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

Book

Open Original Text

ntract for the hire of the hall in which the lectures were to be
 delivered, I was non-suited by the County Court Judge on the ground
 that the lectures to be delivered were illegal (although there was,
 of course, no possible evidence of what I should have said). When I
 was illegally arrested at Devonport, confined in a damp cell for one
 night, and twice brought before the magistrates, an Exeter jury,
 although they in point of fact decided entirely in my favour, gave
 me one farthing damages; and Lord Chief Justice Erle, on appeal
 to the Court sitting in _banco_, laid down the doctrine that the
 imprisonment which prevented a man like myself from making known his
 views (although that imprisonment had been by the verdict of the
 jury utterly unjustifiable) was rather a benefit to the individual
 imprisoned than a wrong for which damages could be sought. When,
 at Wigan, the evidence of myself and a gentleman and his wife were
 all refused by the County Court Judge, on the ground of our being
 all well-known Secularists, I was legally robbed of nearly thirty
 pounds. When concerned about three years ago in another litigation,
 the statement of my opponent that I was 'Iconoclast, the Atheist,'
 sufficed to defeat me. When I sued as plaintiff last year in an
 action to which there was no defence [Bradlaugh _v_. De Rin] in the
 Court of Common Pleas, my evidence was objected to on account of
 my disbelief in the Scriptures. When on appeal on a point of law
 I tendered Mr Austin Holyoake as bail, he was refused because he
 was a well-known heretic, and could not therefore be allowed to be
 sworn. Now I am grossly libelled, the libel is not justified; the
 only cross-examination is on my opinions; and the counsel for the
 defendant, who actually admits that the libel ought never to have
 appeared, asked the jury to give me the smallest possible damages
 because I am an Atheist. The jury respond to his appeal to their
 religious prejudices, and I get one farthing damages. What am I to
 do? If when I am libelled I take no notice, the world believes the
 libel. If I sue I have to pay about one hundred pounds costs for
 the privilege, and gain the smallest coin the country knows as a
 recompense. Duelling is forbidden alike by my code of morals and the
 law of the country. If I horsewhip the libeller, I am punishable for
 assault. Am I outlaw or citizen--which? Answer me, you who boast your
 superiority; you whose religion makes you better than myself. What
 mockery to tell me that I live in a free country, when it is thus
 justice is dealt out to such as I am!

 "CHARLES BRADLAUGH."

In January (1869) Mr Bradlaugh prayed the Court to grant him a rule
for a new trial, and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn observed that "no one
could say that because a man was an Atheist (even assuming him to
be one) anyone was entitled to say he was a murderer or a swindler.
That, however, probably was not quite the way in which it was put to
the jury; it was probably put rather in this way, that when a man
had publicly put forth certain sentiments in certain language, it
might be that his character was not such as deserved or required much
vindication. As a general principle the damages in actions of tort,
especially in actions for libel, were eminently for the jury." Mr
Justice Mellor made some similar remarks, and Mr Justice Hannen having
put some questions as to the refusal of the apology and the manner of
the denial of the charge, the Lord Chief Justice granted the rule.

It never came to a new trial, however, for in the following November
the defendant, Mr Brooks, withdrew the whole of the charges against
Mr Bradlaugh and apologised for their publication, but his solicitor
intimated that he was in no position to pay the costs. Therefore,
although my father obtained the barren satisfaction of this tardy
apology and the withdrawal of the charges, it cost him not less than
£200. The _Razor_ itself did not survive this litigation, for before
the new year of 1869 had dawned it was already discontinued.

 * * * * *

In accordance with the wishes of some Yorkshire friends, Mr Bradlaugh
had promised to give two political lectures in Mirfield on the 18th and
19th November 1870. The Mirfield Town Hall was engaged for this purpose
on the 21st of September, and the lectures announced were--"War: its
Effect upon European Peoples, and an Appeal for Peace," and "England's
Balance Sheet." The hall belonged to a Company, and when it was
realised that their property was let to the wicked Atheist for the
purpose of pleading the cause of peace in Europe, some of the directors
objected, and objected so strongly, to the proposed desecration of
their building that they determined to back out of the agreement under
the pretence that the hall-keeper had no authority to let it, although,
in fact, he had taken four guineas, money paid for the hire of the
hall, and had given a receipt for it. Mr Bradlaugh persisted in his
right to lecture, and on making inquiries learned that the hall-keeper
had let the hall on former occasions without any objection on the part
of the directors. In order to complicate matters the Directors let the
hall for the dates assigned to Mr Bradlaugh to a party of Ethiopian
serenaders.

As Mr Bradlaugh made no sign of yielding when the time arrived, the
assistance of the police was summoned, and the hall was guarded, inside
and out, by a body of constabulary numbering about thirty men, under a
superintendent. The directors evidently loved war better than peace. Mr
Bradlaugh reached Mirfield at about a quarter past six on the evening
of the 18th, but, fearing a disturbance, he went straight to the Town
Hall, at once and alone, although the meeting was not summoned until
eight o'clock. Upon reaching the hall he found it prepared for a siege;
in addition to its garrison of police, it was barricaded with huge
baulks of timber. He held some conversation with the Superintendent of
the Police, who was sufficiently polite, and the Chairman of the Board
of Directors, a gentleman particularly prominent in his opposition to
Mr Bradlaugh, and now present to watch over the premises in person.
During the conversation a crowd of about four hundred people collected,
but at my father's request they remained perfectly quiet and took no
part in the proceedings. Mr Bradlaugh then endeavoured to open the
door, but in addition to being strongly barricaded the handle was
held by Mr Johnson (the Chairman), and another man, the former of
whom boasted that he would spend a large sum to keep Bradlaugh out of
Mirfield. Finding the force against him too great, my father, after a
little struggle, gave up the attempt to enter.

He at once commenced an action against the Town Hall Company, but owing
to various delays the suit was not tried until the summer of 1871. It
then came on at the Leeds Assizes on August 7th, before Mr Justice
Mellor and a special jury. Mr Bradlaugh conducted his own case, while
Mr Digby Seymour, Q.C

Previous Next