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

Book

Open Original Text

 101: No verbatim report of this discussion was ever
published.]

The year 1868 was a terribly busy one: the Irish question (of which I
will speak later), the first Government prosecution of the _National
Reformer_, and his first Parliamentary candidature for Northampton,
kept my father constantly hard at work. During the year he lectured
frequently in London, besides visiting Grimsby, Bedlington, Newcastle,
Hull, West Bromwich, Birmingham, Kettering, Northampton, Huddersfield,
Bradford, Sheffield, Ashton, Manchester, Bury, Edinburgh, Glasgow,
Keighley, Sunderland, Plymouth, and other towns.

At Huddersfield he was always welcomed with the utmost enthusiasm,
although some of the inhabitants still seemed determined to resist his
visits. As the theatre was too small to accommodate all his auditors,
the Huddersfield Committee took the circus for some addresses which
he had arranged to deliver in the town in March. The Improvement
Commissioners, however, eager to imitate the conduct of Mr Morton
Price of a year and a half before, drew back from their agreement
to let. Then a curious thing happened. When he was aware of the
behaviour of the Commissioners, Mr Morton Price himself offered the
Huddersfield Freethinkers the use of the theatre; and not only did he
let it to them, but he gave a special advertisement of the meetings.
The advertisement was so peculiarly and significantly worded that I
reproduce it:

 "Theatre Royal, Huddersfield.

 "Mr Morton Price begs to inform the nobility, gentry, and general
 public of Huddersfield that, finding his efforts to preserve his
 theatre from Atheism and Profanity so _appreciative and remunerative_,
 he has let the said theatre for a series of lectures by Mr Bradlaugh,
 the 'Iconoclast,' on Sunday next, March 15th, 1868."

In connection with the Manchester lectures also an amusing incident
took place. It may be remembered that a man named William Murphy was
about this time lecturing in different parts of England on behalf of
the Protestant Church in Ireland, and his conduct had been so strange,
and his language so inflammatory, that in the north he had been the
cause of some very serious "No Popery" riots. In Manchester he was
arrested, and his lectures practically prohibited. My father going to
Manchester just after this prohibition, it occurred to certain good
Christians that this might perhaps be turned to account against him.
Consequently, when he arrived in Manchester on the Saturday night
(September 5th) prior to his Sunday lectures, he found all kinds of
rumours in circulation, friends even telling him that there were
warrants out for his arrest. This was much exaggerated, and what
really had happened was this: On the Friday, at the City Police Court,
before the stipendiary magistrate, Mr Fowler, an application had been
made by Mr Bennett, solicitor, for proceedings to be taken against Mr
Charles Bradlaugh, then announced to deliver a series of lectures in
the Free Trade Hall on Sunday. "The sworn information of a respectable
householder, living in Boundary Street, Chorlton-on-Medlock," was
forthcoming that the lectures could not take place "without giving
rise to a breach of the peace." There was no contention that any overt
acts of violence had ever been committed on account of these lectures;
nevertheless, "the respectable householder"--whose name was afterwards
stated to be Smith--thought they ought to be prohibited, "as in the
case of Mr Murphy." Mr Fowler argued the cases were very different,
and suggested that Mr Bennett should look up his law, and then, if he
thought his position satisfactory, he could attend on the following
morning with his witnesses. So much, indeed, Mr Bradlaugh had gathered
from the London papers read on his journey northwards. Arrived at his
journey's end, he was still in suspense as to what had happened that
day, and the friends who met the train could not set his anxieties at
rest. However, from an evening paper he learned that Mr Bennett had
not found any further support in law for his application, which the
magistrate told him must consequently fail. He said further:

 "You say this case is similar to that of William Murphy, whose case
 was heard in this Court on Tuesday last. But it appears to me very
 different. We must be very careful indeed as magistrates not to
 interfere in any way with the freedom of discussion, and in no way
 by the decision of Tuesday, as far as I can see, have we done so.
 In the case before us on Tuesday it was proved on oath that William
 Murphy was about to deliver a series of lectures, which he had already
 given in other towns, where, from his own conduct, and the threatening
 attitude he assumed by producing a revolver, and other acts, very
 serious riots had arisen, followed by great destruction of property
 and even danger to life; and from what was proved before us as to
 what had already taken place in this city since the announcement of
 these lectures, it appeared there was every probability of the same
 thing occurring here. To prevent this--exercising the power which as
 magistrates, in my opinion, we undoubtedly have--we called upon the
 defendant, William Murphy, to enter upon his recognisances for his
 good behaviour; you mark the words, 'good behaviour,' Mr Bennett.
 That, of course, includes keeping the peace; and under similar
 circumstances to those proved before us, we should certainly do the
 same whether the defendant was Roman Catholic, Protestant, or of any
 other denomination. Now, I think you have entirely failed to show in
 the application you made yesterday that any such result has ensued, or
 is likely to ensue, from the lectures about to be given by the person
 against whom you apply. Therefore the application is refused."

The upshot of this application at the Police Court was a wide
advertisement of the lectures, an intense excitement, and anxiety to
hear the lecturer. The _Saturday Review_, true to the feelings of
bitter animosity which it cherished against Mr Bradlaugh, thought that

 "it might perhaps be plausibly argued that the same reasons which
 weighed with them [the magistrates] when they refused to restrain Mr
 Iconoclast Bradlaugh from attacking and insulting all religions, might
 also have influenced them when they were asked to restrain Murphy from
 insulting one form of the Christian faith."

The _Saturday Review_ elsewhere spoke of Manchester as having been
"the theatre of riots" in consequence of Murphy's behaviour and of the
"savage brutality" exhibited. No sort of disturbance could be alleged
as resulting from Mr Bradlaugh's lectures, but anything was "plausible"
to the _Saturday Review_ as against him.

Of course this rushing about from, city to city, and several hours'
speaking in crowded halls sandwiched in between the long railway
journeys, meant a great physical strain.

In February my father tells how he had travelled on the previous
Saturday in a tremendous storm to Morpeth for Bedlington, arriving at
Morp

Previous Next