in a position unexampled in the history of this House, I try to give one
or two reasons why the resolution which you have read to me should not be
enforced. If it were not unbecoming I should appeal to the traditions of
the House against the House itself, and I should point out that in none
of its records, so far as my poor reading goes, is there any case in
which this House has judged one of its members in his absence, and taken
away from that member the constitutional right he has (hear, hear). There
have been members against whom absolute legal disqualification has been
urged. No such legal disqualification is ventured to be urged by any
member of this House against myself. But even those members have been
heard in their places; those members have been listened to before the
decision was taken against them; and I ask that this House to myself
shall not be less just than it has always been to every one of its
members (hear, hear). Do you tell me I am unfit to sit amongst you?
(hear, hear, and Order, order.) The more reason, then, that this House
should show the generosity which judges show to a criminal, and allow
every word he has to say to be heard. But I stand here, Sir, as no
criminal. I stand here as the chosen of a constituency of this country,
with my duty to that constituency to do. I stand here, Sir--if it will
not be considered impertinent to put it so--with the most profound
respect for this House, of which I yet hope and mean to form a part, and
on whose traditions I should not wish to cast one shadow of reproach. I
stand here returned duly; no petition against my return; no impeachment
of that return. I stand here returned duly, ready to fulfil every form
that this House requires, ready to fulfil every form that the law permits
this House to require, ready to do every duty that the law makes
incumbent upon me. I will not in this presence argue whether this House
has or has not the right to set its decision against the law, because I
should imagine that even the rashest of those who spoke against me would
hardly be prepared to put in the mouth of one whom they consider too
advanced in politics an arguments so dangerous as that might become. I
speak within the limits of the law, asking for no favor from this House
for myself or for my constituents, but asking the merest justice which
has always been accorded to a member of the House (hear, hear, and
Order.) I have to ask indulgence lest the memory of some hard words which
have been spoken in my absence should seem to give to what I say a tone
of defiance, which it is far from my wish should be there at all; and I
am the more eased because although there were words spoken which I had
always been taught English gentlemen never said in the absence of an
antagonist without notice to him, yet there were also generous and brave
words said for one who is at present, I am afraid, a source of trouble
and discomfort and hindrance to business. I measure the generous words
against the others, and I will only make one appeal through you, Sir,
which is, that if the reports be correct that the introduction of other
names came with mine in the heat of passion and the warmth of debate, the
gentleman who used those words, if such there were, will remember that he
was wanting in chivalry, because, while I can answer for myself, and am
able to answer for myself, nothing justified the introduction of any
other name beside my own to make a prejudice against me (cheers and cries
of Question and Order.) I fear lest the strength of this House,
judicially exercised as I understand it to be--with infrequency of
judicial exercise--that the strength of this House makes it forget our
relative positions. At present I am pleading at its bar for justice. By
right it is there I should plead. [The hon. member pointed to the seats.]
It is that right I claim in the name of those who sent me here. No legal
disqualification before my election, or it might have been made the
ground of petition. No legal disqualification since my election--not even
pretended. It is said: "You might have taken the oath as other members
did." I could not help when I read that, Sir, trying to put myself in the
place of each member who said it. I imagined a member of some form of
faith who found in the oath words which seemed to him to clash with his
faith, but still words which he thought he might utter, but which he
would prefer not to utter if there were any other form which the law
provided him, and I asked myself whether each of those members would not
then have taken the form which was most consonant with his honor and his
conscience. If I have not misread, some hon. members seem to think that I
have neither honor nor conscience. Is there not some proof to the
contrary in the fact that I did not go through the form, believing that
there was another right open to me? (hear, hear, and Order.) Is that not
some proof that I have honor and conscience? Of the gentlemen who are now
about to measure themselves against the rights of the constituencies of
England I ask what justification had they for that measurement? They have
said that I thrust my opinions on the House. I hold here, Sir, the
evidence of Sir Thomas Erskine May, and I can find no word of any opinion
of mine thrust upon the House at all. I have read--it may be that the
reports misrepresent--that the cry of "Atheist" has been raised from that
side. [The hon. member pointed to the Opposition side.] No word of all
mine before the committee put in any terms those theological or
anti-theological opinions in evidence before the House. I am no more
ashamed of my own opinions, which I did not choose, opinions into which I
have grown, than any member of this House is ashamed of his; and much as
I value the right to sit here, and much as I believe that the justice of
this House will accord it to me before the struggle is finished, I would
rather relinquish it for ever than it should be thought that by any
shadow of hypocrisy I had tried to gain a feigned entrance here by
pretending to be what I am not (cheers, and cries of Order.) On the
report of the committee as it stands, on the evidence before the House,
what is the objection to either my affirming or taking the oath? It is
said I have no legal right to affirm. I will suppose that to be so. It is
the first time that the House has made itself a court of law from which
there may be no appeal, and deprived a citizen of his constitutional
right of appeal to a court of law to make out what the statute means in
dealing with him. There is no case in which this House has overridden
everything, and put one of its members where he had no chance of battling
for his right at all. Take the oath. It is possible that some of the
lawyers, who have disagreed among themselves even upon that (the
Opposition) side of the House, may be right, and that I may be wrong in
the construction I have put upon the oath, but no such objection can
come. There is no precedent--there is, I submit respectfully, no
right--in this House to stand between me and the oath which the law
provides for me to take, which the statute, under penalty even upon
members of this House themselves if they put me out from my just return,
gives me the right to take. What kind of a conflict is provoked here if
this resolution be enforced? Not a grave conflict in a court of law,
where the judges exclude passion, where they only deal with facts and
evidence. I do not mean that these gentlemen do not deal with facts; but,
if I am any judge of my own life's story, there have been many things
which I can hardly reckon in the category of facts put against myself. I
don't mean that they are not right, for hon. members may know more of
myself than I do myself; but, judging myself as I know myself, some of
the members who have attacked me so glibly during the last few days must
have been extraordinarily misinformed, or must have exceedingly
misapprehended the matters they alleged. It has been said that I have
paraded and flaunted some obnoxious opinions. I appeal to your justice,
sir, and to that of the members of this House, to say whether my manner
has not been as respectful as that of man could be--whether in each case
I have not withdrawn when you told me. If I now come here with even the
appearance of self-assertion, it is because I would not be a recreant
and a coward to the constituency that sent me to represent them; and I
mean to be as members have been in the best history of this assembly. I
ask the House, in dealing with my rights, to remember how they are
acting. It is perfectly true that by a majority they may decide against
me now. What are you to do then? Are you going to declare the seat
vacant? First, I tell you that you have not the right. The moment I am
there--[the hon. member pointed inside the House]--I admit the right of
the House, of its own good will and pleasure, to expel me. As yet I am
not under your jurisdiction. As yet I am under the protection of the law.
A return sent me to this House, and I ask you, sir, as the guardian of
the liberties of this House, to give effect to that return. The law says
you should, and that this House should. And naturally so; because, if it
were not so, any time a majority of members might exclude anyone they
pleased. What has been alleged against me? Politics? Are views on
politics urged as a reason why a member should not sit here? Pamphlets
have been read--I won't say with accuracy, because I will not libel any
of the hon. members who read them; but, surely, if they are grounds for
disqualification they are grounds for indictment to be proved against me
in a proper fashion. There is no case in all the records of this House in
which you have ransacked what a man has written and said in his past life
and then challenged him with it here. My theology? It would be
impertinent in me, after the utterances of men so widely disagreeing from
me that have been made on the side of religious liberty during the past
two nights--it would be impertinent in me to add one word save this. It
is said that you may deal with me because I am isolated. I could not help
hearing the ring of that word in the lobby as I sat outside last night.
But is that a reason, that, because I stand alone the House are to do
against me what they would not do if I had 100,000 men at my back? (cries
of Oh). That is a bad argument which provokes a reply inconsistent with
the dignity of this House and which I should be sorry to give. I have not
yet used--I hope no passion may tempt me to be using--any words that
would seem to savor of even a desire to enter into conflict with this
House. I have always taught, preached, and believed the supremacy of
Parliament, and it is not because for a moment the judgment of one
Chamber of Parliament should be hostile to me that I am going to deny the
ideas I have always held; but I submit that one Chamber of
Parliament--even its grandest Chamber, as I have always held this to
be--had no right to override the law. The law gives me the right to sign
that roll, to take and subscribe the oath, and to take my seat there
[pointing to the benches]. I admit that the moment I am in the House,
without any reason but your own good will, you can send me away. That is
your right. You have full control over your members, but you cannot send
me away until I have been heard in my place, not a suppliant as I am now,
but with the rightful audience that each member has always had. There is
one phase of my appeal which I am loth indeed to make. I presume you will
declare the seat vacant. What do you send me back to Northampton to say?
I said before, and I trust I may say again, that this assembly was one in
which any man might well be proud to sit--prouder I that I have not some
of your traditions and am not of your families, but am of the people, the
people that sent me here to speak for them. Do you mean that I am to go
back to Northampton as to a court, to appeal against you? that I am to
ask the constituency to array themselves against this House? I hope not.
If it is to be, it must be. If this House arrays itself against an
isolated man--its huge power against one citizen--if it must be, then the
battle must be too. But it is not with the constituency of Northampton
alone--hon. members need not mistake--that you will come into conflict if
this appeal is to go forward, if the House of Commons is to override the
statute law to get rid of even the vilest of members. Had you alleged
against me even more than against one man whose name was mentioned in
this House last night, I should still have held that the House cannot
supersede the rights of the people. But not as much is alleged against me
as was alleged against that man, in whose case the House itself said that
its conduct had been subversive of the rights of the people. I beg you,
for your own sakes, don't put yourselves in that position. I have no
desire to wrestle with you for justice. I admit that I have used hard
words in my short life, giving men the right in return to say hard things
of me; but is it not better that I should have the right to say them to
your faces? If they are within the law, let the law deal with me fairly
and properly; but if they are without the law, not unfairly, as I submit
you are doing now. You have the power to send me back, but in appealing
to Northampton I must appeal to a tribunal higher than yours--not to
courts of law, for I hope the days of conflict between the assembly which
makes the law and the tribunals which administer it are passed. It must
be a bad day for England and for Great Britain, if we are to be brought
again to the time when the judges and those who make the law for the
judges are in rash strife as to what they mean. But there is a court to
which I shall appeal--the court of public opinion, which will have to
express itself. You say it is against me. Possibly; but if it be so, is
it against me rightly or wrongly? I am ready to admit, if you please, for
the sake of argument, that every opinion I hold is wrong and deserves
punishment. Let the law punish it. If you say the law cannot, then you
admit that you have no right, and I appeal to public opinion against the
iniquity of a decision which overrides the law and denies me justice. I
beg your pardon, Sir, and that of the House too, if in this warmth there
seems to lack respect for its dignity; and as I shall have, if your
decision be against me, to come to that table when your decision is
given, I beg you, before the step is taken in which we may both lose our
dignity--mine is not much, but yours is that of the Commons of England--I
beg you, before the gauntlet is fatally thrown--I beg you, not in any
sort of menace, not in any sort of boast, but as one man against six
hundred, to give me that justice which on the other side of this hall the
judges would give me were I pleading there before them (loud cheers and
cries of Order, amid which Mr. Bradlaugh again bowed and retired).
MR. BRADLAUGH'S Second Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons,
delivered April 28th, 1881.
Mr. SPEAKER,--I have again to ask the indulgence of the House while I
submit to it a few words in favor of my claim to do that which the law
requires me to do. Perhaps the House will pardon me if I supply an
omission, I feel unintentionally made, on the part of the hon. member
for Chatham in some words which have just fallen from him. I understood
him to say that he would use a formal statement made by me to the
Committee against what the Chancellor of the Duchy had said I had said. I
am sure the hon. and learned member for Chatham, who has evidently read
the proceedings of the Committee with care, would, if he had thought it
fair, have stated to the House that the statement only came from me after
an objection made by me--a positive objection on the ground that it
related to matters outside this House, and that the House in the course
of its history had never inquired into such matters; but I can hardly
understand what the member for Chatham meant when he said that he
contrasted what I did say with what the Chancellor of the Duchy said I
said, for it is not a matter of memory, it is on the proceedings of this
House, that being examined formally before the Committee, I stated: "That
the essential part of the oath is in the fullest and most complete degree
binding upon my honor and conscience, and that the repeating of the words
of asseveration does not in the slightest degree weaken the binding of
the allegiance on me." I say now I would not go through any form--much as
I value the right to sit in this House, much as I desire and believe that
this House will accord me that right--that I did not mean to be binding
upon me without mental reservation, without equivocation. I would go
through no form unless it were fully and completely and thoroughly
binding upon me as to what it expressed or promised. Mine has been no
easy position for the last twelve months. I have been elected by the free
votes of a free constituency. My return is untainted. There is no charge
of bribery (cheers), no charge of corruption, nor of inducing men to come
drunken to the polling booth. I come here with a pure untainted
return--not won by accident. For thirteen long years have I fought for
this right--through five contested elections, including this. It is now
proposed to prevent me from fulfilling the duty my constituents have
placed upon me. You have force--on my side is the law. The hon. and
learned member for Plymouth spoke the truth when he said he did not ask
the House to treat the matter as a question of law, but the
constituencies ask me to treat it as a question of law. I, for them, ask
you to treat it as a question of law. I could understand the feeling
that seems to have been manifested were I some great and powerful
personage. I could understand it had I a huge influence behind me. I am
only one of the people, and you propose to teach them that on a mere
technical question you will put a barrier in the way of my doing my duty
which you have never put in the way of anyone else. The question is, has
my return on the 9th of April, 1881, anything whatever to impeach it?
There is no legal disqualification involved. If there were it could be
raised by petition. The hon. member for Plymouth says the dignity of this
House is in question. Do you mean that I can injure the dignity of this
House? This House which has stood unrivalled for centuries? This House
supreme among the assemblies of the world? This House, which represents
the traditions of liberty? I should not have so libelled you. How is the
dignity of this House to be hurt? If what happened before the 9th of
April is less than a legal disqualification, it is a matter for the
judgment of the constituency and not for you. The constituency has judged
me; it has elected me. I stand here with no legal disqualification upon
me. The right of the constituency to return me is an unimpeachable right.
I know some gentlemen make light of constituencies; yet without the
constituencies you are nothing. It is from them you derive your whole and
sole authority. The hon. and learned member for Plymouth treats lightly
the legal question. It is dangerous to make light of the law--dangerous
because if you are only going to rely on your strength of force to
override the law, you give a bad lesson to men whose morality you impeach
as to what should be their duty if emergence ever came (hear, hear).
Always outside the House I have advocated strenuous obedience to the law,
and it is under that law that I claim my right. It is said by the right
hon. baronet who interposes between me and my duty that this House has
passed some resolution. First, I submit that that resolution does not
affect the return of the 9th April. The conditions are entirely
different, there is nothing since the date of that return. I submit next
that if it did affect it the resolution was illegal from the beginning.
In the words of George Grenville, spoken in this House in 1769, I say if
your resolution goes in the teeth of the law--if against the
statute--your resolution is null and void. No word have I uttered
outside these walls which has been lacking in respect to the House. I
believe the House will do me justice, and I ask it to look at what it is
I claim. I claim to do that which the law says I must. Frankly, I would
rather have affirmed. When I came to the table of the House I deemed that
I had a legal right to do it. The courts have decided against me, and I
am bound by their decision. I have the legal right to do what I propose
to do. No resolution of yours can take away that legal right. You may act
illegally and hinder me, and unfortunately I have no appeal against you.
"Unfortunately" perhaps I should not say. Perhaps it is better that the
Chamber which makes the law should never be in conflict with the courts
which administer the laws that the Chamber makes. I think the word
"unfortunately" was not the word I ought to have used in this argument.
But the force that you invoke against the law to-day may to-morrow be
used against you, and the use will be justified by your example. It is a
fact that I have no remedy if you rely on your force. I can only be
driven into a contest, wearying even to a strong man well supported,
ruinous and killing to one man standing by himself--a contest in which if
I succeed it will be injurious to you as well as to me. Injurious to me
because I can only win by lessening your repute which I desire to
maintain. The only court I have the power of appealing to is the court of
public opinion, which I have no doubt in the end will do me justice. The
hon. member for Plymouth said I had the manliness on a former occasion to
make an avowal of opinions to this House. I did nothing of the kind. I
have never, directly or indirectly, said one word about my opinions, and
this House has no right to inquire what opinions I may hold outside its
walls, the only right is that which the statute gives you; my opinions
there is no right to inquire into. I shelter myself under the laws of my
country. This is a political assembly, met to decide on the policy of the
nation, and not on the religious opinions of the citizens (cheers). While
I had the honor of occupying a seat in the House when questions were
raised which touched upon religious matters, I abstained from uttering
one word. I did not desire to say one word which might hurt the feelings
of even the most tender (hear). But it is said, why not have taken the
oath quietly? I did not take it then because I thought I had the right to
do something else, and I have paid the penalty. I have been plunged in
litigation fostered by men who had not the courage to put themselves
forward (loud cheers below the gangway). I, a penniless man, should have
been ruined if it had not been that the men in workshop, pit, and factory
had enabled me to fight this battle (interruption). I am sorry that hon.
members cannot have patience with one pleading as I plead here. It is no
light stake, even if you put it on the lowest personal grounds, to risk
the ambition of a life on such an issue. It is a right ambition to desire
to take part in the councils of the nation, if you bring no store of
wisdom with you, and can only learn from the great intellects that we
have (hear, hear). What will you inquire into? The right hon. baronet
would inquire into my opinions. Will you inquire into my conduct, or is
it only my opinions you will try here? The hon. member for Plymouth
frankly puts it opinions. If opinions, why not conduct? Why not examine
into members' conduct when they come to the table, and see if there be no
members in whose way you can put a barrier? (Hear, hear.) Are members,
whose conduct may be obnoxious, to vote my exclusion because to them my
opinions are obnoxious? As to any obnoxious views supposed to be held by
me, there is no duty imposed upon me to say a word. The right hon.
baronet has said there has been no word of recantation. You have no right
to ask me for any recantation. Since the 9th April you have no right to
ask me for anything. If you have a legal disqualification, petition, lay
it before the Judges. When you ask me to make a statement, you are
guilty of impertinence to me, of treason to the traditions of this House,
and of impeachment of the liberties of the people. My difficulty is that
those who have made the most bitter attacks upon me only made them when I
was not here to deal with them. One hon. and gallant member recently told
his constituents that this would be made a party question, but that the
Conservative members had not the courage to speak out against me. I
should have thought, from reading "Hansard," not that they wanted
courage, but that they had cultivated a reticence that was more just. I
wish to say a word or two on the attempt which has been made to put on
the Government of the day complicity in my views. The Liberal party has
never aided me in any way to this House. (Oh, from the Opposition.)
Never. I have fought by myself. I have fought by my own hand. I have been
hindered in every way that it was possible to hinder me, and it is only
by the help of the people, by the pence of toilers in mine and factory,
that I am here to-day, after these five struggles right through thirteen
years. I have won my way with them, for I have won their hearts, and now
I come to you. Will you send me back from here? Then how? You have the
right, but it is the right of force, and not of law. When I am once
seated on these benches, then I am under your jurisdiction. At present I
am under the protection of the writ from those who sent me here. I do not
want to quote what has happened before, but if there be one lesson which
the House has recorded more solemnly than another, it is that there
should be no interference with the judgment of a constituency in sending
a man to this House against whom there is no statutory disqualification.
Let me appeal to the generosity of the House as well as to its strength.
It has traditions of liberty on both sides. I do not complain that
members on that (the Conservative) side try to keep me out. They act
according to their lights, and think my poor services may be injurious to
them. (Cries of No.) Then why not let me in? (Cheers.) It must be either
a political or a religious question. I must apologise to the House for
trespassing upon its patience. I apologise because I know how generous in
its listening it has been from the time of my first speech in it till
now. But I ask you now, do not plunge with me into a struggle I would
shun. The law gives me no remedy if the House decides against me. Do not
mock at the constituencies. If you place yourselves above the law, you
leave me no course save lawless agitation instead of reasonable pleading.
It is easy to begin such a strife, but none knows how it would end. I
have no court, no tribunal to appeal to; you have the strength of your
votes at the moment. You think I am an obnoxious man, and that I have no
one on my side. If that be so, then the more reason that this House,
grand in the strength of its centuries of liberty, should have now that
generosity in dealing with one who to-morrow may be forced into a
struggle for public opinion against it (cheers).
MR. BRADLAUGH'S Third Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons,
delivered February 7th, 1882.