to an extra-Parliamentary utterance, but had reference to proceedings in
this House?--That assumes what would be passing in the mind of the writer
and what he had in view in assuming it, and I decline to discuss any
subject of that kind.
174. I am to take it that you decline to answer the question?--No, I
object to answer it. If the Committee think that I ought to answer it I
will answer it. I do not take a legal objection. You quite understand
that if the Committee think I ought to answer it, I will answer it at
once.
The Committee deliberated.
CHAIRMAN: The Committee have come unanimously to the conclusion
that the question put by the honorable Member for East Kent
ought to be answered; but, in arriving at that conclusion, I am
requested to inform you what I will now read: "That the
Committee think Mr. Bradlaugh should answer the question put to
him by Mr. Pemberton, on the ground that it refers to matters
written by him directly in relation to the question involved in
the order of reference to the Committee, and for the purpose of
expressing his views on such questions since the claim was made
by him to make the affirmation, and before the appointment of
the Committee."
175. Mr. PEMBERTON: I wish to ask whether, since you were returned as a
Member of this House, and since the Report of the last Committee, you
authorised the publication of a letter which appeared in the newspapers
of the 21st May, in reference to the proceedings which have taken place
on this matter, such letter being signed in your name?--I think one of
the members of the Committee has a copy, which I handed to him; I have
not seen the print; and as I sent to all the newspapers a lithographed
copy, I prefer, for greater accuracy, to ask him to return it to me. I
hold in my hand a copy which I have no doubt is the same.
176. CHAIRMAN: Do you object to that letter being put in?--The moment the
Committee decided that I ought to answer that question, I had no reserve
in saying that I left myself in the hands of the Committee on it. I shall
take the liberty of wishing to address a word or two to the Committee
presently upon it. (_The letter was handed in._)
177. Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS: Do you propose to take the Oath in the form
given in the Statute of 1868, which I will read to you: "I., A. B., do
swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty
Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me,
God?"--I do, that being the form in the Statute.
178. If you are permitted to take that oath, do you intend the Committee
to understand and believe that it will be binding upon your conscience as
an oath?--Yes.
179. In taking such oath, do you consider yourself as appealing to some
Supreme Being as a witness that you are speaking the truth?--I submit
that having said that I regard the oath as binding upon my conscience,
this Committee has neither the right nor the duty to further interrogate
my conscience.
180. Sir RICHARD CROSS: You know of course that in taking the oath in the
form prescribed by the Statute, and according to the custom of taking
oaths, you will have to kiss the Testament: do you attach the smallest
weight to the kissing of that book?--I attach the weight attached by the
law to the whole of the formula.
181. Do you attach the smallest weight to the kissing of the book; do you
think that the kissing of that book adds in the slightest degree to the
weight upon your conscience of the words which you have already spoken
without kissing the book?--The law has said that the whole of that is to
be complete; I have not the right, therefore, to form an opinion, or to
formulate an opinion as to how much of that I would leave out had I any
choice in the matter.
182. Then do you attach any further importance to the word "swear" in the
oath itself, and to the fact of the kissing of the book than if the word
"swear" were written "affirm," and no kissing of the book were
required?--I have already said that I attach to the complete affirmation
the most complete binding effect on my conscience. If I were allowed a
preference, I would and still prefer the affirmation. The law says that
the oath is the form, and I shall regard that form as in all its respects
binding upon my conscience.
183. Do you look upon the kissing of that particular book as adding any
more sanction than the kissing of any other book?--I decline to do that
which the law has not done; the law has not split up the formula into
parts, and expressed an opinion upon each part separately, and I deny the
right of the Committee to ask me to do that which the law has not done.
184. I will ask you one other question; do not answer it unless you
like?--I will not.
185. Do you think that the fact of the kissing of that book has any
relation to an appeal to a Supreme Being, that you will, before Him,
perform the oath which you have taken?--The law has not required me, in
any case, to express an opinion as to that by itself. As to the whole
Oath I have expressed an opinion.
186. As regards the kissing of that book, would you look upon that, so
far as your conscience is concerned, as an idle form?--The law has not
required me to look upon it by itself, and I dispute the right of the
Committee to divide the Oath into parts, and to take one part by itself
without the other. I have already answered that the whole of the Oath
when taken by me, and if taken by me, will be binding upon my conscience.
187. But still you consider that a certain part of that Oath, which the
Statute imposes upon you the necessity to take, is an idle, and empty,
and meaningless form?--I have never said so at any time.
188. But do you consider it so?--Most certainly I do not consider the
most considerable portion of it an idle and empty form.
189. Some portion of it, I said?--I consider no portion of the essential
Oath an idle and empty form.
190. That is to say, that you would take the Oath because the Statute
says you must do so in order to take your seat?--That is not so. I take
the Oath because the Statute says that I must do so, intending to be
bound in my honor and conscience by the oath I take. Every Member takes
the Oath because he must do so in order to take his seat, and he could
not take it without it.
191. But you do not think that the forms of the Oath, as settled by law,
adds anything to the binding of your conscience further than saying "I
solemnly affirm"?--Your question presumes a form of thought which I have
not enunciated.
192. Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: Do I understand you aright that you have never said
that the oath, as you propose to take it, is less binding upon your
conscience than it is supposed to be on the consciences of other men?--I
have never said so; and in 1868, when I stood for election, there being
then no form of affirmation possible for me, I had gravely considered the
question.
193. It is within your knowledge that some men, and not a few men, who do
not absolutely refuse to take an oath, still greatly prefer to make an
affirmation?--If it would not be impertinent to say it, many Members of
the House have told me so since this question has been pending.
194. CHAIRMAN: I think you said, when I informed you that the Committee
thought that the letter should be put in, that it was a subject upon
which you wished to make an observation?--I wish just to make the
slightest observation upon that, and upon one or two points that arose in
questions that have been put to me. If the Committee would allow me to
think for a moment I believe I can compress it within very slight limits.
195. Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY: Your statement to Mr. Justice Brett, I
understood, you would think over?--No, that my answer did not apply to.
If the Committee think that I ought to answer that question in the same
way, the question as to the three words, or rather four words, that I
answered to Mr. Justice Brett, I am quite in the hands of the Committee,
and I should not decline to answer them.
196. Mr. STAVELEY HILL: The reason why I asked you what they were, and
where they were to be found if you did not answer the question, was on
purpose that one might look for them, because it must be a matter of
public notoriety what the words were?--I should think it very possible. I
have taken my objection, and if there is even a thought in the Committee
that I had better answer the question, I should not object to do so.
197. CHAIRMAN: What are the observations which you wish to offer in
consequence of your examination?--As the House will now have before it
the statement, I ask the Committee in examining it to take it complete,
not to separate one or two words in it and to take those without the
countervailing words, and to remember that in this letter I declare that
the oath, if I take it, would bind me, and I now repeat that in the most
distinct and formal manner; that the Oath of Allegiance, viz.: "I do
swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty
Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors, according to law," will, when I
take it, be most fully, completely, and unreservedly binding upon my
honor and conscience; and I crave leave to refer to the unanimous
judgment of the full Court of the Exchequer Chamber, in the case of
Miller _v._ Salomons, 17th Jurist, page 463, and to the case of the
Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Company _v._ Heaton, 4th Jurist, new
series, page 708, for the distinguishment between the words of
asseveration and the essential words of an oath. But I also desire to
add, and I do this most solemnly and unreservedly, that the taking and
subscribing, or repeating of those words of asseveration, will in no
degree weaken the binding effect of the oath on my conscience. I should
like, finally, simply to submit to the Committee, and especially to the
honorable and learned gentleman on the left of the Chairman, that there
has not been from the beginning to the end of this matter, any
declaration, either distinct or implied, that the Oath if taken by me
would be less binding upon me than upon him; and I do submit to this
Committee that this House has never sought to inquire or to distinguish
in any fashion as to the religious views of its Members, except so far as
any of them have found themselves obliged by their conscience to refuse
to comply with some form that the House has put before them. On the
contrary, in the Lords' protest on the discussion of the Promissory Oaths
Municipal Bill, Lord Holland and other Lords put it in the most distinct
fashion that no sort of inquisition and no sort of inquiry ought to be
tolerated involving any examination of a man's theological views. Lord
Holland added, in words better than I can command: "That there is no
tribunal which he knows competent to make that examination, and that the
purely secular and political duties called upon to be performed were not
such as to entitle that examination to be made." I thank the Committee
for having listened to me, and I submit myself to their decision.
198. CHAIRMAN: You mentioned some precedents which you thought might
usefully be added to the list of precedents which we have already had:
could you conveniently add those cases?--Yes, I will do so.
_Monday, 7th June 1880._
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Attorney General.
Mr. John Bright.
Mr. Secretary Childers.
Mr. Chaplin.
Sir Richard Cross.
Mr. Gibson.
Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Staveley Hill.
Sir John Holker.
Mr. Beresford Hope.
Mr. Hopwood.
Lord Henry Lennox.
Sir Henry Jackson.
Mr. Massey.
Major Nolan.
Mr. Pemberton.
Mr. Serjeant Simon.
Mr. Solicitor General.
Mr. Trevelyan.
Mr. Walpole.
The Right Honorable SPENCER HORATIO WALPOLE, in the Chair.
Mr. CHARLES BRADLAUGH, a member of the House; further Examined.
199. CHAIRMAN: There was some reference, I think, made to you by Mr.
Whitbread, with regard to which you desire to make some
observations?--There was a point urged by Mr. Whitbread upon the first
Committee. I do not know whether I should be in order in referring to it.
I thought it had been sufficiently covered by what I had said, until I
reflected upon it, and then I thought it had not. I wish to submit to
this Committee that it ought not to consider that I claimed to affirm
because I regarded the oath as not binding upon my conscience, under the
spirit of the Evidence Further Amendment Act, 1869, for that Statute
runs: "If any one shall object to take an oath, or be objected to as
incompetent to take an oath;" and that it is quite possible (perhaps
wrongly, and undoubtedly wrongly, as the Committee have so decided) that
I might claim to affirm, objecting to take the oath, and that the
Committee have not on the evidence here either the right or the duty to
assume anything more as against me in dealing with it now. That is all I
wish to put before the Committee.
APPENDIX.
Appendix No. 1.
PRECEDENTS RELATIVE TO PARLIAMENTARY OATHS.
PRECEDENT of a MEMBER disabled for having sat in the House without
taking the Oath.
Sir JOHN LEEDES hath been in the House and not taken the Oath.
Sir John Leedes not to come into the House till further Order.
Sir E. COKE: That by the law Sir J. Leedes is disabled to serve this
Parliament, and therefore ought to be discharged, and a new Writ.
Mr. PAWLETT, accordant.
Sir J. STRANGWAYS: Can pretend no ignorance, for a Member of the House
last Parliament.
Mr. CREW, for Sir J. Leedes: No question but he is incapable. 2. He is to
be punished.
_Resolved_, Sir J. Leedes incapable of being a Member of this House, as
if never returned.
Mr. HACKWYLL: To have him removed; a Writ for a new choice; and to punish
him, by sending him to the Tower.
Sir G. MOORE: To have no question made, but where it is questioned.
Mr. SECRETARY: The fault great, especially because of last Parliament. To
order, he shall be discharged now, and to serve no more this Parliament.
Sir J. Leedes, brought to the Bar, confesseth he was of the House last
meeting in Parliament; and that he hath sit this Parliament in the House,
and hath not taken his Oath.
Mr. T. FANSHAW: That he must be punished as one that hath come into the
House, not being chosen.
Sir E. SANDES: To pay the Serjeant his fees, and no further punishment;
because, but negligence, no presumption, and is willing to take the Oath.
Mr. CHIDLEY: To have an order to disable him for this Parliament.
A Warrant for a new Writ in his room.
PRECEDENT of a MEMBER Admitted to sit without taking the OATHS of
ALLEGIANCE and SUPREMACY.
_Ordered_, That WILLIAM AYRES, Esquire, being legally elected and
returned a Member of this House, his election being returned and remitted
of Record, shall be admitted to sit in this House, without taking the
Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance.
_Ordered_, That an Ordinance be brought in by Mr. Lisle, to-morrow
morning, for repealing that clause in the Act of * * That no person be
admitted to sit as a Member of this House, before he hath taken the Oath
of Allegiance and Supremacy.
_Ordered_, That all and every the Sheriffs of the respective counties in
England and Wales do henceforth execute their several places and offices
of Sheriffs of their several and respective counties, according to the
duty of their said office, without taking the Oaths of Allegiance and
Supremacy.
PRECEDENT of a MEMBER Discharged for declining to take the OATHS.
The House being informed, that Sir HENRY MOUNSON attended, according to
the Order on Saturday last;
_Resolved_, That he be called in, and tendered the Oaths and Declaration
directed to be taken, made, repeated, and subscribed by the Members of
the House.
He was called in accordingly; and came up to the table: And Mr. Speaker
acquainted him, That the House had taken notice that he had been about
the town a considerable time; but yet did not attend the service of the
House: And that he had directions to tender him the Oaths and the
Declarations.
Whereupon, Sir Henry Mounson said: That he was sorry that for some
reasons he could not comply to qualify himself to sit in the House: But
that those reasons would no way incline him to disturb the Government;
and that he submitted himself to the House.
And then withdrew.
_Resolved_, That Sir Henry Mounson be discharged from being a Member of
the House.
New Writ Ordered.
PRECEDENT of a MEMBER Discharged for declining to take the OATHS.
The House being informed, That the Lord FANSHAW attended at the door,
according to the order of Saturday last.
_Resolved_, That he be called in, and tendered the Oaths and Declaration,
directed to be taken, made, repeated, and subscribed by the Members of
the House.
He was called in accordingly; and came up to the table: And Mr. Speaker
acquainted him, That the House had taken notice that he had been about
the town a considerable time; but yet did not attend the Service of the
House; and that he had direction to tender him the Oaths and Declaration.
Whereupon the Lord Fanshaw said, that it was true, he had been about town
a great while indeed; but had been in the country, if his health would
have permitted him; but that he had been in a strict course of physick,
and was in the same condition still of physick and diet; but, however,
that since he was absent there was an Act of Parliament passed for taking
the Oaths; and he was not qualified to sit in the House, in regard he was
not satisfied to take the Oaths; and therefore he could not appear.
And then withdrew.
_Resolved_, That the Lord Fanshaw be discharged from being a Member of
the House.
And there being a Petition in, touching the Election, the granting a new
Writ was respited.
PRECEDENT of a MEMBER Committed to the TOWER for declining to take the
OATHS.
The House being acquainted, that Mr. CHOLMLY attended according to their
order of Tuesday last;
He was called in, and came up to the table: And Mr Speaker, by the
direction of the House, acquainted him to this effect, viz., That the
House had taken notice of his being absent from their service a
considerable time, and that now he was come he was to tender him, and
accordingly did tender him, the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy
appointed to be taken by the Members of the House, according to an Act of
this present Parliament.
To which Mr. Cholmly replied, That as to his absence, both when he was in
the country and since he came to town, he had been infirm and lame, and
had been under the doctor's hands, and could not as yet recover himself.
And that he had endeavored to qualify himself to be a sitting Member of
the House, by taking the Oaths, as the House expects, but that he could
not as yet do it: And therefore humbly submitted himself to the House;
and that he did it not out of any wilful humor.
Upon which he was commanded to withdraw.
And being withdrawn accordingly;
_Resolved_, That Francis Cholmly, Esquire, a Member of this House, for
his contempt in refusing to take the Oaths, * *, be committed Prisoner to
the Tower of London.
_Ordered_, That the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do take into
his custody the said Mr. Cholmly, and convey him to the Tower: And that
Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for that purpose.
PRECEDENT of a MEMBER, being a QUAKER, refusing to take the OATH.
House called over,
And the name of John Archdale, Esquire, a burgess for the borough of
Chipping Wicomb, in the county of Bucks, being called over a second time:
Mr. Speaker acquainted the House that Mr. Archdale had been with him this
morning, and delivered him a letter sealed, which Mr. Speaker presented
to the House.
And the same was opened and read, and is as followeth, viz.:--
"London, the 3rd of the 11th month, called January 1698-9.
"Sir.
"Upon the call of the House it will appear that I am duly
chosen and returned to serve in Parliament for the borough of
Chipping Wycomb, in the county of Bucks; and, therefore, I
request of thee to acquaint the honorable House of Commons the
reason I have not as yet appeared, which is, that the burgesses
being voluntarily inclined to elect me, I did not oppose their
inclinations, believing that my declarations of fidelity, etc.,
might, in this case, as in others, where the law requires an
oath, be accepted, I am, therefore, ready to execute my trust
if the House think fit to admit of me thereupon; which I do
humbly submit to their wisdom and justice; and shall acquiesce
with what they will be pleased to determine therein: This being
all at present, I remain,
"Thy real and obliged friend,
"JOHN ARCHDALE."
Day appointed for considering the contents of the said letter.
Mr. Archdale ordered to attend.
The House being informed, that Mr. Archdale attended according to order;
His letter to Mr. Speaker was again read;
And the several statutes qualifying persons to come into and sit and vote
in this House were read, viz., of the 30 Car. II., 1 Will. and Mariae, and
7 and 8 Will. and Mariae.
And then the said Mr. Archdale was called in,
And he came into the middle of the House, almost to the table;
And Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House, asked him whether he had
taken the Oaths or would take the Oaths, appointed to qualify himself to
be a member of this House; To which he answered, That in regard to a
principle of his religion he had not taken the Oaths, nor could take
them.
And then he withdrew.
A new Writ ordered.
PRECEDENT of a MEMBER expelled for absconding, and not taking the
OATHS.
The House was called over according to order.
And the names of such as made default to appear were taken down.
_Ordered_, That the names of such as made default be now called over.
And they were called over accordingly.
And several of them appeared, and others were excused upon account of
their being ill, some in the country, some in town; and others upon
account of their being in the country upon extraordinary occasions; and
some as being upon the road.
Upon calling over the names of * * LEWIS PRICE, Esquire, * * they were
not excused.
Several Members sent for.
_Ordered_, That Lewis Price, Esquire, be sent for, in custody of the
Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House.
The Serjeant-at-Arms being called upon to give the House an account of
what he had done in relation to Lewis Pryse, Esquire, who was, the 8th of
August last, ordered to be sent for in custody, for not attending the
Service of the House; he acquainted the House, That the messenger he sent
to bring up Mr. Pryse, had been at his house at Gargathen, but that he
was not there; nor could the messenger have any intelligence where he
was.
_Ordered_, That Lewis Pryse, Esquire, do surrender himself into the
custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, by this day month
at the farthest, upon pain of occurring the farther displeasure of this
House, and of being proceeded against with the utmost severity.
The order of the 2nd of February last being read requiring Lewis Pryse,
Esquire, to surrender himself into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms
attending this House by that day month at farthest;
The Serjeant was called upon to know whether he had heard from the said
Mr. Pryse, and he acquainted the House, That he had not heard from him.
Mr. Speaker acquainted the House, that he had received a letter from the
said Mr. Pryse, and he delivered the same to the Clerk to be read; and
the same was read accordingly, and is as follows, viz.:
"Sir,
"'Tis with pleasure that I embrace every opportunity of
returning you my acknowledgments for the good offices you have
done me, as often as the case of my unavoidable absence has
come under debate in the House. The repeated experience I have
had of your friendship in this point, encourages me to hope for
the continuance of them, which I shall not offer to desire
longer than the reasonableness of my case shall appear to
deserve them.
"I beg leave once more to represent it to you; and through your
assistance to the honorable House; whose displeasure as it is a
very sensible affliction to me, I should be glad by any means
in my power to remove. That as it is impracticable for me to
attend by the time appointed, because of a very severe fit of
the gout which I am now afflicted with, and thereby give
satisfaction to the House in the method they have insisted on;
I hope they will accept of such as is in my power, and give me
a favorable hearing when I represent to them, that I was chose
knight of the shire of Cardigan when I was at 100 miles distant
from it, and had been absent thence for ten months before the
time of my election; which I was so far from seeking, that I
never asked a vote for it, and was chose even against my
inclinations.