oath. He considered he had a legal right to choose between the
alternatives of making an affirmation or taking the oath, and he felt it
clearly his moral duty, in that case, to make an affirmation. The oath
included words which, to him, were meaningless, and it would have been an
act of hypocrisy to voluntarily take this form if any other had been open
to him. He should, taking the oath, regard himself as bound not by the
letter of its words, but by the spirit which the affirmation would have
conveyed, had he been allowed to make it, and as soon as he might be able
he should take steps to put an end to the present doubtful and
unfortunate state of the law and practice on oaths and affirmations.
May 21st.--Amid a tumult of cries from the Conservative benches Mr.
Bradlaugh goes to the table for the purpose of being sworn. Sir H. D.
Wolff objecting, the Speaker requested Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw. He (the
Speaker) was bound to say he knew of no instance in which a member who
had offered to take the oath in the usual form was not allowed by the
House to do so. Sir H. D. Wolff then moved that Mr. Bradlaugh should not
be allowed to take the oath, alleging against Mr. Bradlaugh his repute as
an Atheist, and his authorship of "The Impeachment of the House of
Brunswick." Mr. Alderman Fowler seconded the motion, stating that he held
in his hand a petition praying the House not to alter the law and the
custom of the realm for the purpose of admitting an Atheist to
Parliament. Mr. Gladstone, in the course of replying, said: "it was not
in consequence of any regulation enforced by the authority of this
House--of a single branch of the legislature, however complete that
authority may be over the members of this House, that the hon. member for
Northampton presents himself to take the oath at the table. He presents
himself in pursuance of a statutory obligation to take the oath in order
that he may fulfil the duty with which, as we are given to understand, in
a regular and formal manner, his constituents have entrusted him. That
statutory obligation implied a statutory right." He moved that it be
referred to a select committee to consider and report for the information
of the House whether the House has any right to prevent a duly-elected
member, who is willing to take the oath, from doing so. A long debate
ensued, characterised by the fierceness with which Mr. Bradlaugh's
admission to Parliament was opposed. Mr. John Bright, however, asked if
the House were entitled thus to obstruct what he called the right of a
member to take his seat on account of his religious belief, because it
happened that his belief or no belief had been openly professed, what
reason was there that any member of the House should not be questioned as
to his beliefs, and if the answer were not satisfactory that the House
should not be at liberty to object to his taking his seat? After two or
three adjournments of the debate the Premier's amendment was virtually
withdrawn, and a motion by the Attorney-General was carried to the effect
that a committee should be appointed to report whether it was competent
to the House to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh, by resolution, from taking the
oath.
May 28th.--Committee nominated--twenty-three members.
Mr. Labouchere gives notice to ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend the
law of Parliamentary Oaths, to provide that any member may, if he desire,
make a solemn affirmation in lieu of taking the oath.
June 2nd.--Mr. Bradlaugh gives evidence before Select Committee, in the
course of which he said: "I have never at any time refused to take the
oath of allegiance provided by statute to be taken by members; all I did
was, believing as I then did that I had the right to affirm, to claim to
affirm, and I was then absolutely silent as to the oath; that I did not
refuse to take it, nor have I then or since expressed any mental
reservation, or stated that the appointed oath of allegiance would not be
binding upon me; that, on the contrary, I say, and have said, 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 words of
asseveration does not in the slightest degree weaken the binding effect
of the oath of allegiance upon me." [It had been persistently represented
that Mr. Bradlaugh had refused to take the oath.] "Any form that I went
through, any oath that I took, I should regard as binding upon my
conscience in the fullest degree."
June 16th.--The committee report that the compliance by Mr. Bradlaugh
with the form used when an oath is taken would not be the taking of the
oath within the true meaning of the statutes; that if a member make and
subscribe the affirmation in place of taking the oath it is possible by
means of an action in the High Court of Justice, to test his legal right
to do so; and that the committee recommend that should Mr. Bradlaugh
again seek to make and subscribe the affirmation he be not prevented from
so doing. (Majority in favor of his being allowed to affirm--four.)
June 21st.--Mr. Labouchere moved in the House of Commons that Mr.
Bradlaugh be admitted to make an affirmation instead of taking the oath,
seconded by Mr. M'Laren. Sir H. Giffard moved a resolution seeking to
debar Mr. Bradlaugh from both oath and affirmation. Alderman Fowler
seconded, a man who did not believe in a God was not likely to be a man
of high moral character. The majority of the people were opposed to an
Atheist being admitted to Parliament. Many other members spoke. General
Burnaby said the making of the affirmation by Mr. Bradlaugh would pollute
the oath. Mr. Palmer said Mr. Bradlaugh had a legal right with which the
House had no power to interfere. The Attorney-General said he had come to
the conclusion that Mr. Bradlaugh could not take the oath, chiefly on the
consideration that he was a person entitled to affirm. Mr. John Bright
said it was certainly open to any member to propose to take either oath
or affirmation; probably if Mr. Bradlaugh had had any suspicion that the
affirmation would have been refused him, he would have taken the oath as
other members take it--very much, he was afraid, as a matter of form.
Debate adjourned.
June 22nd.--Mr. Gladstone said that the House, by agreeing to the
amendment, would probably be entering on the commencement of a long,
embarrassing, and a difficult controversy, not perhaps so much within as
beyond the limits of the House, perhaps with the result of ultimate
defeat of the House. The more he looked at the case the stronger appeared
the arguments which went to prove that in the essence of the law and the
constitution the House had no jurisdiction. In interfering between a
member and what he considered his statutory duty, the House might find
itself in conflict with either the courts of law or the constituency of
Northampton. No doubt an action could not be brought against the House,
but he was not so clear that an action could not be brought against the
servants of the House. He was still less willing to face a conflict with
the constituency. The House had commonly been successful in its
controversies with the Crown or House of Lords, but very different was
the issue of its one lamentable conflict with a constituency.--Sir Henry
Tyler, with execrable taste, dragged in the name of a lady with whom Mr.
Bradlaugh is associated in business. At last, by a majority of 45--the
numbers voting being 275 and 230--another triumph against liberty was
scored.
The _Christian World_ regretted that some Nonconformists helped to swell
the Tory majority.
The _Jewish World_ held it as a reproach to Judaism, that members of
their community should have gone over to the party which once strove to
detain them in bondage.
In 1851, Mr. Newdegate protested against the idea "that they should have
sitting in the House, an individual who regarded our redeemer as an
impostor," and yet Baron de Worms voted with Mr. Newdegate for the
exclusion of a man with whose tenets he disagreed.
The _Whitehall Review_ headed an article "God _v._ Bradlaugh," and said
the majority had "protected God from insult."
June 23rd.--Mr. Bradlaugh again claimed at the table of the House of
Commons to take the oath, and the Speaker having informed him of the
resolution passed the previous evening, requested his withdrawal. Mr.
Bradlaugh thereupon asked to be heard, and after some debate the demand
was complied with.
Mr. Bradlaugh spoke from the bar of the House, asking no favor, but
claiming his right, and warning hon. members against a conflict with
public opinion.
Mr. Labouchere moved, and Mr. Macdonald seconded, the rescindment of the
resolution of the 22nd, which was lost on division.
Mr. Bradlaugh was then recalled and requested to withdraw from the House.
Standing by the table, he said: "I respectfully refuse to obey the order
of the House, because the order is against the law." The raging of the
bigots and Tories recommenced. Mr. Gladstone declined to help them out of
the pit into which they had leapt: "Those who were responsible for the
decision might carry it out as they chose." After a sharp discussion Mr.
Bradlaugh was, on the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, "committed to the
Clock Tower." In the division the numbers were 274 for and 7 against, the
Radicals having left the House.
June 24th.--On the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Bradlaugh is
released from custody, "not upon apology, or reparation, or promise not
to repeat his offence, but with the full knowledge and clear
recollection of his announcement that the offence would be repeated
_toties quoties_ till his object was effected."
June 25th.--Mr. Labouchere gives notice of motion to rescind the
resolution of the 22nd, and Government agreed to give an early day for
the discussion of the same.
June 28th.--Baron de Ferrieres announced his intention to move that the
seat for Northampton be declared vacant, and that a Bill be brought in
providing for the substitution of an affirmation for the oath at the
option of members. Mr. Wyndham (Conservative) asked Mr. Gladstone whether
the Government would bring in a Bill to remove all doubts as to the legal
right of members to make a solemn affirmation. Mr. Gladstone said the
Government did not propose to do so, and gave notice for Thursday (1st
July) to move as a standing order that members-elect be allowed, subject
to any liability by statute, to affirm at their choice. Mr. Labouchere
then said he would not proceed with his motion. On another motion,
however, by the same member, leave was given to bring in a Bill for the
amendment of the Parliamentary Oaths and Affirmations, which was read a
first time.
July 1st.--After a futile attempt made by Mr. Gorst to show that Mr.
Gladstone's resolution was a disorderly one, the Premier, in moving it
said, in the course of an extremely fair speech, that the allegation of
members that Mr. Bradlaugh had thrust his opinions upon the House was
untrue. His (Mr. Bradlaugh's) reference to the Acts under which he
claimed to affirm had only been named in answer to a question from the
clerk of the House. Sir Erskine May, in his evidence before the recent
committee, stated that Mr. Bradlaugh simply claimed to affirm.
Sir Stafford Northcote admitted that when Mr. Bradlaugh was called upon
to affirm he was not disrespectful, but firm. He opposed the resolution
as humiliating to the House. Several members protested against any course
for facilitating the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh. General Burnaby stated
that in order to obtain "authoritative" opinions on the matter he had
obtained letters or telegrams from the Moravian body, the Bishop of
London, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ossory, the Bishop of Ratho, the
Archbishop of Dublin, the Bishop of Galway, and the Bishop of Argyle and
the Isles, and the Secretary of the Pope of Rome, all of whom expressed
themselves in the strongest terms against the admission of an Atheist
into Parliament. Mr. Spurgeon, who was unfortunately from home, had
expressed his opinion strongly adverse to it, and the Chief Rabbi--(loud
laughter)--although refusing to interfere with political questions, felt
very deeply on the subject. (Laughter, and cries of "the Sultan," and
"Shah.")
When the House divided the numbers were 303 for, and 249 against.
July 2nd.--Mr. Bradlaugh takes the affirmation of allegiance, and his
seat.
* * * * *
During the struggle several hundreds of indignation meetings were held in
London and the provinces, and petitions, letters, telegrams, etc., in
immense numbers, poured in upon the Government and the House, in favor of
Mr. Bradlaugh's rights.
* * * * *
July 2nd.--Mr. Bradlaugh gives his first vote, and was thereupon served
with a writ to recover against him a penalty of L500 for having voted and
sat without having made and subscribed the oath, the plaintiff being one
Henry Lewis Clarke, who, as subsequently appeared, was merely the tool of
the actual common informer, Charles Newdigate Newdegate, M.P. This writ
was ready so quickly that, if not issued actually before Mr. Bradlaugh
had taken his seat, it must have been prepared beforehand.
July 8th.--Mr. Norwood asks the first Lord of the Treasury whether,
considering the Government declined to introduce a bill to amend the
Oaths Act, it would instruct the law officers of the Crown to defend the
junior member for Northampton against the suit of the common informer.
Mr. Callan asked whether the Government would remit the penalty. Mr.
Gladstone said no application had been received for remission of the
penalties, and that his reply to Mr. Norwood must be in the negative.
July 14th.--Read first time in the House of Commons, a bill "to
incapacitate from sitting in Parliament any person who has by deliberate
public speaking, or by published writing, systematically avowed his
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being." It was prepared and
introduced by Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr. Alderman Fowler and Mr. Hicks.
Owing to an informality the Bill could not come on for second reading.
The Rev. Canon Abney, of Derby, speaks of Mr. Bradlaugh as "the apostle
of filth, impurity, and blasphemy."
July 16th.--Parliament indemnifies Lord Byron against an action, he
having sat and voted without being sworn.
July 20th.--Sir Eardley Wilmot gives notice of moving that it is
repugnant to the constitution for an Atheist to become a member of "this
Honorable House." He afterwards postponed his motion.
At a meeting of the Dumfries Town Council, a member said: "If the law
courts should decide that it was legal for an Atheist to sit in the House
of Commons, he should feel it is duty to give notice of petition to
Parliament to have the law altered; he would not allow Mr. Bradlaugh to
go into a hundred acre field beside cattle, let alone the House of
Commons."
The Rev. Chas. Voysey writes, that he feels disgraced by the people of
Northampton electing Mr. Bradlaugh, and declares that "most of the
speeches in the Bradlaugh case in favor of his exclusion, strike me as
singularly good, wholesome and creditable." He repeats the myth of Mr.
Bradlaugh forcing his objections to the oath upon the House.
July 21st.--Sir John Hay, M.P., speaking about Mr. Bradlaugh at New
Galloway, made a most infamous, cowardly, and uncalled for attack on Mrs.
Besant. The _Scotsman_ refused to print the remarks, as "the language was
so coarse that it could hardly have dropped from a Yahoo."
Aug. 1st.--The _Nineteenth Century_ prints "An Englishman's Protest,"
written by Cardinal Manning, personally directed against Mr. Bradlaugh.
Aug. 24th.--Mr. Bradlaugh gives notice that early next session he will
call attention to perpetual pensions.
Sept. 7th.--Parliament prorogued. Hansard credits Mr. Bradlaugh with
about twenty speeches during the Session. (Mr. Newdegate told the
Licensed Victuallers that Mr. Bradlaugh "had made one speech, and proved
himself a second or third-rate speaker.")
1881.
Jan. 6th.--Parliament reopens. Mr. Bradlaugh renews his notice as to
perpetual pensions. Great interest in the question throughout the
kingdom.
Jan. 24th.--Mr. Bradlaugh makes a speech in the House of Commons against
Coercion in Ireland.
Jan. 31st.--Mr. Newdegate, speaking in the House, described Northampton
as an "oasis in the Midland Counties."
Feb. 4th.--Mr. Bradlaugh makes a speech against the second reading of the
Coercion Bill, and concluded by moving that it be read that day six
months.
Feb. 15th.--Date of motion for inquiry into perpetual pensions fixed for
March 15th. (When the day arrived Mr. Bradlaugh, on an appeal from Mr.
Gladstone, allowed the motion to be postponed, in order to allow supply
to be taken. 848 petitions had been presented to the House, with 251,332
signatures in favor of the motion.)
Feb. 17th.--Mr. Dawson, M.P. for Carlow, said that Irish members were
much indebted to Mr. Bradlaugh for what he had done on the Coercion Bill.
Feb. 25th.--Mr. Bradlaugh made final speech against third reading of the
Coercion Bill.
March 7th.--The case of Clarke _v._ Bradlaugh heard by Mr. Justice
Mathew.
March 10th.--Mr. Bradlaugh brought before the House the case of the
imprisoned Maoris.
March 11th.--Judgment in the case given, which was for the plaintiff,
that he was entitled to recover the penalty, subject to appeal. Mr.
Bradlaugh gave notice of appeal.
Mr. Gorst gave notice to move that Mr. Speaker issue his warrant for new
writ for the borough of Nottingham [!].
March 14th.--Upon Mr. Bradlaugh rising to present petitions against
perpetual pensions, signed by over 7,000 persons, Mr. Gorst rose to
order, on the ground that the seat for Northampton was vacant. After
discussion the Speaker called upon Mr. Bradlaugh to proceed with the
presentation of his petitions.
March 15th.--At request of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bradlaugh postponed his
motion for enquiry into perpetual pensions.
March 23rd.--Mr. Bradlaugh moved the Court of Appeal to expedite the
hearing of his appeal, and also to expedite the trial of the issues in
fact. The Court gave the appeal priority over other cases.
March 28th.--Mr. Bradlaugh made his last speech in the House against
flogging in the Army.
March 30th.--Appeal heard.
March 31st.--Judgment given against the defendant. Plaintiff not yet
entitled to execution, but seat vacated, Mr. Bradlaugh undertaking not to
appeal so far as the affirmation was concerned.
Mr. Bradlaugh again seeks the suffrages of the electors of Northampton.
April 6th.--The Tories serve notice on the Mayor not to accept Mr.
Bradlaugh's nomination, which the Mayor disregarded. Mr. Edward Corbett
nominated by Tories.
April 9th.--Mr. Bradlaugh re-elected by 3,437 votes to Corbett 3,305.
April 26th.--Mr. Bradlaugh, accompanied by Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Burt,
came to the table of the House, and, "the book" having been handed to
him, was about to take the oath when Sir Stafford Northcote interposing,
he was requested to withdraw, in order that the House might consider the
new conditions under which the oath was proposed to be taken. Mr.
Bradlaugh withdrew to the bar of the House, and Sir Stafford Northcote
moved that he be not allowed to go through the form of taking the oath.
Mr. Davey moved and Mr. Labouchere seconded an amendment to the effect
that where a person who had been duly elected presented himself at the
table to take the oath he ought not to be prevented from doing so by
anything extraneous to the transaction. Other members spoke, and Mr.
Bright regretted "the almost violent temper with which some hon.
gentlemen came to the consideration of the question."
Mr. Bradlaugh, speaking at the bar, claimed that his return was
untainted, that it had not been brought about by the Liberal party, but
by the help of the people, by the pence of toilers in mine and factory.
He begged the House not to plunge into a struggle with him, which he
would shun. Strife was easy to begin, but none knew where it would end.
There was no legal disqualification upon him, and they had no right to
impose a disqualification which was less than legal.
Mr. Gladstone made a lengthy and fine speech in favor of Mr. Bradlaugh,
the text of which was Mr. Bradlaugh's own words given above as to
imposition of a new disqualification; on a division, however, the bigots
again had it.
Mr. Bradlaugh again stepped to the table, and demanded the administration
of the oath, refusing to obey the Speaker's order to withdraw. Sir
Stafford Northcote asked the Prime Minister whether he proposed to offer
the House any counsel. Mr. Gladstone said he should leave it to the
majority to carry out the effects of their vote. Eventually the Speaker
called upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove Mr. Bradlaugh, who during the
debate had been standing at the table. Mr. Bradlaugh withdrawing with the
Sergeant three times to the bar, as often returned to the table. After
further passages at arms between Mr. Gladstone and Sir Stafford
Northcote, the House adjourned.
April 27th.--Mr. Bradlaugh again found at the table of the House claiming
to be allowed to take the oath. At the bidding of the Speaker the
Sergeant-at-Arms again caused Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw to the bar, where
he remained during the discussion which followed.
Mr. Labouchere asked the Prime Minister whether he would give him
reasonable facilities to introduce his Affirmation Bill, if so Mr.
Bradlaugh would not interfere with the resolution passed last night.
Mr. Gladstone said the giving facility for that purpose, meant the
postponement of very serious and very urgent business, and he had no
assurance as to the disposition of the House. He could not see his way to
consent if it was to be an opposed Bill. After further discussion,
however, Mr. Gladstone said it might be possible to test the feeling of
the House by one or more morning sittings.
April 29th.--Mr. Gladstone announces the intention of the Government of
bringing in a bill amending the Parliamentary Oaths Act.
May 2nd.--The Attorney-General moved that the House resolve itself into
committee with a view of his asking leave to introduce the Bill. Debate
on motion adjourned to the 5th with the view of fixing the time on the
6th, when the discussion should be resumed.
Mr. MacIver gave notice to ask the Prime Minister whether he was prepared
to reconsider his decision of last session, and will introduce "a short
measure" for the partial disfranchisement of Northampton. (The question
was never put.)
May 6th.--Further obstruction of the Bigots.
May 10th.--After 1.15 a.m. the Government proposed a morning sitting for
that day (Tuesday), to discuss the introduction of their Bill. Further
obstruction, wrath, and bitterness, and the Government abandoned the
intention to hold a morning sitting.
At the afternoon sitting a resolution was arrived at, which authorised
the Sergeant-at-Arms to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from entering the House.
Lord Selborne (Lord Chancellor) in reply to a letter relative to Mr.
Bradlaugh and the oath, says equal justice is due to Christian and
infidel; he saw no possibility of refusing to afford by legislation to
all who scruple to take the oath, the same option in Parliament as they
have in courts of law, to make an affirmation.
May 25th.--Mr. Newdegate formally blocked the Bill, of which Mr.
Labouchere gave notice, for indemnifying Mr. Bradlaugh against penalties
for having sat and voted on affirmation.
June 19th and 20th.--The common informer's action tried at _Nisi prius_
before Mr. Justice Grove. Verdict against Mr. Bradlaugh for penalty and
costs.--_Rule nisi_ for new trial afterwards, granted by Justices Grove
and Lindley; this rule was made absolute by Justices Denman and Hawkins,
but was set aside by Lords Justices Brett, Cotton and Holker.
* * * * *
Mr. Bradlaugh appeals to the country. The country answers.
* * * * *