Sometimes my lecturing experiences were not of the smoothest. In June,
1875, I visited Darwen in Lancashire, and found that stone-throwing was
considered a fair argument to be addressed to "the Atheist lecturer". On
my last visit to that place in May, 1884, large and enthusiastic
audiences attended the lectures, and not a sign of hostility was to be
seen outside the hall. At Swansea, in March, 1876, the fear of violence
was so great that no local friend had the courage to take the chair for
me (a guarantee against damage to the hall had been exacted by the
proprietor). I had to march on to the platform in solitary state,
introduce myself, and proceed with my lecture. If violence had been
intended, none was offered: it would have needed much brutality to charge
on to a platform occupied by a solitary woman. (By the way, those who
fancy that a lecturer's life is a luxurious one may note that the Swansea
lecture spoken of was one of a series of ten, delivered within eight days
at Wednesbury, Bilston, Kidderminster, Swansea, and Bristol, most of the
travelling being performed through storm, rain, and snow.) On September,
4th, 1876, I had rather a lively time at Hoyland, a village near
Barnsley. A Mr. Hebblethwaite, a Primitive Methodist minister, "prepared
the way of the" Atheist by pouring out virulent abuse on Atheism in
general, and this Atheist in particular; two Protestant missionaries
aided him vigorously, exhorting the pious Christians to "sweep
Secularists out". The result was a very fair row; I got through the
lecture, despite many interruptions, but when it was over a regular riot
ensued; the enraged Christians shook their fists at me, swore at me, and
finally took to kicking as I passed out to the cab; only one kick,
however, reached me, and the attempts to overturn the cab were foiled by
the driver, who put his horse at a gallop. A somewhat barbarous village,
that same village of Hoyland. Congleton proved even livelier on September
25th and 26th. Mr. Bradlaugh lectured there on September 25th to an
accompaniment of broken windows; I was sitting with Mrs. Wolstenholme
Elmy in front of the platform, and received a rather heavy blow at the
back of the head from a stone thrown by someone in the room. We had a
mile and a half to walk from the hall to Mrs. Elmy's house, and this was
done in the company of a mud-throwing crowd, who yelled curses, hymns,
and foul words with delightful impartiality. On the following evening I
was to lecture, and we were escorted to the hall by a stone-throwing
crowd; while I was lecturing a man shouted "Put her out!" and a
well-known wrestler of the neighborhood, named Burbery, who had come to
the hall with seven friends, stood up in the front row and loudly
interrupted. Mr. Bradlaugh, who was in the chair, told him to sit down,
and as he persisted in making a noise, informed him that he must either
be quiet or go out. "Put me out!" said Burbery, striking an attitude. Mr.
Bradlaugh left the platform and walked up to the noisy swashbuckler, who
at once grappled with him and tried to throw him; but Mr. Burbery had not
reckoned on his opponent's strength, and when the "throw" was complete
Mr. Burbery was underneath. Amid much excitement Mr. Burbery was
propelled to the door, where he was handed over to the police, and the
chairman resumed his seat and said "Go on", whereupon on I went and
finished the lecture. There was plenty more stone-throwing outside, and
Mrs. Elmy received a cut on the temple, but no serious harm was done--
except to Christianity.
In the summer of 1875 a strong protest was made by the working classes
against the grant of £142,000 for the Prince of Wales visit to India, and
on Sunday, July 18th, I saw for the first time one of the famous "Hyde
Park Demonstrations". Mr. Bradlaugh called a meeting to support Messrs.
Taylor, Macdonald, Wilfrid Lawson, Burt, and the other fourteen members
of the House of Commons who voted in opposition to the grant, and to
protest against burdening the workers to provide for the amusement of a
spendthrift prince. I did not go into the meeting, but, with Mr.
Bradlaugh's two daughters, hovered on the outskirts. A woman is
considerably in the way in such a gathering, unless the speakers reach
the platform in carriages, for she is physically unfitted to push her way
through the dense mass of people, and has therefore to be looked after
and saved from the crushing pressure of the crowd. I have always thought
that a man responsible for the order of such huge gatherings ought not to
be burdened in addition with the responsibility of protecting his female
friends, and have therefore preferred to take care of myself outside the
meetings both at Hyde Park and in Trafalgar Square. The method of
organisation by which the London Radicals have succeeded in holding
perfectly orderly meetings of enormous size is simple but effective. A
large number of "marshals" volunteer, and each of these hands in to Mr.
Bradlaugh a list of the "stewards" he is prepared to bring; the
"marshals" and "stewards" alike are members of the Radical and Secular
associations of the metropolis. These officials all wear badges, a
rosette of the Northampton election colors; directions are given to the
marshals by Mr. Bradlaugh himself, and each marshal, with his stewards,
turns up at the appointed place at the appointed time, and does the share
of the work allotted to him. A ring two or three deep is formed round the
place whence the speakers are to address the meeting, and those who form
the ring stand linked arm-in-arm, making a living barrier round this
empty spot. There a platform, brought thither in pieces, is screwed
together, and into this enclosure only the chosen speakers and newspaper
reporters are admitted. The marshals and stewards who are not told off
for guarding the platform are distributed over the ground which the
meeting is to occupy, and act as guardians of order.
The Hyde Park meeting against the royal grant was a thoroughly successful
one, and a large number of protests came up from all parts of the
country. Being from the poorer classes, they were of course disregarded,
but none the less was a strong agitation against royal grants carried on
throughout the autumn and winter months. The National Secular Society
determined to gather signatures to a "monster petition against royal
grants", and the superintendence of this was placed in my hands. The
petition was drafted by Mr. Bradlaugh, and ran as follows:--
"TO THE HONORABLE THE COMMONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, IN PARLIAMENT
ASSEMBLED.
"The humble petition of the undersigned,
"Prays,--That no further grant or allowance may be made to any member of
the Royal Family until an account shall have been laid before your
Honorable House, showing the total real and personal estates and incomes
of each and every member of the said Royal Family who shall be in receipt
of any pension or allowance, and also showing all posts and places of
profit severally held by members of the said Royal Family, and also
showing all pensions, if any, formerly charged on any estates now enjoyed
by any member or members of the said Royal Family, and in case any such
pensions shall have been transferred, showing how and at what date such
transfer took place."
Day after day, week after week, month after month, the postman delivered
rolls of paper, little and big, each roll containing names and addresses
of men and woman who protested against the waste of public money on our
greedy and never-satisfied Royal House. The sheets often bore the marks
of the places to which they had been carried; from a mining district some
would come coal-dust-blackened, which had been signed in the mines by
workers who grudged to idleness the fruits of toil; from an agricultural
district the sheets bore often far too many "crosses", the "marks" of
those whom Church and landlord had left in ignorance, regarding them only
as machines for sowing and reaping. From September, 1875, to March, 1876,
they came in steady stream, and each was added to the ever-lengthening
roll which lay in one corner of my sitting-room and which assumed ever
larger and larger proportions. At last the work was over, and on June
16th, 1876, the "monster"--rolled on a mahogany pole presented by a
London friend, and encased in American cloth--was placed in a carriage to
be conveyed to the House of Commons; the heading ran: "The petition of
the undersigned Charles Bradlaugh, Annie Besant, Charles Watts, and
102,934 others". Unrolled, it was nearly a mile in length, and a very
happy time we had in rolling the last few hundred yards. When we arrived
at the House, Mr. Bradlaugh and Mr. Watts carried the petition up
Westminster Hall, each holding one end of the mahogany pole. Messrs. Burt
and Macdonald took charge of the "monster" at the door of the House, and,
carrying it in, presented it in due form. The presentation caused
considerable excitement both in the House and in the press, and the
_Newcastle Daily Chronicle_ said some kindly words of the "labor and
enthusiasm" bestowed on the petition by myself.
At the beginning of August, 1875, the first attempt to deprive me of my
little daughter, Mabel, was made, but fortunately proved unsuccessful.
The story of the trick played is told in the _National Reformer_ of
August 22nd, and I quote it just as it appeared there :--
"PERSONAL.--Mrs. Annie Besant, as some of our readers are aware, was the
wife of a Church of England clergyman, the Rev. Frank Besant, Vicar of
Sibsey, near Boston, in Lincolnshire. There is no need, _at present_, to
say anything about the earlier portion of her married life; but when Mrs.
Besant's opinions on religious matters became liberal, the conduct of her
husband rendered a separation absolutely necessary, and in 1873 a formal
deed of separation was drawn up, and duly executed. Under this deed Mrs.
Besant is entitled to the sole custody and control of her infant daughter
Mabel until the child becomes of age, with the proviso that the little
girl is to visit her father for one month in each year. Having recently
obtained possession of the person of the little child under cover of the
annual visit, the Rev. Mr. Besant sought to deprive Mrs. Besant entirely
of her daughter, on the ground of Mrs. Besant's Atheism. Vigorous steps
were at once taken by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis (to whom our readers will
remember we entrusted the case of Mr. Lennard against Mr. Woolrych), by
whose advice Mrs. Besant at once went down herself to Sibsey to demand
the child; the little girl had been hidden, and was not at the Vicarage,
but we are glad to report that Mrs. Besant has, after some little
difficulty, recovered the custody of her daughter. It was decided against
Percy Bysshe Shelley that an Atheist father could not be the guardian of
his own children. If this law be appealed to, and anyone dares to enforce
it, we shall contest it step by step; and while we are out of England, we
know that in case of any attempt to retake the child by force we may
safely leave our new advocate to the protection of the stout arms of our
friends, who will see that no injustice of this kind is done her. So far
as the law courts are concerned, we have the most complete confidence in
Mr. George Henry Lewis, and we shall fight the case to House of Lords if
need be.