LABOUCHERE AND BRADLAUGH
(1880-1881)
At the general election of 1880, Mr. Labouchere found in the electors
of Northampton a constituency which was to remain faithful to him
throughout his political career. He was described in the local press
as the "nominee of the moderate Liberals," though, as he explained in
the columns of _Truth_, a moderate Liberal at Northampton was a
Radical any where else. The "Radical" candidate was that upright and
greatly persecuted man, Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, who merited far more
than Mr. Labouchere the title of the "religious member for
Northampton."[1] It has often been pointed out that the difference
between religious and irreligious people does not lie so much in
opinion as in temperament. Labouchere had an essentially irreligious
nature, he was a born _impie_, as the French say: Mr. Bradlaugh had
the soul of a Covenanter. As far as speculative religious opinions
were concerned, they practically coincided, while, in the general
lines of political opinion, they were quite at one. Both were strong
Radicals and strong anti-socialists.
Northampton was in 1880 one of the most promising Radical
constituencies.[2] The Radical element had for {143} many years been
very numerous among the population, but unfortunately the majority of
the workers had no vote. The Household Suffrage Act of 1868 remedied
this state of things to some extent. The work of the Freehold Land
Society developed the scope of the remedy. This most practical
expression of democratic ideals, by making freeholders of workmen,
raised the numbers of the electorate from 6829 in 1874 to 8189 in
1880; of these 2500 had never voted before, and to a man were
Radicals. When Mr. Labouchere was introduced as Liberal candidate he
at once decided to make common cause with Mr. Bradlaugh, and his
manifesto to the electors, published on March 27, was craftily worded
so as to appeal with simple directness to those modern sons of St.
Crispin, "the communistic cobblers of Northampton." It ran as
follows: "Having already sat in Parliament as a Liberal member for
Middlesex, it is needless for me to say that I am an opponent of the
Imperialism which, under the leadership of the Earl of Beaconsfield,
has become the policy of the Conservative Government. This
new-fangled political creed consists in swagger abroad and inaction
at home. Its results are that we have made ourselves the patrons of
one of the vilest governments that ever burdened the earth; that we
have joined with the oppressors against the oppressed; that we have
acquired a pestiferous and less than worthless land in the
Mediterranean; that we have annexed the territory of some harmless
Dutch republicans against their will; that we have expended above six
millions in catching a savage, who had as much right to his freedom
as we have, and that we have butchered Afghans for the crime of
defending their country against an unjust invasion.... For my part,
I am anxious to see Parliament again controlling the executive, and a
majority of members returned who will radically revise the laws
regarding land, so as to encourage its tenure by the many instead of
its absorption by the few, who will render farmers independent of the
caprices of the landlords, who will emancipate {144} the agricultural
labourers by securing to them their natural right to vote." He went
on to express in strong terms his desire for the disestablishment and
disendowment of the Church of England.[3] In a speech which he made
on the same day as the publication of his manifesto, in the Wesleyan
Chapel, in the Wellingborough Road, he said that he had been asked a
little while ago whether he was a member of the Church of England,
and he had replied that he had been brought up in the Church of
England, and, if he had to register his religion, he should register
it as a member of the Church of England. But, if he had been asked
what his religion was, he should have said the question was one
between his God and his conscience, and it was no business of any
one's in Northampton, because he stood upon the distinct issue that,
whatever the religious opinions of a candidate might be, they were
sending him to Parliament to perform certain political duties, and if
his political views were in accordance with theirs, religion had
nothing to do with it.[4]
The borough had previously returned two Tory members, Mr. Phipps, a
local brewer, and Mr. Merewether, a lawyer. They were not themselves
very formidable opponents to the Radical joint candidature. The
clergy and the press urged the theological motive, as well as his
greatly misunderstood views on Malthusianism against Bradlaugh. On
the Sunday before the election the Vicar of St. Giles intimated that
"to those noble men who loved Christ more than party, Jesus would
say, 'Well done.'" But, in spite of nearly 2000 years of
Christianity, heaven has not yet learned to bless the weaker cause,
and on the election day, the figures stood--Labouchere (L.), 4518,
Bradlaugh (R.), 3827, Phipps (C.), 3125, Merewether (C.), 2826. When
the news of the poll was brought to Mr. Labouchere, who was smoking
his cigarette in the coffee room of the hotel where he was staying,
his only comment was a quiet chuckle, and the remark, "Oh, they've
swallowed Bradlaugh, after all, have they?"
{145}
Great was the fury in the Conservative camp. "The bellowing
blasphemer of Northampton," as Mr. Bradlaugh was amiably called by
the _Sheffield Telegraph_, had to meet the full blast of popular
prejudice, which was exploited to the utmost by his political
opponents.
The Tories were soon to have more than popular prejudice to exploit.
On May 3, Mr. Bradlaugh, before taking his seat in the House of
Commons, handed to Sir Thomas Erskine May, the Clerk of the House,
the following statement:
_To_
THE RIGHT HONBLE. THE SPEAKER.
I, the undersigned, Charles Bradlaugh, beg respectfully to claim to
be allowed to affirm as a person for the time being by law permitted
to make a solemn affirmation or declaration, instead of taking an
oath.
On being invited by the Speaker (Sir Henry Brand) to make a statement
to the House with regard to his claim, he replied:
Mr. Speaker, I have only now to submit that the Parliamentary Oaths
Act, 1866, gives the right to affirm to every person for the time
being permitted to make affirmation. I am such a person; and under
the Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, and the Evidence Amendment Act,
1870, I have repeatedly for nine years past affirmed in the highest
courts of jurisdiction in this realm. I am ready to make the
declaration or affirmation of allegiance.
It might have been thought that the principle of Mr. Bradlaugh's
position needed only to be stated to be accepted by men of honourable
feeling and average intelligence. After all, as Mr. Labouchere, in
course of conversation on this very point, once remarked to me: "a
statement is either true or false, and expletives cannot affect it."
The legal precedents, invoked, although they did not actually mention
{146} the parliamentary oath, had been considered sufficient by the
last Liberal law officers. Sir Henry Brand, however, had "grave
doubts," and desired to refer the claim to the House's judgment.
Lord Frederick Cavendish, on behalf of the Treasury Bench, seconded
by Sir Stafford Northcote, the leader of the Opposition, moved that
the point be referred to a Select Committee. Lord Percy and Mr.
David Onslow attempted in vain to adjourn the debate.
On May 10, Lord Richard Grosvenor, the Government Whip, announced the
names of the proposed Committee: Mr. Whitbread, Sir J. Holker, Mr.
John Bright, Lord Henry Lennox, Mr. W. H. Massey, Mr. Staveley Hill,
Sir Henry Jackson, Sir Henry James (the Attorney-General), Mr. Farrer
Herschell (the Solicitor-General), Sir G. Goldney, Mr. Grantham, Mr.
Pemberton, Mr. Watkin Williams, Mr. Spencer Walpole, Mr. Hopwood, Mr.
Beresford Hope, Major Nolan, Mr. Chaplin, and Mr. Serjeant Simon. In
spite of the fact that the actual motion was not to come on till the
next day, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff endeavoured at once to raise a
debate on the legitimacy of the Committee, and the next day succeeded
in doing so. The debate was characterised by "great violence and
recklessness," but the Government succeeded in getting their
Committee appointed by a majority of seventy-four. The report of the
Committee was presented on May 20. Eight members were in favour of
Mr. Bradlaugh's right to affirm, and eight members against: Mr.
Spencer Walpole, the Chairman, took the responsibility of giving his
casting vote for the Noes. All the Noes with the exception of Mr.
Hopwood were Conservatives, the rest of the Liberals voting on the
affirmative side. Bradlaugh now claimed the right to take the oath,
as the right to affirm was denied him.
There has been so much misunderstanding of Bradlaugh's position on
this point that it may be well to explain exactly what it was that he
did claim. In a statement of his case subsequently published in his
paper, _The National Reformer_, {147} on May 30, 1889, Mr. Bradlaugh
used the following words: "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."
The words italicised indicate very clearly the spirit in which Mr.
Bradlaugh proposed to take the oath. To do so, was, as he conceived,
the only way, since the adverse decision of the Committee on his
claim to affirm, by which he could qualify himself for the
performance of his duty to his constituents. It was in no sense
intended as an insult to those to whom the oath had a distinct and
positive religious value, or as a defiance of the dignity or orders
of the House. This document was dated May 30, the day on which the
report of the Committee was issued, and on the following day, Mr.
Bradlaugh presented himself to take the oath and his seat.
Sir Henry Drummond Wolff at once rose and objected to the
administration of the oath, and, on the Speaker's allowing his
objection, proceeded to make a remarkable speech. For flippancy of
tone and sheer ineptitude of argument, not to speak of the crass and
brutal quality of {148} the prejudice which inspired it, this
deliverance possesses an unenviable pre-eminence among the many
absurdities uttered by honourable members during the Bradlaugh
parliamentary struggle. Wolff's argument rested on two grounds, both
palpably false, while the second was entirely irrelevant to the point
at issue. He maintained that Atheists who had made affirmations in
courts of law (as Mr. Bradlaugh had done) thereby admitted that an
oath "would not be binding on their conscience," and, furthermore,
that Bradlaugh had stated, in his "Impeachment of the House of
Brunswick," that "Parliament has the undoubted right to withhold the
crown from Albert Edward, Prince of Wales." Sir Henry "could not see
how a gentleman professing the views set forth in that work could
take the oath of allegiance." He went on to say: "What we have now
before us is the distinct negation of anything like perpetual
morality or conscience, or the existence of God. And, as I believe
that a person holding these views cannot be allowed to take the oath
in this House, I beg to move my resolution." Mr. R. N. Forster
seconded. Mr. Gladstone at once rose and, while refraining from
expressing any personal opinion, suggested reference to a Select
Committee. Sir Henry James supported the Prime Minister's amendment.
Mr. Labouchere, speaking as the colleague of the honourable member in
the representation of Northampton, said that he thought it right to
state that his honourable friend was selected by the majority of the
constituents solely on account of his political views. They did not
occupy themselves with his religious convictions, because they were
under the impression that they were giving him political, rather than
theological, functions to fulfil in that House. A proposal had been
made by the Prime Minister that this matter should be referred to a
Select Committee. It certainly did appear to him (Mr. Labouchere)
somewhat strange that a member who had been duly elected should be
told that he could not take his seat because he was forbidden to make
an affirmation on {149} account of his not being a Quaker or a
Moravian, and because he was forbidden from taking the oath on
account of certain speculative religious opinions, which he had
professed. But that appeared to be the view of many gentlemen on the
other side of the House, and he should be perfectly ready to discuss
that view; but, as the Prime Minister had very rightly said, the
matter was a judicial one, and it would be far better, in his humble
opinion, that it should be referred to a Committee of the House to
look at it in its judicial aspect rather than that there should be an
acrimonious theological discussion in that House. When, however, it
was referred to a Committee, he thought that he had a right to ask,
in the name of his constituents, that that Committee should decide it
as soon as possible. Should the Committee decide that the honourable
gentleman was not to be allowed to take the oath, it would then
become, if not his duty, the duty of some other honourable gentleman
to bring in a bill to enable his colleague to make an affirmation in
order that his constituents might enjoy the right which the
constitution gave them of being represented by two members in that
House.
Lord Percy drily observed that he was sorry for the electors of
Northampton if they were deprived of the services of one of their
representatives, because the honourable gentleman was recommended to
them by his honourable colleague, whose religious opinions were well
known, and, after an eloquent speech from Mr. Bright, who recommended
"the statesmanlike and judicious course which has been suggested to
us by the First Minister of the Crown," the debate was adjourned.
On the resumption of the debate the next day, the wildest remarks
were made by Mr. Bradlaugh's opponents. Dr. Lyons proposed the
solution that "Northampton should send us a God-fearing if not a
God-loving man." Mr. Warton argued that "the man who does not fear
God cannot honour the King," and Mr. Callan scoffed at Mr. Bright's
tribute of respect to Mr. Bradlaugh's sense of honour and {150}
conscience, "language," he said, "that should not be used with
reference to an infidel blasphemer." After the din caused by this
_ex parte_ criticism had subsided, the still small voice of Mr.
Labouchere was heard mildly asking whether the honourable member was
in order in referring to his colleague as an infidel blasphemer, and
the Speaker having ruled the phrase out of order, Mr. Callan withdrew
it. He was, however, an ardent polemist, and added that he was sure
that Mr. Labouchere, in spite of his support of Mr. Bradlaugh, "would
prefer in this House his old acquaintance Lambri Pasha to the
gentleman who was the subject of the debate." And so the foolish
wrangle went on, recalling the historian's account of the
Œcumenical Council. It is true that the amateur theologians of
Westminster stopped short of pulling each other's beards. Their zeal
had not quite the professional note of that of the Fathers at Ephesus.
After two days of this sort of thing, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's
motion was rejected by 289 votes to 219, and a second Select
Committee of twenty-three was appointed. The members were: the
Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, Messrs. Bright, Chaplin,
Childers, Sir Richard Cross, Mr. Gibson, Sir Gabriel Goldney, Mr.
Grantham, Mr. Staveley Hill, Sir John Holker, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr.
Hopwood, Sir Henry Jackson, Lord Henry Lennox, Mr. Massey, Major
Nolan, Messrs. Pemberton, Simon, Trevelyan, Walpole, Whitbread, and
Watkin Williams.
The Committee reported that Bradlaugh by simply stating (though in
answer to official question) that he had repeatedly affirmed under
certain Acts in courts of law, had brought it to the notice of the
House that he was a person as to whom judges had satisfied themselves
that an oath was not binding on his conscience; that, under the
circumstances, an oath taken by him would not be an oath within the
true meaning of the statutes; and that the House therefore could, and
ought, to prevent him from going through the form. The Committee
further suggested that he should be allowed {151} to affirm with a
view to his right to do so being tested by legal action, pointing to
the nearly equal balance of votes in the former Committee as a reason
for desiring a decisive legal solution.
On June 21, Mr. Labouchere moved "that Mr. Bradlaugh, member for the
borough of Northampton, be admitted to make an affirmation or
declaration instead of the oath required by law." This speech was
one of the best he ever made in the House. It was an admirable piece
of argument and an excellent piece of literature, solidly reasoned
and witty; "it is contrary to, it is repugnant to, the feelings of
all men of tolerant minds that any gentleman should be hindered from
performing civil functions in this world on account of speculative
opinions about another"--was a terse summing up of the situation
worthy of Gibbon. His main argument was that the Parliamentary Oaths
Act of 1866 gave to all persons, legally entitled to affirm in the
law courts, the right to affirm in Parliament. He further pointed
out that the refusal to allow Bradlaugh to affirm would be to turn
him into a martyr. Mr. Bright again made a fine speech in which he
said, amid ironical cheers from the Opposition, that he pretended to
no conscience and honour superior to the conscience of Mr. Bradlaugh.
Mr. Gladstone also spoke cogently in favour of Mr. Labouchere's
motion. It was, however, lost by a majority of 45, of whom 5 were
English Liberals and 31 Irish Home Rulers.
On June 23, Mr. Bradlaugh again presented himself at the table of the
House. The Speaker called on him to withdraw, in accordance with the
vote of the night before. Mr. Labouchere then moved that "Mr.
Bradlaugh be now heard at the Bar of the House," following which
motion Mr. Bradlaugh made an eloquent and dignified defence of his
position. A confused debate followed, and Mr. Labouchere moved that
"Yesterday's decision be rescinded," withdrawing his motion, however,
on an appeal from Mr. Gladstone. The Speaker then recalled Bradlaugh
to the table, {152} and informed him that the House had nothing to
say to him beyond once more calling upon him to withdraw. Bradlaugh
replied: "I beg respectfully to insist on my right as a duly elected
member for Northampton. I ask you to have the oath administered to
me in order that I may take my seat, and I respectfully refuse to
withdraw." After a second admonition from the Speaker, to which
Bradlaugh replied, "With respect I do refuse to obey the orders of
the House, which are against the law," the House was appealed to "to
give authority to the Chair to compel execution of its orders." Mr.
Gladstone, although called upon, did not rise. He appeared to be
absorbed in deep thought, and, with his gaze fixed on a vague
distance, just above the heads of the belligerent theologians, he
meditatively twirled his thumbs. Northcote hesitatingly moved,
"though I am not quite sure what the terms of the motion should be,
that Mr. Speaker do take the necessary steps for requiring and
enforcing the withdrawal of the honourable member for Northampton."
The Speaker explained that the motion should simply be "that the
honourable member do now withdraw." On a division being taken, 326
voted in favour of the motion and only 38 against. On the Speaker
renewing his order, Mr. Bradlaugh answered: "With submission to you,
Sir, the order of the House is against the law, and I respectfully
refuse to obey it." The Sergeant-at-Arms was now called, and
touching him on the shoulder, requested him to withdraw. Mr.
Bradlaugh said: "I will submit to the Sergeant-at-Arms removing me
below the Bar, but I shall immediately return to the table," and did
so, saying as he returned toward the table, "I claim my right as a
member of this House." This little ceremony was repeated twice, the
House being in an uproar. High above the din, Mr. Bradlaugh's voice
could be heard shouting: "I claim my right as a member of this House.
I admit the right of the House to imprison me, but I admit no right
on the part of the House to exclude me, and I refuse to be excluded."
He was again led to {153} the Bar by the Sergeant-at-Arms to await
the House's action.
Mr. Bradlaugh had, no doubt not unintentionally, indicated to his
enemies the only line they could take. It was his tactic, and a wise
one, to force the House into the extreme measure of physical force.
To do so was a fair retort from a Rationalist to his opponents.
Northcote, complaining again of Mr. Gladstone's inaction, proceeded
to move that "Mr. Bradlaugh, having defied the authority of the
House, be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms." Mr.
Labouchere at once rose and said that he would not oppose the
resolution, although he thought it a somewhat strange thing that a
citizen of this country should be sent to prison for doing what
eminent legal gentlemen on his side and an eminent legal gentleman on
the other side of the House said he had a perfect right to do. He
was interrupted by cries of "No, No!" He continued that he did not
know whether honourable members opposite meant to say that the
honourable and learned gentleman, the late Attorney-General, was not
an eminent legal authority on such a point. That was the view taken
by that honourable and learned gentleman. It seemed a somewhat hard
thing that any one should be put into prison for doing what a general
consensus of legal opinion in that House held to be his duty and his
right. But, as the Prime Minister had stated, it was useless to
oppose the motion, because Mr. Bradlaugh had come into conflict with
a resolution of the House, whether that resolution were right or
wrong. He, regretting as he did the necessity that had been forced
upon the House, did not think he should be serving any good purpose
in opposing the resolution, or in asking the House to go into a vote
on this question. He believed himself that the sending of Mr.
Bradlaugh into custody would be the first step towards his becoming a
recognised member of the House. It is interesting to note that Mr.
Parnell also spoke in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh, and said that, if
Irish members voted for his imprisonment, {154} they would be going
contrary to the feeling of their country. On a division being taken
there were 274 Ayes to 7 Noes, and Mr. Bradlaugh was removed in the
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms to the Clock Tower.
The imprisonment was rather an insult than an injury. The prisoner
received his friends freely and openly, and proceeded to the business
of fighting his battle in the country from his "cell." A cry of
indignation, which must have greatly surprised the Tories, went up
all over England, and, on the next day, Northcote, at the urgent
advice, it is said, of Lord Beaconsfield, moved for Bradlaugh's
immediate and unconditional release. On Sir Stafford making his
motion, Mr. Labouchere pointed out to the House, "in order that there
may be no misconception in the matter," that Mr. Bradlaugh would
immediately on his release "return to the House and do what the Prime
Minister, the colleagues of the Prime Minister, the present
Attorney-General and the late Attorney-General, say he has an
absolute legal right to do." The motion was nevertheless agreed to,
and Mr. Bradlaugh was released.
The next day, June 25, Mr. Labouchere gave notice that he should move
on the following Tuesday that the resolution of the House, which had
resulted in Mr. Bradlaugh's imprisonment, should be read and
rescinded. He also asked for special facilities from the Government
on that day for bringing the matter before the House. Mr. Gladstone,
whilst reserving his answer as to the particular form of proceeding,
agreed that "it was certainly requisite and necessary that the
subject of Mr. Bradlaugh's right should be considered," and promised
facilities for the day mentioned by Mr. Labouchere. On the Monday,
however, Mr. Gladstone himself informed the House that the Government
had framed the following resolution, which they intended to submit:
"That every person returned as a member of this House, who may claim
to be a person for the time being by law permitted to make a solemn
affirmation or {155} declaration instead of taking an oath, shall,
henceforth (notwithstanding so much of the resolution adopted by this
House on the 22d of June last, as relates to affirmation), be
permitted without question to make and subscribe a solemn affirmation
in the form prescribed by the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, as
altered by the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868, subject to any liability
by Statute; and, secondly, that this resolution be a standing Order
of this House." The Prime Minister then expressed the hope that, as
the question would be raised in what the Government considered the
most convenient manner, Mr. Labouchere would not consider it
necessary to proceed with any motion on the following day. Mr.
Labouchere withdrew his resolution "after the very satisfactory
Notice, which has just been given by the Prime Minister."
The next day, when Mr. Gladstone made his motion, Sir John Gorst
opposed it, on the technical ground that it was a breach of the Rule
of the House, which laid down that, if a question had been considered
by the House and a definite judgment pronounced, the same, or what
was substantially the same, question could not be put again to the
House during the same session. This contention was, however,
overruled by the Speaker, and, on a division being taken, the Prime
Minister's resolution was accepted by a majority of 54, the Ayes
numbering 303 and the Noes 249. Bradlaugh was now free to affirm at
his own legal risk, and he did so the next day, thus bringing to a
conclusion the first movement of this ironic symphony.
There can be no doubt that Mr. Labouchere's great speech of June 21
contributed powerfully to this result. Apart from the speeches of
Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright, and indeed Mr. Bradlaugh's own fine
speech at the Bar of the House on June 23, it was the only attempt
made to present the constitutional and legal aspects of Bradlaugh's
case in their true light. The subject was one that appealed very
strongly to Mr. Labouchere. In personal agreement {156} with the
views which it was sought to penalise in the person of Mr. Bradlaugh
(although it would have been alien to his temperament to have
enrolled himself as a partisan of those views), his attack on Mr.
Bradlaugh's enemies acquired weight and energy from the love of
individual liberty that was at the bottom of his character, and his
detestation, on that, as on every other occasion of his public life,
of oppression and prejudice.
The prejudice aroused by Bradlaugh's entrance into the House of
Commons was slow to disperse. Numerous petitions for his exclusion
from Parliament were signed, in some cases, _en bloc_, by
Sunday-school children. The varieties of English Protestantism were
all zealous in the good cause, and Cardinal Manning, who wrote a
violent article in the _Nineteenth Century_ on the subject, succeeded
in presenting a monster petition from English and exiled Irish Roman
Catholics. There were, however, some notable exceptions among those
who represented the religious principle. Several clergymen of the
Church of England and not a few Non-conformist ministers wrote to the
papers on his behalf. Newman refused to sign the petition, on
constitutional grounds, and the "Home Government Association of
Glasgow" sent to Bradlaugh a resolution stating "that this meeting of
Irish Roman Catholics ... most emphatically condemns the spirit of
domination and intolerance arrayed against you, and views with
astonishment and indignation the cowardly acquiescence and, in a few
instances, active support, on the part of a large majority of the
Irish Home Rule members to the policy of oppression exercised against
you." Such voices were, however, few and far between; in the House
itself the Opposition could not resist the temptation of such a
weapon against the Government. It was good policy, as Lord Henry
Lennox said, in a moment of expansion, "to put that damned Bradlaugh
on them." Mr. Labouchere held an unswerving course in support of his
colleague. Temperamentally, as has been said, he did not {157}
sympathise with Mr. Bradlaugh's attitude. He did not share Mr.
Bradlaugh's view of the importance of transcendental opinions of any
shade, and his wider experience of life and human nature led him to
gauge more truly perhaps, certainly very differently, the value in
the social scheme of other people's religious belief. He would never
himself have raised the question raised by Mr. Bradlaugh, but he was
wise enough to realise that, once it was raised, there was only one
way of settling it. In the course of his long life, he championed
many a victim of oppression and prejudice, but it may be doubted
whether his championship ever showed to greater advantage, was ever
more firmly based on those wide views of justice which underlie
genuine political sagacity, and distinguish the true statesman from
the mere politician, than in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh's
parliamentary struggle.
The venue of that struggle was shortly transferred to the law courts.
Bradlaugh had affirmed and taken his seat at his own legal risk.
During the five months in which Parliament sat between July, 1880,
and March, 1881, he was one of the most assiduous and energetic
members of the House. On March 7, the action of one Clarke _v._
Bradlaugh came on the Court of Queen's Bench before Mr. Justice
Matthew. On the 11th the judge delivered his judgment, which was
against the defendant. He said that the Parliamentary Oaths Act,
cited in his favour by Bradlaugh, only permitted affirmation to
persons holding religious beliefs. On judgment being delivered
against him, Bradlaugh applied for a stay of execution of costs, with
view to an appeal, which was granted, the judge consenting to stay
his verdict for the opinion of the Court of Appeal to be taken. The
appeal was heard on March 30 by Lord Justices Bramwell, Lush, and
Baggallay, but their decision was again adverse to the defendant.
The point taken was not, as Mr. Labouchere had argued before the
House, the actual grammatical meaning of the wording of the Act, but
{158} the intention of the framers of the Act. Their Lordships held
that it had only been intended to emancipate persons possessed of
positive religious beliefs rendering the taking of an oath repugnant
to their consciences. This rendered the second seat for Northampton
vacant. On April 1 Mr. Labouchere, in the course of moving for a new
writ for the borough of Northampton, said that a decision had now
been given against Bradlaugh by three judges, and, in all
probability, the House of Lords would decide against him. He was
authorised by Mr. Bradlaugh to say that he fully accepted the law as
laid down by the Court of Appeal, and that it was not fair that
Northampton should have one member only--the election might be got
over by the Easter holidays, and honourable and right honourable
gentlemen would have an opportunity of considering what course they
would take should Mr. Bradlaugh be re-elected. The writ was issued,
and Mr. Bradlaugh was, as Mr. Labouchere had predicted, re-elected on
April 9. Mr. Labouchere made a speech at Northampton, before the
election, in defence of his colleague, the interest of which was
wider than that of the Bradlaugh controversy on account of one
statement in it. He described his leave-taking of Mr. Gladstone, on
his departure from London, in these words: "And, men of Northampton,
that grand old man said to me, as he patted me on the shoulder,
'Henry my boy, bring him back, bring him back!'" I think Mr.
Labouchere's autobiographical Muse used a poetic license here. It is
certainly difficult to imagine Mr. Gladstone patting the member for
Northampton on the back, and calling him "Henry, my boy." The
success of this allusion to the Prime Minister, however, was
enormous, and the name stuck. Mr. Gladstone was the "Grand Old Man"
for the rest of his life.
As every one knows, Bradlaugh again was not allowed to take his seat.
That his attitude caused embarrassment to the Liberal party cannot be
denied. At the end of June, he wrote to Mr. Labouchere on the
subject of forcing another {159} contest in the House, and Mr.
Labouchere forwarded his letter to Mr. Chamberlain with the following
comments:
10 QUEEN ANNE'S GATE, July 2, 1881.
DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,--Please look at enclosed letter. If you think it
of any use, show it to Mr. Gladstone. I send it to you in order that
you may see what are, I take it, the genuine intentions of Bradlaugh.
I had written to him to suggest that he should go up to the table and
take the oath at the end of the Session, and I offered if he liked to
do so on the last day of the Session to talk on until the Black Rod
appeared, or, if he preferred to do so before, I said that Government
always had a majority during the last week or two, and that,
probably, if a division were taken upon expulsion, he would win it.
Yesterday I received a letter from the Executive Committee of the
Liberal and Radical Caucus at Northampton, telling me that Bradlaugh
had sent to call a public meeting next Wednesday, and asking me to
come down to meet the Committee on that day to advise with them what
to do, as Bradlaugh has asked for a resolution to be passed, in the
nature of a mandate ordering him to take his seat. I have written
urging delay, but, of course, in this matter I have to carry out the
wishes of the constituency, as the question regards them.
Whilst Bradlaugh exaggerates his strength, his opponents
underestimate it. He can bring together a mob, with a vast number of
fanatics in it, ready for anything, and he contends that he is
illegally hindered from taking his seat, and therefore may oppose
physical force to physical force.
From what I gather, from many Members of Parliament, they are very
anxious that the matter should be settled this Session, because they
think that its being kept open will do the Party great harm.
Why cannot the Bill[5] be brought in after the Land Bill? It has but
one clause, and if our side speak very briefly, the Conservatives
cannot go on talking for ever on so simple a matter. Moreover, there
are a good many Conservatives who have told me that they are not
against the Bill.--Yours truly,
H. LABOUCHERE.
{160}
Mr. Gladstone discouraged Bradlaugh from resorting to any more
militant methods just then, and intimated that it would be useless to
bring in the Oaths Bill, as they proposed to close the session early
in August, and they could not hope to carry any strongly
controversial measure after the Land Bill.
This book is not a life of Bradlaugh, and it is enough to have noted
here the first phase of the ignoble struggle. As is well known,
Bradlaugh returned to the House, and following Mr. Labouchere's
suggestion, administered the oath to himself. A sordid fight ensued
on the attempt to remove him forcibly, in which no merely formal
violence was offered. His clothes were torn off his back and,
although a man of unusual physical strength, he fainted in the
_mêlée_. Bradlaugh, in that Parliament, was never allowed to
discharge his duty as a member. Once more re-elected by the
constituency in the General Election of 1885, the Speaker would
suffer no intervention, and he took the oath and his seat, and in
1888, in spite of a Conservative majority, secured the passing of an
Affirmation Bill. Finally, in 1891, when Mr. Bradlaugh was lying on
his death-bed, after a brief parliamentary career that had won for
him the respect of all parties, the resolution of January 22, 1881,
that had been passed amid "such ecstatic transports," was expunged
from the records of the House. I cannot refrain from quoting the
fine tribute paid to his memory and excellent summing up of the case
as bearing on the real crux of the situation, made by Mr. Gladstone,
a few days later, in the course of introducing his Religious
Disabilities Removal Bill on February 4:
A distinguished man and an admirable member of this House was laid
yesterday in his mother earth. He was the subject of a long
controversy in this House, the beginning of which we recollect and
the ending of which we recollect. We remember with what zeal it was
prosecuted; we remember how summarily {161} it was dropped; we
remember also what reparation has been done within the last few days
to the distinguished man who was the immediate object of that
controversy. But does anybody who hears me believe that the
controversy so prosecuted and so abandoned was beneficial to the
Christian Religion?
Throughout that controversy, his fellow-member for Northampton was
his loyal colleague both in the country and the House. In season and
out of season Mr. Labouchere spoke, moved, and agitated until the
victory, to which his advocacy was so important a contribution, was
won, and, after Bradlaugh's death in 1891, he published the following
paragraphs in the pages of _Truth_, bearing witness to the nobility
of Bradlaugh's character:
Mr. Bradlaugh was a man of herculean physical strength, but of great
nervous susceptibility. I believe that he never entirely recovered
from the rough usage which he met with when he sought to force his
way into the House of Commons. Last year he had a serious illness.
He recovered, but he came out of it a broken man. He would not,
however, admit this, and he struggled on in the House of Commons, at
public meetings, and at his desk, with the sad result that we all
know.
Never was a man less understood. I never knew any one with a
stronger sense of public decorum or with a deeper respect for law.
When he asked leave to affirm in the House of Commons it was said by
some that he was seeking notoriety; by others, that he wished to defy
the law. What led to it was this: I was sitting by his side when the
Parliament of 1881 met, and he said to me, "I shall ask to be allowed
to affirm, as with my views this would be more decorous than for me
to take the oath." I replied, "Are you sure that you legally can
affirm?" "Yes," he answered; "I have looked closely into the matter
and I am satisfied of my legal right." His attempt to affirm was,
therefore, solely due to a desire to respect the feelings of others,
and to the conviction that the law allowed him to do so.
Mr. Bradlaugh was my colleague for ten years. During all these years
our relations, political and personal, were always of the most
cordial character. He was in private life a thoroughly {162} true
and amiable man, whilst in public life he was ever ready to sacrifice
popularity to his convictions of what was right. He was, as is
known, an atheist, but his standard of duty was a very high one, and
he lived up to it. His life was an example to Christians, for he
abounded in every Christian virtue. This the House of Commons came
at last to recognise. I do not think that there is a single member
more popular or more respected than he was on both sides. Often and
often Conservatives have, in a friendly way, said to me: "What a much
better man your colleague is than you are!" And I heartily agreed
with them.
Regarding money, he was more than disinterested. So that he had
enough to pay for his food, his clothes, and for his modest lodging
in St. John's Wood, he never seemed to trouble himself as to ways and
means. In one part of his life he had been led into some sort of
commercial enterprise which did not succeed, and the failure resulted
in his owing a considerable sum. He called his creditors together,
told them that he had nothing, but if they would agree to wait he
would pay them twenty shillings in the pound. They trusted him. He
went to America, made the money by lecturing; returned, called them
together, and fulfilled his promise. His lodgings in St. John's Wood
were over a music shop. They consisted of one or two bedrooms and of
a large room, with deal shelves round it for his books, an old bureau
where he wrote, and a few chairs and tables. He had a great
affection for his books, and the only time I ever saw him disquieted
about money matters was when he feared that he might have to give
them up, owing to some bankruptcy proceedings that were threatened,
in consequence of one of his numerous actions on the oath question.
In an article, published in the _Northampton Echo_ just after the
death of Mr. Labouchere, that able writer, Mr. C. A. McCurdy,
comments thus on the first Radical members for Northampton:
What a strangely assorted pair Northampton's two members were in
those days! Bradlaugh, a giant in stature as in intellect,
Boanergian in his oratory, tremendous in the strength of it, sweeping
away opposition by the force of its torrent--Labouchere, {163} with
his slight figure, his quiet, sardonic manner, wielding a rapier
which was sometimes even more deadly than the battle-axe and
broadsword of his colleague. His aristocratic connections and his
wealth accentuated the clear and strong outline of his Radicalism.
His disregard of convention, his simplicity, his courage, his
irrepressible gaiety and wit, the audacity of his envenomed personal
assaults, the passionless quality of it all, the cynic's pose--all
this, combined with his encyclopædic knowledge and the sureness of
his aim in controversy, made him the idol of Northampton Radicals.
How they laughed at his solemn assumption of moderation and
orthodoxy! But how sure they were of his earnestness and conviction!
And how proud of his easy triumphs in the battles of the wits, of his
courage and resource in the conflicts of Parliament and the political
fame which he, working loyally with Bradlaugh, helped to win for
Northampton![6]
It is impossible before leaving the subject of Mr. Bradlaugh's
struggle for liberty of conscience, not to recall the very similar
episode of Wilkes' fight with the House of Commons a little more than
a hundred years earlier. Mr. Labouchere, speaking in the House on
the occasion of Bradlaugh's presenting himself to take the oath,
after his re-election in 1884, pointed out that behind his colleague
stood the people of England. He continued: "I do not say this from
any feeling of regard or affection for Mr. Bradlaugh. as an
individual; assume if you like that Mr. Bradlaugh is, the vilest of
men [Mr. Warton, Hear, hear!], as was stated by Mr. Wilkes, 'in
attacking the rights of the vilest of men you have attacked the
rights of the most noble of mankind.'"[7] Bradlaugh established the
principle that legislative rights are wholly independent of religious
belief, and that what Drummond Wolff called "the distinct negation of
anything like perpetual morality or conscience and the existence of
God," does not affect a man's capacity for the exercise of his
political rights.
{164}
This means that the modern state is non-theistic, and that our
civilisation, of which the state is the political expression, is
based on those positive social needs of man to which theological
problems, however interesting in themselves, are irrelevant. Thus,
in Bradlaugh's victory, to the winning of which Mr. Labouchere so
powerfully contributed, one of the most important principles of 1789
was definitely ratified by the representatives of the people, the
Lords, spiritual and temporal, and the sovereign of this country.
A truly momentous event, the importance of which it would be hard to
overestimate. For it means that God has ceased to exist in England
as a political entity. In like manner, the action of Wilkes, in
severely criticising the Speech from the Throne in the _North Briton_
for April 23, 1762, and condemning the Ministers who were responsible
for its production, raised, and settled for ever in England the
question of the political position of the sovereign. In both cases
the man who dared to raise such points was pursued rancorously and
unfairly by the partisans of officialdom, in both cases the utmost
force of law and order arrayed against him failed. The enemies of
Wilkes and Bradlaugh failed, because the stars in their courses
fought against them--because the time had gone by when kings could
rule as well as reign, or when the qualification of religious belief
was necessary for the full rights of citizenship.
[1] The late Lord Randolph Churchill once referred in the House of
Commons to Mr. Labouchere (greatly to his delight) by this title.
[2] I have followed in this chapter the admirable account of
Bradlaugh's parliamentary struggle given by Mr. J. M. Robertson,
M.P., in the second part of Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner's _Charles
Bradlaugh: Life and Work_.
[3] _Northampton Mercury_, March 27, 1880.
[4] _Ibid._
[5] The Oaths Bill.
[6] _Northampton Echo_, January 17, 1912.
[7] _Hansard_, February 11, 1884, vol. 284.
{165}