PARLIAMENTARY OATH.

HC Deb 07 February 1882 vol 266 cc57-97

Mr. BRADLAUGH, returned as one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton, came to the Table to take and to subscribe the Oath, and the Clerk was proceeding to administer the same to him, when——

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

, Member for the Northern Division of the County of Devon, rose and said; Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit to the House a Resolution identical, or nearly identical, with that which was passed on April 26 last year, the occasion when the hon. Gentleman who is now at the Table presented himself for the purpose of taking the Oath. This Resolution only differs from that one by reciting the Resolution taken on that occasion in addition to that which had previously been taken. The Resolution I have to submit is— That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880 and of the 26th April 1881, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statute 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72. Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to import on this occasion, any more than on the former occasion, any considerations but those which are raised by the circumstances of the case, as I stated them last year, and as they are doubtless in the recollection of the House. The hon. Gentleman was returned, in the first instance, to this Parliament, and on the occasion of his proposing then to take his seat he requested that he might be—or he claimed that he should be—allowed to affirm, instead of taking the Oath, and he rested his claim upon certain Statutes which were only applicable in the case of persons upon whom the Oath was not binding. [Mr. BRADLAUGH dissented.] Such, at all events, was the contention of those who objected to the hon. Gentleman making an Affirmation, and such was the opinion of the two Committees which sat upon the occasion; and such also, I think, was the opinion of the Courts of Law. At all events, the objection was taken, and the hon. Gentleman was held by the House, on the recommendation of the Committee, to be disqualified from making an Affirmation. Subsequently, he had permission given to make the Affirmation, subject to the decision of a Court of Law. We know that the result was that the decision of the Court was against his being admissible to affirm, and that, consequently, his seat was vacated—vacated by reason of his having sat without having taken the proper Oath or Affirmation. He was, however, re-elected, and the question arose as to his being permitted to take the Oath. The House had been previously advised by one of the Committees which sat upon this subject that for a Gentleman to claim to repeat the words of the Oath with such modifications as were necessarily implied in the proceedings which had taken place in Mr. Bradlaugh's case was not a taking of the Oath according to the law; and I accordingly moved—and the House by a majority, after discussion, affirmed—a Resolution which prevented his taking the Oath last year. This is the same House as was then sitting, and the hon. Gentleman is, I understand, in precisely the same position as he was then; and I presume the decision of the House will be the same as it was last year. I do not think it necessary, or even seemly, to trouble the House at any length upon the subject; and I will, therefore, content myself with submitting and placing in your hands, Sir, the Resolution which I have read to the House

MR. SPEAKER

Before the Question is put, I think it right to inform the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton that, according to the usual practice, he ought now to withdraw to a place below the Bar.

MR. BRADLAUGH (who had remained standing at the Table)

In complying with your direction. Sir, I respectfully submit that I may be heard before the House comes to a decision upon my claim to take the Oath.

MR. SPEAKER

That is a matter for the House to determine.

[The hon. Member then withdrew.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880 and of the 26th April 1881, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statute 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and S2 Vic. c. 72."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I deeply regret the accidental absence of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen, surely, do not imagine that his absence is intentional? If necessary, I will assure them that it is not. My right hon. Friend had intended to be in his place to make the Motion which it now devolves upon me to make. He probably imagined that he would not be called upon to do so until half-past 4. I shall, I think, best fulfil the duty which has so unexpectedly fallen upon me by following the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and, importing into this matter as few personal considerations as possible, place before the House as simply as I can the Motion which it is my duty to submit on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The view which the Government has always taken of this question is—this being a matter—whether it be an Oath or an Affirmation—which is prescribed and determined by the Statute—the Statute referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in his Motion, ordering a certain form of Oath which is prescribed by the Statute to be taken—the view which the Government have always taken in this matter is, that the House of Commons ought not—and, indeed, speaking with all respect, has not the right—to vary the provisions of that Statute. That is to say; that the House has no right to interpose and say that a person duly elected by any constituency is not entitled to come to this Table and take the Oath which the Statute affirms he is to take. That is the short and simple view of the question. We regard a Resolution of this character as, in effect, doing what a Resolution of the House of Commons ought not to do—namely, set aside the provisions of an Act of Parliament. We consider that the House of Commons has no business to inquire into the opinions of any individual. We con- sider that, when a duly-elected Member presents himself to take the Oath prescribed by Statute, he ought to be permitted to take that Oath, as the Statute prescribes that he must. That is the short and simple view which we present, and which we have always taken of this matter. Now, that being so, I understand that a Member elected by a constituency has come to the Table and claimed to take that Oath which the Statute prescribes. The right hon. Baronet then interposes with a Resolution which refers to a transaction with which the House is very familiar. There is one sentence only in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman which I will comment upon. That sentence is, I understand, a speculation upon the character of the Oath, and draws a distinction between the Oath, as prescribed by the Statute, and a form of words to which the right hon. Gentleman makes reference. It is for us, apparently, according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, to determine whether a person uttering a certain form of words is, or is not, taking the Oath. That introduces a consideration with which, I venture to submit, this House has nothing to do. If it be the fact that there are certain circumstances which prevent the repetition of this form of words constituting the Oath, according to the true intent and meaning of the Statute, that, in our opinion, is a question for a Court of Law to determine. We have the right only to allow the form of words to be administered to the person claiming to take the Oath. If that in law is not an Oath, then the Court of Law will determine that a man has not taken the Oath, though he has pronounced the form of words. That, we venture to submit, is not a question that the House has to determine, but is a question that ought to be left to the decision of a Court of Law; and from that point of view, if it be contended that the taking the form of words prescribed by the Statute is not taking the Oath within the meaning of the Statute, then we say that question ought to be referred to a Court of Law as a question for it to decide, just as the House decided that the Affirmation should be left to a Court of Law. And, therefore, the course that we take—and, as far as any advice of ours is valued, we should advise the House of Commons to take—is, as they permitted Mr. Brad- laugh to take the Affirmation, subject to the decision of the Court of Law, so he should be allowed to take the Oath in the form of words prescribed by the Statute, subject to the judgment of the Court of Law, whether that is a fulfilment of the conditions presented by the Statute. I have endeavoured to make this statement as clear and simple as I could. I will say no more on the subject; but my right hon. Friend will supply all that which I have left unsaid, if it be necessary. I will now conclude by proposing the Motion which I know it was the intention of my right hon. Friend to make. I move the Previous Question.

Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put."—(Sir William Harcourt.)

MR. NEWDEGATE

It is well known that I have supported the issue of a writ against Mr. Bradlaugh for having sat and voted in this House without having duly made the Affirmation contemplated by the Statute; and the Courts of Law have already decided that he has not complied with the law in that respect, and the only question remaining before the Courts on appeal is the time at which the writ impugning his action was issued; I may therefore conclude from Mr. Bradlaugh's present proceeding, and from the proceedings of the Court on appeal, that the law has decided that he is not duly qualified to be a Member of this House. That is proved, I think, by his appearance here to-night and his claim of last Session to be allowed to go through the form of taking the Oath, which the House has emphatically refused him permission to do. The question now raised, in fact, is, whether, in going through the form of repeating the words of the Oath, Mr. Bradlaugh can evade the effect of the sanction of the Oath, which the Courts have declared to be of the essence of the Oath; this is contained in the concluding words, "So help me God." These words Mr. Bradlaugh, before a Committee of this House, has admitted to be to him meaningless. I presume that the course which he now intends to take is to induce the House to accept his mere repetition of the words of the Oath, and thus deliberately to allow him, standing before the House, to take the name of God in vain. He proposes to do this, pretending that this performance can be taken as equivalent for the declaration provided purposely by Parliament under the Act of 1869 for persons who desire to give evidence, but are known not to believe in God. I repeat, that Mr. Bradlaugh wants this House to accept his empty repetition of the words of the Oath as equivalent to the declaration to be made by unbelievers under the Act of 1869. Now, Mr. Bradlaugh, in my hearing, complied with this Statute, for he summoned me and my solicitor before the Police Court at Bow Street for the ancient offence of "maintenance" in the action for recovery of a penalty from him for sitting and voting in this House without having taken the Oath of Allegiance. I appeared, and I am glad to say that the summonses were dismissed. When Mr. Bradlaugh rose to give evidence against me I could not, from where I sat in the Court, hear what he said; so I want to one of my counsel and asked him whether the magistrate was allowing Mr. Bradlaugh to affirm in the sense of that term understood in this House, which induced the House to refuse to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to make the Affirmation of Allegiance; and the counsel, to whom I applied in the Police Court, informed me that the magistrate refused to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to affirm, and insisted upon his proceeding to make a declaration under the Act of 1869, framed for persons who do not believe in God. Therefore, I submit to the House that there is a clear distinction drawn by Statute between the declaration which Mr. Bradlaugh made at the Bow Street Police Court, as an unbeliever, and the Oath or the Affirmation required to qualify a Member of this House. If, therefore, this House should permit Mr. Bradlaugh to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath in lieu of the declaration for unbelievers, the House itself will violate the law. I hope the House will pardon me; but this is a matter of personal cognizance with me, and I am not sure that any other Member present in the House has the information which I have endeavoured to convey. I cannot but feel, Sir, that the House is proceeding abruptly and without due notice, by accident perhaps, in a very grave matter, I should be very much surprised if one tithe of the Members of this House were prepared for the state- ment which I have ventured to make. I was glad to see an hon. Member enter the House just now who was a counsel in the case, and I conclude that he heard what occurred on the occasion to which I have referred. If this be so, I venture to think that I shall have his support. It is clear that the House is taken by surprise in reference to one of the gravest Constitutional questions that could possibly arise. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has at last, I rejoice to say, attended to the repeated solicitations addressed to him, by announcing his intention to move the Amendment of the Forms of proceeding which regulate the debates and Business of the House. I have long felt the necessity for some such action, and I rejoice that the right hon. Gentleman has at length attended to the earnestly-expressed public opinion on this subject. But let the House remember that in dealing with the question now before it, unprepared as is the House for dealing with it in its present form—for we none of us were aware, until a quarter of an hour ago, what form it would assume—I say, let the House remember that in dealing with this question, now so abruptly thrust upon our attention, that we are dealing with the fundamental Order of the House. Every question, of whatever nature, is open to discussion in this House but those which the House is precluded from discussing by the Statute 5 Elizabeth, and the Statutes amending that Act. The effect of these enactments is, that any questions can be debated and decided in this House except such as are inconsistent with the purport of the Oaths of Members. In consequence, no Member can propose to discuss the existence of God, because the whole sanction of the Oath is contained in the words "So help me God," which the Courts have decided to be of the essence of the Oath. The Courts have now gone further by deciding that the making of the "solemn" Affirmation, which is made in liew of the Parliamentary Oath of Allegiance, is a religious declaration, and in this respect is like the Oath, and precludes discussion in this House as to the existence of God. There is yet another subject which the House is precluded from discussing, and that is the right of Her Majesty to the Throne of these Realms. From the discussion of that subject the House is precluded, be- cause to negative that right would be contrary to the Oaths of Members. Again, the House is also precluded, under the Act of 1866, from discussing the question of the succession to the Throne, because any division of the House, or any opinion of the House, the purport of which might be contrary to the limitation of the succession to the House of Brunswick, would be contrary to the Oaths of Members. These three are fundamental limitations under the Statute 5 Elizabeth, and the subsequent Statutes to the same effect, within which the proceedings and debates of this House are, and have for centuries been, confined. But these proceedings and debates, under our ancient Rules, have avowedly attained an undue latitude; and at the very time that the Prime Minister now proposes to render more stringent the subsidiary Rules and Orders for the purpose of restraining this modern excess, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would admit to a seat in the House, if I am to conclude anything from his action, a person who has declared that the words "So help me God" are meaningless to him; while this Mr. Bradlaugh, it is well known throughout the country, has attacked the succession to the Throne. [Dissent.] But I have his publications by me; and I say that the right hon. Gentleman is about to admit to a seat in this House a person who will not be bound by the fundamental limitations on the action of all others in this House. If one Member be permitted to violate these fundamental axioms by the rule of the equality which prevails in the House, it will be open to the whole House to dispute these fundamental maxims, which constitute a Parliament, as distinct from a Convention. I little thought, Sir, that it would rest with me, feebly and almost unprepared, to state these great truths to the House; but I do pray the House to pause before allowing this question to go by default, or to lapse to the Courts of Law, for it is a question upon which the Courts of Law cannot decide, unless expressly commissioned by this House so to deal or decide. There are Statutes in existence which govern the matter; but there is no Statute which permits a mere declaration to be made as a substitute, or an equivalent for the taking of the Oath of Allegiance—I trust, then, the House will pause. I would pray the House to consider the grave political and religious questions involved in this matter. Let me ask hon. Members to look across the Channel. France is now a Republic, and since the great Revolution of 1789 no direct Heir to the Throne of France has succeeded in peace. I have seen France under a limited Monarchy. Then I have seen it under a temporary Republic. Next I have seen France under an Empire, and now France, twice conquered within the century, is again a Republic You are about to tunnel under the Channel between the two countries—are you not now so tunnelling as to destroy the distinction between the bases of government in the two countries? In England Christianity is part and parcel of the Constitutional Law; whilst in France it has never been so permanently since the first great Revolution which rent that country—that is, for nearly a century. Compare the respective condition of the two countries. The wealth and population of France are stationary, and the prestige of the arms of France is gone; but look at England! Her wealth and population have increased, and her Kingdom has expanded into an Empire. The fundamental difference between the Constitutions of the two countries is this—That the Constitution of England is fundamentally Christian, while the foundation of the Constitution of France is not. France has no Coronation Oath to be taken by whoever might be her Sovereign. No Oath taken by the Members of the Legislature is equivalent to the Oath taken by the Members of both Houses of Parliament, by which, as by the Coronation Oath, the Deity is recognized, and the people are led to venerate the obligation of the law thus made by believers. It is that sense of religion and veneration, based upon a belief in God, that sustains your credit and your country's greatness. I repeat, look across the Channel. There is but one other country in the world besides England which has not for centuries suffered from revolution, and has not been conquered—that country is Russia. For years never conquered, never revolutionized. There are differences between the institutions of Russia and those of England—differences between their Churches, their laws, and the terms of Sovereignty. I rejoice that the insti- tutions of this country are in many respects different from those of Russia. Yet there is this one great fundamental point of identity between them—the institutions of Great Britain and those of Russia base their claims to the respect of their subjects for the law and for the Sovereign power upon the fact that that Sovereign power rests upon the Word of God, as written. Then look across the ocean to the United States of America. They have not adopted this system; they have had a great Civil War, which nearly rent them in twain; two Presidents of the United States have been murdered within the memory of us all. Sir, these are not times in. which this House should neglect or reject the important lessons which such great and historical and Constitutional facts as I have ventured, however imperfectly, to bring under the attention of the House, teach.

Mr. SPEAKER, having taken the pleasure of the House, that the hon. Member for Northampton be now heard:—

MR. BRADLAUGH

(who spoke from the Bar) said: Sir, in addressing the House for the third time from this position, I feel the exceeding difficulty of dealing fairly with myself without dealing unfairly with the House. If I were to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down into his errors of law, of history, and of memory, into his reckless misconceptions as to what are the views I hold and write about, I should only be giving pain to numbers of Members here, and departing from that mandate with which my constituents have trusted me. It is—I say it with all respect—not true that I have done anything more with reference to the succession than maintain the right of Parliament, meaning by Parliament both Houses, to control it; and any Member who pretends that I have done anything else either does it, not having read what I have written, or heard what I have said, or having forgotten entirely what I have written or said, and being extremely careless in representing my views to the House. I regret that the hon. Member should have imported into the discussion some fact supposed to have occurred in a Police Court since I stood here before. I can only give the House my positive assurance that the hon. Member is perfectly inaccurate in his representation of what took place. It is ex- ceedingly painful to bandy words in this way. The hon. Member was good enough to say he did not hear—he could not well have heard, for the magistrate did not refuse my affirmation at all. I happened to have been before Mr. Vaughan before, and he knew me, and knew the particular form of affirmation, and when the clerk read it to me no discussion took place on the subject. I hope the House will forgive me for contradicting such a small thing; but small things are sometimes much used. They have been used to work my ruin since I stood here before, and I regret that the shame of reticence did not at least keep it from this House, that the hon. Member thought it his duty, by a common informer, to attempt to drive me into the Bankruptcy Court, and outside this House has boasted that the question would be solved in that way. It may be a brave boast, it may be consonant with piety from the hon. Member's point of view; but I believe that every other hon. Gentleman's sense of piety would revolt against the notion of driving a single man into bankruptcy, and then canvassing for subscriptions for the "bold and vigorous, and patriotic and noble conduct," as the advertisement said, which consisted in hurrying in a cab to find the common informer to issue a writ against me. I dismiss that, however. I ask the House to pardon me for having wasted its time on this poor thing. I do not hope, I dare not think, that any word I may say here will win one vote; and I would have let this go silently against me, were it not that I owe a duty to the constituency that has twice intrusted me with its suffrages, a duty to every constituency right through the land in time to come, whose Representative may be challenged as Northampton's has been. ["No!"] Some hon. Gentlemen say "No!" but where is the challenge to stop? It is not simply theology, it is politics too. It is not simply theology that is brought before the House, but the wild imaginings of some Member who, with the nightmare of panic upon him, and a wild imagining of the French Revolution clothed in terrors of which I know nothing, comes here to tell you of mighty Russia successful, and of the unfortunate United States with its Presidents assassinated because of religious and political opinions. Panic of that kind is not evidence as to my opinions. If this House intends to try me for my opinions, let it do it reasonably, and at least have the evidence before it. I would show you how unfair it is to trust to memory of words. The hon. Member was good enough to tell the House that I had declared to a Committee of the House that certain words were meaningless. I hold in my hand the Report of the Committee and the Minutes of Evidence, and no such word exists in any declaration of mine. [Mr. NEWDEGATE dissented.] The hon. Member does not believe me. I cannot make more than facts. I cannot make the comprehension which should distinguish when prejudice has determined that nothing shall be right that is put. The only way in which it can be pretended that anything of the kind in reference to the Oath can be brought in is by taking my letter of the 20th of May, written outside the House, which does not contain a specific declaration the hon. Member has put into it, which letter I protested ought not to be brought before the Committee at all, which I never volunteered to the Committee, which I objected to the Committee having before them. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen who laugh, laugh because the laugh is the only answer that could be given. No reason can be given in reply, no facts can be quoted; and I ask hon. Members who laugh to remember that I am pleading as though a quasi-criminal at this Bar, and that I have a right to an audience from them, and I appeal to the House at least to give me a silent hearing. Judges do that. If you are unfit to be judges, then do not judge. It shows, at least, the difficulty of dealing with a question like this, when those who are to judge have come to a judgment already, not upon any facts, but upon what they think ought to be the facts. I ask the House to deal legally and fairly with me. Legally, you are bound to deal; fairly, as an Assembly of English Gentlemen, you ought to deal with me, even if you have differences with me, even if you think my opinions so obnoxious, even if you think that the politics with which you identify me in your minds are dangerous to you. ["Oh, oh!"] If I am not dangerous, why not let me speak there? (pointing to the seat he occupied last Session). If there is no danger, why strain the law? If there is no danger, why disobey the law? It is put by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last that there are certain words of the Oath which the Courts of Law have declared essential. The Courts of Law have declared the exact opposite. So far as a decision has been given, the very Report of the Committee shows that the highest Court of Judicature in this Realm has decided the words are not essential to the Oath at all. I ask the House to deal with me with some semblance and show of legality and fairness; and first I say that they ought not to go behind my election of the 9th of April, 1881, and that the House ought to reject the Resolution moved by the right hon. Gentleman, because it deals with matters which antedate my election, and because the House has nothing to do with me before the 9th of April, 1881. That is the return of which the Clerk at the Table has the certificate. That is my only authority for being here. If I did aught before that rendered me unworthy to sit here, why did the House let me sit here from the 2nd of July to the 29th of March? If what I did entitles the House not to receive me, why has not the House had the courage of its opinions and vacated the seat? Either the seat is mine in law, and in law I claim it from you, or I am unworthy to own it, and then why not vacate the seat and let the constituency express its opinion again? But my return is un-impeached, it is unimpeachable, and there has been no Petition against me. The hon. Member who went into back alleys for common informers could not find a petitioner to present a Petition against it. If I speak with temper the House, I trust, will pardon me. I have read within the last few days words spoken, not by Members of no consequence, but by Members occupying high position in this House, which makes me wonder if this is the House of Commons to which I aspired so much. I have read that one right hon. Member, the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), was prompted to say to his constituents that I was kicked downstairs last Session, and that he hoped I should be again. If it were true that I was kicked downstairs, I would ask Members of the House of Commons on whom the shame, on whom the disgrace, on whom the stigma? I dare not apply this, but history will when I have mouldered, and you, too, and our passions are quite gone. But it is not quite true that I was kicked downstairs, and it is a dangerous thing to say that I was, for it means that hon. Members, who should rely on law, rely on force. It is a dangerous provocation to conflict to throw to the people. If I had been as wicked in my thought as some Members are reported to have been in their speech, this quarrel, not of my provoking, would assume a future to make us all ashamed. I beg this House to believe, and I trust, Sir, that you at least will believe me, that I have tried as much as man might to keep the dignity of this House. I submitted last Session, and the Session before, to have had things said against me without one word of reply, because, having had your good counsel, I felt it might provoke discussion upon matters which this House would willingly not have speech upon, and that I had far better rest under some slight stigma than occupy the House with my personality. I appeal to the recollection of every Member of the House whether from the moment of my entering into it I did not utterly disregard everything that took place prior to my coming into it, and direct myself to the business for which my constituents sent me here. The most extraordinary statements are made as to my views statements as inaccurate as those which have fallen, no doubt unconsciously, from the hon. Member who has last addressed the House. One noble Lord in a great London gathering convoked against me—a gathering which was not as successful as some that have taken place in my favour—denounced me as a Socialist. I do not happen to be one. I happen to think that Socialists are the most unwise and illogical people you can happen to meet. But the noble Lord knew that I ought to be something. I am a red rag to a wild Conservative bull, and it must rush at me and call me Socialist. I ask this House to be more fair and just. If I am to be tried, at least let me be tried for the opinions I hold and the views I express. Why, there are Members who have soiled their tongues with words about social relations and marriage for which I have no proper reply in this House, as unfortunately the Forms of the House do not permit me to use the only fitting answer, and perhaps it is as well. But I ask the House, Do not let this be the kind of weapon, with which a return is met. Deal with me as the law directs, and in no other way. It is said—"You have brought this upon yourself." One Baronet, who has spoken of me with a kindness more than I deserve, in the very borough which I represent, said I had brought it upon myself, because when I originally came to the House I flaunted and most ostentatiously put my opinion upon the House. Well, not one word of that is true. Not a shadow of it is true. I hold in my hand the sworn evidence of Sir Erskine May. I do not ask Gentlemen to take my word, for it is clear they will not, but that of their own officer. And when the right hon. Baronet said I claimed under the Statute, and drew an inference from it, he knows that my claim contained no such words until the Clerk at the Table of the House challenged me as to the law under which I claimed. I do not quarrel with him; but I submit that the Clerk of the House had no right to put that question to me. I submit that the House had nothing whatever to do with it—that it certainly is no ostentatious flaunting by me. I submit, at any rate, that it is prior to the 9th of April, 1881, and the House has no right to revive it against me. I ask the House to try and deal with me with some show of fairness. They will find when I was before the Committee, instead of obtruding my opinions, I said I had never, directly or indirectly, obtruded upon the House any of my utterances or publications upon any subject whatever; and when pressed by one of the Members sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House as to certain opinions I was supposed to hold, by asking me particular words I was supposed to have used in a judicial proceeding, I said that if the Committee wished I would answer, but that I objected to answer, because I had carefully refrained from saying any word which would bring my opinions before the House. I ask, therefore, the House whether it is not monstrously unfair to say that I have obtruded any opinions here, when I have expressly, carefully, and thoroughly kept them from the House? But it is said by the right hon. Baronet that it would be a profanation to allow me to take the Oath, and that the House would be no party to such a profanation. Does the House mean that it is a party to each Oath taken? There was a time when most clearly it was not so a party. There was a time when the Oath was not even taken in the presence of Members at all. But does the House mean it is a party now? Was it a party the Session before last? Was it a party when Mr. Hall walked up to that Table, cheered by Members on the other side, who knew his seat was won by deliberate bribery? [Cries of "Order!"] Bribery sought to be concealed by the most corrupt perjury. Did the House join in it? If the House did not join in it, why did you cheer so that the words of the Oath were drowned? But was the House a party when John Stuart Mill sat in this House? ["No!"] A Member who is, I think, now within the walls of the House—the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord)—in addressing his constituents, said that Mr. Brad-laugh's opinions were hardly more objectionable than those of some other Members of the House. If the hon. Member knew that, then he was a party to the profanation of the Oath; but perhaps they were on his own side, and he did not feel the profanation so acutely. But it is said—"Our real objection is that you have declared that the Oath is not binding upon you." [Mr. R. N. FOWLER: Hear, hear!] That is exactly the opposite of what I did declare. The hon. Member whose voice I hear now, I unfortunately heard on the 3rd of August; and heard so that I shall never forget it. The hon. Member admits that is the point—that I have declared the Oath is not binding upon my conscience; but, unfortunately, all the print goes the other way. I am asked by the Committee who sat as to whether the Oath is binding, and on page 15 I reply— Any form that I went through, any Oath that I took, I shall regard as binding upon my conscience in the fullest degree, and I would go through no form and take no Oath unless I meant it to he so binding. Again, I am asked as to the word "swear." I say— I consider when I take an Oath it is binding upon my honour and upon my conscience; and, with reference to the words of asseveration to which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire referred, he would, at least, have been more generous towards myself, if generosity be possible with him, if he had said—"I desire to add—and I do this most solemnly and unreservedly—that the taking, and subscribing, and repeating these words of asseveration will in no degree weaken the binding effect of the Oath upon my conscience." I say here, Sir, before you, with all the solemnity man can command, that I know the words of the Oath the Statute requires me to take, and I am ready to take that Oath according to law, and that I will not take an Oath without intending it to be binding upon me, and that if I do take the Oath it will be binding upon my honour and conscience. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Members of the House who are ignorant of what is honour and conscience—[Loud cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"] If Members will allow me to finish my sentence—["Withdraw!"] Members of this House who are ignorant of what is—[Renewed cries of "Withdraw!"] These are my judges. Members of this House who are ignorant of what is the honour and conscience of the man who stands before them, have a right to shout "Withdraw!" but they must beware lest a greater voice outside at the ballot-box, where it has a right to express it, may not only say "withdraw;" but make withdraw all those who infringe the Constitutional rights of the nation, as they seek to infringe them now. If I knew any kind of word which might convince Members whom I desire to convince that I would take no pledge that I did not mean to be binding, I would use that form of word. But I have found myself so harshly judged, so unfairly dealt with, that one feels a difficulty in understanding whether any form of words, however often repeated, would convey any kind of conviction to some minds. I presume that this House will repeat its vote of April 26. What then? Will it have the courage of its opinions, and vacate my seat? If it does not, this House leaves me in an unfair position before the law. I am bound to come to this Table, and will come to this Table, as long as the mandate of my constituents sends me here, unless the House vacates the seat. If my seat be vacated it is my duty to bow to the House, and appeal to my constituents again; and then the verdict rests with them. But to take away part of the right, and deal with it in this fashion, leaving me with the full legal responsibility and no kind of legal authority, I submit is not generous. Well, will this House repeat its vote of 9th May? Will it substitute force for law? At present the law is on my side. ["No, no!"] If not, let me sit and sue me. If not, try by petition. If not, bring an action. But shouting "No!" will not decide the law, even with the united wisdom of the Members of this House who shout it. I know that no man is a good advocate for a great principle unless he himself be worthy of the principle he advocates, and I have felt acutely the judgment properly passed upon me by many Members of this House, who, knowing their superiority to me, say how unworthy I am that this question should be fought in my person. I admit I am unworthy; but it is not my fault that I have this fight to make. I remind you of the words of one of the greatest statesmen who sat in this House more than 100 years ago, that whenever an infringement of the Constitutional right was attempted it was always attempted in the person of some obnoxious man. I ask the House for a moment to carry its mind to the 3rd of August last. I do that because either I do not understand what took place then, or my memory has failed mo, as the memory of other hon. Members sometimes do, or things happened without my consciousness. I thought that I had stood aside until Parliament had dealt with the pressing business of the nation. I thought that had been recognized by this House. I thought I only came saying at the very door of the House that I was ready to obey its lawful orders, and I thought I was then seized by force while saying it. My memory may not serve me well on that, but I think it does. There were plenty of witnesses to the scene. I saw one hon. Member climb on to a pedestal to see how 14 men could struggle with one. It was hardly generous, hardly brave, hardly worthy of the great House of Commons, that those sending out to the whole world lessons of freedom, liberty, and law, should so infringe and so stamp them under foot. I had no remedy in any Court, or I would have taken it. With all respect to you, Sir, and the officers of this House, if there had been any possibility of trying at law against the mighty privilege of this House, I would have appealed to that possibility. Let me now, before I finish, ask the ear of the House for one moment. It is said it is the Oath and not the man; but others, more frank, say it is the man. and not the Oath. Is it the Oath and not the man? I am ready to stand aside, say for four or five weeks, with- out coming to that Table, if the House within that time, or within such time as its great needs might demand, would discuss whether an Affirmation Bill should pass or not. I want to obey the law, and I tell you how I might meet the House still further, if the House will pardon me for seeming to advise it. Hon. Members have said that would be a Bradlaugh Relief Bill. Bradlaugh is more proud than you are. Let the Bill pass without applying to elections that have taken place previously, and I will undertake not to claim my seat, and when the Bill has passed I will apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. I have no fear. If I am not fit for my constituents, they shall dismiss me; but you never shall. The grave alone shall make me yield.

[Mr. BRADLAUGH then withdrew.]

EARL PERCY

said, that Mr. Bradlaugh had referred to a meeting at which he (Earl Percy) had had the honour of presiding, and which Mr. Bradlaugh characterized as not a success. He (Earl Percy) thought it right to state that so far as it was not a success, although it was by no means wholly unsuccessful, it was due to the fact that being a ticket meeting, and announced as such, the supporters and sympathizers of Mr. Bradlaugh fabricated tickets for the purpose of attending, took possession of the platform, and endeavoured forcibly to eject those who had assembled.

MR. LABOUCHERE

wished to state one fact it was important all Members should know—namely, that there had been a great many Petitions sent to hon. Members in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take his seat; and no doubt there had been Petitions sent to hon. Members on the opposite side against Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take his seat. He had himself received 750 odd Petitions, signed by about 170,000 persons; and other hon. Gentlemen on the same side had received other Petitions, signed by about 100,000 persons. This debate was taking place without those Petitions being presented to the House, and he wished to state why that was the case. He had consulted the authorities of the House, and had been informed by them that it was not permissible to present those Petitions on the first day of the Session. Under those circumstances, and however remarkable that Rule might be, and however much it might tell in a debate such as this, all who were interested on either side who were intrusted with Petitions had to present them after the debate had taken place. He wished also to say a word with regard to the proposal made by his hon. Colleague; and he hoped they would have some reply from some hon. Gentleman of authority on the opposite side of the House. He thought hon. Members would deem that a fair and loyal proposal had been made, as Mr. Bradlaugh proposed to entirely sacrifice himself. If the right hon. Member for North Devon would withdraw his Resolution to-day, Mr. Bradlaugh would withdraw himself from the Table, and remain away a month or six weeks, or any determined period, only asking that during that time a Bill should be brought in to enable any Member either to affirm or take the Oath at his pleasure. Mr. Bradlaugh did not for a moment ask hon. Members to vote in opposition to their views, or in favour of such a Bill; all he asked was there should not be such obstruction as to render it impossible for the opinion of the House to be taken on that Bill. He thought Mr. Bradlaugh had a fair claim to ask that that obstruction should not take place, because hon. Members would admit that when such a Bill was brought in before there was opposition on the opposite side. ["No, no!"] Well, two years ago he gave Notice of a Bill, which was read a first time; but he was not allowed to read it a second time. His Bill was "blocked"—they all knew what that meant—and he did not obtain an opportunity of having it discussed. Again, last year, in one of the debates about Mr. Bradlaugh, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) got up and said he thought the best way of meeting the question was by legislating in that sense upon it; but that the question was one so important that the Government should accept the responsibility of legislating upon it. The Government accepted the challenge at once, and, of course, he gave way for the Government to bring in their Bill. But what followed? The Government were not even allowed to let the House know what it was. They asked for a day on which to bring it in—a Saturday, he believed. [An hon. MEMBER: A Morning Sitting.] Yes, a Morning Sitting; but they were not allowed to bring it in; and he would appeal to the fairness of hon. Members to say whether there was not obstruction on the part of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House? It seemed to him that in a month the whole matter might be settled. He was going to give Notice of a Bill; but if the Government wished to bring in one he would yield to them. How long would it take to discuss it? On the second reading a fair discussion would be one evening. The Bill would consist of but one clause, and another evening could be devoted to that in Committee, and the third reading ought not to take more than one hour; and if hon. Members on the opposite side would consent to that, the whole matter might be settled very quickly. In some sense he sympathized with hon. Members upon this subject. They knew that Mr. Bradlaugh had atheistical opinions some time ago, and they assumed that he had them now. He perfectly understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite said there was a strong objection to any Gentleman with such opinions coming to the Table of the House and repeating the words of an Oath which they held sacred, but to which Mr. Bradlaugh did not attach the same sanctity. Where they parted company with hon. Gentlemen was here. They said the law allowed Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath, and, having been elected, he was bound to perform his duties as a Member; and he put it to hon. Gentlemen whether it would not be more desirable to settle the matter at once, in order that henceforth no person entertaining atheistical opinions should have an excuse for using those words which, by the merest accident, they were able to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from using? If this Parliament were to be dissolved, and Mr. Bradlaugh, or anyone entertaining his opinions, were to be elected to the next Parliament, it would be perfectly competent for them to come to the Table and take the Oath, and it would be impossible for any hon. Gentleman to object; therefore, he said, with all respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and their feelings on the subject of religion, it was in the interests of religion that this matter should be settled, and settled promptly, by legislation. If such a Bill were passed, Mr. Bradlaugh promised it should not affect him as Member for Northampton, but only those who were elected after its passing; therefore, it was desirable the matter should be settled in that way.

SIB STAFFOED NOETHCOTE

Sir, I find it necessary to rise after the hon. Member for Northampton, in the first place to confirm one statement that he has made, and next to raise a question as to another of his statements. It is perfectly well known to all Members of the House, but it may probably not be known to gentlemen out-of-doors, that a difficulty has arisen with regard to the presentation of Petitions in this matter. Considering the very great interest felt in this question out-of-doors, and the enormous number of letters, Resolutions, and Petitions which have been forwarded certainly to Gentlemen on this side of the House—and I have no doubt to Gentlemen on the other side—it may appear strange to the public that no Petitions have been presented on the present occasion. I myself have received a considerable number, which I should be glad to lay before the House, and amongst them one signed by 10,300 persons, a large proportion of whom give their occupations and addresses, in the borough of Northampton. I mention that because, though they are anxious that their Petition should be presented, it was not within our competency to break the Rules of the House, and, therefore, they and all these Petitions must stand over. With regard to another point, I wish it to be clearly understood how we stand with respect to the Motion I have made and the Amendment, the Previous Question, moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) on behalf of the Government. As I understand it, Mr. Bradlaugh, presenting himself here and offering to take the Oath, would have taken the Oath unless I had interposed with the Motion which I have submitted. Upon that Motion I invited the House to express an opinion; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has moved the Previous Question, and should he be successful in carrying his majority with him he will stop the putting of my objection; and the result will be that Mr. Bradlaugh, as a matter of course, will be permitted to take the Oath, There is no question, as some have suggested, of any intermediate course in this matter. The Previous Question, in point of form, may be called an intermediate course, but it is not so really; it is practically giving him the right to take the Oath. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman says you may give him that right, subject to an appeal to a Court of Law—to the action of a Court of Law—which shall subsequently decide whether the taking of the Oath in the way he proposes to take it is in accordance with, and within the meaning of, the Rules for the admittance of Members of this House. I have a great objection to that mode of dealing with the question. I think that is by no means the way in which you ought to settle a question of this sort. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says—"Do the same with regard to the Oath as you did with the Affirmation; you allowed Mr. Bradlaugh to make Affirmation, subject to the decision of a Court of Law." But what has been the result of allowing Mr. Bradlaugh to make Affirmation? We have had suits, cross-suits, and counter-suits before the Court, and there has been a great expenditure of money and a great deal of vexation and annoyance. I venture to think the result, although confirming the view of those with whom I sympathize and act, and also the view of the Committee which sat on this question, is yet an unsatisfactory way of having dealt with the question. But in regard to the Affirmation, we were, at least, free from one difficulty which now attends us. There was no question of profanation in that. Although it may be said we ought to be indifferent to such a matter, we are not indifferent, and the country is not indifferent. There is a large body of the people representing various shades of religious opinion who all feel strongly on that matter, and think with us that it is our duty, if possible, to unite to prevent the profanation of the name of God. We may be told we are wrong; we may be told we are bigoted. But it is our sincere feeling, and a feeling which ought to command respect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks us to get over that feeling, and to submit to the taking place of that to which we object. That is a very different case to the case of allowing Affirmation; and, in addition to the inconvenience of going to the Courts of Law, there will be the shock that will be given to the religious feeling, not only of the House, but of large bodies in the country who are looking with the deepest interest at our proceedings. The other statement of the hon. Member for Northampton to which I would wish to allude is that in reference to what he calls the obstruction offered to the Oaths Bill last Session. It is perfectly true that facilities were not given to the Government to the full extent they desired to enable them to bring forward that Bill; but I beg to point out that the most important facility was given in that the matter was put entirely in their own hands. Hon. Members are aware that a Government or any other Bill can be blocked after half-past 12; and if in the case of the Oaths Bill any Member on this side of the House had adopted that course, there would, I admit, have been a real case of obstruction. But that was not done. What was done was to abstain from blocking the Government in commencing their debate on the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill, and an adjournment of that debate having taken place it was within the power of the Government, from that time up to the end of the Session, to make the adjourned debate the first Order of the Day on any Government night, when it would have been open to them to have taken the opinion of the House on the measure. That being the ease, the Government have no right to throw upon us the charge that we obstructed the Bill. Undoubtedly, many Members on this side of the House strongly objected to the passing of the measure. I have never concealed my opinion that it would be desirable that we should have seen the Bill; but if we are asked to do what we are now asked to do I say it would be utterly impossible to come to terms. We are asked actually to enter into a bargain by the Gentleman who comes here and wishes to take the Oath that he shall not claim to take his seat provided we will proceed with the discussion of the Bill for altering the law. Our position is one from which it is impossible for us in honour and in conscience to recede. We have nothing whatever to do with any legislation that may be proposed. I have no doubt that, in the event of Mr. Bradlaugh being excluded from taking the Oath now, some of his Friends or the Government—which, perhaps, would be the best course—will propose legislation on the subject. We will deal with proposals when they arise, and when we know what they are. But we cannot on any subject, and more especially on such a subject as this, enter on a bargain in the dark, or recede from the position which we have now taken up. We simply affirm this, that we will not consent to the profanation of the Oath. I know perfectly well the view of the Government is that we are not parties to the taking of the Oath at all. That view relieves them from a difficulty they would otherwise have to face. We cannot share that view. We cannot dissociate ourselves from the notice which has been given to us, and which our Committee brought before us. We cannot dissociate ourselves from that knowledge. It is quite impossible for us to close our eyes to what is about to take place; and therefore I hope that the House will on this occasion affirm and re-affirm the vote at which we arrived last Session by re-affirming the Resolution which I have offered to the House.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am anxious, Mr. Speaker, in the first place, to make my apology to the House for not having been in my place when this debate commenced. Perhaps that apology may be deemed not insufficient when it is borne in mind that this is, I think, the first occasion within the memory of any of us here present on which a debate of a serious character has arisen on the first day of the Session before the hour of half-past 4. The time of the Government is part of public property which they are bound to dispose of for the best; and as it is their duty to be in the House when they are wanted, so, I may say, it is their duty not to be in this House when they have good reason to believe that they are not wanted. I cannot but express some regret that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, who is now desirous to take his seat in this House, has not drawn forth a more liberal acknowledgment from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The history of the case, I think, is this—the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman on former occasions when difficulty was interposed in the way of Mr. Bradlaugh coming to the Table was, I think, in the main—I do not profess to quote the words from memory—that he was dis- posed to view with favour legislation for the purpose of establishing the option between an Affirmation and the Oath; but the declaration was subjected by him, either at the moment or shortly afterwards, to this material qualification—that he thought it was very much to be deprecated that the subject should be discussed in immediate connection with the case of Mr. Bradlaugh. Well, that was a qualification which it was not unfair to make, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton has endeavoured to meet the demand of the right hon. Baronet, by offering, in a manner so public and formal that there can be no doubt whatever about the matter, that ho would resign his seat, and be perfectly content to submit his claim again to his constituents, for the purpose of learning whether they would again, after the passing of such an Act, be desirous of sending him to this House as their Representative. That completely disassociates the hon. Member for Northampton from the proposed alteration in the law. I perfectly understand the declaration that the right hon. Gentleman cannot enter into a bargain with Mr. Bradlaugh. There is no doubt at all that the declaration is perfectly warranted. It is perfectly open to him, on the other hand, to revert to the opinions which ho has previously expressed in favour of legislation for the purpose of establishing this option—to swear or to affirm—and to acknowledge that the special objection he has taken—an objection, if, perhaps, without substance, is certainly worthy of attention as coming from him—namely, that the question was associated with the personal case of Mr. Bradlaugh—had now been removed. The right hon. Gentleman, it appears, does not choose to meet the offer of the hon. Member for Northampton in any way, and he is aware of the difficulties which have been encountered in the attempt to obtain the judgment of the House upon the question of legislation. No charge has been made by the Government—he said the Government had no right to make a charge. No charge that I am aware of has been made by the Government with respect to obstruction; but, on the other hand, I must point out that it is all very well to say that the Government have had opportunities of laying down questions of legislation con- cerning the Oath on any Government night they might please. Really the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is as if the Government had nothing to deal with except a perfect luxury of abundance as to the state of their time in comparison with the demands upon it. He knows perfectly well that there was not a single instance in which it was within the power of the Government last year to ask the House to devote a portion of the time given to the Government to any purposes except those connected with matters of the highest and most paramount public importance. It is no doubt very desirable that a question such as that now before us should be settled; but it is quite another matter—and it is our duty to give it very jealous consideration—whether, in the first place, that question is of paramount importance; and whether, in the second place, it is the duty of the Government to take it into its hands and to give it preference over all great subjects of public interest which demand its attention and its care. The question before us now is a simple one. We are both of us in a position to appeal to authority. On the last occasion on which this question was discussed by the House the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in carrying a Resolution, the effect of which was that the House took into its own hands the interpretation of the law, and for itself determined that Mr. Bradlaugh should not be admitted to take the Oath at this Table; and the right hon. Gentleman very naturally appeals to that precedent and calls upon the House to support it again. We, on the other hand, bear in mind that on another occasion the House, with respect to the same Gentleman, was pleased to decide that it would not interfere with his coming to the Table to affirm, but that his Affirmation should be understood to be liable to whatever judgment the Court of Law might pass upon it. It is, therefore, perfectly open to us to consider which of these two courses is the best; and we hold that the best course is to leave the matter to be decided by a Court of Law. It has been said by someone that a Court of Law could not touch the question. I apprehend that opinion to be totally unfounded. A Court of Law did touch the question in the case of the Affirmation. The penalty was sued for, and it became the province of the Court of Law to determine whether the hon. Member for Northampton had been qualified to take the Affirmation or not, and whether he had fulfilled the conditions of sitting in Parliament or not. What we desire is that exactly the same course should again be followed. The right hon. Gentleman says there was a great deal of litigation and a great deal of money spent, and that all that was very sad and painful. Well, these are the conditions of judicial actions. They are conditions to which we must submit, and to which it is well we should submit; if by such conditions we get a perfectly fair administration of the law, apart from bias, and apart from prejudice and temper, and if that administration of the law is not to be had in any other way. Now, I must, for my own part, respectfully submit to the right hon. Gentleman that his appeal on the subject of profanation is an illegitimate appeal on this occasion. It is travelling into the province of conscience, and this House is not entitled to travel into the province of conscience. We have no right to look, in this matter, at anything except the simple question of legality. Besides, I must say I am greatly at a loss to reconcile the doctrine on the subject of profanation with declarations that I have heard over and over again made from that Bench during the course of this discussion—the declaration that there was no objection taken to the taking of this Oath by an Atheist—no objection taken to the taking of this Oath by a known Atheist; but only to its being taken by an Atheist who, as it was said, had obtruded his atheism into the proceedings of this House. Well, does not that touch the question of profanation? Atheism exists, and if it is known to exist, the profanation is as great, and our duty with respect to it is the same, as in cases where atheistical opinions have been obtruded. I must say it appears to me that as the right hon. Gentleman took upon himself to notice the speech delivered by Mr. Bradlaugh, it would have been, perhaps, well that he should have referred to the allegation of that Gentleman, that he had never obtruded his opinions upon this House—that his avowal of them was drawn from him by questions before a Committee of this House. I must say that if that statement cannot be challenged—and it was not challenged by the right hon. Baronet —it is an ungenerous course to charge upon him the consequences of that which he has performed in obedience to the apparent intention or order of this House. What we have to do is to secure to every subject of Her Majesty justice according to the law of the land. Now, what is the best course to take on the question before us in order to secure justice, and no more than justice, to Mr. Bradlaugh? Is it that we should take into our own hands the settlement of this question? Have we the jurisdiction to do that? It is not a matter of Privilege. Privilege does not, I apprehend, affect the interpretation of the Statute Law of the land. The question is whether the Statute Law of the land has given us this jurisdiction, and, if it has, whether it is expedient to use that jurisdiction. I must confess I cannot find that this jurisdiction is given. It appears to me to be the evident intention of the Act of Parliament that the House should be witness to the formality and external regularity of the proceedings at this Table; but that from every question of interior examination it should refrain as beyond its power and its province. But, even if that be not so, I submit to this House that, on every ground, the lover of justice ought to desire that such a question as this should be determined, not in this House, but by a Court of Law. I will not find fault—I cannot fairly find fault—with the temper in which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed himself to this subject tonight. But he knows the feeling—the strong feeling—that prevails; he hears the exclamations, he hears the declarations that are made on the subject by others less responsible than himself. Does he believe, or does he not, that this House approaches this question of construing the law in an important matter of public right in the spirit in which Judges ought to approach it, and in which in a Court of Law Judges would approach it? I greatly doubt whether he thinks that a judicial temper does prevail among us. I cannot see evidence of it; nay, more, I think it is impossible that it should prevail. What we ought to keep in view is that the decision of this question depends upon strict principles of legal interpretation. We are not great masters of these subjects. We cannot, perhaps, always avoid them if they have been committed to us expressly by law, or if they belong expressly to our Con- stitution; but we ought never to assume them when we can avoid the exercise of a power for which we are not well qualified. Least of all ought we to assume any power of the kind in a question where full discussion in the House has afforded such abundant evidence that feelings are aroused in the breasts of many that tend to influence their conduct and votes in a manner quite beside the strict interpretation of the law. Now, Sir, it is our duty to adhere to the path which leads to a strict interpretation of the law, and any departure from that path is a profanation. ["No, no!"] Yes; it is a profanation of our first duty—the duty of securing justice to every subject of Her Majesty. One word upon the form of the question that is now before us the "Previous Question" is a formula which is often adopted as a mere dilatory plea for getting rid of a subject for the time; and it may be perfectly legitimate to regard the "Previous Question" from that point of view on many occasions. But here it is not so. Here it is the Parliamentary, and perhaps the only strictly Parliamentary, method of proceeding. By the "Previous Question" on this occasion we mean to assert that this is a subject which is not fit for us to entertain. It is a subject which ought to pass from us to others more competent to deal with it. And here I must take exception to an expression, strangely as I think, used by my right hon. Friend who has just sat down. He said it was proposed by the "Previous Question" to give Mr. Bradlaugh the right to take the Oath at this Table. We give nothing to Mr. Bradlaugh. What did we give him when the opposition to his affirming was withdrawn? We simply did not interfere, and it is now proposed that we shall not interfere with what he proposes to do on his own responsibility. But that is not giving him a right. We give him nothing except the power of having this question raised in a Court of Law; and that, indeed, we only give him in the sense of not interfering with the action of the law, as we believe, in order to take it away from him. Sir, that is the purpose of the "Previous Question" upon this occasion. It means that, in our opinion, we are not suited to the action it is proposed to take—that we are going to do that which it is not our duty to do, because we have no right to do it. And any man who believes in his own mind that Mr. Bradlaugh is not justified morally and before God in coming to this Table to take the Oath, notwithstanding, if he has a true view of his duty as a Member of Parliament and of the function which Parliament is called upon to perform, he ought to vote with my right hon. and learned Friend for the "Previous Question"—that is, for refusing to entertain before an incompetent tribunal—["Oh, oh!"]—a subject of this nature, and for permitting it to be submitted to a tribunal thoroughly competent. I thank the Gentlemen who gave utterance to those ejaculations just now upon my using an expression which does not appear to be one of extraordinary violence or prejudice—namely, "an incompetent tribunal." I thank them for the additional evidence which they have afforded, and which they must afford upon every renewal of this debate, that this House is ill suited for the office that it is now invited by the right hon. Gentleman to undertake; and that there is another tribunal much better suited to do justice in the case—a tribunal to which, as I venture to suggest, we should do well to submit it.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, before the House went to a division he wished to call attention to a strange misapprehension of the Prime Minister with respect to the similarity he imagined existed between the present and past action of the Government. The Prime Minister seemed to imagine that if Mr. Bradlaugh were allowed to take the Oath, then the question might go to the Courts, as had been the case when Mr. Bradlaugh was allowed to affirm. But when the Resolution as to affirming was submitted it was expressly reserved that Mr. Bradlaugh was liable to penalties if it should be decided that he was not a person who by law was entitled to affirm. He ventured to say, speaking as a lawyer—and he was certain no lawyer would contradict him—if they now carried the "Previous Question," and allowed Mr. Bradlaugh to come to the Table and there in due form to take the Oath administered to him, there was no legal tribunal in this country which would entertain the question, or had the means of determining whether that was or was not a valid taking of the Oath. There was a wide and extraordinary difference between affirming, under the reservation, as to penalties, and taking the Oath under cover of the "Previous Question." He was sure the Prime Minister must see the difference. There was only one other point to which he wished to refer. The Prime Minister said that Mr. Bradlaugh's avowal of his opinions had been wrung from him by questions put by a Committee of that House. But this was in absolute contradiction to what Mr. Bradlaugh himself had that evening asserted. He had contended that the House had no right to judge or even to take cognizance of his opinions, because he had never avowed either to the House or to its Committees. The avowal was made in a letter addressed to the Press like a proclamation by Mr. Bradlaugh. That letter was published on the very day that the Committee reported, and was a final announcement to the public of the course he intended to take. In that letter Mr. Bradlaugh said that in the Oath an appeal was made to the Deity, and he declared it would be an act of hypocrisy on his part voluntarily to take this Oath. Mr. Bradlaugh declared that the Oath was of a meaningless character in his mouth—that, in fact, it would mean no appeal to the Deity at all. At the end of his speech the Prime Minister, anticipating what the action of the tribunal was likely to be, had attacked the competence of the tribunal itself, and had declared that the House was unfit to exercise judicial functions. The House had proved its judicial qualities on this very question by the strongest of all tests—it had broken away from Party bonds, and the Prime Minister had not been able to keep his own followers together. It was precisely because the House had dealt with this matter, not on Party principles, but as Members of a judicial tribunal, that the right hon. Gentleman had again and again to deplore what probably he anticipated that night—going into the minority Lobby.

MR. SERJEANT SIMON

said, the fact that there was a reservation in the Resolution passed by the House of Commons made no difference. Any person could raise the question in a Court of Law whether any Member who came to the Table did take the Oath within the meaning of the Statute. That was the question raised in the case of the Affirmation, and the reservation in the Resolution passed last Session made no difference whatever. The Court took cognizance of the question by virtue of the law, not because of the reservation, which conferred no legislative power.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

said, the House clearly objected to the threatened profanation; but the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said—"Permit it to take place, and then ask in a Court of Law whether we are justified or not." That was a remarkable suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman had completely overlooked the fact that the particular case with which they wore dealing was purely exceptional. The hon. Member for Northampton came there as an apostle of unbelief; and it was his object, having made a profession of that unbelief, to enter the House and obtain a victory over the Christianity of this country. That was the real meaning of the whole matter. The right hon. Gentleman said the House had no right to question a man as to his belief or unbelief. That was perfectly true; but the rule did not apply here. It was Mr. Bradlaugh who came to the Table and first refused to take the Oath, and, when declared unable to affirm, offered to take the Oath, which he had declared to the whole House was meaningless. It was treating the House like children, not like men—not like Christians—to suppose that they could allow a person who had forced upon them the assurance that he did not believe in God to come to the Table of the House and make its Members accomplices in the profanity of taking God's name in vain.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he could not help remarking that the Prime Minister a short time since publicly expressed his regret at the want of moral support with regard to a portion of his administration. If the right hon. Gentleman were engaged in searching for proof of moral support upon this question, he could not congratulate him on the present occasion. Ho certainly considered that as between Mr. Bradlaugh and the Head of the Government, the Prime Minister of a great country which had maintained the reputation of Christianity through countless generations, the difference was undoubtedly in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh. The statement which had been made on behalf of Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw his claim to profane the Oath on condition that an Affirmation Bill was intro- duced was ostensibly addressed to the Opposition, as if with them lay the responsibility of introducing fundamental changes in the Constitution; but the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) could be regarded as nothing but as an appeal to the responsible Head of Her Majesty's Government to avoid this proposed profanation of the Oath and to deal with the question in the only true and honest and manly manner that could be adopted—namely, upon their responsibility, if they thought the time had arrived to abolish these last vestiges of Christianity from the land. The Head of Her Majesty's Government, that lecturer on morality to the Irish people, ventured to excuse his evasion of the responsibility which rested on him by saying that this was a very simple question. Last year, no doubt, the House allowed the claimant in this case to make an Affirmation subject to an appeal to the Courts. In the mind of the right hon. Gentleman there was no difference between a mere engagement and standing at the Table of the House with the Testament of Protestant England and using the name of God, whom they all adored, but whom Mr. Bradlaugh denied. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government ventured to twit Members of the House with the statement that if Mr. Bradlaugh had not obtruded his atheism upon the House no Member of the House would have thought of questioning his claim to take the Oath. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government asked what was the difference between such an obtrusion of atheism on the House and the knowledge which a portion of the House might have of somebody or other coming to the Table and being an Atheist out of the House? The right hon. Gentleman was a master of distinctions. It was strange he had not drawn a distinction in this case. It was most strange, and not very creditable to his position, that he had not admitted that the case of a known Atheist, who had forced upon the House a knowledge of his atheism, was very different from the case of an Atheist whoso unbelief was known to half-a-dozen, or 50, or 100 Members of the House. No one knew that better than the right hon. Gentleman. In the first speech that he (Mr. O'Donnell) made on this subject he objected to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government as being marked by every stamp of evasion. But the reproach of evasion was not new to Her Majesty's Government. They in the minds of many obtained the well-deserved reputation of trying to get round a question rather than answering it. The present occasion afforded a further illustration of their facility of evasion. They were prepared to ask the House to submit to an odious and scandalous profanation rather than on their responsibility to deal with the subject in the manner in which they had been challenged to deal with it by the hon. Member for Northampton. It had been attempted to be asserted that the Catholic Members of the House in dealing with this question were actuated by a spirit of mean sectarianism and narrow bigotry. He ventured to say that if the Catholic Members of the House were to deal with the question in a spirit of narrow sectarianism or in a spirit of Ultramontane bigotry nothing ought to be more pleasing than that the Protestant Parliament of England should allow the Scripture of the God of Christianity to be thus profaned and insulted. Upon the Table lay the authorized version of the Sacred Scriptures which they (the Catholic Members) respected, though they were not particularly bound by it as an authorized version. On both sides of the House sat the pillars and the founders of Missionary Societies, whose efforts were directed against the religion which the Catholic Members professed, and whatever profanation might be heaped upon the Scriptures, the Catholics were not responsible for it. If they chose to stand aside it was entirely out of their respect for religion, and for what they considered the common decencies of civilization that they took the part they intended to take on the present occasion. Though he was a Catholic, ho would sooner that Englishmen remained Protestants, that Catholicity made no inch of progress for another century, that Englishmen remained adherents of the faith of Luther and Calvin, than that they should enter the filthy abyss opened to thorn by the Head of Her Majesty's Government.

COLONEL MAKINS

wished to know of those hon. Members who were prepared to support the "Previous Question" whether they were aware of what would be the consequences of their vote? They would be giving their assent and consent to the profanation of the Oath, and would, each of them, be particeps criminis with Mr. Bradlaugh and accessories both before and after the fact. Were they prepared to pay such a price for their temporary union of the Liberal Party? Those on the Opposition side could not reconcile such a course either with their consciences or with their duty to their constituents.

Previous Question put, "That the Original Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes 286; Noes 228: Majority 58.

AYES.
Agar - Robartes, hon. T. C.	Christie, W. L.
	Churchill, Lord R.
Alexander, Colonel	Clarke, E.
Amherst, W. A. T.	Clive, Col. hon. G. W.
Archdale, W. H.	Cobbold, T. C.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Coddington, W.
Aylmer, J. E. F.	Cole, Viscount
Bailey, Sir J. R.	Collins, E.
Balfour, A. J.	Collins, T.
Baring, T. C.	Colthurst, Col. D. La T.
Barne, F. St. J. N.	Compton, F.
Barry, J.	Corbet, W. J.
Barttelot, Sir W. B.	Corbett, J.
Bateson, Sir T.	Corry, J. P.
Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.	Cotton, W. J. R.
Beach, W. W. B.	Courtauld, G.
Bellingham, A. H.	Cropper, J.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.	Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.
Bentinck, G. W. P.	Cubitt, rt. hon. G.
Beresford, G. de la P.	Dalrymple, C.
Biddell, W.	Daly, J.
Biggar, J. G.	Davenport, H. T.
Birkbeck, E.	Davenport, W. B.
Blackburne, Col. J. I.	Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.
Boord, T. W.	Dawnay, hon. G. C.
Brise, Colonel R.	Dawson, C.
Broadley, W. H. H.	De Worms, Baron H.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.	Dickson, Major A. G.
	Dickson, J.
Brooke, Lord	Dickson, T. A.
Bruce, Sir H. H.	Digby, Col. hon. E.
Bruce, hon. T.	Dixon-Hartland, F.D.
Brymer, W. E.	Donaldson-Hudson, C.
Bulwer, J. R.	Douglas, A. Akers-
Burghley, Lord	Dundas, hon. J. C.
Burnaby, General E. S.	Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.
Burrell, Sir W. W.	Eaton, H. W.
Buxton, Sir R. J.	Ecroyd, W. F.
Byrne, G. M.	Egerton, hon. W.
Callan, P.	Elcho, Lord
Cameron, D.	Elliot, G. W.
Campbell, J. A.	Emlyn, Viscount
Campbell, Lord C.	Ennis, Sir J.
Carden, Sir R. W.	Estcourt, G. S.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Ewart, W.
Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.	Ewing, A. O.
Chaine, J.	Feilden, Maj.-Gen. R. J.
Chaplin, H.	Fellowes, W. H.

Fenwick-Bisset, M.	Lever, J. O.
Filmer, Sir E.	Levett, T. J.
Finch, G. H.	Lewis, C. E.
Findlater, W.	Lewisham, Viscount
Finigan, J. L.	Lindsay, Sir R. L.
Fitzpatrick, hn. B. E. B.	Loder, R.
Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J.	Long, W. H.
Fletcher, Sir H.	Lopes, Sir M.
Floyer, J.	Lowther, rt. hon. J.
Folkestone, Viscount	Lowther, hon. W.
Forester, C. T. W.	Lyons, R. D.
Foster, W. H.	Macartney, J. W. E.
Fowler, R. N.	Macfarlane, D. H.
Fremantle, hon. T. F.	Mackintosh, C. F.
Freshfield, C. K.	Macnaghten, E.
Gabbett, D. F.	M'Carthy, J.
Galway, Viscount	M'Coan, J. C.
Gardner, R. Richardson-	M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.
	M'Kenna, Sir J. N.
Garnier, J. C.	Makins, Colonel W. T.
Gibson, rt. hon. E.	Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Giffard, Sir H. S.	March, Earl of
Gill, H. J.	Martin, P.
Givan, J.	Marum, E. M.
Goldney, Sir G.	Master, T. W. C.
Gooch, Sir D.	Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Gore-Langton, W. S.	Metge, R. H.
Gorst, J. E.	Miles, Sir P. J. W.
Grantham, W.	Mills, Sir C. H.
Gray, E. D.	Molly, B. C.
Greene, E.	Monckton, F.
Greer, T.	Moore, A.
Gregory, G. B.	Morgan, hon. F.
Guest, M. J.	Morley, S.
Halsey, T. F.	Moss, R.
Hamilton, Lord C. J.	Mowbray, rt. hn. Sir J. R.
Hamilton, I. T.	Murray, C. J.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.	Nowdegate, C. N.
	Newport, Viscount
Harcourt, E. W.	Nicholson, W.
Harvey, Sir R. B.	Nicholson, W. N.
Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.	Noel, rt. hon. G. J.
	North, Colonel J. S.
Henry, M.	Northcote, H. S.
Herbert, hon. S.	Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.
Hicks, E.
Hildyard, T. B. T.	Norwood, C. M.
Hill, Lord A. W.	O'Connor, A.
Hill, A. S.	O'Donnell, F. H.
Hinchingbrook, Visc.	Onslow, D.
Holland, Sir H. T.	O'Shea, W. H.
Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.	O'Sullivan, W. H.
Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.	Paget, R. H.
Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G.	Parker, C. S.
Jackson, W. L.	Patrick, R. W. C.
Jenkins, D. J.	Peek, Sir H.
Kennaway, Sir J. H.	Pell, A.
Knight, F. W.	Pemberton, E. L.
Knightley, Sir R.	Percy, Earl
Knowles, T.	Phipps, C. N. P.
Lacon, Sir E. H. K.	Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.
Lalor, R.	Power, R.
Lawrence, Sir T.	Price, Captain G. E.
Lea, T.	Puleston, J. H.
Leahy, J.	Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Leamy, E.	Rankin, J.
Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.	Redmond, J. E.
Lee, Major V.	Rendlesham, Lord
Legh, W. J.	Repton, G. W.
Leigh, hon. G. H. C.	Ridley, Sir M. W.
Leighton, Sir B.	Ritchie, C. T.
Leighton, S.	Rolls, J. A.
Lennox, Lord H. G.	Ross, A. H.

Ross, C. C.	Thynne, Lord H. F.
Round, J.	Tollemache, H. J.
St. Aubyn, W. M.	Tollemache, hn. W. F.
Salt, T.	Tottenham, A. L.
Sandon, Viscount	Tyler, Sir H. W.
Schreiber, C.	Wallace, Sir R.
Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.	Walrond, Col. W. H.
Scott, Lord H.	Walter, J.
Scott, M. D.	Warburton, P. E.
Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.	Warton, C. N.
	Watkin, Sir E. W.
Severne, J. E.	Watney, J.
Sexton, T.	Welby-Gregory, Sir W.
Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.	Whitley, E.
Smith, A.	Whitworth, B.
Smith, rt. hon. W. H.	Wilmot, Sir H.
Smithwick, J. F.	Wilson, C. H.
Stanhope, hon. E.	Wolff, Sir H. D.
Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Stewart, J.	Wroughton, P.
Storer, G.	Wyndham, hon. P.
Sullivan, T. D.	Wynn, Sir W. W.
Sykes, C.	Yorke, J. R.
Synan, E. J.
Talbot, J. G.	TELLERS.
Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T. E.	Crichton, Viscount
Thomson, H.	Winn, R.
Thornhill, T.

NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Campbell-Bannerman, H.
Agnew, W.
Ainsworth, D.	Carington, hon. Col. W. H. P.
Amory, Sir J. H.
Armitage, B.	Cartwright, W. C.
Armitstead, G.	Causton, R. K.
Arnold, A.	Cavendish, Lord E.
Asher, A.	Cavendish, Lord F. C.
Ashley, hon. E. M.	Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.
Baldwin, E.	Cheetham, J. F.
Balfour, Sir G.	Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.
Balfour, J. B.	Clarke, J. C.
Balfour, J. S.	Clifford, C. C.
Barclay, J. W.	Cohen, A.
Baring, Viscount	Collings, J.
Barran, J.	Colman, J. J.
Bass, A.	Cotes, C. C.
Bass, H.	Courtney, L. H.
Beaumont, W. B.	Cowan, J.
Biddulph, M.	Cowen, J.
Blennerhassett, R. P.	Cowper, hon. H. F.
Bolton, J. C.	Craig, W. Y.
Brand, H. R.	Creyke, R.
Brassey, Sir T.	Cross, J. K.
Brett, R. B.	Cunliffe, Sir R. A.
Briggs, W. E.	Davey, H.
Bright, J. (Manchester)	Davies, D.
Bright, rt. hon. J.	Davies, R.
Brinton, J.	Davies, W.
Broadhurst, H.	Dilke, A. W.
Brown, A. H.	Dilke, Sir C. W.
Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.	Dillwyn, L. L.
Bruce, hon. R. P.	Dodds, J.
Bryce, J.	Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.
Buchanan, T. R.	Duckham, T.
Burt, T.	Duff, R. W.
Butt, C. P.	Earp, T.
Caine, W. S.	Edwards, P.
Cameron, C.	Egerton, Adm. hon. F.
Campbell, Sir G.	Elliot, hon. A. R. D.
Campbell, R. F. F.	Evans, T. W.

Farquharson, Dr. R.	Mason, H.
Fawcett, rt. hon. H.	Maxwell-Heron, J.
Ferguson, R.	Milbank, F. A.
Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.	Monk, C. J.
Firth, J. F. B.	Moreton, Lord
Fitzmaurice, Lord E.	Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.
Foljambe, C. G. S.	Morley, A.
Foljambe, F. J. S.	Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.
Forster, Sir C.	Nolan, Major J. P.
Forster, rt. hon. W. E.	Paget, T. T.
Fort, R.	Palmer, C. M.
Fowler, H. H.	Palmer, G.
Fowler, W.	Palmer, J. H.
Fry, L.	Pease, A.
Fry, T.	Peddie, J. D.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Peel, A. W.
Gladstone, H. J.	Pender, J.
Gladstone, W. H.	Pennington, F.
Gordon, Lord D.	Philips, R. N.
Gourley, E. T.	Playfair, rt. hon. L.
Gower, hon. E. F. L.	Portman, hn. W. H. B.
Grant, A.	Potter, T. B.
Grant, D.	Powell, W. R. H.
Grenfell, W. H.	Pulley, J.
Grey, A. H. G.	Ralli, P.
Gurdon, R. T.	Ramsden, Sir J.
Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.	Rathbone, W.
	Reid, R. T.
Hardcastle, J. A.	Rendel, S.
Hartington, Marq. of	Richard, H.
Hastings, G. W.	Richardson, T.
Hayter, Sir A. D.	Roberts, J.
Henderson, F.	Robertson, H.
Heneage, E.	Rogers, J. E. T.
Herschell, Sir F.	Roundell, C. S.
Hibbert, J. T.	Russell, G. W. E.
Hill, T. R.	Russell, Lord A.
Hollond, J. R.	Rylands, P.
Holms, J.	Samuelson, B.
Hopwood, C. H.	Samuelson, H.
Howard, G. J.	Seely, C. (Lincoln)
Howard, J.	Seely, C. (Nottingham)
Hutchinson, J. D.	Sheridan, H. B.
Illingworth, A.	Shield, H.
Inderwick, F. A.	Simon, Serjeant J.
James, C.	Slagg, J.
James, Sir H.	Smith, E.
James, W. H.	Spencer, hon. C. R.
Jardine, R.	Stanley, hon. E. L.
Jenkins, J. J.	Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Johnson, W. M.	Stanton, W. J.
Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.	Stevenson, J. C.
Labouchere, H.	Story-Maskelyne, M. H.
Laing, S.	Summers, W.
Lawrence, Sir J. C.	Tavistock, Marquess of
Lawson, Sir W.	Taylor, P. A.
Leake, R.	Tennant, C.
Leatham, E. A.	Thomasson, J. P.
Leatham, W. H.	Thompson, T. C.
Lee, H.	Tillett, J. H.
Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.	Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury-
Mackie, R. B.	Trevelyan, G. O.
Macliver, P. S.	Waterlow, Sir S. H.
M'Arthur, A.	Waugh, E.
M'Arthur, W.	Webster, Dr. J.
M'Laren, C. B. B.	Whalley, C H.
M'Minnies, J. G.	Whitbread, S.
Magniac, C.	Wiggin, H.
Maitland, W. F.	Williams, S. C. E.
Mappin, F. T.	Willis, W.
Marjoribanks, E.	Wills, W. H.
Martin, R. B.	Willyams, E. W. B.

Wilson, I.	TELLERS.
Wilson, Sir M.	Grosvenor, Lord E.
Wodehouse, E. R.	Kensington, Lord
Woodall, W.
Woolf, S.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880 and of the 26th April 1881, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statute 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72.

Mr. BRADLAUGH again came to the Table to take and. subscribe the Oath, when—

MR. SPEAKER

I have to inform the hon. Member that the House has come to the following Resolution (reading the same). In pursuance of that Resolution I have to direct the hon. Member to withdraw.

Whereupon Mr. BRADLAUGH declined to follow the direction of Mr. Speaker, and stated that he refused to do so because, as he alleged, the Resolution of the House was contrary to Law.

MR. SPEAKER

I must now call upon the House for instructions in this matter. I have no power except through the House to insist upon the withdrawal of the hon. Member. Therefore, I must leave it to the judgment of the House. [Calls of "Government!"]

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I presume that the same course will be adopted on this occasion as was taken last year. I see no sign of the Leader of the House rising; and therefore I will take the same step as I have done before. I move that Mr. Bradlaugh be now ordered to withdraw.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Bradlaugh do now withdraw."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)

MR. GLADSTONE

I regard this Motion as one purely consequential on that the House has already arrived at. I certainly did not consider it any part of my duty to make such a Motion-far from it, indeed. At the same time, the House has declared its sense by a considerable majority, and the sense of the House having been declared, I certainly cannot offer any opposition to the consequential Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER

I must now direct Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw.

MR. BRADLAUGH

It would be undignified in me to engage in any kind of contest with the House other than that of the law, and I therefore respectfully withdraw below the Bar.

[The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.]