DARLING AND DEPTFORD 307 



and on these statements being published, Peters com- 

 menced an action for libel against Bradlaugh. 



At that time there was a vacancy for the Deptford 

 Constituency, and Darling was the Unionist candidate 

 against Evelyn, a very popular local candidate. 

 Bradlaugh bestirred himself very energetically over this 

 election, and kept repeating again and again his story 

 about Lord Salisbury having given 25 to promote riots, 

 and how he could bring his lordship to book in twenty- 

 four hours if the law's delays were dispensed with. 



This being the state of affairs, there came to me, on the 

 afternoon of 22nd February 1888, two accredited Unionist 

 agents from Deptford with the information that, so far 

 from being able to bring Lord Salisbury to book in twenty- 

 four hours, Bradlaugh would next day apply in chambers 

 for a month's extension of time to deliver his defence in 

 the action which Peters had brought against him. I was 

 asked to publish these facts in our issue which was just 

 about to go to press, and send down several thousand 

 copies for distribution at the docks and in the constituency 

 generally. I verified the correctness of the story and then 

 wrote the following, which was published next day : 



The obvious insincerity of Mr Bradlaugh ... is proved by the 

 fact that an action for libel has been brought against Mr Bradlaugh 

 by Mr Peters, which will raise the identical issue so loudly clamoured 

 for by Mr Bradlaugh. Of course it will not give Mr Bradlaugh 

 so good an advertisement as he desires, but it will prove whether 

 he committed perjury or not. 



It will hardly be credited by those who are aware of Mr Brad- 

 laugh's ostensibly raging desire to clear his character from the 

 imputation of perjury, that at this very moment he is privately 

 asking for time as he is not prepared to defend himself. On this 

 very day (Thursday) Mr Bradlaugh 's solicitors will appear before 

 Master Manley Smith in Chambers, craving a month's extension 

 of the period in which their client is to deli ver his defence in the 

 action brought against him by Mr Peters, who, he declared, received 

 Lord Salisbury's cheque. This is a pretty state of things truly. 

 The man who has publicly alleged on numerous occasions that he 

 can at any time within twenty-four hours prove his assertion as 

 to Lord Salisbury's cheque, to be at one and the same time roaring 



