Adventure | Science Fiction | Ghost stories | Poetry | Children | History BookOpen Original Text e other of the constituency, and it is rather curious to note
that in one of his earliest speeches he shadowed forth what really
happened to him twenty years later. At the conclusion of an address
delivered in the theatre on the 16th of July on the subject of "Capital
and Labour and Trades Unions," some one asked him whether if he were
delegated to the House of Commons he could "guarantee to enact laws
that should satisfy all Trades Unions and the public generally."
"Certainly not," was the reply; "I daresay I should give as much
dissatisfaction to Trades Unionists as anybody. But that would not be
my fault. I should act honestly, and if the Trades Unionists were the
bulk o£ my constituency, and they thought I acted in contravention of
my programme, I should resign my trust into their hands." And when
Mr Bradlaugh did act thus honestly in the matter of the Employers'
Liability Bill in 1889, the Trades Unions were exceedingly dissatisfied
with him, and were for the most part very bitter against him.
In a very short time the Northampton election became the subject
of discussion everywhere, and the press from one end of England to
the other had some sort of comment to make upon it--hostile to Mr
Bradlaugh, of course. The _Daily Telegraph_, then professing Liberal
views, was one of the earliest to raise the _odium theologicum_ against
him;[117] it speculated in pious dismay as to "what outrage on good
taste and on the conscientious convictions of his fellow-citizens
'Iconoclast' may not attempt in the wider circle to which he seeks
admittance," and held up its Jewish hands in holy horror in imagining
the possibilities of a time "when Englishmen will revile the sublime
moralities of the New Testament." My father challenged Mr Levy, the
editor, to give an instance of any such "outrage" committed by him,
adding, "I do more than this; the Government have, out of the public
funds, paid for shorthand notes of several of my speeches since 1865.
These notes still exist; I know in some cases the actual professional
reporters employed, and I dare the publication of these notes."
[Footnote 117: _Daily Telegraph_, August 3, 1868.]
The cowardly insinuations of the _Daily Telegraph_ were printed as a
placard and posted all over the town, where they produced the strongest
excitement and bitterness. This placard was quickly followed by another
of bright green, conveying a message from "The Irish Reform League
to the Irishmen and friends of Ireland in Northampton." Northampton
was entreated to return to Parliament "a man like Charles Bradlaugh,
who advocated the cause of Ireland with pen and tongue when such
advocacy was unpopular, if not dangerous." Irishmen in Dublin appealed
to Irishmen in Northampton not to deserve the reproach of the defeat
of such a man. "We, the Reformers of Ireland, gladly and heartily
recommend him: by his works in the cause of Reform we know him; as a
politician we endorse him; ... we believe him to be true, we have faith
in his political honesty, in his undaunted perseverance, and in his
desire to elevate the downtrodden in our land and in his own."[118]
[Footnote 118: In October Mr Keevil, chairman of the Irish Reform
League, wrote again to Northampton. "Our members," he said, "consist
of every denomination of Christians, and although we regret that
Mr Bradlaugh does not believe in matters of religion as we do, and
probably Mr Bradlaugh also regrets that we are not of the same
religious opinions as himself, yet we do not think such controversial
matters can hinder his usefulness for the people's work in the House of
Commons. We in Ireland have had special opportunities of knowing the
value of Mr Bradlaugh's works.... The field of Mr Bradlaugh's early
labours was Ireland; the Lecture Hall in French Street, Dublin, was
the arena of his triumphs, and the people soon recognised in him a
champion. Private Bradlaugh was well known in County Cork many years
ago as a man who would maintain the oppressed tenants against the
injustice of landlordism."]
In September one of the newly enfranchised electors wrote to Mr John
Bright for his advice as to the casting of his "maiden vote," and
received from Mr Bright the following letter in reply:--
"Rochdale, September 17, 1868.
"DEAR SIR,--I cannot interfere in your election matters, but
I can answer the question you put to me.
"I do not think you can improve the representation of your borough by
changing your members. I think Lord Henley and Mr Gilpin worthy of
your support.--I am, yours truly,
JOHN BRIGHT.
"Mr THOMAS JAMES, Northampton."
When Mr Bradlaugh saw this letter, which was given the fullest
publicity, he wrote Mr Bright as follows:--
"23 Great St. Helen's, London, E.C.
"September 19, 1868.
"SIR,--I feel some difficulty in intruding myself upon you;
but as you have taken a step in the Northampton election which I
regard as prejudicial to my interests, you will pardon my trying to
set the matter right. At the end of June I issued the address of which
I enclose you a copy; the only other address issued is that of the
sitting members. You will see in my address that I offered to submit
my claims to the decision of an aggregate meeting, which offer has
been entirely disregarded by Lord Henley. Whether or not Lord Henley
is worthy of the support of the electors is a query to which a large
proportion of the inhabitants of Northampton have already responded;
they declare that he is not. As to whether I shall make a better
member, I here offer no other remark than that through my life I
have actively striven to advance the cause of Reform; while Viscount
Henley has often discouraged and hindered effort, and has only voted
in obedience to the irresistible pressure of public opinion. That
you should support Mr Charles Gilpin with the weight of your great
influence is natural, but that you should bolster up tumbling Whiggism
as represented by Lord Henley I confess surprises me. Mr Gilpin's
name has been associated as a working member in many highly valuable
social and political reforms. Lord Henley's activity has been nearly
limited to the prevention of compulsory education, the advocacy of
increased expenditure for fortifications, and general care for landed
interests.--Yours most obediently,
CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
"JOHN BRIGHT, Esq., M.P.
"_P.S._--I shall take the liberty of printing this letter and any
reply you may forward me."
To my father's letter Mr Bright made answer that he had written an
honest reply to a simple question, with no suspicion that he should
be considered as taking sides with any party in the contest, adding
some remarks as to his regard for past services and a tried fidelity,
without any further definite opinion on Lord Henley's fitness. But
if Mr Bright did not suspect that he should be considered as taking
sides--and my father loyally accepted his statement--other people
took a different view of the matter, and his letter was freely used
against Mr Bra Previous Next |