The week which intervened between the verdict of the jury and the day on
which we were ordered to appear in Court to receive sentence was spent by
us in arranging all our affairs, and putting everything in train for our
anticipated absence. One serious question had to be settled, but it did
not need long consideration. What were we to do about the Knowlton
pamphlet? We promptly decided to ignore the verdict and to continue the
sale. Recognising that the fact of this continued sale would be brought
up against us in Court and would probably seriously increase our
sentence, we none the less considered that as we had commenced the fight
we were bound to maintain it, and we went on with the sale as before.
On June 28th we attended the Court of Queen's Bench to receive judgment,
the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Mellor being on the Bench. We
moved to quash the indictment, on arrest of judgment, and for a new
trial, the first on the ground that the indictment did not set out the
words complained of. The judges were against us on this, but it is
interesting to note that the Lord Chief Justice remarked that "the
language of the book is not open to any particular objection". I argued
that the jury, having exonerated us from any corrupt motive, could not be
regarded as having found us guilty on an indictment which charged us with
a corrupt motive: the Lord Chief Justice held that "in the unnecessary
and superfluous part of the indictment, there is no judgment against
you", and refused to believe that anyone would be found afterwards so
base as to accuse us of evil intent, because of the formal words of the
indictment, the jury having acquitted us of any corrupt intention. The
judge unfortunately imputed to others his own uprightness, and we have
found many--among them Sir W.T. Charley, the present Common Sergeant--
vile enough to declare what he thought impossible, that we were found
guilty of wilfully corrupting the morals of the people. The judges
decided against us on all the points raised, but it is due to them to say
that in refusing to quash the indictment, as Mr. Bradlaugh asked, they
were misled by the misrepresentation of an American case by Sir Hardinge
Giffard, and, to quote the words of the Lord Chief Justice, they
sheltered themselves "under the decisions of the American Courts, and
left this matter to be carefully gone into by the Court of Error".
The question of sentence then arose, and two affidavits were put in, one
by a reporter of the _Morning Advertiser_, named Lysaght. This individual
published in the _Advertiser_ a very garbled report of a meeting at the
Hall of Science on the previous Sunday, evidently written to anger the
Lord Chief Justice, and used by Sir Hardinge Giffard with the same
object. In one thing, however, it was accurate, and that was in stating
that we announced our intention to continue the sale of the book. On this
arose an argument with the Lord Chief Justice; he pointed out that we did
not deny that the circulation of the book was going on, and we assented
that it was so. It was almost pathetic to see the judge, angry at our
resolution, unwilling to sentence us, but determined to vindicate the law
he administered. "The question is," he urged, "what is to be the future
course of your conduct? The jury have acquitted you of any intention to
deliberately violate the law; and that, although you did publish this
book, which was a book that ought not to have been published, you were
not conscious of the effect it might have, and had no intention to
violate the law. That would induce the Court, if it saw a ready
submission on your part, to deal with the case in a very lenient way. The
jury having found that it was a violation of the law, but with a good
motive or through ignorance, the Court, in awarding punishment upon such
a state of things, would, of course, be disposed to take a most indulgent
view of the matter. But if the law has been openly set at defiance, the
matter assumes a very different aspect, and it must be dealt with as a
very grave and aggravated case." We could not, however, pledge ourselves
to do anything more than stop the sale pending the appeal on the writ of
error which we had resolved to go for. "Have you anything to say in
mitigation?" was the judge's last appeal; but Mr. Bradlaugh answered: "I
respectfully submit myself to the sentence of the Court"; and I: "I have
nothing to say in mitigation of punishment".
The sentence and the reason for its heavy character have been so
misrepresented, that I print here, from the shorthand report taken at the
time, the account of what passed:--
"The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, after having conferred for some minutes with Mr.
Justice Mellor, said: The case has now assumed a character of very, very
grave importance. We were prepared, if the defendants had announced
openly in this Court that having acted in error as the jury found--of
which finding I think they are entitled to the benefit--but still having
been, after a fair and impartial trial, found by the jury guilty of doing
of that which was an offence against the law, they were ready to submit
to the law and to do everything in their power to prevent the further
publication and circulation of a work which has been declared by the jury
to be a work calculated to deprave public morals, we should have been
prepared to discharge them on their own recognizances to be of good
behavior in the future. But we cannot help seeing in what has been said
and done pending this trial, and since the verdict of the jury was
pronounced, that the defendants, instead of submitting themselves to the
law, have set it at defiance by continuing to circulate this book. That
being so I must say that that which before was an offence of a
comparatively slight character--looking to what the jury have found in
reference to the contention of the defendants--now assumes the form of a
most grave and aggravated offence, and as such we must deal with it. The
sentence is that you, Charles Bradlaugh, and you, Annie Besant, be
imprisoned for the term of six calendar months; that you each pay a fine
of £200 to the Queen; and that you enter further into your own
recognizances in a sum of £500 each to be of good behavior for the term
of two years; and I tell you at the same time that you will not be of
'good behavior' and will be liable to forfeit that sum if you continue to
publish this book. No persuasion or conviction on your part that you are
doing that which is morally justifiable can possibly warrant you in
violating the law or excuse you in doing so. No one is above the law; all
owe obedience to the law from the highest to the lowest, and if you
choose to set yourself at defiance against the law--to break it and defy
it--you must expect to be dealt with accordingly. I am very sorry indeed
that such should be the result, but it is owing to your being thus
contumacious, notwithstanding that you have had a fair trial, and the
verdict of a competent jury, which ought to have satisfied you that you
ought to abstain from doing what has been clearly demonstrated and shown
to be wrong.
"Mr. BRADLAUGH: Would your lordship entertain an application to stay
execution of the sentence?
"The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Certainly not. On consideration, if you will
pledge yourselves unreservedly that there shall be no repetition of the
publication of the book, at all events, until the Court of Appeal shall
have decided contrary to the verdict of the jury and our judgment; if we
can have that positive pledge, and you will enter into your recognizances
that you will not avail yourselves of the liberty we extend to continue
the publication of this book, which it is our bounden duty to suppress,
or do our utmost to suppress, we may stay execution; but we can show no
indulgence without such a pledge.
"Mr. BRADLAUGH: My lord, I meant to offer that pledge in the fullest and
most unreserved sense, because, although I have my own view as to what is
right, I also recognise that the law having pronounced sentence, that is
quite another matter so far as I, as a citizen, am concerned. I do not
wish to ask your lordship for a favor without yielding to the Court
during the time that I take advantage of its indulgence.
"The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: I wish you had taken this position sooner.
"Mr. BRADLAUGH: If the sentence goes against us, it is another matter;
but if you should consent to give us time for the argument of this writ
of error, we would bind ourselves during that time. I should not like
your lordship to be induced to grant this request on the understanding
that in the event of the ultimate decision being against me I should feel
bound by that pledge.
"The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: I must do you the justice to say that throughout
the whole of this battle our conduct has been straightforward since you
took it up.
"Mr. BRADLAUGH: I would not like your lordship to think that, in the
event of the ultimate decision being against us, there was any sort of
pledge. I simply meant that the law having pronounced against us, if your
lordship gives us the indulgence of fighting it in the higher Court, no
sort of direct or indirect advantage shall be taken of the indulgence.
"The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: You will not continue the publication?
"Mr. BRADLAUGH: Not only will I stop the circulation of the book myself,
but I will do all in my power to prevent other people circulating it.
"The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Then you can be discharged on your own
recognizances for £100, 'to be of good behavior,' which you will
understand to mean, that you will desist from the publication of this
work until your appeal shall have been heard, and will engage to
prosecute the appeal without delay.
"Mr. BRADLAUGH: Certainly; until the present, I have undoubtedly
circulated the book. Although there is a blunder in the affidavits I do
not disguise the matter of fact. I shall immediately put the thing under
my own control, and I will at once lock up every copy in existence, and
will not circulate another copy until the appeal is decided.
"Mr. JUSTICE MELLOR: It must be that you will really, to the best of your
ability, prevent the circulation of this book until this matter has been
determined.
"The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: And what Mr. Bradlaugh says, I understand that
you, Mrs. Besant, also assent to?
"Mrs. BESANT: Yes: that is my pledge until the writ of error has been
decided. I do not want to give a pledge which you may think was not given
honestly. I will give my pledge, but it must be understood that the
promise goes no further than that decision.
"Mr. JUSTICE MELLOR: You will abstain yourself from circulating the book,
and, so far as you can, suppress its circulation?
"Mr. BRADLAUGH: Every copy that is unsold shall be at once put under lock
and key until the decision of the case.
"The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My lord, I think there should be no
misunderstanding upon this; I understand that the defendants have
undertaken that during the pendency of the appeal this book shall not be
circulated at all. But if the decision should be against them they are
under no pledge not to publish.
"Mr. BRADLAUGH: I hope your lordship will not ask us what we shall do in
future.
"The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: We have meted out the amount of punishment upon
the assumption--there being no assertion to the contrary, but rather an
admission--that they do intend to set the law at defiance. If we had
understood that they were prepared to submit themselves to the law, we
should have been disposed to deal with them in the most indulgent manner;
but as we understood that they did not intend this, we have meted out to
them such a punishment as we hope, when undergone, will have a deterrent
effect upon them, and may prevent other people offending in like manner.
We have nothing to do with what may happen after the defendants obtain a
judgment in their favor, if they do so, or after the sentence is carried
out, if they do not. Our sentence is passed, and it will stand, subject
only to this, that we stay execution until a writ of error may be
disposed of, the defendants giving the most unqualified and unreserved
pledge that they will not allow another copy of the book to be sold.
"Mr. BRADLAUGH: Quite so, my lord; quite so."
We were then taken into custody, and went down to the Crown Office to get
the form for the recognizances, the amount of which, £100, after such a
sentence, was a fair proof of the view of the Court as to our good faith
in the whole matter. As a married woman, I was unable to give
recognizances, being only a chattel, not a person cognisable by law; the
Court mercifully ignored this--or I should have had to go to prison--and
accepted Mr. Bradlaugh's sole recognizance as covering us both. It
further inserted in the sentence that we were "to be placed in the First
Class of Misdemeanants", but as the sentence was never executed, we did
not profit by this alleviation.
The rest of the story of the Knowlton pamphlet is soon told. We appeared
in the Court of Appeal on January 29th, 30th, and 31st, 1878. Mr.
Bradlaugh argued the case, I only making a brief speech, and on February
12th the Court, composed of Lords Justices Bramwell, Brett, and Cotton,
gave judgment in our favor and quashed the indictment. Thus we triumphed
all along the line; the jury acquitted us of all evil motive, and left us
morally unstained; the Court of Appeal quashed the indictment, and set us
legally free. None the less have the ignorant, the malicious, and the
brutal, used this trial and sentence against us as a proof of moral
obliquity, and have branded us as "vendors of obscene books" on this sole
ground.
With the decision of the Court of Appeal our pledge not to sell the
Knowlton pamphlet came to an end, and we at once recommenced the sale.
The determination we came to was announced in the _National Reformer_ of
March 3rd, and I reprint here the statement I wrote at the time in Mr.
Bradlaugh's name as well as my own.
"THE PLAN OF THE CAMPAIGN.
"The first pitched battle of the new campaign for the Liberty of the
Press has, as all our readers know, ended in the entire defeat of the
attacking army, and in the recapture of the position originally lost.
There is no conviction--of ours--registered against the Knowlton
Pamphlet, the whole of the proceedings having been swept away; and the
prosecutors are left with a large sum out of pocket, and no one any the
worse for all their efforts. The banker's account of the unknown
prosecutor shows a long and melancholy catalogue of expenses, and there
is no glory and no success to balance them on the other side of the
ledger. On the contrary, our prosecutors have advertised the attacked
pamphlet, and circulated it by thousands and by hundreds of thousands;
they have caused it to be reprinted in Holland and in America, and have
spread it over India, Australia, New Zealand, and the whole continent of
Europe; they have caused the Population Question to be discussed, both at
home and abroad, in the press and in the public meeting; they have
crammed the largest halls in England and Scotland to listen to the
preaching of Malthusianism; they have induced the publication of a modern
pamphlet on the question which is selling by thousands; they have
enormously increased the popularity of the defendants, and made new
friends for them in every class of society; in the end, Knowlton is being
circulated as vigorously as ever, and since the case was decided more
copies have been sold than would have been disposed of in ten years at
the old rate of sale. Truly, our prosecutors must feel delighted at the
results of their labors.
"So much for the past: what as to the future? Some, fancying we should
act as they themselves would do under the like circumstances, dream that
we shall now give way. We have not the smallest intention of doing
anything of the kind. We said, nearly a year ago, that so long as
Knowlton was prosecuted we should persist in selling him; we repeated the
same determination in Court, and received for it a heavy sentence; we
repeat the same to-day, in spite of the injudicious threat of Lord
Justice Brett. Before we went up for judgment in the Court of Appeal we
had made all preparations for the renewal of the struggle; parcels were
ready to be forwarded to friends who had volunteered to sell in various
towns; if we had gone to jail from the Court these would at once have
been sent; as we won our case, they were sent just the same. On the
following day orders were given to tell any wholesale agents who inquired
that the book was again on sale, and the bills at 28, Stonecutter Street,
announcing the suspension, of the sale, were taken down; from that day
forward all orders received have been punctually attended to, and the
sale has been both rapid and steady. There is, however, one difference
between the sale of Knowlton and that of our other literature: Knowlton
is not sold across the counter at Stonecutter Street. When we were
arrested in April 1877, we stopped the sale across counter, and we do
not, at present, intend to recommence it. Our reason is very simple. The
sale across counter does not, in any fashion, cause us any additional
risk; the danger of it falls entirely on Mr. Ramsey and on Mr. and Mrs.
Norrish; we fail to see that there is any courage in running other people
into danger, and we prefer, therefore, to take the risk on ourselves. We
do not intend to go down again and personally sell behind the counter; we
thought it right to challenge a prosecution once, but, having done so, we
intend now to go quietly on our ordinary way of business, and wait for
any attack that may come.
"Meanwhile, we are not only selling the 'Fruits of Philosophy', but we
also are striving to gain the legal right to do so. In the appeal from
Mr. Vaughan's decision Mr. Bradlaugh again raises all the disputed
questions, and that appeal will be argued as persistently as was the one
just decided in our favor. We are also making efforts to obtain an
alteration of the law of libel, and we hope soon to be able to announce
the exact terms of the proposed Bill.
"My own pamphlet, on 'The Law of Population', is another effort in the
same direction. At our trial the Lord Chief Justice said, that it was the
advocacy of the preventive checks which was the assailable part of
Knowlton; that advocacy is strongly and clearly to be found in the new
pamphlet, together with facts useful to mothers, as to the physical
injury caused by over-rapid child-bearing, which Knowlton did not give.
The pamphlet has the advantage of being written fifty years later than
the 'Fruits of Philosophy', and is more suitable, therefore, for
circulation at the present day. We hope that it may gradually replace
Knowlton as a manual for the poor. While we shall continue to print and
sell Knowlton as long as any attempt is made to suppress it, we hope that
the more modern pamphlet may gradually supersede the old one.
"If another prosecution should be instituted against us, our prosecutors
would have a far harder task before them than they had last time. In the
first place, they would be compelled to state, clearly and definitely,
what it is to which they object; and we should, therefore, be able to
bring our whole strength to bear on the assailed point. In the second
place, they would have to find a jury who would be ready to convict, and
after the full discussion of the question which has taken place the
finding of such a jury would be by no means an easy thing to do. Lastly,
they must be quite sure not to make any legal blunders, for they may be
sure that such sins will find them out. Perhaps, on the whole, they had
better leave us alone.
"I believe that our readers will be glad to have this statement of our
action, and this assurance that we feel as certain of winning the battle
of a Free Press as when we began it a year ago, and that our
determination is as unwavering as when Serjeant Outram arrested us in the
spring of last year.--ANNIE BESANT."
Several purchases were made from us by detectives, and we were more than
once threatened with prosecution. At last evidence for a new prosecution
was laid before the Home Office, and the Government declined to institute
fresh proceedings or to have anything more to do with the matter. The
battle was won. As soon as we were informed of this decision, we decided
to sell only the copies we had in stock, and not to further reprint the
pamphlet. Out-of-date as was much of its physiology, it was defended as a
symbol, not for its intrinsic worth. We issued a circular stating that--
"The Knowlton pamphlet is now entirely out of print, and, 185,000 having
been printed, the Freethought Publishing Company do not intend to
continue the publication, which has never at any time been advertised by
them except on the original issue to test the question. 'The Law of
Population', price 6d., post free 8d., has been specially written by Mrs.
Besant to supersede the Knowlton pamphlet."
Thus ended a prolonged resistance to an unfair attempt to stifle
discussion, and, much as I have suffered in consequence of the part I
took in that fight, I have never once regretted that battle for the
saving of the poor.
In July, 1877, a side-quarrel on the pamphlet begun which lasted until
December 3rd, 1878, and was fought through court after court right out to
a successful issue. We had avoided a seizure warrant by removing all our
stock from 28, Stonecutter Street, but 657 of the pamphlets had been
seized at Mr. Truelove's, in Holborn, and that gentleman was also
proceeded against for selling the work. The summons for selling was
withdrawn, and Mr. Bradlaugh succeeded in having his name and mine
inserted as owners of the books in the summons for their destruction. The
books remained in the custody of the magistrate until after the decision
of the Court of Queen's Bench, and on February 12th, 1878, Mr. Bradlaugh
appeared before Mr. Vaughan at Bow Street, and claimed that the books
should be restored to him. Mr. Collette, of the Vice Society, argued on
the other hand that the books were obscene, and ought therefore to be
destroyed. Mr. Vaughan reserved his decision, and asked for the Lord
Chief Justice's summing-up in the Queen _v._ Bradlaugh and Besant. On
February 19th he made an order for the destruction of the pamphlets,
against which Mr. Bradlaugh appealed to the General Sessions on the
following grounds:
"1st. That the said book is not an obscene book within the meaning of the
20th and 21st Victoria, cap. 83. 2nd. That the said book is a scientific
treatise on the law of population and its connexion with poverty, and
that there is nothing in the book which is not necessary and legitimate
in the description of the question. 3rd. That the advocacy of
non-life-destroying checks to population is not an offence either at
common law or by statute, and that the manner in which that advocacy is
raised in the said book, 'The Fruits of Philosophy', is not such as makes
it an indictable offence. 4th. That the discussion and recommendation of
checks to over-population after marriage is perfectly lawful, and that
there is in the advocacy and recommendations contained in the book
'Fruits of Philosophy' nothing that is prurient or calculated to inflame
the passions. 5th. That the physiological information in the said book is
such as is absolutely necessary for understanding the subjects treated,
and such information is more fully given in Carpenter's treatises on
Physiology, and Kirke's 'Handbook of Physiology', which later works are
used for the instruction of the young under Government sanction. 6th.
That the whole of the physiological information contained in the said
book, 'The Fruits of Philosophy', has been published uninterruptedly for
fifty years, and still is published in dear books, and that the
publication of such information in a cheap form cannot constitute an
offence."
After a long argument before Mr. Edlin and a number of other Middlesex
magistrates, the Bench affirmed Mr. Vaughan's order, whereupon Mr.
Bradlaugh promptly obtained from the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice
Mellor a writ of _certiorari_, removing their order to the Queen's Bench
Division of the High Court of Justice with a view to quashing it. The
matter was not argued until the following November, on the 9th of which
month it came on before Mr. Justice Mellor and Mr. Justice Field. The
Court decided in Mr. Bradlaugh's favor and granted a rule quashing Mr.
Vaughan's order, and with this fell the order of the Middlesex
magistrates. The next thing was to recover the pamphlets thus rescued
from destruction, and on December 3rd Mr. Bradlaugh appeared before Mr.
Vaughan at Bow Street in support of a summons against Mr. Henry Wood, a
police inspector, for detaining 657 copies of the "Fruits of Philosophy".
After a long argument Mr. Vaughan ordered the pamphlets to be given up to
him, and he carried them off in triumph, there and then, on a cab. We
labelled the rescued pamphlets and sold every one of them, in mocking
defiance of the Vice Society.
The circulation of literature advocating prudential checks to population
was not stopped during the temporary suspension of the sale of the
Knowlton pamphlet between June, 1877, and February, 1878. In October,
1877, I commenced in the _National Reformer_ the publication of a
pamphlet entitled: "The Law of Population, its consequences, and its
bearing upon human conduct and morals". This little book included a
statement of the law, evidence of the serious suffering among the poor
caused by over-large families, and a clear statement of the checks
proposed, with arguments in their favor. The medical parts were omitted
in the _National Reformer_ articles, and the pamphlet was published
complete early in November, at the price of sixpence--the same as
Knowlton's--the first edition consisting of 5,000 copies. A second
edition of 5,000 was issued in December, but all the succeeding editions
were of 10,000 copies each. The pamphlet is now in its ninetieth
thousand, and has gone all over the civilised world. It has been
translated into Swedish, Danish, Dutch, French, German, and Italian, and
110,000 copies have been sold of an American reprint. On the whole, the
prosecution of 1877 did not do much in stopping the circulation of
literature on the Population Question.
The "Law" has been several times threatened with prosecution, and the
initial steps have been taken, but the stage of issuing a warrant for its
seizure has never yet been reached. Twice I have had the stock removed to
avoid seizure, but on each occasion the heart of the prosecutors has
failed them, and the little book has carried its message of mercy
unspeeded by the advertisement of prosecution.
The struggle on the right to discuss the prudential restraint of
population did not, however, conclude without a martyr. Mr. Edward
Truelove, alluded to above, was prosecuted for selling a treatise by
Robert Dale Owen on "Moral Physiology", and a pamphlet entitled,
"Individual, Family, and National Poverty". He was tried on February 1st,
1878, before the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Queen's Bench, and
was most ably defended by Professor W.A. Hunter. The jury spent two hours
in considering their verdict, and then returned into Court and stated
that they were unable to agree. The majority of the jury were ready to
convict, if they felt sure that Mr. Truelove would not be punished, but
one of them boldly declared in Court: "As to the book, it is written in
plain language for plain people, and I think that many more persons ought
to know what the contents of the book are". The jury was discharged, in
consequence of this one man's courage, but Mr. Truelove's persecutors--
the wretched Vice Society--were determined not to let their victim free.
They proceeded to trial a second time, and wisely endeavored to secure a
special jury, feeling that as prudential restraint would raise wages by
limiting the supply of labor, they would be more likely to obtain a
verdict from a jury of "gentlemen" than from one composed of workers.
This attempt was circumvented by Mr. Truelove's legal advisers, who let a
_procedendo_ go which sent back the trial to the Old Bailey. The second
trial was held on May 16th at the Central Criminal Court before Baron
Pollock and a common jury, Professor Hunter and Mr. J.M. Davidson
appearing for the defence. The jury convicted, and the brave old man,
sixty-eight years of age, was condemned to four months' imprisonment and
£50 fine for selling a pamphlet which had been sold unchallenged, during
a period of forty-five years, by James Watson, George Jacob Holyoake,
Austin Holyoake, and Charles Watts. Mr. Grain, the counsel employed by
the Vice Society, most unfairly used against Mr. Truelove my "Law of
Population", a pamphlet which contained, Baron Pollock said, "the head
and front of the offence in the other [the Knowlton] case". I find an
indignant protest against this odious unfairness in the _National
Reformer_ for May 19th: "'My Law of Population' was used against Mr.
Truelove as an aggravation of his offence; passing over the utter
meanness--worthy only of Collette--of using against a prisoner a book
whose author has never been attacked for writing it--does Mr. Collette,
or do the authorities, imagine that the severity shown to Mr. Truelove
will in any fashion deter me from continuing the Malthusian propaganda?
Let me here assure them, one and all, that it will do nothing of the
kind; I shall continue to sell the 'Law of Population' and to advocate
scientific checks to population, just as though Mr. Collette and his Vice
Society were all dead and buried. In commonest justice they are bound to
prosecute me, and if they get, and keep, a verdict against me, and
succeed in sending me to prison, they will only make people more anxious
to read my book, and make me more personally powerful as a teacher of the
views which they attack."
A persistent attempt was made to obtain a writ of error in Mr. Truelove's
case, but the Tory Attorney-General, Sir John Holker, refused it,
although the ground on which it was asked was one of the grounds on which
a similar writ had been granted to Mr. Bradlaugh and myself. Mr. Truelove
was therefore compelled to suffer his sentence, but memorials, signed by
11,000 persons, asking for his release, were sent to the Home Secretary
from every part of the country, and a crowded meeting in St. James' Hall,
London, demanded his liberation with only six dissentients. The whole
agitation did not shorten Mr. Truelove's sentence by a single day, and he
was not released from Coldbath Fields' Prison until September 5th. On the
12th of the same month the Hall of Science was crowded with enthusiastic
friends, who assembled to do him honor, and he was presented with a
beautifully-illuminated address and a purse containing £177 (subsequent
subscriptions raised the amount to £197 16s. 6d.).
It is scarcely necessary to say that one of the results of the
prosecution was a great agitation throughout the country, and a wide
popularisation of Malthusian views. Some huge demonstrations were held in
favor of free discussion; on one occasion the Free Trade Hall,
Manchester, was crowded to the doors; on another the Star Music Hall,
Bradford, was crammed in every corner; on another the Town Hall,
Birmingham, had not a seat or a bit of standing-room unoccupied. Wherever
we went, separately or together, it was the same story, and not only were
Malthusian lectures eagerly attended, and Malthusian literature eagerly
bought, but curiosity brought many to listen to our Radical and
Freethought lectures, and thousands heard for the first time what
Secularism really meant.
The press, both London and provincial, agreed in branding the prosecution
as foolish, and it was widely remarked that it resulted only in the wider
circulation of the indicted book, and the increased popularity of those
who had stood for the right of publication. The furious attacks since
made upon us have been made chiefly by those who differ from us in
theological creed, and who have found a misrepresentation of our
prosecution served them as a convenient weapon of attack. During the last
few years public opinion has been gradually coming round to our side, in
consequence of the pressure of poverty resulting from widespread
depression of trade, and during the sensation caused in 1884 by "The
Bitter Cry of Outcast London", many writers in the _Daily News_--notably
Mr. G.R. Sims--boldly alleged that the distress was to a great extent due
to the large families of the poor, and mentioned that we had been
prosecuted for giving the very knowledge which would bring salvation to
the sufferers in our great cities.
Among the useful results of the prosecution was the establishment of the
Malthusian League, "to agitate for the abolition of all penalties on the
public discussion of the population question", and "to spread among the
people, by all practicable means, a knowledge of the law of population,
of its consequences, and of its bearing upon human conduct and morals".
The first general meeting of the League was held at the Hall of Science
on July 26th, 1877, and a council of twenty persons was elected, and this
Council on August 2nd elected Dr. C.R. Drysdale, M.D. President, Mr.
Swaagman Treasurer, Mrs. Besant Secretary, Mr. Shearer Assistant
Secretary, and Mr. Hember Financial Secretary. Since 1877 the League,
under the same indefatigable president, has worked hard to carry out its
objects; it has issued a large number of leaflets and tracts; it supports
a monthly journal, the _Malthusian_; numerous lectures have been
delivered under its auspices in all parts of the country; and it has now
a medical branch, into which none but duly qualified medical men and
women are admitted, with members in all European countries.
Another result of the prosecution was the accession of "D." to the staff
of the _National Reformer_. This able and thoughtful writer came forward
and joined our ranks as soon as he heard of the attack on us, and he
further volunteered to conduct the journal during our imprisonment. From
that time to this--a period of eight years--articles from his pen have
appeared in our columns week by week, and during all that time not one
solitary difficulty has arisen between editors and contributor. In public
a trustworthy colleague, in private a warm and sincere friend, "D." has
proved an unmixed benefit bestowed upon us by the prosecution.
Nor was "D." the only friend brought to us by our foes. I cannot ever
think of that time without remembering that the prosecution brought me
first into close intimacy with Mrs. Annie Parris--the wife of Mr. Touzeau
Parris, the Secretary of the Defence Committee throughout all the fight--
a lady who, during that long struggle, and during the, for me, far worse
struggle that succeeded it, over the custody of my daughter, proved to me
the most loving and sisterly of friends. One or two other friendships
which will, I hope, last my life, date from that same time of strife and
anxiety.
The amount of money subscribed by the public during the Knowlton and
succeeding prosecutions gives some idea of the interest felt in the
struggle. The Defence Fund Committee in March, 1878, presented a
balance-sheet, showing subscriptions amounting to £1,292 5s. 4d., and
total expenditure in the Queen _v._ Bradlaugh and Besant, the Queen _v._
Truelove, and the appeal against Mr. Vaughan's order (the last two up to
date) of £1,274 10s. This account was then closed and the balance of £17
15s. 4d. passed on to a new Fund for the defence of Mr. Truelove, the
carrying on of the appeal against the destruction of the Knowlton
pamphlet, and the bearing of the costs incident on the petition lodged
against myself. In July this new fund had reached £196 16s. 7d., and
after paying the remainder of the costs in Mr. Truelove case, a balance
of £26 15s. 2d. was carried on. This again rose to £247 15s. 2-1/2d., and
the fund bore the expenses of Mr. Bradlaugh's successful appeal on the
Knowlton pamphlet, the petition and subsequent proceedings in which I was
concerned in the Court of Chancery, and an appeal on Mr. Truelove's
behalf, unfortunately unsuccessful, against an order for the destruction
of the Dale Owen pamphlet. This last decision was given on February 21st,
1880, and on this the Defence Fund was closed. On Mr. Truelove's release,
as mentioned above, a testimonial to the amount of £197 16s. 6d. was
presented to him, and after the close of the struggle some anonymous
friend sent to me personally £200 as "thanks for the courage and ability
shown". In addition to all this, the Malthusian League received no less
than £455 11s. 9d. during the first year of its life, and started on its
second year with a balance in hand of £77 5s. 8d.
The propaganda of Freethought was not forgotten while this Malthusian
quarrel was raging, and in August 1877 the Freethought Publishing Company
issued the first English edition of lectures by Colonel Robert Ingersoll,
the eminent Freethought advocate of the United States. Since that time
various other publishers have circulated thousands of his lectures, but
it has always been to me a matter of satisfaction that we were the first
to popularise the eloquent American in England. The ruling of the Lord
Chief Justice that a book written with pure intention and meant to convey
useful knowledge might yet be obscene, drew from me a pamphlet entitled,
"Is the Bible Indictable?", in which I showed that the Bible came clearly
within the judge's ruling. This turning of the tables on our persecutors
caused considerable sensation at the time, and the pamphlet had, and
still has, a very wide circulation. It is needless to add that the Sunday
Freethought lectures were carried on despite the legal toils of the week,
and, as said above, the large audiences attracted by the prosecution gave
a splendid field for the inculcation of Freethought views. The National
Secular Society consequently increased largely in membership, and a
general impulse towards Freethought was manifest throughout the land.
The year 1878, so far as lecturing work was concerned, was largely taken
up with a crusade against the Beaconsfield Government and in favor of
peace. Lord Beaconsfield's hired roughs broke up several peace meetings
during the winter, and on February 24th Mr. Bradlaugh and Mr. Auberon
Herbert, at the request of a meeting of working-class delegates, held in
Hyde Park a "Demonstration in favor of Peace". The war party attacked the
meeting and some sharp fighting took place, but a resolution "That this
meeting declares in favor of peace" was carried despite them. A second
meeting was called by the Working Men's Committee for March 10th, and a
large force of medical students, roughs, militia-men, and "gentlemen",
armed with loaded bludgeons, heavy pieces of iron, sticks with metal
twisted round them, and various sharp-cutting weapons, went to Hyde Park
to make a riot. The meeting was held and the resolution carried, but
after it had dissolved there was some furious fighting. We learned
afterwards that a large money reward had been offered to a band of roughs
if they would disable Mr. Bradlaugh, and a violent organised attack was
made on him. The stewards of the meeting carried short policemen's
truncheons to defend themselves, and a number of these gathered round
their chief and saved his life. He and his friends had to fight their way
out of the park; a man, armed with some sharp instrument, struck at Mr.
Bradlaugh from behind, and cut one side of his hat from top to brim; his
truncheon was dinted with the jagged iron used as weapon; and his left
arm, with which he guarded his head, was one mass of bruises from wrist
to elbow. Lord Beaconsfield's friends very nearly succeeded in their
attempt at murder, after all, for a dangerous attack of erysipelas set
in, in the injured arm, and confined Mr. Bradlaugh to his room for
sixteen days.
The provinces were far more strongly against war than was the capital,
and in them we held many large and enthusiastic meetings in favor of
peace. At Huddersfield the great Drill Hall was crammed for a lecture by
me against war, and throughout Yorkshire and Lancashire scarcely a voice
was ever raised in crowded meetings in defence of the Beaconsfieldian
policy. A leaflet of mine, entitled "Rushing into War", was reprinted in
various parts of the country, and was circulated in tens of thousands,
and each Freethought leader worked with tongue and pen, on platform and
in press, to turn the public feeling against war. The Freethought party
may well take credit to itself for having been first in the field against
the Tory policy, and for having successfully begun the work later carried
on by Mr. Gladstone in his Midlothian campaign. They did more than any
other party in the country to create that force of public opinion which
overthrew the Tory Government in 1880.