LECTURES--1870-1871.
The early part of the seventies was a period of much Freethought and
Republican activity in England; everywhere in the Freethought ranks
there was movement and life. In spite of the persistent refusal
of Messrs W. H. Smith & Son to sell the _National Reformer,_ its
circulation was largely increasing, and in 1870 it was read in the four
quarters of the globe. In England all sorts of devices were resorted to
damage the sale; country news-agents refused, like Messrs Smith & Son,
to sell it, or said they were unable to obtain it, or quietly returned
it "out of print"; contents bills were no sooner posted in some
towns than they were torn down, and on occasion the police employed
themselves, or were employed, in this work. At Scarborough[131]
evidence was obtained against Police Constable Charlton, and legal
proceedings were commenced. At the last moment, however, the sum of 2s.
was paid into Court, together with costs proportionate to the summons,
and Mr Bradlaugh, overwhelmed with other work and worries, contented
himself with this acknowledgment of the wrongdoing and did not pursue
the matter further.
[Footnote 131: May 1870.]
The high pressure at which my father had been living had so undermined
his health that for a long time he was a martyr to acute neuralgia;
still, notwithstanding this, in the early part of the year he was
lecturing once or twice a week, and as soon as he was able to extricate
himself from the City his lecture list grew tremendously. In the month
of July alone--a month which, as we have seen, brought its own peculiar
burdens--he gave as many as twenty-six lectures. I find it noted that
during this last half-year he delivered as many as one hundred and
seventy lectures, in forty-nine of which the proceeds were insufficient
to cover his railway expenses, and in the case of twenty more,
although his railway was covered, there was not enough to clear his
hotel bill.
Except in one or two very special cases[132] Mr Bradlaugh never took
a fee for his lectures. He took whatever surplus remained from the
admission money, after paying all expenses of the meeting. He made
this arrangement originally so that no town or village might be
hindered from promoting lectures on account of the expense. "Large and
small places," he said, "will be visited indifferently." A charge for
admission was always made at his lectures, usually a small one, varying
from twopence or threepence to a shilling. He objected very strongly to
"free" lectures and collections. Of course he now, as ever, very often
gave away the proceeds of his lectures. His audiences were frequently
very large, especially in places where he was known. He happened to
make a note of the numbers who came to hear him on the Sundays in
January 1871, and he records that on the Sunday evenings alone he
had audiences whose total numbers reached six thousand, and at three
morning lectures there was a total of two thousand five hundred.
[Footnote 132: These cases were so rare that the only one I can
actually recall is that of the Tyneside Sunday Lecture Society.]
Halls were often refused to him, although not quite so frequently as
in former years. In 1870 the Stratford Town Hall was refused by the
West Ham Local Board, and for many years he had great difficulty in
obtaining a hall in Stratford. The St. Mary's Hall, Coventry, was
refused to him by the Mayor of Coventry for a lecture on "The Land
and the People," and the Mirfield Town Hall after it had been duly
engaged for two political lectures was closed against him by the
proprietors.[133] An exactly similar case occurred at Glossop a year
and a half later. The Town Hall was taken for a political lecture,
and at almost the last moment, after the lapse of several weeks, the
Council instructed that the money paid for the hire should be returned.
The effect of this was to produce a much greater and more widespread
excitement and discussion than half a dozen lectures would have done.
[Footnote 133: See p. 294.]
It was in 1870 that Mr Bradlaugh began that close scrutiny of the
history of our reigning family which resulted in the publication
of his "Impeachment of the House of Brunswick," a little book which
created some considerable stir both when it was first published in
1871,[134] and when an edition partly revised by Mr Bradlaugh was
brought out after his death. The "Impeachment" has been widely read
both here and in America, where it was reprinted. Besides writing upon
the Brunswick family, Mr Bradlaugh used to take the history of one or
more of the members of it as a subject for his lecture, and taught
many a good Republican lesson whilst discoursing upon the exceptional
virtues of "George, Prince of Wales," or "the four Georges." A friend
has told me an amusing story concerning one of these lectures. My
father had promised to speak one Saturday evening at Sowerby Bridge on
"George, Prince of Wales." By some curious blunder the friends who were
making the arrangements placarded the town with the subject announced
as "Albert Edward, Prince of Wales." The effect of this was to cause a
large number of police to be drafted into the town, and a Government
shorthand reporter was sent down from London, travelling by the same
train as my father. The hall was, of course, crowded, but whether the
audience were disappointed when my father explained the mistake in
the subject of the lecture, my informant did not say. In any case I
expect that the officials who had been so busy in preparing for treason
and riot, and found only history and order, felt that the proceedings
had turned out rather flat. At Stourbridge, where Mr Bradlaugh was
invited[135] by some "gentlemen of Republican tendencies" to discourse
upon the "House of Brunswick," Lord Lyttleton, as Lord Lieutenant
of the county, tried to induce the Stourbridge Town Commissioners
to withdraw from their agreement to let the Corn Exchange for the
lectures, but his efforts were in vain. His Lordship seems to have
been a little angry, and it was even rumoured that he went so far
as to tell the magistrates that he would have Mr Bradlaugh arrested
for treason. He succeeded in raising such a scare that a large extra
body of police were drafted into the town under the order of the
Chief Constable of the county. There were two lectures, and Colonel
Carmichael, the Chief Constable, was present at both, but, as I gather
from the printed reports, the meetings were large, the audiences
delighted, and of both the end "was peace."
[Footnote 134: At the end of 1872 Mr John Baker Hopkins made a
violent attack upon Mr Bradlaugh for his "Impeachment of the House
of Brunswick" in the pages of the _Gentleman's Magazine_. A reply to
this from my father's pen appeared in the January (1873) Number, but
there was such an outcry raised in the press at the insertion in the
"Gentleman's" Magazine of an article by "Mr Bradlaugh of Whitechapel
and Hyde Park respectively" that Mr John Hatton, the editor, felt
so far obliged to defend himself as to say a word in favour of free
discussion. He further atoned for his sins by allowing Mr J. B. Hopkins
to return to his attack in the following month.]
[Footnote 135: December 1871.]
In the summer of 1871 Mr Bradlaugh went one Monday evening to Newton
Abbot to address a meeting in the New Vegetable Market, used then for
a public gathering for the first time. The subject on which he was to
speak was "The Land, the People, and the Coming Struggle." Very few of
the tradesmen in the town would consent to expose bills of the lecture,
and several who did display them at first took them from their windows
at the advice of the "respectable and pious," and in the end only
two showed the announcements. Two gentlemen who were present at the
meeting--one as a reporter for the local paper, the other, one of the
five Radicals who invited Mr Bradlaugh to Newton--have given a vivid
account of a little incident which enlivened the evening's proceedings.
It appears that in 1871 a certain Mr John George Stuart was the High
Bailiff of the town. "This gentleman," I am told, "was a Methodist,
and had at that time two sons who were studying for the ministry. He
was also a distinguished boxer, and he had the reputation of being the
most formidable wielder of the gloves in England." Mr Stuart, supported
by two friends, "attended the meeting with the avowed intention of
obstructing Mr Bradlaugh. As soon as Mr Bradlaugh began to speak,
Mr Stuart commenced to disturb the meeting. Mr Bradlaugh repeatedly
requested him to reserve his criticisms until the close of the lecture,
when an opportunity would be offered him of speaking from the platform.
But Mr Stuart continued to shout his opinions upon Mr Bradlaugh's
Atheism, although the lecture was on a purely political question. At
last Mr Bradlaugh said that unless the interruptions ceased, he should
be compelled to act as his own chairman, and to request Mr Stuart to
leave the building. As Mr Stuart and his friends would not desist from
shouting, Mr Bradlaugh stepped from the platform, walked up to the
athlete, and carried him to the door with ease. At the doorway Mr
Stuart spread his arms and held the jambs, but Mr White, who was acting
as doorkeeper pushed one of his hands aside, and Mr Bradlaugh set the
disturber down in the street. None of Mr Stuart's friends offered
the least resistance, and the crowd, which was made up of hostile as
well as friendly hearers, loudly cheered Mr Bradlaugh's unceremonious
ejectment of the local hero of the 'noble art.'" The friends to whom
I am indebted for the foregoing say further that Mr Stuart's pride
was brought very low by this episode, and that he rarely appeared
afterwards among the former admirers of his prowess.
In the course of my father's lecturing experiences, he several times
met with local "champions," as defenders of the faith. A few months
later, at Sowerby Bridge, a local champion wrestler entered the room
during the delivery of his lecture and commenced abusing him loudly.
The man was spoken to several times, but he would neither remain
quiet, nor quit the place. Mr Bradlaugh was at length obliged to leave
the platform and put him out _vi et armis_. Put out at one door, he
reappeared at another; but this time the audience took the matter into
their own hands, and kept him out. Another "champion" conducted a
serious disturbance at Congleton, but of that later.
In the month of March (1871) Dr Magee, then Bishop of Peterborough,
delivered three discourses in the Norwich Cathedral in "vindication
and establishment of the Christian faith," and "directed against
modern forms of infidelity." The Freethinkers of Norwich, anxious to
give these discourses the attention which the high position and high
reputation of the speaker demanded, had asked Mr Bradlaugh to come to
Norwich to represent them on the occasion of the Bishop's discourses.
This he consented to do, and attended all the lectures, but--as perhaps
it is superfluous to say--he was not allowed to make any remark upon
them. It was however desired that he should make some reply in the
town where the lectures had been delivered, at least, if not in the
Cathedral to Dr Magee himself, but it was not easy to obtain the use
of a hall for the purpose. A circuit of the town was made in the vain
endeavour to hire a building, and it was only after considerable
difficulty that the Free Library Hall was at last procured. As my
father truly said, "the approved mode of encountering modern infidelity
seemed to be that of free speech for the Church advocate, and gagged
mouth for the pleader on behalf of heresy."[136] In the Norwich Free
Library Hall he delivered three lectures in reply to Dr Magee. These he
afterwards published, together with the Bishop's discourses; and as a
statement of the cases for and against Christianity and for and against
Freethought, coming from such representative men as the late learned
and eloquent Archbishop of York and Mr Bradlaugh, they cannot fail to
be of special interest.
[Footnote 136: "Christianity in Relation to Freethought Scepticism and
Faith: three discourses by the Bishop of Peterborough, with special
replies by Charles Bradlaugh."
A similar case in a small way happened at Deptford in April 1873. A
Rev. Dr Miller had delivered some addresses in the Deptford Lecture
Hall against "unbelievers," and it was proposed that Mr Bradlaugh
should reply to these addresses in the same place. He had frequently
spoken in the Deptford Lecture Hall before, but when the Deptford
Freethinkers sought to engage it for a lecture in answer to Dr
Miller, the Committee refused to let the hall for that purpose. This
intolerance the _Kentish Mercury_ applauded by referring to it in bold
type as "noble conduct."]
During the autumn my father gave a lecture on behalf of the London
Republican Club, and upon this speech all sorts of rumours were
founded, not indeed upon what my father actually did say, but upon
what his detractors chose to believe he said. Mr Disraeli had recently
stated at an agricultural meeting at Hughenden[137] that it could not
be concealed that Her Majesty was "physically and morally incapacitated
from performing her duties," and my father took these words as the text
of his lecture for the Republican Club in London. His speech, which
was unusually long, occupying close upon an hour and a half, was a
most careful recital of the duties of the Monarch and the rights and
duties of the people, with special reference to the course pursued
during the periods when George III. was officially declared incapable
of performing the royal functions. Shorthand writers were present,
and this address, or parts of it, was telegraphed all over the United
Kingdom, to America and to the Continent. Much of it appeared in the
American and Continental press of the next day or so, and after a short
interval distorted accounts of it were to be heard of in most parts
of England. There was one passage in particular upon which a whole
mountain of misrepresentation and worse[138] was afterwards based.
In the course of his address Mr Bradlaugh had said: "Many of you are
aware that I have lately repeatedly declared my most earnest desire
that the present Prince of Wales should never dishonour this country
by becoming its King. My opinion is that if four or five years of
political education are allowed to continue in this land, that worthy
representative of an unworthy race will never be King of England. My
thorough conviction is that neither his intelligence, nor his virtues,
nor his political ability, nor his military capacity--great as all
these are for a member of his family--can entitle him to occupy the
throne of Great Britain. I am equally opposed to his ever being Regent
of England. I trust that he may never sit on the throne or lounge under
its shadow."
[Footnote 137: September 26, 1871.]
[Footnote 138: See Chapter ix., vol. ii.]
Of course my father showed himself much too sanguine as to the time
necessary for the political education of this country towards a
Republican form of Government; but those who recall the seeming vigour
of the Republican movement in England during the early seventies will
know that he was not without excuse for his hopeful views. In any case,
one would have thought that his expression in regard to the Prince of
Wales was strong enough to have been dealt with by English Monarchists
as he made it; but instead, it was perverted into an "impudent and
disloyal announcement that he and a certain number of his friends
would take care that the Prince should never come to the throne."[139]
A very different thing indeed to the "desire" my father had uttered.
The effect of all this was to raise such a tremendous journalistic
storm against him, that a few weeks later he wrote: "As to the hostile
attacks, they are during the past fortnight so numerous that I have not
space even to catalogue them. Many journals call for my prosecution."
One paper, a century or so behind the times, recommended a pillory and
flogging.
[Footnote 139: Earl Fortescue at the King's Nympton Farmers' Club,
November 1871.]
A curious little incident which occurred ten or twelve days after
Mr Bradlaugh's lecture helped to strengthen the outcry against him,
especially on the part of Conservative speakers and the Conservative
press. On the 28th of October Mr Gladstone addressed a vast meeting
of his constituents on Blackheath. He spoke for two hours, defending
the conduct of his colleagues and himself since they had taken office
three years ago. During this important speech he quoted, from what he
called a "questionable book," these lines, which he said contained
"much good sense"--
"People throughout the land,
Join in one social band,
And save yourselves;
If you would happy be,
Free from all slavery,
Banish all knavery,
And save yourselves."
This sentiment was greeted with deafening applause by the thousands
listening with eager ears to every word that fell from the Prime
Minister. But the epithet bestowed upon the book whence he drew this
example of the "good sense" it contained, roused a perfect frenzy of
curiosity. Literary Conservatives imagined that Mr A. C. Swinburne was
the author, and the dismay exhibited was almost beyond description when
it was discovered--by the horrified _Scotsman_, I believe--that Mr
Gladstone's "questionable book" was the "Secularists' Manual of Songs
and Ceremonies," edited by Austin Holyoake and Charles Watts, with a
preface by Charles Bradlaugh. The press comments upon the discovery are
amusing to read, especially as Mr Bradlaugh was often made in some way
responsible, not merely for the verse, but for Mr Gladstone's quoting
it on Blackheath. Mr Giffard, Q.C., was amongst those who thought it
"an outrage" that such a book should have been so quoted by the Prime
Minister of England. The publisher was indictable, said he wrathfully,
and the writer would have been sent to prison in the good old days when
the Christian religion was more thought of.[140] But neither he nor any
one else moved to prefer the indictment.
[Footnote 140: Address to the Cardiff Constitutional Association.]