§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [21st May],
§
And which Amendment was,
To add, after the first word "That" in the Original Question, the words "Mr. Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, having claimed at the Table of this House to make an Affirmation or Declaration instead of the Oath prescribed by Law, founding his claim upon the terms of the Act 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and the Evidence Amendment Acts of 1869 and 1870, and stating that he had been permitted to affirm in Courts of Justice by virtue of the said Evidence Amendment Acts: And it having been referred to a Select Committee to consider and report their opinion whether persons entitled, under the provisions of the Evidence Amendment Act 1869 and the Evidence Amendment Act 1870, to make a solemn Declaration instead of an Oath in Courts of Justice, may be admitted to make an Affirmation or Declaration instead of an Oath in this House in pursuance of the Acts
448
29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72; And the said Committee having reported that in their opinion such persons cannot be admitted to make an Affirmation or Declaration instead of an Oath in pursuance of the said Acts:
And Mr. Bradlaugh having since come to the Table of the House for the purpose of taking the Oath prescribed by the 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and the 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, and objection having been made to his taking the said Oath, it be referred to a Select Committee to consider and report their opinion to the House whether the House has the right, founded on precedent or otherwise, by Resolution to prevent a duly elected Member who is willing to take the Oath prescribed by 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, from so doing; and, if they are of opinion the House has such right, further to report whether it is competent to the House, under the above circumstances, to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh, by Resolution, from taking the above Oath."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after
Select Committee to," and add "inquire into and consider the facts and circumstances under which Mr. Bradlaugh claims to have the Oath prescribed by the 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, administered to him in this House, and also as to the Law applicable to such claim under such circumstances, and as to the right and jurisdiction of this House to refuse to allow the said form of the Oath to be administered to him, and to report thereon to the House, together with their opinion thereon.The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that his object in moving this Amendment was to give a wider scope to the inquiry before the Select Committee, so as to enable the House, on the Report of the Committee, to determine the broad question whether Mr. Bradlaugh, in the circumstances under which he sought to be sworn, was entitled to have the Oath put to him at the Table of the House.
§
Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment,
To leave out all the words after the words "Select Committee to," in line 4 of the second paragraph to the end of the said proposed Amendment, in order to add the words "inquire into and consider the facts and circumstances under which Mr. Bradlaugh claims to have the Oath prescribed by the 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, administered to him in this House, and also as to the Law applicable to such claim under such circumstances, and as to the right and jurisdiction of this House to refuse to allow the said form of the Oath to be administered to him, and to
449
report thereon to the House, together with their opinion thereon,"—(Mr. Watkin Williams,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the-words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he had placed some Amendments on the Paper; but as the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend sufficiently expressed his meaning he would not trouble the House with them.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought that the original Motion of the Prime Minister would raise everything suggested by the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. But as the hon. and learned Gentleman thought the words proposed by him would widen the scope of the inquiry, there was no objection on the part of the Government to accept his Amendment. He hoped the House would understand that the Government, in accepting the Amendment, were not in any way falling back from any position they had taken up. They did so simply for the purpose of avoiding any unnecessary prolongation of the debate.
§ SIR HENRY TYLERsuggested that after the words "Mr. Bradlaugh claims" in the Amendment there should be inserted the words "after having previously claimed to make an Affirmation;" because without the insertion of those words the Instruction to the Committee would be in the highest sense ambiguous.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the point raised by the hon. Member was stated quite plainly in the Preamble of the Resolution.
MR. GORSTobjected to the words "together with their opinion thereon" in the proposed Amendment. If the Attorney General would refer to former cases in which questions of this kind had been dealt with in a Committee, he would find that they reported upon the facts and the law, and did not give their opinion to the House.
MR. GLADSTONEstated that it was strictly in accordance with precedent to give the Committee power to report its opinion to the House; and, therefore, he thought the words should be retained.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwas informed that the word "adminis- 450 ter" was not technically correct; that hon. Members had not the Oath administered to them, but had a right to come up to the Table and take the Oath themselves.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he must congratulate the noble Lord on the acumen he had displayed. He thought the words "to take the Oath" were more correct than the words "to have the Oath administered to him." Probably his hon. and learned Friend who had proposed the Amendment would consent to an alteration of it in accordance with the suggestion of the noble Lord.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§
Question,
That the words 'inquire into and consider the facts and circumstances under which Mr. Bradlaugh claims to have the Oath prescribed by the 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, administered to him in this House, and also as to the Law applicable to such claim under such circumstances, and as to the right and jurisdiction of this House to refuse to allow the said form of the Oath to be administered to him, and to report thereon to the House, together with their opinion thereon,' be there added, instead thereof," put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
MR. GLADSTONEWith regard to the nomination of the Committee, I had thought that the course which would be most acceptable to hon. Members opposite, and most likely to secure the unanimity of the House, would have been to re-appoint the former Committee exactly as it stood—that is to say, the Committee which reported adversely to Mr. Brad-laugh—and in taking that course I felt that I was in some degree compromising the opinions of the majority of the House. Since I came to that conclusion, however, I have learnt from the Opposition Benches that there is a desire on the part of the Members of the Opposition that a change should be made in the names in one or two instances. In order, therefore, to allow Notice to be given of the fresh names, I propose to postpone the Motion for the nomination of the Committee until Thursday next; and I hope that in the meantime such communications may pass between hon. Members opposite and those sitting on these Benches as may insure harmonious action on the part of the House.
§ MR. SPENCER WALPOLEinquired whether it had been decided that the hon. Member should or should not be heard by counsel?
MR. GLADSTONEI presume that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish for an answer at this moment. We will take the matter into consideration.