HC Deb 04 May 1883 vol 278 cc1842-62
MR. SPEAKER

acquainted the House that he had this day received from. Mr. Bradlaugh, one of the Members for Northampton, a Letter which he read to the House as follows:—

4th May.

To the Right Honourable the Speaker.

Sir,

I beg to ask you to call me to the Table, at the proper time, with two Members to introduce me, for the purpose of taking the Oath required by Law; and, should yon feel any difficulty in taking this course, I respectfully ask to be heard at the Bar of the House, in support of my claim.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your most obedient Servant,

C. BRADLAUGH.

MR. SPEAKER

further stated, that, bearing in mind all the circumstances that surrounded the claim of Mr. Bradlaugh to take his seat, he felt bound to desire the instructions of the House, before he called upon Mr. Bradlaugh to come to the Table.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Sir, as I do not understand that the Prime Minister proposes to offer any counsel to the House upon this question, I need offer no apology for presenting myself. I assume that those who have on several previous occasions voted against allowing Mr. Bradlaugh to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath will still remain of the same opinion, without that opinion being at all affected by circumstances which have recently taken place; and I therefore shall, without any comment, propose the same Resolution which I have upon previous occasions proposed, the effect of which will be to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from going through the form of repeating the words of the Oath which is prescribed for Members of Parliament. I observe in the letter you, Sir, have communicated to the House, that Mr. Bradlaugh expresses a desire to be heard at the Bar of the House in support of his claim. For my part, I see no objection and I shall certainly offer no opposition to his being heard at the Bar in support of his claim. That does not at all affect the terms of the Motion which I have now the honour of placing in your hands.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880, of the 26th April 1881, and of the 7th February and 6th March 1882, 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 Statutes 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, after hearing you read the letter which you have received from the junior Member for Northampton, I was under an erroneous impression that probably the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton, who has been the natural and legitimate Representative of his Colleague in all matters—in all lawful matters—relating to this controversy, would rise and make a Motion upon it. But that did not take place, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite was called upon. I am bound to say I should have had no objection whatever to make to the very proper Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I think, perhaps, upon the whole, it rests more appropriately with him than with me in the circumstances; I think it is a compliance with the principles of equity, and it shows a disposition, within the limits of conscientious conviction, to pay due respect to the views of a constituency in the exercise of a Constitutional duty. I give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for having, on that ground, invited criticism in moving that we hear Mr. Bradlaugh.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

What I stated was that I should move the same Resolution that I have moved on previous occasions, that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to take the Oath, that being the first and main point of the letter which he has addressed to the Speaker. With regard to the second part of that letter, in which Mr. Bradlaugh expresses a desire that he should be heard at the Bar of the House, I stated that I could see and should offer no objection to his being heard at the Bar. It is not for me to move that he should be hoard at the Bar.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I beg to move that Mr. Bradlaugh be heard at the Bar.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

Sir, I rise to Order. Is it competent for the hon. Member to make that Motion when another Motion is before you?

MR. SPEAKER

As I understood, the House appeared to be in doubt whether Mr. Bradlaugh should be heard at the Bar. I will take the pleasure of the House on that matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House, I desire to submit a very few words in support of my right to take the Oath and my seat, pursuant to my return. I was elected on the 4th of March last year, and since that election I have not presented myself for the purpose of taking my seat. The House, after my election, expressed its pleasure that I should not be permitted to obey the law last Session. This Session the House has been engaged in considering a measure which, if it had passed, would have rendered it possible, supposing my constituents to have re-elected me, for me to have taken my seat on Affirmation. Last night the House felt it right to reject that measure, and it is now my duty to do what the law requires me to do, and I ask the indulgence of Members who are hostile to me, in the few words which it is my very unpleasant duty to submit to the House. I ask that indulgence because my position for some time has been one of considerable pain. By the privilege of an unsworn Member I have been within hearing of everything which has taken place in this House; but by the practice of the House I have been precluded from offering the smallest dissent to any phrase, however severe, to any insinuation however harsh, and to any charge however much I might feel it to be false. My constituents have the right to the voices and speech of two Representatives in this House. That is their right by law. They have chosen me three times in this Parliament to be one of their burgesses, and if I were as vile as some Members have chosen to describe me, if that vileness imposes no legal disqualification, no one within these walls has the right to challenge the return of my constituents. The law requires me to take my seat. It imposes a penalty upon me if I do not take my seat. It gives me privileges which I ought to enjoy while I hold unchallenged this certificate of return; and here I ask whether there ought to be any hindrance between the returned of a constituency and the duty which the law imposes upon him whose service the constituency has the right to exact? And I submit that any hindrance which is not justified by law is an act which in itself is flagrantly wrong, whoever may commit it, and that the mere fact that the majority of voices in one Chamber may prevent a citizen from appealing to the law in no sense lessens the iniquity of an illegal act, and that history will so judge it, whatever to-day you may think it your right and your duty to do. I listened, Sir, with pain to one dangerous doctrine which was put forward against my admission—namely, that Parliament recognized no rights but its own; that it had never treated those claims—that is, those of the electors of Northampton for electoral and representative concessions—as rights; that it had always regarded them as high and valuable privileges, which it was in its power to withhold or bestow, and that it had never been guided by any other principle than expediency or policy. I submit that that doctrine is treason to the Constitution of England. I submit that the suffrage is a right—that in the famous case of "Ashby v. White" it was decided by the highest Courts of Judicature in this Realm that the suffrage is not a privilege, but a right; and I submit that while it is true that Parliament has the right to take away, negate, or destroy the right of any citizen in this country, yet that one Chamber is not Parliament, and neither House by its mere Resolution may override, negate, or suspend the law, and that, although you may have the right of force, that is a had right to put against the right of law. [Interruption.] I can only thank the courtesy of the Members who interrupt me on my right for their consideration to me in the difficult position in which I am placed. I will ask the indulgence of the House while I offer one or two words of explanation as to matters which have been personally urged as reasons why I should not sit. It is said first, that I am a candidate of the Government—put forward by the Government. Surely, if that were true it would be no great objection in the way of my return. But there is not a particle of truth in it. I stood in 1868 at Northampton to fight the seat of Lord Henley. The present Prime Minister on that occasion thought it his duty to oppose my election, and he wrote a letter which I thought then a fair ground of complaint, advising the people of Northampton to return the sitting Members—Mr. Charles Gilpin and Lord Henley. I have never had, directly or indirectly, the smallest aid or assistance from either the present Prime Minister, or any Member of the Government, or, to my knowledge, from any Member of the Liberal Party, in any one of the elections I have fought in that borough. And when the hon. Member who has felt it his duty to come in unfortunate collision with me elsewhere chooses to contradict that, he contradicts it without the smallest knowledge of the facts. With reference to the allegation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), that Mr. Adam had in some fashion recommended me to the electors of Northampton, there is not the faintest shadow of foundation for that. I never held the smallest communication, direct or indirect, of any character whatever, with Mr. Adam, or anyone on his behalf, until in this House, in his official position as Commissioner of Works, it was my duty to address questions to him on behalf of my constituents. With that exception, I never had the smallest connection, direct or indirect, with Mr. Adam or any Member of the Government, and to my belief—it may be incorrect, but to my belief—I have always regarded the Liberal Party as rather standing in the way of my election than in any fashion helping to forward my return. This allegation, however, I submit was unworthy of this House; and I submit that no such considerations have ever entered at any time in the discussion of a candidature. I submit that a great House which claims the powers of one of the highest Courts of this Realm should try to be judicial. Then it is said that all that has happened I have brought upon myself; that it is not the opinions which were alleged against me, but, to use the words of more than one right hon. and hon. Member, the offensive way in which at the Table of the House I paraded my views and threw down the gauntlet in the face of the House. Now, there is not a shadow of justification for that. The only way in which it is attempted to support the allegation is by saying that at the Table of the House, when I had in writing claimed to affirm, giving no reasons whatever in that claim, and when I was asked under what law I claimed to affirm, and I named I the Statutes, it was said that was a declaration of Atheism. But it is not true, and no person having the smallest acquaintance with the law should have made such a declaration. I think I heard one right hon. Gentleman commit himself to the statement that none except Atheists could affirm under the Evidence Amendment Acts of 1869 and 1870. That is not so. By the law prior to the passing of those Acts, any Theist who did not believe in future rewards or punishments was one of those who were not competent to give evidence on Oath, who might have been objected to as incompetent, and who became competent to affirm under those Statutes. And, therefore, I say there was no declaration of Atheism involved in what was said at the Table, and that no Member has the right to examine my opinions. I have never uttered them in this House, and, under great temptation, I have refrained from using any word which could wound the feelings of the most religious, though I have heard within these walls, within but a few hours, language used, by one who has declared his religion, against me, which I should have felt ashamed to use in any decent assembly. Nothing of my opinions, Sir, was communicated to the House until the Committee which examined me before it asked whether I had written a certain letter to The Times. It has been stated over and over again on both sides of the House that any declaration in The Times, or any declaration outside these walls, is a matter with which Parliament has no concern. I objected to answer the question on the ground that it was a matter with which Parliament had no concern. But when the Committee insisted I gave way, for I had no desire to be a hypocrite or to conceal my real convictions. I have put, I hope, as respectfully as any man can put, what I thought a fair reason for the line I took, and though I believed it was a matter which the House had no right to deal with, and entirely without its province, yet, when the Committee pressed me on it, I believed I was dealing with generous English Gentlemen, who would not distort what they had asked for into a declaration that I had paraded it before the House. I have had to sit with pain while reckless charges, probably supplied to Members by persons not having the responsibility of a seat in this House, have sounded in my ears; I have heard two right hon. and several hon. Members quote against me during this week, letters from "An Avowed Atheist," as expressing my opinions on religion and on family. These were quoted on the 1st of May against me, though on the 26th of April, in the paper in which those letters were printed, there appeared a declaration that they had not been written by an avowed Atheist at all, but by a professing Christian, for the purpose of injuring me and preventing my candidature. I ask the House whether that is a loyal and brave way to deal with a man who has no right of speech till it is too late to remedy the wrong done? Members have been industrious in reading all the things I have ever written, and some things I have never written. One, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), read in this House a phrase which, when he read it, I could not remember, and which I knew it was impossible I could have used in the way it was put, because it would have been fatal to the candidature I had desired to preserve at Northampton. And what do I find? I find, instead of its being a matter happening in any fashion since this contest began, that a portion of a speech attributed to me 15 years ago has been taken, though at the top of the very paragraph from which the hon. Member has quoted I find there is a declaration that I am not in any way responsible for what appears in the report. Surely, it would have been generous of him to say that, it would have been fair to say that, it would have been just to say that. I do not pretend that many things I have said are not deserving of blame from this House; but there is a great difference between treating things as deserving blame, and twisting and distorting a phrase to make it a groundwork for the heaviest punishment that can fall on a man who desires to serve the constituency that elected him to represent it in this House. Then I heard that I had been convicted of circulating a filthy book, and had escaped by a legal quibble the punishment I had deserved. The hon. Member who thought it right to say that in this House, might have stated that the learned Judge who tried me—and whose grave may protect him from the insinuations heaped upon other Judges who have had the misfortune to do me justice—the late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, said— The defendants honestly believed that the evils which this work would remedy, arising from over-population and poverty, are so great that these checks may be resorted to as a remedy for the evils and as bettering the condition of humanity, although there might be things to be avoided if it wore possible to avoid them, and yet remedy the evils which they are to prevent. That such is the honest opinion of the defendants, we, who have read that book and heard what they have said, must do them the justice of believing. Is that the language which one of England's greatest Judges would use of a man on trial before him for circulating a filthy book? And the jury who found me guilty said in their verdict— We entirely exonerate the defendants from any corrupt motive in publishing it. Surely, when foul words of condemnation came, a generous and strong opponent would have at least said this on the other side, so that the House might be a judge how far the condemnation was warranted. I would say one more word personally. Members who have alleged that I attacked marriage, that I attacked family, cannot have read one word I have written or said on either. I have never in my life attacked either. Members who charge me with Socialism and Communism are ignorant of the whole history of my life, and of the whole political strife in which I have been engaged. But these charges, if they were as true as they are false, give you no right to stand between me and my seat. I ask the House with all respect to be logical. I do not doubt that it would be difficult for some Members to get into the frame of mind which would enable them to be so; but I ask them either to declare my seat vacant now, or at once to introduce a Bill rendering me incapable of sitting for any constituency. Deprive me of all civil rights by law, and then I must submit, as hotter men have had to submit, whom the Parliament of England has attainted and outlawed; but while I have my civil rights I will claim them. If the law cannot give them to me—and perhaps it is better that this House should be above the law—then I can only try to obtain them, and wherever my voice may go, say that you, the High Court of Parliament, greater than law, have trampled upon law. I can at least try at the hustings and the ballot-box; when the time comes—the people, whom you say are on your side—will decide, as it is their legal right to do. I heard the strange phrase from a noble Lord that both sides had gone too far to recede. The House honours me too much in putting me on one side and itself on the other. But the House being strong should be generous. The strong can recede; the generous can give. But constituencies have a right to more than generosity. They have a right to justice. The law gives me that seat; in the name of the law I ask for it. I regret that my personality overshadows the principles involved in this question. But I would ask those who have touched my right, not knowing it; who have found for me vices which I do not remember in the memory of my life—I would ask them whether all can afford to cast the first stone—or whether, condemning me justly for my unworthi- ness, they will, as just Judges, vacate their own seats, having deprived my constituents of their right here to mine?

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, the Resolution which had been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was one that, as he thought, had been proposed and carried in that House already four times; but the right hon. Gentleman had not stated that on all those occasions there was a considerable number of Members who voted against it. On the 7th of February, 1882, the right hon. Gentleman proposed the same Resolution, which was met by the Home Secretary with the Previous Question, for which he gave the following valid reasons—namely, 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 prescribes he is to take. We regard a Resolution of this character—that is to say, of the character of the resolution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—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. The course we should advise the House of Commons to take is that as they permitted Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Affirmation, subject to the decision of the Courts 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 Courts of Law, as to whether that is a fulfilment of the condition presented by the Statute. Such was the argument of the Home Secretary, and he (Mr. Labouchere) proposed to take a precisely similar course in this instance. For his own part, he was not aware why those who on previous occasions held that Mr. Bradlaugh was entitled to take the Oath, should not hold the same now. On the contrary, there was every reason why they should, seeing that Mr. Bradlaugh's case had been strengthened since then. He had been since reelected by his constituency, and the highest Court of the Realm had decided that Mr. Bradlaugh had a right to take the Oath. The Lord Chancellor had decided that as Mr. Bradlaugh was not allowed to affirm, therefore it was his duty to take the Oath. But there was another reason. Without going into the past, they all knew perfectly well that the reason why the House had previously objected to Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take the Oath was that he stated within the precincts of the House what, to all intents and purposes, amounted to this—that he was an Atheist. But the law of England held that Atheism was not a permanent quality. Though a man might have said he was an Atheist 100 times, the law held that he must be judged only by what he said when he came to perform any judicial act requiring an oath to be taken. When he came before a Court of Law, though he might have affirmed 100 times before as an Atheist, the Judge would still ask him whether he was an Atheist then, and if he said he was not, it was not competent to go back upon any previous assertions made by him, to show that he was an Atheist. According to law, therefore, the House had no official knowledge at present that Mr. Bradlaugh was an Atheist. Since Mr. Bradlaugh had been re-elected it was well known by every Member of the House that a Gentleman had been elected of great position in the literary world, and everyone who knew anything of literature was aware that he had avowed himself to be an unbeliever in a Superintending Providence as clearly as Professor Huxley himself. Why had they allowed that Gentleman, whom every one of them know to be an Atheist, to take the Oath, and yet would not allow Mr. Bradlaugh to take it, because it was asserted that three years ago he stated within the House that he was an Atheist? If the majority of the House chose to act illegally, unjustly, and unconstitutionally, they on that side would stand by justice and the Constitution. He begged to move the Previous Question, and he would take a division upon it.

Previous Question proposed, "That the Original Question be now put."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I have to apologize to the House for having failed to perceive the point under discussion when I formerly rose to say a few words. Having made that apology, I pass to the Resolution itself, and here the right hon. Gentleman opposite, relying on the previous judgments of the House, has likewise relied upon previous arguments. I must say I see nothing unreasonable in that course, nor do I think it my duty to follow it. His views are unchanged with regard to the character of the Resolution that he has moved. Our views are unchanged with regard to the legal nature of the claim made by the junior Member for Northampton, and with regard, therefore, to the nature of the act by which the House has declared its judgment on the matter. I quite admit that the Government is bound to show all the respect that it can consistently with its conviction to the judgment of the majority of the House, and though I should have dissented from the Resolution and signified my dissent in the usual manner when the Question was put from the Chair, I should not have seen any particular advantage in challenging the formal judgment of the House by a division. The senior Member for Northampton is perfectly entitled to take his own course, and being, as I may say, the natural and legitimate representative of the case which his junior Colleague has in hand, he has moved the Previous Question, and announced his intention of taking a division upon it. If he perseveres in that course, I shall undoubtedly consider it my duty to go with him. I do not know that he will induce the majority of the House to alter its views; but I do not think the question is one which I ought to decline to meet in the usual and regular Parliamentary manner by my vote. I hope the House understands what the effect of carrying the Previous Question will be. To carry the Previous Question is to decline a renewal of the controversy upon the Resolution on the ground that it has been already sufficiently argued and debated. Were the Previous Question carried, it would be a declaration by the House which would have the effect of removing every obstacle from the way of the junior Member for Northampton, who would be in a position to exercise his own discretion about coming to the Table and taking the Oath. As one who dissents from the Resolution, I cannot refuse to vote for that Motion, although I should not have thought it necessary to make it, and should have been quite satisfied to record my dissent without asking the House to divide on the question.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Sir, I do not think that it would be reasonable for me to remain entirely silent after what has been said; but I am sure that it is not the wish of the House that we should renew or extend the debate upon this question. The grounds on which the House has hitherto proceeded have been grounds often travelled over, and which I see no reason for myself abandoning or expecting the House to abandon. It will be in the remembrance of the House that the opinion that Mr. Bradlaugh, after what had taken place when he was originally elected and first came to the House to take his seat, ought not to be permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath came from a Select Committee of this House. The recommendation of the Committee was accepted by the House, and another form of proceeding was suggested. When the mode of proceeding by Affirmation was found not to hold water, the question was again raised as to Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take the Oath or to go through the form of taking the Oath. The House then considered that they had still before them the original statement of Mr. Bradlaugh on which the opinion of the Committee was founded, and that what he had said amounted to a distinct intimation conveyed to the House that he held the Oath to be not binding, and the words to be unmeaning. These proceedings have all been, as we regard them, parts of one transaction, and I cannot suppose that the House would change its views. But we have to remember what the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out would be the effect of carrying the Previous Question on this occasion. If the hon. Gentleman comes up to the Table and proposes to take the Oath, you, Mr. Speaker, would be waiting for instructions from the House, and if no such instructions were given it would be difficult to say that any objection could be offered to his being permitted to do so. Therefore, it is necessary that the House should give instructions. It is not that by voting the Previous Question that we put the matter aside. Voting the Previous Question is, in fact, the same thing as negativing the Motion, and is clearly the same thing as saying that we ought to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath. That being the case, I think there is no occasion to prolong the controversy, and I hope the House will lose no time in coming to a division.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he wished to reply to an observation made by Mr. Bradlaugh at the Bar. He should be very glad to modify or withdraw any of the statements which he had made about Mr. Bradlaugh, if he could do so con- scientiously; but he was compelled to adhere to every statement which he had made concerning him. The hon. Member stated that he had given a quotation from a speech delivered by him 15 years ago without stating that at the head of the paper in which the speech appeared it was notified that he was not responsible for what was published. In the pamphlet from which he had taken the extract there was no such notification. Had there been, he would have mentioned it. The notification, however, could have had no application to what the hon. Gentleman admitted was an extract from a speech delivered by him. The hon. Member stated also that he (Mr. Ritchie) had accused him of having been convicted of distributing filthy literature, but had omitted to repeat the remarks made by the Judge. His statement was, that in consequence of a legal quibble the hon. Member escaped punishment for having distributed obscene literature. Mr. Bradlaugh was tried and convicted by a jury, and would have been sentenced had he not raised the question that the obscenity was not recited in the indictment, and it was in consequence of that he escaped punishment. He had nothing to apologize for or to withdraw.

MR. NEWDEGATE

pointed out that if the Previous Question were carried, Mr. Bradlaugh might come into the House late at night when it was nearly empty, and unable to defend its own dignity by vindicating its right to exercise jurisdiction over his case. He would remind hon. Members of the words used in the House of Lords by the Duke of Argyll with reference to a document which Mr. Bradlaugh issued last year, and in which he appealed to the people against the House of Commons. The noble Duke said that, in his opinion, the House would be wanting in regard for its own position if it should fail to repress any such expressions of contempt for the House of Commons which exercised supreme authority over its own affairs.

SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD

Sir, I think it is very desirable that the House should quite understand what it is doing; and I, for one, desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is a fact that, in the event of the Previous Question being carried, Mr. Bradlaugh will thon be permitted to take the Oath? I can hardly suppose that the great number of hon Members opposite who, on previous occasions, have expressed the highest possible abhorrence of what they have described to be a profanation of the Oath, would avail themselves of the exceptional condition of the House to pass by what it has on several occasions determined, and what last night it determined in no insignificant way to be its will. If forcing a division at once would do that which has been deprecated on both sides of the House, I could understand the impatience of some hon. Members for a division. It is generally understood that the effect of the Previous Question being carried will be that you will permit Mr. Bradlaugh to go through the form of taking the Oath. It is, therefore, very desirable that there should be no doubt about the question before we go to a division. I only wish to say one word in reference to a statement made by Mr. Bradlaugh—to the effect that the recent judgment of the House of Lords was au affirmation by the Lord Chancellor that he was entitled to take the Oath. I need not say I do not concur in that view. There seems to be some doubt whether I am capable of expressing an impartial opinion; but I think that if some hon. Members were more acquainted with Courts of Law they would admit that it was possible for an advocate to argue points of law, and yet to speak sincerely on the question. I only wish to point out that the decision given by the Courts is simply a decision that the person who brought the action was not entitled to bring the action. No other question was raised, and, therefore, I hope that hon. Members will not be misled into the belief that Mr. Bradlaugh would take the Oath with the sanction and authority of the Lord Chancellor.

MR. SPEAKER

In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Launceston, I have to say that, in the event of this Resolution being set aside by the Previous Question, there would be no Resolution before the House adverse to the operation of the law by which the hon. Member for Northampton would undoubtedly be entitled to take the Oath.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, Mr. Bradlaugh had very candidly, but not for himself very judiciously, admitted, in what he had just said, that if the Affirmation Bill had passed he would have taken his seat in a manner more agreeable to himself; but that, as a last resort, he would take the Oath which he abhorred—that was to say, he would go through the form of repeating the words of an Oath which he declared had no binding effect on his conscience. If, in the face of that renewed and present declaration, the House now permitted Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath, it would be passing a condemnation on the Oath itself as being a meaningless form of words.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, that a less creditable stratagem was never adopted by any Ministry than that which was now attempted to be played off upon the House. It was quite evident that arrangements had been entered into by the Party who, on due notice, was beaten the previous night, in order to snatch an unworthy victory from a surprised and out-manœuvred Legislature. It would seem that a fore-knowledge—he would not say a guilty fore-knowledge—of what was to be attempted that day had been circulated among the defeated Party of last night; and while a large number of Members who believed that, according to the usual practice of Parliament, a vote of the House of Commons fairly arrived at would be honourably observed, were temporarily absent upon this unexpected occasion, it was clear that the battalions which followed the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and the non-juring Member for Northampton—those two Leaders of the Liberal Party—were in full force to-night. The Premier, in his statement, had endeavoured to give the House to understand that by voting the Previous Question the House was prejudging nothing, was preventing nothing, was compromising nothing, and that hon. Members could honourably and consistently, with a due regard to the vote of the House, support the Previous Question. However, it occurred to an hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir Hardinge Giffard) to ask the Speaker a question; and the result had been to expose, in the clearest possible manner, the nature of the step into which the House was sought to be entrapped. The House had deliberately resolved to reject a Bill by which avowed Atheists would have the option of affirming or taking the Oath; and now, by way of respecting the solemn decision of the House, arrived at after long and careful debate, and after the most surprising and yet most deserved defeat which even they had received in the course of their manœuvres on this question, the Government were desirous of deliberately allowing this avowed Atheist to profane the Oath, and so involve the House in complicity with an abominable impiety. It was incumbent upon the consciences of all honourable men, at least, to give time for the country to express its opinion upon this attempt to force the House to permit such a profanation. He had no doubt of the opinion of the country on the subject. It was evident that the Treasury Benches were in search of new worlds to conquer; and, after having illustrated how to carry on war on the principles of peace, they were now seeking to astonish an enlightened world by advancing religion on the principles of Infidelity. On that side of the House they must decline to follow the Government in that application of their varied ingenuity. There should be limits to the exercise of the option which the Government had taken to themselves of getting off and taking on at their pleasure their Ministerial responsibilities as a Government. This plan of making everything an open question might be a convenient one for a Cabinet that appeared to have no principle but that of sticking to their places; but it was not for the House to lend its countenance to a practice at variance with all Constitutional principles, and also at variance with the honest instincts of the British people. He did not know whether they were now in the presence of that transmigration of spirit in the political existence of the Prime Minister of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke in 1866 after his rejection by the University of Oxford, when he threatened to take revenge on his political opponents; but it was to be regretted that he could not find some means of satisfying his revenge on the great historical Party with which he was once connected without compromising the fundamental principles of Christian morality and of the Constitution. He had risen simply to state that it was his intention, if he could carry it out, to secure that no snatch or snap vote should be taken on this question; and that if there was any fear of last night's decision being overthrown by a species of plot, whether concocted inside or out- side that House, he trusted means would be taken to provide for the House and the country an opportunity of considering this new attempt by means of an evasion, characteristic enough in itself, to overturn the deliberate decision of Parliament.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 271; Noes 165: Majority 106.

AYES.
Alexander, Colonel C. Davenport, H. T.
Allsopp, C. Davenport, W. B.
Amherst, W. A. T. Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Dawnay, hon. G. C.
Aylmer, Capt. J. E. F. Dawson, C.
Bailey, Sir J. R. De Worms, Baron H.
Balfour, A. J. Dickson, Major A. G.
Barne, Col. F. St. J. N. Digby, Col. hon. E. T.
Barry, J. Dixon-Hartland, F. D.
Barttelot, Sir W. B. Donaldson-Hudson, C.
Bateson, Sir T. Douglas, A. Akers-
Beach, rt. hon. Sir M. H. Dundas, hon. J. C.
Beach, W. W. B. Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.
Bellingham, A. H. Ebrington, Viscount
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C. Egerton, hon. A. de T.
Beresford, G. De la P. Egerton, hon. A. F.
Biggar, J. G. Elcho, Lord
Birkbeck, E. Elliot, Sir G.
Blackburne, Col. J. I. Emlyn, Viscount
Blake, J. A. Ennis, Sir J.
Bourke, rt. hon. R. Estcourt, G. S.
Braassey, H. A. Ewart, W.
Broadley, W. H. H. Ewing, A. O.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F. Fairbairn, Sir A.
Feilden, Lieut.-General R. J.
Brooke, Lord
Brooks, W. C. Fellowes, W. H.
Bruce, Sir H. H. Filmer, Sir E.
Bruce, hon. T. C. Finch, G. H.
Brymer, W. E. Fitzwilliam, hn. H. W.
Bulwer, J. R. Fletcher, Sir H.
Burghley, Lord Floyer, J.
Buxton, Sir R. J. Folkestone, Viscount
Callan, P. Forester, C. T. W.
Campbell, J. A. Foster, W. H.
Garden, Sir R. W. Fowler, R. N.
Cartwright, W. C. Fremantle, hon. T. F.
Castlereagh, Viscount French-Brewster, R. A. B.
Cecil, Lord E.H.B.G.
Chaine, J. Freshfield, C. K.
Chaplin, H. Gardner, R. Richardson-
Christie, W. L.
Churchill, Lord R. Garnier, J. C.
Clarke, E. Gibson, rt. hon. E.
Clive, Col. hon. G. W. Giffard, Sir H. S.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Giles, A.
Collins, T. Glyn, hon. S. C.
Colthurst, Col. D. La T. Gooch, Sir D.
Compton, F. Gore-Langaton, W. S.
Coope, O. E. Gorst, J. E.
Corbet, W. J. Grantham, W.
Corry, J. P. Gray, E. D.
Cotton, W. J. R. Greene, E.
Creyke, R. Greer, T.
Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A. Gregory, G. B.
Cubitt, rt. hon. G. Guest, M. J.
Dalrymple, C. Halsey, T. F.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. Moore, A.
Morgan, hon. F.
Hamilton, Lord C. J. Moss, R.
Hamilton, I. T. Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.
Harrington, T.
Harvey, Sir R. B. Mulholland, J.
Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D. Murray, C. J.
Newdegate, C. N.
Henry, M. Newport, Viscount
Herbert, hon. S. Nicholson, W. N.
Hicks, E. Noel, rt. hon. G. J.
Hildyard, T. B. T. North, Colonel J. S.
Hill, Lord A. W. Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.
Hinchingbrook, Visc.
Holland, Sir H. T. Northcote, H. S.
Homo, Lt.-Col. D. M. O'Beirne, Col. F.
Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B. O'Brien, W
Howard, E. S. O'Connor, A.
Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G. O'Connor, T. P.
Jerningham, H. E. H. O'Donnell, F. H.
Kennard, Col. E. H. O'Kelly, J.
Kennard, C. J. Onslow, D.
Kennaway, Sir J. H. O'Shea, W. H.
Kenny, M. J. Parker, C. S.
King-Harman, Colonel E. R. Parnell, C. S.
Patrick, R. W. Cochran-
Knight, F. W. Pease, Sir J. W.
Knightley, Sir R. Peek, Sir H. W.
Knowles, T. Pell, A.
Lalor, R. Pemberton, E. L.
Lawrance, J. C. Percy, right hon. Earl
Lawrence, Sir T. Percy, Lord A.
Leahy, J. Phipps, C. N. P.
Leamy, E. Phipps, P.
Lechmere, Sir E. A. H. Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.
Leeman, J. J. Bower, R.
Legh, W. J. Brice, Captain G. E.
Leigh, R. Buleston, J. H.
Leighton, S. Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Lennox, rt. hon. Lord H. G. C. G. Bankin, J.
Bendlesham, Lord
Lever, J. O. Repton, G. W.
Levett, T. J. Bidley, Sir M. W.
Lewis, C. E. Ritchie, C. T.
Lewisham, Viscount Rolls, J. A.
Loder, R. Ross, A. H.
Long, W. H. Ross, C. C.
Lopes, Sir M. Round, J.
Lowther, rt. hon. J. St. Aubyn, W. M.
Lowther, hon. W. Salt, T.
Lusk, Sir A. Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.
Lyons, R. D. Scott, Lord H.
Macartney, J. W. E. Scott, M. D.
M'Carthy, J. Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.
M'Coan, J. C.
Macfarlane, D. H. Severne, J. E.
M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J. Sexton, T.
Mac Iver, D. Sheil, E.
M'Kenna, J. N. Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Macnaghten, E. Smith, A.
Makins, Colonel W. T. Smith wick, J. F.
Martin, P. Stafford, Marquess of
Marum, E. M. Stanhope, hon. E.
Master, T. W. C. Stanley, rt. hon. Col. F.
Matheson, Sir A. Stanley, E. J.
Maxwell, Sir H. E. Sullivan, T. D.
Mayne, T. Sykes, C.
Meldon, C. H. Talbot, J. G.
Metge, R. H. Thomson, H.
Miles, Sir P. J. W. Thornhill, T.
Miles, C. W. Thynne, Lord H. F.
Mills, Sir C. H. Tollemache, hon. W. F.
Monckton, F. Tollemache, H. J.
Tomlinson, W. E. M. Williams, General O.
Torrens, W. T. M'C. Wilmot, Sir H.
Tottenham, A. L. Wilmot, Sir. J. E.
Tyler, Sir H. W. Wolff, Sir H. D.
Vivian, Sir H. H. Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Wallace, Sir R. Wroughton, P.
Warburton, P. E. Wyndham, hon. P.
Warton, C. N. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Watkin, Sir E. W. Yorke, J. R.
Welby-Gregory, Sir W. TELLERS.
Whitley, E. Crichton, Viscount
Whitworth, B. Winn, R.
NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Firth, J. F. B.
Agnew, W. Fitzmaurice, Lord E.
Ainsworth, D. Flower, C.
Amory, Sir J. H. Foljambe, C. G. S.
Armitage, B. Forster, Sir C.
Armitstead, G. Forster, rt. hon. W. E.
Arnold, A. Fowler, H. H.
Asher, A. Fowler, W.
Ashley, hon. E. M. Fry, L.
Balfour, rt. hon. J. B. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Balfour, J. S. Gladstone, H. J.
Barclay, J. W. Gladstone, W. H.
Barran, J. Gourley, E. T.
Bass, Sir M. A. Gower, hon. E. F. L.
Baxter, rt. hon. W. E. Grant, A.
Beaumont, W. B. Grosvenor, right hon. Lord R.
Bolton, J. C.
Borlase, W. C. Hamilton, J. G. C.
Brand, H. R. Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.
Brett, R. B.
Briggs, W. E. Hardcastle, J. A.
Bright, J. (Manchester) Hartington, Marq. of
Broadhurst, H. Hayter, Sir A. D.
Brogden, A. Henderson, F.
Brown, A. H. Heneage, E.
Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C. Herschell, Sir F.
Bruce, hon. R. P. Hibbert, J. T.
Bryce, J. Hill, T. R.
Buchanan, T. R. Holden, I.
Buszard, M. C. Hollond, J. R.
Caine, W. S. Holms, J.
Campbell-Bannerman, H. Howard, G. J.
Howard, J.
Causton, R. K. Illingworth, A.
Chamberlain, rt. hn. J. Inderwick, F. A.
Cheetham, J. F. James, Sir H.
Childers. rt. hn. H. C. E. James, C.
Clarke, J. C. James, W. H.
Clifford, C. C. Jenkins, Sir J. J.
Cohen, A. Kensington, rt. hn. Lord
Collings, J. Lambton, hon. F. W.
Cotes, C. C. Lawson, Sir W.
Courtney, L. H. Leake, R.
Cowen, J. Leatham, E. A.
Craig, W. Y. Leatham, W. H.
Cross, J. K. Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.
Davies, R.
Davies, W. Lloyd, M.
Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W. Lubbock, Sir J.
Dodds, J. M'Arthur, A.
Dodson, rt. hon. J. G. Mackie, R. B.
Duff, R. W. M'Laren, C. B. B.
Egerton, Admiral hon. F. Macliver, P. S.
Maitland, W. F.
Elliot, hon. A. R. D. Mappin, F. T.
Farquharson, Dr. R. Maskelyne, M. H. Story-
Fawcett, rt. hon. H. Mellor, J. W.
Ferguson, R. Monk, C. J.
Morgan, rt. hon. G. O Smith, E.
Morley, A. Smith, Lt.-Col. G.
Morley, J. Spencer, hon. C. R.
Palmer, C. M. Stanley, hon. E. L.
Palmer, J. H. Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Pease, A. Stevenson, J. C.
Peddie, J. D. Storey, S.
Philips, R. N. Summers, W.
Potter, T. B. Talbot, C. R. M.
Powell, W. R. H. Taylor, P. A.
Pulley, J. Tennant, C.
Ramsden, Sir J. Tillett, J. H.
Reed, Sir E. J. Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.
Reid, R. T. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Rendel, S. Waddy, S. D.
Richardson, T. Waugh, E.
Roberts, J. Webster, J.
Robertson, H. Whitbread, S.
Russell, G. W. E. Williams, C. S. E.
Russell, Lord A. Williamson, S.
Rylands, p. Wills, W. H.
Samuelson, B. Wilson, Sir M.
Samuelson, H. Wodehouse, E. R.
Seely, C. (Nottingham) Woodall, W.
Sellar, A. C.
Shaw, T. TELLERS.
Shield, H. Butt, C. P.
Simon, Serjeant J. Labouchere, H.
Slagg, J.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880, of the 26th April;1881, and of the 7th February and 6th March 1882, 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 Statutes 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72.

Forward to