AT WAR ALL ROUND.
Coming back to my work after my long and dangerous illness, I took up
again its thread, heartsick, but with courage unshaken, and I find
myself in the _National Reformer_ for September 15, 1878, saying in a
brief note of thanks that "neither the illness nor the trouble which
produced it has in any fashion lessened my determination to work for
the cause." In truth, I plunged into work with added vigour, for only
in that did I find any solace, but the pamphlets written at this time
against Christianity were marked with considerable bitterness, for it
was Christianity that had robbed me of my child, and I struck
mercilessly at it in return. In the political struggles of that time,
when the Beaconsfield Government was in full swing, with its policy of
annexation and aggression, I played my part with tongue and pen, and
my articles in defence of an honest and liberty-loving policy in
India, against the invasion of Afghanistan and other outrages, laid in
many an Indian heart a foundation of affection for me, and seem to me
now as a preparation for the work among Indians to which much of my
time and thought to-day are given. In November of this same year
(1878) I wrote a little book on "England, India, and Afghanistan" that
has brought me many a warm letter of thanks, and with this, the
carrying on of the suit against Mr. Besant before alluded to, two and
often three lectures every Sunday, to say nothing of the editorial
work on the _National Reformer_, the secretarial work on the
Malthusian League, and stray lectures during the week, my time was
fairly well filled. But I found that in my reading I developed a
tendency to let my thoughts wander from the subject in hand, and that
they would drift after my lost little one, so I resolved to fill up
the gaps in my scientific education, and to amuse myself by reading up
for some examinations; I thought it would serve as an absorbing form
of recreation from my other work, and would at the same time, by
making my knowledge exact, render me more useful as a speaker on
behalf of the causes to which my life was given.
At the opening of the new year (1879) I met for the first time a man
to whom I subsequently owed much in this department of work--Edward B.
Aveling, a D.Sc. of London University, and a marvellously able teacher
of scientific subjects, the very ablest, in fact, that I have ever
met. Clear and accurate in his knowledge, with a singular gift for
lucid exposition, enthusiastic in his love of science, and taking
vivid pleasure in imparting his knowledge to others, he was an ideal
teacher. This young man, in January, 1879, began writing under
initials for the _National Reformer_, and in February I became his
pupil, with the view of matriculating in June at the London
University, an object which was duly accomplished. And here let me say
to any one in mental trouble, that they might find an immense relief
in taking up some intellectual recreation of this kind; during that
spring, in addition to my ordinary work of writing, lecturing, and
editing--and the lecturing meant travelling from one end of England to
the other--I translated a fair-sized French volume, and had the
wear-and-tear of pleading my case for the custody of my daughter in
the Court of Appeal, as well as the case before the Master of the
Rolls; and I found it the very greatest relief to turn to algebra,
geometry, and physics, and forget the harassing legal struggles in
wrestling with formulae and problems. The full access I gained to my
children marked a step in the long battle of Freethinkers against
disabilities, for, as noted in the _National Reformer_ by Mr.
Bradlaugh, it was "won with a pleading unequalled in any case on
record for the boldness of its affirmation of Freethought," a pleading
of which he generously said that it deserved well of the party as "the
most powerful pleading for freedom of opinion to which it has ever
been our good fortune to listen."
In the London _Daily News_ some powerful letters of protest appeared,
one from Lord Harberton, in which he declared that "the Inquisition
acted on no other principle" than that applied to me; and a second
from Mr. Band, in which he sarcastically observed that "this Christian
community has for some time had the pleasure of seeing her Majesty's
courts repeatedly springing engines of torture upon a young mother--a
clergyman's wife who dared to disagree with his creed--and her evident
anguish, her long and expensive struggles to save her child, have
proved that so far as heretical mothers are concerned modern defenders
of the faith need not envy the past those persuasive instruments which
so long secured the unity of the Church. In making Mrs. Besant an
example, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice James have been
careful not to allow any of the effect to be lost by confusion of the
main point--the intellectual heresy--with side questions. There was a
Malthusian matter in the case, but the judges were very clear in
stating that without any reference whatever to that, they would
simply, on the ground of Mrs. Besant's 'religious, or anti-religious,
opinions,' take her child from her." The great provincial papers took
a similar tone, the _Manchester Examiner_ going so far as to say of
the ruling of the judges: "We do not say they have done so wrongly. We
only say that the effect of their judgment is cruel, and it shows that
the holding of unpopular opinions is, in the eye of the law, an
offence which, despite all we had thought to the contrary, may be
visited with the severest punishment a woman and a mother can be
possibly called on to bear." The outcome of all this long struggle and
of another case of sore injustice--in which Mrs. Agar-Ellis, a Roman
Catholic, was separated from her children by a judicial decision
obtained against her by her husband, a Protestant--was a change in the
law which had vested all power over the children in the hands of the
father, and from thenceforth the rights of the married mother were
recognised to a limited extent. A small side-fight was with the
National Sunday League, the president of which, Lord Thurlow, strongly
objected to me as one of the vice-presidents. Mr. P.A. Taylor and
others at once resigned their offices, and, on the calling of a
general meeting, Lord Thurlow was rejected as president. Mr. P.A.
Taylor was requested to assume the presidency, and the vice-presidents
who had resigned were, with myself, re-elected. Little battles of this
sort were a running accompaniment of graver struggles during all these
battling years.
And through all the struggles the organised strength of the
Freethought party grew, 650 new members being enrolled in the National
Secular Society in the year 1878-79, and in July, 1879, the public
adhesion of Dr. Edward B. Aveling brought into the ranks a pen of rare
force and power, and gave a strong impulse to the educational side of
our movement. I presided for him at his first lecture at the Hall of
Science on August 10, 1879, and he soon paid the penalty of his
boldness, finding himself, a few months later, dismissed from the
Chair of Comparative Anatomy at the London Hospital, though the Board
admitted that all his duties were discharged with punctuality and
ability. One of the first results of his adhesion was the
establishment of two classes under the Science and Art Department at
South Kensington, and these grew year after year, attended by numbers
of young men and women, till in 1883 we had thirteen classes in full
swing, as well as Latin, and London University Matriculation classes;
all these were taught by Dr. Aveling and pupils that he had trained. I
took advanced certificates, one in honours, and so became qualified as
a science teacher in eight different sciences, and Alice and Hypatia
Bradlaugh followed a similar course, so that winter after winter we
kept these classes going from September to the following May, from
1879 until the year 1888. In addition to these Miss Bradlaugh carried
on a choral union.
Personally I found that this study and teaching together with
attendance at classes held for teachers at South Kensington, the study
for passing the First B.Sc. and Prel. Sc. Examinations at London
University, and the study for the B.Sc. degree at London, at which I
failed in practical chemistry three times--a thing that puzzled me not
a little at the time, as I had passed a far more difficult practical
chemical examination for teachers at South Kensington--all this gave
me a knowledge of science that has stood me in good stead in my public
work. But even here theological and social hatred pursued me.
When Miss Bradlaugh and myself applied for permission to attend the
botany class at University College, we were refused, I for my sins,
and she only for being her father's daughter; when I had qualified as
teacher, I stood back from claiming recognition from the Department
for a year in order not to prejudice the claims of Mr. Bradlaugh's
daughters, and later, when I had been recognised, Sir Henry Tyler in
the House of Commons attacked the Education Department for accepting
me, and actually tried to prevent the Government grant being paid to
the Hall of Science Schools because Dr. Aveling, the Misses Bradlaugh,
and myself were unbelievers in Christianity. When I asked permission
to go to the Botanical Gardens in Regent's Park the curator refused
it, on the ground that his daughters studied there. On every side
repulse and insult, hard to struggle against, bitter to bear. It was
against difficulties of this kind on every side that we had to make
our way, handicapped in every effort by our heresy. Let our work be as
good as it might--and our Science School was exceptionally
successful--the subtle fragrance of heresy was everywhere
distinguishable, and when Mr. Bradlaugh and myself are blamed for
bitterness in our anti-Christian advocacy, this constant gnawing
annoyance and petty persecution should be taken into account. For him
it was especially trying, for he saw his daughters--girls of ability
and of high character, whose only crime was that they were
his--insulted, sneered at, slandered, continually put at a
disadvantage, because they were his children and loved and honoured
him beyond all others.
It was in October, 1879, that I first met Herbert Burrows, though I
did not become intimately acquainted with him till the Socialist
troubles of the autumn of 1887 drew us into a common stream of work.
He came as a delegate from the Tower Hamlets Radical Association to a
preliminary conference, called by Mr. Bradlaugh, at the Hall of
Science, on October 11th, to consider the advisability of holding a
great London Convention on Land Law Reform, to be attended by
delegates from all parts of the kingdom. He was appointed on the
Executive Committee with Mr. Bradlaugh, Mr. Mottershead, Mr. Nieass,
and others. The Convention was successfully held, and an advanced
platform of Land Law Reform adopted, used later by Mr. Bradlaugh as a
basis for some of the proposals he laid before Parliament.