[152] In the following extract from an article written by Mr Bradlaugh in January 1884 upon "The Attitude of Freethought in Politics," allusion is made to an interesting conversation held with Gambetta:—"My personal attitude as a Freethinker in politics," said Mr Bradlaugh, "was the subject of some hostile discussion in France about four years ago, when the partisans of M. Jules Ferry were rigorously and, as I thought, harshly, enforcing the laws against the clerical orders. I strongly disapproved of the application of penal laws to the religious orders. It was very forcibly and very justly urged to me by my Radical French friends, that these religious orders had been, and were, the persevering and persistent foes of liberty, and that when their party was in power, the clerical legion were merciless in persecuting the Republicans and Freethinkers. My answer was and is: 'As I do not admit the right of the Church to use the law to suppress or punish me, neither will I claim or countenance the use of the law against the Church.' It was urged, and quite truly, that the Roman Catholic Church throughout its whole history had been the never-ceasing persecutor and oppressor of all aspirations for human liberty. My answer still was and is: 'We should fight with the pen, the press, the tongue, the school; not the gaol or the officer of the law.' If we cannot win with reason, I will not try to win with force. Victory with the latter only decides which it is that is temporarily strongest. In a long conversation some eleven years ago—which went far into the night—with the late M. Léon Gambetta, in which he plainly put difficulties caused to the Republican party by the enmity of Clericalism to progress in France, and painted in vivid colours the danger of the struggle, I took the same ground, and here again I maintain it."
[153] No accurate report of this debate exists.
[154] The Fife News spoke of it as a meeting between "the Atheist and the ignoramus," and the Christian News said: "The second night's debate was no debate. So completely did the Theist fail, in more senses than one, that he need never appear in the city of Edinburgh again as a defender of religion."
[155] "The last speech of Mr Bradlaugh's was a piece of almost unparalleled eloquence, which might have been very effective had he received fair play, but this, we are sorry to say, was undoubtedly denied him, and he proceeded amidst a storm of interruptions, hissings, and howlings, renewed again and again."—Blyth Weekly News.
"Mr Bradlaugh was stormed down, and really refused a hearing. This kind of conduct was bad on the face of it. If his arguments were ridiculous, they would be the easier answered. If they were beyond or beside the point at issue, they were unworthy a reply."—Sunderland Evening Chronicle.
The Newcastle papers gave lengthy reports of the proceedings, and the Weekly Chronicle remarked that, in consequence of his suffering from an affection of the throat, the effect of a severe cold, Mr Bradlaugh "sustained the debate with considerable pain and difficulty."
[156] "I had said, in the course of my remarks against Secularism, that Secularism was Atheism, and Atheism was a negation. Mr Bradlaugh claimed the right to say what Atheism negated. According to the conditions of the debate, I objected to that subject being entered into" (the Rev. A. J. Harrison, December 1870). These words show how peculiarly one-sided the conditions were.
[157] "If Mr Bradlangh had objected to some things said by Mr Harrison last night, I should have said they were out of order" (Prof. Newman on the second evening).
[158] Those who wish to read the whole argument will find a verbatim report in the National Reformer for 25th Dec. 1870 and 1st Jan. 1871.
[159] This debate is published in pamphlet form, under the title, "What does Christian Theism teach?"