BRADLAUGH'S PARTY AND OURS 311 



object was to reply to the insinuations made against Lord Salisbury 

 and the Conservative Party, and incidentally to aid the latter in 

 the Deptford election. He has been duly fined, and tMere the 

 matter ends, so far as St Stephen's Review is concerned. 



It remains to be added that when the Peters v. Brad- 

 laugh case came on for trial Bradlaugh admitted in the 

 witness-box that he had no defence, apologised for what 

 he had said about Lord Salisbury's cheque, and the jury 

 assessed the damages he had to pay at 300. This, with 

 the costs, was promptly subscribed by his party, and I 

 wrote, on 28th April 1888 : 



It is not a point on which we care to dwell, but we may be 

 pardoned for just adverting to it. Our case with Mr Bradlaugh 

 cost about ^200. No one disputes that we acted for the Con- 

 servative Party at Deptford yet we might have lain in Holloway, 

 or have been sold up or otherwise ruined, and not a farthing would 

 have come from the Conservative Party. There would have been 

 letters of sympathy oh dear, yes ! and lots of offers to mention 

 the matter to others, but no hard cash. It is for this reason that 

 we are amused when foolish persons talk of St Stephen's Review 

 being subsidised by the Conservative Party. We are, fortunately, 

 able to pay our own fines, even when incurred for and on behalf 

 of the party. It is better that it should be so. 



That was an end of the matter save that Lord Salisbury 

 wrote me a letter saying that he fully understood what 

 my motives had been and that the opinion expressed by 

 the judges was not generally approved. 



I should add, however, that the Crown prosecution 

 instituted before I went to America in 1887 against our 

 printer and publisher, for libelling the Middlesex Magis- 

 trates, had ended somewhat farcically some time before 

 this Contempt of Court case. The Attorney-General 

 and the Solicitor-General had both appeared to support 

 the dignity of the Crown, an-d the two defendants, of course, 

 were on view, the printer, Gate, being a portly old gentle- 

 man of considerable size, and the publisher, Tarry, on a 

 smaller scale. 



Mr Attorney, after some preliminary observations as to 



