Kitabı oku: «Charles Bradlaugh: a Record of His Life and Work, Volume 2 (of 2)», sayfa 34
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
MR. BRADLAUGH'S BIRTHPLACE
On p. 3 it is stated that Mr. Bradlaugh was born at No. 5, Bacchus Walk, Hoxton, but this appears to be an error, of which I only became aware in 1905. In that year the London County Council had under consideration the question of placing a tablet on the house in which my father was born, and they wrote me for the purpose of obtaining documentary or other evidence as to the identity of the house. As a result of careful inquiries I found that the birthplace of my father was No. 31, and not No. 5, as I had previously believed. As it was possible that the street had been renumbered, the London County Council undertook to try to find out, and Mr. Gomme, Clerk to the Council, subsequently wrote me that although this point could not be determined with exactitude:
"The probabilities are that the street had not been renumbered since the date of Bradlaugh's birth. If such is the case the house in which he was born has disappeared, for about 1883, No. 31 Bacchus Walk was with a block of other houses in the street demolished to provide a site for the present St. John's Road School, Hoxton. On my reporting these facts, the Committee of the Council dealing with the matter regretfully decided that under the circumstances they could take no further action with regard to this house.
"It will interest you to know that the Committee have also taken steps with a view to the erection of a tablet on No. 20, Circus Road, S. John's Wood, where your father died, after having resided there for a considerable period. The owner of the house, however, refused to consent to the erection of a tablet, and the Committee were thus compelled to abandon the idea of indicating this house."
H. B. B.
APPENDIX II
LORD DUFFERIN AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH
The following significant correspondence between Lord Dufferin and Mr. Bradlaugh is now (1908) included for the first time in this biography.
Lord Dufferin's letters are written throughout in his own handwriting, and the draft of my father's letter is written by his own hand. I am the more fortunate in having this, because it was very rare indeed for him either to make a draft of his letters or to write at such length. The occasion was, however, one of more than usual importance. Lord Dufferin sent with his letter a copy of the speech he delivered at the St. Andrew's dinner, Calcutta, on November 30, 1888, ten days before he ceased to be Viceroy of India. It makes a booklet of 21 quarto pages, and it is to this that reference is made in the letters.
H. B. B.
"Lord Dufferin presents his compliments to Mr. Bradlaugh, and, well knowing that even his bitterest opponents are ready to recognise not only Mr. Bradlaugh's ability, but also his perfect sincerity, uprightness and honesty of purpose, he takes the liberty of addressing him in reference to a lecture which Mr. Bradlaugh delivered in the Tyne Theatre at Newcastle on the subject of our Indian Empire. In that lecture, though Mr. Bradlaugh did not refer to Lord Dufferin in unduly harsh or unfriendly terms, he did certainly misrepresent both the words and the tenor of his Calcutta speech. This probably arose from the fact of the Times correspondent having only telegraphed those parts of the speech with which he himself especially sympathised. Under these circumstances, Lord Dufferin has taken the liberty of sending Mr. Bradlaugh a full copy of the speech as it was delivered. The statements in Mr. Bradlaugh's lecture to which Lord Dufferin particularly objects are: – First, that Lord Dufferin has misrepresented the avowed views of the Congress and its supporters. He can assure him that he has not done so. Mr. Bradlaugh may be quite certain that, before saying what he did, Lord Dufferin took every precaution to verify his references, and that the proceedings of the Congress and of the Committees whose conclusions the Congress adopted, were precisely what he described. It is true, at the last meeting, thanks to the friendly warnings which Lord Dufferin had given, the attitude and suggestions of the Congress were much more reasonable and moderate.
"The second statement in Mr. Bradlaugh's address to which Lord Dufferin objects, is where he says that Lord Dufferin asserted that these Congresses were seditious. Again he begs to assure Mr. Bradlaugh that he never, either directly or by implication, gave utterance to such an opinion. He has always referred to the Congress in terms of sympathy and respect, and treated the members with great personal civility. What he criticised was the distribution, amongst an ignorant population, under the auspices of some ill-advised persons who were not even natives, but with the authority of the Congress, of pamphlets which were calculated to excite the hatred of the people against her Majesty's Government in India.
"Mr. Bradlaugh also seems to imply that Lord Dufferin has opposed himself to the native demands for a reform in the Civil Service. So far from this being the case, before the Congress even put forward any such suggestions, Lord Dufferin had appointed a Commission, with Sir Charles Aitchison (one of the most liberal-minded men that have ever been in India) as chairman, and some leading natives as members, to propound a scheme for the larger admission of natives into the higher ranks of the Civil Service. This Commission has recommended that over 120 offices now closed to natives should be thrown open to them.
"However, if Mr. Bradlaugh will only read Lord Dufferin's speech, Lord Dufferin thinks he will see that it is conceived in a totally different tone and spirit from that which Mr. Bradlaugh has himself imagined, and he may tell Mr. Bradlaugh in confidence – though, of course, he would desire that it should remain unknown to anyone else – that he himself has been doing his very best to forward such a reform of the Provincial Councils in India as Mr. Bradlaugh appears to advocate. In further illustration of his position, Lord Dufferin may mention that Mr. Yule, the gentleman who acted as chairman of the last Congress at Allahabad, was present on the occasion on which Lord Dufferin delivered the speech which Mr. Bradlaugh has criticised, and, at its conclusion, went out of his way to thank him for it as being calculated to do the very greatest good.
"Mr. Bradlaugh has also fallen into an error in considering that Lord Dufferin's speech is likely to cause embarrassment to Lord Lansdowne. It was intended, on the contrary, to produce the very opposite effect, and to smooth Lord Lansdowne's way for him; and it is in this light that both Lord Lansdowne himself and his friends regard it; for it is obvious that Lord Dufferin having undertaken the disagreeable task of pointing out the extravagances into which the Congress was being insensibly led, there will remain to Lord Lansdowne the agreeable duty of inaugurating whatever concessions it may be possible to make.
"In conclusion, Lord Dufferin hopes Mr. Bradlaugh will understand what perhaps is not readily appreciated by those who have not lived in India; namely, that the Government of India is perpetually fighting, on behalf of the great masses of the population, against the encroachments and usurpations of what may be called the specialised interests; for, unlike almost all other Governments, it is unconnected by ties of prejudice or self-interest with any particular class or section of the community it governs.
"Lord Dufferin is quite satisfied that Mr. Bradlaugh will forgive him for troubling him with this short letter of explanation.
"British Embassy, Rome."7th February, 1889."
(Draft Letter.)
"Mr. Bradlaugh, in acknowledging Lord Dufferin's 'private and confidential' letter of February 7th, desires to specially recognise the frank and more than kindly tone of that letter, and trusts that in the observations which Mr. Bradlaugh feels called upon to submit to Lord Dufferin's consideration, he may be pardoned if he ventures sometimes to wholly differ, even on statements of fact, from one so eminent, and one whose recent Vice-regal position entitles him to special respect and attention in matters concerning India. It is true that at the time of the Newcastle speech and until the receipt of the letter of February 7th, Mr. Bradlaugh had only seen the Calcutta speech as given in the Times, and he is exceedingly obliged to Lord Dufferin for the more accurate and complete report enclosed in his Lordship's letter. Perhaps Mr. Bradlaugh may be permitted to add that although the report of his own Newcastle speech as given in the Newcastle Daily Leader is very full and, on the whole, fairly accurate, it is necessarily not verbatim, and has appeared without any correction. The report in the Newcastle Daily Chronicle was less full, and though fair, has, in abbreviating, occasionally varied the meaning. This observation is only offered because of the importance the speech acquires by Lord Dufferin's notice of its purport. Mr. Bradlaugh, in charging Lord Dufferin with misrepresenting the avowed views of the Congress, was careful to express his opinion that Lord Dufferin had been misled by inaccurate information, and if now Mr. Bradlaugh had alone the Calcutta speech to guide him, he would still incline to that view; for the words on p. 9, line 26, 'the ideal authoritatively suggested, as I understand' seem to imply that Lord Dufferin spoke rather on information received than on his personal knowledge, but in view of Lord Dufferin's declaration that 'he took every precaution to verify his references, and that the proceedings of the Congress and of the Committees whose conclusions the Congress adopted were precisely what he described,' Mr. Bradlaugh trusts that he may be permitted to justify and maintain his criticism of Lord Dufferin's words as follows (Calcutta speech, p. 9, line 20, to p. 10, line 1): —
"'Some intelligent, loyal, patriotic, and well-meaning men are desirous of taking, I will not say a further step in advance, but a very big jump into the unknown – by the application to India of democratic methods of government and the adoption of a Parliamentary system, which England herself has only reached by slow degrees and through the discipline of many centuries of preparation. The ideal authoritatively suggested, as I understand, is the creation of a representative body or bodies in which the official element shall be in the minority who shall have the power of the purse, and who through this instrumentality shall be able to bring the British Executive into subjection to their will.'
"On this Mr. Bradlaugh ventures to refer Lord Dufferin to the only authoritative suggestion of which he is aware, i. e., the actual resolutions of the Congresses defining their 'tentative suggestions' of reform and which seem to him to so essentially contradict the understanding arrived at by Lord Dufferin that Mr. Bradlaugh requotes their tenor from Resolution 4, with its sub-sections, as printed in the report of the Calcutta Congress, which, he respectfully submits, completely justify his Newcastle speech; he believes that these resolutions were precisely re-affirmed at Madras and Allahabad: —
"'(1.) – The number of persons composing the Legislative Councils, both Provincial and of the Governor-General, to be materially increased. Not less than one-half the Members of such enlarged Councils to be elected. Not more than one-fourth to be officials, having seats ex-officio in such Councils, and not more than one-fourth to be Members, official or non-official, nominated by Government.
"'(2.) The right to elect members to the Provincial Councils to be conferred only on those classes and members of the community, primâ facie, capable of exercising it wisely and independently.'
And, after suggesting possible elective bodies, it concludes: —
"'But whatever system be adopted (and the details must be worked out separately for each province) care must be taken that all sections of the community and all great interests are adequately represented.'
In sub-section 6 providing that: —
"'All legislative measures and all financial questions, including all Budgets, whether these involve new or enhanced taxation or not, to be necessarily submitted to, and dealt with by, these Councils.'
And giving right of interpellation, it is
'provided that if the subject in regard to which the inquiry is made involves matters of foreign policy, military dispositions or strategy, or is otherwise of such a nature that, in the opinion of the Executive, the public interest would be materially imperilled by the communication of the information asked for, it shall be competent for them to instruct the ex-officio Members, or one of them, to reply accordingly and decline to furnish the information asked for.'
And by sub-section 7 it is expressly declared that: —
"'The Executive Government shall possess the power of overruling the decision arrived at by the majority of the Council in every case in which, in its opinion, the public interests would suffer by the acceptance of such decision.'
"As it was on the faith of his reading of these resolutions, which he had in his hand when speaking at Newcastle, that Mr. Bradlaugh made the statement to which Lord Dufferin objects, he ventures to submit that such resolutions show clearly (1) that there is no attempt whatever at 'the application to India of democratic methods of government'; or (2) at 'the adoption of a Parliamentary system which England herself has only reached by slow degrees'; (3) there is no creation of a representative body or bodies, there is simply the proposal that an existing body shall be enlarged and half of it made representative under special limitations of electorate; (4) the Executive is only mentioned to preserve it as paramount and with overruling power over the Legislative Councils which alone are meant or referred to; (5) though it is true that it is proposed that the purely 'official element' shall be a minority, as sitting ex-officio, it is also stated that a moiety of the Legislative Council shall be non-elected Government nominees, such nominees being either official or non-official as the Executive may decide.
"Mr. Bradlaugh notes that Lord Dufferin considers that 'the attitude and suggestions of the Allahabad Congress were much more reasonable and moderate,' and as Mr. Bradlaugh has not yet received any authorised report of that Congress he differs from Lord Dufferin with great hesitation; but so far as he is able to judge from the newspaper reports, and from the comparison of these with the official reports of the three previous Congresses, the attitude in each case was that of moderate statement of grievances with explicit declaration of loyalty to the British Empire. Mr. Bradlaugh feels that on this point Lord Dufferin, who tendered hospitality to the Congress of 1886, speaks with more perfect knowledge than himself, but, judging as an outsider, from the official reports and guided by the extremely amicable relations between Lord Dufferin as Viceroy and the Congress of 1886, Mr. Bradlaugh, whilst gladly recognising the justice of Lord Dufferin's judgment that the attitude and suggestions of the Congress just held were reasonable and moderate, can find no ground for supposing that there was any difference in these respects at Allahabad from the former Congresses at Bombay, Calcutta, or Madras.
"Mr. Bradlaugh is in the highest degree grateful to Lord Dufferin for his repudiation and contradiction of the view urged by Mr. Bradlaugh at Newcastle, that Lord Dufferin had described the Congresses as seditious. Mr. Bradlaugh trusts that he may be permitted to point out that in a question put on the notice paper of the House of Commons by Mr. J. M. Maclean, M.P., immediately on the publication in the Times of the telegraphic summary of Lord Dufferin's Calcutta speech, Mr. Maclean claimed, under cover of that speech, to describe the Congress as one which 'aims at destroying the security of English Rule in India.' On this point Mr. Bradlaugh, in speaking in the future, will take care that it shall be clearly understood that Lord Dufferin 'has always referred to the Congress in terms of sympathy and respect,' and Mr. Bradlaugh tenders to Lord Dufferin his sincere apology that, misled by the Times version and by Mr. Maclean's gloss, he attributed to Lord Dufferin any views hostile to the Congress. With reference to the publications to which Lord Dufferin refers, but which he does not specifically quote, it would ill become Mr. Bradlaugh, without more complete information, to do more than submit that he is unaware of any pamphlets issued by the authority of the Congress 'calculated to excite the hatred of the people against her Majesty's Government in India.' If Lord Dufferin refers to 'the Catechism,' Mr. Bradlaugh observes that the author appeals to the people 'to lay aside their petty jealousies and race antipathies and learn their duties as loyal citizens of the British Empire.'
"Mr. Bradlaugh does not think that, either at Newcastle or elsewhere, he has ever implied that Lord Dufferin was opposed to Indian Civil Service Reform, and he is glad to know that the natives of India may count on Lord Dufferin's powerful help. Mr. Bradlaugh has not yet had the opportunity of fully considering the report, and may possibly underrate its favourable character to the natives. The recommendations to open some 108 offices to natives must be considered with reference to the contention that, under the statutory service rules, at least 150 offices should be so open. Mr. Bradlaugh pleads guilty to a little confusion as to dates, probably the result of insufficient knowledge. Lord Dufferin speaks of the Commission (appointed October 4th, 1886) as 'before the Congress ever put forward any such suggestions.' Mr. Bradlaugh ventures to think that Lord Dufferin has overlooked the resolution on this subject of the Bombay Congress, December, 1885.
"As desired by Lord Dufferin, Mr. Bradlaugh has most carefully read the authorised report of his Lordship's Calcutta speech, and especially thanks Lord Dufferin for the confidential intimation 'that he himself has been doing his very best to forward such a reform of the Provincial Councils in India as Mr. Bradlaugh appears to advocate'; this Mr. Bradlaugh assumes is intended by the parts underlined by Lord Dufferin on p. 18; but it is respectfully submitted that the words on p. 17 might, without Lord Dufferin's kindly confidential assurance, not unreasonably have been held to imply that his Lordship charged the Congress with seeking to effectuate constitutional changes by a stroke of the pen and without deliberation, when, in fact, the very first resolution of the first Congress asked for enquiry by Royal Commission, and it is for such an enquiry that Mr. Bradlaugh has already placed a notice on the order book of the House of Commons.
"Mr. Bradlaugh is pleased to learn that he has fallen into error in considering that Lord Dufferin's speech was likely to cause embarrassment to Lord Lansdowne, and he entirely accepts Lord Dufferin's assurance that it was intended to produce the opposite effect; but, in justice to himself, he thinks it right to submit that confidential information from India leads him to the belief that same embarrassment has actually already arisen.
"Mr. Bradlaugh fears that, although he has left many points untouched, he will already have exhausted Lord Dufferin's patience, but he trusts that the generous disposition and courteous frankness which prompted Lord Dufferin's letter of the 7th will serve as excuse for any brusquerie in Mr. Bradlaugh's present letter."
"5, Upper Berkeley Street, W."22nd Feb., 1889.
"My dear Mr. Bradlaugh, —
"I hope you will forgive me for taking the liberty of addressing you in the above direct manner; but I am so sensible of the friendly tone of your letter of the 19th, and so shocked at having given so much trouble to a busy man like yourself, that I presume to slip into the more familiar way of writing.
"With regard to the points you raise in your letter: – one thing has evidently escaped your observation, namely, that my remarks in the main were not addressed specially to the Congress, but to 'some of our friends, who, etc., etc.,' and in this category I embraced all those, whether speakers, writers, or other persons, who (for the sake of briefness) I may denominate the advanced party in India. Again, where I said 'the idea authoritatively suggested as I understand,' I referred to a speech, or rather, I think, a letter of Mr. Hume's. Mr. Hume is the Chief Secretary of the Congress, and certainly speaks with authority, if not in the name of the Congress itself, at all events in that of the Congress party. I also had in my mind the speeches of the two previous Presidents of the Congress, as well as the manifestoes put forth by the Congress Press. The only respect in which I criticised the conduct of the Congress itself was in regard to its official sanction to the distribution of the pamphlets, and I do not think anybody can say that the terms I used were very severe. However, I am most unwilling to give you any further trouble in writing, but I should esteem it a great pleasure if I might be allowed to make your acquaintance, and to have an opportunity of talking over some of these matters with you. I make this suggestion because I believe I could not be doing a greater service both to India and to the public than by placing myself at your disposal in regard to any information you may desire to have about India. I shall be in town till next Thursday, when I return to Rome; but I shall be happy to wait upon you at any day or hour you may name, or to receive you here, if that should be more convenient to you. On Sunday I shall be engaged; but every other day up to the date of my departure I shall be free.
"Believe me, my dear Mr. Bradlaugh,"Yours sincerely,"Dufferin and Ava."
"5 Upper Berkeley Street, W."Feb. 24, 1889.
"My dear Mr. Bradlaugh, —
"Many thanks for your kind little note of to-day. It will give me the greatest pleasure to receive you here at 1.15 to-morrow, Monday.
"Yours sincerely,"Dufferin and Ava."
"British Embassy, Rome,
"2nd April, 1889.
"My dear Mr. Bradlaugh, —
"I am very much obliged to you for your kindness in sending me the notice of your motion. There are already indications of the willingness, both of the present Viceroy and of the Government at home, to modify the existing régime in India, and I have no doubt that you will obtain some satisfactory assurances in regard to, at all events a portion of your suggestions. I am strongly of opinion, however, that for the present it would be wiser to apply whatever reforms may be found desirable to the Provincial Councils, and to leave the Governor-General's Council untouched, except so far as allowing the Budget to be discussed, and giving to the members the right of asking questions under certain specified conditions. The Supreme Council of the Governor-General is almost always engaged in the consideration of large Imperial questions, in regard to which it would not be likely to receive any great assistance from the native members who might be added to it; and, even if this were not the case, it would be well to watch how the proposed changes in the Provincial Councils had worked. Moreover, I think our efforts should be applied rather to the decentralisation of our Indian Administration than to its greater unification, and I made considerable efforts in India to promote and expand this principle. In any event, I am sure the discussion which you will have provoked will prove very useful; and I am very glad that the conduct of it should be in the hands of a prudent, wise, and responsible person like yourself, instead of having been laid hold of by some adventurous franc-tireur, whose only object might possibly have been to let off a few fireworks for his own glorification.
"Yours sincerely,"Dufferin and Ava."
