and shame, as against the whole trend and efforts of my life.  I am thankful to say that Dr. Anna Kingsford answered my articles, and I readily inserted her replies in the paper in which mine had appeared—­our National Reformer—­and she touched that question of the moral sense to which my nature at once responded.  Ultimately, I looked carefully into the subject, found that vivisection abroad was very different from vivisection in England, saw that it was in very truth the fiendishly cruel thing that its opponents alleged, and destroyed my partial defence of even its less brutal form.

1882 saw no cessation of the struggles in which Mr. Bradlaugh and those who stood by him were involved.  On February 7th he was heard for the third time at the Bar of the House of Commons, and closed his speech with an offer that, accepted, would have closed the contest.  “I am ready to stand aside, say for four or five weeks, without coming to that table, if the House within that time, or within such time as its great needs might demand, would discuss whether an Affirmation Bill should pass or not.  I want to obey the law, and I tell you how I might meet the House still further, if the House will pardon me for seeming to advise it.  Hon. members have said that would be a Bradlaugh Relief Bill.  Bradlaugh is more proud than you are.  Let the Bill pass without applying to elections that have taken place previously, and I will undertake not to claim my seat, and when the Bill has passed I will apply for the Chiltern Hundreds.  I have no fear.  If I am not fit for my constituents, they shall dismiss me, but you never shall.  The grave alone shall make me yield.”  But the House would do nothing.  He had asked for 100,000 signatures in favour of his constitutional right, and on February 8th, 9th, and 10th 1,008 petitions, bearing 241,970 signatures, were presented; the House treated them with contemptuous indifference.  The House refused to declare his seat vacant, and also refused to allow him to fill it, thus half-disfranchising Northampton, while closing every avenue to legal redress.  Mr. Labouchere—­who did all a loyal colleague could do to assist his brother member—­brought in an Affirmation Bill; it was blocked.  Mr. Gladstone, appealed to support the law declared by his own Attorney-General, refused to do anything.  An impasse was created, and all the enemies of freedom rejoiced.  Out of this position of what the Globe called “quiet omnipotence” the House was shaken by an audacious defiance, for on February 21st the member it was trying to hold at arm’s length took the oath in its startled face, went to his seat, and—­waited events.  The House then expelled him—­and, indeed, it could scarcely do anything else after such defiance—­and Mr. Labouchere moved for a new writ, declaring that Northampton was ready, its “candidate was Charles Bradlaugh, expelled this House.”  Northampton, ever steadfast, returned him for the third time—­the vote in his favour