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

by Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner; J. M. Robertson

CHAPTER IV.

CLOSING YEARS.

1886.

Admitted at last to the seat for which he had fought so long and so hard, Bradlaugh set himself strenuously to work to make up for lost time. With nearly every quality that goes to make a good legislator, and with the most abundant political experience from his youth up, he had reached his fifty-third year before he sat in his place in Parliament by secure tenure. He had fought for that place, in all, eighteen years—chronically during twelve of them, against constitutional opposition; continuously through six of them, against gross injustice. And in these last six years, unhappily, his life went very much quicker than the years. Those who had lived by him through it all recognised that it had made him an old man. A certain aging effect seems to have come from the terrible attack of typhoid fever in New York in 1875; but still in 1880 his portraits show him in his prime, the face mature without being furrowed. In 1886 he looked far more than ten years older. The long battle had left its dire marks.

No private member in his prime, however, went to work in the Parliaments of 1886 with such energy. Before January was out he had obtained leave to bring in his Land Cultivation Bill,[190] which was backed by Mr Joseph Arch, Mr Thomas Burt, and Mr Labouchere; and he was extorting from the officials exact details as to the Perpetual Pensions, against which he had already for years agitated outside. In March he obtained from the new Liberal Ministry the appointment of a Select Committee on the subject. The debate on Mr Jesse Collings' amendment to the Address, calling for labourers' allotments—the amendment on which the Tory Ministry were thrown out—gave him his first opportunity of striking a blow at the party which for him was identified as much with tyranny in general as with tyranny towards himself. In February he gave the first notice of his intention to raise a question which he later pushed far—that of market rights and tolls; his first move being to call for a return giving minute particulars as to the state of the case in each municipal borough in England and Wales. And in the same month he was vigorously pressing his proposal for a Labour Bureau on the lines of that of Massachusetts—a proposal to which the Government promptly acceded. In March he took a step abundantly justifiable on public grounds, in moving the reduction of the monstrous vote of £12,000 to Sir H. D. Wolff for six months' unprofitable service abroad, and £3000 more for telegrams in connection with his mission. And he was further able to connect another enemy, Sir Henry Tyler, with systematic breaches of the Truck Act on the part of the Rhymney Iron Company, of which he was a director. Bradlaugh characterised the action of the Company as part of "an infamous system by which poor men are defrauded of part of their earnings." The result was a Government prosecution and the infliction of the fullest statutory penalty. In the way of direct service to labour, he was in the same month appointed a member of the Select Committee on the Employers' Liability Bill, on which he worked hard and carefully. In April came the epoch-marking Home Rule Bill, in the debate on which he made a powerful speech in support, loudly cheered by the Home Rulers who had so long helped to exclude him. He was emphatic against the exclusion of the Irish members, but urged that such points should be left for discussion in committee; and he did his best outside for the second reading by organising a great mass meeting in St James's Hall, presided over by Mr Labouchere, which was in its way a great success, a multitude coming sufficient to fill the hall twice over. His own Land Cultivation Bill came to its second reading; and his speech upon it was well received, though he saw fit not to try to press it to a division. Again in June, shortly before the decisive division, he delivered a second and longer speech in support of the Home Rule Bill, to listen to which to the end Mr Gladstone delayed his dinner; and on the dissolution he issued an "Appeal to the Electors: Mr Gladstone or Lord Salisbury: Which?" He had done more than justice by the people whose representatives had most zealously done him injustice. Readers of his journal had written to urge this on him as one reason for opposing Home Rule. He answered: "If I cannot try to do justice to my political and religious enemies, I am unfit to be a legislator." On the merits of the reform he tersely observed: "Home Rule is no four-leaved shamrock, but it is the beginning of justice."

In the new General Election, a new excitement was given to the contest in Northampton by the candidature of a Liberal Unionist, Mr Turner, a leading local manufacturer, in coalition with a Conservative. His supporters were extremely confident; but when the vote was counted the figures stood: Labouchere, 4570; Bradlaugh, 4353; Turner, 3850; Lees, 3456. On the declaration of the poll, Mr Turner, being shouted down by the crowd, addressed to the reporters the intimation that he "came forward for the first time to wrest the representation of the town from the greatest and most mischievous demagogue of the present century." But by this time the old obloquy had considerably quieted down. At the beginning of the year the Bishop of Peterborough, Dr Magee, had published a review article in which, while making hostile allusion to Bradlaugh—doubtless in recollection of old criticisms—as an Atheist "whose name certainly neither softens nor sweetens any controversy with which it is connected," he declared forcibly against the Parliamentary Oath altogether. As he truly observed,

"Whatever else our present Parliamentary Oath was designed to effect, it was never designed to keep Atheists out of Parliament. It was, and is, strictly a political test, and for a purpose happily quite remote from modern English politics. It is dynastic.... It does not even ... exclude Republicans; for, should the Parliament which imposes it decide at any time upon the ultimate abolition of monarchy, there would then be no 'successors according to law' to whom to be faithful.... As a political test, it is practically all but obsolete.... It does not even incidentally and indirectly act as a religious test, for no Atheist that we know of has ever refused to take it."

Oddly enough, while arguing for the abolition of the Parliamentary Oath, the Bishop proposed to "retain" the oath in courts of justice, being apparently unaware that there it was already to some extent optional. His opinion on the other point, however, counted for something; and though an appeal was made to the Liberal ministry, as it had been made to their predecessors, to prosecute Bradlaugh afresh for sitting and voting, the ministry refused, and the matter dropped once for all. There was also, of course, a cessation of the attacks on him by Conservative members. One, a Mr E. H. Llewellyn, at a Primrose League meeting early in the year, scurrilously spoke of him as having "seemed more as if he spat upon than kissed" the Testament in taking the oath; but for this congenial indulgence Mr Llewellyn had to make a public apology to Bradlaugh and to the House of Commons alike. Bradlaugh was an excessively inconvenient enemy to have at close quarters.

No one knew this better than Lord Randolph Churchill, who was now promoted to the leadership of the House of Commons over the head of Sir Michael Hicks Beach. "The most bitter enemy of the Tory party," wrote Bradlaugh, "could hardly have planned for it greater degradation than this leadership." One Tory journalist attributed to him, quite falsely, a proposal to hiss Churchill on his first rising to address the House. That was not his way of fighting. The "new leader," on his part, was extraordinarily conciliatory. When the new Parliament met in August, Churchill made not even a sign of wish to stand again between Bradlaugh and the oath; and when Bradlaugh made his important motion that the House do not assent to the usual Sessional Order prohibiting the interference of peers in elections, his lordship actually offered him a committee for the following year to frame another Order instead, admitting that the existing one was habitually ignored. Bradlaugh, however, pressed the matter to a division, when 126 members supported him, the Liberal leaders voting with the Tory majority against him. His object had been, as the vigilant Newdegate noted, to take the "first step to getting rid of the House of Lords." By allowing peers to interfere freely in elections, he proposed to strike at their hereditary privilege. But the time for such a measure was not yet.

It was understood to be on Churchill's urging, again, that two months afterwards the Tory Attorney-General entered a stet processus in the still outstanding appeal to the House of Lords, thus ending an action which the Gladstone Ministry had declined to end at Bradlaugh's request. But Bradlaugh in no way slackened his hostility on this score. On 19th September, in a discussion on the committal of Father Fahy for using threatening language towards magistrates, he reminded the House how its leader had once declared in the House that the Crown could procure the decisions it wanted from certain judges. Churchill, entering the House later, and learning what had been stated, assured Bradlaugh that he had been entirely mistaken, and gave the statement an unqualified denial. On Bradlaugh saying he thought he was right, Churchill made the curious answer: "I am sure he cannot find anywhere a record of my having said such a thing." Bradlaugh immediately went to consult Hansard, and not finding the passage he had expected, came back and frankly confessed the fact to the House. But on turning back he found that he had made an equivalent statement in his letter to Northcote on 1st March 1884, and that Northcote, while disputing in his reply certain of Bradlaugh's assertions, lest he should be taken to admit them, did not dispute this. A more leisurely search in the newspaper files cleared up part of the mystery. Churchill had repeatedly said in effect what Bradlaugh had attributed to him. In at least three speeches (30th April 1883; 21st February 1884; 12th June 1884) he had directly and indirectly insinuated that the Government could get the decisions they wanted in a collusive action against Bradlaugh by bringing it before judges who had been Liberal Attorneys-General. What had apparently happened was that the noble lord had struck at least one passage out of the Hansard report when, according to custom, the proofs of his speeches were sent to him as to other members for correction afterwards. Having done this, he felt safe in saying that Bradlaugh "could not find anywhere a record" of such a statement on his part. It was a mistaken confidence; and besides publishing the newspaper extracts at the time, Bradlaugh later found an opportunity to pay off his score with interest.

In the October of 1886, meantime, he addressed to the noble lord an open letter of scathing comment on his policy, his tactics, his speeches, and his character. It contained the sentence—referring to "old English gentlemen"—"These belong to a class to which I, as well as yourself, am a stranger—I from birth, and you from habit;" and in reference to his lordship's language (outside) towards Mr Gladstone, it had the passage: "He has often been generous to you—the great can be generous. You might, in taking a leader's place, at least have for the moment aped a leader's dignity. Noblesse oblige; but no such obligation weighs on you; où il n'y a rien le roi perd ses droits." Yet even after this Churchill sought to make his personal acquaintance and disarm his resentment making repeated attempts to be introduced, and on one occasion actually intervening with a broad compliment in a conversation between Bradlaugh and another member in the smoking-room. Bradlaugh bowed with the old-fashioned ceremony which he adhered to in such cases, but would not further accept the obtruded friendship. He had, however, passed beyond his former disposition to square accounts with the lordling who had called his supporters the "mob, scum, and dregs." I once heard him remark that it was pitiful to see Churchill, with his fidgety, lawyer's-clerk manner and tactics, trying to rise to the dignity of the leadership of the House, trying not to twist his moustache all the time, and to listen to opponents like a statesman. And some story he heard of an act of generosity on Churchill's part helped further to disarm his never very vindictive hostility.

Nothing, indeed, could well surpass the magnanimity with which he put away from him all rancour for the endless insults he had received. New Tory members, expecting perhaps to see in him a truculent demagogue, were disarmed on finding a genial gentleman and comrade, who bore no malice, was excellent company, and played chess as sociably as skilfully. As the years went on, there actually arose a sort of enthusiasm for him among the younger Tories, more than one of whom assured him that they deplored the treatment he had met with at the hands of their party. Of course they did not suffer from the embarrassment of the Liberals at the prospect that the irrepressible Atheist, with his extraordinary gift for legislation, would possibly have to be included in the next Liberal administration.

This feeling began to arise very rapidly among the Radicals outside. His prompt success in securing the Labour Bureau, and in checking the practice of truck in Scotland and England, brought him immediate votes of thanks from labour organizations, though the press at this stage practised against him such a boycott that at a time when he was constantly speaking on the estimates, correspondents wrote deploring his silence in the House. The old tactic of ostracism was not easily unlearned; and the official Liberal journals, as the Daily News, for years on end sought to suppress the fact that it was he who had brought about the Labour Bureau. So anxious were such journals to keep him out of sight, that when the important return moved for by him as to market rights and tolls was issued, and had to be discussed, the News dealt with it elaborately without mentioning that it was Bradlaugh who had obtained it.

No conspiracy, however, could suppress general knowledge of such a mass of work as he got through, outside the House as well as inside. When it was not sitting, he was on lecturing tours, and I find that in the last three months of 1886, Parliament being in recess, he addressed nearly sixty political meetings in all parts of the country, in addition to his Secularist lecturing, which he never abandoned, though he devoted a larger proportion of his lectures to politics than formerly. In the House, besides working specially at his questions of truck and land cultivation and perpetual pensions, and serving on the committee to consider the effects of the Employers' Liability Act, he was one of the most generally industrious of legislators. All this strain was not for nothing, and at the end of the year we find him suffering from erysipelas and neuritis.

1887.

In the session of 1887, however, he went to work with unslackened energy. In a long speech delivered to a full house in the debate on the address, he attacked the Government on their permission of illegal truck practices, on their Egyptian policy, on their Burmese policy, and on their Irish policy. On the resignation of Lord Randolph Churchill, the new Commons leader, Mr W. H. Smith, continued the Tory policy of concession to the former victim of the party; and he was granted a Select Committee on Perpetual Pensions, himself being a member. The point raised by him last year as to peers' interference in elections was made the subject of investigation for another committee (of seven), moved for by the Government, and on this too he sat. The majority of the committee, of course, soon reported in favour of leaving the Sessional Order unaltered, Bradlaugh and Mr Whitbread dissenting. Meanwhile, he was continuing his attacks on the practice of truck, and got down for discussion a Truck Act Amendment Bill in addition to the Affirmation Bill which he had introduced when Sir John (formerly Mr Sergeant) Simon's came to nothing. In March, too, he took an active part with Mr Howell and Mr Labouchere in the attack on certain members of the Corporation of London, including, and specially, his own old enemy, Alderman Sir R. N. Fowler, for corrupt expenditure. In Fowler's presence Bradlaugh on his part "undertook to specifically connect the hon. baronet with the issue of City funds under conditions which compelled the knowledge on his part that they were corruptly used for the purpose of influencing the decisions of that House. He would prove that up to the hilt." And again he renewed his energetic action against the huge expenditure on Sir H. D. Wolff's mission to Cairo, a mission which, he declared, amid Radical cheers, to be a gross Conservative "job;" and he had the support of 146 members to his motion to quash the vote.

The charges against the Corporation were formally heard before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, Bradlaugh acting as prosecutor. Fowler, without really denying the charges in the House, had described them as "anonymous tittle-tattle;" and on the insufficiency of this disclaimer being pointed out, one of the ministers, Lord G. Hamilton, formally denied the charges on Fowler's behalf. Before the Committee—consisting of Lord Hartington, Sir Joseph Bailey, Mr Dillwyn, Mr Houldsworth, and Mr Stevenson—the statements made as to expenditure were proved,[191] as Bradlaugh had promised, "up to the hilt." Fourteen witnesses were examined by him; the City accounts for five years and other documents were closely gone into; and when the alleged payments could no longer be disputed, the defence (conducted by Mr J. Compton Lawrence, Q.C.) took the line of arguing that the challenged payments were within the right of the Corporation. They had been made during a number of years by way of resisting the popular movement for the reform of the municipal government of London. In the words of Bradlaugh:—

"£19,550, 10s. 10d. was proved to have been expended in financing Associations such as the Metropolitan Ratepayers' Association, Metropolitan Local Self-Government Association, Anti-One-Municipality League, and South London Municipal Association, described by Mr Howell as 'bogus' Associations, which were mostly started by paid agents employed by City officials, under the direction of, and with the knowledge of, the Special Committee; and which Associations were used as a means of creating a fraudulent, unfair, and collusive opposition to the proposed legislation for London municipal reform. Improper use and malversation of funds were also shown in promoting and carrying on collusive and fictitious charter movements in Lambeth, Woolwich, Greenwich, and other places in the metropolis, with the view of representing these to Parliament and to the Privy Council as spontaneous and bona-fide movements, when they were really only intended as opposition to the Government Bill. (The fictitious nature of the charter movement is especially illustrated by Mr Stoneham's answer: 'When the London Government Bill was dropped, the charter movements were let fall through by the City to a great extent.') Improper use was further shown in paying men to attend in very large numbers for the purpose of opposing, sometimes with violence, the meetings in favour of the reform of the Corporation; in paying for sham deputations, sham meetings in favour of the City, and for unfair reports which were published in the press; in procuring signatures to petitions," etc.

The most extraordinary thing of all was the fact that in the case of one municipal reform meeting in 1883, at least 2000 forged tickets had been issued, and their distribution was not obscurely traced to Corporation officials. In regard to this matter, Fowler was shown to have helped to evade inquiry when it was challenged at the time; and in regard to the improper expenditure, he was shown to have been officially cognisant; and though the Committee let off their fellow-member as lightly as they could, he had a very bad quarter of an hour under Bradlaugh's examination. One by one, the champions of the religiosity of the legislature against the Atheist had been shown to do their cause small credit in their persons. About the same time Bradlaugh took a leading part in exposing in the House a gross and systematic fraud in the preparation of a certain petition from Haggerston, signatures having been forged and invented wholesale, to the extent even of putting names of infant children and racehorses; and this again was done for payment made by City officials. But on Bradlaugh's side there was no subordination of the public to his private interest; and when, in April 1887, Newdegate died in the odour of sanctity, he displayed no vindictiveness in his comments on the local obituary biography, which of course dealt freely with his own name. "I am credibly informed," he wrote, "that, apart from his bigotry against Catholics and heretics, Mr Newdegate was a kindly country gentleman, well liked by those who knew him. I regret to learn from his biographer that he treated the six years' harassing anxiety and cost to myself, which he did so much to continue, as a subject for merriment."

In respect of his legislative work he was as successful as he was industrious. By the end of April he had got his Truck Bill into the Committee stage; and he secured from the Government, without a blow, the Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls for which he moved in a speech of an hour's length.[192] The manner of this success was singular. In the words of one Tory journal: "It was no secret that the Government intended at first to oppose Mr Bradlaugh's motion, but it gave way on receiving an intimation from a large number of Conservative members sitting below the gangway that, if a division took place, they would be compelled to vote with the junior member for Northampton." So oddly had the tables been turned. Yet he had in no way slackened his opposition to Tory policy. On the Coercion Bill he had made three forcible speeches, and he was always pursuing ministers with awkward questions. His success with the enemy was due simply to the irresistible impression he created of honesty and industry and single-mindedness. And when in May he made a merciless exposure of Churchill on the point above alluded to, of his old imputations on the integrity of Liberal judges, it did not appear that Conservatives failed to enjoy the proceedings. It was in the course of the privilege debate on the Times' articles on "Parnellism and Crime." Bradlaugh first elicited from Churchill a repudiation of one of his former utterances, and then proceeded to quote in full the passage from Hansard, with the now verified reference. Another challenge elicited another denial, and yet another quotation, with the reference. They were all ready for this occasion. "I am not responsible for Hansard," cried the noble lord, in much agitation; whereupon Bradlaugh added new and sharper punishment, going on to quote yet more of the damnatory passages from Hansard. "The noble lord," he went on, "was of opinion in 1884 that the courts of law were not fair tribunals," whereupon Churchill again indicated dissent. "It was perhaps," admitted Bradlaugh, "not quite correct to say that the noble lord was of that opinion—he only said it." And still the castigation went on, the House punctuating it with laughter, till Churchill rose and protested that in regard to his recent speeches on the Times question he had been utterly misrepresented. Whereupon "Mr Bradlaugh said he was not dealing with the noble lord's views—he did not know what they were. (Opposition cheers and laughter.) He was only giving the noble lord's words." At the close of the speech, which as a whole was unanswerable, Churchill rose to offer a "personal explanation" on the Hansard business. Delivered with anxious prolixity, it was primarily to the effect that in 1884 his speeches were "greatly compressed" in Hansard, "as is invariably the case with ordinary members," and that the compressed reports could not be taken as true and faithful. This gave Bradlaugh his final opportunity.

"I accept the explanation of the noble lord [on the bearing of his words on the Times case], and I can corroborate his statements as to the compression of his speeches, because I used at one time to hear from him expressions which, having unguardedly repeated them without verification, I could not find in Hansard when I went to look for them. (Loud laughter and cheers.) The only mental difficulty I have is to imagine how any process of compression could put words on record which were never spoken. (Loud laughter and cheers.)"

It was as sufficient and artistic a piece of punishment as the House had witnessed for a long time; and Bradlaugh thenceforth considered his accounts with his former vilifier reasonably squared. Besides, in his anxiety to propitiate his powerful opponent, Churchill immediately afterwards declared in a letter to the Times that he did not see how Bradlaugh's Oaths Bill could with propriety be opposed by the Conservative party, whose duty it was, by supporting and passing it, to "secure that the Parliamentary oath in future will in all probability only be taken by those who believe in and revere its effective solemnity." This was written in anticipation of the action of a few Conservatives who, rebelling against their own leaders, obstructed the measure when it came on for discussion after other matters about five o'clock in the morning. Sir Edward Clarke, who had zealously resisted all previous bills of the kind, gave his support to this. Twice over, in a House of 300, Bradlaugh had large majorities—of 91 and 104—against adjournment, but still the motions went on. At length, having sat in the House for eleven hours, he gave way, an act for which some outsiders thought fit to blame him. Some journals, however, took the opportunity to speak of him, on the merits of the question, with a civility they had never before seen occasion to show him. Others made use of the occasion to point out how fully it proved the utter dishonesty of most of the previous Tory opposition to Bradlaugh. Some of the details in the debate gave dramatic corroboration to this view. Colonel Hughes had stood forward as one of the representatives of religion; on which Mr Healy—himself once in that galley—observed that "it was to be hoped Christianity would not be defended by a gentleman who had been scheduled for bribery."

While the Oaths Bill was thus delayed, Bradlaugh contrived by incessant vigilance to get the Truck Bill through Committee in July. He confessed that if he had known beforehand the enormous labour such a Bill involved—"the receiving deputations, the large explanatory correspondence, the huge mass of suggested amendments, the objections from various interests to each amendment, and the utter impossibility of conciliating or satisfying the various sections, some friendly, some hostile, some well-meaning but impracticable"—he might have shrunk from the task. For twenty-seven nights he had watched till the morning hours on the chance of his Bill being reached, and when all was done it seemed for a time as if the Upper House, in its customary manner, would wreck everything. Their lordships' first "amendments" were insufferable, and were sent back to them, the House of Commons backing up Bradlaugh with vigour. Finally their lordships agreed to limit their amendments to a few which, while of course doing harm, did not affect the main work of the Bill, and though some Irish and other members desired to reject it on the score of these, the measure was at length passed.

He had thus in one session carried an important Act, made considerable progress with another, and obtained a Select Committee on Perpetual Pensions and a Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls, apart from the Committee appointed by the Government on his former initiative to discuss the action of peers in elections. In the Committee on Pensions his report was unanimously adopted, barring the clauses which dealt with certain payments to the Duchy of Cornwall—in other words, to the Prince of Wales. He had further prosecuted the Corporation of London before yet another Select Committee of the House, effectively damaging one of his enemies in the process, as he had in the previous year secured the prosecution of another for breach of the law in his capacity of a company director. He had seen yet another enemy, Churchill, deposed from his place of pride, and had incidentally overthrown him in debate. All the while he was doing hard work on the Employers' Liability Committee besides speaking often on the Estimates and on the Coercion Bill, putting an ever-increasing number of solid questions to ministers on grievances submitted to him, many of which were redressed, and in particular pertinaciously pursuing the Indian Office as to certain underhand dealings in the matter of the ruby mines of Burmah. No other member's work could compare with it all; and the press decided that "Bradlaugh's Session" was the proper summary of the Parliamentary season. But, of course, such success evoked jealousy no less than tribute. In the carrying of the Truck Act he had not a little experience of the jealousy of labour leaders and others; and while the official Liberal press still partly boycotted him, the Socialist press made a point of belittling or perverting everything he did. Despite his continuous attacks on Tory policy, his Truck Bill was declared to owe its success to Government adoption. The Socialist Reynolds declared that he did little or nothing in Parliament; while the Tory England protested that he spoke far too often. As a matter of fact, he had made some sixty-five speeches up to Whitsuntide, thirteen of them against Coercion. But the circumstance which made his Parliamentary industry absolutely unique was that it was carried on alongside of a continuous course of Sunday lecturing, with special attendances at week-day demonstrations thrown in. When the Sunday lectures were in London the strain was comparatively light, as only two were given in the day at the Hall of Science; but in the provinces it is the Secularist practice to have three discourses on the Sunday when a London lecturer comes, and the physical strain of this, it need not be said, is heavy. Thus for Bradlaugh the two days of the week which other members of Parliament could give to rest and recreation were oftenest simply days of travelling and extra speaking. Now and then he could get a Saturday's pike-fishing on the Lea or on a Thames backwater; once or twice in the year he could even run down to Loch Long for two or three days of the very much more bracing fishing there. Even the holiday became a source of fresh work, for he took up with his usual energy the case of the pollution of Loch Long by Glasgow sewage; and it was due to his persistent pressure that the nuisance was at length stopped. He thus made a rich return for the measure of rest and strength gained from his days of fishing—a gain which was at times wonderful. But though his powers of recuperation were great, the rest-days were far too few; the balance was always heavily on the side of overwork; and so his intimates now saw him year after year showing ever heavier traces of the overwhelming strain of his life. Whether he got to bed early or in the late morning hours, he was always up and at work before eight, attacking his great pile of correspondence, which alone would have seemed to many men to supply a good day's work. Every day's post brought him on an average a round dozen of grievances to be submitted to Parliament, and in every case which he thought worth attention he made careful investigation, always declining to trouble Ministers without good grounds. Then there were the continual letters from poor men of all denominations asking for legal advice gratis—a kind of request he never refused. Yet with it all he found time to write for his journal; and his articles and speeches at this time are as pregnant and efficient as any he ever penned or spoke. Among other things he wrote a weighty little pamphlet: "The Channel Tunnel: Ought the Democracy to Oppose or Support it?" which was widely circulated as the strongest possible popular plea for the undertaking. When next the public is effectively challenged for a vote on that question, it will probably be found that there has been a great transformation of opinion; and not a little of the credit will be due to his pleading. Of the extent of his influence in this and other ways the average metropolitan reader never had any accurate idea, between the grossly unjust attacks of Socialists on the one hand, and the boycotting of the Liberal press on the other. Thus we find him delivering in Birmingham, in October 1887, a great fighting speech on the party situation, of which no report whatever appears in the London papers. It dealt with the question raised by Mr Chamberlain, "Is a National Party possible?" and the answer it gave was a determined and uncompromising attack on the Unionist coalition, this at a time when Liberals and some Radicals were insinuating that he was ingratiating himself in the Tory counsels. This was a type of dozens of provincial addresses delivered by him every year, some of them at immense open-air demonstrations of miners, who always invited him to their great gatherings. Of all this activity the London press revealed hardly a trace, any more than of his hundreds of Sunday lectures every year, of which one or two out of every three were devoted to politics. It is safe to say that no other English politician of his time spoke publicly to such numbers of his fellow-countrymen in the course of each year.

A striking illustration of the new animus against him among "advanced" propagandists came up on the occasion of the deplorable Trafalgar Square episode of 13th November 1887. The Socialist press and some Radical journals sedulously circulated the intimation that "somehow or other Mr Bradlaugh was very conspicuous by his absence," while pointing to his old proceedings in similar crises. He was actually lecturing at the time at West Hartlepool, in fulfilment of an engagement made months before; and next day he was at Hull. On his return he contributed to the Pall Mall Gazette a careful statement of the law on the point of the use of Trafalgar Square, criticising and condemning the action of the authorities, and he followed this up with further protests, while advising the Radical M.P.'s concerned to fight out the case at law, and begging those who trusted him to await such legal settlement. Yet several times since his death it has been stated in the press that he exhumed a forgotten law which entitled the Home Secretary to prevent meetings in the Square. The laws he cited were all to the contrary effect, and were well enough known to those officially concerned; the point having been raised, as above mentioned, over one of his own Trafalgar Square demonstrations a few years before. And when Mr Cunninghame Graham and Mr Burns were prosecuted, he gave evidence on their behalf, making a hasty and difficult journey across the country from Leek to London on a telegraphic summons to arrive in time when they were tried at the Old Bailey.

A paragraph which he published in his journal in this connection will serve to mark the degree of political severance which, with no diminution of mutual regard, had arisen between him and his long-tried colleague and partner, Mrs Besant. It ran:—

"As I have on most serious matters of principle recently differed very widely from my brave and loyal co-worker, and as that difference has been regrettably emphasized by her resignation of her editorial functions on this journal, it is the more necessary that I should say how thoroughly I approve, and how grateful I am to her for, her conduct in not only obtaining bail and providing legal assistance for the helpless unfortunates in the hands of the police, but also for her daily personal attendance and wise conduct at the police-stations and police-courts, where she has done so much to abate harsh treatment on the one hand and rash folly on the other. While I should not have marked this out as fitting woman's work, especially in the recent very inclement weather, I desire to record my view that it has been bravely done, well done, and most usefully done; and I wish to mark this the more emphatically as my views and those of Mrs Besant seem more wide apart than I could have deemed possible on many of the points of principle underlying what is every day growing into a more serious struggle."

The severance spoken of had arisen over Mrs Besant's adoption of Socialist principles, a change of attitude on her part which began about 1885, and soon went the length of a somewhat extreme propaganda, afterwards modified in common with the general tone of the Fabian Society, of which she had speedily become the most active member. The joint editorship had now become a practical difficulty as well as a source of complaint among readers; and in October 1887 it was amicably ended, Mrs Besant continuing to act as sub-editor and contributor. She had fought beside Bradlaugh and for him loyally and well, and though the suddenness and vehemence of her new departure had startled and troubled him, his friendship, as the above paragraph shows, had in no way weakened. He was not the man to break a tie for even a serious difference in opinion; though he was also the last man to do what some Socialists contemptibly accused him of doing—arrange that his colleague should take one line and he another in order to promote the circulation of his journal. He did for Socialists what he did for everybody who got into legal trouble on political grounds, and he gave Mrs Besant ample assistance in fighting the case of those who were arrested by the police for open-air propaganda. The most serious change of position on Mrs Besant's part, her conversion to Madame Blavatsky's "Theosophy," was soon to come. Even when that came, in the following year, he neither withdrew his friendship nor asked her to cease contributing to the Reformer; but, coming after political differences, the new and deep division of opinion undoubtedly pained and depressed him. He was to find, as so many have found, that when success comes something is sure to go which leaves success a different thing from what was dreamt of.

1888.

The first important task of Bradlaugh on the re-assembling of Parliament was to fight this cause of the right of public meeting in Trafalgar Square. It had been badly enough managed by others. In January he wrote:—

"The conviction of Messrs Cunninghame Graham and Burns for unlawful assembly is, I fear, in great part due to the foolishly boastful evidence of Mr Hyndman and Mr Tims. If the first had been a Crown witness, his evidence on cross-examination could not have been more mischievous to the accused, on the count on which a verdict was found against them; and the incautious replies of Mr Tims to the counsel for the Crown were almost as fatal."

The Government on their part had carried adroitness to the point of cowardice, refusing to arrest Mrs Besant when she sought to have a legal trial on the merits of the right of meeting. The effect of it all was that not only the Liberal leaders, but such journals as the Daily Chronicle and the Daily News, took the line of deprecating any further public meetings in the Square. Bradlaugh, standing firmly to the claim of right, commented gravely on the promoters of the meeting for "bringing together a huge mass of people whom nobody was prepared to lead or to control;" and he expressed his regret that Mr Saunders, a prosecution against whom was laid and then departed from, should have let the legal question drop. Before the assembling of the House certain metropolitan members, learning that Bradlaugh was determined to raise the question by an amendment on the Address, took the unworthy line of protesting that, as a metropolitan matter, it was no business of his. He offered to leave it to Sir Charles Russell, as the most capable of dealing with it. Sir Charles promptly replied that no one could handle it better than Bradlaugh, but undertook the moving of the leading amendment. In addition to such difficulties Bradlaugh had the trouble of opposing the action of Mrs Besant on the newly-founded Law and Liberty League, promoted by herself and Mr Stead, with its "Ironside Circles," and other risky arrangements for meeting force with force.

When the House met, Bradlaugh took occasion, before the debates began, to make a personal statement on a matter that had of late frequently come before the public. In February of 1886 he had offered in the House to show that large sums of money, excessive for such a purpose, had been supplied by leading Conservatives of both Houses of Parliament for the promotion of a Trafalgar Square demonstration for "Fair Trade," organised by a Tory agitator named Peters, which had culminated in a riot. Peters had at the time blusterously denied this, but had declined Bradlaugh's challenge to a formal investigation before an arbitrator as at nisi prius. In the recent prosecution of Messrs Burns and Cunninghame Graham at Bow Street, Bradlaugh had been pressed by the Crown Counsel on this point, had reaffirmed his statement, and had added that one of the cheques, which he had seen and was prepared to trace, was from Lord Salisbury. This statement was first denied by Lord Salisbury in a letter to the Times (2nd December), and was afterwards characterised as wilful perjury in a published letter from his secretary to one Kelly, a colleague of Peters. On the first denial Bradlaugh promptly offered to have the matter investigated before a Committee of the House of Commons. This offer Lord Salisbury neither accepted nor declined. Bradlaugh now asked the Government to agree to a Select Committee of Investigation, pointing out that he lay under an imputation of perjury from the Prime Minister on a statement which he had made in Parliament. An action for libel, however, had been already begun against Bradlaugh by Peters; and the Ministry, after waiting a few days, answered that the matter was not a proper one for a Select Committee, especially as a lawsuit on it was pending. Bradlaugh, however, pointed out that the action in question could not raise the real issue, and offered to raise it if Lord Salisbury would acknowledge the publication of the letter to Kelly, signed by his secretary. This acknowledgment he sought to obtain by letter, but after delay the noble lord took the singular course of declining to accept legal responsibility for the publication of the letter, as he had not consented to it. When, however, Bradlaugh read this letter of disclaimer in the House, Lord Salisbury sent him a secretarial letter (22nd February) referring to the original letter to the Times over his lordship's own signature (in which the truth of Bradlaugh's statement had been denied without charging perjury), and admitting his lordship's legal responsibility for that. That letter, however, was not actionable, and Bradlaugh had replied to it at the time, as he now pointed out. Lord Salisbury then wrote (25th February), repeating that he could accept no responsibility for his letter to Kelly, concerning whom he made the curious statement that he, too, was affected by Bradlaugh's false and injurious charges, though Bradlaugh had never mentioned Kelly's name in the matter. His lordship, however, professed his readiness to facilitate a legal investigation of Bradlaugh's statements, which his lordship inaccurately professed to reproduce. Bradlaugh, protesting against his lordship's tolerating the publication of the charge of perjury, and never once apologising for it, answered that he preferred to have the charge stated in the words in which he made it, and in none other. No reply was offered, and the matter was left to be settled by Peters' action for libel.

The debate on the Trafalgar Square question did not come on for a week or two, and in the meantime one notable episode occurred over a remark made by Bradlaugh in the discussion on an amendment to the Address concerning the Scotch Crofters. The report runs:—

"Mr Bradlaugh said he understood the Chief Secretary to say that the cause of the evil they had to deal with in the Highlands was over-population, and that the sole remedy for this difficulty was emigration. He also understood the right hon. gentleman to denounce the reckless increase of population in that district during the last forty or fifty years. He felt some astonishment that the right hon. gentleman should put forward such an argument, when he remembered that the right hon. gentleman, and those who sat around him, tried before all England to make him appear as one of the most immoral men alive, because he had tried to teach the people for the last quarter of a century these very evils of over-population, and these very difficulties of their condition connected with reckless increase. It was astounding to hear from the other side such a doctrine put forward to be supported, because, when urged by him in olden times, it had made him the mark for some of the most wicked language that one man could use against another.

"Mr A. J. Balfour: I never in my life used any such language against the hon. gentleman; never, never. (Cheers.)

"Mr Bradlaugh said that, at any rate, the important party of which the right hon. gentleman was then a prominent member, flooded the country with literature containing such attacks, without then one word of repudiation from the right hon. gentleman. But he would not discuss the personal position of the matter further. The sole remedy for the existing distress, according to hon. members opposite, was emigration. But how were they going to apply it? Was the State to undertake the emigration? Were the people to be sent away by force, and to what lands were they to go? In every case they would have to struggle for existence against hostile life-conditions, extremes of heat and cold, hard for starving men to hear. Everywhere they would be confronted with the labour struggle, for we were no longer the sole, or even the principal, colonising people; masses of Germans and other thrifty colonising races were now found in every distant land. Of course, emigration resulted in a few successes, and of these much was heard; but nothing was said about the many miserable failures. Medical men in America and Canada could tell many heart-rending stories of madness supervening on the home-sickness that embittered the emigrant's life. There was no country where pauper emigration would be welcomed. State emigration, if at all, must include on a large scale other distressed subjects. This was impracticable. Emigration of charity was mockery save to the veriest few. No; emigration ought not to be thought of as a remedy until other means had been tried, until the unjust conditions which hampered the poor, and which had been artificially created by the class to which the hon. gentlemen opposite belonged, had been swept away. ('Hear. hear.')"

Thus again did Bradlaugh prove that his Neo-Malthusianism was anything but an argument against the political improvement of the lot of the people. The emphatic declaration of Mr Balfour may be held to class him with Mr John Morley, Mr Leonard Courtney, and the late Lord Derby, as a believer in the importance of restriction of population; but it is not on record that he, any more than they, has sought to communicate his belief to the public or his party; and it is certain that, as Bradlaugh remarked, he never said a word in deprecation of the attacks of his fellow-Tories on Bradlaugh as a Neo-Malthusian at a time when such attacks were a main means of keeping him out of his seat.

When at length the Trafalgar Square question was reached (1st March), being raised in a masterly speech by Sir Charles Russell, Bradlaugh followed with one perhaps not less effective, which, lasting till midnight, had to be continued on the following evening. It included a sharp indictment of the conduct of the police, and a broad suggestion that the authorities seemed to have made use of agents provocateurs; and it made short work of the official pretence that the Square was Crown property, as having been constituted out of the King's Mews—a statement on a par with Mr Burdett Coutts' citation of the old Act against certain meetings near Parliament without the all-essential clause specifying the kind of meetings forbidden. The King's Mews, Bradlaugh pointed out, had formed only a very small part of the ground, while the rest had been bought and paid for with public money. He challenged an investigation of the conduct of the police, and wound up with an earnest appeal to "those who were elected as Liberals" to resist the tyrannous policy of the Government. The Home Secretary was stung into promising an investigation of the charges against the police; but it is matter of history that the Liberal leaders homologated the action of the Tory Ministry.

A few weeks afterwards (21st March) came the decisive struggle on Bradlaugh's Affirmation Bill (otherwise "Oaths Bill"), which he had failed to force through in the previous session. He moved the second reading in a tersely argued and conciliatory speech; and though some Conservatives, as Mr Stanley Leighton and Mr De Lisle (Catholic), made foolish speeches against it, the great majority of the House was with him. One member, Mr Gedge, made a success of absurdity by arguing that the promoters of the Bill had defined an Atheist as one "on whom conscience had no binding effect," and this nonsensical phrase he repeated again and again without recognising its nature, entirely failing at the same time to see the point that the "definition" he meant to quote was that given by a court of law, and not by the promoters of the Bill at all. At length, the second reading was carried over the amendment (which proposed a Royal Commission) by 247 votes to 137. On the substantive motion being put that the Bill be read a second time, obstruction was attempted, which Bradlaugh met by moving the closure. On this he had 334 votes to 50; and the second reading was then formally carried by 250 votes to 100, a majority which surpassed his most sanguine expectations.

To secure the passage of the measure, however, he had to meet the old Christian plea that the permission to affirm—which his Bill gave alike to witnesses, jurors, officials, and members of Parliament, in Scotland and Ireland as well as England—should not be given to believing Christians who, having no conscientious objections to swearing, might seek to evade it because they felt freer to lie on affirmation than on oath. This was urged on the Conservative side as a concession essential to acceptance of the Bill, and Bradlaugh consented to make the provision in Committee. No Liberal opposed; but trouble was to arise later in the matter.

Months after Bradlaugh's undertaking had been given, and after he had put down the promised amendment, some leading Liberal members, who had not before made any protest, raised a strong objection to the concession made, inasmuch as it placed upon every one desiring to affirm the necessity of avowing whether he objected to the oath on religious grounds, or as having no religious opinion. There ought, these members argued, to be no questioning whatever as to reasons. This was a perfectly reasonable objection to make on principle; but it ignored the fact that only by making concessions to the Christian side, to meet the case of superstitious and dishonest Christians, could any relieving measure be carried at all; and it was brought forward surprisingly late in the day. It is not clear, further, that the objectors realised what the amendment actually did, for they protested that while it was all right for Freethinkers, it put a stigma on those who were not prepared to say they had no religious beliefs. The plain answer to this was that such persons, if they objected to an oath, had only to say it was inconsistent with their religious belief. Although the objectors included such able heads as Mr E. Robertson and Dr W. A. Hunter, it must be said that their opposition was not justified by their arguments. It was less difficult to follow the complaint of Mr J. A. Picton, who said he would have no relief from the Bill, inasmuch as he was not without religious belief, but "regarded oath-taking as a humiliating and barbarous custom." In that case, however, Mr Picton might with perfect propriety say that oath-taking was inconsistent with his religious belief. Further, though it is quite fair for Agnostics, Theists, and others to protest that they ought not to be asked for any account of their opinions in a court of justice, it was less than fair for them to propose to leave without any relief whatever the Freethinking jurors who were liable to much worse odium and annoyance than is involved in saying that the oath is inconsistent with one's religious belief; the witnesses who in Scotland could not affirm on any condition whatever, and in England could only affirm on answering a grossly invidious question; and the members of Parliament who had to take the oath while very much disliking it. With the single exception of Dr Hunter, none of the Liberal objectors to the added clause had made any fight against oaths; the whole brunt of the battle had been left to the Freethinkers. Yet some of those objectors, who had not specially moved a finger for any reform whatever, were now prepared to throw over the measure. Mr John Morley, who had voted for the second reading after hearing Bradlaugh's undertaking to insert the qualifying clause, now made some heated remarks against it, which Bradlaugh dryly characterised as "not very philosophic." They certainly came ill from the editor who had deprecated Bradlaugh's willingness to take any oath. By dint of more forcible remonstrances with other members in the lobby, Bradlaugh secured a majority of 87 votes for the third reading, the figures being 147 to 60. Many of the Liberal objectors, recognising that to vote with the Noes, who were mostly bigots, would be to put themselves in a false position, abstained from voting; and of the 147 in the majority, 92 were Liberals.

The trouble, however, was not yet over. The "Liberal and Radical Union" of Northampton passed by a majority a resolution complaining that the value of the Bill was taken away by the amendment; and some Liberal journals accused Bradlaugh of giving away the principle of religious equality by agreeing to the imposition of "a new test." He met these criticisms in a very temperate letter "To Liberal Editors in general, and the Editor of the South Wales Daily News in particular," the latter journal having been one of those which had been most just to him throughout his struggle. The editor replied, acknowledging the courtesy of the criticism, and making his own less extravagant, but making the extraordinary blunder of alleging that even then any member of Parliament could affirm on the ground that oath-taking was contrary to his religious belief—this while avowing that he only dealt with the measure as regarded the Parliamentary oath. His main argument was that there were many people who detested the oath, but could not say it was condemned by their religious belief; and on the score of his measure not relieving such persons, Bradlaugh was pronounced "ungenerous." The truth was that he had done his best to make affirmation absolutely unconditional, but could only carry his Bill at all by making it conditional on the giving of a reason. He had done all he could for all classes of objectors, and he rightly thought it better to relieve those who suffered most than to secure no relief at all. The further relief claimed by believers should be demanded by them from their fellow-believers. The rational course, clearly, is to abolish oaths altogether, and this Bradlaugh would gladly have done; but it is neither rational nor candid to talk as if this or even a somewhat less measure of reform could possibly be secured by him within two years of his admission to Parliament after a desperate struggle with a majority who stood for the grossest irrationality and injustice. Those who condemned him ought in consistency and decency to have begun an agitation either for making affirmation unconditional—a course which would still leave some people open to annoyance—or for the entire abolition of oaths. Yet, after six years have elapsed, there is still no word of any such movement. It is the old story of the half-way people leaving all the stress of the fighting to the more advanced. These may be permitted to say that it is a little too much to put on avowed Freethinkers, fighting for bare rights under all sorts of calumny and ostracism, the burden of securing an effortless immunity for those who all along stood at best in the rear-guard, if they did anything in the matter at all.

Close on the heels of the second reading of the Affirmation Bill (March) came the debate on the report of the Perpetual Pensions Committee, on which he moved a resolution that steps should be taken by the Government to give effect to the Committee's recommendations. He had a Tory seconder, Mr Louis Jennings; and the debate included a friendly speech, with an acceptable amendment, from Mr W. H. Smith, and a very interesting speech from Gladstone; whereafter the amendment (amended) was incorporated, and the Government stood pledged to "determine" all hereditary pensions with due regard to justice and economy, and to revise the pension system in general. In May, Bradlaugh again (as told in the chapter above, on his "Political Doctrine and Work") pressed his resolution as to the expediency of Compulsory Cultivation of Waste Lands, only to see the House counted out after his seconder (Mr Munro Ferguson) and the mover of an amendment had spoken. He was not to succeed alike in everything. Later in May he had an unpleasant experience in respect of the Government's breach of faith over his motion of a new Rule, to the effect that on a new member presenting himself in due form, the Speaker should forthwith call him to the table. Mr Smith agreed to accept the motion as an "amendment to going into Supply," on its being amended by the clause "unless the House otherwise resolve," which Bradlaugh was advised was a harmless provision; but when, on the pressure of Sir Henry James (who in the Courts had argued for the House's right to "resolve" to an extent to which Bradlaugh's clause would not allow) and others, he withdrew the clause, the Government threw over the whole motion, though nobody objected to the withdrawal, and the Unionists who had urged the withdrawal of the clause left the House without voting on the motion. It was accordingly rejected by 180 votes to 152.

His main undertaking for 1888, however, succeeded finally, to a marvel. In the House of Lords, the Affirmation Bill might have been held to run considerable risk; but singularly enough, though amendments were talked of, none were pushed, and the Bill passed its third reading (December 1888) absolutely unchanged. In the absence of Lord Herschell, it was taken charge of by Earl Spencer and Lord Coleridge; but what was no less important, it was endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury as a desirable measure. As usual, the Church took credit for lending itself to a reform which it had violently resisted. Outsiders were left asking which policy had been the more insincere—the old outcry against all Affirmation Bills or the new pretence of welcoming one. The Lord Chancellor, who, as Sir Hardinge Giffard, had so often opposed Bradlaugh and all his works, was more true to his antecedents, and confessed his jealousy and dislike of the measure, while grudgingly abstaining from trying to defeat it. To Lord Esher, who as a judge had always administered the law as to oaths dead against him, but who now helped the Affirmation Bill through the Upper House, Bradlaugh tendered grave and chivalrous thanks in his journal, adding that none were necessary in the case of the Lord Chancellor.

While the Affirmation Bill was on its way the libel action by Peters was heard and decided. Before it came on, the editor of the St Stephen's Review (Mr Allison), who had made a libellous attack on Bradlaugh in respect of the case, was on Bradlaugh's suit tried before Justices Manisty and Hawkins, and submitting himself apologetically to the Court (March 22nd), was let off with a fine of £20 and full costs for his contempt of Court, Mr Justice Hawkins observing that he "very much doubted whether such a fine was an adequate punishment for so gross a contempt. He did not think he had ever seen a worse attempt to affect the administration of justice." The judge added some no less forcible remarks on Mr Allison's explanation that he had made his attack "to advance the interests of the Conservative cause." But that principle was destined to have a still more remarkable illustration within the law courts themselves, when the libel suit was tried (April 18th) before Mr Baron Huddleston and a special jury. If the action of Peters for libel, in inception and upshot, be not the most extraordinary libel case of modern times, it is only because the judge who tried it gave a no less extraordinary turn to another libel case which came before him eighteen months later. Peters' contention was, in brief, that Bradlaugh had libelled him by stating that he got money from leading Conservatives, including Lord Salisbury, for the promotion of a "Fair Trade" demonstration in Trafalgar Square. His counsel, Mr Lockwood, argued that "if Mr Peters was doing what Mr Bradlaugh accused him of, then Mr Peters was doing a very corrupt thing"—a plea only intelligible as resting on the fact that Peters was the secretary of the "Workmen's National Association for the Abolition of Foreign Sugar Bounties," and as implying that it would be corruption on the part of such a Society to take money from a lord. The evidence led was to the effect that Lord Salisbury had given money, not to Peters, but to Kelly, who was the fidus Achates of Peters, but was also secretary to the "Riverside Labourers' Association." Both had for years been known to Lord Salisbury in connection with the sugar protection movement. Kelly had gone down to Hatfield and seen Mr Gunton, the secretary, and in consequence of that interview had sent a letter to Lord Salisbury explaining that money was wanted to give a piece of beef each to 120 of "our best men at Christmas." The said best men were "all fathers of families," and "had never been in receipt of parochial relief." Lord Salisbury, who gave evidence, remembered getting this letter and sending Kelly a cheque for £25; but had no recollection of any talk with Mr Gunton as to Kelly's previous visit to Hatfield, in consequence of which the letter was sent. He thought it unlikely that Kelly would have seen Mr Gunton in that way, but confessed his error when shown that Kelly's letter to him actually mentioned the interview. The landlord of a temperance hotel, which was the headquarters of Peters' and Kelly's activities, testified to having spent this money on provisions, which he distributed to "needy working men," all save a small balance, which was otherwise distributed. He kept no books. Peters was on the committee of distribution.

Now, granting that the money had been honestly spent in the way alleged, there was clearly no libel on Peters in saying that the money had been sent him to promote the Trafalgar Square demonstration. There would be no wrongdoing in getting money from any one for such a purpose. He declared in his evidence that Lord Salisbury had never given him anything—"nothing, only his friendship." The buffoonery of the plaintiff's evidence, which kept the audience in chronic laughter, was not more remarkable than the bluster of his statements as to his accounts. Never was a demonstration apparently got up with a more enthusiastic zeal by working-men promoters, or with a more simple-minded financial reliance on Providence. Only £4 had been spent on the demonstration—"to obtain bands and banners." What the placards had cost witness could not say; he could not even say whether they had been paid for. The evidence of his colleague, Kelly, was hardly less edifying. He had been one of those who had received Corporation money to get up meetings against municipal reform.

Bradlaugh's defence was that even on the evidence there was no libel. When Baron Huddleston interrupted him to suggest that he should apologise, he answered that he was ready to do so as regarded Lord Salisbury, but he could not deal with the rest of the case on those lines. On the evidence led he was bound to admit that he had been inaccurate as regarded Lord Salisbury's cheque; but his statement had been wider than that, and neither in general nor in particular had it been of the nature of a libel. Further, he had spoken in good faith and on distinct evidence. Peters had on pressure admitted receiving subscriptions from persons outside his Association; and Peters had refused the investigation originally invited in 1886, when the other facts could have been better traced. And Bradlaugh had led evidence as to the receipt by Peters of such cheques, two of which had been shown to him.

In pleading his case, Bradlaugh perhaps made the mistake of being too concise in putting to the jury the point that on any view of the facts no libel had been committed. Baron Huddleston was more circumspect. He turned affably to the jury, and in the most intimate manner laid before them his view that Bradlaugh had directly or indirectly accused Peters of getting up "bogus" meetings—a statement which Bradlaugh had distinctly repudiated, and which was entirely wide of the facts and the evidence. The whole drift of Bradlaugh's charge, as he stated, was "that the Conservative party were playing with edged tools in assisting any such meetings." As the summing-up went on, indeed, it became clear that Baron Huddleston felt this also, and that in his view there had been a "libellous" statement against Lord Salisbury, who, however, was not the suitor in the action. On the point of law he made no intelligible attempt to rebut Bradlaugh's plea that the statement sued on was in no sense a libel; but he thoughtfully suggested to the jury, with regard to the evidence of a witness called by Bradlaugh, that they could consider what value should be put on the evidence of a man who objected to take the oath. He further took much pains to impress on the jury that "a man could never be allowed to say things against a man, and then, when he found that they were false, to say he was very sorry, but he honestly believed them true. Such a thing would never do." On this instruction the jury found a verdict for Peters, with £300 damages. And yet in the following year (November 1889), when Mrs Besant sued the Rev. Mr Hoskyns for libelling her, during her School Board candidature, in a circular which had the statement: "A Freethinker thus describes the practical outcome of her teaching: 'Chastity is a crime; unbridled sensuality is a virtue,'" the same judge hardily instructed the jury that "the question was not whether Mrs Besant's books were obscene," but as to "the defendant's honesty of belief at the time he had published the handbills." He himself became conscious as he went on of the iniquity of this instruction, and proceeded to cite and vilify passages from Mrs Besant's works, thus doing everything in his power to prejudice the jury on the real issue. But in the end, while professing to put to them the separate issues of publication, libel, and truth in fact, he added the issue: "If untrue, then did the defendant when he published it honestly and reasonably believe it to be true, and that it was his duty to publish it, and did he do so without malice?" And yet again he urged that even if the libel were found untrue, "they would have to say whether the defendant had been guilty of mala fides in the sense he had explained." His own obtruded opinion was that a priest might justifiably issue such a circular to his parishioners. Thus he laid down for the trial of Mrs Besant's action against a priest the exactly opposite principle to that which he laid down in Peters' action against Bradlaugh. The priest was now adjudged free to do what the judge had said "would never do." The priest confessed in the witness-box that he had not read any of Mrs Besant's books when he issued his circular. He had availed himself of the libel of a pseudonymous scoundrel, making no attempt to ascertain its truth Bradlaugh in his statement as to the Fair Trade demonstration had spoken on the actual evidence of cheques which he saw, and on his knowledge of the habitual co-operation of Peters and Kelly. But the Conservative judge contrived to find the priest right and Bradlaugh wrong. And it is on the strength of a verdict thus procured that Bradlaugh has since been spoken of as "a convicted libeller."

The view taken of the case by Bradlaugh's fellow-members of Parliament was shown by their instantly getting up a subscription to pay the damages and costs in which he had been mulcted; and the view taken by the legal profession may be gathered from the following verses, which appeared in the Star:—

"HALVES.

(An Historical Poem.)

DECEMBER, 1885.

Take this cheque, my gentle Kelly,
Fill our starving London's belly:
Hie thee down with dearest Peters
To the lowly primrose eaters;
Tell the unemployed refiners
Cecil sends them of his shiners;
Let each toilworn Tory striver
Batten on this twenty-fiver.
Spread my bounty
Through the county;
But my right hand must not know
What my left hand doth; and so,
If thou value my attention,
Full details must thou not mention.

FEBRUARY, 1886.

Riots! whew! too bad of Kelly.
I must ask him what the—— Well, he
Can't at least pretend that I
Had any finger in this pie.

APRIL, 1888.

Halves, Peters, halves! Honour 'mongst us, my sonny;
Had I but tipt the wink a year ago,
You might have gone and whistled for your money,
And my straightforwardness been spared a blow.

I was ashamed of giving you the cash:
You were ashamed of getting it from me
Three hundred is the value of that splash
On our fair fame, unspotted previouslee.

Remember, sonny, when your freethought flesher
Showed Charles your name and mine upon that cheque,
Had I owned up, I think you must confess your
Foot would not now have been on Charles's neck.

So halves, my Peters:—nay, I crave not coin:
To touch the brass would not befit my station:
I only ask that Kelly you'll rejoin,
And pay your debt in Tory agitation."

This, unfortunately, was not the only libel suit forced upon Bradlaugh during the year. He had himself to raise another, against a gang of enemies who had laid their heads together to produce a so-called "Life" of him, which was but a tissue of the most malignant libel from beginning to end. It attacked his daughters as well as himself, and was so flagrantly malicious that no legal defence was possible. The nominal author was one Charles R. Mackay, and the nominal publisher was one Gunn—a name which was afterwards admitted by Mackay to be fictitious. Believing that the real author or promoter of the work was Mr Stewart Ross, editor of the Agnostic Journal (then the Secular Review), one of his most persistent and scurrilous assailants, Bradlaugh set about bringing him to account, and soon procured adequate evidence of his complicity. A friend had accidentally discovered for him that the book was printed by the Edinburgh house of Colston & Co.; and on proceeding against that firm in the Court of Session, he obtained from them an apology, costs, and payment of £25 to his usual beneficiary, the Masonic Boys' School. But the most effective assistance was supplied by those concerned in issuing the book, who were soon flying at each other's throats. In August 1888 Mr Stewart Ross prosecuted Mackay, with a solicitor named Harvey and his clerk named Major, for conspiracy "to obtain from him £225 with intent to defraud." Mackay had previously brought two actions against Ross, one for slander, and one to recover £500, which actions were settled on the basis that Mackay withdrew "all claim against the defendant for writing the 'Life of Charles Bradlaugh, M.P.,'" the plaintiff admitting the claim to be "based on an erroneous conception," while Mr Ross was to pay Mackay "in respect of the other claims" the sum of £225, besides writing Mackay a letter "denying the slanders alleged," and opening his columns for subscriptions to a Defence Fund on Mackay's behalf. Mr Ross now alleged, in his prosecution for "conspiracy," that Major (whose employer was Mackay's solicitor) had called on him and alleged that he had seen some pages in Ross's handwriting in the MS. of the Mackay "Life," and "that he (Ross) who had denied all share in the authorship of that work, would be prosecuted for perjury unless he recovered possession of those pages." Ross admittedly agreed to pay £250 (afterwards reduced to £225) to recover the pages. In Court he would not admit that he had written any part of the "Life," but explained that he thought some unpublished MS. of his might have been got hold of for it. The promised MS., he stated, was not returned, and he stopped the cheques he had given towards the promised payment. In cross-examination he confessed to having supplied Mackay with books and "materials" to help him in writing the "Life," and had seen the proofs of it. Another of Ross's coadjutors fiercely quarrelled with him, and handed over to Bradlaugh's solicitor further evidence of his concern in the publication. Mackay, who became bankrupt, did likewise, expressing to Bradlaugh his regret for having been led into the publication by Ross. Bradlaugh was advised, however, that he had evidence enough without their testimony; and at length, after various delays, Mr Ross, through his solicitor, begged Bradlaugh's solicitors to intercede with their client to let him make a voluntary settlement. This being acceded to by Bradlaugh, Mr Ross agreed in Court (15th February 1889, before the Hon. Robert Butler, Master in Chambers) to account for and destroy within four days all copies of the book which had "come into his possession or control," to pay £50 to the Masonic Boys' School, and to pay all Bradlaugh's costs as between solicitor and client. Soon afterwards Mr Ross wrote to the Star: "I am not and never was the publisher of the 'Life,' and I cannot 'destroy all the copies of the work' for the reason that I never possessed more than one copy." Bradlaugh commented that he was still willing to have the case tried in court; and that he had evidence of Ross's sending out a large number of copies of the book for review, and once having close on 200 bound copies on his premises. Mr Ross is understood since to protest that he had been victimized in the matter, and at Bradlaugh's death he penned a remorseful and eulogistic article. Copies of the book are still believed to be on sale in underhand ways; and Mrs Bonner has recently had to take legal proceedings against one London bookseller who announced it in his catalogue, knowing it to be a libel, and not legally saleable.

In connection with the same matter Bradlaugh in 1888-89 brought an action against the Warrington Observer for a libellous article founded on the "Life;" and the proprietors, after undertaking to justify, finally withdrew the plea, apologised, and paid the costs and a sum of £25 to the Masonic Boys' School. A Scotch journal, the Dumfries Standard, had previously apologised with promptitude, paying costs and £10 to the Masonic Boys' School, which institution thus netted £110 in all from the proceedings in this one matter. Yet further, Bradlaugh sued the Warrington Observer for another libel, consisting in the publication of a malicious report of a silly proceeding in which a man who had been subpoenaed by him in the Peters' case applied to a London police magistrate to know whether he could recover "costs" for a day's attendance at the court. The man had actually been paid 10s., and Bradlaugh had refused to pay more. This case was tried (April 1889) before Justice Manisty and a special jury, who awarded Bradlaugh £25 damages—another windfall for the Masonic Boys' School.

As against the manifold annoyance of libels, Bradlaugh had in 1888 one great and solacing relief from a strain which had sorely tried him. His various lawsuits over the Oath question, despite the success of those against Newdegate, and the saving of outlay through his pleading his own cases, had left him saddled with a special debt of between £2000 and £3000, on which interest was always running. And, even as the lawsuits themselves helped to cripple his power of earning while they were going on, his intense application to his Parliamentary work had limited his earnings in the years following on his admission. His whole sources of income were his lectures, his journal, and his publishing business. But he could no longer give proper personal attention to the pushing of the business; the lecturing was curtailed; and the journal fell off in circulation just when it might have helped him most. Thousands of miners had been among its subscribers, despite its non-democratic price of twopence; but prolonged distress among the miners caused many of these subscribers to emigrate, while many more could no longer buy it. In villages where forty or fifty copies had been bought, one or two had to do duty for all the remaining readers. All the while the borrowed capital on which the Freethought Publishing Company had opened business in Fleet Street had to bear interest, whereas, in the ordinary course of things, it had been hoped that the principal would have been repaid in the years that, as the event came about, had to be devoted to a desperate struggle against political injustice. Freethinking friends, who knew how he was worried by the fresh debts incurred in the struggle, started a fund in 1886 to meet the more pressing burden of £750, which then had to be repaid, and over £500 was then collected. But in August of 1888 his embarrassments became so serious that, answering correspondents who urged a holiday on him, he wrote: "My great trouble now is lest I should be unable to earn enough to meet my many heavy obligations, in which case I should be most reluctantly obliged to relinquish my Parliamentary career." He was then addressing seven and eight meetings a week, while other members were recruiting on the moors and on the Continent. The avowal, through no action of his, got into the newspapers, and was the means of setting agoing a general public subscription, the credit for starting which is due to Mr W. T. Stead, then the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette, whose action in the matter was chivalrous and generous in the highest degree. Another fund was opened in the columns of the Star, another at Northampton, another in the Halifax Courier, and the upshot was that in a month's time there had been subscribed close upon £2500. There were over 6000 separate donations, and the subscribers' names indicated a remarkable range of recognition. In addition to Freethinkers and Northampton friends who had helped nobly before and now helped again, there were remittances from sympathisers whose goodwill had not before been known to the subject. Sir T. H. Farrer, Lady Ripon, Mr D. F. Schloss, Lord Hobhouse (in "acknowledgment of gallant service done for mankind"), Mr Stansfeld, Mr T. B. Potter, Mr M'Ewan, M.P., Admiral Maxse, W. M. Rossetti, Auberon Herbert, Mrs Ernestine Rose, Mr Labouchere, Lord Rosebery, Mr Newnes, Lord J. Hervey, Mr Munro Ferguson, are a few of the best-known names that catch the eye in the long lists, which include thousands of signatures. A number of Churchmen and Conservatives subscribed as such, some of them largely; £200 was given by one Freethinker over an initial, and £100 "from Melbourne;" groups of workers and clerks made up sums among them; clubs collected goodly totals; widows gave their mites; and hundreds of scattered toilers gave yet again of their scanty pence to the man they believed in. At his wish, the funds were closed, as far as possible, on his birthday, 26th September, when he counted fifty-six years, bien sonnés. Had he allowed the subscription to continue, the amount would probably have been doubled. As it was, he paid off all his outstanding law debts, and had a clear £1000 to put towards the others; and he turned with new cheerfulness and courage to his tasks, his holiday, as usual, being of the shortest. But hard upon the great relief came a great blow, of the kind that turns good fortune to ashes. On 2nd December his daughter Alice died of typhoid fever, after sixteen days' illness, aged thirty-two. She was her father's daughter in her high spirit, in her generosity, in her energy, and in the thoroughness of her work as a student and teacher of biology, though for all her years of ungrudging service in the latter capacity there is only left to show, apart from the gain and the gratitude of those she taught, her little tract on "Mind considered as a Bodily Function." It had been her wish that her body should be cremated; but the crematorium just then chanced to be out of order, and she had to be buried. Briefly acknowledging condolences, and replying to the request of many friends to be permitted to attend the funeral, her father wrote, to appear after it was over, the lines: "Any public funeral would have been painful to me; and I trust I offend none in not acceding. The funeral, private and silent, will have taken place at Woking Cemetery. The funeral wreaths and flowers sent are reverently laid on the grave."

---

The year thus grievously closed had been for Bradlaugh as full as the preceding ones of political work, which involved strife over and above that of the lawsuits, and over the Oaths Bill. On two issues he came in conflict with sections of the democracy. The first was Sir John Lubbock's Early Closing Bill, one of those measures in which legislatures go about to remove, as it were, tumours and swellings by applying a vice to them. Declaring himself strongly in favour of the shortening of hours by voluntary effort, Bradlaugh vigorously attacked the Bill as an arbitrary and capricious application of force on wrong principles, pointing out that it would close shops irrespectively of the length of the shifts worked in them by the assistants, and that it left untouched public-houses and tobacco-shops, which were kept open latest. It had the further demerit of renewing the old Sunday Trading Act of Charles II. and increasing the penalties. On a vote (May) it was rejected by 278 to 95. This was one of several points at which Bradlaugh came in conflict with the policy of empirical regulation in which some Socialists go hand in hand with some Conservatives. He was blamed, as before mentioned, for rejecting State interference in some cases, while urging it in others, as that of truck. The criticism failed to note that he opposed truck as a form of fraud, not at all necessarily arising out of the economic situation, whereas hours of labour are determined by the whole economic situation. While offending some Radicals as well as Socialists by opposing time-laws, he offended the extreme Individualists by supporting Public Libraries, which he justified as he had justified State education, and as being a rather more defensible form of public expenditure than much of the outlay on armaments, to which so few individualists strongly demur, on principle or in practice.

But his sharpest conflict with men usually on his own side was over the Employers' Liability Bill, to which he had given constant and laborious attention as a member of the Committee appointed to consider the subject in 1886. He had then and afterwards taken every possible pains to get at the views of the workers, had spoken on the subject before many thousands of them, and had done all he could to make the Bill as strong a measure as could be carried. He did not like it in every respect; he objected to the retention in any form of the doctrine of common employment, and of the principle of contracting-out, both of which he had sought to restrict by his action as far as possible; but the measure was in several respects an improvement on the Trade Unions Bill of 1886, then introduced by Mr Broadhurst, Mr Burt, and others, to amend the Liberal Act of 1880. That Bill had been referred to a Select Committee under the Gladstone Government, which Committee duly reported. The Bill now (1888) under discussion was, save for one or two points, either the re-enactment of the Act of 1880, or the formulation of the suggestions of the Select Committee of 1886. It was, however, strongly opposed by the labour leaders, especially by Mr Broadhurst, who denounced it as "a sham, misleading, mischievous—the worst Bill ever introduced to the House," and moved its rejection on the second reading (December), after it had been amended by the Standing Committee on Law. On this, Bradlaugh had a sharp brush with him, pointing out that with two exceptions all the complaints urged against the 1888 Bill struck equally at Mr Broadhurst's own Bill of 1886. The hon. gentleman denounced the new Bill as protecting the London and North Western Railway Company, whereas it did exactly, in that regard, what his own Bill had done; and an amendment which he had moved, as expressing his latest wishes, would equally have legalised that Company's arrangement with its employees. Bradlaugh's criticism was perhaps the sharper, inasmuch as he believed that the Liberal labour leaders were mainly concerned to throw out the Bill because it was introduced by a Conservative Government, who would in due course have claimed the credit if it had passed. Bradlaugh knew well enough that the Conservative party systematically facilitated certain popular measures which the same party would have strongly resisted when introduced by Liberals; but that was for him no reason for refusing to pass the measures so facilitated. He took all he could get, and fought for the return of a Liberal Government all the same. Mr Broadhurst, it is believed, afterwards regretted in some respects the attitude he took up, as did Sir William Harcourt, who hastily supported Mr Broadhurst by accusing Bradlaugh of attacking the trade unions in general—a charge which Bradlaugh instantly and warmly repudiated. However that may be, Bradlaugh's case may be read by those who care in his letter to his friend, Thomas Burt, M.P., published as a pamphlet. Mr Burt sent a reply, to which Bradlaugh gave prominence in his journal, in which one of his phrases, as to "setting the employed against the employer," was objected to; and on this point Bradlaugh explained the precise limit within which he applied it. He always opposed those workers who sought to make it illegal for masters to insure themselves against loss through accidents to their men; and on that point Mr Burt fully agreed with him.

A less prominent but important part of his dealings with labour problems was his service on the Committee which investigated the subject of the immigration of destitute aliens, and on that which investigated the working of Friendly Societies and Industrial Assurance Societies. As to the destitute immigrants, he was satisfied that they were not then numerous enough to justify any legislative action.

While to some extent in conflict, as we have seen, with some of his fellow Radicals, he was able to co-operate actively with the Irish party. On the Bill for the Commission to investigate the charges against the Irish members, he made what he confessed he believed to have been one of his best parliamentary speeches, but found it either ignored or "cut down to nothing" in the press. Recognition was forced, on the other hand, by his ever-increasing work on behalf of India, which in the course of the remaining two years of his life was to make his name known to every Indian interested in the affairs of the dependency.

1889.

Though already showing sad signs of failing health, Bradlaugh seemed to begin the session of 1889 with even extra energy. He laid down for himself at once a resolution dissenting from the Government's rate of commutation for perpetual pensions; a motion to expunge from the journals of the House the old resolutions excluding him; a fresh resolution on the utilisation of waste lands; a repetition of his motion for a new Rule as to the calling of members to the table; and a motion for a Royal Commission to consider the grievances of the native population of India; and he further introduced his Bill for the repeal of the Blasphemy Laws, and a Bill for abolishing political pensions. On the first paragraph of the address he made a strong speech in opposition, criticising the foreign, Indian, and colonial policy of the Government; and in regard to Ireland he made another of still greater vigour, setting out and ending with a telling attack on Mr Chamberlain, and vehemently impeaching the whole drift of Mr Balfour's policy in Ireland. Yet, again, he spoke on the Trafalgar Square question.

The first reached of his motions was that for the expunging of the resolutions excluding him in 1880, on which (8th March) he made an extremely temperate speech, assuring the House, however, that on behalf of his constituents he would certainly go on making his motion until it should be carried. The Government strongly opposed, through Sir Michael Hicks Beach and Sir Edward Clarke, who were however answered by Sir Henry James and Sir William Harcourt, and Bradlaugh had 79 votes to 122. He certainly did little about this time to propitiate the Government, making repeated attacks on their Irish policy and their colonial administration, besides keeping up such a fire of questions on grievances of every description, submitted to him from all parts of the world—miscarriages of justice, official misdeeds and tyrannies, breaches of the Truck Act, jobs domestic and foreign, misdirection and ruin of emigrants, fleecing of workers in Government employ, waste of money on royal palaces, Irish oppression, and a score of things which cannot even be catalogued. Probably no non-official member had such a budget of daily business; and certainly none was more in earnest. At the beginning of April we find him writing:—

"I confess that I left the House about 1 A.M. on Tuesday, after a long sitting, in a very bad temper. All our front bench voted in favour of the Government resolution to spend £21,500,000 on the Navy, and to raise £10,000,000 of this by increasing the National Debt."

Of State finance he was the most vigilant of critics; and he caused much Tory resentment by habitually impugning the claim that the old purchase of Suez Canal shares had been a good investment. At least ten millions, he pointed out, had been spent in Egypt in pursuit of the policy of looking after the shares in question.

There was thus small sign of Conservative complaisance towards his Bill for the Abolition of the Blasphemy Laws. As always on such measures, he spoke with extreme concision and moderation, packing his argument with authoritative deliverances, and making only a quiet and simple appeal to good feeling. Similar bills had been introduced by Professor Courtney Kenny and other Nonconformists in the two preceding years, but had come to nothing. At first the promoters had inserted what is known as the "Indian clause," an extraordinary form of enactment which provides that any use of language "likely" to hurt religious feelings and cause disturbance, with the "intention" of so hurting feelings, should remain punishable. This clause had been unanimously rejected by Freethinkers as making fully a worse law than the old, the vague expressions as to "intention" and "feeling" being capable of a construction such as bigots had not ventured to put on the blasphemy laws, and the principle being plainly destructive of that of free discussion. Even one or two religious bodies petitioned against the Bill on the latter score. The dissatisfaction with the clause was so great that it was dropped, but even then it was not till Bradlaugh took up the Bill that it reached a second reading (12th April). It was now opposed not only by Tories, but by pious Liberals, Mr Samuel Smith and Mr Waddy in particular taking pains to get up a panic about the possibility of having impious caricatures distributed at the doors of churches and Sunday schools, and children's minds blasted by blasphemous placards. Finally there voted only 46 for and 141 against the second reading. Most of the Liberal leaders were conspicuous by their absence.

He was better supported in the following month in his motion to dissent from the Government's system of commuting perpetual pensions. It was seconded by Mr Hanbury; and after a debate, in which Mr Gladstone spoke at some length in support of the resolution, the closure was carried on Bradlaugh's motion by 359 votes to 96, and the resolution was only rejected by 264 votes to 205. The moving of the closure in the midst of a speech by Dr Clark—a step which Bradlaugh declared to be fully justified by all the circumstances—gave some offence among Liberals; and just before, Bradlaugh had been made the subject of a furious newspaper attack by Mr John Burns, who pronounced him "the greatest enemy of labour in the House of Commons," and an opponent of "Employers' Liability Bills and other measures affecting the real interests of the people;" described him as shirking the Trafalgar Square question; and attacked him for having resisted a motion to reduce the Lord Chancellor's salary. The last step would have struck most people as one of peculiar chivalry, seeing that the Lord Chancellor had been one of Bradlaugh's most persistent and embittered personal enemies; but as the other items show, Mr Burns was not much concerned as to the validity of his charges. He even chose to speak of Bradlaugh as having sought an interview with him, when the fact was that Mrs Besant had introduced him to Bradlaugh to get the benefit of his legal advice. A more offensive attack was made on Bradlaugh shortly afterwards by Mr F. C. Philips in a serial in the magazine Time. The novelist made one of his characters allude to "a ruffian in the United States—a colonel, I believe—who is a kind of Yankee Bradlaugh, only that he has the courage of his convictions, which Bradlaugh has not." This was by far the least offensive part of the passage; and Bradlaugh, after expressing his surprise that any editor or publisher should permit such a wanton attack, added:—

"F. C. Philips is right in saying, at any rate so far as he is concerned, that I have not the courage of my opinions, for my opinion is that I ought to horsewhip him. As I will not do that, I reprint his words."

The publishers promptly and cordially apologised for the outrage, which had taken place entirely without their knowledge, and which was really a piece of gratuitous literary ruffianism, not easily to be matched in modern times.

Much more troublous than any scurrilities or injustices from without was the shock which now came upon him from Mrs Besant's definite avowal of her conversion to the so-called "Theosophy" of Madame Blavatsky. No persistence of personal regard could countervail the complete sense of intellectual sundering from the friend and colleague of so many years which this involved for him; and the change was the more felt by him for that his physique was now fast giving way. But he held on his course with unchanging fortitude, adding fresh Freethought work to the ever-growing bulk of his work for India, and adding to his earnings as he could by articles for the reviews which were now open to him. An article on "Humanity's Gain from Unbelief," contributed in the spring to the North American Review, elicited an invitation to debate the point with the Rev. Mr Marsden Gibson, M.A., a Newcastle clergyman. This was accepted, and the debate took place at Newcastle in September, before densely packed audiences, on two successive nights. It was conducted with good feeling on both sides, the nearest approach to personalities being in respect of Mr Gibson's using the argument that Bradlaugh "stood alone," since "at least eleven apostles of the Secularist party" had left it within twenty years, Mrs Besant's being the only name given. Bradlaugh drily replied that he doubted whether the assertion was material to the question, but that if it were he could remind Mr Gibson "that eleven apostles deserted his founder in the sorest hour of his need." One bystander, not a Secularist, summed up the debate as a matter of Bradlaugh launching cannon-balls while his opponent spun cobwebs, a criticism partly justified by the rev. gentleman's defining "unbelief" as a state of mental indecision, whereas Bradlaugh, of course, used the term to signify the critical and challenging spirit. But the open-minded reader can judge for himself on the published verbatim report. It elicited a number of sermons, some decent and courteous, others otherwise.

If Bradlaugh could have spent his autumns on Loch Long (where at last he had secured for the dwellers and health-seekers an almost complete stoppage of the pollution of the waters by the discharge of Clyde dredgings and other horrors) instead of in the usual round of lecturing, he might still have been among us. But he could never have the rest needed to build up his strength after the session's long drain on it; his vascular system was fast running down, and in October 1889 he was at length prostrated by a dangerous illness, a manifestation of the Bright's disease which was soon afterwards to destroy him. A surprising and touching proof of the change in public feeling towards him was given in the offering up of prayers in many churches for his recovery—a display of goodwill not undone by shoals of religious tracts, or even by the already started legend that he was "altering his opinions." One clergyman, the Rev. F. E. Millson of Halifax, generously gave a lecture specially to make a collection to help the sick man financially, which realised £10; and Mr M'Ewan, M.P., with characteristic munificence, sent him a cheque for £200 to enable him to take a health voyage to Bombay, as advised by the doctors. After weeks of extreme danger, he began slowly to regain ground. The great frame was not to be overthrown by one attack. But the seizure had been a terrible one: he had looked as close on death, he told us, as a man could look and live; and it was with heavy hearts that those who loved him saw him set sail in cold November for India. Before going, he penned a few notes, calmly contradicting the absurd story of his change of opinions, and other legends. "It would be ill-becoming to boast," he wrote, "but I may say that my convictions and teachings have not been with me subjects of doubt or uncertainty." One of the legends, circulated by the British Weekly, was to the effect that "on one occasion he said that he had almost been persuaded by a sermon of the Rev. Arthur Mursell." On this he remarked that the story was pure fiction; that though he had had friendly services from him, he had only heard Mr Mursell preach once in his life; and that all he remembered of it was the concluding intimation: "My subject next Sunday will be 'Beware of the Dog.'" The reverend editor of the British Weekly had thought fit to add to his tale the judgment: "He (Mr Bradlaugh) has the earthliest of minds, is without a touch of poetry, imagination, or yearning"—a Christian characterisation which the patient treated with the charity it so eminently lacked.

There was a pathetic fitness in the advice which sent the sorely shaken man to India to recover, if it might be, health wherewith to work. It was just after delivering a lecture on India that he felt the first grasp of his illness. What strength he had had, he had indeed freely spent for India. In 1888 he had handled more Indian matters than in any previous year; and in particular had made (27th August) an important speech (reprinted under the title: "The Story of a Famine Insurance Fund and what was done with it") by way of protest, in the discussion on the Indian Budget, against the mismanagement of Indian affairs. Early in the session he had obtained a first place for his notice of motion on Indian grievances, but the Government took away the time; and he now made his criticism none the less forcible. None of his preserved speeches will better show the peculiar energy of his grasp of Indian questions, and of his pressure on the Indian Government; few indeed will better show one of the great characteristics of his speaking—the intense and constant pressure of his argument, the continuance of the highest stress of thought and feeling without a moment's lapse into incoherence or verbiage. It was in particular a crushing indictment of the action of Lord Lytton—the most destructive ever brought against him, Anglo-Indians say; and the ultimate effect of it was that the misapplied famine insurance fund was at length restored to its proper and solemnly pledged purpose.

It was a very different pulse and note that marked the short and grave address delivered by the stricken orator to the Indian Congress of December 1889. On board the Ballarat, jotting down a voyager's "log" for the friendly readers of his journal, he declared on the third day: "My health is coming back very fast; my hopes are rising even more rapidly;" but a man does not come back in a week or two to health from the door of death; the recovery slackened; and when he reached Bombay on the 23rd he was still far from convalescence. His reception would have electrified him into strength again if enthusiasm could. In the Congress Building, for the occasion of his coming, there were added to the 2000 delegates 3000 spectators, and the whole multitude rose to their feet in mass to cheer him as he appeared on the platform. Hundreds of addresses for presentation had been sent to him from all parts of India, some of them in rich cases, or accompanied by beautiful gifts in gold and silver and ivory and sandalwood. The address prepared by the Congress itself was read in lieu of all by the chairman, Sir William Wedderburn, and then the guest made his speech, a grave oration, touched with the tremour of recent suffering and restrained by the sense of broken strength, but full of greatness and dignity—a speech worthy of the man and of the occasion, weighty and wise in its counsels, urging patience, and disclaiming praise. It is impossible to read it without catching the vibration of its deep emotion, and as it were the breath of the listening host. The sight of the living mass, and the hearing of the actual proceedings at the Congress, gave him a new and illuminating knowledge of the great forces he had been dealing with; but he had nothing to unsay or unthink. Of the vitality of the Congress movement he was well assured, and he could gather for himself how much of sympathy among English civil servants had as yet to be concealed.

He had no time to give to seeing the regions and the peoples which the Congress represented; and in any case it was the voyage that was to restore him if anything would. So on 3rd January he set sail from Bombay for home, receiving a tremendous ovation at the Apollo Bunder, where the carriage could scarcely get through the crowds that rained flowers on him and Sir William Wedderburn. The end of January found him once more at his library table and at his work, "marvellously better," indeed, but not restored. There was to be no restoration.

1890-1891.

Before sailing for India Bradlaugh had issued a summons to an extraordinary and special general meeting of the members of the National Secular Society, to be held after his return on 16th February, to receive from him a special statement, and his resignation of the Presidentship, and to elect a successor. This last was a step he had hoped to postpone until he had carried a Bill repealing the blasphemy laws. Freethought and Freethinkers would in that event stand free and equal before the law; and, with endless tasks before him as a legislator, he felt he might fitly withdraw from the more militant and organising work of Secularism, of which he had done so much. But looking to his defeat on his Bill in 1889, and to the desperate illness he had just gone through, he felt he must needs lighten his burdens forthwith as best he could.

The scene of his resignation was a touching one. From all parts of England came men who had fought with and for him, some of them for a good thirty years listening to his teaching and spreading it around, criticising him at times, but always admiring him, standing by him in battle and rejoicing with him in victory; and when he rose to lay down his leadership, and the cheers of welcome on his recovery rang warmer and warmer, it was some time before he could command himself to speak. A few moving periods told of the necessity he lay under of giving up a task which he was no longer fulfilling as he held it ought to be fulfilled. The party would have rejoiced to have him hold the office nominally, letting another do the work. But he "must be a real President or none. My fault," he went on, "has sometimes been that I have been too real a one (laughter), but it is no easy matter to lead such a voluntary movement as ours. I think I am entitled to say that the movement is stronger when I am giving up this badge of office (holding up Richard Carlile's chairman's hammer) than when I first took the presidential chair." And a thunderous cheer endorsed the claim.

The office had no emoluments whatever. The little wooden hammer and its memories had been the prize for a generation of work involving much spending. He calculated that during thirty years he had given to the Society and its branches, as proceeds of benefit lectures, some £3000; and the members on their part gladly relieved him of certain money obligations of considerably less amount. He ended:—

"I do not say, 'We part friends,' because this is not parting. The movement is still as much to me as ever, as much as it has been during my life. For more than forty years I have been a speaker among you. Now I lay down the wand of office, and the right to give command, but I hope always to remain with you a trusted counsellor. And to you, I hope unstained—to you, I hope untarnished, I give back the trust you gave."

When the cheering and the addresses and resolutions had been got through, he proposed as his successor in the Presidentship Mr G. W. Foote, the able editor of the Freethinker and the leading lecturer in the movement; and on Mr Foote's being unanimously elected, he handed over to the new President the hammer of office, with the words: "I give it to you, George William Foote; and I trust that when it becomes your painful duty to resign, as I do now, the progress that has been made in the cause while you have held it will be such as to compensate for the pain."

In dismissing the meeting he gave it some grave words of counsel:—

"The battle of Freethought in this country is not over. There are signs, not far off, of possible strife, and there will be needed wise heads, cool heads, and firm hearts. There is a tendency to renew the anti-Jewish cry; and you may easily, in connection with the lower phases of the Salvation Army, get excitement and tension that need a greater self-command than is always shown among us, if personal conflict is to be avoided. The forthcoming report on sweating may bring about an attempt to raise the anti-Jewish cry; and it is impossible to have strife between religions without the possibility of the various religions turning on the one party that is outside all. One element of danger in Europe is the approach of the Roman Catholic Church towards meddling in political life.... Beware when that great Church, whose power none can deny, the capacity of whose leading men is marked, tries to use the democracy as its weapon. There is danger to freedom of thought, to freedom of speech, to freedom of action. The great struggle in this country will not be between Freethought and the Church of England, nor between Freethought and Dissent, but—as I have long taught, and now repeat—between Freethought and Rome."

To his political work he turned with all the strength he could command. At Northampton his constituents welcomed him back with joyful enthusiasm, and an address from the Liberal and Radical Association formally expressed their felicitations. When he addressed them, he had to stand for several minutes on end before the cheering and singing would subside. The speech had some pregnant passages:—

"I, personally, am not so hopeful as my colleague of a democratic Parliament in England. And why? Because a democratic Parliament in England can only come when you pay each servant there for the work and the service he renders you—(cheers)—and when the worry and the wear-and-tear of earning a livelihood beside his work do not"—he ended the sentence shortly—"sometimes break the man down."

On points of policy he went on to express himself firmly and uncompromisingly as to the Eight Hours' movement, against which he had already written and spoken as being utterly fallacious on the side of practice and pernicious in point of principle; and taking the demand for a time-law as the prelude to a demand for a wage-law, he assailed the entire movement as illustrating the practical application of Socialist theory to practice, both democratic and despotic:—

"As you all know well, I have always been in favour of Trade Unions; as you know also, I have spoken for them, and I have worked with them. (Cheers.) But I say here, I am utterly against—and though it should cost me my seat in Parliament to-morrow, I would be against—the doctrine and opinion that Parliament could thus add one farthing to a man's wage, or one jot to a man's comfort. (Cheers.) What Parliament can do is, remove restrictions; what Parliament can do is, reduce expenditure; and what the Emperor of Germany had better do, instead of summoning a conference of the nations of the world, is to disarm twenty regiments (great cheering), and send back to the plough and to the machine a huge number of men who now live upon the labour of others, and lessen the wage of others, by being soldiers instead of working men. (Loud cheers.) I speak most strongly on this, because I feel most strongly on it ('Hear hear.') I am not one of those, as you will know, who have ever yet, and I have passed too close to the end of my life to have any thought at anyrate to become one now—I am not one of those who have ever flattered the people, or striven to win their favour by telling them that from the Crown or from the Parliament that could be got which could not be got from themselves, by themselves. (Cheers.) I would impress upon you this. What the State gives to you, the State takes from you first; it further charges you with the cost of collection, and with the cost of distribution. ('Hear, hear.') Better by far for you that you should save for yourselves and spend for yourselves, than put into the purse of the State your earnings, of which only part can at best come back. (Cheers)."

Just after the Northampton meeting came the death of the man who had been his right hand in all his struggles there from the first—Thomas Adams, now ex-Mayor. Mr Adams had been a valued friend as well as a trusted agent, and his death came as another of the thickening blows of fate upon the rapidly aging man. In Parliament, all the same, he stuck sternly to his tasks. At the opening he had set down for himself important amendments to the Indian Councils Amendment Bill and to the Criminal Law Practice Amendment Bill; a repetition of his motions as to waste lands and the expunging of the old resolutions excluding him; and a motion on behalf of the financial Reform Association, calling for the abolition of the gold and silver duties and compulsory hallmarking; and he introduced besides an India Bill of his preparation. He at once resumed work, too, on the Royal Commission on Vaccination, on which he had done careful work in the previous year, charging himself as he did to watch over the case for the anti-vaccinators, though not committing himself definitely to their view of the facts. He had been left out of the previous Royal Commission (moved for by himself) on Market Rights and Tolls—partly, it was thought, because Her Majesty could hardly be asked to include the Republican and Atheist in a list of "trusty and well-beloved" counsellors; but in the Vaccination Commission the difficulty was somehow overridden.

In the House, his first long speech was in opposition to the motion of Mr Cunninghame Graham on the Address with regard to the restriction of adult hours of labour by international legislation, and the sending of a delegate to the "Berlin Conference" to support such proposals there. The speech was a very vigorous one, and besides exposing some bad blunders in Mr Graham's figures, argued strongly against the policy of a time-law as a crude and superficial treatment of a far-reaching economic problem. During the course of the year he developed this criticism in various review articles and otherwise; and a systematic treatment of it was to have made a large part of the book on "Labour and Law" on which he was engaged at his death. Among his other Parliamentary discussions he fought his colleague's battle on the occasion on which Mr Labouchere was suspended for persisting in the declaration: "I do not believe Lord Salisbury"—in connection with the escape of Lord Arthur Somerset from a criminal prosecution.

He continued to incur a fair share of the personal abuse of which he had had such ample experience. The Observer told him that he was an object of "loathing" to Hindoos on account of his religious and Malthusian views; Mr Hyndman described him and Mr Burt as "friends of the plundering classes;" Mr William Morris's Commonweal dubbed him a "renegade;" and Mr Cunninghame Graham, by way of retaliation for punishment, declared his work to have consisted mainly in fighting about the oath and the existence of a Deity. The Lady's Pictorial Journal more subtly described him as "no longer the rough, rugged, carelessly-dressed man of the people, who once vainly sought admission to the popular Chamber, but a grave, dignified, and well-groomed senator;" and this legend of his "transformation" did duty with many as an exculpation of their own past brutalities. It almost seems heartless, as against such self-absolved penitents, to record the fact that in his costume he had always been the most conservative of men, and that he dressed in 1890 exactly as he had dressed in 1880 and 1870. The clerical stories of "awful examples" of ruined infidels, tacked on somehow to his name, and the more obviously knavish stories of his having been "shown up" or "confounded" on the platform, continued to have their customary circulation; and during his illness and his absence the libellous "Life," of which the surplus copies had not been destroyed, was more actively circulated.

Accustomed as he was to the steadfast repetition of religious fictions against him after all manner of refutation and contradiction, he was somewhat astonished at the length to which some of the labour leaders had contrived to mislead their followers as to his action in the House. At a Labour Electoral Congress at Hanley, in April, one speaker, who declared himself otherwise friendly, actually moved a resolution "That this Congress regrets the determined opposition of Mr Charles Bradlaugh to the Employers' Liability Bill, as the working men of this country desire it to be passed, and refuses to recognise him as a labour representative." As has been above told, he had been the strongest supporter of the Bill, whereas its rejection had been moved by Mr Broadhurst. The mover may have been under a hallucination in which the roles of Mr Broadhurst and Bradlaugh were reversed; but the extent to which working men can go astray under such hallucinations was shown by the fact that the resolution was actually carried. The irrational hostility thus shown was of course not lessened when, in the debate on Mr Bartley's motion for an inquiry into profit-sharing, Bradlaugh administered another unsparing correction to Mr Cuninghame Graham, who in his excitement became so "interruptious" as nearly to get himself suspended. "The hon. member," said Bradlaugh among other things, "charged Liberals and Nationalists with having done nothing to prevent the starvation of one man whose terrible death he had brought before the House; but what did he do himself except promote a strike in the district, one result of which was that many men were now without employment who had theretofore at least been kept from starving?" Mr Graham, with his youth and health, was no match for Bradlaugh, out of health.

While politics were thus growing increasingly contentious for him, he paradoxically found calm in new resorts to the theological controversy. A series of serenely trenchant papers on the question "Are the Hebrew Scriptures Impregnable?" in criticism of the treatise of Mr Gladstone—a criticism to which the right hon. gentleman offered no reply—were among his writings during the session. He had increasing satisfaction, too, in his work for India; and on the occasion of a reception at Northampton to the delegates of the Indian Congress, he delivered a most eloquent speech, full of his old fire, though towards the end he was fain to express the wish that he had the force and fire of the old years. In the House, in the course of the session, besides constantly pressing Indian needs on the Secretary of State, he made an important speech on the case of the Maharaja of Kashmir, whose high-handed deposition by the Indian Government, on the scantiest justification, had seemed to him as worthy of reprobation as wrongs to common folk. Republican as he was, he would never admit that an Imperial Government, which itself professed to rest on hereditary monarchy, had the right to tread underfoot at pleasure the titles of Indian princes; and he saw at once what the Imperialists are so slow to see, that a brutal disregard of the established titles of such princes is the surest way to breed disaffection to British rule, which has the least satisfactory title of all. The official Liberal press, of course, lectured him for his failure to see that the official course was the right one, and charged him with championing a corrupt native despot. The sufficient answer to such deliverances was and is that within three years the Maharaja of Kashmir was restored, just as the famine fund was restored on Bradlaugh's previous pressure. From such eloquent facts we may infer what he might have done for the reform of Indian administration had he lived, and what a loss to the cause was his death, just as his most important plans were coming within sight of effective discussion. In his last enfeebled years he did for India what some men might have reckoned good work for a lifetime.

Weakened as he was, he entered on one undertaking during the summer, which, in the state of his health, was anything but prudent. Mr John Burns, in a public speech, spoke vaguely of challenging him to a debate in some very large hall on the Eight Hours question; but on being asked to come to business, declared that nothing would meet his wishes short of an open-air debate which could be "heard" by 200,000 persons, who were to vote on the issue—a farcical proposition which made an end of the matter so far as Mr Burns was concerned. Mr Hyndman, however, who from endorsing Mr Burns' denunciations of Mr Bradlaugh had in due course passed to denouncing Mr Burns, wrote to Bradlaugh challenging him in Mr Burns' place. "I observe," he put it, "that John Burns imposes such terms in relation to his debate with you, that he obviously does not wish it to come off." After some contentious preliminaries, a debate on the Eight Hours question came off between Mr Hyndman and Bradlaugh in St James's Hall on the evening of 23rd July. It was, like most of the debates on Socialism held in London, a noisy scene, many of the Socialists present being disorderly in the extreme; and it was grievous to some of us to think that Bradlaugh, with his failing health and slackening nerves, should have the strain of such a meeting for such a grossly inconsiderate audience as made up the following of his opponent. The published report will serve to show whether the advocacy on the other side made the debate worth holding.

Twice in this year did Bradlaugh seek fresh strength on his fishing ground of Loch Long, far from the madding crowd. Failing still to build himself up to anything like his old standard of health, he grew more and more anxious about his money matters, the successful management of which depended so much on his keeping up his personal earnings. Physically unable to lecture so much as formerly, he sought by writing review articles to keep up a sufficient income to meet all his obligations. But on the other hand, he found himself at length obliged to close the Freethought Publishing Company's shop in Fleet Street, which meant too burdensome a cost for a bookselling business, even were that business not one-half boycotted by "the trade," and catering for only a section of the reading public. Appealing to that section to help him in the way of clearance sales, he wrote: "There are some folk who repeatedly say that I am rich. I should be a very happy man if to-morrow I could assign all my assets, except my library, which I should not like to lose, to any one who would discharge my liabilities." The closing of the shop was made the occasion of another painful step—the dissolution (December 1890) of the partnership which had for so many years subsisted between him and Mrs Besant. They had diverged too far in thought to permit of the old community of interest, though to the last Mrs Besant continued to write for the National Reformer, and there was no cessation of friendly intercourse.

Hardly was the dissolution accomplished when once more the overwrought man was struck down by the malady which had barely let him go a year before, and which this time was not to be fought off. On the 10th of January 1891 he came home very ill indeed, hypertrophy of the heart having followed on the old Bright's disease. After the first seizure was over, he went to see his physician, who diagnosed the trouble. Still he did not take to bed, and about midnight on the 13th an attack of spasm of the heart, as he wrote in the last notes he penned or dictated, "nearly finished my chequered life." It was soon to end indeed. He rose to work as usual the next morning, and was unwilling even to have the doctor called in again; but on the day after he was persuaded to take to bed, though he went reluctantly, not dreaming at first that the end was so near. He had the best of doctoring and nursing; being attended by his old friend, Dr Ramskill, and by his near neighbour, Dr Bell; while he had in his daughter a nurse for whom the doctors had nothing but praise; but the case was past cure. He faced the end, as he had done twice before, with perfect tranquillity, sorry to close his work, but calm with the calmness of a perfectly brave and sane man. Coming from Scotland to see him a little before the end, I found him in the perfect possession of his judgment, occupying himself among other things by auditing the peculiar accounts of the Salvation Army, which he had mastered much more thoroughly than their framers liked; and at that time, though they had no hope, the doctors thought his illness would be a long one. He himself, I saw, was prepared for the worst. The one regret he expressed was that he probably should not be able to move once more the motion he had put down yet again at the beginning of the winter session, for the expunging from the journals of the House of the old resolutions excluding him. He had set his heart on carrying that motion, even as a similar one had been carried after the lapse of years in the case of Wilkes. And, happily, across the very shades of death there came for him a light of comfort on this his last desire. Dr W. A. Hunter, M.P., on being appealed to without the dying man's knowledge, instantly and kindly consented to move the resolution on his behalf on 27th January, when its turn came; and Bradlaugh, when told of what had been arranged, declared that that was the very choice he should have made, and turned contentedly to his rest, though he did not suppose the motion would even now be carried.

Dr Hunter's success, however, was complete. The motion was opposed at great length by the Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Clarke; but after Gladstone had delivered a conciliatory speech, the front bench agreed to accept the motion on condition that the words characterising the resolutions to be expunged "as subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of the kingdom" should be dropped. These words had been copied from the motion in the Wilkes case, so as to follow precedent; but of course the essential thing was the consent to the expunging of the resolutions, which very sufficiently implied all that was said in the withdrawn words. So, after Sir Edward Clarke had protested against a deletion, which he admitted to be "a mark of ignominy," Mr W. H. Smith agreed to the motion; and although Mr De Lisle made a foolish speech in opposition, even he expressed his "deep regret at the illness of Mr Bradlaugh," while Sir Walter Barttelot not only deplored that there should be any lack of unanimity, but expressed his admiration of the straightforwardness Mr Bradlaugh had shown in the discharge of his duties as a member. "God grant that the junior member for Northampton might recover; but whatever happened, hon. members would feel that, by accepting this motion, they had done a generous act towards a man who had endeavoured to do his duty." So the motion was finally carried without dissent, amid cheers, and the wrongful resolutions were formally expunged.

Alas, when the news of the triumph was telegraphed by Dr Hunter, it was too late to tell the dying man. Day by day he had grown weaker, albeit cheerful and even sanguine when he drowsily talked of himself; and now he had sunk so low that his daughter dared not rouse him with so exciting a message. He never fully regained consciousness; and those about him learned how bitter a thing it could be

"To hear the world applaud the hollow ghost
Which blamed the living man."

The end came on the morning of 30th January 1891. He was fifty-seven years and four months old.

As in his previous illness, prayers had been offered up for him in many churches; and many were the tributes of those who had been opposed to him in religion and in politics; still more, of course, of those more in agreement with him. But his daughter had been driven to take the precaution of procuring signed testimony, from those who had been attending him, that during his illness he was never heard to utter one word "either directly or indirectly bearing upon religion or any religious subject." The eternal pretence of a "recantation" was already current afresh, as it had been after he resigned his presidentship of the National Secular Society, even while he was writing his arguments against Mr Gladstone's book, and re-stating his Atheism as explicitly as ever in his "Doubts in Dialogue." One of the last non-political lectures he had given, in November, had been a manifesto on "My Heresy now and Thirty-six Years ago;" and in December he had discoursed on "Life, Death, and Immortality" with no faltering in his doctrine.

The funeral was on 3rd February, at Brookwood Cemetery. He had never troubled himself as to how his body should be dealt with, so his daughter chose that it should be in the "earth to earth" fashion. At his express wish, written in a will dated some years before, the burial was perfectly silent—an arrangement which caused some regret among friends, and some characteristic phrases about "being buried like a dog" from others, who could not feel the pathos and solemnity of the silent sepulture, amid the uncovered multitude who had come to pay their last tribute at the grave of the man they had honoured and loved. As he had always disliked the shows of mourning and the badges of grief, those who knew his tastes wore none. But the grief of the thousands who filled the trains from London to the burial-place was such as needed no other attestation. They were of both sexes and all classes, from costermongers to right honourables; they came from all parts of England; and soldiers' red coats and the bronzed faces of hundreds of Hindus gave a wide significance of aspect to the throng. Hundreds, many of them from Northampton, had brought the little tri-coloured rosettes they used to wear in the old fighting days; and many threw these in the grave, some saying as they did so that their work too was done, now that he was gone.

Over an hour after the coffin had been laid in the earth, when it was thought that the multitude had passed away, the immediate friends and mourners of the dead went back to take a last look, and they found that a lingering band of devoted men had got the shovels from the workmen, and were one by one obtaining the last sad privilege of casting their handful of earth into the grave.

CONCLUSION.

If the foregoing volumes have not shown what manner of man Bradlaugh was, as well as what he did, they have been written in vain. But it may be fitting to attempt, in a closing page or two, some general estimate of his personality. The present writer is, indeed, conscious of unfitness for the task, were it only because of a personal affection which must somewhat bias criticism. But when a man has had so much evil said of him as Bradlaugh had throughout his life, the inclining of the balance a little way towards love and admiration may be forgiven. Indeed, most men would find it hard to write of him with perfect impartiality. He inspired, as a rule, either aversion or admiration, and the furious enmities of which these pages bear record were in a way the correlative of the intense devotion given to him by thousands.

Such a description would in some cases suggest an intensely passionate and ill-balanced nature, at once winning and grievously faulty; hardly a man of keenly analytic intellect, remarkable self-control, and extreme sagacity. Yet these latter qualities he certainly had. He was in truth a singular combination of chivalrous heroism and practical wisdom—a combination such as I cannot find a parallel for in memory. He had the quixotic ardour of a young enthusiast, an ardour which never left him to the end; and he combined it with a political foresight and judgment such as few modern English statesmen have exhibited. It was the ardour for justice and truth, the forthright sincerity and disregard of convenient conformities, that won him the love and allegiance of men who possessed and valued courage; and it was his keen sagacity that kept their adherence. In modern England he stands out singularly as a powerful and prominent man who chose to set his face openly and systematically against what he held to be shams and delusions, though the impeaching of them brought him the bitterest hostility, the foulest calumny, and a perpetual struggle, where a mere tacit conformity would have meant manifold success, wealth, and ease. There is no country in which straightforwardness and single-mindedness are more belauded than in England, and perhaps none in which they are scarcer. The praise of them forms part of the "cant that does not know it is cant," which Carlyle denounced, and exemplified. Men declare their esteem for courage and sincerity; and when they meet a shining example of these virtues they cast their mud with the unthinking vulgar. No amount of reiteration of phrases about prophets who have been stoned by the Scribes and Pharisees can withhold the average moralist from joining the Scribes and Pharisees when the next prophet shows face. To panegyrise old prophets in platitudes is such a very different thing from recognising a new one in the market-place and taking him by the hand.

Of course, while men do unquestionably dislike an innovator and fighter for being more honest and plain-spoken than themselves, they do not openly put their enmity on those grounds. They must find sins and faults for him: what faults he has they will magnify and multiply. And as, of course, all of us who practise any self-criticism at all can realise that the hostilities we set up, however unjust we hold them to be, have a certain basis in our shortcomings, it is only reasonable to look for part of the pretext of Bradlaugh's enemies in his. What then were his faults? We have seen and heard enough of those falsely imputed: what was his real share of human infirmity? I have heard him accused, by people who were not rabidly hostile, of egoism, vanity, love of flattery, and a tendency to be overbearing. For perhaps all of these charges he would himself have more readily admitted a foundation than would his sympathetic friends. He used to make humorous allusion, in his speeches at Freethought gatherings, to his despotism in the chair. He ruled conferences with a rod, not of iron but of ivory—the rod of absolute technical law. He was the most swift and unyielding of chairmen; and men unwittingly out of order called him not only hard but unjust. But some who had resented his way in these matters have been known spontaneously to wish for his ruling hand when it was still. In all matters where authority and command belonged to the situation, and he was in authority, he ruled with a military firmness and quickness; and as no man can miss making mistakes, he must have made some, though they would be hard to prove. Nay, he himself avowed a certain stress of nervous energy which, on bustling occasions, made him abrupt and impatient of meddling and dilatoriness. This overplus of energy came out quaintly in his inveterate habit of being much too early for a train. He had, in fact, the relative defect of the Napoleonic quality of swift decision and intense determination. Thus, as one Freethinker once told him, his manner was not always "economical;" and the hostilities he aroused were apt to be as intense as the admirations, and to be hindrances to his career. Most of his enemies were themselves certainly faulty men, and not a few were very bad men indeed; but he would not have denied that he might at times have made an honest man his unfriend. Such an abnormal will-power as his[193] cannot miss making some of the manifestations of excess of driving power in the human machine. But nothing could be more mistaken, or more unjust, than to make out that this stress of will-power made him an unjust or an inconsiderate man. On the contrary, tried by the decisive tests of his family life and his relation to his colleagues, he was the fairest and most tolerant of men. Of his family virtues his daughter has told: of his considerateness as an editor all who worked with him can speak. I never knew or heard of one who even came near him in his regard for the independence of his contributors, and in his concern to give the fullest hearing to opponents. In all the essentials of just-mindedness he was singularly well endowed; it was only in respect of physiological over-emphasis that he could ever be impeached. And even on that score, as has been above abundantly shown, it is utterly false that he was ever brutal in speech, or arrogant or discourteous in intercourse or controversy. He was even criticised at times for a certain old-world courtliness, more continental than English, and this long before he had won general recognition. A thousand printed reports and testimonies go to dispose of vague and unsupported aspersions. I am told that in the last year or two of his life, when his nervous and vascular system was breaking up, he was at times sharply impatient of incompetent opposition on the secular platform, but that is a small matter against the self-control of a lifetime. Tried by, or in comparison with, his peers, he needs no vindication.

On the points of "egoism" and "vanity" I have heard him forestall criticism. He confessed that he sought power, and shaped his life to attain his ambitions—these being what they were. He had simply the egoism of an extremely powerful man with an end in view. But it was never the egoism of a Napoleon, stooping to meanness as readily as it hazarded battles. He was an honourable gentleman to the end. Those who deprecated his legal way of fighting legal battles simply failed to appreciate the lawyer's method. That he was a born as well as a trained lawyer many lawyers have admitted; and he fought technically, and thwarted his enemies by technicalities, because law was to him a technique. Nobody but a man with a genuine belief in it as a technical system would have gone to law as often as he did, even to resist gross injustice. On the point of "vanity," again, he frankly anticipated criticism. "Oh, don't say that: I am very vain," I once heard him say to Madame Venturi when she was protesting that a certain statesman's vanity was insufferable. Of course such a confession could not come from a really vain man. He once spoke of "the Irish part of my character" as something that his friends must allow for. A man who can thus detect foibles in himself is not badly swayed by them. As for the charge that he was susceptible to flattery—a variant on the trite and stupid charge of "love of notoriety"—it came latterly, I think, only from Liberals in the House who grudged his popularity among the Tories, they themselves seeing in him a stumblingblock to that species of success which both parties are so apt to set above pursuit of principle. The later Tories, having nothing to suffer in the esteem of the pious from friendship with him, showed him some consideration; while the official Liberals uneasily anticipated the demand from their supporters outside that Bradlaugh should be in the next Liberal Cabinet. It is painful to have to say that to such Liberals his death was a relief. And it is intelligible that they should prefer to see in his geniality and courtesy a fishing for Tory flattery rather than a manly merit. If after years of desperate strife, conscious of failing health, the aging fighter had been sedulous to win goodwill, it would have been small harm; but he was genial out of the very warmth of heart that had made him a fighter. Of his unwavering fidelity to the Radical principles of his life it would be vain to say anything here if the preceding pages have not made it clear. The respect which he won from political opponents in the House was no result of compromise on his part, or of his resistance to certain Socialist doctrines. He was in sharp collision with them on other issues to the last. A good testimony to the genuineness of their respect is that which comes from the late Mr W. H. Smith, in his biography by Sir Herbert Maxwell. It is there told that once in 1886 Mr Smith's private secretary, travelling in the same railway carriage with Bradlaugh, happened to mention the station at which he was going to stop. "Ah, you are going to stay with Mr Smith," said Bradlaugh. "Well, I don't suppose there is a man in the House of Commons or in England with whom I am more widely at variance on many subjects, yet there is none for whom I have more sincere respect." In the evening the secretary told his host that he had travelled down with Bradlaugh. "Indeed," said Smith. "Well, it's a strange thing; I don't believe there is a man whose opinions I hold in greater abhorrence than Bradlaugh's; but I cannot help feeling that there is not an honester man in Parliament." And I have myself heard Bradlaugh speak in private of the genuineness and simplicity of Smith's character—in respect of such a matter as private donations to churches—even at a time when he had penned humorous paragraphs on Smith's head-butler manner of leading the legislature. Both men were honest, and that was a ground of sympathy. And though the professor of the "religion of love" had to express "abhorrence" of the opinions he rejected, he called to make friendly inquiry when Bradlaugh lay on his deathbed—an attention paid by none of the Liberal leaders.

But this honesty, which won him the regard of antagonists when they came close enough to see it, was simply the manifestation in political life of the fundamental and propulsive love of truth and reason which made him an Atheist propagandist. He happened to care for truth and justice all round, where other men were satisfied with a measure of homage to one or two principles they cared to recognise, or prejudices they cared to gratify. He had leapt forward, from his youth up, at the sound of the trumpet in every good cause, where they had mostly been careful to count the cost.

"No fetter but galled his wrist;
No wrong that was not his own."

And to his last days, he never learned the sordid lessons of prudent conformity even where they might have meant a serious lightening of his burdens. Once in the last year of his life, I commented jestingly, as laying down the code of commercial journalism, or his devotion of columns of his journal to dry details of the Indian grievances he took up, when he might have raised the circulation by lampooning his fellow-members. He felt so strongly on the subject of English disregard of Indian claims that even the jest disturbed him, and he met it with an Et tu, Brute. No man was saner in the adjustment of a necessary compromise in legislation; but no man was ever more innocent of the spirit of Nothingarianism. "Good God, Bradlaugh," said a friendly Conservative member to him one day, reproaching him for his quixotry, "what does it matter whether there is a God or not?" The amiable indifferentists who subscribe to that philosophy, though they may have been able to appreciate him as a companion, will never be able to understand the enthusiasm which Bradlaugh aroused in thousands of those who followed him, and even in some whose way of thought diverged far from his. I have heard of one eminent professional man who long wore Bradlaugh's portrait next his breast, and long hesitated between following him and turning Catholic. Men who never had any leanings that way could the more heartily give their devotion. Certain it is that Bradlaugh evoked a passion of love and loyalty from thousands, such as no other public man of his day called forth. His followers followed him as Nelson's men did Nelson. Mr Gladstone has the enthusiastic reverence of myriads; but men who would go through fire and water for their leader, and give up their tobacco to send him a weekly sixpence, were to be looked for rather in Bradlaugh's following than his.

Men turned instinctively to Bradlaugh as to a born leader. Had any great social convulsion arisen in his time, such as some foretell for the near future, he would infallibly have come to the front as none of his political contemporaries were fitted to do—as Cromwell did and as Danton did. In him the faculty of action was not limited to the sphere of the forum and the bureau. It has been told[194] how, when in Spain, he offered to the Republican leaders to go with fifty horsemen and shoot the traitorous general in the north; and we may safely hold with the narrator of this episode that "he would have done it" had the offer been accepted. Among the many adventures of his younger days, the details of which will probably never now be put together, was a singular attempt in which he took part to secure the election of a Liberal Pope. He carried letters to and fro in Europe on behalf of Italian and other democrats who had conceived the scheme. All I learned from him was the fact of his positively taking part in the enterprise, which, of course, failed. In these and other journeys he ran many risks; and he told a funny story of how, travelling one night in a German train with a good deal of money in his possession, and being awakened from his sleep, with the train at full speed, by the conductor's lamp presented to his face, after the continental fashion, where on his lying down there had been no one else in the compartment, he in an instant had that startling and startled functionary by the throat in the opposite corner of the carriage. His army training and his later experiences had developed in him a remarkable turn for dealing promptly with physical emergencies; and persons who sought, in the old days, to block the "Reform" processions for the leading of which he was responsible, came to swift and serious confusion. To the last he had in him something of Cromwell's Berserker temper, though at his blood's hottest he could never have been guilty of the Puritan's ferocity. It came out in him in such acts as his personal seizure and expulsion of rowdies from his meetings. I saw him effect this dramatically enough at one of the great St James's Hall meetings he organised about 1886. Tories had come with forged tickets, but were detected and ejected; and these, or others, determined to give due trouble, took the course of keeping up a loud and distracting tapping on the glass door at the off end of one of the balconies. The disturbers being in great force outside, the doorkeepers were helpless; the loud click-click was disconcerting the speaker then on his feet; and the audience were growing more and more irritated and restless. Bradlaugh left the chair, passed down and then up to the balcony, made his way along to the door, opened it sharply and disappeared, but in a moment re-entered, holding a man by the collar. This was the ringleader with the stick. Startled at the apparition of Bradlaugh, he had involuntarily raised that weapon; but in a flash it was out of his hands and broken across Bradlaugh's knee. The pale disturber was then taken by his captor—still by the collar—along the crowded balcony to the platform end, where he was ejected by the other doorway. He did not return: his followers broke up; and the meeting proceeded in peace, after a spontaneous expression of its satisfaction at the manner of the relief. That there was nobody like Bradlaugh for an awkward emergency, was the fresh verdict of his followers.

And these things, and his shaping of his life, were all of a piece with the extraordinary effectiveness of his oratory. In tempestuous power and intensity of feeling it surpassed any that it has ever been my lot to listen to: it roused men to great thrills of sympathy apart from any of that foregone approbation which swells the cheering for so many political leaders. He could make enthusiastic followers at one hearing, and keep them for a generation. Oratory was with him not an art, but an inspiration; he even misused his wonderfully powerful voice; but he sounded easily all the notes of eloquence, giving at times the whole gamut of effect, jest, pathos, gravity, reasoning, epigram, and thunderous vehemence, in a quarter of an hour's speech. The platform was pre-eminently his place; and no one who merely reads his articles written for reading, tersely strong as his style generally is, can know the extent of his power over language. It did not lie in any special sonority of vocabulary or choice of cadence, but in a volcanic sincerity and spontaneous fire of speech which yet never passed beyond the control of logic and judgment—something equally removed from the measured passion and forceful dignity of Bright, and the copious mellifluence of Gladstone. It was the oratory of unswerving conviction, grave or impassioned or satirical in turn, but always felt and never factitious. He spoke as he lived and fought, going straight for his mark, and staking all on the issue.

To those whom his career leaves cold and whom his character cannot attract, it is enough to say that those who applaud the career and honour the character recognise in them, in their special kind, that invincible and unforgettable something which marks men for remembrance long after their immediate influence has passed away—the something which in artists and poets and warriors we call genius. What Mr John Morley has called the dæmonic elements of character, but may perhaps better be called the dynamic elements, were present in Bradlaugh in a degree which gives a personality a lasting interest. Beside the cautious and merely judicious or clever men, he stands out as one of larger mould and greater fibre, a battling and conquering Titan, sure of the sympathetic retrospect of happier days. It is not merely that as a statesman he impressed friends and foes alike with his insight and his sagacity; and that he combined the fire of the orator with the exactitude of the scholar and the rigorous thinking of the born reasoner; but that in him sagacity never ceased to be heroic, and that his commanding powers rested on a character more commanding still. When, in September 1892, twenty months after his death, a gathering was held in his memory on the occasion of the completion of the bust for his grave, the enthusiasm was as strong, the throng as dense, the tributes as warm, the sympathy as keen, as on the day he was struck down. His name is verily not written in water. And the bronze bust on his tomb, recalling as it does the high front and the unflinching eye which his friends loved to associate with him, and seeming as it does to face fate with an immovable strength and firmness, will for many a year say to passers-by what has been sought to be told in these pages—"This was a man."

THE END.

---

[APPENDICES]

APPENDIX I.

MR. BRADLAUGH'S BIRTHPLACE.

On p. 3 it is stated that Mr. Bradlaugh was born at No. 5, Bacchus Walk, Hoxton, but this appears to be an error, of which I only became aware in 1905. In that year the London County Council had under consideration the question of placing a tablet on the house in which my father was born, and they wrote me for the purpose of obtaining documentary or other evidence as to the identity of the house. As a result of careful inquiries I found that the birthplace of my father was No. 31, and not No. 5, as I had previously believed. As it was possible that the street had been renumbered, the London County Council undertook to try to find out, and Mr. Gomme, Clerk to the Council, subsequently wrote me that although this point could not be determined with exactitude:

"The probabilities are that the street had not been renumbered since the date of Bradlaugh's birth. If such is the case the house in which he was born has disappeared, for about 1883, No. 31 Bacchus Walk was with a block of other houses in the street demolished to provide a site for the present St. John's Road School, Hoxton. On my reporting these facts, the Committee of the Council dealing with the matter regretfully decided that under the circumstances they could take no further action with regard to this house.

"It will interest you to know that the Committee have also taken steps with a view to the erection of a tablet on No. 20, Circus Road, S. John's Wood, where your father died, after having resided there for a considerable period. The owner of the house, however, refused to consent to the erection of a tablet, and the Committee were thus compelled to abandon the idea of indicating this house."

H. B. B.

[APPENDIX II.]

LORD DUFFERIN AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH.

The following significant correspondence between Lord Dufferin and Mr. Bradlaugh is now (1908) included for the first time in this biography.

Lord Dufferin's letters are written throughout in his own handwriting, and the draft of my father's letter is written by his own hand. I am the more fortunate in having this, because it was very rare indeed for him either to make a draft of his letters or to write at such length. The occasion was, however, one of more than usual importance. Lord Dufferin sent with his letter a copy of the speech he delivered at the St. Andrew's dinner, Calcutta, on November 30, 1888, ten days before he ceased to be Viceroy of India. It makes a booklet of 21 quarto pages, and it is to this that reference is made in the letters.

H. B. B.

"Lord Dufferin presents his compliments to Mr. Bradlaugh, and, well knowing that even his bitterest opponents are ready to recognise not only Mr. Bradlaugh's ability, but also his perfect sincerity, uprightness and honesty of purpose, he takes the liberty of addressing him in reference to a lecture which Mr. Bradlaugh delivered in the Tyne Theatre at Newcastle on the subject of our Indian Empire. In that lecture, though Mr. Bradlaugh did not refer to Lord Dufferin in unduly harsh or unfriendly terms, he did certainly misrepresent both the words and the tenor of his Calcutta speech. This probably arose from the fact of the Times correspondent having only telegraphed those parts of the speech with which he himself especially sympathised. Under these circumstances, Lord Dufferin has taken the liberty of sending Mr. Bradlaugh a full copy of the speech as it was delivered. The statements in Mr. Bradlaugh's lecture to which Lord Dufferin particularly objects are:—First, that Lord Dufferin has misrepresented the avowed views of the Congress and its supporters. He can assure him that he has not done so. Mr. Bradlaugh may be quite certain that, before saying what he did, Lord Dufferin took every precaution to verify his references, and that the proceedings of the Congress and of the Committees whose conclusions the Congress adopted, were precisely what he described. It is true, at the last meeting, thanks to the friendly warnings which Lord Dufferin had given, the attitude and suggestions of the Congress were much more reasonable and moderate.

"The second statement in Mr. Bradlaugh's address to which Lord Dufferin objects, is where he says that Lord Dufferin asserted that these Congresses were seditious. Again he begs to assure Mr. Bradlaugh that he never, either directly or by implication, gave utterance to such an opinion. He has always referred to the Congress in terms of sympathy and respect, and treated the members with great personal civility. What he criticised was the distribution, amongst an ignorant population, under the auspices of some ill-advised persons who were not even natives, but with the authority of the Congress, of pamphlets which were calculated to excite the hatred of the people against her Majesty's Government in India.

"Mr. Bradlaugh also seems to imply that Lord Dufferin has opposed himself to the native demands for a reform in the Civil Service. So far from this being the case, before the Congress even put forward any such suggestions, Lord Dufferin had appointed a Commission, with Sir Charles Aitchison (one of the most liberal-minded men that have ever been in India) as chairman, and some leading natives as members, to propound a scheme for the larger admission of natives into the higher ranks of the Civil Service. This Commission has recommended that over 120 offices now closed to natives should be thrown open to them.

"However, if Mr. Bradlaugh will only read Lord Dufferin's speech, Lord Dufferin thinks he will see that it is conceived in a totally different tone and spirit from that which Mr. Bradlaugh has himself imagined, and he may tell Mr. Bradlaugh in confidence—though, of course, he would desire that it should remain unknown to anyone else—that he himself has been doing his very best to forward such a reform of the Provincial Councils in India as Mr. Bradlaugh appears to advocate. In further illustration of his position, Lord Dufferin may mention that Mr. Yule, the gentleman who acted as chairman of the last Congress at Allahabad, was present on the occasion on which Lord Dufferin delivered the speech which Mr. Bradlaugh has criticised, and, at its conclusion, went out of his way to thank him for it as being calculated to do the very greatest good.

"Mr. Bradlaugh has also fallen into an error in considering that Lord Dufferin's speech is likely to cause embarrassment to Lord Lansdowne. It was intended, on the contrary, to produce the very opposite effect, and to smooth Lord Lansdowne's way for him; and it is in this light that both Lord Lansdowne himself and his friends regard it; for it is obvious that Lord Dufferin having undertaken the disagreeable task of pointing out the extravagances into which the Congress was being insensibly led, there will remain to Lord Lansdowne the agreeable duty of inaugurating whatever concessions it may be possible to make.

"In conclusion, Lord Dufferin hopes Mr. Bradlaugh will understand what perhaps is not readily appreciated by those who have not lived in India; namely, that the Government of India is perpetually fighting, on behalf of the great masses of the population, against the encroachments and usurpations of what may be called the specialised interests; for, unlike almost all other Governments, it is unconnected by ties of prejudice or self-interest with any particular class or section of the community it governs.

"Lord Dufferin is quite satisfied that Mr. Bradlaugh will forgive him for troubling him with this short letter of explanation.

"British Embassy, Rome.
"7th February, 1889."

---

(Draft Letter.)

"Mr. Bradlaugh, in acknowledging Lord Dufferin's 'private and confidential' letter of February 7th, desires to specially recognise the frank and more than kindly tone of that letter, and trusts that in the observations which Mr. Bradlaugh feels called upon to submit to Lord Dufferin's consideration, he may be pardoned if he ventures sometimes to wholly differ, even on statements of fact, from one so eminent, and one whose recent Vice-regal position entitles him to special respect and attention in matters concerning India. It is true that at the time of the Newcastle speech and until the receipt of the letter of February 7th, Mr. Bradlaugh had only seen the Calcutta speech as given in the Times, and he is exceedingly obliged to Lord Dufferin for the more accurate and complete report enclosed in his Lordship's letter. Perhaps Mr. Bradlaugh may be permitted to add that although the report of his own Newcastle speech as given in the Newcastle Daily Leader is very full and, on the whole, fairly accurate, it is necessarily not verbatim, and has appeared without any correction. The report in the Newcastle Daily Chronicle was less full, and though fair, has, in abbreviating, occasionally varied the meaning. This observation is only offered because of the importance the speech acquires by Lord Dufferin's notice of its purport. Mr. Bradlaugh, in charging Lord Dufferin with misrepresenting the avowed views of the Congress, was careful to express his opinion that Lord Dufferin had been misled by inaccurate information, and if now Mr. Bradlaugh had alone the Calcutta speech to guide him, he would still incline to that view; for the words on p. 9, line 26, 'the ideal authoritatively suggested, as I understand' seem to imply that Lord Dufferin spoke rather on information received than on his personal knowledge, but in view of Lord Dufferin's declaration that 'he took every precaution to verify his references, and that the proceedings of the Congress and of the Committees whose conclusions the Congress adopted were precisely what he described,' Mr. Bradlaugh trusts that he may be permitted to justify and maintain his criticism of Lord Dufferin's words as follows (Calcutta speech, p. 9, line 20, to p. 10, line 1):—

"'Some intelligent, loyal, patriotic, and well-meaning men are desirous of taking, I will not say a further step in advance, but a very big jump into the unknown—by the application to India of democratic methods of government and the adoption of a Parliamentary system, which England herself has only reached by slow degrees and through the discipline of many centuries of preparation. The ideal authoritatively suggested, as I understand, is the creation of a representative body or bodies in which the official element shall be in the minority who shall have the power of the purse, and who through this instrumentality shall be able to bring the British Executive into subjection to their will.'

"On this Mr. Bradlaugh ventures to refer Lord Dufferin to the only authoritative suggestion of which he is aware, i.e., the actual resolutions of the Congresses defining their 'tentative suggestions' of reform and which seem to him to so essentially contradict the understanding arrived at by Lord Dufferin that Mr. Bradlaugh requotes their tenor from Resolution 4, with its sub-sections, as printed in the report of the Calcutta Congress, which, he respectfully submits, completely justify his Newcastle speech; he believes that these resolutions were precisely re-affirmed at Madras and Allahabad:—

"'(1.)—The number of persons composing the Legislative Councils, both Provincial and of the Governor-General, to be materially increased. Not less than one-half the Members of such enlarged Councils to be elected. Not more than one-fourth to be officials, having seats ex-officio in such Councils, and not more than one-fourth to be Members, official or non-official, nominated by Government.

"'(2.) The right to elect members to the Provincial Councils to be conferred only on those classes and members of the community, primâ facie, capable of exercising it wisely and independently.'

And, after suggesting possible elective bodies, it concludes:—

"'But whatever system be adopted (and the details must be worked out separately for each province) care must be taken that all sections of the community and all great interests are adequately represented.'

In sub-section 6 providing that:—

"'All legislative measures and all financial questions, including all Budgets, whether these involve new or enhanced taxation or not, to be necessarily submitted to, and dealt with by, these Councils.'

And giving right of interpellation, it is

'provided that if the subject in regard to which the inquiry is made involves matters of foreign policy, military dispositions or strategy, or is otherwise of such a nature that, in the opinion of the Executive, the public interest would be materially imperilled by the communication of the information asked for, it shall be competent for them to instruct the ex-officio Members, or one of them, to reply accordingly and decline to furnish the information asked for.'

And by sub-section 7 it is expressly declared that:—

"'The Executive Government shall possess the power of overruling the decision arrived at by the majority of the Council in every case in which, in its opinion, the public interests would suffer by the acceptance of such decision.'

"As it was on the faith of his reading of these resolutions, which he had in his hand when speaking at Newcastle, that Mr. Bradlaugh made the statement to which Lord Dufferin objects, he ventures to submit that such resolutions show clearly (1) that there is no attempt whatever at 'the application to India of democratic methods of government'; or (2) at 'the adoption of a Parliamentary system which England herself has only reached by slow degrees'; (3) there is no creation of a representative body or bodies, there is simply the proposal that an existing body shall be enlarged and half of it made representative under special limitations of electorate; (4) the Executive is only mentioned to preserve it as paramount and with overruling power over the Legislative Councils which alone are meant or referred to; (5) though it is true that it is proposed that the purely 'official element' shall be a minority, as sitting ex-officio, it is also stated that a moiety of the Legislative Council shall be non-elected Government nominees, such nominees being either official or non-official as the Executive may decide.

"Mr. Bradlaugh notes that Lord Dufferin considers that 'the attitude and suggestions of the Allahabad Congress were much more reasonable and moderate,' and as Mr. Bradlaugh has not yet received any authorised report of that Congress he differs from Lord Dufferin with great hesitation; but so far as he is able to judge from the newspaper reports, and from the comparison of these with the official reports of the three previous Congresses, the attitude in each case was that of moderate statement of grievances with explicit declaration of loyalty to the British Empire. Mr. Bradlaugh feels that on this point Lord Dufferin, who tendered hospitality to the Congress of 1886, speaks with more perfect knowledge than himself, but, judging as an outsider, from the official reports and guided by the extremely amicable relations between Lord Dufferin as Viceroy and the Congress of 1886, Mr. Bradlaugh, whilst gladly recognising the justice of Lord Dufferin's judgment that the attitude and suggestions of the Congress just held were reasonable and moderate, can find no ground for supposing that there was any difference in these respects at Allahabad from the former Congresses at Bombay, Calcutta, or Madras.

"Mr. Bradlaugh is in the highest degree grateful to Lord Dufferin for his repudiation and contradiction of the view urged by Mr. Bradlaugh at Newcastle, that Lord Dufferin had described the Congresses as seditious. Mr. Bradlaugh trusts that he may be permitted to point out that in a question put on the notice paper of the House of Commons by Mr. J. M. Maclean, M.P., immediately on the publication in the Times of the telegraphic summary of Lord Dufferin's Calcutta speech, Mr. Maclean claimed, under cover of that speech, to describe the Congress as one which 'aims at destroying the security of English Rule in India.' On this point Mr. Bradlaugh, in speaking in the future, will take care that it shall be clearly understood that Lord Dufferin 'has always referred to the Congress in terms of sympathy and respect,' and Mr. Bradlaugh tenders to Lord Dufferin his sincere apology that, misled by the Times version and by Mr. Maclean's gloss, he attributed to Lord Dufferin any views hostile to the Congress. With reference to the publications to which Lord Dufferin refers, but which he does not specifically quote, it would ill become Mr. Bradlaugh, without more complete information, to do more than submit that he is unaware of any pamphlets issued by the authority of the Congress 'calculated to excite the hatred of the people against her Majesty's Government in India.' If Lord Dufferin refers to 'the Catechism,' Mr. Bradlaugh observes that the author appeals to the people 'to lay aside their petty jealousies and race antipathies and learn their duties as loyal citizens of the British Empire.'

"Mr. Bradlaugh does not think that, either at Newcastle or elsewhere, he has ever implied that Lord Dufferin was opposed to Indian Civil Service Reform, and he is glad to know that the natives of India may count on Lord Dufferin's powerful help. Mr. Bradlaugh has not yet had the opportunity of fully considering the report, and may possibly underrate its favourable character to the natives. The recommendations to open some 108 offices to natives must be considered with reference to the contention that, under the statutory service rules, at least 150 offices should be so open. Mr. Bradlaugh pleads guilty to a little confusion as to dates, probably the result of insufficient knowledge. Lord Dufferin speaks of the Commission (appointed October 4th, 1886) as 'before the Congress ever put forward any such suggestions.' Mr. Bradlaugh ventures to think that Lord Dufferin has overlooked the resolution on this subject of the Bombay Congress, December, 1885.

"As desired by Lord Dufferin, Mr. Bradlaugh has most carefully read the authorised report of his Lordship's Calcutta speech, and especially thanks Lord Dufferin for the confidential intimation 'that he himself has been doing his very best to forward such a reform of the Provincial Councils in India as Mr. Bradlaugh appears to advocate'; this Mr. Bradlaugh assumes is intended by the parts underlined by Lord Dufferin on p. 18; but it is respectfully submitted that the words on p. 17 might, without Lord Dufferin's kindly confidential assurance, not unreasonably have been held to imply that his Lordship charged the Congress with seeking to effectuate constitutional changes by a stroke of the pen and without deliberation, when, in fact, the very first resolution of the first Congress asked for enquiry by Royal Commission, and it is for such an enquiry that Mr. Bradlaugh has already placed a notice on the order book of the House of Commons.

"Mr. Bradlaugh is pleased to learn that he has fallen into error in considering that Lord Dufferin's speech was likely to cause embarrassment to Lord Lansdowne, and he entirely accepts Lord Dufferin's assurance that it was intended to produce the opposite effect; but, in justice to himself, he thinks it right to submit that confidential information from India leads him to the belief that same embarrassment has actually already arisen.

"Mr. Bradlaugh fears that, although he has left many points untouched, he will already have exhausted Lord Dufferin's patience, but he trusts that the generous disposition and courteous frankness which prompted Lord Dufferin's letter of the 7th will serve as excuse for any brusquerie in Mr. Bradlaugh's present letter."

---

"5, Upper Berkeley Street, W.
"22nd Feb., 1889.

"My dear Mr. Bradlaugh,—

"I hope you will forgive me for taking the liberty of addressing you in the above direct manner; but I am so sensible of the friendly tone of your letter of the 19th, and so shocked at having given so much trouble to a busy man like yourself, that I presume to slip into the more familiar way of writing.

"With regard to the points you raise in your letter:—one thing has evidently escaped your observation, namely, that my remarks in the main were not addressed specially to the Congress, but to 'some of our friends, who, etc., etc.,' and in this category I embraced all those, whether speakers, writers, or other persons, who (for the sake of briefness) I may denominate the advanced party in India. Again, where I said 'the idea authoritatively suggested as I understand,' I referred to a speech, or rather, I think, a letter of Mr. Hume's. Mr. Hume is the Chief Secretary of the Congress, and certainly speaks with authority, if not in the name of the Congress itself, at all events in that of the Congress party. I also had in my mind the speeches of the two previous Presidents of the Congress, as well as the manifestoes put forth by the Congress Press. The only respect in which I criticised the conduct of the Congress itself was in regard to its official sanction to the distribution of the pamphlets, and I do not think anybody can say that the terms I used were very severe. However, I am most unwilling to give you any further trouble in writing, but I should esteem it a great pleasure if I might be allowed to make your acquaintance, and to have an opportunity of talking over some of these matters with you. I make this suggestion because I believe I could not be doing a greater service both to India and to the public than by placing myself at your disposal in regard to any information you may desire to have about India. I shall be in town till next Thursday, when I return to Rome; but I shall be happy to wait upon you at any day or hour you may name, or to receive you here, if that should be more convenient to you. On Sunday I shall be engaged; but every other day up to the date of my departure I shall be free.

"Believe me, my dear Mr. Bradlaugh,
"Yours sincerely,

"Dufferin and Ava."

---

"5 Upper Berkeley Street, W.
"Feb. 24, 1889.

"My dear Mr. Bradlaugh,—

"Many thanks for your kind little note of to-day. It will give me the greatest pleasure to receive you here at 1.15 to-morrow, Monday.

"Yours sincerely,

"Dufferin and Ava."

---

"British Embassy, Rome,
"2nd April, 1889.

"My dear Mr. Bradlaugh,—

"I am very much obliged to you for your kindness in sending me the notice of your motion. There are already indications of the willingness, both of the present Viceroy and of the Government at home, to modify the existing régime in India, and I have no doubt that you will obtain some satisfactory assurances in regard to, at all events a portion of your suggestions. I am strongly of opinion, however, that for the present it would be wiser to apply whatever reforms may be found desirable to the Provincial Councils, and to leave the Governor-General's Council untouched, except so far as allowing the Budget to be discussed, and giving to the members the right of asking questions under certain specified conditions. The Supreme Council of the Governor-General is almost always engaged in the consideration of large Imperial questions, in regard to which it would not be likely to receive any great assistance from the native members who might be added to it; and, even if this were not the case, it would be well to watch how the proposed changes in the Provincial Councils had worked. Moreover, I think our efforts should be applied rather to the decentralisation of our Indian Administration than to its greater unification, and I made considerable efforts in India to promote and expand this principle. In any event, I am sure the discussion which you will have provoked will prove very useful; and I am very glad that the conduct of it should be in the hands of a prudent, wise, and responsible person like yourself, instead of having been laid hold of by some adventurous franc-tireur, whose only object might possibly have been to let off a few fireworks for his own glorification.

"Yours sincerely,

"Dufferin and Ava."

---

[APPENDIX III.]

A NOTE ON THE MOTION TO EXPUNGE THE RESOLUTIONS OF EXCLUSION FROM THE JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE.

When, with the kind help of his ever-devoted friend, Mr. John M. Robertson, I was writing this record of my father's life and work, there was one matter upon which neither of us felt able to enter very fully. I refer to the carrying of the motion to expunge from the journals of the House the resolution to exclude him passed on the 22nd of June, 1880.

I believe that the time has now come when I may, without unfairness to anyone, and without the slightest violation of confidence, state exactly what took place in regard to the moving of that resolution.

It may be remembered that Mr. Bradlaugh fell ill on January 10th, 1891, and that some five days later he had to take to that bed from which he never rose again. Mr. John M. Robertson was at the time in Edinburgh, on the staff of the Scottish Leader, and on the evening of Friday, the 16th, a mutual friend told me that Mr. Robertson had desired to know if Mr. Bradlaugh became worse, and that if he could be of any service he would come to London at a moment's notice. "Send for him now, then," I said, "for my father is dying."

Mr. Robertson came by the night mail on Saturday. He asked what he could do, and I put my difficulty before him. Mr. Bradlaugh had secured the first place on January 27th to move the resolution rescinding the resolution of 1880; he now knew that he would not be able to go to the House on that day, and he was troubling very much about it. He had had small hope of carrying the resolution, but he expected to get a substantial vote, and that would have satisfied him for the present. My ideas of the standing orders and rules of the House were not very definite, and I consulted Mr. Robertson whether we could not get someone to move the resolution in his place. I suggested that if it were thought wise, I would go to Mr. Gladstone—for I knew well that a small man would not do—and urge him to do it. I, at least, could not take an impartial view of the "Bradlaugh incident," and, rightly or wrongly, thought that Mr. Gladstone owed my father some amends for certain expressions he had used, and also for not having taken a bolder and stronger position from the very first. Mr. Robertson, however, was doubtful about Gladstone; other names were mentioned, and amongst them, that of Dr. Hunter. However, we were still ignorant of whether it would be possible to substitute anyone's name for my father's, and this we had to find out. I then returned to my father's bedside, and mentioning that Mr. Robertson had come on a flying visit to London, asked if he would like to see him for a few minutes. This my father was very pleased to do, and Mr. Robertson went to have a little chat with him. The subject of the resolution soon came up, and my father told Mr. Robertson how deep his vexation was that he would be unable to be in his place in the House, and, in answer to careful inquiries, said no other name could be substituted for his; but it happened that the impression was so general that he would take the whole time of the House that no one had thought it worth while to put his name down for the second place. Mr. Robertson left him without, of course, giving any hint of what was in our minds; it was so likely that we should fail that we did not wish to disturb him about it. If we should succeed that would be ample time to tell him; if we should fail, he would never know.

At the earliest possible moment on Monday morning Mr. Robertson went to see Dr. Hunter, and explained the whole matter to him. But before Mr. Robertson had actually reached the point of asking him to move the resolution, Dr. Hunter offered to do so if the second place was still open. Then I told my father of Dr. Hunter's offer, without, of course, saying anything of our share in inviting it. We had our reward in his delighted surprise. "Hunter will do it, you say?... The very man I would have chosen." I was more than pleased, for I had aimed high in my thoughts, and was doubtful whether Dr. Hunter was big enough! A little later, in thinking it all over, he asked, "You think I can quite rely upon Hunter doing it?" On my answering in the affirmative, he dictated letters to Dr. Hunter and two or three other members of Parliament. When a day or two after it was rumoured that Gladstone was to speak, he was quite pleased, although, as he said, "If Gladstone speaks that settles it; the Government will be bound to take it up; and, of course, they hold the majority; but I shan't mind that."

On the morning of Friday, the 23rd, he was shockingly ill, and waited in restless anxiety until the messenger should bring the "Order Paper." When he found that Dr. Hunter had been able to secure the place for his motion, and that his name was actually down on the Paper for that purpose, he was satisfied, and after dictating a couple of letters he gave himself up to rest.

On Friday night came the hemiplegia and unconsciousness; my father's work was done. Letters came from friends in different parts of the country, telling how they were urging their members to be present in their places on the 27th; letters came from Members themselves, promising their support; but they came to a man who could no longer read them. At last came the morning of January 27th, and with the first post the following letter from Dr. Hunter:—

"2, Brick Court, Temple,
"26/1/91.

"Dear Mrs. Bonner,—Mr. W. H. Smith has sent for me and speaking in the kindest manner of your father and of his appreciation of his valuable services in the House of Commons said that it would be extremely painful to him to discuss the motion, in the present state of your father's health. He is, therefore, prepared to give a day during the present Session so as to put the motion in as good a position as it is to-morrow, if I do not proceed to-morrow. I stated that, subject to Mr. Bradlaugh's own opinion, I considered it a fair offer, and personally would have no hesitation in leaving the motion to be taken up at a more convenient time by your father himself. You will exercise, of course, your discretion in consulting him on the subject, and I stated to the First Lord that I should let him know before business begins to-morrow what course I should follow. If you approve, or your father is well enough to enter upon the question and approves, kindly send me a telegram to 2, Brick Court, Temple, to-morrow morning.

"I am, yours very truly,
"W. A. Hunter."

I was in despair. Here was my father lying absolutely unconscious and dying. I knew that if that resolution was not moved that day it never would be moved. I had assured him positively that Dr. Hunter would do it; he had trusted me, and now I felt like a traitor. I sat down and wrote to Dr. Hunter, telling him that it was impossible for me to consult my father, since he was lying unconscious, that he had sunk into unconsciousness believing that this resolution would be moved, and, when he recovered, how was I to tell him that he had been deceived? I thanked Mr. Smith for his kindness, but I was firmly of opinion that the resolution should be moved whether it were carried or not; it was due to the treatment he had received from the Members of the House that Mr. Bradlaugh lay where he was, and they owed it to him to at least consider a resolution which should wipe out from the records of the House the resolution expelling him. I hardly knew what I wrote; I was so agitated. I hardly know now, except that it was to the effect as I have written, and through all my agitation I preserved two dominant ideas: first, to say all I could to induce Dr. Hunter to move the resolution; and, next, while picturing the very serious condition in which my father lay, not to let it be known that he was then actually dying.

The letter was despatched by special messenger, but after it was gone I felt I had not said half enough. My husband then went to find Dr. Hunter, and see him personally, but was unable to see him until about mid-day at the House. Dr. Hunter then said he had shown my letter to several members; they agreed, in consequence, that the resolution ought to be moved; and that he had decided to do so. Some of the members thought that the letter ought to be read to the House, but in any case he wished to know if I had any objection to its being shown to Mr. Smith. Dr. Hunter then saw Mr. Smith, who not only withdrew all opposition to the moving of the resolution, but also agreed to withdraw the Government opposition to the resolution itself. This decision was arrived at so late that it was (so it was said) unknown to the Solicitor-General when he got up to oppose the resolution.

When the telegrams of congratulation—the first, if I recollect rightly, was from Sir John Mowbray—began to pour in, and he to whom they were addressed lay there unconscious of all, the tragedy of it seemed almost more than one could bear.

On the same evening Dr. Hunter considerately wrote me this further letter, acquainting me with what had taken place:—

"National Liberal Club,
"Whitehall Place, S.W.,
"27/1/91.

"Dear Mrs. Bonner,—I cannot say how glad I am that the House has unanimously accepted your father's Resolution. I trust that he will have improved sufficiently to be made acquainted with the news.

"After seeing your husband I had no scruple in showing your letter to Mr. Smith, and, without assuming any violent assumption, I think it had something to do with the result. On taking his place this afternoon, he nodded to me significantly, as much as to say he recognised the necessity of my proceeding with the Resolution. The soundness of your opinion has been shown by the result.

"Many members spoke to me, all expressing their deepest sympathy, and on both sides there was a general feeling of relief that an agreement was come to.

"The reports in the papers will, when you have time, fully inform you of the course of the debate; but I may add that Mr. Gladstone was extremely gratified, on many grounds, and turning round offered me his warmest congratulations.

"There is but one universal feeling among members of all sections of opinion—an earnest desire and hope that your father may be spared to continue his services to the State.

"Yours very truly,
"W. A. Hunter."

Those who have followed the story of my father's life will be interested in learning how narrowly this resolution failed to be moved and carried. That it turned out as it did was owing, in the first place, to Mr. Robertson, who found the man to move it, in the next, to Dr. Hunter who carried it through, and, finally, to the real goodness of heart of Mr. W. H. Smith.

Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner.

April, 1906.

---

[INDEX.]

• Adam, The Hon. Mr, ii. [255] , [337] .
• Adams, Thomas, i. 398; ii. [210] , [413] .
• Adams, W. E. ("Caractacus"), i. 64, 68, 80, 109, 123, 125, 142.
• Affirm, Allowed to, ii. [246] .
• Affirmation Bills (see also Oaths Bill and Evidence Amendment), i. 169; ii. [234] , [246] , [272] , [281] , [304] , [312] , [315] , [336] , [358] , [361] , [374] .
• Agnosticism, ii. [117] .
• Agricultural Hall, i. 226, 231.
• Agricultural Labourers' Movement, i. 374, 378.
• Aliens, Destitute, ii. [404.]
• Allsop, Thomas, i. [64] , [68] , [273] .
• America, Visits to, i. 380; ii. [1.]
• Amusements, Boyish, i. [5.]
• Andrews, S. Pearl, i. 384.
• Arago, Emanuel, i. 318, 320.
• Arch, Joseph, i. 374, 392; ii. [368] .
• Arms Bill, ii. [196] .
• Army, Flogging in, ii. [201] , [259] .
• Army life, i. 25, 35.
• Arnold, Matthew, i. 230; ii. [151] , [329] .
• Arnold, Rev. T., i. 279.
• Atheism and Secularism, i. 332.
• Atheistic position stated, i. 87, 210, 337, 340; ii. [115] .
• Atheistic morality, i. 334, 339; ii. [157] .
• Ayrton, Hon. A. S., i. 142, 149; ii. [209] .
• 
  "B. V." (See Thomson.)
• Ball, John, i. 374, 378.
• Ballincollig, An Eviction at, i. 31.
• Baptism, i. 4.
• Bar, Speeches at the, 1st, ii. [241] ;
• 2nd. ii. [267] ;
• 3rd, ii. [295] ;
• 4th, ii. [341] .
• Barker, J., i. 121.
• Barker, Rev. W., i. 207.
• Barttelot, Sir W., ii. [239], [272].
• Beaconsfield, Lord. (See Disraeli.)
• Beales, Edmund, i. 220.
• Beesly, Prof., i. 314, 319.
• Bendall, S., i. 189; ii. [79] .
• Bernard, S., i. 64, 79, 99, 204.
• Besant, Annie, i. 400; ii. [12] , [33] , [65] , [70] , [87] , [92] , [136] , [175] , [223] , [286] , [291] , [308] , [343] , [382] , [395] , [406] , [418] .
• Biggar, J., ii. [35] , [195] .
• Birth, i. 3.
• Bismarck, i. 312, 316.
• Bizoin, A. G., i. 317.
• Blanc, L., i. 65, 321.
• Blasphemy Laws, i. 129; ii. 319, 405.
• Blasphemy prosecutions, ii. [316] , [324] .
• Bohn, H. G., ii. [24] .
• Bolingbroke, ii. [116] .
• Bonner's Fields, i. 8, 20, 23, 25.
• Bradlaugh, Alice, i. 49, 116; ii. [93] , [104] , [291] , [343] , [401] .
• Bradlaugh, Charles (jun.), i. 95, 117, 300.
• Bradlaugh, Charles (sen.), i. 2, 3, 13, 27.
• Bradlaugh, Elizabeth (Mrs Norman), i. 13, 15, 20, 27, 35, 37, 349.
• Bradlaugh, Harriet, i. 114.
• Bradlaugh, James, i. 2.
• Bradlaugh, Mrs (sen.), i. 3, 4, 36, 41, 49.
• Bradlaugh, Mrs S. L., i. 49, 173, 181, 276, 300.
• Bradlaugh, W. R., i. 114, 348.
• "Bradlaugh for Northampton," i. 276.
• Bright, John, i. 270; ii. [101] , [214] , [228] , [234] , [266] , [271] , [288] , [348] .
• Brimont, Mde. de, i. 314, 347.
• Brindley, Dr., i. 160.
• British Banner, i. 20.
• Broadhurst, H., ii. [105] , [308] , [402] , [414] .
• Bryce, Prof., ii. [216] .
• Büchner, Dr L., i. 381; ii. [129] .
• Buckle, H., ii. [119] .
• Burns, J., ii. [382] , [406] , [417] .
• Burt, T., i. 249, 376, 392; ii. [347] , [348] , [368] , [402] , [414] .
• Business life:
• office boy, i. 7;
• wharf clerk, i. 7;
• "coal merchant," i. 17;
• selling braces, i. 19;
• soldier, i. 26;
• soldier, i. 26;
• errand boy, i. 41;
• solicitor's clerk, i. 48, 90, 99;
• city merchant, i. 100, 299;
• financier, i. 101;
• publisher, ii. [17] , [100] , [417] ;
• and printer, ii. [101] .
• Butler, Bishop, ii. [116] , [150] .
• 
  Campbell, Alexander, i. 88.
• Capper, C., i. 274; ii. [65] .
• "Caractacus." (See W. E. Adams.)
• Cardinal's Broken Oath, A, ii. [309] .
• Carlile, R., i. 9, 159, 333; ii. [165] .
• Carlile, Mrs Sharples, i. 9, 19, 20, 24, 41.
• Carlile, Mrs Sharples, The Daughters of, i. 9, 11, 19, 388; ii. [4] .
• Carlist country, Through the, i. 355.
• Carlyle, T., ii. [165] , [422] .
• Castelar, Emilio, i. 154, 353, 359, 364; ii. [4].
• Cavendish, Lord F., ii. [217] .
• Chancellor's salary, The Lord, ii. [406] .
• Channel Tunnel, The, ii. [381] .
• Chaplin, H., ii. [227] , [231] , [271] , [336] .
• Character, Alleged change of, i. 211, 279; ii. [415] .
• Characteristics, i. 279; ii. [49] , [99] , [101] , [152] , [423] .
• Childhood, i. 4.
• Christian, The, ii. [67] .
• Christian Globe, The, ii. [264] .
• Christian Times, The, i. 210.
• Chronicle, The Daily, ii. [264] .
• Churchill, Lord R., i. 14; ii. [230] , [261] , [272] , [298] , [338] , [349] , [363] , [371] , [374] , [377] , [380] .
• City Solicitor, The, ii. [21] , [27] .
• Clarke, Sir E., ii. [268] , [378] , [405] , [419] .
• Clergy, Letters to the, i. 128.
• Clerical libeller, A, i. 99.
• Clerical feeling on the Oath question, ii. [250] , [275] , [291] , [314] , [319] .
• Clerkenwell explosion, The, i. 257.
• Clifford, Prof., ii. [133] .
• Clock Tower, Imprisoned in the, ii. [245] .
• Closing years, ii. [102] , [368] .
• Cluseret, General, i. 115, 253, 262.
• "Cob of Coal" story, ii. [76] .
• Coercion Bill, The, ii. [196] , [258] , [290] , [377] .
• Collet, C. D., i. 139, 142.
• Commune, The, i. 322.
• Compulsory Education, i. 265.
• Congreve, Dr, i. 314.
• Conway, Moncure D., ii. [9], [41] , [43] , [276] , [312] .
• Cooper, Robert, i. 78.
• Cooper, R. A., i. 267, 364.
• Cooper, Thomas, i. 84, 209.
• Corbett, ——, ii. [264] , [302] .
• Corporation, The London (Malversation Charges), ii. [374] .
• Counsel in the various lawsuits—
• Chitty, T., i. 297.
• Coleridge, Sir J. D. (Sol.-Gen.), i. 144.
• Collier, Sir R. (Att.-Gen.), i. 144, 182.
• Crump, F. O., ii. [322] .
• Danckwertz, W. O., ii. [352] .
• Giffard, Sir H. (see also Giffard), ii. [23] , [73] , [177] , [260] , [292] , [322] , [327] , [355] .
• Grantham W. (see also Grantham), ii. [75] , [79] .
• Hunter, Dr. W. A. (see also Hunter), ii. [322] .
• Hutton, Crompton, i. 145.
• James, Sir H. (Att.-Gen.) (see also James), ii. [355] .
• Karslake, Sir J. (Att.-Gen.), i. 141.
• Keane, D., i. 284.
• Moloney, M., ii. [73] , [317] , [328] .
• O'Malley, i. 90.
• Russell, Sir C. ii. [73] .
• Seymour, Digby (see also Seymour), i. 290.
• Straight, Douglas, ii. [20] .
• Smith, Lumley, i. 284.
• Smith, Montague (see also Judges), i. 140, 184.
• Solicitors-Gen., i. 142, 144; ii. [355] .
• Wood, i. 285.
• Wright, R. S., ii. [352] .
• Courtney, L. H., ii. [177] .
• Courtship, i. 44.
• Cowen, Joseph, i. 83, 376; ii. [270] , [276] , [288] .
• Crawford, J. G., i. 130, 139, 143.
• Cremer, W. R., i. 220.
• Crémieux, A., i. 317.
• Cross, Sir R. A., ii. [336] .
• 
  Darwin, C., ii. [23] , [119] .
• Davey, Sir H., ii. [266] .
• Death, The fear of, i. 198.
• Death and funeral, ii. [110] , [420] .
• Debates:—
• Armstrong, ii. [50] ;
• Barker, i. 207;
• Baylee, i. 161;
• Bowes, i. 87;
• Brindley, i. 159;
• Browne, ii. [44] ;
• Burns, i. 343;
• Cooper, i. 209;
• Court, i. 88;
• Douglas, i. 63;
• Marsden Gibson, ii. [407] ;
• Gordon, ii. [47] ;
• Grant, i. 84, 158; ii, [38] ;
• Harrison, i. 338, 341, 342;
• Holyoake, i .322;
• Hutchings, i. 167;
• Hyndman, ii. [189] , [417] ;
• Father Ignatius, i. 342;
• King, i. 332;
• Lawson, i. 170;
• Lightfoot, ii. [49] ;
• Mackie, i. 170;
• Mahalm, i. 170;
• Matthias, i. 87;
• M'Cann, i. 244; ii. 142;
• Mensor, i. 87;
• Porteous, i. 212;
• Roberts, ii. [46] ;
• Robertson, i. 336;
• Rutherford, i. 170;
• Simpson, ii. [47] ;
• Smart, i. 89;
• Westerby, i. 51; ii. [132] , [138] ;
• Woodville Woodman, i. 170, 212.
• Denning, Inspector, ii. [287] , [289] , [336] .
• Derby, Lord, ii. [177] , [294] .
• Devonport case, The, i. 175.
• Dickson, Col., i. 220, 315.
• Dilke, Ashton, ii. [216] , [289] , [308] , [347] .
• Dillwyn, L. L., ii. [224] , [303] , [375] .
• Disestablishment, i. 265.
• Dispatch, Weekly, i. 186, 233; ii. [265] .
• Disraeli, B., i. 222, 309; ii. [85] , [245] .
• Donnybrook Fair, At, i. 32.
• Drysdale, Dr C., ii. [24] .
• Drysdale, Dr J., ii. [138] .
• Dublin, In, i. 261.
• Duel, Challenged to a, ii. [259] .
• 
  Early closing legislation, ii. [401] .
• Echo, i. 319; ii. [239] .
• Education, i. 4;
• of his children, i. 116, 347.
• Eight hours' question, The, ii. [189] , [413] , [417] .
• Election addresses, i. 264, 393.
• Election colours, i. 267.
• Election funds, i. 263, 267, 278, 396, 400; ii. [265] .
• Election work, gratuitous, i. 266.
• Emerson, R. W., i. 388.
• Employer and employed. (See Master and Servant.)
• Employers' Liability Bill, i. 269; ii. [49] , [259] , [369] , [374] , [380] , [402] , [406] , [415] .
• Enfield, Viscount, i. 147.
• Enlisting, i. 26.
• Esquiros, A., i. 114.
• Evidence Amendment Act (see also Affirmation and Oath), i. 129, 169, 284, 288; ii. [216] .
• Examiner, i. 353, 400.
• Expunge the resolutions of exclusion, Motion to, ii. [404] , [419] .
• 
  Fanatical Monkeys, The, i. 133, 233, 291; ii. [76] , [151] .
• Farrar, Archdeacon, ii. [116] .
• Favre, Jules, i. 314, 320, 322.
• Fawcett, Prof. H., ii. [23] .
• Fencing, i. 39.
• Fenian Brotherhood, The, i. 253.
• Ferrier, Dr, ii. [138] .
• Financial Reformer, The, ii. [68] .
• First pamphlet, i. 23.
• Firth, J. F. B., ii. [216] .
• Fishing, i. 6, 116; ii. [99] , [103] , [380] , [417] .
• Flint, Professor, ii. [56] , [120] , [125] .
• Flourens, G., i. 322.
• Foote, G.W., i. 359, 394; ii. [87] , [92] , [316] , [324] , [412] .
• Forcibly ejected from the House of Commons, ii. [286] .
• Forster, W. E., ii. [195] .
• Fournichon, L., i. 317.
• Fowler, Sir R., ii. [226] , [271] , [287] , [374] .
• Fowler, W., i. 397.
• France, i. 154, 312.
• Fraser, Bishop, ii. [161] .
• Freeman, The, ii. [285] .
• Freemasonry, i. 203.
• Freethinker, The, ii. [316] , [324] .
• French elections, Nominated at the, i. 321.
• Friendly Societies, ii. [404] .
• 
  "G. R." i. 123.
• Gambetta, L., i. 317, 321.
• Garibaldi, i. 67, 114, 150, 170, 203, 214.
• Garrison, W. L., i. 384, 386.
• Gibson, Rev. Marsden, ii. [141] , [407] .
• Gibson, Milner, i. 142.
• Gibson. J. G. (Att.-Gen. for Ireland), ii. [226] .
• Giffard, Sir H. (Lord Halsbury), i. 274, 311; ii. [235] , [239] , [255] , [337] .
• (See also Counsel.)
• Gilpin, C., i. 265, 268, 394; ii. [65] .
• Girardin, E. de, i. 330.
• Gladstone, W. E., i. 144, 148, 222, 251, 258, 262, 267, 272, 310, 390; ii. [164] , [192] , [209] , [226] , [239] , [242] , [269] , [282] , [297] , [338] , [345] , [365] , [369] , [391] , [416] , [419] , [426] .
• Goldsmith's Row, Working Men's Hall in, i. 47.
• Gorst, Sir J., ii. [243] , [261] , [267] , [294] .
• Gospels, Early Criticism of the, i. 16, 22, 63, 84; ii. [148] .
• Gospels and the Thirty-nine Articles, The, i. 8.
• Grahame, Cuninghame, ii. [382] , [384] , [414] .
• Grand Orient of France, i. 204.
• Grant, Rev. B., i. 19, 73, 84, 158, 160, 166; ii. [39] .
• Grantham, W., ii. [75] , [257] .
• (See also Counsel.)
• Granville, Lord, i. 314.
• Grote, G., ii. [16] , [176] .
• Guernsey methods, i. 189.
• Gurney, J., i. 153, 264, 276, 394, 398.
• Guyot, Yves, i. 331.
• 
  Habits and surroundings, ii. [97] .
• Hall of Science, City Road, i. 219.
• Hall of Science, Old Street, i. 248, 336, 343.
• Hamilton, Lord G., ii. [308] , [375] .
• Hamilton, Sir W., ii. [213] .
• Harcourt, Sir W. V., ii. [295] , [334] , [405] .
• Harrison, Rev. A. J., i. 338, 341, 342, 354; ii. [39] .
• Harrison, Frederic, i. 319.
• Hartington, Lord, ii. [336] .
• Harvey, T., i. 94.
• Headlam, Rev. S., ii. [23] , [275] .
• Henley, Lord, i. 265, 268, 294.
• Herbert, Auberon, ii. [82] .
• Herzen, A., i. 115, 204.
• Hicks-Beach, Sir M., ii. [358] , [361] , [362] , [371] , [405] .
• Hobbes, T., ii. [115] , [129] .
• Holbach, ii. [116] .
• Holker, Sir J., ii. [219] , [265] , [269] .
• Holyoake, Austin, i. 21, 132, 139, 142, 144, 218, 267, 285, 332, 390, 394; ii. [12] , [16] .
• Holyoake, G. J., i. 21, 64, 69, 78, 128, 175, 332; ii. [16] , [35] , [65] , [142] , [223] , [277] .
• Home life, i. 111.
• Home Rule, i. 258; ii. [192] , [200] , [363] , [369] .
• Home sold up, The, i. 301.
• Homeless, i. 117.
• Hooper, A., i. 25, 42, 276.
• Hopps, Rev. J. Page, i. 143.
• Hopwood, C. H., ii. [219] , [358] .
• Horsley, Rev. J. W., ii. [23] .
• Howell, G., i. 220, 319.
• Hubbard, J. G., ii. [271] .
• Huddersfield, Difficulties at, i. 240.
• Huddersfield Examiner, The, ii. [66] , [73] .
• Hugo, V., i. 65; ii. [162]
• "Humanity's Gain from Unbelief," ii. [141] , [407] .
• Hunger, i. 25.
• Hunter, Dr W. A., ii. [389] , [419] .
• (See also Counsel.)
• Hutchings, W., i. 166.
• Huxley, Prof., i. 341; ii. [128] , [151] .
• Hyde Park Meetings:—
• Sunday Trading Bill, i. 52;
• Government Reform Bill, i. 81;
• Garibaldi, i. 214;
• Reform League, i. 224, 234;
• Parks Regulation Bill, i. 372;
• Peace Demonstrations, ii. [82] ;
• Grant to Prince of Wales, ii. [84] ;
• Constitutional Rights, ii. [308] .
• Hyndman, H. M., ii. [414] , [417] .
• 
  "I Believe," i. 168
• "Iconoclast," Use of the name, i. 42, 144.
• Illingworth, A., ii. [258], [337].
• "Impeachment of the House of Brunswick," i. 306; ii. [225], [230].
• India, ii. [108], [198], [409], [416], [426].
• India, Visit to, ii. [106], [409].
• Inniscarra, Right of way at, i. 33.
• Investigator, i. 64, 79, 87, 95, 97, 111, 119.
• Italy, The cause of liberty in, i. 151, 214; ii. [192], [198].
• Ireland, i. 29, 252; ii. [192].
• "Ireland Society," The, i. 259.
• Irish Question, Essay on the, i. 257.
• Irish Land Bill, The, ii. [274].
• 
  James, Sir H., ii. [215], [273], [391], [405].
• (See also Counsel.)
• Jessel, Sir George, ii. [19], [29].
• Jingoism, ii. [82].
• John Street Institution, The, i. 21.
• Jones, B. B., i. 17, 62, 218.
• Jones, Ernest, i. 82, 232, 268, 378.
• Jones, Lloyd, i. 319.
• Judges before whom Mr Bradlaugh appeared—
• Baggallay, L. J., ii. [262], [292].
• Blackburn, Lord, i. 288, 290; ii. [322]
• Bovill, L. C. J., i. 287.
• Bramwell, L. J., i. 139, 144; ii. [27], [262], [322].
• Brett, L. J., i. 286; ii. [27], [292], [305], [307], [355].
• Byles, J., i. 187.
• Channell, Baron, i. 187, 287.
• Cleasby, Baron, i. 147, 287.
• Cockburn, L.C.J., i. 287, 293; ii. [21], [23], [36], [179].
• Coleridge, L.C.J., ii. [215], [278], [292], [322], [327], [346].
• Cotton, L.J., ii. [27], [305], [307], [355].
• Denman, J., ii. [278], [292], [305].
• Erle, L.C.J., i. 187.
• Field, J., ii. [79], [320], [321].
• Fitzgerald, Lord, ii. [322].
• Grove, J., ii. [74], [278], [280], [306], [351].
• Hawkins, J., ii. [292], [305], [392].
• Holker, L.J., ii. [305].
• Huddleston, Baron, ii. [306], [351], [393].
• Keating, J., i. 187, 287.
• Kelly, L.C., Baron, i. 147, 287, 288.
• Lindley, J., ii. [74], [280], [355].
• Lush, J., ii. [22], [262].
• Manisty, J., ii. [306], [320], [392].
• Martin, Baron, i. 141.
• Mathew, J., ii. [260], [320], [346].
• Mellor, J., i. 288, 294, 295; ii. [21], [25].
• Prentice, S., Q.C. (arbitrator), i. 285.
• Selborne, Lord Chancellor, ii. [322].
• Smith, Montague, J., i. 284, 287.
• (See also Counsel.)
• Stephen, J., ii. [318], [320], [346], [354].
• Watkin Williams, J., ii. [278], [292], [306], [320].
• Watson, Lord, ii. [322].
• Willes, J., i. 141, 297.
• Williams, J., i. 187.
• Wood, Vice-Chancellor, i. 282.
• 
  Kant, ii. [122].
• Kelly, Col., i. 115, 253, 256.
• Kenealy, Dr, i. 377.
• Kipling, Rudyard, i. 213; ii. [198].
• Knowlton Pamphlet, prosecution of, ii. [16], [20], [33], [175].
• 
  Labouchere, H., i. 400; ii. [197], [209], [215], [234], [240], [261], [271], [275], [279], [284], [297], [303], [308], [319], [334], [341], [347], [359], [368], [374], [414].
• Labour Bureau, ii. [191], [369].
• Lancashire relief, i. 206, 216.
• Land laws, Reform of the, i. 129, 264, 375; ii. [179], [182], [368].
• Lansdowne, Marquis of, i. 149.
• Law, Harriet, i. 129, 249; ii. [65].
• Law Times, The, ii. [321].
• Lawson, Rev. T., i. 170.
• Lawsuits:—
• Att. Gen. (trial at bar), ii. [91], [351].
• Bolton, i. 77.
• Clarke, ii. [91], [260].
• De Rin, i. 284.
• Devonport, i. 182.
• Edgcumbe, ii. [73].
• English Joint Stock Bank, i. 282.
• Erskine, ii. [91], [96], [109], [307], [321].
• Gossett, ii. [91], [346].
• Gurney, ii. [91], [306], [320].
• Huddersfield, i. 243.
• Knowlton pamphlet, ii. [16], [20], [33].
• Laker, ii. [79].
• Mackay's libellous "Life" (various suits), ii. [397].
• Mirfield, i. 297.
• National Reformer, i. 137.
• Newdegate, ii. [91], [322].
• Peters, ii. [109], [393].
• Queen (Sir H. Tyler), ii. [91], [316], [327].
• Razor, i. 290.
• St Stephen's Review, ii. [392].
• Wigan, i. 168.
• Wyatt, i. 48.
• Layard, Sir A.H., i. 280, 369.
• "Leaves," i. 30.
• Lectures at—
• Accrington, i. 77;
• Altrincham, i. 194;
• Ashton-under-Lyne, i. 260;
• Bedlington, i. 239;
• Blyth, i. 249;
• Boardman's Edge, i. 199;
• Bolton, i. 77;
• Bradford, i. 74;
• Chesterfield, i. 198;
• Congleton, ii. [55];
• Darwen, i. 313; ii. [53];
• Dewsbury, i. 200;
• Doncaster, i. 74, 76;
• Edinburgh, ii. [56];
• Glasgow, i. 78;
• Guernsey, i. 189;
• Halifax, i. 77;
• Huddersfield, i. 202, 241, 245, 260;
• Leeds, i. 200;
• Leigh, i. 196;
• Liverpool, i. 238;
• Manchester, i. 246;
• Newcastle, i. 73;
• Newton Abbot, i. 207;
• Northampton, i. 74;
• Norwich, i. 170, 308;
• Oxford, ii. [52];
• Plymouth, i. 175;
• Portsmouth, i. 250;
• Rochdale, i. 196;
• Scarborough, ii. 58;
• Seghill, i. 251;
• Shaw, i. 195;
• Sheffield, i. 72, 76;
• Sowerby Bridge, i. 306, 308;
• Stourbridge, i. 306;
• Sunderland, i. 73;
• Warrington, i. 196;
• Wigan, i. 162;
• Yarmouth, i. 171.
• Lees, Dr F.R., i. 268.
• Lennox, Lord H., ii. [225].
• Leno, J.B., i. 53.
• Lepard & Co., i. 2, 7, 36.
• Leverson, M., i. 99, 290.
• Lewis, Sir George, ii. [280].
• Linton, W.J., i. 109, 130.
• Literary Work, i. 23, 63; ii. [103].
• Liverpool Daily Post, i. 376.
• Living Age, ii. [55].
• Lovett, William, i. 8.
• Lunatic visitors, ii. [59].
• 
  Macdonald, A., i. 376.
• Magee, Dr, i. 308; ii. [149], [159], [371].
• Magistrates—
• D'Eyncourt, Mr, ii. [289].
• Figgins, Alderman, ii. [20], [22].
• Flowers, Mr, ii. [280].
• Mayor, Lord, ii. [317].
• Vaughan, Mr, ii. [28], [72], [280].
• Marjoribanks, E. (Lord Tweedmouth), ii. [255], [303].
• Malthus, Rev. T., ii. [169].
• Malthusian advocacy, i. 125; ii. [28], [171], [247], [387], [414].
• Malthusian League, The, ii. [28].
• Manchester Martyrs, The, i. 256.
• Manchester poisoning case, A, i. 91.
• Manning, Cardinal, i. 341, 374, 389; ii. [93], [239], [252], [309].
• Marine adventure, A, i. 181.
• Market rights and tolls, ii. [377], [379], [414].
• Marriage, i. 48.
• Marriage, Views on, ii. [161].
• Marsden, Mark E., i. 7.
• Martin, Emma, ii. [64].
• Martineau, Dr, ii. [123].
• Marx, Dr K., i. 331.
• Master and servant, i. 123, 129, 264.
• (See Employers' Liability Bill.)
• Materialism, ii. [127].
• May, Sir E., ii. [216], [230].
• Mayne, Sir R., i. 222.
• Mazzini, i. 69, 114, 150.
• M'Carthy, J., ii. [238].
• M'Sorley, Rev. H., i. 102.
• Medical students, Rowdyism of, ii. [83].
• Melvill, W.H., i. 137.
• Memorials, ii. [110].
• Merewether, C.G., i. 268, 394; ii. [209].
• Metaphysical Club, The, i. 341.
• Mill, James, ii. [161].
• Mill, J.S., i. 125, 139, 142, 149, 267, 271, 275, 278; ii. [120], [161], [175], [214].
• Miners, i. 376.
• Mitchell, G., "One from the Plough," i. 378.
• Money, Attacked for earning, i. 97, 174, 197.
• "Monkey" story. (See Fanatical Monkeys.)
• Moore, R., i. 139, 142.
• Morley, J., ii. [116], [177], [216], [227], [239], [276], [332], [347], [390], [420].
• Morley, S., i. 82, 374, 392; ii. [210], [218], [276], [301], [313], [359].
• Mott, Lucretia, ii. 6.
• Müller, Prof. Max, ii. [121].
• Mundella, A.J., ii. [191], [292], [308], [319].
• Mursell, Rev. A., i. 279; ii. [39], [43], [408].
• 
  Naples Colour Company, i. 100, 302.
• Napoléon, Emperor Louis, i. 64, 79, 125, 312.
• Napoléon, Prince Jérome, i. 328.
• National expenditure, i. 264.
• National Liberal Club, ii. [93].
• National Secular Society, i. 78; ii. [13], [14], [86], [106], [246], [253], [258], [315], [410].
• National Reformer, i. 111, 119, 304; ii. [14], [18], [259], [278], [304], [308], [315], [332], [353], [363];
• and Government prosecutions, i. 137;
• and the Postmaster General, i. 150.
• Newcastle Chronicle, Daily, i. 73;
• Weekly, i. 273, 400; ii. [80].
• Newdegate, C. N., i. 14; ii. [13], [248], [271], [277], [292], [295], [321], [371], [376].
• Newman, Prof., i. 288, 341.
• Nineteenth Century, ii. [252], [256], [309].
• "No Popery" riots, i. 246.
• Norton, Lord, ii. [254].
• Northampton elections, i. 263, 392; ii. [92], [209], [263], [301], [349], [359], [370].
• Northcote, Sir S., i. 263; ii. [203], [217], [228], [242], [265], [282], [295], [315], [341], [345], [372].
• Norwood, C.H., ii. [249], [359].
• 
  Oath of Allegiance, ii. [211];
• self administered, ii. [229].
• Oath question, Cost of contesting the, i. 288; ii. [399].
• Oaths Bill, ii. [281], [296], [303], [378], [388].
• (See also Affirmation Bill and Evidence Amendment.)
• Observer, i. 315.
• Odger, George, i. 267, 280, 315, 319, 352, 373, 392, 394; ii. [81].
• Odium Theologicum raised at Northampton, The, i. 267.
• "Old woman" story, The, ii. [77].
• "Oppressed of all nations, To the," i. 205.
• Origin of Bradlaugh family, i. 1.
• Orsini, Felice, i. 64.
• "Outlaw or citizen?" i. 292.
• Owen, Robert, i. 78, 159, 389; ii. [168].
• 
  Packer, Rev. J.G., i. 4, 8, 13, 19, 22, 23, 27, 107, 167.
• Paget, Dr, ii. [150].
• Paine, T., i. 158, 218, 321, 333, 378; ii. [111], [117], [140], [153], [165].
• Pall Mall Gazette, i. 235; ii. [80], [276], [303], [305].
• Pantheism, ii. [121].
• Papal Gendarmes, i. 155.
• Parker, Rev. Dr, ii. [71].
• Parks Regulation Bill, i. 372.
• Parliamentary candidature, First thought of, i. 263.
• Parliamentary struggle, The, ii. [203].
• Parnell, C.S., ii. [193], [239], [244], [247], [258], [358].
• Peace demonstrations, ii. [82].
• Pearson, Karl, i. 128.
• Perpetual Pensions, ii. [201], [374], [379], [406].
• Personality, Estimate of his, ii. [421].
• Peters and Lord Salisbury, ii. [385].
• Phillips, Wendell, i. 384; ii. [3].
• Phipps, P., i. 394; ii. [207].
• Poetry, i. 44.
• Poland, i. 109, 217.
• Policy, Early, i. 79, 127.
• Political Education, First steps in, i. 6.
• Positivists and the Franco-Prussian War, i. 314, 319.
• Primitive Methodist, The, i. 275;
• Quarterly Review, i. 249.
• Prince of Wales, The, i. 205, 306, 310; ii. [80], [84].
• Printers' Journal, The, i. 134.
• Proclamation of the Irish Republic, i. 253.
• Proportional Representation, ii. [201].
• Pugilists, Encounters with, i. 307, 308; ii. [54].
• Punch, i. 186.
• Pyat, Felix, i. 204.
• 
  Quaker Discussion Society, A, i. 258.
• "Questionable" Book, A, i. 310.
• 
  Rathmines Church, At, i. 31.
• Reasoner, The, i. 23, 60, 62.
• Reclus, Elie, i. 323;
• Elisée, i. 114, 323.
• Recruits and the Captain, The, i. 29.
• Reform League, Irish, i. 261, 270.
• Reform League, National, i. 220.
• Reform League, Political, i. 81.
• Religious Orders in France, Laws against, i. 331.
• Republican Club, London, i. 309.
• Republican Club, Movement, i. 310, 352; ii. [166].
• Reynolds Newspaper, i. 150.
• Richard, H., ii. [248].
• Richards, H.C., ii. [349], [359].
• Riding, i. 39.
• Rogers, Thomas, i. 41, 48, 90, 93.
• Rogers, Thorold, ii. [230].
• Rollin, Ledru, i. 65, 321.
• Rossa, O'Donovan, i. 382.
• Royal Commission, Examined before the, i. 57.
• Ruskin, J., ii. [181].
• 
  Sacrifices of the poor, ii. [96], [401].
• Salisbury, Lord, ii. [304], [369], [385], [393], [414].
• Saturday Review, The, i. 133, 142, 233, 236, 247, 272, 275, 291; ii. [302].
• Savage, J., i. 12, 19.
• Schœlcher, V., i. 321.
• Schooling, i. 4.
• Scotsman, The, i. 373.
• Secular Society, London, i. 78;
• National. (See National Secular Society.)
• Secularism, i. 332; ii. [142].
• Security Laws, Repeal of the, i. 149.
• Select Committee (Parliamentary struggle), First, ii. [218];
• Second, ii. [227], [231].
• Seymour, Digby, ii. [178].
• (See also Counsel.)
• Sheffield inundation, i. 218.
• Sheffield Telegraph, ii. [210].
• Smith, Joshua B., i. 206, 385; ii. [6].
• Smith, Goldwin, ii. [276].
• Smith, W.H., ii. [374], [391], [419], [425];
• & Sons, i. 130, 304.
• Smoking, ii. [10].
• Socialism, ii. [185].
• Somerville Club, The, ii. [93].
• Southwark Election, i. 280.
• Souvenir, A Northampton, i. 268, 277.
• Spain, i. 154, 351; ii. [427].
• Speaker, The (Sir H. Brand), ii. [216], [224], [260], [265], [282], [289], [299], [304], [337], [346], [359].
• (Sir A. Peel); ii. [361]
• Spectator, The, ii. [183].
• Spencer, H., ii. [127], [151].
• Spinoza, ii. [42], [116], [122].
• Spiritualism, i. 248, 343.
• Sporting Times and Dr Shorthouse, The, i. 146, 286.
• Spurgeon, Rev. C.H., ii. [78], [210].
• Star, Morning, i. 150, 186, 225.
• St. James's Gazette, ii. [194], [337].
• St Luke's Hospital, N.Y., ii. 9.
• Suez Canal, The, ii. [53].
• Suffrage, The, Adult, i. 129;
• Manhood, i. 125, 129;
• Universal, i. 222;
• Woman, ii. [197].
• Sumner, C., i. 384; ii. [3], [6].
• Sunday Times, The, i. 233.
• Swinburne, A.C., i. 44, 311; ii. [309].
• 
  Tablet, The, i. 186.
• Talandier, A., i. 114, 204.
• Taxation, i. 264.
• Taylor, P.A., i. 82, 109.
• Telegraph, The Daily, i. 143, 269.
• Temperance Advocacy, i. 29.
• Theism, ii. [121].
• Thiers, A., i. 322, 371.
• Thomson, James ("B.V."), i. 40, 44, 49, 80, 91, 96, 109, 117, 133, 210; ii. [287].
• Times, The, i. 143, 150, 225, 234, 275, 373, 376, 400; ii. [36], [183], [264], [292], [318], [377], [385].
• Tissot, Ch., i. 318, 320.
• Torrens, M'Cullagh, ii. [337], [345], [359].
• Trades Unions, i. 269.
• Trafalgar Square: Meetings in, i. 223, 224, 231;
• Right of do., ii. [382], [384], [404].
• Trelawney, Sir J., i. 169.
• Trimby, Elizabeth, i. 35.
• Truck Act Amendment, ii. [191], [369], [374], [377], [379].
• Truelove, Edward, i. 64, 139, 142, 267; ii. [22], [28], [50], [85].
• Turberville Legacy, ii. [31].
• Tyler, Sir H., ii. [92], [238], [291], [308], [316], [324], [369].
• Tyndall, Professor, ii. [137].
• 
  Unitarians, i. 131, 183, 380; ii. [319].
• United States, First visit to the, i. 380;
• Second visit, ii. 1.
• University College, ii. [93].
• Utilitarianism, i, 334.
• 
  Vaccination, i. 275;
• Royal Commission on, ii. [414].
• Vickery, Dr Alice, ii. [24].
• Victoria Park, i. 9, 23.
• Voltaire, i. 202; ii. [116], [117], [151], [153].
• Voysey, Rev. C., i. 134.
• 
  Walker, Gen. Sir Beauchamp, i. 35.
• Walpole, Spencer, ii. [219], [227], [236].
• Walter, J., ii. [2], [271].
• Ward, Mrs H., ii. [121], [151].
• Warner Place Hall and its habitues. i. 11.
• Warton, ii. [271].
• Washburne, E.K., i. 322.
• "Watch" Story, The, i. 274, 291; ii. [63].
• Watts, C., i. 138, 267, 311, 394, 400; ii. [16], [30], [35], [77], [87], [100].
• Watts, J., i. 63, 123, 128, 131, 166, 208, 212.
• Watson, J., i. 139; ii. [16].
• Webb-Peploe, Rev. H.W., ii. [78], [314].
• Wedderburn, Sir W., ii. [107], [410].
• Wigan, Difficulties at, i. 163.
• Wilberforce, Canon, ii. [70], [72].
• Wilkes, John, ii. [363], [365].
• Williamson, J., i. 117, 175.
• Wilson, Henry, i. 385; ii. [3], [9].
• Windeyer, Judge, ii. [179].
• Wolff, Sir H.D., ii. [217], [224], [338], [369], [375].
• Woodhull, Victoria, i. 383.
• Worms, Baron H. de, ii. [227], [230], [337].
• Wright, Sir T., ii. [209].
• 
  Yates, Edmund, ii. [78].
• Youth, i. 17.

A. Bonner, Printer, 1 & 2, Took's Court, London, E.C.

---

FOOTNOTES:

[1] In reference to Mr Bradlaugh's voyage in the Parthia I append an extract from the New York Herald for 7th September 1881, which purports to be an account of an interview between the reporter of that journal and Mr J. Walter, M.P., of the Times:—

"The Bradlaugh Incident.

"'Don't you think Bradlaugh was harshly treated?' 'Oh dear, no,' was Mr. Walter's eager response. 'That's all nonsense about his having crysipelas, and having been so brutally treated. He's a perfect ruffian. A fellow-passenger on the Bothnia told me of Bradlaugh and some of his comrades violently disturbing some religious services held on board the Parthia, so that Captain Watson was compelled to threaten him with putting him in irons before he would stop.'"

My father, of course, wrote to the New York Herald and to Mr Walter, contradicting this, saying that the statement was "monstrously untrue." He made only the one voyage on the Parthia; he said: "No attempt of any kind was made by any one to disturb religious services during that voyage. There was a disagreement between Captain Watson and the passengers as to the singing after dinner in the smoking-room, but it had not the smallest connection with religious services. The particulars were given in a letter signed by the passengers, and which was published at the time in several of the American papers. I never sang in my life, and was most certainly not even one of the singers."

[2] Chicago Tribune.

[3] He spoke in M'Cormick's Hall to an audience of 3600 persons, of whom 3500 had paid for admission; the hall had never been so full before, and the audience was as enthusiastic as it was large.

[4] "My mind being free from any doubts on these bewildering matters of speculation," he said, "I have experienced for twenty years the most perfect mental repose; and now I find that the near approach of death, the 'grim King of Terrors,' gives me not the slightest alarm. I have suffered, and am suffering, most intensely both by night and day; but this has not produced the least symptom of change of opinion. No amount of bodily torture can alter a mental conviction."

[5] See page 322.

[6] See p. 320.

[7] The late Mr Grote, however, thought sufficiently of this pamphlet to preserve it in his own library. He, moreover, presented a copy to the library of the London University, where it was at the time of this prosecution.

[8] One of the reasons given for withdrawing Mabel Besant from her mother's charge was that while with her she was liable to come in contact with Charles Bradlaugh.

[9] From the time when Mr Holyoake refused to continue to publish "The Bible: what it is," there were several instances of a want of friendliness on his part towards Mr Bradlaugh, and sometimes—as at this trial and in the Parliamentary struggle—these occurred at a most critical moment in my father's career. Mr Bradlaugh, of course, generally retaliated; but when his first vexation and anger had passed, he always showed himself willing to forget and forgive. One of the very first things he did on his return from America in 1875 was to join in an effort to buy an annuity for Mr Holyoake, who had been so prostrated by illness that at that time it was thought that he would not be capable of continuous work again. Notwithstanding old differences, some of which had been extremely and bitterly personal, my father joined in the appeal with the utmost heartiness, and expressed his vexation that the readers of the National Reformer had not been permitted to be amongst the earliest subscribers to the fund.

[10] Mr Arthur Walter, son of the principal proprietor of the Times, was on the jury.

[11] Eastern Post.

[12] June and July 1875.

[13] April 23rd, 1876.

[14] Liverpool Post.

[15] "At the Bar he would be a bully, in the pulpit a passing sensation, on the stage a passion-tearing Othello, in the Press a competent American editor, in Parliament a failure."

[16] From the Darlington and Stockton Times.

[17] "Has, or is, Man a Soul?" Two nights' debate with Rev. W. M. Westerby.

[18] "Has Man a Soul?" Theological Essays by C. Bradlaugh, vol. i.

[19] Although the lecture was purely political, the subject being "National Taxation," the Oxford Times attempted to justify this rowdyism by saying, "A man who identifies himself with a creed which denies the doctrine of reward and punishment in the future life cannot reasonably expect toleration here."

[20] Dr Nichols had an amusing article on this meeting in the Living Age. "The juvenile sawbones," he said, "climbed upon the platform and moved their amendments with admirable audacity. They had not much to say, and they did not know how to say what they had thought of saying; but they mounted the breach bravely enough for all that. And the Malthusian majority behaved very well—much better than English audiences usually do when there is opposition. In the sudden charge that swept the forlorn hope out of the fortress, it looked for a few moments as if there might be a case for the coroner, but Mr Bradlaugh's disciples were mindful of his teachings."

[21] This was done by the Eastern Post.

[22] The Pall Mall Gazette. Mr Austin Holyoake wrote a short letter contradicting this report, and giving the simple facts of the case, but his letter was not inserted.

[23] Daily News.

[24] City Press.

[25] As late as January 1884, however, Mr Bradlaugh noted a case reported in several newspapers of a private in the Hampshire Regiment, who cried, "God strike me blind!" and who thereupon "felt drowsy, and stretched himself on his bed, but when he attempted to open his eyes, he found he could not do so, and he has since been wholly deprived of the use of his eyes. He was conveyed to the Haslar Military Hospital, where he remains." As this was tolerably definite, inquiries were made at the Hospital. In answer to these, the principal wrote: "There is no truth whatever in the statement, and the lad who is supposed to have sworn never swore at all. He has a weak right eye; it was slightly inflamed—the result of a cold—but he is now quite well. He is very indignant and hurt at the statement, and, if he did swear, he is not blind."

[26] Mr Bradlaugh was neither the projector nor the advocate of the Good Friday promenade.

[27] Kneeland died in 1844. The tale was repeatedly contradicted.

[28] Emma Martin died in 1857. In her case also it was contradicted.

[29] National Reformer, June 6th, 1880.

[30] Deal and Sandwich Mercury, Sept. 26.

[31] Crewe Guardian.

[32] Northern Ensign, May 17.

[33] This person was still telling this story in December 1883.

[34] The editor of the Huddersfield Examiner, commenting on the evidence, said: "We do not believe it, as we do not think Mr Bradlaugh such a fool as to make such a silly exhibition of himself; and because we know that similar things have been affirmed of him in Huddersfield. For instance, a person called at our office last week, stating that he had heard Mr Bradlaugh utter such a challenge, and saw him pull out his watch in the manner stated in the course of the debate with the Rev. Mr M'Cann in Huddersfield. To our certain knowledge no such occurrence ever took place, and yet the man making the statement appeared to be fully convinced that he had heard and seen what he described as having taken place, and he was prepared to give evidence on the subject if called upon to do so.... Imagination and feeling play a much larger part than reason in the mental operations of not a few well-meaning persons and allowance must be made for this when we hear such charges as that now made against Mr Bradlaugh. Strong dislike is felt by many against both the man and his opinions on religious subjects, and this exposes him to misrepresentation and injustice."

[35] At Selhurst, in June 1885.

[36] "National Life and Character," by C. H. Pearson.

[37] Stroud News, May 28.

[38] Mrs Bradlaugh died in April 1871.

[39] Tried 25th April 1876 at Nisi Prius, before Mr Justice Field and a special jury.

[40] Belfast Times, April 8, 1872.

[41] Saturday Review, September 14, 1872.

[42] At his death in 1879 Mr William Thomson of Montrose left £1000 to Mr Bradlaugh as President of the National Secular Society, which sum he was at liberty to invest in the Freethought Publishing Company, on condition that he paid the Society £5 a month while it lasted. This he did regularly from 1879 until February 1890, when the Society generously released him from the remainder.

[43] See Speeches by Charles Bradlaugh.

[44] In the case against Foote and Ramsey the jury disagreed. The prosecution then entered a nolle prosequi.

[45] Mr Bradlaugh applied for a summons against Inspector Denning, but this application was refused.

[46] These proceedings—except the libel case, which has been already noticed—will be found fully dealt with by Mr J. M. Robertson in Part II., in his account of Mr Bradlaugh's Parliamentary struggle.

[47] This attack upon Mr Bradlaugh through his daughters, insignificant and inoffensive though we were, was no new idea. In 1877 an attempt was made to introduce female students into the classes of the City of London College. At my father's suggestion my sister and I, who at that time took little interest in the matter, joined Mr Levy's Class on Political Economy. I went up for the examination at the end of the term, and, to my surprise and my father's delight, I took a second-class certificate. But the City of London College were divided upon the subject of the admission of female students, and, after much acrimonious discussion, Mr Armytage Bakewell, a member of the Council, carried his intolerance so far as to turn the dispute upon the admission of my sister and myself. He wrote to the City Press that "though the ostensible subject of controversy has been whether females should attend the young men's classes or not, there was well known to be a wider divergence," and that was "best indicated by the fact that Mr Bradlaugh's daughters attended Mr Levy's classes." It is only just to the City of London College to add that the Council, while repudiating any responsibility for Mr Bakewell's conduct, expressed "their regret that any allusion had been made to Mr Bradlaugh's daughters" in the letter alluded to. The City of London College decided against the further admission of women, and within a few days of their decision had to listen to Lord Houghton's congratulations upon their liberality in admitting women when he presented me with my certificate! He had not been informed that the College had just come to the contrary resolution.

[48] March 1883.

[49] May 1883.

[50] 1884. Five years later the National Liberal Club spontaneously elected Mr Bradlaugh, without his knowledge, a member paying his first year's subscription.

[51] Seven persons were allowed to enter with each petition.

[52] National Reformer, April 27, 1884.

[53] I have lately heard a touching story of a cabman who drove Mr Bradlaugh several times. He greatly admired my father, but was too shy to speak to him. Every time he took a fare from him he gave it away to some charitable object. He said he could not spend Mr Bradlaugh's money on himself, he felt that "he must do some good with it."

[54] The Plymouth and Exeter Gazette (April 1878) reproved Mr Bradlaugh for the glaring inconsistency of his practice with his democratic principles, "by living in the most aristocratic style."

[55] The Leeds Daily News (July 1883) said his income was £12,000 a year.

[56] He was frequently charged with drinking expensive wines, but the hock he had straight from Bensheim at a cost of 1s. 3d. per bottle (including carriage and duty); the burgundy came direct from Beaune, and cost a trifle more.

[57] During the time he was not allowed to take his seat he attended the House constantly, sitting under the gallery in a seat technically outside the House.

[58] One year he calculated that he had written 1200 letters of advice in the twelvemonth—this, of course, in addition to general correspondence.

[59] The following extracts, taken at hazard from New Year's addresses to his friends in the National Reformer, will show how grateful he was to them for their help and what support he found in their love and trust:—

"Women and men, I have great need of your strength to make me strong, of your courage to make me brave. I am in a breach where I must fall fighting or go through. I will not turn, but I could not win if I had to fight alone" (1st January 1882).

"1883 has freed me from some troubles and cleared me of some peril, but it leaves me in 1884 a legacy of unfinished fighting. I thank the friends of the dead year, without whose help I, too, must have been nearly as dead as the old year itself.... I have had more kindnesses shown me than my deservings warrant, more love than I have yet earned, and I open the gate of 1884 most hopefully because I know how many hundred kindly hearts there are to cheer me if my uphill road should prove even harder to climb than in the years of yesterday" (6th January 1884).

"The present greeting is first to our old friends; some poor folk who early in 1860 took No. 1 [of the National Reformer], and have through good and ill report kept steadily with us through the more than a quarter of a century struggle for existence" (3rd January 1886).

[60] Bognor Observer, February 1887.

[61] One at the Shoreditch Town Hall in May 1884, on behalf of the Hackney United Radical Club, realised as much as £40. The hall was packed in every corner, and hundreds were unable to gain admittance.

[62] Mr Bradlaugh asked for it to be closed on 26th September.

[63] This I think has been recognised by most people. In December 1884 the Weekly Dispatch spoke of the "great strain" put upon Mr Bradlaugh, "under which a man less vigorous in mind and body would long ere this have broken down."

[64] The doctors would not allow Mr Bradlaugh to remain in his bedroom; one of them told him indignantly—albeit with some exaggeration—that he would have better accommodation in the workhouse!

[65] Wednesday, 10th December. This was the last lecture Mr Bradlaugh ever delivered. The subject was "The Evidence for the Gospels," in criticism of Dr Watkin's Bampton lectures.

[66] A person writing in the Swansea Journal for 7th February 1891 said that some time previously Mr Bradlaugh had told him of his sufferings from angina pectoris. This is utterly untrue; my father never suffered from this complaint, nor until his fatal illness was he ever conscious that he had anything wrong with his heart. In a private letter to a friend written on the 14th—almost the last written with his own hand—he says distinctly, "I have never suffered from heart or lungs before." The mania for invention is extraordinary.

[67] This was exactly in accordance with Mr Bradlaugh's wishes. In a will dated 1884 he said: "I direct that my body shall be buried as cheaply as possible, and that no speeches be permitted at my funeral." His last will, which consisted of a few lines only, contained no directions on this matter.

[68] The library included some 7000 volumes, in addition to about 3000 Blue Books, and a large number of unbound pamphlets. The books were sold by post from the catalogue, and went to all parts of the world. They realised £550 after all expenses were paid, and about 1000 volumes remained unsold.

[69] Through the generosity of "Edna Lyall," I was able to buy these for myself.

[70] This is all that can be pleaded in favour of the deliberate representation of Voltaire as an Atheist by the late Archbishop Thomson, at the Church Congress of 1881. But the ignorance of the upper English clergy in general on such matters is amazing. In January 1881, Archdeacon (then Canon) Farrar, preaching in Westminster Abbey, represented Robespierre's Reign of Terror as a "reign of avowed Atheism;" identified the Deistic cult of the "Supreme Being" with that of the "goddess of Reason;" and accounted for the fall of Robespierre by the statement that, "God awoke once more, and with one thunderclap smote the sanhedrim of the insurrection, prostrated the apostate race." This orator once expressed horror at the thought that Disestablishment might enable Bradlaugh to speak in St Paul's. Bradlaugh might have remarked on what the Establishment permitted at Westminster Abbey.

[71] The English translation, in the original issue, is in parts completely perverted to the language of Theism, whether out of fear or of Deistic prejudice on the part of the translator. Even the edition prefaced by Bradlaugh—who did not think of checking the text—preserves the perversions of the first translator.

[72] This fact is entirely ignored by Professor Flint in his defence of the old plea of Foster and Chalmers against Mr Holyoake in "Anti-Theistic Theories," App. ii.

[73] John Mill, after stating that his father held that "concerning the origin of things nothing whatever can be known," remarks that "Dogmatic Atheism he looked upon as absurd; as most of those whom the world has considered Atheists have always done" ("Autobiography," p. 39). It is difficult to guess what is here meant by "dogmatic Atheism;" but certainly no statement made above is more "dogmatic" than the proposition cited from Mill, senior. It clearly involves rejection of all Theism.

[74] One of the most capable metaphysicians I have personally known was an inferior stone-mason.

[75] It was not merely the orthodoxy of past ages that saw virtual Atheism in the position of Spinoza. Jacobi expressly and constantly maintained that Spinozism and Atheism came to the same thing. A God who is not outside the world, he argued, is as good as no God. At the same time, he admitted that the understanding had no escape from the logical demonstration of the impossibility of a personal God; and that the Theist must throw himself "overhead into the depths of faith." See Pünjer's "History of the Christian Philosophy of Religion," Eng. tr., p. 632.

[76] Pamphlet on "Heresy: its Utility and Morality. A Plea and a Justification," 3rd. ed. p. 35.

[77] It is unnecessary here to put the further argument that if we infer intelligence behind the universe by human analogy, we are bound in consistency to infer organism for the intelligence. Dr Martineau in his "Modern Materialism," takes refuge from this argument in declamation, treating the demand for consistency as if it had been a substantive plea.

[78] See an examination of the positions of Knight, Davidson, and Kaftan, in the Free Review, August, 1894.

[79] "Anti-Theistic Theories," 4th ed. p. 517.

[80] Id., pp. 518, 519.

[81] Pamphlet, "Is there a God?" p. 1.

[82] Second reply to Bishop Magee, p. 35.

[83] Mr Spencer (p. 31) represents the "Atheistic theory" as professing to "conceive" an infinite and eternal universe, and thereby to "explain" it, when the very essence of Atheism is to insist (as does Mr Spencer) that infinity is only the negation of conceptions, and that an infinite universe cannot be "explained."

[84] "Naturalist" seems first to have been used in this sense by Holbach.

[85] "What we call the operations of the mind are functions of the brain and the materials of consciousness are products of cerebral activity" ("Hume," p. 80). Mr Huxley goes on, "It is hardly necessary to point out that the doctrine just laid down is what is commonly called Materialism."

[86] Section on "The Value of Matter" (Werth des Stoffs), Eng. tr., p. 68.

[87] Section on "Motion," end.

[88] Section on the "Value of Matter" (Werth des Stoffs), end.

[89] Section on the "Value of Matter" (Werth des Stoffs), end.

[90] Section on the "Value of Matter" (Werth des Stoffs), end.

[91] See his "Critiques and Addresses," p. 306.

[92] A refinement on the old simplicity is reached when we find Mr Huxley sneering at Materialists whose teaching is really more circumspect than his own, and Mr Harrison in turn execrating in the name of "religion" the medical materialism of Mr Huxley, where the latter is simply putting forward as an original speculation a well-established pathological fact.

[93] This is, of course, a widely different doctrine from what is commonly known as Spiritualism: the belief in the perpetuity of human personalities, in a bodily form, without other bodily qualities.

[94] Tyndall answered to this argument that the flash of light from the union of oxygen and hydrogen "is an affair of consciousness, the objective counterpart of which is a vibration. It is a flash only by our interpretation." But that is no answer at all. Tyndall never went into the psychological problem fully.

[95] Debate with Dr M'Cann, p. 17.

[96] Preface to "The Bible: What it is," 1865.

[97] There is some reason to suspect that there has happened in this country what Bibliophile Jacob, in his preface to his addition of Cyrano de Bergerac, declares to have happened on a large scale in France—a zealous destruction of Freethinking works by pious purchasers. But it lies with these to supply the main evidence.

[98] Pamphlet on Heresy, p. 48.

[99] Thus, when in July or August 1882 an open-air Freethought meeting was attacked by riotous Salvationists, Bradlaugh strongly urged avoidance of provocation, and that, "above all, Freethinkers must avoid being drawn into physical conflict with Salvationists" (National Reformer, August 13, 1882).

[100] Fisher Unwin.

[101] The matter was dealt with at some length in the National Reformer of January 15, 1893.

[102] In October (?) 1882, the Quaker Friend testified to the "melancholy" fact that "with, of course, honourable exceptions, the most inveterate opponents of militarism are to be found among secularists and socialists." Soon afterwards Bishop Ellicott regretfully avowed that unbelief had acquired new and dangerous characteristics, in that it "now was very often found co-existent with what they were bound to speak of as a moral and in many cases a philanthropic life."

[103] Address at the National Secular Society's Conference.

[104] Published in 1861. Reprinted 1883.

[105] J. S. Mill's Autobiography, pp. 107, 167. A still more striking illustration of the way in which one rationalist may "steal the horse" while another may not "look over the hedge," is the following passage in Mill's book:—"On these grounds I was not only as ardent as ever for democratic institutions, but earnestly hoped that Owenite, St. Simonian, and all other anti-property doctrines might spread widely among the poorer classes; not that I thought these doctrines true, or desired that they should be acted on, but in order that the higher classes might be made to see that they had far more to fear from the poor when uneducated than when educated."

[106] His comment on Mr Gladstone's reply to Colonel Ingersoll is, however, a model of respectful exposure of a very bad case.

[107] "Five Dead Men whom I knew," p. 6.

[108] Of Henry Loader, a professed Christian.

[109] He was fined £40, while two brothel-keepers were fined only £5 each in the same week.

[110] Pamphlet on "The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle," fourth ed., p. 8.

[111] This stipulation was often ignored, and he was accused of wanting to parcel out Hyde Park in allotments.

[112] For the details of the case in favour of compulsory cultivation of land, see Bradlaugh's pamphlet on the subject, published 1887.

[113] It has lately been advanced by a "Unionist" politician, Mr T. W. Russell, in the New Review.

[114] November 1881, p. 842.

[115] His longer criticisms of Socialism make a fair volume. They are: (1) Socialism; For and Against: written debate with Mrs Besant, 1887; (2) Will Socialism benefit the English People? debate with Mr Hyndman, 1883; (3) Written debate with Mr Belfort Bax, under same title; (4) "Socialism; its Fallacies and Dangers," article in North American Review, January 1887, reprinted as a pamphlet; Pamphlet, "Some objections to Socialism," 1884. See also his articles and debate on the "Eight Hours Question," and his lecture on "Capital and Labour."

[116] I happened to be standing by when, at a Freethought Conference, the late Dr Cæsar de Pæpe, a leading Belgian Socialist and Freethinker, personally and fraternally remonstrated with Bradlaugh on his opposition to Socialism. He vehemently answered that he had found the English Socialists among the most unscrupulous of his enemies, they having not only lied about him freely, but put in his mouth all sorts of things he had never said or thought.

[117] "Parliament and the Poor."

[118] National Reformer, Nov. 20, 1888.

[119] Then edited by Mr Frederick Greenwood.

[120] Those were "the days of all-night sittings," forced by the policy of the Nationalists; and Bradlaugh missed voting on the motion for leave to bring in the Coercion Bill, by reason of having gone home to rest after having sat for twenty-six hours out of thirty, the vote being suddenly taken in his absence on the decision of the Speaker.

[121] In the action of Richards v. Hough and Co., however, in May 1882, Mr Justice Grove expressly remarked that some judges did not think it necessary to enquire at all as to the belief of a witness claiming to affirm. In the prosecution of Bradlaugh, Foote, and Ramsay in 1883 for blasphemy, on the other hand, Lord Coleridge, a very considerate judge, expressly asked Mr Foote, before letting him affirm, whether the oath "would be binding on his conscience," though Mr Foote, declaring himself an atheist, rightly objected to such a query. His lordship after discussion agreed to modify the question, making it apply only to the words of invocation; and he put the question with still more modification to Mrs Besant, who, warned by what had been done to her partner, declared in so many words that any promise she made would be binding on her, whatever the form.

[122] Sir Henry James later avowed that they adhered to that opinion all along.

[123] In the discussion on the Burials Bill, 1881.

[124] He wrote in his diary at the time: "It seems strange to require an oath from a Christian, and to dispense with it from an Atheist. Would it not be better to do away with the member's oath altogether, and make the affirmation general?" (Mr Lang's "Life of Northcote," ii. 154.)

[125] These were Mr Gorst, Lord Randolph Churchill, and Mr A. J. Balfour. The latter took little oral part in the Bradlaugh struggle, but always voted with his party.

[126] Northcote's diary, so far as published, naturally offers no confession or explanation as to the change in his attitude. Under date May 24, he simply records that "we agreed to stand firm for Wolff's motion" (Mr Lang's "Life," ii. 159).

[127] Macmillan & Co., "The English Citizen" series.

[128] A technical assent to this ambiguous question was, as we have seen, the condition attached to affirmation in the law courts. But common decency usually gave the formula there a purely technical and non-natural force.

[129] Printed in National Reformer of 30th May 1889, p. 338, and in several London newspapers.

[130] Some years afterwards he stated in the House that what he had really said was "one Deity or the other," meaning either the Unitarian or the Trinitarian God. The explanation did not seem to be credited.

[131] It is worth noting that Mr Keir Hardie, a professed Christian Socialist, when recently (28th June) protesting against the foolish ceremony of congratulating the Queen on the birth of a great-grandchild in the direct line, went the length of declaring, "I owe no allegiance to any hereditary ruler"—this after he had sworn allegiance to the Queen. Bradlaugh never stultified himself in this fashion.

[132] Report in Standard of 11th June 1880.

[133] See the report of the Committee's proceedings, reprinted in his "True Story of my Parliamentary Struggle."

[134] In a case not legally reported, however—that of ex parte Lennard vs Woolrych, in the Court of Queen's Bench, in April 1875.

[135] On the other hand, Tory journalists went much further astray in asserting that Bolingbroke believed in future rewards and punishments.

[136] It should be noted that the "kicked-out" idea is a favourite one with the cartoonist. He used it lately in the case of the Irish Evicted Tenants Bill.

[137] The Select Committee persistently examined him to get avowals which he had not made, and had no wish to volunteer.

[138] The Echo of 25th May 1880 has the passage: "Say what we like, occupants of the Tory benches are penetrated with deep and undying religious convictions. The very reference to an unbeliever, unless it is in fierce denunciation of him, reddens their faces.... But strange to say, the very men who apparently were so jealous of religious or semi-religious forms last evening will this evening vote that Parliament shall not sit to-morrow because it will be the Derby day. Now if there be one place on this wide earth which may be denominated a pandemonium it is the Epsom Downs on a Derby day."

[139] See the verbatim report reprinted in the volume of his Speeches.

[140] The reference was to the ever-offensive Sir Henry Tyler, who had made a cowardly allusion to Mrs Besant.

[141] This perhaps understates Beaconsfield's protest. Bradlaugh heard that he condemned the whole proceedings, and called his followers "fools" for their pains.

[142] Again he was surrendering his own convictions to the partisanism of his colleagues. He had been personally willing to support legislation for the settlement of the difficulty, but was overruled as usual by his associates. See Mr Lang's "Life," ii. 172.

[143] A friendly action by Mr Swaagman, for all the remaining penalties that might arise, served to forestall other speculative suits.

[144] Mr Lang, in the page of random jottings in which he "sketches" the Bradlaugh story, makes the misleading statement that he only sat "for a few weeks under statutory liability" ("Life of Northcote," ii. 137).

[145] The same member tried to raise the question on a vote in supply.

[146] "Language fit for a Yahoo," was the description given of Hay's scurrility by the Scotsman.

[147] For publishing the "watch" libel.

[148] The National Reformer of 16th January 1881 contains, besides Bradlaugh's own protest, articles by two leading contributors strongly condemning the measure and criticising its defenders, including Bright.

[149] See above, p. 201.

[150] Bradlaugh put the technicalities thus to the Lord Chancellor in the Court of Appeal on 27th March:—"There are issues of fact untouched by the demurrer, and there is the first paragraph of the statement of defence, on which I may possibly defeat the plaintiff even should the allowance of the demurrer be maintained."

[151] In the House of Commons on 7th February 1882 Earl Percy asserted that Bradlaugh's friends had fabricated tickets for the meeting. The statement was absolutely false.

[152] April 27, 1881.

[153] May 6, 1881.

[154] Given in a special number of the National Reformer.

[155] Formally, Newdegate was bound to pay Bradlaugh's costs if Bradlaugh won, but had the fact of the maintenance never come out, it would have been an easy matter for Clarke to become bankrupt, and leave Bradlaugh no redress, while he himself could be privately reimbursed by Newdegate.

[156] Mr Vaughan had twice previously given decisions against Bradlaugh, and both had been upset on appeal.

[157] The essential unveracity of Northcote's political character is shown by the fact that after thus using the "numbers" argument against Bradlaugh, he himself solemnly denounced the principle. Speaking at Edinburgh in 1884 (see Mr Lang's "Life," ii. 218) he said: "I am afraid that the Government will take far too much to the numerical principle, and if you take to the principle of mere numbers, depend upon it you will be introducing the most dangerous change into the Constitution." Exactly what Bradlaugh had said to him.

[158] In this particular speech he used the phrase "that grand old man" of Gladstone. It was probably he who set the fashion.

[159] Mr Cavendish Bentinck.

[160] Elected for Oxford.

[161] Bradlaugh noted later in his journal that the petition was "alleged to be signed by 10,300 freemen of Northampton." This, he remarked, "cannot possibly be true, as the freemen do not amount to that number." They really numbered about 300! It turned out that thousands of the signatures were those of school-children.

[162] National Reformer, April 2, 1882.

[163] A question put to Mr Mundella on 18th June in the House elicited the fact that the Hall of Science classes had been established, and received grants, under the late Tory administration. On this Lord George Hamilton was petty enough to put the blame on his subordinates. Mr Mundella answered that for his part he was responsible for anything done by his subordinates.

[164] Letter of 8th May 1883.

[165] If further samples are needed of the general untruthfulness, they can be given by the dozen. Even men of good standing spoke with a disregard of scruple which put them outside courteous correction. Bradlaugh was driven to characterise Sir Edward Watkin as "an exceedingly and wantonly untruthful person." In November 1882 he represented to his Folkestone constituents that he would not have stood in the way of Bradlaugh either swearing or affirming, but that he resisted when Bradlaugh "distinctly outraged all that they held sacred." This presumably referred to the self-administered oath of 1882. But Sir E. Watkin had voted against Bradlaugh being allowed to swear on 27th April 1881. The Hon. Mr Stansfeld, speaking at Halifax in October 1882, actually represented that the oath was "on the true faith of a Christian;" and repeated the untruth that Bradlaugh had "said that the oath had no binding effect on his conscience." The Rev. Canon Gascoigne Weldon, of Rothesay, asserted in writing that Bradlaugh "boasted publicly that he sought entrance into the House of Commons to insult its members and all its past glorious history, and level it, if possible, with its sister House, to the ground."

[166] Mr Samuel Morley, speaking at Bristol in November 1882, admitted to his constituents that "while Mr Bradlaugh was in the House of Commons, nothing could exceed the propriety of his conduct;" but declared he would oppose his re-entrance because Bradlaugh continued "his system of violent, offensive, and disgusting attacks on the faith which he (Mr Morley) in common with the great bulk of the English people, held." To men like Mr Morley, all rationalist propaganda was "violent, offensive, and disgusting;" but they had no scruples about violent, offensive, and disgusting attacks on rationalists. Soon afterwards Mr Morley grossly misrepresented Bradlaugh's action, and on being challenged admitted the fact and made a correction. Soon again, however, Mr Morley spoke of Bradlaugh as writing in the Freethinker, and on being challenged, made neither admission nor correction. The champions of the oath, generally speaking, exhibited a constitutional incapacity for accuracy.

[167] In the summer of 1882 the total of petitions had mounted to over 100, and the signatures numbered over 250,000.

[168] He sat for Harwich.

[169] A jury had been sworn in, but it was agreed all round that there was no question of fact for them, and they were discharged on the 9th, Lord Coleridge trying the case as one of law.

[170] This had been cited in the Court of Appeal for another purpose.

[171] The introduction as a regular feature of "Comic Bible Sketches," of a kind which Mr Bradlaugh and Mrs Besant were not prepared to defend.

[172] 23rd January 1883.

[173] March 1883.

[174] To do Mr Morley justice, it should be acknowledged that he unsaid his vindication in the same book.

[175] It was printed in the National Reformer of 1st April 1883.

[176] Cited in National Reformer, 18th February, p. 101.

[177] The hon. members were: Lord Galway, Messrs Foljambe and Nicholson, and Colonel Seely.

[178] A barrister wrote to Bradlaugh enclosing a letter from his daughter, aged fifteen, at school at Frankfort, telling how the English chaplain there called and asked all the English girls at the school to sign a petition against the Affirmation Bill (National Reformer, 15th April 1883).

[179] Lucretius, ii. 646-651. It was thought notable that the orator did not allude to the kindred passage in his beloved Homer (Odyssey, vi. 41), splendidly rendered by Lucretius (iii. 18-22), and choicely paraphrased by Tennyson in his poem "Lucretius." The best expression in English verse of the idea in the passage quoted by Gladstone is again Tennyson's—the great passage a the close of the "Lotos Eaters."

[180] Bradlaugh later publicly specified Newdegate as having been tipsy, "not for the first time;" and Newdegate, though denying the charge, did not bring an action for libel.

[181] It should be said that Sir Edward Watkin is understood to regret his action.

[182] Mr Jerningham defended himself by asserting that Bradlaugh had written a "Comic History of Christ," which was one lie more. On being corrected, he told another, saying that Bradlaugh admitted having written the Introduction.

[183] The President was Lord Kimberley; the Treasurer Sir Julian Goldsmid; and the Council included Lord Belper, Sir B. N. Ellis, Sir A. Hobhouse, Lord Reay, and Sir George Young. I cannot ascertain who were present, save that Sir A. Hobhouse was one.

[184] In this case the Government arranged to sue Bradlaugh in the Courts for the penalties that would be incurred if his last oath-taking and voting were pronounced illegal by the Courts. It was accordingly left to Bradlaugh to vacate his seat by his own act.

[185] The harping on the "chivalry" of Northcote by Mr Lang and others is an interesting light on the nature of their ideals. Northcote was certainly more of a gentleman than were his accomplices in the Bradlaugh struggle, but barring his comparative moderation, there was not a gleam of "chivalry" in his whole conduct of the business. As for the mass of his followers, they had, as Sir George Trevelyan has said of the Tories who ostracised Wilkes, "as much chivalry in them as a pack of prairie wolves round a wounded buffalo." Mr Lang ("Life," ii. 136) writes that "an acute and well-informed critic has singled out Sir Stafford Northcote's treatment of the questions raised by Mr Bradlaugh as the best example of Sir Stafford Northcote's tact and adroitness." The "adroitness" need not be disputed. But Mr Lang, on his own part, holds that "it would throw no light on Sir Stafford Northcote's leadership to follow the details of this tedious and protracted struggle." For "light" and "leadership," read "credit" and "character," and the proposition would be quite valid.

[186] I was present at this trial, and took notes for an article.

[187] By August, 655 petitions had been presented, with 77,639 signatures.

[188] This Parliament is alluded to as "of 1885" by Mr Walpole, Mr Lang, and others. It was elected in 1885, but did not assemble till 1886.

[189] Byron's description of a better man.

[190] Described in a previous chapter, p. 182.

[191] See the Blue-Book, "Report London Corporation (Charges of Malversation)," together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix, Parliamentary Paper, 161, 1887. A brief account of the matter was written by Bradlaugh for Our Corner, July and August 1887, under the title, "How the City Fathers Fight."

[192] Circulated as a pamphlet in immense numbers by the Cobden Club, and reprinted among his speeches.

[193] His head gave a remarkable corroboration to the classification of the old phrenology, now being revindicated by the posthumous work of Mr Mattieu Williams. It had a highly intellectual cast at the brow, but the whole head sloped up to the organ of will, which dominated everything in his skull outline as in his character.

[194] National Reformer, February 8, 1891.