Charles Bradlaugh: a Record of His Life and Work, Volume 1 (of 2)

In May 1862 Messrs W. H. Smith & Son first officially refused to supply their agents with the National Reformer. They then occupied the chief railway station bookstalls in England, but were not quite the monopolists they are to-day, and Mr Bradlaugh could for a little while at least get his paper sold at all the stations, numbering some sixty or seventy, on the North Eastern and Newcastle and Carlisle railways, at which book agencies were held by a Mr Franklin. It is wonderful, indeed, how this journal managed to live through more than thirty years in spite of this powerful boycott, extending as it afterwards did to every part of the kingdom. Mr Bradlaugh called upon his friends to use every effort to keep up the sale. "We will do our part," he wrote, "and we call upon our friends, east, west, north, and south, to do their duty also." During the last year of his life Mr Bradlaugh was given to understand that the boycott would be raised, and that Messrs W. H. Smith & Son would be willing to take the National Reformer on to the railway bookstalls, but the first expenses would have been so great that he was unwilling to enter into the further financial liabilities which the new departure would have involved.

The National Reformer was not only from its earliest years refused by the most powerful booksellers in England, but it was maligned in a quarter where indeed it might have looked for fair play and a little justice – I mean by the Unitarians.38 The cynical reflection that those who have themselves broken away from the conventional thought of the times always damn those who go a little further than themselves, carries a germ of truth within its bitter shell. The Unitarian body always seem to treat Freethinkers with an acrimony special to themselves and us. Individual Unitarians whom I have known personally have been kind, pleasant, liberal-minded people, but Unitarians as a body or as represented by their organ seldom enough have turned a kindly side towards atheists.

With every man's hand against it, with financial difficulties to cripple it, both the editor and the company of the unfortunate paper felt compelled to review the situation, and put matters on a somewhat different footing. Hence at a duly convened meeting held in September the company was wound up, and Mr Bradlaugh "appointed liquidator according to the terms of the Joint Stock Company's Act, 1856." From this time the sole responsibility, financial and otherwise, rested upon my father. Unfortunately, a few months later his health broke down, and at the urgent entreaty of his friends he "most reluctantly resolved to determine his connection as Editor, and to retire entirely from the conduct and responsibilities of the paper."

He begged therefore the support of all friends to Mr John Watts, who had consented to take up the onerous burden of editorship. Mr John Watts, in an address published the following week, wished it to be understood that he was taking up the editorship at the "express wish" of Iconoclast. On quitting the editor's chair with the issue of No. 146 (Feb. 28), Mr Bradlaugh gave expression to his wishes in regard to the conduct of the paper.

"I should wish," he says, "that the National Reformer may continue to advocate the fullest liberty of thought and utterance, conceding to others that which it claims for itself. That it should be plain and honest in its attacks on shams. That it should spare no falsehood merely because uttered by a great man, show no mercy to royal treachery simply from reverence for royalty, and have no pardon for crowned wrong while ragged wrong shall suffer…"

To Freethinkers and Radicals he says, with a bitter prescience of his own future fate indicated in some of his words: "Your duty lies not in petty personal strife, but in the diffusion of the great and mighty truths for which our predecessors have risked stake and dungeon. Your duty is not to take part in disputes whether John or Thomas is the better leader, but rather so to live as to need no leaders. A public man's life is composed of strange phases. If successful, he wins his success with hard struggling. As he struggles the little great ones before him, who envy his hope, block up his path. His ignorance is exposed, his incapability made manifest; and then when he has won the victory, and made a place for standing, each envious cowardly caviller, who dares not meet him face to face, stabs him with base innuendo in the back. I do not envy any statesman's character in the hands of his political antagonists, still less do I envy when I hear him dissected behind his back by his pseudo-friends."

In concluding his article he gives special praise to Mr John Watts and Mr Austin Holyoake for their help on the paper, taking the blame for all its past shortcomings on his own shoulders.

From February 1863 until April 1866 Mr John Watts edited the National Reformer; but unless my father happened to be abroad, as he frequently was during the early part of the sixties, traces of him were to be found somewhere or other in the paper, either in an article from his pen, a letter, or answers to correspondents on legal points. During these three years he contributed several notable articles, such as "Notes on Genesis and Exodus," "The Oath Question," "Real Representation of the People," "A Plea for Atheism," "Universality of Heresy," "The Atonement," "Antiquity and Unity of the Origin of the Human Race," "The Twelve Apostles," "Why do Men Starve?" and "Labour's Prayer," and many of which have been from time to time revised or rewritten, and published and republished in pamphlet form.

He also gave the paper considerable financial assistance, amounting in the three years to upwards of £250.

On the 22nd of April 1866, a notice appeared in the National Reformer to the effect that Mr Bradlaugh would resume his editorial duties on the paper, of which he had never relinquished the copyright. The occasion for this announcement was a very sad one. Just as in 1863 Mr Bradlaugh, overtaken by illness, was obliged to lay aside his burden of editorship, so in 1866 Mr John Watts also became too ill to continue his work. But the illness of Mr John Watts was unhappily more serious than Mr Bradlaugh's; it was the forerunner of his death. In the November of the same year a career of some promise was cut short at its opening, and Mr John Watts died of consumption at the early age of thirty-two.

When he learned of his friend's illness my father readily consented to resume his former task as editor, and appointed as sub-editor Mr Charles Watts, who spoke of the satisfaction it had been to his brother to have so willing and able a friend take charge of the paper once more. A little later Mr Austin Holyoake was associated in the sub-editing with Mr Charles Watts.

Thus in 1866 the journal was once more under the full control of Mr Bradlaugh, and although he subsequently, for a time, associated another editor with himself, he thought for it and fought for it, wrote for it and cared for it, from that time until within a fortnight of his death, when from his dying bed he dictated a few words for me to write. He had to fight for it in press and law court.

In 1867 the high-priced and refined Saturday Review started the story, so often repeated since, that Mr Bradlaugh had compared God with a monkey with three tails; and further declared, with that delicacy of language which one expects to meet in such aristocratic company, that "such filthy ribaldry as we have, from a sense of duty, picked off Bradlaugh's dunghill, is simply revolting, odious, and nauseating to the natural sense of shame possessed by a savage." Needless to say, the "savage" feelings of the Saturday Review were much too delicate to admit any reply from the editor of the journal attacked. Mr Bradlaugh, of course, replied in his own paper, and "B. V." took up the cudgels also on behalf of his friend. He wrote at some length, and the following quotation truly and amusingly pictures the National Reformer at least: —

"This poor N. R.! Let us freely admit that it has many imperfections, many faults; its poverty secures for it a constant supply of poor writers, while securing for us, the poor writers, an opportunity of publishing what we could hardly get published elsewhere. But I fear not to affirm that, by its essential character, it is quite incomparably superior to such a paper as the S. R. It has clear principles, which it honestly believes will immensely benefit the world; the S. R. is governed by hand-to-mouth expediency for the sole benefit of itself. The former is devoted to certain ideas; the latter has neither devotion nor ideas, but has a cool preference for opinions of good fashion and of loose and easy fit. The former is written throughout honestly, each writer stating with the utmost sincerity and candour what he thinks and feels; the latter – why, the latter would doubtless be ashamed to resemble in anything its poor contemporary. The former, though not always choice and accurate in its language, is generally written in plain clear English (and I really account this of importance, and even of vital importance, in an English publication); the latter is not written in any language at all, for a mixed jargon of the schools, the bar, the pulpit, and the clubs is certainly not a language."

Amongst the papers which copied the Saturday Review article was the Printers' Journal; and this paper, determined not to fall behind its aristocratic colleague, added a little slander on its own account, that the National Reformer was improperly printed by underpaid compositors – although had the editor cared to inquire, he would have found that the men were paid according to the regulations of the Printers' Society.

In January and June of 1867 there appeared in the National Reformer some noteworthy letters from the Rev. Charles Voysey. They are specially remarkable when contrasted with his public utterances of 1880. These letters arose out of a sermon preached at Healaugh on October 21st, 1866, in which Mr Voysey said that if it were urged

"that a belief in the Articles of the Christian Creed without morality is better than morality without belief,39 I frankly own that, though I am a Churchman, I would rather see them put aside and torn up as rubbish, than see the cause of morality, which is true religion, for a moment imperilled. I would honestly prefer a morality without any religious belief – nay, even without any religious hopes and religious consolations – to the most comforting, satisfying creed without morality… Inexpressibly sad as it is to us, who rejoice in our Maker, and whose hearts pant for the Living God, yet there are some who cannot believe in him at all. Some of these are kept steadfast in duty, pure and upright in their lives, models of good fathers and mothers, good husbands and wives, and fulfilling God's own law of love, which in mercy he has not made dependent on Creed, but has engraven on our very hearts. They are living evidences of morality without religion; and if I had to choose between the lot of a righteous man who could not believe in a God, and the man of unlimited credulity, who cared not to be righteous so much as to be a believer, I would infinitely sooner be the righteous Atheist."

Mr Bradlaugh made a short comment upon this, to which Mr Voysey replied, and one or two further letters appeared. In a letter dated January 13th he writes: —

"But I leave these minor matters to express my heartfelt sympathy for what you call the 'Infidel party' under the civil disabilities which have hitherto oppressed them. I think with sorrow and shame of the stupid, as well as cruel contempt, with which some of my brother-clergymen have treated you; and I cannot but deplore the want of respect towards you as shown in the attitude of society, and in the continuance of those nearly obsolete laws which our less enlightened forefathers passed in the vain hope of checking the movements of the human mind… I can do but very little, but that little I will do with all my heart to remove the stigma which attaches to my order through its blind and senseless bigotry."

The italics here are mine, as I wish to draw special attention to the sentiments of the Rev. Charles Voysey in 1867. In June of the same year he wrote other somewhat lengthy letters, in which he expressed his great respect for Mr Bradlaugh's "candour and honesty," and his thanks for the "invariable courtesy" shown him. That is the Mr Voysey of 1867. In 1880 the Rev. Charles Voysey proved the value of his unsought promise to work to remove the stigma from his order, by going out of his way to preach a sermon at the Langham Hall upon the "Bradlaugh Case," in which he explained that he felt "ashamed and disgraced by the people of Northampton for electing him [Charles Bradlaugh] to represent them;" he said that "most of the speeches in the Bradlaugh case, in favour of his exclusion, strike me as singularly good, wholesome, and creditable," and he felt thankful to the speakers for not mincing the matter. Mr Bradlaugh, making an exceedingly brief commentary on Mr Voysey's sermon, said: —

"We presume that this commendation included the various phrases invented for Mr Bradlaugh by 'hon.' members, but never used by him. Mr Voysey's belief in God seems to include approval of the use of lies on God's behalf. Mr Voysey says: 'It is more than probable that if Mr Bradlaugh had claimed to affirm without giving reasons for it the Speaker would have at once permitted him to affirm.' Here Mr Voysey writes in absolute and inexcusable ignorance of what actually took place. For eightpence Mr Voysey can buy the Report of the Select Parliamentary Committee, which, while unfavourable to me, gives the exact facts, and this at least he ought to do before he preaches another sermon full of inaccuracies as to fact, and replete with unworthy insinuation."

"The whole affair," says Mr Voysey, "has been a perfect jubilee to the martyr and his friends." And in the end it was – such a jubilee as is never likely to fall to the lot of Mr Voysey. True, it was paid for in years of care and terrific mental anxieties; true, it was heralded with insult and actual personal ill-usage; true, it cost a life impossible to replace; but the "jubilee" came when over the "martyr's" very deathbed the House of Commons itself vindicated his honour; when even a Tory statesman could be found to uphold my father's conduct in the House, and a Tory gentleman to proclaim that he was "a man who had endeavoured to do his duty." It was a jubilee of the triumph of consistent courage and honesty over "blind and senseless bigotry" and unprincipled malice.

CHAPTER XIV

THE "NATIONAL REFORMER" AND ITS GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS

On the third of May 1868 the National Reformer appeared in a new character. A startling announcement at the head of the Editorial Notices sets forth that "the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Inland Revenue having commenced proceedings to suppress the National Reformer, a special fund is opened, to be entitled 'The National Reformer Defence Fund,' to which subscriptions are invited." Above the editorial leaders was the legend, "Published in Defiance of Her Majesty's Government, and of the 60 Geo. III. cap. 9."

Beyond these two statements no further information was given until the following week, when Mr Bradlaugh explained in answer to numerous inquirers that the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue had, under 60 Geo. III., cap. 69, required him to give sureties in the sum of £400 against the appearance of blasphemy or sedition in his columns; that they had sent officially to purchase a copy; and that they claimed £20 for each separate copy of the National Reformer published. Another communication came from W. H. Melvill, Esq., Solicitor to the Inland Revenue Office, insisting upon his compliance with the requirements of the statute. Mr Bradlaugh replied intimating his refusal, and stating that he was prepared to contest the matter. He also addressed a short public letter to the Commissioners: —

"You have," he writes, "taken the pains to officially remind me of an Act of Parliament, passed in 1819, avowedly for the suppression of cheap Democratic and Freethought literature, and you require me to comply with its provisions, such provisions being absolutely prohibitory to the further appearance of this journal. With all humility, I am obliged to bid you defiance; you may kill the National Reformer, but it will not commit suicide. Before you destroy the paper we shall have to fight the question as far as my means will permit me."

The Government showed itself in so little hurry to notice Mr Bradlaugh's defiance that he announced the suspension of the "defence fund" in the hope that the Government had "reconsidered its hasty intimations." My father's warlike spirit appears to have made him half regretful that all these preliminary threatenings seemed about to result in nothing more serious, for he believed he "should have made a good fight for the liberty of the press;" although, on the other hand, he was, of course, "delighted to be let alone," as he could not afford "to go to jail," and "jail" would have been the natural termination to his defeat and the Government triumph. The hopes and fears, of his suspense were, however, at length brought to an end, and the next issue of the National Reformer (May 24) appeared with the words "Prosecuted by Her Majesty's Government" printed in large black type on the front page; and this announcement was so continued until the end of the proceedings, giving to the journal – despised and rejected by its contemporaries as it was – quite a distinguished appearance.

In fact, the public could hardly have read his words as to the possibility of a reconsideration by the Government, when he received an ominously worded writ40 from the Solicitor's Department, Somerset House, for the recovery of two penalties of £50 and £20 attaching to the publication and sale of the paper; and it may be remarked that the claim of these sums of £50 and £20 meant considerably more than would appear to the eye of the uninitiated, for it meant £50 "for each and every day" since publication, and £20 "for each and every copy" published, so that the amount of the penalties really claimed was something tremendous. On these two numbers alone, at the very lowest estimate, it must have reached somewhere about a quarter of a million of money, "The Defence Fund" was of course re-opened; for, as we shall see later on, Mr Bradlaugh had by this time gained plenty of personal experience as to the cost of litigation, and opposing the Government law officers promised largely in the way of expense. Hosts of small subscribers sent their small sums to swell the funds for the defence of the persecuted and prosecuted paper. Meetings were held, and a petition for the repeal of the Statutes of William and George was immediately got up. One of the first to be presented was one from Mr Bradlaugh himself, which was laid before the House on May 25th by Mr John Stuart Mill; on the same day Mr Crawford presented one from Mr Austin Holyoake; and later on people in various parts of the country, sent in petitions through their respective members. These petitions and the general agitation soon began to have their effect, and resulted in a meeting of members being convened to be held in one of the Committee Rooms of the House, to consider the proper action to be taken. Men like James Watson, who had suffered imprisonment for his defence of the liberty of the press; Richard Moore, whose name was well known in those days for his efforts to promote political freedom; and Mr C. D. Collet, who had worked untiringly for political reforms: such men as these came forward with help and advice, as well as many others who, like Edward Truelove and Austin Holyoake, were intimately associated with my father. On the 28th May he received an "information" from the law officers of the Crown, but, curiously enough, it was undated. No one who knows anything of Mr Bradlaugh will need to be told that this slip did not pass unnoticed, and on the following day, with the view of gaining a slight extension of the time to plead, he applied to Mr Baron Bramwell to order the withdrawal of the information. Baron Bramwell made the order applied for, and the solicitor to the Inland Revenue amended his document the same day.

From this "information," with its customary confusion of legal jargon retailed to clients at so much per folio, we may extricate three essential points, which I will put plainly in as many lines, viz., that Mr Bradlaugh was being proceeded against for (1) publishing the National Reformer; for (2) being the proprietor of it; and for (3) selling the paper so published and owned "at a less price than sixpence, to wit, at the price of twopence."

These last words were pregnant with meaning, for, as my father wrote at the time, "If the price was sixpence I should not be prosecutable; it is only cheap blasphemy and sedition which is liable to be suppressed." The rich might read the covert blasphemies of an affectedly pious and unaffectedly sixpenny weekly journal, or dally over expensive and erudite treatises which were openly heretical; but ignorance and religion were necessary to the masses to keep them in proper subjection, and woe betide those rash men who ventured to throw open to these the door of the Chamber of Knowledge! Has not this been the law of England, and is it not in fact the sentiment of certain Englishmen even to-day?

As the particulars conveyed in this formidable "information" differed somewhat from those furnished in the earlier subpoena ad respondum, Mr Bradlaugh applied to the Courts to compel further and better particulars concerning the penalties for which judgment was prayed. This application was heard on the 30th May, in the Court of Exchequer, before Mr Justice Montague Smith, and was opposed by counsel (of whom there was quite an array) on behalf of the Crown. After a "lengthy and rather sharp passage of arms" the Judge decided in favour of the application, and ordered the solicitor to the Inland Revenue to "deliver to the defendant a further and better account in writing of the particulars of the statutes referred to in the 3rd and 6th counts."41 This victory over the law officers of the Crown was of trifling consequence, except as giving a little additional time for pleading, and as showing his opponents that they had to deal with a man ready to see and ready to use every advantage given him. This second victory, small perhaps as bearing on the final issues, was of vast moral importance, for it forced the Crown to state that they relied on the obnoxious statute of George III. for the enforcement of the 3rd and 6th counts. The assistant-solicitor, Stephen Dowell, Esq., made this admission in the briefest possible language, abandoning the "to wits" and other ornamental phraseology of the original wordy information. On the 1st June Mr Bradlaugh entered four pleas in his defence; but it was now the turn of the law officers of the Crown to interpose, and they objected that a defendant might only plead one plea, and referred their opponent to the 21 James I., cap. iv. sec. 4, as bearing on the case. The letter conveying this objection was put into my father's hands at Euston Station just as he was leaving by the 2.45 train for Northampton, the suffrages of which town he was then seeking to win for the first time. That very day was the last for giving notice for the next sittings, and half-past three was the latest time available on that day. Mr Bradlaugh felt himself in a position of considerable embarrassment. There was no time for consideration; he doubted the accuracy of the Government, but he was not acquainted with the wording of the statute of James; his train was on the point of leaving for Northampton, and some decision must be come to immediately. He dispatched a clerk to Somerset House with authority to modify his plea according to the terms of the solicitor's letter, but reserving his right to inquire into the matter, and take such course upon it as the law permitted.

On his return from Northampton, he went at once to Messrs Spottiswoode, the Queen's Printers, and there he learned that the statute of James was "not only out of print, but had not been asked for within the memory of the oldest employee in the Queen's Printing Office." On referring to the Statute Book, he arrived at the opinion that Mr Melvill was once more in error, and therefore went himself to Somerset House, where, to his "great surprise," he found that the Government lawyers were no better informed than himself, and merely sheltered themselves under an opinion of the counsel to the Treasury that he had no right to plead more than one plea. Upon hearing this, Mr Bradlaugh immediately wrote Mr Melvill that unless he at once pointed out the authority under which his right of pleading was limited to "Not Guilty," he should apply to a judge at chambers to have his pleas reinstated. Mr Melvill replied on the same day repeating his declaration, but without giving his authority. The next day (Friday, June 5th) Mr Bradlaugh was served with a rule that the case should be tried by a special jury, and that the jury should be nominated on the Tuesday following. On Saturday the application to reinstate the pleas was heard before Mr Justice Willes. After a great deal of discussion, the judge at length endorsed the summons with a declaration giving Mr Bradlaugh liberty to raise upon the trial all the issues involved in his pleas.