Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History

Book

Open Original Text

Mr Digby Seymour, put it--that he had no option
but to bring an action against the proprietor. The _Razor_ must have
been in a general way a tolerably obscure publication, for when I
went to look it up in the British Museum, no trace of it could be
discovered, although the officials there took considerable pains to
find it for me. But the article against Mr Bradlaugh had been recopied
from its columns and widely circulated in Northampton, where it was
calculated to produce serious mischief. Later on Northampton grew
accustomed to hearing my father accused of every possible crime, and,
knowing their absolute falsity, became hardened to such slanders;
still, at that time the acquaintance was comparatively young between
Northampton and the man whose statue it has this year placed in one of
its most public thoroughfares.

The libel endeavoured to connect Mr Bradlaugh with Broadhead (of the
Sheffield trade outrages), and with the misdeeds of which Mr Montagu
Leverson had been guilty two years after my father quitted his office.
It was published on August 15th, and was read by Mr Bradlaugh on the
19th. He at once telegraphed a demand for an apology, and on the same
day received a letter from the proprietor saying that the editor, who
was then absent, would be requested to offer a suitable apology. This
the editor showed no inclination to do, and some correspondence ensued.
Ultimately the _Razor_ people agreed to publish a statement of facts if
Mr Bradlaugh would draw it up and send it to them. This he did, but the
statement did not appear, and, tired of these proceedings, in October
he issued a writ against them. The case came on in December, at the
_nisi prius_ sittings at the Guildhall, before Mr Justice Blackburn and
a common jury. Mr Bradlaugh did not conduct his own case, but Mr Digby
Seymour, Q.C., and Mr Day appeared on his behalf, while the defendant
Mr Brooks was represented by Mr O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr Griffiths.

No attempt was made to justify the libel, nor was any apology offered,
although Mr Digby Seymour intimated the willingness of his client to
accept it even at that late hour. Mr Bradlaugh was the only witness
(the defence called no evidence whatever) other than those required
for formal proofs; and, having no case, the counsel for the defence
endeavoured to excite the prejudices of the jury by cross-examining
him as to his theological opinions. The method pursued by Mr O'Malley
was so gross that, lest I seem to do him an injustice, I will quote
the exact words of the report of his cross-examination. After asking
a number of questions about Broadhead and trades unions, Mr O'Malley
asked:

 "Do you believe in the existence of a God?"

 C. BRADLAUGH: I decline to answer that question, because,
 according to the present laws of this country I might by so doing
 render myself liable to prosecution.

 Mr O'M.: Have you not said, "There is no God"?

 C.B.: No; on the contrary, I have repeatedly said and written that an
 atheist does not say "There is no God."

 Mr O'M.: Have you not made statements in public against the existence
 of God?

 C.B.: I decline to answer that question.

 Mr O'M.: Did you not once at a public lecture take out your watch
 and defy the Deity, if he had any existence, to strike you dead in a
 certain number of minutes?

 C.B.: Never; such a suggestion is utterly unjustifiable.

 Mr JUSTICE BLACKBURN: If any issues in the action depended
 on this course of proceeding, Mr O'Malley, I should not object, but
 I cannot see that these questions have any relevance to the matter
 before us.

 Mr O'M.: I think I shall be able to show by a few questions more the
 importance of the plaintiff's answers. Are you (to plaintiff) a writer
 in the _National Reformer?_ And have you written under the name of
 "Iconoclast"?

 C.B.: I decline to answer these questions, because prosecutions for
 penalties are at present pending against the _National Reformer_ at
 the instance of the late Government.

 Mr O'M.: Did you write this passage, which appeared in the _National
 Reformer_: "There is a great big monkey," etc. [fable already referred
 to on p. 233].

 C.B., after some hesitation: I might refuse to answer this question
 on the same ground I have refused to answer the other questions. I
 prefer, however, to answer, and I say that passage did appear in
 a paper with which I was connected, but was not written by me. It
 was part of a translation of a German fable, and was copied nearly
 two years ago into the _Saturday Review_ without the context. If
 the context were read with it, the meaning of the passage would be
 entirely different It related as much to Hinduism as to Christianity.
 I wrote a reply to the _Saturday Review_ at the time.[127]

 [Footnote 127: This reply was refused insertion.]

 Mr O'M.: Did you ever take legal proceedings against the _Saturday
 Review_ for publishing this article?

 C.B.: No; I considered it a criticism on my opinions, and answered it
 by other articles in other papers. I should never sue a journal for an
 attack on my opinions.

 Mr O'M.: Do you believe in the truth of the Christian religion?

 C.B.: I decline to answer, because it is a prosecutable offence for a
 man to deny the truth of Christianity after he had been brought up in
 its tenets.

The defence, as I have said, called no witnesses; but Mr O'Malley was a
host in himself, and as far as the jury were concerned, the "eloquence"
of his address more than made up for the weakness of his case. He said
that from Mr Bradlaugh's refusals to answer his questions, "it is fair
to assume that he has no character to be injured by such a criticism as
this," meaning by that that an Atheist had no character to be injured
when his principles were likened to those of such a man as Broadhead, a
"self-confessed assassin," and his morality to that of a man compelled
to flee the country on a charge of fraud. Mr O'Malley went on to say
that while it would have been better if the article had not appeared,
"it was nonsense to talk of it as injury to the notorious character of
such a man. The smallest amount of damages would be sufficient to set
up the character of that 'noble' man. He asked the jury, as Christian
men, to refrain from giving their endorsement to that man Bradlaugh, to
that man Bradlaugh, to that man Bradlaugh."

In the course of his summing up, Mr Justice Blackburn said that "all
in Court must have been disgusted with some of the questions which had
been put in cross-examination." That all were not disgusted was soon
apparent, for, after a short consultation, the jury, feeling bound to
respond to this appeal to their Christianity, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff indeed, but with one farthing damages.

My father was deeply hurt at the mockery of this verdict, and, overcome
by a sense of helplessness in the face of such intolerance, he wrote
these bitter words:--

 "OUTLAW OR CITIZEN? WHICH AM I?

 "When at Bolton I sued for damages occasioned by the breach of
 co

Previous Next