THE "NATIONAL REFORMER" AND ITS GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS.
On the third of May 1868 the _National Reformer_ appeared in a new
character. A startling announcement at the head of the Editorial
Notices sets forth that "the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Inland
Revenue having commenced proceedings to suppress the _National
Reformer_, a special fund is opened, to be entitled 'The _National
Reformer_ Defence Fund,' to which subscriptions are invited." Above
the editorial leaders was the legend, "Published in Defiance of Her
Majesty's Government, and of the 60 Geo. III. cap. 9."
Beyond these two statements no further information was given until
the following week, when Mr Bradlaugh explained in answer to numerous
inquirers that the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue had, under 60
Geo. III., cap. 69, required him to give sureties in the sum of £400
against the appearance of blasphemy or sedition in his columns; that
they had sent officially to purchase a copy; and that they claimed £20
for each separate copy of the _National Reformer_ published. Another
communication came from W. H. Melvill, Esq., Solicitor to the Inland
Revenue Office, insisting upon his compliance with the requirements of
the statute. Mr Bradlaugh replied intimating his refusal, and stating
that he was prepared to contest the matter. He also addressed a short
public letter to the Commissioners:--
"You have," he writes, "taken the pains to officially remind me of
an Act of Parliament, passed in 1819, avowedly for the suppression
of cheap Democratic and Freethought literature, and you require me
to comply with its provisions, such provisions being absolutely
prohibitory to the further appearance of this journal. With all
humility, I am obliged to bid you defiance; you may kill the _National
Reformer_, but it will not commit suicide. Before you destroy the
paper we shall have to fight the question as far as my means will
permit me."
The Government showed itself in so little hurry to notice Mr
Bradlaugh's defiance that he announced the suspension of the "defence
fund" in the hope that the Government had "reconsidered its hasty
intimations." My father's warlike spirit appears to have made him half
regretful that all these preliminary threatenings seemed about to
result in nothing more serious, for he believed he "should have made a
good fight for the liberty of the press;" although, on the other hand,
he was, of course, "delighted to be let alone," as he could not afford
"to go to jail," and "jail" would have been the natural termination
to his defeat and the Government triumph. The hopes and fears, of his
suspense were, however, at length brought to an end, and the next
issue of the _National Reformer_ (May 24) appeared with the words
"Prosecuted by Her Majesty's Government" printed in large black type on
the front page; and this announcement was so continued until the end of
the proceedings, giving to the journal--despised and rejected by its
contemporaries as it was--quite a distinguished appearance.
In fact, the public could hardly have read his words as to the
possibility of a reconsideration by the Government, when he received
an ominously worded writ[40] from the Solicitor's Department, Somerset
House, for the recovery of two penalties of £50 and £20 attaching to
the publication and sale of the paper; and it may be remarked that
the claim of these sums of £50 and £20 meant considerably more than
would appear to the eye of the uninitiated, for it meant £50 "for each
and every day" since publication, and £20 "for each and every copy"
published, so that the amount of the penalties really claimed was
something tremendous. On these two numbers alone, at the very lowest
estimate, it must have reached somewhere about a quarter of a million
of money, "The Defence Fund" was of course re-opened; for, as we shall
see later on, Mr Bradlaugh had by this time gained plenty of personal
experience as to the cost of litigation, and opposing the Government
law officers promised largely in the way of expense. Hosts of small
subscribers sent their small sums to swell the funds for the defence
of the persecuted and prosecuted paper. Meetings were held, and a
petition for the repeal of the Statutes of William and George was
immediately got up. One of the first to be presented was one from Mr
Bradlaugh himself, which was laid before the House on May 25th by Mr
John Stuart Mill; on the same day Mr Crawford presented one from Mr
Austin Holyoake; and later on people in various parts of the country,
sent in petitions through their respective members. These petitions and
the general agitation soon began to have their effect, and resulted in
a meeting of members being convened to be held in one of the Committee
Rooms of the House, to consider the proper action to be taken. Men
like James Watson, who had suffered imprisonment for his defence of
the liberty of the press; Richard Moore, whose name was well known in
those days for his efforts to promote political freedom; and Mr C. D.
Collet, who had worked untiringly for political reforms: such men as
these came forward with help and advice, as well as many others who,
like Edward Truelove and Austin Holyoake, were intimately associated
with my father. On the 28th May he received an "information" from the
law officers of the Crown, but, curiously enough, it was undated. No
one who knows anything of Mr Bradlaugh will need to be told that this
slip did not pass unnoticed, and on the following day, with the view of
gaining a slight extension of the time to plead, he applied to Mr Baron
Bramwell to order the withdrawal of the information. Baron Bramwell
made the order applied for, and the solicitor to the Inland Revenue
amended his document the same day.
[Footnote 40: "This writ is issued against you for the recovery of two
penalties of £50 and £20 incurred by you in respect of the publication
and sale of '_The National Reformer_, Secular Advocate and Freethought
Journal' newspaper of 3rd May 1868, without making the Declaration and
Recognisances, required respectively by the Statutes 6 and 7 Wm. iv.
cap. 76, and 1st Wm. iv. cap. 73; and also for two other like penalties
in respect of the publication and sale of the newspaper of 18th May
1868."]
From this "information," with its customary confusion of legal jargon
retailed to clients at so much per folio, we may extricate three
essential points, which I will put plainly in as many lines, viz.,
that Mr Bradlaugh was being proceeded against for (1) publishing the
_National Reformer_; for (2) being the proprietor of it; and for
(3) selling the paper so published and owned "at a less price than
sixpence, to wit, at the price of twopence."
These last words were pregnant with meaning, for, as my father wrote at
the time, "If the price was sixpence I should not be prosecutable; it
is only cheap blasphemy and sedition which is liable to be suppressed."
The rich might read the covert blasphemies of an affectedly pious
and unaffectedly sixpenny weekly journal, or dally over expensive
and erudite treatises which were openly heretical; but ignorance
and religion were necessary to the masses to keep them in proper
subjection, and woe betide those rash men who ventured to throw open to
these the door of the Chamber of Knowledge! Has not this been the law
of England, and is it not in fact the sentiment of certain Englishmen
even to-day?
As the particulars conveyed in this formidable "information" differed
somewhat from those furnished in the earlier _subpoena ad respondum_,
Mr Bradlaugh applied to the Courts to compel further and better
particulars concerning the penalties for which judgment was prayed.
This application was heard on the 30th May, in the Court of Exchequer,
before Mr Justice Montague Smith, and was opposed by counsel (of whom
there was quite an array) on behalf of the Crown. After a "lengthy
and rather sharp passage of arms" the Judge decided in favour of
the application, and ordered the solicitor to the Inland Revenue to
"deliver to the defendant a further and better account in writing
of the particulars of the statutes referred to in the 3rd and 6th
counts."[41] This victory over the law officers of the Crown was of
trifling consequence, except as giving a little additional time for
pleading, and as showing his opponents that they had to deal with a man
ready to see and ready to use every advantage given him. This second
victory, small perhaps as bearing on the final issues, was of vast
moral importance, for it forced the Crown to state that they relied on
the obnoxious statute of George III. for the enforcement of the 3rd and
6th counts. The assistant-solicitor, Stephen Dowell, Esq., made this
admission in the briefest possible language, abandoning the "to wits"
and other ornamental phraseology of the original wordy information. On
the 1st June Mr Bradlaugh entered four pleas in his defence; but it
was now the turn of the law officers of the Crown to interpose, and
they objected that a defendant might only plead one plea, and referred
their opponent to the 21 James I., cap. iv. sec. 4, as bearing on the
case. The letter conveying this objection was put into my father's
hands at Euston Station just as he was leaving by the 2.45 train for
Northampton, the suffrages of which town he was then seeking to win
for the first time. That very day was the last for giving notice for
the next sittings, and half-past three was the latest time available
on that day. Mr Bradlaugh felt himself in a position of considerable
embarrassment. There was no time for consideration; he doubted the
accuracy of the Government, but he was not acquainted with the wording
of the statute of James; his train was on the point of leaving for
Northampton, and some decision must be come to immediately. He
dispatched a clerk to Somerset House with authority to modify his plea
according to the terms of the solicitor's letter, but reserving his
right to inquire into the matter, and take such course upon it as the
law permitted.
[Footnote 41: The 4th, 5th, and 6th counts were identical with the 1st,
2nd, and 3rd, except that they referred to a different issue of the
paper.]
On his return from Northampton, he went at once to Messrs Spottiswoode,
the Queen's Printers, and there he learned that the statute of James
was "not only out of print, but had not been asked for within the
memory of the oldest employee in the Queen's Printing Office." On
referring to the Statute Book, he arrived at the opinion that Mr
Melvill was once more in error, and therefore went himself to Somerset
House, where, to his "great surprise," he found that the Government
lawyers were no better informed than himself, and merely sheltered
themselves under an opinion of the counsel to the Treasury that he
had no right to plead more than one plea. Upon hearing this, Mr
Bradlaugh immediately wrote Mr Melvill that unless he at once pointed
out the authority under which his right of pleading was limited to
"Not Guilty," he should apply to a judge at chambers to have his
pleas reinstated. Mr Melvill replied on the same day repeating his
declaration, but without giving his authority. The next day (Friday,
June 5th) Mr Bradlaugh was served with a rule that the case should be
tried by a special jury, and that the jury should be nominated on the
Tuesday following. On Saturday the application to reinstate the pleas
was heard before Mr Justice Willes. After a great deal of discussion,
the judge at length endorsed the summons with a declaration giving Mr
Bradlaugh liberty to raise upon the trial all the issues involved in
his pleas.
The trial came on in the Court of Exchequer on Saturday, June 13th,
before Mr Baron Martin. The Court was filled with Mr Bradlaugh's
friends, to witness this great forensic contest between himself,
on behalf of a free, unshackled press on the one hand, and on the
other, Her Majesty's Attorney-General, Sir John Karslake, Kt.,
aided and assisted by the Solicitor-General and an inferior legal
gentleman "in stuff," on behalf of the Government and the oppressive
press laws of George and William. When the jury was called only ten
gentlemen answered to their names; thereupon the Associate asked the
Attorney-General, "Do you pray a tales?" The Attorney-General answered,
"We do not pray a tales." The Associate then asked Mr Bradlaugh the
same question, to which he also replied in the negative. Upon this the
jury was discharged, and the great press prosecution entered into by
the moribund Tory Government of 1868 came to an abortive end.
"It is not in mortals--least of all, in mortals mean as these--to
command success. I make no doubt that the man who has the courage to
defy them will at least do more--deserve it." So wrote "Caractacus"
before this nominal trial came on, and assuredly whatever measure of
success there was in it was surely on my father's side. Mr Bradlaugh
did not "pray a tales," because by so doing he would have forfeited
certain rights; but by not praying a tales, and by not asking for
fines to be imposed upon the absent jurymen, the law officers of the
Crown most clearly showed their eagerness to seize upon any excuse
to abandon the proceedings upon which they had so rashly embarked.
To do the Government justice, I think they had been rather driven
into the matter by their bigoted followers. As far back as 1866 we
find the English Church Union urging the prosecution of an "infidel
newspaper, reputed to possess a considerable circulation." The matter
had actually been brought before the Attorney-General, with a view to
legal proceedings, and he, "whilst suggesting the necessity of mature
consideration as to the desirability of procuring prominence for a
comparatively obscure publication by means of a public prosecution,
promised that the question should be very carefully considered." In
1867 the _Saturday Review_ tried week by week to inflame the mind of
the public against the _National Reformer_ and Mr Bradlaugh, and other
Tory journals followed the example so worthily set them. Judging from
all this, one can hardly be assuming too much in supposing the action
of the Government was not altogether spontaneous.
At the meeting of members of Parliament and others interested in the
matter to which I have already referred, Messrs Ayrton, M.P., Milner
Gibson, M.P., J. S. Mill, M.P., R. Moore, C. D. Collet, E. Truelove,
and A. Holyoake were present, and after some talk it was decided to
raise the question the next evening (June 12) in the House on going
into Supply. Accordingly, on the following evening Mr Ayrton, in a
speech of considerable length, called attention to the state of the law
regarding registration and security in respect of certain publications,
but the Attorney-General politely characterised his statements as
"utterly at variance with the facts." Mr Milner Gibson, in an able
speech, demonstrated some of the absurdities of the press laws. John
Stuart Mill asked for the repeal of the Act, and pending that the
suspension of all prosecutions under it, and Mr Crawford "pleaded in
tones of eloquence and fire for a free and untaxed literature for the
working classes."
It will probably occur to every one, as it occurred to me, that it
would be interesting to know what were the comments of the press upon
this debate, and the abortive trial held upon the following day. I have
looked through several London journals of that particular date, but
have failed to find any comments whatever; the press was apparently in
profound ignorance concerning this important matter, which so vitally
affected its interests.[42] I did, however, find something in my
search; I found that in the _Times_ report of the parliamentary debate
upon the registration of newspapers which I have just alluded to, the
name of the _National Reformer_ was actually omitted from Mr Ayrton's
speech, although the suit against it was deemed of such importance as
to require the services of the Attorney and the Solicitor-General,
and a third counsel. I turned over the pages of the _Times_ and other
papers, vainly seeking for some report of the proceedings in the Court
of Exchequer--but there was not one line: to such pettiness did the
leading journals of the day condescend.
[Footnote 42: A few provincial papers condemned the prosecution, and
later on the _Daily Telegraph_ announced a possible repeal of the Press
Laws, and that in the meantime the Government had resolved not to
press the objectionable clauses.]
In concluding the account of this, the first prosecution of the
_National Reformer_, I cannot pass over without notice the conduct of
the Rev. John Page Hopps, who, with those other gentlemen whose names
have already been mentioned, set up a brilliant exception to the usual
manner in which Mr Bradlaugh was treated by the publicists of the day.
He wrote to my father a hearty letter, saying that while of course
differing from him in certain opinions, he thought the prosecution
"both cowardly and mean," and wishing him "success and support,"
promised him whatever aid he could give.
In the year 1868 Mr Bradlaugh ceased to use that name under which he
had carried on his public career from the time of his return from the
army. The disguise had always been a very transparent one, and the
smallest Christian taunt at his _nom de guerre_ made him cast caution
to the winds and declare his real name. At the time of his first
candidature for a seat in Parliament in 1868 he determined to throw
aside even this semblance of concealment, and all announcements were
henceforward made in the name of "Charles Bradlaugh," although the
repute of "Iconoclast" had been so great that the name clung to him
for many years; in some of the Yorkshire and Lancashire districts it
was proudly remembered until the last. The _National Reformer_ was
issued for the first time on November 15th, 1868, as "edited by Charles
Bradlaugh," instead of "edited by Iconoclast" as heretofore. The winter
of this year was a very stormy one politically; the general election of
December resulted in turning out the Tories and bringing the Liberals
into power under the leadership of Mr Gladstone. Mr Gladstone and
his colleagues had not been in office many weeks before they took up
the press prosecution abandoned by their Tory predecessors, and as
early as January 16th, 1869, Mr Bradlaugh received formal notice that
the Government intended to proceed to trial. Mr Bradlaugh confessed
that this move came quite unexpectedly to him, but he would "fight to
the last," whether against Tory or against Liberal. He regarded it,
however, as "a most infamous shame that a private individual should
have been put to the expense of one abortive trial, and should now have
another costly ordeal to go through on the same account."
On Tuesday morning, February 2nd, the case again came on in the Court
of Exchequer, this time before Mr Baron Bramwell. The Attorney-General,
Sir Robert Collier, the Solicitor-General, Sir J. D. Coleridge, and Mr
Crompton Hutton were there to plead on behalf of the odious Security
Laws, and enforce them against one man and one paper selected out of
"hundreds, nay thousands, of publications liable under the same Acts
of Parliament, which do not comply with their provisions, and which
are yet allowed to go on unprosecuted." Just as had happened in the
previous year, so, curiously enough, on this occasion also only ten
special jurymen answered to their names; but this time a tales was
prayed by the Crown, and the absent jurymen were fined £10 each. Sir
Robert Collier appears to have done his work as little offensively to
my father as possible, and at the end of his opening speech said:--
"Mr Bradlaugh knows perfectly well that if at any time he had
intimated his readiness to comply with the provisions of the Act, the
prosecution would not have been proceeded with. The prosecution is not
for the purpose of punishing and fining him, but to ensure compliance
with this Act, as long as it remains the law; and if Mr Bradlaugh sees
his mistake, as I think he will, and will comply with the Act, no
penalties will be enforced against him."
For a Republican and Freethought paper to give sureties against
technical sedition and blasphemy, "even if we could find friends insane
enough to enter into recognisances," would be like announcing Hamlet
at the Lyceum with the part of the Prince of Denmark cut out. So in
spite of Sir Robert Collier's grace and politeness, Mr Bradlaugh was
obliged to persist, and the prosecution there upon proceeded with the
examination of witnesses as to the purchase of the paper, etc.
The Crown obtained a verdict; but there were seven points reserved on
my father's behalf for discussion and decision. "At present," wrote
my father, "we are not beaten, and we will persevere to the end; but
we must deplore that the present advisers of the Crown should think
it right to try to ruin an individual with a litigation of such an
enormously costly character."
There were some rather amusing incidents in connection with this trial.
When Baron Bramwell pronounced his verdict for the Crown, Mr Crompton
Hutton rose in his place, and said with a grand air of generosity that
as the first and second counts were the same, "it would not be right
for the Crown to take two penalties," therefore a verdict might be
for the defendant upon the second and fifth counts. As though when
penalties had reached well into seven figures, a million or two less
was of much consequence! Mr Austin Holyoake, in a descriptive article
upon the prosecution, which he found it difficult to class as either
tragedy or farce, since "it resembles very much a melodrama in two
gasps and a tableau," says in regard to the suggested non-enforcement
of full fines:--
"This relieved my mind very much; for as the penalties have
accumulated since May last to between three and four millions had
we been suddenly called upon to pay, I feel sure the sum I had with
me would have fallen short by at least two millions of the amount
forfeited to 'our sovereign lady the Queen.' The Chancellor of the
Exchequer is very busy devising schemes to create a surplus for his
next budget. Perhaps this is one of them."
The learned Attorney-General, Sir Robert Collier, in the course of his
opening speech, read the statute of the 60 Geo. III. chap. 9, sec. 8,
which laid down regulations as to the publication of any paper, etc.,
which "shall not exceed two sheets, or which shall be published at a
less price than sixpence." In reading this statute, Sir Robert Collier
remarked that the provision as to pamphlets had been repealed. When it
came to Mr Bradlaugh's turn to speak in his defence, he pointed out the
error of this. The Attorney-General "has read to you the statute of the
60 Geo. III. chap. 9, and he himself, the representative of the Crown
here to-day, knows so little of the statute that he ... states that the
part as to pamphlets is a part which has been repealed. The fact is
that the whole of this Act of Parliament is a living Act."
Having put the Attorney-General right in the matter of law, it was
now Mr Bradlaugh's turn to inform the officials at Somerset House of
what went on in their own department. At the trial Mr Edward Tilsley,
a clerk in the office of the Solicitor of Inland Revenue, had sworn,
accurately sworn, under the cross-examination of the defendant, that
the _Sporting Times_ was not registered. On the 4th of February all the
morning papers contained a letter from Mr Tilsley announcing that he
had made a search, and that the _Sporting Times_ was registered, and
he asked for publicity of this fact "in justice to the proprietors of
that paper." The proprietors must have been considerably astonished.
Mr Bradlaugh was; and to such an extent did his amazement carry him,
that he immediately went to Somerset House, where he also searched the
register. The result of his search appeared in the following letter,
published in the papers of the 5th:--
"SIR--With reference to Mr Tilsley's letter in your issue
of to-day, permit me to state that I have this morning searched the
registers at Somerset House in the presence of that gentleman, and
that his evidence in court seems to have been more correct than his
correction. The _Sporting Times_ is not registered. Mr Tilsley's
error, when writing to you, arose from the fact that another paper
with the same name was once registered, but this was before the
popular journal of Dr Shorthouse came into existence. I believe
Dr Shorthouse would contend, as I contended at the trial, that
his publication does not come under the statutory definition of a
newspaper."
As the days flew by Mr Bradlaugh grew more and more confident that he
had a good case to go before the judges in asking for his rule, and he
notes that "a feeling in favour of my ultimate success seems gaining
ground in many competent quarters, although the utmost surprise is
felt that a Liberal Government should persist in such a prosecution."
A petition was drawn up setting forth the chief points in the
prosecution, and praying that all such enactments as create differences
between high and low priced publications to the detriment of the
latter might be repealed. Mr Bradlaugh sent his petition to Viscount
Enfield, Member for Middlesex, who duly presented it. For thus doing
his bare duty to one of his constituents, Viscount Enfield was most
virulently attacked by the _Blue Budget_. Lord Enfield and Mr Bradlaugh
were unknown to each other, and the former had merely fulfilled the
obligation of his Parliamentary membership; for this he was accused of
being the apologist for Mr Bradlaugh, for whom he did "not object to
risk his reputation."
On Thursday, April 15th, Lord Chief Baron Kelly, Baron Bramwell, and
Baron Cleasby, sitting in the Exchequer Court, heard the motion for a
new rule. The three judges listened to Mr Bradlaugh with the greatest
attention, and took the utmost care to fully comprehend the bearing of
every argument he put forward, although their continuous interruptions
were rather embarrassing to him. Having heard what he had to urge,
a rule _nisi_ was granted him on three points; if he succeeded in
maintaining his rule on either of two points, the prosecution was at
an end; if he failed in these, but succeeded in the third, then there
would have to be a new trial. It is hardly wonderful that, having
gained so much, he began to feel fairly sanguine of success; nor is it
less wonderful that, with all the worry and all the work, he should
be feeling rather bitter against the Government, which had actually
brought in a Bill on April 8th to repeal those enactments which they
were at that very moment trying to enforce against him.
"If the Gladstone Cabinet had been a generous one," he wrote, "it
would have abandoned a prosecution which, when carried on by the late
Government, some of the members of the present Cabinet had already
emphatically condemned. If the Gladstone Government had been just and
consistent, it should at least, when bringing in a Bill to repeal
the very laws under which we are prosecuted, have delayed the legal
proceedings in this case until after the debate in the House upon this
Bill, which has now actually passed its second reading."
The rule of court granted by the judges was served upon the solicitor
to the Inland Revenue on the 16th of April. Upon the 23rd that
gentleman wrote Mr Bradlaugh that as it was proposed to repeal the
enactments under which the proceedings had been instituted, "the Law
Officers of the Crown will agree to a _stet processus_ being entered,"
and asked if he would consent to this course. To this Mr Bradlaugh made
answer:--
"SIR,--I will consent to a _stet processus_ being entered,
not because of the Bill now before the House of Commons, but because I
am sick of a litigation involving loss of time, anxiety, and expense;
and I consent only with the distinct declaration on my part, that I
am not liable under the statutes under which I am prosecuted, and
protesting that a Liberal Government ought never to have carried on
such a prosecution. If the Law Officers of the Crown had proposed
a _stet processus_ when the new Government came into office, the
act would have been graceful; now, after twelve months of harassing
litigation, the staying further proceedings, when a rule has been
granted in my favour, is a matter for which I owe no thanks.
"If any more formal consent is necessary, I will give it. I never
courted the contest, nor have I ever shrunk from it; but I have no
inclination to carry it on; fighting the Crown is a luxury only to be
indulged in by the rich as a voluntary occupation. I have fought from
necessity, and have the sad consciousness that I retire victor at a
loss I am ill able to bear."
In the _National Reformer_ for the following week my father announced
the total monies subscribed for the defence of the _National Reformer_
at £236, 10s.; these were mainly from the hard earnings of poor
friends, although a few had helped out of their fuller purses. He
gave also a detailed account of the money he had actually paid away
during this litigation; it amounted to £300, but of course this did not
include the value of the time lost both directly and indirectly[43]
in the course of these proceedings. To be £50 out of pocket is but a
trifle to a rich man, but when it forms one item amongst many to a
poor man it is a very serious matter. John Stuart Mill wrote him from
Avignon: "You have gained a very honourable success in obtaining a
repeal of the mischievous Act by your persevering resistance." But he
did not think there was any hope of getting the Government to refund my
father's expenses, although, as he said, a "really important victory"
had been obtained. The "poor friends," however, continued to subscribe
their pence and their shillings until the deficiency was in great part,
if not wholly, made up.
[Footnote 43: He was at one period quite ill and under Dr Ramskill's
care through the overwork and mental worry of this lawsuit.]
The repealing Bill introduced into the House by Mr Ayrton and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer passed through its three stages without
debate, and was then sent up to the House of Lords in charge of the
Marquis of Lansdowne, who introduced it to his brother peers on Monday,
May 31st. Lord Lansdowne explained that the Act of Geo. III. was passed
at a time of much agitation,
"when it was thought necessary to subject the Press to every
conceivable restriction and coercion. In repealing these Acts their
lordships need not apprehend that there would be no security against
an abuse by the Press of the power which it enjoyed, for it would
remain amenable to the Libel and other Acts, and the distinction
between newspapers and books being one not of kind but of degree,
there was no reason why the former should be treated in an exceptional
way. Generally speaking, moreover, these Acts had not of late years
been enforced, though their retention on the Statute Book enabled
persons to take advantage of them with the view of gratifying personal
feeling."
Lord Cairns, the Lord Chancellor, and the Duke of Somerset, spoke, but
upon points of the Bill other than that referring to newspapers. That
the "debate" was not lengthy will be fully realised from the fact that
upon this occasion the Lord Chancellor took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock, and "their lordships adjourned at five minutes before
six." The Bill passed its second and third reading (this last on June
21st) without a further word of discussion. Thus, almost in complete
silence, were the Security Laws swept from the Statute Book, and cheap
prints and dear prints made to stand technically equal in the eye of
the law.
What were the comments of the Press on this great triumph so hardly won
for them? After the trial of February 2nd, the _Morning Star_ printed
a splendid article against the prosecution, but all the other daily
papers of the metropolis persevered in their silence. "To struggle with
the Treasury officials would be no mean task," said my father, "even
if we had words of encouragement and more efficient aid from those,
many of whom stand like ourselves, liable to be attacked as infringers
of an oppressive law. As it is, we fight alone, and only one of the
London journals has spoken out on our behalf." The _Manchester Courier_
wondered why the law had not been put in force against the _National
Reformer_ before. The _Blue Budget_ reviled Lord Enfield for merely
presenting a petition. The _Times_ report of the lengthy proceedings
before the three judges on April 15th occupies only twenty-five lines.
The only London papers which printed Mr Melvill's offer of a _stet
processus_ and Mr Bradlaugh's rejoinder were the _Times_, _Star_,
_Reynolds' Newspaper_, and _Queen's Messenger_. "Not one paper said
a word in our favour or congratulated us on the battle we have had
to fight." Finally, the repealing Bill passed through all its stages
and became law without notice or remark. The bigotry of the leading
journals of the day was so great that although they themselves reaped
an easy harvest from the toil and suffering of their Freethought
contemporary, they had not the grace to utter a word of good fellowship
or rejoicing.
But the Government had not even yet done with Mr Bradlaugh and the
_National Reformer_. After allowing him some years' respite, an
attack was directed against him from another quarter. In the autumn
of 1872 the Postmaster-General, Mr Monsell, gave my father notice
that the _National Reformer_ was to be deprived of the privilege of
registration, notwithstanding that for the past nine years it had been
registered for foreign transmission as a newspaper, and had been within
the last five years prosecuted by both Tory and Whig Attorney-General
as a newspaper.
This notice was quite unexpected, and, as might be imagined, my father
did not take it very kindly.
Quite an unusual number of papers took up the cudgels in his
defence. Most, of course, professed either a profound dislike of his
personality, or ignorance of the contents of his journal, but they
were thoroughly alarmed at the prospects opened up by this novel method
of press censorship.
By the end of October, however, Mr Bradlaugh received an intimation
that the Postmaster-General had withdrawn his objection. The Government
seemed determined to advertise the paper, and although they did not
gain anything themselves, the processes they employed were very
worrying to its poor proprietor. He wrote a special word of thanks to
the numerous journals who had asked for fair play towards him, and in
doing so also tendered his sympathy "to the one or two bigoted editors
who prematurely rejoiced" over the suppression of the Freethought
organ.