{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37374/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37374","id":"gutenberg_37374","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37374","summary":null,"tags":["Bradlaugh, Charles, 1833-1891","Category: Biographies","Category: History - British","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Great Britain -- Politics and government -- 1837-1901","Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons -- Biography","Legislators -- Great Britain -- Biography"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Brownfox and the Online Distributed Proofreading\nTeam at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from\nimages generously made available by The Internet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE TRUE STORY\n\nOF\n\nMY PARLIAMENTARY\n\nSTRUGGLE.\n\n\nBY\n\nCHARLES BRADLAUGH.\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\nLONDON:\nFREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,\n28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.\n1882.\n\nPRICE SIXPENCE\n\n\n\n\nLONDON:\n\nPRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,\n28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.\n\n\nSo much misapprehension and misrepresentation prevails as to what has\nreally taken place in the House of Commons with reference to my\nParliamentary struggle, that I reprint the Report of the Second Select\nCommittee and the Evidence taken before such Committee, together with my\nthree speeches at the bar and the resolutions of the House: these\ntogether giving the actual facts.\n\n_Ordered_,--[Tuesday, 25th May 1880]:--THAT Mr. Bradlaugh, the Member for\nNorthampton, having claimed at the Table of this House to make an\nAffirmation or Declaration instead of the Oath prescribed by Law,\nfounding his claim upon the terms of the Act 29 & 30 Vict. c. 19, and the\nEvidence Amendment Acts of 1869 and 1870, and stating that he had been\npermitted to affirm in Courts of Justice by virtue of the said Evidence\nAmendment Acts: And it having been referred to a Select Committee to\nconsider and report their opinion whether persons entitled, under the\nprovisions of the Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, and the Evidence\nAmendment Act, 1870, to make a solemn Declaration instead of an Oath in\nCourts of Justice, may be admitted to make an Affirmation or Declaration\ninstead of an Oath in this House, in pursuance of the Acts 29 & 30 Vict.\nc. 19, and 31 & 32 Vict. c. 72; And the said Committee having reported\nthat in their opinion such persons cannot be admitted to make an\nAffirmation or Declaration, instead of an Oath in pursuance of the said\nActs:\n\nAnd Mr. Bradlaugh having since come to the Table of the House for the\npurpose of taking the Oath prescribed by the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 19, and the\n31 & 32 Vict. c. 72, and objection having been made to his taking the\nsaid Oath, it be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into and\nconsider the facts and circumstances under which Mr. Bradlaugh claims to\nhave the Oath prescribed by the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 19, and 31 & 32 Vict. c.\n72, administered to him in this House, and also as to the Law applicable\nto such claim under such circumstances, and as to the right and\njurisdiction of this House to refuse to allow the said form of the Oath\nto be administered to him, and to report thereon to the House, together\nwith their opinion thereon.\n\n\n_Ordered_,--[Friday, 28th May 1880]:--THAT the Committee do consist of\ntwenty-three Members.\n\nCommittee nominated of--\n\n    Mr. Whitbread.\n    Sir John Holker.\n    Mr. John Bright.\n    Lord Henry Lennox.\n    Mr. Massey.\n    Mr. Staveley Hill.\n    Sir Henry Jackson.\n    Mr. Attorney General.\n    Mr. Solicitor General.\n    Sir Gabriel Goldney.\n    Mr. Grantham.\n    Mr. Pemberton.\n    Mr. Watkin Williams.\n    Mr. Walpole.\n    Mr. Hopwood.\n    Mr. Beresford Hope.\n    Major Nolan.\n    Mr. Chaplin.\n    Mr. Serjeant Simon.\n    Mr. Secretary Childers.\n    Mr. Trevelyan.\n    Sir Richard Cross.\n    Mr. Gibson.\n\nTHAT the Committee have power to send for Persons, Papers, and Records.\n\nTHAT Five be the Quorum of the Committee.\n\n\n\n\nREPORT.\n\n\nTHE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to inquire into and consider the facts\n    and circumstances under which Mr. BRADLAUGH claims to have the OATH\n    prescribed by the 29 & 30 Vict., c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vict., c. 72,\n    administered to him in this House; and also as to the LAW\n    applicable to such claim under such circumstances; and as to the\n    right and jurisdiction of this House to refuse to allow the said\n    form of the OATH to be administered to him; and to Report thereon\n    to the House, together with their Opinion thereon:--HAVE agreed to\n    the following REPORT:--\n\nIn pursuance of the terms of the reference to your Committee, they have\ninquired into and considered (1) the facts and circumstances under which\nMr. Bradlaugh claims to have the oath prescribed by the Parliamentary\nOaths Act, 1866, and the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868, administered to him\nin the House, (2) the Law applicable to such claim under such\ncircumstances, and (3) the right and jurisdiction of the House to refuse\nto allow the form of the said Oath to be administered to him.\n\nIn order to carry out such inquiry and consideration, your Committee\nthought it right to examine Sir T. Erskine May as a witness before them.\nMr. Bradlaugh applied to be permitted to make a statement to your\nCommittee, and the application was granted. After such statement had been\nmade by Mr. Bradlaugh, he submitted himself for examination, and was\nexamined by any Members of your Committee who desired to put questions to\nhim. Under the circumstances appearing in the Evidence and in the\nAppendix to this Report, your Committee admitted in evidence a letter\nwritten by Mr. Bradlaugh to certain newspapers, dated 20th May, 1880. All\nthe evidence taken by your Committee appears in the Appendix to this\nReport.\n\n\n_Facts of the Case._\n\nThe facts and circumstances under which Mr. Bradlaugh claimed to take and\nsubscribe the Oath are as follow: On Monday, the 3rd of May, Mr.\nBradlaugh came to the Table of the House and claimed to be allowed to\naffirm, as a person for the time being by law permitted to make a solemn\naffirmation instead of taking an oath; and on being asked by the Clerk\nupon what grounds he claimed to make an affirmation, he said that he did\nso by virtue of the Evidence Amendment Acts, 1869 and 1870. Whereupon Mr.\nSpeaker informed Mr. Bradlaugh, \"that if he desired to address the House\nin explanation of his claim, he might be permitted to do so.\" In\naccordance with Mr. Speaker's intimation, Mr. Bradlaugh stated shortly\nthat he relied on the Evidence Further Amendment Act, 1869, and the\nEvidence Amendment Act, 1870, adding, \"I have repeatedly, for nine years\npast, made an affirmation in the highest courts of jurisdiction in this\nrealm; I am ready to make such a declaration or affirmation.\" Thereupon\nMr. Speaker acquainted the House that Mr. Bradlaugh having made such\nclaim, he did not consider himself justified in determining it; and\nhaving grave doubts on the construction of the Acts above stated, he\ndesired to refer the matter to the judgment of the House. Thereupon a\nSelect Committee was appointed to consider and report their opinion\nwhether persons entitled, under the provisions of the Evidence Amendment\nActs, 1869 and 1870, to make a solemn declaration instead of an oath in\ncourts of justice, might be admitted to make an affirmation or\ndeclaration instead of an oath, in pursuance of the Acts 29 & 30 Vict. c.\n19, and 31 & 32 Vict. c. 72; and on the 20th of May the Committee\nreported that, in their opinion, persons so entitled could not be\nadmitted to make such affirmation or declaration instead of an oath in\nthe House of Commons.\n\nOn the day after the receipt of this Report, Mr. Bradlaugh presented\nhimself at the table of the House to take and subscribe the Oath; and was\nproceeding to do so, when Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, one of the Members\nfor Portsmouth, objected thereto, and Mr. Bradlaugh having been ordered\nto withdraw, Sir H. D. Wolff moved, \"That, in the opinion of the House,\nMr. Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, ought not to be allowed to\ntake the Oath which he then required to be administered to him, in\nconsequence of his having previously claimed to make an affirmation or\ndeclaration instead of the Oath prescribed by law, founding his claim\nupon the terms of the Act 29 & 30 Vict. c. 19, and the Evidence Amendment\nActs of 1869 and 1870; and on the ground that under the provisions of\nthose Acts the presiding judge at a trial has been satisfied that the\ntaking of an oath would have no binding effects on his conscience.\" This\nMotion was superseded by an Amendment appointing your Committee.\n\n\n_The Law Applicable to Mr. Bradlaugh's Claim._\n\nYour Committee have been furnished by Sir T. Erskine May with a list of\nprecedents which illustrate the jurisdiction and proceedings of the House\nin regard to the taking of Oaths. These precedents, and others which Mr.\nBradlaugh placed before your Committee as bearing on the case, will be\nfound in the Appendix to this Report. They may generally be divided into\nthree classes: first, cases of refusal to take the Oath; secondly, claims\nto make an Affirmation, instead of taking the Oath; and, thirdly, claims\nto omit a portion of the Oath of Abjuration. Among them there is no\nprecedent of any Member coming to the table to take and subscribe the\nOath, who has not been allowed to do so, nor of any Member coming to the\ntable and intimating expressly, or by necessary implication, that an oath\nwould not, as an oath, be binding on his conscience. The present case is,\ntherefore, one of first impression.\n\nNow there is not only a _prima facie_ right, but it is the duty of every\nMember who has been duly elected to take and subscribe the Oath, or to\naffirm according to the Statute. No instance has been brought to the\nattention of your Committee in which any inquiry has been made into the\nmoral, religious, or political opinion of the person who was desirous to\ntake any Promissory Oath, or of any objection being made to his taking\nsuch Oath. It would be impossible to foresee the evils which might arise\nif a contrary practice were sanctioned. But the question remains whether,\nif a Member when about to take the Oath should voluntarily make\nstatements as to the binding effect of the Oath on his conscience, it is\nnot within the power of the House to take such statements into\nconsideration, and determine whether such member would, if he went\nthrough the form of taking the Oath, be duly taking it within the\nprovisions of the Statute. In the present instance, when Mr. Bradlaugh\nclaimed under the Parliamentary Oaths Acts his right to affirm, and also\nstated that he had on several occasions been permitted in a Court of\nJustice to affirm, and had affirmed under the Evidence Amendment Acts,\n1869 and 1870, he thereby in effect informed the House that on such\noccasions a judge of such court had been satisfied that an oath would\nhave no binding effect upon his conscience. Your Committee did not think\nit right to accept this implication as conclusive without permitting Mr.\nBradlaugh an opportunity of making a statement to, and giving evidence\nbefore, them. Nothing that has come before your Committee has affected or\naltered their views as to the effect of that which occurred when Mr.\nBradlaugh claimed to affirm, as above stated.\n\n\n_As to the Right and Jurisdiction of the House._\n\nAs to the right and jurisdiction of the House to refuse to allow the form\nof the Oath prescribed to be taken by duly elected Members to be taken by\nthem, your Committee are of opinion that there is and must be an inherent\npower in the House to require that the law by which the proceedings of\nthe House and of its Members in reference to the taking of the\nParliamentary Oath is regulated, be duly observed. But this does not\nimply that there is any power in the House to interrogate any Member\ndesirous to take the Oath of Allegiance upon any subject in connection\nwith his religious belief, or as to the extent the Oath will bind his\nconscience; or that there is any power in the House to hear any evidence\nin relation to such matters.\n\nAnd your Committee are of opinion that by and in making the claim to\naffirm, Mr. Bradlaugh voluntarily brought to the notice of the House that\non several occasions he had been permitted in a Court of Justice to\naffirm, under the Evidence Amendment Acts, 1869 and 1870, in order to\nenable him to do which a Judge of the Court must have been satisfied that\nan Oath was not binding upon Mr. Bradlaugh's conscience; and, as he\nstated he had acted upon such decisions by repeatedly making the\nAffirmation in Courts of Justice; and, as above stated, nothing has\nappeared before your Committee to cause them to think Mr. Bradlaugh\ndissented from the correctness of such decisions, your Committee are of\nopinion that, under the circumstances, the compliance by Mr. Bradlaugh\nwith the form used when an oath is taken would not be the taking of an\nOath within the true meaning of the Statutes 29 Vict. c. 19. and 31 & 32\nVict. c. 72; and, therefore, that the House can, and in the opinion of\nyour Committee ought, to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh going through this form.\n\nBut your Committee desire to point out to your Honorable House the\nposition in which Mr. Bradlaugh will be placed if he is not allowed\neither to take the Oath or to affirm.\n\nIf the House of Commons prevent a duly elected Member from taking the\nOath or Affirming, there is no power of reviewing or reversing that\ndecision, however erroneous it may be in point of law.\n\nBut it appears to your Committee that if a Member should make and\nsubscribe the Affirmation in place of taking and subscribing the Oath, it\nwould be possible, by means of an action brought in the High Court of\nJustice, to test his legal right to make such Affirmation.\n\nThe Committee appointed to inquire into the law relating to the right of\ncertain persons to affirm in effect recorded that Mr. Bradlaugh was not\nentitled by law to make the Affirmation.\n\nBut, from the fact that this Report was carried by the vote of the\nChairman, thus showing a great division of opinion amongst the members of\nthat Committee, the state of the law upon the subject cannot be regarded\nas satisfactorily determined. Under these circumstances it appears to\nyour Committee that Mr. Bradlaugh should have an opportunity of having\nhis statutory rights determined beyond doubt by being allowed to take the\nonly step by which the legality of his making an Affirmation can be\nbrought for decision before the High Court of Justice.\n\nThe House, by an exercise of its powers, can, doubtless, prevent Mr.\nBradlaugh from obtaining such judicial decision; but your Committee\ndeprecate that course.\n\nYour Committee accordingly recommend that should Mr. Bradlaugh again seek\nto make and subscribe the Affirmation he be not prevented from so doing.\n\n_16 June, 1880._\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF WITNESSES.\n\n\n_Wednesday, 2nd June, 1880._\n\nSIR THOMAS ERSKINE MAY, K.C.B.\n\nMR. CHARLES BRADLAUGH, M.P.\n\n_Monday, 7th June, 1880._\n\nMR. CHARLES BRADLAUGH, M.P.\n\n\n\n\nMINUTES OF EVIDENCE.\n\n_Wednesday, 2nd June, 1880._\n\n\nMEMBERS PRESENT:\n\n    Mr. Attorney General.\n    Mr. John Bright.\n    Mr. Childers.\n    Sir Richard Cross.\n    Mr. Gibson.\n    Sir Gabriel Goldney.\n    Mr. Grantham.\n    Mr. Staveley Hill.\n    Sir John Holker.\n    Mr. Beresford Hope.\n    Mr. Hopwood.\n    Sir Henry Jackson.\n    Lord Henry Lennox.\n    Mr. Massey.\n    Major Nolan.\n    Mr. Pemberton.\n    Mr. Serjeant Simon.\n    Mr. Solicitor General.\n    Mr. Trevelyan.\n    Mr. Walpole.\n    Mr. Whitbread.\n    Mr. Watkin Williams.\n\nThe Right Honorable SPENCER HORATIO WALPOLE in the Chair.\n\n\nSir THOMAS ERSKINE MAY, K.C.B.; Examined.\n\n1. CHAIRMAN: You are the Clerk of the House of Commons?--I am.\n\n2. You, I believe, are perfectly acquainted with what took place when Mr.\nBradlaugh came to the table of the House, and proposed to make his\naffirmation instead of taking the oath?--Yes, I was personally present on\nthat day.\n\n3. Will you have the kindness to state to the Committee exactly what took\nplace on that occasion, in order that we may have the facts upon our\nproceedings?--I will read what occurred, mainly from the Votes and\nProceedings of the House, in which an accurate and authentic record of\nthe proceedings of that day will be found. It appears that on Monday the\n3rd of May, 1880, \"Mr. Bradlaugh, returned as one of the Members for the\nborough of Northampton, came to the table and delivered the following\nstatement in writing to the Clerk: 'To the Right Honorable the Speaker of\nthe House of Commons. I, the undersigned Charles Bradlaugh, beg\nrespectfully to claim to be allowed to affirm, as a person for the time\nbeing by law permitted to make a solemn affirmation or declaration,\ninstead of taking an oath. (Signed) CHARLES BRADLAUGH.' And being asked\nby the Clerk upon what grounds he claimed to make an affirmation, he\nanswered: By virtue of the Evidence Amendment Acts, 1869 and 1870.\nWhereupon the Clerk reported to Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Bradlaugh, Member\nfor the borough of Northampton, claimed to make an affirmation or\ndeclaration instead of taking the Oath prescribed by law, in virtue of\nthe provisions of the Evidence Amendment Acts, 1869 and 1870. Mr. Speaker\nthereupon informed Mr. Bradlaugh that if he desired to address the House\nin explanation of his claim he might be permitted to do so. Mr. Bradlaugh\naddressed the House in accordance with Mr. Speaker's intimation, and then\nhe was directed to withdraw.\" The Committee will observe that there is no\nentry in the Votes of the words used by Mr. Bradlaugh; it is not\ncustomary on such occasions to make an entry of the observations made,\nwhich are considered to be part of the debates of the House, which are\nnot recorded in the Votes and Proceedings; and there was no shorthand\nwriter authorised by the House to take notes, and therefore there could\nhave been no authentic record upon which one could rely.\n\n4. Have you any reason to believe that something was said upon that\noccasion by Mr. Bradlaugh other than what appeared upon the Votes?--Mr.\nBradlaugh's observations were very short. He repeated that he relied upon\nthe Evidence Further Amendment Act, 1869, and the Evidence Amendment Act,\n1870, adding, \"I have repeatedly, for nine years past, made an\naffirmation in the highest courts of jurisdiction in this realm; I am\nready to make such a declaration or affirmation.\" Substantially those\nwere the words which he addressed to the Speaker.\n\n5. What took place after that?--Whereupon Mr. Speaker addressed the House\nas follows: \"I have now formally to acquaint the House that Mr.\nBradlaugh, Member for the borough of Northampton, claims to make an\naffirmation or declaration instead of the oath prescribed by law. He\nfounds this claim upon the terms of the 4th clause of the Act 29 and 30\nVict., c. 19, and the Evidence Amendment Acts, 1869 and 1870. I have not\nconsidered myself justified in determining this claim myself, having\ngrave doubts on the construction of the Acts above stated, but desire to\nrefer the matter to the judgment of the House.\"\n\n6. That is substantially all that took place upon that occasion?--I\npresume the Committee will scarcely desire that I should proceed through\nall the subsequent Votes of the House in regard to the appointment of the\nCommittees.\n\n7. There is nothing beyond what you have stated which is material for the\nCommittee to consider?--No, nothing besides what happened on that day in\nreference to this matter.\n\n8. You are, of course, acquainted with the terms of the reference to this\nCommittee.--Yes.\n\n9. What were the proceedings which took place after the Report of the\nformer Committee?--The Report of the Committee was ordered to lie upon\nthe table, and no further proceedings were taken upon it; it lies upon\nthe table at present.\n\n10. Mr. GIBSON: On what day was it laid upon the table?--On the 20th of\nMay, the day on which the House assembled for business.\n\n11. Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think some of the members of the Committee\nwould like to have some account of what took place in the interval\nbetween the time when Mr. Bradlaugh claimed to make the affirmation, and\nthe time when he appeared at the table to take the Oath?--Mr. Bradlaugh\npresented himself at the table to be sworn on the 21st of May, the day\nafter the receipt of the Report from the Committee; and if the Committee\nwould desire it, I can read from the Minutes what took place upon that\noccasion. \"Mr. Bradlaugh, returned as one of the Members for the borough\nof Northampton, came to the table to take and subscribe the Oath, and the\nClerk was proceeding to administer the same to him, when Sir Henry\nDrummond Wolff, Member for Portsmouth, rose to take objection thereto,\nand submit a motion to the House; whereupon Mr. Speaker directed Mr.\nBradlaugh to withdraw.\" And then, as the Committee are aware, several\nproceedings occurred, which extended over some days: the Committee will\nscarcely desire them to be read.\n\n12. CHAIRMAN: Those proceedings are really stated in the Order of\nReference to this Committee?--Yes.\n\n13. Mr. GIBSON: At what date did this Parliament meet for the first\ntime?--On Thursday, the 29th of April.\n\n14. And on what day did Mr. Bradlaugh claim to make the affirmation?--On\nMonday, the 3rd of May.\n\n15. The swearing of Members had been going on in the meantime, had it\nnot?--The swearing of Members began on Friday, the 30th of April.\n\n16. You are acquainted with Mr. Bradlaugh's appearance; are you yourself\naware whether he had been in the House during the swearing of Members on\nany of the intervening days?--He had been about the House,\nunquestionably.\n\n17. Mr. Serjeant SIMON: Mr. Bradlaugh was present, I believe, and voted\nwhen the Speaker was elected?--Yes; none of the members had then been\nsworn.\n\n18. CHAIRMAN: Since this Committee has been appointed have you made a\nsearch into the Journals of the House for any precedents which bear upon\nthe question before the Committee?--Yes, I directed the Clerk of the\nJournals to make a search for every precedent which would tend to\nillustrate the jurisdiction and proceedings of the House in regard to the\ntaking of oaths.\n\n19. What is the result of the search?--The result of that search is the\npaper which is upon the table to-day, and in the hands of all the Members\nof the Committee.\n\n20. I see that one of those is a precedent of a Member disabled for\nhaving sat in the House without taking the Oath; then there is a\nprecedent of a Member being admitted to sit without taking the Oath of\nAllegiance and Supremacy; then there are precedents of Members being\ndischarged for declining to take the Oath; then there is a precedent of a\nMember, being a Quaker, refusing to take the Oath; then there is a\nprecedent of a Member expelled for absconding, and not taking the Oath;\nthen there is a precedent of a Member refusing to take the Oath of\nSupremacy; then there is a precedent of a Member, being a Quaker,\nclaiming to make an affirmation; then there are precedents of Members\nomitting the words in the Oath of Abjuration, \"on the true faith of a\nChristian;\" and lastly, the precedent of a Member stating that he had a\nconscientious objection to take the Oath. I should like to ask whether\nthere is any precedent amongst those of a member coming to the table and\nstating that he was ready to take the Oath, and any objection being taken\nto him in consequence of that statement?--No, there is no precedent to\nthat effect, unless it might be argued that the case of Mr. O'Connell, in\n1829, was, to a certain extent, analogous. He claimed, as the Committee\nare aware, to take the Oath recently provided by the Catholic Relief Act,\nand which, he contended, was the oath that he was entitled to take; it\nwas a question of law whether that was the oath which he could take.\n\n21. In that case he refused to take the old oath, and he offered to take\nthe new oath under the Catholic Relief Act?--That is so.\n\n22. And the House refused, I believe, to allow him to take that\noath?--That was the case. I may state briefly that these precedents may\ngenerally be divided into three classes: first, cases of refusal to take\nthe oath; secondly, claims to make an affirmation instead of taking the\noath; and thirdly, claims to omit a portion of the Oath of Abjuration.\nWith one or two exceptional cases, those three classes comprehend all the\ncases which have been laid before the Committee.\n\n23. Mr. BRADLAUGH (through the Committee): I should like to ask upon\nthat whether the case of Daniel O'Connell was not a case of absolute\nrefusal by the Member to take the oath required by law?--I think the best\nway will be, perhaps, to read the precedent from this paper, and then any\ninference can be drawn from it. It is at page 5. \"Precedent of Member\nrefusing to take the Oath of Supremacy; Daniel O'Connell, Esq.,\nprofessing the Roman Catholic religion, returned knight of the shire for\nthe county of Clare, being introduced in the usual manner, for the\npurpose of taking his seat, produced at the table a certificate of his\nhaving been sworn before two of the deputies appointed by the Lord\nStewart, whereupon the Clerk tendered to him the Oaths of Allegiance,\nSupremacy, and Abjuration; upon which Mr. O'Connell stated that he was\nready to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Abjuration, but that he could\nnot take the Oath of Supremacy, and claimed the privilege of being\nallowed to take the oath set forth in the Act passed in the present\nSession of Parliament 'for the relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic\nsubjects'; whereupon the Clerk having stated the matter to Mr. Speaker,\nMr. Speaker informed Mr. O'Connell that, according to his interpretation\nof the law, it was incumbent upon Mr. O'Connell to take the Oaths of\nAllegiance, Supremacy and Abjuration, and that the provisions of the new\nact applied only to Members returned after the commencement of the said\nAct, except in so far as regarded the repeal of the declaration against\ntransubstantiation; And that Mr. O'Connell must withdraw unless he were\nprepared to take the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration.\nWhereupon Mr. O'Connell withdrew. Motion, That Mr. O'Connell be called\nback and heard at the table. Debate arising, a Member stated that he was\nrequested by Mr. O'Connell to desire that he might be heard. Debate\nadjourned. Resolved, That Mr. O'Connell, the Member for Clare, be heard\nat the bar, by himself, his counsel or agents, in respect of his claim to\nsit and vote in Parliament without taking the Oath of Supremacy. Mr.\nO'Connell was called in and heard accordingly: and being withdrawn;\nResolved, That it is the opinion of this House that Mr. O'Connell, having\nbeen returned a Member of this House before the commencement of the Act\npassed in this Session of Parliament 'for the relief of His Majesty's\nRoman Catholic subjects,' is not entitled to sit or vote in this House\nunless he first take the Oath of Supremacy. Ordered, That Mr. O'Connell\ndo attend the House this day, and that Mr. Speaker do then communicate to\nhim the said resolution, and ask him whether he will take the Oath of\nSupremacy. And the House being informed that Mr. O'Connell attended at\nthe door, he was called to the Bar, and Mr. Speaker communicated to him\nthe resolution of the House of yesterday, and the order thereon, as\nfolloweth.\" Then the resolution and the order are repeated. \"And then Mr.\nSpeaker, pursuant to the said order, asked Mr. O'Connell whether he would\ntake the said Oath of Supremacy? Whereupon Mr. O'Connell requested to see\nthe said Oath, which being shown to him accordingly, Mr. O'Connell stated\nthat the said Oath contained one proposition which he knew to be false,\nand another proposition which he believed to be untrue; and that he\ntherefore refused to take the said Oath of Supremacy. And then Mr.\nO'Connell was directed to withdraw, and he withdrew accordingly;\" and\nthen a new writ was ordered.\n\n24. Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: Were those oaths separate oaths?--Yes, they were\nthree separate oaths.\n\n25. And they require three separate acts in taking them?--Yes.\n\n26. Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think the result is that the House first\ndetermined that the Oath of Supremacy which ought to be taken by Mr.\nO'Connell was the old oath, and not the oath under the Catholic Relief\nAct?--Clearly.\n\n27. And having determined that it was the old oath that required to be\ntaken, Mr. O'Connell refused to take it?--Certainly.\n\n28. Mr. BRADLAUGH (through the Committee): Have you searched for any\nprecedent affecting the taking of the oath by a Member alleged to be\ndisqualified or ineligible; has your attention been called to the case of\nJohn Horne Tooke, in Volume 35 of Parliamentary History, in the year\n1801, commencing at page 956?--Not in respect of any question relating to\noaths: it is not amongst these precedents.\n\n29. As a fact, was Mr. John Horne Tooke's capacity to sit in the House\nchallenged in this case?--Yes, as being in Holy Orders, but not in\nrelation to any question of taking the oath.\n\n30. The next question that I have to ask is whether your attention has\nbeen called to the case of the alleged ineligibility of Francis Bacon,\nthe King's Attorney General, in 1614, cited in the Commons Journal,\nVolume I., pp. 459 and 460?--No, my attention has not been directed to\nany questions of incapacity: it has been confined to questions arising\nout of the taking of the oaths prescribed by law.\n\n31. There is one other question that I should like to ask, and that is\nwhether your attention has been called to any case in which the House has\ndiscussed and dealt with the election of a Member, before that Committee\nwas sworn?--With regard to the Jews, that would apply to Baron Rothschild\nand to Alderman Salomons.\n\n32. I do not mean a case of a Member refusing to be sworn, but a case in\nwhich the House has dealt with the election before the Member had been\nsworn; has your attention been called to that?--No.\n\n33. There is one case, the case of John Wilkes; the cases of O'Donovan\nRossa and Mitchell were cases of legal disability; has your attention\nbeen called to any case in which the House has dealt with the election of\na Member before he was sworn except for statutory disability?--Sir John\nLeedes sat in the House without having taken the Oath, and therefore he\nhad clearly vacated his seat, and a new writ was issued.\n\n34. I mean a case in which the Member has not been sworn, and in which\nthere has been a discussion upon his eligibility outside the precedents\nwhich you have handed in; I refer to the case of John Wilkes, which is to\nbe found in 38 Commons Journals, p. 977, and Cavendish's Parliamentary\nDebates, Volume I., extending over many hundred pages, commencing at 827.\nMay I ask Sir Erskine May whether the practice has not been that when a\nMember appears to take the Oaths within the limited time, all other\nbusiness is immediately to cease and not to be resumed until he has sworn\nand has subscribed the roll?--That was the old practice, but it has been\nsuperseded by a recent Standing Order under the Parliamentary Oaths Act\nof 1866, and the rule is now different; Members can be sworn until the\ncommencement of public business and afterwards; but no debate or business\nmay be interrupted for that purpose.\n\n35. That is not quite the question that I wish to put; the question that\nI wish to put is whether it is not now and has not always been the\npractice of the House that within a limited time, whatever that time may\nbe, if a Member appears to take the oaths all other business is\nimmediately to cease and not to be resumed until he has been sworn and\nhas subscribed the Roll?--That was the old practice, when the oaths were\nrequired to be taken before four o'clock, but it has since been altered.\nThis is the present Standing Order under which the oaths are\nadministered, and this order was made in pursuance of the Parliamentary\nOaths Act of 1866: \"That Members may take and subscribe the Oath required\nby law at any time during the sitting of the House before the Orders of\nthe Day and Notices of Motions have been entered upon, or after they have\nbeen disposed of, but no debate or business shall be interrupted for that\npurpose.\"\n\n36. Then I again repeat my question, whether the practice has not been\nthat a Member so appearing under the Standing Order just read to take the\noath, all other business is immediately to cease and not to be resumed\nuntil he has been sworn and has subscribed the Roll?--I have already\nstated that such was the old practice, which has been distinctly and\nspecifically superseded by the last Standing Order, which is now in\nforce.\n\n37. Is that the Standing Order which you have just read?--Yes, that is\nthe Standing Order now in force.\n\n38. Of course it will be a matter for argument whether it has altered it\nor not, but is there any other Order altering this practice except the\none which you have just read?--There is no other Standing Order, and that\nStanding Order was made, as I have already stated, in pursuance of the\nParliamentary Oaths Act of 1866, which authorised the House to make\nregulations with regard to the swearing of Members.\n\n39. But except so far as it may have been altered by the Standing Order\nwhich you have just read, was the practice that a Member appearing to\ntake the oath all other business was to cease, and not to be resumed\nuntil he had sworn and subscribed the Roll?--Yes, certainly.\n\n40. Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL: The present Standing Order is dated the 30th\nApril, 1866, is it not?--It is.\n\n41. Mr. BRADLAUGH (through the Committee): Are you aware that the House\nhas refused to make any inquiry as to what is consistent, or what is not\nconsistent with the Oath of Allegiance taken by a Member?--I presume that\nthe reference must be to a case which arose in debate. That I do not\nconsider, in any way, in point in the present inquiry, but the question\nwas this: \"In one case an attempt was made to obtain from a Member who\nwas about to bring forward a motion, a repudiation of statements made\nelsewhere, which were alleged to be at variance with the oath he had\ntaken; but the Speaker stated that it was no part of his duty to\ndetermine what was consistent with that oath, and that the terms of the\nmotion were not in violation of any rules of the House.\" That was a point\nof Order, and had no reference whatever to the taking of the Oath.\n\n42. Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL: What was the motion?--It is in the 210th volume\nof \"Hansard's Debates,\" 3rd Series, page 252. It is at page 197 of my\nbook, in a note.\n\n43. Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: In what year?--On the 19th March, 1872; there is\nmerely an incidental reference to it.\n\n44. Mr. BRADLAUGH (through the Committee): Are you aware of any precedent\nfor the dealing by the House with the election of any Member not\ndisqualified by statute or common law, until after that Member had sat\nand been sworn?--My attention has not been directed to any precedent\nbearing upon that precise point, but I apprehend that the fact of whether\nthe Member had been sworn or not would not interfere with any\nproceedings. For example, under an election petition, if a Member's seat\nwere contested, under the old system, the matter would have proceeded in\nthe usual way, without reference to the question of whether the Member\nhad taken the Oath or not.\n\n45. But in such a case the Member would have been sworn, and would have\nsat until the question was decided?--Not necessarily; under the terms of\nthe question I assume that he had not taken his seat.\n\n46. Are there not very numerous cases in which with a petition against a\nMember for alleged statutory disqualification that Member has been sworn\nand has sat until the decision?--Unquestionably; there can be no doubt\nabout it; it frequently happens.\n\n47. Then I ask whether there is any precedent whatever for the House\ndealing with a Member's election or his right to sit, except in cases of\nabsolute statutory disqualification, until that Member has taken his seat\nand the oaths?--So far as I understand the question, I should say that\nwhether the Member has been sworn, or not, the matter of his\ndisqualification, or of his right to sit would be open to the decision of\nthe House.\n\n48. I am not arguing the point at the moment; I am only trying to get at\nthe fact. If you have not looked for it, of course I cannot have it; but\nis there, so far as you know, any precedent of such a thing ever having\nhappened?--I know of none; but I have not searched for any such\nprecedent.\n\n49. Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL: It would not appear, would it?--I hardly know\nhow it would appear; unless one's attention were specifically drawn to\nany case, there would be no means of discovering it.\n\n50. Mr. BRADLAUGH (through the Committee): I will ask whether that\nquestion was not raised in the case of Wilkes, and whether it was not in\nthe consideration of that case fully discussed, and whether the House did\nnot resolve that any such dealing with a member was subversive of the\nrights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom?--I do not\nunderstand how that case has any bearing upon the present question.\n\n51. There are three cases: one of expulsion, two of election annulled,\nand then ultimate reversal of the whole of that and expungment by the\nHouse?--Yes, but that has no bearing upon the present case. Of course, I\nam familiar with the case of Wilkes, but not in connection with any\nmatter arising out of the administration of oaths, which is the special\nmatter referred to this Committee.\n\n52. Have you had your attention called to the Journal of the House of\nCommons, Vol. I., page 460, in which Sir Francis Bacon, the King's\nAttorney General, having sworn to his qualification, which was\nchallenged, the House said, \"Their oath, their own consciences to look\ninto, not we to examine it?\"--That case is not one of the precedents that\nwe have collected.\n\n     Mr. BRADLAUGH: They are entered extremely curiously, and one\n     can only take the decision. It begins on page 459, \"Eligibility\n     of the Attorney General,\" and it does not show there that it is\n     Sir Francis Bacon: but I have learnt that by looking up the\n     other records; and there being then a statutory declaration\n     which lasted until a few years ago for all counsel, solicitors,\n     and practising men of the law, it was objected that the King's\n     Attorney General could not sit; it appears that he had to swear\n     to his qualification, and the question of his oath and of his\n     disqualification, being Attorney General, were put, and the\n     House said, \"Their oath, their own consciences to look into,\n     not we to examine it,\" and they left him in the House,\n     resolving that no future Attorney General should sit in it.\n\n     CHAIRMAN: That was the case which was raised as to whether the\n     law officers of the Crown, who had for certain purposes seats\n     in the House of Lords, had seats in the House of Commons.\n\n     Mr. BRADLAUGH: Not quite that. There was an obsolete statute of\n     the 46th Edward III., which was only repealed eight or nine\n     years ago, but which does not seem to have been attended to, by\n     which all practising barristers and solicitors were\n     disqualified for sitting for counties.\n\n53. Mr. BERESFORD HOPE: Wilkes's precedent being expunged, is it still\nlegible in the Journal, and could it be produced for historical\ninformation?--Certainly.\n\n54. Major NOLAN: With regard to the evidence about O'Connell, I think you\nstated that an Act was passed to enable O'Connell and his co-religionists\nto sit in Parliament?--Not to enable O'Connell to sit in Parliament, but\nto enable Roman Catholics to sit in Parliament.\n\n55. O'Connell was not allowed to take advantage of that Act until he was\nre-elected?--No, because he had been elected prior to the passing of the\nAct, and the Act was clearly prospective.\n\n56. Was the wording of that particular statute the reason why he was not\nallowed to take advantage of that Act?--Certainly; distinctly.\n\n57. Would it be possible for the present or any future Parliament to\npass an Act which would enable a man who had been elected previous to the\npassing of the Act to sit in the House?--It is not for me to say what Act\nof Parliament might be agreed to by Parliament, but that is quite a\ndistinct case. In that case Mr. O'Connell had actually been elected when\nthe Catholic Relief Act was passed, and there was a clause in the Act\nwhich made its operation prospective, and therefore distinctly, and, I\nbelieve, intentionally, excluding Mr. O'Connell from the benefits of the\nAct.\n\n58. Then he was only prevented from taking advantage of that Act owing to\nthe particular wording of that particular clause, and not owing to\nanything inherent in the House of Commons?--Yes; the decision was founded\nupon a literal construction of the words of the recent statute.\n\n59. Mr. WHITBREAD: The case of Mr. O'Connell was this: that he declined\nto take the oath which was required of Members of Parliament elected at\nthe time that he was elected, and that he requested to be allowed to take\nanother form of oath; he was ordered to withdraw, and the House\nconsidered his case; is there anything that you have found in the\nJournals or in the Debates to indicate that if Mr. O'Connell had been\nwilling to take the oath required of him by the House, the House would\nhave objected to his so taking it?--Certainly not; they put it to him\nwhether he would take the Oath of Supremacy, and upon the face of the\nJournal, it would seem that if he had taken that oath, he would have been\nadmitted.\n\n60. Mr. BRADLAUGH (through the Committee): After John Archdale had\nclaimed to affirm, did not the House absolutely order him to attend in\nhis place for the purpose of being sworn, and tender the oaths to\nhim?--Mr. Archdale was ordered to attend, and the House being informed\nthat Mr. Archdale attended according to order, his letter to Mr. Speaker\nwas read. That letter is printed at full length among the precedents.\n\"And the several statutes qualifying persons to come into and sit and\nvote in this House were read, viz., of the 30 Car. II., 1 Will. and\nMariae, and 7 & 8 Will. and Mariae. And then the said Mr. Archdale was\ncalled in, and he came into the middle of the House, almost to the table;\nand Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House, asked him whether he had\ntaken the oaths, or would take the oaths, appointed to qualify himself\nto be a Member of this House; to which he answered, That in regard to a\nprinciple of his religion he had not taken the oaths, nor could take\nthem; and then he withdrew, and a new writ was ordered.\"\n\n61. Mr. Serjeant SIMON: With reference to what the Honorable Member for\nBedford has put to you just now, Mr. O'Connell refused to take the Oath\nof Supremacy on the ground that it contained matter which he knew to be\nuntrue, and other matter which he believed to be untrue?--Yes, he so\nstated.\n\n62. Thereupon he withdrew; but is there any precedent among the Journals\nto show that a Member stating beforehand that what was contained in the\noath was untrue, or a matter of unbelief to him, has been allowed to take\nthe oath under such circumstances?--No, this is the only precedent, so\nfar as I know, of that particular character. The others are cases of\nabsolute refusal to take the oath, or a desire to make an affirmation\ninstead of an oath, or to leave out certain words of the Oath.\n\n63. But is there any precedent where, as in the case of Mr. O'Connell, a\nMember coming to the table of the House, has made a statement such as Mr.\nO'Connell made, that the oath contains matter which he knows to be\nuntrue, or believes to be untrue, and has been allowed to take the oath\nafterwards?--There is no case to be found, so far as I know; certainly\nthere is none in any of these precedents.\n\n64. Mr. Secretary CHILDERS: Is the precedent in Mr. O'Connell's case\nthis; that on the 15th May Mr. O'Connell said that he could not take the\nOath of Supremacy, and that, nevertheless, on the 19th, he was asked\nwhether he would take the Oath of Supremacy, although he had previously\ninformed the House that he was unable to take it?--Yes, because he had\nbeen heard, in the interval, upon his claim to take the new oath, under\nthe recent Catholic Relief Act.\n\n65. But was not that a precedent for a Member who had already stated that\nhe could not take a certain oath, nevertheless being afterwards asked by\nthe House whether he would take it?--It so appears on the face of the\nprecedents.\n\n66. I will put that question again more clearly; is it not the case that,\nas appears on page 5 of the Paper which you have placed before us, Mr.\nO'Connell on the 15th May said, that he could not take the Oath of\nSupremacy?--Yes.\n\n67. And that, nevertheless, on the 19th of May it was ordered that Mr.\nSpeaker do communicate to him the Resolution passed on the same day, and\nask him whether he would take the Oath of Supremacy?--It was so.\n\n68. Although the House was aware that Mr. O'Connell had said that he\ncould not take it?--Yes; but as I observed before, in the interval he had\nbeen heard upon the question of his right to take the new oath; and that,\nI think, accounts for the fact that the question was repeated to him as\nto whether, after the decision of the House had been communicated, he\nstill persisted in refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy.\n\n69. Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS: Was not Mr. O'Connell's objection to taking the\nOath of Supremacy an objection to the truth of the matter sworn to?--Yes,\ncertainly; and it was an oath which no Roman Catholic could take.\n\n70. It was the truth of the matter which he was asked to pledge his oath\nto that he objected to, and he did not express any disbelief in the\nbinding character of the oath itself?--No. Every Roman Catholic objected\nto take the Oath of Supremacy; in fact, the Oath of Supremacy was\nexpressly designed to exclude them from Parliament.\n\n71. Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL: And in consequence of the objection a new form\nof oath was put in the Catholic Relief Bill?--Certainly, because the Oath\nof Supremacy was intended to exclude Roman Catholics, and did exclude\nthem, and was known to exclude them.\n\n72. Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS: It was not his inability to take the oath, but\nhis inability to pledge himself to the truth of what he was asked to\nswear to?--Certainly.\n\n73. Mr. STAVELEY HILL: I gather from you that the House never asked\nO'Connell to take the oath after his giving the grounds of\nrecusancy?--Yes, that is so.\n\n74. Mr. Serjeant SIMON: It appears that the Speaker first asked him\nwhether he would take the Oath of Supremacy, and then he says, No, and\ngives those reasons?--Yes.\n\n75. Mr. PEMBERTON: In addition to Mr. O'Connell's having been heard after\nhe had at first declined to take the oath, was there not some further\ndiscussion in the House in which other Members took part?--Certainly;\nthose Debates will all be found in Hansard.\n\n76. Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY: His refusal to take the oath in the first\ninstance was accompanied by a claim at the same time to take the new\noath?--Clearly.\n\n77. It was a refusal to take the oath accompanied by a claim for a new\none; afterwards he was allowed to be heard upon that point, and then it\nwas that the House, having decided that he could not be admitted on the\nnew oath, he was asked if he chose to take the old oath, which he refused\nto do?--That is a correct statement of the case.\n\n78. Mr. HOPWOOD: With regard to the point of the Standing Orders as to\nwhich Mr. Bradlaugh has asked, as I understand you, under the old\npractice, as pointed out in Hatsell, and as we know it existed, the\noccasion of a Member coming to be sworn caused all other business to\ncease?--Yes.\n\n79. And then as you say, a Standing Order was passed that particular\ntimes more appropriate should be allotted for taking those oaths?--Yes.\n\n80. But even though that may be so at the time of taking an oath, no\nother business can go on?--Clearly not; it is the sole business that is\ntransacted at the moment.\n\n81. No other business can be interposed, and nothing else can be\nproceeded with but the oath of the Member?--Certainly not; it is the\nbusiness of the moment, and no other business can interpose.\n\n82. Mr. GIBSON: You have been asked by several honorable Members about\nO'Connell's case; in your opinion, is there the slightest analogy between\nthe facts and circumstances in O'Connell's case and those of the case now\nbefore the Committee?--I see none myself, but I would rather leave such\nquestions for the determination of the Committee. I have stated the case\nin print, and of course the points of difference are matters of argument.\n\n83. So far as you know, is there any precedent for permitting a Member of\nthe House of Commons to take the Oath after he has stated in the House\nexpressly, or by necessary implication, that it will have no binding\neffect upon his conscience?--There is no such case on record, so far as I\nhave had the means of ascertaining.\n\n\nMr. CHARLES BRADLAUGH, a Member of the House; Examined:\n\n84. CHAIRMAN: You were in the room, I think, when Sir Thomas Erskine May\ngave that part of his evidence as to a matter which was not on the Votes\nand Proceedings?--Yes, but which took place upon the occasion of my first\ncoming to offer to affirm.\n\n85. Is that accurately and fully stated?--It is accurately and fully\nstated. I shall have to ask the indulgence of the Committee if in any of\nthe points which I press there seems to be any undueness in the pressing\nof them, because, as far as I can see, this is the first occasion on\nwhich such a matter has arisen. In the reference which the Committee have\nto deal with, I claim to be sworn and take my seat by virtue of my due\nreturn, a return untainted by illegality of any description, and in\npursuance of the Statute of the 5th of Richard II., which puts upon me\nthe duty of coming here to be sworn and do my duty under penalty of fine\nand imprisonment. I do not know whether the Committee wish that I should\nread the Statute. It is the second Statute of Richard II.; it is on page\n228 of the revised Statutes, Vol. I.; it is a Statute of the year 1382. I\nsubmit that although a Member may not sit and vote until he has taken the\noaths, he is entitled to all the other privileges of a Member, and is\notherwise regarded both by the House and the laws as qualified to serve,\nuntil some other disqualification has been shown to exist; and I quote in\nsupport of that Sir Thomas Erskine May's book, p. 202, that there is\nnothing in what I did in asking to affirm which in any way disqualified\nme from taking the Oath. The evidence that that is so is found in the\ncase of Archdale, on page 3 of the Precedents handed in by Sir Thomas\nErskine May, where, after John Archdale had claimed to affirm, he was\ncalled into the House, and Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House, asked\nhim if he would take the oaths; that I have never at any time refused to\ntake the Oath of Allegiance provided by Statute to be taken by Members;\nthat all I did was, believing as I then did, that I had the right to\naffirm, to claim to affirm, and I was then absolutely silent as to the\noath; that I did not refuse to take it, nor have I then or since\nexpressed any mental reservation, or stated that the appointed Oath of\nAllegiance would not be binding upon me; that, on the contrary, I say,\nand have said, that the essential part of the oath is in the fullest and\nmost complete degree binding upon my honor and conscience, and that the\nrepeating of words of asseveration does not in the slightest degree\nweaken the binding effect of the Oath of Allegiance upon me. I may say,\nthat if it would be more convenient for any Member of the Committee to\nask me any question upon my statement as I go on, it will not interrupt\nme at all.\n\n86. I think the Committee would rather hear you through.--I submit that\naccording to law the House of Commons has neither the right nor the\njurisdiction to refuse to allow the said form of oath to be administered\nto me, there being no legal disqualification on my part of which the\nHouse can or ought to take notice, and there being on my part an express\ndemand to take the Oath, this demand being unaccompanied by, and free\nfrom, any reservation or limitation. I submit that there is no case in\nwhich the Oath of Allegiance has been refused to any Member respectfully\nand unreservedly tendering himself to be sworn. I submit that any Member\nproperly presenting himself to be sworn, and not refusing to be sworn, is\nentitled to be sworn, and to take his seat without interruption, and that\nthe discussion of any disqualification or ineligibility must in such\ncase, according to the practice and precedent of Parliament, take place\nafter the Member has taken his seat; and I quote in support of that John\nHorne Tooke's case, which came before the House in 1801. It was alleged\nthat John Horne Tooke was ineligible because he was an ordained clergyman\nof the Church of England. There he was allowed to take the oaths first,\nand after he had taken the oaths Earl Temple rose and said (I am quoting\nfrom page 956 of the Parliamentary History, Volume 35), that he observed\na gentleman who had just retired from the table after having taken the\nOaths whom he conceived to be incapable of having a seat in the House in\nconsequence of his having taken priest's orders, and been inducted into a\nliving. Earl Temple agreed he would wait to see if a petition were\npresented against him, and if not he should move a resolution upon the\nsubject; and ultimately a resolution was moved that John Horne Tooke was\nineligible. The House allowed John Horne Tooke to sit, but declared\nclergymen for the future to be ineligible for sitting. I rely upon that\nas showing that the proper course to be pursued, supposing that any\nMember should think that I am ineligible, is to wait until I have been\nsworn and have taken my seat, and then to challenge it; and that this is\nclear, because if it were not so it would be possible for the first 41\nMembers sworn or for a majority of that 41, that is, for 21 Members to\nhinder the swearing of all Members coming later to the table without any\nremedy on the part of the Members aggrieved; and I submit, with great\nrespect for the evidence of Sir Thomas Erskine May, that he has\nmisapprehended the force of the Standing Order that he read to you.\nHatsell's Precedents, Volume II., page 90, declares distinctly that when\na Member appears to take the oaths within a limited time, all other\nbusiness is immediately to cease, and not to be resumed until he has been\nsworn and has subscribed the Roll; and with great submission to Sir\nThomas Erskine May, there is no word in the Standing Order which he\nquoted as altering and changing that practice, which does so alter and\nchange it. All that the Standing Order does is to specify the time and\nthe manner in which the Members might come to the table to be sworn,\nwhich had not been hitherto specified; but it does not in any way deal\nwith what was to happen when they did come to the table to be sworn. And\nif the Committee would permit me respectfully to submit, it would be most\ndangerous to the House if it were not so. The first batch of Members\ncalled over by the Clerk of the House are sworn, and they may then, if\nthe contention raised upon the Standing Order quoted by Sir Thomas\nErskine May be correct, prevent every other Member being sworn, if there\nbe more than 40. They may fulfil all the duties of a House of Commons,\nand do what they please, without any remedy, as the matter stands; every\nelection might be declared null and void, and every one sent back to\ntheir constituencies one after another. I submit also that the case of\nthe Attorney General, Sir Francis Bacon, Volume I. of the Commons\nJournal, page 459, is also a precedent in the same direction. I am\nobliged to tell the Committee that I cannot quote it with the same\nreliance that I can put upon Horne Tooke's case, for the notes seem to\nhave been taken, I will not say irregularly, but they do not seem to\nconvey the whole of what took place, and therefore I can only deal with\nthe result. Sir H. Hobart is quoted as being \"the only attorney that hath\nbeen in this House;\" and then there arises a discussion, some of which\ndoes not seem to me to be material, as to whether the then Attorney\nGeneral could sit or not, and I find in the returns that the Attorney\nGeneral at that date was Sir Francis Bacon, who, three days after this\ndiscussion, elected to sit for the University of Cambridge, and although\nI have not the legal evidence, because the returns are incomplete for\nthat year, as he elected to sit for the University of Cambridge, the\nprobability is that he had also been returned for a county. There was\nthen a Statute of the 46th Edward III., which has only recently been\nrepealed, which made a practising man of the law absolutely ineligible;\nand it also appears that there was some oath of qualification, of which I\nhave not been able to find the words, which was then taken by a Member\ncoming to the table; and it appears here that the Oath was alleged in the\ncourse of the discussion, and two things were said which I press upon the\nattention of the Committee; one, that the precedents to disable a Member\nought to be shown on the side of those who seek to disable (it is not\nwritten so lengthily as that; the words are, \"The precedents to disable\nhim ought to be showed on the other side\"), and the other is, \"Their\noath, their own consciences to look unto, not we to examine it,\" which\nmeant, as I submit, that the House did not constitute itself into an\nInquisition to look behind a man coming to take the Oath, but that,\nsubject to his being dealt with by law if he had taken it improperly, or\nsubject to a legal disqualification being made clear to the House, they\nassumed his oath to be properly taken. I submit that even Members\nabsolutely petitioned against and alleged to be disqualified or\nineligible by law, are always allowed to be sworn when they come to the\ntable to be sworn and to sit pending the decision of the petition. The\nonly cases which I have found of absolute legal disqualification in which\nthe Member's election was annulled before he had entered the House, are\nthe cases of Mitchell and O'Donovan Rossa (both of whom were away), and\nthe case of John Wilkes, who was physically incapacitated from taking the\noath from the act that he was in the custody of the law at the time, and\nthose who held him would not have permitted him to come to the table to\nbe sworn. Those are the only cases even with an allegation of an\nabsolute disqualification in the case of O'Donovan Rossa and Mitchell,\nand of a disqualification alleged, but not admitted, and not legal, not\nstatutory, in the case of Wilkes, that I have been able to find; and in\nWilkes's case the House has solemnly decided that it did wrong there, and\nI submit that it ought not to do it again. But here the return is not\nquestioned. It is not pretended that there has been a single circumstance\nof illegality connected with the election, the sole point being, Am I\nqualified to sit? If I am qualified to sit, I have the duty to take the\nOath, and the House has neither the right nor the jurisdiction to refuse\nthe Oath to me, nor to interrupt me in the taking of it. If my\nqualification or eligibility to sit is to be discussed, the precedent for\nthe proper mode of discussing that qualification is in Horne Tooke's\ncase, and rightly so, because then I have the opportunity from my place\nin the House of defending myself, and of correcting any misstatements\nthat may possibly be urged by Members who may be too anxious that I\nshould not sit, supposing in any other House of Commons it should happen,\nand it then gives the Member attacked fair play. While I admit entirely\nthat the House has a full and most complete right to expel any sitting\nMember, and this in its own discretion, and for any reasons in its wisdom\nsufficient, I submit that it has never done this without first calling\nupon the Member to be heard in his own defence, and that that cannot\npossibly happen until the Member is sworn and is sitting. I submit that\nwhile the House has the right to annul the election of a person\nabsolutely disqualified by law, it has never, except in one case, that of\nJohn Wilkes, claimed the right to interfere, and in that case it\nultimately expunged from its proceedings the whole of its hostile\nresolutions, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of\nelectors of this kingdom. I quote on that the Commons Journal, Vol. 38,\n3rd of May 1782. I do not think that I should be right in troubling the\nCommittee with the very strong arguments used time after time by Edmund\nBurke, Thomas Pitt, and others; but I want to point out this, that in\naddition to the charge on which John Wilkes was expelled from the House\n(and I am not questioning his original expulsion), there were also\ncharges introduced against John Wilkes for his publications outside the\nHouse. That will be found in 1st Cavendish, page 73 and page 129, and\nthey are charges far exceeding anything (if I may judge from the reports\nwhich have even been put in) in relation to any supposed publications of\nmy own. None of those charges were ultimately considered by the House to\njustify the interference of the House with the choice of the\nconstituency. To use the words of Mr. Thomas Pitt, on page 350 of\nCavendish, words endorsed by the House itself, \"Nothing but a positive\nlaw can enable you to circumscribe the electors in their choice of a\nrepresentative, however, indiscreet they may be in their choice.\" I\nconsider now on what grounds is it claimed that the House of Commons has\nthe right and jurisdiction, following the words of reference, to refuse\nto allow me to take and subscribe the Oath? Is it for a disqualification\nor ineligibility existing prior to my election and continuing down to the\ntime of my election--I mean a disqualification or ineligibility created\nby Statute or existing at common law? No such disqualification is even\npretended. Is it for a disqualification or ineligibility of like legal\ncharacter arising since my election? No such disqualification is\npretended. Is it for conduct not amounting to absolute disqualification\nlegally, but conduct for which the House has in its discretion exercised\nits rights and jurisdictions by expelling a Member? It must be this, or\nit is nothing. If there is neither legal disqualification prior to my\nelection, nor legal disqualification subsequent to my election, then\nthere must be such conduct not amounting to absolute legal\ndisqualification as would, were I a sitting Member, justify the House in\nusing its discretion to expel a Member. But if that conduct be prior to\nthe election, then I submit that the constituency is the sole and\nsovereign judge of the fitness of the candidate, such candidate not being\nlegally disqualified, and that where the chosen and duly returned\ncandidate is ready to perform his duties, this House has neither the\nright nor the jurisdiction to revoke the decision of the constituency;\nand that in the only case in which the House did so interfere it\nafterwards solemnly recorded that its conduct was illegal, as being\nsubversive of the rights of the whole body of the electors of this\nkingdom. If the complaint against me is for conduct arising since my\nelection, then I submit that even if such matters justify my expulsion as\na Member, the point could only be raised after I had been heard in my\nplace against the Resolution, and that the matter could not arise until I\nhave taken the Oath and become entitled to speak, sit, and vote.\nManifestly this must be so, as otherwise it would always be in the power\nof a majority to exclude from coming to take his seat any Member to whom\nthey might have an objection; and although such a thing is, luckily, not\nprobable now, there have been times, even in the history of the House of\nCommons, when a majority, even of election committees, as I read in the\nRecords of the House, have sought by mere prejudice to exclude Members.\nIt is, therefore, the more necessary that at any rate a Member should\nhave the right to be heard in his own defence. I submit that there is no\nprecedent whatever for preventing a Member from taking his seat and the\nOath, on the ground of conduct not amounting to absolute legal\ndisqualification. There is no such precedent to be found at all, and I\nhave searched very carefully indeed. I put the question to Sir Erskine\nMay lest anything should have escaped me, and I say absolutely there is\nno precedent. Then I submit that it would not be consistent with the\ndignity of the House to examine any statement made by any Member outside\nthe House, as to any of its procedure, and that in fact the House has\nfirmly refused to allow a Member to be challenged as to whether or not\nsome of his extra-Parliamentary utterances were inconsistent with his\nOath of Allegiance; and here I should like the Committee to come to a\ndecision, because it would alter and abridge my argument. If the\nCommittee thought (I will put a suppositious case) that, say there were\nsome document that they thought they had the right to take into\nconsideration here, then while I should object to that, I should like to\nhave the opportunity of addressing the Committee as to that. So far as\nthe evidence has gone, I have not heard of any, except the mere statement\nin the House, only I judged from a question put by an honorable and\nlearned Member that something was passing in his mind (which, by the way,\ndid not seem to me to be the fact) justifying a question put to Sir\nThomas Erskine May as to whether the Oath could be administered to a man\nwho had done something either actually or by implication repudiating the\neffect of that Oath. I have heard nothing in the evidence, so far as it\nhas gone, giving the slightest color or warranty for such a question. If\nthere are any facts to be dealt with by this Committee other than that,\nthen I should like to know the facts, and to argue upon them; but it\nwould be only wasting the time of the Committee to address argument to\nany point which the Committee would not think it right to consider; and I\nshould be glad if, before going further into my statement, the Committee\nthought it right to intimate to me their view upon that.\n\nThe Committee deliberated.\n\n87. CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee would like to understand from you the\nkind of objection that you are anticipating before you proceed with your\nargument; as I understood you, you took this kind of objection: \"I wish\nto know whether the Committee are going into any proceedings external to\nthe proceedings which took place in the House, or will entertain the\nconsideration of those questions,\" and that if they did so you would wish\nto be heard upon that point; I understood you also to say that beyond\nthat general question as to any proceedings which may have taken place as\npart of the transaction in any other place than the House itself, you\nwish to know whether the Committee would take such matter into their\nconsideration; am I right in supposing that to be the character of your\nobjection?--Not quite. Practically my question is this: Will this\nCommittee take any facts into consideration other than those of which I\nhave heard evidence given, and those which have been stated by myself in\nthe course of my argument? If so, I should like to know, because I\nunderstood the permission of the Committee to be that I should address\nthem at the close of the case before their deliberations, and I should\nsubmit with all respect that the Committee would not take one matter of\nfact into their consideration to influence them in their deliberations\nwhich I had not the opportunity of addressing them upon. If they have\nfinished, and if there are no facts except those which I have heard to be\ndealt with, it enables me to turn out and eliminate a portion of the\nargument which I have prepared.\n\nThe Committee deliberated.\n\n88. CHAIRMAN: The Committee have considered the matter which you have\nsubmitted to them, and they request me to inform you that members of the\nCommittee do propose, after your statement is concluded, to ask some\nquestions of you; but I have to inform you, at the same time, that you\nwill be invited, and are invited, to state any objections that you may\nentertain to any such questions when put, and that you shall have a full\nopportunity of addressing the Committee after they have heard your\nanswers to the questions so put?--That will enable me to eliminate a\nportion of my argument. I wish to submit to the Committee one observation\non the precedent of Daniel O'Connell, and that is that, as a matter of\nfact, the evidence of Sir Thomas Erskine May shows that he misapprehended\nthat precedent. It was a refusal by Daniel O'Connell to take the Oaths by\nlaw required of a member at the date of his election. Between the date of\nhis election and the date of his refusal the law had changed, but it had\nnot changed (so the House interpreted the Statute, or so the Statute ran,\nI do not know which) at the date of his election. So that I submit that\nDaniel O'Connell's case is a case of a Member refusing to take the Oath\nby law required; and I further submit that the Parliamentary Debates will\nshow that the words which appear as being used by Mr. O'Connell on the\n19th of May, sufficiently expressed his reason for refusing to take the\nOath of Supremacy some days at least before the House asked him again to\ntake it. Then I have only two other matters which I should wish to submit\nto the Committee. One is that I have, neither directly nor indirectly,\nobtruded upon the House, since I have been a Member, any of my utterances\nor publications upon any subject whatever; that there is no precedent,\nexcept in the case of John Wilkes, for any reference on the part of any\nopposing Member to such publications by any Member prior to the taking of\nhis seat; and that the ultimate decision of the House in John Wilkes's\ncase is directly against the introduction by any Member hostile to me of\nany such matter as a reason for my not being allowed to take my seat.\nFinally, I most respectfully submit that I have grave matter of complaint\nthat my privileges as a Member of the House of Commons have been\nseriously infringed, and that the rights of the electors, my\nconstituents, have been ignored in the attacks made upon me without\nprevious notice to me; attacks to which I had no opportunity of making a\ndignified reply; attacks which, if the newspaper reports be accurate,\nwere in many instances based upon absolute misapprehension or\nmisquotation of my publications, and in one instance at any rate, based\nupon the most extreme misrepresentation of my conduct. I thank the\nCommittee for listening to me, and I regret if my want of knowledge of\nthe forms of the House has involved my saying anything in a manner in\nwhich the Committee would prefer that I should not have said it.\n\n89. That is all you wish to state at present?--That is all I wish to\nstate at present upon the evidence as taken by the Committee. If fresh\nevidence should be taken, I should ask the permission of the Committee to\nhave the right of addressing them upon that.\n\n90. The Committee will now proceed to examine you.--Before any question\nis put to me, will you, Sir, tell me when is the proper time to object to\nany question which I may think I have the right to object to?\n\n91. When the question is put, before answering it?--\n\n     Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL: You will understand that I am not in any\n     sense cross-examining you, but merely to clear up what took\n     place in the House.\n\n     I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.\n\n92. We know from the Proceedings of the House that you did at the table\nof the House make a claim, in the first instance, to make affirmation\ninstead of taking the oath?--Yes.\n\n93. And we understand that you did so on the ground that you were a\nperson entitled to make affirmation within the terms of the Evidence\nAmendment Acts of 1869 and 1870?--That was then my impression of the law,\nand that was the claim which I made.\n\n94. And I presume, of course, that at the time when you made that claim\nyou founded it upon the belief that you were entitled to make affirmation\nin the House of Commons?--I made that claim solely upon my belief that\nthe law entitled me to make it.\n\n95. Then as regards your power to give evidence under the Evidence\nAmendment Acts in courts both civil and criminal, you of course put it\nbefore the House of Commons, as a fact, that you were a person entitled\nin those courts to make affirmation?--Yes.\n\n96. And I presume that you were acquainted with the terms of those Acts,\nthe subject interesting you?--Quite.\n\n97. Were you aware that if you yourself were called as a witness, it\nwould be necessary before you were allowed to make affirmation in a\ncourt, either civil or criminal, under the Acts of 1869 and 1870, that\ntwo things should be established; first, that you yourself objected to\ntake the oath, or that your right to take it was objected to by some one\nelse; and then, secondly, that the judge would be required to satisfy\nhimself that the taking of an oath by you would have no binding effect\nupon your conscience?--No, that is not my interpretation of the Statute,\nnor do I think it has always been (although I think it has sometimes\nbeen) the interpretation of the judge or other presiding officer dealing\nwith it.\n\n98. Would you kindly explain your own view as to the sense in which you\nread the statute of 1869, which says that the judge must satisfy himself\nthat the oath is not binding upon the conscience of the person wishing to\naffirm, the words being, \"If any person called to give evidence in any\ncourt of justice, whether in a civil or criminal proceeding, shall object\nto take an oath, or shall be objected to as incompetent to take an oath,\nsuch person shall, if the presiding judge is satisfied that an oath would\nhave no binding effect on his conscience, make the following promise and\ndeclaration\"?--My interpretation is that upon certain answers being given\nby the witness, the judge is bound to take his affirmation, even\nsupposing that the judge himself should not be of opinion that the oath\nis not binding upon him; and it has been decided so by the Court of\nQueen's Bench. In the case of _ex parte_ Lennard _v._ Woolrych, a man\ntendered his affirmation at the Westminster Police Court, and the\nmagistrate asked him (I am repeating from memory, but repeating perfectly\naccurately the substance of what appears in the affidavits filed in the\nCourt of Queen's Bench), \"Why do you object?\" He said, \"I am an Atheist.\"\nThe magistrate refused to allow him to give evidence upon affirmation,\nand the court held that upon hearing that answer there was enough under\nthe Act, and that the magistrate was bound to take the man's evidence,\nand issued a mandamus to compel him.\n\n99. You will not suppose that I am arguing with you, but as I understand\nthat case the witness who tendered himself having said he was an Atheist,\nthe court held that the magistrate was bound to draw the inference from\nthat assertion that the oath was not binding, and therefore to let him\nmake the affirmation?--That is so. Whether the presiding officer did draw\nthe inference or not, the court held that he was bound to.\n\n100. Then I do not think that there is much difference between us; but I\nassume that when you come to the table of the House of Commons, and asked\nleave to make affirmation instead of taking the Oath, you were a person,\nas I understand it, who, if you had gone into a court of justice and made\nthe same request, would have been held by the presiding judge to be one\nupon whom the oath would have no binding effect?--I did think so when I\napplied to affirm. I do not think so since the Report of your Committee,\nfor your Committee has reported that the two oaths are entirely\ndifferent.\n\n101. It is a question for you: do you draw any distinction between the\nbinding effect upon your conscience of the Assertory Oath, as it is\ncalled, and the Promissory Oath?--Most certainly I do. The Testimony Oath\nis not binding upon my conscience, because there is another form which\nthe law has provided which I may take, which is more consonant with my\nfeelings. The Promissory Oath is and will be binding upon my conscience\nif I take it, because the law, as interpreted by your Committee, says\nthat it is the form which I am to take, and the Statute requires me to\ntake it.\n\n102. Pray do not answer this question unless you like: am I to understand\nyou that the binding effect upon your conscience of the Oath depends upon\nwhether there is an alternative method of taking that which is to you\nequivalent to the oath?--No, most certainly not. Any form that I went\nthrough, any oath that I took, I should regard as binding upon my\nconscience in the fullest degree. I would go through no form, I would\ntake no oath, unless I meant it to be so binding.\n\n103. Pray object if you do not wish to answer this question: By virtue of\nwhat do you regard that assertion which you make within the Oath as\nbinding?--I have not caught your question, if you will pardon me for\nsaying so.\n\n104. By virtue of what portion of what is contained in the Oath do you\nfeel that your conscience is bound; is it by the mere fact that you\nrepeat the words therein contained, or is it by that which is contained\nin the form of the Oath?--Those words, \"I do swear that I will be\nfaithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria, her\nheirs and successors, according to law,\" are to me, binding in the most\nfull and complete and thorough degree on my conscience.\n\n105. If you read a promise out of any book or paper, and said, \"I promise\nso to do,\" is there more binding effect in those words that you have read\nthan in the mere ordinary assertion of a promise?--Yes, because this\nreading is by law, and by the decision of your Committee intended to be\nthe form in which I pledge my allegiance as a Member.\n\n106. Then if it were a form sanctioned by law, as in the case of an\naffirmation, is there any more effect upon your mind if you take it in\nthe form of what we call an oath than if you took it simply by words of\naffirmation or promise?--If the form sanctioned by law ran \"I affirm,\" or\n\"I declare and affirm,\" or \"I solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm\nthat I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen\nVictoria, her heirs and successors, according to law,\" that would be\nequally binding upon my conscience.\n\n107. Do you attach any express or particular meaning to the words \"I\nswear\"?--The meaning that I attach to them is that they are a pledge upon\nmy conscience to the truth of the declaration which I am making.\n\n108. But a pledge given, may I ask, to whom?--A pledge given to the\nproperly constituted authorities, whomsoever they may be, who are\nentitled to receive it from me.\n\n109. Do you attribute any more meaning to those words than a pledge to\nhuman beings around you?--I attach no more meaning to those words than I\ndo to a pledge to human beings authorised by law to take such a pledge\nfrom me under similar solemn circumstances.\n\n110. But the solemn circumstances, I suppose, are the mere mundane\ncircumstances?--The statutory circumstances. I meant \"solemn\" simply in\nthe sense of being the statutory circumstances; I meant to distinguish\nbetween that and mere conversation.\n\n111. I think we understand from your answers that you do not attribute\nany more weight to the use of the words \"I swear,\" and to the words \"So\nhelp me God,\" than you would to an ordinary promise if it were given\nunder the same circumstances as those under which you gave that promise\nin the House of Commons?--I conceive myself entitled by law to\ndistinguish, and I beg therefore to object to so much of the question as\ndeals with the words \"So help me God,\" my objection being founded on the\ncase of Miller _v._ Salomons, in the 17th Jurist, and the case of the\nLancaster and Carlisle Railway Company _v._ Heaton in the 4th Jurist, new\nseries.\n\n112. I presume by that answer you mean that \"So help me, God\" is no part\nof the oath or promise, but merely the form in which it is taken?--That\nis so; it is merely a form of asseveration.\n\n113. Will you confine yourself, then, to the words \"I swear\"?--I will.\n\n114. Do you attribute any greater weight or any meaning to the words \"I\nswear,\" and to the fact of kissing the book, beyond the words of ordinary\npromise?--Not beyond the words of ordinary promise made under statutory\nobligation.\n\n115. Then what greater weight do you attach to a promise made under\nstatutory obligation than to an ordinary promise?--I would prefer not\nmaking any promise that I did not intend to keep; but the law has\nattached a weight to statutory promises, and a penalty and disgrace on\nthe breaking of them.\n\n116. That is a consequence resulting from human action; you do not\nattribute any other weight to such a promise beyond what results from\nsuch penalties?--I object to that question.\n\n117. I will now go to another point. How lately is it that you have\nclaimed a right to affirm in a court of law?--In a superior court or in\nan inferior court?\n\n118. In any court where you have taken an oath?--Recently in an inferior\ncourt, within a few days.\n\n119. How lately prior to your claim in the House of Commons?--Prior to my\nclaim in the House of Commons, about 12 months.\n\n120. You had made a claim on several occasions, I suppose, prior to the\nperiod which you have just mentioned?--Yes.\n\n121. What steps, if any, were taken by the judge on such occasions to\narrive at the conclusion that the oath would have no binding effect:--On\nthe last occasion, by Mr. Justice Lindley, none. I presume he thought my\nclaim to affirm well founded, and he simply bowed his head, and the clerk\nadministered the affirmation after looking to him.\n\n122. I suppose you made a claim to affirm?--When the clerk brought the\nTestament to the witness-box I said, \"I desire to affirm,\" and the clerk\nlooked at Mr. Justice Lindley, who just bowed his head (he happened to be\nthe presiding judge), and I did affirm.\n\n123. Had you reason to think that Mr. Justice Lindley was acquainted with\nany previous applications by you to affirm?--I should think it possible,\nbecause the claim to affirm has been the subject of considerable\nlitigation by myself in the courts.\n\n124. Upon any occasion upon which the judge did make inquiry, what was\nthe nature of the inquiry?--The present Lord Justice Brett, whom I\nremember distinctly challenging me upon it when he was Mr. Justice Brett,\nsaid: \"Why do you claim, Mr. Bradlaugh?\" and I perfectly remember my\nanswer, but I am just thinking whether I am not entitled to say this:\nthat happened seven years ago; I do not intend to imply that there is any\nchange or anything since, but I think I am entitled to say to this\nCommittee that it is hardly within the limits of their reference to\ninquire into something that happened in a law court between myself and a\njudge seven years ago.\n\n125. I should not have asked the question, but you have stated in the\nHouse of Commons yourself, in order to support your claim to make\naffirmation, that you have frequently been permitted to affirm?--That is\nso.\n\n126. And I think you gave the last nine or ten years?--Yes, and Mr.\nJustice Brett's question came within that time. I hope you will not\nconsider that I am putting the objection unfairly. What I want to put is\nthis: that the conversation which took place on the occasion of my having\naffirmed (and I repeat that I have affirmed before different judges)\nbeing more or less informal, ought not to be the subject of inquiry by\nthis Committee. The fact is of record. Those were all at _Nisi Prius_.\n\n127. It was before a judge who would have to administer an oath?--Quite\nso.\n\n128. If you state that you really entertain an objection to the question,\nI do not wish to press it myself personally?--I have no objection to\nanswering, except that I have purposely tried to keep out of this\ndiscussion any question of my views; otherwise I am quite in the hands of\nthe Committee, and if the Committee are disposed to press the question I\nwill give the answer, having made my objection.\n\n129. I do not wish to go into the views generally entertained by you,\nexcept so far as expressed by you that the Testimony Oath had no binding\neffect upon your conscience?--My answer applied to the Assertory or\nTestimony Oath.\n\n130. I am asking you what you stated when a Testimony Oath was being\nadministered to you; but if you desire not to answer the question, so far\nas I, an individual member of the Committee, am concerned, I do not wish\nto put it to you?--I take the objection.\n\n131. Mr. GIBSON: Can you recall whether within any time since your right\nto affirm was first recognised in courts of justice, you have taken the\nOath?--Never; that is to say, the oath as a witness.\n\n132. Have you ever taken any oath since your right to affirm was first\nadmitted in courts of justice?--It only has been my right to affirm as a\nwitness that has been admitted in a court of justice; I have under cover\nof that Act, but I think illegally, affirmed as foreman of a special\njury, but I have considerable doubt whether the Act covered my\naffirmation as a juryman.\n\n133. With that knowledge now present to your mind, is it the fact that\nthe oath which you seek to take at the table of the House is, if you are\npermitted to take it, the first oath that you will have taken since you\nwere permitted to affirm in courts of justice?--It is the first occasion\nupon which there has been any reason for my taking or not taking the Oath\nof Allegiance since I have been permitted to affirm.\n\n134. Or any other form of oath?--My memory is not quite clear upon that;\nI am not sure. There was a case in which I took evidence as a\nCommissioner from America, and I am not at all sure whether the\ncompletion of that Commission was before or after the passing of the\nAffirmation Act.\n\n135. But since the passing of the Act?--I cannot quite pledge my mind as\nto that; but except in that case in which I was a Commissioner for\ntaking some evidence in relation to an American process, in which I may\nhave done so, I certainly have not.\n\n136. Then am I to understand that you seek now to take this oath with\nexactly the same meaning in your mind as you would take the\naffirmation?--Which affirmation?\n\n137. The affirmation which you originally sought to take at the table of\nthe House, the Promissory Affirmation?--I seek to take the Oath of\nAllegiance just as I should seek to take the Affirmation of Allegiance.\n\n138. And do you attach in your mind no different meaning to the word\n\"swear\" than you would to the word \"affirm?\"--The law does not.\n\n139. Do you, in your own mind, attach any difference to the sanction?--I\nobject that the question put to me asks me to make a distinguishment\nwhich the law does not make.\n\n140. I do not wish to press anything to which you object; do you desire\nto tell the Committee that, in your own mind, there is no distinction\ndrawn when you use the word \"affirm\" and when you use the word\n\"swear\"?--To me, on the Statute they have the same meaning; that is, they\nare a pledge that what I put after those words is binding upon me in the\nmost complete degree.\n\n141. I suppose you are aware of all the ordinary definitions of an oath\ncontained in the law books?--I am afraid that would be saying more than I\nhave any right to say. I am fairly well read, but not sufficiently to say\nthat I know them all.\n\n142. You know a great many of them, I suppose?--I have learnt a few.\n\n143. You said to my honorable and learned friend, the Attorney General,\nthat you regarded the word \"swear\" as a pledge given to a properly\nconstituted authority, and that that was the meaning you attached to the\nword \"swear\"; what do you mean by the \"properly constituted authority\"\nthat you referred to in that answer?--Whatever may be the authority\nestablished by Statute for the purpose of taking such an oath.\n\n144. A human authority?--All authorities established by Statute for the\ntaking of oaths are human authorities Any authority outside a Statute is\nillegal, and any person administering such an oath is indictable.\n\n145. You are aware of the meaning of the expression \"sanction of an\noath\"; what do you consider would be the sanction of the Oath if you took\nit?--I am not sure that I apprehend the meaning that is in your mind when\nyou use the words \"sanction of an oath.\"\n\n146. I will read the definition which is contained in Mr. Baron Martin's\njudgment in the case of Miller _v._ Salomon's, where it refers to the\ncase of Omichund _v._ Barker, as reported in the \"Law Journal\": \"The\ndoctrine laid down by the Lord Chancellor (Hardwicke) (Omichund _v._\nBarker), and all the other judges, was that the essence of an oath was an\nappeal to a Supreme Being in whose existence the person taking the oath\nbelieved, and whom he also believed to be a rewarder of truth and an\navenger of falsehood, and that the form of taking an oath was a mere\noutward act, and not essential to the oath which might be administered to\nall persons according to their own peculiar religious opinions, and in\nsuch manner as most affected their consciences.\" You have listened to\nthat statement?--Yes; and I have also read the judgment of the Court of\nError in the following year, in which they say that the essential words\nof the oath are those without the appeal, and that the words \"So help me,\nGod\" are words of asseveration, the manner of taking the oath; but the\nwords preceding them are, it appears to me, an essential part of the\noath; and in the case of the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Company _v._\nHeaton, it was held that the oath was completely taken without the\naddition of that appeal.\n\n147. I am not at all upon the words \"So help me, God,\" which are the\nwords referred to in the last case to which you referred. I am now upon\nwhat contains a promise that an oath is being taken when a man uses the\nword \"swear\"; do you object to the definition which I have read?--I\nobject to that definition as overruled by the Court of Error in its final\ndecision in error, confirmed by a subsequent decision of Lord Campbell in\nthe Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Company _v._ Heaton, when it was held\nthat the appeal was not a part of the oath.\n\n148. CHAIRMAN: In both those cases I think the judges in holding that\nview had reference simply to the words \"So help me, God\"?--Simply to the\nwords \"So help me, God.\"\n\n149. I think we are a little misunderstanding each other?--I hope not; I\nwant to be candid with the Committee.\n\n150. Mr. GIBSON: I am not at all on the words which that case went on of\n\"So help me, God,\" but I am on what must be the essential distinction\nbetween an oath and an affirmation; what, I ask you now, do you conceive to\nbe the essential distinction between an oath and an affirmation?--Following\nthe judgment of the Court of Error, repeated in the other judgment which I\nquoted, I regard the essential words of the oath as beginning with \"I\nswear,\" and ending with \"according to law.\" I submit that it is no part of\nmy duty to draw any distinction, if distinction exists, between the value\nof that and the value of an affirmation, because the Statute has declared\nthat they both have the same value.\n\n151. Do you consider that the taking of an oath implies in the person\ntaking it the existence of a belief in God, and that he will reward and\npunish us according to our deserts?--That depends upon the form of the\noath; and since the decision you quoted very many forms of oath have been\nentirely changed by the Legislature.\n\n152. Do you consider that if you use the word \"swear,\" you appeal to a\nGod?--I consider that I take an oath which is binding upon my honor and\nconscience.\n\n153. Without any reference to God?--I consider that I take an oath which\nis binding upon my honor and conscience.\n\n154. And supposing that you break that oath, what what would be the\nconsequences which you consider would result to you?--I am not aware that\nthe Statute has provided that I shall declare my opinion upon those\nconsequences.\n\n155. Am I to understand that you decline to answer?--I am objecting that\nthe question is one which would not be put in a court of law, and\ntherefore, much more, should not be put here.\n\n156. In answer to the Attorney General, and in your statement also, you\nused the words \"essential part of the Oath,\" and the words of the Oath\nare, \"I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her\nMajesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors, according to law;\" do\nyou consider that all the words there present to your mind are equally\ndefinite and clear meaning?--I consider that the whole of those words are\nessential; I hold them to be essential, and I submit myself to the\nconstruction which the Court has put upon them.\n\n157. Is there any word in the Oath in the Statute which does not convey\nto your mind any clear and definite meaning?--There is no word in that\nwhich does not convey to me a clear and definite meaning.\n\n158. And do you regard the words at the end of it, \"So help me, God,\" as\nconveying any definite meaning, or merely as a useless addendum to the\npromise?--I object that this Committee will not ask me my opinion upon\nthose words, because they have been held by the highest court of law in\nthis realm, subject to appeal, to be no necessary part of the Oath.\n\n159. Sir HENRY JACKSON: If your counsel were here I should put to him\nthis question, which do not answer if you object; I will treat you as if\nyou were your own counsel; I understand your view to be that the Act of\n1866 or the Act of 1868, gives you two alternative methods of taking your\nseat, the one of affirmation and the other of oath, and that it is open\nto you to take whichever of the two you prefer; you prefer the\naffirmation, but it having been decided not to be competent for you to\nmake the affirmation, you now propose to take the Oath?--That is exactly\nmy construction.\n\n160. Now I will tell you my doubt, and perhaps you will be good enough to\ntell me what you say upon it. It occurs to me that these two alternatives\nare what lawyers call true alternatives; that is to say, that each\nexcludes the other, and that the Committee having decided (perhaps you\nwill say erroneously) that you cannot affirm, you have by your claim to\naffirm excluded yourself from the alternative claim to take the Oath; are\nnot the two mutually exclusive?--No; the House of Commons decided that,\nfortunately for me, and that saves me the trouble of thinking on it for\nmyself. When John Archdale applied to affirm, the House held that he\ncould not affirm, and they ordered him to take the Oath.\n\n161. Was that under the Statute which regulates the present\nprocedure?--No, but it was under the claim of a man who thought that he\nhad alternative courses, and who refused to take the Oath.\n\n162. That is the answer which you give to my doubt?--I am not sure\nwhether I have answered fully.\n\n163. You do not condescend to any argument upon the Statute, but you\nthink that the one alternative is not exclusive of the other?--I thought\nthen, and subject to the Report of the Committee against me, which I\npresume binds me, I should still think that I have the right to affirm,\nand if there were any way in which I thought I could legally raise the\nquestion, I should try to do so.\n\n164. But on the hypothesis that the decision of the Committee was right,\nhave you anything except the Archdale precedent, from which you would\nargue that these two Acts of Parliament do not create two mutually\nexclusive alternatives?--I should simply reply that if that be so, and\nyou told me that I did not come within the one, I must come within the\nother.\n\n165. Mr. STAVELEY HILL: I wish to ask you one question with reference to\nwhat took place before Lord Justice Brett (then Mr. Justice Brett), and,\nof course, if you think proper, you will take the objection as you did to\nwhat the Attorney General asked you: when Mr. Justice Brett admitted you\nto affirm, what steps did he take with a view to satisfy himself that an\noath would not be binding upon your conscience?--He put to me the\nquestion, \"Why?\" and I gave to him three words as an answer, and these\nthree words apparently satisfied him, and he directed the clerk to allow\nme to affirm. He put no question to me as to whether the oath was binding\nupon me or not.\n\n166. Have you any objection to tell the Committee what those three words\nwere?--The question put by Mr. Justice Brett was, \"Why?\" I object to tell\nthe answer, because it would be an inquiry into a man's religious\nopinions, and Sir George Grey, in introducing the Parliamentary Oaths Act\nin 1866, under which I claim, said, \"We will make no inquiry into any\nman's religious opinions; let the constituencies be the judges of that.\"\n\n167. But those three words, whatever they were, satisfied Mr. Justice\nBrett that an oath would not be binding upon your conscience?--I cannot\nsay that, but they satisfied him sufficiently that he gave the clerk\ndirections to allow me to affirm.\n\n168. When did that take place?--About eight years ago, speaking roughly;\nit may be six or seven years, but I am not certain about the time.\n\n169. Was it reported in the newspapers, and is it generally known?--I am\nnot sure; there have been cases reported.\n\n170. Mr. PEMBERTON: I wish to ask whether, since you were returned as a\nMember of this House, and since the Report of the last Committee, you\nauthorised the publication of a letter which appeared in the newspapers\nof the 21st of May in reference to the proceedings which have taken place\non this matter?--I ask that the question may not be put to me, because I\nsay that the House has already decided that they will not put any inquiry\nto a member as to what happens outside the House to determine what was\nconsistent with the Oath, or not.\n\n171. Of course I do not press the question more than to remind you that\nit had reference to proceedings which have taken place in this House, and\nin a Committee of this House?--Many things I have read (I do not know\nwhether they are accurate or inaccurate), speeches made by Members\nreferring to proceedings in this House, and to that Committee in relation\nto this matter. To put it roughly, I should submit that this Committee\nshould not examine me as to extra-Parliamentary utterances in reply to\nextra-Parliamentary utterances. For example, one honorable Member, Sir\nHenry Drummond Wolff, made a speech at Chichester----\n\n172. Lord HENRY LENNOX: Not at Chichester?--The papers said so; they may\nbe very likely wrong, only it shows still more, I submit, the force of\nthe objection that extra-Parliamentary publications in reply to\nextra-Parliamentary utterances should not be the subject of questions\nbefore this Committee.\n\n173. Mr. PEMBERTON: I will only again point out that it was not in reply\nto an extra-Parliamentary utterance, but had reference to proceedings in\nthis House?--That assumes what would be passing in the mind of the writer\nand what he had in view in assuming it, and I decline to discuss any\nsubject of that kind.\n\n174. I am to take it that you decline to answer the question?--No, I\nobject to answer it. If the Committee think that I ought to answer it I\nwill answer it. I do not take a legal objection. You quite understand\nthat if the Committee think I ought to answer it, I will answer it at\nonce.\n\n     The Committee deliberated.\n\n     CHAIRMAN: The Committee have come unanimously to the conclusion\n     that the question put by the honorable Member for East Kent\n     ought to be answered; but, in arriving at that conclusion, I am\n     requested to inform you what I will now read: \"That the\n     Committee think Mr. Bradlaugh should answer the question put to\n     him by Mr. Pemberton, on the ground that it refers to matters\n     written by him directly in relation to the question involved in\n     the order of reference to the Committee, and for the purpose of\n     expressing his views on such questions since the claim was made\n     by him to make the affirmation, and before the appointment of\n     the Committee.\"\n\n175. Mr. PEMBERTON: I wish to ask whether, since you were returned as a\nMember of this House, and since the Report of the last Committee, you\nauthorised the publication of a letter which appeared in the newspapers\nof the 21st May, in reference to the proceedings which have taken place\non this matter, such letter being signed in your name?--I think one of\nthe members of the Committee has a copy, which I handed to him; I have\nnot seen the print; and as I sent to all the newspapers a lithographed\ncopy, I prefer, for greater accuracy, to ask him to return it to me. I\nhold in my hand a copy which I have no doubt is the same.\n\n176. CHAIRMAN: Do you object to that letter being put in?--The moment the\nCommittee decided that I ought to answer that question, I had no reserve\nin saying that I left myself in the hands of the Committee on it. I shall\ntake the liberty of wishing to address a word or two to the Committee\npresently upon it. (_The letter was handed in._)\n\n177. Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS: Do you propose to take the Oath in the form\ngiven in the Statute of 1868, which I will read to you: \"I., A. B., do\nswear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty\nQueen Victoria, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me,\nGod?\"--I do, that being the form in the Statute.\n\n178. If you are permitted to take that oath, do you intend the Committee\nto understand and believe that it will be binding upon your conscience as\nan oath?--Yes.\n\n179. In taking such oath, do you consider yourself as appealing to some\nSupreme Being as a witness that you are speaking the truth?--I submit\nthat having said that I regard the oath as binding upon my conscience,\nthis Committee has neither the right nor the duty to further interrogate\nmy conscience.\n\n180. Sir RICHARD CROSS: You know of course that in taking the oath in the\nform prescribed by the Statute, and according to the custom of taking\noaths, you will have to kiss the Testament: do you attach the smallest\nweight to the kissing of that book?--I attach the weight attached by the\nlaw to the whole of the formula.\n\n181. Do you attach the smallest weight to the kissing of the book; do you\nthink that the kissing of that book adds in the slightest degree to the\nweight upon your conscience of the words which you have already spoken\nwithout kissing the book?--The law has said that the whole of that is to\nbe complete; I have not the right, therefore, to form an opinion, or to\nformulate an opinion as to how much of that I would leave out had I any\nchoice in the matter.\n\n182. Then do you attach any further importance to the word \"swear\" in the\noath itself, and to the fact of the kissing of the book than if the word\n\"swear\" were written \"affirm,\" and no kissing of the book were\nrequired?--I have already said that I attach to the complete affirmation\nthe most complete binding effect on my conscience. If I were allowed a\npreference, I would and still prefer the affirmation. The law says that\nthe oath is the form, and I shall regard that form as in all its respects\nbinding upon my conscience.\n\n183. Do you look upon the kissing of that particular book as adding any\nmore sanction than the kissing of any other book?--I decline to do that\nwhich the law has not done; the law has not split up the formula into\nparts, and expressed an opinion upon each part separately, and I deny the\nright of the Committee to ask me to do that which the law has not done.\n\n184. I will ask you one other question; do not answer it unless you\nlike?--I will not.\n\n185. Do you think that the fact of the kissing of that book has any\nrelation to an appeal to a Supreme Being, that you will, before Him,\nperform the oath which you have taken?--The law has not required me, in\nany case, to express an opinion as to that by itself. As to the whole\nOath I have expressed an opinion.\n\n186. As regards the kissing of that book, would you look upon that, so\nfar as your conscience is concerned, as an idle form?--The law has not\nrequired me to look upon it by itself, and I dispute the right of the\nCommittee to divide the Oath into parts, and to take one part by itself\nwithout the other. I have already answered that the whole of the Oath\nwhen taken by me, and if taken by me, will be binding upon my conscience.\n\n187. But still you consider that a certain part of that Oath, which the\nStatute imposes upon you the necessity to take, is an idle, and empty,\nand meaningless form?--I have never said so at any time.\n\n188. But do you consider it so?--Most certainly I do not consider the\nmost considerable portion of it an idle and empty form.\n\n189. Some portion of it, I said?--I consider no portion of the essential\nOath an idle and empty form.\n\n190. That is to say, that you would take the Oath because the Statute\nsays you must do so in order to take your seat?--That is not so. I take\nthe Oath because the Statute says that I must do so, intending to be\nbound in my honor and conscience by the oath I take. Every Member takes\nthe Oath because he must do so in order to take his seat, and he could\nnot take it without it.\n\n191. But you do not think that the forms of the Oath, as settled by law,\nadds anything to the binding of your conscience further than saying \"I\nsolemnly affirm\"?--Your question presumes a form of thought which I have\nnot enunciated.\n\n192. Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: Do I understand you aright that you have never said\nthat the oath, as you propose to take it, is less binding upon your\nconscience than it is supposed to be on the consciences of other men?--I\nhave never said so; and in 1868, when I stood for election, there being\nthen no form of affirmation possible for me, I had gravely considered the\nquestion.\n\n193. It is within your knowledge that some men, and not a few men, who do\nnot absolutely refuse to take an oath, still greatly prefer to make an\naffirmation?--If it would not be impertinent to say it, many Members of\nthe House have told me so since this question has been pending.\n\n194. CHAIRMAN: I think you said, when I informed you that the Committee\nthought that the letter should be put in, that it was a subject upon\nwhich you wished to make an observation?--I wish just to make the\nslightest observation upon that, and upon one or two points that arose in\nquestions that have been put to me. If the Committee would allow me to\nthink for a moment I believe I can compress it within very slight limits.\n\n195. Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY: Your statement to Mr. Justice Brett, I\nunderstood, you would think over?--No, that my answer did not apply to.\nIf the Committee think that I ought to answer that question in the same\nway, the question as to the three words, or rather four words, that I\nanswered to Mr. Justice Brett, I am quite in the hands of the Committee,\nand I should not decline to answer them.\n\n196. Mr. STAVELEY HILL: The reason why I asked you what they were, and\nwhere they were to be found if you did not answer the question, was on\npurpose that one might look for them, because it must be a matter of\npublic notoriety what the words were?--I should think it very possible. I\nhave taken my objection, and if there is even a thought in the Committee\nthat I had better answer the question, I should not object to do so.\n\n197. CHAIRMAN: What are the observations which you wish to offer in\nconsequence of your examination?--As the House will now have before it\nthe statement, I ask the Committee in examining it to take it complete,\nnot to separate one or two words in it and to take those without the\ncountervailing words, and to remember that in this letter I declare that\nthe oath, if I take it, would bind me, and I now repeat that in the most\ndistinct and formal manner; that the Oath of Allegiance, viz.: \"I do\nswear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty\nQueen Victoria, her heirs and successors, according to law,\" will, when I\ntake it, be most fully, completely, and unreservedly binding upon my\nhonor and conscience; and I crave leave to refer to the unanimous\njudgment of the full Court of the Exchequer Chamber, in the case of\nMiller _v._ Salomons, 17th Jurist, page 463, and to the case of the\nLancaster and Carlisle Railway Company _v._ Heaton, 4th Jurist, new\nseries, page 708, for the distinguishment between the words of\nasseveration and the essential words of an oath. But I also desire to\nadd, and I do this most solemnly and unreservedly, that the taking and\nsubscribing, or repeating of those words of asseveration, will in no\ndegree weaken the binding effect of the oath on my conscience. I should\nlike, finally, simply to submit to the Committee, and especially to the\nhonorable and learned gentleman on the left of the Chairman, that there\nhas not been from the beginning to the end of this matter, any\ndeclaration, either distinct or implied, that the Oath if taken by me\nwould be less binding upon me than upon him; and I do submit to this\nCommittee that this House has never sought to inquire or to distinguish\nin any fashion as to the religious views of its Members, except so far as\nany of them have found themselves obliged by their conscience to refuse\nto comply with some form that the House has put before them. On the\ncontrary, in the Lords' protest on the discussion of the Promissory Oaths\nMunicipal Bill, Lord Holland and other Lords put it in the most distinct\nfashion that no sort of inquisition and no sort of inquiry ought to be\ntolerated involving any examination of a man's theological views. Lord\nHolland added, in words better than I can command: \"That there is no\ntribunal which he knows competent to make that examination, and that the\npurely secular and political duties called upon to be performed were not\nsuch as to entitle that examination to be made.\" I thank the Committee\nfor having listened to me, and I submit myself to their decision.\n\n198. CHAIRMAN: You mentioned some precedents which you thought might\nusefully be added to the list of precedents which we have already had:\ncould you conveniently add those cases?--Yes, I will do so.\n\n\n_Monday, 7th June 1880._\n\nMEMBERS PRESENT:\n\n    Mr. Attorney General.\n    Mr. John Bright.\n    Mr. Secretary Childers.\n    Mr. Chaplin.\n    Sir Richard Cross.\n    Mr. Gibson.\n    Mr. Grantham.\n    Mr. Staveley Hill.\n    Sir John Holker.\n    Mr. Beresford Hope.\n    Mr. Hopwood.\n    Lord Henry Lennox.\n    Sir Henry Jackson.\n    Mr. Massey.\n    Major Nolan.\n    Mr. Pemberton.\n    Mr. Serjeant Simon.\n    Mr. Solicitor General.\n    Mr. Trevelyan.\n    Mr. Walpole.\n\nThe Right Honorable SPENCER HORATIO WALPOLE, in the Chair.\n\n\nMr. CHARLES BRADLAUGH, a member of the House; further Examined.\n\n199. CHAIRMAN: There was some reference, I think, made to you by Mr.\nWhitbread, with regard to which you desire to make some\nobservations?--There was a point urged by Mr. Whitbread upon the first\nCommittee. I do not know whether I should be in order in referring to it.\nI thought it had been sufficiently covered by what I had said, until I\nreflected upon it, and then I thought it had not. I wish to submit to\nthis Committee that it ought not to consider that I claimed to affirm\nbecause I regarded the oath as not binding upon my conscience, under the\nspirit of the Evidence Further Amendment Act, 1869, for that Statute\nruns: \"If any one shall object to take an oath, or be objected to as\nincompetent to take an oath;\" and that it is quite possible (perhaps\nwrongly, and undoubtedly wrongly, as the Committee have so decided) that\nI might claim to affirm, objecting to take the oath, and that the\nCommittee have not on the evidence here either the right or the duty to\nassume anything more as against me in dealing with it now. That is all I\nwish to put before the Committee.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\nAppendix No. 1.\n\nPRECEDENTS RELATIVE TO PARLIAMENTARY OATHS.\n\n\nPRECEDENT of a MEMBER disabled for having sat in the House without\n    taking the Oath.\n\nSir JOHN LEEDES hath been in the House and not taken the Oath.\n\nSir John Leedes not to come into the House till further Order.\n\nSir E. COKE: That by the law Sir J. Leedes is disabled to serve this\nParliament, and therefore ought to be discharged, and a new Writ.\n\nMr. PAWLETT, accordant.\n\nSir J. STRANGWAYS: Can pretend no ignorance, for a Member of the House\nlast Parliament.\n\nMr. CREW, for Sir J. Leedes: No question but he is incapable. 2. He is to\nbe punished.\n\n_Resolved_, Sir J. Leedes incapable of being a Member of this House, as\nif never returned.\n\nMr. HACKWYLL: To have him removed; a Writ for a new choice; and to punish\nhim, by sending him to the Tower.\n\nSir G. MOORE: To have no question made, but where it is questioned.\n\nMr. SECRETARY: The fault great, especially because of last Parliament. To\norder, he shall be discharged now, and to serve no more this Parliament.\n\nSir J. Leedes, brought to the Bar, confesseth he was of the House last\nmeeting in Parliament; and that he hath sit this Parliament in the House,\nand hath not taken his Oath.\n\nMr. T. FANSHAW: That he must be punished as one that hath come into the\nHouse, not being chosen.\n\nSir E. SANDES: To pay the Serjeant his fees, and no further punishment;\nbecause, but negligence, no presumption, and is willing to take the Oath.\n\nMr. CHIDLEY: To have an order to disable him for this Parliament.\n\nA Warrant for a new Writ in his room.\n\n\nPRECEDENT of a MEMBER Admitted to sit without taking the OATHS of\n    ALLEGIANCE and SUPREMACY.\n\n_Ordered_, That WILLIAM AYRES, Esquire, being legally elected and\nreturned a Member of this House, his election being returned and remitted\nof Record, shall be admitted to sit in this House, without taking the\nOaths of Supremacy and Allegiance.\n\n_Ordered_, That an Ordinance be brought in by Mr. Lisle, to-morrow\nmorning, for repealing that clause in the Act of * * That no person be\nadmitted to sit as a Member of this House, before he hath taken the Oath\nof Allegiance and Supremacy.\n\n_Ordered_, That all and every the Sheriffs of the respective counties in\nEngland and Wales do henceforth execute their several places and offices\nof Sheriffs of their several and respective counties, according to the\nduty of their said office, without taking the Oaths of Allegiance and\nSupremacy.\n\n\nPRECEDENT of a MEMBER Discharged for declining to take the OATHS.\n\nThe House being informed, that Sir HENRY MOUNSON attended, according to\nthe Order on Saturday last;\n\n_Resolved_, That he be called in, and tendered the Oaths and Declaration\ndirected to be taken, made, repeated, and subscribed by the Members of\nthe House.\n\nHe was called in accordingly; and came up to the table: And Mr. Speaker\nacquainted him, That the House had taken notice that he had been about\nthe town a considerable time; but yet did not attend the service of the\nHouse: And that he had directions to tender him the Oaths and the\nDeclarations.\n\nWhereupon, Sir Henry Mounson said: That he was sorry that for some\nreasons he could not comply to qualify himself to sit in the House: But\nthat those reasons would no way incline him to disturb the Government;\nand that he submitted himself to the House.\n\nAnd then withdrew.\n\n_Resolved_, That Sir Henry Mounson be discharged from being a Member of\nthe House.\n\nNew Writ Ordered.\n\n\nPRECEDENT of a MEMBER Discharged for declining to take the OATHS.\n\nThe House being informed, That the Lord FANSHAW attended at the door,\naccording to the order of Saturday last.\n\n_Resolved_, That he be called in, and tendered the Oaths and Declaration,\ndirected to be taken, made, repeated, and subscribed by the Members of\nthe House.\n\nHe was called in accordingly; and came up to the table: And Mr. Speaker\nacquainted him, That the House had taken notice that he had been about\nthe town a considerable time; but yet did not attend the Service of the\nHouse; and that he had direction to tender him the Oaths and Declaration.\n\nWhereupon the Lord Fanshaw said, that it was true, he had been about town\na great while indeed; but had been in the country, if his health would\nhave permitted him; but that he had been in a strict course of physick,\nand was in the same condition still of physick and diet; but, however,\nthat since he was absent there was an Act of Parliament passed for taking\nthe Oaths; and he was not qualified to sit in the House, in regard he was\nnot satisfied to take the Oaths; and therefore he could not appear.\n\nAnd then withdrew.\n\n_Resolved_, That the Lord Fanshaw be discharged from being a Member of\nthe House.\n\nAnd there being a Petition in, touching the Election, the granting a new\nWrit was respited.\n\n\nPRECEDENT of a MEMBER Committed to the TOWER for declining to take the\n    OATHS.\n\nThe House being acquainted, that Mr. CHOLMLY attended according to their\norder of Tuesday last;\n\nHe was called in, and came up to the table: And Mr Speaker, by the\ndirection of the House, acquainted him to this effect, viz., That the\nHouse had taken notice of his being absent from their service a\nconsiderable time, and that now he was come he was to tender him, and\naccordingly did tender him, the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy\nappointed to be taken by the Members of the House, according to an Act of\nthis present Parliament.\n\nTo which Mr. Cholmly replied, That as to his absence, both when he was in\nthe country and since he came to town, he had been infirm and lame, and\nhad been under the doctor's hands, and could not as yet recover himself.\nAnd that he had endeavored to qualify himself to be a sitting Member of\nthe House, by taking the Oaths, as the House expects, but that he could\nnot as yet do it: And therefore humbly submitted himself to the House;\nand that he did it not out of any wilful humor.\n\nUpon which he was commanded to withdraw.\n\nAnd being withdrawn accordingly;\n\n_Resolved_, That Francis Cholmly, Esquire, a Member of this House, for\nhis contempt in refusing to take the Oaths, * *, be committed Prisoner to\nthe Tower of London.\n\n_Ordered_, That the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do take into\nhis custody the said Mr. Cholmly, and convey him to the Tower: And that\nMr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for that purpose.\n\n\nPRECEDENT of a MEMBER, being a QUAKER, refusing to take the OATH.\n\nHouse called over,\n\nAnd the name of John Archdale, Esquire, a burgess for the borough of\nChipping Wicomb, in the county of Bucks, being called over a second time:\n\nMr. Speaker acquainted the House that Mr. Archdale had been with him this\nmorning, and delivered him a letter sealed, which Mr. Speaker presented\nto the House.\n\nAnd the same was opened and read, and is as followeth, viz.:--\n\n     \"London, the 3rd of the 11th month, called January 1698-9.\n\n     \"Sir.\n\n     \"Upon the call of the House it will appear that I am duly\n     chosen and returned to serve in Parliament for the borough of\n     Chipping Wycomb, in the county of Bucks; and, therefore, I\n     request of thee to acquaint the honorable House of Commons the\n     reason I have not as yet appeared, which is, that the burgesses\n     being voluntarily inclined to elect me, I did not oppose their\n     inclinations, believing that my declarations of fidelity, etc.,\n     might, in this case, as in others, where the law requires an\n     oath, be accepted, I am, therefore, ready to execute my trust\n     if the House think fit to admit of me thereupon; which I do\n     humbly submit to their wisdom and justice; and shall acquiesce\n     with what they will be pleased to determine therein: This being\n     all at present, I remain,\n\n    \"Thy real and obliged friend,\n\n    \"JOHN ARCHDALE.\"\n\nDay appointed for considering the contents of the said letter.\n\nMr. Archdale ordered to attend.\n\nThe House being informed, that Mr. Archdale attended according to order;\n\nHis letter to Mr. Speaker was again read;\n\nAnd the several statutes qualifying persons to come into and sit and vote\nin this House were read, viz., of the 30 Car. II., 1 Will. and Mariae, and\n7 and 8 Will. and Mariae.\n\nAnd then the said Mr. Archdale was called in,\n\nAnd he came into the middle of the House, almost to the table;\n\nAnd Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House, asked him whether he had\ntaken the Oaths or would take the Oaths, appointed to qualify himself to\nbe a member of this House; To which he answered, That in regard to a\nprinciple of his religion he had not taken the Oaths, nor could take\nthem.\n\nAnd then he withdrew.\n\nA new Writ ordered.\n\n\nPRECEDENT of a MEMBER expelled for absconding, and not taking the\n    OATHS.\n\nThe House was called over according to order.\n\nAnd the names of such as made default to appear were taken down.\n\n_Ordered_, That the names of such as made default be now called over.\n\nAnd they were called over accordingly.\n\nAnd several of them appeared, and others were excused upon account of\ntheir being ill, some in the country, some in town; and others upon\naccount of their being in the country upon extraordinary occasions; and\nsome as being upon the road.\n\nUpon calling over the names of * * LEWIS PRICE, Esquire, * * they were\nnot excused.\n\nSeveral Members sent for.\n\n_Ordered_, That Lewis Price, Esquire, be sent for, in custody of the\nSerjeant-at-Arms attending this House.\n\nThe Serjeant-at-Arms being called upon to give the House an account of\nwhat he had done in relation to Lewis Pryse, Esquire, who was, the 8th of\nAugust last, ordered to be sent for in custody, for not attending the\nService of the House; he acquainted the House, That the messenger he sent\nto bring up Mr. Pryse, had been at his house at Gargathen, but that he\nwas not there; nor could the messenger have any intelligence where he\nwas.\n\n_Ordered_, That Lewis Pryse, Esquire, do surrender himself into the\ncustody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, by this day month\nat the farthest, upon pain of occurring the farther displeasure of this\nHouse, and of being proceeded against with the utmost severity.\n\nThe order of the 2nd of February last being read requiring Lewis Pryse,\nEsquire, to surrender himself into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms\nattending this House by that day month at farthest;\n\nThe Serjeant was called upon to know whether he had heard from the said\nMr. Pryse, and he acquainted the House, That he had not heard from him.\n\nMr. Speaker acquainted the House, that he had received a letter from the\nsaid Mr. Pryse, and he delivered the same to the Clerk to be read; and\nthe same was read accordingly, and is as follows, viz.:\n\n\n    \"Sir,\n\n     \"'Tis with pleasure that I embrace every opportunity of\n     returning you my acknowledgments for the good offices you have\n     done me, as often as the case of my unavoidable absence has\n     come under debate in the House. The repeated experience I have\n     had of your friendship in this point, encourages me to hope for\n     the continuance of them, which I shall not offer to desire\n     longer than the reasonableness of my case shall appear to\n     deserve them.\n\n     \"I beg leave once more to represent it to you; and through your\n     assistance to the honorable House; whose displeasure as it is a\n     very sensible affliction to me, I should be glad by any means\n     in my power to remove. That as it is impracticable for me to\n     attend by the time appointed, because of a very severe fit of\n     the gout which I am now afflicted with, and thereby give\n     satisfaction to the House in the method they have insisted on;\n     I hope they will accept of such as is in my power, and give me\n     a favorable hearing when I represent to them, that I was chose\n     knight of the shire of Cardigan when I was at 100 miles distant\n     from it, and had been absent thence for ten months before the\n     time of my election; which I was so far from seeking, that I\n     never asked a vote for it, and was chose even against my\n     inclinations.\n\n     \"I know not how far a man is obliged to stand to the choice a\n     county makes of him. Sure I am that I have reason to complain\n     of a force that has administered the occasion of my disobliging\n     the honorable House, by an absence caused by infirmities, under\n     which I labored at the time of my choice, and which have\n     continued upon me ever since with the greatest severity, and\n     with little or no intermission.\n\n     \"In these circumstances I would fain hope that the honorable\n     House will rather blame the country's choice than him who has\n     been unwillingly forced into a post, and lies under the\n     misfortune (for I flatter myself 'twill not be thought a crime)\n     of not being able to attend the business of it; and will\n     therefore lay aside their displeasure, and remit the sentence\n     ordered against me.\n\n     \"And I am the rather encouraged to hope this, because Mr.\n     Prynne, in his comment on the fourth book of Sir Edward Coke's\n     Institutes, shows, from various records, that incurable\n     distempers have been constantly allowed by the House for a just\n     excuse of non-attendance; and upon debates in such cases, no\n     other punishment has been inflicted than excusing the service\n     of the Member, and ordering a new writ for electing a person\n     duly qualified, and capable of attending the business of the\n     House. This being the course of Parliamentary proceedings in\n     such cases as mine, which I have now truly represented to you,\n     and can produce hundreds of witnesses to confirm, I hope that\n     the unhappy incapacity I am under of attending the service of\n     the House, will be thought to deserve no severer treatment than\n     has been usual in the like cases; and that my ready submission\n     to the honorable House's pleasure in this point, will be a\n     means to restore me to their favorable opinion, and engage you\n     to promote the request of\n\n    \"Your most obliged and obedient humble servant,\n\n    \"LE PRYSE.\n\n     \"Aberllefenny, 18th February, 1715.\n\n     \"I know not how far the House in their last order about me,\n     might be influenced by any report of the messenger who came\n     down to my house; but to prevent misrepresentation I think it\n     proper to assure you, that within three days after a very\n     dangerous fit of the gout suffered me to come downstairs, I\n     came from thence hither to my father-in-law's, eighteen miles\n     in my way to London. But the motion of even so small a journey\n     brought another fit upon me immediately, with which I have been\n     laid up here ever since, and not having been yet so much as\n     able to return to my own house.\"\n\nThen the journal of the * day of May, 1689, in the case of Mr.\nCholmondley was read.\n\n    (House interrupted--Conference.)\n\nThe House resumed the consideration of the matter relating to Mr. Pryse.\n\n_Resolved_, That Lewis Pryse, Esquire, a Member of this House, having\nbeen sent for in custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House,\nthe 8th day of August last, for not attending the service of this House,\nand having never qualified himself as a Member of this House, by taking\nthe oaths at the table, be forthwith brought up in custody.\n\nThe Messenger gives the House an account of what he had done pursuant to\nthe order of the House.\n\n_Resolved_, That Lewis Pryse, Esquire, a Member of this House, having\nbeen sent for in custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House,\nthe 8th day of August last, for not attending the service of this House,\nand having never qualified himself as a Member of this House by taking\nthe Oaths at the table; and having been on the 2nd of February last\nsummoned to surrender himself into custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, upon\npain of being proceeded against with the utmost severity, and he having\nabsconded, and peremptorily refused to surrender himself into custody,\nbe, for the same contempt, expelled this House.\n\n\nPRECEDENT of a MEMBER refusing to take the OATH of SUPREMACY.\n\nDANIEL O'CONNELL, Esq., professing the Roman Catholic religion, returned\nKnight of the Shire for the County of Clare, being introduced in the\nusual manner, for the purpose of taking his seat, produced at the table a\ncertificate of his having been sworn before two of the deputies appointed\nby the Lord Steward, whereupon the clerk tendered to him the Oaths of\nAllegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration; upon which Mr. O'Connell stated,\nthat he was ready to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Abjuration, but\nthat he could not take the Oath of Supremacy, and claimed the privilege\nof being allowed to take the Oath set forth in the Act passed in the\npresent Session of Parliament \"for the Relief of his Majesty's Roman\nCatholic Subjects;\" whereupon the Clerk having stated the matter to Mr.\nSpeaker, Mr. Speaker informed Mr. O'Connell that, according to his\ninterpretation of the law, it was incumbent on Mr. O'Connell to take the\nOaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, and that the provisions\nof the new Act applied only to Members returned after the commencement of\nthe said Act, except in so far as regarded the repeal of the Declaration\nagainst transubstantiation; and that Mr. O'Connell must withdraw unless\nhe were prepared to take the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and\nAbjuration.\n\nWhereupon Mr. O'Connell withdrew.\n\nMotion, That Mr. O'Connell be called back and heard at the table. Debate\narising.\n\nA Member stated that he was requested by Mr. O'Connell to desire that he\nmight be heard.\n\nDebate adjourned.\n\n_Resolved_, That Mr. O'Connell, the Member for Clare, be heard at the\nBar, by himself, his counsel or agents, in respect of his claim to sit\nand vote in Parliament without taking the Oath of Supremacy.\n\nMr. O'Connell was called in, and heard accordingly: And being withdrawn;\n\n_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this House, that Mr. O'Connell\nhaving been returned a Member of this House before the commencement of\nthe Act passed in this Session of Parliament \"for the Relief of his\nMajesty's Roman Catholic Subjects,\" is not entitled to sit or vote in\nthis House unless he first take the Oath of Supremacy.\n\n_Ordered_, That Mr. O'Connell do attend the House this day, and that Mr.\nSpeaker do then communicate to him the said resolution, and ask him\nwhether he will take the Oath of Supremacy.\n\nAnd the House being informed that Mr. O'Connell attended at the door, he\nwas called to the Bar, and Mr. Speaker communicated to him the resolution\nof the House of yesterday, and the order thereupon, as followeth:--\n\n_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this House, that Mr. O'Connell\nhaving been returned a Member of this House before the commencement of\nthe Act passed in this Session of Parliament, \"for the Relief of his\nMajesty's Roman Catholic Subjects,\" is not entitled to sit or vote in\nthis House unless he first take the Oath of Supremacy.\n\n_Ordered_, That Mr. O'Connell do attend the House this day, and that Mr.\nSpeaker do then communicate to him the said resolution, and ask him\nwhether he will take the Oath of Supremacy.\n\nAnd then Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the said order, asked Mr. O'Connell\nwhether he would take the said Oath of Supremacy? Whereupon Mr. O'Connell\nrequested to see the said Oath, which being shown to him accordingly, Mr.\nO'Connell stated that the said Oath contained one proposition which he\nknew to be false, and another proposition which he believed to be\nuntrue; and that he therefore refused to take the said Oath of Supremacy.\n\nAnd then Mr. O'Connell was directed to withdraw; and he withdrew\naccordingly.\n\n_Ordered_, That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the\nCrown in Ireland to make out (subject to the provisions of an Act passed\nin this Session of Parliament, intituled, \"An Act to amend certain Acts\nof the Parliament of Ireland relative to the election of Members to serve\nin Parliament, and to regulate the qualification of persons to vote at\nthe election of Knights of the Shire of Ireland\") a new writ for the\nelecting of a Knight of the Shire to serve in this present Parliament for\nthe County of Clare, in the room of Daniel O'Connell, Esq., who, having\nbeen returned a Member of this House before the commencement of an Act\npassed in this Session of Parliament \"for the Relief of his Majesty's\nRoman Catholic Subjects,\" has refused to qualify himself to sit and vote\nas a Member of this House, by taking the Oath of Supremacy.\n\n\nPRECEDENT of a MEMBER being a QUAKER, claiming to make an AFFIRMATION.\n\nSeveral Members attended at the table to take the Oaths; and Joseph\nPease, Esquire, returned for the Southern Division of the County of\nDurham, having stated that, being one of the people called Quakers, he\nclaimed the privilege of making an Affirmation, instead of taking the\nOaths; whereupon he was desired by Mr. Speaker to retire until the sense\nof the House could be taken upon his claim; and he retired accordingly.\n\n_Ordered_, That a Select Committee be appointed to search the Journals of\nthe House, and to report to the House such precedents, and such Acts or\nparts of Acts of Parliament as relate to the right of the people called\nQuakers to take their seats in Parliament, and to the privilege conferred\nupon them to make their solemn Affirmation in Courts of Justice, and\nother places where by law an Oath is allowed, authorised, or required to\nbe taken.\n\nReport:--\n\n_Resolved_, That it appears to this House, that Joseph Pease is entitled\nto take his seat upon making his solemn Affirmation and Declaration to\nthe effect of the Oaths directed to be taken at the table of this House.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Counsel and Agents in the case of the Coleraine Election, being\nreturned to the bar, the Clerk appointed to attend the said Committee\ndelivered into the House a reduced List; and the same was called over,\nand is as follows:--\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd the Members of the Committee being as usual, come to the Table to be\nsworn, and Joseph Pease, Esquire, a Quaker, being one of the said\nMembers, Mr. Speaker submitted to the House whether Mr. Pease was capable\nof serving on the said Election Committee without having been sworn.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAnd the House being unanimously of opinion, That Mr. Pease was capable of\nserving on the said Committee;\n\nThe rest of the Committee were sworn, and Mr. Pease made his solemn\nAffirmation, as follows:\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPRECEDENT of a MEMBER omitting the words in the OATH of ABJURATION \"On\n    the true Faith of a Christian.\"\n\nThe Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD, returned as one of the members for\nthe City of London, came to the table to be sworn; and being asked by the\nClerk what Oath he wished to take, the Protestant or the Roman Catholic\nOath, he replied, \"I desire to be sworn upon the Old Testament.\"\n\nWhereupon the Clerk having stated the matter to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker\ndirected Baron Rothschild to withdraw.\n\n[Debate on Question relative to the matter adjourned.]\n\n_Ordered_, That Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, one of the Members for\nthe City of London, having demanded to be sworn on the Old Testament, be\ncalled to the table, and that Mr. Speaker do ask him why he has demanded\nto be sworn in that form.\n\nWhereupon Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, having come to the Table,\nwas asked by Mr. Speaker--\n\n\"Baron de Rothschild, you have demanded to be sworn on the Old\nTestament, and I am directed by the House to ask you why you have\ndemanded to be sworn in that form?\"\n\nTo which Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild replied:\n\n\"Because that is the form of swearing that I declare to be most binding\non my conscience.\"\n\nAnd then Mr. Speaker directed him to withdraw.\n\n_Ordered_, That Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, one of the Members for\nthe City of London, having presented himself at the table of the House,\nand having previously to taking the Oaths, requested to be sworn on the\nOld Testament (being the form which he has declared at the table to be\nmost binding on his conscience), the Clerk be directed to swear him on\nthe Old Testament accordingly.\n\nThe Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, having come to the table, Mr.\nSpeaker acquainted him that the House had made the following Order:\n\n\"That Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, one of the Members for the City\nof London, having presented himself at the table of the House, and having\npreviously to taking the Oaths, requested to be sworn on the Old\nTestament (being the form which he has declared at the table to be most\nbinding on his conscience), the Clerk be directed to swear him on the Old\nTestament accordingly.\"\n\nWhereupon the Clerk handed to him the Old Testament, and tendered him the\nOaths; and he accordingly took the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy,\nrepeating the same after the Clerk; the Clerk then proceeded to\nadminister the Oath of Abjuration, which the Baron de Rothschild repeated\nafter the Clerk so far as the words \"upon the true faith of a Christian,\"\nbut upon the Clerk reading those words, the Baron de Rothschild said, \"I\nomit those words as not binding on my conscience;\" he then concluded with\nthe words \"So help me, God\" (the Clerk not having read those words to\nhim), and kissed the said Testament:--Whereupon he was directed to\nwithdraw.\n\nQuestion for a new writ negatived.\n\n_Resolved_, That the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild is not entitled to\nvote in this House, or to sit in this House during any debate, until he\nshall take the Oath of Abjuration in the form appointed by law.\n\n_Resolved_, That this House will, at the earliest opportunity in the next\nSession of Parliament, take into its serious consideration the form of\nthe Oath of Abjuration, with a view to relieve her Majesty's subjects\nprofessing the Jewish religion.\n\n[The House refuses to hear Petitioners by Counsel in favour of a\nresolution admitting Baron Lionel de Rothschild.]\n\n[_See_ case of David Salomons, Esq., July, 1851, _infra._]\n\nBill to provide for the relief of her Majesty's subjects professing the\nJewish Religion. Brought from the Lords, 13th July. Royal assent, 23rd\nJuly, 1858.\n\n[Oaths Bill Passed: By the Lords with Amendments; Lords' Amendments\ndisagreed to; Lords insist, and assign reasons.]\n\n_Resolved_, That this House does not consider it necessary to examine the\nreasons offered by the Lords for insisting upon the exclusion of Jews\nfrom Parliament, as by a Bill of the present Session, intituled, \"An Act\nto provide for the relief of her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish\nReligion,\" their Lordships have provided means for the admission of\npersons professing the Jewish Religion to seats in the Legislature.\n\n_Resolved_, That this House doth not insist upon its disagreement with\nthe Lords in their Amendments to the said Bill.\n\nBaron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, returned as one of the Members for the\nCity of London, came to the table to be sworn; and stated that, being a\nperson professing the Jewish religion, he entertained a conscientious\nobjection to take the Oath which, by an Act passed in the present\nSession, has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and\nAbjuration, in the form therein required. Whereupon the Clerk reported\nthe matter to Mr. Speaker, who desired Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild\nto withdraw, and he withdrew accordingly.\n\n_Resolved_, That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel Nathan de\nRothschild, a person professing the Jewish religion, being otherwise\nentitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and\nvoting by his conscientious objection to take the oath which, by an Act\npassed in the present Session of Parliament, has been substituted for the\nOaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein\nrequired.\n\n_Resolved_, That any person professing the Jewish religion may\nhenceforth, in taking the oath prescribed in an Act of the present\nSession of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit\nthe words \"and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a\nChristian.\"\n\nBaron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild having again come to the table, desired\nto be sworn on the Old Testament, as being binding on his conscience.\n\nWhereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker, who then desired\nthe Clerk to swear him upon the Old Testament.\n\nBaron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild was sworn accordingly, and subscribed\nthe Oath at the table.\n\n[_See_ case of Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild, 15th Feb., 1859,\n_infra._]\n\nParliament dissolved, 23rd April, 1859; met, 31st May, 1859.\n\nBaron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, Member for the City of London, came to\nthe table to be sworn, and stated that being a person professing the\nJewish religion, he had a conscientious objection to take the oath in the\nform required by the Act 22 Vict. c. 48. The Clerk having reported the\ncircumstance to Mr. Speaker, Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild was\ndirected to withdraw, and he withdrew accordingly.\n\n_Resolved_, That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel Nathan de\nRothschild, a person professing the Jewish religion, being otherwise\nentitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and\nvoting by his conscientious objection to take the oath, which by an Act\npassed in the 22nd year of her Majesty has been substituted for the Oaths\nof Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration in the form therein required.\n\n_Resolved_, That any person professing the Jewish religion may henceforth\nin taking the oath prescribed in an Act passed in the twenty-second year\nof her Majesty to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the\nwords \"and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.\"\n\nWhereupon Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, Alderman David Salomons, and\nBaron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild, being Members professing the Jewish\nreligion, having come to the table, were sworn upon the Old Testament,\nand took the oath, omitting the words \"and I make this declaration upon\nthe true faith of a Christian,\" and subscribed the same.\n\n\nPRECEDENT of a MEMBER omitting the words in the OATH OF ABJURATION, \"on\n    the true faith of a Christian.\"\n\nDAVID SALOMONS, Esq., returned as one of the Members for the borough of\nGreenwich, came to the table to be sworn; and being tendered the New\nTestament by the Clerk, stated that he desired to be sworn on the Old\nTestament: Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker, and\nMr. Speaker asked him why he desired to be sworn on the Old Testament; he\nanswered, because he considered it binding on his conscience; Mr. Speaker\nthen desired the Clerk to swear him upon the Old Testament; the Clerk\nhanded to him the Old Testament, and tendered him the oaths; and he took\nthe Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, repeating the same after the\nClerk. The Clerk then proceeded to administer the Oath of Abjuration,\nwhich Mr. Salomons read as far as the words \"upon the true faith of a\nChristian,\" which he omitted, concluding with the words \"So help me,\nGod\". And the Clerk having reported to Mr. Speaker that Mr. Salomons had\nomitted to repeat the words \"upon the true faith of a Christian,\" Mr.\nSpeaker desired Mr. Salomons to withdraw. He thereupon retired from the\ntable and sat down upon one of the lower benches, upon which Mr. Speaker\ninformed him that, not having taken the Oath of Abjuration in the form\nprescribed by the Act of Parliament, and in the form in which the House\nhad upon a former occasion expressed its opinion that it ought to be\ntaken, he could not be allowed to remain in the House, but must withdraw.\nAnd he withdrew accordingly.\n\nMotion for new writ withdrawn.\n\nThe House resumed the further proceedings.\n\nMr. Alderman Salomons entered the House, and took his seat within the\nBar: Whereupon Mr. Speaker said that he saw that a Member had taken his\nseat without having taken the Oaths required by law; and that he must\ntherefore desire that the honorable Member do withdraw.\n\nMr. Alderman Salomons continued in the seat within the Bar.\n\n_Ordered_ (after Debate), That Mr. Alderman Salomons do now withdraw.\n\nWhereupon Mr. Speaker stated that the honorable Member for Greenwich had\nheard the decision of the House, and hoped that the honorable Member was\nprepared to obey it.\n\nMr. Alderman Salomons continuing to sit in his seat, Mr. Speaker directed\nthe Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him below the Bar.\n\nWhereupon Mr. Serjeant-at-Arms having placed his hand on Mr. Alderman\nSalomons, he was conducted below the Bar.\n\n[The House refuses to hear Petitioners by Counsel at the Bar of the House\nin defence of their right to elect their own Representative.]\n\n_Resolved_ (after Debate), That David Salomons, Esq., is not entitled to\nvote in this House, or to sit in this House, during any debate, until he\nshall take the Oath of Abjuration in the form appointed by law.\n\n\nPRECEDENT of a MEMBER stating that he had a conscientious objection to\n    take the OATH.\n\nBaron MAYER AMSCHEL DE ROTHSCHILD, returned for the town and port of\nHythe, came to the table to be sworn, and stated that, being a person\nprofessing the Jewish religion, he entertained a conscientious objection\nto take the oath, which by an Act passed in the last Session has been\nsubstituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in\nthe form therein required. Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr.\nSpeaker, who desired Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild to withdraw; and\nhe withdrew accordingly.\n\n_Resolved_, That it appears to this House that Baron Mayer Amschel de\nRothschild, a person professing the Jewish religion, being otherwise\nentitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and\nvoting by his conscientious objection to take the oath, which by an Act\npassed in the last Session of Parliament has been substituted for the\nOaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration in the form therein\nrequired.\n\n_Resolved_, That any person professing the Jewish religion may\nhenceforth, in taking the oath prescribed in an Act of the last Session\nof Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the\nwords \"and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.\"\n\nBaron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild, being again come to the table, desired\nto be sworn on the Old Testament as binding on his conscience.\n\nWhereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker, who then desired\nthe Clerk to swear him upon the Old Testament.\n\nBaron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild was sworn accordingly, and subscribed\nthe oath at the table.\n\n\n\n\nAppendix No. 2.\n\nPAPER handed in by Mr. Bradlaugh, 2nd June, 1880.\n\nPRECEDENTS RELATING TO PARLIAMENTARY OATHS.\n\n\nCASE of Attorney General Sir FRANCIS BACON, Commons Journals, Vol. 1,\n    page 459, 11th April, 1614, continued from page 456, 8th April.\n\nELIGIBILITY of the Attorney General to sit in Parliament. By 46 Edward\nIII., 1372, no practising barrister could be Knight of the Shire.\n\nPage 459.--\"The precedents to disable him ought to be showed on the other\nside.\"\n\nPage 460.--\"Their Oath their own consciences to look unto, not we to\nexamine it.\"\n\nAt that date each Member had to make Oath that he was duly qualified.\n\n1. Question whether he shall for this Parliament remain of the House or\nnot:--_Resolved_, He shall.\n\n2. Question.--Whether any Attorney General shall after this Parliament\nserve as a Member of this House:--_Resolved_, No.\n\n\nCASE of JOHN WILKES, Esquire, Commons Journal, 38, page 977, 3rd May,\n    1782.\n\nTHE House was moved, that the entry in the Journal of the House, of the\n17th day of February, 1769, of the Resolution, \"That John Wilkes,\nEsquire, having been in this Session of Parliament expelled this House,\nwas and is incapable of being elected a Member to serve in this present\nParliament,\" might be read, and the same being read accordingly;\n\nA motion was made, and the question being put, That the said resolution\nbe expunged from the Journals of this House, as being subversive of the\nrights of the whole body of electors of this Kingdom.\n\nThe House divided.\n\nThe Yeas went forth.\n\nTellers for the Yeas, Sir Philip Jennings Clarke and Mr. Byng, 115.\n\nTellers for the Noes, Mr. John St. John and Sir William Augustus\nCunynghame, 47,\n\nSo it was resolved in the affirmative.\n\nAnd the same was expunged by the Clerk at the table, accordingly.\n\n_Ordered_, That all Declarations, Orders, and Resolutions of this House,\nrespecting the election of John Wilkes, Esquire, for the county of\nMiddlesex, as a void election, the true and legal election of Henry Lawes\nLuttrell, Esquire, into Parliament for the said county, and the\nincapacity of John Wilkes, Esquire, to be elected a Member to serve in\nthe said Parliament, be expunged from the Journals of this House as being\nsubversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this Kingdom.\n\nBy Cavendish's Parliamentary Debates, Vol. I., page 73, 24th November,\n1768, it appears that _inter alia_ were used to justify the original and\nsubsequently expunged Resolutions--first, \"the copy of the record of the\nproceedings, on an information in the Court of King's Bench, against John\nWilkes, Esquire, for blasphemy\"--page 123; \"three obscene and impious\nlibels\"; \"an impious libel with intent to blaspheme the Almighty God.\"\n\n\nCASE of Mr. JOHN HORNE TOOKE, Parliamentary History, Vol. 35, page 956,\n    16th February, 1801.\n\nMr. John Horne Tooke took the Oaths and his seat for Old Sarum. He was\nintroduced by Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Wilson. This being done, Earl\nTemple rose and said, he had observed a gentleman who had just retired\nfrom the table, after having taken the Oaths, whom he conceived to be\nincapable of a seat in that House, in consequence of his having taken\npriest's orders and been inducted into a living. He would wait the\nallotted time of fourteen days to see whether there was any petition\npresented against his return; if not he should then move that the return\nfor Old Sarum be taken into consideration.\n\nPage 1323, 10th March, 1801.--Earl Temple moved that Mr. Boucher, Deputy\nRegistrar of Salisbury, be called in to prove that Mr. Horne Tooke, being\na priest in orders, was not eligible to a seat in that House. After\ndebate, in which Mr. John Horne Tooke spoke--Amendment and\nDivision--Motion agreed to (page 1342),--Select Committee appointed (page\n1343). Two reports given, pages 1343 to 1349, were made, giving all the\ncases of \"any of the clergy\" returned to Parliament.\n\n4th May, 1801.--Earl Temple moved (pages 1349 to 1374), \"That Mr. Speaker\ndo issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown in Great Britain, to make\nout a new writ for the election of a burgess to serve in this present\nParliament for the Borough of Old Sarum, in the county of Wilts, in the\nroom of the Rev. John Horne Tooke, who being at the time of his election\nin priest's orders, was and is incapable of sitting in this House.\" A\ndebate took place in which Mr. John Horne Tooke spoke (pp. 1350 to 1402),\ndivision, and the motion negatived.\n\nJurist, Vol. 17, Page 463.--Exchequer Chamber; Error from the Court of\nExchequer: Coram, Lord Campbell, Chief Justice, and Coleridge, Cresswell,\nWightman, Williams, and Crompton, J.\n\nOne judgment by Lord Chief Justice Campbell for the whole Court.\n\nLord Campbell (page 464).--The words \"so help me, God,\" are words of\nasseveration, and of the manner of taking the oath; but the words\npreceding them are, it appears to me, an essential part of the oath.\n\nFisher's Digest, Vol. 3, page 6179.--By a private Act, no person\nappointed to act as tithe valuer shall be capable of acting until he\nshall have taken and subscribed an oath in the words following: \"I, A.\nB., do swear that I will faithfully, etc., execute, etc.; so help me,\nGod.\" Held, that the oath had nevertheless been properly administered\naccording to the Statute, for the words omitted were no part of the oath,\nbut only an indication of the manner of administering it. Lancaster and\nCarlisle Railway Company _v._ Heaton, 8 El. & Bl., 952; 4 Jur., N. S.,\n707; 27 L. J., Q. B., 195.\n\n\n\n\nAppendix No. 3.\n\nPAPER handed in by Mr. BRADLAUGH, 2nd June, 1880.\n\nSTATEMENT on the OATH QUESTION by Mr. BRADLAUGH.\n\n\n20, Circus Road, St. John's Wood, London, N.W., 20th May, 1880.\n\nWHEN elected as one of the Burgesses to represent Northampton in the\nHouse of Commons, I believed that I had the legal right to make\naffirmation of allegiance in lieu of taking the oath, as provided by\nsection 4 of the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866. While I considered that I\nhad this legal right, it was then clearly my moral duty to make the\naffirmation. The oath, although to me including words of idle and\nmeaningless character, was, and is, regarded by a large number of my\nfellow countrymen as an appeal to Deity to take cognizance of their\nswearing. It would have been an act of hypocrisy to voluntarily take this\nform if any other had been open to me, or to take it without protest, as\nthough it meant in my mouth any such appeal. I, therefore, quietly and\nprivately notified the Clerk of the House of my desire to affirm. His\nview of the law and practice differing from my own, and no similar case\nhaving theretofore arisen, it became necessary that I should tender\nmyself to affirm in a more formal manner, and this I did at a season\ndeemed convenient by those in charge of the business of the House. In\ntendering my affirmation, I was careful when called on by the Speaker to\nstate my objection, to do nothing more than put in the fewest possible\nwords my contention that the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, gave the\nright to affirm in Parliament to every person for the time being by law\npermitted to make an affirmation in lieu of taking an oath, and that I\nwas such a person, and therefore claimed to affirm. The Speaker neither\nrefusing, nor accepting my affirmation, referred the matter to the House,\nwhich appointed a Select Committee to report whether persons entitled to\naffirm under the Evidence Amendment Acts, 1869 and 1870, were, under\nSection 4 of the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, also entitled to affirm\nas Members of Parliament. This Committee, by the casting-vote of its\nChairman, has decided that I am not entitled to affirm. Two courses are\nopen to me, one of appeal to the House against the decision of the\nCommittee; the other, of present compliance with the ceremony, while\ndoing my best to prevent the further maintenance of a form which many\nother Members of the House think as objectionable as I do, but which\nhabit, and the fear of exciting prejudice, has induced them to submit to.\nTo appeal to the House against the decision of the Committee would be\nungracious, and would certainly involve great delay of public business. I\nwas present at the deliberations of the Committee, and while naturally I\ncannot be expected to bow submissively to the statements and arguments of\nmy opponents, I am bound to say that they were calmly and fairly urged. I\nthink them unreasonable; but the fact that they included a legal argument\nfrom an earnest Liberal deprives them even of a purely party character.\nIf I appealed to the House against the Committee, I, of course, might\nrely on the fact that the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, Sir\nHenry Jackson, Q.C., Watkin Williams, Q.C., and Mr. Serjeant Simon are\nreported in the _Times_ to have interpreted the law as I do; and I might\nadd that the Right Honorable John Bright and Mr. Whitbread are in the\nsame journal arrayed in favor of allowing me to affirm. But even then the\ndecision of the House may endorse that of the Committee, and should it be\nin my favor it could only, judging from what has already taken place, be\nafter a bitter party debate, in which the Government specially and the\nLiberals generally would be sought to be burdened with my\nanti-theological views, and with promoting my return to Parliament. As a\nmatter of fact, the Liberals of England have never in any way promoted my\nreturn to Parliament. The much-attacked action of Mr. Adam had relation\nonly to the second seat, and in no way related to the one for which I was\nfighting. In 1868, the only action of Mr. Gladstone and of Mr. Bright was\nto write letters in favor of my competitors; and since 1868 I do not\nbelieve that either of these gentlemen has directly or indirectly\ninterfered in any way in connection with my Parliamentary candidature.\nThe majority of the electors of Northampton had determined to return me\nbefore the recent union in that borough, and while pleased to aid their\nfellow Liberals in winning the two seats, my constituents would have at\nany rate returned me had no union taken place. My duty to my constituents\nis to fulfil the mandate they have given me, and if to do this I have to\nsubmit to a form less solemn to me than the affirmation I would have\nreverently made, so much the worse for those who force me to repeat words\nwhich I have scores of times declared are to me sounds conveying no clear\nand definite meaning. I am sorry for the earnest believers who see words\nsacred to them used as a meaningless addendum to a promise, but I cannot\npermit their less sincere co-religionists to use an idle form in order to\nprevent me from doing my duty to those who have chosen me to speak for\nthem in Parliament. I shall, taking the oath, regard myself as bound, not\nby the letter of its words, but by the spirit which the affirmation would\nhave conveyed had I been permitted to use it. So soon as I am able, I\nshall take such steps as may be consistent with Parliamentary business to\nput an end to the present doubtful and unfortunate state of the law and\npractice on oaths and affirmations. Only four cases have arisen of\nrefusal to take the oath except, of course, those cases purely political\nin their character; two of those cases are those of the Quakers John\nArchdale and Joseph Pease. The religion of these men forbade them to\nswear at all, and they nobly refused. The sect to which they belonged was\noutlawed, insulted and imprisoned; they were firm, and one of that sect\nsat on the very committee, a member of her Majesty's Privy Council, and a\nmember of the actual Cabinet. I thank him gratefully that, valuing right\nso highly, he cast his vote so nobly for one for whom I am afraid he has\nbut scant sympathy. No such religious scruple prevents me from taking the\noath as prevented John Archdale and Joseph Pease. In the case of Baron\nRothschild and Alderman Salomons the words \"upon the true faith of a\nChristian\" were the obstacle. To-day the oath contains no such words. The\nCommittee report that I may not affirm, and protesting against a decision\nwhich seems to me alike against the letter of the law and the spirit of\nmodern legislation, I comply with the forms of the House.\n\n    CHARLES BRADLAUGH.\n\n\n\n\nMR. BRADLAUGH'S SPEECHES.\n\nMR. BRADLAUGH'S First Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons,\n    delivered June 23rd, 1880.\n\n\nSIR,--I have to ask the indulgence of every member of this House while,\nin a position unexampled in the history of this House, I try to give one\nor two reasons why the resolution which you have read to me should not be\nenforced. If it were not unbecoming I should appeal to the traditions of\nthe House against the House itself, and I should point out that in none\nof its records, so far as my poor reading goes, is there any case in\nwhich this House has judged one of its members in his absence, and taken\naway from that member the constitutional right he has (hear, hear). There\nhave been members against whom absolute legal disqualification has been\nurged. No such legal disqualification is ventured to be urged by any\nmember of this House against myself. But even those members have been\nheard in their places; those members have been listened to before the\ndecision was taken against them; and I ask that this House to myself\nshall not be less just than it has always been to every one of its\nmembers (hear, hear). Do you tell me I am unfit to sit amongst you?\n(hear, hear, and Order, order.) The more reason, then, that this House\nshould show the generosity which judges show to a criminal, and allow\nevery word he has to say to be heard. But I stand here, Sir, as no\ncriminal. I stand here as the chosen of a constituency of this country,\nwith my duty to that constituency to do. I stand here, Sir--if it will\nnot be considered impertinent to put it so--with the most profound\nrespect for this House, of which I yet hope and mean to form a part, and\non whose traditions I should not wish to cast one shadow of reproach. I\nstand here returned duly; no petition against my return; no impeachment\nof that return. I stand here returned duly, ready to fulfil every form\nthat this House requires, ready to fulfil every form that the law permits\nthis House to require, ready to do every duty that the law makes\nincumbent upon me. I will not in this presence argue whether this House\nhas or has not the right to set its decision against the law, because I\nshould imagine that even the rashest of those who spoke against me would\nhardly be prepared to put in the mouth of one whom they consider too\nadvanced in politics an arguments so dangerous as that might become. I\nspeak within the limits of the law, asking for no favor from this House\nfor myself or for my constituents, but asking the merest justice which\nhas always been accorded to a member of the House (hear, hear, and\nOrder.) I have to ask indulgence lest the memory of some hard words which\nhave been spoken in my absence should seem to give to what I say a tone\nof defiance, which it is far from my wish should be there at all; and I\nam the more eased because although there were words spoken which I had\nalways been taught English gentlemen never said in the absence of an\nantagonist without notice to him, yet there were also generous and brave\nwords said for one who is at present, I am afraid, a source of trouble\nand discomfort and hindrance to business. I measure the generous words\nagainst the others, and I will only make one appeal through you, Sir,\nwhich is, that if the reports be correct that the introduction of other\nnames came with mine in the heat of passion and the warmth of debate, the\ngentleman who used those words, if such there were, will remember that he\nwas wanting in chivalry, because, while I can answer for myself, and am\nable to answer for myself, nothing justified the introduction of any\nother name beside my own to make a prejudice against me (cheers and cries\nof Question and Order.) I fear lest the strength of this House,\njudicially exercised as I understand it to be--with infrequency of\njudicial exercise--that the strength of this House makes it forget our\nrelative positions. At present I am pleading at its bar for justice. By\nright it is there I should plead. [The hon. member pointed to the seats.]\nIt is that right I claim in the name of those who sent me here. No legal\ndisqualification before my election, or it might have been made the\nground of petition. No legal disqualification since my election--not even\npretended. It is said: \"You might have taken the oath as other members\ndid.\" I could not help when I read that, Sir, trying to put myself in the\nplace of each member who said it. I imagined a member of some form of\nfaith who found in the oath words which seemed to him to clash with his\nfaith, but still words which he thought he might utter, but which he\nwould prefer not to utter if there were any other form which the law\nprovided him, and I asked myself whether each of those members would not\nthen have taken the form which was most consonant with his honor and his\nconscience. If I have not misread, some hon. members seem to think that I\nhave neither honor nor conscience. Is there not some proof to the\ncontrary in the fact that I did not go through the form, believing that\nthere was another right open to me? (hear, hear, and Order.) Is that not\nsome proof that I have honor and conscience? Of the gentlemen who are now\nabout to measure themselves against the rights of the constituencies of\nEngland I ask what justification had they for that measurement? They have\nsaid that I thrust my opinions on the House. I hold here, Sir, the\nevidence of Sir Thomas Erskine May, and I can find no word of any opinion\nof mine thrust upon the House at all. I have read--it may be that the\nreports misrepresent--that the cry of \"Atheist\" has been raised from that\nside. [The hon. member pointed to the Opposition side.] No word of all\nmine before the committee put in any terms those theological or\nanti-theological opinions in evidence before the House. I am no more\nashamed of my own opinions, which I did not choose, opinions into which I\nhave grown, than any member of this House is ashamed of his; and much as\nI value the right to sit here, and much as I believe that the justice of\nthis House will accord it to me before the struggle is finished, I would\nrather relinquish it for ever than it should be thought that by any\nshadow of hypocrisy I had tried to gain a feigned entrance here by\npretending to be what I am not (cheers, and cries of Order.) On the\nreport of the committee as it stands, on the evidence before the House,\nwhat is the objection to either my affirming or taking the oath? It is\nsaid I have no legal right to affirm. I will suppose that to be so. It is\nthe first time that the House has made itself a court of law from which\nthere may be no appeal, and deprived a citizen of his constitutional\nright of appeal to a court of law to make out what the statute means in\ndealing with him. There is no case in which this House has overridden\neverything, and put one of its members where he had no chance of battling\nfor his right at all. Take the oath. It is possible that some of the\nlawyers, who have disagreed among themselves even upon that (the\nOpposition) side of the House, may be right, and that I may be wrong in\nthe construction I have put upon the oath, but no such objection can\ncome. There is no precedent--there is, I submit respectfully, no\nright--in this House to stand between me and the oath which the law\nprovides for me to take, which the statute, under penalty even upon\nmembers of this House themselves if they put me out from my just return,\ngives me the right to take. What kind of a conflict is provoked here if\nthis resolution be enforced? Not a grave conflict in a court of law,\nwhere the judges exclude passion, where they only deal with facts and\nevidence. I do not mean that these gentlemen do not deal with facts; but,\nif I am any judge of my own life's story, there have been many things\nwhich I can hardly reckon in the category of facts put against myself. I\ndon't mean that they are not right, for hon. members may know more of\nmyself than I do myself; but, judging myself as I know myself, some of\nthe members who have attacked me so glibly during the last few days must\nhave been extraordinarily misinformed, or must have exceedingly\nmisapprehended the matters they alleged. It has been said that I have\nparaded and flaunted some obnoxious opinions. I appeal to your justice,\nsir, and to that of the members of this House, to say whether my manner\nhas not been as respectful as that of man could be--whether in each case\nI have not withdrawn when you told me. If I now come here with even the\nappearance of self-assertion, it is because I would not be a recreant\nand a coward to the constituency that sent me to represent them; and I\nmean to be as members have been in the best history of this assembly. I\nask the House, in dealing with my rights, to remember how they are\nacting. It is perfectly true that by a majority they may decide against\nme now. What are you to do then? Are you going to declare the seat\nvacant? First, I tell you that you have not the right. The moment I am\nthere--[the hon. member pointed inside the House]--I admit the right of\nthe House, of its own good will and pleasure, to expel me. As yet I am\nnot under your jurisdiction. As yet I am under the protection of the law.\nA return sent me to this House, and I ask you, sir, as the guardian of\nthe liberties of this House, to give effect to that return. The law says\nyou should, and that this House should. And naturally so; because, if it\nwere not so, any time a majority of members might exclude anyone they\npleased. What has been alleged against me? Politics? Are views on\npolitics urged as a reason why a member should not sit here? Pamphlets\nhave been read--I won't say with accuracy, because I will not libel any\nof the hon. members who read them; but, surely, if they are grounds for\ndisqualification they are grounds for indictment to be proved against me\nin a proper fashion. There is no case in all the records of this House in\nwhich you have ransacked what a man has written and said in his past life\nand then challenged him with it here. My theology? It would be\nimpertinent in me, after the utterances of men so widely disagreeing from\nme that have been made on the side of religious liberty during the past\ntwo nights--it would be impertinent in me to add one word save this. It\nis said that you may deal with me because I am isolated. I could not help\nhearing the ring of that word in the lobby as I sat outside last night.\nBut is that a reason, that, because I stand alone the House are to do\nagainst me what they would not do if I had 100,000 men at my back? (cries\nof Oh). That is a bad argument which provokes a reply inconsistent with\nthe dignity of this House and which I should be sorry to give. I have not\nyet used--I hope no passion may tempt me to be using--any words that\nwould seem to savor of even a desire to enter into conflict with this\nHouse. I have always taught, preached, and believed the supremacy of\nParliament, and it is not because for a moment the judgment of one\nChamber of Parliament should be hostile to me that I am going to deny the\nideas I have always held; but I submit that one Chamber of\nParliament--even its grandest Chamber, as I have always held this to\nbe--had no right to override the law. The law gives me the right to sign\nthat roll, to take and subscribe the oath, and to take my seat there\n[pointing to the benches]. I admit that the moment I am in the House,\nwithout any reason but your own good will, you can send me away. That is\nyour right. You have full control over your members, but you cannot send\nme away until I have been heard in my place, not a suppliant as I am now,\nbut with the rightful audience that each member has always had. There is\none phase of my appeal which I am loth indeed to make. I presume you will\ndeclare the seat vacant. What do you send me back to Northampton to say?\nI said before, and I trust I may say again, that this assembly was one in\nwhich any man might well be proud to sit--prouder I that I have not some\nof your traditions and am not of your families, but am of the people, the\npeople that sent me here to speak for them. Do you mean that I am to go\nback to Northampton as to a court, to appeal against you? that I am to\nask the constituency to array themselves against this House? I hope not.\nIf it is to be, it must be. If this House arrays itself against an\nisolated man--its huge power against one citizen--if it must be, then the\nbattle must be too. But it is not with the constituency of Northampton\nalone--hon. members need not mistake--that you will come into conflict if\nthis appeal is to go forward, if the House of Commons is to override the\nstatute law to get rid of even the vilest of members. Had you alleged\nagainst me even more than against one man whose name was mentioned in\nthis House last night, I should still have held that the House cannot\nsupersede the rights of the people. But not as much is alleged against me\nas was alleged against that man, in whose case the House itself said that\nits conduct had been subversive of the rights of the people. I beg you,\nfor your own sakes, don't put yourselves in that position. I have no\ndesire to wrestle with you for justice. I admit that I have used hard\nwords in my short life, giving men the right in return to say hard things\nof me; but is it not better that I should have the right to say them to\nyour faces? If they are within the law, let the law deal with me fairly\nand properly; but if they are without the law, not unfairly, as I submit\nyou are doing now. You have the power to send me back, but in appealing\nto Northampton I must appeal to a tribunal higher than yours--not to\ncourts of law, for I hope the days of conflict between the assembly which\nmakes the law and the tribunals which administer it are passed. It must\nbe a bad day for England and for Great Britain, if we are to be brought\nagain to the time when the judges and those who make the law for the\njudges are in rash strife as to what they mean. But there is a court to\nwhich I shall appeal--the court of public opinion, which will have to\nexpress itself. You say it is against me. Possibly; but if it be so, is\nit against me rightly or wrongly? I am ready to admit, if you please, for\nthe sake of argument, that every opinion I hold is wrong and deserves\npunishment. Let the law punish it. If you say the law cannot, then you\nadmit that you have no right, and I appeal to public opinion against the\niniquity of a decision which overrides the law and denies me justice. I\nbeg your pardon, Sir, and that of the House too, if in this warmth there\nseems to lack respect for its dignity; and as I shall have, if your\ndecision be against me, to come to that table when your decision is\ngiven, I beg you, before the step is taken in which we may both lose our\ndignity--mine is not much, but yours is that of the Commons of England--I\nbeg you, before the gauntlet is fatally thrown--I beg you, not in any\nsort of menace, not in any sort of boast, but as one man against six\nhundred, to give me that justice which on the other side of this hall the\njudges would give me were I pleading there before them (loud cheers and\ncries of Order, amid which Mr. Bradlaugh again bowed and retired).\n\n\nMR. BRADLAUGH'S Second Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons,\n    delivered April 28th, 1881.\n\nMr. SPEAKER,--I have again to ask the indulgence of the House while I\nsubmit to it a few words in favor of my claim to do that which the law\nrequires me to do. Perhaps the House will pardon me if I supply an\nomission, I feel unintentionally made, on the part of the hon. member\nfor Chatham in some words which have just fallen from him. I understood\nhim to say that he would use a formal statement made by me to the\nCommittee against what the Chancellor of the Duchy had said I had said. I\nam sure the hon. and learned member for Chatham, who has evidently read\nthe proceedings of the Committee with care, would, if he had thought it\nfair, have stated to the House that the statement only came from me after\nan objection made by me--a positive objection on the ground that it\nrelated to matters outside this House, and that the House in the course\nof its history had never inquired into such matters; but I can hardly\nunderstand what the member for Chatham meant when he said that he\ncontrasted what I did say with what the Chancellor of the Duchy said I\nsaid, for it is not a matter of memory, it is on the proceedings of this\nHouse, that being examined formally before the Committee, I stated: \"That\nthe essential part of the oath is in the fullest and most complete degree\nbinding upon my honor and conscience, and that the repeating of the words\nof asseveration does not in the slightest degree weaken the binding of\nthe allegiance on me.\" I say now I would not go through any form--much as\nI value the right to sit in this House, much as I desire and believe that\nthis House will accord me that right--that I did not mean to be binding\nupon me without mental reservation, without equivocation. I would go\nthrough no form unless it were fully and completely and thoroughly\nbinding upon me as to what it expressed or promised. Mine has been no\neasy position for the last twelve months. I have been elected by the free\nvotes of a free constituency. My return is untainted. There is no charge\nof bribery (cheers), no charge of corruption, nor of inducing men to come\ndrunken to the polling booth. I come here with a pure untainted\nreturn--not won by accident. For thirteen long years have I fought for\nthis right--through five contested elections, including this. It is now\nproposed to prevent me from fulfilling the duty my constituents have\nplaced upon me. You have force--on my side is the law. The hon. and\nlearned member for Plymouth spoke the truth when he said he did not ask\nthe House to treat the matter as a question of law, but the\nconstituencies ask me to treat it as a question of law. I, for them, ask\nyou to treat it as a question of law. I could understand the feeling\nthat seems to have been manifested were I some great and powerful\npersonage. I could understand it had I a huge influence behind me. I am\nonly one of the people, and you propose to teach them that on a mere\ntechnical question you will put a barrier in the way of my doing my duty\nwhich you have never put in the way of anyone else. The question is, has\nmy return on the 9th of April, 1881, anything whatever to impeach it?\nThere is no legal disqualification involved. If there were it could be\nraised by petition. The hon. member for Plymouth says the dignity of this\nHouse is in question. Do you mean that I can injure the dignity of this\nHouse? This House which has stood unrivalled for centuries? This House\nsupreme among the assemblies of the world? This House, which represents\nthe traditions of liberty? I should not have so libelled you. How is the\ndignity of this House to be hurt? If what happened before the 9th of\nApril is less than a legal disqualification, it is a matter for the\njudgment of the constituency and not for you. The constituency has judged\nme; it has elected me. I stand here with no legal disqualification upon\nme. The right of the constituency to return me is an unimpeachable right.\nI know some gentlemen make light of constituencies; yet without the\nconstituencies you are nothing. It is from them you derive your whole and\nsole authority. The hon. and learned member for Plymouth treats lightly\nthe legal question. It is dangerous to make light of the law--dangerous\nbecause if you are only going to rely on your strength of force to\noverride the law, you give a bad lesson to men whose morality you impeach\nas to what should be their duty if emergence ever came (hear, hear).\nAlways outside the House I have advocated strenuous obedience to the law,\nand it is under that law that I claim my right. It is said by the right\nhon. baronet who interposes between me and my duty that this House has\npassed some resolution. First, I submit that that resolution does not\naffect the return of the 9th April. The conditions are entirely\ndifferent, there is nothing since the date of that return. I submit next\nthat if it did affect it the resolution was illegal from the beginning.\nIn the words of George Grenville, spoken in this House in 1769, I say if\nyour resolution goes in the teeth of the law--if against the\nstatute--your resolution is null and void. No word have I uttered\noutside these walls which has been lacking in respect to the House. I\nbelieve the House will do me justice, and I ask it to look at what it is\nI claim. I claim to do that which the law says I must. Frankly, I would\nrather have affirmed. When I came to the table of the House I deemed that\nI had a legal right to do it. The courts have decided against me, and I\nam bound by their decision. I have the legal right to do what I propose\nto do. No resolution of yours can take away that legal right. You may act\nillegally and hinder me, and unfortunately I have no appeal against you.\n\"Unfortunately\" perhaps I should not say. Perhaps it is better that the\nChamber which makes the law should never be in conflict with the courts\nwhich administer the laws that the Chamber makes. I think the word\n\"unfortunately\" was not the word I ought to have used in this argument.\nBut the force that you invoke against the law to-day may to-morrow be\nused against you, and the use will be justified by your example. It is a\nfact that I have no remedy if you rely on your force. I can only be\ndriven into a contest, wearying even to a strong man well supported,\nruinous and killing to one man standing by himself--a contest in which if\nI succeed it will be injurious to you as well as to me. Injurious to me\nbecause I can only win by lessening your repute which I desire to\nmaintain. The only court I have the power of appealing to is the court of\npublic opinion, which I have no doubt in the end will do me justice. The\nhon. member for Plymouth said I had the manliness on a former occasion to\nmake an avowal of opinions to this House. I did nothing of the kind. I\nhave never, directly or indirectly, said one word about my opinions, and\nthis House has no right to inquire what opinions I may hold outside its\nwalls, the only right is that which the statute gives you; my opinions\nthere is no right to inquire into. I shelter myself under the laws of my\ncountry. This is a political assembly, met to decide on the policy of the\nnation, and not on the religious opinions of the citizens (cheers). While\nI had the honor of occupying a seat in the House when questions were\nraised which touched upon religious matters, I abstained from uttering\none word. I did not desire to say one word which might hurt the feelings\nof even the most tender (hear). But it is said, why not have taken the\noath quietly? I did not take it then because I thought I had the right to\ndo something else, and I have paid the penalty. I have been plunged in\nlitigation fostered by men who had not the courage to put themselves\nforward (loud cheers below the gangway). I, a penniless man, should have\nbeen ruined if it had not been that the men in workshop, pit, and factory\nhad enabled me to fight this battle (interruption). I am sorry that hon.\nmembers cannot have patience with one pleading as I plead here. It is no\nlight stake, even if you put it on the lowest personal grounds, to risk\nthe ambition of a life on such an issue. It is a right ambition to desire\nto take part in the councils of the nation, if you bring no store of\nwisdom with you, and can only learn from the great intellects that we\nhave (hear, hear). What will you inquire into? The right hon. baronet\nwould inquire into my opinions. Will you inquire into my conduct, or is\nit only my opinions you will try here? The hon. member for Plymouth\nfrankly puts it opinions. If opinions, why not conduct? Why not examine\ninto members' conduct when they come to the table, and see if there be no\nmembers in whose way you can put a barrier? (Hear, hear.) Are members,\nwhose conduct may be obnoxious, to vote my exclusion because to them my\nopinions are obnoxious? As to any obnoxious views supposed to be held by\nme, there is no duty imposed upon me to say a word. The right hon.\nbaronet has said there has been no word of recantation. You have no right\nto ask me for any recantation. Since the 9th April you have no right to\nask me for anything. If you have a legal disqualification, petition, lay\nit before the Judges. When you ask me to make a statement, you are\nguilty of impertinence to me, of treason to the traditions of this House,\nand of impeachment of the liberties of the people. My difficulty is that\nthose who have made the most bitter attacks upon me only made them when I\nwas not here to deal with them. One hon. and gallant member recently told\nhis constituents that this would be made a party question, but that the\nConservative members had not the courage to speak out against me. I\nshould have thought, from reading \"Hansard,\" not that they wanted\ncourage, but that they had cultivated a reticence that was more just. I\nwish to say a word or two on the attempt which has been made to put on\nthe Government of the day complicity in my views. The Liberal party has\nnever aided me in any way to this House. (Oh, from the Opposition.)\nNever. I have fought by myself. I have fought by my own hand. I have been\nhindered in every way that it was possible to hinder me, and it is only\nby the help of the people, by the pence of toilers in mine and factory,\nthat I am here to-day, after these five struggles right through thirteen\nyears. I have won my way with them, for I have won their hearts, and now\nI come to you. Will you send me back from here? Then how? You have the\nright, but it is the right of force, and not of law. When I am once\nseated on these benches, then I am under your jurisdiction. At present I\nam under the protection of the writ from those who sent me here. I do not\nwant to quote what has happened before, but if there be one lesson which\nthe House has recorded more solemnly than another, it is that there\nshould be no interference with the judgment of a constituency in sending\na man to this House against whom there is no statutory disqualification.\nLet me appeal to the generosity of the House as well as to its strength.\nIt has traditions of liberty on both sides. I do not complain that\nmembers on that (the Conservative) side try to keep me out. They act\naccording to their lights, and think my poor services may be injurious to\nthem. (Cries of No.) Then why not let me in? (Cheers.) It must be either\na political or a religious question. I must apologise to the House for\ntrespassing upon its patience. I apologise because I know how generous in\nits listening it has been from the time of my first speech in it till\nnow. But I ask you now, do not plunge with me into a struggle I would\nshun. The law gives me no remedy if the House decides against me. Do not\nmock at the constituencies. If you place yourselves above the law, you\nleave me no course save lawless agitation instead of reasonable pleading.\nIt is easy to begin such a strife, but none knows how it would end. I\nhave no court, no tribunal to appeal to; you have the strength of your\nvotes at the moment. You think I am an obnoxious man, and that I have no\none on my side. If that be so, then the more reason that this House,\ngrand in the strength of its centuries of liberty, should have now that\ngenerosity in dealing with one who to-morrow may be forced into a\nstruggle for public opinion against it (cheers).\n\n\nMR. BRADLAUGH'S Third Speech at the Bar of the House of Commons,\n    delivered February 7th, 1882.\n\nSIR,--In addressing the House for the third time from this position, I\nfeel the exceeding difficulty of dealing fairly with myself without\ndealing unfairly with the House. If I were to follow the hon. member who\nhas just sat down into his errors of law, of history, and of memory, into\nhis reckless misconceptions as to what are the views I hold and write\nabout, I should only be giving pain to numbers of members here, and\ndeparting from that mandate with which my constituents have trusted me.\nIt is--I say it with all respect--not true that I done anything more with\nreference to the succession than maintain the right of Parliament,\nmeaning by Parliament both Houses, to control it; and any member who\npretends that I done anything else, either does it, not having read what\nI have written, or heard what I have said, or having forgotten entirely\nwhat I have written or said, and being extremely careless in representing\nmy views to the House. I regret that the hon. member should have imported\ninto the discussion some fact supposed to have occurred in a police-court\nsince I stood here before. I can only give the House my positive\nassurance that the hon. member is perfectly inaccurate in his\nrepresentation of what took place. It is exceedingly painful to bandy\nwords in this way. The hon. member was good enough to say he did not\nhear--he could not well have heard, for the magistrate did not refuse my\naffirmation at all. I happened to have been before Sir J. Ingham before,\nand he knew me, and knew the particular form of affirmation, and when the\nclerk read it to me no discussion took place on the subject. I hope the\nHouse will forgive me for contradicting such a small thing, but small\nthings are sometimes much used. They have been used to work my ruin since\nI stood here before, and I regret that the shame of reticence did not at\nleast keep it from this House, that the hon. member thought it his duty,\nby a common informer, to attempt to drive me into the Bankruptcy Court,\nand outside this House has boasted that the question would be solved in\nthat way. It may be a brave boast, it may be consonant with piety from the\nhon. member's point of view, but I believe that every other gentleman's\nsense of piety would revolt against the notion of driving a single man\ninto bankruptcy, and then canvassing for subscriptions--(hear, hear)--for\nthe \"bold and vigorous, and patriotic and noble conduct,\" as the\nadvertisement said, which consisted in hurrying in a cab to find the\ncommon informer to issue a writ against me. I dismiss that, however. I ask\nthe House to pardon me for having wasted its time on this poor thing. I do\nnot hope, I dare not think, that any word I may say here will win one\nvote; and I would have let this go silently against me, were it not that I\nowe a duty to the constituency that has twice entrusted me with its\nsuffrages, a duty to every constituency right through the land in time to\ncome--(hear, hear)--whose representative may be challenged as\nNorthampton's has been. (Hear, hear, and No.) Some gentlemen say \"No,\" but\nwhere is the challenge to stop? (Hear.) It is not simply theology, it is\npolitics too (hear, hear). It is not simply theology that is brought\nbefore the House, but the wild imaginings of some member who, with the\nnightmare of panic upon him, and a wild imagining of the French Revolution\nclothed in terrors of which I know nothing, comes here to tell you of\nmighty Russia successful, and of the unfortunate United States with its\nPresidents assassinated because of religious and political opinions. Panic\nof that kind is not evidence as to my opinions. If this House intends to\ntry me for my opinions, let it do it reasonably, and at least have the\nevidence before it. I would show you how unfair it is to trust to memory\nof words. The hon. member was good enough to tell the House that I had\ndeclared to a Committee of the House that certain words were meaningless.\nI hold in my hand the report of the Committee and the minutes of evidence,\nand no such words exist in any declaration of mine. (Hear, hear. Mr.\nNewdegate shook his head.) The hon. member does not believe me. I cannot\nmake more than facts. I cannot make the comprehension which should\ndistinguish when prejudice has determined that nothing shall be right that\nis put. The only way in which it can be pretended that anything of the\nkind in reference to the oath can be brought in is by taking my letter of\nthe 20th of May, written outside the House, which does not contain a\nspecific declaration the hon. member has put into it, which letter I\nprotested ought not to be brought before the Committee at all, which I\nnever volunteered to the Committee--(Opposition laughter)--which I\nobjected to the Committee having before them. (Oh, and laughter from the\nOpposition.) The gentlemen who laugh, laugh because the laugh is the only\nanswer that could be given. No reason can be given in reply, no facts can\nbe quoted; and I ask hon. members who laugh to remember that I am pleading\nas though a quasi-criminal at this bar, and that I have a right to an\naudience from them, and I appeal to the House at least to give me a silent\nhearing. Judges do that. If you are unfit to be judges, then do not judge\n(hear, hear). It shows, at least, the difficulty of dealing with a\nquestion like this, when those who are to judge have come to a judgment\nalready, not upon any facts, but upon what they think ought to be the\nfacts. I ask the House to deal legally and fairly with me. Legally you are\nbound to deal; fairly, as an assembly of English gentlemen, you ought to\ndeal with me, even if you have differences with me, even if you think my\nopinions so obnoxious, even if you think that the politics with which you\nidentify me in your minds are dangerous to you (oh, oh). If I am not\ndangerous, why not let me speak there? (pointing to the seat he occupied\nlast Session.) If there is no danger, why strain the law? If there is no\ndanger, why disobey the law? It is put by the hon. gentleman who spoke\nlast that there are certain words of the oath which the courts of law have\ndeclared essential, The courts of law have declared the exact opposite. So\nfar as a decision has been given, the very report of the Committee shows\nthat the highest court of judicature in this realm has decided the words\nare not essential to the oath at all. I ask the House to deal with me with\nsome semblance and show of legality and fairness, and first I say that\nthey ought not to go behind my election of the 9th of April, 1881, and\nthat the House ought to reject the resolution moved by the right hon.\ngentleman, because it deals with matters which antedate my election, and\nbecause the House has nothing to do with me before the 9th of April, 1881.\nThat is the return of which the Clerk at the table has the certificate.\nThat is my only authority for being here. If I did aught before that\nrendered me unworthy to sit here, why did the House let me sit here from\nthe 2nd of July to the 29th of March? If what I did entitles the House not\nto receive me, why has not the House had the courage of its opinions and\nvacated the seat? Either the seat is mine in law, and in law I claim it\nfrom you, or I am unworthy to hold it, and then why not vacate the seat\nand let the constituency express its opinion again? But my return is\nunimpeached, it is unimpeachable, and there has been no petition against\nme. The hon. member who went into back alleys for common informers could\nnot find a petitioner to present a petition against it. If I speak with\ntemper--(Opposition laughter)--the House, I trust, will pardon me. I\nhave read within the last few days words spoken, not by members of no\nconsequence, but by members occupying high position in this House, which\nmake me wonder if this is the House of Commons to which I aspired so\nmuch. I have read that one right hon. member, the member for\nWhitehaven--(laughter from the Ministerial side)--was prompted to say to\nhis constituents that I was kicked down stairs last Session, and that he\nhoped I should be again. If it were true that I was kicked downstairs I\nwould ask members of the House of Commons on whom the shame, on whom the\ndisgrace, on whom the stigma? I dare not apply this, but history will\nwhen I have mouldered, and you too, and our passions are quite gone. But\nit is not quite true that I was kicked downstairs, and it is a dangerous\nthing to say that I was, for it means that hon. members who should rely\non law rely on force. It is a dangerous provocation to conflict to throw\nto the people. If I had been as wicked in my thought as some members are\nreported to have been in their speech, this quarrel, not of my\nprovoking, would assume a future to make us all ashamed. I beg this\nHouse to believe, and I trust, Sir, that you at least will believe me,\nthat I have tried as much as man might to keep the dignity of this\nHouse. I submitted last Session, and the Session before, to have had\nthings said against me without one word of reply, because having had\nyour good counsel, I felt it might provoke discussion upon matters which\nthis House would willingly not have speech upon, and that I had far\nbetter rest under some slight stigma than occupy the House with my\npersonality. I appeal to the recollection of every member of the House\nwhether from the moment of my entering into it I did not utterly\ndisregard everything that took place prior to my coming into it, and\ndirect myself to the business for which my constituents sent me here.\nThe most extraordinary statements are made as to my views, statements as\ninaccurate as those which have fallen, no doubt unconsciously, from the\nhon. member who has last addressed the House. One noble lord in a great\nLondon gathering convoked against me, a gathering which was not as\nsuccessful as some that have taken place in my favor, denounced me as a\nSocialist. I do not happen to be one. I happen to think that Socialists\nare the most unwise and illogical people you can happen to meet. But the\nnoble lord knew that I ought to be something (laughter). I am a red rag\nto a wild Conservative bull, and it must rush at me and call me\nSocialist. I ask this House to be more fair and just. If I am to be\ntried, at least let me be tried for the opinions I hold and the views I\nexpress. Why, there are members who have soiled their tongues with words\nabout social relations and marriage for which I have no proper reply in\nthis House, as unfortunately the forms of the House do not permit me to\nuse the only fitting answer, and perhaps it is as well. But I ask the\nHouse, Do not let this be the kind of weapon with which a return is met.\nDeal with me as the law directs, and in no other way. It is said \"You\nhave brought this upon yourself\" (hear, hear). One baronet who has\nspoken of me with a kindness more than I deserve, in the very borough\nwhich I represent said I had brought it upon myself, because when I\noriginally came to the House I flaunted and most ostentatiously put my\nopinion upon the House (hear, hear). Well, not one word of that is true.\nNot a shadow of it is true. I hold in my hand the sworn evidence of Sir\nErskine May. I do not ask gentlemen to take my word, for it is clear\nthey will not, but that of their own officer. And when the right hon.\nbaronet said I claimed under the statute, and drew an inference from it,\nhe knows that my claim contained no such words until the clerk at the\ntable of the House challenged me as to the law under which I claimed. I\ndo not quarrel with him, but I submit that the Clerk of the House had no\nright to put that question to me. I submit that the House had nothing\nwhatever to do with it--that it certainly is no ostentatious flaunting\nby me. I submit, that at any rate, that it is prior to the 9th of April,\n1881, and the House had no right to revive it against me. I ask the\nHouse to try and deal with me with some show of fairness. They will\nfind when I was before the Committee, instead of obtruding my opinions,\nI said I had never directly or indirectly obtruded upon the House any of\nmy utterances or publications upon any subject whatever, and when\npressed by one of the members sitting on that (the Opposition) side of\nthe House as to certain opinions I was supposed to hold, by asking me\nparticular words I was supposed to have used in a judicial proceeding, I\nsaid that if the Committee wished I would answer, but that I objected to\nanswer, because I had carefully refrained from saying any word which\nwould bring my opinions before the House. I ask, therefore, the House\nwhether it is not monstrously unfair to say that I have obtruded any\nopinions here when I have expressly, carefully, and thoroughly kept them\nfrom the House? But it is said by the right hon. baronet that it would\nbe a profanation to allow me to take the oath, and that the House would\nbe no party to such a profanation (Opposition cheers). Does the House\nmean that it is a party to each oath taken? (hear.) There was a time\nwhen most clearly it was not so a party. There was a time when the oath\nwas not even taken in the presence of members at all. But does the House\nmean it is a party now? Was it a party the Session before last? Was it a\nparty when Mr. Hall walked up to that table, cheered by members on the\nother side who knew his seat was won by deliberate bribery? (loud\nOpposition cries of Order.) Bribery sought to be concealed by the most\ncorrupt perjury. Did the House join in it? (renewed cries of Order.) If\nthe House did not join in it, why did you cheer so that the words of the\noath were drowned? But was the House a party when John Stuart Mill sat\nin this House? (hear, no.) A member who is, I think, now within the\nwalls of the House--the hon. member for Greenwich--in addressing his\nconstituents, said that Mr. Bradlaugh's opinions were hardly more\nobjectionable than those of some other members of the House. If the hon.\nmember knew that, then he was a party to the profanation of the oath:\nbut perhaps they were on his own side, and he did not feel the\nprofanation so acutely (hear, hear, and laughter). But it is said, \"Our\nreal objection is that you have declared that the oath is not binding\nupon you\" (hear, hear, from Mr. Alderman Fowler). That is exactly the\nopposite of what I did declare. The hon. member whose voice I hear now,\nI unfortunately heard on the 3rd of August; and heard so that I shall\nnever forget it. (Mr. Bradlaugh here looked towards Alderman Fowler and\npaused.) The hon. member admits that is the point--that I have declared\nthe oath is not binding upon my conscience; but, unfortunately, all the\nprint goes the other way. I am asked by the Committee who sat as to\nwhether the oath is binding, and on page 15 I reply: \"Any form that I\nwent through, any oath that I took, I shall regard as binding upon my\nconscience in the fullest degree, and I would go through no form and\ntake no oath unless I meant it to be so binding.\" Again, I am asked as\nto the word \"swear.\" I say: \"I consider when I take an oath it is\nbinding upon my honor and upon my conscience\"; and with reference to the\nwords of asseveration to which the hon. member for North Warwickshire\nreferred, he would at least have been more generous towards myself, if\ngenerosity be possible with him, if he had said: \"I desire to add--and I\ndo this most solemnly and unreservedly--that the taking, and\nsubscribing, and repeating these words of asseveration will in no degree\nweaken the binding effect of the oath upon my conscience.\" I say here,\nSir, before you, with all the solemnity man can command, that I know the\nwords of the oath the statute requires me to take, that I am ready to\ntake that oath according to law, and that I will not take an oath\nwithout intending it to be binding upon me, and that if I do take the\noath it will be binding upon my honor and conscience. (Conservative\ncries of \"Oh! oh!\") Members of the House who are ignorant of what is\nhonor and conscience----(Loud cries of \"Order,\" \"Oh, oh,\" and\n\"Withdraw,\" from the Opposition.) If members will allow me to finish my\nsentence----(Cries of \"Withdraw.\") Members of this House who are\nignorant of what is----(Renewed cries from the Opposition of\n\"Withdraw.\") These (Mr. Bradlaugh pointing to the Opposition benches)\nare my judges. Members of this House who are ignorant of what is the\nhonor and conscience of the man who stands before them--(\"Oh,\" and\nlaughter from the Opposition)--have a right to shout \"Withdraw;\" but\nthey must beware lest a greater voice outside--(\"Oh, oh,\" and laughter\nfrom the Opposition)--at the ballot-box, where it has a right to express\nit, may not only say \"withdraw,\" but make withdraw all those who\ninfringe the constitutional rights of the nation, as they seek to\ninfringe them now. If I knew any kind of word which might convince\nmembers whom I desire to convince that I would take no pledge that I did\nnot mean to be binding, I would use that form of words. But I have found\nmyself so harshly judged, so unfairly dealt with, that one feels a\ndifficulty in understanding whether any form of words, however often\nrepeated, would convey any kind of conviction to some minds. I presume\nthat this House will repeat its vote of April 26th. What then? Will it\nhave the courage of its opinions, and vacate my seat? (Hear, hear.) If\nit does not, this House leaves me in an unfair position before the law.\nI am bound to come to this table, and will come to this table, as long\nas the mandate of my constituents sends me here, unless the House\nvacates the seat. If my seat be vacated, it is my duty to bow to the\nHouse, and appeal to my constituents again; and then the verdict rests\nwith them. But to take away part of the right, and deal with it in this\nfashion, leaving me with the full legal responsibility and no kind of\nlegal authority, I submit is not generous. Well, will this House repeat\nits vote of 9th May? Will it substitute force for law? At present the\nlaw is on my side (No, no, and hear, hear). If not, let me sit and sue\nme (hear, hear). If not, try by petition. If not, bring an action. But\nshouting \"No\" won't decide the law, even with the united wisdom of the\nmembers of this House who shout it. I know that no man is a good\nadvocate for a great principle unless he himself be worthy of the\nprinciple he advocates, and I have felt acutely the judgment properly\npassed upon me by many members of this House, who, knowing their\nsuperiority to me, say how unworthy I am that this question should be\nfought in my person. I admit I am unworthy, but it is not my fault that\nI have this fight to make. I remind you of the words of one of the\ngreatest statesmen who sat in this House more than a hundred years ago,\nthat whenever an infringement of the constitutional right was attempted,\nit was always attempted in the person of some obnoxious man (hear,\nhear). I ask the House for a moment to carry its mind to the 3rd of\nAugust last. I do that because either I do not understand what took\nplace then, or my memory has failed me, as the memory of other hon.\nmembers sometimes does, or things happened without my consciousness. I\nthought I had stood aside until Parliament had dealt with the pressing\nbusiness of the nation. I thought that had been recognised by this\nHouse. I thought I only came saying at the very door of the House that I\nwas ready to obey its lawful orders, and I thought I was then seized by\nforce while saying it. My memory may not serve me well on that, but I\nthink it does. There were plenty of witnesses to the scene. I saw one\nhon. member climb on to a pedestal to see how fourteen men could\nstruggle with one. It was hardly generous, hardly brave, hardly worthy\nof the great House of Commons, that those sending out to the whole world\nlessons of freedom, liberty, and law, should so infringe and so stamp\nthem under foot. I had no remedy in any court, or I would have taken it.\nWith all respect to you, Sir, and the officers of this House, if there\nhad been any possibility of trying at law against the mighty privilege\nof this House, I would have appealed to that possibility. Let me now,\nbefore I finish, ask the ear of the House for one moment. It is said it\nis the oath and not the man; but others, more frank, say it is the man\nand not the oath. Is it the oath and not the man? I am ready to stand\naside, say for four or five weeks, without coming to that table, if the\nHouse within that time, or within such time as its great needs might\ndemand, would discuss whether an Affirmation Bill should pass or not. I\nwant to obey the law, and I tell you how I might meet the House still\nfurther, if the House will pardon me for seeming to advise it. Hon.\nmembers have said that would be a Bradlaugh Relief Bill (hear, hear).\nBradlaugh is more proud than you are (hear, hear). Let the Bill pass\nwithout applying to elections that have taken place previously, and I\nwill undertake not to claim my seat, and when the Bill has passed I will\napply for the Chiltern Hundreds (cheers.) I have no fear. If I am not\nfit for my constituents, they shall dismiss me, but you never shall. The\ngrave alone shall make me yield (hear, hear, and \"Oh\").\n\n\n\n\n_A CARDINAL'S BROKEN OATH._\n\nA Letter\n\nTO HIS EMINENCE HENRY EDWARD, CARDINAL-ARCHBISHOP\nOF WESTMINSTER.\n\nBY\n\nCHARLES BRADLAUGH.\n\n[EIGHTH THOUSAND.]\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\nLONDON:\n\nFREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY\n63, FLEET STREET, E.C.\n1882.\n\nPRICE ONE PENNY.\n\n\n\n\nLONDON:\nPRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH.\n63, FLEET STREET, E.C.\n\n\n\n\nTO HIS EMINENCE\n\nHENRY EDWARD,\n\nCARDINAL-ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER.\n\n\nThree times your Eminence has--through the pages of the _Nineteenth\nCentury_--personally and publicly interfered and used the weight of your\necclesiastical position against me in the Parliamentary struggle in which\nI am engaged, although you are neither voter in the borough for which I\nam returned to sit, nor even co-citizen in the state to which I belong.\nYour personal position is that of a law-breaker, one who has deserted his\nsworn allegiance and thus forfeited his citizenship, one who is tolerated\nby English forbearance, but is liable to indictment for misdemeanor as\n\"member of a society of the Church of Rome.\" More than once, when the\nquestion of my admission to the House of Commons has been under\ndiscussion in that House, have I seen you busy in the lobby closely\nattended by the devout and sober Philip Callan, or some other equally\nappropriate Parliamentary henchman. Misrepresenting what had taken place\nin the House of Commons when I took my seat on affirmation in July, 1880,\nyour Eminence wrote in the _Nineteenth Century_ for August, 1880, that\nwhich you were pleased to entitule \"An Englishman's Protest\" against my\nbeing allowed to sit in the Commons' House, to which the vote of a free\nconstituency had duly returned me. In that protest you blundered alike in\nyour law and in your history. You gave the Tudor Parliamentary oath\nSaxon and Norman antiquity. You spoke of John Horne Tooke as having had\nthe door of the House shut against him by a by-vote, no such by-vote\nhaving been carried, and the statute which disabled clergymen in the\nfuture not affecting John Horne Tooke's seat in that Parliament. You\ndeclared that in the French Revolution the French voted out the Supreme\nBeing; there is no record of any such vote. In March, 1882, when the\nHouse had expelled me for my disobedience of its orders in complying with\nthe law, and taking my seat, you again used the _Nineteenth Century_.\nThis time for a second protest, intended to prevent my re-election. You,\nin both your articles, reminded the bigots that I might be indicted for\nblasphemy. Your advice has since been followed. Persecution is a\n\"two-edged sword,\" and I return the warning you offer to Lord Sherbrooke.\nWhen I was in Paris some time since, and was challenged to express an\nopinion as to the enforcement of the law against the religious orders in\nFrance, I, not to the pleasure of many of my friends, spoke out very\nfreely that in matters of religion I would use the law against none; but\nyour persecuting spirit may provoke intemperate men even farther than you\ndream. In this country, by the 10th George IV., cap. 7, secs. 28 and 29,\n31, 32 and 34, you are criminally indictable, Cardinal-Archbishop of\nWestminster. You only reside here without police challenge by the\nmerciful forbearance of the community. And yet you parade in political\ncontest your illegal position as \"a member of a religious order of the\nChurch of Rome,\" and have the audacity to invoke outlawry and legal\npenalty against me. Last month, in solemn state, you, in defiance of the\nlaw, in a personal and official visit to the borough of Northampton\nitself, sought to weaken the confidence of my constituents; and you were\nnot ashamed, in order to injure me, to pretend friendship with men who\nhave for years constantly and repeatedly used the strongest and foulest\nabuse of your present Church. An amiable but ignorant Conservative mayor,\nchief magistrate of the borough, but innocent of statutes, was misled\ninto parading his official robe and office while you openly broke the law\nin his presence. In the current number of the _Nineteenth Century_ you\nfire your last shot, and are coarse in Latin as well as in the vulgar\ntongue. Perhaps the frequenting Philip Callan has spoiled your manners.\nIt else seems impossible that one who was once a cultured scholar and a\nrefined gentleman could confuse with legitimate argument the abuse of his\nopponents as \"cattle.\" But who are you, Henry Edward Manning, that you\nshould throw stones at me, and should so parade your desire to protect\nthe House of Commons from contamination? At least, first take out of it\nthe drunkard and the dissolute of your own Church. You know them well\nenough. Is it the oath alone which stirs you? Your tenderness on swearing\ncomes very late in life. When you took orders as a deacon of the English\nChurch, in presence of your bishop, you swore \"so help me, God,\" that you\ndid from your \"heart abhor, detest and abjure,\" and, with your hand on\nthe \"holy gospels,\" you declared \"that no foreign prince, person,\nprelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction,\npower, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or\nspiritual, within this realm.\" You may now well write of men \"whom no\noath can bind.\" The oath you took you have broken; and yet it was because\nyou had, in the very church itself, taken this oath, that you for many\nyears held more than one profitable preferment in the Established Church\nof England. You indulge in inuendoes against my character in order to do\nme mischief, and viciously insinuate as though my life had in it\njustification for good men's abhorrence. In this you are very cowardly as\nwell as very false. Then, to move the timid, you suggest \"the fear of\neternal punishment,\" as associated with a broken oath. Have you any such\nfear? or have you been personally conveniently absolved from the\n\"eternal\" consequences of your perjury? Have you since sworn another oath\nbefore another bishop of another church, or made some solemn vow to Rome,\nin lieu of, and in contradiction to, the one you so took in presence of\nyour bishop, when, \"in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,\" that\nbishop of the church by law established in this country accepted your\noath, and gave you authority as a deacon in the Church you have since\nforsaken. I do not blame you so much that you are forsworn: there are, as\nyou truly say, \"some men whom no oath can bind;\" and it has often been\nthe habit of the cardinals of your Church to take an oath and break it\nwhen profit came with breach; but your remembrance of your own perjury\nmight at least keep you reticent in very shame. Instead of this, you\nthrust yourself impudently into a purely political contest, and shout as\nif the oath were to you the most sacred institution possible. You say\n\"there are happily some men who believe in God and fear him.\" Do you do\neither? You, who declared, \"So help me, God\" that no foreign \"prelate ...\nought to have any jurisdiction or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual\nwithin this realm.\" And you--who in spite of your declaration on oath\nhave courted and won, intrigued for and obtained, the archbishop's\nauthority and the cardinal's hat from the Pope of Rome--you rebuke Lord\nSherbrooke for using the words \"sin and shame\" in connexion with\noath-taking; do you hold now that there was no sin and no shame in your\nbroken oath? None either in the rash taking or the wilful breaking? Have\nyou no personal shame that you have broken your oath? Or do the pride and\npomp of your ecclesiastical position outbribe your conscience? You talk\nof the people understanding the words \"so help me, God.\" How do you\nunderstand them of your broken oath? Do they mean to you: \"May God desert\nand forsake me as I deserted and forsook the Queen's supremacy, to which\nI so solemnly swore allegiance\"? You speak of men being kept to their\nallegiance by the oath \"which binds them to their sovereign.\" You say\nsuch men may be tempted by ambition or covetousness unless they are bound\nby \"the higher and more sacred responsibility\" involved in the\n\"recognition of the lawgiver in the oath.\" Was the Rector of Lavington\nand Graffham covetous of an archbishopric that he broke his oath? Was the\nArchdeacon of Chichester ambitious of the Cardinal's hat that he became\nso readily forsworn? Lord Archbishop of Westminster, had you, when you\nwere apostate, remained a poor and simple priest in poverty and\nself-denial, although your oath would have still been broken, yet you\nmight have taunted others more profited by their perjuries. But you, who\nhave derived profit, pride, and pomp from your false swearing--you, who\nsign yourself \"Henry Edward, Cardinal-Archbishop\" by favor of the very\nauthority you abjured in the name of God--it is in the highest degree\nindecent and indecorous for you to parade yourself as a defender of the\nsanctity of the oath. As a prince-prelate of the Church of Rome you have\nno right to meddle with the question of the English Parliamentary oath.\n\nYour Church has been the foe of liberty through the world, and I am\nhonored by your personal assailment. But you presume too much on the\nindifference of the age when, in this free England, you so recklessly\nexhibit as weapons in an election contest the outward signs of the\nauthority the Vatican claims, but shall never again exercise, in Britain.\n\n    CHARLES BRADLAUGH.\n\n\n\n\nNORTHAMPTON\n\nAND THE\n\nHOUSE OF COMMONS.\n\n\nCORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN\n\nCHARLES BRADLAUGH, M.P.,\n\nAND THE RIGHT HON.\n\nSIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, M.P.\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\nLONDON\n\nFREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,\n63, FLEET STREET E.C.\n1884.\n\nPRICE TWOPENCE.\n\n\n\n\nLONDON:\nPRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,\n63, FLEET STREET, E.C.\n\n\n\n\nNORTHAMPTON\n\nAND THE\n\nHOUSE OF COMMONS.\n\n\n    20, Circus Road, St. John's Wood, London, N.W.,\n    _March 1st, 1884_.\n\n     To the Right Hon. SIR STAFFORD H. NORTHCOTE, M.P., G.C.B.\n\nSIR,--If, on either of the occasions when recently moving against me in\nthe House of Commons, you had accorded or claimed for me opportunity of\nspeech in self-defence, I might have been spared the need for this\nletter.\n\nApparently your view is that a member unfortunate enough to have the\nmajority of the House against him need not have even the semblance of\nfairness shown him--that you, being strong, need not be troubled with\nscruples, and that the mere fact that the member is, like yourself, the\nchosen member of a constituency does not entitle him to the smallest\ncourtesy or consideration.\n\nYou have taught me, Sir, many lessons during the past four years. Some of\nthese I trust to remember and profit by in the future. You have taught me\nthat a temporary majority of the House may, year after year, exclude any\nmember of Parliament from his seat, although he has strictly obeyed every\nStanding Order--and this without vacating that seat--that it may so\nexclude the member although he has been a decent and orderly member of\nthe House, attending regularly for months to all its duties, and one\nagainst whom no charge or pretence of Parliamentary misconduct was made\nwhilst he so served in it.\n\nYou have taught me, Sir, that the leader of a great party may sit silent,\nand acquiesce in it by his support, while the law-abiding electors of a\ngreat constituency are called \"mob,\" \"dregs,\" and \"scum\"--that such a\nleader may permit his followers to openly accuse two of the highest\njudges of our country of having judicially decided unfairly from corrupt\nparty motives--that he may even, without dishonor, keep silence whilst it\nis suggested that the whole judicial bench is so corrupt that it will be\nready to decide unjustly at the bidding of a government--and that the\nfirst law officer of the Crown is ready to be fraudulently collusive with\nmyself. Did you believe these things, Sir, when they were stated and\nloudly cheered by those who sit around you on your side of the House? If\nyes, I am glad that your experience of humanity has been less fortunate\nthan my own. I have regarded our judges as at least striving to be just\nand independent. You seem to think it nothing that the highest judges\nshould, in your presence, be charged with judging unjustly from\nfavoritism for the government of the day.\n\nYou have encouraged and practised deliberate violation of the law, and,\nto cover this law-breaking, you have connived at, and been party to, the\nbasest insinuations against those whose duty it is to judicially\npronounce on matters of legal dispute. You have, without rebuke,\npermitted your followers to declare that if the High Court of Judicature\ndeclared the law to be in my favor, that then they and you still intended\nto defy and disobey the law.\n\nThe first resolution you moved against me, on the 11th February, was\nworse than futile, for it forbade me to do that which I had already done,\nand which you well knew that I had so done, in order to compel the\nsubmission to the judgment of a competent tribunal of the legality of my\nact.\n\nThe ridiculous form of your resolution arose because you--having\nbargained with me in writing through Mr. Winn that I should come to the\ntable immediately after questions, and not before--intended to interpose\nere I could reach the table. This would have been a dishonest trick had\nyou succeeded; it became contemptibly ridiculous when you failed; but it\nis a lesson to me that I must be careful, indeed, when English gentlemen\nof name and family make treaties with me.\n\nYour second resolution, on February 11th, was a spiteful, paltry, and\ncowardly insult to myself and to my constituents, for it was pressed by\nyou despite that my colleague offered for me the express undertaking that\nyou pretended you wished to secure, and was still pressed by you though\nMr. Burt offered for me that I would at once personally give such\nundertaking. These two resolutions, utterly illegal and dangerous to\nParliamentary repute, you have renewed on Thursday, the 21st, although\nyou had heard read by Mr. Speaker an undertaking from me to the House\nthat I would not attempt to take my seat until the judicial interpreters\nof the law had given formal judgment. And they are very cowardly and\ninexcusable resolutions, spiteful in excess of any ever passed in\nprevious years. They exclude me, not only from the House, but from the\nreading-room, library, tea-room, dining-rooms, and exterior lobbies,\nthough there is not the faintest suggestion that I have used my right to\ngo to those places to enable me to disturb the House. If I had not taken\nthe precaution to anticipate your malice, I should actually have been\nhindered by force from going to the proper officer to obtain the\ncertificate of my return. Yours is a mean and spiteful act, Sir, unworthy\nan English gentleman. And I admit that you have inconvenienced me, for\nyou have deprived me of access to the library of the House, and you may\nthus put me to some expense and annoyance in the procurement of law books\nand Parliamentary records in the litigation in which I am involved in\ndefending the rights of my constituents.\n\nIt is too much that, in 1884, a duly-elected and properly-qualified\nburgess of Parliament should be shut outside by such votes.\n\nTo repeat to you words signed, in September, 1656, by your own ancestor,\nSir John Northcote, M.P. for the County of Devon: \"we who have been duly\nchosen to be members of the Parliament, have an undoubted right to meet,\nsit, and vote in Parliament,\" and \"no part of the representative body are\ntrusted to consent to anything in the nation's behalf if the whole have\nnot their free liberty of debating and voting in the matters propounded.\"\nTo continue the language of your sturdy ancestor, you have \"now declared\nthat the people's choice cannot give a man a right to sit in Parliament,\nbut the right must be derived from _your_ gracious will and pleasure.\"\nYou reply that you have the force on your side; but Sir John Northcote\ndeclared that: \"The violent exclusion of any of the people's deputies\nfrom doing their duties and executing their trust freely in Parliament\ndoth change the state of the people from freedom into a mere slavery;\"\nand if you tell me that the majority of the present members of the House\nare with you in what you do, I recall Sir John Northcote's protest:\n\"That all such chosen members for Parliament as shall take upon them to\napprove of the forcible exclusion of other chosen members, or shall sit,\nvote, and act by the name of the Parliament of England while, to their\nknowledge, any of the chosen members are so by force shut out, we say\nsuch ought to be reputed betrayers of the liberties of England.\"\n\nYou cannot now pretend with any hope that sane men will believe you, that\nyou desire \"to prevent the profanation of the oath.\" In 1880 you\nprevented the second reading of the Affirmation Bill, introduced by my\ncolleague, Mr. Labouchere, under the pretext that such a measure ought to\nbe introduced by the Government. In 1881, after you yourself had said the\nmatter should be dealt with by legislation, you prevented the Government\nfrom introducing it. In 1882 your friends blocked the Affirmation measure\nagain proposed by my colleague, and in 1883 you exerted every influence\nto defeat, and successfully defeated, the Affirmation Bill brought\nforward by the Government.\n\nIf you had really believed the oath profaned by me, you would have been\none of the first to aid in removing the possible profanation by\nsubstituting the right of affirmation. In Ulster you took credit for\nkeeping an Atheist out of Parliament, but it was not my Atheism you kept\nout, for I actually sat with you day by day, speaking, voting, and\nserving, from the beginning of July, 1880, until the end of March, 1881.\nAnd, during the whole of that time, my care was to be at least as good\nand loyal a member of that House as any sitting within its walls. I do\nnot plead my conduct there, whilst using all my right, as anything on my\nbehalf, for I at most could do no more than my duty; but at least I have\nthe right to say that it was never suggested that I was other than a good\nworking member of the House, strict in my attendance at and during every\none of its sittings. It cannot be pretended that I used my right of\nspeech to force upon the House one word which did not relate to the\nbusiness then being dealt with, or that in any fashion I obtruded upon\nwhat should be a purely political assembly any views of mine on matters\nof religion.\n\nYou have permitted in public my conduct to be misstated in your presence,\nand utterances in Parliament to be attributed to me which are none of\nmine, and you have done this because you hoped that, by exciting\nreligious and social prejudice against me, you might weaken the\nGovernment, and crawl back into office. To injure the Liberal party, you\nhave allowed words which you pretend are sacred to be used as party\ncries, and you have made hundreds of thousands examine into and declare\nin favor of my opinions and expressions on religious questions who but\nfor you might perhaps have never even known my name. You have allied\nyourself at Westminster with men whom you denounced in Ireland as\n\"traitors and disloyal,\" in order that, with their help, you might insult\nan English constituency; and you have succeeded in bringing Parliamentary\nGovernment into contempt by parading the House of Commons as the chief\nlaw-breaking assembly in the world. In four years against me you have\ndone your worst to destroy me; with your own purse you have helped the\nvarious projects to ruin me; and you have so failed that clergymen and\nNonconformist ministers have been driven to support me from very\nindignation against the injury you have done to the cause of religion.\nYour Conservative associations have flooded the country with leaflets\ncontaining garbled and misleading extracts from my speeches and writings,\nand have thus excited the curiosity of many whom I could have never\nreached. These, procuring my works, and finding that my words have been\ndistorted and taken out of context, give a favor to me that I should\nperhaps have never otherwise won.\n\nFew believe that you are moved by religious motives. Mr. Newdegate is\nregarded as sincere, though his sanity is doubted; but when men recollect\nthe past and even present lives of many of those around you, whose\ntongues so loudly declare their piety, they come, not unnaturally, to the\nconclusion that he is the worst infidel who trails the banner of his\nchurch in the mire of political warfare, and permits the votes of the\ndrunken, the dissolute, the dishonest, and the disloyal to be canvassed\nby his whips so that they may be counted on the side which he parades as\nthat of the pure and the holy.\n\nOn the 7th February, 1882, I told you and your majority: \"If I am not fit\nfor my constituents, they shall dismiss me, but you never shall.\" I have\ngone since voluntarily to my constituents--to those from whom you\npresented a petition with 10,400 mock signatures upon it. The answer has\ncome at the ballot-box. My constituents bid me resist you, and I will.\nThey trust me to defeat you, and I will. The law is on my side, and you\nfear its pronouncement. You kept me from the possibility of obtaining a\ndecision as long as you could, but on the 11th February I broke through\nyour barriers. Then you fruitlessly tried to erase all trace of my\nvoting, and when you found that I beat you on this by adding a new vote\nas you rubbed out the vote before, then, in malicious spite, you shut me\nout of the tea-room, dining-room, cloak-room, and library. For shame, Sir\nStafford Northcote! This was worthy of \"O'Donnell,\" but not of the leader\nof a great party. You wear knightly orders. You should be above a knave's\nspitefulness.\n\nMy turn is coming. You have won sympathy for me throughout the land; you\nhave made Northampton men stand by me closer than ever; you are now\nawaking the country to stand by Northampton. Mr. Justice Stephen says\nthat the appeal is to the constituencies, and I appeal. In the name of\njustice, by the hope of liberty, in memory of English struggles for\nfreedom, I appeal, and I hear the answer growing as you shall hear it,\ntoo, on the day when, from my place in the House, I move: \"That all the\nresolutions respecting Charles Bradlaugh, member for Northampton,\nhindering him from obeying the law, and punishing him for having obeyed\nthe law, be expunged from the Journals of this House as being subversive\nof the rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom.\"\n\n    CHARLES BRADLAUGH.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    30, St. James' Place, S.W.\n\n    _March 4th, 1884._\n\nSIR,--There are some points in the letter you have addressed to me which\nI am unwilling to pass over in silence lest I should be taken to admit\nyour assertions.\n\nIn the first place, it is necessary that I should point out to you that\nthe action of the House of Commons with respect to yourself has not been\narbitrary or capricious, but has been founded on principles deliberately\nadopted by a large majority of its members of various political opinions,\nto which principles they have steadily adhered, and which they have\nalways been prepared to justify.\n\nIn the second place it should be clearly understood that in all the steps\nwhich we have taken with respect to yourself, including some which we\ntook with the greatest reluctance, we were acting on the defensive, in\nconsequence of your repeated attempts to override or to evade the\nrepeated decisions of the House of Commons.\n\nThe brief history of your case is this. You were duly elected member for\nNorthampton at the General Election of 1880. On presenting yourself to\ntake your seat you tendered an affirmation instead of an oath, and\nsupported your claim to affirm by reference to the fact that you had been\npermitted to do so in a court of law under the Evidence Amendment Acts of\n1869 and 1870. That claim at once, and necessarily, brought under the\nnotice of the House that you must either yourself have objected in a\ncourt of law to take an oath, or must have been objected to as\nincompetent to do so, and that the presiding judge must have been\nsatisfied that the taking of an oath would have no binding effect upon\nyour conscience.\n\nThat being so, a Committee was appointed by the House to consider whether\nthe Evidence Amendment Acts were applicable to the case of a member of\nthe House of Commons desiring to take his seat and to comply with the\nnecessary conditions.\n\nIt was held by the Committee that they were not so applicable, and this\nfinding of the Committee was subsequently confirmed by the judgment of\nthe Court of Appeal.\n\nUpon being refused permission to affirm, you immediately came to the\ntable of the House and offered to take the oath. This proceeding was\nobjected to, and the majority of the House (still, as theretofore,\ncomposed of members of different shades of politics) refused to allow you\nto go through the form of taking an oath, which, by the hypothesis on\nwhich your original claim to affirm was founded, as well as by the\nevidence afforded by a letter of your own, they held you to be\nincompetent really to take, and which they considered it would be a\nprofanation to allow you to pretend to take.\n\nThat was the ground taken by the House on the 23rd June, 1880, and it is\nthe ground which it has maintained ever since.\n\nYou have, since the adoption of that resolution, made various attempts to\nforce the House to admit you to a seat, while still maintaining its\nobjection; and those attempts have, on more than one occasion, led to\nscenes of a very indecent and disorderly character. In its anxiety to\nprevent the recurrence of such scenes, the House has felt itself obliged\nto adopt measures of rigid exclusion, which it would gladly have avoided.\n\nI do not think it necessary to enter into the details of these scenes.\n\nI am, however, obliged to take notice of your allegation that my action\non the 11th February involved a breach of an arrangement previously made\nthrough Mr. Winn.\n\nThe arrangement which I authorised Mr. Winn to make in my name, and which\nhe did make in a letter to Mr. Labouchere, was as follows:\n\n     \"If Mr. Bradlaugh will write you a letter to the effect that he\n     will not go up to the table to take the oath, nor make any\n     other move with regard to his seat until Monday, February\n     11th, and will do so on that day, say immediately after\n     questions, I am quite sure that Sir Stafford will neither move\n     anything himself respecting Mr. Bradlaugh's seat, nor employ\n     anyone else to do so, _previous to that day_.\"\n\nThe meaning of this is perfectly obvious, and it was in strict conformity\nwith it that I myself abstained, and urged my friends to abstain, from\ntaking any step whatever in relation to Mr. Bradlaugh until the day\nnamed. When, upon that day, you came forward in defiance of the Speaker's\nrepeated calls to order, and began to go through the form of taking the\noath, I had no option but to support the Chair, and to support also the\nrepeatedly pronounced resolutions of the House in former sessions.\n\nI do not take notice of other passages in your letter reflecting on the\ncourse of the majority, and more particularly of myself.\n\nBut I will add, in conclusion, what your letter does not show, that your\nexclusion from the precincts of the House is terminable at any moment\nwhen you may be willing to undertake not to disturb the proceedings of\nthe House. The inconveniences of which you complain are inconveniences\nwhich you might, if you chose, put an end to to-morrow.\n\n    I have the honor to remain,\n\n    Your obedient servant,\n\n    STAFFORD H. NORTHCOTE.\n\n    C. BRADLAUGH, Esq., M.P.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n    23, Circus Road, St. John's Wood, London, N.W.,\n\n    _March 7th, 1884_.\n\n    To the Right Hon. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Bart, M.P.\n\nSIR,--In reply to your favor of the 4th instant, in which you say that\nthe House held me to be incompetent to take the oath, will you permit me\nto answer: 1. That the question of competence or incompetence to take the\noath is one of law, fit only for the decision of a judicial tribunal, to\nwhich tribunal I have always desired and endeavored to refer such\nquestion. 2. That if the \"principle deliberately adopted\" by a large\nmajority of the members of the House of Commons had been that they\ndesired to prevent \"a profanation of the oath,\" then they ought, during\nthe sessions of 1882--1883, to have gladly facilitated the passage of the\nAffirmation Bill, which would have prevented the necessity for the\nfulfilling by me of that which you describe as profanation, but which I\ncontend is the duty imposed on me by law.\n\nIn your very temperate historic narrative, you omit the fact that when\nthe House passed its resolution of the 23rd June, 1880, it had before it\nmy declaration, made three weeks earlier, in answer to question 102 of\nthe second Select Committee:\n\n     \"Any form that I went through, any oath that I took, I should\n     regard as binding upon my conscience in the fullest degree. I\n     would go through no form, I would take no oath, unless I meant\n     it to be so binding.\"\n\nAnd as you refer to my letter of the 20th May, printed in the report of\nthat committee, it is also fair to recall my answer thereon on the same\nday to question 197:\n\n     \"I ask the Committee in examining it to take it complete, not\n     to separate one or two words in it and to take those without\n     the countervailing words, and to remember that in this letter I\n     declare that the oath, if I take it, would bind me, and I now\n     repeat that in the most distinct and formal manner; that the\n     Oath of Allegiance, viz.: 'I do swear that I will be faithful\n     and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria, her\n     heirs and successors, according to law,' will, when I take it,\n     be most fully, completely, and unreservedly binding upon my\n     honor and conscience; and I crave leave to refer to the\n     unanimous judgment of the full Court of the Exchequer Chamber,\n     in the case of Miller _v._ Salomons, 17th Jurist, page 463, and\n     to the case of the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Company _v._\n     Heaton, 4th Jurist, new series, page 708, for the\n     distinguishment between the words of asseveration and the\n     essential words of an oath. But I also desire to add, and I do\n     this most solemnly and unreservedly, that the taking and\n     subscribing, or repeating of those words of asseveration, will\n     in no degree weaken the binding effect of the oath on my\n     conscience.\"\n\nIn your reference to my attempts to take the seat to which I am by law\nentitled, you have omitted to state that on the 27th April, 1881, you\npersonally advised me to wait for legislation, and that when I did so\nwait, your friends of the majority and yourself prevented such\nlegislation.\n\nIn recalling the arrangement made by Mr. Winn on your behalf, you have\nomitted his most explicit and latest letter:\n\n\n    \"Nostell Priory, Wakefield,\n\n    \"January 28th, 1884.\n\n     \"DEAR MR. LABOUCHERE,--On the distinct understanding and\n     agreement that Mr. Bradlaugh does not come to the table to take\n     the oath, or adopt any other course with reference to his seat\n     in the House of Commons, until immediately after questions on\n     Monday, the 11th of February next, and that he will on that day\n     and time come to the table, as he has intimated his intention\n     of doing, I am prepared to say that Sir Stafford Northcote will\n     not previous to Monday the 11th make any motion hostile to Mr.\n     Bradlaugh, nor support any motion coming from any of our\n     independent friends on the subject.\n\n    \"I am, yours very truly,\n\n    \"ROW. WINN.\n\n    \"H. Labouchere, Esq., M.P.\"\n\n\nMy charge against you is that, despite this agreement, you had gone down\nto the House with a resolution prepared beforehand, and by its wording\nshowing that it was intended to be moved before I should be able to get\nnear the table to which you had made me specifically agree then to come.\n\nYou conclude by saying that I can put an end to any personal\ninconvenience by undertaking not to disturb the proceedings of the House.\nI gave such an undertaking last year in express words; it is printed in\nthe journals of the House, and you did not accept it. Immediately before\nyou moved your resolution of 21st February, you heard Mr. Speaker read my\nundertaking to do nothing until a legal decision was obtained. This you\nrefused, and I have no reason to suppose that any second offer from me\nwould be accepted. If what you really desire is that, if the law decides\nin my favor, I shall none the less join in your insult to my constituents\nby refusing to try to serve in the Parliament to which they have lawfully\nreturned me, I can only say that I will never give such an undertaking.\n\n    I have the honor to be, Sir,\n\n    Your most obedient Servant,\n\n    C. BRADLAUGH.\n\n\n\n\nTHE LATEST\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL STRUGGLE:\n\nA REGISTER OF EVENTS\n\n_Which have occurred since April 2nd, 1880._\n\n\nBY\n\n\nW. MAWER.\n\n\n\"No, not an oath....\nSwear priests, and cowards, and men cautelous,\nOld feeble carrions and such suffering souls\nThat welcome wrongs; unto bad causes swear\nSuch creatures as men doubt; but do not stain\nThe even virtue of our enterprise,\nNor the insuppressive metal of our spirits,\nTo think that or our cause or our performance\nDid need an oath.\"--_Julius Caesar_, Act II., Scene 1.\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n\nLONDON:\nFREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY\n63, FLEET STREET, E.C.\n1883.\n\nPRICE TWOPENCE.\n\n\n\n\nLONDON:\nPRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,\n63, FLEET STREET E.C.\n\n\n\n\nTHE LATEST\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL STRUGGLE.\n\n\n1880.\n\nApril 2nd.--After twelve years' fight and three repulses, Mr. Charles\nBradlaugh is elected member of Parliament for Northampton. The polling\nwas as follows:--\n\n    Labouchere (L.)          4,158\n    Bradlaugh (R.)           3,827\n    Phipps (C.)              3,152\n    Merewether (C.)          2,826\n\nThe _Weekly Dispatch_ said: Mr. Bradlaugh's achievement of the position\nhe has been aiming at so long and so zealously is a notable sign of the\ntimes. Whatever his critics may think of him, he will enter Parliament as\nthe representative of a vastly larger constituency than the whole\nelectorate or the whole population of Northampton.\n\nThe _Birmingham Daily Mail_: Mr. Bradlaugh holds extreme views on some\nsubjects, but he will none the less be a useful man in Parliament, his\nunflinching courage in the exposure of abuses being unquestionable.\n\nThe _Standard_: Mr. Bradlaugh, now that he has got to the House of\nCommons, is not likely to efface himself in speechless obscurity.\n\nThe _Southampton Times_: The most signal and portentous triumph is that\nwhich has been achieved by Mr. Bradlaugh. His election shows what the\nunity of the Liberal party must have been.\n\nThe _Christian World_: His contributions to the discussions of the House\nmay not be without value.\n\nDuring the election Mr. Samuel Morley telegraphed to Mr. Labouchere as\nfollows: I strongly urge necessity of united effort in all sections of\nLiberal party, and the sinking of minor and personal questions, with many\nof which I deeply sympathise, in order to prevent the return, in so\npronounced a constituency as Northampton, of even one Conservative.\n\nApril 15th.--Mr. S. Morley, speaking at Bristol said, respecting his\ntelegram to Northampton: He made no reference to candidates, nor did the\nfriend who wrote the telegram go into detail, but he advised union. Those\nwho had known him all his life would believe that he viewed with the\nintensest repugnance the supposed opinions, both social and religious, of\none of the candidates. Afterwards, writing to the _Record_, Mr. Morley\nsaid he deeply regretted his telegram.\n\nThe _Weekly Dispatch_, commenting on Mr. Morley's conduct, said: Let the\nbigots who have taken him to task for his temporary aberration from the\npath of pharisaism make what they can of his pitiful excuse. Other people\ncan only regret that a man so useful in many ways, both as a politician\nand a philanthropist, should show himself so narrow-minded.\n\nThe _Edinburgh Evening News_: In their disappointment, the defeated party\nhave eagerly caught at the election of Mr. Bradlaugh as supplying the\nmost pungent taunt that can be thrown at their victorious opponents.\n\nThe _Sheffield Telegraph_: Bradlaugh is an M.P. ... the bellowing\nblasphemer of Northampton.\n\nMr. Bradlaugh announces that he considers he is legally entitled to avail\nhimself of the Freethinkers' affirmation, and that there is some reason\nto hope that other members will join him in that course.\n\nApril 17th.--_Sheffield Independent's_ \"London Correspondent\" says:\nTenets which constitute the religious faith of Mr. Bradlaugh are\nunderstood to constitute an insuperable difficulty in the way of his\nbeing sworn a member of \"the faithful Commons.\"\n\nApril 29th.--Parliament opens.\n\nMay 3rd.--At the table of the House Mr. Bradlaugh handed in a written\npaper to the Clerk of the House; on this were written the words: \"To the\nRight Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons. I, the undersigned\nCharles Bradlaugh, beg respectfully to claim to be allowed to affirm, as\na person for the time being by law permitted to make a solemn affirmation\nor declaration, instead of taking an oath. Charles Bradlaugh.\" Asked if\nhe desired to state anything to the House, Mr. Bradlaugh said: I have to\nsubmit that the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, gives the right to affirm\nto every person for the time being permitted by law to make affirmation.\nI am such a person; and under the Evidence Amendment Act, 1869, and the\nEvidence Amendment Act, 1870, I have repeatedly, for nine years past,\naffirmed in the highest courts of jurisdiction in this realm. I am ready\nto make the declaration or affirmation of allegiance.\n\nAt the request of the Speaker Mr. Bradlaugh then withdrew, in order that\nthe House might consider the claim, and Lord F. Cavendish, urging that\nit would be manifestly inconvenient that when any hon. member had applied\nto take his seat in the House, any unnecessary delay should intervene,\nmoved the appointment of a committee of inquiry which should lay before\nthe House the material on which the House itself should found its\ndecision. Sir Stafford Northcote seconded. Several other members spoke,\nand Mr. Beresford Hope said that the grievance of one man was very little\ncompared with a great principle; at present the House of Commons was only\na half-hatched chicken. The committee was then agreed to.\n\nMay 11th.--Appointment of committee carried by 171 votes against 74,\nafter a two hours' debate.\n\nMay 20th.--The committee report: \"that in the opinion of the committee,\npersons entitled under the provisions of 'the Evidence Amendment Act,\n1869,' and 'the Evidence Amendment Act, 1870,' to make a solemn\ndeclaration instead of an oath in courts of justice, can not be admitted\nto make an affirmation or declaration instead of an oath in the House of\nCommons, in persuance of the Acts 29 and 30 Vict., c. 19, and 31 and 32\nVict., c. 72.\"\n\nThe draft report, proposed by the Attorney-General, was to the effect\nthat \"persons so admitted,\" etc., _may be_ admitted, etc. This was lost\nby the casting vote of the chairman (Mr. Walpole), the other members of\nthe committee voting as follows. Ayes: Mr. Whitbread, Mr. John Bright,\nMr. Massey, Mr. Sergeant Simon, Sir Henry Jackson, Mr. Attorney General,\nMr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Watkin Williams. Noes: Sir John Holker, Lord\nHenry Lennox, Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Pemberton, Mr.\nHopwood, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Henry Chaplin.\n\nMr. Bradlaugh makes a public statement of his position with regard to the\noath. He considered he had a legal right to choose between the\nalternatives of making an affirmation or taking the oath, and he felt it\nclearly his moral duty, in that case, to make an affirmation. The oath\nincluded words which, to him, were meaningless, and it would have been an\nact of hypocrisy to voluntarily take this form if any other had been open\nto him. He should, taking the oath, regard himself as bound not by the\nletter of its words, but by the spirit which the affirmation would have\nconveyed, had he been allowed to make it, and as soon as he might be able\nhe should take steps to put an end to the present doubtful and\nunfortunate state of the law and practice on oaths and affirmations.\n\nMay 21st.--Amid a tumult of cries from the Conservative benches Mr.\nBradlaugh goes to the table for the purpose of being sworn. Sir H. D.\nWolff objecting, the Speaker requested Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw. He (the\nSpeaker) was bound to say he knew of no instance in which a member who\nhad offered to take the oath in the usual form was not allowed by the\nHouse to do so. Sir H. D. Wolff then moved that Mr. Bradlaugh should not\nbe allowed to take the oath, alleging against Mr. Bradlaugh his repute as\nan Atheist, and his authorship of \"The Impeachment of the House of\nBrunswick.\" Mr. Alderman Fowler seconded the motion, stating that he held\nin his hand a petition praying the House not to alter the law and the\ncustom of the realm for the purpose of admitting an Atheist to\nParliament. Mr. Gladstone, in the course of replying, said: \"it was not\nin consequence of any regulation enforced by the authority of this\nHouse--of a single branch of the legislature, however complete that\nauthority may be over the members of this House, that the hon. member for\nNorthampton presents himself to take the oath at the table. He presents\nhimself in pursuance of a statutory obligation to take the oath in order\nthat he may fulfil the duty with which, as we are given to understand, in\na regular and formal manner, his constituents have entrusted him. That\nstatutory obligation implied a statutory right.\" He moved that it be\nreferred to a select committee to consider and report for the information\nof the House whether the House has any right to prevent a duly-elected\nmember, who is willing to take the oath, from doing so. A long debate\nensued, characterised by the fierceness with which Mr. Bradlaugh's\nadmission to Parliament was opposed. Mr. John Bright, however, asked if\nthe House were entitled thus to obstruct what he called the right of a\nmember to take his seat on account of his religious belief, because it\nhappened that his belief or no belief had been openly professed, what\nreason was there that any member of the House should not be questioned as\nto his beliefs, and if the answer were not satisfactory that the House\nshould not be at liberty to object to his taking his seat? After two or\nthree adjournments of the debate the Premier's amendment was virtually\nwithdrawn, and a motion by the Attorney-General was carried to the effect\nthat a committee should be appointed to report whether it was competent\nto the House to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh, by resolution, from taking the\noath.\n\nMay 28th.--Committee nominated--twenty-three members.\n\nMr. Labouchere gives notice to ask leave to bring in a Bill to amend the\nlaw of Parliamentary Oaths, to provide that any member may, if he desire,\nmake a solemn affirmation in lieu of taking the oath.\n\nJune 2nd.--Mr. Bradlaugh gives evidence before Select Committee, in the\ncourse of which he said: \"I have never at any time refused to take the\noath of allegiance provided by statute to be taken by members; all I did\nwas, believing as I then did that I had the right to affirm, to claim to\naffirm, and I was then absolutely silent as to the oath; that I did not\nrefuse to take it, nor have I then or since expressed any mental\nreservation, or stated that the appointed oath of allegiance would not be\nbinding upon me; that, on the contrary, I say, and have said, that the\nessential part of the oath is in the fullest and most complete degree\nbinding upon my honor and conscience, and that the repeating of words of\nasseveration does not in the slightest degree weaken the binding effect\nof the oath of allegiance upon me.\" [It had been persistently represented\nthat Mr. Bradlaugh had refused to take the oath.] \"Any form that I went\nthrough, any oath that I took, I should regard as binding upon my\nconscience in the fullest degree.\"\n\nJune 16th.--The committee report that the compliance by Mr. Bradlaugh\nwith the form used when an oath is taken would not be the taking of the\noath within the true meaning of the statutes; that if a member make and\nsubscribe the affirmation in place of taking the oath it is possible by\nmeans of an action in the High Court of Justice, to test his legal right\nto do so; and that the committee recommend that should Mr. Bradlaugh\nagain seek to make and subscribe the affirmation he be not prevented from\nso doing. (Majority in favor of his being allowed to affirm--four.)\n\nJune 21st.--Mr. Labouchere moved in the House of Commons that Mr.\nBradlaugh be admitted to make an affirmation instead of taking the oath,\nseconded by Mr. M'Laren. Sir H. Giffard moved a resolution seeking to\ndebar Mr. Bradlaugh from both oath and affirmation. Alderman Fowler\nseconded, a man who did not believe in a God was not likely to be a man\nof high moral character. The majority of the people were opposed to an\nAtheist being admitted to Parliament. Many other members spoke. General\nBurnaby said the making of the affirmation by Mr. Bradlaugh would pollute\nthe oath. Mr. Palmer said Mr. Bradlaugh had a legal right with which the\nHouse had no power to interfere. The Attorney-General said he had come to\nthe conclusion that Mr. Bradlaugh could not take the oath, chiefly on the\nconsideration that he was a person entitled to affirm. Mr. John Bright\nsaid it was certainly open to any member to propose to take either oath\nor affirmation; probably if Mr. Bradlaugh had had any suspicion that the\naffirmation would have been refused him, he would have taken the oath as\nother members take it--very much, he was afraid, as a matter of form.\nDebate adjourned.\n\nJune 22nd.--Mr. Gladstone said that the House, by agreeing to the\namendment, would probably be entering on the commencement of a long,\nembarrassing, and a difficult controversy, not perhaps so much within as\nbeyond the limits of the House, perhaps with the result of ultimate\ndefeat of the House. The more he looked at the case the stronger appeared\nthe arguments which went to prove that in the essence of the law and the\nconstitution the House had no jurisdiction. In interfering between a\nmember and what he considered his statutory duty, the House might find\nitself in conflict with either the courts of law or the constituency of\nNorthampton. No doubt an action could not be brought against the House,\nbut he was not so clear that an action could not be brought against the\nservants of the House. He was still less willing to face a conflict with\nthe constituency. The House had commonly been successful in its\ncontroversies with the Crown or House of Lords, but very different was\nthe issue of its one lamentable conflict with a constituency.--Sir Henry\nTyler, with execrable taste, dragged in the name of a lady with whom Mr.\nBradlaugh is associated in business. At last, by a majority of 45--the\nnumbers voting being 275 and 230--another triumph against liberty was\nscored.\n\nThe _Christian World_ regretted that some Nonconformists helped to swell\nthe Tory majority.\n\nThe _Jewish World_ held it as a reproach to Judaism, that members of\ntheir community should have gone over to the party which once strove to\ndetain them in bondage.\n\nIn 1851, Mr. Newdegate protested against the idea \"that they should have\nsitting in the House, an individual who regarded our redeemer as an\nimpostor,\" and yet Baron de Worms voted with Mr. Newdegate for the\nexclusion of a man with whose tenets he disagreed.\n\nThe _Whitehall Review_ headed an article \"God _v._ Bradlaugh,\" and said\nthe majority had \"protected God from insult.\"\n\nJune 23rd.--Mr. Bradlaugh again claimed at the table of the House of\nCommons to take the oath, and the Speaker having informed him of the\nresolution passed the previous evening, requested his withdrawal. Mr.\nBradlaugh thereupon asked to be heard, and after some debate the demand\nwas complied with.\n\nMr. Bradlaugh spoke from the bar of the House, asking no favor, but\nclaiming his right, and warning hon. members against a conflict with\npublic opinion.\n\nMr. Labouchere moved, and Mr. Macdonald seconded, the rescindment of the\nresolution of the 22nd, which was lost on division.\n\nMr. Bradlaugh was then recalled and requested to withdraw from the House.\nStanding by the table, he said: \"I respectfully refuse to obey the order\nof the House, because the order is against the law.\" The raging of the\nbigots and Tories recommenced. Mr. Gladstone declined to help them out of\nthe pit into which they had leapt: \"Those who were responsible for the\ndecision might carry it out as they chose.\" After a sharp discussion Mr.\nBradlaugh was, on the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, \"committed to the\nClock Tower.\" In the division the numbers were 274 for and 7 against, the\nRadicals having left the House.\n\nJune 24th.--On the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Bradlaugh is\nreleased from custody, \"not upon apology, or reparation, or promise not\nto repeat his offence, but with the full knowledge and clear\nrecollection of his announcement that the offence would be repeated\n_toties quoties_ till his object was effected.\"\n\nJune 25th.--Mr. Labouchere gives notice of motion to rescind the\nresolution of the 22nd, and Government agreed to give an early day for\nthe discussion of the same.\n\nJune 28th.--Baron de Ferrieres announced his intention to move that the\nseat for Northampton be declared vacant, and that a Bill be brought in\nproviding for the substitution of an affirmation for the oath at the\noption of members. Mr. Wyndham (Conservative) asked Mr. Gladstone whether\nthe Government would bring in a Bill to remove all doubts as to the legal\nright of members to make a solemn affirmation. Mr. Gladstone said the\nGovernment did not propose to do so, and gave notice for Thursday (1st\nJuly) to move as a standing order that members-elect be allowed, subject\nto any liability by statute, to affirm at their choice. Mr. Labouchere\nthen said he would not proceed with his motion. On another motion,\nhowever, by the same member, leave was given to bring in a Bill for the\namendment of the Parliamentary Oaths and Affirmations, which was read a\nfirst time.\n\nJuly 1st.--After a futile attempt made by Mr. Gorst to show that Mr.\nGladstone's resolution was a disorderly one, the Premier, in moving it\nsaid, in the course of an extremely fair speech, that the allegation of\nmembers that Mr. Bradlaugh had thrust his opinions upon the House was\nuntrue. His (Mr. Bradlaugh's) reference to the Acts under which he\nclaimed to affirm had only been named in answer to a question from the\nclerk of the House. Sir Erskine May, in his evidence before the recent\ncommittee, stated that Mr. Bradlaugh simply claimed to affirm.\n\nSir Stafford Northcote admitted that when Mr. Bradlaugh was called upon\nto affirm he was not disrespectful, but firm. He opposed the resolution\nas humiliating to the House. Several members protested against any course\nfor facilitating the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh. General Burnaby stated\nthat in order to obtain \"authoritative\" opinions on the matter he had\nobtained letters or telegrams from the Moravian body, the Bishop of\nLondon, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ossory, the Bishop of Ratho, the\nArchbishop of Dublin, the Bishop of Galway, and the Bishop of Argyle and\nthe Isles, and the Secretary of the Pope of Rome, all of whom expressed\nthemselves in the strongest terms against the admission of an Atheist\ninto Parliament. Mr. Spurgeon, who was unfortunately from home, had\nexpressed his opinion strongly adverse to it, and the Chief Rabbi--(loud\nlaughter)--although refusing to interfere with political questions, felt\nvery deeply on the subject. (Laughter, and cries of \"the Sultan,\" and\n\"Shah.\")\n\nWhen the House divided the numbers were 303 for, and 249 against.\n\nJuly 2nd.--Mr. Bradlaugh takes the affirmation of allegiance, and his\nseat.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nDuring the struggle several hundreds of indignation meetings were held in\nLondon and the provinces, and petitions, letters, telegrams, etc., in\nimmense numbers, poured in upon the Government and the House, in favor of\nMr. Bradlaugh's rights.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nJuly 2nd.--Mr. Bradlaugh gives his first vote, and was thereupon served\nwith a writ to recover against him a penalty of L500 for having voted and\nsat without having made and subscribed the oath, the plaintiff being one\nHenry Lewis Clarke, who, as subsequently appeared, was merely the tool of\nthe actual common informer, Charles Newdigate Newdegate, M.P. This writ\nwas ready so quickly that, if not issued actually before Mr. Bradlaugh\nhad taken his seat, it must have been prepared beforehand.\n\nJuly 8th.--Mr. Norwood asks the first Lord of the Treasury whether,\nconsidering the Government declined to introduce a bill to amend the\nOaths Act, it would instruct the law officers of the Crown to defend the\njunior member for Northampton against the suit of the common informer.\nMr. Callan asked whether the Government would remit the penalty. Mr.\nGladstone said no application had been received for remission of the\npenalties, and that his reply to Mr. Norwood must be in the negative.\n\nJuly 14th.--Read first time in the House of Commons, a bill \"to\nincapacitate from sitting in Parliament any person who has by deliberate\npublic speaking, or by published writing, systematically avowed his\ndisbelief in the existence of a supreme being.\" It was prepared and\nintroduced by Sir Eardley Wilmot, Mr. Alderman Fowler and Mr. Hicks.\nOwing to an informality the Bill could not come on for second reading.\n\nThe Rev. Canon Abney, of Derby, speaks of Mr. Bradlaugh as \"the apostle\nof filth, impurity, and blasphemy.\"\n\nJuly 16th.--Parliament indemnifies Lord Byron against an action, he\nhaving sat and voted without being sworn.\n\nJuly 20th.--Sir Eardley Wilmot gives notice of moving that it is\nrepugnant to the constitution for an Atheist to become a member of \"this\nHonorable House.\" He afterwards postponed his motion.\n\nAt a meeting of the Dumfries Town Council, a member said: \"If the law\ncourts should decide that it was legal for an Atheist to sit in the House\nof Commons, he should feel it is duty to give notice of petition to\nParliament to have the law altered; he would not allow Mr. Bradlaugh to\ngo into a hundred acre field beside cattle, let alone the House of\nCommons.\"\n\nThe Rev. Chas. Voysey writes, that he feels disgraced by the people of\nNorthampton electing Mr. Bradlaugh, and declares that \"most of the\nspeeches in the Bradlaugh case in favor of his exclusion, strike me as\nsingularly good, wholesome and creditable.\" He repeats the myth of Mr.\nBradlaugh forcing his objections to the oath upon the House.\n\nJuly 21st.--Sir John Hay, M.P., speaking about Mr. Bradlaugh at New\nGalloway, made a most infamous, cowardly, and uncalled for attack on Mrs.\nBesant. The _Scotsman_ refused to print the remarks, as \"the language was\nso coarse that it could hardly have dropped from a Yahoo.\"\n\nAug. 1st.--The _Nineteenth Century_ prints \"An Englishman's Protest,\"\nwritten by Cardinal Manning, personally directed against Mr. Bradlaugh.\n\nAug. 24th.--Mr. Bradlaugh gives notice that early next session he will\ncall attention to perpetual pensions.\n\nSept. 7th.--Parliament prorogued. Hansard credits Mr. Bradlaugh with\nabout twenty speeches during the Session. (Mr. Newdegate told the\nLicensed Victuallers that Mr. Bradlaugh \"had made one speech, and proved\nhimself a second or third-rate speaker.\")\n\n\n1881.\n\nJan. 6th.--Parliament reopens. Mr. Bradlaugh renews his notice as to\nperpetual pensions. Great interest in the question throughout the\nkingdom.\n\nJan. 24th.--Mr. Bradlaugh makes a speech in the House of Commons against\nCoercion in Ireland.\n\nJan. 31st.--Mr. Newdegate, speaking in the House, described Northampton\nas an \"oasis in the Midland Counties.\"\n\nFeb. 4th.--Mr. Bradlaugh makes a speech against the second reading of the\nCoercion Bill, and concluded by moving that it be read that day six\nmonths.\n\nFeb. 15th.--Date of motion for inquiry into perpetual pensions fixed for\nMarch 15th. (When the day arrived Mr. Bradlaugh, on an appeal from Mr.\nGladstone, allowed the motion to be postponed, in order to allow supply\nto be taken. 848 petitions had been presented to the House, with 251,332\nsignatures in favor of the motion.)\n\nFeb. 17th.--Mr. Dawson, M.P. for Carlow, said that Irish members were\nmuch indebted to Mr. Bradlaugh for what he had done on the Coercion Bill.\n\nFeb. 25th.--Mr. Bradlaugh made final speech against third reading of the\nCoercion Bill.\n\nMarch 7th.--The case of Clarke _v._ Bradlaugh heard by Mr. Justice\nMathew.\n\nMarch 10th.--Mr. Bradlaugh brought before the House the case of the\nimprisoned Maoris.\n\nMarch 11th.--Judgment in the case given, which was for the plaintiff,\nthat he was entitled to recover the penalty, subject to appeal. Mr.\nBradlaugh gave notice of appeal.\n\nMr. Gorst gave notice to move that Mr. Speaker issue his warrant for new\nwrit for the borough of Nottingham [!].\n\nMarch 14th.--Upon Mr. Bradlaugh rising to present petitions against\nperpetual pensions, signed by over 7,000 persons, Mr. Gorst rose to\norder, on the ground that the seat for Northampton was vacant. After\ndiscussion the Speaker called upon Mr. Bradlaugh to proceed with the\npresentation of his petitions.\n\nMarch 15th.--At request of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Bradlaugh postponed his\nmotion for enquiry into perpetual pensions.\n\nMarch 23rd.--Mr. Bradlaugh moved the Court of Appeal to expedite the\nhearing of his appeal, and also to expedite the trial of the issues in\nfact. The Court gave the appeal priority over other cases.\n\nMarch 28th.--Mr. Bradlaugh made his last speech in the House against\nflogging in the Army.\n\nMarch 30th.--Appeal heard.\n\nMarch 31st.--Judgment given against the defendant. Plaintiff not yet\nentitled to execution, but seat vacated, Mr. Bradlaugh undertaking not to\nappeal so far as the affirmation was concerned.\n\nMr. Bradlaugh again seeks the suffrages of the electors of Northampton.\n\nApril 6th.--The Tories serve notice on the Mayor not to accept Mr.\nBradlaugh's nomination, which the Mayor disregarded. Mr. Edward Corbett\nnominated by Tories.\n\nApril 9th.--Mr. Bradlaugh re-elected by 3,437 votes to Corbett 3,305.\n\nApril 26th.--Mr. Bradlaugh, accompanied by Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Burt,\ncame to the table of the House, and, \"the book\" having been handed to\nhim, was about to take the oath when Sir Stafford Northcote interposing,\nhe was requested to withdraw, in order that the House might consider the\nnew conditions under which the oath was proposed to be taken. Mr.\nBradlaugh withdrew to the bar of the House, and Sir Stafford Northcote\nmoved that he be not allowed to go through the form of taking the oath.\nMr. Davey moved and Mr. Labouchere seconded an amendment to the effect\nthat where a person who had been duly elected presented himself at the\ntable to take the oath he ought not to be prevented from doing so by\nanything extraneous to the transaction. Other members spoke, and Mr.\nBright regretted \"the almost violent temper with which some hon.\ngentlemen came to the consideration of the question.\"\n\nMr. Bradlaugh, speaking at the bar, claimed that his return was\nuntainted, that it had not been brought about by the Liberal party, but\nby the help of the people, by the pence of toilers in mine and factory.\nHe begged the House not to plunge into a struggle with him, which he\nwould shun. Strife was easy to begin, but none knew where it would end.\nThere was no legal disqualification upon him, and they had no right to\nimpose a disqualification which was less than legal.\n\nMr. Gladstone made a lengthy and fine speech in favor of Mr. Bradlaugh,\nthe text of which was Mr. Bradlaugh's own words given above as to\nimposition of a new disqualification; on a division, however, the bigots\nagain had it.\n\nMr. Bradlaugh again stepped to the table, and demanded the administration\nof the oath, refusing to obey the Speaker's order to withdraw. Sir\nStafford Northcote asked the Prime Minister whether he proposed to offer\nthe House any counsel. Mr. Gladstone said he should leave it to the\nmajority to carry out the effects of their vote. Eventually the Speaker\ncalled upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove Mr. Bradlaugh, who during the\ndebate had been standing at the table. Mr. Bradlaugh withdrawing with the\nSergeant three times to the bar, as often returned to the table. After\nfurther passages at arms between Mr. Gladstone and Sir Stafford\nNorthcote, the House adjourned.\n\nApril 27th.--Mr. Bradlaugh again found at the table of the House claiming\nto be allowed to take the oath. At the bidding of the Speaker the\nSergeant-at-Arms again caused Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw to the bar, where\nhe remained during the discussion which followed.\n\nMr. Labouchere asked the Prime Minister whether he would give him\nreasonable facilities to introduce his Affirmation Bill, if so Mr.\nBradlaugh would not interfere with the resolution passed last night.\n\nMr. Gladstone said the giving facility for that purpose, meant the\npostponement of very serious and very urgent business, and he had no\nassurance as to the disposition of the House. He could not see his way to\nconsent if it was to be an opposed Bill. After further discussion,\nhowever, Mr. Gladstone said it might be possible to test the feeling of\nthe House by one or more morning sittings.\n\nApril 29th.--Mr. Gladstone announces the intention of the Government of\nbringing in a bill amending the Parliamentary Oaths Act.\n\nMay 2nd.--The Attorney-General moved that the House resolve itself into\ncommittee with a view of his asking leave to introduce the Bill. Debate\non motion adjourned to the 5th with the view of fixing the time on the\n6th, when the discussion should be resumed.\n\nMr. MacIver gave notice to ask the Prime Minister whether he was prepared\nto reconsider his decision of last session, and will introduce \"a short\nmeasure\" for the partial disfranchisement of Northampton. (The question\nwas never put.)\n\nMay 6th.--Further obstruction of the Bigots.\n\nMay 10th.--After 1.15 a.m. the Government proposed a morning sitting for\nthat day (Tuesday), to discuss the introduction of their Bill. Further\nobstruction, wrath, and bitterness, and the Government abandoned the\nintention to hold a morning sitting.\n\nAt the afternoon sitting a resolution was arrived at, which authorised\nthe Sergeant-at-Arms to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from entering the House.\n\nLord Selborne (Lord Chancellor) in reply to a letter relative to Mr.\nBradlaugh and the oath, says equal justice is due to Christian and\ninfidel; he saw no possibility of refusing to afford by legislation to\nall who scruple to take the oath, the same option in Parliament as they\nhave in courts of law, to make an affirmation.\n\nMay 25th.--Mr. Newdegate formally blocked the Bill, of which Mr.\nLabouchere gave notice, for indemnifying Mr. Bradlaugh against penalties\nfor having sat and voted on affirmation.\n\nJune 19th and 20th.--The common informer's action tried at _Nisi prius_\nbefore Mr. Justice Grove. Verdict against Mr. Bradlaugh for penalty and\ncosts.--_Rule nisi_ for new trial afterwards, granted by Justices Grove\nand Lindley; this rule was made absolute by Justices Denman and Hawkins,\nbut was set aside by Lords Justices Brett, Cotton and Holker.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMr. Bradlaugh appeals to the country. The country answers.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAug. 3rd.--Mr. Bradlaugh, acting on his right to enter the House of\nCommons, is seized at the door of the House by fourteen men, police and\nushers (Inspector Denning said ten), and roughly hustled out into Palace\nYard, Mr. Bradlaugh protesting against such treatment as illegal. \"In the\npassage leading out to the yard Mr. Bradlaugh's coat was torn down on the\nright side; his waistcoat was also pulled open, and otherwise his toilet\nwas much disarranged. The members flocked down the stairs on the heels of\nthe struggling party, but no pause was made until Mr. Bradlaugh was\nplaced outside the precincts and in Palace Yard.\"--_Times._ Alderman\nFowler was heard to call, \"Kick him out.\" This he afterwards denied, but\nthere is evidence that he did so. (Mr. Bradlaugh suffered the rupture of\nthe small muscles of both his arms, and erysipelas ensued).\n\nMany thousands of people went up to the House with petitions, urging the\nHouse to do justice to Northampton and Mr. Bradlaugh.\n\nIn the House Mr. Labouchere moved a resolution condemning, as an\ninterference with the privilege of members, the action of the authorities\nin expelling Mr. Bradlaugh from the lobby. This was rejected by 191\nvotes against 7, and a motion of Sir Henry Holland, declaring the\napproval of the House of the course taken by the Speaker, was agreed to\nwithout controversy.\n\nAt a crowded meeting at the Hall of Science the same evening Mr.\nBradlaugh stated that he had told Inspector Denning in Palace Yard that\nhe could come back with force enough to gain admittance, but that he had\nno right to risk the lives and liberties of his supporters.\n\nAug. 4th.--The _Times_ declares, in an article favorable on the whole to\nMr. Bradlaugh's claims, that the House of Commons was yesterday the real\nsufferer in dignity, authority, and repute. It says: \"the question\ncontains within itself the baleful germ of a grave constitutional contest\nbetween the House of Commons and any constituency in the land;\" and \"such\na conflict can but have one conclusion, as all history shows.\"\n\nThe _Daily News_, in a similar article, concludes thus: \"Sooner or later\nit will be generally acknowledged that Mr. Bradlaugh's exclusion was one\nof the most high-handed acts of which any legislative body has ever been\nguilty.\"\n\nThe following unique paragraph from _The Rock_ is worth preserving in its\noriginal form: \"The question now is whether the Christian people of this\nrealm will quietly allow clamorous groups of infidels, Radicals, and\nseditionists, by organised clamor, bluster, and menace, to overawe the\nlegislature, and by exhibitions of violence--not at all unlikely, if\npermitted to develop into outrage and riot--to cause an organic and vital\nchange to be made in our Constitution and laws, in order that\nbrazen-faced Atheism might display itself within the walls of the British\nParliament.\"\n\nMr. E. D. Girdlestone writes: \"If the present Cabinet does not secure\nyour admission to the House in some way or other, I can only wish they\nmay soon be turned out of office. I don't know what more I can do than\nsay, 'Go on! and go in!'\"\n\nAug. 5th.--Mr. Bradlaugh's application at Westminster Police Court for\nsummons against Inspector, for having assaulted him at the House of\nCommons on the 3rd inst., refused.\n\nMr. Bradlaugh confined to the House with severe erysipelas in both arms,\nresulting from the injuries inflicted. Attended by Drs. Ramskill and\nPalfrey. The latter, on August 12th, ordered his immediate removal from\ntown, to prevent yet more dangerous complications.\n\nAug. 13th.--Mr. Bradlaugh went to Worthing to recruit his health. Outside\nthe station there, weary and exhausted, both arms in a sling, he was\nrudely stared at by a clergyman, who, having satisfied himself as to Mr.\nBradlaugh's identity, walked away saying loudly: \"There's Bradlaugh; I\nhope they'll make it warm for him yet.\"\n\nThe _Northern Star_ (a Tory paper) suggested that Mr. Bradlaugh was\nmalingering--\"simply carrying on the showman business.\"\n\nAug. 24th.--Sir Henry Tyler, in the House of Commons, attempts to\ndiscredit the South Kensington department for allowing science and art\nclasses at the Hall of Science. Mr. Mundella gives those classes great\ncredit.\n\nAug. 27th.--Parliament prorogued.\n\nFurther appeal to England.\n\n\n1882.\n\nJan. 9th.--The Earl of Derby, in a speech at the Liverpool Reform Club,\nsays: \"For my part I utterly disbelieve in the value of political\noaths.... I should hope that if Mr. Bradlaugh again offers to take the\noath, as he did last year, there will be no further attempt to prevent\nhim.\"\n\nFeb. 7th.--Reopening of Parliament. Mr. Bradlaugh again attended at the\ntable to take the oath, and Sir Erskine May, the clerk of the House, was\nabout to administer the same when Sir Stafford Northcote, interposing,\nmoved that Mr. Bradlaugh be not allowed to go through the form. Sir W.\nHarcourt, in moving the previous question, said the Government held the\nview that the House had no right to interpose between a duly-elected\nmember and the oath.\n\nMr. Bradlaugh, addressing the House from the bar for the third time,\nbegged the House to deal with him with some semblance and show of\nlegality and fairness. He concluded: \"I want to obey the law, and I tell\nyou how I might meet the House still further, if the House will pardon me\nfor seeming to advise it. Hon. members had said that an Affirmation Bill\nwould be a Bradlaugh Relief Bill. Bradlaugh is more proud than you are.\nLet the Bill pass without applying to elections that have taken place\npreviously, and I will undertake not to claim my seat, and when the Bill\nhas passed I will apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. I have no fear. If I\nam not fit for my constituents they shall dismiss me, but you never\nshall. The grave alone shall make me yield.\"\n\nWhen a division was taken there were for the previous question 228,\nagainst 286. Mr. Samuel Morley voted with the majority against the\nGovernment. Sir Stafford Northcote's motion was then agreed to without a\ndivision.\n\nFeb. 8th.--Mr. Labouchere, in committee of the whole House, proposed for\nleave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of Parliamentary Oaths and\nAffirmations. The Bill was afterwards formally blocked by Mr. Molloy.\n\nFeb. 17th.--Mr. Labouchere asked the Attorney-General whether the\nresolution of Feb. 7th had not vacated the seat. Sir Henry James answered\nthat it had not.\n\nFeb. 18th.--Mr. Gladstone writes Mr. Bradlaugh that the Government have\nno measure to propose with respect to his seat.\n\nFeb. 21st.--Mr. Bradlaugh of himself takes and subscribes the oath, and\ntakes his seat.\n\nFeb. 22nd.--Mr Bradlaugh expelled the House of Commons.\n\nMar. 2nd--Re-elected for Northampton. For Bradlaugh, 3,796; for Corbett,\n3,688.\n\nMar. 6th.--On the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, the House reaffirms\nits motion of the 7th Feb., Mr. Gladstone supporting an amendment moved\nby Mr. Marjoribanks, by which the House would have declared the\ndesirability of legislation, for the purpose of giving members an option\nbetween oath and affirmation.\n\nMar. 7th.--Lord Redesdale introduces in the House of Lords a Bill,\nrequiring every peer and every member of the House of Commons before\ntaking the oath or making the affirmation, to declare and affirm his\nbelief in Almighty God. The Bill, introduced \"from a sense of what was\ndue to Almighty God,\" was afterwards withdrawn \"in deference to Lord\nSalisbury.\"\n\nTo this date, 317 petitions with 62,168 signatures had been presented\nagainst Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take his seat; while in favor of\nthe same 1,051, with 250,833 signatures, had been presented.\n\nMr. Labouchere's Affirmation Bill blocked by Earl Percy.\n\n\n1883\n\nJan. 11th.--Mr. Justice Field gave judgment that the privileges of the\nHouse of Commons prevented Mr. Bradlaugh from obtaining any redress for\nthe assault upon him on August 3rd, 1881.\n\nFeb. 15th.--Great demonstration in Trafalgar Square; from eighty to one\nhundred thousand people present. (_Evening Standard_ says 30,000; _Daily\nNews_, 50,000 an hour before the meeting.) Mr. Adams, chairman; Rev. W.\nSharman, Jos. Arch, and Mr. Bradlaugh, speakers.\n\nOpening of Parliament. (Mr. Gladstone at Cannes.) Government give notice\nfor to-morrow for leave to introduce bill to amend the Oaths Act, 1866.\nSir R. Cross gives notice of opposition on second reading of same. Mr.\nBradlaugh consents, with the approval of his constituents, expressed on\nthe 13th inst., to await the fate of the measure.\n\nFeb. 16th.--Sharp succession of frantic speeches in the House of Commons\nby Mr. Newdegate, Alderman Fowler, Mr. Warton, Mr. Henry Chaplin, Mr.\nOnslow, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Beresford Hope, Lord H. Lennox, Lord C.\nHamilton, Mr. A. Balfour, Mr. Ashmead Bartlett, and Mr. A. O'Connor.\nDivisions: from two to three to one for Government. The Marquis of\nHartington consents to adjourn the motion for Bill until Monday at\ntwelve.\n\nFeb. 18th.--The _Observer_ says that when Conservatives ask Liberals\nwhether they really mean to alter the law for the purpose of admitting\nMr. Bradlaugh, it is fair for Liberals in turn to ask Conservatives\nwhether they really mean to maintain an admitted abuse and injustice for\nthe mere purpose of excluding Mr. Bradlaugh.\n\nFeb. 19th.--First reading of Bill carried on division by 184 votes to 53;\nsecond reading formally fixed for that night week.\n\nFeb. 20th.--_Daily News_ says Bill will be carried by large majorities,\nand will be regarded by the House and the country as the appropriate\nsettlement of an unfortunate controversy.\n\nThe _Times_ says the leaders of the opposition will not succeed in\nfinally preventing the Bill from becoming law. Its real concern is that\nMr. Bradlaugh has been substantially in the right; that he has been\nunjustly excluded from taking the seat which belongs to him.\n\nThe _Morning Advertiser_ thinks the Government may yet find it difficult\nto persuade the House to adopt the Bill.\n\nThe _Morning Post_ justifies the irregular opposition to the first\nreading of the Bill, and thinks notice of the measure should have been\ngiven in the Queen's Speech. No measure had created more excitement or\nraised more indignation in the country, which desired to see it rejected\nby a decisive majority.\n\nMarch 5th.--Appeal case Bradlaugh _v._ Clarke part heard before the House\nof Lords.\n\nMarch 6th.--Case concluded; judgment deferred.\n\nMarch 9th.--Action for maintenance--Bradlaugh _v._ Newdegate--tried\nbefore Lord Coleridge and a special jury. Henry Lewis Clarke, the common\ninformer, swore that he had not the means to pay the costs, and would not\nhave brought the action if he had not been indemnified by Mr. Newdegate.\nCase adjourned for argument of legal points.\n\nMarch 17th.--Maintenance action argued; four counsel appearing for Mr.\nNewdegate. Lord Coleridge reserved judgment.\n\nMarch 20th.--The Solicitors to the Treasury compelled Mr. Bradlaugh to\npay the costs of the House of Commons in the action against the deputy\nSergeant-at-Arms.\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBERS' NOTES\n\n\n Page 58, 59: Variable spelling of Chipping Wicomb/Wycomb as in the\n   original\n Page 62: . added after \"brought up in custody\"\n Page 70: \" added after 'concluding with the words \"So help me, God'\n Page 75: \" removed after '27 L. J., Q. B., 195.'\n Page 83: aseembly corrected to assembly after \"may say again, that this\"\n Page 88: Extra the removed from \"lay it before the the Judges\"\n Page 96: \" added after 'the man who stands before them--('\n Page 100 (A Cardinal's Broken Oath Page 2): . added after E.C\n Page 104 (A Cardinal's Broken Oath Page 6): inuendoes as in the original\n Page 111 (Northampton and the House of Commons Page 5): , corrected to .\n   after \"personally give such undertaking\"\n Page 113 (Northampton and the House of Commons Page 7): . added after\n   \"sitting within its walls\"\n Page 121 (Northampton and the House of Commons Page 15): \" corrected to\n   ' after \"heirs and successors, according to law,\"\n Page 127 (Diary of the Northampton Struggle Page 5): . added after\n   '\"persons so admitted,\" etc'\n Page 133 (Diary of the Northampton Struggle Page 11): v. italicised for\n   consistency after \"The case of Clarke\"\n Page 140 (Diary of the Northampton Struggle Page 18): v. italicised for\n   consistency after \"Appeal case Bradlaugh\" and after \"Action for\n   maintenance--Bradlaugh\"\n General: Variable spelling of Serjeant-at-Arms/Sergeant-at-Arms as in\n   the original\n General: There are several words, which would normally have been spelt\n   with a \"u\" in British English, which have been spelt without in the\n   original text e.g. humor, endeavored, savor. These spellings have been\n   preserved.\n General: Variable spelling of Lewis Price/Pryse as in the original\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The True Story of My Parliamentary Struggle","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":50082}