashton-under-Lyne, i. 260;\n Bedlington, i. 239;\n Blyth, i. 249;\n Boardman's Edge, i. 199;\n Bolton, i. 77;\n Bradford, i. 74;\n Chesterfield, i. 198;\n Congleton, ii. 55;\n Darwen, i. 313; ii. 53;\n Dewsbury, i. 200;\n Doncaster, i. 74, 76;\n Edinburgh, ii. 56;\n Glasgow, i. 78;\n Guernsey, i. 189;\n Halifax, i. 77;\n Huddersfield, i. 202, 241, 245, 260;\n Leeds, i. 200;\n Leigh, i. 196;\n Liverpool, i. 238;\n Manchester, i. 246;\n Newcastle, i. 73;\n Newton Abbot, i. 207;\n Northampton, i. 74;\n Norwich, i. 170, 308;\n Oxford, ii. 52;\n Plymouth, i. 175;\n Portsmouth, i. 250;\n Rochdale, i. 196;\n Scarborough, ii. 58;\n Seghill, i. 251;\n Shaw, i. 195;\n Sheffield, i. 72, 76;\n Sowerby Bridge, i. 306, 308;\n Stourbridge, i. 306;\n Sunderland, i. 73;\n Warrington, i. 196;\n Wigan, i. 162;\n Yarmouth, i. 171.\n\n Lees, Dr F.R., i. 268.\n\n Lennox, Lord H., ii. 225.\n\n Leno, J.B., i. 53.\n\n Lepard & Co., i. 2, 7, 36.\n\n Leverson, M., i. 99, 290.\n\n Lewis, Sir George, ii. 280.\n\n Linton, W.J., i. 109, 130.\n\n Literary Work, i. 23, 63; ii. 103.\n\n _Liverpool Daily Post_, i. 376.\n\n _Living Age_, ii. 55.\n\n Lovett, William, i. 8.\n\n Lunatic visitors, ii. 59.\n\n\n Macdonald, A., i. 376.\n\n Magee, Dr, i. 308; ii. 149, 159, 371.\n\n Magistrates--\n D'Eyncourt, Mr, ii. 289.\n Figgins, Alderman, ii. 20, 22.\n Flowers, Mr, ii. 280.\n Mayor, Lord, ii. 317.\n Vaughan, Mr, ii. 28, 72, 280.\n\n Marjoribanks, E. (Lord Tweedmouth), ii. 255, 303.\n\n Malthus, Rev. T., ii. 169.\n\n Malthusian advocacy, i. 125; ii. 28, 171, 247, 387, 414.\n\n Malthusian League, The, ii. 28.\n\n Manchester Martyrs, The, i. 256.\n\n Manchester poisoning case, A, i. 91.\n\n Manning, Cardinal, i. 341, 374, 389; ii. 93, 239, 252, 309.\n\n Marine adventure, A, i. 181.\n\n Market rights and tolls, ii. 377, 379, 414.\n\n Marriage, i. 48.\n\n Marriage, Views on, ii. 161.\n\n Marsden, Mark E., i. 7.\n\n Martin, Emma, ii. 64.\n\n Martineau, Dr, ii. 123.\n\n Marx, Dr K., i. 331.\n\n Master and servant, i. 123, 129, 264.\n (_See Employers' Liability Bill._)\n\n Materialism, ii. 127.\n\n May, Sir E., ii. 216, 230.\n\n Mayne, Sir R., i. 222.\n\n Mazzini, i. 69, 114, 150.\n\n M'Carthy, J., ii. 238.\n\n M'Sorley, Rev. H., i. 102.\n\n Medical students, Rowdyism of, ii. 83.\n\n Melvill, W.H., i. 137.\n\n Memorials, ii. 110.\n\n Merewether, C.G., i. 268, 394; ii. 209.\n\n Metaphysical Club, The, i. 341.\n\n Mill, James, ii. 161.\n\n Mill, J.S., i. 125, 139, 142, 149, 267, 271, 275, 278; ii. 120,\n 161, 175, 214.\n\n Miners, i. 376.\n\n Mitchell, G., \"One from the Plough,\" i. 378.\n\n Money, Attacked for earning, i. 97, 174, 197.\n\n \"Monkey\" story. (_See Fanatical Monkeys._)\n\n Moore, R., i. 139, 142.\n\n Morley, J., ii. 116, 177, 216, 227, 239, 276, 332, 347, 390, 420.\n\n Morley, S., i. 82, 374, 392; ii. 210, 218, 276, 301, 313, 359.\n\n Mott, Lucretia, ii. 6.\n\n M\u00fcller, Prof. Max, ii. 121.\n\n Mundella, A.J., ii. 191, 292, 308, 319.\n\n Mursell, Rev. A., i. 279; ii. 39, 43, 408.\n\n\n Naples Colour Company, i. 100, 302.\n\n Napol\u00e9on, Emperor Louis, i. 64, 79, 125, 312.\n\n Napol\u00e9on, Prince J\u00e9rome, i. 328.\n\n National expenditure, i. 264.\n\n National Liberal Club, ii. 93.\n\n National Secular Society, i. 78; ii. 13, 14, 86, 106, 246, 253, 258,\n 315, 410.\n\n _National Reformer_, i. 111, 119, 304; ii. 14, 18, 259, 278, 304, 308,\n 315, 332, 353, 363;\n and Government prosecutions, i. 137;\n and the Postmaster General, i. 150.\n\n _Newcastle Chronicle, Daily_, i. 73;\n _Weekly_, i. 273, 400; ii. 80.\n\n Newdegate, C. N., i. 14; ii. 13, 248, 271, 277, 292, 295, 321, 371, 376.\n\n Newman, Prof., i. 288, 341.\n\n _Nineteenth Century_, ii. 252, 256, 309.\n\n \"No Popery\" riots, i. 246.\n\n Norton, Lord, ii. 254.\n\n Northampton elections, i. 263, 392; ii. 92, 209, 263, 301, 349, 359, 370.\n\n Northcote, Sir S., i. 263; ii. 203, 217, 228, 242, 265, 282, 295, 315,\n 341, 345, 372.\n\n Norwood, C.H., ii. 249, 359.\n\n\n Oath of Allegiance, ii. 211;\n self administered, ii. 229.\n\n Oath question, Cost of contesting the, i. 288; ii. 399.\n\n Oaths Bill, ii. 281, 296, 303, 378, 388.\n (_See also Affirmation Bill and Evidence Amendment._)\n\n _Observer_, i. 315.\n\n Odger, George, i. 267, 280, 315, 319, 352, 373, 392, 394; ii. 81.\n\n _Odium Theologicum_ raised at Northampton, The, i. 267.\n\n \"Old woman\" story, The, ii. 77.\n\n \"Oppressed of all nations, To the,\" i. 205.\n\n Origin of Bradlaugh family, i. 1.\n\n Orsini, Felice, i. 64.\n\n \"Outlaw or citizen?\" i. 292.\n\n Owen, Robert, i. 78, 159, 389; ii. 168.\n\n\n Packer, Rev. J.G., i. 4, 8, 13, 19, 22, 23, 27, 107, 167.\n\n Paget, Dr, ii. 150.\n\n Paine, T., i. 158, 218, 321, 333, 378; ii. 111, 117, 140, 153, 165.\n\n _Pall Mall Gazette_, i. 235; ii. 80, 276, 303, 305.\n\n Pantheism, ii. 121.\n\n Papal Gendarmes, i. 155.\n\n Parker, Rev. Dr, ii. 71.\n\n Parks Regulation Bill, i. 372.\n\n Parliamentary candidature, First thought of, i. 263.\n\n Parliamentary struggle, The, ii. 203.\n\n Parnell, C.S., ii. 193, 239, 244, 247, 258, 358.\n\n Peace demonstrations, ii. 82.\n\n Pearson, Karl, i. 128.\n\n Perpetual Pensions, ii. 201, 374, 379, 406.\n\n Personality, Estimate of his, ii. 421.\n\n Peters and Lord Salisbury, ii. 385.\n\n Phillips, Wendell, i. 384; ii. 3.\n\n Phipps, P., i. 394; ii. 207.\n\n Poetry, i. 44.\n\n Poland, i. 109, 217.\n\n Policy, Early, i. 79, 127.\n\n Political Education, First steps in, i. 6.\n\n Positivists and the Franco-Prussian War, i. 314, 319.\n\n _Primitive Methodist, The_, i. 275;\n _Quarterly Review_, i. 249.\n\n Prince of Wales, The, i. 205, 306, 310; ii. 80, 84.\n\n _Printers' Journal, The_, i. 134.\n\n Proclamation of the Irish Republic, i. 253.\n\n Proportional Representation, ii. 201.\n\n Pugilists, Encounters with, i. 307, 308; ii. 54.\n\n _Punch_, i. 186.\n\n Pyat, Felix, i. 204.\n\n\n Quaker Discussion Society, A, i. 258.\n\n \"Questionable\" Book, A, i. 310.\n\n\n Rathmines Church, At, i. 31.\n\n _Reasoner, The_, i. 23, 60, 62.\n\n Reclus, Elie, i. 323;\n Elis\u00e9e, i. 114, 323.\n\n Recruits and the Captain, The, i. 29.\n\n Reform League, Irish, i. 261, 270.\n\n Reform League, National, i. 220.\n\n Reform League, Political, i. 81.\n\n Religious Orders in France, Laws against, i. 331.\n\n Republican Club, London, i. 309.\n\n Republican Club, Movement, i. 310, 352; ii. 166.\n\n _Reynolds Newspaper_, i. 150.\n\n Richard, H., ii. 248.\n\n Richards, H.C., ii. 349, 359.\n\n Riding, i. 39.\n\n Rogers, Thomas, i. 41, 48, 90, 93.\n\n Rogers, Thorold, ii. 230.\n\n Rollin, Ledru, i. 65, 321.\n\n Rossa, O'Donovan, i. 382.\n\n Royal Commission, Examined before the, i. 57.\n\n Ruskin, J., ii. 181.\n\n\n Sacrifices of the poor, ii. 96, 401.\n\n Salisbury, Lord, ii. 304, 369, 385, 393, 414.\n\n _Saturday Review, The_, i. 133, 142, 233, 236, 247, 272, 275, 291;\n ii. 302.\n\n Savage, J., i. 12, 19.\n\n Schoelcher, V., i. 321.\n\n Schooling, i. 4.\n\n _Scotsman, The_, i. 373.\n\n Secular Society, London, i. 78;\n National. (_See National Secular Society._)\n\n Secularism, i. 332; ii. 142.\n\n Security Laws, Repeal of the, i. 149.\n\n Select Committee (Parliamentary struggle), First, ii. 218;\n Second, ii. 227, 231.\n\n Seymour, Digby, ii. 178.\n (_See also Counsel._)\n\n Sheffield inundation, i. 218.\n\n _Sheffield Telegraph_, ii. 210.\n\n Smith, Joshua B., i. 206, 385; ii. 6.\n\n Smith, Goldwin, ii. 276.\n\n Smith, W.H., ii. 374, 391, 419, 425;\n\n & Sons, i. 130, 304.\n\n Smoking, ii. 10.\n\n Socialism, ii. 185.\n\n Somerville Club, The, ii. 93.\n\n Southwark Election, i. 280.\n\n Souvenir, A Northampton, i. 268, 277.\n\n Spain, i. 154, 351; ii. 427.\n\n Speaker, The (Sir H. Brand), ii. 216, 224, 260, 265, 282, 289, 299,\n 304, 337, 346, 359\n (Sir A. Peel); ii. 361\n\n _Spectator, The_, ii. 183.\n\n Spencer, H., ii. 127, 151.\n\n Spinoza, ii. 42, 116, 122.\n\n Spiritualism, i. 248, 343.\n\n _Sporting Times_ and Dr Shorthouse, The, i. 146, 286.\n\n Spurgeon, Rev. C.H., ii. 78, 210.\n\n _Star, Morning_, i. 150, 186, 225.\n\n _St. James's Gazette_, ii. 194, 337.\n\n St Luke's Hospital, N.Y., ii. 9.\n\n Suez Canal, The, ii. 53.\n\n Suffrage, The, Adult, i. 129;\n Manhood, i. 125, 129;\n Universal, i. 222;\n Woman, ii. 197.\n\n Sumner, C., i. 384; ii. 3, 6.\n\n _Sunday Times, The_, i. 233.\n\n Swinburne, A.C., i. 44, 311; ii. 309.\n\n\n _Tablet, The_, i. 186.\n\n Talandier, A., i. 114, 204.\n\n Taxation, i. 264.\n\n Taylor, P.A., i. 82, 109.\n\n _Telegraph, The Daily_, i. 143, 269.\n\n Temperance Advocacy, i. 29.\n\n Theism, ii. 121.\n\n Thiers, A., i. 322, 371.\n\n Thomson, James (\"B.V.\"), i. 40, 44, 49, 80, 91, 96, 109, 117, 133,\n 210; ii. 287.\n\n _Times, The_, i. 143, 150, 225, 234, 275, 373, 376, 400; ii. 36, 183,\n 264, 292, 318, 377, 385.\n\n Tissot, Ch., i. 318, 320.\n\n Torrens, M'Cullagh, ii. 337, 345, 359.\n\n Trades Unions, i. 269.\n\n Trafalgar Square: Meetings in, i. 223, 224, 231;\n Right of do., ii. 382, 384, 404.\n\n Trelawney, Sir J., i. 169.\n\n Trimby, Elizabeth, i. 35.\n\n Truck Act Amendment, ii. 191, 369, 374, 377, 379.\n\n Truelove, Edward, i. 64, 139, 142, 267; ii. 22, 28, 50, 85.\n\n Turberville Legacy, ii. 31.\n\n Tyler, Sir H., ii. 92, 238, 291, 308, 316, 324, 369.\n\n Tyndall, Professor, ii. 137.\n\n\n Unitarians, i. 131, 183, 380; ii. 319.\n\n United States, First visit to the, i. 380;\n Second visit, ii. 1.\n\n University College, ii. 93.\n\n Utilitarianism, i, 334.\n\n\n Vaccination, i. 275;\n Royal Commission on, ii. 414.\n\n Vickery, Dr Alice, ii. 24.\n\n Victoria Park, i. 9, 23.\n\n Voltaire, i. 202; ii. 116, 117, 151, 153.\n\n Voysey, Rev. C., i. 134.\n\n\n Walker, Gen. Sir Beauchamp, i. 35.\n\n Walpole, Spencer, ii. 219, 227, 236.\n\n Walter, J., ii. 2, 271.\n\n Ward, Mrs H., ii. 121, 151.\n\n Warner Place Hall and its habitues. i. 11.\n\n Warton, ii. 271.\n\n Washburne, E.K., i. 322.\n\n \"Watch\" Story, The, i. 274, 291; ii. 63.\n\n Watts, C., i. 138, 267, 311, 394, 400; ii. 16, 30, 35, 77, 87, 100.\n\n Watts, J., i. 63, 123, 128, 131, 166, 208, 212.\n\n Watson, J., i. 139; ii. 16.\n\n Webb-Peploe, Rev. H.W., ii. 78, 314.\n\n Wedderburn, Sir W., ii. 107, 410.\n\n Wigan, Difficulties at, i. 163.\n\n Wilberforce, Canon, ii. 70, 72.\n\n Wilkes, John, ii. 363, 365.\n\n Williamson, J., i. 117, 175.\n\n Wilson, Henry, i. 385; ii. 3, 9.\n\n Windeyer, Judge, ii. 179.\n\n Wolff, Sir H.D., ii. 217, 224, 338, 369, 375.\n\n Woodhull, Victoria, i. 383.\n\n Worms, Baron H. de, ii. 227, 230, 337.\n\n Wright, Sir T., ii. 209.\n\n\n Yates, Edmund, ii. 78.\n\n Youth, i. 17.\n\n\nA. BONNER, Printer, 1 & 2, Took's Court, London, E.C.","title":"Charles Bradlaugh: a Record of His Life and Work, Volume 2 (of 2): With an Account of his Parliamentary Struggle, Politics and Teachings. Seventh Edition","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":187082}