Mr. Peters, the Secretary of the Workmen's Association for the
Abolition of the Sugar-Bounties, has been successful in his action against Mr. Bradlaugh, the jury awarding him 2300 damages. The libel was contained in a letter addressed by Mr. Bradlaugh to the Times, insinuating that Mr. Peters had got up bogus public meetings, the funds being supplied by leading Conservative Members of Parliament, including Lord Salisbury. The public interest of the case centred in the charge against the Prime Minister. As might have been expected, this entirely fell through, and Mr. Bradlaugh was obliged to admit, in the amplest possible manner, that he had been misled, and that the cheque sent to Mr. Peters by Lord Salisbury was intended for and spent on a perfectly legitimate object,—the supply of a dinner to certain unemployed work- men. Mr. Bradlaugh, however, absolutely refused to withdraw the rest of his charge, though repeatedly pressed to do so by the Judge, and insisted, with the result mentioned above, on maintaining his plea of privilege and justification. It cannot be said that Mr. BradLaugh showed here his usual reasonableness, while his power of grasping a legal distinction, often so acute, seemed for the time quite to have left him. His evident misapprehension of the nature of " privilege " was very remarkable.
Previous page
