RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 03 August 1881 vol 264 cc695-720

MR. LABOUCHERE

I rise, Sir, on a question of Privilege. I was standing in the Lobby just now, when I saw Mr. Bradlaugh, a duly elected Member of this House, come into the Lobby. He attempted to go into the House. He said he considered he had a right to do so, derived from his being an elected Member of this House. He was then hurried out of the Lobby by the officials of the House; and I am given to understand that he is not to be allowed to re-enter the Lobby. On the 10th of May the following Resolution was passed by this House:— That the Serjeant at Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh from the House until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House. That Resolution was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), and it will be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that I asked him if he would be good enough to explain what he meant by "the House." The right hon. Gentleman said— I, therefore, by my Motion, propose that Mr. Bradlaugh shall be excluded from the House—that is, that he shall not come within the door that is kept by the doorkeepers, until or unless he shall undertake to the Speaker that he will not disturb the proceedings of the House."—[3 Hansard, cclxi. 182.] Of course, that excludes Mr. Bradlaugh from coming within these doors; but I apprehend that it does not exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from coming within the Lobby at the other side of the door, and that, in order to prevent him from doing so, it would be necessary that a Resolution should be passed by the House. Of course, Sir, you will perceive that it is my duty to do all that I possibly can for my constituents in this matter, and I do not wish to do anything that would be out of Order.

MR. SPEAKER

I presume the hon. Member will conclude with a Motion; otherwise he will not be in Order.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Yes, Sir, I will conclude with a Motion; but I want to keep to the Rules of the House, and I wish to know if I can conclude with the following Motion? If not, I will substitute another:— That, in the opinion of this House, the Resolution of the House passed 10th May last, 'that the Sergeant at Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh from the House until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House,' meant that Mr. Bradlaugh should not come within the outer door of this Chamber, and did not give any power to the Sergeant at Arms to hinder him from entering and remaining in all or any other portions of this edifice; and that, therefore, the Serjeant at Arms and the officers of the House acting under him, in excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from such other portions of the edifice, acted without the authority of this House, and in so doing interfered with the privileges inherent in Membership of this House, and from which no Member can be deprived without a Resolution of this House to that effect. I ask whether, under the circumstances, that is a matter of Privilege?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member will proceed.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Under these circumstances, I will move this Resolution. I am not entering into the question whether it would be the view of the House that Mr. Bradlaugh, having attempted to come within the door, should be forbidden to come within the precincts of the House; but I apprehend no statement has been made on behalf of the Serjeant-at-Arms to the House of what has transpired just now within the Lobby, or as to whether it is the intention of the Serjeant-at-Arms and the officers to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh henceforward from the Lobby. I venture respectfully to contend that the Serjeant-at-Arms cannot do that without a Resolution of the House. I, therefore, beg to propose the Resolution which I have just read.

MR. SPEAKER

Before putting the Resolution to the House, it is right that I should state that, by a Resolution passed by the House of Commons on the 10th of May, it was ordered— That the Serjeant at Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh. from the House until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House. This Order I carried out in a manner most considerate to Mr. Bradlangh, believing that that was the desire of the House. He was admitted to frequent the Lobby and other parts of the building in full reliance that he would not attempt to enter this House. On the 4th July he gave formal notice, in writing, to myself, to the Clerk of the House, and to the Serjeant-at-Arms, that on or before the 3rd instant he would again present himself at the Table, and would resist and endeavour to overcome any physical force used against him. In pursuance of the notice, he has this day come to the door of the House, and has endeavoured to force an entrance. The Serjeant-at-Arms and his officers, acting under my directions, have removed him from the door, and in order to prevent any further attempts to enter the House and restrain disorder in the approaches to the House, have conducted him beyond the precincts of the House. The question raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in his Motion is, whether in so directing the Serjeant-at-Arms I have exceeded, in my capacity as Speaker of this House, the Order of this House issued on the 10th of May? I have felt that I should not be giving full effect to that Order unless I had taken the course which I have taken this day.

MR. SPEAKER

Does any hon. Member second the Motion?

MR. ASHTON DILKE

seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, in the opinion of this House, the Resolution of the House passed 10th May last, 'That the Serjeant at Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh from the House, until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House,' meant that Mr. Bradlaugh should not come within the outer door of this Chamber, and did not give any power to the Serjeant at Arms to hinder him from entering and remaining in all or any other portions of this edifice, and that therefore the Serjeant at Arms and the Officers of the House acting under him, in excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from such other portions of the edifice, acted without the authority of this House, and in so doing interfered with the privileges inherent in Membership of this House, and from which no Member can be deprived without a Resolution of this House to that effect."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. GLADSTONE

This not being a question, Sir, of altering in principle the Resolution of the House which has been referred to either by extension or addition, I am not sure whether I should have risen at once on the Motion which has just been made. But the question appears to me to be one which the hon. Member for Northampton is perfectly justified in raising, from his point of view, as to your conduct, Sir, as the Chief Executive Officer of this House, in the interpretation you have put on the Resolution and in the performance of your duty. I pass no censure upon the hon. Member for Northampton for his challenge to each Member of the House, and to Members collectively, to declare whether they will support you in the interpretation you have put upon the recent Resolution of the House. And as I have myself objected to that Resolution, I wish to construe it impartially, in the same sense as if I had approved it, or had even been a party to it. Now, Sir, approaching the question in that spirit, I can entertain no doubt whatever, for myself, that you have acted judiciously, and wisely interpreted the Resolution of the House. It appears to me that, however the Mover of the Resolution may have immediately contemplated, if he did so contemplate, the limit to be established by the actual entrance to the House, the clear inten- tion of the House in passing the Resolution was that Mr. Bradlaugh should be debarred from access to the House by whatever means might be found necessary for that purpose. I cannot for a moment conceive it possible that it was the intention of the House to leave it open to the executive officers to debar Mr. Bradlaugh in such a manner and form and under such conditions as to cause disorder in the immediate neighbourhood of the House, and to bar the free and uninterrupted access of Members to the House. That is the point upon which the matter appears to me to turn. I must hold that, above all other regulations, one regulation in particular is necessary—namely, that which is asserted in the Sessional Orders of the House; and the direction given to the Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis speaks, not only of free access from the streets to the Houses of Parliament, but says that no obstruction should be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from these Houses, and that no disorder shall be allowed in Westminster Hall, or the passages leading to the House during the Sessions of Parliament. The grounds upon which the Motion of the hon. Member cannot be sustained are to me very plain; and I think, Sir, that you have properly exercised, as you always have done, the authority reposed in your hands. As to absolute freedom of access by Members to this House, that would have been seriously hindered if the condition in which you are placed by the Resolution were such that you could only contest the entrance of Mr. Bradlaugh at the doors of the House. I think that in the nature of the case, your conclusion is in accordance with the spirit of the Resolution, and that you would not have acted in accordance with the spirit of the Resolution if you had permitted such a contest at the doors of the House. I think, further, that the great care taken by the House to lay down the principle that no disorder should be allowed, in order to secure free access to the House, involves a proposition which applies to all descriptions of disorder, whether that disorder arises from the action of extraneous persons or from the action of any Member of this House who may have been placed by a Resolution of the House—so far as the authority of the House may establish such a Resolution —under a ban precluding him, in exceptional circumstances, from free access to the House, and rendering him, in effect, an extraneous person; and it becomes the duty of the Executive authority to treat him as an extraneous person. Therefore, on all these grounds, I think this Motion cannot be sustained. I think you, Sir, have acted wisely, and properly construed the Resolution of the 10th. of May. It is my duty to look at this matter quite irrespective of my opinion of the character of that Resolution, which, as I have said, remains unchanged; but the duty plainly attaches to us to support the Executive authority of the House in faithful and full compliance with that Resolution.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I shall say only a few words, Sir, in support of the observations of the Prime Minister, and especially I desire to say as little as possible, because I think it of great importance that we should keep altogether distinct questions of policy with regard to the position of Mr. Bradlaugh and questions of Order which have been raised by the proceedings to-day. I am anxious that these two questions should be kept entirely distinct, and that we should confine ourselves to the consideration of the course you, Sir, have felt it your duty to adopt, in pursuance of the Resolution adopted by the House on the 10th of May. I think with the Leader of the House that your conduct, Sir, has been entirely in accordance with that which the House expected you would pursue; and that it entirely merits and gains the support of this House. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has referred to some words I used when I made that Motion, and he has correctly quoted them. Undoubtedly, the Motion which I made had reference simply to the exclusion of Mr. Bradlaugh from the doors of this House. The object of that Resolution was this. Mr. Bradlaugh had up to that time been in the habit of doing that which Members who have been elected and who have not been able to take their seats are usually in the habit of doing—namely, remaining below the Bar of the House. It was felt that if Mr. Bradlaugh remained in that position, and if he exercised his discretion, as he had done on several previous oceasions, to come from his seat below the Bar to the Table to claim to take his seat, the House would be subjected to continual interruption of its Business. I therefore moved, and the House adopted, the Resolution to exclude him from the body of the House, in order to prevent a disturbance of our proceedings. Mr. Bradlaugh could at any time after the 10th of May have recovered his right of coming within the doors of the House upon giving an undertaking not to disturb the order of the proceedings; but he did not make any such promise, and was therefore properly, by the Order of the House, excluded from coming within the doors. But I should say he has not only failed to make any undertaking not to disturb our proceedings, but he has attempted by force to override and set aside the Order that was made excluding him from the House. Therefore, the action has been entirely Mr. Bradlaugh's own, and I quite agree that, to give effect to the Resolution of the 10th of May, it was necessary that any attempt on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh to enter the House should be resisted, and resisted in an effectual manner. As I understand, Sir, your directions to the officers of the House and to the Serjeant-at-Arms have been that he should be excluded by force from the House, and that if necessary, in order to prevent further disturbance of that kind, he should be removed from the precincts—from the Lobby. In that course I think you have taken the proper steps for securing the dignity and the peace of the proceedings of this House. I hope the House will unanimously support you in the course which you have thought it proper to take.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

I wish to ask, Sir, whether an Amendment can be moved to the Motion?

MR. SPEAKER

I cannot say until I know what the Amendment will be.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

Then I will give my reasons for an Amendment which I think ought to be moved to the Motion of the hon. Member. I think this House is getting into a very awkward position; and I agree with the right hon. Baronet who has just spoken, that with regard to the dignity and peace of this House something must be done pretty soon.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

The did not say that with regard to the hon. Member misapprehended me. I dignity and peace of the House something must be done; but I said that in reference to maintaining the dignity and peace of the House the Speaker had acted rightly.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; but I agree with every step which the Speaker has taken in this matter for the maintenance of order. On a previous occasion you, Sir, decided that I should not be justified in saying that the Resolution which was passed by the House on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) was illegal; but I still have a strong idea that the House did act illegally.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

I rise to a point of Order. Ought not the Amendment of the hon. Baronet to be read to the House before any speech is made, as the Amendment may be of such a character that it cannot be entertained?

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

I conclude, Sir, that you are still the authority in this House, and that my hon. Friend is not. I was going to say that although, in my humble opinion, the Resolution which has caused all, this trouble, and which, if we adhere to it, will probably lead us into more trouble, was passed unwisely. I think, in endeavouring to exclude a duly elected Member from this House, we are taking one of the most high-handed steps which this House has indulged in for some generations; and it is the more invidious, and has the more excited the country, because you are excluding that hon. Member on account of his theological, or perhaps I ought to say his non-theological, views. I strongly object to such a course being taken, and I hope that nobody will presume to say that those of us who object to that proceeding are on that account allied with Atheists, and are sympathizers with atheistic views. That sort of warfare is striking a foul blow. No one has a right to charge us with being sympathizers with Atheists.

SIR HENRY TYLER

I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Baronet is in Order in going into the whole question?

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

It is unfair to charge us with being in. sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh. It might just as well be said that those who desired the emancipation of the Jews believed in Jewish faith, or that those who were for Roman Catholic emancipation sympathized with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. I will not give my opinion on the subject; but I will read what the Lord Chancellor says, and I think you could not have a higher authority. The Lord Chancellor says— It does not appear to me to be just to assert against one particular man, however bad he may be, a power in the House of Commons to test the sincerity of an oath which he appears to take in the manner prescribed by law, by an extrinsic evidence of his actual belief or disbelief. No such power has ever been asserted or used against any other man, though other professed and notorious unbelievers have sat, and perhaps may sit there still, and the House of Commons have now chosen, for the first time, to assert for itself and to exercise this power. I very much regret that it has done so; and I say most distinctly, that neither by law nor equity are we justified in preventing Mr. Bradlaugh from fulfilling the duty which the law has placed upon him. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has taken one of the most revolutionary courses that has been taken by this House for a long time, and he is setting an example of lawlessness to the Irish Members who sit on the other side. I always understood that the laws of this country were made by the Queen, the Lords, and the Commons, and not by one House alone; and now you are trying to make the law by one Branch of the Legislature. That is a revolutionary course to which I object. What did Lord Chatham say on a similar occasion—namely, in regard to the election of Mr. Wilkes? The noble Lord, in addressing the House of Lords in reference to that matter, said— My Lords, I thought the slavish doctrine of passive obedience had long been exploded, and, when our Kings were obliged to confess that their title to the Crown and the rule of their Government had no other foundation than the known law of the land, I never expected to hear a Divine right or a Divine infallibility attributed to any other branch of the Legislature. The Commons have betrayed their constituents and violated the Constitution; under the pretence of declaring the law they have made a law, and united in the same person the office of legislator and of judge. Those words apply exactly to the course you are pursuing now. There are, I believe, two sentiments common to most of us in this House—the desire to preserve the law and to preserve the dignity of this House. But by the course we are now pursuing we are weakening the dignity of the law and our own influence in the country. I have no doubt whatever how this contest will end. I have no doubt, I say, that civil and religious liberty will be triumphant, even although it be in the case of Mr. Brad-laugh. I do not want this contest to go on impeding Business, and giving rise to angry passions, and popularizing Mr. Bradlaugh.

MR. SPEAKER

I must point out to the hon. Baronet that he is going beside the Question before the House. The Question before the House is the conduct of the Speaker. The hon. Baronet is, I understand, going to place an Amendment before the House. If he will do so, I shall tell him whether it is in Order.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

I, of course, Mr. Speaker, shall not pursue the subject further. I must explain that I hardly like to vote for the Motion of my hon. Friend as it stands, because, as the Prime Minister ably pointed out, it might look as though we were impugning your conduct in this matter, which is the very last thing I would wish to do. In conclusion, I venture to propose, as an Amendment to the words of my hon. Friend— That the Resolution of April 26th, 1881, forbidding Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath, and also the Resolution of May 10th, 1881, ordaining his exclusion from the House, be rescinded,

MR. SPEAKER

Under cover of an Amendment calling in question the conduct of the Speaker, the hon. Baronet proposes to raise a question which, in my opinion, has no relevancy to the original Motion. If the hon. Baronet desires that the Resolution of the 10th May shall be rescinded, the proper course is to make the proposal to the House, and bring it forward in the ordinary way.

MR. J. COWEN

Sir, I have no wish to prolong the discussion; but I should be glad if the present occasion could be utilized for the purpose of hastening the settlement of a most unpleasant dispute. Into the merits of that dispute I have no intention to enter. I know that nothing I can say, or that anyone here can say, will alter hon. Members' opinions. The views they entertain are too firmly held to be shaken by a House of Commons' debate. Controversy may strengthen them, but will not shake them. But while I am aware of this, I am also aware that we are all anxious to have the unhappy wrangle terminated. It is damaging to the dignity of Parliament to have such scenes as we have witnessed this Session. The vulgar struggle that has just taken place in the Lobby can serve no good end, and will only help to bring our deliberations into disrepute. The questions at issue can be narrowed to a single point. Mr. Bradlaugh is a duly elected Member of Parliament, and is willing to take the Oath. The majority on this side of the House are willing that he should take it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite object to that, because the Oath has not the same binding effect upon Mr. Bradlaugh as it is understood to have upon them. In fact, in the judgment of the Opposition, the Oath Mr. Bradlaugh wants to take and the Oath they take are different. I recognize, respect, and appreciate that distinction. As long as such an opinion is entertained, the only way of settling the controversy is by altering the Oath. That is the simplest, the straightest, and most direct way of dealing with the matter. The Government admit this, and have introduced a Bill proposing the necessary change. While that Bill was under consideration Mr. Bradlaugh never troubled us. Whatever may be his opinions or his wishes, the House will, at least, do him the justice to say that as long as the measure was upon the Order Paper we heard nothing of his claims. When it was withdrawn, and only then, did he renew his personal protests. What I wish to ask the Prime Minister is, whether he will give an undertaking to introduce next Session the Bill that he has introduced this Session, but which, from pressure of Business, he has been driven to abandon? I have no authority to speak on Mr. Brad-laugh's behalf. I have never mentioned the subject to him. But I would almost undertake to say—if the Government would promise that the Bill which has been dropped this year should be re-introduced next—that until such time as the measure has either been passed or rejected, Mr. Bradlaugh would not disturb us. I know it is, perhaps, a good deal to ask the Prime Minister to make such a statement at this time, and without previous Notice; but if he will take an occasion before the Session terminates to give such an intimation, it will go far to allay the threatening agitation that is growing in the country. There is only one way out of the struggle. The House of Commons may prolong it as they like; but, however unpleasant it may be to them, in the end the constituencies will insist upon their right to elect whomsoever they please. It is now the case of Mr. Bradlaugh alone. It may soon be the case of others. At present the agitation is sustained by active partizans for and against the Member for Northampton; but if it is allowed to gather it will shortly embrace in its ranks a large section of the community. Mr. Bradlaugh will disappear from the controversy, and the question will become the right of the constituencies or the right of the House of Commons. In face of this threatening and irritating dispute, I hope the Prime Minister will make an announcement of the kind I have suggested, either to-day or at the earliest possible moment. That will do more to allay the agitation than anything I know of.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

Sir, I hope I shall be permitted to express a very devout wish that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, to whom, in common with most of my countrymen, I feel I am much indebted for the untiring attention he has bestowed on the Irish Land Bill, will not fall into the trap which has been spread open before him by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne.

MR. ANDERSON

Mr. Speaker, I, too, Sir, have a Petition to present from my constituency in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh taking his seat.

MR. SPEAKER

The proper time for presenting Petitions has passed.

MR. ANDERSON

I was about, Sir, to make some remarks on the Motion before the House, and mentioned the Petition by way of introduction. I was a spectator of the exhibition outside the doors of this House this afternoon, and I witnessed it with very great pain for several reasons, and one of these is that I feel very strongly that it will tend to create an amount of sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh out-of-doors that there has never been before. I saw that Gentleman, who has been duly elected by a large constituency, and is as properly a Member of this House as any of ourselves, taken by physical force by the police, and dragged out of the Lobby of this House. This is a proceeding which I am sure will have a most unfortunate effect; but, at the same time, I cannot vote for the Motion before the House, because I feel that you, Sir, being charged with the duty of keeping our proceedings orderly, were justified in giving the order. I rose before with the intention of seconding the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and I regret exceedingly it was not possible to move it, as it might have led to a termination of this unfortunate battle which the House of Commons has entered into with one of the constituencies of the country—a battle which, I feel confident, will bring down nothing upon this House but defeat and discredit.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

I was entirely unprepared for the scene which I found going on on my arrival in New Palace Yard this afternoon, because I understood that merely an application was to be made on Mr. Bradlaugh's behalf for permission for him to make an Affirmation and take his seat. For many weeks past the Business of this House has been conducted in perfect quietude, as far as this controversy is concerned; and I regret to see the multitude of misled and misguided people outside, who have been induced by Mr. Bradlaugh to accompany him down to this House on the ground that he has been ill-used, and has been illegally prevented from taking his seat. In order that the true facts of this case may be made known to the people of this country, I beg to give Notice that tomorrow I will ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the expediency of disabusing the misled followers of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh by issuing a Proclamation to the following effect:— That the Prime Minister has declared that taking the Parliamentary Oath in connection with the declaration that the words were of no value was not taking the Oath at all, a declaration in which the Attorney General concurred; that Mr. C. Bradlaugh, having made such a declaration, is, by his own act, disqualified from taking the Oath; that Mr. C. Bradlaugh has been declared by the House of Commons and by Judges of the Law Courts to be incapable of making the Affirmation provided for Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists; that Mr. C. Bradlaugh being qualified to take neither the Oath nor the Affirmation, according to law, the House could not be acting illegally, by preventing his attaining his seat by violence and intimidation, and, finally, warning Her Majesty's loyal subjects to abstain from all tumultuous assemblages, and to lend their aid to the preservation of peace and order.

MR. BIGGAR

Sir, if I were to go on purely personal grounds, I could not vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, for this reason particularly, because Mr. Bradlaugh, when he sat and voted in this House, did not seem to care very much for the rights and privileges of other Members of Parliament. Mr. Bradlaugh voted for a Motion, which, in my opinion, was the most tyrannical ever perpetrated in this House—

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Member that the Question before the House is not the conduct of Mr. Bradlaugh, but the conduct of the Speaker of this House.

MR. BIGGAR

I will not, of course, pursue that subject further. My great objection to the course which has been pursued by the majority of this House, or is going to be pursued on this occasion of the expulsion of Mr. Bradlaugh from the Lobby, is that it gives precedent for what I believe to be a most tyrannical action on the part of the majority of this House. If we are to have from time to time every majority of this House saying that a Member shall not be heard in this House on account of his religious or political opinions, and shall not be permitted to take his seat, it will be fraught with great danger to the liberty of Members. The real point, in my opinion, is this—Mr. Bradlaugh has been elected by the electors of Northampton, and I am disposed to think that his electors have fair cause to complain. We know, with regard to Irish constituencies, that the will and wish of the electors has not been treated very tenderly on several similar occasions. At the same time, it would come with bad grace from an Irish Member representing an Irish constituency, as I do, if I did not say, as I do say, that the wish of the electors of Northampton should be paramount upon a question of this sort. This House is not a tribunal to try questions of religion or the political opinions of individuals. The functions in regard to the Oath are simply Ministerial. Political Oaths are an absurdity.

MR. SPEAKER

The question of political Oaths is not the Question before the House.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

Sir, without expressing any opinion on the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton, I think that this is an occasion on which a Member of this House, who feels as I do, may take up two or three minutes in stating a fact, and in making an appeal to the House. I have been outside the House within the last few minutes, and I have heard that Mr. Bradlaugh was refused admission by order of the House of Commons, and by the instructions of the Speaker; that he was taken from the door of the House, through the Lobby, down the steps outside, through Westminster Hall, and so put outside the door of Westminster Hall; that he was reduced to a condition if not of deathly fainting—["Oh!"]—I have it on undoubted authority that by the time he arrived at New Palace Yard he was in a fainting condition—those empowered thus to remove him stated that if he had had many more yards to go he must have fallen fainting to the ground. No such scene has heretofore been recorded in the annals of the British House of Commons. This thing has been done, not in a corner, because there are thousands of his countrymen standing outside this House who witnessed part of what took place, or who will soon know all that has taken place, and to-morrow morning more than 1,000,000 copies of the newspapers will narrate to the people of this country what has been done. I will not touch upon the original question raised in this case, I will not complain of the Resolution which the House passed on a former occasion, and, least of all, will I complain of the course which has been taken by you, Mr. Speaker; but I will put the question to hon. Members opposite, and also to some hon. Members on this side of the House—Where are they leading us? This is now a manageable affair; there were only a few thousand at the meeting last night in Trafalgar Square, and there are only a few thousands assembled outside this House to day; but this is exactly one of those things which grow, and the House, if it persists in its present course, will bring us into some most unfortunate and calamitous position. Let me remind the House that Mr. Bradlaugh is as fairly elected by the constituency of Northampton as any one of us has been by the constituencies which we represent, and that he has as much right to come to the Table of the House as any one of us has.

MR. SPEAKER

I must interpose, as I have already interposed. The Question before the House is the conduct of the Speaker, and not the case of Mr. Bradlaugh.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

I admit, Mr. Speaker, that you are perfectly right, and I am technically wrong; but I asked the House when I rose whether I might be permitted to make that appeal. I will conclude my observations merely by asking hon. Gentlemen who have taken the courses that have led to these difficulties, whether they might not reconsider the question and extricate the House from a position injurious to its own character and wrongful to the constituency.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked Members on this side, and the whole body of the House, to what the course we are now pursuing is tending. I reply, the object we have in view, and which we believe we shall achieve, is to maintain the dignity and the order of this House, and if the right hon. Gentleman has that object in view, in common with the great body of the House, I would respectfully suggest to him that the speech he has delivered and the animus he has shown are not calculated to induce Mr. Bradlaugh to cease from that conduct on his part to which, and to which alone, we have to attribute the scene of this morning. I wish the House to take notice of what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. John Bright) stated he had either seen himself or had heard on reliable authority. It was that Mr. Bradlaugh had been removed by force whilst standing in front of the doorway, and hurried by policemen down the steps of this House. I understood the same kind of statement to be made by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), and in a more guarded form by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I witnessed what did occur. Was it the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh, standing peacefully outside, was, by order of Mr. Speaker, seized by policemen and hurried in a fainting condition down the steps? No, Sir; what occurred was this—that Mr. Bradlaugh endeavoured by force, against the decision of this House, and against the orders of Mr. Speaker, to compel an entrance into this House, and it was not until he had set himself in violent opposition to the appointed guardians of order, that that occurred which the right hon. Gentleman has described to this House with melo-dramatic effect. I regret the circumstances, and that Mr. Bradlaugh should have suffered any inconvenience; but Mr. Bradlaugh has no human being to thank but himself, unless it be in some slight degree those indiscreet and ill-advised friends of his who have made such appeals as we have just listened to. I have thought it right to say this much, because, unless someone said it, a totally erroneous impression might have been circulated to-morrow by that million or more of papers to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred—namely, that unnecessary and uncalled-for violence has been perpetrated under your orders by the officials of this House, on a harmless and unoffending Gentleman who was standing meekly outside the door of this House.

MR. BROADHURST

Sir, a large constituency has duly elected a proper and qualified person to represent them in Parliament; and we, as the Representatives of other English constituencies, are bound to do our duty, so far as we can, in obtaining permission for the hon. Gentleman to take his seat. It appears to me that to-morrow this House will appear in a most ridiculous position. You will raise up every constituency in this country. You will, by your action, bring support to Mr. Bradlaugh from every constituency in this country—support which would never have come only for the political martyrdom which he is looked upon as undergoing. Sir, it would be almost beneath one's dignity to stand here and disclaim sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh's opinions on religious matters. We have no sympathy with any such opinions. We have a sympathy with this—the indisputable right of an English constituency to elect whomsoever they like—the right of the constituencies of the United Kingdom to elect whomsoever they think proper to represent them in this Parliament.

MR. SPEAKER

I must invite the hon. Member to keep to the Question before the House.

MR. BROADHURST

Mr. Speaker, I am sincerely thankful to you. It is easy on an occasion of this kind for so young a Member of Parliament as my- self to travel out of the narrow path of Order in a subject of this kind. I apologize to the House for that little indiscretion. But what I want to point out, Sir, is this—that you are renewing a battle against freedom of election, which is sure to be decided against you. I am willing to forego any further discussion on this subject if some instruction or promise could be made to the House in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). At present we feel bound—almost bound—if the hon. Member for Northampton goes to a division, to support him, even at the risk of being thought to contest the authority of the Chair on this occasion.

COLONEL MAKINS

My opinion, Sir, differs entirely from that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I saw Mr. Bradlaugh removed by a very mild exhibition of physical force, to which he offered a great amount of theatrical resistance, almost as theatrical as the language in which the right hon. Gentleman described it. What is the position now? I wish to ask the Home Secretary, who, I suppose, is responsible for order being preserved outside the precincts of the House, what he proposes to do. Mr. Bradlaugh. is now standing in the yard of the House, and states that he will remain there and attempt to take his seat, and that if he has to retire he will return with a large accession of force and again attempt to take his seat. I wish to know, in case that should take place, what course the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster says this matter will grow. I know no better means of making it grow than such a speech as the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered. It will be perfectly understood in the country who is behind Mr. Bradlaugh in his attempt to use force against the House of Commons.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

Sir, I believe that a great many Members of this House, though they desire to express approval of the conduct of you, Sir, and of the officers of the House, feel some difficulty in dealing with the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton; and I trust I may be able in some way to assist in shortening this debate, and allowing the House to get to the ordinary Business by proposing, if I am in Order in doing so, an Amendment to the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Northampton. Without any further speech I would propose— That this House approves the action of Mr. Speaker and of the Officers of this House acting under his orders. I trust that that Amendment will receive the unanimous assent of the House, and I hope may terminate this debate.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House approves the action of Mr. Speaker and of the Officers of this House acting under his orders."—(Sir Henry Holland.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, although there is no doubt that a negative put upon the Motion which is before the House would have distinctly conveyed the judgment of the House in the sense of the present Amendment, yet, viewing the fact especially that the Motion is a Motion which sets out in some detail its own character and grounds, I think not only that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) is unobjectionable, but that, upon the whole, it enables the House to give expression more fully and satisfactorily than a mere negative would have done to the feeling which I think we all entertain. It has not been questioned by anyone, whatever view may have been taken, that the conduct of the Speaker has been eminently considerate and judicious. I have great satisfaction in supporting the Amendment, and I hope it may have the effect which the hon. Baronet is justified in anticipating. I wish also not to appear disrespectful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. J. Cowen), with regard to the question he has put to me. I am not disposed to think that I should be acting in the spirit of the decisions given by the Chair, were I to enter upon the subject of the general solution of the difficulty connected with Mr. Bradlaugh on the present occasion. It is strictly a question of the conduct of the Executive, and I think it is my duty to set an example of close adherence to the question, after the definition you, Sir, have given.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I will not detain the House for a minute. I will only say that I entirely support the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me. It seems to me distinctly to mark what the question is that is submitted to the House, and to convey the approval which, I think, the great body of the House cordially wish to express towards you, Sir.

MR. O'DONNELL

I rise, Sir, in the first place, to make a protest against the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has deemed it his duty to misconceive the Question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman drew a fancy picture, calculated to impress the imaginations of the classes to whom he appealed throughout the country. I am aware that historical accuracy is not a strong point with the right hon. Gentleman. I may observe that when the right hon. Gentleman, in drawing his picture, stated that the scene to-day was altogether unprecedented, he must have been unaware of the fact that even in the British Legislature no less a personage than the gallant Cochrane—the brave Dundonald—was dragged from this House, clinging desperately to the Benches of this House, and expelled and excluded by a Vote of this House; and that, if the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was so extensive and so undiscerning as he would wish us to believe, it is strange that in the course of his rhetoric he did not contrive to drop a single regret upon the treatment of Captain Cochrane. I am also anxious to know on what principle the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster hesitates about supporting the authority of the Chair in the case of the excluded elect of Northampton, and the remarkable readiness which he showed to support the authority of the Chair when it was being exercised against Irish Members of the House. Sir, I think that as precedents are of such weight in this House, the precedent which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster himself contributed to make ought not to have escaped his attention. It is true that Mr. Bradlaugh has been removed from proximity to the Chamber—where it appears he was contemplating some scene of disorder—by superior force. I want to remind the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that when Member after Member of the Irish Party was removed from this House by superior force, not a single rhetorical tear welled from the overflowing heart of the right hon. Gentleman. If Irish Members had used physical force to prevent their expulsion, I very much doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman would have made such a speech. I doubt whether he would feel a pang to see Mr. John Dillon dragged from the House. I think his speech eminently calculated to excite thoughtless and uninstructed persons against the dignity and authority of his own Legislature, and the reputation of the right hon. Gentleman will not be improved by the marked partiality he shows on behalf of offenders who are apparently of his own kidney.

MR. BURT

I am quite unwilling, Sir, to enter into the subject; but I cannot refrain, on a question which seems to be unpopular, from saying a word on the unpopular side. I regret that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) cannot move his Amendment, as I feel certain that, sooner or later, some such Resolution must be adopted by this House. I rose, however, chiefly to support the views of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) in his appeal to the Prime Minister. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman cannot, at this moment, make a definite statement; but I hope, before the Session terminates, he will be able to say that the subject will be dealt with very early next Session. When the hon. Member for Newcastle spoke of the popular feeling which is rising on behalf of Mr. Bradlaugh, the sentiment was met by an incredulous laugh from the other side of the House; but the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I have had to attend meetings recently in the North of England, convened without the slightest regard to this particular question, and at those meetings there was practical unanimity in support of Mr. Bradlaugh, although the persons attending the meetings had no sympathy whatever with his special views, and many of them were persons whese leisure was occupied with the advocacy of the principles of Christianity. What we have witnessed this morning goes to show that there is a rising feeling in the country. It is not Mr. Bradlaugh, it is the feeling that the constituencies have a right to elect the man they think proper. Sitting in this House, we might hear the cheers Mr. Bradlaugh received when he was taken out, and those cheers were ominous that the Gentlemen who now ranged themselves against the electors of Northampton are doomed to a speedy defeat.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

Sir, the Question before the House is really whether the officers of the House, in the discharge of their duty, exceeded what was demanded by the necessity of the case. I, for one, do not hesitate a single moment in supporting the view of the case taken by you, Sir, that the action which has been taken was the necessary outcome of the Resolutions passed by the majority of the House, and that you, Sir, in the discharge of your duty, have not exceeded the necessities of the case in ordering the removal of Mr. Bradlaugh; but I feel some difficulty in supporting the Resolution which has been proposed on the other side of the House, because an obligation has been cast upon you, Sir, by the passing of these two Resolutions of the House, both of which, to say the least, I believe to have been great blunders. I am not going to say that these Resolutions are illegal. I believe that it is the opinion of the great mass of the people of this country that they are not legal; and it is impossible to prevent the great majority of the people of this country entertaining this opinion, and taking consequent action, from the belief that bigotry has shown itself.

MR. SPEAKER

I must remind the hon. Member that the question of the Parliamentary Oath is not the Question now before the House.

MR. ILLINGWORTH

I can only say that I find it impossible to vote either for one Motion or the other. With all respect to you, Sir, I wish to say that I regret exceedingly what has taken place; but I regard it as the consequential outcome of Resolutions passed by the House at an earlier stage of the Session.

MR. H. B. SAMUELSON

Sir, I feel I cannot vote on either side of the question; but I wish to say one word, as I have been an eye witness of the scene in the Lobby to-day. I stood within three feet of Mr. Bradlaugh, in front of him, between him and the door; and I heard him, in a perfectly quiet manner, claim what he maintained to be his legal right, to enter the House. He then endeavoured to make his way into the House, and was prevented by certain officials and police. I do not say whether they were right or wrong, but am merely giving a statement of what occurred. Mr. Bradlaugh was impeded in taking that action by a line of men who are not Members of this House, but who were drawn up across the portal of the House. That is to say, that to-day a Member who has been duly elected by a constituency, and whose return has not been impugned, has been prevented from entering the door of the House by those who are not Members of the House. Mr. Bradlaugh used no force except that he endeavoured to push his way into the House—not in a violent way at first. ["Oh!"] I pledge my honour that is so. I saw it all. Mr. Bradlaugh did not act in a disorderly manner. He tried to edge his way through those people who barred his progress; and was then seized, pushed forcibly, and hustled across the Lobby and expelled, expostulating the whole time with those who held him, and maintaining the course which they were taking to be illegal. It is not for me to say whether it is so or not. [Exclamations] Well, I am a Member of this House, and I have a right to express my opinions. There is a higher tribunal beyond the walls of this House which will probably decide that point. I say for myself I have no sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh's opinions, social or political. I think he has been ill-advised in endeavouring to take the Oath after what he has said; but it is very doubtful whether the House is doing that which will conduce to its dignity in encouraging at the door of the House a scene of violence so unseemly as has just taken place. I am sure that when the people of England read the words of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham they will thank him for his speech. ["Oh!"] They will thank him heartily for having had the manhood, in the difficult position in which he is placed, to stand up and give utterance to the opinions which he has expressed, which are in accordance with those which he has constantly expressed during the whole course of his political life. I cannot vote for the Resolution of my hon. Friend, be- cause I do not wish to do anything which seems even to impugn the authority of the Speaker when carrying out the mandate of the House. I cannot forget that Mr. Bradlaugh can at present enter the House if he refrains from attempting to take the Oath and imitates the example of Alderman Salomons and Baron Rothschild, who contented themselves with sitting below the Bar, and by their silent presence there ultimately brought Constitutional pressure to bear on the Houses of Parliament, and thus, in the end, succeeded in obtaining the repeal of the law which excluded Jews from the House of Commons. I am extremely sorry for what has taken place throughout with regard to Mr. Bradlaugh, and in saying what I have I believe I have expressed the wishes of my constituents, none of whom, however, have spoken a word to me of pressure on the subject, although they have said they believed it would be impossible permanently to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the House of Commons.

MR. ASHTON DILKE

I wish, Sir, to ask you whether it is possible to move an Amendment to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland)? If not, I will take the opportunity of moving it when the Amendment becomes a substantive Motion.

MR. SPEAKER

That cannot be done, as it would re-open the whole question.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 191: Majority 184.—(Div. List, No. 351.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'this House approves the action of Mr. Speaker and of the officers of this House acting under his orders' be there added."

MR. ASHTON DILKE

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to ask, for the benefit of a large number of Members who do not wish to cast any blame on the action taken by the Chair, but who simply wish to register their protest against it, whether I should be in Order in moving an addition to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) of the following words:— But is of opinion that the regrettable proceedings attending the expulsion of Mr. Bradlaugh prove the necessity for legislation on the subject.

MR. SPEAKER

The Original Question before the House involves the conduct of the Speaker, and the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member is altogether irrelevant.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

Before the Question is put, I should like to ask whether this is irrelevant? May I move to add the words— That this House regrets that Mr. Speaker has been placed in a position which rendered the course which has been taken unavoidable. That expresses sympathy with you, Sir. If I am in Order, I shall move these words.

MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment of the hon. Baronet opens up the whole question of Parliamentary Oaths and the conduct of Mr. Bradlaugh on the one hand, and the House on the other; and, therefore, I could not consider it regular.

MR. CALLAN

Sir, I do not wish to give a silent vote on the Motion now before the House. I wish to state why it is that, having seen so many of those scenes attending the expulsion of Members of this House, I shall, on the present occasion, support the authorities. I was present at the scene which has just taken place. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was not present, and the description he has given of the scene is wholly inaccurate. Having been present when the assault was committed upon the Serjeant-at-Arms by Mr. Brad-laugh, and at the closing scene outside, I wish to state simply that so far from Mr. Bradlaugh being in a fainting condition at the time he was left outside, in a far worse condition was the officer of this House, whose collar he had never let go through the struggle outside of the House; and, at the same time, he gave him as good a shake outside the House as ever a bull-dog gave a rat, thus showing that although he asked for a glass of water, he was in no fainting condition. But the scene was disgraceful in the extreme, and it was disgraceful to Her Majesty's Government, because of their want of moral courage to deal with the case. In a brutal manner Mr. Bradlaugh committed an assault for which he should be prosecuted; and if he does not, it is because this House lacks moral courage, because it lacks back-bone. It shows that it deals far differently with an English Member from the manner in which it deals with an Irish one. Although there have been many expressions of sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh, yet it is a significant fact that there are none who come forward and offer to resign their seats in his favour. For the reasons I have given, I shall heartily support the authority of the Chair in this matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put.

Resolved, That this House approves the action of Mr. Speaker and of the officers of this House acting under his orders.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee of Supply I shall move— That every person returned as a Member of this House, who shall claim to be permitted to take the Oath, notwithstanding so much of the Resolution passed by this House on the 26th April last, as relates to the taking of the Oath, shall take and subscribe the Oath of Allegiance in the form and in the manner prescribed by law.