THE "NATIONAL REFORMER."
Those who have travelled with me thus far will have noticed that the
story of Mr Bradlaugh's public work is carried down to 1860, just prior
to the inauguration of the _National Reformer_. This I thought would be
a good point at which to break off and look at what his private life
and home surroundings had been during that time; and the account of
this I have brought down to about the year 1870. I will now retrace my
steps a little and go back to 1860 to take up again the narrative of
my father's public work, and to tell of the starting, carrying on, and
vicissitudes of the _National Reformer_, of the stormy lecturing times
when Mr Bradlaugh delivered twenty-three or more lectures in one month,
travelling between Yarmouth and Dumfries to do it and home again with
perhaps less money in his pocket than when he started. Italy, Ireland,
the Lancashire Cotton Famine, the Reform League, the General Election
of 1868, these and other matters of more or less importance will bring
us again to the year 1870. That year brought with it such important
events touching both the private and public life of Mr Bradlaugh that
it made, as it were, a break in his life, and marked a new era in his
career.
The Sheffield Freethinkers, as I said a few pages back, almost adopted
the young "Iconoclast" as their own. In him they found a bold, able,
and untiring advocate of the opinions they cherished; in them he,
in return, found full appreciation of his efforts, kind friends and
enthusiastic co-workers. This union had not existed long before
it resolved itself into a practical form--the promulgation of the
_National Reformer_. The initiation of the idea came from Mr Bradlaugh,
who naturally sighed after his lost _Investigator_; but as neither he
nor any one of these Yorkshire friends was sufficiently wealthy to
take the sole risk of starting and running a newspaper, a committee
of Sheffield, Bradford, and Halifax men formed a Company and issued
a prospectus, which was inserted in the _Reasoner_ of February 12,
1860.[34] This original Prospectus is very interesting, and a perusal
of it will show how closely, except on one or two matters of detail
which have necessarily altered with the times, the programme of the
latter day _National Reformer_ adhered to that issued thirty-four years
ago. A careful comparison of the policy embodied in this Prospectus
with the policy of the paper up to January 1891 will entirely disprove
the various assertions of modifications airily made by many persons;
by some carelessly, these never having troubled to make themselves
acquainted with the facts; by others wilfully, regardless of the truth
within their knowledge.
[Footnote 34: The Prospectus of the _Reformer_, as it appeared in the
_Reasoner_, was as follows:--
"REFORMER NEWSPAPER COMPANY, Limited. Capital, £1000, in 2000
shares of 10s. each. This Company is to be formed for the purpose
of issuing a weekly newspaper, price twopence, to be entitled the
_Reformer_, of the size of the _Manchester Guardian_, folded so as
to form eight pages. It will advocate advanced Liberal opinions, on
Social, Political, Theological, and Scientific questions, and will
permit free discussion on every statement made, or opinion advanced in
its columns, or upon any question of general importance. The present
platform of political views will be mainly that advocated by the
Northern Reform Union, but every phase of the political question shall
have free and unreserved treatment, and the most partial Tory will be
allowed to answer the views of the Editor, as well as the most extreme
Republican, the promoters being of opinion that no one man holds
the whole truth, but that it permeates from one extreme to another,
and can only be found by a complete ventilation and examination of
each man's views. On social science, the promoters intend specially
to watch the conduct of the Social Science League, reviewing the
course taken by its leading men, and illustrating the general views
enunciated at its meetings. The newspaper will contain full reports of
co-operative news, meetings and proceedings of trade societies, and
co-operative progress throughout the country. It will also contain
articles illustrating the connection between physiological and
psychological phenomena, and illustrating new scientific discoveries,
examining and explaining the various theories in connection with
animal magnetism, phrenology, etc., treating fully on the important
ground recognised under the title of Political Economy. The present
platform, of theological advocacy, will be that of antagonism to
every known religious system, and especially to the various phases of
Christianity taught and preached in Britain; but every one--Churchman,
Dissenter, or anti-theologian--shall have full space to illustrate his
own views. The paper will also contain all the important news of the
week, summary of Parliamentary debates, reviews of books, etc. etc.;
special law and police intelligence; original poetry, etc. The Company
will be conducted by a committee of management, appointed annually by
the general body of shareholders. The committee will have the whole
financial control of the paper, and will have the appointment of the
Editor. The Editor for the first six months will be 'Iconoclast,'
who will be continued in that office if satisfaction be given to the
committee of management. A number of well-known writers have already
associated themselves with that gentleman in order to make the pages
of the _Reformer_ worthy of general approbation."
It will be noted that here the paper is called the _Reformer_ simply,
but in the first advertisement which appeared after the publication of
its policy, it was announced as the _National Reformer_.]
The arrangements for the paper were completed, and announcements
concerning it made, when Mr Joseph Barker returned to England from
America. His coming was heralded by a flourish of trumpets--literary
trumpets, that is--receptions were arranged to welcome him, and there
was evidently a widespread notion that Joseph Barker was a very great
man indeed. It is difficult for us to-day, having before us his whole
public career, with its kaleidoscopic changes of front, to realise the
enthusiasm which his name provoked in 1860. But be that as it may, it
is quite evident that at that time his reputation stood high amongst
English Freethinkers; and, in an evil hour, Mr Bradlaugh, thinking that
the co-operation of such a man would be of great advantage to the cause
he had at heart, suggested to the Sheffield committee that Mr Barker
should be invited to become co-editor with himself. The suggestion was
readily adopted, and all future announcements concerning the _National
Reformer_ contained the two names, Joseph Barker and "Iconoclast," as
"editors for the first six months."
The issue of the first number was promised for April 8th (1860), but
apparently there was some little difficulty in getting it under way,
and it was not until the following Saturday,[35] April 14th, that
the new venture was fairly launched. According to the arrangements
made between the committee of management and the editors, Mr Joseph
Barker edited the first half (four pages), "Iconoclast" the second;
and in this last half were put all the parliamentary, co-operative,
and society reports, announcement of lectures, and advertisements.
I conclude that after a few numbers, Mr Bradlaugh found all these
reports greatly curtailed the space available for original articles by
himself or his contributors, for very soon the Parliamentary reports
were abandoned, and criticism of measures before the Legislature,
written either by himself or by "Caractacus," were substituted. The
"original" poetry, I remark, was mainly confined to Mr Barker's side
(I use the word "original" because it appeared in the Prospectus);
and even there the poetic seed seems to have taken some time to
germinate, for until the tenth number only two or three stray shoots
appeared; with "No. 10," however, it suddenly blossomed into upwards
of a column of verses. These verses are from the pens of Charles
Mackay, John G. Saxe, Longfellow, and Richard Howitt, and it is a
heavy demand upon us to believe that they made their first appearance
under the auspices of Mr Barker in the _National Reformer_. After this
number there was seldom an issue without some verse--"original" or
otherwise. There is one small matter which has amused me immensely in
connection with the _National Reformer_ (and also with the _Reasoner_),
that is, the enthusiastic advocacy of the Turkish Bath. A casual
observer, say a Hindu or a Confucian, coming to these papers with an
entirely unbiased mind, might well imagine that the Turkish Bath was
a mainstay of Secularism, such is the ardour with which its merits
are put forward. At each town visited by the different editors,
wherever there was a Turkish Bath, the bath is also visited, reported
upon, and if possible, commended in their respective papers. Thus,
in the first number of the _National Reformer_, Mr Barker winds up
an account of "My lecturing tour" by a detailed description of the
bath at Keighley, and refers more briefly to those he revelled in at
Sheffield, Huddersfield, Rochdale, Stockport, and Bradford. He seems
to have been a new convert, and on that ground perhaps may be excused
the eagerness which carried him to such flights in his description
as to record the momentous fact that the drying sheet was "fringed
with red." While Mr Barker thus describes in his half of the paper,
"Iconoclast" in the four pages under his charge devotes two-thirds of
a column to an article on "Cleanliness," in which he also extols the
Turkish Bath, but with the calmness and matter-of-fact manner of an old
frequenter. Mr Jagger of Rochdale and Mr Maxfield of Huddersfield are
especially and discriminatingly praised for the comfort and cleanliness
of their arrangements. We are all tolerably familiar with the proverb
"Cleanliness comes next to Godliness," but any one reading the
Freethought papers of thirty odd years ago would be compelled to admit
that it took a very front place in the principles of Secularism then.
[Footnote 35: The paper was at first dated on the Saturday.]
As a matter of course, Mr Bradlaugh addressed some "First words" to
his readers; from this I will detach two sentences, and two only;
and these because they embody, in forcible language, truths as sound
to-day as at the moment when they were written. Let us unite against
the clergy, he urges upon his Freethinking readers, for "the Bible
is the great cord with which the people are bound; cut this, and the
mass will be more free to appreciate facts instead of faiths." Then in
praising the efforts at Co-operation at Rochdale, he adds: "I would
say to the men of other towns, do not strike against your masters, ye
who are servants, but combine to serve one another in co-operative
associations, which will enable you to employ and elevate yourselves,
and in time will strike the, words 'master and servant' out of our
vocabulary."
The second number of the _National Reformer_ did not appear until a
month later, the third came out on June 2nd, and with that commenced
the weekly issue. With the exception of a few letters and occasional
extracts, the whole of which rarely filled more than two or three
columns, Mr Joseph Barker's half was entirely written by himself,
and the initials "J. B." dotted all over the four pages become so
monotonous that the sight of another signature gives quite a relief to
the eye. The most prominent contributors to Iconoclast's section were
"Caractacus," "G. R.," and Mr John Watts. When the paper was nothing
more than a project, Mr Bradlaugh spoke of it to his friend Mr W. E.
Adams, who was then living at Manchester. He asked the author of the
"Tyrannicide" pamphlet to write articles for the new paper, but Mr
Adams had so modest an opinion of his own abilities that he hesitated
to consent. But consent he at length did; an article from his pen upon
"Reform" appeared in the first number, and once having made the plunge,
he became a regular weekly contributor. The first contribution was
signed "W. E. A.," but after that Mr Adams wrote under the signature
of "Caractacus," and the eloquence of his articles impeaching the
oppressor, or pleading the cause of the oppressed, quicken the blood
in one's veins to-day, although the men and causes which inspired his
pen are now more than half forgotten. G. R.'s first article on the
population doctrines appeared in the fourth number, and after that he
wrote fairly frequently for the _National Reformer_. In number sixteen,
the printer transferred nine "make-up" paragraphs--sent by Mr Bradlaugh
to fill up any vacant corners in his section--to Mr Barker's half. The
paragraphs were sufficiently interesting in their way, but, after the
manner of such paragraphs, contained no very startling doctrines, nor
expressed any very extraordinary sentiment. The first read "Kindness to
animals promotes humanity;" the second gave some tonnage statistics;
the third was upon persecutions, urging "that he who kills for a faith
must be weak, that he who dies for a faith must be strong;" the other
paragraphs were quotations from Thackeray, Wendell Phillips, Senior,
Mansell's Bampton Lectures, Theodore Parker and Ruskin. Such was the
effect of these harmless looking extracts upon Mr Barker, however, that
he thought it necessary to specially address his readers on September
8th (in No. 17), publicly repudiating the sentiments as "foolish or
false," and specially selecting for condemnation the maxim on kindness
to animals! This is the first intimation the public have of the "rift
within the lute," and one is immediately driven to the conclusion that
a man who could publicly repudiate, in the brusque language used by Mr
Barker, such a trifling matter as this, must have been very anxious to
pick a quarrel with his colleague, no matter how slight the grounds.
As a matter of course, Mr Bradlaugh was obliged in the next number
to explain that the paragraphs had been used by the printer to fill
up what would otherwise have been a blank space in Mr Barker's half.
"It was done," he said, "without my knowledge, but I can hardly say
against my wish," and then, naturally enough, he proceeded to defend or
explain the sentiments expressed in them. This matter, small in itself,
makes it fairly evident that Mr Barker was a man exceedingly difficult
to deal with; and his entire lack of self-restraint is shown in his
eagerness to display to the public the smallest of his grievances, even
as against his co-editor, with whom one would have imagined it would
have been to his interest to at least appear on friendly terms, since
it directly involved the welfare of the paper.
For some time after this, things went on quietly between the two
editors, each pursuing the even tenor of his way. But this seeming
tranquillity did not extend far below the surface. Mr Barker expressed
to certain persons his regret at having associated himself with Mr
Bradlaugh, and his determination not to continue long as co-editor. Of
course, all this was reported to Mr Bradlaugh, although he allowed it
to pass quite unnoticed.
There were for the moment no more outbursts of repudiation in the
_National Reformer_, still the paper was very curious reading, and it
grew more and more curious each week. As Mr Bradlaugh himself wrote
at a later stage: "The points of difference between myself and Mr
Barker are many. He professes now to be a Theist. For eight years,
at least, I have been an Atheist. I am for the Manhood Suffrage. Mr
Barker is against it. I hold the doctrines of John Stuart Mill on
Political Economy. Mr Barker thinks the advocacy of such opinions
vile and immoral. Mr Barker thinks Louis Napoleon a good and useful
man. I believe the Emperor of the French to be the most clever and
unscrupulous rascal in the world." These were a few of the more
prominent points of difference, and they seemed to increase and magnify
week by week, although my father's Malthusian advocacy and his hatred
of Louis Napoleon were made the principal grounds of friction. All
Mr Bradlaugh's contributors were apparently obnoxious to Mr Barker.
He fell foul of "Caractacus" on the subjects of the American War,
Garibaldi, and the Emperor of the French; "G. R." was attacked for
his economical doctrines in the most unreserved language; and Mr John
Watts he opposed on private grounds. These differences of opinion
broke out once more into open hostility in Mr Barker's half. In No.
47, "Caractacus," in an article on the dangers to the rights of free
speech, called upon "all honest and liberal men" to stand by Iconoclast
and Mr Barker in their efforts "to maintain the very greatest of our
public rights." In the same number, and on the opposite page, Mr Joseph
Barker protested against the reference to himself. He had seen the
article before it went to press, and had he mentioned his objection,
the words would have been erased; but apparently that was too ordinary
a method for Mr Barker. In No. 48 he inserted a ridiculous statement
that Luther made it a rule to translate a verse of the Bible every day,
which rapid rate of working "soon brought him to the conclusion of his
labours." A few weeks later he wrote of this as though it had appeared
in "Iconoclast's" section; in the same issue of the paper he also took
occasion to insert a notice disclaiming all responsibility for anything
that might appear in the last four pages, and this notice he continued
week by week. All this to an infant paper was about as bad as a course
of whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever to a child; that the
_National Reformer_ survived it proves that it had an exceptionally
strong constitution. Mr Bradlaugh naturally became much alarmed about
its future, for it was noticeably falling away and losing strength.
Feeling that a little more of such treatment would kill it outright, he
addressed himself to those who, with himself, were responsible for its
existence.
He sent a short letter to the shareholders of the _National Reformer_
Company, in which he said:--
"Eighteen months since I, with the special aid of my Sheffield
friends, initiated the present Company. The paper belonging to the
Company was to have been edited by myself, but feeling that two men do
more work than one--if such work be done unitedly--I offered to share
such editorship with Mr Joseph Barker. The experience of the past
twelve months has taught me that the paper can only be efficiently
conducted under one editor."
After recounting the differences and difficulties, he ends by
suggesting that both should tender their resignations, and that some
one gentleman be elected as the sole conductor. If this course should
be adopted, he says, he would offer himself as a candidate for the
office.
An extraordinary meeting of the shareholders was called for August 26th
(1861), and Mr Bradlaugh was elected as editor, with a salary of £5 per
week, by 41 votes against 18 for Mr Barker, and with the next number
this gentleman's connection with the paper came to an end.
Before dismissing Mr Barker's name altogether from these pages, I am
anxious to record a little discovery that I have made since I have been
at work upon this biography. If those who own a copy of the "Biography
of Charles Bradlaugh," by A. S. Headingley, which for the most part
gives a very fair account of the life of Mr Bradlaugh up to 1880, will
turn to pages 78 to 82, they will find a story given there of rioting
at Dumfries and Burnley during Mr Bradlaugh's visits to those towns.
At Dumfries, so the story goes, there was so much violence exhibited
that "Bradlaugh," whom the mob had threatened to kill, thought he had
better wait until the excitement was over; he waited until midnight,
when some one took him down into a cellar and so out into the street;
once outside he feared to go to his hotel, but waited in the shadow
by the river-side. At length he ventured to move a little, but was
recognised by some persons, who rushed off to raise the hue and cry.
"Bradlaugh then turned down a dark side street and got back to the
friendly river," where after a time he saw a policeman and then took
courage "to walk by his side." He was soon met by friends, for the town
was being scoured for him, and conducted to his hotel in safety. The
story of what happened at Burnley is somewhat similar. I must confess
that the account of these riots always annoyed and disappointed me.
It was so unlike my father to wait about for fear of the mob, get out
through the cellar and loiter by the river-side till he happened to
meet a policeman under whose sheltering wing he at last ventured to go
towards his lodgings. But Mr Bradlaugh having seen the book, having
caused it to be revised in one or two points, it never occurred to me
to doubt the _general_ accuracy of the statements made in it. Lately,
in searching for some account of these riots, I find that Mr Headingley
is quite trustworthy, except on one point, and that is the _name of
the lecturer_ at Dumfries and Burnley. Those who own copies of this
work are requested to substitute "Barker" for "Bradlaugh" wherever the
latter name occurs on the pages specified, beginning with the paragraph
at the bottom of page 78. No injustice will be done to Mr Barker's
memory, for his own account[36] has been faithfully followed by Mr
Headingley.
[Footnote 36: _National Reformer_, March 23, 1861.]
From the issue of September 7th (1861), then Mr Bradlaugh was sole
editor of the _National Reformer_, and in the following number he made
a declaration of his policy and objects as advocate of the Secular
Body. In concluding this statement of his views he says:--
"Our party is the 'party of action,' youthful, hopeful effort; we
recognise no impassable barriers between ourselves and _the right_;
we see no irremovable obstacles in our course to _the true_. We will
strive for it, we will live for it, and, if it be necessary, die for
it. And even then, in our death we should not recognise defeat, but
rather see another step in the upward path of martyrdom ... it is our
most enduring hope that ... we may find a grave which, in the yet
far-off future, better men than ourselves may honour in their memories;
forgetting our many faults, alone remembered now, and remembering
our few useful deeds, at present by our hostile critics persistently
overlooked."
A month later appears one of his earliest letters to the clergy,
though not _the_ earliest, for some five or six short letters,
scattered over several months, had previously appeared; most of
these were brief challenges based upon the public statements of some
cleric, or repudiation of certain views attributed to Freethinkers,
or condemnation of some intolerant utterance. The letter to the Rev.
J. Clarke, of Cleckheaton, is, I think, about the first of those
controversial letters of which he subsequently wrote so many, and
which were so popular and effective. In November we find notification
of another change to take place in the _National Reformer_. In future
Mr George Jacob Holyoake is to "rank as chief contributor," while Mr
John Watts is definitely charged with the duties of sub-editor. A week
later, a letter signed "G. J. Holyoake," and headed "One Paper and One
Party," informed "the Secularists of Great Britain" that Mr Holyoake
had arranged to become special contributor. With the beginning of the
year 1862 he was to contribute three pages of matter either from his
own pen or from the pens of others for whom he was responsible. The
_Reasoner_, edited since 1842 by Mr Holyoake, came to an end in the
June of 1861; after that he was connected with the _Counsellor_, and
was proposing to bring out a new paper called the _Secular World_. This
latter title he liked so well that although he abandoned for the time
the bringing out of his new paper in favour of special contributions
to the _National Reformer_, he reserved to himself "a copyright in
that idea." It will be remembered that the Company agreed to pay
their editor £5 per week in full discharge of his duties. Of this Mr
Holyoake was to receive £2 per week, leaving £3 to my father to pay
other contributors, his sub-editor, and himself. An effort was made
to sell 10,000 copies of the first issue of the paper under the new
arrangement; about 8000 were sold, and the sale would have exceeded the
10,000, if the orders had not arrived too late to supply them.
In consequence of the diversity of opinion which had been expressed
in the columns of the _National Reformer_ at various times, a
correspondent wrote in February 1862 asking what were the political and
religious views really advocated by this journal; and from the answer
made to this gentleman by Mr Bradlaugh, we can judge to what extent he
went back upon the position of his earlier years, as it was for the
last few years of his life the fashion to assert. He says:--
"Editorially the _National Reformer_, as to religious questions, is,
and always has been, as far as we are concerned, the advocate of
Atheism; it teaches that all the religions of the world are based
upon error; that humanity is higher than theology; that knowledge is
far preferable to faith; that action is more effective than prayer;
and that the best worship men can offer is honest work, in order to
make one another wiser and happier than heretofore. In politics, we
are Radicals of a very extreme kind; we are advocates of manhood[37]
suffrage; we desire shorter Parliaments; laws which will be more equal
in their application to master and servant; protection from the present
state of the laws which make pheasants more valuable than peasants;
we desire the repeal of the laws against blasphemy, and the enactment
of some measure which will make all persons competent as witnesses
whatever may be their opinions on religion; we advocate the separation
of Church and State, and join with the financial reformers in their
efforts to reduce our enormous and extravagant national expenditure."
Those who have read the literature in connection with the Freethought
movement for the five or six years prior to 1862 will be in no way
unprepared to find that the journalistic union between Mr Holyoake and
Mr Bradlaugh was very shortlived. In March my father, feeling unable
to continue to work under existing arrangements, sent his resignation
into the _National Reformer_ Company; however, at the Special General
Meeting held on the 23rd, it was decided not to elect any editor "in
the place of Iconoclast." Mr Bradlaugh therefore continued to act as
editor, and Mr Holyoake ceased to be special contributor to the paper.
My father was anxious there should be no quarrel--there had been enough
of that with Mr Barker--and proposed to Mr Holyoake that he should
contribute two columns of original matter each week, for which he
should receive the same amount as he had received before for the three
pages. The _Secular World_ was re-announced, and it had my father's
best wishes. "We believe that its advent will benefit the Freethought
party," he writes. However, the matter was not to be so soon or so
easily settled. Mr Holyoake claimed from my father the sum of £81,
18s., urging that the agreement to act as special contributor was for
twelve months; although he had only filled the post for three months,
he yet claimed his salary for the remaining nine. The matter was
placed before legally appointed arbitrators--Mr W. J. Linton, chosen
by my father, and Mr J. G. Crawford by Mr Holyoake. These gentlemen
did not agree, Mr Linton being strongly in favour of Mr Bradlaugh, and
Mr Crawford as strongly, I presume, on the other side. They therefore
chose an umpire, Mr Shaen--who, by the way, had, I gather, previously
acted as solicitor to Mr Holyoake, and who many years later showed a
decided personal hostility towards Mr Bradlaugh. After many delays Mr
Shaen at length made his award in August 1863 in favour of Mr Holyoake,
and my father writing to a friend at the time says rather grimly: "The
only good stroke of luck lately is that I am ordered by Shaen to pay G.
J. H. £81, 18s. Linton will tell you the particulars."
[Footnote 37: "Manhood," Mr Bradlaugh explained later in answer to
a letter from Mrs Law, he used "not in a sexual sense, but rather
as asserting the right of every citizen to the franchise," with, of
course, limitations as to insanity, etc. My father put his position in
most unmistakable language in March 1884 in the _National Reformer_, in
answer to a suggestion made by a correspondent that if there had been
women-voters in Northampton he would not have been elected. "If the
women-electors," he said, "thought fit to reject Mr Bradlaugh, and they
made the majority, it would be their right. If Mr Bradlaugh were in
the House of Commons he would vote for woman suffrage, even if he were
sure he would in future be excluded by women's votes." And again in the
December of the following year he urged: "Even if it were unfortunately
true that every woman would always vote Tory, it would be the duty of
Radicals to try and obtain the suffrage for them."]
In May 1862 Messrs W. H. Smith & Son first officially refused to supply
their agents with the _National Reformer_. They then occupied the
chief railway station bookstalls in England, but were not quite the
monopolists they are to-day, and Mr Bradlaugh could for a little while
at least get his paper sold at all the stations, numbering some sixty
or seventy, on the North Eastern and Newcastle and Carlisle railways,
at which book agencies were held by a Mr Franklin. It is wonderful,
indeed, how this journal managed to live through more than thirty years
in spite of this powerful boycott, extending as it afterwards did to
every part of the kingdom. Mr Bradlaugh called upon his friends to use
every effort to keep up the sale. "We will do our part," he wrote, "and
we call upon our friends, east, west, north, and south, to do their
duty also." During the last year of his life Mr Bradlaugh was given
to understand that the boycott would be raised, and that Messrs W. H.
Smith & Son would be willing to take the _National Reformer_ on to the
railway bookstalls, but the first expenses would have been so great
that he was unwilling to enter into the further financial liabilities
which the new departure would have involved.
The _National Reformer_ was not only from its earliest years refused
by the most powerful booksellers in England, but it was maligned in a
quarter where indeed it might have looked for fair play and a little
justice--I mean by the Unitarians.[38] The cynical reflection that
those who have themselves broken away from the conventional thought of
the times always damn those who go a little further than themselves,
carries a germ of truth within its bitter shell. The Unitarian
body always seem to treat Freethinkers with an acrimony special to
themselves and us. Individual Unitarians whom I have known personally
have been kind, pleasant, liberal-minded people, but Unitarians as
a body or as represented by their organ seldom enough have turned a
kindly side towards atheists.
[Footnote 38: See _Inquirer_, May 31, 1862.]
With every man's hand against it, with financial difficulties to
cripple it, both the editor and the company of the unfortunate paper
felt compelled to review the situation, and put matters on a somewhat
different footing. Hence at a duly convened meeting held in September
the company was wound up, and Mr Bradlaugh "appointed liquidator
according to the terms of the Joint Stock Company's Act, 1856." From
this time the sole responsibility, financial and otherwise, rested upon
my father. Unfortunately, a few months later his health broke down, and
at the urgent entreaty of his friends he "most reluctantly resolved to
determine his connection as Editor, and to retire entirely from the
conduct and responsibilities of the paper."
He begged therefore the support of all friends to Mr John Watts, who
had consented to take up the onerous burden of editorship. Mr John
Watts, in an address published the following week, wished it to be
understood that he was taking up the editorship at the "express wish"
of Iconoclast. On quitting the editor's chair with the issue of No. 146
(Feb. 28), Mr Bradlaugh gave expression to his wishes in regard to the
conduct of the paper.
"I should wish," he says, "that the _National Reformer_ may continue
to advocate the fullest liberty of thought and utterance, conceding
to others that which it claims for itself. That it should be plain
and honest in its attacks on shams. That it should spare no falsehood
merely because uttered by a great man, show no mercy to royal treachery
simply from reverence for royalty, and have no pardon for crowned wrong
while ragged wrong shall suffer...."
To Freethinkers and Radicals he says, with a bitter prescience of his
own future fate indicated in some of his words: "Your duty lies not in
petty personal strife, but in the diffusion of the great and mighty
truths for which our predecessors have risked stake and dungeon. Your
duty is not to take part in disputes whether John or Thomas is the
better leader, but rather so to live as to need no leaders. A public
man's life is composed of strange phases. If successful, he wins his
success with hard struggling. As he struggles the little great ones
before him, who envy his hope, block up his path. His ignorance is
exposed, his incapability made manifest; and then when he has won the
victory, and made a place for standing, each envious cowardly caviller,
who dares not meet him face to face, stabs him with base innuendo in
the back. I do not envy any statesman's character in the hands of his
political antagonists, still less do I envy when I hear him dissected
behind his back by his pseudo-friends."
In concluding his article he gives special praise to Mr John Watts and
Mr Austin Holyoake for their help on the paper, taking the blame for
all its past shortcomings on his own shoulders.
From February 1863 until April 1866 Mr John Watts edited the _National
Reformer_; but unless my father happened to be abroad, as he frequently
was during the early part of the sixties, traces of him were to be
found somewhere or other in the paper, either in an article from
his pen, a letter, or answers to correspondents on legal points.
During these three years he contributed several notable articles,
such as "Notes on Genesis and Exodus," "The Oath Question," "Real
Representation of the People," "A Plea for Atheism," "Universality of
Heresy," "The Atonement," "Antiquity and Unity of the Origin of the
Human Race," "The Twelve Apostles," "Why do Men Starve?" and "Labour's
Prayer," and many of which have been from time to time revised or
rewritten, and published and republished in pamphlet form.
He also gave the paper considerable financial assistance, amounting in
the three years to upwards of £250.
On the 22nd of April 1866, a notice appeared in the _National_
_Reformer_ to the effect that Mr Bradlaugh would resume his editorial
duties on the paper, of which he had never relinquished the copyright.
The occasion for this announcement was a very sad one. Just as in
1863 Mr Bradlaugh, overtaken by illness, was obliged to lay aside his
burden of editorship, so in 1866 Mr John Watts also became too ill to
continue his work. But the illness of Mr John Watts was unhappily more
serious than Mr Bradlaugh's; it was the forerunner of his death. In the
November of the same year a career of some promise was cut short at
its opening, and Mr John Watts died of consumption at the early age of
thirty-two.
When he learned of his friend's illness my father readily consented
to resume his former task as editor, and appointed as sub-editor
Mr Charles Watts, who spoke of the satisfaction it had been to his
brother to have so willing and able a friend take charge of the paper
once more. A little later Mr Austin Holyoake was associated in the
sub-editing with Mr Charles Watts.
Thus in 1866 the journal was once more under the full control of Mr
Bradlaugh, and although he subsequently, for a time, associated another
editor with himself, he thought for it and fought for it, wrote for it
and cared for it, from that time until within a fortnight of his death,
when from his dying bed he dictated a few words for me to write. He had
to fight for it in press and law court.
In 1867 the high-priced and refined _Saturday Review_ started the
story, so often repeated since, that Mr Bradlaugh had compared God with
a monkey with three tails; and further declared, with that delicacy
of language which one expects to meet in such aristocratic company,
that "such filthy ribaldry as we have, from a sense of duty, picked
off Bradlaugh's dunghill, is simply revolting, odious, and nauseating
to the natural sense of shame possessed by a savage." Needless to
say, the "savage" feelings of the _Saturday Review_ were much too
delicate to admit any reply from the editor of the journal attacked.
Mr Bradlaugh, of course, replied in his own paper, and "B. V." took
up the cudgels also on behalf of his friend. He wrote at some length,
and the following quotation truly and amusingly pictures the _National
Reformer_ at least:--
"This poor _N. R._! Let us freely admit that it has many
imperfections, many faults; its poverty secures for it a constant
supply of poor writers, while securing for us, the poor writers,
an opportunity of publishing what we could hardly get published
elsewhere. But I fear not to affirm that, by its essential character,
it is quite incomparably superior to such a paper as the _S. R._
It has clear principles, which it honestly believes will immensely
benefit the world; the _S. R._ is governed by hand-to-mouth expediency
for the sole benefit of itself. The former is devoted to certain
ideas; the latter has neither devotion nor ideas, but has a cool
preference for opinions of good fashion and of loose and easy fit.
The former is written throughout honestly, each writer stating with
the utmost sincerity and candour what he thinks and feels; the
latter--why, the latter would doubtless be ashamed to resemble in
anything its poor contemporary. The former, though not always choice
and accurate in its language, is generally written in plain clear
English (and I really account this of importance, and even of vital
importance, in an _English_ publication); the latter is not written in
any language at all, for a mixed jargon of the schools, the bar, the
pulpit, and the clubs is certainly not a language."
Amongst the papers which copied the _Saturday Review_ article was the
_Printers' Journal_; and this paper, determined not to fall behind its
aristocratic colleague, added a little slander on its own account,
that the _National Reformer_ was improperly printed by underpaid
compositors--although had the editor cared to inquire, he would have
found that the men were paid according to the regulations of the
Printers' Society.
In January and June of 1867 there appeared in the _National Reformer_
some noteworthy letters from the Rev. Charles Voysey. They are
specially remarkable when contrasted with his public utterances of
1880. These letters arose out of a sermon preached at Healaugh on
October 21st, 1866, in which Mr Voysey said that if it were urged
"that a belief in the Articles of the Christian Creed without
morality is better than morality without belief,[39] I frankly own
that, though I am a Churchman, I would rather see them put aside and
torn up as rubbish, than see the cause of morality, which is true
religion, for a moment imperilled. I would honestly prefer a morality
without any religious belief--nay, even without any religious hopes
and religious consolations--to the most comforting, satisfying creed
without morality.... Inexpressibly sad as it is to us, who rejoice
in our Maker, and whose hearts pant for the Living God, yet there
are some who cannot believe in him at all. Some of these are kept
steadfast in duty, pure and upright in their lives, models of good
fathers and mothers, good husbands and wives, and fulfilling God's
own law of love, which in mercy he has not made dependent on Creed,
but has engraven on our very hearts. They are living evidences of
morality without religion; and if I had to choose between the lot of a
righteous man who could not believe in a God, and the man of unlimited
credulity, who cared not to be righteous so much as to be a believer,
I would infinitely sooner be the righteous Atheist."
[Footnote 39: A dignitary of the Church was reported to have said
that it was better "to have a religion without morality than morality
without religion."]
Mr Bradlaugh made a short comment upon this, to which Mr Voysey
replied, and one or two further letters appeared. In a letter dated
January 13th he writes:--
"But I leave these minor matters to express my heartfelt sympathy
for what you call the 'Infidel party' under the civil disabilities
which have hitherto oppressed them. I think with sorrow and shame
of the stupid, as well as cruel contempt, with which some of my
brother-clergymen have treated you; and I cannot but deplore the want
of respect towards you as shown in the attitude of society, and in the
continuance of those nearly obsolete laws which our less enlightened
forefathers passed in the vain hope of checking the movements of the
human mind.... _I can do but very little, but that little I will do
with all my heart to remove the stigma which attaches to my order
through its blind and senseless bigotry._"
The italics here are mine, as I wish to draw special attention to the
sentiments of the Rev. Charles Voysey in 1867. In June of the same year
he wrote other somewhat lengthy letters, in which he expressed his
great respect for Mr Bradlaugh's "candour and honesty," and his thanks
for the "invariable courtesy" shown him. That is the Mr Voysey of
1867. In 1880 the Rev. Charles Voysey proved the value of his unsought
promise to work to remove the stigma from his order, by going out of
his way to preach a sermon at the Langham Hall upon the "Bradlaugh
Case," in which he explained that he felt "ashamed and disgraced by the
people of Northampton for electing him [Charles Bradlaugh] to represent
them;" he said that "most of the speeches in the Bradlaugh case, in
favour of his exclusion, strike me as singularly good, wholesome, and
creditable," and he felt thankful to the speakers for not mincing the
matter. Mr Bradlaugh, making an exceedingly brief commentary on Mr
Voysey's sermon, said:--
"We presume that this commendation included the various phrases
invented for Mr Bradlaugh by 'hon.' members, but never used by him.
Mr Voysey's belief in God seems to include approval of the use of
lies on God's behalf. Mr Voysey says: 'It is more than probable that
if Mr Bradlaugh had claimed to affirm without giving reasons for it
the Speaker would have at once permitted him to affirm.' Here Mr
Voysey writes in absolute and inexcusable ignorance of what actually
took place. For eightpence Mr Voysey can buy the Report of the Select
Parliamentary Committee, which, while unfavourable to me, gives the
exact facts, and this at least he ought to do before he preaches
another sermon full of inaccuracies as to fact, and replete with
unworthy insinuation."
"The whole affair," says Mr Voysey, "has been a perfect jubilee to the
martyr and his friends." And in the end it was--such a jubilee as is
never likely to fall to the lot of Mr Voysey. True, it was paid for
in years of care and terrific mental anxieties; true, it was heralded
with insult and actual personal ill-usage; true, it cost a life
impossible to replace; but the "jubilee" came when over the "martyr's"
very deathbed the House of Commons itself vindicated his honour; when
even a Tory statesman could be found to uphold my father's conduct in
the House, and a Tory gentleman to proclaim that he was "a man who
had endeavoured to do his duty." It was a jubilee of the triumph of
consistent courage and honesty over "blind and senseless bigotry" and
unprincipled malice.