=Source.=--_The Times_, June 25.
We may regard the episode of Tuesday's resolution, and its natural
sequence in the imprisonment of Mr. Bradlaugh for defying the
authority of the House, as now at an end.... We regret unfeignedly,
as we have all along done, that Mr. Bradlaugh was not permitted to
make affirmation, instead of taking an oath, when he first asked
to be allowed to do so.... But opportunity of creating a precedent
consonant with reason and common sense has been let slip, and in
default of a reasonable precedent the only manly course now seems
to be to supply its place by fresh legislation. If the personal
question of Mr. Bradlaugh and his very unsavoury opinions can once
be got out of the way, there are probably very few members of the
House of Commons, and very few sensible Englishmen, however strong
their religious opinions, who would not acknowledge the anomaly,
the inexpediency, and the injustice of making the Parliamentary
oath of allegiance more stringent and more exclusive than the
existing statutory provisions for securing truth of testimony and
uprightness of conduct.