[71] In National Reformer, June 1861.

[72] C. Bradlaugh in National Reformer.

[73] Towards the end of November 1862 death claimed him who had been to my father "friend, tutor, brother." When the exile was buried, Mr Bradlaugh wrote that "the proscribed of all the Nationalities of Europe mustered round his coffin to do him honour. Italy, Germany, Russia, Poland, Hungary, and France were numerously represented; and long ranks of the best and bravest of banished men trod in sadness in the rear of the funeral hearse." By the open grave at Kilburn, "amongst the hundreds of intellectual looking men here might be seen most noticeable the bearded figure of that most omniscient of political writers, Alexander Herzen; here the stalwart frame of the escaped Bakunin; here the saddened features of an old Englishman [Thomas Allsop] who had borne part with him in his political struggles, and who had loved the dead man with the fullest friendliness of his most honest nature." At the grave side spoke M. Talandier; my father spoke, also Mr G. J. Holyoake, M. Gustave Jourdain, and then M. Felix Pyat, whose fiery sentences were followed by the dull and mournful echo of the earth falling upon the coffin lid.

[74] This was in December 1874.

[75] Contrast the delicate words of personal description written by a Christian in the Clerkenwell News: "The manner and appearance of the minister and the Atheist were as much at variance as the Gospel of the one is with the 'reasoning' of the other. The one with a kind, affectionate air—a calm self-reliance, resulting from faith in a beneficent God and loving Redeemer—was a fit defender of love and mercy. On the other hand, the Atheist's looks stamped him as a low demagogue. He was throughout restless; now displaying his ring, after admiring it himself; now turning with an idiotic grin towards his followers, who certainly resembled Falstaff's recruits in appearance; and throughout conducting himself as a boastful, ill-bred man. His personal appearance did not aid him, for it partook of that animal which is said much to resemble some men. His voice, like the whine of a dog, was rendered more unpleasant by a spluttering lisp, occasioned by his inability to bring his lower jaw forward enough to meet his protruding upper lip."

[76] This was in 1862, before the Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, and Mr Bradlaugh's Oaths Act, 1888.

[77] See "Poems, Essays, and Fragments." (A. and H. B. Bonner)

[78] Despite the sharpness—to use no harsher term—of Mr Cooper's words and manner towards him, my father bore no malice, and showed himself quite ready to forgive and forget. A few months later, hearing that Mr Cooper was in very straitened circumstances, he expressed his desire to be allowed to join in the scheme for assisting his old opponent, for he believed him "to have been a well-intentioned, warm-hearted man, and one who, as a politician, has done good work."

[79] National Reformer, June 24th, 1866.

[80] National Reformer, June 24th, 1866.

[81] "Look at me," said Bagheera, and Mowgli looked at him steadily between the eyes. The big panther turned his head away in half a minute.

"That is why," he said, shifting his paw on the leaves, "not even I can look thee between the eyes, and I was born among men, and I love thee, little brother. The others they hate thee, because their eyes cannot meet thine; because thou art wise; because thou hast pulled out thorns from their feet; because thou art a man!"

Mowgli's Brothers, by Rudyard Kipling.

[82] Morning Advertiser.

[83] Mr Robert Forder, who was present at the Garibaldi meeting, sends me the following vivid account of what took place on that day:—

"That afternoon," he relates, "was the first time I had the honour and pleasure of speaking to your father. A few of us at Deptford, where I then resided, had had printed a quantity of handbills announcing the debate with the Rev. W. Barker, then appearing in the National Reformer. I gave your father one, for which he thanked me. I should like, with your permission, to add a few words as to what took place on that exciting afternoon. The Irish Catholics had been well whipped up for the occasion, and were there in force; most of them dock and bricklayers' labourers, and in the mass totally uneducated. There were three mounds of earth and stones intended to repair or make roads, each about four feet high, and, so far as I can recollect after thirty years have gone by, about thirty yards long by eight deep. These were about fifty yards apart, and on the middle one were gathered the men and two women—one of the latter in a red 'jumper,' that was afterwards known in fashion as a 'Garibaldi.' The Irish were massed on and around the two other mounds, and during the early part of the proceedings contented themselves with singing a refrain for 'God and Rome.' It was about ten minutes after your father had begun to speak that a signal was given, on which a sudden rush was made upon the meeting. There had not been up to this moment any indication whatever that the Irish were armed, but every man and woman (and there were many women and girls with them) was possessed of a bludgeon of some sort. Their onslaught was furious and brutal, and for a time successful. They carried the mound in a few minutes, but the blood upon many of our friends aroused such a feeling of indignation, that in a time less than it takes me to write it the mound was stormed from the Piccadilly side, and again captured by us. There were in the crowd about a dozen Grenadier Guardsmen, who were ardent admirers of Garibaldi, and there were quite fifty others, possibly passive spectators. The former formed two deep, and with their walking-sticks rushed down the mound into the mass of the yelling Irish. The effect was electrical. Their comrades in the crowd raised a sudden shout, and in ten minutes the Irish were in full retreat, throwing away their sticks to escape the indignation of the people they had so wantonly and brutally attacked. Many were captured by the police, and I clearly remember the constables gathering up their bludgeons, and making bundles of them with their belts. It must be confessed that no quarter was given, and scores of them got severely mauled. Cardinal Wiseman referred to the brutality of the infidel mob in a pastoral a few days after, in which he used the term 'lambs' to describe these religious ruffians. Punch, the next week, 'caught on' to this word, and in its weekly cartoon depicted this mob of Irish assailing a public meeting over the heading of 'Cardinal Wiseman's Lambs.'"

[84] He gave two lectures in the Mechanics' Institute (lent to the Freethinker for this occasion), and the proceeds, £8 11s. 4d., were handed over to the fund. "No lecturer gave more to the needy than Iconoclast," said Mr Austin Holyoake.

[85] One of the latest letters he ever wrote, bearing date Jan. 12, 1891, shows him always the same. He says: "I am extremely sorry to read your letter, but I have, unfortunately, no means whatever except what I earn from day to day with my tongue and pen. If the Committee think it wise, I will lecture for the benefit of such a fund."

[86] The number of persons present was variously estimated at from 30,000 to "upwards of 60,000."

[87] Mr Bradlaugh commented somewhat epigrammatically: "The Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli is perhaps the man best fitted to be in opposition, and the least fitted to govern amongst our prominent men. His waistcoats have been brilliant, but his Parliamentary measures cannot always successfully compare with the result of his tailor's skill."

[88] The Bristol Daily Post.

[89] Bedford Mercury of November 24th.

[90] The Morning Star (London) of November 22nd also notes the enthusiasm provoked by Mr Bradlaugh's "animated speech."

[91] Essay in Cornhill Magazine, 1868, reprinted in book form as "Culture and Anarchy."

[92] In a general "damnatory" description of the demonstration given from "a club window," which appeared in the Times of February 12th, there is a caricature of Mr Bradlaugh, spiteful in intent, but amusing and really interesting if one looks between the would-be scornful words. We are told that "a dapper youth, mounted on a brown horse, exerted himself to make up for the shortcomings of the public force, and was a host in himself. He was evidently a man in authority, and acted in close connection with the Reform magnates, whose carriages stopped the way before our doors. He raised his whip as freely as if it had been a constable's truncheon or gendarme's broad-sword, and apostrophised, or—why should I not say the word—bullied the crowd in a tone and with manners which would have done an alguazil's heart good. The sovereign people put up with the man's arrogance with incredible meekness and patience, and allowed itself to be marshalled hither and thither as if the Queen's highway were the Leaguers' special property and the public were mere intruders."

The "Club" man was evidently irritated that these same people who at Hyde Park had refused to obey a police proclamation backed by a free use of the truncheon and display of the bayonet, yet implicitly obeyed the "youth mounted on a brown horse" whose only authority was derived from the love the people bore him. The sneer as to "tone" and "manners" is not worth noticing; you cannot issue commands to tens of thousands in Trafalgar Square in the same gentle tone in which you can ask for the salt to be passed across the dinner-table.

[93] March 9th, 1867.

[94] Times, March 12th, 1867.

[95] The Standard, May 7th.

[96] The lectures were announced for the following day.

[97] National Reformer.

[98] National Reformer, November 4 (1866).

[99] On November 25 (1866).

[100] C. Bradlaugh in National Reformer, March 1867.

[101] No verbatim report of this discussion was ever published.

[102] West Sussex Gazette, June 24th. And these are the people who affect to believe in Mr Bradlaugh's violence and coarseness! "Even so ye outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."

[103] C. Bradlaugh, in National Reformer, July 1869.

[104] Of these Darwen lectures all the Preston papers gave long reports. The Conservative Preston Herald thought that "the burning words of eulogium [on Mr Gladstone] that fell from the lips of the clever advocate" laid Mr Bradlaugh "open to the suspicion of having accepted a retainer and a brief from the astute statesman"! About 1200 persons attended each lecture, and the "quiet village of Darwen was rendered as throng as a fair" by the influx of people from so many of the surrounding villages.

[105] Autobiography.

[106] Headingley, p. 105.

[107] Weekly Dispatch, November 16, 1879.

[108] Headingley, p. 104.

[109] Pamphlet on the Irish Question.

[110] National Reformer, October 20.

[111] When he republished this as a pamphlet it was read by Mr Gladstone, who wrote to him the following autograph letter:—

This letter is still in my possession.

[112] National Reformer, Feb. 16, 1868.

[113] Headingley, p. 107.

[114] July 4th.

[115] The sitting members were Charles Gilpin and Lord Henley.

[116] Souvenir.

[117] Daily Telegraph, August 3, 1868.

[118] In October Mr Keevil, chairman of the Irish Reform League, wrote again to Northampton. "Our members," he said, "consist of every denomination of Christians, and although we regret that Mr Bradlaugh does not believe in matters of religion as we do, and probably Mr Bradlaugh also regrets that we are not of the same religious opinions as himself, yet we do not think such controversial matters can hinder his usefulness for the people's work in the House of Commons. We in Ireland have had special opportunities of knowing the value of Mr Bradlaugh's works.... The field of Mr Bradlaugh's early labours was Ireland; the Lecture Hall in French Street, Dublin, was the arena of his triumphs, and the people soon recognised in him a champion. Private Bradlaugh was well known in County Cork many years ago as a man who would maintain the oppressed tenants against the injustice of landlordism."

[119] The latter part of this myth, at least, seems to have gained credence, for in July of this year (1894) Mr Courtney is reported to have said at Chelsea that "Mr Bradlaugh had to try constituency after constituency because he could not get a majority in any particular place."

[120] See article on "Electioneering Rowdies," October 1868, in which, with innate delicacy, it speaks of Mr Bradlaugh as "impudent."

[121] This song was written by a young shoemaker named James Wilson, and was set to music by another poor but gifted man, John Lowry. Poor Wilson died early, but his song became a sort of war-cry in Northampton, and will live long in the hearts of his fellow-townsmen.

[122] Page 28.

[123] These were the figures given in National Reformer, November 22, 1868. The Northampton Mercury of that week gives them rather differently, and the Souvenir brought out in June 1894 again differently. They give the poll as follows:—

[124] Praying that there should be no breach of the peace.

[125] Daily News.

[126] The Evidence Amendment Act 1869 (32 and 33 Vict. c. 68) enacted "that if any person called to give evidence in any court, whether in a civil or criminal proceeding, shall object to take an oath, or shall be objected to as incompetent to take an oath, such person shall, if the presiding judge is satisfied that the taking of the oath would have no binding effect upon his conscience, make the promise and declaration the form of which is contained in the same section." Mr Prentice, as arbitrator, did not consider himself a "presiding judge" within the meaning of the Act, and was not therefore qualified to satisfy himself as to the state of a witness's conscience.

[127] This reply was refused insertion.

[128] National Reformer, April 17, 1870.

[129] May 22, 1870.

[130] This was an action to try the right of the Sheriff of Surrey to distrain upon the Colour Machinery at Hatcham. Baron dos Santos, of the Romish Legation, had wished to trade in Naples colour in England, under the name of the Company of which Mr Bradlaugh was Secretary. Mr Bradlaugh had bought and paid for the machinery to grind the colours before they could be sold, and he claimed to carry on the business until Baron dos Santos should purchase the things off him. Obliged to raise money in 1868, when he was contesting Northampton, Mr Bradlaugh borrowed £600 from Mr Javal upon the machinery, and he in turn raised some money from the Advana Company. Before this last had been repaid the defendants seized the machinery under an execution judgment as creditors of the Naples Colour Company. Mr Bradlaugh was the principal witness, and the newspaper report notes that he requested to be allowed to affirm instead of being sworn, but said that he should take the oath, if his lordship insisted upon it. He was allowed to affirm, and at the conclusion of the case the jury decided that the machinery belonged to Mr Bradlaugh, and therefore gave a verdict for the plaintiffs.

[131] May 1870.

[132] These cases were so rare that the only one I can actually recall is that of the Tyneside Sunday Lecture Society.

[133] See p. 294.

[134] At the end of 1872 Mr John Baker Hopkins made a violent attack upon Mr Bradlaugh for his "Impeachment of the House of Brunswick" in the pages of the Gentleman's Magazine. A reply to this from my father's pen appeared in the January (1873) Number, but there was such an outcry raised in the press at the insertion in the "Gentleman's" Magazine of an article by "Mr Bradlaugh of Whitechapel and Hyde Park respectively" that Mr John Hatton, the editor, felt so far obliged to defend himself as to say a word in favour of free discussion. He further atoned for his sins by allowing Mr J. B. Hopkins to return to his attack in the following month.

[135] December 1871.

[136] "Christianity in Relation to Freethought Scepticism and Faith: three discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough, with special replies by Charles Bradlaugh."

A similar case in a small way happened at Deptford in April 1873. A Rev. Dr Miller had delivered some addresses in the Deptford Lecture Hall against "unbelievers," and it was proposed that Mr Bradlaugh should reply to these addresses in the same place. He had frequently spoken in the Deptford Lecture Hall before, but when the Deptford Freethinkers sought to engage it for a lecture in answer to Dr Miller, the Committee refused to let the hall for that purpose. This intolerance the Kentish Mercury applauded by referring to it in bold type as "noble conduct."

[137] September 26, 1871.

[138] See Chapter ix., vol. ii.

[139] Earl Fortescue at the King's Nympton Farmers' Club, November 1871.

[140] Address to the Cardiff Constitutional Association.

[141] The Observer's own report stated: "At first there seemed to be an inclination to rush to the doors, which might have led to great sacrifice of life."

[142]

[143]

[144]

[145] M. Reitlinger, "le Secretaire particulier," of M. Jules Favre, is, I believe, the person here referred to.

[146]

[147] North British Daily Mail.

[148] Prevent Mr Bradlaugh from entering Paris, at any price.

[149] National Reformer, Dec. 24, 1871

[150] "My Dear Mr Bradlaugh,—When one has known and appreciated you, one does not forget you.

"I am charmed that my book has given you pleasure. If you have the time, read it, but do not forget that it is a book entirely French. I sometimes read your speeches—you are passing through a crisis—what will be the result! I see that you have not forgotten your French. I renew every sentiment of affection for you.—Your affectionate

Napoléon."

[151] "My Dear Bradlaugh,—I have received the draft—at this distance and in writing it is difficult for me to fully understand it. I propose to talk it over with you on my next visit to London, which I shall perhaps make shortly. Receive, my dear Mr Bradlaugh, the assurance of my most distinguished consideration.

Napoléon."

[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?"

[160] National Reformer, Jan. 19, 1873.

[161] Held at 4 Fitzroy Square.

[162] National Reformer, Jan. 12, 1873.

[163] Human Nature, Jan. 1871.

[164] The Medium and Daybreak, Dec. 20, 1872.