ew more of English politics and had a far
shrewder notion of political methods than I had found among the ordinary
"diners-out" in "society". They were of the "uneducated" class despised
by "gentlemen" and had not the vote, but politically they were far better
educated than their social superiors, and were far better fitted to
discharge the duties of citizenship.

On May 16th I attended, for the first time, the Annual Conference called
by the National Secular Society. It was held at Manchester, in the
Society's rooms in Grosvenor Street, and it is interesting and
encouraging to note how the Society has grown and strengthened since that
small meeting held nearly ten years ago. Mr. Bradlaugh was elected
President; Messrs. A. Trevelyan, T. Slater, C. Watts, C.C. Cattell, R.A.
Cooper, P.A.V. Le Lubez, N. Ridgway, G.W. Foote, G.H. Reddalls, and Mrs.
Besant Vice Presidents. Messrs. Watts and Standring were elected as
Secretary and Assistant-Secretary--both offices were then honorary, for
the Society was too poor to pay the holders--and Mr. Le Lubez Treasurer.
The result of the Conference was soon seen in the energy infused into the
Freethought propaganda, and from that time to this the Society has
increased in numbers and in influence, until that which was scarcely more
than a skeleton has become a living power in the land on the side of all
social and political reforms. The Council for 1875 consisted of but
thirty-nine members, including President, Vice-Presidents, and Secretary,
and of these only nine were available as a Central Executive. Let
Freethinkers compare this meagre list with the present, and then let them
"thank" man "and take courage".

Lecturing at Leicester in June, I came for the first time across a
falsehood of which I have since heard plenty. An irate Christian declared
that I was responsible for a book entitled the "Elements of Social
Science", which was, he averred, the "Bible of Secularists". I had never
heard of the book, but as he insisted that it was in favor of the
abolition of marriage, and that Mr. Bradlaugh agreed with it, I promptly
contradicted him, knowing that Mr. Bradlaugh's views on marriage were
conservative rather than revolutionary. On enquiry afterwards I found
that the book in question had been written some years before by a Doctor
of Medicine, and had been sent for review by its publisher to the
_National Reformer_ among other papers. I found further that it consisted
of three parts;