LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 19 February 1883)

§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF
said, he was not going to oppose the introduction of the Bill in any way. On the contrary, he congratulated the Government on having at last come to their senses on the matter. The object of the Government had been hitherto to force the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) on the House, against what he believed to be the letter and spirit of the law, and against the findings of more than one Committee. He was sorry to 385 find the Bill brought forward in the absence of the Prime Minister; and he might add, that it was the general opinion that the right hon. Gentleman was staying at Cannes with the view of avoiding taking any part in its introduction. Having read the works of the Prime Minister upon the Irish Church and the Vatican, he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) thought the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman must be very much against the measure. The Government had, however, taken the right course in bringing in a Bill, because they had not, up to that time, endeavoured to alter the law in favour of their supporter, a Gentleman whom they took every step to bring into the House, who had been supported by their Whip, and who had since received the support of the Liberal Party in general—because they had hitherto endeavoured to force Mr. Brad-laugh upon the House, not by altering the law, which would have enabled them to take his seat legitimately, but, as he had before said, against the law and against its representation by the Committee of the House. Before referring to precedents, he would point out that Mr. Bradlaugh, according to his speeches delivered in the country, which he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had read from time to time, was in error in imputing to that House any blame for preventing his access to it. When Baron Rothschild and Alderman Salomons endeavoured to get into the House, and when it was declared that the law was against their admission, the Liberal Government of the day, which was in favour of their admission, as the present Government was now in favour of the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh, annually introduced a Bill with the view of removing the disabilities under which they, as Jews, laboured. In the case of Mr. Bradlaugh the Government had done nothing of that kind; they had said in effect that "although the Committees have stated that their interpretation of the law is against Mr. Bradlaugh, we insist that, you should admit him into this House." Her Majesty's Government wished to introduce a Gentleman who said he did not believe in a Divine Being, and they were now taking the right course in saying—"We will introduce a Bill to sanction this." Therefore, he repeated his congratulations to Her Majesty's Government on coming to their senses 386 with regard to this matter. But why had they not done this before; and why did they allow the House to be exposed to every kind of indignity on the part of the hon. Gentleman and his followers, when it had been decided that he could not come into the House? They had introduced one Bill; but it had been, in some way or other, smuggled out of sight, because they knew they could not carry it at the time. Hon. Members on that side had not hitherto prevented Mr. Bradlaugh coming into the House on the special ground of his views and opinions. They had prevented him, because successive Committees, moved for by the Head of the Government, declared it to be illegal that he should come into the House. The law declared that the Oath should be taken in a particular way, and that persons who did not believe in the existence of a Deity should not be allowed to take the Oath. Mr. Bradlaugh was therefore not entitled to the exemptions of the Affirmation Act, nor was he entitled to take the Oath. Having now put the matter on the right ground, the public should know that the Government wished to legalize the admission of Atheists into the House of Commons. They were now doing that, and, for his part, whatever course he might hereafter take, he repeated that hon. Members on those (the Conservative) Benches had never acted towards Mr. Bradlaugh but in accordance with the law, and not against himself. Let the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Morley) now vote for Affirmation, and let him square the question with the Congregationalists; let the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government make terms with the electors of Mid Lothian. The Bill now being brought in placed the question on the right issue; and, that being so, he should offer no opposition to its introduction, because they could vote upon it hereafter as they thought proper, and because the Government were at length brought face to face with public opinion in their endeavours to carry a Bill to legalize the admission of Atheists into Parliament.

§ MR. CHAPLIN
said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had, in his (Mr. Chaplin's) opinion, given a fair and accurate description of the object of the Bill, and it was in consequence of that 387 description, that he intended to take precisely the opposite course to that which the hon. Gentleman had announced his intention of following on the present occasion. With the permission of the House he would state his reasons for doing so. It was no doubt unusual in that Assembly to oppose the introduction of a Bill, and, under ordinary circumstances, he should not have taken the course indicated. But the circumstances were not then of an ordinary character, and hence his opposition at that stage of the measure. The reason why hon. Members refrained, as a rule, from opposing a Bill on its introduction, was because they were naturally anxious to know what it contained; but, in this case, every Member of the House knew perfectly well the nature of the Bill, and, therefore, there was exactly the same reason for opposing it upon the first, as upon any other occasion. This Bill could only be a Bill for the purpose of facilitating the entrance of Atheists generally into Parliament, and of one hon. Gentleman holding Atheistical opinions in particular. His own view of the matter being extremely simple, he should not detain the House except for a moment in stating it. He asked whether it was desirable or not that the entry of Atheists into Parliament should be facilitated; and as he held a strong opinion that this was the most undesirable thing in the world, he had no hesitation whatever in recording his vote against the introduction of the Bill.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, it was, of course, perfectly legitimate and natural that those hon. Members who objected to the principle of a Bill should, if they pleased, oppose its introduction. But he wished to say, for his own part, that, taking substantially the same view of the matter as that of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff)—namely, that the question which had been before them was the conduct of Mr. Bradlaugh in challenging the Rules and decisions of the House and the findings of its Committees, yet the question of dealing with the matter by a Bill was a new one, and one on which he thought they ought rather to be glad than otherwise to see what were the proposals of the Government. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) in saying that in the present case 388 the House must know all that the Bill contained; for instance, he did not know whether it was to be prospective or retrospective, or whether it was to give to all the right to affirm who chose to do so; and it would, therefore, be gratifying to know what the proposals of the Government on these points really were. But, at the same time, although he did not himself intend to offer any objection to the introduction of the Bill, he renewed the statement made on a former occasion, that he should support his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir P. Assheton Cross) in opposing its second reading. Before, however, they could place themselves in a satisfactory position to sustain a debate, he thought it desirable to hear what were the provisions of the Bill, it being, of course, understood that the fact that many hon. Gentlemen on those Benches offered no opposition at the introductory stage of the measure did not in any degree imply that they were disposed to support it.

CAPTAIN AYLMER
said, the Bill did not come within the category of Bills ordinarily introduced to the House, and that, therefore, the House might safely depart from its usual practice in regard to it. As a rule, the general purport of such measures only was known; but in this case the circumstances were entirely different. The subject was brought forward in the House on the 15th instant, the day on which Parliament was called together, at a time when Mr. Bradlaugh was telling the people to come "in their thousands" and assist him in breaking down the laws of Parliament. On that day the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) rose in his place, and stated that Mr. Bradlaugh would not break the laws of Parliament if the Government would promise to bring in a Bill. The promise was made, the Bill was brought forward, and, under those circumstances, he felt they were fully justified in opposing it on the first reading. They had already some very sad experiences of the concessions made by the Government to agitation in Ireland and in the Transvaal; and he had no wish to see Parliament making a concession to mob law in this country, as it would be if it passed the present Bill. Knowing the purport of the measure, and, so to speak, hearing the noise of the mob-rabble at the doors of the 389 House, he said that it would be disgraceful and lowering to the dignity of the House to make the concession demanded of them.

§ MR. GRANTHAM
said, although hon. Members thought it right to enter a protest against the conduct of the Government by proposing to postpone the question of the introduction of the Bill-when it was brought forward at a late hour on Friday night, yet, after all that had been said, he did not think it desirable to oppose the Motion then before the Committee.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
All I have to say is this. The noble Marquess who leads the House at present (the Marquess of Hartington) correctly interpreted what I stated the other day—namely, that I intend to oppose this Bill on the second reading. I believe, when the noble Marquess made that statement, some hon. Friends of mine, who probably did not hear what I said, rather disputed that statement; and, therefore, I think it right to say that what I did state was, that I should oppose this Bill with all the strength I had in my power on the second reading. I think that is the right course to take; and nothing will induce me to believe that this Bill is not brought in for the express purpose of admitting Mr. Brad-laugh to this House, in concession to agitation. I do not care how the Bill is worded. I am afraid that is the real cause; and I am not surprised at the protest made after I left the House the other night by a great number of hon. Friends of mine, whom I can assure I feel as strongly as they can on this matter, although I did not remain to take part in their action. That protest having been made, I hope they will consider it sufficient; and I think we shall be more consulting the dignity of our proceedings, and the importance of the question, if we reserve all we have to say—which is a great deal—on a Bill which I sincerely hope will not be passed by this House.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, no man felt more strongly on this subject than he did. He looked upon it as no question of individual belief; it was a question; whether the security of the three Estates; of the Realm should be limited to its respective functions, and perform those functions independently. In 1858 Parliament decided that an Oath, or a solemn Affirmation equivalent to an Oath, was 390 necessary. In 1866 the matter was fully ventilated; and Parliament decided that this great Constitutional object would not be adequately secured unless Her Majesty and each Member of each House respectively was bound by Oath, or by the equivalent of an Oath, a solemn Affirmation. That was the question now raised; but in justice to a large number of his hon. Friends, who entertained as grave objection to any invalidation or weakening of the security of the Constitution as he did, he intended to abstain from voting against the first reading of the Bill, because he was sure that by doing so he should appear to be taking an unfair advantage of men opposed to the Bill, who were as honest and far more intelligent than he. He would therefore leave the House.