respecting the election of John Wilkes, Esquire, for the county of
Middlesex, as a void election, the true and legal election of Henry Lawes
Luttrell, Esquire, into Parliament for the said county, and the
incapacity of John Wilkes, Esquire, to be elected a Member to serve in
the said Parliament, be expunged from the Journals of this House as being
subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this Kingdom.
By Cavendish's Parliamentary Debates, Vol. I., page 73, 24th November,
1768, it appears that _inter alia_ were used to justify the original and
subsequently expunged Resolutions--first, "the copy of the record of the
proceedings, on an information in the Court of King's Bench, against John
Wilkes, Esquire, for blasphemy"--page 123; "three obscene and impious
libels"; "an impious libel with intent to blaspheme the Almighty God."
CASE of Mr. JOHN HORNE TOOKE, Parliamentary History, Vol. 35, page 956,
16th February, 1801.
Mr. John Horne Tooke took the Oaths and his seat for Old Sarum. He was
introduced by Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Wilson. This being done, Earl
Temple rose and said, he had observed a gentleman who had just retired
from the table, after having taken the Oaths, whom he conceived to be
incapable of a seat in that House, in consequence of his having taken
priest's orders and been inducted into a living. He would wait the
allotted time of fourteen days to see whether there was any petition
presented against his return; if not he should then move that the return
for Old Sarum be taken into consideration.
Page 1323, 10th March, 1801.--Earl Temple moved that Mr. Boucher, Deputy
Registrar of Salisbury, be called in to prove that Mr. Horne Tooke, being
a priest in orders, was not eligible to a seat in that House. After
debate, in which Mr. John Horne Tooke spoke--Amendment and
Division--Motion agreed to (page 1342),--Select Committee appointed (page
1343). Two reports given, pages 1343 to 1349, were made, giving all the
cases of "any of the clergy" returned to Parliament.
4th May, 1801.--Earl Temple moved (pages 1349 to 1374), "That Mr. Speaker
do issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown in Great Britain, to make
out a new writ for the election of a burgess to serve in this present
Parliament for the Borough of Old Sarum, in the county of Wilts, in the
room of the Rev. John Horne Tooke, who being at the time of his election
in priest's orders, was and is incapable of sitting in this House." A
debate took place in which Mr. John Horne Tooke spoke (pp. 1350 to 1402),
division, and the motion negatived.
Jurist, Vol. 17, Page 463.--Exchequer Chamber; Error from the Court of
Exchequer: Coram, Lord Campbell, Chief Justice, and Coleridge, Cresswell,
Wightman, Williams, and Crompton, J.
One judgment by Lord Chief Justice Campbell for the whole Court.
Lord Campbell (page 464).--The words "so help me, God," are words of
asseveration, and of the manner of taking the oath; but the words
preceding them are, it appears to me, an essential part of the oath.
Fisher's Digest, Vol. 3, page 6179.--By a private Act, no person
appointed to act as tithe valuer shall be capable of acting until he
shall have taken and subscribed an oath in the words following: "I, A.
B., do swear that I will faithfully, etc., execute, etc.; so help me,
God." Held, that the oath had nevertheless been properly administered
according to the Statute, for the words omitted were no part of the oath,
but only an indication of the manner of administering it. Lancaster and
Carlisle Railway Company _v._ Heaton, 8 El. & Bl., 952; 4 Jur., N. S.,
707; 27 L. J., Q. B., 195.
Appendix No. 3.
PAPER handed in by Mr. BRADLAUGH, 2nd June, 1880.
STATEMENT on the OATH QUESTION by Mr. BRADLAUGH.
20, Circus Road, St. John's Wood, London, N.W., 20th May, 1880.
WHEN elected as one of the Burgesses to represent Northampton in the
House of Commons, I believed that I had the legal right to make
affirmation of allegiance in lieu of taking the oath, as provided by
section 4 of the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866. While I considered that I
had this legal right, it was then clearly my moral duty to make the
affirmation. The oath, although to me including words of idle and
meaningless character, was, and is, regarded by a large number of my
fellow countrymen as an appeal to Deity to take cognizance of their
swearing. It would have been an act of hypocrisy to voluntarily take this
form if any other had been open to me, or to take it without protest, as
though it meant in my mouth any such appeal. I, therefore, quietly and
privately notified the Clerk of the House of my desire to affirm. His
view of the law and practice differing from my own, and no similar case
having theretofore arisen, it became necessary that I should tender
myself to affirm in a more formal manner, and this I did at a season
deemed convenient by those in charge of the business of the House. In
tendering my affirmation, I was careful when called on by the Speaker to
state my objection, to do nothing more than put in the fewest possible
words my contention that the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, gave the
right to affirm in Parliament to every person for the time being by law
permitted to make an affirmation in lieu of taking an oath, and that I
was such a person, and therefore claimed to affirm. The Speaker neither
refusing, nor accepting my affirmation, referred the matter to the House,
which appointed a Select Committee to report whether persons entitled to
affirm under the Evidence Amendment Acts, 1869 and 1870, were, under
Section 4 of the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, also entitled to affirm
as Members of Parliament. This Committee, by the casting-vote of its
Chairman, has decided that I am not entitled to affirm. Two courses are
open to me, one of appeal to the House against the decision of the
Committee; the other, of present compliance with the ceremony, while
doing my best to prevent the further maintenance of a form which many
other Members of the House think as objectionable as I do, but which
habit, and the fear of exciting prejudice, has induced them to submit to.
To appeal to the House against the decision of the Committee would be
ungracious, and would certainly involve great delay of public business. I
was present at the deliberations of the Committee, and while naturally I
cannot be expected to bow submissively to the statements and arguments of
my opponents, I am bound to say that they were calmly and fairly urged. I
think them unreasonable; but the fact that they included a legal argument
from an earnest Liberal deprives them even of a purely party character.
If I appealed to the House against the Committee, I, of course, might
rely on the fact that the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, Sir
Henry Jackson, Q.C., Watkin Williams, Q.C., and Mr. Serjeant Simon are
reported in the _Times_ to have interpreted the law as I do; and I might
add that the Right Honorable John Bright and Mr. Whitbread are in the
same journal arrayed in favor of allowing me to affirm. But even then the
decision of the House may endorse that of the Committee, and should it be
in my favor it could only, judging from what has already taken place, be
after a bitter party debate, in which the Government specially and the
Liberals generally would be sought to be burdened with my
anti-theological views, and with promoting my return to Parliament. As a
matter of fact, the Liberals of England have never in any way promoted my
return to Parliament. The much-attacked action of Mr. Adam had relation
only to the second seat, and in no way related to the one for which I was
fighting. In 1868, the only action of Mr. Gladstone and of Mr. Bright was
to write letters in favor of my competitors; and since 1868 I do not
believe that either of these gentlemen has directly or indirectly
interfered in any way in connection with my Parliamentary candidature.
The majority of the electors of Northampton had determined to return me
before the recent union in that borough, and while pleased to aid their
fellow Liberals in winning the two seats, my constituents would have at
any rate returned me had no union taken place. My duty to my constituents
is to fulfil the mandate they have given me, and if to do this I have to
submit to a form less solemn to me than the affirmation I would have
reverently made, so much the worse for those who force me to repeat words
which I have scores of times declared are to me sounds conveying no clear
and definite meaning. I am sorry for the earnest believers who see words
sacred to them used as a meaningless addendum to a promise, but I cannot
permit their less sincere co-religionists to use an idle form in order to
prevent me from doing my duty to those who have chosen me to speak for
them in Parliament. I shall, taking the oath, regard myself as bound, not
by the letter of its words, but by the spirit which the affirmation would
have conveyed had I been permitted to use it. So soon as I am able, I
shall take such steps as may be consistent with Parliamentary business to
put an end to the present doubtful and unfortunate state of the law and
practice on oaths and affirmations. Only four cases have arisen of
refusal to take the oath except, of course, those cases purely political
in their character; two of those cases are those of the Quakers John
Archdale and Joseph Pease. The religion of these men forbade them to
swear at all, and they nobly refused. The sect to which they belonged was
outlawed, insulted and imprisoned; they were firm, and one of that sect
sat on the very committee, a member of her Majesty's Privy Council, and a
member of the actual Cabinet. I thank him gratefully that, valuing right
so highly, he cast his vote so nobly for one for whom I am afraid he has
but scant sympathy. No such religious scruple prevents me from taking the
oath as prevented John Archdale and Joseph Pease. In the case of Baron
Rothschild and Alderman Salomons the words "upon the true faith of a
Christian" were the obstacle. To-day the oath contains no such words. The
Committee report that I may not affirm, and protesting against a decision
which seems to me alike against the letter of the law and the spirit of
modern legislation, I comply with the forms of the House.
CHARLES BRADLAUGH.
MR. BRADLAUGH'S SPEECHES.
MR. BRADLAUGH'S First Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons,
delivered June 23rd, 1880.