ugh saw this,
though he said nothing, when the demonstration committee called upon him
a few days before Bloody Sunday. He told them that he had an
engagement in the provinces on that day, but if they would postpone the
demonstration until the following Sunday he would himself lead it to
Trafalgar-square. His offer was not accepted, however; for the committee
resented the condition he stipulated, namely, that he should have
absolute control of the arrangements. They thought he was taking too
much upon himself. They did not reflect that if he who takes power
without responsibility is a despot, he who takes responsibility without
power is a fool. It was their action, and not his, that lost the battle.

Mr. Bradlaugh made no public parade of his brave offer. It was not his
way. But it is due to his memory that it should be put on record, so
that posterity may know the extent of his generous courage.

There can be no doubt, I think, that Mr. Bradlaugh was less popular with
the working-classes in London after he took peaceable possession of his
seat in Parliament. The London masses love a fighter, and while he was
battling for his seat he was, in my opinion, the most popular figure in
the metropolis. The Radical workmen never tired of his demonstrations.
He could bring fifty or a hundred thousand of them together at a few
days' notice. And the other speakers were, for the most part, only
padding to fill up the time. It was "Bradlaugh" the multitude came for.
They waited to hear him speak, they applauded him to the skies, and when
he had done they dispersed. And on such occasions he was magnificent. No
one can conceive the power of the man who never saw him at one of
these demonstrations. He stood like a Pharos, and the light of his face
kindled the crests of the living waves around him.

But he was out of sympathy with the Socialist movement, which began to
spread just as he took his seat; and being assiduous in Parliament,
he was drawn more and more from "the Clubs," where his libellers
and detractors wagged their tongues to some purpose. His strong
individualism, as well as his practical good sense, made him bitterly
hostile to the mildest proposals for putting the people's industrial
interests into the hands of Government departments. And being a man of
most positive quality, it was natural that he should excite the hatred
of the more fanatical Socialists; a sentiment which, I cannot help
thinking, he exasperated by his