THE REFORM LEAGUE, 1866-1868.
In 1866 the National Reform League was proving itself an extremely
active organisation. Mr Edmund Beales was its honoured President,
and Mr George Howell the Secretary. Mr Bradlaugh was one of its
Vice-Presidents, and he had, oddly enough, amongst his colleagues the
Rev. W. H. Bonner, the father of his future son-in-law. Mr Bonner
had been, and was until his death in 1869, a Lecturer for the Peace
Society, and was then a Vice-President and Lecturer of the Reform
League. They worked together with the greatest cordiality, and Mr
Bradlaugh on one occasion wrote that he wished there were more
clergymen like the Rev. Mr Bonner. My father took part in most of the
meetings of the League which were held in London and in many of those
held in the provinces, and his value as an advocate was appreciated by
men opposed to the Reform Bill--then before Parliament--as well as by
those on his own side who were not blinded by bigotry.
On May 21st a great demonstration in support of the Bill was held
upon Primrose Hill, and was addressed by Mr Beales, Mr Cremer,
Colonel Dickson, Mr Lucraft, and others. Mr Bradlaugh moved the
second resolution, and his eloquence so impressed the reporter to the
_Standard_ that that gentleman, who had assuredly come "to scoff,"
remained, if not "to pray," yet to give and record a reluctant
admiration. The leader which appeared in the _Standard_ for the
following day was intended to be humorously descriptive of the
proceedings without too fine a regard for facts; and in it we find the
following notice of Mr Bradlaugh and his speech, which the writer said
was frequently and enthusiastically applauded:
"At length, however, a young gentleman--by the name, we believe, of
Bradlaugh--sprang into the chair, and for the moment awakened in the
wind-chilled throng a faint thrill of something like enthusiasm. At
first, judging from the cast of his countenance and from a certain
twinkle in his eye as he adjusted himself to his task, we anticipated
a decidedly comic address. But the event soon showed that we were
mistaken, and the speaker, admirably as his face was adapted for
purposes of comedy, was himself terribly in earnest; so earnest,
indeed, and so thoroughly _d'accord_ with his audience, that he soon
woke them up from the lethargy in which they had remained ever since
the first old gentleman had begun to read to them the unpublished
proofs of next morning's _Star_, and set them crying 'Hear, hear,'
'That's so,' 'Hurray,' 'Down with the Peers,' 'Shame, shame,' and so
on. Bearing in mind the blood-red banner and the _bonnet rouge_, it
is needless to say that the speech of this energetic gentleman--who,
be it observed, spoke really extremely well--consisted simply of a
furious onslaught upon English institutions in general, and upon
Government and the House of Lords in particular. He would like to
see that wretched institution that battened upon the life-blood of
the English people swept away for ever; and here the Reformers cried
'Hear, hear,' and applauded with voice and hand. And that was what
things were tending to; that was what this Bill really meant; and
he differed from their worthy president--who had apparently been
endeavouring to persuade the meeting to adopt that convenient little
Liberal fib that the present Bill had really nothing democratic about
it--in being ready and willing to take his stand as a supporter of the
Government measure upon the ground that it was democratic, and that
its real effect would be to sweep away the whole expensive machinery
of the constitution, Government itself included. All this, of course,
everybody knew before, but it is not every Liberal Reformer who is
bold enough to say it.... The speaker concluded with a significant
reminder that on this occasion they were allowed to meet undisturbed,
because they met in support of a Government measure, but that their
normal condition--he did not say normal, but that was the meaning of
it--was one of opposition to all Government, and that he might have
to call upon them to meet here or elsewhere, or even under the walls
of the sham Parliament at Westminster, when the whole strength of
Government would be put forth to prevent the meeting, and when the
English people would rise in their might," etc.
The sarcasm and humour of the foregoing make it no easy matter to pick
out the scattered grains of truth: nevertheless, we may gather from it
that the boldness, earnestness, and eloquence of the "young gentleman
by the name, we believe, of Bradlaugh," did this much--it made an
unusual impression upon his Tory listener.
At a great gathering[86] held in Trafalgar Square on the 2nd of July,
my father was one of the speakers. Lord Russell and Mr Gladstone
had resigned from the Ministry, and Lord Derby had been "sent for."
Parliament stood adjourned until July 5th, and the Reform League held
this meeting prior to the reassembling of the House to protest against
the proposed Derby administration, and to deplore the retirement of
Mr Gladstone and Lord Russell. There was unusual excitement about
this meeting, for Sir Richard Mayne had first of all intimated that
it would not be allowed to take place. He, however, met with such a
strenuous outburst of condemnation that for the moment he was checked,
and withdrew his prohibition. By this time Mr Bradlaugh's popularity
in London was becoming very great, and in the _Times_' notice of the
meeting it is remarked that he was the chief favourite, and that "the
mass soon commenced clamouring" for him.
[Footnote 86: The number of persons present was variously estimated at
from 30,000 to "upwards of 60,000."]
The Derby Cabinet, as every one is aware, was formed with Disraeli[87]
in Gladstone's place as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and with the
formation of the new Cabinet all immediate hopes of the passing of any
real measure of Reform were abandoned, although the League continued
its work with untiring energy. An utterance of Mr Bradlaugh's on the
chief point in the programme of Reform then advocated, viz. extension
of the Suffrage, is worth repeating here, as it indicates a line of
conduct which Mr Bradlaugh himself pursued and enjoined upon others in
regard to other matters of Reform than the Suffrage. He would always
seek and work for a thorough and complete measure; but if he could
not get all that he asked for, rather than have nothing, and thus
leave matters in the bad state in which he found them, he would take
what ameliorations he could get _without ceasing to aim at ultimately
winning the whole_. He had, at the time of which I am writing, occasion
to allude to a little pamphlet published in 1838. He remarked:--
[Footnote 87: Mr Bradlaugh commented somewhat epigrammatically: "The
Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli is perhaps the man best fitted to be in
opposition, and the least fitted to govern amongst our prominent men.
His waistcoats have been brilliant, but his Parliamentary measures
cannot always successfully compare with the result of his tailor's
skill."]
"The author says well when he tells you, 'Demand universal Suffrage;'
but I am not quite sure that he is right in saying, 'Take no less than
your full demand.' He is right in declaring the Suffrage a natural
right, and therefore undoubtedly all our agitation should be based
on this principle; but I am not of opinion that the extension of the
Suffrage to a portion of the working or middle classes necessarily
makes them enemies to their unenfranchised brethren. Each step in
the Reform movement, whether theological, social, or political, is
educational in its effects even beyond the circle in which the step
is taken. My advice would be: Seek justice; but refuse no point which
may be conceded, for each concession gives you additional means and
strength to enforce your claim. The people are growing stronger
and more worthy every day; but there are, alas! even yet in this
country hundreds of thousands who are intellectually too weak for,
and apparently hardly worthy of, enfranchisement. Our mission is to
educate them to strength and worthiness, to strip off the badge of
servitude they wear, to teach them that labour's rights and duties are
as honourable and onerous as the rights and duties of the wealthiest
employer of labour, and that the labourer--if honest and true to his
manhood--has a higher patent of nobility than was ever given by yellow
parchment or crumbling seal."
The Tories had declared that the people themselves did not want
any extension of the suffrage, and spoke sneeringly of the apathy
and indifference of the working classes towards any measure of
enfranchisement. Determined to show they were not apathetic, working
men in London and the provinces held meeting after meeting. The one
in Trafalgar Square was followed three weeks later by that famous
gathering in Hyde Park, when the railings "came down." This meeting
was announced for Monday, July 22nd, but a few days before the time
arrived Sir Richard Mayne posted a notification on the park gates
forbidding the meeting to take place; and this time Sir Richard Mayne
held to his prohibition. The Council of the National Reform League
met on the 20th specially to consider this police order; Mr Beales,
the president, stated the case as impartially as possible, and put
the legal difficulties before the Council. Mr Bradlaugh moved that
notwithstanding the police notice of prohibition the meeting be
persisted in. Mr Cremer and others opposed the resolution, but when it
was put it was carried by a large majority. Mr Bradlaugh put himself
entirely under the direction of Mr Beales, and it was arranged that at
the given time the leaders of the demonstration should appear at the
Marble Arch and demand admission into the park; if this was refused,
having made their protest, they should separate into divisions and
proceed quietly by different routes to Trafalgar Square.
When the time came, procession after procession marched in orderly
fashion to the park gates, and the meeting became a truly magnificent
one, composed as it was mainly of respectable working men, thoroughly
earnest in their desire for Reform. They were not all Londoners either;
there were representative men from the provinces, from Yorkshire,
Lancashire, Plymouth, and other parts, men who had travelled many miles
and undergone much fatigue to take part in the forbidden demonstration.
From a brief notice of the meeting which Mr Bradlaugh wrote for the
_National Reformer_, it appears that Mr Beales and the committee
reached the Marble Arch Gates shortly after seven o'clock, and leaving
their vehicles they went together to the police at the gate to demand
admission. "The police, however, meant mischief; one mounted man,
'V. 32,' backed his horse right on to Mr Beales and myself, and the
example being followed by another mounted policeman, some confusion was
created, and this was evidently the result desired by the police. The
truncheons were all out, and some rough intimations given to those in
front that mischief was meant." On his demand being made and refused,
Mr Beales and his colleagues turned, as had been arranged, to lead
the meeting by different routes to Trafalgar Square. Mr Bradlaugh's
division turned down Park Lane, but some of those on the outside, being
irritated by the behaviour of the police, made an attack upon the
railings of the Park. Having read numerous accounts of this episode, I
should judge that the first railings fell partly accidentally through
the enormous pressure of the moving crowd, and were partly torn up in
anger. When a few rails had given way, the idea of gaining ingress
to the park in that manner spread through the crowd like a flash of
light, and in a few minutes many yards of railings were upon the ground
and the people leaping excitedly over them. Mr Bradlaugh, strenuously
adhering to the programme of his leader to carry the meeting to
Trafalgar Square, set himself to the difficult task of restraining
the wild tumult and preventing the mass from destroying the railings
and forcing an entry. After a little, although not before he himself
had been knocked down, he was successful, and his column resumed its
orderly and peaceful march to Trafalgar Square, "whence, after much
speechifying, we all went home." The _Times_ remarked that in his
efforts to prevent a breach of the peace "Mr Bradlaugh got considerably
hustled ... falling under the suspicion of being a government spy." It
is little to be wondered at that the people hardly knew friend from
foe, for the confusion and excitement were so great that they were for
a moment bewildered. The police, said the _Morning Star_,
"hit out with their truncheons like savages who, having been under
temporary control, were now at full liberty to break heads and cut
open faces to their hearts' content. It mattered not to them whether
the interloper had actively exerted himself to force an entrance, or
whether he had been merely hurled in the irresistible crush of those
who pressed behind. Wherever there was a skull to fracture, they did
their best to fracture it; everybody was in their eyes an enemy to
whom no mercy was to be shown. The mob was at first stunned by the
vigour of the assault, but presently turned upon the aggressors and
repaid blows with their kind--in the end inflicting as much punishment
as they received."
In any case the police attempt to prevent the people entering the
park was futile, for although the more orderly passed on to the
appointed meeting-place, in the course of half-an-hour many thousands
gained admission through the openings made in the railings. At
length, the police confessing themselves powerless, the military were
called out and marched through the park. Lord Derby, in the House of
Lords, asserted that altogether not less than 1400 yards of railings
were pulled down, and complained loudly of the injury done to the
flower-beds and other "property of the Crown;" but on this head a
rather remarkable statement was made by Mr Cowper, M.P., formerly First
Commissioner of the Works, who expressed himself against holding public
meetings in the Park. Mr Cowper said that when the crowd (composed,
according to the _Times_, of "London roughs") had
"forced down the railings and made good their entrance to the Park,
they abstained from injuring the flowers, and even in the heat and
hurry of the disturbance, they frequently went round along the grass
so as not to tread upon the flower-beds and borders."
After all their prohibitions and precautions to prevent the people
from holding orderly meeting and giving public expression to their
opinion, backed too as they were by police and soldiers, the Government
could only feebly say in the House that the measures they had taken
had prevented "some part of the contemplated proceedings from taking
place." They might also have truthfully added that these same measures
had also brought about the destruction of the Park railings, and
numerous broken heads, "proceedings" which were not "contemplated," at
least, by the conveners of the meeting.
A week later, before the excitement had time to cool down, another
great meeting was held in the Agricultural Hall, and I have often heard
my father say he had never seen gathered together in any building
so many men as found their way into the Agricultural Hall on that
occasion. He reckoned there must have been upwards of 25,000 persons
present, without counting those who came and went away in despair at
not being able to see or hear on the outskirts of so large a crowd. The
great difficulty seems to have been to hear the speakers, and with such
a vast assembly it is not surprising to find that many of them could
only be heard by those nearest to the platform. Mr Bradlaugh himself
felt how impossible it was to make every one hear. He moved the second
resolution, praying the House of Commons to institute an inquiry into
the conduct of Sir Richard Mayne and his subordinates at Hyde Park
on the previous Monday, and wound up what the _Times_ describes as a
"telling speech," with his favourite quotation from Shelley's "Masque
of Anarchy."
One of the results of this week of disturbance was the arrest of
several "good men and true," amongst whom was Mr Nieass, whose recent
death his friends and co-workers have good reason to mourn. On the
evening of July 25th Mr Bradlaugh was suddenly summoned to Bow Street;
some member of the Reform League Council was reported to be under
arrest. When he reached the police station he found Mr Nieass, who had
been seized by the police in the Strand on a charge of inciting the
people to resistance, whereas, as it was afterwards proved, he had been
persuading them to disperse, and but for Mr Bradlaugh's pertinacity, Mr
Nieass would have been, as others actually were, locked up all night,
in spite of the fact that good bail was offered.
The Reform movement seemed to grow and spread through England with
marvellous rapidity. The great meetings in London found their echo in
great meetings in the provinces. As Mr Bradlaugh was not possessed of
any mysterious power of reduplicating himself, he was not of course
present at all these gatherings, although he somehow (I hardly know
how) contrived to make time to attend a goodly number. On the first
day of September, 12,000 persons met at short notice on Brandon Hill,
Bristol, Mr Beales and Mr Bradlaugh attending as a deputation from
London. I find it noted[88] that Mr Bradlaugh was much applauded during
his address, and that he sat down amidst long and continued cheering
and waving of hats. In the _Bristol Times and Mirror_ there is a letter
about the meeting from "A Man in the Crowd," and among much that was
hostile and absurd he wrote: "The speech that told more than any other
on Brandon Hill was that of Charles Bradlaugh, Esq., and it was the
best portion of it that was appreciated; ... his exhortation to men to
be manly carried his hearers along with him.... Nothing was listened
to after Mr Bradlaugh had finished." In a day or so, however, the good
people of Bristol began to realise who this eloquent man was who had
so moved that great crowd, and two days later he was referred to in
the _Times and Mirror_ in most abusive and scurrilous terms, whilst
the _Wiltshire County Mirror_ tried to work upon the imagination of
its more timid readers by drawing a lurid picture of what was likely
to happen if the Reformers were triumphant: "Mr Beales is not a
professed infidel, we believe, but we are persuaded that his religious
convictions and feelings are of a very indiarubber kind.... Let these
two gentlemen [Mr Bradlaugh and Mr G. J. Holyoake] have their way, and
there would be an end to the institution of marriage, and communism
with all its abominations would be established amongst us." When a
too fertile imagination has carried a man thus far it is difficult to
see why he should not put even a little more colour on to his brush;
as it was, his statements only frightened "old ladies" (masculine and
feminine), and so served the purpose of political, religious, or social
intriguers. In this case it was the political intriguers who were
specially served, for it was considered a capital notion to associate
Mr Beales--and through him the cause of Reform--with "Infidelity," the
abolition of "the institution of marriage," and the "abominations" of
Communism. The four ideas well mixed together by not over-scrupulous
writers, formed such a fine jumble that the ignorant and pious could
not always distinguish the one from the other.
[Footnote 88: The _Bristol Daily Post_.]
In London, during the autumn and winter, Mr Bradlaugh spoke for the
Reform League at Chelsea, Cleveland Hall, Battersea, Pimlico, South
Lambeth, the Pavilion Theatre, Whitechapel, and many other places, but
the note we found struck in the _Wiltshire County Mirror_ reverberated
with such force that at length my father said that he was not sure
whether "the course taken by the cowardly respectable press in
denouncing the movement as an infidel one, may not render it wiser for
me to leave the platform advocacy of Reform at the large gatherings to
men whose religious or irreligious views are not so well known as my
own." But when a few weeks later he was re-elected upon the Executive
of the Reform League, he resolved to allow no sneer at his creed to
influence him; no slander to make him hesitate, but to do his best,
whatever that best might be, to aid in winning the battle
"between Tory obstructiveness and the advancing masses; between
vested interests and human happiness; between pensioned and salaried
lordlings and landowners' off-shoots on the one hand, and the
brown-handed bread-winner on the other." "The people must win," he
said.
Yes, "the people must win"--in the end; but complete manhood suffrage
is not ours yet, and universal suffrage is still far off. "The people
must win," but Oh how long the winning; and alas! the cost to the
victors.
In October Mr Bradlaugh was speaking for the League in Northampton.
I wonder whether there are Northampton men who still remember that
Reform demonstration held in their town in the autumn of sixty-six,
when they carried out their programme in the pelting, pitiless rain,
just as "cheerily and as steadfastly as though it had been sunshine
and a clear sky." Do they remember the procession, I wonder, when men
and women marched through the incessant downpour, the women as earnest
as the men? And the meetings in the Corn Exchange and the Mechanics'
Institute, where Mr Bradlaugh's speeches were received with great
applause by an enthusiastic audience? There was a meeting at the Town
Hall too, to which he went at Col. Dickson's invitation; though on
arriving it was only to find that the Town Hall was reserved for the
"respectable great guns," and therefore there was no room for him on
that platform. But other times, other customs, and many a time has the
Northampton Town Hall rung with his voice since that wet October day
twenty-eight years ago, when, "too proud to intrude," he went away
slighted and scorned.
Great spontaneity and heartiness met him at Luton, which, "though
a small town in a small county, gave us great welcome," said Mr
Bradlaugh. It had been arranged that a conference of delegates (amongst
whom were Mr Beales and Mr Bradlaugh, representing London) should
be held previous to the Town Hall meeting, at Messrs Willis & Co.'s
factory, but, much to the amazement of the delegates, when they reached
the factory gates they found a meeting of several thousand persons
collected there without call or summons; the gathering was such as "no
living man had ever seen in that still increasing town."[89] Every one
was so anxious to hear the speakers from London and elsewhere that
the conference of delegates was abandoned, and a public meeting was
at once held in Park Square, an open space in the centre of the town.
The _Mercury_ devoted a little leader to this Reform demonstration at
Luton, in which it said that
"the terse and argumentative speech of Mr Bradlaugh roused the
feelings of the thousands assembled to their highest pitch, and as he
put the case of reform in a clear light he was most enthusiastically
applauded."[90]
[Footnote 89: _Bedford Mercury_ of November 24th.]
[Footnote 90: The _Morning Star_ (London) of November 22nd also notes
the enthusiasm provoked by Mr Bradlaugh's "animated speech."]
In the course of his address, which was interrupted again and again
by the cheering of his audience, he felt it incumbent upon him to
deny that these meetings partook of the character of physical force
demonstrations. Hundreds of thousands of working men, he pointed out,
had assembled and kept their own order even when the police in their
officiousness had failed to preserve it. This denial was made necessary
by the attitude taken up by the Tories and weak Liberals who began to
be frightened by the growth of popular opinion as exhibited in these
great and orderly outdoor and indoor meetings which were taking place
every week in London and the provinces. In order to hide their fear of
_opinion_ they began to pretend fear of physical force, and by dint of
crying "Wolf" often and loudly they did not turn belief into disbelief
like the boy in the story, but reversed the process, and were at length
believed by men who ought to have known a great deal better. Take,
for example, Matthew Arnold, who a year or so later made a wholly
unprovoked attack upon Mr Bradlaugh, speaking of him as "Mr Bradlaugh,
the Iconoclast, who seems to be almost for baptizing us all in blood
and fire into his new social dispensation;" and again, "Mr Bradlaugh is
evidently capable, if he had his head given him, of running us all into
great dangers and confusion."[91] The pious journals were of course
always and increasingly alarmed at the growing popular influence of the
hated and despised Atheist, and tried their best to counteract it, each
according to its lights. The most common way was to decry him: thus he
was not "endowed with superior attainments," nor had he "any faculty
or power of teaching other men." And after devoting a column or so to
showing how mean were his intellectual powers, the Christian critic
would then proceed in the like amiable fashion to decry Mr Bradlaugh's
personal appearance.
[Footnote 91: Essay in _Cornhill Magazine_, 1868, reprinted in book
form as "Culture and Anarchy."]
Just about this time Mr Bradlaugh expressed himself upon a small matter
which will strike a chord in the memories of many of those who took
part in meetings with him. I mean bands at processions. He said he was
glad to note "a strong disposition on the part of the Executive [of
the Reform League] to avoid the use of bands of music in our future
processions. Ten thousand men tramping seriously along the streets
towards Westminster will be unmistakable evidence of our earnestness."
This is the first public expression of his feeling on this subject that
I have come across, but there will still be many who can recall how
much Mr Bradlaugh objected to a serious procession being accompanied
by flying flags and a beating drum. A gala meeting on a Northumberland
or Durham moor was one thing, but men proceeding together in orderly
fashion to soberly demand a right or strenuously protest against a
wrong was another. But people like noise and merriment, even when they
are very much in earnest, and my father often had to submit to the band
and the banner, although in his heart he wished them well at home.
He generously determined that his lectures should not cost the League
one farthing. True, his Freethought friends helped him as much as lay
in their power, but they were poor, and the demands upon their purses
many, so that at the end of the year 1866 he found that in work for the
League he had spent out of his own pocket £30 in mere travelling and
hotel expenses.
At the quarterly election of officers in December 1866 Mr Bradlaugh
was again elected upon the Executive, and he appealed to his friends
to show renewed activity in the time of hard work which he felt lay
before them. On February 11th (1867) the League held two mass meetings,
one in the afternoon at Trafalgar Square, and one in the evening at
the Agricultural Hall. The Trafalgar Square meeting was, if possible,
"more complete, more orderly, and more resolute" than any previous one.
Mr Baxter Langley and Mr Bradlaugh were appointed "deputy marshals;"
they were mounted, and wore tri-coloured scarves and armlets (I have
my father's now). It was their special duty to see that order was
kept, and their office was no sinecure; for although the main body was
entirely orderly, still on the outskirts there was a fair sprinkling
of people who had come "to see the fun," and were bent on seeing it,
even if they had to make it for themselves. One form of creating "fun"
was the snatching off hats and throwing them into the fountain basins;
another was throwing stones from above on to the crowd below. This
dangerous amusement was checked by Mr Bradlaugh, who, singling out a
young fellow who had thrown a stone from the front of the National
Gallery, rode his horse right up the steps in pursuit. The young man
escaped amongst his companions, but Mr Bradlaugh's energy stopped that
form of "fun." That poor little brown horse! It would be difficult
to say which was the more tired, horse or rider, before they parted
company that day; the horse was small--as I have heard my father
say--for the weight it had to carry, and my father had not crossed a
horse since he left the army in 1853. For six and a half hours they
kept order together, and both must have been heartily glad when they
reached the Agricultural Hall, and the little brown horse went home to
his stall and his supper whilst Mr Bradlaugh went inside to speak.[92]
[Footnote 92: In a general "damnatory" description of the demonstration
given from "a club window," which appeared in the _Times_ of February
12th, there is a caricature of Mr Bradlaugh, spiteful in intent, but
amusing and really interesting if one looks between the would-be
scornful words. We are told that "a dapper youth, mounted on a brown
horse, exerted himself to make up for the shortcomings of the public
force, and was a host in himself. He was evidently a man in authority,
and acted in close connection with the Reform magnates, whose carriages
stopped the way before our doors. He raised his whip as freely as if
it had been a constable's truncheon or gendarme's broad-sword, and
apostrophised, or--why should I not say the word--bullied the crowd in
a tone and with manners which would have done an alguazil's heart good.
The sovereign people put up with the man's arrogance with incredible
meekness and patience, and allowed itself to be marshalled hither and
thither as if the Queen's highway were the Leaguers' special property
and the public were mere intruders."
The "Club" man was evidently irritated that these same people who at
Hyde Park had refused to obey a police proclamation backed by a free
use of the truncheon and display of the bayonet, yet implicitly obeyed
the "youth mounted on a brown horse" whose only authority was derived
from the love the people bore him. The sneer as to "tone" and "manners"
is not worth noticing; you cannot issue commands to tens of thousands
in Trafalgar Square in the same gentle tone in which you can ask for
the salt to be passed across the dinner-table.]
The day wound up with the meeting in the Agricultural Hall, which
was addressed by professors, clergymen, and members of Parliament,
Irishmen, Scotchmen, and men like Ernest Jones, directly representing
the working men. Never was there such a wonderful sight as this
gathering. At the previous Agricultural Hall meeting "the vast hall
presented a surging mass of human beings without form or coherence;"
this time it was a solid body of thousands upon thousands of citizens
with faces all anxiously upturned towards the platform. I know not
whether it was arranged that Mr Bradlaugh should be one of the speakers
or not, but in any case he was called for again and again by the
audience, and in response made a brief but earnest speech.
At the next quarterly meeting of the Reform League he was re-elected on
the Executive by a vote of five-sixths of those present, although he
had made a grave declaration to the Council "that events were possible
which would necessitate holding meetings under conditions forbidden by
Act of Parliament, and that he, having determined if needful to resist
the Government decision as to Hyde Park, did not desire to remain on
the Executive of a body whom he might injure by a policy too advanced."
The storm of abuse now broke over Mr Bradlaugh's head in full
force--always with intent to damage the Reform League, for his
enemies had not yet taken the measure of his power and proportions.
For the moment he was merely considered as a weapon, to be used
unscrupulously, and pointed with lies. In this method of warfare the
_Saturday Review_[93] at one bound took a front place. The _Standard_
on the 11th of March reprinted from it the article, "Who are the
Leaguers?" from which journals all over the country took their lead. It
was in this article of the _Saturday Review_ that Mr Bradlaugh is made
responsible for the story of the "Fanatical Monkeys" written by Charles
Southwell (who probably derived it from some old fable), and rewritten
from memory by J. P. Adams, who sent it to the _National Reformer_,
where it was published on February 17, 1867. This story was reproduced
in a hundred shapes, and of course my father was said to be the author
of all of them, a proof, asserted these veracious ones, of his utter
depravity. I have noted a letter of Mr Bradlaugh's, written in 1868,
in which he asked to deny the story for at least "the hundredth time;"
but denial was of little use; the lie sown by the _Saturday Review_
in March 1867, like most other ill weeds, throve apace, and was even
repeated so late as two years ago. Speaking in Trafalgar Square on
March 11th, where as usual he was "loudly called for,"[94] he said
those who were carrying on the struggle had not entered into it without
counting the cost, and, confident in their own strength and manhood,
they were determined upon gaining their rights. He compared the people
with a "resistless wave," and warned those who should dare "to stem
the tide." The _Weekly Dispatch_ jeered at "the figurative Bradlaugh"
for this speech, and, trying in its turn to injure the Reform League,
suggested that the demonstrations were more welcome to the thieves than
to any other class of metropolitan society. Others, like the _Sunday
Times_, struck with the determination and confident purpose betokened
in such a speech, chose to interpret it to mean physical force, and
said--
"The Reform Leaguers throughout the country are beginning to
talk treason and must be watched. 'Iconoclast,' who, but for his
disposition to violence, would be altogether too vulgar for notice,
systematically threatens violation of the law, and defiance of the
powers that be."
[Footnote 93: March 9th, 1867.]
[Footnote 94: _Times_, March 12th, 1867.]
The _Sunday Times_ then went on, in the same paragraph, to speak in
terms of reprobation of "a person" who, at some meeting at Newcastle,
urged that an attempt should be made to win the sympathies of the army,
so that in the event of "a collision" the people and the army would be
on the same side. The remarks of an unnamed person at some meeting at
which Mr Bradlaugh was not even present, were thus used as though he
were responsible for them.
Lord Derby's Government began to be frightened at the possibilities
evoked by its own fears and the determined persistence of the League.
Special reporters were sent to the meetings in order to verify speeches
for the purposes of a prosecution, a course which merely made the
speakers more stern and more outspoken. In May it was resolved to
hold another mass meeting in Hyde Park: the Reform League leaders
were convinced that they had the law on their side, and they meant
to insist on their rights. Mr Edmund Beales issued an address to the
men of London, calling upon them to meet the Council of the League
in Hyde Park on Monday evening, May 6th. "Come," he said, "as loyal,
peaceful, and orderly citizens, enemies of all riot and tumult, but
unalterably fixed and resolved in demanding and insisting upon what
you are entitled to. If time presses, stay not to form in processions,
but come straight from your work, come without bands and banners." On
the same evening that Mr Beales' address was read over to the Council
of the League, an "admonition" from the Government was served upon the
delegates, warning all persons "to abstain from attending, aiding, or
taking part in any such meeting, or from entering the Park with a view
to attend, aid, or take part in such meeting."
Much pressure was put upon Mr Beales to prevent the meeting from being
held, but he, knowing that he and his colleagues were in the right,
and _knowing that the Government knew it also_, persisted in the
determination arrived at, after due deliberation, by the Council. The
Government reluctantly, and at the last moment--that is, in the issue
of the _Times_ for May 6th--acknowledged that they had no power to
eject the demonstrators from the Park. Having decided that they had
not the law on their side, Lord Derby, snitching at a straw, thought
the Park regulations would help them, and sent a message to the League
in the afternoon that the meeting would be prohibited; and there was
a talk of prosecuting for trespass each person who had received the
notice of prohibition. But all this "tall talk" was absolutely without
effect: 200,000 persons went to the Park. Mr Bradlaugh was one of
the first to enter; and Platform No. 8 was a "very great centre of
attraction, for this was the scene of Mr Bradlaugh's oratory."[95]
[Footnote 95: The _Standard_, May 7th.]
Mr Bradlaugh was, as I said, re-elected on the Executive of the
League on the full understanding that he had determined to resist
the Government decision as to Hyde Park. During the spring-time he
lectured week after week in London and the provinces, not only bearing
his own expenses, but on one occasion, at least, actually paying
for tickets for his wife and friends. On May 6th, the demonstration
maintaining the right of the people to meet in the people's park was
held, in spite of Lord Derby's opposition and prohibition. On the
following day, May 7th, Mr Bradlaugh tendered his resignation as
vice-president and member of the Council and the Executive of the
Reform League; he took this course "in order to deprive the enemies
of reform of the pretext for attack on the League afforded by my
irreligion, and to save some of the friends of the League from the
pain of having their names associated with my own." Especially Mr
Bradlaugh praises the honourable and straightforward conduct of Mr
Beales, but deeply regrets that he (Mr Beales) should have felt it
necessary publicly to disclaim responsibility for his sayings, and
hopes that his resignation will relieve him from pain. The League
only accepted Mr Bradlaugh's resignation, as far as it related to the
Executive Council; he continued a Vice-President of the League from its
foundation to the end, but after this date he rarely appeared upon its
platforms. If there should be trouble, and his services were desired,
he said, he was ready to do his duty; otherwise he preferred to remain
aloof. Now, mark the generosity of his opponents! Finding he did not
appear as frequently as before on the Reform platform, they began
to circulate every reason for his abstention save the true one--his
honourable desire to aid the cause of Reform even to the extent of
self-effacement, since his persecutors made that necessary. The _Pall
Mall Gazette_ in 1868 said:
"Mr Bradlaugh, who furnished the _Saturday Reviewers_ with an
additional sting to articles in which his name was coupled with Mr
Beales', avowed Atheistical views, but they met with so little favour
that he had to leave the Committee of the Reform Association because
he brought discredit on the cause."
Mr Bradlaugh in reply asked if it was true his views found "little
favour," and answering his own question said, "Let the audiences
crowding the theatre at Huddersfield, the circus at Grimsby, the
theatre at Northampton, the halls in London, Dublin, Newcastle, Ashton,
Glasgow, Manchester, Sheffield, and Bradford--let these enthusiastic
audiences reply." And, in conclusion, he printed this letter from
Mr Beales in reply to his resignation, which he had received in the
previous May, but now for the first time made public.
"4 STONE'S BUILDINGS, LINCOLN'S INN,
_17th May 1867_.
"MY DEAR SIR,--Pray excuse my not having sooner answered,
or noticed, your letter of the 7th inst. to me, tendering your
resignation as a member of the Executive of the Reform League, and
asking that your name may be erased from the list of the Council and
Vice-Presidents. I really have been in such a whirl of occupation
since receiving your letter that it was not in my power sooner to
write to you, as I wished. Meanwhile you have, I believe, received
through Mr Cooper and others intimation that the Executive were
unwilling to accept your resignation, and lose your services. In that
unwillingness I concur, whilst I avail myself of this opportunity
of communicating to you with the utmost openness and frankness, and
with very sincere regard, my feelings in the matter. I have already
expressed in public my strong sense of the services you have rendered
to the League by your ability and good sense, and of the invariable
fidelity, delicacy, and admirable taste with which you have studiously
abstained from uttering a word at our meetings that could offend the
religious scruples of the most sensitive or fastidious Christian. At
the same time that your known and published opinions on these matters
(I do not allude to the subject of the _Saturday Review's_ savage
attack, which was not, I believe, from your pen) have injured the
League with many in a moral and pecuniary point of view must, I am
afraid, be admitted, though I doubt whether such injury has outweighed
the aid you have rendered to the League by your oratorical power
and talent. At all events, I am not disposed to allow the evil to
have outweighed the good. You say that the conduct of the Press in
constantly coupling your name with mine has given me pain. Well, it
has, but not quite from the cause you suppose. I despise from my soul
the base motives of the writers in thus coupling our names together,
and it would only make me more strongly tender to you the hand of
friendship. But I do feel great pain at the thought of a man of your
undoubted ability, and, I believe, purity of purpose and high honesty,
being in such a position from your antagonism to Christianity as to
make men imagine that they could pain or injure me or the League by
thus coupling our names together.
"C. BRADLAUGH.
"E. BEALES."
Mr George Howell, the Secretary, had also written expressing his
deep regret at my father's resignation, and testifying to the kindly
consideration shown himself, and to the earnest and powerful advocacy
and support given to the objects of the League.
Probably in consequence of the form taken by these aspersions Mr
Bradlaugh was again elected on the Executive Council in December 1868.