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

Book

Open Original Text

 storm of abuse now broke over Mr Bradlaugh's head in full
force--always with intent to damage the Reform League, for his
enemies had not yet taken the measure of his power and proportions.
For the moment he was merely considered as a weapon, to be used
unscrupulously, and pointed with lies. In this method of warfare the
_Saturday Review_[93] at one bound took a front place. The _Standard_
on the 11th of March reprinted from it the article, "Who are the
Leaguers?" from which journals all over the country took their lead. It
was in this article of the _Saturday Review_ that Mr Bradlaugh is made
responsible for the story of the "Fanatical Monkeys" written by Charles
Southwell (who probably derived it from some old fable), and rewritten
from memory by J. P. Adams, who sent it to the _National Reformer_,
where it was published on February 17, 1867. This story was reproduced
in a hundred shapes, and of course my father was said to be the author
of all of them, a proof, asserted these veracious ones, of his utter
depravity. I have noted a letter of Mr Bradlaugh's, written in 1868,
in which he asked to deny the story for at least "the hundredth time;"
but denial was of little use; the lie sown by the _Saturday Review_
in March 1867, like most other ill weeds, throve apace, and was even
repeated so late as two years ago. Speaking in Trafalgar Square on
March 11th, where as usual he was "loudly called for,"[94] he said
those who were carrying on the struggle had not entered into it without
counting the cost, and, confident in their own strength and manhood,
they were determined upon gaining their rights. He compared the people
with a "resistless wave," and warned those who should dare "to stem
the tide." The _Weekly Dispatch_ jeered at "the figurative Bradlaugh"
for this speech, and, trying in its turn to injure the Reform League,
suggested that the demonstrations were more welcome to the thieves than
to any other class of metropolitan society. Others, like the _Sunday
Times_, struck with the determination and confident purpose betokened
in such a speech, chose to interpret it to mean physical force, and
said--

 "The Reform Leaguers throughout the country are beginning to
 talk treason and must be watched. 'Iconoclast,' who, but for his
 disposition to violence, would be altogether too vulgar for notice,
 systematically threatens violation of the law, and defiance of the
 powers that be."

[Footnote 93: March 9th, 1867.]

[Footnote 94: _Times_, March 12th, 1867.]

The _Sunday Times_ then went on, in the same paragraph, to speak in
terms of reprobation of "a person" who, at some meeting at Newcastle,
urged that an attempt should be made to win the sympathies of the army,
so that in the event of "a collision" the people and the army would be
on the same side. The remarks of an unnamed person at some meeting at
which Mr Bradlaugh was not even present, were thus used as though he
were responsible for them.

Lord Derby's Government began to be frightened at the possibilities
evoked by its own fears and the determined persistence of the League.
Special reporters were sent to the meetings in order to verify speeches
for the purposes of a prosecution, a course which merely made the
speakers more stern and more outspoken. In May it was resolved to
hold another mass meeting in Hyde Park: the Reform League leaders
were convinced that they had the law on their side, and they meant
to insist on their rights. Mr Edmund Beales issued an address to the
men of London, calling upon them to meet the Council of the League
in Hyde Park on Monday evening, May 6th. "Come," he said, "as loyal,
peaceful, and orderly citizens, enemies of all riot and tumult, but
unalterably fixed and resolved in demanding and insisting upon what
you are entitled to. If time presses, stay not to form in processions,
but come straight from your work, come without bands and banners." On
the same evening that Mr Beales' address was read over to the Council
of the League, an "admonition" from the Government was served upon the
delegates, warning all persons "to abstain from attending, aiding, or
taking part in any such meeting, or from entering the Park with a view
to attend, aid, or take part in such meeting."

Much pressure was put upon Mr Beales to prevent the meeting from being
held, but he, knowing that he and his colleagues were in the right,
and _knowing that the Government knew it also_, persisted in the
determination arrived at, after due deliberation, by the Council. The
Government reluctantly, and at the last moment--that is, in the issue
of the _Times_ for May 6th--acknowledged that they had no power to
eject the demonstrators from the Park. Having decided that they had
not the law on their side, Lord Derby, snitching at a straw, thought
the Park regulations would help them, and sent a message to the League
in the afternoon that the meeting would be prohibited; and there was
a talk of prosecuting for trespass each person who had received the
notice of prohibition. But all this "tall talk" was absolutely without
effect: 200,000 persons went to the Park. Mr Bradlaugh was one of
the first to enter; and Platform No. 8 was a "very great centre of
attraction, for this was the scene of Mr Bradlaugh's oratory."[95]

[Footnote 95: The _Standard_, May 7th.]

Mr Bradlaugh was, as I said, re-elected on the Executive of the
League on the full understanding that he had determined to resist
the Government decision as to Hyde Park. During the spring-time he
lectured week after week in London and the provinces, not only bearing
his own expenses, but on one occasion, at least, actually paying
for tickets for his wife and friends. On May 6th, the demonstration
maintaining the right of the people to meet in the people's park was
held, in spite of Lord Derby's opposition and prohibition. On the
following day, May 7th, Mr Bradlaugh tendered his resignation as
vice-president and member of the Council and the Executive of the
Reform League; he took this course "in order to deprive the enemies
of reform of the pretext for attack on the League afforded by my
irreligion, and to save some of the friends of the League from the
pain of having their names associated with my own." Especially Mr
Bradlaugh praises the honourable and straightforward conduct of Mr
Beales, but deeply regrets that he (Mr Beales) should have felt it
necessary publicly to disclaim responsibility for his sayings, and
hopes that his resignation will relieve him from pain. The League
only accepted Mr Bradlaugh's resignation, as far as it related to the
Executive Council; he continued a Vice-President of the League from its
foundation to the end, but after this date he rarely appeared upon its
platforms. If there should be trouble, and his services were desired,
he said, he was ready to do his duty; otherwise he preferred to remain
aloof. Now, mark the generosity of his opponents! Finding he did not
appear as frequently as before on the Reform platform, they began
to cir

Previous Next