http://www.bradlaugh.com/index.htmlold stuffendan@bradlaugh.comCopyright 2010 Dan Allosso2013-03-26T11:39:04-05:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:42:41 -0500dan@bradlaugh.comNone2013-03-26T11:39:04-05:00http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/c197edbd03ff93854f60360a56eb9072-6.html#unique-entry-id-6http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/c197edbd03ff93854f60360a56eb9072-6.html#unique-entry-id-6

Not sure of the date. Something in the back of my mind says 1858, but I’ll have to go hunting through my sources to find out for sure.]]>dan@bradlaugh.compress comment2010-01-06T18:39:38-06:00http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/10c657dc97d181a9fb1d87255de43905-5.html#unique-entry-id-5http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/10c657dc97d181a9fb1d87255de43905-5.html#unique-entry-id-5The March 1890 Review of Reviews summarized an article by CB in the Fortnightly Review, on proposals to legislate an 8 hour workday. Bradlaugh's consistent radical distrust of government interference into provate affairs is clearly evident in his assertion that while shorter hours are desirable, legislation is not the way to achieve them. This made him unpopular with some of the younger labor activists, who did not remember his record of supporting labor. Ironically, it also made him popular with some of the conservatives who had previously opposed him.

]]>dan@bradlaugh.comculture2010-01-05T08:38:28-06:00http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/68c514f4c882b6f1a860f162eb886f16-4.html#unique-entry-id-4http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/68c514f4c882b6f1a860f162eb886f16-4.html#unique-entry-id-4From May 9 1883 Judy, or The London Serio-Comic Journal, p. 226

"Bradlaugh" is apparently a proper noun among Londoners, meaning irreligious. "Are you a religious man?" "No, I believe in Bradlaugh."

]]>dan@bradlaugh.comculture2010-01-04T17:17:15-06:00http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/7430149fcb4fa1523de604a9e21444ca-3.html#unique-entry-id-3http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/7430149fcb4fa1523de604a9e21444ca-3.html#unique-entry-id-3A 12-letter word, with an R four from the end. Clue: "Charles Bradlaugh was one." In 1933 (42 years after his death). Seems he made an impression on British popular culture, at least among avid readers.

(from The Bookman Dec. 1933, p. 206)

]]>dan@bradlaugh.compress comment2010-01-03T12:19:57-06:00http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/9cea3bb07b3425f95df1386843879e7a-2.html#unique-entry-id-2http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/9cea3bb07b3425f95df1386843879e7a-2.html#unique-entry-id-2“Notes on New Books”
Golden Hours: An Illustrated Magazine for Any Time and All Times
1881
p. 504

In the context of comments on a book by F. Morell Holmes on Exeter Hall, the reviewer comments on a recent rally held there to protest Bradlaugh’s 1880 election to Parliament. Quoting from The Rock (a Church of England paper):




The reviewer goes on to suggest that “no one who respects the apostolic injunction to ‘fear God’ and ‘honour the king’ given to Christians under the inspiration of God himself, will neglect to sign petitions to the House of Commons for the exclusion of Mr. Bradlaugh from Parliament, forms for which will be forwarded to any applicant by The Protestant Alliance, 9, Strand, London, W.C.”

There’s really no arguing with this point of view, which of course is pretty much Bradlaugh’s point.]]>dan@bradlaugh.comadvertisement2010-01-02T09:59:10-06:00http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/0c80f02f0314b6130ad6a72cb01a24b9-1.html#unique-entry-id-1http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/0c80f02f0314b6130ad6a72cb01a24b9-1.html#unique-entry-id-1The London Dialectical Society was established in 1867. According to Answers.com, it was:

A British professional association that in the late 1800s investigated the phenomena of Spiritualism. Established in 1867, the London Dialectical Society was a highly regarded association of professional individuals. With the appearance and popularity of Spiritualism in England, the society resolved on January 26, 1869, "to investigate the phenomena alleged to be Spiritual Manifestations, and to report thereon." A committee was convened on which 33 members were appointed: H. G. Atkinson, G. Wheatley Bennett, J. S. Bergheim, Charles Bradlaugh (later a famous atheist leader), G. Fenton Cameron, George Cary, E. W. Cox, Rev. C. Maurice Davies, D. H. Dyte, Mrs. D. H. Dyte, James Edmunds, Mrs. James Edmunds, James Gannon, Grattan Geary, William B. Gower, Robert Hannah, Jenner Gale Hillier, Mrs. J. G. Hillier, Henry Jeffery, H. D. Jencken, Albert Kisch, J. H. Levy, Joseph Maurice, Isaac L. Meyers, B. M. Moss, Robert Quelch, Thomas Reed, G. Russel Roberts, W. H. Sweepstone, William Volckman, Alfred Russel Wallace (later a famous psychic researcher), Josiah Webber, and Horace S. Yeomans. Thomas H. Huxley and George Henry Lewes were both invited but refused, Huxley stating that even "supposing the phenomena to be genuine, they do not interest me."

Of course, CB was already a “famous atheist leader.” Interesting group of names, though. I should probably look at them more closely.

Based on these ads from the London Examiner of 1871 and 1872, it seems Bradlaugh was looking to shift their focus, away from spiritualism and toward politics and religious controversy. But he remained active in the society, even when it was pursuing spirits and holding seances. The authorized biographies (Headingley and Bradlaugh-Bonner) mention the society as a place where CB lectured, and particularly where Prince Jerome Napoleon went to see him speak, leading to their meeting and friendship.
]]>dan@bradlaugh.compress comment2010-01-01T15:02:43-06:00http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/ee8acb61a5d06006cdaf5f0a4d35d725-0.html#unique-entry-id-0http://www.bradlaugh.com/primary/files/ee8acb61a5d06006cdaf5f0a4d35d725-0.html#unique-entry-id-0“Socialism in Europe”
The Review of Reviews 1:6
June, 1890
p. 492


Text of Quote:



(source: Proquest)

Comment: Interesting prediction. Did any of the socialists see this? The conservatives? How original was Bradlaugh's analysis, I wonder?

It’s going to take a close reading of Bradlaugh’s articles and especially his offhand comments and political asides in the mainstream press, The National Reformer and possibly Our Corner, to decide whether he really changed over this period, or if the world changed around him. Probably a little of both. Moral? Old radicals aren’t the same people they were in their youths. Or, one decade’s hero is another decade’s out of touch old fogey? Or, somewhere along the way, the left stopped making sense? ]]>