A CLERICAL LIBELLER.
Some lawsuits in which Mr Bradlaugh was interested brought him into
contact with a solicitor named Montague R. Leverson, who had indeed
been engaged in the defence of Dr Bernard. The acquaintance thus
begun resulted in an arrangement between them in January 1862 that Mr
Leverson should give my father his articles. It was agreed that Mr
Leverson should pay the £80 stamp duty and all expenses in connection
with the articles, and that my father should serve him as clerk for
five years at a salary of £150 per annum for the first three years and
£200 for the final two. The articles were drawn up and duly stamped
on 25th June of the same year. For the convenience of business, my
father gave up his house at Park, and went to live at 12 St Helen's
Place, Bishopsgate. This connection, which opened so favourably, and
gave my father the opportunity, as he thought, of making a settled
position in life, lasted only for two years or less. Mr Leverson got
into difficulties, and the business was broken up. Vague accusations
had been brought against my father for the manner in which he is
supposed to have treated Mr Leverson. Nothing definite is stated, but
the slanderous "know-all's," who really know nothing, try to make out
a case by means of hint and innuendo. With a view of disposing of even
such paltry slanders as these, I quote the following letter written in
reference to Mr Montague R. Leverson:--
"Langham Hotel, Portland Place, London, W.
"7th January 1867.
"MY DEAR SIR,--As written words remain when those spoken
may be forgotten, I desire to place on record my sense of the kindly
interest and alacrity you have recently displayed in your endeavours
to serve a person with whom, despite anterior intimate relations, you
had a short time previously been on antagonistic terms.
"Your earnest and energetic zeal on a former occasion had commanded
my respect and that of my wife, who witnessed some of your untiring
efforts, and I regret that your friendly services have not met their
full and due appreciation.
"I feel sure, nevertheless, that should an opportunity occur where
your good offices would be required, you would not withhold them.--I
remain dear Sir, yours most truly,
GEORGE R. LEVERSON.
"Chas. Bradlaugh, Esq."
When Mr Bradlaugh quitted Mr Leverson he also quitted St Helen's Place,
and went back to Tottenham to live, where, indeed, my sister and I had
remained at a school kept by two maiden ladies during the greater part
of the intervening time. He took the house, Sunderland Villa, next
door to the one we had previously occupied, and for business purposes
he rented an office in the city first at 23 Great St Helen's, and
later at 15 and 16 Palmerston Buildings, Old Broad Street. A company
was formed called the "Naples Colour Company," of which he was the
nominal principal, and in which he was very active. This enterprise
arose out of the discovery that iron and platinum were to be found in
the sand of the beach at Castellamare, a little place on the coast
not far from Naples. From this sand, steel of the finest quality was
manufactured, and paint peculiarly suitable for the painting of iron
ships, inasmuch as it would not rust. I have a razor in my possession
manufactured from this steel, and I remember that while we were at
Midhurst my grandfather still had some of this paint, with which he
loyally painted hen-coops, troughs, sheds, and every article in his
possession that could be reasonably expected to stand a coat of paint.
Everything in connection with the company was done in my father's
name: the Italian Government granted the concession in his name; some
stock in the Grand Book of Italy, at one time held in his name, was in
connection with this company; Foundry, warehouses, and other buildings
were raised; there were factories at Granili, Naples, and Hatcham New
Town, London; steel and paint, especially the latter, were duly turned
out, and were pronounced first-class; but somehow the business was a
failure--perhaps partly because those engaged in it may not have been
sufficiently versed in the "colour" trade (I do not know that this
was so, but think it very probable), and also certainly because of my
father's name. I well recollect his telling us how on one occasion a
large order came for paint; the paint was duly taken down to the wharf
to be shipped, when at the last moment came a telegram, followed
by a letter countermanding the order. In the interval the intending
purchaser had learned that the Bradlaugh of the "Naples Colour Company"
was also Bradlaugh the Atheist, so, of course, he could not think of
doing business with him.
In the city my father also fell into business connection with gentlemen
who were concerned in the conduct of financial operations, and he
himself took part in negotiating municipal loans, etc. I only remember
two incidents in connection with these undertakings: one the loan to
the city of Pisa, told by Mr John M. Robertson in his Memoir,[27] and
the other a negotiation he was conducting to supply the Portuguese
Government with horses. His business was nearly concluded to his
satisfaction when he was recalled by telegram to London. Overend,
Gurney & Co. had failed, and "Black Friday" had come; Mr Bradlaugh lost
his contract; there was the terrible financial panic, and a fatal blow
was struck to my father's business career. Mr Robertson quotes him
saying, "I have great faculties for making money, and great faculties
for losing it;" and these words were very true.
[Footnote 27: "Once, as a financier, he was intrusted with the
negotiation of a loan for the city of Pisa, with some of whose
authorities he had become acquainted in some of his various journeys to
Italy. His percentage, small in name, was to be considerable in total,
on a loan of £750,000. He duly arranged matters with a certain London
financier, who thereupon sent off a clerk to Pisa to offer the money at
a fraction less than Bradlaugh was to get, provided he got the whole
commission. Bradlaugh, however, had been secured in the conduct of
the transaction up to a given date. He instantly went to Rothschilds,
who allowed no commission, and put the loan in their hands. The other
financier thus got nothing; but so did Bradlaugh."--John M. Robertson,
"Memoir," pp. xxxvi. xxxvii.]
While at Sunderland Villa Mr Bradlaugh made many friends in the
neighbourhood, and interested himself in local affairs. Going to the
city every day, he made personal acquaintance with men who travelled
daily in the same way, and won their liking and esteem. We children had
a large circle of small friends, so that although there was a certain
amount of hostility on account of my father's opinions[28] this did not
greatly trouble us; we had ample local popularity to counterbalance
that. In any case our house would have been sufficient unto itself, for
during these years we nearly always had one or two resident guests,
besides a constant flow of visitors of all nationalities. Many of our
neighbours attended the Church of St Paul's in Park Lane, of which
the Rev. Hugh M'Sorley was the vicar; and I am bound to say that Mr
M'Sorley at least did not err on the side of "loving his neighbour." He
felt the bitterest animosity towards Mr Bradlaugh, which occasionally
found some vent in sharp passages at vestry committees,[29] where, of
course, they were almost always in opposition.
[Footnote 28: For example, a lady gave the mistress of the school which
we attended the option of sending us away or of losing her daughters.
We were not sent away, so the lady withdrew her children rather than
have them contaminated by contact with the children of the Atheist.]
[Footnote 29: An instance of Mr Bradlaugh's interest in local matters
may be found in the _Tottenham and Edmonton Advertiser_ for March 1,
1865, which gives a notice of a vestry meeting held on February 20,
at which he was present. He is reported as asking for a more detailed
account of "Mrs Overend's charity," and the increased value of the
land forming part of the property. Several members of the "Waste Land
Commission" asked that an inquiry should be made. The Chairman (the
vicar) refused to allow the subject to be discussed; but when the
report was entered in the minutes, Mr Bradlaugh gave notice that he
should move that an inquiry be made.
The next business was to receive a report of the committee appointed
by the parishioners in the November before on the matter of the water
supply. Mr Delano, chairman of this committee, read the report,
which consisted of questions put by the local Board of Health, with
correspondence thereon. After criticising the discourtesy of the Board
of Health, the chairman agreed that nothing further could be done.
Mr Bradlaugh, however, "said it would not be right to let the subject
drop without taking some further notice of it. He thought the Board
was bound to act at least courteously towards any of the parishioners
having complaints to make of the insufficiency of the water supply. The
Board acknowledged this insufficiency, and showed they could give a
better supply when a stir was made about the subject. He complained of
the unfairness of the Board in refusing all explanation. Not only did
they do this, but they added impertinence in characterising him as a
new member of the parish. He could not tell who was to blame, but the
Board confessed that the supply was irregular, and showed that it was
capable of being remedied. In his opinion the Board deserved a vote of
censure from the Vestry; they were bound to do their best for those who
elected them, and as far as lay in his power he would teach them their
duty. He then moved: 'That in the opinion of this meeting the conduct
of the Local Board of Health, in refusing to answer the questions of
the Committee, is deserving of censure.'" This was seconded by Mr
Noble, and there was some discussion, a Mr Kirby rising to defend the
action of the Board, to which Mr Bradlaugh replied "in a most caustic
speech;" and the motion being put by the chairman, was carried:
"twenty- six voting for, and two against it."]
The Rev. Mr M'Sorley's animosity at length culminated in an outrageous
libel. An article had appeared in _All the Year Round_ entitled "Our
Suburban Residence," in the nature of a "skit" dealing with Tottenham,
in which Mr M'Sorley was alluded to under a very thin disguise. This
article was reprinted in the _Tottenham and Edmonton Weekly Herald_,
and Mr M'Sorley, taking it into his wise head that Mr Bradlaugh was the
author, wrote the following "appendix" to the reprint, which appeared
in the issue for April 28, 1866:--
"You will have seen that a serious omission has been made in a sketch
which appeared in a recent number of _All the Year Round_, edited
by C. Dickens, Esq. I crave your indulgence while I endeavour to
supply the omission. It would be a crying injustice to posterity if
the historian of our little suburban district were to omit one of
the celebrities of the place. No doubt he is not much thought of or
respected, but that shows his talent is overlooked. He is a great
man this: why, our good-natured, genial, and humane vicar must hide
his diminished head, when put in the scales and weighed against
Swear'em Charley! and as for the 'bould' Irishman, the Rev. M'Snorter,
why, he could not hold a candle to this genius; and as for the Rev.
Chasuble--well, no matter, the least said about him the better, poor
man!
"It was stated in the sketch that this parish had its representatives
of all sorts of religions, from the Quaker to the Papist, the
disciples of George Fox, who bends to no authority, and the disciples
of the Pope, who makes all authority bend to him. We had a capital
sketch of Churchism, High, Low, and Broad. But the sketcher forgot
to add another to his list. Ay, truly, if we have those who are of
the High Church, and the Low Church, and the Broad Church, we have
some who are of 'No Church.' Why, we have got in our midst the very
Coryphæus of infidelity, a compeer of Holyoake, a man who thinks
no more of the Bible than if it were an old ballad--Colenso is a
babe to him! This is a mighty man of valour, I assure you--a very
Goliath in his way. He used to go 'starring' it in the provinces,
itinerating as a tuppenny lecturer on Tom Paine. He has occasionally
appeared in our Lecture Hall. He, too, as well as other conjurers,
has thrown dust in our eyes, and has made the platform reel beneath
the superincumbent weight of his balderdash and blasphemy. He is as
fierce against our common Christianity as the Reverend M'Snorter is
against Popery--indeed, I think the fiercer of the two. The house he
lives in is a sort of 'Voltaire Villa.' The man and his 'squaw' occupy
it, united by a bond unblessed by priest or parson. But that has an
advantage; it will enable him to turn his squaw out to grass, like his
friend Charles Dickens, when he feels tired of her, unawed by either
the ghost or the successor of Sir Creswell Creswell. Not having any
peculiar scruples of conscience about the Lord's Day, the gentleman
worships the God of nature in his own way. He thinks 'ratting' on a
Sunday with a good Scotch terrier is better than the 'ranting' of a
good Scotch divine--for the Presbyterian element has latterly made its
appearance among us. Like the homoeopathic doctor described in the
sketch, this gentleman combines a variety of professions 'rolled into
one.' In the provinces he is a star of the first magnitude, known by
the name of Moses Scoffer; in the city a myth known to his pals as
Swear 'em Charley; and in our neighbourhood he is a cypher--_incog._,
but perfectly understood. He contrives to eke out a tolerable
livelihood: I should say that his provincial blasphemies and his City
practice bring him in a clear £500 a year at the least. But is it not
the wages of iniquity? He has a few followers here, but only a few. He
has recently done a very silly act; for he has, all at once, converted
'Voltaire Villa' into a glass house, and the whole neighbourhood can
now see into the premises--'the wigwam,' I should say, where he dwells
in true Red Indian fashion with his 'squaw.' This is the sketch of
one particular character in our suburban residence, which has been
omitted. But it is worth all the others noticed in Dickens' paper, and
I have no doubt we shall all feel gratified at your allowing it room
in your paper."
The article was, of course, unsigned, but it did not take Mr Bradlaugh
very long to discover who was the author of this "Appendix:" surely
one of the most dastardly libels to which a professed "gentleman"
ever put his pen. The immediate steps taken by Mr Bradlaugh to show
his appreciation of the Rev. Mr M'Sorley's attentions resulted in the
appearance of apologies from both editor and contributor in the issue
of the _Herald_ for the following week, May 5th. Having given the text
of the libel, I now give the retracting words, which are as strong and
complete as the falsehoods which preceded them.
"OUR SUBURBAN RESIDENCE AND ITS 'APPENDIX.'
"MR AND MRS BRADLAUGH.
No. 1.
"The Editor and Proprietor of this newspaper desires to express his
extreme pain that the columns of a journal which has never before been
made the vehicle for reflections on private character, should, partly
by inadvertence, and partly by a too unhesitating reliance on the
authority and good faith of its contributor, have contained last week,
in the form of an 'Appendix' to a recent article from _All the Year
Bound_, a mischievous and unfounded libel upon Mr Charles Bradlaugh.
"That Mr Bradlaugh holds, and fearlessly expounds, theological
opinions entirely opposed to those of the editor and the majority of
our readers, is undoubtedly true, and Mr Bradlaugh cannot and does
not complain that his name is associated with Colenso, Holyoake, or
Paine; but that he has offensively intruded those opinions in our
lecture hall is NOT TRUE. That his ordinary language on the platform
is 'balderdash and blasphemy' is NOT TRUE. That he makes a practice
of openly desecrating the Sunday is NOT TRUE. That he is known by the
names of 'Moses Scoffer,' or 'Swear 'em Charley,' is NOT TRUE. Nor is
there any foundation for the sneer as to his 'City practice,' or for
the insinuations made against his conduct or character as a scholar
and a gentleman.
"While making this atonement to Mr Bradlaugh, the Editor must express
his unfeigned sorrow that the name of Mrs Bradlaugh should have been
introduced into the article in question, accompanied by a suggestion
calculated to wound her in the most vital part, conveying as it does
a reflection upon her honour and fair fame as a lady and a wife. Mrs
Bradlaugh is too well known and too much respected to suffer by such
a calumny; but for the pain so heedlessly given to a sensitive and
delicate nature the Editor offers this expression of his profound and
sincere regret.
"No. 2.
"The author of the 'Appendix' complained of, who is NOT the Editor
or Proprietor, or in any way connected with the _Tottenham Herald_,
unreservedly adopts the foregoing apology, and desires to incorporate
it with his own.
"It is for him bitterly to lament that, stung by allusions in the
article from _All the Year Round_, which he erroneously attributed
to the pen of Mr Bradlaugh, he allowed his better judgment to give
way, and wrote of that gentleman in language which he cannot at all
justify, and which he now entirely retracts.
"To Mrs Bradlaugh he respectfully tenders such an apology as becomes a
gentleman to offer to a lady he has so greatly wronged. He trusts that
the exquisite pain she must have suffered from a harsh allusion will
be somewhat mitigated by the public avowal of its absolute injustice.
As a wife united to her husband in holy wedlock by the solemn forms
of the Church, as a mother of a young family, to whom she sets the
proper example of an English lady, she is entitled to reparation from
one whose only excuse is that he wrote of her in ignorance and haste,
while writing of her husband under irritation and excitement.
"The writer of the libel has only to add that he has addressed to Mr
Bradlaugh a private letter bearing his proper signature, and avowing,
while he laments, the authorship of the offending article; and he
begs to offer his thanks to Mr Bradlaugh for the generous forbearance
which declines to exact the publication of the writer's name, from
considerations which will be patent to most of the readers of this
journal."
These apologies were accepted in a few generous words by Mr Bradlaugh:--
"On my own behalf, and that of my wife, I am content with these
apologies. To have accepted less would have shown my disregard of her
honour and my own. To have required more would have been to punish
with too great severity those whose own frank avowals show that they
acted rather with precipitancy than with 'malice prepense.'
"(Signed) CHARLES BRADLAUGH."
If I could believe that Mr M'Sorley _had_ frankly--to repeat Mr
Bradlaugh's word--repented in fact, as well as in appearance, I should
pass this libel now with but slight allusion, and have considered
myself bound by my father's promise not to make the writer's name
public.[30] In the immediate locality it was impossible that the
authorship of such an astounding concoction should long remain secret,
and for long afterwards Mr M'Sorley's name was bandied about with
small jests amongst the irreverent youngsters of the neighbourhood.
The apology was made under considerable pressure: members of the
congregation threatened to leave the Church, a lawsuit loomed in
the distance, and a horsewhipping in the near future.[31] "This
fellow," said Mr Bradlaugh,[32] speaking thirteen years later, and
still withholding the name, "I compelled to retract every word he had
uttered, and to pay £100, which, after deducting costs, was divided
amongst various charitable institutions. The reverend libeller wrote me
an abject letter begging me not to ruin his prospects in the Church by
publishing his name. I consented, and he has since repaid my mercy by
losing no opportunity of being offensive. He is a prominent contributor
to the _Rock_, and a fierce ultra-Protestant."
[Footnote 30: In 1872 Mr Bradlaugh had occasion to address a letter in
the _National Reformer_ to the Rev. Mr M'Sorley, dealing with a sermon
of his published in the _Tottenham and Edmonton Advertiser_, but he did
not make the slightest allusion to the clergyman's former conduct. Mr
M'Sorley died in 1892.]
[Footnote 31: I remember that some one, I know not whom, put the
horsewhip in the hall in readiness, and this impressed upon the minds
of us children the dreadful depths of Mr M'Sorley's depravity! Our
father never said a harsh word or raised his hand in anger to one
of us, and we knew that the person must be very bad indeed if the
possibility of a whipping could be even contemplated!]
[Footnote 32: _The Weekly Dispatch_, November 16, 1879.]
So much for the bitter lament and frank avowal of an ordained minister
of the Church of England!
It is an open question which was the worse of the two--the Rev. John
Graham Packer or the Rev. Hugh M'Sorley. I am inclined to think that
the latter carried off the palm, although his malignancy recoiled upon
himself, whilst Mr Packer's took such terrible effect. In any case a
perusal of Mr M'Sorley's "Appendix" will convince the reader, if indeed
any need convincing, that Mr Packer was not--as has lately been the
fashion to assume--the only clergyman who has striven to injure my
father's character.