rlessly
endeavored to find a practical solution."

The _British Journal of Homaeopathy_ wrote:

"Though quite out of the province of our journal, we cannot refrain from
stating that this work is unquestionably the most remarkable one, in many
respects, we have ever met with. Though we differ _toto coelo_ from the
author in his views of religion and morality, and hold some of his
remedies to tend rather to a dissolution than a reconstruction of
society, yet we are bound to admit the benevolence and philanthropy of
his motives. The scope of the work is nothing less than the whole field
of political economy."

Ernest Jones and others wrote yet more strongly, but out of all these
Charles Bradlaugh alone has been selected for reproach, and has had the
peculiar views of the anonymous author fathered on himself. Why? The
reason is not far to seek. None of the other writers are active Radical
politicians, dangerous to the luxurious idleness of the non-producing but
all-consuming "upper classes" of society. These know how easy it is to
raise social prejudice against a man by setting afloat the idea that he
desires to "abolish marriage and the home". It is the most convenient
poniard and the one most certain to wound. Therefore those whose
profligacy is notorious, who welcome into their society the Blandfords,
Aylesburys, and St. Leonards, rave against a man as a "destroyer of
marriage" whose life is pure, and whose theories on this, as it happens,
are "orthodox", merely because his honest Atheism shames their
hypocritical professions, and his sturdy Republicanism menaces their
corrupt and rotting society.

XIII.

Sometimes my lecturing experiences were not of the smoothest. In June,
1875, I visited Darwen in Lancashire, and found that stone-throwing was
considered a fair argument to be addressed to "the Atheist lecturer". On
my last visit to that place in May, 1884, large and enthusiastic
audiences attended the lectures, and not a sign of hostility was to be
seen outside the hall. At Swansea, in March, 1876, the fear of violence
was so great that no local friend had the courage to take the chair for
me (a guarantee against damage to the hall had been exacted by the
proprietor). I had to march on to the platform in solitary state,
introduce myself, and proceed with my lecture. If violence had been
intended, none was offered: it would have needed much brutality to charge
on to a platform occupied by a solitary woman. (