and good report, when he was outcast as when he was triumphant, loving him with a deep, passionate devotion, as honourable to them as it was precious to him.  I have seen him cry like a child at evidences of their love for him, he whose courage no danger could daunt, and who was never seen to blench before hatred nor change his stern immobility in the face of his foes.  Iron to enmity, he was soft as a woman to kindness; unbending as steel to pressure, he was ductile as wax to love.  John Stuart Mill had the insight in 1868 to see his value, and the courage to recognise it.  He strongly supported his candidature, and sent a donation to his election expenses.  In his “Autobiography” he wrote (pp. 311, 312):—­

“He had the support of the working classes; having heard him speak I knew him to be a man of ability, and he had proved that he was the reverse of a demagogue by placing himself in strong opposition to the prevailing opinion of the Democratic party on two such important subjects as Malthusianism and Proportional Representation.  Men of this sort, who, while sharing the democratic feeling of the working classes, judge political questions for themselves, and have the courage to assert their individual convictions against popular opposition, were needed, as it seemed to me, in Parliament; and I did not think that Mr. Bradlaugh’s anti-religious opinions (even though he had been intemperate in the expression of them) ought to exclude him.”

It has been said that Mr. Mill’s support of Mr. Bradlaugh’s candidature at Northampton cost him his own seat at Westminster, and so bitter was bigotry at that time that the statement is very likely to be true.  On this, Mr. Mill himself said:  “It was the right thing to do, and if the election were yet to take place, I would do it again.”

At this election of September, 1874—­the second in the year, for the general election had taken place in the February, and Mr. Bradlaugh had been put up and defeated during his absence in America—­I went down to Northampton to report electioneering incidents for the National Reformer, and spent some days there in the whirl of the struggle.  The Whig party was more bitter against Mr. Bradlaugh than was the Tory.  Strenuous efforts were made to procure a Liberal candidate, who would be able at least to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh’s return, and, by dividing the Liberal and Radical party, should let in a Tory rather than the detested Radical.  Messrs. Bell and James and Dr. Pearce came on the scene only to disappear.  Mr. Jacob Bright and Mr. Arnold Morley were vainly suggested.  Mr. Ayrton’s name was whispered.  Major Lumley was recommended by Mr. Bernal Osborne.  Dr. Kenealy proclaimed himself ready to come to the rescue of the Whigs.  Mr. Tillett, of Norwich, Mr. Cox, of Belper, were invited, but neither would consent to oppose a good Radical who had fought two elections at Northampton and had been the chosen of the Radical workers for six years.  At last Mr. William Fowler, a banker, accepted the task of handing over the representation of a Liberal and Radical borough to a Tory, and duly succeeded in giving the seat to Mr. Mereweather, a very reputable Tory lawyer.  Mr. Bradlaugh polled 1,766, thus adding another 133 voters to those who had polled for him in the previous February.