§ MR. BRADLAUGHrose in his place, to present a Petition, when—
MR. GORST, interposing, said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I submit that the Gentleman who has just risen, for the purpose of presenting a Petition to this House, is not a Member of this House, and as such cannot present a Petition. I will give very shortly my reasons for thinking that the House should come to the determination that it is impossible for the Gentleman who has just risen to present a Petition. It will be in the recollection of the House that last Session the Gentleman in question came to the Table of the House, claiming the right to make a solemn Affirmation in lieu of taking the Oath prescribed by law. A Committee of the House of Commons was appointed, which considered whether the claim to make a solemn Affirmation in lieu of the Oath was founded upon any legal right. The Committee reported to the House that the Gentleman in question had no legal right to make the 893 Affirmation. That finding of the Committee was afterwards adopted by a Resolution of this House, and it stands now upon the Records of this House that no Gentleman in the position of the Gentleman in question has a legal right to make a solemn Affirmation in lieu of the Oath prescribed by law. It was afterwards, by a Resolution of the House, determined that Mr. Bradlaugh might at his own risk and peril—
§ MR. BRADLAUGHI rise to Order. There is no such Resolution on the Books of the House.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman can speak of a Member of this House by his name?
§ MR. CALLANalso rose to Order. May I also ask—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Member for Chatham is speaking to a point of Order.
MR. GORSTI am sorry that I have not got the terms of the Resolution; but it was practically this: that the Gentleman in question—I really do not wish to be offensive; I would call him the "hon. Member," but it would be inconsistent with my argument, and I will, therefore, call him the "Gentleman in question"—might, if he pleased, make a solemn Affirmation and take his seat; but at his own peril, and without prejudice to consideration by a Court of Law. Now, on Friday last, the decision of the High Court was given, and was in accordance with the opinion of the Committee and of the House itself, that the Gentleman had no right to make a solemn Affirmation in lieu of taking the Oath prescribed by law. Therefore, the first vote he gave, and the first day he sat in this House, the seat for Northampton became by law vacant, exactly as if the holder of it were dead. The seat did not become vacant on Friday last, but on the first occasion when Mr. Bradlaugh gave a vote in this House. What I submit to the House is that, under the circumstances, when its own Committee has determined that he is not entitled to make an Affirmation, when the House itself has confirmed by Resolution the opinion of that Committee, and when a Court of Law in this country has decided that he is not en- 894 titled to make an Affirmation instead of an Oath, he ought not to sit and vote and take part in the proceedings of this House as long as the opinions and judgments of the Committee, the House, and the Court of Law remain uncontradicted and unreversed. I have heard that it is the intention of Mr. Bradlaugh to appeal; but I know of my own knowledge that no notice of appeal whatever has, up to the present time, been given. [Mr. BRADLAUGH rose to explain; but being received with loud cries of "Order!" sat down again.] I have heard from the best authorities that an hour ago no notice of appeal had been given; but I do not care about the appeal. It seems to me that when the matter is sub judice, it is so on one side as well as the other; and, at all events, until the judgment of the Court, which has confirmed the opinion of this House, be reversed, the Gentleman has no right to take part in the proceedings of this House in any matter whatever. If it should be the pleasure of the House, I should have no objection to moving for a Committee to inquire whether Mr. Bradlaugh has the right to sit and vote; but until some notice has been taken of this matter by the House, I submit that, as a matter of Order, he ought not to be permitted to sit and vote in this House.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)I am aware that it is very inconvenient to enter upon anything approaching a discussion on a subject like this on a point of Order. I ask your permission, Sir, to speak to the point of Order; and I hope the House will allow me very briefly to state my views in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. It is a matter which would have been better discussed on the Motion of which the hon. and learned Member has given Notice, to issue a New Writ for Northampton; for, on that Motion, hon. Members would have been able to express their opinions more fully than they can on a point of Order. I will, however, confine myself strictly to the point of Order. My hon. and learned Friend correctly says a Committee decided that the hon. Member for Northampton was not entitled to make an Affirmation; but he will also recollect that on the 1st of July, 1880, the House came to a Resolution, general in its 895 terms, giving to a Member who claimed it permission to make Affirmation, subject to the risk of penalties imposed by law. It was under that Resolution, wiping away the previous Resolution, that the hon. Member for Northampton took his seat. He has sat and voted under that Resolution ever since; and if my hon. and learned Friend is correct in basing his objection on the opinion of the Committee and the confirmatory vote of this House, he should have taken that objection on those grounds earlier, any time since last July down to the present. The hon. and learned Member must, therefore, rest his argument on the decision given by a Court of Law on Friday last. I quite agree that although it is a judgment by way of demurrer, it determines that, in the opinion of the learned Judge, the hon. Member for Northampton has not relieved himself from the necessity of taking the Oath, because he was not entitled to make an Affirmation the equivalent of the Oath. I quite admit that, by the effect of that judgment, construing the Statute of 1866, the Membership for Northampton is now vacant as if the holder of it were dead. What effect, then, ought this House to give to that judgment? I submit that when the Resolution of the 1st of July was passed, the intention of the House was that the right of every Member to make Affirmation, if he made it under protest, should be determined by the legal tribunals. A judgment has now been given by the Court of First Instance, and the Judge himself stayed execution of the judgment in every respect, in order that the opinion of the Court of Appeal might be taken. It is the inherent right of every subject, when his rights are in question, that the Court of First Instance shall not determine them finally, but that the Courts of Appeal should be the ultimate tribunals to determine them; and if an action of ejectment were brought against a person to recover an estate, the judgment of the Court of First Instance would not be conclusive, for the Court of Appeal would have power to reverse it. If for the word "estate" you will substitute, "status," you will see the position which the hon. Member for Northampton occupies at this moment. He is entitled to have the judgment of the Court of Appeal to determine his right, and until that judg- 896 ment is given I submit that he has a right to take his seat in this House. The contention of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham might, if successful, place the House under great difficulty. If you were to decide that the seat for Northampton is vacant, of course a New Writ would issue and a Member be elected, and if in three weeks from this time the Court of Appeal decided that the judgment of the Court of First Instance was wrong, what position would this House be placed in? If the present hon. Member were not returned again, we should have practically two Members for Northampton. There would be one sitting by virtue of the real election, which would never have been vacated, because the Court of Appeal would have held that the judgment was wrong, and would treat it as if had never been given, and that there was no vacancy; and yet there would be a second newly-elected Member. It is a matter for your determination alone. I respectfully submit that the greatest inconvenience would result to the House and the greatest injustice to the hon. Member, and, above all, to his constituents, if you deprive him of the inherent right of every subject of the Crown to appeal from one Court of Law to another.
§ SIR JOHN HOLKERIt seems to me, Sir, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has mistaken the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The question which the hon. and learned Member desires to bring to the attention of the House is, not whether there shall be a New Writ issued for Northampton; but whether, a Court of competent jurisdiction having decided that the hon. Gentleman who was Member for Northampton is not Member for Northampton, but that his seat is vacant, it is seemly on the part of the House altogether to ignore that decision, and allow the hon. Gentleman to exercise the same rights and privileges as if no decision had been given? Of course, if the hon. Gentleman be allowed to do what we all suppose he intends to do—that is, to remain in the House—he will influence the House in the course of its debates. He is a Gentleman of great intellectual power. He is a practised speaker, and has shown that he will very likely exercise considerable influ- 897 ence in debate; and he is to be allowed to do all this when, according to the decision of a Court of Law of competent jurisdiction, he is not a Member of the House. More than that, he would be allowed to vote on every question which arose as though he were a Member of the House; whereas, actually, he is not a Member of the House at all. All that is asked now is, not that there should be a New Writ for Northampton; but that the hon. Gentleman shall not sit and vote in this House until it has been decided whether that would be within his right or not.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI hope the House will permit me to say a few words, as my hon. Colleague is unable to speak. Perhaps I may be allowed to read a letter which I have received from him, and which will reply to the observation of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that no notice had been given of my hon. Colleague's intention to pursue the appeal in this case. Mr. Bradlaugh writes to me as follows:—
March 12, 1880. My dear Labouchere,—May I trouble you to say to the House, if Mr. Gorst proceeds with his Motion, that I have instructed my solicitor to give the necessary notice of appeal in the action against me on account of Henry Lewis Clarke, and that I undertake to prosecute that appeal in due form and without delay? Will you add that while I protest against any attempt to declare my seat vacant, as creating an improper embarrassment in the legal procedure still pending, I am quite willing, in order to avoid the waste of public time by a purely personal conflict, to voluntarily vacate the seat and at once submit myself to the judgment of my constituents? I wish in all this to show due respect to the House, while safeguarding my legal and constitutional rights and duties. So long as I have the honour to be one of the Representatives of the borough of Northampton it is my clear duty to sit and vote at all risks and perils.—Yours very sincerely,C. BRADLAUGH.The hon. Gentleman owes duties, not only to this House and himself, but also to the constituency which he represents. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Sir John Holker) to say that the hon. Member in question should remain suspended from the service of the House, and that Northampton should be deprived of one of its Representatives until the appeal is decided; but I, as the other Member for Northampton, protest in the name of the constituency against such a course. 898 It would be most unfair to the constituency. I am not a lawyer myself, and perhaps that is the reason why I do not particularly appreciate the legal observations of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham; but it appeared to me that they were entirely overthrown by the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. The Court that has decided against Mr. Bradlaugh is a Court of First Instance. Mr. Bradlaugh, as I have shown by his letter, intends to prosecute his appeal from the decision of that Court, and it can hardly be fairly said that the matter is judicially decided so long as he intends to go to a higher Court. I will take the case of an estate. Supposing that I were sued for the possession of an estate. I should not be deprived of that estate by an adverse decision of a Court of First Instance, if I gave notice of my intention to appeal. The position of a defendant or appellant remains unaffected pending the appeal. Besides, there was a clear understanding between the House and my hon. Colleague. He was told that the House would not pronounce an opinion on the question whether he might affirm or not, but that he might do so at his own risk and peril. He did affirm at his own risk and peril, and he is quite willing to accept the ultimate decision of the Courts on the case; but I appeal to the sense of fair play of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House not to allow the matter to be prejudiced pendente lite.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLSir, there are two or three facts which should be brought to the notice of the House. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham, on Friday last, gave Notice of a Motion for the issue of a New Writ for Northampton, he did so under the belief that it was not the determination of the "Gentleman in question" to sit and vote in this House, and it was my hon. and learned Friend's intention to at once take the decision of the House upon that Motion. But there was on Friday an understanding, which was greatly strengthened by the fact that the "Gentleman in question" did not appear in the House alter my hon. and learned Friend had given his Notice, that while the matter was pendente lite the Member for Northampton did not intend to take part in the proceed- 899 ings of the House. [Mr. BRADLAUGH dissented.] My hon. and learned Friend did not wish either unfairly to prejudice the question, or raise a debate which would embarrass the Government. But the case is different to-day, when my hon. and learned Friend comes down to the House and finds that the Gentleman who was Member for Northampton is in his place, taking part in the Business of the House, and evidently intending to vote and speak on any question which may come before the House. Upon that, my hon. and learned Friend had no choice but to raise the question immediately. I am perfectly certain that if the Gentleman who was Member for Northampton would consent to consider his status sub judice while the House considered the issue of a Writ premature, my hon. and learned Friend would not trouble the House further on this point of Order. I submit that if the House is willing to forego the issue of the Writ, the hon. Member should be willing to withdraw from the House pending his appeal. Of course, I do not distrust or throw doubt on any statement made by the Member for Northampton, or his Representative, the senior Member for that Borough; but I submit that the House has no security whatever that an appeal will be lodged, at any rate, before the expiration of nearly the whole of the 12 months' interval allowed by the law. It is, therefore, in the power of the Gentleman against whom judgment has been given not to appeal for that time, during which he might be taking part in the proceedings of this House, and voting on most important questions.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH[Cries of "Order, order!"]: Mr. Speaker—
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEI understand, Mr. Speaker, not having been present when the matter arose, that a Question has been put to you on a point of Order. It would be greatly to the advantage of the House if you were able at once to decide that point; and it would be very undesirable that we should, in the present state of affairs, expend more time than is absolutely necessary on this subject. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend who has given Notice to move for a New Writ will not on the present occasion make that Motion, but that we shall have another opportunity of discussing 900 the very serious question which he raises. Its discussion would take up much time; and he will feel that there are many reasons why it is not desirable to bring it forward again to-day.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHagain rose, this time simultaneously with the Speaker, and the hon. Gentleman at once gave way.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Northampton rises in his place. I presume the House will extend its indulgence to him, and desire that he be heard.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHI only desire to say, as a matter of fact, that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was misinformed in saying that no notice of appeal had been given. I myself gave notice of appeal in Court to the learned counsel; and, on my giving it, the learned Judge who tried the case at once stayed execution. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) is either mistaken or misinformed as to the law. By the Rules of the Court, on an interlocutory judgment, I am bound to prosecute the appeal within 21 days, as the noble Lord would have discovered on reference to any ordinary law book.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) has appealed to me on a point of Order of great difficulty. He, in fact, desires me to state, upon the authority of the Chair, whether the seat for Northampton is vacant or not. That is a matter, not for the determination of the Chair, but for the determination of the House; and I feel bound to say this—that until the House shall otherwise order I should consider myself obliged to look upon the hon. Member for Northampton as filling the seat for Northampton. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham having interrupted the hon. Member for Northampton while he was presenting a Petition to the House, it is my duty now to call upon the hon. Member to proceed with the presentation of his Petition.
§ Mr. BRADLAUGH accordingly presented 53 Petitions, having 7,000 signatures, in favour of the Motion of which he had given Notice for inquiry into Perpetual Pensions, and which Petitions were ordered to lie upon the Table.